HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 2003/02/11 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
February 11, 2003 6:00 p.m.
Council Chambers
Public Services Building
276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista
CHY OF
CHUIA VISi'A
City Council City Manager
Patty Davis David D. Rowlands, Jr.
John McCann City Attorney
Jerry R. Rindone John M. Kaheny
Mary Salas City Clerk
Stephen C. Padiila, 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
February 11, 2003 6:00 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL: Councilmembers Davis, McCann, Rindone, Salas, and Mayor Padilla
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG, MOMENT OF SILENCE
SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
· PRESENTATION OF A PROCLAMATION BY MAYOR PADILLA TO STEVEN
COLLINS, MANAGER OF GOVERNMENT AND COMMUNITY RELATIONS -
SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY, PROCLAIMING THE MONTH OF MARCH
2003 AS SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY MONTH
· PRESENTATION OF A PROCLAMATION BY MAYOR PADILLA TO MARK
STRICKLAND, COACH OF THE CHULA VISTA AZTECS FOOTBALL TEAM -
PEE-WEE DIVISION, RECOGNIZING THE TEAM FOR BECOMING THE PACIFIC
REGION CHAMPIONS
CONSENT CALENDAR
(Items 1 through 5)
The Council will enact the staff recommendations regarding the following items
listed under the Consent Calendar by one motion, without discussion, unless a
Councilmember, a member of the public, or City staff requests that an item be
removed for discussion. If you wish to speak on one of these items, please fill out
a "Request to Speak"form (available in the lobby) and submit it to the City Clerk
prior to the meeting. Items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be discussed
after Action Items. Items pulled by the public will be the first items of business.
1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of January 28 and February 4, 2003.
Staff rcconunendation: Council approve the minutes.
2. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
ORDERING THE CHANGE AND MODIFICATION OF THE ENGINEER'S REPORT
FOR ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 97-2 (OTAY VILLAGE ONE) AND
APPROVING THE USE OF SURPLUS FUNDS 1N SAID DISTRICT TO FUND A
PORTION OF PASEO RANCHERO (HERITAGE ROAD), SOUTH OF EAST
PALOMAR STREET
Assessment District No. 97-2 included $2,154,592 in funding for Transportation
Development Impact Fee (TDIF) facilities. Duc to cost savings, the actual cost of the
improvements was lower than thc engineer's estimate. Adoption of thc resolution allows
thc district to acquire additional TDIF facilities in the same amount of the cost savings.
This action will not result in an increased assessment for any parcel within thc district.
(Director of Engineering)
Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution.
3. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
APPROVING THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT TO THE SMITH, KEMPTON & WATTS
CONTRACT, WAIV1NG THE CONSULTANT SELECTION PROCESS AS
IMPRACTICAL, AND APPROPRIATING $66,000 FROM THE AVAILABLE FUND
BALANCE IN THE TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE FUND,
$26,000 FROM THE AVAILABLE FUND BALANCE 1N THE SR-125
TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE FUND, AND $29,000 FROM
THE AVAILABLE FUND BALANCE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SALES TAX,
TRANSNET FUND (4/STHS VOTE REQUIRED)
The firm of Smith, Kempton & Watts was contracted to assist with project management
services on three intemhange projects on Interstate 805. Due to design changes necessary
to meet Caltrans' requirements on the sound barriers and the draft environmental
document for the Olympic Parkway interchange project, it is necessary to amend the
contract for additional consultant services. Due to the ongoing efforts to ensure the
construction of State Route 125, this agreement must also be amended to include that
ongoing work. Approval of the amendment extends the contract services with Smith,
Kempton & Watts through the end of calendar year 2003. (Director of Engineering)
Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution.
4A. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
APPROPRIATING $50,000 FROM THE UNAPPROPRIATED BALANCE OF THE
TRUNK SEWER CAPITAL RESERVE FUND TO THE G STREET TRUNK SEWER
IMPROVEMENTS, FROM BROADWAY TO WEST OF BAY BOULEVARD
PROJECT ACCOUNT (CIP NO. SW-228) (4/STHS VOTE REQUIRED)
B. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR THE G STREET TRUNK
SEWER IMPROVEMENTS, FROM BROADWAY TO WEST OF BAY BOULEVARD
(CIP NO. SW-228) TO TC CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF
$629,003
Sealed bids were received on January 8, 2003. Completion of this project will improve
roughly 2,000 linear feet of sewer pipe located on G Street, from Broadway to west of
Bay Boulevard. The work for this project primarily includes the installation of 27-inch
diameter PVC sewer pipe. Adoption of the resolution awards the contract for this
construction to TC Construction Co., Inc. (Director of Engineering)
Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution.
5. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
CREATING THE POSITION OF DIRECTOR OF EMPLOYEE DEVELOPMENT AS
AN UNCLASSIFIED, AT-WILL POSITION IN THE EXECUTIVE SERVICE, AND
AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2003 BUDGET OF THE ADMINISTRATION
DEPARTMENT BY ADDING THE DIRECTOR OF EMPLOYEE DEVELOPMENT
POSITION AND DELETING AN ODT SPECIALIST II POSITION, AND THE
HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT BY DELETING THE HUMAN RESOURCES
OPERATIONS MANAGER POSITION AND RECLASSIFYING TWO SENIOR
CLASSIFICATION ANALYST POSITIONS TO PRINCIPAL PERSONNEL
ANALYSTS (4/STHS VOTE REQUIRED)
Page 2 - Council Agenda 02/11/03
In a large and complex organization such as the City of Chula Vista, it is especially
important that employee and organizational development take a high priority. With the
challenging fiscal times ahead, it is recommended that some resources be shifted from the
traditional human resources function to the employee development function. To
accomplish this, it is recommended that the Office of Development and Training be
renamed the Office of Employee Development, and that the current Director of Human
Resources be transferred to the position of Director of Employee Development.
(Assistant City Manager Powell, Deputy City Manager Palmer)
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
topic for future discussion or refer the matter to staff. Comments are limited to
three minutes.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
The following items have been advertised 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.
6. CONSIDERATION OF ESTABLISHING UTILITY UNDERGROUNDING DISTRICT
NO. 138 ALONG EAST J STREET FROM HILLTOP DRIVE TO WEST OF LORI
LANE
Council previously adopted a resolution setting a public hearing to determine whether the
public health, safety or general welfare requires the formation of a utility undergrounding
district along East J Street from Hilltop Drive to west of Lori Lane. The purpose of
forming the district is to require the utility companies to undergrotmd all overhead lines
and to remove all existing wooden utility poles within the proposed district. The
proposed utility undergrounding district is about 7,000 feet long and the cost is estimated
to be approximately $1,600,000. San Diego Gas & Electric's allocation funds will be
used to cover the cost of the project, including reimbursements to affected property
owners for their respective trenching costs. (Director of Public Works)
Staff recommendation: Council conduct the public hearing and adopt the following
resolution:
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
ESTABLISHING UTILITY UNDERGROUNDING DISTRICT NO. 138
ALONG EAST J STREET FROM HILLTOP DRIVE TO WEST OF LORI
LANE AND AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF UTILITY
ALLOCATION FUNDS TO SUBSIDIZE PRIVATE SERVICE LATERAL
CONVERSION
Page 3 ~ Council Agenda 02/11/03
7. CONSiDERATION OF ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE FOR OTAY RANCH
VILLAGE 11, PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE AND THE
AREA OF BENEFIT
The Otay Ranch Village 11 tentative map conditions of development require the
establishment of a Development Impact Fee or other funding mechanism to construct two
pedestrian bridges to serve Village 11. Adoption of the ordinance approves funding for
fifty percent of the cost of two bridges for Village 11, one crossing Hunte Parkway, and
one crossing Eastlake Parkway. The remaining cost of these bridges will be funded by
the adjacent projects as a condition of development. The total cost estimate for the
Eastlake Parkway and Hunte Parkway bridges are $1,254,000 and $2,131,000
respectively. The fee, payable at issuance of a building permit, will be $827 per single-
family detached dwelling unit and $614 per multiple-family dwelling. (Director of
Engineering)
Staff recommendation: Council conduct the public hearing, adopt the following
resolution, and place the ordinance on first reading:
A. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
ACCEPTING A REPORT PREPARED BY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING
AND FINANCING GROUP RECOMMENDING A PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE TO FUND PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE
IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 11
B. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
ESTABLISHING A PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE
PROGRAM FOR OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 11 AND THE AREA OF
BENEFIT
8. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED ASSESSMENT OF
CERTAIN DELINQUENT SOLID WASTE SERVICE CHARGES AS RECORDED
LIENS UPON THE RESPECTIVE PARCELS OF LAND AND PLACEMENT OF
DELiNQUENT CHARGES ON THE NEXT REGULAR TAX BILL FOR
COLLECTION
Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 8.24 allows delinquent solid waste service charges
to be assessed as recorded liens upon the affected properties and ultimately placed on the
property tax bills for collection. (Assistant City Manager Powell)
Staff recommendation: Council conduct the public hearing and adopt the following
resolution:
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
ASSESSING DELINQUENT SOLID WASTE SERVICE CHARGES AS
RECORDED LIENS UPON THE RESPECTIVE PARCELS OF LAND AND
APPROVING PLACEMENT OF DELINQUENT CHARGES ON THE NEXT
REGULAR TAX BILL
Page 4 - Council Agenda 02/11/03
ACTION ITEMS
The items listed in this section of the agenda will be considered individually by
the Council, and are expected to elicit discussion and deliberation. If you wish to
speak on any item, please fill out a "Request to Speak" form (available in the
lobby) and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting.
9. CONSIDERATION OF ACCEPTANCE OF A REPORT REGARDING CHULA
VISTA TRANSIT (CVT) FUNDING AND OPERATIONS
At the June 10, 2002 Council budget workshop, staff mentioned that it would return to
Council with a report on CVT's funding and operations. This report is submitted to
Council for its review and acceptance.
Staff recommendation: Council accept the report.
10. CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHiNG A
VOLUNTARY PAYROLL DEDUCTION PROGRAM TO PROTECT CITY
SERVICES AND REVENUES
The political action arm of the League of California Cities, known as "Action for Better
Cities," has asked all League members to adopt a resolution establishing a voluntary
payroll deduction program. The program would provide City employees an opportunity
to participate in the League's efforts to protect local government revenue from additional
raids by the State. To date, 69 cities have adopted the resolution. The donations will be
used only for League-approved, statewide ballot measure advocacy to protect City
services and revenues. (City Manager, Intergovernmental Affairs Coordinator)
Staffrecommendation: Council adopt the following resolution:
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
ESTABLISHING A VOLUNTARY PAYROLL DEDUCTION PROGRAM TO
PROTECT CITY SERVICES AND REVENUES
ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR
OTHER BUSINESS
11. CITY MANAGER'S REPORTS
12. MAYOR'S REPORTS
* Ratification of appointment to the Growth Management Oversight Commission -
David W. Krogh
13. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Page 5 - Council Agenda 02/11/03
CLOSED SESSION
Announcements of actions taken in Closed Session shall be made available by
noon on Wednesday following the Council Meeting at the City Clerk's office in
accordance with the Ralph AlL Brown Act (Government Code 54957. 7).
14. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR PURSUANT TO
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8
Property: San Diego Gas & Electric - Gas and Electricity Franchise
(Pertaining to Public Rights of Way throughout the City of Chula
Vista)
Agency negotiators: David Rowlands, Jr., Sid Morris, Michael Meacham, Glen
Googins
Negotiating Parties: City of Chula Vista, San Diego Gas & Electric
Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment
15. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING SIGNIFICANT EXPOSURE
TO LITIGATION PURSUANT TO GovERNMENT CODE SECTION $4956.9(b)
· Two Cases (One Case - Claim No. 2002-00-012)
16. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDiNG EXISTING LITIGATION
PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9(a)
A. City of Chula Vista vs. CIMA, N.V., TICOR Title Insurance Co. (San Diego
Superior Court Case No. GIC 790377-I)
B. Moore, Laura vs. City of Chula Vista (San Diego Superior Court Case No. GIS
008943)
C. Mercado, Irma vs. City of Chula Vista (San Diego Superior Court Case No. GIS
10646)
ADJOURNMENT to the Regular Meeting of February 18, 2003, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council
Chambers.
Page 6 - Council Agenda 02/11/03
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item 2-
Meeting Date 2/11/03
ITEM TITLE: Resolution ordering the change and modification of
the Engineer's Report for Assessment District No. 97-2 (Otay Village
One ) and approving the use of surplus funds in said district to fund a
portion of Paseo Ranchero (Heritage Rd) south of East Palomar
Street.
SUBMITTED BY: Director ofEngineering~k//
REVIEWED BY: City Manager.~,.~ ~" (4/Sths Vote: Yes_No X_~_)
With Resolution 19282 City Council authorized the issuance of bonds for Assessment District 97-2
to finance infrastructure that benefited portions ot'Otay Ranch Village One (See Exhibit 1) pursuant
to the Municipal Improvement Act o f 1913 and the Improvement Bond Act of 1915. The assessment
district estimated $2,154,592 in funding for Transportation Development Impact Fee ("TDIF")
facilities. Due to cost savings the actual cost of the improveinents were lower than the engineer's
estimate by $309,045. Building permits for the district have been issued and credits assigned in the
amount of the engineer's estimate. Tonight's action will provide for the district to acquire additional
TDIF facilities itl tile same amount o£ tile cost savings so that TDIF credits issued will match tile
amount of TD1F facilities acquired. Tbis action will not result in an increased assessment for any
parcel within the district.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt the resolution:
Ordering the change and modification of the Engineer's Report lbr Assessment District No. 97-2 and
approving the use of surplus funds to fund a portion of the TDIF eligible cost for the extension of
Paseo Rancl~ero (Heritage Rd) south of East Palomar Street.
BOARD/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS: Not Applicable
DISCUSSION:
The Municipal hnprovement Act of 1913 and Bond Act of 1915 are financing mechanisms which
fund public infrastructure improvements through the issuance of Iimited obligation improvement
bonds issued by thc City for the District, the repa3qnent of which is made from assessment
installments collected fi-om property owners on tbe bi-annual tax bill. There is no direct cost to the
City.
On February 10, 1998 Council approved tile tbrmation of the District of a portion of Olay Ranch
Village Onc. Facilities to be acquired by the district are outlined in the Engineer's Report and
includc:
Page 2, Item ~
Meeting Date 2/11/03
1. Paseo Ranchero fi.om Telegraph Canyon Road to East Palomar Street
Paseo Ranchero is a six-lane prime arterial.
2. East Palomar Street from Paseo Ranchero to the Eastern Boundary of AD 97-2
East Palomar street is a four lane residential collector street providing the main access to
all the properties within Village One.
3. Monarche Drive around Park P-I
Monarche Drive is a txvo-lane residential collector street, which provides access to all the
properties located north of East Palomar Street.
4. Right turn lane at Telegraph Canyon Road.
AD 97-2 includes the construction ora right turn lane in Telegraph Canyon at the
intersection with Paseo Ranchero required to comply with the minimum City standard for
a six-lane prime arterial.
The TDIF improvements identified in the Engineer's Report and amendments are now complete.
The audit for the TDIF facilities, performed by Wildan, amounted to $1,845,547. The Assessment
Engineer, Berryman & Henigar, bas recommended in a letter dated October I 1,2002 (Exhibit 2), that
the TD1F cost savings of $309,045 be used to acquire additional TDIF facilities benefiting the
district. The additional TDIF facilities have been identified in the change and modification of the
Engineer Report (Exhibit 3) under "Description of Facilities" as a portion of Paseo Ranchcro
(Heritage Road) from East Palomar Road to Olympic Parkway. The total construction cost for this
segment of Paseo Ranchero (Heritage Road) from East Palomar Road to Olympic Parkway is
$775,022.00. The balance of additional funds for this segment ofPaseo Ranchero (Heritage Road) is
being funded by Community Facilities District 99-1.
The use of the surplus proceeds as proposed will not result in an increase of the overall assessmcnt
within the District or in an increase in the assessment levied on any parcel within the District.
FISCAL IMPACT: None to the General Fund. Developer deposits will cover all staff costs
associated with proccssing.
Exhibits: I) Vicinity Map Otay Village One
2) October I 1, 2002 letter fi'om Berryman & Henigar
3) Supplemem to Engince~'s Report 97-2 Berryman & Hcnigm
J:\Engineer\LAN DDEV\CFD's\CAS-CI IANGI -FINA L2 dtlc
The Power to Change Exhibit 2
The Power to Build
October 11, 2002
Mr. Tom Adler
Civil Engineer
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Street
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Subject: Supplement to Enqineer's Report, Assessment District No. 97-2 (Otay Village No. 1)
Dear Tom:
As stated in our letter of August 14, 2001, it is estimated that there will be a projected surplus in
the District's improvement fund after all construction has been completed. The surplus is
estimated to be $1,359.989 which is the difference between the confirmed assessment amount
of $13,778,405 less estimated expenditures of $12,418,416. This surplus assumes that the
City approves the increase in the allowable percentages for construction incidentals shown in
the costs summary prepared by the Otay Ranch Company. The decision to allow this increase
in construction incidental costs percentages is a policy decision for the City to make.
No changes are recommended to the costs previously reviewed by us for the construction of
Paseo Ranchero as outlined in our August 14, 2001 letter. Since the estimated costs for the
construction of Paseo Ranchero (TDIF facility) were less than the confirmed costs shown in the
Engineer's Report, we would continue to recommend that the balance of the funds included in
the assessment district for the construction of Paseo Ranchero between Telegraph Road and
East Palomar Drive be used to fund a portion of the TDIF eligible costs (estimated construction
costs $775,022) for the extension of Paseo Ranchero south of East Palomar Street.
The table below summarizes the confirmed construction costs and related soft costs for design,
soils engineering, field engineering, landscape architect, inspection and other costs as shown in
the letter dated February 28, 2000 from WlLLDAN to the City for Paseo Ranchero.
TDIF Credit Confirmed Approved Balance
Costs Costs
Paseo Ranchero Construction
Tele~lraph-East Palomar $1,617,743
Soft Cost 339,337
Less Cash Credit 110,533
Total $2,t54,592 $1,845,547 $309,045
I have attached a draft "Supplement to Engineer's Report" for review by City staff that would
allow District TDIF funds to be used to fund a portion of the construction and associated
construction incidentals associated with the construction of Paseo Ranchero south of East
Palomar Street. It would also approve an increase in the allowable percentages associated
with the construction incidentals (TDIF and non-TDIF) as shown in Exhibit 1 of the "Supplement
11590 West Bernardo Court, Suite 100, San Diego, CA 92127-1624
(858)451-6100 * Fax(858)451-2846 * www.bhiinc.com
An Equal Opportunity Employer
Tom Adler
October 11, 2002
Page 2
to Engineer's Report". Once staff agrees with this change I believe it will require the approval
of the City Council.
If the "Supplement to Engineer's Report" is approved there will still be a surplus in the
improvement fund as a result of the water facilities not being included as well as a reduction in
the costs associated with other facilities. Based upon the anticipated surplus in the
improvement fund, The Otay Ranch Company has requested to include as eligible items for
reimbursement the costs associated with the installation of the two (2) main transit stop facilities
on East Palomar Street near Heritage Park and two (2) secondary transit stop facilities on East
Palomar Street near P2 Park ($60,000). They have also requested to include as eligible items
for reimbursement two (2) traffic signals on East Palomar Street (Santa Rita & Monarch Drive)
at an estimated costs of $228,811. The costs of these improvements based upon the
information we received from The Otay Ranch Company total $288,811 plus related soft costs
for the traffic signal in the amount of $25,741.24 which represents 10.11% of the construction
costs. These are Non-TDIF facilities.
Based upon our meeting of September 11, 2002 we recommend that any surplus funds
remaining in the District's improvement fund be used to reimburse the developer for the transit
facilities which will be installed on East Palomar Street as eligible facilities. In addition, any
surplus funds remaining in the District's improvement fund may be used up to the maximums
shown below to reimburse the developer for the installation of the additional traffic signals. The
allocation of costs between Areas A and B was based upon the trips generated from Area B
(area North of Monarch Drive) and the total trips generated on East Palomar.
Assessment Average % of Maximum Cost
Area ADT Total Allocation
Area A 25,261 55.2 $140,512.84
Area B 11,478 44.8 $114,039.40
$254,552.24
Please let me know should you have questions or if there is anything else that you need from
US.
Sincerely,
Berryman & Henigar, Inc.
K. ~ennis Klinge~
Senior Vice President
10-11-02 Letter.doc
~ ~ ~ Berryman & Henigar
Exhibit 3
City Of Chula Vista - Assessment District No. 97-2 (Otay Ranch. Village One]
Amended Final Engineer's Report - August 17, I998
Modified- August 12, 2002
AGENCY: CITY OF CHULA VISTA
PROJECT: ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 97-2 (Otay Ranch, Village One)
TO: CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF CHULA VISTA
SUPPLEMENT TO ENGINEER'S REPORT
Pursuant to the provisions of Article XIIID of the State Constitution and the
"Municipal Improvement Act of 1913", being Division 12 of said Code, and the
Resolution of Intention, adopted by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista,
State of California, in connection with the proceedings for Assessment District
No. 97-2 (Otay Ranch, Village One), (hereinafter referred to as the "Assessment
District"), I, Dennis Klingelhofer, a Registered Professional Engineer and
authorized representative of Berryman & Henigar, the duly appointed Engineer of
Work, herewith submits the following modifications to the "Report" for the
Assessment District.
MODIFIED ESTIMATE OF COSTS
Exhibit 1 has been modified to reflect an increase in allowable percentages for
Construction Incidentals consistent with City policy and a reduction in
Construction Costs based upon the projected costs for the completion of the
public improvements. Construction Contingencies have been increased such
that the total Construction Costs remains unchanged.
SUMMARY OF ASSESSMENT
As Confirmed As Modified
Estimate Costs of Construction $11,356,293 $11,356,293
Estimated Incidentals $228,250 $228,250
Estimated Bond Cost $2,772,000 $2,772,000
Contribution (Developer) $578,138 $578,138
Estimated Total to Assessment $13,778,405 $13,778,405
DESCRIPTION OF FACILITIES
The improvements to be constructed using District funds is modified to include
Paseo Ranchero south of East Palomar subject to available TDIF funding
remaining after the completion of TDIF facilities currently under construction
within the District. The maximum expenditure from assessment proceeds for
TDIF eligible improvements shall not exceed a total of $2, 154,592 as shown in
Appendix E of the Engineer's Report
CONFIRMED ASSESSMENT
The modifications herein described do not increase the total amount of the
City Of Chula Vista - Assessment District No. 97-2 (Otay Ranch. Village One)
Amended Final Engineer's Report- August 17. 1998
Modified- August 12, 2002
assessment nor do they cause an increase in assessment to any parcel within
the boundaries of the District.
Except as modified in this Supplement to Engineer's Report, the Amended Final
Engineer's Report Dated August 17, 1998 shall stand for all subsequent
proceeding for the District.
This Supplement to the Engineer's Report is submitted on the/?~day of August,
2002.
BERRYMAN & HENIGAR
ENGINEER OF WORK
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Aprroved by the CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF CHULA VISTA, SAN DIEGO
COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, on the day of ,2002
BEVERLY A. AUTHELET,
CITY CLERK
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
City Of Chula Vista - Assessment District No. 97-2 (Otay Ranch. Village One)
Amended Final Engineer's Report - August 17. 1998
Modified- August 12, 2002
Estimate of Costs.As Modified Exhibit 1
Preliminarj/ Confirmed As Modified
CONSTRUCTION COSTS
(See appendix';c;; for Construction Cost Details)
Roadway $7,737,056 $7,772,422
TDIF Facilities 1,880,760
NomTDIF 5,264,325
Sewer f Water / Reclaimed Water $784,330 $745,890 521,281
D~/Utilities, (Must be less than 5% of Total Bond IssL $437,400 $430,363 421,000
Traffic Signals $140,000 $120,000 52,660
Subtotal Construction Costs $9,098,786 $9,068,675 $8,140,026
CONSTRUCTION INCIDENTALS
Deaign Engineering (7.5%) $227,470 $226,717
TDIF Facilities $141,057
Non-TDIF $469,445
Soils Engineering (12% of Grading) $213,130 $206,001 t 89,951.0O
Landscape Architecture (10%) $176,066 $186,954 304,522.00
Survey and Staking (2% of Imp & Grading) $136,482 $136,030
TDIF Facilities $54,666
Non-TDIF $125,185
Utility Engineering & Coordination (3%) $13,122 $12,911 $12,630
Permits.tFees/Bonds (5%) $454,939 $453,434 $487,001
Construction Adm. (1%) $90,988 $90,687
TDIF Facilities $18,808
Non-TDIF $62,593
Construction Supervision (.75%) $68,241 $68,015
TDIF Facilities $14,106
Non-TDIF $46,944
Construction Contingencies (10%) $909,87'9 $906,868 $1,369,359
Total Conotruclion Costs: $11,389,103 $11,356,293 $11,356,293
INCIDENTAL EXPENSES
Appraisal Services $20,000 $20,000 $20,000
Assessment Engineering $27,000 $27,000 $27,000
Acquisition Services $45,000 $45,008 $45,000
Special Counsel $43,750 $43,750 $43,750
City Administration $40,000 $40,000 $40,000
Financial Advisor $35,000 $35,000 $35,000
Printing, Advertising, Notices etc. $2,580 $2,500 $2,500
Incidental Contingencies $15,000 $15,000 $15,000
Total Incidental Expenses: $228,250 $228,250 $228,250
BOND COSTS
Underc~riter'e Discount 2.00% $291,000 $276,000 $276,000
Bond Reserve 1000% $1,454,000 $1,378,000 $1,378,000
Funded Interest ~ 12 months 8.00% $1,745,000 $1,102,000 $1,102,000
Bond Registrar and Paying Agent $10,000 $10,0O0 $10,000
Bond and Official Statement PrinSng $6,000 $6,000 $6,000
Total Bond Costs: $3,506,000 $2,772,000 $2,772,000
Total Costs: $15,123,353 $14,356,543 $14,356~543
DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS ($582,292) ($578,138) ($578,138)
TOTAL AMOUNT TO ASSESSMENT: $14,541,061 $13,778~405 $13,778~405
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
ORDERING THE CHANGE AND MODIFICATION OF THE ENGINEER'S
REPORT FOR ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 97-2 (OTAY VILLAGE ONE) AND
APPROVING THE USE OF SURPLUS FUNDS 1N SAID DISTRICT TO FUND A
PORTION OF PASEO RANCHERO (HERITAGE RD) SOUTH OF EAST
PALOMAR STREET
WHEREAS, the CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF CHULA VISTA has previously
undertaken proceedings to form and did form, pursuant to the terms and provisions of the
"Municipal Improvement Act of 1913", being Division l 2 of the Streets and Highways Code of
the State of California (the 'hnprovement Act"), Assessment District designated as
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 97-2 (OTAY VILLAGE ONE) (the "Assessment District");
and,
WHEREAS, the City Council authorized the issuance of bonds pursuant to the
hnprovement Bond Act of 1915 representing the unpaid assessments within the Assessment
District to finance the acquisition of certain public facilities including Transportation
Development Impact Fee facilities (the 'TDIF Facilities"); and
WHEREAS, the estimated cost 1o acquire the TDIF Facilities as set forth in the
Assessment Engineer's Report for the Assessment District (the "Assessment Engineer's Report")
was $2,154,592 (the "Engineer's Estimate") and the assessments levied within the Assessment
District were based upon such Engineer's Estimate; and
WHEREAS, the actual cost to acquire such TDIF Facilities was lower than the Engineer's
Eslimate by $309,045; and
WHEREAS, building permits have been issued for residential dwelling units within the
Assessment District and TDiF credits assigned based upon the Engineer's Estimate; and
WHEREAS, it appears to be in tbe best public interest to order certain changes and
modifications in the proceedings and the Assessment Engineer's Report to show the addition of
that portion of Paseo Ranchero Road (Heritage Road) from East Palomar Road to Olympic
Parkway to the TDIF Facilities authorized to be financed by the Assessment District; and
WHEREAS, such modification will result in the equalization of the cost of the
acqnisition of the TDIF Facilities financed by the Assessment District with the TD1F credits
granted to the properties within the Assessment District; and
WHEREAS, such modification will not result in an increase of the overall assessment
within the Assessment District or in an increase in the assessment levied on any parcel within the
Assessment District.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED:
SECTION 1. The above recitals are all true and correct.
