HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 2003/05/06CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
May 6, 2003 4:00 p.m.
Council Chambers
Public Services Building
276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista
CI'IY OF
CHULA VISTA
City Council
Patty Davis
John McCann
Jerry R. Rindone
Mary Salas
Stephen C. Padilla, Mayor
City Manager
David D. Rowlands, Jr.
City Attorney
Ann Moore
City Clerk
Susan Bigelow
The City Council meets regularly on the first calendar Tuesday at 4:00 p.m.
and on the second, third and fourth calendar Tuesdays at 6:00 p.m.
Regular meetings may be viewed at 7:00 p.m. on Wednesdays on
Cox Cable Channel 24 or Chula Vista Cable Channel 68
AGENDA
May 6, 2003 4:00 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL: Councilmembers Davis, McCarm, Rindone, Salas, and Mayor Padilla
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG, MOMENT OF SILENCE
SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
· OATH OF OFFICE: BRYAN FELBER, PLANNING COMMISSION
INTRODUCTION BY MARIA KACHADOORIAN, DIRECTOR OF FINANCE, OF
THE EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH, VERONICA "RONIE" B. ROBLE,
ACCOUNTANT
PRESENTATION BY MAYOR PADILLA OF A CERTIFICATE OF APPRECIATION
TO GLEN GILLILAND, SENIOR VOLUNTEER PROGRAM VOLUNTEER, FOR HIS
CONTRIBUTION OF $5,000 TO THE LOST PERSON SAFETY PROGRAM
PRESENTATION BY MAYOR PADILLA OF A PROCLAMATION TO DAVID
ACOSTA, FIRE ENGINEER, FOR SAVING A LIFE WHILE OFF DUTY
PRESENTATION BY MAYOR PADILLA OF A PROCLAMATION TO RICHARD
EMERSON, POLICE CHIEF, PROCLAIMING WEDNESDAY, MAY 7, 2003 AS
PEACE OFFICERS' MEMORIAL DAY
INTRODUCTION BY RICHARD EMERSON, POLICE CHIEF, OF RECENTLY
HIRED LATERAL OFFICER, OCTAVIO JARA; THE OATH OF OFFICE WILL BE
ADMINISTERED BY THE CITY CLERK
INTRODUCTION BY DOUG PERRY, FIRE CHIEF, OF RECENTLY PROMOTED
AND RECENTLY HIRED FIRE DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL
PRESENTATION BY MAYOR PADILLA OF A PROCLAMATION TO GEORGE
BASYE, EXALTED RULER AND GARRY HUMMEL, YOUTH ACTIVITY
CHAIRMAN, ELK'S LODGE, PROCLAIMING THE WEEK OF MAY 4, 2003 AS
YOUTH WEEK
PRESENTATION BY MAYOR PADILLA OF A PROCLAMATION TO JOSE
LOPEZ, OTAY WATER DISTRICT, AND JIM DOWD, SWEETWATER
AUTHORITY, PROCLAIMING THE MONTH OF MAY AS WATER AWARENESS
MONTH
CONSENT CALENDAR
(Items 1 through 10)
The Council will enact the staff recommendations regarding the following items
listed under the Consent Calendar by one motion, without discussion, unless a
Councilmember, a member of the public, or City staff requests that an item be
removed for discussion. If you wish to speak on one of these items, please fill out
a "Request to Speak"form (available in the lobby) and submit it to the City Clerk
prior to the meeting. Items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be discussed
afier Action Items. Items pulled by the public will be the first items of business.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES of February 18, April 8, April 9, April 11, April 14, and
April 15, 2003.
Staff recommendation: Council approve the minutes.
2. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
Letter of resignation from M. Theresa Ahamed, member of the Housing Advisory
Commission.
Staff recommendation: Council accept the resignation with regret and direct the
City Clerk to post immediately in accordance with the Maddy Act.
Letter of resignation from Nate Rubin, member of the Economic Development
Commission.
Staff recommendation: Council accept the resignation with regret and direct the
City Clerk to post immediately in accordance with the Maddy Act.
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE BOARD
OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM
AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA TO PROVIDE
SECTION 21362.2 (3% ~ 50 FULL FORMULA) FOR LOCAL POLICE MEMBERS
(SECOND READING AND ADOPTION)
The existing labor agreement with the Chula Vista Police Officers Association contains a
provision for the enhancement to their retirement benefits to provide the 3% @ 50 full
formula effective July 1, 2003. Adoption of the ordinance is required to amend the City's
contract with CalPERS to provide the benefits. This ordinance was introduced at the
regular City Council meeting of April 1, 2003. (Director of Human Resources)
Staff recommendation: Council place the ordinance on second reading for adoption.
Page 2 - Council Agenda 05/06/03
7A.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
ACCEPTING $5,000 FROM SENIOR VOLUNTEER PROGRAM VOLUNTEER,
GLEN A. GILLILAND, AND DIRECTING STAFF TO INCLUDE $5,000 1N THE
FISCAL YEAR 2003/2004 PROPOSED BUDGET FOR SUPPORT OF THE SENIOR
VOLUNTEER PROGRAM, "LOST PERSON SAFETY PROGRAM", ASSISTING
WITH THE LOCATION OF LOST, MENTALLY IMPAIRED COMMUNITY
MEMBERS
On Januaty 24, 2003, Senior Volunteer Program volunteer Glen A. Gilliland made a
personal donation of $5,000 to support the development of the City of Chula Vista "Lost
Person Safety Program." (Police Chief)
Staffrecommendation: Council adopt the resolution.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
ACCEPTING DONATIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $600 AND $1,000, AND
APPROPRIATING SAID DONATED FUNDS (4/STHS VOTE REQUIRED)
The Fire Prevention Bureau recently received two donations, one in the amount of $600
from Wal-Mart, and the second in the amount of $1,000 fi.om McDonalds. The donations
were presented to the Fire Prevention Bureau to support fire investigation, prevention and
community outreach programs. (Fire Chief)
Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
ACCEPTING AND APPROPRIATING $76,155.41 FROM THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES, TO THE FIRE
DEPARTMENT, AND AUTHORIZING UNCLASSIFIED, FLSA-EXEMPT FIRE
EMPLOYEES TO RECEIVE COMPENSATION FROM STATE REIMBURSEMENTS
(4/5THS VOTE REQUIRED)
The Fire Department participates in automatic aid agreements with all other agencies
within San Diego County, and in an agreement for Local Government Fire Suppression
Assistance to Forest Agencies and the Office of Emergency Services. The Department
provides staffand equipment resources to these agencies on a reirdbursement basis. (Fire
Chief)
Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
DECLARING THE RESULTS OF A SPECIAL ELECTION IN COMMUNITY
FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 09-M (VILLAGE 11 BROOKFIELD SHEA OTAY)
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF A SPECIAL TAX WITHIN COMMUNITY
FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 09-M (VILLAGE 11 - BROOKFIELD SHEA OTAY)
Page 3 - Council Agenda
05/06/03
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
DECLARING THE RESULTS OF A SPECIAL ELECTION IN TERRITORY TO BE
ANNEXED TO COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 97-2 (PRESERVE
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT), AND DESIGNATED AS IMPROVEMENT AREA "C"
THERETO
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF A SPECIAL TAX IN THAT AREA DESIGNATED
AS IMPROVEMENT AREA "C" WITHIN COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT
NO. 97-2 (PRESERVE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT)
On February 18, 2003 the City Council initiated the formation proceedings for
Community Facilities District No. 09-M (CFD 09-M) and the annexation proceedings for
Community Facilities District 97-2, [(Annexation No. 3, Improvement Area "C")
(Preserve Maintenance District)] (CFD 97-2, Area "C"). Adoption of the resolutions and
ordinances concludes the formal proceedings to establish CFD No. 09-M and annex
territory into CFD 97-2, Area "C". Special Taxes levied within CFD 09-M will fund the
perpetual operation and maintenance of slopes, medians and parkways, and storm water
treatment facilities associated with Village 11 - Brookfield Shea Otay. Special Taxes
levied for CFD 97-2 will fund the costs of the resource monitoring program as well as
preserve operations and maintenance. The City has retained the services of
MuniFinancial as special tax consultant and Best Best and Krieger LLP as legal counsel
to provide assistance during the proceedings. (Director of Engineering)
Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolutions and place the ordinances on first
reading.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT CORRUGATED METAL PIPE
REHABILITATION PROGRAM - FISCAL YEAR 2001/2002, IN THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA (PROJECT DR-156), AND AUTHORIZING STAFF TO INCREASE
QUANTITIES TO EXPEND ALL AVAILABLE FUNDS FOR THIS PROJECT
Sealed bids were received for this project. The work to be done involves the
rehabilitation of drainage facilities on various locations in the City, including all labor
material, equipment, tools, transportation, mobilization, traffic control, removal and
disposal of existing improvements, protection and restoration of existing improvements,
and other miscellaneous work necessary to construct the project in accordance with City
standards. (Director of Engineering)
Staffrecommendation: Council adopt the resolution.
Page 4 - Council Agenda 05/06/03
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
APPROVING A COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION REGARDING
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION ACTIVITIES TO BE
UNDERTAKEN BY THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ON THE
INTERSTATE 805/OLYMPIC PARKWAY-ORANGE AVENUE INTERCHANGE,
AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT
The City desires to construct State highway improvements consisting of the modification
of the Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway interchange at Interstate 805, and is responsible
to provide one hundred percent of the funding for this project. The City also desires to
advertise, award, and administer the construction contract for the project. In order for the
City to perform these contract functions within the State's right-of-way, the State of
California Department of Transportation requires the City to enter into a cooperative
agreement that sets out each agency's responsibilities for the construction process.
(Director of Engineering)
Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution.
10.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT WITH THE FIRM OF
MCGILL MARTIN SELF, INC. TO ASSIGN THE AGREEMENT TO THE FIRM OF
HB CONSULTING GROUP TO PROVIDE PROJECT MANAGEMENT SERVICES
FOR VARIOUS TRAFFIC ROADWAY AND INTERSTATE 805 FREEWAY
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR
TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT
On July 24, 2001, the City Council approved an agreement with McGill Martin Self, Inc.
(MMS) to provide project management services for various roadway and Interstate 805
freeway interchange improvements as part of the Eastern Chula Vista Traffic Capacity
Enhancements program. The Project Manager for this work and a principal with MMS,
Mr. Harry Burrowes, has changed firms. Adoption of the resolution approves an
amendment, assigning the contract to the new finn, HB Consulting Group. (Director of
Engineering)
Staffrecommendation: Council adopt the resolution.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Persons speaking during Oral Communications may address the Council on any
subject matter within the Council's jurisdiction that is not listed as an item on the
agenda. State law generally prohibits the Council from taking action on any issue
not included on the agenda, but, if appropriate, the Council may schedule the
topic for future discussion or refer the matter to staff Comments are limited to
three minutes.
Page 5 - Council Agenda
o5m6m3
PUBLIC HEARINGS
The following items have been advertised as public hearings as required by law.
If you wish to speak on any item, please fill out a "Request to Speak"form
(available in the lobby) and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting.
11.
CONSIDERATION OF THE CHANGE AND MODIFICATION OF COMMUNITY
FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 08-M, IMPROVEMENT AREA NO. I
On March 25, 2003, the City Council initiated the change and modification proceedings.
Adoption of the resolution is the next step in the formal proceedings to change and
modify the special tax rates in Community Facilities District (CFD) 08-M. The special
taxes levied in the CFD fund the perpetual operation and maintenance of slopes, medians
and parkways and storm water treatment facilities associated with Village 6. The City has
retained the services of MuniFinancial as special tax consultant and Best Best and
Kfieger LLP as legal counsel to provide assistance during the proceedings. (Director of
Engineering)
Staff recommendation: Council conduct the public heating and adopt the following
resolution:
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
MAKING CERTAIN DETERMINATIONS AND AUTHORIZING
SUBMITTAL OF THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE RATE AND
METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT OF SPECIAL TAXES AUTHORIZED TO
BE LEVIED WITHIN IMPROVEMENT AREA NO. 1 OF COMMUNITY
FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 08-M (VILLAGE 6, MCMILLIN OTAY RANCH
AND OTAY RANCH COMPANY) TO THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS
THEREOF
12.
CONSIDERATION OF THE PROPOSED CHANGE AND MODIFICATION TO THE
RATE AND METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT FOR IMPROVEMENT AREA B FOR
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 06-1 (EASTLAKE-WOODS, VISTAS
AND LAND SWAP)
On March 18, 2003 the City Council approved the resolution of intention to consider
changes and modifications to the Rate and Method of Apportionment for Improvement
Area B of Community Facilities District No. 06-1 (EastLake-Woods, Vistas and Land
Swap) ("CFD No. 06-I"). (Director of Engineering, Director of Finance)
Staff recommendation: Council open the public hearing and continue it to the Meeting of
May 13, 2003.
Page 6 - Council Agenda 05/06/03
13.
14.
15.
CONSIDERATION OF AUTHORIZATION OF THE ANNEXATION OF
TERRITORY TO COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 06-I (EASTLAKE
WOODS, VISTAS, AND LAND SWAP), AND IMPROVEMENT AREA B
On March 25, 2003 Council adopted a resolution declaring the intention to authorize the
annexation of territory to Commtmity Facilities District No. 06-1 and Improvement Area
B thereto and set the Public Hearing date for May 6, 2003. Adoption of the resolution
continues the formal proceedings to consider the authorization to annex such territory to
CFD No. 06-1 and Improvement Area B thereto, subject to the approval by the qualified
electors of the levy of special taxes within such territory proposed to be annexed.
(Director of Engineering)
Staffmcommendation: Council open the public hearing and continue it to the Meeting of
May 13, 2003.
CONSIDERATION OF THE FORMATION OF ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 2002-1
(QUINTARD STREET)
Seventeen property owners who have access to their properties on Quintard Street,
between Third and Fourth Avenues are missing sidewalk improvements. Thirteen of
these property owners have petitioned the City to conunence proceedings pursuant to
Chapter 27 of the Improvement Act of 1911 and Article XIIID of the Constitution of the
State of California to finance the construction of these improvements. On March 4, 2003,
Council accepted the petition, approved the proposed boundary map and preliminary
assessment engineer's report, appropriated $55,000 to finance preconstruction costs, set a
public heating and ordered the initiation of assessment ballot proceedings pursuant to
Article XIIID of the Constitution of the State of California. (Director o f Engineering)
Staff recommendation: Council conduct the public heating, tabulate the results of the
assessment ballots, and if a majority protest to the levy of the assessment does not exist,
adopt the following msohitions:
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
DECLARING THE RESULTS OF THE ASSESSMENT BALLOT
TABULATION FOR ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 2002-1 (QUINTARD
STREET) AND MAKING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 27 OF THE
IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1911 AND ARTICLE XIIID OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
TRANSFERRING $174,882 FROM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
STL-267 AND $100,000 FROM STL-267 TO STL-285 (QUINTARD STREET)
TO FINANCE CONSTRUCTION COSTS
CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER VII - RECREATION
PROGRAMS/FACILITIES OF THE MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
The Recreation Department is currently engaged in a strategic plan process to articulate
priorities essential to fulfilling departmental and City missions for the next five years. In
committee meetings of stakeholders, comprised of staff and community members, them
has been considerable consensus that the department should review and update fees as
part of this process. (Director of Recreation)
Staff recommendation: Council open the public heating and continue it to the Meeting of
May 13, 2003.
Page 7 ~ Council Agenda
05/06/03
ACTION ITEMS
The items listed in this section of the agenda will be considered individually by
the Council, and are expected to elicit discussion and deliberation. If you wish to
speak on any item, please fill out a "Request to Speak" form (available in the
lobby) and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting.
16.
CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF THE CONSOLIDATED ANNUAL PLAN
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003/2004 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT
(CDBG) AND HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP (HOME) PROGRAMS, AND
TRANSMITTAL OF THE PLAN TO THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD)
The City Council held a public heating on April 1, 2003 to review and receive public
comment on projects and programs being considered for CDBG and HOME funding.
The City of Chula Vista is eligible to receive $2,383,000 in CDBG entitlement funds
from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for 2003/2004, along with
$1,054,546 in HOME funds. Additionally, it is recommended that appropriations be
included in the Fiscal Year 2003/2004 proposed budget for a total CDBG spending plan
of $2,397,299. Combining both entitlements, the City will be able to invest into the
community a total of $3,451,845 from these sources for 2003/2004. (Director of
Community Development)
Staff recommendation: Council adopt the following resolution:
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
APPROVING THE CONSOLIDATED ANNUAL PLAN FOR FISCAL YEAR
2003/2004 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) AND
HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP (HOME) PROGRAMS;
AUTHORIZING TRANSMITTAL OF THE CONSOLIDATED ANNUAL
PLAN TO THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT (HUD); AND INSTRUCTING STAFF TO INCLUDE
APPROPRIATIONS TO FUND THE ANNUAL PLAN IN THE FISCAL YEAR
2003/2004 PROPOSED BUDGET
17.
CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION/ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (IS-00-49) AND MITIGATION
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM; AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE
PROJECT REPORT FOR THE iNTERCHANGE AT 1-805 AND EAST ORANGE
AVENUE AND OLYMPIC PARKWAY
The interchange at Interstate 805/East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway is proposed to
be widened to accommodate additional lanes on the bridge deck and approaches between
Melrose Avenue and just east of Oleander Avehue. This project will ultimately provide
the roadway capacity needed in the area and will serve both the westerly and easterly
portions of the City. As part of the environmental review process to analyze potential
environmental impacts resulting from the construction of this facility, an Environmental
Document Report Initial Study/Negative Declaration and Environmental Assessment was
prepared for this project. This document includes an analysis of three possible
alternatives for the interchange project "Alternative 1 through Alternative 3". Public
comments and responses to comments have been completed. The project's construction
schedule is from summer 2003 through the end of 2004 or early 2005. (Director of
Engineering)
Page 8 - Council Agenda 05/06/03
Staffrecommendation: Council adopt the following resolution:
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
ADOPTING THE MITIGATED NEGATiVE
DECLARATION/ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (IS-00-49) AND
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM; AND
ACCEPTING THE PROJECT REPORT FOR THE INTERCHANGE AT
INTERSTATE 805 AND EAST ORANGE AVENUE AND OLYMPIC
PARKWAY
18.
CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION WAIVING THE
COMPETITiVE BIDDING PROCESS AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO
EXECUTE A SOLE SOURCE AGREEMENT WITH SPECIAL T FIRE EQUIPMENT
FOR PURCHASE OF SELF-CONTAINED BREATHING APPARATUS AND
APPROPRIATE FUNDS
The existing self-contained breathing apparatus are five years old and out of compliance
with National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 2002 federal standards. Almost half
of the cost of purchasing the new breathing apparatus has already been appropriated,
creating an opportunity to equip all fire apparatus with new breathing apparatus. Purchase
of the new apparatus will significantly enhance firefighter safety and fireground
operations. (Fire Chie0
Staff recommendation: Council adopt the following resolution:
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
WAIVING THE COMPETITIVE BIDDING PROCESS AS IMPRACTICAL,
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE A SOLE SOURCE
AGREEMENT WITH SPECIAL T FIRE EQUIPMENT FOR PURCHASE OF
SELF-CONTAINED BREATHING APPARATUS, AND APPROPRIATING
$41,573 FROM UNANTICIPATED REVENUES AND $179,852 FROM THE
AVAILABLE BALANCE OF THE GENERAL FUND (4/5THS VOTE
REQLrIRED)
ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR
OTHER BUSINESS
19. CITY MANAGER'S REPORTS
20. MAYOR'S REPORTS
Designation of voting delegate for a Special Meeting of the League of California
Cities General Assembly, to be held May 15, 2003 at 1:00 p.m. at the Sacramento
Community Center Theatre. (Continued from the Meeting of April 15, 2003)
Ratification of appointment to the Town Centre Project Area Committee - Clarke
Dennison
Ratification of appointment to the Town Centre Project Area Committee - Sharon
Floyd
Page 9 - Council Agenda 05/06/03
21.
A. Councilmember Salas: Request for presentation regarding water reliability.
CLOSED SESSION
Announcements of actions taken in Closed Session shall be made available by
noon on Wednesday following the Council Meeting at the City Clerk's office in
accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act (Government Code 54957. 7).
D. Ratification of appointment to the Ethics Commission - Reverend Julius Bennett
E. Ratification of appointment to the Ethics Commission - Karen Batcher
COUNCIL COMMENTS
22. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR PURSUANT TO
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8
Property:
Agency negotiators:
San Diego Gas & Electric - Gas and Electricity Franchise
(Pertaining to Public Rights of Way throughout the City of Chula
Vista)
David Rowlands, Jr., Sid Morris, Michael Meacham, Glen
Googins
Negotiating Parties: City of Chula Vista, San Diego Gas & Electric
Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment
23. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING INITIATION OF
LITIGATION PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9(c)
24.
· One case
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING SIGNIFICANT EXPOSURE
TO LITIGATION PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956,9(b)
ADJOURNMENT
One case
to a Regular Meeting of May 13, 2003, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council
Chambers.
Page 10 - Council Agenda 05/06/03
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF CHLrLA VISTA
February 18, 2003
6:00 P.M.
A Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista was called to order at 6:06
p.m. in the Council Chambers, located in the Public Services Building, 276 Fourth Avenue,
Chula Vista, California.
ROLL CALL:
PRESENT: Councilmembers Davis, McCann, Rindone, Salas, and Mayor Padilla
ABSENT: Councilmembers: None
ALSO PRESENT:
City Manager Rowlands, City Attorney Kaheny, and City Clerk
Bigelow
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG, MOMENT OF SILENCE
SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
OATH OF OFFICE: DAVID W. KROGH - GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT
COMMISSION
City Clerk Bigelow administered the oath to David W. Krogh, and Deputy Mayor Rindone
presented him with a certificate of appointment.
PRESENTATION BY MAYOR PADILLA OF A PROCLAMATION TO EILEEN
ZAMORA, MOUNTED RESERVE OFFICER, AND BURDELLA THOMAS,
RESERVE SERGEANT, PROCLAIMING MARCH 1, 2003 AS LAW
ENFORCEMENT POLICE RESERVE AND MOUNTED OFFICER DAY 1N THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Assistant Police Chief Zoll introduced Mounted Reserve Officer Zamora and Reserve Sergeant
Burdella. Mayor Padilla then read the proclamation, and Deputy Mayor Rindone presented it to
the officers.
FAREWELL BY MAYOR PADILLA TO ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER POWELL
AND CITY ATTORNEY KAHENY UPON THEIR RETIREMENT FROM THE CITY
Mayor Padilla announced that this would be the last official Council meeting for Assistant City
Manager Powell and City Attorney Kaheny. He congratulated them both on their retirement and
conveyed his gratitude for their superior service to the City over the past years.
City Manager Rowlands stated that Assistant City Manager Powell and City Attorney Kaheny
would be greatly missed as friends and advisors and that both had served the City in a very
professional manner.
Assistant City Manager Powell said it was good fortune to work with talented City staff and the
City Council.
City Attorney Kaheny stated that his tenure with the City had been a wonderful professional
experience, and he expressed his pride in serving the City Council.
CONSENT CALENDAR
(Items 1 through 12)
Item #12 was removed fi.om the Consent Calendar and continued to the meeting of March 4,
2003, at the request of staff. Item #10 was pulled for discussion by Deputy Mayor Rindone.
1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of February 11, 2003.
Staffrecommendation: Council approve the minutes.
ORDiNANCE NO. 2898, ORDiNANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA ESTABLISHiNG A PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE DEVELOPMENT
iMPACT FEE PROGRAM FOR OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 11 AND THE AREA OF
BENEFIT (SECOND READiNG AND ADOPTION)
The Otay Ranch Village 11 tentative map conditions of development require the
establishment of a Development Impact Fee (D1F) or other funding mechanism to
construct two pedestrian bridges to serve Village 11. The developer (Brookfield Shea
Otay, LLC) has requested the formation of a Development Impact Fee. Adoption of the
ordinance approves funding for fifty percent of the cost of two bridges for Village 11, one
crossing Hunte Parkway, and one crossing Eastlake Parkway. The remaining cost of
these bridges will be funded by the adjacent projects as a condition of development. The
total cost estimate for the Eastlake Parkway and Hunte Parkway bridges are $1,254,000
and $2,131,000 respectively. The fee, payable at issuance of a building permit, will be
$831 per single-family detached dwelling unit and $616 per multiple-family dwelling.
(Director of Engineering)
Staff recommendation: Council place the ordinance on second reading for adoption.
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-055, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA RATIFYiNG THE ACTION OF THE CITY MANAGER,
APPROVING CHANGE ORDER NO. 4 FOR PHASE III OF THE SALT CREEK
GRAVITY SEWER INTERCEPTOR PROJECT (SW219), AND AUTHORIZiNG THE
DIRECTOR OF ENGiNEERING TO EXECUTE SAID CHANGE ORDER ON
BEHALF OF THE CITY
The City Council previously awarded a contract in the amount of $8,432,382.60 (plus
contingencies of $845,000.40) to Cass Construction, Inc., for the construction of Phase
III of the Salt Creek Trunk Sewer line, from Interstate 805 to east of the Hanson Quarry.
Change Order No. 4 is for additional labor, equipment, and materials necessary for the
upsizing of an approximately 9,400 foot-long segment of the Salt Creek Gravity Sewer
Interceptor, improving the long-term operational efficiency of this segment of the sewer.
(Director of Engineering)
Staffrecommendation: Council adopt the resolution.
4A.
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-056, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA ADOPTING A BOUNDARY MAP SHOWiNG THE
BOUNDARIES OF THE TERRITORY PROPOSED FOR INCLUSION IN PROPOSED
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 09-M (VILLAGE 11, BROOKFIELD
SHEA OTAY)
Page 2 - Council Minutes 02/18/03
CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued)
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-057, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO ESTABLISH
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 09-M (VILLAGE 11, BROOKFIELD
SHEA OTAY) AND TO AUTHORIZE THE LEVY OF A SPECIAL TAX THEREIN
TO FINANCE CERTAIN SERVICES
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-058, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA ORDERING AND DIRECTING THE PREPARATION OF
A COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT REPORT FOR PROPOSED COMMUNITY
FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 09-M (VILLAGE 11, BROOKFIELD SHEA OTAY
Brookfield Shea Otay has requested that the City conduct proceedings to consider the
approval of the formation of Community Facilities District No. 09-M (CFD No. 09-M).
This district will fund the perpetual operation and maintenance of slopes, medians and
parkrways and storm water treatment facilities associated with Village 11. The City has
retained the services of MuniFinancial as special tax consultant and Best Best and
Kxieger, LLP as legal counsel to provide assistance during the proceedings. Adoption of
the resolutions initiates the formal proceedings to establish CFD No. 09-M. (Director of
Engineering)
Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolutions.
5A.
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-059, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA ADOPTING A BOUNDARY MAP SHOWING THE
BOUNDARIES OF THE TERRITORY PROPOSED TO BE ANNEXED INTO
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 97-2
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-060, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO ANNEX TERRITORY
INTO COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 97-2 AND TO AUTHORIZE THE
LEVY OF A SPECIAL TAX THEREIN TO FINANCE CERTAIN SERVICES
Brookfield Shea Otay has requested that the City conduct proceedings to consider the
annexation of territory into Community Facilities District No. 97-2 (Preserve
Maintenance District) (CFD 97-2), and that such territory be designated as Improvement
Area C of CFD 97-2. The conditions of approval of the tentative map for Village 11
(Brookfield Shea Otay) require that said annexation be completed prior to issuance of the
first production home building permit. CFD 97-2 was formed in 1998 and funds the
maintenance of areas that have been conveyed to the preserve in accordance with the
Otay Ranch Resoume Management Plan. Adoption of the resolutions initiates the formal
proceedings to annex Village 11 into CFD 97-2 and designates the territory as
Improvement Area C. (Director o f Engineering)
Staff recommendation: Com~cil adopt the resolutions.
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-061, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2002/2003
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT BUDGET, DELETING ONE CIVIL ENGINEER
POSITION, AND ADDING ONE SENIOR MANAGEMENT ANALYST POSITION
Page 3 - Council Minutes 02/18/03
CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued)
The nature of the work being performed by a Civil Engineer within the Administrative &
Fiscal Services Division of Engineering has evolved such that the Civil Engineer now
performs work ora predominately fiscal and analytical nature. These tasks and duties are
more appropriately performed by a Senior Management Analyst. (Director of
Engineering)
Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-062, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA MAINTAINING THE EXIST1NG CITY INVESTMENT
POLICY AND GUIDELINES
The City has an existing Investment Policy and Guidelines to ensure the prudent
management of idle cash. State law requires that the Investment Policy and Guidelines
be adopted by resolution on an annual basis after being reviewed to ensure consistency
with the overall objectives of preservation of principal, liquidity, and yield, and its
relevance to current law and financial and economic trends. (Assistant City Manager
Powell)
Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-063, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING THE 401(A) DEFERRED COMPENSATION
PLAN AND AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF FINANCE TO EXECUTE THE
AMENDED PLAN ADOPTION AGREEMENT WITH THE PLAN
ADMINISTRATOR
The Council approved a deferred compensation plan pursuant to Intemal Revenue Code
Section 401(a) for certain employees effective January 2002. Staff recommends that the
plan be amended to implement changes in the compensation package for the City
Manager recently approved by the Council. (Assistant City Manager Powell)
Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution.
o
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-064, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA AUTHORIZING THE FINANCE DIRECTOR TO
DETERMINE THE FEASIBILITY OF REFUNDING THE 1993 TOWN CENTRE II
PARKING STRUCTURE REFUNDING CERTIFICATES OF PARTICIPATION, 1993
CERTIFICATE OF PARTICIPATION TOWN CENTRE II PARK1NG STRUCTURE
PHASE II, AND THE 1998 CAPITAL LEASE WITH CAL-LEASE PUBLIC
FUNDING CORPORATION ON A NEGOTIATED BASIS; WAIVING THE
CONSULTANT SELECTION PROCESS, APPOINTING U.S. BANCORP PIPER
JAFFRAY INC. AS THE UNDERWRITER; AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO
EXECUTE THE CONTRACT
U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray Inc. has proposed a refunding of two outstanding certificate of
participation issues and a capital lease obligation. Based on preliminary projections, the
refunding would provide a savings of $1.4 million due to historically low interest rates.
(Assistant City Manager Powell)
Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution.
Page 4 - Council Minutes 02/18/03
CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued)
11.
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-065, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING
AGREEMENT RELATED TO OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 11 BETWEEN THE CITY
AND BROOKFIELD SHEA OTAY, LLC AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO
EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT
As a condition of approval for the Otay Ranch Village 11 Sectional Planning Area Plan
and the tentative map, the developer, Brookfield Shea Otay, LLC, must enter into an
affordable housing agreement with the City prior to recordation of its first final map for
purposes of further implementing its affordable housing obligation for Otay Ranch
Village 1 I. To comply with this condition, an agreement for the project has been
prepared for Council's consideration and approval. (Director of Community
Development)
Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution.
12 A.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
APPROVING THE JOINT USE AGREEMENT WITHIN THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY
WATER AUTHORITY EASEMENTS AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO
EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
APPROVING THE OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 11 WATER QUALITY BASINS,
DESILTATION, AND NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION
SYSTEM (NPDES) COMPLIANCE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND
BROOKFIELD SHEA OTAY COMPANY LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED
LIABILITY COMPANY, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID
AGREEMENT
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
APPROVING THE FINAL MAP OF CHULA VISTA TRACT NO. 01~11, OTAY
RANCH VILLAGE 11 "A" MAP NO. 1; ACCEPTING ON BEHALF OF THE CITY
OF CHULA VISTA THE VARIOUS PUBLIC STREETS AND EASEMENTS, ALL AS
GRANTED ON SAID MAP WITHIN SAID SUBDIVISION; ACKNOWLEDGING ON
BEHALF OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA THE IRREVOCABLE OFFER OF
DEDICATION FOR LOT "J" FOR PUBLIC PARK PURPOSES; ACKNOWLEDGING
ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ALL IRREVOCABLE OFFERS OF
DEDICATION FOR OPEN SPACE LOTS GRANTED ON SAID MAP WITHIN SAID
SUBDIVISION; APPROVING THE SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
FOR THE COMPLETION OF IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED BY SAID
SUBDIVISION, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID
AGREEMENT
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
APPROVING A SUPPLEMENTAL SUBDWISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
FOR CHULA VISTA TRACT NO. 01-11, OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 11 "A" MAP
NO.1, REQUIRING BROOKFIELD SHEA OTAY COMPANY LLC TO COMPLY
WITH CERTAIN UNFULFILLED CONDITIONS OF RESOLUTION NO. 2001-364,
AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT
Page 5 - Council Minutes 02/18/03
CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued)
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
APPROVING THE GRANT OF EASEMENTS AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
FOR OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 11 "A" MAP NO. 1, ESTABLISHING SPECIFIC
OBLIGATIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOR MAINTENANCE OF PRIVATE
LANDSCAPING WITHIN PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY AND AUTHORIZING THE
MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
APPROVING THE SLOPE AND DRAINAGE MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT FOR
EASTLAKE PARKWAY BETWEEN STATIONS 11+76.43 AND 22+37.30 WITH
BROOKFIELD SHEA OTAY LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY
COMPANY (DEVELOPER), ESTABLISHING SPECIFIC OBLIGATIONS AND
RESPONSIBILITIES FOR MAINTENANCE OF SLOPES AND DRAINAGE WITHIN
PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY AND CITY EASEMENTS, AND AUTHORIZING THE
MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT
Adoption of the resolutions approves the first final map, the subdivision improvement
agreement, and supplemental subdivision improvement agreement for Otay Ranch
Village 11, commonly known as "Windingwalk." Adoption of the resolutions also
approves the Otay Ranch, Village 11 water quality basins, desiltation, National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System Compliance (NPDES) agreement, grant of easements and
maintenance agreement for homeowner association maintenance within public right-of-
way, and slope and drainage maintenance agreement for maintenance of a temporary
slope on the west side of Eastlake Parkway between stations 11+76.43 and 22+37.30.
(Director of Engineering)
Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolutions.
10 A.
ORDINANCE NO. 2899, ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA AMENDING CHAPTER 2.56 OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL
CODE TO MODIFY PURCHASING PROCEDURES
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
APPROVING REVISED CONSULTANT SELECTION PROCEDURES CONTAINED
IN COUNCIL POLICY 102-5
Adoption of the ordinance and resolution modifies purchasing procedures by increasing
buying limits and authority to further facilitate the purchasing process. The proposed
changes also allow for Internet-based advertising, receipt of bids, and cooperative
purchasing with other public agencies within the United States. (Assistant City Manager
Powell)
Staff recommendation: Council place the ordinance on first reading and adopt the
resolution.
Deputy Mayor Rindone expressed concern regarding raising the buying limits from $50,000 to
$100,000 for the Purchasing Agent without the City Manager's review. He stated that the
Council has a fiduciary responsibility to its constituents and that he would not be willing to give
up the oversight. Therefore, he could therefore not support the item.
Page 6 - Council Minutes 02/18/03
CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued)
Councilmember Davis stated that the proposed reconunendations would only transfer some
authority from the City Manager to the Purchasing Agent, and that no responsibilities were being
removed from Councilmembers. City Manager Rowlands commented that many cities have in
excess of $100,000 limits, and he believed that the proposed system would make for good public
policy by expediting purchases and increasing internal efficiencies.
Assistant City Manager Powell explained that as part of the proposed procedures, professional
services contracts exceeding $50,000 but less than $100,000 that currently come before the
Council would be approved by the Purchasing Agent.
City Manager Rowlands stated that staff would bring back to the Council a statewide breakdown
of purchasing limit policies used by districts and other cities.
Councilmember Davis encouraged the Council to approve staff's recommendation.
ACTION:
Deputy Mayor Rindone moved to place Ordinance No. 2899 on first reading in a
modified form that: (a) retains City Manager approval of contracts for equipment,
materials and services from $50,000 to $100,000; and (b) retains City Council
approval of professional services contracts in excess of $50,000. Councilmember
McCarm seconded the motion, and it carded 3-2 with Councilmembers Davis and
Salas opposing.
Item #10 B, the proposed resolution, was continued to the meeting of March 4, 2003, and no
action was taken on this item. Additionally, Council asked staff and the Charter Review
Commission to analyze whether or not to increase the $25,000 limit on staff authority to approve
public works contracts.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Carlos Lopez, representing Hermanos Lopez Inc., read a letter to the Council requesting
reconsideration of the denial of his beer and wine off-sale license by the Chula Vista Police
Department to allow him to operate a full-service supermarket for the community. Mayor
Padilla responded that staff would contact Mr. Lopez regarding the situation.
Lupita Jimenez requested that citizen input be taken into account regarding the bayfront
development. She spoke in opposition to dense development and believed that the City's
administration had proceeded for the benefit of the developers rather than the best interests of the
community, which has resulted in rapid development, impacted schools, and bumper-to-bumper
boulevards. Ms. Jimenez stated that the bayfront area needs to be developed in such a way as to
protect the environment and allow for public access and economic recompense that will leave a
legacy for the future.
Virgil Pina requested that the Council establish a Church Appreciation Day in the City, stating
that churches do a lot to benefit children and the entire community. He also spoke regarding
human fights and a method to address complaints against the Chula Vista Police Department.
City Manager Rowlands responded that an independent, seven-member Police Review Board
was appointed over a year ago. Mr. Pina added that the State of California gave the City $25,000
for data on traffic stops of ethnic minorities, and he asked when the data would be available to
the public. City Manager Rowlands responded that the data would be available sometime this
year.
Page 7 - Council Minutes 02/18/03
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS (Continued)
James Marcelino, Child and Youth Policy Advocate, informed the Council of recent endeavors
to work with the youth of Chula Vista. He added that a local youth group is actively seeking to
re-instate the City's Youth Advisory Commission.
PUBLIC HEARING
13.
CONSIDERATION OF ESTABLISHING UTILITY UNDERGROUNDING DISTRICT
NO. 137 ALONG J STREET, FROM BROADWAY TO HILLTOP DRIVE
On January 21, 2003, the Council adopted Resolution No. 2003-020 and ordered a public
hearing to be held on this date to determine whether the public health, safety or general
welfare requires the formation of a utility underground district along J Street from
Broadway to Hilltop Drive. The purpose of the district is to require the utility companies
to underground all overhead lines and remove all existing wooden utility poles within the
district. The proposed district is approximately 4,000 feet long and is estimated to cost
approximately $1,000,000. SDG&E's allocation funds will be used to cover the cost of
the project, including reimbursements to affected property owners for their respective
trenching costs. (Director of Engineering)
Notice of the hearing was given in accordance with legal requirements, and the heating was held
on the date and at the time specified in the notice.
Mayor Padilla opened the public hearing.
Joe Franco stated that he had received no response to his questions from the City or San Diego
Gas and Electric related to the proposed undergrounding. Deputy Director of Engineering
Rivera responded that he would meet immediately with Mr. Franco to address his concerns.
There being no further members of the public wishing to speak, Mayor Padilla then closed the
public hearing.
ACTION:
Councilmember McCann offered Resolution No. 2003-066, heading read, text
waived:
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-066, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ESTABLISHING UTILITY
UNDERGROUNDING DISTRICT NO. 137 ALONG J STREET, FROM
BROADWAY TO HILLTOP DRIVE, AND AUTHORIZING THE
EXPENDITURE OF UTILITY ALLOCATION FUNDS TO SUBSIDIZE
PRIVATE SERVICE LATERAL CONVERSION
The motion carded 5-0
ACTION ITEMS
14.
CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF RESOLUTIONS APPROVING
AGREEMENTS NECESSARY TO DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT RENOVATIONS TO
THE CITY'S CIVIC CENTER COMPLEX, PURSUANT TO THE PREVIOUSLY
APPROVED MASTER PLAN, AND DECLARING THE CITY'S INTENTION TO
NOTICE TAX-EXEMPT OBLIGATIONS FOR THIS PROJECT
Page 8 - Council Minutes 02/18/03
ACTION ITEMS (Continued)
The City Council previously approved the master plan for the renovations to the Civic
Center, including City Hall, the Public Services Building, the current Police Department,
and the demolition of the Legislative Building and Community Development building.
This project will be undertaken in phases and will take four to five years to complete.
(Director of Building and Park Construction)
Deputy Mayor Rindone announced that he would abstain from discussion and voting on this item
due to the proximity of his residence to the project site. He then left the chambers.
Assistant Director of Building and Park Construction Griffin presented an overview of the Civic
Center complex renovation costs and financing.
Mayor Padilla questioned whether or not Council would have the ability to delay the total time
frame of the project by dividing it into phases, or to take the financing obligations in portions
rather than at one time. Deputy City Attorney Wagner-Hull responded that there are a number of
opportunities within the agreement for the Council to terminate the project for performance,
scheduling or financing issues. In addition, each design phase requires a written notice from the
City to proceed, and the City retains its discretion to terminate the agreement at any point.
Mayor Padilla asked if there would be a point of no return in terms of issuing debt, whereby the
City would not have the ability to go back, or take a piece of that burden over the long term.
Assistant City Manager Powell responded that legal statutes surrounding long-term borrowing in
the tax-free market require borrowing only the funds that are anticipated to be expended within
three years. He stated that since the Civic Center master plan is estimated at four to five years, it
will be broken down into two different bond issues and financing plans will be refined.
Mayor Padilla questioned why the Council was being asked to adopt a reimbursement resolution
at this time. Assistant City Manager Powell replied that it meets the legal statute for allowing the
City to reimburse any costs on the project incurred from this point forward in the financing.
Councilmember Davis spoke regarding the timing on when the City goes to bond on the project,
expressing concern that the City may lose the market for its tax-exempt bonds.
Patricia Aguilar commented on the proposed right-of-way improvements along F Street, between
Third Avenue and the Civic Center, stating that F Street is important in that it connects three
vital areas of the City, the downtown, Civic Center, and the Bayfront. She urged the Council not
to rash the landscaping along F Street, and she requested that this particular element be removed
from the bid process at this time for a more comprehensive study of the area. Ms. Aguilar stated
that the City's Design Review Conunittee was not asked to review and participate in the master
plan improvements.
Lupita Jimenez spoke regarding the sustainability of buildings, questioning whether or not
provisions had been made to recycle materials during demolition, if energy efficiencies had been
taken into consideration for new buildings; and if the City would be using reclaimed water for
landscaping. City Manager Rowlands responded by stating "yes" to all the questions, with the
exception of the reclaimed water, stating that this service is not currently available.
Page 9 - Council Minutes 02/18/03
ACTION ITEM (Continued)
Ian Gill, representing Highland Partnership, responded to the questions raised by Ms. Jimenez,
citing the many energy-efficient tools in the recently completed Public Works Yard and current
Police Department project. He also commented on the exploration of using other green concepts
within the Civic Center renovations, due to the retention of the existing buildings.
Mayor Padilla stated that the comments raised by Ms. Aguilar were very legitimate in providing
a macro perspective on the potential of tying together the downtown, Civic Center, and Bayfront
corridors. Assistant Director of Building and Park Construction Griffin responded that the right-
of-way components are a part of the Police facility project, not the Civic Center project.
City Manager Rowlands stated that staff would bring back conceptual drawings of the F Street
corridor in April 2003, although nothing would be implemented in that area for many years.
ACTION:
Councilmember Davis offered Resolution Nos. 2003-067, 2003-068, and 2003-
069, headings read, texts waived:
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-067, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING THE CITY MANAGER'S
CERTIFICATION OF SOLE SOURCE STATUS, APPROVING A DESIGN
BUILD AGREEMENT WITH HIGHLAND PARTNERSHIP, INC. FOR THE
PROVISION OF SERVICES REQUIRED TO DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT
RENOVATIONS TO THE CITY'S CIVIC CENTER COMPLEX, PURSUANT
TO THE MASTER PLAN, AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE
SAD AGREEMENT, AND APPROPRIATING $3,820,450 FROM THE
AVAILABLE BALANCE OF THE PUBLIC FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT
IMPACT FEE FUND TO FINANCE THE PRE-CONSTRUCTION PHASE OF
THE
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-068, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING A CONSULTANT SERVICES
AGREEMENT WITH ALLEGIS DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, INC. FOR
PROJECT MANAGEMENT/CITY'S REPRESENTATIVE SERVICE WITH
RESPECT TO THE RENOVATIONS TO THE CITY'S CIVIC CENTER
COMPLEX, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID
AGREEMENT
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-069, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DECLARING THE CITY'S INTENTION TO
ISSUE TAX-EXEMPT OBLIGATIONS TO FINANCE THE RENOVATIONS
TO THE CITY'S CIVIC CENTER COMPLEX, AND DIRECTING STAFF TO
RETURN WITH A FINANCING PLAN
The motion carded 4-0-1, with Deputy Mayor Rindone abstaining due to the
proximity of his residence to the Civic Center.
OTHER BUSINESS
Page 10 - Council Minutes 02/18/03
15. CITY MANAGER'S REPORTS
Director of Engineering Swanson provided an incident report on the broken water pipe on' Pasco
Ladera and Telegraph Canyon Road on February 14, 2003.
City Manager Rowlands informed the Council of a request fi.om the Environmental Protection
Agency to have a Councilmember present in Washington, D.C., from April 22 through April 24,
2003, to receive a special recognition climate protection award for the Chula Vista CO2
reduction program. He suggested that Deputy Mayor Rindone be authorized to attend the event
to present a paper on the program mad accept the award on behalf of the City. Deputy Mayor
Rindone responded that he would be honored to represent the City Council.
16. MAYOR'S REPORTS
Ratification of appointment to the Child Care Commission - Nancy Kerwin (ex-
officio member)
ACTION:
Mayor Padilla moved to ratify the appointment of Nancy Kerwin to the Child
Care Conmfission. Councilmember Salas seconded the motion and it carried 5-0.
B. Discussion regarding the Violence Against Children Act
Intergovernmental Affairs Coordinator Kelly reported that the City received a request from
Senator Boxer's office for support of the proposed bill.
ACTION:
Councilmember McCann moved to support the act. Councilmembcr Davis
seconded the motion, and it carried 5-0.
17. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Salas announced that several social service agencies are conducting a "Protect
Your Children" resource Pair on March 1, 2003, in the 1600 block of Broadway, and she invited
the public to attend.
Councilmember McCann thanked the Mayor for filling vacancies on the various City
Boards/Commissions/Committees, and he expressed the need to advertise and develop outreach
programs to obtain applicants from all areas of the City.
ADJOURNMENT
At 8:05 p.m., Mayor Padilla adjourned the meeting to an Adjourned Regular Meeting of the City
Council and Redevelopment Agency with the Board of Port Commissioners on February 25,
2003 at 9:00 a.m., at the San Diego Unified Port District, Administration Building, 3165 Pacific
Highway, thence to an Adjourned Regular Meeting on February 28, 2003 at 4:00 p.m., at the
Chula Vista Nature Center, 1000 Gunpowder Point Drive, thence to an Adjourned Regular
Meeting on Mamh 1, 2003 at 8:30 a.m. at the Chula Vista Nature Center, and thence to the
Regular Meeting of March 4, 2003, at 4:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers.
Susan Bigelow, CMC, City Clerk
Page 11 - Council Minutes 02/18/03
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
April 8, 2003 6:00 P.M.
A Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista was called to order at 6:15
p.m. in the Council Chambers, located in the Public Services Building, 276 Fourth Avenue,
Chula Vista, California.
ROLL CALL:
PRESENT: Councilmembers: Davis, McCann, Rindone, Salas, and Mayor Padilla
ABSENT: Councilmembers: None
ALSO PRESENT: City Manager Rowlands, City Attorney Moore, City Clerk Bigelow
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG, MOMENT OF SILENCE
SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
· OATHS OF OFFICE:
John Wines - Housing Advisory Commission
Joseph Sims - Human Relations Commission
City Clerk Bigelow administered the oaths to the new Commissioners, and Deputy Mayor
Rindone presented them with certificates of appointment.
PRESENTATION BY SUPERVISOR GREG COX TO COMMEMORATE THE
PRESERVATION OF THE HISTORIC BELL FROM CHULA VISTA'S FIRST
SCHOOL HOUSE
Supervisor Cox provided the background of the historic bell, and Mayor Padilla presented him
with a plaque in recognition of his efforts to preserve the bell for the community.
· PRESENTATION BY BROOKE PETERSEN, PROJECT MANAGER OF SAN DIEGO
REGIONAL ENERGY OFFICE REGARDING A JOINT EFFORT TO PLANT 5,000
SHADE TREES IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Ms. Petersen presented details of the program, which will provide 8,000 trees to Chula Vista
residents on a first-come, first-served basis.
CONSENT CALENDAR
(Items 1 through 10)
1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of March 25, March 28, and March 29, 2003.
Staff recommendation: Council approve the minutes.
CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued)
ORDINANCE NO. 2902, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE SAN MIGUEL RANCH
PLANNED COMMUNITY (PC) DISTRICT REGULATIONS (SECOND READING
AND ADOPTION)
Adoption of the ordinance approves an amendment to the Platmed Community District
Regulations of the San Miguel Ranch Sectional Planning Area to change Planning Area
G from the SF4 land use district (minimum 4,500 square-foot lots) to the SF3 land use
district (minimum 5,000 square-foot lots). (Director of Planning and Building)
Staff recommendation: Cotmcil place the ordinance on second reading for adoption.
ORDINANCE NO. 2903, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE PLANNING AREA 12 FREEWAY
COMMERCIAL SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLANNED COMMUNITY
DISTRICT REGULATIONS (SECOND READING AND ADOPTION)
McMillin Otay Ranch, LLC submitted an application requesting approval of a Sectional
Planning Area Plan and Planned Community District regulations for Planning Area 12 -
Freeway Commercial in the Otay Ranch. (Director of Planning and Building)
Staff recommendation: Council place the ordinance on second reading for adoption.
ORDINANCE NO. 2904, ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA AMENDING CHAPTER 2.46 OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL
CODE TO PROVIDE FOR RESTRUCTURING THE YOUTH ADVISORY
COMMISSION FOR A FOUR-YEAR TRIAL PERIOD (SECOND READING AND
ADOPTION)
Members of the Chula Vista Coordinating Council and the South Bay Family YMCA
have recommended that the Council re-establish the Youth Advisory Commission. This
commission will make recommendations and advise Council on issues affecting young
people in the community. The Commission will also teach youth the power of
collaborative working relationships in City government. It is expected that this
Commission will become a model for other cities in California. (Deputy City Manager
Palmer)
Staff recommendation: Council place the ordinance on second reading for adoption.
MEMORANDUM FROM THE BOARD OF ETHICS REGARDING REVISIONS TO
THE CODE OF ETHICS
One of the codified responsibilities of the Board of Ethics is to review and recommend
revisions to the Code of Ethics to ensure its effectiveness and pertinence. Upon review,
the Board has identified certain segments that could warrant revision.
Staff recommendation: Council accept the memorandum and refer the matter to staff for
review.
Page 2 - Council Minutes 04/08/03
CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued)
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-135, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROPRIATING FUNDS FROM THE BALANCE OF
THE TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE FUND IN THE AMOUNT
OF $70,000, TO COVER THE UNFORESEEN SUPPORT STAFF TIME EXPENSES
AND EXTRA WORK IN THE FIELD DURING CONSTRUCTION OF THE STREET
WIDENING AT EAST H STREET, SOUTH SIDE, EAST AND WEST OF 1-805
NORTHBOUND RAMPS IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA (PROJECT STM-340)
(4/5THS VOTE REQUIRED)
Sealed bids were received for this project on August 21, 2002. The work to be done
consists of street widening on the south side of East H Street, east and west of the 1-805
northbound ramps, related traffic signal work, and replacing asphalt concrete
improvements in the center raised island median with decorative stamped concrete. The
amount of the contract as bid was $206,155.12. As a result of unforeseen support staff
costs and construction field changes, an additional $70,000 is needed to complete the
contract and pay the contractor. (Director of Engineering)
Staffrecommendation: Council adopt the resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-136, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARD1NG CONTRACT FOR
THE MAIN STREET EAST MEDIAN LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS - PHASE II
1N THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA (PROJECT LD-107)
Sealed bids were received for this project on March 5, 2003. The work to be done
involves the landscape median improvements on Main Street, east of Nirvana Avenue.
The work includes all labor, material, equipment, tools, transportation, mobilization,
traffic control, removal and disposal of existing improvements, protection and restoration
of existing improvements. (Director of Engineering)
Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution and award the contract to A.B.
Hashmi in the amount of $141,590.
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-137, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING $50,000 FROM THE CALIFORNIA
BORDER ALLIANCE GROUP (CBAG) FOR THE PURCHASE OF TWO VEHICLES
AND AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2002/2003 POLICE DEPARTMENT
BUDGET THEREFOR (4/5THS VOTE REQUIRED)
Adoption of the resolution approves acceptance of $50,000 for the purchase of two
vehicles to support operations of the southwest border high-intensity drug trafficking
area. (Chief of Police)
Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution.
Page 3 - Council Minutes
~8~3
CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued)
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-138, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING A PURCHASING AGREEMENT IN THE
AMOUNT OF $30,950 WITH CHULA VISTA ELECTRIC COMPANY TO INSTALL
A 600-AMP ELECTRICAL SYSTEM UPGRADE AT JOHN LIPPITT PUBLIC
WORKS CENTER FOR THE CITY'S ELECTROLYZER, A FAST-FILL, PORTABLE
HYDROGEN GENERATING FUEL STATION, AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS
THEREFOR (4/STHS VOTE REQUIRED)
The City's electrolyzer, a fast-fill portable hydrogen generating fuel station was delivered
by Stuart Energy to the John Lippitt Public Works Yard. Installation of the electrolyzer
will require an upgrade to the electrical system at the yard. The upgrade entails the
addition of a 600-amp electrical panel to accommodate electrical requirements for the
electrolyzer. Adoption of the resolution awards the contract for the electrical system
upgrade to Chula Vista Electric for $30,950. (Special Operations Manager)
Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution.
10.
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-139, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING THE AGREEMENT FOR USED OIL
RECYCLiNG BLOCK GRANT NO. UBG7-01-6055 FROM THE CALIFORNIA
INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT BOARD, AUTHORIZING THE CITY
MANAGER TO EXECUTE ALL DOCUMENTS IN CONJUNCTION WITH
ADMINISTERING THE GRANT, AND APPROPRIATING $89,607 TO IMPLEMENT
THE GRANT (4/5THS VOTE REQUIRED)
The California Used Oil Enhancement Act requires the collection of four cents for every
quart of lubricating oil sold, transferred and imported into California from oil
manufacturers. Chula Vista consumers pay four cents per quart into the fund when they
purchase oil. The act mandates the California Integrated Waste Management Board's use
a portion of the funds to provide block grants to local govemments for used oil programs
that encourage used oil recycling. (Special Operations Manager)
Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution.
With regard to Consent Calendar Item #5, Mayor Padilla commended the Commission for its
efforts.
ACTION:
Mayor Padilla moved to approve StaWs recommendations and offered the
Consent Calendar, headings read, texts waived. The motion carried 5-0.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Kenneth Walden commended Public Works employees Mike Capone and Pedro Martinez for
timely and caring assistance to his elderly neighbor when she had sewer line problems. He also
complimented the City for continuous support of its employees who were called to duty in Iraq.
Don Lake, representing Citizens for a Better Veterans Home, updated the Council on the status
of the closing of the Barstow Veterans Home.
Page 4 - Council Minutes 04/08/03
PUBLIC HEARINGS
11.
CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
GENERAL PLAN, EASTLAKE II AND III GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLANS
AND EASTLAKE II AND III SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLANS IN ORDER
TO CHANGE THE DESIGNATION OF A 4.4-ACRE PARCEL LOCATED ON THE
EAST SIDE OF THE FUTURE EASTLAKE PARKWAY, AND NORTH OF
OLYMPIC PARKWAY FROM PUBLIC/QUASI-PUBLIC (PQ) AND COMIvIUNITY
PURPOSE FACILITY (CPF) TO MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (MH)
The EastLake Company submitted applications to amend the City's General Plan,
EastLake II and III General Development Plans, Sectional Planning Area Plans, and
associated regulatory documents to convert 4.4 acres, located on the east side of future
EastLake Parkway and north of Olympic Parkway, from Public/Quasi-Public to Medium
High Density Residential. (Director of Planning and Building)
Notice of the hearing was given in accordance with legal requirements, and the heating was held
on the date and at the time specified in the notice.
Mayor Padilla opened the public hearing.
Associate Planner Steichen presented the proposed amendments.
Councilmember Salas asked staff to review, as part of the General Plan update process, the
public/quasi-public dedication requirements to see if they need to be increased to meet church
and other service organization needs in the community. Councilmember McCann asked that, as
part of the review, staff also study the future plans and space needs of service organizations.
There being no one from the audience wishing to speak, Mayor Padilla closed the heating.
ACTION:
Councilmember McCann offered Resolution No. 2003-140 for adoption and
Ordinance No. 2905 for first reading, headings read, texts waived:
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-140, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE
CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DIAGRAM, EASTLAKE II
AND III GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLANS AND EASTLAKE II AND III
SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLANS, AND ASSOCIATED
REGULATORY DOCUMENTS
ORDINANCE NO. 2905, ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE
EASTLAKE II PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS LAND
USE DISTRICT MAP
The motion carded 5-0.
Page 5 - Council Minutes
04108/03
PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
12.
CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF A TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP TO
DIVIDE APPROXIMATELY 62.64 ACRES INTO FOUR SUPER-LOTS AND TWO
OPEN SPACE LOTS (APPLICANT: THE EASTLAKE COMPANY)
Adoption of the resolution approves subdivision of 62.64 acres into four super-lots and
two open space lots. The project is located at the northeast comer of EastLake Parkway
and Olympic Parkway, within the EastLake greens residential community. (Director of
Planning and Building)
Notice of the hearing was given in accordance with legal requirements, and the hearing was held
on the date and at the time specified in the notice.
Mayor Padilla opened the public heating.
Associate Planner Steichen presented the project details.
There being no one from the audience wishing to speak, Mayor Padilla closed the hearing.
ACTION: Mayor Padilla offered Resolution No. 2003-141, heading read, text waived:
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-141, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING AND ESTABLISHING
CONDITIONS OF THE TENTATIVE MAP FOR EASTLAKE LANDSWAP,
CHULA VISTA TRACT 03-04
The motion carried 5-0.
13.
CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT (EIR 02-05) FOR THE BELLA LAGO PRECISE PLAN, REZONE AND
TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP; AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING MAP
ESTABLISHED BY SECTION 19.18.010 OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL
CODE, ZONING 180 ACRES EAST OF THE FUTURE STATE ROUTE 125
FREEWAY AND NORTH OF PROCTOR VALLEY ROAD FROM PLANNED
COMMUNITY TO RESIDENTIAL ESTATES WITH A PRECISE PLAN
MODIFYING DISTRICT (PCZ 01~04); A PRECISE PLAN FOR 180 ACRES TO BE
KNOWN AS THE BELLA LAGO PRECISE PLAN (PCM 02-12); AND A
TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP TO SUBDIVIDE 180 ACRES EAST OF THE
FUTURE STATE ROUTE 125 FREEWAY AND NORTH OF PROCTOR VALLEY
ROAD INTO 140 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS
Bella Lago, LLC, submitted an application to change the zoning of 180 acres, east of the
future SR-125 and north of Proctor Valley Road, from Planned Community to
Residential Estate with a Precise Plan Modifying District; approval of a Precise Plan for
the project; and approval of a Tentative Subdivision Map to subdivide the 180 acres into
140 residential and four open space lots. In accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act, a final Environmental Impact Report has been prepared to
analyze the environmental impacts of the proposed rezone, Precise Plan, and Tentative
Subdivision Map. (Director of Planning and Building)
Page 6 - Council Minutes 04/08/03
PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
Notice of the heating was given in accordance with legal requirements, and the hearing was held
on the date and at the time specified in the notice.
Mayor Padilla opened the public heating on Item 13A.
Associate Planner Power presented an overview of the Environmental Impact Report, and
Senior Planner Hernandez described the site location and project highlights.
Mayor Padilla asked if anyone fi:om the audience wished to speak. There was no response, and
he then closed the hearing on Item 13A.
ACTION:
Councilmember Davis offered Resolution No. 2003-142, heading read, text
waived:
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-142, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CERTIFYING THE FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR 02-05) FOR THE BELLA LAGO
PRECISE PLAN, REZONE, AND TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP;
MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS OF FACT; AND ADOPTING A
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM PURSUANT
TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
The motion carried 5-0.
Mayor Padilla opened the public heating on Items B and C.
Senior Planner Hernandez presented the proposed Land Use Plan and Tentative Subdivision
Map.
Councilmember Davis suggested that staff review the possible qualification of second traits or
guest housing as affordable housing units.
Tim Wilson, project applicant, spoke in support of the proposed project.
There being no one else wishing to speak, Mayor Padilla closed the public heating.
ACTION:
Councilmember Salas offered Resolution No. 2003-143 for adoption and
Ordinance No. 2906 for first reading, headings read, texts waived:
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-143, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING A PRECISE PLAN TO BE
KNOWN AS BELLA LAGO AND A TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP,
CHULA VISTA TRACT 00-03 TO SUBDIVIDE 180 ACRES EAST OF THE
FUTURE STATE ROUTE 125, NORTH OF PROCTOR VALLEY ROAD INTO
140 RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND 4 OPEN SPACE LOTS
ORDINANCE NO. 2906, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OR MAPS
ESTABLISHED BY SECTION 19.18.010 OF THE CHULA VISTA
MUNICII:~AL CODE REZONING 180 ACRES LOCATED EAST OF THE
FUTURE STATE ROUTE 125 FREEWAY AND NORTH OF PROCTOR
VALLEY ROAD TO RESIDENTIAL ESTATES (RE) WITH A ("P")
MODIFYING DISTRICT DESIGNATOR
The motion carded 5-0.
Page 7 - Council Minutes
04/08/03
OTHER BUSINESS
14. CITY MANAGER'S REPORTS
City Manager Rowlands announced a Council/Growth Management Oversight Commission
meeting to be held on June 12, 2003, at 4:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers.
15. MAYOR'S REPORTS
There were none.
16. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Davis reported on statistics contained in SANDAG's draft Borders Committee
report and noted that she would distribute copies to the Council.
Councilmember McCaIm thanked the Mayor and Council for attending the Support our Troops
rally on Saturday.
Deputy Mayor Rindone noted that the rally was an excellent and well-attended event.
Councilmember Salas thanked community member Lee Zora for providing many of the
refreshments at the event. She also reported on attending the Jtmior Theatre VIP reception and
congratulated the Cultural Arts Commission on the event.
In response to Councilmember Salas' suggestion, it was the consensus of the Council to direct
staff to explore the possibility of having a rose garden planted at Friendship Park, Memorial Park
or the Norman Park Center perhaps by participants in the Life Options Program or other
community volunteers.
CLOSED SESSION
Closed session was cancelled, and the following item was not discussed:
17. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR PURSUANT TO
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8
Property:
Agency negotiators:
Negotiating Parties:
Under Negotiation:
San Diego Gas & Electric - Gas and Electricity Franchise
(Pertaining to Public Rights of Way throughout the City of Chula
Vista)
David Rowlands, Jr., Sid Morris, Michael Meacham, and Glen
Googins
City of Chula Vista, San Diego Gas & Electric
Price and Terms of Payment
ADJOURNMENT
At 8:31 p.m., Mayor Padilla adjourned the meeting to an Adjourned Regular Meeting on April 9,
2003 at 3:30 p.m. at the Corporation Yard; thence to an Adjourned Regular Meeting on April 11,
2003 at 4:00 p.m., thence to an Adjourned Regular Meeting on April 14, 2003; and thence to the
Regular Meeting of April 15, 2003, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers.
Susan Bigelow, CMC, C~ty Clerk
Page 8 - Council Minutes 04/08/03
MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
April 9, 2003 3:30 P.M.
An Adjourned Regular Meeting of the City Council was called to order at 3:50 p.m. in the
Training Room located at the Corporation Yard, 1800 Maxwell Road, Chula Vista, California.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Councilmembers Davis, McCann, Rindone, Salas, and Mayor Padilla
ABSENT: Councilmembers: None
ALSO PRESENT:
City Manager Rowlands, Senior Assistant City Attorney Googins,
City Clerk Bigelow, Department Heads
DISCUSSION OF THE OUTCOME OF THE LAST COUNCIL WORKSHOP ON
MARCH 28 AND 29, 2003, AS WELL AS FUTURE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES AS
THEY RELATE TO THE 2003/2004 BUDGET
Councilmembers presented five strategic themes to provide staff with direction in planning and
budgeting during the next few years. The themes were:
Connecte& Balanced and Cohesive Community: Foster a positive and shared
community identity; encourage and value public participation; improve citywide
mobility; and promote a balanced mix of housing, shopping, and employment
opportunities.
Strong and Safe Neiv. hborhoods: Ensure our neighborhoods and business districts
are safe and appealing places to live, work, shop and visit.
Economic Develonment: Foster a positive business climate that attracts new
businesses, creates a broad range of employment opportunities, and revitalizes the
downtown area.
Diverse Cultural, Educational, Recreational, and Economic Opportunities:
Provide a wide range of cultural, educational, recreational, and economic
opportunities that meet the needs and interests of our diverse community.
Cost-Effective Government and Fiscal Stability: Focus on achieving results for
our citizens by providing exemplary services at competitive prices; balance short-
term operational needs with long-term strategic goals; and enhance long-range
financial planning to ensure fiscal sustainability.
Councilmembers individually commented on the need to be proactive with regard to code
enfomement. No formal action was taken by the Council.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
There were none.
ADJOURNMENT
At 5:20 p.m., Mayor Padilla adjourned the meeting to an Adjourned Regular Meeting on April
11, 2003 at 4:00 p.m.; thence to an Adjourned Regular Meeting on April 14, 2003 at 4:00 p.m.;
and thence to the Regular Meeting of April 15, 2003, at 6:00 p.m.
Susan Bigelow, CMC, City Clerk
MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
APRIL 11, 2003 4:00 P.M.
