HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 1993/07/20
..-
". ileclare under penalty of perJury t\;at 61'1\
employed by the CIty of Chula Vista in the
Office of the City Clerk and that I posted
Tuesday, July 20, 1993this Agenda/Notice on the Bulletin Board at Council Chambers
6:00 p.m. the Publiw~es Building aVu~~~ . Public Services Building
D~TED' , f{ ~GN~D "
e""C." s>: f e CItv 0 u - I Itv ouncil
CAll. TO ORDER
1. ROIl. CAll.: Councilmembers Fox -, Horton -, Moore ~ Rindone -, and Mayor
Nader -
2. PLEDGE OF AIJ.EGIANCE TO THE FLAG, SILENT PRAYER
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None submitted.
4. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY: None submitted-
CONSENT CALENDAR
(Items 5 through 18)
The staff recommendations regarding the folIowÚlg items listed undo the Consent CakruJar will be elUláJ!JJ by the
Council by one motion wiJhout discussion unless a CounciJmember, a member of the publk: or CiJy staff requests
that the item be pu1kd for discussion. If you wish to speak 011 one of these items, pkase fill out a .Request to
Speak Form. available ÚI the lobby and submit it to the CiJy Clerk prior to the meetÚlg. (Compkte the green form
to speak ÚI favor of the staff recomtrU!nllation; complete the pink form to speak ÚI opposition to the staff
recommendation.) Items pu1led from the Consent CakruJar will be discussed after Board and Commission
Recommendations and Action Items. Items pulled by the public will be the first items of business.
5. WRl'ITEN COMMUNICATIONS: None submitted.
6. ORDINANCE 2562 GRANTING A FRANCHISE TO LAIDLAW WASTE SYSTEMS, INC. FOR
MULTI-FAMILY RECYCJJNG COLLECTION SERVICES (second readin" and
adoption) - On 6/22/93, Council approved a resolution giving notice of
intent to grant a franchise for the multi-family recycling program collection
services to be provided by Laidlaw Waste Systems. As directed, staff has
noticed the public hearing in conformance with the Charter required
process for granting a franchise. Staff recommends Council place the
ordinance on second reading and adoption. (Administration)
7. ORDINANCE 2561 REQillRING RECOVERY OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE ADMINISTRATION FEES
IMPOSED BY SAN DIEGO COUNIY (first readin,,) - Commencing 7/1192,
under the auspices of a new State law, the County has imposed a booking
fee of $176 per criminal defendant arrested by our police department.
While we are protesting the amount of the fee and the authority to impose
same in pending litigation, adoption of the ordinance would create a
means of collecting it from criminal defendants booked through the system
during the pendency of the litigation if it eventually proves unsuccessful,
and would therefore protect our general fund from a possible large
unaccrued liability. Staff recommends Council place the ordinance on first
reading and approve the resolution. (City Attorney) Continued from the
meeting of 7/13/93.
RESOLUTION 17167 APPROPRIATING AN ADDITIONAL $3,855 FOR THE CONTINUATION OF
THE BOOKING FEES JJTIGATION - 4/5th's vote required.
-
Agenda -2- July 20, 1993
8. ORDINANCE 2563 AMENDING SCHEDULE X. SECTION 10.48.050 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE,
DECREASING STATE LAW MAXIMUM SPEED JJMITS IN CERTAIN AREAS,
EAST "H" STREET EAST OF EASTI.AKE DRIVE, MOUNT MIGUEl. ROAD
AND PROCfOR VALLEY ROAD (first readin,,) - East 'H' Street, east of
EastLake, is a four lane major arterial. Mount Miguel Road and Proctor
Valley Road are each Class II collector streets. Since the streets do not
have any fronting business or residences, the unposted prima facia speed
limit is 55 mph. Based on recent traffic surveys, including speed surveys
and a study of roadway geometries, and in the interest of public safety, it
is recommended that East 'H' Street, east of EastLake Drive be posted at
45 mph, Mount Miguel Road be posted at 35 mph, and Proctor Valley Road
be posted at 30 mph. Staff recommends Council place the ordinance on
first reading. (Director of Public Works)
9. RESOLUTION 17156 APPROVING AN EXTENSION OF THE AGREEMENT WITH REMY AND
THOMAS FOR LEGAL CONSULTING SERVICES FOR THE OTAY RANCH
PROJECf AND AUTIiORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXEClITE SAID
AGREEMENT - The agreement extension will provide continuing assistance
in reviewing the Otay Ranch EIR including the CEQA Findings, Statement
of Overriding Consideration, Mitigation Monitoring Program, and the staff
report. Also, will provide continuation of meetings with staff and
coordination with Board of Supervisors/City Council on legal issues. Staff
recommends approval of the resolution. (Deputy City Manager Krempl)
Continued from the meeting of 7/13/93.
10. RESOLUTION 17168 SUPPORTING ORGANIC RECYCJJNG WESTS GREEN MATERIALS
COMPOSTING FACJJJTY AS REQillRED FOR THE .GAP. PROCEDURES
FOR INCLUSION IN THE COUNIY OF SAN DIEGO SOIJD WASTE
MANAGEMENT PLAN AND APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE 1986
REVISED SAN DIEGO COUNIY REGIONAL SOUD WASTE MANAGEMENT
PLAN TO INCLUDE THE PROPOSED COMPOSTING FACIUTY - Organic
Recycling West, Inc. (ORl) is a company specializing in the design and
operations of municipal composting facilities. ORl is in the process of
establishing a green materials (yard waste) composting facility in the Otay
Mesa area of the City of San Diego. Pursuant to Section 50000 of the
Public Resources Code, and as required by State law (the 'Gap Procedure')
all new solid waste facilities (materials recovery, composting and landfill)
must be included in the County Solid Waste Management Plan (CoSWMP).
The report describes the proposed composting facility. Support of the
proposed project does not require that Chula Vista commit its green
materials to the facility. However, should the facility open, it will provide
the City with a viable alternative for processing of its yard waste materials.
Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Administration)
11. RESOLUTION 17169 AUTIiORIZING CONDITIONAL TEMPORARY CLOSURE OF RANCHO DEL
REY PARKWAY ON SEPTEMBER 18 AND 19, 1993, FOR THE ORANGE
CRATE DERBY - The Bonita Orange Crate Derby Committee is requesting
the City to authorize a temporary street closure and to grant permission to
conduct an Orange Crate Derby on Rancho del Rey Parkway on Saturday
and Sunday, 9/18/93 and 9/19/93. Staff recommends approval of the
resolution. (Director of Parks and Recreation)
Agenda -3- July 20, 1993
12. RESOLUTION 17170 INTENTION TO VACATE UNNAMED ROADS LOCATED AT THE
SOUTIffiAST CORNER OF PALOMAR STREET AND INDUSTRIAL
BOULEVARD (pALOMAR TROlJ.EY CENTER) - Sun belt Management
Company, clo Latigo West Development Company, owner of the proposed
development of properties in the southeast corner of Palomar Street and
Industrial Boulevard, has requested right-of-way vacations of unnamed
roads by the City in order to utilize the vacated land for the Palomar
Trolley Center development. ITEM HAS BEEN PULLED AT STAFFS
REOUEST. (Director of Public Works and Director of Community
Development)
13.A. RESOLUTION 17171 APPROVING REPLACEMENT SUBDMSION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENTS
FOR FOURTEEN SUBDMSIONS IN RANCHO DEL REY SPAS I AND II AND
AUTIiORIZlNG THE MAYOR TO EXEClITE SAME - Rancho del Rey
Partnership has notified the City that the fee interest in fourteen
subdivisions located at Rancho del Rey SPAs I and II is to be conveyed to
Rancho del Rey Investors, L.P. They have also requested replacement of
the original subdivision improvement agreements with new agreements
signed by the new owner. Staff recommends approval of the resolutions.
(Director of Public Works)
B. RESOLUTION 17172 APPROVING THE FIRST AMENDMENT/NOVATION OF THE
SUPPLEMENTAL SUBDMSION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENTS FOR SPA
I, PHASE 5, UNIT 1, LOT 77 AND FOR RANCHO DEL REY SPA II AND
AUTIiORIZlNG THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAME
C. RESOLUTION 17173 APPROVING LETrER OF ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE RELEASE OF
SUBDMSION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENTS, SUPPLEMENTAL
SUBDMSION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENTS AND BONDS FOR
SUBDMSIONS IN RANCHO DEL REY SPAS I AND II IN CONNECTION
WITH THE TRANSFER OF FEE TITLE FROM RANCHO DEL REY
PARTNERSHIP TO RANCHO DEL REY INVESTORS, L.P. (ESCROW
NUMBER 1073167J FIRST AMERICAN TITLE COMPANY) AND
AUTIiORIZlNG THE MAYOR TO SIGN SAID LETrER
14. RESOLUTION 17174 APPROVING TIIIRD AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH DARNEll. AND
ASSOCIATES, INC. TO PREPARE TRAFFIC SIGNAL PLANS FOR 1-805 AND
OTAY VAlLEY ROAD INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS - Staff recently
received notification from Caltrans that their Office of Project Planning and
Development in Sacramento is requiring further changes in the City's traffic
signal design plans for the signalization of the 1-805 ramps at Otay Valley
Road. Specifically, Caltrans has determined that the width of the shoulder
sections on Otay Valley Road under I-80S is substandard as proposed at
five feet and must be eight feet. The civil design work needed to modify
the traffic signal plans to meet Caltrans requirements will add an
additional $16,600 to the City's design cost to complete the project. Staff
recommends approval of the resolution- (Director of Public Works)
Ag~nda -4- July 20, 1993
15. REPORT PROPOSED DEBT SETTLEMENT BETWEEN OGDEN ENVIRONMENTAL
AND ENERGY SERVICES AND BALDWIN VISTAASSOCJATES REGARDING
THE OTAY RANCH - Over the past few months, Baldwin has fallen short
in meeting its contractual obligation to Ogden Environmental as to
payments due. Negotiations have been ongoing over the last thirty days
to arrive at an acceptable payment schedule to eliminate the debt. A
tentative agreement has been reached. The purpose of the report is to
request Council authorization, since the City is a party to the three party
agreement, to have City staff implement the agreement. It is recommended
that Council authorize staff to execute a payment agreement with Baldwin
Vista and Ogden Environmental to address the Otay Ranch debt. (Deputy
City Manager Krempl) Continued from the meeting of 7/13/93.
16. REPORT WORK PROGRAM AND AUTIJORIZATION FOR A SCHOOL IMPACf
MITIGATION STIlDY IN CONJUNCTION WIlli THE CHUI.A VISTA
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICf, SWEETWATER UNION HIGH SCHOOL
DISTRICf AND SOURCE POINT- In mid-1992, Council directed staff to
finalize a work program for the mentioned study with both School Districts
and return with a final work program for Council action. Staff has since
worked with the Districts and Source Point to reach consensus on the fmal
program, which is being presented for Council consideration. Staff
recommends Council: (1) accept the work program and authorize
commencement of the Source Point study; and (2) authorize staff to
undertake final coordination activities, and the City Manager to execute a
contract as necessary to initiate the Source Point work. (Director of
Planning)
17. REPORT OTAY CORPORATE CENTER NORlli PROJECf - On 3/23/93, Council
authorized staff to transmit a letter stating the City's concerns regarding a
proposed development project in Otay Mesa known as 'Otay Corporate
Center North.' Subsequently, staff received a copy of the City Manager's
Report, which recommended a six-month continuance of the project, due
to transborder airPort issues. The report is intended to provide Council
with an update. It is recommended that Council accept the report and
provide staff with additional comments and/or direction, if deemed
necessary, prior to the scheduled San Diego City Council hearing for the
project on 7/27193. (Director of Planning)
18. REPORT CONSULTANT SELECTION PROCESS FOR GREG ROGERS PARK
IMPROVEMENT PLAN - On 3/2/93, Council directed staff to return with
a report which would address Council's concern on the Request For
Proposal (RFP) process used to select a design consultant for the Greg
Rogers Park Improvement Project. Staff recommends Council accept the
report. (Director of Parks and Recreation)
* * END OF CONSENT CALENDAR * *
Agenda -5- July 20, 1993
PUBUC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
The folIowÜlg items have been advertised and/or posted as publk: hearÜlgs as required by law. If you wish to speak
to any item, please fill out the .Request to Speak Form. available ÚI the lobby and submit it to the City Clerk prior
to the meetÚlg. (Compkte the green form to speak Úlfavorofthe staffrecomtrU!nllati compkte the pinkform
to speak in opposition to the staff recommendation.) Comments are limited to five minuus per individuaL
19. PUBUC HEARING CONSIDERATION OF AN INCREASE IN SEWER SERVICE CHARGES - As
a member of the San Diego Area Wastewater Management District
(SDAWMD) , the City is required to participate in its operations,
maintenance, and upgrade program. Due to the increased cost of
upgrading regional wastewater transportation, treatment, and disposal, it
is necessary to raise the sewer service charges for Fiscal Year 1993/94.
Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works)
4/5th's vote reqœred- Continued from the meeting of 7/13/93.
RESOLUTION 17164 APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE MASTER FEE SCHEDULE ON
SEWER SERVICE CHARGES AND TRANSFER OF $1,856,000 FROM FUND
222 TO FUND 225
20. PUBUC HEARING CI1Y OPEN SPACE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 10 FOR FISCAL YEAR
1993/94 - Based upon the advice of the City Attorney, the public hearing
for Open Space Maintenance District 10 has been separated due to conflict
of interest. In accordance with the City Municipal Code Section 17.07, the
City Engineer prepared reports on the spread of assessments for the Open
Space Districts. The reports were accepted, and the required public
hearings were set by Council at their meetings of 5/25/93 and 6/1193.
The first public hearing was held on 7/13/93. Staff recommends approval
of the resolution. (Director of Public Works)
RESOLUTION 17175 ORDERING CERTAIN OPEN SPACE AND MAINTENANCE FA<JUTIES TO
BE MAINTAINED AND LEVYING ASSESSMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1993/94
FOR OPEN SPACE DISTRICT NUMBER 10
21. PUBUC HEARING <JTY OPEN SPACE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NUMBERS 1-9, 11, 14, 15,
17, 18, 20, 24, 26, AND BAY BOULEVARD, EASTI.AKE AND TOWN
CENŒR MAINTENANCE DISTRIcrs FOR FISCAL YEAR 1993/94 - Based
upon the advice of the City Attorney, the public hearing for Open Space
Maintenance District 10 has been separated due to conflict of interest. In
accordance with the Ciry Municipal Code Section 17.07, the City Engineer
prepared reports on the spread of assessments for the Open Space Districts.
The reports were accepted, and the required public hearings were set by
Council at their meetings of 5/25/93 and 6/1193. The first public hearing
was held on 7/13/93. Staff recommends approval of the resolution.
(Director of Public Wotks)
RESOLUTION 17176 ORDERING CERTAIN OPEN SPACE AND MAINTENANCE FA<JJJTIES TO
BE MAINTAINED, APPROVING MODIFICATIONS TO THE ENGINEER'S
REPORT AND LEVYING THE ASSESSMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1993/94
FOR OPEN SPACE DISTRICT NUMBERS 1-9, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18,20,24,26
AND BAY BOULEVARD, EASTI.AKE AND TOWN CENŒR MAINTENANCE
DISTRIcrs
Ag_enda -6- July 20, 1993
22. PUBJJC HEARING AMENDING THE OTY'S 1992193 HOME PROGRAM DESCRIPTION - South
Bay Community Services is requesting $617,646 of HOME Federal Housing
Funds from the City for Acquisition and Rehabilitation of a 14 unit
apartment building at 31 Fourth Avenue which they plan to develop into
a short-term housing facility to serve homeless families in the South Bay.
Staff recommends the public hearinR: be continued to 8/10/93. (Director
of Community Development)
23. PUBJJC HEARING REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION OF THE GROWTII MANAGEMENT
OVERSJGHr COMMISSION'S (GMOC) 1992 ANNUAL REPORT. Pursuant
to requirements of the City's growth management program, the annual
report reflects the outcome of analysis of information presented by various
City departments and external agencies regarding the impacts of growth on
each of the eleven facility and service topics covered by the Threshold
Standards. The report serves to identify whether or not the City is in
compliance with each of the standards and to make related
recommendations to Council on any actions believed necessary to remedy
identified deficiencies and/or ensure continuing compliance. It is
recommended that Council accept the 1992 Annual Report and direct staff
to undertake actions necessary to implement the Report's
recommendations; and (2) direct staff to prepare the necessaty Statements
of Concern for issuance by the Mayor regarding the Water, Schools, and Air
Quality Thresholds. (Director of Planning)
24. PUBJJC HEARING TENTATIVE SUBDMSION MAP PCS-90-O7; APPEAL OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION DEOSION TO APPROVE ONE-YEAR TIME EX1ENSION FOR
THE SUNBOW U SUBDMSION, TRACT 90-07 - On 7/14/93, the Planning
Commission unanimously approved a one-time extension request for the
Sunbow II Subdivision. Due to time constraints and legal requirements of
the application, the applicant filed in advance an appeal of the Planning
Commission decision to ensure that any potential appeal, including the
applicant's own, could be considered by Council before the map expires
(7/21/93) Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of
Planning)
RESOLUTION 17177 DENYING THE APPEAL AND AFFIRMING THE PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A ONE-YEAR TENTATIVE MAP EX1ENSION
FOR THE SUNBOW II SUBDMSION, TRACT 90-07
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
'lñis is an opportunity for the general publk: to address the CiJy Council 011 any subject matter withÜI the Council's
jurisdû:tion that is not an item 011 tJús agenda. (State law, however, generally prohibits the Cily Council from
takÜlg action 011 any issues not ÚlCluded 011 the posted agenda.) If you wish to address the Council 011 such a
subject, please compkte the yeUow .Request to Speak Under Oral Communû:ations Form. available ÚI the lobby
and submit it to the Cily Clerk prior to the meetÚlg. Those who wish to speok, please give your fIilnU! and address
for record J1U1PO8es and follow up action. Your time is limiIed to three mÚIuteS per speo1œr.
BOARD AND COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
'lñis is the time the CiJy Council will consider items whU:h have been forwarded to them for consideration by one
of the Cily's Boards, Commissions and/or Committees.
25. Request by the Housing Advisory Committee that Council negotiate for at least 200 existing rental
assistance certificates being administered by the San Diego County Housing Authority - Joe Casillas,
Chairman, Housing Advisory Committee. Continued from the meeting of 7/13/93.
Ag,enda -7- July 20, 1993
ACTION ITEMS
The items listed ÚI this section of the agendJJ are expected to e1k:it substontial discussions and deliberations by the
Council, staff, or member:r of the general publk:. The items will be considered individually by the Council and staff
recommendations may ÚI certain cases be presented ÚI the alternative. Those who wish to speak, pkase fill out
a 'Request to Speak" form available ÚI the lobby and submit it to the CiJy Clerk prior to the meetÜIg. Publk:
comments are limited to five minutes.
26. REPORT UPDATE ON SOIJD WASTE PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT AND
ALTERNATIVE DISPOSAL OPTIONS - Various options will be presented to
Council for their consideration. (City Manager) Continued from the
meeting of 7/13/93.
ITEMS PUll.ED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR
This is the time the City Council will discuss items whim have been removed from tJie Conselù Calendor. Agmda
items pulkd tU the request of the publk: will be considned prior to those pu1kd by CounciJmembers. Publk:
comments are limited to five mÚIUteS per individual.
OTHER BUSINESS
27. CITY MANAGER'S REPORTfS)
a. Scheduling of meetings.
28. MAYOR'S REPORTfS)
a. Ratification of appointments:
Appeals and Advisors - Thomas F. Leonard (reappoint);
Cultural Arts Commission - Larry V. Dumlao (reappoint);
Cultural Arts Commission - Carlos Gilbert Pelayo;
Design Review Commission - Dan Way;
Library Board of Trustees - Ronald E. Williams (reappoint);
Economic Development Commission Ex-Officio Sheila Washington (Continued from the
meeting of 7/13/93);
International Friendship Commission - Louis Alvarez (Continued from the meeting of
7/13/93);
Planning Commission - William C. Tuchscher (reappoint);
Resource Conservation Commission - Barbara Ann Hall (reappoint);
Resource Conservation Commission - Michael Johnson (reappoint);
Safety Commission - Stephen C. Padilla (reappoint).
b. Reconsideration of 1993/94 budget. Continued from the meeting of 7/13/93.
c. Cox Cable adult channel. Continued from the meeting of 7/13/93.
29. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilman Fox
a. Review of Police Department policy regarding minor narcotic law violations on school
campuses. Continued from the meeting of 7/13/93.
Agenda -8- July 20, 1993
Councilman Moore
b. Reconsideration of Solid Waste Management Agreement and eligibility to serve on Interim
Commission by listing areas of concern as understandings versus conditions and that the
various City's items of únderstanding to be among the first order of business of the
Commission. Continued from the meeting of 7/13/93.
c. Letters to Mayors of Imperial Beach, National City, and City of San Diego regarding Eighth
District area and County Board of Supervisors regarding First District south of SR-54 urging
them to join Chula Vista in a unified effort regarding a basic divergence program and a
follow-up meeting with Presiding Juvenile Judge Pate, Probation Department, and District
Attorney's Office. Goal is to agree upon a minimum offer/court fine of thirty days of
community service with parent presence for fifty per cent of the service when youths are
apprehended in acts of graffiti application. Continued from the meeting of 7/13/93.
Councilman Rindone
d. Evaluation criteria for City Manager and format. Continued from the meeting of 7/13/93.
ADJOURNMENT
The City Council will meet in a closed session immediately following the Council meeting to discuss:
Instructions to negotiators pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6 - Chula Vista Employees
Association (CVEA), Western Council of Engineers (WCE) , Police Officers Association (POA) ,
International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF), Executive Management, Mid-Management, and
Unrepresented. Continued from the meeting of 7/13/93.
Potential litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 - City of Chula Vista vs. County
of San Diego regarding booking fees. Continued from the meeting of 7/13/93.
Pending litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 - Jones lntercable. Continued
from the meeting of 7/13/93.
Potential litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 - City of Chula Vista vs. County
of San Diego regarding tipping fee surcharge. Continued from the meeting of 7/13/93.
Evaluation of City Manager pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.
The meeting will adjourn to (a closed session and -thence to) a Joint Meeting of the City Council/County
Board of Supervisors on Wednesday, July 21, 1993 at 3:00 p.m. at the County Administration Center, thence
to a Joint Meeting of the City Council/County Board of Supervisors on Thursday, July 22, 1993 at 3:00 p.m.
at the County Administration Center, thence to a Joint Meeting of the City Council/County Board of
Supervisors on Monday, July 26, 1993 at 3:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, and thence to the Regular
City Council Meeting on July 27, 1993 at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers.
A Special Joint Meeting of the City Council/Redevelopment Agency will be held immediately following the
City Council meeting.
¿ {J( SECoND R
fADING AN
{ ~ COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT 0 ADoPTION
~7 ';ii~
~ Meeting Date 0 3/93 ì/z.;>/a.'!.
~ \'b
ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing for the Consideration of Granting a Franchise to
Laidlaw Waste Systems, Inc. for Multi-family Recycling Collection
Services. O~
$1. f<'\~
Ordinance ~ ~~Amending Ordinance No. 1993, ~I~;fnded, By
Modifying the Terms ofthe Laidlaw Waste Syste~ c. Franchise to
Require Collection of Recyclable ~~ from Multi-family
Residences within the City ofCh~ ta and to Resell Said
Materials. ~<ç,.O
SUBMITTED BY: Conservation Coordinator flL'þ
REVIEWED BY: (9Jl.-fl. (4/5ths Vote: Yes_No.XJ
City Manager ::'¡"" Referral #2720
At the June 22nd meeting, Council approved the resolution giving notice of intent to grant
a franchise for the multi-family recycling program collection services to be provided by
Laidlaw Waste Systems and setting July 13, 1993 as the date for the public hearing. As
directed, staff has noticed the public hearing in conformance with the Charter-required
process for granting a franchise. The report further describes the proposed franchise to
allow for Council and public input during the public hearing.
RECOMMENDATION: Hold the public hearing, take testimony, close the hearing and
place the ordinance on first reading.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: The Resource Conservation
Commission discussed the draft franchise ordinance at their May 19th 1993 meeting and
unanimously (4-0-2) supported a motion to recommend to Council that the franchise
ordinance be approved. Minutes of the meeting were attached with the June 22nd
Council Report.
DISCUSSION:
At the April 13th meeting, Council approved in concept a proposed multi-family recycling
program with collection services to be provided by Laidlaw Waste Systems. On June 22nd,
Council approved the notice of intent to grant a franchise to allow for full implementation
of recycling at all multi-family complexes in the City (approximately 22,000 residences).
The franchise ordinance, as proposed with certain amendments requested by Council at
the June 22nd meeting, is contained as Attachment A. The specific amendments
requested by Council are discussed in detail further on in this report.
Cc.-I
~
Summary of the Proposed Multi-Family Residential Franchise
Laidlaw personneL A Laidlaw staff member will be assigned to the multi-family recycling
program, not less than half-time.
Collection. All materials designated under the mandatory recycling ordinance will be
collected on a weekly basis.
Containers. Each multi-family unit will receive a 6-gallon "apartment recycler" bin;
complexes will be provided with an appropriate number of three-yard bins and/or 90 gallon
carts, depending on space constraints. Replacement of bins for new tenants (estimated
at 20 percent per year) has been built into the estimated program costs. In order to
encourage complex owners a.,nd managers to ensure that the bins remain with the
residential unit, staff has put the following clause into the franchise ordinance:
(Section 3 8.3) "Replacem\mt of containers that are stolen and/or damaged
shall be made at no cost tò the resident at Grantee's discretion, up to one
per Unit. If a Unit requir~ an additional interior container beyond the
maximum of two allowed, the.,property owner, manager or designated agent
there of, may purchase additi~nal interior containers from the Grantee at a
cost not to exceed the mark~rice of the container and a reasonable
handling charge. Grantee will be esponsible for keeping records and making
them available to the City regardi ~ additional containers requested, and the
reason for the request, e.g., dam ed, stolen, needed to handle residence
recyclables beyond capacity of on \ container, etc."
Education. $.10 per unit (Le., individual '~lti-familY residence) per month has been
allocated for ongoing promotional activities. LàJdlaw will conduct the promotional activities
under direction of City staff. \,
"
Term. Similar to the franchise ordinance for the curçside recycling program, the proposed
length of franchise will be until the year 2002 (8 yea~term). However, this term is subject
to a two year notice of intent to cancel the franchise Í1\at may be given at any time by the
City without cause, following the initial three year term of the program. As discussed in
the Council report for the June 22nd meeting, Laidlaw h used an average amortization
schedule of 7 years, at their risk. They have used a 5- ar amortization schedule for
interior containers and related start-up costs and have ed a 10-year amortization
schedule for exterior containers and vehicle costs assuming that the franchise will be
extended at least two years beyond the five year minimum and erefore have quoted a
$1.50 per unit per month rate charge.
Unamortized vehicle clause. As Council may recall, Laidlaw has ask that, if the City
decides for some reason to abandon completely its source-separated re cling program
(e.g., to go to a mixed-waste system where recyclables are not separated. m trash for
collection at the curb, but are instead taken to a facility and sorted), at no fault of
Laidlaw's, during the initial period of the franchise, that an appropriate rate adjustment
2 t.:,-2..
~
--- provision be included in the franchise to provide for any unamortized vehicle costs, due
to the specialized nature of the vehicles and the relatively high cost Laidlaw is amortizing
the vehicles over the 10 year period in order to keep costs lower for the program. Staff
has included the following clause in the proposed ordinance:
"If during the initial period of the franchise, or any extension thereof, the City
discontinues the separate collection of multi-family recyclables and reverts
to a mixed waste processing system for commingled collection of waste and
recyclables, the City agrees to allow a rate adjustment to permit the Grantee
to recover the loss incurred on the sale of vehicular equipment specifically
purchased to meet the Grantee's obligations under this ordinance. Such loss
will be calculated by deducting the realizable market value of the equipment
from a reasonable depreciated book value of the equipment at the time of
the sale of equipment"
Proposed fee. The net charge per apartment unit (Le., individual residence) for the
proposed multi-family recycling program is $1.50. Currently, the single-family residential
recycling fee is $1.10. As previously outlined, the difference in costs are reasonable and
justified because of the higher costs associated with multi-family recycling. As with the
single-family curbside program, the rates for multi-family recycling will be reviewed on an
annual basis. If the actual costs for operating the program are under what they are
estimated, the fee would be adjusted accordingly in the subsequent rate period.
The cost of the multi-family program has been derived using the same formula used for
the single-family program, where program participants get the benefit of revenues from
the sale of materials and credit for the amount of recyclables not going to the landfill. The
estimated cost breakdown is contained in the chart below, with a comparison to the single-
family recycling program. (NOTE: Estimated single-family material sales and landfill
diversion credits were established during the rate review last conducted in August 1992.
These components should not be compared directly to the multifamily rate components,
which have been estimated based upon expected participation. These estimates would
be reviewed yearly based upon actual program data.)
Single Family Multi-family
Total Service Cost $1.88 $2.00
Est. Materials Sales (0.31) (0.20)
Est. Landfill Diversion (0.45) (0.30)
County Grants (0.02) (0)
Net Resident Cost $1.10 $1.50
Attachment B contains an updated rate survey for multi-family recycling in the San Diego
County region.
3 ~-3.
~
Landfill Diversion Credit. The proposed franchise ordinance includes a clause that allows
for reducing the landfill diversion credit amount to something less that 100 percent (to be
negotiated between the City and Laidlaw) with the intent to provide an economic incentive
for Laidlaw towards increasing program participation and success. This was approved by
the Council in the single family recycling program and is repeated in this ordinance. It is
not binding on Council, but the Council should be advised that this issue could be revisited
in future negotiations.
Amendments to the Franchise Made bv Council and ProDosed by Laidlaw
At the June 22nd meeting approving the resolution of intent to grant the franchise, Council
amended the proposed franchise to include a clause that requires Council to vote on
franchise fee increases for the Multi-family Recycling Program. Additionally, Laidlaw has
requested two minor clauses for the clarification purposes.
Franchise fees. Staff included a franchise fee clause in the ordinance similar to that which
is contained in the single family curbside recycling program franchise (i.e., starting at 8
percent of gross receipts). However, Council directed that the ordinance be amended to
require that any increases to the franchise fee be allowed only upon Council approval.
Staff has made the appropriate changes to the clause, as follows:
"Additional Franchise Fee - The Grantee, as part of the consideration of this
ordinance, agrees to pay to the City an additional franchise fee at a rate
consistent with that paid for refuse collection and detailed in Section 4
Consideration of the Franchise, as amended by Ordinance 2104. This rate
will begin at eight percent (8%) of the annual Gross Receipts collected by
said Grantee within the City of Chula Vista from residents for the Multi-family
Recycling Program within the City, and increase by one-half (1/2) percent in
accordance with the refuse and sinale-familv recvclina franchise fee
increases. However, said franchise fee increase must be aDDroved bv City
Council. Beginning April 1, 1991, tho franchise feo shall bo increased by
onc h:Jlf pcrcent (1/2%) :Jnd onc h:Jlf porcent (1/2%) each April theroaftcr
until it ro:Jchc:; :J m:Jximum of ton percent. It is understood that any such
increase in the franchise fee by the City shall be cause for the Grantee to
increase charges in order to "pass through" the cost of the franchise fee."
During the annual rate review process for all of Laidlaw's refuse and recycling services,
the one-half (1/2) percent increase in franchise fees is always highlighted for Council's
attention so that a conscious decision may be made on increasing the fee and passing
the cost through to ratepayers. Council action to add new programs by Laidlaw, at any
time other than during the annual rate review period, requires special attention to
integrating the new program costs into the overall rate.
The next annual rate review, to be brought to Council in the near future, will include
refuse, single-family recycling and the recent landfill disposal costs. At that time, if the
franchise fee on the total rate is increased from 8 to 8 1/2 percent by Council, Laidlaw has
4 Ic-~
~
agreed to pay the increased 1/2 percent on multi-family recycling receipts to the City
- without passing through the increase to the rate paver.
This arrangement allows the new program to be implemented in the middle of the annual
rate review cycle with no impact on the rate payer. Since franchise fees are calculated
quarterly based on gross receipts, it is operationally difficult to separate certain gross
receipts to be paid at different franchise levels. In subsequent annual rate review cycles,
starting in 1994, the combined rate and franchise fee under consideration will be for refuse
and all recycling programs previously implemented.
Clarification of educational activity funding. Under the terms of the ordinance, $.10 is
designated for educational activities. The cost of all start-up promotional materials will be
included in this allocation. The cost could be reduced, eliminated or increased in
subsequent years should the City not deem it necessary. However, a provision in the
ordinance allows it to continue at the City's direction. In the clause below, from Section
B.6 of the ordinance, Laidlaw has asked for a clarification of its duties as required for
educational activities and the funding source for said activities. Staff believes that it was
always the intent of the section and that placing the additional clause in does not deviate
from the intent, however, the City Attorney advises that Council should be aware that this
is proposed by Laidlaw apparently as a limitation on the source of funds.
"The Grantee and the City agree that the main purpose of an aggressive
public education program is to increase participation and diversion, as well
as limiting contamination of Franchised Recyclables. Beginning in the
second year, if, in the City's judgement, it is reasonably determined that the
public education effort has not resulted in high enough Program interest, the
Grantee will perform reasonable public education activities at the City's
directio'1 at a cost to the Grantee not to exceed $.10 per Unit per month. If
needed, as part of the educational activities, as determined by the City with
input from the Grantee,thc Gr::mtoc ::md tho City, the Grantee will develop
incentives to increase participation, such as, offering rewards for complexes
that have high participation levels and high tonnage levels."
Funding Sources. The Residential Multi-family Recycling Program will be funded by four
sources: a monthly recycling fee to all eligible residents (to be billed to the property
manager or resident, as with refuse billings); Net revenues from the sale of collected
recyclable material; savings in disposal cost of material diverted from the landfill; grant
funds when available and awarded. In section D1(a) ofthe ordinance, Laidlaw has asked
for a clarification that states that the revenues received from the sale of collected
recyclables are net and not gross revenues. Staff agrees that the intent of the clause was
to be net revenues, as stated in paragraph D1 of the ordinance, and as in the proposed
amendment to the ordinance below.
"A monthly recycling fee, charged to eligible residents is the primary source of
funding for this program. In general, it will be allocated equally among the
customer base, as determined by Section D.2 below, receiving said Recycling
~-CS
5~
Collection services and will be determined by the Grantee's operating expenses
directly attributable to the recycling program, less: revenues received from the sale
of the collected Recyclables net of processina and brokering fees, the savings
realized in disposal costs of material diverted from the landfill and any grant funds
received for the program."
FISCAL IMPACT: The proposed Multi-family Recycling Program service charges, set at
$1.50 per unit per month, will be paid by the rate payers and there will be no direct City
cost. The rate includes a proposed 8 percent franchise to be paid to the City, and
additional franchise fees to the City can be anticipated at approximately $31,600 per year.
Additionally, once the Multi-family Recycling Program is implemented, the City is eligible
to receive Tonnage Grant monies from the County of San Diego, in the same manner as
for the Single-Family Recycling Program. These grant monies are now budgeted at $7.75
per ton of recyclables collected from residential recycling programs. Currently the City
receives approximately $35,000 per year from the Tonnage Grant program.
6 ~-(..
~
it ~ _~memA
- ~ ~ ORDINANCE NO. .:;,n,<
~ f ~~ #'&
/ \ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VI ~ AMENDING
~ \~ ORDINANCE NO- 1993, AS AMENDEO, BY ~~ THETERMS
:r OF THE LAIDLAW WASTE SYSTEMS, INC- F HISE TO REQUIRE
COLLECTION OF RECYCLABLE MATE FROM MULTI-FAMILY
RESIDENCES WITHIN THE CITY OFs:-~ VISTA AND TO RESELL
SAID MATERIALS. S
The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1: That Section 1 of Ordinance No. 1993, as has been amended from
time to time, is hereby amended to read as follows:
"Section 1. Definitions.
Whenever in this ordinance the words or phrases hereinafter in this
section defined are used, they shall have the respective meaning assigned to
them in the following definitions (unless in the given instance, the context
wherein they are used shall clearly import a different meaning):
A. "Aluminum" means recoverable aluminum materials such as used
beverage containers, siding, screening, and other manufactured items.
B. "Bulky Waste" means large items of solid waste such as White
Goods, furniture, large auto parts, trees, stumps and other oversize wastes
whose large size precludes or complicates their handling by normal collection,
processing or disposal methods.
C: "Buy-back Center" means a facility which pays a fee for the delivery
and transfer of ownership to the facility of source separated materials for the
purpose of recycling, mulching or composting.
D. "City" shall mean the City of Chura Vista, a municipal corporation of
the State of California in its present incorporated form or in any later
reorganized, consolidated, enlarged or reincorporated form.
E. "Collection" means the act of collecting Solid Waste materials, or
Recyclables at Residential, commercial, industrial, or governmental sites, and
hauling it to a facility for processing, transfer, disposal or burning.
F. "Contract or Franchise Agent(s)" means any person or entity
designated by the City Council pursuant to Article XII of the City Charter and
Chula Vista Municipal Code, Chapter 8.24, as being responsible for
(0.""
~
Chula Vista Municipal Code, Chapter 8.24, as being responsible for
administering, directing, supervising, collecting, operating and/or providing for
the disposal or transfer of refuse, or the collection and/or processing of
Designated Recyclables.
G. "Curbside Collection" means the collection of Designated Recyclables
from the Residential waste stream from the curb or alleyway. May include
single-family, Multi-family residences and mobile home trailer courts that
receive curbside. collection of refuse or that are otherwise specially designated
as having curbside collection.
H. "Designated Recycling Collection or Stor~e Location" means a place
designated by the City Manager in conjUnction~th the Contract or Franchise
Agent(s) for pick up or storage of recyclables egregated from other waste
material. Designated Recycling Collection or S rage Locations include, but are
not limited to, the curbside of a Residential eighborhood; the service alley,
loading dock, or basement of a commercial terprise or Multi-family complex.
I. "Designated Recycling Containe s" ("Containers") shall mean those
containers or receptacles designated by he City Manager or its Contract or
Franchise Agent for pick-up or storage f Designated Recyclables.
J. "Designated Recyclables" means materials that Bre recyclable,
reclaimable, and/or reusable within he following categories of Residential,
commercial and industrial and as de ned more specifically herein within each
category. Any material having an onomic value on the secondary materials
market or that is otherwise salvage ble shall be included and/or other materials
that have been separated from oth r Residential, commercial, or industrial Solid
Waste for purposes of being rec led for resale and/or reuse, and placed at a
Designated Recycling Collectio or Storage Location or in a Designated
Recycling Container for the pur ose of collection and processing, or any such
Designated Recyclables materi Is collected under a Mixed Waste Processing
program.
K. "Exterior Recycl ng Containers" means Designated Recycling
Containers to be used for 0 side storage of Franchised Recyclables.
L. "Franchised Rec clables" means any Residential Recyclables, as
defined herein and by CV C Chapter 8.25, placed in Designated Recycling
Containers placed at Desig ated Recycling Collection or Storage Location(s) to
be collected by the Grant e, excluding yard waste.
M. "Garbage" eans all kitc~en Bnd tBble waste, Bnd animal or
vegetable waste that att IJnds or results from the storage, preparation, cooking,
or handling of food stuffs, except organic wastes separated therefrom and used
in composting in accordance with Chula Vista Municipal Code Chapter 8.25,
2 to-\.
~
Section 8.35.090.
N. "Glass Bottles and Jars" means food and beverage containers made
from silica or sand, soda ash and limestone, the product being transparent or
translucent and being used for packaging or bottling, including container glass
designated redeemable under the California Beverage Container Recycling and
Litter Reduction Law, Division 12.1 (commencing with Section 14500) of the
California Public Resources Code, as well as glass jars and bottles without
redeemable value ("scrap"), but excluding household, kitchen, Bnd other
sources of non-container glass such as drinking glasses, ceramics, light bulbs,
window pane glass, and similar glass products that are not bottles or jars.
O. "Grantee" shall mean Laidlaw Waste Systems, Inc. and its lawful
successors or assigns.
P. "Gross Receipts" shall mean all gross operating revenues received by
Grantee from the collection and disposal of refuse or collection and sale of
recyclable materials.
O. "Interior Recycling Containers" means a small (approximately 6
gallon) Designated Recycling Container to be provided to each eligible
residential customer in the Multi-family Recycling program.
- R. "Landfill" means a disposal system by which solid waste is deposited
and compacted before burial in a specially prepared area which provides for
environmental monitoring and treatment.
S. "Mixed Waste Processing" means a system of recovering recyclables
from the mixed waste stream through separation at a processing facility,
transfer station, Landfill, or other such facility instead of separation at the
waste generation source.
T. "Multi-family" means a structure or structures containing a total of 3
or more dwelling units in any vertical or horizontal arrangement on a single lot
or building site.
U. "Newspaper" means newsprint-grade paper including any inserts that
come in the paper, and excluding soiled paper, all magazines, and other
periodicals, telephone books, as well as all other paper products of any
nature.
V. "Nuisance" means anything which is injurious to human health, or is
indecent or offensive to the senses, and interferes with the comfortable
enjoyment of life or property, and affects at the same time an entire community
or neighborhood, or any number of persons, although the extent of annoyance
or damage inflicted upon the individual may be unequal, and which occurs as
J Co-q
~
a result of the storage, removal, transport, processing, or disposal of Solid
Waste, compost, and/or Designated Recyclables.
W. "Plastic Bottle" means a plastic container with narrow neck or mouth
opening smaller than the diameter of the container body, used for containing
milk, juice, soft drinks, water, detergent, shampoo or other such substances
intended for household or hospitality use; to distinguish from non-bottle
containers (e.g., deli or margarine tub containers) and from non-household
plastic bottles such as those for containing motor oil, solvents, and other non-
household substances.
X. "Processing" means the reduction, separation, recovery, conversion,
or Recycling of Solid waste.
Y. "Recycling" shall mean any process by which materials which would
otherwise become Solid Waste are collected (source separated, commingled,
or as "mixed waste"). separated and/or processed and returned to the
economic mainstream in the form of raw materials or products or materials
which are otherwise salvaged or recovered for reuse.
Z. "Refuse" means Garbage and Rubbish.
AA. "Removal" means the act of taking Solid Wastes or Designated
Recyclables from the place of generation either by the Contract or Franchise
Agent(s), or by a person in control of the premises.
BB. "Removal Frequency" means frequency of removal of Solid Wastes
or Recyclables from the place of generation.
CC. "Residential" for purposes of this Chapter, means any building or
portion thereof designed or used exclusively as the residence or sleeping place
of one or more persons, including single and multiple family dwellings,
apartment-hotels, boarding and lodging houses. Residential does not include
short-term residential uses, such as motels, tourist cabins, or hostels which are
regulated as Hospitality establishments as defined in Sub-Section U of CVMC
Chapter 8.25.
DD. "Residential Recyclables" means those specific recyclable materials
from Residential Solid Waste (single family and multi-family) including, but not
limited to, Aluminum, Glass Bottles and Jars, Newspaper, Plastic Bottles, Tin
and Bi-Metal Cans, White Goods, and Yard Waste.
EE. "Rubbish" means non-putresciblesolid wastes such as ashes, paper,
yard clippings, glass, bedding, crockery, plastics, rubber by-products or litter.
Such materials that are designated as Recyclable or Compost may be exempt
from categorizing as rubbish provided such materials are handled, processed
! (0-10
~
and maintained in a properly regulated manner.
- FF. "Scavenging" means the uncontrolled and/or unauthorized removal
of Solid Waste, Designated Recyclables or recoverable materials.
GG. "To Segregate Waste Material" means any of the following: the
placement of Designated Recyclables in separBte Containers; the binding or
bagging of Designated Recyclables separately from other waste material Bnd
placing in a separate container':1m Refuse. or the same Container as Refuse;
the physical separation of De: '1ated Recyclables from other waste material
(either at the generating sou' ,Solid Waste transfer station, or processing
facility).
HH. "Solid Waste" means all putrescible and nonputrescible solid, semi-
solid and liquid wastes, such as Refuse, Garbage, Rubbish, ashes, industrial
wastes, demolition and construction wastes, abandoned vehicles Bnd parts
thereof, discarded home and industrial appliances, manure, vBgetable or animal
solid and semi-solid wastes, also includes liquid wastes disposed of in
conjunction with Solid Wastes at Solid Waste transfer/processing stations or
disposal sites, but excludes: sewage collected and treated in a municipal or
regional sewage system or materials or substances having commercial value or
other importance which can be salvaged for reuse, Recycling, composting or
resale.
- II. "Storage" means the interim containment of Solid Wastes. Yard
Wastes, or Recyclables in an approved manner after generation and prior to
disposal, Collection or processing.
JJ. "Streets" shall mean the public streets. ways, alleys and places as
the same now or may hereafter exist within said City, including state highways
now or hereafter established within said City.
KK. "Tin Bnd Bi-Metal Cans" means any steel food and beverage
containers with a tin or Aluminum plating.
LL. "Transfer or Processing Station" means those facilities utilized to
receive Solid Wastes and to temporarily store. separate, convert, or otherwise
process the Solid Waste and/or Recyclables.
MM. "Unit" means an individual residence contained in a Residential
Multi-family complex.
NN. "White Goods" means kitchen or other large enameled appliances
which includes, but is not limited to, refrigerators, washers, and dryers.
~ <0-11
~
00. "Yard Wastes" means leaves, grass, weeds, and wood materials
from trees and shrubs from single family and multi-family Residential sources
(to include landscape haulings from residential sources). l'
SECTION 2: That Section 2 of Ordinance No. 1993, as has been amended from
time to time, is hereby amended to read as follows:
" Section 2. Purpose.
The franchise to collect and dispose of Refuse and to collect Residential
Recyclables, excluding Yard Waste, from single family and Multi-family
dwellings within the City of Chula Vista in the manner and on the terms herein
specified and to use for such purposes the Streets, ways and places within said
City is hereby granted to Laidlaw Waste Systems, Inc. its successors and
assigns."
SECTION 3: That a new Section 22 is added to Ordinance No. 1993, as has
been amended from time to time, which new Section 22 shall read as follows:
.. Section 22. Residential Multi-family Recycling Services
Grantee shall provide Residential Recycling services to all Multi-family
dwellings within the territory of the City as follows:
A. Exclusivity - The City grants to Grantee, for the term herein specified
and subject to such terminations herein allowed, the exclusive right to
collect Residential Recyclables, excluding Yard Waste, deposited in
Designated Recycling Containers (or alternatively, "Containers") located
at Designated Recycling Collection or Storage Location(s) as may be
identified on each Multi-family residential parcel within the City. This
grant of exclusive license is not intended and does not preclude duly
licensed non-profit organizations and community groups from conducting
recycling programs for the purpose of raising funds, nor does it preclude
a person from selling or otherwise disposing of their own Recyclables at
a Buy-back Center or for donation, so long as said collection, donation
or sale does not occur at the Designated Recycling Collection or Storage
Location. However, once the Residential Recyclables have been placed
in the Designated Recycling Containers provided by the Grantee, the
material ("Franchised Recyclables") becomes one of the subject matters
of this grant of franchise. The Grantee agrees to cooperate with the City
in reaching a modification to this ordinance to the extent required by law
1. When codified, you can say the following to incorporate other definitions by reference:
"Capitalized terms used herein not herein in this Chapter specifically defined
shall have the meaning specially ascribed to them as set forth in Chapter 8.25."
(Q <.ø - 1"'2-
~
at anytime it should be deemed necessary in the future.
B. Obligations of Grantee
1. Implementation Schedule - Grantee shall commence and
diligently implement this franchise Citywide from the date of this
franchise so that all multi-family residential complexes in the City
have Recycling Collection service by October 1, 1993 in
accordance with the City's mandatory recycling ordinance,
Chapter 8.25 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code.
2. Collection - Grantee shall furnish said labor, services, mater-
ials and equipment required to perform this franchise.
Grantee shall provide Collection and Removal services for all
Franchised Recyclables subject to the provisions of this ordinance
which are placed in Designated Recycling Containers at
Designated Recycling Collection or Storage Locations, as defined
by the City of Chula Vista Municipal Code Chapter 8.25,
segregated from Refuse, separated by commodity as outlined
herein, from all Multi-family residences. Grantee shall collect the
Franchised Recyclables not less than once per week and provide
any additional Collection as shall be necessary to prevent overflow
of the Exterior Recycling Containers, regardless of weather
conditions. Collection will be on regularly scheduled days as shall
be arranged with the building property owner, manager or
designated agent thereof. The Grantee and the City will mutually
. agree to any changes in Collection schedule frequencies or
Removal Frequency. Grantee will notify the building property
owner, manager or, designated agent thereof, of any changes in
Collection day(s) by written notification no later than two weeks
prior to the affected day, to be enforced nine months from the
date of this ordinance.
Design of Collection vehicles shall be done to limit the
contamination and maximize the resale value of collected
Franchised Recyclables. Any and all changes to the established
means of Collection of Franchised Residential Recyclables, as
herein outlined, shall be notified to the City in advance, including
any changes in the way that the Franchised Residential
Recyclables are collected (separated and/or commingled), design
of vehicles, etc.
3. Containers - Grantee shall purchase and distribute Designated
Recycling Containers, to include the following: a. Interior
Recycling Containers. An appropriate Container to be used inside
"] ~-I~
~
the Residential Unit, shall be provided to each eligible Residential
customer included in the Multi-family Recycling program. The
type of Container to be used or chBnges of Container type shall be
approved by the City prior to purchase and distribution. Grantee
shall retain ownership of the Containers.
Replacement of Containers that are stolen and/or damaged shall
be made at no cost to the resident at Grantee's discretion, up to
one per Unit. If a Unit requires an additional Interior Recycling
Container beyond the maximum of two allowed, the property
owner, manager or designated agent thereof, may purchase
additional interior Containers from the Grantee at a cost not to
exceed the market price of the Container and a reasonable
handling charge.
Grantee will be responsible for keeping records and making them
available to the City regarding additional Containers requested,
and the reason for the request, e.g., damaged, stolen, needed to
handle residence recyclables beyond capacity of one Container,
etc.
b. Exterior Recycling Containers. An appropriate Container(s) shall
be provided for use at each Multi-family complex that meets the
space restraints and Collection needs of the respective complex
and the residents therein. Said Containers may include 90 gallon
carts on wheels, 2 cubic yard bin or 3 cubic yard bin. Each
container shall conform to the following: slots in lids for
placement of beverage containers (circular holes of appropriate
sizes) and newspaper (narrow slots of appropriate size); plastic
containers should include recycled plastic content; be fire
resistent; be of durable quality and warranty; be heat stamped or
labeled for commodity; be clearly labeled on the lids and the front
facing of the bin, in Spanish and English (with graphics) as to the
Designated Recyclable(s) and "No Trash"; be clearly labeled with
the Grantee's name and phone number.
Grantee agrees to provide to each Multi-family complex at least
one Exterior Recycling Container per complex for commingled hard
recyclables (Aluminum cans, Glass Bottles and Jars, Plastic
Bottles and Tin and Bi-Metal Cans) and one Exterior Recycling
Container for Newspapers or alternatively at least one, 2- or 3-
yard divided bin that effectively separates commingled hard
recyclables from Newspapers. To the extent possible, Exterior
Recycling Containers will be required to be placed adjacent to or
near the Refuse Collection containers.
~ '-'-1'-+
.»#
4. Transportation and Marketing of Franchised Recyclables -
Grantee shall transport collected Franchised Recyclables to a
central collection and Processing point and shall retain
responsibility for the sale of such materials in a timely and
efficient manner, so as to yield the highest possible market value
for the Franchised Recyclables as collected and in accordance
with any Processing contract held by the Grantee. No
noncontaminated Franchised Recyclables shall be Landfilled,
unless approved by the City. Should market failure occur for one
or more material types, only the City Manager (or designee) of the
City of Chula Vista may decide not to collect the affected
material. All written contracts, if any, with processors, recyclers
or other buyers of Franchised Recyclables shall be submitted to
the City.
Franchised Recyclables that are contaminated due to the
placement of Refuse in a Designated Recycling Container, or
inclement weather that leaves the Franchised Recyclables
unmarketable, may be landfilled. The Grantee shall retain a record
of such occurrences and report said occurrences to the City on a
quarterly basis. Should contamination occur more than twice at a
single complex said complex shall be notified. Should
contamination occur at a complex three or more times, the
complex shall be notified and charged the necessary disposal fee
for dumping the contaminated recyclables as Refuse at the
Landfill.
5. Missed Pick-ups - In case of missed pick-up called in by a
property manager, owner or designated agent thereof, Grantee
shall, where possible, provide Collection within 24 hours. If unable
to accommodate due to inadequate notice, the Franchised
Recyclables shall be picked-up on the next scheduled collection
day and the property manager is to be notified. If the Designated
Recycling Containers are overflowing or otherwise creating a
Nuisance as a consequence of a missed pick-up, the Grantee is
required to provide Collection within 48 hours of notification of
missed pick-up. Information on missed pick-ups shall be logged
by Grantee and shall be available to the City.
6. Public Awareness Program - The parties hereto agree to work
diligently to formulate promotional plans and/or advertising to
encourage Recycling in the City and thereby maximize the mutual
benefits of this ordinance. The Grantee, in conjunction with the
City, is responsible for promotion, education and outreach
activities related to the program. The Grantee will prepare an
Introductory packet of information regarding the Citywide Multi-
q <ø -10$
~
family Recycling program and will distribute such packet with the
Interior Recycling Containers to each eligible residence. The
packet shall include, but not be limited to: a) an informational
notice, appropriate for hanging on refrigerator or other location
indoors, that details all program elements, Recyclables to be
collected, how residents can participate, use of the Interior
Recycling Container, proper placement of Recyclables in Exterior
Recycling Containers, the City's mandatory recycling ordinance
and recycling hotline phone number; b) posters that can be placed
in complex laundry rooms, pool areas and other public locations
that explain the program, materials to be collected, description of
program elements, the City's mandatory recycling ordinance and
recycling hotline phone number.
All promotional materials shall be developed with the City's
Conservation Coordinator's or other designated City employee's
advise and consultation, from the first step in development,
through the final printing and' distribution of materials. No
materials shall be developed or distributed without the approval of
the Conservation Coordinator or other designated City employee.
All Introductory Materials shall be fully tránslated into Spanish,
unless otherwise approved by the City. All subsequent materials
shall be fully or at least partially translated into Spanish, unless
otherwise approved by the City. All program materials shall utilize
graphic representation of Designated Recyclables.
The Grantee shall provide to the City a detailed outline of program
promotional materials to be developed and outreach activities to
be conducted in advance of program implementation. The
Grantee will participate in community Bnd school outreach
activities during the initial phase of program implementation and
provide ongoing outreach activities, to include, but not be limited
to, Multi-family tenant and owner associations, community
events, media events, make presentations to community groups
and businesses on an as needed basis and as directed by the City,
and attend County-wide meetings related to recycling, speaking
on the City's Multi-family Recycling Program if needed and
directed by the City. The Grantee also agrees to reasonably assist
in developing incentives to increase participation and tonnage
collected, and to encourage involvement of community and youth
groups.
The Grantee and the City agree that the main purpose of an
aggressive public education program is to increase participation
and diversion, as well as limiting contamination of Franchised
Recyclables. Beginning in the second year, if, in the City's
10 <.c-llo
~
judgement, it is reasonably determined that the public education
effort has not resulted in high enough Program interest, the
Grantee will perform reasonable public education activities at the
City's direction at a cost to the Grantee not to exceed $.10 per
Unit per month. If needed, es Dart of the educational activities,
as determined by the Citv with inDut from the Grantee.tho Gr:mtcc
and thc City, the Grantee will develop incentives to increase
participation, such as, offering rewards for complexes that have
high participation levels and high tonnage levels.
The Grantee agrees to provide technical assistance to property
owners, managers or designated agent thereof and work with the
City to provide said technical assistance for Program design and
implementation. The Grantee agrees to work with the City to
provide ongoing Program monitoring services and quality control
to prevent contamination of materials and encourage participation
to property managers, to include on-site visitations, as deemed
necessary by the Grantee and/or the City.
The Grantee will provide to the City a quarterly accounting of all
outreach activities conducted during the previous quarter. The
Grantee will also provide an accurate accounting of all costs
associated with Program outreach, to include, but not be limited
- to, costs for designing of outreach materials, printing of outreach
materials, etc.
7. Local Manager - The Grantee shall at all times during the term
of this ordinance have a local manager charged with the
responsibility for supervision of the recycling operations and
obligations of the Grantee and agrees to provide, at a minimum,
one (1), half-time person directly assigned to the Multi-family
Recycling Program, whose duties are to include: promotional
material development and distribution; program monitoring
(including on-site visitations); educational outreach to school
children; community outreach.
8. Anti-scavenging - The Grantee agrees to provide information to
all property owners, managers or designated agents thereof
regarding the City's anti-scavenging ordinance and how to report
scavenging occurrences. The Grantee agrees to inform all of its
employees of the City's anti-scavenging ordinance on a regular
basis and how said employees shall report scavenging
occurrences.
C. Obligations of the City - Subject to the provisions of Paragraph
85 of this ordinance, the City shall have lead responsibility for
II 6-"'1
..2tH7
directing the development Bnd expenditures of the public
awareness activities for the Multi-family Recycling Program. The
City also agrees to take such steps as may be reasonably
necessary to protect the Franchised Recyclables placed in the
Designated Recycling Collection or Storage Containers placed in
the Designated Recycling Collection Location(s) for collection by
Grantee under the terms of this ordinance and shall reasonably
enforce the City's anti-scavenging ordinance (CVMC, No. 2492).
If during the initial period of the franchise, or any extension
thereof, the City discontinues the separate collection of multi-
family recyclables and reverts to a Mixed Waste Processing
system for commingled collection of waste and recyclables, the
City agrees to allow a rate adjustment to permit the Grantee to
recover the loss incurred on the sale of vehicular equipment
specifically purchased to meet the Grantees obligations under this
ordinance. Such loss will be calculated by deducting the realizable
market value of the equipment from the reasonably depreciated
book value of the equipment at the time of the sale of equipment.
D. Funding and Rates for Collection
1. Funding Sources - The Residential Multi-family Recycling
Program will be funded by four sources: a monthly recycling fee
to all eligible residents (to be billed to the property manager or
resident, as with refuse billings); Net revenues from the sale of
collected recyclable material; savings in disposal cost of material
diverted from the landfill; grant funds when available and
awarded.
a. A monthly recycling fee, charged to eligible residents is the
primary source of funding for this program. In general, it
will be allocated equally among the customer base, as
determined by Section D.2 below, receiving said Recycling
Collection services and will be determined by the Grantee's
operating expenses directly attributable to the recycling
program, less: revenues received from the sale of the
collected Recyclables net of Drocess¡np and broke ring fees,
the savings realized in disposal costs of material diverted
from the landfill and any grant funds received for the
program.
b. All collected Recyclables will be sold at fair market value,
as outlined in Section B.3 above, and net revenues obtained
from such sales shall be retained by Grantee as an offset
against operating expenses. The City shall be notified of
I~ <0-1 ~
~
significant changes in fair market values in writing as part
of the quarterly reporting requirements.
c. Recyclables collected in the Program will be diverted from
disposal in the landfill, thereby resulting in a cost savings to
the Grantee (-Landfill Diversion Credit-). On a monthly
basis, Grantee will determine the recycled material tonnage
collected and the resulting Landfill Diversion Credit based
on the landfill disposal cost approved by Council for refuse
collection rates and will credit this savings during the first
year of operation as an offset Bgainst operating expenses.
When reevaluating program costs in subsequent years, the
City agrees to consider Landfill Diversion Credits of less
than 100 percent. The amount will be subject to
negotiation and the intent is to provide an economic
incentive for the Grantee towards increased participation
and program success.
d. Any grant funds received will be applied to the costs of the
Program when award is noticed or during the next rate
review procedure if the award takes place once a specific
rate has been determined, with the intènt of directly
reducing the monthly fee to the rate payer.
2. Rates for Collection - it is the City's intent to ensure that the
rates charged to the citizens for the Multi-family Recycling
Program are appropriate and equitable. The monthly fee of $1.50
per unit will be the established fee for the period of July 1, 1993
through March 31, 1994, billed in the same manner as the refuse
collection fee.
Specific rate review procedures will be used by the City which are
consistent with the procedures used for normal Refuse Collection.
Rate review will consider adjustments for actual sale of
Recyclables and Landfill Diversion Credits in previous period
compared to original estimated amounts. Shortfalls or overages
will be used in determining rates for upcoming periods. Rate
review will be conducted as referenced in Section 9 of the
Franchise as amended, including the amendment created by
Ordinance No. 2104, Rates for Collection. An increase in rates
for Multi-family Recycling services will be subject to the same
limitations and conditions for Refuse Collection rates listed in
Section 9.
E. Record Keeping and Reports - Grantee agrees to accurately record
collection data sufficient to comply with the reporting
requirements delineated below and shall file with the City written
quarterly and annual reports of Grantee's performance under this
ordinance as follows: "-1'1
~. ..»71
.
1. Quarterly Program Reports - Within fifteen (15) working days
Bfter the last day of each quarter, Grantee shall submit a Quarterly
Program report to include, but not be limited to, the following:
a. Tonnage summaries of all Franchised Recyclables
Recovered, by material and including a revenue statement
of all sales of Franchised Recyclables from the Program, by
material.
b. Market price for all Recyclables collected from the Multi-
family Recycling Program and sold by the Grantee and/or its
processor assignee. The weight receipts and market value
for material at the time sold shall be available for inspection
by the City.
c. Total number of customers served in the Program and
resident participation rates in terms of an overall Program
average. Any increases to the number of customers
serviced shall also be reflected.
d. Discussion of problems and noteworthy experiences in the
Program operation, to include specifically contamination
occurrences, listed by complex. Grantee agrees to monitor
each complex at least once per year in order to reflect
general participation by complex residents, contamination
problems, other problems and assess need for additional
public outreach activities.
e. Report of all education and community outreach efforts
conducted during the quarter.
f. Overall assessment of performance during the quarter.
g. Recommendations to increase tonnage of Franchised
Recyclable materials recovered.
2. Annual Report - On or before July 31 of each year of the term
of this ordinance, Grantee shall submit a fiscal year-end annual
report to include, but not be limited to, the following:
a. A collated summary of the information contained in the
quarterly reports and a summary of the average overall
Program participation rates and tonnages of recovered
Franchised Recyclables.
1'+ (¿,-2-0
~
b. Discussion o' problems and noteworthy experiences in the
Program operation, measures taken to resolve problems,
increase efficiency and Program participation. Number of
complaints listed by type of complaint, i.e., missed pick-up,
quality of service, etc., that occurred during the year.
c. Report of all education and community outreach efforts
conducted during the year and a discussion of their general
impact on participation and recovered tonnages.
d. Overall assessment of performance during the year.
I
e. Recommend~tions to increase tonnage of recyclable
materials recpvered.
I
f. Additional inJormation as necessary to meet State and/or
Federal man ated reporting requirements.
F. Performance Standlards - This ordinance for Residential Multi-
family Recycling se~vices is subject to the performance standards
and franchise conditions detailed in Section 14 Forfeiture of the
franchise (ordinance No. 1993). While it is the intent of Section
22 to describe spe~ific Multi-family Recycling collection services
to be provided by' the Grantee in addition to existing refuse
collection and disposal services, Grantee agrees that unacceptable
performance of recycling services will be considered severable
from its other obligations under the Franchise.
Every reasonable effort must be made by the Grantee to maintain
high levels of partic pation in order to reach the City's established
diversion goals and assist in meeting the diversion standards set
out in Assembly Bi I 939 and the City and County's Mandatory
Recycling Ordinances.
G. Additional Franchise Fee - The Grantee, as part of the
consideration of this ordinance, agrees to pay to the City an
additional franchise fee at a rate consistent with that paid for
refuse collection and detailed in Section 4 Consideration of the
Franchise, as amended by Ordinance 2104. This rate will begin
at eight percent (8%) of the annual Gross Receipts collected by
said Grantee within the City of Chula Vista from residents for the
Multi-family Recycl ng Program within the City. and increase by
one-half (1/2) oerCf',nt in accordance with the refuse and single-
familY recyclinp franchise fee increases. However. said franchise
fee increase must tie aDDroved by City Council. Beginning April
1, 1994, thc fr::mchisc fcc shJII bc incrooscd by onc holf percent
I-S" <0.2.1
~
(1/2~{') and onc half percent (1/2~{') ooch April thcrcaftcr until it
rcochcs a moximum of tcn pcroont. It is understood that any such
increase in the franchise fee by the City shall be cause for the
Grantee to increase charges in order to "pass through" the cost of
the franchise fee.
H. Term - it is the intent of the City that the term for the provision of
Residential Multi-family Recycling Services shall be to the year
2002, subject to B two year notice of cancellation by the City
without cause which cannot be tendered sooner than the end of
the third year. The services remain cancelable for cause at any
time.
SECTION 3: This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force and
effect on the thirtieth day from and after its adoption.
Presented by /l:;1t i bQ
Athena Lee Bradley B"" M- B"""û
Conservation Coordinator City Attorney
fø -2 2-
/Co~
CD
-
t:
Q)
E
.s::
0
~ ¿ a.
- ~
~ ~
Q. 0
e .~
~ ~
m ~
c ~
- c
m m
Q. c
m .-
Q. ~
~ m
~ a.
~ m
. ci E c
0 V - 0
,S o.ri 0 ~
~ ~ Q. Q)
~ ~ ~
51 .9 ~ ~
~ ~ .~ 0
~ ° Q.
~ m m . ~
.5 ~ ~ ~ m
~ g .g ~-g
> ~ .;; ~ ~ ~
W ~ -~.. .. O. 0
;:: õ ~~ãí ãí ãí ãí ~ãí !
"'.5 ~ 0»» »» æ» m
~.!!1 ~m~ ~ ~ ~ UI~ ~
w,s e ° ~ ~ -s; ~ æ ~ g¡
I- m Q.~:=:= ==:= -:= -
-~ ~ -g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Q) - m m m m ° m -
U)~ -0- - - - .-- m
.- mC0 ° 0 0.s::0 .-
C) W E ~ .- ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~O
z bJ!1 51æ~ ~ ~ ~ æ~ m
::¡ Z:2 ~-$ $ $ $.:::$ E
0 ~ ~~O 0 0000 E
~ c:: z Z Z Z Z Z 8
w 0
0:: ~ ~
C) 51 E
~ g, E E EE E E :g
...JO~ Q.e ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ Q)
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .s
~'§ ~ OJ e C") e e e e ... C") Q)
w ~g~~ Q.CI:!õ Q.õ Q.Q.õ Q.õ Q.'<I:õ m
0:: ;, . ~ ...... 0 ...... .- 0 .- 0 0 ::: 0 .- 0 ...... .-
,-,......~~C~Q.CQ.cCQ.CQ.C~Q. ::J
- ....
~
Q)
UI
~
-
~ OJ ~
W 10 >
~ 0 C") ~ ...... 10 C") 10 OJ C") 10 0 ~ 0 ...... 0 C") C") :::E
- C") C") OJ OJ N C") m ...... ~ m ~ ...... ~ ~ ~ C") C")
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
o::~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ....
"5
.s:: ~
0 ~ .s:: .;
m > ~ 0 0 - .-
J!! ~ e ë3 ~ 0 m. g¡
>~.g!!1...c0.gCDmc!)_:2 ~ Æ ~
t:: ~ ~ 5 m .2. ~ :g ]j .g¡- c ~ ~ » ~ ~ m Co-2.~
0 UloJ!J~mcom::!:oomm ,Scm
't: ... ~ - C,) 'õ 0 Q. ! E .. ~ ~ c c J!J 1i5 ").,~".L.J
~ 8 B ~ w ~ ~ £ j! ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ 5 ~!
.
I
THIS PAGE BlANK
<O~2..Y
~
ITEM NUMBER: '1
RESOLUTION NUM~ER: /7/ , 7
"
ORDINANCE NUMBER: I ~S " /
OTHER:
ITEM NUMBER REFERENCED ABOVE WAS CONTINUED FROM
DATE: .:TUI.. /3 /"93
(AGENDA PACKET SCANNED AT ABOVE DATE)
ITEM NUMBER REFERENCED ABOVE HAS BEEN CONTINUED TO
DATE: :lu L. ~ ., , " " "3
MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION:
--" 'i-I
COUNCIL AG~NDA STATEMENT
!
Item r'
Meeting Date 7/20/93
ITEM TITLE: Ordinance.1..5'&,J Amending Schedule X, Section 10.48.050 of
the Chula Vista Municipal Code - Decreasing State Law Maximum
Speed Limits in Certain Areas - East H Street east of EastLake Drive,
Mount Miguel Road and Proctor Valley Road
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public W1rk~ ~
REVIEWED BY: City Manager~ bt4 ~. (4/5ths Vote: Yes_No.1O
0:-
East H Street east of EastLake Drive is a 4-lane major arterial. Mount Miguel Road and
Proctor Valley Road are each Class II collector streets. Since these streets do not have any
fronting businesses or residences, the unpmted prima facia speed limit is 55 mph. Based on
recent traffic surveys, including speed surveys and a study of the roadway geometries, and in
the interest of public safety, the City Engineer is recommending that East H Street, east of
EastLake Drive be posted at 45 mph, Mount Miguel Road be posted at 35 mph and Proctor
Valley Road be posted at 30 mph.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City C~uncil place the subject ordinance on fltSt reading.
I
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: The Safety Commission, on June 10,
1993, voted 6-0-1, Chidester absent, to concur with staff to recommend that City Council adopt
an ordinance establishing speed limits on East H Street, east of EastLake Drive, Mount Miguel
Road and Proctor Valley Road.
DISCUSSION:
Staff has conducted a Traffic Study for the subject locations in accordance with provisions in
the California Vehicle Code. The study ccnsisted of an analysis of speed patterns, roadway
characteristics, traffic volumes and accide:J.t history. Based on these analyses and in the
interest of minimizing traffic hazards and congestion and for the purpose of the promotion of
public safety, the City Engineer is recommending that the subject locations be posted as shown
in the following table:
Proposed
Name of Street Beginning At Ending At Speed Limit
East H Street EastLake Drive Mount Miguel Road 45
Mount Miguel Road Proctor Valley! Road South End 35
Proctor Valley Road City Limi~ Mount Miguel Road 30
I
1"/
Page 2, HemL
Meeting Date 7/20/93
East H Street - between EastLake Drive and Mount Miguel Road
East H Street east of EastLake Drive is a 4-lane major arterial which has been unofficially
posted by the contractor with a speed limit of 45 mph. A traffic and engineering study, as
required by State Law, was conducted by staff and it revealed that the 85th percentile speed
on East H Street between EastLake Drive and Mount Miguel Road is 46 mph. The horizontal
alignment of East "H" Street has a curve with a minimum 2,000 ft. centerline radius. The
design speed for this horizontal curve is over 60 mph. The vertical alignment has a grade
change of 8.5% over a 1,000 ft. length vertical curve. The vertical alignment design speed is
55 mph. Traffic counts completed by stair show an Average Daily Traffic (ADT) count of
1,220 vehicles per day. At buildout, traffic volumes are expected to increase to approximately
45,000 vehicles per day. Since the roadway has only been open for a short period of time,
there have been no reported traffic accider_ts within this segment. There are no residential
homes fronting on this street. Based on the results of the speed survey, it has been determined
that the speed limit shall be established at 45 mph.
Mount Miguel Road - between Proctor Val ey Road and the south end
Mount Miguel Road is a 2-lane collector street which does not have a posted speed limit. A
traffic and engineering study, as required, by State Law, was conducted by staff and it revealed
that the 85th percentile speed on Mount Miguel is 39 mph northbound and 37 mph southbound
(38 mph average) between Proctor Valley Road and the north City limits. The horizontal
alignment of Mount Miguel Road is tangen~ there are no curves. The vertical alignment has
a 2.3% grade change which has a design speed of 45 mph. Traffic counts completed by staff
show an ADT of 668 vehicles per day. A review of the accident history shows no reported
traffic accidents on this roadway. There are no residential homes fronting on this street. Based
on the results of the speed survey, it has been determined that the speed limit shall be posted
at 35 mph.
Proctor Valley Road - between City Limits and Mount Miguel Road
Proctor Valley Road is a 2-lane collector street which does not have a posted speed limit. A
traffic and engineering study, as required by State Law, was conducted by staff and it revealed
that the 85th percentile speed on Proctor Valley Road between Mount Miguel Road and the
City limits, is 45 mph. The horizontal alignment of Proctor Valley Road has a short radius
curve with a 500 ft. centerline radius. The design speed for this curve is less than 40 mph.
The vertical alignment has a grade change of 9.9% over a 300 ft. length vertical curve. The
vertical alignment design speed is 30 mph. Traffic counts completed by staff show an ADT
of 668 vehicles per day. A review of the accident history for this roadway shows no reported
traffic accidents. The adjacent land use is residential, but there are no homes fronting Proctor
Valley Road. Based on the above mentioned vertical alignment, design speed of 30 mph, it
has been determined that the speed limit sl:all be established at 30 mph.
8',.,;1.
Page 3, Item ~
Meeting Date 7/20/93
CONCLUSION: Based on the above, it is staff's recommendation that the City Council adopt
an ordinance establishing speed limits on: East H Street, east of EastLake Drive, Mount
Miguel Road and Proctor Valley Road as Slown on the table.
FISCAL IMPACT: $300 for speed limit signs.
Attachments: 3 Area Plats
3 Engineering/Traffic Surveys
Excerpt Safety Commission minutes dates 6/10/93 NOT SCANNED
Filo No.: CY.O27
WPC F:lhomolongmootlogonda"poodlaw.onl
l(,J
-
-
-
-
DR /lWN BY
------ S.V. TIT L E
D AT E - -- .::..=...
- - - - - ~-1Ct"!3 - ~ :~~ A PLAT
I
I
SPEED LIMIT -- ENGINEERING/TRAFFIC SURVEY:
STREET: East "H" Street
LIMITS: Eastlake Drive - Mount Miguel Road
Existing Posted Speed Limit: 45 MPH *See below
SUMMARY OF SPEED SURVEYS
Segment: Eastlake Drive - Mount Miguel Road
Date Taken: 4/13/93
Number Vehicles on Sample: 50
85th Percentile Speed: 46
Range of Speeds Recorded: 35 - 52
ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS
median
Width 57'-88' roadway + 4-16' / feet Number of lanes for both directions 4
Horizontal Alignment Rmin - 2,000'
Vertical Alignment -3.477% to 5.08% over 1,000' V.C. design speed = 55 MPH
TRAFFIC CHARACTERISTICS
Average Daily Traffic 1,220
On-Street Parking Not allowed.
Special Conditions Ad;acent land use is residential. Temporary median opening for
access to private road for Salt Creek model homes.
Accident History The accident rate in this segment is lower than the average (2.83)
for similar roadways in the State of California.
SURVEY RESULTS
Study was Prepared by Susan Vandrew Date 4/16/93
RecOImnenda t ion *Establish 45 MPH speed limit due to speed survey.
Date recommendation approved:---6/30/93
By 7~ x. R~
Approved speed limit:~MPH
Per CVC 40803. Survey Expires: 4/13/98
8T" Þ
I
-
-
-
-,
-
,
I
!
I
-
DRAWN BY
'---- S.Y. TIT L E
D ATE -- --- - -
- - - - - ~-~<t-~3 - 8"¿' ARE A PLAT --
SPEED LIMIT -- ENGINEERING/TRAFFIC SURVEy:
STREET: Mount Mi~uel Road
LIMITS: Proctor Valley Road to south end
Existing Posted Speed Limit: unposted IMPH * See below
SUMMARY OF SPEED SURVEYS I
Segment: Proctor Val~ey Road to CVCL
Date Taken: 4/19/93
Number Vehicles on Sample: * 391 (NB) 276 (SB)
85th Percentile Speed: 39 37
Range of Speeds Recorded: 0 - 45+ 0 - 45+
NB = northbound SB = southbound *data obtained with
ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS traffic counters.
Width 51 - 63' feet Number of lanes for both directions 2
Horizontal Alignment tangent
Vertical Alignment +1. 31% to .0% over 150' V.C. desi2n speed - 45 MPH
TRAFFIC CHARACTERISTICS
Average Daily Traffic 668
On-Street Parking not allowed
Special Conditions bike lanes on both sides of roadwav with painted median.
adiacent land use is residential.
Accident History The accident rate in this segment is lower than the average
(2.48 per million vehicle miles)for similar roadways in the State of California.
SURVEY RESULTS
Study was Prepared by Susan Vandrew Date 6/29/93
Recommendation *Establish 35 MPH due to speed survey
Date recommendation approved: 6/30/93
By r/<ø....,~<P X. R~
Approved speed lim1t:~MPH :
Per CVC 40803. Survey Expires: 4/19/$8
8""?
.
-
'.
r
r
-
---- S.V. TIT L E
DATE ----- =-=- (f'~.¡\ REA
- - - - - !-~<t-~3 - PLAT ..
I
SPEED LIMIT -- ENGINEERING/TRAFFIC SURVEY:
STREET: Proctor Valley Road
LIMITS: City limits - Mount Miguel Road
Existing Posted Speed Limit: unposted MPH *See below.
SUMMARY OF SPEED SURVEYS
Segment: Citv limits - Mount Miguel Road
Date Taken: 4/14/93
Number Vehicles on Sample: 50
85th Percentile Speed: 45
Range of Speeds Recorded: 22 - 49
ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS
Width 64' feet Number of lanes for both directions 2
Horizontal Alignment Rmin. = 500'
Vertical Alignment 11.9% to 2.0% over 300' V.C. design speed = 30 MPH
TRAFFIC CHARACTERISTICS
Average Daily Traffic 668
On-Street Parking Not allowed.
Special Conditions Ad;acent land use is residential. Bike lane. Painted median.
Accident History The accident rate in this segment is lower then the average (2.48 per
million vehicle miles) for similar roadways in the State of California.
SURVEY RESULTS
Study was Prepared by Susan Vandrew Date 6/29/93
Recommendation *Establish 30 MPH due to design speed.
Date recommendation approved: 6/30/93
By ~rce<~LJ X.~~
Approved speed limit:~MPH
Per CVC 40803, Survey Expires: 4/ L4/98
g-,? /"'/0
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CHU_A VISTA SAFETY COMMISSION
Thursday, June 10,1993 Council Chambers
7:04 p.m. Public Services Building
CALL TO ORDER
1. Roll Call:
Present: Chair Thomas, Vice Chair Padilla, Commissioners Braden, Koester, Matacia,
and Pitts
Excused Absence: Commissioner Chidester
Also Present: Harold Rosenberg, Traffic Engineer; Frank Rivera, Associate Traffic Engineer;
Shirley Buxton, Recording Secretary
2. Pled2e of Alle2iance/Silent Prayer
3. Approval of Minutes August 13,1992; March 11, 1993, May 13,1993
MSC (Koester/Matacia) to approve the folowing sets of Minutes: August 13, 1992 approved 4-0-1-2 with
Commissioner Chidester absent and Chair Thomas and Commissioner Braden abstaining; March 11, 1993
approved 4-0-1-2 with Commissioner Chidester absent and Commissioners Braden and Pitts abstaining; and
May 13, 1993 approved 5-0-1-1 with Commissioner Chidester absent and Vice Chair Padilla abstaining.
4. Special Orders of the Day:
a) Photo Session of 1992-93 Commissioners
MEETING AGENDA
5. REPORT - Speed Limits on VarioLs Streets (East H Street east of Eastlake Drive, Mount Miguel Road,
and Proctor Valley Road
Frank Rivera presented staff's report.
MSC (Koester/Braden) to recommend to t le City Council to adopt an ordinance establishing speed limits on
East H Street east of Eastlake Drive, Mount Miguel Road and Proctor Valley Road as shown on the following
table. Approved 6-0-1 with Commissioner Chidester absent.
Proposed Speed
Name of Street Be~inning At Ending At Limit
East H Street EaslLake Drive Mount Miguel Road 45
Mount Miguel Road Procter Valley Road South End 35
Proctor Valley Road City Limits Mount Miguel Road 30
6. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -
Heather Ann Morrison, Francis Parker High Schaal, said she had worked as an intern with the Traffic
Engineering section for her senior project. She gave a slide presentation of her project and presented it to the
Commission.
8" I ~ UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
ORDINANCE NO. J..5'¿:J
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SCHEDULE X, SECTION
10.48.050 OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE -
DECREASING STATE LAW MAXIMUM SPEED LIMITS IN
CERTAIN AREAS - EAST H STREET EAST OF EASTLAKE
DRIVE, MOUNT MIGUEL ROAD AND PROCTOR VALLEY
ROAD
WHEREAS, staff has conducted a Traffic Study on East H
Street east of EastLake Drive, Mount Miguel Road and Proctor Valley
Road as required by state law; and
WHEREAS, the study consisted of an analysis of speed
patterns, roadway characteristics, traffic volumes and accident
history and based on these analyses and in the interest of
minimizing traffic hazards and congestion and for the purpose of
the promotion of public safety, the City Engineer is recommending
that the speed limits be decreased as set forth hereinbelow.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the city of Chula
Vista does ordain as follows: ,
SECTION I: That Schedule X of section 10.48.050 of the
Chula vista Municipal Code, D5!creasing State Law Maximum Speed
Limits in Certain Areas, is hereby amended to include the following
changes:
SCHEDULE X - DECREASING STATE LAW MAXIMUM SPEED LIMITS IN
CERTAIN AREAS
Proposed
Name of Street Beginning At Ending At Speed Limit
East H Street EastLake Drive Mount Miguel Road 45
Mount Miguel Road Proctor Valley ~oad South End 35
Proctor Valley Road City Limits Mount Miguel Road 30
'='00 II' This ordnance sholl t~e7ff'C nd b.
full force on the thirtieth day from and ter its ado ton.
Presented by App v as to for y
John P. Lippitt, Director of uce M. Boogaard, C' y
Public Works Áttorney
P:lhom.lanomeyIIO36.93
'8"1/
¿ flt4
"
~ \ COUNCILAGENDASTATEMENT
\
Item Number 9
~ M"rlngDate rnt, 1/~1"
ITEM TITLE: Resolution J 7/.5" Approving an Extension of the Agreement
Between the City of Chula Vista and Remy & Thomas and
Authorizing the Mayor to Execute Said Agreement
SUBMITIED BY:
Deputy City Manager Krempl~r~ (4/5ths Vote:Yes_NolO
REVIEWED BY: City Manager~
The City of Chula Vista is the agency designated to approve consulting contracts for the
Otay Ranch. The work being requested of Remy & Thomas is to continue environmental
legal review of the Otay Ranch Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and supporting
documents. Remy & Thomas has, since November 19, 1991, provided Jegal assistance to the
City of Chula Vista and the County of San Diego in this area. The Agreement has been
reviewed by all parties and is acceptable to Remy & Thomas, the Baldwin Company and
the City. The County is supportive of the scope of services to be undertaken. This is the
third extension (and it is anticipated that L1is is the finaJ extension) of that original contract
executed in 1991.
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the resoution approving the Agreement with Remy &
Thomas to review and provide legal input on the Otay Ranch EIR and supporting
documents and authorizing the Mayor to sign the attached Agreement.
BOARDS/COMMISSION RECOMMEN:JATION: Not applicable. .
DISCUSSION: Remy & Thomas has proVJded legal support on this project since November
1991. They have been instrumentaJ in assis~ing and will continue to assist in: the content and
focus of the EIR, and they are now providing assistance in review of the EIR including the
CEQA Findings, Statement of Overriding Considerations, Mitigation Monitoring Program
and the Staff Report. It will also be necessary from time to time to have Remy & Thomas
meet with staff and coordinate on Board of Supervisors and City Council referrals dealing
with legaJ issues on the EIR. Remy & Thomas is involved since they can focus staff on this
project in a timeJy manner. Because of the size of the project and the amount of time
involved, Remy & Thomas can provide imtiallegal expertise to both the City and County.
Because of this unique project, an objective third party legal counsel has been invaluable
in this process. Further, we would note that they offer special CEQA expertise which is not
available in-house.
This request is being made to keep the Isame legal team together through the hearing
process. This is especially important rel~tive to the EIR since revised findings will be
I q~ l
þ9
Page 2, Item No. '-z..f
'1 'l!>
Meeting Date /13/93
necessary and Remy & Thomas has prepared previous versions of those findings in the past.
Remy & Thomas has also provided advise about the structure of the EIR and would be best
able to respond to Board or Council questions during the hearings.
The City Attorney's office is also being utilized to ensure that the legal requirements of the
City are being observed on this project. Since this is a joint City/County review process,
Remy & Thomas has and will continue to be utilized to provide third party input and
specialized CEQA expertise. Also, Remy & Thomas has been able to focus their attention
on this project in a timely manner on fairly complex issues. This has permitted staff to
respond to the Planning Commissions and the public in a timely manner.
In November of 1991, the Otay Ranch General Manager and Baldwin requested that legaJ
counsel be retained to assist on the project to provide timely review and guidance on the
EIR and to serve as an initial third party reviewer of all of the environmental documents.
Remy & Thomas (Tina Thomas) was recommended by the City Attorney based on past City
experience. That recommendation was approved by the County of San Diego and the
Baldwin Company.
During 1990, Remy & Thomas invoiced the City of Chula Vista $7,380.85. During 1991, that
amount was $39,462.17. During 1992, that figure was $42,146.34. In 1993 (through May) that
figure was $13,944.33. This request is for an additional $30,000.00 in services.
FISCAL IMP ACf: There will be no fiscal impact to the City of Chula Vista because the
Baldwin Company will be funding this scope-of-work ($30,000.00).
Attachment
memos#5:\R&TAI13b.ajl
q.2..
.
-
RESOLUTIOK NO. I 715(,
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING AN EXTENSION OF THE
AGREEMENT BETWEEN T:iE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND
REMY & THOMAS FOR LEGAL CONSULTING SERVICES
FOR THE OTAY RANCH PROJECT AND AUTHORIZING THE
MAYOR TO EXECUTE SA:D AGREEMENT
The City Council of the city of Chula Vista does hereby
resolve as follows:
WHEREAS, the City of Chula vista is the agency designated
to approve consulting contrac~s for the Otay Ranch; and
WHEREAS, Remy & Thomas is requested to continue to
perform consulting services regarding environmental legal review of
the otay Ranch Environmental Impact Report and supporting
documents.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE:T RESOLVED that the city Council of
the City of Chula Vista does hereby approve an extension of the
agreement between the City of Chula vista and Remy & Thomas for
legal consulting services for the Otay Ranch Project, a copy of
which is on file in the office of the City Clerk.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of
Chula vista is hereby authorized and directed to
agreement for and on behalf of the City of Chula vi
Presented by ?1;~ 0 ~~
George Krempl, Deputy City Bruce M. Booga d, C ty
Manager Attorney
C:\RS\Remy&Thomas
9-~
\
/
q-~
-rr-
Renewal of Agreement with
- Remy and Thomas
for Legal Consulting Services
This Agreement is made .this qnt day of J"t>æ , 1993, for the purposes of reference
only, and effective as of the date last executed between the parties, between the City of ChuIa
Vista ("City") herein, a municipal corporation of the State of California, and Remy and Thomas,
a professional law firm ("Consultant"), and is made with reference to the following facts:
Recitals
Whereas, the City and County of San Diego desire to employ a law firm with expertise
and experience in reviewing environmental documents for compliance with the guidelines and
procedures of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in reference to the Otay Ranch
Project; 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
Agency within the time frames herein provided all in accordance with the terms and conditions
of this Agreement; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City and Consultant do hereby
mutually agree as follows:
1. Consultant's Duties
I
a. General Duties I
I
i. Consultant shall review environmental documents prepared by the City or
their consultants consisting of a Program Environmental Impact Report for
compliance with CEQA and advise City/Otay Ranch Project Team staff
as to necessary and relevant changes that may be required; and
ii. Consultant shall provide guidance to City staff as to processing of all
supporting environmental documents to assure compliance with CEQA
requirements such as me Findings, Statement of Overriding Considerations
and Mitigation Monitoring Program; and
ilL Consultant shall provide legal advice to City staff to defend litigation
predicated upon alleged deficiencies in environmental documents or
improper processing 0' said documents.
-- 1
<1.S
~
(the duties of the Consultant as herein in this section contained may hereinafter be
referred to as "General Duties.); and
b. Scope of Work and ScheduJe
Work assignments under this Agreement will be issued on an as needed basis.
The scheduJe will be agreed upon at the time that the tasks are assigned.
c. Standard of Care
Consultant, in perfonJÙng any Services under this Agreement, whether Defined
Services or Additional Services, shall be performed in a manner consistent with
that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession
currently practicing under similar conditions and in similar locations.
d. Insurance
Consultant represents that it and its agents, staff and consultants employed by it
are protected by worker's compensation insurance and the Consultant has the
coverage under public liability, property damages and errors and omissions
insurance poJicies which this Agreement requires to be demonstrated in the form
of a certificate of insurance.
ConsuJtant will provide, prior to the commencement of services required under
this Agreement, the following certificates of insurance to the Agency:
Statutory Worker's Compensation coverage plus $1,000,000.00 EmpJoyers
liability coverage.
General and Automobile Liability coverage to $1,000,000.00 combined single
limit, and which is primary to any policy which the Agency may otherwise carry
("primary coverage"), and which treats the empJoyees of the Agency in the same
manner as members of the general public (.cross liability coverage.).
All poJicies shall be issued by a carrier that has a Best's Rating of" A, Class V",
or better, or shall meet with the approval of the Agency's Risk Manager.
All policies shalJ provide that same may not be canceJed without at least thirty
(30) days written notice to the Agency.
2
'1-~
-7-bí
2. Duties of the City:
a. Consultation and Cooperation
City agrees to provide information, data, items, and materials as may be required
by Consultant in order to carry out Consultant's duties under this Agreement.
b. Compensation
i. The City hereby agrees to pay an hourly fee of $195.00 to attorneys
Michael H. Remy, ':'ina A. Thomas, J. William Yeates and James G.
Moose and an hourly fee of $150.00 to attorneys Whitman F. Manley,
Matthew R. Campbell and John H. Mattox. Services of Land Use
Analyst, Georganna ::oondos, will be billed at the hourly rate of $75.00.
Time for research done by a law cJerk or paralegal will be billed at an
hourly rate of 550.00. Attorney time for travel shall not be billed to City
unless same is also actively spent in the rendition of legal services.
ii. In addition to the above attorney fees, City hereby agrees to pay to the
attorney all applicable costs, such as: filing fees, copying costs at 50.25
(25 cents) per copy, mileage costs at $0.35 (35 cents) per mile; printing
costs by a professional printer, as charged, long distance phone charges,
.~ as charged; postage charges, as charged; reimbursement for lodging and
meal expenses in instances requiring out of county traveJ including but not
limited to any costs invoJving common carriers (e.g., aiIplane), and all
other agreed upon costs or expenses related to this matter.
iii. ConsuJtant shalJ not incur costs or bil1ings which, in total, exceed Thiny
Thousand Dollars ($30,000.00) without funher written approval of the
City.
iv. It is understood that l1e City has established the Otay Ranch Trust Fund
to account for and pay all expenses from deposits made by the project
proponent, Baldwin Vista, Ltd. If there is a default of the proponent,
compensation for the services peñormed shall be paid only from deposited
monies and from no other asset or resource of the City, a special
obligation which is no~ a burden upon, or appropriated from, the General
Fund of the City.
c. Additional Scope of Work
In addition to peñonning the :Jefined Services herein set fonh, City may require
Consultant to peñorm additional consulting services related to the General Duties
and Scope of Work ("Additional Services"), and upon doing so in writing,
I
I
I 3
'1-1
../ ~
!UL 05 'S.'; 05.45 I'!~I'I'¡' ~ '!'H,:.I'IM -"lõ-44.5--"01':" 1'!.1d-
-
Consultant shall perform <;iImr: nn II ¡i/lll;; ¡ .mJ lu¡ ,llil¡¡¡J~ b"$Í$ M tho\'- rates set tonh -
ill S~LiVll 2b. All ~ompcnsa!ion for Additional Servicec chaI1 be paid monthiy =
as billod, -
3, Admìnistration of Contract
The L~!Y hi!'rt'.by r1,.~lzn¡¡I,.,~ Ihr: ()lilY MtllI".':;", or his dt~ir::nçç, I\~ its roproaentntive for
the coorùillå!ion and administration of the work performed by Consultant herein required. =
Copy of 1111 corre~pondence will be provided to tbe City A ttoml':Y , IInri important le~al =
dt ÇbiulIS ur I.:UlIl.:!u.ióil> will b~ reviewed by the City Attorney. -
4. Term
Consultant ~ball pertorm :allot me Dt"fined ,~I"rvkl':~ hm-t'.!n r~I¡jIl;1l Ilf iL ¡ ~ .¡1AY ~~ =
œquircJ ulILillhc ¡,iJI1II& of th~ ,:umulative totn! amount :lUthorixed under this Ä.greement -
is reached. -
5. Finalll.:ial Illl~ests of Consultant -
Con~u!tnnt W:uT3J1tg 3J1d represents that nI"Jlh,.,r~hf'.. nor hr:r illllll¡;¡)ÜlLIi fAI¡1ily 11~~n\~~rs, =
nor her empluy""'s VI ågMts ("Consultant Associates") preœntIy have my interest, -
dire.:tly or indirectly, what~oever in propeny which would constitutl'l R I'fInflkt of fmerest =
or giVf:' ¡h~ Rppt".i1rIlTl\;¡; IIf ~II<';\¡ livufli..t il\ rdation to the pr~iootc identified in thig -
Agreement. -
Conaultnnt turther wmll1lS and re-prf:'sl".,ms Thill no pTIIllli~" lie fllLIII~ M1þ!':;'Yl?1ent, =
re:Ululle:I"Livu, u:.,uideration, gratuity or other rew:ud or g:iin his been madf:', to -
Consultant or Consultant Associare,s. Consultant promisc~ III advise City of any such =
promise lIl,,!. may be mAde during the Torm of thi~ Agrileme:nt, or for 12 months -
thereafter. -
I"'.onsllhilni i1l::n";¡;~ ¡lid! u¡;il\¡(;1 C';'II~\1ltð.l\t !\Or her immedinte famil}' membett, nor her -
~1?1 )Ioyecs or ngcnla, ~hall acquire 3J1Y Euch Prohibitf:'d Inle-rl",st within thC'i Term of this =
Agreement, ur [UI 12 Illvulh. aftu the expiration of thia Agreement. -
Cvu.ultAM n\ð.Y not conduct or solicit any bu~in8E£ for 111)' put to this Agrl"t':.ml':nt. or for -
any third party whlcn may bf:', in conflict with Cuusu1lÄul's p;:sl,IVlJ>ibllities under tl\is =
Agreement.
6. Hold Harmless -
Conaultnnt agr88£ 10 dGlfend, indf:'mnify, and holn harmless the City from M~ a~¡¡illst åll =
liabUity. ços~ am,! expense: (ill"!uùi"5 ""moot limitation attomoyc' feet) :¡ricin!! from loss -
of or damage to nny property Wh:i.tEocver or injury to or t\,..llth of any person Wnom~ver =
4 -
q-<'6.
~ -
whomsoever caused or alleged to be caused or occasioned by the negligent act or
.- omission of Consultant or any agent or employee of Consultant arising out of or in
connection with this Agreement or the work to be performed by Consultant hereunder,
except to the extent .such liability, cost or expense is caused by the negligence of the
City.
7. Termination of Agreement for Cause
If, through any cause, Consultant shall fail to fulfill in a timely and proper manner
his/her obligations under this Agreement, or if Consultant shall violate any of the
covenants, agreements or stipulations of this Agreement, City shall have the right to
terminate this Agreement by giving written notice to Consultant of such termination and
specifying the effective date thereof at least five (5) days before the effective date of such
termination. In that event, all finished or unfinished documents, data, studies, surveys,
drawings, maps, reports and other materials prepared by Consultant shall, at the option
of the City, become the property of the City, and Consultant shall be entitled to receive
just and equitabJe compensation for any work satisfactorily compJeted on such documents
and other materials up to the effectiye date of Notice of Termination, not to exceed the
amount payable hereunder, and less! any damages caused City by Consultant's breach.
8. ElTors and Omissions
I,
In the event that the City Manage~ or his designee determines that the Consultant's
- negligence, elTors, or omissions in ~e performance of work under this Agreement has
resuJted in expense to City greater! than wouJd have resulted if there were no such
negligence, elTors, omissions in the plans or contract specifications, Consultant and City
shall select a mutually acceptable! arbitrator with legal and technical expertise in
preparing EIRs and in the applicatioþ of CEQA to determine whether Agency shall be
reimbursed for the additional expe~ses inculTed by the City including engineering,
construction and/or restoration expen~. Nothing herein is intended to limit City's rights
under other provisions of this Agreetnent. .
9. Termination of Agreement for Convenience of City
City may terminate this Agreement .t any time and for any reason for giving specific
written notice to Consultant of such termination and specifying the effective date thereof,
at least thirty (30) days before the effective date of such termination. In that event, all
f1IÙshed and unfinished documents and other materials described hereinabove shall, at the
option of the City, become City's sole and exclusive property. If the Agreement is
terminated by City as provided in this paragraph, Consultant shall be entitled to receive
just an equitable compensation for any satisfactory work completed on such documents
and other materials to the effective date of such termination. Consultant hereby expressly
waives any and alJ claims for damages or compensation arising under this Agreement
except as set forth herein.
5
,\-q
~
10. Assignability
The services of Consultant are personal to the City, and Consultant shall not assign any
interest in this Agreement, and shall not transfer any interest in the same (whether by
assignment or novation), without prior written consent of City which City may
unreasonable deny.
11. Ownership, Publication, Reproduction and Use of Material
All reports, studies, information, data, statistics, forms, deSigns, pJans, procedures,
systems and any other materials or properties produced under this Agreement shall be
the sole and exclusive propeny of the City. No such materials or properties produced
in whole or in part under this Agreement shall be subject to private use, copyrights or
patent rights by Consultant in the United States or in any other county without the
express written consent of Agency. City shall have unrestricted authority to publish,
disclose as may be limited by the provisions of the Public Records Act, distribute, and
otherwise use, copyright or patent, in whole or in part, any such reports, studies, data,
statistics, forms or other materials or properties produced under this Agreement.
12. Independent Contractor
City is interested only in the results obtained and Consultant shall perform as an
independent contract with sole controJ of the manner and means of performing the
services required under this Agreement. City maintains the right only to reject or accept
Consultant's work products. Consultant and any of the Consultant's agents, empJoyees
or representatives are, for all purposes under this Agreement, an independent contractor
and shall not be deemed to be an empJoyee of the City, and none of them shall be
entitled to any benefits to which City employees are entitled including, but not limited,
overtime, retirement benefits, workers compensation benefits, injury leave or other leave
benefits.
13. Responsible Charge
Consultant hereby designates Tina A. Thomas shall be Consultant's representative
(.Project Manager") to the project for the duration of the project. No substitution for
this position shall be allowed without written approval from the City.
14. Administrative CJaims Requirements and Procedures
No suit or arbitration shall be brought arising out of this Agreement against the Agency
unless a claim has first been presented in writing and filed with the Agency of the City
of Chula Vista and acted upon in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter
1.34 of the ChuJa Vista Municipal Code, as same may from time to time be amended,
6
'1-\0
Jì-ílJ"
the provisions of which are incorporated by this reference as if fully set fonh herein, and
such policies and procedures used by the City in the implementation of same.
Upon request by City, Consultant shall meet and confer in good faith with Agency for
the purpose of resolving any dispute over the tenns of this Agreement.
15. Statement of Costs
In the event that Consultant prepares a report or document, or participates in the
preparation of a report or document as a result of the scope of work required of
Consultant, Consultant shall include, or cause the inclusion, in said report or document
a statement of the numbers and cost in dollar amounts of all contracts and subcontracts
relating to the preparation of the report or document.
16. Miscellaneous
a. Consultant Not Authorized to Represent City
UnJess specifically authorized in writing by Agency, ConsuJtant shall have no
authority to act as City's agent to bind City to any contractual agreements
whatsoever.
b. Notices
All notices, demands or requests provided for or pennitted to be given pursuant
to this Agreement must be in writing. All notices, demands and requests to be
sent to any party shan be deemed to have been properly given or served if
personally served or deposited in ,the United States mail, addressed to such party,
postage prepaid, registered or certified, with return receipt requested, at the
address identified adjacent to the signatures of the parties represented.
c. Entire Agreement
This Agreement, together with any other written document referred to or
contemplated herein, embody the entire Agreement and understanding between
the parties relating to the subject matter hereof. Neither this Agreement nor any
provision hereof may be amended, modified, waived or discharged except by an
instrument in writing executed by the part against which enforcement of such
amendment, waiver or discharge is sought.
d. Capacity of Parties
Each signatory and party hereto hereby warrants and represents to the other party
that it has legal authority and capacity and direction fonn its principal to enter
7
9-\\
...!l-11,
into this Agreement; that all resoJutions or other actions have been taken so as to
enabJe it to enter into this Agreement.
e. Governing LawNenue
This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws
of the State of California. Any action arising under or relating to this Agreement
shall be brought only in the federal or state courts located in San Diego County,
State of California, and if applicable, the City of Chula Vista, or as close thereto
as possibJe. Venue for this Agreement, and performance hereunder, shall be the
City of Chula Vista.
f. Attorney Fees
ShouJd a dispute result in litigation, it is agreed that the prevailing party shall be
entitled to recover all reasonabJe costs incurred in the defense of that claim,
including costs and attorney fees.
[End of page. Next page is signature page.]
8
~-\'2.-
::;.-¡;r
-- Signature Page to
Agreement with Remy and Thomas
for Legal Consulting Services
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City and Consultant bave executed this Agreement this -
day of , 1993.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
By:
Tim Nader
Mayor
Attest:
Beverly AutheJet
City Clerk
Approved as to form:
Bruce M. Boogard,
City Attorney
Remy and Thomas
By: ~v ¿f. )~/'/-1-t'~
Tina A. Thomas
3061396.001\RETAINER
9
q-\~
~
I
1HIS PAGE BlANK
'1- \ Ù¡
~
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item 10
Meeting Date07/20/93
ITEM TITLE: Resolution /71 ¿, g'" Supporting Organic Recycling
West's Green Materials Composting Facility as Required for
the "GAP" Procedures for Inclusion in the County of San
Diego Solid Waste Management Plan and Approval of an
Amendment to the 1986 Revised San Diego County
Regional Solid Waste Management Plan to Include the
Proposed Composting Facility.
SUBMITTED BY: Conservation Coordinator All?
~
REVIEWED BY: City Manager ,1C j; ]/ (4/5ths Vote: Yes_NolU
BACKGROUND:
Organic Recycling West, Inc. (ORI) is a company specializing in the design and
operations of municipal composting facilities. ORI is in the process of establishing a
green materials (yard waste) composting facility in the Otay Mesa area of the City of
San Diego. Pursuant to Section 50000 of the Public Resources Code, and as required
by State law (the "Gap Procedure") all new solid waste facilities (materials recovery,
composting and landfill) must be included in the County Solid Waste Management Plan.
This report describes the proposed composting facility. Support ofthe proposed project
does not require that Chula Vista commit its green materials to the facility. However,
should the facility open, it will provide the City with a viable alternative for processing
of its yard waste materials.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve the resolution.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: The Resource Conservation
Commission reviewed this item at their July 12 meeting and passed a motion
recommending that Council approve the resolution (4-0-2). Minutes will be forwarded.
DISCUSSION:
As Council is aware the collection of yard waste, separated from refuse, is required
under the County Mandatory Recycling Ordinance ("MRO"). Yard waste comprises
almost 20 percent of Chula Vista's waste stream. Composting or mulching of this
1
/~-i
easily separated portion of the waste will assist the region in conserving its landfill
space and help the City in meeting its AB 939 diversion goals.
However, under the current AB 939 regulations, only yard waste that is com posted or
mulched can be "counted" toward diversion goals. Yard waste that is diverted through
use as biofuel does not count toward meeting the 25 percent diversion goal (to be
attained by 1995) and can only count for up to 10 percent of the diversion for the year
2000 goal of 50 percent.
As directed by City Council, staff has begun negotiations with Laidlaw to collect green
materials from the City. It is anticipated that the yard waste recycling program will be
phased in beginning in September. Currently the only processor for green material is
the County of San Diego Clean Green Program. About 75 percent of the material
processed by the County is sent to electrical generation plants in Imperial Valley to be
used as biofuel. The County, however, is interested in getting out of the "mulch"
business because it does not currently provide enough revenues to cover operational
costs.
Organic Recycling West, Inc. (ORI) is a company specializing in the design and
operations of municipal composting facilities. It is a subsidiary of Organic Recycling
Inc., a company with over 8 years of experience specializing in composting. The parent
company has established composting facilities and provided consulting and
management services for composting facilities throughout North America and Southeast
Asia.
OR! is in the process of establishing a green materials (yard waste) composting facility
in the Otay Mesa area of the City of San Diego. The facility is proposed to be located
on 25 acres in the Northeast corner of Brown Field Municipal Airport on property owned
by the City of San Diego. It is expected that the facility will divert large quantities of
green waste from the Otay landfill. Attachment A contains a site layout plan for the
proposed facility and a location map is contained as Attachment B.
ORI's facility will receive yard waste material for processing into compost and
horticultural mulch which will be sold as soil amendmènt. The facility can accept yard
waste from all South Bay cities and landscapers, and is expected to process
approximately 40,000-50,000 tons of yard waste per year. This amount is
approximately equal to the total amount of green waste received by the County at the
Otay landfill each year. Thus, materials sent to the proposed facility will count toward
meeting the diversion goals required under AB 939 and would be a significant
contribution to meeting the goals of the Source Reduction and Recycling Elements
(SRRE's) of the region's jurisdictions.
As of July 1, the tipping fee charged by the County for clean green waste is $25 per
ton. The ORI facility will charge a lower tipping fee for disposal of yard waste thereby
2
J/J'-;2...
creating an economic incentive to divert yard waste within the Otay service area
(including Chula Vista) to the ORI facility. Moreover, ORI has a reputation for
producing a high quality compost product and will work in cooperation with the cities
and haulers to market the product. Public agencies, landscapers, nurseries and
residents can use compost as soil amendment, thus replacing at least some of the
need to use petroleum-based artificial fertilizers. Through successful marketing of the
compost product, the use and sale of the material should increase over time potentially
leading to reduced tipping fees.
The facility, to be located approximately 7 miles south of the Otay landfill (in total travel
distance to the site), will be easily accessible by collection vehicles from throughout the
South Bay. Chula Vista's streets will not be significantly impacted by vehicles
delivering to the facility. Vehicles delivering yard waste from South Bay cities would
access the facility from Otay Mesa Road (1-805 to 905 to Otay Mesa Rd.). In Chula
Vista, yard waste collection will be conducted regardless of the establishment of ORI's
facility. If it best serves the City to deliver its yard waste to the facility, collection
vehicles would have no more of an impact on Chula Vista's streets delivering materials
to the facility than they would have going to the County's Clean Green Program at the
Otay Landfill. With diversion of yard waste to the ORI facility, away from the Otay
landfill, traffic flow on the Otay Valley road would potentially be reduced.
The location is in an industrial area with no residential areas nearby. Additionally, the
proposed site is approximately 200 feet above the highest anticipated water table at all
locations within the facility. The soils in the area have a clay texture and slow
permeability, thus the location would be suitable for composting due to the soil type and
distance to groundwater. The facility is not within 1 DO-year floodplains, wetlands, vernal
pools, riparian lands, nor on existing natural springs. Active composting areas will be
set back from the facility boundaries so that visibility will be minimal.
The facility will have a water supply for the wetting of windrows, dust control and fire
control. Windrows are long rows of compost material, usually around 6 feet high and
4 feet wide. Green material (grass) coming into the facility will be removed to
composting windrows using a front end loader. Woody materials (limbs and brush) will
be put through a grinder prior to placement in windrows. Windrows are "aerated"
(turned) and watered regularly. Additionally, ORI has perfected a composting method
that ensures minimal odor and utilizes aerobic windrow composting methods. The
temperature, pH, oxygen level, potential odor and moisture of the windrows will be
monitored to ensure that the aerobic process is working. The facility will also be
properly fenced to prevent unauthorized access and illegal dumping. Berms, fencing
and/or trees will be used to reduce noise impacts. Equipment to be used will include
a 12 foot diameter tub grinder, wood grinder, compost turner and trommel screen; all
appropriate air and noise pollution controls will be utilized.
3
111--3
ORI has completed its environmental review period with the City of San Diego Planning
Department and was given a negative declaration status. The City of San Diego Fire
Department also approved the proposed facility. ORI staff has held preliminary permit
application meetings with the County of San Diego Department of Health Services,
acting as the Local Enforcement Agency, responsible for approving all newly proposed
solid waste facilities in the region. Upon recommendation by the Local Enforcement
Agency, OR! will submit the permit application to the California Integrated Waste
Management Board. ORI has either received or is working on obtaining all other
necessary permits, including the Air Pollution Control District and the California
Regional Water Quality Control Board. The proposed facility has received the full
support of the County of San Diego Solid Waste Division, the City of San Diego Waste
Management Department, SANDAG (acting in its capacity as the Integrated Waste
Management Task Force), the AB 939 Technical Advisory Committee and the AB 939
Citizens' Advisory Committee.
Pursuant to section 50000 of the County of San Diego Public Resources Code, and as
required by the Gap Procedure 1, all new solid waste facilities must be included in the
County Solid Waste Management Plan (CoSWMP). To accomplish this, a majority of
city councils that contain a majority of the region's incorporated population and the
Board of Supervisors must approve the proposed amendment to the CoSWMP.
Attachment C contains a description of the procedure necessary to amend the
CoSWMP. Chula Vista's Planning Department has reviewed this report and related
information on the proposed facility and found no potential impacts with the proposed
project that were not already addressed and mitigated.
Council support of the proposed composting project does not require that the City
commit its green materials to the facility. However, should the facility open, it will
provide the City with a viable alternative for processing of its yard waste materials. If
approved for inclusion in the CoSWMP, the facility is expected to begin operations in
the early fall. Should staff recommend that green materials from Chula Vista be taken
to ORI's facility, staff will bring the proposal to Council at a later date.
FISCAL IMPACT: There is no impact as a result of this report.
1 The procedure that established a process for the approval and permitting of new or expanded
solid waste facilities not previously identified and approved in the County solid waste management plan
that are to be sited prior to the full adoption of the County Integrated Waste Management Plan (as
required by AB 939).
4
I~-i
Attachment A
.Z 'I!
i .
I
+
"-~" -
I . - ----. -
.-+ -
I + (L
~ «
:¿
.-+
fu W
l-
V)
~ !;~
+ I ~ I
.-+ 1ft! /I 1/ '1 I
~ í I I
Ii 'I. I I
II .-Jt I I ~
+ I I { ~
',- i II I g
.~ '- {I l-
e:: :";: :::::: ""-~ II I ~
"~,'--'~~~:-- II I I
'" "" '- '- ----= '-
"," ItJ,5'
. - Attachment B
I
..0
"?C'\
~
~
~
~
~
.. Son Diego
N /PROJE~
Compo
0 s io
~. ..
SCALE IN WIUS T~col~
lOCA TION MAP
/ð"¿
4
Attachment C
Solid Waste Management Plan Amendment Process
Coun~y of San Diego
The following procedure, described fully in section 50000 of the
Public Resources Code, is the process specified for approval and,
permitting of new or expanded solid waste facilities not previously
identified and approved in the county solid waste management plan
i~ effect on December 31, 1989. All the cities in the County agreed
to this process which will be in effect until the County's
Integrated Waste Management Plan is approved b:y the California
Integrated Waste Management Board.
1. All General Plan Amendments for the proposed facility must
have been completed prior to beginning the approval process.
2. The person or agency proposing the facility shall submit the
site identification and description to the Clerk of the San
Diego County Board of Supervisors.
/~ Within 5 days of submission the Clerk of the Board of Supervi-
J sors shall forward the site identification and description to
the San Diego County Integrated Waste Management Task Force
(c/o DPW, Solid Waste Division staff) for docketing on its
next meeting agenda.
4. Wi thin 45 days after receiving the -5i t:e..- identifica-tion--1 nd- -- ---
description the Task Force shall meet and comment in writing
on the proposed facility. The task force shall transmit those
comments to the applicant, to the County and to all of the
cities in the County. Those comments shall include, but are
not limited to, the relationship between the proposed new or
expanded facility and achievement of the solid waste diversion
requirements (25' by 1995 and 50' by 2000) of Section 41780 of
e the Public Resources Code.
\Hthin 20 days of submission the Clerk of the Board of
Supervisors shall submit the site identification and descrip-
tion to each city within the County.
6. The County Board of Supervisors and each City Council shall
approve or disapprove by resolution the site identification
and description within 90 days after it was initially submit-
ted to the Clerk of the County Board of Supervisors. Each
city shall notify the County Board of Supervisors of its
.
/¿')- '1
-
.
-2-
.
decision within the 90-day period. If the County or a city
fails to approve or disapprove the site identification and
description within 90 days, the city or County shall be
deemed to have approved the site identification and descrip-
tion.
7. To approve a proposed site identification and description, the
city or the county in which the site is ~Ocateð shall make a
finding that establishment or expansion of the solid waste
disposal or transformation facility is in a land use area
designated or authorized for a solid waste facility and that
land uses authorized adjacent to. the facility are compatible
with the establishment or expansion of the solid waste
disposal or transformation facility in the applicable city or
County general plan.
8. Ifa city or the County disapproves the site identification
and description, the city or the County shall, within 10 days
of the disapproval, mail notice of its decision by first-class
mail to the person or agency requesting the approval stating
its reasons for the disapproval.
9. No city or the County shall disapprove a proposed site
identification and description for a new solid waste or .
transformation-.fac.i.l.i.Gz-,.--Or IIn .xpand~d-_olid.---was.t.e --01'..---"" .---'" -.
transformation facility which will result in a significant
increase in the amount of solid waste handled at the facility,
unless it determines, based on substantial evidence in the
record, that there will be one or more significant adverse
impacts within its boundaries from the proposed project.
10. Upon approval of the site identification and description by
the County and a majority of. the cities containing a majority
of the population of the incorporated area of the County of
San Diego, inc:luðinQ the ;urisðic:tion' wi thin which the
oroooseð new or exoanðeð facility is locate4, the person or
agency proposing the facility shall submit the proposal along
with the above approvals to the Local Enforcement Agency and
the California Integrated Waste Management Board (Board) for
concurrence/approval and issuance of a permit.
11. Pursuant to section 44009 of the Public Resources Code the
Board shall in writing concur or object to issuance, modifica-
tion, or revision of the solid waste facilities permit.
.
.
Ill., r
RESOLUTION NO. J 7/~r
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA SUPPORTING ORGANIC RECYCLING
WEST'S GREEN MATERIALS COMPOSTING FACILITY AS
REQUIRED FOR THE "GAP" PROCEDURES FOR
INCLUSION IN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO SOLID
WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND APPROVAL OF AN
AMENDMENT TO THE 1986 REVISED SAN DIEGO COUNTY
REGIONAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN TO
INCLUDE THE PROPOSED COMPOSTING FACILITY
WHEREAS, Organic Recycling West, Inc. (ORI) is a company
specializing in the design and operations of municipal composting
facilities; and
WHEREAS, ORI is in the process of establishing a green
materials (yard waste) composting facility in the Otay Mesa area of
the City of San Diego; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to section 50000 of the Public
Resources Code, and as required by state law (the "Gap Procedure"),
all new solid waste facilities (materials recovery, composting and
landfill) must be included in the County Solid Waste Management
Plan; and
WHEREAS, support of the proposed project does not require
that Chula vista commit its green materials to the facility,
however, should the facility open, it will provide the City with a
viable alternative for processing of its yard waste materials; and
WHEREAS, the Resource Conservation Commission reviewed
this item at its July 12, 1993 meeting and passed a motion
recommending that Council approve the resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the city of Chula vista does hereby support Organic Recycling
West's Green Materials Compo sting Facility as required for the
"GAP" Procedures for inclusion in the County of San Diego solid
Waste Management Plan and approval of an amendment to the 1986
Revised San Diego County Regional Solid W te Management Plan to
include the proposed co~oeting faci1i~. ~
Pre"ented ~ App ~ d ~o f ~
Athena Bradley, Co""~ation Bruce M. Booge -City
Coordinator Attorney
P,\home\.ttomey\ORI.gop
ItJ'i
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item II
Meeting Date 7/20/93
ITEM TITLE: Resolution J7/A~ZOrizing conditional temporary closure of Rancho Del Rey
Parkway on September 18 and 19, 1993, for the Orange Crate Derby
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Parks and Recreatio~
REVIEWED BY: City Manager.J,. ~ @ (4/5ths Vote: Yes_No.1U
The Bonita Orange Crate Derby Committee is requesting the City to authorize a temporary street closure,
and to grant permission to conduct an Orange Crate Derby on Rancho del Rey Parkway on Saturday and
Sunday, September 18 and 19, 1993.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve the resolution, subject to staff conditions as stated
in this report.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: N/A
DISCUSSION: The Bonita Orange Crate Derby Committee (sponsor) is requesting permission
to conduct the Fourteenth Annual Orange Crate Derby on Saturday and Sunday, September 18 and 19,
1993. The event would be conducted on Rancho del Rey Parkway, between the west security gate of the
Rancho del Rey Development, and Avenida del Rey. A diagram of the event area is attached
(Attachment "A"). The street would be closed to traffic between 6:00 AM and 6:00 PM on both days.
In addition, night-time traffic on Saturday would be slightly impacted, since the sponsor would like to
leave some event equipment on one or both sides of the street overnight.
The sponsor expects that approximately 150 youngsters, ages 6 to 13 years old, and 100 separate derby
cars, would be involved in the double elimination competition during the two day event. The derby cars
are built by families, according to specifications provided by the sponsor. Each car is equipped with a
steering wheel (steering capacity is limited to avoid"over-steering" by young drivers) and a friction-drag
braking device. Each car is inspected to verify that safety equipment is in working order, and drivers
are required to wear helmets, long pants, and sturdy shoes.
The race course is approximately 1,000 feet in length, with no curves or turns. The entire course is lined
with hay bales on both sides, and the lanes are separated with traffic safety cones. The use of cones
serves two purposes; they delineate lanes, and also act as brakes if cars accidently run over them. The
run-out area below the finish line is also lined with traffic cones and hay bales. Only two cars are
permitted on the course at anyone time. Spectator areas are designated and separated from the course
by hay bales and flag lines.
The sponsor has agreed to provide insurance, portable toilets, appropriate trash containers and trash
control, necessary traffic barricades, cones, and directional signs, and overnight security (most cars will
remain at the event site overnight).
This event has a relatively small impact on residents in the area, with the exception of the homes located
in Belmonte Estates, a small, gated residential area directly north of the event site. Residents in this area
I/~/
may experience momentary delays in crossing Rancho del Rey Parkway to enter and leave their
neighborhood.
The event has been staged at this location for the past two years, and no problems have been reported
by any residents in the event area. However, all residents that would be impacted by this event have been
noticed in writing regarding the request for permission to conduct the event, and have been invited to
address the City Council with concerns. This notification was distributed on July 5 and 6, 1993.
McMillin Communities is a major co-sponsor of the event, and they fully endorse the event at the
proposed location.
It should be noted that the proposed site may not be suitable for this event in future years, as development
in the Rancho del Rey area expands. Therefore, the recommendation for approval is for this year only,
based on existing conditions.
Approval of the request should be subject to the following conditions:
I. The sponsor shall submit proof of insurance in the form of a certificate of insurance and policy
endorsement for $1 million, naming the City as additional insured.
2. The sponsor shall execute the standard Hold Harmless Agreement
3. The sponsor shall provide, at their own expense, all necessary supplies and services required to
safely conduct the event, including portable toilets, trash receptacles, trash control, crowd
control, traffic control equipment, signage, security, and required Police services.
4. Sponsor shall provide a $250 cash deposit for clean-up.
5. Sponsor shall post applicable street closure signs at least 48 hours in advance of the event.
6. All event participants shall be required to sign liability waivers. These waivers must indicate that
the City of ChuIa Vista will be indemnified and held harmless.
7. The sponsor shall post signs and provide adequate supervision to prevent participants and
spectators from sitting on retaining walls, and/or walking, standing, or sitting in landscaped
areas.
FISCAL IMPACT: None. The event sponsor will be responsible for all event costs. Any services
provided by the City (Police) will be fully reimbursed by the sponsor.
wp\orgcrate .113
) /~.L
A1".,.A4H If.~-~ A
! Inn
J' ~I
' .
! . 1711E
tJ :
II' I
,
i
-.1
,
.
,
¡
t
1
~ A
t
:
RESOLUTION NO. ) 7//,9
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA AUTHORIZING CONDITIONAL TEMPORARY
CLOSURE OF RANCHO DEL REY PARKWAY ON SEPTEMBER
18 AND 19, 1993 FOR AN ORANGE CRATE DERBY
WHEREAS, the Bonita Orange Crate Derby Committee is
requesting Council to authorize a temporary street closure and
grant permission to conduct an Orange Crate Derby on Rancho del Rey
Parkway on Saturday and Sunday, September 18 and 19, 1993.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the city of Chula vista does hereby authorize temporary closure of
Rancho del Rey Parkway on September 18 and 19, 1993 for an Orange
Crate Derby subject to the following conditions:
1. The sponsor shall submit proof of insurance in the form of a
certificate of insurance and policy endorsement for $1
million, naming the city as additional insured.
2. The sponsor shall execute a standard hold harmless agreement
in a form acceptable to the City Attorney.
3. The sponsor shall provide, at their own expense, all
necessary supplies and services required to safely conduct the
event, including portable toilets, trash receptacles, trash
control, crowd control, traffic 'control equipment, signage,
security, and required Police services.
4. Sponsor shall provide a $250 cash deposit for clean-up.
5. Sponsor shall post street closure signs at least 48 hours in
advance of the event.
6. All event participants shall be required to sign liability
waivers. These waivers must indicate that the City of Chula
vista will be indemnified and held harmless by the
participants and their legal guardian.
7. The sponsor shall post signs and provide adequate supervision
to prevent participants and spectators from sitting on
retaining walls, and/or walking on or sitting in landscaped
areas. ;f; l: f~:;f
Presented by
Jess A. Valenzuela, Director of
Parks and Recreation Attorney
C,\"\o"nge.d,,
//,,5"
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item I~
Meeting Date 7/20/93
ITEM TITLE: Resolution t111Ø Intention to vacate a portion of Fourth
Avenue adjacent to and west of 389 Orange Avenue (Chula Vista Public
Library)
SUBMITTED BY: D'~"" of Pobli, w~~
REVIEWED BY: City ManagerJGt ,
(4/5tbs Vote: Yes - No .10
RECOMMENDATION: To remove this item from the agenda.
DISCUSSION
Additional time in needed by staff in order to finalize the report, therefore, it is recommended
that this item be pulled from the agenda.
Staff will return this item to Council when all issues have been addressed.