SECTION 2. This City Council hereby orders that the Assessment Engineer's Report be
modified to include the acquisition of that portion of Paseo Ranchero Road (Heritage Road) from
East Palomar Road to Olympic Parkway.
SECTION 3. Such changes and modifications are hereby ordered pursuant to Streets
and Highways Code Section 10352. Such changes and modifications will not result in m~
increase of the overall assessment within the Assessment District or in an increase in the
assessment levied on any parcel within the Assessment District or result in the inclusion of any
properties not originally within the boundaries of the Assessment District.
SECTION 4. Such changes and modifications, as so ordered, are in the best interests
and convenience of Assessment District and the property owners within the boundaries of the
Assessment District and the Assessment Engineer's Report, as so modified, shall now stand as
the final report for all subsequent proceedings related to this Assessment District.
PREPARED BY: APPROVED AS TO FORM BY:
Cliflbrd Swanson Jotm Kaheny v
Director of Engineering City Attorney
J 5attorney\reso\CFD97-2 changc
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item }
Meeting Date 2/11/03
ITEM TITLE: Resolution Approving the eighth amendment to the Smith,
Kempton & Watts contract, waiving the consultant selection process as
impractical and appropriating $66,000 from the available fund balance in the
Transportation Development Impact Fee fund, $26,000 from the available
fund balance in the SR-125 Transportation Development Impact Fee fund and
$29,000 from the available fund balance in the Transportation Sales Tax,
Transnet fund
SUBMITTED BY: Director o f Engi?,eering~
REVIEWED BY: CityManagerO".~ (4/Sths Vote: Yes X No ~)
The firm of Smith, Kempton & Watts was contracted to assist with project management services on
three interchange projects on 1-805. Due to design changes necessary to meet Caltrans' requirements
on the sound barriers and the draft environmental document for the Olympic Parkway interchange
project, it is necessary to amend the contract for additional consultant services. Due to the ongoing
effbrts to ensure the construction of SR-125, this agreement must also be amended to include that
ongoing work. This amendment will extend the contract services with Smith, Kempton & Watts
through the end of calendar year 2003.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve the eighth ~3mendment to the Smith, Kempton &
Watts contract, waive the consultant selection process as impractical and appropriate $66,000 from
the available fund balance in the Transportation Development Impact Fee fund, $26,000 from the
available fund balance in the SR-125 Transportation Development Impact Fee fund and $29,000
from the available fund balance in the Transportation Sales Tax, Transnet fund.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
On August 8, 1995 Council approved an agreement with Smith & Kempton, which has since
changed their name to Smith, Kempton & Watts, to provide Program Management Services on the 1-
805 Interchange Projects at East Palomar Street, Olympic Parkway and Telegraph Canyon Road, as
well as providing continuing Advocacy Services related to the TransDIF Program and SR-125. The
tasks for Program Management ofi-805 interchanges were indicated in the agreement as ongoing. A
12-month extension of the contract was approved on July 25, 2000. That contract included a
continuation of task work relative to SR-125 toll road agreements and assistance to California
Transportation Ventures. On October 10, 2000 the City Council approved the seventh amendment to
the consultant's contract, which extended the contract services in accordance with Council's
direction through August 2002.
Page 2, Item ~
Meeting Date 2/11/03
Current Contract A~reement
Smith, Kempton & Watts, working with City staffand other consultants involved in this effort, has
made substantial gains in moving toward the City's objectives of delivery o£the 1-805 interchange at
East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway and addressing implementation issues for the SR-125 Toll
Road. Smith, Kempton & Watts was also instrumental in the City being able to acquire $5 million in
Federal funding for the Olympic Parkway project through the support and assistance of Congressman
Filner.
The East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway/I-805 interchange is now in the final stages of the
project environmental document preparation and design phase. City and consultant staffhave met
with affected property owners to discuss the interchange project and proposed sound barriers.
Construction scheduling currently shows that the contract will be awarded late this fiscal year with
construction scheduled from June 2003 to December 2004. However, it should be noted that a
related issue on this project is the funding difficulties with the State budget deficit, which could
result in the elimination of some of the State Transportation funding. This could result in delay o£
construction and staff is working with SANDAG on this issue.
With respect to funding advocacy, the team continues to pursue all available funding sources and
strategies. With the impacts of State funding cuts related to transportation and the upcoming renewal
o£ the Transnet sales tax extension program, there is additional need for these consultant services.
Smith, Kempton & Watts has also been pivotal in negotiating and resolving issues with CTV on the
SR-125 project.
Thc previous contract amendments have included additional services for 1-805 Program Management
(Task 1), Advocacy Services £or Funding (Task 2), and SR-125 negotiations.
The eighth amendment provides as follows:
Compensation for Past Work
At staff's direction, the consultant has continued working on Task 1 and Task 2 since August 2002
(the date of expiration o£the seventh amendment). The eighth amendment formalizes this extension.
Addition to Task 1 - Project Management work on 1-805/O1ympic Parkway
The consultant will continue completion of project management work on the 1-805/Olympic Parkway
Interchange project until award o£the construction j ob scheduled by June 2003. The consultant will
also be available, as needed, during the construction phase o£the project.
Addition to Task 2 - Support to City on SR-125 Toll Road Issues
The consultant will continue completion of project management work on the SR-125 toll road
facility. There are a number of ongoing issues regarding performance agreement commitments,
operational decisions, mitigation requirements, toll pricing as related to City residents that warrants
Page 3, Item .3
Meeting Date 2/11/03
Smith, Kempton & Watts continuing assistance to the City. Smith, Kempton & Watts will attend
monthly meetings with the new franchisee.
New Task 3 - Transnet Sales Tax Renewal
This new task requires the consultant to take a lead role in extending the Transnet sales tax that helps
pay for transportation projects. The consultant will assist in helping the City have more Transnet
funding allocated to the City.
Task 4 - State Budget Crisis and Impacts on Transportation Funding
This new task requires the consultant to represent the City's interest in helping to shape a solution to
the State's budget crisis. The consultant will work with the City's legislative advocates to protect the
City's interests. The consultant will develop and implement a strategy to ensure that State
Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) funding is available for the 1-805/East Orange
Avenue/Olympic Parkway project.
Waiver of Consultant Selection Process
The consultant has recently informed staff that one of its principals, Mr. Will Kempton has left the
firm at the end of last month to work in the public sector. Mr. Kempton was intimately involved in
the development of the SR-125 and 1-805/Olympic Parkway interchange projects. The firm has
assured us that they will continue to provide the same level of expertise and commitment. Staff
believes that Mr. Kempton's involvement will be missed but the firm, through its staff and other
principals, will continue to provide the City with the same level of service. Staff recommends that
Smith, Kempton & Watts be engaged to do this additional work without soliciting altemative bids in
accordance with the City's standard consultant selection process. Given Smith, Kempton & Watts'
substantial work to date on the interchange project, the SR- 125 project, and complete understanding
of the issues, they are uniquely qualified to perform this work. Under these circumstances it would
be impractical to solicit alternative bid proposals, and staffrecommends that the consultant selection
process be waived.
Funding Summary
The consultant proposes to perform all of the above services for a fee of $5,000 per month. Most of
the services associated with Task l are anticipated to end by June 2003 when the construction
contract of the 1-805/Olympic Parkway Interchange project is awarded. Starting in July 2003 the
consultant will provide reduced consultation on Task 1 but increased consultation on Task 2.
Since FY 94/95, the City has authorized contracts totaling $833,431.76 for services provided by
Smith, Kempton & Watts. This contract amendment is proposed to extend the services provided by
this consultant through the end of calendar year 2003. The total fee proposed for this contract
extension is $67,500, which includes $60,000 in fees and $7,500 in expenses. The requested
appropriation of $121,000 also includes $53,500 for outstanding invoices incurred under a previous
contract amendment and also since the last contract mnendment expired last August. In the interest of
Page 4, Item .~
Meeting Date 2/11/03
keeping the Olympic Parkway project on schedule so that $1.1M in federal funds is not lost, City
staff had to keep the consultant active while negotiating a contract amendment.
FISCAL IMPACT: The available balance of the Transportation Development Impact Fee fund
(Account No. 59120-6301) will cover the fees associated with Task 1. The available balance of the
SR- 125 Transportation Development Impact Fee fund (Account No. 59200-6301) will cover the fees
associated with Task 2. The available balance of the Transportation Sales Tax, Transnet fund
(Account No. 22700-6301) will cover the fees associated with Tasks 3 and 4. The compensation
structure is based on a lump sum monthly fee of $5,000, and an additional maximum of $7,500 in
expenses for calendar year 2003.
FEES REQUIRED FOR EACI{ TASK DURING CALENDAR YEAR 2003
Task 1: Project Management Workon 1-805/Olympic Parkway Interchange $9,000.00
Task 2: Support to City on SR-125 Toll Road Issues $24,000.00
Task 3: Transportation Sales Tax, Transnet Renewal $15,000.00
Task 4: State Budget Crisis and Impact on Transportation Funding $12,000.00
Tasks 1-4: Not-to-Exceed Expenses for Calendar Year 2003 $7,500.00
TOTAL FUNDS REQUIRED FOR THIS AMENDMENT $67,500.00
FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR EACH TASK
Task 1: Transportation Development Impact Fees, Account # 59120-6301 $9,000.00
Task 2: SR-125 Transportation Development Impact Fees, Acct # 59200-6301 $24,000.00
Tasks 3and 4: Transportation Sales Tax, Transnet, Account # 22700-6301 $27,000.00
Tasks 1-4: Not-to-Exceed Expenses for Calendar Year 2003 $7,500.00
TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR THIS AMENDMENT $67,500.00
At~aclmaent: 1. Letter from Smith, Kempton & Warts dated 1/23/03
File: 0735-10-STM328
J:~Engineer\STM-328\SKW8,fxr.doc
Smith, Kempton & Watts
Consulting and Governmental Relations
January 23, 2003
Mr. Frank Rivera
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Dear Frank:
Per your request, this letter is to serve as our request for a contract renewal for the 2003
calendar year. As previously stated in our December letter to Dave Rowlands, City
Manager, we expect that issues associated with completion of the 1-805/Olympic
Parkway Interchange and the City's ongoing concerns regarding the SR 125 toll facility
will warrant our continued assistance over the next few years. The impacts of State
funding cuts related to transportation and the upcoming renewal of the TransNet Sales
Tax Extension Program provide additional reasons for the City to utilize our services.
Task 1 - Completion of Project Management work on the 1-805/Olympic Parkway
Interchange project
We propose to continue with this task until contract award (now anticipated for June of
2003) and will also be available for any work associated with the construction phase of
this project, as necessary. As we indicated, David Tait will be assigned this task with
support from Mark and myself as needed.
Task 2 - Support to the City on SR-125 Toll Road Issues
Given the fact that the City is entering into the implementation phase of this project,
coupled with the involvement of a new franchisee, we believe there are going to be a
number of ongoing issues regarding performance agreement commitments, operational
decisions, mitigation requirements, toll pricing as related to City residents, etc., that will
warrant our ongoing assistance to the City. Potential difficulties associated with the toll
road are exacerbated by the State budget crisis, particularly if SANDAG is unable to fully
fund the "gap" portion of the project as previously intended. In sum, we would propose
to assist the City in your ongoing relationship with the new franchisee, including
attendance with you at your monthly meetings on the project. As we discussed, Mark
Watts will take the lead on this portion of the work based on his long experience with the
AB 680 program.
980 Ninth Street, Suite 1560 · Sacramento, CA 95814
Telephone (916) 446-5508 · FAX (916) 446-1499
Mr. Frank Rivera
01/23/03
Page 2 of 2
Task 3 - TransNet Sales Tax Renewal
This will be a critical element of our ongoing assistance to the City. The South Bay did
not fare particularly well in the original sales tax measure, and it is imperative that Chula
Vista be actively engaged in the renewal process to ensure equitable consideration this
time around. I outlined a strategy for making equity a reality and propose to work with
you and the Council to make this happen as we all work for the critically needed
extension of the transportation sales tax. I will have the lead roll in advising you on this
issue.
Task 4 - State Budget Crisis and Impacts on Transportation Funding
The next few years will be extremely difficult ones regarding all programs funded with
State dollars. The Transportation Program is no exception. We propose to represent the
City's interests in helping shape a solution to this significant problem, and will work with
Chula Vista's existing legislative advocates to protect the City's interests. As we advised
you, the California Transportation Commission (CTC) has frozen allocation votes for
projects already programmed in the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP).
This has a direct impact on the 1-805/Olypmpc Parkway project, which will need $1.3
million in state funding to provide for noise mitigation associated with the interchange
improvement. Due to general fund borrowing from the State highway account, this
funding is in danger of being lost or at least delayed. It will be necessary to develop and
implement a strategy to ensure this money is available for the City's project. Mark Watts
is our budget expert and is already working with a broad public and private sector
coalition on minimizing the impacts on the STIP programs.
In conclusion, I think you agree that the services described above will be essential in
order to ensure that the City's transportation objectives are effectively met. We can
perform the above services for a fee of $5,000 per month, which is consistent with our
previous contract amount, as well as a not to exceed amount of $7,500 for travel related
expenses. The total contract amount for all tasks and expenses is a total of $67,500.
If you have any questions please do not hesitate to call me.
~f Engineering
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA APPROVING THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT TO THE
SMITH, KEMPTON & WATTS CONTRACT, WAVING THE
CONSULTANT SELECTION PROCESS AS IMPRACTICAL AND
APPROPRIATING $66,000 FROM THE AVAILABLE FUND
BALANCE IN THE TRANSPORATION DEVELOPMENT IMPACT
FEE FUND, $26,000 FROM THE AVAILABLE FUND BALANCE IN
THE SR-125 TRANSPORTAION DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE
FUND AND $29,000 FROM THE AVAILABLE FUND BALANCE
IN THE TRANSPORATION SALES TAX, TRANSNET FUND.
WHEREAS, the firm of Smith, Kempton & Watts was contracted to assist with
project management services on three interchange projects on 1-805; and
WHEREAS, the previous contract amendments have included additional services for
1-805 Program Management (Task 1 ), Advocacy Services for funding (Task 2), and SR-125
negotiations; and
WHEREAS, on October 10, 2002 the City Council approved the Seventh
Amendment to the Smith, Kempton & Watts contract, which extended the contract services
in accordance with Council's direction through August 2002; and
WHEREAS, since the expiration of the Seventh Amendment, Consultant has
continued to provide services consistent with the terms of the expired contract; and
WHEREAS, due to design changes necessary to meet Caltrans' requirements on the
sound barriers and the draft environmental document for the Olympic Parkway interchange
project, it is necessary to amend the contract for additional consultant services; and
WHEREAS, due to the on-going efforts to ensure the construction of SR-i25, this
agreement must also be amended to include that on-going work and will extend the contract
services with Smith, Kempton & Watts through the end of calendar year 2003; and
WHEREAS, Consultant has completed substantial work on this project and has a
complete understanding of the issue and is uniquely qualified to perform this work and under
these circumstances, it would be impractical to solicit alternative bid proposals, therefore,
staff recommends that the consultant selection process be waived; and
WHEREAS, this Eighth Amendment to the Agreement reflects the following:
· Addition to Task I ~ Project Management work on 1-805/Olympic Parkway
· Addition to Task 2 - Support to City on SR-125 Toll Road Issues
· New Task 3 Transnet Sales Tax Renewal
· Task 4 - State Budget Crisis and impacts on transportation funding
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula
Vista does hereby approve the Eighth Amendment to the Smith, Kempton & Watts contract,
in the form presented, a copy of which shall be kept on file in the office of the City Clerk,
and authorize the Mayor to execute same.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, based on facts set forth above and presented in the
staffreport, in accordance with Section 2.56.110 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, the City
Council does hereby waive the consultant selection process as impractical.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that $66,000 is hereby appropriated from the
available fund balance in the Transportation Development Impact Fee fund, $26,000 from the
available fund balance in the SR-125 Transportation Development Impact Fee fund, and
$29,000 from the available fund balance in the Transportation Sales Tax, Transnet fund.
Presented by Approved as to form by
CliflbrdT. Swanson (John~.Kahen~Q.. ) ()
Director of Engineering "C-~Attomey
THE ATTACHED 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
EIGHTH AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN
CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND SMITH, KEMPTON & WATTS
FOR TRANSPORTATION CONSULTING SERVICES
EIGHTH AIvI~NDIVIENT TO THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN
CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND SMITH, KEMPTON & WATTS
FOR TRANSPORTATION CONSULTING SERVICES
This EIGHTH AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF CHULA
VISTA AND SMITH, KEMPTON & WATTS FOR TRANSPORTATION CONSULTING
SERVICES ("Amendment") is entered into as of August 1, 2002 by and between the City of Chula
Vista (CITY) a municipal chartered corporation of the State of California, and Smith, Kempton &
Watts (CONSULTANT).
Recitals
Whereas, on August 8, 1995 Council approved an agreement ("Agreement") with Smith
& Kempton, now known as Smith, Kempton & Watts, to provide Program Management Services
on the 1-805 Interchange Projects and to provide continuing advocacy services related to the
TransNet program and SR-125 (Resolution No. 17995); and,
Whereas, Council approved Resolution No. 18189, the first amendment, on January 23,
1996, the second amendment, Resolution No. 18459, on October 15, 1996, the third amendment,
Resolution No. 18761, on August 19, 1997, the fourth amendment, Resolution No. 19184, on
September 22, 1998, and the City Manager approved the fifth amendment on November 1, 1999, and
the sixth amendment on July 25, 2000, and Council approved the seventh amendment, Resolution
No. 2000-352, on October I0, 2000; and,
Whereas, additional project management work is required of the consultant to complete
on-going tasks for the design and draft environmental document changes necessary to meet State
and Federal requirements on the sound bamers for the East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway/I-
805 project and support to the City on SR-125 Toll Road issues, Tasks 1 and 2 of the contract
must be amended to incorporate the revised scope of work; and
Whereas, new assistance is required from the Consultant to take a lead role in the
TransNet Sales tax renewal that helps pay for transportation projects, by assisting in allocating
more TransNet funding to the City and, the Consultant will work with the City's le~slative
advocates to protect the City's interest to ensure that State Transportation Improvement Program
(STIP) funding is available for the Olympic Parkway/I-805 project, Tasks 3 and 4 must be
added: 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
,.,.ithin the time frames herein provided all in accordance with the terms and conditions of this
Agreement:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City and Consultant do hereby
mutually agree as follows:
I. Exhibit A, Section SA, is hereby amended to add the following to the Detailed Scope of
Work:
A. Task I is hereby amended to add the following:
Task 1 Project management work on East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway/I-805
interchange
Consultant shall continue project management services described above until contract award,
anticipated in June 2003. The Consultant shall also be available for any work associated with the
construction phase of the project as necessary. Consultant's work on the construction phase of
this project shall occur from June 2003 through December 2003. Work shall be performed by
David Tait with support from Mark Watts, unless otherwise approved in advance by the City.
B. Task 2 is hereby amended to add the following:
Task 2 Support to the City on SR-125 Toll Road Issues
Consultant shall continue completion of project management work on the SR-125 Toll Road
facility. The Consultant shall work with the new franchisee and assist in resolving project issues
related to performance agreement commitments, operational decisions, mitigation requirements,
toll phcing as related to City residents. In addition, the Consultant shall assist in resolving
potential difficulties associated with the toll road facility exacerbated by the State budget crisis,
particularly if SANDAG is unable to fully fund the "gap" portion of the project as previously
intended. The Consultant shall assist the City in the ongoing relationship with the new
franchisee, including attendance at the monthly project meetings. Work shall be performed by
Mark Watts due to his experience with the AB-680 program.
C. The folloxving new Task 3 is added to thc Agreement:
New-Task 3 TransNet Sales Tax Renewal
Consultant shall actively engage in the renewal process to ensure equitable consideration of
Chula Vista projects. The consultant will work with City staff and Council to make the sales tax
extension a reality. D.J. Smith will take the lead role in this issue.
D. The following new Task 4 is added to the A~eement:
New-Task 4 State Budget Crisis and Impacts on Transportation Funding
Smith, Kempton & Watts will represent the City's interest in helping to shape a solution to the
State's budget crisis as it impacts funding for City projects. The consultant will develop and
implement a strategy to ensure that State Transportation Improvement Program (STll~) funding is
available for the East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway/I-805 interchange project.
II. Exhibit A. Section 1 lB Phased Fixed Fee Arrangement is hereby amended to add the following:
Eighth Amendment Cost Summary
A. Task I - [-805 project management $ 21,500.00
B. Task 2- Support to City of SR-125 $ 32,333.35
C. Task 3 - TransNet Sales Tax Renewal $ 15,000.00
D. Task 4 - State Budget Crisis & Impacts $ 12,000.00
E. Expenses - Not to exceed amount $ 12.867.56
Subtotal $ 93,700.91
The proposed amendment will increase the contract with the CONSULTANT, as amended, by
$67,500 to a total of $897,700.91.
2. Eighth Amendment Compensation Structure
Cost for Task 1 is $21,500.00:
$2500/month from 8/01/02 to 12/31/02 ($12,500 total)
$1,000/month from 1/01/03 to 6/30/03 ($6,000 total)
$500/month from 7/01/03 to 12/31/03 ($3,000 total)
Cost for Task 2 is $32,333.35:
$1666.67/month from 8201/02 to 12/31/02 ($8333.35 total)
$1,500/month from 1/01/03 to 6/30/03 ($9,000 total)
$2,500/month from 7/01/03 to 12/31/03 ($15,000 total)
Cost for Task 3 is $15,000.00:
$1,500/month from 1/01/03 to 6/30/03 ($9,000 total)
$1,000/month from 7/01/03 to 12/31/03 ($6,000 total)
Cost for Task 4 is $12,000.00:
$1,000/month from 1/01/03 to 6/30/03 ($6,000 total)
$1,000/month from 7/01/03 to 12/31/03 ($6,000 total)
Expenses
$5,367.56 from 3/01/02 to 12/31/02 ($5,367.56 total)
Not to exceed amount of $7,500.00 for calendar year 2003
A. CONSULTANT shall submit monthly invoices for City review. Consultant shall be paid
lump sum amounts in accordance with the cost schedule set forth above regardless of the
time spent in completing the tasks. City shall remit payment to CONSULTANT within
thirty (30) days of City's approval of an invoice. In no event shall CONSULTANT be paid
an amount under this Amendment which would result in Consultant's total compensation
hereunder (including reimbursables of a maximum of $7,500) exceeding $67,500.00 for
calendar year 2003. CONSULTANT shall be paid $53,455.06 for services rendered since
March 2002, of which $26,200.91 is for services rendered between 8/01/02 through
12/31/02within 15 days after City Council approval of the Eighth Amendment.
III, Except as modified herein, ali other provisions of the Agreement, as amended shall remain in
full force and effect.
END OF EIGHTH AMENDMENT
SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS
Signature Page
for the Eighth Amendment to
Agreement between City of Chula Vista and Smith, Kempton & Watts
for additional transportation consulting services;
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, CITY and CONSULTANT have executed this Eighth Amendment
effective as of the date first set forth above thereby indicating that they have read and understood
same, and indicate their full and complete consent to its terms:
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
By:
David D. Rowlands
City Manager
ATTEST:
Susan Bigelow, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
John M. Kaheny, City Attorney
Smith, Kempton & Watts
By: . .
H:\AttorneyLgptySK&W8AMD.fxr. DOC
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item *~
Meeting Date: 2/11/03
ITEM TITLE: Resolution Appropriating $50,000 from the un-appropriated
balance of the Trunk Sewer Capital Reserve Fund to the "G Street Trunk
Sewer Improvements, From Broadway to West of Bay Boulevard (CIP No.
SW-228)" project account.
Resolution Accepting bids and awarding contract for the "G
Street Trunk Sewer Improvements, From Broadway to West of Bay
Boulevard (CIP No. SW-228)" project to TC Construction Co., Inc. in the
amount of $629,003.00.
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Engineering/[/
REVIEWED BY: City Manager (Y~C [~ (4/5ths Vote: Yes X No )
On Wednesday, January 8, 2003 at 2:00 p.m., the Director of Engineering received sealed bids
for the "G Street Trunk Sewer Improvements, From Broadway to West of Bay Boulevard (CIP
No. SW-228)" project. The "G" Street Trunk Sewer Improvements project will improve roughly
2,000 linear feet of sewer pipe located in "G" Street approximately between Broadway and west
of Bay Boulevard.
RECOMMENDATION:
That Council:
1. Appropriate $50,000 from the un-appropriated balance of the Trunk Sewer
Capital Reserve Fund to the "G Street Trunk Sewer Improvements, From
Broadway to West of Bay Boulevard (CIP No. SW-228)" project account.
2. Accept bids and award the contract for the "G Street Trunk Sewer Improvements,
From Broadway to West of Bay Boulevard (CIP No. SW-228)" project to TC
Construction Co., Inc. in the amount of $629,003.00.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
General
The "G" Street Trunk Sewer is the main trunk line that serves properties located within the "G"
Street Sewer Basin area. The "G" Street sewer basin area generally is bounded by "D" Street to
the north, "H" Street to the south and 1-805 to the east. The City of Chula Vista recently
Page 2, Item ri
Meeting Date 2/11/03
sewage flow into the "G" Street Trunk Sewer line. Based on the aforementioned developments,
the existing sewer trunk line was determined to require improvement between Broadway and
west of Bay Boulevard (See Attachment "A" for project area plat).
The existing "G" Street Trunk Sewer, between Broadway and west of Bay Boulevard, primarily
consists of 18-inch diameter vitrified clay pipe (V.C.P.) that is inadequate in size to convey the
projected sewage flow. In order to increase the sewer capacity, a new 27-inch diameter P.V.C.
sewer pipe is proposed for construction adjacent and parallel to the existing 18-inch trunk line.
The existing trunk line will be abandoned in-place after the proposed improvements are
constructed. For the portion of the sewer line that runs underneath the Interstate 5 Freeway, the
existing 18-inch V.C.P. sewer line will be used in conjunction with the existing parallel 21-inch
V.C.P. sewer line; the existing 21-inch V.C.P. sewer line is currently used for overflow from the
18-inch V.C.P. line.
Proiect Advertisement and Bid Results
The City of Chula Vista's Engineering Department prepared the plans, contract documents and
technical specifications for the "G" Street Trunk Sewer Improvements project. City staff also
prepared and advertised the project for bidding.
Staff received and opened bids on Wednesday, January 8, 2003 at 2:00 p.m. The lowest
responsive bidder for the project was based on the contractor who submitted all required
documents detailed in the contract documents and who submitted the lowest base bid for the
project construction. Bids from five (5) contractors were received as follows (Bids sorted by the
base bid amount):
CONTRACTOR BASE BID
1. TC Construction Co., Inc. $629,003.00
2. Ortiz Corporation $637,165.00
3. MJC Construction $699,525.00
4. Arrieta Construction $811,975.00
5. Orion Construction Corp. $892,700.00
The total low bid from TC Construction Co., Inc. is below the Engineer's estimate of
$699,515.00 by $70,512.00 or approximately 10.1%. The Engineer's estimate was prepared by
City staff and was based on average unit prices for similar types of work completed recently.
Staff will incorporate the unit price bid results received into our database for future project cost
estimates.
Engineering staff checked the references that the contractor submitted. All references checked
were verified and their work has been satisfactory. The Contractor's License Number for TC
Construction Co., Inc. is 402459 and it is clear and current. Staff has reviewed the low bid and is
recommending awarding the contract to TC Construction Co., Inc. in the amount of $629,003.00.
Page 3, Item
Meeting Date 2/11/03
Environmental Status
The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with
the California Environmental Quality Act and has determined that the project qualifies for a
statutory exemption pursuant to Section 15282(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines. Thus, no
further environmental review is necessary.