An Adjourned Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista was called
to order at 4:13 p.m. in the Council Conference Room, located in City Hall, 276 Fourth
Avenue, Chula Vista, California.
PRESENT: Councilmembers: Davis, McCann, Rindone, Salas, and Mayor Padilla
ABSENT: Councilmembers: None
ALSO PRESENT: City Manager Rowlands, and Assistant City Attorney Miesfeld
1. INTERVIEWS TO FILL ONE VACANCY ON THE BOARD OF PORT
COMMISSIONERS
The City Council interviewed the following persons for the position:
Marshall "Ty" Compton
Jerry Siegel
John Jolliffe
ACTION: Mayor Padilla moved to appoint Marshall "Ty" Compton as Chula Vista's
representative on the Board of Port Commissioners. Councilmember
Salas seconded the motion, and it can/ed 5q0.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
There were none.
ADJOURNMENT
At 6:17 p.m., Mayor Padilla adjourned the meeting to an Adjourned Regular Meeting on
April 14, 2003, at 4:00 p.m. in the Council Conference Room; and thence to the Regular
Meeting of April 15, 2003 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers.
Susan Bigelow, CMC, City Clerk
APRIL 14,2003
MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
4:00 P.M.
An Adjourned Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista was called to
order at 4:15 P.M. in the Council Conference Room, City Hall, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista,
California.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT:
Councilmembers: Davis, McCann, Rindone, Salas, and Mayor Padilla
(Councilmember Rindone arrived at 4:28 p.m.)
ABSENT: Councilmembers: None
ALSO PRESENT: City Attorney Moore
1. INTERVIEWS TO FILL ONE VACANCY ON THE PLANN1NG COMMISSION
The City Council interviewed the following persons for the Planning Commission position:
Harold West
Cindy Drake
Dick Wiley
Tom Davis
Bryan Felber
Catherine Radcliffe
Councilmember Salas was not present during the interview of Harold West; and Councilmember
McCann was not present during the interview of Dick Wiley.
ACTION: Motion was duly made and seconded to appoint Bryan Felber to the Planning
Commission. The motion carried 5-0.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
There were none.
ADJOURNMENT
At 6:58 p.m., Mayor Padilla adjourned the meeting to the Regular Meeting of April 15, 2003 at
6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers.
Susan Bigelow, CMC, City Clerk
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
April 15, 2003 6:00 P.M.
A Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista was called to order at 6:10
p.m. in the Council Chambers, located in the Public Services Building, 276 Fourth Avenue,
Chula Vista, California.
ROLL CALL:
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
Councilmembers: Davis, McCann, Rindone, Salas, and Mayor Padilla
Councilmembers: None
ALSO PRESENT:
City Manager Rowlands, City Attorney Moore, and Deputy City
Clerk Bennett
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG, MOMENT OF SILENCE
SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
PRESENTATION BY MAYOR PADILLA OF A PROCLAMATION TO
TERRY STANCZAK, VOLUNTEER FOR THE SENIOR PATROL, PROCLAIMING
APRIL 15, 2003 AS SENIOR VOLUNTEER PATROL APPRECIATION DAY
Mayor Padilla read the proclamation, and Deputy Mayor Rindone presented it to Mr. Stanczak.
PRESENTATION BY MAYOR PADILLA OF A PROCLAMATION TO
KORKI BOTTOMS, LEAD COMMUNICATIONS OPERATOR AND
MILLIEOSUNA, COMMUNICATIONS OPERATOR II, PROCLAIMING THE
WEEK OF APRIL 13 THROUGH APRIL 19, 2003 AS NATIONAL PUBLIC SAFETY
TELECOMMUNICATIONS APPRECIATION WEEK
Mayor Padilla read the proclamation, and Deputy Mayor Rindone presented it to Ms. Bottoms
and Ms. Osuna.
PRESENTATION BY MAYOR PADILLA OF A PROCLAMATION TO
DAVID W. KROGH AND ANDREW TORRES, PRESIDENTS OF HILLTOP HIGH
SCHOOL DOLLARS FOR SCHOLARS AND CASTLE PARK HIGH SCHOOL
ALUMNI DOLLARS FOR SCHOLARS, PROCLAIMiNG THE MONTH OF MAY
2003 AS SCHOLARSHIP MONTH
Mayor Padilla read the proclamation, and Deputy Mayor Rindone presented it to Mr. Krogh and
Mr. Torres.
PRESENTATION BY MAYOR PADILLA OF A PROCLAMATION TO
JAMES MARCELINO, CHILD AND YOUTH POLICY ADVOCATE,
PROCLAIMiNG APRIL 26, 2003 AS DAY OF THE CHILD
Mayor Padilla read the proclamation, and Deputy Mayor Rindone presented it to Mr. Marcelino.
SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY (Continued)
PRESENTATION BY REPRESENTATIVES OF PACIFIC WASTE SERVICES,
JERRY SCHNITZIUS, GENERAL MANAGER, AND STEVE MIESEN, FACILITY
MANAGER, REGARDING RECYCLING EFFORTS IN THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA
Jerry Schnitzius presented an update on recycling in Chula Vista, which included: 2001
diversion programs; goals for the 21st century collection program in Chula Vista; variable trash
rate pricing; single stream recycling; automated cart service; solid waste and recycling; and the
conversion of Pacific Waste fleet vehicles to bio-diesel, resulting in reduced emissions.
Deputy Mayor Rindone asked staff to provide a written update on the City's progression towards
meeting a 50 percent state-mandated diversion goal for solid waste.
CONSENT CALENDAR
(Items 1 through 14).
Regarding Item No. 6, Mayor Padilla expressed concern regarding the justification for additional
hours being billed and the continuing change orders and amendments to the agreement. He
expressed the need to seek ways to improve the process.
1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of April 1, 2003.
Staff recommendation: Council approve the minutes.
ORDINANCE NO. 2905, ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE EASTLAKE II PLANNED
COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS LAND USE MAP (SECOND READING
AND ADOPTION)
Adoption of the ordinance amends the Eastlake II Planned Community District
Regulations Land Use District Map to change the designation of the 4.4-acre project site
from Community Purpose Facility (CPF) to Residential Multi-Family (RM-25). (Director
of Planning and Building)
Staffrecommendation: Council place the ordinance on second reading for adoption.
ORDINANCE NO. 2906, ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OR MAPS ESTABLISHED BY
SECTION 19.18.010 OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE REZONING 180
ACRES LOCATED EAST OF THE FUTURE STATE ROUTE 125 FREEWAY AND
NORTH OF PROCTOR VALLEY ROAD TO RESIDENTIAL ESTATES (RE) WITH
A ("P") MODIFYING DISTRICT DESIGNATOR (SECOND READING AND
ADOPTION)
Bella Lago, LLC, has submitted applications requesting approval to change the zoning of
180 acres east of future State Route 125, north of Proctor Valley Road, from Planned
Commtmity to Residential Estate with a Precise Plan Modifying District. (Director of
Planning and Building)
Staff recommendation: Council place the ordinance on second reading for adoption.
Page 2 - Council Minutes 04/15/03
CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued)
4. RESOLUTION NO. 2003-146, REsoLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING A CONTRACT
WITH ULTRASIGNS, INC. TO FABRICATE AND INSTALL THE DOWNTOWN
MONUMENT SIGN, LOCATED ON THIRD AVENUE BETWEEN PARK WAY AND
G STREET IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CA (PROJECT RD-236
Sealed bids were received for fabricating and installing the downtown monument sign on
Third Avenue, between Park Way and G Street. The scope of work consists of sign
fabrication and installation, including all labor, material, equipment, tools, transportation,
mobilization, traffic control, removal and disposal of existing improvements, protection
and restoration of existing improvements, and other miscellaneous work necessary to
construct the project in accordance with City standards. (Director of Engineering)
Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-147, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA ESTABLISHING TWO-HOUR TIME L1MITED PARKING
ON THE 400 BLOCK OF WOODLAWN AVENUE AND COLORADO AVENUE
AND AMENDING SCHEDULE VI OF THE REGISTER MAINTAINED 1N THE
OFFICE OF THE CITY ENGINEER
Staff received a letter from the Board of Directors of the Holiday Gardens Homeowners
Association, complaining that residents of their complex have insufficient on-street
parking in their area because trolley riders and residents of the apartments on Oaklawn
Avenue continuously park their vehicles along Woodlawn Avenue, Colorado Avenue,
and G Street. They requested the two-hour parking zone in order to discourage people
who do not live in the immediate area from parking their vehicles on these streets for
long periods of time. (Director o f Engineering)
Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-148, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE TWELFTH AMENDMENT TO THE
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND RICK
ENGINEERING COMPANY FOR ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL,
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING AND FINAL ENGINEERING DESIGN SERVICES
FOR THE 1-805/EAST ORANGE AVENUE/OLYMPIC PARKWAY INTERCHANGE,
APPROPRIATING TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE FUNDS,
WAIVING THE CONSULTANT SELECTION PROCESS, AND AUTHORIZING THE
MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID AMENDMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY
On January 23, 1996, the Council approved a contract with Rick Engineering for
preliminary engineering design services for three intemhanges on Interstate 805, at
Telegraph Canyon Road, Olympic Parkway, and East Palomar Street. Since then, due to
additional work requirements by Caltrans, eleven amendments to this contract have been
made. The twelfth amendment to the contract will provide for additional preliminary and
final design drawings and environmental work needed to comply with state and federal
requirements at the 1-805/East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway interchange. (Director
of Engineering)
Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution.
Page 3 - Council Minutes 04/15/03
CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued)
7A.
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-149, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO CONSIDER CHANGES
AND MODIFICATIONS TO THE RATE AND METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT OF
SPECIAL TAXES AUTHORIZED TO BE LEVIED WITHIN IMPROVEMENT AREA
NO. 2 OF COMMLENITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 07-M (EASTLAKE - WOODS,
VISTAS AND LAND SWAP), AND SETTING THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE
CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 20, 2003 AT 6:00 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-150, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA ADOPTING AN ANNEXATION MAP SHOWING
PROPERTY TO BE ANNEXED TO COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 07-
M (EASTLAKE - WOODS, VISTAS AND LAND SWAP) AND IMPROVEMENT
AREA NO. 2
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-151, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO AUTHORIZE THE
ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY TO COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 07-
M (EASTLAKE ~ WOODS, VISTAS AND LAND SWAP) AND IMPROVEMENT
AREA NO. 2, AND SETTING THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE CITY COUNCIL
MEETING OF MAY 20, 2003 AT 6:00 P.M.
Eastlake Company has requested that the City conduct proceedings to consider changes
and modifications to Improvement Area No. 2 of Community Facilities District No. 07-M
(Eastlake - Woods, Vistas and Land Swap Parcel - CFD 07-M) as well as an annexation
to Improvement Area No. 2 of CFD 07-M. CFD 07-M was formed in 2002 to fund the
perpetual operation and maintenance of slopes, medians and parkways and storm water
treatment facilities associated with Eastlake III - Woods and Vistas and Land Swap
Parcel. Adoption of the resolutions initiates the formal proceedings to consider the
changes and modifications to CFD No. 07-M, Improvement Area No. 2 and the
annexation to CFD No. 07-M, Improvement Area No. 2. (Director of Engineering)
Staffrecommendation: Council adopt the resolutions.
8A.
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-152, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE FINAL MAP OF CHULA VISTA
TRACT NO. 01-09, EASTLAKE III WOODS NEIGHBORHOODS WR-2, WR-5, AND
A PORTION OF WR-4; ACCEPTING ON BEHALF OF THE PUBLIC VARIOUS
PUBLIC STREETS, ALL AS GRANTED ON SAID MAP WITHIN SAID
SUBDIVISION; ACCEPTING ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
CERTAIN PUBLIC EASEMENTS, ALL AS GRANTED ON SAID MAP WITHIN
SAID SUBDIVISION; AND ACKNOWLEDGING ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA THE IRREVOCABLE OFFER OF DEDICATION FOR OPEN SPACE
LOTS GRANTED ON SAID MAP WITHIN SAID SUBDIVISION
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-153, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING A SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT
AGREEMENT FOR CHULA VISTA TRACT NO. 01-09, EASTLAKE III WOODS
NEIGHBORHOODS WR-2 AND WR-5 FOR THE COMPLETION OF
IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED BY SAID SUBDIVISION AND AUTHORIZING THE
MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT
Page 4 - Council Minutes 04/15/03
CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued)
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-154, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING A SUPPLEMENTAL SUBDIVISION
IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT REQUIRING EASTLAKE COMPANY, LLC TO
COMPLY WITH CERTAIN UNFULFILLED CONDITIONS OF RESOLUTION NO.
2001-269 FOR CHULA VISTA TRACT NO. 01-09, EASTLAKE III WOODS
NEIGHBORHOODS WR-2 AND WR-5, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO
EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-155, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE
SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT FOR CHULA VISTA TRACT NO.
01-09, EASTLAKE III WOODS NEIGHBORHOOD WR-4 TO REVISE THE LEGAL
DESCRIPTION OF SAID SUBDIVISION, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO
EXECUTE SAID AMENDMENT
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-156, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE
SUPPLEMENTAL SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT FOR CHULA
VISTA TRACT NO. 01-09, EASTLAKE III WOODS NEIGHBORHOOD WR-4 TO
REVISE THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF SAID SUBDIVISION, AND
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID AMENDMENT
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-157, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING A GRANT OF EASEMENTS AND
MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT FOR CHULA VISTA TRACT NO. 01-09,
EASTLAKE III WOODS. AND VISTAS, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO
EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT
On August 14, 2001, the Council approved the tentative subdivision map for Chula Vista
Tract No. 01-09, Eastlake III Woods and Vistas. Adoption of the resolutions approves
the final map for Woods Neighborhoods WR-2, WR-5, a portion of WR-4, and associated
agreements. Also considered for approval are amendments to the existing subdivision
improvement agreement and supplemental subdivision improvement agreement for
Woods Neighborhood WR-4, revising the legal description of said subdivision. Adoption
of the last resolution approves the grant of easements and maintenance agreement, which
sets forth specific obligations and responsibilities for the maintenance by the Eastlake III
Master Homeowners Association of certain landscaping improvements and facilities
located within public right-of-ways and easements within the entire Eastlake III Woods
and Vistas project. (Director of Engineering)
Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolutions.
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-158, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING A PURCHASE AGREEMENT WITH
GREAT SCOTT TREE SERVICE TO PROVIDE TREE TRIMMING SERVICE ON
AN AS-NEEDED BASIS THROUGH JUNE 30, 2004, AND AUTHORIZING THE
PURCHASING AGENT TO RENEW THE AGREEMENT FOR FIVE ADDITIONAL,
ONE YEAR OPTION PERIODS
Page 5 - Council Minutes 04/15/03
CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued)
On March 13, 2003, three bids for this service were received. Staff recommends that
Great Scott Tree Service be awarded the contract. (Director of Public Works-Operations,
Director of Finance)
Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution.
10.
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-159, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING AN ADDITIONAL $29,353.46 FROM THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA E-911 REPLACEMENT FUND FOR POLICE
COMMUNICATIONS CENTER TECHNOLOGY IMPROVEMENTS TO BRING THE
TOTAL GRANT AWARD ACCEPTANCE TO $407,353.46
The State of California has a program to fund replacement of older e-911 telephone
equipment that has been in use seven or more years. The Chula Vista Police Department
is eligible for funding under this program, as its current equipment was installed in 1994.
Features of the new e-911 technology will provide the police communications center with
much improved methods for handling wire line-based and wireless-based 911 calls and
routing service to the citizens of Chula Vista. The State e~911 program recently granted
the City an additional $29,353.46 to purchase additional hardware and software to
enhance its geographical information system and information management capability
withthe e-911 equipment upgrade. (Chief of Police)
Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution.
11 A.
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-160, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING A JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS
AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, THE CITIES OF IMPERIAL
BEACH AND SAN DIEGO, AND THE UNIFIED PORT DISTRICT FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT OF A WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE OTAY
RIVER WATERSHED, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE
AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-161, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING A COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO, THE CITY
OF iMPERIAL BEACH, AND THE UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF
ENGINEERS, REGARDING THE DEVELOPMENT OF A SPECIAL AREA
MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE OTAY RIVER WATERSHED, AND
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF
THE CITY
The County of San Diego has requested that Chula Vista participate in the preparation of
a Watershed Management Plan for the Otay River watershed through a joint exercise of
powers agreement. The County also requested that the City participate in the preparation
of a Special Area Management Plan for the Otay River through a cooperative agreement.
The Special Area Management Plan would be used to assist the federal, state, and local
regulatory agencies with their decision-making and grant authority to protect aquatic
resources, which could include expedited federal "wetlands" permits and/or limited
review for determination of project compliance. (Director of Planning and Building)
Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolutions.
Page 6 - Council Minutes 04/15/03
CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued)
12.
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-162, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING A $20,000 GRANT FOR THE LIFE
OPTIONS PROGRAM AND AN INTERGENERATIONAL PROGRAM FROM THE
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, AGING AND INDEPENDENCE SERVICES AWARDED
TO THE RECREATION DEPARTMENT; APPROViNG AN AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE COUNTY; AUTHORIZiNG THE MAYOR TO
EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT; AND AMENDiNG THE FISCAL YEAR 2003
RECREATION DEPARTMENT BUDGET BY APPROPRIATiNG UNANTICIPATED
REVENUE OF $20,000
At the beginning of this fiscal year, the Senior Section of the Recreation Department
collaborated with Southwestern College on a $20,000 grant awarded by the County of
San Diego, Aging and Independence Services to develop a Life Options Program. Due to
the success of the program, Aging and Independence Services has awarded the
Recreation Department an additional $10,000 to be used to continue the efforts to
promote and develop the Life Options program. The department, in collaboration with
the Chula Vista Elementary School District, has also been awarded a $10,000 grant to
help coordinate the development of an Intergenerational Program of Parking Lot Greeters
in three elementary schools and the development of volunteer opportunities. (Director of
Recreation)
Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution.
13.
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-163, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDiNG THE FISCAL YEAR 2003 RECREATION
DEPARTMENT BUDGET BY APPROPRIATING $2,000 IN UNANTICIPATED
REVENUES FROM PERFORMING AND VISUAL ARTS TASK FORCE GRANT
FUNDS TO THE RECREATION DEPARTMENT FOR AN ARTS PROGRAM
The Recreation Department was awarded $2000 in Performing and Visual Arts Task
Force grant funds for fiscal year 2002/2003 via the City's Office of Cultural Arts. The
funds will be used for presenting young audiences of San Diego educational
performances at Cbula Vista recreation centem for the fiscal year. (Director of
Recreation)
Staffrecommendation: Council adopt the resolution.
14.
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-164, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH THE ENERGY
CONSULTING TEAM OF DUNCAN, WEINBERG, GENZER & PEMBROKE,
MCCARTHY & BERLIN AND NAVIGANT CONSULTiNG INC. TO ANALYZE
THE FINANCIAL, LEGAL AND TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY OF VARIOUS
POSSIBLE MUNICIPAL ENERGY BUSINESSES AND ALTERNATIVES, AND
APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR
Page 7 - Council Minutes 04/15/03
CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued)
On March 25, 2003, the Council approved staffs recommendation to select the energy
consulting team of DuncanfNavigant to analyze the financial, legal and technical
feasibility of various possible municipal energy utility businesses and alternatives thereto.
Council authorized staff to negotiate a final contract, based on outlined terms and
conditions, with Duncan/Navigant for energy consulting services and directed staff to
return to Council with a final contract for approval. Approval of the agreement with
Duncan/Navigant will allow completion of the feasibility analysis for an amount not to
exceed $275,000. (Assistant City Manager Morris)
Staffreconunendation: Council adopt the resolution.
ACTION:
Mayor Padilla noted that the letter from SDG&E, dated April 15, 2003, regarding
Item No. 14, would be made part of the record. He then moved to approve staff's
recommendations and offered the Consent Calendar, headings read, texts waived.
The motion carried 5-0.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Kenn Colclasure expressed concern regarding the public walkway located adjacent to his
property. He stated that there is an ongoing problem with youth leaving broken glass and trash
on the walkway, as well as tarnishing the area with graffiti. Mr. Colclasure added that despite
clean-up efforts by the City, the area has become a source for gang and criminal activities. He
asked that the City address the problem. Mayor Padilla referred the matter to staff to seek
permanent methods with which to deal with the issue.
PUBLIC HEARINGS.
15.
CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF AN URGENCY ORDINANCE APPROVING
AN INCREASE OF THE SEWERAGE CAPACITY CHARGE AND THE
MODIFICATION OF THE MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
The City Council adopted an urgency ordinance approving an increase of the sewerage
capacity charge and modification of the master fee schedule on March 18, 2003.
Adoption of this urgency ordinance allows the City to continue to collect the charge
during the 60-day waiting period before the regular ordinance becomes effective.
(Director of Engineering)
Notice of the hearing was given in accordance with legal requirements, and the hearing was held
on the date and at the time specified in the notice.
Mayor Padilla opened the public hearing. With no members of the public wishing to speak, he
then closed the hearing.
ACTION: Mayor Padilla offered Urgency Ordinance No. 2900-B, heading read, text waived:
URGENCY ORDINANCE NO. 2900-B, URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING AN
INCREASE OF THE SEWERAGE CAPACITY CHARGE AND THE
MODIFICATION OF THE MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
The motion carded 5-0.
Page 8 - Council Minutes 04/15/03
PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
16.
CONSIDERATION OF A TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR A PORTION OF
PLANNING AREA 12 - FREEWAY COMMERCIAL OF OTAY RANCH
(APPLICANT: MCMILLIN OTAY RANCH, LLC - PCS 03-11)
McMillin Otay Ranch has requested approval of a tentative subdivision map consisting of
38 lots for freeway-oriented commercial uses, including retail land uses and streets, for
their 86.9-acre portion of Freeway Commercial in the Otay Ranch, as authorized by the
Planning Area 12 - Freeway Commercial Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan. The
Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed tentative subdivision map
and determined that the project would not result in any new environmental impacts that
were not previously identified in the final second tier Environmental Impact Report for
the Planning Area 12 - Freeway Commemial SPA Plan, nor would the project result in a
substantial increase in the severity in any environmental effects not previously identified
in Final Environmental Impact Report no. 02-04. (Director of Plauning and Building)
Notice of the hearing was given in accordance with legal requirements, and the hearing was held
on the date and at the time specified in the notice.
Principal Planner Rosaler presented the proposed tentative map.
Mayor Padilla opened the public hearing. With no members of the public wishing to speak, he
then closed the heating.
ACTION:
Councilmember Davis offered Resolution No. 2003-165, heading read, text
waived:
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-165, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION
MAP FOR A PORTION OF THE OTAY RANCH, SECTIONAL PLANN1NG
AREA 12 - FREEWAY COMMERCIAL PLAN, CHULA VISTA TRACT 03-11
The motion carded 5-0.
17.
CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF AGREEMENTS FOR MONITORING
BUILDING PERMITS FOR EASTLAKE III, OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 6, OTAY
RANCH VILLAGE 11, BELLA LAGO, SAN MIGUEL RANCH AND SALT CREEK
RANCH (AKA ROLLING HILLS RANCH), AND SUBSTITUTING MITIGATION
MEASURES IN FEIR 97-02 (SAN MIGUEL RANCH) AND FEIR 91-03 (SALT
CREEK RANCH AKA ROLLING HILLS RANCH) AND MNDIS-00-05
On April 8, 2003, the Council requested staff to bring forward a report regarding options
for addressing the need to provide infrastructure in a timely manner and to ensure that the
City is not growing too quickly. At the same time, staff has been working with several
developers to implement provisions of previously approved "traffic enhancement
agreements" that address the need to provide additional traffic capacity in eastern Chula
Vista, and to consider adjustments to previously established limitations of development
prior to completion of State Route 125. Staff recommends adoption of resolutions
approving agreements with developers regarding monitoring of residential building
permits for these projects. (Assistant City Manager Krempl, Director of Planning and
Building, Director of Engineering)
Page 9 - Council Minutes
04/15/03
PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
Notice of the heating was given in accordance with legal requirements, and the hearing was held
on the date and at the time specified in the notice.
Mayor Padilla opened the public heating.
Assistant City Manager Krempl presented a report on the building permit monitoring program,
stating that there are two options for the monitoring program. Option one includes a fixed
number of permits to be issued for each year; the second option has a lower annual number of
units that incorporates a concept of a three percent buffer on top of each year's total. He then
described the key business points of the agreements as agreed to by the developers, including
three-year agreements (April 1 2003 through March 31, 2006) that include a declining total
number of permits in each of the three years; affordable housing units to be exempt from the
program; model home permits are not counted in the number of units permitted until the model is
realized as a sold unit; if capacity is unused in year one or two, then the unused capacity may be
rolled over into a subsequent year with no violation of the overall total numbers; each master
developer has submitted a table as to how their annual allocation will be distributed amongst
their projects; commercial, industrial, and non-residential uses are proposed to not be subject to
the agreements; traffic capacity improvement completion has to be in place to match the
cumulative number of units that may be issued; and nothing in the agreements is intended to
restrict the City's ability to exercise its discretion with regard to its threshold standards or its
growth management ordinance.
Planning and Building Director Leiter summarized the growth management ordinance's purpose
and intent, as follows: to provide that public facilities, services and improvements meeting City
standards exist or become available concurrent with the need created by new development; to
prevent growth unless adequate facilities and improvements are provided in a phased and logical
fashion, as required under the General Plan; and to control the timing and location of
development by tying the pace of development to the provision of public facilities and
improvements to conform to the City's threshold standards and to meet the goals and objectives
of the growth management program.
Peter Watry, representing Crossroads II, read a letter submitted by the organization's President,
Patricia Aguilar, requesting that action on this item be po. stponed to the next regularly scheduled
meeting in order to allow adequate time to review the technical documents and, if necessary, to
meet with staff to discuss the matter.
Jerry Livingston, representing the Building Industry Association (BIA), stated that although the
BIA remains in support of the current growth management program and the need to protect
quality of life by providing housing to the community, it does not support a citywide permit
monitoring program.
Tom Davis, representing Crossroads II, asked the Council to postpone action on the item, stating
that the subject matter is extremely complex and that the public needs more time to study the
proposal. He believed that Interstate 1-805 should be included in the study to avoid future
region-wide problems and that without the completion of State Route 125, the problems facing
the City would worsen.
Page 10 - Council Minutes 04/15/03
PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
John Norman, President of the South County Building Industry Association (SCBIA), stated that
the organization is opposed to a citywide permit monitoring program. He believed that the
growth management plan that has been in place and adhered to by the development community
provides the controls on quality of life issues that citizens seeking reasonably priced homes need.
He stated that the SCBIA would prefer that the City work within the framework of the growth
management ordinance.
Kent Aiden, representing Otay Ranch Company, gave a presentation on behalf of the five master
planned community developers, Brookfield Homes, Corky McMillin Companies, Eastlake
Company, Otay Ranch Company, and Trimark Homes. He explained the views of the
developers, stating that the growth management ordinance should not be abandoned in favor of
regressiv~ methods, such as fixed numeric caps. Mr. Aiden mentioned some of the recent
accomplishments by the developers, including Olympic Parkway; working on regional issues
such as the Multiple Species Conservation Program, Telegraph Canyon and Salt Creek Sewer
projects; H Street widening; and the university site acquisition. He stated that the developers'
biggest issue with a fixed numeric cap would be the City's control of the market. He stated that
the Council's approval of the agreements would artificially limit the housing supply, which
further exacerbates the housing deficit and severely impacts affordability; slow the development
of needed commercial and industrial development; increase developer interest costs and risk for
public financing, which decreases the amount of funding available for infrastructure; and
severely impact the developers' ability to provide family homes. Mr. Aiden stated that the
recommendation by the developers is to add infrastructure to the system, focus on transportation
demand programs, and for the City to have faith in its growth management program.
There being no further members of the public wishing to speak, Mayor Padilla closed the public
heating.
Deputy Mayor Rindone requested that copies of thc traffic study prepared by Lindscott Law and
Greenspan be made available to the press and members of the public.
Councilmember Salas explained the need to conduct a comprehensive review of the growth
management ordinance to make certain that it works in today's world, and to obtain a time-
certain report from staff well in advance of the termination of the agreements.
Councilmember Davis stated that approval of the agreements was a responsible step forward in
assuring a plan for future infrastructure for the City.
Councilmember McCann stated the need to allow the City's infrastructure to catch up with its
growth. He believed that the ordinance was a sincere effort by the Council to manage the growth
of the City in a reasonable manner.
Mayor Padilla stated that the proposed agreements would provide the ability to make certain that
the City does not grow at a rate so rapid as to endanger the quality of life for its residents and
would place the Council in a position of having more leverage over the City's future. He asked
that a comprehensive review of the growth management ordinance and thresholds be provided to
the Council at a mid-point in the term of the agreements.
Page 11 - Council Minutes 04/15/03
PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
ACTION:
Mayor Padilla offered Resolution Nos. 2003-166 and No. 2003-167, headings
read, text waived:
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-166, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING AGREEMENTS FOR
MONITORING BUILD1NG PERMITS BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA AND TRIMARK PACIFIC AND MCMILL1N ROLLING HILLS
RANCH, LLC, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE
AGREEMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE CITY
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-167, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF CHLILA VISTA APPROVING AGREEMENTS FOR
MONITORING BUILD1NG PERMITS FOR EASTLAKE III, OTAY RANCH
VILLAGE 6, OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 11, AND BELLA LAGO, AND
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT ON
BEHALF OF THE CITY
Deputy Mayor Rindone seconded the motion, and it carried 5-0.
ACTION ITEMS
18.
CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING A THREE-
PARTY AGREEMENT FOR LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES FOR THE
PROPOSED PUBLIC NEIGHBORHOOD PARK IN EASTLAKE VISTAS
Adoption of the following resolution approves a three-party agreement between the City
of Chula Vista, The EastLake Company, and Delorenzo Inc. for landscape architectural
services for the development of a proposed public neighborhood park in EastLake Vistas.
(Director of Building and Park Construction, Director of Recreation, Director of Public
Works Operations)
Landscape Architect Krizan presented the selection process for the Eastlake Vistas park site
design contract.
ACTION:
Councilmember Davis offered Resolution No. 2003-168, heading read, text
waived:
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-168, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE THREE-PARTY
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, DELORENZO,
INC., LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS, AND EASTLAKE COMPANY FOR
LANDSCAPING ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES, AND AUTHORIZING THE
MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT
The motion carded 5-0.
Page 12 - Council Minutes 04/15/03
OTHER BUSINESS
19. CITY MANAGER'S REPORTS
There were none.
20. MAYOR'S REPORTS
A. Ratification of appointment to the General Plan Update Steering Committee -
Gary Lee Nordstrom
ACTION: Mayor Padilla moved to ratify the appointment of Gary Lee Nordstrom.
Counciknember Davis seconded the motion, and it carried 5-0.
B. Designation of voting delegate for a Special Meeting of the League of California
Cities General Assembly, to be held May 15, 2003 at 1:00 p.m. at the Sacramento
Community Center Theatre
Mayor Padilla requested that Item No. 20B be continued to the meeting of May 6, 2003, and no
action was taken on this item.
21. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember McCarm referenced Agenda Item #17, congratulating Councilmembers on their
courageous decision to unanimously approve the agreement for monitoring building permits.
Councilmember McCann announced that he attended the Citizens Advisory Support Team
(CAST) graduation last Saturday.
Councilmember McCann requested the Mayor's consideration of recognizing and honoring
Emerald Randolph for her countless hours as a volunteer to the City.
CLOSED SESSION
22. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING EXISTING LITIGATION
PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9(a)
A. City of Chula Vista v. Banthart Contracting (CV Library); San Diego Superior
Court Case No. GIS 003859
No action was taken on this item.
B. Michael Crim vs. City of Chula Vista; U.S. District Court Case
No. 00CV 0465-IEG (LAB)
This item was not discussed.
23. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING SIGNIFICANT EXPOSURE
TO LITIGATION PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9(b)
· Two cases
ACTION: One case was discussed, and no action was taken.
Page 13 - Council Minutes 04/15/03
ADJOURNMENT
At 10:00 p.m., Mayor Padilla adjourned the meeting to the Regular Meeting of May 6, 2003, at
4:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers.
Lorraine Bennett
Deputy City Clerk
Page 14 - Council Minutes 04/15/03
M. Theresa Ahamed
3403: Glen Abbey Blvd.
Chula Vista, CA 91910
(619) 691-8370
Community Development Department
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Housing Advisory Commission
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
, DEPARTMENT
i 1 2003
HOUSING DIVISION
Dear Sirs:
It is with deep regret that I must tender my resignation as Commissioner on the Housing
Advisory Commission effective April 15, 2003. Unfortunately, my service to the
Housing Advisory Board currently conflicts with the demands of my current work
schedule and the current work schedule will remain unchanged for most of 2003.
I hope to serve the City in the future or on future Boards.
If you need to contact me, please feel free. I may be contacted at (619) 578-7636.
Sincerely,
M. Theresa Ahamed
April 14, 2003
Mayor and City Council
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
To The Honorable Mayor Stephen C. Padilla and Members of the City Council,
It has been an honor and a privilege for me to serve on our City's E~nomie
Development ~mmissio~ over the past few years. Unfortunately, during the Fast 12
months, my attendance at our monthly meetings has been sporadic, at best, and I
sincerely feel the EDC and the City of Chula Vista would be far better served by having
someone, in my place, who can not only commit to being present at the scheduled
monthly meetings but who can also padicipate actively in other workshops and
discussions to help promote the future economic well-being of our City.
would like to thank the Mayor's Office and Community Development, notably
Cheryl Dye, for their support in nominating me to the EDC, and hope that my decision to
resign from the Commission at this time will not affect me in the event that I am able to
volunteer my services to the community in the future.
Sincerely,
Nato Rubi~
cc. Cheryl Dye, Community Development Department
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CIT~
CHULA VISTA AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT T~I~THE
CONTRACT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF ADMINISTI~t-ON OF
THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SY~M~AND THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA ~ TO PROVIDE
SECTION 21362.2 (3% ~ 50 FULL FO_~I53LA) FOR LOCAL
POLICE MEMBERS
The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does ordain as follows:
Section 1.
That an amendment to the contract between the Board of Administration, California
Public Employees' Retirement System and the City Council of the City of Chula Vista is
hereby authorized, a copy of said amendment being attached hereto, marked "Exhibit", and by
such reference made a part hereof as though herein set out in full.
Section 2.
The Mayor of the City of Chula Vista is hereby authorized, empowered, and directed
to execute said amendment for and on behalf of said Agency.
Section 3.
This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after the date of its adoption, and
prior to the expiration of fifteen (15) days from the passage thereof shall be published at least
once in the Chula Vista Star News, a newspaper of general circulation, published and
circulated in the City of Chula Vista and thence forth and thereafter the same shall be in full
force and effect.
Presented by:
Marcia Raskin
Director ofHumanResources
Approved as to form by:
Ann Moore
City Attorney
J:/attomey/ord/3%50
ITEM: ~
MEETING DATE: 05/06/03
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
ITEM TITLE: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING $5,000 FROM SVP
VOLUNTEER GLEN A. GILLILAND, AND DIRECTING
STAFF TO INCLUDE $5,000 IN THE FY 03-04 PROPOSED
BUDGET FOR SUPPORT OF THE SVP "LOST PERSON
SAFETY PROGRAM" ASSISTING WITH THE LOCATION
OF LOST MENTALLY IMPAIRED COMMUNITY MEMBERS
SUBMITTED BY: Chief of Police<~,v'~
REVIEWED BY: City Manager~j~,~,~. ~ (4/5ths Vote: Yes X No )
On January 24, 2003, Senior Volunteer Program volunteer Glen A. Gilliland
made a personal donation of $5,000 to support the development of the City of
Chula Vista "Lost Person Safety Program."
RECOMMENDATION: That Council accepts $5,000 from SVP volunteer Glen A.
Gilliland, and direct staff to include $5,000 in the FY 03-04 proposed budget for
support of the SVP "Lost Person Safety Program", assisting with the location of
lost mentally impaired community members.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMEDNATIONS: N/A
BACKGROUND: The Senior Volunteer Patrol Program (SVP) is staffed by
formally trained, uniformed volunteers of 50 years of age or'older. SVP provides
an invaluable service to the community including: commercial district foot patrols,
vacation house checks, handicapped parking enforcement, and "You Are Not
Alone"(YANA) calls and visits to frail seniors.
DISCUSSION: The SVP routinely assist police officers their efforts to find
missing children or adults. Mentally impaired residents are at particular risk
when lost in the community. The proposed program will include outreach to the
families and caregivers of mentally impaired community residents, a registration
process operated by the SVP, an at-risk person database controlled by police
dispatch, and a set of procedures for using the database to facilitate locating lost,
at-risk persons. This should significantly increase the safety of at-risk residents
and reduce the amount of time police and other staff spends in locating lost
persons. SVP relies on fundraising and donations to continue its important
community work. This donation will assist the SVP in its ongoing efforts on
behalf of Chula Vista residents.
FISCAL IMPACT: There is no net impact to the General Fund.
11 I
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING
$5,000 FROM SVP VOLUNTEER GLEN A.
GILLILAND, AND DIRECTING STAFF TO
INCLUDE $5,000 IN THE FY 03-04 PROPOSED
BUDGET FOR SUPPORT OF THE SVP "LOST
PERSON SAFETY PROGRAM" ASSISTING
WITH THE LOCATION OF LOST MENTALLY
IMPAIRED COMMUNITY MEMBERS
WHEREAS, the Senior Volunteer Patrol Program (SVP) is staffed by
formally trained, uniformed volunteers age 50 and older; and
WHEREAS, SVP volunteer Glen A. Gilliland made a personal donation of
$5,000 to support the SVP "Lost Person Safety Program;"
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of
Chula Vista does hereby accept $5,000 from SVP volunteer Glen A. Gilliland,
and directs staff to include $5,000 in the FY 03-04 proposed budget for support
of the Senior Volunteer "Lost Person Safety Program."
Presented by:
Ri . erson
Police Chief
Approved as to form by:
Y
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item: ~'
Meeting Date: 05106103
ITEM TITLE:
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING DONATION IN
THE AMOUNT OF $600 and $1,000 AND APPROPRIATING
SAID DONATED FUNDS
SUBMITTED BY: Fire Chief
REVIEWED BY:
City Manager~/~:d ~ ~
(415ths Vote: Yes X No .)
The Fire Prevention bureau recently received two donations one in the amount of
$600 from Wal-mart and the second one in the amount of $1,000 from
McDonalds. The donations were presented to the Fire Prevention Bureau to
support fire investigation, prevention and community outreach programs.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt the resolution accepting the donations
in the amount of $600 and $1,000 and amending the FY03 Fire Department
budget to appropriate said donated funds to services and supplies.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: N/A
DISCUSSION
The Fire Prevention Bureau recently received two donations one in the amount of
$600 from Wal-mart and the second one in the amount of $1,000 from
McDonalds. Some of the funds will be used to purchase a camera and related
equipment. The camera and related equipment will be used to conduct fire
inspections and investigations. The remaining funds will be used to purchase fire
prevention materials and supplies for fire prevention programs such as the Fire
House. House is a large "doll house" used in fire prevention and education
presentations. Materials purchased with these funds will be use to enhance
community outreach efforts.
FISCAL IMPACT
The total amount received from both donations is $1,600. There are no matching
funds required or General Fund impact.
I
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING DONATION
IN THE AMOUNT OF $600 and $'1,000, AND
APPROPRIATING SAID DONATED FUNDS
WHEREAS, the Fire Prevention Bureau recently received two
donations one in the amount of $600 from Wal-mart and the second one in
the amount of $1,000 from McDonalds.
WHEREAS, the donations were presented to the Fire Prevention
Bureau to support fire investigation, prevention and community outreach
programs; and,
WHEREAS, the Department is recommending the funds be used to purchase
a camera and related equipment and purchase materials and supplies for fire
prevention programs; and,
WHEREAS, the camera and related equipment will be used to conduct field
inspections and fire investigations; and
WHEREAS, the remaining funds will be used to purchase fire
prevention materials and supplies for fire prevention programs such as the
Fire House. House is a large "doll house" used in fire prevention and
education presentations.
WHEREAS, materials and supplies purchased with these funds will be
use to enhance community outreach efforts.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Chula Vista does hereby accept the donation in the amount of $600 and $1,000, and
amend the fiscal year 2003 budget by appropriating said donated funds to the Fire
Department.
Presented by:
--~h ~:'eAf . Perry
Approved as to form by:
City Attorney
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item: ~
Meeting Date: 05/06/03
ITEM TITLE:
SUBMITTED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING AND
APPROPRIATING $76,155.41 FROM THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES TO
THE FIRE DEPARTMENT AND AUTHORIZING
UNCLASSIFIED, FLSA EXEMPT FIRE EMPLOYEES TO
RECEIVE COMPENSATION FROM STATE
REIMBURSEMENTS
Fire Chief
City Manager~d~v
(415ths Vote: Yes X No __)
The Fire department is a participant in Automatic Aid Agreements with afl other
agencies within San Diego County and an Agreement for Local Government Fire
Suppression Assistance to Forest Agencies and the Office of Emergency
Services. The Department provides staff and equipment resources to these
agencies on a reimbursement basis. Staff is recommending Council accept and
appropriate the funds to the Fire Department and authorize unclassified, FLSA
exempt Fire Employees t receive reimbursed compensation from the State.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt and appropriate $76,155.41 based on
unanticipated reimbursements and amend the Fire Department's FY03 budget by
increasing the personnel services budget by $76,155.41.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: N/A
DISCUSSION
In July 2002, a Deputy Chief and Battalion Chief responded to the Pines Fire
Strike Team Assignment located in Julian, California. Both individuals performed
firefighting duties as managers of a strike team of fire engines and personnel for
fifteen consecutive days - July 29th through August 11, 2002.
A reimbursement claim for this incident was filed with the State of California
Office of Emergency Services (OES). The Department has received
reimbursement for staff time and equipment usage related to this firefighting
assignment and is recommending appropriation of these funds to the Fire
Department. The funds will be used to offset the fire department's personnel and
overtime expenditures and restock $800 of fire engine supplies resulting from this
assignment.
In addition, staff is recommending Council authorize unclassified FLSA exempt
employees to receive reimbursed compensation from the State. This would allow
the Deputy Fire Chief's to receive compensation for hours worked beyond the
normal workweek when participating in Strike team or other Fire/Emergency
situation. Strike team assignments are usually long in duration and involve
intense firefighting without disruption. Participation in these fires provides
valuable fire fighting and field supervision experience. Additionally, it better
prepares Chula Vista Fire personnel to be able to handle similar firefighting
scenarios in the City of Chula Vista.
The Fire Chief is recommending compensation upon receipt of reimbursement
due to unique nature of these firefighting services performed. This
recommendation is consistent with practices of other agencies in the County.
Most Strike team assignments are fully reimbursed. Reimbursement is
calculated on an hourly basis plus mileage for equipment usage. In addition, an
administrative fee of 12% is provided to participating agencies. A total of
$76,155.41 was reimbursed from the Pines Strike Team Assignment. During the
Pines Fire Assignment the Deputy Chief worked a total of 248 hours beginning
on July 30 and ending on August 9th. This position received an eight-hour day
compensation (72 hours) during the Monday through Friday workweek beginning
on Tuesday July 30 and concluding on Friday August 9, 2002.
If Council allows unclassified, FLSA exempt Fire employees to receive
compensation a total 176 hours in straight time compensation will be paid to the
Deputy Chief for the Pines Fire Assignment. The department currently has two
Deputy Chief's, which are eligible to participate in such assignments. Deputy
Fire Chief's will be eligible for straight time compensation if the City receives
reimbursement from any future reimbursed incidents as ordered by California
OES, USFS or FEMA (USAR response) upon the Fire Chief's Approval. The
department currently has two Deputy Chief's, which are eligible to participate in
such assignments.
FISCAL IMPACT
The reimbursement will be used to offset the Fire Department's personnel and
overtime expenses, and restock the fire engine supplies. In addition, the Deputy
Chief will be compensated for firefighting time during this assignment. Future
Deputy Fire Chief Strike team assignments will be reimbursed upon
reimbursement by the State and approval of the Fire Chief. There is no negative
impact to the general fund.
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING AND
APPROPRIATING '$76,155.41 FROM THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES
TO THE FIRE DEPARTMENT AND AUTHORIZING
UNCLASSIFIED, FLSA EXEMPT FIRE EMPLOYEES
TO RECEIVE COMPENSATION FROM STATE
REIMBURSEMENTS
WHEREAS, the Fire department is a participant in Automatic Aid Agreements with
all other agencies within San Diego County and an Agreement for Local Government Fire
Suppression Assistance to Forest Agencies and the Office of Emergency Services; and
WHEREAS, the Department provides staff and equipment resources to these agencies
on a reimbursement basis; and
WHEREAS, in July 2002, a Deputy Chief and Battalion Chief responded to the Pines
Fire Strike Team Assignment located in Julian, California; and
WHEREAS, a reimbursement claim for this incident was filed with the State of
California Office of Emergency Services (OES) for services rendered; and
WHEREAS, the Department has received reimbursement for staff time and
equipment usage related to this firefighting assignment and is recommending appropriation
of these funds to the Fire Department; and
WHEREAS, the funds will be used to offset the fire department's personnel
and overtime expenditures and restock $800 of fire engine supplies resulting from this
assignment, and
WHEREAS, the Fire Chief is recommending Council authorize unclassified
FLSA exempt Fire Employees to receive reimbursed compensation from the State
WHEREAS, participation in these fires provides valuable fire fighting and field
supervision experience; and
WHEREAS, Deputy Fire Chief's will be eligible for straight time compensation if the
City receives reimbursement from any future reimbursed incidents as ordered by California
OES, USFS or FEMA (USAR response) upon the Fire Chief's Approval.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Chula Vista does hereby accept and appropriate $76,155.41 from the State of
California Office of Emergency Services to the Fire Department and authorize
unclassified FLSA exempt Fire Employees to receive reimbursed compensation from
the State.
Presented by:
Approved as to form by:
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item 7
Meeting Date 5/6/03
ITEM TITLE:
Resolution of the City Council of the City
of Chula Vista, California, declaring the results of a special
election in Community Facilities District No. 09M (Village
11 Brookfield Shea Otay)
Ordinance of the City Council of the City of
Chula Vista, California, authorizing the levy of a special
tax within Community Facilities District No. 09M (Village
11 - Brookfield Shea Otay)
Resolution of the City Council of the City
of Chula Vista, California, declaring thc results of a special
election in territory to be annexed to Community Facilities
District No. 97-2 (Preserve Maintenance District) and
designated as Improvement Area "C" thereto
Ordinance of the City Council of the City of
Chula Vista, California, authorizing the levy of a special
tax in that area designated as Improvement Area "C" within
Community Facilities District No. 97-2 (Preserve
Maintenance District)
SUBMITTED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
Director of EngineeringS/
City Manage~[~ 9 ?'
(4/5ths Vote: Yes No X )
On February 18, 2003 the City Council initiated the Community Facilities District No.
09M (CFD 09M) formation proceedings and the Community Facilities District 97-2,
Annexation No. 3, Improvement Area "C" (Preserve Maintenance District) (CFD 97-2,
Area "C") annexation proceedings by adoption of Resolutions 2002-056 through 2002-
060. Tonight's action will conclude the formal proceedings to establish CFD No. 09M
and annex territory into CFD 97-2, Area "C". Special Taxes levied within CFD 09M will
fund the perpetual operation and maintenance of slopes, medians and parkways and storm
water treatment facilities associated with Village 11~ Brookfield Shea Otay. Special
Taxes levied in CFD 97-2, Area "C" fund the costs of the Resource Monitoring Program
as well as Preserve Operations and Maintenance. The City has retained the services of
MuniFinancial as special tax consultant and Best Best and Krieger LLP as legal counsel
to provide assistance during the proceedings.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council:
Page 2, Item ~]
Meeting Date 5/6/03
1. Approve the resolution declaring the results of a special election in Community
Facilities District No. 09M (Village 11 - Brookfield Shea Otay), and
2. Approve the ordinance authorizing the levy of special tax within Community
Facilities District No. 09M (Village 11 - Brookfield Shea Otay), and
3. Approve the resolution declaring the results of a special election in territory to be
annexed to Community Facilities District No. 97-2 (Preserve Maintenance
District) and designated as Improvement Area "C", and
4. Approve the ordinance authorizing the levy of special tax within Improvement
Area "C" of Community Facilities District No. 97-2 (Preserve Maintenance
District).
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
Otay Ranch Village 11 is located south of Eastlake Greens and east of Eastlake Parkway
(see Exhibit "A" and "B"). The Tentative Map for the project required the developer
(Brookfield Shea Otay, LLC) to form a Community Facilities District (CFD09M) for the
maintenance of landscaping, drainage facilities and other public improvements. The
Tentative Map for the project also required the developer to annex into the Preserve
Maintenance District (CFD 97-2, Area "C") to fund monitoring and maintenance costs of
the Otay Ranch Preserve.
On February 18, 2003 Council initiated these proceedings and a public heating was held
on March 25, 2003. An election of 100% of property owners within the area (Brookfield
Shea Otay, LLC) was held in the office of the City Clerk on April 1, 2003 for the CFD
09M formation and the CFD 97-2, annexation to Area "C". The property owner approved
the formation by a unanimous vote in both elections.
Area of Benefit
The proposed boundaries of CFD No. 09M and CFD 97-2, Annexation No. 3, Area "C"
encompass parcels located within the Village 11. Brookfield Shea Otay is proposed to
contain approximately 1,297 single-family detached homes, 661
condominium/townhome units, 315 apartments, 10 acres of multi-use property, and 9.3
acres of Community Purpose Facility ("CPF") property.
Resolutions/Ordinance
There are two resolutions and two ordinances on today's agenda, which, if adopted, will
accomplish the following:
7-2
Page3, Item [
Meeting Date 5/6/03
The RESOLUTION DECLARING ELECTION RESULTS is the formal action of the
City Council declaring the results of a special election in Community Facilities District
No. 09M.
The ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF A SPECIAL TAX is the formal
action of the City Council authorizing the levy of a special tax within the area of
Community Facilities District No. 09M.
The RESOLUTION DECLARING ELECTION RESULTS is the formal action of the
City Council declaring the results of a special election in territory to be annexed to
Community Facilities District No. 97-2 and designated as Improvement Area "C".
The ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF A SPECIAL TAX is the formal
action of the City Council authorizing the levy of a special tax within the Improvement
Area "C" of Community Facilities District No. 97-2
FISCAL IMPACT
All costs of formation of the district are being borne by the developers and the on-going
administration will be funded entirely by the district. The City will receive the benefit of
full cost recovery for staff cost involved in the following activities for each district: I)
Staff costs associated with the district formation, estimated at $30,000, and 2) District
annual administration costs, estimated at $18,000 for City staff and $13,000 for the
contractual administration of the tax rolls. The total annual administration cost estimate
is $31,000.
Exhibit A: Maintenance District (CFD09M) Boundary Map
Exhibit B: Preserve District (CFD97-2 Improvement Area "C") Boundary Map
CFD09m
CFD97-2
J:\Engineer~AGENDA~113 Village 11 cfd results3.doc
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA,
CALIFORNIA, DECLARING THE RESULTS OF A SPECIAL ELECTION IN
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 09M (VILLAGE 11
BROOKFIELD SHEA OTAY)
WHEREAS, the CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA (the
"City Council"), has previously undertaken proceedings to create and did establish a Community
Facilities District pursuant to the terms and provisions of the "Mello-Roos Community Facilities
Act of 1982," being Chapter 2.5, Part 1, Division 2, Title 5 of the Government Code of the State
of California (the "Act") and the City of Chula Vista Community Facilities District Ordinance
enacted pursuant to the powers reserved by the City of Chula Vista under Sections 3, 5 and 7 of
Article XI of the Constitution of the State of California (the "Ordinance") (the Act and the
Ordinance may be referred to collectively as the "Community Facilities District Law"). This
Community Facilities District is referred to as COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO,
09M (VILLAGE 11 BROOKFIELD SHEA OTAY) (the "District"); and,
WHEREAS, this City Council did call for and order to be held an election to submit to
the qualified electors of the District a proposition relating to the levy of special taxes within such
District and a separate proposition relating to the establishment of an appropriations limit for the
District; and,
WHEREAS, at this time said election has been held and the measures voted upon and
each such measure did receive the favorable 2/3's vote of the qualified electors, and this City
Council desires to declare the results of the election in accordance with the provisions of the
Elections Code of the State of California.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA,
CALIFORNIA, ACTING AS THE LEGISLATIVE BODY OF COMMUNITY FACILITIES
DISTRICT NO. 09M (VILLAGE 11 BROOKFIELD SHEA OTAY), DOES HEREBY
RESOLVE, DECLARE, FIND, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The above recitals are all tree and correct.
SECTION 2. This City Council hereby receives and approves the CERTIFICATE OF
ELECTION OFFICIAL AND STATEMENT OF VOTES CAST, as submitted by the City Clerk,
acting in her capacity as the Election official, said Statement identifying the measures voted
upon and the number of votes given for and/or against the measures voted upon. A copy of said
Certificate and Statement is attached hereto, marked Exhibit "A", referenced and so
incorporated.
SECTION 3. The City Clerk is hereby directed, pursuant to the provisions of the
Elections Code of the State of California, to enter in the minutes the results of the election as set
forth in said STATEMENT OF VOTES CAST.
PREPARED BY:
APPROVED AS TO FORM BY:
Cliff Swanson
Director of Engineering
Ann Moore
City Attorney
EXHIBIT "A"
CERTIFICATE OF ELECTION OFFICIAL
AND STATEMENT OF VOTES CAST
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) ss.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA )
The undersigned, ELECTION OFFICIAL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, COUNTY OF SAN
DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY CERTIFY that pursuant to the provisions of
Section 53326 of the Government Code and Division 12, commencing with Section 17000 of the
Elections Code of the State of California, I did canvass the returns o£the votes cast at the
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 09M
(VILLAGE 11 BROOKFIELD SHEA OTAY)
SPECIAL ELECTION
in said City, held April 1, 2003.
l FURTHER CERTIFY that this Statement of Votes Cast shows the whole number of votes cast in said
District in said City, and the whole number of votes cast for the Measures in said District in said City,
and the totals of the respective columns and the totals as shown for the Measures are full, true and
correct.
1. VOTES CAST ON PROPOSITION A: YES
NO
2. VOTES CAST ON PROPOSITION B: YES
NO
WITNESS my hand and Official Seal this
.day of ,2003.
CITY CLERK
ELECTION OFFICIAL
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
3
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDiNANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA,
CALIFORNIA AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF A SPECIAL TAX WITHIN
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 09M (VILLAGE 11
BROOKFIELD SHEA OTAY)
WHEREAS, the CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA (the
"City Council"), has initiated proceedings, held a public hearing, conducted an election and
received a favorable vote from the qualified electors authorizing the levy of a special taxes in a
community facilities district, all as authorized pursuant to the terms and provisions of the
"Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982", being Chapter 2.5, Part 1. Division 2, Title 5
of the Government Code of the State of California (the "Act") and the City of Chula Vista
Community Facilities District Ordinance enacted pursuant to the powers reserved by the City of
Chula Vista under Sections 3, 5 and 7 of Article XI of the Constitution of the State of California
(the "Ordinance") (the Act and the Ordinance may be referred to collectively as the "Community
Facilities District Law"). This Community Facilities District is designated as COMMUNITY
FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 09M (VILLAGE 11 BROOKFIELD SHEA OTAY) (the
"District").
The City Council of the City of Chula Vista, California, acting as the legislative body of
Community Facilities District No. 09M (Village 11 Brookfield Shea Otay), does hereby ordain
as follows:
SECTION 1. This City Council does, by the passage of this ordinance, authorize the
levy of special taxes within the District pursuant to the Rate and Method of Apportionment of
Special Taxes as set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto (the "Rate and Method"), referenced
and so incorporated.
SECTION 2. This City Council, acting as the legislative body of the District, is hereby
further authorized, by Resolution, to annually determine the special taxes to be levied within the
District for the then current tax year or futura tax years, except that the special tax to be levied
within the District shall not exceed the maximum special tax calculated pursuant to the Rate and
Method, but the special tax may be levied at a lower rate.
SECTION 3. The special taxes herein authorized, to the extent possible, shall be
collected in the same manner as ad valorem property taxes and shall be subject to the same
penalties, procedure, sale and lien priority in any case of delinquency as applicable for ad
valorem taxes; provided, however, the District may utilize a direct billing procedure for any
special taxes that cannot be collected on the County tax roll or may, by resolution, elect to collect
the special taxes at a different time or in a different mariner if necessary to meet its financial
obligations.
SECTION 4. The special taxes shall be secured by the lien imposed pursuant to Sections
3114.5 and 3115.5 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, which lien shall
be a continuing lien and shall secure each levy of the special tax. The lien of the special tax shall
1
continue in force and effect until the special tax obligation is prepaid, permanently satisfied and
canceled in accordance with Section 53344 of the Government Code of the State of California or
until the special tax ceases to be levied by the City Council in the manner provided in Section
53330.5 of said Government Code.
SECTION 5. This Ordinance shall be effective thirty (30) days after its adoption.
Within fifteen (15) days after its adoption, the City Clerk shall cause this Ordinance to be
published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City pursuant to the provisions of
Government Code Section 36933.
Introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, California, on
,2003;
Enacted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, California, held on
the day of ,2003, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTA1N:
ABSENT:
ATTEST
Clifford Swanson
Director of Engineering
J:Attomey\Reso\OrdinanceXOrd Authorize Levy of Special Tax CFD 09M
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Ann Moore
City Attorney
2
Exhibit "A"
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 09M
(VILLAGE 11 BROOKFIELD SHEA OTAY)
RATE AND METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT FOR
A Special Tax of Community Facilities District No. 09M (Village 11, Brookfield Shea) of the
City of Chula Vista ("CFD") shall be levied on all Assessor's Parcels in the CFD and collected
each Fiscal Year commencing in Fiscal Year 2003-04 in an amount determined through the
application of the rate and method of apportionment of the Special Tax set forth below. All of
the real property in the CFD, unless exempted by law or by the provisions hereof, shall be taxed
for the purposes, to the extent and in the manner herein provided.
A. DEFINITIONS
The terms hereinafter set forth have the following meanings:
"'A' Map" shall mean a master final subdivision or parcel map, filed in accordance with
the Subdivision Map Act and the Chula Vista Municipal Code, which subdivides the land
or a portion thereof shown on a tentative map into "super block" lots corresponding to
units or phasing of combination of units as shown on such tentative map and which may
further show open space lot dedications, backbone street dedications and utility
easements required to serve such "super block" lots.
"Acre or Acreage" means the land area of an Assessor's Parcel as shown on an
Assessor's Parcel Map, or if the land area is not shown on an Assessor's Parcel Map, the
land area shown on the applicable Final Subdivision Map, other final map, other parcel
map, other condominium plan, or functionally equivalent map or instrument recorded in
the Office of the County Recorder. The square footage of an Assessor's Parcel is equal to
the Acreage multiplied by 43,560.
"Act" means the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act 'of 1982, as amended, being
Chapter 2.5, Part 1, Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code of the State of
California.
"Administrative Expenses" means the actual or estimated costs incurred by the City,
acting for and on behalf of the CFD as the administrator thereof, to determine, levy and
collect the Special Taxes, including salaries of City employees and a proportionate
mount of the City's general administrative overhead related thereto, and the fees of
consultants and legal counsel providing services related to the administration of the CFD;
the costs of collecting installments of the Special Taxes; and any other costs required to
administer the CFD as determined by the City.
B-1
7 -//
"Approved Property" means all Assessor's Parcels of Taxable Property: (i) that are
included in an 'A' Map, excluding lettered lots thereon, or a Final Subdivision Map,
excluding lettered lots thereon, that were recorded prior to the March 1st preceding the
Fiscal Year in which the Special Tax is being levied, and (ii) that have not been issued a
building permit prior to the March 1st preceding the Fiscal Year in which the Special Tax
is being levied.
"Assessor's Parcel" means a lot or parcel shown in an Assessor's Parcel Map with an
assigned assessor's parcel number.
"Assessor's Parcel Map" means an official map of the Assessor of the County
designating parcels by assessor's parcel number.
"CFD Administrator" means an official of the City, or designee thereof, responsible for
determining the Special Tax Requirement and providing for the levy and collection of the
Special Taxes.
"CFD" means Community Facilities District No. 09M of the City of Chula Vista.
"City" means the City of Chula Vista.
"City Clerk" means the City Clerk for the City of Chula Vista or his or her designee.
"City Manager" means the City Manager for the City of Chula Vista or his or her
designee.
"Community Purpose Facility Property" or "CPF Property" means all Assessor's
Parcels which are classified as community purpose facilities and meet the requirements of
City of Chula Vista Ordinance No. 2452.
"Council" means the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, acting as the legislative
body of the CFD.
"County" means the County of San Diego, California.
"Developed Property" means all Taxable Property for which a building permit was
issued after January 1, 2002, but prior to the March 1st preceding the Fiscal Year in
which the Special Tax is being levied.
"Density" means for each Assessor's Parcel of Residential Property the number of
Dwelling Units per gross acre determined pursuant to those provisions of Ordinance No.
2866, in effect as of December 17, 2002, that provide for the calculation of density for
purposes of calculating Transportation Development Impact Fees.
"Dwelling Unit" means each separate residential dwelling unit that comprises an
independent facility capable of conveyance or rental separate from adjacent residential
dwelling units.
B-2
"Final Subdivision Map" means a subdivision of property creating single family
residential buildable lots by recordation of a final subdivision map or parcel map
pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act (California Government Code Section 66410 et
seq.), or recordation of a condominium plan pursuant to California Civil Code 1352, that
creates individual lots for which building permits may be issued without further
subdivision and is recorded prior to March 1 preceding thc Fiscal Year in which the
Special Tax is being levied.
"Fiscal Year" means the period starting July 1 and ending on the following June 30.
"Land Use Class" means any of the classes listed in Table 1 or Table 2.
"Landscape Maintenance" means the labor, material, administration, personnel,
equipment and utilities necessary to maintain landscaped improvements within the public
right-of-ways, parkways, slopes, wetlands and other public easements throughout the
CFD.
"Landscape Maintenance Requirement" means, for any Fiscal Year in which Special
Taxes are levied, the amount equal to the budgeted costs for Landscape Maintenance
applicable to the CFD for such Fiscal Year.
"Maximum Special Tax" means the maximum Special Tax, determined in accordance
with Section C below, that may be levied in any Fiscal Year on any Assessor's Parcel of
Taxable Property.
"Mixed Use Property" means all Assessor's Parcels that have been classified by the
City to allow both Residential Property and Non-Residential Property uses on each such
Assessor's Parcel. For an Assessor's Parcel of Mixed Use Property, each Land Use Class
thereon is subject to taxation pursuant to the provisions of Section C regardless of the
geographic orientation of such Land Use Classes on such Assessor's Parcel.
"Multi-Family Property" means all Assessor's Parcels of Developed Property for
which a building permit has been issued for a residential structure consisting of two or
more residential units that share common walls, including, but not limited to, duplexes,
triplexes, townhomes, condominiums, and apartment units.
"Non-Residential Property" means all Assessor's Parcels of Developed Property for
which a building permit(s) has been issued for a structure or structures for non-residential
use.
"Operating Fund" means a fund that shall be maintained for the CFD for each Fiscal
Year to pay for Landscape Maintenance and Storm Water Quality Maintenance and
Administrative Expenses.
"Operating Fund Requirement" means, for any Fiscal Year, the sum of the applicable
Landscape Maintenance Requirement and the applicable. Storm Water Quality
Maintenance Requirement.
B-3
"Property Owner Association Property" means any property within the CFD
boundaries that is owned by, or irrevocably dedicated as indicated in an instrument
recorded with the County Recorder to, a property owner association, including any
master or sub-association.
"Proportionately" means in a manner such that the ratio of the actual Special Tax levy
to the Maximum Special Tax is equal for all Assessor's Parcels of Taxable Property
within each Land Use Class.
"Public Property" means any property within the CFD boundaries that is, at the time of
the CFD formation, expected to be used for any public purpose and is owned by or
dedicated to the federal government, the State, the County, the City or any other public
agency.
"Reserve Fund" means a fund that shall be maintained for the CFD for each Fiscal Year
to provide necessary cash flow for the first six months of each Fiscal Year, reserve capital
to cover monitoring, maintenance and repair cost overruns and delinquencies in the
payment of Special Taxes and a reasonable buffer to prevent large variations in annual
Special Tax levies.
"Reserve Fund Requirement" means an amount equal to up to 100% of the Operating
Fund Requirement for any Fiscal Year.
"Residential Property" means all Assessor's Parcels of Developed Property for which a
building permit(s) has been issued for purposes of constructing one residential dwelling
unit.
"Special Tax" means the Special Tax levied pursuant to the provisions of sections C and
D below in each Fiscal Year on each Assessor's Parcel of Developed Property and
Undeveloped Property in the CFD to fund the Special Tax Requirement.
"Special Tax Requirement" means that amount required in any Fiscal Year for the CFD
to: (a) (i) pay the Landscape Maintenance Requirement; (ii) pay the Storm Water Quality
Maintenance Requirement; (iii) pay reasonable Administrative Expenses; (iv) pay any
amounts required to establish or replenish the Reserve Fund to the Reserve Fund
Requirement; (v) pay for reasonably anticipated delinquent Special Taxes based on the
delinquency rate for Special Taxes levied in the previous Fiscal Year; less (b) a credit for
funds available to reduce the annual Special Tax levy, including the excess, if any, in the
Reserve Fund above the Reserve Fund Requirement.
"State" means the State of California.
"Storm Water Quality Maintenance" means the maintenance of detention basins,
storm drains, catch basin inserts, hydrodynamic devices, infiltration basins, and all other
facilities that are directly related to storm water quality control throughout the CFD.
B-4
"Storm Water Quality Maintenance Requirement" means for any Fiscal Year an
amount equal to the budgeted costs for Storm Water Quality Maintenance applicable to
the CFD for the current Fiscal Year in which Special Taxes arc levied.