JPL,SBI AGENDAICONTPAL. TRL
071593
/ ~ "l
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item 13
Meeting Date 7/20/93
ITEM TITLE: II. Resolution I 7 J ? J Approving replacement subdivision
improvement agreements for fourteen (14) subdivisions in Rancho del
Rey SPAs I and II and authorizing the Mayor to execute same
ß. Resolution I? I ?~ Approving the first amendment/novation of
the supplemental subdivision improvement agreements for SPA I, Phase
5, Unit I, Lot 77 and for Rancho Del Rey SPA II and authorizing the
Mayor to execute same
C. Resolution I 7 J 7.3 Approving letter of escrow instructions for
the release of subdivision improvement agreements, supplemental
subdivision improvement agreements and bonds for subdivisions in
Rancho del Rey SPAs I and II in connection with the transfer of fee title
from Rancho del Rey Partnership to Rancho del Rey Investors, LP.
(Escrow #1073167J First American Title Company) and authorizing the
M.y"' '" "'" .ud 1""" ¡
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works
REVIEWED BY: City Manager J4 ~ ~ (4/5ths Vote: Yes_No""KJ
Rancho del Rey Partnership has notified the City that the fee interest in fourteen (14)
subdivisions located in Rancho del Rey SPAs I and II is to be conveyed to Rancho del Rey
Investors, L.P. They have also requested to replace the original subdivision improvement
agreements with new agreements signed by the new owner.
The fltst amendment/novation of the supplemental subdivision improvement agreements for
SPA I, Phase 5, Unit I, Lot 77 and for Rancho Del Rey SPA II are also signed by the new
owner and have been requested to replace the original supplemental agreements.
Home Capital Corporation, one of the partners of the current owner, is currently intervened by
the Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC). The proposed replacement of agreements will release
RTC from any fmancial obligation on these subdivisions.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt the resolutions.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
13"' I
Page 2, Item /;$
Meeting Date 7/20/93
DISCUSSION:
Currently, an escrow has been established in connection with the conveyance of several
subdivisions in Rancho del Rey SPAs I and II (see Exhibit A) from the Rancho deJ Rey
Partnership (current owner) to Rancho del Rey Investors, LP. (new owner). The current owner
has requested to the City that, as part of escrow process, the original subdivision improvement
agreements for these subdivisions be replaced with new agreements executed by the new
owner. The owner has submitted to the City cóst estimates of the remaining public
improvements within the different developments (see Exhibit "B"). These new amounts are
not necessarily the same as the original bond amounts because much of the work has already
been completed. These amounts have been reviewed and approved by staff. Bonds in the
amounts indicated on Exhibit "B" for faithful performance, materials and labor and
monumentation will also be placed in escrow.
The letter of escrow instructions directs the escrow agent (First American Title Company) to
release the original subdivision improvement agreements, supplemental subdivision
improvement agreements and security instruments (bonds) only after the fee interest on the
properties has been vested in the new owner, Rancho del Rey Investors, LP. and new bonds
and agreements have been posted.
The City Engineer has already executed the necessary release of agreement documents as
authorized by Council Resolution No. 17154 approved on June 22, 1993. He has also signed
the related bond release letters. These documents will require the close of escrow to be
complete in order for the releases to be effective. A copy of bonds and subdivision
improvement agreements are on file in the City Clerk's Office for Council review.
Rancho del Rey Investors, LP. has executed and submitted the required new subdivision
improvement agreements and supplemental subdivision improvement agreements. They have
been reviewed by the City Attorney and found adequate and ready for Council approval.
FISCAL IMPACT: None.
Ld,r/EY-338
WPC F:lhom,Iong..,otIag,ndaloubdiv14.agm
071593
J:J~:L
EXHIBIT "A"
;¡III.¥_JI.1~!~¡IIIIIII¡il!I¡¡11111¡1¡~¡ i¡IB¡ilJ..11111t11l111111
SPA I, Phase 2, Unit 12 12695 15783
SPA I, Phase 3, Unit 2 12362 14080
SPA I, Phase 4, Unit 3 12368 14086
SPA 1, Phase 5, Unit 1 12501 15373
SPA I, Phase 5, Unit 1, Lot 77 12818 16166
SPA I, Phase 5, Unit 2 12502 15374
SPA I, Phase 6, Unit 1 12503 15375
SPA I, Phase 6, Unit 2 12504 15376
SPA II, Phase 1, Unit 1 12718 15852
SPA II, Phase 1, Unit 2 12719 15853
SPA II, Phase 1, Unit 3 12717 15854
SPA II, Phase 2, Unit I 12720 15855
SPA II, Phase 2, Unit 2 12721 15856
SPA II, Phase 2, Unit 3 12722 15867
WPC F,\home\engin....\I080.93
) 3"3
EXHIBIT "B"
SCHEDULE OF CITY BONDS
A. Rancho del Rey Subdivision Improvement Bonds:
,
SPA I, Phase 2, Unit 12 $270,000 $135,000 $135,000 $6,750
SPA I, Phase 3, Unit 2 81,300 40,650 40,650 23,000
SPA I, Phase 4, Unit 3 130,200 65,100 65,100 21,000
SPA I, Phase 5, UnIt 1 142,500 71,250 71,250 26,000
SPA I, Phase 5, Unit 1, Lot 77 200,800 100,400 100,400 24,000
SPA I, Phase 5, Unit 2 123,390 61,695 61,695 25,000
SPA I, Phase 6, Unit 1 556,000 278,000 278,000 15,000
SPA I, Phase 6, Unit 2 1,758,000 879,000 879,000 37,000
SPA II, Phase 1, Unit 1 1,061,400 530,700 530,700 3(J,000
SPA II, Phase 1, Unit 2 1,128,900 564,450 564,450 26,000
SPA II, Phase 1, Unit 3 1,409,900 704,950 704,950 17,000
SPA II, Phase 2, Unit 1 2,042,000 1,021,000 1,021,000 28,000
SPA I, Phase 2, Unit 2 1,186,500 593,250 593,250 16,000
SPA II, Phase 2, Unit 3 900,800 450,400 450,400 15,000
Total "B" $10,991,690 $5,495,845 $5,495,845 $309,750
.1..'
WPC F,\home\engin....\1080.93
/3~~
RESOLUTION NO. 17/7 J
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING REPLACEMENT SUBDIVISION
IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENTS FOR FOURTEEN (14)
SUBDIVISIONS IN RANCHO DEL REY SPAS I AND II
AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAME
WHEREAS, Rancho del Rey Partnership has notified the City
that the fee interest in fourteen (14) subdivisions located in
Rancho del Rey SPAs I and II is to be conveyed to Rancho del Rey
Investors, L.P. ¡and
WHEREAS, Rancho del Rey Partnership has also requested
the replacement of the original subdivision improvements agreements
with new agreements signed by the new owner.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the City of Chula vista does hereby approve replacement Subdivision
Improvement Agreements for fourteen (14) Subdivisions in Rancho del
Rey SPAs I and II, on file in the office of the city Clerk.
Presented by
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
F:\homel.""moyIRDR14.ub...,
13/1')
RESOLUTION NO. 17 J 7),
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE FIRST AMENDMENT/
NOVATION OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL SUBDIVISION
IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENTS FOR SPA I, PHASE 5,
UNIT 1, LOT 77 AND FOR RANCHO DEL REY SPA II
AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAME
WHEREAS, Rancho del Rey Partnership has notified the city
that the fee interest in fourteen (14) subdivisions located in
Rancho del Rey SPAs I and II is to be conveyed to Rancho del Rey
Investors, L.P. i and
WHEREAS, the first amendment/novation of the supplemental
subdivision improvement agreements for SPA 1, Phase 5, unit 1, Lot
77 and for Rancho Del Rey SPA II are also signed by the new owner
and have been requested to replace the original supplemental
agreements.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city Council of
the city of Chula vista does hereby approve the First Amendment/
Novation of the Supplemental Subdivision Improvement Agreements for
SPA I, Phase 5, unit 1, Lot 77 and for Rancho Del Rey SPA II, a
copies of which are on file in the Office of the City Clerk.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of the City of
Chula vista is hereby authorized and directed to execute said
>greem_. f= - = b~alf of the City of ~l~'
ke"_~ W ~ ov d aßO rm W
Public Works Attorney
P,\home\.ttomey\RDR.ub14.ogm
/:18'/ /I.:JIJ- ,.
RECORDING REQUESTED By:
WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO:
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, California 91910
Attention: City Engineer
FIRST AMENDMENT /NOV ATION
SUPPLEMENTAL SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
CHULA VISTA TRACT 89-5
RANCHO DEL REY, SPA II
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into on July 8, , 19~ between THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA, a municipal corporation, hereinafter called "City" and RANCHO
DEL REY INVESTORS, LP., hereinafter called "RDR" pursuant to the following:
RECITALS
A. This Agreement concerns and affects the Property legally described on Exhibit
"A" (Property).
B. Partnership is the owner and developer of Property.
C. Partnership has applied for and obtained tentative approval to subdivide the
Property and is planning to improve the Property as a 569 S.F. residential unit, multi-phase
planned community (Project).
D. City has adopted City-wide "thresholds", as established by City Resolution No.
13346 (Thresholds). These Thresholds establish performance standards for a variety of
services and impacts which must be met by the Project. The Thresholds were incorporated
into the Project approvals by City.
E. In addition to the Thresholds, and as a mechanism to insure compliance, the
City has adopted the Eastern Chula Vista Transportation Phasing Plan (Phasing Plan). The
Phasing Plan was incorporated into the Project approvals by City.
F. The Thresholds and the Phasing Plan establish standards and levels of service
for various identified public facilities and resources. These standards and levels of service
are enforced through the withholding of building permits when the public facility or resource
drops below a specified threshold.
)j(J:J
G. City approved a tentative subdivision map for Rancho Del Rey SPA II with
certain conditions (ChuJa Vista Tract 89-5).
H. Partnership has prepared and has submitted to the City the Final Map for
Chula Vista Tract 89-5.
I. Two of the conditions of Chula Vista Tract 89-5 require Partnership to agree
to comply with the thresholds and standards created by City Resolution No. 13346 and the
Phasing Plan (Conditions 14 and 43).
J. One of the conditions of Chula Vista Tract 89-5 requires Partnership and City
to enter into an agreement concerning the inclusion of various public improvements in a
landscape maintenance district (Condition 15).
K. One of the conditions of Chula Vista Tract 89-5 requires Partnership to hold
the City harmless from liability for erosion, siltation or increased flow of drainage resulting
from the project (Condition 23).
L. Condition 28 required a sewer study to be submitted and approved prior to
final map approval. The study has been submitted and indicated certain segments of
downstream facilities may exceed design criteria.
NOW, THEREFORE the parties agree as follows:
1. Partnership agrees and consents to the City's authority to withhold building
permits for any portion of Chula Vista Tract 89-5 if anyone of the following occur:
a. The public facilities monitoring program in the Public Facilities Plan
for Project indicates that facilities are operating beyond the identified level of
service.
b. Traffic volumes on East "H" Street exceeds 56,500 (or as may be
modified by subsequent action of the City Council concurrent with SPA III) vehicles
per day measured immediately easterJy of Hidden Vista Drive.
c. Regional building permits exceed thresholds identified in the Public
Facilities Plan for the Project.
d. Traffic volumes, levels of service, utilities and/or services exceed the
adopted City threshold standards.
e. The improvements identified in the Phasing Plan, and any subsequent
revisions, are not commenced or completed in a timely manner.
2. City agrees that the execution of this Agreement fulfills Partnership's
obligations relating to Conditions 14 and 43 of Chula Vista Tract89-5.
/3ß~
3. Partnership, on behalf of itself and its successors and assigns, hereby agrees
to not protest the inclusion of landscaped rnedians and parkways along streets within and
adjacent to ChuIa Vista Tract 89-5, within Landscape Maintenance District 20. This
agreement to not protest the inclusion of these public improvements shall not be deemed
a waiver of the right to challenge the amount of any additional assessment which may be
imposed due to the addition of these new improvements.
4. City agrees that the execution of this Agreement fulfills Partnership's
obligation relating to Condition 15 of Chula Vista Tract 89-5.
5. Partnership, on behalf of itself and its successors and assigns, hereby agrees
to indemnify and hold the City harmless from any liability due to erosion, siltation or
increased flow of drainage resulting from the construction of the improvements associated
with the final map for Chula Vista Tract 89-5. The "indemnification and hold harllÙess"
provided herein, shall not be deemed to include any negligent acts on behalf of City, its
employees or agents.
6. City agrees that the execution of this Agreement fulfills Partnership's
obligation to Condition 23 of Chula Vista Tract 89-5.
7. Partnership promises to monitor, at their sole cost and expense and in a
manner directed by the City Engineer, the segments of the sewer system indicated in the
sewer study which are nearing or exceeding design criteria. In addition, Partnership agrees
that in accordance with Section l(a) ("Withholding of Building Permits"), the City may
withhold building permits until such time as parallel lines àre constructed to mitigate
problem areas as determined by the City Engineer, based upon sewer monitoring results and
current City design guideJines.
8. Partnership and City shall act in good faith and shall cooperate in the exercise of
their mutual obligation created by this Agreement. Neither party shall take any action
which shall prevent or hinder the other party's performance of this Agreement.
9. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the
Partnership's heirs, successors, assigns and interests to any or all of the property subject to
Chula Vista Tract 89-5, until released by the mutual consent of the parties. Notwithstanding
the provision of this Paragraph 8, City shall record a termination notice and release, to the
satisfaction of Partnership, from the provisions of Paragraph 5, upon release of the bonds
securing the construction and drainage improvements within Chula Vista Tract 89-5.
¡.:IlJ,f
RANCHO DEL REY INVESTORS, LP.,
a California limited partnership
By: McMillin Project Services, Inc.
a California Corporation, Attorney in Fact
under a durable Power of Attorney
By: d~/e ~M
Its: Senior Vice President
By: 9)11*~' ~
Its: Vice President
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA,
a municipal corporation
By
Mayor
APPd: rr;: ffD CO NlliNT
City Attorney
J1ß~¿' / /9ð-7
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO)
On ¿7c ð; 19'7'.3 , 1993, before me, Joyce A. Brock,
Notary, b c ~.~ ?P~ ~
"-- - ---------. 1: Ø'Ã ~
personally known me (or ~~d te> mp nn t,,~ baldo of
s~tisfactory evidence to be the persons(s) whose names(s) i~/are
subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that
Re/5fte/they executed the same in hL:,!ln::.../their authorized
capacity(ies), and that by ~/their signature(s) on the
instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the
person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
Witness my hand and official seal. J!j~
~ð.~
Signat f Notary . -"-~
j'O-?
EXHIBIT "A: Page 1 of 2
LOTS -1-. THROUGH -1JL OF CHULA VISTA TRACT NO. 89-5, RANCHO
DEL REY, SPA II, PHASE ---1-, UNIT NO. ---L., LOCATED IN 1HE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING
TO MAP THEREOF NO. 12718 , FILED IN 1HE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY
RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY OF OCTOBER 1, 1990.
LOTS ---1- THROUGH 114 OF CHULA VISTA TRACT NO. 89-5, RANCHO
DEL REY, SPA II, PHASE ---1-, UNIT NO. -L-, LOCATED IN THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING
TO MAP THEREOF NO. 12719 , FILED IN THE OFFICE OF 1HE COUNTY
RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY OF OCTOBER 1, 1990.
LOTS --1- THROUGH 79 OF CHULA VISTA TRACT NO. 89-5, RANCHO
DEL REY, SPA II, PHASE---1-, UNIT NO.~, LOCATED IN THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING
TO MAP THEREOF NO. 12717 , FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY
RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY OF OCTOBER 1, 1990.
/3ß..íf'
.
EXHIBIT "A: Page2of2
LOTS --L- THROUGH 109 OF CHULA VISTA TRACf NO. 89-5, RANCHO
DEL REY, SPA II, PHASE~, UNIT NO. ----1-, LOCATED IN THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING
TO MAP THEREOF NO. 12720 , FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY
RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY OF OCfOBER 1, 1990.
LOTS --L- THROUGH 69 OF CHULA VISTA TRACf NO. 89-5, RANCHO
DEL REY, SPA II, PHASE~, UNIT NO.--2-, LOCATED IN THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING
TO MAP THEREOF NO. 12721 , FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY
RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY OF OCfOBER 1, 1990.
LOTS --L- THROUGH 63 OF CHULA VISTA TRACf NO. 89-5, RANCHO
DEL REY, SPA II, PHASE~, UNIT NO.~, LOCATED IN THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING
TO MAP THEREOF NO. 12722 , FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY
RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY OF OCfOBER 1, 1990.
)3[1-'1 jl.1ß-/()
RECORDING REQUESTED By:
City of ChuIa Vista
WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO:
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, California 91910
Attention: City Attorney
FIRST AMENDMENT /NOV A TION
SUPPLEMENTAL SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
CHULA VISTA TRACT 90-14
RANCHO DEL REY, SPA I, PHASE 5, UNIT I, LOT 77
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into on July 8, , 19.2l. between
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, a municipaJ corporation, hereinafter called "City" and
RANCHO DEL REY INVESTORS, loP., hereinafter called "RDR" pursuant to the
following:
RECITALS
A. This Agreement concerns and affects the Property legally described as Chula
Vista Tract No. 88-1, Rancho del Rey, Spa I, Phase 5, Unit I, Lot 77 in the City of Chula
Vista, County of San Diego, State of California, according to map thereof, No. 12501, filed
in the Office of the County Recorder of the County of San Diego November 15, 1989, and
is located in the vicinity of Rancho del Rey Parkway and Paseo Ranchero of the City of
Chula Vista. Attached as Exhibit A is a diagram of the area which is the subject matter of
said Lot 77 ("Property").
B. RDR is the owner and developer of Property.
C. RDR has applied for and obtained tentative approval to subdivide the
Property and is planning to improve the Property with 106 single family residential units,
and containing two other open space lots ("Project").
D. City has adopted City-wide "thresholds", as established by City Resolution No.
13346 ("Thresholds"). These Thresholds establish performance and "quality of life" standards
for a variety of services and impacts which must be in existence or met by the Project as a
condition of permitting the Project to be built. The Thresholds were incorporated as
conditions of Project approvals by City.
E. In addition to the Thresholds, and as a mechanism to insure compliance
therewith, the City has adopted the Eastern Chula Vista Transportation Phasing Plan
("Phasing Plan"). The Phasing Plan provides that certain transportation facilities have to be
in existence or provided by the Project as conditions of permitting the Project to be built.
1.30')1
F. The Thresholds and the Phasing Plan establish standards arid levels of service
for various identified public facilities and resources. These standards and levels of service
are enforced through the withholding of building permits when the public facility or resource
drops below a specified threshold.
G. City approved a tentative subdivision map for the Property with certain
conditions (Chula Vista Tract 90-14) by Resolution No. 15764, on August 7, 1990.
H. RDR has prepared and has submitted to the City the Final Map for Chula
Vista Tract 90-14.
I. One of the conditions of Chula Vista Tract 90-14 requires RDR to hold the
City harmless from liability for erosion, siltation or increased flow of drainage resulting from
the project (Condition 10).
J. One of the conditions of approval for Tentative Map Chula Vista Tract 90-14
require RDR to agree to not protest inclusion in Assessment District No. 87-1 for
improvement of East H Street (Condition No. 14).
K. One of the conditions of Chula Vista Tract 90-14 requires RDR to hold the
City harmless from liability from any claim to attack, set aside, void or annul any approval
by the City with regard to this subdivision (Condition 17).
L. Two of the conditions of approval for Tentative Map Chula Vista Tract 90-14
require RDR to agree to comply with the thresholds and standards created by City
Resolution No. 13346 and the Phasing Plan (Conditions 20 and 44).
M. One of the conditions of Chula vista Tract 90-14 requires RDR to agree to
include the Property in the Mello-Roos public facilities district or an acceptable alternative
financing program subject to the approval of both the Chula Vista Elementary and
Sweetwater High School Districts (Condition 31).
NOW, THEREFORE the parties agree as follows:
I. Agreement Applicable to Subsequent Owners.
A. Agreement Binding Upon Successors. This Agreement shall be binding upon and
inure to the benefit of the successors, assigns and interests of the Parties as to any or all of
the Property until released by the mutual consent of the parties.
B. Agreement Runs with the Land. The burden of the covenants contained in this
Agreement ("Burden") is for the benefit of the land owned by the City adjacent to the
Property. The Burden touches and concerns the Property. It is the intent of the parties,
and the parties agree, that this covenant shall be binding upon, an_d run with the ownership
of the land which it burdens.
13p.,/J...
C. Release of Encumbrance. Notwithstanding the provisions of this Section, City
agrees to release improved lots sold for finaJ consumption to homebuyers from the
encumbrances on land created by this agreement at the close of the escrow by which the lots
are sold. City shall execute such documents as are strictly necessary to remove the
encumbrance created against title by this agreement. Nothing thereby shall be deemed to
be a release of any claim of City against RDR.
II Grading Indemnities.
A. RDR, on behalf of itself and its successors and assigns, hereby agrees to
indemnify, defend, and hold the City harmless from any liability due to erosion, siltation or
increased flow of drainage resulting form the construction of the improvements associated
with the final maps for the subject Property.
B. City agrees that the execution of this agreement fulfills RDR's obligation to
Condition 10 of the tentative map approving the subdivision of Chula Vista Tract 90-14.
III. Costs for Reapportionment of Assessments in Assessment District 87-1 (East "H" Street
Improvements).
A. RDR hereby agrees to not sponsor the withdrawal of the Property from
Assessment District 87-1. This agreement to not sponsor the withdrawal of the Property
shall not be deemed a waiver of the right of any person to vote in a secret ballot election.
This shall impose on the Property owner, or any successor in interest, the duty not to sign
a written request for withdrawal from the Assessment District 87-1, or otherwise file a
formal written or formal oraJ protest of inclusion.
B. RDR hereby agrees to pay to the City all costs incurred by the City, including
staff time plus overhead, and consultant costs, in reapportioning the assessment created by
Assessment District 87-1 on said Lot 77 to the individual lots created by this subdivision.
RDR further agrees to deposit in advance such sums as the City shall require to prosecute
the reapportionment, and agrees to execute all documents necessary to achieve a
reapportionment of the assessment as the City shall require.
C. City agrees that the execution of this Agreement fulfills RDR's obligation to
Condition 14 of Chula Vista Tract 90-14.
IV. Indemnification for Subdividing.
A. On the condition that City promptly notifies RDR of any claim, action, or
proceeding and that the City cooperates fully in the defense, RDR, on behalf of itself and
its successors and assigns, hereby agrees, pursuant to the provisions of Government Code
Section 66474.9, to indemnify, defend, and hold the City harmless from any liability for
subdividing the subject Property, or any claim to attack, set aside, void or annul any
approval by the City, including approval by the Planning Commission, City Council, or any
approval by agents, officers, or employees with regard to this subdivision, including but not
limited to approval of this subdivision map or issuance of any building permits pursuant
hereto. If the City fails to promptly notify RDR of any claim, action, or proceeding or if
the City fails to cooperate fully in the defense, RDR shall not thereafter be responsible to
defend, indemnify, or hold the City harmless.
)JIJ-' )J
B. City agrees that the execution of this Agreement fulfills RDR's obligation to
Condition 17 of Chula Vista Tract 90-14.
V. Building Perrnits Not To Issue while Thresholds Deficient.
A. RDR hereby grants to the City the right to withhold building permits for any
structure-type (e.g., houses, commercial or industrial buildings) irnprovements on the subject
Property at such time as the City reasonably determines, in writing, notice of which is to be
provided to RDR, that anyone or more of the following has occurred:
1. The public facilities monitoring program as provided for in the Rancho
Del Rey, SPA I Public Facilities Financing Plan ("PFFP") for the Project
indicates that required facilities as identified in the PFFP or any revisions
thereto. have not been provided, as determined by the City Engineer and
Director of Planning.
2. Traffic volumes, levels of service, utilities and/or services exceed the
adopted City threshold standards, including, but not limited to, those for East
"H" Street and Otay Lakes Road.
3. Regional development threshold limits set by the Phasing Plan have been
reached.
The foregoing three conditions shall herein be referred to as "Conditions for Withholding
of Building Permits."
B. RDR hereby agrees not to "pull", and City will not issue, building permits, and
to not construct any further residential structures on the subject property or any portion
thereof if anyone of the Conditions for Withholding of Building Permits occur, except for
structures for which building permits have been issued which are under construction at the
time that a Condition for Withholding of Building Permits arises.
C. RDR further waives any objection to the authority of the City to exercise its right
herein granted to withhold building permits, and acknowledges the authority of the City to
exercise the right herein granted. RDR furthermore acknowledges that the exclusive remedy
to seek redress for the imposition of any conditions which they deem to be improper or in
excess of the authority of the City to impose is by aIJm;n\¡¡trativ" mandamus.
D. City agrees that the execution of this Agreement fulfills RDR's obligations
relating to Conditions 20 and 44 of tentative map approving the subdivision of Chula Vista
Tract 90-14.
IV. Mello-Roos Financing for School Districts.
A. This provision acknowledges that Chula Vista Elementary School District and the
Sweetwater Union High School District have impressed the subject property with a Mello-
Roos public facilities districts acceptable to both the Chula Vista Elementary and
Sweetwater High School District, and no further provision is necessary to meet this
condition.
130..-11
VII. Miscellaneous.
A. Notices. Unless otherwise provided in this Agreement or by law, any and aU
notices required or permitted by this Agreement or by law to be served on or delivered to
either party shall be in writing and shall be deemed duly served, delivered, and received
when personally delivered to the party to whom it is directed, or in lieu thereof, when three
(3) business days have elapsed following deposit in the U.S. Mail, certified or registered
mail, return receipt requested, first-class postage prepaid, addressed to the address indicated
in this Agreement. A party may change such address for the purpose of this paragraph by
giving written notice of such change to the other party.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
276 4th Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Attn: Engineering Department
RANCHO DEL REY INVESTORS, L.P.
2727 Hoover Avenue
National City, CA 91950
Attn: McMillin Communities, Inc.
Craig Fukuyama, Vice President
B. Captions. Captions in this Agreement are inserted for convenience of reference
and do not define, describe or limit the scope of intent of this Agreement or any of its
terms.
C. Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire agreement between the
parties regarding the subject matter hereof. Any prior oral or written representations,
agreements, understandings, and/or statements shall be of no force and effect.
D. Preparation of Agreement. No inference, assumption or presumption shaU be
drawn from the fact that a party or his attorney prepared and/or drafted this Agreement.
It shall be conclusively presumed that both parties participated equaUy in the preparation
and/or drafting this Agreement.
E. Recitals: Exhibits. Any recitals set forth above are incorporated by reference into
this Agreement.
F. Attorneys' Fees. In the event of any dispute arising out of this Agreement, the
prevailing party in any action shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees in addition to
any other costs, damages, or remedies.
(End of Page. Next Page is Signature Page.)
1.3 /1"-1.5'
RANCHO DEL REY INVESTORS, LP.,
a California limited partnership
By: McMillin Project Services, Inc.
a California Corporation, Attorney in Fact
under a durable Power of Attorney
By: . ¿¡If ~
Its: Senior Vice President
By: Cft1- W. ~/~
Its: Vice President
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA,
a municipal corporation
By
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CONTENT:
C¡~A~~'~
I.Jß 'J~
2
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO)
On ~7 /, , 1993, before me, Joyce A. Brock,
Notary P li , p.r.~?~
'- -------',.""""'- ------
\... ---.." J. ~ ~
personally known e (or ~ed to me on the basis of
satisfactory evidence to be the persons(s) whose names(s) tëfare
subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that
fte./-Effle/they executed the same in lri-sitrer/their authorized
capacity(ies) , and that by Ms/lu:.L/their signature(s) on the
instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the
person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
Witness my hand and official seal. 1ir~
¡ -' . JOìi';~ r;"::':::_~-g
I~ ¿{, ~ . COM.\1. ...~' ,: ;;i( -
, ~~f
Signatu f Notary ,,"c.::~~
, e,p¡.,....."". '1IP7 i
," ""',,, "'" ""'11
~"W~' ~""""'JÒVCE A. BROCK
-~ COMM-"I
I : tØJSIY ~ ..
IANDIIiGOCOIIi!Y q
1\ MtÇolllll. eopRI_al. 1907
.. -_cco.....,- ......... -.-
1:10--1?
,
"""""" ....
POR. 1/4 s.Ec.44 .............. r
RANCHO fI.E LA I'JAcJON ""....
tlAP JlJO. Us "--- - - L01
. G.
${)8lJfVlS'JaII EJtXINCWi'Y --i-.....
em IJI1£N SPNF
:.: LOT 'B'
. J'
1-
a
...¡
L01 . A.
-
, CHULA VJS1A 1RAC1 NO. 88-1
RANcHO-fl.EL R.EY PHAS.E 5 UNJ1 NO.
~- MAP NO. 12501
,
RlIBlGNBIIUNG (XNpANY
EXHIBIT 'A ' ~ ~ f'rl... Reu,
I "'" ... DI...,
'ß CCllr.r.l. 82110-2S116 (SIB) 281-0707
RANCHO !XL REY, RlABE 5, UNIT 1 ,lOT 17 PRO.JECT NUMBER 11461
SCALE l' - 300' I DATE 4-22-91
RESOLUTION NO. I'}I 7.3
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING LETTER OF ESCROW
INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE RELEASE OF SUBDIVISION
IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENTS, SUPPLEMENTAL
SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENTS AND BONDS
FOR SUBDIVISIONS IN RANCHO DEL REY SPAS I AND
II IN CONNECTION WITH THE TRANSFER OF FEE
TITLE FROM RANCHO DEL REY PARTNERSHIP TO
RANCHO DEL REY INVESTORS, L.P. (ESCROW
#107316J FIRST AMERICAN TITLE COMPANY) AND
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN SAID LETTER
WHEREAS, Rancho del Rey Partnership has notified the City
that the fee interest in fourteen (14) subdivisions located in
Rancho del Rey SPAs I and II is to be conveyed to Rancho del Rey
Investors, L.P. i and
WHEREAS, the letter of escrow instructions directs the
escrow agent (First American Title Company) to release the original
subdivision improvement agreements, supplemental subdivision
improvement agreements and security instruments (bonds) only after
the fee interest on the properties has been vested in the new
owner, Rancho del Rey Investors, L.P. and new bonds and agreements
have been posted, and a title policy is issued insuring that we are
in the same or better priority position to all debt or other
encumbrances.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city Council of
the city of Chula vista does hereby approve letter of escrow
instructions for the release of subdivision improvement agreements,
supplemental subdivision improvements agreements and bonds for
subdivisions in Rancho del Rey SPAs I and II in connection with the
transfer of fee title from Rancho del Rey Partnership to Rancho del
Rey Investors, L.P. (Escrow #1073167J First American Title
Company).
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of the city of
Chula vista is hereby authorized to sign said letter of escrow
inotructiono on b~"lf of tM City of Ch "Vish. ~
Pre"ented by Ap 0 ed as ~ f m by ~
John P. Liwirt, Direct= of Br=e M. Boo~aNC:Y
Public Works Attorney
',\hpome\.ttomey\RDReoc.w.m.
)JC~/
- lU; qtJ ncfllLL1N liUnrfìNJt::J t'fìl\ NU, jjbJbtJI r, U¿
.
~. ~.:
., ,
ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS
These ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS are entered into by and among niE
CITY OF CHUlA VISTA, a municipal corporation ("City"), RANCHO DEL REY
INVESTORS, loP., a California limited partnership ("New RDR"), RANCHO DEL REY
PARTNERSHIP, a California general partnership ("Old RDR"), and FIRST AMERICAN
TITLE COMPANY, a California corporation ("Escrow Agent"). In consideration of the
mutual agreements, covenants and conditions contained in these Escrow Instructions, and
other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby
acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. Concurrent with the execution of these Escrow Instructions and their
delivery to Escrow Agent, City is also delivering the following items to Escrow Agent, to
hold for subsequent delivery in accordance herewith:
A. Three (3) Letters from City, one to each of (i) Insurance
Company of the West, (ii) Pacific States Casualty Company, and (iii) Allied Mutual
Insurance Company ("City Release Letters"), which have been fully and properly executed
by City;
B. A Release of Subdivision Improvement Agreement for Rancho
Del Rey with respect to each Subdivision Improvement Agreement and Supplemental
Subdivision Improvement Agreement ("Subdivision Improvement Agreement Release")
currently existing between City and Old RDR; and
C. Fully and properly executed originals of Subdivision
Improvement Agreements and First Amendment/Novation Supplemental Subdivision
Improvement Agreements ("New Subdivision Agreements") between City and New RDR.
2. Escrow Agent shall deliver the items described above which have been
delivered to it by City herewith, in the following manner, WHEN, BUT ONLY WHEN,
Escrow Agent is prepared to deliver to City surety bonds, issued by Insurance Company of
the West, in the form which City has advised New RDR will be acceptable and in the
amounts required under the New Subdivision Agreements, as security for New RDR's
obligations under those agreements ("Replacement Bonds"):
A. Each of the City Release Letters shall be delivered to the surety
company to which it is addressed;
B. The Subdivision Improvement Agreement Releases shall be
recorded, with fully conformed copies of the recorded documents delivered to Old RDR;
C. The New Subdivision Agreements shall be recorded immediately
before the Subdivision Improvement Agreement Releases descn'bed in Section 2(B), above,
are recorded, with fully conformed copies of the recorded documents delivered to City and
New RDR; and
A:UB\TAYLOR\ESCROW.RDR /3c-,.1- IJ(,- 3
'"~ '"'"", IICIIJLLW vUnrHIHt.~ I'IjX NO. 3361587 P.03
.
\. ~ '.-
. ~
D. The Replacement Bonds shall be delivered to City.
<' 3. These Escrow Instructions may be cancelled, rescinded, amended or
modified only pursuant to a written instrument executed by all parties hereto and Escrow
Agent is instructed to carry out these Escrow Instructions as set forth in the absence of any
such writing even if one of the parties instructs it to do otherwise.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA Approved as to Fonn:
By: By:
Tim Nader, Mayor Bruce M. Boogaard
City Attorney
OLD RDR: 1\'EW RDR:
RANCHO DEL REY PARTNERSHIP, a RANCHO DEL REY INVESTORS, L.P"
California general partnership a California limited partnership
By: McMillin Communities, Inc., a By: McMillin Project Services, Inc., a
California corporation, General California corporation, Attorney in
Partner Fact Under a Durable Power of
Attorney
By:
Its: By: _.-
Its: -
By:
Its: By: --
Its:
By: Horne Capital Corporation, a !
California corporation, General
Partner
By:
Its:
By:
Its:
THESE ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS ARE
ACKNOWLEDGED, ACCEPTED AND AGREED:
FIRST AMERICAN TITLE COMPANY,
a California corporation
By:
Its:
A:UB\TAYLOIl\ESCROW.RDR -2- I:JC- i -
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
ItemÆ
Meeting Date 7/20/93
ITEM TITLE: Resolution J 7 J ? 'I Approving Third Amendment to agreement with
Darnell and Associates, Inc. to prepare traffic signal plans for 1-805 and Otay
Valley Road interchange improvements
SUBMITTED BY: 0"","" of Pobl" WOC~ ~
REVIEWED BY: City Manager...t ~ ..-? (4/5ths Vote: Yes_No-X.)
Staff recently received notification from CalTrans informing us that their Office of Project PJanning and
Development in Sacramento is requiring further changes in our traffic signal design plans for the
signalization of the I-80S ramps at Otay Valley Road. This notification came as a surprise since traffic
engineering staff coordinated the design with local CaiTrans staff. Specifically CaITrans has determined
that the width of the shoulder sections on Otay Valley Road under I-80S is substandard as proposed at
5 feet. According to CalTrans, we must provide 8 foot shoulders. This amounts to a 3 foot widening
on each side of Otay Valley Road under the bridge. The civil design work needed to modify the traffic
signal plans to meet CaiTrans requirements will add an additional $16,600 to the City's design cost to
complete the project.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt the resolution and authorize the Mayor to execute said
agreement amendment.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
On December 8, 1992, Council approved a second amendment to the agreement with Darnell and
Associates for the purpose of authorizing additional design work required by CaiTrans for the
signalization of the I-80S and Otay Valley Road interchange ramps.
The first two amendments were for the purpose of incorporating signal and related design changes
required by CaiTrans. Normally, such changes are not necessary once CaiTrans approves a Project
Concept Report, which identifies a detailed description of construction work to be performed.
However, in our case, we were attempting to accelerate the implementation of the I-805/0tay Valley
Road ramp signal project by preparing the design plans in conjunction with the preparation of the
Project Concept Report, with the cooperation of and input of CaiTrans designers. Unfortunately,
incremental solutions agreed upon by Jocal CalTrans engineers were overturned at their Sacramento
office of Project Planning and Development prior to completion of the Project Concept Report.
A fmal Project Concept Report incorporating what we thought was an acceptable plan including changes
required was submitted to CalTrans for approval on July 6, 1992. On August 4, 1992, the City
received a letter from CaiTrans local office stating that they concur with the proposed conceptual design
11-1
Page 2, Itemø
Meeting Date 7/20/93
for the project. The local CalTrans office further stated that the City of Chula Vista should pursue the
installation of these traffic signals by way of an Encroachment Permit. On the basis of CalTrans
preliminary approval, the City directed our consultant to prepare [mal construction drawings.
In November 1992, final signal and ramp construction drawings were submitted to CalTrans for their
approval. On May 13, 1993, six months later, staff received a letter from CalTrans informing us that
their Sacramento office of Project Planning and Development has rejected our design concept because
the portion of Otay Valley Road under I-80S freeway did not meet CaiTrans highway design standard.
CaiTrans is specifically objecting to the width of the traffic lane adjacent to the curb on each side of
Otay Valley Road under I-80S. The dimension of the curb lane shown on the City's construction
drawing is 17 feet which allows for a 12 foot standard lane width and a 5 foot wide shoulder. While
this is a standard dimension used on City streets, CaiTrans standards call for 8 foot wide shoulders.
CaiTrans has informed us that we could appeal their requirement and file for design exception.
However, CaiTrans' local office has stated that it is unlikely that the design exception will be accepted.
To file for design exception it will require considerable staff time and a delay of the project up to three
(3) months. Our past experience with design exceptions has not been cost effective. Furthermore, staff
believes requesting a design exception would create further deJays to the project without any assurance
that it will be accepted. Therefore, in an effort to expedite the construction of the needed signals, staff
is recommending proceeding with a design change to incorporate the additional widening of six feet on
Otay Valley Road. Although a detailed estimate has not been done, preliminary estimates of the
additional construction work is $50,000. While the cost for altering the construction drawings will be
borne by the City, the cost of constructing the additional width will be shared equally by CaITrans and
the City.
As a result of CaiTrans' unexpected design requirement, the completion of the traffic signals will be
delayed until February 1994. Prior to being informed of this latest change by CaiTrans, staff expected
to be able to have the construction completed by October 1993. A summary of the project scheduling
is shown on the following table:
I. Project Study Report July 1993
2. Cooperative agreement September 1993
3. Bids and award of contract November 1993
4. Start construction December 1993
5. Complete construction February 1994
In the meantime, the State has installed stop signs on Otay Valley Road to reduce delays for the ramp
motorists. The stop signs are only an interim measure until the signals are turned on.
To satisfy CaiTrans' new requirements, the consultant will have to modify the completed engineering
plans to including the following design tasks:
I '~.l..
Page 3, Itemß
Meeting Date 7/20/93
Task I: Otay Valley Road Widening:
This task requires: a) collection of field survey which will provide topographic data, cross
sections, and location of structures within the project limits, b) preparation of civil construction
drawings based on the field survey, and c) revision of the existing design plans for southbound
on/off ramps to reflect the required widening of Otay Valley Road.
Task 2: Traffic Signal and Striping Plans Modification:
This task consists of revising the traffic signal and striping plans to reflect the required
widening of Otay Valley Road. The revision will include traffic signaJ poles, loops, conduits,
and conductors, and modification of the striping plans.
Task 3: Traffic Control Plans:
This task consists of preparing traffic control plans to illustrate the manner in which the traffic
will be managed during the construction of the traffic signals.
Darnell and Associates proposes to perform the above tasks on a time and materials basis with a not-
to-exceed fee of $16,600. The not-to-exceed fee is based on the following breakdown:
CaiTrans Coordination $1,000
Revise Signal Plan 1,500
Revise Signing and Striping Plans 800
Prepare Traffic Control Plan 5,700
Revise Offi:amp Widening Plans 500
Prepare Otay Valley Road Street Widening Plan 7,100
TOTAL $16,600
It is recommended that the City Council amend Darnell and Associates' contract to include the design
cost to widen Otay Valley Road an additional 6 feet and traffic signal and striping plans modifications
for an amount not to exceed $16,600. This work was not anticipated initially and is outside the
current agreement Scope of Work.
FISCAL IMPACT: Funds are available in Project No. TF-220 (Interchange Traffic Signal
Improvements). The proposed amendment will increase compensation to the consultant by $16,600
from $57,907 to $74,507. Additionally, the widening of Otay Valley Road will increase the City's
share of the construction cost. Although we have not completed a detailed estimate based on design
plans, a preliminary estimate of the City's additional cost for construction is $25,000.
WPC F:Ihom,Iongm,O>Iag,ndaldarn,ll.omd 071593
/'~.J
RESOLUTION NO. J 7/?i
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING THIRD AMENDMENT TO
AGREEMENT WITH DARNELL AND ASSOCIATES, INC. TO
PREPARE TRAFFIC SIGNAL PLANS FOR 1-805 AND
OTAY VALLEY ROAD INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS, AND
AUTHORIZING MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAME
WHEREAS, staff recently received notification from
CalTrans informing the City that the Office of Project Planning and
Development in Sacramento is requiring further changes in our
traffic signal design plans for the signalization of the 1-805
ramps at otay Valley Road; and
WHEREAS, specifically CalTrans has determined that the
width of the shoulder sections on Otay Valley Road under 1-805 is
substandard as proposed at 5 feet and according to CalTrans, we
must provide 8 foot shoulders; and
WHEREAS, this amounts to a 3 foot widening on each side
of Otay Valley Road under the bridge; and
WHEREAS, the ci viI design work needed to modify the
traffic signal plans to meet CalTrans requirements will add an
additional $16,600 to the City's design cost to complete the
project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city Council of
the City of Chula Vista does hereby approve the Third Amendment to
Agreement with Darnell and Associates, Inc. to prepare traffic
signal plans for 1-805 and Otay Valley Road interchange
improvements, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City
Clerk.
Presented by
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
F:lhomelattomey\damoU.3rd
N-Lj /1#-5
.
THIRD AMENDMENT TO
AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND
DARNELL AND ASSOCIATES, INCORPORATED
TO PREPARE TRAFFIC SIGNAL PLANS FOR INTERSTATE 805
AT OTAY VALLEY ROAD RAMPS
THIS THIRD AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT is made and entered into this
day of , 1993, by and between the CITY OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, a public corporation, hereinafter referred
to as "City", and DARNELL & ASSOCIATES, INC., a California
corporation hereinafter referred to as "Consultant", whose address
is 1202 Kettner Boulevard, Suite B, San Diego, California, 92101,
for professional engineering services in connection with the City
of Chula Vista traffic signal construction at I-80S and Otay Valley
Road in the City of Chula Vista.
RECITAL
A. WHEREAS, on October 2,1990, by Council Resolution 15884,
an agreement to provide engineering design services was entered
into between the City and the consultant's predecessor corporation
BASMACIYAN-DARNELL, INCORPORATED (BDI) for the design of traffic
signals at the Interstate 80S at Otay Valley Road ramps and;
B. WHEREAS, on June 23, 1992, by Council Resolution 16698,
a first amendment to agreement with said consultant was approved to
prepare Civil design drawings for the I-80S southbound offramp and;
C. WHEREAS, on December 8, 1992, by Council Resolution
16918, a second amendment to agreement with said consultant was
approved to prepare civil design drawings for I-80S northbound
offramp and;
D. WHEREAS, Caltrans is requesting Otay Valley Road under
the I-80S bridge to be widen to provide an eight (8) foot shoulder
on each side of the roadway and;
E. WHEREAS, the additional work requested by Caltrans is
outside the original Scope of Work contained in original agreement
and;
F. WHEREAS, the City desires to proceed in a timely manner
with the construction of this project and lacks sufficient
resources to design the project in a timely manner and;
JL/-- ¡,
.
G. WHEREAS, the Consultant represents that it is qualified
and has personnel and facilities available necessary to accomplish
the work within the required time, and consultant desires to
undertake same.
WITNESSETH THAT, in consideration of the recitals and mutual
obligations of the duties as herein expressed, City and Consultant
agree that the Original Agreement, as amended, is further amended
as follows:
I. Section 1: Consultant's Duties, is amended to add at the end
the following:
"(ix) Otay Valley Road Widening - Civil Engineering
A. Design survey consisting of cross sections on
Otay Valley Road between the centerline of the
southbound on/off ramps to the centerline of
the northbound on/off ramps of I-80S. The
survey will provide topographic data, cross-
section, and location of man made facilities
within the project limits. Survey datum and
stationing will be tied to the previous on/off
ramp plans and to Caltrans plans.
B. Prepare civil design for the roadway widening,
new curbs on both sides of the road and new
sidewalk along the south side. Up to three
(3) drawings will be prepared to include the
roadway plan layout and profile, details and
cross sections. Revisions to the existing
irrigation system will be by note only.
C. prepare a cost and quantity estimate based
upon the plans.
D. prepare any additional provisions as required
to supplement the project standard
specifications relative to the items shown in
the plans. This information will be provided
in a Word Perfect 5.1 format.
E. Revise as required the existing on/off ramp
plans to reflect the three (3) foot widening
on both sides of Otay Valley Road.
(x) Traffic Plans
A. Revise the Otay Valley Road and northbound and
southbound on/off ramp signalization plans to
reflect the proposed 3' widening on each side
of Otay Valley Road. Poles, conduits, loop
detectors, channelization, curbs, etc. will be
revised.
)1-7
.
B. Revise channelization plans to reflect the
street widening.
C. Prepare Traffic Control plans for:
1) Otay Valley Road Widening
2) Southbound Offramp Widening'
3) North Offramp Widening
D. Prepare revised cost estimates and
specifications.
(xi) Submit plans, specifications and estimates to City
and Caltrans for approval.
(xii) Revise plans as necessary to reflect the City and
Caltrans comments.
(xiii) Assist the City in obtaining the encroachment
permit for the project.
(xiv) Be available during bidding to respons to
questions."
II. Section 2b: Compensation. Add the following after the
existing text:
"In addition to the compensation provided in the section above
(the original agreement and First and Second Amendments) the
compensation to be paid by the City to consultant for all
additional work required for the traffic signals as specified
in this Third Amendment shall be a not to exceed fee of
Sixteen Thousand Six Hundred Dollars ($16,600) based upon the
original fee schedule (Exhibit B) payable per task in monthly
progress payments in an amount that the Public Works Director,
or his designee, shall determine corresponds to the value
provided to the City to the date of billing.
'Except as provided herein, all other items and conditions of the
original agreement, as amended, remain in full force and effect.
1'1.,7
. .
IN WITNESS THEREOF, the parties hereto have executive this Second
Amendment to Agreement on the day and year first-above written.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA DARNELL AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
TIM NADER BILL E. DARNELL, PRESIDENT
MAYOR
Attest:
(City Clerk)
Approved as to form by:
BRUCE BOOGAARD, CITY ATTORNEY
(F, \HOHE\EHGIHEE'\BASMACAM. ZAO)
/0/-7
ITEM NUMBER: /5
RESOLUTION NUMBER:
ORDINANCE NUMBER:
OTHER: ¡(Ef>¿:;Æí
ITEM NUMBER REFERENCED ABOVE WAS CONTINUED FROM
DATE: ..::r U L. /9 / qq:J
(AGENDA PACKET SCANNED AT ABOVE DATE)
ITEM NUMBER REFERENCED ABOVE HAS BEEN CONTINUED TO
DATE:
MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION:
!¡ftJI'CeSéLJ IJéßr $,ç-rTLE,¿f¡Ç,v r ß,E-rlvéét<J tJ6=ðÆd
£NJI/,ftJNi1E~rl9¿ Q" E¡V¡f¿?( S.éÆ¡//t!.,£"S AN'/) ß IlL¡) UJ oj
y/S rll IJSSð(!//)TE$ R.E- ðr¡;r ¡fA AI t!. ¡.f
-, I~ *" I
þ-
"*
" l :1
¡ :r '
.JI '[,' d ~. COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT 7~3
1:5
'l~ . ,j 1 j 'h xtem
V' . - r,' , 7/-...1 'I ~
V" ,¡ ^' Meeting Date
. ¡'
.ITEM TXTLE: Report Proposed debt settlement between
Ogden Environmental a~d Energy Services and Baldwin
Vista Associates regarding the Otay Ranch
'¿
SUBMITTED BY: De~ty Ciq ~er ~empl ~I
REVXEWED BY: City Manager (4/sths Vote: Yes- No-L)
Ogden Environmental and Energy Services ("Ogden") has been retained
as the chief preparer of and responder to comments for the Otay
Ranch EIR. Odgen's participation is critical in the Otay Ranch
entitlement approval process that is now occuring before the
Council and the Board. However, Baldwin has fallen behind in
payments for services due to Ogden, and Ogden has refused to
continue to provide its consultation services without, at a
minimum, security that it will get paid.Y Negotiations have been
ongoing over the last 30 days to arrive at an acceptable payment
schedule to eliminate the debt and security therefore. A tentative
agreement of business terms has been reached just prior to the
deadline for printing this agenda, and time has not permitted the
articulation and execution of a full written agreement to accompany
this report. Yet, the matter is critical to resolve so as not to
delay the Otay Ranch Project approval process now scheduled with
public hearings. Therefore, the purpose of this report is to
request Council to delegate the authority to the City Manager to
execute an agreement that is consistent with the business terms
outlined in this report.
RECOMMENDATION:
That Council authorize the City Manager to negotiate and
execute an agreement with Baldwin Vista and Ogden Environmental
consistent with the business terms outlined in this report, and to
provide council a copy of same as an informational item when
executed.
BOARD/COMMISSXON RECOMMENDATION:
None applicable.
1. Staff views this as a reasonable position.
15-1
.#1-1"
Item
Meetinq Date
BACRGROUND:
Ogden Environmental is under contract to the City, with the
City's liability limited to the otay Ranch Trust Fund (funded by
Baldwin) to prepare the Environmental Impact Report for the Otay
Ranch. In fact,! the final draft EIR was prepared in December 1992
and is pending before the City Council and County Board of
Supervisors.
As part of the process, ogden had voluntarily agreed to defer
submitting billings for some of their services with the idea that
they would be brought fully up to date before final project action
by the Council ~nd Board of Supervisors.
Their current contract calls for them to receive $50,000 on
the first and filfteenth of each month until paid up. Baldwin has
been missing payments or only making partial payments over the past
few months. As. of July 1, 1993, ogden is owed about $370,000.
They did receive! two $25,000 payments in the month of June. It is
estimated, however, that by the time the project is approved by the
policy makers, they will be owed a total of $400,000 to $500,000
including interest.
DISCUSSION:
,
As mentioned, Ogden, Baldwin and the City have been in
discussions on the debt payments and have reached a tentative
agreement at the staff level just prior to the Agenda printing
deadline. The business terms of the agreement calls for the
following:
1. Baldwin sha]l deposit for the payment of Ogden, and City will
pay from that deposit, all principal and interest due and
payable on or before the earliest of the following occurrence:
a. The date upon which the city and county vote to grant or
deny final approval of the otay Ranch Project;
b. The date which is five business days after the date upon
which Baldwin receives certain funding it is pursuing
from outside sources; or
c. August 16, 1993.
2. The obligation to make the payment continues to be limited to
the assets of the otay Ranch Trust Fund. However, the Trust
Fund will be supplemented by additional security in the form
of a note secured by a Trust Deed in the total amount of the
\ 5-2,.
~
- . Item ~ IS
Meeting-Date 7 13/93 '7/~/e.,~
Page 3
expected unpaid bills, and a performance Trust Deed issued to
the City of Chula vista against approximately 401 acres of
certain real property on the Otay Ranch Property located south
of Telegraph Canyon Road shown in the attached Exhibit A. If
payment is not made per No. 1 above, then the city would
foreclose on the property in order to make sure Ogden is paid
in full.
This agreement calls for Baldwin to make full payment of all
amounts due with interest within 5 weeks (August 16, 1993) at the
latest. This is fully the expectation, if not sooner, on
everyone's part. If Baldwin fails to perform this or any other
obligation of the Trust Fund, as stated, the city can foreclose on
certain Baldwin assets on the Ranch to make payment.
One of staff's potential concerns was the situation of having
property within the otay Ranch as security and the perception that
~ Ogden's testimony and facts could be biased somehow on the project.
staff and the City Attorney have arrived at mitigation stipulations
to remove that doubt and assure an objective process.
First, ogden would be totally removed from the foreclosure
process and not have any ability to benefit beyond the debt owed
them. This is because the City would be the party foreclosing on
the debt and paying Ogden. (This is similar to the arrangement the
Ci ty already has in a contract with another consultant, RBF.)
Second, there would be a large loan to value ratio, not greater
than 55%, insuring a much greater property equity than the amount
of the debt. Third, and perhaps most important, the appraised
value of the security would be based solely on existing General
Plan Designations and Zoning and not on any additional land use
entitlements being given by the Council and Board as a part of the
otay Ranch deliberations. This eliminates the argument that there
would be any motive to increase density on the property through the
hearing process.
A final point is that the City would go against assets in the
Trust Account first, then assets represented by the security
Baldwin has provided previously (3 model houses in North County)
and then, and only then, the Ranch property security.
As mentioned, the security is only a fall back if payment is
.~ not made by August 16, 1993. Baldwin fully anticipates that
payment will be made. The city's general fund is not at risk for
making any payments, only the Baldwin Company and the assets in the
I S-~
~
~ -
. :Item :t:. 1 5
Meeting Date 7 13/93 "/~/""S.
Page 3
expected unpaid bills, and a performance Trust Deed issued to
the City of Chula vista against approximately 401 acres of
certain real property on the Otay Ranch Property located south
of Telegraph Canyon Road shown in the attached Exhibit A. If
payment is not made per No.1 above, then the City would
foreclose on the property in order to make sure Ogden is paid
in full.
This agreement calls for Baldwin to make full payment of all
amounts due with interest within 5 weeks (August 16, 1993) at the
latest. This is fully the expectation, if not sooner, on
everyone's part. If Baldwin fails to perform this or any other
obligation of the Trust Fund, as stated, the City can foreclose on
certain Baldwin assets on the Ranch to make payment.
One of staff's potential concerns was the situation of having
property within the otay Ranch as security and the perception that
ogden's testimony and facts could be biased somehow on the project.
Staff and the City Attorney have arrived at mitigation stipulations
to remove that doubt and assure an objective process.
First, Ogden would be totally removed from the foreclosure
process and not have any ability to benefit beyond the debt owed
them. This is because the City would be the party foreclosing on
the debt and paying Ogden. (This is similar to the arrangement the
City already has in a contract with another consultant, RBF.)
Second, there would be a large loan to value ratio, not greater
than 55%, insuring a much greater property equity than the amount
of the debt. Third, and perhaps most important, the appraised
value of the security would be based solely on existing General
Plan Designations and Zoning and not on any additional land use
entitlements being given by the Council and Board as a part of the
Otay Ranch deliberations. This eliminates the argument that there
would be any motive to increase density on the property through the
hearing process.
A final point is that the City would go against assets in the
Trust Account first, then assets represented by the security
Baldwin has provided previously (3 model houses in North County)
and then, and only then, the Ranch property security.
As mentioned, the security is only a fall back if payment is
not made by August 16, 1993. Baldwin fully anticipates that
payment will be made. The city's general fund is not at risk for
making any payments, only the Baldwin Company and the assets in the
I S-~
~
- I
~'S
Item .,/~.,:.
Meeting Date /13/93
Page 4
Otay Ranch Trust Fund, and the security provided would be available
to pay Ogden's debt.
EIR Consultation Agreements have been authorized in the
purchasing Procedures Manual to be approved administratively by the
city Manager. However, because this is in the nature of a
settlement agreement, and not in the nature of the original
consulation agreement, staff is requesting authorization to
articulate and execute a three party agreement between the City,
Baldwin vista and Ogden Environmental and Energy Services which
incorporates these business terms of settlement.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None to the City except city Attorney and staff time to
prepare the agreement and implementing documents. All payments
will be made to Ogden from the trust account monies which Baldwin
has deposited with the city.
I S-'1
~
~
--
'\4.
--
'::t::
!t
-
THIS PAGE BI.\NK
I s-L:,
-Pþt;
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item..&
Meeting Date 7/20/93
ITEM TITLE: Report: Work Program and authorization for a School Impact Mitigation
Study in conjunction with the Chula Vista Elementary School District,
Sweetwater Union High School District and Source Point
SUBMITTED BY: rnrectoc of ""- t r ,1.~I~
REVIEWED BY: Ci", M,""", J\, ~ , (41"'" V"tq~_N"-'J
Over the last severaJ years, the City has been in discussion with the Chula Vista Elementary
School District on the subject of adequate mitigation for development's impacts to schools,
particularly those impacts resulting from legislative acts such as general plan amendments and/or
rezonings which increase allowable residential density. As previously reported in greater detail
to the Council, those discussions arose principally from the District's opposition to actions in
conjunction with the ongoing General Plan/Zoning Consistency Study. The Elementary School
District has also expressed similar concerns over Jegislative acts for non-residential
deveJopments, such as the Palomar Trolley Center, which they have asserted do not fully
mitigate related impacts to schools. .
As a result of those discussions, on April 28, 1992, staff presented to Council a preliminary
scope-of-work outline for a School Impact Mitigation Study in conjunction with the Elementary
School District and Source Point (the non-profit research organization of the San Diego
Association of Governments). The study would evaluate the impacts of new residential and non-
residential development on schools, and determine related facility and financial needs, for use
in subsequent development of an acceptable mitigation program. Council accepted that outline,
and directed that staff work with staff from both the elementary and high school districts, and
Source Point to develop a mutually agreeable study methodology and finalize a work program
to be returned for Council action.
Since that time, the staffs have held a series of meetings and discussions as directed, and Source
Point has prepared the attached study proposal and scope-of-services which is being presented
for Council action.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council:
1. Accept the attached work program and endorse commencement of the study.
2. Authorize staff to undertake final coordination activities, and the City Manager to execute
a contract as necessary to initiate the Source Point work.
I¿~/
Page 2, Item ~
Meeting Date 7/20/93
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: The matter of school overcrowding and
the impact of growth on the need for school facilities, along with the proposal for a joint Schools
Impact Mitigation Study, was recently presented to the Growth Management Oversight
Commission (GMOC). The GMOC's 1992 Annual Report subsequently contains a
recommendation that Council support the study effort.
DISCUSSION:
As directed by Council in April 1992, staff has been in discussion with both school districts and
Source Point to refine issues as identified on the preliminary scope-of-work outline, and to
devise a mutually acceptable methodology for analyzing and determining the school enrollment
impacts from new residential and non-residential development. The attached Source Point study
proposal, including the methodological descriptions and scope-of-services task list, are an
outcome of those discussions, and has been reviewed and supported by City and school district
staff. Both school districts are also currently in the process of presenting this work program to
their Boards for acceptance so that work may be commenced. Should Council's or either
Board's consideration raise any significant concerns, the staff will work with Source Point to
make mutually acceptable revisions, and return the document for reconsideration.
In accordance with the attached work program proposal, the study is comprised of the following
major parts:
. Evaluation of the factors and sources affecting enrollment growth including new
residential and non-residential development, internal grade progression/survival,
and shifts in household size and other demographic trends.
. An annualized projection of enrollment growth, based on the above factors, to the
year 2015.
. In accordance with enrollment projections, and considering existing school
facilities, an identification of future facility needs and the source and amount of
shortfalls.
. Identification of school district costs for new construction, reconstruction,
conversion or other facility needs to accommodate enrollment projections and
address shortfalls.
. Identification of anticipated annual school district income for facility provision by
revenue source, and a comparative evaluation (both annually and cumulatively)
to the above facility costs.
. Utilizing the above, production of a report which identifies the level of facility
/¿,..;.
~{ft..
I' I!!I! -
.~ ~
mY OF
QUA VISTA
MEMORANDUM
JuJy 16, 1993
TO : The Honorable Mayor and City Council
VIA : John D. Goss, City Manager.JG¡ Þ¡r~
FROM : Robert Leiter, Director of Planning~
SUBJECT : Attachment for Item 16, 7120/93 Meeting Agenda
It has come to our attention that the attachment noted in the AIl3 for the proposed Schools
Impact Mitigation Study was inadvertently omitted from your packets. Please find enclosed
that attachment which consists of a cover letter and work program proposal from Source
Point.
. ....---
/cb ~
Page 3, Item &
Meeting Date 7/20/93
and funding needs, along with a set of proposed solution strategies predicated on
the various factors affecting enrollment growth.
In conducting the study, Source Point's role will essentially be to provide objective expertise in
compiling and analyzing demographic and forecast data, and to prepare the final report. The
school districts will identify facility operating capacity, needs, shortfall, cost and revenue data,
while the City will principally be involved in assisting Source Point with demographic data and
development projections. All parties will have input in development of the final report and any
proposed solution strategies. The resulting final report is intended to identify the level of
funding gap, and serve as a basis upon which to undertake subsequent efforts to consider
development of an equitable mitigation program to bridge the gap. As such, Council's
authorization to undertake the study is not intended to predetermine the appropriateness of
additional school fees on new residential or non-residential development, or to commit the City
to any particular mitigation program(s).
The study's task structure is such so as to permit the review and acceptance of data in
prerequisite increments. Accordingly, staff will keep the Council advised throughout the
process. Once completed, the study will be brought back before the Council for final review
and action, prior to the development of any work program(s) to devise mitigation program
proposals.
FISCAL IMPACT: Source Point's fee to complete the proposed scope-of-work is $23,640.
The City and both school districts have each agreed to pay one third of the cost, the City's share
then being $7,880. The Study is directly related to the amelioration of growth's impacts on
school facilities consistent with the provisions of the Growth Management Program. As such,
the City's share of the Study's costs and all related City staff costs will be funded by the Public
Facilities Development Impact Fee.
Fiscal impacts which may result from any subsequent mitigation program(s) proposed as a result
of this study, will be identified and evaluated in conjunction with Council's consideration of
those program(s).
(¡,lhomelplanningl"h-mit.aI3)
II, "3 / 11,,1
-
0 - .
JUL-13-93 rUE 14:37 P,02
[ \CJ
SourcePoint
Suits BOO, First Interstate Plaza 0 401 °B Street
San Diego, CA 92101. (619) 595-5353 Fax (619) 595-5305
July 13, 1993
Mr. Bob Leiter
Planning Director
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91912
Subject: Chula Vista Elementary School District Enrollment Impact and Mitigation
Study - A proposaJ to Chula Vista Elementary School District, Sweetwater
Union High School District, and the City of Chula Vista.
Dear Mr. Leiter:
For some time now, the Chu1a Vista EJementary School District has been experiencing
significant amounts of enrollment growth. Some of this growth seems to be coming from
tradiûonaJ sources. New residential, commercial, and industrial development has caused
increased and changing student enrollment patterns. In addition, however, the district is
experiencing enrollment growth in attendance areas that are not recordin¡: a great deal of
new growth. Overall, the growth in enrollment has placed significant demands upon the
District's capital facilities.
To help pay for this rise in enrollment the District found it necessary to adopt and utilize
a program of colIecting contn'butions from developers. From the district's perspective, these
developer fees are inadequate to provide the educational facilities necessary to serve the
growing number of children in Chula Vista. There is a shortfa1l in current school facility
funding.
During the same time period, the City of Chu1a Vista, as well as other cities throughout the
San Diego region and state, have adopted a development impact fee procedure to help pay
for the effects of development on a city. The City of CbuJa Vista fs concerned over the
aggregated value of these fees and their effect on business decisions,
The ChuJa Vista Elementary School District and the City of Chula Vista would like to
identify the amount and sources of the enrollment growth. By identifying the source and the
amount of enrollment each is contn'buting, the District and City feeJ ft will heJp clarify
solution strategies that would address the district funding shortfall.
/¡;,.-þ
,4 nonprofit cor"""tion chorlorld þy tho Son DiOpo Assoclotion of Governments
-.
JUL-]3-93 rUE 14:38 P.03
One area of development impact fees the City is concerned with 'lire those in Government
Code Section 53080, authorizing school districts to levy a fee, charge, dedication, or other
form of requirement against any development project, for the construction or reconstruction
of school facilities. The city is concerned that in some instances fees may be being paid twice
for the same enrollment impact.
SourcePoint has met with representatives of both the City and SchooJ District to discuss
these issues. SourcePoint has prepared this proposal and scope of work to study and help
quantify the source. pattern and amount of current and projected enrollment in the Chula
Vista School District.
SourcePoint's fee to complete the proposed scope of work is $23,640. This fee amount is
based, in part, on relying on the School District to assist in producing most of the base
information required to complete tasks 7, 8, 9 and 10, as shown in the task responsibility
tabJe, located at the end of this proposal.
SourcePoint is prepared to begin work on this project as soon as it has been approved by
the three equal funding parties, City of Chula Vista, Chula Vista Elementary School District
and Sweetwater Union High School District. SourcePoint proposes to complete the project
within 10 weeks of the project approval date. A more detailed project schedule will be
provided at the first meeting following project approval, including meeting dates, interim
products, and specific project milestones.
The proposal for the two School District's includes a signature block below, for the purpose
of making this document also serve as a contract. The City of ChuJa Vista prefers a
different contract procedure, and win be handled differently.
For the School Districts, if you agree with the contents of this proposal, please sign in the
space provided, beJow. Your signature, as a representative qualified to enter your agency
into a contractual agreement, will serve to make this proposal a contract.
I look forward to hearing from you in the near future. In the meantime, if you have any
questions, please call me at 595-5335.
Respectfully submitted,
MAR)I,.'EY P. COX
Director, SourcePoint Services
cc Ms. Karen Shurson
Mr. Tom Silva
2 /b/7
~,~
-
JUL-13-93 TUE 14:39 P,04
DISCUSSION
SCHOOL IMP~cr MITIGATION STUDY
Back¡round
During 1990, SourcePoint produced a report for five school districts located In the southern
portion of the San Diego region. The study documented the relationship between
commerCÎaJ and industrial development and school enrollment. Such a study is required by
state legislation (Chapter 888 of the Statutes of 1986 added Government Code Section
53080) in order for school district's to utilize a program of collecting contributions from
developers, in the form of fees, charges, dedications, to mitigate the effects of a development
project on school districts. This report established that a causa! relationship cnsts between
new non-residential development and school enrollment.
More recently, the City of Cbula Vista staff requested tbat the information in this report be
enhanced to identify and estimate the changes In school district enrollment attnDutable to
the various sources and factors which affect enrollment. By identifying the amount and
source of enrollment changes the District and City expect to establish a foundation for
discussing possible solution strategies, aimed at adequately accommodating growing
enrollment.
City staff is particu!arJy concerned v.ith charging new non-residential projects fees without
recognizing that some fees may have been paid through the collection of fees on residential
developments. City staff refers to this condition as "double charging". This may occur when
fees are collected for a new-employment center, at which a family"member that is purchasing
a new home is employed. City staff would like to estimate how often this occurs, and
whether there is an alternative procedure available that would allow school districts to
accommodate enrollment changes without "double-charging."
Technical Approach. Enrollment Projections
The first objective of this report is to assist the School District and the City of Chula Vista
In sorting out the changes OCCUlTing in student enrollment related to growth and new
residential, commercial, and industriaJ development. A second objective is to project school
enrollment figures for select target years, identifying the source of the enrollment change and
estimating the revenue and cost to the school district from accommodating the projected
enrollment.
Accurate enrollment estimates are a key to analyzing the double charging issue, as well
assessing the district's expected costs and revenue requirements. SourcePoint proposes using
an approach that combines two separate modeling procedures to estimate school enrollment:
(1) a methodology designed to account for the long-term (20-year) course of future changes
in demographic characteristics and location of growth (i.e., fertility levels, ethnic makeup,
and distribution residential of households within the region and district; and (2) a
3 / k -¡:/
~~
-
JUL-13-93 rUE 14:40 P.05
methodology designed to simulate the transitions that actually occur within the school system,
Including: progress to the next higher grade, repeat a grade, sIdp a grade, leave the
attendance area. and new students who enter the system from outside. This hybrid approach
is based on established principles of forecasting, employing the strengths of Jong and short
term forecasting procedures, ensuring a greater degree of accuracy, and meeting the request
of City and School District staff.
I.oni-Term MethodolOiY
This methodology begins with a San Diego regionwide-level control total: a forecast of
population by age and race for the entire region, produced by SANDAG. To develop
student population projections {or the target year (2010). the projections arc standardized
relative to the base year of 1990, producing a set of forecast to base year ratios, of people
by age and race. Data for students grouped by age and race are multiplied by each ratio
producing a forecast of people for the target year by age and race. The net change in
student population is then allocated among census tracts within the district by means of a
race specific capture rate for each tract and summed to the base year data to arrive at an
estimate of total enrollment for the target year. This total is then compared to a capacity
total for each tract that is derived from pupil generation rates and SANDAG housing
forecasts. Any excess students are reallocated proportionately by race among census tracts
that fall below capacity limits.
To determine the proportion of totaJ enrollment generated by new employment projects, the
district wide forecast of employment change between the base year and target forecast year
is used. This total value is adjusted to reflect the proportion of the employment growth
accommodated by a new development. This employment and land absorption data is
available from SANDAG, To this adjusted empJoyment figure is applied the district wide
employed-resident capture rate, employee household formation rate, and student yield rate,
all from the 1990, School District Development Impact Fee Report. The result is an estimate
of school enrollment generated by non-residentiaJ development. The ratio of this value to
total enrollment, calculated above, will be used in the short-run forecast procedure discussed
below.
Short-TenD Me þodology
For short-term enrollment projections a grade-cohort model. that simulates the transitions
that actually occur within the system, is used. A grade-cohort model treats students in a
particular school grade as "survivors" of the cohort enrolled the year before in the next lower
grade. In addition, separate allowances must be made for enrollment gains or losses due to
students entering or exiting the district, and skipping or repeating a grade. The effect each
of these factors have on enrollment win be determined separately.
4 J¡,~J
~-
'.
JUL-13-93 rUE 14:41 P,06
Survival Component. The first step is to calculate the historical suIVival rate for each grade
in the district (attendance areas can also be estimated, if necessary; for example, east and
west of 1-805) using a weighted average derived from student enrollment data for the
previous four school years. This calculation produces a survival rate which incorporates any
leakage through out. migration from the district. Out-migration could consist of students
moving away, or changing to a private school (The District tracks students that live in the
district but attend school in another district, as well as students that live in another district
but attend a school within the Chula Vista School District. This data will be supplied by the
Chula Vista School District and included in the study). The grade specific survival rate is
multiplied by the number of students in that grade to project the number of students that
are expected to survive to the next higher grade.
The survival component for forecasting kindergarten enrollment is calculated differently,
since there is no preceding grade. Births are the basis for this calculation. Births in year one
are a primarily indicator for the kindergarten population five years out. This procedure WIll
be incorporated into the in-migration component, discussed below.
Grade Repeating Component - This component's calculation is similar to the survival rates.
For a given grade, the number of students repeating this grade is divided by the total grade
size, with recent years weighted in a disproportional matter.
Grade Skippin¡: Component. For a ¡iven grade, the number of students skipping to the next
grade is divided by the total grade size from which they originated. As with the repeating
component, recent years are weighted in a disproportional matter.
In-Migration Component. Newcomers, at times, comprise a large portion of the region's
growth. Where these newcomers settle within the region will depend largely on local housing
patterns, including new housing construction. To account for this in-migration component,
SourcePoint proposes to use an ordinary least squares (OLS) regression equation that relates
'bousing to the number of new students who enroll within the district. This equation
incorporates both total hollsing and change in housing in order to register the two separate
effects housing has on migration, The change in housing component is sensitive to the effect
of new homes on the in-migration of school-age children. Total housing implicitly
incorporates a turn over rate into the equation. By incorporating this rate into the model,
we account for the effect of changes in the occupancy of existing housing. This is the in.
migration of families with school age children who replace childless households. This means
that an area can experience no net new housing yet stilI register a change in demographics.
The change and total housing units are separated into single family and multi-£amiJy, which
captures varying rates of in.migration. For example, single family housing tends to result in
a larger influx of children, especially older children, than does multi-family housing. Finally,
added to this equation is births lagged five years, to account for kindergarten enrollment.
The data necessary to establish a basis for the equation is available from the school district,
the City of Cbula Vista, and SANDAG.
5 ) f:¡/¡V
~
-
JUL-13-93 rUE 14:41 P.07
To calculate the final short-term forecasts for a given grade, the number of students for that
grade produced by each component are summed, for each forecast year. To derive the
proportion of total enrollment that is related to non-residential development, the enrollment
estimate is multiplied by ratio of non.residential development related student enrollment to
total enrollment, calculated under the long-term enrollment forecast seCtion, above.
6 /j;~/I
þ~- -
.
.
JUL-13-93 rUE 14:42 p. DB
SCOPE OF SERVICES
SCHOOL IMPACT MITIGATION STIJDY
Task 1. Summarize purpose of the 1990 SchooJ District DeveJopment Impact Fee
Report. Review the purpose of this update, explain the concept of "double
charging", and the proposed use of this study's resu1ts by School District and
City Staff.
Task 2. Provide enrollment projection methodology, including equations, data and data
sources.
Task 3 Produce long-term enrollment projections for Chula Vista School District,
using the methodology outlined in the technical approach. ProjectJons will be
by census tract and provide age and race detail.
Task 4 Calculate the proportion of total enrollment (from long-term projections)
generated by new Don-residential projects. Apply the employed-resident
capture rate, employee household formation rate, and student yield rate, to
this value to estimate the extent to which school district development Impact
fees are being levied twice for the same enrollment impact (worker employed
at a new center that also purchased a new home), Differentiate between
straight impact fees and Mello-Roos District contributions.
TaskS Produce short-term (5 years) school enrollment projections for the Chula
Vista School District, using the methodology outlined in the technical
approach. Projections will be by census tract and provide enrollment estimates
by grade level.
Task 6 Calculate the proportion of total enrollment (from short-term projections)
related to new non-residential development. The procedure used under task
4 will also be applied here. The result will be an estimate of the districts
emp]oyed-residertts against which school district development impact fcc, or
Mello-Roos contn"bution, has been levied twice for the same enrollment
impact.
Task 7 Provide enrollment projections by census tract or other planning area, by age
for long-term and by grade for short-term, to School District. SourcePoint will
assist the District with calculating any facility shortfalls. SourcePoint, working
under the direction of the District, will identify the source and amount of the
shortfalls.
7 /6"'-; c7
~
-
-
JUL-13-93 TUE 14:43 P,09
Task 8 SourcePoint, working under the direction of the District, will list a set of
proposed soJution strategies for dealing with any problems identified (for
example, double-session kinderg~en, additional portable units, or new
schools). This list of solutions will be used to help determine the cost of
accommodating the projected school district enrollment.
Task 9 Assemble and organize data from the school district (tasks 7 and 8) into a
tabular form showing school, capacity, and enrollment accommodating strategy
for specific years (for example, 2, 5, and 15 years, data can be annualized).
Task 10 Working with School District, produce tables that show annualized summary
of school district costs for new construction, reconstruction, conversion and
other fac!lity and maintenance needs to accommodate enrollment projections.
Task 11 Work with the School District to produce tables showing estimates of
anticipated annual income for construction, reconstroction, conversion by
revenue source.
Task 12 Compare cost and revenue information generated in task's 10 and 11. Produce
a table showing the comparison of funding needs and income, annually and
cumulatively.
Task 13 Based on the estimated school district enrollment and revenue/cost data,
produce a report that analyzes the following issues:
1. The causal and exclusive connection between commercial/industrial
construction and school district enrollment (this will update the March
1990 report produced by SourcePoint for the school district).
2. The sources, amount and pattern of current and projected school
enrollment.
3. The costs of solution strategies required to accommodate total student
enrollment.
4. The revenues that would be available to the district from permitted
fees/Mello-Roos contn"butions, from both commercial and residential
construction.
5. A comparison of the cost and revenues associated with accommodating
the projected enrollment. DetaD on the costs for employment-related
students and rcvc::nues frQ~ Qon-residential construction will be
prov:ided, so the magnitude of each can be compared.
8 )þ //J
~n
. nf.
.
.
JUL-13-93 rUE 14:44 Po 10
TASK RESPONSmlLI'IY
SCHOOL IMPAcr MmGATION mIDY
SourcePoint Sch. Dist. City
.
Task 1 Summarize purpose of report x
Task 2 Enrollment projection methodology x
Task 3 Long-term enrollment projections x x
Task 4 Proportion of enrollment generated by x
non.residentjaJ projects
Task 5 Short- term enrollment projections x x
Task 6 Proportion of enrollment generated by x
non-residential projects
Task 7 Sources of enrollment
projections/operating and facility shortfalls.
Task 8 List of proposed solution strategies, x
identified by school district
Task 9 AnnuaJ operating capacity needs x
Task 10 Summary of district costs to x x
accommodate enrollment
Task 11 Summary of district revenue to x x
accommodate enrollment
Task 12 Cost and revenue comparison x
Task 13 Report production x x x
9 /þ/)~
~J~
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item fl
Meeting Date July 20. 1993
ITEM TITLE: Report: Otay Corporate Center North Project
SUBMITTED BY: Dire"'" of PI"""., ~
REVIEWED BY: City Manager J ~ ~ /1 (4/5ths vote: Yes_NoX
On March 23, 1993, the City CounciJ authorized staff to transmit a letter to the San Diego City
Council stating the City of Chula Vista's concerns regarding a proposed development project in
Otay Mesa known as "Otay Corporate Center North." Based on this direction, the attached
letter from the City Manager, dated June 28, 1993, was forwarded to the City Council. On June
29, 1993, the San Diego City Council approved a four week continuance for this project until
July 27, 1993. The following report provides a summary of the current status of this project.
RECOMMENDATION:
That Council accept this report.
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS:
Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
The Otay Corporate Center North project is a Vesting Tentative Map to subdivide a 178. 9-acre
parcel into 77 lots averaging one to two acres in size for subsequent industrial development and
open space uses. The discretionary actions for this project involve General Plan and Community
Plan Amendments, rezone, vesting tentative map, and other pennits for future development of
a vacant site, located north of Otay Mesa Road, along the eastern portion of Dennery Canyon
and approximateJy 1,360 feet west of Brown Field. Because the site is currently designated for
residential use in the Otay Mesa Community Plan, the applicant will also be required to annex
the site to the Otay Mesa Development District as an industrial subdistrict. The site is owned
by Pardee Construction Company.
The City of ChuIa Vista's active interest and involvement in this project dates back to December
1991, when the City initially responded to the draft EIR by submitting comments. Since that
time, the City has met with staff from the City of San Diego to discuss the responses to our
initial comments, and has submitted comments to the final EIR and provided public testimony
in opposition to the project to both the San Diego Subdivision Review Board and Planning
Commission. Based on the inadequacy of the responses to our initial comments, which were
prepared as a part of the final EIR, and the City's general lack of response to issues which we
J7#j
Page 2, Item n
Meeting Date July 20. 1993
believe still exist, our staff remains unsatisfied with the level of analysis given to this project and
the lack of sufficient documentation to support the responses to our comments.
As detailed in our June 28 letter, staff remains concerned over the potential for unmitigated
cumulative and regional impacts resulting from 1) the lack of an adopted Transportation Phasing
Plan for western Otay Mesa, 2) the adequacy of the transportation analysis conducted for this
project, 3) the age, adequacy and reliance upon the Otay Mesa Community Plan and supporting
EIR (adopted in 1981) as reference documents for ongoing project review and discretionary
action, and 4) the amount of land devoted to industrial uses on the Otay Mesa.
As noted earlier, the San Diego City Council voted on June 29 to continue this matter for four
weeks. The reason for this continuance was to allow potential safety impacts of the proposed
Transborder Airport on this project to be evaluated. As background, on May 25, 1993, with
the adoption of Resolution No. 2820463, the Council stated its intention not to grant any rezones
for residential or other uses within the entire Otay Mesa community planning area for a six
month period, because of potential land use compatibility impacts resulting from possible runway
alignments for the proposed Transborder Airport. While the ResoJution allows for rezoning for
airport compatible uses, such as commercial and industrial, it has recently been determined that
as much as one-half of the l78-acre site proposed for the Otay Corporate Center North project
may be impacted, as it is located within the new alignment's suggested airport safety "clear
zone" (see attached exhibit). State and federal guidelines recommend that a 2,500 foot clear
zone, an area free of any structural development, be maintained at both ends the runways.
The applicant, in an attempt to prevent a six month processing delay, proposed a four week
continuance of the project to allow the time necessary for an independent airport consultant to
conduct a precise runway alignment study for the purpose of determining the extent and
significance of said impact, as well as to evaluate the potential for partial development of the
property in areas not impacted by the clear zone. Thus, the City Council, acting in accordance
with the applicant's request, unanimously approved the four week continuance.
The San Diego City Council will be meeting on July 27, 1993, to discuss both the findings of
the runway alignment study for this project, and to take action on the approval, denial or further
continuance of this project. It is our staff's intention to continue with the same course of action
and to provide public testimony regarding the project. Again, we will request that all
discretionary actions regarding the project and EIR be postponed until these issues are adequately
addressed. In addition, our letter which has been previously submitted to Council, suggests
specific actions that their Planning Department take to ameliorate these concerns, and requests
their consideration of these actions at this hearing. It shouJd be noted that our staff does not
intend to comment at this time regarding the safety issues of this project related to the
Transborder Airport, unless Council sees the need and specifically directs staff to do so.
From the onset of this project, our primary objective has been to ensure that impacts, whether
from existing, planned or future growth on the Otay Mesa and related primarily to transportation
) 7".2
Page 3, Item 12
Meeting Date July 20. 1993
and circulation, land use, and public facilities financing, are provided adequate mitigation. We
will keep the City Council informed of any specific responses from the City of San Diego on
this matter, as well as any future actions that we deem necessary or are directed to take in order
to ensure that our concerns raised in the letter receive adequate response.
FISCAL IMPACT: None.
(f:\home\planning\occnupdt.a13)
1?'3
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT KemE
Date 7/20/93
ITEM TITlE: Report: Consultant Selection Process for Greg Rogers Park Improvement Plan
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Parks and Re~o~
REVIEWED BY: City Manager Jf:t ~ ~ (4/5ths Vote Required Yes_No.x.
At the March 2, 1993 Council meeting, the Department was directed to return w~h a report which would address
Council's concern on the RFP process used to select a design consultant for the Greg Rogers Park Improvement
Project.
RECOMMENDATlON: That Council accept the report. ~ ~O1: SC~fj)
BOARDS AND COMMISSION RECOMMENDATlONS: N/A
DISCUSSION: At the March 2, 1993 City Council Meeting, the Department recommended that the City enter into
an agreement with Van Dyke and Associates for the preparation OfjOnstruction documents for Greg Rogers
Community Park at a cost not to exceed $66,000 (See Attachment A At that meeting, Council was concerned
about the following aspects of the selection process: 1) firms who responded to the RFP and what their bids were,
2) the criteria that was used in narrowing the list down to five firms presented in the staff report, 3) members of
the selection committee and any relevant information regarding deliberations of the committee, and 4) information
on the process used for determining the recommendation, including a description of the weight given to various
factors used in the evaluation. Subsequently, the Department was directed to return to Council with a report
addressing these four concerns.
The Department has taken the following actions in an effort to respond to Council's concerns: 1) The Director of
Parks and Recreation and the Deputy City Manager interviewed the members of the selection committee, 2)
initiated an analysis and ranking of RFP's by an independent reviewer from the City of Escondida (Attachment
"8"), and 3) evaluated the overall selection process. ;Þ<
NOT SCANNED
The Process ~ NOT SCÞJ'.¡f~;'\'N'
The selection of the ~eSign consultant for the park improvements was initiated by preparing and distributing a
request for proposal Attachment 'C'). The RFP was sent to approximately (50) design firms on the consultant
list. Additional RFP's were distributed to firms that made inquiries about the project. A deadline date for RFP's
submittal was established for October 16, 1992.
A total of 17 firms responded to the RFP. A selection Committee was formed which was composed of City staff,
Landscape Architect from Parks and Recreation Department, Sr. Civil Engineer from the Engineering Division of
Public Works, a Landscape Architect from the Planning Department, and Sr. Housing Inspector from Building and
Housing. A letter was sent to the 17 candidates notifying them of the time and date the selection committee
would be convening to evaluate the proposals.
The criteria utilized in reviewing, evaluating and grading the proposals included:
1) Completeness of the proposal in response to the RFP
2) Inclusion of the appropriate sub-consultants to address the scope of work for phase one
3) Proposed timeline
4) Previous work completed by the firm reiative to the scope of phase one
5) Qualifications, skill and experience of the firm
6) Cost
IT--I
~em )(
Date 7/20/93
Problems in the RatinQ and RankinQ Process
On December 10, 1992 the raters met to discuss the proposals and generate a shonlist. During the investigation
of the scoring process, it was evident that the scores were not retained. In addition, two raters were not
completely prepared and did not evaluate the Proposals prior to the meeting to shortlist the proposals. This
necessitated two raters to review the proposal scores to be assigned and tabulated during the meeting. It is
staff's opinion that the in~ial rating process to establish a shortlist had some problems. In light of these problems,
staff intends to develop specific internal administrative guidelines which specify how RFP's should be shortlisted.
Basically, the guidelines will identify cr~ical steps in the process such as the need to retain records.
The Selection Committee met on February 18,1993 to interview five firms that were identified as shortlist candidate
firms, At that session the firms were evaluated and, in this instance, points were tabulated on a scoring sheet (see
~ Attachment "D", scoring sheet).
T~?oI~g~n illustrates the cumulative scores submitted to the Department for consideration.
Firm Points Amount
1. Van Dyke 357 1/2 $52,700
2. De Lorenzo 357 1/2 $39,700
3. T.!. Maloney 347 $58,500
4. Estrada 338 $68,071
5. Dike 330 $53,500
Interviews with the Selection Committee
The interviews of selection committee members were conducted by a Deputy City Manager and the Director of
Parks and Recreation. Basically, the common theme expressed by the Committee members was that the selection
process was objective. The system was flawed and the following is recommended to rectify this s~uation.
As an immediate step toward resolving the problems associated with selecting a design firm for Greg Rogers Park,
the Department recommends the following:
1) Begin the process over again by re-evaluating the 17 RFP's presently on file.
2) Expand the scope of work to include the design of a parking lot. Staff is recommending a parking lot be
included in this phase of the design because of the problems associated w~h liability and access.
3) Work through the City Manager's office in reapPointing another selection committee. The selection
committee may include the Director of Parks and Recreation, the Department's Park Planner, someone
from the Planning Department, an individual from the Engineering Division, and a landscape architect or
planner from another jurisdiction.
Staff will modify existing administrative guidelines dealing with Consultant selection and will forward this to the C~y
Council as information.
Fiscal Impact: NONE
2
/ 8' *' ,)..
( ATTACHMENT A)
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item-
Meeting Date .J/1fl1.
ITEM TITI.E: Resolution Appropriating additional funds from the
unappropriated Park and Acquisition Development Funds (PAD) for the
design construction documents and related services for Greg Rogers Phase I
Improvement Project, and
Approving an agreement between the City of Chula Vista and Van Dyke and
Associates for design development, construction development and related
services for Greg Rogers Park.
SUBMITI'ED BY: Director of Parks and RecreaticQ.
REVIEWED BY: City Manager (4/5ths Vote: Yes~ No_)
The Greg Rogers Master Plan was approved by Council on April 16, 1991. A landscape consultant
is required to prepare design, construction documents and other related services for the project.
There are insufficient funds in the appropriated CIP to complete the necessaty services for the Phase
I improvement of the Greg Rogers Master Plan.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Council approve the Resolution which:
1. Appropriates $28,000 from the unappropriated PAD funds to complete the necessary
design construction, document development, and related services for the Phase I
improvements; and
2. Authorizes the Mayor to execute the agreement with Van Dyke and Associates for
consultant services for Greg Rogers Park Phase I.
BOARDSICOMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION: In 1990, the Rancho del Sur Partnership commissioned a landscape architectural firm
to Master Plan Greg Rogers Park. The Master Plan was a condition in the Public Facilities Financing
PJan, approved by Council on February 20, 1990. The Master Plan Study received extensive input
from three community meetings and the school faculty at Greg Rogers School. The conceptual plan
was approved by the Parks and Recreation Commission in February, 1991, and by Council on April
16, 1991. As per Council's request, a proposed phasing scheme for the implementation of the plan
was developed. A five-year capital improvement phasing schedule was proposed, with the initial
phasing to begin in FY 92193 for the Phase I Improvement Design.
¡p'-""""""'.")
/g'~ 3
The Greg Rogers Master PJan addressed the park needs to improve the ballfields, parking, picnic
facilities, restroom, relocation of maintenance building, enhancement of play Jots, and other park
amenities. The estimated cost of the total improvements was $3.4 million, with the improvements
incrementally phased over a five-year period.
For FY 1992-93, $46,000 was appropriated for Phase I, which includes design, construction documents
and related services. Phase n funding for the improvements is proposed for the 1993-94 Capital
Improvement Program. These improvements would include: relocation of power lines; grading of
ballfield areas; utility slab-out for future snack bar/restroom and storage facility; construction of four
baseball fields and accessories; slope planting, turf, and irrigation; and the construction of a ballfield
parking lot. At an estimated construction cost of $700,000, funding for the construction phase will
be considered with other Department's CIP projects for FY 93/94.
The Department made a thorough analysis to determine the need for an outside consultant to
prepare the necessary construction documents for this project. The Department evaluated this need
based on the following criteria:
1. Does existing staff have the required expertise or equipment?
The City has the staff expertise and equipment to prepare a portion of the necessary plans;
however, the workload of the Department's Landscape Architect and Engineering
Department's Engineers would need to be re-prioritized, and current projects in process by
staff would be deferred indefinitely. The Department's special projectgs and current CIP
work list includes: Otay Valley Regional Park project, Rohr Park Improvements (Phase II),
Memorial Park Improvements (Phase II), Hilltop Park Improvements, McCandliss Memorial
GrovelPark (Phase ll), and Playground Renovations at various sites. In addition, the
Landscape Architect provides extensive work and plan checking services for the development
projects, providing revenue, at full cost recovery, to the City's General Fund. These projects
are Salt Creek I, Salt Creek Ranch, the Bayfront Plan, EI Rancho del Rey, and Otay Ranch,
etc. The work necessary for the current project would require additional staffing if the Greg
Rogers Park project design is performed in-house.
2. Can the work project's short time frame be met by City Staff?
For a project as complex as the Greg Rogers Park Plan, considerable organization of the
various disciplines (i.e., electrical, civil engineering, architectural, and landscape) need close
coordination, which would be difficult for existing City staff to accomplish under the current
work load schedule. There is a short window of time available to get the project design and
construction complete, in order to minimize the impact to the users of the park, primarily the
Park View Little League.
3. Is it more cost effective to have the work completed by an outside provider?
The design work will take approximately twenty (20) weeks to complete by the consultant.
They projected 390 hours for landscape architectural design. This would necessitate an
average of twenty (20) hours a week for the Department's Landscape Architect to complete
the project in the same time frame. This work effort would seriously affect the current
scheduJe of projects in the Department.
(F,_~39.931
I~'I
A cost comparison for the Landscape Architect consultant is $80.00 per hour. The
Department's Landscape Architect's hourly salary (including full cost recovery) is $61.00 per
hour. There would be non-General Fund savings if performed in-house; however, there
wouJd be a negative impact on the revenue stream from outside resources if the work
program were re-<lirected to this project.
Mter analyzing the above criteria, it was the Department's conclusion that the Greg Rogers Park
Phase I plans should be performed by an outside consuJtant.
The Department solicited a Request for Proposal (RFP) on September 16, 1992, for interested
landscape architectural firms to provide the landscape architectural services necessary to prepare the
construction documents for the Phase I improvements. Notices were sent to over 50 firms in the San
Diego and Orange County area. The Department received 17 proposals by the October 16, 1992
deadline.
The selection procedure, as outlined in CYMC Sections 2.5.220 and .230 and Council Policy #102-05,
was utilized in reviewing the proposals. A selection committee comprised of representatives from
Engineering, Planning, Building and Housing and Parks and Recreation Departments evaluated the
seventeen (17) RFP utilizing a "qualification based selection process" to short-list the candidates to
five firms. The five finalists were invited to make an oral presentation to the selection committee.
A grading criteria based on qualifications, presentation, knowledge of the project and design approach
and fee proposals was used to rank the firms. The final ranking of the finalists were:
FIRM FEE PROPOSAL
1. Van Dyke and Associates $52,700
2. DeLorenzo & Associates $39,700
3. Estrada Landscape, Inc. $68,071
4. KTU+A $53,550
5. T.I. Maloney $58,500
In comparing the top two firms which have provided consulting services for other City park projects,
Van Dyke and Associates maintained an excellent and cooperative working relationship with staff,
and stayed within the agreed contract price and project schedule. DeLorenzo and Associates had
a less harmonious relationship with staff, was not as cost conscious and exceeded project time
schedules.
The fee proposal by Van Dyke and Associates is higher than the second ranked firm, however, the
Cities are authorized to select professional consultant services on the basis of demonstrated
competence and professional qualifications and not necessarily to the "low bidder." Fees are omy
one of the considerations in the evaluation process. Van Dyke and Associates demonstrates these
qualities in the consultant services provided for the Marina View Park project. The Department was
extremely pleased with Van Dyke's cooperation, quality of work and the final product. A total of
$69,000 was paid to Van Dyke during 1991-92 for this contract.
(p,__39.931
11">
The original fee required for Van Dyke and Associates came to $52,700. After a preliminary
negotiating meeting to define the scope of services required, it was decided to include, in Phase I,
design and construction document services required for improvements to the parking lot for the
ballfields. This additional design and construction service document increased consultant fee by
$8,800 for a total of $61,500. A parking Jot was not considered when the cost for the first phase
construction documents were calculated. However, after further review by staff, it has become quite
evident that the parking lot should be included in this phase of construction documents. Staff is
thereby recommending expanding the original scope of service, which includes a parking lot, because
of the following reasons:
1. The Federal mandate to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act requires that public
parking facilities be accessible to the physically challenged. This new law was not in effect
when the CIP was developed.
2. The existing dirt parking Jot has historically been a nuisance due to excessive dust during dry
months and mud during inclement weather. Severe erosion problems (ruts and holes) have
adversely affected this dirt lot.
3. A new lot will efficiently delineate specific areas where cars must park versus the random and
inefficient use of space which presently exists.
The revised fee of $61,500 does not include funds for reimbursables and any necessary reports to
complete the project. The consultant has requested:
1. $2,500 for reimbursable expenses i.e. reproductions, copying, additional blueprints, etc.
2. $2,000 for a title report to locate all easements, utilities on the project site.
The Department believes these are legitimate expenses that were not included in the original scope
of services and therefore recommend approval. The total cost for the consultant services will be
$66,000.
The Department is requesting an additional $28,000 from the unappropriated PAD funds. The
Department believes this proposal is appropriate and recommends approval. The total consultant
fee is $66,000, and an additional $4,000 is needed for Parks and Recreation staff services. There is
$46,000 available in the FY 92193 CIP budget, with $42,000 earmarked for design work, and $4,000
for engineering staff services reimbursement.
(F,""""'-"39.93]
18"~
FISCALIMPACf: An additional $28,000 from the unappropriated PAD funds will be required for
the desired landscape services and staff services reimbursement.
I. Funding Required
A Consultant Services $66,000
B. Engineering Staff Cost 4,000
C. Park Recreation Staff Cost 4,000
TOTAL $74,000
II. Funding Available
A Consultant Services 42,000
B. Engineering Staff Cost 4.000
TOTAL $46,000
III. Additional Funds Required $28,000
Attachments: Schematic Map
Agreement
(F,~~".93J
13'" 7
MINUŒS OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CI1Y COUN<JL
OF THE CI1Y OF CHULA VISTA
Tuesday, March 2, 1993 Council Chambers
4:07 p.m. Public Services Building
CALL TO ORDER
1. ROIl. CALL:
PRESENT: Councilmembers Fox, Horton (arrived at 4:32 p.m.), Moore, Rindone, and
Mayor Nader.
ABSENT: None
ALSO PRESENT: John D. Goss, City Manager; Sid Moms, Assistant City Manager; Bruce
Boogaard, City Attorney; and Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG. SILENT PRAYER
3. APPROVAL OF MINUŒS: None submitted.
4. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY: Proclaiming 1993 as Senior Center Year in the City - The
proclamation declaring 1993 as Senior Center Year was presented by Mayor Pro Tem Rindone to Erna
Lenihan.
CONSENT CALENDAR.
(Items pulled: Sa, 5b, 6, and JO)
BALANCE OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR OFFERED BY MAYOR NADER, reading of the ten was waived,
passed, and approved unanimously.
5. WRITrEN COMMUNICATIONS:
a. Letter requesting funding of a traffic light on Otay Lakes Road at the Gotham Street comer -MariIee
CastenhoIz McKelvey, 1615 Gotham Street, Chula Vista, CA 91913. It is recommended that Ms. McKelvey
be advised by staff of the status of the proposed signal and that staff will recommend a signal be installed
at either Gotham or Elmhurst after a decision has been made on the transit center. Pulled from the Consent
Calendar.
Tom Davis, 1657 Gotham Street, 91913, asked Council if they could separate the traffic signal issue at
Gotham and Otay Lakes Road from the transit center.
Mayor Nader asked staff to respond to Mr. Davis' concerns that there should not be a link betWeen the traffic
signal and the transit center. If staff still believed that the tWo should be tied together, how long would it
take?
Mr. Lippitt responded that staffstiIJ thinks there is a connection, although the college Board of Directors had
made the decision that the only place they want to look for the transit facility is near the new library. In
that case, we would still be puning the signal either at Gotham or Elmhurst; Gotham would be the prefelTed
location. Staff is not excited about this option because of costs. He felt it would probably take another
three to four months before all the information is in, and the Council and School Board could come to a
consensus.
Jg'.?
MINUTES
March 2, 1993
Page 2
Mr. Goss stated that this is speculation at this point. He did not feel that staff could give a flt'ltl date. The
cost of the facility will be higher. Another factor is that the service to clients which are not college students
is worse at this new location. When there were a number of alternatives identified, this location was twelfth
out of twelve.
Mr. Lippitt stated that there were two locations that the neighbors and staff had looked at earlier. One at
the eastern end of the parking lot in the center; the second one would expand the existing bus stop by the
administration office. On both of those alternatives, there was going to be a signal at Gotham. With this
alternative, there most likely will be a signal at Gotham.
Mayor Nader asked if there was any alternative that appeared to have a chance of being approved by all the
agencies which would not result in a signal at Gotham. Mr. Lippitt responded that the only one that would
not have a signal at Gotham was the original one which was the one in front, but the Council and college
did not like it.
Councilman Rindone stated that there was another critical issue which staff had to deal with. It was
possible that all efforts of the transit center might be abandoned and only an extension of the bus stop with
an increase in the number of buses which would be available there would be accomplished. It might be five
or ten years before this is readdressed. He had a concern that if this should happen that the signal would
be designed in such a way that we would not have to redesign it or do a major reconstruction for that signal.
MSUC (Rindone/Nader) to refer to staff with the direction to look at placing the signal at Gotham and OIay
Lakes Road with the caveat that it be designed as such that if the alternative was the extension of the
current bus stop there would not need to be any additional worlc, thereby having accomplished both things
on an interim basis.
Mr. Rindone stated the purpose of the motion was to show we would be placing the signal there just as soon
as it is reasonable to get it designed and funded. This will be our next priority which addresses the
community that has been concerned about traffic issues there, and yet it does not hold it up because of the
transit center.
b. Petition protesting auto repair shop at 363 "E. Street - Martin Torres, 178 Glover, Chula Vista, CA
91910-2515, and Heinz Hemken, 183 Glover, Chula Vista, CA 91910.2515. It is recommended that staff
meet with the residents and return to Council with a recommendation. Pulled from the Consent Calendar.
Mayor Nader stated that staff recommended Council should refer this back to staff to meet with Mr. Torres.
His concern was that this was not the first time Council has heard about this issue. He asked if staff had
a time line for conducting meetings with the neighborhood and getting a report back. Mr. Leiter stated staff
could report back to the Council within thirty days, and they could meet with Mr. Torres and the neighbors
prior to that.
. Heinz Hemken, 183 Glover Avenue, 91910, stated they had presented a request to close the entrance
on the alley to the property of 363 E Street where the automobile repair shop operates. The situation has
become very bad because of parking. This property does not have enough spaces to support three
businesses, two of which deal with automobiles.
Mayor Nader stated he knew this has been going on for a long time, but asked if another thirty days seem
unreasonable to him. Mr. Hemken responded it would be okay.
. Manin Torres, 178 Glover Avenue, 91910, stated he had called parking control because he could
not park in front of his own house. They came out, but ticketed everyone including the homeowners. He
stated the parking problem was serious.
1'8"/0
MINUTES
March 2,1993
Page 3
MSUC (NaderlPox) to refer to staff to meet with the neighbon, business owners, and all interested parties.
When item comes back to Council in thirty clays, adclras concerns relating to hazardous waste, if any; and
provide information concerning prior Council actions.
Mayor Nader stated that any legal violation enforcement should not be delayed pending staff coming back
to Council; all legal violations should be dealt with at the time.
6. ORDINANCE 2541 AMENDING SECI10NS 12.24.020, 12.24.030, 12.24.040 AND 12.24.070
RELATING TO DEDICATION AND INm"ALLATION OF PUBUC IMPROVEMENTS (second reaclinJ': and
adoption) . Council requested that staff review Municipal Code Section 12.24.040 which provides the City
the ability to require street dedications and public improvements associated with building permits valued
at $10,000 or more. The review was to provide a recommendation for resetting the amount and
consideration of other factors. In addition, policy needs to be set regarding the limits of development on
private property before triggering the requirement to install or alter public improvements in the adjoining
right-of-way. Several years ago, Council accepted a staff report which included a recommendation that an
ordinance be brought back for adoption amending Municipal Code Section 12.24.070 to abolish the
acceptance of surety bonds and accepting only cash bonds or liens as security for deferrals. It has been
discovered that the code change was never completed. Staff recommends Council place the ordinance on
second reading and adoption. (Director of Public Works) Pulled from the Consent Calendar.
Mayor Nader stated that he had one basic concern to raise from $10,000 to $20,000 the level of the building
permit that would trigger any of these requirements. There was language in the ordinance and resolution
which would add a requirement in all permits of $20,000 or more for the propenyownerto waive their right
to protest the subsequent formation of an assessment district improvements. He had a problem with this
if the building permit was not related to an improvement which triggered the need for' the public
improvements that the subsequent assessment district would be formed for.
ORDINANCE 2541 WAS OFFERED BY MAYOR NADER, reading of the tat was waived.
Councilman Fox asked if, under this ordinance, garage conversions would fall into the categoty of additional
square footage? City Engineer Swanson responded yes, it would fall under additional square footage as well
as additional bedrooms.
Councilman Moore stated that during the last eight years, we have not allowed garage conversions.
VOTE ON MOTION: approved unanimously.
M (Nader) to refer the matter back to staff to come back with an amendment which would delete the
requirement that a property owner waive lUslher right to protest a subsequent assessment district in
situations whl!l'l! the building permit did not authorize any additional dwelling space and where thl!l'l! was
no nexus between between the improvement being made by the property owner and the need for any
additional public facilities. Motion died for lack of a second.
7. ORDINANCE 2542 ADDING SECTIONS 19.04.107 AND 19.58.178 TO, AND AMENDING
SECOONS 19.14.070, 19.42.040, 19.44.040 AND 19.46.040 OP, 1HE MUNICPAL CODE TO ESTABIJSH
DEPINmONS, REQUIREMENTS AND PROCEDURES FOR 1HE REVIEW AND APPROVAL OP CONDITIONAL
USE PERMITS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE PACIlJ11ES (second reaclinJ': and adoption) - Pursuant to State law
AB-2948 cranner, 1986), the City is required to adopt local provisions to implement the approved County
of San Diego Hazardous Waste Management Plan (COHWMP). The proposed amendments establish the
necessary provisions for the management of hazardous waste and the siting and permitting ofhazardous
waste facilities within the City, consistent with the COHWMP and State law. Staff recommends Council
place the ordinance on second reading and adoption. (Director of Planning)
/8"'11
MINUTES
March 2, 1993
Page 4
8. ORDINANCE 2543 AMENDING SECTIONS 2.36.010 AND 2.36.030 OF TIiE MUNICIPAL CODE
RELATING TO THE ADVISORY DUTIES OF THE HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION (second readinx and
adootion) - In April 1992, the South Coast Organization Operating Transit (SCOOn Board directed staff to
investigate the ramifications of dissolving SCOOT. Both City and County Transit staffs find no negative
impacts to either the City or County if SCOOT were dissolved. One result of dissolution would terminate
the SCOOT Senior and Disabled Transportation Advisory Committee. Staff recommends Council place the
ordinance on second reading and adoption. (Director of Public Works)
9. ORDINANCE 2544 AMENDING SCHEDULE X. SECTION 10.48.050 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE,
DECREASING STAn: LAW MAXIMUM SPEED lJMITS IN CERTAIN AREAS, MAIN STREET/OTAYVALLEY
ROAD FROM 1-5 TO 1-805 (first readin,,) - In order to minimize traffic hazards and congestion and promote
public safety, speed prohibitions on these streets should be authorized by ordinance. A review of trial traffic
regulations initiated by the City Engineer under the authority of the Municipal Code show that these
regulations are operating effectively and should be made permanent. Staff recommends Council place the
ordinance on first reading. (Director of Public Works)
10. RESOLUTION 17007 APPROPRIATING ADDrnONAL FUNDS FROM THE UNAPPROPRIATED PARK
AND ACQlßsmON DEVELOPMENT FUNDS (PAD) FOR THE DESIGN CONS11I.UcnON DOCUMENTS AND
RELATED SERVICES FOR GREG ROGERS PHASE I IMPROVEMENT PROJECf, APPROVING AN AGREEMENT
WITIi VAN DYKE AND ASSOCIATES FOR DESIGN DEvELoPMENT, CONS11I.UcnON DEVELOPMENT AND
RELATED SERVICES FOR GREG ROGERS PARK, ANP AIm-lORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAME -
The Greg Rogers Master Plan was approved by Council on 4/16/91. A landscape consultant is required to
prepare design and construction documents and other related services for the project. There are insufficient
funds in the appropriated Capital Improvement Project to complete the necessary services for the Phase I
improvement of the Greg Rogers Master Plan. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of
Parks and Recreation) 4/Sth's vote required. Pulled from the <:Onsent Calendar.
Councilman Fox stated he had some procedural questions since this was the first time he had seen this since
he had been on Council where we went out for solicitation for RFPs and awarding the RFP to Van Dyke and
Assoc where their bid came in at $52,700 and the ultimate cost was $66,000 because of changes that were
made which staff agreed with. Wasn't there normally a requirement that we go out for additional RFP's?
Parks and Recreationa Director, Jess Valenzuela, responded that staff considered going out, but decided that
the consultant could handle it. After consulting with the City Attorney, staff decided to expand the scope
of services. .
City Attorney Boogaard stated that it might have been a mandatory item if it had been a public works
project, but here we are just soliciting and advertising for design services in which we have more latitude.
He felt it was appropriate to negotiate design-type services and expand the scope of work during those
negotiations without having to go out and solicit for another consultant.
Councilman Rindone expressed he was very uncomfortable with that practice just from the ethical and
procedural basis that when a potential bidder is examined and especially when he is not the low bidder by
25% that staff would be doing other add-ons. City Manager, John Goss, responded that being the low bidder
was subject to interpretation in the sense that we actually got proposals as to how much it would cost. The
items which are add-ons are basically routine things that would be pretty much the same cost for any of the
ones that would have been included in making the proposals even though it would have been better if they
were included in the proposals in the first place. But, you have to temper this with the fact that the Little
League is very concerned about the condition of their fields, and there is a desire to try to move ahead and
correct those conditions.
jt" J~
MINUTES
March 2, 1993
Page 5
Councilman Fox stated he had problems in changing the rules of the RFP after people have gone through
the process of putting a proposal together and then we change it and award it to someone who wasn't the
lowest bidder. He wanted to know what liabilities or problems we might encounter as a result of the change
of the rules. City Attorney Boogaard responded that it has been the practice in all cities to distinguish
between a Request for Proposal and the public works bidding process. In a RFP, you are asking for expertise
and qualifications. You are basically saying to the industry this is what we think we need, but give us your
proposal. After that proposal is submitted, they are basically sending in resumes of their qualifications and
an idea of how to achieve what we think we need. It is completely within the understanding of all parties
participating in the process that the team can be subjected to further negotiations with the city saying we
need to modify this to cover these other things. This is different from the public bidding process where we
tightly draw the bid specifications. This is not subject to further negotiations.
Councilman Fox stated that it seemed like there were things which came up after the proposal was made
which seemed was material to the request -- things like reimbursable expenses for copying, doing a title
report to find any easements, etc. They should have been part of the proposal.
Councilwoman Horton asked staff how they came up with the five people on the list. Assistant Parks and
Recreation Director, Jerry FoncelTada, responded that we had a committee of representatives from Building
and Housing, Engineering, Parks and Recreation, and Planning Departments who short-listed the seventeen
candidates down to five. The five were invited in to make a presentation and to sell the committee as to
which one would be the best one to work with. Based on the rating criteria they had, that is how the
ranking came out with the five finns.
Councilwoman Horton stated she had called several different landscape architectural finns because she had
some questions regarding the contract with Van Dyke and other things. Part of the criteria W¡¡s based on
qualifications, presentation, knowledge of the project, design approach, and fee proposals. The number two
finn came in as the lowest bidder, but because there are some other concerns that are expressed in the staff
report, staff decided the number one finn should be chosen based on concerns over and above the price.
Mr. Valenzuela stated that was colTect, but they did take into consideration past performance by both of the
potential consultants, and they took into consideration how the price had escalated in one given project
beyond what staff felt was reasonable.
Councilwoman Horton stated that she was not arguing this point. She investigated this finn also and would
agree with staff and not hire them. However, in talking to one of the finns, a finn in which she placed in
high regard, they mentioned they had bid on this project. She found out his bid was $45,700. This was
a landscape architectural finn who had an excellent reputation in the industry and who has won several
awards in our city for past projects such as Discovery, Sunridge, and Scoby Parks. Based on staff's criteria,
we were picking a finn at $52,700 when we have a reputable finn that we could have hired at $45,700.
She wondered how many other firms were in the same situation. Mr. Valenzuela responded thin he could
provide Council with the criteria that was used to select the consultants for the short list. He was not aware
of the consultants who did not make the short list. Last year, the Mini-Brooks Act which is a state law
requires cities, counties, and other jurisdictions to select landscape architects or design consultants based
upon skill, e~ertise, históry, proven track records, etc.
Councilwoman Horton stated that everything he named, this company has. In the industry, it is rated very
high. You knew when you picked the number two finn at $39,700 that they already had this reputation
within the city. So they shouldn't have even been on the list.
Mayor Nader asked if the Parks & Recreation Director was on the Selection Committee. He responded that
he was not.
/ '8" J3
MINlITES
March 2, 1993
Page 6
Mr. Goss suggested that this be referred back to staff to take a look how the Committee went from the
seventeen firms to the list of five firms to not include the firm which Councilwoman Horton pointed out.
There must have been some part of the process which objectively screened them to the five. It was a valid
question which needed to be answered.
MS (NaderlFo][) to refer to staff to develop a report to be brought back to Councß to include the following:
who all responded to the RFP, what were their bids, what was the aiteria for narrowing it down to the five
who were presented in the staff report. Also include information as to who was on the Committee and any
other relevant information as to the deliberations of the Committee which might be helpful to Council in
evaluating the recommendation that was brought forth, or the process used for determining that
recommendation. Authorize, but not require, the City Manager, if information is developed which makes
such move appropriate, to list this as a Closed Session item for review of personnel. If not, then it is to be
put on as a public item.
Councilman Moore felt that if Council was going to start questioning staffs decisions when there was
representation from three to five different departments, it might be worth while for individual council
members to sit in on one of these processes.
Councilman Rindone stated that staff had indicated there was specific criteria in the selection made by the
composition of five members from five different departments. and asked if that criteria had a weighted
factor? Mr. Foncerrada responded that they had weighted factors.
Mayor Nader stated that in the report coming back to Council that a description given of the weight given
to various factors and how that played out in the process should be included.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 5-0.
11. RESOLUTION 17008 GRANIlNG AN OPEN SPACE ENCROACHMENT TO AlLOW
SUPPLEMENTAL LANDSCAPING IN OPEN SPACE LOT B OF OPEN SPACE DlSTRIcr 20, RANCHO DEL REY
SPA I. PHASE 2 - California Pacific Homes of San Diego (formerly Bren) is requesting that the City allow
the installation of supplemental landscaping along the south side of Ridgeback Road, opposite Bonita Vista
Middle School. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Parks and Recreation)
12. RESOLUTION 17009 APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WI1H THE SOtrrH BAY BRANCH OF THE
YOUNG MEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION (YMCA) FOR THE LEASE OF CERTAIN PROPERTY IN
EUCALYPTIJS PARK - The City and the South Bay branch of the YMCA had a five-year agreement for the
property at SO Fourth Avenue which expired on 5/13/91. The City and YMCA have been operating under
a lease on a year-to-year basis. Staff has renegotiated a five-year lease with the YMCA. Staff recommends
approval of the resolution. (Director of Parks and Recreation)
13. RESOLUTION 17010 AtrrHORIZING PAYMENT TO THE METROPOJJT AN TRANSIT
DEVELOPMENT BOARD (MTDB) FOR THE INITIAL CITY SHARE OF THE cœr OF THE MAIN STREET
UNDERPASS PROJEcr - The payment of $330,000 to MTDB is an initial share of bridge construction and
street improvemenr costs for Main Street east of Industrial Boulevard. Staff recommends approval of the
resolution. (Director of Public Works)
¡y-- Ji
MINUTES
March 2, 1993
Page 7
14. RESOLlmON 17011 SUPPORTING THE SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OP GOVERNMENTS
(SANDAG) IN THE SUBMITTAL OF AN APPUCATION FOR GRANT FUNDS UNDER 1HE PROPOSITION 116
CLEAN AIR AND "ffiANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT ACr, BICYCLE PROGRAM - The Clean Air and
Transportation Improvement Act (CATIA) makes available $20 million state-wide to furid a five-year program
of competitive grants to local agencies for capital outlay for bicycle improvement projects which improve
safety and convenience for bicycle commuters. On 11/20/92, SANDAG submitted an application for
Proposition 116 Bicycle Funds totalling $750,000 for a portion of the Bay Route Bikeway known as the
Sweetwater River crossing. The CATIA requires that a local public agency adopt a resolution approving the
submittal. In accordance with said requirements, SANDAG has requested that the City support the subject
application. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works)
15.A RESOLUTION 17012 REVISING TENTATIVE MAP CONDmON OF APPROVALE OP aruLA VISTA
TRACT 92-05 AND CONDmON OF APPROVAL 1.1 OP aruLA VISTA TRACT 93-01 (RESOLUTION 16900) -
On 11/11/92, by Resolution 16900, Council approved the Tentative Subdivision Maps for Tracts 92-05 and
93-01, Rancho del Rey Commercial Center west and east, respectively. The final maps and associated
agreements for both subdivisions are now before Council for approval. Staff recommends Council continue
the item to 3/9/93. (Director of Public Works)
B. RESOLlmON 17013 APPROVING THE FINAL MAP AND SUBDMSlON IMPROVEMFNf
AGREEMENT AND AUTIiORIZING 1HE MAYOR TO SIGN 1HE MAP AND EXEClITE SAID AGREEMENT FOR
TRACT 92-05, RANCHO DEL REV COMMERCIAL CENTER WEST
C. RESOLUTION 17014 APPROVING 1HE FINAL MAP AND SUBDMSlON IMPROVEMENT
AGREEMENT AND AUTIiORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN 1HE MAP AND EXEClITE SAID AGREEMENT FOR
TRACT 93-01, RANCHO DEL REV COMMERCAL CENTER EAST
D. RESOLlmON 17015 APPROVING SUPPŒMENTAL SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENIS
TO SATISFY CONDITIONS OP APPROVAL M, N, 0 AND P OF TRACT 92-05 AND CONDmONS OF
APPROVAL S, T, U AND V OP TRACT 93~1 AND AUTIiORIZING THE MAYOR TO E.XEClITE SAME
E. RESOLUTION 17016 AUTIiORIZING 1HE MAYOR TO EXEClITE DEEDS QUITCLAIMING ANY
1TI'LE INTEREST IN PROPERTIFS TO BE OWNED BY THE 01HER PARTIFS SIGNING 1HE MAPs AFI'ER
RECORDATION OF SAID MAPS
16. RESOLUTION 17017 AUTIiORIZING TEMPORARY a.o5URE AT MOSS STREET CROSSING FOR
THE ME1ROPOUTAN TRANSJT DEVELOPMENT BOARD (MTDB) SOUTIi IJNE GRADE CROSSING
IMPROVEMENT - The MTDB has issued a change order to add the Moss Street crossing to the 'South Line
Grade Crossing Improvement Project, LRT-299." National Projects, Inc. has requested two temporary
weekend closures to complete the necessary work with minimal delays to motorists. Staff recommends
approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works)
17. RESOLlmON 17018 APPROVING A SEWER SERVICE AND STORM DRAIN CHARGE RF.PUND
FOR 1HE RANCHO BONITA MOBILE HOME PARKPORPISCAL YEAR (py) 1991-92; AND APPROPRIATING
AN ADDITIONAL $16,633.10 INTO FUND 223, 1HE MONTGOMERY SEWER SERVICE REVENUE FUND AND
$5,810.65 INTO FUND 227, THE STORM DRAIN REVENUE FUND - In FY 1991-92, the Rancho Bonita
Mobile Home Park, located at 600 Anita Street, was incorrectly billed for sewer service and storm drain
charges on the tax bills for parcels 622-041-19-00 and 622-091-24-00. They paid the full amounts and are
J t' ,'6
MINUTES
March 2, 1993
Page 8
entitled to a refund of $17,710.52 for the overpayment. Staff recommends approval of the resolution.
(Director of Public Works) 4/5th's vote required.
18. REPORT Cl1YINITIATION OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONE TO RFS>LVE
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING INCONSISTENCY FOR A PORTION OF SPECIAL STIIDY AREA 8-4, WFSr OF
FIFrH AVENUE, EAST OF BROADWAY, ALONG BOTH SIDES OF PARK WAY AND .G. STREET - Alex
Galchenko, representing property at 570.576 Park Way, has requested initiation of a General Plan
Amendment to resolve an inconsistency between the General Plan and zoning for the subject property. Mr.
Galchenko's property is located amidst a larger area of such inconsistency, located between Fifth Avenue and
Broadway along both sides of Park Way and "G. Street. Staff recommends Council direct the Planning
Department to initiate a General Plan Amendment and rezone for the area indicated. (Director of
Planning)
* * END OF CONSENT CALENDAR * *
PUBJJC HEARINGS AND RELATED RFS>umONS AND ORDINANCES
19. PUBUC HEARING PCM-93-W: RECONSIDERATION OF PROPOSAL TO CHANGE THE NAME
OF OTAY LAlŒS ROAD BE1WEEN TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD AND WUESTE ROAD TO TELEGRAPH
CANYON ROAD - Cl1Y INITIATED - On 1/12/93, Council approved changing the name of Otay Lakes Road
between Telegraph Canyon Road and Wueste Road to Telegraph Canyon Road. It was later determined that
the residents of Otay Lakes Lodge Mobile Home Park had not been notified. The Council, therefore, directed
that the matter be noticed and reconsidered. Staff recommends Council approve the resolution to become
effective on 9/1/93 and direct staff to continue to work with the County to have the name changed in the
unincorporated area east of Wueste Road. (Director of Planning)
RFS>LUTION 17019 CHANGING 1HE NAME OF OTAY LAlŒS ROAD TO TELEGRAPH CANYON
ROAD BE1WEEN TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD AND WUESTE ROAD
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was declared open. Addressing Council in
opposition to the renaming of Otay Lakes Road were:
. Mike Sweeney, Jr., 1925 Otay Lakes Road, Space 36. (His letter is on me in the Clerk's Office).
. James R. Quinn, 1925 Otay Lakes Road, Space 34, President of the Golden State Mobilehome group
in the Park. He stated that he represented 119 residents, and ninety percent of the residents were opposed
to this.
. Janet Squires, 1925 Otay Lakes Road, Space 93. She stated she represented 196 families in the Otay
Lakes Lodge. These residents are strongly opposed to the name change. Many of them are seniors and will
need assistance in dealing with the numerous changes to the various legal documents.
. A letter had been received prior to the meeting from Frederick Dufresne, 1925 Otay Lakes Road,
Space 102.
There being no further public testimony, the public hearing was declared closed.
* * * (Councilwoman Horton arrived) * * *
11'" /¿,
MINUTES
March 2, 1993
Page 9
Councilman Moore stated he was the one who made the motion to consider the name change. When
looking at this area, he looked at one address, 1925 Otay Lakes Road, rather than 196 homes. He felt the
name change would help those coming to the Olympic Training Center and to the new hospital. If the name
was to be changed, it should be done early before these organizations spent a lot of money on their
brochures and advertising. He felt if Council wanted to approve the name change, then the effective date
could be extended whereby the post office would accept either address until January 1, 1995.
Councilman Rindone felt the name should be changed to East L Street all the way. If we are going to be
one city, then we should make this East L. Then there would be continuity throughout the city.
MS (RindoneIHorton) to return this to staff to look at naming the entire .sed:Îon "1." Street.
~ MOTION: MS (Moore/Nader) to file the item.
Councilwoman Horton stated that if we want to make a change, it should be down now. She would not vote
for the substitute motion.
Mayor Nader stated that no one outside the government has come to state there was a problem. If and
when a time should come when that happened, then he supported getting more information.
~ MOTION WIIS APPROVED 3-2 (Rindone and Horton opposed).
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
. Jean Weissman, 296 Dolphin Cove, Del Mar, 92014, representing the Local Government Commission.
This was a membership organization which included about 400 local governments and elected officials in
California. Currently, they are acting as a consultant to the San Diego Air Quality Control District. Their
project is to develop a program to control indirect sources of air pollution in San Diego County. Out of this
may come a rule that will affect Chula Vista along with the other cities. Her purpose was to alert the
Council that this is coming and to ask for Council's active participation in the planning process. This project
is mandated by the California Clean Air Act which authorizes local air control districts to require sources
of pollution to obtain air quality permits. She stated that they did not want to impose a solution upon the
cities in this county without their input. She hoped the Council would attend the four regional workshops
which will be held in San Diego County within the next several months. Council will be receiving a letter
with the times and places.