Disclosure Statement
Attachment "B" is a copy of the contractor's Disclosure Statement.
Prevailing Wage Statement
The project is currently funded utilizing the Trunk Sewer Capital Reserve Funds.
Based on the funding soumes utilized, no special Disadvantage Business Enterprise (DBE)
and/or 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. Based on the current project funding guidelines, the
contractors bidding this project were not required to pay prevailing wages to persons employed
by them for the work under this project.
FISCAL IMPACT:
FUNDS REQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION
A. Contract Amount (TC Construction Co., Inc.) $629,003.00
B. Contingencies (10%) $62,900.00
C. StaffCosts (Administration, Inspection and Testing) $47,858.00
TOTAL FUNDS REQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION $739,761.00
FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR CONSTRUCTION
A. Trunk Sewer Capital Reserve Funds $739,76l .00
TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR CONSTRUCTION $739,761.00
The above action of awarding the contract will authorize a total expenditure of $739,761.00 for
construction of the CIP project. There is currently $689,761.00 of available funds in the project.
With the appropriation of $50,000.00 into the "G" Street Trunk Sewer Improvements (SW-228)'
project, adequate funds will be available to complete the project construction.
Page 4, Item~
Meeting Date 2/11/03
Maintenance
The City will be solely responsible for the maintenance of the trunk sewer line after construction
is completed. Any maintenance or future replacement of the pipe will be achieved utilizing the
Sewer Facilities Replacement Fund. There are currently adequate funds to finance the
maintenance of the trunk line.
Attachments:
A - Project Area Plat
B - Contractor's Disclosure Statement
COPY TO FILE: 0735-10-SW228
J:\Engineer~AGEN DA\S W228 -A ward.get.doc
ATTACHMENT "A"
\~J
I :
,l~ ~E
O: ~SDSKPROJ~Sw228[Drow ~Finol~o1155W22B. dw9 01/28/05 02: 2h 59 P~ PST PROJECT FILE ~SW228
I P~EPA~ED B~-
T/aS CITY OF CHULA VISTA IOREO TSCHERCH
D~:
t-28-oJ ~ 'G' S~EET TRUNK SE~R IMPROVEMENTS I rR~ ~IVERA
CITY OF CffULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Pursuant to Council Policy 101-01, prior to any action upon matters which will requ/re discretionary
action by the Council, Planning Commission and all other official bodies of the City, a statement of
disclosure of certain ownership or financial interests, payments, or campaign contributions for a City of
Chula Vista election must be filed. The following int'ormafion must be disclosed:
1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the property that is the subject of the
application or the contract, e.g., owner, applicant, contractor, subcontractor, material supplier.
2. If any person* identified pursuant to (I) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all
individuals with a $1000 investment in the business (corporation/partnership) entity.
3. If any person* identified pursuant to (1) above is a non-profit organization or trust, list the names
of any person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or
tmstor of the trust.
4. Please identify every person, including any agents, employees, consultants, or independent
contractors you have assigned to represent you before the City in this matter.
14
J:~EngineerkDESlGN\Sw228\SW228.Spec'sXSW228.ContractDoc.doc ~.~ .~ ¢
i 5. Has any person* associated w/th this contract had any financial dealings with an offici~'~* of the
City of Chula Vista as it relates to tkis 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 p. ast 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 D/rectors made contributions totaling more than $1,000 over the past four (4)
years to a current member of the Chula Vista City Council9 Yes No ,~ If Yes which
Council member? ' ~'
TM '
8. Have you provided more than $300 (or an item of equivalent value) to an official** of the City
of Chula Vista in the past twelve (12) months? (Thi~ ',includes be/ng 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?
gn ture of Co~or/Applicant ~
Print or t3,~aarh~ of Contractor/Applicant
* Person is defined as: any individual, firm, co-parmership, joint venture, association, social club,
fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, any other county, city, municipality,
distr/ct, 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 of a board, commission, or committee of the City, employee, or staffmembers.
15
J:kEng/neerkDESIGN~Sw228~SW228-Spec's\SW228.ContractDoc.doc ~ ~- ~'~
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROPRIATING $50,000 FROM THE
UNAPPROPRIATED BALANCE OF THE TRUNK SEWER
CAPITAL RESERVE FUND TO THE "G" STREET TRUNK
SEWER IMPROVEMENTS, FROM BROADWAY TO WEST OF
BAY BOULEVARD (CIP NO. SW-228) PROJECT ACCOUNT
WHEREAS, on January 8, 2003 at 2:00 p.m., the Director of Engineering received
sealed bids for the "G Street Trunk Sewer Improvements, From Broadway to West of Bay
Boulevard (CIP No. SW-228)" project; and
WIIEREAS, the "G" Street Trunk Sewer Improvements project will improve
roughly 2,000 linear feet of sewer pipe located in "G" Street approximately between Broad~vay
and west of Bay Boulevard; and
WHEREAS, there is currently $689,761.00 of available funds in the project's
account, however, it is necessary to appropriate $50,000.00 into the "G" Street Trunk Sewer
Improvements (SW-228)" project account in order for adequate funds to be available to complete
the project construction.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of City of Chula
Vista does hereby appropriate $50,000 from the unappropriated balance of the Trunk Sewer Capital
Sewer Reserve fund to the ~G" Street Trunk Sewer Improvements from Broadway to west of Bay
Boulevard (CIP No. SW-228) project account.
Presented by Approved as to form by
Clifford T. Swanson ~ lohn M Kaheny
Director of Engineering City Attorney
J:,'attomey/lcso/appmprJalion G St trunk sewer
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING
CONTRACT FOR THE "G STREET TRUNK SEWER
IMPROVEMENTS, FROM BROADWAY TO WEST OF BAY
BOULEVARD (CIP NO. SW-228)' PROJECT TO TC
CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $629,003.00
WHEREAS, on Wednesday, January 8, 2003 at 2:00 p.m., the Director of
Engineering received the following five sealed bids for the "G Street Trunk Sewer
Improvements, from Broadway to West of Bay Boulevard (CIP No. SW-228)' project:
CONTRACTOR BASE BID
1. TC Construction Co., Inc. $629,003.00
2. Ortiz Corporation $637,165.00
3. MJC Construction $699,525.00
4. Arrieta Construction $811,975.00
5. Orion Construction Corp. $892,700.00
WHEREAS, the total low bid from TC Construction Co., Inc. is below the
Engineer's estimate of $699,515.00 by $70,512.00 or approximately 10.1%; and
WHEREAS, Engineering staff checked the references that the contractor
submitted and their work has been satisfactory; and
WHEREAS, staff has reviewed the low bid and is recommending a~varding the
contract to TC Construction Co., Inc. in the mnount of'$629,003.00.
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed
project for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and has determined that the
project qualifies for a statutory exemption pursuant to Section 15282(1) of the State CEQA
Guidelines; thus, no further environmental review is necessary; and
1
WHEREAS, the project is currently funded utilizing the Trunk Sewer Capital
Reserve Funds and based on the current project funding guidelines, the contractors bidding this
project were not required to pay prevailing wages to persons employed by them for the work
under this project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE 1T RESOLVED that the City Council of City of Chula
Vista does hereby accept the bids and award the contract for the "G Street Trunk Sewer
Improvements from Broad~vay to west of Bay Boulevard (C1P No. SW-228)" to TC Construction
Co., in the amount of $629,003.00.
BE 1T FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of the City of Chula Vista is hereby
authorized to execute said contract on behalf of the City of Chula Vista.
Presented by Approved as to form by
Clifford T. Swanson J.~ M' Kaheny ~
Director of Engineering City Attomey
2
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item
Meeting Date February 11, 2003
ITEM TITLE: Resolution creating the position of Director of Employee
Development as an unclassified at-will position in the Executive service and amend the
FY03 budget of the Administration Department by adding the Director of Employee
Development position and deleting an ODT Specialist II position, and the Human
Resources Department by deleting the Human Resoumes Operations Manager position
and reclassifying two Senior Classification Analyst positions to Principal Personnel
Analysts.
SUMBITTED BY: Assistant City Manager Powell
Deputy City Manager Palmer
REVIEWED BY: City Ma~Jager (4/$th Vote: Yes X No )
In a large and complex organization such as the City of Chula Vista, it is especially
important that employee and organizational development take a high priority. During
the past few years the City has made great strides in expanding opportunities for
employee development and improving labor relations. The Office of Organization
Development and Training (ODT) has done an exceptional job of developing a values
based organization, and the Director of Human Resoumes has done an outstanding job of
working with the employee groups to open the lines of communication and develop win-
win solutions to City challenges. With this foundation and the challenging fiscal times
ahead, it is recommended that some resources be shifted from the traditional human
resources ftmction to the employee development function. To accomplish this it is
recommended that ODT be renamed the Office of Employee Development and that the
current Director of Human Resources, who has been a major player in improving
employee relations, be transferred to be Director of Employee Development. To
accomplish this within the existing budget the incumbent Assistant Director of Human
Resources and the Human Resource Operations Manager will be promoted to Director
and Assistant Director of Human Resources respectively and the Senior Management
position of Human Resources Operations Manager will be deleted.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve the resolution creating the position of
Director of Employee Development as an unclassified at-will position in the Executive
service, amend the FY03 budget of the Administration Department by adding the
Director of Employee Development position and deleting an ODT Specialist II position
in the Office of Employee Development, and in the Human Resources Department by
deleting the Human Resources Operations Manager position and reclassifying two Senior
Classification Analyst positions to Principal Personnel Analysts.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: N/A
DISCUSSION:
The City of Chula Vista is committed to ensuring that all employees are provided
opportunities for growth and development. Perhaps the most visible method is through
the offerings of the Office of Organization Development and Training (ODT). For
example, ODT has presented the foundational 7-Habits program to almost 500
employees, offered classes on the use of office software, taught staff members to improve
their writing skills, presented a comprehensive New Employee Orientation program, and
sponsored the annual Supervisors Academy. In addition, the office has sponsored
mentoring programs, educational fairs, informational brown bag lunches, facilitation of
both staff and public meetings, and morale-boosting events such as the Halloween
costume contest.
In December, ODT lost one of their employees to a new job outside of the City, bringing
the staff down to two individuals. As a result of this and other changes in the City, it is
recommended that the office be revamped, be renamed the Office of Employee
Development, and that an unclassified, at-will position of Director of Employee
Development be created at an annual salary of $127,812 per year.
This position will allow the Office of Employee Development to further expand the
City's already excellent training and development program. For example, the Director
will be responsible for:
Developing an innovative, effective, defensible performance evaluation system for
all departments.
A new performance evaluation program has long been needed and the Director
will immediately begin to conduct extensive research into public and private
systems. This new performance evaluation system will eventually tie directly
into the City's new Performance Management framework, currently under
development.
· Working with department heads to develop role descriptions for senior and mid-
managers.
In light of the many new managers and the considerable changes occurring within
the City, many departments need to clearly define roles and performance
expectations. This again will tie into the future Performance Management
system.
· Assisting senior level management in assessing and maximizing staff resources.
There will now be ongoing assessment of knowledge, skills and abilities of City
staff - with the goal of maximizing employee based resources - which in turn
improves the overall quality of service to the public at minimum cost.
· Providing skilled assistance to department managers in improving staff
interactions.
The new Director will augment the current ODT staff in assisting departments
with conflict resolution, mediation and counseling and meeting facilitation.
Further efforts will include the development of alternative communication
techniques and the development of an effective communications training program.
· Developing and conducting Chula I~ista-specific "Interest-Based Negotiations"
training.
The Director will create a program to develop "Interest-Based Negotiation" skills
among both labor and management teams, in advance of the next round of labor
negotiations. The general focus will be on professionalism, excellent
communication skills, trust building, and goal identification. This will be done
through training, education, and role-playing.
· Further enhancing the City's trainingprogram.
The initial efforts will concentrate on researching, locating, developing and
conducting unique, innovative and relevant "meat and potatoes" training for all
levels of staff. This will include developing a "train the trainers" program among
City staff, expanding collaboration with community educational organizations
such as Southwestern College and implementing an online training program.
As a part of the reorganization of ODT into the Office of Employee Development, the
current Organization Development and Training Specialist II will be eliminated from the
budget.
To facilitate this reorganization and shift resources towards furthering the City's
employee development efforts, the Human Resources Department is recommending
elimination of the Senior Management position of Human Resoumes Operations Manager
and reclassifying two Senior Classification Analyst positions to Principal Personnel
Analyst positions. This reclassification will allow existing staff to absorb the majority of
the current Operation Manager's duties including coordination of citywide classification
studies, and assisting individual departments with reorganizations and other higher-level
human resources issues. The reclassification is needed, as the scope and complexity of
the Senior Classification Analysts' assignments have increased since the positions were
created over two years ago. With the elimination of the Operations Manager position
their responsibilities will increase further as well as the complexity of their assignments.
FISCAL IMPACT: The net result from all these changes is a current year savings of
$4,400 and a savings in future years of $12,500.
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA CREATiNG THE POSITION OF DIRECTOR OF
EMPLOYEE DEVELOPMENT AS AN UNCLASSIFIED AT-
WILL POSITION IN THE EXECUTIVE SERVICE AND
AMENDiNG THE FISCAL YEAR 2003 BUDGET OF THE
ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT BY ADDiNG THE
DIRECTOR OF EMPLOYEE DEVELOPMENT POSITION AND
DELETING AN ODT SPECIALIST II POSITION, AND THE
HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT BY DELETING THE
HUMAN RESOURCES OPERATIONS MANAGER POSITION
AND RECLASSIFYiNG TWO SENIOR CLASSIFICATION
ANALYST POSITIONS TO PRINCIPAL PERSONNEL
ANALYSTS
WHEREAS, in a large and complex organization such as the City of Chula Vista,
it is especially important that employee and organizational development take a high priority; and
WHEREAS, during the past few years the City has made great strides in
expanding opportunities for employee development and improving labor relations; and
WHEREAS, the Office of Organization Development and Training (ODT) has
done an exceptional job of developing a values based organization, and the Director of Human
Resources has done an outstanding job of working with the employee groups to open the lines of
communication and develop win-win solutions to City challenges; and
WHEREAS, with this foundation and the challenging fiscal times ahead, it is
recommended that some resources be shifted from the traditional human resources function to
the employee development function; and
WHEREAS, to accomplish this it is recommended that ODT be renamed the
Office of Employee Development and that the current Director of Human Resources who has
been a major player in improving employee relations be transferred to be Director of Employee
Development; and
WHEREAS, to accomplish this within the existing budget the incumbent
Assistant Director of Human Resources and the Human Resource Operations Manager will be
promoted to Director and Assistant Director of Human Resources respectively and the Senior
Management position of Human Resources Operations Manager will be deleted.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Chula Vista does hereby create the position of Director of Employee Development as an
unclassified at-will position in the Executive Service and amend the Fiscal Year 2003 budget of the
Administration Department by adding the Director of Employee Development position and deleting
an ODT Specialist II position, and the Human Resoumes Department by deleting the Human
Resources Operations Manager position and reclassifying two Senior Classification Analyst
positions to Principal Personnel Analysts.
Presented by Approved as to form by
Robert Powell
Assistant City Manager ~City Attorney
J:\attorney\reso~Director of Employee Development
2
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item ~
Meeting Date 02/11/03
ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing Consideration of establishing Utility
Undergrounding District No. 138 along East "J" Street from Hilltop Drive to
west of Lori Lane
Resolution Establishing Utility Undergrounding District No. 138
along East "J" Street from Hilltop Drive to west of Lori Lane and authorizing
the expenditure or'Utility Allocation Funds to subsidize private service lateral
conversion
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Engineering~/
Manager~' e~,~W (4/5ths Vote: Yes No X )
REVIEWED
BY:
City
On January 14, 2003, the City Council approved Resolution No. 2003-011 and ordered a Public
Hearing to be held on February 11, 2003 to determine whether the public health, safety or general
welfare requires the formation ora utility undergrounding district along East "J" Street from Hilltop
Drive to west of Lori Lane (See Exhibit A). The purpose of forming the district is to require the
utility companies to underground all overhead lines and to remove all existing wooden utility poles
within the proposed district. The proposed utility undergrounding district is about 7,000 feet long
and is estimated to cost approximately $1,600,000. SDG&E's allocation funds (Rule 20-A) will be
used to cover the cost of the project including reimbursements to affected property owners for their
respective trenching cost.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council:
1. Conduct a Public Hearing on the formation of Utility Underground District No. 138;
2. Approve a resolution forming the district and authorizing the use of approximately
$!,600,000 in utility allocation funds to cover the cost of pole removal, undergrounding
overhead l~acilities, and private property conversion reimbursements.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
The Underground Utility Advisory Committee (UUAC), consisting of representatives of SDG&E,
Pacific Bell, Cox Communications, Chula Vista Cable and the City, agreed to propose to the City
Council the formation of a district for the conversion of overhead utilities to underground along East
Page 2, Item ~Y
Meeting Date 02/11/03
"J" Street from Hilltop Drive to west of Lori Lane. The proposed utility undergrounding district
along East "J" Street is about 7,000 feet (1.3 miles) long running from Hilltop Drive to west of Loft
Lane (See Exhibit A). The estimated cost for undergrounding the utilities is $I,600,000. The
Average Daily Traffic (ADT) count on East "J" Street between Hilltop Drive to west of Lori Lane is
approximately 10,000.
Section 15.32.130 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code requires the City Council to set a public
hearing to determine whether the public health, safety, and general welfare requires the
undergrounding of existing overhead utilities within designated areas of the City. The intent of the
public heating is to give persons the opportunity to speak in favor of or against the formation of a
proposed district to underground utilities. The formation of the district will require the utility
companies to underground all overhead lines and other facilities, and to remove all existing wooden
utility poles within the District. All property owners within the proposed district will also be
required to convert their service connections to underground.
The undergrounding of utilities will be coordinated with the City of Chula Vista street light design
project. Said project, which will replace existing street lights on wooden poles with street lights on
concrete poles, and the addition of street lights where applicable, is the responsibility of the City of
Chula Vista. Construction for the street light design project is anticipated to begin shortly after the
beginning of construction of SDG&E's undergrounding of electrical utilities within the street right-
of-way.
There are two City owned facilities within this segment of East "J" Street: McCandliss Park and Fire
Station No. 2. Neither facility requires conversion of services because the services are already
undergrounded, thus there will be no additional cost to the City for these properties.
Staff recommends the formation of this conversion district along this section of East "J" Street
because:
1. East "J" Street is a two-lane west/east thoroughfare between the western and eastern portions
of Chula Vista. The undergrounding of existing overhead utilities will contribute to the
creation of an aesthetically pleasing thoroughfare.
2. This segment of East "J" Street is classified in the General Plan's Circulation Elements as a
Class II Collector street.
3. In addition to single family residential, the district fronts along Halecrest Elementary School,
McCandliss Park, Hilltop High School, Fire Station #2, and a commercial site.
The conversion work by the property owners involves trenching, backfill and conduit installation
from property line to point of connection. Chula Vista City Council Policy No. 585-1 established a
mechanism that helps property owners with the cost of the conversion work from the distribution
lines to the structure. Said policy provides for the reimbursement of property owners at a rate of $35
Page3, Item ¢
Meeting Date 02/11/03
per lineal foot of trenching, which is normally sufficient to cover total costs. Exhibit B shows a
reimbursement schedule listing reimbursement amount for all 63 affected properties. The total
reimbursement is approximately $110,000 and is included in the overall cost estimate of $1,600,000.
A public hearing notice has been mailed to all property owners and occupants of property (see
Exhibit "C"), located within the boundaries of the proposed district.
FISCAL IMPACT: The cost of pole removal, undergrounding overhead facilities and private
property conversion reimbursements as outlined above is estimated to be approximately $1,600,000.
SDG&E's allocation funds (Rule 20-A) will cover the estimated cost of the project. The estimated
cost for street light projects associated with the undergrounding district is estimated to be
approximately $100,000. City staff will be establishing a separate CIP project for the street light
work to be done in FY 03/04. The $100,000 funding source is anticipated to come from Gas Tax.
Staff costs associated with the formation of this district is not reimbursable from the allocation funds
and, therefore, are borne by the General Fund.
Attachment: Exhibit A - Boundary Map
Exhibit B - Reimbursement Schedule
Exhibit C - Mailing List
Exhibit D -CounciI Agenda Statement (Intention to Create District)
J:\EngineerLA. GENDA\UUD 13 8 Public Hearing.jcm.doc
UUD 138 - East t,j,, Street from West of Lori Lane to
Hilltop Drive
UNDERGROUNDING MAILING LIST
EXHIBIT "C"
AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNERS
APN [6390410400
Owners's Name IAmezcua, Sally & Giselle
Owners Address I232 East J SU-eet
City, State [Chula Vista, CA ]
Zip [91910
UUD Street ~ lEast J Street
APN ~742521100 ]
Owners's Name [Baker, Harold & Heide
Owners Address [75 East J Street
City, State [Chula Vista, CA
Zip [91910 I
UUD Street [75 ]lEast J Street
APN [6395800800
Owners's Name IBall, Joan R
Owners Address [484 East J Street
City, State [Chun Vista, CA
Zip [91910
UUD Street [484 ] [East J Street
APN I5742511000 ]
Owners's Name lBehrcnd, Cheryll A j
Owners Address 1694 Claire Avenue ]
City, State [Chula Vista, CA
Zip [91910 ]
UUD Street [694 ] [Claire Avenue
Friday, January 03, 2003 Page 1 of 16
AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNERS
APN [6391910100 ]
Owners's Name [Berry, William & Jeanne L ]
Owners Address [498 East J S~-eet
City, State [Chula Vista, CA
Zip [91910
Owners's Name [Bickel, William & Doror[hy
Owners Address [143 East J Sixeet
City, State [Chula Vista, CA ]
Zip [91910 ]
UUD Street [~ least J Street
APN 5742721900
Owners's Name 3rannen, Richmond D & Billie M ]
Owners Address 207 East J Street
City, State 2hula Vista, CA
Zip H910
UUD Street [~O7--1 lEast J Street
APN 5743300400 j
Owners's Name Carter, Brian M & Teresa M
Owners Address 202 East J Street
City, State Chula Vista, CA
Zip 91910
UUD Street 202 ] [East J Street
Friday, January 03, 2003 Page 2 of 16
APN [6395800200 ]
Owners's Name [Chapman, Calvin B & Gloria J
Owners Address [452 East J Street
City, State [Chula Vista, CA
Zip [91910
UUD Street [452 ]lEast J Street
APN [6395800400 ]
Owners's Name [Christensen Family Trust
Owners Address I464 East J Street
City, State [Chula Vista, CA
Zip [91910 ]
u.o Street [464 [[EastJS eet
Owners's Name [Chula Vista Community Church
Owners Address [271 East J Street
City, state [Chula Vista, CA
UUD Street 1271 IIEast J Street
[5743°°.0°
Owners's Name IChula Vista Elementary School District
Owners Address [84 East J Street
City, State [Chula Vista, CA
Zip [91910
UUD Street 84~-~ least J Street
Friday, January 03, 2003 Page 3 of 16
AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNERS
APN [5743300500 J
Owners's Name lCollins, William H Sr & Cinda L
Owners Address [206 East J Street
City, State [Chula Vista, CA
Zip [91910
UUD Street 1206 I lJ East Street
APN [6395800100
Owners's Name Lcruz, Robert G & Gutierrez, Carmen R
Owners Address ~46 East J Street
City, State ~hula Vista, CA
Zip ~1910
UUD Street 1446 l[East J Street
APN 16394502900
Owners's Name ICulp, Chester C Jr & Marjorie A
Owners Address 1338 East J Street
City, State [Chula Vista, CA
Zip 191910
UUD Street [338 l[East J Street
APN [5742722500 ]
Owners's Name [Dumiao, Romeo R & Amparo B
Owners Address [[ 95 East J Street
City, State [Chula Vista, CA
Zip [91910
UUD Street [195 l[East J Street
Friday, January 03, 2003 Page 4 of 16
AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNERS
APN 16391702800
Owners's Name IEarls, Judy D
Owners Address 132s East J StTeet
City, State [Chula Vista, CA
Zip 191910
UUD Street [325 1 lEast J Street
APN 15742721800
Owners's Name [Ferreira, Paul R & Charmaine
Owners Address [213 East J Street
City, State [Chula Vista, CA
Zip [91910 ]
UUD Street [213 I lEast J Street
APN I6394502700
Owners's Name [Gaidousek Trust
Owners Address [328 East J Street
City, State IChula Vista, CA
UUD Street [~ lEast J Street
APN 16395800900
Owners's Name IGallagher Clotilde P
Owners Address 1490 East J Street
City, State ~hula Vista, CA
Zip 19191°
UUD Street 1490 ]IEast J street
Friday, January 03, 2003 Page 5 of 16
AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNERS
APN ~390410500
Owners's Name ~hods, Hady & Maria A
Owners Address ~38 East J Street
City, State [Chula Vista, CA
Zip 191910 I
UUD Street 1238 ] least J Street
APN 5743300600 J
Owners's Name Gomez, Conrado V & Ofelia
Owners Address 212 East J Street
City, State Chula Vista, CA
Zip 91910
UUD Street 21:2 1 [East J Street
APN [5743003200
Owners's Name IHairloom Shoppe
Owners Address [60 East J Street #C
City, State [Chula Vista, CA
Zip [91910
UUD Street [60 ][East J Street
APN [6390410300 ]
Owners's Name [Hayward Familiy Trust
Owners Address 1228 East J Street
City, State iChula Vista, CA
Zip [91910
UUD Street [228 ]lEast J Street
Friday, January 03, 2003 Page 6 of 16
AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNERS
APN 163959301oo
Owners's Name [Head, John W & Susan D
Owners Address [358 East J Street
City, State [Chula Vista, CA
Zip [91910 ]
UUD Street [358 l[East J Street
APN [6395800700 ]
Owners's Name thom Family Trust
Owners Address [569 Canyon Drive
City, State LBonita, CA
Zip [919O2
UUD Street [480 I~ast J Street
APN [6395900100
Owners's Name rHummelman Family Trust
Owners Address ~348 East J Street
City, State [Chula Vista, CA
Zip 191910
UUD Street [348 ]lEast J Street
APN [6395900200 ]
Owners's Name IHummelman Family Trust
Owners Address [344 East J Street
City, State [Chula Vista, CA
uuo Street [344 ]lEast JStreet
Friday, January 03, 2003 Page 7 of 16
AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNERS
APN [6395800300 ]
Owners's Name [Jones, Carmen
Owners Address [458 East J Street ]
City, State [Chula Vista, CA
Zip [91910
UUD Street [458 I IEast J Street
Owners's Name [Kesterson, Aubrey V ]
Owners Address [428 East J Street
City, State [Chula Vista, CA
Zip [91910
UUD Street 428~ LEast J Street ]
APN [6390410100
Owners's Name [Lang, Robert F & Inez
Owners Address [14103 Segundo Court
City, State (Poway, CA
Zip L92o64
UUD Street ~ least J Street
APN ~395935000 j
Owners's Name ILeigh William G & Nancy J
Owners Address [364 East J Street
City, State IChula Vista, CA
Zip 19191o
UUD Street 1364 llEast J Street
Friday, January 03, 2003 Page 8 of 16
APN 16394502800
Owners's Name IMartinez Family Trust
Owners Address 1334 East J Street
City, State IChula Vista, CA
Zip 191910
UUD Street 1334 ]lEast J Street
APN {6391920300
Owners's Name IMcneil, Erro[ R & Robin
Owners Address 1512 East J Street
City, State [Chula Vista, CA
Zip [91910
UUD Street 1512
APN 163945°26°°
Owners'$ Name [Meiser, Bruce A & Lavona
Owners Address [324 East J Street
City, State [Chula Vista, CA
Zip [91910
APN [6391920700
Owners's Name [Miramontes, Ausalon S
Owners Address [590 Sunflower Lane
City, State [Imperial, CA
Zip [92251
Friday, January 03, 2003 Page 9 of 16
APN [5742721700 ]
Owners'a Name [Mudd Family Resut
Owners Address [203 East J Street
City, State [Chula Vista, CA
Zip I91910
UUD Street [203 ]LEast J Street
APN [6391920400 ]
Owners's Name [Paunter, John M 1II & Chlodella
Owners Address 1518 East J Street
City, State [Chula Vista, CA
Zip [91910 ]
UUD Street [518 [ least J Street
APN [6390410200
Owners's Name [?reciado's Jewelry
Owners Address [222 East J Street
City, State [Chula Vista, CA
Zip [91910 ]
UUD Street [222 I[East J Street
AP N [6391920200
Owners's Name [Roach Revocable Trust
Owners Address [508 East J Street
City, State [Chula Vista, CA
Zip [919,0 ]
UUD Street ~ least J Street
Friday, January 03, 2003 Page 10 of 16
AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNERS
APN [6391920600 ]
Owners's Name [Roberson, Robert B & Mary L ]
Owners Address [530 East J Street
City, State [Chula Vista, CA
Zip [91910
UUD Street [530 [lEast J Street
APN [5743300200
Owners's Name [Robichaud, Sally M
Owners Address [I 94 East J Street ]
City, State [Chula Vista, CA ]
Zip L91910
UUD Street 194[~ ~
APN ~6396200400 J
Owners's Name IRodriguez, John Q & Rosa A
Owners Address [442 East J Street
City, State [Chuta Vista, CA ]
Zip [91910
UUD Street ~ lEast J Street
APN [6390410700
Owners's Name LRosario, David G & Robin L
Owners Address [702 Melrose Avenue
City, State ~Chula Vista, CA
Zip [91910
UUD Street ~ IMelrose Avenue
Friday, January 03, 2003 Page 11 of 16
APN [5742611200
Owners's Name [Salazar, Yolanda M
Owners Address [101 East J Street
City, State [Chula Vista, CA
Zip [91910 ]
UUD Street [101 ] least J Street
APN [6391702700
Owners's Name [Salscheider, James G & Cynthia
Owners Address L319 East J Street
City, State [Chuia Vista, CA
z,p [919,o
UUD Street ~ E[East J Street
APN [6396200200
Owners's Name rschmidt Family Trust
Owners Address ~32 East J Street
City, State ~hula Vista, CA
Zip [91910
UUD Street ]432 ] lEast J Street
APN [5742621 100
Owners's Name [Serrano, Jose L & Sonia E
Owners Address [I 31 East J Street
City, State IChula Vista, CA
Zip [91910
UUD Street [131 ]lEast J Street
Friday, January 03, 2003 Page 12 of 16
AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNERS
APN ;391920100
Owners's Name Shahbaz, YousseffF & Debts
Owners Address 502 East J Street
City, State Chula vista, CA
Zip 91910 ]
UUD Street 502 l[East J Street
APN 6395800500 ]
Owners's Name Smith, Rhea & Sheresh Nikki
Owners Address 468 East J Street
City, State Chula Vista, CA
Zip 91910
UUD Street 468 ]lEast J Street
APN 6396200300 ]
Owners's Name Spears, Daniel & Mary C
Owners Address 438 East J Street
City, State Chula Vista, CA
Zip 91910
UUD Street 438 ]LEast J Street
APN 5742722600 ] .