"Taxable Property" means all of the Assessor's Parcels within the boundaries of the
CFD that are not exempt fi.om the Special Tax pursuant to law or as defined below.
"Tax-Exempt Property" means an Assessor's Parcel not subject to the Special Tax.
Tax-Exempt Property includes: (i) Public Property, or (ii) Property Owner Association
Property, or (iii) Assessor's Parcels with public or utility easements making impractical
their utilization for other than the purposes set forth in the easement.
"Taxable Property Owner Association Property" means all Association Property
which is not exempt from the Special Tax pursuant to Section E below.
"Undeveloped Property" means, for each Fiscal Year, all Taxable Property not
classified as Developed Property, Approved Property or Taxable Property Owners
Association Property.
B. ASSIGNMENT TO LAND USE CATEGORIES
Each Fiscal Year using the definitions above, all Taxable Property within the CFD shall
be classified as Developed Property, Approved Property, Undeveloped Property or
Taxable Property Owners Association Property, and shall be subject to Special Taxes
pursuant to Sections C and D below. Developed Property shall be further assigned to a
Land Use Class as specified in Table 1. The Land Use Class of each Assessor's Parcel of
Residential Property or Mixed Use Property shall be determined based on its Density.
Once the Land Use Class of an Assessor's Parcel of Residential Property or Mixed Use
Property is determined it cannot be changed. Assessor's Parcels of CPF Property not
classified as exempt in accordance with Section E below shall be taxed as Non-
Residential Property when such Assessor's Parcel is classified as Developed Property.
B-5
7-/5'
C. MAXIMUM SPECIAL TAX RATE
1. Developed Property
TABLE 1
Maximum Special Tax for Developed Property
Community Facilities District No. 09M
Land
Use Description Density
Class (DU/Acre)
1 Residential Property 0 to 8
2 Residential Property >8 to 20
3 Residential Property Greater than 20
4 Non-Residential Property N/A
Maximum
Special
Tax
$470.28 per Dwelling Unit
$376.22 per Dwelling Unit
$282.16 per Dwelling Unit
$1,805.87 per Acre
Multiple Land Use Classes
In some instances an Assessor's Parcel of Developed Property may contain more
than one Land Use Class. The Maximum Special Tax that may be levied on an
Assessor's Parcel shall be the sum of the Maximum Special Tax levies that may
be levied on all Land Use Classes located on that Assessor's Parcel. The CFD
Administrator's shall determine the allocation to each Land Use Class.
Approved Property, Undeveloped Property and Taxable Property Owner
Association Property
The Maximum Special Tax for Approved Property, Undeveloped Property and
Taxable Property Owner Association Property shall be $1,805.87 per Acre
Annual Escalation of Maximum Special Tax
The Maximum Special Tax as shown in the tables above that may be levied on
each Assessor's Parcel in The CFD shall be increased each Fiscal Year beginning
in Fiscal Year 2004-05 and thereafter by a factor equal to the annual percentage
change in the San Diego Metropolitan Area All Urban Consumer Price Index
(All Items).
METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT OF THE SPECIAL TAX
Commencing with Fiscal Year 2003-04, and for each following Fiscal Year, the Council
shall levy the CFD Special Tax at the rates established pursuant to steps 1 through 4
below so that the amount of the Special Tax levied equals the Special Tax Requirement.
The Special Tax shall be levied each Fiscal Year as follows:
B-6
First: The Special Tax shall be levied proportionately on each Assessor's Parcel of
Developed Property up to 100% of the applicable Maximum Special Tax;
Second: If additional monies are needed to satisfy the Special Tax Requirement after the
first step has been completed, the Special Tax shall be levied Proportionately on each
Assessor's Parcel of Approved Property at up to 100% of the Maximum Special Tax for
Approved Property;
Third: If additional monies are needed to satisfy the Special Tax Requirement after the
first two steps have been completed, the Special Tax shall be levied Proportionately on
each Assessor's Pamel of Undeveloped Property at up to 100% of the Maximum Special
Tax for Undeveloped Property;
Fourth: If additional moneys are needed to satisfy the Special Tax Requirement after the
first three steps have been completed, the Special Tax shall be levied proportionately on
each Assessor's Parcel of Taxable Property Owner Association Property at up to 100% of
the Maximum Special Tax for Taxable Property Owner Association Property.
Notwithstanding the above, under no circumstances will the Special Tax levied against
any Assessor's Parcel of Residential Property for which an occupancy permit for private
residential use has been issued be increased by more than ten percent annually up to the
Maximum Special Tax as a consequence of delinquency or default by the owner of any
other Assessor's Parcel within the CFD.
EXEMPTIONS
The CFD Administrator shall classify as exempt property (i) Assessor's Parcels defined
as Public Property, and (ii) Assessor's Parcels with public or utility easements making
impractical their utilization for other than the purposes set forth in the easement.
The CFD Administrator shall classify as exempt property those Assessor's Parcels
defined as Property Owner's Association Property provided that no such classification
would reduce the sum of all taxable Property to less than 206.13 Acres. Assessor's
Parcels defined as Property Owner Association Property that cannot be classified as
exempt property will be classified as Taxable Property Owner Association Property and
shall be taxed as part of the fourth step in Section D.
The CFD Administrator will assign Tax-Exempt status in the chronological order in
which property becomes exempt.
APPEALS
Any landowner or resident who pays the Special Tax and believes that the amount of the
Special Tax levied on their Assessor's Parcel is in error shall first consult with the CFD
Administrator regarding such error. If following such consultation, the CFD
B-7
Ct
Administrator determines that an error has occurred, the CFD Administrator may amend
the amount of the Special Tax levied on such Assessor's Parcel. If following such
consultation and action, if any by the CFD Administrator, the landowner or resident
believes such error still exists, such person may file a written notice with the City Clerk of
the City appealing the amount of the Special Tax levied on such Assessor's Parcel. Upon
the receipt of any such notice, the City Clerk shall forward a copy of such notice to the
City Manager who shall establish as part of the proceedings and administration of the
CFD, a special three-member Review/Appeal Committee. The Review/Appeal Committee
may establish such procedures, as it deems necessary to undertake the review of any such
appeal. The Review/Appeal Committee shall interpret this Rate and Method of
Apportionment and make determinations relative to the annual administration of the
Special Tax and any landowner or resident appeals, as herein specified. The decision of
the Review/Appeal Committee shall be final and binding as to all persons.
MANNER OF COLLECTION
Special Taxes levied pursuant to Section D above shall be collected in the same manner
and at the same time as ordinary ad valorem property taxes; provided, however, that the
CFD Administrator may directly bill the Special Tax, may collect Special Taxes at a
different time or in a different manner if necessary to meet the financial obligations of the
CFD or as otherwise determined appropriate by the CFD Administrator.
TERM OF SPECIAL TAX
Taxable Property in the CFD shall remain subject to the Special Tax in perpetuity.
B-8
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA,
CALiFORNIA, DECLARING THE RESULTS OF A SPECIAL ELECTION 1N
TERRITORY AREA TO BE ANNEXED TO COMMUNITY FACILITIES
DISTRICT NO. 97-2 (PRESERVE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT) AND
DESIGNATED AS IMPROVEMENT AREA "C" THERETO
WHEREAS, the CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA (the
"City Council"), has previously undertaken proceedings to annex certain property (the
"Annexation Area") to an existing Community Facilities District pursuant to the terms and
provisions of the "Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982," being Chapter 2.5, Part 1,
Division 2, Title 5 of the Government Code of the State of California (the "Act") and the City of
Chula Vista Community Facilities District Ordinance enacted pursuant to the powers reserved by
the City of Chula Vista under Sections 3, 5 and 7 of Article XI of the Constitution of the State of
California (the "Ordinance") (the Act and the Ordinance may be referred to collectively as the
"Community Facilities District Law"). This Community Facilities District is referred to as
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 9%2 (PRESERVE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT)
(the "District"); and,
WHEREAS, this City Council did call for and order to be held an election to submit to
the qualified electors of the Annexation Area a proposition relating to the levy of special taxes
within the Annexation Area; and,
WHEREAS, at this time said election has been held and the measures voted upon and
each such measure did receive the favorable 2/3's vote of the qualified electors, and this City
Council desires to declare the results of the election in accordance with the provisions of the
Elections Code of the State of California and to order that the Annexation Area be added to the
District and Improvement Area "C" thereto.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA,
CALIFORNIA, ACTING AS THE LEGISLATIVE BODY OF COMMUNITY FACILITIES
DISTRICT NO. 9%2 (PRESERVE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT), DOES HEREBY
RESOLVE, DECLARE, FIND, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The above recitals are all true and correct.
SECTION 2. This City Council hereby receives and approves the CERTIFICATE OF
ELECTION OFFICIAL AND STATEMENT OF VOTES CAST, as submitted by the City Clerk,
acting in her capacity as the Election official, said Statement setting forth the number of votes
cast in the election, the measures voted upon, and the number of votes given for and/or against
the measures voted upon. A copy of said Certificate and Statement is attached hereto, marked
Exhibit "A", referenced and so incorporated.
SECTION 3. The City Clerk is hereby directed, pursuant to the provisions of the
Elections Code of the State of California, to enter in the minutes the results of the election as set
forth in said STATEMENT OF VOTES CAST.
SECTION 4. This City Council does hereby determine and declare that the Annexation
Area is now added to and becomes a part of the District and Improvement Area "C" thereto. The
City Council hereby further determines that the City Council is now authorized to levy the
special taxes within the Annexation Area as approved and authorized by the qualified electors of
the Annexation Area.
PREPARED BY:
APPROVED AS TO FORM BY:
Cliff Swanson
Director of Engineering
J:Attomey\Reso\Maps\Res Declar Election Results Annex Map No. 3
Ann Moore
City Attorney
2
EXHIBIT :'A"
CERTIFICATE OF ELECTION OFFICIAL
AND STATEMENT OF VOTES CAST
STATE OF CALiFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) ss.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA )
The undersigned, ELECTION OFFICIAL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, COUNTY OF SAN
DIEGO, STATE OF CALiFORNIA, DOES HEREBY CERTiFY that pursuant to the provisions of
Section 53326 of the Government Code and Division 12, commencing with Section 17000 of the
Elections Code of the State of California, I did canvass the returns of the votes cast at the
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 97-2
(PRESERVE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT)
IMPROVEMENT AREA "C"
ANNEXATION MAP NO. 3
SPECIAL ELECTION
in said City, held April 1, 2003.
I FURTHER CERTIFY that this Statement of Votes Cast shows the whole number of votes cast in said
District in said City, and the whole number of votes cast for the Measures in said District in said City,
and the totals of the respective columns and the totals as shown for the Measures are full, true and
correct.
I. TOTAL NUMBER OF VOTES CAST:
II. VOTES CAST ON PROPOSITION A: YES
NO
WITNESS my hand and Official Seal this
__ day of ,2003.
~ITY CLERK
ELECTION OFFICIAL
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
3
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA,
CALiFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF A SPECIAL TAX IN THAT
AREA DESIGNATED AS IMPROVEMENT AREA "C" OF COMMUNITY
FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 97-2 (PRESERVE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT)
WHEREAS, the CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA (the
"City Council"), has initiated proceedings, held a public hearing, conducted an election and
received a favorable vote from the qualified electors authorizing the levy of a special tax in an
area annexed (the "Annexation Area") to an existing community facilities district and
Improvement Area "C" thereto, all as authorized pursuant to the terms and provisions of the
"Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982", being Chapter 2.5, Part 1. Division 2, Title 5
of the Government Code of the State of California (the "Act") and the City of Chula Vista
Community Facilities District Ordinance enacted pursuant to the powers reserved by the City of
Chula Vista under Sections 3, 5 and 7 of Article XI of the Constitution of the State of California
(the "Ordinance") (the Act and the Ordinance may be referred to collectively as the "Community
Facilities District Law"). This Community Facilities District is designated as COMMUNITY
FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 97-2 (PRESERVE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT) (the "District").
The City Council of the City of Chula Vista, Califomia, acting as the legislative body of
Community Facilities District No. 97-2 (Preserve Maintenance District), does hereby ordain as
follows:
SECTION 1. This City Council does, by the passage of this ordinance, authorize the
levy of special taxes within the Annexation Area pursuant to the Rate and Method of
Apportionment of Special Taxes as set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto (the "Rate and
Method"), referenced and so incorporated.
SECTION 2. This City Council, acting as the legislative body of the District, is hereby
further authorized, by Resolution, to annually determine the special tax to be levied for the then
current tax year or future tax years, except that the special tax to be levied shall not exceed the
maximum special tax calculated pursuant to the Rate and Method, but the special tax may be
levied at a lower rate.
SECTION 3. The special taxes herein authorized, to the extent possible, shall be
collected in the same manner as ad valorem property taxes and shall be subject to the same
penalties, procedure, sale and lien priority in any case of delinquency as applicable for ad
valorem taxes; provided, however, the District may utilize a direct billing procedure for any
special taxes that cannot be collected on the County tax roll or may, by resolution, elect to collect
the special taxes at a different time or in a different manner if necessary to meet its financial
obligations.
SECTION 4. The special tax shall be secured by the lien imposed pursuant to Sections
3114.5 and 3115.5 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, which lien shall
be a continuing lien and shall secure each levy of the special tax. The lien of the special tax shall
continue in force and effect until the special tax obligation is prepaid, permanently satisfied and
canceled in accordance with Section 53344 of the Government Code of the State of California or
until the special tax ceases to be levied by the City Council in the manner provided in Section
53330.5 of said Government Code.
SECTION 5. This Ordinance shall be effective thirty (30) days after its adoption.
Within fifteen (15) days after its adoption, the City Clerk shall cause this Ordinance to be
published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City pursuant to the provisions of
Government Code Section 36933.
ATTEST
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Cliff Swanson
Director of Engineering
Ann Moore
City Attorney
J:Attomcy\Reso\Ordinance\Ord Authorize Levy of Special Tax CFD 97-2 Annex Map No. 31A C
2
EXHIBIT A
COMMUNITY FACILTIES DISTRICT NO. 97-2
(PRESERVE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT)
IMPROVEMENT AREA "C"
RATE AND METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT
OF SPECIAL TAXES
A Special Tax of Community Facilities District No. 97-2 (Preserve Maintenance District) of the
City of Chula Vista ("CFD") shall be levied on all Assessor's Parcels in Improvement Area C of
the CFD and collected each Fiscal Year commencing in Fiscal Year 2002-03 in an amount
determined through the application of the rate and method of apportionment of the Special Tax
set forth below. All of the real property in the CFD, unless exempted by law or by the provisions
hereof, shall be taxed for the purposes, to the extent and in the manner herein provided.
A. DEFINITIONS
The terms hereinafter set forth have the following meanings:
"Acre or Acreage" means the land area of an Assessor's Parcel as shown on an
Assessor's Parcel Map, or if the land area is not shown on an Assessor's Parcel Map, the
land area shown on the applicable Final Subdivision Map, other final map, other parcel
map, other condominium plan, or functionally equivalent map or instrument recorded in
the Office of the County Recorder. The square footage of an Assessor's Parcel is equal to
the Acreage multiplied by 43,560.
"Act" means the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982, as amended, being
Chapter 2.5, Part 1, Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code of the State of
Califomia.
"Administrative Expenses" means the actual or estimated costs incurred by the City,
acting for and on behalf of the CFD as the administrator thereof, to determine, levy and
collect the Special Taxes, including salaries of City employees and a proportionate
amount of the City's general administrative overhead related thereto, and the fees of
consultants and legal counsel providing services related to the administration of the CFD;
the costs of collecting installments of the Special Taxes; and any other costs required to
administer Area C of the CFD as determined by the City.
"Assessor's Parcel" means a lot or parcel shown in an Assessor's Parcel Map with an
assigned assessor's parcel number.
"Assessor's Parcel Map" means an official map of the Assessor of the County
designating parcels by assessor's parcel number.
3
"Building Square Foot or Square Footage" means the square footage as shown on an
Assessor's Parcel's building permit of Residential Property excluding garages or other
structures not used as living space.
"CFD Administrator" means an official of the City, or designee thereof, responsible for
determining the Special Tax Requirement and providing for the levy and collection of the
Special Taxes.
"CFD" means Community Facilities District No. 97-2 of the City of Chula Vista.
"City" means the City of Chula Vista.
"City Clerk" means the City Clerk for the City of Chula Vista or his or her designee.
"City Manager" means the City Manager for the City of Chula Vista or his or her
designee.
"Community Purpose Facility Property" or "CPF Property" means all Assessor's
Parcels which are classified as community purpose facilities and meet the requirements of
City of Chula Vista Ordinance No. 2452.
"Council" means the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, acting as the legislative
body of the CFD.
"County" means the County of San Diego, California.
"Developed Property" means all Taxable Property for which a building permit was
issued prior to the March 1 st preceding the Fiscal Year in which the Special Tax is being
levied.
"Final Map Property" means a single family residential lot created by a Final
Subdivision Map, but which is not classified as Developed Property.
"Final Subdivision Map" means a subdivision of property creating single family
residential buildable lots by recordation of a final subdivision map or parcel map
pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act (California Government Code Section 66410 et
seq.), or recordation of a condominium plan pursuant to California Civil Code 1352, that
creates individual lots for which building permits may be issued without further
subdivision and is recorded prior to March 1 preceding the Fiscal Year in which the
Special Tax is being levied.
"Fiscal Year" means the period starting July 1 and ending on the following June 30.
"Improvement Area C" or "Area C" means Improvement Area C of the CFD, as
identified on the boundary map for the CFD as amended from time to time.
"Land Use Class" means any of the classes listed in Table 1 or Table 2.
4
"Maximum Special Tax" means the maximum Special Tax, determined in accordance
with Section C below that may be levied in any Fiscal Year on any Assessor's Parcel of
Taxable Property.
"Non-Residential Property" means all Assessor's Parcels of Developed Property for
which a building permit(s) has been issued for a structure or structures for non-residential
llse.
"Operating Fund" means a fund that shall be maintained within the CFD for each Fiscal
Year to pay for Resoume Monitoring and/or Preserve Operations and Maintenance
activities and Administrative Expenses.
"Operating Fund Balance" means the amount of funds in the Operating Fund at the end
of the preceding Fiscal Year.
"Operating Fund Requirement" means for any Fiscal Year an amount equal to the
Resource Monitoring Fund Requirement and the Preserve Operations and Maintenance
Fund Requirement for the current Fiscal Year in which Special Taxes are levied.
"Preserve Operations and Maintenance" means those activities described in
Attachment A hereto which is incorporated herein by this reference.
"Preserve Operations and Maintenance Fund Requirement" means for any Fiscal
Year an amount equal to thc budgeted costs for Preserve Operations and Maintenance
plus a pro-rata share of the budgeted Administrative Expenses of the District for the
current Fiscal Year in which Special Taxes are levied.
"Property Owner Association Property" means any property within the boundaries
Area C of the CFD that is owned by, or irrevocably dedicated as indicated in an
instrument recorded with the County Recorder to, a property owner association, including
any master or sub-association.
"Public Property" means any property within the boundaries of Area C of the CFD that
is, at the time of the CFD formation, expected to be used for any public purpose and is
owned by or dedicated to the federal government, the State, the County, the City or any
other public agency.
"Reserve Fund" means a fund that shall be maintained for the CFD each Fiscal Year to
provide necessary cash flow for the first six months of each Fiscal Year, working capital
to cover monitoring, maintenance and repair cost overruns and delinquencies in the
payment of Special Taxes and a reasonable buffer to prevent large variations in annual
Special Tax levies.
"Reserve Fund Balance" means the amount of funds in the Reserve Fund at the end of
the preceding Fiscal Year.
5
"Reserve Fund Requirement" means an amount equal to up to 100% of the Operating
Fund Requirement for any Fiscal Year.
"Residential Property" means all Assessor's Parcels of Developed Property for which a
building permit(s) has been issued for purposes of constructing one or more residential
dwelling unit.
"Resource Management Plan" means the Otay Ranch Phase 1 Resource Management
Plan also referred to as "The Otay Ranch Resource Management Plan" dated 10/28/93
and the Otay Ranch Phase 2, Resource Management Plan dated June 4, 1996, as both
such plans may be amended from time to time.
"Resource Monitoring Program" means those described in Attachment B hereto which
is incorporated herein by this reference.
"Resource Monitoring Fund Requirement" means for any Fiscal Year an amount for
each Improvement Area equal to the Improvement Area's fair share of the budgeted costs
of the Resource Monitoring Program plus a pro rata share of the budgeted Administrative
Expenses of the CFD for the current Fiscal Year in which Special Taxes are levied. An
Improvement Area's "fair share" shall be based on the Improvement Area's percentage of
the total acreage within the Otay Ranch General Development Plan Planning Area for
which a Resource Monitoring Program funding mechanism has been established.
"Special Tax" means the Special Tax levied pursuant to the provisions of sections C and
D below in each Fiscal Year on each Assessor's Parcel of Developed Property and
Undeveloped Property in Area C to fund the Special Tax Requirement.
"Special Tax Requirement" means that amount required in any Fiscal Year for Area C
to: (i) pay the Resource Monitoring Fund Requirement, and Preserve Operations and
Maintenance Fund Requirement, less the Operating Fund Balance, and (ii) pay any
amounts required to establish or replenish the Reserve Fund to the Reserve Fund
Requirement; (iii) pay for reasonably anticipated delinquent Special Taxes based on the
delinquency rate for Special Taxes levied in the previous Fiscal Year.
"State" means the State of California.
"Taxable Property" means all of the Assessor's Parcels .within the boundaries of Area C
of the CFD that are not exempt from the Special Tax pursuant to law or as defined below.
"Undeveloped Property" means, for each Fiscal Year, all Taxable Property not
classified as Developed Property.
6
7
Bo
ASSIGNMENT TO CATEGORIES OF SPECIAL TAX
Each Fiscal Year using the definitions above, all Taxable Property within Area C of the
CFD shall be classified as Category I, Category II, Category III or Exempt. Developed
Property, Final Map Property or Undeveloped Property, and shall be subject to Special
Taxes pursuant to Sections C and D below. Developed Property shall be further assigned
to a Land Use Class as specified in Table 1.
MAXIMUM SPECIAL TAX RATE
Category I
Category I includes Developed Property within the District ("Category I').
The Maximum Special Tax for Resource Monitoring, and Preserve Operations and
Maintenance that may be levied for Fiscal Year 2002/03 on Developed Property shall be
at the rates set forth in Table 1 below. For Residential Property, the Special Tax shall be
levied based upon Building Square Footage and for Non-Residential Property shall be
levied based on Acreage.
TABLE 1
Maximum Special Tax for Category I
Community Facilities District No. 97-2
Improvement Area C
Description Resource Operation &
Monitoring Maintenance
Residential $0.0054 $0.0086
Non-Residential $87.3126 $138.6152
Category II
Category II includes each Assessor's Parcel of Taxable Property within the District for
which a Final Map has been recorded, but which is not classified as a Developed Parcel
("Category II").
The Maximum Special Tax for Resource Monitoring, and Preserve Operations and
Maintenance that may be levied for Fiscal Year 2002/03 on each Assessor's Parcel in
Category II shall be as shown in Table 2 below (said amount to be levied pro rata for any
portion of an Acre).
7
TABLE 2
Maximum Special Tax for Category II
Community Facilities District No. 97-2
Improvement Area C
Resource Monitoring Operation & Maintenance
$87.3126 per Acre $138.6152 per Acre
Category II1
Category III includes each Parcel of Taxable Property within the District not subject to
Special Tax under any other category ("Category III').
The Maximum Special Tax which may be levied for Fiscal Year 2002/03 on Taxable
Property within Category III shall be as shown in Table 3 below (said amount to be levied
pro rata for any portion of an Acre).
TABLE 3
Maximum Special Tax for Category III
Community Facilities District No. 97-2
Improvement Area C
Resource Monitoring
$56.3516 per Acre
Operation & Maintenance
$89.4627 per Acre
Exempt Category
The Exempt Category includes each property owned, conveyed or irrevocably offered for
dedication to a public agency, or land which is in the public right-of-way, unmanned
utility easements which make utilization for other than the purpose set forth in the
easement impractical, common areas, private streets and parks, and open space lots
("Exempt Category").
In some instances an Assessor's Parcel of Developed Property may contain more than
one Land Use Class. The Maximum Special Tax that may be levied on an Assessor's
Parcel shall be the sum of the Maximum Special Tax levies that may be levied on all
Land Use Classes located on that Assessor's Parcel. The CFD Administrator's shall
determine the allocation to each Land Use Class.
Annual Escalation of Maximum Special Tax
The Maximum Special Tax as shown in the tables above that may be levied on each
Assessor's Parcel in Area C shall be increased each Fiscal Year beginning in Fiscal Year
2003-04 and thereafter by a factor equal to the annual percentage change in the San
Diego Metropolitan Area all Urban Consumer Price Index (All Items).
8
METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT OF THE SPECIAL TAX
Commencing with Fiscal Year 2003-04, and for each following Fiscal Year, the Council
shall levy the Area C Special Tax at the rates established pursuant to steps 1 through 4
below so that the amount of the Special Tax levied equals the Special Tax Requirement.
The Special Tax shall be levied each Fiscal Year as follows:
Step 1: Determine the revenue which could be generated by Parcels assigned to Category
I by multiplying the Building Square Footage for Parcels classified as Residential Parcels
by the Maximum Special Tax per Building Square Foot for Resource Monitoring, and
Preserve Operations and Maintenance for Parcels and adding to that the maximum
revenue which could be generated by multiplying the total acres for Parcels classified as
Non-Residential Parcels by the Maximum Special Tax per Acre for Resource Monitoring
and Preserve Operations and Maintenance.
Step 2: If the total revenue as calculated in Step 1 is greater than the estimated Special
Tax Liability for Improvement Area C, reduce the Special Tax for each Parcel
proportionately so that the Special Tax levy for the Fiscal Year is equal to the Special
Tax Liability for the Fiscal Year.
Step 3: If the total revenue as calculated in Step 1 is less than the Special Tax Liability
for Improvement Area C, a Special Tax shall be levied upon each Parcel within
Improvement Area C, classified as Category II, The Special Tax for Parcels assigned to
Category II shall be calculated as the lessor of:
(i)
The Special Tax Liability for Improvement Area C as determined by the
City, less the total revenue generated for all Parcels under Step 1 above,
divided by the total Acres for all Parcels within Improvement Area C
assigned to Category II,
OR
(ii) The Maximum Special Tax rate for Parcels assigned to Category II.
Step 4: If the total revenue as calculated in Step 1 and 3 is less than the Special Tax
Liability, for Improvement Area C, a Special Tax shall be levied upon each Parcel within
Improvement Area C classified as Category III. The Special Tax for Parcels assigned the
Category III shall be calculated as the lessor of:
(i)
The Special Tax Liability for Improvement Area C as determined by the
City, less the total revenue generated for all Parcels under Step 1 and 3
above, divided by the total Acres for all Parcels within Improvement Area
C assigned to Category III,
OR
9
(ii)
The Maximum Special Tax rate for Parcels assigned to Category III and
within Improvement Area C.
However, in the event it is determined that the Special Tax Liability for Improvement
Area C includes delinquent Special Taxes from Parcel in Category III from the prior
Fiscal Year, the City shall determine the amount of delinquent taxes that arose from such
Parcels and identify the owner(s). The amount of delinquent Special Taxes, if any, that
arose from the applicable owner(s) shall first be divided by the total Category III Acres
owned by such owner(s) and collected from the applicable owner(s) with the remaining
portion of the Special Tax Liability not related to delinquent Special Taxes to be
collected from all Parcels in Category III according to the procedure set forth in the
preceding paragraph.
Notwithstanding the above, under no circumstances will the Special Tax levied against
any Assessor's Parcel of Residential Property or Multi-Family Property for which an
occupancy permit for private residential use has been issued be increased by more than
ten percent annually up to the Maximum Special Tax as a consequence of delinquency or
default by the owner of any other Assessor's Parcel within Area C of the CFD.
E. APPEALS
Any landowner or resident who pays the Special Tax and believes that the amount of the
Special Tax levied on their Assessor's Parcel is in error shall first consult with the CFD
Administrator regarding such error. If following such consultation, the CFD
Administrator determines that an error has occurred, the CFD Administrator may amend
the amount of the Special Tax levied on such Assessor's Parcel. If following such
consultation and action, if any by the CFD Administrator, the landowner or resident
believes such error still exists, such person may file a written notice with the City Clerk of
the City appealing the amount of the Special Tax levied on such Assessor's Parcel. Upon
the receipt of any such notice, the City Clerk shall forward a copy of such notice to the
City Manager who shall establish as part of the proceedings and administration of the
CFD, a special three-member Review/Appeal Committee. The Review/Appeal Committee
may establish such procedures, as it deems necessary to undertake the review of any such
appeal. The Review/Appeal Committee shall interpret this Rate and Method of
Apportionment and make determinations relative to the annual administration of the
Special Tax and any landowner or resident appeals, as herein specified. The decision of
the Review/Appeal Committee shall be final and binding as to all persons.
MANNER OF COLLECTION
Special Taxes levied pursuant to Section D above shall be collected in the same manner
and at the same time as ordinary ad valorem property taxes; provided, however, that the
CFD Administrator may directly bill the Special Tax, may collect Special Taxes at a
different time or in a different manner if necessary to meet the financial obligations of
Area C of the CFD or as otherwise determined appropriate by the CFD Administrator.
10
TERM OF SPECIAL TAX
Taxable Property in Area C of the CFD shall remain subject to thc Special Tax in
perpetuity.
11
Attachment A
Description of Preserve Operations and Maintenance
Preserve Operations and Maintenance includes the maintenance, operation and
management of the public or private property within boundaries of the Otay Ranch Preserve, as
such boundaries may be modified from time to time, required by the Resoume Management Plan
to be maintained as open space or habitat preservation land or both. Such maintenance,
operations and management shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
· Preserve Maintenance. Development, implementation and ongoing provision of
programs to maintain, operate and manage preserve habitat values through: cultivation,
irrigation, trimming, spraying, fertilizing, and/or treatment of disease or injury; removal of
trimmings, rubbish, debris and other solid waste; maintenance of trails; removal and control of
exotic plant species (weeds); and control of cowbirds through trapping.
· Security. Development, implementation and ongoing provision of security programs
to: enforce "no trespassing" rotes; curtail activities that degrade resources, such as grazing,
shooting, and illegal dumping; remove trash, litter, and other debris; control access; prohibit off-
road traffic; and maintain fences and trails.
· Preserve improvements: Acquire equipment and/or install improvements necessary to
maintain, operate and manage the open space and habitat preservation land described above.
The above description of the Preserve Operations and Maintenance is general in nature. The
actual maintenance, operations and management of the open space and habitat preservation land
within the Otay Ranch Preserve may be modified from time to time as necessary in order to
effectively provide such services in compliance with the requirements of the Resource
Management Plan.
12
Attachment B
Description of Resource Monitoring
Implement the annual biota monitoring and reporting program consistent with the
Resource Management Plan to identify changes in the quality and quantity of preserve resources
including wildlife species, sensitive plants and sensitive habitat types.
The above description of the Resource Monitoring is general in nature. The actual
monitoring and reporting program may be modified from time to time as necessary in order to
effectively provide such services consistent with the requirements of the Resource Management
Plan.
13
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item
Meeting Date: 5/6/03
ITEM TITLE:
Resolution Accepting Bids and Awarding Contract for the "CDBG
CMP Rehabilitation Program FY 01/02 in the City of Chula Vista, CA (DR-
156)" Project and authorizing staff to increase quantities to expend all
available funds for this project.
SUBMITTED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
Director of Engineering~
City Manager ~/~.~)'O'
(4/5tbs Vote: Yes_No X_)
On March 19, 2003, the Director of Engineering received sealed bids for the "CDBG CMP
Rehabilitation Program FY 01/02 in the City of Chula Vista, CA (DR- 156)" Project. The work to be
done involves the rehabilitation of drainage facilities on various locations in the City of Chula Vista.
The work also includes all labor, material, equipment, tools, transportation, mobilization, traffic
control, removal and disposal of existing improvements, protection and restoration of existing
improvements, and other miscellaneous work necessary to construct the project in accordance with
City standards. The location and size of CMP pipes to be rehabilitated is summarized in Table's I
and II and shown on the plats (Attachment A).
RECOMMENDATION: That Council Accept Bids and Award the Contract for the "CDBG CMP
Rehabilitation Program FY 01/02 in the City of Chula Vista, CA (DR-156)" Project to Insituform
Technologies, Inc., in the amount of $87,623.00 and authorize staff to increase quantities to expend
all funds for this project.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
This drainage project provides for the rehabilitation of existing various size corrugated metal pipes.
The existing corrugated metal pipes are corroding and in need of rehabilitation.
The general scope of the project involves the rehabilitation of existing corrugated metal pipes on
various locations in the City.
The work also includes all labor, material, equipment, tools, transportation, mobilization, traffic
control, removal and disposal of existing improvements, protection and restoration of existing
improvements, and other miscellaneous work necessary for the project.
Engineering staff prepared plats, specifications, and advertised the project. Staff received and
opened bids on March 19, 2003.
The City received bid from three contractors as follows:
Page 2, c~
Meeting Date 5/6/03
CONTRACTOR
1. Insituform Technologies, inc. - Chesterfield, Missouri
2. Sancon Engineering - Huntington Beach, California
3. Rheeline Inc. - Orange, California
BID AMOUNT
$87,623.00
$97,742.00
$168,126.00
The low bid by Insituform Technologies, Inc.is below the Engineer's estimate of $215,520.00 by
$127,897.00 or approximately 59%. Staff's bid estimate was based on average prices for similar
type of work completed during the last two years. Engineering staff checked the references provided
by the contractor. All references were verified and the Contractor's work has been satisfactory.
Staff has reviewed the low bid and recommends awarding the contract to Insituform Technologies,
Inc. of Chesterfield, Missouri.
The budget provided $223,765.00 to complete the project. Based on the bid amount, staff estimates
that there will be approximately $120,000.00 left in a contingency fund to do additional pipe lining.
The locations of the proposed additional work are in the Montgomery area of the City south of the
San Diego Country Club and west of Second Avenue near Moss Street towards the 500 block of
Arizona Street near Fifth Avenue. The additional locations are shown on the plats and listed on Table
II, Attachment A.
Contract Amount Revision
The contract documents allow the City to decrease or increase the unit quantity for the rehabilitation
of additional pipes without a change in the contract unit price bid by the Contractor.
Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Goal
The bid documents set forth participation requirements per Federal Regulations for meeting the
disadvantaged and women-owned business goals. Judith Atwood, Community Development
Specialist, has reviewed the bid documents submitted by the three (3) bidders. Her conclusion is that
the prime contractor, Insituform Technologies, Inc. has attempted to meet the MBE goals, provided
adequate information to satisfy the MBE requirements and has submitted the required MBE
Certification for Alert Barricade Inc. (See Attachment B).
Staff also reviewed Insituform Technologies, Inc. eligibility status with regard to Federal
procurement programs and the status of the State contractor's licenses. Insituform Technologies, Inc.
is not listed as excluded from Federal Procurement Programs (list of parties excluded from Federal
procurement or non-procurement programs as of March 31, 2003).
Disclosure Statement
Attached is a copy of the contractor's Disclosure Statement as Attachment C.
Page 3, ~
Meeting Date 5/6/03
Environmental Status
The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the work involved in this project and has
determined that the project is exempt under Section 15301, Class (b) (Existing Facilities) of the
California Environmental Quality Act.
Prevailing Wage Statement
The source of funding for this project is Community Development Block Grant funds (CDBG).
Based on the current project funding guidelines, the Contractor is obligated to meet the prevailing
wage requirements which were included as part of the bid documents for this project. Prevailing
wage scales are those determined by the U.S. Department of Labor.
FISCAL IMPACT:
FUNDS REQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION
A. Contract Amount
B. Additional three locations (see Table II, Attachment A)
B. Contingencies (approximately 15%)
C. Staff Costs (Design & Inspection)
TOTAL FUNDS REQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION
$87,623.00
$105,973.00
$13,500.00
$16,669.00
$223,765.00
FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR CONSTRUCTION
A. CDBG (CIP# 2653156333)
TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR CONSTRUCTION
$223,765.00
$223,765.00
Upon completion of the project, the improvements will require only routine City drainage
maintenance.
Attachments:
A - Table's I & II, Location Plats
B - Minority Business Enterprise Review
C- Contractor's Disclosure Statement
J:\EngineerXAGENDA\DR156-A 113CM,doc
ATTACHMENT A
TABLE'S I & II, LOCATION PLATS
0 0 ,~ 0 0 0
STREET
i¢S~oN
STOt~I DRAIN PIPE TO BE RELINED
STORWI DRAIN PIPE PRIORITY
1
PLAT ~h59:07 PST
O: \SOSKPROJ\Dr156\Drow\Finol\Dr156cOl. dwg 12/07/02 AM
'DRAI~N BY: TITLE:
CESAR V. IdAOBUHAT CITY OF CHULA VISTA
DA TE: SHEET I
10-24-02 OF 7 SHTS.
~LEA~T £~t -J
0
PROJECT FILE JDR-156
PREPARED BY:
CESAR V, I~AC-BUHAT
CMP STORM DRAIN REHABILITATION APPROVED BY:
CDBC AREA JIl~ R. HOLliES
/
STORM DRAIN PIPE TO BE RELINEO
STORM DRAIN PIPE PRIORITY
O: \SDSKPROJ\Dr156 \Draw \Find \0r156c01. dwg
DRAI~IN BY: ~E:
' CESAR ~ ~AOBUHAT CITY
CMP STORM
DA~: ~EET 2
10-24-02 ~ 7 SHTS,
PLAT ~ 2
12/07/02 0h59:07 AI~ PST
OF CHULA VISTA
DRAIN REHABILITATION
CDBG AREA
PROJECT FILE t~DR-156
PREPARED BY:
CESAR V. I~AGBUHA T
APPROVED BY:
,~1~ R. HOLliES
CHURCH
BAP11ST
soUTHBA¥
STORM DRAIN PIPE TO BE RELINED
STORM DRAIN PIPE PRIORITY ...................
PLAT ~ 3
O: \$OSKPROJ\Or156\Oro~\~-inol\Or156cO1. dw9 12/07/02 01:59:07 AM PST
DRA~¢¢ BY: TITLE:
· CESAR I/ MAOBUHAT CITY OF CHULA VISTA
. DATE: SHEET 5
10-24-02 OF 7 SHTS.
PROJECT FILE t/0R-156
PREPARED BY
CESAR ~ MAGBUHA T
CMP STORM DRAIN REHABILITATION APPROVED BY;
CDBG AREA JIM R. HOLMES
DE (~Am'
DRAWN BY:
CESAR V. MAGBUHAT
DARE: SHEET 4
10-24-02 OF 7 SHTS.
STORI~ DRAIN PIPE TO BE RELINED
STOR~¢ DRAIN PIPE PRIORITY
PLAT # 4
O: \SDSKPROJ\Dr156\Drow\FinoI\DrI56cOI. dw9 12/07/02 01:59:07 A&¢ PST
D~ZE: CITY OF CHULA VISTA
CMP STORM DRAIN REHABILITATION
CDBG AREA
PROJECT FILE ~DR- 156
PREPARED BY:
CESAR ~ MACBUHA T
APPROVED BY:
JIM R. HOLMES
c^~p~5TR~
vILL(A~poU~Iu~s)
SEE ~.. 77-$5~D ~
TS
DEL (~^~m~ '~
DRAWN BY:
CESAR IZ MAOBUHAT
DATE: SHEET 5
10-24-02 OF 7 SHTS.
STORM DRAIN PIPE TO BE RELINED
STORM DRAIN PIPE PRIORITY
O: \$DSKPROJ\Or156\Drow\Finol\Dr156cOl. dwg 12/07/02 I: : 07 Alt PST
TITLE.' CITY OF CHULA VISTA
CMP STORM DRAIN REHABILITATION
CDBG AREA
PROJECT FILE ~DR-156
PREPARED BY:
CESAR V. MAGBUHAT
APPROVED BY:
JIM R. HOLMES
STORI~ DRAIN PIPE TO BE RELINED
STORI~I DRAIN PIPE PRIORITY
PLAT ~_ 6
O: \SDSKPROd\Dr156\Oraw\Finol\Dr156cOl. dw9 12/07/'02 01:59:07 AM PST
-DRAHCV BY: TITLE:
CESAR V. I~AOBUHAT
~DATE: SHEET 6
CMP
'10-£4-02 OF 7 SHTS.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
STORM DRAIN REHABILITATION
CDBG AREA
PROJECT F/LE tfDR-156
PREPARED BY:
CESAR V. I~AGBUHAT
APPROVED BY:
JIl~ R, HOLliES
STORM DRAIN PIPE TO BE RELINED ...............
STORM DRAIN PIPE PRIORITY ...................
PLAT ~ 7
O: \SDSKPROJ\Dr156\Drow\Finol\Or156cOl, dwg 12/07/02 01.'59:07 AM PST
DRAWN BY; TITLE:
CESAR ~ MAGBUHAT
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
DATE; SHEET Z CMP STORM
10-24-02 OF 7 SHTS.
PROJECT FILE ~DR-156
PREPARED B×'
CESAR ~ MAGBUHAT
DRAIN REHABILITATION APPROVED BY,-
CDBG AREA JiM R. HOLMES
ATTACHMENT B
MINORITY BUSINESS ENTERPRISE REVIEW
CI'IY OF
CHULA VISI'A
Community Development Department
City Of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, Ca 91910
619.585.5722 - 619.585.5698 Fax
jatwood@ci.ch ula-vista.ca.us
MEMO
Monday, April 14, 2003
TO:
FROM:
RE:
JIM HOLMES, CIVIL ENGINEER, DESIGN SECTION
JUDITH ATWOOD, SENIOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST
MBE/VVBE for DR 156 CDBG CMP Pipe Rehabilitation Pro'gram
I have reviewed the bid proposal from Insituform Technologies, Inc for the CDBG CMP
Pipe Rehabilitation program. Insituform did submit a MBE Certification for Alert
Barricade Inc. The remaining sub-contractors, Angus Asphalt, Inc and Advanced Sewer
Technology, are not MBE contractors.
However, Insituform did submit a "Good Faith Effort" advertising package which shows
that a good faith effort was made to solicit MBE contractors. Therefore, Insituform has
provided adequate information to satisfy the MBE requirements.
Please call me at extension 5036 if you have any questions.
ATTACHMENT C
CONTRACTOR'S DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Pursuant to Council Policy 10 ! -01, prior to any action upon matters which will require discretionary action by
the Council, Planning Commission and all other official bodies of the City, a statement of disclosure of certain
ownership or financial interests, payments, or campaign contributions for a City of Chula Vista election must
be filed. The following information must be disclosed:
1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the property that is the subject of the
application or the contract, e.g., owner, applicant, contractor, subcontractor, material supplier.
NONE
2. If any person* identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all
individuals with a $1000 investment in the business (corporation/parmership) entity.
N/A
3. If any person* identified pursuant to (1) above is a non-profit organization or trust, list the names of
any person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust.
N/A
4. Please identify every person, including any agents, employees, consultants, or independent contractors
you have assigned to represent you before the City in this matter.
N/A
J:\EngineerLDESIGN\dr 156~DR 156 Contract.doc
46
5. Has any person* associated with this contract tlad any financial dealings with an official** of the City
of Chula Vista as it relates to this conttact within the past 12 months? Yes__ No X
N/A
If Yes, briefly describe the nature of the financial interest the official** may have in this contract.
N/A
6. Have you made a contribution of more than $250 within the past twelve (12) months to a current
member of the Chula Vista City Council? Yes__ No X If Yes, which Council member?
N/A
7. Have you or any member of your governing board (i.e. Corporate Board of Directors/Executives,
non-profit Board of Directors made contributions totaling more than $1,000 over the past four (4) years to a
current member of the Chula Vista City Council? Yes __ No X If Yes, which Council member?
N/A
8. Have you provided more than $300 (or an item of equivalent value) to an official** of the City of
Chula Vista in the past twelve (12) months? (This includes being a soume of income, money to retire a legal
debt, gift, loan, etc.) Yes __ No X If Yes, which official** and what was the nature of item
provided? /
N/A _~ ~'
Date: March 19, 2003 ~'- ....
Signatfr~ of Cm ~t~tor/Applicant
Insi t u f~ c~..Techno logies, Inc.
Anthony ~x' Hooper, President
Print or type name of Contractor/Applicant
* Person is defined as: any individual, firm, co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club,
fratemal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, any other county, city, municipality,
district, or other political subdivision, -or any other group or combination acting as a unit.
** Official includes, but is not limited to: Mayor, Council member, Planning Cormmssioner, Member of a
board, commission, or committee of the City, employee, or staff members.
J:\Engineer~DES1GN~d r 156~DR 156 Contract.doc
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING BDS AND AWARDING
CONTRACT FOR THE "CDBG CMP REHABILITATION
PROGRAM FY 01-02 IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CA
(DR-156)" PROJECT AND AUTHORIZING STAFF TO
INCREASE QUANTITIES TO EXPEND ALL AVAILABLE
FUNDS FOR THIS PROJECT.
WHEREAS, on Wednesday, March 19, 2003 the Director of Engineering received
the following three sealed bids for the "CDBG CMP Rehabilitation Program FY 01-02 in the
City of Chula Vista, CA (DR- 156)" project:
CONTRACTOR
1. lnstituform Technologies, Inc. -
Chesterfield, Missouri.
2. Sancon Engineering - Huntington
Beach, California
3. Rheeline, Inc. - Orange, California
BID AMOUNT
$ 87,623.00
$ 97,742.00
$168,126.00
WHEREAS, the low bid from Instituform Technologies, Inc. is below the
Engineer's estimate of $215,520.00 by $127,897.00 or approximately 59%; and
WHEREAS, Engineering staff checked all references provided by the contractor
and their work has been satisfactory; and
WHEREAS, staff has reviewed the low bid and is recommending awarding the
contract to Instituform Technologies, Inc. in the amount of $87,623.00.
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the work
involved in this project and has determined that the project is exempt under Section 15301, Class
(b) (Existing Facilities) of the California Environmental Quality Act; and
WHEREAS, the source of funding for this project is Community Development
Block Grant Funds (CDBG). Based on the current project funding guidelines, the Contractor is
obligated to meet the prevailing wage requirements which were included as part of the bid
documents for this project. Prevailing wage scales are those determined by the U.S. Department
of Labor.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of City of Chula
Vista does hereby accept the bids and award the contract for the "CDBG CMP Rehabilitation
Program FY 01-02 Rehabilitation Program in the City ofChula Vista, CA (DR-I 56)" to Instituform
Technologies, Inc.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of the City ofChula Vista is hereby
authorized to execute said contract on behalf of the City of Chula Vista.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
Cliff Swanson
Director of Engineering
£cd- P2~)
Ann Moore - ?7~
City Attorney
J:/attomey/reso/Bid\CDBG CMP Rehab Program
2'-20
~ !~:;-
.'
~ Æ C;µ_k·O
~~9.
--sv.\o't"{~ -\a ~ e.
5';~ \",1--'. .
Todd Ingalls
171 Mace St #A-S
Chula Vista, CA, 91911
05/06/03
City of Chula Vista City Council
RE: 80S/Orange Ave sound wall
Address: 1400 Ocala Court, Chula Vista, CA, 91911
...
Dear Council Members:
First, I would like to expre,ss my f~rl).l!:(s support for the proposed
80S/Orange Ave sound wall.
-.
Secondly, I would also like to suggest that the top section of the sound wall
be constructed of a transparent material (i.e. glass or plexiglass) to preserve
the view. I believe this would make the wall less obstructive and would gain
additional support in the neighborhood.
Thank You,
~~
Todd Ingalls
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item ~
Meeting Date 5/6/03
ITEM TITLE:
SUBMITTED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
Resolution Approving a Cooperative Agreement with the State of
California Department of Transportation regarding construction
contract administration activities to be undertaken by the City of Chula
Vista on the 1-805/Olympic Parkway-Orange Avenue Interchange and
authorizing the Mayor to execute said agreement
Director of Engineerin~/z~/
City Manager
(4/5tbs Vote: No X )
The City desires to construct State highway improvements consisting of the modification of the
Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway Intemhange at Interstate 805 and is responsible to provide one
hundred percent of the funding for this project. The City also desires to advertise, award and
administer the construction contract for the project. In order for the City to perform these
contract functions within the State's right-of-way, the State of California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans) requires the City to enter into a cooperative agreement which sets out
each agency's responsibilities for the construction process.
The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed Cooperative Agreement for
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that
there is no possibility that the activity may have a significant effect on the environment. This
agreement is exempt from CEQA pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). The
Environmental Review Coordinator has also reviewed the proposed construction of the Orange
Avenue/Olympic Parkway Interchange project and has conducted an Initial Study (IS-00-49) in
accordance with CEQA. Based upon the results of the Initial Study, the Environmental Review
Coordinator has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration, which will be considered as a
separate agenda item.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the cooperative agreement with the
State of California Department of Transportation regarding construction contract administration
activities to be undertaken by the City of Chula Vista on the 1-805/Olympic Parkway - Orange
Avenue interchange and authorize the Mayor to execute said agreement.
BOARDS/COMMISSION: None.
DISCUSSION:
Under normal circumstances, when a local agency does work on Caltrans' facilities of the order
of magnitude of our project to widen the interchange of Olympic Parkway/Orange Avenue with
1-805, Caltrans usually requires that all construction contracts be advertised, awarded and
administered by them. Caltrans calls this the "three A" process (AAA) and, as indicated,
requires their process to be followed regardless of whether or not they are paying any of the costs
of the project. However, Caltrans has been working closely with City staff in order to expedite
the construction of these interchange improvements and have reached an agreement whereby the
City will perform the AAA process.
Page 2, Item c,/
Meeting Date 05/06/03
The agreement specifies the responsibilities of both agencies in regard to completing the
project's advertising, award and contract administration process. In general, the City is
responsible to provide all necessary engineering including plans, specifications and utility
identification, location, relocation plans, and "As-Built" plans for the project and is responsible
to identify and provide all of the funding therefore. Further, the City will be responsible for
funding all construction activities, including advertising for bids and awarding and administering
the construction contract, and for doing so in accordance with State procedures. All construction
administration procedures shall conform to requirements set forth in the State's Construction
Manual, Local Assistance Manual and Encroachment Permit. In addition, the agreement
provides for State staff to perform survey work and material testing/quality assurance work on
behalf of the City, for which work the City will fully reimburse Caltrans. Once the contract
work is complete, the City is required to maintain, the landscaping within the State's right of way
which is installed as part of the project, for 36 months from the date of completion of
construction, in accordance with landscape maintenance provisions, to the satisfaction and
approval of the State. The 36 month landscape maintenance responsibility is included in the
construction contract plans and, therefore, is included in the estimated costs for the project.
In order to effectively implement this process, Caltrans also requires the City to furnish qualified
support staff, subject to their approval, including a full time Resident Engineer, to assure that
construction is being performed in accordance with plans and specifications as approved by the
State.
This agreement also proposes that Caltrans will provide, at City's cost, staffing of a maximum of
eleven persons/year and other resources necessary to accomplish the construction, including but
not limited to, construction surveys, soils and foundation tests, measurement and computation of
quantities, testing of construction materials, review of shop drawings, preparation of estimates
and reports, review of as-built drawings, and other construction inspection and staff services as
necessary to assure that construction is being performed in accordance with plans and
specifications.
The agreement mutually provides that any hazardous material or contamination of an HM-1
category found within existing State highway right of way during construction requiring remedy
or remedial action, shall be responsibility of the State. Also, any l~tzardous material or
contamination of an HM-1 category found within the local road right of way during construction
requiring same remedy or remedial action shall be the responsibility of the City. Hazardous
material of the HM-1 category is defined as that level or type of contamination which the State
or Federal regulatory control agencies having jurisdiction have determined must be remediated
by reason of its mere discovery regardless of whether it is disturbed or not. However, the
agreement also provides that if the State determines, in its sole judgment, that their cost for
remedy or remedial action is increased as a result of proceeding with the construction of the
project, that additional cost shall be borne by the City. The agreement further provides that the
State will exert every effort to fund remedy or remedial action for which the State is responsible,
however, in the event the State is unable to provide funding, the City will have the option to
either delay further construction of the project until the State is able to provide funding or the
City may proceed with remedy or remedial action at the City's expense. While this paragraph
could result in a large cost for the City if such material is found and Caltrans can not obtain the
necessary funding, it is not anticipated that such material will be found since the area has been
Page 3, Item ~
Meeting Date 05/06/03
previously disturbed during the original construction of the freeway and/or the adjacent
developments.
Due to the large amount of work involved with the bridge deck widening, the fi-eeway auxiliary
lanes and ramp widening, the sound barriers and the roadway widening, the project will have
several construction trades working at the same time. Until the pre-construction meeting to be
held with the successful contractor, staff cannot anticipate which items of work will be done
first. The construction time frame is 18 months. Since it is anticipated that the project will be
advertised for construction in July 2003, construction of the first items of work is expected to
begin in late August or September 2003 and the entire project will be completed in early 2005.
FISCAL IMPACT:
This project is budgeted as part of the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) process, as STM-328.
It is anticipated that the approved project is to be funded from the following funding sources:
Federal Demonstration (DEMO) funds, a component of Federal TEA-21 legislation in the
amount of $5,132,000
Regional State Transportation Program (RSTP) funds in the amount of $8,446,000.
Federal retrofit soundwall funding from the Regional Improvement Program of the 1998 State
Transportation Improvement Program (STIP RIP) in the amount of $1,145,000.
Non-federal local agency (TransNet) funds in the amount of $3,422,000.
Local funds from Development Impact Fees (TDIF) in the amount of $3,685,575
Total Funds for the project are $21,830,575.
Attachments: Cooperative Agreement
File: 0735-10-STM328; 0140-30-LY072
J:\Engineer~AGENDA\I805~Oly Pkwy constr coop.doc
THE ATTACHED AGREEMENT HAS BEEN REVIEWED
AND APPROVED AS TO FORM BY THE CITY
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND WILL BE
FORMALLY SIGNED UPON APPROVAL BY
THE CITY COUNCIL
Ann Moore c~
City Attorney
Dated:
Cooperative Agreement with the State of California Department
of Transportation regarding construction contract administration
activities to be undertaken by the City of Chula Vista on the
Interstate 805/01ympic Parkway-Oragne Avenue Interchange
11-SD~805
KP 5.9/8.1 (PM 3.7/5.0)
EA 156583/234000
Agreement No. 11-0601
1-805/Orange Avenue
Construction
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, ENTERED 1NTO AND EFFECTiVE ON , is between
the STATE OF CALIFORNIA, acting by and through its Department of Transportation, referred to
herein as "STATE", and
CITY OF CHULA VISTA, a body politic and a
municipal corporation of the State of California,
referred to herein as "CITY",
RECITALS
STATE and CITY pursuant to Streets and Highways Code Sections 114 and 130, are
authorized to enter into a Cooperative Agreement for improvements to State highways
within City of Chula Vista.
CITY desires to construct STATE highway improvements 'consisting of a modification of
the Orange Avenue Interchange, traffic signals and sound barriers on Interstate 805 from
Main Streel/Auto Park Drive to East Palomar Street, referred to herein as "PROJECT" and
is responsible to identify and provide one hundred percent (100%) of funding for all capital
outlay and staffing costs, as set forth in this Agreement.
CITY desires to prepare contract documents, advertise, award and administer a construction
contract for PROJECT.
The project development, including but not limited to, Project ReporffEnvironmental
Document (PR/ED) and Plans, Specifications and Estimate (PS&E), were covered in
Cooperative Agreement No. 11-8232, executed by STATE and CITY on April 9, 2002,
STATE Document No. 015322 (CITY Resolution No. 2002-099).
The parties hereto intend to define herein terms and conditions under which PROJECT is
to be constructed, financed and maintained.
11-0601
SECTION I
CITY AGREES:
To provide all necessary engineering including plans, specifications and utility
identification, location, relocation plans, and "As-Built" plans for PROJECT and be
responsible to identify and provide one hundred percent (100 %) of expense thereof, subject
to approval by STATE.
To secure all required penrdts, including but not limited to Regional Water Quality Control
Board number 401, U.S. Corps of Engineers number 404, Department of Fish and Game
number 1601, and Coastal Zone, prior to issuing a Notice to Proceed to Contractor selected
to construct PROJECT.
To advertise, award and administer construction contract for PROJECT in accordance with
requirements of State Contract Act, Local Agency Public Construction Act and California
Labor Code, including its prevailing wage provisions. Workers employed in performance of
work contracted for by CITY, and/or performed under encroachment permit, are covered by
provisions of Labor Code in same manner as are workers employed by STATE's
Contractors. CITY shall obtain applicable wage rotes from State Department of Industrial
Relations and shall adhere to applicable provisions of State Labor Code. Violations shall be
reported to the State Department of Industrial Relations.
To award a contract for construction of PROJECT to the lowest responsible bidder. CITY
will not award a contract without written concurrence by STATE.
To advertise and award PROJECT in accordance with most current published Local
Assistance Procedures Manual and amendments thereof.
To forward, within 10 days of contract award to STATE, District 11 Local Assistance
Program Manager, all official contract information, including contract award amount,
contract award date and bid summary of successful bidder. Failure to comply will cause
delays in the STATE processing invoices for the construction phase. Please refer to Section
15.7- Awards Package of the Local Assistance Procedures Manual.
To comply with Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Program Guidelines in
advertising, awarding, and reporting DBE utilization for PROJECT in accordance with the
Annual DBE Program approved by STATE's District 11 Local Assistance Engineer.
To apply for a necessary, fee exempt, encroachment permit(s) for required work within
STATE highway right of way in accordance with STATE's standard permit procedures, as
more specifically defined in Articles (3), (4), (5) and (6) of Section III of this Agreement.
In recognition that PROJECT construction work done on STATE's property will not be
directly funded and paid by STATE, for the purpose of protecting stop notice claimants and
Page 2 of 14
11-0601
10.
I1.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
the interests of STATE relative to successful PROJECT completion, CITY agrees to require
the construction contractor fumish, both a payment and performance bond naming CITY as
obligee with both bonds complying with the requirements set forth in Section 3-1.02 of
STATE's current Standard Specifications prior to performing any PROJECT construction
work. CITY shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless STATE and all its officers and
employees from all claims by stop notice claimants related to the construction of PROJECT under
the payment bond.
Contract Administration procedures shall conform to requirements set forth in STATE's
Construction Manual, Local Assistance Procedures Manual and Encroachment Permit for
construction of PROJECT.
Construction within existing or ultimate STATE right of way shall comply with
requirements in STATE's Standard Specifications, Standard Plans, PROJECT Special
Provisions and Plans, and in conformance with methods and practices specified in STATE's
Construction Manual, and subject to approval of STATE Resident Engineer for oversight [in
accordance with Articles (2) and (3) of Section II].
CITY desires to use STATE staff to perform surveys as REIMBURSED WORK. Such
surveys performed shall conform to methods, procedures, and requirements of STATE's
Surveys Manual and STATE's Staking Information Booklet, and subject to approval of
STATE Resident Engineer for oversight. Final project surveys will include final right of
way monumentation in accordance with District 11 Survey Branch policy and procedures.
CITY desires to use STATE staff to perform material testing and quality Control as
REIMBURSED WORK. Such work shall conform to STATE's Construction Manual and
STATE's Materials Testing Manual and be performed, at PROJECT's expense. Independent
assurance testing, specialty testing and off-site source inspection and testing shall be
performed by STATE, at PROJECT's expense as REIMBURSED WORK. Selection of
asphalt and concrete plants shall be approved by STATE prior to issuance of Notice to
Proceed to contractor.
CITY is responsible to identify and provide one hundred percent (100%) of actual costs of
constmction required for satisfactory completion of PROJECT, including changes pursuant
to contract change orders, construction related claims, and arbitration rulings and any "State°
furnished material" required for project.
CITY shall perform a system operational check for deficiencies of all existing facilities
within the PROJECT work limits, at CITY's expense, as the first order of work in the
contract. The facilities to be checked include, but are not limited to, all electrical, drainage,
irrigation and landscape, and signage elements. If deficiencies are found, CITY shall not be
responsible for repairing or replacing a deficient facility unless that deficiency is to be
repaired or replaced as shown in the plans.
To furnish qualified support staff, subject to approval of STATE, including a full time
Resident Engineer, as necessary to assure that construction is being performed in accordance
Page 3 of 14
7
11-0601
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
with plans and specifications as approved by STATE. Said qualified support staff shall be
independent of design engineering company and construction contractor, except that
PROJECT designer may check shop drawings, and prepare construction change orders. The
Resident Engineer shall be a licensed Civil Engineer in the State of California and must be a
public employee in accordance with Chapter 16 of the Local Assistance Procedures Manual.
To include within construction contract documents a requirement by which contractor shall
provide STATE's and CITY's construction staff with field office facilities required to
properly complete inspection, testing and construction engineering of project. Equipment
shall include, but is not limited to desks, chairs, computers, fax machines, copy machines
and multi-line phones.
To make progress payments to contractor, using PROJECT funds as approved by STATE
Resident Engineer for oversight. CITY representative shall develop all contract progress
pay schedules. CITY is responsible for accuracy of itemization on progress pay schedules.
Upon completion of work under this Agreement, CITY will assume maintenance and the
expense thereof for any part of PROJECT located outside of STATE's right of way until
acceptance of any such part of PROJECT into STATE's highway system by STATE,
approval by Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), if required, provision of adequate
access for maintenance to existing and new STATE right of way and conveyance of
acceptable title to STATE.
To maintain, or cause to be maintained, PROJECT landscape within STATE's right of way
for 36 months from date of completion of construction, in accordance with landscape
maintenance provisions, to satisfaction of and subject to approval of STATE. CITY shall not
be responsible for landscape within the STATE's right of way, which was not within the
limits of the construction disturbance shown on the plans or included in an approved
contract change order. CITY shall maintain, or cause to be maintained, existing facilities
within the construction disturbance limits that service areas within the PROJECT limits but
which are outside of the construction disturbance limits.
To pay all PROJECT related landscape maintenance costs includ'mg water costs for 36
months from date of completion of construction, and to repair or cause to be repaired any
deficiency during that period that is within the PROJECT's disturbance limits or damaged
by the PROJECT's construction or landscape maintenance activities.
If CITY terminates PROJECT prior to completion of the construction contract for
PROJECT, STATE may require CITY to return to STATE all STATE funds previously
paid, or to return STATE's right of way to its original condition or to a condition of
acceptable permanent operation. If CITY fails to do so, STATE reserves the right to finish
PROJECT or place PROJECT in a condition of satisfactory permanent operation. STATE
will bill CITY for all actual expenses incurred and CITY agrees to pay said expenses within
thirty (30) days or STATE, acting through the State Controller, may withhold an equal
amount from future apportionment due CITY from the Highway User Tax Fund or any
other available funds.
Page 4 of 14
11-0601
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
To retain or cause to be retained for audit by STATE or other government auditors for a
period of three (3) years from date of final payment, all records and accounts relating to
construction of PROJECT.
To submit progress invoices for reimbursable project costs of construction and construction
support directly to the Office of Local Programs and Accounting or to the Consultant
Services/Functional Management Support Branch in the case of STIP-RIP noise ban'ier
construction invoices. Invoices for reimbursable project costs will be submitted no more
frequently than once a month.
CITY will be responsible for requesting a State allocation of STIP-RIP funds ($1,145,000)
for noise barrier construction. These funds must meet all timelines and requirements under
STIP Guidelines for use of STIP funds. All allocation requests and amendments must go
through STATE's District 11 Consultant Services/Functional Management Support Branch.
CITY will be responsible for ensuring that billings of CITY's contractors for this work are
segregated out from interchange modification work, and CITY will be reimbursed for
eligible capital expenditures up to allocated amount of STIP-RIP funds authorized by the
CTC for PROJECT.
CITY will be responsible for requesting State allocation of State-only STIP funds which will
be used to match Federal RSTP funds. All allocation requests must go through STATE's
District 11 Office of Local Assistance.
City will be responsible for requesting Federal-Aid Project Authorization/Agreement or
Amendment/Modification (E-76) of STIP-RIP funds for noise barrier construction up to
programmed amounts in SANDAG's RTIP/FTIP. CITY shall also submit a finance letter
showing the breakdown in funding for estimated construction capital and support
expenditures (as per Chapter 3 of the Local Assistance Procedures Manual) with the E-76.
Federal Authorization to Proceed must be obtained by STATE's District 11 Consultant
Services/Functional Management Support Branch prior to project being advertised by
CITY. All requirements identified in the most current published Local Assistance
Procedures Manual and amendments thereof apply to use of these funds. CITY shall seek
reimbursement on their reimbursable project costs by submitting progress invoices in
triplicate to:
Consultant Services/Functional Management Support Branch
2829 Juan St., Mail Station 92
San Diego, CA 92110
CITY will also be responsible for completing a final project cost analysis of expenditures as
part of their final invoice submittal to STATE's District 11 Local Assistance Engineer once
project is completed. CITY will be reimbursed for eligible capital expenditures up to that
authorized amount minus required non-Federal match funds payable by CITY.
Page 5 of 14
11-0601
29.
CITY will be responsible for requesting Federal-Aid Project Authorization/Agreement or
Amendment/Modification (E-76) of RSTP and HP-21 (DEMO) funds up to programmed
amounts in SANDAG's RTIP/FTIP. CITY shall also submit a finance letter showing the
breakdown in funding for estimated c0nstmction capital and support expenditures (as per
Chapter 3 of the Local Assistance Procedures Manual) with the E-76. Federal Authorization
to Proceed must be obtained by STATE's District 11 Office of Local Assistance prior to
project being advertised by CITY. All requirements identified in the most current published
Local Assistance Procedures Manual and amendments thereof apply to use of these funds.
CITY shall seek reimbursement on their reimbursable project costs by submitting progress
invoices to:
Office of Local Programs Accounfmg Branch
PO Box 942874, Mail Station 33
Sacramento, CA 94274-0001
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
CITY agrees that the reimbursement of Federal funds will be limited to amounts approved
by FHWA in the E-76 authorization, and CITY accepts any resultant increases in CITY
funds as shown in Local Assistance Finance Letter, and any modification thereof as
approved by STATE's Division of Local Assistance, Office of Project Implementation.