BOARD AND COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
None submitted.
ACTION ITEMS
20. RESOLUTION 17020 CONCEPTIJAlLY APPROVING TIm FUNDINGNar TO EXCEED $700,000
TO SOUl'HBAY coMMUNl1Y SERVICES POR ACQUISJTION AND PIRST-YEAR. OPERATION COSTS OP A
POURTEEN UNIT APARTMENT BUIlDING AT 31 POURni AVENUE TO BE USED lIS A SHORT TERM
HOUSING PAOUTY - South Bay Community Services (SBCS) is interested in acquiring a 14-unit apartment
complex to develop a short-term housing facility to serve homeless families in the South Bay. The site is
adjacent to the transitional housing project which will enable both projects to be managed together. It is
also close to National City, which has been contacted to financially participate in the project. SBCS is
18" I?
MINUTES
March 2,1993
Page 10
submitting grants for county, state, and federal funds and needs conditional site approval. Staff recommends
Council continue the item. (Director of Community Development)
MSUC (Rindone/Moore) to continue the item to March 9,1993.
Councilman Rindone stated that when the original apartment complex was submitted to Council, it was
alleged that this was not a project for the homeless. It was a project that would provide transitional
housing. Chula Vista needs to do something about the homeless, but this is a regional issue and should be
dealt with regionally. He requested that we don't just jump in because it appears the project is changing.
One city working alone cannot resolve this problem. He wanted to know what SANDAG was doing and
wanted a very thorough analysis when this comes back.
Councilman Fox stated that he shared Mr. Rindone's concern that this is a regional issue. He spoke with
Ms. Lembo regarding this, shé stated there were going to be provisions in the program to assure that the
families taking advantage of this program are going to be from the South Bay. When the proposal comes
back, he wanted staff to make sure that we are serving a population that is coming from our area.
Councilman Moore stated that the original policy of SANDAG was a fair share of low and moderate housing.
Some cities do not participate in the low and very low income. He felt the staff should bring back as part
of the report the statistics for low, very low, transitional, and homeless in the eighteen cities in the County.
This would give the Council some background on the fair share.
Mayor Nader expressed that SANDAG was exacerbating the situation by supporting a moratorium on the
development of affordable housing on the Otay Mesa for the purpose of further studying an airport to be
built by the Partner who has already rejected the idea. Councilman Moore responded that it was not
SANDAG but City of San Diego. Mayor Nader stated that it was not the SANDAG Board, but SANDAG staff.
From the contacts he has had with the South Bay Community Services, they are seeking regional
contributions to this project and that it is designed to serve primarily South Bay families.
21.A RESOLUTION 17021 FINDING A SHORTAGE OF SAFE AND SANITARY DWELLING
ACCOMMODATIONS AVAILABLE TO PERSONS OF LOW INCOME AT RENT LEVELS 11iEY CAN AFFORD,
DEa.ARING THE NEED FOR A aruLA VISTA HOUSING AUTHORITY TO PUNC'I10N, DETERMINING 1HE
POWERS AND DUTIES OF 1HE HOUSING Al.ITHORITY, AND DEa.ARING THE CI1Y COUNCL TO BE THE
COMMISSIONERS OF 1HE HOUSING Al.ITHORITY -In order to gain further insight into the formation of a
Housing Authority, staff has been in contact with representatives of the County Housing Authority, other
city housing authorities, and the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Staffs
review and analysis indicates that procedurally, the City must first form a housing authority and designate
officers and staff to serve the authority by resolution under Section 34200 of the Government Code. Staff
recommends approval of the resolutions. (Director of Community Development)
B. RESOLUTION 17022 DESIGNATING OFFICERS AND STAFF TO SERVE 1HE aruLA VISTA
HOUSING AUTHORITY
Councilman Moore asked if we voted on this tonight, are we saying that we will not take any official
increased cost, increase staff, increase office spaces until it comes back to Council in two years when we are
ready to be self supporting? Community Development Director, Chris Salomone, responded that it would
be inaccurate to say that there would not be some cost. Existing staff would be coordinating activities,
County Housing Authority would be operating the program until we have gotten an allocation from the
federal government of enough units to be self supporting. There will be minor costs, such as administrative,
but they will be easily absorbed by existing staff.
Councilman Moore stated he had concern with the cost. Have we asked the County to allocate any units?
Mr. Salomone stated those discussions have taken place, but they would not support that. They do not want
to lose the staff and the fees.
JZ'~/¡¡/
MINlTI'ES
March 2, 1993
Page 11
Councilman Moore asked if that meant they will have to lay someone off if we collect the next two hundred
units under our jurisdiction? Mr. Salomone responded that that will not happen. This is the advantage of
this. As it grows, their existing staff keeps their fee.
Councilman Fox asked if the administrative fee of 8.2 percent of the monthly subsidies was when it reached
200. Then what would be the fee before it reached 2oo? Housing Coordinator, Juan Arroyo, responded that
any new certificate which the city acquired over time, everyone can charge 8.2 percent of the monthly rent.
This could be used to cover administrative cost. That fee becomes available to the City upon any new
certificate.
Councilman Fox stated that if the County was administering the certificates until the City reached the 200
point, who would get the 8.2 percent? Councilman Moore responded that they use the 8.2%. When we say
we are going to take over, then they cease and we step in.
Councilman Fox asked what other specific duties will the Commission have other than the administrative
ones listed in the staff repon. Mr. Salomone responded that the grievance hearings will be condu<;ted by
staff; the Council or Commission will not have to get involved in those. The Housing Authority Committee
would be the last court of decision on appeals.
Councilman Moore asked how many cities had housing authorities where the elected officials were the
Authority? Mr. Arroyo stated that most cities do not have Housing Authorities. Only Carlsbad, Oceanside,
and National City have their own Authority whereby the Council is the Authority.
Mr. Salomone stated that the Authority will not have the workload that the Redevelopment Agency does.
The Authority would be involved in grant applications, approving contracts with HUD for administration of
the housing certificates, bond issues, etc.
Councilwoman Horton stated she was in suppon of the staff's recommendation. She felt that as a start up
situation this was the best route to take to get this program going. She was glad to see Chula Vista forming
its own Housing Authority. However, she would like to have staff come back with a Vision, Mission
Statement, and specific Goals. Also important would be to have staff come back on a regular basis, even
monthly, with a report letting Council know what has been transpiring -- for example, what has staff been
.doing, what grants have been applied for, what type of funding has staff been able to get. '
Councilman Rindone asked if the County will still have jurisdiction in Chula Vista for the previous housing
units under them which would result in overlapping jurisdictions. Mr. Salomone stated this was correct.
Councilman Rindone asked if staff saw any problems with that? Mr. Salomone stated there could be
resultant confusion among the tenants. However, this is the format which has been followed by many cities
throughout the United States and is a typical process as a city grows away from the County jurisdiction on
housing. We will be creating a new constituency of housing tenants in the City who will come to us for all
kinds of housing needs. The County people who are on the County Section 8 program have been certified,
have been qualified, and assigned to a case worker at the County. They have a strong communication with
that person. It is not likely that those people who are on that program will come to the City. There will
be overlapping jurisdictions; there are a thousand Section 8 units in the City that are subsidized under the
County Housing Authority.
Councilman Rindone requested that staff, if this is approved, contact other cities to see the extent of what
that problem would be. If it is a problem, how have they addressed it. He also asked, on a regional basis,
ifwe would be duplicating fixed costs? Is this a concern overall? There is a school of thought that the best
delivery system on a regional basis might ultimately be more cost effective. He would want to know the net
impact on that and if it has been looked at. Mr. Salomone responded that if you look at Section 8
administration which is the HUD program, there are regional economies. One of the predominate reasons
for becoming an Housing Authority is to give us the chance to go after the money which is offered only to
Housing Authorities and to create projects and programs locally that are afforded by the federal government
and other agencies only to Housing Authorities.
J r'I'
MINUTES
March 2, 1993
Page 12
Mr. Goss felt that one of the things on regionalism has to do with the fact that it is better to eliminate all
the chiefs and have only one. We are creating a new housing authority direCtor with all the management
and administrative hierarchy fitting in what we already have. There are no new positions being created in
that respect.
Councilman Rindone stated he did not want Council to contribute to the cost of government. He did not
want to create another layer of government. He was swayed when you can become proactive for our
community in getting grants in what is called "soft money" to contribute it to general entitlement and
funding of your programs.
Mayor Nader asked if seven members was the number which was required by state law for the Housing
Advisory Commission? City Attorney, Bruce Boogaard, responded that state law states you have to have
seven and because you have chosen a five member authority consisting of the City Council then you will
have to have a seven member Housing Advisory Committee. Two of them must be tenants and if there are
tenants who are 62 or older then one of members must be 62 or older.
Mayor Nader stated that the present Housing Advisory Committee is a seven member committee appointed
by the Mayor with Council ratification. There is currently one vacancy. He does not know if any of the
remaining six members are tenants who would fulfill one of the requirements for these tWO tenant seats
within State law. If that is the case, then by holding the current vacancy open, we could assure what people
are getting at.
Councilman Moore asked ifwe were talking about Section 8 only? What about the other housing units that
the County has been working with us such as the HUD family units on F Street, Melrose, and Dorothy? Do
they retain overseeing those? Mr. Salomone stated they will retain ownership of those projects. In the
future, we will be able to do those projects on our own without the County's assistance.
Councilman Moore asked if Section 8 was basically rental units and what happens when a number of them
move, relocate, or pass away? Mr. Salomone responded that they are rental subsidy. Those people have a
certificate in place until they no longer qualify for that certificate. They would be disqualified if their
income increased. This would be effective anywhere in the County. Mr. Arroyo stated that anyone who has
a certificate can move to any other jurisdiction. Upon moving to another jurisdiction, the original authority
maintains 20 percent of the fee. Likewise, Chula Vista could administer the certificate coming into the City,
then we would receive 80 percent of the fee.
Councilman Moore stated that staff has listed the sequence of actions on the staff repon. The vote tonight
will accomplish the first one. Does that mean the other four will come back sometime in the next tWo
years? Mr. Salomone stated that actually the fIrSt tWo will take place tonight. On the next three, we will
come back as speedily as possible with the By-laws and other issues.
Mr. Rindone stated that when you come back, it will actually be the first meeting of the Housing Authority.
Mr. Salomone responded that was correct.
RESOLUTION 17021 and 17022, OFFERED BY COUNœ.MAN RINDONE, reading of the ten was waived,
passed, and approved unanimously.
MSUC (Honon/ltindone) for staff to come back on a monthly basis with a repon and when they come back
to the nen meeting have the VISion, Mission Statement, and Goals.
Councilman Moore stated that something might not take place for a year or so.
Councilwoman Honon responded not necessarily. Staff should, once they get the program going, be out
looking for grant funds or financing for the programs.
Councilman Moore stated he had a problem asking staff to do another job in a shon time frame when they
don't have the staff to do well with now.
18',,;..0
MINUTES
March 2, 1993
Page 13
Mr. Goss asked staff if there was any major workload implications or limitations based on what was being
requested by the motion? Mr. Salomone stated he did not. The Authority will be established tonight. The
other activities such as seeking funds and applying for grants are things we would normally due and assume
as part of our workload. Mr. Goss stated the additional workload would be the monthly repon which should
probably be a rather simple routine thing to do.
Mayor Nader stated that although it will be two years before we accumulate the number of Section 8
subsidies that we would take those over, the situation has been that the City has on staff a full-time Housing
Coordinator and the creation of the Housing Authority puts some new tools in his arsenal to do his existing
job. The way he interprets the motion on the floor is a request from the Council, which constitutes itself
as the Housing Authority for the City, for at least a monthly repon from existing staff on how it is going
about planning to make use of that new tool.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR
(NOTE: Pulled from the Consent Calendar were items number Sa, Sb, and 10. Although they were
discussed at this point, the minutes are transcribed to reflect the published agenda order).
0'rnER BUSINESS
22. 01Y MANAGER'S REPORTrS)
Mr. Goss stated that the Parks and Recreation Department had received two achievement awards. One was
an achievement award for the design of the Norman Park Senior Center. It has now been recognized by the
California Park and Recreation Society District Twelve. The other was an award for innovation programming
for Project Care which is a new partnership program for senior citizens and disabled living alone in Chula
Vista who need the assistance of community partners.
23. MAYOR'S REPORTrS)
Mayor Nader stated that while he was in Irapuato, our sister city, he had a chance to meet with the new
Mayor to catch up on activities involving our sister city exchange program, specifically our summer student
social work exchange funded by the Kellogg Grant. He had an opportunity to be interviewed by local radio
and to express his opinion that the announced rejection of Twinports by the Federal Government in Mexico
was an example of how we can work together on border environmental issues.
Mayor Nader will be attending the National League of Cities meeting in Washington D.C. and will be absent
on March 9th.
The Council secretary polled the Council for potential meeting dates and times to interview Commission
applicants those being Growth Management and Montgomery Planning. Date and time selected was
Monday, March 22 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Conference Room.
24. COUNCIL COMMENTS
.
Councilman Moore stated he had a special meeting today regarding a different way to attack graffiti at no
cost to the city except for their staffs time. He will be asking for a letter to go out to the major companies
such as the City of Chula Vista and National City, utility companies, etc. to ask them to support the program.
A copy will be put on each of their desks.
) 'T~r).1
MINUTES
March 2,1993
Page 14
Councilman Rindone stated he was a member of a local service club. Today they heard the Music Machine
from Bonita Vista High School. They were outstanding. He suggested that they be invited to receive a
Proclamation recognizing what they have done, in panicular, the fact that they have been selected as one
of the very few competing groups in a major competition next week. He would like to invite them to a four
o'clock meeting, open the meeting, then adjourn to outside so they would have room to do a perfonnance
and have it video taped for television.
Mayor Nader suggested that staff contact the Music Machine to make arrangements to include them as part
of the program for the April meeting. He suggested that if the Agenda was heavy that they come before the
meeting and still have it included in the video tape for television.
Councilman Moore suggested that they sing the Chula Vista official song.
Councilman Fox. He had no comments.
Councilwoman Horton. She has been talking to sòme developers who had a problem with staff. Their
complaint was that they bring in a project and then mid-stream a new staff person is assigned to the project.
At that point, the whole plan is changed. Sometimes the changes are legitimate, but many times these
changes cost the developer a lot of money and a lot of time. Ultimately, it is the homeowner or consumer
who pays for this. She would like staff to come back with a report as to how we can eliminate this problem.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m. to a Redevelopment Agency meeting. Following the Redevelopment
Agency meeting the Council adjourned to a Closed Session to discuss the following items:
Pending litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9. Rollervs. the City ofChuia Vista.
Pending litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9. EDCO Disposal Corp. vs. Laidlaw
Waste Systems, Inc., Sweetwater Union High School District, and the City of Chula Vista.
The City Council adjourned the Closed Session to the Regular City Council meeting on March 9, 1993 at
6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers.
. R?;;j,ë7bLfl1
Beverly A A thelet, CMC
City Clerk
/2' ~ .2~
ATTACHMENT B
GREG ROGERS PARK
RANKING BY INDEPENDENT RATER
POINTS
1. Heimburger-Hirsch
2. Nowell-Thompson
3. BSI
4. Schmidt
5. Estrada
6. KTU + A
7. Delorenzo
8. Dike
9. Van Dyke
10. Wiley
11. Garbini
12. Tatsumi
13. Maloney
14. Teshima
15. Marum
16. Stone-Fisher
17. ONA
91
88
88
84
80
80
76
71
61
60
59
58
49
49
47
45
38
FEE
$33,400
$32,400
$107,000
$47,430
$68,071
$53,500
$39,700
$39,000
$41,500-$59,500
$29,600
$61,025
$29,800
$69,724
$57,600
$48,070
$58.500
$45,700
jB';2.:!
" \ ATTACHMENT C
NOTICE INVITING PROPOSALS
','.
\: lotlce Is hereby gIVen that the City ofChula Vista will receive at the office of the Director of Parks and
~ .œaeatlon. 276 Fourth Avenue, Chuia Vista. CalifOrnia. proposals to provide landscape arch1tectural
seJVfces for specifications. working drawings and constructJon bid documents necesseJy for Greg
Rogers Master Plan In the City of Chula Vista. Proposals must be received by 5:00 un.. October 16,
~.
Submission of a proposal will not constitute a bid or continuing offer. The party submitting a proposal
will not be contractually responsible to the City and may withdraw the proposal at any time without
obUgation. The City reseIVeS the right to reject any and all proposals or enter In to an agreement with
the party submitting the proposa! whJch. In the opln1on and sole discretion of the City. will best serve
the public Interest. Such evaluation will Include. but not be lJm1ted to. experience. business
reputation. overa11 qualiftcatlons. the proposal submitted. and other information obtained through
background investigation of proposers. It Is understood that the dty will not compensate parties for
submission of letters.
I. SCOPE OF WORK
A. Profect Descrl'Dtion
Greg Rogers Park Is a 47 acre community park that serves the southern portion of the
City ofChula Vista. It was opened September 11.1962 and was the first park developed
In Chula Vista as a joint-use facUlty between the dty and the school district. The park
has various uses and facilities that Include. little league fields. Boys and Girls CJub
i facilities, picnic areas. playground and a genera! maintenance area.
A Master Plan was developed by GUiesple-Delorenzo In 1991 and approved by Council,
The Master Plan proposed a two-phase development project. however. due to funding, the
Master PJan will be developed over a 5-year period. funding Is available In FY 92-93 to
prepare construction documents. specifications and bid documents for Phase J
construction In FY 93-94. The revised five year construction phasing schedule Is as
follows:
83-84 AKOUNT I
Relocate power !1nes . 50,000
Grading 90 , 000
UUlJty atub-ou\.t 40 , 000
Baseball Oelds (4) and acœuonea 52.730
Slope planting $9,830
Turf planting and In1ptlon/ball/lelda 194,050
Contingency (15%). Mobilization (5%) 112.000 II ..~
TOTAL . 558.880 J./6h¡'
\
WPC F:"-~\8S,82 Page 1
Ilf";'¥
84-811 .AMOUNT
Parldng lot Improvement/balllleld . 111.834
: Removal of park re8ldenoe/exlatlng playground 10.000
,
Orand.land 8e8Ung/athletlc complex 187,500
Contingency (15%), Mobilization (5%) 62 , 000
TOTAL . S71.SS4
.1I.eØ .AMOUNT )
Demo of exlatlng reetToom. exlatlng parldng lot. conœaalon buUdtng . 12,000
Replacement of eod. Irr1gatlon demo areas 10,800
New re.tToom 120.000
New conceas on .tand 135,000
New maintenance facility 1 50. 000
New parking lot 34.000
Contingency (J 5%), MobillzaUon (5%) 92.000
TOTAL . 853.800
- I
.&-97 AMOUNT
PIcnic .hellers (20 x 40) . 45,500
PIcnic .hellers (3) (15 x 20) 106,500
CreaUve playground 75,000
Concrete picnIc table. 14,400
Sheller picnic table. 4.900
Park acceasor1e.. barbecue grill., truh receptacle. bench... 'dr1nktng fountain, 73,680
barbecue plla. entzy monumenl
Upgrade of park lrr1gauon ey.tem:
School ground. 66.870
Park turf 163,170
Park .Iopes 66,460
AddItional tree. 79,500
Contingency (15%), Mobilization (5%) 140,000
TOTAL . 788.0110
WPC F:_~\83.82 Page 2
/8" ,15'
"
87..f18 AMOUNT
II Concrete w&ütwaya . 164.8&0
Decompose granite trail 6.048
Security IIghUng throughout park 44.000
ParIdnC Iota lighting 24,000
BaIlðeld lIghUng 180,000
Contingency (15%), Mobilization (5%) 84 , 000
TOTAL . 502.898
~ ORAND TOTAL I '2.754.'782 II
B. Reaulrements
The selected landscape architect will be required to perfonn the following tasks, In
accordance with City of Chula VIsta standards and the latest Federal mandate of the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
1. Prepare construction drawings for Phase I construction including but not limited
to:
a. Specifications for proposed construction and planning will Include
standards for materials and Installation and methods of Installation.
b. Final Cost Estimates which will be Item1zed and be based on final working
drawings.
c. Plans must be prepared on "D" sheet (2' x 3') size mylar with standard City
border. Mylars are avaiJabJe In the Public Works Department.
d. Drawings shall Include eJectrical. demolition. sIte. grading, landscaping,
structural, clearing and grubbing. trrtgatlon. and as-builts.
2. Fulfill requirements for construction bId documents. using City's fonnat with
Input from City staff.
3. Provide all surveying. If needed. for preparatIon of plans and constructIon of the
project. Surveying shall be done by a professional engineer or licensed land
surveyor.
4, AssIst CIty In the preparation and taking of construction bIds.
5. Assist City In administering constructIon project by making site visits on an as-
needed basis.
I
WI'C r:"-~\83.112 Page 3
/ y, .-2. ¿,
..
6. Participate in coruer!!I1ce5 with City staff. Park View IJttJe League for the
developm!!I1t of drawings and plans.
"
I¡ C. PrODoSal Format
Proposals (four copies) shall contain the following:
1. ArchJtect-Engineer forma 254 and 255.
2. A negoU8ble UIne schedule for completion of Phase I drawings and plans.
3. The firm's approach to completing eed herein. with special emphasis
placed on creatMty, low malntenan to extema1SuJTOundlngs, vandal
resistance, and cost effectiveness.
4. Names and qua1Jßcations of consultant team who will be d1rectly involved in the
project.
5. A cost estimate for each consultant úsed for the SeMce to be performed.
All proposals will be reviewed, scre!!I1ed, and evaluated by a Se1ection Committee, '1b1s
committee will select five candidates It considers most qualified to be interviewed. These
candidates must submit three samples of slmllar work dealing with park redesign prior
to the interview.
D. Selection Criteria
f 1. The following criteria shalJ be úsed In selecting the firm ultimately choS!!I1 for thIs
project:
2. QualJfications of the specific individuals who will work on the project.
3. Demonstrated record of success by the consultant on work previousJy performed
for the CIty and/or other muruclpalltles or !!I1terprises.
4. Ability to provide General Uablllty Insurance and Professional Uabillty Insurance
(Errors and Omissions),
Based on the interview and Information submitted. the committee will make a final
selection. The choS!!I1 firm shall !!I1ter into flna1 negotiations with the Director of Parks
and Recreations or his repres!!I1tative. Both parties shall define the exact conditions of
the contract scope, work plan, schedule, fees, and methods ofpaym!!I1t. After completion
of these negotiations, a City of Chula Vista standard two-party contract will be pres!!I1ted
to the city council for approval.
E, Pre-ProDosal Contact
Consultants are !!I1couraged to contact Martin Schmidt, Landscape ArchJtect at (619J
691-5071 regarcUng clarification of this request for proposals or adcUtionallnfonnation.
\
WPC F:\home\ lorØ8\83.82 Page 4
18"'.2. ?
ATTACHMENT 0
'GREG ROGERS PARK
INTERVIEW FORM
To:
ll_tnvitci-, GrC/llp]
Owner:
Interview Score Sheet
lSSt.:E
Points Awarded possible points
1. Similar project experience
10
10
20
2. Discussion ofthe firm's capacity to perform the work.
3. A discussion ofthe firm's understanding of the project needs.
4. Discussion ofthe methods the firm proposes to use in
providing the required services.
5. A discussion of consultants that ma)' be working with
the firm on the project.
10
10
6. Discussion of how the firm will handle the planning, \
design, and construction phases of the project. Discuss
design approach, construction cost controls, and involvement I
in the design and implementation phases of the work. \
I
30
7. Discussion of time schedule the firm proposes to colDplete
the necessaf)' preliminaf)' work. as well as a time schedule
for the entire project.
10
Notes:
100
TOTAL
Firm:
Intero'iewer:
J1'~~~
:55
. .....---~. .-..-.---." .
: ITEM 18
CONSULTANT SELECTION PROCESS FOR
GREG ROGERS PARK IMPROVEMENT PLAN
NOTE
A portion of the discussion of this item in the March 2. 1993 Council minutes (Attachment
A) is missing.
The complete March 2, 1993 discussion is attached hereto.
/15' cÅ1
MINUTES
March 2, 1993
Page 4
8. ORDINANCE 2543 AMENDING SEcnONS 2.36.010 AND 2.36.030 OF 1HE MUNICIPAL CODE
RELATING TO 1HE ADVISORY DUI1ES OF 1HE HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION (second readinJr and
adoption) - In April 1992, the South Coast Organization Operating Transit (SCOOT) Board directed staff to
investigate the ramifications of dissolving SCOOT. Both City and County Transit staffs find no negative
impacts to either the City or County if SCOOT were dissolved. One result of dissolution would terminate
the SCOOT Senior and Disabled Transportation Advisory Committee. Staff recommends Council place the
ordinance on second reading and adoption. (Director of Public Works)
9. ORDINANCE 2544 AMENDING SCHEDULE X. SECTION 10.48.050 OF 1HE MUNICIPAL CODE,
DECREASING STATE LAW MAXIMUM SPEED UMITS IN CERTAIN AREAS, MAIN STREET/OTAYVAU.EY
ROAD FROM 1-5 TO 1-805 (first readinJr) - In order to minimize traffic hazards and congestion and promote
public safety, speed prohibitions on these streets should be authorized by ordinance. A review of trial traffic
regulations initiated by the City Engineer under the authority of the Municipal Code show that these
regulations are operating effectively and should be made pennanent. ,Staff recommends Council place the
ordinance on first reading. (Director of Public Works)
10. RESOLUTION 17007 APPROPRIATING ADDmONAL FUNDS FROM 1HE UNAPPROPRIATED PARK
AND ACQIDsmON DEVELOPMENT FUNDS (PAD) FOR THE DESIGN CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS AND
RELATED SERVICES FOR GREG ROGERS PHASE I IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, APPROVING AN AGREEMENT
wrrn VAN DYKE AND ASSOCIATES FOR DESIGN DEVELOPMENT, CONS1RUCTION DEVELOPMENT AND
RELATED SERVICES FOR GREG ROGERS PARK, ANP AumORIZING 1HE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAME -
! The Greg Rogers Master Plan was approved by Council on 4/16/91. A landscape consultant is required to
prepare design and construction documents and other related services for the project. There are insufficient
funds in the appropriated Capital Improvement Project to complete the necessary services for the Phase I
improvement of the Greg Rogers Master Plan. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of
Parks and Recreation) 4/5th's vote required. Pulled from the Consent Calendar.
Councilman Fox stated he had some procedural questions sinœ this was the first time he had seen this since
he had been on Council where we went out for solicitation for RFPs and awarding the RFP to Van Dyke and
Assoc where their bid came in at $52,700 and the ultimate cost was $66,000 because of changes that were
made which staff agreed with. Wasn't there normally a requirement that we go out for additional RFP's?
Parks and Recreationa Director, Jess Valenzuela, responded that staff considered going out, but decided that
the consultant could handle it. After consulting with the City Attorney, staff decided to expand the scope
of services.
City Attorney Boogaard stated that it might have been a mandatory item if it had been a public works
project, but here we are just soliciting and advertising for design services in which we have more latitude.
He felt it was appropriate to negotiate design-type services and expand the scope of work during those
negotiations without having to go out and solicit for another consultant.
Councilman IUndone expressed he was very uncomfortable with that practice just from the ethical and
procedural basis that when a potential bidder is examined and especially when he is not the low bidder by
25% that staff would be doing other add-ons. City Manager, John Goss, responded that being the low bidder
was subject to interpretation in the sense that we actually got proposals as to how much it would cost. The
items which are add-ons are basically routine things that would be pretty much the same cost for any of the
ones that would have been included in making the proposals even though it would have been better if they
were included in the proposals in the first place. But, you have to temper this with the fact that the Little
League is very concerned about the condition of their fields, and there is a desire to tty to move ahead and
correct those conditions.
)f5r30
MINlITES
March 2, 1993
Page 5
Councilman Fox stated he had problems in changing the rules of the RFP after people have gone through
the process of putting a proposal together and then we change it and award it to someone who wasn't the
lowest bidder. He wanted to know what liabilities or problems we might encounter as a result of the change
of the rules. City Attorney Boogaard responded that it has been the practice in all cities to distinguish
between a Request for Proposal and the public works bidding process. In a RFP, you are asking for expertise
and qualifications. You are basically saying to the industry this is what we think we need, but give us your
proposal. After that proposal is submitted, they are basically sending in resumes of their qualifications and
an idea of how to achieve what we think we need. It is completely within the undentanding of all parties
participating in the process that the team can be subjected to further negotiations with the city saying we
need to modify this to cover these other things. This is different from the public bidding process where we
tightly draw the bid specifications. This is not subjeCt to further negotiations.
Councilman Pox stated that it seemed like there were things which came up after the proposal was made
which seemed was material to the request -- things like reimbursable expenses for copying, doing a title
report to find any easements, etc. They should have wen part of the proposal.
Councilwoman Horton asked staff how they came up with the five people on the list. Assistant Parks and
Recreation Director, Jerry Foncerrada, responded that we had a committee of representatives from Building
and Housing, Engineering, Parks and Recreation, and Planning Departments who short-listed the seventeen
candidates down to five. The five were invited in to make a presentation and to sell the committee as to
which one would be the best one to work with. Based on the rating criteria they had, that is how the
ranking came out with the five firms.
Councilwoman Horton stated she had called several different landscape architectural firms because she had
some questions regarding the contract with Van Dyke and other things. Part of the criteria was based on
qualifications, presentation, knowledge of the project, design approach, and fee proposals. The number two
firm came in as the lowest bidder, but because there are some other concerns that are expressed in the staff
report, staff decided the number one firm should be chosen based on concerns over and above the price.
Mr. Valenzuela stated that was correct, but they did take into consideration past performance by both of the
potential consultants, and they took into consideration how the price had escalated in one given project
beyond what staff felt was reasonable.
Councilwoman Horton stated that she was not arguing this point. She investigated this firm also and would
agree with staff and not hire them. However, in talking to one of the firms, a firm in which she placed in
high regard, they mentioned they had bid on this project. She found out his bid was $45,700. This was
a landscape architectural firm who had an excellent reputation in the industry and who has won several
awards in our city for past projects such as Discovery, Sunridge, and Scoby Parks. Based on staff's criteria,
we were picking a firm at $52,700 when we have a reputable firm that we could have hired at $45,700.
She wondered how many other firms were in the same situation. Mr. Valenzuela responded that he could
provide Council with the criteria that was used to select the consultants for the short list. He was not aware
of the consultants who did not make the short list. Last year, the Mini-Brooks Act which is a state law
requires cities, counties, and other jurisdictions to select landscape architects or design consultants based
upon skill, expertise, history, proven track records, etc.
Councilwoman Horton stated that everything he named, this company has. In the industry, it is rated very
high. You knew when you picked the number two firm at $39,700 that they already had this reputation
within the city. So they shouldn't have even been on the list.
Mayor Nader asked if the Parks 8< Recreation Director was on the Selection Committee. He responded that
he was not.
I y~ J /
MINUTES
March 2,1993
Page 6
Mr. Goss suggested that this be referred back to staff to take a look how the Committee went from the
seventeen firms to the list of five firms to not include the firm which Councilwoman Horton pointed out.
There must have been some part of the process which objectively screened them to the five. It was a valid
question which needed to be answered.
MS (NaderlFo~ to refer to mdf to develop a report to be brought back to Council to include the following:
who all responded to the RPP, what were their bids, what was the aiteria for narrowing it down to the five
who were presented in the mdf report. Also include information as to who was on the Committee and any
other relevant information as to the deliberations of the Committee which might be helpful to Council in
evaluating the recommendation that was brought forth, or the proc:ess used for determining that
recommendation. Authorize, but not require, the City Manager, if information is developed which makes
such mcmo appropriate, to list this as a Cased Session item for review of penonneI. If not, then it is to be
put on as a public item.
Councilman Moore felt that if Council was going to start questionihg staffs decisions when there was
representation from three to five different departments, it might be worth while for individual council
members to sit in on one of these processes.
Councilman Rindone stated that staff had indicated there was specific criteria in the selection made by the
composition of five members from five different departments, and asked if that criteria had a weighted
factor? Mr. Foncerrada responded that they had weighted factors.
Mayor Nader stated that in the report coming back to Council that a description given of the weight given
to various factors and how that played out in the process should be included.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY S.{).
11. RESOLUTION 17008 GRANTING AN OPEN SPACE ENCROACHMENT TO AIJ.,OW
SUPPLEMENTAL LANDSCAPING IN OPEN SPACE LOT B OF OPEN SPACE DISTRICf 20, RANæO DEL REV
SPA I, PHASE 2 - California Pacific Homes of San Diego (formerly Bren) is requesting that the City allow
the installation of supplemental landscaping along the south side of Ridgeback Road, opposite Bonita Vista
Middle School. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Parks and Recreation)
12. RESOLUTION 17009 APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH THE SOU'IH BAY BRANæ OF THE
YOUNG MEN'S OiRISTIAN ASSOCIATION (YMCA) FOR THE LEASE OF CERTAIN PROPER1Y IN
EUCALYP11JS PARK - The City and the South Bay branch of the YMCA had a five-year agreement for the
property at 50 Fourth Avenue which expired on 5/13/91. The City and YMCA have been operating under
a lease on a year-to-year basis. Staff has renegotiated a five-year lease with the YMCA. Staff recommends
approval of the resolution. (Director of Parks and Recreation)
13. RESOLUTION 17010 AU1HORIZING PAYMENT TO THE METROPOUTAN TRANSIT
DEVELOPMENT BOARD (MIDB) FOR THE INITIAL CI1Y SHARE OF THE COST OF THE MAIN STREET
UNDERPASS PROJECf - The payment of $330,000 to MTDB is an initial share of bridge construction and
street improvement costs for Main Street east of Industrial Boulevard. Staff recommends approval of the
resolution. (Director of Public Works)
.J 2fr 3d--
~/¡
~ ... COUNCIL AGENDAST A TEMENT
~~T . ~I~
'\\~ J Meeting Date '/7.:>/'1 ~
ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing on consideration of an increase in sewer service charges
Resolution I'J J" 'APprOVing an amendment to the Master Fee
Schedule on sewer service charges and transfer of $1,856,000 from Fund
222 to Fund 225
SUBMITTED BY: D"- of """" w"'~
. ¿ \
REVIEWED BY: City Manager ~~ ~. . J (4/5ths Vote: Yes..x.No_)
As a Participating' Agency of the Metro Sewer System, the City of ChuJa Vista is required to
pay for our share of its operation, maintenance and upgrade costs. Due to the increased cost
of upgrading regional wastewater transportation, treatment and disposal, it is necessary to raise
the sewer service charges for Fiscal Year 1993-94. As discussed in the report, the exact amount
of sewer rate increases over the next few years will depend on decisions made by ChuJa Vista
and the Regional sewering agencies, the court, and possibly changes in the Federal CJean Water
Act. Under any scenario, rates will increase for Chula Vista residents over the next 10 years,
and staff is recommending a modest rate increase for next fiscal year. ChuIa Vista has retained
a team of Sewer ConsuJtants to help us in reaching the best decision for the future of Chula
Vista.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council hoJd the public hearing and approve the resolution
increasing the monthly sewer rate by 6 1/4% to $17.00 per month per EDU.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicabJe
DISCUSSION:
The City of San Diego has been considering the upgrade of the Metropolitan Sewer System since
it decided in 1987 to drop its request for a waiver from the requirement to convert Pt. Loma
Wastewater Treatment Plant from Advanced Primary to Secondary Treatment. In FY 1991
ChuIa Vista began raising its sewer service fees in anticipation of a huge Sewage Construction
project of $2.5 Billion which was to be constructed over the next 13 years. At that time, and
based upon cost estimates provided by San Diego City staff, Chula Vista staff estimated that the
fees wouJd have to be raised an initial amount of 20% followed by annual 11 % increases. The
Council had expressed a desire at an earlier rate increase hearing to not wait and hit the public
with a hugh increase, but instead, levy a series of smaller increases which would allow the
public to better absorb the cost within their budgets.
Iq-\
Page 2, Ite~ cr:
Meeting Date "'m319'3 '1"'0, ~
Since that time, severaJ changes have occurred to the program:
8 San Diego has yet to issue any debt to fInance the capital improvements. This has
deJayed the bonded indebtedness program for at least two years, but also it has required
San Diego to break out the Pt. Loma Outfall extension and Fiesta Island SJudge removal
project and begin work on it sooner. It has also required San Diego to pay cash rather
than fInance the work, leaving us with higher earlier costs.
8 In the summer of 1991 the City and the EPA, because of a lawsuit from the EPA, agreed
upon a course of action calJed Alternative IV which was part of a Consent Decree. The
Judge ordered the Consent Degree, (Agreeing to the Alt. IV $2.5 Billion program) to be
delayed until a testing program for chemical secondary treatment couJd be compJeted at
Pt. Lorna which would allow that plant to remain at Advanced Primary. This could have
the effect of lowering overall costs, but would have little effect on earlier cost increases.
The tests should be completed this summer.
8 The City Council of San Diego adopted the .Consumers Alternative" which greatly
reduced the scope of Alternative IV from $2.5 Billion to $1.2 Billion. This had the
impact of reducing later year increases in the sewer rates, but did not reduce the earJier
years costs as earJier infrastructure requirements did not change with either Alternative.
8 The National Science Foundation completed a study for the EPA, (partly funded by San
Diego) that indicated that full Secondary Sewage treatment at Pt. Loma was not
necessary and a waste of money.
As is shown by the above history, the ultimate program and its cost to the rate payers of Chula
Vista is yet to be defined. However, although the actuaJ cost increase is not known, costs will
be incurred for upgraded sewer service. Therefore, Chula Vista, along with other Metro
Agencies, have raised sewer rates.
Chula Vista's annual costs to Metro and Spring Valley couJd increase from around $7 million
to an amount, depending on different outcomes of the CWP Capital program, between $11
million and $17 million for implementation of the . Consumers Alternative.. On the other hand
we have built up significant reserves in the Sewer Funds, that would help us ride over any huge
singJe year increase.
Revised Ten-Year Cost Projections Table I and Table 2
In June 1993, the CJean Water Program staff prepared new cost projections for two options:
(I) the Consumers' Alternative Excluding Water Reclamation and Oversizing and (2) the
Consumers' Alternative Including Water Reclamation and Oversizing. Both these options are
based on the "Consumers Alternative", which is the Jow cost option adopted by the San Diego
Iq . "2-
Page 3, Item~ Ie¡
Meeting Date ~ ï 'J,ö) J",~
City Council. Although based on our original .1960 Sewage Agreement,. San Diego can't
charge us for expansion and Water Reclamation, we should consider those higher costs, because,
subject to ChuJa Vista's fmal actions regarding participation in the SDAWMD, costs for Water
Reclamation and Expansion may be included in some fashion. City staff used this information
in order to prepare the enclosed ten-year rate projection tables (Tables 1 & 2).
. Payments to the Spring Valley Sanitation District for flow discharged to the Spring
Valley Outfall Sewer (CoJumns 5 & 12), operation and maintenance for the ChuJa Vista
collection system (CoJumn 16), revenue from interest and other sources, and capacity fee
contributions (Column 19) have also been included. Adjustments were also made to
Fiscal Year 1993-94 estimates to include back billing for previous years' undercharging
and other items discussed in the next section.
. The sewer service charges have been calcuJated under two scenarios. Column 17 (TabJes
1 & 2) shows what the sewer service charge wouJd need to be without revenue assistance
from other sources. Column 20 presents the sewer service charge after deductions for
miscellaneous income (interest, industrial waste fees, some pump station fees) and
transfers from sewer capacity fees. Both calcuJations include $0.70 per EDU for the
sewer rehabilitation fee.
8 ChuJa Vista has been collecting a connection charge or "join the club fee. from
deveJopers for each new connection to the sewer system. It is appropriate that monies
from this Fund (Fund 222) be used to offset some of the cost of the CWP upgrade
program since existing CV ratepayers have been paying for excess capacity for 30 years,
and a portion of the upgrade program is for expansion of the system.
. The contributions from the sewer capacity fees in TabJe 1 (Column 18), which wouJd be
transferred from Fund 222, were justified based on information provided by the Clean
Water Program. The total 1993 replacement value of the Metropolitan Sewerage System.
was estimated at $764,495,000. Since the current plant capacity is 218 mgd, the value
per gallon of capacity is $3.50. At an estimated 1,000 EDUs connected per year, the
total .buy in. to the existing system wouJd be approximately $928,000 per year. This
"buyin" is discussed below as a transfer from Fund 222 (Sewer Connection Charges) and
is used in the Excluding Reclamation table (Table 1).
8 The capacity fee contributions in Table 2 (the Including RecJamation table) (Column 18)
were obtained from the System Buy-In Charge Calculation tables prepared by the Clean
Water Program on June 24, 1993. The Sewer Facilities Charge includes a "buy in"
payment for capacity in the existing system, as well as payment for a portion of the water
reclamation and expansion costs.
IC ,-~
Page 4, It~1 ~
Meeting Date / "/~
Attachment 1 shows the same information in a graph format comparing the Column 20 cost per
EDU from Fiscal Year 1994 to 2003 for TabJes 1 and 2, (the Excluding Water RecJamation and
Including Water RecJamation tables). Under the scenario excluding water reclamation, the
maximum rate of $23.73 per month wouJd occur in the year 2001. Under the scenario including
water reclamation, the maximum rate of $31.79 would occur earlier, in the year 1997.
As mentioned earlier, Chula Vista has not agreed to any option at this point, and is using the
lower cost option to base this cost increase. We are using a consultant team to help us decide
on the best option for Chula Vista. That decision will be partially based on the [mal terms and
conditions in the Special Act District and/or agreement between us and the City of San Diego.
Determination of Fiscal Year 1993-94 Rates
The following table itemizes the main budget items for Fiscal Year 1993-94 under the
Consumers' Alternative Excluding Water Reclamation and Oversizing. If water reclamation and
oversizing are included, there would be approximately $3,888,000 in additional expenditures.
1993-94 Estimated
~ Expenditures
1. Metro/CWP Expenses $ 6,046,000
2. Metro flow rate adjustment FY 1992-93 $ 587,000
3. Spring Valley Sanitation District Payment $ 1,566,000
4. Spring Valley back bill $ 307,400
5. Tijuana sewage M & 0 $ 236,200
6. SDA WMD Operations $ 52,200
7. Transfers to General Fund $ 2,426,100
8. Miscellaneous Chula Vista Operating Expenses $ 508.900
$ 11,729,800
The Federal Government may not reimburse the Metro system for the entire cost of treating
Tijuana sewage. CJean Water Program staff have therefore estimated the cost to be allocated
to each agency for Fiscal Years 1992-93 and 1993-94 (Category 5). This item will need to be
approved by the SDA WMD Board before it is billed to the agencies. (Recent news articles have
indicated that the Federal Government will pay most of the costs.)
Our average wastewater flow over the past year has been 11.599 million galJons per day. Based
on our flow rate, the number of sewer connections, and customer account information, we
estimate that the City currently has approximately 49,360 EDUs of flow, one EDU being
equivalent to the flow from a singJe family house. The singJe family residential rate was therefore
caJcuJated as follows:
\q-~
-
_5'1~\o..
Meeting Date 7 / ì/"Z.)/"~
EaçtQ¡: ~
Expenses $11,729,800
Interest and Miscellaneous Revenues - $418,000
Capacity Fee Transfer (from Fund 222) - $928,000
Revenue Required from Sewer Service Charges $10,383,800
Service Charge/ EDU per month $ 17.53
IncJuding $.70/month Sewer RepJacement Fee $ 18.23
Several factors must be considered in deciding whether the sewer service rates should be
increased:
. The first factor is the size of the reserves. The 1992-93 budget projected a reserve
balance of $8,463,363 in Fund 225 (Sewer Service Revenues collected monthly per
existing customers) as of July 1993. lfapproximately $1,321,000 of the reserve in Fund
225 was used, the current sewer service charge wouJd remain unchanged. A rate
increase would not be needed until Fiscal Year 1995-96, provided that the Excluding
Water Reclamation table is valid. However, under any scenario that Chula Vista is
considering, sewer rates will go up significantly over the next several years, and if rates
aren't increased this year, future year increases will have to be raised that much more.
. The second factor is the viability of the Excluding Water RecJamation scenario. It is
highly unlikely that the City of San Diego will agree to pay the entire cost of water
reclamation for the Metro system. However, those costs can't be charged to ChuJa Vista
unless we agree. That decision won't be made until Jater. Moreover, it is not certain
if the Consumers' Alternative will be acceptable to the EP A. The EP A may not accept
continuation of advanced primary treatment at Point Loma, since secondary treatment
standards cannot be achieved. A more costly treatment alternative would then need to
be devised, and Fund 225 would need to be maintained at a higher level to allow
payment of these higher costs
. The third factor is that if Chula Vista is required to share in the cost of water recJamation
and expansion of system capacity justification will exist for the use of larger amounts of
Fund 222 money. Inasmuch as this fund is anticipated to have a balance of $5,659,550
after the transfers proposed in this report are made we believe that an adequate safety
factor will be maintained.
We believe that it would be imprudent to use .Fund 225 reserves at this time because of the
likelihood of the more expensive treatment alternatives becoming necessary. However, we also
believe that a rate increase to $18.23 (13.9 percent) is undesirable at this time, given the current
economic conditions. This rate considers a transfer of $928,000 from Fund 222 for Fiscal Year
1993-94 based on an average of 1,000 connections per year and a capacity charge of $928 per
q-S
p... 6, B*
Meeting Date 7 / 3 I
., ....¡~~
connection ($3.50 per gallon and 265 gallons per day per EDU). A total of $928,000 could have
been transferred from Fund 222 last year on the same basis and we are proposing that such
transfer be made now.
In summary, we are recommending that (1) A transfer from Fund 222 in the amount of
$729,000 be authorized for 1992-93 in addition to the transfer of $199,000 approved last year.
That earJier approved transfer has not yet been accompJished, since it has not been needed for
payment to other agencies until now and (2) That a transfer from Fund 222 in the amount of
$928,000 be made for 1993-94.
With this proposed transfer from Fund 222 the Sewer Service Charge can be held to $17.00 per
month per EDU. This represents an increase of 6.25 percent; less than the 11 % per year
projected in 1990, but still adequate to continue toward the Council's expressed goal of meeting
the ultimate costs associated with the sewer system by implementing a series of smaller annuaJ
increases as opposed to raising rates Jess frequently but in greater increments.
These rates are reasonabJe in comparison to those charged by other agencies in San Diego
County. As shown on TabJe 3 (attached), "Sewer Service Rate for SingJe Family Dwellings",
the Fiscal Year 1992-93 charges range from $14.08 to $33.72 per month.
Rates for all categories will be increased by 6.25 %. The rates will be as follows:
Single family $ 17.oo/month
Multiple family $1. 71/100 cubic feet (HCF) water used
Low Income $l1.90/month
Commercial/Industrial
Low $1.56/HCF water used
Medium $ 1. 92/HCF water used
High $2.59/HCF water used
FISCAL IMPACT: Adoption of this rate structure will alJow the City to cover the anticipated
sewer-related expenses in FY 1993-94. It will also incorporate a transfer of $1,856,000 from
Fund 222 to Fund 225. This amount represents $199,000 approved for Fiscal Year 1992-93 plus
an additional $1,657,000 ($729,000 more for 1992-93 and $928,000 for 1993-94). The City has
sufficient funds in Fund 222 to cover this transfer.
}PLKY.()8]
F.BNGlNEERIA GENDA ISEWING<
070993
19-~
¡BO ~~S$~!~~~~
w~ ~ !~~a~&aa~~
h
~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~
0",
i~~ =' Ui!UUUi! /Z
~B. ~~~~~~~~~~ .
~~~~ ~ ~~;~a~~5aa
¡:>tSlele /1' -;;
'. I'
B. ~~q~~I='~~~ pi /
>~w~ .. mmaaaa~~~: ~ ~
u8~~ -
B . II¡I!;!:~I!!II!~II!II¡~
~~w~ .. ;;;ææ~~!~~
tS""" -
U
"""-~""-li¡;¡
I ~ Ii " ". .. ~. <1i ... :;: 1\ -. -.
~ . ø;;øøøøøøø
~ <.>~-
~w - ¡:¡ .-- i!:¡¡
~! ~ ~ ~"~¡~~~"~N
~1 i~~ ~.. =ì~~=~~~==
~~!i ~8¡:> ~- M MMM
OZ! ..
~;~ ~ i!~e~I!!~~e~~
~~! ~~~ ~ ...~~~..ææ...
~irl ~ ~
- !!"'. !i~
.. ~ffi~ ..~õ:¡ - ....................
æ "'~ ~ ¡;l1'z~ - ::::::::::::::::::::
¡! ~;: ~ ¡r~
..~~ "'
&~j "~ffi~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~
~tSe ¡; Cijj
..~~~ "æ"""""
~~ffi~ .. ~~::..5N~~~~~
~~Cijj -------
~C~
ê~! .. ~~~.~"""""
¡ji!!"
~~~ ~ i~!R;~~~~~
~..~ .. ~~iei~""""
~ ~ N-~"- §
. ~~I .. ~¡§~~~~5!~ ~
~
~~ . ~j~~!li'~~ .
::í
O~ ~§.! i
ilil" ~¡i~~~~I~~ ~§.
Ë~ ............... ~.
fJ:¡s N ----------.~ 101 ì
êðð NNNNNNNNNN iiB -I-
~ - ~n!nuu :h u -P1-7
~c!ì ~ ~-~~~~N-~-
~~~ ü~úa~ãä&~ã
~~ ~ ~888888888
~~ ~~~~~~~~~~
Ow
~~ ~ ~ ~-R~N8~~~N
- +~ ~~~;~~~~-~
~~~~ UU~~~~~~~~
ù~m¡¡S
¡s , iò¡¡~iiliiI:;¡:8:;¡~
~~~~ ~ a!i5~a~a~~a
g,,~~
¡s $~N~NIIi~~~8
~~w~ ~ ~;~i;i~~~i
""n -
:;:O:S::U:¡¡:;:III8!t;
~ ¡So ~~~~c~~~~~
I;;w" ~ I:tMMMtI....tll:ttl
O~~ -
"~~
~C g~~~8S~~~~
8~ ~ ~a~~~~aaaa
~ -
~~ ;;l~~ ~ ~~~§;~~~i2
"'~ i"'c N~ - - - - - - - -..
~~ ~8Õ ~- ~~~~~~:O~~:O
~~~ ~ '" MMMMMMMMMM
'" " ~~~~~~~~-~
8~K ~ :8;~N~$~~~;
~~* ~~~ ~ -
8~ ~ ~
Œ~~ ~~"""~~""""""
~~~ ~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~
N ~~~ ~~Õ~ ~
w "'W~ (;ff~~
æ ~~~ ~o.
~ ~c~ ~-"'~~I!I""""""
"'~~ ~o.~~ ~~~~~~~~~~
~3' I<~~~ ~
~~~ os~ ill
~ ~ ~~~g~~~~~~
~~ffi~ ~ -------
",~cill
iIi~"'~~=====
!!!£iJ" dih
8B~ '" '~~"
~ii'~
'" ~~¡¡¡~~fi:Sl!i:;¡iJi
~~~ ~ _:o~ .-
I:!~~~~~====
1<..81 .. ~-~;:o;_.
os ~ ~
~N~~~.~"~~
~"~ ~8:O~:;~;:O;~~~ III
..~ '" ---------- '"
o~ ~
~ ~i~~~~~§~~ .
~ffi . .~.. ~ ¡¡~
~
~ ~ii~~~~š~~ ~Ii
~~:;¡§ ~ --- I!
~~æ~ i i
'" ~""""'~~"'~~~ ì
c~~ ¡;¡;¡;¡;¡;¡;¡;¡;¡;¡; ! ",! /9 C'/
~~~ N II ~ - ~
~ð" 1~1 I~
~ - ~!~!~~~~~~ !Ii j ~'ð
TABLE 3
SEWER SERVICE RATE FOR SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS
QIY FY 1992-93 RATES FY 1993-94 RATES
Lemon Grove $169.00 per year No Change
County of San Diego:
Spring Valley $243.00 per year No Change
Lakeside-Alpine $255.00 per year No Change
National City $14.58 per month Fall Review
Del Mar $33.72 per month $35.41 per month
- La Mesa $31.50 hi-monthly Fall Review
Poway $36.42 hi-monthly Fall Review
Padre Dam Municipal $29.00 hi-monthly $33.00 proposed
San Diego $20.39 per month 6% average increase
Imperial Beach $2.30 per 100 CF proposed $231.00
$187.00 per year (average) average per year
EI Cajon $1.03 per 100 CF + proposed 7.5%
$1.00 collection fee per month increase
EMC:KY-D81
F:ENG1NEERIA GENDA lSEWlNC2
060893
19 - o.¡
~
~C") =
0 II :
; , , 0 I Z
: : , , , , , ,+N II Q
, , , , , , " , If)
: : : : : : :: " z
N 11,':«
0 In.
0 ,'x
N W
oð
:IE
:¡:W a :3
~c 0 CJ
Z 3N ~ ¡
0 u + £I:
Z 0 W
~ 0 I-
..::;; 0 ~
0:: ~ +N ~
w w '0) ë
a.. c ~", 3 ()
:> ..."" u~ CJ x
- ..J ,..-e:::: z m
- u -+- « - ~I
C >< 'oow. z
W W 0»- E
I 0) Z '
O::z +..- Q :;¡
w 0 ,.... ~ è' ;
a..~ 0) ~' ~
a::: 0) x ()
~ « ,..- W
,^ D.. ,-L oð
Õ :E ' , : , , ,1(0 :IE
(.)0 :~, 0):3
U ' , ' 0) CJ
, "..- W
. ~ ' : : , : : t £I:
> CI) , , , , , , £I:
.0 :----~ I!!
(.) U :~O) :«
, , , , . '1"- ~
......: : : : : ~
~ §
, , O)...J
: : , , , '1"- ~
: I I I : I ! I 1 I , I : I , W
""" N 0,00 (0 """ N 0 00 CD """ N 0 II
C")C")C")NNNNN"-"-"-"-"- ,
I I
i S~V110a ~
\'\-10
~
RESOLUTION NO. J? / 'If
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE
MASTER FEE SCHEDULE ON SEWER SERVICE CHARGES
AND TRANSFER OF $1,856,000 FROM FUND 222 TO
FUND 225
WHEREAS, as a participating agency of the Metro Sewer
System, the City of Chula vista is required to participate in its
operation, maintenance and upgrade program; and
WHEREAS, due to the increased cost of upgrading regional
wastewater transportation, treatment and disposal, it is necessary
to raise the sewer service charges for Fiscal Year 1993-94.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the City of Chula vista does hereby approve an amendment to Chapter
XII (Engineering - Sewer), section B Service charges, as follows:
B. SERVICE CHARGES
1. Sewer Service Charges
- In addition to other fees, assessments or charges
provided by the City code or otherwise, the owner or
occupant of any parcel of real property which said parcel
is connected to the sewer system of the city and to a
water system maintained by the Sweetwater Authority or
the Otay Municipal Water District shall pay a sewer
service charge as follows, applicable to the first whole
billing period subsequent to July 1, ~ 1993:
a. Domestic: The domestic sewer service charge for
each single family dwelling unit serviced by a
separate water meter shall be $~ 17.00 per
month;
b. Domestic: A monthly sewer service charge for other
parcels of real property used for domestic purposes
as herein defined, and serviced by a water meter
shall be at the rate of $~ ~ per each one
hundred cubic feet of water usage by such parcel,
but in no case less than $~ ~ per month,
nor more than $~ ~ per dwelling unit per
month;
c. Commercial and industrial: A monthly sewer service
charge for premises used for other than domestic
1
\G\. \ \
. .
purposes shall be at the following rates per each
one hundred cubic feet (HCF) of water usage:
Low strength: $~ ~ per HCF water usage
Medium strength: $~ ~ per HCF water usage
High strength: $~ ~ per HCF water usage
Low strength is defined as wastewater with
suspended solids content under 200 parts per
million (ppm). Medium strength is defined as
wastewater with at least 200 ppm but less than 600
ppm suspended solids. High strength is defined as
wastewater with suspended solids content of 600 ppm
or more.
Unless otherwise established by an approved
variance, wastewater discharge shall be assumed to
be 90 percent of water consumed. Therefore, where
commercial or industrial facilities are billed on
the basis of wastewater discharge, the regular
sewer service rate shall be divided by .90.
Wastewater strength categories will be determined
using either the table, "proposed User
Classifications and Assumed Pollutant
Concentrations" (SEE APPENDIXES) or actual sampling
results, as determined by the Director of Public
Works. Dischargers who believe that their total
suspended solids concentration is sufficiently low
to qualify for a different category of sewer
service charge billing may apply to the City
Manager in writing for a variance in accordance
with Municipal Code section 13.14.130. When there
is a change in the rate payer, the category will be
re-evaluated.
d. Tax Bill: Charges for multiple family and
commercial industrial discharges collected on the
Tax Bill shall be based on a recent 12 month water
usage period.
e. High Volume Dischargers: Premises which discharge
over 25,000 gallons per day (gpd) are classified as
high volume dischargers. These dischargers shall
be billed bi-monthly by the City of Chula Vista.
Wastewater discharge shall be assumed to be 90
percent of water consumed, unless established
otherwise by an approved variance. A separate
suspended solids concentration shall be determined
for each discharger based on either the table,
2
10¡~1'2- '
.
"Proposed User Classifications and Assumed
Pollutant Concentrations" or on actual sampling
results, determined by the Director of Public
Works. The bi-monthly rates shall be as follows:
Number of cubic feet (in RCF) of water usage x
{$~ 11.....lliQ + (suspended solids
concentration in p.p.m. x $Q.QO19E£e SO.OO20791)}
(Sewer service rates are as listed above unless superseded by
ordinance)
2. Penalty for Delinquent Payment of Sewer Service Charges
The fee for delinquency in payment of the sewer service
charge shall be a basic penalty in an amount equal to
ten (10) percent of the service charge, plus one and one
half (1-1/2) percent per month for non-payment of the
charge and basic penalty.
(Designated herein for administrative convenience only)
3. Sewer Service Charges for Low Income Households
Low Income Households (as defined in Chapter I) including
renters of property who are eligible to receive a reduced
rate for monthly sewer service charges, shall be billed
at the rate of $~ ~ per month per EDU.
The Finance Department of the city shall make available
the required application form and process all
applications. Application will require the submittal of
information on total household income, the number of
persons in the household and the type of dwelling unit.
Proof of total annual income shall be furnished.
Requests for annual refunds shall be made by eligible
households between August 1 and September 30 of each year
for the past fiscal year beginning in July and ending in
June. The applicant will be notified of eligibility
status within thirty (30) days of application and if
eligible, the refund forwarded within ninety (90) days of
application.
(Designated herein for administrative convenience only)
4. Sewer Service Variance Fees
The owner or occupant of any premises requesting a
variance from the sewer service charges pursuant to the
provisions of this section and the rules and regulations
approved by resolution of the City Council shall pay a
fee in the sum of $150.00 to cover the cost of
investigation of said request; provided, however, that no
fee shall be charged for a request for total exemption
3
\q-\~
.
from the sewer service charge. In addition, a special
handling charge to cover the cost of billing and
inspections to be paid per building may be established in
the resolution granting the variance, provided that the
minimum such charge shall be in the sum of $3.75.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the amount of $1,856,000 is
hereby transferred from Fund 222 to Fund 225, which amount
represents $199,000 approved for Fiscal Year 1992-93 plus an
additional $1,657,000 ($729,000 more for 1992-93 and $928,000 for
1993-94).
Presented by
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works Attorney
F,lhom,lattom'yl.owin,.r..
4
I 'ì- 1"-1
,
-
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
IU¿' %ÿ
Meeting Date 7 3/93 ì I T.:./e¡ 7:.
ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing: City Open Space Maintenance District 10 for Fiscal
Year 1993-94
Resolution Ordering certain open space and maintenance
faciJities to be maintained and levying assessment for Fiscal Year 1993-
94 for Open Space District No. 10
SUBMITIED BY, Dh='o, of Pob"" W m'" J ~
Director of Parks and Recreatio
C't
REVIEWED BY: City Manager I 5 & (4/5ths Vote: Yes_No...XJ
~j
Based upon the advice of the City Attorney, public hearing !.rand ~\ave been separated due
to conflict of interest concerns, Council should note that agenda statement I r also appJies to
this public hearing and includes the information on Open Space Maintenance District 10.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council conduct the public hearing and approve the resolution
after the second public hearing on July 20, 1993 is conducted.
DDS:OS-OOI
n>ome\engin='ogcndaIlO70.93
2.o-&/.20~;¿
I
TInS PAGE BlÄNK ..
~-2
-1ð"~
RESOLUTION NO. 171?5'
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA ORDERING CERTAIN OPEN SPACE AND
MAINTENANCE FACILITIES TO BE MAINTAINED AND
LEVYING ASSESSMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1993-94 FOR
OPEN SPACE DISTRICT NO. 10
WHEREAS, prior to the adoption of this resolution, the
City Council has caused the formation of various districts under
and pursuant to either the Chula vista Open space District
Procedural Ordinance ("Procedural Ordinance"), as contained in
Chapter 17.07 (adopting in substantial part the 1972 Lighting and
Landscaping Act ("Act") as contained in Streets and Highways Code
section 22500, et seq., or pursuant to the Act itself designated as
Open Space District No. 10
WHEREAS, in accordance with the Procedural ordinance, the
city Engineer has prepared a report on the spread of assessments
for said Open Space and Maintenance Districts ("Engineer's
Report"); and
WHEREAS, on May 25 and June 1, 1993, the City Council
approved the Engineer's Report and set July 13 and 20, 1993 as the
dates for the public hearings; and
WHEREAS, on July 20, 1993, the city Council approved the
modifications to the Engineer's Report affecting Open Space and
Maintenance District 10; and
WHEREAS, the proposed individual assessment for Open
Space District 10 for Fiscal Year 1993-94 as it compares to last
year is shown below:
FY 92-93 FY 93-94 % Increase FY 93-94
Assessment/EDU Assessment/EDU or Decrease Revenue
$83.46 $25.96* -70% $16,366
*Reserve exceeds 50%
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED as to Open Space and
Maintenance District No. 10, that the City Council of the City of
Chula vista does hereby confirm the diagram and assessment
contained in the Engineerrs Report, and orders the open space and
maintenance facilities to be maintained. The adoption of this
resolution shall constitute the levy of the ssessment as proposed
in the Engineer's ~part far the ""-,, S 01 ye= ~d s~
hereinaba~ far Open 'pace and Maintena e i"?tct . >0.
Presented by A P ved as 0 rm by
John P. Lippitt, Director of B ce M. Boogaard, ty
Public Works Attorney
c2~ ';3
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing: City Open Space Maintenance District Nos. 1-9, 11, 14, IS, 17,
18, 20, 24 and 26, and Bay Boulevard, Eastlake and Town Center Maintenance
Districts for Fiscal Year 1993-94
Resolution I?J 7¿' Ordering cenain open space and maintenance
facilities to be maintained, approving modifications to the Engineer's Report and
levying the assessments for Fiscal Year 1993-94 for Open Space District Nos. 1-9,
11, 14, IS, 17, 18, 20, 24 and 26, and Bay BouJevard, Eastlake and Town Center
Maintenance DiStrictS} ¡ ~
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works 1"
Director of Parks and Recreatio!1fc"-
REVIEWED BY: City Manager &fLj(, (4/5ths Vote: Yes_No..xJ
of,. In accordance with the City Municipal Code Section 17.07, the City Engineer prepared reports on the
spread of assessments for the open space districts. The reports were accepted and the required public
hearings were set by Council at its meetings of May 25 and June I, 1993. This agenda statement
includes infonnation related to the above districts and ~en Space District 10 which is a separate agenda
item. As such, it covers both agenda item numbers!..... and l!J
RECOMMENDA nON: That Council approve the resolution after the second public hearing on July
20, 1993 is conducted.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicabJe.
DISCUSSION:
Assessments
On May 25 and June I, 1993, the City Council approved the reports for the City Open Space and
Maintenance Districts prepared by the City Engineer or under his direction and set July 13 and 20, 1993
as the dates for the public hearings. The reports cover the following districts:
1. Open Space District Nos. 1-11, 14, IS, 17, 18,24 and 26
2. Rancho del Rey Open Space District No. 20
3. EastLake Maintenance District No.1
4. Bay Boulevard and Town Centre I Landscaping Districts
~ p~
"21-\ ~ "-I,-f~
~
\/Oi
page2'I~Z
Meeting Date 7. /93
The individual assessments proposed at the May Council meetings for Fiscal Year 1993-94 as they
compare to last year are shown below:
TABLE 1
$42.56 $87.28 $69,433
28.92 32.44 <~ 8,cm
331.10 327.94 <~ 41,648 250.90 '" -24% 31,863
183.64 197.08 7% 41,387
226.58 224.22 '" -1% 27,354
128.00 128.00 '" 0 20,736
72.12 87.60 <" 21% 9,110
408.00 430.94 '" 6% 47,403
93.62 92.88 <~ -1% 35,667
83.46 25.96 '" .70% 16,366
75.18 120.00 59% 158,524 81.22 8% 107,278
323.20 319.94 '" -1% 279,426 254.74 '" .32% 222,472
220.54 234.24 '" 6% 13,352
146.36 '" 124.74 -15% 5,738
282.48 303.34 '" 7% 117,562
246.28 203.72 -17% 438,812
680.26 486.00 '" .29% 19,440 211.00 co -69% 8,439
N/A 359.00 ,. N/A 6,821
1,031.60 '" 1,000.80 "'" .3% 10,008
40.94 '" 43.58 "", 6% 43.579
6.76 6.98 3% 69,495
6.76 10.64 57% 20,394
"'Per benefit unit
"'Reserve is at 10%
"'Reserve exceeds 50%
These assessments are based on the budget approved by Council on June IS, 1993.
-:2..\ - '2-
RESOLUTION NO. 1717 (,
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA ORDERING CERTAIN OPEN SPACE AND
MAINTENANCE FACILITIES TO BE MAINTAINED AND
LEVYING ASSESSMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1993-94 FOR
OPEN SPACE DISTRICT NOS. 1-9, 11, 14, 15, 17,
18, 20, 24 AND 26; EASTLAKE MAINTENANCE
DISTRICT NO. 1; TOWN CENTRE I LANDSCAPING
DISTRICT, AND BAY BOULEVARD LANDSCAPING
DISTRICT
WHEREAS, prior to the adoption of this resolution, the
City Council has caused the formation of various districts under
and pursuant to either the Chula vista Open Space District
Procedural Ordinance ("Procedural Ordinance"), as contained in
Chapter 17.07 (adopting in substantial part the 1972 Lighting and
Landscaping Act ("Act") as contained in Streets and Highways Code
Section 22500, et seg., or pursuant to the Act itself designated as
follows:
1. Open Space District Nos. 1-9, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18,
24 and 26.
2. Rancho del Rey Open Space District No. 20.
3. EastLake Maintenance District No.1
4. Bay Boulevard and Town Centre I Landscaping
Districts ("Open Space and Maintenance District")'
and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance, the
City Engineer has prepared a report on the spread of assessments
for said Open Space and Maintenance Districts ("Engineer's
Report"); and
WHEREAS, on May 25 and June 1, 1993, the City Council
approved the Engineer's Reports and set July 13 and 20,1993 as the
dates for the public hearings; and
WHEREAS, on July 20, 1993, the city Council approved the
modifications to the Engineer's Report affecting Open Space and
Maintenance Districts 1, 3, 4, 11, 14, 20 and Bay Boulevard; and
WHEREAS, the proposed individual assessments for Fiscal
Year 1993-94 as they compare to the last year are shown below:
~J'3
-"",
TABLE I
28.92 32.44 (3, 12%
331.10 327.94 ," -1% 250.90 (3) -24% 31,863
183.64 197.08 7%
226.58 224.22 (3) -1% 27,354
128.00 128.00 (3) 0 20,736
72.12 87.60 (3) 21% 9,110
408.00 430.94 I') 6% 47,403
93.62 92.88 ," -1% 35,667
83.46 25.96 ,~ -70% 16,366
75.18 120.00 59% 158,524 81.22 8% 107,278
323.20 319.94 (3) -1% 279,426 254.74 (3) -32% 222,472
220.54 234.24 (3, 6% 13,352
146.36 ," 124.74 -15% 5,738
282.48 303.34 ," 7% 117,562
246.28 203.72 -17% 438,812
680.26 486.00 (3) -29% 19,440 211.00 (3) -69% 8,439
N/A 359.00 ," N/A 6,821
1,031.60 II) 1,000.80 (1)(3) -3% 10,008
40.94 (I) 43.58 (1)(3) 6% 43,579
6.76 6.98 3% 69,495
6.76 10.64 57% 20,394
tOPer benefit unit
(7)Reserve is at 10%
'"Reserve exceeds 50%
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED as to all Open Space and Maintenance
Districts herein referenced, except for Open Space District No. 10, that the
City Council of the city of Chula vista does hereby confirm the diagram and
assessment contained in the Engineer's Report, and orders the open space and
maintenance facilities to be maintained. The adoption of this resolution
shall constitute the levy of the assessments as proposed in the Engineer's
Report for the 1993-94 fiscal year and set forth he inabove for all Open
space and Maintenance Districts except Open pace Di ict No.
Pre"ent~ ~ a.~
John P. Lippitt, Director of Boogaard
Public Works
..2/ - 'I-
-
/
l I
~ ..,'
\~ ,
.. ell /
ì ,,!
Districts 1, 11, and EastLake MDl's increase in assessment is due in part to new open space areas being
turned over to the District for maintenance:
a. District 1 includes an additional 6 acres of open space dedicated by the Woodcrest
Southwestern Subdivision.
b. District 11 includes an additional 4 acres of open space dedicated by the Brehm
and Woodcrest Terra Nova Subdivisions.
c. EastLake Greens' increase in assessment is due to the anticipated turnover of additional
medians within the Greens' boundary.
TypicalJy, new improvement costs are added to the district at the same time the new property
owners are assessed. However, in these districts, the homes were assessed prior to turnover of
the maintenance of new improvements. Effectively then, the assessments in prior years were
lower than anticipated.
A summary outlining the increase and decrease in assessments is provided in Attachment C.
Modifications to the Engineer's ReDort
On June 22, 1993, Council approved the award of the open space district maintenance contracts. Several
of the bids received and approved were lower than the existing contracts which provided the basis to
detennine the assessments in May. Staff recommends that the assessments be adjusted downward for
Districts 3, 11, 14 and 24 whose contract costs are substantially lower than last year. The proposed
changes in assessments are shown in Table 1.
OSD 24's, Canyon Views, contract cost came in $7,131 lower than estimated due to effective bid
clustering and the current economic climate. Additionally, staff proposes to reduce the reserve amount
by $3,800, as a compromise to the property owners in that district. This district had substantial savings
during FY 1992-93 because of delayed turnover and some owners wanted all the savings to be passed
on to them in one year and others preferred the savings be used to stabilize the assessments over 2 to
3 years. Staffrecommends that the assessment be lowered to $211/home with a 90% reserve, $7,711
retained to offset future assessments. Without the savings being used to lower the assessments, the
assessments would be $482/home.
Additionally, staff recommends other changes to Open Space Districts 1,4 and 20 and Bay Boulevard
Maintenance District. The proposed changes to Districts 4, 20 and Bay Boulevard do not affect the
assessments.
OSD l' s proposed change in assessment is a result of lowering the reserve required. The change reflects
a reserve based on 50% of the existing maintenance costs plus 10% of the supplemental costs to be
collected over a period of 5 years. Staff initially based the reserve on 50% of existing and supplemental
maintenance costs. A small contract cost decrease is also reflected in the assessment.
2.1-3
~
Page 4, Ite~ I
Meeting Date 7. /93
OSD 4's contract cost has increased by $6,754 as a result of bids awarded in June. It is recommended
that this cost be offset by using that portion of the reserve in excess of the 50%. Consequently, the
assessment proposed for FY 1993194 will be the same as the assessment proposed in May and for which
property owners were noticed. However, an increase in assessments can be expected in FY 1994/95.
A budget amendment for this district will be brought forward during the year.
A minor change is proposed for Bay Boulevard Maintenance District which reflects a decrease in the
estimated fund balance which is offset by a decease in the reserve amount. There is no net change to
the assessment as proposed in May.
Staff has prepared the following summary to be incorporated into the Engineer's Report for Open Space
District No. 20 pursuant to Section 22660 of the Streets and Highways Code:
TABLE Z
Rancho Del Rey Open Space District No. 20
Annualized Costs
Amount Accumulated FY 93.94
Zone Description (90/91, 91/92, 92/93) Amount Work Description
I Desilting basin $101,541 $33,847 Desilting basin maintenance (every 5 years)
2 Rice Canyon 20,100 6,700 Stabilization structures maintenance (every 3 years)
2,619 873 Staging area - A/C overlay seal and stripe (every 5
years)
684 228 Staging area maintenance (30-year period)
3 East H Street 0 0
4 SPA I Phase I 12,006 4,002 Monumentation replacement (30-year period)
(Business Center
5 SPA I Phases 2-6 115,881 34,617 Theme wall & monument replacement (3D-year
period)
6 SPA 2 0 0
7 SPA 3 0 0
The Code requires the breakdown outlined in Table 2 for estimated costs amortized over more than one
year. Certain costs are being spread over several years because of the impact on an assessment which
would occur if the costs were spread over one fiscal year only.
A summary of all districts and as modified is provided in Attachment A.
"2-l-.s
fif
_S.~,
Meeting Date 3/93 ,¡.,dq-::,
Noticine:
Pursuant to the 1993 notice requirements of the 1972 Landscape and Lighting Act, staff noticed all
property owners of Open Space District Nos. 1-11. 14. 15. 17. 18.20.24.26. and Bay Blvd.. EastIake
and Town Centre Maintenance Districts of their proposed assessments on the postcards mailed for
noticing the public hearings and the infonna! staff meetings held on June 19 and 21.
The notice of the public hearing was published pursuant to Government Code Section 6063.
Summary of Infonna! Meetine:s
Staff from the Public Works and Parks and Recreation Departments held infonna! meetings on June 19
and 21 to discuss the proposed assessments for Fiscal Year 1993/94. Several questions were answered
at that time regarding the assessments and the components affecting the assessments. A summary of
issues is presented in Attachment B and letters of protest are presented in Attachment D.
FISCAL IMPACT: None to the City. All City staff costs are reimbursed by Open Space District
Funds.
Attachments:
A - Summary of costs and assessments
B - Summary of infonnational meetings
C - Summary of assessment increases and decreases
D - Letter(s) of protest
WPC F:Ibome'cn¡m"""gooda\1066.93
"2.1- S
~
. ======== = ==$=== = ~~ = =~
~~~= (~~~æ~-- ~ :: _Ñ- - =~ ~=
~;E --- : - -~ ~~
¡¡~= -
. ======= ====== ~ =~ 5 -~
~- ---g--- -.-.-. - ~~ ' i-
~~~ ~~ -~~ :::: = ~= -;
-= =- ~~ -=
~=
~. ~~~~~~~~ ~~=~~~ ~ ~~ - .-
-------- =- --~ -~ --
=~. ~~~~~~ ~ ~~:: == ::
~= -
. ======== ====== - ~= = ~~
~~- ~~~~5~-- ~~ .~~ ~= ~:
;= -- ~ ~~ ~~
- -
. ======== ====== ~ =~ - ~-
~. -------- _Ñ -~. - -- --
e- ~~~~~~ ~~ ~~ -- ::
~§ = --
-------- -=~--- -- ~ --
~~- S~~~~~~~ ~~-~~~ - ~~ ~~
-- = --
. ======== ==~=== ~ ~~ - =~
!¡~ ?~æ~~~-- ;; -:: - ~~ --
... -
- -
. ======== ==~=== - =: ~ ~~
¡ii- ~~æ~~~-- ;~ -~~ :: ~~
_K ~~~~~~~~ ~~=~~~ - ~~ ~ ==
~=~~ ~;==~5-- ~~ -~= æ~ ~~
e ~;E;õ ~ ~~ ~~ -- --
S ~!!5=-
~ K ======== = ====== ~ ~~ 5 :~
~ ; -------- - 2- -~~ - -- ~-
; ~g- ~~~-~~ ~~ ~~ =~ ~~
-= - - ~---
i= -
E . -=------ = ==~-=- - -- - --
- ¡¡ -- "': ."':"':"':"':"':"':. . .-"':."': ~ -~ -
~ ~ -------- - -- --~ ~ ~- -~
-~~~- ~~:~~= = :10 =~ ~ -~ ~~
. ~~:E ~~ . ~ :~ ~~
::: ~¡¡!!5= -
... iii
¡¡ ~-
~ .
~:: :::.:. ë -~ ;!
~ ~ .~ ~~;E ~-;! ~; ~ -~
~ - ~ _.:~~-~ ~ .:~=. -- ~ ~~
: ~ ! ¡~~i5!1! ~~i$~¡¡ ¡::;!~
-" ~ .;~~~~-~i ;;~e~- ~~ ~ ~=
~ - ~~:~:=~~æ~¡. :EI~:~ -- - ==
~~~.~~=~~æ~~ ~=.I=~ 5= - ~~
- - ~=~~~-=-:-~~ =~~=-~ - ~~ : ..
~ ~ 5~~j3g]~!jæ~ §££i5iii ! jj ~ if
~ "2.1-~
-
. .
. .
-~
- -
--
- -
- --------=- -- -- -
w' ~~~~~~~~.~ :: :: .
~~- ~~~~=~ ~ ~ ~- ~=. - - -- 4~
=~~ --- ~ ~ -~ ~~ ~ -~ ~ -- ~.
gS~ ~~ ~ - - -- - ~-
==; - --
. == === == ==~ == = ~~ - --
~~~ -- --- --.~ ~- ~ --
i~j ;- ~-- ::- ~~ --
~ == ===== = ==~=== ~ == ~ ==
~ -- ööôô2 - ô~ .~- -- --
¡¡~~ ~ ~~ ~- - ~~- ~~ ~~ ::
~¡. ~~:~~~ : ~::::~ : :~ : :~
!~i~ ~~~~!~ ~ ;= -;; ~~ iæ
~ === == == ====== = ~- ~ ==
; ~~- 5;: ~= -¡ æi !Ê~ ~~' -
¡ ~;~ -~- -- - -- ~~- --
~ ~~ - ~~ ~~:
; å ====== ==æ=== ~ ~= ~ ~-
~- =~=ö=~ ~~ -~ci ~ ~~ :;
~~: ~~~ -~ -- =~ ==
E -- -~ ~ ~= ~~
::. is; - - - -
~ . = = == = =~~==~ ~ -~ ~ ::
- ~ ~ - -- - -- ~=~ --'-~
~ -~- ~ - -- ~ ~~ ~-~ ~- ~~
5 ;5- ~ ~ =~ ~.= -- --
II¡! 1;; --
~ . ======== ==~ == ~ ~~ - ~=
~ i~~ ~~~~~!ô. !!!~ ~~ ~I
~ ¡E - ;;
: ~ ======== ====== ~ ~~ ~ --
~ ~. ~ôô..ö.ô ~. ..Ñ -~ ~-
- -~-- ~~=~:~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~
i iii- ~=~~~~ :~ ~5 --
~
,.., "'-""0"'-00-
0- ~-o 0.., ,..,
~~~§~ ~~ ~
,..,¡S:;~~~5:gg
0- '" . . . . . . .
~:~--:;:::J°O
~~
-¡s:g~;;:::;;:g~
;;;;:~';"';=:i';~
0-8: -
~~
;;: ~;::i:~~;;0:;::::
--20,..,-...... .....,
~~~;::;~...;::;~ ~~
~ Ii:;! ,..,-
:B~~;;:::;:¡I!!:°O:;
:; ~~;::;"'S~~ ~
!; ~-"",..,........O_-
~ ~5~~~~~ ~~
is -~:;;:C:C>~;::;OO~
'" -.., - 0... ""
~ ..~,..,- -.., -
'" E""" ,.., -
'" ..."...,
~
~ "'0"""""""0_0-
.. t;;¡¡; ~~c:~ :;!:i:
'"' "'~ ""......- .....-
!;1 §:::J ....~ ~
;§ """
00"""'0 00
.., ;;:t;; ::¡;¡¡;:;;¡;::; ~C:
-'" 0""""0- _0-
- ,..,"" --"".... ........
~ o-¡¡¡ ""...
C
~
::: ~~
.., c.. '"'
...~Z;;..
.S=~~Õi
- u '"' -
.. :::..-~-""""
..u...........
...-.. ..........
Z """"""~~~
iii! -....,..,-""...-
'"' ~
:æ "'!II!IIWWWW=
5: essssss:=
~
2.1-\{
-
"'~gg g g
~I!!~'; :¡: ~
~
~ ccccccccc c uucg c g
~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~ ¡s~.; ~.;
~~ ~~~~~~ ~ ~ - - - -
~ffi ~~ ~ ~
~ -
~ -~~~~~- c=-
~ ¡~~~~i~ ii~
-"'...-......~ ~--
~,..;";~,..; CO!;
:;: ~ :;:
+ ccccccccc c ooogo c_--~-... gc=
8 :! ~~~~ii~~~ ; ~i~~~ ¡=~~~;2 ii~
E ~... ~~o-...~ ~ ~ ~- -- -~~--"'o_-
~..... --- - -- .....------...
~ ~E =c- = = -... -~ ~......~~~......
........ ~~ - -~ -... .....---~...
~ ~œ - - - ...- - -
~ ..~ -
.. ... co
~ if
~ ~~
~ "i~ i §
B :;' :; .~ ;; =: ~ ~
~ ~~~=:~-~ ¡~~ ...~ ~
... ~ ~~~~~gt~ ...=t~ ~~ g
~ ~ ;~~t=-~= ~~~i..... ¡- ....."'g
.. ~ ~ ~;~~~~~i~~ ii~~; ¡:m ;!~
..... ~ ~ 0 -u- .c- ~- ~ - ~..........
-... ~~-~- -i.-c ...œ.~~ ~- ~..-
¡ ~ i!~~~a!~¡eEi! ~=!~~ .....~~I¡ ~B~
u ~-~-~ -~~~~-~ E~-" ...~~ -..-~
~ ~ ~=~t~~~=~~=~", ~~~~..... ~~~~~ .....~~
~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~Sð~ ~~ð~W Ë~~~~ w~~
~
2.-1 -Ct
Attachment B
Summary of Informational Meetinl!s
Staff met with various property owners on June 19 and 21 to provide information on the
proposed FY 93/94 assessments. Issues raised included:
1. OSD 6 - A property owner suggested that deveJopment on hm!1 sides of Telegraph
Canyon Road be assessed for their open space adjacent to the road.
2. OSD 11 - One property owner was very concerned by the assessment increasing from
$75 to $120. Staff has since revised the proposed assessment to $81 based on new bids
and adjusting the reserve.
3. OSD 24 (Canyon View Homes) - Staff met with 20% of the property owners in this
district. Staff explained that the bid came in low and that their assessment for FY 93/94
wouJd be lower than noticed pending approval by Council. Staff also asked for
alternatives from those attending on how to lower the Canyon View assessments on a
long term basis. The following is a list of ideas:
1. Annex to Otay Ranch or?
2. Build more units within their development.
3. Change over to HOA.
4. Adjust lot lines of residential lots into the open space areas for private
maIntenance.
5. Status quo (City staff offered this alternative).
6. Annex into Eastlake's HOA.
7. Landscape changes.
8. Create Scenic Corridor District.
Most owners indicated that if their assessments' were close to the average, they wouJd
be satisfied.
DDS:rb
(F ,\B OME\EN OINEER \LAND D EV\lNFOMTO . D PS)
~
2\-10
- ATTACHMENT C. 2
requirement be used to lower the assessments for FY 93/94. The balance of the savings
will ,be kept in the account to lower future assessments.
Increase in Assessments
Open Space Districts, 1,2,4,7,8, 11, 15, 18, EastLake Maintenance District No.1 and Town
Center assessments are increasing this year due to the one or more of the following:
1. Budgets were increased mostly because of an increase in utilities. Specifically, the water
service fee has increased.
2. Savings, due to the May/June 1991 water savings, were used in part to lower the 92193
assessments and are not being used to lower to 93194 assessments.
Districts 1, 11, and EastLake MDI have additional increases due to new open space areas
being turned over to the District for maintenance:
a. District 1 includes an additional 6 acres of open space dedicated by the
Woodcrest Southwestern Subdivision.
b. District 11 includes an additional 4 acres of open space dedicated by the
Brehm and Woodcrest Terra Nova Subdivisions.
c. EastLake Greens' increase in assessment is due to the anticipated turnover of
additional medians within the Greens' boundary. The cost of additional
improvements is not offset by additional units because most of the units were
assessed last year for part of the maintenance of Otay Lakes Road medians.
Typically, new improvement costs are added to the district at the same time the new
property owners are assessed. However, in these districts, the homes were assessed prior
to turnover of the maintenance of new improvements. Effectively then, the assessments
in prior years were lower than anticipated.
3. Although Open Space District No. 7's budget is decreasing, the assessments are
increasing. This is due to using prior years' savings, in part, to lower the assessments for
FY 92193. Savings are also lowering the proposed assessments for FY 93194. Without
the savings, the assessment would be $104/home instead of $87.60/home as proposed for
this coming fiscaJ year. Both FY 92193 and FY 93194 assessments are less than the
assessments levied during FY 90191 andFY 91192.
WPC F:Ibome\m¡iD.""._\lO7S.93
.ß}-11
2-1 -, \
I
-
ATTACHMENT C-l
At the meetings of May 25 and June I, the following summary of assessments was provided:
Decrease in Assessments
Open Space Districts 3, 5, 9, 10, 14, 17, 20 (SPA 1 residential), 24 and Bay Boulevard
assessments are decreasing from last year. This is due to one or more of the following:
1. There were minor budget decreases mostly because of adjustments to staff selVices.
2. There were unanticipated savings experienced during May and June of 1991 due to water
allocation programs in response to the drought. Consequently, the FY 91192 assessments
did not reflect the savings. However, a portion of these savings were reflected in FY
92/93 assessments and a portion are also reflected in the FY 93194 assessments. Not all
savings were passed on to the property owners in a single year's assessment in an effort
to flatten peaks and valJeys. This is consistent with Municipal Code, Section 17.07.030
which allows accrual of a reselVe up to 100% of the budget.
In addition to the above, Districts 10, 17, 20, and 24 had other unanticipated savings during FY
92/93 as outlined below:
1. Open Space District No. 1O's assessment for FY 93194 is substantialJy lower than FY
92/93 assessment. This is mostly due to assessing the property owners in previous years
for new maintenance associated with the Ladera Villas Subdivision and the turnover not
occurring at the time anticipated. In addition, the actual cost was less than that estimated
by the developer and used to detennine the prior assessments. A portion of these savings
are reflected in the proposed assessment
2. Open Space District No. 17's decrease is due in part to a decrease in the budget item for
City staff selVices (-4%) and a corresponding decrease in the reselVe (-2%). The balance
of the decrease is due to savings from prior fiscal years which are being used to lower
the assessments.
3. Rancho Del Rey Open Space District No. 20's base assessment for FY 93194 is
substantially lower than FY 92193 assessment because of assessing property owners an
entire year for new maintenance associated with "Phase 5" improvements and the turnover
not occurring at the time anticipated.
4. Canyon Views' (District 24) assessment is decreasing from last year's assessment of $680
per home. The decrease is due to assessing the homeowners for FY 92/93 in anticipation
of the slopes being ready for turnover in January of this year. However, the slopes have
not been accepted yet and it is not anticipated to occur until next fiscal year. Staff
recommends that only part of the savings beyond that needed for the 50% reselVe
~
7- \ - \ 7,...
---.. -.-.
c..'~l <2o~ 1A.,)e..1 (... - c...kø (..14 - U$'M4-
rGe....~e- ~6" ~~¡.Å~.c..-~ """'Q,-T --.
-~JH""-rrf 0 ~ f" ~.-:n t\.-. c'\.:t
-C.cJC-I.-t\?c....( ~~13L~L_7tJ ¿-eV~----
¡:J. ~ <: t"' Sf ~ ~ tr;v r ¡::: C) ;r ./1? "" ~ .vi t:.A./ ~ c;. t-
f'.>~ ~- d_\J.L ~ ~~c:::....tè.. \>1 S \iv, ~ :t-
A: Ie... , . ~ ~-,---=r-~_-l...lc}.....l\.") ~Y.~
--?::-___A-33-)CI--'~IA.~~~ J "'" "" ;X--
--- Yi-'i.~r~Ã--;-R-d.L" IF lk....-
~-~_c..L.t._~ ~ h.~ -h;} t'.....~ 1!.~--
-~ x-~- J"~-:\..nj-h. ~~---fh..-t-J..:t~._.
, , -=th,-"(.. )U~X'--\:---BJ+l.<'O--r: --\.c> ~-c..
~t>¡~ \) 0 ..0.- --.D~_..:ß. ..... e l ~1 J -cA<.I ....
, ~"- . ~~l\LIA.' L"'\,""\()....
Y't\""£{L 'B ~W ~ ..¿L~
t.. YJ.- ~ I'L ~ A t; -IL-
r"v ( IA. - vf~+4-
I . Group OSD 7it&n. C~+~r -=~=
_'If. 1m. 5 2... --_'I3J1.tL--_____lI7c,~. Z V 9o/1L-___-
.
.5ft;~ . 07/-/~:QQ-------_. -..-
fuel ,,-/J/.'l3 - --
.'
;
,
ATTACHMENT D-'
,
,þ)-r:J
1-1-1 ~
I
Jur,e 2:" 1993 RECEIVED
Mr, Barry M. & Linda C, Dodson
13614 Dornoch Dr i ve '93 _II -1 A9:46
Orlando, Florida 32828-8802 ~
City of Chula Vista ClTYOFCHULAVIS-¡.'
City Clerk CITY CLERK'S OFFICi
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Re: Annual Assessment for Maintenance Public Hearing
Dear Sir/Madame:
We are the owners of the residence located at 1339 Mesa Grande
Place, Chu]a vista, CA 91910, In response to the notice of the
City Council's intent to levy the annual assessment for
ffiaintencance of the open Space District areas, we wish to vote
"NO" on the increase of the assessment.
As an administrative matter, please change your records to
reflect our correct mailing address, as folIov/s:
Barry M, & Linda C, Dodson
13614 Dornoch Drive
Orlando, Florida 32828-8802
Sincere]y,
- ~p'^ - J. "/ILÜ- e '¡~c-£)l.(ì"'-
Barry M, Dodson & Linda C. Dodson
ü';
u,
'"'-' "-
<...
c: .
.- ".,
I ",. ;
OSD #- I -
." . ; ,.
::.:: ,', J.;
Jle7.ZB ¿: ~¡:.
...... ¡,
ATTACHMENT D-2
~
--I
.
-l
.",
~:v
'y
3
..
,
I
-
;
)
J~f~"
,.ul
",,0""
-
",.:
~~'ß
--r- .
6 ': ':
,.
lwrrnt7ilfð" ,
\ .;~
!
\
\ ~, ' e-.j-
\ J ' 'I ¡--
I ~: .Y
.- 1
....~, " >. ~AT'
P 1 ......'
.'
1 ,.,~
Of ¡.
1
- ~"'. ~\ r--!
a t ~\I I ~
....,..:.ø. ì I ' err
---- ------ p-----~ 1-----"'-----""1 r----'
~. . .' . ",.
i-..!r... . . . -'-----/ .
'---... I , . /'/ "
I ~r~, 1 I ~/ I I
. --- _I . . ----- -J
qt----_J------ L---..J ( -
I \ r' I 111 .' I? II \
~
2\- \L. OSD 2.7
-
- OSD 3,4,8.11
~
~
: II1mm ;1 1m/]¡ !¡¡¡f; ¡¡¡Ii
";'".J'~, .. J~."" """ .../,
.' f¡H~H¡¡ il h~1~i¡ ;m;j fl¡¡I
,.., 3Jr"It'"" . .1'1d~"..;!t "q¡,¡ ¡;L, ¡",
~ ~, ~.~~ --!: if ¡¡IJif!il¡ JI ¡liJI!il ¡¡¡I/i¡¡i!);;
- I ~ I.. . iJ . '~ ~: I
>" '.... ~ ,¡ 'i . \J Ii
I! i .. '1'- :,: ",', ;":,, '
~ 'I "~" . ~"'I - ;OJ ~i,i,i <; . ...:. -'
.. -..... . t" / Ñ...'Y/ ~'::::::: ,'.: f! :i: -:i
i5 l' '- ,', , . , "~i'i',.
,,¡ ~. , I-l.¡ -
. . -4.; """ W; I :. - .
I.L.. ... " .~ . .;: .'
0 ~t -'., tJ.¡: ..
r ~ -l..~::'
>-!. \ ""!;;;;d-MZ
t:: 'i \ ~~ u"',r,
U . ,t..., ,
~ ..t',I:':" ,
\ -----, """"':. '
~ ~~ :. ~I r-!.~: ~ ' ~
~.. Þ"""'" ~.: ~
...... ~ ,~--; ,t.,,~ l """'" :
.. ~ . ~ >--1,', ", - .
lL I ' , . ~ "'~ " ~ ! l'
~ '" . . '...1.--" \I':, ;t -
0 " '; ~ . " ...!- .... q.. " ,
- "¡ """"";)i\î.>-" ,.~ 4, ,
>h~l 'k"~", 'J
. '0", -s. ~~ IS
2"1! ;:-qþ.k\\,~~~ ~ !
...... ~~ -~I"""fi.; : If ¡
. .~, .
U I:'I! ~ .-= ~-, ,!-k ,
ã: II ~ _. :-'-'..: 1 ,4 , ::-~ I -
"""-"~Ir-'¡",:-t.l.
~ ~ ,;" .:, ,'-: ."-1/'.;. ! ~~
~ ilJ( ,fW;-!;j~ ..~'
U 'I . .. ',-, ,,' !'"
~ h ~" é'-; 0 ' , ¡
(/) I~ j )/ -~ \ \ ~.. "":'~"
~... ( \ s- -~.:--s:." ! ! ~!:!;"
~ . .. ' "\ ' .. i Üög;!
~ I! : .'-'r':- ' <I , ' i !;~,
2; II ~ ,'~:. }, ¡: , i¡ H
'1'. _c~ ""!!,'"
\:";' ,,~~ !ti .
I ,~' ;i ¡: ~¡!¡~
I ./ --' :. ~ ~i-
'Ii¡ (/ I . .c
if I. /
¡I
- ~\-I~ OSD
/ .~'/ .~
,r
;.~-'-),.. II
,f"["~ "
: . " ~ ;:, ..". ..,... " '" ..,..,
. 5 I'::::::::,~~':: ;;;:,;'"
. . ). /1. .,........'" ,. ... .:;::
. r Ii' "'... n .. ..... .
. . ',' "...... " " '... ""
: ~ ~ ;.;::::'::::::. ::::~.::;,
/ 1 I'. ....... ...... n ... ""
I; ; ':~ :::~":~'.:' ~ :::.::,:';
-{~ I,;: :::~..:::,;'.. :: :::;::::';
. ¡I" ............ ,. .... .."
I': ::;:':.::~:~'.' :: :~:~',:;:::
¡""""""'"" .. ..,.....'
I:: ::::'::,~:~'" :: :;~:.::.".
i\." ,....., :: ;;::'::.:'
'\\ :: :;:::~:~:.
\\~.. :: :::~:::::'
\\" .. ......."
~1' :; :::';:';,"
~~... .. .."...~.
~ ~ ~"'" " .".... "..
.,. ~ ,,'..
'" >,'<,
'. '"
"-:':. <.~
J
"."
OSD 14,15,24
.
. RANCHO DEL REV OPEN SPACE
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 20
\
! ,:
t.
j
! ~ OSD20
2.1-'2-0
-' ---- r' ~-----,
, '-;-. --- --.. --"'----, -
~ , '. ~.._--; '~-~'"~~~~... -40 .-
...~ -- --.. ,
C --- "----" ,
"-.." "
--. -- r '>
-- -- ~<
. "'.- ., ,- . '...
::"'..... -, --~ -';::;"1 , 00 + ~...... ... .
~--_. .. .=J'"' , "
.' .. """1 .
---, ~
' . ' ~~1 ~ ~
- - - ."....1 t" I 1 I . ...
... - '~/SrA 1- - Þ
"U' A y, ", \'1" .
' ... ,. .. " . .,0
t':o'flo, "
!!"'.. r r-
'c ';".,' . , ,
'\, ;"':\~:"."\"",""~".'i() ~'I> 144...1 L'
'..; ~~:>-".;..:....... () ('. .
' """"~."'. , " .
":,0.\ ...,. "-"". ";
"',~; ""'~;o.:"'" -.. ,.... ,
" -- ", , , .t.i&f", "
0;\1- ,,~~
" \' ;:: CA'N . ~
'," r ~' 1..
"'""". .,
. , " -, ~,-"'\..
þ. 1O I I I
~ I. 'I ,. r
2 - 1 I I -,--
. <¡;>- , . -~.. - "M"
1 ¡ ! "i" L..¡
t €::.. - - h,
~ ~# ~
ST
i "E" "
'.. - ..'.... ,
., .. 010 , ¡ 1 I ..
! ¡ . ... . ..""". v
' ¡ , ", , , . ! . .
I ,-", "'" ..
01..°'°0 . .' ~.*... £<> ~
<;.t.. " .. ,
' T".. >"'-..
\- ~~ " , : ~ qo'l' ti.
...... - '.... !!... .. '.
., - . ",
- J iT... .!i . (.hm :: ~ ~I:! .-J~.
-1!- ( '" ,. .. . 'I" . -./,
¡ r '~,-o:'.,,:~ "°00.' y, ;<; "
'-,.r- . . ¡t '~"'¡,';1rrL -' * ,
11~J:. , ~
~! ~ .. ~
.... ,. ~~ ~'
',', I¡ I . ¡~, ¡
"', ~...r .. ~. ..
.- ()...2!.5.1...!: .. f ¡ ~ ;¡ - ; ~
0 .. '.. . . <
. D ¡;¡ ..on.'.. ....- . . , .
-, . . . . ,
"T ~ ¡:
- . ". ..
... " +" ¡ "
""" , -'
1 ~ ¡; ,..,TA W",,"'. "
~..." ;; . ¡ )-.---¡¡¡. -
~ . . ~..=. ~. \ '.' ¡- -
_/:1 .2/-
2.., - 2-1 fOWl; CENtER
1
. . t .
-' ..
. ..- _.~
-
-æ
I .. -
..... J ~
I-.
I> , ~ t. i '"::1 - .E" ! I t 1/ II Si.
f>Oc.Lf"\dArl I ~ "'
== ,4*,'II(}I/.,,'8. .
- I.ST~"I.A^,r
. ø ~
t::) (S'7.f)ZI.Z9) ~ -
-
~---- :k
..,J &(,
ø I¡) .,AY$ INN
""'¿: 'CI(' 14
¿ç¡;;a~ rt
..¡J. (.40:7.(;i! 1.38) \ ~
'~'~ Œ> \ ~
.. . j "'----
: ~ £t. i¿:KI rc
Ii /r4S",:¡W'/{.e.Nr -
I,¡J I
... I
... iil (S67.(?i!I'.17) l
....
. Ii <D
~ J
--- I.... I
II SOI./¡J I!XCI-fANG£
V)
iTa ~£~,AlI,qA^,'T t:(
I' \ J¡
ii ....
I! ~ -
II
....
II'
¡I !J \. .
II-:f:" --I .J.J sr.
~ l\ I 11
-
L II
- gl..w" IT r I r ~C
Z.A.O. BAY BOULEVARD £P-:2:l: 2.1-22..
----... .--'
o.:.~t
- - _O~-!9~89- - LIGHTING a LANDSCAPING DISTRICT
-
(-
þ.Mr:NDFD D\AGRAM
EAST LAKE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO.1
.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO. STATE OF CALIFQRNIA
~~ I
'
\.--':/C'"
"'..."'>' .'"
'.," ......;."'" j
, ,.,' ,::./',.> ;
, "', \ .' ~ -
\: .. '- -
All --- WAI ~ Iff - c:rrr - Of till
c:rrr Of CMUU. """...".,. Of ~... OOI'~ 01'
I.AIIO - 001 "* ...- --'" ~ lIAr,
.... .....- .". LrIIID 001 - - ~y Of -'
,.. ...ø"'IN_--~"'D-_I"
- ~ - IIICOII- .. - 0I'tCt Of - c:rrr
-- Of - c:rrr Of QlULA 'lIlT. 001 tIIl- DAY 01'
-,"" __.ItODITO_-~1IOI.L
__..__Of-cm----
DIoC'T - Of ~...--..~ AllAIN" lAC"
.- CIf ..- ..- 011 ".. --....-aNT
--. .', ,,-,1I-_1O--*".
-_._-,-----
--' Of - ,-.t,
ern CUM' ern Of CttIIIoA """A
, ' ~
~.__OI'_c:rrr"""Of_c:rrr
OI'CIIIIILA"""A__",TOI' -"" \¡¡í:¡:,:::j 1- A
c:rrr-- '
ern Of ØMA "MfA --- ...-, I818t --
- .. - - Of - ern CUM 01' .... ern 01' c::> AlKSS"'" 110
C8ILU _A - - DAT Of - ,.., ........ __lID,
--- 8TIIØ'! - ..-K --œ
ern CUM, c:trT 01' -.A _A ---- I'lliii' \.-'" a 1IIU ~
:.- c::. ~ :::- ~:::.-- ==: -- --.-.~I'IIIØT ~~
5.'" MOO. "A,. 01' ~ ~
1.8T\.A- IIAIm""oalMlftlCT 110. r
COIIII\'T ~ Of - - -*" :2, - ¿.3 IIØf lID, I Of I
0'
AMFNDED DIAGRAM
EASTLAKE MA INTENANCE DISTR ICT NO. I
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
I I
!
. \~~ j
~ ~\~~ -
~ . - -
J \ ~I - O~" ;
~-~, /"
\' \ / / /~-- ""'" ~
'Î I ~......J~ \\.1 / /;:;~:/ "'-\'\ ~ y ~ .
\ I I J / r:::::::-1,/ '\. ~
¡illl 1/); ~í'
\~ J I \ I Ii!
\. I \ \\ (¡
Iii \~ II ZONES f
, L JI I
isl \r=-¡F~~ \\\
! I I " ----'~
( ; I II "~.:::--_/:/----ì
¡i I ~ II - --- \~~
II I // \ \ \~
I I /1 \ \ ~
I /; \ \ ~
I 1/ \\ '\~ .
'It \'\ ~\
r~ - - ,,~ /,-"
,,~ /1 ~
"'~ ¿/ \\
, ~ ~
'~ /~ j
~, ,/
I '-----;:::.~' "'-"-....
----~....-
,.¡//
----......""
- -s;:;z~.¡¡- --
-- -"~- - --
:.::-- -
.I".I~CI II ~"Uy tW>I TO 1141 COUNTY 01'
IIAH 01100. A"IIIO. """CIL MA'I,OII DlTAlLaÐ
DlMI~IIONI 01' ,~DtVlDU"" """CILS. ~~
IAlTL""1 ""'NTI~ANCI DllT'Uct ~o. I
_It NO,I 01' I
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item ø2).
Meeting Date 07/20/93
ITEM TITLE: PUBLIC HEARING ON AMENDING THE CITY'S 1992-93 HOME
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
RESOLUTION Amending the City's HOME Program
Description to Reallocate Funds for Acquisition of Rental Property; Approving
an Agreement in Lieu of Condemnation of the Property at 31 Fourth Avenue;
Approving a Housing Cooperation Agreement Between the City and South Bay
Community Services (SBCS) for the Development of a Short-term Housing
Facility for Homeless Families; and, Appropriating Funds not to exceed
$617,646 for a Loan to SBCS for Acquisition and Rehabilitation of a 14-unit
Apartment Building at 31 Fourth Avenue and Authorizing the City Manager to
execute associated loan documents
SUBMITTED BY: Community Development Director ( ~ '
REVIEWED BY: City ManagerJ~ ~~ (4/5ths Vote: YES -1L NO -)
South Bay Community Services (SBCS) is a local, non-profit, public benefit corporation providing a
variety of services to youth and families in the South Bay with emphasis in Chula Vista. SBCS is in
escrow to purchase a 14-unit apartment building at 31 Fourth Avenue which they plan to develop into
a short-term housing facility for homeless families. SBCS has requested a grant/loan of $617,646 of
HOME federal housing funds for acquisition and rehabilitation of the apartment building.
The City Council. at its meeting: on March 23. 1993. conceptually approved fundin...g in the amount
of $618.000 for the Project. and at its meeting on July 13. 1993 approved a Conditional Use Permit
for the project. Funds identified for the project at that meeting were Agency housing set-aside funds
and CDBG entitlement funds. Based on a letter from HUD, the project is now eligible for HOME
federal housing funds, of which the City has $1.243 million. To utilize the HOME funds for this
project, the City must reallocate funds to the rental property acquisition category of its 1992-93
HOME Program Description.
The Housing Cooperation Agreement provides that the City's duty to make the loan will be contingent
on, among other things, receipt of a loan from National City of $250,000. The Agreement contains
strong provisions regarding property management and occupancy standards. It requires the submittal
and approval of a comprehensive property management plan.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council open the public hearing and continue the public
heariIq: to a date and time certain. that bein ¡ Tuesday, Au ¡ust 10. 1993 at 6:00 p.rn.. in the
Council Chambers.
[DHISBCSI-2.113l
,),;. ." I
I
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item ~3
Meeting Date 7/20/93
ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing: Review and Consideration of the Growth
M~g=,", O,=""" Cor"'""'" (GMOC) 1992 ^""'" _rt
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Planning ~ ~ dotS bßr~
REVIEWED BY: City Manage~ ~ ~ (4/5ths Vote: Yes_NoX)
Attached is the GMOC's 1992 Annual Report on the City's compliance with the Quality-of-Life
Thresholds Standards. It focuses on the period from July 1, 1991 to June 30, 1992, although
issues identified in the second half of 1992 and early 1993 have also been discussed. The
chainnan's cover memorandum to the Report provides a summary of the GMOC's [IDdings and
recommendations. This hearing will give the GMOC an opportunity to discuss the Report's
findings and recommendations with the City Council.
The GMOC is scheduled to commence its next review in October 1993, which will focus on the
period from July 1, 1992 to June 30, 1993.
RECOMMENDATIONS: That Council:
1. Accept the 1992 GMOC Annual Report and recommendations contained therein, and
direct staff to undertake actions necessary to implement those recommendations.
2. Direct staff to prepare the necessary Statements of Concern for issuance by the Mayor
regarding the Water, Schools, and Air Quality Thresholds.
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS:
The Planning Commission, on May 12, 1993, voted 7-0 to accept the 1992 GMOC Report and
recommendations as presented, and to recommend that Council do the same. In a companion
motion, the Planning Commission voted 6-1 to recommend that strong priority be given to
preparation of the Parks Implementation Plan (PIP) and a Greenbelt Master Plan.
The Montgomery Planning Committee, due to the current lack of a membership quorum, did not
attend the May 12, 1993 workshop meeting.
~'3-1
I
Page 2, Item-
Meeting Date 7/20/93
DISCUSSION:
The GMOC approved their final 1992 Report and recommendations on April 29, 1993. Council
was initially scheduled to consider the Report at its May 27, 1993 workshop meeting, however,
conflicts have not allowed the matter to be rescheduled until this time. In summary, the GMOC
found that the City is in compliance with the thresholds for Libraries, Sewer, Drainage, Traffic,
Fire and Emergency Medical Service, Fiscal, and Parks and Recreation. The City is not in
compliance with the threshold for Police, although the shortfall was slight and related only to
Priority I calls for service. The Police Department is implementing a variety of remedial
measures with marked improvement in response statistics for early 1993, which if representative
of the balance of the fiscal year would indicate compliance (please refer to Attachment C,
Appendix A - numbered as pgs. C-3 to C-5). The GMOC recommends issuance of Statements
of Concern for the Water, Schools, and Air Quality thresholds.
The report contains complete discussions on each threshold topic, and related specific
recommendations for Council action may be found within the report in bold italic print, and
denoted by "." markings.
Regarding the Planning Commission's recommendations, staff of the Planning and Parks and
Recreation Departments are currently preparing a work program proposal for in-house
preparation of the Parks Implementation Plan (PIP), which proposal will be forwarded in the
near future for Council consideration. Once completed, the PIP will serve as one component
of a GreenbeJt Master PJan.
FISCAL IMPACT: None at this time. Future implementing actions may have direct fiscal
impacts which will be identified when those actions are proposed.
Attachments:
A. Unofficial minutes of the May 12, 1993 Planning Commission / Montgomery
Planning Committee workshop meeting. NOTSCANNm
B. Chairman's cover memo and 1992 GMOC Annual Report.
C. Appendices to the 1992 Annual Report.
(gm92q>LA13)
dl.:J-~ / ~~-8
I
: ~ -t.....-. '2. ~
A TT ACHMENT A
J, 3 - j
/1-/
.
MINUTES OF A SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE J)Jj~~El
GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION,
PLAI\TNING COMMISSION,
AND MONTGOMERY PLANNING COMMITTEE
Wednesday, May 12, 1993 PubJic Services Building
5:30 p.m. Conference Rooms 2 and 3
ROLL CALL
Growth Manaeement Ove.'sieht Commission
Members Present: Mike Armbrust, Tris Hubbard, Will Hyde, Thomas Martin, Charles
Peter, Ricardo Reyes (Elizabeth Allen arrived Jate)
Members Absent: Steve Hann (unexcused)
PJannine Commission
Members P.'esent: Susan Fuller, Thomas Martin, John Ray, Frank Tarantino, William
Tuchscher (John Moot arrived late)
Members Absent: Joanne Carson (arrived late)
Monteomerv Plannine Committee
Members Present: None (The Montgomery Planning Committee, with only three current
members, has insufficient membership to achieve a quorum)
MembeJ'S Absent: A.S. McFarlin, Clay Platt, Philip Scheuer
Staff Present
Planning Director Robert Leiter
Associate Planner Ed Batchelder
GMOC APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MSUC (Hubbard/Peter) (5-0, Elizabeth Allen not yet arrived) to approve the minutes of the
April 29, 1993 meeting, as presented.
1. INTRODUCTIONS
GMOC Chairman Will Hyde thanked those present for attending, and called for introductions.
Mr. Hyde introduced the Growth Management Oversight Commission members present; Susan
Fuller introduced Planning Commission members present; and Planning Director Bob Leiter
introduced staff present.
.:2:s-Lf
,4-z,
.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION/ MA Y 12, 1993
PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 2
2. PRESENTATION OF THE 1992 GMOC REPORT
Mr. Hyde presented the 1992 GMOC report and its recommendations to the Planning
Commission, inviting their comments. He stated that subsequent to this meeting, the GMOC
report will be forwarded to the City Council; any comments and/or recommendations offered
by the Planning Commission, along with the GMOC's response, would be included with the
report.
3. COMMENTS/OUESTIONS
Traffic
Planning Commission Chair Fuller stated that Commissioner Carson had requested discussion
on the issue of raising traffic threshold standard requirements from level of service "C" to "B".
Mr. Hyde responded that he was unaware of any previous suggestions along this line, noting the
revision of the traffic standard completed in 1991. Mr. Martin stated that there had been some
mention of possibly revisiting the standard at a recent workshop with the City Traffic
Engineering Division. Mr. Hyde noted tllat the GMOC report made mention of the potential
future overtaxing of East H Street. He stated that it appears that if currently approved
development leveJs occur, East H Street may not be able to maintain level "C". Frank Tarantino
pointed out that last year's GMOC report had brought up the same issue, and asked why traffic
evaluations don't consider this. John Ray stated that most people's concerns are not with daily
averages, but with tramc levels during peak periods. Planning Director Bob Leiter stated that
the level of service "C" is planned for, except during peak hour periods when Jevel "D" is
considered acceptable. Mr. Martin asked what would happen if the LOS is not met; Mr. Leiter
explained the process in place, noting that there has been at least one period in the past when
a short term building moratorium took place as a result of unacceptable traffic levels of service.
Mr. Hyde pointed out that these concerns are presented on pages 26 and 27 of the report.
Mr. Ray stated that he was more concerned with the LOS as a measurement tool and whether
the current methodology was the best one; Mr. Leiter indicated that LOS standards couJd be
raised or measured differently, noting that a variety of techniques are used nationwide. He
suggested that the GMOC could look at this issue during the next review cycle. William
Tuchscher stated that the Planning Commission has discussed new measurement methods. but
added that alternative methods may cost significantly more to implement. Mr. Leiter stated that
other cities' measurement methods could be compared to the City's current methods.
Police
Frank Tarantino questioned the vacancies in the Police Department; Associate Planner Ed
Batchelder explained that some of these had been filled, and that some were to be filled by
candidates currently in academies. Mr. Tarantino asked if, with a higher percentage of
personnel being deployed on the streets, the Police Department was becoming more reactive than
proactive; Mr. Hyde responded that Chief Emerson was working on proactive and outreach
efforts, adding that there was no apparent indication that response time shortfalls were growth-
.;2:5 .~
/1-,5
-
GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION/ MAY 12, 1993
PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 3
related, as there had been an increase in calls in the western Chula Vista area. However, he
noted that this could have resulted from an increase in community awareness. The Police
Department will also be looking al current threshold standards to determine if they are the best
measure of po1ice performance.
John Ray asked if there had been any discussion of Police Department satellite stations; Mr.
Hyde noted that the Police Department has taken this under consideration, but does not have
current plans to estab1ish any. Mr. Ray stated that minimum threshold standards shouJd be set
which would trigger a requirement for substations. Tris Hubbard added that response times
could also be measured on a geographic basis.
Schools
Mr. Tarantino brought up the discussion on schools, pointing out that while Eastlake High
School will be year-round, part of this program allows those who do not wish to attend year-
round to opt out, and many will be 1ikely to utilize this option, thereby impacting the already
overcrowded Bonita Vista High School. He felt that the report indicates that schools wi11 be
doing adequately, and he disagreed with this. Discussion ensued regarding multi-track
scheduling. Susan Fuller asked if there had been any discussions with the school districts
regarding the use. of innovative scheduling: she stated that outside agencies need to remind the
districts that it is their boards that set policy on scheduling, when they complain of the lack of
money for new facilities. Tris Hubbard responded that the issue of innovative schedu1ing had
been discussed with schools, and was addressed on page 12 of the report. Mr. Leiter added that
ajoint school mitigation study is being planned by the City, SANDAG, and both schooJ districts.
This study would provide one forum to address mitigation of school impacts and overcrowding.
-Planning Commissioner John Moot arrived at 6:08 p.m.-
Route 125 and Interim ThOl'ouehfare
Charles Peter brought up the issue of SR-125, and the interim thoroughfare currently under
discussion. He stated that there were concerns about the adequacy and the potential impacts of
the interim thoroughfare. Mr. Tuchscher asked if all of the GMOC members had similar
concerns; others stated that they did. Mr. Moot asked if there has been any pursuit of federal
funding related to free trade routes; Mr. Leiter responded that there has been some research into
such potential funding sources.
Parks and Recreation
Mr. Hyde stated that the GMOC has once again asked that park thresholds be changed to appJy
west of I-80S as well. He pointed out that there is no park implementation plan in place; the
City Council allocated funding for such a plan, but directed preparation by staff rather than by
a consultant as originally planned. He stated that this may significantly delay the pJan's
preparation. Mr. Hyde stated that the report also asks for a green belt master pJan, as calJed
for by the City's General Plan, noting that this is especially important since in absence of such
d.3,- b ,4-1"
".
GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION/ MA Y 12, 1993
PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 4
a plan, the greenbelt areas of the city are currently subject to being eroded up by development.
Mr. Leiter stated that a greenbelt master plan is a good idea, and could serve to tie together the
variety of current open space/habitat planning efforts. He pointed out that the Otay Regional
Park is currently being planned, but moves slowly as it involves multi-jurisdictional pJanning.
He discussed ongoing multi-species conservation efforts as well, such as the habitat conservation
plan being prepared for the Sweetwater River. Mr. Leiter added that greenbelts should have
recreational options as well provide for conservation.
Mr. Hubbard noted that an opportunity existed to provide a bicyde/jogging path from the
Bayfront to the Sweetwater River. Mr. Leiter agreed. adding that there is a need to do more
trail planning. Mr. Tuchscher asked if the Otay Regional Park would provide active park areas;
Mr. Leiter responded that it would.
-Growth.Management Oversight Commissioner Elizabeth Allen arrived at 6:40-
John Moot staled that a mitigation banking system should be seriously looked at by staff; Mr.
Leiter answered that this is currently being studied through the clean water program. Mr. Leiter
advised that both Parks & Recreation and the Planning Department had induded PIP pJanning
in next year's budget proposals. He noted that a park implementation plan is required by state
law in order to collect Park Acquisition & Development fees from apartment construction.
- Planning Commissioner Joanne Carson arrived at 6:50 -
4. ACTION
MSUC (Ray/Moot) (7-0) to accept the 1992 Growth Management Oversight Commission report
and recommendations, and recommend the City Council do the same.
Mr. Ray stated his desire to write a letter regarding traffic thresholds for the following year;
Mr. Tarantino stated that he would like to highlight support for the Green Belt Management Plan
and the Park Implementation Plan; Mr. Tuchscher stated that he would not support special
consideration of these Parks items over others.
MSC (Tarantino/Ray) (6-1, Tuchscher against) to state, in addition to accepting the report, the
recommendation that strong priority be given to the Park Implementation Plan and Green Belt
Master Plan.
S. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 6:55 p.m.
1/ðtl~ tJ£VU~
dJ~7 Patty N vins, Recorder
,4-S-
ATTACHMENT B
.d-~/g 11-/
-
MEMORANDUM
May 14, 1993
TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Growth Management Oversight Commission
SUBJECT: 1992 GMOC REPORT
The GMOC is pleased to present its 1992 Report to the Mayor and City Council. Now in its
fifth year, each year seems to bring continuing evolution and improvement to the GMOC review
process in terms of the amount and quality of information provided, depth of Commission
perspective and discussion, and the overall effectiveness of the quality-of-life threshold
standards program in guiding the City's development. Likewise, along with such sophistication
comes new awareness, and issues to confront in ensuring continued program effectiveness and
long-term preservation of resident's quality-of-life. To these ends, the GMOC's 1992 Report
reflects those mattérs which we sincerely believe important for the City Council to actively
address.
Regarding growth management's growing importance, the GMOC would also like to note
beginning implementation of the Regional Growth Management Strategy (RGMS) through the
San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), and application ofthe RGMS in evaluating
SANDAG's forthcoming Series 8 regional growth forecasts to the year 2015. Onset of these
efforts will afford the ability to better evaluate regional and subregional trends impacting the
City's future growth rates and characteristics, and enable facility and service preplanning and
coordination considering the impacts of all projects within and adjacent to the City's Planning
Area. This broadening of growth management's perspective becomes increasingly relevant as
we begin addressing more regional-serving facilities which impact local planning, such as
SR125.
Following is a summary of the 1992 Report's highlights and related GMOC recommendations:
1. The City is in compliance with the following Thresholds:
LIbraries
Sewer
Drainage
Traffic
Fire and Emergency Medical Service
Fiscal
Parks and Recreation
d-J-r 1J~ 2.
Hyde/GMOC -2- May 14, 1993
Although not a factor in this report, the issue of whether a population based, area
standard is an adequate measure of library service provision was brought up. The
GMOC intends to evaluate the standard in this regard next year.
In conjunction with the establishment of the San Diego Area Wastewater Management
District (SDAWMD) on January 1, 1993, which replaces the Metro sewer management
system, the GMOC wishes to emphasize the important decision which the City must
make in the near future to remain in the SDAWMD or leave. The decision could
significantly affect the City's future approach to providing adequate sewage treatment
capacity and water reclamation.
A second year of heavy rains continues to draw attention to needed drainage
improvements west of 1-805, which under current funding conditions would take more
than 20 years to complete. Re-evaluation of this situation, and development of an
aggressive funding strategy to allow more rapid completion of the most important of
these projects is necessary.
Potentially serious future "H" Street traffic problems both east and west of 1-805
continue to be of particular concem. Traffic studies done for recent project approvals
indicate that "H" Street will need to function at or very near its maximum capacity,
providing little if any reserve should actual conditions prove different than the models.
If a comprehensive reevaluation of land use and circulatory demands in the "H" Street
corridor is not undertaken, traffic thresholds on this street may soon be exceeded.
Additionally, the Engineering Department has indicated that due to the change from the
ICU to HCM method of measurement, provision #2 of the traffic threshold standard may
need to be revised or eliminated. As further evaluation is necessary, this possible
change will be considered with the next review in October 1993.
At this time, the GMOC concurs with the Fire Department's recommendation that
consideration of splitting the Fire and EMS standard be deferred for 2 to 3 years for
reasons as stated in the report.
Although the Finance Director's report indicates a currently sound fiscal condition,
impacts from the ongoing recession and any forthcoming State budget cuts for FY 1993-
94 on City operations and growth management programs, will be better known when the
GMOC commences its next review in October 1993.
As endorsed in concept by the City Council last year, the GMOC strongly encourages
timely adoption of a revised Parks and Recreation threshold standard to achieve 3 acres
of parkland per 1000 population in the area west of 1-805 as well ,as east. Completion
of the Westem Chula Vista Parks Implementation Plan (PIP) is critical, as the PIP will
address Council's inquiries and other matters which must be resolved before the final
language of a revised standard can be completed. Furthermore, the PIP also forms the
foundation for action on several of the GMOC's other parks recommendations, including
a request that the City expeditiously adopt a Greenbelt Master Plan to complement the
new PIP.
;)3 -/0 8-3
-
Hyde/GMOC -3- May 14, 1993
2. The City is not in compliance with the following Threshold:
Police
The threshold for Priority I (emergency) calls for service was not met for the second
consecutive review period, although the shortfall was slight. While the Police
Department has identified and is implementing remedies which reflect improvement in
the first months of 1993, the City should continue to closely monitor response rates on
a quarterly basis during 1993. Attention should also be given to devising a measure or
system to enable quantification of growth's effects on police service, and to the
increased use of Community Service Officers. The GMOC also desires to receive and
evaluate information during its next review regarding the neighborhood watch program.
3. The GMOC recommends that the City Council issue Statements of Concem for the
following threshold standards:
Water
Despite the recent official end to the State's prolonged drought, and the increased
coordination and cooperation between the City and the two major water districts, the
GMOC remalns concemed about the long-term water availability situation, and planning
efforts for adequate storage and reclamation facilities. Continued attention to
encouraging completion and implementation of the various ongoing planning activities
of both districts and the County Water Authority, as outlined in the report, is essential.
Schools
Overcrowding at local schools within both the elementary and high school district
continues to be a problem, particularly within the elementary district west of 1-805 where
opportunities for facility expansion are currently limited. While the school districts should
be encouraged to implement innovative scheduling methods and techniques, such as
multi-track, to alleviate overcrowding, the City should continue to fully support the
districts through a variety of cooperative efforts as outlined in the report.