Owners's Name Stone, Leigh H
Owners Address 199 East J Street
City, State Chula Vista, CA
Zip 91910
UUD Street 199 ][East J Street
Friday, January 03, 2003 Page 13 of 16
AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNERS
APN [5743001100
Owners's Name [Sweetwater Union High School District
Owners Address ~44 East J Street
City, State ~Chula Vista, CA
Zip [91910
UUD Street 44~ lEast J Street
APN [5743300300
Owners's Name ~I'immons, Virgil L & Ngyen T
Owners Address [I 98 East J Street
City, State [Chula Vista, CA
Zip [91910
UUD Street 198~ least J Street
APN [6394502200
Owners's Name ~l'orraz, Ramona B
Owners Address [302 East J Street
City, State [Chula Vista, CA
Zip [91910
UUD Street r3o2 I ~ast J Street
APN [6394502400
Owners's Name [Tuscher, Stephen F
Owners Address [I 00 Merrimack Avenue #49
City, State [Dracut, MA
Zip [O1826
UUD Street 1314 ~ E~ast J Street
Friday, January 03, 2003 Page 14 of 16
AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNERS
APN [6394502500
Owners's Name [Villegas, Carmen ]
Owners Address [318 East J Street
City, State Lchula Vista, CA
Zip L91910
UUD Street ~lEast J Street
APN ~6395800600 J
Owners's Name [Welker Family Trust
Owners Address ~74 East J Street
City, State ~hula Vista, CA
Zip 191910 ]
UUD Street 1474 1 lEast J Street
APN 16391920800 l
Owners's Name IWhittaker, Lissa C
Owners Address 11001 W 65th Street
City, State [Kansas City, MO
Zip [64113
UUD Street 1538 ]lEast J Street
APN [6394502300
Owners's Name [Williams, Carl E & Doris M
Owners Address [308 East J Street
City, State [Chula Vista, CA
Zip [91910 ]
UUD Street [308 ] lEast J Street
Friday, January 03, 2003 Page 15 of 16
d '50
AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNERS
APN [5743201800
Owners's Name ~Woodend, Stephen P & Susan
Owners Address 1707 Gretchen Road
City, State ~hula Vista, CA
Zip ~1910 I
UUD Street ~ [Gretchen Road
APN ~390410600
Owners's Name Nright Family Trust
Owners Address !42 East J Street
City, State 2hula vista, CA
Zip 91910
UUD Street 242 ] lEast J Street
APN 6391920500
Owners's Name Wysocki Revocable Trust
Owners Address 524 East J Street
City, State Chula Vista, CA
Zip 91910
UUD Street 524 ]{East J Street
Friday, January 03, 2003 Page 16 of 16
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
EXHIBIT "D"
Item
Meeting Date 1/14/0~
ITEM TITLE: Resolution Declaring City's intention to underground overhead
utilities along East "J" Street from east of Loft Lane to Hilltop Drive, and
setting a public hearing for the formation of Utility Underground District
Number 138 for February 11, 2003 at 6 p.m.
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works
REVIEWED BY: City Manager (4/Sths Vote: Yes__ No X )
On November 12, 1991, the City Council approved Resolution No. 16415 accepting a report on the
City's Utility Undergrounding Conversion Program and approving a revised list of utility
underground conversion projects. On November 1, 2002, an Underground Utility Advisory
Committee (UUAC) meeting was held at the site to determine the proposed boundary of an
underground utility district for the conversion of existing overhead utilities. The proposed boundary
is shown on attached Exhibit A. The district's limits extend along East "J" Street from east of Lori
Lane to Hilltop Drive.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve the resolution declaring the City's intention to
underground overhead utilities along East "J" Street from east of Lori Lane to Hilltop Drive and
setting a public hearing for the formation of Utility Underground District Number 138 for February
11, 2003 at 6 p.m.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
The Underground Utility Advisory Committee (UUAC), consisting of representatives of SDG&E,
Pacific Bell, Cox Conununications, Chula Vista Cable and the City, agreed to propose to the City
Council the formation of a district for the conversion of overhead utilities to underground East "J"
Street from east of Lori Lane to Hilltop Drive. The proposed utility undergrounding district along
East "J" Street is about 7,000 feet long (1.3 miles), running from east of Lori Lane to Hilltop Drive
(See Exhibit A). The estimated cost for undergrounding the utilities is $1,600,000. The Average
Daily Traffic (ADT) count on East "J" Street, between east of Lori Lane to Hilltop Drive, is
approximately 10,000 vehicles per day.
Page 2, Item
Meeting Date 1/14/03
Staff recommends the formation of this conversion district along this section of East "L" Street
because:
1. East "J" Street is a t~vo-lane major west/east thoroughfare between the western and eastern
portions of Chula Vista. The undergrounding of existing overhead utilities will contribute to
the creation of an aesthetically pleasing major street.
2. This segment of East "J" Street is classified in the General Plan's Circulation Elements as a
Class II Collector street.
3. In addition to single family residential, the district fronts along Halecrest Elementary School,
McCandiss Park, Hilltop High School, Fire Station #2, and a commercial site.
Section 15.32.130 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code requires the City Council to set a public
hearing to determine whether the public health, safety, and general welfare requires the
undergrounding of existing overhead utilities within designated areas of the City to give persons the
opportunity to speak in favor of or against the formation of a proposed district to underground
utilities. The purpose of forming the district is to require the utility companies to underground all
overhead lines and to remove all existing wooden utility poles within the District and to require
property owners to convert their service connections to underground.
The conversion work by the property owners involves trenching, backfill and conduit installation
from property line to point of connection. Chula Vista City Council Policy No. 585-1 established a
mechanism that helps property owners with the cost of the conversion work from the distribution
lines to the structure. Said poticy provides for the reimbursement ofproperty owners at a rate of $35
per lineal foot of trenching, which is normally sufficient to cover total costs. Exhibit B shows a
reimbursement schedule listing reimbursement amount for all 63 affected properties. The total
reimbursement is approximately $110,000 and is included in the overall cost estimate of $1,600,000.
Approval of this resolution will set a public hearing to be held during the City Council meeting of
February 11, 2003 at 6 p.m., in accordance with Section 15.32.130 of the Municipal Code for the
formation of this district.
Section 15.32.140 of the City Code requires the City Clerk to notify all affected persons and each
utility company of the time and place of the public hearing at least 15 days prior to the date of the
public hearing. Notice is to be given by mail to all property owners and occupants of property
located within the boundaries of the proposed district. The City Clerk is required by said section of
the Code to publish the Resolution of Intention, setting the public hearing in the local newspaper no
less than five days prior to the date of the public hearing.
It should be noted that Fire Station #2 is excluded from the subject district. Overhead utilities to the
fire station were required by the City to be undergrounded with previous building improvements.
Page 3, Item
Meeting Date 1/14/03
FISCAL IMPACT: The cost of pole removal, undergrounding overhead facilities and private
property conversion reimbursements as outlined above is estimated to be approximately $1,600,000.
SDG&E's allocation funds (Rule 20-A) will cover the estimated cost of the project. The estimated
cost for street lights project associated with the undergrounding district is estimated to be
approximately $100,000. City staff will be establishing a separate CIP project for the street light
work to be done in FY 03/04. The $100,000 funding source is anticipated to come from Gas Tax.
All staff costs associated with the formation of this district is not reimbursable from the allocation
funds and, therefore, are borne by the General Fund.
Attachment: Exhibit A Boundary Map
Exhibit B Reimbursement Schedule
J:\Engineer~AGENDAXUUD 138 lntention.jcm.doc
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA ESTABLISHING UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 138
ALONG EAST "J" STREET FROM HILLTOP DRIVE TO WEST OF LORI
LANE AND AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF UTILITY
ALLOCATION FUNDS TO SUBSIDIZE PRIVATE SERVICE LATERAL
CONVERSION
WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 2003-011, a public hearing was called for 6:00 p.m. on
Tuesday, the 11 th day of February, 2003, in the Council Chambers of the City of Chula Vista at 276
Fourth Avenue in said City, to ascertain whether the public health, safety or welfare requires the
removal of poles, overhead wires and associated overhead structures and the underground
installation of wires and facilities for snpplying electric, communication or similar or associated
service within that certain area of the City more particularly described as follows:
All that property lying along East "J" Street from Hilltop Drive to
west of Lori Lane and enclosed within the boundary as shown on the
plat attached hereto as Attachment "A" of subject Underground
Utility District.
WHEREAS, notice of such hearing has been given to all affected property owners as shown
on the last equalized assessment roll, and to the utility companies concerned in the manner and for
the time required by law; and
WHEREAS, such hearing has been duly and regularly held, and all persons interested have
been given an opportunity to be heard.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista
hereby finds and determines that the public health, safety and welfare requires the removal of poles,
overhead wires and associated structures, and the underground installation of wires and facilities for
supplying electric, communication or similar associated services, the above-described area is hereby
declared an Underground Utility District, and is designated as such in the City of Chula Vista.
Attached hereto, marked Exhibit "A", and incorporated herein by reference is a map delineating the
boundaries of said District.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council shall, by subsequent resolution, fix the
date on which affected property owners must be ready to receive underground service, and does
hereby order the removal of all poles, overhead wires and associated overhead structures and the
underground installation of wires and facilities for supplying electric, communication or similar
associated service within said Underground Utility District.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby instructed to notify all affected
utilities and all persons owning real property within said Underground Utility District of the adoption
ol'this resolution within fifteen days after the date of said adoption. Said City Clerk shall further
notify said property owners of the necessity that, if they or any person occupying such property
desires to continue to receive electric, communication or other similar or associated service, they, or
such occupant shall, by the date fixed in a subsequent resolution provide all necessary facility
changes on their premises so as to receive such service from the lines of the supplying utility or
utilities at a new location, subject to the applicable rules, regulations and tariffs of the respective
1
utility or utilities on file with the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California as of the date
of adoption of this resolution. Such notification shall be made by mailing a copy ofthis resolution to
affected property owners as shown on the last equalized assessment roll and to the affected utility
companies.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby finds that the Underground
Utility District herein created is in the general public interest for the following reasons:
1. East "J" Street is a two-lane major west/east thoroughfare between ~Che western and
eastern portions of Chula Vista. The undergrounding of existing overhead utilities
will contribute to the creation of an aesthetically pleasing major street.
2. The segment of East "J' Street is classified in the General Plan's Circulation
Elements as a Class II Collector street.
3. In addition to single family residential, the district fronts along Halecrest Elementary
School, McCandiss Park, Hilltop High School, Fire Station #2, and a commercial
site.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby authorize the use of
approximately $1,600,000 in utility allocation funds to cover the cost of pole removal,
undergrounding overhead facilities, and private property conversion reimbursements.
Presented by Approved as to form by
Cliff Swanson John M. Kaheny
Director of Public Works City Attorney
J:\Attorney\RESO\UUD establish 138.doc
2
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item q
Meeting Date 2/11/03
ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing to consider the adoption of an Ordinance for Otay Ranch
Village 11, Pedestrian Bridge Development Impact Fee and the Area of
Benefit.
Resolution Accepting a report prepared by Development
Planning and Financing Group recommending a Pedestrian Bridge
Development Impact Fee to fund Pedestrian Bridge Improvements within
Otay Ranch Village 11.
Ordinance Establishing a Pedestrian Bridge Development
Impact Fee Program for Otay Ranch Village 11 and the Area of Benefit.
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Engineeringj,~/
REVIEWED BY: City Manager~.I -tn,/ (4/5ths Vote: Yes X No )
The Otay Ranch Village 11 Tentative Map conditions of development require the establishment of a
Development impact Fee (DIF) or other funding mechanism to construct two pedestrian bridges
serving Village 11. The developer (Brookfield Shea Otay, LLC) has requested the formation of a
Development Impact Fee. The proposed Pedestrian Bridge DIF Ordinance contained herein will
fund 50% of the cost of two bridges serving Village 11, one crossing Hunte Parkway and one
crossing Eastlake Parkway. The other halves of these bridges will be funded by the adjacent projects
as a condition of development. The total cost estimate for the Eastlake Parkway and Hunte Parkway
bridges are $1,254,000 and $2,131,000 respectively. The fee, payable at issuance of a building
permit, will be $827 per single-family detached ("SFD") dwelling unit and $614 per multi family
dwelling ("MF").
RECOMMENDATION: That Council:
1. Conduct the Public Hearing;
2. Approve the Resolution accepting the report prepared by Development Planning and
Financing Group titled "City of Chula Vista, Pedestrian Bridge Development Impact Fee,
Report for Otay Ranch Village 11" dated February 1,2003;
3. Approve the Ordinance establishing a Pedestrian Bridge Development Impact Fee Program
for Otay Ranch Village 11 and the Area of Benefit.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not Applicable
DISCUSSION:
Pedestrian Bridges and Village Connectivity
The Otay Ranch Village Eleven Sectional Planning Area ("SPA") Plan - Parks, Recreation, Open
Space, and Trails Master Plan has been designed, in part, to promote pedestrian and bicycle trials as
Page 2, Item
Meeting Date 2/11/03
alternatives to using an automobile to access the village core and neighboring SPA's. Pedestrian
trails have also been designed to provide access to schools, parks, residential neighborhoods, and
open space within villages, as well as between SPA's. The pedestrian bridges are an integral part of
the pedestrian trail system.
There are two proposed Pedestrian Over Crossings (POC) for the Otay Ranch Village 11: Hunte
Parkway POC and Eastlake Parkway POC. The Hunte Parkway POC crosses Hunte Parkway, a
Prime Arterial, to provide access to Village 10 (University Village). The bridge is aligned with one
of the Village 11 pathways and is approximately 556 feet in length. The Eastlake Parkway POC is
located approximately 350' north of the intersection with Hunte Parkway, and has a total length of
approximately 295 feet. It crosses Eastlake Parkway, a Prime Arterial/Ranch Theme street,
providing access to Village 12 (Eastern Urban Center) located to the west. Both bridges are
proposed to provide a 10 foot wide walkway and a total vertical clearance of 18 feet 6 inches.
Area of Benefit
The area of benefit for this DIF is the entirety of Village 11 as shown in Exhibit 1. The Eastlake
Parkway Bridge crosses Eastlake Parkway between Olympic Parkway and Hunte Parkway and
serves to connect the existing pedestrian trail system within the Freeway Commercial/Easter Urban
Center to the planned pedestrian trail system within Village 11. Land within Village 11 will benefit
from the installation of this bridge primarily due to: (i) its location and proximity to the bridge, and
(ii) its ease of access to the bridge based on the trail configuration. The portion of the bridge not
funded by this DIF will be borne by the developer of Eastern Urban Center developments.
The Hunte Parkway Bridge crosses Hunte Parkway about equal distance between Eastlake Parkway
and the SDG&E and San Diego County Water Authority Easement. This bridge serves to connect
the pedestrian trail system in Village 11 to the planned pedestrian trail system in Village 10
(University Village). Land within Villages 11 and I 0 will benefit from the installation of this bridge
primarily due to: (i) its location and proximity to the bridge, and (ii) its ease of access to the bridge
based on the trail configuration. It is anticipated that the portion of the bridge not funded by this DIF
will be a condition of development of Village 10.
Fee Allocation Among Land Uses
The proposed Pedestrian Bridge DIF uses the persons per household ("PPHF") factor to establish the
nexus between land use and benefit received from the construction of the bridges. The "PPHF"
factor is the same factor the City uses to calculate parkland dedication and were recently modified
by Ordinance No. 2886 (Sec 17.10.040 of the Municipal Code). According to Section 17.10.040,
there are two residential land use categories: single family and multiple-family. The single family
rate is 3.52 persons per dwelling unit the multiple family rate is 2.61 persons per dwelling unit. The
new Ped. Bridge DIF will be based on the new ratio of single family to multiple family persons per
dwelling unit, which sets the multiple family rate at 74% of the single family rate. For purposes ~f
the Ped Bridge DIF, a single unit is defined as a residential unit within a planning area or
neighborhood that has a gross tentative map density o f 8 units or less per acre. A multiple family unit
is within a planning area or neighborhood with a density of more that 8 units per acre. The fee,
payable at issuance ora building perinit, will be $827 per single-family detached ("SFD") dwelling
unit and $614 per multi family dwelling ("MF"). Non-residential land uses are exempt from the
proposed fee.
Page 3, Item ~
Meeting Date 2/11/03
Meetings with the Master Developer
The developer, Brookfield Shea Otay, LLC, has requested the formation of this development Impact
Fee to meet the conditions of development and funded the Pedestrian Bridge Development Impact
Fee Report. Staff has reviewed the report and recommends Council approval.
Environmental Review
The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed activity for compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the activity is not a "Project"
as defined under Section 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines; therefore, pursuant to Section
15060(c)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines the activity is not subject to CEQA. Although
environmental review is not necessary at this time, environmental review will be required prior to the
approval of final design plans and the awarding of construction contracts for facilities funded
through Pedestrian Bridge Development Impact Fee.
FISCAL IMPACT: The revenue of this Ped Bridge Development Impact Fee, will be maintained
separately from the general fund. The developer has paid for all costs related to the preparation of
the Report. The perpetual maintenance costs associated with Village 1 l's pedestrian bridges
(lighting and graffiti removal) are budgeted in Community Facilities District 09M.
Exhibits: 1. Pedestrian Bridge Facility Map
2. Area of Benefit
Attachment: Pedestrian Bridge DIF Report
J:\EngineerXaGENDA~Ped Bridge Ordinance for Village I I second dralLdoc
EXHIBIT 1
PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE ~VEL~NT IMPA~T FEE REPORT
MAP OF PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE LOCATIONS
SALT
CREEK
OPEN
SPACE
ROAD
Hunte
Parkway
< Bridge
~ LEGEND
Village Entxy Street
Potential Trails
· · · · · · o Village Pathvcay
~ o o o o o - Village Corc Pr0mcnade St~¢t
~ Village Core Street
...... Residential Promenade S~eet
V½11age Residential S~reet
East Lake Pa~way Bddg~ ~ Village Greenway
~ Chula Visla G~enbelt
p m~m Park / Recreation facilily
O~ ~ Open Space
'*' ''* Proposed Pedestrian Bridge
Parks, Recreation, Open Space & Trails Plan
Brooldleld Shea Otay, LLC
Exhibit 2
Pedestrian Bridge Development Impact Fee Report
Area of Benefit
PRES~a~
SF 4
Area o['Benefit ~
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE
REPORT FOR OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 11
FEBRUARY 1"1, 2003
Prepared by:
Development Planning & Financing Group
27127 Calle Arroyo, Suite 1910
San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE REPORT
INDEX
DESCRIPTION PAGE
1. Background and Purpose of Report 2
2. Description of Pedestrian Bridges and Cost Estimates 3
3. Area of Benefit 4
4. Development within the Area of Benefit 5
5. Pedestrian Bridge Development Impact Fee Methodology 6
Map of Pedestrian Bridge Locations Exhibit 1
Area of Benefit Exhibit 2
Summary of Pedestrian Bridge Development Impact Fee Exhibit 3
Pedestrian Bridge Planning Study (Simon Wong
Engineering, dated June 20, 2002) Exhibit 4
Pedestrian Bridge Development Impact Fee Ordinance Exhibit 5
Village 11 Pedeslhan Bridge Development Impact Fee Report
Febmary 11, 2003 ~'~ ~'/'7 Pagel
1. Background and Purpose of Report
The Pedestrian Bridge Development Impact Fee Report ("Report") is being prepared at
the request of Brookfield Shea Otay, LLC ("Brookfield Shea"). In connection with
developing residential and non-residential property in Village 11, the Brookfield Shea
area is currently conditioned or will be conditioned through the mapping process to
construct two pedestrian bridges. The enactment of a pedestrian bridge development
impact fee is one method of securing a reimbursement process for landowners that
construct facilities in excess of their fee obligations.
It is the City's intent that the cost of the two pedestrian bridges be shared among the
various beneficiaries of such bridges. The purpose of the Report is to determine an
appropriate pedestrian bridge development impact fee based on the cost of the two
pedestrian bridges, the area of benefit, the type of land use and its corresponding benefit.
The two bridges described in this Report are considered an additional facility need of the
City arising as a result of new development. Government Code Section 66000 requires
that a City establish a reasonable relationship or "nexus" between a development project
or class of development projects, and the public improvements for which a development
impact fee is charged.
To meet the requirements of Government Code 66000, the Report must demonstrate
compliance with the following items:
Identify the propose of the fee;
Identify the use to which the fee will be put;
Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the fee's use and
the type of development project on which the fee is imposed (i.e., a "type"
nexus); and
Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the
public facility and the type of development project on which the fee is
imposed (i.e., a "burden" nexus). In addition, when a city imposes a fee as a
condition of development approval, it must determine how there is a
reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the
public facility or portion of that facility attributable to the development on
which the fee is imposed.
Government Code Section 66000 also requires that a public agency segregate and
account for the fees received separate from the general fund. Additionally, if a public
agency has had possession of a developer fee for five years or more and has not
committed or expended the funds for a public facility, then the public agency must make
a finding describing the continuing need for the fees each fiscal year after the five year
period has expired.
Village 11 Pedes~ian Bridge Development Impact Fee Report
Febmary l 1, 2003 ~,~ Page2
2. Description of Pedestrian Bridges and Cost Estimates
The two pedestrian bridges included within this Report are described as follows: (i)
Hunte Parkway, and (ii) Eastlake Parkway. The location of each bridge is depicted on
the map attached to this Report as Exhibit 1. Also, included on the map in Exhibit 1 is
the Village 11 pathway system and its linkage with the pedestrian bridges described in
this Report. A summary of the total estimated cost of constructing each bridge, including
soft cost are summarized as follows:
Hunte Pky Eastlake Pky.
Bridge Bridge
Hard Cost:
Construction Cost $ 1,211,447 $ 713,075
Contingency @ 25% 302,862 178,269
Total Hard Cost 1,514,309 891,344
Soft Cost:
Design Cost ~ 15% 227,146 133,702
Construction & Special Inspection
Cost ~ 15% 227,146 133,702
Project Admin. (Audit) ~ 2% 30,286 17,827
Program Adm/nistration ~ 5% 75,715 44,567
Contingency ~ 10% 56,029 32,980
Total Soft Cost 616,322 362.777
Total Hard & Soft Cost $2.130.631 $1.254.121
The hard construction cost estimate for each bridge was prepared by Simon Wong
Engineering, and the details of such estimate are described in Exhibit 4. The two bridges
will be constructed using cast-in-place reinforced concrete. Aesthetic features include
columns and abutments with simulated stone fascia, rectangular columns with a 2-way
taper, walkway accent lighting and concrete stain on exposed concrete surfaces. The
Hunte Parkway Bridge is planned to be 12 feet wide with a 10 foot wide walkway, a total
vertical clearance of 18 feet 6 inches, and 556 feet in length. The Eastlake Parkway
Bridge is planned to be 12 feet wide with a 10 foot wide walkway, a total vertical
clearance of 18 feet 6 inches, and 295 feet in length. A hard cost contingency factor of
25% has been applied to both the Hunte Parkway Bridge and the Eastlake Parkway
Bridge.
The design cost includes the cost of preparing design-related plans, including the cost
associated with checking and reviewing such plans. The construction and special
inspection cost includes the City inspection cost and the cost of retaining an outside finn
with special experience in bridge inspections. The project administration cost includes
the City's cost associated with verifying and auditing bridge expenditures and related
documentation. The program administration cost includes the City's cost associated with
monitoring and updating this fee program including, but not limited to, tracking building
permits and changes in land use, collecting the fee, and revising cost estimates to ensure
the adequacy of this fee program.
Village 11 Pedestrian Bridge Development Impact Fee Report
February 11, 2003 ~ Page3
3. Area of Benefit
The Otay Ranch Village Eleven Sectional Planning Area ("SPA") Plan - Parks,
Recreation, Open Space, and Trails Master Plan has been designed, in part, to promote
the pedestrian and bicycle trials as alternatives to using an automobile to access the
village core, neighboring SPA's, which will serve as the commercial hub for Village 11
and the Otay Valley Regional Park. A map depicting the General Development Plan land
uses of Village 11 is enclosed in Exhibit 2. Pedestrian trails have also been designed to
provide access to schools, parks, residential neighborhoods, and open space within
villages, as well as between SPA's. The pedestrian bridges described in this Report are
an integral part of the pedestrian trail system for the system to operate as designed.
The Eastlake Parkway Bridge crosses Eastlake Parkway between Olympic Parkway and
Hunte Parkway near the intersection of Birch Road and serves to connect the existing
pedestrian trail system within Freeway Commercial/Easter Urban Center to the planned
pedestrian trail system within Village 11. Land within Village 11 will benefit from the
installation of this bridge primarily due to: (i) its location and proximity to the bridge, and
(ii) its ease of access to the bridge based on the trail configuration. One half of the
Eastlake Parkway Bridge cost will be included in a future pedestrian bridge development
impact fee program prepared for the Freeway CommerciaVEastem Urban Center.
The Hunte Parkway Bridge crosses Hunte Parkway about equal distance between
Eastlake Parkway and the SDG&E and San Diego County Water Authority Easement.