To have an audit in accordance with Single Audit Act OMB A-133 if CITY receives a total
of $300,000 or more in Federal funds in a single fiscal year.
To obtain local sales tax funds as necessary for construction of PROJECT.
To deposit with STATE, within twenty-five (25) days of receipt of billing thereof, the
amount of $173,432, which figure represents 2 months of CITY's estimated share of
expense of REIMBURSED WORK costs for PROJECT, as shown on Exhibit B. CITY's
total obligation for said anticipated PROJECT REIMBURSED WORK costs shall not
exceed amount of $2,008,677 (July 2002 dollars), provided that CITY may, at its sole
discretion, in writing, authorize a greater amount.
To deposit with STATE not later than ten (10) working days preceding beginning of each
month, estimated REIMBURSED WORK cost expenditures for that month, and to continue
making such advance deposit on a monthly basis until completion of PROJECT
construction.
To warranty for a period of 3 years after completion of construction, all new signs furnished
by CITY's contractor for the PROJECT.
To submit all construction change orders within STATE's fight of way to STATE for prior
approval, except for change orders necessary for safety of traveling public or immediate
protection of property.
Page 6 of 14
11-0601
37. CITY contact:
Martin Phillips, Civil Engineer
Engineering Department
1800 Maxwell Road
Chula Vista, CA 91911
619-397-6090
SECTION II
STATE
1.
AGREES:
Upon proper application by CITY and by CITY's contractor, to issue at no cost to CITY and
CITY's contractor, necessary encroachment permits for required work within State highway
right of way, as more specifically defined in Articles (3), (4), (5) and (6) of Section III of
this Agreement.
To provide, at no cost to CITY, a qualified STATE Resident Engineer for oversight.
To provide, at CITY's cost, REIMBURSED WORK staff [to a maximum of eleven (11)
persons/year] and other resources necessary to accomplish construction of PROJECT,
including but not limited to, construction surveys, soils and foundation tests, measurement
and computation of quantities, testing of construction materials, review of shop drawings,
preparation of estimates and reports, review of as-built drawings prepared by CITY, and
other construction inspection and staff services as necessary to assure that construction is
being performed in accordance with plans and specifications, which services shall be
referred to herein as "REIMBURSED WORK". REIMBURSED WORK staff shall have
authority to accept or reject construction work and materials or to order any acfions needed
for public safety or preservation of property and to assure compliance with project plans,
special provisions, and all provisions of encroachment permit(s) issued to CITY and CITY's
contractor for work done within STATE's right of way.
STATE's Office of Local Programs Accounting will review invoices and approve
requests for funding reimbursement for RSTP, State-Only STIP, and HP-21 funds,
prepared by CITY, within ten (10) working days, from date of receipt of submittal for
costs incurred for construction of PROJECT.
STATE's District 11 Office of Consultant Services/Functional Management Support
Branch will review invoices and approve requests for funding reimbursement for STIP-
RIP funds, prepared by CITY, within fifteen (15) working days, from date of receipt of
submittal, for costs incurred for construction of noise barriers for PROJECT.
Page 7 of 14
11-0601
10.
11.
Current budget estimate and funding for PROJECT construction provided by CITY and
STATE is illustrated on Exhibit A, attached and made part of this Agreement.
To not exceed PROJECT budget for REIMBURSED WORK, as est'mated in Exhibit B,
without prior written authorization fi.om CITY. Current budget estimate for PROJECT
REIMBURSED WORK is $2,008,677 (July 2002 dollars).
To submit an initial billing in amount of $173,432 to CITY immediately following
execution of this Agreement. Said initial billing represents CITY's share for 2 months of
estimated cost of REIMBURSED WORK for PROJECT.
Thereafter to prepare and submit monthly billing statements to CITY for estimated
expenditures for REIMBURSED WORK for PROJECT one month in advance.
To furnish CITY with a final detailed statement of REIMBURSED WORK costs to be
borne by PROJECT upon completion and approval of construction of PROJECT.
To provide at CITY's expet~se, any "State-furnished material" as shown on the PS&E plans for
PROJECT and as provided in the Special Provisions for PROJECT.
12. STATE Contact:
Charles W. Davis
Project Manager for Oversight
2829 Juan Street
San Diego, CA 92110
619-688-3156
SECTION III
IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED:
All obligations of STATE under terms of this Agreement are subject to appropriation of
resources by Legislature and allocation of resources by California Transportation
Commission.
Should a portion of PROJECT be financed with Federal funds or State gas tax funds, all
applicable laws, regulations and policies relating to use of such funds shall apply
notwithstanding other provisions of this Agreement.
Construction of improvements referred to herein which lie within STATE's highway right
of way or affect STATE's facilities shall not be commenced until CITY's original contract
plans involving such work and plans for utility relocations have been reviewed and
approved by STATE's District 11 Director of Transportation, or District 11 Director's
Page 8 of 14
11-0601
delegated agent, and until an encroachment permit to CITY authotizing such work has been
issued by STATE. Receipt by CITY of STATE's encroachment permit shall constitute
STATE's acceptance of said plans. CITY shall not issue a Notice to Proceed to contractor
for PROJECT until after encroachment permit has been issued by STATE.
CITY shall obtain aforesaid encroachment permit through office of STATE's District 11
Permit Engineer and CITY's permit application shall be accompanied by two (2) full size
construction plan sets (includine specifications) and twenty-five (25) sets of reduced
construction olans (1 lxl 7) (including specifications) of aforesaid STATE accepted contract
plans. Receipt by CITY of approved encroachment permit shall constitute CITY's
authorization from STATE to proceed with work to be performed by CITY or CITY's
representatives within proposed State right of way or which affects STATE's facilities,
pursuant to work covered by this Agreement. CITY's authorization to proceed with said
work shall be contingent upon CITY's compliance with all provisions set forth in this
Agreement and said encroachment permit.
CITY's construction contractor shall obtain a separate encroachment permit from STATE
prior to commencing any work within STATE's rights of way or which affects STATE's
facilities. The CITY's Contractor's permit application shall include proof said contractor
has acceptable and valid payment and performance surety bonds covering PROJECT
construction.
CITY shall provide a fight of way certification prior to granting of said encroachment permit
by STATE, to certify that legal and physical control of tights of way were acquired in
accordance with applicable State and Federal laws and regulations. If previously
unidentified fights of way are required during construction of PROJECT, CITY shall
provide legal and physical control of right of way, and identify all funding required to
acquire such tights of way. CITY shall provide completed resource agency permits related
to PROJECT, including for all mitigation requirements of PROJECT prior to issuance of
Notice to Proceed to contractor.
If any existing public and/or private utility facilities conflict with construction of PROJECT
or violate STATE's encroachment policy, CITY shall make all necessary arrangements with
owners of such facilities for their protection, relocation, or removal in accordance with
STATE's policy and procedure for those facilities located within limits of work providing
for improvement to State highway and in accordance with CITY's policy for those facilities
located outside of limits of work for improvement to State highway. Cost of protection,
relocation, or removal, within STATE right of way, shall be apportioned between owner of
utility facility and CITY in accordance with STATE's policy and procedure. CITY shall
require any utility owner performing relocation work in STATE highway tight of way to
obtain an encroachment permit from STATE prior to performance of said relocation work.
Requirements of most current version of STATE's "Policy on High and Low Risk
Underground Facilities Within Highway Rights of Way" shall be fully complied with. Any
relocated or new facilities shall be correctly shown and identified on final "As-Built" plans.
Page 9 of 14
11-0601
10.
11.
12.
Any hazardous material or contamination of an HM-1 category found within existing State
highway right of way during construction requiting remedy or remedial action, as defined in
Division 20, Chapter 6.8 et seq. of Health and Safety Code, shall be responsibility of
STATE. Any hazardous material or contamination of an HM-1 category found within local
road right of way during construction requiring same defined remedy or remedial action
shall be responsibility of CITY. For the purpose of the Agreement, hazardous material of HM-1
category is defined as that level or type of contamination which State or Federal regulatory control
agencies having jurisdiction have determined must be remedlated by reason of its mere discovery
regardless of whether it is disturbed by PROJECT or not. STATE shall sign the HM-1 manifest
and pay all costs for remedy or remedial action within the existing State highway right of way,
except that if STATE determines, in its sole judgment, that STATE's cost for remedy or remedial
action is increased as a result of proceeding with construction of PROJECT, that additional cost
identified by STATE shall be Ix)me by CITY. CITY shall sign HM-1 manifest and pay all
costs for required remedy or remedial action outside of STATE right of way. STATE will
exert every effort to fund remedy or remedial action for which STATE is responsible. In
event STATE is unable to provide funding, CITY will have option to either delay further
construction of PROJECT until STATE is able to provide funding or CITY may proceed
with remedy or remedial action at CITY's expense without any subsequent reimbursement by
STATE.
Remedy or remedial action with respect to any hazardous material or contamination of an
HM-2 category found within and outside existing STATE highway right of way during
construction shall be responsibility of CITY, at CITY's expense, as a result of proceeding
with construction of PROJECT. For purposes of this Agreement any hazardous material or
contamination of HM-2 category is defined us that level or type of contamination which said
regulatory control agencies would have allowed to remain in place if undisturbed or
otherwise protected in place had the PROJECT not proceeded. CITY shall sign any HM-2
manifest if construction of PROJECT proceeds and HM-2 material must be removed in lieu
of being treated in place.
If hazardous material or contamination of either HM-1 or HM-2 category is found during
construction on new right of way acquired by or on account of CITY for PROJECT, CITY
shall be responsible, at CITY's expense, for all required remedy or remedial action and/or
protection in absence of a generator or prior property owner willing and prepared to perform
that corrective work.
Locations subject to remedy or remedial action and/or protection include utility relocation
work required for PROJECT. Costs for remedy and remedial action and/or protection shall
include but not be limited to, identification, treatment, protection, removal, packaging,
transportation, storage, and disposal of such material.
The Party responsible for funding any hazardous material cleanup shall be responsible for
development of necessary remedy and/or remedial action plans and designs. Remedial
actions proposed by CITY on State highway right of way shall be pre-approved by STATE
and shall be performed in accordance with STATE's standards and practices and those
standards mandated by Federal and STATE regulatory agencies.
Page 10 of 14
11-0601
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
CITY will not authorize any work within the STATE fight of way not included in contract
documents approved by STATE or required to complete PROJECT without the written
approval of STATE. Any work not approved in writing and not considered as emergency
work as determined by CITY and STATE, shall be sole responsibility of CITY.
If a previously unidentified sensitive area(s) is identified during construction of PROJECT,
work shall be stopped in that area until a qualified archaeologist, biologist, or other
appropriate staff can evaluate nature and significance of find and recommend mitigation
strategies for the area(s). The CITY and STATE, in consultation, shall agree on the
mitigation strategy to be followed and responsibility for costs for the selected mitigation
strategy, if any.
CITY construction contractor shall maintain in force, until completion and acceptance of
PROJECT construction contract, a policy of Contractual Liability Insurance, including
coverage of Bodily Injury Liability and Property Damage Liability in accordance with
Section 7-1.12 of State Standard Specifications. Such policy shall contain an additional
insured endorsement naming STATE, its officers, agents and employees as additional
insured. A Certificate of Insurance shall evidence coverage in a form satisfactory to
STATE, which shall be delivered to STATE before issuance of an encroachment permit to
CITY's contractor.
Prior to award of construction contract for PROJECT, CITY may terminate this Agreement
by written notice. Should CITY terminate Agreement, CITY will bear all costs and
reimburse applicable costs to STATE for any expenses due directly to termination of
contract.
In construction of said PROJECT, representatives of CITY and STATE will cooperate and
consult with each other, but decisions of STATE's Resident Engineer for oversight shall
prevail as final, binding and conclusive in all matters concerning PROJECT construction
contracts within STATE fight of way. Decisions of CITY's Resident Engineer shall prevail
as final, binding and conclusive in all matters conceming PROJECT construction contracts
within CITY fight of way, except where such matters affect safety of the travelling public or
immediate protection of property. All work pursuant to PROJECT shall be accomplished
according to approved plans, specifications and applicable STATE standards. Satisfaction of
these requirements shall be verified by STATE Resident Engineer for oversight. STATE
Resident Engineer for oversight and other STATE staff are authofized to enter CITY
property during construction at no cost to STATE, for purpose of monitoring and
coordinating construction activities. Representatives of STATE shall coordinate all visits
with CITY's Resident Engineer.
Changes to PROJECT plans and specifications shall be implemented by contract change
orders by CITY's Resident Engineer and according to Section I, Article 36, of this
Agreement. All changes affecting public safety or public convenience, all design and
specification changes and all major changes as defined in STATE's Construction Manual
shall be approved by STATE in advance of performing work. Unless otherwise directed by
Page 11 of 14
11-0601
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
STATE Resident Engineer for oversight, changes authorized as provided herein will not
require an encroachment permit rider. All changes shall be shown on As-Built plans
referred to in Section I, Article (1), of this Agreement.
For any construction claims, STATE's construction claims process will be used with CITY
acting as lead agency in consultation with STATE. CITY agrees to abide by outcome of
said process. In event that arbitration, under provisions of Public Contract Code Section
10240, results from contract claims process, CITY will act as lead agency in arbitration
unless otherwise agreed by STATE and CITY.
Pursuant to authority contained in Section 591 of Vehicle Code, STATE has determined that
within such areas as are within limits of PROJECT and are open to public traffic, CITY
shall comply with all of requirements set forth in Divisions 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 of Vehicle
Code. CITY shall take all necessary precautions for safe operation of CITY's vehicles,
construction contractor's equipment and vehicles and/or vehicles of personnel retained by
CITY and for protection of traveling public from injury and damage from such vehicles or
equipment.
Upon completion and acceptance of PROJECT construction contract by CITY, to
satisfaction of STATE representative and subsequent to execution of a maintenance
agreement, STATE will accept control and maintain, at its own cost and expense, those
portions of PROJECT lying within STATE's right of way. STATE will maintain at STATE
expense, entire structure below deck surface of any CITY local road overcmssings.
CITY will accept control and maintain, at its own cost and expense, portions of PROJECT
lying outside STATE's right of way, including but not limited to any mitigation lands, other
agreed areas, and local roads delegated to CITY for maintenance. Also, CITY will
maintain, at CITY expense, local roads within STATE's right of way delegated to CITY for
maintenance and remaining portions of any local road ovemrossing structures, including
deck surface of any structures, as well as all traffic service facilities that may be required for
benefit or control of CITY local road traffic including landscaped medians and parkways.
Prior to completion of construction CITY and STATE agree to execute a maintenance
agreement or agreements for 1-805, traffic control systems, safety lighting, and energy costs.
STATE and CITY agree to pay proportionate share of said maintenance costs, including
energy costs.
Upon completion of all work under this Agreement, ownership and title to materials,
equipment and appurtenances installed within STATE's right of way will automatically be
vested in STATE, and materials, equipment and appurtenances installed outside of
STATE's right of way will automatically be vested in CITY. No further agreement will be
necessary to transfer ownership as herein above stated.
Cost of any engineering or maintenance referred to herein in this Agreement shall include all
direct and indirect costs (functional and administrative overhead assessment) attributable to
such work, applied in accordance with STATE's standard accounting procedures.
Page 12 of 14
11-0601
26.
27.
28.
29.
Nothing in the provisions of this Agreement is intended to create duties or obligations to or
rights in third parties not parties to this Agreement or affect legal liability of any party to
Agreement by imposing any standard of care with respect to construction, operation, or
maintenance of STATE highways different from standard of care imposed by law.
Neither STATE nor any officer or employee thereof is responsible for any damage or
liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by CITY under or in
connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to CITY under this
Agreement. It is understood and agreed that, pursuant to Government Code Section 895.4,
CITY shall fully defend, indemnify and save harmless STATE of California, all officers and
employees from all claims, suits or actions of every name, kind and description brought for
or on account of injury (as defined in Government Code Section 810.8) occurring by reason
of anything done or omitted to be done by CITY under or in coimection with any work,
authority or jurisdiction delegated to CITY under this Agreement.
Neither CITY nor any officer or employee thereof is responsible for any damage or liability
occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by STATE under or in
connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to STATE under this
Agreement. It is understood and agreed that, pursuant to Govemment Codes Section 895.4,
STATE shall fully defend, indemnify and save harmless CITY from all claims, suits or
actions of every name, kind and description brought for or on account of injury (as defined
in Government Code Section 810.8) occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be
done by STATE under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to
STATE under this Agreement.
No alteration or variation of terms of this Agreement shall be valid unless made in writing
and signed by parties hereto and no oral understanding or agreement not incorporated herein
shall be binding on any of parties hereto.
Page 13 of 14
11-0601
30.
Portions of this Agreement pertaining to constxuction of PROJECT shah terminate upon
completion and acceptance of construction contract(s) for PROJECT by CITY with
concurrence of STATE, or on December 31, 2009 whichever is earlier in time. However,
ownership, operation, maintenance, indemnification, and claims clauses shall remain in
effect until terminated or modified, in writing, by mutual agreement. Should a construction-
related claim arising out of PROJECT be asserted against CITY, STATE agrees to extend
the termination date of this Agreement or execute a subsequent Agreement to cover those
eventualities.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Department of Transportation
JEFF MORALES
Director of Transportation
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
By: By:
Deputy District Director-Construction Mayor
Certified as to funds:
By:
District 11 Budget Manager BK
By:
City Attorney
Approved as to form and procedure:
By:
Attorney
Department of Transportation
Certified as to financial terms and conditions:
By:
ACCOUNTING ADMINISTRATOR
Page 14 of 14
q-lg
RESOLUTION NO.2003-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING A COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
WITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION REGARDING CONSTRUCTION
CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION ACTIVITIES TO BE
UNDERTAKEN BY THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ON THE I-
805/OLYMPIC PARKWAY-ORANGE AVENUE INTERCHANGE
AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAD
AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista desires to construct a State highway
improvements consisting of the modification of the Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway Intemhange at
Interstate 805 and is responsible to provide one hundred percent of the funding for this project; and
WHEREAS, in order to permit the City to perform these contract functions, the State
of California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS) requires the City to enter into a
cooperative agreement which sets out each agency's responsibilities for the construction process.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Chula Vista
does hereby approve a Cooperative Agreement with the State of California Department of
Transportation regarding construction administration activities to be undertaken by the City of Chula
Vista on the 1-805/Olympic Parkway - Orange Avenue interchange and, a copy of which shall be
kept on file in the office of the City Clerk.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of the City of Chula Vista is hereby
authorized to execute said Agreement on behalf of the City of Chula Vista.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
Cliff Swanson
Director of Engineering
Ann MiSore t.,
City Attorney
J::¼TrORNEY\RESO\Cooperative Agreement 1-805
qdq
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item I 0
Meeting Date 5/6/03
ITEM TITLE:
Resolution Approving an amendment to the agreement
with the firm of McGill Martin Self, Inc to assign the agreement to the firm
of liB Consulting Group to provide project management services for various
traffic roadway and Interstate-805 (I-805) freeway interchange improvements
projects and authorizing the Mayor to execute said agreement.
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Engineeringfi?,~/
XJ
On July 24, 2001, by Resolution No. 2001-241, the City Council approved an agreement with
McGill Martin Self, Inc. (MMS) to provide project management services for various roadway and
Interstate-805 freeway interchange improvements as part of the Eastern Chula Vista Traffic Capacity
Enhancements program. The Project Manager for this work and a principal with MMS, Mr. Har~y
Bun'owes, has changed firms. The amendment before Council tonight will assign the contract to the
new firm, HB Consulting Group.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt the resolution approving the first amendment to the
agreement.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
A program to provide traffic congestion relief was initiated in mid-2001 to identify various traffic
congestion relieving improvements that could be implemented in the near to mid-term prior to the
construction of SR 125. The objective of this program is to reduce vehicular delay, meeting the
City's traffic threshold standard while accommodating needed economic growth and development.
In sum, making sure that infrastructure and growth are in balance and the community's quality of life
standards are sustained.
The City of Chula Vista entered into contracts with several consulting firms, including McGill
Martin Self, Inc., to provide essential services to this effort on July 24, 2001. In addition, on the
same date, the City entered into agreements with the master builder/developers to fund this effort.
The traffic capacity enhancements identified as candidates for inclusion in the program included:
East H Street north side improvements to widen East H Street immediately east of the 1-
805 on-ramp,
Telegraph Canyon Road improvements to add an additional westbound to northbound
turn lane onto 1-805,
/0-1
Page 2, Item t~
Meeting Date 5/6/03
Accelerate the construction of the 1-805/East Palomar Street half-diamond interchange,
Accelerate the construction of Heritage Road (Paseo Ranchero) between Olympic
Parkway and Main Street,
Accelerate the design and construction of Mt. Miguel Road west of SR-125, and
Interim SR-125 alternatives and coordination
To date, several of these projects (East H Street & Telegraph Canyon Road) have proceeded and are
in construction and/or final design phase. The East Palomar Street/I-805 interchange improvement
has been postponed indefinitely due to both budgetary as well as physical constraints. The priority of
one of the projects (Heritage Road) has been lowered after analysis of the cost/benefit ratio and
additional planning issues to resolve with Otay Ranch Village Two. Several other projects are
currently proceeding in various stages of analyses (Mt. Miguel Road & Interim SR-125). The traffic
study for phasing Mount Miguel Road is currently underway and the Interim SR-125 facility is on
hold pending the toll road.
McGill Martin Self, Inc. (MMS), with Mr. Burrowes as project manager, has been successfully
providing project management services on these projects since the commencement of this program.
The contract amendment before the City Council tonight will assign the contract with MMS to the
finn of liB Consulting Group, providing continuity of project management services. Mr. Burrowes
is willing and able to continue his services under HB Consulting Group. The City wishes to retain a
critical member of the project team, and MMS has agreed to the assignment of the contract.
The intent of the assignment of the contract from MMS to HB Consulting is to have HB Consulting
complete the obligations under the current contract. As of the date of the proposed assignment of the
contract (May 6, 2003), a total amount of $540,000 less the MMS invoiced amount through May 6,
2003, will be remaining in the contact.
The contract contains provisions such that, at the direction of the City, the consultant can be directed
to perform additional services as determined by the City on other TDIF and other traffic capacity
enhancement projects. The work related to the I-805/Olympic Parkway interchange falls withinthis
criteria.
Future additional work requested by the City as well as any future expansion of the scope may
require future amendments to the contract to appropriate additional funds. The contract will be for
the same rate of $150/hour as the existing contract with MMS.
FISCAL IMPACT: None. The development community will continue to fund the project
management effort for the projects with the exception of Interim SR 125 (funded from the Interim
SR 125 Development Fee Impact fund).
Attachment: Resolution 2001-241
J:\engineer~aGEN DA\HB Consulting, 5-6-03 .doc
4/30/03 5:04:43 PM
McGILL MARTIN SELF, INC.
Community Planning Design Entitlcmcnts I~frastructurc Finance
344 F Street, Suite 100 ChuIa Vista, CA 91910
Tel: 619.425.1343 Fax: 619.4.~.1o~/ www. mms-inc.net
Mapping
May 1, 2003
Mr. Cliff Swanson
Director of Engineering
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Re:
Eastern Chula Vista Traffic Enhancement Projects
Assignment of MMS Contract
Dear Mr. Swanson:
This letter is to document that upon approval of the City Council, McGill Martin Self,
Inc. (MMS) consents to and assigns the contract for 'Project Management Services for
Eastern Chula Vista Traffic Capacity Enhancements' to Harry Burrowes and his new
firm, HB Consulting Group. Upon approval of the contract assignment by the City
Council, scheduled for May 6, 2003, it is understood by MMS and the City that the
agreement with MMS is terminated. A "final" invoice will be issued for May for
activities thru May 6th.
We look forward to working with you and all the team on further ongoing irrffastructure
activities.
Sincerely,
McG_JLImMARTIN SE.L'I~, ~I~
Michael RdglcG'Ill, P.E.
President
cc: Dave Rowlands
Michacl R. McGi/I, ?£ Karen $. Martin,
Mm ta O. Sc~[,
Grog B. Mattson, AICP
il !
RESOLUTION NO. 2001-241
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA WAIVING THE CONSULTANT SELECTION
POLICY AND APPROVING A TWO-PARTY AGREEMENT
SUBSTANTIALLY IN THE FORM ATTACHED BETWEEN
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND MCGILL MARTIN &
SELF, liNC., FOR PROJECT MANAGEMENT SERVICES FOR
VARIOUS TRAFFIC ROADWAY AND INTERSTATE-805
(1-805) FREEWAY INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS, AND
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO MAKE MINOR
AMENDMENTS TO SAID AGREEMENT, AND
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE
FINAL SAID AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, in order to reduce traffic congestion and to meet the City's traffic threshold
standard while accommodating needed economic growth and development, a comprehensive
traffic capacity enhancement program will be implemented; and
WHEREAS, Project Management services for four of the six traffic capacity
enhancement projects will be conducted by the firm of McGill Martin and Self, Inc. (MMS) who
submitted a project management scope of work proposal for $30,000 a month for 12 months at a
cost of $360,000; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager will be authorized to extend this contract for a period not
to exceed six additional months at a cost of $180,000 for a total contract cost of $540,000; and
WHEREAS, MMS is familiar with engineering and environmental issues affecting the
City of Chula Vista, particularly in the eastern territories, and has worked on the Olympic
Parkway and Salt Creek Sewer projects; and
WHEREAS, it is recommended that the consultant selection process of Municipal Code
Section 2.56.070 be waived as impractical and potentially detrimental to the project's timeline in
that MMS has performed well when previously used by the City, has extensive experience with
projects in the Otay Ranch area and other large City projects, is familiar with issues relative to
the City of Chula Vista, has demonstrated knowledge of issues facing the City, is familiar with
the City's review process, and is available to conduct these specialized traffic studies on an
expedited schedule.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula
Vista does hereby waive the Consultant Selection Policy and approve a two-party agreement
substantially in the form attached between the City of Chula Vista and McGill Martin & Self,
Inc. for project management services for various traffic roadway and 1-805 freeway interchange
improvements, a copy of which shall be kept on file in the Office of the City Clerk.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is hereby authorized to make
minor amendments (with the approval of the City Attorney) to said agreement and is authorized
to execute the final agreement on behalf of the City of Chula Vista.
Resolution 2001-241
Page 2
Presented by
rks Director
Approved as to form by
eny
ey
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista,
California, this 24th day of July, 2001, by the following vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Councilmembers:
Councilmembers:
Councilmembers:
Davis, Rindone, Salas and Horton
None
Padilla
ATTEST:
Susan Bigelow, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO )
CITY OF CHULA VISTA )
Shirley Horto~/Vlayor
I, Susan Bigelow, City Clerk of Chula Vista, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing
Resolution No. 2001-241 was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council at a
regular meeting of the Chula Vista City Council held on the 24th day of July, 2001.
Executed this 24th day of July, 2001.
Susan Bigelow, City Clerk
THE ATTACHED AGREEMENT HAS BEEN REVIEWED
AND APPROVED AS TO FORM BY THE CITY
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND WILL BE
FORMALLY SIGNED UPON APPROVAL BY
THE CITY COUNCIL
Ann Moore
City Attorney
Dated:
Parties and Recital Page(s) Agreement between
City of Chula Vista and HB Consulting Group for
Project Management Services for Eastern Chula Vista
Traffic Capacity Enhancements
FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND MCGILL MARTIN SELF, INC.
For Project Management Services for Various Traffic Roadway
And Interstate 1-805 Freeway Interchange Improvements
Dated
and approved by Resolution No.
This first amendment entered by and between the City of Chula Vista ("City"), a
municipal corporation, and HB Consulting Group, is made with reference to the
following facts:
RECITALS
WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista, by resolution 2001-241on July 24, 2001, approved
an agreement with McGill Martin Self, Inc for Project Management services for various
traffic roadway improvements to take place over the term of the agreement
("Agreement"); and,
WHEREAS, Consultant, Harry Burrowes, formerly of McGill Martin Self, Inc., is now a
principal with the firm of HB Consulting Group; and,
WHEREAS, the City is desirous of continuing to receive the project management
services provided by Harry Burrowes, a principal with HB Consulting GroUp; and,
WHEREAS, McGill Martin Self, Inc. consents to amending the Agreement as shown as
Exhibit "A" attached and incorporated herein, to assign all rights and obligations of the
Agreement to HB Consulting Group in place of McGill Martin Self, Inc.; and,
WHEREAS, HB Consulting Group is willing and able to provide the continuity of project
management services to the City under the terms of the Agreement and will assume all
project management duties, obligations and liabilities.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual benefit to be derived therefrom,
City and HB Consulting Group do hereby mutually agree to the following amendments to
the Agreement:
Wherever the firm name "McGill Martin Self, Inc." appears it shall hereby be
changed to read "HB Consulting Group".
Exhibit 'A', Paragraph 8.A.Scope of Work shall be amended to add the following
bullet point:
Provide project management services for other TDI~ facilities
(i.e., Olympic Parkway/I-805 interchange improvements, etc.) as
deemed necessary and as directed by the City Manager.
H:\ENGINEER~AMENDMENT-HB Consulting, 5-6-03.doc
1
/O- 7
5/1/03 2:20:35 PM
3. Exhibit 'A', Paragraph 8.D. Rate Schedule, shall be amended to remove the
names of 'Mike McGill' and 'Christopher Teng' as Sr. Principal and Project
Manager I respectively.
4. Exhibit 'A', Paragraph 8.B., shall be amended to change "February 1, 2003" to
"May 4, 2004"
5. Except as expressly provided herein all other provisions of the Agreement shall
remain in full fome and effect.
6. This Amendment shall be effective as of the date of City Council approval.
7. Exhibit "A", Paragraph 11 (C)(1) to read as follows:
Not-to-Exceed Limitation on Time and Materials Arrangement
Notwithstanding the expenditure by Consultant of time and materials in
excess of said Maximum Compensation amount, Consultant agrees that
Consultant will perform all of the Defined Services herein required of Consultant
for $540,000.00 less the MMS invoiced amount through May 6, 2003 including
all Materials, and other "reimbursables" ("Maximum Compensation").
[Next Page is Signature Page]
H:\ENGINEER~AMENDMENT-HB Consulting, 5-6-03.doc
2
/0 -2
5/1/03 2:20:35 PM
SIGNATURE PAGE
TO FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN
CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND MCGILL MARTIN SELF, INC.
For Project Management Services for Various Traffic Roadway
And Interstate 1-805 Freeway Interchange Improvements
Dated
and approved by Resolution No.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City and Consultant have executed this First Amendment to
the Agreement thereby indicating that they have read and understood the same and
indicate their full and complete consent to its terms:
Dated
,2003
City ofChula Vista
By:
Stephen Padilla, Mayor
Attest:
Susan Bigelow, City Clerk
Approved as to form:
Ann Moore, City Attorney
Dated:
By:
Assignment Consented to by:
MCG TIN SELF C.
By:
3
H:\ENG[NEER\AMENDMENT-HB Consulting, 5-6-03.doc
4/30/03 3042:20 PM
10-9
, ,
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF CHULA VISTA
APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT WITH THE
FIRM OF MCGILL MARTIN SELF, INC TO ASSIGN THE
AGREEMENT TO THE FIRM OF HB CONSULTING GROUP TO
PROVIDE PROJECT MANAGEMENT SERVICES FOR VARIOUS
TRAFFIC ROADWAY AND INTERSTATE-80S (I-80S) FREEWAY
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECTS AND AUTHORIZING
THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT.
WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista, by resolution 200l-2410n July 24,2001, approved
an agreement with McGill Martin Self, Inc (MMS) for Project Management services for
various traffic roadway and interstate I-80S freeway interchange improvements
("Agreement"); and,
WHEREAS, Consultant, Harry Burrowes, formerly of McGill Martin Self, Inc., is now a
principal with the firm ofHB Consulting Group; and,
WHEREAS, the City is desirous of continuing to receive the project management
services provided by Consultant, Harry Burrowes, and his present firm pursuant to the
Agreement; and,
WHEREAS, MMS has agreed to assign this contract to HB Consulting Group who will
assume all project management duties, obligations and liability related to this contract;
and,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Chula Vista
does hereby approve an amendment to the Agreement with the firm of McGill Martin
Self, Inc. to assign the Agreement to HB Consulting Group to provide project
management services for various traffic roadway and other capacity enhancement
projects, such as Interstate-80S (I-80S) freeway interchange as determined by the City
Manager, a copy of one Agreement and one Amendment which shall be kept on file in
the Office of the City Clerk.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of the City of Chula Vista is hereby
authorized to execute said Amendment on behalf of the City of Chula Vista.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
~~
Ann Moore
City Attorney
Clifford Swanson
Director of Engineering
J:\Attomey\Reso\Amendments\HB Consulting, 5-6-03.doc
4/30/03 5:25:55 PM
I
/0 -/0
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item ]1
Meeting Date 5/6/03
ITEM TITLE:
Public Hearing regarding the change and modification of
Community Facilities District No. 08M, Improvement Area No. 1
Resolution of the City Council of the City of
Chula Vista, Califomia, making certain determinations and
authorizing submittal of the proposed changes to the Rate and
Method of Apportionment of special taxes authorized to be levied
within Improvement Area No. 1 of Community Facilities District
No. 08M (Village 6, McMillin Otay Ranch and Otay Ranch
Company) to the qualified electors thereof.
SUBMITTED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
Director of Public Work~
City Manager/~d~/0-1~
(4/5ths Vote: Yes No X)
On March 25, 2003 the City Council initiated the change and modification proceedings
by the adoption of Resolution 2003-108. Tonight's action is the next step in the formal
proceedings to change and modify the special tax rates in CFD 08M. The special taxes
levied in the CFD fund perpetual operation and maintenance of slopes, medians and
parkways and storm water treatment facilities associated with Village 6. The City has
retained the services of MuniFinancial as special tax consultant and Best Best and
Krieger LLP as legal counsel to provide assistance during the proceedings.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council:
1. Open Public Hearing and receive testimony fi.om the public,
2. Approve the resolution making certain determinations and authorizing submittal
of the proposed changes to the Rate and Method of Apportionment of special
taxes authorized to be levied within Improvement Area No. 1 of Community
Facilities District No. 08M (Village 6, McMillin Otay Ranch and Otay Ranch
Company) to the qualified electors thereof.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
Page 2, Item I [
Meeting Date 5/6/03
DISCUSSION:
In 2002, Council formed Community Facilities District No. 08M (Village 6). CFD 0SM
is divided into two Improvement Areas, Improvement Area No. 1 (McMillin) and
Improvement Area No. 2 (Otay Ranch Company). Changes to the special tax rates are
only being requested for Improvement Area No. 1.
Area of Benefit
CFD No. 0SM, Improvement Area No. 1, encompasses parcels located within the Village
6 owned by McMillin Otay Ranch LLC, the Catholic Diocese of San Diego and
Cornerstone Communities. McMillin Otay Ranch is proposed to contain approximately
482 single-family detached homes, 212 multi-family units, a private high school on
approximately 38 acres and a church on approximately ! 3.2 acres of Community Purpose
Facility ("CPF') property.
Proposed Special Tax
CFD 0SM has four proposed categories of taxation, as follows:
Developed Parcels (Single Family and Multi-Family Residences) are taxed based
on the square footage of the structure. Commercial Parcels are taxed on the
acreage of the parcel (there are currently no commercial parcels in Improvement
Area No. 1).
The Final Mapped properties, which include all single-family residential parcels
for which a building permit has not been issued, are taxed on acreage of the
parcel.
· Property not categorized as Developed or Final Mapped Property is taxed on
acreage of the parcel.
· The Exempt Category includes all publicly owned parcels and Homeowner's
Association parcels.
Developed Parcels are those parcels for which a building pemfit has been issued. The
proposed maximum special tax rate in the RMA was determined at the time of formation
of CFD 0SM in 2002. McMillin has requested the special tax rates be modified to more
closely match the benefit received from the improvements. This modification will reduce
the special tax rate per acre for the high school/church site, as they do not benefit from
the in-tract landscaping that will be maintained by the CFD. The high school/church will
be responsible for maintaining all landscaping within its property, including the
substantial slope area along Birch Road. Elsewhere in Village 6, the open space lots
between the residential areas and the arterial streets that border Village 6 are maintained
by the CFD. The school/church will also be required to install and maintain on-site storm
water treatment facilities. The residential special tax rate is proposed to increase to reflect
l:\Engineer\LANDDEV\CFD's\Village 6 - Maintenance\A113 Council agenda ROF Final 5-6.doc
i1-
Page 3, Item II
Meeting Date 5/6/03
the increased benefit residential property receives from the in-tract maintenance. The
Multi-family tax rate is proposed to remain the same; the multi-family project in
Improvement Area No. 1 also has on-site maintenance responsibilities that are separate
from the area as a whole.
Collection of Taxes
At the beginning of each fiscal year the City shall determine the amotmt of the Special
Tax Liability (budget plus reserve) of each Improvemem Area. Then, the special taxes
will first be levied on the Developed Parcels. If this pool of funds is not enough to fund
the Special Tax Liability, as may be the case in the early years of development, the
district will levy the special tax on the vacant land starting with Final Mapped Property.
The buffer of having the vacant land covering any portion of the Special Tax Liability not
funded from special taxes levied on Developed Parcels will disappear once the area has
been fully developed. If the Special Tax Liability for any fiscal year is less than the
maximum special tax authorized to be levied on the Developed Parcels, the actual rate of
the special taxes to be levied in that specific year will be reduced accordingly.
Following is a brief discussion of some key issues regarding the "Rate and Method of
Apportionment (RMA) of Special Taxes": (See Exhibit "A" for full description of RMA)
· The Maximum Special Tax Rates increase each year by the annual percentage
change in the Consumer Price Index.
· The RMA provides that the annual budget for any year may include an amotmt
deemed necessary to maintain an adequate level of an operating reserve fund.
The maximum special tax rates are based on the original budget. If the actual
square footage of development meets or exceeds the projections on which the
special tax rates were based, the actual special tax rate necessary to be levied
annually to fund the Special Tax Liability may be less than the authorized
maximum special tax.
Proposed Maximum Special Taxes
The proposed maximum and current maximum special tax rates for fiscal year 2002/03
for Improvement Area No. 1 ofCFD 08M are as follows:
Developed Property
Special Tax Category
Residential (per square foot)
Multi-Family (per square foot)
Non-Residential (per acre)
Proposed Current Increase/
Maximum Maximum (Decrease)
Special Tax Special Tax
$0.35 $0.258 $0.092
$0.28 $0.28 0.00
$2,188.57 $4,431.89 ($2,243.42)
J:\Engineer\LANDDEVXCFD's\Villag¢ 6 - Maintcnanc¢~et 113 Council agenda ROF Final 5-6.doc
11-3
Page 4, Item tt
Meeting Date 5/6/03
Undeveloped
Special Tax Category
Residential (per acre)
Multi-Family (per acre)
Non-Residential (per
acre)
Proposed Current Increase/
Maximum Maximum Special Tax (Decrease)
Special Tax
$5,806.46 $4,431.89 $1,374.57
$5,405.42 $4,431.89 $973.53
$2,188.56 $4,431.89 ($2,243.43)
Resolutions
Them is one resolution on today's agenda, which, if adopted, will accomplish the
following:
The RESOLUTION OF CHANGE AND MODIFICATION is the formal action of the
City Council changing and modifying the special tax rates in Community Facilities
District No. 08M, Improvement Area No. 1 and authorizes the electors to vote on the
special taxes.
Future Actions
The City Clerk, acting as the designated election official, will hold a special election
within Community Facilities District No. 08M, Improvement Area No. 1 on May 13,
2003, at which time the qualified electors of such territory, being the owners of land
within such territory, will be entitled to vote on a ballot proposition to authorize the levy
of the special taxes described above within such territory.
The adoption of a resolution declaring the results of the special election and, if the levy of
such special tax is approved by the qualified electors, the introduction of an ordinance to
authorize the levy of such special tax are scheduled for the City Council meeting of May
20, 2003 at 6:00 P.M.
FISCAL IMPACT
All costs of annexation to the district are being borne by the developers and the on-going
administration will be funded entirely by the district. The City will receive the benefit of
full cost recovering for staff cost involved in District formation and district
administration in perpetuity.
Exhibits:
"A" Rate and Method of Apportionment (Revised)
J:\Engineer\LANDDEV\CFD's\Village 6 - Maintenance\Al 13 Council agenda ROF Final 5-6.doc
RATE AND METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT
COM1VIUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT 08M
IMPROVEMENT AREA NO. 1 (REVISED)
(McMillin Otay Ranch)
A Special Tax of Community Facilities District No. 0SM (Village 6, McMillin Otay Ranch and Otay
Ranch Company) of the City of Chula Vista ("CFD") shall be levied on all Assessor's Parcels in
Improvement Area No. 1 of the CFD and collected each Fiscal Year commencing in Fiscal Year
2002-03 in an amount determined through the application of the rate and method of apportionment
of the Special Tax set forth below. All of the real property in the CFD, unless exempted by law or
by the provisions hereof, shall be taxed for the purposes, to the extent and in the manner herein
provided.
A. DEFINITIONS
The terms hereinafter set forth have the following meanings:
"Acre or Acreage" means the land area of an Assessor's Parcel as shown on an Assessor's
Parcel Map, or if the land area is not shown on an Assessor's Parcel Map, the land area
shown on the applicable Final Subdivision Map, other final map, other parcel map, other
condomlninm plan, or functionaJly equivalent map or instrument recorded in the Office of
the County Recorder. The square footage of an Assessor's Parcel is equal to the Acreage
multiplied by 43,560.
"Act" means the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982, as amended, being Chapter
2.5, Part 1, Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code of the State of California.
"Administrative Expenses" means the actual or estimated costs incurred by the City,
acting for and on behalf of the CFI) as the administrator thereof, to determine, levy and
collect the Special Taxes, including salaries of City employees and a proportionate amount of
the City's general administrative overhead related thereto, and the fees of consultants and
legal counsel providing services related to the administration of the CFD; the costs of
collecting installments of the Special Taxes; and any other costs required to administer IA
No. 1 of the CFD as determined bythe City.
"Assessor's Parcel" means a lot or parcel shown in an Assessor's Parcel Map with an
assigned assessor's parcel number.
"Assessor's Parcel Map" means an official map of the Assessor of the County designating
parcels by assessor's parcel number.
"CFD Administrator" means an official of the City, or designee thereof, responsible for
detennirfing the Special Tax Requirement and providing for the levy and collection of the
Special Taxes.
"CFD" means Community Facilities District No. 08M of the City of Chula Vista.
MuniFb~mckd Page I Cityof Chu]a Vista
Ctmmrtity Facilities District No. 0SM
I~.4~ No. 1 g~e~ed)
It- '
"City" means the City of Chula Vista.
"City Clerk" means the City Clerk for the City of Chula Vista or his or her designee.
"City Manager" means the City Manager for the City of Chula Vista or his or her designee.
"Community Purpose Facility Property" or "CPF Property" means all Assessor's
Parcels which are classified as community purpose facilities and meet the requirements of
City of Chula Vista Ordinance No. 2452.
"Council" means the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, acting as the legislative body
of the CFD.
"County" means the County of San Diego, California.
"Developed Property" means all Residential Property, Multi-Family Property, and Non-
Residential Property for which a building permit was issued after January 1, 2002, but prior
to the March 1st preceding the Fiscal Year in which the Special Tax is being levied.
"Final Map Property" means a single family residential lot created by a Final Subdivision
Map, but which is not classified as Developed Property.
"Final Subdivision Map" means a subdivision of property creating single family residential
buildable lots by recordation of a final subdivision map or parcel map pursuant to the
Subdivision Map Act (California Government Code Section 66410 et seq.), or recordation of
a condominium plan pursuant to California Civil Code 1352, that creates individual lots for
which building permits may be issued without further subdivision and is recorded prior to
March 1 preceding the Fiscal Year in which the Special Tax is being levied.
"Fiscal Year" means the period starting July 1 and ending on the following June 30.
"Improvement Area No. 1" or "IA No. 1" means Improvement Area No. 1 of the CFD,
as identified on the boundary map for the CFD.
"Land Use Class" means any of the classes listed in Table 1 or Table 2.
"Landscape Maintenance" means the labor, material, administration, personnel,
equipment and utilities necessary to maintain landscaped improvements within the public
right-of-ways, parkways, slopes, wetlands and other public easements throughout the CFD.
"Landscape Maintenance Requirement" means, for any Fiscal Year in which Special
Taxes are levied, the amount equal to the budgeted costs for Landscape Maintenance
applicable to IA No. i for such Fiscal Year.
"Maximum Special Tax" means the maximum Special Tax, determined in accordance
with Section C below, that may be levied in any Fiscal Year on any Assessor's Parcel of
Taxable Property.
MuniFinamcial
Page 2
City of Omla Vista
Facilities District No. 0SM
lmprovonmt Area No. 1 (Revised)
"Multi-Family Property" means all Assessor's Parcels of Taxable Property intended for
use as a residential structure consisting of two or more residential units that share common
walls, including, but not limited to, duplexes, triplexes, townhomes, condominiums, and
apartment units; Specifically such parcels included within R-10 as outlined on the
Maintenance Responsibility Map incorporated in the CFD report.
"Non-Residential Property" means all Assessor's Parcels of Taxable Property intended
for non-residential use; Specifically lots R-11 and CPF-2 as outlined on the Maintenance
Responsibility Map incorporated in the CFD report. To the extent that a building permit is
issued for another land use then the parcel will be reclassified to the land use specified by the
building permit.
"Operating Fund" means a fund that shall be maintained for IA No. 1 for each Fiscal Year
to pay for Landscape Maintenance and Storm Water Quality Maintenance and
Administrative Expenses.
"Operating Fund Requirement" means, for any Fiscal Year, the sum of the applicable
Landscape Maintenance Requirement and the applicable Storm Water Quality Maintenance
Requirement.
"Other Taxable Property" means, for each Fiscal Year, all Taxable Property not classified
as Developed Property, Final Map Property, or Taxable Property Owners Association
Property. Other Taxable Property will be further classified as Residential Property, Multi-
Fanfily Property or Non-Residential Property.
"Property Owner Association Property" means any property within the boundaries IA
No. 1 of the CFD that is owned by, or irrevocably dedicated as indicated in an instrument
recorded with the County Recorder to, a property owner association, including any master or
sub-association.
"Proportionately" means in a manner such that the ratio of the actual Special Tax levy to
the Maximum Special Tax is equal for all Assessor's Parcels of Taxable Property within each
Land Use Class.
"Public Property" means any property within the boundaries of IA No. 1 of the CFD that
is, at the rune of the CFD formation, expected to be used for any public purpose and is
owned by or dedicated to the federal government, the State, the County, the City or any
other public agency.
"Reserve Fund" means a fund that shall be maintained for IA No. 1 for each Fiscal Year to
provide necessary cash flow for the first six months of each Fiscal Year, reserve capital to
cover monitoring, maintenance and repair cost overruns and delinquencies in the payment of
Special Taxes and a reasonable buffer to prevent large variations in annual Special Tax levies.
"Reserve Fund Requirement" means an amount equal to up to 100% of the Operating
Fund Requirement for any Fiscal Year.
Cen2,r~lity Facilities Di.m'ict No. 08M
z,,~,,,~.4,~ No. ~
11-7
"Residential Property" means all Assessor's Parcels of Taxable Property intended for use
as one residential dwelling unit; Specifically such parcels included within areas R-I, R-3, R-4,
R-6 as outlined on the Maintenance Responsibility Map incorporated in the CFD report.
"Special Tax" means the Special Tax levied pursuant to the provisions of sections C and D
below in each Fiscal Year on each Assessor's Parcel of Developed Property and
Undeveloped Property in IA No. 1 to fund the Special Tax Requirement.
"Special Tax Requirement" means that amount required in any Fiscal Year for IA No. 1
to: (a) (i) pay the Landscape Maintenance Requirement; (ii) pay the Storm Water Quality
Maintenance Requirement; (iii) pay reasonable Administrative Expenses; (iv) pay any
amounts required to establish or replenish the Reserve Fund to the Reserve Fund
Requirement; (v) pay for reasonably anticipated delinquent Special Taxes based on the
delinquency rate for Special Taxes levied in the previous Fiscal Year; less (b) a credit for
funds available to reduce the annual Special Tax levy, including the excess, if any, in the
Reserve Fund above the Reserve Fund Requirement.
"Square Foot" means the square footage as shown on an Assessor's Parcel's building
permit of Residential Property or Multi-Family Property, excluding garages or other
structures not used as living space.
"State" means the State of California.
"Storm Water Quality Maintenance" means the maintenance of detention basins, storm
drains, catch basin inserts, hydrodynamic devices, infiltration basins, and all other facilities
that are directly related to storm water quality control throughout IA No. 1.
"Storm Water Quality Maintenance Requirement" means for any Fiscal Year an amount
equal to the budgeted costs for Storm Water Quality Maintenance applicable to IA No. 1 for
the current Fiscal Year in which Special Taxes are levied.
"Taxable Property" means all of the Assessor's Parcels within the boundaries of IA No. 1
of the CFD that are not exempt from the Special Tax pursuant to law or as defined below.
"Tax-Exempt Property" means an Assessor's Parcel not subject to the Special Tax. Tax-
Exempt Property includes: (i) Public Property, or (ii) Property Owner Association Property,
or (iii) Assessor's Parcels with public or utility easements making impractical their utilization
for other than the purposes set forth in the easement.
"Taxable Property Owner Association Property" means all Association Property
which is not exempt from the Special Tax pursuant to Section E below.
' n
U developed Property" means, for each Fiscal Year, all Taxable Property not classified
as Developed Property.
Page 4
City of t3ula Vista
Facilities District No. 08M
lmprovvnent Area No. 1 (Retrised)
ASSIGNMENT TO LAND USE CATEGORIES
Each Fiscal Year using the definitions above, all Taxable Property within IA No. 1 of the
CFD shall be classified as Developed Property, Final Map Property or Undeveloped
Property, and shall be subject to Spedal Taxes pursuant to Sections C and D below.
Developed Property shall be further assigned to a Land Use Class as specified in Table 1.
Undeveloped Property shall be further assigned to a Land Use Class as specified in Table 2.
MAXIMUM SPECIAL TAX RATE
1. Developed Property
TABLE 1
Maximum Special Tax for Developed Property
Community Facilities District No. 08M
Improvement Area No. 1
Land Use Maximum
Class Description Special Tax
1 Residential Property $0.350 per Sq Ft
2 Multi-Family Property $0.258 per Sq Ft
3 Non-Residential Property $2,188.56 per Acre
Multiple Land Use Classes
In some instances an Assessor's Parcel of Developed Property may contain more
than one Land Use Class. The Maximum Special Tax that may be levied on an
Assessor's Parcel shall be the sum of the Maximum Special Tax levies that may be
levied on all Land Use Classes located on that Assessor's Parcel. The CFD
Administrator's shall determine the allocation to each Land Use Class.
MuniFinancial
Page 5 City of CJmIa V'uta
Coa, m~ Facilities Disma No, 08M
I~ Area No. 1 (Ret]sat)
Undeveloped Property
TABLE 2
Maximum Special Tax for Undeveloped Property
Community Facilities District No. 08M
Improvement Area No. I
Land Use Description Maximum
Class Special Tax
4 Final Map Property $5,806.46 per Acre
5 Other Taxable Property - $5,806.46 per Acre
Residential
Other Taxable Property -
Multi-Family
Other Taxable Property -
Non-Residential
Taxable Property Owner
Association Property
$5,405.42 per Acre
$2,188.56 per Acre
$5,806.46 per Acre
3. Annual Escalation of Maximum Special Tax
The Maximum Special Tax as shown in the tables above that may be levied on each
Assessor's Parcel in IA No. 1 shall be increased each Fiscal Year beginning in Fiscal
Year 2003-04 and thereafter by a factor equal to the annual percentage change in the
San Diego Metropolitan Area All Urban Consumer Price Index (All Items).
METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT OF THE SPECIAL TAX
Commencing with Fiscal Year 2002-03, and for each following Fiscal Year, the Council shall
levy the IA No. 1 Special Tax at the rates established pursuant to steps 1 through 4 below so
that the amount of the Special Tax levied equals the Special Tax Requirement. The Special
Tax shall be levied each Fiscal Year as follows:
First: The Special Tax shall be levied proportionately on each Assessor's Parcel of
Developed Property up to 100% of the applicable Maximum Special Tax;
Second: If additional monies are needed to satisfy the Special Tax Reqnirem~nt after the
first step has been completed, the Special Tax shall be levied Proportionately on each
Assessor's Parcel of Final Map Property at up to 100% of the Maximum Special Tax for
Final Map Property;
MuniFinmwial Pag~ 6
Ciey of Omla Vista
Gvmmur~ Facilities District No. 08M
Im~ Area No. 1 (Revised)
Third: If additional monies are needed to satisfy the Spedal Tax Requirement after the first
two steps have been completed, the Spedal Tax shall be levied Proportionately on each
Assessor's Parcel of Other Taxable Property at up to 100% of the Maximum Special Tax for
Other Taxable Property;
Fourth: If additional moneys are needed to satisfy the Spedal Tax Requirement after the first
three steps have been completed, the Special Tax shall be levied proportionately on each
Assessor's Parcel of Taxable Property Owner Association Property at up to 100% of the
Maximum Special Tax for Taxable Property Owner Association Property.
Notwithstanding the above, under no drcumstances will the Special Tax levied against any
Assessor's Parcel of Residential Property or Multi-Family Property for which an occupancy
permit for private residential use has been issued be increased by more than ten percent
annually up to the Maximum Special Tax as a consequence of delinquency or default by the
owner of any other Assessor's Parcel within IA No. 1 of the CFD.
EXEMPTIONS
The CFD Administrator shall classify as exempt property (i) Assessor's Parcels defined as
Public Property, and (ii) Assessor's Parcels with public or utility easements making
impractical their utilization for other than the purposes set forth in the easement.
The CFI) Administrator shall classify as exempt property those Assessor's Parcels defined as
Property Owner's Association Property provided that no such classification would reduce
the sum of all taxable Property to less than 128.11 Acres. Assessor's Parcels defined as
Property Owner Association Property that cannot be classified as exempt property will be
dassified as Taxable Property Owner Association Property and shall be taxed as part of the
fourth step in Section D.
The CFD Administrator will assign Tax-Exempt status in the chronological order in which
property becomes exempt.
F. ~P~LS
Any landowner or resident who pays the Special Tax and believes that the arnount of the
Spedal Tax levied on their Assessor's Parcel is in error shall first consult with the CFD
Administrator regarding such error. If following such consultation, the CFD Administrator
determines that an error has occurred, the CFD Administrator may amend the amount of the
Special Tax levied on such Assessor's Parcel. If following such consultation and action, if any
by the CFD Administrator, the landowner or resident believes such error still exists, such
person may file a written notice with the City Clerk of the City appealing the amount of the
Special Tax levied on such Assessor's Parcel. Upon the receipt of any such notice, the City
Clerk shall forward a copy of such notice to the City Manager who shall establish as part of
the proceedings and administration of the CFD, a special three-member Review/Appeal
MuniFinartcial Page 7 City of Gl'mia Vista
Caovnunity Fac~ities District No. 08M
lmprovor~t Area No. 1 ('Revisat)
Committee. The Review/Appeal Committee may establish such procedures, as k deems
necessary to undertake the review of any such appeal. The Review/Appeal Committee shall
interpret this Rate and Method of Apportionment and make determinations relative to the
annual administration of the Special Tax and any landowner or resident appeals, as here'm
specified. The decision of the Review/Appeal Committee shall be final and binding as to all
persons.
MANNER OF COLLECTION
Special Taxes levied pursuant to Section D above shall be collected in the same manner and
at the same rime as ordinary ad va/oron property taxes; provided, however, that the CFD
Administrator may directly bill the Special Tax, may collect Special Taxes at a different time
or in a different manner if necessary to meet the finandal obligations of IA No. 1 of the
CFD or as otherwise determined appropriate by the CFD Administrator.
TERM OF SPECIAL TAX
Taxable Property in IA No. 1 of the CFD shall remain subject to the Special Tax in perpetuity.
Muni Finandal
Page 8
I/-I
Comm~ity Facilities District No. 08M
1~ Area No. 1 (Redaed)
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA,
CALIFORNIA, MAKING CERTAIN DETERMINATIONS AND
AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE RATE
AND METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT OF SPECIAL TAXES AUTHORIZED
TO BE LEVIED WITHIN IMPROVEMENT AREA NO. 1 OF COMMUNITY
FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 08M (VILLAGE 6, MCMILLIN OTAY RANCH
AND OTAY RANCH COMPANY) TO THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS
THEREOF
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, (the "City Council") previously
has previously undertaken proceedings to form Community Facilities District No 08M (Village
6, McMillin Otay Ranch and Otay Ranch Company) (the "District"), to designate two
improvement areas therein ("Improvement Area No. I" and "Improvement Area No. 2") and to
authorize the levy of special taxes within each Improvement Area pursuant to the provisions of
the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982, as amended (Government Code Section
53311 and following) (the "Act") and the City of Chula Vista Community Facilities District
Ordinance enacted pursuant to the powers reserved by the City of Chula Vista under Sections 3,
5 and 7 of Article XI of the Constitution of the State of California (the "Ordinance") (the Act and
the Ordinance may be referred to collectively as the "Community Facilities District Law") to
finance the maintenance of (a) landscaped areas within the public tights-of-ways and other
public easements throughout the District and (b) facilities that are directly related to storm water
quality control throughout the District.
WHEREAS, the qualified electors of each Improvement Area of the District, voting in a
special election held on October 22, 2002, approved the authorization to levy special taxes within
each Improvement Area pursuant to a separate rate and method of apportionment of such special
taxes for each Improvement Area (the rate and method of apportionment of special taxes
approved for Improvement Area No. 1 shall be referred to as the "Existing Improvement Area
No. 1 RMA"); and
WHEREAS, subsequent to the formation of the District and such election, McMillin
Communities ("McMillin"), the master developer of the property within Improvement Area No.
1 of the District, requested that thc City Council, acting as the legislative body of the District,
initiate proceedings to modify the Existing Improvement Area No. IRMA; and
WHEREAS, this City Council desires to initiate such proceedings and to set the time and
place for a public heating on this Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA,
CALIFORNIA, ACTING IN ITS CAPACITY AS THE LEGISLATIVE BODY OF
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 08M (VILLAGE 6, MCMILLIN OTAY RANCH
AND OTAY RANCH COMPANY), DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DECLARE, FIND,
DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
1
-13
SECTION 2. DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA TO BE AFFECTED. The area to be affected by
the proposed modification, if approved, is all of Improvement Area No. 1 of the District, which
is generally described as follows:
All property within the boundaries of Improvement Area No. 1 of Community
Facilities District No. 08M (Village 6, McMillin Otay Ranch and Otay Ranch
Company), as shown on a map as previously approved by the City Cotmcil of the
City, such map designated by the name of such District, a copy of which is on file
in the office of the City Clerk of the City.
SECTION 3. DECLARATION OF INTENTION TO CONS[DER THE MODiFICATION OF
THE EXISTING IMPROVEMENT AREA NO. 1 RMA. This City Council hereby declares its
intention to consider modifying the Existing Improvement Area No. 1 RMA so that the rate and
method of apportionment of special taxes authorized to be levied withiv. Improvement Area No.
1 reads as set fbrth in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
SECTION 4. PUBLIC HEARING. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on May 6, 2003, at the
hour of 4 p.m., in the regular meeting place of the City Council, being the Council Chambers
located at 276 Fourth Street, Chula Vista, California, the City Council will hold a public hearing
to consider this Resolution and to consider the approval of the modification of the Existing
Improvement Area No. 1 RMA. At such time and place all interested persons or taxpayers for or
against the approval of the modification of the Existing Improvement Area No. 1 RMA will be
heard.
At the above-mentioned time and place for public hearing any persons interested, including
taxpayers and property owners may appear and be heard. The testimony of all interested persons
for or against the modification of the Existing Improvement Area No. 1 RMA will be heard and
considered. Any protests may be made orally or in writing. However, any protests pertaining to
the regularity or sufficiency of the proceedings shall be in writing and clearly set forth the
irregularities and defects to which the objection is made. All written protests shall be filed with
the city clerk of the city on or before the time fixed for the public heating. Written protests may
be withdrawn in writing at any time before the conclusion of the public hearing.
If a written majority protest is filed against the modification of the Existing Improvement Area
No. 1 RMA, the proceedings shall be abandoned.
SECTION 5. ELECTION. If, following the public hearing described in the Section above, the
City Council determines to approve the modification of the Existing Improvement Area No. 1
RMA, the City Council shall then submit the modification to the qualified electors of
Improvement Area No. 1 of the District. If at least twelve (12) persons, who need not
necessarily be the same twelve (12) persons, have been registered to vote within Improvement
Area No. 1 for each of the ninety (90) days preceding the close of the public heating, the vote
shall be by registered voters of Improvement Area No. 1, with each voter having one (1) vote.
Otherwise, the vote shall be by the landowners of Improvement Area No. 1 who were the owners
of record at the close of the subject heating, with each landowners or the authorized
2
II--lq
representative thereof, having one (1) vote for each acre or portion of an acre of land owned
within Improvement Area No. 1.
SECTION 6. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and
directed to give notice of such public heating by causing a Notice of Public Heating to be
published pursuant to Government Code Section 6061 in a legally designated newspaper of
general circulation with such publication to be completed at least seven (7) days prior to the date
set for such public heating.
SECTION 7. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its
adoption.
PREPARED BY:
APPROVED AS TO FORM BY:
Clifford Swanson
Director of Engineering
Ann Moore
City Attorney
J:Attomey\Reso\CFD\C FD 0SM
3
II-/5'
EXHIBIT A
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 08M
(VILLAGE 6, MCMILLIN OTAY RANCH AND OTAY RANCH COMPANY)
IMPROVEMENT AREA NO. 1
A-1
EXHIBIT "A"
MODIFIED RATE AND METHOD OF APPORTION OF
SPECIAL TAXES
A Special Tax of Community Facilities District No. 08M (Village 6, McMillin Otay Ranch and
Otay Ranch Company) of the City of Chula Vista ("CFD") shall be levied on all Assessor's
Parcels in Improvement Area No. 1 of the CFD and collected each Fiscal Year commencing in
Fiscal Year 2002-03 in an amount determined through the application of the rate and method of
apportionment of the Special Tax set forth below. All of the real property in the CFD, unless
exempted by law or by the provisions hereof, shall be taxed for the purposes, to the extent and in
the manner herein provided.
DEFINITIONS
The terms hereinafter set forth have the following meanings:
"Acre or Acreage" means the land area of an Assessor's Parcel as shown on an
Assessor's Parcel Map, or if the land area is not shown on an Assessor's Parcel Map, the
land area shown on the applicable Final Subdivision Map, other final map, other parcel
map, other condominium plan, or functionally equivalent map or instrument recorded in
the Office of the County Recorder. The square footage of an Assessor's Parcel is equal to
the Acreage multiplied by 43,560.
"Act" means the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982, as amended, being
Chapter 2.5, Part 1, Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code of the State of
California.
"Administrative Expenses" means the actual or estimated costs incurred by the City,
acting for and on behalf of the CFD as the administrator thereof, to determine, levy and
collect the Special Taxes, including salaries of City employees and a proportionate
amount of the City's general administrative overhead related thereto, and the fees of
consultants and legal counsel providing services related to the administration of the CFD;
the costs of collecting installments of the Special Taxes; and any other costs required to
administer IA No. 1 of the CFD as determined by the City.
"Assessor's Parcel" means a lot or parcel shown in an Assessor's Parcel Map with an
assigned assessor's parcel number.
"Assessor's Parcel Map" means an official map of the Assessor of the County
designating parcels by assessor's parcel number.
"CFD Administrator" means an official of the City, or designee thereof, responsible for
determining the Special Tax Requirement and providing for the levy and collection of the
Special Taxes.
"CFD" means Community Facilities District No. 08M of the City of Chula Vista.
"City" means the City of Chula Vista.
A-1
!!--t7
"City Clerk" means the City Clerk for the City of Chula Vista or his or her designee.
"City Manager" means the City Manager for the City of Chula Vista or his or her
designee.
"Community Purpose Facility Property" or "CPF Property" means all Assessor's
Parcels which are classified as community purpose facilities and meet the requirements of
City of Chula Vista Ordinance No. 2452.
"Council" means the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, acting as the legislative
body o£the CFD.
"County" means the County of San Diego, California.
"Developed Property" means all Residential Property, Multi-Family Property, and Non-
Residential Property for which a building permit was issued after January 1, 2002, but
prior to the March 1st preceding the Fiscal Year in which the Special Tax is being levied.
"Final Map Property" means a single family residential lot created by a Final
Subdivision Map, but which is not classified as Developed Property.
"Final Subdivision Map" means a subdivision of property creating single family
residential buildable lots by recordation of a final subdivision map or parcel map
pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act (California Government Code Section 66410 et
seq.), or recordation of a condominium plan pursuant to California Civil Code 1352, that
creates individual lots for which building permits may be issued without further
subdivision and is recorded prior to March 1 preceding the Fiscal Year in which the
Special Tax is being levied.
"Fiscal Year" means the period starting July 1 and ending on the following June 30.
"Improvement Area No. 1" or "IA No. 1" means Improvement Area No. 1 of the
CFD, as identified on the boundary map for the CFD.
"Land Use Class" means any of the classes listed in Table 1 or Table 2.
"Landscape Maintenance" means the labor, material, administration, personnel,
equipment and utilities necessary to maintain landscaped improvements within the public
right-of-ways, parkways, slopes, wetlands and other public easements throughout the
CFD.
"Landscape Maintenance Requirement" means, for any Fiscal Year in which Special
Taxes are levied, the amount equal to the budgeted costs for Landscape Maintenance
applicable to IA No. l for such Fiscal Year.
"Maximum Special Tax" means the maximum Special Tax, determined in accordance
with Section C below, that may be levied in any Fiscal Year on any Assessor's Parcel of
Taxable Property.