Air Quality
Although the San Diego region continued to experience improvement in overall air
quality during 1992, an acceptable level of air quality has not yet been achieved.
Implementation of APCD's recently adopted Regional Air Quality Strategy (AQS) and
its various measures such as the TCM and TDM Plans, and an Indirect Source
Reduction Plan are critical to continued air quality improvement and should be
encouraged and fully supported by the City. The AQS's implementation measures also
provide the basis for possible revisions to the air quality threshold standard by providing
the basis for establishing better annual measurement benchmarks. Such possible
revisions should be considered with the GMOC's 1993 review. While not discussed in
the report, use of altemate fuels (ethanol, methanol, etc.) is a topic of growing interest,
and one which the GMOC would like to receive more information on next year.
J] - /1
'8-~
Hyde/GMOC -4- May 14, 1993
In closing, the GMOC is pleased to note that growth management considerations now appear
to be a routine, integral part of City planning and management. We also believe that the
School, Water and Air Pollution Control Districts are equally responsive in their recognition of
and cooperation with the City's program. Once again, we commend staff for the high degree
of professionalism and support for the growth management program and the Commission; in
particular Ed Batchelder, Gordon Howard and Bob Leiter.
Sincerely,
W»<"l~
Will T. Hyde
Chairman, GMOC
(gmoc92rp.meml
dJ-ld-
B-.5
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION
1992 REPORT
,
SUBMITTED
MAY 1993
J.3 -/3 e-¿
I
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION
1992 REPORT
Commission Members
"-
WIll T. Hyde, Chairman (Environmental)
Chuck Peter, Vice Chairman (Business)
Thomas Martin (Planning Commission)
Mike Armbrust (Center City)
Ricardo Reyes (Education)
Elizabeth Allen (Montgomery)
Tris Hubbard (Eastern Territories)
vacancy (Development)
vacancy (Sweetwater)
Staff
Robert A. Leiter, Planning Director
Gordon H. Howard, Principal Planner
Edgar Batchelder, Associate Planner
May 1993
J3~)i 8-7
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TODic f!M
Introduction 1
Process 2
Development Forecasts 2
Threshold/Annual Review Summary 4
Annual Review of Thresholds
'.
Police 5
Water 7
Schools 11
Air Quality 17
Libraries 20
Sewer 21
Drainage 23
Traffic 24
Fire/EMS 28
Fiscal 29
Parks and Recreation 30.
ADDendix
A. Police Department Memorandum I. Finance Department
B. Water District Communications Memorandum
C. School District Communications J. Parks and Recreation
D. APCD Communications Department Memorandum
E. Library Memorandum K. Development Forecast
F. Engineering Sewer and Drainage Reports Report
G. Engineering Traffic Reports
H. Fire Department Memorandum
~J - /ç
11~;
I
GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION
1992 REPORT
May 1, 1993
INTRODUCTION
In November 1987, through the input of citizens and developers, the City Council adopted
the Threshold/Standards Policy for Chula Vista. Eleven public facility and service issues
are addressed by the Policy and each is discussed in terms of a goal, objectives,
"threshold" or standard, and implementation measures. The Standards form the backbone
of an overall growth management program for the City which has evolved sir¡ce 1987
through adoption of a Growth Management Element of the General Plan in 1989, and a
Growth Management Program document and Implementing Ordinance in 1991. Adherence ,
to these Citywide Standards is intended to preserve and enhance public services, the
environment, and the quality-of-life of Chura Vista residents as growth occurs.
To provide an independent annual City-wide Threshold/Standards compliance review, a
Growth Management Oversight Committee (GMOC) was created. The Committee was
appointed by the City Council in the summer of 1988. It is composed of nine members
representing a geographical balance of residents as well as a cross section of interest
including education, environmental, business and development. There is also
representation by the Planning Commission. In April of 1991, the City Council changed
the designation of the Committee to the Growth Management Oversight Commission. As
Commission vacancies occur they should be filled reflecting the geographic or special
interest designation which they represent.
The responsibilities of the Commission in conducting its annual review include the
following: a determination of whether the thresholds have been complied with on both a
project and cumulative basis over the prior year; whether compliance is likely to be
maintained based on both short-term and long-term development forecasts; whether each
threshold is appropriate for its goal; whether any new thresholds should be adopted for any
issues; whether any new issues should be added to or deleted from the threshold group;
whether the City has been using developer fees for the intended purpose; what the fiscal
impact of threshold compliance may be; and whether the means of compliance are
appropriate and being achieved.
Development projects in Chula v'isla are required to demonstrate that the
Threshold/Standards will be maintained as growth occurs, and are appropriately
conditioned to assure that needed facilities and services are in place in advance of, or
concurrent with proposed development. This "concurrency" policy promotes the
continuation of a high quality-of-life for existing as well as future city residents.
1
23 - /?;
g-'f
PROCESS
The Growth Management Oversight Commission met from January through April 1993.
The Commission spent the first several meetings reviewing the threshold policies and
determining compliance with those policies based On reports which were submitted by both
individual City departments and extemal agencies. Presentations of the reports were made
by representatives of the both water districts, both school districts, the San Diego County
Air Pollution Control District. and City staff including Engineering, Traffic Engineering, Parks
and Recreation, Library, Fire, Police, Finance, and Planning. The GMOC reviewed each
threshold and determined whether or not it was appropriate to issue a statement of
concern or make other recommendations regarding that threshold. Following completion
of the individual threshold reviews, the GMOC prepared, reviewed and adopted this annual
report.
In accordance with the change from a calendar to a fiscal year cycle, this year's review ...
period was scheduled to begin in October 1992 so that the GMOC could complete the
annual report prior to commencement of Fiscal Year 1992-93 budget deliberations in
January 1993. However, the process did not begin until January 1993, due to delays in
production of the development forecasts due to timing of the release of initial figures from
the San Diego Association of Government's (SANDAG) Series 8 regional forecasting
updates. Officially, the review period for this report is July 1,1991 through June 30,1992.
However, any issues identified during the second half of 1992 and early in 1993 have also
been discussed in this report. The next review period will begin in October of 1993, and
address the period from July 1, 1992 through June 30, 1993.
DEVELOPMENT FORECASTS
The Threshold/Standards Policy calls for City staff to prepare both short-range (12 to 18
month) and mid-range (5 to 7 years) development forecasts at the beginning of the annual
GMOC review process. Complimentary to threshold performance evaluation over the prior
year period, these forecasts serve to provide a common basis by which the GMOC, staff
and external agencies can identify and address future potential threshold concerns before
a problem arises. The forecasts were prepared in NC?vember 1992 in cooperation with
SANDAG, and distributed to the respective agencies and City departments for evaluation
and report back to the GMOC. Copies of the forecast are included in Appendix K.
12-18 Month Forecast
In response to the uncertain current economic climate, two sets of forecast figures
consisting of a range with a high end and low end were included. The high end forecast
primarily reflects the local development community's anticipated construction schedules,
and projects 1.264 dwelling units to be permitted for construction and 1.629 dwelling units
to reach occupancy over the next 18 months. The low end forecast, which is more
market/economic climate driven, is based on a 24-month trend analysis of prior
construction activity during 1991 and 1992, and projects 1.000 dwelling units to be
permitted for construction and 1.050 dwelling units to reach occupancy over the next 18
2
j),3~/7 -g- /ð
I
months. The forecast range reflects the uncertainty in the timing of development and in
the amount of construction activity that may take place. Construction activity slowed
considerably in 1992 as a result ofthe continuing recession, the associated lack of demand
in the housing market, and the difficulty or inability of builders to secure financing. By
comparison, residential development activity levels in both 1991 and 1992 were about one
half of average annual levels experienced during the later 1980's. Local economic
forecasters do not project improvement until the latter part of 1993.
5-7 Year Forecast
It should first be noted that this year's mid-range forecast reflects a substantial revision in
methodology in coordination with SANDAG and their Series 8 regional forecast. The
decision to modify the methodology arises from a need to refine the local forecasting
process to incorporate regional and subregional trends which will directly impact the City's
future growth rates and characteristics. Incorporation of such trends enables the City to '
consider the impacts of all projects within and adjacent to its planning area, so that facility
and service needs can be preplanned in concert with the policies of the City and other
affected governmental agencies. The forecast publication is attached as an appendix to
this report, and provides a full description of this improved approach.
Similar to the 12-18 month forecast, a high and low-end range were used. City-wide,
during the next five to seven years, the average annual number of dwelling units expected
to be completed ranges from a low of 1.179 to a high of 1.388. These annual averages
reflect increased activity levels in the latter years of the forecast (post 1995) associated
with the projected commencement of construction in Otay Ranch. This forecast also takes
into consideration known facility capacity limitations, particularly those related to traffic
circulation and the proposed State Route 125 phasing and financing study.
While a majority of the forecast is attributable to growth in eastern Chula Vista, the figures
do reflect approximately 200 dwelling units per year of infill development in western Chula
Vista based primarily on an analysis of historic trends.
3 02J" / g
11-//
c c
-'wZ
OI.:)W
%z::l
1/)<::1
w%o
~u~
c~w~ --;!
z¡::~z .-...-...'.-
~~~~ ~:1 ,
)0 Czo::l ~M)
I <~~8 Jlli
:;)
I/) I<.
00~0 W
~ ~~III~WU
5: ffi~iii)o~~
iLl ..wZU--,
iii: lnuOZ%D.
~zD.wu:¡¡
-' <01/)1.:)<0
< ~uw< U
i I/) iii: .,
NZ
=<
... . W
I/) Cu
C -'z
iii: O<~
< %-W
c I/)-':¡¡
Z II! fi
~ ~o
I/) U
C
-'
0
%
I/) ~ .c
II! ~ .19.2'
% '1:.. c%
F 0'" .. c
,f; E i.S!
= ~ - c C
< C' W:;) 0
t. .19 ~ ¡
!!: i"l ~si i
~ >-'; I/) iii:
1/)5.BI/)æ'!I8. 1
.. ~ ] I ~ 'I: ~ . - ... .
... .. ð ~ J c . œ ~
- ~ ! ~ -... ~ ~
l ~ . ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ d æ ~ ~
~ Ñ M ~ ~ . ~ . ~ ~ ~
23-/1 11-/2-
I
-ANNUAL REVIEW OF THRESHOLDS-
THRESHOLDS REFLECTING STATEMENTS OF CONCERN OR NON-COMPLIANCE
a POLICE
THE GMOC FINDS THAT THE POLICE THRESHOLD HAS NOT BEEN
MAINTAINED ON A CUMULATIVE OR PROJECT BASIS. ALTHOUGH SPECIFIC
REMEDIES HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AND IMPLEMENTED BY THE POLICE
DEPARTMENT WHICH REFLECT SIGNIFICANT IMPROVEMENT SUBSEQUENT
TO THE CURRENT REVIEW PERIOD, THE CITY SHOULD CONTINUE TO
CLOSELY MONITOR THIS THRESHOLD IN THE NEAR FUTURE.
..
During Fiscal Year 1991-92, the threshold for Police services was not met for
Priority I calls, but was met for Priority II calls. The threshold for Priority I "
(emergency) calls requires that 85% of these calls be responded to within 7
minutes, with an average response time of 4.5 minutes or less measured annually.
The actual performance for FY 1991-92 indicates that 81.2% of all Priority I calls
were responded to within 7 minutes with the average response time for all Priority
I calls being 4.9 minutes. However, performance has subsequently improved, with
figures for the period of October 1992 through January 1993 showing an 86%
Priority I response rate within 7 minutes, with the average response time being 4.3
minutes.
With regard to Priority II (urgent) calls, the threshold standard requires that 62% of
all Priority II calls be responded to within 7 minutes, with an average response time
of 7 minutes or less measured annually. The actual performance for FY 1991-92
indicates that 65.8% of all Priority II calls were responded to within 7 minutes with
an average response time of 6.5 minutes. The data indicates that the threshold for
Priority II Police services is being met.
While the department did not meet the Threshold measure for Priority I calls for
service, the department was, in absolute terms, within 3.8% of meeting the measure
in FY 1991-92. This means that had the Department responded to only two more
Priority I calls for service per day within the 7 minute time frame, the threshold
would have been met. While this shortfall represents an actual deterioration over
the period reviewed in last year's report, the GMOC acknowledged that due to the
timing of the review process an.' the change from a calendar to fiscal year basis,
any proposed changes implemented by the department would have limited impact
upon response data for the current reporting period. The cited major contributing
factors affecting performance are as follows:
1) Increase in total call for service (CFS) volume primarily as a result of
community outreach efforts to encourage citizens to report crime. CFS
volume is up 5.5% over that in FY 1990-91, and 18% in the last two calendar
5
:< 3-,). 0
'Z. /$
years (199'1 and 1992). However, no conclusive evidence exists to indicate
that this increase is attributable to growth;
2) increased participation in neighborhood watch programs; and
3) no increase in Patrol staffing for the year despite the CSF volume increase.
Under the new Police Department administration a variety of mitigating efforts are
planned or are being implemented to ameliorate threshold performance deficiencies,
the results of which are reflected in the significantly improved response times noted
for the October 1992 to January 1993 period.
1) Communication Center operational and dispatch procedures hii\le been
validated and are followed consistently.
'-
2) Field supervision of.Patrol staff has been re-emphasized, resulting in greater
officer response flexibility based on CFS volume.
3) Police beats have been realigned, effective 1/1/93, to more closely resemble
the CFS pattern, and to add beats in the developing area east of 1-805.
4) Change from a squad to a shift form of deployment in the Patrol Division,
adding flexibility to have more officers on the street on the days/times when
CFS rates are typically higher.
5) Community Service Officers (CSO) are now taking more crime reports. In
effect, this relieves time spent by sworn officers in taking/making reports and
responding to lower priority calls (III, IV, V), allowing them to improve
response on emergency and urgent calls. From a fiscal perspective, several
CSO's can be hired for the cost of one officer.
6) Working towards full staffing in Patrol, with a zero or less vacancy rate with
152 sworn personnel.
Although the above noted efforts have shown a significant increase in recent
response performance, the threshold must be measured on overall annual
performance. Toward ensuring compliance, and more effectively monitoring the
effects of growth on the deliveoy of Police services, the GMOC recommends the
following to the City Council:
. continue to closely monitor response retes on calls for service
on a quarterly basis during 1993, to confirm whether these
measures will result In the threshold standard for Priority I cells
being met.
6
d3-:¿! 8-/"
I
.
. direct that the Police department devise a measure or system to
enable the quantification of th.e effect of growth on police
performance. This may be accomplished through institution of
a new computer system being proposed for police and fire
calVdispatch management.
. strongly support the increased use of Community Service
Officers. Through assistance in the preparation of reports, and
response on lower priority calls, CSO's effectively increase the
ability of sworn officers to remain In the field and respond to
Priority I and II calls for service.
D WATER
,
THE GMOC REMAINS CONCERNED ABOUT THE lONG~ERM WATER
AVAilABILITY SITUATION. AND PLANNING EFFORTS FOR STORAGE AND
RECLAMATION FACILITIES, AND RECOMMENDS THAT THE CITY COUNCil
ISSUE A STATEMENT OF CONCERN TO BOTH THE SWEETWATER
AUTHORITY AND THE OTAY WATER DISTRICT.
Although several issues relating to water availability, planning and service remain
unresolved. leading to the recommended Statement of Concern, the GMOC is
pleased to recognize the official end to the State's six year drought, and to
acknowledge the progress which has been made by both the Sweetwater Authority
and the Otay Water District in meeting past concerns of the GMOC expressed in
prior year reports. This is particularly true of their coordination and cooperation
with the City to mutually address water matters.
Both the Sweetwater Authority and the Otay Water District provided the GMOC with
excellent written and oral reports, and are undertaking substantial facility master
plans and other efforts to maintain sufficient delivery and storage systems to meet
the demands of forecasted growth. The following highlights their principal
cooperative and individual activities in these regards:
1) with the recent heavy rainfalls which have ended the drought, both districts
indicate more than adequate available water supplies to serve anticipated
development for the ",..xt 1 to 2 years. Sweetwater Authority has
approximately a two year supply (53,000 acre feet) in storage in Loveland
and Sweetwater Reservoirs, and has had to spill over 28.500 acre feet
through the Sweetwater dam due to heavy run off. Most of the County's
reservoirs are at or near capacity for the first time in 13 years.
2) average household water usage is down due to conservation efforts which
both districts will continue to promote. This effectively increases their service
capacity.
7
.23 -.),;)..,
11-/5'"
3) the districts are working on a cooperative agreement which could allow Otay
Water to use Sweetwater Reservoir as an emergency source of supply.
Additionally, the districts are continuing to explore development of a
conjunctive use groundwater project in the Middle Sweetwater River Basin
which could yield as much as 1000 acre feet per year of storage capacity for
Otay Water. Otay Water is also meeting with Helix Water and the City of
San Diego in attempt to negotiate agreements whereby emergency supplies
could be provided to Otay during CWA aqueduct failures. All these efforts
can reduce Otay's need to construct costly reservoirs to achieve their ten
day emergency supply goal.
4) Sweetwater Authority is exploring the possibility of injection wells in the San
Diego formation area for the storage of surplus water in gro.:r,dwater
aquifers.
"-
5) Both agencies are continuing to work with and actively support the County
Water Authority's proposal to participate in construction of desalinization
facilities at SDG&E's South Bay Power Plant. Sweetwater Authority is also
actively studying a brackish groundwater desalinization project in the
Sweetwater Aquifer below the dam; an engineering report has been released
and test wells are being drilled.
6) Regarding reclaimed water, Otay continues to pursue the development of
reclaimed water facilities and piping networks in new developments, and
supports the construction of the reclaimed water treatment plant proposed
in the Otay River Valley. That plant was originally included as part of the
Clean Water Program, and slated for start-up in 1998, although the City of
San Diego has since indefinitely postponed work on all reclamation plants in
the Clean Water Program. The Otay Valley plant is a significant local facility
in that it would provide reclaimed water for these newly built distribution
facilities.
Relatedly, Sweetwater Authority is not currently considering the use of
reclaimed water due to the probability that it will not be available in the
foreseeable future. However, they would support a treatment plant.
Increased efforts and focus on the matter of making reclaimed water
availability and usage a thnely reality are necessary at this time, especially
regarding the Otay Valley plant.
7) Sweetwater Authority is working on the final component of their urban runoff
protection system in the Bonita Valley area. Study of an urban runoff
collection system to minimize the amount of water lost to the ocean is
continuing, and the Authority has prepared a preliminary cost estimate
indicating the proposal as a costly one. However, discussions are occurring
8
;2.J--c23
1!-/¿
I
.
with City staff for a potential collection facility within the proposed Otay Valley
Regional Park area near Main Street.
8) Otay Water's 30 million gallon underground reservoir in Eastlake Greens is
about to commence construction with completion anticipated by summer
1994. The District recently reached agreement with the City regarding
purchase of 50 acres from the Baldwin Company and future planning
processes regarding the location of proposed reservoirs within the City. The
need for such coordination had been noted last year in order to resolve
environmental concerns and to maximize the opportunity for other land uses
which could be precluded by the reservoir facilities.
9) Representatives of both Districts are continuing to meet with tile City and
other interested parties to address issues of joint concern through the
Interagency Water Task Force.
Although the GMOC commends the water districts for the above noted efforts to ensure
adequate water delivery and reduce dependency on imported water supplies, long-term
water supply for Chula Vista remains an issue which merits a Statement of Concern.
Despite the official end to the drought which continued to afflict Southern California in
1992, the amount and reliability of imported water for Chula Vista and Southern California
is still a problem. The GMOC recommends that the City Council take the following actions
relating to this issue:
. Strongly support the proposed South Bay Demineralization Plant, which
would provide a steady supply of demineralized sea water for San
Diego County.
. Direct and support City staff to continue evaluating the feasibility of
Chula Vista financing, designing and construction of the proposed
reclamation plant in the Otay River Valley which has been indefinitely
postponed under the Clean Water Program. This vital plant would
provide a steady supply of reclaimed water for use in landscape
irrigation and other appropriate applications.
. Request that both water districts work cooperatively with the City to
establish common strategies for making reclaimed water use a reality.
. Direct staff to continue to work toward development an urban runoff
collection system through efforts such as the Sweetwater Authority's
potential Otay River Valley project, and encourage the water districts'
cooperation and support.
Also of concern for the City of Chula Vista is the provision of water storage for emergency
purposes. While many positive activities are noted, both the County Water Authority as
a whole and the Otay Water District are still lacking adequate emergency water storage
9 023 ~,4f
Z-/'l
-
facilities at this time. The GMOC recommends that the City Council take the following
actions relating to this issue:
. Request the Otay Water District to continue to work cooperatively with
the City in the evaluation of future sItes for proposed emergency
storage reservoirs In the District's area of service.
. Urge the District to actively see through to completion efforts to
diversify Its storage and emergency supply options. Continue to urge
the District to consider changing Its policy decision to provide for five
full days of emergency storage In underground water reservoirs as part
of Its ten day goal, as opposed to pursuing cooperative arrangements
with the Sweetwater Authority, other districts, or the City of San Diego
to make use of existing reservoirs and water treatment facllftles for
emergency purposes. "-
. Continue to urge the County Water Authority to speed construction of
emergency storage reservoirs in Northern San Diego County.
While not a concern directed at supply availability, the City needs to increase coordination
with the Sweetwater Authority regarding advance planning of water facility upgrades to
support rezonings and infill development, particularly in the northwestern quadrant of the
City. Currently, many smaller developers and property owners are faced with
insurmountable costs when informed by the District at the building permit review stage of
the often substantial improvements necessary to replace existing small diameter cast iron
pipes to meet the required fire flow demands. Better advance coordination would facilitate
an applicant's understanding of improvement costs, and ways to address them early in the
development review process. In this regard the GMOC recommends that the City Council:
. Direct staff to work with the Authority to devise a mutually acceptable
advance planning program for water facllfty needs for Infill
development, and return the program proposal for Council
endorsement.
Regarding the California-American Water Company which serves approximately 350
homes in the Broderick's Otay Acres and Woodlawn Park areas of Montgomery, the
GMOC would like to request that the City Council formally grant them relief from the need
to report to the GMOC. Their servic" area is almost built-out, and the existing service
network is capable of supporting almost ten times the existing demand.
10 ~
:J. '3 - 02.!?
'E-/ð
I
a SCHOOLS
THE GMOC RECOMMENDS THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ISSUE A STATEMENT
OF CONCERN TO THE CHULA VISTA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT AND
THE SWEETWATER UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT.
L Chula Vista Elementary School District
Based upon the City's 12 to 18 month growth forecast, the Elementary
School District has estimated that it will need to accommodate 50 new
students west of 1-805. The District has also previously raised, and
continues to raise, the issue of additional indirect student generation from
non-residential development. Currently, most of the schools west of 1-805
are at or over capacity, with a total of 273 children being overflow bused.
Any additional growth will contribute to further exacerbation of this
overcrowding situation. At this time, the District can only accommodate
additional student generation through a combination of busing, facilities
modifications, and program changes. Several opportunities do exist,
however, for the expansion of existing schools in western Chula Vista,
particularly Vista Square and Rice which have adequate land to permit
expansion, or Feaster School where additional adjacent vacant land could
be acquired.
East of I-80S, growth in school enrollments caused by new development can
be accommodated by existing schools and schools which are being planned
and financed through Mello-Roos Community Facilities Districts (CFD).
Eastlake School is currently using relocatable classrooms to accommodate
new students until population is sufficient to warrant opening of a school in
the Eastlake Greens project. Given the economic slowdown, that school's
planning has been delayed for at least another year. Discovery School,
located in Rancho Del Rey, will open in July on a year-round single track
schedule. The District is currently working with several major developers to
establish additional CFD's to address their project's future impacts.
The report from the Chula Vista Elementary School District provided
thorough responses to each of last year's Statements of Concern and
described a number of ?t.¡!vities the District is undertaking to keep abreast
of changing conditions as follows:
1) The District supports expansion of existing schools where feasible,
and indicates Feaster School is the most logical candidate given the
four acre adjacent property which is for sale. However, as with the
other noted candidate schools, financing is the impediment. For the
Feaster site, financing only appears available through mitigation funds
from the proposed Bayfront project. The District is concerned that the
11
;l,;.-2?
8-/?
-
possible acquisition and development of this project by the Port
District may make such mitigation more difficult to obtain.
2) Eight more schools prepared growth plans this year for a total of 24
schools. By next year all schools will have begun the annual process
of developing and updating such plans. Several schools' plans
contain a multi-track component to be analyzed when the school
reaches 120% of capacity. However, as studied and reported upon
by a District formed committee last year, there is still substantial
opposition from parents and staff to multi-track scheduling. While
requiring the traditional nine month school pattern to be revised, it
should be noted that Mueller School is piloting a five-track schedule
which so far has worked well and effectively increased the school's
capacity by approximately 20%.
3) A proposed measure to change the required vote for a General
Obligation Bond from a 2/3 vote to a simple majority will be on the
June 1994 State ballot. If passed the District will consider mounting
a bond campaign.
4) The City has adopted a schools mitigation ordinance requiring all
residential projects involving legislative acts to fully mitigate school
impacts. In addition, the City, District, Sweetwater Union High School
District and Source Point (a non-profit arm of the San Diego
Association of Governments) are planning a study to develop
quantifiable criteria for assessing impacts of both residential and non-
residential projects on school facilities. The anticipated outcome is a
comprehensive schools mitigation ordinance which would set forth
these standards and an equitable method of mitigation.
5) As mentioned with #1 above, full mitigation of school impacts
(residential and non-residential) from the Bayfront Project is critical to
the overcrowding situation in western Chula Vista. The City has
conditioned the project's conceptual approval on the developer fully
mitigating such impacts. While the District had verbal agreements
with the property owner, requested written confirmations have never
been provided. With the possible sale of the project to the Port
District, there is r"lncem that the condition remain in effect. This
concern has heiglltened since the School District notified the City and
the Coastal Commission of the difficulty in obtaining confirmation of
the verbal agreement. A subsequent letter from the City to the
Coastal Commission appears to reference school mitigation in the
context of the standard fees required at the time of building permit
issuance. Any type of full mitigation, such as the Mello-Roos
financing contemplated for the project, must occur far earlier in the
12
023 ~.;(?
'K~2(7
I
.
review process. To be enforceable, such full mitigation must be a
condition of project approval imposed by the City.
6) The District is participating in the State Modernization Program, which
will provide funding to upgrade 11 existing schools which are over 30
years old, and make other capital improvements. Although this is
important to the District, this program will not provide for additional
student capacity.
7) The District continues with a variety of ongoing activities including
development tracking and phasing monitoring, school growth planning
studies, boundary/attendance area adjustments, residency verification,
requests for City assistance, and review and response t:> ~r"posed
development.
The GMOC recommends that the City Council take the following actions
related to the Statement of Concern regarding the Chula Vista Elementary
School District:
. As the overcrowding situation has not changed, assist the'
School District in adopting and Implementing expansion of
schools in Western Chula Vista, particularly Vista Square, Rice,
and Feaster Schools.
. Urge the School District to continue to actively explore means to
alleviate school overcrowding through innovative scheduling
methods and techniques. The School District acknowledges that
much of the overcrowding problem In Western Chula Vista
schools would be relieved by implementing a multi-track year-
round schedule for schools, but such a solution has not been
pursued by the School Board at this time because of parental
and staff opposition. Adoption of multi-track school schedules
are also a strong factor in the provision of state financing for
new school facilities, which the School Board should consider in
its decision.
. Suggest that the District re-evaluate its policy on the ownership
of re/ocatable cl"ssrooms which are then considered in the
calculation of the schools permanent capacity and included in
the State's assessment of overcrowding. The District currently
owns over 80 relocatable classrooms which will continue to
count against them In calculating eligibility under the State
Program. Leasing the re/ocatables would put the District in
better position of receiving State funding.
13
oZ J ':;2 ¿---
8~ 2.1
. Support the School District In its efforts to change State law to
lower the required vote on general obligation bonds from two-
thirds to a simple majority, and encourage voting support for the
June 1994 State ballot measure.
. Deny applications to rezone any property In western Chula VIsta
which would Increase allowable density or IntensIty of use
unless no aggravation of existing threshold standards related to
.schools will result because of full, adequate and equItable
mitigation. Chula VIsta should seek achievement of full
mitigation In the long-term for infill development in the western
portion of the City, regardless of whether rezonings or other
legislative acts are involved.
. Continue to support and encourage progress of the cooperative '
efforts between City staff, the District, Sweetwater Union High
School District and Source Point to study the Impacts of new
residential and non-residential development upon City schools.
Based upon the study, consider adoption of measures which
would fully mitigate such impacts.
. Through firm conditions of approval early in the process, require
full mitigation of school impacts from both residential and non-
residential development in the Bayfront project, and recommend
to the school district that this mitigation measure be
Implemented by expanding existing schools in the northwest
quadrant of Chula Vista. Reinforce this condition by requiring
that any Disposition and Development Agreement for the.project
ensure full mitigation of all school Impacts.
Q. Sweetwater Union Hiah School District
The Sweetwater Union High School District reported an overall enrollment
of 28,748 students throughout the district, a 624 student (2.2%) increase
over the previous year. 14,135 ofthese students, or 49% ofthe total, attend
five high schools and four junior high schools in Chula Vista. As a
comparison, 482 (77%) of the 624 new students district-wide were added to
Chula Vista schools. TI¡", District is operating at 107% of total capacity,
including relocatable classroom space, or 730 students over. If only
permanent facilities are considered (no relocatables), then the District is at
120% of capacity, or 4720 students over. These overcrowding figures
include the 1200 student first-phase capacity of the new Eastlake High
School which opened in the fall of 1992 with an enrollment of 1046. The
second-phase, expected to be complete by September 1994, will add an
additional 1200 classroom seat capacity.
14
2S~;¿1
g- z z...
I
.
.
Given the 12-18 month forecast provided by the Chula Vista Planning
Department, the District projects an increase of 475 students in Chula Vista
Junior High and High Schools in the 1993-94 school year. This is a slightly
smaller increase than in previous years, which have traditionally averaged
approximately 500 new students per year.
With the exception of the new Eastlake High School, all high schools in
Chula Vista are currently over their total capacity, while all the junior highs
and middle schools are operating slightly under total capacity. Based on the
12-18 month enrollment projections, most of the junior high/middle school
grade levels will not be significantly impacted, however Bonita Vista Middle
School will have exceeded capacity by approximately 13 students. All high
schools, with the exception of Eastlake, will continue to be overcrowded.
The report from the Sweetwater Union High School District provided '
responses to last year's Statement of Concern, and described several
measures the district is taking to alleviate overcrowding as follows:
1) Opening of the first-phase EastLake High School in the fall of 1992.
The second-phase is anticipated to be complete in September 1993.
In July 1993, the school will begin a year-round single track schedule.
12 trailer classrooms have been arranged on a temporary basis to
accommodate additional students expected in July until schools
construction is completed in September.
2) In August 1992 the District received unfunded approval from the State
for the Rancho Del Rey Middle School, Eastlake Middle School, and
Otay Mesa High School. Regarding the two schools in Chula Vista,
the District's 50% funding match from Eastern Territories Mello-Roos
fees increased the schools' statewide priority to receive funding.
Architectural firms have recently been solicited for RFP's for the
design and engineering of the Rancho Del Rey Middle School.
3) Continued establishment of Mello-Roos Facility Financing Districts for
new development in the Eastern Territories, participation in the state
lease-purchase program for new schools, ongoing review and
adjusting attendance boundaries, and residency verification.
4) Participation in the study of residential and non-residential
development impacts upon schools, and a program of related
mitigations.
5) The District has executed necessary land agreements with Otay Mesa
developers for the provision of needed school sites which would
provide some relief to Chula Vista schools. Implementation, however,
is contingent upon lifting of the development moratorium which the
15
.23/50
11~2.3
City of San Diego has imposed due to study of the Twin Ports
proposal.
6) Continued cooperation and preplanning review with the City of all
development proposals, General Plan amendments and rezonings.
The GMOC recommends that the City Council take the following actions
related to the statement of concern regarding the Sweetwater Union High
School District:
. Urge the School District to continue to actively explore means to
alleviate school overcrowding through Innovative scheduling
methods and techniques.
. Support the School District In Its efforts to change State law to
lower the required vote on general obligation bonds from two-
thirds to a simple majority, and encourage voting support for the
June 1994 State ballot measure.
. Deny applications to rezone any property In Western Chula Vista
which would increase allowable density or Intensity of use
unless no aggravation of existing threshold standards related to
schools will result because of full, adequate and equitable
mitigation. Achievement of full mitigation In the long-term for
Infill development In western Chula Vista should be sought,
regardless of whether rezonings or other legislative acts are
Involved.
. Continue to support and encourage the District's participation in
cooperative efforts between City staff, the Chula Vista
Elementary School District and Source Point to study the
Impacts of new non-residential development upon City schools.
Based upon the study, consider adoption of measures which
would fully mitigate such Impacts.
. Through firm conditions of approval early In the process, require
full mitigation of school Impacts from both residential and non-
residential devel?¡Jment In the Bayfront project, and recommend
to the school district that this mitigation measure be
Implemented by expanding existing schools In western Chula
Vista. ReInforce this condition by requiring that any DIsposition
and Development Agreement for the project ensure full mItigation
of all school Impacts.
. Support the Sweetwater District Board's efforts to end the
moratorium on residential development on Otay Mesa In the City
16
023 -3/ 'Z- 2f'
.
of San Diego, in order that the District could construct new
schools in the area which would relieve overcrowding pressures
on Chula Vista schools.
. The CIty LIbrary and the Sweetwater District support creating a
program which would provide work experience for high school
students within the proposed joint library facility to be located at
EasUake High Schoo~ As a joint use agreement has been
forwarded to the City Attorney, it is urged that the City expedite
action on the agreement, as the library must become a reality
before the mentioned work study program can be created.
D AIR QUALITY
THE GMOC RECOMMENDS THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ISSUE A STATEMENT '.
OF CONCERN TO THE AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT.
The Air Pollution Control District (APCD) again provided the GMOC with a
voluminous and thorough report for this year's threshold analysis. The materials
consisted of a letter addressing last year's Statements of Concern to APCD, a
variety of handouts on pollution sources, violators and enforcement actions in Chula
Vista, APCD's 1991 Annual Report and 1992 Scorecard, the State Air Resources
Board's (ARB) and APCD's resolutions adopting the 1991 San Diego Regional Air
Quality Strategy, a list of the Strategy's measures, and a State memorandum
regarding vehicles garaged in Mexico.
The San Diego region continued to experience improvement in overall air quality in
1992, primarily from industry controls (reducing stationary emissions from industrial
and commercial sources), and engine technology (better motor vehicle pollution
controls). Despite these improvements, however, an acceptable level of air quality
for the San Diego region has not yet been achieved. As the effective capacity of
such improvements has almost been exhausted, future significant improvements will
only occur from decreasing automobile use through strong public transit programs.
It was noted that Chula Vista continues to enjoy some of the best air quality of any
area in the region, with the best record for fewest number of days/hours for which
State standards were exceeded last year.
Several significant matters wer"'l addressed in APCD's materials regarding last
year's Statement of Concern, alld the current activities of APCD as they may affect
the City in the future, as follows:
1) In June 1992 the APCD adopted the San Diego Regional Air Quality Strategy
(AQS) which was subsequently approved by the State ARB in November
1992. Pursuant to the State Clean Air Act, air pollution must be reduced by
5% annually unless the adopted AQS implements all feasible measures to
control air pollution. The adopted plan includes all such measures, but due
17 ;23 -30<
'Z -.] S-
to population growth in San Diego County and the continued transport of air
pollution from the Los Angeles metropolitan area, the AQS will result in
approximately a 3% annual reduction to the year 2000 and a 1 % annual
reduction thereafter.
The AQS contains several major implementation measures developed in
conjunction with SANDAG including the Transportation Control Measures
Plan (TCM Plan), the Model Regional Transportation Demand Management
Program (TDM Plan), and an indirect source control program. The first
transportation measures are scheduled for adoption in July 1993, and will
require in a phased fashion, businesses with 60 or more employees to boost
the average vehicle ridership of their morning commuters from a countywide
average of 1.18 commuters per car to an average of 1.5 commuter:; per car
by the year 2000, through use of a variety of incentives and decentives. A
draft of an Indirect Source Reduction Plan, which will include proposed land
use measures for local implementation, is anticipated for release this
summer for review with adoption expected by December 1993.
2) The region was previously only in compliance with 3 of the 6 State ambient
air standards. The State has recently given compliance on one additional
standard, for a total of 4 complying.
3) Despite the improvements made through industry controls and substantial
improvements in automotive engine technology, the region's largest air
quality problem continues to be too may vehicle trips/miles driven. The
number of miles driven per year continues to grow at a rate almost double
that of population growth. This trend must be reversed if the region's air
quality situation is to continue to improve. In this regard, successful
implementation of the AQS's measures is critical.
4) Recent changes in federal legislation have created increased flexibility in the
spending of funds for mass transit allocated under the Intermodal Surface
Transportation and Efficiency Act (ISTEA). SANDAG receives the funds and
is charged with their allocation/distribution. APCD has recommended to
SANDAG that the monies be focused on transit projects, however, to date
SANDAG has not accepted the recommendation, but has indicated the intent
to review the matter in the future.
5) The issue of US registered motor vehicles garaged in Mexico and commuting
to San Diego is near resolution. DMVs parent agency, the State Business,
Transportation and Housing Agency, has determined DMV has sufficient
authority to regulate. The State ARB is drafting regulations for the DMV, with
adoption expected this summer. However, the matter of Mexican registered
vehicles driven in the US is under the auspices of the federal EPA, which
has formed a task force to initiate discussions with Mexican authorities.
18
JJ ~3;
g.Z~
I
.
.
The GMOC also discussed the APCD's recommendation to for possible future
changes to the threshold standard regarding coordination of annual growth forecasts
reviews in conjunction with SANDAG's regional forecasts which are the basis for air
quality planning, and with regard to adding evaluative standards predicated upon
the Regional Air Quality Strategy's implementation measures once they are
adopted.
The GMOC recommends the City Council take the following actions related to the
Statement of Concem to be submitted to the Air Pollution Control District:
. Recognize the recent adoption of the Regional Air Quality Strategy
(AQS), and continue to urge the APCD to expeditiously proceed with
efforts related to the development, review, adoption and implementation
of the AQS's subsequent implementing measures Including the
Transportation Control Measures Plan (TCM Plan), the Model Regional
Transportation Demand Management Program (TDM Plan), and an
Indirect Source Reduction Plan.
. Support the APCD's efforts to obtain additional state funding for mass
transit programs which would reduce air pollution, and to change
federal and state tax laws which encourage private automobile use over
use of public transit.
. Actively support the adoption of proposed State regulations which will
require automobiles garaged in Mexico but registered in the United
States to meet California requirements for pollution controls.
Encourage federal EPA to work expeditiously with Mexican Authorities
to address the additional matter of Mexican registered vehicles used
frequently in the United States that currently have no smog control.
. Direct staff to work with SANDAG and APCD to evaluate possible
revisions to the Threshold Standard based upon the provisions of the
recently adopted Regional Air Quality Strategy and its implementation
measures in the following regards:
0 referen c I n g/coordi nati n g review and evaluation of the City's
annual growth forecasts in conjunction with SANDAG's "Series"
regional forecas's, as APCD's Regional AQS is predicated upon
these regional forecasts.
0 consideration of adding evaluative standards predicated upon
the Reglon,' AQS's various implementation measures, such as
TDM, TCM and Indirect source, once those measures are
adopted.
19 ;23 '3 Lj
8~27
-
These proposed revisions should be considered with the GMOC's 1993
review.
. Regarding the imporlance of developing transit 8S stressed by APCD,
recognize the window of oppottunlty presented by the Otay Ranch
planning effott, particularly the light-rail proposal. The GMOC has
patticular concern with respect to the current plan which uses the light
rail line to support high density residential on the western parcel, but
Indicates that the line may not become a reality for over 20 years. More
than simply requiring set aside of an easement, the Commission
strongly recommends that the granting of high density be specifically
conditioned to the phased provision of the light rail line intended to
serve it. Only in this manner can the light rail line be ensured to
become a reality, and playa meaningful role in the timely amelioration
of air quality and traffic impacts consistent with the Intent of the City's "
Threshold Standards.
ISSUES WHERE THRESHOLDS ARE MET
D LIBRARIES
THE GMOC FINDS THAT WITH THE SCHEDULED CONSTRUCTION OF THE
EASTLAKE AND SOUTH CHULA VISTA LIBRARIES. THE CITY HAS ACHIEVED
CONFORMANCE WITH THE LIBRARY THRESHOLD ON A CUMULATIVE BASIS
The threshold standard for libraries requires that 500 square feet of library space
(adequately equipped and staffed) be provided per each 1,000 population. Based
on a population estimate of 143,800 as of December 1992, a total of 71,900 square
feet of library space is required. Currently 57,329 square feet is provided by the
Chula Vista Public Library at 365 "F" Street with 55,000 square feet, and a
combined 2,329 square feet in two small branches, Castle Park/Otay and Woodlawn
Park. This 57,329 square feet results in a current shortage of 14,571 square feet
in library space. The objectives expressed as thresholds for libraries were foreseen
in The Librarv Master Plan of 1987, which recommends the City supplement the
Library at 365 "F" Street by providing a new area library facility in the
Montgomery/Otay Planning Ar'!a and two new library buildings in each of the
planning areas east of Interstate 805.
In accordance with that master plan, the 10,000 square foot library in conjunction
with Eastlake High School scheduled to open in fall 1993, and the 37,000 square
foot South Chula Vista Library scheduled to open in late 1994 will actually result in
exceeding of the threshold requirement by 27,276 square feet. based on a projected
population of 150,665 in 1994. This is consistent with the threshold standard which
requires that solutions to deficiencies be commenced within three years.
20
;2J ~ Jç 1:- Z;
I
.
.
The City has also allocated $200,000 in the Capital Improvement Program to hire
an architect for the initial design work for a 29,000 square foot library to be located
at the corner of East "H" Street and Paseo Ranchero in the Sweetwater/Bonita
Planning Area. This project will be funded by Development Impact Fees and is
tentatively scheduled for completion in 1998. Although not the official name, this
library is referred to as the Rancho Del Rey Library.
D SEWER
THE GMOC FINDS THAT THE SEWER THRESHOLD HAS BEEN MAINTAINED
ON BOTH A PROJECT AND CUMULATIVE BASIS.
There were no major problems attributable to new growth in the City C:uring the
reporting period with respect to the established thresholds for sanitary sewers. The
City design standards for sewers limit the flow in sewers up to 12" in diameter to
50% full and to 75% full for sewers larger than 12". The City has also allowed flow
up to 75% full in 8", 10", and 12" diameter sewers if it can be shown that ultimate
development has already occurred.
One major project which' is expected to cause a significant impact to the sewer
system is the Kaiser Hospital and Medical Center which will be discharging to the
Telegraph Canyon Trunk Sewer. An amendment to the Telegraph Canyon Sewer
Basin Plan prepared by Willdan Associates to address out-of-basin pumped flows
from the Eastlake and Salt Creek Ranch developments is already in process, and
a second amendment is also being prepared to address projected flows from the
Kaiser project.
Construction of the Proctor Valley Sewer, which will serve The Salt Creek I, Salt
Creek Ranch, Rancho San Miguel and Bonita Meadows developments as well as
other parcels in the area was completed. The sewer connects to the County's
Frisbee Trunk, for whïch a sewer trunk usage agreement is currently being
prepared.
The potential sewer capacity problems identified last year in connection with the
Scripps Hospital, Chula Vista Mall Expansion and Palomar Trolley Center projects
have been mitigated. A parallel sewer on "G" Street has been constructed to serve
the hospital, and construction of the parallel sewer along Industrial Blvd. to serve
the Palomar Trolley Center is scí,.-.duled for completion by June 1993. A recent City
study concludes that the flows from the Chula Vista Mall Expansion do not exceed
previous flows from the area to be demolished.
The City is using several methods to identify and determine the cause of peak flows
exceeding City standards, in existing sewers. The flow monitoring program has
been continued and several problem sites have been identified, and parallel sewer
efforts are underway. The City's sewer TV inspection crew continues to monitor
problem sites in order to determine if the condition of the sewer lines has affected
21
J ] - Jt
'Z-Z c¡
-
the flow. 58,400 linear feet of lines were inspected in 1992, and Phase IV of the
Sewer Rehabilitation Program was prepared. An additional 12,00 lineal feet have
been televised for Phase V. Repair is an ongoing program. The Wastewater
Master Plan prepared by Engineering-Science includes an analysis of current
projected future flows for all City trunk lines and provides recommendation for
construction of new and upgraded sewers and preliminary cost estimates. In
addition, adequacy of sewers must also be addressed in the environmental
documents of proposed new developments.
Sites identified through these methods may be considered for inclusion in the
Capital Improvement Program or the Sewer Rehabilitation Program. New
developments will be required to pay a proportionate share for the construction of
new sewers needed.
San DieQo MetroDolitan Sewer AuthoritvlSan DieQo Area Wastewater ManaQement "-
District
At present, the City's total daily wastewater flow into the Metropolitan Sewage
System (Metro) is approximately 11.479 million gallons per day (mgd), well within
our current contract capacity of 19.2 mgd. This includes 9.251 mgd of metered
flows discharged directly to the Metro sewer line, and 2.228 mgd of metered and
non-metered flows discharged through the Spring Valley Sewer outfall. Annual
wastewater flows have increased at a rate much less than predicted due primarily
to the recent building slowdown and water conservation efforts. Flows grew by only
0.742 mgd over the last year.
Six new permanent wastewater metering stations which measure the Spring Valley
flows are in operation. Two more meters, one in Proctor Valley and the other on
"F" Street west of Bay Blvd., have recently been installed and are to be operational
this year.
The City's existing sewage capacity reservation with Metro is 19.2 mgd. Based on
current projections, the 7.7 mgd of remaining capacity beyond current flows should
serve the City until approximately 2010. However, the San Diego Wastewater
Management District (SDAWMD) took effect on January 1, 1993. The SDAWMD
effectively replaces Metro, and includes representatives from most Metro agencies
and will manage construction and operation of Metro and Clean Water Program
sewage transportation and treatr.~ent facilities. Member agencies have a maximum
of one year to withdraw from the SDAWMD without penalty. While the City's current
Metro capacity contracts extend to 2004, they will not necessarily be maintained
under the SDAWMD.
. The GMOC wishes to emphasize the Important decision Chula
Vista must make over whether'to remain In the SDAWMD or
leave, and recommends that the City continue to retain a team of
technical, financial and legal consultants to develop a strategy
regarding membership.
22 .2J~ 3?
'8~3"
. -
.
As also discussed in the water section of this report, the proposed 6 mgd Otay
Valley Water Reclamation Plant proposed as part of the Clean Water Program and
scheduled for start-up in 1998, has been indefinitely postponed by the City of San
Diego. As the timing of construction will be a consideration in the development of
the southern and eastern portions of Chula Vista, the GMOC feels it is critical that:
. City staff be directed to continue evaluating the feasibility of
Chula Vista financing, del$igning and constructing this plant.
. The GMOC also wishes to express Its concern regarding the
potential impacts of development In eastern Chula Vista on
sewer facilities in older western Chula Vista, and stress the need
to continue close monitoring to ensure the timely fun;!i"g and
phasing of necessary upgrades and replacements.
,
C DRAINAGE
THE GMOC FINDS THAT THE DRAINAGE THRESHOLD HAS BEEN MAINTAINED
ON A CUMULATIVE AND PROJECT BASIS.
At this time, no major problems can be attributed to new growth in the City
concerning the threshold standards for drainage. One reason for this is that
developers have constructed detention basins so that downstream flows are not
increased. Each new subdivision is required to construct all drainage facilities to
handle storms of a certain magnitude and discharge the flows into a downstream
facility. The Environmental Impact Report for each development must address any
possible drainage problems either on-site or off-site. The developer is required to
implement mitigation measures, if necessary.
In addition to the construction of drainage facilities, developers must now obtain a
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Construction Activity permit for
each grading operation affecting an area of five acres or more. This permit program
requires a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan which is specifically developed for
each construction site in order to prevent pollutants from reaching drainageways.
These permits are issued by the State Water Resources Control Board, the
Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the City. Developers will be required to
dedicate land and construct facilities necessary to serve their proposed
developments. Facilities benefK;.,g an extensive area with multiple owners may be
financed through assessment districts.
In February and March 1992, runoff resulting from a series of high intensity
rainstorms caused localized flooding in the older areas of the City, primarily within
the Central Drainage Basin and the south branch of the Telegraph Canyon Basin.
As a result, and upon City Council direction, the Engineering Department prepared
a report accepted in May 1992 which includes proposals for construction of
drainage facilities to correct deficiencies, and establishes a priority list of drainage
23 :2}-YV
1l-3/
improvement projects. That list contains a total of 84 needed but currently
unfunded improvements with an approximated cost of $23.025.000. Considering
an inflation rate of 4% per year, funding of $1,695,000 per year for 20 years would
be necessary to complete the projects. Given current prospects, this level of
funding is very unlikely. Therefore. the GMOC:
. Suggests the City Council re-evaluate this situation, and direct
development of aggressive funding strlltegies which would allow
for much more timely completion of the most Important of these
projects.
. In addition, while the above noted drllinage problems
encountered In 1992 arll rIIlated primarily to Inadequate existing
facilities that were built prior to the adoption of threshold
standards, the GMOC Is still concerned over whether or not
extensive new development In eastern Chula VIsta has
contributed or will contribute to drainage problems In western
Chula Vista, and recommends that this situation be closely
monitored.
D TRAFFIC
THE GMOC FINDS THAT THE TRAFFIC THRESHOLD HAS BEEN MAINTAINED
ON BOTH A CUMULATIVE AND PROJECT BASIS.
As amended in 1991. the threshold for traffic requires that Level-of-Service (LOS)
"C" or better as measured by observed average travel speed on all signalized
arterial segments except that during peak hours a LOS of "D" can occur for no more
than any two hours of the day. Those signalized intersections west of 1-805 which
do not meet the above standard, may continue to operate at their current 1991 LOS,
but shall not worsen.
This threshold represents a change from the original Intersection Capacity Utilization
(ICU) method which analyzed the performance of intersections only, to the Highway
Capacity Manual (HCM) method which analyzes conditions over whole roadway
segments. and is a more comprehensive measurement as it considers the overall
"driving experience" in terms of time delay.
1992 Traffic Monitorina Proaram
The 1992 Traffic Monitoring Program (TMP) presented to the GMOC summarizes
the results of analysis performed through actual travel time and speed surveys of
all the arterial streets in Chula Vista during the PM peak hour period (4pm to 6 pm).
as conducted from March through mid-July 1992. This provided the first opportunity
for the GMOC to review a complete (or "base year") analysis under the HCM
method. as the 1991 TMP was only an abbreviated study of traffic conditions.
24
;23- 3~ 'E-32-
I
. .
.
focusing on along "H" Street between 1-805 and 1-5 and Third Avenue between "H"
Street and Moss Street, due to the cut off of the reporting period in conjunction with
the threshold's change over from ICU measurement. Because the necessary HCM
field study work is labor intensive, travel studies for the AM and mid-day periods are
proposed to be spread out, with the AM report presented next year, and the mid-day
the following year, resulting in a complete cycle of analysis every four years.
Additionally, any segments found to be operating at LOS "c" in any year would be
analyzed along with the following year's period to determine if potential problems
exist so that any necessary operational changes can be addressed.
The 1992 TMP results show that all arterial segments studied were found to operate
at LOS "c" or better. Nine (9) arterial segments were found to be operating at LOS
"C", in at least one direction, and will be included for reevaluation wi,h the 1993
TMP which will assess the AM peak period for all arterial streets. It should also be
noted that the study shows the arterial interchange segments at the 1-5
interchanges, in general, were found to be experiencing reduced levels-of-service.
This is due primarily to the close spacing of the signals, signal timing at the ramps
which is controlled by CAL TRANS, and the high volume of vehicles entering and
exiting the freeway. This is especially true of the short segment of westbound "H" .
Street between Woodlawn Ave. and Bay Blvd. Staff will be contacting CAL TRANS
to see if signal timing changes at the freeway ramps can be made which would
improve the LOS for traffic on "H" Street crossing the freeway. A related concern
involves the trolley crossing gates at "E", "H" and Palomar Streets which interrupt
flows every 5 to 7.5 minutes, and the need to continue to urge the Metropolitan
Transit Development Board (MTDB) to construct grade separations.
"H" Street Corridor Traffic Issues
During review of the 1991 TMP, follow-up information was requested about the
continuing impact of development in the area east of 1-805 on the operating
performance of "H" Street west of I-80S, and short-term solutions to maintain
acceptable LOS. The Engineering Department produced a report indicating
measures implemented to address this matter as follows: 1) development of a
typical cross-section for "H" Street as a 6-lane roadway, 2) requirements for
dedication and/or construction of road widening for three projects along "H" Street,
most notably the Chula Vista Mall Expansion and the Scripps Hospital Expansion,
3) proposal for a widening of "H" Street at Hilltop Drive to provide for two left-turn
lanes for the westbound directic:1, 4) a request to CAL TRANS to rectify problems
at the intersection of "H" Street at Bay Boulevard,S) progress on the improvements
at the 1-805f'H" Street interchange, and 6) review of additional measures to
increase "H" Street capacity between Third Avenue and Hilltop Drive.
However, in the longer-term, traffic volumes are projected to continue to increase
on 'H" Street, particularly on the segment between 1-805 and Hilltop Drive which will
grow from 37,800 today to 49,000 based on buildout of the July 1989 General Plan.
Recent approvals of projects such as Kaiser Hospital and Rancho Del Rey
25 d3 -ytJ
$-33
.
Commercial Center, not fully contemplated by the General Plan, continue to place
demands on "H" Street and add to the need to carefully monitor growth from other
projects and streets in the "H" Street corridor in order to assure threshold
maintenance.
SR125
The City, in conjunction with the firm HNTB, has recently completed an Interim State
Route 125 Study, which outlines a $27.9 million plan for the phasing of an
expanded interim network of surface roadways in the general future alignment of the
freeway which will supplement the City's existing planned near-term roadway
network, and allow development to continue until either a toll facility or a freeway
can be built. The importance of SR125 to supporting buildout of the projects in the
City's General Planning Area consistent with the Traffic Threshold has been "
previously established by both the City's Growth Management Plan and the Eastern
Chula Vista Transportation Phasing Plan. The study proposes a combination of
development impact fee type collections with bond sales to construct phases
needed before all dwelling unit fees are collected, and a potential Mello-Roos to pay
off bonds if development slows to the point where bonds cannot pay the annual
assessments.
In summary, evidence presented to the GMOC for 1992 indicates that the threshold
for traffic is being met. However, the following serious concerns exist regarding
potential problems which may result in an inability to meet the traffic threshold
standard in the near future:
. The GMOC wishes to reiterate and amplify prior concerns
expressed in both its 1990 and 1991 Annual Reports regarding
potentially serious future ftHft Street traffic problems both east
and west of 1-805. As the principal arterial for many of the large
approved but not yet built master planned communities and
other projects, "Hft Street's cu"ent configuration and capacity
must adequately meet these future traffic demands over the next
20+ years as buildout occurs. Recent traffic models developed
In conjunction with land use approvals such as Kaiser Hospital
and the Rancho Del Rey Commercial Center, Indicate that ftHft
Street will need to operate at or very near its maximum capacity
to meet the tra"tc threshold standard, providing little, If any,
reserve capacity to address actual future conditions not foreseen
by the traffic models. The lack of reserve capacity also limits the
City's future flexibility to consider other project proposals like
Kaiser or Rancho Del Rey which may prove beneficial over the
next 20 or more years.
Given the foreseeable physical and economic constraints to
major future modifications to ftHft street, such as those cu"ently
26
:<3 -11 ~-:!~
I
-
.
presented west of 1-805 between Hilltop and Third Ave., prudent
planning would dictate that the City take a more conservative
land use planning approach to ensure future planning flexibility,
and satisfactory long-term capacity and threshold compliance on
"H" Street. In view of these concerns, the GMOC recommends
that as an adjunct to CU"ent circulation studies for SR125, the
City re-evaluate the land use currently contemplated for the "H"
Street service area, and determine" in fact, any short or long-
term threshold compliance problems exist.
. Regarding SR125, the Commission wishes to express Its concern
as to the feasibility and viability of the CU"ent HNTB study's
proposal to utilize a slightly upgraded existing roadway network
In the general alignment of future SR125, in-lieu of a four lane
interim facility. It has been the Commission's understanding that
such a four lane through facility was necessary to adequately
meet traffic demands pre-SR125, In order to alleviate the
projected heavy demands on "H" Street and Telegraph Canyon
Road, and ensure longer term Traffic Threshold compliance.
Given the previously noted "H" Street concerns, the
Commission requests that in conjunction with the recommended
re-evaluation of the "H" Street service area, the Council also
require a supplement to the HNTB 125 study specifically
addressing the proposal's relationship to short and long-term
Threshold maintenance for the Commission's benefit.
. The Commission wishes to express concern over poor leve/s-of-
service at freeway interchanges, and urges the City to work with
CAL TRANS to resolve this issue.
. The City needs to approach the Metropolitan Transit
Development Board (MTDB) about the need for light rail grade
separations at "E" Street, "H" Street, and Palomar Street to
address the trolley's Impacts on traffic circulation. These grade
separations will especially be needed when the Bayfront project
is built.
. The GMOC also 'ltishes to recommend approval of the revised
Year 1992 HCM Segment Map which Is made a part of the Traffic
Threshold Standard.
27 )) -~--<
1l-.$S-
D FIRE/EMS
THE GMOC FINDS THAT THE FIRE/EMS THRESHOLD HAS BEEN MAINTAINED
ON BOTH A PROJECT AND CUMULATIVE BASIS
The threshold standard requires that 85% of all emergency fire and medical
emergency calls be responded to within 7 minutes. The actual performance for
Fiscal Year 1991-92 was that 91.0% of all emergency calls were responded to
within 7 minutes. These data indicate that the threshold for fire response was met,
and exceeded, for the reporting period.
The Fire Department will be opening a sixth fire station in the EastLake Business
Center in March-April 1993, which will allow the Department to maintain the present
level of service regarding threshold standards. Additionally, the Department is ,
currently exploring options, including DIF Funds loans/advances to accelerate the
opening of the Paseo Ranchero Station (Rancho Del Rey), which would provide
further ability to maintain the current exemplary levels-of-service being provided.
The existing Otay Lakes Road Station would close with the opening of the Paseo
Ranchero Station, and the Department has an interested buyer for the site. DIF
commitments to support the accelerated opening would allow this prospective
purchase to become a reality, with sale proceeds available to apply to the opening
of the Paseo Ranchero Station. Continued provision of satisfactory service to the
growing Rancho Del Rey community and surrounds is extremely important, and the
GMOC recommends that the City Council:
. support staff's current efforts to obtain advance DIF funding, and
on a broader note, direct staff to continue to explore the
feasibility of a new DIF accounting system which would provide
increased flexibility In accommodating such advances.
. Regarding consideration of splitting the Fire and EMS standards
as recommended last year, the GMOC supports the position of
the Fire Department that such be deferred for 2 to 3 years based
on the need to review EMS response time standards on a
regional basis, and to allow additional development to occur in
eastern Chula Vista where projects such as Salt Creek Ranch
and San Miguel Ranch will create a different fire response
setting.
28
:2..3-7'3 1!- :5~
I
.
- .
D FISCAL
THE GMOC FINDS THAT THE FISCAL THRESHOLD HAS BEEN MAINTAINED
ON BOTH A CUMULATIVE AND PROJECT BASIS.
The Fiscal threshold standard was created as a revision to the former Economic
threshold by the City Council in November 1991, in order to refine the scope of the
GMOC's review to address the impacts of growth on the City's fiscal well being,
particularly the collection and expenditure of impact fees from new development.
The Fiscal threshold calls for the preparation of a report to the GMOC which
evaluates the fiscal impacts of growth on operations and capital improvements over
both the previous 12 months and projected over the next 12-18 month period,
including an analysis of development impact fee collection and expenditure over the
previous 12-month period. '-
A report prepared by the City's Finance Department indicated that the City's
Development Impact Fee (DfF) Programs for Public Facilities, Transportation and
Drainage are in sound financial shape, and the programs are working as planned.
According to Mr. Lyman Christopher, the City's Finance Director, the DIF's along
with the various special assessment and financing districts which are required of
major new developments in eastern Chula Vista, result in no negative fiscal impacts
to the City from new development. The majority of these projects were required to
prepare Fiscal Impact Analyses to address creation of a positive revenue picture,
and must provide periodic updates for comparison based on actual occurrences.
In addition, under the Growth Management Program, all are required to prepare
Public Facilities Phasing and Financing Plans (PFFP) to ensure the timely provision
of needed facilities and services in concert with development and consistent with
threshold standard maintenance.
Most of the DIF expenditures in FY 1991-92 were related to street projects and fire
services including $300,000 for improvements at 1-805 and Telegraph Canyon Rd.,
$625,000 for the widening of Otay Lakes Rd. between Rutgers Ave. and Apache
Dr., $210,000 for study efforts related to SR125, $170,000 for the Paseo Ranchero
Fire Training Facility, and $313,000 for the interim fire Station at Eastlake Village.
An annual DIF funds financial report is prepared to review the funding status of
each DIF and its projects, and to update the associated costs for these and any
new facilities necessary to support future development. The reports analyze the
apportionment of costs to projected development in order to adjust the DIF's to be
applied to new development.
Based on the prolonged recession, and the State's budget balancing activities, a
variety of anticipated General Fund revenues were lower than originally estimated.
City sales tax revenues increased by only 1 % (from $11,679,000 to $11,808,279)
compared to normal annual increases between 4% and 8%. License and permit
revenues were flat, and fees for services such as plan check, subdivisions and
29 J-J -'Ii
11- ~7
zoning were down approximately $400,000 over the previous year due to the
continued slump in building activity. Utilizing the Planning Department's 12-18
month development forecasts, the Finance Department continues to analyze revised
revenue projections and strategies with the Building, Planning and Engineering
Departments on an annual basis.
In spite of the above noted losses, and due to the efforts of the City Manager and
staff, the City was able to end FY 1991-92 with a General Fund balance of
$8,762,000, and avoid negative impacts to personnel and services. Furthermore,
the GMOC supports the City's current Fiscal 1993-94 budgeting posture of using
fallback/contingency plans based on likely State budget cut scenarios. In this
regard, the extent to which upcoming potential State budget cuts will affect the
proposed City budget and growth management programs will be better known, and
appropriately addressed, when the GMOC begins its next review cycle in October
1993.
The GMOC concluded from the report and Mr. Christopher's presentation, that there
are no significant fiscal problems from new growth which currently warrant special
attention. As the long-range DIF Programs are still in their relative infancy, the
GMOC will continue to monitor the collection and expenditure of DIF funds, and
track development forecasts over time to identify any potential problems before they
become serious.
D PARKS AND RECREATION
THE GMOC FINDS THAT THE PARKS AND RECREATION THRESHOLD HAS
BEEN MAINTAINED ON BOTH A PROJECT AND CUMULATIVE BASIS.
The Parks and Recreation threshold is a population-based standard calling for 3.0
acres of neighborhood and community park land to be provided for every 1,000
residents east of I-80S. This standard has been met .as of June 30, 1992, as
illustrated by the following table:
Acres of Acres! Acre Shortfall
Area Population Parks 1.000 or Excess
East of I-80S 39,108 190.50 4.87 +73.18
West of 1-805 100,042 129.45 1.29 -170.68
City-Wide 139,150 319.95 2.30 -97.50
Standard!l~eal 139,150 418.26 3.00 0
30
:23 ~L/~
-g,58
I
-
-.
However, this table also reveals the continuing shortfall in park land both for
Western Chula Vista and for the City as a whole. The GMOC has recommended
each year since 1990 that the Parks Threshold Standard be amended to apply both
east and west of 1-805. In response to last year's annual report, the City Council
did conceptually endorse amendment of the Standard. However, adoption of a
revised Standard was deferred in conjunction with preparation of the proposed
Parks Implementation Plan (PIP) which would address possible park equivalency
factors, land availability, and other matters in western Chula Vista, and serve as a
foundation for developing a 20-year master plan to correct existing deficiencies
toward meeting the goal of 3 acres/1 000 population west of 1-805. The equivalency
factors, in particular, were seen as necessary before the final language of a revised
threshold standard could be prepared for adoption.
In June 1992, the City Council authorized $75,000 for the PIP for western Chula
Vista. The funding was targeted to hire a consultant to perform a needs
assessment survey and prepare a parks and recreation plan which, in addition to
forming a basis for the above noted 20-year parks and recreation plan, would
provide a framework for addressing the following GMOC issues also noted in last
year's report:
- an impact fee program for new apartments in the western area.
- development of an equivalency factor for parks and recreation credit for
major facilities such as pools and gymnasiums for more land than they
actually occupy.
- recommendations on the appropriateness of "mini parks".
In February 1993, the City Council directed that the PIP be prepared in-house by
City staff. Given the need to involve several Departments, and coordinate their
workloads, it was believed the planning effort would take a minimum of 18 months
once initiated, in comparison to the proposed consultant contract which was to be
completed by August 1993. The GMOC wishes to stress the importance of the
PIP's timely completion. In addition, although not directly tied to the PIP, is the
need to complete preparation of the Greenbelt Master Plan called for by the City's
1989 General Plan Update, and to develop the related Bike and Hiking Trails Plan.
In 1992 the Parks and Recrea.:on Department completed many positive efforts
which should be noted:
- adoption of non-resident fees for use of facilities and programs.
- completion of the 4.5 acre Marina View Park in conjunction with the Port
District.
- commencement of a 2-phase renovation project at Parkway Community
Center.
- commencement of renovations at the Chula Vista Women's Club.
31
~5 - Y,? g-5'
:
- hiring of a design consultant for restroom, tot lot and slope renovation
improvements at Hilltop Park.
- allocation of 25% of PAD fees toward acquisition of a park site in the
Montgomery area.
- expansion of the Otay Park Master Plan southwardly to consider joint use
with Otay School.
- work on development of a master plan for the Gayle McCandliss Memorial
Grove atop the knoll at Halecrest Park.
- the City of San Diego will administer a $1.5 million grant from the Coastal
Conservancy for property acquisition in conjunction with the Otay Valley
Regional Park. Another $10 million may be available next year if a proposed
bond measure passes.
The GMOC recommends that the City Council take the following actions with
respect to the Parks and Recreation threshold:
. As recommended each year since 1990, and endorsed by the Council
last year, actively work toward adopting a revised Parks and Recreation
threshold standard to achieve 3 acres of parkland per 1,000 population
for the area west of Interstate 805 as well as east. In this regard,
completion of the western Chula Vista Parks Implementation Plan (PIP)
Is critical as it will address Council's inquiries regarding a credit
system for major facilities such as swimming pools, and other matters
which must be resolved before the final language of a revised standard
can be completed. The PIP Is also necessary as a foundation for
formulating the subsequent 2o-year master plan for the acquisition of
land and construction of facilities to correct existing deficiencies.
. A Greenbelt Master Plan should be undertaken and closely coordinated
with the PIP to ensure optimum use of the Greenbelt for park and
recreation purposes. This Is especially Important for those Greenbelt
areas west of 1-805 due to the deficiency of parkland In that part of the
City.
. In conjunction with recent Council direction for In-house preparation of
the PIP, direct the Involvement of the City Manager's Office to the
extent required to ensure the Interdepartmental coordination and
prioritization necessary to achieve the PIP's timely completion. The
GMOC Is concerned with the current minimum estimate of 18 months,
as compared to the proposed consultant contract for completion by
August 1993.
. Create an Impact fee program which will require new apartment
construction In Western Chula Vista to pay park fees. Park Acquisition
& Development (PAD) fees are currently collected only for subdivisions,
Including condominium projects. With the approval of a Parks and
32
;J} --Lj} 'B-~¿:)
I
.
Recreation Implementation Plan which outlines specific proposed
improvements and areas of benefit, equitable Impact fees can be
collected from new apartment development as well. It should be noted
that the completed PIP will provide the basis for this impact fee.
. Continue to require large master planned communities In the Eastern
Te"ltor/es, which include proposed parks, to conduct a Needs
Assessment, which will determine the most appropriate site, size, and
content of local parks within the proposed community.
. The City currently does not have enough detailed criteria to judge the
adequacy of a proposed park site for dedication credit In terms of
topography, accesslblllty, adjacent uses, and other factors. However,
such criteria are being Incorporated Into the Parks and Recreation "'-
Department's Landscape Manual currently under preparation. The
GMOC encourages the City Council to support the timely completion
and adoption of this Manual.
. New multl.family projects In Western Chula Vista should be required to
provide a set amount of private recreation faclllties within the
development. General provisions regarding such faclllties are included
In the proposed City Design Review Manual being drafted by the
Planning Department for adoption. However, those provisions amount
to only broad guidelines, and more In-depth study Is necessary to
develop a workable program. Preparation of the PIP provides an
opportunity to address such a study.
. The Parks and Recreation Department should re-assess the
appropriateness of "mini-parks" In Western Chula Vista. While such
parks are more expensive in per-acre costs to develop and maintain,
they provide a more intimate scale for local neighborhoods, and may
be the only method by which local park deficiencies In Western Chula
Vista can be remedied without significant condemnation of existing
development. Again, this re-assessment Is part of the PIP's work
program.
(GMOC-92F.RPl]
33
;<J -fry
g - +'/
ATTACHMENT C
. 02;-'r c-/
--,
-
APPENDIX. A
/-
J-3/ÞO
C-z
I
MEMORANDUM
A rr fJ er-l
I( e. I'
.
DATE
:
February 16. 1993
FROM
.
.
Growth ManagemeTll Oversighr Committee
Richard P. Emerson. Chief of Police qA~i,..-
Police DeparrmeTll Response Statistics for Fiscal Year 1991-92
TO
.
.
SUBJECT
:
Introduction
The Police Department is responsible for reporting two "Threshold Measures" of respOnse time
data to the GMOC. Each of these Threshold Measures includes two statistics: proportion of
CFS responded to within seven 7 minutes, and, average response time. The first threshold
measure is: 85 % of all Priority I calls (life or property in imminent danger) are responded to
within 7 minutes with an average response time of 4 minutes and 30 seconds. The second
threshold measure is that 62 % of all Priority II calls are responded to within seven minutes with
an average response time of 7 minutes.
.
G!\IOC Threshold Data
During FY 1991-92, the current review period, the Police Department responded to 70,823 calls
for service (CFS). This represents an increase of 3,402 .CFS over FY 1990-91 and translates
into a growth rate in CFS volume of 5.5% for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1992. In the last
two calendar years, the CFS volume has increased by 11,205 calls for service, or approximately
18.0%.
During the current review period, 81.2 % of Priority I CFS were responded to within 7 minutes
with an average response time of 4 minutes and 53 seconds, and, 65.8% of all Priority II CFS
were responded to within 7 minutes with an average response time of 6 minutes and 28 seconds.
Therefore, while the Police Department achieved the Threshold goal for Priority II CFS, it did
not meet the Threshold for Priority I CFS.
The department did not meet the Threshold for Priority I CFS, however, the difference between
actual and standard were slight. Specifically, had the department responded to only two more
Priority I CFS per day within the 7 minute time frame, the Priority I measure would have been
met. This was accomplished despite the noted increase in total CFS volume, an effort to
encourage citizens to report criminal activity through a community outreach program, increased
participation in neighborhood watch programs, and no increase in Patrol staffing.
Miti&ation Efforts
In its October 20, 1992 report to the City Council, the GMOC stated that, "The threshold for
Police services was not met for Priority 1 (emergency) calls, although the shortfall was slight..
.
CHUlA WSTA POLICE DE1'A/mtfENT
J3/57
c-~
The report alluded to a number of steps the Police Department planned ~:> take to bring Priority
I responses back into compliance including: a re-alignment of police beats and a reduction in
sworn staff vacancy rates. Re-aligned beats were implemented on January I, 1993. Staff
continues to work towards full-staffing in the Patrol Division. Staff did, however, identify and
implement three other mitigation efforts immediately after the last GMOC review and report:
· Communications Center operational and dispatch procedures were reviewed to ensure
their effectiveness. This review concll'1ed that the established operational and dispatch
procedures were valid, but that dispatch procedures were not uniformly being followed.
Management took immediate steps to re-establish consistent employment of dispatch
procedures within the Communications Center.
"""
· Patrol Division field supervision was re-emphasized. Patrol Division Police Agents and
Sergeants have been spending more time in the field working with their staff to ensure
an appropriate allocation of staff resources. The result of this effort is a greater
emphasis upon officer flexibility based upon CFS volume. In the infrequent event that
an officer is pulled prematurely from a non-priority CFS to respond to a priority CFS.
officers follow-up on that non-priority call when the CFS volume permits.
.
Based upon an analysis of their workload, it was determined that Community Service
Officers (CSOs) could reduce Priority I response times by taking more crime reports in
the field. The number of crime reports taken by CSOs has more than doubled in the last
six months.
-.
Due to the change in reporting periods (i.e., calendar year to fiscal year) and the timing of the
GMOC Threshold review process (i.e., May/June 1992) it was acknowledged by the GMOc: that
any changes implemented by the Police Department would produce limited impact upon response
.data for the reporting period now under review. This dynamic was one of the reasons the
GMOC recommended that the Police Department monitor response times more frequently and,
thereby, be able to provide the GMOC with more timely data for their information and
consideration.
Response time data for the last four months (October 1992 to January 1993) is very
encouraging. The proportion of Priority ] CFS responded to within the seven minute
threshold has ranged from 86.0% to 90.1%. Avera&e response times have ranged from a
low of 4 minutes and]] seconds (4:11) to four minutes and rJ!ty-e1ght seconds (4:58). Both
ranges demonstrate signlncant improvement with respect to compliance with GMOC
Threshold Standards.
This improvement has occurred largely without the benefits of the change in police beats (which
did not go into effect until January I, 1993) or full-staffing in the Patrol Division. Implementing
the new beat structure was challenging because of its wide-ranging impacts on staff in the field
and in the Communications Center. The first full month of operations under the new beats was
successful -- staff adapted well to the changes and systemic "bUgs" were identified and
eliminated. In the area of full-staffing, vacancy rates and non-productive training time have been """
CHlJU VISTA POUCE DEPAR774ENT
c2J-S.J.
c-j/
.
.
.
cut significantly, but continue to impact response times. The full effect of these changes upon
response times is not known at this time. Staff will continue to monitor response data.
Additionally, on January 1st, the Police Department transitioned from the "squad" to "shift"
staffing concept in the Patrol Division. Under the squad concept, the same number of persons
are assigned to work whether the squad is working a Monday night or a Saturday night. The
shift concept allows supervisors to schedule staffing that more effectively matches calls for
service or lack thereof. Staffing above that indicated during any shift will use on-duty time to
participate in mandatory training exercises or to provide other services. In sum, the shift
concept allows for much more supervisory and staff deployment flexibility. Staff believes the
shifl concept will also help reduce response times.
Conclusion
Since the last GMOC review took place, the Police Department has implemented six measures
designed to bring responses times back into compliance:
1. Communication Center procedures have been validated and are followed consistently.
2. Field supervision of Patrol staff has been re-emphasized.
3. Community Service Officers are now taking more crime reports.
4. Police Beats ha\e been re-aligned.
5. Staff continue to work towards full-staffing in Patrol.
6. Shift, rather than squad, staffing is now used in the Patrol Division.
Due to technical mod:::cations of the GMOC process and implementation dates, these efforts had
little impact upon the data for the current GMOC review period. However, significant
improvements in response time data have been realized since October 1, 1992. Staff continue
to monitor this data on a monthly basis.
Staff expects that response time data will continue to improve and that the Police Department
will comply with GMOC Threshold Standards during the next reporting period,. July 1992
through June 1993.
cc:
John Goss
Sid Morris
Gordon Howard
Ed Batchelder
CHlILA VISTA POUCE DEPAR'TMEJIrJ'
-23/SY
(J-t!>
APPENDIX B
-
;¿3~ 51
c-t
I
",WEETWATER AUTHOR In
505 GARRETT AVENUE
POST OFFICE BOX 2328
CHUlA VISTA. CAliFORNIA 91912-2328
(619) .20-1.13 GO¥IRNING 8OARC
FAX (619) .25-7.69
8UE JARRm. CHAIR......N
8UÞ POCKLINGTON. YICE C""'RM'N
"'A\'HE W "'ITH
EDwiN J ITEELE
GEORGE H. WATIRS
IMRGARET A WELSH
CART F WRIGHT
February 8, 1993 "'ANDA AYERy
TR""URER
DoAN J REEVES
IICRnA"Y."",'NISTRA"YE AIDE
Mr. Ed Batchelder, Associate Planner
city of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula vista, CA 91910
Subject: SWEETWATER AUTHORITY SERVICE
AVAILABILITY STATUS
Dear Mr. Batchelder:
This letter is in response to your request to provide an evaluation
of Sweetwater Authority's ability to accommodate forecasted growth.
With the exception of the items listed below, the overall service
availability status of the Authority is unchanged, as stated in our
letter to you dated April 28, 1992.
Storaqe
Sweetwater Authority has approximately S3, 000 acre-feet of water in
storage in Loveland and Sweetwater Reservoirs at this time. This
amount of water is equivalent to approximately two years of
imported water supply.
Consumption
Sweetwater Authority does not intend to purchase imported water for
at least the next eighteen months. The expected water delivery to
consumers for 1993-94 is 23,500 acre-feet for the twelve-month
period.
In regards to the 1992 GMOC's "Statement of Concern" pertaining to
water, the Authority has the following comments:
1. The Authority has continued to provide information to
consumers regarding water conservation programs.
2. The Authority continues to work closely with the staff of
the City of Chula Vista as plans develop for the
bayfront.
- 3. In regards to the establishment of a urban runoff
collection system (located below Sweetwater Dam) to
minimize the amount of water lost to the ocean, the
A Public Agency- ~J-S5
Servi"6 NtJtionill City. ChIAIa Vis/tJ and SIA""lAnding Areas C-7
Mr. Ed Batchelder, Associate Planner
City of Chula Vista
Re: Sweetwater Authority Service Availability Status
February 8, 1993
page 2
Authority has prepared preliminary cost estimates for the
installation of said system. Although the cost of this
system is high, the Authority continues to explore
alternatives with City staff. The Authority is also
investigating the storage of surplus water in groundwater
aquifers.
4. Sweetwater Authority is not considering the use of
reclaimed water at this time, because it does not appear
to have a high probability of becoming available in the
foreseeable future. Sweetwater Staff continues to work
with the County Water Authority on the development of a
desalination plant in the South Bay area. Changes in
types of landscaping using xeriscape, as well as other
water use changes, have been recommended to our customers
since the origination of our water conservation program.
5. The Authority has produced a report indicating what needs
to be done and how much it would cost the Otay Water
District to utilize Sweetwater Reservoir as an emergency
source of supply.
6. Rezoning of older residential communities in Chula Vista
) to multi-unit housing continues to make existing small
diameter cast-iron pipes unable to meet the required fire
flow demands. Sweetwater Authority would like to request
that consideration be given to this situation when land
use decisions increase demands on the water supply
infrastructure.
Finally, the Authority is enclosing our updated Master Plan for
your information.
Very truly yours,
SWEETWATER AUTHORITY
~.~
Richard A. Reynolds. .
General Manager
enclosure: as cited
pc: Jim Smyth, Sweetwater Authority
Hector Martinez, Sweetwater AuthoritY )3 'ß"¿
C-3
t '
.
a : J tE:!
. z
I 'I = ., ;I
(\ ~cw
. . - a
/ ... .. 0: r- .
J. .: ~ . g¡]!!I'
~J : \ I:~ - N ë5 c t
, 1\ = ~ ." . 5 It ~ w
.;:¡. =. -.' . ...
., ~ - ... " 0
~ 5 § I 5,1 i U
. It - C '\ . lit en
. .' .
" ~ & ~ .. ~o ¡"'
. . .' . .
- c - . \ .
. . t' . ~. 0
. 1 ~ '5 i æ ~ \ \)! ..
~ ~ ; E . oj .
, )J ,.. ~ 0 Ii! \
.4 . . =1 g
I; =1 \ \' ~
. q .
- ", ~, \ .
\... J~, ~ 0
'.' "" ( \ I( .
1 ,,\. .
j' y,'.
.: ," c
.,. ~' \ 0 ~
.. ",,'
,. y ~~
. .' -
, .' .
. . ' .
j :;:
; i .
I : .
. c
¡ ~ ~
. . e
~ S
, ~
f C .
, . .
lit
lit
\ 0
lit
0 lit
. . S . .
. 0 0 .
. ft 0
ft lit 0 0
('0'0"'1 NOLL ft N = 0 .
. :)IKJOIII.. .. lit :
;¿J 57
c- 1
I
¡¡:::.'::. :.. '.~,:~ .. .:.. ~";;':'."'-":;'~i.::::.¿:rc';:;':'f':~~
I i
. TABLE 6.1 ,
¡'
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM SUMMARY I
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS I
i
L.A. ENR = 5474.14 (12/10/87) !
I'
FIRST PHASE (approximately 1990 to 2000) Estimated Cost I
!
A. Storage Facilities I
2.5 MG O. D. Arnold Tank $1,175,000
2.5 MG Central.WbeelerTank 940,000 1
2.0 MG Starr. McMillin Tank 940,000
4.0 MG National City Tank 2,000,000
B. Pumping Modifications '
RemodeJ Claire Vista Pump Station 400,000 ;
Remodel National City Well Pump Station 600,000
New Lincoln Acres Pump Station 800,000
AdditionaJ pumps at Bonita Bel Aire
and Robinhood 250,000
C. Cathodic Protection (Existing Steel Mains) 600,000
D. Master Plan Main Improvements 11,784,400
E. Main Replacements (Life Expectancy Metallic) 15.332.500
FIRST PHASE TOTAL $34,821,900
SECOND PHASE (after year 2000) Estimated Cost
A. Storage Facilities
1.0 MG Morris Tank $470,000
5.0 MG HaJecrest Tank 2,500,000
1.0 MG Bonita Highlands Tank 470,000
1.5 MG O. D. Arnold Tank 705,000
B. Pumping Modifications
Add fire pump O. D. Arnold Hydro 100,000
Add 20 HP at Rice Canyon 120,000
Add fire pump at Sea View Hydro 100,000
C. Cathodic Protection (Existing Steel Mains) 600,000
D. Master Plan Main Improvements 14,033,800
E. Main Replacements (LIfe Expectancy Metallic) 4%.450.000
SECOND PHASE TOTAL $61,548,800
;u-5F1
6-2 C - /"
. i
t ' ,-
I ~. APPENDIX C
I.'
t. MEMO
-', '
I'
, '
.
. . TO: AL R. SORENSEN DATE: FEBRUARY 10,1989
.
. Fa: RICHARD A. REYNOLDS
RE: SYSTEM REPLACEMENT PROGRAM
"
¡ The benefits or a .re, reliable, permanent pubUc water IIIpply are obvious to
persons In tbe Industry, but Its uistence Is usually laken for cranted b)' tbe
leneral public. Tbe capital facilities tbat make up tbe water IIIpply and
delivery network are caIJed tbe urban Infrastructure. Tbls Inrrastructure
represents a major Investment or tbe Sweetwater Autborlty. Tbe maintenance or
our system Is represented by tbe labor, materials and ftnancial resources
. required to keep our water system In a lood condition and Is a paramount
responsibility or tbe Sweetwater Autborlty. Plannlnl, flnanclnl and
replacement or portions or tbe system as tbey reacb their econouùcal Ofe .pan
sbould be based on accurate and comprebenslve data as to tbe capacity and
condition or racilities. Tbls Is extremeJy Important to ensure tbat avallable
dollars are spent wisely to reduce maintenance costs and to provide capacity
wben required.
Water supply øervlce can be divided Into a øerles of functions; acquisition,
- treatment and delivery. Mos: proresslonal and re¡ulatory attention bas been
focused on tbe' treatment function because It represents tbe barrier between
potentially Infectious disease from uncertain raw water quaUty and tbe water
user. A frequently overlooked factor In dealing witb water systenø, bowever~ Is
tbe effect that tbe water deliverr system can bave on tbe quality of water
received at tbe tap. After drinking water bas passed tbrougb tbe treatment
plant, øeveral mecbanlsms can re-Introduce bacteria Into drlnldnl water. Some
of these are:
L Open reservoirs.
2. Enclosed reservoirs In wblcb chlorine residuals are not maintained.
3. New eonstructlon wblcb may disturb tbe aIstInc 11I1em.
4. Pipeline breaks wblcb may become an IDc:reasInc problem as
distribution systenø ace.
5. Unprotected cross eonnec:tlons which cause back 8Iphonale or
back pressure from unapproved water IOUrceL
6. Dead ends In maiDs which l'IIult In ltapant water.
7. Chlorine resistaDt orpnilms In water maiDS which ma)' release
bacteria when disturbed by hllh velocIty nows.
MaIntenance or the water quaDty In the distribution I)'Item Is Just u Important
81 eDS\Irlnl tbat .re water enters the IyItem initially.
ell" 5'(
- C-fl
---
.
~--:~.., ~ w" ='~.:1'-- "-
.---. ~_i.:\ ~~ .--------.-- ,. . - ~ --
ME M ~ (Continued)
To: AI R. Sorensen
Fr: Richard A. Reynolds
Re: SYSTEM REPLACEMENT PROGRAM
Pale 2
A famiJy of four normally uses about 650 pllons of water each day. Generally,
. less than one percent of this Is used directly for cooking and consumrtion, but
¡ one bundred percent of tbe water must be maintained at very bllh quality
: Itandards, because tbere Is only one distribution system. In addition to
. domestic use, water must also be avaiJable for fire protection, Industrial UIe and
¡ Irrigation. Water utilities, tberefore, bave a Ii¡:nlficant responslbUity that aoes '
I beyond the supply of potable water.
I The treatment and delivery functions of a water utility represent large financial
¡ Investments. In the case of Sweetwater Authority operations, lince system
, demands cannot be compJeteJy met from the treatment plant at all times, a
I connection was made to the Metropolitan Water District and San Diego County
; Water Authority aqueduct system. This connection allows tbe Sweetwater
I Autbority the versatility of operating the treatment plant during selected
periods or to supply our consumer needs from the aqueduct system or a
combination thereof.
Tbls report is primarily concerned wIth the deliverlsystem which Includes the
Itorage and distribution facilities of our water utility. Tbe Autbority's Fixed
Assets Depreciation Records Indicate that the Investment In the existing
distribution pipeline system Is $28,808,900.00. Tbis represents a very IignIncant
sum since these facilities were constructed over the last eIghty years or 10 and at
present day costs, their worth Is assumed to be about 250 percent of their Initial
cost or $72,000,000.00.
.
Tbe water utility delivery system, therefore, obviously represents a larle and
Important portion of the water utilities physicaJ plant. Tbe delivery system bas a
sI¡:nificant roJe in terms of community public bealtb. Since all pbyslcaJ plant
must someday be repJaced, the delivery system InvoJves a larle capitaJ
Investment as well as blgh annuaJ replacement cost. Evidence Is mounting that
the cost of needed annual repJacements Is Increaslnl over time because of
Innation and because of steadily depreciatlnl physical plant. In the Sweetwater
Autborlty system, the life of IOme pipelines Installed prior to 1940 Is already fully
depreciated. However, It must be understood that just because a pipeline bas
reached Its depreciated nfe, replacement Is not always Immediately necessary.
There are pipelines within the Sweetwater Authority's physical plant wblcb will
fall before complete depreciation, alnce depreciation In tbe accountlnl sense
and tbe physical sense do not always coincide. .
The Sweetwater Authority system Is presently uperienclnl about 15 to 150
water main failures per year. Tbese failures, durinl tbe period 1983 tbroulh
1987, cost between $170,000.00 and $400,000.00 per year to repair.
On a recent sin lie night, fí main leaks with a total estimated repair cost of more
than $200,000 occurred. One week later a mnlle main leak bad a repaIr cost of
over $225,000 and an associated main replacement cost of $170,000. While these
costs, In tbe past, bave amounted to only one to one and a balf percent of the
system capltaJ cost, tbe loss of service to consumers, property damale potential,
public bealtb contamination potential, and water loss represent a major concern .
for tbe Board and Starr of the Sweetwater Authority. :2 J - ¿, 0
C-/Z
--, -~
I (, )
ME M 0 (Continued)
1
f To: AI R. Sorensen
. t Fr: Richard A. Reynolds
-.1 Re: SYSTEM REPLACEMENT PROGRAM
Page 3
Additionally, as In the recent œse of leaks dted, as time continues past the
expected useful Ufe of facilities, the east of repairs Is UkeJy to IDcrease
8I&I\ificantiy.
The transmission and distribution I)'Item consists of approximately 45 miles
(237,600 feet) of cast Iron, 47 miles (248,160 feet) of welded .eeI and 265 mDes
(1,399,200 feet) of asbestos cement water mains.
The cast Iron mains were Installed leneraJJy from 1908 through the early 1950's.
Asbestos cement pipe was Installed beginning In a~proxlmateJY 1945, and Is the
principal pipe material used today. Steel water ma ns Were used for the original
water system dating back to 1887. Steel Is also used today for mains 16 Incbes In
diameter and larger and In special conditions IUch as crosslngs of rivers, etc.,
where strength and ductility are important.
All of tbe pipeline materials bave a life expectancy beyond whlcb IDcreased leaks
and blowouts resuJting In property damages and water outages are likely to
occur. The accounting life expectancy for various pipeline materials used in tbe
system appears to be approximateJy 45 years for cast Iron and 75 fears for botb
asbestos cement and steel.
I
Cast iron seems to have the sbortest life, probabJy due to tbe very reactive lOlls I
In the area and the fact tbat some forelçn. and wartime cast Iron appears to have
8 shorter life due to inferior materials avadable at that time.
Prior to the 1950's, cast Iron mains were backfilled witb native materials without
regard to corrositivity of soils. Many of tbese mains have now experienced
corrosion leading to failures. In 8 corrosive environment, tbe Ufe expectancy for
cast Iron mains bas been determined to be Dear tbose Ibown ID tbe following
ta~: .
TABLE 1
EFFECT OF CORROSIVE SOn. ON LIFE OF CAST IRON PIPE
'.Ife In Years for Various
Size or Main Corrosltivitv or Soils
MlliI Moderate Sum
4" '5 51 38
6" 80 48 30
8" 60 3S 20
10" "12" 48 26 15
-
- :L}-tø! C- /.J
---- I
I
~~"7 :~~"~~~~:Y7.'::'~=Y:~Z;¡'~:- -~~~. ",",. "'~y - ,.......~
ME M 0 (Continuec')
To: AI R. Sorensen
Fr: Richard A. ReynoJds
Re: SYSTEM REPLACEMENT PROGRAM
Pale 4
Present technolOKY blClicates that metallic mains lllouid be Insulated from
corrosive native IOU by either and or decom= ~lte and In IOme levere
cases with a polyethylene wrap or sleeve. This ula on bas extended the Ofe of
cast Iron pipes and fittings to a Ofe expectancy nearly equal to that of asbestos
cement pipe. However, there Is no current cost effective method to protect or
enhance the life of cast Iron mains after they are InstaIJed, lIIort of replacement.
During past years IOme of the exlstinl larler cast Iron mains have been cement
Oned, In place, resultinl In an Increase In tbelr flow carrying capacity and
Improved water quaUty. However, failures from external corrosion have Itll/
occurred on these mains and their Ofe upectancy was not really Increased.
One problem that Sweetwater Autborlty Is experlenclnl wltb unnned cast Iron
and steel mains (those Installed In tbe 1940's and earlier), Is a tuberculation
buildup on the Interior of the unnned mains. This buildup Is caused by calcium
collecting on the rough interior of tbe pipe wblch, over a period of years, causes
the Interior diameter of pipelines to decrease, tbus reduclnl the carry!nl
capacity of the main. Reduced crossectional area causes tbe water to flow at
higher velocities which reduces pressures due to friction losses. Increased
velocities can contribute to more faiJures because of blgher pressure IUrges
during valve operation and other events which affect the direction of flow In the
distribution system.
The Insurance Service Ornce (ISO), an agency which rates water and fire
systems for insurance purposes, has increased Its requirements for fire flows and
durations over the past twenty to thirty hears. Where multi-family residential
types of developments previously bad a re flow requirement of about 1500
!allons per minute for a two hour duration, these requirements now range from
000 gallons per minute to 3500 ¡allons per minute for a four bour duration. The
actual flow requirement Is hase upon the type of buUdinl materIals used and
tbe height of the proposed structure. Increased flow requirements bave the
effect of Increasln¡ the required diameter of pipeline replacements when they
are made.
The combination of tuberculation In pipelines (which restricts pipeline carry!n¡
capacity) and Increased demands bas made many of the ølstln¡ òlder. water
mains IUbstandard In size. Inattemptln¡ to IOlve tbese problems, either a more
denseJy ¡ridded system of maIns must be Installed or the ølstin¡ mains must be
replaced with lar¡er diameter mains which can IUpply the required demands.
Staff bas reviewed the possibility of Increaslnl the 8rlddlnl or mains In Ueu of
replacement with larler diameter mains. There are insufficient rllhu-of-way In
IOme cases, but the main drawback to this alternative Is that the CIOIt would
become excessive compared to upslzlnl emtlnl pipelines.
Tbe depreciated life of maIns as lpeclfted previously In this report, indicates that
many of the older mains have already passed their life expectancy.
:2J '& J,
C-/~
I ')
M I M 0 (Continued)
I To: AI R. Sorensen
i Fr: Richard A. Reynolds
Re: SYSTEM REPLACEMENT PROGRAM
-I Page 5
While many or these mains bave Dot exhIbited Jroblems, an orderly proaram
must be ImpJemented to assure the continuation a hIgh level or .mce to our
consumers and tbat maintenance expense does Dot become excessive. The
replacements shown In Table 2 should bave aIrady been implemented.
TAIILE 2
WATER MAIN REPLACEMENTS WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE
ÅDrAU Jeplacement AIr.I:m
JeDlacement A vera~e Cost
MateriaJ IJ(c StArt ComDJete I~n~h Per Y~Ar (1988 $)
Cast Iron 45 Yrs. 1953 1997 5280' $475,200.00
Steel 75 Yrs. 1962 2036 3310' $397,200.00
Asbestos Cement 75 Yrs. 2020 --, ..
Total $ Per Year $872,400.00
However, a comprehensive program did not start in 1953 ror cast Iron and In 1962
for steel. Tbus additional emphasis needs to be placed on "catchIng up" with
past delays In the start or the replacement program. It is recommended tbat the
majority or the cast iron be repJaced by year 2010 (22 Jars). In addition, the )
steelsbould be caught up by year 2036 (48 years).
Since the actual size or tbese main replacements bas Dot been determined, an
averaJe unit price or $90.00 per foot is used In this report, whIcb equates to a
12" pipe at present day costs. .
TabJe 3 contains the recommended replacement program baled on tar¡et
replacement completion yars available (Recommended Term) aDd with an
estimated 20% reduction due to other Master Plan work.
TABLE 3
WATER MAIN REPLACEMENTS RECOMMENDED
IF PROGRAM BEGINS IN 1989.90 BUDGET YEAR
. AIr.I:m
Recom'd Replacement Jeplacement Avera~eCost
Material I1I:m StArt ColI\Plete bngth Per Y-r 11988 $)
Cut Iron 22 Yrs. 1989 2010 1640' $777,600.00
Steel 48Yrs. 1989 2036 5065' $607,800.00
Asbestos Cement - - - -- --
, .
Total $ Per Year $1,385,400.00
d-J~¿3 C-/S-
-.
~:":":':=~--- -~--~:..
- - ~--~--- ----------- -- --- .. ..-
)
ME M 0 (Continued)
( To: Ai R. Sorensen
Fr: Richard A. Reynolds
Re: SYSTEM REPLACEMENT PROGRAM
Page 6
These c:œts should be added to the recommended Master Plan Im~rovements
, which were $1,562,000.00 per year for the period 1985 to 1995 In the 1 83 Master
Plan Update and are presently being re-estimated In the U89 Master Plan
Update.
TabJe 4 shows the funds required for replacements and Master Plan
Improvements, which Ihould be constructed each year If replacements due to Ufe
expectancy and planned improvements are to be provided for:
TABLE 4
ANNUAL REPLACEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT FUNDS REQUIRED
Cast Iron Main Replacements $777,600.00
SteeJ MaIn Replacements $607,800.00
Master Plan Improvements SI~62.000.00
I - Total Funds Required Annually $2,947,400.00
In the last three years, funds have generally not been available for replacements
on Master Plan improvements. TabJe 5 shows the funds actually spent on these
needs in the period 1986.87 through 1988-89:
TABLE 5
FUNDS SPENT ON REPLACEMENTS
AND MASTER PLAN IMPROVEMENTS
¥xpenditures For FJq)endltures For
Ma~ter Ph'n
1:m Main ReDlacements 'IJU)rovements
1986.87 $59,000.00 .0.
1987.88 $81,000.00 .0.
1988-89 $221,000.00. .0.
-(Does not include $170,000 for "En Street that was reeently approved.)
This effort is far behind what should be committed to provide for replacements
due to life expectancy, which controls the pipeline maintenance expense, and
ì Master Plan improvements which ensure that our delivery l)'Item will perform at
the required level.
d]-tÝ c-/¿
k.. ~- --- _: ~=_lfJj~~ ~"~ :.:..t".,-." '~""":':--~~-'-"=~-"":-.'- .c'~8IJIi
,...
( ~ . ) ,
ME M 0 (Continued) I
,
To: AI R. Sorensen .
Fr: Richard A. Reynolds
Re: SYSTEM REPLACEMENT PROGRAM
Pale 7
Tbe Sweetwater Autbority bas been J:ylnl for abort tenD ftnanc:in¡ of malor
Improvements which will be paid off 19 9.90. Additional funds are becouun¡
available as shown on TabJe 6:
TAIILE6
FlIJII'DS AVAILABLE DUE TO PAYOFF OF SHORT TERM FINANCING
BAR PAYMF.NTS QIIŒB. :mIAL
1988-89 $500,000.00 $500,000.00
1989.90 $1,000.000.00 $700,000.00 $1,700,000.00
1990.91 $2,000,000.00 52,000,000.00
As can be seen from a review of tbe above, even wltb the payo", of short tenD
finanån¡, Insufficient funds are avaiJabJe to meet recommended replacement
and Master Plan Improvement needs. To meet tbese needs appro:dmately
$3,000,000.00 per year should be available IOJely for replacements and
Improvements in addition to otber needs whicb should also receive a portion of
available funds, sucb as fleet replacements and other capital ::fulrements. If
two thirds of the monies availabJe (sbown In TabJe 6) were com tied toward a
required $3,000,000.00 annual replacement and Improvement annual fund, we
wouJd still be $1.67 million per 1ear abort.
There are several ways of providin¡ the required funds.
A ceneral rate Increase of U¡.7~ would provide the funds to ellnûnate the above
.hortele. Anotber way to pnerate these funds from rates would be to ebar¡e a
hllb service aurc:barle to elevated pressure zones which are above the aravity
system and require pumpln¡. A 51 ~ Inc:rease per 100 c.r. for pumpln¡ lervlc:e
would also accompllsb this ¡oal.
Botb of these methods require a rather blab Immediate Inc:rease In rates.
Anotber approach wbich might bave a less leVere economic or rate Impact would
be to borrow avrO:dmately $15 million on lonl tenD flnanc:lna or 2 _ues at $7.5
million each. hIs .bould provide sufficient unds for construction of the first
pbase of the runo", protection project and a alplncant start on the most critical
replacement and Improvement projects. Table 7 UIustrates the proposed
disposition of the loan proceeds and the required Debt Services durlna the first
3 years:
rJ-3 ~¿š .C-/7
-
I
(;¿~~:. ~. ~~. ~.::.. d :.. ~.~~£:~ ~(.e:yq.~~'eJ~~7~\~[':-æ-y.~
M E M 0 (Continued)
To: AI R. Sorensen
Fr: Ricbard A. ReynoJds
Re: SYSTEM REPLACEMENT PROGRAM
Pale 8
TABLE 7
PROPOSED CAPITAL BUDGET ITEMS FOR
REPLACEMENTS AND IMPROVEMENTS
(FIRST 3 YEARS) "
IWn ¡)escription First 2 YOrl 1m.1
1. Cast Iron Main Replacements $777,600 $777,600
2. Steel Main Replacements $607,800 $607,800
3. Runoff Protection Project $1,980,000 $1,980,000
4. Master Pian Improvements $1,614,600 $1,614,600
5. Debt Service $7 oS Million Loan $710,000 $710,000
6. Debt Service $7 oS Million Loan .0- $710,000
Beginning In the fourth year, funds for the metallic main replacements and
Master Pian Improvements wouJd be entirely from rates. Tbe attached twelve
year foreast (proforma) is a model of the projected expenditures and funding
through tbe year 1000.
Staff recommends that tbe Govemini Board establish a plan to Drovlde for
rtPlacement of metallic mains and Installation of MA~ter Plan Il1\Provements.
Staff further recommends that said pJan IncJude aporopriate steps to ensure the
availability of these funds by the end of the 1989.90 bu4aet year,
attachment: TweJve Year Forecast
c23 ~??
C-/.J'
-
~g ~~~o~ §~~ ~00io~~~ggg02g~g2: ~~= hoogo °8°00~
. ~J"!':~~ ""'::~,,!.--N--~' ..--~.. ..:!;~
. ::~~:;¡-~..~~---- ...~.:.: .:,;
:~ .
_. ~g :g~o~ SÑm ~00io~~~ggg02g~go ~ 2~~ -oogo ooo~o~
~~ ':~~ ':: "!~"! ':: ~ "!~ --N N- -~ "! ~-~ %.. ~ ~;~
Ë~::r:-~"'.:!---- ...::-- .:;¡
WI! ~~~03 ¡¡;- ~0000~~ggg200g~00 - ..... -oogo o~ooo-
i~ ~~~ ~ ~~; ~ ~ ~~~--~ h-~~~ ~ ~~~ 2 .. N ~;ñ
~:~tj-P'.""'~---- "'fI-- '::}
1 .~ w~ ...~o. f"" ~oooo~n~oooooonoa'" ..... -oo~o ol>ono~
. ~O ~~ ~-.. - 1>. ... .. -I> con -o~.. .. ."'1>" ... - ......
j ~6 ~.' ~~~ ~ .~~ ':: ~ "!': --- ..- -. ': ~-~. ~ .. -~~
. -~ n--... .I>n - - -- ... ~ - - -n
'0""."" - . .
. , In ~
~ "'~
J : W. n-.o.. iMM noooonn2ggooogoon.. fl>" -oo~o 00000..
',- . i'r fjif:1 ~ .~~ ::: : ;I¡¡¡'í--~ h-M!,!:;! ~ ¡¡¡~8 ~ :; :! :!;~
J. ~ -~_ô,:.;......,:,:,:,: ".,;.:.: .:,;
- .. ..... - . .
- ..>
. w..
. 0
~
~~ a:~o~ £~~ ~00;0~~~~2~0~2~~~! !~g ~oo~o °2°~;~
".. ... . .. .. .. .. ..
~ E: :~- ~ n~~ - - -- ...: - - -:
-"C w~
t. ~.. .M-O~ ~I>I> noooonngng~00go02" ..I>M -oo~o o..o~o..
c'r ~Ñ~ I> .8~ ::: : ;~M"'-- Ñ-M~~ ~ 8~~ 2 ~ .. -;~
,. !:;1 ..,;.: - ....... .: .:.:.: ,,- .: .:-
.. .-.. - . .
., In ~
'<! w..
:$
1 ~~ &~~R~ ~~: ~00:r~~~~~~0~2~~~ ¡ 8~: ~oo~~ ooo~:~
1 ;~ ~~.:.¡~ ,;.¡~ .: ---- .:.: M .:~ I
. u»
j ~~ :: n..oo~ 0-- noo02~ngnggOlgnon M MI>. -0000 OOOn&M
~~ ~~ :~; ~ :!;~ ::: ~.;P¡M~-- -"!'!~ & :~~ ~ ~ !'!...t
~ ~~ !; ",;.: M ,;.¡.: .: --- è M M
.,!",...-.. - . .
.1 iE ¡:¡¡;
. ",¡ w- ..n~~- ¡¡.. nOO¡¡onn2nngolgn~0.. ...t -conn ooo~on
. - ~~ ~~ ~~~R: ~2~ ::: ...I!; I ~~~- -"-~:! .~~ ~ R~ -~:
, c "0. . . . . .. . . . . ..
. ~~ ::~ ~:-~~ ...: - --- I> ~ ~ ~
- '" -' In >
!r~ w..
In~ ~~ ~~~o~ g~~ ~o;ogggg~ggolg~¡¡~ ~ ~~M ;0020 ~~o~or:
CI 1>.-. ~I>n ~... ...."M - - -n. 1>-11. ~ MM - .
~ !s; MM':" ..no - .. ~ M
, ...-- - . .
~ In
i ..w. ""-o~ -p¡s; ""'-OOO.fNOOS'--tE 2 -..~ ~00"'0 tn..NOO
i ffië~ M~~ I! ~~I> :::~õ ~~~M:! :.. .-~¡¡¡, ~~:; ~ fI -~~: s;
! !~II ~~.: ~ M~I> .:':': " ~ ~
~ "'I:)¡;
. I> ".~Ol> M~O ..~OOO"."MIO~III". N 0.... ...oo~o ""N~ON
~I> .... ~ .o~ ..... "~M. ~ Nn - ...... .. .-"'0-
; ~ ":~~ "! ..-0 '::.~ - I> - -~ ': ...-. ': .. ~~.- ':
1 I> ~N-" ~n. --- ~ .. - ~
-l ~¡;.- - OO.'
~ I> ¡
-!> It; ~ ~ !
¡ - ~ i - ~ ~ ~
-'-4 !: i" t ¡..",~ ;i:..tW;h..u
~ ~ ; ~....t~!~~~-~~~ii~õ - ~~t¥ ~r~r~~~5 2
~~~ .. 0" ¡ !~'" -Ci' ~ ~ ,~ '" w i In
~- ¡r~~ ~ ~ '.Lflõ',,=! "~~ - , ¥ t"'5~el~~õ ~I~
'.' ! -". f"! III."'w ~~II~ft '11~!2fi,c'" W ~it ¥11"'~~rcfl~~1!'.
.~ ;: '"'WI' ~t~i - ~h W",ihh i"'~i ~ t. ì5ti~" W ì5~lId'i
-~ ' i~~~i ;i;i ~iifiiliiSSs:ìiiii i l¡l~li!irli~j¡~f;
~, :;¿3~ú 7 c- /1
-- ...1)rrlir'otrrllr. COnlllll/ 1i!y gnlil'f
'0'" "'~ACHA IOU,EIIA"O, SP"'NG -,"Y, CAI."""NIA "."
n,EPHONE 670-2222. A"EA COOE."
February 19, 1993
Mr. Ed Batchelder
Growth Management Oversight Commission
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Subject: 1992 Threshold Standards Review and Comment
Dear Mr. Batchelder:
We have reviewed the City's 12-18 month and 5-7 year
development forecasts and offer the following comments:
The 12-18 month forecast of 1264 units appears
significantly 'higher than what we expect to occur.
During 1992, Otay added 611 meters to our entire
system. We estimate that approximately two-thirds or
400 of those were in Chula Vista. Even if this number
of finished units significantly increases next year,
the projection appears to be more than twice what will
occur.
The 1179-1388 units per year for the next 5-7 years
also appears somewhat high. We would expect a unit
count in the 800-1000 per year range based on
historical averages.
With respect to a cooperative groundwater project with the
Sweetwater Authority, I will be pursuing with Sweetwater
Authority the development of a conjunctive use groundwater
project in the Middle Sweetwater River Basin which could
yield as much as 1000 acre feet per year additional storage
capacity. We are also actively pursuing disbursement of our
storage facilities around the District to avoid the
catastrophic affect that a natural disaster might have on a
single water storage facility.
Accompli.hment. During the pa.t Year
On the regional front, the County Water Authority is
progressing on the construction of Pipeline '4 which is
expected to be completed by the summer of 1994. This
pipeline will increase the treated water delivery capacity
to Otay as well as provide an additional level of
reliability from the standpoint that there will be two
pipelines coming to South County as opposed to the one we
:2..3 ~~ Y
C-Zé7
~.
-
Mr. Ed Batchelder
February 19, 1993
Page -2-
have today. In addition, Otay is proceeding with construc-
tion of a major 30 mg terminal reservoir adjacent to East-
Lake Parkway. This reservoir, when completed in the summer
of 1994, will help the District meet our five day covered
storage goal.
We are continuing to hold discussions with Helix and the
City of San Diego in an attempt to negotiate agreements
whereby the city and Helix would provide emergency supplies
to Otay during aqueduct failures. In this way, otay won't
need to construct ten days of reservoir storage in order to
sustain an outage from CWA.
In addition to those negotiations, three other fronts are
being pursued in an attempt to reduce the need for potable
water emergency storage facilities:
,We are actively pursuing the development of reclaimed
water facilities within new development projects. In
- this manner, reclaimed water will be used to provide
for irrigation, therefore, relieving the need for ten
days potable water storage. In addition, we fully sup-
port the construction of an advanced wastewater treat-
ment plant in the otay River Valley which would provide
reclaimed water for these newly built distribution fa-
cilities. In addition to reclaimed water, we are ac-
tively supporting CWA's proposal to participate in the
construction of desalination facilities at SDG&E's
Chula Vista plant. This also would provide an alterna-
tive source of water in the event of a pipeline break
further reducing our dependence on potable water stor-
age facilities.
'The City of Chula Vista and Otay reached agreement
this year regarding the purchase of approximately 50
acres from The Baldwin Company and future planning re-
garding the location of reservoirs within the City.
The two agencies agreed to cooperatively plan the loca-
tion of any proposed reservoirs and Otay has agreed to
perform a cost-benefit analysis of the reservoirs pro-
posed on the Baldwin site prior to any construction oc-
curring. If it is found that a more cost effective
method of providing ten days supply is available, Otay
would obviously choose the more cost effective method
rather than building the reservoirs.
;;'J~t7
c.-z./
I
-
Mr. Ed Batchelder
February 19, 1993
Page -3-
.Representatives from Sweetwater Authority, Chula Vista
City council and otay have continued to meet during the
past year to address issues of joint concern as well as
keep the City informed regarding state-wide water 1s-
sues which may impact development in Chula Vista.
In an effort to provide more information to our customers in
a manner that is easily understandable, the attached infor-
mationwas distributed.
I hope this information provides help in this review of the
threshold performance. If I can be of any further ass is-
tance, please let me know.
Sincerely,
~¿X -2:Z'7~
Keith Lewinger
General Manager
attachments
)3- 71)
c-¿z-
I
-
<
MEMORANDUM
February 16, 1993
TO: Chairman and Members of the Growth Management Oversight
Commission
VIA: Gordon Howard, Principal Planner d fJ:I.
FROM: - Ed Batchelder, Associate PlannerØ
SUBJECT: WATER THRESHOLD STANDARD REVIEW -
CAL AMERICAN WATER COMPANY
Previously, the GMOC has indicated that areas where little change had occurred from
the previous year would be given more cursory review. In recent discussion with Mr.
Mark Rogers, Manager of Cal American Water Company, is was determined that there
were no differences in service availability or conditions over those reported to you in
1991 and 1992.
As you may be aware, Cal American is a small private water company which currently
serves approximately 350 homes in the Broderick's Otay Acres and Woodlawn Park
areas of Montgomery. Development consists of limited infilling. Mr. Rogers indicates
that major capital improvements to their delivery infrastructure in 1988/89, and
presented to the GMOC in 1990, well enable Cal American to maintain adequate levels
of service to meet all existing and future needs. He adds that the infrastructure could
support approximately 10 times their current service levels.
In this regard, Mr. Rogers has inquired as to the continuing need for annual reporting
by Cal American to the GMOC, and has asked that the GMOC provide direction in the
matter.
A copy of Cal American's last comprehensive report {April 17, 1990) has been attached
for information.
;(3~7f C- Z-1
I
-
APPENDIX C
- ;¿ :3 -- 7 c2- C-z1/
I
CHULA VISTA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT
MARl! ':~:.
Planning Department
MEMORANDUM
DATE: March 11, 1993
TO: Chula Vista' Growth Management Oversight Commission
FROM: Chula Vista Elementary School District
RE: SCHOOL THRESHOLD REPORT - RESPONSE TO CITY'S 12 -18
MONTH GROWTH FORECAST
RESPONSE TO CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS
REGARDING 1992 STATEMENT OF CONCERN
Comment 1:
"Assist the School District in adopting and implementing expansion
of schools in Western Chula Vista, particularly Vista Square School
and Rice School, which have existing space."
For the past two years, the District has responded to this concern by stating that
Feaster School is the obvious candidate for expansion in Western Chula Vista. There
is a 4 acre vacant parcel for sale adjacent to the school on which the City's
development approval has expired. District and City officials and staff have discussed
the District's acquisition of this property. The acquisition would require financing,
which, at the present time, only appears available through mitigation funds from the
Midbayfront project There is currently concern that should this property be acquired
and developed by the Port District, full mitigation for impacts of both residential and
non-residential development may be more difficult to obtain. Since the GMOC has
included this recommendation in its report to the Council for the past several years, it is
essential that any project development approval contain this condition. The only other
viable sites for expansion in the northwestern quadrant of the City, without requiring
costly and time-consuming condemnation proceedings, are Rice School (14 gross
acres) and Vista Square School (10.9 gross acres). The configuration of Vista
Square's buildings provides a large playground area making it potentially feasible to
add additional relocatable classrooms to this facility.
Page 1 :¿J-7J
C-07.s-
I
Comment 2:
"Urge the School District to maximize the use of school facilities
through multi-track scheduling and other innovative methods. The
School District acknowledges that much of the overcrowding
problem in Western Chula Vista schools might be relieved by
impleme:1ting a multi-track year-round schedule for schooJs, but
such a solution is not supported by the School Board at this time
because of parental and staff opposition. Adoption of multi-track
school schedules are also a strong factor In the provision of state
financing for new school facilities, which the Board should consider
in its decision."
This year eight more schools were involved in growth planning studies and prepared
growth plans, bringing the total to 24 schools that have adopted growth plans. By next
year, all schools will have begun the annual process of developing and updating a
growth plan Several schools' plans contain a multi-track component to be analyzed
when the school reaches a certain capacity. It is not financially feasible to implement
multi-track until a school's population exceeds its capacity by 20 percent. The District
will continue to evaluate multi-track programs.
Comment 3:
"Support the School District in its efforts to change State law to
lower the required vote on school construction bonds from two-
thirds to a simple majority,"
Senate Bill 1287, effective January 1,1993, provides that ACA 6 will be on the June,
1994, ballot. ACA 6 changes the required vote for a General Obligation Bond from a
2/3 vote to a simple majority. If this legislation is passed and subsequently approved
by the voters, the District will give consideration to mounting a General Obligation Bond
campaign.
Comment 4:
"Deny applications to rezone any property in Western Chula Vista
which would increase allowable density or intensity of use unless no
aggravation of existing threshold standards related to schools will
result"
The City has placed these types of applications on hold, pending the outcome of a joint
District/City study and development of a school mitigation ordinance, which is
discussed below. The only exception to this may be a recent application to amend the
General and Specific Plans for an area south of Anita Street and East of Broadway. A
Page 2 J.3/71(
C-z..t,
copy of the District's response to the City's initial notice on this application is attached
as Exhibit 1.
I
Comment 5:
"Study the impacts of new non-residential development upon City
s...:-'ools and consider adoption of measures which wouJd fully
mitigate such impacts."
For the last year, City and District staff have been meeting to discuss development of
quantifiable criteria for 2$sessing impacts of both residential and non-residential
projects on school facilitie:. and determining the "fair share" for each development type.
The San Diego Associaticc; of Governments (SANDAG) will assist in this task. Once
the impacts from each development are quantified, potential methods for fully mitigating
these impacts will be analyzed and a proposal prepared for Council/School Board
review.
Comment 6:
"Require full mitigation of school impacts from the Baytront project,
and recommend to the school district that this mitigation measure be
implemented by building a new school or expanding existing
schools in the northwestern quadrant of Chula Vista."
As stated previously, the City placed the condition on the conceptual approval for the
Bayfront project that the developer fully mitigate all impacts to school facilities from
both residential and non-residential development to the satisfaction of the District.
The District had verbal agreement with the owner of the property, and requested
written confirmation several times, but it was never provided. With the possible sale of
the project to the Port District, there is concern that this condition remain in effect.
Whether the project is developed by a public agency or private individual or firm, the
same impacts to schools occur, and must be fully mitigated. Our concern was
exacerbated when the District notified the City and Coastal Commission late last year
of the difficulty in obtaining confirmation of our verbal mitigation agreement for this
project. City staff subsequently advised the Commission in a December 7, 1992,
letter, that "... pursuant to the normal development and fee payment process, school
mitigation fees are paid with other fees at the time that development permits are
pulled, Le., after full review and approval of construction drawings for a project." The
letter further states that "Determination of fees has and continues to be a matter of
negotiation between the developer and the School District," and concludes that the
City does not feel school mitigation to be an appropriate item for consideration by the
Coastal Commission. Both the wording about paying fees at the time permits are
pulled, which is the manner State-authorizedfees are collected, and the City's
opposition to having the Coastal Commission include any conditions relative to school
mitigation, have caused concern. Any type of full reimbursement agreement, such as
Page 3 ,J3 - /3
C-.17
I
:.
the Mello-Roos financing contemplated for this project, must occur far earlier in the
process. To be enforceable, such full mitigation must be a condition of approval
imposed by the City. Copies of the correspondence cited above are attached as
Exhibit 2.
We would appreciate the GMOC's assistance in assuring that their recommendation
that full mitigation from the Bayfront project be required.
RESPONSE TO CITY's 12-18 MONTH FORECAST
Projects Within Sweetwater Authority Service Area
Enrollments in western Chula Vista continue to increase. Of the 1,629 dwelling units
expected to reach occupancy over the next 18 months, 168 are located in the
Sweetwater Authority service area (west of 1-805, excludes 75 seniors only units). At
the average District-wide student generation rate of 0.3 students/unit, 50 new students
are anticipated from residential development. Table 1 indicates the number of units,
and the home school for these students.
TABLE 1
School No Units New Students
Feaster 26 8
Lauderbach 37 11
Otay/Montgomery 39 12
Rice 12 3
Rosebank 19 6
Other 35 10
TOTAL 181 50
While most schools west of 1-805 are operating at or above capacity, some space does
exist in certain schools at various grade levels. As of February 5, 1993, 119 children
were being overflow bused from the five schools listed above. A total of 273 children
are being overflow bused from all schools west of the 805.
In order to maximize classroom facilities usage, as school populations increase, in
addition to busing to schools with capacity, any remaining non-essential uses being
conducted in regular classrooms will have to be discontinued or, if feasible, moved to
smaller areas. Examples of these changes include dismantling computer labs,
relocating Resource Teachers into smaller rooms, etc. Most schools have already
taken these steps. As stated previously, 16 schools developed these plans over the
past two years, and all plans are reviewed annually. Plans were just approved for eight
additional schools, with consideration given to multi-track or other possibilities which
Page 4 JJ /71" C-ZR
could increase capacity. These changes, combined with reconfiguration of classes
. (i.e., combination classes, pairing schools, etc.), absent significant internal
neighborhood growth, should enable the District to accommodate growth anticipated
from new residential development west of the 805 next year.
Last year the District's report to the GMOC discussed contributors to this growth in
student enrollment which included' non-residential development, Central Chuta Vista
rezoning, and redevelopment. These, along with changing population trends and
recycling neighborhoods, continue to be major factors contributing to overcrowding of
western area schools.
This year the City's report includes' a listing of commercial, industrial and office
construction which totals 3,180,997 square feet. Breaking the development types down
and applying the "average factor" for each development type contained in SANDAG's
1990 report, "School DistriCt Development Impact Fees: Relationship Between New
Non-Residential Development and Student Enrollment", yields 1,489 new children as a
result of this non-residential development. It is not possible to predict what schools
these new children will attend. While the District and City staffs are refining this
formula to prevent any double counting which may occur, clearly job growth and the
creation of new non-residential space have major impacts on student enrollment. The
District has actively sought and will continue to seek full mitigation for impacts these
activities have on school facilities.
Projects Within the Otav Water District Service Area
-The District has five Mello-Roos Community Facilities Districts in place, four of which
are project-specific and in Chula Vista's Eastern Territories, the area served by the
Otay Water District. The fifth is a generic district and includes projects throughout the
district. As new large projects are proposed, new CFD's will be formed to finance
needed elementary facilities. The District is presently working with (1) developers of
Salt Creek Ranch and Telegraph Canyon Estates on a new CFD for that project which
would also serve the 550 unit Salt Creek One project; (2) developers of Rancho San
Miguel; (3) developers of Otay Ranch; (4) developers on Otay Mesa (City of San
Diego); and (5) miscellaneous smaller projects for annexation into CFD No.5.
City projections for this area over the next 12 - 18 months indicate a total of 1386 new
units. Sixty-two percent of these units are in EastLake Greens or Rancho del Rey, 395
and 462, respectively, both of which are within CFD's. EastLake School currently
serves EastLake residents and last summer three relocatable classrooms were added
to accommodate new students. Until enough new students are present to warrant
opening a new school in The Greens, students will temporarily attend another school
with capacity. The current economic slowdown has delayed District planning for this
school for at least a year. Discovery School, the District's newest school, located within
Rancho del Rey, will open in July on a year-round single track schedule, and serve the
Rancho del Rey Community.
Page 5
J-3~?? (!.Z,
J
.
.
.
Table 2 shows the remaining 529 units, the number of children anticipated, and the
home schools.
TABLE 2
School No. Units No. Children
Clear View 116 35
Chula Vista Hills 38 11
EastLake* 258 77
Palomar 13 4
Sunnyside 65 19
Tiffany 15 5
Misc. Other ~ ..2
TOTAL 529 163
With the opening of Discovery School in July, 1993, and the adjustment of attendance
boundaries for adjacent schools, capacity will become available at Allen, Clear View,
and Parkview Schools. It is planned that prior to the opening of new schools in
EastLake and Salt Creek Ranch, new students from these developments and others in
the Eastern Territories will be bused to one of these schools.
RESPONSE TO CITY's 5 . 7 YEAR FORECAST
The City's projections indicate a long-term growth rate ranging from 1,179 to 1,388
dwelling units/year over the seven year forecast period. Approximately 10-15 percent,
or 118-177 units, will develop within the Sweetwater Authority service area. Given the
overcrowded conditions in most schools in this area, we can expect this to continue and
worsen. Hopefully, the school mitigation ordinance currently being studied by the
District and City will provide adequate mitigation for this new housing. The remaining
85-90 percent of anticipated units in the Otay service area will fully mitigate school
impacts through participation in Mello-Roos Districts or other alternative financing
mechanism. The City has fully supported the District in obtaining this full-
reimbursement mitigation.
*The 227 units in Salt Creek One are included in CFD No.1, EastLake, with EastLake
School as their home school until a new school is constructed within Salt Creek Ranch.