This bridge serves to connect the pedestrian trail system in Village 11 to the planned
pedestrian trail system in Village 10 (University Village). Land within Villages 11 and
10 will benefit from the installation of this bridge primarily due to: (i) its location and
proximity to the bridge, and (ii) its ease of access to the bridge based on the trail
configuration. It is anticipated that one-half of the Hunte Parkway Bridge cost will be
included in a future pedestrian bridge development impact fee program to be prepared for
Village 10 prior to developing this area.
A smmnary of the two pedestrian bridges and the three areas of benefit ("AOB") based
on the discussion above are as follows.
Hunte Parkway Eastlake Pky.
Bridge Bridl~e
Village 11 AOB AOB
Village 10 AOB(a)
Freeway AOB(a)
CommerciaVEastem
Urban Center
(a) This Village will be included in a furore pedestrian bridge impact
fee program to fund fi of the cost of the applicable bridge.
Village 11 Pedestrian Bridge Development Impact Fee Report
February 11,2003 ~'~ ~' ] 0 Page4
4. Development within the Area of Benefit
The properties within the AOB described in this Report are in various stages of the
entitlement process. Property within the AOB has development approvals ranging from
General Plan Designation to a Tentative Map. An "A" Map allows the transfer of
ownership of individual neighborhood areas. A "B" Map functions as a final map and
allows property owners to obtain building permits and create individual lots. The current
entitlement status and land use for property within the AOB by Village, is as follows:
Brookfield/Shea Otay LLC:
>' Village 11: This area is at Tentative Map entitlement status and consists of
2,282 residential units, 4.4 acres of community purpose facility, 2.9 acres of
mixed use and 7.7 acres of parks. Approval of"B" Maps which function as a
final map and allows property owners to obtain building permits and create
individual lots is anticipated in the near furore.
The approved tentative tract map land uses for Village 11 for residential dwelling units
and non-residential acres are described in greater detail in Exhibit 3. The land use
assumptions in Exhibit 3 will serve as the basis for allocating the benefit of the two
pedestrian bridges and determining the pedestrian bridge development impact fee in this
Report.
The residential land uses within Village 11 will have different degrees of benefit fi.om the
installation of the two pedestrian bridges. Residential units containing larger square
footage will typically hold more people per household than the residential units
containing smaller square footage. As such, residential units with a larger number of
people per household will inure greater benefit fi.om using the pedestrian trail system and
its two bridges than residential units with a smaller number of people per household. The
City utilizes people per household factors ("PPHF") in determining the mount of
parkland dedication required by new development projects pursuant to City Ordinance,
Chapter 17.10, as modified and approved on November 12, 2002. The PPHF used in
Chapter 17.10 can serve as a reasonable method of allocating the bridge benefit to
different residential uses. Chapter 17.10.040 applies PPHF to the following residential
USES:
I Single Family Detached ("SFD") 3.52 people per household
Multi Family ("MF") 2.61 people per household
For purposes of clarification and the ease of program administration, we have developed
the following definitions for the above mentioned residential land use categories:
"SFD" means a single residential unit on a single assessor's parcel in within a tract with a
density of less than or equal to 8 residential units per acre.
Village 11 Pedestrian Bridge Development Impact Fee Report
February 11, 2003 ~ "' I/ Page5
"MF" means any residential unit within a tract with a density greater than 8 residential
units per acre.
For purposes of allocating the bridge benefit to different types of residential uses, the
PPHF's described in the preceding table were used in this Report. Brookfield Shea has
provided, as noted in Exhibit 3, the estimated residential product types anticipated to be
developed for each planning area.
The non-residential property consisting of mixed use, community purpose facility,
schools, and parks is considered to inure insignificant benefit from the installation of the
two bridges. A small number of employees related to the mixed use and community
purpose facility uses may utilize the pedestrian trail system and its two bridges for fitness
and recreation purposes during and after work hours, however the degree of this use and
benefit inured to these types of properties is considered immaterial and insignificant. The
school and park uses are designed to serve and accommodate the residential users in the
villages. These land uses do not generate pedestrian trail users, instead their purpose is to
serve or accommodate the residential users in the villages. As such, mixed use,
community purpose facility, school and park uses within Village 11 are considered
exempt from the pedestrian bridge fee obligation described in this Report.
5. Pedestrian Bridge Development Impact Fee Methodology
The Steps or methodology used to develop the pedestrian bridge development impact fee
applicable to residential units within Village 11 is as follows:
Step 1: Determine the total construction cost estimate for each of the two bridges.
Step 2: Multiply the total construction cost estimate of the Eastlake Parkway Bridge
from Step 1 by 50 % to account for costs allocable to Freeway Commercial and
Eastern Urban Center in connection with an existing development impact fee
program. Multiply the total construction cost estimate of the Hunte Parkway Bridge
from Step 1 by 50% to account for costs allocable to Village 10 in connection with a
future development impact fee program.
Step 3: Subtract from the total construction cost estimate in Step 1 the cost estimate
in Step 2 to determine the net bridge cost estimate allocable to Village 11.
Step 4: For each bridge and corresponding AOB, determine the total number of
people per planning area by multiplying the actual and/or planned residential units
within the planning area by the applicable PPI-IF.
Step 5: For each bridge and corresponding AOB, determine the total number of
people within the AOB by summing the results of each planning area from Step 4.
Step 6: For each bridge and corresponding AOB, determine the bridge cost allocable
to a planning area by multiplying the applicable bridge cost in Step 3 by the fi.action
Village 11 Pedestrian Bridge Development Impact Fee Report
February 11, 2003 ~ ' I ~ Page6
obtained by dividing the total number of people per planning area as determined in
Step 4 by the total number of people within the AOB as determined in Step 5.
Step 7: For each bridge and corresponding AOB, determine the applicable bridge
cost per residential unit by dividing the bridge cost allocable to the planning area as
determined in Step 6 by the actual and/or planned residential units within each
planning area.
Step 8: For each bridge and corresponding AOB, determine the combined cost of all
bridges per residential unit by aggregating the results of Step 7 for all bridges and
related AOB.
Exhibit 3 outlines on a detailed basis the methodology used to calculate the pedestrian
bridge development impact fee applicable to residential units within Village 11.
Village 11 Pedestrian Bridge Development Impact Fee Report
February 11,2003 ~ - I ~ Page7
EXHIBIT 1
PEDESTRIAN BRID~ DEVEL~ BiiPJ~CT FEE REPORT
MAP OF PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE LOCATIONS
SALT
CRE~K
OPeN
SPACE
BIRCH ROAD
< Bridge
"~' LEGEND
Village Enu'y Street
Potential Trails
· · · · · · o Village Pathway
o o o o o o - Village Core Promenade Street
~0 Village Core Sm:et
...... Residential Promenade Street
Village Residential Street
East Lake Parkway Bridge m Village Oreenway
~ Chula Vista Greenbelt
? I Park / Recreation facility
O~ ~ Open Space
'-" ~ Proposed Pedeslfian Bridge
Parks, Recreation, Open Space & Trails Plan
Brookfield Shea Otay, LLC
Exhibit 2
Pedestrian Bridge Development Impact Fee Report
Area of Benefit
$F3
SF 4 ~-
SF4
EXHIBIT 3
SUMMARY OF PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE DEVELOPMENT
IMPACT FEE PER UNIT
Hunte Eastlake
Parkway Parkway
Bridge Bridge Total
Village Eleven:
SFD - Fee per Unit $521 $307 I $827
MF - Fee per Unit $386 $227 [ $614
Date: 2/11/03 t ' [~
EXHIBIT 3
CALCULATION OF PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE
HUNTE PARKWAY BRIDGE
Total
Pemons No. of
per Persons per Cost per
Planning Product Household Household Planning Cost per
Area Type Density Units Ac~es Factor (1) * (2) Area Unit
(1) (2)
Village Eleven:
R~I SFD 8.4 163 19.4 3.52 573.8 $84,903 $521
R-2 SFD 4.4 47 10.6 3.52 165.4 24,481 521
R-3 SFD 4.1 46 11.1 3.52 161.9 23,960 521
R-4 SFD 5.6 55 9.8 3.52 193.6 28,648 521
R-5 SFD 6.0 34 5.7 3.52 119.7 17,710 521
R-6 SFD 6.1 38 6.2 3.52 133.8 19,793 521
R-7 SFD 7.8 67 8.6 3.52 235.8 34,899 521
R-8 SFD 7.1 58 8.2 3.52 204.2 30,211 521
R-9 SFD 7.0 60 8.6 3.52 211.2 31,253 521
R-10 SFD 6.7 89 13.2 3.52 313.3 46,358 521
R-11 SFD 6.0 34 5.7 3.52 119.7 17,710 521
R-I 2 SFD 6.9 57 8.3 3.52 200.6 29,690 521
R-13 SFD 6.0 54 9.0 3.52 190.1 28,127 521
R-14 SFD 6.6 54 8.2 3.52 190.1 28,127 521
R-15 SFD 8.3 67 8.1 3.52 235.8 34,899 521
R-16 SFD 9.7 59 6.1 3.52 207.7 30,732 521
R-17 SFD 7.6 118 15.5 3.52 415.4 61,463 521
R-18 MF 14.7 125 8.5 2.61 326.3 48,277 386
R-19 MF 12.9 167 12.9 2.61 435.9 64,498 386
R-20 SFD 8.2 78 9.5 3.52 274.6 40,628 521
R-21 SFD 8.1 95 11.8 3.52 334.4 49,483 521
R-22 MF 12.8 105 8.2 2.61 274.1 40,553 386
R-23 SFD 7.1 119 16.7 3.52 418.9 61,984 521
R-24 MF 13.5 169 12.5 2.61 441.1 65,271 386
R-25 MF 23.0 200 8.7 2.61 522.0 77,243 386
MU-1 MF 11.5 115 10.0 2.61 300.2 44,415 386
CPF-I CPF 4.4
P-1 Park 7.7
MU - 1 Comm. 2.9
Grand Total Village Eleven 2,273 276.1 7,199.3 $1,065,316
1,065,316
2,130,631
Date: 2/11/03
EXHIBIT 3
CALCULATION OF PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE
EASTLAKE PARKWAY BRIDGE
Total
Persons No. of
per Persons per Cost per
Planning Product Household Household Planning Cost per
Area Type Densit~ Units Acres Factor (1) * (2) Area Unit
(1) (2)
Village Eleven:
I:{-1 SFD 8.4 163 19.4 3.52 573,8 $49,975 $307
R-2 SFD 4.4 47 10.6 3.52 165.4 14,410 307
R-3 SFD 4.1 46 11.1 3.52 161,9 14,103 307
R-4 SFD 5.6 55 9.8 3.52 193.6 16,863 307
R-5 SFD 6.0 34 5.7 3.52 119.7 10,424 307
R-6 SFD 6.1 38 6.2 3.52 133.8 11,651 307
R-7 SFD 7.8 67 8.6 3.52 235.8 20,542 307
R-8 SFD 7.1 58 8.2 3.52 204.2 17,782 307
R-9 SFD 7.0 60 8.6 3.52 211.2 18,396 307
R-10 SFD 6.7 89 13.2 3.52 313.3 27,287 307
R-11 SFD 6.0 34 5.7 3.52 119.7 10,424 307
R-12 SFD 6.9 57 8.3 3.52 200.6 17,476 307
R-13 SFD 6.0 54 9.0 3.52 190,1 16,556 307
R-14 SFD 6,6 54 8.2 3,52 190.1 16,556 307
R-15 SFD 8.3 67 8.1 3.52 235.8 20,542 307
R-16 SFD 9.7 59 6.1 3.52 207.7 18,089 307
R-17 SFD 7.6 118 15.5 3.52 415.4 36,178 307
R-18 MF 14.7 125 8.5 2.61 326.3 28,417 227
R-19 MF 12.9 167 12.9 2.61 435.9 37,965 227
R-20 SFD 8.2 78 9.5 3,52 274.6 23,914 307
R-21 SFD 8.1 95 11.8 3.52 334.4 29,127 307
R-22 MF 12.8 105 8.2 2,61 274.1 23,870 227
R-23 SFD 7.1 119 16.7 3.52 418.9 36,485 307
R-24 MF 13.5 169 12.5 2.61 441.1 38,419 227
R-25 MF 23.0 200 8.7 2.61 522.0 45,467 227
MU-1 MF 11.5 115 10.0 2.61 300.2 26,143 227
CPF-1 CPF 4.4
P-1 Park 7.7
MU - 1 Comm. 2.9
Grand Total Village Eleven 2,273 276.1 7,199.3 $627,060
EXHIBIT 4
Pedestrian Bridge Planning Study
SIMON WONG ENGINEERING
May16,2002
Brookfield Homes
12865 Pointe Del Mar, Suite 200
Del Mar, CA 92014-3859
Attention: Dale Gleed
SUBJECT: OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 11 PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE PLANNING STUDY
Dear Mr. Gleed:
Simon Wong Engineering is pleased to provide the Draft Otay Ranch Village 11 Pedestrian
Bddge Planning Study, for your review and comment.
Included in the study are recommended design features, cost estimates, elevation and plan
views for the following structures:
· Hunte Parkway POC
· Eastlake Parkway POC
Cost estimates for the approach trails and grading of embankment slopes were not included in
this report.
If we can be of further assistance, please call.
Andrew N. Sanford, P.E.
Simon Wong Engineering
Attachments
U:V~dy~Planning Study~letterl.doc ~'~ '~l
9968 Hibert Street, Suite 202 · San Diego, GA 92131 · (858) 566-3113 · FAX (858) 566-6844
OTAY RANCH VII.LAGE 11 PLANNING STUDY
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Two bridges am proposed for Otay Ranch Village 11. In order to define the bridge
configuration, material types, architectural features, and approximate costs, Simon
Wong Engineering has prepared this Planning Study. The results am summarized
beto~.
Bridge G~
The two bridges are on a tangent alignment, 0° skew, with Hunte Parkway, and Eastlake
Parkway. Each brklge is assumed to be 12' wide with a 10' clear walkway, with the
anticipated bridge lengths as follows:
· Hunte Parkway POC - 556' long
· Eastlake Pankway POC - 295' long
structure Type and Es~ma~
The architectural theme for Otay Ranch Village 11 is based upon the designs of Irvin
Gill. To closely resemble this style and to match existing stmcturas, currantiy located
within the Otay Ranch Community, Cast-in-Place Reinforced Cormmte was selected as
the building material for both structures.
The total project cost for both bridges is as follows:
Bridge Hunte Eastlake
Parkway Parkway
Bridge Construction Estimate $1,515,000 $892,000
Construcaon Total: $1~515~000 $892~000
~,dd-on Costs $150,000 $150,000
Averse cost per lineal foot brid~le ($/LF) $ 2,995 $ 3,532
Design Features
A number of design features were included in the costs noted above. These features ara
intended to resemble the architectural style of Irvin Gill.
· Haunched girders in each span
· Rectangular columns with arched opening at each bent
· Flat exterior face of b~lge without overhangs
· Column capitals at each bent
OTAY RANCH VIIJ~AGE 11 PLANNING STUDY
A. INTRODUCTION
Simon Wong Engineering is pleased to present this Planning Study for the Otay Ranch
Village 11 Pedestrian Overcrossings. Our scope of work for this phase of the project
includes a study of possible b~dge material types, span arrangements, and aitemative
aesthetic features. Based upon comments from Dale Gleed of Brookfield homes,
selected features have been included in this study.
Thero are two Pedestrian Overcrossings (POC) proposed for the Otay Ranch Village 11:
· Hunte Parkway POC
· Eastlake Pad(way POC
For this study, both the Hunte Parkway POC and Easitake Parkway POC
superstroclures are comprised of two haunched exte~or girders supporting the walkway
between them.
The Hunte Parkway POC crosses Hunte Parkway, a PHme Arterial / Ranch Theme
street, to provide access to the Salt Creek Open Space Preserve and University site.
The bridge is aligned with one of the Village 11 pathways that provide pedestrian access
throughout the Otay Ranch Community, with an approximate length of r~6'. The
Eastlake Parkway POC is located approximately 350' north of the intersection with
Hunte Parkway, and ha~ a total length of appro)dmately 295'. It crosses Eestlake
Parkway, a Prime Arterial I Ranch Theme street, providing access to Village 12 located
to the east.
B. Bridge Geomst~j
The bridge layouts are based on information provided by Hunsaker & Associates, with
P&D Consultants providing assumed characteristics of Village12 located to the east.
Both bridges are assumed to be on tangent alignments and cross the roadways at a 90°
angle (0° skew). It is anticipated that the Hunte Parkway structure will have a long
pathway leading to the structure on the north, but will require a ramping portion on the
south due to unce~taintlas in the future grading of the University Site. The Eastlake
Parkway structure is anticipated to have long pathways leading up to the structure on
both sides of the bridge.
Due to the preliminapj nature of the project grading plans, the bridge locations and
lengths aro approximate. Assumptions have been made for the grading, which may
result in an overestimation of the bridge lengths and project costs. Adjustments to the
grading on the south side of Hunte Parkway that would provide an embankment slope
would shorten the bridge considerably. The construction of fill embankments, where
space is available, is usually less expensive than the building of a bridge structure.
The horizontal clearance at each bridge was based on requirements found in the
Caitrans HiClhWa¥ Design Manual and the Caitrans Bridge DesiRn Aids Manual. Columns
adjacent to the roadway shoulders and within the median will require Metal Beam Guard
Railing (MBGR) or equivalent protection for the traveling public. In order to resemble the
Irving Gill style, columns are proposed adjacent to the outside shoulders and within the
16' median for both bridges, (see Diagram 1).
OTAY RANCH VII J~AGF_, I1 PLANNING STUDY
The vertical O~,arance at each b~dge was also based on requirements found in the
Caltrans Hi;IhWay Desitin Manuat and the Caltrens Bridqe Design Aids Manual. The
standard minimum vertical clearance from the traveled way below a freeway or
expressway is 16'-6'. With an assumed posted sFccd of 45 MPH, Hunte Pad;way and
Eastlake Parkway should both be considered expressways. For pedestrian
overc,-oseings, the standard of practice is to add 2' to the minimum required height for a
total vertical clearance in this case of 18'-6' (See Diagram 1). The additional vertical
clearance is jusW~u:l by the higher probabi~'y of significant structural damage to the
bridge in the event of an impact with an oversized vehicle. Both the bridges will meet or
exceed this minimum clearance.
The bridge profile grades define the elevation change along the length of the structure
and provide for drainage of the walkway sun'ace. The maximum acceptable slope of the
walkway smface is 8.33% (or 1' in 12') with lendings provided for even~ 30' change in
elevation. In addition, a handrail for use by the disabled must be provided where the
slope is greater than 5%. For Eesflake Parkway, the assumed grading plans do not
require a change in elevation to meet the vertical ctearance over the roadway, and
therefore can be designed w~th relatively fiat prefiles. In order to minimize the
embankment heights and to provide for dr;dnage of the walkway sun~ce, the proposed
profile grade inctudes a maximum of 2%% siope on either side of the main b~ge span
and a parabctic curve transition between. At Hunte Parkway, a ramp system is proposed
for the south side of the structure with a maximum grade of 8.333% with intermediate
landings to accommodate access to the structure.
Determination of the walkway width for a pedest~an overorossing requires a site-specific
analysis. The width is not mandated by code except es required for disabled
accessibility. However, the standard of practice is to provide a minimum clear width of 8'
for all overcrossing structures. Currently the structure located across La Media Road has
a clear walkway width of 15'. Other Planning Studies have been completed that identify
10' clear walkways for structures that cross Olympic Parkway and La Media Road. For
the two bridges included in this p~anning study, cost estimates ara provided for 10' clear
walkway widths for both Hunte Parkway and Eestiake Parkway.
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 11 PLANNING STUDY
In summary for the two structures, the following assumptions were made:
,, Tangent alignment with 0° skew
· Columns located adjacent to the roadway and in the 16' median
· Minimum 18'-6" vedical clearance
· Maximum 2~A% profile grade without landings (Eastlake Parkway POC)
· Maximum 8.333% profila grade with Landings (Hunte Pad(way POC)
· Walkway widths of 10'-0'
C. Superstructure Type
The most important type ~ decision for a bridge project is the superstructure
material type and configuration. It is also the decision that will define the character of the
bridge. There am many possible mate~al types and construction methods available for
this project. The following table lists some of the options:
PEDESTRIAN OVERCROSSING STRUCTURE TYPES
TYPE COST COMMENTS
Concrete 70-140 Details and form work simplast of any type. Best
Slab for short spans lass than 60' fo; POCs.
Concrete 80-140 Id~xe complicated form wo~ but economical for
T-Beam spans of 50' - 80' for POCs.
Concrete 90-165 Best suited for spans of 50' - 120'. Clean lines
Box Girder and good appearance. Usually more ecor~mical
than steel or pracest ccmcrete girders.
Post- 100-180 Sim~r to non-post-tensioned option but can be
Tension used for spans up to 600'.
Box Girder
Precast 110-190 Good for araas where falsework is difficult to
I-Gi~ders place for widenings with iow verflcat clearance.
Span ran~ from 50' - 120'.
Steel 120-220 Similar to precast I-Girdem for use, but in~dal cost
Girder is ~enemlly higher and requires periodic painting.
Stee; ~20-500 ~~Oes ~ ~; Po~.
Truss Optional self-weathe~ng finish has "rural"
painting. Falsework not required for installation.
Timber 120-500 Glo-lam members allow for longer span and
Truss economical stmcturas. Can achieve 'rural' look.
Based on previous comments by Bmokfietd Homes, to ~bte the architectural style
of Iwin Gill, the selected superstructure type for Hunte Parkway POC and Eastlake
Parkway POC is cast-in-place reinforced concre{e with haunched exterior girdem
supporting the pathway above. At the supports each structure is supported on multi-
column bents with an arched opening between them.
Page 4
OTAY RANCH VII.I.&GE 11 PLANNING STUDY
The superstructure configuration for Hunte Parkway and Easflake Pad~vay match the
architectural styling of Irving Gill. Gill's use of simple forms, arches, colonnades, and
smooth finishes are included in these structures. Existing pedestrian structures located
within the Villages of Otay Ranch utilize stained concrete on the superstructure and
stone facade at the abutmen~s and columns. These features are not present in the
Hunte Padre/ay and Eastlake Parkway structures. However the common use of arches,
rectangular columns, and reinforced concrete will tie the structures together visually.
The concrete bridge type is typically the lowest in initial cost, has a design life span of
over 75 years, and has relatively Iow maintenance costs. Concrete can be colored or
stained to achieve a weathered look otto meet other aesthetic goals. Architectural
treatment can also be added to the vertical faces. The walkway surface for the two
structures is a concrete deck. Examples of concrete pedest~an overcrossings are shown
in Figures 1, 2, and 3.
Figure 1 Figure 2
Leucadia Boulevard POC Calle Barcelona POC
Figure 3
La Media Road POC
OTAY RANCH V~LAGE 11 PLANNING STUDY
Cost estimates for the bridges are as follows:
OTAY RANCH PEDESTRIAN OVERCROSSING
BRIDGE PLANNING STUDY
Bridge Hunte EasOake
Parkway Parkway
Bridge Construction Estimate $1,515,000 $892,000
ConstnJction Total: $1~515~000 $ 892,000
Add-on Costs $150~000 $150,000
Avera(~e cost per lineal foot brid~le (SA.F) $ 2~995 $ 3,532
Individual General Plan Estimates are included in Appendix A and include a 25%
contingency. Costs for the approach trails have not been included in the cost estiroate,
but b~lge railing, and bridge lighting has. The add-on costs have been estimated at
approximately $150,000 each and include bndge design, construction engineering, and
inspection. The actual add-on costs will be based on the final bridge type selection and
an approved consultant's cost proposal. Agency revie~ and permit fees are not included
in the cost estimates.
Although shallow spread footings were used for La Media Road POC, deep foundations
are assumed for all options in Village 11. Further refinement of the foundation system
estimate will proceed after detailed f'~=ld investigations of the subsurl=ace conditions are
completed. The foundations make up approximately 20% of the total bridge construction
D. Coluron Type
The selected column type for both bddges is a multi-coluron bent with rectangular
columns and arched opening between the columns. This simulates the colonnades of
Iwin Gill and creates an openness to the structures.
E. BHdge Railing and Lighting
The general requirements for the bridge handrailing are based on the Caltrans Highway
Design Manual and B~dge Design Aids Manual. Railings are necessary to prevent
pedestrians and bicyclists from accidentally falling from the structure.
In the case of overcrossings, protective railing is necessary to prevent objects from
being thrown, dropped or discharged onto the roadway below. VVhile it is not possible to
completely eliminate this sedous problem, installing a protective mesh on the portions of
the bndge over the roadway can significantly reduce the risk. A vinyl coated wire mesh
with 1' ma~mum size openings and an overall height of approximately 8' has been
adopted by Caltrans as the standard for this situation. Wire mesh alternatives include
vinyl coated steel chain-link and vinyl coated crimped wire mesh.
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 11 PLANNING STUDY
The minimum railing height assumed for these two structures is as follows:
· For bicycle and pedestrian railings: 4'-6"
· Over roadways: 8'-0' with protective screening
The selected bddge railing is similar to that on the existing structure over La Media
Road. This metal railing will may be colored to match existing railing found throughout
the Otay Ranch Villages.
The bridge lighting options are anticipated to be similar to those on La Media Road and
include walkway lighting along the approach trails and on the bridge.
Walkway lights are similar to streetlights but on a reduced scale. Final decision of the
style and location of the lighting will take place during the design of the bridge.
Maintenance of the lights, consisting of replacing ligM bulbs, will require the use of a
ladder for the walkway lights on the approach trails and bridge.
Bridge walkway surface lighting costs are generally between $75 - $170 per linear foot of
bridge, with a project total of approximately $130,000 for the bridge portion of this
project.
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 11 PLANNING STUDY
APPENDIX A
PLANNING STUDY ESTIMATES
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 11 PLANNING STUDY
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 11 PEDESTRIAN OVERCROSSING
PLANNING STUDY
Bridge Hunte Eastlake
Parkway Parkway
Bddge Construction Estimate $1,515,000 $892,000
Construction Total: $1,515,000 $892,000
Add-on Costs $150,000 $150,000
Avera~le cost per lineal foot bdd~le ($/LF)$2,995 $3,532
Total Project: $1,665,000 $1,042,000
Individual General Plan Estimates are included in Appendix A and include a 25%
contingency. The add-on costs have been estimated at approximately $150,000
for each bddge, and include bridge design, construction engineering, and
inspection. The actual add-on costs will be based on the final bddge type
selection and an approved consultant's cost proposal. Agency review and permit
fees are not included in the cost estimates.
PLANNING STUDY ESTIMATE (BRIDGE ITEMS)
ENGINEER: A. SANFORD COMPANY: SIMON WONG ENGINEERING
REVIEWED BY: DATE; 5/16/02
STRUCTURE: HUNTE PARKWAY PEDESTRAIN OVERCROS$1NG
LENGTH: 556'*(7 WIDTH: 12'-0' DECK AREA (SF): 6672
ITEM NO. I CONTRACT ITEMS I UNiT ~ QUANTITY PRICE AMOUNT
1 STRUCTURE EXCAVATION (~RIOGE) CY 468 $55.00 $25,740.00
2 STRUCTURE BACKFILL (BRIDGE) CY 284 $45.00 $]2,780.00
3 ;TRUCTURE EXCAVATION (RET WALL) CY 89 $40,00 $3,560.00
4 STRUCTURE BACKFILL (RET WALL) CY 274 $45.00 $12,330.00
5 STRUCTURAL CONCRETE, BRIDGE CY 771 $650.00 $501,150.00
6 ;TRUCTURAL CONCRETE, BRIDGE FOOTING CY 141 .~tO0.O0 $56,400.00
7 STRUCTURAL CO~CRETE, RET WALL CY 50 $350.00 $17,500.00
8 iAR REINFORCING STEEL (BRIDGE) LB ~74,050 $0.65 $113,132.50
9 BAR REINFORCING STEEL (RET WALL) LB 2,666 $0.65 $1,732.90
10 METAL BRIDGE RAILING (4'-6') LF 862 $70.00 $60,340.00
11 METAL BRIDGE RAILING (8'-0') LF 250 $165.00 $41,250.00
12 JOINT SEALS LF 24 $50,00 $1,200.00
13 PILES DRIVE (CLASS 70C) EA 62 $2,000.00 $124,000.00
14 PILES FURNISH (CLASS 70C) LF 1~o0 $20.00 $37,200.00
)*5 BRIDGE LIGHTING LS ! $85,000,00 $85,000.00
16 MINOR CONRETE (RAMPS) LS I $8,000.00 $8,000.00
SUBTOTAL $1,101,315.40
MOBILIZATION (10%) $110,131.54
SUBTOTAL $1,2] 1,446.94
CONTINGENCIES (25%) $302,861,74
TOTAL $1,514,30~,68
FOR BUDGET PURPOSE USE $1,515,000.00
SQ Fi* COST 181.57
COMMENTS:
Soils Repo~t has been Fovided.