A-2
"Multi-Family Property" means all Assessor's Parcels of Taxable Property intended for
use as a residential structure consisting of two or more residential units that share
con'm~on walls, including, but not limited to, duplexes, triplexes, townhomes,
condominiums, and apartment units; Specifically such parcels included within R-10 as
outlined on the Maintenance Responsibility Map incorporated in the CFD report.
"Non-Residential Property" means all Assessor's Parcels of Taxable Property intended
for non-residential use; Specifically lots R-11 and CPF-2 as outlined on the Maintenance
Responsibility Map incorporated in the CFD report.
"Operating Fund" means a fund that shall be maintained for IA No. 1 for each Fiscal
Year to pay for Landscape Maintenance and Storm Water Quality Maintenance and
Administrative Expenses.
"Operating Fund Requirement" means, for any Fiscal Year, the sum of the applicable
Landscape Maintenance Requirement and the applicable Storm Water Quality
Maintenance Requirement.
"Other Taxable Property" means, for each Fiscal Year, all Taxable Property not
classified as Developed Property, Final Map Property, or Taxable Property Owners
Association Property. Other Taxable Property will be further classified as Residential
Property, Multi-Family Property or Non-Residential Property.
"Property Owner Association Property" means any property within the boundaries IA
No. 1 of the CFD that is owned by, or irrevocably dedicated as indicated in an instrument
recorded with the County Recorder to, a property owner association, including any
master or sub-association.
"Proportionately" means in a manner such that the ratio of the actual Special Tax levy
to the Maximum Special Tax is equal for all Assessor's Parcels of Taxable Property
within each Land Use Class.
"Public Property" means any property within the boundaries of IA No. 1 of the CFD
that is, at the time of the CFD formation, expected to be used for any public purpose and
is owned by or dedicated to the federal government, the State, the County, the City or any
other public agency.
"Reserve Fund" means a fund that shall be maintained for IA No. 1 for each Fiscal Year
to provide necessary cash flow for the first six months of each Fiscal Year, reserve capital
to cover monitoring, maintenance and repair cost overruns and delinquencies in the
payment of Special Taxes and a reasonable buffer to prevent large variations in annual
Special Tax levies.
"Reserve Fund Requirement" means an amount equal to up to 100% of the Operating
Fund Requirement for any Fiscal Year.
"Residential Property" means all Assessor's Parcels of Taxable Property intended for
use as one residential dwelling unit; Specifically such parcels included within areas R-l,
R-3, R-4, R-6 as outlined on the Maintenance Responsibility Map incorporated in the
CFD report.
"Special Tax" means the Special Tax levied pursuant to the provisions of sections C and
D below in each Fiscal Year on each Assessor's Parcel of Developed Property and
Undeveloped Property in IA No. 1 to fund the Special Tax Requirement.
"Special Tax Requirement" means that amount required in any Fiscal Year for IA No.
1 to: (a) (i) pay the Landscape Maintenance Requirement; (ii) pay the Storm Water
Quality Maintenance Requirement; (iii) pay reasonable Administrative Expenses; (iv)
pay any amounts required to establish or replenish the Reserve Fund to the Reserve Fund
Requirement; (v) pay for reasonably anticipated delinquent Special Taxes based on the
delinquency rate for Special Taxes levied in the previous Fiscal Year; less (b) a credit for
funds available to reduce the annual Special Tax levy, including the excess, if any, in the
Reserve Fund above the Reserve Fund Requirement.
"Square Foot" means the square footage as shown on an Assessor's Parcel's building
permit of Residential Property or Multi-Family Property, excluding garages or other
structures not used as living space.
"State" means the State of California.
"Storm Water Quality Maintenance" means the maintenance of detention basins,
storm drains, catch basin inserts, hydrodynamic devices, infiltration basins, and all other
facilities that are directly related to storm water quality control throughout IA No. 1.
"Storm Water Quality Maintenance Requirement" means for any Fiscal Year an
amount equal to the budgeted costs for Storm Water Quality Maintenance applicable to
IA No. 1 for the current Fiscal Year in which Special Taxes are levied.
"Taxable Property" means all of the Assessor's Parcels within the boundaries of IA No.
1 of the CFD that are not exempt from the Special Tax pursuant to law or as defined
below.
"Tax-Exempt Property" means an Assessor's Parcel not subject to the Special Tax.
Tax-Exempt Property includes: (i) Public Property, or (ii) Property Owner Association
Property, or (iii) Assessor's Parcels with public or utility easements making impractical
their utilization for other than the purposes set forth in the easement.
"Taxable Property Owner Association Property" means all Association Property
which is not exempt from the Special Tax pursuant to Section E below.
"Undeveloped Property" means, for each Fiscal Year, all Taxable Property not
classified as Developed Property.
A-4
ASSIGNMENT TO LAND USE CATEGORIES
Each Fiscal Year using the definitions above, all Taxable Property within IA No. 1 of the
CFD shall be classified as Developed Property, Final Map Property or Undeveloped
Property, and shall be subject to Special Taxes pursuant to Sections C and D below.
Developed Property shall be further assigned to a Land Use Class as specified in Table 1.
Undeveloped Property shall be further assiglaed to a Land Use Class as specified in Table
2.
MAXIMUM SPECIAL TAX RATE
Developed Property
TABLE 1
Maximum Special Tax for Developed Property
Community Facilities District No. 08M
Improvement Area No. 1
Land Use Maximum
Class Description Special Tax
1 Residential Property $0.350 per Sq Ft
2 Multi-Family Property $0.258 per Sq Ft
3 Non-Residential Property $2,188.56 per Acre
Multiple Land Use Classes
In some instances an Assessor's Parcel of Developed Property may contain more
than one Land Use Class. The Maximum Special Tax that may be levied on an
Assessor's Parcel shall be the sum of the Maximum Special Tax levies that may
be levied on all Land Use Classes located on that Assessor's Parcel. The CFD
Administrator's shall determine the allocation to each Land Use Class.
A-5
//-ZI
Undeveloped Property
TABLE 2
Maximum Special Tax for Undeveloped Property
Community Facilities District No. 08M
Improvement Area No. 1
Land Use Description Maximum
Class Special Tax
4 Final Map Property $5,806.46 per Acre
5 Other Taxable Property - $5,806.46 per Acre
6
Residential
Other Taxable Property -
Multi-Family
Other Taxable Property -
Non-Residential
Taxable Property Owner
Association Property
$5,405.42 per Acre
$2,188.56 per Acre
$5,806.46 per Acre
Annual Escalation of Maximum Special Tax
The Maximum Special Tax as shown in the tables above that may be levied on
each Assessor's Parcel in IA No. 1 shall be increased each Fiscal Year beginning
in Fiscal Year 2003-04 and thereafter by a factor equal to the annual percentage
change in the San Diego Metropolitan Area All Urban Consumer Price Index
(All Items).
METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT OF THE SPECIAL TAX
Commencing with Fiscal Year 2002-03, and for each following Fiscal Year, the Council
shall levy the IA No. 1 Special Tax at the rates established pursuant to steps 1 through 4
below so that the amount of the Special Tax levied equals the Special Tax Requirement.
The Special Tax shall be levied each Fiscal Year as follows:
First: The Special Tax shall be levied proportionately on each Assessor's Parcel of
Developed Property up to 100% of the applicable Maximum Special Tax;
Second: If additional monies are needed to satisfy the Special Tax Requirement after the
first step has been completed, the Special Tax shall be levied Proportionately on each
Assessor's Parcel of Final Map Property at up to 100% of the Maximum Special Tax for
Final Map Property;
Third: If additional monies are needed to satisfy the Special Tax Requirement after the
first two steps have been completed, the Special Tax shall be levied Proportionately on
each Assessor's Parcel of Other Taxable Property at up to 100% of the Maximum Special
Tax for Other Taxable Property;
Fourth: If additional moneys are needed to satisfy the Special Tax Requiremem after the
first three steps have been completed, the Special Tax shall be levied proportionately on
each Assessor's Parcel of Taxable Property Owner Association Property at up to 100% of
the Maximum Special Tax for Taxable Property Owner Association Property.
Notwithstanding the above, under no circumstances will the Special Tax levied against
any Assessor's Parcel of Residential Property or Multi-Family Property for which an
occupancy permit for private residential use has been issued be increased by more than
ten pement annually up to the Maximum Special Tax as a consequence of delinquency or
default by the owner of any other Assessor's Parcel within IA No. 1 of the CFD.
EXEMPTIONS
The CFD Administrator shall classify as exempt property (i) Assessor's Parcels defined
as Public Property, and (ii) Assessor's Parcels with public or utility easements making
impractical their utilization for other than the purposes set forth in the easement.
The CFD Administrator shall classify as exempt property those Assessor's Parcels
defined as Property Owner's Association Property provided that no such classification
would reduce the sum of all taxable Property to less than 128.11 Acres. Assessor's
Parcels defined as Property Owner Association Property that cannot be classified as
exempt property will be classified as Taxable Property Owner Association Property and
shall be taxed as part of the fourth step in Section D.
The CFD Administrator will assign Tax-Exempt status in the chronological order in
which property becomes exempt.
APPEALS
Any landowner or resident who pays the Special Tax and believes that the amount of the
Special Tax levied on their Assessor's Parcel is in error shall first consult with the CFD
Administrator regarding such error. If following such consultation, the CFD
Administrator determines that an error has occurred, the CFD Administrator may amend
the amount of the Special Tax levied on such Assessor's Parcel. If following such
consultation and action, if any by the CFD Administrator, the landowner or resident
believes such error still exists, such person may file a written notice with the City Clerk of
the City appealing the amount of the Special Tax levied on such Assessor's Parcel. Upon
the receipt of any such notice, the City Clerk shall forward a copy of such notice to the
City Manager who shall establish as part of the proceedings and administration of the
CFD, a special three-member Review/Appeal Committee. The Review/Appeal Committee
A-7
may establish such procedures, as it deems necessary to undertake the review of any such
appeal. The Review/Appeal Committee shall interpret this Rate and Method of
Apportionment and make determinations relative to the annual administration of the
Special Tax and any landowner or resident appeals, as herein specified. The decision of
the Review/Appeal Committee shall be final and binding as to all persons.
MANNER OF COLLECTION
Special Taxes levied pursuant to Section D above shall be collected in the same manner
and at the same time as ordinary ad valorem property taxes; provided, however, that the
CFD Administrator may directly bill the Special Tax, may collect Special Taxes at a
different time or in a different manner if necessary to meet the financial obligations of IA
No. 1 of the CFD or as otherwise determined appropriate by the CFD Administrator.
TERM OF SPECIAL TAX
Taxable Property in IA No. 1 of the CFD shall remain subject to the Special Tax
in perpetuity.
A-8
/I
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item //~
Meeting Date 5/06/03
ITEM TITLE:
SUBMITTED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
Public Hearing to take public testimony regarding the proposed change and
modify to the Rate and Method of Apportionment for Improvement Area B for
Community Facilities District No. 06-1 (EastLake-Woods, Vistas and Land
Swap)
Resolution of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista,
California, making certain determinations and authorizing the submittal of the
proposed modifications of the Rate and Method of Apportionment for
Improvement Area B of Community Facilities District No. 06-1 (EastLake-
Woods, Vistas and Land Swap) to the qualified electors thereof.
Director of Engineering~
Director of Finance
City Manager q-7~
(4/5ths Vote: Yes__No X}
It is recommended that Council open the public hear/ng and continue this item to the meeting of
May 13, 2003.
J:\engineerXaGENDA\Revised CAS RMA 5-06-03, cont'd.doc
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Page 1, Item /3
Meeting Date 5/06/03
ITEM TITLE:
Public Hearing to take public testimony to authorize the annexation of
territory to Community Facilities District No. 06-1 (EastLake-Woods, Vistas
and Land Swap) and Improvement Area B
SUBMITTED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
Resolution of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista,
California, making certain determinations and authorizing the submittal of
the levy of special taxes to the qualified electors of certain territory proposed
to be annexed to Community Facilities District No. 06-1 (EastLake - Woods,
Vistas and Land Swap) and Improvement B thereto
Director of Engineering?/¢/
Director of Finance
City Manager
It is recommended that Council open the public heating and continue this item to the meeting of May
~, 2003.
/3-/
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item /¢
Meeting Date 5/6/03
ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing on Intention to Form Assessment District 2002-1 (Quintard
Street)
Resolution Declaring the Results of the Assessment Ballot
Tabulation and Making Findings Pursuant to Chapter 27 of the Improvement
Act of 1911 and Article XIIID of the Constitution of the State of California
for Assessment District 2002-1 (Quintard Street)
Resolution Transferring $174,882 from Capital Improvement
Project STL-267 and $100,000 from DR-127 to STL-285 (Quintard Street) to
finance construction costs
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Engineering
REVIEWED BY: City Manager (4/5ths Vote: Yes X No__)
Seventeen property o~vners who have access to their properties on Quintard Street between Third and
Fourth Avenues have missing sidewalk improvements. Thirteen of these property owners have
petitioned the City to commence proceedings pursuant to Chapter 27 of the Improvement Act of
1911 (the "Block Act") and Article XIIID of the Constitution of the State of California ("Article
XIIID') to finance the construction of these improvements. On March 4, 2003 Council adopted
Resolutions Nos. 2003-093, 2003-094, 2003-095 and 2003-096 which accepted the petition,
approved the proposed boundary map and preliminary Assessment Engineer's Report, appropriated
$55,000 to finance preconstrnction costs, set a public hearing and ordered the construction of the
improvements and the initiation of Assessment Ballot proceedings pursuant to Article XIIID.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council:
1. Hold the public hearing, receive testimony, and close the public hearing;
2. Tabulate the results of the Assessment Ballot procedure; and
3. If the tabulation of the Assessment Ballots reveals that a majority protest to the levy of
the assessments does not exist, approve the resolutions making findings at the public
hearing pursuant to Chapter 27 of the Improvement Act of 1911 (the "Block Act") and
Article XIIID and transferring $274,882 to STL-285 to finance construction costs
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
Page 2, Item ~
Meeting Date 5/6/03
On March 4, 2003 Council adopted Resolutions Nos. 2003 -093, 2003 -094, 2003 -095 and 2003-096
(Attachment A). Resolution 2003-093 accepted a petition signed by thirteen property owners on
Quintard Street between Third and Fourth Avenues for the formation of an assessment district
pursuant to the Block Act to finance the construction of missing sidewalk improvements along
Quintard Street. Resolution 2003-094 approved the proposed boundary map for Assessment District
No. 2002-1. Resolution 2003-095 ordered the installation of improvements on Quintard Street,
approved the preliminary Assessment Engineer's Report, set a public hearing for May 6, 2003 at
4:00 pm, and ordered the initiation of Assessment Ballot proceedings. Resolution 2003-096
transferred $55,000 to Capital Improvement Project STL-285 to finance preconstruction costs.
The recommended construction costs payable per property were presented with the original agenda
statement and are summarized on the attached table (Attachment B). The total project cost is
estimated to be $329,882, of which the property owners' share is $67,976 to cover the cost of
constructing the concrete driveway aprons only. The property owner's share ranges from a high of
$6,704, to a low of $2,044 with an average assessment of $4,000.
The map showing the proposed boundaries for Assessment District 2002-1 was filed and recorded at
the San Diego County Recorder's office on April 16, 2003. A reduced version of the boundary map
is shown on Attachment C.
Assessment Ballots and Assessment Ballot materials were mailed to property owners on
March 20, 2003. This meets the 45-day notice requirement from the date ofmailing the Assessment
Ballots to the date of the public heating stipulated in Article XIIID of the California Constitution.
The property owners were informed that the Assessment Ballots may be received by the City Clerk's
office prior to 3:00 pm on May 6, 2003 or any time prior to the conclusion of the public heating in
order to be counted.
Along with the ballot materials, the City also provided the 60-day written notice to the property
owners as required by Chapter 27 of the California Streets and Highways Code. This notice
informed property owners of their right to construct their own driveway aprons and thereby avoid the
levy of an assessment to finance the construction of these improvements. If construction of such
driveway aprons are not commenced within 60 days after the notice is given and continued without
interruption to completion, the construction of these improvements will be done together with the
construction of the remainder of the improvements. This 60 day period will expire on May 19, 2003.
In accordance with Article XIIlD of the California Constitution, property owners may give testimony
at the public hearing for or against the proposed levy of assessments, may submit their Assessment
Ballots at any time prior to the close of the public heating or may withdraw their Assessment Ballots
and submit new Assessment Ballot at any time prior to the close of the public hearing. The
Assessment Ballots shall remain sealed until the public heating is closed. At that point, the
Assessment Ballots will be tabulated and weighed based on the financial responsibility of the
property owners. Article XIIID, Section 5(e) provides that the City Council may not levy the
assessments ifa majority protest exists. A majority protest exists if the Assessment Ballots submitted
in opposition to the assessments exceed the Assessment Ballots in favor of the assessments.
Page 3, Item /~
Meeting Date 5/6/03.
If the Assessment Ballots submitted in favor of the assessments exceed the Assessment Ballots in
opposition to the assessments and the City Council adopts the above resolution ordering the
installation of the improvements, the Superintendent of Streets (Director of Engineering) will
proceed with the public bid process and cause the construction of the improvements in the proposed
assessment district. Staff proposes to advertise this project fi'om late May to late June 2003 and to
return to Council in July to award the contract.
Section 2.56 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code does not specifically address procurement for
projects constructed under the Improvement Act of 1911. Consequently, Section 20852 of the Public
Contract Code governs, and the City is therefore required to advertise and obta'm sealed bids as part
of a formal bidding process and to award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder. The bidding
and awarding of contracts shall be as provided in Streets and Highways Code Section 5100 et seq.
Following completion of the construction of the improvements, the City Council will be asked to
confirm the final assessments based upon the actual costs of construction of the improvements. So
long as the final assessments are equal to or less than the assessments approved by the property
owners pursuant to the Assessment Ballot procedure, no further public hearing will be necessary. If,
however, the final assessments would exceed the assessments approved by the property owners, it
would be necessary for the City to either (a) conduct a further public hearing and Assessment Ballot
proceeding in order to authorize the levy of the assessments in such higher amounts or (b) find
another source of funding for the difference between what the final assessments would be and the
assessments approved by the property owners. If the City Council elects to conduct a further public
heating and Assessment Ballot proceeding in order to authorize the levy of the assessments in such
higher anaounts and the tabulation of the Assessment Ballots indicates the existence of a majority
protest to such higher assessments, the City Council would be precluded from levying the
assessments at such higher levels. The City Council may nevertheless confirm the final assessments
at the level previously approved by the property owners.
Following confirmation of the final assessments, the property owners will have the option of paying
any portion of the assessments during the 30-day payoff period following acceptance of
improvements and confirmation of assessments. If assessments are not fully paid during that time,
the City customarily collects the unpaid balance on the tax roll over a period often years, together
with interest on the unpaid principal at the rate of 7 percent per year. Low income residents are
offered two additional deferral options. Property owners may pay the balance of their assessments at
any time during the ten-year repayment period without penalty.
City Engineering staff is currently seeking Transportation Development Act (TDA) funds through
the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). Eligible items for this funding source
include engineering administration/design costs and sidewalks with their related work items. The
amount of funding being pursued is $49,960. If this funding source is approved by SANDAG in
June, both the City's share and the property owners' share of the costs would be reduced to the extent
allowable. As previously mentioned, staff proposes to advertise this project from late May to late
June 2003 and return to Council in July to award the contract. The Council report awarding the
contract will include information on the TDA funds.
I! I
Page 4, Item ~
Meeting Date 5/6/03
FISCAL IMPACT: The total cost of this project is estimated to be $329,882, including $309,882
for design and construction and $20,000 for planning. A total of $55,000 was transferred fi.om
Capital Improvement Project DR- 127 (Drainage Improvements - Tobias Drive/Glenhaven Way) to
new Capital Improvement Project STL-285 (Quintard Street) through the adoption of ResolutionNo.
2003-096 on March 4, 2003. The current Council action will transfer $174,882 of Gas Tax funds
from Capital Improvement Project STL-267 (Pavement Rehabilitation FY 00/01) and $100,000 of
CDBG funds f~om Capital Improvement Project DR- 127 to provide the needed funds to construct the
project.
Capital Improvement Project STL-267 was recently completed and there are sufficient funds
remaining in the project for the above transfer to be made. Capital Improvement Project DR- 127 is a
three-phase project, the first two of which have been completed. The third phase is scheduled to be
undertaken in FY 2005/06 and funds will be programmed in that fiscal year to complete the final
phase.
The amount of $67,976 is expected to be repaid to the City by property owners over a ten-year per/od
at 7 percent interest.
Attachments: A. Resolutions 2003-093, 2003-094, 2003-095, 2003-096
B. Property Owner Contributions
C. Assessment District Boundary Map
J:\ENGINEER~AGENDA\QUINTARD STREET VOTE.EMC.DOC FILE # STL-285
RE~OLUTION NO. :2003-093
RF~OLUTION OF THE ~'l'Y COUN(XL OF ~ ~'rY OF
CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING A PBTITION REQUESTING THE
~ON OF ~ ~~ DIS~ ~ ~E
A ~R~ON OF O~ S~ ~R ~ ~B OF
~O ~ CONS~U~'I1ON OF ~r
~RO~
connection the/cwittt, such improvements to be installed _.p~.. t to tile pi'ovisions snd authority
of Cliapter 27 of the "hnprovcmcnt Act of 1911", being Divisioo 7 of the Streets and Highways
Code of the ~ of California; and
formntion of nn assessment district potsuant to the pmvtsions of C~nptcr 27, such assessment
disuict to be known and designated as Asscssment District No. 2002-1 (Ouintard Sm~et) (the
'Assessment Di~ct~).
NOW, THF_.REFO~ BE IT RNSOLV~D AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The above recitals are all tree and correct.
SECTION 2. It is hereby found
A. Such petition has been signed by the owners OWnln~a l~d constit~tln~o mote than sixty
percent (60%) of (i) ~0 front, footage of lh.c. -n~mptovcd po~on o~ the block
requested by such owners to be nnp~oved and ('ii) all assessable Innd proposed to be
included within tl~ boundaries of the Ass~,~rnent DisUict.
B. Such petition meets all of the requirements of the "Special Anse-~nent lnvesfignfion,
l.lmi~tion and Majority Profit Act of 1931/' b~ing Division 4 of the Steers end
Highways Code of the State of California (the "Investigations Act").
SEC'ZION 3. No f'urt~r proceedings or llmitalions under the Investigations Act shah be
applicable to th~c pnx:eeatngs.
SF. CIION 4. This petition shall be ns a part of the recold of these proceedings and shall be
open to public inspection as requited by law.
Resolution 2003-093
Pa~e 2
Presented by
Approved as ~o form by
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by ~he City Council of the City of Chula V~sta,
California, ~ ,~th day of March, 2003, by the followin~ vo~e:
AYES: Coundlmembem:
Davis, Rindone, Salas, McCaun and PadiHa
NAYS: Coun~lmembem: None
~/I'I'{/ST:
Councilmembe~:
None
Sus~ Bigclow, City Clcitf
STATE OF C~J~IFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN DIEOO )
UI'i'Y OF CH~ 'vISTA )
I, Susan Bigclow, CRy Clerk of Chub Vista, California, do hereby certify tha~ thc foregoing
Resolution No. 2003-0~ was duly passed, ~ppr~ved, and adop~l by ~e CRy Council at a
regular meeting of ~e Chula V~a CRy Co~mcfl held on the 4~h day of March, 2003.
Executed tiffs 4th day of March, 2003.
Susan Bigclow, City Clcr~
RF_SOL~ON NO.
RESOLLrI~ON OF ~ C;t'l'~/' COUNCIL OF ~ ~:1'1~ OF
C~u-LA V~TA ADOPT~ A MAP SHOW~ TH~
PROI~)S~D BOL~IDARI~ FOR ASSESSMt~ff DISTRICT
NO. 2002~ (~UINTARD ST~.~)
WHI~JIF_AS, the City Council of the City Of Chula Vista, Cslifomia, ha, been presented
and has received a map showll2g and dasctibing ti~ boundaries of ~ area proposed to be
assessed in an asseasm~t .d~.'ct ~ the provisions and authority of Cl~pter 27 of thc
'qm.t~oveanent Act of 1911", being Division 7 of thc Streets and Highways Code ~ the State of
California; said ~__,~ssment district known ~d d~ignated as Ass~ment District No. 2002-1
(Oxtntntd Stm~t) (0~ 'Ass~ent Dis~ict').
NOW, ~RF~ BB IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. TI~ above ~:itais are all true and correct.
SEC-lION 2. A map showing the boundaries of the proposed Assessment District and lands and
property to be asse~ed to pay ~he cosls sad expens~ of the pto~ acquisition of cennin
public improven~ms de~dgnat~d as 'q~oposed Boundari~ of As~ssment District No. 2002-1
(Quintatd SUeet)n is hereby submitted, and the same is hereby approved and adop~i.
SECTION 3. The original map of the bonn_d~..'~ of the prolx~ed Assessment DisUtct.and one
copy thereof is to he filed in the office of the City Clerk.
SECHON 4. A ceffifica~ shall be endorsed mi ~ ori~nn! and on st least one copy .of. the map
of the Assessment DisUio, evidencing the a_a~ and adoption of th~ resolution, and within fifteen
(15) d~.ys after thc adoption of the resolution fixing the time and place of h...~..g on the
formstion or ~mt of tl~ Aaseasmem District, a copy of suc~ map ~hnll l~ filed with tho COl'rect
nnd proper endorsements thereon with the County Recorder, aH in 1t~ manner nmi form provided
in Section 3111 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California.
Ann Moore
City Attorney
/"/-7
Resolution 2003-0?4
Page 2
PAS~ED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the City Council of thc City of Chula Vis~a,
California, this 4th da~ of March, 2003, b~ thc following vote:
Davis, Rindone, Sulas, McC_~un and Padilla
NAYS: Councikncmb~rs: None
ATItiST:
Nol~
Susan Bigelow, City
STATE OF C.~a,T.T~'OR_T'q-LA. )
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO )
CITY OF CHULA VISTA )
I, Susau Big~low, City Clerk of Chula Vista, California, do hereby certify that thc foregoing
Resolution No. 2003-094 was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council at a
regular mee~-g of tile Chula Vista City Council held on the 4th day of March, 2003.
Executed this 4th day of March, 2003.
Susan Big¢low, City CleriU
RBSOLUTION NO. 2003-095
RF. SOLU'IION OF TIlE CITY COUNCIL OF TH~ cfi"/' OF
CHUIA VISTA ORDERING THE INST,~T.TATION OF
C~TAiN l~RO'v~ ON QUINTAItD S'I'R~,
APPROVING THE PI~ARY A~~
ENOn~.R'S REPORT, S~-'l'l-il~lO ~ ~ ~ PLAC~
FOR A PUBLIC I-1~O, YuND ORDERING THE
]NI~TION OF BAt .{ OT PROBINGS
city counch -city.co?ch) of. .the city of
teXlUe, s~fi~ the instnllati.on of cerlain improvements, including ~ .g~e~r, ~idewnlk and
im~revements on Ouinmtd .qtreet between Thild and Fou~h Avenue' together w~lh
appurlennnc~s and appdr~nnnt work in co-nection th~th, such i~nprove~uants m be installed
pursuant to the provisions ~nd authority of Clmpter 27 C'Chap~r 27')of tim "Improvement Act
of 1911', being Division 7 of the Smmts and I-~ghways Code of the Sram of Callforni,; and
WtEREAS, ae ¢it70xnch, acting in
proceedings to o~ler .the ins~Hatiou.of Imch sidewalk imp~..e~ments ptusuant to the provisions
of Chep~ 27 and to initi~ pn~ceedings pursunnt to the ptov~mous of Chepiet 27, ~u~dcie
of the Coustitufiou of the Stau~ of California ("~U~icie Ik'mty~ and th,- Propoaltio~ 218 Omn,'bus
Implementation Act (Government Code Se~ion 53750 and following) (the 'qmplemen.?tion
Act~ (Chapter 27, Article w'nn~ and the lmpiemenUU/on A.a may be referred to collectively
herein ns the "Assessment Law~.') to form an asse~ment district for the purpose of financing the
cost of the installation of ce,nm of those improvements, such nssensment district to be known
and designated ns Assessment District No. 2002-1 (Ouintard Street) (the "Assessment Distdct~;
and
WHEREAS, there has been.prepared and filed with this legislative, body a report (the
"Report") of thc city Engineer, ncting as the Assessment Bngineer, pertaining m thc proposed
~Aasessment District as provided for in and required by the Assessment Law and thc Report has
been presented to this legislative body for its considerati~.
NOW, THBREFORF., BE 1T RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Rec/ufls. The above redtals are all true and correct.
SECTION 2. Description of lmprevemen~ The public interest and convenience requires, and
this City Council hereby orders the instnlla~on of the following public improvements (the
'qmprovements":
Curb, gutter, sidewalk and sm:et improvements on Ouiniard Street between Third
and Fourth Avenues, together with appur/ena~ and appurtenant work in
connection therewith.
SEC'liON 3. Plans and Specifications. All of the Improvements shell.be generally
construaud at the grades, along the lines, between the points, and at the plnces and m the manner
as shown on the plans and specifications for such Impwvements dnsignnted by the name and
number of aim Asseasment District which are on file in the office of the Director of Public
Resolution 2003-095
Page 2
Works. For all partienla~ as to thc alignmcnt of thc Improvcrncnts and a full and detailed
description of such improvements, referenced is hereby made to such plans and specifications.
SECTION 4. Area of Special Benefit. In the opinion of this City Council, cer*aln of the
Improvements, namely the cwb, gut~r and sidewalk: will be of general beacfit to pwpcrties
located both wi~i~ and outside the proposed Assessment District. The driveway aprons,
however, will be of special bencfit to thc abutting and fronting properties. It is the intention of
this City Council to make the expenses of the construction of such driveway at,'-mns assessable
upon such properties within thc proposed boundaries of the Assessment District. For a ~eneral
description of thc Assessment District and area of special benefit, reference is made to thc map
of thc beundarias of thc Assessment District identified as "Proposed Boundaries of Assessment
District No. 2002-1 (Quintani Street)". A copy of such map is on file in the office of thc
Director of Public Works and open to public inspection during nounal office hou~ of such
depa~tiuent. It is the further intention of this City Council that the cost of the construction of thc
Improvements representing the geaetal benefit to be conferred by such~ Improvemenm shall be
paid for by a contribution from the City.
SECTION 5. Construc~on of the Improvements. This City Council hereby orders the
Superintendent of Steers to cause the construction of the Improvements. The Superintendent of
S~eets shall first give nofic~ pursuant to the pwvim'ons of Chapter 27 to the owners of properties
served by driveway aprons of their right to construct such driveway aprons and thereby avoid the
levy of an assesmaent to financ~ such construction. Such llotic~ ~nil ~ ~ jf the
constru~ion of svch driveway aprons is net commeaced within 60 days after such notice ~s ~iven
and diliieatly and without iutcrmption prosecuted to completion, the Superintendent of Streets
shall cause such construction to be done together with the construction of the remainder of the
Improvements.
SECTION 6. Authority for ConsUuction..MI of the consUuction proposed nhal! be done and
carried through and financed pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 27.
SEc'lION 7. Approval of thc Repo~ The Report refen~d to herein above is adopted, pa.nc, ed
upon, and preliminsri]y approved, and COlltainn thc following:
A. A description of the Impwvcments to be constructed;
B, The plans and specifications for the Improvemenla proposed to be constructed;
C, Thc Assessment En~ncer's cstimatc of the itemized and total ~ and c~penses
of the construction of the Improvemems and of the inddental expenses in
connection therewith contained Jn thc Report. Such estimate shall indudc (a) that
portion of such costs and expenses representing the general benefit to be
conferred by such Improvements and (b) that portion of such costs and expenses
representing thc special benefit to be conferred by such the driveway aprons on
Ihose parcels within the Assessment District to be served by such driveway
aprons;
D. The ,4~n~ram showing the Assessment District and the boundaries and dimensions
of the rcspcctivc subdivisions of land within such Assessment Dis~ict, as thc
same existed at the lime of the passage of this resolution, each of which
subdivisions have been given a separat~ number upon such diagram, as contained
in thc Report; and
E. Thc proposed asscssmcnt upon the several subdivisions of land in thc Asscasment
District, in proportion to the estimated special benefits to be conferred on such
subdivisions, respectively, by the drlvcway aprons to bc constmctcd, end of thc
Resolution 20015-095
Page ~
incidental expenses thereof, as contained in the Report if such driveway aprons
not commuct~l by such property
The Report shah stand as the Report of the Assessment l~neer for the purpose of all
subsequent p~ had putsum to Ibc Assessment Law.
SF.~flON 8. Notice of Public Hearing. Notice is herrby given that a public hearing to
con.~i, der protests m th~_.proposed ~ is be~by scheduled to be held at the City Council
meeting mom of the City of Chuin Vista located at 276 Fourth Avenue, Omla Vista, California
on May 6, 2003 at 4.'00 pm. As such lmbHc hearing, the City Council will hear and pass upon
objections or l~-Oio~n, if any, which may' be raised orally or in wrigng by any Noperty owner or
any other inggated per, on.
In addition, pursuant to the provisions of thc Asscssmcnt Law, each record owner of
property proposed to be assessed has the right to submit an aase~nent ballot in favor of or in
Assessment ballots ~ be mail~l to t~ record owner of each parcel locatgd vgthln the
Assessment DisUlct nad subject to a pmpmed ass~s~ngnt. Each such owner may complem such
~nt ballot and thereby indi_,~__t__~ their s~o~ort for or opposition to the pmpmed assessment.
All such n _~,nnent ballots must be received by the City Clerk at the following address at or
before the time set for thc clme of thc public heating:
City Clerk, City of Chttin Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, California 91910
An ~ent ballot received after the close of the public hearing will not be tabulated
even though the postmnrk on the envelope tmn~nntRing thc nssessment ballot is d~t_ed on or
before the date of the public hearing.
At the conclusion of the public hearlng~ the City Council shnll cause the finn! tabulation
of the assessment ballots timely received. If a m~a. jority prote~t .ex~. ts, the City .C~.uncil ~h,l~ not
impo~ an a.sse~¢llt within the Asse _xsm~ ent Disukt A majonty pwtest cxim if, upon the
conclusion of the public hearing, aggssment ballots submitted in opposition 1o the nssee~rnents
Within th~ Assessmeot District e:c~ed the assessment ballots submiUed in favor of such
assessments. In tab~tln~ the assessment ballolrs thc asse~nent ballots shall be weighted
according to the propordon~l ~ancial obligalion of the affemd property.
SECTION 9. Order to Provide Notlc~. The City Clerk is hegby directed to mail,or cause to be
mailed notice of the public hearing and the adoption of this and of the filing of th~ Report,
together with the assessment ballot materi~ls, to the recont owner of all real property proposed to
lq-Il
Resolution 2003-095
Page 4
Presented by
Approved as to form by
city Attorney
PASSED, APPROYF-~, and ADOPTED by .the City Council of the City of Chula Vista,
California, this 4th day of March, 2003, by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmcmhers:
Davis, Rindone, Salas, McCsnn and lh~dill~
NAYS: Councilmembers: None
ABSENT: Councilmembe~s: None
ATI'I~T:
Susan Bigelow, CiD
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO )
t;rr¥ OF CHULA VISTA )
]~ S~n Bigelow, City Clerk of Chula Vista, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing
Resolution No. 2003-095 was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council at a
regular meeting of the Chula Vista City Council held on the 4th day of Mardl, 2003.
Executed tiffs 4th day of March, 2003.
Susan Bigelow, City Ci~rk
RF. SOLLrI~ON NO.
~I~-e, OLUTION OF TH~ CiTY COUNCIL OF TI/I/ ~-~'IY OF
CHULA VISTA TRANS~G $55,000 FROM CAPITAL
]MPROVEMEK~ PRO. CT DR-127 TO STL-285 (0UINTARD
ST~I~T) TO FINANCE PRF_,CONSTRU~..-r~ON COSTS
WHEREAS, the Ouintard .qffeet pwject consists of comtraction of curb, gumr, sidewalk
stol driveway aprons, resuffac/~ and widenln5 offl~ existing ssphalt pavement, and i~slallaiion
of mailboxes and st~etlights along Oaintard Street between Third and Fomth Avenue~; and
WHEREAS, it is nec~Sr to trsrt~fer $55,000 in order m ~e~ preconstmclion ~
~ pl~ ~ ~ ~ ~d
~, it ~ ~ ~t p~ ~ ~ ~y $67,~6 of ~ ~st of ~e
pwj~
NOW, ~O~ BE ~ ~OL~ ~ ~ ~ ~ of ~ of ~ V~
h~ ~r $55,~ ~m ~i~ truant ~ DR-127 ~
Imp~em~- Tobi~ Ddv~ 6le~ Wny~ W ~ ~ ~ ~p~t
~ (~ S~0 ~ ~-~-~ ~on ~.
Presented by
Approved as ~o form by
Ann Moor~
' City Attomey
Resolution 2003-096
Page 2
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by thc City Council of ~e City of Chula Vista,
California, this 4th day of Match, 2003, bY the following vote:
ATTEST:
Coundlmembers:
Councilmembem:
Councilmembers:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Davis, Rindone, Salus, McCann and Padiila
None
None
Susan Bigclow, City Clcr~'
STATE OF C?,! .{FOIU, CIA )
COUNTY OF SA!q DIEGO )
CiTY OF CI~ %qSTA )
I, Susan Big¢low, City Clerk of Omla Vista, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing
Resolution No. 2003-096 was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council at a
regular meeting of thc Chula Vista City Council held on the 4th day of March, 2003.
Executed this 4th day of March, 2003.
Susan Bigelow, City Cicrk
/q
ATFACHMENT B
PROPERTY OWNER CONTRIBUTIONS
Address
315 Quintard
325 Quintard
333 Quintard
341 Quintard
347 Quintard
353 Quintard
354 Quintard
357 Quintard
360 Quintard
364 Quintard
365 Qnintard
366 Quintard
369 Quintard
372 Quintard
374 Quintard
385 Quintard
392 Quintard
Parcel Number
623-050-13-00
632-050-01-00
623-040-09-00
623-040-16-00
623 -040-06-00
623-040-05-00
619-290-55-00
623-040-04-00
619-290-86-00
619-290-87-00
623-040-03-00
619-290-52-00
623-040-02-00
619-290-51-00
619-290-50-00
623-040-01-00
619-290-49-00
Owners' Cost
$3,768
$3,928
$3,224
$5,764
$3,516
$3,352
$6,480
$3,720
$5,948
$3,148
$3,352
$2,044
$3,864
$2,044
$3,352
$6,704
$3,768
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING THE RESULTS OF THE ASSESSMENT
BALLOT TABULATION AND MAKING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO
CHAPTER 27 OF THE IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1911 AND ARTICLE XIIID
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 2002-1 (QUINTARD STREET)
WHEREAS, the City Council (the "City Council") of the CITY OF CHULA VISTA (the
"City"), CALIFORNIA, has received a petition from certain property owners requesting .the
installation of certain improvements, including curb, gutter, sidewalk and street improvements
and driveway aprons on Quintard Street between Third and Fourth Avenues (the
"Improvements"), together with appurtenances and appurtenant work in connection therewith,
such improvements to be installed pursuant to the provisions and authority of Chapter 27
("Chapter 27')of the "Improvement Act of 1911", being Division 7 of the Streets and Highways
Code of the State of California; and
WHEREAS, this City Council, acting in response to such petition, initiated proceedings
to order the installation of the driveway aprons included among the Improvements pursuant to
the provisions of Chapter 27 and to initiate proceedings pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 27,
Article XIIID of the Constitution of the State of California ("Article XIIID") and the Proposition
218 Omnibus Implementation Act (Government Code Section 53750 and following) (the
"Implementation Act") (Chapter 27, Article XIIID and the Implementation Act may be referred
to collectively herein as the "Assessment Law") to form an assessment district for the purpose of
financing the cost of installation of such driveway aprons, such assessment district to be known
and designated as Assessment District No. 2002-1 (Quintard Street) (the "Assessment District");
and
WHEREAS, a report of the Assessment Engineer (the "Preliminary Assessment
Engineer's Report"), required by the Assessment Law was previously presented, considered and
preliminarily approved; and,
WHEREAS, the Preliminary Assessment Engineer's Report, as preliminarily approved,
was prepared and contained all the matters and items called for pursuant to the provisions of the
Assessment Law, including the following:
A. Plans and specifications of the driveway aprons;
An estimate of the cost of the construction of the driveway aprons, including the
cost of the incidental expenses, in connection therewith, including that portion of
such costs and expenses representing the special benefit to be conferred by such
driveway aprons on the parcels within the Assessment District;
A diagram showing the Assessment District, which also shows the boundaries and
dimensions of the respective subdivisions of land within such Assessment
1
Iq-17
District, with each of which subdivisions given a separate number upon such
diagram;
The proposed assessment of the assessable costs and expenses of the construction
of the driveway aprons upon the several divisions of land in the Assessment
District in proportion to the estimated special benefits to be conferred on such
subdivisions, respectively, by such driveway aprons. Such assessment refers to
such subdivisions upon such diagram by the respective numbers thereof; and
E. A description of the Improvements including the driveway aprons.
WHEREAS, notices of such hearing accompanied by assessment ballot materials were
regularly mailed in the time, form and manner required by the Assessment Law and as evidenced
by a certificate on file with the transcript of these proceedings, a full heating has been given, and
at this time all assessment ballots submitted pursuant to the Assessment Law have been
tabulated, all in the manner provided by the Assessment Law; and,
WHEREAS, at this time this City Council determines that the assessment ballots received
by the City in favor of the proposed assessment and weighted as required by the Assessment Law
exceed the assessment ballots received in opposition to the assessment and similarly weighted
and, therefore, a majority protest pursuant to the Assessment Law does not exist.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. RECITALS. The above recitals are all true and correct.
SECTION2. ASSESSMENT BALLOT TABULATION. The assessment ballots
submitted pursuant to the Assessment Law in favor of the proposed assessment and weighted as
required by the Assessment Law exceed the assessment ballots submitted in opposition to such
proposed assessment and similarly weighted and it is therefore determined that a majority protest
pursuant to Assessment Law to the levy of the proposed assessments does not exist.
SECTION3. SPECIAL BENEFITS RECEiVED. Based upon the Preliminary
Assessment Engineer's Report and the testimony and other evidence received at the public
hearing, it is hereby determined that:
A. All properties within the boundaries of the Assessment District to be
assessed receive a special benefit from the driveway aprons;
B. The proportionate special benefit derived by each parcel proposed to be
assessed has been determined in relationship to the entirely of the cost of construction of
the driveway aprons;
C. No assessment is proposed to be imposed on any parcel which exceeds the
reasonable cost of the proportional special benefit to be conferred on such parcel from the
driveway aprons;
2
t¥
D. Only special benefits have been assessed; and
E. There are no parcels which are owned or used by any agency as such term
is defined in Article XIIID, the State of California or the United States that specially
benefit from the driveway aprons.
SECTION 4. F1NAL ASSESSMENT ENGINEER'S REPORT. Upon the completion of
the construction of the driveway aprons, the Superintendent of Streets is ordered prepare and file
with this City Council a Final Assessment Engineer's Report that shall contain all of the
information contained in the Preliminary Engineer's Report modified to reflect the actual cost of
construction of the driveway aprons.
SECTION 5. NOTICE OF COST OF CONSTRUCTION. Upon the completion of the
construction of the driveway aprons and the preparation of the Final Assessment Engineer's
Report, the Superintendent of Streets shall cause notice of the cost of the construction of the
Driveway aprons to be given in the manner specified in Chapter 27. Such notice shall specify the
time and place when this City Council will hear and pass upon the Final Assessment Engineer's
Report, together with any protests or objections, if any, which may be raised by any property
owner liable to be assessed for the cost of such construction and other interested persons.
SECTION 6. PUBLIC HEARING. At the time and place of the public hearing, this City
Council will hear and pass upon the Final Assessment Engineer's Report, together with any
protests or objections, if any, which may be raised by any property owner liable to be assessed
for the cost of such construction and other interested persons. Upon the conclusion of such public
hearing, this City Council may make such revision, corrections or modifications in the Final
Engineer's Report as it may deem just; provided, however, this City Council may not increase the
assessment proposed to be levied on any parcel above the amount proposed in the Preliminary
Assessment Engineer's Report (the "Preliminary Assessment") without first providing the
opportunity for the owner or owners of any parcel for which the assessment is proposed to be
increased to express such owner or owners support for or opposition to such increase in
assessment through an assessment ballot proceeding undertaken pursuant to the Assessment
Law. No Preliminary Assessments may be increased if, following such assessment ballot
proceeding, this City Council determines that a majority protest to such increase is found to
exist.
Presented by
Clifford Swanson
Director of Engineering
J:Attomey\Reso~Assessement District No. 2002-1
Approved as to form by
City Attorney
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA TRANSFERRING $174,882 FROM CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT STL-267 AND $100,000 FROM
STL-267 TO STL-285 (QU1NTARD STREET) TO FINANCE
CONSTRUCTION COSTS
WHEREAS, on March 4, 2003 the City Council adopted Resolution Nos. 2003-093,
2003-094, 2003-095 and 2003-096 which accept the petition, approve the proposed boundary
map and preliminary Assessment Engineer's Report, appropriated $55,000 to finance
preconstruction costs; and
WHEREAS, this City Council, acting in response to such petition, initiated proceedings
to order the installation of the driveway aprons included among the Improvements pursuant to
the provisions of Chapter 27 and to initiate proceedings pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 27,
Article XIIID of the Constitution of the State of California ("Article XIIID") and the Proposition
218 Omnibus Implementation Act (Government Code Section 53750 and following) (the
"Implementation Act") (Chapter 27, Article XIIID and the Implementation Act may be referred
to collectively herein as the "Assessment Law") to form an assessment district for the purpose of
financing the cost of installation of such driveway aprons, such assessment district to be known
and designated as Assessment District No. 2002-1 (Quintard Street) (the "Assessment District");
and
WHEREAS, notices of such hearing accompanied by assessment ballot materials were
regularly mailed in the time, form and manner required by the Assessment Law and as evidenced
by a certificate on file with the transcript of these proceedings, a full heating has been given, and
at this time all assessment ballots submitted pursuant to the Assessment Law have been
tabulated, all in the manner provided by the Assessment Law and
WHEREAS, at this time this City Council determines that the assessment ballots
received by the City in favor of the proposed assessment and weighted as required by the
Assessment Law exceed the assessment ballots received in opposition to the assessment and
similarly weighted and, therefore, a majority protest pursuant to the Assessment Law does not
exist.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula
Vista does hereby approve the resolutions making findings at the public hearing pursuant to
Chapter 27 of the Improvement Act 1911 ("the Block Act") and transferring $274,882 to STL-
285 to finance construction costs.
Presented by
Cliff Swanson
Director of Engineering
Approved as to form by
City Attorney
/:Attomey\Reso\Finance\STL-267 transfer
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item:
Meeting Date: 05/06/03
ITEM TITLE:
SUBMITTED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
Public Hearing: Consideration of Amendments to Chapter VII -
Recreation Programs/Facilities of the Master Fee Schedule
Resolution Amending the Master Fee Schedule to effect
changes to existing fees and the addition of new fees for
Recreation, as shown~chment A
--/,//,~
Director of R¢creat~ffC~
City Manager ~d~ ~ (4/Sths vote: (Yes _No
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council continue the public hearing to
May 13.
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
ITEM NO.: ,/~
MEETING DATE: 05/06/0:3
ITEM TITLE:
SUBMITTED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
APPROVING THE CONSOLIDATED ANNUAL PLAN FOR FISCAL YEAR
2003-04 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) AND
HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP (HOME) PROGRAMS;
AUTHORIZING T, RANSMITTAL OF THE CONSOLIDATED ANNUAL
PLAN TO THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT (HUD); AND INSTRUCTING STAFF TO INCLUDE
APPROPRIATIONS TO FUND THE ANNUAL PLAN IN THE FY 2003-
04 PROPOSED BUDGET
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR ~'~ ~
BACKGROUND
The City Council held a public hearing on April 1, 2003 to review and receive public comment
on projects and programs being considered for CDBG and HOME funding. The 30 day
comment period to review the draft Consolidated Annual Plan ("Plan"} began on April 4, 2003
and ended on May 4, 2003. Nb public comments have been received from the public during the
comment period.
The City of Chub Vista is eligible to receive $2,383,000 in CDBG entitlement funds from the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for 2003-04 along with $1,054,546 in
HOME funds. Additionally, staff is instructing staff to include appropriations in the FY 2003-04
proposed budget for a total CDBG spending plan of $2,397,299. Combining both CDBG and
HOME entitlements, the City will be able to invest into the community a total of $3,451,845 from
these sources for 2003-04. A summary of the FY 2003-04 CDBG/HOME Program Spending
Plan is included as an attachment.
Staff is recommending that the City Council approve the Consolidated Annual Plan (Exhibit A}
which includes staff recommendations for both the CDBG and HOME programs for 2003-04.
Consolidated Annual Plan
The Consolidated Annual Plan identifies a strategy for addressing the needs of the community
through the use of CDBG and HOME funds. These needs include allocating funds for
administration and planning, capital improvements, community projects, economic development,
PAGE 2, ITEM NO.: I~
MEETING DATE: 05/06/03
public services, affordable housing, single-family rehabilitation, and first-time homebuyer programs.
Per HUD regulations, the City must hold a 30-day comment period for the public to review the
Consolidated Annual Plan and make comments or suggest changes. The 30-day commend period
has expired and no comments were received. A public notice was published in a local newspaper
which notified the public of the review and comment process.
RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council adopt the resolution approving the Consolidated Annual Plan for fiscal year
2003-04, including both the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME
Investment Partnership (HOME) programs; authorizing transmittal of the Consolidated Annual
Plan to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD); and instruct staff to
include appropriations to fund the Annual Plan in the FY 2003-04 proposed budget.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION
Staff utilized a CDBG Ad-Hoc Commi~ee for fiscal year 2003-04 to assist in the review process
for oil Public Service funding applications. Members of the CDBG Ad-Hoc Commi~ee included
volunteers from the Commission on Aging and the Housing Advisory Commission.
DISCUSSION
For the 2003-04 CDBG program, the City of Chula Vista is eligible to receive a CDBG
entitlement of $2,383,000. Staff is also recommending an additional $14,299 from reallocated
CDBG funds to increase the CDBG entitlement to $2,397,299. The total amount of CDBG
funding requested is summarized as follows, along with staff's funding recommendation:
CATEGORY
Administration and Planning
Capital Improvement Program
Community Projects
Economic Development
Public Services
AMOUNT KEQUESTED
$476,600
$1,428,500
$311,363
$181,961
$55O,838
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
$431,140
$1,223,315
$234,96O
$157,234
$350,6501
TOTAL $2,949,257 $2,397,299
1 The Public Services portion of the CDBG program is eligible to budget $357,450 based on the 15% funding
cap. Staff is recommending funding in the amount of $350,650. The remaining balance of $6,800 has been
reserved for discretionary use by Council in the event an organization does not receive adequate funding. In
previous years, Council requested staff to set-aside a portion of the Public Service funds for discretionary
use. If the discretionary funds are not distributed within the Public Service category, they will be added to
the City Staff Administration amount.
PAGE 3, ITEM NC).:
MEETING DATE: 05/06/0:3
Staff would like to highlight that in making funding recommendations, the current
economic climate was taken into consideration. In past years, in an attempt to fund
new organizations and to lessen the dependence of existing organizations, staff
has recommended a 10 percent reduction in funding for those organizations who
have been receiving CDBG funding in excess of 10 years. This methodology was
implemented and approved by Council for the past three years.
However, with the expected reductions in the level of funding for these
organizations from the State and local levels, staff recommends "holding the line"
in the amount of funding these organizations will receive. Therefore, organizations
that would normally receive a 10 percent reduction in CDBG funding, will not be cut
and will receive the same level of funding as in FY 2002-03.
ADMINISTRATION AND PLANNING
The following is a summary of the 2003-04 CDBG Administration and Planning adivities totaling
$476,600. The City may allocate up to this amount based on a 20% cap of the entitlement
funds. Staff is recommending $431,140. The balance of $45,460 has been allocated to the
Planning and Building's Code Enforcement Program (TAB 12}.
I ADMINISTRATION REQUESTS
AMOUNT REQUESTED
TAB I
SOUTH BAY FAMILY YMCA HUMAN SERVICES COUNCIL
AMOUNT REQUESTED $30,000
FY 2002-03 FUNDING $23,940
FY 2003-04 STAFF RECOMMENDATION $23,940
The Human Services Council develops coalitions between the communities of human
service providers to effectively utilize personnel and programs and serve as a catalyst to
bring local government, private industry and business organizations together to address
and resolve the communities needs.
TAB 2
REGIONAL TASK FORCE ON THE HOMELESS
AMOUNT REQUESTED $1,000
FY 2002-03 FUNDING $1,000
FY 2003-04 STAFF RECOMMENDATION $1,000
This program provides local agencies information on the homeless population throughout
San Diego County.
PAGE 4, ITEM NO.: [~
MEETING DATE: 05/06/03
TAB 3
CHILD AND YOUTH POLICY ADVOCACY
AMOUNT REQUESTED $46,500
FY 2002-03 FUNDING $46,200
FY 2003-04 STAFF RECOMMENDATION $46,200
This position supports the m~ssion of the Child Care Commission and addresses two
major goals: [1] serve as a resource to the Coordinating Council; and [2] increase
community awareness of the Child Care Commission.
TAB 4
FAIR HOUSING COUNCIL OF SAN DIEGO
AMOUNT REQUESTED $41,000
FY 2002-03 FUNDING $39.000
FY 2003-04 STAFF RECOMMENDATION $39,000
The Fair Housing Council assists the City in providing fair housing opportunities, responds to
resident's concerns, and provides landlord-tenant counseling.
TAB 5
CITY STAFF ADMINISTRATION
AMOUNT REQUESTED
FY 2002-03 FUNDING
FY 2003-04 STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Provides for staff costs in administering the CDBG program including operations.
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
$321,000
$307,860
$321,000
The Capital Improvement program category includes both non-profit and City requests. The non-profit
capital improvement requests total $129,000 and the City capital improvement requests total $1,094,315
for a total funding request of $1,223,315. The capital improvement program category does not have a
funding cap limit.
PROFIT CIP REQUESTS
TAB 6 BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF CHULA VISTA
AMOUNT REQUESTED
FY 2002-03 FUNDING
AMOUNT REQUESTED
:$69,000
$62,700
FY 2003-04 STAFF RECOMMENDATION $69,000
The Boys & Girls Club is requesting funds to replace the existing security doors; installation
of security fencing and window screening; and installation of a security monitoring system.
PAGE 5, ITEM NO.: ~
MEETING DATE: 05/06/03
TAB7
CHULA VISTA AMERICAN LITTLE LEAGUE
AMOUNT REQUESTED $120,000
FY 2002-03 FUNDING $60,800
FY 2003-04 STAFF RECOMMENDATION $60,000
Funds are to being requested to continue with projects that are underway or to be undertaken
by the league. This includes completion of the restroorn facility, parking lot, multi-purpose
fields, and storage.
i CITY-CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
AMOUNT REQUESTED
TAB 8
SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS - NAPLES BETWEEN
AMOUNT REQUESTED $23,500
FY 2003-04 STAFF RECOMMENDATION $0
This funding request has been withdrawn.
TAB 9
DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
AMOUNT REQUESTED $648,800
FY 2003-04 STAFF RECOMMENDATION $648,500
Judson Basin Drainage - Hilltop to Tobias $150,000
CMP Replacement Annual Program $325,000
Drainage Improvements - Emerson Street $173,500
TAB 10
MISCELLANEOUS IMPROVEMENTS
AMOUNT REQUESTED $341,000
FY 2003-04 STAFF RECOMMENDATION $341,000
ADA Curb Cuts Annual Program $60,000
Sidewalk Rehabilitation Annual Allocation $125,000
4th Avenue Sidewalk Improvements $156,000
SITE ANALYSIS
AMOUNT REQUESTED
FY 2003-04 STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Funds will be used for a site analysis for Fire Station #5.
COMMUNITY PROJECTS
$104,815
$104,815
The three (3} Community Project requests total $311,363 and include the following type of
activities: Iai neighborhood revitalization/interim assistance and [bi special activities by
community-based development organizations. There is not a CDBG funding cap for this
category. Staff recommends funding in the amount of $234,960.
PAGE 6, ITEM NO.: ~/
MEETING DATE: 05/06/03
I NEIGHBORHOOD REVITALIZATION/INTERIM ASSISTANCE A/VIOUNT REQUESTED
TAB 11
LUTHERAN SOCIAL SERVICES - CARING NEIGHBOR
AMOUNT REQUESTED $41,363
FY 2002-03 FUNDING $29,000
FY 2003-04 STAFF RECOMMENDATION $29,000
Lutheran Social Services is requesting funds to continue providing hea~th and safe~y home
repairs to seniors. A maiority of the labor is donated by local south bay contractors.
TAB 12
COMMUNITY PRESERVATION PROGRAM
~A~ )0~1~ 0~E ~!~ ~)~ ~ i~ $210,000$50,000
FY 2003-04 STAFF RECOMMENDATION $150,460
Funds will be used to pay the salary of a Code Enforcement Officer for Broadway
Revitalization; COPPS; Community Education; and Property Maintenance programs.
ICOMMUNITY BASED DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATION
AMOUNT REQUESTED
TAB 13
SOUTH BAY COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
AMOUNT REQUESTED $60,000
FY 2002-03 FUNDING $55,500
FY 2003-04 STAFF RECOMMENDATION $55,500
The Community .Development Program includes Affordable Housing Development and
Oversight of resident services; Rental Assistance and Security Deposit Guarantee Program;
First-time Homebuyer Counseling and workshops with potential Chub Vista homebuyers
and individual homebuyer counseling.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REQUESTS
The five (5) Economic Development requests total $181,134. There is not a funding cop for this
category. Staff recommends funding in the amount of $157,234.
I ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
TAB 14 SOUTH COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
AMOUNT REQUESTED
AMOUNT REQUESTED $31,500
FY 2002-03 FUNDING $13,533
FY 2003-04 STAFF RECOMMENDATION $13,833
The SCEDC's smaIJ business development fund assists small businesses and provides Iow
interest loans to start-up and existing businesses to expand, acquire equipment or to
maintain working capital to pay overhead expenses.
PAGE 7, ITEM NO.:
MEETING DATE: 05/06/03
TAB 15
TAB 16
TAB 17
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT -
FEE REDUCTION PROGRAM
AMOUNT REQUESTED $72,900
FY 2002-03 FUNDING $100,000
FY 2003-04 STAFF RECOMMENDATION $72,900
The proposed Development Impact fee Reduction program is designed to assist qualifying
companies pay the fees collected by the City to fund the actual construction cost of capital
improvements (roads, sewers, etc.).
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OPERATIONS
AMOUNT REQUESTED $5,000
FY 2002-03 FUNDING $0
FY 2003-04 STAFF RECOMMENDATION $5,000
Economic Development will be utilizing the funds for office supplies and training for
economic development activities.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANT
AMOUNT REQUESTED $22,100
FY 2002-03 FUNDING NEW
REQUEST
FY 2003-04 STAFF RECOMMENDATION $22,100
Funds will be used to hire a consultant to assist Economic Development staff with business
attraction, expansion and promotional activities.
SOUTHWESTERN COLLEGE CONTRACTING OPPORTUNITIES CENTER
!AMOUNT REQUESTED $12,074
FY 2002-03 FUNDING $10,751
FY 2003-04 STAFF RECOMMENDATION $10,751
This program provides hands-on technical assistance to all small, small disadvantaged,
veteran owned, woman owned and Historically Underutilized Business (HUB) zone business
enterprises that desire to grow and expand their businesses in the governmental market
sector. The program will provide assistance in competing and potentially achieving
government contracts.
SOUTH BAY COMMUNITY SERVICES - TEEN CENTER
AMOUNT REQUESTED $27,560
FY 2002-03 FUNDING $22,550
FY 2003-04 STAFF RECOMMENDATION $22,650
This program provides youth employment training through the KIDZBIZ program.
Youth are taught the essentials of operating a business.
PAGE 8, ITEM NO.: ~
MEETING DATE: 05/06/0:3
TAB 18
SOUTHWESTERN COLLEGE
SMALL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT & INTERNATIONAL TRADE CENTER
AMOUHT REQUESTED $10,000
FY 2002-03 FUNDING $15,000
FY 2003.04 STAFF RECOMMENDATION $10,000
The Small Business Development & International Trade Center will provide Chula Vista
Businesses, that have been identified as potential growth companies, with detailed
research reports using Geographic Information System (GIS) for the purpose of helping the
businesses grow.
PUBLIC SERVICE PROGRAM
The City received thirteen (13) eligible requests for public services totaling $550,838. The city
may allocate up to $357,450 for public service programs, based on a 15 percent cap of the
entitlement funds ($2,383,000). However, staff is recommending funding in the amount
of $350,650. There are discretionary funds available in the amount of $6,800 for
distribution within the Public Services program in the event an organization is not
satisfied with staff's funding recommendation. If the discretionary funds are not
necessary, staff recommends increasing the city staff administration amount from
$321,000 to $327,800.
In order to be eligible for block grant funding, a project or service must address at least one of
the CDBG national objectives which are: 1) Benefit primarily Iow and moderate income families;
2) aid in the prevention or elimination of slums or blight; and 3) meet other community needs
having a major emergency (disasters, etc.).
Please note that substantial detail on all of the components of the CDBG and HOME budflets is
provided in the CDBG Notebook that was distributed to Council for the April 1, 2003 public
hearin.q.
PUBLIC SERVICE FUNDING REQUESTS
The City received thirteen (13) eligible requests which total $550.838. All of the funding
requests from public service organizations are CDBG-eligible as they meet the national objective
to primarily benefit Iow-income families. The proposals are included in the CDBG Notebook
under Public Service Requests.
Methodolocly for Makincl Fundincl Recommendations
In developing staff recommendations, the following principles were utilized:
1. Recommended funding levels for public services was based on [al ability to expend CDBG
funds in a timely manner; [bi submittal of quarter reports on time; [c] review of the stated
MEETING DATE: 05/06/03
objectives as outlined in the CDBG agreement with actual performance; and [dj the length of
time an organization has received CDBG funding.
2. Recommended funding levels for public services should not be below levels that make the
offered CDBG-eligible activities infeasible.
Funding preferences should go to programs which best meet the criteria of providing new
services to Chula Vista, providing services from a local base, collaborating efforts, reduced
funding requests, and have a successful track record in providing services and expenditure of
grant funds.
The above principles were utilized as follows:
1. Staff used last year's approved funding level for each program as an initial basis from which
to make recommendations.
2. Static took into account the $2,383,000 entitlement expected to be received from HUD and
the federally-mandated funding cap of 15 percent.
As per Council direction, staff gave priority to locally-based organizations which are
proposing to primarily serve Chula Vista residents and collaborating agencies. Staff
especially took into consideration the longevity factor of those organization's receiving CDBG
assistance, since the main emphasis for receiving CDBG funding is to assist new requests and
start-up organizations.
Fundinq Recommendations
Staff would like to reiterate that the funding recommendation methodology is based
on "holding the line': The potential budget cut backs in Staff and local funding to
the non-profit organizations will have serious impacts by reducing the level of
services currently being offered by the service providers. In an attempt to lessen this
impact, staff recommends maintaining the funding levels at the FY 2002-03 amounts.
Normally, if an organization has received funding in excess of 10 years, their
recommended funding would be cut by 10% in order to decrease their dependence
on CDBG funding. Staff has used this approach for the past three years with Council
support. Additionally, the collaborative organizations did receive recommendations
for additional funding.
All of the programs requesting funds are identified below. The information provided includes the
amount of funds requested, the prior year funding levels, the CDBG Ad-Hoc Committee funding
recommendations and staff funding recommendations. If a program is recommended for
funding, then staff has determined that it is a viable program at the recommended funding level.
PAGE 10, ITEM NO.:
MEETING DATE: 05/06/03
Please note that the CDBG Budget Notebook previously provided to the Council contains detailed
information about the requesting organizations and their programs. The following requests are
in order as outlined in the CDBG Notebook under Public Service Requests.
All of the funding requests for the public service programs are CDBG-eligible as they meet the
notional objedive to primarily benefit Iow-income families.
I YOUTH SERVICES
TAB 19 CHULA VISTA YOUTH SERVICES NETWORK - COLLABORATIVE
AMOUNT REQUESTED $149,931
FY 2002-03 FUNDING $121,000
AD-HOC RECOMMENDATION $120,000
FY 2003-04 STAFF RECOMMENDATION $126,500
This program provides youth education and counseling services in the area of
tutoring/literacy, fine arts, mentoring, and day camp services. This collaborative is
comprised of South Bay Community Services, Chula Vista Police Adivities League, South
Bay Family YMCA, Boys & Girls Club of Chula Vista, the Chula Vista Cluster Coordinating
Council, and the Chula Vista Parks & Recreation Department.
AMOUNT REQUESTED
TAB 20
SHARP HEALTHCARE FOUNDATION
AMOUNT REQUESTED $25,000
FY 2002-03 FUNDING $20,000
AD-HOC RECOMMENDATION $19,325
FY 2003-04 STAFF RECOMMENDATION $20,000
The Sharp Mobile Health Care Clinic will provide health care to children whose parents
cannot afford health insurance. The Mobile Health Clinic will rotate among seven
strategically located schools. Volunteers and nurses will transport students to the clinic
from schools throughout the School District.
I SENIOR SERVICES
TAB 21 SOUTH BAY SENIOR COLLABORATIVE
AMOUNT REQUESTED
FY 2002-03 FUNDING
AMOUNT REQUESTED
$83,100
$52,766
AD-HOC RECOMMENDATION $53,500
FY 2003-04 STAFF RECOMMENDATION $58,750
This collaborative comprises the organizations of Meals-on-Wheels; St. Charles Nutrition;
Adult Protective Services; Lutheran Social Services Shared Housing; The Salvation Army;
Eider Law & Advocacy; and the Chula Vista Parks & Recreation Department. Each of these
organizations offer services to seniors including meal delivery; adult day care; and rental
assistance.