The Telegraph Canyon Project is part of the new CFD being formed for Salt Creek
Ranch. The home school has not yet been determined.
;JJ - ?(Ç
Page 6 C-$C
-
- DISTRICT ACTIVITIES
In past reports the District reported various activities undertaken to plan proactively for
growth. Among these were: (1) the annual Development Activity Report, which tracks
proposed and approved projects in individual school attendance areas and estimates
development phasing and number of new students; (2) school growth planning studies
as previously discussed; (3) boundary/attendance ar"Ja adjustments; (4) residency
verification; (5) requests for City assistance; and (6) District response to notices of
proposed development. All these methods continue to be utilized on an ongoing basis.
The District also continues to pursue participation in CFD 5 by smaller non-contiguous
projects. Absent a legislative act by the City or County, this participation is voluntary.
We do notify all project proponents of this option in lieu of developer fees. Funds
collected from CFD No.5 will be used throughout the District to assist in housing
children generated by these smaller projects.
This year the District has initiated participation in the following programs:
1. State Modernization Program
The District received Phase I approval and funding for modernizing eleven
schools that are over 30 years old. The schools are: Allen, Castle Park,
Feaster, Harborside, Montgomery, Rice, Vista Square, Sunnyside,
Rosebank, Hilltop and Kellogg Four other schools, Mueller, Palomar, I
Lauderbach and Cook were eligible under the age requirement; however,
the District did not have district-wide eligibility under the average daily
attendance (ADA) requirement. Applications for three additional schools
which now meet the age requirement, Rogers, Finney and Halecrest, have
been submitted This should move the other four forward and hopefully into
Phase I approval.
Phase I is the preliminary planning and feasibility process during which an
architect is selected, and needs assessments, preliminary plans and
estimated costs are prepared. Modernization does not include facilities
expansion, but does include all nonstructural improvements necessary to
update a building to conform to present usage and codes, such as roofing.
cabinetry, partitions, wiring (including cabling and hardware for educational
technology), flooring. air conditioning. heating and plumbing systems.
Generally, repair and maintenance are excluded.
The District hopes to complete Phase I by May, 1993, and apply for Phase II
(final plans) funding by June. The State anticipates having money in the
modernization program through June. After that, funds for Phase III, the
actual construction, would have to come from a future bond election
(potentially June, 1994).
Page 7 ~3-?i
C-$/
2. CDBG Funding
Last year the District applied for and received from the City $50,000 in
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds for playground
improvements at three schools: Rice, Montgomery and Lauderbach.
Concrete and steel ballwalls will be constructed at the three schools, and a
concrete berm separating the track from the grass field will be installed at
Montgomery. These improvements are intended to enhance and expand
recreational opportunities for both students and the community in general.
The City wishes to provide these opportunities and expanded parks in
Western Chula Vista; however, the lack of appropriate sites makes this
difficult. Utilizing school playgrounds during off-school hours is of mutual
benefit. This year the District submitted applications for improvements at
five additional eligible schools: Feaster, Vista Square, Mueller, Otay and
Harborside.
City Activities
Late last year the City Council adopted a school mitigation ordinance requiring all
residential projects involving legislative acts to fully mitigate school impacts. While this
had been City policy for some time, passage of legislation in late 1992 threatened the
City's ability to require new development to provide adequate school facilities, and the
new ordinance protects and preserves this important right. The District and City staffs
are continuing work on a comprehensive school mitigation ordinance which will quantify
the impacts all types of development have on schools, and propose an equitable
method of providing needed mitigation.
""'n. '."".,.',
.
Page 8 ;¿J -;;0
{'- :5 ¿
- Uh1Þit !
CHULA VIS l ELEMENTARY SCHO< I DISTRICT
0'
84 EAST "J" STREET. CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 92010 . 619425.9600
EACH CHILD IS AN INDrvlùUAL OF GREAT WORTH
IOARO OFEDUCATION
JOSEÞH D CUMM"IGS. Pn D February 10, 1993
LAR;;' CU"W'¡GHAM
SHARON GILES
PATRIC<A,JUDD
GREG R SA'JDOYAL
Mr. Doug Reid
SUPERINTENDENT City of Chula Vista
JOH'H YlIGR'(PhD 276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
RE: 15-93-25, General Plan end Specific Plan Amendment - South of
Anita Street, Eest of Broadway
Dear Mr. Reid
Thank you for providing the Notice of Initial Study for the area south of Anita
Street and east of Broadway. The proposal is to amend the General Plan and
Specific Plan from Research and limited Industrial to Mercantile and Office
Commercial and Residential
- The District has an agreement with the City that no rezonings or amendments
which increase density or intensity and demands on school facilities will be
approved until a school mitigation ordinance is in place. District and City staff
are currently working on this document
It would appear, from the limited information contained in the Notice, that this
proposal would create a new residential area, thereby increasing demands on
school facilities If this is the case, it is not consistent with our agreement.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
Sincerely,
~~~
Kate Shurson
Director of Planning & Facilities
cc: Bob Leiter
Tom Silva
John linn
.",r".... """" ."""
~)~2f/
e-33
I
-
-
} Exhibit 2.1
CHULA VISTA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT
84 EAST "J" STREET. CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 92010 . 619425.9600
EACH CHILD IS AN INDIVIDUAL OF GREAT WORTH
10ARD OF EDUCATION
JOSEPH 0 CUMMIlIGS. 1'11.0
LAQR, CUrmlllGHAM
SHAQON GILES November 12, 1992
PA'RICK A JUDD
GREG R SANDOVAL
SUPERINTENDENT
.om F VUGR". Ph.D Mr, Bob Leiter
Director Df Planning
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
RE: School Mitigation. Bayfront Project
Dear Mr Leiter
I feel it important to notify you of the lack of progress in negotiating a
school mitigation agreement for the Bayfront project.
Earlier this year, the project proponent, Bill Barkett, and his
representative met with me and our financial consultants to discuss
project impacts' on elementary facilities and appropriate mitigation. I
believe at that time Mr. Barkett needed to reach agreement with both
school districts to avoid opposition in upcoming hearings, Following
that meeting, there were additional telephone discussions among the
parties and ultimately a total amount was agreed upon for mitigation for
both the Chula Vista Elementary School District and the Sweetwater
Union High School District. Mr. Barkett and his consultant assured us
a letter of commitment would be forthcoming Based on this
assurance, the District did not attend the various meetingslhearings
which were subsequently held and protest that school impacts were not
adequately mitigated,
FDr several months, our consultants have pursued obtaining the
promised commitment letter and been advised it was "on the way," As
of this date, nothing has been provided to confirm our verbal .
agreement.
;<3 -¿;-:2-
C-?~
-
Exhibit 2.2
November 12,1
Mr Bob Leiter
Page 2
RE: School Mitigation - Bayfront Project
I understand the City is processing the Bayfront Project and am
advising you that the District does not have a valid agreement for
school mitigation for this project. We believe it is essential to have this
agreement in writino before any approvals are granted, and ask the
City's support.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
Sincerely,
~ ~~~~
Kate Shurson
Director of Planning & Facilities
KS.dp
cc Carl Kadie
John linn
Andy Campbell
Bill Barkett
.."..,."..."..,...""
.23 --lJ
C-3.s-
I
.
-
I Exhibit 2.3
CIIUIA VISTA I "
ELEMENTARY SCIIOOL mSTHICT I'
8,1 EMU ",J" f;mf.r.T . CIltJl.A VISTA, CALIFOHNIA 91910 . 619 42!i.!IIiOO
------ --¡:;;"CII dÏÎi,õ ï¡;ÃN ïÑ 111 V )lJAI. OF rmF.ÃTwnnTII -.- .--
lOA no 0' rOUCAIIOU
,>[rIiO "JI.""'GS.PhO
l^n"(çUt I "JGII^,~
S"',"~" GillS
r^lIlICK^ ~JOO
r,n[(;R SI.IIOOV^l
November 20, 1992
Stlrrntl/lrUn[lil
..""" V",;"" rhO 'J L.
,; Ii ./
Ms Deborah Lee , ) , (;
Assistant District Director I' ,
..1
California Coastal Commission .'
3111 Camino Del Rio North, Ste 200
San Diego, CA 92108
RE: SchooJ Mitigation - Bayfront Project
Dear Ms. Lee
I understand the Coastal Commission will soon be hearing a request
for a Local Coastal Plan (LCP) Amendment for the Bayfront Project
Since the home school for this proposed development is among the
most impacted and overcrowded in the District, we are obviously
concerned tl1atthis project's impacts be fully mitigated
To tl1at end, we have been meeting and negotiating with the developer,
Bill Barkett, and his representatives, for several years and earlier this
year reached tentative verbal agreement as to the amount and method
of school mitigation. The agreement was to have been confirmed by a
letter from Mr. Barkett That was months ago, and the numerous calls
made by our financial consultant to Mr Barkell andlor his
representatives have not produced an agreement.
Enclosed is a copy of a leller to Bob leiter, JSlanning Director for the
City of Chula Vista, requesting that this project not be approved without
a valid agreement for school mitigation being in place. We make the
same request of the Coastal Commission. This is a large project which
was not envisioned at the time schools were planned to serve the area
Given the shortfall in State funds for school construction, if children
from the Bayfront are to accommodated, full mitigation must be
obtained
;¿; -Pi
~.3(P
Exhibit 2.4
November 20, 1992
Ms Deborah Lee
Page 2
RE' School Mitigation - Bayfront Project
Thank you for your consideration. If you have any questions, please
contact me.
Sincerely,
\~~é S" ~~L~
Kate Shurson
Director, Planning and Facilities
cc Bob Leiter
Chris Salomone
Carl Kadie
-
d2.:J -- J':;-
C-g'7
.
~~l cv £ . Exhibit 2.5
~ ~ '. l£M. SCHOOL D'ST
-.- RECEIVED'
'---~ nEe
~~~~ '151992
OlY OF P/.A
CHULA VISTA . ~~~(, & ~ACILlIlé.::;
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPART MENT ARTMENT
Dec~mber 7, 1992
Ms. Deborah Lee
Assistant District Director
California Coastal Commission
31 J J Camino del Rio North
Suite 200 . ..---- )
San Diego, CA 92108
SUBJECT: SCHOOL t-.llTIGATION -- DA YFRONT PROJECT
\ / .1
Dear Ms. Lce:
We are in aware of a lelter recently sent to you by the Chula Vista Elemenlary School District
concerning the payment of school mitigation fees fur development of the Chula Vista
Midhayfront. This is to advise you that, pursuant to the normal development and fee payment
process, school miligation fecs are paid with other fees at the time that development permits are
HIIIl'd. i.e., after full review and approval of construction drawings for a project. At this time
plans for the Midbayfront are conceptual. Determination of fees has and continues to be a
mailer of negotiation between the developer and the School District. The payment of school
mitigation fees along with all other required mitigation will be included in any development
agreements to be negotiated with the developer of the project. We do not feel that it is an
appropriate item to be considered by the CoastAl Commission in its review of the Local Coaslal
Plan Amendment.
Needless to say, the City of Chula Vista will Ulke all appropriate measures to ensure that
mitigation fees are paid at the appropriate time in the development process. Jf you have any
questions concerning this item please call me.
Sincerely.
~ç~-
Chris Salomone
Community Development Director
FK/CS/bb
cc: Robert Leiter, Director of Planning - City of Chula Vista
MuXabl Shul'IOII"PireçlOr ¡j'1uuú.a¡,'IIHl.fþÇijiljes",.Cbu" ,Yista BUiiñentary School.'
&Distrlct~",:1 -Y?
tc,IWP51ISALOMONEILmERSILEE.2.L TR ¿J3
C-38
ill Sweetwater Union High School District
ADMINISTRATION CENTER
1130 Fifth Avonuo
Chula Volta. California 81811.2886
(618) 881.6500
Dlvllion of Planning end Flcllities
March 10.1993
Mr. Ed Batchelder
Associate Planner
City of Chula Vista
Planning Department
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista. CA 91910
Dear Mr. Batchelder:
Re: 1993 GMOC Forecast Report
This correspondence is sent in response to the City's request for a report of the
potential impact anticipated future development will have on schools. The
projected enrollments identified herein 'are based solely on the current CBEDS
enrollment of each school plus the additional students which can be expected
to reside in the housing projecfs identified in the forecast tables provided In your
January 27.1993. correspondence.
Similar to lost year's response. the report Is organized In two ports. The first port
addresses status of district sChools and their ability to absorb the forecast
growth. The second port addresses the 1992 statement of concern Issued by
the City Council. The response to the statement of concern was prepared by
the Mr. Jim Cartmill. President of the Boord of Trustees, of the Sweetwater Union
High School District.
In addition to this written report. I am prepared to make a brief presentation to
the GMOC Committee. If you have any questions regarding this
correspondence or Its contents please feel free to call me at 691-5553.
Sincerely.
~v~
Thomas Silva
Assistant Director of Planning
TS/.ml
Enciosure
~J/8'?
C-59
.
.
.
Sweetwater Union High School District
1993 GMOC Report
PART I
Amount of Capacity Now Used or Committed
The 1992/93 CBEDS enrollment for the Sweetwater Union High School
District was taken on November 24, 1992, and is Identified in Rgure 1.
Total enrollment increased by 624 students over the previous year. The
greatest increase occurred at the high school level. ..
Overall. the district is operating at approximately 120% its permanent
capacity; however, through the addition of relocatable and. trailer
classrooms. site capacity was increased.
12- 18 Month Enrollment Proiections
The projects identified in the City's January 27, 1993. letter were divided
by school attendance area so that the specific Impact to each affected
high school and junior high can be determined. Student generation rates
of 0.10 for middle school and 0.19 for high school were then used to
convert the dwelling unit forecasts to projected student enrollment.
Figures 2 and 3 illustrate the additional students expected to attend local
schools.
Using the eighteen month projection. of projects which are to receive final
approval as the "worst-case' scenario, that is. units which will be
immediately available for occupancy. the anticipated facility Impact can
be summarized as follows:
High Schools Junior/Middle Schools
School Added Students School Added Students
Bonita Vista High + 124 Students Bonita Vista Middle + 139 Students
Eastlake High + 141 Students Hilltop Middle + 2 Students
Hilltop High + 6 Students Castle Park Middle + 11 Students
Castle Park High + 13 Students Chula Vista Junior + 13 Students
Total + 310 Students Total + 165 Students
;¿ J - ¡r?"
C--ýd
1993 GMOC Report
Page 2
- At the junior high/miJdle school grade level most of the schools should
not be significantly Impacted as a result of the Increased student
enrollment. However, Bonita Vista Middle will have exceeded Its total site
capacity by thirteen students. At the high school grade level, with the
exception of Eastlake High School. all facilities will be operating above
their total capacity.
Bonito Long Canyon is located in on optional Eastlake High School/Bonita
Vista High School attendance area. All students residing In this
community have the option of attending either schools; therefore, It is
difficult to accurately determine the projected enrollment at these two
sites. In the fall of 1994, the second increment of Eastlake High School will
be complete thus adding an additional 1200 classroom seats to the
campus. This should adequately accommodate the increased demands
placed on both campuses.
Although Eostlake High is located In the eastem territories, changes In
attendance boundaries will have a ripple effect on all the schools
located in Chuta Vista. In July, Easttake High School will begin operating
on a single-track year round schedule. Site administrators anticipate the
need to house an additional 300 students. To accommodate this interim
need, the board of trustees has authorized the lease of twelve
Department of Housing approved trailer classrooms. The classrooms will I
be in place only until Increment 1/ construction is complete and the
classrooms are ready for student use.
Mid-RanQe 5-7 Year Residential Develooment Forecast
Figure 5 of the City's, letter illustrates the anticipated mid-range 5-7 year
forecasts. By 1998, the total number of dwelling units at the high end
forecast will be 593117 units, an increase of 7030 units above the 1993
housing count. By the year 2000 an additional 3,384 dwellings will be
added to the community. In terms of student enrollment, this means that
the district can anticipate an. additional 2,039 students by 1998 and an
additional 981 students by the year 2000. By these projections, a total of
3.020 students from the Chula Vista area alone can be expected to enter
district classrooms. To accommodate this number of new students, 80% of
a new high school and 70% of a new middle school will be required. The
district has already token steps to address these Mure enrollment needs.
;23 -2)?
C-9/
I
-
-
-
I
1993 GMOC Report
Page 3
On February 18, 1993, the board of trustees authorized staff to prepare a
Request For Proposal to solicit architectural firms for the design and
engineering of the new Rancho del Rey Middle School. The RFP will be
distributed this spring, and a recommendation will be made to the Board
after staff and an Ad-hoc Committee have had an opportunity to
evaluate the bids and interview prospective candidates.
Other Relevant Information
New Schools:
In August, 1992, the district received unfunded Phose I approval from the
State Allocation Boord for the following three proposed schools:
1. Project 22/6841-00-2 Rancho del Rev Middle School: $ 115,642 for
the design of a new middle school which will include 39
classrooms, 12 labs, library, kitchen, multi-purpose room, shower
and locker facilities.
2. Project 22/68411-00-03 Eastlake Trails Middle School: $115,642 for
the design of a new middle school which will include 39
classrooms, 12 lobs, library. kitchen. multi-purpose room, shower
and locker facilities.
3. 22/68411-00-04 Otay Meso HiÇ1h School: $162,568 for the design
of a new high school (Otay Meso) which will include 47 standard
classrooms. 20 lobs. 6 special education classrooms, library,
kitchen, multi-purpose room, gymnasium and locker/shower
facilities.
ExistinQ Schools
Stoff has been informed by the City's Community Development
Deportment that the property issues surrounding the proposed Scripps
Hospital Project has been resolved. Both agencies are now taking
steps to secure additional land for the school and remove the trailer
classrooms and replace them with new O.SA approved relocatable
classrooms.
d) ~1°
C-f'2-
-
1993 GMOC Repon
Page 4
Within the past few months, tht. board has authorized staff to prepare
the documents necessary to bid and construct two new science
classrooms ot Southwest High School. The board also authorized staff
to solicit, from qualified architects, bids to prepare a feasibility analysis
to construct a new adult school in Notional City. The proposals have
been submitted and their evaluation by staff is now occurring.
PART II
The second half of this report addresses the Issues raised In the 1992
statement of concern issued by the City Council. The following pages
comprise the district's response. In a letter addressed to Councilman
Jerry Rindone, dated February 26, 1993, Mr. Jim Cartmill, President af
the Board of Trustees, identifies each issue raised in the statements of
concern and responds accordingly.
:23 / ~ I
C,~3
I
.
.
:
FIGURE 1
SWEETWATER UNION HIGH SæOOL DISTRICT
1992/1993 CBEDS ENROLLMENT
NOV. 24,1992
fTRLR. + CAPACITY 92193 CBEDS
SCHOOL RELO. + PERMENANT = TOTAL ENROLLMENT
HIGH SCHOOLS
BVH 120 1812 1932 2085
CPH 240 1568 1808 2021
CVH 480 1356 1836 2090
1046
HHS 120 1388 1508 1585
MVH 2.H) 1300 1540 1904
MoHI ':¡S(J 1270 1750 1855
SoHI 7~0 1214 1994 2227
SuHi 300 1958 2258 2174
SUBTOTAL 0 27(,0 11866 14626 16987
JUJI,']OR HJGH SCHOOLS
BVJ 2]0 1284 1494 1368
CPM 1456 1456 1316
CVJHS 360 1070 1430 1391
GJS 1096 1096 1012
HJS 120 1386 1506 1233
MVM 1246 1246 1245
MOJR 1674 1674 1403
NCM 60 922 982 767
SOWJR 360 828 1188 1339
SUBTOTAL 360 750 10962 12072 11074
SPECIAL SCHOOLS
PALOMAR HIGH 434
SAC 120 120 253
SUBTOTAL 120 0 120 687
TOTAL 360 3630 22828 26818 28748
:2] - ?)2
r-~~
FIGURE 2
PR~'t!~'m£,¡~w.JW &nJlA T A
õ;1()o
~HLJLA VlSTA rotJMJNITV .
'100- ...................,. ... ...........,................. ............,..............
~:;-:-----1 ¡:-¡
,---....... ... """""--""""" .............. -.......................
- -
,200-""'" ... .,.. - -
,.......... ... ... .......... . ,.,......
.
I-""'" ... .... -.. ~... ." ... ..., ....,. ,.,......
---....... ... .". ... .,.. 0" ... .. ,........
-
-......... ... ." '" ,... ... ... .. ... .".....
.co-- n. .... .n .,. ... ".. ." .,. .. .,. . .,......
200"'" ..n ... .." ." ".. ... ." .. ... ,.".....
~ CPM 'CVJHS' GJS '- IN"" 1oOJR' He'" . SOI'I'JR
BVJ
JRHIGHMID. SCHOOL SITE
10 TOTALSITECAPACITYIi3 '9~C8EDSENROI.r::::J IZW>PROJ. c::J IIW>. PROJ. I
188Vò3 CBEDS BASE ENFIOU..MENT
ADJUS'lCO FOR THE 11192<113 GM'X
120 18 MONTH PFnlECT1ONS
I 8Vò3 CBEOS I ADJ. ENFCI..!. I ADJ ENROlL. I SITE
SCHOOl ENROU.MENT 12 MO. GMOC 18 MO.GMOC CAPACITY
JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOlS
SVJ 1368 161 1501 1G4
OPM 1316. 1325 1321 1...
CVJHS 1391 1~2 1.04 1ao
GJS 1012 1012 1012 1086
HMH 1233 1235 1235 1506
MVM 1245 1245 1245 1m
M)JR 1.03 1.03 1.03 1614
NOM 7'61 7'61 7'61 82
8OWJR 1"'9 ""9 I""" lIas
1OTAL 11014 11182 11239 12072
GM0C93AMS.WQI :;23 -; ')
c- -1/~
I
-
:
-
FIGURE 3
PROJEC'ft~~tt'?~~DATA
2500
r---- -----------1 ~ .
- ." CHULA VIST^- COMMUNITY I -
2CO~""'" n" .... . .............................~ .... n......
- -
-
; '50<>- ....... ... ... ..........' .... .... n.. n.. ........
i '000-....'" . .
n' ... ... n. .... .... n.. ..., ........
500- n ,'n' .n no n. n. .... .... .... ,... ........
0 -'~'~'U'~'~'~'~'~
HIGH SCHOOl. SITf
10 TOTAL SITECAPAC" - 7W293 CBEDS ENRO 0 2K1PROJ. 0 IBMO. PROJ. I
1992"33 CBEDS BASE ENROLLMENT
ADJUSTED FOR THE 1992"33 GMX
12. 18 MONTH PFOJECTlONS
I 92'93 CBEDS I ADJ ENFCli I ADJ ENROLL I SITE
SCHOOL ENROLLMENT 12 Me GMOC 18 t.C). GMOC CAPACITY
HIGH SCHOO< ~
BVH 2085 2'68 2209 1832
CPH 2021 2029 2034 1808
CVH 2090 2"6 2"9 1836
ELH 1046 "29 1187 1200
HH ISSS 1590 159' 1508
MVH ,~ ,~ ,~ 1540
M:>HI lesS 1855 1855 1750
SoHI 2227 2227 2227 111Q4
QlHi 2'74 2174 2'74 """
'!OTAI. 16987 17182 17300 15826
;2; . ~ i
GM0C93AHS.WQl
c- ~~
SWEETWATER UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
ADMINISTRATION CENTER
1130 F"I,TH AVENUE
,HULA V!57A. ,AL!,OR~!A 91911
(619) "1-5555
FAX: (619) tZO-O339
BOARD OF TRUSTEES
February 26, 1993
-
Mr. Jerry Rindone
Mayor Pro Tempore
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chura Vista, CA 91910
Dear Mr. Rindone:
RE: Chula Vista Growth Management Plan
This is in response to your letter dated January 22, 1993, regarding the Chula
Vista Growth Management Plan annual threshold update. I will address each of
the issues as presented individually.
1. We urge the school district to maximize the use of school facilities through
multi-track scheduling and other innovative methods.
The Board of Trustees does not feel that multi-track education is in the best
interest of secondary students; however, we are considering the future
implementation of year-round single-track at several schools.
2. Prior to approval of any application to rezone any property In Western
Chula Vista which would increase allowable density or intensity of use, the
City will fully analyze impacts to Elementary Schools and apply appropriate
mitigation to ensure that no negative Impacts would result from such an
action.
The Board of Trustees sincerely hopes that the City also analyze the
potential impact to secondary schools. This past year, both Chula Vista
Junior and Chula Vista High Schools were at capacity.
CORPORATE SWEËTWATER - Education is our Business.
:2j-9.s- C-+'7
I
-
Mr. Rindone
February 24, 1993
Page 2
3. The City and the School District are cu"ently beginning a program to study
the impacts of new residential and non-residential development upon City
schools, and the City will consider adoption of measures which would fully
mitigate such impacts.
The Board of Trustees strongly supports the combined efforts of the City
and the school districts to look at the mitigation of development impacts.
4. We support the Sweetwater District Board's efforts to end the moratorium
on development on Otay Mesa in the City of San Diego. in order that the
District could construct new schools in the area which would relieve
overcrowding pressures on Chula Vista schools.
The Board of Trustees will continue its efforts to address a high school in
Otay Mesa. We are in hopes that the City may soon realize that an
international airport in this area is not feasible and would end its
moratorium.
5. We request the District to adjust mandatory attendance boundaries for
schools within Chula Vista so as to minimize overcrowding at certain
schools and to take maximum advantage of the opportunity to relieve
overcrowded conditions at existing schools using the new Eastlake High
School.
The District annually reviews attendance boundaries and conducts public
hearings regarding potential changes to mitigate the overcrowding of
schools. .
6. We recommend that the Sweetwater District institute residency verification
as a standard element of the student registration process.
This process is already in place at all of our schools. Parents must show
proof of residency prior to enrollment.
J3 -I?
C- ~J>
- Mr. Rindone
February 24, 1993
Page 3
7. We welcome any comments on our General Plan, land use planning
processes, or specific development proposals which would assist both our
agencies in assuring that new students not be brought into the District
without adequate educational facilities.
The District's Planning Department responds to all specific requests by the
City for information regarding the General Plan, potential zoning changes,
and all specific developments. We believe that this process affords all
agencies the opportunity to develop cooperative working relationships.
The Sweetwater Union High School District sincerely appreciates the City of
Chula Vista's interest in cooperatively working with the two school districts within
its sphere of influence in order to proactively resolve issues of mutual concern
and provide a quality education for our students.
Sincerely,
Jim Cartmill, President
Board of Trustees
JC:mr
)-97 C-.I,/t(
I
APPENDIX D
,
023 - 7~ C...ro
I
.
Air Pollution Control Board
~ Brian P. Bilbra)" DiStriCt 1
Dianne Jacob DiStrict 2
~ Pamela Slater DiStrict 3
~ Leon L. \1C'j Jiams District 4
John MacDonaJd DiStriCt 5
.. P'IIJ.IIIfi CIIfíIIIŒ IUTRICT fV.¡;.' ,5 '-;:(. Air PoUution Control Officer
CDUI" IF IU DIUD R. J. Sommerville
March 11.1993
Ed BatcheJder
Associate Planner
Planning Depanment
City of ChuIa Vista
276 Founh Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
GMOC MEETING. MARCH 25
In the 1991 Repon, the GMOC (1) urged the District to compJete the remaining elements
of the Regional Air Quality Strategy including indirect source. (2) supponed District's
effons 10 obtain additional funding for mass transit and changes in federal and state tax
laws which encourage private automobile use over public transit. and (3) supponed
- District's efforts to bring motor vehicles garaged in Mexico and used in commuting to
San Diego under the California smog check program.
The Regional Air Quality Strategy was adopted by the Air Pollution ControJ Board in
June 1992, and approved by the State Air Resources Board in November. The Strategy
includes a number of measures to be implemented on an expeditious scheduJe. The
District is in the process of finalizing a regional regulation to increase ridesharing during
the commute and reduce commute trips made in single occupant vehicles. The regulation
is expected to be adopted this summer. AJso, an indirect source reguJation for new
development is being developed and should be available for public review this summer.
Adoption of that regulation is expected by December, 1993.
Regarding additional funding for mass transit. the Air Pollution Control Board has
recommended that SANDAG allocate more of federalISTEA funds to transit. Supervisor
Brian Bilbray, County's representative on SANDAG, and the business community have
made similar recommendations to SANDAG. To date SANDAG has not accepted the
recommendation, but has indicated an intent to review the matter in the future. On a
related malter, NationaJ Energy Policy Act was passed last year increasing the amount of
tax free transit subsidies from $21 to $60 to nmow the disparity between tax free parking
and transit subsidies.
Finally, the issue of motor vehicles ~araged in Mexico and used in commuting to San
Diego is close to a resolution. The tate Business, Transponation and Housing Agency
has decided that the Depanment of Motor Vehicles has sufficient authority to address this
issue by reguJation. The State Air Resources Board is developing necessary regulations
for the Depamnent of Motor VehicJes; adoption is expected this summer.
)J-5}
9150 Chesapeake Drive. San Diego. California 92123.1096. (619) 694.3307 C- ,!T!
FAX (619) 694-2730 . Smoking Vehicle Hotline I-800-28-SMOKE I
Ed Batchelder -2. March 11, 1993
Encl?sed are the folJov.ing Strategy and air quality related documents for the GMOC
meenng.
. List of major sources located in Chura Vista, and the types and amounts of
pollutants emitted by these sources.
- Computer printout of all commercial and industrial sources in Chula Vista.
. Computer printout of facilities in Chura Vista subject to enforcement action in
1992.
- 1991 Annual Repon on air quality.
- 1992 Scorecard on air quality.
- List of District Rules and Regulations.
- Air Pollution ControJ Board resolution adopting the Regional Air Quality
Strategy.
- State Air Resources Board resolution approving the Regional Air Quality
Strategy.
- List of new industrial and areawide measures in the Strategy.
- Business, Transponation and Housing Agency memorandum regarding
vehicJes garaged in Mexico.
In your letter of January 27, you requested that the District review the City's development
forecast for conformity with the Regional Air Quality Strategy. As the District pointed
out Jast year, SANDAG is the agency that coordinates deveJopment forecasts with local
jurisdictions and provides regional growth forecasts for regional pJanning. The Strategy
is based on revised Series 7 forecasts provided by SANDAG. I suggest the City staff
consult SA/"o'DAG to get a cJarification of consistency betWeen the City's development
forecast and the data SANDAG provided to the District.
If you have any questions regarding these or other air quality matten, feel free to call me
at 694-3303.
~
.;' ~--c-.{k
.. -
H. PAUL SIDHU
Deputy Director
HPS:lcl
Enclosure
;23-/01
c- s-z..
I
-
ATTACHMENT I
, MAJOR SOURCES IN CHULA VISTA
Emission (TonslYear)"
Company / Adrlress RaG co NOx sox TSP
Pacific Energy, Otay Landfill 1 47 48 2 1
Rohr, Foot of H St. 51 0 1 0 2
SDG&E, 990 Bay Blvd. 16 470 1776 15 46
Encore Mfg. dba Pacific Tambour,
2500 Main 51. #C & D 30 0 0 0 0
Nelson & Sloan, 7th & Main SI. 0 0 0 0 61
"Based on 1991 Emission Inventory
RaG - Reactive Organic Gases
CO - Carbon Monoxide
NOx - Oxides of Nitrogen
SOx - Oxides of Sulfur
TSP - Total Suspended Particulates
;¿3 -/O/
C-.>5
I
APPENDIX E
.-
I
-
)3~/{}d-
C-59'
DATE: January 26,1993
TO: Growth Management OVersight Committee
FROM: David Palmer, Acting Library DirectorG)(1?
SUBJECT: Annual Threshold Compliance Review
FRESENT SOUARE FOOTAGE
Chula Vista Public Library 55,000 sq. ft.
365 F Street
Castle ParkjOtay Library 1,720 sq. ft.
1592 Third Avenue
Woodlawn Park Library 609 sq. ft.
115 Spruce Road
TOTAL 57,329 sq. ft.
POPUT.~TION OF CHUT.~ VISTA
December 31,1992 143,800
THRESHOLD STANDARD
Population Ratio: 500 square feet (gross) of library facility
adequately equipped and staffed per 1,000 population.
THRESHOLD SOUARE FOOTAGE NEEDED AT 500 SOUARE FEET PER 1.000
143,800 population 71,900 sq. ft.
CURRENT THRESHOLD S~UARE FOOTAGE SHORTAG~
1992 14,571 sq. ft.
PISCUSSION:
In April 1991 the City of Chula vista was awarded a Library
Renovation and Construction Bond Act Grant to construct a new area
library at the corner of 4th and Orange Avenues in the
MontgomeryjOtay Planning Area. The award of $6,747,528 provides
65% of the cost of construction and other eligible costs. The
remaining 35% is funded from a combination of Community Development
Block Grant funds, and Development Impact Fees and credits.
Although not the official.name, the grant was applied for under the
name of South Chula Vista Library. The project is now entering the
design development stage and has grown to 37,000 square feet.
Construction is scheduled to begin in the fall of 1993, with
completion scheduled for late 1994'
)3/;03
c.-s.5"
I
.
In addition to the area library now being designed for the
Montgomery /Otay Planning Area, the ¡.ibrary Master Plan of 1987
calls for a new area library in the Eastern Territories and'a new
area library in the Sweetwater/Bonita Planning Area.
In the Eastern Territories it is anticipated that the City will
soon complete contractual agreements with the EastLake Development
Company and the Sweetwater Union High School District to establish
public library service at the library located on the new EastLake
High School Campus. If approved by the appropriate governing
bodies, public library service would be provided during non-school
hours for a three year trial basis. At the conclusion of the trial
period a decision would be made whether or not to continue the
service at the school or establish service at another location. It
is estimated that the portion of the EastLake High School Library
designated for public library service is approximately 10,000
square feet in size.
The Library has previously been allocated $200,000 in the Capital
Improvement Program for architectural services for a 29,000 square
foot area library to be built at the corner of H Street and Pas eo
Ranchero in the Sweetwater/Bonita Planning Area. The project is
now tentatively scheduled to be completed in 1998. However, since
the project will be funded by Development Impact Fees, it is
possible that there will be further delays until adequate fees are
collected. Although not the official name, the library is referred
to as the Rancho Del Rey Library.
CONCLUSION
The Library is currently 14,571 square feet short of meeting the
Threshold Standard. However, the opening of the 37,000 square foot
South Chula Vista Library, in late 1994, will bring the City into
compliance with the Library Threshold on a cumulative basis. The
estimated 1994 population of 150,665 would require 75,333 square
feet of library facility, while the Library at 365 F street and the
South Chula Vista Library will provide a total of 92,000 square
feet. In addition, if contracts between the various parties are
approved regarding public library service at EastLake High School,
an estimated 10,000 square feet of public library square footage
will come on line in 1993.
1992 Library Square Footage 57,329 sq. ft.
1993 Proposed EastLake Library Opens 10,000 sq. ft.
1994 South Chula Vista Library Opens 37,000 sq. ft.
1994 Castle Park/otay Library Closes (1.720) sq. ft.
Total: 102,609 sq. ft.
1994 Library Threshold Square Footage
Requirement (based on estimated
population of 150,665) 75,333 sq. ft.
1994 Library Threshold Square Footage Overage 27,276 sq. ft.
J"3 -jO1/
C-~(p
APPENDIX F
~
- cJ} '1037 C-.s-7
I
MEMORANDUM
--
January 27, 1993
File # KY-043
KY-OS7
TO: Bob Leiter, Director of Planning
FROM: Cliff SwaMO'. Deputy 0;"01°' of Pu~;' WO~
City Engineer
SUBJECT: Chula Vista Compliance with the Threshold Standards for 1990 Sewer and
Drainage
In response to the memo from Ed Batchelder to Cliff Swanson dated January 18, 1993,
we are providing the following report regarding sewer and drainage threshold standards.
~
- There were no major problems attributable to new growth in the City during calendar year
1992 with respect to the established thresholds for sanitary sewers. The City design
standards for sewers limit the flow in sewers up to 12" in diameter to 50% full and to 75%
full for sewers larger than 12". The City has also allowed flow up to 75% full in 8", 10" and
12" diameter sewers if it can be shown that ultimate development has already occurred.
One major development in the planning stage during 1992 is expected to cause a
significant impact to the sewer system. This was the Kaiser Hospital and Medical Center,
which will be discharging to the Telegraph Canyon Trunk Sewer.
Willdan Associates completed the Telegraph Canyon Sewer Basin Improvement and
Financing Plan. This plan estimated current and ultimate sewage flows, recommended
necessary sewerage system improvements, and determined fees or a funding mechanism
to finance these improvements. The City Council has approved the plan and has
established a Sewer Development Impact Fee. A First Amendment to the plan was
approved by City Council to incorporate pumped flows from EastLake and Salt Creek
Ranch Developments not within the basin. The work on this amendment is in progress.
A second Bmendment is being prepared to include the additional projected flows from the
Kaiser Hospital and Medical Center in the basin plan.
The Proctor Valley Sewer was constructed to serve Salt Creek I, Salt Creek Ranch,
Rancho San Miguel, and Bonita Meadows Developments, as well as other adjacent
- parcels. This line is connected to the County's Frisbie Trunk Sewer, for which a Sewer
Trunk Usage Agreement is currently being prepared.
;<3 -~/Pþ
c-sJ
I
-
- 2 - January 27, 1993
A sewer analysis has been performed by Wilson Engineering for the Salt Creek Drainage
Basin. The planned Salt Creek interceptor will serve Salt Creek Ranch, Eastlake, Hidden
Valley Estates and Otay Ranch Developments. Recommended improvements and a
financing plan will be presented to the City Council for approval within the next few
months.
", The potential sewer capacity problems due to construction of the Scripps Memorial
Hospital, Chula Vista Mall Expansion and the Palomar Trolley Center have been mitigated.
The recently constructed parallel sewer on "G" Street will reduce the potential impact of
the Hospital. The construction of the parallel sewer along Industrial Boulevard is expected
to be completed by June 1993. This will alleviate the impact expected to be caused by
the Palomar Trolley Center. A recent study prepared by City staff concluded that the
added flows from the Chula Vista Mall Expansion do not exceed the previous flows from
the areas to be demolished.
The City is using several methods to identify and determine the cause of peak flows
exceeding City standards in existing sewers:
. 1. The flow monitoring program has been continued and several problem sites have
been identified. Two parallel sewers were constructed in 1992 (Second and
t Ouintard and "G" Street), and two more will be constructed during 1993 (Industrial
Blvd. and Palm Canyon).
2. The City's sewer TV inspection crew continues to monitor problem sites in order
to determine if the condition of the sewer lines has affected the flow. During 1992,
approximately 58,400 linear feet of sewer lines were t~levised for inspection and
Phase IV of the Sewer Rehabilitation Program was prepared. The contract was
awarded in 1992. Some repair work has already been completed and other
repairs are to be completed in 1993. An additional 12,000 linear feet have been
televised for Phase V of the sewer rehabilitation program. Rehabilitation projects
from Phase V have been included in the CIP for FY 93-94. Television inspection
of the sewer lines will continue in 1993, with additional repair work to be contracted
out in 1993.
3. The August 1990 Wastewater Master Plan prepared by Engineering-Science
includes an analysis of current and projected future flows for all City trunk lines and
provides recommendations for construction of new and upgraded sewers and
preliminary cost estimates.
4. Environmental documents prepared for proposed new developments must address
the adequacy of existing sewers to serve their needs. Remedial actions will be
required where necessary to accommodate the additional flows.
:J )~J t? ?
c - s-9
- 3 - January 27, 1993
-
Sites identified through these methods may be considered for inclusion in the Capital
Improvement Program or the Sewer Rehabilitation Program. New developments will be
required to pay a proportionate share of the cost of construction of new sewers needed
to serve their projects.
San Diego Metropolitan Sewer Authority
The Average Daily Flow (ADF) of wastewater into the Metro Sewage System during the
first half of FY 1993 was approximately 11.479 million gallons per day (mgd). This
included 9.251 mgd of metered flows discharged directly to the Metro sewer line and
2.228 mgd of metered and non-metered flows discharged through the Spring Valley
Sewer outfall.
Six new permanent wastewater metering stations which measure the Spring Valley flows
are in operation. Two more meters have been recently installed and are expected to be
in operation this year. One station is located in the Proctor Valley Sewer line and the
other is on "F" Street West of Bay Boulevard.
The City's existing sewage capacity reservation (including Montgomery) with Metro is 19.2
- mgd. The Engineering Science Master Plan contained a curve of projected wastewater
flows based on historic data. According to this curve, the City would reach the 19.2 MGD
by the year 2000. However, the average daily flow (ADF) obtained in the last three years
has not followed this curve. The flow decreased due to water conservation measures and
a slower pace of new construction. Our estimate of the flow discharged to the Spring
Valley Sanitation District decreased due to the use of actual metering results instead of
an Equivalent Dwelling Unit count. Our current estimates indicate that the City flow will
reach the capacity reservation with Metro by 2010.
The San Diego Area Wastewater Management District (SDAWMD) took effect on January
1,1993. The SDAWMD board includes representatives from most Metro agencies and
will manage construction and operation of Metro and Clean Water Program sewage
transportation and treatment facilities. Member agencies have a maximum of one year
to withdraw from the SDAWMD without penalty. It is proposed that Chula Vista continue
to retain a team of technical, financial, and legal consultants in FY 1992-93 and FY 1993-
94 to develop a policy regarding membership in the SDAWMD.
We have verified that our capacity in the Metro system is adequate for the upcoming year.
However, capacity rights will not necessarily be retained under the SDAWMD.
23 -/()~
C-6,ð
I
- 4 - January 27, 1993
The proposed 6 mgd Otay Valley Water Reclamation Plant was originally included as part
of the Clean Water Program with a proposed start-up date of 1998. The City of San
Diego subsequently decided to indefinitely postpone work on all water reclamation plants
in the Clean Water Program other than the North County facility. City staff and
consultants are currently evaluating the feasibility of Chula Vista financing, designing and
constructing this plant.
Drainaae
No major problems can be attributed to new growth in the City during calendar year 1992
with respect to the City's threshold standards for drainage. Two reasons for this are:
1. Developers have constructed detention basins so that downstream flows are not
increased.
2. Each new subdivision is required to construct all drainage facilities necessary to
handle storms of a specified magnitude.
Another reason is that the Environmental Impact Report for each major development must
address any possible drainage problems, both on-site and off-site, and the developer is
required to implement mitigation measures, if necessary.
. Developers are also required to dedicate land and to construct facilities necessary to
serve their proposed developments. Facilities benefitting an extensive area with multiple
owners may be financed through the establishment of assessment districts. Ordinance
No. 2384 established a fee of $3,922/acre for new development in the Telegraph Canyon
Creek Drainage Basin to fund improvements to the Telegraph Canyon Creek east and
west of Interstate-805. The improvements east of Interstate-805 have been completed,
leaving only the segment of the channel between Hilltop Drive and Fourth Avenue
unimproved.
In addition to the construction of drainage facilities, developers must obtain National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction Activity permit coverage
for each grading operation that disturbs an area of five acres or more, or is part of a
common plan of development or sale. This permit program requires a Storm Water
. Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which is specifically developed for each construction
site in order to prevent pollutants from reaching drainageways.
The NPDES Construction Activity permit is issued by the State Water Resources Control
Board (SWRGB) and is administered and enforced by the Regional Water Quality Control
Board (RWQCB). The City is not required to administer or enforce any of the NPDES
Construction Activity permit provisions or regulations. The City is, however, required to
ensure that all pertinent provisions of the City's Grading Ordinance relating to
drainageways and erosion and siltation control are enforced.
)3 -/17)
c-¿,/
-
- .5- January 27, 1993
In February and March 1992, runoff resulting from a series of high intensity rain storms
caused localized flooding in the older areas of the City, primarily:
1. In the Central Drainage Basin at the following locations:
a. West of Broadway, between "G" and "H" Streets;
b. 400 Block of Elm Avenue;
c. 500 Block of Hilltop Drive; and,
d. 12 Shasta Street.
2. In the south branch of the Telegraph Canyon Basin at the following locations:
a. 1000 Block of Woodlawn Avenue
b. 1070 Fifth Avenue
c. 616 Crested Butte
As a result of this flooding, the City Council directed the Department of Public
Works/Engineering Division staff to prepare a report on flooding throughout the City and
to include proposals for construction of drainage facilities to correct drainage deficiencies.
In compliance with that direction, Engineering staff prepared the attached report, which
was accepted by the City Council in May 1992. This report established a priority list of
drainage improvement projects. Priority and order of improvement were based upon the
seriousness of each drainage complaint received between 1983 and 1992, the cost to
correct the associated deficiency, the hazard presented by the deficiency, and the need
to construct downstream facilities before upstream facilities.
In general, the City experienced more drainage problems and flooding in 1992 than in
1991 as a result of higher than normal rainfall and high intensity rainfall. However, as
stated above, none of these problems are related to new growth or development within
the City. The drainage problems encountered are related primarily to inadequate existing
facilities that were built prior to the adoption of drainage threshold standards by the City.
In fact, the construction of new drainage facilities by the City and by private developers
in 1991 has reduced the potential for future flooding and flooding hazards in both the
newer and older areas of the City of Chula Vista.
RM:nm/kw
cc: John Lippitt, Director of Public Works
,-
(RM2/GMOC93.REP)
J-3 -//0
C-¿¿
I
.
. .
-
May 20,1992
rile Mo. JtY-161
JtY-100
Supplemental Budget Memo Mo.
Budget Review Report
Council Referral Mo. 2569
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
VIA: John D. Goss, City Manager
FROM: John P. Lippitt, Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: Budget Supplemental Report for FY 93 Budget on Flooding
and Corrective Facilities
In February and March 1992, runoff resulting from a series of
storms created many areas of localized flooding within the City.
Many private properties, including. residences, were flooded. Low-
lying streets and intersections were impassable for periods of time
following the passage of higher intensity rain cells.
The City Council directed staff to prepare a report on this
flooding and to include proposals for construction of drainage
facilities to correct drainage deficiencies.
The attached report has been prepared in compliance with that
direction.
Several drainage deficiency studies have been performed for the
City of Chu1a Vista and the County of San Diego (for the Montgomery
area) from 1964 to 1966. Discussion of these studies is included
in the attached report. -
Engineering staff has now determined that 71 projects identified in
all of the previous drainage deficiency studies remain to be
constructed. Engineering staff has identified an additional 13
projects to correct known drainage deficiencies; staff also
identified two more projects (one east of Eucalyptus Park and
another in the vicinity of peppertree Drive), but time has not
allowed the preparation of preliminary designs or .stimate..
The 1992 cost to construct the 84 projects (excluding the two
mentioned above) is estimated at 823,025,000. Considering an
estimated inflation rate of U per year, uniform funding of
$1,695,000 per year would be required for 20 years to fund these 84
improvements. Because of the magnitude of this sustained level of
funding, it seems apparent that a 20-year program of construction
is not achievable.
) il!
C-~3
- Bonorable Mayor' City Council Page 2 May 20,1992
Staff has prepared a revised, updated list of projects in order of
relative importance (see Exhibit "E" of the attached report). The
priorities are based upon the seriousness of .ach problem, the cost
to relieve it, anð the hazard presented. This list represents a
current value of 113,561,000 in 'rainage projects; a 8chedule of
construction is not incluðeð.
Of the projects on this priority list, approximately 86,500,000 is
requireð for improvement. to Telegraph Canyon Creek, from Hilltop
Drive to west of Third Avenue. The.e improvement. will be funðeð
by the Telegraph Canyon Basin Plan fund, which currently has a
balance of $120,000 with most of its future revenues coming as a
result of the development of Otay Ranch.
The current cost to construct the priority projects listed in
Exhibit "E" of the attached report i. $13,561,000. ApproximatelY'
one-half of the requireð funding will be obtained from the
Telegraph Canyon Basin Plan fund. The remaining projects do not
have specific funding sources and will require annual uniform
funding of approximately $~20,OOO per year for the next 20 years to
construct (assuming.' per year inflation rate). These funds could
possibly be obtained from Community Development Block Grant, State
Gas Tax, TransNet, Storm Drain Fee, Residential Construction Tax,
and General Fund revenues.
KPA/kpa
[A:FLOODREP.SUP] ;23'- ) /2
C-,,+,
I
REPOR~ ON FLOODING
AND PROPOSED CORRECTIVE FACILI~IES
HAY 1992
DBPARTMBNT or PUBLIC WORKS
INGINBBRING DIVISION
. -1-
;¿J -j I J
C - ~S-
I. BACJtGROUND
In February and March 1992, Chula Vista was subjected to a series
of high intensity rainstorms. The resulting runoff created many
areas of local flooding in the City. Substantial numbers of
private properties, including resieSences, were ~looded with as much
as several feet of water. Many low lying streets and intersections
were rendered impassable for periods of 'time following passage of
higher intensity cells.
As of May 8, 1992, nineteen claims for damages resulting ~rom
flooding problems in 1992 have been submitted to the city. Nine
claims by residents of apartments at 616 "G" St. total $17,740. An
additional claim by one more resident at that address is for an
unspecified amount. Two claims by residents in the vicinity of
Crested Butte Street and Woodlawn Avenue for aggregate damages of
$36,722 may represent one other problem location. The damage
claims related to the 1992 flooding amount to approxiJllately $75,300 .
to date. substantial time remains within which other claims may'
also be submitted.
The City council directed staff to prepare a report on this.
flooding and to include proposals for drainage facilities leading
to the correction of drainage deficiencies where possible.
This report has been prepared in compliance with that direction.
II. RECOMI'ŒNDATION
That council accept this report and approve the alternative list
of projects shown in Exhibit "E" as the city's priority list of
drainage projects.
III. HISTORY
A special study of storm drainage facilities was prepared for ,the
city in 1964 by Lawrence, Fogg, Florer and smith, Civil Engineers,
as a supplement to the City's General Plan. This study (the Fogg
study) identified B5 problem drainage areas and proposed facilities
for their correction. Anticipated drainage problems identified in
this report ranged from nuisance flooding of streets to flooding
resulting in property damage. As indicated in a staff report to
the City council on April 2, 19B5, the "Fogg study" has provided
the basis for much of the storm drain construction within the City
since it was adopted.
In January 1969, the.e engineers also prepared a "General Drainage
Plan for Metropolitan Area Zone 4" for the San Diego County Flood
Control District. This study covered the Montgomery Area and
-2-
.23 ~/I Y
c-~t,
I
.
identified additional drainage projects for what is now the City of
Chula Vista. Twelve of these projects remain to be constructed.
In a 1985 Engineering staff study, it was determined that 40 of the
85 projects proposed in the 1964 Fogg study remained to be
constructed at that time. In this 1985 study, staff identified 6
additional projects as being needed throughout the City to provide
adequate drainage and estimated that the cost to build the total 46
facili ties would be t9, 062,000. It was proposed that these
drainage facilities be constructed over a period of twenty years.
The Sweetwater River and the Telegraph Canyon Channel (downstream
from a point between Third and Fourth Avenues) were among the
listed projects.
Of the 46 projects which were proposed in 1985, nine have been
constructed to date, five more are to be constructed in connection
with various street improvement projects in the FY 93 and FY 94
CIP's, and one is proposed for construction in the CIP for FY 93.
Construction of the Sweetwater River channel from 1-805 to the bay,
which is part of the Route 54 project by CalTrans and the Army
Corps of Engineers, is nearing completion. Chula Vista's cost for
this project has not yet been fully determined because of questions
related to reimbursement of project costs by the State of
California Department of Water Resources.
Since the 1985 report was submitted to Council, the City has spent
approximately $6,387,700 toward construction of the drainage
facilities which were proposed. Approximately twenty percent of
them have been completed, including Telegraph Canyon Creek from
above Fourth Avenue to San Diego Bay. The cost to Chula Vista for
this project alone is $4,687,700 to date; however, the cost may
increase because of litigation with the contractor. Additional
drainage improvements have been incorporated into street
improvement projects.
IV. CURRENT STUDIES .
The City's General Plan was updated in 1988 and a further study of
drainage deficiencies was made at that time by Leedshill-
Herkenhoff., Inc. ,
This study identified 22 new projects (mostly in the '1'8legraph
Canyon basin) for relief of current drainage deficiencies. It also
identified an additional 42 drainage improvements to be constructed
in connection with land development projects. These improvements
are not listed in this report because we anticipate they will be
constructed by developers. Districts for the funding of drainage
facility improvements may be established in the future as
-3-
;¿3-J/~
C-t,7
development occurs; however, no drainage problems have been
- identified in these basins at this time.
There presently are 71 drainage projects listed in the combined
rogg and Leedshill-Herkenhoff studies which remain to be
constructecL Their total cost b utimated to be 121,285,000
(including 40' for design, inspection and contingencies), updated
to 1992 dollars. Exhibit "A" lists these p:".Jjects and their costs.
A review of the calls and letters received as a result of recent
non-maintenance-related flooding in Chula Vista indicate that a
number of locations in the City experience drainage problems which
will not be corrected by the above 71 projects. We bave also
prepared preliminary project descriptions and esUmates for an
additional 15 projects, which have been identified in this current
effort and are listed for the first time; these projects are shown
on Exhibit".". Exhibits "c" and "D" are foldout maps showing,
respectively, (1) clusters of drainage complaints or problems which
have been made or identified to the City since 1983 and (2)"
locations of the corrective drainage facilities shown in Exhibits
"A" and ".".
Construction of these corrective drainage facilities is estimated
to cost ~pproximately U,740,OOO in 1992 dollars, bringing the
total to 84 projects and $23,025,000. Two more projects (one east
of Eucalyptus Park and the other in the vicinity of Peppertree
- Drive) are also proposed, but time has not allowed the preparation
of preliminary designs or estimates.
Assuming an inflation rate of 4' per year, a uniform funding of
$1,695,000 per year would be required for the support of a 20 year
program for the construction of these projects. This compares to an
average expenditure of approximately $913,000 per year toward these
drainage projects since 1985. This annual amount of $913,000 is
skewed considerably by the inclusion of expenditures for
construction of the Telegraph Canyon Channel project and does not
include the Army Corps of Engineers' funds of $5,000,000; also,
some of the funds that the City "provided" for this project were
actually allocated from the discretionary funds of other agencies.
Ie cause of the magnitude of this sustained level of funding, it
seems apparent that a 20 year program of construction for
completion of all the projects is not reasonably achievable.
V. PROPOSED PLA!(
Many of the recent drainage complaints refer to nuiunce situations
such as .hort term .treet flooding. Others concern more .erious
situations such as interior flooding of homes and property damage.
-4-
,2;~/I¿
c- (,8'
I
.
We have attempted to establish a prior.ity list of projects based on
the seriousness of each problem and the cost to relieve it.
Priority and order of improvement were determined as follows:
1. Generally, downstream improvements are to be constructed
b,.fore upstream improvements in the same system to prevent the
worsening of downstream flooding as a result of improvement
efforts.
2. All nuisance street flooding (i.e., street flooding that was
not serious and/or does not present a significant hazard and
meet the requirements of Section V, Paragraph IV.F.1 of the
City's Subdivision Manual) were eliminated from this list.
3. Any project costing less but providing greater benefits than
a larger or more expensive project is placed higher on the
priority list.
4. Primary drainage facilities have higher priority than
secondary facilities within any given basin.
On the basis of the above criteria, we have prepared a revised,
updated list of projects in order of relative importance, which
would relieve fiooding in a majority of this year's problem areas,
for consideration. This list (Exhibit "E") represents a current
val ue of approximately 113,561,000 in storm drain projects and
identifies potential funding sources for each of the projects. It
does not include a schedule of construction. Multiple projects
shown with the same priority number (such as lOA, lOB and 10e) need
to be constructed as a single project. The priority list excludes
those projects which are scheduled to be constructed in connection
with budgeted street improvement projects.
The construction of a drainage channel for Telegraph Canyon is
discussed in the "Telegraph Canyon lasin Plan" report, prepared by
Willdan Engineering in 1991 in connection with the proposed
development of EastLake Greens and Otay Ranch. This report
established a fee of $3922 per acre for land being developed; this
fee is subject to an annual adjustment based upon the Engineering
News Record (ENR) Construction Cost Index. As development
progresses east of Interstate-BOS, this fee will provide adequate
funding for the construction of an improved channel from Hilltop
. Drive to the upstream end of permanent facilities east of Fourth
Avenue; as shown in Exhibit "¡", the e.timated cost for the
construction of this channel i. approximately $6.5 million (in 1992
dollars). This fee also provided funding for the improvement of
the upstream reaches of Telegraph Canyon Channel, from the EastLake
development to Paseo Ladera by the City and developers; these
upstream improvements are now nearing completion. Only $120,000 is
-5- cJ3-;J7
c- ~ 'I
- presently available for completion of the channel segment from
Hilltop Drive to east of Fourth Avenue because credit was taken for
construction of the upstream reaches. Host of the future revenues
(approximately f6.4 million in 1992 dollars) will be coming from
development of Otay Ranch.
The remaining projects listed in Exhibit "E" do not bave specific
funding sources and will require annual uniform funding of
approximately f520,000 per year for the next 20 years to construct
(assuming 4' per year inflation rate). These funds could pos.ibly
be obtained from Community Development Block Grant, State Ga. Tax,
TranlNet, Storm Drain Fee, Residential Construction Tax, and
General Fund revenues. The potential funding sources for these
projects are as follows:
1. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) - 19 of the 37
projects identified in Exhibit "E" are in CDBG areas and can
potentially be funded in part or in total with CDBG funds.
2. ~tate Gas Tax and TransNet - 29 of the 37 projects are either
within a roadway and/or will reduce roadway hazards by their
implementations, and can, therefore, potentially be funded in
part or in total with State Gas Tax and TransNet monies.
3. Charter Point Deposit - The No. 1 priority project, which
involves the construction of downstream improvements in the
Central Basin and has been proposed for inclusion in the FY
1992-93 Capital Improvement Program, identifies Charter Point
funds as one of its potential funding sources. These funds
were originally given to the City by the developer of Charter
Point for the construction of infrastructure improvements
along Telegraph Canyon Road. However, because the Telegraph
Canyon Road project was set up to meet FAU requirements and
restrictions, the City chose to replace the Charter Point
funds on this project with FAU funds, thereby releasing the
Charter Point funds. for another project. These funds can ~
be used for the funding of infrastructure improvements.
4. ~torm Drain Fee - All of the projects can potentially be
funded with Storm Drain Fee revenues. The Storm Drain 'ee was
established in July 1991 for the purpose of funding the
implementation of the Ifational Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (If.P.D.E.S.) program, which bas been mandated by atate
and fedetal law. However, if the City Council wishes to use
this revenue aource to fund drainage improvement projects,
then amendments to the Storm Drain Ordinance and the Haster
Fee Schedule are necessary in order to raise additional Storm
Drain Fund revenues, which are currently used aolely to fund
the costs of implementing the If.P.D.E.S. program and
associated effortl. It must be noted that funding of the
-6-
cJY -/¡Y
c- 70
I
N.P.D.E.S. program mYA1 take precedence over the funding of
drainage improvement projects because of the State and Federal
mandates to implement stormwater pollution control practices.
5. Intermoðal Surface Transportation Efficiencv Act fISTE") -
Another potential source of funding for these projects mAY be
from the UTE". It is not yet known what restrictions and/or
limitations this f'l,1ding source will have because this act was
recently approved by Congress and .pecific requirements are
not yet available.
6. Residential Construction Tax - This fund can be, and has been,
used for the construction of storm drain improvements and is
specifically classified as a capital project fund.
7. General Funds - These funds are the least restricted of the
potential funding sources and may be used for any public
purpose authorized by the City Council. However, these funds.
because they have fewer restrictions on their use, are also'
the least available of the potential funding sources.
.
J<PAlkpa
[A:FLOODREP.JPLJ
-7- ;<3-)(/
C-7/
- LIST OF ElMIBI!S
1. Ixhibit "A" - "Locations of Drainage Deficiencies within the
City of Chula Vilta (Deficiencies as Identified in Pogg '64,
Fogg '69, and Leedshill-Serkenhoff Drainage Deficiency
Studies)"
2. Ixhibit "s" - "AdcHtional Drainage Deficiencies in the City of
Chula Vista (As Identified by Engineering Staff, Hay 1992)
3. Ixhibit "C" - "Drainage Complaints"
4. Ixhibit "0" - "Location of Hissing Drainage Improvements"
5. Ixhibit "I" - "Prioritized Drainage Deficiency List for the
City of Chula Vista"
,
6. Ixhibit "," - "Proposed Drainage Project Priority List"
7. Exhibit "G" - "Recorded Drainage Complaints -- 1983 to 1992"
(this list includes maintenance-related complaints and
duplicate or same day entries)
8. Exhibit "M" - "Non-Maintenance Related Drainage Complaints and
- Associated Deficiencies That Still Exist (As Identified in
Fog; '64, Fog; , 69, Leedshill-Herkenhoff, and 1992 Staff
Drainage Deficiency Studies)"
.
- -8-
;¿J /' Jd-Ó
, c- 72-
I
.
, ~
- i 'i.e .e
.. ! -¡ ¡ --
= ¡ æ!! i i !: ~ å.
, .' "" ~i '5 --
j ::: : : = ~
, ~: i¡ i i :! ! II
= J Jl J J ii ï åå
.. a u a a Ii j .i.i
u ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~- .. --
I- : : :::: :::::::::::=: :====:==:======:===::=======
i!! if!! if!!!!!!!!!!! !!!I!!!!!!!I!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ii~ ~ ~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
:il I IIII 11111111111-1 11111111111111-1111111111111
ij~ ~ =.~å ~åå¿å~=.¿~& = .~~!'&:1-&=1'!-88. .~~~=à!E'~.~i~.
-1- - - - ~--- - -- - ~~~ - ~- ~ --- _.~.- ~----
! i_::::
Ii ¡ 11 h -.-.:::: -'-:: ::;-1-;-'
-, - ~ -- - - _. -11 - ",-
~ i ~ ~¡ ~ ~ ; ¡ ~- - ; = 1= =~
¡ ¡ i i- I! ~ : I~a ~.. =1-1
, - 1& - - - - --I - 1 ~I-
~~ ¡ ~ i.::.:: .::: .1 . = !=!=.i
-= i ! .r~ j~i~ !~~ '5 j=.! i . -::I':.I¡;¡
.. ¡a: 1 I:: wlwl: 1 8 v-: 8 I ":..::¡::::-
~ ~= ¡ ¥ - ~ ~ . ~ ~ P i:i: i= I:: th i 1 -IH~HI
~ II! :.. iii - ~ ~ '; -~ ~Ii';.w~;,,~ -'~---';'-:. -:1-1:".
.. -i :.. . - - ';, ~- ---- -- -I ":.~-":.":~ ....-ti-.-
..:. ¡æ - ." ,-" .! ¡i HH H :;- ;:;:iiii- "~I.i;;
.. 11': j; ~ - = æ i - 1- .;:! -1-£ -1 -; =-i1--.--- z,;': .-.
..:= :~ ~ 1 ~ 1 - ~ .- ~i.i.~iw I~;I II -~wr.~-~I~
--=5 !.:-:w,w-: .:w¡w-:.:WW!! -::¡-::¡-::¡w-::!- -::!.:-::w':=!eil-::":
:: ~= i~: .;.; : ~...~ ~;.~: -.-.-.;.;..e .r..~.r..r;.E~!-=..~
~ ~C _:.~. ,... . .e.-,,: .e_, ~1iI ;"'.!!'.!!'I'.!!' ;;:_"'t-.e""'.ik-. 1-;;1
- ~': "i-: !:æ: : -Iæ~- -~!:;; =¡æ¡æ ¡æ!¡;~¡¡ -¡¡i:-~I~=.;i~
... -= I:.: - . '.. , ':.'1.':_':'1---1 t-.:;.'Wili~-;--- .:-..- '1.I'~i&l.
~ ¡;- ~:-i 'i 1.1- 11 11_1-1iI}_I': :.e_: ---: 1-:-1-"--1 ==~ ~-"
I&I:::¡ ¡: "_11_1 I ___I_&-_:~ i'l'~r=,_-;;r_;~- ;,; ~:':-w-~.'
a- -:1: =:=: - :===:--==~.. ----_.e .:= =ft -:- -=::. ,,-:
~' ':: '¡; ü ':ü.e'W ü_'¡;':':':'W_'¡;':': It ~ .ei"j".:ï".e¡:...¡ =ü.j.':':~I¡-¡ï i
i: I¡~ ~ ~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~i~ ~:~:ji~;~~;j~i;~~i;i~i.tt~~;§
a: ¡i!! !!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!! !!j! !=I!==!!=I!!=!!=!ii!I=!
¡:, - ..' 1_-..-'
== I;¡- i I::; -.: ,.: i.: ~ I I _I; I ,-::; .
¡= .! I: - '- -:"':iM . ::;M _¡':;M U lIS 0 ' 1"i j ;;-.:
-= :-~..~II=::;'M:..::;_. .,--.¡ i-.:; - ~iM
= ,_.I::;_.--.=-~' ¡:::; ,.." c.. -..- II'¡ -- ";.':;"'11. =
'-----.- '--ox ." ..-- -.. .-. "'---0
= ~j:ì.=~.~;¡~~~I. ¡ S~ã 1~~1 I ~I .~:- ¡æ }!!~.:~ =.f
E !~;:~i~:il~:~!!i =~i_!;SIS 0 ;~ ~l!: l!:- ~!;:f: ~!;
at ~- -.-I--~I-.... ._--.-- - I I - 011- --.. ¡"'_M_- -
= i'¡=~,~.;~£ .:-:~-:~ ;¡~:= =~! ;¡-;; ..:E.. !i...!~ ~':I": ¡I:;;
~ ~---:I--::;'"' --I;¡;¡;¡!'~¡¡=ã'i¡::;.:. I. !:-I-'::-=.~oII-lt-~~-i õ.
¡ :!::"=.=~. II :~... i~!I!- '"' . "::",¡I".::"oII&&I;--r= .:"Ii '.:~'
- .x .j:- .:i!:"'.::.;¡;¡:-:-~~i"i':'-":"'-ã- ..,-¡. ..!¡.¡¡-. -. -.I::;~_,::
I .:'i. :::i-...: :_=.:.::::~ :.::_i::'i.::-: .~¡Ii _-:~¡¡".~ .&-,=..-:::;E, :!:
-~ -- " ':-"'---:-rr.---~t-rr. ~:::-~::. '~. ...... ----
i' ::;;¡~~::;::;;¡-~.~...~-- .: .. ~_.::;~;¡---~._--::;-=t::;_.. :--~
II: I. . _I. . . ---J; :-.... t I~II -... .. ¡¡I'ii_,,=. =--. _i. i t:e!ã
_I~:-";¡;:"':"':"'==~ ."::;"--&&=&'::~:~~:"'IS:"' að=-;~;;~~ ~-&a.a-
I Iii -¡ --
;;== ~!!! ! I II II i!
111 f i""!! ~~~ _~l! 11!!11111!1!1!!111111!;___¡¡
!:~ .. ~::= =----------11 11¡'1111111111ttltI111-i:i~~
=:- - ::;::;::;- _:::::::~::tt tttttttttttttttttjttttt"~".r
:i¡ ~ ~~~i ~iiiii:"i.,.. ........;........_...;......,
!: .-'. '"' ... - .................0':1..-- -----------------------.1.1':_-
~ 1.1- - ---- ---::::!!::::: :e=:==:I::e:_===a=I:=-==::::=:
23 -/.:2/
C-73
.
I
= p p
f f f
I~.==:====:::: : ::~E=~=====E
iffffifffffi 1 lil111111111
.----------- - ------------
!¡~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~
.il!!!!!!!!11 I II!!I!!!!I!I I
!¡&¡!iiå~¡!=i ! .~Ë5t!5å!!ëi Ë
I .:::
! ¡ : ,,;,,; i
¥ ¡ - § :: I
- I. -
u ; ~ =~ i i-..,..,
-~ i.! ;~ ! !:-~~ a
:: ¡~ Ë i= ! !!:I~ Ë
-ii ¡ i -f i!' .. ;=:: =
u= !~ - ~?~ ~ ..,~ ..,Ir:¥¥~ i
_I !¡ æ ~;~ ~ ~ ..,~~..,~=¡==~
-=i ¡~: ?:~ ~ : ~1!~I~i~~!
~. :~~: :~~ = I =-~=--:---
w~ ::. ~¡~ 1 =-5:-;r;;¥
-; :~~.It 1r~5 1..-~~~-~-"--~
~I: :---~ ~~.,' 55¡:'1Ii!¡=¡::"
== !~:i= ~-~~i i i~I'~!I'~; ¡~!
.: - :=",.1 ~..-....~, :4:.':.4:5:.1.
=. =:-51t~--~~~.- - =I:~=~:.=..=
¡. i:_._...:..:~-..;,,- - - ;--;-o':lIi!lIi!-
-= :~.=:-~~_w_II:':': '1.=~.=' i""
~. ::;;i~=~¥I~~.1 I I -;5_;=.==5
::1 ¡:!!_-_::::. .-- -;-1';-1'1'1'1'1'
Ir. -:eew.--,:.:-=: - .: I: 1-.-.-...=
II' ¡:ii:il.;,,~i-!";;";; ";;-~~:~ ;,.;,.:
i: li§§;§:!~~§~§ ~ §§i~;i~!!!!j
-- ~:::;,,:!~I::::: :::;::;jlll:
.- ã.--_-_-w---- - ------- .j.-
i; I &.:~...: - J
-- 1 .Ir.. ~- J
;~ ~- . 1-.=- :
¥. il I == -I~! -I I:
-I . .e.8 ;~i¡l~ .Ii è -I~.!
II I --I" ._~.01:... I~~ i
.:""~._._. :c
E ,-=~~: .:~!J:f:! f-I-1 !~ ¡
~..~. :&_.s- .
~ !I.:.-::l- =-J.!~:&J4 !II'J~
~ -e:= I:-.:;I!". ~.: :":41~; -;:"
~ ïi;i;;~i~e~=.èJI!~i i~Æi!Æ
~~----._~.: '~I'-- 'ii-~-~~ .-':
:-"'-&&&--:- .~.- f-~"-:~-
!: :~E:__:e_~ :ss:¡¡ i5~:_C:
s :J.!E1.':=H:==~.!iJ.!~...:IJ=i' Ii
!1.&~_!!!._!oI:~.J .....:cl ~..:I~
I--~~~~~~~-~ - ~~III ~
_111.1:.1:.1:.1:01:.1:01:101: ! 0I:0I:~.. 1- I
~:zz~===z=~.:z ~ ~=.I:~oI: IÆ
a¡~:::::::i:i _I i:¡.¡I~ ill-
- t:e~~~~~~~lw~lw IIWi!!!i$'w!J
:I!!IIIII ! - -i .
¡¡I!!!!!!! !- !!!f:j~!!!
~ !i .
~ ¡åi==:~;==~=-= - =8=====a:a=:
..1.3 ~ / ;2R
c- 7'¥
I
.
,
- !j ~ :!
f i ¡! .¡.¡ ¡
. I.: -- -
,- - II -
!! ¡"" 5 ;; ~ 1
¡-:!I ~~ u t:1
il.:;=--- I -==
I !.!u:: u .:
II' n:~H! ¡- H
i .n;:;; ~ '"
_Ii=.~~.. - I~
l¡i!~ilii ! Ii
I"!'::::::¡:::::: :I .I:::
ia aaaaa:: aaaaaa:aa a
_1- -III!I! 1IIIiliii i
~i ~~=i~~ Ë=¿å=!-ii ~
ii -
:1 i w: - -
': -I - .
,. ~ :~ w ; :
,_. . ~j ~: '; ; !
=' ,.- 1It.~ -.. . I:
: ::: ~ == :: ~; ! ~
lË ,~:;;.;I ï: :. - ;
:.: :: - - .~: I - ~ !
m -- : ~.. _° - .~ I
: 10'" ,.:.~ 1: -: ~'; -
.M ,-. ~~=:.. - ~-=D ~
- au ~ .... -.-~ :~-= ä
.- ::: :; h . - - - ~:: ~ ~
"ali= 1.-- '-1 'I1i:;;;;.
~:~ :;: I~ ~~~I ~::: ;~II ~
. ø~ Iii ;i;;~j:~ ~~¡r=;¡~~
~;~ i:i ;~i!fi: !fifi!¡::
! ij~ ¡!~!¡i! î!ïf!!!!!
I ~ ~~ ~~~! ¡ ~~
E¡ 11 :Ši!~ .~I¡
,- ~: ~~ ~;!!= %;~~
,. .~ ¿¿.c ..-. ..¡.:I;:
IE i~ ~~:=~3~;~:~=!E
!: ~:¡JjA~~~;.:~:~~!i
! ¡ !E...i=;h.!F'E:~i: :01:¡
¡; ;:i==~~¿i¡i '_~:i~
Ii. ~~,II-..:¡¡&~;:;-(:'¡
¡It I-;;:;;;;i!!===!;:;~ A:
Kif- ~~iii~=~='I~~~i~-
-, . . ~~------_. - -.
¡
.i¡ I!!!! ¡
:1a !!!!! ~
i;~ :::þþ---- _.::ii J
.:- ------- :;;.;;.;;.;;.;;.11-
¡i¡ Ii!!!!! !~iiiiii¡
~ u ,
;; ¡.. ¡ - . w. - - - - - ~ - - - - -.. - ,),.3 -' /.2 J
C - 7S"
- i ,- J -'
! i =::::..
! .&- =
II --- J -.
If -~I-
! ~ l~= t -=
I; ==1 :
i: - U~ I i
~ f --.. s
-¡~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~;;i p p ~pjp ppp=========i:1
Jilll 1111!1! !II!!~ I I 11;1 Illllllli!I!!fl
,. ....
!!~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~~~~ ~
-J:= a¥. . ..... .¥D¥¥¥D¥a ..15. a¥¥=a.a .
i Ie wå¥ aåDwWwwåa.aååwåååwåw àåwå wååééëë.....aå
'1r¡~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~~~~(((((~~~
lew:;: a;a::ee;.aa;:e;;:e:e ::e; e::ssesaaaa==:w
-i~å;é; ééé;;;:éééééé:ééé;é; éé:é 5éé~~~~~~~~~~éå
!I!.;¡¡; ..¡;¡¡¡¡.¡.¡¡~..iiii .i~. .iiiiiiiii.i;;;
i~¡~.~!a !=~~.~!e..;~! !~a!!5 I; ! ~!=!~!!!!!¡!!!.
- i ~ ::;f~ -I::; ,
; ¡ -I -=: ~ -i - ~ - ~ ~ ~~
- I ~Æ !~. - - I ~ ~ ~ ~ =¥
~ I - ~4 :1& I ~ - - ~ I It --
. i i= f:. i!~ :.! I!!:': J;
~ ~ I -- :K:: :~1: 1- - -~- -~- --
~ - 0':- .-e. ,.- - ¡ - e---e-- -
III ~ ¡ -i ~ !!~; ':1_: ¡ ! :~e~.!~~! Ii
- Ir : - ~ ..._- =.:~: t = - IIli-. I)
- 0 . - 1'--- - _.. - -. -
-- 8 ¡ w~I 1 "ltii e!~.i W W - Iw ! t-,:'I-t: .
'" - I ';~~ - :';=01: -::- W'; ¡ - WI ..;..;..rho~ -:w~
. E ¡:- ~ =ãe,!! lie:; ";:! - .¡.- -I =¡. =¡=a :-=
.a ~ ¡ ...8"!,:. !;~H~ .Ë;--!i- .t ;~ L ~;';j~¡~; !;7i
.. - I II: - W :=---';.~~~~111 II -I -. II-ilill -==
~ ~ i .-:-: ,r~. -:,,:,,:,,:. .I.:~~ 0 &"- 1-" - ..-.i. ; o'!!
- - . .-. .It- -1----11 &&!-.- -".- 1"~1.1-1-. ~_o
.. _1 ~II ¡~! ~~!;;~ï¥Ë~!:~11 i~:¥ i¥~i!~!¡!i~-:i~
1Il!f - 0 e - - ¡ - - -. w 1- . I. . - 1 .. - I! ¡.- - -- II ~ - a . ¡ - ~- ,- I
~ II -~~ - ~~~_. ----.¡.ee-~- - ---_:;= =--~=-
¡ ¡ "::-- ::-=~~"::..::=::14..:¡'i':-': EI-I- .411= ilil;-e':,'
"'.'. -I-~."I"".il ...- I'ls ï I.. -c- - ! 1-
~ ii '; ii ~:';::~;I':_.w!~iI1 i -s~ !$a~'r'r,J-;!
- -0 e-- á- . -=.. -. --e =- - --- - - - -,. e-
= J¡;~~~~ w"~-i-i~~!iii~I..i~~~~~ I~..~ ~I"-I!-I!-I!-I!"=~I
! :_::::. :-..¡~=--_: 1':==::: :1::: =.= = :¡~:
E I:::::::::: .::::ii;';-i::::::::~:::::::::: ¡:f: :~::'J-il;I;=~:::~
I::::: .::__E.. :::li~::II;: :~: ;01::- - - -~;.:¡
0--_-- -----~ a---- ------- --- -&-- - - -.a.-
.;-::::i.: Ii .ål ..:il & i .:i -, ï
.__..:_-- . - I.
;; -.::1. 1 J t;; -!i.:- .1~ - !;i:-J.¡ G f
~ ~ei=i:~- ;tf ~=.;;i;¡e%=I~ %Je~:- -. -. ! i &
~ S .=e ;;.1. -i J. æ:-:-!e':lii.j .-;ie"J &- ~
:' %:~=~~;-=! .%': ~-:!=Ï:¡¡ef!,!h.= . !!: 'r:;
I .R-. ;;':._s_- .--.-1 -la-:-:=1 J~S-!i!~~ , ! ."- !.
;;..:P' M -::.~;;.:- I - .--: '=,.,5:--"....... -II .:"
'E=:~~'I!!:!I;:%Gi i&;;~:iil ~.~I;i"~-. ~;I I;;~~e
-.--- .0_-:1 -, e _. .1 -'I;. _.!- --¡:--
~fj':.. ,!¡i,E!.!U¡Hi i~¡::-il_!!;i¡"!I¡::I::a-le~~==¡
J -"'¡&&oil&&&f'e.;;;;::-;¡:l: I-I ;;1-:: _...JI.. .:
'S,I!!-ll!li!!!j!:'tt!;¡Jt! II ilt.:i!!t:i!J!;¡iJ!)=I=lil
!¡!!=!iiI&_!!!~¡!¡¡ii ¡IIII ~J¡i:-!!&¡"¡¡¡¡":-!I Eli
! i ---.- --.. I ..
I I I iiiiit"i II i 1'111 Illllllll! I
--¡ ~ i===iw=~=. :- f =- !!!!!!!!!
if!---!- 1-~~I=~~I~I~:JI!11 ~ l~i! l-j!".}".'.'t'.'.'.'..I.
:~~~-~ .~ . I . t. . .. .. - ~
!i!!š:! i!lllli!!I]]Iii!!!i illi il:-!i%iiiiiii!i
~.'!-!!-- .--;¡===~==-::---.:-- :-.- ;¡-a..==caaca:--
;::1 A- - 23.:'/-2 i-
è ii----- _-..K.._!!!!!==:~:=: :a..! !=~!!!!!!~!E=a=~-;7~
- ~ I
I
- I ='H
! j:~
Ë I ;ii
1 =ww
I v II
I 1.::.::
i i vB
¡ j iH -
i . i-:-: !
I --1-: ..
¡Ii ;I'!'-f i
1 :.=-- I
1- -
Ii! ~~II. -'I
-jib ~~~ ¥¥ t
i I~~~~~ ~~ ~
!EI~~~~~.=~ "
tl==u~~i~: ~
-¡;ëë:e u 8 ~
~18~~~~~~: ~ ¡
i~¡¡!¡~~~!~ ; !
¡~i;"".'" = ~
.. ;:; i
I II: . ¡
~ ! ~;~ ~ :
~ i-1 ~:.r :: -:
! i~: -!: i =
~ I...;... ,¡;:'" - i .
= i8; í=: K ~
w i:: ::~ i ;
~ ¡II:~.. w&- C ;
; i~¡1¡! -~'; :: ;
:: 1;1:: ia = :
'" I;_~ .~-.. If ~
~ Ii::; ~:æ,: i -
i iHj ~!H ! !
: i¡!!~ -E~,¡; 8 -
' i. -"-1:11 " .<
¡ ;I~::ë_:&- ë &
~ !j~~!i!i~~ l~
i li:-:a.=.;¡-: -~
. 'I'a.." I"
¡i_j===_-; ~
I..: ¡; "=
: ¡'ie.: ~!
I - .~W8 =¡
i . ¡ ;~ H Ii
:.; --;UJ! '1:-
¡I~% ~~!: i:
I=-.i=~~- 'I
¡-~:¡.:.!-._= ':-
ij~¡¡~Ë;~ a~
)i i~~~!~~ ÞK
.i=~:-:-j~...;.
!ioh:,,:"'__- ï
i~ p-! /'
I. ! a.
a:I U i - /;l}J
i¡ ¡iE-!! B :23 C-77
tii-a:==ë= j
- 1 ii- 1:.1== I"
¡ 1 -:"--
-: ---111~ j
= -: au- -
¡.I: ~
= =1 --~=== ¡
- !,.=--
~ ~¡
-
\.
- E1Chibit "a"
.,19192 momo DAAINAG¡ COIlPUUTS -- 1183 TO 1192 "81 ,
(JWCLUO¡S UIWT!UWCH¡Um COIlPlAUTS no DUPlICATE mAlES)
Itrut Date of
Itrll! lumier Call 'robll~
---------- ___e. ------ -.-- .
Andora Rd. 3/01/11 Iud crlltinl hurd It 811n Abbey Ilvd.
Arizonl It. DUD m2/11 floodld
IIY Ilvd 2/02/88 Culvertsllocled, flooding
la, Ilvd 3/01/11 floodinllt f It rut
II' Ilvd 3/20/91 Strut lot draining 10UU of f Strut
II' Ilvd 1120 2/02/11 Culmtl Ilocked, flooding
la, Ilvd 1120 2/02/11 Orlin plullld
lelch hI 0273 2/08112
IlIth hI. 0273 2/08/12
Illindl IIY Oil! 3/02/12 CuI-dl-sa: floodld .. drain clOllld
Illhoo DOi2 10/11/1' Flooded
lonill Ad. 3/01/91 Floodld to li1l01
lonill Rd. 3/01/11 Floodin8 It lillol Rd., loutn lidl
IrOld..y 11m/8S Flooding in 100 bloc;
Irol;'I, 12/li/8' lilnt Inouldlr floodinllt Cmllm
lread.., 3/01/11 'Innoll covlr off
IrOld.., 1225 2/06/12 Drl,n blochd liU Iuds
IrOIO.., 1m tIIS/8! Trailer hr; floodld
IrOld.., 1362 Jenmn'l litnm Church floodld
Iroldlly 13!2 2/02188 FloOO;"1
IrOlo..y 136í 2/02188 Flood;nl
C Strut 11/2S/SS Floodld It 10rU Glovlr
C StrW om 3102192 lidllllk floOdld, ftIId sandhiS It Iud I JlIlls
Cuino ¡r,tradl D2DS 3/01191 Drlin blchd up
Clmc ¡ntrt:! 0205 3/01/91 PluliIO drlin in back
Clmo Entrldl 0205 3/01/91 Rod out (?
Clmo Entra;1 020S 3109!91 Ilochd draiftlll ditch
Cldar hI. om 2/08/92
Cld., All. 2COS:k 3/02/92 Ilc; Ylrd under IItlr eo tlCUSÍYI liter
Cldl' hI. 2COt]; 3/02/12 Orlin too IJlII
CIf,trll hI. 3/20/91 hlltllllr flolS loinl over Itrut
Cnurth .hl. 3/01/91 Itorl drlin clOllld loutn of llnd ~i11top
CIty "111 3/02152 loof hi;, '1Iisllton' offim (Dlddlh)
Clairl hI. 0134 3/02112 flooding betmn II J 'IClusa of Ituc; trun un
Chriss St. lo/tt/a, Irati plullld, 100 Uock flooded
Cluhin Tlrr. OUS 3/03/12 Cm dlUlld fane I
Country Club Dr. 0651 3/03112 flooding
Crutld lutte 0611 3/02/12 10m floodld, '01 lost - mmivl liter
D Strut l1/Z5/IS flooding in 200 block
DIll 5t. 0280 3/01/11 Drain pluliid
III Mar hI. om a/WID floor furnlCl '"Illd h flooding
Dilon 1138 2/08/92
Dorotny 5t. 0809 2/02/88 Floodinl
Dorouy 5t. D809 2/02/88 Yard/-ot! floodinl
fit. . Denny's 2/06/92 Drlin could not hndlt
f It rill 0400 11/2Sm Floodld
f Strut coom 1/02/12 Too lucn lIter
f. " It rllt 3/20/11 Floodinllt lutnl hili j") /-
f. " 5trut 3/20/11 floodinllt OtlY litIS Rold ,}..J-,r. If"
f. " Strut 3/20/91 floadinllt PIUO 011 Rey
f. J It rut 0203 mO/83 InldeQul1I drlinlle C - 7?
I
.
5/19/92 RECORDED ORmAGE COI/PL4JNTS -- 1983 TO 1192 '111 I
(INClUDES MIlNTEmCE-RHATED COI/PL4JNTS m DUPlICATE ENTRIES)
Strut DIIe 01
Ilrlll lur.ber Cll1 'roblu
..--..-..-...-- --.... ---.... .--------------
E. L Itrllt II !25!15 Flooding in 100 þlo'i
El Cui!ln Or. om 3/02/92 IIÜ Jerd flooded b, omllDi frill dreinlll dia~
Elder hI. om 3/02112 Flooding - too lu,h uur
£11 Avl. 11/25/BS Floodinl in COO Þlo,i
Ell Avl. 0400 2128/B3 SIDDÞld up ditc~ flooded properly
Ell Avl. 0400 2/2B/83 SIOPPld up dilc~ flooded proplrly
Elt Avl. 0400 3/01/B3 SIOPPld up dit,h flooded proplrly
£11 hI. 0456 3/02112 MoUII f loodld
Ell Avl. 0723 Flooding 01 ÞoUSt hCIUII of 11h, Irldinl
Ell Avl. 0123 3/03/92 Livinl roo~ I ,Irlll flooded
Eurscn SI. 0205 3/02/92 Too lueh Iller
Eurson SI. 0212 II. drlinell chnnll ,rossing properl, CIUSU prob
herson SI. om Dit,h hhind ~OUII omllOlld, floodinl ~ousu
Ermon St. ow 2/0S/92 Orlin nlldld 10 h ,lunld
F SI rill 11/21/S1 Floodld
F Strut 11/21/SS Floodinl in 00 Þloei
F SI flit 11/2S/SS Floodinl in 100 blo,¡
F Strut OiOe 11/2S/BS Floodld
Fifllie SI. 0527 3103/92 Imr hets UP into tub durinl reins
FHth AV!. 11/2S/SS Caulol Acts II 100 blo,¡ flooded
Fifth Avl. 11/2S/ES CUI lot ACls 1100dld
Fift~ hI. 11/2S/EI flooding II G Strut
Fifth AV!. 11/2SIS1 FloodinlllNSlrul
Fifthhl. 12/Ii/S1 Otbris in bol ,ulvlrt south 01 l Strut
Fifth Avl. 2/01/88 Floodinl on rold fror. '~Innll
Fifth Avl. 2/04/88 CI~ll01 Acts so. 01 l 51. flooded
Fifth hI. 3/20/11 Truh un in drain II soul~tlSl corner
Fifth hI. 3/2'/91 CIHh Itsin nlldld clnninlll Chriss
FHth hI. 3/02192 Floodld om sidmli It lichln
Fiflh hI. 0920 3/03/92 Moult 1 loodld
Fifth hI. om l' /2S/BS Rur Plriinl lot flooded
Fiflh hI. lOll 2/02/88 Floodinl
Fifth hI. 1011 2/02/88 Floodinl in strut htmn Mou I Fift~
Fifth hI. 1070 3/02/12 Tlo lOertllnts flooded .. hnt trlihr in drein
Filth hI. son' 3/02/12 Orlin blo'hd/inldrquatl - floodinl flrd I ,atio
First hI om '/2S/BS F loodld
Firsl hI. 1/02/88 Flood dlllil It 811nhmn '
First Avl. 2/02/88 Flood dallil II Ghnhlm (to rui~encl
First AY!. 0071 IID211S
First AY!. 0071 2/0 21 88 Drain Þ10chd
First Avl. 0556 1/02188 Flooding
First hI. om 2/02/88 Floodinl
Firsl AY!. om 3/03/92 Irick 1111 lal1 durinl nin
Firsl hI. 0751 \112S/BS Orlin lillid up
Firsl hI. \271 2/02/88 Flooding
Firsl hI. 1211 2ID 2! 88 lonllo"r,
Firll Avl. I \0 I 3/02192 'al1 ino,itd down h uW, Þui Ylrd flooded
Flour St. 210 2! 88 Floodinl II E It.
Flour 51. 1/02/88 Flood;nlll Olilun II. ;;2] -/), ?
Flour 51. DIU 11/21/BS 'allr up 10 lparlllnts
Flour 51. OSIS 2/02/88 Ora;nall d1lch C-7?
Flmr 51. om 2/02/88 Flooding
5/19192 RECORDED ORmA'E cou~ulm - 1183 TO 1192 PilI 3
(INCLUDES MAlmUNC£-RElATED COIIP¡,mn .AND DU!LlCATE ElTRlESJ
-
It rut 0111 01
Strllt hl.D [ Cill Pro~111
-.............. -.... -..n.. ......
flour It. om 1/01/12 'rint, ,ro~"t
Feurth Au. II/U/II floodld t! C It rl:t
fourth hi. 11/25 lIS floodld It C Strllt
fourth hi. 1/01/12 In front 01 PIICO It C Itrut
Fourth hi. JSt. 3/02/12 Pi It of rockl in It rut It J Strut
1St. 3/01/11 Inttrmtion It In clYld in
1St. DOlI 1/21/11 flooded
1St. 0221 3/02192 floodinl. too luch liter
8St. om 3/02/12 fmll iVI IltIr - no Ølllil
1St. om 3/02112 Omllolinl Ørliftlll ditch
'5t. 0211 3/02192 OmllOlin; drlinlll ditch
1St. 0/11 3/02/92 w-m Apt COtpll1 .. too IUC~ liter
GSt. 0332 3/02112 Illd md his
GSI. om 3/02/13 Ditch omlloud. floodld Ipartllntl
GSI. Dill 3/02/83 floodinl 01 IPlrttintl
GSI. om !121m floodinG drlin channel
GSI. Olli 1/01/17 floed;nl 01 IPlrtllntl
GSI. om 3/01/11 DurllOI into "rlinllot
GSt. DE II 3/2j/11 t72 Clr dulled by f loodinl
G5t. Dill 3/20/1! Floodinl into parlinl lot
G St. Dill 3/27/11 Fleodinl 01 IPIrtmtl
'51. om 2/01192 Toe tuc~ IIttr
'St. om 2/0i/12 Too tuch 1I~lr for drlin
GSI. om 2/08/12 Too tuCh utlr for drl;n to hlndll
GSt. 0111 3/02192 Detris loins in chlnnll
GSt. DE! I 3/02/92 EICISlivl IItIr .. no dlllil
GSt. Dill 3/03m floodinl
GSI. 0731 3/21/11 Drlin pluued
'mett A~IIY 3/02/92 Floodinl .. UCllliYllltlr
Gmltt hI. DIU 2/01/92 IICkllol to hOUII. 101 IPOtl in IlIlY
Glrrlll hI. 0182 3/02112 Alley lidl 01 house floodld, lidtllll "!tied
Gter, A~blï Blvd. 3/01/91 Mud problat
Gllnhlven II) 2/02/88 Floodinllt £It
Gllnhlm, IIY 2102 /II floodinllt £11
Glenhlvln IIY 0161 2/02/11 floedinl in htl
Glenhavlr, IIY OUI 2/0 2188 floedinl into hll
GIOYlr St. DIll 3/21/91 Inllt Irllt rultinl .. falhnl into drlin
I Strllt 0708 3/20/91 Propertr duilld by flooding
Illtmst Dr. om 3/03112 Dnin undar lidlllll ,hUld
Nllil hI. 1/ 25186 floodld It E. Olford
Nllh hi. 10/11/87 2 inlats It Riml ,luUld lin IIlIplpm
Rlhl hI. 2/0BII2 "'rll Uoctinl louth of Ønin
Rlhl hI. 2/08/12 floodinl It Riverl
Hilltop Dr. 11/2S/8S Floodld It L St. hhind churc~
Hilltop Or. 11/21/85 Floodld It Tltllraph Clnron Rold
HilIto~ Or. 3/01/91 . Iud ,robin It TlhlrlPh Clnron
Nil Ito~ Dr. 2/08/12 Too luch liter to handle It Tlltlrlph Clnron
Hi IItop Dr. 3/02/12 Cm truck Itl' hd .. "It omnilht
Hilltoc Dr. om 2/02/12 floodinl .. Ims: ¡llIr
Hilltop Dr. 0112 2/08/92
I11ltop Dr. 0581 . 2/2S/12 floodinG frol drain"l roulld fm I I. 01 Hil1top
Hilltop Dr. OSII 3/02/92 Floodinl frOi drlinlll routed frot J I. of Nil1top
d-3-~ j;2Y C-¥~
-
5/19152 RECORD!. ORmm COMPLAInS .. 1183 TO 1192 PilI C
(INCLUDES UINTEm:E-RHATEO COMPlAINTS AND OUPL1Cm UTRIES)
Strut Oltl of
Strut hr,bl! Clll PrObln.
-..,........... .-.... .--..... ......- _n - ..
MilllO¡ Dr. 0700 11/25185 floodld
J Slrllt 3/02112 Floodld fror, vic of ROblrt he. to Ichool Itediu.
Industrial hI. 2/08/12 Drain It Mlin iudlQuele
J Slrut 12/um Pluilld Cltch hs;n It Colorldo
JICQUI St. 0127 2/08/12 Privell ,rob In
Juon PItCI 0374 3/02/12 Drlinlll
Juon PIleI 0374 3/02192 Too luch IIW for Citch
Jlfferson hI. "/25/B5 Floodinl in 500 block
Jefferson hI. 11/25185 Floodinl in BOO block
I Strllt 0280 3/25/11 Dreinlll channel omflolld
l\nlStood Or. 0007 t/20/11 Mom (!) f loodinl ClUlld by const rucl ion
L Street 11/25/B5 Floodld It Monurele
L Slrllt '0/II/B1 hmsiYllltlf floodinllt Colorldo
L St rllt 2/01/BS Floodld It Fim
L SI rllt om 2/02188 Floodinl on strut .
Llndis hI, 01/4 11/15/B5 Floodinl
LISFlomOr. 11/25165 Floodinlll LensllY
Mld'onl II. om 3120/91 Shll Iretes bloln out of inht by liter
MI ronl St. 03 ~ 9 t/01/12 6fltl off inhl, ClUSld Cmgl to ur
Mlin It. m2!8S Flooding et corner of IIlin/ Hollister
III in 5t. 3/01/92 Hollister to 1.5, construclion cruled ,robIn
11lln 5t. 2/51 12/II/S7 BUIlding floodld
11I1n 5t. mt 2/01/SS Flooding
Mm SI. mo 2/02/SE Flooding
IIlln S:. 2474 C 2ID 218 8 flOOding
1111/, 5t. 2414: 2/02/BS Orlintgl
III in 5t. 2513 2/0B/91 IIr LUlblf p¡rking lot floodld
1I1',n 5t. 3008 12/12/S1 Cmulll hr interior floodld
IIllrOIl hI, 2/0S/92 Too luch for Crl in It E. limen
IInorill PHk 2/02/8£ Plrk floodinl to condos
1111 Itr St. 1st St 3/W12 £rosion on bank.. efrlid of strut colltoll
lIinot AVI. om 3/03/91 Pluilld Itm drl;n nut to ,rOolrty
lIitseher 5t. 00S1 t/20/9! Flooding
MHseher 5t. 0085 2/02lBS Drliugl
Mitschr St. 0085 2/02/86 Mo.. I Blrlll floodld
MHseher 5t. 0085 3/20/11 Floodinl
lontlmry SI. 0319 2/0 2/ 88 110.. floodinl
lontlorery It. 0361 2/02/88 floodinl in hou
10nttoPerY SI. 0313 2/0 21 BS MOIl floodld
MOMlowy It. om 2/02/86 Pond in Itrllt
Moss SI. 11/25/B5 Drliutl Citch floodinllt L Strut
Moss St. 1/02/88 Floodld It Fifth It.
Moss SI. 2/0 21 88 floodinl
Moss St. 0619 3/01/11 Iud fro. neilhbor'l construction
Moss St. om t/01/91 Storl drli" ,tunld
Moss 5t. 0176 3/21/11 'eter hckinl Uo in Itorr drlin
lIurrly 5t. 0074 3/02112 floodinl uo rur, truh can in drain
lurrl) 5t. 0078 3/D3/92 Floodinl in Itrttt
h¡ll$ It. 2/D 2/ B8 Dreint,1 It Jndustrill
~1O1ts ~t. 2/0 2/ B8 Floodinl It Industrill ;2']-/25
1'011$ 51. 0500 2/0B/52
holl$ 5t. 0181 2/02/88 Flooding C-ð'/
5/11/12 IECORDED DRmAGE COI/PLAINT5 -- 1U3 TO USI 'III 5
(Imum MmTUANCE-RELATED COIIPLAJITS AID DUPlICATE ElTRIE5)
- .
Strut Date of
Strut lurtH Can 'roþlu
---------- ----- ----.. .. --.
lapllS 51. 0I81 !fD 2/ 18 Floodin;
Oalta'n hi. 1I/1511S Floodinl in aDo ~lock
Oatl..n hi. 0532 t1/2511S .anho 11 cov,r lifted off h .altr
OaUm Au. to'2 J/D2/12 'roperl, _au;ad h flooding
DaUm be. tlOO J/02/12 1100 ~Iock flooded, too latt for undÞa;s
OcaTa AVI. UD2 t2/llm .mpapar plullld inlet
Olunder Ave. mD/81 Itort dnin .10chd, hckin; up into strut
Olrl.ia 51. DOU mOl!! .an~o h com off
Orlnll ht. om tO/ll/a7 floodld
Olar lites Rd. !fD 2118 Contractor Clused dnfn"t pro~lal
Ouy Lahs Rd. 3101/91 Flooded lout~ of lonill
OtlY Llhs Rd. 3101191 "unld dn in at Cu ino (1mdo
OUr LitIS Rd. Bonita 3/02/91 Trll Þ locting st rut
OUy Va I1IY Rd. 2101188 Flood in; fret canyon ( of lirma, underlining Rd.
Olford 5t. 2102118 Floodin;
Ortord 5t. 00i6 2/02188 Flood duagl to rlSidlncl
Ollord 5t. DOH 2/DI/8! Flooding
Oltord 51. 0157 2/0S/91 .ater runs into 10USt -- 10llr thn slrut
Olford 5i. 0130 2101/U Flooding
Ollord 51. 0119 IID2tee
Oltord 51. 0119 2/02/86 Floodinl
- 01 tord 51. 02S1 3/10191 Flooding
Ollord 5t. om 3111/91 La';1 Ditch clolled
Ollord 5t. 0313 3/01/11 WIld sand bigs
Ollord 5t. 0349 1/06191
Oltord 51. 0349 3102191 Drain too sul1 for utlr
. Oltor 51. 0349 3105193 Lauderbach torr. Ctr. ilproments cauud flooding .
Oltord 5t. OUI 3101192 10uSt flooding - utlr frDt stmt
Oltord 5t. om 2108192 'rivate drain clOllld 'iH dlbril
Orford 51. 13rd 2/08/11 Onin could not hndle
Pllt hI. om 2fO 21 88 Floodld fror OUy Val1tr load .
Pllr hI. 0165 2/02/88 Flooding frol OUr Vaney Road
PIli hI. 0115 2/01/U Floodin; frol Otar VlTttr
Palt hI. 0165 2/02/U Floodfng in lOll
Pall be. 0115 2102/U IDtI IIlodin;
Pall he. 1m 1/15/86 flooding
Patl Dr. 1100 2/02188 Floodin;
Pal, Dr. 1100 2/02/U load floodld
'almr 51. 0114 2/08/12
PaIO1IT 51. 0225 2/08/12 hadeQullt printt _rain
Park Ilr om 1/08/12 Too IUC~ IIlIr for _rain
'tpperlm Id. J/01/11 Car aluck in IItlr ust of li1Itop
'uperlm Rd. 3101/11 FJoodfn; lilt of li1ltop
'tmrlree Rd. 1/08112 Floodh; lilt of 1¡lltop
'1PPlrtree Rd. 1108/92 Too luch utar I/O Hilltop, ,Imd af,ns
'mlrtrll Rd. OOSS 3/01/91 Car stuck
'mertree Rd. 0061 3/20191 a ft of utar, Clrslloatin,
- Petao Ct. om 2/02118 FJoodin;
'¡'rColl.Clr. 1/02/U Floodina
'rom:1 Ct. om 1125/86 Floodld
Duintard 51. 0327 3102111 Cmpoe! .ahind ditch cm-in - 'DUo .al1 _ua,1
h"n:r Ct. 10/11/17 2 _rains ,lulled, floodin,strtlt lout~ of 'ain
J]-/3tJ C- R¿
.
5(11/12 RECORDED DAmAGE COyclA1NTS .. 1983 TO 1912 hge f
(lIClUOES MAINum:£-RElATEO COMPLAINTS AND DU~LlCATE ENTRIES)
Street Dlte 01
Strut 'u~ber Cill Prob In
---....-.... -.... -...n. --.--..---... ..--.-.-...
lilnstrl It. DOb Ii 3/02/92 Crlte inside drlin (replmd)
liml Ct. om 3/01/91 liter fushin; in bct ,Ird
liml It. 0012 3/20/11 StOll drlin omllolin; into 'Ird
Robert All. 0606 3/02112 Ilist deep IItlr
Robert hi. I It. 3/02192 Clr stuct in intersection
lut;trS hI. 3/20/11 Floodin;lt Tlll;rlph Clnyon
San li;ull Dr. 207 11/21/81 lint eros ion lIon; Tlh;raph Clnyon Crut
San li;ulI Dr. 207 3/02/12 lint erosion lIon; Tlh;rlph Cinyon Cnet
Second Avl. 3/02112 Floodin; "tllen Moss Ind IIPhs
Slcond Avl. 1110 Sm drlinl;1 chin. 15 IboVI floods recreation ;1.
Second Avl. 1110 2/06/92 Property dlU;ld by lIoodlltlr
Second Avl. 1189 2/02/U F loodi n;
Second Avl. 1189 2/0 21 88 hId floodin!
Second Avl. 1190 3/01/91 011 ch baclld UP .
Second Avl. 1193 2/02/8. Orlinlgl probln
Secor,d Avl. 1'93 210mB Flooding
Second Ave. 1193 3/01/9' Drm plu991d
Second A\I. 1193 3/C: 191 (¡clssivl IItlr
lIme Avl. l1g¡ 3/01/91 DHch blclld up
Imrd Avl. 1191 3/21/91 Drlin ditch betilin houSlS cloned
Second Avl. 119' 2/08/92 Orlinlglbloclldbyneig~,bor
Second hi. 1191 2/02/8B Floodln9 on rold
Secord hI. It91 2/02/88 It rllt Iloodid
Sme1l S1. 11/21/81 Mudslidl
Ihls:1 I I UD8/92 Too ~uch liter to hlndll
Ihlsll SI. 0012 3/03192 10m flooded
Snls:1 S1. DOH 2/0./92
SWrl hy 0211 3/0t/91 Orlinl91 overllOI
Sprm SI. om 3120/91 (Spruci St.) .. Orlinlgl ditch 1/2 full 01 debris
TlnOe~CI. OIl I 2/02188 Drlinl!1 ditch
TIn 0.. Dr. DIll 2/02/B8 FloodIng
TehgrlOI. tyn Rd 11/21/81 Flooded It 111Icrllt
TllegrlPh tyn Ad 2/02/88 Flooding II Iincho 011 Sur
Tllegruh tyn Id mo 2/02/&8 Flooding
Third Avl. 3/02/92 Floodin;1I Quinlltd .. too luch IIllr
ThHd Ave. 1212 2/08/12 10UII Iloodin;? fel01 strul; lltlssive liter
Third Ave. 1212 3/02/12 ApI .~. flooded .. I foot 01 liter insidl
Third All. 1212 3/02/12 Floodin; .. ,roperly hlol llnel Ilvll
Tobin Dr. 1216 3/21/11 loch IIshld inlo II rill
Truonl II. 0278 2/02181 Floodin;
Tmonl It. 0278 2/02/88 Floodin;
hin OltS Avl. om 2/02/88 Floodin;
Tlin Olts Avl. 1115 2/0 21 88 Floodld
hin Oils Avl. 1115 2/02/88 Floo6in; !rot Oily vlnlY
Tlin OIls hI. IllS 2/02/88 Floodin; in 'oun
VanCI It. 11/21/8S Floodin; in 100 ~loct
VincI II. 11/21/8S Floodin; in 200 ~loct
VanCI It. 0112 2/0B/92
Vance It. OS71 3102/92 Iud Slndbl;s :)]- / 3 I
VanCI It. om 3/20/1! Flooding
l~itnlY It. It/2S/BS Flooding in 200.bloct C-ð"5
WhItney It. 0276 3/02/92 Floodin; .. no IPparlnl dUlse
5/11/12 RECORDEO DRmiGE COMPLAINTS -- 1183 TD 1192 PIlI T
(ImuDES MAINTENANCE-mATED COMPLAINTS AID DU.PLJCATE ENTRIES)
Strut Dltt of
Strut h~ber CIII 'rob1"
--..-.... -.-.. ---.... -. - . "- .
Ihituy SI. D27I 1/02/12 Storl Dala t/Dnin clolled?
Ihitney St. om ( 3/02/12 Flooding (lCIu;n liter
linol St. 3/0t/It Iud ,rob 1..
loodlm he om 3/20/91 IIOUII flooded .. drain omflo..d
100d1m An om-I 3/20/lt lentil units flooded
loodlm he. 3/20/91 110m flooded It M Itrut
10odl11n he. 2/08/12 Iou It.
loodlm hi. om Ilm/85 1m ,arkinl lot flooded
loodlaln hI. 0411 3/20/gt Serious flooding building up in blck fard
loodilln hI. 0411 2/08/92 Too .uc~ liter for drlin
loodll1~ hI. om 3/25/11 10m dUllld by flood
loodlll' hI. 0487 3/02/12 Illd StndbllS
loodillr, he. 0189 3/20/91 'roperty dulild by floodinl
Ioodilln hI. 1002 3/01/12 'roplrty diM lId by flooding ~
loodlan he, 1008 3/01/11 Drl;n Blocked (Olllgl, Mo obstruction, 101 caplCity
lood ¡lln hI. 1006 3/01/11 Jntlrior lIoodinl, drlin jUdlCUlte
10Odl"n hI. 1008 3/02192 Flooding
loodlarr. hI. 101C 3/16/11 Floodld Strut dmlld Clr
loodllrn hI, 1010 3/03/12 Floodinl
loodlm hI. 1012 3/03/92 Floodinl
- loodilln hI. 1014 3/01/12 PrOPlrty dmlld by lIooding
100dl11n hI, 1013 3/01/11 Property dlUlld by lIoodinl
Io,dlarn hI. t031 3/01/12 Property dmlld by floodinl
10cdl11n hI. t031 3103/11 10m flooded
loodlarn he. liDS 3/02/92 Floodinl - IItlr in .om, ceroet under liter
-
,
:23 / / :J c:< C- .i'9"
I
Exhibit "H"
5/19/92 10i.MlliTfHliCE RELATED ORIIUSE COIIPLmTS AND ASSOCIATED ORAINAGE OHImiC¡ES THAT STILL ElIST Pale 1
(AS IDEiTlFl£O U FOGG '64, FOGG '69, LHDSHIU-HERHNHOfF: & 1992 STAFf ORmm OHImNCY STUOIES!
Strut Date of Rt llvant
Strut luf-ber Cal1 Problem Defj~ilncy 10.
.-.--..----- --- __n- --------
Benita Rd. 1/01/9! noodinl It lil101 Rd., louth lidl 10iE
Jmn PIeCI 0374 3/02/92 Too luch liter for iit~h lONE
Ten elk Ct. 0515 2/02188 Flooding lONE
lishoc 0062 10/I1/1! Flooded PVT PROB
Oe I Mar Ave. 0290 1/04/90 Floor furnace 61111ed by flooding PVT PROB
Dorot hy SI. 0809 2/02/81 Yard/holl flooding py¡ PROB
Montgomy SI. 0319 2/02/88 Iou flooding PY¡ PROS
ProvInce Ct. 0068 1/H/8a Flooded PVT PROS
loodilln hi. 0245 11/2S/SS lear oerUnl Tot floodld PV1 PROS
Iroad..y 12/16/S7 RigH shoulder flooding at Cul!lm I
FlOllr St. 2/02/88 Floodinl It OIUm SI. 3
Flow SI. om 11/2S/SS lat er Uc to løsrtllnts 3
Flow SI. om 2/02/81 Flooding 3
E St rut 0100 It/2S/SS Flooded I
£ St rut IDOllk 3/02/91 Too Much liter I
Serrett he. DUS 2/0!!12 hckflol to houle, 101 scots ift l11ey I, 5
Sarrltt he.. 0182 3/02112 AIIIY sidl of house flooded, sidlllH "ttled I, 5
Linda he. 0121 11/2S/S1 Floodlnl 5 .
F St rut 1t/21/S1 F1oeded I, 7
F St rllt Il/2S/S1 floodiftginDOblock I, 7
lIS Flores Or. 11/21/SS Flooding at unsley a, 7
H Strllt O7OS 3/10/11 Procerty dl"'lld by flooding 1
01~11I~ he. 11/2S/S1 Floodlnl in 10C block a
OÜllln he. 0532 11/IS/S1 Mlnhole ~over lifted 011 by IItlr a
VInce St. 0574 3/02191 Illd Slndtass I
VInce SI. OSBO 3{20/91 Flooding a
loodlur, he om 3/20/11 Houl! flooded .. drain overf1O1!d I
loodlan hI DISH 3/2C/II Rente I units flooded a
loodlnn he. 3/20/11 Houl! floodld atH Strut a
loodilln he. OW 3/20/11 Serious flooding building Uc ift hck yard a
loodilln he. 0111 2/0S/12 Too .u~h liter for drlin 1
loodliln he. om 3/25/11 10UII daulld by flood a
loodilin hI. 0117 3/02192 Iud SlndÞass a
loodlaln he. om 3/20/11 Procerty 611111d by flooding 1
6S1. 0116 3/02/13 Floodiftg of Icertl!nts 8,10
6S1. 0616 1/25/16 Floodift' drain chlnne' 1,10
6S1. 0616 1/06/87 Floodin, of Icart.ents 1,10
6S1. 0616 3/01/9' Overflol iftto plrUftl lot 1,10
6S1. 0616 3/20/91 t12 Car 6111gld by flooding 1,10
6S1. 0611 3/20/11 Flooding into parking lot 1,10
551. 0116 3/2T/11 flOOding of Iclrtaents 1,10
'SI. 0116 2/08/12 Too lu~h ntlr for 6raÍft to hnd1a 1,10
6S1. 0116 3/02/12 Dlbris loing in channll 1,10
6St. 0116 3/01/12 Emuhl liter - no 6aJlle 1,10
'SI. 0616 3/03/12 Flooding 8,10
Fifth he. 11/25/85 Floodinl It , Street I
Fifth he. 11/25/85 Flooding It " It rut I
Perk "y om 2/0S/12 Too lu~h IIltr for drain ;Y] -j J; 10
II!C~ Ave. 0273 2/01/12 11
Cedlr he. 0281 2/0S/12 II
Cldar Ave. milk 3/02/12 lick Ylld ander liter - .mu hI liter II c- p.s-
5/U/I2 tON-MIUTENANCE REUTED DRAJUSE COVPLAJITS AID ASSOCUTED DRmm DEFICIENCJES THAT STILL EXIST Pili 2
(AS JoENTlFIED IN FOGG "', FOGG 'II, L£EDSHILL-Ht~mHOFF,.1 Its2 STAFF DRAmSE OEFIcmcy STUDIES)
Strut DIU of Ithvnl
Strllt lutbtr Cll1 Probln Dlficiency 10.
-------.--- --... -.- - .. -------.--..-
Cldar AYI. 200m 1/02112 Orein too 18111 11
Dill It. om S/01/II Drlin plUlild 11
F Itrut 0600 11/25/15 Floodinl in '°0 block 11
IlOYlr It. OSU S/21/11 1n111 lretl rullinl - fl1Jinl into drein 13
thitnlY St. 11/25/'5 Floodinl in 200 block U
'hitftly It. om SIO 2/J 2 Itorl Dillil - floodinl. Drein clonld! 13
'hitnlY It. D3S. E Sl02/92 Floodinl hcmin IItlr U
Ell hi. 11/25/85 Floodinl in m block' IU
fllAn. 0.00 2/28/a3 ItoPPld up ditch flooded proPlrt, IU
Ell hi. 0.00 2/28/83 ItoPPld up ditch floodld propert, IU
Ell hI. 0.00 S/01/a3 StoPPld up ditch floodld prOPlrt, IU
Elt hi. om 3/02/12 NOUII I loodld IU
1St. 0224 3/02/12 Floodinl, too luch liter W
1St. om 3/02/!2 Overllolinl drlintll ditch W
1St. OW Sl02/92 UHSO Apt COIiplu .. too nch liter W
I St. 0332 3/02/92 Illd send his W
VIncI St. 11/25/15 Floodinl in 100 block W
VinCI It. 11/25/85 Floodinl in 200 block W
VIm St. 0142 2/0el!2 w
First hi. om 2/021iB Floodinl 141, H
Fillt hi. oS\! 3103/!2 Irick 1111 1111 during rlin 141, I
. AYI. I to I 3/021!2 1111 knochd dDln by liter, hcl ,erd floodld 141, I
I. J' Dr. om 3102/!2 Floodinl eo Imllllter "1, H
Ii tlcher 5t. ooel 3/2DI!1 Floodinl UB, I
I¡tschlr 5t, Does 2102168 lotI I Imll f loodld 141, I
lit scher 5t. 0015 3I20i!1 Floodinl UB, I
lurrlY 5t. 007. 3102/92 Floodinl up rur, trash tin in drein UI, H
Imll 5t. oD78 3/031!2 Floodinl in Itrllt UI. H
IrOld", 11125/15 Floodinl in 100 block 15
Elder hI. ml 3102m Floodinl .. too luch liter 15
Cruted lutll 0111 3/02/92 loull floodld, dol lost .- Imll;n IIhr U
Fim hi. 3102m Floodld over lidlll1l It lichln 18
Fifth AYI. 0920 3/03192 HoUII f loodld la
Fifth AYI. 1011 2/02/11 Floodinl in strut 'Itam Iou I FitU II
Fifth AYI. 1070 S/02/92 110 IP ftuntl floodld .- tint treiler in drein II
loss It. DIU Sl01/11 lIud frOt nlilhbor'l construction II
llou It. om Sl21/!1 'Iter hclinl up in storR drain \8
11,111 It. 2/02/88 Flood;nllt Industrial \8
..,111 5t. DSOO 2/01/12 \8
Inle$ 5t. 0181 2/02/88 Flooding \8
Ollllln hi. IOU 1/02/92 'ropert, dulled ., floodiftl \8
DI¡ll1n bl. 1100 3/02/92 1100 block floodld, too latl for IIftdhll \8
'oodlelft bl. 2/Oa/12 lOll It. II
'oDdlm bl. 1002 S/01/12 'roperty dllliid ., floodinl \8
loodlm AVI. IDoa 3/02/92 Intlrior floodinl, drain illdlQUlh 18
'oodlm An. IDOl 3/03192 Floodinl \8
-"11f. hi. 1010 3/11/11 Floodld Strut dUllld CIr 18
II~ bl. 1010 1/03/12 Floodinl \8
looD!ln bl. 1012 3/03/12 Floodinl 11
'oodlen hi. 1~14 3/01/12 'roolrt, dlll..d by floodinl 18
'Dodlm hi. 1023 3/01/12 Proplrt, dllliid by Iloodini ;lJ-J3¥::
'oodlm hi. 1031 3/01/12 Propert, dllliid by Iloodini
C-?¿;"
I
-
,
5/19/92 10N-ymmœE mATEO DRm~GE COU'LmTS no ASSOCIATEO DR~!UGE DEFlCm:IES TMlT STILL UlST 'lie 3
(AS IDEi'IfJEC IN FOGG '14, FOGG '19, LEEDSHlLL.HERKENHm.. I 1992 SUFF DRmAGE DEFICIENCY STUDIES)
Slrul OW of hlmnl
5t rut lur,blT Cll1 Prob1u Deficiency 10.
-............... u.... -..... ---.....-.--- --.-.-. --.........
leedlern he. 1031 3/03/92 10UII f looded 18
leedlm he, 1108 3/02/12 floodinl . liter in .OUII, car,et under Il!er II
hum 5t. om Ditch hhind .OUII overflowld. floeding .OUIII 18,19
hl'scn 5t. 0441 2/08/92 Drain ntldld to .e c1unld 11,19
I 51rul %102188 floedld at Fiflh 11
«Strut 0280 3/25/91 Drainege channel overfloud U
SIn Yigue' Dr. m 11/24185 lanl erosion along Tahgraph Canyon Creal 25
Sin liluel Dr. 207 3/02/92 lank erosion along Telelreph Canyon Creal 25
f. I Strul 11m/IS nooding in 100 .Iocl 27
lime lay 0251 3/01/11 Drainale overflol 27
Cour,t rl Clue Dr. om 3/03/92 Floed1nl 28,29,30
First he 0755 9/25/86 Flooded 29 THRU 32
FHlt he. 0751 1 I /25/85 Drein fithd up 29 THRU .32
lithn 51. 1st St 3/03192 Erosion on hnk .. afrlid of Ilmt col1l011 25,30,31
Hi1ltepDr. 3/0t/91 Iud probler al Telegraph Clnyon 33,35,38
Hi l!too Dr. 2/08192 Toe tu:h liter to hand II I! Telegraph Canyon 33,35,36
Hi l!too Dr. om 11/25/85 F loeded 34
E. J Strut 0203 mom InadeQulte drainlge 34,38
Telegrao!, tyr, Ad O¡;C 2/02111 Flooding 35 mu 39
11 Cloiter. Dr. 0124 3/02/92 11:1 yard floede; by overflOI frot drainege ditch 36,37
Illrose hI. 2/0BIS2 Toor,uchfordrainllE.lillan 36,37
Oltcrd 51. 030 3/02/S2 Nud md hiS 10
Oltord St. 0349 2/08/92 10
Ol/erd St. OH9 3/02192 Drlin toe m11 for liter 10
Oxferd St. 0315 3/05/92 laude'bach Co~r. ttr. ¡Iproments caused floedin; 10
Oxford St. 83,d 2/0B/92 Drain could not handle 10
Hird he. 1242 2/08/92 Heuse flooding? Be101 slmt; elClssive lltar 10
HHd he. 1242 3/02/92 Aot 'J' floeded.- 1 foot of liter inside 10
Hird he. 1242 3/02/52 Floeding .. ,rowty hlol ItrU: hvel IC
Se:end he. . 1140 2/06/52 Prowty d!tlged by floedllter 10,"
Seconl he. 1189 2/021BB Yar~ flooding .10,"
Sew,d he. 1m 3/01/51 Ditch hckl~ u, ,~ ,41
Second he. 1193 2/0 2188 Flooding 10,11
'mnd he. 1193 3/01/S! Emssive Iller 10,1'
Second he. 1191 3/01/91 Dit ch blcked UP 10,lt
Second hI. 1191 3/21/91 Drl;n ditch htllen .0illS c10¡¡rd 10,11
Second he. 1111 2/01/92 Drainage ~Iocled h neighbor '0.11
Slcond he. 1m 2/02/88 Slrut flooded 10,11
hum St. 0206 3/02/12 Too uch Iller "
(terson St, 0212 51. drainage channel crossing ,ropart, cmu prob II
hin Oaks he. 1115 2/D 2! 88 Floodinl in ~Oill II
Irold..y 1285 1/2S/11 Trailer Park floodld '2
Irold..y 1312 Jehovah'a litnus Church f100ded 12
IroadllY 1312 2/02/88 Flooding 12
Drangl he. 0100 10/11/87 Flooded 12
Indistrial he. 2/08/52 Drain al Ma;n inedeQia!e 13,11
MI1n St. 2/02/88 Flood1ng I! corner of Main/ Hol1 ister 13,11
Mlin It. 3/02/92 Hol1ister to 1.5, construction cruted ,robIn 13,11
MI 1n St. 22S2 12/12/81 luitding flooded U,U
Mlin St. 2260 2/.i/88 floeding d-;~/JS U,u
Main 51. WIt 2/02181 Dreinage 13,11
Ilj~ 5t. 2mc 2/02/8S Flood1ns 13,11 C-.JÞ 7
5/11/12 ION-MAINTENANCE RElAUO DRAIIAGE COi/PlAl1TS AID mocuuo DRAiUGE DHlCJElCJES Tm STIll Uln rale '
- (AS JDEnlFlEO J. FOGG 'it, FOGS '19, LEED5H!Ll-MERmHOFF,ol 1112 ITAFF DRAJIAGE DHlmMCY mom)
Strut Dlte of Illmnt
Itreet lueber Cill Problu Dlficilncy 10,
--------- ---- ----- -- - ----.--.
Mlin It. 2513 tlOI/12 Ir LOIblr flrtinl lot floodld U,U
JacQul It. Dm tlOI/12 Privltl ,rob III .4
oJ ford It. om 2/02/1S Floodinl CI,U,CS
OJford It. ow 2/02/U Uoodinl CI,(T,CS
OJford It. 0252 S/20/11 Flood in, 41,U.CS
OJ ford It. D252 S/21/11 Lar" OiW clOllld CI,a7,1S
O1ford It. 2/02/1S Flood in, U
Olford It. Don 2/02/1S Flood dllill to ruUrncl U
First hi. 2/02/1S Flood dlille It 11enhmn 50 THRU 53
First hi, 2/O2/U Flood dlCIII It Illnhlvln (to ruidenee) 50 THRU 53
first Avl. 1271 2/0 2/ IS floodinl 50.51
llenhlYln IIY 2/02/1S floodin;lt Ell 50.51
Ilenhmn IIY 016! 2/0 21 IS flood in; into IDle 50,51
Dim 1136 2/08/!2 51,52.53
He Iii he. 1/25/86 floodld It E, Olford 51,52,53
Tobias Dr, 1246 3/!1/11 locts nshed into It rut 53
Odord 5t. 0157 2/06/92 81ter runs into houll .. lollr thin Itrut 54
Olyr.~il St. 0015 3/20/91 Mer,holt cover off 60
PI Ir. Rd, 1600 2/0 218 8 Rold flooded 62
OtlY WIS Reo 2/02/88 Contractor clulld drainl;1 ,robl.. I!
,- LIles Rd. 3/01/11 FloDdld louth of lonite I!