Legend: CY -Cubic Yanls
LF - Unear Fec~
PLANNING STUDY ESTIMATE
ENGINEER: A. SANFORD COMPANY: SIMON WONG ENGINEERING
REVIEWED BY: DATE: 5/].3/02
STRUCTURE: EASTLAKE PARKWAY PEDESTRIAN OVER CROSSING
LENGTH: 295'*0' WIDTH: 12'-0' DECK AREA (SI:); 3540
,TE ,O. I CONT=CT,TE S I ON,TI I PR'CE I A OONT
2 STRUCTURE BACKFILL (BRIDGE) CY 190 $4.5.00 $8,550.00
3 STRUCTURAL CONCRETE, BRIDGE CY 460 $650.00 $299,000.00
4 STRUCTURAL CONCRETE, BRIDGE FOOTING CY 65 $400.00 $26,000,00
5 BAR REINFORCING STEEL (BRIDGE) LB 96,500 $0.75 $72,375.00
6 METAL BRIDGE RAILING 4'-6" LF 330 $100.00 $$3,000.00
7 METAL BRIDGE RAILING 8'*0' LF 260 $165.00 *~.2,900.00
8 JOINT SEALS LF 24 $50.00 $1,200.00
11 PILES DRIVE (CLASS 70C) EA 40 $2,000.00 $80,000.00
12 PILES FURNISH (CLASS 70C) LF 1200 $20.00 $24,000.00
13 BRIDGE LIGHTING LS I $45,000.00 $45,000.00
SUBTOTAL $648,250.00
MOBILIZATION (10%) $64,825.00
SUBTOTAL $713,075,00
CONTINGENCIES (25%) $178,268.75
TOTAL $891,3~.75
FOR BUDGET PURPOSE USE $892,000,00
SO FT COST 201.4:
COMMENTS:
Pile foundations assume with depth of pil~s and number of piles es§mated. Actual foundation will be determined during design
once Soils Repor~ has been provided.
Includes only bridge items of work. Site grading, Bridge embankment const~JcUon and metal beam guardrail not included in this estimate.
Legend: CY -Cubic Yards
EA- Each
LB - Pounds
LF. Linear Feet
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 11 PLANNING STUDY
APPENDIX B
CONCEPTUAL BRIDGE ELEVATIONS
1 +00.00
II
..m~ll (~'-~ H~
SECTION
SECTION
SIMON WONO
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA V1STA ACCEPTING A REPORT
PREPARED BY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING AND FiNANCiNG GROUP
RECOMMENDING A PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT
FEE TO FUND PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN OTAY
RANCH VILLAGE 11.
WHEREAS, the City retained Development Plamfing and Financing Group to prepare the
Pedestrian Bridge Development Impact Fee (Ped Bridge DIF); and
WHEREAS, the Otay Ranch Village Eleven Sectional Planning Area ("SPA") Plan -
Parks, Recreation, Open Space, and Trails Master Plan has been designed, in part, to promote the
pedestrian and bicycle trials as alternatives to using an automobile to access the village core and
neighboring SPA's; and
WHEREAS, pedestrian trails have also been designed to provide access to schools, parks,
residential neighborhoods, and open space within villages, as well as between SPA's and the
pedestrian bridges are an integral part of the pedestrian trail system; and
WHEREAS, the developer, Brookfield Shea Otay, LLC, has requested the formation of
the Development Impact Fee to meet the conditions of development and funded the Pedestrian
Bridge Development Impact Fee Report; and
WHEREAS, staff has reviewed the report and recommends 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) of the State CEQA Guidelines the activity is not
subject to CEQA; and
WHEREAS, although environmental review is not necessary at this time, environmental
review will be required prior to the approval of final design plans and the awarding of
construction contracts for facilities funded through Pedestrian Bridge Development Impact Fee.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula
Vista does hereby accept a report prepared by Development Planning and Financing Group titled
"City of Chula Vista, Pedestrian Bridge Development Impact Fee, Report for Otay Ranch
Village 11" dated February 11, 2003, recommending a Pedestrian Bridge Development Impact
Fee to fund Pedestrian Bridge hnprovements within Otay Ranch Village 11, a copy of which
shall be kept on file in the City Clerk's Office.
Presented by Approved as to fon~ by
Clifford L. Swanson John MJt4~th~/y
Director of Engineering City Attorney
.h/attomcyheso/Otay Ranch Village I I pod bzidgc
ORDINANCENO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
CHULA VISTA ESTABLISHING A PEDESTRIAN
BRIDGE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE
PROGRAM FOR OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 11 AND
THE AREA OF BENEFIT
WHEREAS, 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; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that new development within
certain areas within the City of Chula Vista as identified in this ordinance, will create
adverse impacts on certain existing public facilities which must be mitigated by the
financing and construction of those facilities identified in this ordinance; and
WHEREAS, developers of land within the City are required to mitigate the
burden created by their development by constructing or improving those facilities needed
to provide service to their respective developments or by the payment of a fee to finance
their portion of the total cost of such facilities; and
WHEREAS, development within the City contributes to the cumulative burden on
pedestrian 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; and
WHEREAS, the goal of the Otay Ranch General Development Plan is to organize
land uses based upon a village concept to produce a cohesive, pedestrian friendly
community, encourage non vehicular trips and foster interaction amongst residents; and
WHEREAS, a component of the Otay Ranch circulation system is a
comprehensive trail system to provide for non-vehicular alternative modes of
transportation; and
WHEREAS, the Otay Ranch GDP requires a non-auto circulation system, such as
pedestrian walkways and bike paths, shall be provided between villages. And, where
appropriate and feasible grade separated arterial crossings should be provided to
encourage pedestrian activity between villages; and
WHEREAS, the Otay Ranch Village Eleven SPA Plan also identifies two
potential pedestrian bridges in Village 11; and
Ordinance 2003 -
Page 2
WHEREAS, the Conditions of Approval for Otay Ranch Village 11 tentative
maps require that a funding mechanism be established to pay for Village 11 bridges; and
WHEREAS, pedestrian facilities have been built, or are proposed, that will
connect Village 11 trail system to the planned pedestrian trail system in Village 10
(University Village), and to the pedestrian trail system within Planning Areal2 (Freeway
Commercial/Easter Urban Center) including a continuous village pathway and cartpath
system. The pedestrian facilities cross major streets and their use would be encouraged
and facilitated by the provision of over-crossings of these maj or streets; and
WHEREAS, land within Village 11 will benefit from the installation of these
bridges primarily due to: (i) its location and proximity to the bridge, and (ii) its ease of
access to the bridge based on the trail configuration; and
WHEREAS, the completion of the pedestrian bridges in Village 11 will complete
the linkage of the pedestrian facilities in Village 11, serving to enhance overall pedestrian
access in and among the nearby Villages and would be facilitated by including the
funding for the construction of the bridges required by the Village 11 tentative maps in
current Impact Fee program by: 1) establishing the per unit fees payable at issuance of a
building permit; 2) identifying the facilities to be financed by the Impact Fee; and 3)
establishing the territory to which the Impact Fee is applicable to include Village 1 I; and
WHEREAS, the person per dwelling unit rates for Parkland Dedication in Sec.
17.10.040 were modified by Ordinance No. 2886. The rates for single family went from
3.22 persons per unit to 3.52 persons per unit and the multiple-family rates went from
2.21 persons per dwelling units to 2.61 persons per unit. The attached, cluster housing or
planned unit development and the duplex categories were deleted from Sec. 17.10.040;
and
WHEREAS, Otay Ranch, Village 11 is that area of land within the City of Chula
Vista surrounded by Olympic Parkway, Hunte Parkway, Eastlake Parkway, Birch Road,
and SR-125. This area is shown on the map marked Exhibit "1," and included as an
attachment to the City of Chula Vista Pedestrian Bridge Development Impact Fee Report
for Otay Ranch Village 11, dated February 1, 2003, on file in the Office of the City
Engineer; and
WHEREAS, City Engineering Staff has approved the City of Chula Vista
Pedestrian Bridge Development Impact Fee Report for Otay Ranch Village 11, dated
February 1,2003; and.
WHEREAS, said Report, recommends pedestrian over-crossing facilities needed
for pedestrian access, and establishes a fee payable by persons obtaining building permits
for developments within Otay Ranch Village 11 benefiting from the construction of these
facilities; and
WHEREAS, there are two pedestrian overcrossings (POC) proposed for the Otay
Ranch Village 11: Hunte Parkway POC and Eastlake Parkway POC. The Hunte Parkway
Ordinance 2003 -
Page 3
POC crosses Hunte Parkway, a Prime Arterial/Ranch Theme street, to provide access to
University site. The bridge is aligned with one of the Village 11 pathways that provide
pedestrian access throughout the Otay Ranch Community, with an approximate length of
556 feet. The Eastlake Parkway POC is located approximately 350' north of the
intersection with Hunte Parkway, and has a total length of approximately 295'. It crosses
Eastlake Parkway, a Prime Arterial/Ranch Theme street, providing access to Planning
Area I2 located to the east; and
WHEREAS, a series of meetings have been held with the owner and developer of
properties located within Otay Ranch Village 11 to discuss the Report and city staff
recommendations establishing the Otay Ranch Village 11 Pedestrian Bridge
Development Impact Fee; and
WHEREAS, the City Council determined, based upon the evidence presented at
the Public Hearing, including, but not limited to, the Report and other information
received by the City Council in the course of its business, that imposition of the Impact
Fee on all developments within Otay Ranch Village i 1 in the City of Chula Vista is
necessary in order to protect the public safety and welfare and to ensure effective
implementation of the City's General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the amount of the Impact Fee
levied by this ordinance does not exceed the estimated cost of providing the public
facilities identified by the Report.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Environmental Review
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) of the State CEQA
Guidelines the activity is not subject to CEQA. Although environmental review is not
necessary at this thne, environmental review will be required prior to the approval of
final design plans and the awarding of construction contracts for facilities funded through
Pedestrian Bridge Development Impact Fee.
SECTION 2. Acceptance of Report
The City Council has reviewed the proposed Pedestrian Bridge Development
hnpact Fee Report dated February 1, 2003, and has accepted the same, by Resolution
No.2003- , in the form on file in the Office of the City Clerk.
SECTION 3. "Facilities"
Ordinance 2003 -
Page 4
The facilities to be financed by the Impact Fee are fully described in the Pedestrian
Bridge Development Impact Fee Report (the "Report") and incorporated herein by this
reference, ("Facilities"), all of which Facilities may be modified by the City Council from
time to time by resolution. The locations at which the Facilities will be constructed are
shown on Exhibit "1" of the approved Report. The City Council may modify or amend
the list of projects herein considered to be part of the Facilities by written resolution in
order to maintain compliance with the City's Capital Improvement Program or to reflect
changes in land development and estimated and actual pedestrian generation.
SECTION 4. Territory to Which Fee Is Applicable
The area of the City of Chula Vista to which the Impact Fee herein established
shall be applicable is set forth on Exhibit "2" of the Report and is generally described
herein as the "Territory."
SECTION 5. Purpose
The purpose of this ordinance is to establish the Impact Fee in order to provide
the necessary financing to construct the Facilities within the areas shown in Exhibit "1"
of the Report, in accordance with the City's General Plan.
SECTION 6. Establishment of Fee
The Impact Fee, to be based on a per Equivalent Dwelling Unit ("EDU") basis,
and payable prior to the issuance of building permits for residential development projects
within the Territory, is hereby established to pay tbr the Facilities.
SECTION 7. Due on Issuance of Building Permit
The Impact Fee shall be paid in cash upon the issuance of a residential building
permit. Early payment is not permitted. No building permit shall be issued for residential
development projects subject to this Ordinance unless the developer has paid the Impact
Fee imposed by this Ordinance.
SECTION 8. Determination of Equivalent Dwelling Units
Residential land uses shall be converted to Equivalent Dwelling Units for the
purpose of this fee based on the following table:
Fee by Land Use
Land Use People per household EDUs
Single Family ("SFD") 3.52 1
Multi Family ("MF") 2.61 0.74
Ordinance 2003 -
Page 5
I I I
"Single family" shall mean a residential unit within a subdivision, planning area or
neighborhood with a net density of 8 units per acre or less as shown on the approved
tentative map for said subdivision, planning area or neighborhood.
"Multi-Family" shall mean a residential unit within a subdivision, planning area or
neighborhood with a net density of greater than 8 units per acre as shown on the approved
tentative map for said subdivision, planning area or neighborhood.
SECTION 9. Time to Determine Amount Due; Advance Payment Prohibited.
The Impact Fee Ibr each development shall be calculated at the time of building
permit issuance and shall be the amount as indicated at that time and not when the
tentative map or final map was granted or applied for, or when the building permit plan
check was conducted, or when application was made for the building permit.
SECTION 10. Purpose and Use of Fee
The purpose of the Impact Fee is to pay for the planning, design, construction
and/or financing (including the cost of interest and other financing costs as appropriate)
of the Facilities, or reimbursement to the City or, at the discretion of the City if approved
in advance in writing, to other third parties for advancing costs actually incurred for
planning, designing, constructing, or financing the Facilities. Any use of the Impact Fee
shall receive the advance consent of the City Council and be used in a manner consistent
with the purpose of the Impact Fee.
SECTION 11. Amount of Fee; Establishing Master Fee Schedule
The initial Impact Fee shall be calculated at the rate of $827 per Single Family
Dwelling Unit (SFD) and $614 per Multiple Family Dwelling Unit (MF). Chapter XVI,
Other Fees, of the Master Fee Schedule is hereby amended to add Section E, which shall
read as follows:
"E." Otay Ranch Village 11 Pedestrian Bridge Development Impact Fee.
This section is intended to memorialize the key provisions of Ordinance No. , but said
Ordinance governs over the provisions of the Master Fee Schedule. For example, in the
event of a conflict in interpretation between the Master Fee Schedule and the Ordinance,
or in the event that there are additional rules applicable to the imposition of the Impact
Fee, the language of the Ordinance governs.
a. Territory to which Fee Applicable.
The area of the City of Chula Vista to which the Impact Fee herein established shall be
applicable is set forth in Exhibit "2" of the City of Chula Vista Pedestrian Bridge
Ordinance 2003 -
Page 6
Development Impact Fee Report dated February 1, 2003, and is generally described as
the area surrounded by Olympic Parkway, Hunte Parkway and Eastlake Parkway.
b. Rate per Residential Land Use and Fee
The Impact Fee shall be calculated at the rate of $827 per EDU and translated into a fee
per land use based on the people per household factor given below, which rate shall be
adjusted from time to time by the City Council.
Residential Land use EDU's Fee
Single Family (SFD) 1 $827
, Multi Family ("MF") 0.74 $614
c. When Payable.
The Impact Fee shall be paid in cash not later than immediately prior to the issuance of a
'building permit.
The City Council shall review the amount of the Impact Fee annually or from time to
time. The City Council may, at such reviews, adjust the amount of this Impact Fee as
necessary to assure construction and operation of the Facilities. The reasons for which
adjustments may be made include, but are not limited to, the following: 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 Cost Index (ENR-CCI);
changes in the type, size, location or cost of the Facilities to be financed by the Impact
Fee; changes in land use in the City's General Plan; other sound engineering, financing
and planning information. Adjustments to the above Impact Fee may be made by
resolution amending the Master Fee Schedule.
SECTION 12. Authority for Accounting and Expenditures.
The proceeds collected from the imposition of the Impact Fee shall be deposited
into a public facility financing fund ("Otay Ranch Village 11 Pedestrian Bridge
Development Impact Fee Fund," or alternatively herein "Fund") which is hereby created
and shall be expended only for the purposes set forth in this ordinance, The Director of
Finance is authorized to establish various accounts within the Fund for the Facilities
identified in this ordinance and to periodically make expenditures from the Fund for the
purposes set forth herein in accordance with the facilities phasing plan or capital
improvement plan adopted by the City Council.
SECTION 13. Findings.
The City Council hereby finds the tbllowing:
A. The establishment of the Impact Fee is necessary to protect the public safety and
welfare and to ensure the effective implementation of the City's General Plan.
Ordinance 2003
Page 7
B The Impact Fee is necessary to ensure that funds will be available for the
construction of the Facilities concurrent with the need for these Facilities and to
ensure certainty in the capital facilities budgeting for growth impacted public
facilities.
C. The amount of the fee levied by this ordinance does not exceed the estimated cost
of providing the Facilities for which the fee is collected.
D. New development projects within the Territory will generate a significant amount
of pedestrian traffic that current pedestrian facilities cannot service, therefore
construction of the Facilities will be needed to service new development projects.
SECTION 14. Impact Fee Additional to other Fees and Charges.
The Impact Fee established by this section 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.
SECTION 15. Mandatory Construction of a Portion of the Facilities; Duty to Tender
Reimbursement Offer.
Whenever a developer is required as a condition of approval of a development
permit to construct or cause the construction of the Facilities or a portion thereof, the City
may require the developer to install the Facilities according to design specifications
approved by the City and in the size or capacity necessary to accommodate estimated
pedestrian traffic as indicated in the Report and subsequent amendments. If such a
requirement is imposed, the City shall offer, at the City's option, to reimburse the
developer from the Fund either in cash or over time as Fees are collected, or give a credit
against the Impact Fee levied by this Ordinance or some combination thereof, in the
amount of the costs incurred by the developer that exceeds their contribution to such
Facilities as required by this Ordinance, 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 hnpact Fee. The City may update the Impact Fee calculation, as City
deems appropriate prior to making such offer. This duty to offer to give credit or
reimbursement shall be independent of the developer's obligation to pay the Impact Fee.
SECTION 16. Voluntary Construction of a Portion of the Facilities; Duty of City to
Tender Reimbursemem Offer.
If a developer is willing and agrees in writing to design and construct a portion of
the Facilities in conjunction with the prosecution of a development project within the
Territory, the City may, as part of a written agreement, reimburse the developer from the
Fund either in cash or over time as Fees are collected, or give a credit against the Impact
Fee levied by this Ordinance or some combination thereof, in the amount of the costs
Ordinance 2003 -
Page 8
incurred by the developer that exceeds their contribution to such Facilities as required by
this Ordinance, 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 Impact
Fee and in an amount agreed to in advance of their expenditure in writing by the City.
The City may update the Impact Fee calculation, as City deems appropriate prior to
making such offer. This duty to extend credits or offer reimbursement shall be
independent of the developer's obligation to pay the Impact Fee.
SECTION 17. Procedure for Entitlement to Reimbursement Offer.
The City's duty to extend a reimbursement offer to a developer pursuant to
Section 15 or 16 above shall be conditioned on the developer complying with the terms
and conditions of this section:
a. 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 construction of
the Facilities, excluding any work attributable to a specific subdivision
project.
b. The request for authorization shall contain the following information, and
the City may from time to time request such other information as:
(l) Detailed descriptions of the work to be conducted by the developer
with the preliminary cost estimate.
c. 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 to the City for approval:
(2) Developer shall secure and dedicate any right-of-way required for
the improvement work;
(3) Developer shall secure all required permits and environmental
clearances necessary for construction of the improvements;
(4) Developer shall provide performance bonds in a form and amount,
and with a surety satisfactory to the City;
(5) Developer shall pay all City fees and costs.
Ordinance 2003 -
Page 9
(6) The City shall be held harmless and indemnified, and upon
demand by the City, defended by the developer for any of the costs
and liabilities associated with the improvements.
(7) The developer shall advance all necessary funds for the
improvements, including design and construction. The City will
not be responsible for any of the costs of constructing the facilities.
(8) The developer shall secure at least three (3) qualified bids for work
to be done. The construction contract shall be granted to the lowest
qualified bidder. 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
improvements. Soils Engineering shall be limited to 7.5 percent of
the project cost, Civil Engineering shall be limited to 7.5 percent of
the hard cost and landscape architecture shall be limited to 2
percent of the landscaping cost. The estimate is preliminary and
subject to final determination by the Director of Public Works
upon completion of the Public Facility Project.
(I 0) The agreement may provide that upon determination of satisfactory
incremental completion of the public facility project, as approved
and certified by the Director of Public Works, the City may pay the
developer progress payments in an amount not to exceed 75
percent of the estimated cost of the construction completed to the
time of the progress payment but shall provide in such case for the
retention of 25 percent of such costs until issuance by the City of a
Notice of Completion.
(1 i) The agreement may provide that any funds owed to the developer
as reimbursements may be applied to the developer's obligations to
pay the impact Fee for building permits to be applied for in the
future.
(12) 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 project to the City. The Director of Public
Works shall make the final determination on expenditures which
are eligible for reimbursement.
(13) After final deternfination of expenditures eligible for
reimbursement has been made by the Public Works Director, the
parties may agree to offset the developer's duty to pay Impact Fees
Ordinance 2003 -
Page 10
required by this ordinance against the City's duty to reimburse the
developer.
(14) After offset, if any funds are due the developer under this section,
the City may at its option, reimburse the developer from the Fund
either in cash or over time as Fees are collected, or give a credit
against the Impact Fee levied by this Ordinance or some
combination thereof, in the amount of the costs incurred by the
developer that exceeds their required contribution to such Facilities
as required by this Ordinance, 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 Impact
Fee and in an amount agreed to in advance of their expenditure in
writing by the City.
(15) A developer may transfer a credit against the Impact Fee to another
developer with the written approval of the Director of Public
Works in the Director's sole discretion.
SECTION 18. Procedure for Fee Modification.
Any developer who, because of the nature or type of uses proposed for a
development project, contends that application of the Impact Fee imposed by this
ordinance is unconstitutional or unrelated to mitigation of the burdens of the
development, may apply to the City Council for a waiver or modification of the Impact
Fee or the manner in which it is calculated. The application shall be made in writing and
filed with the City Clerk not later than ten days after notice is given of the public hearing
on the development permit application for the project, or if no development permit is
required, at the time of the filing of the building permit application. The application shall
state iff. detail the factual basis for the claim of waiver or modification, and shall provide
an engineering and accounting report showing the overall impact on the DIF and the
ability of the City to complete construction of the Facilities by making the modification
requested by the applicant. 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. The procedure provided by this section is additional to any other procedure
authorized by law tbr protection or challenging the Impact Fee imposed by this
ordinance.
SECTION 19. Fee Applicable to Public Agencies.
Development projects by public agencies, including schools, shall be exempt from
the provisions of the Impact Fee.
SECTION 20. Assessment District.
Ordinance 2003 -
Page 11
If any assessment, community facilities district or special taxing district is
established to design, construct and pay for any or all of the Facilities ("Work
Alternatively Financed"), the owner or developer of a project may apply to the City
Council for reimbursement from the Fund or a credit in an amount equal to that portion of
the cost included in the calculation of the hnpact Fee attributable to the Work
Alternatively Financed. In this regard, the amount of the reimbursement shall be based on
the costs included in the Report, as amended from time to time, and therefore, will not
include any portion of the financing costs associated with the formation of the assessment
or other special taxing district.
SECTION 21. Expiration of this Ordinance.
This ordinance shall be of no further force and effect when the City Council
determines that the amount of Impact Fees which have been collected reaches an amount
equal to the cost of the Facilities.
SECTION 22. Time Limit for Judicial 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 la~v. In accordance
with Govermnent Code Section 66020(d)(1), the ninety-day approval period in which
parties may protest begins upon the effective date of this ordinance.
SECTION 23. Other Not Previously Defined Terms.
For the purposes of this ordinance, 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) "Developer" means the o~vner or developer ora development.
(c) "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 in
Section 66000 of the State Government Code.
(e) "Single Family Attached Dwelling" means a single family dwelling
attached to another single family dwelling, with each dwelling on its own
lot.
SECTION 24. Effective Date.
Ordinance
Page 2
WHEREAS, the Conditions of Approval for Otay Ranch Village 11 tentative
maps require that a funding mechanism be established to pay for Village 11 bridges; and
WHEREAS, pedestrian facilities have been built, or are proposed, that will
connect Village 11 trail system to the planned pedestrian trail system in Village 10
(University Village), and to the pedestrian trail system within Planning Areal2 (Freeway
Commercial/Easter Urban Center) including a continuous village pathway and cartpath
system. The pedestrian facilities cross major streets and their use would be encouraged
and facilitated by the provision of over-crossings of these major streets; and
WHEREAS, land within Village 11 will benefit from the installation of these
bridges primarily due to: (i) its location and proximity to the bridge, and (ii) its ease of
access to the bridge based on the trail configuration; and
WHEREAS, the completion of the pedestrian bridges in Village 11 will complete
the linkage of the pedestrian facilities in Village 11, serving to enhance overall pedestrian
access in and among the nearby Villages and would be facilitated by including the
funding for the construction of the bridges required by the Village 11 tentative maps in
current Impact Fee program by: 1) establishing the per unit fees payable at issuance of a
building pennit; 2) identifying the facilities to be financed by the Impact Fee; and 3)
establishing the territory to which the Impact Fee is applicable to include Village I 1; and
WHEREAS, the person per dwelling unit rates for Parkland Dedication in Sec.
17.10.040 were modified by Ordinance No. 2886. The rates for single family went from
3.22 persons per unit to 3.52 persons per unit and the multiple-family rates went from
2.21 persons per dwelling units to 2.61 persons per unit. The attached, cluster housing or
planned unit development and the duplex categories were deleted from Sec. 17.10.040;
and
WHEREAS, Otay Ranch, Village 11 is that area of land within the City of Chula
Vista surrounded by Olympic Parkway, Hunte Parkway, Eastlake Parkway, Birch Road,
and SR-125. This area is shown on the map marked Exhibit "1," and included as an
attachment to the City of Chula Vista Pedestrian Bridge Development Impact Fee Report
for Otay Ranch Village 11, dated February 1, 2003, on file in the Office of the City
Engineer; and
WHEREAS, City Engineering Staff has approved the City of Chula Vista
Pedestrian Bridge Development impact Fee Report for Otay Ranch Village 11, dated
February 1, 2003; and.
WHEREAS, said Report, recommends pedestrian over-crossing facilities needed
for pedestrian access, and establishes a fee payable by persons obtaining building permits
for developments within Otay Ranch Village 11 benefiting from the construction of these
facilities; and
WHEREAS, there are two pedestrian overcrossings (POC) proposed for the Otay
Ranch Village 1 !: Hunte Parkway POC and Eastlake Parkway POC. The Hunte Parkway
Ordinance
Page 3
POC crosses Hunte Parkway, a Prime Arterial/Ranch Theme street, to provide access to
University site. The bridge is aligned with one of the Village 11 pathways that provide
pedestrian access throughout the Otay Ranch Community, with an approximate length of
556 feet. The Eastlake Parkway POC is located approximately 350' north of the
intersection with Hunte Parkway, and has a total length of approximately 295'. It crosses
Eastlake Parkway, a Prime Arterial/Ranch Theme street, providing access to Planning
Area 12 located to the east; and
WHEREAS, a series of meetings have been held with the owner and developer of
properties located within Otay Ranch Village 11 to discuss the Report and city staff
recommendations establishing the Otay Ranch Village 11 Pedestrian Bridge
Development Impact Fee; and
WHEREAS, the City Council determined, based upon the evidence presented at
the Public Hearing, including, but not limited to, the Report and other information
received by the City Council in the course of its business, that imposition of the Impact
Fee on all developments within Otay Ranch Village 11 in the City of Chula Vista is
necessary in order to protect the public safety and welfare and to ensure effective
implementation of the City's General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the amount of the Impact Fee
levied by this ordinance does not exceed the estimated cost of providing the public
facilities identified by the Report.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CiTY OF CHULA VISTA
DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Environmental Review
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) of the State CEQA
Guidelines the activity is not subject to CEQA. Although enviromnental review is not
necessary at this time, environmental review will be required prior to the approval of
final design plans and the awarding of construction contracts for facilities funded through
Pedestrian Bridge Development Impact Fee.