PAGE 1 I, ITEM NO.: '~
MEETING DATE: 05/06/03
MISCELLANEOUS
AMOUNT REQUESTED
TAB 22 LUTHERAN SOCIAL SERVICES
COMMUNITY & FAMILY SERVICES EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE OF CV
AMOUNT REQUESTED S 15,100
FY 2002-03 FUNDING $0,000
AD-HOC RECOMMENDATION $9,000
FY 2003-04 STAFF RECOMMENDATION $9,000
This program was formally known as Project Hand. Community & Family Services is an
emergency and career assistance center that provides clients with shelter, food, clothing,
transportation, medication, job search assistance, and utility assistance.
TAB 23
CHULA VISTA FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION
AND INTERVENTION COALITION - COLLABORATIVE
MOUNT REQUESTED
FY 2002-03 FUNDING
AD-HOC RECOMMENDATION
FY 2003-04 STAFF RECOMMENDATION
$44,900
$36,522
$40,000
$42,000
This program provides education and outreach services to children, youth and families to
aid in the prevention of violence. This collaborative proposal is comprised of South Bay
Community Services, Chula Vista Police Department, the Center for Communih/Solutions,
YWCA Domestic Violence Services, and YMCA Family Stress Counseling Services.
TAB 24
THURSDAYS MEAL
AMOUNT REQUESTED $8,000
FY 2002-03 FUNDING $6,500
AD.HOC RECOMMENDATION $6,000
FY 2003-04 STAFF RECOMMENDATION $6,000
Thursdays Meal provides free hot meals to the homeless and very Iow income residents of
Chula Vista.
TAB 25
THERAPEUTIC SERVICES COLLABORATIVE
MOUNT REQUESTED
FY 2002-03 FUNDING
AD-HOC RECOMMENDATION
FY 2003-04 STAFF RECOMMENDATION
$77,000
NEW
REQUEST
$5o,ooo
$38,500
This new collaborative includes the Chub Vista Recreation Department Therapeutics
Program and the Charles Cheneweth Foundation. These two therapeutics programs will
collaborate to enhance the leisure/recreational opportunities for individuals with disabilities
who reside in Chula Vista.
PAGE 12, ITEM NO.: I ~
MEETING DATE: 05/06/03
TAB 26
CHULA VISTA LITERACY TEAM CENTER
AMOUNT REQUESTED $9,000
FY 2002-03 FUNDING $9.000
AD-HOC RECOMMENDATION $9,000
FY 2003-04 STAFF RECOMMENDATION $9,000
This collaborative proposal is comprised of the Chula Vista Public Library, the Chu~a Vista
Adult School and the Altrusa Club of Chula Vista. This coalition was established with the
goal of reducing illiteracy in the community.
TAB 27
TAB 28
TAB 29
DRESS FOR SUCCESS - PROFESSIONAL WOMEN'S GROUP
AMOUNT REQUESTED $15,000
FY 2002-03 FUNDING $9,000
AD-HOC RECOMMENDATION $9,000
FY 2003-04 STAFF RECOMMENDATION $9,000
This program is designed to provide Employment Retention and Professional Image
services to economically disadvantaged women who are making the transition from
government subsidy to economic independence.
INFORM CHULA VISTA - COLLABORATIVE
AMOUNT REQUESTED $23,057
FY 2002-03 FUNDING $14,162
AD-HOC RECOMMENDATION $9,325
FY 2003-04 STAFF RECOMMENDATION $17,300
INFORM Chula Vista is a collaborative of INFORM San Diego and the Chula Vista
Recreation Department. The purpose of INFORM Chula Vista is to provide comprehensive,
uncomplicated, and readily available health and human service information.
SOUTHWESTERN COLLEGE - SOUTH COUNTY CAREER CTR
AMOUNT REQUESTED $18,244
FY 2002-03 FUNDING $12,100
AD-HOC RECOMMEHDATION $8,000
FY 2003-04 STAFF RECOMMENDATION $12,100
The South County Career Center provides supportive services to Chula Vista job seekers in
the form of training programs, assistance in determining career plans, and job
development. Whenever possible, Chula Vista clients are matched with local employers.
/b
PAGE 13, ITEM NO.: I~
MEETING DATE: 05/06/03
TAB 30
TAB 31
COMMUNITY EMERGENCY RESPONSE TEAM
CHULA VISTA FIRE DEPARTMENT
AMOUNT REQUESTED
FY 2002.03 FUNDING
AD.HOC RECOMMENDATION
FY 2003-04 STAFF RECOMMENDATION
$80,000
NEW
REQUEST
$0
$0
The Community Emergency Response Team concept was developed and implemented
by the LA Fire Department in 1985 to train citizens and private government employees
to provide emergency assistance in the event of a natural disaster. Both the Ad-Hoc
Committee and staff agree that that funding this program should come from the
General Fund.
CHULA VISTA VETERANS HOME SUPPORT FUND
AMOUNT REQUESTED $2,500
FY 2002-03 FUNDING $3,500
AD-HOC RECOMMENDATION $2,000
FY 2003-04 STAFF RECOMMENDATION $2,500
The Chula Vista Veterans Home Support Foundation raises money to fund quality of
living items for the Veterans Home residents that cannot be funded by the State of
California's Department of Veterans Affairs. Staff has identified an alternative source
to bring the funding amount up to the $3,500 level.
HOME PROGRAM BUDGET
The City will receive $1,054,546 in HOME funds from HUD for FY 2003-04. HOME funds
may be used to provide affordable rental housing and ownership opportunities
through new construction, acquisition, rehabilitation, and tenant-based rental
assistance. Over the past six-years the City has used these funds to support new construction
and acquisition activities related to the development of affordable housing.
The following proposals are included in the CDBG Notebook under HOME Program Budget in
the following sequence:
MEETING DATE: 05/06/03
TAB 32
STAFF ADMINISTRATION
I STAFF RECOMMENDATION I $105,454
Administrative costs for city staff to oversee the HOME program. These admJnbtrative
costs represent 10% of the HOME budget. These costs include staff costs for
coordination, accounting, monitoring of sub-recipients, environmental review, and HUD
reporting requirements. Approximately $90,000 will be used to reimburse the General
Fund for staff-related costs and $15,454 will be used for affordable housing compliance
monitoring.
TAB 33
COMMUNITY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATION
I STAFF RECOMMENDATION ] $158,182
HOME program regulations require a participating jurisdidion to set-aside 15% of the
annual HOME entitlement for a Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO)
for the purpose of developing and/or supporting the City of Chula Vista in providing
affordable housing project in the City.
TAB 34
SOUTH BAY COMMUNITY SERVICES - OFFICE RENT
I STAFF RECOMMENDATION I $52,727
Funds will be used for office space. As a community based development organization
HOME funds are eligible for this program.
TAB 35
AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
I STAFF RECOMMENDATION I $718,182
Funds will be used for new affordable housing development; to acquire land for infill
affordable housing units; single-family rehabilitation; and first-time homebuyer
programs.
FISCAL IMPACT
The Ci~/ will receive $2,383,000 in CDBG entitlement funds for fiscal year 2003-04.
Additionally, staff is recommending adding an additional $14,299 from reallocated CDBG funds
to increase the entitlement from $2,383,000 to $2,397,299. The City will also receive
$1,054,546 in HOME funds for fiscal year 2003-04 for a combined CDBG/HOME total of
$3,451,845.
Attachments:
Exhibit A - Fiscal Year 2003-04 Consolidated Annual Plan
EXHIBITA
cr/Y oF
CHULA VISTA
Consolidated Annual Plan
Fiscal Year 2003-04
This Consolidated Annual Plan delineates the City's plans for use of funds during the fiscal year 2003-04. The Plan
describes: A) the reeoumes available for program implementation; B) activity to be undertaken; C) monitoring; D)
homelessness; E) anti-poverty strategy; F) coordination; G) obstacles to underserved needs; H) geographic location
for expenditure of CDBG funds; and I) objectives. This plan is consistent with the priority housing needs, priority
homeless needs, priodty special needs populations, and priority non-housing community development needs listed in
the City of Chula Vista's Consolidated Plan for Fiscal Years 2000-2005.
A. HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT RESOURCES
Financing Resources
Financing resoumes for addressing housing and community development needs are faiity limited for the City. To
ultimately reach the goals of the City, a variety of resoumee must be used lo achieve each objective. Table 1
describes the eligible activities of a variety of resoumes identified in this section. The limited City reeoumes must be
leveraged with additional funds from private and public sources and programs. Partnerships with banks, nonprofit,
and private developers are needed. Achieving these goals requires community volunteer efforts to raise funds, solicit
grants and donate time. The City can facilitate the use of developers and potential homeowners of tax-exempt
financing (bond issuances), Iow income tax credits, and other tax credit programs.
The City anticipates using the following federal programs for implementation of the Consolidated Annual Plan:
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) - the City is an entitlement City and receives an annual grant
from the federal government. These funds can be used for public facilities, services, or housing for Iow-
income (80% and below the median County income) persons. For FY 2003-04 the City is expected to
receive $2,383,000 in CDBG funds
HOME Program - the City also receives an annual grant from the HUD program through a jurisdictionally
competitive process. The funds can be used for new housing construction, housing rehabilitation, rental
assistance or to assist first time homebuyem. For FY 2003-04 the City is expected to receive $1,054,546 in
HOME funds.
Section 8 Rental Assistance - the County of San Diego operates the City's program and will receive HUD
funding for the next five years to provide rental assistance for Iow-income families (50% of median County
income).
Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Act - a variety of programs are available to fund homeless transitional
housing programs and emergency shelters.
HUD 202 Program - funds are for new construction of senior housing.
Federal tax-exempt housing revenue bonds provide Iow interest bonds for the acquisition and construction
of Iow income housing projects.
City of Chula Vista
2003 Annual Plan
EXHIBIT A
The City also plans to use funds through the following State or local government programs:
Redevelopment Agency 20% Set-Aside Program - every year, the City's Redevelopment Agency sets aside
approximately twenty pement of the tax increment revenue it generates from its five redevelopment project
areas to be used for the development and rehabilitation of affordable housing.
Mortgage Credit Certificate Program - tax credits for first-time homebuyers. To date the City has assisted
approximately 220 first-time homebuyers. The City currently participates in the Regional MCC Consortium
administered by the County of San Diego.
The City supports the application of other entities within the City for programs which would assist the City in reaching
the goals of the Plan. These programs include Emergency Shelter Grant, Supportive Housing, Housing for Persons
with AIDS, Iow income housing tax credits, and mortgage revenue bonds. See Table 2: Support of Applications by
Other Entities.
As other programs from the State and Federal government arise during the five-year planning period which will assist
the City in reaching the goals and objectives of the Plan, the City will pumue those resources.
Non-Profit Resources
Non-profit housing developers and service providers are a critical resoume to the City. The following developers and
service providers are some of the non-profits who have been active in the City and play an important role in the Plan.
Local Initiative Support Corporation (USC) - Residential, commemial or mixed-use projects serving Iow
income persons. LlSC offers non-profit capacity building and pro-development grants and loans.
California Community Reinvestment Corporation (CCRC) - Provides 3ermanent financing of multi-family
rental and limited equity housing cooperatives.
South Bay Community Services (SBCS) - Multi-service social service agency and affordable housing
developer working closely with the City on numerous community improvement projects.
Metropolitan Area Advisory Commiffee (MAAC) - Multi-service social service agency and affordable
housing developer working with the City on various affordable housing projects.
For-Profit Resources
Bank of America - Residential, commemial or mixed-use projects serving Iow income persons. Bank of
America offers assistance in the form of construction loans and rehabilitation loans.
City of Chula Vista
2003 Annual Plan / ~ _ //~ Page 2
EXHIBITA
TABLE 1
PUBLIC AND PRIVATE RESOURCES AVAILABLE
FOR HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES
1. Federal Programs
a. Formula/Entitlements
HOME
2003-04 Funding -
$1,054,546
Flexible grant program awarded
to the City on a formula basis
for housing activities,
Acquisition
Rehabilitation
Home Buyer Assistance
Rental Assistance
CDBG 2003-04
Funding $2,383,000
Grants awarded to the City on a
formula basis for housing
activities.
Acquisition
Rehabilitation
Home Buyer Assistance
Economic Development
Homeless Assistance
Public Services
Housing Opportunities
for Persons with AIDS
(HOPWA)
HOPE
Entitlement and Competitive
Grants for Housing Assistance
and Supportive Services for
PHAs. Grants awarded to City
on a formula basis, are
administered by the County.
Home ownership assistance
awarded on a competitive
basis, requires non-federal
matching funds.
Public Housing Ownership
(HOPE1)
Home Ownership of Multi-
Family Units (HOPE2)
Home Ownership for
Single-Family Homes
(HOPE3)
City of Chula Vista
2003 Annual Plan
Page3
EXHIBIT A
TABLE 1
PUBLIC AND PRIVATE RESOURCES AVAILABLE
FOR HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES
(continued)
Program Program DeScription
Type Name
b. Competitive
Programs (continued)
Emergency Shelter Grants
(ESG)
Eligible
Activities
Grants to improve quality of
existing shelters/increase
number of new shelters for the
homeless. Funds are awarded
to local non-profits through the
State.
Homeless Assistance
Acquisition
New Construction
Rehabilitation
Support Services
Section 8
Rental Assistance Program
Shelter Care Plus
Section 202
Section 811
Rental assistance payments to
owners of private market rate
units on behalf of very Iow
income tenants. Administered
by OCHA.
Grants for rental assistance
offered with support services to
homeless with disabilities and
disabled households.
Grants to non-profit developers
of supportive housing for the
elderly.
Grants to non-profit developers
of supportive housing for
persons with disabilities,
including group homes,
independent living facilities and
intermediate care facilities.
Rental Assistance
Rental Assistance
Acquisition
Rehabilitation
New Construction
Rental Assistance
Support Services
Acquisition
Rehabilitation
New Construction
Rental Assistance
ci , of chu,, Vista ../?
2003 Annual Plan Page 4
EXHIBITA
TABLE1
PUBLICAND PRIVATE RESOURCESAVAILABLE
FOR HOUSING ANDCOMMUNITYDEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES
~o~lnued)
Economic Adjustment
Assistance - Sudden and
Severe
Provides funding for areas
facing actual or threatened
unemployment as a result of
sudden economic dislocation.
b. Competitive
Program (continued)
Public facilities/services
Business Development
Planning
Rent supplements
Mortgage payment
assistance
Reseamh
Technical assistance
Training
Relocation of individuals
and unemployment
compensation
2. State Programs
Emergency Shelter Program
Mobile Home Park
Conversion Program
Califomia Housing Finance
Agency (CHFA) Multiple
Rental Housing Programs
Grants awarded to non-profit
organizations for shelter
support services.
Funds awarded to mobile
home park tenant
organizations to convert
mobile home parks to resident
ownership.
Below market rate financing
offered to builders and
developers of multi-family and
elderly rental housing. Tax
exempt bonds provide below-
market mortgage money.
Support Services
Acquisition
Rehabilitation
New Construction
Rehabilitation
Acquisition of Properties
from 20 to 150 units
City of Chulu Vista
2003 Annual Plan
Page5
EXHIBIT A
TABLE 1
PUBLIC AND PRIVATE RESOURCES AVAILABLE
FOR HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES
(continued)
program
Type
Program DesCriPtion Eligible
Na Activities
California Housing Finance Agency CHFA sells tax-exempt bonds to Home Buyer
Home Mortgage Pumhase Program make below market loans to first Assistance
time home buyem. Program
operates through participating
lenders who originate loans for
CHFA pumhase.
2. State
Programs
(continued)
Mortgage Credit Certificate Program
Low Income Housing Tax Credit
California Housing Rehabilitation
Program - Owner Component
Income tax credits available to first Home Buyer
time home buyers for the Assistance
pumhase of new or existing single-
family housing. Local agencies
make certificates available.
Tax credits available to individuals
and corporations that invest in Iow
income rental housing. Tax
credits sold to corporations and
people with high tax liability and
proceeds are used to create
housing.
New Construction
Rehabilitation
Acquisition
Low interest loans for the
rehabilitation of substandard
homes owned and occupied by
lower income households. City
and non-profit sponsor housing
rehabilitation projects
Rehabilitation
Repair Code
Violations
Accessibility
Improvements
Room Additions
General Property
Improvements
cit of C ,ula Vi, Fa
2003 Annual Plan Page 6
EXHIBITA
TABLE 1
PUBLIC AND PRIVATE RESOURCES AVAILABLE
FOR HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES
(continued)
2. State Programs
(continued)
Defense Adjustment
Matching Grant
Provides a portion of matching
funds required by communities
seeking federal funding for
defense-related economic
adjustment strategies and
programs.
Matching funds to
obtain federal
planning and
implementation
grants for defense
convemJon and base
closure response
activities.
3. Local Programs
4. Private
Resources/Financing
Programs
Chula Vista Redevelopment
Agency
2003-04 Funding-
Approximately $2,6 million.
Federal National Mortgage
Association (FNMA)
a. Community Home Buyers
Program
b. Community Home
Mortgage
Improvement Program
20 percent of Agency funds are
set aside for affordable housing
activities governed by state law.
Loan applicants apply to
participating lenders for the
following programs:
Fixed rate mortgages issued by
private mortgage insurem.
Mortgages which fund the
purchase and rehabilitation of a
home
Acquisition
Rehabilitation
New Construction
Home Buyer
Assistance
Home Buyer
Assistance
Rehabilitation
Home Buyer
Assistance
c. Fannie Neighbors
Low Down Payment Mortgages
for Single Family Homes in
under served Iow income and
minority communities.
City of Chula Vista
2003 A.nu, P a./ / p, go 7
EXHIBIT A
4. Private
Resources/Financing
Programs (continued)
TABLE 1
PUBLIC AND PRIVATE RESOURCES AVAILABLE
FOR HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES
(continued)
California Community
Reinvestment Corporation
(CCRA)
: Eligible Activities
Non-profit mortgage banking
consortium designed to provide
long term debt financing for
affordable multi-family rental
housing. Non-profit and for-
profit developers contact
member banks.
New Construction
Rehabilitation
Acquisition
Federal Home Loan Bank
Affordable Housing Program
Direct subsidies to non-profit
and for-profit developers and
public agencies for affordable
Iow income ownership and
rental projects.
New Construction
City of Chula Vista
2003 Annual Plan / ~ - ~ ~- Page 8
EXHIBIT A
Funding Source
A.
Public
B.
Table 2
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
CPO Consolidated Plan
Support of Applications by Other Entities Report
Formula/Entitlement Programs
ESG
Housing Comprehensive Grant
Competitive Programs
HOPE 1
HOPE 2
HOPE 3
ESG
Supportive Housing
HOPWA
Safe Havens
Rural Homeless Housing
Section 202 Elderly
Section 811 Handicapped
Moderate Rehab SRO
Rental Vouchers
Rental Certificates
Public Housing Development
Public Housing MROP
Public Housing ClAP
LIHTC
Support Application
by Other Entities?
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
City of Chula Vista
2003 Annual Plan
Page 9
EXHIBIT A
B. ACTIVITIES TO BE UNDERTAKEN
Table 3: Funding Sources illustrates the City's CDBG and HOME allocations and program income available for the
coming fiscal year.
Table 3
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
CPO Consolidated Plan
Funding Sources
Entitlement Grant (includes reailocated funds) $3,437,546
Unpmgrammed Prior Year's Income not previously reported $0
Surplus Funds (Reprogrammed CDBG Funds) $14,299
Return of Grant Funds $0
Total Estimated Program Income $0
Total Funding Sources: $3,451,845
C. MONITORING
Careful evaluation of the housing and public service delivery system can be the most effective tool in detecting gaps
and making appropriate modifications. Chula Vista monitors its sub-grantees, conducts in-house reviews of progress
reports and expenditures and performs on-site visits to ensure compliance with federal regulations. Agreements
made with sub-grantees encourage uniform reporting to achieve consistent information on beneficiaries. Technical
assistance is provided when necessary.
D. HOMELESSNESS
The City of Chula Vista will continue to support the efforts of South Bay Community Services transitional and short-
term housing projects which assist the homeless and in addition, will fund the following projects to help the homeless
in fiscal year 2003-04:
Thursday's Meal
San Diego Regional Task Force on the Homeless
Lutheran Social Services - Project Hand
County of San Diego - Cold Weather Shelter Voucher Program
E. ANTI-POVERTY STRATEGY
As part of the City's Anti-Poverty Strategy, the City will endeavor to integrate social services and housing activities for
households below the poverty line. These efforts include, but are not limited to the following:
South Bay Community Services KIDSBIZ Pr~ram: This program teaches At-risk youths to use their
entrepreneurial skills in a positive way. Teenagers are taught to develop their own business plans and to
run their own business.
Earned Income Tax Credit Proaram: SBCS has hired a program coordinator to do outreach and education
to community residents about the Earned Income Tax Credil. This coordinator assists in qualifying citizens
in applying for the tax credit. The goal of this program is to have 200 families receive the tax credit. Eligible
families are working parents with children earning under $25,000 per year.
ci, o, C.u,a vis, /
2003 Annual Plan Page 10
EXHIBIT A
Park Villac~e Apartments: On-site day cam and job training services are offered at this very Iow income
apartment complex.
Casa Nueva Vida I & I1: Residents are required to secure an income and save money for their fimt month's
rent plus security deposit. They are referred to oulside job training agencies for help in securing a job.
Independent living skills are taught in areas of health, nutrition, immunizations, parenting, and other
pertinent issues. Individual and family counseling is also offered.
F. COORDINATION
The City will coordinate and implement its strategies through the following activities:
Activity: Target available CDBG funding to those areas and population exhibiting the greatest need.
Activity:
Encourage social service providers to work with developers and CHDOs to provide service-
endched housing. Services include health care referrals, financial counseling, and case
management.
Activity:
Assist county, state, federal, educational, and private organizations involved in economic
development and job training in targeting their efforts toward those areas of Chula Vista exhibiting
the greatest need.
G. OBSTACLES TO UNDESERVED NEEDS
The City is continuing in its effort to remove obstacles to undeserved needs throughout the community. The City has
made a commitment to budget CDBG funds at the maximum allowable to offer citizens much needed programs and
services in the area of literacy, job training, youth activities, senior services, violence prevention, and health care
assistance for Iow- income families.
H. GEOGRAPHIC AREAS FOR EXPENDITURE OF CDBG FUNDS
The City plans to use CDBG funds in areas of the City where improvement is most needed. Many of the projects
assisted with CDBG are located in the western portion of the City which is also the oldest areas where infrastructure
improvements and revitalization is needed. The City continues to implement ADA improvements throughout the
community as required by federal mandate.
Capital Improvement Program (CIP) funds are targeted to the CDBG eligible census tracts and include provision for
curbs, gutters, sidewalks, drainage improvements, street improvements, lighting, and ADA curb cuts.
PROPOSED 2003-04 HOME BUDGET
The Federal HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME) allocated funds by formula directly to state and local
governments to promote affordable housing. Participating jurisdictions are able to provide this assistance to both for-
profit and non-profit housing developers or directly to qualified home buyers or renters. The assistance may take the
form of grants, loans, advances, equity investments, and interest subsidies.
To date, the City has been allocated $7,608,000 in HOME funds since 1992 when the program was created. HOME
funds may be used to provide affordable rental housing and home ownership opportunities through new construction,
acquisition, rehabilitation, and tenant-based rental assistance. In addition, HOME funds can be used to fund
operational costs for Community Housing Development Organizations (CHDO). A CHDO is a non-profit, community-
based organization that has, or intends to retain, staff with the capacity to develop affordable housing for the
community it serves. Currently, the City has four (4) designated CHDO's: [1] MAAC Project; [2] Habitat for Humanity;
[3] South Bay Community Services; and Interfaith Housing.
The City is required to provide a 25 pement match for HOME funds used for rental assistance, housing rehabilitation,
and acquisition of standard housing. A 30 percent match is required for new construction. Some examples of
allowable matching contributions would include Redevelopment Agency Low and Moderate Income Housing Funds,
City of Chula Vista
2003 Annual Plan //~ '~ ~ Page 11
EXHIBIT A
land value (donated or a loan), on and off-site improvements, waiver of local and state taxes or fees, voluntary labor
in connection with site preparation. If a proiect exceeds the required match, the excess credit can be applied to
future projects. The table below delineates the uses of HOME funds for fiscal year 2003-04.
Table 4
ESTIMATED 2003-04 USE OF HOME FUNDS
CITY OF CHULA VISTA 1
Staff Administration
Community Housing Development
Organization (CHDO)
Affordable Housing Projects
SBCS- Office Rent
TOTAL
$105,455
$158,182
$738,182
$52,727
$1,054,546
The following is a brief description of the above HOME activities being recommended for funding:
Staff Administration
Administrative costs for city staff to oversee the HOME program. These administrative costs represent 10% of the
HOME budget. These costs include staff costs for coordination, accounting, environmental review, and HUD
repoding requirements.
CHDO 15% Set Aside
Per HUD regulations a City is required to set-aside 15% of the annual allocation for Community Housing
Development Organizations (CHDO) to assist the City in development and/or support in providing affordable housing
projects for Iow and moderate income families. For FY 2003-04, the City of Chula Vista is setting aside $158,182 for
CHDO housing projects. These funds will be awarded on a competitive basis.
CHDO Operation
The $52,727 proposed for CHDO operation costs is earmarked for South Bay Community Services.
CHDO Monitoring
A careful evaluation of the CHDO delivery system is an effective way to determine the organization is carrying out the
goals and objectives in providing affordable housing. The City of Chula Vista will be monitoring South Bay
Community Services in the same manner that it monitom CDBG sub-recipients. An annual financial examination of
the organization will be performed along with requiring South Bay Community service to submit quarterly progress
reports. At year end, staff will tour the South Bay Community Services facility and related projects that were assisted
with HOME funds.
Geographic Location for HOME Funds
The City of Chula Vista has committed HOME funds to various projects throughout the city. These projects ara
designed to target Iow and moderate-income households at or under 60% of median income. A major commitment is
a newly created down payment and closing cost assistance to assist first-time homebuyers on a city-wide basis.
The City has the option to modify the amounts by category in the future without HUD approval if the need arises.
City of Chula Vista
2003 Annual Plan //~ *~ ~ ~ Page 12
EXHIBITA
Barriers to Affordable Housing
The City actively encourages developers to set-aside 10% of newly developed units for affordable housing purposes.
The City also strongly supports the County of San Diego's effort at supplying public housing such as Dorothy Street
and L Street. As part of the Housing Element, the City works closely with developers in negotiating affordable
housing agreements which require a 10% unit set-aside for Iow and moderate income housing. Five percent for
households at or below 80% of median income and 5% for moderate income households. Projects that meet this
criteria are Rolling Hills Ranch (116 senior and 30 family units) and Otay Ranch (242 units). Both of these projects
are located on the Eastern portion of the city. Low and Moderate Income Housing Funds have been targeted for
these projects, however HOME funds could also be used.
Due to the increase price of for-sale housing, the City offers a down payment assistance program. Since the down
payment and closing costs require a large cash outlay, the transition from rental to for-sale housing can be a
hardship for most Iow and moderate-income households. The City will provide subsidy funds for the down payment
in the form of a loan and will also provide a portion of the closing costs in the form of a grant.
Maintaining Affordable Housing
In 1968, HUD developed the 236 program that provided both mortgage insurance and mortgage interest reduction to
any for-profit or non-profit developer who agreed to build affordable housing units for families. Chula Vista has four
projects which were HUD financed using the 236 program. Currently, two of these projects are nearing the expiration
of the affordability term. Castle Park Garden Apartments consisting of 62 non-elderly units and Rancho Vista
Apartments consisting of 24 non-elderly units. The city is attempting to preserve these units through a partnership
with the apartment owner, lending institutions, and non-profit organizations.
The City also maintains affordable housing through the Community Housing Improvement Program (CHIP). The
purpose of this program is to assist Iow income households rehabilitate their existing home. Both single-family and
mobile homes are eligible to receive assistance. Currently, a combination of HOME and Low and Moderate Income
Housing funds are used to fund this program. For fiscal year 2003-04 the City anticipates assisting 20 single-family
households with over $480,000 in loans. For the mobile home grant program, the City anticipates assisting 33
households.
Lead-BaeedPaint
The City currently assists homeowners alleviate lead-based paint hazards through the Community Housing
Improvement Program (CHIP). When lead-based paint is discovered through the rehabilitation of the property, funds
are used to remove and dispose of the paint chips and to repaint the house. The City utilizes the Low and Moderate
income Housing Funds for this purpose. The City expects to use HOME funds to rehabilitate some homes. With the
newly implemented lead-based paint legislation, Chula Vista will be designing a lead-based paint hazard program to
provide information to Chula Vista residents and measures to limit the impact of iead-basod paint.
Additionally, the City's first-time homebuyer program has set aside funds to assist with lead-based paint issues.
Currently, $24,000 is available for homebuyers purchasing homes that do not appear to contain lead-based paint. If
a home has identified lead-based paint issues, the loan is increased to $40,000 to assist in abating the lead-based
paint.
Housing Authority
In 1995 the City received HUD certification to operate as a Housing Authority. The focus of the Chula Vista Housing
Authority is on the development of affordable housing through land acquisition, bond indebtedness, and rehabilitation
of the existing housing stock. The Section 8 rental assistance program will continue to be administered by the
County of San Diego. Chula Vista fully supports the County of San Diego in their application for vouchers.
City of Chula Vista
2003 A..usi
EXHIBIT A
City Administration
The City can allocate 10% or $105,454 of its HOME funds for administration. These funds will be used for overall
administration and coordination of the HOME Program as well as staff time devoted to individually HOME-funded
projects and programs. HOME funds used for administration do not require a match.
I. OBJECTIVES/ACHIEVEMENTS
1. PRIORITY HOUSING NEEDS
This section describes Chula Vista's strategies for addressing housing needs which are identified as High or Medium
priorities.
Priorities for Allocating Investment Geographically
Housing assistance can be generally described as available throughout the entire City. Homeownemhip activities,
preservation of at-risk affordable housing, rehabilitation of owner-occupied housing, and mixed income rental housing
acquisition and development can occur in any area of the City exhibiting need or project feasibility (subject to
program guidelines).
Site selection guidelines of the City ensure that all units are built or acquired in areas of the City where there is
adequate services such as schools, health care, transportation and or recreational services.
PRIORITY 1.1
Continue the housing rehabilitation, rental rehabilitation, and mobilehome
rehabilitation programs in order to preserve the City's aging housing stock
Since the inception of the Redevelopment Agency's rehabilitation programs, these
programs have served almost exclusively very-iow income households whose dwelling
units were in dire need of rehabilitation. In order to preserve the City's aging housing
stock and provide decent places for people to live, the Agency will continue doing
moderate rehabilitation. For fiscal year 2003-04 the City anticipates rehabilitating 25
mobile homes and 20 single family homes.
PRIORITY 1.2
Continue to implement the City's Affordable Housing Program so that more newly
constructed rental and for-sale units are made available to Iow, moderate, and
middle income households.
Chula Vista is very fortunate because a large portion of the City is yet to be developed. In
an effort to gain more housing units affordable to Iow and moderate-income groups in the
undeveloped areas and to promote a balanced community, the Affordable Housing
Program was developed. Census Data for 1990 shows that the City lacks affordable
rental and for-sale units to persons and families in the above income groups. The five
year objective as outlined in the Consolidated Plan has targeted this as a High Priority for
very Iow and Iow income family rental units with construction of 250 Iow and moderate
income units (80% and below) and 345 middle and above middle income units (81% to
120%). Medium Primity is assigned to Iow and moderate income family for-sale units.
Currently, the following Affordable Housing Agreements were negotiated and approved:
Otay Ranch - This development will provide a total of 242 units of which 91
units will be targeted to senior households. The City has to provided financial
assistance in the amount of $4,000,000 in Iow and moderate income housing
funds. This project is located in the Eastern territory of the City.
City of Chula Vista
2003 Annual Plan //~ ~. ~.~.~ Page 14
EXHIBITA
Funding the Otay Ranch project exhausted most of the Low and Moderate Income
Housing funds. As requests for funding are submitted by developers, the City's HOME
funds will be the primary soume of gap financing.
PRIORITY 1.3
Assist Iow, moderate and middle income residents to become homeowners.
According to SANDAG and data compiled from the San Diego Union-Tribune Newspaper,
approximately 30% of all households could afford to pumhase a single family home in the
San Diego region in 1993, and it is estimated that approximately 25% of Chula Vista
residents can afford a median priced single family home in Chula Vista. This percentage
does assume, however, that these individuals have the down payment for a loan and a
well established credit history. The City assists moderate and middle income residents by
offering the following programs:
Mortgage Credit Certificate Program (MCC) - The County of San Diego
administers the MCC program on behalf of Chula Vista and allows eligible buyem
to take 20% of their mortgage interest as a tax credit on their federal income
taxes. To be eligible for the program in non-targeted census tracts, a household
must be a first-time home buyer, buy a home in Chula Vista, and eam less than
115% of County Median Income. (A targeted census tract is one where 70% or
more of the households earn 80% or less of the County Median Income). The
current objective is to assist 7 moderate income families. The funding soume for
this program has continue to decline.
Reissued Mortgage Credit Certificate Program (RMCC) - The City of Chula
Vista participates in the RMCC program administered by the County of San
Diego. This program allows existing MCC holders to take advantage of lower
interest rates to refinance their mortgage without losing the benefit of their MCC.
to $40,000.
Citywide First Time Homebuyer Program- The City offers a citywide first time
homebuyer program which targets households earning 80 percent of area
median income. Assistance will be provided up to $24,0000 for down payment
and closing cost assistance. A lead*based paint program will be a major
component of the citywide first time homebuyer program with
PRIORITY 1.4
Continue to support non-profit corporations to develop or rehabilitate rantal
housing for very Iow and Iow-income households,
In the past, the City or the Redevelopment Agency has assisted for-profit developers to
develop units for Iow-income households. However, these for-profit developers always
insist upon these affordable units eventually converting to market rate rentals, and as a
result, the City only realizes the benefit of their investment for a limited period of time. If a
non-profit corporation develops the housing, the units will be affordable for the long-term,
and the City or the Redevelopment Agency has invested in an affordable project which
will benefit very Iow or Iow income residents of the City for the usable life of the rental
units. 1990 Census Data supports the fact that there is a lack of affordable rental housing
in the City for these income groups. The City is currently reviewing potential rental project
applications.
A proposal was received from South Bay Community Services, a City recognized local
Community Housing Development Organization. SBCS has proposed to rehabilitate their
homeless/transitional housing facility located at 17 and 31 Fourth Avenue. It is expected
that CHDO set-aside funds will be used for this project.
City of Chula Vista
2003 A,,u,i Plan / .. Pege 15
EXHIBIT A
PRIORITY 1.5
Continue to assist mobile home park residents who are faced with paying
increasing rents as well as the closure of their mobile home parks.
In the City, 35 mobile home parks provide housing to many very Iow and Iow-income
families and seniors. Without this form of housing, many of the families and senior
citizens would be facing a severe cost burden for housing, or they might not have
adequate housing at all. As a result, the City has made a substantial commitment to
regulate the City's parks so that the park residents can retain their affordable housing.
Social and Human Service providers confirm the need for this program, as well as the
public response to issues concerning mobile home rents at City Council meetings.
The five year objective outlined in the Consolidated Plan has targeted this as a Medium
Priority. The following program represents options for addressing Priority 1.5:
Mobile Home Rent Review Ordinance and Commission - The City's Rent
Review Ordinance only allows park owners to raise their rent by the Consumer
Price Index on an annual basis. Without this control, space rents would continue
to increase. As a result, park residents may face a severe cost burden.
Additionally, the number of mobile home spaces are shrinking due to park
closures. Because of these two factors, the affordability of mobile home rents is
endangered. Therefore, the City's Rent Review Ordinance was adopted. Since
very few spaces are available and park closures are common if the land is zoned
something other than mobile home park exclusive, the City regulates park
closures by requiring park owners to provide relocation assistance to park
residents who are Iow income.
PRIORITY 1.6
Utilize the Chula Vista Housing Authority as the financial vehicle for affordable
housing projects
Continue to assist in the development of affordable housing projects through the use of
tax-exempt and tax credit financing. The Housing Aulhority is currently analyzing
potential project applications for futura assistance.
A major focus of the Chula Vista Housing Authority is developer hor ity i s evel oping d for dablhe issuance or
supporting the issuance of bond financing. For fiscal year 2003-04, the following projects are expected to be funded
through a combination of tax-exempt financing issued by the Housing Authority and Redevelopment Iow and
moderate income housing set-aside funds:
Main Plaza - This mixed use project will be located at the comer of Broadway and Main
Street and will provide 106 affordable family units. The financing will come from a
combination of tax-exempt bonds and Iow and moderate income housing funds. The City
will commit approximately $1.51 million in Iow-mod funds. The Chula Vista Housing
Authority will be the issuer of the bonds.
Otay Ranch - This development will provide a total of 242 units of which in Phase 1, 91
units will be targeted to senior households. The City provided financial assistance in the
amount of $4,000,000 in Iow and moderate income housing funds. This project is located
in the Eastem territory of the City.
City of Chula Vista
2003 Annual Plan / ~ ~ ,.~ ~7 Page 16
EXHIBIT A
2. PRIORITY HOMELESS NEEDS
This section describes Chula Vista's strategies for addressing homeless needs which aro identified as High or
Medium priorities.
PRIORITY 2.1
Continue to support programs offering transitional housing opportunities for
horoeless faroilies and individuals.
The City's annual goal is to provide approximately $200,000 for programs to assist
homeless persons and families through the following programs:
Emergency Shelter Prograro - The State Department of Housing and
Community Development administers a HUD-funded Emergency Shelter Grant
Program (ESG). This program provides grants to local governments and to non-
profit corporations for the rehabilitation or conversion of buildings for use as
emergency shelters for the homeless, for the payment of certain operating and
social service expenses in connection with the emergency shelter program.
County of San Diego Voucher Program - the City of Chula Vista continues to
financially support the voucher program. This program provides hoteVmotel
vouchers to homeless families and individuals through the winter months.
Thursday's Be. al - This program provides meals to homeless families and
individuals. Chula Vista financially supports this program.
South Bey Community Services - owns and operates two transitional housing
sites.
In addition, the City of Chula Vista continues to assist in addressing the needs of the
homeless population by funding the following programs:
San Diego Regional Task Force on the Homeless. This program has
received $7,000 in Community Development Block Grant funds since 1995 and
provides Chula Vista with statistical data on the homeless population throughout
San Diego County.
Lutheran Social Services (Project Hand) - This program has received $77,000
in Community Development Block Grant funds since 1995 and provides services
that include, in pert, shelters for the homeless, transitional housing, emergency
food, clothing, and transportation. Approximately 1000 families and individuals
have received assistance through this program.
Obstacles to developing, acquiring and or rehabilitating facilities for transitional housing purposes include political
resistance and lack of financial resoumes.
City of Chuia Vista
2003 Annual Plan
EXHIBIT A
3. PRIORITY SPECIAL NEEDS POPULATION
This section describes Chula Vista's strategies for addressing housing for special needs populations which are
identified as High or Medium Priorities.
PRIORITY 3.1
Provide supportive housing projects and programs for special needs populations.
Special needs groups in Chula Vista include the elderly, disabled pemons, female-headed
households, persons with drag and/or alcohol addictions, and persons with AIDS and
related diseases. Persons with special needs have housing needs which include
affordable housing, accessible housing units, housing in proximity to public services and
transportation, and larger units. Because many persons in special needs groups have
limited abilities and opportunities to work, they require housing which is affordable and
which enables them to live as independently as possible. The City funds the following
agencies with Community Development Block Grant monies:
Fair Housing Council of San Diego - This organization assists the City in
addressing impediments to fair housing and engage in fair housing planning to
remove such impediments. The Fair Housing Council has received
approximately $230,000 in CDBG funding since 1995 and has assisted over
2,800 Chula Vista residents in the area of landlord-tenant disputes and fair
housing discrimination issues.
Adult Protective Services - This agency provides adult day care and attempts
to prevent institutionalization and improve the quality of life for disabled and
disadvantaged seniors. Adult Protective Services has received approximately
$58,500 in CDBG funding since 1995 and has assisted over 3,000 Chula Vista
residents.
Meals on Wheels - This agency provides home delivered hot meals to seniors
and has received approximately $62,000 in CDBG funds which served over
28,000 hot meals to Chula Vista residents.
Lutheran Social Services (Shared Housing) - This program provides services
that match Iow income seniors with individuals looking for housing at a reduced
cost. Shared Housing has received approximately $32,000 in CDBG funding
since 1995 and has made over 275 successful matches.
Obstacles to funding these programs at a higher level is due to a lack of financial resources, the increased demand
for funding from these agencies, and the public service cap mandated by HUD.
PRIORITY 3.2
Provide rental assistance (Section 8 Certificates and Vouchers) to lower income
households with special needs overpaying for housing.
Persons with special needs have housing needs which include affordable housing,
accessible housing units, housing in proximity to public services and transportation, and
larger units. Because many persons in special needs groups have limited abilities and
opportunities to work, they require housing assistance which will enable them to live as
independently as possible. There ara 2,024 eldedy renter lower income households in
Chula Vista; 58 pement of the extremely Iow income elderly renters pay more than 50
pement of their income for housing, and 46 pement of the Iow income elderly renters pay
more than 50 pement of their income for housing. Currently, the City contracts with the
County of San Diego to administer the Section 8 Voucher program. Obstacles to
City of Chula Vista
2003 Annual Plan // Page 18
EXHIBIT A
providing the Section 6 Voucher program in the City of Chula Vista include the lack of staff
required to start-up a completely new program and the lack of expertise in administering a
program of this size.
4. PRIORITY NON-HOUSING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NEEDS
This section describes the City of Chula Vista's strategies for addressing non-housing community development
needs which are identified as High or Medium p~iorities.
A. Community Facilities
PRIORITY 4.A.1
Continue to improve the quality of existing community facilities to serve the needs
of lower and moderate- income households.
Respondents to past Community Development Needs Assessments and Surveys ranked
Youth Centers, Child Cam Centers, and Parks and Recreation facilities as the highest
community facility needs. With the opening of the Otay Recreation Center in the
southwest area of the City, a number of services are now offered to lower income
households. Focus is now on upgrading current youth facilities.
B. Infrastructure Improvements
PRIORITY 4.B.1
Provide for needed infrastructure improvements in lower and moderate-income
target areas.
Respondents to past community development surveys and other community outreach
methods ranked street improvements, street lighting, sidewalk construction, and drainage
improvements as the highest infrastructure needs. The five-year objective as outlined in
the Consolidated Plan has targeted this as a High Pdority with the objective of funding
infrastructure improvements consistent with the urgency of the established need for
improvements.
The following capital improvement projects ara expected to be funded in fiscal year 2003-
04.
Drainage Improvements - The City has budgeted $648,500 for drainage
projects for fiscal year 2003-04. Funds will be targeted in the CDBG-eligible
census tracts of Hilltop to Tobias and Emerson Street.
CMP Rehabilitation - This project involves the removal or relining of corrugaged
metal storm drain pipes (CMP) that ara in need of repair and would also include
future drainage projects. CDBG funds in the amount of $325,000 will be
budgeted for this annual program.
ADA Curb Cuts Annual Program - This project constructs curb cuts throughout
the city. It is expected that 14 curb cuts will be provided this fiscal year. CDBG
funds will be budgeted in the amount of $60,000 for fiscal year 2003-04.
Sidewalk Rehabilitation Program - In an attempt to reduce trip and fall
hazards, the City has created a sidewalk rehabilitation annual program to target
sidewalks most needing repair. For fiscal year 2003-04, CDBG funds will be
budgeted in the amount of 281,000.
City of Chule Vista
2003 Annual Plan /,/~ ~ ,,~. ~ Page 19
~w
EXHIBIT A
C. Community Services
PRIORITY 4.C.1
D. Accessibility
PRIORITY 4.D.1
E. Economic Development
PRIORITY 4.E.1
Continue to fund public services at the federally mandated cap.
Many non-profit social service providers struggle to perform their services for the
residents of Chula Vista due to budget constraints. Since the City believes the supportive
services these non-profits provide are important to residents with special needs, the City
funds these non-profits to ensure that their services will continue to meet the needs of Iow
and moderate income residents of Chula Vista. For fiscal year 2003-04 CDBG funds will
be budgeted close to the 15% cap, or $350,650
Provide for the access needs of the physically disabled.
ADA compliance has been given high priority by the City. The City believes that it is
important to make sure all recreational and govemmental activities are accessible to
persons with disabilities. Currently, the Cily is undertaking the following programs:
ADA Curb Cuts Annual Program - The City has budgeted $259,000 for curb
cuts. To date, approximately 30 curb cuts have been provided throughout the
City.
Continue to provide an array of Business Assistance Programs to encourage job
creation through business attraction, retention, and expansion.
The City of Chula Vista has been negatively impacted by the economic recession which
began in the early 1990s. Commemial and industrial vacancies were high and the City's
industrial space absorption rate was Iow. The fact that the City's retail sales were
relatively flat despite the rapid population growth indicated that income were falling or
stagnating. Currently, however, there has been a turn around in the economy and Chule
Vista is enjoying increasing sales tax and property tax revenues. The following programs
represent the City's efforts to address this priority:
Economic Development Strategy (EDS) - The City is in the process of
developing an Economic Development Strategy, a basic blue print for short- and
long-range city development. The goal of the EDS is to ensure a balanced,
fiscally strong community. An 18-month process, the EDS involves input from
the private sector, local and regional agencies and the public and will result in an
"Economic Development Element" to be included in the City of Chula Vista
General Plan.
BUSINESS RESPONSE TEAM (BRT)- The Business Response Team (BRT) is
an executive-level decision-making body that acts as both a City economic
development think tank and an interdepartmental action team for commercial and
industrial projects. The team focuses on four activities - developing citywide
economic development policies, providing timely and competitive proposals in
response to business citing opportunities, implementing interdepartmental
business assistance systems and implementing a comprehensive customer
service training program.
City of Chula Vista
2003 Annual Plan / ~ ~ ~ ~/ Page 20
EXHIBIT A
LOCAL EMPLOYER ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (LEAP)- The (:;hula Vista
Local Employer Assistance Program (LEAP) is a business retention and
expansion effort started by the City in 1999. LEAP's two goals are 1) to respond
to the needs of individual Chula Vista businesses, while 2) creating new
programs and sewices that will support the local business community as a
whole. To date, Chula Vista's LEAP program has assisted 44 companies,
resulting in more than 400 jobs being retained in the community and over 600
jobs being created.
ENTERPRISE ZONE - In a collaborative effort, the Cities of Chula Vista
and San Diego, the Port District and the California Technology, Trade and
Commerce Agency have added portions of the Chula Vista bayfront to the
State-designated "South Bay Enterprise Zone." Commercial and
industrial companies located within the Zone boundaries can take
advantage of substantial State financial incentives, significantly helping
several major employers, including BFGoodrich and Raytheon, and a
number of planned development projects.
RMDZ- The Chula Vista/South San Diego RMDZ, which encompasses the
entire City, is a joint effort of the City of Chula Vista, the City and County of San
Diego and the California Integrated Waste Management Board to assist
companies that recycle and conserve. Chula Vista manufacturers using
recyclables or diverting waste from landfills can benefit from Iow interest loans
and technical assistance under the program.
HIGH TECH/BIOTECH ZONE- In order to attract targeted high technology, bio-
technical and biomedical businesses, Chula Vista has established a High
Tech/Biotech Zone within the Eastlake master-planned community. The Zone
offers firms several benefits, including a series of incentives intended to meet the
specialized needs of high tech and biotech firms.
CONNECTORY. COM - CONNECTORY.COM, an Internet database linking
businesses to each other and to the global marketplace, helps Chula Vista
companies be more competitive in today's rapidly changing business
environment. The free business-to-business service provides detailed
information about company products, services, core capabilities and capacities to
potential customers on-line.
Other active Economic Development Projects include:
LEVlTON- Leviton Manufacturing, an international leader in the electrical products industry,
recently completed a $5.9 million western regional R&D facility in Chula Vista's EastLake Business
Center. The 90,O00-square-foot facility will employ 200 highly skilled personnel, and will house
administrative and engineering components as well as light assembly and distribution operations.
NLP FURNITURE INDUSTRIES- The South County Economic Development Council, in
partnership with the City of Chula Vista, facilitated the loan of $400,000 to NLP Furniture, the
largest furniture restoration company in San Diego County. The funds will allow the company to
expand their current facility in Chula Vista and create 85 new jobs for Iow-income residents.
City of Chula Vis;a
2003 Annual Plan
EXHIBITA
The Economic Development Division of the Community Development Department has worked diligently to structure
partnerships with other agencies to provide an array of services such as:
CDC SMALL BUSINESS FINANCE- Chula Vista has established a formal partnership with the
CDC Small Business Finance Corporation, a certified Small Business Administration (SBA)
financial lender. This partnership provides Chula Vista companies with access to Iow-interest
financial support, including a variety of loan and loan guarantee programs.
CONTRACTING OPPORTUNITIES CENTER (COC)- Through a memorandum of understanding
(currently submitted for Board approval) with the Contracting Opportunities Center, Chula Vista is
able to offer local businesses specialized assistance in developing government contracting
opportunities. All services are free to qualified small businesses
PROPERTY BASED BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (PBID)- Developed by a growing
coalition of property and business owners, the proposed Downtown Chula Vista property-based
business improvement district is a benefit assessment district designed to improve properties
located within Chula Vista's central business district. The PBID will fund new improvements and
activities, including economic development, marketing, parking management and maintenance
initiatives, in conjunction with those currently provided by the City.
SMALL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE CENTER (SBD&ITC)- The
Small Business Development and International Trade Center (SBD&ITC) offers an array of small
business resources to assist entrepreneurs in Chula Vista. The City is finalizing a memorandum of
understanding with the SBD&ITC to formalize its partnership.
SOUTH COUNTY CAREER CENTER (SCCC) - The San Diego Workforce Partnership, Inc., in
partnership with 'l-ri of California, operates the South County Career Center, a one-stop,
comprehensive workforce development and business support services for local employers.
Working as a team with the City of Chula Vista, the Center seeks to find solutions individually
tailored to each employer's workforce development needs.
Redevelopment Agency - The City of Chula Vista has one of the most active and progressive redevelopment
programs in Califomia, with close to 3,000 blighted or under-utilized acres designated under state law as
'Redevelopment Project Areas'. Chula Vista's five project areas are Bayfront, Otay Valley Road, Southwest, Town
Centre I and Town Centre II. Some of the major projects to be concentrated on for fiscal year 2003-04 include the
following:
Carter-Reese Project - This project is located at 760 Broadway and is a proposed mixed-use residential
and retail center
Completion of Phase I and Beginning of Phase II of the Gateway Project in Town Center 1
Port Master Planned Project - a joint project between the City of Chula Vista and the San Diego Unified
Port District to master plan usage of Port Tidelands.
Bayfmnt Village - This project will offer a mixed-use and transit-oriented project to be located at F Street
and Wcodlawn.
Phase II of the Chula Vista Auto Mall - North and South
Street Transit Village - a mixed-use project located at the E Street Trolley Station.
City of Chula Vista
2003 Annual Plan / ~ ~'~ ~ Page 22
CDBG and HOME Program Spending Plan
Organization
FY 2003-04 Allocation
CDBG Pro!!ram
Admini$tration & Plannio2
South Bay Family YMCA - Human Services Council
Regional Task Force on the Homeless
Coordinating Council- Child & Youth Policy Advocate
Fair Housing Council of San Diego
City Staff Administration
Total
Non-Profit Caoital Imorovement Program
Boys & Girls Club of Chula Vista
Chula Vista American Little League
Total
Çitv Caoital Imorovement Program
Judson Basin Drainage - Hilltop to Tobias
CMP Replacement Annual Program
Drainage Improvements - Emerson Street
ADA Curb Cuts Annual Program
Sidewalk Rehabilitation Annual Program
4" Avenue Sidewalk Improvements
Fire Station #5 Site Analysis
Total
.Ç,ommunitv Prolects
Lutheran Social Services - Caring Neighbor
Building & Housing Community Preservation
SBCS Community Development Program
Total
g~9:nomic.Development
South County EDC - Small Business Development Fund
Economic Development Fee Reduction Program
Economic Development Operations
Economic Development Consultant
Southwestern College - Contracting Opportunities Center
South Bay Community Services - Teen Center
Southwestern Col1ege- International Trade Center
Total
Public Service
Youth Services Network
Sharp HealthCare Foundation
South Bay Senior Collaborative
Lutheran Social Services
Chula Vista Family Violence
Thursday's Meal
Therapeutic Services Collaborative
Chula Vista Literacy Team
Dress for Success
INFORM Chula Vista
South County Career Center
Chula Vista Veterans Home
Total
TOTAL CDBG
.HOME Proeram Bud!!et
Staff Administration
CHDO Set-Aside
South Bay Community Services Office Rent
Affordable Housing Development
Total
Total CDBG and HOME Program Budgets
/6 -37
II
$23,940
$1,000
$46,200
$39,000
$321,000
$431,140
$69,000
$60,000
$129,000
$150,000
$325,000
$173,500
$60,000
$125,000
$156,000
$104,815
$1,094,315
$29,000
$150,460
$55,500
$234,960
$13,833
$72,900
$5,000
$22, I 00
$10,751
$22,650
$10,000
$157,234
$126,500
$20,000
$58,750
$9,000
$42,000
$6,000
$38,500
$9,000
$9,000
$17,300
$12,100
$2,500
$350,650
$2,397,299
$105,454
$158,182
$52,727
$718,182
$1,054,546
$3,451,845
RESOLUTION NO.2003-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
APPROVlING THE CONSOLIDATED ANNUAL PLAN FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2003-04 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG)
AND HOME INVESTMENT PAR1NERSHIP (HOME) PROGRAM;
AUTHORIZING TRANSMITTAL OF THE CONSOLIDATED ANNUAL
PLAN TO THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT (HUD); AND INSTRUCTING STAFF TO INCLUDE
APPROPRIA nONS TO FUND THE ANNUAL PLAN IN THE FY 2003-04
PROPOSED BUDGET
WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista has prepared a Consolidated Annual Plan ("Plan") for fiscal year
2003-04 per HUD Rules and Regulations; and
WHEREAS, the City will receive a 2003-04 CDBG entitlement of $2,383,000; and
WHEREAS, the City will receive a 2003-04 HOME entitlement of $1 ,054,546; and
WHEREAS, the City has followed its Citizen Participation Plan and held a public hearing on housing and
community needs on April 1 , 2003 at which time public testimony was received and considered by the City Council with
respect to the Plan; and
WHEREAS, staff is requesting authorization for staff to include appropriations from reallocated CDBG
funds to fund the Annual Plan in the in the FY 2003-04 proposed budget for a total CDBG program spending plan of
$2,397,299.
WHEREAS, the City has determined that all ofthe proposed activities meetthe CDBG national objectives
to benefit pñmarily low-income households or aid in the elimination of slums and blight; and
WHEREAS, the City has determined that it is necessary and appropriate to fund special activities by
certain sub-recipients to implement neighborhood revitalization and community economic development projects in order to
meet the goals and objectives of the Plan; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED based on the findings above, the City Council of the City of
Chula Vista does hereby approve the Consolidated Annual Plan for FY 2003-04 including both the FY 2003-04 Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnership (HOME), a copy of which is attached hereto and
incorporated herein as Attachment A.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Community Development Director is authorized to transmit the
Consolidated Annual Plan for FY 2003-04 to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD); and that
staff is instructed to include appropriations to fund the annual plan in the FY 2003-04 proposed budget.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
Laurie Madigan
Director of Community Development
J:\COMMDEV\RESOS\CDBG Budget Resolution 2003~04.doc
/ ~ - 38
CDBG and HOME Program Spending Plan
Organization
CDBG Pro~,ram
Administration & Planning,
South Bay Family YMCA - Human Services Council
Reg/onal Task Force on the Homeless
Coordinating Council - Child & Youth Policy Advocate
Fair Housing Council of San Diego
City Staff Administration
Total
Non-Profit Capital Imorovemant Pro,,ram
Boys & Girls Club o£Chula Vista
Chula Vista American Little League
Total
City Capital Improvemant Pro,ram
Judson Basin Drainage - Hilltop to Tobias
CMP Replacement Annual Program
Drainage Improvements - Emerson Street
ADA Curb Cuts Annual Program
Sidewalk Rehabilitation Annual Program
4* Avenue Sidewalk Improvements
Fire Station #5 Site Analysis
Total
Commenit¥ Proiects
Lutheran Social Services - Caring Neighbor
Building & Housing Community Preservation
SBCS Community Development Program
Total
Economic Development
South County EDC - Small Business Development Fund
Economic Development Fee Reduction Program
Economic Development Operations
Economic Development Consultant
Southwestern College - Contracting Opportunities Center
South Bay Community Services - Teen Center
Southwestern College- International Trade Center
Total
Public Service
Youth Services Network
Sharp HealthCare Foundation
South Bay Senior Collaborative
Lutheran Social Services
Chula Vista Family Violence
Thursday's Meal
Therapeutic Services Collaborative
Chula Vista Literacy Team
Dress for Success
INFORM Chula Vista
South County Career Center
Chula Vista Veterans Home
Total
TOTAL CDBG
HOME Pro~,ram Budget
Staff Administration
CHDO Set-Aside
South Bay Community Services Office Rent
Affordable Housing Development
Total
Total CDBG and HOME Program Budgets
FY 2003-04 Allocation
$23,940
$1,000
$46,200
$39,O00
$321,000
$431,140
$69,000
$60,000
$129,000
$t50,000
$325,000
$173,500
$60,000
$125,000
$156,000
$104,815
$1,094~15
$29,000
$150,460
$55,500
$234,960
$13,833
$72,900
$5,000
$22,100
$10,751
$22,650
$10,000
$157,234
$126,500
$20,000
$58,750
$9,000
$42,000
$6,000
$38,500
$9,000
$9,000
$17,300
$12,100
$2,500
$350,650
$2997,299
$105,454
$158,182
$52,727
$718,182
$1,054,546
$3,451,845
ITEM TITLE:
SUBMITTED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item IU~
Meeting Date 5/6/2003
Resolution of the City of Chula Vista Adopting the
Mitigated Negative Declaration/Environmental Assessment (IS-00-49) and
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and accepting the Project
Report for the interchange at 1-805 and East Orange Avenue and Olympic
Parkway
Director of Engineering~
City Manager
(4/5ths Vote: Yes No X )
The interchange at 1-805/East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway is proposed to be widened to
accommodate additional lanes on the bridge deck and approaches between Melrose Avenue and
just east of Oleander Avenue. Additional items of work include ramp widening, auxiliary lanes
and the construction of sound barriers consisting of sound walls and earthen sound berms. This
facility will ultimately provide the roadway capacity needed in the area and will serve both the
westerly and easterly portions of the City.
The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with
the California Environmental Quality Act and has conducted an Initial Study, IS-00-49. Based
upon the results of the Initial Study, the Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that
the project could result in significant effects on the environment. However, revisions to the
project incorporated into the project would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point
where clearly no significant effects would occur; therefore, the Environmental Review
Coordinator has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration, IS-00-49.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt the attached Mitigated Negative
Declaration/Environmental Assessment (MND/EA) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program issued for the project.
That Council accept the Project Report for the interchange at 1-805 and East Orange Avenue and
Olympic Parkway and including extending soundwall B-12 easterly to Oleander Avenue along
the properties fronting Rivera Court.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION:
Resource Conservation Commission
On March 3, 2003, the Resource Conservation Commission's (RCC) considered the MND/EA
and recommended that the MND/EA be adopted with an additional recommendation to the City
Council that there be additional oversight for safety daring constmction at the interchanges.
/7-/
Page 2, Item: /'~
Meeting Date: 5/6/2003
DISCUSSION:
Project Description
Due to the need to provide additional traffic capacity at the interchange of 1-805/East Orange
Avenue/Olympic Parkway, the City initiated a Capital Improvement Project that would
ultimately widen the overcrossing and all on-ramps and off-ramps at this location. Although all
of this work is within the State right-of-way (Caltrans' jurisdiction) there is some work east and
west of the bridge deck within the City of Chula Vista's jurisdiction. The City is considered the
project applicant with Caltrans providing oversight.
The project proposes to revise the existing East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway interchange
on Interstate 805 from 0.75 miles south to 0.6 miles north of the interchange. The project will
also modify and widen the southbound exit ramp to Otay Valley Road to provide for a dual lane
exit. The proposed improvements would increase the capacity of the existing diamond
interchange to accommodate the forecasted 2020 traffic volumes and provide the needed capacity
on the southbound Otay Valley Road off-ramp during events held at the Coors Amphitheatre.
The proposed combined project improvements include the widening of the existing East Orange
Avenue overcrossing, widening of East Orange Avenue and Olympic Parkway, constructing
auxiliary lanes on 1-805, widening and modifying signalization on the existing ramps for the East
Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway interchange and the southbound exit ramp to Otay Valley
Road, along with the construction of noise barriers and retaining walls.
This proposed project includes modifications and widening of the existing diamond interchange
at 1-805 and East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway. The project will also add auxiliary freeway
lanes between East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway and Otay Valley Road. Additionally, East
Orange Avenue from Melrose Avenue easterly to 1-805 and on Olympic Parkway westerly from
Concord Way towards 1-805 will also be widened to provide for additional through lanes and
mm lanes to accommodate projected traffic levels through 2020 pursuant to Caltrans and City of
Chula Vista traffic standards. The existing configuration would be expanded to include two
through lanes and two dedicated left-mm lanes for eastbound and westbound traffic. A painted
median with a left-mm couplet (one lane that opens up to dual left-turn lanes) would be provided
on the bridge deck over 1-805.
Environmental
The proposed project includes a combination of local, state and federal funds, and therefore, the
project is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process. The City is considered the lead agency for the
CEQA process for this interchange project and Caltrans is the lead for the NEPA process.
Following approval by both the City and Caltrans, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
will be expected to issue a Finding Of No Significant Impact (FONSI) in accordance with NEPA
for this project.
Page 3, Item: i IT
Meeting Date: 5/6/2003
The Draft MND/EA was circulated for a 30-day public review period pursuant to the National
Environmental Policy Act and the California Environmental Quality Act, in conformance with
applicable regulatory guidelines established by Caltrans and the City of Chula Vista. The final
document includes a number of minor changes from the public review draft to reflect items such
as updated information, public comments, and correction of typographical errors. None of these
changes or information received during the public review process altered any of the conclusions,
recommendations or impact/mitigation assessments included in the public review draft
document.
Project Alternatives:
The following three project alternatives were considered for the interchange improvements:
Alternative 1 - Interchange Improvements- Northerly Widening of the East Orange
Avenue/Olympic Parkway overcrossing.
Alternative 1 would widen the bridge on the north side only. This will require the majority of the
widening of East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway to be on the north side in both directions
from the bridge. While this alternative increases the height of retaining walls by as much as 6
feet in the northeast quadrant of the interchange, it will also minimize the needed right-of-way.
Retaining walls would be constructed along the north side of Olympic Parkway east of the
interchange and along the south side of East Orange Avenue west of the interchange to minimize
property impacts by as much as a 13 foot encroachment. This alternative is the City preferred
alternative.
Altemative 2 - Interchange Improvements- Northerly and Southerly Widening of the East
Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway overcrossing.
Alternative 2 would widen the bridge on both the north and south sides and provide the same
traffic capacity as Alternative 1. This alternative will require more right-of-way on the south side
of the interchange and would require additional retaining walls. Due to the additional bridge
railing, wingwalls, and closure pours, and the additional traffic control and falsework
construction that would be required, this alternative is approximately 20% more costly. The
bridge structure cost is estimated at $1.3 million for Alternative 1 and $1.6 million for
Alternative 2.
Alternative 3 - No Build.
Alternative 3 would not accommodate the anticipated traffic growth or alleviate the anticipated
congestion problems. Future traffic volumes could not be handled by the existing configuration
of the interchange. This altemative will leave the development of the eastern section of the city
without adequate facilities to handle the traffic demand. Traffic delays and vehicle queues would
be long and traffic safety would decrease.
Page 4, Item: '[
Meeting Date: 5/6/2003
Sound Barriers:
The proposed project is located within portions of both Caltrans and the City of Chula Vista
rights-of-way. The FHWA and Caltrans noise criteria were required to be used by Caltrans for
the entire study area, however, the City of Chula Vista noise criteria were also used for the
remaining areas along East Orange Avenue and Olympic Parkway, which are within the City's
jurisdictional right-of-way.
The FHWA Sound Barrier Policy was used for the entire project area. Using this policy the
outcome of a property owner vote was used to determine where walls would be constructed in
accordance with the FHWA policy adjacent to, or within, the Caltrans right-of-way. The City's
noise criteria was also used in those areas located within the City's right-of-way.
The project Acoustical Assessment report follows both the standards established in the Code of
Federal Regulations (23 CFR 772) Procedures for Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and
Construction Noise, as well as City of Chula Vista noise criteria and policies established in the
City of Chula Vista General Plan Noise Element in the City's right-of-way. These standards
establish procedures for noise studies regarding traffic noise prediction, noise analysis and noise
abatement criteria.
The State's/FHWA protocol considers that a noise impact occurs when the predicted traffic no~se
levels approach or exceed 67 dBA for residential use. Federal criteria also identifies a traffic
noise impact if there is a substantial noise increase when the predicted noise levels exceeds the
existing noisiest hourly average level by 12 dBA.
The City of Chula Vista's noise control ordinance (City of Chula Vista Municipal Code, Chapter
19.68.010) allows for a maximum noise exposure level of 65 dBA at the ground floor level of
any residential property. If the project increases the existing noise level by three dBA or more
and the resulting noise level exceeds 65 dBA at outdoor residential ground floor use areas, the
noise impact would be considered significant and noise mitigation must be evaluated.
The existing noise levels currently exceed the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) noise criteria at the backyards of the majority
of the homes, as well as the patios of the multi-family complex located at the northwest quadrant
of 1-805 and Main Street (Otay Valley Road). In the future, traffic noise levels will continue to
exceed the Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC). Sound barriers ranging in height from
approximately 6 to 12 feet would reduce noise levels to within the NAC at the majority of the
residences. Sixteen noise abatement barriers (combination of sound walls and sound berms)
were identified based on the described FHWA/Caltrans protocol, while barrier B8 is also
required under City and CEQA criteria. All sixteen barriers are considered reasonable and
feasible pursuant to FHWA/Caltrans criteria.