, 0 LitIS Rd, 3/01/11 Plulild drlin It Carino EllVldD 16
Ouy ltklS Rd. ID~ Itl 3/02/92 Tree bloclinl Itreet I!
E. H Strut 3/10/91 Floodin, It Otey LIIIS Rold 1B.&9
C St reet 11/25/1! Floodld It Rorth Slom ' A
C St rllt om 3/02/92 lidmll flooded, md mdblls It Illd I Jmls A
D 5t rllt 11/25/8! floodinl in 200 block A
fourth Ave. 11/251S! flooded It C Strut A
Fourth Ave, 2/06/!2 In front of PetCo It C Stnet A
Smllt AlllY 5e/C 3/02/92 floodinl -. ueessiunter A
&It. 00!4 1/25/86 Flooded 1
Peppert ru Rd. 3/01/11 flood,nl lISt of Hi11top I
Pmertrll Rd. 2/08/12 Too luch IItIr I/O Hilltop, ,Imd li,ns - flooded I
Peppertru Rd, 0055 S/01/11 Car ltuct I
Pmertru Rd. 0061 3/20/91 . ft of IItlr, carl f¡oltin, I
Flmr 5t. 2/02/1S Floodin, It E It. C
£ It. . Denny's 2/08/12 Orlin could lot hndle stOri flolS D
Jefferson Au. H to I 11m/S5 floodinl in 500 bloel E
Jlfferson hi. J to J 11/25/S! Floodinl in 100 bloct f
Mldronl St. Dm 2/20/11 Itlll IntIS bloon out of inlet by liter I
Mldronl It. 0319 2/02/12 Inti off illlt, clUlld dlll,e to car I
Illindl 81Y om S/02/12 Cul-dl-m floodld - dnin clOllld I, ICS
elli,. hi. 0634 3/02/12 floodin, bltmn II J bmull of ltuck tmh un I, 148
Hi1ltolOr. 0542 2/08/12 I, UB
Hilltop Dr. 0561 2/25/92 Floodin, frOl dninl" routld frOl J I, of Hilltop 1,148
t"top Dr. 0581 3/02/92 Floodin, froe dninlll routed froe I I. of Himop H, 148
lit S/02/12 Floodld froe vie of lobert hi. to sehoolll1diur. I, 148
lobert hi. 0606 3/02/92 Iliit dIU liter H, ICS
lobe rt he, J 51. 2/02/12 elr Itucl in intersect ion H, IC8
Ihutl I J 2/0 8/ 12 Too luch liter to .Indh H, UB
IhlStl 5t. 0012 S/03/92 0 HoUII flooded ;23 --- /3t> I, 148
I~ISII 5t, 0044 2/08/12 I. UIC -.Pi'
I
:,
5/19/12 10¡-MAlNmmE RELATED DRAINAGE COliPlAl1TS AND ASSOCIATED DRAINAGE DEFICIEICIES tHA: STIll UlST Pile 5
. (AS IDENTlFI£C IN FOGG 'u. FOG. 'II. LE£DSHIll-MERKENHOFF. I 1112 STAFF DRUmE DHlmNeY STUDIES)
Street CIte of Rllmnt
It reet Mueblr Cll1 "robltl Olfitllntl Mo.
---.-...-.--... .--.-- -..-.-- ----- ---- - n- -.-..--...-.--
!lin Oaks hI. 0230 2/02188 Flooding M, US
£11 hI. 0723 Flooding of 'ouS! 'muse of 1111r Irlding I
Ell hI. 0723 3/03/92 Living root IIHiII floodld I
Fifth hI. om 3/02/92 louse flooding - Iller froe It./ 'rlin ludlQulII J
Smnd hI. 3/02/92 Flooding hhm Mou Ind Mlples I
Mi1ltopOr. son' 11/W8S F loodld It L It. hh ind eburch L
L SI reet 11/2SI85 Floodld It Monsmte M
Oxford St. 0412 3/02/12 MouS! flooding - IItlr frOli Itrut I
lIontgol"I It. 0361 2/0 2/ BB Flooding in hel 0
lIonlloner, St. 0363 2/0 2/ BB loll floodld 0
Ou;ntard II. 0327 3/02/12 Cmpool hhind filch em-in - 'OSI. 1111 'Ulgl ,
Third hI. 3/02/12 Flooding II Ouintard -- too luth liter P
hlr. hI. om 2/02/BB Floodld froe Otll ¥l1111 Rold Q
PaIr hI. 9315 9/2\/81 Flooding 0
III in II. 30e! 12/12/87 ClrOUSll hr interior floodld 1/ MAIN ST
Otll VIIIII Rd. 2/021!! Flooding fror. unIon E of Mimnl, undlrlininl. Rd. 1/ SH23
MeTE: All DUPlIWE E¡¡¡;ES, SAW: DIY ¡mJES, AND MlINmmE-mlTED ¡mJES mE 1m OELETED FROM TME om lIS!.
)J //37
C-R?
,-
APPENDIX G
-
-
,13 - )']2" C~?O
I
MEMORANDUM
- DATE: February 4, 1993
TO: Bob Leiter, Director of Planning
VIA: Cliff Swanson, Deputy Public Works Directo~
City Engineer
FROM: Hal Rosenberg, City Traffic Enginee~~
SUBJECT: 1992 Traffic Monitoring Program Final Report - Growth
Management Oversight Commission Annual Review of
Threshold Compliance
We are pleased to submi t the attached Executive Summary Report
for the 1992 Traffic Monitoring Program (TMP) study. The
Executive Summary Report provides a summary of the technical data
and analysis performed for the travel time and speed surveys
performed on all of the arterial streets in Chula Vista. This
information was the basis for determining the operating
performance, in terms of Level of Service, of all arterial street
segments in the City during the PM peak period (4 PM to 6 PM).
The 1992 TMP study was limited to the PM peak period because it
was concluded from previous studies that this period would
provide sufficient information to gauge performance levels and
establish baseline data for follow-up analys s. Personnel
constraints did not permit us to perform travel time and speed
studies during the AM or Noon/Mid-day periods. These periods,
however, will be covered in subsequent studies to complete our
baseline data. The AM period travel time and speed studies will
be conducted duri~y the upcoming 1993 Traffic Monitoring Program
and the Noon/Mid-èay period is scheduled for study during the
1994 TMP. The travel time studies conducted for the 1992 TMP
were performed from March 1992 to mid-July 1992, which coincides
with the 1992 GMOC Report period of July 1, 1991 through June 30,
1992.
As you may recall, the first TMP study was performed in 1989.
The 1989 TMP and the subsequent study in 1990 utilized Big 4lized
Intersection Capacity utilization (ICU) analysis as the ba~is for
measuring the operating performance of the arterial circulation
system. During the conduct of the 1990 TMP study, the City's
Consultant, JHK and Associates, recommended that the methodology
for assessing the performance of the arterial system be based on
travel time delay for arterial segments inclusive of signalized
intersections. This is more commonly referred to as the Highway
Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology. Intersection Level of Service
will continue to be measured at selected locations to determine
what operational improvements can be made to individual
signalized intersections where problems are found to exist.
The attached Executive Summary Report contains the following
information: )]- / JJ
C.9/
I
1992 TMP -2- February 4, 1993
Project Background
Arterial Level of Service
Project Methodology
Arterial Segment Classifications
Summary of 1991 TMP Study Results
1992 TMP Study Results and Analysis
Arterial Interchange Segments
Conclusions and Recommendations
1992 TMP RESULTS:
All arterial segments studied were found to operate at acceptable
Levels of Service (LOS C or better). Thus the Threshold
Standards of the Growth Management Program have been satisfied
for the 1992 reporting period.
It is worth noting, however, that the arterial interchange
segments at the 1-5 interchanges, in general, were found to be
locations with reduced Levels of Service (some degree of
congestion). This situation is due to the close spacing of
. signals, signal timing and high volumes of vehicles turning onto
and off of the freeway ramps. Signal timing at these locations
is established by Caltrans and generally favors freeway
movements, in some cases to the detriment of the city cross
street. For example, the westbound direction of H Street between
Woodlawn Avenue and Bay Boulevard was found to be performing at
an "E" Level of Service. This is not considered serious because
the low Level of Service ranking is confined to one direction of
a short length of H Street (883 ft.) and represents a short
period of delay (47.1 seconds) along H Street from Woodlawn
Avenue to the southbound 1-5 ramps.
Because the TMP study field work is very labor intensive, we are
recommending that city-wide travel time studies for each time
period (AM, Mid-day, and PM) be spread over a four year period.
This schedule will still allow us to track the operating
condi tions of the street system, with individual segments being
restudied as warranted by changing conditions in the field.
Under this schedule, the nine segments found to operate at LOS C
in the 1992 TMP Study will be restudied in 1993 and travel time
studies for all segments during the AM period will also be done
to establish baseline data for that peak period. The results of
these studies will then be used to determine which individual
intersections need to be studied further.
In May 1991, the GMOC approved the revised Traffic Element of the
Growth Management Plan. This revised Traffic Element included
the Arterial Network and Segment Classification Map originally
proposed by the Consultant for use with the 1991 TMP. This map,
shown in Figure 1 of the Executive Summary Report, was
preliminary in nature and was subject to change during future TMP
studies. During the 1992 TMP, each arterial segment was checked
to assess existing conditions in the field and a revised map was
;3- ) cftl C-92...
1992 TMP -3- February 4, 1993
produced for use with the 1992 TMP. It i. recommended that the
GMOC approve the 1992 Arterial Network and Segment Classification
Map, shown in Figure 2 of the Executive Summary Report, for use
in future 'l'MP studies in place of the 1991 aap previously
approved. It is also recommended that the GMOC accept the 1992
Traffic Monitoring Program Report and the reCOllllllendations
contained therein.
fI STREET
During the review of the 1991 TMP report, the GMOC requested
follow-up information about the impact of continuing development
in the area east of I-80S on the operating performance of H
street west of I-80S and short term solutions to maintain
acceptable Levels of Service on H Street.
Regarding short term solutions, we are pleased ~o report that the
widening of H Street just east of Hilltop Drive is due to begin
on March 18, 1993. The widening of H Street will provide a dual
left turn from westbound H Street onto southbound Hilltop Drive.
In accordance with our latest turning movement count, the
westbound to southbound left turn volume is over 300 cars during
the PM peak hour (4:30 to 5:30 PM). The proposed improvements
should greatly improve the overall intersection Level of Service
at this location.
Another project approved along H Street is the Scripps Hospital
expansion. This project will provide a third lane for westbound
H street between Fourth Ave. and Fifth Ave. The scheduling of
this project is not known.
Staff is currently examining alternative short term solutions to
increase the capacity of H Street between Hilltop Drive and Third
Avenue. Staff will be looking at the feasibility of establishing
left turn prohibitions and parking prohibitions to increase
capaci ty on this portion of H Street. A detail report will be
presented to the City Council in May.
In the future, we anticipate traffic volumes on H Street west of
I-80S to increase slightly as the eastern area develops further
and infilling continues in the older sections of the City west of
I-80S. The highest traffic volumes on H Street are expected to
occur between I-80S and Hilltop Drive. On this segment, traffic
volumes are forecasted to increase from 37,800 to 40,000 in the
near term (over the next five to ten years). Beyond this time
frame, long term, the City's General Plan Traffic Forecast shows
traffic volumes growing to 49,000 vehicles per day. The
anticipated near term growth of traffic on H Street, coupled with
traffic growth on other streets in the H Street corridor area,
will require careful monitoring of traffic movements to enable
the Traffic Engineering office to maximize the operation of the
traffic signal system and recommend other operational changes as
may be appropriate to maintain the highest Level of Service
.2 J -) L//
C.9,5
I
1992 TMP -4- February 4, 1993
possible. Additionally, as redevelopment occurs, staff will
continue to require street widening and other necessary
improvements as a condition for environmental and permit
approval.
~
The City expected, as of January 1, 1990, that a maximum of 9,654
residential Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDU'S), in addition to
industrial and commercial improvements, can be permitted without
overburdening the existing and planned near term roadway network.
The City's Growth Management Plan and the Eastern Chula Vista
Transportation Phasing Plan (ECVTPP) identifies a total of 19,500
EDU's as the maximum development the circulation system can
accommodate prior to the construction of some type of roadway
improvements within the general SR-125 corridor. Beyond this
short term period, development forecasts, with the associated
traffic growth, show a need for a north/south connection to state
Route 54 within the SR-125 corridor to relieve traffic pressures
on other critical segments of the existing and near term
circulation system. Because of state budget and potential
private investment constraints, early construction of the SR-125
facili ty, either tollway or freeway, cannot be assured. Since
the SR-125 facility is a critical route that would provide relief
to the remaining circulation system so as not to require a
moratorium on development, the City saw the need to investigate
the ability to finance and construct some type of facility if
necessary. Therefore, the City began a feasibility study and
financing plan for the construction of an interim facility within
the general SR-125 corridor that would allow projected
development to continue until either a toll facility or a freeway
can be built.
The study indicates that an expanded circulation system (see
attached map) including an interim surface roadway in the general
SR-125 corridor can accommodate an additional 353,000 daily trips
or 35,300 EDU's. It was shown that this expanded system can be
built in stages as development and traffic conditions dictate.
The proposed facility incorporates special design features, such
as utilizing existing streets to the greatest extent possible, to
ensure that we achieve minimal and affordable costs. Preliminary
estimates indicate a system cost of 27.9 million dollars or a
cost of approximately $130 per trip generated by new
developments.
Additionally, the study proposes a combination of DIF type
collection with bond sales to construct phases needed before all
EDU fees are collected and potential Mello-Roos to payoff bonds
if development slows down to the point where bonds cannot pay the
annual assessment.
SM:sm
Attacments J,J - 1'-/ d...
(E:\SM\M-92T11P.COC)
File: HX-O14
C.?f/
- IDterim State Route 125 - C"cuJltion Network
....__..i
I
I
,
- i
i
i 1 ,-..1
~ /
OTn .."" "'0 j -1 ..,..,..,..,..,..
-"-"--.-"-"-". .. ; .,..,
L_._.._..-..-..- ". .,..,..,. i...
1 '. ~ .,.." e
LEGENj' ~ 1
~ INTtRSTAU 0 ru..L INTtRC.'NCt J
~ STATt ROUTE 0 ~'RT"'L "TERCI<ANCE No Scale
--. STATE RO,"E I2S CORROOR -- CITY SI't£RE 01' "'LUtNCE
- CITY su:r:
.0- SIII25 -- ~. Cool
."" Cool iIIIDiDÌOIII
...'1;_- I UNO
"""an a; Ioou II.., ,.- (F- ÞJ .. DiIF CauoIy)
""""" I; Sol Wipol - I ..,.0
"""an4;_VoIIe)'II0Id ,.-
Sop... ,; SII 1:15 (lmlri1D) I '.:III
..., 6; _. ""'.1 I UOII
s.cman 7; Eaa Ono.. A_ue IID.!I6
-¡oas I UlS
TOTAL 127m
:23' /'1:5 C-?s-
I
-
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY REPORT
CITY OF CHULA VISTA GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN
YEAR 1992 TRAFFIC MONITORING PROGRAM
February 4,1993
;)J - /(1/ C-?~
- '1'ABLE OF CON'I'ENTS
~
Project Background 1
Arterial Level of Service 6
Project Methodology 7
Arterial Segment Classifications 8
Summary of 1991 TMP Study Results 10
1992 TMP Study Results and Analysis 12
Arterial Interchange Segments 19
,
Conclusions and Recommendations 26
-
-
)}, Jt/3
C-97
I
LIST OF FIGURES
-
~ ~
1 Year 1991 Traffic Monitoring Program
Arterial Network a Segment Classification Map 5
2 Year 1992 Traffic Monitoring Program
Arterial Network a Segment Classification Map 9
3 Year 1992 Traffic Monitoring Program
Arterial Segment Levels of Service 18
LIST OF TABLES ..
:lAlli ~
1 City of Chula Vista Growth Management Plan
Revised Traffic Element 2
2 Arterial Segment Classification Factors 7
3 1991 Traffic Monitoring Program Results 11
4 1992 TMP Arterial Performance 12
5 Segment LOS Comparison: 1991 vs. 1992 13
6 1992 TMP Arterial Segment Levels of Service 14
7 1992 TMP Arterial Interchange Segment Listing -20
8 1992 TMP Arterial Interchange Segment LOS 22
9 1992 TMP Arterial Interch~nge Segment
Performance 24
(E: \SM\92TMPEX1. DOC)
;lJ-J,/~
C-~JÞ
I
.
1992 'l'RAFFIC MONITORING PROGRAM
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PROJECT BACKGROUND
In 1988 the City of Chula Vista adopted a Growth Management Plan
to assist the City in assessing the environmental, fiscal and
operational impacts of proposed land eSevelopment. One of the
elements included in this plan was the Traffic Element which
specified threshold standards for acceptable Levels of Service at
all signalized intersections.
In 1989 and 1990, studies were conducted to eSetermine the then
current operating condition of all existing signalized
intersections in the City and to compare them to the adopted
Threshold Standards. These Traffic Monitoring Program (TMP)
studies determined intersection Level of Service (LOS) using the
Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) method. This method
calculates LOS based on intersection capacity as eSetermined by
the intersection volume-capacity ratio. The 1990 TMP also
compared the ICU method to the method used in chapter 9 of the
1985 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) which redefines intersection
LOS as a function of vehicle Stopped Time Delay. As a result of
this comparison, the 1990 TMP Study recommended that the Delay
Methodology, as defined in the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual, be
used for future TMP studies. As part of this recommendation, the
adopted Traffic Element of the Growth Management Plan was revised
to conform to the HCM methodology for eSetermining arterial Level
of Service based on average travel speed. This revised Traffic
Element was approved by the Growth Management Oversight
Commission in May 1991 and is presented in Table 1. The attached
graphic referred to in the revised Traffic Element, which showed
the preliminary arterial network and segment classifications
recommended for the Year 1991 TMP, is shown in Figure 1.
The 1990 TMP study recommended that the 1991 Traffic Monitoring
Program conduct average weekday peak period (AM, Mid-Day, and PM)
travel time studies on a system-wide basis. This, in addition to
gathering additional eSata at intersections which the travel time
studies indicate are in need of further study, would generate a
comprehensive data base using the HCM methodolOgY. However, due
to time constraints, a limited study for the Year 1991 TMP was
completed and the system-wide study was delayed until this year.
This Executive Summary will eSescribe the methodology and
procedures involved in conducting the 1992 TMP Study and will
summarize the results obtained from the field studies performed
for this project.
c2J-/!j? C-9?
1
'I'able 1
CiTY ('IF CHOLA VISTA GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN
- REVISED Ti..AFFIC ELEMENT - MAY 1991
GOALS
* '1'0 provide and aaintain a safe and efficient street system
within the City of Chula Vista.
* To establish a performance measurement methodology enabling
the City to accurately determine existing Levels of Service
for motorists.
* '1'0 define a Level of Service (LOS) value'that represents a
high quality of traffic flow under constrained ~perating
conditions during peak periods of traffic activity.
* To establish a performance standard which is consistent with
the Regional Growth Management Standards.
* To maintain consistency in terms of LOS ratings with the
previous Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU)
methodology,
OBJECTIVES
1. Ensure timely provision of adequate local circulation system
capacity in response to planned growth, maintaining
acceptable Levels of ServicF.
2. Plan new roadway segments and signalized intersections to
maintain acceptable standards at build-out of the General
Plan Circulation Element.
THRESHOLD STANDARDS
* City-wide: Maintain LOS "c" or better as measured by
observed a"erage travel speed on all signalized arterial
segments except that during peak hours LOS "D" can occur for
no more than any two hours of the day.
* West of 1-805: Those signalized arterial segments which do
not meet the standard above, may continue to "Operate at
their current (Year 1991) LOS, but shall not worsen.
Hotes to Standards
* Arterial segment LOS measurements shall be for the
average weekday peak hours, excluding seasonal and
special circumstance variations.
* Urban and suburban arterials are defined as surface
highways having signal spacing of le8. than two miles
with average weekday traffic volumes greater than
10,000 vehicles per day.
2 J-3-J'I¡/
C!-/IJO
I
Table 1 (Cont.)
* Arterial segments are stratified into the following
three classifications as shown on the attached graphic:
Class I arterials are roadways where free .flow traffic
speeds range between 35 mph and 45 mph and the number
of signalized intersections per mile are less than
four. There is no parking and there is generally no
access to abutting property.
Class II arterials are roadways where free flow traffic
speeds range between 30 mph and 35 mph, the number of
signalized intersections per mile range between four
and eight, there is some parking and access to abutting
properties is limited.
Class III arterials are roadways where free flow
traffic speeds range between 25 mph and 35 mph and the
number of signalized intersections per mile are closely
spaced. There is substantial parking and access to.
abutting property is unrestricted.
* The LOS measurements of arterial segments at freeway
ramps shall be a growth management consideration in
situations where proposed developments have a
significant impact at interchanges.
* Circulation improvements should be implemented prior to
anticipated deterioration of LOS below established
standards.
* The criteria for calculating arterial LOS and defining
arterial lengths and classifications shall follow the
procedures detailed in Chapter 11 of the 1985 Highway
Capacity Manual (HCM) and shall be confirmed by the
City Traffic Engineer.
* During the conduct of future Traffic Monitoring Program
(TMP) traffic field surveys, intersections experiencing
significant delays will be identified. The information
generated by the field surveys will be used to
determine possible signal timing changes, geometric
and/or traffic operational improvements for the purpose
of reducing intersection delay.
;¿}/li1
3 C - /C /
Table 1 (Cont.)
* Le~el of Service values for arterial segment. shall be
-
based on the following table:
Level of Service AveraCle '!'ravel Speed (MPH)
Class 1 Class 2 Class 3
A 1.35 1.30 1.25
B 1.28 1.24 1.19
C 1.2¡ 1.18 1.13
D 1.17 l." l. 9
E 213 1.10 1.7
F <13 <10 < 7
Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209,
Transportation Research Board, National Research
Council, Washington, D.C., 1985.
Imolementation Measures
* Should the Growth Management Oversight Commission"
(GMOC) determine that the Threshold Standard is not
being satisfied, then the city Council shall, within 60
days of the GMOC's report, schedule and hold a public
hearing for the purpose of adopting a moratorium on the
acceptance of new tentative map applications based on
all of the following criteria:
1. -That the moratorium is limited to an area wherein
a causal relationship to the problem has been
established; and,
2. That the moratorium provides a mitigation measure
to a specifically identified impact.
(!:\SM\92TMPTE.DOC)
J '} -/~!J
..
C-/e? ¿
I
- -
~ ~
~z æ..HHfl "
~~ ¡
~ 1 ~ ~ ~ Ilf !o .,.¡
i= ..
.0
';Ifi'~ ~"
.-
,¡::
0;
",-
-"
.-
:::
.f
~D
O'
C'
-..
!:
."
~.
AA
..
~.
018
:g ..
E~ I:i.
:!'O £
;5 ~~ J
....-
o~ : ,~ a
:1 ie~ S
,,' J If
-c .
A- ~ 1:
;! .. S i
.. 1-
:: =
B; ~ ::E N
~= , ! 1
;'0 .
_0 " ..
UE ~ - &
ëÞ ð ~ ~
.0 -
~E ~ ~
.. "õ -
¡i ". 8 ~ I
::-
!..! ~
~sO
c...c
- .
:!;
_80
a!;
.D.
ÞC'
.':11
~8C
...11 iii
!
0
z
s
C-/¿,3'
This Executive Summary is divided into the following sections
- which will summariz3 the infon:ation contained in the 1992
Traffic Monitoring Program Final Technical Report:
1. Project Background
2. Arterial Level of Service
3. Project Methodology
.c. Arterial Segment Classifications
5. Summary of 1991 'I'MP Study Results
6. 1992 'I'MP Study Results and Analysis
7. Arterial Interchange Segments
8. Conclusions and Recommendations
ARTERIAL LEVEL OF SERVICE
The 1992 Traffic Monitoring program was designed to evaluate
arterial LOS as defined in the Highway Capacity Manual. The 1985"
Highway Capacity Manual (Special Report 209) uses arterial LOS as
the basic measure of effectiveness used to describe the operating
performance of arterial segments. Arterial LOS is based on the
average travel speed of through-vehicles on the segment, section
or entire arterial under consideration. The average travel speed
is calculated from the running time on the arterial segment and
the intersection approach delay. On any given segment, factors
such as arterial classification, side friction (due to parking
and driveways), signal densi ty (the number of signals per mile),
signal timing and progression, and traffic flow can substantially
affect arterial LOS.
The Highway Capacity Manual classifies arterial Level of Service
into six categories, LOS A through F, with LOS A being the best
quality of service and LOS F the poorest. These arterial Level
of Service definitions, which are measures used to evaluate the
operating performance of arterial segments, have -been
incorporated into the Revised Traffic Element .of the Growth
Management Plan and are shown in Table 1.
It should be noted that the arterial LOS defini tions shown in
Table 1 vary with the classification of the arterial. ~he lesser
the arterial classification (i.e., the higher the class number)
the lower the speed that :18 associated with a given Level of
Service. Therefore, a Class III arterial provides LOS C at a
lower average travel speed than does a Class I arterial.
In order to evaluate ¡.evel of Service for any given segment
according to Table 1, the classification of that arterial segment
must first be determined. These arterial classifications are
functional in nature and, as definel! in the Growth Management
Plan's Revisel! Traffic Element, are summarized in Table 2.
6 ;¿} -/~ c2
C- /(/I~
I
Table 2
ARTERIAL SEGMENT CLASSIFICATION FACTORS
Class I Class II Class III
Free Flow Traffic 45 - 35 35 - 30 35 - 25
Speeds
Number of Signals < 4 4 - 8 Closely
per Mile Spaced
Availabili ty of None Some Substantial
Parking
Access to Abutting Generally Limited Unrestricted
Properties None
..
PROJECT METHODOLOGY
Based on recommendations from the 1990 TMP, the arterial network
-in the City was determined, each arterial was divided into
segments and each segment was given a preliminary arterial
classification. Each arterial segment was then field checked to
verify the limi ts of the segment and to assess existing field
conditions wi th respect to the presence and nature of existing
intersection controls, the location of schools, trolley
crossings, changes in roadway characteristics over the course of
the segment, and any other existing conditions which would impact
the travel time studies on that segment. Adjustments were then
made to segment limits and assigned arterial classifications as
required by existing field conditions.
Prior to beginning the field data collection phase of the study,
each segment was evaluated with respect to the potential impact
of local school schedules and proposed construction and/or street
maintenance projects. These factors were taken into
consideration when setting priorities for scheduling the data
collection phase of the study.
Because of the labor intensive nature of studies' assessing travel
times and travel speeds on a city-wide basis, it was decided to
limi t the 1992 TMP to the PM peak period only. The PM peak
period (4 PM to 6 PM) was chosen because previous year studies
indicate that traffic conditions during this time period are
worse than during either the AM or the Mid-day periods.
Therefore, the 1992 TMP establishes baseline data for travel time
studies city-wide for the PM peak period only. Future year
studies will need to be done on a city-wide basis during the AM
and Mid-day periods in order to establish baseline data for those
periods.
;J] / /53 C./¿J.Ç""
7
- The data collection phase of the Traffic Monitoring Program used
a special vehicle equipped with a computer which recorded the
distance traveled for each second of time spent driving the
segment. First, this vehicle was driven over a segment in order
for the computer .to learn the route. Then, the vehicle was
driven repeatedly along the segment during the peak period for
traffic flow in order to collect the field data. Subsequent
analysis of the field data generates info=mation on travel time,
average speed, cruise speed, number of stops, and delay time
along the length of the segment on a directional basis. A
sufficient number of runs must be done for each direction of each
segment to provide a statistically adequate sample with a minimum
acceptable level of confidence of 80t for arterial segments
within the City limits. Arterial LOS is then evaluated according
to the HCM Level of Service values shown in Table 1.
ARTERIAL SEGMENT CLASSIFICATIONS .
Prior to beginning the data collection phase of the 1992 TMP
study, the arterial network in the City was determined and each
arterial was divided into segments. Based on recommendations
from the 1990 TMP and subsequent tield surveys, 37 arterial
- segments were designated for study. Eleven arterial interchange
segments were also designated for study separate from the
arterial segments in order to allow the impact of the freeway
interchanges on the studied arterials to be evaluated separately
from adjacent arterial segments.
Once the segments were determined, they were then assigned a
classification based on the free flow speed of the segment, the
number of signals per mile, the availability of parking and the
degree of access available to properties abutting the arterial.
These arterial classifications (Classes I, II and III) ..are
defined in the Growth Management Plan's Revised Traffic Element
(Table 1) and are summarized in Table 2. Of the 37 arterial
segments defined, 2S were designated Class III, 5 were Class II
and 7 were Class I. Of the 11 arterial interchange segments, 8
were designated Class III, 1 was Class II and 2 were Class I.
The final arterial network and the arterial segment
classifications used for the 1992 TMP study are shown in Figure
2.
;¿ J / ¡51
8
C - /0'(;,
I
~ N
: ii ~
g,
o!~ t
~ o.
. ..-
rrT:JS ON -¡; ¡¡-¡;
0 ~ 0
..~ i -=~:
- --00.
.---u';:4
..ooo~o.
::::~-=:
~ .. ¡¡¡¡¡¡:lC
~ : - "
III ¡¡ I: 1 o.
..J : 1
.-1:. D.
- . 0
~-:. c ~
-=1:1 ¡J 0 C
C - - 0
0.. . -
0 ..
""0
C 01 U
( :~;
.0..-
01 .
.. 0 01 .
I' ceo
. 0 - -
do ~~t>
z~ .c."..
I., ."ë ~
00.
i~ "~OI
~ ()u~
0 -
"""'0
. ... C
- 0 0
> ..
... .Jt
! N ~
:I 01 .
.c. C ..
. U".
... .. Z
0 0 -
. 0
>.>-
.. ..
- .
U ..
..
C
'" .... ,..
.. " .. o' . -...
.. ' ..'. ~ ""
~ þ..¡(. """""".. 01:\ ~ O.
... """'.
';':::" . /~:~ " " \ i 1 ? /j.1'5" C-/t:17
. 0 . .. '" .. if r'
. ... .. . '" -
.~~ °:. :""""s
.'~ ". : '" '" ..
\~ø \.."::-;.... "'.. 9
As can be seen from Figure 2, all ('f the arterisls which have
- been designated Class III are located in the already developed
areas of the City west of I-B05. This lower arterial
classification is necessary due to the constrained operating
conditions of the street system and the nature of existing
development in these areas. The only exception to this occurs on
Main Street between Third Ave. and 1-805 where there are fewer
signals per mile, more limited access and parking, and higher
free flow speeds than are typical of other arterial segments in
the central part of the City. In the developing areas east of 1-
B05, most of the arterial segments are Class I. Class II
segments have been designated east of I-B05 on Telegraph Canyon
Rd. (west of Medical Center Drive), East H st. (east of Otay
Lakes Road), and Bonita Rd. (east of Willow street) in previously
developed areas where traffic conditions are more restricted.
.
It should be noted, that once the classification of an arterial
segment has been assigned, the operating Level of Service for
that segment can be determined by measuring average travel speed
along the length of the segment. If the classification of the
segment is later downgraded to a lower classification, it is
possible for the measured operating LOS to improve even though
average travel speed on the roadway may have decreased. In order
to evaluate changes in the operating LOS of an arterial segment
over time, the classification of that segment must not be changed
once it has been determined. Therefore, it has been decided that
the arterial classifications shown in Figure 2 will not be
changed for future year studies.
SUMMARY OF 1991 TMP STUDY RESULTS
The 1990 TMP recommended that the 1991 TMP study use the HCM
methodology for evaluating arterial LOS based on average travel
speed rather than the ICU method of evaluating intersection LOS
based on intersection capacity. Due to time constraints,
however, it was not possible for the 1991 TMP to conduct ci ty-
wide studies using the HCM methodology. Therefore, a limited
study was completed and the system-wide study was delayed until
the following year. The 1991 TMP Study consisted of the
following three segments:
East H St./H st. (I-B05 S.B. Ramps - Third Ave.)
H st. (Third Ave. - 1-5 H.B. Ramps)
Third Ave. (H st. - 660' s/o Moas st.).
These se9ments were chosen for the study because they included
the intersections of Third Ave. /H st., Third Ave./J st. and
- Hilltop Dr./H st. which Were found to be operating at mar9inal
Levels of Service by the 1990 TMP. The study was performed for
10 ;:. 3 ~)5þ
C- /oJ"
the PM period (4:00 PM to 6:00 PM) onl~'. This period was chosen
because it is the only peak period during which any intersection
in the City operated at a Level of Service less than LOS C. The
results obtained from the 1991 TMP are presented in Table 3.
Table 3
1991 TRAFFIC MONITORING PROGRAM RESULTS
Avg. Speed Travel Time
Street (MPH) l&a (Min. :Sec.)
H St./E. H st.
(I-80S - Third)
Eastbound 22.6 B 3:22.1
Westbound 25.7 A 2:57.3
H Street
(Third - I-5 NB)
Eastbound 15.0 C 4:30.2
Westbound 14.3 C 4:43.5
Third Ave.
(H st.- 660'
slo Moss st.)
Northbound 20.3 B 4:04.1
Southbound 20.3 B 4:03.9
The Threshold Standards of the revised Traffic Element state that
a Level of Service of C or better, as measured by observed
average travel speed on all signalized arterial segments, should
be maintained except that during peak hours LOS D can occur for
no more than any two hours of the day. West of I-80S, those
signalized arterial segments which do not meet this standard may
continue to operate at their current LOS but shall not worsen.
It can be seen from the results of the 1991 TMP study that those
segments evaluated meet the Threshold Standards stated above.
11 ;;..J .-/.57 ê-/e:> 9
1992 '1'MP STUDY RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
This section of the report analyzes and presents the results of
the field studies for the 1992 Traffic Monitoring Program for the
37 arterial segments shown in Figure 2. The results for the 11
arterial interchange segments designated for study are found in
the section ti Ued ARTERIAL INTERCHANGE SEGMENTS which follows
this section of the report.
Arterial LOS is directional in nature and is based on both the
classification and the average travel speed of the arterial
segment under consideration. The following table summarizes the
results of the 1992 TMP showing the number of arterial segments,
listed by classification, which conform to each Level of Service.
Table 4
,
1992 TMP ARTERIAL PERFORMANCE
(Number of Arterial Segments Conforming
To Each Level of Service)
~ CLASS I CLASS II CLASS III ~
- A 4 2 2 8
A/B* 1 1 4 6
B 1 2 11 14
B/c* 1 - 5 6
C - - 3 3
D - - - 0
E - - - 0
F - - - 0
* Indicates arterial segments operating at different
Levels of Service in different directions.
-.-
12 2J~/~fY
C -//ð
I
-"
Table 5 compares the operating performance of segments studied
for the 1991 Traffic Monitoring Program with their current
performance as determined by the 1992 TMP. From this
information, it can be seen that there was no change in segment
LOS between the 1991 and the 1992 TMP studies for those three
8egments studied last year.
Table 5
SEGMENT LOS COMPARISON: 1991 VS. 1992
1991 1992
Avg. Speed 1991 Avg. Speed 1992
Street (MPH) ~ (MPH) ~
H St./E. H St.
(I-80S - Third) ,
Eastbound 22.6 B 23.6 B
Westbound 25.7 A 25.2 A
H Street
(Third - 1-5 NB)
Eastbound 15.0 C 17.6 C
Westbound 14.3 C 15.1 C
Third Ave.
(H St.- 660'
slo Moss st.)'
Northbound 20.3 B 22.0 B
Southbound 20.3 B 20.5 B
Table 6 presents the results of the 1992 TMP Study in terms of
arterial LOS, average speed and travel time for each direction of
each of the 37 arterial segments studied. The information from
this table on arterial LOS is also presented graphically in
Figure 3. For full summaries for each direction of each 8egment
studied this year refer to the 1992 Traffic Monitoring Program
Final Technical Report.
, For the 1992 '1'MP, the 11mi ts of this segment were changed from Third
Ave. (H St. - 660' s/o Moss St.) to ~hird ( H St. - Naples at).
J3,/5t
13 c - ///
Table 6
1992 TRAFFIC MONITORING PROGRAM
ARTERIAL SEGMENT LEVEl.:: OF SERVICE
-
AVG. '1'RA VEL
SPEED TIME
SEGMENT ~ ..J&.L JlW!l (MIN:SEC)
Third Ave.
(Class III)
Fourth Ave. - H St. t NB C 15.8 5:16.7
SB C 17.2 4:51.0
H st. - Naples st. NB B 22.0 4:05.8
SB B 20.5 ' 4:24.3
Naples st. - South CVCL NB C 18.7 5:18.2
SB C 18.1 5:28.2
Fourth Ave.
(Class III)
SR-54 EB bps - H St. NB B 20.2 4:27.7
SB C 18.1 4:58.7
H St. - Naples St. NB B 21.0 4:17.5
SB B 21.9 4:07.0
_. Naples st. - Main st. NB I! 22.6 3:20.7
SB I! 21.8 3:27.6
Bonita Rd.
Plaza I!onita - Willow St.2 EB A 40.1 1: 52.1
(Class I) WB I! 34.0 2: 11.3
Willow st. - East CVCL EB I! 25.8 1 :49.2
(Class II) WB I! 26.4 1:46.7
East CVCL - Central Ave.2 EB A 31.5 1:06.8
(Class II) WB A 39.2 0:53.7
Broadway
(Class III)
cst. - H st. NB B 22.7 3:19.3
SI! C 17.6 4:16.5
H St. - L st. NB B 24.6 2:26.8
SB I! 21.2 2:50.1
L St. - South CVCL NB B 19.2 5:47.6
SB I! 19.9 5:35.7
t Includes 25 MPH speed zone.
2 County Road
14 ;2 y.-)¿ ()
C~ //Z-
I
.
Table 6 (Cont.)
1992 TRAFFIC MONITORING PROGRAM
ARTERIAL SEGMENT LEVELS OF SERVICE
AVG. '1'RA VEL
SPEED TIME
SEGMENT ...1WL.... ...1&L .!lW!l (MIN:SEC)
B st.
(Class III)
1-5 NB Rmps - Third Ave. EB C 16.2 4:09.5
WB B 19.7 3:25.0
Third Ave. - Bonita Glen EB B 24.6 2:37.1
WB A 26.9 2:23.8
F St. "
(Class III)
Broadway - Hilltop Dr. EB B 22.6 3:58.8
WB B 21.8 4:07.8
H St./E. H st.
(Class III)
1-5 NB Ramps - Third Ave. EB C 17.6 3:49.3
WB C 15.1 4:28.5
Third Ave. - I-80S SB Ramps EB B 23.6 3:14.1
WB A 25.2 3:01.7
Bast H St.
I-80S NB Rmps - SW College Ent. EB A 39.5 4:57.7
(Class I) WB A 36.4 5:22.5
SW College - Rutgers Ave. EB B 29.7 1 :44.4
(Class II) WB B 24.6 2:06,2
Hilltop Dr.
(Class III)
F St. - L st. NB B 22.7 3:59.3
SB B 22.0 4:07.4
L st. - Orange Ave. NB B 24.1 4:17.8
SB B 21.8 4:44.7
. :¿3"/t/
15 c - //3"
Table 6 (Cent.)
1992 TRAFFIC MONITORING PROGRAM
- ARTERIAL SEGMENT LEVELS OF SERVICE
AVG. '1'RA VEL
SPEED TIME
SEGMENT ..JmL.... JQL .uwu (MIN:SEC)
Xndustrial Blvd.
(CIa.. III)
L st. - Main St. NB B 23.4 3:47.2
Sl! B 23.2 3:48.7
J st.
(Class III)
1-5 NIl Ramps - Third Ave. EB B 22.0 3:03.6
WI! B 22.0 3:04.0
L st.
(Class III)
-
Industrial B1. - Third Ave. EB C 18.5 3:38.7
Tel. Cyn. Rd.1 WI! B 20.2 3: 21.1
Third Ave. - EB A 25.0 3:49.5
WI! I! 23.2 4:07.0
Main st.
Industrial Bl.- Third Ave. Ell B 22.2 3:05.3
(Class III) WI! A 26.2 2:37.2
Third Ave. - I-80S Sll Ramps Ell A 38.8 2:29.2
(Class II) WI! A 31.2 3:05.4
Orange Ave./B. Orange Ave.
(Class III)
Palomar st. - Hilltop Dr. Ell A 27.4 3:24.5
WB A 26.7 3:29.8
Hilltop Dr. - Melrose Ave. Ell A 28.9 1 :46.1
WI! A 26.9 1:53.9
-
1 Includes 25 KPH .peed zone.
;23~/¿d..'
16 c- //-9'
I
Table 6 (Cont.)
1992 TRAFFIC MONITORING PROGRAM
ARTERIAL SEGMENT LEVELS OF SERVICE
AVG. TRAVEL
SPEED TIME
SEGMENT ..I2.IIL- -1&L 1!Wil (MIN:SEC)
Otay Lakes Rd.
(Class I)
Bonita Rd. - East H St. NB B 34.0 4:10.3
SB B 30.9 4:34.7
East H st. - Tel. Cyn. Rd. NB C 23.5 1:38.6
SB B 34.0 1:08.0
Tel. Cyn. Rd. - Eastlake Pkwy. EB A 43.4 2:23.8
WB A 38.2 2:43.1
otay Valley Rd.
(Class I)
I-80S NB Ramps- East CVCL EB A 43.8 2:24.7
WB A 43.2 2:26.7
Palomar st.
(Class III)
1-5 NB Ramps - Broadway EB C 16.5 2: 1 O. 7
WB B 20.7 1 :44.7
Broadway - Hilltop Dr. EB B 22.4 4 :01.2
WB B 20.0 4.:29.6
.
Telegraph Canyon Rd.
Halecrest Dr. - Med. Cntr. Dr. EB A 33.2 1 :51 .5
(Class II) WB B 27.2 2:16.2
Med. Cntr. Dr.- Otay Lakes Rd. EB A 44.9 3:16.5
(Class I) WB A 46.8 3:08.7
TOTAL SEGMENTS: 37
SH:sm
(E:\SH\92TKPLSD.DOC) ;;¿J -' /~3
17 C r //S"
8
"~ ~.
II ~
- ~
c Þ
¡ ~
rrr:JSON ::
'ZZ-==:t- ;¡
- C8U ~
rlfnl :
""""-' C
§ II: ~
W 'II:
'" . :
i I È
, I :
I.: ~
I .
0 "
~ -
': >
~ ~
CL ~
Þ -
~ 0
~ 8
.. .
- >
c .
:i ...
" ~
- .
- I
- Þ
0 .
~ 1/1
N -
CII 0
0 CII ~
... .
~ ..
0 ~
. ~
>
, .
... .'" ~ ".
.,. .... ...., .. ~ """
"ø .."" """'"..' \ ~ ".
.'f'<'o .. , . ';.
.."" ,"':.~ :'. "'- \ i
'" " :' '.." ~ 0, '
..,o,.øt- ,,', ..' ';. ~ '/
~ .. . .. '" . ,"-:' ""'~ ~. ~-' . , '7 - / ¿ C- //¿,
.~" ""':iII';.. 18 -!...--?
\~ø" " "',: ".
", ~"
"",
'-
Table 4 indicates that nine of the arterial segments in the City
operate at LOS C in at least one direction and that none of the
arterial segments studied operate at less than LOS C. The
following is a list of those arterial segments which were found
to operate at LOS C:
Third Ave. (Fourth Ave./C st. - H st.) - NB & SB
Third Ave. (Naples St.- S. City Limits) - NB & SB
Fourth Ave. (SR-54 EB ramps - H st.) - SB
Broadway (C Street - H street) - SB
ESt. (I-5 NB ramps - Third Ave.) - EB
H St. (I-5 NB ramps - Third Ave.) -EB&WB
L st. (Industrial - Third Ave.) - EB
Otay Lakes (E. H st. - Tel. Canyon Rd.) - NB
Palomar st. (I-5 NB ramps - Broadway) - EB
Eight of these segments, which are all Class III arterials, are
located west of I-80S. The ninth segment, which is on Otay Lakes
Rd., is a Class I arterial.
The Threshold Standards of the Growth Management Plan specify
that LOS C or better, as measured by observed average travel
speed, shall be maintained on all signalized arterial segments
except that during peak hours LOS D can occur for no more than
any two hours of the day. Since no arterial segment studied
operates at less than LOS C, the Threshold Standards of the
Growth Management Plan have been satisfied for the 1992 Traffic
Monitoring Program.
Evaluation of the field data from the 1992 'l'MP Study also
provides information on travel time for each arterial segment.
The travel time for each direction of each segment studied is
listed in Table 6. This information indicates that, depending on
the route and direction chosen, it takes from 5 1/2 to 8 minutes
to travel across the City (west of I-80S) in an east/west
direction and from 11 1/2 to approximately 14 1/2 minutes to
travel the length of the City (west of I-80S) in a north/south
direction during the PM peak period.
AR'I'ERIAL INTERCHANGE SEGMENTS
In addition to studying arterial segments within the City,
information was gathered for arterial street segments crossing
freeway interchanges. These street segments have been designated
"arterial interchange segments" for the purpose of this study in
order to differentiate them from arterial segments. Arterial
segments which are adjacent to freeway interchanges are defined
to begin at the intersection of the arterial with the freeway
ramp. Arterial interchange segments, however, are generally
defined to begin and end at the major intersections along the
studied arterial which are immediately beyond the intersections
~J//&~ C~ //,7
19
- of the freeway with the
ramps local streets. Although these
segment definitions result in the arterial interchange segment
ove~lapping the adjacent arterial segment by one street link (an
area with a length equal to the distance between the freeway ramp
and the next adjacent major intersection), defining arterial
interchange segments in this way allows the impact of the freeway
interchange on the studied arterial to be evaluated separately
from adjacent arterial segments. It is important to be able to
evaluate these arterial interchange segments separate from
arterial segments because arterial segments are subject to the
Threshold Standards of the Growth Management Plan while segments
at the freeway ramps are not subject to these Standards.
Eleven arterial interchange segments were designated for. study, 6
along 1-5 and 5 along I-B05. Each arterial interchangè ..gment
was given the same arterial classification as the adjacent
arterial segment where the characteristics of the two segments
were substantially the same. The only exception to this occurred
on the East H Street arterial interchange segment at I-B05. This
segment was given a classification (Class II) intermediate to
that of the two adjacent arterial segments due to transitions in
the characteristics of the arterial at this location. The
segment on Bay Blvd. between J st. and Palomar st., although not
considered an arterial for the purpose of the study due to low
traffic volumes, was studied as an arterial interchange segment
- in order to assess the impact of the 1-5 Southbound ramps on Bay
Blvd. south of L Street. Table 7 lists these eleven arterial
interchange segments by their assigned classifications.
Table 7
1992 TMP ARTERIAL INTERCHANGE SEGMENT LISTING
~
E Street (Bay Blvd. - Woodlawn Ave.) - Class III
H Street (Bay Blvd. - Woodlawn Ave.) - Class III
J Street (Bay Blvd. - Woodl<wn Ave.) - Class III
Bay Blvd. (J Street - Palomo" Street) - Class I
Palomar st. (Bay Blvd. - Industrial 81.) - Class III
Main St. (Frontage - Industrial 81.) - Class III
I-80S
8onita Rd. (Bonita Glen - Plaza Bonita) - Cla.. III
East H st. (Hilltop Dr. - Hidden Vista) - Class II
Tele. Cyn Rd. (Nacion Ave. - Halecrest Dr.) - Class III
E. Orange Ave. (Melrose Ave.- Oleander Ave.) - Class III
- Otay Valley Rd. (Melrose Ave.- Oleander Ave.) - Class I
;¿} --- /¡; t
20 C-//J'
I
.
Due to the short length of the arterial interchange segments, and
the close spacing of traffic signals in these areas, travel times
obtained on any given segment could vary significantly. This
variation was caused by the difference between traveling a
segment with no delay at any traffic signal and traveling the
same segment being delayed at one or more intersections. Because
of this wide variation in the field data, it was not possible to
achieve an 80' level of confidence for some of the arterial
interchange segments studied without doing a prohibitive number
of data runs. In those cases, studies were limited to 20 data
runs in the affected direction. Of the 11 arterial interchange
segments studied (22 directional studies), the following 8
directional studies were 11mi ted to 20 data runs each with a
level of confidence of less than 80':
ESt. (Bay Blvd. - Woodlawn Ave.) -WB
H St. (Bay Blvd. - Woodlawn Ave.) - EB, WB
J St. (Bay Blvd. - Woodlawn Ave.) -WB
Palomar st. (Bay Blvd. - Industrial Blvd.) -WB
Main St. (Frontage Rd. - Industrial Blvd.) - EB
Bonita Rd. (Bonita Glen - Plaza Bonita Rd.) - EB
Tele. Canyon Rd. (Nacion Ave. - Halecrest Dr.) - WB.
The results for the arterial interchange segments studied in the
1992 TMP are presented in Table 8. The Level of Service
information shown in this table is summarized in Table 9.
.
))~/??
21 C-//?
Table 8
1992 TMP ARTERIAL INTERCHANGE
- SEGMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE
~
AVG. '1'RA VEL
SPEED 'rIME
SEGMENT -1mL.- ....I&S.... .üæH.l (MIN:SEC)
E street
Bay Blvd. - Woodlawn Ave. EB D 10.7 1:19.8
(Class III) WB C 13.0 1:06.0
H street
Bay Blvd. - Woodlawn Ave. EB C 16.2 0:37.2
(Class III) WB E 7.6 1:19.6
J street
Bay Blvd. - Woodlawn Ave. EB C 13.0 0:59.9
(Class III) WB D 12.3 1:03.6
Bay Blvd.4
J Street - Palomar Street NB B 33.2 2:14.8
- (Class I) SB A 37.0 2:00.8
Palomar Street
Bay Blvd. - Industrial Bl. EB C 18.0 ' 1: 18. 3
(Class III) WB D 12.3 1:54.6
Main Street
Frontage - Industrial Bl. EB B 22.3 1:02.7
(Class III) WB A 31.9 0:43.8
:
-
4 Studied to assess the impact of the freeway ramps on Bay Ilvd.
e2J~)¿g/
22 C-/¿ð
Table 8 (Cont.)
1992 'I'MP ARTERIAL INTERCHANGE
SEGMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE
I-B05
AVG. 'J'RA VEL
SPEED TIME
SEGMENT ~ ..1&L .uœH.l (MIN:SEC)
Bonita Rd.
Bonita Glen - Plaza Bonita EB B 21.4 1:01.7
(Class III) WB A 30.1 0:44.0
East H St.
Hilltop Dr. - Hidden Vista EB C 21.6 2:42.0
(Class II) WB B 26.6 2: 11.0
Telegraph Canyon Rd. '
Nacion Ave. - Halecrest Dr. EB A 28.4 0:31.3
(Class III) WB B 19.5 0:45.5
East Orange Ave.
Melrose Ave.- Oleander Ave. EB A 26.0 0:50.0
(Class III) WB B 24.7 0:52.6
Otay Valley Rd.
Melrose Ave.- Oleander Ave. EB A 40.3 0:38.3
(Class I) WB B 34.9 0:44.3
TOTAL SEGMENTS: 11
SH:sm
(E:\SH\92THPTBB.DOC)
.;2J -/~ I
23 C-/Z/
.
Table 9
1992 '1'MP ARTERIAL INTERCHANGE
SEGMENT PERFORMANCE
(Number of Segments COnforming
to Each Level of Service)
~ CLASS :I CLASS n ~LASS :In :Jm:A¡
MB* 2 - .. 6
B/C* - 1 - 1
C/D* -- - 3 3
C/E* - - 1 1
* Indicates segments operating at ðifferent Levels of
Service in different directions.
From the information shown in table 8 it can be seen that
arterial interchange segments along I-80S are functioning at
- better overall Levels of Service than segments along 1-5. Along
I-80S, every arterial interchange segment is operating at LOS B
or better with the exception of East H St. (between Hilltop Dr.
and Hidden Vista Dr.) which 18 operating at LOS C in the
eastbound direction. Along 1-5, all arterial interchange
segments are operating at LOS C or better except for the
following locations:
ESt. (Bay Blvd. - Woodlawn Ave.) - LOS D (EB)
H st. (Bay Blvd. - Woodlawn Ave.) - LOS E (W)
J st. (Bay Blvd. - Woodlawn Ave.) - LOS D (W)
Palomar St. (Bay - Industrial) - LOS D (W). .
At the present time, the City's Threshold Standarðs exclude
segments at freeway ramps. The Standards ðo note, however, that
LOS measurements on segments at freeway ramps shall ~ a growth
management consideration in situations where proposed
ðevelopments have a significant impact at interchanges. Since
higher volume levels and lower Levels of Service typically are
anticipated at freeway ramp intersections, :it :is recommended
that LOS A through D operations be considered acceptable for
arterial interchange segments while Levels of Service E and F be
considered a significant impact and unacceptable. Using these
9uidelines, it can be seen from the results of the 1992 '1'MP
studies that only the segment on H Street between Bay Blvd. and
Woodlawn Ave. (in a westbound direction) :is :impacted by a poor
Level of Service (LOS E).
25- /7tJ
24 C- /ZZ-
I
-
.
When evaluating poor Levels of Service for arterial interchange
segments, the following factors must be considered:
, . Most segments are short with controlled intersections
spaced from 130' to 750' apart.' This causes traffic delayed
at freeway ramp intersections to back up along the length of
the segment.
2. Segments along 1-5 also have trolley crossings close to
the northbound ramp intersections. Grade crossings for the
trolley restrict the speed of vehicles as they cross the
tracks. Also, due to the increased frequency of trolley
operations during daylight hours, additional delay will be
experienced by vehicles at the intersections of the arterial
and the freeway ramps.
3. Traffic signals at freeway ramps are under the
jurisdiction of Caltrans and, therefore, are not part of
Chula Vista's signal system. Typically, Caltrans signals
favor traffic on the ramps. This keeps traffic on the ramps
from backing up onto the freeway but increases the delay to
traffic on the street crossing the freeway. .
With respect to the arterial interchange segment on H Street at
1-5, all of these factors are present. Also, the existence of a
major transit center at this location serves to increase the
volume of traffic attracted to this interchange.
Further evaluation of the field data indicates that the poor
Level of Service experienced by this segment (in a westbound
direction) is concentrated on H St. between Woodlawn Ave. and the
1-5 Southbound Ramps. In this part of the segment, the distance
between the traffic signals at Woodlawn Ave. and the 1-5
Northbound Ramps is 529'. Between the Northbound and the
Southbound Ramps, the traffic signals are 223' apart. Because of
the short distance between the ramp intersections and the large
volume of traffic westbound on H Street waiting to turn left ,onto
southbound 1-5, traffic waiting to make this left turn overflows
the dual left turn pocket. This blocks the westbound,1 lane for
through traffic and backs up traffic through the intersection of
H st. and the 1-5 Northbound Ramps. This, in addition to the
factors listed above, accounts for the LOS E measured in a
westbound direction on this arterial interchange segment.
)J-J7/
25 ('-/25
.
::ONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The purpose of the 1992 TMP Study is to assess the Level of
Service of arterial segments for compliance to the Threshold
Standards of the Growth Management Plan. These Threshold
Standards specify that LOS C or better, as measured by observed
average travel speed, shall be maintained on all signalized
arterial sdgments except that during peak hours LOS D can occur
for no more than any two hours of the day. Since no arterial
segment studied operates at less than LOS C, the Threshold
Standards of the Growth Management Plan have been .ati~fied for
the 1992 Traffic Monitoring Program.
In addi tion to studying arterial segments, the 1992 TMP also
assessed the operating LOS of 11 arterial interchange segments.
Although the City's Threshold Standards exclude segments at
freeway ramps, those arterial interchange segments which are
experiencing poor Levels of Service should be evaluated to
determine whether or not operational changes can be made to the
interchange to improve existing traffic conditions. Using
guidelines which consider Levels of Service A through D as
acceptable for these segments, only the segment on H Street
between Bay Blvd. and Woodlawn Ave. (in a westbound direction) is
impacted by a poor Level of Service (LOS E). Staff will contact
Caltrans to see if signal timing changes can be made to the
signals at the interchange which would improve the LOS for
traffic on H street crossing the freeway. It is recommended that
this arterial interchange segment also be restudied during the
1993 Traffic Monitoring Program to monitor the Level of Service
of the segment and to assess the impact of recently completed
improvements to the I-S /E St. interchange. It is hoped that the
improvements made to the freeway ramps at I-S/E st. will help to
relieve some of the congestion experienced by the interchange at
I-5/H St. by providing improved access to Bay Blvd. and the
central part of the City.
The travel time element of the Traffic Monitoring Program is'used
to assess the operating condition of arterial segments for
conformance to the City', Threshold sté' O1dards. These travel time
studies also serve to identify indivió~a1 intersections in need
of further study. An adjunct to the 1992 TMP is an ~alysis of
these intersections. Data collection (turning movement counts)
and analysis of conditions at these intersections will be used to
determine possible signal timing changes and geometric and/or
traffic operational improvements for the purpose of reducing
intersection delay. Assessing and improving intersection
performance in this way will resolve developing problems at
specific locations and allow the City to maintain acceptable
Levels of Service on arterial segments.
For the future, it is recommended that city-wide travel time
studies for each time period be done at four year intervals in
order to track the operating conditions of the street system,
..23~ 17~
26 C. /2.-1"
I
with individual segments being restudied as warranted by changing
conditions in the field. Therefore, it is recommended that those
nine arterial segments found to operate at LOS C in the 1992 TMP
Study be restudied in 1993 and that travel time studies for the
AM period also be done to establish baseline data for that peak
period. The results of these studies will then be used to
determine which individual intersections are in need of further
study.
In May 1991, the GMOC approved the revised Traffic Element of the
Growth Management Plan. This revised Traffic Element included
the Arterial Network and Segment Classification Map originally
proposed by the Consultant for use with the 1991 TMP. This map,
shown in Figure 1, was preliminary in nature and was subject to
change during future TMP studies. During the 1992 TMP, each
arterial segment was checked to assess existing conditions in the
field and a revised Arterial Network and Segment Classification
Map (shown in Figure 2) was produced for use with the 1992 TMP.
It is recommended that the GMOC approve the 1992 Arterial Network.
and Segment Classification Map (shown in Figure 2) for use in"
future TMP studies in place of the 1991 map previously approved.
(E:\SM\92TMPEX2.DOC)
File: HX-O14
),]/)7)
27 C-/¿s-
.-.
APPENDIX H
- -
;¿ J -I? Ý
C-/2tP
MEMORANDUM
DATE : February 13. 1993
TO : GroWth Management Oversight Committee
FROM : Kevin M. Hardy. Principal Management Assistant V:-
VIA : Carol Gave, Acting Fire Chief ~
SUBJECT : Review of Fire Department Performance Relative to Threshold Standards
For Fiscal Year 1991-1992, the Fire Department responded to 91.0% of all emergency calJs
within seven (7) minutes. The Threshold Standard requires 85% of alJ emergency calls be
responded to within seven (7) minutes. Therefore, Fire Department emergency services were
provided within the Threshold Standards during the previous fiscal year.
The Fire Department wiJI be opening a sixth fire station in the Eastlake Business Center in
March-April 1993. This station will enable the Fire Department to maintain the present level
of service regarding Threshold Standards and Project Guidelines.
Attached please find the "Incident Response Report for Fiscal Year 1992" and the "Fiscal Year
1992 Fire Department Incident Response Statistics.' These documents provide information
which may be of interest to the GMOC. I Jook forward to discussing this information with the
GMOC at its convenience.
CHULA VISTA FIRE DEPAR1MEN1'
;23 -j 73
C-/27
-
INCIDENT RESPONSE REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1992
NUMBER OF INCIDENTS BY AGENCY
Agency Number of Calls % of TotaJ
Chu]a Vista 7,020 54.8%
National City 3,027 23.6%
Imperial Beach 1,624 12.7%
Bonita Sunnyside F.P.D. 585 4.6%
San Diego/Other 547 4.3%
Total 12,803 100.0%
INCIDTh'TS IN CHULA VISTA
Type Number % of TotaJ
Medical Aid Incidents 4,967 70.8%
False Alarms -- AU Types 715 10.2%
Fires: Total 701 9.9%
Structure Fires 199 2.8%
Grass & Trash Fires 304 4.3%
Vehicle Fires 198 2.8%
Other Citizen Assists 387 5.5%
Hazardous Conditions 197 2.8%
All Other Incidents 53 0.8%
Total 7,020 100.0%
INCIDENT RESPONSES BY COMPANY
Station Apparatus Calls Monthly Average % of Total
5 Eng. 5225 2,095 174.6 23.8%
1 Res. 5287 2,013 167.8 22.9%
2 Eng. 5222 1,203 100.3 13.7%
3 Eng.5223 1,140 95.0 13.0%
1 Eng. 522] 905 75.4 10.3%
I Trk. 5271 751 62.6 8.5%
4 Eng. 5224 690 57.5 7.8%
;J.3~ /7?
C-/zJÞ
-
MEMORANDUM
DATE : August 2I, I992
TO : Honorable Mayor and Ciry Council
~ : John Goss, Ciry Manager
FROM : Sam Lopez, Fire Chief
SUBJECT : Fiscal Year 1992 Fire Departmeru Incideru Response StaJÏstics
Please find attached the Fiscal Year 1992 Fire Department Incident Response Statistics.
Significant Statistic, Include:
. The total number of responses in FY '92 was 7,020, an increase of7.2% responses from
FY '9L(since FY '87, incident responses have increased by +34.1 %),
. Emergency medical services responses totaled 4,967 an increase of 10,6% from FY '9];
EMS calls made up 70,8% of the total fire company responses,
. There were 7 I 5 false alarms that made up 10.2 % of the total fire company responses,
. Structure fires decreased from 278 in FY '91 to 199 in FY '92 a 28.4% decline.
. The total number of fires decreased by 7.9% in FY 1992 and made up 9.9% of the total
fire company responses.
. The busiest engine company is at Fire Station 5; it made 2,095 responses in FY 1992,
an average of about six (6) calJs per day.
. On an average day the ChuJa Vista Fire Department responds to 20 calls for service.
I am available to answer any questions you may have regarding these statistics. ] look forward
to presenting a comprehensive report, being developed at Council's request, on alternative
methods for providing the fire protection, emergency medical and other essential services
provided by the Chula Vista Fire Department.
cc: Staff
All Stations
CHUU WSTA FIRE DEPAR'17tŒNT
;23~)7?
c- /¿7
APPENDIX I
;)7'17~
C. /Šð
INTERDEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE
DATE: February 18, 1993
TO: Growth Management Oversight Commission
VIA: Robert Leiter, Planning Director~-6'~
PROM: Lyman ChristoPher~irector of Finance
SUBJECT: FISCAL OVERVIEW
The purpose of this report is to update the Growth Management
Oversight Commission (GMOC) regarding the economic and fiscal well
being of the City of Chula Vista. Specific areas addressed are
Development Impact Fees (DIF) and the impact of the recession and
the state of California's budget process on the City of Chula
Vista.
Development Impact Fees
The purpose of the City's DIF programs are to identify public
facilities and improvements required to support future development
within the City of Chula VIsta's general planning area. Where an
additional facility need is created by future development, the cost
associated with the new need is apportioned to future development
in the form of a development impact fee.
In many instances, the construction of a particular facility is
triggered when development reaches a certain number of units or
level of traffic generation. If development slows down, then the
need for the facility is delayed. If development accelerates, then
it also accelerates the need for facilities. In some instances,
developers advance fund and construct facilities and they are given
a credit against payment of future development impact fees.
The City's current DIF programs are for Transportation (Streets),
Drainage, and various Public Facilities. Attachment One is a DIF
Financial Report that indicates the revenue and expenditure
activity of each DIF Fund for FY 1991-92 and the Fund Balance in
each as of June 30, 1992.
Most of the DIF expenditures in FY 92 were related to street
projects and fire services. In Fund 621, Transportation DIF, most
project expenditures related to I-80S & Telegraph Canyon Road
($300,000), otay Lakes Road/Rutgers to Apache ($625,000), and
preliminary studies for SR125 ($210,000).
In Fund 806, Fire Suppression DIF, expenditures related to the
paseo Ranchero Fire Training Facility ($170,000) and the Interim
Fire Station at Eastlake village ($313,000).
c2J - J?¡
c- /..rl
.
- 2 -
The DIF programs are updated priodically in order to reflect
changes in estimated project costs, facilities to be included, and
projected growth of the City. Attachment Two is selected pages
from a draft update of the Transportation DIF. It recommends a
minor adjustment of the fee from the existing $3,060 for single
family detached dwelling unit to $3,075.
Attachment Three is selected pages from a draft update of the
Public Facilities DIF, recommending an adjustment in the fee for
residential land use from $2,150 to $2,265 per dwelling unit. The
draft reprt also proposes an adjustment in the fee charged for
commercial and industrial acreage, reducing the current Public
Facilities DIF from $12,040/acre to $11,325/acre.
Attachment Four is a description of the Telegraph Canyon Sewer
Basin DIF which will be collected on future development east of
Interstate 805.
Fiscal Status
Like all local governmental agencies in california, Chula vista is
doing its best to address problems created by the prolonged
recession and the State's approach, to a large extent, of balancing
its budget on the backs of local governments.
The City's FY 1992-93 General Fund operating budget of $52,700,000
was adopted in June, 1992. However, because of delays at the State
level, staff did not know the impact of the State budget on Chula
vista until September, 1992. The State's action to reduce revenues
to cities, counties, and special dictricts, by transferring local
funds to school districts, impacted the City's General Fund by
almost $1 million. The State also imposed a transfer of property
tax increment to school districts which impacted Chula Vista's
Redevelopment Agency by $650,000.
Once the State's budget was in place, the City Manager immediately
recommended to the city Council a reduction in the General Fund
budget in order to address the State's impact. The city Manager
was able to revise the FY 1992-93 budget and meet his and Council's
goals of: 1) maintaining existing service levels to the general
public; 2) not utilizing General Fund reserves to balance the
budget;
3) meeting commitments to the City's unions as contained in
Memoranda of Understanding, and 4) not laying off any City
employees.
In addition to dealing with revenue reductions imposed by the
State, the City also experienced reduced General Fund revenues
caused by the prolonged recession. The city's sales tax revenue,
which represents over 25% of the City's General Fund revenue, went
from $11,808,279 in FY 1990-91 to $11,679,477 in FY 1991-92.
)J - ¡YO
c- /.:I'L
- 3 -
Although only a 1% decrease, it is significant because in non-
recessionary times sales tax revenue normally increases between 4%
to 8% annually. Licenses and permits revenues were also flat in F¥
1991-92, totaling $2,037,000 or $2,000 more than the previous
fiscal year. Fees for services including zoning, plan checking,
SUbdivisions, and inspections totaled $2,325,000 in FY 1991-92 or
almost $400,000 less than the previous fiscal year.
In spite of the above, the City was able to end FY 1991-92 with a
General Fund balance of $8,762,000 which would be considered
"healthy" under normal circumstances. However, with the
continuation of the recession into FY 1992-93 and the extended
budget deficit issues confronting the state of california, there
will be continuing pressure on the City staff to be creative in
promoting revenue sources and providing services more efficiently.
Attachment One - DIF Financial Report
Attachment Two - Transportation DIF Upaate
Attachment Three - Public Facilities DIF Update
Attachment Four - Telegraph Canyon Sewer Basin DIF
d J - I tf)
C- /.$$
I
.
; E ~ ~c:~ E c ¡c ~5
i!lI!c: "'. -. :-. ~ : .=
B~-' N .. ... Ie .....
~~..: - : - 0 ~i
.. i E ¡ ..
I = ~ -c:- §- c:c ~:
. c N oN 0'"
0:' '" - . - .
t!*~: i i ¡ i ~ : tE
..... - 0 - .-.
~.. : : : =
= - : - :_=
I E ~ IC:! ¡ 0 ¡C !¡
ei= ",' ...':': ò : 2:
~~ ~"':"'~ :_=
I = . .;
. - ¡
~~ E ~ !~¡~ ~ o.c ~¡
0. ..... . . . . o. . . .
¡c~: ~ ~"':~ S :~:
15~ . . - .-:
~~ ¡ ¡ ¡:
to: i f !C:;¡~ ~ 0 10 ~i
a~8" . . .,.. 0 ...
~E"~ ¡ ~~i$! i ~~
- '" .. 0 - 0 .
~.. 0 o.
. 0 . .
~ ~ ~ ~~i~ ~ 1 11 i~ .
i~~ ~ ~ii~ ~ i ii ~~
:;:: I:: i»:.o ~:~...=
:: 0 .:
= .o -~:8 i ~:~ 8:=
= ;;;~~:.o~ ~:~.o::
.. ~~g= ~ ~~:~ .: .::.: ~=
~ ce.... ~ """.", .o ",..., "'..
u.... '" '" '.o - - ..,..
.. ..
.. .
!:!- .. Ii ;: ~~:~ ~ c oC I!?~
~ ~-.. ~ ~c.~ N ~..
t;~~:;~:: -~"",":.."Ñ 0 g'::
" tõl ~~"ii S ~ :~:; i-~
-- .... 0 o.
U .. 0 o'
;1 ~! Ii '" ~;!:~ i c:c d
r- u-.. ~ .."','" N ~..
Pi" u~~:: ~. -"",":~" N' 0 co::
.. -e.... .. .o"""'" '.o..
~ >.... c.o'~- ~..
:!: ü~ Ii ": . -Ii
.. - 0 - ,-..
u " ~ "'~'.o ~ c oC .."
:0: = ~ ~~:~ ~ ~=
~H ii :e t:~" ~. ::Oli
..e" - - -.
~ ¡ . 0 ¡
: ~ o~¡~ ~ :c~:
E!i..= .o. C.:C. ~ .~
aN" '" coc .o'
..-..,. .o .o'
~e" - - - .
.... . 0 .
... . . ."
" . ..
... 0 - . .
~ : ~ ~~:Ie f ~§:~ ~:
!..-= ". .-.:"'. . ..:. .o.:
~ë~= ~ ~;:~ ~ ~~i~ ~~
c . . . ..
~ = ~ - - . "':
: I
.
. -
. '" N
: ~ ~~ "'c'
. 0 . .
.., .. - N '"
!:: I> ~f - II=~ !
~= ~ ¥- ~ !ð~
~= w "E ~ --~ ~
... Ii ;- lie....
~= ~ ~ II y-. ~
~.. .. ~ !; ~o ~
~ ... i i .. ! ::!:.': .. J, J - / ~2
.. " .. ,ø ~ ~i~ !'
~ : : iH J !::.. ¡ C ~7Û
- " ....- ~ c ~ -'~T
A.,....-" c..t?1 l".~ "...
I
p/.AFí
SECTION 1
BACKGROUND
This report represents the 1992 review of the Development Impact Fee for Streets
program. end where eppropriate. makes adjustments to the development impact
fee based upon completed street construction, revised development projections
end revised project cost estimates.
In Fabruary 1986. the (":"'ula Vista City CounCil adopted a schedule of development
impact fees (DIF) for tt.. Eastlake I Development. These fees were to ensure that
Eastlake paid its fair share of the cost of specific street improvements including a
four lane interim facility in the State Route 125 (SR.125) corridor. AlsD included in
the development impact fee was the cost of constructing a fire station and a
community park in Eastlake I. City staff recommended to the Council that a
development impact fee ordinance be prepared to provide for the financing of
transportation improvements by JI.!! the developments that would benefit from the
improvements.
In January 1987. the Council authorized the preparation of a development impact
fee program for the financing of street improvements in the area east of Interstate
805.
In December 1987. a report entitled the Interim Eastern Area Development Impact
Fees for Streets was completed. The -area of benefit- included all the
undeveloped lands that benefitted from the proposed transportation improvements.
within the City of Chula Vista and County of San Diego. east of Interstate 805.
Because the Eastern Territories General Plan Update was in progress. the Council
adopted an Interim Eastern Area development Impact Fee (DIF) in January 1988 by
Ordinance Number 2251. The fee was set at $2.101 per eQuivalent dwelling unit
(EDU). The Eastern Territories General Plan Amendment was later completed and
edopted.
On August 8. 1991, the City Council authorized the preparation of the -Interim SR.
125 Facility Feasibilit '~udy.- The purpose of this study was to identify an
Interim SR.1 25 facilit at will meet the transportation needs of the region until a
permanent facility (fr8.. ,'way) could be constructed. Tr,e report recommends the
establishment of a new fee (separate from the existing Transportation DIF) to
specifically finance the construction of the interim SR-1 25 and related facilities.
ConseQuently. Projects 1 and 2 (Table 2). dealing with the SR-125 construction.
have been excluded from the Eastern Area Transportation DIF program and are
now included in the new SR.1 25 DIF program. Additionally. Projects 13. 24. and
37 are also included in the recommended Interim SR.125 Facility, These projects
are to be jointly financed by the Eastern Area Transportation DIF and the SR-1 25
DIF.
..2 J ---¡63 c. - /J..š-
.q T'T1; ~ ,.<iI' ; /.1'" 'T /,/ 0
LDT:18Ja1XTOHITIlAHIOIF .NAI\.' 011213
I
.
Pt""iF'ï
Since Its inception. the Transportation DIF has been updated twice. as follows:
~ Ordinance Number En
December 12. 1989 2349 $2.850/EDU
December 11. 1990 2431 $3.060/EDU
This report recommends a change in the fee to $3.075 per EDU.
, \.
d-.3 /' jgrLj C-/.?~
;2.-,2
LDT:18I1UXTONrrMHSOW.NAA-' 011283
V /\A ¡:--r
-
SECTION 3
REVISED PROJECT COST ESTIMATES
Ordinance No. 2251. as revised. allows for an annual adjustment to the fees to
ieflect changes In the Engineering. News Record Construction Cost Index. The
Index experienced an Increase of 3.89 % for the period of November 1990 to June
1992.
In addition. several projects currently under construction were adjusted to more
accurately reflect the actual cost of work completed and more refined estimates for
remaining work. These projects were not adjusted by the ENR Index.
Table 2 presents the projects and costs being funded by the fee. A complete
description, cost breakdown and location map are included in Section 6.
Table 2 also identifies $6.403.713 as revenue available for DIF project
construction. The revised project cost total has been reduced by this amount.
This amount includes $ 1.288.872. which is the total of the fees to be paid in
accordance with the Rancho del Rey Power Center Development Agreement.
Ordinance No. 2251,states that a developer may request authorization from the
City to construct DIF facilities. In case the total construction cost amounts to
more than the total fees which will be required for the deveiopment. the owner is
entitled to receive DIF credits. This DIF credit could be USloj to satisfy the fee
obligations for any other development. Table 4 presents remaining credits for
facilities constructed by developers for a total of $7.563.883. This amount has
been added to the revised project cost (Table 2) to obtain the total project cost to
be collected through the Transponation DIF._,-. )
The total cost of the improvements to be funded by the fee is $87,336,000.
;2 J -' /f(~ C-/s7
1.-:,
LDT:llIlUXTONIfMHSOIf .N""" 010113
TABLE 2
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY
(AS OF JULY 1,1992)
No. DIF Street Location Revised Remarks
COlt
1 State Route 125 North San Miguel to Telegraph Canyon Road to To SR.125 DIF/CFD
2 State Route 125 South Telegraph Canyon Road to East Orange 0 To SR.125 DIF/CFD
Avenue
3 Telegraph Canyon Road Paseo Del Rey to East of Plseo Ladera 3,452,000 WIdening to 6.llne prime
3a Telegrlph Canyon Rold 1.805 Interchange Phlse II 1,814,000 Interchlnge Improvements
(Phase IIA is under
construction)
4 Telegraph Canyon Road Phase I Rutgers to Eastlake Boundary 0 Project Completed
5 Telegraph Canyon Road Phase II Paseo Ladera to Apache Drive 0 Project Completed
6 Telegraph Canyon Road Phase III Apache Drive to Rutgers Road 1,677,000 6-1lne major (under
construction)
7 East oW Street I-80S In1erchange Modificltions 3,780,000 Interchange Improvements
(Phase I completed!
8 East oW Street Eastlake Drive to 511.125 0 Project Completed
9 Otay Lakes Road Camino del Cerro Grande to Ridgeback 0 Project Completed
IIoad
10 Otay Lakes Road Telegraph Canyon Road to East Orange 4,574,000 Construction as 6.lane prime
Avenue (only Phase I . 4 lanes included)
" Bonita Road Otay Lakes Road to Central Avenue 370,000 Widening to 4.lane major
12 Bonita Road Central Avenue to San Miguel Road 792,000 Widening to 4.lane major
13 San Miguel Road Bonita Road to SR.125 1,574,500 Second Part of SR.125 DIF/CFD
14 East oW Street 511.125 to Mt. Miguel Road 0 Project completed
15 Proctor Valley Road Mt. Miguel Road to Hunte ParkwlY 6,377 ,000 .Construction as 6.lane prime
(East oW Street)
16 East Orange Avenue Oleander to Sunbow Eastern Boundary 6,266,000 Construction as 6.lane prime
17 East Palomar Street Oleander to Sunbow Eastern Boundary 6,782,000 Construction as 4-1ane major
;2Y-¡t't c- /1.J>
f!-t(
LOT ,SBIBUXTONITRANSOIF .NAR -10- 020883
TABLE 2
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY
(AS OF JULY 1. 1992)
No. DIF St'~ðt Loçation Revised Remarks
Cost
18 T,legraph Canyon Road Phase IV Eastlake I Eastern Boundary 0 Project Còmpleted
to Hunte Parkway
19 Eastlake Parkway Telegraph Canyon Road to Eastlake 0 Project Completed
High School Southern Boundary
20 Hunte Parkway Proctor Valley Road to Telegraph 4.395,000 Construction as 4~ane major
Canyon Road
21 Hunte Parkway Telegraph Canyon Road to Club House 0 Project Completed
Drive
21a Hunte Parkway Club House Drive to East Orange 1.260,000 Construction as 4~ane major
Avenue
22 East Orange Avenue Eastlake Parkway to Hunte Parkway 6,356,000 Construction as 6-lane prime
23 Paseo Ranchero Telegraph Canyon Road to East Orange 3,388,000 Construction as 6-lane prime
_. Avenue (only Phase I . 4 lanes included!
24 ElSt Orange Avenue Eastern Sunbow Boundary to Eastlake 7,272,000 Second Part of SR.125 DIF/CFD
Parkway
25 East Orange Avenue 1-805 Interchange Modifications 4,064,000 Interchange Improvements
26 East Palomar Street Eastern Sunbow Boundary to Paseo 3. I 20,000 Construction as 4-lane major
Ranchero
27 East Palomar Street 1-805 Interchange 2,673,000 Interchange Improvements
28 Telegraph Canyon Road Hunte Parkway to Wueste Road 3, I 14,000 Construction as 4-lane major
29 East Orange Avenue Hunte Parkway to Olympic Training 5, I 04,000 Construction as 4-lane major
Center
30 Teleg..~h Canyon Road SR- I 25 to Eastlake r-arkway 1.493,900 Widening to 8~ane prime
31 Eastlake Parkway Fenton Street to Telegraph Canyon 980.400 Widening to 6~ane major
Road
32 East ow Street 1-805 to Hidden Vista Drive 901.000 Widening to 8 lanes
33 Bonita Road Otay lAkes Road Intersection 105,000 Intersection ImprovementS
34 Otay lAkes Road Elmhurst Drive Intersection 70,000 Intersection Improvements
35 East ow Street Otay Lakes Road Intersection 221,000 Intersection Improvements
36 Traffic Signal 138,000
Interconnection
,
:2J-/8"7 C-/gp
2'- -t;¡;
LOT :IBIBUXTON rrRAN SDIF .N AA .11 - 020183
,
.
TABLE 2
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY
(AS OF JULY 1,1992)
No. DIF Street Location Revised Remlr'"
Cost
37 Eestllke PerkwlV Eestllke High School Southern 887,500 Second Pert of SR.125 DIF/cr;D
Boundlry to Eest Orlnge Avenue
38 Eest °H' Street Plseo Del Rev to Avill WIV 682,000 Street WIdening
39 Bonita Rold 1.805 to Plaza Bonitl Rold 188.000 Street WIdening
SUBTOTAL $82.B61.300
A DIF program support 4% of total project cost 3,314,452
Avlilable Revenue Less funds Ivailable for DIF 16,319,885)
construction
Ramaining Credits See Tlble 4 7.563,883
GRANO TOTAL $87,419.750 SAY 87,420.000
).3 -/ y~ C-/1/t!>
~
.
N
Q.
C(
:IE
-
.. I I
¡;; ¡ t " I
~ :;! Ë i
II:: ¡ I to
C
« ~ I :; :; u
0
ëi :: '" I '= ..
: 4 ¡¡ .. :; f to
CD , U
1&1 I III
.I I ..
I 0
.
<{ I &.
~ I þo
I **0 III
CJ) III
.
þo
> .
<{ I
...J I
- => r--- I
/1 L____- \
:r: ( ----
U ,-__r1
l.L.. I
0 r
t '
>- ~--
~ ì
-
U I
"
\
--.}
{-
~
""'*
0
:lJ - Ii; c -/~/
1!- 7
,
D~RPï
Table 3
Development Implct F.e C.lculetion
Per Eaulvllent Dwelling Unit
Total Cost
pf Imorovements - $B7.336.000 - $3,074.78/EDU
Totel EDU's 2B.404 EDU's Use: $3,075/EDU
1992 Revlaed Entern Are.
peveloDment ImDact Fees for Streets
Category Existing Fee 1992
Revised Fee
Single Family Detached $3,060/DU 3.075/DU
,
Single Family Attached 2,44B/DU 2.460/DU
Multi-Family 1,836/DU 1 ,845/DU
Commercial/Acre 122.400/AC 1 23,00O/AC
Industrial/Acre 61,200/AC 61 ,500/AC
. Religious Institution 11 .400/AC 12,300/AC
OTC 10, 190/AC N/A
Golf Course 2.448/AC 2,460/AC
Medical Center n 1 99.875/AC
/)3-IJO c- /9'2-
~ -8
LDT:"IIU~TONITIIAHIDIF .HM'2 011213
~~~ D1<'PFT
-.-
-----
~:: .;.=
CITY OF
CHUiA VISTA
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
January 13, 1993
RE: Public Facilities Development Impact Fee. 1993 Update
.
The City has just completed its review of the current Public Facilities Development Impact
Fee (PFDIF), which were last updated in March, 1991. The present update represents the
most comprehensive review of the capital projects and associated costs conducted to date.
The draft report (attached) proposes an increase in the fee for residential units from
$2,150 to $2,265, an increase of $115 or 5.3%. UnJess significant changes occur in the
scope of current PFDIF projects or significant new capita] needs are identified, it is
anticipated that the next revision in the PFDIF would take effect in January 1995. Thus,
the proposed increase in the current PFDJF covers a span of nearly 4 years.. March, 1991
through December, 1994. A5 such, the proposed $11 5 increase in PFDIF for residential
units represents an annualized, average increase of less than 1.5%.
The draft report also proposes an adjustment in the fee charged for commercial and
industrial acreage, reducing the current PFDIF from $12.O40/acre to $11.325/acre. a
~ of $715 or 5.9%.
A breakdown of the fee for each major component is presented below:
Component Current Updated Fee
Fee Fee Difference
1. Civic Center & Parking $527 $642 +$ 115
Structure Expansion
2. Police Expansion and $365 $235 ($ 130)
Improvements
:27~J9/ C-/9'.:?
¡t..¡.Ac"':¡I';:/J-r' 71.,':r-,
276 FOURTH AVENUEiCHULA VISTA. CALIFORNIA '1'10/(81') 8'1-5031
I
/ " IJt?, A. ¡:::¡
3. Corporation Yar"; $477 $512 +$ 35
Relocation
4. Library System Expansion $437 $544 +$ 107
5. Fire Suppression System $112 $133 +$ 21
Expansion '
6. GIS $ 45 $ 53 +$ 8
7. Mainframe Computer $ 45 $ 22 ($ 23)
Expansion
8. Telephone System $ 25 $ 36 +$ 11
Upgrade
9. Records Management 510 5 5 (5 5)
System
10. General Administration $107 $ 82 ($ 25)
TOTAL 52,150 52,265 5115
Based on City staffs recent ana1ysis, the total cost of all projects increased from
558,564,047 to 573,843,252. This increase principally reflects more up to date cost
infonnation, panicular1y for the Civic Center & Parking Structure Expansion (land
acquisition costs), the Corporation Yard Relocation (land acquisition costs) and for Library
System Expansion (buildout book colIection costs). Of the total cost, the PFDIF share is
553,102,000, representing an increase of $2,448,600. The City share of these costs,
required to cotTect pre-existing deficiencies and to share in the costs of projects which have
citywide benefits, is $ 20,741,252, which represents an increase of 512,830,605.
Project Share I CutTent I Revised Difference I
PFDIF $50,653,400 553,102,000 $ 2,448,600
CITY $ 7,910,647 $20,741,252 $12,830,605
TOTAL $58,564,047 573,843,252 515,279,205
On January 27, 1993 at 10:00 am in Conference Rooms II 213 City staff will be available
to discuss the document in more detail and to answer questions. (Copies of the draft
repon are available at the City Clerk's Office.) Pending any changes to the draft repon
based on your input, City staff will then initiate a Public Hearing on the revised PFDIF. If
adopted, the new fees would go into effect tWo months after Council action.
;¿J~-¡J~ C- /'99"
3-2
t:
TELEGRAPH CAN,"ON SEWER BASIN
IMPROVEM.E!'\'T AND FINANCING PLAN
CIT\' OF CHULA VISTA. CALIFORNIA
..
CITY COUNcn.
Tim Nader
Mayor
David L. Malcolm Leonard M, Moore
Jerry R. Rindone Shirley Grasser Horton
.
CITY STArr
John P. Lippitt Director of Public Works
CHfford Swanson City Engineer
Roger L. Daoust Senior Civil Engineer
Elizabeth Chopp Associate Civil Engineer
,
COSSULTAN'T
Wjlldan Associates Engineers &. Planners
I
I
I
July 31,1992
- ;<5-/'13
c- /~.s-.
Tøløgraph Callyon Srt«r Basin
/mpro_øllt ønd Finane/"g P1411
f/.,-r14 r.,4 ¡r, ././"r F':vÎ.
.~..-
"~-
I. Introduction
1.1 Back¡round and Purpose
On January 23, 1990, the City entered into an agreement with EastLake DeveJopment
t Company whereby EastLake would fund the preparation of an Improvement and
t Financing PJan for sewerage improvements within the Telegraph Canyon sewer basin
~ (Figure I) in return for permission to pump flows into the basin on a temporary
~ basis. The pIan would allocate cost responsibility for providing trunk sewer
improvements and ensure that such improvements wouJd be constructed in a timely
ì manner so as not to exceed the capacity of the trunk sewer at any point in time.
~ In response to the City's rC4uest for proposal to provide engineering services,
Wil1dan Associates was selected to prepare the basin plan. The work to be
~ accomplished by the consultant included the preparation of a report which:
~ ]. Estimates current and uJtimate sewage flows in the Telegraph Canyon sewer
$ basin assuming DQ pumped flows, .
"
2. Recommends the type, size, location, and approximate order of construction of
necessary sewer Improvements.
3. EstabJishes a work program for future projects with estimated costs for the
construction of required facilities for the transportation of all sewage flows
which wil1 use the Telegraph Canyon sewer.
4. Establishes fees or a funding mechanism to finance these improvements and
flow monitoring process.
On1}' future development east of Interstate 805 was identified for flow anaJysis and
fee purposes because the basin is virtual1}' at buildout west of Interstate 805. Those
few developable parcels remajning west of Interstate 805 have previously been
includ'ed in capacity calcuJations and pipe sizes downstream of these locations.
;23 -IIi c-/ý'~
rt/tgrtJph CtJl/yon ~ Btuin
I /mprowmtlll alld FilllUldllgl'løll
"'-2.
I ~¡.;.¡
~'ii .;" r.; &'.
~ ' ""',-
~ -::: ;;;: I- ~"
~.= .
~':::ê. ~¡~
I ~"" ~ ~:;
¡:¡~ .-:' 0 i ~
-~.:..:..:.- Cl:)c!
.. I i ~ æ ~
~ I .~
t5 '" - . . òt ~ :z.h
~ B ~ I I ~ !C ~ ~Ii
. . \ i l bi :3!~
~ ~"~
~
/-
I, ". /
, I
:z
Vi
«
a:J
a:::
~
~
I ~
I ~
«
u
:t:
Q..
«
a:::
c.;>
~
....J
~
..... I
~-z- j I'
e
¡
,j
.27-/15" " -
;.1- 3 (!-/"?/
, ~
INTRODUCTION
r 1.2 uod U~
In preparation of the Telegraph Canyon Basin Plan, existing conditions were
determined through information provided by the City of Chula Vista and through
direct field observation. However, in order to predict the fut'j..e conditions of the
sewer basin, certain key assumptions were made. The land use for future develop-
ment within the sewer basin was assumed to follow the development forecast
provided in the Growth Management Program which is based on final maps, tentative
maps, general development plans and, for Otay Ranch, the PhQJt II Progrtss PIan
(GDPICP Srarisrics, 2-2I-92), provided by the Otay Ranch Project Group. A
summary of the projected buildout Jand use within the sewer district is shown in
Figure 2. Figure 3 identities the remaining development within the basin that will
be subject to the proposed new fees.
1.3 Summary of Facility Costs
Computer modeling of the future sewage flows show that additional sewer facilities
, will be required at the end of Phase 111 development. The facilities needed include
monitoring of the existing sewer line, construction of a replacement sewer line, and
the construction of parallel relief sewer lines. Figure 4 summarizes what facilities
are needed, when they will be needed, and how much they will cost. The manhoJe
numbers refer to the diagrams in the appendix.
I-
i
!
i
I
I
I
I
i .
I(
i'
.¡
;)3 ~//?
Telegraph CD">,,," ~ 8øs;"
3 Impro_enllUld FitlØ"ci", Piø" ('1-/-9' J>
"1-4
~ïRODUCTION
FiEure 4
Facility Costs'
Rel uired Facility When Nl!Cded Cost
Monitoring - between manholes 78 &. 92 Ncar M"JùJ. of Ph- IV S 3,000
Relief Sewer - between manhole¡ 65 It. 78 f After ConstNclion of 694,315
/1.- Phase 111
Monitoring - between 62 &. 65 Near end of Phase IV 3,000
Monitoring - between 52 &. 59 Nul end of Phase IV 3,000
Relief sewer. between 46 &. 52 f After Construction of 178,105
/2- 1,957 EDU's in Phase IV
Relief sewer. between maMoles 34-41 I) After ConstNction of 245,525
/"J- 3,082 EDU'. in Phase IV
Replacement sewer. between mAMoles 32-34/ Afler Construction of 186,300
'2/( 3,082 EDU'. in Phase IV
Monitoring - between 12 &. 15 Nur end of Phase IV 3,000
Monitorin¡ - between 3 &. 4 Nur end of Phase IV 3,000
Fee Report and Anal,sis 100,000
Subtotal 1,41',245 ~
Cily Administration <It 2'k 28,385
TOTAL S 1,447,630 ;
,
(
t
(
(
.
..
/'
(
;
t
I
¡
.
I FacililY"" ¡..Iud. IS pcrc.nt ror '/Ifine,ri.,. ¡""",.,inn. and ...",.yi/lf and 2.' ron:,.. rew conti."..;... .
(
Telegrnph ConJlOn S#wrr BAsin
6 Improvement"'" F¡Mlle/ng Plø.n('- /4/ f
-23-/CJ? ~-5"
I
" ) IJI.'TRODUCTION
1.4 Summary or Fees
The cost of sewer improvements have been apportioned equally to all equivalent
dwelling units (EDU's) within the basin in proportion to each land use based upon
flow rate factors, The toLa] cost ofSI,447,630 is therefore apportioned to the 9.159
EDU's at S158 per EDU as shown in the following table.
FlCLlIE 5
FEES PER LA-"» USE
Land Use EDU Factor Fee
Residential - SFD 1.00 DU $158.00 DU
Residentia! - Muhi.family .75 DU 118.00 DU
Commercial 10.00 acre 1.580.00 acre
Industrial 10.00 acre 1,580.00 acre
Junior Hi~h School 112.00 .ite 17.696.00 lile
Elementary Schools (3) 36.00 Sli. 5.688.00 sile
Park 2.00 acre 316.00 acre
Church 10.00 acre 1.580,00 acre
Note: 250 single family units and 72 multi.family units from Phase I & II have been
constructed and therefore cannot be assessed for connection fees. This Jeaves 9,J59
EDU's aviÚlable for apportioning the total cost of S 1.447.630.00.
"
r
I
I
Tt¡tgrnph Callyoll ~ /J4sin
7 Impro_tnl tlnd FillØndng l'liIllC-/S-O
;¡J" /9;5
'i - þ
INTERDEPARTKENTAL CORRESPONDENCE
DATE: March 8, 1993
'1'0: Growth Management Oversight Commission
VIA: Robert Leiter, Planning Director
FROK: Lyman ChristoPher~irector of Finance
SUBJECT: FOLLOW-UP TO FISCAL OVERVIEW
Pursuant to the discussion at the Growth Management Oversight
commission meeting of February 25, 1993, regarding the Fiscal
Threshold, this is to indicate that my review of the financial
information relating to the City's Development Impact Fee Funds
indicates that growth and development in the City did not have a
negative fiscal impact for FY 1991-92 which was the fiscal year
being reviewed by the Commission.
If any additional information is required, please let me know.
;2J-j If e-/s/
I
APPENDIX J
.
;¿ ] - d.-{J 0
C-/52-
I
MEMORANDUM March 11, 1993
TO: The GroMh Management Oversight Commission
FROM: Jess Valenzuela, Director of Parks and Recreatio«
SUBJECT: Compliance with the Parks and Recreation Threshold Standard for 1992
The Department is pJeased to present a report on Parks and Recreation activities relating to the
Parks and Recreation Threshold Standard in the Growth Management Ordinance. A report was
previously given to the GMOC in June of 1992, and reviewed by the City Council in October, 1992.
This report is structured to provide the following information:
. FY 92193 Department Overview
. Discussion of GMOC Issues of 1992
. Review of Park Deficiency From Standard
. Planning Department's Growth Forecast and Its Correlation to the Park Deficiency
PEPARTMENT OVERVIEW
The Department completed or commenced the following projects in the past 12 months:
1. On August 25, 1992. the City Council adopted a non-resident fee for recreation programs,
facility rentals, swim classes, and park picnic shelter reservations in the City of Chula Vista.
2. The City and ihe Port District, in a joint venture, completed Marina View Park (4.5 acres).
3. The Department commenced renovation projects at Parkway Community Center which
include two phases. Phase I will provide for renovation of the gymnasium and pool
restroom/dressing rooms including heating. ventilation and plumbing. Phase II will include
spectator areas at the pool, classroom area and storage, a building addition to Parkway
Center, and modification to the Parkway facility's heating system and office area.
4. The Department recently commenced renovation items at the Chula Vista Women's Club,
which will include providing accessibility at the building entrances (a ramp) for ADA, new
paint, floor refinishing, door repairs, and construction of an accessible unisex bathroom.
5. In January, 1993, the City Council approved the design consultant for Hilltop Park. These
park improvements include a new restroom, tot lot, and restoration of the slopes.
GMOC RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 1992
Recommendation 1. The GMOC recommends an amendment to the Parks and Recreation
threshoJd standard to 3 acres per 1,000 population for the area west of
Interstate 805 as weD as easL The GMOC made this recommendation in both
its 1989 BOd 1990 reports. A 2O-year target shouJd be set for the acquisition
of land BOd construction of facilities to attaiD this standard. Develop a
IPo<I] 1
,)} ~ dt/ /
C-/S3
I
.
Growth Management Oversight Commission Report
March 11, 1993
metbod of giving park and recreation credit for major facilities sucb as
swimming pools and gymnasiums for more acreage tban they actuaUy occupy.
Following the meetings of the GMOC in 1993, when the Planning Department coordinates the
GMOC's 1992 Report to the Council; Planning will make a recommendation that the Council adopt
a revision to the park threshold standard west of I-80S.
The City's Parklands and PubJic Facilities Ordinance (PDO), Chapter 17.10.040, presently contains
the standard of 3 acres per 1,000 people for the entire city. The standard is also noted in the Parks
and Recreation Element of the General Plan. Staff wishes to advise tbe GMOC that the Department
does not differentiate this standard between the eastern and western portions of Chula Vista.
However, an amendment to the Growth Management Ordinance will strengthen the standard in the
PD~.
20 Year Tar~e(lEquivalency Factor: As discussed in the 1991 Department report to the GMOC, the
staff has structured a 20 year plan to attain the 3 acres per 1,000 standard and will utilize the
recommendations of the Parks Master Plan (also known as the Parks Implementation Plan) to
achieve this goal. It is anticipated that the recommendations of the Parks Implementation Plan will
include the adoption of an equivalency factor, as well as, working with the school districts for joint
agreements for additional recreation opportunities; the acquisition of available land on the west side
of Chula Vista; the implementation of the Parks Element of the Montgomery Specific Plan; and an
analysis of available revenue to implement the 20 year plan.
Recommendation 2. Autborize funding for the completion of a Parks and Recreation Master Plan.
This plan will provide the foundation for future park acquisition, deveJopment,
and funding, and is necessary for the creation of an impact fee program for
parks in Western Chula Vista.
In June of 1992, the City Council approved, as part of the City's Capital Improvement Project (CIP)
program. the use of Park Acquisition and Development (PAD) funds in the amount of $75,000, for
a project entitled a "Parks Implementation Plan". This CIP was designed to provide funding for a
consultant who would perform a needs assessment survey and prepare a Parks and Recreation Plan
for the western part of Chula Vista. The Department proceeded with an RFP and solicited and
interviewed prospective consultants.
On February 23, 1993, the Department made a recommendation to the Council to approve a contract
with a consultant for the project. The Council did not approve the contract and requested staff to
return with a report and recommendation to perform the design and planning work for a Parks
Implementation Plan in-house, utilizing City staff. The Department will prepare a report and
recommendation to the Council and proceed under further direction from the Council. The Parks
Implementation Plan will most likely be a coordinated effort among the Parks and Recreation
Department, the Planning Department, and the Community Development Department. It is
unknown at this time, what time schedule will be recommended to the City Council, because staff will
1""""1 2
2J" .20..2. C-/S-~
Growth Management Oversight Commission Report
March 11, 1993
first analyze existing work and make recommendations as to deferring current projects in order to
accommodate the Parks Implementation Plan.
At the present time, the Department believes it may take staff a minimum of 18 months to complete
a Plan. This time frame, in turn, will defer other projects which are directly related to the previous
and current recommendations of the GMOC, because the Parks Implementation PJan will provide
a framework for the following GMOC concerns:
1. An impact fee program which will require new apartment construction in Western Chula
Vista to pay park fees.
2. Recommendations as to the appropriateness of "mini-parks" in Western Chula Vista.
3. A time table for the Department's proposed 20 year park and recreation plan.
4. Development of an equivalency factor to provide a method of giving park and recreation I
credit for major facilities such as s",imming pools and gymnasiums for more acreage than they
actually occupy.
Recommendation 3. Create an impact fee program which will require new apartment
construction in Western CbuJa Vista to pay park fees. Park
Acquisition & Development (pAD) fees are currently collected only
for subdivisions, including condominium projects. With the approval
of a Parks and Recreation Master PJan whicb outlines specific
proposed improvements and areas of benefit, equitabJe impact fees
can be collected from new apartment development as weD.
As discussed under Recommendation 2. the Department had intended to utilize recommendations
brought forth in a consultant-provided Parks Implementation Plan to recommend a policy for an
impact fee for apartments. Once the Department has received direction froln the City Council on
performing a Plan utilizing City staff; the Department will be in a better position to provide
information regarding the possibility of enacting an apartment DIE
Recommendation 4. Require Jarge master pJanned communities in tbe Eastern Territories
which include proposed parks to conduct a Needs Assessment, which
will determine the most appropriate site, size, and content of 1ocaI
parks within the proposed community.
The Department is currently working with The Baldwin Company to enter into a tbree party
agreement to acquire consultant services to perform a Needs Assessment Study for the Salt Creek
limo"! 3
J- 3-;2.0 '3
c-/S'S-
I
.
,
Growth Management Oversight Commission Report
March 11, 1993
project. The requirement for a Needs Assessment Study is a condition of the Final Map for the
project and was negotiated by the City in the development agreement with Baldwin. It is the
Department's intent to seek the same conditions on future development projects in the eastern
territories.
Recommendation 5. Adopt site criteria to assist in evaluating and seJecting park sites proposed in
DeW deveJopment areas for park dedication credit The City currently does
not have enough detailed criteria to judge the adequacy of a proposed park
site in terms of topography, accessibility, adjacent uses, and other factors.
On January 21, 1993, the Parks and Recreation Commission approved a Net Usable Acreage Policy
and Site Selection Criteria, as part of the Department's Landscape Manual. The next steps are to
distribute the proposed Landscape Manual to the BIA. the CIF, and the major developers for review
and input; request an Initial Study be performed by the Planning Department; and then forward the
proposed Landscape Manual. which includes the site criteria to the City Council for consideration
by July, 1993.
Recommendation 6. New multi-family projects in Western CbuIa Vista should be required to
provide a set amount of private recreation facilities within the development
Upcoming adoption of the City Design Review Manual provides an
opportunity to implement tbis recommendation.
Although the City Design Review Manual has not been completed, it would be a welcome guideline.
The Department will also be analyzing a proposal for private recreation facilities as part of the Parks
Implementation Plan.
Recommendation 7. The Parks and Recreation Department shouJd re-assess the appropriateness
of "mini-parks" in Western CbuIa Vista. While such parks are more expensive
in per-acre costs to develop and maintain, they provide a more intimate scale
for local neighborhoods, and may be the only method by which local park
deficiencies in Western CbuIa Vista can be remedied without significant
condemnation of existing development
Again, as discussed in Recommendation 2, the Parks Implementation Plan would provide a
recommendation and strategy to the Department on the potential for acquisition of park sites, and
an analysis of the viability of "mini-parks". The Department will include the assessment of "mini-
parks" in its scope of work when the Plan is performed in-house.
1""",1] 4
c23-d-.oy c- /.s-¡é.
Growth Management Oversight Commission Report
March 11, 1993
REVIEW OF PARK DEFlCIENCY FROM STANDARD
Based on population fir-tIres for the City of Chula Vista as of December, 1992, the park deficiency,
as compared to standr is as follows (the chart also depicts the statistics from the previous GMOC
report):
Item J.....I992 Doœmbcr 1992
PopulaÛOD - EuI of 1-605 39,108 40,500
Aaa of Porb . East of 1-805 190.50 190.50
Aaa/l,000 - EuI of 1-605 4E1 4.70
Acre Sborttall/Elœss . SbortWl - 0 SborttaJJ - 0
East of 1-605 - - 73.18 - - 69.00
PopuIalioD . Wco' of 1-605 100,042 103,010
-
Aaa 0( forb . West 0(1-605 129.45 129.45
Aaa/l,ooo. West 011-605 1.29 1.26
Acre SI>ortfalIIE=:os - SbonCaU - 170.68 SbortCaU - 179.58
Wco' of 1-605 Ezo==o Ezo=-O
PopulalioD - aty-Wode 139,150 143,510
Aaa 01 Pub - c;ty-Wide 319.95 319_95
Aaa/l,000 - c;ty-Wode 2-30 U3
Acre SIIortCaIII&œa . SbortWl - rn.50 SborttaJJ - 110.58
C;ty.WIde Ezo=-O Ezo=-O
Aaa 01 PartlaDd . Staodan!IIdeal .
OIy,WIde 418.26 430.53
For eYer¡ 1 8a'C 01 par ¡ IaDd per 1,(100 For eYer¡ 1 8a'C 01 port IaDd per 1,000
-.. iD \be _Iberc: an: 3.76 -.. iD \be - Iberc: an: 3.73
8CnS per 1,000 -.. iD \be ... 8CnS per 1,000 -.. iD \be ...
Attached for information is an East/West Park Inventory as of December, 1992.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT'S GROwrn FORECAST AND ITS CORRELATION TO THE
PARK DEFlClENCY
The Planning Depanment issued a draft 12-18 month and 5-7 year development forecast repan on
January 18, 1993. Although the economic picture is still uncertain for the area, there are specific
projections which show that as dwelling units increase, the requirements for park acreage will
increase. According to the report, for every single family and multi-family dwelling unit that is built
pŒ1J 5
;J,]./). iJ5-
c- /5 ?
I
.
Growth Management Oversight Commission Report
March 11, 1993
from July 1992 to December, 1993 in the Sweetwater Water District (generally west of 1-805,6 such
units will be luilt in the Otay Water District.
This ratio of 1:6 is not unusual, as there is unquestionably more available land in the east for an
increase in housing. Those dwelling units built under development agreements will provide for park
facilities as part of the project, making for a status quo to the park standard statistics for the east.
However, for the increases in dwelling units in the west, the park deficiency figures will continue to
correlationally increase, until the Department is able to proceed with the 20 year plan and adopt
policies which will utilize other sources of recreational facilities to mitigate the park deficiencies.
Attachments - East/West Park Inventory
I..~ J 6
)3 /-20~ c-/.s-~
EASr /WESf PARK INVENTORY
as of December, 1992
City of ChuJa Vista
East of I-80S West of I-80S
~ Acrea~e ~ ~
Discovery 14.5 Eucalyptus Park 19.8
Greg Rogers Park 52.1 oJ" Street Marina 21.4
Rohr Park 62.2 Bay Blvd. Park 1.5
Bonita Long Canyon 12.5 Friendship Park 8.4
Halecrest Park 2.0 Hilltop Park 10.9
Independence Park 4.1 Lauderbach Park 4.0
Paseo Del Rey Park 3.0 Lorna Verde Park 6.2
Rancho Del Rey 10.2 Los Ninos Park 5.2
Sun bow Park 4.0 Marina View 4.5
Sunridge Park 6.0 Memorial Park 8.0
Terra Nova Park 8.5 Norman Park 1.7
Tiffany Park 7.2 Orange Avenue Fields 4.0
Valle Lindo Park 4.2 Otay Park 5.2
Tota] East 190.5 Palomar Park 3.1
Reinstra Ball Fields 6.0
SDG&E Park 18.0
Connoley Park .65
Holiday Estates I .26
Holiday Estates II .26
Lancerlot .10
Sherwood Park ~
Total West 129.45
Total City-Wide = 319.95 acres
tp"."", .'03."¡
)J/207
C. /s-9
APPENDIX K
J J';lO~
C -/¿,. e7
,
.
CITY OP CHULA VISTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
ANNUAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPKENT FORECAST
JANUARY 1113
proaram Overview
In accordance with the City's Growth Management Program the
Planning Department is pleaseCt to release the annual 12- to
la-month and 5- to 7-year residential development forecasts and
accompanying project location map. Together, this information
addresses those projects likely to reach the construction and/or
completion phase within the respective forecast time frames
beginning July 1992. The information, as in the past, is separated
according to the two water districts, Sweetwater Authority and Otay
Municipal, for the purpose of comparison to Otay's Water Allocation
Program.
This forecast is intended to assist the city and other key
agencies, such as school and water districts, in formulating and
coordinating short- and long-range capital improvement and facility
financing plans. An evaluation by these agencies as to their
ability to accommodate the forecasted growth will be forwarded to
the Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC) for their use in
determining compliance with each of the City's adopted threshold
standards (Le. ,traffic, sewer, schools, etc.).
The City is now in its fourth year of preparing its residential
development forecasts and is pleased to report on a revised mid-
range (5-7 year) forecasting methodology endorsed by SANDAG staff
and consistent with the draft Series a regional forecast model.
The revised forecast was developed jointly by staff from the
Planning Department and SANDAG. Ultimately the Department's goal
is to develop a forecasting model which the City can use on an
ongoing basis. While the application and results of this forecast
will be described in greater detail later in the report, it should
be noted that the revised approach also incorporates a "high-low"
forecast range similar to that used in the 12-18 month forecast.
12- to 18-Month Forecast
In order to provide the most accurate forecast reasonably possible,
staff conducted a five-part research process which included:
1) the preparation and analysis of a current project status sheet
showing where different proposals are in the development
approval process;
2) a survey of individual developer's expected construction
schedules; .
3) a comparative analysis of the otay Water District Allocation
Program, as it currently applies to the eastern territories;
4) a cross~checking of the above information as to the logical
timing of development; and economic trends and
5) a review of past forecast performance,
historic development activity.
;23 - .2tJ; C-/tí /
I
C.V. Forecast -2- January 19, 1993
In response to the ongoing recession and current economic climate,
two sets of forecast figures consisting of a range with a high end
and low end are included in this forecast. The high end forecast,
as mentioned earlier and indicated in Fig~res lA and lB, reflects
each developer's anticipated construction schedules and includes a
slight downward adjustment in order to maintain consistency with
the mid-range forecast. As the data shows, ~ dwelling units
are expected to be permitted for construction and ~ dwelling
uni ts are expected to reach occupancy over the next 18 months. The
low end forecast is based on an 24-month trend analysis of prior
construction activity (calendar years 1991 and 1992). This time
frame was chosen as it best represents an issuance/occupancy
estimate utilizing full, past and present calendar year permit
cycles. As such, the low end forecast projects .L..Q.Q.Q permit
issuances and l.....Q.2..Q housing finals over the same period. No
project specific forecast tables were prepared for the low end
estimate. Taken together,. the forecast range reflects the
uncertainty in the timing of development and in the amount of
construction activity that may take place.
The Planning Department recommends that threshold compliance
evaluations be conducted against the high end forecast figures, as
they represent a maximum projected impact to public facilities.
However, recognition should also be given to the low end range of
the forecast, as actual construction activity during the first six
months of this forecast reflects construction activity levels lower
than normal.
It should be noted that local economists are predicting a modest
increase in housing unit authorizations on a Countywide basis
during 1993, as compared to 1992 levels. Therefore, the final
result for Chula Vista will most likely fall somewhat above the low
end range, if these forecasts are accurate.
Application of the project status sheet (see Figures 2A and 2B) is
based on the assumption that a project shown in the development
pipeline will reach construction and/or completion within the 12-18
month time frame. Under normal city processing time frames, those
projects with units that have not progressed to the Tentative Map
level of approval are not expected to reach the construction phase
during the 18-month forecast time frame. As such, they are listed
as informational data only and are more fully considered in the
City's mid-range 5-7 year forecast.
Included with the 12-'to 18-month residential forecast is a current
listing of commercial and industrial projects and their status
relative to the development approval process (see Figure 3). A 12-
month analysis of non-residential construction activity indicates
that approximately 433,000 square feet of commercial, industrial
and office construction occurred during the period July 1991
:2] ~;2 /()
C- /~2-
C.V. Forecast -3- January 19, 1993
through June 1992. For FY 1990-91, this figure was approximately
377,000 square feet.
For informational purposes, a City of Chula vista historic housing
and population chart has been included (see Figure 4).
1991-1992 Forecast Comparison
As a means of illustrating external influences on forecast
accuracy, including construction lending, housing demand and the
continuing effects of a prolonged recession, the following provides
an overview and analysis of actual residential construction
activity relative to the first twel'."e months of the previously
submitted forecast.
12 MONTH FORECAST COMPARISON
JULY 1991 to JUNE 1992 (dwelling units)
Otay Sweetwater City Total
~ liMl !ssue linäl ~ lintl
Forecast 1106 1035 2.27 226 1333 1261
Total Activity 589 536 137 74 726 610
Difference 517 499 90 152 607 651
% Difference 46 48 40 67 45 51
As the table above shows, actual permit issuances and occupancy
levels were about half of what the high end forecast projected for
this period.
An analysis of the drought and the limiting of building permits as
a result of the otay Water District Allocati~n Program does not
appear to have been a factor in the amount of development that
actually took place, as each developer participating in the program
received 100% of his requested allocation during this period.
~id-Ranqe 5- to 7-Year Development Forecast
As mentioned earlier, a new mid-range forecasting methodology,
consistent with the SANDAG draft Series 8 forecast model, has been
developed for use in this forecast. The decision to modify the
city's mid-range forecast methodology is due to the City's desire
to further improve it~ forecasting methodology consistent with the
regional and subregional models, and to allow for easier and more
consistent updates of these forecasts. In doing so, the same
assumptions utilized in the Series 8 forecast for projecting future
growth and deve) ~ment in the region are applied locally to the
city's forecast These assumptions include, but are not limited
to, population t ends, economic trends, and infrastructure needs.
:2.3-;2) /
c: ~/¿'.5
,
.
-
C.V. Forecast -4- January 19, 1993
Related to infrastructure needs, the regional mo~~l also considers
the development potential of all lands with re~aining development
capacity. Because of this, local planning efforts, such as those
related to public facility planning, will benefit fr~~ this
forecast being linked to the regional forecast, as it provides the
City the ability to consider the impact of all projects within and
adjacent to its current planning area. As such, the mid-range
forecast may be used to demonstrate compliance with the SR-125
facility phasing and financing plan. Therefore, the results of
this revised approach will more accurately enable the City to
anticipate public facility needs so that the preplanning necessary
for such development can be arranged by the development community
in concert with the policies of the City and other affected
government agencies.
Two sets of forecast figures consisting of a range with a high end
and a low end are included in this forecast. Both forecasts are
based on the same assumption that a city generated "capture rate"
can be effectively used to predict the amount of future growth when
applied to SANDAG' s annualized Series 8 forecast. The term
"capture rate" is best defined as a jurisdiction's annual building
activity represented as a percentage of the region's total building
activity in the same year. When averaged over a number of years in
which both high and low growth cycles have occurred, a City's long-
term or historical capture rate may be used as a general indicator
to test the reasonableness of the rate selected. In conducting a
12-year, regional share analysis of actual construction activity
(1980-1992), the Planning Department was able to determine its
current and historical capture rates. The results of this
analysis, as indicated in Figure 5, show the city's 1992 year-end
capture rate at 5.31 percent of the region's total and its historic
rate to be 5.39 percent.
As a result of this analysis and discussions with SANDAG staff, it
was determined that the low end range of the forecast should be
based on an annual rate of growth equal to its historic capture
rate (5.39\) when averaged over the forecast time frame (1992-
2000), beginning with its 1992 rate.
Recognizing that additional development capacity may become
available by 1995 due to the probable annexation of otay Ranch, the
Planning Department and SANDAG developed a second forecast (the
high end forecast) which considered Chula Vista's series 8 sphere
capacity relative to ,the region's capacity in 2015. In assuming
that the total buildout capacity of the western parcel would be
available by 2015, and adding this capacity to the City's sphere
capacity, staff was able to determine the annual percent increase
in the city's capture rate (+0.05\) to be applied to the low end
forecast's rate of projected growth commencing in 1995.
..2:3 .- ;;< /:2-
C-/~ 1"
I
C.V. Forecast -5- January 19, 1993
As shown on Figure 5, a long-term growth rate ranging from
approximately .1.....l1.i to .l......1ü dwelling units per year may be
expected to reach occupancy over the forecast's 7-year time frame.
It s~ould be noted, however, that this projection is a city-wide
projection and approximately 10-15 percent of this total is
attributable to growth and in-fill occurring in the Sweetwater
District.
Given this range, the Planning Department recommends that long-
range public facility needs assessments be conducted against the
high end range of this forecast.
(dr",7_91.l >t)
_.
d-3--2JJ C- / ~ ç
I
.,
:;
~ ¡,
0 r' .
",I;.. !. I
¡ 5i~iSB. n f' I =
;:./!:;¡I!!; .' !
~B=-:.;...._:~i: ,. I:::
- -,...,," -. . .
~ p~~hoU:n: ~ ] oil
, ,..a.':..'" . I
. .:,,11 d¡¡1! g II' ¡
~ c.... ...~.. ), 1= Ic ;
:I . . . . - .. . .. . I "\ E ~ ¡
.' ; : ~
. - i0i!
. c
t E
i
~
.
~
...
C/)C/)
caC
..Iu
OW
: erA.
C/)oc
w"...
er...-
:zz
"'wO
...a-
ZA.'"
woC
a"'u
WwO
C/>..I
cW'"
.O" '
c:w \'.
:EO" .0
zO ~I
...'" !i f .' '-"'
~:- - ~ Š \\ .L.-
ø' . ~~ \' ~
= ;¿ :> - P J;-:,-¥,,;JJ. -!
-.~
C.. /~
I
.
<
'P'
W
. a:
T~~iT;;;~;;:~;:~;;~T; I ~
':5C""-" i-;¡ N'" """-NI \ .. (.!)
: ~ b I : N I - ~
'e~-' a II!
!: ~f--------------.- ~ ~
:¡~=I"~"~~~~~~"~"""!~ ~
: . b ~: - N ~ - : ~ :5
. ~ '" . . ...
I:! -I I !!
.---.--------------.- ~
I ~I~~"'~"'~. .~.~. .~I~ ~
E ..."'¡ E'" ;
lil-~--------------~- m
5-::~L~.:;;.$.i......E~ ::
... Eo, N
. '" 0 .
:: I' I: I II!
~~ -7--------------.- ~
ii~ ::;!i",:¡:"'~:¡:"~,$".~~ !!
0' 0 0 '"
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ æ
~~~-7--------------7- ::
0 ~ - 0 .. '" .. ~ . m ~
0 ~o",""""-"""ON
0 EO - ON ~
I: :: : ::
~---~--------------~- ~
~ ~~"~N~~~.:¡:",~ ,~~~ ~
~ :: '" :: - I: '" ~
::: I: "';! :: : iË
~~'" l:g~-7--------------7- :
.!!ig 1:-~~I:,~,~,$,~.,..,.I:¡e ...
:;;~- I:~ E:: 1:- ~
¡; :: ffi I: ~ :: : ~
~ !!I' ::. -7--------------"- 0
:!,,~ ::~ ~:: ,:¡:...~,~ :¡/; ~
0 '" '" 0 '" .. 0 0 - ..
. -g" :: i Iii :: :1 ~
c ~c~-~--------------~- ~
~ N 0 ~.. 0 0 ...
~ z g ~ - ~ ~ . ~ , ~ , ~ . ~ , . , , . , ~ ~ :
>~- 0 EO - ON
C ; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
;m~ f---f--------------f- ..
u-;- :: ~::""',~,¡;:,~".~:!.I:~ -
NO" 0 0 N -
- !i.,.;!!i !i ;
~&~-7--------------7- i
!¡:~~!!"'~'~'~"""!i~ ~
~ ¡ : . ~ ...'
0... ------------------ -
0 u . . E
I:~ ~:.-.~.~.;I;......II :::
0 .. 0 . IV
i~~_l_____---______l- ~
: ~ ~ : .. '" ~ I ~ t
: ~ : . N . '" . .. ...... I !II
: ë ¡ ~
7---.--.-----------.- '"
. . '" .'" -
. . ... . ...
0 . IE "'.c '"
: I IE.", ffic Ib ~
: Ie ~!:1~ :;;~!~ c
! ~ ! ; .~; ~ æ ~! I c I ~
0 '" 0 -:!í '" '" ~... ~
0 ~ 0:5 "'. - c '" ~ '" 0 '"
0 00 . ..---'" ¡'5¡¡;'" 0 ~
~ f ~ ~ = - = g c c w w . ~;: ...
:: :"':!:i......~~~~=f~~b: ~
I: Ic~c!:!f..1515~5::t::t I ~ ;
!i 5::!gg~~~~~!:~88!d ~ s!
!i :§;~~~....:¡:¡ii!~!ì!ìiË:.. ~'
--~-7-------~------7 ~ !!
lo'c.u""'~""'-"W"'E' Ii! ~
- 0 ;2 j ---2/5" 0
C- /~ 7
-
m
...
- W
IX
::»
.~-Q.--------------~.- 1ft
=~;¡!~=~ooolC"'O~!;Ie":!"IC=:=!ó! \J
=5~~= aN ii:
5~~::5 5
=~ -õ---------------õ-
.~~0.0.00000.000...0..~
! ~ ~ ~ ë - - N - N =
=..~~= a
. - . .
õ---õ---------------õ-
.. ... O'N
. ~............~ .-.'"
. .. . .
= .... a :
Ei!-+---------------+-
. - ~ . N .... . '"
. ~........_...... .-
."' ". .
! ¡ ! !
=~ -õ---------------õ-
" '" ".. '" " ....
"0 ~". - . . . . . . . . . . .. ,,-
::, "':: ::
:: ~ ~ :: ::
,,~"'-------------------
" => '" " "
" ~ - " .. " ..
" ~ " . , , . . . , N . , , . . , . " '"
" " " "
Ii Ii :
~~ õ---õ---------------õ-
- c "" '" '" " .
0< U " ~ " . , , . . . " .".. ,,-
~ ! i:: '" :: ::
ë ~ - :: ",;¡! :: =
0<-0< =~~-õ---------------õ-
'" - '" ,,- ~ "c .... '" '" " ~
¡!ii! ::'" ¡::-"""""'" ::'"
- '" ~ ::!i :: =
~~~ ~7 -t-----------~--~t=
e "~~",,..,"",._,. "N
~ : g Ii i '" ii Ii
~¡- =c~-~---------------~-
:; 1'; Ii ~ ~ ~ ii " " " " " " " .... Ii ....
a ¡ ~ ii " ii ii
u- ----------------------
= = c ~ = ~
" ~ " , . . , , , . , - . , , .. ,,-
:: '" :: =
:: ",;¡! = :
,,~z-------------------
li-::~!i,."IC"'.,."..~N:8
""' "" . -
¡i ¡ Ii E
"" -------------------
" u " .
" '" 0 .. .....
"c ~ 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . -
0 '" " .
.. , .
!~~-~---------------~-
" => '" 0 .
,~- 00 '0
, ~ , - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -
" " " .
" " .
" , .
, , .
T---T---------------T=
" . . ;¡!
~ ! ; ~
" 0 . ~
" ."' . .
= tiE ,cJ ~ ! 5 J
" ""'~~.... c., "Ii!'
: ~ = c ~ ~ c 0 ~ ~ Ii! ~ ~ ~ ~ :
~ E : ~: ~ E ~ e: ~ = ~; c:.; ~
: :~æ->~E!-.~... !5-:::~= -
:: ::~:;&\~:¡¡!!~¡' ':'~:~:¡ ': !I
:: :Q !""ié-~I8~:':'~~;¡¡::: N
= ::-i~~~~I8"':~~;;¡Ñ"'¡:: ...."',
" " "
--~-õ---------------õ !
JO'-N"'."""""_"'O-N"""" ~
-" -----iJ/;2Jt 0
c-/~J>
,---u--- --------------,-
:",,"::ï: ~~.. II' :~ <
:i~ Ii : -.
: .;¡; I: ¡! Ie: g ....
, t t " ., ~
f---f------------------f- W
5=t:::ÖË - ~ i::l I%:
:t~~I: ~ 0 :~ ::::)
l__~l_:_:__-------_____l: 0
: ~II ~ 51 :.. -
:ilæ'": ~ ~ :~ LL
: ;;;;; : :
:~I:I;¡;: :0
, , ,
, , ,
õ---õ------------------õ-
: ::ö: ; ~~~: !!;¡
: J 0. : : -
:-1:"'0 '" '" IN
:~ ;¡;: Ñ ~ '^:2 :g
, , . -
, " .