SECTION 2. Acceptance of Report
Thc City Council has reviewed the proposed Pedestrian Bridge Development
hnpact Fee Report dated February 1, 2003, and has accepted the same, by Resolution
No.2003- , in the form on file in the Office of the City Clerk.
SECTION 3. "Facilities"
Ordinance
Page 4
The facilities to be financed by the Impact Fee are fully described in the Pedestrian
Bridge Development Impact Fee Report (the "Report") and incorporated herein by this
reference, ("Facilities"), all of which Facilities may be modified by the City Council from
time to time by resolution. The locations at which the Facilities will be constructed are
shown on Exhibit "1" of the approved Report. The City Council may modify or amend
the list of projects herein considered to be part of the Facilities by written resolution in
order to maintain compliance with the City's Capital Improvement Program or to reflect
changes in land development and estimated and actual pedestrian generation.
SECTION 4. Territory to Which Fee Is Applicable
The area of the City of Chula Vista to which the Impact Fee herein established
shall be applicable is set forth on Exhibit "2" of the Report and is generally described
herein as the "Territory."
SECTION 5. Purpose
The purpose of this ordinance is to establish the Impact Fee in order to provide
the necessary financing to construct the Facilities within the areas shown in Exhibit "1"
of the Report, in accordance with the City's General Plan.
SECTION 6. Establishment of Fee
The Impact Fee, to be based on a per Equivalent Dwelling Unit ("EDU") basis,
and payable prior to the issuance of building permits for residential development projects
within the Territory, is hereby established to pay for the Facilities.
SECTION 7. Due on Issuance of Building Permit
The Impact Fee shall be paid in cash upon the issuance of a residential building
permit. Early payment is not permitted. No building permit shall be issued for residential
development projects subject to this Ordinance unless the developer has paid the Impact
Fee imposed by this Ordinance.
SECTION 8. Determination of Equivalent Dwelling Units
Residential land uses shall be converted to Equivalent Dwelling Units for the
purpose of this fee based on the following table:
Fee by Land Use
Land Use People per household EDUs
Single Family ("SFD") 3.52 1
Multi Family ("MF") ..... , 2.6~1 0.74
Ordinance
Page 5
"Single family" shall mean a residential unit within a subdivision, planning area or
neighborhood with a net density of 8 units per acre or less as shown on the approved
tentative map for said subdivision, planning area or neighborhood.
"Multi-Family" shall mean a residential unit within a subdivision, planning area or
neighborhood with a net density of greater than 8 units per acre as shown on the approved
tentative map for said subdivision, planning area or neighborhood.
SECTION 9. Time to Determine Amount Due; Advance Payment Prohibited.
The Impact Fee for each development shall be calculated at the time of building
permit issuance and shall be the amount as indicated at that time and not when the
tentative map or final map was granted or applied for, or when the building permit plan
check was conducted, or when application was made for the building permit.
SECTION 10. Purpose and Use of Fee
The purpose of the Impact Fee is to pay for the planning, design, construction
and/or financing (including the cost of interest and other financing costs as appropriate)
of the Facilities, or reimbursement to the City or, at the discretion of the City if approved
in advance in writing, to other third parties for advancing costs actually incurred for
planning, designing, constructing, or financing the Facilities. Any use of the impact Fee
shall receive the advance consent of the City Council and be used in a manner consistent
with the purpose of the Impact Fee.
SECTION 11. Amount of Fee; Establishing Master Fee Schedule
The initial Impact Fee shall be calculated at the rate of $827 per Single Family
Dwelling Unit (SFD) and $614 per Multiple Family Dwelling Unit (MF). Chapter XVI,
Other Fees, of the Master Fee Schedule is hereby amended to add Section E, which shall
read as follows:
"E." Otay Ranch Village 11 Pedestrian Bridge Development Impact Fee.
This section is intended to memorialize the key provisions of Ordinance No. , but said
Ordinance governs over the provisions of the Master Fee Schedule. For example, in the
event of a conflict in interpretation between the Master Fee Schedule and the Ordinance,
or in the event that there are additional rules applicable to the imposition of the Impact
Fee, the language of the Ordinance governs.
a. Territory to which Fee Applicable.
The area of the City of Chula Vista to xvhich the Impact Fee herein established shall be
applicable is set forth in Exhibit "2" of the City of Chula Vista Pedestrian Bridge
Ordinance
Page 6
Development Impact Fee Report dated February 1, 2003, and is generally described as
the area surrounded by Olympic Parkway, Hunte Parkway and Eastlake Parkway.
b. Rate per Residential Land Use and Fee
The Impact Fee shall be calculated at the rate of $827 per EDU and translated into a fee
per land use based on the people per household factor given below, which rate shall be
adjusted from time to time by the City Council.
Residential Land use EDU's Fee
Single Family (SFD) 1 $827
Multi Family ("MF") 0.74 $614
c. When Payable.
The impact Fee shall be paid in cash not later than immediately prior to the issuance ora
building permit.
The City Council shall review the anmunt of the Impact Fee annually or from time to
time. The City Council may, at such reviews, adjust the amount of this Impact Fee as
necessary to assure construction and operation of the Facilities. The reasons for which
adjustments may be made in. clude, but are not limited to, the following: 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 Cost Index (ENR-CCI);
changes in the type, size, location or cost of the Facilities to be financed by the Impact
Fee; changes in land use in the City's General Plan; other sound engineering, financing
and planning information. Adjustments to the above Impact Fee may be made by
resolution amending the Master Fee Schedule.
SECTION 12. Authority for Accounting and Expenditures.
The proceeds collected from the imposition of the Impact Fee shall be deposited
into a public facility financing fund ("Otay Ranch Village 11 Pedestrian Bridge
Development Impact Fee Fund," or alternatively herein "Fund") which is hereby created
and shall be expended only for the purposes set forth in this ordinance, The Director of
Finance is authorized to establish various accounts within the Fund for the Facilities
identified in this ordinance and to periodically make expenditures from the Fund for the
purposes set forth herein in accordance with the facilities phasing plan or capital
improvement plan adopted by the City Council.
SECTION 13. Findings.
The City Council hereby finds the following:
A. The establishment of the Impact Fee is necessary to protect the public safety and
welfare and to ensure the effective implementation of the City's General Plan.
Ordinance
Page 7
B The Impact Fee is necessary to ensure that funds will be available for the
construction of the Facilities concurrent with the need for these Facilities and to
ensure certainty in the capital facilities budgeting for growth impacted public
l~acilities.
C. The amount of the fee levied by this ordinance does not exceed the estimated cost
of providing the Facilities for which the fee is collected.
D. New development projects within the Territory will generate a significant amount
of pedestrian traffic that current pedestrian facilities cannot service, therefore
construction of the Facilities will be needed to service new development projects.
SECTION 14. Impact Fee Additional to other Fees and Charges.
The Impact Fee established by this section 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.
SECTION 15. Mandatory Construction of a Portion of the Facilities; Duty to Tender
Reimbursement Offer.
Whenever a developer is required as a condition of approval of a development
permit to construct or cause the construction of the Facilities or a portion thereof, the City
may require the developer to install the Facilities according to design specifications
approved by the City and in the size or capacity necessary to accommodate estimated
pedestrian traffic as indicated in the Report and subsequent amendments. If such a
requirement is imposed, the City shall offer, at the City's option, to reimburse the
developer from the Fund either in cash or over time as Fees are collected, or give a credit
against the Impact Fee levied by this Ordinance or some combination thereof, in the
amount of the costs incurred by the developer that exceeds their contribution to such
Facilities as required by this Ordinance, for the design and construction of the Facility not
to exceed the estimaled cost of that particular Facility as included in the calculation and
updating of the Impact Fee. The City may update the Impact Fee calculation, as City
deems appropriate prior to making such offer. This duty to offer to give credit or
reimbursement shall be independent of the developer's obligation to pay the Impact Fee.
SECTION 16. Voluntary Construction of a Portion of the Facilities; Duty of City to
Tender Reimbursement Offer.
If a developer is willing and agrees in writing to design and construct a portion of
the Facilities in conjunction with the prosecution of a development project within the
Territory, the City may, as part of a written agreement, reimburse the developer from the
Fund either in cash or over time as Fees are collected, or give a credit against the Impact
Fee levied by this Ordinance or some combination thereof, in the amount of the costs
Ordinance
Page 8
incurred by the developer that exceeds their contribution to such Facilities as required by
this Ordinance, 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 Impact
Fee and in an amount agreed to in advance of their expenditure in writing by the City.
The City may update the Impact Fee calculation, as City deems appropriate prior to
making such offer. This duty to extend credits or offer reimbursement shall be
independent of the developer's obligation to pay the Impact Fee.
SECTION 17. Procedure for Entitlement to Reimbursement Offer.
The City's duty to extend a reimbursement offer to a developer pursuant to
Section 15 or 16 above shall be conditioned on the developer complying with the terms
and conditions of this section:
a. 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 construction of
the Facilities, excluding any work attributable to a specific subdivision
project.
b. The request for authorization shall contain the following information, and
the City may from time to time request such other information as:
(1) Detailed descriptions of the work to be conducted by the developer
with the preliminary cost estimate.
c. 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 to the City for approval;
(2) Developer shall secure and dedicate any right-of-way required for
the improvement work;
(3) Developer shall secure all required permits and environmental
clearances necessary for construction of the improvements;
(4) Developer shall provide performance bonds in a form and amount,
and with a surety satisfactory to the City;
(5) Developer shall pay all City fees and costs.
Ordinance
Page 9
(6) The City shall be held harmless and indemnified, and upon
demand by the City, defended by the developer for any of the costs
and liabilities associated with the improvements.
(7) The developer shall advance all necessary funds for the
improvements, including design and construction. The City will
not be responsible for any of the costs of constructing the facilities.
(8) The developer shall secure at least three (3) qualified bids for work
to be done. The construction contract shall be granted to the lowest
qualified bidder. 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
itenfizes those costs of the construction attributable to the
improvements. Soils Engineering shall be limited to 7.5 percent of
the project cost, Civil Engineering shall be limited to 7.5 percent of
the hard cost and landscape architecture shall be limited to 2
percent of the landscaping cost. The estimate is preliminary and
subject to final determination by the Director of Public Works
upon completion of the Public Facility Project.
(10) The agreement may provide that upon determination of satisfactory
incremental completion of the public facility project, as approved
and certified by the Director of Public Works, the City may pay the
developer progress payments in an amount not to exceed 75
percent of the estimated cost of the construction completed to the
time of the progress payment bat shall provide in such case for the
retention of 25 percent of such costs until issuance by the City ora
Notice of Completion.
(11) The agreement may provide that any funds owed to the developer
as reimbursements may be applied to the developer's obligations to
pay the impact Fee for building permits to be applied for in the
future.
(12) 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 project to the City. The Director of Public
Works shall make the final determination on expenditures which
are eligible for reimbursement.
(13) After final determination of expenditures eligible for
reimbursement has been made by the Public Works Director, the
parties may agree to offset the developer's duty to pay Impact Fees
Ordinance
Page 10
required by this ordinance against the City's duty to reimburse the
developer.
(14) After offset, if any funds are due the developer under this section,
the City may at its option, reimburse the developer from the Fund
either in cash or over time as Fees are collected, or give a credit
against the Impact Fee levied by this Ordinance or some
combination thereof, in the amount of the costs incurred by the
developer that exceeds their required contribution to such Facilities
as required by this Ordinance, 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 Impact
Fee and in an amount agreed to in advance of their expenditure in
writing by the City.
(l 5) A developer may transfer a credit against the Impact Fee to another
developer with the written approval of the Director of Public
Works in the Director's sole discretion.
SECTION 18. Procedure for Fee Modification.
Any developer who, because of the nature or type of uses proposed for a
development project, contends that application of the Impact Fee imposed by this
ordinance is unconstitutional or unrelated to mitigation of the burdens of the
development, may apply to the City Council for a waiver or modification of the Impact
Fee or the manner in which it is calculated. The application shall be made in writing and
filed with the City Clerk not later than ten days after notice is given of the public hearing
on the development permit application for the project, or if no development permit is
required, at the time of the filing of the building permit application. The application shall
state in detail the factual basis for the claim of waiver or modification, and shall provide
an engineering and accounting report showing the overall impact on the DIF and the
ability of the City to complete construction of the Facilities by making the modification
requested by the applicant. 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. The procedure provided by this section is additional to any other procedure
authorized by law for protection or challenging the Impact Fee imposed by this
ordinance.
SECTION 19. Fee Applicable to Public Agencies.
Development projects by public agencies, including schools, shall be exempt from
the provisions of the Impact Fee.
SECTION 20. Assessment District.
Ordinance
Page 11
If any assessment, community facilities district or special taxing district is
established to design, construct and pay for any or all of the Facilities ("Work
Alternatively Financed"), the owner or developer of a project may apply to the City
Council for reimbursement from the Fund or a credit in an amount equal to that portion of
the cost included in the calculation of the Impact Fee attributable to the Work
Alternatively Financed. In this regard, the amount of the reimbursement shall be based on
the costs included in the Report, as amended from time to time, and therefore, will not
include any portion of the financing costs associated with the formation of the assessment
or other special taxing district.
SECTION 2 l. Expiration of this Ordinance.
This ordinance shall be of no further force and effect when the City Council
determines that the amount of Impact Fees which have been collected reaches an amount
equal to the cost of the Facilities.
SECTION 22. Time Limit for Judicial 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 23. Other Not Previously Defined Terms.
For the purposes of this ordinance, 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) "Developer" means the owner or developer of a development.
(c) "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 in
Section 66000 of the State Government Code.
(e) "Single Fmnily Attached Dwelling" means a single family dwelling
attached to another single family dwelling, with each dwelling on its own
lot.
SECTION 24. Effective Date.
Ordinance
Page 12
This ordinance shall become effective sixty days after its second reading and
adoption.
Presented by Approved as to form by
Cliff Swanson Johnq~. ~aheny
Director of Engineering City Attorney
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item ~
Meeting Date ~
ITEM TITLE: PUBLIC HEARING: Regarding the Proposed Assessment of
Certain Delinquent Solid Waste Service Charges as Recorded Liens
Upon the Respective Parcels of Land and Placement of Delinquent
Charges on the Next Regular Tax Bill for Collection
RESOLUTION No. Assessing Delinquent Solid Waste
Service Charges as Recorded Liens Upon the Respective Parcels of
Land and Approving Placement of Delinquent Charges on the Next
Regular Tax Bill
SUBMITTED BY: Assistant City Manager Powell~:)
REVIEWED BY: City Manager ~ ~' (4/5ths Vote: Yes __No X .~
In order to adequately protect the City's interest in delinquent solid waste service charges
and ensure that collection efforts are directed towards the responsible property owner in
the event of a change of ownership, staff is recommending approval for liens against
affected properties as a preliminary action to placing the delinquencies on the property
tax rolls if they remain unpaid. Adoption of this resolution will enhance the collection
process for delinquent solid waste service charges by reducing the amount of
uncollectible losses and ensure that payment will be received on a more timely basis.
This is the identical process approved by City Council since August 2001.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council open the public hearing to consider assessing
delinquent solid waste service charges as recorded liens on
the affected properties, consider all testimony, and adopt the
resolution overruling all protests and assessing these charges
as liens upon the respective parcels of land.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
In November 1998, City Council amended Municipal Code Section 8.24 to require
participation in solid waste service and eliminate suspension of solid waste service for
nonpayment. To ensure that all residents pay their fair share of the costs of this program,
the ordinance also allows delinquent solid waste service charges to be assessed as
recorded liens upon the affected properties and ultimately placed on the property tax bills
for collection. The ordinance states that upon notification of the property owners, a public
hearing is set for solid waste service accounts that are over ninety days delinquent. At
Page 2, Item_ ~
Meeting Date Ee~
the hearing the City Council considers the delinquent accounts together with any
objections or protests by interested parties. At the conclusion of the hearing, the City
Council, may either approve the delinquency and amount owed on the accounts as
submitted or as modified or corrected by the City Council. Lastly, the City Council adopts
a resolution assessing such amounts as liens upon the respective parcels of land, and
the amounts are charged to the property owners on the next regular property tax bill. As
these amounts are collected, the monies are remitted to Pacific Waste Services less the
City's Franchise Fees, AB939 fees and late charges.
Because charges can only be submitted for placement on the property tax bills once a
year in August, staff is recommending assessing liens on the affected properties midyear
as to better ensure the City's chances for collection. If the City were to address these
delinquent charges only once a year in August, the effectiveness of using the property tax
bill as a means of collection would be significantly reduced as the owners of record in
August would not necessarily be the people responsible for the delinquent charges. In
cases where properties are sold or transferred, assessing liens midyear holds the correct
parties responsible for the delinquent charges. In cases where property owners choose
to refinance their mortgages, the midyear liens will ensure the City receiving payment in a
more timely manner as the delinquent charges would be paid through escrow during the
refinancing process.
In July 2002, City Council approved 635 liens valued at $125,170 to be placed on the
next property tax bill. Since then, Pacific Waste Services has identified and submitted an
additional 1,004 delinquent accounts valued over $115,400 to the city for collection.
Through the City's preliminary collection efforts, 351 accounts have been resolved, and
the remaining 653 accounts valued at $89,495 are now being submitted for midyear liens
(listing available at the City Clerk's office). The account status and property ownership on
these accounts have been verified by both Pacific Waste and City staff. Many of these
delinquent accounts have gone through the lien process before as they continue to
remain unpaid.
These property owners were notified of their delinquencies through a series of past due
notices sent by Pacific Waste until they were ultimately submitted to the City for
collection. City staff also sent out a past due letter, and last month, these property owners
were notified of the public hearing and were asked to pay their delinquent solid waste
service charges by February 11, 2003 to avoid a lien being placed on their property. City
staff has been working with Pacific Waste to resolve any customer disputes as they arise
and payment arrangements have been set up as needed. Staff will continue to update
this list as payments are received and accounts are cleared. A final list will be submitted
to the City Council for consideration as soon as all payments are recorded.
Staff is recommending that the City Council approve the final list of delinquent solid waste
accounts as submitted, and that these charges be forwarded to the County and assessed
Page 3, Item_
Meeting Date .E~;a:u,~,~3,Z0j~
as recorded liens on the respective pamels of land and ultimately placed on the next
regular tax bill for collection.
FISCAL IMPACT:
By using the property tax bill as the ultimate collection method for delinquent solid waste
service charges, the city collected over $257,000 in FY 01-02. These funds were then
forwarded to Pacific Waste Services less the city's Franchise Fees, AB939 fees and late
charges which totaled $40,000. For FY02-03, an estimated $260,000 is expected to be
collected through this process and the city should recognize an additional $22,000 in
Franchise Fees, $5,000 in AB939 fees, and $14,000 in late charges.
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA ASSESSING DELINQUENT SOLID WASTE
CHARGES AS RECORDED LIENS UPON THE RESPECTIVE
PARCELS OF LAND AND APPROVING PLACEMENT OF
DELINQUENT CHARGES ON THE NEXT REGULAR TAX
BiLL
WHEREAS, in October, 1998, the City Council amended Chapter 8.24 of the
Chula Vista Municipal Code to establish collection methods for delinquent solid waste service
accounts to be placed on the property tax bill for collection; and
WHEREAS, the ordinance states upon notification of the property owners, a
public hearing is set for solid waste service accounts which are over sixty days delinquent; and
WHEREAS, at the hearing, the City Council is to consider the delinquent
accounts together with any objections or protests by interested parties; and
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the hearing, the City Council may either approve
the delinquency and amount owed on the accounts as submitted or as modified or corrected by
the City Council; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing on delinquent assessments was properly noticed for
February 11, 2003, at which all protests or objections presented were considered by the City
Council; and
WHEREAS, staff is recommending that the City Council approve the final listing
of delinquent solid waste service accounts as submitted and that these charges be forwarded to
the County for placement on the next regular tax bill for collection; and
WHEREAS, any delinquent accounts that are cleared by February 14, 2003, as a
result of the public hearing set for February 11, 2003, will be removed from the list prior to the
submittal of these charges to the County.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Chula
Vista does hereby (1) overrule any and ail protests or objections presented at the public hearing
and (2) approve, with respect to the delinquent account list presented by staff and on file in the
office of the City Clerk, assessing delinquent solid waste service charges as liens upon the
respective parcels of land and the placement of such delinquent charges on the next
corresponding regular tax bill unless cleared by February 14, 2003.
Presented by Approved as to form by
Robert Powell John M. Kaheny
Assistant City Manager City Attorney
J:\Atlomey\RESO\Solid waste DELINQUENCY
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item ~
Meeting Date 2/11/03
ITEM TITLE: Report on Chula Vista Transit (CVT) Funding and Operations
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Engineering~
REVIEWED BY: C~ty Manager c>~ (4/Sths Vote: Yes__No X )
At the Council Budget Workshop meeting of June 10, 2002 staff mentioned that it would return
to Council with a report on CVT's Funding and Operations.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council accept this report
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable
DISCUSSION:
Background
The City Of Chula Vista started operating the Chula Vista Transit System (CVT) in 1971 serving
a population of 67,900 with three (3) routes. By the end of the first year of service CVT carried
186,346 passengers. In FY 02, 30 years later, CVT carried more than 3.3 million passengers on
12 routes. The service area population has grown to 191,090 (est.), a 181% increase, while CVT
ridership increased over 1,600%. Exhibit 1 graphically shows the ridership growth over the last
30 years. During this period, CVT has provided over 43.3 million passenger trips, which
averages approximately 1.8 million passenger trips per year.
CVT is part of the Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) which is a network of local and regional
transit operators. The MTS provides a seamless transit system composed of local, regional and
ADA paratransit services. MTS coordinates fares, transfers, routes and information services to
the region. Transit staff works closely with the Metropolitan Transit Development Board
(MTDB) the region's transit funding, planning and policy setting agency.
Funding
CVT operating funds come from a combination of State Transportation Development Act (TDA)
funds, a t¼ of 1 percent of the State Sales Taxes, and passenger fares, which are used for
operations and for capital programming. Prior to July 2001, the City would receive a direct
allocation of its TDA funds, but in 2001 regional transit funds were consolidated under MTDB as
detailed below.
Page 2, Item 5~
Meeting Date 2/11/03
SB 664 (Alpert)
In the fall of 1999 Senate Bill 664 sponsored by State Senator Alpert mandated that no more than
50% of a jurisdiction's TDA apportionment should be contributed to the regional Services fund
in the MTDB service area. Each jurisdictions contribution was based on the number of the local
jurisdictions residents riding regional transit. Under this scenario the City would have had to
contribute 48% of its TDA allocation to the Regional Services fund. This would have had a
significant negative impact on CVT's service levels. In order to mitigate any negative impacts on
local transit services, the MTD Board approved the consolidation of the regions transit funds
under MTDB. This funding consolidation allowed for local services to continue operating at
their FY 01 level of services. In a way, this "guaranteed" a base level of service. In summary the
consolidation benefited the City by:
· Protecting local service levels
· Participation in bus replacement program funded with Federal Transit Administration
monies
· Making available Federal Capital Funds for local projects
· Preventing the loss of the City's capital reserves and unallocated balances
The consolidation has benefited CVT by providing the resources to continue to provide at least
the same level of service as FY 01 levels. For comparison, in FY 01, the last year of City's direct
allocation, our TDA apportionment was $3.2 million. Our total operating cost was $4.5 Million
and fare revenue was $2.0 million. This gave the City a TDA balance of $0.7 million that
became part of the City's unallocated TDA fund balance. In FY 03, as part of the consolidated
funding, CVT's total operating budget is $6.5 million and fare revenue is estimated at $2.37
million, based on these amounts the required subsidy is $4.13 million. If we assume a 6%
growth of the City's direct TDA allocation over the last two years the TDA apportionment would
amount to $3.39 million. With the required FY 03 subsidy being $4.13 million, the $3.39
million apportionment would not have covered the total operating costs and CVT would have
been forced to cut back significant amount of transit services.
Federal Capital Funding
The consolidation has also allowed CVT to participate in available Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) capital funds. CVT staffhas submitted various capital project funding
requests to MTDB. These request are then ranked by the Capital projects committee that is
composed of staff from the various transit agencies. The requests are ranked according to:
safety, replacement value, operating cost benefit, travel time savings and customer benefit.
Exhibit 2 summarizes federal capital funding requests granted to CVT. Of significance are the
ADA bus stop improvements and the six, new 30-foot, low-floor, CNG buses. The 25 CNG
buses currently operated by CVT were purchased with Federal Transit funds.
Page 3, Item ~!
Meeting Date 2/11/03
Federal Guidelines
As previously mentioned, the consolidation allowed CVT to request FTA funds through MTDB.
The Federal Funds come with regulations that have to be follo~ved by the recipient. FTA
auditors, to ensure federal regulations are being followed and to establish continued eligibility for
Federal funds, conduct a triennial review. Although the City is not the direct recipient of Federal
funds, the Federal funds allocated to the City via the consolidation agreement makes us part of
this audit. The following are two of the guidelines that have had the most significant impact on
CVT:
· Bus Spare Ratio Policy - This policy limits the number of spare buses in the active fleet
to a 20.0% spare ratio. CVT's projected spare ratio is over 32.0% (including the Trolley
Buses). Since the Trolley buses have become obsolete to the overall service CVT
provides, Transit staff has asked MTDB to petition the Federal Transit Administration to
exempt the Trolleys from the spare ratio calculation, which will bring it closer to the
required 20.0% ratio.
· Charter Service Regulation - FTA charter service regulations prohibit recipients from
providing any charter services using FTA-funded equipment or facilities, if there is at
least one private charter operator willing and able to provide the same Charter service.
This policy is in place to protect the private transportation industry from unfair
competition from publicly subsidized transit agencies.
Unallocated Funds
Part of the terms of the transit financing consolidation was to allow the respective agencies to
keep control of any unallocated balance and capital reserves. These funds can be used for a
variety of transit projects or placed in a discretionary fund for future opportunities. The City's
current unallocated transit funds amount to approximately $980,000. These funds are available
to the City for Transit related projects.
FY 03 Budget
Since consolidation, Transit staff actively participates in MTDB's budget process. Along with
the region's other Transit agencies, CVT staff presents its proposed operating budgets to
MTDB's Budget and Finance staff: Various budget meetings are held and budgets are adjusted
according to the available funds and MTD Board funding policies. The following are MTDB's
FY 03 operating budgets for CVT:
Page 4, Item t~!
Meeting Date 2/11/03
Service Total Budget Fare Revenue Net Subsidy
Chula Vista Transit $6,506,039 $2,370,00 $4,136,039
Bayfront Visitor Information Center $144,257 $0 $144,257
Southwestern Collese Transit Stop $19,500 $0 $19,500
Total $6,669,796 $2,370,000 $4,299,796
The budget includes approximately $212,000 for Non-Transit City Staff charge-backs,
Specialized Services and Risk Management, see Table. These funds reimburse the City's
General Fund. The Non-Transit City Staff support Transit operations on an as-needed basis.