The construction of the interchange improvements necessitates the construction of a combination
of sound walls and sound berms that together form the sound barriers required for noise
mitigation. City staff, the Consultant, and Subconsultants have met with the affected residents
since late November of 2002. Per the Caltrans and FHWA sound barrier policy, opinions of the
impacted residents will be a major consideration in reaching a £mal decision on the
reasonableness of abatement measures to be provided. The opinions of these abutting residents
should be obtained through public hearings, community meetings or other means as appropriate.
As indicated above, per Caltrans and FHWA sound barrier policy, if noise abatement is
proposed, consideration must be given to the opinions of the adjacem resident owners, such as
whether they favor the construction of the proposed sound wall. In the case of rental or leased
property, the owners' opinions are superior to that of the residents. Noise abatement will not be
provided if more than 50% of the affected residents do not want it. With the exception of wall
B8, each sound wall will therefore be subject to a majority vote in order to determine if the wall
will be constructed. In the majority of instances, there is a desire for the sound wall to be
constructed. The vote is necessary in those instances where the sound wall is within the State
right-of-way and a portion of the wall's footing will encroach onto private property and require a
permanent footing easement to be recorded against the affected property as an encumbrance on
the land. The vote is also necessary where the wall is adjacent to State right-of-way, but entirely
on private property due to topographical conditions. The sound walls were proposed in areas
where there is not sufficient room to construct an earthen berm or the topography could not
accommodate the earthen berm.
Since the earthen sound berms will not encroach within private property, no vote is required.
The earthen berm will be constructed entirely within the State right-of-way. The landscaping in
the area will be removed and the area regraded to build up the earthen berm. Landscaping will be
replanted so that the effect is a rolling hill that is just as high as a sound wall. The use of a
combination of earthen berms and sound walls provides a better aesthetic view along this
freeway corridor than a continuous sound wall on either side of the freeway.
The Final Mitigated Negative Declaration/Environmental Assessment includes the following
language:
"It should be noted that identified noised abatement barriers may change or be eliminated
from the final project design, if pertinent changes occur (e.g., reasonable/feasible conclusions
or homeowner preferences). Specific homeowners, for example, may decide not to authorize
wall construction on their private property, with walls still proposed on adjacent lots (i.e.,
with more than 50 percent of affected property owners owners still in favor). The creation of
such a "gap" in a proposed wall under this scenario would require "wing walls" on one or
both sides of the gap to maintain adequate noise abatement at adjacent sites (i.e., to prevent
noise from "leaking" through the gap and into adjacent sites). Under such circumstances,
additional technical and/or environmental reviews could be required prior to implementing
the proposed changes...."
As this language indicates, and as allowed by Caltrans' and FHWA protocol, depending upon
subsequent property owner contacts, staff will make any necessary changes to the soundwall
plans. Staffwill continue to contact property owners to refine the soundwall plans.
Page 6, Item:. ) ~
Meeting Date: 5/6/2003
The table below summarizes the various wall locations and number of benefited residences to
achieve an insertion loss of at least 5dBA and the NAC, the final vote [ally and stafffs
recommendation to build or not build the sound barriers based on the applicable noise policy.
Under the language in the MND/ED outlined above, staff is continuing to work with all of the
property owners on de[ails in connection with specific soundwalls. Attached is a map which
indicates the location of the soundwalls.
Barrier Barrier Location Vote Tally/Total Majority
No. Type (addresses) (50% Yes needed) Decisionl
B 1 & Wall West of 1-805 & North of Main Street 7 YES I No 5 BUILD
131A (700 blk Topaz and Tourmaline Cts & Condos, Unk./13
1400 blk Melrose Ave)
132 Berm West of 1-805 & midway btwn E. Orange Ave and NO VOTE BUILD
Main St. (1300 & 1400 blks Melrose Ave. and NEEDED
Turquoise Ct.)
B3 Wall West of 1-805 & south of E. Orange Ave at 3 YES 1 No I BUILD
Sandstone & Slate Cts. Unk./5
B4 Wall East of 1-805 & north of Main St. at Ocala Ave. 16 YES I NO 3 BUILD
(1500 blk Ocala Ave) Unk./20
B5 Wall East of 1-805 & north of Main St. at Tilia Ct. (400 5 YES/5 BUILD
blk Tilia Ct.)
B6 Wall/ East of 1-805 & midway btwn E. Orange Ave & NO VOTE BUILD
Berm Main St. at Sequoia Ct. NEEDED
B7 Wall East of 1-805 & south of Olympic Pkwy at 1 YES/1 BUILD
Satinwood Wy.
B8 Wall South side Olympic Pkwy, east of 1-805 to Oleander 2 YES/2 BUILD
Ave. (1500 Oleander and 1300 blk Ocala Ct.)
B9 Wall/ West of 1-805, midway btwn E. Palomar St & E. NO VOTE BUILD
Berm Orange Ave. (1300-1400 blk Nation Ave) NEEDED
B10 Wall West of 1-805 & south of E. Palomar St. (1300 blk 6 YES 2 NO/8 BUILD
Nation Ave)
B12 Wall East of 1-805 & north side of Olympic Pkwy. 2 YES 1 NO/3 BUILD
(Rivera Ct.)
BIB Wall East of 1-805, north of Olympic Pkwy. (Reinstra I YES 1 NO/2 BUILD
Ct.)
B 14 Wall East of 1-805 along Ocala & Quail Cts. North of 7 YES 11 NO 2 NO BUILD2
Olympic Pkwy. Unk./20
B15 Wall West of 1-805 & south side of E. Orange Ave. 2 YES 1 NO I BUILD
(Sandstone Ct.) Unk./4
B 16 Wall West of 1-805 & north side of E. Orange Avenue 0 YES I NO 2 NO BUILD
(Nolan Ct.) Unk./3
Notes:
1 - Majority property owner recommendation on whether to build or not build sound barrier.
2 - Recommendation subject to modification, see discussion below.
Sound Walls B1 and BIA West of 1-805 & North of Main Street (700 blk Tol~az and Tourmaline
Cts. & Condos, 1400 blk Melrose Ave)
Page 7, Item: '[
Meeting Date: 5/6/2003
Sound wall B1 is located at the top of the slope behind seven homes on Topaz Court and
Tourmaline Court. Sound wall B1A is located at the top of the slope to the east of the Mekose
Villas Condominiums. Both of these walls are on the west side of 1-805 and just north of Otay
Valley Road. At the south end of the proposed B1 soundwall, the property line for the
condominium project coincides with soundwall B1A. As soundwall B1A is extended in a
southerly direction, it veers off to the west in order to follow the top of slope located within the
condominium property. Both soundwalls B1 and B1A have been considered as one sound barrier
since each is needed to mitigate the noise for the adjacent properties. Soundwall B1 is estimated
to cost $120,000 while sound wall B1A is estimated to cost $35,000. The Condo Association
would have to vote on whether or not they want to have the soundwall B1A constructed since it
is located adjacent to "common area" within the development. Preliminary indications are that
they have indicated they do not want the wall, but staff will work with them on this issue. Staff
will abide by the decision of the HOA, whichever way they decide.
Sound Wall B12 East of 1-805 & north side of Olympic Pkwy. (Rivem Ct.)
Soundwall B12 is located east of 1-805 and parallel to the north side of Olympic Parkway. It
should be noted that during the comment period staff received a letter (copy attached) from the 4
properties on east end of Rivera Court at Oleander Avenue, requesting that they also be provided
with a sound wall similar to the 3 westerly properties on that block (448, 454 & 460 Rivera
Court). The residences of 448 and 454 Rivera Court are within thc State right-of-way and will
receive a soundwall but, in order to mitigate the noise for 454 Rivera Court, the wall is required
to be extended east to include 460 Rivera Court. The four residences to the east of 460 Rivem
Court (i.e., 468, 476, 484 & 490 Rivera Court), do not meet the FHWA/Caltrans nor City criteria
for construction of a soundwall. However, the City could extend the sound wall eastward to
Oleander Avenue by an additional 341 feet at an additional cost of $40,000. The property
owners have agreed to dedicate the right of way and staff will include the construction of
this soundwall extension as part of the project.
Soundwall B14 East ofi-805 alone Ocala & Quail Cts. North of Olympic Pkwy.
Soundwall B14 is located along the east side ofi-805 along Ocala Court and Quail Court north of
Olympic Parkway. Generally, this wall extends along the rehr property line of these properties
except mid-block on Ocala Court where, due to topographical changes in nine back yards, the
proposed sound barrier is located at the top of the slope. In this area, the top of the slope is well
within the private property and a portion of the down slope is part of the backyard. For these
properties, since the sound wall would bisect the rear yard anywhere from one small comer of the
yard, to about half the rear yard, the sound barrier would have a solid door which would provide
the noise attenuation and access to the downward side of the back yard west of the house and to
the state right-of-way chain link fence that would remain. For those portions of the back yard
that are minimal, this area could be acquired as part of the state right-of-way. One property has a
gazebo constructed where the sound barrier would be located. Generally, the mid-block residents
did not desire the wall while at each end (the north and south ends) did want the wall. Based on
the majority not desiring the wall, based upon Caltrans and FHWA protocol, staff has not
included construction of that sound wall as part of the project, however, staff has also been
/7--7
Page 8, Item:
Meeting Date: 5/6/2003
exploring options with the affected property owners to construct those portions which
property owners want and are technically feasible to construct. In order to make these
shorter walls feasible, wing walls would be required to be constructed within certain
properties in order to properly attenuate the noise. Should the vote change and the residents
request construction of walls, no additional cost will be incurred because thc cost is included in
the project estimate.
Soundwall B-16 West ofi-805 & north side orE. Oranffe Avenue (Nolan Ct.)
Soundwall B-16 is located on the north side of E. Orange Avenue, west of 1-805 adjacent to the
properties on the Nolan Avenue cul-de-sac. Only one property owner returned comments which
indicated they did not want the wall. The other two affected properties did not respond to
repeated contacts and, therefore, under Caltrans and FHWA protocol, staff has not included this
wall as part of the plans. Depending upon subsequent property owner contacts, staff will
make any necessary changes to the soundwall plans. Should the vote change and the residents
request construction of walls, no additional cost will be incurred because the cost is included in
the project estimate.
Raven Avenue East side of 1-805, South of Palomar Street
In a related area along Raven Avenue, along the east side of 1-805, south of East Palomar Street,
the residents want their existing sound wall increased in height. The existing soundwall was
constructed as part of the subdivision improvements in the mid 1970's and meets the City's
requirements for noise attenuation. Some residents have expressed a desire to have the existing
soundwall increased in height by an additional 2'-4' to mitigate freeway truck noise at the second
story level and within the subdivision. Both the City's soundwall criteria and Caltrans/FHWA
protocol's do not require sound attenuation at the second story level and the requested increase in
wall height will not be included in the City's plans.
Construction Schedule and Phasing
Due to the large amount of work involved with the bridge deck widening, the freeway auxiliary
lanes and ramp widening, the sound barriers and the roadway widening, the project will have
several construction trades working at the same time. Until the pre-construction meeting to be
held with the successful contractor, staff cannot anticipate which items of work will be done first.
The construction time frame is 18 months. Since the project is anticipated to be advertised for
construction in July 2003, the construction of the first items of work is expected to begin in late
August or September 2003 and be completed in early 2005.
East Oranee Avenue and Olvmt~ic Parkway Roadway Widening Iml~rovements
As part of the FY 1998/1999 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) process, Council approved
funds for the interchange and roadway widening project (STM-328). Staff has almost completed
the design for this project. Work on both the interchange and roadway will be done concurrently
utilizing approved traffic control plans from Caltrans and the City of Chula Vista.
Page 9, Item: t
Meeting Date: 5/6/2003
Public Outreach
On February 24, 2003, Staff held a noticed public meeting with residents and property owners
who either owned properties or businesses along the project limits. The area is generally
bounded by 1-805/East Palomar Street to the north to 1-805/Otay Valley Road to the south and
500 feet east of the easterly side of 1-805 to 500 west of the westerly side of 1-805. The purpose
of the meeting was to brief the public on the project and to take public testimony on the
environmental document. City staff, the Consultant, Rick Engineering Company, and their
subconsultants were also available to answer any questions. Notices were sent to nearly 1200
properties, and approximately 50 residents attended the meeting. Although most of the
comments were related to how soon the sound barriers could be constructed, there was not 100%
support of the residents for construction of the sound walls. These residents in opposition did not
want to lose the prevailing easterly breeze, an ocean view or in some instances have their back
yards be reduced in size where the sound wall could not be constructed on the existing property
line. This situation occurs mostly on wall B14 where a portion of the back yards slope down
towards the freeway and the wall can only be built at the top of the slope, close to the house. As
indicated above, staff will work with the property owners to come to a mutually acceptable
solution.
Project Report:
The Project Report is a document that describes the project need and purpose, provides several
design altematives and cost estimates for each alternative, traffic volume and accident statistics.
Other consideration is given to hazardous material/waste potential, resource conservation, right-
of-way issues, environmental issues and air quality conformance. Based on evaluating these
criteria a justification for the preferred design alternative is recommended.
The approval of this resolution will constitute acceptance of the Project Report and begin the
process of advertising the project for bids. Future Council action for the award of the contract to
the responsible bidder will authorize the expenditure of funds for the construction of the project.
FISCAL IMPACT:
This project is already budgeted as part of the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) process, as
STM-328. The approved project is anticipated to be funded from the following funding sources:
Federal Demonstration (DEMO) funds, a component of federal TEA-21 legislation in the amount
of $5,132,000
Regional State Transportation Program (RSTP) funds in the amount of $8,446,000.
Federal retrofit soundwall funding from the Regional Improvement Program of the 1998 State
Transportation Improvement Program (STIP RIP) in the amount of $1,145,000.
Page 10, Item: ~'~
Meeting Date: 5/6/2003
Non-federal local agency (TransNet) funds in the amount of $3,422,000.
Local funds from Development Impact Fees (TDIF) in the amoum of $3,685,575
Total Funds for project are $2 !,830,575.
ATTACHMENTS:
Area Plat
2. Mitigated Negative Declaration~nvirormaental Assessment and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program.
3. Plat showing location of soundwalls
4. Letter fi.om property owners along Rivera Ct. dated January 1, 2003 requesting soundwall extension.
5. A copy of the Project Report titled "Revise Interchange in San Diego County in Chula Vista on
Interstate 805 fi.om Main StreeffAuto Park Drive Undercrossing to Palomar Street Overcrossing", dated
3/18/03 is on file in the office of the City Clerk.
J:~Engineer~AGENDA\STM-328 -FE1R. fxr. doc
(FILE NO.: 0735-10-STM-32~)
5/1/03 9:03:11 AM
11 -SD- 805
KP 5.9 t-o 8.1
(PM 3.? t-o 5.0)
AUGUST 19, 2002
' H' STREET N
L
' J' STREET ~)
· L' STREET '~
~,E~O _ ~ ~.~R~T.~T~ _~ LOCATION OF
~ ~ ~ ~ CONSTRUCTIO
CHULA VISTA o ~ ~ ' ~ ~
SAN DIEGO
LOCATION MAP
NO SCALE
ATTACHMENT 1
FINAL MITAGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
IS-00-49
EA156580 and EA234000
April 7, 2003
Prepared for:
OT~ OF CH~'L~ VtST~ PI.~. a D£mRTM~NT
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, Califomia 91910-2631
CALIFORN~ DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 11
2829 Juan Street
San Diego, California 921864406
INTERSTATE 805/EAST ORANGE AVENUE/OLYMPIC PARKWAY
IMPROVEMENTS IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA,
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
11-SD-805; K.P. 5.9/81. (P.M. 3.7/5.0)
INITIAL STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
(EA 156580 and 234000)
City of Chula Vista
Planning and Building Department
Federal Highway Administration (FI--1WA)
California Department of Transportation (Department)
Pursuant to: 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C) National Environmental Policy Act
Division 13, Public Resources Code California Environmental Quality Act
Environmental Review Coordinator
City of Chula Vista
Charles "Muggs" Stoll
Deputy District Director, Environmental Division
District 11
California Department of Transportation
DivisiOn Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Region Nine
Date
Date
Date
ABSTRACT: The project involves modifying existing freeway ramps, lanes, overcrossing and adjacent surface streets at the 1-
805/Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway and ~M~ Street/Auto park Drive interchanges. Two design alternatives and the no action
alternative are evaluated in the Draft IS/EA. Potential beneficial effects associated with the project include reduced traffic
congestion and increased levels of service and safety.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTNIENT
STATE OF CALLFORlqlA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
SCH No. 2003021040
11-SD-805
K.P 5.9/8.1 (P.M. 3:7/5.0)
IS-00-49
EA 156580 and EA 234000
Prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 Public Resources Code).
Proiect Description Sunm~ry
The proposed project consists of modifying ,*nS improving the existing diamond interchange at 1-805 and East
Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway, adding a second lane to the southbound I~805 off-ramp at Main StxeeffAuto Park
Drive, and adding auxiliary lanea to poffion~ oftha north- and southbound mainlSae freeway between East Orange
Avenue/Olympic Parkway and Main 8~xeeffAuto Park Drive. Thc proposed project also includes a number of noise
abatement barriers along the 1-805 corridor and East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway baaed on the results of the
project Acoustical Assessment and a "feaa~le and reasonable" a~lysis completed as part of the project design
process.
Determination
An Initial Study was prepared for the proposed Interstate 805/East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway Interchange
project by the City of Chula Vista. Based on that analysis, the City has determined that the proposed project will not
have a significant effect on the environment for the following reasons: (1) no significant impacts from the proposed
project were identified for the issues of land use and planning, population alad housing, social and economic, air
quality, transportation/circulation, energy and mineral resources, hazards and hazardous materials, public services,
local service thresholds, utilities and service systems, cultural resourcea, and recreation; and (2) potentially
significant impacts identified for the isaues of geology/topography, hydrology/water quality, biological resources,
noise, aesthetics and paleontological resources would be avoided or reduced below a level of significance through
idenlJfied design and mitigation measures that will be incorporated into the project. Based on these measures, a
Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared.
MARILY'N R. F. PONSEGGI
Environmental Keview Coordinator
City of Chula Vista
Planning and Building Department
District 11
California Department of Transportation
· Il i
Interstate 805/East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway Interchange
Final Initial StudyMitlgated Negative Declaration/Environmental Assessment
Section Title
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
TABLE OF CON'r~NTS
Pa~e
SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................................... 1
INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 6
PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROJECT ................................................................................. 7
2.1 General Project Objectives ..................................................................................................... 7
2.2 Project Background ................................................................................................................. 8
2.3 Existing and Projected Transportation and Safety Issues ................................................. 9
2.3.1 Transportation/Circulation ........................................................................................ 9
2.3.2 Safety ........................................................................................................................... 10
2.4 Compatibility with Transit Facilities .................................................................................. 12
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT AND ALTERNATIVES ............................... 12
3.1 Alternative 1: East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway Alignment ............................. 13
3.1.1 East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway - Freeway Overcrossing .................... 14
3.1.2 North and Southbound 1-805 Off-Ramps to
East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway ...........................................................14
3.1.3 North and Southbound 1-805 On-Ramps from
East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway ...........................................................15
3.1.4 Olympic Parkway - East of 1-805 ............................................................................. 15
3.1.5 East Orange Avenue - West of I~805 ....................................................................... 16
3.1.6 Southbound 1-805 Off-Ramp to Mairi Street/Auto Park Drive ........................... 17
3.1.7 Mainline 1-805 Freeway ............................................................................................. 17
3.2 Alternative 2: Modified East Orange Avenue/Olympic Pa~rkway Alignment ........... 18
3.3 Alternative 3: No Project ..................................................................................................... 18
3.4 Alternatives Withdrawn from Consideration ................................................................... 19
3.5 Related Projects ..................................................................................................................... 20
A~I~ECTED ENVIRONMENT ..,. .................................................................................................... 21
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES ................................ 23
5.1 Land Use and Planning ........................................................................................................ 24
5.2 Population and Housing ...................................................................................................... 26
5.3 Social and Economic ............................................................................................................. 28
5.4 Geology/Topography .......................................................................................................... 33
5.5 Hydrology/Water Quality .................................................................................................. 42
5.6 Air Quality ............................................................................................................................. 48
5.7 Transportation/Circulation ................................................................................................. 51
5.8 Biological Resources ............................................................................................................. 55
5.9 Energy and Mineral Resources ........................................................................................... 58
5.10 Hazards and Hazardous Materials .................................................................................... 60
5.11 Noise ....................................................................................................................................... 63
5.12 Public Services ....................................................................................................................... 72
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)
Section_ Title_
P_ag~
5.0
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS (cont.)
5.13 Local Service Thresholds ..................................................................................................... 74
5.14 Utilities and Service Systems .............................................................................................. 75
5.15 Aesthetics ............................................................................................................................... 77
5.16 Cultural Resources ................................................................................................................ .83
5.17 Paleontological Resources ................................................................................................... 84
5.18 Recreation .............................................................................................................................. 85
6.0
SUMMARY CEQA EVALUATION .............................................................................................. 86
6.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 86
6.2 Evaluation of Project Impacts Under CEQA ..................................................... ; ............... 86
CEQA Environmental Evaluation Checklist ..................................................................... 87
6.2.1 Impacts Mitigated Below a Level of Significance .................................................. 95
6.2.2 Impacts Deterrnined to be Less than Significant ................................................. 106
6.3 Mandatory CEQA Findings of Significance .................................................................... 109
6.4 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ................................................................... 110
7.0
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION ............................................................................. 112
7.1 Permits ................................................................................................................................. 112
7.2 Public and Agency Review ................................................................................................ 112
7.3 Comments on the Draft Environmental Document ....................................................... 112
8.0
LIST OF PREPARERS/REVIEW'ERS .......................................................................................... 138
9.0
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................ 139
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX C
CEQA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Biological Reconnaissance Memo
NEPA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Record
Number
1
2
4
5
6
7
8a-c
9a-c
10
11
LIST OF FIGURES
Follows
Title Page
Regional Location Map ................................................................................................................. 6
Project Location Map ..................................................................................................................... 6
Alternative 1 Proposed Project Facilities and Study Area Boundary ................................... 14
Alternative 2 Modified East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway Alignment .................... 18
Existing Land Use ........................................................................................................................ 22
Project Study Area Depicted on the Imperial Beach 7.5 Minute USGS Quadrangle .......... 22
Chula Vista General Plan Land Use Map ................................................................................. 24
Proposed Noise Barrier Locations ............................................................................................. 66
Selected Barrier Locations for Alternative Berm Noise Abatement ...................................... 68
Typical Masonry Noise Wall Cross Section ............................................................................. 72
Typical Earth Berm Cross Section .............................................................................................. 72
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)
LIST OF TABLES
Number Ti{rig Pa_~e
S-1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Summary of Potentially Substantial Adverse Impacts and Proposed Mitigation ................ 5
Summary of Roadway Segment Traffic Volumes and LOS ..................................................... 9
Summary of Projected Year 2025 Intersection LOS ................................................................. 10
Summary of 1999-2001 Accident Data for the 1-805/East Orange Avenue/
Olympic Parkway and Main Street/Auto Park Drive Interchanges ............................... 11
Noise Abatement Criteria for Various Land Use/Activity Categories ................................ 64
Receptor Noise Levels and Noise Barrier Information ........................................................... 67
Summary of NADR Feasible/Reasonable Assessments and Construction
Recommendations .................................................................................................................... 69
Visual Character Unit Summary ................................................................................................ 78
Viewer Summary ......................................................................................................................... 78
SUMMARY
The project consists of implementing a number of improvements to the existing configuration of
Interstate 805 (I-805) and associated interchanges at East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway and Main
Street/Auto Park Drive in the City of Chula Vista, California. Potential environmental effects from the
project alternatives are evaluated in this document pursuant to applicable criteria of both the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (N-EPA). An
Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared for the project under NEPA, based on a supported
analysis that an Environmental Impact Statement (ELL) would not be required. This EA will be
considered as part of the project approval process, resulting in either adoption of a Finding of No
Significant Impacts (FONSI) or the preparation of an ElS. Similarly, an Initial Study 0S~ has been
prepared under CEQA, resulting in a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). Technical reports have
been prepared for the issues of traffic circulation, noise, air quality, aesthetics, cultural resources,
geotechnical constraints and hazardous materials. These documents are summarized as appropriate in
this LL/EA, with the environmental and technical reports available for review at the City of Chula Vista
Planning and Building Department (276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, California 91910-2596); the
Department District 11 office (2829 Juan Street, San Diego, California 92186-5406); and the South Chula
Vista Fublic Library (389 East Orange Avenue, Chula Vista, California 91911). Based on the described
environmental analysis, it has been determined that, with the proposed design and mitigation measures,
the project is not expected to result in any substantial adverse impacts on the environment.
The project study area extends approximately 2.2 kilometers (1.3 miles) along 1-805 between Palomar
Street on the north and Main Street/Auto Park Drive on the south (K.P. 5.9 to 8.1 [P.M. 3.7 to 5.0]).
Specific proposed improvements include widening the existing overcrossing and adding/modifying
ramp lanes at the existing diamond interchange at 1-805 and East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway,
widening adjacent segments of East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway east and west of the freeway
interchange, adding a second lane to the southbound 1-805 off-ramp at Main Street/Auto Park Drive, and
adding auxiliary lanes to portions of the north- and southbound mainline freeway both north and south
of East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway.
A number of additional roadway projects have been either constructed, proposed or planned in the study
area vicinity. These projects all have been or will be processed independently of the proposed 1-805/East
Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway project and include the following:
1-805/Telegraph Canyon Road Interchange Improvements - This project includes a number of
modifications (e.g., lane/ramp additions and widening) to 1-805 and associated on- off-ramps at
Telegraph Canyon Road in the City of Chula Vista (approximately 1.6 kilometers [1 mile] north of the
project study area).
Olympic Parkway Widening, Oleander to Brandywine Avenues - This project involved widening the
existing roadway (adjacent to the study area on the east) from 2 to 6 lanes to accommodate projected
traffic volumes through the year 2020.
Construction of Olympic Parkway, Brandywine Avenue to Hunte Parkway - The eastern segment of
Olympic Parkway (beginning approximately 488 meters [1,600 feet] east of the study area) is
intended to accommodate projected traffic volumes through the year 2020.
1-805/East Palomar Street Interchange - The construction of a freeway interchange at 1-805/East
Palomar Street (adjacent to the study area on the north) is a potential long-term project to
accommodate projected traffic circulation.
1-805 Ramp Meters - Ramp meters have been proposed for on-ramps at Bonita Road (approximately
4.25 kilometers [2.69 miles] north of the study area, East H. Street (approximately 3.3 kilometers [2.05
miles] north of the study area), Telegraph Canyon Road (approximately 1.7 kilometers [1.05 miles]
north of the study area), and Main Street/Auto Park Drive (within or adjacent to the study area).
· East H Street/Telegraph Canyon Road Widening - Both of these surface streets have been proposed
for widening east of 1-805 to accommodate projected traffic volumes.
Alternatives considered in this analysis include: the East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway Alignment
(Alternative 1); the Modified East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway Alignment Alternative (Alternative
2); and the No Project Alternative (Alternative 3). Alternatives 1 and 2 are identical, with the exception
that for Alternative 2, the East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway overcrossing would be widened on
both (i.e., north and south) sides of the bridge, and Olympic Parkway east of the freeway would be
realigned approximately 3.7 meters (12 feet) to the south. Total estimated costs for Alternatives 1 and 2
(current dollars, escalated costs in parentheses) are $20.9 million ($21.6 million) and $21.5 million ($22.1
million), respectively. Additional alternatives were considered to: (1) provide more extensive auxiliary
lanes in the project study area and (2) meet the project objectives by use of mass transit facilities. Both of
these alternatives were rejected due to potential bridge construction and traffic movement conflicts
2
(auxiliary lane alternative), and the inability to accommodate projected traffic at acceptable levels of
service (mass transit alternative).
Potential environmental impacts associated with Alternatives 1 and 2 that are substantially adverse
include the issues of geology/topography, hydrology/water quality, biological resources, noise,
aesthetics and paleontological resources, as summarized below and in Table S~I. These potential impacts
would be addressed through the proposed mitigation or abatement (noise) measures, with a summary of
these measures also shown in Table S-I. Based on the analysis provided in this document and the related
technical studies, Alternative 1 has been identified as the preferred alternative in this Final MND/EA.
The final document includes a number of other minor changes from the public review draft to reflect
items such as updated information, public comments and correction of typographic errors. None of these
changes or information received during the public review process (see Section 7.3) altered any of the
conclusions, recommendations or impact/mitigation assessments included in the public review draft
!S/EA.
Geology/Topography - Proposed grading, excavation and construction of manufactured slopes would
generate potential impacts associated with short- and long-term erosion/sedimentation.
Hydrology/Water Ouality - The disposal of extracted groundwater, use of construction-related
hazardous materials and long-term maintenance of proposed facilities could result in water quality
impacts associated with: erosion/sedimentation and/or release of contaminated water (groundwater
disposal); accidental discharges during activities such as paving operations, material use and storage
(e.g., fuels) and vehicle operation/maintenance (construction-related hazardous materials); and discharge
of contaminants such as chemical fertilizers and pesticides (maintenance).
Biological Resources - The presence of mature eucalyptus trees within the project study area could
generate potential impacts to birds if nest sites on site are occupied and project construction is proposed
during the applicable breeding seasons.
Noise - Existing and project-related noise levels at numerous residential sites along 1-805, East Orange
Avenue west of 1-805 and Olympic Parkway east of 1-805 would exceed applicable noise criteria.
_Aesthetics - Project grading and construction would result in a number of visual effects (e.g.,
construction of wails and removal of mature trees) to local visual/view quality and community character.
Paleontological Resources - Project excavation and grading in previously undisturbed portions of the
Quaternary Lindavista and Tertiary San Diego formations could result in impacts to sensitive
paleontological resources.
Permit requirements associated with Alternatives 1 and 2 would entail conformance with existing
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Activity Storm Water,
Dewatering Waste Discharge and Municipal permits.
As noted above, the evaluation of project-related environmental impacts was conducted under applicable
guidelines of both CEQA and NEPA. While the body of the report encompasses elements of both state
and federal guidelines (e.g., the evaluation of project alternatives in Section 5.0), the terms significant or
significance are not used to qualify impact levels due to the fact that CEQA and NEPA vary somewhat on
the definition and required use of these terms. Under NEPA, for example, these terms are used to
determine the level (i.e., type) of environmental review document, rather than to describe and evaluate
the level of individual impacts. CEQA, on the other hand, requires that all environmental evaluations
include a determination of impact significance. Based on these inherent differences and the noted CEQA
requirement, a separate CEQA analysis is provided in Section 6.0 of this document, pursuant to
applicable state and City of Chula Vista criteria.
The conclusions of the CEQA analysis were similar to those described in the NEPA analysis, with
potentially significant impacts identified for the issues of geology/topography, hydrology/water quality,
biological resources, noise, aesthetics and paleontological resources. The nature and extent of these
impacts are the same as those described above for Alternatives 1 and 2, with CEQA mitigation for these
impacts the same as those described in Table S-1.
4
5
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The project consists of implementing a number of improvements to the existing configuration of 1-805
and associated interchanges at East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway and Main Street/Auto Park Drive
in the City of Chula Vista (Figures 1 and 2). Potential environmental effects from the project alternatives
are evaluated in this Initial Study/Environmental Assessment (IS/EA), pursuant to applicable
requirements of CEQA and NEPA. An EA has been prepared for the project under NEPA, based on a
supported analysis that impact levels would not be sufficient to require an Environmental Impact
Statement (ELS). This EA will be considered as part of the approval process for the project, resulting in
either adoption of a Finding of No Significant Impacts (FONSI) or the preparation of an EIS. Similarly, an
IS has been prepared under CEQA, with the results of this document being a Mitigated Negative
Declaration (MND). Technical reports have been prepared for the issues of traffic circulation, noise, air
quality, aesthetics, cultural resources, geotechnical constraints and hazardous materials. These
documents are summarized as appropriate in this IS/EA, with all project reports available for review at
the City of Chula Vista Planning and Building Department (276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, California
91910-2596); the Department District 11 office (2829 Juan Street, San Diego, California 92186-5406); and
the South Chula Vista Public Library (389 East Orange Avenue, Chula Vista, California 91911). Based on
the described environmental analysis, it has been determined that, with the proposed design and
mitigation measures, the project is not expected to result in any substantial adverse impacts on the
environment.
As discussed in applicable sections of this document (e.g., Section 5.6, Air Quality), the project is included
in approved regional transportation plans such as the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG)
Regional Transportation Improvement Plan (RTIP, SANDAG 2002a0~) and Regional Transportation Plan
(RTP, SANDAG 2003, 200(Po). Funding allocations identified for the project in the RTIP (per Amendment
No. 3, dated 2002) encompass a number of different funding sources, including federal Demonstration
(DEMO) Funds, City Funds, TransNet - L and -H Funds, federal STP-RIP (Type II) Funds, and RSTP
Funds. In addition, City Developer Impact Funds (DIFs) will be used for appropriate facilities (e.g.,
construction of certain noise abatement barriers), with the combined funding sources adequate to fully
fund the project as proposed.
6
i RIVERSIDE
COUNTY
COU_.~.J COUNTY
FALLBROOK
WARNER
SPRINGS
CARLSBAD
VISTA
EGGONDIDO
ENCINITAS
DEL MAR
RAMONA
PACIRC
BEACH
N
NOTTO SCALE
BF-~CH
PROJECT ~
STUDY AREA
ITED STATES,
· '"' ' '"' MEXtC;O
tlELIX
Regional Location Map
IS/EA - INTERSTATE 805/EAST ORANGE AVENUE/OLYMPIC PARKWAY INTERCHANGE
Figure 1
I
~S~E
HS
~ ........ 100
L[Y ~_S~F~AL '
Not to Scale
I_FS
i
PROJECT STUDY
AREA
TEAL ST
.OTUS Ol~ ~ -~' ~' '-~
~ AUTO PARK DRIVE
STREET' - ~Z .~ II~ 48~
Project Location Map
IS/EA - INTERSTATE 805/EAST ORANGE AVENUE/OLYMPIC PARKWAY INTERCHANGE
II[llX Figure 2
2.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROJECT
2.1 GENERAL PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The primary project objective is to accommodate projected traffic volumes and provide acceptable levels
of service and safety within the identified study area through the year 2025. Traffic volumes within the
study area are projected to increase substantially over approximately the next 25 years, due primarily to
on-going and future development in the eastern portion of the City. Current and proposed residential
development projects in eastern C. hula Vista include the Sunbow, Eastlake and Otay Ranch residential
sites. In addition, project facilities are intended to accommodate "special event" traffic generated by the
Coors Amphitheatre facility located southeast of the project study area. Specifically, traffic from events at
the Coors Amphitheatre is regularly routed along portions of Olympic Parkway to access 1-805 from the
east. The increase in traffic volumes and generation of "special event" traffic from the noted projects has
and will continue to adversely affect transportation service and safety levels within the project study
area. That is, substantial capacity/congestion and related traffic safety impacts are projected by the year
2025 within the study area for the 1-805 freeway and associated East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway
and Main Street/Auto Park Drive interchanges (Rick Engineering Company 2002a). The project ol~ecfive
associated with traffic safety accident rates is applicable to the 1-805/East Orange Avenue/Olympic
Parkway and Main Street/Auto Park Drive interchanges. An evaluation of accident rates at these
interchanges for the period of 1997 through 2001 determined that rates at the southbound off-ramp
segments exceeded corresponding statewide averages during certain reporting periods (refer to Section
2.3.2).
Based on the above conditions, the project is considered necessary to meet the stated objectives related to
traffic and safety concerns, and the City of Chula Vista has initiated the project engineering and
environmental review process. As part of the traffic and design studies conducted for this process, it has
been determined that proposed facilities will accommodate projected traffic volumes and result in
acceptable service and safety levels in the project study area through the year 2025.
A secondary project objective involves the inclusion of pedestrian and bicycle facilities in the design for
Alternatives 1 and 2. These facilities (described in Section 3.0) would interface with similar existing and
planned facilities in the study area and vicinity, providing more extensive and accessible opportunities
for local and regional pedestrian and bicycle traffic.
7
2.2 PROJECT BACKGROUND
Within the project study area, 1-805 was constructed in 1968 and consists of 8 lanes (4 in each direction)
separated by a median divider. The main freeway lanes are 3~7 meters (12 feet) wide, with a 3-meter (10-
foot) wide paved outside shoulder in most areas. The existing median is 14 meters (46 feet) wide, and
includes 2.4-meter (8-foot) wide paved inside shoulders. The existing inside shoulders are not the current
Department standard of 3 meters (10 feet) for such facilities, although this non-standard condition is not
proposed to be addressed as part of the project. 1-805 serves as a major regional and international
transportation route between the USA/Mexican border and the 1-805/I-5 merge near Sorrento Valley,
and is identified on both the National Highway System and Department of Defense Priority Network
lists. Pursuant to the 1999 Caltrans District 11 1-805 Transportation Concept Report (TCR), the ultimate (year
2020) configuration for 1-805 in the project study area is eight through lanes (with shoulders and medians
as described), the same as the existing configuration. While the referenced TCR does not identify high-
occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes for the portion of 1-805 within (or adjacent to) the study area, the
evaluation of HOV lanes has been recommended. Based on correspondence between the Department
and FHWA (Department 2002a), as well as existing/proposed freeway cross section diagrams provided
in the Project Report (Rick Engineering Company 2002a), the existing median was assessed as adequate to
accommodate HOV lanes with or without implementation of Alternatives 1 or 2.
East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway extends both east and west of 1-805, with the roadway segment
east of the freeway designated as Olympic Parkway and the portion of the road west of the freeway
called East Orange Avenue. Within the project study area, East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway is
currently a 4-Lane Major Street west of 1-805 and east of the freeway to Oleander Avenue (the eastern
study area boundary). East of Oleander, Olympic Parkway is classified as a future 6-Lane Prime Arterial
in the City of Chula Vista General Plan Circulation Element, while west of 1-805 Orange Avenue will
remain a 4-Lane Major Street. As noted, Orange Avenue changes names to Olympic Parkway east of
1-805, with Olympic Parkway planned to continue east and serve the City's Eastern Territories. The
section of Olympic Parkway between Oleander and Brandywine avenues has recently been widened to 6
lanes, while construction to widen the portion of this roadway east of Brandywine Avenue to 6 lanes is
nearly complete (refer to Section 3.5 for additional description).
8
2.3 EXISTING AND PROJECTED TRANSPORTATION AND SAFETY ISSUES
2.3.1 Transpmt atio~/Circulatlon
Level of service (LOS) is a term used to describe operating conditions with respect to vehicle speed, travel
time, maneuverability, corMort and safety. The determination of LOS for individual roadway segments is
based on the number of lanes and traffic volumes (number of vehicles per day or hour), with designations
ranging from A (little or no restriction on vehicular movements) to F (stop and go conditions with
considerable delay). For purposes of this analysis (and based on City and Department guidelines), an
acceptable level of service is defined as LOS E or better for freeway facilities, and LOS C or better for
surface streets outside the Department right-of-way (ROW, with up to two hours per day at LOS D
allowable under this definition of acceptable LOS in the City of Chula Vista General Plan Circulation
Element).
Projected traffic volumes and LOS designations for applicable roadway segments in the years 2000 and
2025 are shown in Table 1. As seen from these data, average daily traffic (ADT) for identified roadway
segments within the project study area is projected to increase by variable levels over approximately the
next 25 years. The majority of this projected increase in traffic volumes is associated with current and
projected development (primarily residential) in the City of Chula Vista Eastern Territories.
Table 1
SUMMARY OF ROADWAY SEGMENT TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND LOS
ROADWAY SEGMENT
1-805 - Palomar St. to E. Orange Ave./O1ympic Pkwy.
1-805 - E. Orange Ave./Olympic Pkwy.
to Main St./Auto Park Dr.
E. Orange Ave. West of 1-805
Olympic Pkwy. East of 1-805
Main St./Auto Park Dr. West of 1-805
Main St./Auto Park Dr. East of 1-805
1Aseumes implementation of the project.
2projected without implementation of the project.
3year 2000.
4year 1999.
YEAR 1999/2000 YEAR 2025
ADT LOS ADT LOS1 LOS2
150,0003 C 171,000 D E
138,000~ C 161,000 D E
24,0004 B 29,130 C D
40,0004 C 62,000 D5 F
23,0004 B 32,000 D5 E
26,0004 B 45,000 D5 F
5Two hours or less per day at LOS D expected, with the remainder at LOS C.
Source: Urban Systems Associates ([USA] 1996, 2000, 2002), Caltrans (2000), Rick Engineering Company
(2002b).
As shown in Table 1, implementation of the project would accommodate projected year 2025 traffic
volumes and provide acceptable LOS (per the above definitions) for all freeway segments (LOS E or
better), as well as both East Orange Avenue and Main Street/Auto Park Drive west of 1-805 (LOS C or
better). Main Street/Auto Park Drive both east and west of the freeway and Olympic Parkway are
projected at LOS D in year 2025, although these segments are expected to operate at LOS D for two hours
or less per day (i.e., during peak hour traffic). Accordingly, these segments would also meet the stated
City LOS criteria.
A summary of projected LOS designations for the year 2025 at applicable intersections in the project
study area is provided in Table 2. As discussed above for roadway segments, traffic volumes at the noted
intersections are expected to increase as a result of current and planned development. Projected LOS
would meet identified Department and City criteria for the a.m. peak at all noted intersections, and for
the p.m. peak at the 1-805/East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway north-and southbound ramps. The
East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway intersections with Melrose and Oleander avenues are projected
at LOS D, although (as noted above for roadway segments) these intersections are expected to operate at
LOS D for two hours or less per day (i.e., during peak hour traffic), and would therefore meet the stated
City LOS criteria.
Table 2
SUMMARY OF PROJECTED YEAR 2025 INTERSECTION LOS1
INTERSECTION
E. Orange Ave./Melrose Ave.
E. Orange Ave./Olympic Pkwy./I-805 SB Ramps
E. Orange Ave./Olympic Pkwy./I-805 NB Ramps
Olympic Pkwy./Oleander Ave.
1Assumes implementation of the project.
2projected without implementation of the project.
LOS1 LOS2
A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M.
D3 E0 F F
D D F F
D D F F
12)3 I33 F F
3Two hours or less per day at LOS D expected, with the remainder at LOS C.
Source: USA (1997), Rick Engineering Company (2002b).
2.3.2 SMe~
A summary of accident data for the most current reporting period (1999 through 2001) at the 1-805/East
Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway and Main Street/Auto Park Drive interchanges is shown in Table 3.
10
As seen from these data, the incidence of fatality, fatality plus injury and total accidents per million
vehicle miles at the noted intersections was below the corresponding statewide averages for similar
facilities. It should be noted, however, that statewide accident averages have been exceeded at portions
of these interchange segments in the recent past, with the number and level of such occurrences varying
for individual reporting periods. Specifically, such incidents include the following: (1) during the
reporting period of 1998 through 2000, total accidents at the 1-805/East Orange Avenue/Olympic
Parkway southbound off-ramp exceeded the corresponding statewide average, and fatality plus injury
accidents at the 1-805/Main Street/Auto Park Drive southbound off-ramp exceeded the corresponding
statewide average; and (2) during the reporting period of 1997 through 1999, the 1-805/East Orange
Avenue/Olympic Parkway southbound off-ramp exceeded the corresponding statewide averages for
both fatality plus injury and total accidents, and the 1-805/Main Street/Auto Park Drive southbound off-
ramp exceeded the corresponding statewide average for fatality plus injury accidents (Caltrans 2002b;
Rick Engineering Company 2002a, 2001). Based on these data, the potential exists for one or more of the
existing interchange segments within the project study area to exceed corresponding statewide averages
in the future.
Table 3
SUMMARY OF 1999-2001 ACCIDENT DATA FOR THE 1-805/EAST ORANGE AVENUE/
OLYMPIC PARKWAY AND MAIN STREET/AUTO PARK DRIVE INTERCHANGES
SEGMENT
1-808/E. Orange Ave./Olympic Pkwy.
Northbound On-Ramp
1-805/E. Orange Ave./Olympic Pkwy.
Northbound Off-Ramp
1-805/E. Orange Ave./Olympic Pkwy.
Southbound On-Ramp
1-805/E. Orange Ave./Olympic Pkwy.
Southbound Off-Ramp
1-805/Maln St./Auto Park Dr.
Southbound Off-Ramp
1Million vehicle miles.
2Fatality accidents.
3Fatality plus injury accidents.
4For similar facilities.
Source: Rick Engineering Company (2002a).
STATEWIDE
NUMBER ACTUAL
AVERAGE
OF ACCIDENT/MVM1 ACCiDENT/M'V1Vfi,4
ACCIDENTS
F2 F+I3 Total F2 F+I3 Total
5 0.000 0.23 0.38 0.002 0.32 0.80
2 0.000 0.00 0.54 0.005 0.61 1.50
2 0.000 0.00 0.38 0.002 0.32 0.80
15 0.000 0.49 1.22 0.005 0.61 1.50
10 0.000 0.41 1.01 0.005 0.61 1.50
11
The majority of accidents described above for interchanges in the study area were broadside or rear-end
type collisions, and were caused by excessive speed and/or failure to yield to oncoming vehicles due to
inadequate ramp capacity (Rick Engineering Company 2002a). That is, motorists were excessively
aggressive in attempts to merge as a result of "bottleneck" conditions on the under-capacity ramps. With
the implementation of the project features, it is anticipated that accident rates at the 1-805/East Orange
Avenue/Olympic Parkway and Main Street/Auto Park Drive interchanges would be reduced, and
would be less likely to exceed corresponding statewide averages for similar facilities through the year
2025.
2.4 COMPATIBILITY WITH TRANSIT FACILITIES
Existing and proposed transit facilities in the study area and vicinity include local and express bus routes
and related structures (e.g., turnouts) along streets, including East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway
west of Brandywine Avenue (refer to Section 3.4 for additional discussion of transit facilities). No light
rail transit (LRT) lines or related facilities are present or proposed within the study area and immediate
vicinity (City of Chula Vista 1995, Metropolitan Transit Development Board [MTDB] 1993, 2001). While
the proposed project does not include any specific transit-related facilities (bus lanes, turnouts, etc.),
proposed improvements would accommodate existing and proposed transit service, and the project is
considered compatible with local and regional mass transit facilities.
3.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT AND ALTERNATIVES
Based on preliminary design, engineering, cost and environmental considerations identified in the I-
805/East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway Project Study Report/Project Report (PSR/PR, Rick
Engineering Company 2002a, 2001) and related analyses, two design alternatives k~a-~-c ~cc~ w~re
identified for the 1-805/East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway project, as described below in Sections
3.1 and 3.2. As a result of the analyses contained in this document and related technical studies, as well
as consideration of comments received during the public review process (refer to Section 7.3), Alternative
1 has been identified as the preferred project alternative. Thc oclection of a final dc0ign for thc I 805/East
Orangc Avcnuc/Olympic Parkway project will not bc made until all applicablc altcmativc~ have been
fully cvaluatcd in thc CEQA/NEPA cnvironmcntal proccs0 (which includc2 an a~sc~omcnt of cotangents
rcccivcd during public review).
12
3.1 ALTERNATIVE 1: EAST ORANGE AVENUF~OLYMPIC PARKWAY ALIGNMENT
Alternative 1 consists of moctffying and improving the existing diamond interchange at 1-805 and East
Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway, adding a second lane to the southbound 1-805 off-ramp at Main
Street/Auto Park Drive, and adding auxiliary lanes to portions of the north- and southbound mairffine
freeway both north and south of East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway (Figures 3a through 3c). The
project would utilize both local and federal funds, and is thus subject to applifable City, Department and
federal criteria for all technical and environmental analyses. All proposed roadway facilities and related
construction activities would be located within or immediately adjacent to existing Depa~ hl~ent rights-of-
way. Accordingly, this alternative would not directly affect any existing homes, businesses or other
structures (i.e., no removal of structures), with related effects consisting of ROW acquisitions for, and
construction of, retaining walls and noise abatement barriers (as described in Section 5.11), as well as
removal of freeway landscaping and minor modifications to an existing sidewalk in one location.
Proposed retaining wall and noise abatement barrier locations are shown on Figures 3a through 3c, with
approximate ROW acquisition requirements described below for applicable facilities. The noted ROW
acquisitions represent the maximum areas that would be required to accommodate the associated
facilities as described. Additional discussion of proposed noise abatement barriers and related analyses
conducted in the project Acoustical Assessment (HELIX 2002, as amended) and Noise Abatement
Decision Report (NADR, Rick Engineering Company, 2003) is provided in Section 5.11.
The construction period for implementation of this alternative would be approximately 18 months, and
would involve standard construction equipment, materials and methods. Unless otherwise noted, all
proposed road and freeway lanes would be 3.6 meters (11.81 feet) wide. The Alternative 1 design
includes rninimum angles of 60 degrees between surface streets and the associated freeway ramps,
pursuant to Department design standards.
Project grading would be cortfined within existing freeway and surface street ROW boundaries in most
areas, although such activities would also encompass a number of small ROW acquisitions (as previously
noted and described below for individual project elements). Project grading would be balanced, with no
excess material import or export anticipated, and maximum manufactured slope ratios of 1:1.5 (vertical to
horizontal). Construction-related equipment/vehicle access and staging would be confined within the
described study area. corridor, with disturbance to areas outside the existing ROW limited to
grading/construction within the noted ROW acquisition areas and construction of noise abatement
barriers along applicable property boundaries (refer to Section 5.11). Construction staging would be
restricted to areas that are not immediately adjacent to existing residential properties. The construction
13
contract(s) specifications will include a requirement that proposed staging area locations be reviewed and
approved by the Department and the City prior to project implementation. Specifically, construction
contracts issued by the Department routinely contain requirements that become part of the legally
binding terms when the contract is approved. Such requirements may include efforts related to (for
example) erosion control, material disposal or equipment staging, and are enforced as part of the overall
contract by Department (or other applicable agency) construction inspectors.
The total estimated cost (current dollars, escalated costs in parenthesis) for Alternative 1 is approximately
$20.9 million ($21.6 million), including approximately $16.1 million ($16.6 million) in capital costs, $4.47
million ($4.57 million) in engineering costs, and $326,500 ($334,000) in ROW support. The described cost
estimates do not include Department engineering, environmental or ROW oversight contributions.
3.1.1 East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway - Freeway Overcrossing
The existing east- and westbound lanes on the East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway overcrossing each
include one through lane and one dedicated left-turn pocket onto the associated 1-805 on-ramp (i.e., the
northbound on-ramp for eastbound East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway traffic, and the southbound
on-ramp for westbound East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway traffic). This corffiguration would be
expanded to include two through lanes and two dedicated left-turn lanes each (i.e., to the noted on-
ramps) for east- and westbound traffic. Under this alternative, widening of the East Orange
Avenue/Olympic Parkway overcrossing would occur on the north side of the bridge. The bridge design
also includes designated bike routes within areas of Department ROW. Bike routes would be identified
by signs along the roadway, with separate lanes or striping for bicycle use. These routes would connect
with existing and/or proposed bike lanes/routes on adjacent portions of East Orange Avenue/Olympic
Parkway east and west of the freeway (as described below in Sections 3.14 and 3.15).
3.1.2 North and Southbound 1-805 Off-Ramps to East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway
Both the north- and southbound off-ramps currently include two lanes to accommodate east- and
westbound movements onto East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway. The northbound ramp would be
modified to provide one dedicated left-turn lane, one dedicated right-turn lane and one triple option (left,
right or through) lane. The northbound off-ramp widening would extend approximately 457 meters
(1,500 feet) south of East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway before merging with the proposed
northbound auxiliary lane (see Section 3.1.7), The modified southbound off-ramp would include one
dedicated left-turn lane, one dedicated right-turn lane and one optional (left-turn or through) lane. The
14
,,-I 11111 t
southbound off-ramp widening would extend approximately 436 meters (1,430 feet) north of East Orange
Avenue/Olympic Parkway before merging with the proposed southbound auxiliary lane (see Section
3.17). All associated ramp/surface street intersections would incorporate Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA) compliant curb cuts to accommodate access by (e.g.) wheelchairs.
3.1.3 North and Southbound 1-805 On-Ramps from East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway
Both of these ramps currently include two lanes at East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway which taper
to one lane at the freeway merge. This configuration would be modified for both ramps to provide three
lanes at the surface street intersection, including one high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane. A California
Highway Patrol (CHP) turnout and ramp meters would also be constructed at both on-ramps. Proposed
widening would extend approximately 137 meters (450 feet) south of East Orange Avenue/Olympic
Parkway along the southbound on-ramp, and would then taper to merge with the proposed auxiliary
lane (see Section 3.1.7). The northbound on-ramp widening would extend approximately 396 meters
(1,300 feet) north of East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway before tapering to merge with the proposed
northbound auxiliary lane (see Section 3.17). All associated ramp/surface street intersections would
incorporate (or retain existing) ADA compliant curb cuts.
3.1.4 Olympic Parkway - East of 1-805
The existing westbound configuration of one through lane and one dedicated right-turn lane would be
modified to create two through lanes and one dedicated fight-turn lane for the northbound 1-805 on-
ramp. These improvements would extend to the Oleander Avenue intersection and connect with the
recently widened section of Olympic Parkway extending east from Oleander Avenue. A sidewalk would
be constructed on the north side of Olympic Parkway, allowing full pedestrian traffic on both sides of the
proposed roadway. The right-turn lane would be 3.6 meters (11.81 feet) wide, with a 1.5-meter (5-foot)
wide paved shoulder. A 2.4-meter (8-foot) high retaining wall would be constructed along the north side
of Olympic Parkway east of the freeway, and would extend approximately 217 meters (712 feet) from
approximately 56 meters (184 feet) east of Oleander Avenue to the northbound on-ramp (refer to Figure
3b). Construction of this wall and the adjacent right-turn lane would require ROW acquisitions within 7
adjacent residential lots. Based on current figures, the total ROW acquisition required for the described
wall (and adjacent noise wails) would be approximately 1,125 square meters (12,150 square feet).
Additional ROW acquisitions would be required along the south side of Olympic Parkway in this area,
including approximately 79 square meters (848 square feet) for a 2.44-meter (8-foot) high combination
retaining/noise wall extending 48.3 meters (158.5 feet) west from Oleander Avenue, and a 7.6-square
15
meter (81.8-square foot) area for sidewalk modifications at the southeast comer of Olympic Parkway and
Oleander Avenue. A raised median would also be constructed east of the freeway between the east- and
westbound lanes.
The existing eastbound roadway east of 1-805 includes one through lane, one left-mm lane at Oleander
Avenue and one optional through and right-turn lane. This alternative would include two through lanes,
one optional through/right-turn lane (as described above), and one dedicated left-turn pocket onto
Oleander Avenue. All proposed lanes would be 3.6 meters (11.81 feet) wide, with a 1.5-meter (5-foot)
wide paved shoulder adjacent to the optional lane. Left-turn lanes would not be provided along
Oleander Avenue (i.e., to turn onto Olympic Parkway), as traffic conditions (i.e., volumes) do not warrant
such lanes (refer to Section 2.3.1). The existing Olympic Parkway/Oleander intersection curb cuts are
ADA compliant and would be retained.
The Alternative 1 design includes a Class III bike route along the noted section of Olympic Parkway west
of Oleander Avenue (i.e., between Oleander Avenue and the freeway overcrossing), including posted
signs and striping (or other pavement markings) to delineate lanes for bicycle use. This bike route would
connect with an existing Class II bike lane on Olympic Parkway east of Oleander Avenue.
3.1.5 East Orange Avenue - West of 1-805
The existing westbound configuration includes two through lanes. The westbound lanes would be
realigned to geometrically line up with the widened overcrossing and to accommodate proposed lane
modifications on the adjacent southbound 1-805 off-ramp (as described above).
The eastbound lanes in this area currently include one through lane and one optional through and right-
turn lane (i.e., onto the southbound 1-805 on-ramp). This alternative would provide two through lanes
and one dedicated right-turn to the ramp. A raised median would also be modified west of the ramp
intersection between the east- and westbound lanes. The eastbound right turn lane to the southbound 1-
805 on-ramp would require the construction of a 78-meter (256-foot) long and 2-meter (6.6-foot) high
retaining wall. A 78-meter (256-foot) long ROW acquisition would be required adjacent to four existing
residential properties on the south side of East Orange Avenue to accommodate the noted wall. The
related ROW acquisition area is approximately 131 square meters (1,406 square feet). The proposed lane
modifications along East Orange Avenue under this alternative extend up to the intersection with
Melrose Avenue, but do not include this intersection (Figure 3b). Specifically, modifications to the
intersection (or areas further west) are not required to accommodate the proposed lane modifications.
16
Alternative 1 includes a Class II bike lane along East Orange Avenue west of 1-805 that will connect with
the existing Class II bike lane west of Melrose Avenue, as well as with the proposed Class III bike route
proposed on the freeway overcroseing (as described in Section 3.1.1).
3.1.6 Southbound 1-805 Off-Ramp to Main Street/Auto Park Drive
This ramp is currently a single exit ramp that transitions to three turn lanes at the Main Street/Auto Park
Drive intersection. Alternative 1 would provide a two-lane exit ramp. The addition of a Second lane
would entail modifications to the off-ramp lanes, with the new lane to merge with the existing ramp lanes
and taper into the three existing turn lanes at Main Street/Auto Park Drive. The proposed auxiliary lane
at this off-ramp (See Section 3.1.7) would merge with one of the existing ramp lanes. All ramp/surface
street intersections would incorporate ADA-compliant curb cuts.
3.1.7 Mainline 1-805 Freeway
Alternative 1 would entail adding 3.6-meter wide auxiliary lane segments to the freeway both north and
south of the East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway interchange. The proposed auxiliary lane segments
would require excavation and grading within portions of the freeway ROW, and would include
construction of a 3-meter (10-foot) wide paved shoulder. Specific proposed facilities for auxiliary lane
segments are summarized below.
Northbound Auxiliary Lane, North of East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway Interchange - This
lane would begin approximately 396 meters (1,300 feet) north of the East Orange Avenue/Olympic
Parkway Interchange, and continue north for approximately 300 meters (985 feet) north before
merging with the existing freeway.
Southbound Auxiliary Lane, North of East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway Interchange - This
lane would begin approximately 1,036 meters (3,400 feet) north of the East Orange Avenue/Olympic
Parkway Interchange (i.e., at Palomar Street) and would extend approximately 600 meters (1,970 feet)
south to connect with the East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway southbound off-ramp.
Northbound Auxiliary Lane, South of East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway Interchange - This
lane would begin approximately 366 meters (1,200 feet) south of the East Orange Avenue/Olympic
Parkway interchange, and continue south for approximately 390 meters (1,280 feet). The proposed
17
auxiliary lane would connect the Main Street/Auto Park Drive on-ramp and the East Orange
Avenue/Olympic Parkway off-ramp, and would require a 34-meter (ll0-foot) long, 3-meter (10-foot)
l'dgh retaining wall along the adjacent freeway embankment.
Southbound Auxiliary Lane, South of East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway Interchange - This
lane would begin approximately 457 meters (1,500 feet) south of the'East Orange Avenue/Olympic
Parkway interchange and continue south for approximately 366 meters (1,200 feet). This auxiliary
lane would connect a proposed lane at the East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway on-ramp with an
existing lane at the Main Street/Auto Park Drive off-ramp.
3.2 ALTERNATIVE 2: MODIFIED EAST ORANGE AVENUE/OLYMPIC PARKWAY ALIGNMENT
This alternative is identical to Alternative 1, with the exception that the East Orange Avenue/Olympic
Parkway overcrossing would bl widened on both (i.e., north and south) sides, and Olympic Parkway east
of the freeway would be realigned approximately 3.7 meters (12 feet) to the south (Figure 4). The
realignment of Olympic Parkway to the south would require a 52-meter (170-foot) long and 3-meter (10-
foot) high retaining wall beginning approximately 25 meters (82 feet) east of the freeway. This widening
on the south side would also require ROW acquisitions approximately 3.7 meters (12 feet) wide for a
length of 115 meters (380 feet). This ROW acquisition would include approximately 425 square meters
(4,560 square feet), with the exact area to be determined during final design. Grading specifications for
this alternative (including cut and fill numbers and slope gradients) would be essentially the same as
those described above for Alternative 1. Project activities related to material export and disposal,
construction access and staging, and disturbance to off-site areas would also be the same as those
described above for Alternative 1.
The total estimated cost (current dollars, escalated costs in parenthesis) for the Alternative 2 is
approximately $21.5 million ($22.1 million), including approximately $16.6 million ($17.1 million) in
capital costs, $4.47 million ($4.57 million) in engineering costa, and $356,200 ($364,400) in ROW support.
The described cost estimates do not include Department engineering, environmental or ROW oversight
contributions.
3.3 ALTERNATIVE 3: NO PROJECT
Under this alternative, none of the described roadway modifications would occur, and the noted portions
of 1-805 and East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway would remain in their current condition. Both 1-805
18
and East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway within the project study area are expected to exhibit
unacceptable LOS (as defined in Section 2.3.1).in the year 2025 under the No Project Alternative (refer to
Tables 1 and 2).
3.4 ALTERNATIVES WITHDRAWN FROM CONSIDERATION
As part of the project PSR and environmental process, two additional alternatives were evaluated,
including: (1) an extension of the proposed auxiliary lane along southbound 1-805 between the East
Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway and Main Street/Auto Park Drive interchanges (in addition to the
other auxiliary lane segments described for Alternatives 1 and 2); and (2) the use of mass transit facilities
to accommodate projected traffic in lieu of or in combination with Alternatives 1 or 2. The modified
auxiliary lane alternative proposed to extend the described auxiliary lane north from the Main
Street/Auto Park Drive southbound off-ramp to the north side of the East Orange Avenue/Olympic
Parkway interchange. This alternative was rejected when it was determined that the described design
and related traffic movements would be unacceptable. Specifically, the effects of conflicting traffic
movements (or weaving) were evaluated between vehicles merging onto the freeway from the East
Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway on-ramp/auxiliary lane, and vehicles exiting the freeway onto the
Main Street/Auto Park Drive off-ramp.
The use of mass transit facilities (including bus and rail service) to replace part or the entire project
facilities was also rejected as an alternative after evaluation of existing and planned transit development
in the study area vicinity. Existing transit facilities consist primarily of local bus service along numerous
roadways, including East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway west of Brandywine Avenue, Brandywine
Avenue south of Olympic Parkway, Sequoia Street between Brandywine and Oleander avenues,
Oleander Avenue north of Sequoia Street, Melrose Avenue south and (partially) north of East Orange
Avenue, and Rienstra Street west of Melrose Avenue (refer to Figure 2). These bus routes provide service
6 or 7 days per week, with an average 30-minute service frequency (MTDB 1993, 2001). Additional
existing facilities in the study area vicinity include an LRT line and several stations along the I-5 corridor,
approximately 5.1 kilometers (3.2 miles) to the west.
Planned transit facilities identified in the City Of Chula Vista General Plan (1995) and the MTDB South
Bay Public Transportation Plan (1993) include expansion of existing bus and LRT facilities in the area.
Specifically identified improvements include: (1) the extension of express bus service on East Orange
Avenue/Olympic Parkway both west and east of 1-805, as well as local bus service on Main Street/Auto
Park Drive (east of 1-805) and Brandywine Avenue (south of Telegraph Canyon Road); (2) express bus
19
service on H Street (east and west of 1-805); and (3) LRT service (including stations) along portions of
Telegraph Canyon Road, State Route (SR) 125 and SR 905 to form an LRT "loop" that encloses the project
study area (City of Chula Vista 1995; MTDB 1993, 2001).
The use of additional bus service in the project vicinity is not considered a viable project alternative due
to the extensive nature of existing and planned facilities. Even with the construction of planned bus
facilities and service expansions within the study area, long-term traftic concerns identified in Section 2.3
would continue to persist. The use of existing and planned busy service would not meet the stated
project objectives and is therefore not considered a viable project alternative, Existing and planned LRT
facilities within the project study area and vicinity are also extensive. The potential use of an expanded
LRT alignment was rejected as a viable project alternative due to the reduced benefit gained by the
system and the potential impacts to existing homes. Construction of an LRT line would not substantially
reduce existing congestion within the study area. Additionally, construction of additional LRT facilities
would result in extensive projected costs and potential displacement of multiple homes.
3.5 RELATED PROJECTS
A number of additional roadway projects have been either constructed, proposed or planned in the study
area vicinity (refer to Figures 2 and 3). These projects all have been or will be processed independently of
the 1-805/East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway project and include the following:
1-805/Telegraph Canyon Road Interchange Improvements - This project included a number of
modifications (e.g., lane/ramp additions and widening) to 1-805 and associated on- off-ramps at
Telegraph Canyon Road in the City of Chula Vista (approximately 1.6 kilometers [1 mile] north of the
project study area). These improvements were intended to improve local circulation and traffic
safety, and accommodate projected traffic volumes through the year 2020. This project has been
constructed.
Olympic Parkway Widening, Oleander to Brandywine Avenues - The widening of this roadway
segment (adjacent to the study area on the east) from 2 to 6 lanes was intended to accommodate
projected traffic volumes through the year 2020 and meet the objectives of the City of Chula Vista
General Plan Circulation Element. This project has been constructed.
· Construction of Olympic Parkway, Brandywine Avenue to Hunte Parkway - The eastern segment of
Olympic Parkway (located approximately 488 meters [1,600 feet] east of the study area) will
20
encompass a six-lane Prime Arterial, and is intended to accommodate projected traffic volumes
through the year 2020. This project has been approved, with final construction elements (e.g.,
installation of landscaping) expected to be completed in February or March of 2003.