Õ---U------------------Õ-
: ~ ~: ~ ~ 8 ~ ~ : ~
:::0.'"1: '" :¡j Ñ;:'" :,
, C I " ,
~ 5 ~ ~ Ie i ~ ~ g:2 : ~
,,~"'" '" ~.. -II'" '0
I: :: : '"
T:;-T------------------T;
~ ~ ¡::ö ~ ~
" - " "
:: ~ = ~ :: I: 0
I: ~ t '" :: :
& f---f------------------f-
- ¡¡~~::ö!i E~~ ~ ~~
- ~ ". 0. " -" '"
"'.., ""' " .
~~ !i;~¡¡! ~! Hie
, -" " " -
co ~---~------------------~-
~~ 7===7==================7=
~ c " co "0 - -.. '" ~ ~ '" ìß" ~ ~ '" 8" '" co 0 " N
~: ¡i~~::Ö¡i 8:~"""-"'~"'~::Ñ::;:!; ë~
C "" '" " "
~~ ,,-- " " N
U 0 "c " " ~
!II I:~::: ::co~o~~o~o~o~o~g!!!ococo: ¡: .0
!2 ::.0=::: N~" N" ~"'.. I:;;!; ';"
~ !_:_!_----------------_!- ~
ë co ~ ë ~ i ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 Ie 0 0 co ~ ~ t ~ ~
: en = en :.. ~ - '" : Ie II' ~
I: :; ~ :: :1 ~ .0
ë !! ~ 0 co ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 ~ ~ ! é
" u ~ "... '" " .. ~:»
" '" " . - M "'
" " " J ¡¡ -
~---~-----~------------~- ic ~
~ . ~::Ö ë ~ ~ Ie ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ : ~ ~ §:
. "' '"" - - , '" > N ~
" & II< . , ... C C
:ls¡;¡~:1 '" .... :.. ..!~
: "':1 '" ~ :~ i2~f:¡
f---f------------------f- i~~:
: ~:::¡::I:;;~I':'~ g~~~~~~8~~;;!;K:i:ìe° ...~il'"
,~ en".. - 0 N ~ '" '" - '" '" '" - - - '" , 0.
"UJ' -- ~ - N~ ,
""C . . ,-. C
:aõ : : ¡iJ!
: r~~: o~~~~o::l:o~o~o:;;g:2°oo::: s-.-.::
, "" N""" ¡::: ~ .. "'II"" '¡:: :5
!_-_!_--~--------______l- ~t ~
: : :~. == !~~S
: H ~ ~, , ~ en - = 5 æ C ¡ ~ ~ ~ ~ .
: :! ~ II ~ en~ ~ = C C C ~ § : i ~ II ~
: ~ : ~ C ~ r ë ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~: - ø ~ ~ ~
: ~ : ~ § ~ ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ; ! ~ = : ~ "!" ~
: a : f' . - -.1:11:11:1 = - = :5 ~: : I ~ ~ ~ ~i
: r:I!=-====!JJJJ"" ~: =~=
: : J: ~............ J ~ ~ ~; ~ ~ = r ~ ~ : ~ J" II:
~ :~~~~~~~:iiii33~5i"'I:1:2 ;,~= :2] .îJ7
: : -! ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~,,~ ~. ~ ~: M i m 3. ~ 0<
. . ~. C C C C C C C C C C C ~ ~... ;. ...... ~ ~
l___!_~~~~~~~~~~::__:__l i!~~õ
C-/¿.'?
In
C'I
w
a:
::;)
CJ
-
LL.
,---õ---------------,-
: ~:..............:::::
0 .. , .
:.IS : ~
:~!I( :o.....o..........~'^
: ~ u ~ : - ~ : ~
, , .
, , .
T---T~~~~~~~~~~~;~~:T~
:!!~::;: - -:'"
: ;;;; : :
" ...... "...... ~ . . . . . .. . . , N
" .. '" ~ " - , N
" IE " 0
Ii I: :
T---T~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~T~
H ; Î ::; ii ii
:: :: Ii............... Ii ..
:i ~ Ii :i
" " "
õ---õ---------------õ-
:i~ ~:';!:e""""""'::¡:
: ;: .. .. I: :
I: ~ I Ii I:
g ¡i~ ~¡i"""""""':o .;
- " " " ~
~~ ~===~===============~= !
.." " " ..
þ þ " .. "0 ~.... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00'" " '"
~ ~ : ~ ~ ~: - N '" :.. ~
~ 0 ,,-.. " " '"
" ... " " ~
. '" ,,- - " "
... "c " , ..
.. Þ "IE... "00000 0 ~.. 0 0 0 ~.. 0" ,,- ..
~ c "... m ,,- - ~ - "0'"
Þ,," ".. ~" ,,- ...
c Þ " C IE " "
Þ... " Þ " " ~
:~ 7---7---------------7- S
U " "000000000000000"0
... ".. ~ " "
a "... .. " 0 -
.. : ~:;¡ :: : þ
.. " -... " . ...
:: ! ~ : 000000000000 0 ~ 0 : 0 ~
Ii U ~ :: : N ¡¡¡
1___1_____----______1- E
5..~::;:occcccco~ccccc~5~ !
. ..... " 0 ..
" &. " 0 U
: 5 ¡:¡ ~ :: CI c c c "'... 0 C c"" C o'^ '^ : 0 ¡
"IE" ... N NNO" '"
, 0 , -
0 0 , ..
,---,---------------,- ~
. , C ~.... 0 C C c... C C ceo... '~ ...
et...::;e -N - ~:- 2
0 ... c , , Ii;
, ~ Þ , 0
'00 , , I
""Þ~'ClCCC,^...~..c....~..",N'-
,~ IE' - ... - ~ N - ~ '" , ~
: : : ..
" ' ,
---------------------- ..
: : :.. I
: : : = ,.¡
, , ,! II
: : '" . :.. -
: Þ::..I.~ ~ :=:~ Ie
: ~:~~...~". c. i:::: II!
: iHc;~:!!i!~ .c!:;;':~3",:~ ¡;
, ..,.......-~ ..Þ"'C ! !O .
: = ¡ ~ ~; ~! ~.. i" f IE ~ ~ ~ : ~ ~
: : ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~: ~ 5 ~ e f f
, 'I ...~ ~~. ~"'~' ;23,I")/Y
: ::;j :::.:e¡::..l!c~Ñ~-~-:';; ---'-
0 0- ... I~N",^~_~NN"'IE' ~
~---~---------------~ i
c- /7c?
I
-_.
JULY 1992 C_ERCIALII )USTRIAL PROJECT STATUS LISTING (SQUARE FOOTAGE)
.......,........... .........................¡......................¡............................. ,.......... ,
STATUS I REF, NO. I PROJECT NAME ' ADDRESS I OFFICE I RETAIL , IND I TOTAL I
.."'.""""'."""""""""'.""""""""""""......"1"-."'1.""""'.".."."_.......'
I DRC-89-48 I CHEVROII STA/MINI IIRRT '95 IOIIITA RD. I ' I 8174 I ' 8174'
, DRC.9Q-15 ¡ JK ENTERPRIZES INC, I 865 AMENA CT. , . I . I 17000' 17000'
UNDER I DRC.92.Q6 I :¡'.JIINY IMPORT IœT PARTS I 3740 IIRIN ST. , . I . , 18(;JO' 18000'
COIIST., ORC-92-16 , GRRTIANNE MEDICAL OFFICE 360 "H" ST, ' 1388" ' " 1388 ,
I DRC'92-24 , SRVOII & THEATER I 555 IZ050 IRORDWAY , . I 82634' . , 82634'
I DRC.92'49 , GES WAREHClJSE I 491 .C. ST. " 4560 I . , 92720' 107280'
............--...-.-----------..........--....-..---..""""""""'--'-"""""""--'---'-""""'"--
I ORC.91.24 , IIR INDUSTRIAL ILDG. '385511RINST. , . I ' 11856' 11856 I
, DRC-91-68 , LA IIRR INDUSTRIAL ILDG. , 3730 IIRIN ST, ' 3220 I I 13770' 16990 I
I DRC-91-72 , MEDICAL OFFICE , 374 "H" 51. ' 2992 I , ' 2992 I
PLAN I DRC-92-03 I MAHSClJRS MARKET , 1098 IRORDWAY , I 6000 I ' 6000 1
CHECK DRC-9Z-0S I STRUCTURE FORM , 1879-8' NIRVANA AVE. , I I 30363' 30363 I
1 DRC-92- 12 1 WINLAND CAR PLAZA , 770 PLAZA CT. , 1 7525 1 ' 7525 I
I DRC-92- 18 1 ROLLERSKRTE LAND '630"L"ST. I I 24291 I ' 24291 I
I TC/DR-131, I HMI MEDICAL OFFICE , 256 LANDIS AV, I 13776 I I ' 13776 I
I I CAL STORES I 972 IRORDWAT , , ' 20991' 20991 I
---------------------------------------..-------------------.-..-....-------------..-....-------------......--
I DRC-91-01 I INDUSTRIAL ENVIROIIMENT I 870 CANARIO CT. I I I 12070 I 12070 I
I ORC-91-1,6 I RIO SW'TR. PLAZA CAR WASH I 1320 30TH ST. I ' 1261S I ' 12618 1
I DRC.9' .56 1 OTAT RIO ALMAGAMETED I I 870-76 OTAT RIO RD. I I 35280' 35280 1
I DRC-9' ,57 1 OTAY RIO ALMAGAMETED II 1 S53-65 DTAT RIO RD. 1 I I 61860 I 61860 I
I DRC-91-5S I OTAT RIO ALMAGAMETED 1111 8106-60 OTAT RIO RD. 1 I ' 30300 I 30300 I
ORC-91.71, 1 SWATH OCEAN, INC. I NEC "G" & TIDELANDS 1 , I 38000 I 38000 I
1 ORC-91-S2 1 CUSHMAN PROI'ERTY , 517 SHINOHRRA LN. I , , 110000 1 110000'
1 DRC'91-83 1 CHULA VISTA IND. PARK 'SON. 5TH AVE. I I 1520610' I 1520610 I
1 DRC.92-19 I EASfLAKE VILLAGE I OLR & EASfLAKE VLLG. , 1 1555S2 I ' 1555S2 1
I ORC-92-22 I ARCO AMIPM GAS STATION 660.66 "L" ST. I 1 2915 I ' 20\5 I
1 DRC-92-30 I SECURITY 1ST CONM. STRGEI 1274 FClJRTH AVE. I 1 I 25200' 252JO 1
OESIGN 1 DRC-92-33 I PADILLA INDUSTRIAL CNY! I 3733 MAIN ST. , I I 26000' 26000 1
REVIEW I DRC-92-1,2 I IONITA RETAIL I 3001 IONITA RD. I I 100810 1 ' 100810 I
I DRC.92.1,8 I KRISER PERMANENTE I 2301 FENTON ST. 1 1350000 1 1 I 1350000 I
I DRC'92-51 I MARQUEZ INDUSTRIAL , 3517 MAIN ST. 1 I , 106000 I 106000 I
I ORC-92'52 I V.J'S ASSOCIATES, INC I 293 NAPLES ST. I 1600' , I 1600 1
I ORC-92-57 I FAIVRE ST. PARTNERSHIP '2605 FAIVRE ST, , I ' 7530 I 7530 I
, DRC'92-59 , 01 SCClJNT ORNMENTAL IROII I 873 DOROTHT ST. , I I 321,5' 321,5 I
I DRC-92-60 , WEST AUTO IIIIECKERS I 2365 MAIN ST. , I ' 11250' 11250 I
, DRC-93-05 , 1ST UNITED METH. CHURCH I E,.H" ST./PRSEO RANCHI 257110 I , I 25780 I
, DRC-93-13 , SClJTNWOOO PSTCHIATRIC I 950 THIRD AVE. ' 21,90 I . , I 2490 I
, DRC-93- 16 , NESTLER CONST. INC. I 282 LANDIS AVE, ' 2975" , . I 2975 ,
, DRC'93- 17 , SOUTHIAT GOLF CENTER lION. FIFTH AVE. , . I 2824' . I 2821, ,
I DRC'93-18 , RDR PRICE CLUB I E,"H" ST & TlE"A DEL' . I 136800' . I 136800'
I , RDR HONE DEPOT I E,"H" ST & TIERU DEL' I 125280' I 125280'
I . , RDR (-MART I E."H" ST & TlE"A DEL' I 127000' I 127000 I
I I WINDMI LL FARMS I 435 THIRD AVE. ' 11990" I ' 11990 1
I I SCRIPPS HOSPITAL , FIFTH AVE.I"H" ST. I 120000' 105000' ' 225000 I
.-... ... o_uu_------ --. -...- ---- .-.............-...u_..............-............u.- ........----........u_.
SUBTOTAL UNDER CONSTRUCTION I 1591,S' 90808 I 127720 1 234476
SUBTOTAL PLAN CHECK I 199811' 371116 I 76980 I 1347810
SUBTOTAL DESIQIj REVIEW ¡ 1514835 I 830167 I 466735' 2811737
TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE '1550771 I 958791 , 67143~ I 3180997 C- /7/
23 fcJ- /; FIGURE 3
I
HISTORIC HOUSING AND POPULATION GROWTH
CITY OP CHULA VISTA
Units
Authorized for certified Year
Construction Units.Comp1eted End Population
Year (Permitted) (Finaled) (State D.O.F.)
1980 407 374 84,364
1981 195 496 86,597
1982 232 129 88,023
1983 479 279 89,370
1984 1,200 521 91,166
1985 (1) 1,048 1,552 116,325
1986 2,076 1,120 120,285
1987 1,168 2,490 124,253
1988 1,413 829 128,028
1989 1,680 1,321 134,337
1990 664 1,552 138,747
1991 747 716 141,778
1992 519 689 143, 682 (2)
(1) Montgomery Annexation
(2) Planning Department Estimate
-
C-/72-
J-:3 -- ;;L;).O FIGURE 4
,
an
t:. W
i a:
-7--------------------------- ! ~
¡ i~;:::::::::::: :li¡I~!~~!J ~
: ..~: __--_-0- ¡¡:
: .. =: .!!.
~:cüc5~:........... .,~-~-~~~-!
:5'~c" U"""",'" .~Ie~N~~~a~¡
w:=,~" : ~~~~~~~;~I
! . u u ..
.::~~ : ~~~~~~~~~I
i.:5e oo.............",¡;¡"""....~~:¡! .
~:w-~ :........... .~~~~~~~~~ r:
~:;~~ . ~
.:~~~ : rO-OI~~~CO;
. o¡¡: e' --- ""."
:i:ioo- _:............ ¡:I' ~"IC~I= i
: ¡¡¡:"""""" I:g!~~;~¡: i .:
¡ . " ~
----------------------------- c
: .!!..: I"~~""~~o~ ~ C
, 5c............" -N ON ~O" ... ..
-, W""""""" ~O .... No- ..
5: ..~. ------0- j t
~ ' .!! . . ~ ..
~ !: 5~:'""""" .~~E~~~~~~= = ~
:5 -, U""""""""NNN"'~"'~~O I!"
W ¡: ..' ~~~~::::~~~;I i i
! W : W
- ., r:~!g' oooooo~oooooo..oo ~
~- ~: "':-N:""""'" .~~~"'~~~~~: ~ ~
~ . ~, . w " . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . 0 I..
-~ . ","wN' ~~"",,~~~~~o,ç.
. c .. ~ . ~
ig -::-------------------------- I ~
cw ,,::¡~ ~. I:."'~""""~I:.'I! :II; t.
..'" ~~t!I ;~""...... .:¡¡~..~::::E~-¡¡:II5= 1:';- ...
.~ ...- - """""""",""0 -cø. -
c cc- -OO--NNN--' . ,
~~ ~:=~ coo :~£ E
;~ ",;!ë ~~~o-ol~~~~o ~!:
c;;; ~,,~ e ......... .I(::¡¡¡:::~i I:)'c>~= !i~'
i~ ;~~ ~......... '~~l(:if8"'~~~~= s-s
u~ ~g~ ~ ~ -~-~_::= ¥~r
IS'" ",!it " 08-
- ---------------------------- c ~5~
=:':' IS r:""~"""""~~"" II! I-,ç.
ü'" ! ",~~..:I~~~~NN~~"""":'" ŠI-
~ ..~ .;.;.;.;.;.;.;.;.;.;.;.;.; .......:.; - !
. cw 1 -
~ ::¡: 5 ¥
2..~ Eã.;
. u J .
~.. "I:.'~~~~~oo....oo~ :!~
e ~ !~: .~:¡¡-",0...",~8~~...........; ,ç.~~
- Ii I-"""""""""""¡ ,""
~~! coo; ---_""",""'N-- !ll
~~:~ e ¡f~~~~~Ie~'~~C>~ I .~=
c..-- ..e. ~ON-NN "'~j~~"""" 0 ~~-
-c!", --, -:lN~~- ~- 115-........ 0 -..~
~~ ~ ~æ:~~..I(:..~~'~~ ~~ Jð
.. - " .. .. , .
c "' ~ . I; ~
i ~ ~.. ¡I!"""~~"I:.'I!"~" ~ ~-u
U i i~::.¡:;¡~~;;:¡~~~I!!~:!!"!;t¡:::::::li ;,!
: O-OO-"N~NNN-- I" ;!.
oo . 0 . . . . . c ~
~ :~~~S~---~-C>cc~ !~ ~I:
~~:~¡g~~I:)~~~'.¡~Ie::::::: ~ &E':
;.;:~....~~~~~!;5..",~~ 0 ~I;
~ : ~Ii
- I I;: ~
- '0. -¡, ..
~~ii!!!I~f!f~;!i~I~I!lf~ ~¡: ~
.- - .. c
:23 ~ d,,;¿ /
C - /73
I
MEMORANDUM
JuJy 16, 1993
TO : The Honorable Mayor and City counc~
VIA : John D. Goss, City Manager J~ Þtr ~ !
FROM : Robert Leiter, Director of :lan~~~~t:i9~
SUBJECT : Additional Materials fo~m 23,7)20/93 Agenda
Review of Council Actio -=1:991 Growth Management Oversight
Commission (GMOC) Annual Report
As additional information, pJease find attached a copy of an excerpt from the Council
meeting minutes of October 20, 1992 pertaining to review and action on the previous GMOC
Annual Report for 1991. Please also find a summary of the Council's motions/actions on the
1991 Report and its threshold recommendations.
)3/c2.22-
I
SUMMARY OF COUNCIL MOTIONS/ACTIONS ON THE 1991 GMOC ANNUAL
REPORT
. Vote 4-0-1 (Malcolm absent) to adopt the GMOC 1991 Annual Report with the
following amendments to the report's recommendations:
PARKS
As a prerequisite to considering adoption of a revision to the Parks and
Recreation Threshold to apply the 3 acre/1000 standard west of 1-805, the City
Manager shall:
1) Bring back to Council a formula proposal for a weighted factor as to
acreage for gyms, pools, community centers, schools, bayfront, etc.;
2) evaluate park expansion potential, south of Main Street, during the
budget review period as a means to addressing park needs;
3) Bring back a report on the potential and logistics for a joint use
agreement with the school districts for use of their facilities; and
4) review zoning, etc., and report where park acreage could be sighted west
of 1-805, and the present usage and purchase cost.
These matters were to be included and addressed as part of staff's preparation
of a report back to Council on establishing a 20 year goal and strategy to
achieve provision of the 3 acres/1000 west of 1-805.
ProQress update - Council has allocated 75,000 dollars of funding, and staff is
currently drafting an in-house work program proposal for preparation of a Park
Implementation Plan (PIP) which will address these matters in establishing the
20 year plan. It is anticipated that the work program will be brought before
Council in the next 4 to 6 weeks.
TRAFFIC
The City Manger will bring back a report during budget review regarding short
range measures to address East "H" Street west of Hilltop other than widening
the Street, including costs and time lines.
Progress update - The Engineering Department has brought such report before
Council, and has and is making modifications to tum lanes, signal timing, etc. to
improve traffic flow.
PROPOSED VISUAL QUALITY THRESHOLD
Delete the proposal for additional code enforcement staffing in the Building and
Housing Department, and look at reassigning existing personnel.
Progress update - The Building Department is continuing efforts with its Code
Enforcement and Community Appearance Programs.
d.-3/.2 ;¿J
I
. Minutes
October 20, 1992
Page 6
ORDINANCE 2533 FSrABUSHING THE 1EEGRAPH CANYON SEWER DEVELOPMENr IMPACT
FEE TO PAY FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO THE TELEGRAPH CANYON SEWER BASIN (first readinJÙ
15. pUBIJC HEARING CONSIDERATION OP FSl'ABLlSHlNG UNDERGROUND UTIIIlYDlSTRICf
NUMBER 123 ALONG "Eo STREET FROM BROADWAY TO TOYON I-'NE INCLUDING TOYON LANE, CORTE
HELENA AVENUE. AND GUAVA AVENUE (CANDY CANE I-'NE) - On 8/15/92, Council ordered a public
hearing to be held on 10/20/92 to determine whether the public health, safety or general welfare requires
the formation of an underground utility district along "E" Street from Broadway to Toyon Lane, including
Toyon Lane, Corte Helena Avenue, and Guava Avenue (Candy Cane Lane). Staff recommends approval of
the resolution. (Director of Public Works)
Mayor Nader informed the public that he and Councilman Rindone had conflicts of interest on the item as
they owned property either within or adjacent to the district. The City Attorney had advised them that the
item could be continued for one week after opening the public hearing. Therefore, three members of the
Council without a conflict of interest could participate in voting. For the gurpose of opening and continuing
the public hearing there had to be a quorum so a coin was tossed and e had won. He would remain on
the dias and Councilman Rindone would abstain from participation.
City Attorney Boogaard stated that because of the opportUnity to continue the item at a time when three
members without a conflict of interest would be in attendance, the rule of necessity did not apply and the
hearing needed to be continued.
Mayor Nader stated that the rule of necessity did apply for the purposes of creating a quorum in order to
open the public hearing and voting on the continuation of the hearing.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was declared open.
MSC (Nader/Moore) to continue the public hearing to the meeting of 10/27/92. Approved 3-0-1-1 with
.,~ talcolm absent and Rindone abstainmg.
RESOLUTION 16&46 ESrABUSHING UNDERGROUND UTIUlYDISTRICTNUMBER 123 ALONG
"E" STREET FROM BROADWAY TO TOYON LANE INCLUDING TOYON LANE, CORTE HELENA AVENUE,
AND GUAVA AVENUE (CANDY CANE LANE) AND AlmiORIZlNG THE EXPENDITIJRE OF AU.OCATION
FUNDS TO SUBSIDIZE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SERVICE LATERAL CONVERSIONS
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
. Sher Aguilar, 170 "E" Street, Chula Vista, CA 91910, representing the Mission Gardens Home Owners
Association, stated that since the no left turn had been instituted in front of their complex there was a
problem with speeding. The problem was with the traffic going west to east on "E" Street between 1st and
2nd Streets.
MS (Nader/Moore) refer the communication to staff for appropriate enfon:ement and ùúonnational report
back to Council. Approved 4-0-1 with Malcolm absenL
BOARD AND COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
16. REPORT REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION OF THE GROWTI-I MANAGEMENT
OVERSlGfIT COMMISSION'S (GMOC) 1991 ANNUAL REPORT - The report reviews the City's compliance
with the Quality of Life Threshold Standards for the l'oeriod from 1/1/91 through 6/30/91 and erovides
recommendations regarding the results of that review or Council action. Staff recommends Council accept
the 1991 GMOC Annual Report and direct staff to take the following actions: (1) prepare the necessary
Statements of Concern for issuance by the Mayor regarding the Water, Schools, and Air Quality Thresholds;
(2) endone in concept the proposed revision to the Parks and Recreation Threshold Standard and refer the
matter to staff and the Parks and Recreation Commission for finalization and preparation of the required
-"t1plementing resolutions and ordinance amendments for subsequent Council action; (3) authorize staff to
J-7 - ~.), 'I
I
I Minutes
October 20, 1992
Page 7
! begin work with the Parks and Recreation Commission on the 20-year implementation strategy to address
existing park land deficiencies for Western Chula Vista; (4) r~fer the matter of increasing the code
enforcement staff to address visual impact issues to the Building and Housing Department for consideration
in its Fiscal Year 1993-94 budget proposal; and (5) support re-evaluation of the Fire and Emergency Medical
Service, and Police Threshold Standards, and direct staff to work with the GMOC at some appropriate future
date. (Director of Planning)
Frank Tarantino, Vice-Chair of the GMOC, highlighted the GMOC report on the Quality of Life Threshold
Standards and GMOC recommendations.
Gordon Howard, Principal Planner, reviewed the staff recommendations.
Councilman Moore stated he could not support changing the Parks and Recreation Threshold to three acres
per 1,000 people in the older part of the City. The money was not there and the open space was not there.
He felt Council should use equivalency (formula) wtiiêh would factor in facilities such as: senior center,
community centers, recreational centers, swimming pools, etc. It was time that parks and recreational
facilities were tied together. Regarding 'H' Street, he felt there should be a supplemental report during the
budget heaiings on what would be done for short range, how it would be funded, and what the staff
recommendations were, i.e. what could be done with paint, what could be done with minor interference of
property owners and what would be major interference with property owners. Regarding school
overcrowding, the schools must be on a dual-track system which the districts refused to do. Therefore, the
districts did not qualify for state funding and there would always be overcrowding in the schools.
Councilman Rindone stated he would support a system of analyzing community facilities. The number of
.. acres of parks in the City on the east side versus the west side was eight to one and therefore he would
support the GMOC recommendation. There should not be a dual standard for the older portion of the City
in relation to parks. The GMOC proposal would be phased in over twenty years and he felt it was long
overdue. He referred to Item 4, relating to schools, and questioned whether that was really what the GMOC
wanted Council to do. Item 6, regarding schools, there was another issue beyond facilities and that was
curriculum. Multi-scheduling had not proven to be as sound as originally thought. There needed to be a
tendency to justify new schools in total but he felt the GMOC was on the right track with the expansion of
some of the facilities. The report also addressed overcrowding of the secondary schools. That could be
mitigated by the changing of the boundaries in relationship with EastLake High School. He hoped staff
would follow-up on the Work Study Experience for High School Students, Item 8, with the school district.
Mayor Nader agreed with the GMOC recommendations regarding the school impacts. He was concerned
when told that the City was not meeting thresholds or in danger of not meeting thresholds and the response
was not to manage growth but to change the character of the community or to readjust the budget spending
to accommodate the thresholds. Regarding the situation on 'H' Street, he was disturbed that staff was
recommending that Council address the issue by making 'W Street west of Hilltop, an old residential area
in the City, six lanes. He felt it would be a significant change in the character of the community which he
would have difficulty in supporting. When the thresholds were first adopted there were different levels of
enforcement for different thresholds. On other thresholds Council stated they were important enough, or
sufficiently related to services, that failure to meet them would trigger a moratorium on growth until the
City could find a way to meet the thresholds. One of those thresholds was police services. Now they were
finding out that the City was narrowly failing to meet the lowest standard of priority one response for Police
Threshold service. He requested that the City Attorney provide Council and staff information on what the
existing ordinances and policies were and what was required of Council. Regarding the GMOC
recommendation to 'beef-up' the Building and Housing staff Council needed to be realistic. There could be
other activities in the department that could be curtailed in order to address the GMOC recommendation.
Regarding the school, air, and water thresholds he felt that letters of concern to other agencies would not
cause the City to meet the thresholds. The City needed to look at toughet growth management policies in
those areas.
...
;) 3~ d-;¿~
I
. \
Minutes
October 20, 1m
Page 8
8\
MS (IliDcIozWNader) adopt the GMOC annual æport with the following amendments: 1) adopt the GMOC
Pm 1breshoJd rec"",mN"'~riQn. øamine the amount of community facÐities and possibly include in
evaluating the Park 1breshoId; 2) aempt the widening of "Ii" Street to siJ: lanes; and 3) implement the
public safety threshold standards effective this coming year and not delay one year as recommended by the
GMoc.
AMENDMENT 1'0 M0110N: (Moore) direct the City Manager to present to Council a formula for a weighted
factor as to acreage including: I)'I1II. pools, and community centers based on square footage to be included
in the Park 1bresholcL
Mayor Nader clarified the motion to state that staff was to reformulate the calculation of the Park Threshold
counting those facilities. .
Amendment qreeabIe to the maker and second of the motion.
Councilwoman Horton suggested that staff consider the Council's concerns regarding the Park Threshold and
bring back a revision. She shared Councilman Moore's concerns because of the cost of land and availability
of land on the west side. She was not sure the City could meet the target goal. She liked the idea that the
facilities would help to off-set the imbalance but felt Council needed more information on how they could
accomplish what the GMOC recommended and what Council felt was reality.
AMENDMENT TO M0110N: (Moore) 1) direct the City Manager to bring back to CouncÐ a formula for
weighted facton. acreage included, I)'I1II. pools. community centers. schools, bayfront, etc.; 2) direct the City
Manager to bring park ðpaIlSion potential, south of Main Street, close to population and need during the
budget review period; and 3) direct the City Manger to bring bad a report 011 what the potential and what
-- ,int agreement could be made with the schools by being a full partner in usage of their facilities. .
AMENDMENT 1'0 M0110N: (Moore) direct the City Manager to review the zoning, etc. and report where
pm acreage could be sighted west of 1-805 and the present usage and purchase cost.
Mayor Nader suggested that Councilman Moore's motions be incorporated into the motion with direction
to staff to include those items in the report they would prepare pursuant to the GMOC recommendations
on how to go about an implementation plan.
Amendment to motion qreeabIe to the maker and second of the motion.
Mayor Nader stated that figures of eight to one had been talked about but in looking at the report it would
appear that the deficiency on the west side was actually about two and one-half to one or a little less.
AMENDMENT 1'0 MOTION: (Nader) delete the GMOC recommendation regarding additional staffing for
the BuDding and Housing Department; staff is to look at reassigning existing penonnel. Amendment
agreeable to the second.
SUBS'ITlUl'E MOTION: (Horton,IMoore) delete the three acre per 1,000 people threshold and have staff
come back to Council with a revised report in Item #1 (page 18) regarding the Park Threshold Standards.
taking into consideration the information given by Council tonight.
Councilwoman Horton wanted it undentood what her concerns were regarding the three acres per 1,000
people and that she was uncertain that the City could meet those goals. She wanted more information in
order to determine whether the proposed threshold was appropriate.
VOTE ON SUBS'I1TUTE MOTION: failed 2-2-1 with Rindone and Nader opposed; Malcolm absent.
---4,MENDMENT 1'0 M0110N: (Moore) direct the City Manager to bring back a report, during budget review. .
,garcIing East "H" Street short range plan (not widening the street), Le. costs and time lines. Amendment
agreeable to the maker and second of the motion.
;¿J-;2:2h
I
/ Minutes
October 20, 1992
Page 9
I Councilwoman Harton requested that the report include the Iawer Sweetwater area available far an active
recreational facility.
VOTE ON MOTION AS AMENDED: approved 4-0-1 with Malcolm absenL
Mr. Tarantino stated that in the past the Council had met with the GMOC in a workshop setting and
recommended it be done that way in the future.
ACTION ITE.MS
17. ~ SUPPORTING 11m CONI1NUED USE OF 11m 1987 FEDERAL AID URBAN
(PAll) DISTRIBU110N FORMULA FOR 11m NEW SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM (STP) OP 11m
INTERMODAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION EFFICENCY Ac:r (lSTEA) - On 8/13/92, the Combined Raad
Plan Committee (CRPC) recommended that STP funds for Fiscal Years 1992-97 be allocated as has been
done since 1978 and re-authorized in 1987, 40% to regi\>nal agencies (25% CaiTrans, 15% Transit) and 60%
to local cities and the County. The 60% is distributed with each city receiving a base amaunt of $25,000
and the remainder allocated on a per capita basis. On 9/10/92, the City of Salana Beach proposed an
alternative fonnula that would increase revenues ta the cities and the County, but substantially reduce
regional revenues to CalTrans and Transit. Staff believes that potential cuts in regional programs
implemented by MTDB and CaiTrans cauld prove to be more significant than the benefits realized through
the Salana Beach formula. The repart supports the continued use af the current farmula. Staff recommends
acceptance of the report. (Director of Public Works)
John Lippitt, Director of Public Works, reviewed new informatian received fram SANDAG. Staff
recommended the City cantinue with the existing fannula because transit was suffering other revenue lasses.
\-. The regional system funding was important and the $6 million increase would ga ta help SR125 fram 94
to 54. If $500,OOO/year was taken from the regional projects it would not be to the City's benefit.
Councilman Rindane stated he supparted the ariginal farmula. It was a critical tapic because mass transit
was a regional issue. The net impact of changing the formula wauld appear to offer additianal suppart to
the smaller cities but it would result in a significant reduction regionally for other prajects.
Caralyn Butler, 97 Bishap Street, Chula Vista, CA 91911, spake in suppart of the staff recammendation.
MSC (Horton/Nader) direct the City's representative to SANDAG to support the original fonnwa. Approved
3~1-1 with Malcolm absent and Moore abstaining.
MSC (Nader/Moore) direct staff'to contact the National League of Cities and provide them with information
on the local allocations of ISTEA funds and report back to Council. Approved 44-1 with Malcolm absenL
18. REPORT PARKING CONCERNS IN 11m 100 BLOCK OF GLOVER AVENIÆ - At the
6/30/92 meeting, staff was directed to respond to parking problems caused by business parking far extended
periads oftirne on the 100 block of Giaver Avenue. Staff evaluated the request and met with area residents
to discuss alternatives available to improve on-street parking. Staff recommends acceptance of the report.
(Director of Public Works)
Heinz Hemken, 183 Glover Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910, spoke in oppositian to the staff recommendation.
He felt the proposal wauld make the situation worse and the other residents of the area shared his views.
He stated there was a problem with parking due to the business located at 363 'E' Street. Other problems
were noise and air pollutian and painting on the Iocatian. He requested that Council find an equitable
solution to the concerns of the neighborhoods.
\.,.. Martin Torres, 178 Glover Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910, was not in attendance when called.
23 - ;2;2 7
I
'.
~"
,,,
~< ~~
.~
-. ,
'.=
." -,'
'_~r
-,
""'''' -"",~. -~~, --'
<' .~ ~>~,.
, - .~
,:.
,
"',,
"'::'
.,;';
r ~:~"
f}
;.~
>
j.
1;_
,:.
--'<'
I
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BY THE CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
NOTICE is HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL will hold
a public hearing to consider the followinß:
/
Consider amendment to nicipaI Code::- Chapter 3.50 reJated to the Public
Facilities Developme mpac~- include funding for a SchooJ Impact
Mitigation Study. is action' not increase the fee.
Consider & review City Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC)
1992 Report & recommendations on compliance with City's quality-of-life
ThreshoJd Standards.
If you wish to challenge the City's action on this matter in court, you may be Jimited to
raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this
notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk's Office at or prior to the
public hearing.
SAID PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE CITY COUNCIL on Tuesday, JuJy
20, 1993, at 6:00 p.m. in the CounciJ Chambers, PubJic Services Building, 276 Fourth
Avenue, at which time any person desiring to be heard may appear.
DATED: July 7, 1993
Beverly A. AutheJet
City CJerk
:23 - :2::<'!
I
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING
BY THE CITY COUNCIL
OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE CITY
COUNCIL OF the City of Chula Vista, California for the purpose of Council's review and
consideration of the City Growth Management Oversight Commission's (GMOC) 1992 Report
and recommendations on compliance with the City's quality-of-life Threshold Standards. The
noted report is produced annually by the GMOC, and reflects the outcome of analysis of
information presented by various City Departments and external agencies regarding the impacts
of growth on each of the eleven facility and service topics covered by the Threshold Standards.
The report serves to identify whether or not the City is in compliance with each of the standards,
and to make related recommendations to the City Council on any actions believed necessary to
remedy identified deficiencies, and/or to ensure continuing compliance.
The City's Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that the report is exempt from
environmental review under Section 15262 of the State CEQA guidelines as a feasibility and
planning study.
Copies of the GMOC's 1992 Report are on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
Any petitions to be submitted to the City Council must be received in the office of the City
Clerk no later than noon of the meeting date specified in this notice.
If you wish to challenge the City's action on the report and its recommendations in court, you
may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing
described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at or prior
to the public meeting.
SAID PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE CITY COUNCIL on Tuesday. Julv 20.
1993 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, at which time any person
desiring to be heard may appear.
DATED: July 7, 1993
CASE NO: PCM-93-12
COMPLIANCE WITH AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT
The City of Chula Vista, iu complyiug with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), requests
individuals who may need special accommodation to access, attend, and/or participate in a City
meeting, activity, or service to contact the City Clerk at (619) 691-5041 for specific information
on existing resources or programs that may be available for such accommodation. Please caD
at least forty-eight hours in advance for meetings and five days in advance for scheduled services
and activities. California Relay Service is available for the hearing impaired.
(gm92ccph.not)
:23 --- ;13 {J
I
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item ~
Meeting Date '11JJ)J!)1
ITEM TITLE: PUBLIC HEARING: Tentative Subdivision Map PCS-90-07; Appeal of
the Planning Commission decision to approve a one year time extension
for the Sunbow II subdivision, ChuIa Vista Tract 90-07.
I?! 7.7 "
RESOLUTION: enymg the appeal and affirmIng the Planning
Commission decision to approve a one year time extension for the Sunbow
n "bdi"¡,ioo, ChW'V 90-07.
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Planning tõ J-'
REVIEWED BY: City Manage~ b() /1- 4/5ths vote Yes_No X
On July 14, 1993, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to approve a one year extension
to the Sunbow II subdivision Chula Vista Tract 90-07. The Rancho Del Sur Partnership has
appealed that decision.
Environmental Impact report, EIR-88-1, which discusses potential environmental impacts of the
project,including a general plan amendment, general development plan, sectional planning area
plan, and the tentative subdivision map, was previously certified by the Planning Commission
and City Council, and CEQA Findings, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and
Statement of Overriding Considerations were adopted. The proposed extension was reviewed
in light of the previous ErR, and it has been determined by the Environmental Review
Coordinator that none of the circumstances requiring preparation of additional environmental
documents has occurred, and the prior EIR is adequate for this minor subsequent discretionary
action.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council adopt the resolution denying the appeal and thereby granting a one year
extension of the tentative map for Sunbow II, Chula Vista tract 90-07 based on the findings and
subject to the conditions contained therein.
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION:
On July 14, 1993, the Planning Commission voted 5-0-2 to approve the extension. (A draft of
the minutes will be available at the City Council meeting).
BACKGROUND:
~I/" I
\
I
Page 2, Item ~
Meeting Date 1..IlJJm
On February 22, 1993, the Rancho Del Sur Partnership submitted an application requesting an
extension for the tentative subdivision map known as Sunbow II, Chula Vista Tract 90-07. The
602 acre subdivision site is located south of Telegraph Canyon Road, just east of Greg Rogers
Park, and consists of a total of 1163 lots, of which 1128 are for single family development, five
are for multifamily residential dwelling units and the remaining are commercial, industrial, open
space, and an elementary school and park site.
Due to the time constraints, environmental issues and legal requirements of this application, the
applicant also filed an appeal of the Planning Commission decision to ensure that any potential
appeal, including the applicant's own, if necessary, would be able to be presented to the City
Council before the expiration of the map (July 21,1993).
PUBLIC INPUT
The Planning Department received a letter from the Point Robinhood Homeowners Association
indicating that the commercial/industrial land use designation that occurs immediately adjacent
to the east of their subdivision, is detrimental to the property values of the community (-
. I. Staff conveyed to the representatives of the Homeowners Association that the request
is a tentative map extension and that approval or denial of the extension would not affect the
existing zoning/land use designation.
DISCUSSION
1. Existing site characteristics.
The subject site is a 6OQ-acre irregularly shaped vacant parcel located south of Telegraph
Canyon Road just east of the Greg Rogers Park. The existing terrain consist of gentle
to steeply sloping hillsides, broken mesas and some canyons. Although the site has
previously been cleared, it contains vegetation including mixed grasses and chaparral on
steeper portions. A major feature of the site is Poggi Canyon, an east-west canyon
which forms part of the drainage basin of this area, and is part of the open space/scenic
corridor system identified in the City's General Plan.
2. Existing Tentative Map.
The Sunbow II tentative subdivision map was originally approved on May 22, 1990. The
map approval is for a period of three years unless a final map is recorded or at least
$125,000.00 of off-site improvements are completed prior to the three year expiration
date (May 22, 1993). Since none of the above occurred, the Sunbow tentative map was
due to expire on May 22,1993. However, the map is presently protected by an automatic
60 day extension provided for by the Subdivision Map Act. Thus, unless extended, the
map will expire on July 21, 1993.
ø'J1/-~
I
Page 3, Item ß
Meeting Date '1J1Jli!D
ANALYSIS:
The applicant originally filed for a three year time extension application. However, due to
constraints to comply with recently adopted federal listing of the California Gnatcatcher as a
threatened species, the applicant has amended the application to a one year request in order to
provide additional time to resolve this issue. The applicant may file for an additional extension
as provided in the Subdivision Map Act.
The Sunbow IT Final EIR is adequate for granting of the tentative map extension because it did
treat the California Gnatcatcher as if it were a listed species at that time, and a significant impact
was identified, mitigated to the extent feasible, and a Statement of Overriding Considerations
was adopted. The only event arguably requiring subsequent environmental documents is the
gnatcatcher listing. Since the prior EIR treated the bird as if listed, no further environmental
document (addendum, supplemental EIR) is required at this time.
The Engineering and Planning Departments, with applicant's concurrence, are recommending
several new conditions. The new conditions primarily reflect clarifications and refinements of
existing conditions as well as re-statements of Municipal Code requirements. Generally, the City
cannot upon request for extension add conditions of approval to previously approved tentative
maps unless the applicant/property owner agrees and accepts the new conditions. The applicant
has accepted the new conditions and modifications to the existing conditions (see attached
applicant's agreement accepting new conditions).
The new conditions address, among other items, the following issues:
Growth Management Ordinance
Condition No 87 of the original City Council Resolution advises the applicant that the
City intends to adopt a Growth Management Element, Transportation Phasing Program
and other growth management implementation programs, and makes them applicable to
this project once adopted.
In 1990, after approval of the subdivision map, the City Council adopted the Growth
Management Element and Ordinance (ChuJa Vista Municipal Code Chapter 19.20). A
Public Facility Financing Plan (PFFP) , as required in the Growth Management
Ordinance, has been prepared and approved, but Water Conservation and Air Quality
Improvement Plans were not required nor provided at the time of tentative subdivision
map approval. Thus, in order to bring the project into compliance with present
standards, staff is recommending that Water Conservation and Air Quality Improvement
Plans be prepared, and that the PFFP be revised as necessary to address any new growth
management programs, including the new Chula Vista Eastern Transportation Phasing
Plan, prior to recordation of any final subdivision map. This is clarified in new
,,21/:3
I
Page 4, Item ß
Meeting Date 1.I1Jli!D.
Condition No. 93.
Federal Listing
On March 25,1993, the u.s. Secretary of Interior Bruce Babbitt listed the California
Gnatcatcher as a threatened species pursuant to the Federal Endangered Species Act.
Upon review of the subject tentative map extension application, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service requested a biology study of the site to determine the direct and indirect
impacts to the gnatcatcher habitat associated with the proposed project. The biology
survey/study is presently underway, but total evaluation of the study results by the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service is not expected to be completed until September of this year.
To ensure compliance with federal law, staff is recommending a new Condition No. 95
which will allow approval of any final map during this one year extension period only
if the applicant provides proof of USF & WS satisfaction of compliance relative to the
California Gnatcatcher listing.
Development Fees
To clarify Condition No. 55 (general Code requirements), the Engineering Department
is recommending a new Condition No. 90, as reflected in the Planning Commission
Resolution, to outline the fees that the present and subsequent property owners will be
required to pay at different stages of development.
In addition to the new conditions, the Engineering Department has also recommended
modifications to some of the existing conditions, primarily to clarify the intent of the conditions.
The new and modified conditions are listed in the Planning Commission Resolution, and
incorporated by reference in the Council Resolution.
CONCLUSION:
The tentative subdivision map, as originally and newly conditioned if the extension is approved,
is in compliance with the General Plan, Municipal Code, and adopted City policies. A one year
extension of the tentative map will alJow the applicant time to resolve any issues necessary to
comply with the federal requirements. Consequently, it is recommended the City Council deny
the appeal and approve a one year tentative map extension as requested by the applicant subject
to the conditions contained in the original City Council Resolution No. 15640 and the JuJy 14,
1993 Planning Commission Resolution, PCS-90-7E.
FISCAL IMPACT: Not Applicable.
.;. '/"' L/
I
RESOLUTION NO. I?I??
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL
DENYING THE APPEAL AND AFFIRMING THE PLANNING
COMMISSION DECISION TO APPROVE A ONE YEAR TIME
EXTENSION FOR THE SUNBOW IT SUBDIVISION, CHULA VISTA
TRACT 90-07.
WHEREAS, on May 22, 1990, by resolution No. 1564, the City Council approved the
original tentative map for the subdivision known as Sunbow II, Chula Vista tract 90-07, and
WHEREAS, duly verified application for a tentative map extension was filed with the
Planning Department of the City of Chula Vista on February 22,1993 by the Rancho Del Sur
Partnership, owner of the property prior to expiration of the tentative map, and
WHEREAS, said application, subsequently amended on July 1st 1993, requested a 12
month tentative map extension to May 22, 1994, and
WHEREAS, on June 30,1993, the applicant and its possible successors in interest
accepted the clarifications of existing conditions and new conditions as set forth in the Planning
Commission Resolution PCS-90-07E, and
WHEREAS, on July 14, 1993, by resolution PCS-90-07E, the Planning Commission
approved a one year tentative map extension for the subdivision known as Sunbow II Chula Vista
Tract 90-07, which was due to expire on May 22, 1993.
WHEREAS, an appeal of the Planning Commission decision to approve a one year
tentative map extension for the subdivision known as Sunbow II Chula Vista Tract 90-97 was
filed with the Planning Department of the City of Chula Vista on July 15,1993 by, Rancho Del
Sur Partnership, and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the previously certified
EIR-88-01 and found it adequate for the proposed time extension, and
WHEREAS, the City Clerk set the time and place for a hearing on said appeal and notice
of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general
circulation in the city and its mailing to property owners within 1000 feet of the exterior
boundaries of the property at least ten days prior to the hearing, and
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 7:00 p.m.
July 20, 1993 in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the City Council was
thereafter closed.
.; 'I" j./
I
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL finds as
follows:
Pursuant to section 66473.5 of the Subdivision Map Act, the tentative subdivision map
for Sunbow II,ChuJa Vista Tract 90-07, as conditioned herein, remains in substantial
conformance with the various elements of the City's General Plan as amended in 1989.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL denies the appeal and
approves the extension of the tentative map for Chula Vista tract for Chula Vista Tract 90-07
until May 22, 1994 subject to the conditions contained in the City Council Resolution No. 15640
and Planning Commission Resolution PCS-90-07E.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA,
this July 20,1993 by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
Presented by Approved as to form by
Rt2~fBi cf DJ;L(~
Bruce Boogaard, City í\.ttom
Director of Planning
(onbw-....,,)
.ll/'~
I
~~ d-~
EXTRACT FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 14, 1993 bllA
, ¡:,..~
(J;; ,1
ITEM 1: PUBLIC HEARING: PCS-90-07; CONSIDERATION OF TENTATIVE
MAP TIME EXTENSION FOR SUNBOW II, CHULA VISTA TRACT 90-07
- RANCHO DEL SUR PARTNERSHIP
Associate Planner Hernandez màde the presentation describing the
subdivision map and its componenets. Staff recommends adoption of
the Resolution granting a one-year extension based on the findings
and subject to the conditions therein.
Mr. Hernandez noted that the applicant, who was present, had agreed
verbally to the new and revised conditions in the Resolution. ,He
also stated that a letter of objection had been received (and
distributed before the meeting) from the Robinhood Homeowners'
Association. The letter stated that the proximity of the
industrial development would be detrimental to property values.
In reply to Commissioner Ray, Environmental Review Coordinator Reid
said the one-year extension is necessary because of the required
field work and subsequent CEQA work to meet current standards.
(Commissioner Moot arrived at 7:20 p.m.)
Commissioner Ray referenced Item 1, page 1-9, and asked for
clarification on the wording changes regarding the cable franchise.
He asked if each cable company would have the option of accessing
each lot or would it be restricted to one company.
Assistant City Attorney Rudolf replied that the changes in wording
were to provide for the "equal access rights" of the cable
companies. When the ground is opened for cable, all companies will
be notified and any or all will have the option to access if
desired.
This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing
was opened.
Jim Dawe, Attorney, representing the applicant, stated his
willingness to answer any questions. He added that the staff has
ensured protection of the endangered species and any laws passed
since the original approval have been added.
Commissioner Ray asked if the Robinhood Homeowners' Association had
been in opposition at the time of the original approval?
Mr. Dawe said he could not recall any opposition. Using the
overhead he pointed out that the industrial development did not
abut the Robinhood Point property.
Mr. Lee reminded the Commission that the issue to be acted on was
the Tentative Map expiration not the objection received. The
Homeowners' Association would be informed that the request is a
),L/- 7
I
bll
At ~t',
tentative map extension and approval or denial of the extension
would not affect the existing zoning/land use designation.
Mr. Rudolf indicated that some words had been omitted in the
Resolution, Item 12 which adds new Condition 95. The language
should read "Prior to consideration of any final subdivision map or
grading permit for any portion of the subject site, proof of an
incidental take permit under Section 7, Section lOa of the
Endangered Species Act or any other form of approval by the USF &
WS relative to the California Gnatcatcher or CSS shall be provided
to the Environmental Review Section of the Planning Department".
No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
MSUC (Ray/Moot) 5-0, Fuller and Tuchscher excused, to adopt the
Resolution including the language of Item 12 as mentioned by the
City Attorney thereby granting a one-year extension of the
tentative map for Sunbow II, Chula Vista Tract 90-07 based on the
findings and subject to the conditions therein.
021- ~
~2~
LAW O",ICES
NOR.AN T. SECT"R SELTZER CAPLAN WILKINS & MC~~~ NE" R. RAN'SH
ROOERT CAPCAN A "RO'E5510NA" COR""R"'ON RED JANICE RATRICE BROWN
GERALD L. .O.AHON .ARK.. GLOVEN
REG'NALD A VITEK 2100 SYMPHONY TOWERS SEAN T. HARGADEN
JA.ES 0 'RANKL'N VERA R PARDEE
STEPHEN DOUGLAS RDTER 750 B STREET .'CHAn J SN'DER
OONNIE NnSON READ'NG JL 16 P 4 :29 JUL'E G. SIMON
DAYOD J. DORNE SAN OIEGO, CAU,ORNIA 921;9) .'CHAEL R. SEYLE
".ES R. DAWE DAV'D 5 .'NTON
BRIAN T. SELnER TELE"HONE ("'9) 68'-3003 ADR'ENNE JE"REY
ELIZAOETH A. S.'TH SUSAN K .'LLOKEN
JULIE P. DUB'CK TELECO"Y (61g) 68'-3100 ~TY OF CHULA VISTA CYNTHIA L ELDRED
JOYCE A. .OCOY JA.ES. PHILLOP'
DENN'S J. WICKHA. DANIEL A AN DROST
'REDER'CK J. STDCKER "OYD WILK'NS.'R (RET'RED) ITY CLERK'S OFFICI: SUSAN A. VERNE.
JOHN H. "SPAUGH RICH ""HER
BRUCE H. "GAN J. SCOTT SCHEPER
PAT.'CIA J .'NOCA .A.TA J BURG
WH"NEY. SKALA DAVID J. ZUOKO"
DONALD A ENGLOSH ANDREW M. KAPLAN
.'CHAn H. R'NEY ELOSA A O.ANDES
JUD' S. 'OLEY V'RG'NIA C. PEARSON
JA.ES P. DELPHEY CYNTHIA O. CHAP.AN
PAUL S. METSCH -
KEYON A. WERNER
C.AlG E COURTER ""REY L .ASON
KAREN .. ZOOELL July 16, 1993 O<COUNSEL
ELONOR T. .ER'DETH -
.'CHAEL G. NARD'
THO.AS , STE'NKE ROOERT W. CULVER
.~-_.-
0' COUNS'L
City Council HAND DELIVERED
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, California 91910
Re: Sunbow II
Chula Vista Tract 90-07
Tentative Map Extension (PCS-90-07)
Our File No. 3330.40244
Honorable Mayor and Members of the Council:
On behalf of the applicant for the extension, we hereby appeal the
decision of the Planning Commission on July 14, 1993. (Please see
attached completed Appeal Form.)
This appeal is based upon a concern raised by City staff that all
proceedings regarding the extension must occur before the current
expiration date of the tentative map (July 21, 1993). Although the
Subdivision Map Act could be interpreted to allow the hearing of
an appeal after the expiration date, out of an abundance of
caution, we are filing this appeal so that the appeal could be
heard before the expiration date.
We request that your Council uphold the decision of the Planning
C ~ss~on.
or "~f1f}wf
cc: Rancho del Sur
POne, Inc.
0< '1-7
,
City of Chu1a Vista Date Received
Planning Department RECEWEO Fee Paid
Recei pt No.
Appeal Form 29 Case No: PCS-90-07
W I' \6 p4:
~?1h
Appeal from the decision of: 0 zon~n~~::, ~~~ ~in~ 0 Design Review
Admlnl X ommlSSlon Committee
Seltzer Caplan Wilkins & McMa on
Appellant: on behalf of Rancho del Sur Phone 619 / 685-3003
Address: 750 B Street, Suite 2100, San Diego, California 92101-8177
Request for: Tentative map extension.
(Example: zone change, variance, design review, etc.)
Please state wherein you believe there was an error in the decision of 0 ZA IX! PC 0 DRC
for the property located at: Please see attached letter dated July 16, 1993oto
which this Form is attached.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -£~~]~: ~':"~: -~t: -
Do Not Write In Thi s Space
To: Planning Department Date Appeal Filed:
Case No: Date of decision: Receipt No:
The above matter has been scheduled for public hearing before the:
Planning Commission City Council on
Planning Commissi'on Secretary City C1 erk
(This form to be filed in triplicate.) ;21/ --/0
PL-60
Rev. 12/83
I
Item No. 26
Date 7/20/93
26. REPORT UPDATE ON SOLID WASTE PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT AND
ALTERNATIVE DISPOSAL OPTIONS
The report will be delivered separately to Council on Friday, July
16, 1993.
2/ø .. I
I
July 16, 1993
TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: John D. Goss, City Manager ~
SUBJECT: Item 26 - Solid Waste Participation Agreement
As you may have observed, the Participation or Flow Control Agreement iSsre has
been an evolutionary one, and continues to evolve. The comment made in an
earlier memo, that the face of the world changes twice between trash meetings,
continues to be true. Evaluating the stance taken by the City of ChulaiVista
regarding this evolving issue may be particularly critical at your. meeting.
This is because the Interim Commission has set July 23 as a deadline (yes,
another one) for jurisdictions to decide whether or not to be part of the Interim
Commission, for discussion at the next Interim Commission meeting on July 28.
Jn looking forward to that meeting, there appear to be several options.
The first option would be to approve the agreement "as-is", subject to
"understandings" which reflect the concerns the City Council has expressed with
agreement up to this time. Supporting this option would be Attachment A, a June
14 letter from Pam Slater (Attachment A), County Supervisor, Third District, who
is also Interim Chair of the Commission. In that letter, she says many of the
right things. Some of the points raised by the letter include the following:
"I am in favor of immediate conversion from advisory capacity to
full authority" (of the Commission). .
"I am certain that the Commission would want to look for the best
financial alternatives. Rai 1 haul or truck i ng out of the area
should be explored."
"Bonding may not be the best financial arrangement. In fact, I
believe that the Solid Waste Fund will be best managed not by
borrowing, but by operating on a pay-as-you-go basis. I prefer not
to incur debt."
"The decision to bond should be based upon a vote of a majority of
the Commission."
". . .The Commission may wish to explore the transfer of the
County's Solid Waste Division or fund."
"I also believe that the financial viability and operations of all
existing trash disposal facilities and NCRRA should be examined for
modification or termination by the Commission."
.;¡,; -¡!d.""-
I
". . .The Commission should be responsible for reviewing tipping
fees and facil ity fees defined in the Interim Agreement." .
She also goes on to mention that a "regional, cooperative approach to solid waste
disposal is critical." So, it is clear by this letter that, as the Interim'Chair
of the Commission and representing the County Board of Supervisors, she is very
much in tune with the variety of issues and concerns, as well as condition~ that
have been expressed by City Councils throughout the County.
The problem with the letter is that, even with these very supportive statements,
she still maintains the position stated at the first Interim Commission meeting
that, ". . . I wi 11 not accept any cond it ions as a pre 1 iminary measure to
membership in the Commission." In other words, it is all right to mention these
items as "understandings" but the agreement has to be adopted "as-is" and there
cannot be conditions to membership. The reason for this is that she feels that
a long-term agreement and flow control commitment to the Commission are essfntial
for long-term planning. While that may make some sense, if she is correct in
saying that she believes that the system can.þe financed on a pay-as-you-go
basis, then the various deadlines and surcharges should be deferred until the
issues mentioned by her above can be resolved collectively by the cities within
this County.
A second option would be to approve the Participation Agreement subj~ct to
"conditions" rather than "understandings" of the issue stated in Pam Slater's
1 etter. In effect, this is close to the current position of the City Council,
the only difference being that some of the conditions are not the same as on her
list.
A third option would be to unify with the non-signatory cities in taking a
position before the Interim Commission along the lines of the resolution
transmitted by the City of E1 Cajon (see Attachment B). This would seem to meet
many of your concerns since it would appear that the flow commitment would not
be inextricably committed, at least for another ten months. This would provide
an opportunity to resolve the conditions expressed by Pam Slater as well as by
your City Council. Politically, this option may have more of an opportunity for
success due to the support it has received by the non-signatory cities within the
County.
The fourth option has been placed in Resolution form by the City Attorney. This
option would have the County suspending enforcement of the surcharge for 120 days
and extending or tolling all State of Limitations or deadlines in which the City
could file legal challenge against actions by the County, in exchange for the
City meeting and conferring on an intensive schedule over a 90-day period to look
at two solutions. One solution would be a 20-year contract for landfill disposal
at a variable price, with openers based on fair market prices. The tipping fee
would be 10% above the free market, with the City having the right to terminate
the agreement if the tipping fee charged by the County is greater by 10% than the
cost of an alternate vendor, and the County can terminate the agreement wi~h six
months notice if the County Solid Waste Disposal System is unable to srpport
itself. After issuing the notice of termination by either party, each party
would meet and confer in an effort to resolve differences in order to revo~e the
notice of termination. I
:2¿ - 3
I
;
I
I
The second solution under this option would be to authorize the City Manager to
meet and confer regarding the formation of a Waste Act District (WAD).I The
County Waste System, as well as facilities siting authority and, by implication,
bonding and financial authority, would be transferred to the WAD. This would be
in lieu of a joint powers agency, since the City Attorney feels this may have a
greater chance of insulating cities from General Fund liability due to the
operation of the waste system.
These options would have the advantage of first, by way of the second part of the
option, creating a governance authority which would clearly be superior to the
advisory commission and probably would be superior to a joint powers agreement.
The advantage of the first part of this option is that there would be a rate
guarantee based on the overall free market rate and would provide an opportunity
for a jurisdiction to withdraw its flow commitment if the conditions of the
agreement as it relates to the free market rate are not met. ¡
A fifth alternative is to work with other cities in filing lawsuits that would
protect the City and its ratepayers' interests from rate surcharges and the like,
which would be disadvantageous to the City and its ratepayers. '
In reviewing the above, IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT:
1. A communication be sent to Pam Slater, indicating that if she is
interested in the Interim Commission addressing the issues as
reflected in her July 14 letter, that she assemble all of the cities
co llect ive ly to work through these issues before surcharges,
arbitrary deadlines, etc., are imposed, so that all the "concerns"
can be resolved, without having to deal with the artificial
distinction between a "condition" and an "understanding",
2. That the City Council support the El Cajon resolution in submitting
this joint effort to the Interim Commission,
3. Adopt the resolution that is included as Attachment C, which would
advance the proposal of a tipping fee based on the free market rate,
as well as the creation of a Waste Act (WAD), and
4. That appropriate legal action be taken to protect the City and its
ratepayers from unreasonable tipping fee rate increases such as the
proposed surcharge. i
I
It is recommended that all elements of this recommendation be adopted due ~o the
changing nature of the dialogue which is occurring on the waste mana ement
subject. This might provide enough options, which hopefully are all acceptable
to the City Council, to enable the City to continue its role in the Participation
Agreement dialogue both before either the Board of Supervisors or the I~terim
Commission, as may be appropriate. It also shows the City's good fai~h and
willingness to participate in a regional effort to resolve this regional problem.
JDG:mab
Attachments A I. a: NOT SCANNED
d."~' /~6-9
I
---.-----
. Ill/; If
, - 14,'.
,
CIty Of ChuIa VI8ta
Oounollman Leonard Moort
1'71 4th AYtnUI
ChuIa Vlat8. CA '1.10
CouncIlman LlOrwd Moore:
I am writing thlt letter to conYty my vlewa and IIno8I't8t wlehtt that your council will join
Ut In creating. Bond Wa- PartICIP'tlon AQl'Hmtnt and COmmlhlon that will work 8O1e1y
In the bttt Internt Of .. membel'8 and the region .. I whole.
Before I acldress IIlues of concern pie... let me rN1ke It cInr thIt 11m advancing my
own views. not neC8uarily the YIew8 of thl Commtnlon. ,.. a.Jrwoman of the
Commlulon It 18 Important that I M8ke thI8 dlltll'lCtlon. ,-
Let me now Iddr888 the Important 1uue8. MV tIr8t prIortty for the CommIssIon 18 that It
bloome 8 fuR governing body .. 800n .. poulbl8. I am In favor of In immediate I
comt8l'8lon from advI8ory capacity to fun luthorityw. Progrlll at our CommIssion m..øng.
will dicta. coMV8l'8lon. Let me 8180 make It very dear that the will and dIreCtIon of the
County SOard of Supel'Vl8orl 18 to give full aUlhOl1\y to the Oomml88lon. }
I want to make It clear that I am ItrongIy In favor of exploring all ScUd Wast. dlaposal
options. I am certain that the Commlulon would want to look for the beat financial
alternative.. Rail haul or 1n.ICkJng out of the area Ihould be explOJ'ld. In addition. bondlnQ :
may not be the beat ftnanclal arrangement. In fact, I believe that the SolId WMte Fund will j
be beet managed not by borrowing, but by oþlratlng on a pay-u.you.go balla. prefer
not to Incur debt. However. the decisIon to bond ahouId be baled upon a vote of a
meJorItv of the commI88Ion. ¡
Although I have not Inv.8tlgated \he legalIty of auch a tr'8n8f8r. at 8OITI8 Urne thl
Comrnl88lon me)' wish \0 explore the tran8f6r of the County.. $oDd Waate DIYIIlon or
fund. Of COU"I, the governing body would 1110 881ume Pabllity for the andfilit. UntIl thin.
designated County and CIty atatf should be available to the Commll'lon. 11/10 beIIM
ÙI8t the tlnanclel Ylabnlty and operatic"' of 8II8ICIatIng trash dlaposal facilities and NCRRA
thould be examined for modlfloatlon or termInation by the CommIItlon.
CDUN1Y -I1I1of,TÞNCUIM tIOOMClJICHlClHWAY. RIXIIUIUANDIGO,ca.101.aølllIl8,-1QLfIIIII-
0.......--
I
.. - , , ,- 1-- --
'-_.'--'
D CNTY BRD OF SUPRVRS TEL No.619-557-4025 Jul 15.93 10:31 No.OO? P.Ol,
A ;<¿ - ~
I
.
¡D CNTY BRD OF SUPRVRS TEL No.619-557-4025 Jul 15.93 10:31 No.OO? P.O3 . P
I , .
!
A8 the full governing body 1hI Oomml88lon ahauld be I'88I*I1t"11 tor rwvIewlng ~ í
.... and ~ fM8 defined In the InII8rIm =lJW1lln 8hort. .. 8IP8Ott of the Inttrtm
AgrMm'nt muat be rW8w8d b1 the Com . :
I
.
A long-term 8QrMment 8nCI tIow oamm1tment to . Conml88lon openad ay8tem muat :
remain the fOUndatIOn of our a;retmtnt. Io1h ere ....mIaI for Iong-ttrm plenn/ng. M I
mnlonld. an und8r8t1nd1ng8 must 80 b8rart the COmrrinlon for . vote. Aa In 8f'tf
d6I11oua::y. you WIn IOrn8 and you 1o81.1Om8. But all In II. lOUona talCtn by the
OOrnml88lon WIll þ, In the bt8t nterests of 1hO88 ~d. LM me I'8Itørat8 that I wID not
ICCIpt any conditione u . pr811m1nery meuurl to mtmbtr8hlp In the Commllllon. .
Howtvtr, I am In f8var of 8ddreMlng aIIll\t:::~~UId"WI 88t for1h by the member 0ItIt8
. OUt 11m order or bU81n888. ~
PIlau let mI condude by _In; that It II tIm8 to unIti. -"II. time for WIt. Our cItIztn8 I
and tlXPlvwa ..1hI lam. and they mUtt be II8Md by ¡ood gcMImm8nt. A reglontd.
CIOOp8rat1ve approach to loDd waite d'lp08aJ 18 crItIc8I.
When I tlrat undertook the t88k of unifying the 8tn DIego rtglOn to create . 81rong I I
pa1MI'8hlp to 8O1w the aol1cl wute arIaI8 I was told by thole outalc:l. rtrt olfloe that It W88
. poIIIIG8I rItk 8kIn to IwImming In quick and. But I was convinced that our oItIe8 8ncI
counly n1lcl by tI'I8 tInIIst rtprellnta1lY8$ whoa' go. art Þ """ II mine. 1hat 18
to form . commt88lon that will work loltly In the b88t hterestl of 118 memb0r8 and the
region II . whole. 1h11 convnll8lon will achI8ve that 00-' by d'1f8Ctit\g au their energy to
the ~aae8IU rMOlutlOn of OIM' 8OOd W8Ite dl )O88\ plobIem8.
~~ I
~N~ '
t6CJJn\ ~ ~
AMELA SLATeR
oum SUPERVISOR
THIRD DI8TRICT
I
I i
; c2(; -¿ . i
I
I
- - ---.... Z9d 1:6011 tLt!õ-t69-6t9:CJ. "Èl 'i:lïSiñ'tfTIO ~ ,.U:>:aI 6Þ:et !1-U. œ.-st-Tif ,. .. - ~--
1
.ru.. æ '93 14:50 EL ~ C I TV CI..ERK 325 P01 1!1f./)
. , .... ,
t,: .
:
I. 8
;, 200 Eat M- 8IrMt. EI ,CeJon. Callrornfa 12020
;
! ~ITY OF EL CAJON
\ . ..". Facsimile Transmittal
ÐA~J:: ¡1uly 9,1993 ""'-. -'Ì'Dœ:
4:00,pID
! i
I, TOTAL N'DMBRR OF PAGES, IJiCL'UDING 'l'IWISKIT1'AL I'Oæ!; ~ .
!
¡ TO: Jøbn Go,~
¡ city ot chula Viata
\ P~BONAL ANÞ CONFIDEnIAL
I
í PAX NO.: !~191425-6184
: FROK: City of El cajon
. 200 E. Hain Street
1:1 Cajon, CA 92020
FAX NO.: (6191441-1537
. COJIIIIENTS: We,re advia.d. that the laI\.Y<1~1I et Oceanside, Esoondido
Jllnd ~~1-lIbad have a<n:..d to reo0Jll1llend t9 thlilir city C9UhOils
aél"OÐtion of t.he r..elution with tb" flruÜ content, a, attached.
This re1iol~'tioJ1 is furniBhe~ so ~e.t your CouncU may consider
adoption of the same resolutio~,
¡ THIS MESSAG~ IS INTeNDED oNttY F91\ THE USE OF THE INDIY1:ÞVr.t. OR
, ~I'f¥ TO WHICH IT I~ lIDDIIF.SSED ANÞ MAY CO1P'~TN .INFORMATION THAT IS
i pRIVILE<a:D, ÇONFIDENTIAL AND EJOmt>'f nOM DISr;:WSUIlII: UNDER
ðPPLICABJ,1~ T.J"W. U Tim R£Al'1!:R OF THIS :MESSAGE IS NOT'1'HE INTENDED
l lU!:CIPJ:ENT, OR '.niB BHPLOYEE OR AGENT RESPONSIBLE FOR DELIVERING THE
MESSAGE TO 'rHE INTENDEn RECIPIENT, YOU ARB HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY
DISSEKlNA'1'ION. DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF TInS COMJroNICA'rJ:ON J:S
! STRIC'rLY PltOHIB:tTEÐ. 1:1' YOU HAVE ucttVtD THIS COKMUNI.CATION IN
! ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY us IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONE, AND RETURN 'mE
I
\ OlU~INAL MESSAGE TQ US AT THE noVE ADDRESS VIA THE U. S. POSTAL
;. SERVICE. THANK YOU.
\
¡ I F THERE IS ANY QUESTION ABOUT TJŒ nulNSHI'l"1'AL, ÞlaEA.SE CALL
i (619)441-1798.
I
I
.
!.
i ;21.-7
r
JlL æ '93 14:51 EL CRJtJ-I C I TV a..ERK 325 ~ _..
UCOIIMBNDED DRAFT
RESOLUTION NO. -
A RESOLUTION 0' THE CITY OF . CALIFORNIA
APPROVING AN AMENDED
SOLID WASTE INl'BRIM A OREEMENT
WHEREAS. dispo.w of solid waste wlthII1 San DIego County ~ . crisI, which requiteS
the COOpentiOI1 of the COWIty of San Die¡o and every city within the County; and
WHEREAS, the Interim Agræment amended JUlIe I, 1993 Jw been signed only by me
COIInty of San Die&o and IeVCII cities; IIId
WHEREAS, the Interim A¡reement must be- further amended in order that it be signed
by the other QitÌe8 in the County; IIId
WHEREAS. during the pendency of the Interim Agreement:
A) Alternative forma of permanent governance win be comprehensively
mIowed and impartially analyzed; and
B) A full range of subreeional disposal alternatives will be explored and
colIJidcrocI; and
~ëopetatlon of existin¡ facilities Including ~~11 be examined and
siden:d for ~ødlfica1ion or termination: and
D) Tipping fees and their uniformity will be reviewed; &rul-
E) Host agencies Il1th as Chula Visea and San Marcos will ~ity
fees defined in the Interim A¡reement: and
P) Affected a¡endeS such as Santee will be paid mitiption fees deemed in
tl1o Interim Agrcc:ment; and - ----
WfffiR.EAS, while the above-recited matten and others are reviewed and implemented:
A) Plow çovenants shO\¥d be to the Cmnmission; and
B) Bonds sfìould not be issued without concurrence of a ~ority of tile
Commisaion.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
HBRBBY FINDS, RESOLVES, DETERMINES AND ORDERS AS FOU..oW$:
The Solid Waste Interim A¡reement as amended by the Board of
Supervisors of the County of San Die¡o onIone 1,1993, is hereby approved and
perçent L...J of the Acceptablll Waste Flow of the City of
is hereby committed on amdittOl1 that the Inlerim Agreement be amended to
provide as follows for an member &&enciea:
;2~-i
I
JUL æ '93 14:51 EI... CAJON CITY CLERK 325 P03
RF3OLtmON NO. -
,,1
1. BollI die InidaI. and subsequent &w commitments made by a city may be
made to Ibo IDlorim Commission and all flow commitments JDade by . city Iball IeYert
to that city 01\ or bIfore May 31. 1994 if' that city has aot IIIIeed to the permanent form
of IOYetIWICI,
2. 'Ibe County wID not Wile ao1id waste facility bondift¡ prior to June 1.
1994 without 1ha COIIC:\JUIIIC8 of a mtJority VOle of the members of the Interim
Commisaion.
PASSED. ADOPTED AND APP:kOVED by the City Council of the City of
. CalIfornia at a JegUlar meeting thereof this - clay of 1uli, 1993.
. Mayor i
A'I"ŒST: I
, city Clerk
clIP - /
I
/Iff ~
RESOLUTION NO. -
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA AUTHORIZING THE STAFF
TO MEET AND CONFER WITH THE COUNrY OF SAN
DIEGO FOR A TWENrY YEAR SERVICE AGREEMENr AT
A VARIABLE PRICE NOT TO EXCEED FAIR MARKET
PRICING, OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR A TRANSFER
OF AUTHORITY OVER THE SAN DIEGO COUNrY SOLID
WASTE SYSTEM TO A SPECIAL ACT DISTRICT.
WHEREAS, the County of San Diego has offered to provide the City of Chula Vista
solid waste disposal service and facilities according to the terms of an agreement commonly
known as the "Interim Flow Control Agreement"; and,
WHEREAS, said Interim Agreement was disapproved by the City of ChuIa Vista because
it contained objectionable terms and conditions, including but not limited to the lack of rate
increase protection and the inability to terminate sooner than 20 years; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista is interested in a solution to the regional trash crisis
that allows for reasonable rate protection to our resident ratepayers and in a manner that is con-
sistent with sound business judgment; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista's Chamber of Commerce, under the auspices of the
Honorable Pat Cavanaugh, President, has made a recommendation to the City Council consistent
with the provisions of this resolution;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, ORDER AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Manager is hereby directed to offer ("Offer") to, and if accepted
to engage in, meet and confer with the County according to the following business terms:
1. The County suspend enforcement of the surcharge for a period of 120 days
and extend or tolls all statute of limitations within which the City is required to commence
litigation to contest the imposl!iòn of the surcharge, regardless of legal theory.
2. In exchange for the suspension of the aforementioned surcharge and
extension/tolling of all such applicable statute of limitations, the City will agree to meet and
confer on an intensive schedule, not less than at least once every 10 days, over a peri<;>d of 90
days from the date of acceptance of this Offer for the purpose of striking agreement to the solid
waste disposal problem according to either of the following two solutions (Possible Solution Nos.
flowsol1. wp Proposed Trash Solution Resolution
July 16, 1993 Page 1
;2t ~/O
1 and 2):
3. Possible Solution No.1. Twenty Year Contract for Service at a Variable
Price, with Openers based on Fair Market Prices.
The City Manager is authorized and directed to meet, confer and negotiate, and
to return to the Council for approval of, an agreement (Agreement No.1) with
the County, consistent with his best business judgment and the following business
terms:
a. Term. The Term of Agreement No.1 shall be for 20 years, subject
to termination as herein provided.
b. Duty of County. In exchange for the payment of the Tipping Fee
charged by the County as hereinbelow limited, the County agrees, for the
Term, to dispose of all solid waste otherwise disposabJe at a Class III
landfill ("Acceptable Solid Waste")!', generated within the City limits of
the City of Chula Vista for the Term of Agreement No. 1.
c. Duty of City. City agrees, during the Term, to:
(1) Duty as a Generator. Dispose of its own solid waste
generation by deJivery of same to such facility reasonably
designated by the County, and to pay such Tipping Fee as may be
established therefore by the County in effect on the date of such
delivery.
(2) Duty as a Permitting Authority. Require its franchised and
permitted solid waste haulers ("Haulers"), to the extent legally
possible without significant exposure to the City's general fund),
to dispose of all Acceptable Solid Waste collected by such
franchised and permitted Haulers from generators within the City,
and to require such Haulers to pay such Tipping Fee as may be
established therefore by the County in effect on the date of such
delivery.
1. By not designating the disposal at a County Facility, this will permit the County to use,
instead of find, the Campo facility. They can collect for transfer and transport costs, and still
get an "override" to pay for other of their system costs as long as it stays within the Termination
Right limit (10% of Free Market).
flowsoll. wp Proposed Trash Solution Resolution
July 16, 1993 Page 2
:¿t -)!
I
(3) Duty as a Regulator. Require Acceptable Solid Waste
generators ("GeneratorsY") within the City (except for small
generation), to the extent legally possible without significant
exposure to the City's general fund, to dispose of all Acceptable
Solid Waste not collected by Haulers by delivery of same to such
facility reasonably designated by the County, and to require such
Generators to pay such Tipping Fee as may be established
therefore by the County in effect on the date of such delivery.
d. Termination Rights.
(I) City's Right--Tipping Fee is 10% Above Free Market. City
shall have the right to terminate this Agreement not sooner than
180 days after such time as the City reasonably determines (by
written notice to the Cóiínty) , through findings supported by
competent evidence (such as market or engineering studies), or
through conditional requests for competitive proposals and receipt
of competitive proposals from responsible vendors, that the
Tipping Fee charged by the County for the disposal of Acceptable
Solid Waste to the City, its Haulers or its Generators, is greater,
by ten percent (10%) than the cost that an alternative vendor or
group of vendors would charge for the same or similar type of
serviceV or the cost of providing the service itself, taking into full
consideration transfer (station), transport and disposal costs.
(2) County's Right--System Can't Support Itself. County shall
have the right to terminate this Agreement not sooner than 180
days after such time as the County reasonabJy determines (by
written notice to the City), through findings supported by
competent evidence, that the County Solid Waste Disposal System
is unable to support itself without significant uncompensated
contribution from the County's General Fund after making
2. A Generator is any individual or corporation hauling their own trash generation.
3. This "type of service" language will permit the County to separately identify and add on the -
cost for, household hazardous waste disposal services and recycling services, and will require
the City, if they are going to leave the County System, to take into consideration the value it is
getting from the County for those types of services. Currently, it is a small percentage of the
Tipping Fee calculation.
flowsoIl.wp Proposed Trash Solution Resolution
July 16, 1993 Page 3
.2£ -/2
I
reasonably prudent decisions to reduce unnecessary costs.i'
(3) After either party issues a notice of termination as herein
permitted, the legislative bodies of each party agree to meet and
confer until impasse is declared, and for at least 3 meetings
thereafter, for the purpose of attempting to resolve differences and
conflicts with the goal of negotiating, if possible, a revocation of
the notice of termination.
Section 4. Possible Solution No.2. Transfer of County Solid Waste Disposal System
to WAD.
The City Manager is also authorized and directed to meet, confer and negotiate,
and to return to the Council for approval of, an agreement (Agreement No.2)
with the County, consistent with his best business judgment and the following
business terms:
a. Formation of a WAD. County and interested cities propose state
IegisJation calling for the formation of a Solid Waste Special Act
District~' ("Waste Act District" or alternative "WAD") which has, once
properly formed and operating, responsibility for the disposal of
Acceptable Solid Waste, and at the request of a member agency, for the
collection of "Acceptable Solid Waste" ,§/ and which distributes authority
to vote on critical issues on the basis of trash generation ("flow") from
each member agency.
b. Transfer of Waste System to WAD. The proposed WAD legislation
shall specify the nature and extent of the County's Solid Waste System,
including such assets and liability thereof as may be approved by all
member agencies, prior to proposal for adoption to the State Legislature.
4. This clause, for example, will for reevaluation of the heavy administrative and overhead cost
load on the system, and some questionabJe capital facility decisions: NCRRA, and possibly San
Marcos Expansion.
5. This is chosen over the JPA in order to have a greater chance of creating a corporate type
veil to insulate cities from general fund liability.
6. By transferring, or ceding by state legislation, collection and disposal authority to the WAD,
Cities may be able to limit the CERCLA "arranger" liabiJity, and this language may be worth
examining in the negotiation period.
flowsolI. wp Proposed Trash SoJution Resolution
July 16, 1993 Page 4
02¿,-JJ
I
c. Transfer of Facility Siting Authority to WAD. The proposed WAD
legislation shall specify that the WAD shall have facility siting authority
ceded thereto by each member agency, but only on a combination of
supermajority vote based on flow volumes and membership, as agreeable
to the member agencies.
Section 5. This Offer may be acceptable by either of the following: (1) Suspension of
any "surcharge" for a period of 120 days (which will as acceptance constitute an extension or
tolling of the necessary statute of limitations); (2) a resolution from the County Board of
Supervisors announcing its acceptance. If and when accepted by the County, the duties of the
party are understood not to be a commitment to these business terms, but simple a duty to meet
and confer with regard to them.
Section 6. This resolution shall take and be in full force and effect immediately upon the
passage and adoption hereof. - -
Section 7. The City Clerk shall immediately upon signature of the necessary Officers,
transmit a certified copy hereof to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors.
Section 8. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution;
shall enter the same in the book of original Resolutions of said City; and shalJ make a minute
of the passage and adoption hereof in the minutes of the meeting at which the same is passed
and adopted.
7f:1~w 0 w ~ :x
Bruce M. Boogaard, City tt rney -----
flowsol1. wp Proposed Trash Solution Resolution
July 16, 1993 :J.¡'-IJ/ /«6-5/ Page 5
I
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT 7~93
Item
Mlleting Date
TITLE: REPORT Update on the Solid Waste Participation Agrfement
and Alternative Disposal Options i
,
SUBMITTED BY: City Manager~ (4/5ths Vote: Yes- N~-L-)
Council Referral Nol 2781
I
At the 6/22/93 meeting, the City Council held a lengthy discussion dn the
proposed Solid Waste Participation Agreement, eventually taking action to'offer
to participate on the Interim Commission but not:to commit any waste flow at this
time until specific issues have been addressed,' Council identified six specific
issues of concern to be addressed and approved a seventh concern to be negotiated
as a provision in the proposed Agreement, The deadline for action on that
Agreement was 6/22/93.
At the first meeting of the newly formed Interim Commission on 6/30/93, the
Commission voted unanimously to recommend an amendment to the Interim Agreement.
The amendment extends an opportunity to non-member cities which did not sign the
Agreement, or which signed the Agreement with conditions precluding membership,
to join the Interim Commission by signing on or before 7/23/93.
Since Council action on 6/22/93 did not adopt the resolution approving the
Agreement, both the Interim Agreement and the amendment extending the deadline
(Attachments 1 and 2) are being brought back at this time for Council
reconsideration. The report also includes any updated information regarding
alternative disposal options, primarily additional information received at a
workshop held on 7/1/93 by the North County Solid Waste Management Agency.
RECOMMENDATION: Accept the report.
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
Status of the Participation Aareements and the Interim Commission
As Council may be aware, the Interim Commission's initial members consisted of
the County and the Cities of Lemon Grove, National City and La Mesa. At the
Commission's first meeting on 6/30/93, additional member agencies were seated:
the Cities of Coronado, San Marcos, poway and Solana Beach. There was
significant discussion among Commission members and other cities regarding
specific concerns and issues registered by the cities during the Agreement review
process.
2~ ;J h -/3
I
Page 2, Item .?3
Meeting Pate 7/13/93
Chu1a Vista's specific concerns were presented at the Commission meeting by Mayor
Nader, and Counci1member Moore and City staff were also in attendance. At the
conclusion of the meeting, there was a unanimous vote of the Commission that all
of the cities' concerns/conditions (Attachment 3) will be placed on the
Commission's next agenda to be addressed.
The Commission also approved a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors and
their respective City Councils that would extend the deadline for signing the
Agreement to 7/23/93. All Commission members expressed their interest in being
joined at the next meeting on 7/28/93 by any or all remaining cities.
The decision point for membership was clearly articulated as being a willingness
to approve the existing Agreement (as modif~ only by the extension of the
deadline) and committing at least 50% of a 'city'.s waste flow. Cities were
assured by a motion of the Commission that all expressed concerns/conditions will
be addressed by the Commi ss ion, however, a city must be willing to make an
unconditional commitment in order to be invited to the table.
It is noted that some cities made unconditional commitments of their intent to
come to the table, but also emphasized their concerns by adopting resolutions
expressing the "understanding" that certain key decisions would not be made by
the Board of Supervisors without a majority opinion of the Interim Commission.
j
North County Workshop on Alternative Disposal Procurement
Council was informed at the 6/22/93 meeting that the North County Solid Waste
Management Agency (the "J.P.A." Cities of Car1sbad, Escondido and Oceanside)
scheduled a workshop on 7/1/93 to which all cities were especially invited. The
pur)ose of the workshop was a presentation by the consultant (Harvey Gershman of
GBB hi red by the Agency to carry out an RFP process for procurement of
alternative waste disposal options.
Council had expressed an interest in the information from this workshop since an
important agenda item was the consultant's status report on the research
regarding alternatives to the County system.
City staff was present at the workshop. Attached to an Information Report dated
7/6/93, Council received a copy of the outline of the consultant's presentation
along with a supplemental page of notes (prepared by City staff), taken from the
discussion or public testimony. Although more detailed staff notes were included
with the Information Report, this report will again reference and highlight those
parts of the workshop critically important to the Council's decision.
Regarding information on the alternatives, most new data was on the Orange County
RFP schedule and an update on the Campo situation provided by a representative
of Mid-American Waste, the 1andfi 11 owner-operator. Both opportunit ies, as
destinations, might be available by 1/1/94 although the process for reaching the
destinations still has the same hurdles previously described: award of the
Orange County RFP to the low bidder(s); repeal of Orange County's ordinance
prohibiting the import of waste; and transfer station capabilities needed for any
~.~ ;It -¡ þ
page 3, Item .:13
.- Meeting Date 7/13/93
destination outside the County system.
There was no substantively new cost data on disposal options uncovered by GBB,
although the upcoming procurement process will bring out more definitive
information. However, the workshop was extremely helpful in giving valuable
background information to cities which had not previously actively pursued
options.
For example, the consultant stressed that the Agency (or the City) did not
currently have either facilities or administrative infrastructure in place to
support its own waste disposal system. Because of the start-up time and expense,
it is worthwhile making sure that the Agency has carefully examined all other
possible options or strategies for changing the existing infrastructure before
venturing outside.
Additionally, critical concerns to be addressed when embarking on such a course
include:
1) Ensure adequate planning (time, reliable information, etc.) for both
interim and long-term options.
2) It is necessary to plan for a svstem, rather than just looking for a
landfill to place waste.
3) A key factor in correctly pricing, sizing and optimizing resources is
understanding the amount and expected duration of the current and
projected waste flow from the Agency members or any prospect ive new
members.
Finally, in response to the Agency's discussion about encouraging the
County/Commission to respond to the RFP, the consultant indicated that, if the
County were inclined to respond, thev could possiblv be the lowest cost
alternative. Qiven everythinQ else that has to happen to make other alternatives
operational. The meeting concluded with the Agency's decision of continuing to
pursue a relationship with the new Interim Commission simultaneously with sending
out the RFP for procurement of an alternative (short-term and long-term) system.
Specifically, the Agency will propose language amendments to the Participation
Agreement and distribute the proposed language for support among the currently
non-signatory cities. The amended language wi 11 bas ica lly represent the
conditions previousl~arlsbad and Escondido. Tt!.e S[1pcific prop~l
should be received b tfl~ City a ound 7/15/93. It is felt by the Agency that
n~,gnatory cities-represent a significant amount of tonnage, i.e. around
446, Uu tons at the tJU% level, which could be u>ed as leverage with the Interi",
Commi ss ion. The proposed Agreement will be presented at the next Commïss ion
meeting on 7/28/93. -- ----
-
~ ;¿¿,.-/?
I
Page 4, Item ~ j
Meeting Date 7/13/93
Tip Fees and Surcharoes
Council was informed by an Information Report dated 6/30/93 that the Board of
Supervisors took action on 6/29/93 to amend the County Resolution setting fees
at the landfills. At this time, the tip fee was set at $43 per ton effective
7/1/93. A surcharge was approved to be effective 8/1/93 for all non-signatory
cities, bringing the total tip fee to $62 per ton for those cities. The Board
also indicated that future amendments to the Tip Fee Resolution will rely on
advice from the Interim Commission.
As previously noted regarding the actions of the Interim Commission, the
extens ion of the dead 1 i ne for s i gn ing the Agreement (7/23/93) and the next
Commission meeting (7/28/93) have been specifically set to allow non-signatory
cities to reconsider their actions prior to the implementation of the surcharge.
It is also noted, and reported to Council in the Information Report, thatChu1a
Vi sta 's City Attorney has voi ced the same concerns about the 1 ega 1 ity of the
surcharge as have been expressed by Dwight Worden, Special Counsel to the City
of Car1sbad.
FISCAL IMPACT: As previously reported, the fiscal impact of this decision will
fall directly on the rate payer. The following illustration of the fiscal impact
to the rate payer is based only on the current tip fees (effective 7/1/93) and
the surcharge (effect ive B/1/93). It does not represent the impact of any
increase that may be recommended by the Interim Commission in the near future as
a result of an inability or lack of desire to issue bonds.
CURRENT FEES $43 TIP FEE $14.26/MO. (EST.)*
SIGNATORY CITY $43 TIP FEE $I4.26/MO. (EST.)
NON-SIGNATORY CITY $62 TI P FEE $16.77 /MO. (EST.)
*Estimates based only on projected increase in landfill component and do
not reflect increases for hauler's operational costs, new programs, etc.
It is also noted that. as of 7/1/93. the hauler's rates have not vet been
increased to reflect the tip fee increase from $28/ton to $43/ton. Unti 1
those rates are ad.iusted. the actua 1 rate charoed to a homeowner is
$12.28/mo.
~ ;)t-i Y
Attachment 1
APPROVED BY STEERING COMMITTEE, 11 May 1993
Amended for Signature by Any or All Cities
Page 1
AGREEMENT BY, BETWEEN ANI) AMONG HE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
ANI) HE CITIBS OF HB COUNTY" .
ESTABLISHING AN INTERIM SOLID WASTE COMMISSION
AND PROVIDING FOR THE DISPOSAL OF SOLID WASTE
("INTERIM AGREEMENT")
This Agreement ("INTERIM AGREEMENT"), is entered into by,
between.and among the County of San Diego ("COUNTY") and ~~~~~~
cities within the COUNTY, for the purpose of providing a committed
flow of solid waste that serves as a basis for the COUNTY to issue
bonds to finance the expansion and/or closure of the San Marcos
Landfill and to provide financing for other necessar solid waste
system ¡:¡roj ects;t-~pi'ó'Viêl.e;çEìít.~tìt; '.ó¡id
wastesi'!oihiêhmUstibeip1antjed'i'fotiQ\le anee
that suchwast:ii!s tiilJ.ibèètticíèh£l ,", """,, ,Tto
provideapiocess;toiUþtot.welvemon s,ÿw't.heparties
can mutually participate in dealing with regional solid waste
matters; and to develop a permanent governance authority to deal
with regional solid waste matters that will promote the long term
health and safety of the residents of the COUNTY and the cities.
Now, therefore, the undersigned COUNTY and cities (collectively,
"Member Agencies") agree to participate in good faith in the
performance of this INTERIM AGREEMENT, and to act in a manner that
conforms to the spirit, intent and general premises of this INTERIM
AGREEMENT, and in accordanc~ with the following:
1.0 MEMBERSHIP
1.1 COUNTY Membership. To be a" signatory of this INTERIM
AGREEMENT and participate as a full member of the Interim
Commission, the COUNTY is committing 100% of its Acceptable Waste
flow in accordance with the provisions of Part 3 of this document.
1.2 Citv Membership. To be a signatory of this INTERIM AGREEMENT
and participate as a full member of the Interim commission, each
city is committing at least 50%, and may commit up to loot, of its
Acceptable Waste flow in accordance with the ¡:¡rovisions of Part 3
of this document.
a. A member city committing at least sot of its Acceptable
Waste flow at the time of signing this document may, until December
1, 1993, deliver more than its committed Acceptable Waste to a
COUNTY facility and such additional waste shall not be subject to
the Economic Risk Surcharge set forth in this document at Part 3,
section 3.6, subsection d.
1
.prrf ;2 b / I c¡
I
APPROVED BY STEERING COMMITTEE, 11 May 1993
Amended for Signature by Any or All cities
Page 2
b. On or before !t.riùary:ì.¡.1.9~4, a member city !!lay file a
written addendum, in a fotJnâé::é::ept:âblê'to the Interim commission,
committing Acceptable Waste in addition to that committed in
Section 1. 2 (a) to the Interim Commission; on the terms set forth
in Section 3.10.
1.3 city of San Dieqo MemberahiD. Based on 'the City of San
Diego's unique role in regional waste management issues, the City
of San Diego may participate as an ex-officio non-voting member of
the Interim Commission. The COUNTY will negotiate a separate
agreement with the City of San Diego which reflects the city of San
Diego's unique role in regional waste management issues. Such
agreement will be brought before the Commission for review and
comment prior to adoption.
2.0 EFFECTIVE DATE, TERM
2.1 Effective Date. This INTERIM AGREEMENT shall take effect on
June 22, 1993, bY"..'ÞErt.wet!riâiuiâi1Ìoñijt.ni:ií;:()trn1'X:âij(t~y..
cities lis têd on A t ta chmentA as have êxêcl1t:.edt.niS ðê)CWJlEf'
Þeforethat date; . .' ..' ..... ... ...."............'.d...'.'..'"
2.2 Term. Except as otherwise provided in Part 3 of this INTERIM
AGREEMENT concerning the commitment and disposal of Acceptable
Waste, the term of the INTERIM AGREEMENT shall expire on May 31,
1994, unless sooner terminated by creation of a permanent
governance entity pursuant to Section 4.5(c).
3.0 COMMITMENT OF SOLID WASTE FLOW
AND DISPOSAL OBLIGATION
3.1 7.llil. This Part of the INTERIM AGREEMENT shall be known as
the "Flow Control Covenant."
3.2 Commitment of AcceÞtable Waste. To the extent allowed by law,
each Member Agency agrees that the portion of its Acceptable Waste
designated in the execution section of this document shall be
delivered to the facility that the COUNTY reasonably designates.
For purposes of this agreement, a 50% commitment constitutes the
tonnage commitment for the respective Cities as set forth in
Exhibit "A", until adjusted by the Interim commission. The Interim
Commission may review the tonnage commitment and revise the
apportionment.
2
~ ;2/ç -..20
APPROVED BY STEERING COMMITTEE, 11 May 1993
Amended for Signature by Any or All Cities
Page 3
3.3 AcceÐtabl. Wast. Defined.
a. "Acceptable Waste". is qarÞaqe, refuse, waste and other
matter which is legally acceptable at a Class III landfill pursuant
to California Code of Regulations Title 23, Subchapter 15 or under
such laws or regulations as are in effect at the time of disposal
which is generated within its respective jurisdiction which, tor
the COUNTY, consists of the unincorporated area. Except: waste
qenerated by a State or Federal qovernmental entity unless the
Member Agency has exercised control over such waste and chooses to
commit it; or waste qenerated by any person and tra~sported or
disposed of by or on behalf of a self hauler hauling less than 50
tons per month.
b. Each Member Agency shall have the right, without penalty,
to recycle (as defined at public Resource Code S 40180) any solid
waste (as defined at Public Resources Code S 40191) by any means
selected by the Member Agency and any such recycled material shall
be excluded from the commitment otherwise made to the COUNTY by
this Flow Control Covenant. However, if the residue of the
recycling process which can legally be disposed of at a Class III
landfill exceeds five percent (5%) of such recycled material, such
process residue shall be returned to the System for disposal unless
exempted by the COUNTY.
3.4 Enforcement of Flow Control. To the extent allowable by law,
each Member Agency shall establish, implement and carry out a waste
flow enforcement program which is. sufficient to assure compliance
with the Flow Control Covenant. This program may include to the
extent necessary and appropriate in the circumstances, but shall
not be limited to, (1) licensing, permitting or franchising
haulers (on an exclusive or nonexclusive basis), upon the condition
of compliance with the Flow Control Covenant, (2) adopting
ordinances or resolutions requlrJ.ng compliance with the Flow
Control Covenant, and (3) taking enforcement actions under any
such license, permit, franchise, ordinance or resolution. Direct
municipal collection of Acceptable Waste shall not be required
hereunder unless all other available means and methods of enforcing
the Flow Control Covenant have been unsuccessful. ,If any event or
circumstance (including without limitation a change or adverse
interpretation of applicable law) impairs or precludes compliance
with the Flow Control Covenant by the means or methods then being
employed by the affected party, such party shall implement
alternative or substitute means and methods to enable it to
lawfully satisfy the terms and conditions of the Flow Control
Covenant. If a change or interpretation in applicable law impa,irs
or precludes either party from complying with the Flow Control
3
~ c2t-;¿!
I
APPROVED BY STEERING COMMITTEE, 11 May 1993
Amended for Signature by Any or All Cities
Page 4
Covenant by any means, such party shall use its best efforts, to
the extent practicable and subject to indemnification by the
COUNTY, to effectuate executive, legislative or judicial change in
or relief from the applicability of such law so as to enable City
lawfully to resume compliance with the Flow Control Covenant as
soon as possible following such change or interpretation of
applicable law. Compliance by the affected party with its
obligations under this paragraph shall be deemed sufficient to
satisfy the its obligation to enforce the Flow Control Covenant.
a. Power to Exercise Flow Control.
Each Member Agency represents that it has the right,
power and authority under existing applicable law to enter into,
comply with, implement and enforce the Flow Control Covenant. Each
party shall use good faith and best efforts to preserve, protect
and defend its right and power to enter into, comply with,
implement and enforce the Flow Control Covenant in accordance
herewith against any challenge thereto, legal or otherwise
(including any lawsuits by or against such party, whether as
plaintiff or defendant) by any person based upon breach of
contract, violation of law or any other theory.
b. consistencv of Aqreements.
As soon as practicable after the Effective Date, all
licenses, permits, contracts, agreements, leases, franchises,
ordinances and resolutions of the affected party which are lawfully
in effect with or pertaining to any person relating to or affecting
Acceptable Waste shall, if and to the extent necessary, be amended
to provide explicitly that the affected party shall have the right
without material restriction to direct the delivery of the
commi tted Acceptable Waste in accordance with the Flow Control
Covenant. On and after the Effective Date, the affected party
shall not enter into, issue or adopt any license, permit, contract,
agreement, lease, franchise, ordinance or resolution which is
materially inconsistent with the Flow Control Covenant.
3.5 COUNTY's DLsÐosal Oh1iqation. In a manner that is economical,
fiscally sound and reasonably protects the environment, the COUNTY
agrees to dispose of the Acceptable Waste directed by Member
Agencies to the COUNTY under this Flow Control Covenant.
4
~ J-t.-.1:J.-
APPROVED BY STEERING COMMITTEE, 11 May 1993
Amended for Signature by Any or All cities
Page 5
3.6 ~isÞosal Charqes. The COUNTY may only charge a Memþer Agency
for the disposition of Acceptable Waste by imposing a fee in an
amount that does not exceed the COUNTY's cost for providing such
disposal. All revenue, including interest earned thereon, from
disposal charges shall be placed in the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund
used only for solid waste purposes.
e. ~iÞ Fe. to Member A~encv. The Tip Fee charged by the
COUNTY for the disposal of Acceptable Waste within the system shall
be sufficient to fund the reasonable and necessary costs for
operation, management and financing of the System, including:
solid waste facility closure and post closure costs, solid waste
facility and mitigation fees. For the disposal of Acceptable Waste
the COUNTY shall charge all sources in the unincorporated area, and
shall charge a Tip Fee for waste delivered from a Member Agency.
(1) Solid Waste Facilitv Fee.
(a) To the extent allowed by law, the COUNTY shall
charge a Facility Fee for waste delivered for
processing or disposal to a system facility. The
COUNTY shall pay-over the collected Facility Fee to
the City or COUNTY in the case of the
unincorporated area 1n whose jurisdiction the
faciH ty is located to compensate the hosting
member for the reoccurring impacts of having the
facility within its jurisdiction. The Facility Fee
shall initially be set at an amount equivalent to
the appropriate percentage for the facility type
(as described below), as that percentage of the Tip
Fee in effect on January 1, 1993. Thereafter, the
Facility Fee shall be adjusted automatically and
concurrently with any increase in the Tip Fee, by
an amount equal to the percentage increase in the
Tip Fee but not greater than five percent (5%) of
the then current Facility Fee, whichever is less.
(b) Facility types and percentage of the Tip
Fee* (In effect on January 1, 1993):
0 Landfill - 10% of Tip Fee ($2.80)
0 Mixed Solid Waste Material Recovery Facility
- 7.5% of Tip Fee ($2.10)
0 Transfer station - 5% of Tip Fee ($1.40)
*For the purpose of the calculation in this
section, the Tip Fee does not include the
Facility Fee or the Mitigation Fee.
5
~ ,;2",;25
APPROVED BY STEERING COMMITTEE, 11 May 1993
Amended for Signature by Any or All cities
Page 6
(c) If a jurisdiction has more than one
Facility at.the same location, or contiguous
location, it would receive the higher of the
applicable Facility Fees, but not more than
one Facility Fee.
(d) The Facility Fee for all future
facilities shall be the Facility Fee for that
type facility as of January 1, 1993 with
adjustments as described in subsection (1),
above.
. 2. Mitic¡ation Fee.
(a) To the extent allowed by law and comrnencing
July 1, 1993, the.COUNTY shall impose a Mitigation
Fee for waste delivered to a system facility. The
Mitigation Fee shall be in an amount that is five
percent (5%) of the Tip Fee in effect on January 1,
1993. Thereafter, the Mitigation Fee shall be
adjusted automatically and concurrently with any
increase in the Tip Fee, by an amount equal to the
percentage increase in the Tip Fee or an amount not
greater than five percent (5%) of the then current
Mitigation Fee, whichever is less.
(b) Mitigation Fee funds shall only be used for
specific projects that correct a documented impact
arising from a system facility. Any city or the
COUNTY for the unincorporated area may apply to the
COUNTY for a share of the Mitigation Fee funds.
Mitigation Fee funds shall not be used for a
mitigation measure which is required for compliance
with the California Environmental Quality Act or
any other regulatory process. Moreover, any Member
Agency which is receiving a Facility Fee for a
particular facility will not be eligible to receive
Mitigation Fee funds for that same facility.
b. ~conomic Risk Surcharc¡e.
(1) To the extent allowed by law, in order to offset any
increased costs to the system and account for any
economic risks created by non-comrnitted waste being
deposited into the system, COUNTY may impose an Economic
Risk Surcharge for the disposal of Acceptable Waste from
a non-signatory source or from a Member Agency in excess
of the portion of Acceptable Waste committed under the
Flow Control Covenant.
6~ ;2¿ ~~ Lj
APPROVED BY STEERING COMMITTEE, 11 May 1993
Amended for Siqnature by Any or All cities
paqe 7-
(2) From q-uly 1, 1993 to þ'û.1,y 1, 1994 the. surcharge
shall not éxceed fifty percérit"(50') of 'the Tip Fee in
effect at the time of the transaction, excluding the
Solid Waste Facility Fee and the Mitigation Fee, if any.
The criteria used to establish the Economic Risk
Surcharqe include but are not limited to: capital
charges, the increased depletion rate of landfill
capacity and timing effects. Economic Risk Surcharge
funds shall only be used to pay for the costs of the
operation, manaqement and financinq of the disposal
system.
3.7 Protection of Flow Control Covenant. If any challenge raises
issues common to the Member Agencies under this Flow Control
Covenant, the COUNTY through the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund shall
indemnify and hold harmless the affected party from the reasonable
costs, fees and expenses properly allocable to defending such right
and power.
3.8 Expiration and Reversion of Flow Contro~ Covenant.
a. Expiration. This Flow Control Covenant shall expire on
the first of any of the ,following to occur:
(1) No Bond Issue. As to all members, on May 31, 1994,
unless the COUNTY first relies on the Flow Control
Covenant in issuing bonds to finance the San Marcos
facility expansion and/or closure and to provide
financing for other solid waste projects in the
approximate amount of $60 to $100 million;
(2) Expiration of Te~ of Bond. As to all members, if
the COUNTY timely issues the bonds described above, the
Flow Control Covenant shall expire upon the expiration of
the term of such bonds or upon the refinancing of such
bonds, but in no event later than 20 years from the date
of the oriqinal bond issuance.
(3) ImproÞer Charae. As to affected members, if the
COUNTY imposes on a Member Agency a fee that is not
consistent with this Flow Control Covenant and after 60
days written notice from the Interim Commission, COUNTY
fails to adjust the fee so as to be in compliance with
this Flow Control Covenant and fails to refund or qrant
a credit for any over-charges;
7
¿;M-11 a2. h ' c2 ç
APPROVED BY STEERING COMMITTEE, 11 May 1993
Amended for Signature by Any or All Cities
Page 8
(4) ,ai1ure To DisDose. As to affected øembers, if the
COUNTY is unable to dispose of all of the cpmmitted
Acceptable Waste from the øember and after 60 days
written notice from the Interim Commission County fails
to dispose of such waste; or
(5) Leeral J:mDQssiÞilitv. As to affected øeøbers, if the
law precludes a øember from directing the flow of
Acceptable Waste to the COUNTY.
b. Reversion.
(1) To Member. Upon expiration of the Flow Control
Covenant to the COUNTY, the member's commitment of flow
shall revert to the committing member;
(2) To Interim commission. In the event that a
permanent governance entity is not established pursuant
to Section 4.5 (c) any flow committed to the Interim
Commission shall be retained by the Commission, as
allowed by law, otherwise to the Member Agency.
(3) :1'0 Permanent Entity. If a permanent governance
entity acceptable to the Interim Commission is
established pursuant to Section 4.5 (c), the member's
commitment of flow shall be assigned to that permanent
entity on the terms specified in the document creating
the permanent entity.
3.9 continuation of Interim commission. Notwithstanding section
:2.:2 hereof, the Interim Commission established in Part 4 shall
continue to exist so long as is necessary to accomplish the
purposes of Part 3.
3.10 Tlow Commitment to Interim Commission. Flow commitment to the
Interim Commission shall be subject to the following covenants of
the Member Agencies:
a. The commitment shall be for the same term of the initial
commitment made to the COUNTY.
b. The COUNTY shall dispose of the commitment to the Interim
commission without surcharge until May 31, 1994.
c. In the event that a permanent governance entity is
established pursuant to Section 4.5(C), the flow committed to the
Interim commission shall be assigned to that entity. In the event
that such an entity is not established, the Interim commission
shall retain the commitment.
8~ ;¿t ~.2t
APPROVED BY STEERING COMMITTEE, 11 May 1993
Amended for Signature by Any or All Cities
Page 9
3.11 Alleaation of Breach. In the event that a MelÙ!er Agency
alleges that another Member Agency has breached any part of this
Part 3 or Section 4.6 the dispute shall be submitted to the Interim
Commission; the determination of the Interim Commission shall
constitute a rebuttable presumption of compliance with or breach of
such part or section.
4.0 BSTABLISBHENT OF Interim Commission
4.1 EstabUa)'I1"ent. There is hereby established t~e Interim
Commission to accomplish the purposes set forth herein.
4.2 Colllposition. The Interim Commission shall consist of one
commissioner from the County of San Diego who shall be a
Supervisor; one commissioner from each member city who shall be a
mayor or councilperson: and one ex-officio commissioner from the
City of San Diego who shall be a mayor or councilperson.
Commissioners shall be appointed by their respective governing
bodies which may also appoint an alternate commissioner.
4.3 procedures. The Interim Commission shall be subject to the
Ralph M. Brown Act (Gov. Code 5§ 54950 ~~) and shall adopt
regulations to govern its internal operation.
a. A Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson shall be chosen by the
Interim Commission.
b. The commission shall meet at least once each month on the
Commission's established regular meeting date.
c. Special meetings may be called at the request of three
commissioners with a minimum of 72 hours notice to all members
of the Interim Commission.
d. A majority of the commissioners shall constitute a
quorum.
e. Actions shall be determined by a majority vote of the
commissioners, based on one vote per Member Agency. The
Interim Commission may amend this document to establish
procedures for a "Weighted Vote."
4.4 Staff tor Interim Commission. The COUNTY agrees to provide
such County administrative staff as requested by the Interim
Commission. The Interim Commission may request assistance from the
staffs of the members.
9
~:lt/p2,7
I
APPROVED BY STEERING COMMITTEE, 11 May 1993
Amended for signature by Any or All cities
Page 10
4.5 Role of Interim Commission.
e. ~. The Interim commission shall provide advice to
the Board of Supervisors of the COUNTY on the following matters
that concern solid waste facilities, operation, rates and
financing: capital projects in excess of $50,000, disposal
alternatives if the San Marcos site is closed, other disposal
options, outside-county disposal, intra-county transfer of solid
waste and Tip Fees.
b. Notice and ODDortunity to Advi... Before considering a
solid waste matter listed in Section 4.5 (a), the COUNTY will
provide to the Interim Commission a full staff report on each solid
waste matter to be addressed by the COUNTY's Board of Supervisors;
in sufficient time for the Interim Commission to consider the
matter on the agenda of the Interim Commission's regular meeting.
The COUNTY is not required to comply with this process when an
emergency condition must be addressed and there is insufficient
time for compliance. In the event of such emergency, the COUNTY
shall provide a staff report to an Executive Committee appointed by
the Interim Commission.
c. DeveloD Permanent Governance Enti tv. The Interim
Commission shall consider alternative organizational structures,
including a joint powers agreement, for exerting a unified effort
to accomplish regional, solid waste objectives. No later than May
31, 1994, the Interim Commission shall develop a permanent
governance entity designed to maximize the members' collective
strength in pursuing their interests in disposing of solid waste.
The permanent governance entity:
(1) Shall include all participating cities and the
COUNTY;
(2) Shall be empowered to contract for solid waste
processing and disposal; and
(3) May be empowered to (a) take over and operate the
COUNTY facilities, (b) create new facilities and (c)
contract with outside providers.
d. ðcceDtab1. Waste DisDosa1. The Interim Commission shall
provide for disposal of Acceptable Waste flow committed to the
Interim Commission.2
10
~ ).. t~:< ~
APPROVED BY STEERING COMMITTEE, 11 May 1993
Amended for Signature by Any or All Cities
Page 11
4.1 Attainina JuÞ-Reqional Dispo.al OÞi.ctiv... During the term
of this INTERIM AGREEMENT, the COUNTY and the other Member Agencies
agree:
a. proce.s. To plan and implement the objective of
providing facilities to meet the waste disposal needs of the
various sub-regions of the County of San- Diego, without
unreasonably impacting another sub-region in an adverse manner.
Any dispute shall be resolved by the Interim Commission in
accordance with Section 3.11.
b. North County DisDo.al oDt~on. The County will use its
best efforts to provide a North County disposal option.
c. Waiver of Geoqraphic Obi.ction. On condition that the
covenants set forth in Section 4.6(a) and (b) are being performed,
not to object, on the basis of geographic origin, to the direction
of Acceptable Waste to any facility.
5.0 MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
5.1 Withdrawal.
a. Procedure. If any Member Agency requests to withdraw
from this INTERIM AGREEMENT, the Interim Commission shall calculate
the impact on the system of such agency's withdrawal taken in
conjunction with all other members desiring to witrtdraw, and shall
thereafter formulate, in negotiation with all such agencies, a set
of final terms and conditions for early withdrawal which will
become effective upon approval of the Interim Commission.
b. Limitation On Withdr~wal Charqe./Penaltie.. There shall
be no charge or penalty imposed on the withdrawing Member Agency if
the reason for withdrawal is the expiration of the Flow Control
Covenant as to the withdrawing member.
c. survival. Notwithstanding Section 2.2 hereof, this
section 5.1 shall survive as long as the Interim Commission
survives.
5.2 Notices. All notices, demands or requests pursuant to this
INTERIM AGREEMENT shall be in writing. All notices, demands and
- requests to be sent to any member shall be deemed to have been
properly given or served:
a. On the date of actual personal service; or
11
~ ;¿d --.ø21
I
APPROVED BY STEERING COMMITTEE, 11 May 1993
Amended for Signature by Any or All Cities
Page 12
b. On the date actually received, if deposited in the United
States mail, addressed to such party at the address of the Member
Agency's regular meeting chambers, or other address designated by
the Member, postage prepaid, registered or certified, and with
return receipt requested.
5.3 Non-Severability. In the event that a substantive provision
of this INTERIM AGREEMENT shall be determined to be invalid,
illegal, or unenforceable in any respect, the parties hereto shall
negotiate in good faith such amendments, modifications, or
supplements to this INTERIM AGREEMENT or such other appropriate
action as shall, to the maximum extent practicable in light of such
determination, implement and give effect to the intentions of the
parties as reflected herein. If negotiations in good faith fail,
the INTERIM AGREEMENT, including the Flow Control Covenant, is
terminated.
5.4 Waiver of Breach. No breach of any provision herein can be
waived unless in writing. Waiver of any one breach of any
provision herein shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any other
breach of the same or other provision hereof.
5.5 Remedies. All Parties hereto shall have the right to commence
any action at law or equity, including specific performance, to
remedy a breach of the terms herein, provided that neither Party
shall have the right to terminate this Agreement except as provided
herein.
5.6 No Third pacty Riqhts. There are no third party
beneficiaries of this Agreement. No action may be commenced to
enforce this Agreement, except by a Member Agency.
5.7 Counterparts. This document shall be executed in
counterparts.
12
~ ;¿¡, /30
APPROVED BY STEERING COMMITTEE, 11 May 1993
Amended for Signature by Any or All Cities
Page 13
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have signed thi!5 INTERIM
AGREEMENT as of the dates set forth.
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO CITY OF LA MESA
committing loot of its committing' of its
Acceptable Waste flow Acceptable Wãšte flow.
Date: Date:
By: By:
SUPERVISOR MAYOR
ATTEST: ATTEST:
CLERK CITY CLERK
CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY OF LEMON GROVE
committing ---' of its coromi tting - ' of its
Acceptable Waste flow. Acceptable Waste flow.
Date: Date:
By: By:
MAYOR MAYOR
ATTEST: ATTEST:
CITY CLERK CITY CLERK
CITY OF CHULA VISTA CITY OF NATIONAL CITY
committing - ' of its committing' of its
Acceptable Waste flow. Acceptable Wãšte flow.
Date: Date:
By: By:
MAYOR MAYOR
ATTEST: ATTEST:
CITY CLERK CITY CLERK
13
~~b ' :II
I
APPROVED BY STEERING COMMITTEE, 11 May 1993
Amended for Signature by Any or All Cities
Page 14
CITY OF CORONADO CITY OF OCEANSIDE
committing --- ' of its committing' of its
Acceptable Waste flow. Acceptable Wãšte flow.
Date: Date:
By: By:
MAYOR MAYOR
ATTEST: ATTEST:
CITY CLERK CITY CLERK
CITY OF DEL MAR CITY OF POWAY
committing ---' of its committing' of its
Acceptable Waste flow. Acceptable Wãšte flow.
Date: Date:
By: By:
MAYOR MAYOR
ATTEST: ATTEST:
CITY CLERK CITY CLERK
CITY OF EL CAJON CITY OF SAN MARCOS
committing - % of its committing ---% of its
Acceptable Waste flow. Acceptable Waste flow.
Date: Date:
By: By:
MAYOR MAYOR
ATTEST: ATTEST:
CITY CLERK CITY CLERK
14
~d.(P-32
APPROVED BY STEERING COMMITTEE, 11 May 1993
Amended for Signature by Any or All Cities
Page 15
CITY OF ENCINITAS CITY OF SANTEE.
committing ---' of its committing' of its
Acceptable Waste flow. Acceptable Wãšte flow.
Date: Date:
By: By:
MAYOR MAYOR
ATTEST: ATTEST:
CITY CLERK CITY CLERK
CITY OF ESCONDIDO CITY OF SOLANA BEACH
committing ---' of its committing ---' of its
Acceptable Waste flow. Acceptable Waste flow.
Date: Date:
By: By:
MAYOR MAYOR
ATTEST: ATTEST:
CITY CLERK CITY CLERK
CITY OF IMPERIAL BEACH CITY OF VISTA
committing ---' of its committing' of its
Acceptable Waste flow. Acceptable Wãšte flow.
Date: Date:
By: By:
MAYOR MAYOR
ATTEST: ATTEST:
CITY CLERK CITY CLERK
15
~ :2t .~5:J
I
ATTACJU(ENT "A"
CITY WASTESTREAK COMMITMENT*
Member Aaency Waste Tons
Chula vista 82,399
Oceanside 80,450
Escondido 65,566
El Cajon 52,430
Vista 44,028
Carlsbad 38,149
National City 34,065
Encinitas 32,844
La Mesa 31,399
Santee 31,289
poway 26,371
San Marcos 24,854
Imperial Beach 15,767
Coronado 15,503
Lemon Grove 14,327
Solana Beach 7,663
Del Mar ...l.......§.12
600,000
* Calculation utilizes July 1992 population figures as
approved by SANDAG
~;lt~3i
--.- n .p- -0.- ----,.. - -~ -.~'n .~ .~.~.~~.-......,.. ...,.., no.:;
-_.- ..
07/0218' 01:&3 1t1l18 114 IlIla ao II) lOi.ID 111m - CIIIJ1A VI ITA II Doz/Ooa
'Attachment 2
PROPOBIm ""IlN1'D(1!:1IT '1'0 ,[IITI!:RYM ACJRlC-¡wT:
AT THB IN'l'ØDlSOLID WAa'1'l 'COMMISSION IIII'1'IN<i Olf "UNE 30, un, '1'H1
IN'l'BRIJI COIØIISSJ:OM UIfANIMOUSLY UCOJIMINDBD AN Ak.nao.La.n..,,' TO 'l'HE
"IIITDIN AØJ:DIDIT UTPLISHIIfG U DI'l'DDI BOLIO WASH CONNXBBION
AND PROVIDIIfC: POR' '1'HI DIIPOSAL OP 101.10 wAnE." THB DDDJID1'1'
WOULD DTInfP AN OPPORTUNI'1'1C TO NON.JlllØD CI'l'n:s 1QIXCII DID NOT SIaN
THE III'rDIM AGR.J:DŒNT, OR WHICH SIGNED DB DI'l'UIJI AGR.BDIBNT WITH
CONDITIONS THAT PRECJ.WB TED! FROM aEDfGl KDUlDB 01" '.I'll!!: IBTDDI
COMMISSION, TO o1OIN THB: COJÐaSSIOlf 8Y SIGNING HE IN'l'DIK AGJUaIMBNT
Olf,O1\ a.POd 3ULY :13, 1"3.
'1'0 BB ZFFlC'l'IVI, TIll AKINtIKEN'l' WIT B.' ADOPl'ID Ii BACH .7UU8DIC'l'ION
THAT IS ~LY A VOTING HIIHBU or ml COJIHI8SION: '1'HJ: CIT:tII:S 01"
,CORONADO, LA MESA, LIMON CROVE, POWAY, RATIONAL crn,' 8M KA1\COS
AND SOLANA SMOH, NfD THE COUN'l'Y or SAN DIleO. '1'HB AKlRDKINT IlUBT
ALSO BB ADDBD '1'0 THE IN'l'ElUN MRBIMIN'l' BY MY CITY O'1'ILIlIIf(; THIS
,OPPOR'1't.JNI'1'Y TO SICN THE AGREEMENT AND .¡coMB A KDlBU OF THE
COMMISSION.
THE AJŒm»ŒNT MOULD RÞ'LACE SBCTXOß .2. 1 OJ' TIlE MÞDB:D IN'l'BJaM
AGREmŒN'r WITH THE 1"0LI.0tfXNCõ LANGUAGE;
Thi. IN'l'ERIIIACUBHI!:N'1' .hall tûe etteot a. gt iJ\Ine 2Z, un,
,by, betwe.n and _on~ the COUN'l'Y and any ot the Citl.. listed
on Att;achJlent. A.. have exeout.1S tbi. cioowaent on or b8ro~e
July 23, 1993.
ALL O'l'HER TERNS AND CONDITIONS OF 'l'HII: IN'l'1tRIM AGR!:!:ImNT WOULD
REMAIN t1KCHAN(¡ID. '
ATTACHED IS THE AJlENDM!N'1' WHICH YOUlt CITY BHOULI) SIGN AND U'l'tJRN 'rO
THE tOUNTY. IF YOt¡ HAVE MY. QUISTIONS PI.IASE CALL LIN WURaS IN THE
¡ SOLXD WASTE 'DIVISION ('~4.Z'2')~ ' '
.
¡
.
!
I ~ cU-yS-
I
- _.-...- =-' -", <=..:>.;> "..'0.." T '.'- o..:,::'-':'~':'. '!._~ 1'IJ:619-GSll-5171.- - - 1lE!1~
07101/13 0':66 0810 '" 1138 CO 8Þ BOLIO II8TB --- CIIV1A VISTA 111008/003
!
...'
!
I
At it. ~.,ul.r1y lIOhoclul8d I IHtinq on July, 1'113, the city
COUncil ot the city of I&9re84 to the tol1õw1nq alllencla8nt to
tha DINTIlUN AGU~Ut.%SHING AN INT_IN SOLID NASft
I OOIDCI8Sl0N A1fD PROVIDING FOR THE DISPOSAL 01" SOLID WAS'1'B'' (~
"Interim Agreement"):
.aCTION 2. 1 OJ' THB AMENDED tR'l'DIN AGRBISMØ'1' BBJU.L BE RBPI.r.C8D
.n'R THB FOLLOWING LUGUAO!:
'I'M.. INTZRIM AGUEKBN'1' .hall talCl' ettact a8 ot "'une 22., 111'),
by, between an4 AlllClnq the COUH'J'Y and any ot the ci tie. u'8t:8d
on Attachment A a. have ueClrte4 this document on or before
I July :n, uU.
.
i
,
I
I
!
~ ;)?~3?
Attachment 3
LIST OF NON-SIGNATORY CITY CONCERNS/CONDITIONS
Citv Concerns/Conditions
Imperial Beach No bonds be issued without a majority vote of
El Cajon the Conunission *
Chula Vista 1) Cap be placed on rate escalation during
the flow conunitment
2) Host fees be paid to jurisdictions with
landfills
3) The amount of waste kept out of the
wastestream by recycling not be counted
against the City
4) Costs for facilities not approved by
participating jurisdictions not be passed on
to those jurisdictions
5) No new cost liabilities assumed for
facilities that had not been used by the
participating jurisdictions and for which the
jurisdictions were not previously liable
6) Some agreement on governance and authority
prior to the issuance of debt
7) Minimal or no General Fund liability
Carlsbad 1) Flow conunitment of 100% for up to three
years at "pay-as-you-go" rate, i.e. no bonds
2) Uniform tip fee for all participants
3) Conunission to contipue to consider North
County disposal options, capital improvement
and funding plans, and permanent governance
4) Right to withdraw from Agreement without
penalties if conditions not met
5) These conditions amend Agreement and
control in event of conflict
Escondido 1) Creation of permanent regional governance
overseen by independent agency such as SANDAG,
prior to any flow conunitment
2) Explore other disposal alternatives,
including economic analysis of cost-
effectiveness of long-term operation of NCRRA
3) No debt to be issued until decision made
on permanent governance
4) Conunitment of flow contingent on formation
of new governance and city's decision to
participate in the new governance
~e.2~--37
I
City Conditions
Page 2
Del Mar I) Uniform tip fee
2) Commission to approve any bonding
3) Study "equity" issue regarding built-out
cities v. growth cities
4) Favor "pay-as-you-go" rates until issues
settled
5) Term of Agreement to be 7 years with 2
year notice to exit
6) Clause regarding reduction of waste per AB
939, i.e. allow Commission to change
allocation of tonnage commitment
7) Flow commitment not mad unless permanent
governance acceptable to city
Santee 1) City to be considered host city or
guaranteed a mitigation fee
2) Commitment to site North County landfill
and not consider Sycamore as option to not
doing so
3) Waiver of surcharge for 5 years
4) Be allowed to object to Sec. 4.6C of the
Agreement re: geographic basis for location of
replacement landfills
5) City not to be held in violation pending
completion of franchise implementation process
Vista 1) Tip fee set as "pay-as-you-go" rate, Le.
no bonding
2) Commitment contingent on formation of new
governance and city's decision to participate
in new governance
* The concern regarding no bonding unless by majority
approval of the Interim Commission was also registered by
three signatory cities: poway, Coronado and Solana Beach.