Activity Available Funding
Non-Transit City Staff $136,500
Specialized Services $15,540
Risk Mana[~ement $60,000
Bayfront Visitor Center (Staff) $20,900
Admn. Fees $21,000
Total $253,940
MTDB Deficit
Since 1993, MTDB has been managing a structural deficit, whereby recurring expenditures
exceed recurring revenues. MTDB has been able to manage the deficit by using non-recurring
funds. In order to address this structured deficit, the MTD Board has developed a Sustainable
Level of Service Plan, which is a fiscally constrained plan that sets forth a strategy to provide
services within the framework of recurring revenues and phases out the use of nonrecurring
revenues. The Sustainable Level of Service Plan consists of the following:
· Shifting of federal capital funds to operating purposes
· Reducing the level of Contingency Reserves and Capital Replacement Reserves
· Increasing Fares
· Reducing non-productive transit services
MTDB Sustainable Level of Service Plan Table:
FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 FY 06 FY 07
Total Projected Deficit (19.7) (24.9) (28.3) (29.7) (29.5)
Budget Balancing Actions:
Additional Efficiencies 0.6 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Fare Revenue Adjustments 4.3 4.3 4.3 7.9
Service Reductions 2.1 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
1.8 3.5 3.5 3.5
1.8 3.5 3.5
1.8 3.5
Non-recurring Revenues 17.0 14.3 14.2 12.1 6.6
Totals from Balancing Actions 19.7 24.9 28.3 29.7 29.5
Balanced Budget 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Page 5, Item
Meeting Date 2/11/03
This table projects future fare increases and service reductions for the region. These service
reductions would have a negative impact Chula Vista's current and future transit services.
Although the above plan proposed service reductions, MTDB staff may present different funding
scenarios to their Board which would avoid service reductions.
CVT Service Reduction Plan
In FY 03, as part of this Sustainable Level of Service Plan, CVT was asked to reduce
expenditures by $195,000 through Service Reductions and/or Operating Efficiencies. In order to
minimize the impact on CVT services, Transit staff submitted the following plan:
PROPOSED SERVICE REDUCTIONS AND OPERATING EFFICIENCIES
CHULA VISTA TRANSIT
FY 02-03 BUDGET
CHULA VISTA TRANSIT'S SHARE OF REDUCTIONS (ANNUALIZED)
$195,000
OPERATING EFFICIENCIES
Reduction in the number of mechanics from twelve (12) to nine (9) $131,300
Reduction in Bus Maintenance Audit services $16,500
Reduction in Building Maintenance $13,000
Estimated Total - Operating Efficiencies $160,800
SERVICE REDUCTIONS
Route 701 Deletion of 2.5 trips on Saturday night and 0.5 trip on Sunday night
$11,817
Route 702 - Deletion of 1.0 trip on Saturday nights and 1.0 trip on Sunday nights
$6,073
Route 703 Deletion of 2.0 trips, one on Saturday mornings and one at night.
Additionally, deletion of 1.0 trip on Sunday mornings $11,472
Route 705 - Deletion of 1.0 trip on Saturday and Sunday nights $5,132
Estimated Total - Service Reductions $34,494
ESTIMATED TOTAL REDUCTIONS (ANNUALIZED) $195,294
The above plan focuses on meeting the reduction target mostly through Operating Efficiencies in
order to minimize on-street service reductions. The targeted service reductions are concentrated
on non-productive, late evening, weekend services only. Based on the Sustainable Level Service
Plan a continuation of service reductions and operating efficiencies are likely in the future,
negatively affecting the CVT's level of service.
Page 6, Item -/
Meeting Date 2/11/03
Nature Center Shuttle
On May 23, 2002 the MTD Board made a policy decision to eliminate the subsidy to Non-Transit
Services. These are services that cater to niche markets and are not tied to the regional transit
network. The CVT Nature Center Shuttle (NCS) (Route 708) falls into this category of services.
Due to the Nature Center's restricted access, the shuttle has been providing transportation to the
Nature Center for the public. TDA funds and a small share of the entrance fees have been
subsidizing this service since the opening of the Nature Center. To avoid negative impacts on
the service to the Nature Center, MTDB staff have developed a phase-out plan whereby the City
would take over the administrative and financial responsibilities of the NCS by FY 2005. The
following is the phase-out plan developed by MTDB staff:
FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005
MTDB CV MTDB CV MTDB CV
Administration X X X
Financial 85% 15% 50% 50% 0% 100%
Estimated Subsidy $62,002 $10,900 $37,470 $37,470 $0 $78,986
The funding of the NCS would likely be achieved through both an increase in NC visitor fares as
well as additional General Fund support.
MTDB staff is pursuing funding for an alternative fuel minibus for the NC shuttle through an Air
Pollution Control District grant. If this grant were not awarded, the City's Transit Section would
transfer the Trolley buses to the NC to help continue the shuttle service. The NC has various
options to continue the operation of the shuttle:
· Operate the service in house
· Contract with an outside vendor
· Contract directly with the existing Transit Contractor
· Continue to contract via Chula Vista Transit
All of these options will be evaluated for administrative efficiencies and cost effectiveness.
These options will be brought to Council for consideration.
Senate Bill (SB) No. 1703 (Peace)
On September 20, 2002, the Governor signed SB 1703, which created a consolidated
transportation agency in San Diego by joining the San Diego Association of Governments,
MTDB and the North County Transit Development Board. The primary functions of this new
agency will involve transportation planning and programming. As to the impact on CVT,
according to Mr. Tom Larwin, MTDB's General Manager, operations of transit services in the
region would remain the same with no changes planned in the near future. City Transit staff will
continue to work with MTDB staff with no immediate changes while agencies work through the
transition.
Page 7, Item ~
Meeting Date 2/11/03
Operations
CVT is managed by the City Of Chula Vista's Department of Engineering (formally Department
of Public Works), Transit Division. Two full-time City employees, the Transit Coordinator and
the Assistm~t Transit Coordinator, administer the transit system. The Department of Public
Works Operations and Transit Division also share two full-time employees: a Public Works
Technician ffI and a Senior Maintenance Worker. Transit also employees a part-time Temporary
Expert Professional staff to help monitor customer service and performance of our Transit
Contractor. Other City staffprovides additional support on an as needed basis.
Service planning, scheduling, contract monitoring (operational and maintenance), community
relations, budget preparation and monitoring, funds programming, transit facilities monitoring
(bus stops, shelters, buildings), regional coordination and operations/capital procurements are
among some of the duties and responsibilities of the City's Transit staff.
The actual operation of CVT is privatized and operated by ATC/Vancom. The service ~vas
procured through a two-step, competitively bid process. The Transit Contractor is responsible for
the daily operations of the system and the maintenance of the fleet. All the personnel associated
with the direct operations of CVT are employees of the Contractor; i.e. management, road
supervisors, mechanics, and bus operators. ATC/Vancom employs approximately 96 Full-Time
Equivalent employees. ATC/Vancom is currently under a 5-year contract with the City, which
terminates on June 30, 2007. The contractor is compensated monthly based on the number of
Revenue Miles operated. The following Table outlines the agreed upon per Revenue Mile rates:
Period Per Revenue Mile Rate
July 1, 2002 -June 30, 2003 $3.1518
July 1, 2003 -June 30, 2004 $3.2461
July 1, 2004 - June 30, 2005 $3.3432
July 1, 2005 - June 30, 2006 $3.4433
July 1, 2006 - June 30, 2007 $3.5464
Route Descriptions
Chula Vista Transit service is designed to serve the residents of the City of Chula Vista and its
visitors. Routes have been planned to serve all trip types. Eleven of the 12 routes have transfer
connections with the San Diego Trolley system at Bayfront/E Street, H Street, and Palomar
Trolley Stations. The routes are presently operated with the following destinations:
Route 701 - Serves the H Street Trolley Station and the Palomar Trolley Station via F Street,
Hilltop Drive and Main Street;
Route 702 - Serves the H Street Trolley Station and the Palomar Trolley Station via 4th Avenue,
2nd Street, Melrose Avenue and Palomar Street;
Route 703 serves the H Street Trolley Station and the Palomar Trolley Station via 3rd Avenue, J
Street, Crest Street, Oleander Avenue and Orange Avenue;
Page 8, Item ~
Meeting Date 2/11/03
Route 704 - Serves the H Street Trolley Station and Southwestern College via H Street, 4th
Avenue, Naples Avenue and E. Palomar (Otay Ranch Village I). This Route also provides
express service between Southwestern College and H Street Trolley Station on a limited basis;
Route 705 - Serves the Bayfront/E Street Trolley Station and Southwestern College via E Street,
Bonita Road, and Otay Lakes Road;
Route 706 - "Downtowner", is a clockwise loop route serving the H Street Trolley Station and
business district via 4th Avenue and 3rd Avenue;
Route 706A - "Downtowner" is a counterclockwise loop route serving the Bayfront Trolley
Station, the Chula Vista Marina, KOA Campgrounds and the Chula Vista downtown business
district;
Route 707 - Serves the H Street Trolley Station and Sharp Chula Vista Medical Center via East
H Street, Paseo Del Rey and Telegraph Canyon Road;
Route 708 - Serves the Bayfront Trolley Station and the Chula Vista Nature Interpretive Center;
Route 709 - Serves the H Street Trolley Station, Southwestern College and Eastlake via H Street,
Otay Lakes Road and Eastlake Parkway. This Route also provides express service between
Southwestern College and H Street Trolley Station on a limited basis;
Route 711 - Serves Plaza Bonita Shopping Center, Southwestern College and Eastlake via Bonita
Mesa Road, Bonita Road, Central Avenue, Corral Canyon Road, East H Street and Otay Lakes
Road;
Route 712 - Serves the Palomar Trolley Station and Sharp Chula Vista Medical Center via
Palomar Street, Melrose Avenue and Naples Street.
Operational Statistics
CVT operates approximately 1.4 million revenue miles per year and carded over 3.3 million
passengers in FY 02. CVT is classified as a Suburban Feeder Transit System. CVT's system
productivity exceeds the region's Suburban Feeder average productivity in four of the five
categories.
FY 02 Passengers/ Average Fare/ Operating Cost/ Subsidy/ Farebox Recovery
Revenue Mile Passenger Revenue Mile Passenger Ratio
Suburban Feeder Avg. 1.72 $0,71 $3.76 $1.47 32.6%
Chula Vista Transit 2.41 $0.68 $3.59 $0.82 45.3%
% Change +40.18% -4.73% -4.53% -44.35% +38.70%
Page 9, Item ~
Meeting Date 2/11/03
Capital Assets
Vehicles
CVT operates a fleet of 37 buses. The fleet is composed of 25 Compressed Natural Gas (CNG)
buses and 12 Diesel fueled buses. In September 22, 1998, Council made a recommendation to
convert the all diesel fleet to CNG. The first 15 CNG buses were delivered in January 2001
followed by the second delivery of 10 CNG buses in January 2002. All the CNG buses are 40
foot, low-floor buses manufactured by NewFlyer. A third order of six CNG, 30 foot, low-floor
buses is expected to be delivered in 18 months. The complete transition of the fleet from Diesel
to CNG is expected within the next three years.
The CNG buses are owned by MTDB and leased to the City for one dollar a year per bus via an
agreement approved by Council on January 12, 1999. City OfChula Vista's Local
Transportation Development Act funds were transferred and exchanged for Federal Transit funds
as part of this agreement. Exhibit 3, lists CVT's fleet inventory.
Buildings
Public Igor~ca Center
The unprecedented growth of the City's transit system made it clear that CVT had outgrown its
existing facility at 707 F Street. This provided the motivation for the City's Transit Division to
participate in the construction of a new joint Public Works/Transit Maintenance Yard. Using the
City's Transit Development Act (TDA) reserves, CVT contributed $7.8 million dollars to the
construction of the new Public Works/Transit Maintenance Yard at 1800 Maxwell Road. The
specifications of the new Maintenance Yard are as follows:
· 25 acre facility
· Yard security includes full 24-hour digital camera coverage as well as gate and door card
access systems for all employees
· Dedicated office space for transit contractor management personal
· Locker equipped driver area
· Dedicated office space for City Transit staff and extended storage space
· Dedicated parking space for 45 buses (current CVT fleet is 37 buses)
· Comprehensive fleet management system utilized for both City Public Works Operations
and City Transit fleets
· Two compressor CNG fueling Station for CVT's fleet of 25 CNG buses
· Dedicated public access CNG fueling island
· CNG de-fueling Station
· Main fueling island equipped with three (3) CNG dispensers, three (3) diesel fuel
dispensers, two (2) high capacity vacuum hoses, and multiple fluid dispensers to service
the buses while they are being fueled
· Fully equipped Fare Recovery Room located adjacent to the fuel island
Page 10, Item
Meeting Date 2/11/03
· Three bay, state of the art, enclosed vehicle wash building with both brush and brushless
fully automated wash bays as well as a hand wash bay for deep cleaning and power
washing
· Six bay bus maintenance building which includes:
Two parallelogram lift bays
Two, two post, inground axle lift bays
One portable lift bay
o One pit inspection bay
Chassis wash bay with parallelogram lift
o Brake Shop
o Tire Shop
Two story Parts Storage Room
o Mechanics Room
o Maintenance Foreman's Office on the floor
o Computer Stations throughout for a future paperless shop
The prudent and sound management by Council of the City's TDA funds over the past 30
years allowed Chula Vista Transit to make such a large financial contribution to this City
Public Works/Transit Maintenance Yard project. CVT now has a new state of the art facility
for both City transit staffas well as our transit contractor, with plenty of room to grow in the
future.
Bayfront/E Street Visitor Information Center
The City's Public Information and Transit personnel manage the Bayfront/E Street Visitor
Information Center (BVIC). This facility was built in cooperation with the County of San Diego
to better serve both the visiting public and permanent residents. The City contributed $3.4
million toward the construction of this facility. Regional TDA funds are allocated for the
operation and maintenance of the BVIC. The City's responsibilities include:
· Administration of visitor information center leases
· Operate and maintain the Information center and grounds
· Administer Budget
FY 03 current TDA allocation amounts to $144,000 for the operation and maintenance of the
BVIC
Southwestern College Transit Stop
The SWCTS was built in 1995 by the County of San Diego with the City agreeing to the
responsibility for major maintenance and repairs. Transit staff oversee that the City's
maintenance responsibilities are met. The current annual allocation of TDA funds for the
SWCTS maintenance is $19,500.
Page ll, Item t
Meeting Date 2/11/03
Projected Growth
Two factors will probably have a negative impact on future transit ridcrship in Chula Vista. One
is the current downturn in thc economy. CVT has been experiencing a decline in ridership since
the Third Quarter of FY 02. This decline is continuing into FY 03, but Staff expects ridership to
rebound with the economy. The second and more serious potential negative impact is the
regional transit funding deficit. As mentioned in the funding section the balancing of the funding
deficit may require service reductions of $3.5 million each year for thc next four years. City
Transit staff will continue to work closely with MTDB staff to minimize impact on Chula Vista
Transit services
Conclusion
Although there is currently a negative trend, ridership is still showing solid numbers, and we
continue to experience above average productivity numbers. Due to the operating deficit, the
challenge for Transit staff and the other regional transit operators will be to maintain service
levels that can continue to meet passenger needs. One method will be to start targeting
unproductive CVT route segments and times spans and re-program these resources into more
productive services.
FISCAL IMPACT: CVT operations and capital programming contains no City of Chula Vista
General Fund contribution. The CVT's operating and capital programming costs are funded by
MTS Consolidated TDA Article 4.0 funds. By 2005, the City will have to take over an estimated
$79,000 subsidy for the Nature Center shuttle.
ATTACHMENTS: 1) Exhibit I - CVT Historical Ridership Graph
2) Exhibit 2 Federally Funded Capital Projects Summary
3) Exhibit 3 - Chula Vista Transit Fleet Inventory
File: DS-027/035
H:\transit~A113 CVT Report on Operations and Funding.doc
CHULA VISTA TRANSIT FLEET INVENTORY EXHIBIT 3
NO. [OWNER YEAR MAKE TYPE I C~. I FEET I FUEL I LIFT/RAMP RACK
l CITY I984 ORION HIGH-FLOOR 39 35 DIESEL L1Fr Sp0rtworks
2 CITY 1984 ORLON HIGH-FLOOR 39 35 DIESEL LIFT Sportworks
14 CITY 1986 ORION HIGH'FLOOR 39 35 DIESEL LIFT Sportw0rks
15 CITY 1986 ORLON HIGH-FLOOR 39 35 DIESEL LIFT Sportworks
16 CITY 1990 ORION HIGH-FLOOR 39 35 DIESEL LIFT Sportworks
17 CITY 1989 CHANCE TROLLEY 18 26 DIESEL LIFT Sportworks
18 CITY 1989 CHANCE TROLLEY 18 26 DIESEL LIFT Sportworks
19 CITY 1989 CHANCE TROLLEY 18 26 DIESEL LIFT Sportworks
20 CiTY 1989 CHANCE TROLLEY 18 26 DIESEL LIFT Sportworks
21 CITY 1990 ORION HIGH-FLOOR 39 35 DIESEL LIFT Sportworks
22 CITY 1990 ORLON HIGH-FLOOR 39 35 DIESEL LIFT Sportworks
23 CITY 1991 ORION HiGH-FLOOR 39 35 DIESEL LIFT Sportworks
24 CITY 1991 ORION HIGH-FLOOR 39 35 DIESEL LIFT Sportworks
25 CITY 1991 ORION HIGH-FLOOR 39 35 DIESEL LIFT Sportworks
26 CITY 1991 ORION HIGH-FLOOR 39 35 DIESEL LiFT Sportworks
27 CITY 1991 ORION HIGH-FLOOR 39 35 DIESEL LIFT Sportworks
28 CITY 1991 ORLON HIGH-FLOOR 39 35 DIESEL LIFT Sportworks
29 CITY 1991 ORLON HIGH-FLOOR 39 35 DIESEL LIFT Sportworks
30 CITY 1992 GOSHEN HIGH-FLOOR 25 30 DIESEL LIFT Sp0rtworks
31 CITY 1992 GOSHEN HIGH-FLOOR 25 30 DIESEL LIFT SP0rtworks
32 CITY 1995 GILLIG HIGH-FLOOR 29 35 DIESEL LIFT Sportworks
33 CITY 1995 GILLIG HIGH-FLOOR 29 35 DIESEL LIFT Sportworks
7001 MTDB 2000 NEWFLYER LOW-FLOOR 38 40 CNG RAMP Sportworks
7002 MTDB 2000 NEWFLYER LOW-FLOOR 38 40 CNG RAMP Sportworks
7003 MTDB 2000 NEWFLYER LOW-FLOOR 38 40 CNG RAMP Sportworks
7004 MTDB 2000 NEWFLYER LOW-FLOOR 38 40 CNG RAMP Sportworks
7005 MTDB 2000 NEWFLYER LOW-FLOOR 38 40 CNG RAMP Sportworks
7006 MTDB 2000 NEWFLYER LOW-FLOOR 38 40 CNG RAMP Sportworks
7007 MTDB 2000 NEWFLYER LOW-FLOOR 38 40 CNG RAMP SpoT,works
7008 MTDB 2000 NEWFLYER LOW-FLOOR 38 40 CNG RAMP Sportworks
7009 MTDB 2000 NEWFLYER LOW-FLOOR 38 40 CNG RAMP Sportworks
7010 MTDB 2000 NEWFLYER LOW-FLOOR 38 40 CNG RAMP Sportworks
701 I MTDB 2000 NEWFLYER LOW-FLOOR 38 40 CNG RAMP Sportworks
7012 MTDB 2000 NEWFLYER LOW-FLOOR 38 40 CNG RAMP Sportworks
7013 MTDB 2000 NEWFLYER LOW-FLOOR 38 40 CNG RAMP Sportworks
7014 MTDB 2000 NEWFLYER LOW-FLOOR 38 40 CNG RAMP Sportworks
7015 MTDB 2000 NEWFLYER LOW-FLOOR 38 40 CNG RAMP Sportworks
7016 MTDB 2001 NEWFLYER LOW-FLOOR 36 40 CNG RAMP Sportworks
7017 MTDB 2001 NEWFLYER LOW-FLOOR 36 40 CNG RAMP Sportworks
7018 MTDB 2001 NEWFLYER LOW-FLOOR 36 40 CNG RAMP Sportworks
7019 MTDB 2001 NEWFLYER LOW-FLOOR 36 40 CNG RAMP Sportworks
7020 MTDB 2001 NEWFLYER LOW-FLOOR 36 40 CNG RAMP Sportworks
7021 MTDB 2001 NEWFLYER LOW-FLOOR 36 40 CNG RAMP Sportworks
7022 MTDB 2001 NEWFLYER LOW-FLOOR 36 40 CNG RAMP Sportworks
7023 MTDB 2001 NEWFLYER LOW-FLOOR 36 40 CNG RAMP Sportworks
7024 MTDB 2001 NEWFLYER LOW-FLOOR 36 40 CNG RAMP Sportworks
7025 MTDB 2001 NEWFLYER LOW-FLOOR 36 40 CNG RAMP Sportworks
Buses that are Shaded have been Scheduled for retirement.
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item I~
Meeting Date 2/11/03
ITEM TITLE: Resolution 2003 Establishing a Voluntary Payroll Deduction
Program to Protect City Services and Revenues
SUBMITTED BY: David D. Rowlands, Jr., City Manager
Colleen M. Kelly, Intergovernmental Affairs Coordinator
REVIEWED BY: City Manager,~ (4/5ths Vote: Yes__ No X J
The political action arm of the League of California Cities, known as "Action for Better Cities" has
asked all League members to adopt a resolution establishing a voluntary payroll deduction program
so that city employees may have an opportunity to participate in the League's efforts to protect local
government revenue from additional raids by the State. To date, 69 cities have adopted the
resolution. The donations will be used only for League-approved statewide ballot measure advocacy
to protect city services and revenues.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the resolution establishing a voluntary
payroll deduction program to protect city services and revenues
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: N/A
DISCUSSION:
Background
The State government of California has a long history of usurping local revenue streams in order to
balance the state budget and allow the State to meet it's own constitutional obligations. The City of
Chula Vista's 1993/94 budget message to the City Council featured a chronological list of city funds
taken by the State that included:
· Liquor License Fees
· Highway Carriers Tax
· Aid to Local Agencies
· Business Inventory Tax Reduction
· Business Inventory Tax Repeal
· Cigarette Tax Shift
· Water Fees
· Booking Fees/Tax Collection
· No/Low Property Tax Cities Cut
· Fines/Forfeitures Loss
· Growth in Fines
· Additional Cigarette Tax Shi~
· Redevelopment Subventions
· Property Tax Shit~ (ERAF)
· Remaining Cigarette Tax
Mobile Home License Fees
/o.-/
2/11/03 page 2
Over the objections of cities and counties, from 1998 through 2000, the State reduced another critical
local revenue resource, the vehicle license fee (VLF), lowering it 67.5%. Although the State
promised to backfill VLF losses to local government, the Governor has proposed eliminating this
backfill to help the State overcome a massive $34.5 billion budget shortfall. In Chula Vista, the VLF
represents $10.8 million for fiscal year 2002/03, $7.4 million of which comes as backfill from the
State. The Governor has also indicated that he will not reinstate the VLF to its pre-1998 levels,
despite a clear provision in the State law that allows this to be done.
The League of California Cities' Proposal
The League of California Cities has created a political action committee, "Actions for Better Cities"
(ABC). ABC is charged with raising funds to help pay for the cost of campaigning for and against
measures that affect city services and revenues. These include the costs of polling, signature
gathering, brochures etc. Public funds, including League membership dues, cannot be used for thi~
purpose.
As a result, the League, through ABC, is asking its members to make private donations to the Save
Our Services (SOS) fund. City officials and employees can make these donations in a variety of
ways, one of which is a voluntary payroll deduction program. As noted earlier, 69 cities (see
attached list) have adopted a resolution establishing a voluntary payroll deduction program. The
donations generated through SOS will be used only for League-approved statewide ballot measure
advocacy to protect city services and revenues. If the League sponsors a ballot measure to protect
these revenues constitutionally, the SOS fund will support a major part of the expenses of that
campaign.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The City's Finance Department notes that the administrative costs for implementing a voluntary
payroll deduction program would be minimal.
Attachments:
· List of California cities that have adopted a resolution establishing a voluntary payroll deduction program to protect city
services and revenues
C:\.. A2003\agenda statements\sos resolution
California cities that have adopted a
resolution establishing a voluntary payroll
deduction program to protect city services
and revenues:
ANTIOCH : EL MONTE MILL VALLEY SPRINGsSANTA FE
APPLE VALLEY EMERYVlLLE MORGAN HILL SIGNAL HILL
BARSTOW ESCONDIDO NEWMAN ST. HELENA
BELLFLOWER FONTANA NOVATO STOCKTON
BELMONT FORT BRAGG OAKLEY SUSANVlLLE
BREA FORTUNA P DESERT THOUSAND
OAKS
BUELLTON FOSTER CITY PARAMOUNT TRACY
~L~F0~A
CITY FREMONT PINOLE TRUCKEE
CATHEDRAL ~R'~.~ POMONA TULARE
CITY TERRACE
CHINO HILLS HEMET POWAY TURLOCK
CITRUS 'FWENTYNINE
HEIGHTS HIGHLAND RIVERSIDE
PALMS
CLOVIS LAKEWOOD ROCKLIN UNION CITY
CORNING LARKSPUR ROHNERT PARK UPLAND
CORTE SAN WEST
MADERA LINCOLN
BERNARDINO SACRAMENTO
DAVIS LIVERMORE SAN CA~LOS WILLIAMS
DELANO LOMPOC SAN LUIS
OBISPO WINTERS
DINUBA ME,CED SAN RAFAEL YUBA CI~
DUA~TE
Source: ~.be~ercifies.or~ 2/5/03
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA ESTABLISHING A VOLUNTARY PAYROLL DEDUCTION
PROGRAM TO PROTECT CITY SERVICES AND REVENUES
WHEREAS, as a general rule, city leaders are in a better position than
State government to make decisions governing local affairs, educate the citizenry
as to the benefits of strong local government, and advocate on behalf of cities;
and
WHEREAS, measures enacted through the legislative process, as well as
by statewide ballot initiatives, over the past 20 years have produced the
unintended consequences of destabilizing city finances and have weakened the
ability of city residents to govern local affairs through their elected community
representatives; and
WHEREAS, the State of California is currently using over $800 million
each year in city property tax funds to balance the state budget; and
WHEREAS, the California Legislative Analyst's Office has projected that
the state is facing a structural budget deficit of over $10 billion per year over the
next five (5) years, and city services and revenues are at risk of further state
raids; and
WHEREAS, the League of California Cities is currently conducting
research on various ways to secure constitutional protection of city services and
revenues and may sponsor a statewide ballot measure for this purpose in 2004
or thereafter; and
WHEREAS, Action for Better Cities was created by the Board of Directors
of the League of California Cities to advocate voter approval of constitutional
protection of city services and revenues and opposition to ballot proposals that
reduce local democratic control of local service and revenues; and revenues; and
WHEREAS, elected and appointed city officials and employees have the
opportunity to provide leadership in Action for Better Cities through voluntary
financial contributions to the "SOS" Fund; and
WHEREAS, the expenditure of monies in the "SOS" Fund by Action for
Better Cities shall be limited and dedicated to ballot measure campaigns that are
designed to specifically strengthen the services and revenues of city
governments.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Chula Vista that:
Section 1. There is hereby established the Voluntary Payroll Deduction
Program of the City of Chula Vista.
Section 2: Any unrepresented employee or member of the City Council
of the City of Chula Vista is eligible immediately to participate in the Program.
Represented employees may participate after their representative has met and
conferred with the city representative about the Program.
Section 3. The purpose of the Program is to allow an employee or
member of the City Council to direct the City of Chula Vista to remit a portion of
the salary payable pursuant to city ordinance or resolution to charitable,
educational, government, or other purposes for which non-profit mutual benefit
corporations are organized.
Section 4. Participation in the Program is completely voluntary.
Section 5. The City Manager is directed to do all things necessary and
proper to implement the Program established by this resolution, including, but not
limited to, preparing appropriate forms to be completed by participating
employees and city council members, informing city council members of the full
range of charitable, educational, governmental, or other purposes for which non-
profit mutual benefit corporations are organized, carrying out the direction of the
participating employees or city council members by remitting a portion of their
salary as stated in the appropriate forms.
Section 6. In establishing the Program, the City Council specifically
wishes to make its support known for a voluntary payroll deduction to protect city
services and revenues through contributions to the "Save Our Services" (SOS)
Fund, administered on behalf of the League of California Cities by Action for
Better Cities.
Presented by: Approved as to form by:
David D. Rowlands, Jr. ..John M. Kaheny
City Manager City Attorney
J :\attorney\reso\SOS