~~¿;3g/
~~~
-.,--..-
~~~~
cm Of
CHUlA VISTA
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
July 2, 1993
TO: Councilwoman Shirley Horton ~
FROM: Bruce M. Boogaard, city Attorney
RE: North cities JPA Meeting with regard to Alternative
Refuse Disposal Procurement options
At your request, I attended the meeting of the North Cities JPA,
which was held July 1, 1993, commencing at 10:30 a.m.
The following information, which I consider to be most significant
coming out of the meeting, is as follows:
1. The North County cities JPA consists of the Cities of
Oceanside, Carlsbad and Escondldo which, together, have a
wastestream currently of about 350,000 tons per year, or about
22% of the entire county wastestreaml
2. The North cities JPA intends to issue a request for proposals
to companies capable of transporting and/or disposing of the
solid waste from these three cities.
3. Disposal locations that may be interested in making proposals
to handle the North County Cities wastestream are shown on a
map which was distributed at the meeting, a copy of which is
being attached hereto as Exhibit A, and include the following
prospective landfill options:
1. The East Carbon Development Company in Utah.
2. The Franconia Landfill in Arizona.
.Please compare this to our own flow of approximately 170,000
tons per year or 10.5% of the wastestream.
pA"~-- 2&'- 3;
276 FOURTH AVE/CHULA VIS-. . "'9'0/(619) 691.5037
I
Councilwoman Shirley Horton
July 2, 1993
Page 2
3. The Rail-cycle Landfill proposed to be built between
Barstow and the Colorado River.
4. The Eagle Mountain Landfill Facility in Riverside County.
5. The Interail/Western Waste Facility in Imperial county.
6. The Campo Indian Reservation Landfill Facility in Campo.
7. The Prima Deschecha in orange County.
8. The Bee Canyon Landfill in Orange County.
9. The El Sobrante Landfill in Riverside County.
Not shown on the map due to some clerical error is the Chiquita
canyon Landfill in Los Angeles near six Flags Magic Mountain and
the Bradley Landfill, also somewhere in Los Angeles county.
The attached map also shows the train routes that may be available
to these various facilities. Please note that the closest rail
route to Campo has been washed out by recent rains.
In addition to the foregoing, and not shown on the map is the City
of San Diego facility at Miramar. Of course, we are all familiar
with the current County waste disposal system consisting of the
three landfills, one of which is in our City.
Also attached hereto as Exhibit B is an exhibit showing the list of
the various landfill alternatives, their status, their estimated
tipping fee if known and their distance from the North County
facility" Please note that the Prima Deschecha facility is
considering waste importation at $32.75 per ton at the gate and is
45 miles away from the North County cities. The El Sobrante
Landfill facility is applying for permits for expansion of the
facility and importation of waste. They expected it to be
operational in January of 1994 at $34.50 per ton gate fee and is 50
miles from the North County cities. Waste Management's Rail-Cycle
facility is proposing to soon be operational and is expected to
charge a fee in the mid-50's per ton for both transport and
disposal! The Bradley Landfill in Los Angeles operated by Waste
Management is c'lrrently operational without restrictions and has a
$25-$33 per ton gate fee and is 100 miles away.
The JPA expressed the desire for non-signatory/non-participating
cities in the Interim Commission to join with them to achieve
economies of scale, if at all possible.
~d-t-L/CJ
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
-, Councilwoman Shirley Horton
July 2, 1993
Page 3
A copy of the complete workshop presentation made by their
consultant, Harvey Gershman from GBB is available in my office and
will be copied upon your request or the requests of any other
Councilperson.
I Was also able to make brief contact with Mid-American Waste
Systems, the operator for the Campo facility through its Vice-
President of Landfill Operations, Mr. R. Jay Roberts (614) 833-9155
who expressed interst in talking to us, as a city customer.
Please call if you have any questions. I am at extension 5038.
BMB: 19k
Enc.
cc: City Council
City Manager
- F,Ih....\aUom.yljpanonll
P.S. Please note,the article documenting the recent trend in
Federal Court decisions which have ruled that flow control
ordinances are illegal as a violation of the Interstate
Commerce Clause of the Federal Constitution attached as
Exhibi t "C".
-
~ .,}6-7'/
CITY OF CHU~A'
I
EXHIBIT "A"
~
I L/^'
'l
g~
~H ~ ÎI
'" , t:t"
"2 æ H \.¡~!
~ ~> :; U G
0 C -¡;c Ë ~
~ ."'" Æ ~ ~ '"
."'" ~ ~U Ë ~
ëã - G ~~
u."'" U ":'
~ =
C ~ UJ ...
~"'O >-
Q) C "
c
.£ ~ 8»
::s r.n III(
0 Q) "ë
rJ).-;:: 2 l
~rJ) 1!
0- i
r.n ~ ~ I
C 00 .
0 0
."'" 0.. f 5! !
....... r.n
~."'"
UO . i t ~ ~
0
~ t'I.~~ :2
~.tIIJ ;~ N ~ :i
~Sl ~ Ii ~
j,~;! ¡ c
~1is!5 Ii! ~ 0 ::»
0
rJ u
III
z
~.1¡' -if~
'C
- e ëS EXHIBIT "B"
eb~
_Cal
alai: i.
yu e,@ 8
;.t-~~ ~ 0 ~.
-cra ~ N I.t') 0 ~ '
23 .~:s ~ ~
Q ° I
U . U ~
C1)
'-" ';),.c::o
8 ¡,¡Jt::-
~ ~ ~
-
ro =' rr
(/'j e c:
0 -.; c::Š .9 5 ~
~ ... :¡:: ,11:S
II) e 0 e I1:S I1:S ¡be
.~ 0 ...- ë ~ ë ~
0 u -.:: ....... ~ 15
~ ~.~~ ..E~ 0- ...
S 11:S...~ .......
.-N ~ .:=. s...œ (!
ro Miti 0 I1:s ....
s:: ,~ z> 011:s 'å
- '"'" I1:s Z ~
~
- 5
< ~ .... c: II)
"+-4 t) Cl.. ...] ~ ....9 .'"
0 '" - J!J - '" .~ :a ~ ~ "" "
~ i:2 m .~ ..!¡c'- Ë " "" 2! ..;
(/'j
.... !!i "" ~ - "0 Q S- ¡j .t ¡¡. !Ua ~
(/'j ... "¡j,g .t '" 0 6 ,,-," § .",g ¡¡. ~
0
U - Q "" ""u~.. ~'" Q Q ..
'" :g J9 ~" .5 ] '" 6.E J9 ¡; 13 t: c
"0 ~:s" >- 5 ~ "".. ..-'E
ã 0 o.:~ .~.¡¡ $.e ~ i ~ &. 8:~.iII ~ 1:
~ 0.. &!~ ¡se::¡¡¡ ~ ~ =~:: 1
(/'j
.E -\ ¡,¡ '" ~ - 0 .~ -
. cr:" '" J:: <:.f ~
$ ~ ;s: Ij ~~ ~
Cf) § ¡j ;~ ~ ,,-,,~ '- ~
-5 ""- - 5 ~
.. 0 ........ II) Q, .
~ u iJ 'tI::ii" ;;; a
.- "Q .Ei..... ~ .S!;!! § ;¡
- e "" 0 = ..... !ã ..... .II
1>0 iã'" þ,u:I '" .. IE e 0
. ¡; ¡;"" 12 J!j .<:> .::; ~
õæ ð~ ~[( cÍJ~* $ §
~ ~ - ~ ~- "
- ¡,¡J~ ~~ of
~ db ~1/3 ~
I
~ -~
e'6 - . '
e J::: ~ r C'{- .
- -~..... ~
'\j - . .., "-
Q) ~ u e 8 8 8 'I ~
::s c:: ~~ ~ 1t') ~ ,co"
C ~c::~ ~ J
..-4 .~:I ~
... ,.....c'
C ~ QI
0 . u c::
- c
U f/).J:-
¡,¡,¡t: .....
~ ~ ~~. ¡~
... ~ ~ ~
~ ¿~ ~~ ~
. ...... .. . 0...., ~ """ ~
0 - .... .... - \ ....
J-( -1;'~ 'co~ co
~ ~ e b 1:: oo~ òO
- U"" 1t') Q s:: ~ s::
ro ';j ..¿., -Go .9 Ç) .9
en ¡,¡,¡ ..... ~ \3 ,'>--~ '\
0 ~co ~~ 0
c.. fF:r .= ~~ ~
.~ ,~ \0
0 -~~ '"
,~ ... "0
- s:: ~
\~ 0"" ~
c ..., U f/) ~
J-( .... ~ S::'"
1'1 \ co c.. " 0 0 II
....., ..... >< - ..... ..... at
... f/) ~ co co "¡:: I .... C
- :I U ~ s:: s:: u s:: .~ ..
""""" 1; .=..... ~ 0 0 ..... 0 .= c:
~ - Y.~O\:O :0'= ',¡:: f/) II
\,, ,..¡ rJ} 1::00\ co cof/) co~ E
0 .;;it ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ II
en ~ 2:~ ~ ~\.~ ~ 0 :
~ ¡,¡,¡ co oS 0 0 III 0 z g
0 ~
U .. ~ !
-.... .,.
~ ~ œ =~ D
C ~,"O~ ~~ ~
ro ~- fá~.... ~,.... ~ -
en ,~~5~ fá~~ §~ 1
::s ti ~ I:: co;> I:: ~ - I:: roo. e >.
... ~ ü ~ ~ '!: ' ~ ~ ~ -... roo. s:: ~
- '- >. ~ rT. ¡;;¡ co ~ >. c:; ~ co - (d c:
~ C U òO- 0 s:: 00 ~ <: òO u..s c.. ~
CJ) ~ = ~ ~ ~.2 ~ ~ f/) ~ t) ~ e I~
co"'=::'co ~t:",=::, ~o"'=::' co~O
~~~ ~<~ ~~~ ¡,¡,¡ou ~
z
~ .1¡'~1 i
~
EXHIBIT "e"
REcENT ess than one month apart, both a federal
appellate coun and district coon declared
unlawful on Commerce Clause grounds !
attempts by local planning authorities to I
finance the construcûon and operation of
FEDERAL municipal solid waste (MSW) management
faciliùes by requiring that all MSW within
each authority's jurisdiction go to publicl}' !
awned faciliùes, 1bis type of ordinance, wtùch proJùbits 1
the disposal of MSW at any point other than a "desig-
COURf nated faålity" within the jurisdicûon of a s"'te, munic-
ipality, or planning authority, is commonly referred to
as "flow control." At least 26 S"'1es now expressly grant
localities or s"'te agencies the power to implement
flow control.
On Feb. 18, 1993, the U.s. COlIn of Appeals for the
DECISIONS Eighth Circuit upheld a lCJWð' coon's permanent injunc-
tion against flow control ordinances of two Minneso-
ta counties forming the Prairie Land Solid Waste
Board, created to ensure construction and operation
of an $S-million composting facility (Waste Systems
- Corp, v. Counties of Martin and Faribault, Minnesota,
0 VERfURN 8th Cir., Feb. 18, 1993). Waste Systems, a fum operating
a sanitary landfill in neighboring Iowa, also collected
MSW in the Minneso'" counties and disposed of the
waste in its Iowa landfill for $30 per ton, as opposed
to $72 per ton charged by the composting facility. The
"FLow court found that Waste Systems' landfill exceeded
Iowa's environmental standards.
The Eighth Circuit said the flow control ordi-
IW1Ces were "economic protectionist measures" because
their purpose was to "insulate the plant from compe-
CONIROC' dùon with cheaper oot-of-s"'te aItemaùves." The coun-
des' designation plans clearly s"'ted that flow control
was necessary for the fInancial success of the com-
posting facility and, when discussing less restrictive
methods for assuring waste delivery, the plans repeat-
ORDINANCES edIy noted a major reason why less restrictive methods
were not fman<;ially feasible-cheaper disposal alter-
natives existed in Iowa and adjoining counties,
The counùes argued that the flow control ordi-
Dances were even-handed and placed only inciden",¡
burdens on intentate commerce. They pointed to a pro-
vision in the ordinances that would allow an out-of-state
ß\ 1\ Hit f: "\ H II I H "resource recovery plant" (including similar compost-
ing facilities or waste-to-energy plants) to seek an exclu-
-- - lion from the ordinances. Thus, the counties argued
-'. "u~"""",.,:.":,f""",./,,.ff,,\..f"""'{ that the discrimination is not against interstate com-
\,,{,,{ "".f,. \J"","C,"""f ,"""",f."" merce, but only between landfills-wJùch may not apply
for the exclusion-and resource recovery facilities,
~ fl-~~"Ll"3 WImMl 115
-- .---
I
I F:-"'"
,I.,. e...".1 Conrd. "-.
~.
T'.
wlúch may apply. ma state line. The court ana-
The court rejected this The Eighth <rircuit Iyzed the ordinances of three
argument as "illusory" because 1. representative ciûes, each of
the exclusion expressly was con- said the flou. œntrol wlúch, was required under
diûoned upon a detemúnation , . the "user contract" with the
that it could be granted only ordinances t~ "- authority to impose flow
"without impairing the finan- control.
cial viability of the facility." "economic protectionist The key argument of
Moreover, the court observed the ciûes and authority was
that there were presently no measures. " that they were exempt from
resource recovery faciliûes with- Commerce Clause restraints
in a reasonable hauling distance under the "market-partici-
of the counties' facility that pant" exœpûon. Simply stat-
would qualify for the exclusion. ed, this judicial exception
Additionally, the burden on to the Commerce Clause
interstate commerce was not provides that where a state
incidental, according to the cOlin, because under the ordi- or poliûcal subdivision actS as a market-participant rather
nances, about 10,400 tons of MSW per year, which is than as a market-regulator, its conduct is not subject to
approximately 40% of the counties" MSW, is barred from Commerce Clause restraintS. Thus, within the last several
interstate commerce. years, various federal couns have upheld the right of state
Finally, the court noted that the ordinances are no or municipally owned disposal faciliûes to exclude out-
less discriminatory on interstate commerce because they of-state waste. The underpinning of this exception is
also prevent the flow of MSW across county in-state bor- based on the idea that the use ofa publicly financed dis-
ders. T/ús follows the major decision by the U.S, Supreme posal facility may properly' be allocated to those citizens
Coon last year in Fart Grnliot Sanitll1) Landfill, In<, v, Mi£hi. who pay taxes to support the facility. Where a state (
gan Department of Natural Resources, 112 S, Ct. 2019 local government acts as a true market participant, it is
(1992), holding that a law or regulation that burdens all subject to the same conditions and restrictions as is any
or substantially all of interstate commerce is no less private participant in prm'iding goods or services, In
unconstitutional simply because it also burdens some other words, a private facility operator would not be
intra-state commerce, subject to the Commerce Clause if it decided to exclude
out-of-state waste from itS facility, so a publicly cnmed faciI-
Exception does not shield publicly owned facilities ity acting as a market participant should erjjoy the same
On Jan. 28,1993, a federal district court in Alaba- benefits.
ma enjoined the Imposition of flow control ordinances However, the court clearly found that in signing the
by four Alabama counties, and 36 cities and towns with- user contracts, the counties and cities entered the solid
in the jurisdiction of the counties, as part ofan effort to waste market "not to compete for their Own individual
guarantee the economic stability of the proposed con- profit, as with pri\'3te businesses, but rather they did so
struction of a regional disposal facility and three trans- to assure the economic success of the authority, The
fer stations by a solid waste disposal authority (m:lSÙ' R.eC)" expressed intent behind these COoo'acrs and the three rep-
cling Inc, v. Southeast A/abaml1 Solid }taste Disposal Author. resentative ordinances based on them is not indi,'idual
il)', "'-D, Ala., Jan, 18, 1993).,Again, the court found market parûcipation, bUt broad market regulation,"
that the purpose and effect of the ordinances was to The court also pointed out that to reinforce the
fmance the authority's facilities by isolating and thus restricûons in the ordinances, the contracts further pro-
"insulating itS four-county region from the rough and tUm- hibited the local governments from authorizing or apprm"
ble of interstate commerce and the economic competj. ing any competing disposal sites within their borders, pro-
tion that comes with it," ""... r~ who ...... ~ """',. .... woo,"'""",,, \
The plaintiffs, primarily a group of haulers, collect- from using public streets to collect and haul MSW, and
ed and disposed of approximately 25% of the MSW in threatened civil enforcement and misdemeanor penalûes
the southeastern Alabama region covered by the author- against violators. The coun said that: "These are not the
it)'. Two haulers disposed of most of their MSW at a land- types of measures ¡ri,'ate participants in the market-
fill situated inJackson County, Fla., south of the Alaba- place could implement,:
116 .un... AIIIl1993 ~ c2t --Lj?
.
-
:
,
tIe. e.."., Contd. ,
;
-
Fmally. as "ith all federal cowu that have addressed issued an injunction against a Mecklenburg County.
flow control. the court rqected arguments that there are N.C., flow control ordinance enacted 10 ensure the fman.
no viable alternatives to the construction of a publicly cial vitality of a proposed waste-to-energy plant (Con. :
owned regional waste disposal facility and no means of tainer Ctrrp. of CaroliM v. Mdlenbutg County. W.P., N .c.,
fmancing the project other than with flow control ordi- June 14, 1992). However, until the plant is consuucted,
nances. Indeed, the COlin observed that the Alabama the waste is designated 10 a landfill that charges $37.50
Solid Waste Disposal Act authorizes the issuing of war. ~r IOn, as opposed 10 $29.50 ~r IOn, which was the tip-
rants secured by the full faith and credit of the authori. ping fee at a South Carolina landfill owned by a hauler
ty's participating local governments, and additional who also coUected the MSW in Mecklenburg County. The
fmancing alternatives include ad vaiomn taxes or utility hauI~, Contain~ Corp. of Carolina, serves over 7,500 res-
bill assessments. idential commerdaI cuslOmen in the county and collects
In the summer of 1992. a federal district cOlIn also roughly 10.000 IOns ~r month. I
-...110.181 OII_R u- CMD
118 .1m All APRil 1993 ~ Jj. ~;¡7
I
" , ." ". - ....",- 'M"'," .'.'.' "....' ,',.j'. ".~. -_.,,-,. I<. .'.'<
MId-American 1006 WalnutShet
P.O. ao.c 156 ' ,
Wast. Systems, Inc. c.naJ WincheSf8r. Ohio ~311a
..... (814) 831-1155 ,
M1C (5'4J aR.t1R
July 9.1993
VIA FASCTMn.F. ..
Th~ Honorable Mayor and Council McmbcZ's
OtyHall "
, 276r-ourthAvenue
OIula Vista, CA. 91910
Dear Mayor aDd eoui1cn Membm:
, I am writing to prtMde YOII WormaLion on the Campo Solid Waste ~t Project.
We are CODfident that Campo can provide a Wnelt:: economi<:~y çompcti.ö~ soJi4 waste
managcm~nt alternative' for the cities of San Dio¡o ty; ,
The Cam¡x> Solid Waste Managomcnt Pro~ is loèated on the Campo Band of Mission
Indians RcscrvSbon approximately 60 miles ftom uIa Vista. The project consists of a 400 acre
sanitary landfill which will be permitted to =t 3,000 tOns.per day of non-hazardous m~
solid waste. Access to tho site is oithor by trU via Interstate 8 or rail via the Santa Fe aDd. an
Diego and Imperial Valley Railroad~. ' '
" Mid-American Waste Systems, Inc. will constrUct and operate the landfiiJ. in acco.rdance
with th~ tenns of a sublease WIth Mubt-Hei, Inc. an econ,OIDÌC development corporation of the
Canipe Band. As the project is on Native American Lands, it Rquired an :ijn1liromnental Impact
Statement and final sublease approval ~e Bl1I'Cau oflDdian Affairs. The fat:i1ity will be
permitted by the Campo Environmental tection Agency whose role is simij.ar to that of a
"Local Rnforce¡nent Agency" in California. Additionally, Campo EPA has ontomd into a
cooperative agreement with the State of California in ac:cordanoe with Assembly 'Bill 240.
Essentially the Coopen.~ Agreement provides a mechanism for CalifO1'DÌll regulatory ~ericies
to review regulatiœs. permitS, and enfOtCeincnt actions of Camp'o EPA to assl1I'C that ey are
"functionally eqUÍV1l1ent" to Califamia standaIds without the slaIe imposin¡ its jurisdiction.
The preceding Î$ a Vf:rY brief synopsis of the projeCt BDd the regulataty sc:hcmc that, has
been developed. We will be happy to answer any detailed qJl.eSti~ that may aris~ StatUS of the
project today is as follows; , "
. OnAprl127, 1993. Sccrcwy of Interior BabJ?itt gnnti!d approval oft!Jeproject's
EnVÚ'Onmcnw Impact StatetnCllt and leases. , '
. On April 27. and 28. 1993 the California Water Resources Control Board and tbe
Integrated WllSte Maruigemént Board found the tentative Authority to ConstrUct
permit issued by Campo EPA on December 3, 1992, to be fuoctiOInal)y equivalent to
staœstandards. ' ' '
. Final issuance of the Campo EPA construction penxlit is sche4uIed for Mid.luly
1993.
. Con~tion will rcqtrlre six months to cOmplete.
. Site opcrationis scheduled to begin In first qU8rter, 1994.
O_on~-
~ ;lb --if D'
07108193 10: 33 tt814 833 8173 )(.A.II.S.- CORP. 1iII003
.-
1uly 9. 1993
The Honorable Mayor &. CowIcil, MeII:ibm
, City Hall '
CIula Vista, CA. 91910
Page 2
We lite ~ 10 ~ DCgOtialions WhIt CIuIa Vista and other dtics for ~-tc:m1
l1'8I1Spanalion UICi . ~ contracts. The first year IJ'BIIsponatI.on and dispOAl c;ost is ostimarcd '
fA) be in the ~ of 38 10 $42 per ton. Annual increases wouJd be based (Xl a perceatage of the
San Diego CP. We view the current situ~n ill San Diègo Co\m.ty u hi¡¡b1y c;ompctirlve
between the numeroUII åublic and private ccnporatlons and therefore æquest that this iDfœmatioo
be kept conñdential an is for the cxc;lusive use of the aty of CIula ViSta.
As you Icnow, cmr project ha¡ been IU dcr attack from vÌlriouS grouPs. iDCluciing the
County of San Diego. We have tried and will continue OUT efforts fA) maIœ Campo a part of the
County Solid Wute Manag::nt System. Altemate1y, we are' prepsred to begin c:ontraÇt
discus5ÎOtIS with the City of a Vista 81 your earliest c:onyeniCDCe. . , ,
, Thank you for the oppormnity 10 updalc you, on Campo. If I &:an answer any questions.
please CODtact mc. ' , '
Sincerely,
~.
Jay ¥-oberts
e , . cnt - Landfill Operatio,ns
RJR/sw
cc: Chairman Goff. Campo Band
John Goss. Ci!)' Manager
Bmœ Boogaard, City Attorney
OPm18d""-"Iod-
..2~ ;l6~i//
/"
I
THIS PAGE BLANK
~;)t~50
.
ITEM 23A, 7/13/93 AGENDA
PLEASE NOTE:
The attached memo contains confidential Information that Is not
Included In the text of the Agenda statement, but Is actually the main
portion of the report to you on this subject.
c1t .5/
I
,
CONFIDENTIAL July 9, 1993
Item 23a
TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: John D. Goss, City Manager ø
SUBJECT: Update on Solid Waste Issues
This is an update on what's happen i ng in the area of County-wide trash
management. The Interim Commission met and was formed on Wednesday, June 30.
At this meeting, the initial members seated were the County and the Cities of
Lemon Grove, National City and La Mesa. They also considered additional cities
that approved the agreement with the "understanding" that the Board of
Supervisors would not issue bonds until after the Commission had taken advisory
act i on on those bonds. With the conclusion that an understanding was not a
condition to approving the contract, it was agreed by those sitting on the
Interim Commission that the agreement had been approved without conditions. As
a result, the Cities of Poway, Solana Beach and Coronado were seated. San Marcos
was a 1 so seated, since their condition that a surcharge be applied to those
cities not approving the agreement had already been met the previous day by the
County. As a result, the County and seven cities made up the Interim Commission.
The seven cities that are members of that Commission make up 203,750 tons of
trash flow, and those that are not on the Commission represent a requested
commitment (at the 50% level) of 445,797 tons of trash per year.
Both the Cities of Imperial Beach and E1 Cajon had similar language, but they
were clearly conditions and not understandings. The Commission requested, and
the representatives of both Imperial Beach and E1 Cajon agreed, they would take
the language back to their City Councils to determine if that language could be
understandings, not conditions. If that occurs, then the total amount of tonnage
for those that would be on the Commission would be 271,943 tons, and the amount
of flow from the cities outside of the Commission would be 377,600 tons.
On behalf of the City, Mayor Nader and Counci1member Moore made presentations to
the Interim Commission, with the Mayor explaining the action of the Chu1a Vista
City Counci 1.
Other cities expressed their concern with various issues and, in many cases,
their City Councils had approved the agreement subject to those conditions. The
response by the members of the Interim Commission was to request that those City
representatives go back to their City Councils to see if those conditions could
be made understandings, so they could unconditionally sign the agreement and join
the Commission.
The specific actions taken by the Commission were to have each member of the
Commission return to the Board of Supervisors and their respective City Councils
to modify the agreement to extend the deadline for signing it from June 22,1993,
to July 23, 1993. All the Commission members expressed their interest in being
;2t :5 ~
I
joined at the next meeting on July 28, 1993 by any or all of the remaining
cities. That meeting will be at 8:00 a.m. at the County Administration Building.
The Interim Commission also took action that .all the concerns which were
expressed to them by the non-member cities, as well as the concerns of the member
cities, be placed on the next agenda for discussion. They also added the City
of San Diego as an ex-officio member, and elected Supervisor Pam Slater as the
temporary Chair, and Brian Cochran, Mayor of Lemon Grove, as the temporary Vice
Chair.
One of the themes that was expressed by the City representatives on the Interim
Commission was that the very valid concerns of the member and non-member cities
need to be di scussed in the forum of the Interim Commission but should be
considered as "understandings" rather than as conditions to the agreement. One
statement was an expression of unwillingness to take additional tweaking of the
agreement back to their City Counci 1 (Mayor of La Mesa), and another comment that
"they don I t want a 1 aundry 1i st of items to go back to each legi slat i ve body
(poway City Council representative). The point was also made by a city
representative on the Interim Commission that the choice of the Interim
Commission to be an advisory rather than joint powers agreement, was a choice of
the cities meeting through their elected representatives in April and May. They
felt that there was an understanding that this group would become something more,
as it worked through and discussed the governance issues, but that not all cities
were willing to jump into a JPA at this time, and so the advisory commission
format was chosen before that move was made.
Then, on Thursday, July 1, the North County Solid Waste Management Agency (JPA)
workshop was conducted in Oceanside. While the City Attorney, who attended, may
have additional comments regarding discussions he may have had wi th city
representatives at that meeting, attached is information from Stephanie Snyder
describing some of the discussion at the meeting, and particularly transmitting
the material that was distributed at the meeting, for your information.
In another development, on Friday, July 2, I was contacted by the Deputy City
Manager of Carlsbad, who was attempting to pull together the non-signatory cities
into one group, which could basically provide a unified approach to the Interim
Commission on July 28. He was ascertaining the conditions attached to the
signing of the agreement by the Chula Vista City Council so he could compare that
with the conditions of other cities, to determine if there was a uniform basis
for approaching the Commission on a unified basis. The thought is that, because
of the amount of the flow of the non-signatory cities, the Interim Commission
would need to listen to the position expressed by this unified approach. That
could either lead to them modifying their position that conditions going back to
all the cities would be unacceptable or the possibility of having all the non-
signatory cities seated as ex-officio members of the Commission, as had been
suggested by Mayor Nader at their first meeting.
Also, I contacted staff representatives of the City of San Diego to determine,
if Chula Vista did not become a signatory city and to avoid the significant
surcharge imposed by the County effective August 1, 1993, if there was some
arrangement the City could work out with the City of San Diego to deposit its
trash in their landfill. The response from San Diego staff is currently
negative. This is based on two reasons: (1) their overall desire to preserve
space in their landfill (although they are now seriously considering taking their
:¿¿.:55
I
trash from the Otay Mesa and San Ysidro directly into their dumps rather than
placing it into the Otay Landfill); and (2) because they have a number of major
issues, some of which are delicate as between the City and the County of San
Diego, they don't want to take any action that would be perceived as either
facilitating or tearing apart the Participation Agreement which is now being
considered by the various cities. So, at this point, it appears the City of San
Diego would not be receptive to such a proposal, although I believe they might
be if the whole flow control process disintegrates.
On July 6, 1993 I represented Mayor Nader at a meeting of non-signatory cities
including the mayors and respective staffs from El Cajon, Carlsbad and Santee and
a city council representative and staff from the City of Vista. There was
general unhappiness at the direction in which the County and the Interim
Commission were headed, and there was a general feeling that this could not be
turned around without a unified and concerted action by the non-signatory cities
to the Participation Agreement. There was general consensus that they did not
want to make a 20-year commitment on trash flow without knowing more specifically
what the system was going to look like (governánce) and whether a major sale of
bonds wou 1 d occur. They particularly did not want the County to bond for
additional landfill costs without the cities' approval. Also, they wanted each
city's garbage flow back if the governance issue was not resolved.
There was also interest, but some hesitancy, regarding private sector offers to
take the cities' trash at lower rates, or what was described at the meeting as
"teaser rates". There was general feeling among the cities represented that
there shou ld be an opportun ity to eva 1 uate these pri vate sector offerings,
however, but probably as part of a regional process, if the Participation
Agreement could be shaped to meet the conditions of the non-signing cities. But,
they also realized that if the unsigned cities bought into the system, they would
have to buy it "warts and all". There was further concern about the front end
of the trash-to-energy plant, the so-called MRF (Material Recovery Facility),
being over sized and overly costly, and its only practical use in the long term
may be as a transfer station.
Even though there is an interest in looking at private sector offerings, they
realized that nearly each proposal that has been suggested had major obstacles
that were unresolved. It was mentioned that the consultant for the North County
JPA still feels that working within the County system might be best in the long
run than the private sector promises. The point is, to be part of the County
system and make it work the way the cities want, further exploration of the
private sector alternatives is needed to determine what would make the best sense
for the county system. That may end up meaning trashing the front end of the
trash-to-energy plant and sending the trash to Campo, Orange County, Utah or even
the landfills in the county itself. It basically means doing, as a group of
cities, what the County should have been doing in the first place.
Basically, the meeting evolved into discussing strategy and which conditions are
"threshold conditions" for each city and which conditions are "implementation
conditions". In other words, in looking at each city's conditions, is each
condition one that will be absolutely necessary to be met ning the agreement
(threshold condition), or is it a condition that can be addressed as part of an
Interim Commiss ion discuss ion (imp lementat ion condit ion), assuming that the
Agreement is shaped to the point that all the cities are comfortable with it.
:Lib ~ 51
I
Among the c it ies, except for Santee and Chu 1 a Vi sta, there seemed to be a genera 1
consensus that they could live with the fo llowing modific.ation to the
Participation Agreement. That is, they would commit their trash flow based on
two conditions:
1. That the flow commitments made by a member agency would be made to the
Interim Commission and that all flow commitments made by an agency shall
revert to that agency on May 31,1994 if that agency has not agreed to the
permanent form of governance by that date.
2. The County will not issue solid waste facility bonding prior to June I,
1994 without a concurrence of the majority of the Interim Commission.
The purpose of these conditions i s to ensure that there is an acceptab 1 e
governance standard before full commitments are irrevocably made to the
Participation Agreement and that the ability of the County to issue bonding¡would
not occur without a majority vote of the Jnterim Commission. As a matter of
fact, it is concluded that not much will happen,with the Participation Agreement
unless there is the ability to issue bonds.
There was not concurrence with these changes totally by Santee and Chula Vista.
First, these changes did not meet all the conditions articulated by the Chula
Vista City Council, and the City of Santee would like to have stronger language
in the Agreement as it relates to host fees, which of course is one of Chula
Vista's concerns as well. You may wish to consider, however, whether or not
these consensus conditions by the non-signatory cities would meet our thresholds
for entering the Participation Control Agreement and whether or not the other
conditions are more implementation conditions that could be discussed within the
forum of the Interim Commission.
To address the issue of host fees, there are "whereas" recitals which have been
added to the proposed resolution which would modify the interim participation
agreement which would state:
"Host agencies such as Chula Vista and San Marcos will be paid facility
fees to the extent permitted by law"; and
"Agencies such as Santee wi 11 be paid mitigation fees to the extent
permitted by law".
From the City of Chula Vista's perspective it may be helpful to have some
language in the Agreement regarding the solid waste facility fee to state that
it not only applies to the City or the County "in whose jurisdiction the facility
is located", but perhaps in whose jurisdiction "the entrance to" the facility is
located or some other language. It should be clear that the rationale for the
host fee is the impacts on the jurisdiction because of the trash traffic
traveling to the landfill entrance, even though a portion of the back end of the
faci 1 ity may actua lly be in the un incorporated area of the county. You may
determine, however, that that is more of an implementation issue rather than a
threshold issue for signing the Participation Agreement.
As a matter of strategy, there was a general consensus that each city going on
its own to try to achieve changes in the Participation Agreement will fail. They
feel that if there is a concerted effort among the six largest cities in terms
;¿;;-~5
I
of trash flow that there might be some success in getting the other jurisdictions
that are on the Interim Commission to modify the agreement with language agreed
upon by the six cities. There is also general agreement that the changes should
not be throughout the entire agreement, but just focused on one or two areas that
are critical threshold conditions to the non-signatory cities.
As further strategy, the City Attorney probably will be recommending some steps
to protect our interest by way of lawsuits in case the effort at modifying the
Participation Agreement to the extent that it may be satisfactory to the City is
not successfu 1. There definitely need to be steps being taken at this time to
protect our interest through litigation.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that at the July 13 meeting you take whatever testimony is
necessary and provide any direction to City staff that you feel is approP~iate.
It would be my recommendation, however, that this item be continued to Ju y 20,
because it seems like the face of the world changes twice between meetings on
trash and that there are continuing developments that may be necessary to
evaluate on July 20. Therefore, it is recommended that the matter be continued
after you have had an opportunity to discuss it.
This is a passed along as an update and for your information. If you have any
questions, please let me know.
JDG:mab
Attachments
:2t /5"~
I
1
MEMORARDUM
July 1, 1993
TO : John D. Goss, City Manager
FROM : Stephanie Snyder, Principal Management Assistant~
SUBJECT : Report on JPA Workshop
Disposal Options
Today's workshop of the North County Solid Waste Management Agency
provided some new information on alternative disposal options,
although (as we had guessed), it has not substantially changed.
However, it was quite helpful that a spokesman for Mid-American
Waste provided an update on the Campo situation during "Public
Comments." I am attaching his card for you. Bruce also exchanged
cards with Mr. Roberts, and he may have had more of an opportunity
to discuss the issue with him than I did. You might want to check
with Bruce.
The other new bit of information brought forward on disposal
options was regarding the Orange County RFP which was apparently
just released. No one there had seen it yet, but the JPA staff
(who had met with orange County officials) expect the response
period will be 30-45 days. The JPA will direct its consultant
(Harvey Gershman of GBB) to prepare a proposal. Because of the
(relative) viability of that option for North County, Mr. Gershman
also advised the Agency not to pursue other short-term alternatives
until it is known whether or not the proposal has been accepted.
I have prepared an attachment which puts the updated option
information in bullet points, since that was the focus of the
Council's interest in this workshop. For that reason, I thought
you may want to include this packet with the Agenda Statement, even
though it is a lot of material.
Other Information or Observations
Another reason I think the Council might benefit from this entire
package is that it is a very good description of the methodical
process necessary to pursue this course of action, as well as the
resulting questions and concerns. I found myself evaluating the
information being presented as being especially valuable to Chula
Vista in two main ways:
;¿t /57
I
2
1) Information or advice which would be "transferable
lessons" to AlΠagency seeking to establish alternatives
to the participation Agreement; and
2) General observations about the ever-dynamic "big pictu"re"
relative to strategies, leadership direction and new
choices of action for the City.
Transferable Lessons
The consultant stressed that the Agency did not currently have
either facilities or administrative infrastructure in place to
support its own waste disposal system. Because of the start-up
time and expense, it is worthwhile to make sure one has carefully
examined all other possible options or strategies for changing the
existing infrastructure before ventu~ing outside.-
One of the most common mistakes in contracting (in general), and a
specific concern of the consultant in this case, is the lack of
adequate planning for both interim and long-term systems. I
translate this into a caution that we need to be very clear that a
decision about ~ to go outside the County system requires time
and reliable expertise.
It is also important to remember that this kind of a decision about
a ~ encompasses much more than simply determining which
landfill is accepting the waste. For example, the section on page
4-3 of the GBB handout outlines "Other Functions to Consider at the
Transfer Station". If we leave the County system, we lose the use
of the Household Hazardous Waste Program currently funded through
the tip fees. The current program provides collection events as
well as public information, and the City has to produce minimal
activity to meet State requirements under AB939.
If we left the system, there are still requirements that have to be
met and we would not want to bear the cost of collection away from
a permitted solid waste facility. Moving quickly into a
procurement situation that has not been carefully planned from a
system perspective would be very costly.
General Observations
Before seeking proposals and negotiating for services, it is
critical to understand what the projected disposal requirements are
going to be so that the system can be properly sized. It was also
discussed that, for rail haul, the current tonnage level of the
three JPA cities is estimated at one train every two days which is
not optimal operationally. The Agency is, therefore, going to
offer capacity in the system to be procured to other non-signatory
cities.
)¿ / /C;g/
I
3
This raises the question of how much additional capacity (or
participation) can be provided and how the infrastructure needs and
costs for rail routes, transfer station locations, .etc. will be
impacted. It als.o, ironically, places the JPA in a similar
situation as the County- needing to know who the system
participants will be and for how long a commitment. There was a lot of discussion about whether the County and/or the
Interim Commission (advising the County) should be asked to respond
with a proposal. If they were so inclined to respond, Mr. Gershman
indicated that they could possibly be the lowest cost alternative,
given everything else that has to happen to make other alternatives
operational.
On the other hand, joining the current Interim Commission could
lead to pressure to increase the initial 50% tonnage commitment in
order to allow bond issuance and keep the rates lower than the
projected "pay as you go" rate of $65-67/ton. Al though this is the
consul tant 'S understanding of the County's status on the bond
issuance, it would not seem likely to be successful based on the
strong comments from cities at the first Commission meeting on June
30, 1993.
Conclusion
Finally I the JPA decided to take the following approach to the
participation Agreement: the three cities will prepare language
changes to the existing Agreement and offer that amended Agreement
to the other non-signatory cities. The proposed changes will
basically be the conditions imposed by Carlsbad and Escondido
during the adoption of the last Agreement.
The purpose is to get a legion of support with leverage of a
significant total tonnage. The Interim Commission would then be
presented on July 28, 1993 with the choice of th.is amended
Agreement and truly regional participation if the eight current
Member Agencies agree to accept it.
The proposed Agreement can be expected sometime shortly after July
13. In order to give Council the opportunity to review all
proposed options, you may want to docket the reconsideration for
July 13 as we planned yesterday, giving Council the material from
the workshop and time to absorb it by continuing the final decision
to July 20, 1993.
Please let me know if you have any questions or need any
information from me other than the Agenda Statement for July 13
that I am currently preparing.
clh -->1
I
6dditional Information to
"Status and Costs of Alternate Disposal Projects" (Page 3-3)
CAMPO IHDIAN RESERVATIOH:
0 Rail service access route (see "Rail Lines" map on page 3-
2) is currently washed out but expected to be repaired and
operating in three months.
0 Campo's location is considered viable to truck haul, even
from North County.
0 Rail haul plan would require truck haul back-up for
emergencies; it is also noted from the "Rail Lines" map that
rail service from South Bay would probably have to enter and
leave Mexico before arriving at Campo.
0 All permits have been received except for Campo EPA, which
is expected within one month.
0 Construction will begin when final permit is received; Mid-
American Waste believes landfill will be operational by
January 1994.
0 Mid-American will be preparing a proposal for the North
County Solid Waste Management Agency to provide disposal
services to those San Diego County cities.
ORANGE COUNTY (PRIMA DESCHECHA LANDFILL):
0 County is using a bid process and has just released the RFP
with a minimum bid of $32.75/ton gate rate, i.e. includes host
fee but not transport costs. Response time for RFP is
expected to be 30-45 days.
0 Earliest availability expected is January 1994.
0 Waste must arrive in transfer (long haul) vehicles.
0 RFP is for importation of waste but Board of Supervisors
has not yet amended ordinance prohibiting import of waste and
there is no new information on when that action might take
place.
EL SOBRANTE LANDFILL:
0 Private landfill in Riverside County which also has local
ordinance prohibiting importation of waste.
db -htJ
I
..
8 -. I .2
~ ; E
! .2
I: Q,; CO) .2 ij
è"" E U
0 I ~ ~ .
0 ~ ~~ 8)
.. II. ~ c1e 8 .: è C
U' ~ e> e U
... <: ~>8 11 .
." '" Q ¡¡ g., ¡¡¡ ¡: i .
... .."" 1: u . III' ti .
- .::1' .. o.~ . '0- 1
-X a --.. e ,,~~ 8' '
~ Il')U- t 0 ;¡ ~
ë .:! ~i8 . ¡,¡ Æ
Q) = N~I>. . 02" !
., E A I 2 II.! 8.~
W Q) .' 'Iii ~ = ! . 0'
.... m æ "~~ G J>D :]g
- c .' 0' -.
t i § i 111\ ~ I g ! I ~ .: h
0 ~ -< """'" u oJ 2 . 'M
~ -< ! 01 6 = 1~
:I. i~ ~..
..., -c
I: w ~
.. .! i
&1 ~
! E "€
02¿ -~ I
I
I
~C?"f'ft';- ~r¡lC?"f ""'NCf)LO~r-.CICi
..... ..... ..... .......... NNNN ~~~~~~~
. . . . . . .
. . . . . . .
. . . . . . .
. . . . . . .
. . . . . . .
. . . . . ..
¡~ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡~ ¡ ¡
: : : :0 : ::::;E::
::0 II) : : : Ia : :
¡ áj e : : : p.. ::
~¡~~~ ~~l~ CI./::: Ia : :
t:i ¡ : : u : :
>- : : : 00 : :
: : : :: ::.....: tf)::: ::
I ~ III II~ -I ..... II) : :.5 : :
c:: CI./ : : "'0 : :
CI./ 5 : : Ia : :
e. :: ° ¡ ¡
r.I:J CI./..J::..J::
.... : u : : ¡ ¡ ¡ ~: 00:= ¡ ¡:-... ¡ :
c ¡ ~ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡:; ¡ Ia Ia ¡: : ¡
(1) : c:: ¡ :: ¡:u: ø1ã~ ¡:&! ¡ ¡
.... e :::; "'0 : :..c:: : :
C ¡ ~ ¡ :: ¡: c::: cu å::.-;:¡:
0 I] III II j I -,ß¡1I)00:~¡:
U ø II) CI./""': : 00
>.~ .-;: áj ¡ § : e .-
f.+-¡ rJ:J tf) . õ' ::0 :
0 ¡ e ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ~ ¡ - "'0 -.... : Ia :,ß¡
e CI./ : :: : ..; tf) : =;..:: ŒIl.. :V5 : ~ to
(1) Cl./t:i¡¡~ ¡Ia>-¡ cu ° ° 'iti 11).... : tf)
- - >, : : > ~.....: etf)p..lI)oCl./ ¡- c
.D .Dtf)':- ~ c::: cu E II) ° '1: "'"' :.... GI
~ o 11)' ° CI./ >';: ' bO é5~~¡g ¡&! :
.... ..... CI./ II) II) "'.D o :
Il.. c:: ' ... "'0 CI./ ~ :
II) CI./.:E CI./ ~ II) U ¡ IV~Iaé5C1./~:>, ..
->-e C::z ° ð~o ¡ = 'š JS F< . ~ C
IV 00 CI./ .....: I GI
uCl./Ia"'" ¡"¡"oo: ::;C::oiU""o:,ß¡ E
c::oo& II) e OOCI./:
= CI./ ~ § ~ cu e c:: ,...: o:-::E~C::>-II) GI
.gOOIaIl):O1l) -Cl./""O: cu..J - ¡g Ia oo~ en
--<:ECl./Ia~ ~t:i8:c::: ~ -g ¿L§! Ia s:: ,ß¡ IS
C
IV CI./ -..... Ia . 'Æ Ia E -< ~ ,ß¡ ~.5 .
ë 0:5 ,ß¡ ~ 53.i!3 rJ:J £ F= tf) ¡ ~CI./""'::::'ü)tf)Ë
..... II) U e c:: Þ ÞÞ.s Ë 'C' 0:5°=..... !
OO~~CI./CI./ =33"" .... CI./ = J!3 Ia Þ 53 CI./
ï:!oo -a..e =' ~CI./ III
- .5 ~ ~ .§ ~ 0 (3 (3 æ ~ õ.š~~~~e~ j
'C "'0 ~ CI./ U ',c ° rJ:J U.... Ia ~ 0
ã å c15 ¡ § -< 0 ~ ~.5 U cu~'a"'OØ2~~U ~
t) .... ;s: .... bO CI./ CI./ Ia ~ ~:;§ å~~ l Jt
o....c:: 1I)!¡j cué5é5t: ë E ~ Ë ~ ~~ U
""'CI./~"'O""-"" CI./ ~
. bO"'O "";":: ~ æ Q c:: c:: ~ U ,ß¡ Ia II) Ia. ... t' c
~:§ðc15é5:t ;~~::>z cu- 0 ><Ø2 ~
.=-<..JV5Il..~ ~ 0
c:c rJ:J < u
of
0
;¿t /~2 z
I
I
U
0
..... N rr) "f I.J':) \0 t-- CO ..... ..... N
...}....}."'¡'~"'¡""¡""}'.J."'¡' ¡}¡¡}¡
, , , , , . , , ,
, . , . , , . . .
. , , , , . , . ,
, , . , . , , , ,
, . . . , . , , ,
, . , , . . , . .
. , . , , , , , .
, . , . , , , , .
, , , , . , . , ,
. . . , . , . . .
. . . . , . , , ,
, , , , . , . , .
. . . , , . , , ,
, , , , . , , . .
. . . . , . . , ,
, . , , . , . . .
, , , . . , , . .
. . . . , , , , .
, , . . . , , . .
, , , . , . , , ,
. . . . , , , . .
. , , . , , , , ,
, , , . , . , , ,
, . . . , , , . ,
, . . . . . , , ,
-. ':',..,.: "
"0' " .
Q,)
S
.....
§ 1 ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ::
U : :t::1l.. :::::
: : 0 ~ : : : : :
'-' : :.- :::::
: : - :::::
IZ) : : J9 t:: : : : : :
..... : : [J').- : : : :: .
c::: : : "" >. : : : :: : tIJ .-
Q,) : : CII u : : : :: : CII
..... : :...... t:: : : : :: : ,-
c::: : : ~ CII : : : :: : ,0;:
0 ::"'blJ::::: :> ~
: : rtI.A' : : : :: : ";:: "
U : :Þ""" : : : :: : u C
:: CII::::: : .A' GI
. . CII "'" , ...... 01
~ blJ:~...c:tIJ:::: :"" ~
0 t:::-;::-o..'::: :CII -
.-: >":1 jt:! : :: ". ~ ..
-.- ,,¡;;¡-..' -- c
.., u:rtI.c~t:::::.,~- ...
"'" . CII ' . . ..
- ¡:! : ~"'O E::: QI 0 E
.D -:"'O~O rtI::-"" GI
~~ t::O:'-CII";::~._:: ;:s~~ 01
. tIJ",", rtI._"" ,--- ..
U :t::""'-=,ClltIJ :w-- ...
.OOCII___, QI"'O"'O C
5: ¡:z:::",.-t::tIJ.c:4íCII .,
'tIJ ¡ ~ 1: iii ~ U .s¡ ¡ u.f1.f1 ~
CII '-oECllt::t::o Cl)ùSùS !
~ :~""u¡¿°Uo~ = t::c:: '"
~tlJr:;~rtI"':= 0 000 .,
~ ~ ,0 CII .b ~ e 'õ ¡t ='.0:= J
\I} ;:;!; '.0 :e ~ t:: ¡:: ¡,C CII blJ .5 J9 J9 -a
~ §.Si § ~ 8 .g _cSt'; ~:§ f ä3e ~ ~
e.c~-CIICII F'rtI e ¡;;¡ VI
e O""~:õ~ =' ~~ ~
Þ-c e Il.. ~ ~ '¡¡; Il.. ~ ~ iii ~ ~ ~ C
...o~""oo~ ..1:'> Q..¡;;¡¡;;¡ :t
~uc::z:::OIl..Il..Q::; r..J~ e-- "
~ - i
0
d-b -~3 z
I
I
-a I:
I: 0
:t..
21
In! t'
i
-Ii c
ë
II
E
&
.1- I
.
!
j
~
.x
l:'
§
0
u
of
0
z
;¿t /þ 1
I
. I
~ (f} "'0
.S ~ æ. 0.0
(f} QJ' E ~
~ ..... "'0 ~ '...
Q.) "... Q.) '¡'" ~ "'0
> t-.. u ' ""'" c:::
.... u v, ~
"'0 0 c:: (\3 ~ ....
QJ .... ~ p.. ~
t) p...s e ~ QJ ] ~
S ~ ::s - ..... c:::::s;:! ...... c::: .. (\3 , ~
~ ~ ~ (\3 ~ 0 0 0 >
~ 0 ~ (f} O::S ~-.¡:: 0.0(\3
.L:I -E ë "'0 8. ~ 'õ § ~ ,~ ~
8 QJ QJ ~ ,~ -!::.~ 0 0 '~
..... "".... "'0 ';¡:¡ (f} 0 p.. c::: ~
~ :9 1:: '~ QJ ~ ~ U !!3 (\3 (f}
(f} 0 t: .... ,;;:¡... QJ ~ CJ) ~
..rJJ ~ ..c::: QJ ~ ~ (f} ..c::: (\3 ...... 0
....... 0 (f} '" > '... QJ .... b 0 -.¡::
..,.... p.. ..... - ~ (\3 "'0 (f} '"
U (f} C' (f} "'0 E '... '... ~ ~ õ
5 ~ ~ '= ~ ~ e ID % ~ § ~
0.0 1: ~ .9 (f} ~ p.. ~ rb ~ 0 .E
< 0 ..E ~ E ~ 5 0.0 '>:g U !:S ct5
.... QJ (\3 ~ ... ..... ~ ..... QJ"'¡;;¡ ~
Q) ~..... p.. QJ E ;:::-,.¡:: !!3 0 -!:: QJ QJ
,... ~'.o >< .... QJ - - ~ (f} ';¡:¡ ::s >. -
~ ~ .!S QJ be E bO .& "g QJ ~ (f} ~
::s """'0 ~ S.... > ';¡:¡~-
'õ 8 ~ ~ .9 ~ ~ $ g. :e '~ š...& ~
0.0 "'0 ~8.. ]~ §e ~~ ~B~ 8>
~ c:: ::::0 ~o.o ~QJ::s<¥ bO~B c
] ,j ~; E~ ]~ ~~¡o' ~~~ i
Cd '... U .... I QJ '... c:: "'0 ~ >< U .
..... U == ß 1:: ~ "'0 (\3 c::..E ~ (\3 QJ 0.0 f
~ =æ ~ t:: ] 0.0 ~!ð (\3 E;a 'm r= ,S g
Q) gJ ~ 8 (f} ,S E ~ € .& "'0 .... § ,~ ~
] ,~ ~ ß ,S 8: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 'm E 'I !
~ 6- (f} ..c::: ~ -.¡:: ~ .. ~ (f} bÒ E '>< ' a
QJ 8 ~ ,S 0.0 CJ) ~ '... ~ ,S 0 (\3 I
~ ~ ........ (\3 ,c:: ~ .... 0 QJ (f} .... E "!"1 "0
0\ (\3 ...... ....:¡:j ~. (f} .... ~ (f} IU ¡:¡ .-
~ ~:= ~ ~ § ~ "'0 ~ ~ ,~,~ ~ :i
~ ~] ~~ 8.š ~~~ ~~B t
::t
.. . . . . 0
u
of
0
z
c2b .~ ~-Š-
I
R
-- "'0 .
'"Ij I::i} 1::
Q) !tS Q) Q)
~ ~::s 5
oJ Þ ~CfJ Q) Q)
.S § ~ :: ~ ~.
.... 0 !5 ca ca ca 00
s:: u .... b ~:>.. tJ «
0 ..c: Q) ~ - .~'.... 5
U ..... ~ Q) "'0 :::: . S . ....
--- .... ca ~ 1::..0 5 ~
e ~ ..c: "'0 ca 8. "'0 .ß¡
I::~ -g-;ca ca ..s
Q) .9::s ..... ..... U :- 0
- CfJ CfJ CfJ I:: - Q) .....
'" CfJ v ... Q) ca .
...... .... - ... ¡; U"" CfJ
8 § .~ § =] ~ ~
~ 0 .~ I:: 8 U.E ã
...00 u 5 e 'S:.ß¡ u .....: -5
>. 52 ~ß"'O.Ë~!5
u ""0 ::s~ã CfJO .....
s:: Ö) u u:;'- cap.. >-. ~
Q) ..... Q) 0;'::: ca ~.~ '¡'"
/o.r\ 1::'" ~........ "'0 §
--.; - :=: p.. ..0 ~ . >-
<:: p..õ.. á3~ ca ~ Þ 0 ~
1'1, ::SQ) u..1:: cal:: U GI
~ CfJ U .... Q) -= -::S òO ~
,f; ~ ~ .-=: E: ~ CfJ ~uo S c
........ CfJ Q) "," ..... . -
0 5~ ~ ;~~ &1 ~ i
/o.r\ 5 u CfJ ""... Q).... Q) GI
--.; CfJ ca-....~... ~ ~
s:: Q) .~:: ~ ~ 0 p.. 0 ca cs
.~ Q) ..... 0 p.. CfJ ~ CfJ c:
....... 1-<.'0... "'0 .....0 CfJ ~ 0 ~ cs
\J 00.... ;.::: Q) Q)..... Q) ~
ã ~~.g ~§~ "6~"6 J!
t) 'c -= 0 Q) ~ -= Q)5 ] e a
~ .ß¡ >...;: ~ t ~ .... .~ :t
~ .~~~ cao ~òO >. ~
'"Ij ,.::¡ ~ CfJ ~ p..g u 0 ~- ::
s:: 0 ~ ¡:¡ ~ - I:: - .... Jt
~ ~] ~ ~ jg ~ ~] ~ t
~
. . .. 0
u
i
0
;2~ /¿? z
I
~ 0 I
Q) 0
.~ ~=
~ -.-
.~ ) 0 ~ (
U A A ~C A
0
~ 1::......
U 0
~ (/)
Q) -
c.o s¡
< I A
J-4 0
~
S
Q)
~ ~-
~ ,æ ~
"'- "'3 ~"t; - "'3 ",:5 "'3
~ e ""'", ì::'.=! e ~ .=! e .=!
rJ) ~ gEe .:::~ ~.Bu ~ ~ ~
- ;>1-::: u~ -.J:t» ~ - ~
-;:: ~ -:;; ~ðj ~ ~ ~ ~ ë ~ -+ J2 ~ ~
~Q) õ 8..8 ",""" õ:E?-, ~ õ """
u.- a;
5 t ",'" A :. A <?
c.o L ~
~ C
~ 81
~ :
~ !
Q) 81
~ .. .. .. i
~ .!! .!! .!! 51
~ -ß -ß j a
~ .S!-~ ~ü .S! ~ C
.. ",..., .. .
e e a; e
"0 ~'" ~'" ~~
.~ !
- .-,. '"
0 1.-,. a
rJ) I 01 CII"i J
'"t:I '"t:I -' '"t:I .-,. ."
-;:: 0 R> .- 518. .¡¡; ~ g .-
~ ~ I! 11 C I!-' Õ
Q) "'t:~ oiS g~t '^
t= 8~ ~~ Ö~ð t
;j o~ 01 o~~ ~o
U ~-;¡ ~ .:.z
.- 8 ~.... ~..!! - U
U Y 0 Ji u'- 6 0 . 01:
~ 6 ;;. 1:
l;;' 0
;;. )10 -fp 7 Z
I
R
~l 0
8
~~ N
III -
oo¡- 811
Q 8:
ill :::(;:!.
z \.-" VJ
C N C
1'0
III s: z¡:
en u
Q) Q \.-" !15
.~ 0 a..
..... "~I; s: as
..0 ~ e. '"
.. -ti
~ - 1'0 Q)
::J.-
ca ti°
;:J «0:
CJ. - NO
~~ 0 mo
Ct:J 8 ....¡;;¡
N.,
N - N "C"C
Q) - c: c:
...... Q ~- 811 1'01'0
..c 5! "" 8: OLl'>
ca Q Ñ(;:!. .. ffiffi
...... 2 - ........
u 0 !~I N -
:>-. u s:
I/) -~
u .. 1 ..,
III -
~ ... 'i I: 0
s: .
~c .. .t t-
"'d - CI
~ 1: c
II
ca 8 ,
-
2 ...~ 0 l ..
8 c
en c:>., II
N- N E
~ Q 811 . U
C s: m
II IS
I/) .. .. c
"'d ... .
a: N "
.~ 5 GI &
...... GI
0 .. .1 ~
Cf'J .,~--I CI I
.... - GI II
-- ,,> ..
, , , , I ' " , I ' , "1' , , , I ' , , , I ' , " - ~
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~
0 11'1 0 11'\ 0 11'1
M N N ... ... t
I-OZUI - I-:O::lUlo(ZQUI - Lilia: )01110(1: ::I
0
u
i
J-t - t? 2/ 0
z
I
I
"0
aJ
....
ru 00 \0 ,...-t \0
8-4
00 QJ ,...-t ~ C'tJ 00
aJ = 11") C'tJ \0 \0
..-4 QJ
~
..-4 L'
~
s:=
ra --
~ ~ "0
a~ aJ
....
00 8-4 \0 t'-.. C'tJ ~
aJ-
- ra QJ C'tJ N \0 ~
..0 u :> ,...-t C'tJ
ra.~ .~
"U~ 0
~~
U Q) :2
~~ "0
"'C s:= aJ ).
tlI N "
æ~ 0\ 00 ,...-t c
0 ao II
,...-t \0 ~ :
aJ 00 Q.¡~ C'tJ ~ C'tJ
tlI ..
~ ... .~ c
000 0 II
~ê, E
II
œ
D
"'C tlI ~ C
'.-4 0 ~
- """'.~ 0\
0 ru.... 0\ !!
Cf) .....~ ,...-t N 11") 0 '"
~U ~ 0\ 0\ 0 j
0\ 0\ 0
(f') ,...-t ,...-t N ;g
~
~
C
:I
0
U
of
0
;2jp -67 z
I
I
>.
~oo ..0
~ "'-t
00 0 -- ~~
"'t: .0-4 ;:J.$
Q) "'" ~ "'-t
Q) t\S QJ .0-4 QJ
Z "'-t 00"'" ~.~
00 t\S ~ t\S
"'t: 0.0 ~ . 9 ::;E "'t: U '+-I
QJ Q) ~~ 0
Q) ~ CJ) ~"'t: .....
Z .0-4 ;:J- "'-t
00 Q) U Q) U 0 0
00 ~ 0""'- 0 U
~ QJ ~~ ~
0 U ;:J "'-t "'-t ~
.0-4 0 0 ::t:: "'-t ~ 0 .;:J
..... "'-t O~ oo~
t\S ~ CJ) CJ)
..... ~.0-4
~ "'-t I '+-I .s
"'t: Q) ~0 .9 u
QJ ~ ..... 0 QJ
S t\S U tJ~ ~ 'Ç
.0-4 "'-t 0.0 § ~ 0 -
QJ 00 "'-t 0 ~ 00
..... .0-4
- ..... CJ) ..... S
~ 00 "'t: t\S ~~ t\S ~
S t\S "'-t ~~ 0.0>' U t\S
U 0 t\S- ;:J "'-t 81
....... QJ '+-I ..§ ~ 0.0 I
~ "'-t "'t: 00- "'t: e
0 ~;:J ~ ..
0 ~ Q) o~ Q)- c
.0-4 00 ~ QJ u~ 81
00 QJ .0-4 .0-4 "'-t "'-t"'" .0-4 E
"'-t > ..... 0 t\S -"'t: 81
Q) 0.0 U'+-I ca "'-t ~ ~ ~ I:Ð
> t\S QJ 00 ~"'t: a
~..... ::;E ~ ~ C
.0-4 ê ~ t\S i
0 00 ~ o~ ~ Q) Q) "'t: g;
E9 Q) QJ U ~ S CJ) 0.0 I
U S Q) U
Q) Q) . u) <: ;:J fa j
~ fa ~ ..... S ~ "'-t Q)
t\S S.0-4 ~ Q) Q)~o:E ~.s ~
t\S-
"'t: ~& ~] U = ~"'t: ~
~ "'-t Q) e t\S >. 0 "'-t ~
~ o~ ~.::t:..o uO c
. . . . . ~
0
u
'@
0
z
c2¿ - 70
I
tJ) I
0-
0.0 - ~
""0 QJ
>.~ Q) S
..0 Q) Q) ~
~ oo~ ~.~
- - &
~ 0 - J-t -
QJ ro ~ ro .~
.~ Q) 6 ~ ~
> - -
- J-t U S"""'"
0 0 ~ 00 00
tJ) ~ _0.0 -...
~ .~ [j.S ., ~ >.
6 ""0 QJ U
.~ ""0 > en - 6 ~
0 -:S ~ s:: tJ) 00 Q) Q)
- .~ QJ 0 QJ 0.0
en '~ ro 6 ~ u J-t<
~ -
Q) 8 J-tJ-t~ o.o~
~ - Q) ~.~ ro-
en ~ - - ~ J-t , .~
en ~ ~ ~
~ ..0 I Q) J-t
0 0.0 ...... Q)
.. J-t U ~ 00 ~ §- ~
00 ro
- - ~ 0 ~ 0 .~ ~
~ .~ ":S- - Q)
S 0 ro -
Q) 0-"""'" J-t.~ ~
s .~ ¡:¡:: ...... Q) Q) Q) 00
00 . ,
Q) 00- Q) ""0 - ~~ 81
~ tJ) Q) ~ "O.~ ~ 0 0 :
- - Q)
~ ..o- '~ > ~ 00 U ë
0.0 Q) ro.~ > 0 0 QJ Q) 81
< S - 00 0 J-t 00 6..0 E
U ~ J-t ~ ro 81
~ Q) ~o ~OQ) 0 0 0)
QJ a
- ~ - - J-t u- c
;j OJ U 0 00 - QJ""O j
0.0., J-t QJ
ro ro en ~ J-t ro ..0 QJ
::r: QJ ""0..0 0000 >""'0 I
-u ~ 0 ""Oü~ ~ 5
('ij ~ ro- ~
-Q) ro 0
QJ J-t Q) en en b'~ QJ 6 ~
]~ -""0 S ~ Ü o.oro
00 QJ < QJ Jt
~ ~ J-to]
E-c""O ~U ~..o ~
c
. . . . ~
0
u
i
0
c26-?! z
I
I
.t-
I:
:t
8&
tl to
c
8.
c
!
GI
.. '" E
a 8.
a
c
'" ~
I: !
-I ~
"a
'=
Jt
~
c
::»
0
u
i
z
Jt ~ 7c2-
I
I
c:: ~"'Ò
] ~ Q)
CtS CtS Q)
~ >, ~
~ Q) ~ 1-<
Q) :g ..E p..
~ CIJ c::"
. ... c:: 0 'c::
~ > o..CIJ
8 u .......... Q)
Q) p.. ~ LOO
Q) N~-
.~ >, ~ (,A-...... 0
i:: -= §~æco..
Q) c:: c:: ::;$ CI)
:> Q) ò.OCtS]o:a
Q) t:: ~ 6 Q) CtS >, Q)
0 ......::;$ '... '.."""" CIJ >,
.!::¡ u t: "'0 CIJ ~ ~ CtS oq4
S >, .!S CI) Q) Q) 0 ~..E >, Cf')
.... Q)
Q) ,Ig ~.~ ~ ~ ~ S" ~ co ~ .9
... 0 CI) CtS t: .......... 't) ~ 0 ~.6 :- 00
rJ:¡
:>... Q) Q) Q) - CtS p.. U . ... U Q) -
I .-::: u CI) ...... 3= Q) s c:: ,..; ..
U') CIJ . ... CIJ CtS co 1;) CtS.. CtS
r 6 ~ Q) c:: CIJ 6 CtS ~-EC:: ~ "7
. Q)"""O::;$' ~ OQ) N
.!::¡ CI) .!::¡ :¡:: 0 Q) ... "'0" ..
~ Q)...... ò.O.!S CtS ~ .!::¡ "'0 c:: c:: 1-< ~
;:j ~ CtS 6 u ~ ~ Q) '... 0 0 Q) ,- >-
~ 2 'CIJ ~ ~ ~ ~ õ ,.0 p,. e "
0 c:
CtS CI) ~ 0 CtS ...... CIJ Cf') Q) ~ p,. II
U U >, ~ ~ >,::r: æ] t%jš(,A- ~ :
0 >, ã 0 Q) = ~ ~ CtS 0 Q) 0 '... 0 ..
0.0 C/) 1-<....E""" c:: .. >" u, c: c:
I ~~~]ij ~]~] g.ß II
Q) E
.~ II
0 c:: 6 p.. CI) ~ Q) CIJ c:: '... u u 0)
iñ CtS '> ~ .9 ::;$ § ~ æ ~ ~ := CIJ g
~ c:
...... CIJ. ... Q) ~ 0 ~ Q) <.t:: c:: .
ro ~ ~ ê ~ ~ ;=: ::r: 0 ~ ,Š 'ë.!::¡ ] 8-
U') ~ ~ ~ ::;$ '0 ~ u .& CIJ o.E .!S ::;$ i
j ~ j ~ ~ ~ '~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Ë ~ ~
~ ã ~ ~ .:Š ~ ÞZ ~ co~ co .& ~ ~
'(õ' C/) ,6 ~ 0 § ~ B '~~,~ be ~ .g
:Eo:E ~Z~ °Z::;$ e.~p,.§& t
Cf') N ~ U ~ ~ ~ ~"O
. . . . . . . . . . ::I
0
U
of
0
jt--7;J z
I
R
QJ
- .....
s:: CI.)
.9 ~ It) It) It) It) It)
.... ~¡;>NNNNN
~ Q) "tS f:F!r s::
CI:S ~ J-4 It!
~ ~ ~ E
- ~ ~
>. rJ) :a
..0 (]) CIJ §
rJ) Q)..... ~
Q) ~ fI'J ~
Q) ~t'\ ~ "¡::
~ ~ > It!
c.o .S ¡;> C'f'.) ~ 0\ t--.. 0\ 5
c: ~ "tS ~ 11") 11") \D \D .::
.~ ~ CIJ ~ ~
~ ~ >< ~
~ ....c bO
~.~ ~ s:: ~
.- '"
Q..
Q..
>. - p
.... rJ) "'0 >-
s:: ~ s:: ~
"'" co It! U
~ (]) "'0 ØI
0 ~>. § c
U c.o~ ø:I ë
0 ;j~ ~ U
c.o 0- ~ i
(]) J-4 ~oo ~ D
.~ fa ':t2 0 ~ c
0 ~ ~ 11") \D t--.. 00 ~ bÒ .
~ ,., 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ 0 §!
ro ";""'0 ~ 11\
U) Y ('f) ~ It) \D t--.. N ~ ~
CI.) 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ ~ ...;;Þ
~~ 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ Ë ~
-~~~~~ ~ J
Gi
~ ~
~ §
- 0
u
i
0
dt --7t( Z
I
R
...
~
Q)
s -
co
Q) ~ tf)
u 0
~ - ~
co Q) Cf:J Cf:J
þCf:J ç: :> 0.-4
§ § Q) Q) "'0 §
... a þ
~ °,p
0:= 0.-4 """'" ~- ~ co
U ~ co ~ ::so b.O
~ 0 ..-4
00 -
0 ....., ..-4 O' ß
b.O8 ~ ... UN CfJ
co
o~ ~ J-4 ,...c:- S m
::s Q) ... rJ:¡ ...
at) rJ:¡ "'0 ~ Q) 0 Q) ~
~ 0 0 ..-4 0 Cf:J ~~
- rJ:¡ Z$a 1+-1 a
coU U § m b.O
CfJ... ~ ... u ~.5 "'0
,...c: ~ Cf:J U ~ rJ:¡ § <?
co ~ N
0 Q) 0
... Q) ~ ~ ~ §~
0.-4 ~ ~ Q) ~
~ ~ ."'0 co co ~
"'0 ê~ 0 ~ ~
Cf:JU m m m § GI
OJ ~ ... 0 .E aI
.,p ~ Q) ~ "'0 ~ II(
~ ~~ m ::s ..
o~ e Q) ~co ~ 0 c
... GI
U ::s 0.-4 ~ I+-ICfJ ::s:= ~ E
~ mCfJ 0 J-4 "'0 co "'0 GI
t: Q) 0 0- S ... Q) aI
Q)'" m 0
OJ'" U - co m... ~ ~ c
u m U ~ Q) 01+-1
~£ ~ - u co 1+-1 Q) ... i
I+-I~ ~ ~þ 0 S ~ .!
0 m J-4 ... Q) ~ III
... 0.-4 Q) .E 0.-4 u- .
U ma £ :-= ~~ ~
01+-1 ::s u
Z U 0 0 ~JS ~.5 U ~
. . . . . . .I
~
C
:t
0
u
1!
;¿fp - 73/ 0
Z
I
R
. ...
-
t/) CtS
ca rJ:¡ Q) 0
. ,..¡ ... "'0""
~~ ~ ~
~ § .,..¡ 0 "'0
;:j.,..¡ c:
.... S 0 ~ t) èd
~ ....u - Q) t/)
0\ ~.... ~.O' ~
0\ Q) rJ:¡ L>q. ~ 0
~ u 0 ........,...., 'oP
Ct:J ~ --
E ~ Q) ~.... "oJ ~ ~
,~ ~ -- 23 ~ -hÞ "'0 0
Q) ~ N ~ ~ .,..¡ QQ ~ 0.0
u 0 ,O\Q) ca ~CtS ~
§ = c::1~S ~ ~êJ) :P
U""¡ -- Q) .~ '~E ro
~ o~~ ........ >. ~ ..,
~ ~ .... ~ "..¡ Q) U Q) Q) N
IJ') \0 Q);:j ,.Q ~ U ~
~ \Ó>.~ 0 Q)~ 0 t-
N ~......... ~ .... 0.00 Q) C
U fð7 ~§~ ~ ,.§~ ~ 8,
Z : ~ -""¡ 9 >. ,... rJ:¡ .~. ~
.... Þ""" - '.¡::¡ ¡...c Q) ..... rJ:¡ C
Ct:J 0 "..¡ ~ ~'" 0 ...c: rJ:¡ ~ .
0 US~ t:"' U~ Q)O !
u ~~~ ~ ~~ >:p m
....'" "'; ~ ..c:: 0 0 ~ U 0
rJ:¡ .9 C't') Q) u ;.:: ........ . ~ ;:j g
0 fð7 rJ:¡ - :;::.... 0 "'0 ~
u Þ...c: Q) ~ ~ § .... Q) J!
~ ' ,..¡ .... ~ :~ ~ "'0 ;.;.¡ '"
rJ:¡ :;:: O~;:j ~ IJ') 0 Q) .... ~
0 ,.Q 0 ro ~ ~ Q) rJ:¡ ;;Þ
U <~rJ:¡ U fð7~ z8 ~
.. .. . ~
t
~
0
u
i
.)&--7& :I
I
... I
I: Ii
U
E
I»
.r
.t I: ",'
lIE
CD'" to
j
..
i
. ~ E
II
en
a
c:
.. ~
!
1/1
.. j
- ."
.I ::
.i
~
c:
:I
ð
;1t--77 of
0
Z
I
- I
c €3: 3: 3:
o~oR RÆ RÆ .
'" ¡¡; \1'" 0 '"
¡jue Eši E-
ð O~ i ~ ~ ~ ~
- 0'" õ õ
~
8 --r -r- t
~ c ~
0 .. 02 0-
~ ê=<R 'gÛÕ~~
~ ~~~'" ~æ
- ~~~~ E'~
S ens ~ 6.9~i ~81i
J-4 . <I) 2 ~2
Q) ~ I- I-
~ ~ J t t
c.o~ R II>
~ ~ ~ -
0 C/) Â "€ :/:-~ ~ :/:-~
~ "E Â! ~~ g ~ 1~ g
~Q) Â... 8, '" II>
c=S Â ~ < i Jf
roO) . ~ ::)
~c.o  Z 0
~ ro ...::» u -
.~ ,... - 0 II. '
~~ . U 0 M
...~ Â ø !ž
~ ~ Â ~ ! ~ši-;;;- t
Q) 2 . æ ~ ~ r~ 8»
::> rJ:J Â ~ ¡z¡ ,<õ'" C
.~ ro Q ..
...~ - z f.
- ~ - .
\~ ~ t E
Eooo ! 8»
0) .~ .. - J! 0
... .....-I ~ 8_-< 6 ~ ~ -;;;- c::
- 0 - ~~::E'" J:~2ë i
~ ", ~ "~u i,,1-02
~ \JJ C ce-
c.9Z o~R m
tOo J¡ Õ ~'" 'f¡
¡ t i ~
i ~
II> R -
~ .. -~
0 0
"€ €~ "€ €~
~8g ~ðg t
II> II> :t
Jf Jf 8
of
:I
02/¡;'?Y
I
.~ -L/^ I,'
<~ '
,-
~~ 0
,I Jt ~ ~ ~
V~!/j\' i¡ I '
ro 1Þ. I L 1- .§
's g) -. ! - Ii .1 L
,£ .S i~ , r- ji ~ i~ H
;:::....:1 ¡'! ' ~. !"
(1 of" 01 ",' o~
U :::: ~ u, Ii ~ . """""" """"'" "
to .' . ~ .
"' .v ,.' . ;; .
t:: ...... . ,..--- ' ;
Oi -0 ,~ ! ,. i i
~ç:; ~; 01 "
"E os U B [~ ~
0 <IJ >~ 0.' .
CfJ ~ i> !i I
"",'~ , . lEI "
oCfJ , "
- Ë
CJ) - ~
ç: tJ5 ~ ..
0 0 . ~
.~ 0.. .
~ ~ a
ro.~ c
u~ .
0 ~.. .
f~ ~ u
....J .~ ,'i E
-'!!!jj... U
~.f:! r
11~ll ¡ ~
II g:! fi!..
... ~~ .!! .I!
l ~ § '"
~ ~I¡'I;.. ~ ~
5 ~,l ~ U. . J!
rl di d' -
~ .¡~~ ~I Jt
1j¡:::>1/ I/ :r ~ 0 ~
c:
.;
;¿fp-7Q of
I :!
I
.
"0 I
e °Ë- I .
0 - {/)
",cQI .
-Ql-
QI U OS'" I.t'} 0 0 0 0
u ...q< 0 N I.t'} N
Ct-~ ~ N N
S C tU
r.t:J o~;; ~
.. ClUo QI
U o C
Q) t),eO
O-- ~ 1:: -
0 0 -
~ e Q.
~ :Z::s ~
ca oS § § ~
en QI § °,¡j ~ ~
0 - ¡:; 'S cts cts ¡:;
~ ~ ë .9 -- ë ~ ë- ~ .9
o~ u;:........ ~ ..E.D..E .D ........
r"'\ {/) I.!')... 5 cts 5 cts 0
¡.....¡ ~ ~ Q. ':-:::':-::: I.t1
Q) N..... octs octs ..q<
.. ('t') ttS... Z;> Z;> ('t')
ro f:A- ...,.., cts cts f:A-
~ ¡:;
~ 0 ¡:; {/)
OJ .... 0 :"",..... <?
"t:I ~ ......... ~ .1.1 'wi M
.:::: Q. ~ Q. ¡:¡ , ... {/) <>Q ~
~ ""'" - ..........cts ~¡:; "t:Iu
~ rJJ - cts . ... Q. c.. t: cts Q. ... Q. :h
cts ~ ... ~ ë.. >< Q. c.. c.. cts c.. "
~o ~ ~ Q. t: c:: Q. Il.t ~ ¡:; ~.. 0 >< c
c.o '.. "t:I Q. ¡;;¡... . .. 0 Q. ¡:Q Q. &
$ .a 'Ë ~ ~ ~ ~..E ].E E E; ~ ~ ~
gs S Q. cts c.o 'i ,5 .D S< ..g c.o ~ ~ ~ t; S< Ii.
U trJ :g t ,5 ;> ,0;:: 5 0 0\ CtS.5 c.. c..;> ~ 0\ E
¡g 0 "t:I 'Qj ë . cts ..... ~ ... "0 § cts e 1-1.-4 &
] 8 ,§ ~ ~ ~ 6 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.§ ~ ~ I
ro ~
en ~ !
.E (t ~e ........ j
.s ~ "§ ¡:; I Q. ~ .~ 'V
Cf) § ..c: æ:g 1;; {/) .. :=
- o'~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ § Jt
~ u~ ~........ e:. ã"""" 0 ~
°0 ~ 0 œ ~ ~ œ e ~ §
... ¡:; E c.. "0 ... ~ 0 "0 ~ Q. 0
~ cts e e s Q. {/) CJ) S rJJ bb- U
õ~ ð;j.š~ fi3;j~ ~~ ¡
z
c2~--~O
I
.
Š]ø I
- ~=~ ü
- Q, .... ~
v Q, u~o 0 0 0
Q) U"O 0 0 I./')
;j =,t->.C"') I./') ~ 00
~ ß = fa
.~ .~::s ~
'E QodJ
0 . u =
-...0
U fI)--
¡,¡.;¡t: .....
-- 0 It!
r/} Z ~
..... p.. Q, Q,
~ s::".~ ~ ~
. """"'0 .. . 0 "tS Q, Q,
- - --
f-I -~........~ It! It!
'" . fI) ~ .. rJ'J - CO CO
- 0 .. 0 .... ,..,..
- U"" I./') 0 ......
CO ';j ..¿, ~ .9.9
r/} ¡,¡.;¡ .... s:: ................
0 ~ It! ~ ~
~ ~J: ~ ~
r/}
.~
0 ~
M
Q)
..... '.. "tS
- s:: Q.)
'U 0- ~
s::: "¡:: ~ ~ ~ c
f-I It! p.. I ç::¡ 0 CII
CJ.) ..... >< ..... ..... 0 '... m
..... fI)::S It! It! ',¡:: I - C
- ::s u Q.) s:: s:: u s:: .~ ..
~ ~.~""'Cf") 0 o'E OJ: C
~ - u ~ 0\:= "¡:: := rJ'J CII
~ trJ 5 0 0\ It! It! ID It! Q, E
0 .....~ ~ ~.... ~~ &
~ ~ ~] ~ ~~ ~~ !
0 ~
U .. Q.) .I!
..... - ~
~ ~ S =~ ~
s::: ~ ........ "tS ~ ¡,¡:: 3: iÞ
ca 3:- æ~- "tS............. 1: :5!
r/} ........ß ~3:ß ~IDß 5Q./ 1
E t ! ~~ f~ ~ ~} ~ S l[ i
rJ) ø: ~ ~ ~ § .~ ~ ~ rJ'J ~ ~ ~ 8 ~
~~~ ~<~ ~j~ ~QU i
z
;lh - 8'1
I
.
= I
= .
:¡; =
=~ ! £ n
..... ,- ,- u
-= ..... 1:;
'¡¡ ~ '¡¡ ~ Þ
CCI.I. CC is Ü
~ ! f f
00 ~ I 0
0 ~
0'" t::
~ ~ 0
~ ~ z
~ ~ ~
(J.) ~ ~
U QJ U 0
cJJ"ffi .9 ;
~ Soo ..!!J .S
Q) . ::I QJ
~ ~ 2 ~
rn 0 --
~: CI ~ -'~
~ ~ ~:e CI ~ -
~ ~ Z QJ 5! ~ CI
L"] 8:-g 51 ï::: ~
...........!!J æ ¡£ 8 c.. !š
- ~ ~ en ~ ~
;j ù O~ ~"'.9 æ
0 - ~
~ - ., ~ ~
~ ~ .g I 2 'r
~ ~ .-"""" I
_..r:: ~, ~ I
.- " "I'" "-
~. ". ~' !
IV'= ~' ","""'" II
~ ~ ~ I = ~ ~
", 0 0"""
..= :g . I ~ I 1:
..0" ."."' .
0'" 0 .2 I 2 I E
00 ~ ~ I t II
00 ¡¡.¡ ",' QJ ~
0 ~ U"= CD
~ ; - - ':ü I '"d
. ~ ~ -I - m 11
'"d 0 0 oW" ..., 'J: - -"- :It
'¡¡¡ I ~ := 5!' !.i '0... J!
; "'" !3 ~ en' lID j 5! 0 11\
QJ yJ II: ... ¡ en ~ D
ð !! '-.,.Ï!. 'ii ~;""" ~ ~ i!! " it
~ ~ o,...........~ = ~ ~
.'. --.=----- I - I ~ -< Q U ;!!
Z . N -...:::. ._--~ I JI
0 z f") - - ~
E ê ~ c
0 0 E 8
0 u
t
0
d¿ -~:J- z
I
-- I
UMo I¡H
fJ~\H~'H
- In ... ...
~ ~g ~ë;; ---
Ct1 CI) :c ....
õU l I =-
~ 0.0 - ,-
Ct1 S .Ifi -! ~
- . ~ I .- =
~"U - ¡=
Ct1 = 1=
~ 0 l [C)] . D j~ j
.~ ~ '- D I = ~
~~ J D i ~ f+ "i'
~. Ct1 -- M
.~ ,.,¿J - -
;;:::~ _:S
~..c= - i t-
\W ~ . C
rT. .~ - -.. CII
~ ~ = I œ
Q)¡> - -. c
-~ : =. ë
~O Cij= ~ CII
S .~ ~ § = E
- ~ a: - - II
\W Ct1 = œ
>< ~ I = - D
Cf) a-- = c
~ ~ - :I
w -
~ I
~ 1~~ ~
Ct1 = ~
F: ! ~
~ §
. 0
u
- of
0
- z
J.t~~3
I
R
e15
Q) Q) ~
u~ "'0 ro
01'""4 :¡:j
, i:: ~ Q) ~ 6b
ro Q)~ ~ 0
~ °ë rJ:¡ 0.0 :¡:j ~
-:.e fJ'j ro
~~ 01'""4 Q).....
>. ro ~ ~ 0
0.0 ~ oS 0 0 .....
Q) ~ëa b ~ .....
..... 0.0;:: rJ:¡ fJ'j ~
ro :~ U
~ ~ ~ v5 ro::J ~ æ
..... ~ fJ'j 01'""4
ro ~ ~
Cf) ~ ~.E U Q) ~..... Q)
~ Q) Q) ro ro ~ ]~
.s~t) ~>. ~ . ~
Q) Q) M
..... ro ro] Q)~
= ~::J ~ 2 =
ro 0 Q) ..... u i::.a ~
~ ~Cf) 01'""4 ..... Q) ~ ro
~ Q)..o ~ ã II
::J "'d ~ ~ rJ:¡ U
~ 01'""4 ="0. ,
U Q) 01'""4 ro Q) i:: ~Cf)
e ~ 0 u ~æ~ ..
0 u ~ rJ:¡ Q) "'d~ =
ro 01'""4 iii
~ > ~ 0 0 fJ'j ~ fJ'j ë
- '", § ~- ~§ëa ~.1'""4 '"
.1'""4 ~..... 8 ro 0 ~ U)
ro rJ:¡ ~ a
~ ~ ~ s :¡:j fJ'j ~>. c
2 Q) 0 ro 0 fJ'jQ3 i
~~ 0 ~ ~
Q) ~ u J:: Q) fJ'j ~~ !
ro .1'""4 "0'1'""4
~ 0.02 ::c"O fJ'j 01'""4 "0 ~ ~ j
ro ro 01'""4 ~fJ'j"'O Q) ro
..... æ ~ ~~ fJ'j ~ æ o.o~ ~
ro .1'""4 r3Z 8 < ~
æ ~ ~ ~ ~ J1
Cf) "'d . ~
. .
. c
8
u
of
0
z
J.jç ~1
I
I
00
E ...
~ 00
Q)
00 Q) ..-4
£ .....
u .6 ..-4
r:: u
- ca ca ~
..-4
ca ~ b
~ 0
Q) E-
I Q) r::
>. - 0 .....
,.c - ..-4
I '.-4 00
Q) ~ ...
~ Q)
..... -
00 "'" ..-4 ,.c
~ 1-4 ;j ca
0 cr 1-4.
~ ~ ~ r::
.6 00 "i'
r:: ~.9 M
-
00 ca Q) ~~
r:: 1-4 > to
..... Q) 1-4
1-4 ~ Q) ;j ¡
Q) - "'" . .-4 0.0 I
u u Q). 00..-4
r:: ;j 0.000 - ..... 1:
0 b ca >. ..-4 r::
U ê~ ca 0 81
. ~ 1-4 U E
81
..... 00 0 T"""4 1-4 ~
00 >-.p 0 0 g
0 ~! ... Q) c
"'0 ..-4 æ"'O .
U ca"'"
Q) ~ ~ -.p' c;j
>. ]~ '.-4 § !
Q) ..-4 E Q) Q) u j
~ ~ 8 0.0> C'tj u
< Q) ..... ~ ~
~
. . . Jt
t-
c
~
"
)b,-f(~- 1!
0
Z
I
R
II
I»
I
a. to
c
II
12 :
..
~
E
II
en
D
C
I
!
1/1
~
~
.K
~
c
g
u
i
;¿jp --51/¡; 0
z
I
I
-] - ,
, ~ =
. U tJ:J 0
.... ~ ....
( ) ëiJ to :=
'> .. ( )...c: to
i> 0 U l::
~~ 0 ~ tJ:J
~ ~ ~ .~
5 .. = :g tJ:J ,::=
:.... ~ to 0 t S
u ( ) J2 ~ ~ ~
~ ~,~ -- õ -(
.... ~ Q::; 00 ( ) ~
~ ~ Õ ,6 00 00 fã
0 ~tO ,-::: = ä ....
U ~ = ~ to ' =
tJ:J ëa 0 ;>...c: ( )
5 = æ ( ) := 6 u .... S
, ,9 U 0 ò::l , ~ rJ) ( )
en ,-::: e ( ) ~:9 =..9 tí 00
Q) ~ p.., ...c: ~.b 0 to to -
~ ( ) E-- -- tJ:J := a l:: = ..t
.s ~.s ~ . 00 õ' e'~ § ~
.~ 00 õ ~ .~] ~ ( ) u ~ ~
~ 6 l:: ( ) fã to 1:: 8' t to II
~ :.c: = .~ - = - .:: 2.. CÐ
,... tJ:J 0 ~ p.., 0 .... ( ) ..... v C
M . ... up..,.... . ... C:""""'" ( ) ..
0 ~ - U -::: èd ~ tJ:J ~ C
- 0 to ( )'~ > - ...."", II
~ ow .... := """"~ ( ) ~ =""'" E
$:1 {/) ~ '... e...... - u ( ) ~ II
~ to ( ) ~ p..,:= ( ) tJ:J S..9 CÐ
$:1 ~ '> = >- Q::; >- ~ '" a
i> ( ) ( )...," - to - c
0 ~ 0 §.... ~,... - -, ~ a
U ;:> = tJ:J ~ - :s < ~ ::I 'S: ~
.... < 'rb 0"" ~ ~ ~ ( ) i e !
~ i!3 .! ~ ,~ ...... l? § Q::; p.., ;
S .E 0.. < 0..0 .E R 00.E J
( ) uS'" 0 J!3 QJ ,E; QJ ."
~ e( )o ~~ ~ u ~ ~ =
8 .... t ~ 0.. ( ) .E ,~ fã::l Jt
0 § .? u 'to = '... 0 ...c: :=
~ U 0 j ~Æ ~ ~ u ~ t
. . . .. .... 8
u
i
~t-~? ~
I
I
............ U
J-c >..
~ 0 -
C/) .... ~ J-c
~ I C/) 0
- Q) ~
ro ....c - ....
J-c ro ~ 0 ro C/)
.... J-c C/) J-c ro
"'C ~ ~ ro Q) ~
0 ~ ~ S
ro C/) C/)
e ro ~ "'C
~~ ~ 0
Q) "'C ~ "'C~
.... "'C~ ~ ro ~~
C/) ....c J-c "'C
ro - 0 ro
~ 0.... Q) § ~ ro
00 u J-c
u ro
"'C -- ro ~ 0 ro
OOb .... ~
C/) ....c Q) C/) C/) rJ5
Q) - ~ ~ Q)
0 ....c >.. .... C/) J-c
:> J-c
00 Q) 0 Q) - Q) >.. Q)
....c >..u -
.... -- ~ ro Q) u C/)
u c/).... a 00 >< .... .... S ~ &
Q) J-c -- ~~
....... ro C/) N Q) Q) .... Q) C/) N
ß Q)~ U ..c Q) 00 ro o.o....c -i
........c ê.§
>"0 00 t: .... ..c<e:"'C
I.!')tJ ro ....c .... J-c ~
P-. Q) Q) ~ -- ~ Q)
0 ro - 00 0""
~ .... - -- J-c....c C/)Q)..c II
~ ....b ....c "'C -Q).... :
~~ ro ro C/) ~ Q) ~ ~ 0
-00 -.... ..
~ 0 S 0 J-c 00 Q) ~ ....c ~ C
0 Q) C/) "'C 0 II
_u J-c ~ .... U ... Q) ~ ã C/) E
S ~ Q).~ U....c ~ C/) 8,
S t: C/) Q)
....c....c ""¡""'C ~ ~ OJ!l:p a
~ t: 0.0"'C .... Q) c
~ C/) ....c....c ~~....c .
]; ~ ~ ~ 0 Q) t: C/)Q):;:
..E ro UJ¿ ~S~ !
- J-c Q) 1/1
~ m Q) J-c Q)J9 Q) C/) Q)Q);..::::: I
J-c~ J-c"'C $;;.¡ J-c
;j ~ J-c J-c ;j'...c Q)
~ C/) ~ Q) ~ Q) ~ &.E ~
u ~ u ~ U"'C U U Jt
0 C/) e ro £ § O....c
J-c....c J-c J-c ~~~ ~
P-."'C p-.b P-. ~ c
. . . . . ::I
"
c2t ~ <6~ i
0
Z
I
I
u
~ "'0
0 s::
....-4 C\S
..... ....
ro ~
..... ~
r;J)
~ Ct:J
~ r::
ro
C/) .... ~
r:: ~
ro ~ - Q)
r= Ct:J ro u
....-4
r:: ....-4 (:
~
Q) C\S Q)
..c:: r= ..... Q)
..... ro r;J)
..... Ct:J ~ Q)
ro Q) .....
- r:: Ct:J
~ ~ ~
Q) 0
"'0 ....-4
- ..... <?
....-4 U ....-4 "Ot
Ct:J >-. - Ct:J
r:: u O ;:j t-
O Q) .... E 0
~
u ~ ~ ~ c
Q) II
0 "'0 C/) 0 ro t
..... Q) r:: ~ N ..
Ct:J ..... ro ro c
ro II
r:: ~ r= r:: ~ E
0 ro II
0 en
....-4 c... .E:/ "'0 a
..... ....-4
U Q) ..... - c
C/) U 0 i
§ UJ ~ 2 ..c::
~ Q) ..... Q) !
~ C/) C/)
~ ~ s:: ;:j I
Q) :J 0 0
-:S 0 ~ ~ J
r;J) U ~
0 . . . .
~
c
~
"
;¿t "glJ of
0
Z
I
.
ø
'" . '.. r.n '.. ~ '..
ooòo4 0.. ¡:: § >.,
~ '0 u r.n
:g ~ 'J:: 0 ¡:: ¡::
r.n -0 - '¡¡:; U Q.) ,0
,.. .... ¡:: ~ ' .... bI:) ~
~ ¡:: 0 ¡:: =' 6 < ".
.~ ~ ~ Q.) in 8" 0 .... ~
>. ¡;¡ ~ 6 Q.) CtI J:: O,.Q
u æ .... Q.):= r.n"'" ~ 0
~ bb ~ ~'o ,~õ ~ 1:
~ CtI -0 ijæ Š ~ ~ Q.)~
~ t ¡:: ""=',t: u Q.) Cf)
~ - CtI~.... CtI.... ........
=' -0 Q.) ...... - ,.Q ~ CtI
~ CtI CtI 1;;] -0 0 § p..
~ ..s:: ,.Q CtI"" ¡::.... Q.)
... bI:) .$;S:"" CtI ~ o'~
>..6 1a ....'..2 ~ æ U t:
,..0 6 U ~;(1 :=: r.n 0 Q.)
=' 0 U r.n Q.) .... r.n
~ ~ ,6 U '> ~ ~ 1: ~
"'" CtI þ...... ¡.. ...... ¡:: Q.) Q.)
Q) '-' ;::: o~ bI:) r.n 6 6 ~
~ r.n . ...", ¡:: Q.) Q.) 0
~ :: u C5 t '0 ~ ........
0 0 ~ '.t:'tJ ¡:: =' 8 r.n t-
r::;:: .... CtI ¡:: CtI 0 0 J!:! c:
Q) Q.) ~.!::! CtI ,6 ~ ~ CtI tI
,..0 ..... .. r.n :;:::: b """.... -"" en
r.n- ¡:: .... I .... - 5, Q.) C
0 CtI ~ CtI =' -0 p.. CtI .... ..
... :: CtI .... Q.) CtI ~ ' ... , ... r.n c:
r.n ~ .... 0 ¡;¡ u r.n CtI tI
2 :g ~ ~ ,~.... ~ ij ~:: I
Q) ÕU.... .... Q.) 6:>. -0 en
en r.n Q.) Q.) ~ ..2 ~ 4.. k .9 ;::: a
rn - ¡:: .... Q.) ~ CtI - CtI .... 0 c:
~ 0 Q.) ,¡¡:; !::'¡'" .... ~ ~ ..s:: r.n a
~ b too;;! t éd Q.) ,bI:) ~ ~
Q) §..s:: .... .... u ::::: - ~ ¡:: '... J!
.- u:: ~ ~ ~ 0 :;::::!:: Q.) ~ a
~ .9-0 ~ ~-o .9 !~ ';;.9 I
en þ~ bO bO~ Þ e è ~ Þ ~
0 ;::: =e ,6 .6 .$ '... '.t: Q.) Q.) ;::: .i
~ ;S 0 ê ~ 1a :8 :g ~ ~ ;S ~
<6;> ;>u < ~r.n ~ < c:
. .. .. .. g
u
'f
;it / 10 ~
I
I
- c-
eI) eI)
~ o~ -
~ r ~æ ~
:> I." V) Õ E
---L" C> .S'
:r: I ¡;=~
I I Q)Q.O)
- I ~O«
{¡ "",
.¡¡; , oð - -C ,
c ", ~g.!1 ,
en g o'.2og,
~ u e ~~J:
.~ 0 ~ I ° ~ c:
..!:: 0) I ~....... 0
"' '"' ,-1- U ------,
r:: - ~I - I
0 ! I I
~ ~ 0, - ~,
(t ~ ~, ¡¡ ~ ,
Qj 0 , E . .,"
¡:<: I J: I ~ g ~I.;
---1- I '" ~ .. I
- - I"". .1...
<0 0 1 3 ¡;¡ "'I ~
;:S" I .. 6 I .
ti 'õ .. ¡ . "ú¡..
- c: Q) I tI) "', C
'" 0 E ".
.... u . , ..., Ii
~ w. I .
¡:; w ¡;, " I E
0 "" ... >- I &
U -. cu.
Q) ~c: c
C1I ~ ~ "00 CI ~
" ,,~ -c '" '" '" I-
- "3 - =« on< !
"¡¡J C.E 0 - c ~ " u .
'" r :r: .g "'" ,g "- .... Z ,Ii
0 -L -~~ ~~~ .!1~ ..
¡:¡.. - 5" 8., ~ " D ;!!
-0 0 0> 2-¡j" 0 0 .
0 Uo 00) (/)..!::: '^
c: ~ ... « .- ~
..a 0 >- >- 0 L-
-'" -" -< --- '" .
~ t: <; --- .
0 0 0
u z u
t
z
d¡Þ-/(
I
... I'
rJ:J
,-;:: OJ 2.b
S S ~ ~
~ ;:j ~ § "'0
,~ OJ 00 Cl) s::
~ ~ 0 ~ ~ 0 C\S
OJ ......
..... OJ u Cl) C\SU ...
, S ..... ..!.. OJ
- CIJ..c:: ~
,~ rJ:J "'0
..s::: en 0 ""'.....
........... ~ ~ C\S J-t C\S
0 (\$ (\$ ~ 0 ~
..orJ:J"'O ..c:: ~Z ~
.c.&~ en
rJ) 0 0 OJ ,6
..... en C\S ..... ] ~
~ ,~,~... ..... ..¿
OJ u "'0 ~ Cl)
S C\S 0 Cl) C\S ~ ~
~'E'~ ~ ..... ... 0 0
~ (\$ CIJ t) ~ u..... ..o
,~ u e Cl) ~ S.b
;:j ...... ..... OJ
0"" C\S;:j 0 rJ) ..... ,~ ~
rJ) u ~ ~ ~~
Q) 0 0 ~ C\S 0 U
~ ~"'O""" ~ u C\S e rJ)
rJ) C\S .....
Q) ...~
.~ ~..... ~ ~o.o ~.....
u "'O......~ ~e ~ ~ ~
~ 0)""" 0)
C\S 1;) ~ ê ,~6 ~ Q)
en' Q) S
S ,-;:: (\$ Q)"'O t'
- Cl) "'0 C\S ~;:j c
~ ~ "'0 0 .~ ~
~ ..0"'" 0 ~u 81
~ ~ C\S rJ) ..... ......... :
~ "'0 (\$ ,~ - Cl) ,~...... C\S 0 ë
0) ~ e" ~ .~ e'~ en"'O
(\$"'"
~ :> rJ) en"'" 81
~ ~ E
0 J-t 0) C\S C\S 0)"'0 OJ u 8»
~ rJ) Q)'" 0) ~ u C\S
~ Q) ..... ~ ~~ Q) ~ g
OJ I :E 0) en 0 C\S ~'E
..... gp en 0.0 ........ ..... J-t Q) 0 .
~ ~
~..9 ~ ,6 C\S u .b~ "'0 u !
~ ~ '~en '~~ 1/1
ro "'0 ~ "'0 C\S Q) ~~ e~ ~
~ ã ~ ~ ;:j 0.0
l? 0 ~ l?< ~ 0 ~
. . . . .K
t
::t
0
U
of
0
;Jt - I~ z
I
I
u
"'C
I: ~
CtS ~
~
~ Q)
- Q) ep
CtS en ~
en I: CtS Q)
0 CtS ~ S
~ ~ 0
en ~ ~ Q)
res 0...-4 Q) ~
0...-4 "'0 ~ S I:
~ en
~ ~ CtS Q)
0...-4 ~ "'C >
~ ~ æ Q)
u J-t "'0 oS
0
~ 0...-4 Þ
I: -
en 0 ~ Q)
0 I: rJ) ~ 0...-4 ~
o,... 0...-4 - 0...-4
~ CtS "'O - 0...-4 en
CtS ~ 0...-4 ~ ~
- ..0 -
u ~ 0...-4 ro
0...-4 ::1 res ~
104-1 Q) en
0...-4 ~ ..o ~ CtS 0 to
- rJ) rJ)
CtS CtS "'C "'C u ~ c
::1 ~ II
a ~ ~ I: I: 0...-4 :
"'C CtS Q) ~ "'O ê
p..¡ 0...-4 ~en ~ e ~ II
~ - CtS ::1 E
0 0 Q) 0.0 Q) e II
en Q):¡:j I: 0.0 ~ rJ) œ
>;:: res ~ u ~ 0
oS ~ ¡::~ c
Q) 0...-4 ~ ro 0...-4 .
Q) "'C ~ CtS I: res ..0 ~
en e Q) !
U 0104-1 - 0 I:
~ - -É CtS III
~- CtS ~ 0 ~
þ~ 0...-4 ~.~ U
0...-4 ~ ~ gs °,p
J-c ;g
Q) 0...-4 0 Q) res
~ :=~ res ~.E Jt
>< <~ oS Q) 0 ~ < °c;j t
~ ~ Cj u
. . . . . . ~
0
u
¡
~t'J3 z
I
Draft Table of Contents
Request for Proposal for Alternate
Refuse Disposal Services
I. PURPOSE AND PROCUREMENT APPROACH
A. PURPOSE
B. SCOPE OF SERVICES - Interim and 1.ong- Tenn
C. PROJECT GOALS
D. PROJECT PARTICIPANTS & RESPONSŒlLlTIES
E. GENERAL PROCUREMENT INFORMATION
1. Definitions
2. Schedule
3. Proposal Guarantee
4. Selection of Contractor for Negotiations
S. Withdrawal from Negotiations
6. Representations
7. Perfonnance and Construction Bonds
8. Permits and Environmental Review
ll. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. SERVICE AREA DESCRIPTION
1. City of Carlsbad
2. City of Escondido
3. City of Oceanside
B. CURRENT DISPOSAL METIlODS
C. ANTICIPATED WASTE FLOW
m. TRANSFER POINTS AND TRANSPORTATION
A. REGIONAL & SITE LOCATIONS (Provided by the Agency)
B. SITE DESCRIPTION (Provided by the Agency)
C. TRANSPORTATION METHODS
D. UNLOADING AND WEIGHING OF DELIVERY VEHICLES
E. INSPECTION RIGHTS
;2t/~7
4-8
I
Draft Table of Contents
(Continued)
Request for Proposal for Alternate
Refuse Disposal Services
IV. ALTERNATE WASTE DISPOSAL SITE
A. DESCRIPTION OF DISPOSAL SITE
B. PERMIT STATUS &. DOCUMENTATION
C. OPERATING RECORDS &. CONTINGENCY PLANS
V. CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIPS AND SERVICE PAYMENT APPROACH
A. CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIPS AND RESPONSIBll.ITIES AMONG THE
PARTIES
B. SERVICE PAYMENTS
C. SERVICE AGREEMENT TERMS AND CONDmONS
VI. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS
A. GENERAL PROVISIONS
1. Expenses of Proposal Preparation
2. Confidential Information
3. Cover Letter and Signature Requirements
4. Proposer Interviews
S. Insurance Requirements
B. ORGANIZATION OF PROPOSAL
1. Executive Summary
2. Technical Proposal
3. Management and Operations Plan - Interim and Long-Term
4. Waste Transfer &. Transportation Plan - Interim &. Long-Term
S. Qualifications
6. Cost Proposal.-
7. Waste Disposal Sites and/or Agreements
8. Financial Resources &. Records
vTI. EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS
A. GENERAL
B. EVALUATION CRITERIA
C. EXCEPTIONS TO RFP REQUIREMENTS
vm. PROPOSAL FORMS
~b /~~
4-9
I
I
. ...
rJ) ....
.....
c:: rJ)
OJ
OJ .....
e '.-4
rJ)
~ -
co
'.-4 rJ)
& 0
~
~ rJ)
..-4
Q) '\j ¿
u "'0
rJ) c:: 0
- c:: ..-4
CO cO .....
e CO CO
rJ) .....
0 r./) c::
~ ~ Q)
..8 ..-4 Q)
0 ..... E
..-4
~ ~ -
~ Q) ..-4 Q)
~ u - ~
0.0 J9 ~ ...
c:: ..... ....
Q) rJ) Q)
..-4 Q) c:: to
..... u '.-4
CO e 0 c:: ~ c
::s ..-4 GI
..... ~ u :
- 0 CO CO
CO ..... u ~ ~ ë
:> . ...
þ ..-4 rJ) "'"
~ ~ ~ ~ GI
..-4 "'" E
..-4 - rJ) rJ)
~ CO 0 0 J9 GI
g
~ & ..... U D
r./) Q) .8 c
Q) Q) ..... - .
'.-4 ~
> :> rJ) Þ J!
..-4
:¡j '.c: :> u '"
..-4 j
ro ro ~ -
~ ..-4
- - ~
~ ~ ..-4 ..-4 ~
Cf) ~ J1
. . . . . 1-
c
~
u
of
0
z
c2t -I?
I
I
¡
I:
0
z.
I:;
-1 to
c
8»
&.-: c
!
GI
{tX ¡
~
D
~
& ~
j
"
- :¡
'"
!
g
u
¡
z
dt / J ?
I
'" g; R
0\ 0\
C"") C"") 0"1 C"") .....
C"") 0"1 0"1 ..... 0"1 ..
0"1 0"1 0"1 .. 0\ \D ~
~ 0\ ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ~ 0\
"'" ..... .. .. '"' '"' 0\ 0\
0"1 .. I.t') N Q¡ ..... .. Q¡ 0"1 .....
..... ..... ..... N,.Q ,.Q.....
LÒ t) tj tj e t e .. LÒ
..... = = = Q¡ ..c (I) ..... .....
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 > Q¡ Q¡
'3 ::s ::s ::s & Oti Zo § §
- < < < ~ - -
~ >. >. >. >. >. >. >. >. >.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~
. . (I)
Q) ....
- >
::J Q¡
"U ::
Q) .....
..c:= ,¡g
u ~
Cf) ~
~ ~ ;¡;
0 ~ >-- "tI
. ""'"...... í-< . Q¡
~ ~ ~ (I) ~ ~ ~
ro '"' ~ ~ U rJ} ..... W
1:: ..8 5 ~ 5 ~ $ 0..6 &
Q) .:::: ê ~ '"' Q¡ '"' C
C ~ 0 ~ ~ .E 0 .
$:; '"' rJ} ¡:;¡"'" U U ~ c
Q) 0 8 'E 0 "".. ~ 'ëi) '50 ;
- ~ Q¡ U e ..... ~ (I) GI
~ ~,~ e rJ} = § U ~ 1:1)
S ]:rj e ~ ] .$ U ~ ID I
~ ~ 0 0 (I) ~ ~ ~ U w
, ~ U 0.. "tI ¡g ~ 0 '::= ~
Q¡ '"' '"' 0 "tI 0.. ..... U í-< J:!
~ ..8 ..8 ~ < e .~ "tI ~ II
(I) ~ ~ cL ~ ~ (I) ~....... :t
~ ~ '"' (I) ~ ~ "V
oo::j ~ 1"'1 ~ > $ ~ ,6 ::
;;¡ (I) ~ "0 (I) '... ~ 0 e 0
U = (I) ..... = ~ -; òO ~ VI
ð ~ 8 ~ ~ ~ ~ z á t
. . . . . . . .. 8
i
.1&;'18/ !
I
. '
. I
M M
~
Þ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ 0\ 0\
§ .-I .-I 0\ 0\ ~
, .-I .-I
.-1 .-1' ~
0 ' ....;- ~
U "'" "'" .-I .-I
~ ~ ~ .~
rJ} ~ -e -e ....;-
Q) CO CO ...t::
0.0 ã~ $ 2 2
0.-4 ,6 ~ ~
..... 0] c.. u ~ ~
0.-4 ~ co
:> 0 ~ ~
0.0 ~ ~
°oP 8 ""'...t:: >. £ >. >. £
u ~~ ¡:o ¡:o ¡:o
<:
~
Q)
.;; s::
0
0 :~ ~ ~ ~ þ
Q)
...-4 E i!3 Þ.... ~ S $ == ~ ~ "'"
::J o;::s §CO < ,.Qenco 0
"'C u~ Þ ~co"", 0¡Q..... <':'
Q) ..... 0 (3 '.... ~ co ~ .s 'B -5 >. .,.,
..c: þ"" u co u .... - ] ~ ,~
u s:: ~ ~ ~ c.."O "3 ¡Q ¡g õ en to
Cf) ;::s 0.0 co 'ã 00 c..c..~
0 ,.§ ã u ã ] U c.. "3 0 .... 'E c
~ II
U "",- -d' I en ""S:: m
s:: 0 co c.. "0 "0 ' .... co ~
0 .9 (3 ~ ~ æ 0.0:8 s:: ~ ã 0 ..c¡= § 6 ~ l3 c
°oP ..
en £. c..' 6;::S 0 "'" en ê ~:¡: ~ s:: s:: c
ca § ] ,~"O '~õ :¡: "0 "'" ' is c.. ~ ,51 ~ II
..... E
~ :¡: co .e,"OjãenG ã~$ ..... 0 u~ 6 8»
Q) co .... ~ ~ """J3 ~ 0 ;::s £¡ "O...t:: e ~ ~ ~
S ~ ~ ~ ~. ¡Q co' ë ~ t] "'" ~'~ c..~ ~ i
Q) ;a 6:8 8.~-5 ~ë so1«i.s ~ -- ~"O co
...-4
~ o~.E á3"9.e ~~, -ëë ..... ë ß~!i) !
::a tb~ ;¡ ~ en 00 ~"8 b 'S: ~ en gJ ~ oo'Š "3 I
1--4 ~<- co en~ <"0 0 $;a 6~:=: "f < 0-<]
~ ê ~ ~ 00 ~ S,.Q ~ S ~ '.... en 00 ~ QJ ~
;¡ co '~ u s:: ;¡~
t~~ !~~ !] ~ t~~~ J ~ ~~ ~ .i
t
. . . . . . . :t
"
of
J-t /9; 0
z
I
, , JU.. 67 '93 15: 17 EL CAJCJ'I CITY Cl..ERK
314 PEI2
tmft¡
1Œ80LUTlON NO. - "' :
A RESOUTnON OF TIΠCITY OF , CAUFOItNJA
APPRO~O AN AMBNDBD
saUD W ASTB INJ1!RIM AOMEMBNT
WHDEAS. disposal of lOUd waste witbill San DieJo Comtty ia a crisi. whidl requires
the cooperation of the County of San Diego and every city within the county; and
W1ŒREAS. the Interim A¡ræmeat aøICDded June I, 1993 IllS beelllIßCICIIditioaa1Jy
ai&ned anly by die County of SaIl Die¡o aøclleven cåtiæ; and
WHBREÂS. the Iftlerim Apeenlellt must be fllrther amended in order Iha1 it be stilled
by the oU\er clti.. in the Couuty; and
WHEREAS. during the pendency of the Interim ~t:
A) AltemalÎve form. of permanent aovemance wiJ1 be comprdleftaively
revieWed and impardatly 1UIa1pec1; anI!
B) A fun range of subregional dbposal al1ematives will be eç1ored and
CCIIØiderccl; and
C) The: opmIÌon of cxistina faci1itie. includl!l& NCRRA w3l1 be oxamlned 8Dd
considered for lI'IOdiftgadon or tcnnination; and "
D) TIpping fees aneS their uniformity win be n:vicwcd¡ and
E) Host agencies such as ChuJa Vista and San Marcos will be paW. r.cility
= to the extent permitted by law; IJICl
P) AffCded a¡enciea such IS Santee will be paid mltiøtion æes II) the extent
pmnlttect by laW¡ and
-
WHEREAS, while the IÞove-recitcd matlcrS and othm are reviewal IIId implcmenled:
A) Flow c:ovenantl lhouid be to 1he Commltsion; and
B) Bonds should not be iIIucd withOUt COI\C1Irm1!.'e of . meJorit)' of the
CoDlllÚsåOn.
NOW. THBREPORE, 'IHE. CITY COUNCIL OF TIm CITY 0'
HEREBY FINDS. 1ŒSOt.VES. om'BRMINES AND ORDERS AS FOu.0w5:
The Solid Waste Interim ApcmcsIt IS amended by the Board of
SvpervillOrS of the County of San Die¡o 01\ JUM I, 1993, Is tMøby approved and
_JIC'œnt L-) or the Acc:cpCab1e Waste Flow of the City of
is hereby comrnitœd on coadition dun tho Interim "A¡rMIIIIftt be alN!ftCled to
provide IS follow¡ for an momber apncles:
2~ ;-)/JO
I
. ' . .. . JlL 0'i' . 93 15: 1B EI... CAJCt CITY CLERK 314 pro
-* ::1' ,
D RAFT JŒSOLUTION NO. -
P8p2
1. Both the initialllld 8UbllQ.uent Øuw COIIIIIIÌtmeIIIII111dc by. cil)' may be
made to the Interim Commiøion and all flow c:oDUIÛIi1ICGlllIIIde by . dty abaJ\ œvert
to that ciLy 011 May 31, 1994 if that city Iw lIot qœed to the pennanent form of
JOYemaDcc by that dale.
2. The County wI1l DOt ililiO lOUd wutc f8øüít)' bondiq prior to JUlIe 1.
1994 without the COIIc:urreace of a lIIIJorlt)' vote 01 the memberl of the Interim
Comnúuion.
'PASSED. ADOPTED AND APPROVED. by !he City Coud of the City of
. California at I regular meeting thereof dùs - clay of My, 1993.
, Mayor
ATrEST:
, City Clerk
-
;2b '" / ¿J /
I
.
JUH-1B-93 FR1 ':34
I, p.e3
I
,
WASHX"GTON ~~~,~~XSES
Badness þe.èl~îit: "'~9:"'p'\;lçoft8Q1Ung
..==;".====....===.;=~:;¡.:..",¡';,¡.;~~..~io', ;ò..~'!'=..=.==....=.==.==="'...===....
au ~a1, SUite 2250, .~,'Dlego,..èa t)101
. 619'237-055'. 619/2~7;-O~2'J. ,cr..c) t ' :'
JtE s UME
SHEI~ B. WASHING'I'QN, I
OWNER/PRESIÐJ:N'l' ::
W~sh:lngton SnterPr,t.ses,. ,!iø'1~~'!f. development an4 _nage_nt
consulting firm :o#e:t'1~g:' a, ~ ôd 'ge of business and business
"evelopment serVices. j, ':s:~nce, ~~7 , ,Ms. Washington has executed a
41 verse rang. of F=(). :rt.sU:l Ung~ø~:1g~~nt. for clients in the public
anc1J>r1 vate aeetorsl -1 " ~ltY~," . ~~H~òunty .gene!e., construction
tr..c1.es~ en Ineer1~¡'g~ irElstau,t' 't., þperat1ons and a wide range of
serv1ce !'n~Qstri'~ ¡ P*l>.v1~,ing:t::~iJteting and business planning,
fundJ.ngass1stan~ei., ~t~~ac:W¡~"to'; 'IUnorlty and Women Business ,
Ent~rp¡dses, (MWÐB).'~ :4I11.ì:J, ,:.ó.,ont'.~a;\=;~:" CþmpUance .SIistance, business .
reøearch, training 8øqii;uirsJ'!Ii$ ,wørkshops on unag_ent, business
skill8 and org4nl~ati~n.~ dev~!øpm9nt.
/ i '
FCM!PING ~~ER/P,J\J;~I~r:N'1' cso 'j: '
California Budne..: 'J:n~I;>~\;ñ' p~i Network (CBIN) a proactive
assoçJ.atLonof in~tj.bø;tQr: ,o~':,1:'o;rs "and ac1vocates fosteriqg the
growth of ,saIall :b~~~f!Í~!i~.':'t, ,,6"91\ the development of business
incubation 1n CalHor*1,a. ;,',
As 0. pe of ,the O~i9,.~~~..li'c~~~en'~.~:~~CBIR' Ms. Washington since 1990
bas .IIIade tile deve19:pm~n~¡o,f ~BJ~"~:OP priority. With the emergence
of ,þusiness il\C:\lb~t~C)n' .8:~, ;an ¡', tOonOllle development tool in
caHfo;cnJ.a. ' :C.BIN ..s :t~e .:,s,~f:~, ,aiS"oclatlon for business incubation
Is ,taking the had :~o Ictea,te::ÌI.' . .~~ironment for the development of
the' new' generation:' of 'ti;lþ1Lqil,lity business incubators for
CalIfornia. : ~ '
J'OUNI),ING 1lEMBJ:R/F~~E~: .,~si~~I\O/J)IIU:C'rOR ,
San I)lego tnc~tor C9XP" ,($Þ~'ç) ;a private non-profit corp. for
deve,lcipm.nt and òp&~atlo~-O~' '1i',~1e90 Business rnno~at1on Center
(BIC), the 'firstþg!!1~1iI8ø:1n~ ,ib~~or in the County of San Diego.
)Is. 'Washington 18 .Ii' fó~r r:~l¡t~ft Director of SIC and currently
serves as it 'Ðlrecto~ þ~: ~DIC. ::' ,
Entreprene\lrial tra1n~ng;r, :u~ ~~d capital are ~he 1IO8t. 1l11portant.
elements for a ne~' ,þuB~n'!'I,I'(¡::'t~~~te~ ...,. Washington, pre.ident of
Wa$hlngtonEnUI::p;~C5e...::;p.!î:.."'~,' ~~,.~-I>Us1ne8S owner, 8h.e learned the
pitfalls of be~Q !I:,\.ng; .1\; ,n~~j!pt !\eur by using the shoe-leather
approach. "When;a:: was. l1>ïa~~~,:- ¡"lIW\agellent consulting bus1ne,s8,
, ,
¡" "
': i
'~'~-7' 2io.- '¿
JUH-1e-'~ FRI ,:~~ p.e4
¡. .
Resume : .
Page Two
I was al~.1s runnl!1.!J az;q¡¡nçl. t~ .~arch1n9' for u.able Information.
A siRall blj1ø1nen o~er' US" I::lôt,of thelr tille resource In that
_nner' . whUe 'Qn~.r ¡ !Qòniìl~~àb1. pre..uns due to under-
c.plt.l1za~lon to dev..~~op:: t!i;~r(.~ropr1at8 market. olche".
Whlle In this e~ll. :~$e4rc~:pbl!!8. lIS. Wa.blng-ton di.covered a
brochu,re on the Inc~b.at,C r co~c.'þf 1t1lc11_edlately felt. need to be
In !8ucÞ a fac 111 ty .' !i+nce t:héf~ 1iff.S none in the San IIlego County
Ms., Waehl.ngton. .l~ng :~lth .~ :,,'~I).!:ttul of Bull-busines8 people
pursued i:h. Idea of II Þ\J!ilnes.. tnéllþ$tor. recognlzing what it could
do for.. those entre¡»"en!ll1r. ¡,,);Io ;~Q~lÇ IW.d thelll. The Idea w.. finally
realized 111. June of 1.~"O.W'h'J\::.~)}~;San IIlego Bua1neSSlnnovat1on
Center:(BIC) opene.dlt.s!p,oo!i;,',t:l.s':1falibington continues to serve on
the Board continuing to¡þrlng:?*i~ânce to the implementation of the
vision for the' SIC.' .,' : .
. i .
She recently was re$pQ~i.1ble~.9~'Þ~lngln9 additional resources to
expand, .the servlè6is Of': :þtUU: <top :~nòlude a full service resource
center.'f()r tenants 'and; .:he: b. .,~der .Bmall busineSses c:ollll1unlty.
.., ',',
INSTRUCTOR/LECTURER
.. ,
Unl verei ty .of Redl~nds'; ~n.c1 Sa+:, Diego Colllltlunlty Coll8ges.
, .
Since 1988, Ms. was.hlnO~OJ;l.!;¡.~:..,::Þ'~n .an Adjunct Professor for the
University of Redlancf!f. . 8.h ,'.çoriducts c:lasses in llanagelllent.
organizational . be11¡¡v~.C¡t. : !\in )'.III:aïì,~eting for the undergraduate
progrfUII l.n Business AdIj1~nlstt:: Uon.
,.
EDUCATION
Bachel~r .of Sc.ience. åe~~e~ .J~¡euslnesø llólnagemont from San 1118go
Stè'te University .e.,nd :1- .~~~r:, Of. Science degree In System
ManagelllentfrOlll the' U~~Yex.tt~;: o~ :!Sol,lthern California
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE. .
Prlor to starUng her c?~ .Þue}.Þ.~lIs. Ms. Washington'. professlonal
experiences 'span 26 ye.¡r.ts, ~..;:tb4f:ar.as of goYerDental aUairs,
Unanc~.' ,pl.anDing, ~~l:Jiç~e.t.~~oii.J'and collllllunity affairs for major
corporations, each I!S s~~ 1!1egr:~S'" 'Electric: .nel Bank of AMrLc:a.
(
AFFILIATIONS
A gnQuateof ~E.AD (Lea.~er~¥~~i'Ed¡1c:at1on, Awareness, Development)
San Diego (1990), ~. .1I'~ah:1n!Í{i>Ji 18 actively involved in II number
of civic 'and b\1s1ntil$' ~f~A~(Z+~10n.1
i.
I' -
I '),.. ... Co.
- .~ ~ - 2~ a. - C\
I
JUH-:ie-'!!5 FRX ':15" ....e"
Resume
Page Three
.. san.Oiero C~~ab~r ~f. Commerce -- .ember Bzecutive Club
.. and Sale). Buslll..." ~"IDIU' COIIIIIl ttee
aDR Buslne.. . Wollen.
.. Un! teci W«Y GJ;.ant. S.:.ctlon Telllll
. Dlrec:t:o;l: S~",Dl."go':"CA loud
.. Dlrect.o~ . Cal1tor~f ,. fl;elnyest.lllent COIIII1 ttee 8oard
.. Kembel( .~.itY-C::ou.n~y:'ft;tn.v.staent 'faSIc: force
. 'Member ~rojec~ ~..{~1ttee - Center City
Þevelop.lent :Coi'p. . (~~DC)
API'OINT.NENTS
It Former 1I,~r - Th~~'C~ty of San Diego SIIoll
. -Business ~v18oz:y"~~rd (2 years)
Former:.~er ot'celtlorn!a Stete ØOðrd of
Cosmetb1~y, Ò'~g,~i~qxy board that administer. 8 $3
.UUon plus budget; And regulates and license the
industry .
.. Director. and. to~¡r. '. President of the Board of the
Elemeri1:-aQ' I.n¡'titut~:of I.cierice, an after-school science
program,Jor ele~nt~r¥ 8chool children
Ms. WasI)1ngton" e<;lectic Þac~9.~~und Is J,lIIIDersed in the ÞI1s1ness of
small budDesa . She oonsul t". ."tatewlde with business incubator
deyelopers and men~gers 1n ec1~~t:10~ to consulting for the Son Diego
SlUll ~usine$sDeÿ' !lopJ lent. .I\~.; ;(SBDC) and public and private
cl!entsln busin.~s devëio~ê~t.and:.anagement IllAtters.
,
~z.'ß~- ro