1-805/East Palomar Street interchange - The City of Chula Vista has identified the construction of a
freeway interchange at 1-805/Palomar Street (adjacent to the study area on the north) as a potential
long-term project to accommodate traffic circulation. This project has not been evaluated for
engineering or environmental concernS:
1-805 Ramp Meters - Ramp meters have been proposed by the Depat'ta~ent and the City of Chula
Vista for on-ramps at Bonita Road (approximately 4.25 kilometers [2.69 miles] north of the study area,
East H. Street (approximately 3.3 kilometers [2.05 miles] north of the study area), Telegraph Canyon
Road (approximately 1.7 kilometers [1.05 miles] north of the study area), and Main Street/Auto Park
Drive (within or adjacent to the study area). A PSR was completed for this project in February 2001,
with the PR and environmental analysis currently be'rog prepared.
East H Street/Telegraph Canyon Road Widening - Both of these surface streets have been proposed
for widening by up to approximately 3.7 meters (12 feet) along the north side of the existing road
alignments to accommodate projected traffic volumes. The proposed widening of Telegraph Canyon
Road would extend approximately 366 meters (1,200 feet) east from the existing northbound 1-805 on-
ramp, while the East H Street widening would extend approximately 677 meters (2,220 feet) east from
the 1-805 ROW. Public review under CEQA for both projects ended in July 2002, with the CEQA
document adopted by the Chula Vista City Council on September 17, 2002.
4.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
Existing conditions in the study area and vicinity are summarized below, with additional discussion
provided as appropriate for individual issues in Section 5.0.
The project study area is located within the City of Chula Vista, in the extreme southwestern comer of
San Diego County (refer to Figure 1). The project site and adjacent areas encompass predominantly high
density urban (mostly residential) development (Figure 5), although substantial open space is present to
the east and south in Poggi Canyon (and adjacent upland areas) and the Otay River Valley, respectively.
Existing residential development was built primarily in the 1970s and 1980s, with more recent
21
neighborhoods to the east constructed within the last 5 to 10 years. Local communities reflect generally
middle income levels, with mixed ethnic backgrounds and well-maintained homes, streets and
supporting facilities (e.g., schools, parks and neighborhood commercial sites). Existing pedestrian
facilities in the study area consist of sidewalks and crosswalks along most surface streets and
intersections, with existing bicycle lanes and/or routes located on the freeway overcrossing and along
East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway both east and west of 1-805. Specifically, the areas east of
Oleander Avenue include existing bike lanes extending several miles further to the east (i.e., on Olympic
Parkway). The existing East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway freeway overcrossifig includes
designated (i.e., signed) bike routes, while East Orange Avenue west of Melrose Avenue includes bike
lanes and routes extending several miles to the west.
Topography within the project study area is terraced, with the exception of manufactured slopes along
the 1-805 corridor. On-site elevations range from approximately 42.7 to 91.4 meters (140 to 300 feet) above
mean sea level (Figure 6). Mapped topsoils in the study corridor and adjacent areas include loamy
deposits of the Gaviota, Huerhuero, Olivenhain, Reiff and SalLnas Soft Series (U.S. Soft Conservation
Service [SCS] 1973). Most or all of these soils have been mixed during urban development, with no
agricultural activities or potential present. Drainage within the project study area and vicinity is mostly
to the west and south into Poggi Canyon Creek, and ultimately the Otay River and San Diego Bay. Poggi
Canyon Creek and the Otay River are not included on the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control
Board (RWQCB) list of Section 303(d) impaired waters (per the federal Clean Water Act, RWQCB 2002).
The southernmost portion of San Diego Bay (which includes drainage from the project site) is designated
as a low priority area for Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) criteria on the referenced 303(d) list, based
on coliform counts. Portions of San Diego Bay further north are listed as high priority TMDL areas based
on toxic effects and degraded benthic communities.
No mapped floodplains or coastal designations occur within the study area and vicinity, with local water
quality likely impaired due to urban contaminant generation (although specific data are not available).
No documented current or previous use, storage or discharge of hazardous materials has occurred within
the study area or immediate vicinity. No known historic or prehistoric archaeological sites are present
within the study area, although the project alignment is underlain by several geologic formations which
exhibit potential for important paleontological resources.
Vegetation within the project study area consists of non-native landscaping associated with 1-805, surface
streets and urban development, with no native habitat, wetlands, Waters of the U.S. or federally and/or
state listed species present. Visual resources are limited based on the predominantly developed urban
22
SF Single Family Residential
MF Multi-Family Residential
SCH School
COM Commercial
IND Industrial
OS Open Space
DOS Disturbed Open Space*
Water Tank
PK Park
FS Fire Station
CH Church
*Undeveloped areas that have been
previously disturbed.
SCH
SCH
~STLE
H$
PROJIr~T STUDY
AREA
OS/DOS
MAIN STREET
3800
SF
DOS
. ~iALLE¥
OS/DO~
IND
~ ~ DOS
AUTO PARK =RIW ~
4800
HELIX
Existing Land Use
IS/EA - INTERSTATE 805/EAST ORANGE AVENUE/OLYMPIC PARKWAY INTERCHANGE
Figure 5
HELIX
Project Study Area Depicted on the
Imperial Beach 7.5 Minute USGS Quadrangle
IS/EA - INTERSTATE 805/EAST ORANGE AVENUE/OLYMPIC PARKWAY INTERCHANGE
Figure 6
nature of the study area and vicinity, with most views encompassing urban hardscape and/or roadway
corridors.
The local climate is Mediterranean, with warm dry summers and mild winters. Most precipitation occurs
during the winter months, with the project area and vicinity averaging approximately 25 centimeters (10
inches) per year. Local air quality is generally good, although the study area and vicinity exhibit non-
attainment of certain federal (ozone) and state (ozone and particulates) standards.
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES
As noted in Section 1.0, project-related technical studies have been prepared for the issues of traffic
circulation, noise, air quality, aesthetics, cultural resources, geotechnical constraints and hazardous
materials. These studies are summarized below in applicable sections and incorporated by reference into
the following analysis. All project-related technical reports are available for review at the City of Chula
Vista Planning and Building Department (276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, California), the Department
District 11 Office (2829 Juan Street, San Diego, California), and the South Chula Vista Library (389 East
Orange Avenue, Chula Vista, California).
The following section provides an evaluation of potential project impacts and associated mitigation
measures (where applicable). The questions incorporated into the text are derived partly from FHWA ,
and Department N'EPA guidelines, and partly from the City of Chula Vista CEQA Environmental
Evaluation Checklist. The CEQA checklist and a summary of associated CEQA impacts and mitigation
measures are provided in Section 6.0 of this document.
The discussions of potential impacts include Alternative 1 (East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway
Alignment), Alternative 2 (Modified East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway Alignment), and
Alternative 3 (No Project). A CEQA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMI~) and a
N'EPA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Record (MMRR) are is-provided as Appendices A and
CAttach,-acnt A of this document, respectively, with thc l~ilLP including These plans include
appropriate mitigation measures and identify, associated implementation schedules and responsibilities.
5.1 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Item a - Would the proposed project conflict with local general plan designation or zoning?
Planned land use designations (as mapped in the City of Chula Vista General Plan, 1995) within the
project study area include the I~805 freeway corridor, low-medium density residential, medium-high
density residential, visitor commercial and open space (Figure 7). The low-medium residential
designation is associated with single-family homes, while the medium-high residential and visitor
commercial designations encompass small areas of multi-family housing and strip commercial
(respectively) in the extreme southwestern corner of the study area (near the 1-805/Main Street/Auto
Park Drive interchange). The open space designation includes previously disturbed and landscaped
freeway medians and slopes, as well as disturbed open space (i.e., previously disturbed and undeveloped
areas) within a transmission line corridor near the northern end of the study area. Existing and planned
land use categories within the study area and vicinity are depicted in Figures 5 and 7, respectively. As
seen by comparing these maps, some differences occur within the project study area due to the fact that
planned land use designates authorized general plan uses, while existing land use reflects current on-the-
ground conditions. On-site zoning designations include predominantly R1 (single-family residential),
with minor areas of CVP (visitor commercial) and R3P12 (apartment residential) in the southwestem
comer of the study area.
Project construction under either Alternatives 1 or 2 would be located primarily within the existing
freeway and surface street ROW boundaries. As noted above in Section 3.0, however, the project design
includes a number of minor ROW acquisitions for roadway facilities and retaining walls. These proposed
acquisition areas encompass residential land use and zoning designations, and would require
amendments to these designations to reflect the proposed uses, Based on the narrow width of proposed
ROW acquisitions, and the fact that these actions would not directly affect any existing structures, other
development or sensitive environmental resources (as described below in applicable sections), the project
would not result in substantially adverse effects related to general plan and zoning designations.
Implementation of Alternatives 1 or 2 would also require the construction of a number of noise
abatement barriers, pursuant to the "feasible and reasonable" (NADR) analysis (refer to Section 5.11).
Portions of these potential noise barriers would be located on existing private property (residential lots),
and would thus require acquisition of ROW or easements from affected property owners. Potential noise
barriers are considered consistent with the nature and scale of existing residential development and
would be designed and treated to enhance this consistency (e.g., through landscaping efforts, see Section
LEGEND
Residential Low-Medium
' Residential Medium
Residentia~ Medium-High
Commercial Retail
Commercial Visitor
~ L ~ Reseamh and Limited Manufacturing
~°-'~°~ Public and Quasi Public
~Open Space
~ Parks and Recreation
3~.30
Not to Sc'ale
HELIX
Chula Vista General Plan Land Use Map
IS/EA - INTERSTATE 805/EAST ORANGE AVENUE/OLYMPIC PARKWAY INTERCHANGE
Figure 7
5.15). It should also be noted that the City of Chula Vista Municipal Code (Chapter 19.16) specifically
exempts residential lots with back or side yards on "s~'eets or thoroughfares" (where access is from
another street or thoroughfare) from wall height restrictions. Based on these conditions, no associated
substantial conflicts with (or impacts to) existing land use or zoning designations are anticipated.
Olympic Parkway east of 1-805 is identified as a planned 6-Lane Prime Arterial in the City of Chula Vista
General Plan Circulation Element (City of Chula Vista 1995). As discussed above in Section 3.0, the
portion of this roadway within City jurisdiction (i.e., outside of the Department ROW) would include six
lanes under either Alternatives I or 2, and is in corrformance with the noted General Plan.designation.
The portion of this roadway within the Department ROW will include only minor refinements to the 6-
lane design to accommodate turning movements to and from the freeway ramps.
Under the No Project Alternative, no ROW acquisitions or easements outside the existing
freeway/roadway corridors would be required, and no impacts would occur to planned land use or
zoning designations. This alternative would not provide an acceptable LOS for projected year 2025
traffic, and would thus not meet the stated general plan objectives for Olympic Parkway within the
project site or the project purpose and need. Potential mitigation for related impacts would be limited to
roadway improvements similar to those identified for Alternatives 1 and 2.
Item b - Would the proposed project conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted
by agencies with jurisdiction over the project (including the Coastal Zone Management Plan)?
The project study area is not identified as environmentally sensitive in the City of Chula Vista General
Plan or any other known federal, state or local planning documents, and is not within the Coastal Zone.
The study area is within the City of Chula Vista Draft Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP)
Subarea Plan, although it is identified as a "take authorized area." This designation is based on the fact
that the project study area and vicinity (including all proposed development areas under Alternatives 1
and 2) have been previously developed or disturbed in association with existing freeway and urban
development. As a result of these conditions, none of the project alternatives would conflict with
applicable environmental City of Chula Vista plans or policies and no associated impacts are anticipated.
The project study area does not contain (and is not adjacent to) any publicly owned parks, recreation
areas or wildlife/waterfowl refuges. Specifically, the open space areas shown in the northern portion of
the study area on Figures 5 and 7 include previously graded areas within a transmission line corridor.
The open space designations shown at the East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway and Main
Street/Auto Park Drive interchanges on Figure 7 are landscaped freeway medians and slopes. The
disturbed open space located north of Olympic Parkway just east of the study area on Figure § is a
graded slope, and the linear, disturbed open space areas adjacent to the northwestern and southwestern
portions of the study area on Figure 5 are disturbed and/or lined drainage channels.
Item c ~ Would the proposed pmject affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g., impacts to soils or
farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)?
The entire project study area (as well as the proposed ROW acquisition areas and noise barrier locations)
has been previously developed or disturbed, with no known current or recent agricultural activity in the
study area or vicinity. Accordingly, no impacts related to agricultural resources, operations, soils or
farmlands would occur from any of the project alternatives.
Item d - Would the proposed project disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established
community (including a low-income or minority community)?
Freeway and surface street segments identified for improvement under Alternatives 1 and 2 extend
through established commtmities of predominantly single-family homes. Because of the nature of
proposed facilities, however (i.e., relatively minor alterations to existing freeway and surface street
corridors), no associated substantial adverse impacts related to the physical arrangement of established
communities are anticipated from any of the project alternatives.
5.2 POPULATION AND HOUSING
Item a - Would the proposed project cumulatively exceed official regional or local population
projections?
None of the project alternatives would involve the construction of new housing or public services that
would generate (or potentially generate) new population. That is, project facilities are included in
regional transportation plarming documents (e.g., the San Diego Association of Governments [SANDAG]
2~ 2002 Regional Transportation Improvement Plan [RTIP] and the 2020 and 2030 Regional
Transportation Plans_, [RTP_s], 20D~a 2002a,a~'~d 2000b, 2003), and are intended to accommodate projected
traffic associated with approved and planned development. The RTIP encompasses the planning period
of 200~: to 2007_4, while the RTPs involves long-term planning between the years 1998 and 2020 (2020
RTP), and 2000 and 2030 (2030 RTP). Based on the conditions described in this paragraph, no impacts
26
related to regional or local population projections are anticipated from implementation of Alternatives 1
or 2.
Under the No Project Alternative, no facility construction or modification would occur, with no
associated impacts to regional or local population projections.
Item b - Would the proposed project induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly
(e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)?
As noted above in Section 5.2a, Alternatives 1 and 2 would not include new housing (or other facilities
that could directly generate population growth), are included in the most current SANDAG RTIP and
RTP documents, and are not identified as an environmental condition in any local development projects
(City of Chula Vista 2001). Therefore, while Alternatives 1 and 2 include improvements to major
infrastructure, they are intended to accommodate projected traffic from approved or planned
development and would not generate excess capacity that could potentially serve additional (currently
unanticipated) traffic, or remove a Constraint to growth. Based on these conditions, no substantial
adverse direct or indirect impacts related to growth inducement are expected from implementation of
Alternatives 1 or 2.
Under the No Project Alternative, no facility construction or modification would occur, with no
associated impacts to growth inducement.
Item c - Would the proposed project displace existing housing (especially affordable housing)?
No displacement of existing housing would occur under any of the project alternatives, with associated
impacts not anticipated.
Item d - Would the proposed project affect lifestyles, or neighborhood character or stability?
Implementation of Alternatives 1 or 2 would involve improvements to existing roadway structures, such
as adding auxiliary or ramp lanes and constructing retaining walls and noise abatement barriers. Because
these proposed facilities constitute relatively minor additions to the existing freeway and roadway
corridors, no substantial adverse impacts related to lifestyles or neighborhood character/stability are
anticipated. Additional discussion of community character issues is provided below in Section 5.15,
Aesthetics.
27
Under the No Project Alternative, no facility construction or modification would occur, with no
associated impacts to lifestyles or neighborhood character/stability. As noted in Section 2.3, however,
local traffic conditions are expected to deteriorate extensively without the project, with the resulting
congestion likely resulting in adverse effects to local lifestyles and character.
5.3 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC
Item a - Would the proposed project affect minority, elderly, handicapped, transit-dependent or other
specific interest groups?
Alternatives 1 and 2 would involve a number of facility modifications within existing freeway and
surface street corridors. Because the proposed facilities would not substantially alter the nature, extent or
width of existing corridors, no perceivable alteration in the location or use of these facilities would occur.
In addition, the project would improve or maintain local pedestrian access opportunities through the
addition or retention of facilities such as sidewalks, intersection signals and crosswalks. As a result, no
adverse impacts to minority, elderly, handicapped, transit-dependent or other specific interest groups are
expected. Additional discussion of potential impacts to minority and low-income populations is
provided below in Item f of this section.
Under the No Project Alternative, no facility construction or modification would occur, with no
associated direct (i.e., construction-related) impacts to minority, elderly, handicapped or other specific
interest groups. It should be noted, however, that traffic congestion expected to occur in the study area
without the project (refer to Section 2.3) could result in adverse impacts to special interest groups through
conditions such as reduced access opportunities.
Item b - Would the proposed project affect employment, industry or commerce, or require the
displacement of businesses or farms?
Implementation of Alternatives 1 or 2 would not adversely affect any existing or proposed employment,
industry or commerce, and would not involve the displacement of any businesses or farms. This
conclusion is based on the nature and location of proposed facilities (including retaining walls and noise
barriers), which consist of relatively minor modifications within or adjacent to existing road rights-of-
way. Implementation of Alternatives 1 or 2 would also result in beneficial impacts to employment and
28
commerce, by providing temporary (construction) employment opportunities and improving the ability
of the local transportation system to sustain commerce-related traffic.
Under the No Project Alternative, no facility construction or modification would occur, with no
associated direct (i.e., construction-related) impacts to employment, industry or commerce, or existing
businesses or farms. As noted above in Item a of this section, however, traffic congestion anticipated to
occur without the project could adversely affect local business activities through (for example) limitations
on access and the movement of goods and services.
Item c - Would the proposed project affect propeay values or the local tax base?
Alternatives 1 and 2 would result in generally minor modifications to an existing regional freeway
corridor and adjacent surface streets. Associated direct impacts to local properties would be limited to
ROW acquisitions, construction of retaining walls and/or noise barriers, and removal of some mature
trees and shrubs adjacent to residential properties. These impacts are not considered substantially
adverse due to the minor nature and extent of ROW acquisitions, as well as requirements for wall/barrier
design (e.g., facade treatments and landscaping) under Department and City guidelines, and
recommended replacement of landscaping removed by project activities in applicable areas (see Section
5.15, Aesthetics). Some increase in local property values (and related property tax rates) could occur in
relation to the addition of structures such as sound walls. Any such increases are expected to be minor in
relation to overall values/tax rates, and would not result in substantial adverse impacts to local property
owners. Based on the described conditions, implementation of Alternatives 1 or 2 would not be expected
to generate substantial adverse impacts related to a reduction of property values or the local tax base.
Under the No Project Alternative, no roadway construction or modification would occur, with no
associated direct impacts to property values or the local tax base. The anticipated deterioration of local
traffic circulation without the project described in Items a and b, however, could potentially reduce local
property values.
Item d - Would the proposed project affect any medical, educational or scientific community
facilities?
Construction and operation of Alternatives 1 or 2 would be located predominantly within existi_ng
freeway/roadway rights-of-way, and would not impact any medical, educational or scientific community
facilities.
Under the No Project Alternative, no roadway construction or modification would occur, with no
associated impacts to medical, educational or scientific community facilities. As previously discussed,
however, the deterioration of local traffic circulation anticipated without the project could adversely
affect medical, educational or scientific facilities and services through (for example) access restrictions.
Item e - Would the proposed project support large commercial or residential development?
As noted above in Section 5.2a, Alternatives 1 and 2 are included in the current SANDAG RT1P and RTP
documents. Therefore, while these alternatives include improvements to major infrastructure, they are
intended to accommodate projected traffic from approved or planned development and would not
generate excess capacity that could potentially serve additional (currently unanticipated) traffic or
remove a constraint to growth. Based on these conditions, Alternatives I and 2 would not result in
impacts related to supporting large commercial or residential developments beyond established
projections.
Under the No Project Alternative, no facility construction or modification would occur, with no
associated impacts related to supporting large commercial or residential developments.
Item f - Would the proposed project conflict with Federal Environmental Justice requirements?
Executive Order 12898 (effective February 11, 1994), Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Population and Low-Income Populations, directs federal agencies to "ensure that all programs or
activities receiving Federal financial assistance that affect human health or the environment do not
directly, or through contractual or other arrangements, use criteria, methods or practices that
discriminate on the basis of race, color or national origin." The principal goals and policies identified in
the U.S. Department of Transportation 1995 Environmental Justice Strategy include: (1) improve the
environment and public health and safety in the transportation of people and goods, along with the
development and maintenance of transportation systems and services; (2) coordinate transportation
policies and investments with environmental concerns and consideration of economic and social
interests; and (3) consider the interests, issues and contributions of affected communities, disclose
appropriate information, and give communities an opportunity to be involved in decision making.
The project study area consists primarily of an existing freeway corridor, which extends through
established residential (mostly single-family) communities. These communities encompass portions of
30
four census tract Block Groups within the project study area (i.e., Block Group Nos. 133061, 133062,
133096 and 133121). These Block Groups divide the study area into four quadrants, with No. 133061
including the portion of the study area located south of East Orange Avenue and west of 1-805 (southwest
quadrant, refer to Figure 2 for geographic references), No. 133062 including areas north of Olympic
Parkway and east of 1-805 (northwest quadrant), No. 133096 including areas north of Olympic Parkway
and east of 1-805 (northeast quadrant) and No. 133121 including areas south of Olympic Parkway and
east of 1-805 (southeast quadrant). Following is a summary breakdown of population, ethnicity and
median income (based on an average household size of three persons) data for the four Block Groups,
based on 2000 census data (City of Chula Vista 2002, SANDAG 2002b).
Block Group 133061 (southwest quadrant) - This area includes a total population of 1,868, with
approximately 63 percent representing Hispanic or Latino background, 21 representing Caucasian
background, 10 percent representing Asian background, and smaller percentages (less than five percent)
of individuals with African-American, Native American, Hawaiian or mixed backgrounds. The 1999
median income for this Block Group was $50,000.
Block Group 133062 (northwest quadrant) - This area has a total population of 2,644, with approximately
55 percent representing Hispanic or Latino background, 30 percent representing Caucasian background, 7
percent representing Asian background, 6 percent representing African-American background, and 2
percent representing a mixed ethnic background. The 1999 median income for this Block Group was
$45,515.
Block Group 133096 (northeast quadrant) - This area includes a total population of 587, with
approximately 65 percent representing Hispanic or Latino background, 16 percent representing
Caucasian background, 11 percent representing African-American background, 5 percent representing
Asian background, and 3 percent with mixed ethnic background. The 1999 median income for this Block
Group was $64,844.
Block Group' 133121 (southeast quadrant) - This area exhibits a total population of 725, with
approximately 48 percent representing Caucasian background, 42 percent representing Hispanic or
Latino background, and 10 percent representing Asian background. The 1999 median income for this
Block Group was $66,250.
Based on the above information, all four Block Groups within the project study area exhibit some ethnic
diversity, with Hispanic/Latino and Caucasian backgrounds comprising the largest population groups
31
(between 81 and 90 percent combined in all four areas). Based on available census data and held
reconnaissance, none of the identified ethnic populations comprise readily discernable geographic groups
or clusters, with the study area population considered generally homogeneous. All four Block Groups
exhibited median income levels in 1999 that are well above the 2002 federal poverty (or low-income) level
of $15,020 for a family of three (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 2002).
Construction of Alternatives 1 or 2 would improve local transportation/circulation and provide
acceptable LOS through the year 2025, and would not result in direct impacts to any existing residential
structures (i.e., removal or relocation of structures) or related development. In addition, project
implementation would not adversely affect local traveling costs, modes of transportation, and access to'
transportation or local facilities. Project facilities would be located primarily within or immediately
adjacent to existing freeway or roadway rights-of-way, with minor proposed ROW acquisitions or
easements associated mainly with retaining walls or noise abatement barriers. Construction of these
walls and barriers would result in indirect visual impacts from the structures themselves, as well as from
potential removal of existing mature landscaping (e.g., eucalyptus trees). Removed vegetation would be
replaced as part of project implementation (refer to Section 5.15, Aesthetics), however, and a number of
other measures are also recommended to minimize potential impacts to community character, such as
wail treatments and additional landscaping (see Section 5.15). Based on these conditions, the proposed
retaining walls, noise abatement barriers and landscaping would blend in with the existing community,
and no associated substantially adverse impacts are expected. As described in applicable sections of this
document, the project would also not result in adverse indirect impacts to issues including air and water
quality (Sections 5.6 and 5.5), hazards (Section 5.10), public services/utilities (Sections 5.12 through 5.14)
and recreation (Section 5.18).
Ail other potentially substantial adverse environmental impacts related to the proposed project or
alternatives would be addressed as described in applicable sections of this document.
Implementation of Alternatives 1 or 2 would contribute to the health, safety and welfare of local residents
by improving traffic circulation and reducing accident rates at applicable freeway interchanges (see
Section 2.3). Project construction would also provide local short-term (construction) employment
opportunities (with all project construction contracts subject to Department fair hiring requirements), and
would reduce noise levels at a number of adjacent residential sites below the current levels (i.e., through
the construction of noise abatement barriers, see Section 5.11). The construction of noise abatement
barriers and associated landscaping/wall treatments would comprise beneficial community impacts by
providing a quieter and aesthetically pleasing local environment.
32
This Initial Study/Environmental Assessment will be circulated for public review pursuant to applicable
requirements of CEQA and the NEPA. This process includes targeting affected populations through
efforts such as providing an English and Spanish language notice of IS/EA availability to all property
owners within 500 feet of the project area, holding public hearings/meetings, evaluating all received
comments, and incorporating related additions/modifications to project environmental, design and
engineering efforts, as appropriate.
Based on the above described conditions, implementation of Alternatives 1 or 2 would not directly affect
existing residential development or substantially/disproportionately impact any existing ethnic- or
income-based communities; and would provide beneficial effects related to traffic circulation, safety,
short-term employment, and long-term noise abatement and aesthetics. In addition, both alternatives
incorporate a number of design or mitigation measures (as identified in applicable sections of this
document) to address potential environmental impacts. The project environmental evaluation (including
related project design data and technical reports) will be available for public review, and any resulting
comments will be incorporated as appropriate. Accordingly, no minority or low-income (or other)
populations would be su~ect to disproportionate adverse effects, and no substantial adverse impacts
related to environmental justice are expected from Alternatives 1 or 2. Due to the nature and limited
scope of these alternatives, other project alternatives (e.g., the rejected alternative described in Section 3.4)
would likely result in similar or greater environmental justice impacts.
Under the No Project Alternative, no facility construction or modification would occur, with no
associated impacts related to environmental justice requirements.
5.4 GEOLOGY/TOPOGRAPHY
A geotechnical investigation of the project study area was prepared by Ninyo & Moore (2000a). This
investigation included literature review, site reconnaissance, geologic mapping, subsurface exploration
and sampling (i.e., drilling and logging of 34 borings), and lab0ratoty analysis. The referenced
geotechnical study did not identify any soil or geologic conditions that would preclude development of
Alternatives 1 or 2, although a number of recommendations were provided to address potential
geotechnical concerns. Specifically, these concerns involve issues such as seismicity, slope stability,
grading/site preparation, expansive material, retaining and noise barrier design, foundation/pavement
design and corrosivity. Pertinent information from the project geotechnical investigation is summarized
33
in the following analysis, with the complete report available for review at the City of Chula Vista
Planning and Building Department, the Department District 11 office and the South Chula Vista Library.
Item a - Would the proposed project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving unstable
earth conditions or changes in geologic substructures?
Potential impacts identified in the project geotechnical study related to unstable earth conditions
involved potential slope instability and the presence of subsurface materials with corrosive potential.
Slope-related concerns are addressed in Item g of this section, with corrosive issues discussed below.
Laboratory tests of materials excavated from the study area documented pH levels ranging from 5.7 to 7.9
(moderately acidic to moderately alkaline), sulfate contents of between 10 and 220 parts per million
(ppm), chloride contents ranging from 35 to 160 ppm, and minimum electrical resistivity levels of
between 475 and 5,660 ohm-cm. These test results indicate that existing subsurface materials within the
study area are corrosive to metal and reinforced concrete, and could potentially result in substantial
deterioration to project facilities over time. The project geotechrtical study also notes that imported fill
materials may also exhibit corrosive characteristics.
Implementation of Alternatives 1 or 2 will be subject to existing Department, City of Chula Vista and/or
other appropriate design guidelines, including current Caltrans Standard Test Methods (1991); Caltrans
Highway Design Manual (1995); Caltrans Standard Specifications (1999); City of Chula Vista Grading
Ordinance; International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO) Uniform Building Code (UBC 1997);
California Storm Water Best Management Practice Handbooks (Stormwater Quality Task Force 1993);
Municipal Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP, San Diego Co-Permittees 2002); and the
Greenbook Committee Standard Specification for Public Works Projects (2000). Based on these and other
appropriate existing requirements, the results of the referenced geotechnical study (as well as subsequent
studies such as materials and foundation reports) will be incorporated into the project design. The above-
referenced design guidelines include the following types of measures related to unstable earth conditions
that would be included in the project design:
· Imported fill shall be tested for corrosive properties prior to use;
· Corrosion-resistant concrete and metal, or applicable plastic, shall be used for culverts and other
drainage facilities in appropriate areas (pursuant to the project geotechnical analysis);
34
· Reinforced concrete foundations within the project alignment shall use Type I cement, with
appropriate cement contents and thicknesses as described in the project geotechnical study; and
Project grading and excavation shall be monitored by a geotechnical engineer to verify or update
geologic and soil conditions within the study area. Based on this monitoring, additional design
requirements shall be implemented as appropriate.
Implementation of Alternatives 1 or 2 will require inclusion of the above-described standards and design
measures as project conditions, and would therefore address potential impacts related to corrosive
materials.
Under the No Project Alternative, no facility construction or modification would occur, with no
associated impacts related to unstable earth conditions.
Item b - Would the proposed project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving
disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcoverlng of the soil?
Native topsoils have been disturbed or removed from virtually the entire project study area (including all
areas proposed for development) through previous'grading and development. Surficial materials present
within the study area consist predominantly of fill deposits associated with existing freeway, roadway
and related f~atures (e.g., slopes). Implementation of Alternatives 1 or 2 would involve the placement of
engineered fill in areas of roadway construction, as well as excavation and/or placement of fill in
manufactured slopes along the freeway. While such activities would technically involve the "disruption,
displacement, compaction and/or overcovering" of surface materials (if not soft per se), they would be
conducted pursuant to applicable engineering and grading standards (as noted above in Item a of this
section), and would therefore not result in associated substantial adverse impacts.
Under the No Project Alternative, no~ facility construction or modification would occur, with no
associated impacts to topsoils.
Item c - Would the proposed project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving changes
in topography or ground surface relief features?
Construction of Alternatives 1 or 2 would entail minor topographic alteration in association with grading
of roadway surfaces and modifications to freeway slopes. As depicted on Figures 3a through 3c, these
35
proposed modifications would not substantially alter existing topography or ground relief, with no
associated substantial adverse impacts anticipated.
Under the No Project Alternative, no facility construction or modific'ation would occttr, with no
associated impacts related to topographic alteration.
Item d - Would the proposed project result in or expose people to potential impacts related to the
destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features?
Based on the existing developed nature of much of the study area and observations in the referenced
project geotechnical study, no urdque geologic or physical features are known or expected to occur on
site. Accordingly, no associated impacts would result from implementation of Alterr/atives 1 or 2.
Under the No Project Alternative, no facility construction or modification would occur, with no
associated impacts to unique geologic or physical features.
Item e - Would the proposed project result in or expose people to potential impacts related to any
increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site?
Construction of Alternatives 1 or 2 would involve excavation and fill deposits along the existing freeway
slopes, with these materials susceptible to short- and long-term erosion effects (particularly in the short-
term period between construction and the establishment of project landscaping). The erosion and
transport of material within and (potentially) downstream of the study area (i.e., if not controlled and
contained within graded areas) could produce a number of related substantially adverse effects,
including damage to manufactured slopes (e.g., rilling, etc.), siltation of downstream drainage facilities,
and degradation of downstream water quality and biological habitats (i.e., through increased turbidity
and transport of other contaminants).
The above-described potential erosion/sedimentation impacts would be addressed through the inclusion
of geotechmcal recommendations and guidelines in the project design (with geotechnical studies and
related guidelines applicable to the proposed project referenced above in Item a of this section), as well as
implementation of existing requirements under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES). Specific requirements under NPDES include coverage under the General Construction Activity
Storm Water Permit (NPDES No. CAS000002) from the State Water Resources Control Board prior to
construction. Such permits are required for construction activities that exceed five acres in size, and
36
include provisions to minimize off-site sediment transport through implementation of a Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Specific SWPPP requirements include construction-related erosion
and sedimentation measures, as well as monitoring requirements both during and after construction.
Erosion and. sedimentation controls under $1ArPPP guidelines require the use of best available technology
{BAT), best conventional pollution control technology (BCT) and/or best management practices {BIvIPs).
An NPDES General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit was issued to the Depm'h~'tent for portions
of Districts 1 through 12 (including the project study area) on July 15, 1999 (Order 99-06-DWQ, NPDES
No. CAS000003). The approved permit includes (among other criteria) requirements to reduce the
discharge of pollutants to the Maximum Extent Practicable CMEP) through (for example) implementation
of a Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP). These requirements are addressed through a number of
Department plans and policies, including the approved 1997 SWMP, the Caltrans Stormwater Plan and
Construction Contractor's Guide and Specifications (1997a) and Caltrans Storm Water Quality
Handbooks (1997b). All of these sources require implementation of the Department NPDES General
Construction Permit and provide detailed guidance for such implementation. Specific measures
identified in the noted documents include the following:
· Existing vegetation shall be preserved wherever feasible;
· Construction activities shall not be conducted during the rainy season (November 15 to March 15)
when feasible;
· Construction access points shall be stabilized through measures such as temporary gravelling or
paving;
· Runoff over manufactured slopes shall be avoided through the use of measures such as slope drains,
dikes and/or brow ditches;
· Sediment trapping devices such as gravel bags, hay bales and fiber rolls shall be used to minimize
off-site sediment transport;
Applicable graded areas (e.g., slopes) shall be temporarily revegetated (e.g., by hydroseeding) and
protected (e.g., by application of duff off or bonded fiber matrix) to provide interim stability prior to
the installation of permanent landscaping;
37
· Permanent landscaping shall be installed as soon as feasible after construction (but no later than one
year after grading) and shall include native or drought-tolerant varieties where feasible; and
Project erosion control and drainage facilities shall be regularly monitored and maintained to ensure
proper working order. While the timing and frequency of BMP monitoring and maintenance efforts
vary somewhat by nature and location, Department guidelines typically require contractors to
inspect construction erosion/sedimentation BMPs bi-weekly during the winter season, before and
after each storm event, and at 24-hour intervals during extended storms (regardless of the season).
The Depa~'tment requirements for permanent erosion/sedimentation BMPs include inspections
conducted annual~y and following major storm events in known problem areas, as well as "periodic"
efforts to remove sediment, debris or other potential obstacles to effective BMP operation.
Responsible parties for such activities will include the project contractor(s) during construction, the
Department for long-term maintenance in portions of the project within the 1-805 ROW, and the City
of Chula Vista for areas outside the 1-805 ROW.
In addition to the measures listed above, the project design includes a number of design features and
permanent BMPs designed to address (among other water quality concerns) long-term erosion and
sedimentation concerns. Specifically, these would include design measures such as installation and long-
term maintenance of project landscaping, use of retaining walls or other applicable long-term slope
stabilization techniques (e.g., pavement or rock armor), and provision of outlet protection/velocity
dissipation at all drainage outlet points (e.g., through installation of riprap aprons). Permanent BMPs to
be used in the study area include vegetation filters such as grass-lined swales or biostrips to remove
sediment (and other contaminants) from site runoff prior to off-site flow. These requirements are
formalized in the following mitigation measure:
Proposed Mitigation Measure
The project contractor(s) should implement all applicable short- and long-term BMP requirements
related to erosion/sedimentation as identified in existing NPDES, Department and City of Chul~
Vista guidelines. Proposed compliance activities (i.e., ppecific written methods proposed to comply
with the noted requirements) should be submitted to the Department and the City for review and
approval prior to grading to ensure that all requirements would be adequately addressed. Inspection
and maintenance of all erosion control BMPs would be conducted by the project contractor(s) during
construction activities and by the Department and the City (in their respective ROWs) over the long-
term.
38
Under the No Project Alternative, no facility construction or modification would occur, with no
associated impacts related to erosion/sedimentation.
Item f - Would the proposed project result in or expose people to potential impacts related to any
chartges in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which
may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay inlet' or lake?
Implementation of Alternatives 1 or 2 would not be expected to result in any adverse impacts related to
deposition or erosion of beach sands, river channels, stream or ocean beds, bays, inlets or lakes. This
conclusion is based on a number of considerations, including: (1) the developed nature of the study area
and vicinity ('including channelization of major drainage courses such as Poggi Canyon Creek); (2) the
intervening distance between the project study area and applicable streams, beaches, bays and the ocean;
and (3) requirements for erosion control identified in Item e of this section.
Under the No Project Alternative, no facility construction or modification would occur, with no
associated impacts related to deposition or erosion of beach sands, river channels, stream or ocean beds,
bays, inlets or lakes.
Item _~ - Would the proposed project expose people or property to geologic hazards such as
earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure or similar hazards?
As previously noted, the project geotechnical study (Ninyo & Moore 2000a) did not identify any geologic
or soil conditions that would preclude development of Alternatives 1 or 2, although a number of
potential geologic hazards were noted. Specific identified issues pertinent to this discussion include
seismic hazards, slope stability/design, expansive material, site grading and surficial material
preparation, and retaining wall/noise barrier design.
The project study area is within a seismically active region, although no active or potentially active faults
are known or expected to occur within or adjacent to the site. The principal source for seismic related
hazards within the study area is the active Rose Canyon Fault Zone, which is located approximately 6
kilometers (3.7 miles) to the west. The maximum credible earthquake (i.e., the maximum event
considered capable of occurring) identified for the Rose Canyon Fault Zone is a Richter magnitude event
of 7.0, with such an earthquake projected to result in a peak ground acceleration (ground motion) value
of 0.46g (where g equals the acceleration due to gravity) within the project study area (Ninyo & Moore
39
2000a). The project geotechnical study also noted that the La Nacion Fault is located approximately 430
meters (1,400 feet) east of the study area, but concludes that this fault is not considered a "significant
seismic source" by the Department. On the basis of the described seismic conditions, the project
geotechnical study concludes that the study area is potentially subject to substantial ground motion
effects, but is not expected to experience substantial adverse effects or potential related to ground failure,
landslides, liquefaction, or seismically induced ground settlement. The referenced geotechnical study
concludes that all identified seismic impacts would be addressed through implementation of applicable
Department (or other) standards related to seismic design considerations.
Specifically, the Caltrans Standard Specifications (1999) contain the following types of requirements for
seismic hazards:
· All areas proposed for grading and construction shall be cleared and grubbed to remove organic
debris and other unsuitable materials;
· Unsuitable soils or other surface deposits shall be removed and replaced with approved non-
expansive fill, or otherwise treated to provide a suitable base (e.g., recompaction);
· All fill deposits shall be subject to proper composition, placement (e.g., in distinct layers), compaction
and moisture content criteria;
· Appropriate aggregate subbase, aggregate base, asphalt-concrete and concrete materials shall be
employed for roadway and related facilities, per Department standards;
· All retaining walls, noise abatement barriers and related features (e.g., foundations, footings, piles
and backfills) shall be designed and constructed pursuant to Department standards; and
· Seismic loading criteria (e.g., concrete reinforcing) shall be implemented for applicable structures
(e.g., bridges and walls) pursuant to Department standards.
Inclusion of these types of measures from the Caltrans Standard Specifications (or other applicable
sources such as the referenced UBC and Greenbook guidelines) in the project design would address
potential seismic impacts, with no additional mitigation required for the issue of seismic hazards.
40
As identified in the project geotechnical study, proposed roadway/manufactured slope excavation and
construction of retaining walls/noise barriers may encounter existing fill and deposits of the Quaternary
Lindavista and Tertiary San Diego formations. The presence of these materials in areas of proposed
excavation and construction could potentially result in substantial adverse impacts related to slope and
structure (e.g., wall) stability. The geotechnical study identifies a number of measures that would
address these potential impacts, including implementation of applicable Department, City and/or other
industry standards for slope design, erosion control (as noted in Item e of this section), and the previously
described retaining wall/noise barrier design. Specific measures related to slope design include the
erosion control techniques noted in Item e of this section, as well as the use of key structures at the toes of
proposed slopes, and benching at the interface of existing and proposed slopes (per Caltrans Standard
Specifications). Inclusion of these measures into the project design would address slope stability impacts
with no additional associated mitigation required.
The project geotechnical study identifies a number of surficial soils within the study area that may exhibit
expansion (or shrink-swell) potential. Expansion is a phenomenon related to the water holding capacity
of clay minerals, with expansive behavior potentially resulting in substantial adverse effects to facilities
such as foundations, pavement or underground utilities. The project geotechnical study identifies a
number of measures to address potential expansion effects, including implementation of the following
measure from the Caltrans Standard Specifications (with City requirements derived from UBC or
Greenbook gnidehnes containing similar measures).
Materials within areas proposed for grading or construction shall be either (1) removed and replaced
with approved fill; (2) treated on site to eliminate expansion hazards (e.g., through recompaction and
moisture control); or (3) restricted to use in non-structural fills in accordance with applicable
Department, UBC, Greenbook, or geotechnical analysis guidelines (e.g., previously noted).
Inclusion of such requirements in the project design would address all impacts related to expansive soils,
with no additional associated mitigation required.
Under the No Project Alternative, no facility construction or modification would occur, with no
associated impacts (beyond current conditions) related to earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground
failure or similar hazards.
41
5.5 HYDROLOGY/WATER QUALITY
Item a ~ Would the proposed project result in changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff?.
Runoff within the study area currently flows south and west to the channelized Poggi Canyon Creek
drainage, which continues southwest to the Otay River and ultimately San Diego Bay. All additions or
modifications to existing drainage facilities within the study area from Alternatives 1 or 2 would conform
with applicable Department and City design standards, with no substantial alterations to current
drainage patterns expected. Project implementation would result in minor changes to existing runoff and
absorption rates due the paving of additional freeway, ramp and surface street lanes, with paved areas
reducing local absorption and increasing runoff by creating impermeable surfaces. No substantial
adverse impacts are anticipated from these changes, however, due to the relatively small area and
associated runoff generation involved. Specifically, Alternatives 1 or 2 would result in approximately 1.2
hectares (3 acres) of additional pavement (i.e., beyond existing paved areas), with only minor additional
runoff generated as a result. The minor increase in runoff generation within the study area is also not
expected to substantially affect the capacity or function of downstream drainage structures.
Under the No Project Alternative, no facility construction or modification would occur, with no
associated impacts to absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff.
Item b - Would the proposed pmject expose people or property to water-related hazards such as
flooding or tidal waves?
Alternatives 1 or 2 would entail excavation and construction activities associated with modifications to
existing roadways and slopes, as well as the addition of retaining walls and noise barriers. No substantial
adverse flood-related impacts are expected from these activities based on the following conditions: (1)
Floodplain mapping conducted by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA 1997) for the
project study area designates the entire site as Zone X, or "Areas determined to be outside the 500-year
floodplain;" and (2) in the event of on-site flooding, the proposed facilities would not be susceptible to
substantial flood-related hazards and would not substantially affect flood conditions (i.e., through either
a substantial increase in runoff generation or the creation of impediments to flood flows, refer to Items a
and i of this section). The project study area is not subject to impacts associated with tsunamis
(commonly referred to as tidal waves), due to its location approximately 4.8 kilometers (3 miles) inland,
and is not in close proximity to any large inland water bodies.
42
Under the No Project Alternative, no facility construction or modification would occur, with no
associated impacts from water-related hazards.
Item c - Would the proposed project result in the discharge into surface waters or other alterations of
surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)?
Potential water quality impacts associated with Alternatives 1 and 2 include erosion/sedimentation,
accidental discharge of construction-related hazardous materials (e.g., fuels, lubricants and concrete
waste), disposal of extracted groundwater (if necessary), roadway maintenance activities and generation
of automobile related contaminants from roadway use (e.g., oil or coolant leaks). The latter effects are not
expected to be substantially adverse, due to the assumed incremental nature of such contaminant
generation (relative to existing conditions) for roadway operations in the study area. Potential erosion
impacts would be addressed through the requirements described above in Item e of Section 5.4.
Based on geotechnical investigations conducted for the project study area, shallow groundwater was not
observed and is generally not expected to occur on site (refer to Item f of this section). The potential
occurrence of shallow aquifers cannot be completely discounted, however, and disposal of groundwater
(dewatering) could be required to accommodate construction activities if shallow aquifers are present in
areas to be graded or excavated. Construction dewatering (if required) could potentially result in
substantial adverse water quality effects through (for example) discharge of contaminated groundwater
or erosion/sedimentation from uncontrolled or improper discharge practices. The Caltrans SWMP and
Storm Water Quality Handbooks noted above in Section 5.4 (Item e) identify BMPs to address potential
pollutant generation from non-stormwater sources, including construction dewatering, in addition, the
Caltrans Field Guide to Construction Site Dewatering (2001) identifies specific methods to implement and
manage dewatering operations. Specific BMF measures described in these documents include use of
applicable (depending on site-specific conditions) sediment control measures, testing of groundwater for
contaminants prior to disposal, on-site retention and percolation/evaporation, and discharge to a
sanitary sewer or storm drain system. These measures are described in detail in the referenced
documents (Caltrans 2001, 1997a and 1997b, Stormwater Quality Task Force 1993). The project applicant
will be required to obtain an approved NPDES Dewatering Waste Discharge Permit (NPDES No.
CA0108804) from the San Diego RWQCB prior to groundwater extraction/disposal. Such permits are
intended to ensure conformance with applicable RWQCB water quality, anti-degradation and beneficial
use objectives, and typically entail the use of BMPs to meet these requirements. Specific BMP measures
43
generally encompass a number of physical and chemical parameters (depending on site-specific
conditions), including the use of energy dissipaters or temporary sedimentation basins.
The use of construction-related hazardous materials could potentially result in substantial adverse water
quality effects through accidental discharges associated with activities such as paving operations,
material use and storage, or vekicle operation (e.g., refueling) and maintenance. The approved Caltrans
SWMP, Contractor's Guide and Specifications and Storm Water Quality Handbooks, as well as the
Municipal SUSMP (San Diego Co-Permittees 2002) and California Stormwater BIvlP Handbooks,
described in Section 5.4 include the following types of non-stormwater BMP requirements for
construction related hazardous material use and storage:
· Sediment catchment and filtering devices (e.g., hay bales, sand bags and filter fabric) shall be placed
around storm drain inlets in areas downstream from paving operations;
· Paving slurry and wastes shall be contained, coLlected and disposed of properly;
· Hazardous material storage shall be minimized on site (i.e., only a few days supply), and shall be
restricted to designated locations;
· Hazardous material storage sites shall encompass berms, ditches and/or impervious liners to prevent
off-site discharge in the event of a spill;
· Hazardous material preparation use and disposal shall comply with manufacturer's specifications;
Fueling and maintenance areas shall be designated for construction equipment, with mobile fueling
(i.e., outside the designated areas) to be avoided whenever feasible. The described fueling and
maintenance areas shall be located away from storm drains or water courses, and shall include
measures to protect and contain hazardous materials (e.g., impervious liners or berms); and
Appropriate construction employees shall be trained by the project contractor(s) in proper hazardous
material use, handling, storage and disposal techniques prior to commencement of project
construction. Construction employees shall also be trained on appropriate action to take in the event
of a spill, including containment techniques and agency notification.
The Department District 11 SWMP also includes BMP requirements related to long-term maintenance
activities such as roadway cleaning, landscaping chemical applications (e.g., fertilizers or pesticides), and
maintenance (including graffiti removal) of retaining or noise walls. Specific associated requirements
include proper training, implementation of manufacture's application standards, and proper handling
and contaimnent procedures (similar to those described above). Long-term project operation in the City
of Chula Vista ROW along East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway would be su~ect to applicable
requirements of the NPDES Municipal Stormwater Permit (NPDE$ No. CASG108758), including the
SUSMP. This permit is implemented by the San Diego RWQCB under Order No. 2001-01 and identifies
waste discharge requirements for urban storm runoff. These requirements generally entail the use of
BMPs to "[m]itigate (infiltrate, ~ter or treat" stormwater runoff based on applicable flow or volume
criteria (as defined in Order 2001-01). While specific BMPs used to meet these criteria can vary with
individual circumstances, applicable methodology for the project area would likely include methods such
as in-line filtering and/or treatment. As noted in Section 5.4.e, design criteria for Alternatives 1 or 2
include long-term erosion/sedimentation design features and BMPs such as landscaping, slope
stabilization outlet protection/velocity dissipation and use of vegetation filtering devices (e.g., biostrips).
These facilities will be reviewed and approved (with modifications as necessary) by the City of Chula
Vista prior to project implementation to ensure conformance with applicable NPDE$ criteria.
Based on the requirements associated with existing NPDES dewatering and municipal permit conditions,
and the BMPs included in the project design or described above in the referenced Caltrans SWMP,
Contractor's Specifications and Storm Water Quality Handbooks, potential water quality impacts from
Alternatives 1 or 2 associated with dewatering, construction related hazardous materials and facility
operation/maintenance would be addressed. These requirements are formalized in the following
mitigation measures:
Proposed Mitigation Measures
The project contractor(s) should implement all applicable BMPs related to disposal of extracted
groundwater and construction-related hazardous material use identified in existing NPDES,
Department and City of Chula Vista guidelines. Documentation of proposed compliance with these
existing standards should be submitted to the Department and the City for review and approval prior
to issuance of a grading permit.
· The project applicants should implement all applicable vegetation filtering BMPs (e.g., grasslined
swales or biostrips) related to long-term operation and maintenance activities identified in existing
45
Department guidelines and RWQCB Order 2001-01. Specifically, such activities may include periodic
removal of sediment or debris. Documentation of proposed and ongoing BMP maintenance efforts
should be kept on file at the Department District 11 and City of Chula Vista Planning and Building
Department offices.
Under the No Project Alternative, no facility construction or modification would occur, with no
associated water quality impacts beyond existing conditions.
Item d - Would the proposed project change the amount of water in any surface water body?
Alternatives 1 and 2 involve the construction of roadway and related facilities, and would not involve
any impacts to the amount of water in any water body. Similarly, the No Project Alternative would also
not be expected to result in any such impacts to local water bodies.
Item e - Would the proposed project result in any changes to currents, or the course or direction Of
water movements, in either marine or fresh waters?
As described above in Item a of this section, none of the project alternatives would substantially affect
existing drainage patterns. Based on the nature and location of project facilities and the study area,
impacts are also not expected to currents or water movements in any marine or fresh water bodies.
Item f - Would the proposed project affect the quantity of groundwaters, either through direct
additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations?
None of the project alternatives involve direct additions to or withdrawals from groundwater bodies,
with no associated impacts anticipated. As noted above in Item c of this section, however, shallow
groundwater (while not anticipated) could potentially occur on site and, if present, could be encountered
during project grading and excavation. Dewatering associated with the project (ff necessary) would not
be expected to substantially impact local groundwater quantities. This conclusion is derived primarily
from the nature of proposed construction activities (i.e., generally shallow grading/excavation), and the
small amount of groundwater potentially requiring removal under such a scenario. In addition, it should
be noted that shallow groundwater was not observed during on-site geotechnical investigations (Ninyo &
Moore 2000a), which included numerous on-site borings to depths of up to 6.6 meters (22 feet). Based on
these conditions, no substantial adverse impacts related to groundwater quantities are anticipated from
implementation of any of the project alternatives.
46
Item _~ - Would the proposed project alter the direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
Potential project-related impacts to groundwater are limited to the withdrawal of minor quantities of
groundwater during construction dewatering. Due to the small quantities of groundwater that would
likely be involved in such activities (see Item L above), no associated substantial adverse impacts to
groundwater directions or flow rates are expected from Alternatives 1 or 2.
Under the No Project Alternative, no facility construction or modification would occur, with no
associated impacts to groundwater flow or direction.
Item h - Would the proposed project impact groundwater quality?
Potential impacts to groundwater quality from the project alternatives would be similar to those
described above for surface waters in Item c of this section. These potential impacts would be addressed
through implementation of the stated existing regulatory requirements and City and Department
standards, with no additional mitigation required.
Item i - Would the proposed project alter the course or flow of floodwaters?
The project alternatives would not involve modifications to any drainage course or floodway channel,
and would not entail construction of any structures that would notably alter or impede floodwater flows.
Accordingly, no associated adverse impacts related to floodwater alterations are anticipated.
Item j - Would the proposed project substantially reduce the amount of water otherwise available for
public water supplies?
Water use associated with the project alternatives would involve only minor needs such as construction
watering (e.g., for dust control) and landscape irrigation. Based on the small quantities involved with
such uses, no impacts related to the substantial reduction in available water supplies are expected from
implementation of any of the project alternatives.
47
5.6 AIR QUALITY
An air quality technical investigation was conducted for the project alternatives by Giroux & Associates
(2000). The results of this study are summarized below, with the complete report available for review at
the City of Chula Vista Planning and Building Department, the Department District 11 office and the
South Chula Vista Public Library.
Item a - Would the proposed project violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or
projected air quality violation?
The project study area is within the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB), which includes all of western San Diego
County. The SDAB is a non-attainment area for ozone under both federal and state standards, and for
PM10 (particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter) under state standards. Emission generation
associated with Alternatives 1 or 2 would be related to vehicular exhaust from traffic within the study
area, particulate matter (dust) from excavation/grading activities, and emissions from construction
vehicles and equipment. Emissions from the No Project Alternative would be limited to traffic related
sources. The referenced air quality analysis includes an assessment of project conformance with
applicable air quality standards and planning documents. Ozone and (to some extent) PM10 are regional
pollutants that are derived from complex chemical reactions between precursor pollutants (e.g., vehicle
emissions) and sunlight. Because this process may involve several hours and occur at substantial
distances from emission generation, there is no effective way to directly correlate such emissions with air
quality standards on a project-specific basis. Accordingly, the assessment of air quality standard
conformance is based on the project relationship to the SANDAG RTIP (2002~ and RTP (2~a 2000 and
200~,2~), as well as the 2000/2001 Regional Air Quality Strategy/State Implementation Plan
(RAQS/SIP). The RTII' and RTP incorporate assessments of conformance with applicable emission
targets, based on a list of planned development projects and a number of assumptions regarding
emission control programs (e.g., transportation control measures [TCMs] such as ridesharing and transit).
These plans are components of the RAQS/SIP, with the latter document comprising the principal vehicle
used to assess conformance with state and federal ambient air quality standards (AAQS). The referenced
air quality analysis concluded that Alternatives 1 and 2 are in conformance with the current RTIP, RTP
and RAQS/SIP (Giroux & Associates 200~, 2002; and 2000). The anticipated project is included in the
SANDAG 2020 RTP (Appendix I, page A-60) and the SANDAG 2020 RTIP (CAL01, page 39). The
SANDAG Board of Directors adopted the RTP on February 25. 2000. The conformi.ty finding was
approved by the FHWA and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) on April 13, 2000. The SANDAG
Board of Directors adopted the RTIP on hine 28, 2002. The conformity finding was approved by the
48
FHWA/FTA on October 4, 2002. The proposed proiect is also included in the SANDAG Mobility 2030 RTP
(Technical Appendix 7, page 120), which was approved by the SANDAG Board of Directors on March 28, 2003
and approved by FHWA/FTA on April 9, 2003. The proposed proiect fully conforms to the implementation plan's
purpose of attainin~ and maintaining national ambient air quality standards. The proposed proiect meets all criteria
for a finding of confolauity with the SIP. The project is also included in th~ 2000 SANDAG RTIP (page 36) and the
1996 2020 SANDAG P. TP (page 20, with these documents found to be confurmh~g by F1-B[rA;Federal Transit
Authority (FTA) on July 21, 2000 and December 20, 1996, respectively. Project design concept and scope are
consistent with the project description in the above referenced RTP~ RTIP and related Federal Trancportation
Improvement Plan (FTIP). Based on the above-described conditions, potential emission generation from
Alternatives 1 and 2 is included in the RTIP, RTP and RAQS/SIP assumptions. Both alternatives are therefore
consistent with apphcable air quality planning documents, and would not result in any associated substantial adverse
impacts to air quality standards. The No Project Alternative would also not result in any substantial adverse impacts
to air quality standards, as it would not result in transportation facilities beyond those identified in the referenced
RTIP and RTP documents.
The project air quality investigation also included a imcroscale impact analysis to evaluate potential carbon
monoxide (CO) generation from project sources. Unlike ozone and PMIo, CO emissions can be directly projected
from a site-specific source via computer modeling. Based on CO microscale modeling conducted for years 2000
and 2020, CO levels associated emissions generated from the project alternatives would be below all applicable
standards and no violations or associated substantial adverse impacts are expected.
Construction-related vehicle/equipment emissions and dust generation are not projected to result in violations of
applicable air quality standards due to their short-term and mobile nature (i.e., a linear constauction progression
within the project site), as well as existing City of Chula Vista and Department standards. Specifically, these
standards include requirements for proper maintenance and operating efficiency of construction vehicles and
equipment, as well as dust control measures such as regular watering or other dust abatement techniques (e.g.,
tackifiers), and site sweeping and/or "washdowns" to minimize the generation of airborne dust particles. Based
on these conditions, construction of Alternatives 1 or 2 would be expected to conform with alt applicable air quality
standards, with no associated substantial adverse impacts to air quality planning, enfissions standards or existing
violations.
Despite the above conclusions, the project site is within a non-attainment ama for ozone and PM~o (as noted above),
and every effort should be made to reduce emissions to the maximum extent feasible. To
49
I
this end, it is recommended that additional measures be implemented during project construction to
minimize related vehicle trips and emissions. Specifically, this would include measures such as requiring
the project contractor(s) to encourage and participate in employee ridesharing programs (e.g., through
including such requirements in the contract specifications).
Item b - Would the proposed project expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?
The CO microscale analysis noted above included an assessment of potential CO "hot spot" impacts to
applicable sensitive receptors. Specifically, modeling to assess potential "hot spot" impacts was
conducted for 16 sensitive receptor sites (all residential properties) within the project study area. As
previously indicated, all projected CO levels from this analysis were within applicable standard
thresholds, with no associated substantial adverse impacts to sensitive receptors identified for any of the
project alternatives. In addition, the assessment of other emissions provided in Item a of this section
concluded that the project alternatives would meet all applicable air quality standards and is included in
applicable planning documents, with associated substantial adverse effects to sensitive receptors
therefore not anticipated.
Item c - Would the proposed project alter movement, rooisture or temperature, or cause any change in
climate, either locally or regionally?
Alternatives 1 and 2 would entail a number of freeway, ramp and surface modifications (including
vertical structures such as noise abatement barriers) to accommodate project traffic volumes from existing
and planned development through the year 2025. Implementation of the project alternatives would not
be projected to substantially affect air movements, moisture, temperature or local/regional climate due to
the nature and relatively small scale of activities.
Item d - Would the proposed project create objectionable odors?
Potential odor generation associated with the project altemative~ would be limited to construction
and/or vehicular sources such as dust and diesel exhaust. No associated substantial adverse impacts
related to odors would be anticipated, due to the nature of potential sources (i.e., relatively weak odors),
the required implementation of dust control measures (see Item a of this section), and the short-term
duration of potential odor sources.
50
Item e - Would the proposed project create a substantial increase in stationary or non-stationary
sources of air emissions, or result in the deterioration of ambient air quality?
As described above irt Items a and b of this section, emissions from the project alternatives would be
limited to non-stationary sources, and would meet all applicable air quality plan and regulatory
standards. Accordingly, no substantial adverse impacts are expected in association with emission
generation or ambient air quality.
5.7 TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION
Traffic studies for the project alternatives were conducted by Urban Systems Associates (USA 1996, 1997,
1999, 2002). These studies are summarized below, with the complete reports available for review at the
City of Chula Vista Planning and Building Department, the Department District 11 office and the South
Chula Vista Public Library.
Item a - Would the proposed project result in increased vehicle t~ips or traffic congestion?
As described in Section 2.0 of this document, Alternatives 1 and 2 would not generate additional vehicle
trips, but are intended to accommodate projected on-site roadway and intersection traffic volumes
through the year 2025 with acceptable level of service (LOS) and safety conditions. Accordingly, while
project implementation would coincide with increased vehicle trips on site, these trips would be
generated by existing or planned off-site development. In addition, the proposed facilities would provide
acceptable LOS within the study area though the year 2025. Based on these considerations,
implementation of Alternatives 1 or 2 would not be expected to result in any substantial adverse impacts
related to increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion.
Under the No Project Alternative, none of the proposed roadway improvements would be constructed
and the project study area would remain in its current condition. Based on the projected increase in local
traffic volumes (see Section 2.0), it is projected that the No Project Alternative would result in
unacceptable LOS and safety conditions within the study area by the year 2025. Such conditions would
represent substantial adverse impacts to local traffic circulation and congestion, with potential mitigation
of these effects limited to roadway improvements similar to those identified under Alternatives 1 and 2.
51
Item b - Would the proposed project generate safety hazards from design features (e.g., sharp curves
or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e,g., farm equipment)?
As described in Section 2.0 of this document, proposed facilities are designed to accommodate projected
traffic and provide acceptable levels of service and safety through the year 2025. As a result, adverse
impacts related to safety hazards from design or use issues are not expected for e Alternatives 1 or 2.
Under the No Project Alternative, none of the proposed facilities would be constructed and hazards
associated with design and use issues would technically not occur. Because traffic volumes within the
study area are projected to notably increase over existing levels by year 2025, however, it is considered
likely that safety hazards and associated substantial adverse impacts related to existing roadway design
would occur within that timeframe. Potential mitigation of such impacts would be limited to roadway
improvements similar to those identified for Alternatives I and 2.
Item c - Would the proposed project result in inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
Potential impacts related to emergency and local access restrictions for Alternatives 1 and 2 would be
limited to the project construction period. Once completed, project facilities would have no adverse
impacts to emergency access routes or access to local properties. During construction, some access
restrictions could potentially occur in association with excavation, grading and paving activities, as well
as conflicts with general construction vehicle and equipment movements. Project construction would be
subject to existing City of Chula Vista (e.g., Work Area Traffic Control Handbook, APUA 2001) and
Department access and safety standards, including measures for traffic control and maintenance of
applicable access routes.
Specifically, Department standards for traffic control are identified in the Caltrans Highway Design Manual
(1995), and include the following types of measures:
Prior to construction, the project contractor(s) shall prepare and submit traffic control plans for
proposed activities in the study area to the Department Resident Engineers and the City of Chula
Vista Engineering Department; and
Project traffic control plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Department Resident Engineers
and the City prior to commencement of construction activities, and shall include measures to
maintain through traffic (e.g., delineation of through lanes or use of pilot vehicles), ensure adequate
52
safety (e.g., use of signs, barriers, speed limits or flaggers), and maintenance of adequate emergency
and local access (e.g., flaggers to prioritize traffic movements and provision of alternate lanes for local
access, i~ applicable). Approved traffic control measures shall be included in the project construction
contract specifications and implemented by the construction contractor(s).
Based on the implementation of described traffic control standards, no substantial adverse impacts
related to emergency or local access are anticipated from Alternatives 1 or 2.
Under the No Project Alternative, none of the proposed construction activities would occur and
associated impacts to emergency or local access would generally not be expected. As previously noted,
however, projected traffic volumes within the study area by the year 2025 would result in unacceptable
levels of service, with associated potential access impacts related to traffic congestion.
Item d. - Would the proposed project result in insufficient parking capacity on or off site?
Alternatives 1 and 2 consist of modifications to existing freeway and surface street segments, with no
associated long-term parking requirements. Short-term (construction) parking needs for these
alternatives would be limited to temporary areas within the construction site, and would not involve any
impacts to on- or off-site parking capacity.
Under the No Project Alternative, none of the proposed improvements would be implemented and no
impacts related to short- or long-term parking capacity would occur.
Item e - Would the proposed project result in hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
As described above in Item c of this section, potential short-term (construction-related) access restrictions
and safety concerns would be effectively mitigated through implementation of existing City of Chula
Vista and Department traffic control standards. After construction, Alternatives 1 and 2 would not
present any hazards or barriers to pedestrians and bicyclists. This conclusion is based on a number of
considerations, including: (1) pedestrian and bicycle access/safety issues are not applicable to freeway
segments and ramps (with such uses precluded on freeway facilities); (2) the incorporation of sidewalks
and bicycle lanes/routes along East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway (as described in Section 3.0 of this
document); and (3) the installation or upgrade of traffic signals at applicable intersections of East Orange
Avenue/Olympic Parkway. Based on these considerations, no substantial adverse impacts related to
pedestrian or bicycle access and safety are anticipated from Alternatives 1 or 2.
53
Under the No Project Alternative, proposed roadway improvements would not be implemented and no
direct (i.e., construction) impacts related to pedestrian or bicycle hazards/barriers would occur. As noted
in Section 2.3, however, traffic circulation is projected to deteriorate in the study area without the project,
with such congestion likely resulting in adverse effects to pedestrian and bicycle traffic.
Item f - Would the proposed project conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
Existing bicycle facilities in the project study area and vicinity include dedicated bicycle lanes and routes
on Olympic Parkway east of 1-805, signed bicycle routes on the 1-805 overcrossing bridge, and a
combination of bicycle lanes and routes on East Orange Avenue west of the freeway (refer to Sections
3.1.1, 3.1.4 and 3.1.5). These existing bike lanes and routes are located along roadways and are used as
transportation rather than recreational facilities (City of Chula Vista 1995).
As described in Section 3.4 of this document, existing bus service encompasses a number of surface
streets within and adjacent to the study area, including portions of East Orange Avenue/Olympic
Parkway. Existing bus service is transportation (rather than recreational) in nature, with no associated
structures (bus stops, pull-outs, etc.) located within the study area.
East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway is identified as a future route for bicycle and transit (local and
express bus) use in the Chula Vista General Plan Circulation Element. Specifically, bicycle facilities are
proposed along East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway between Fourth Avenue to the west and
Heritage Road (Paseo Ranchero) to the east, while local bus routes are proposed to extend between
Interstate 5 and the planned State Route 125. Alternatives 1 and 2 include bike lanes/routes along East
Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway (as described in Section 3.0 and Item e of this section) that would
connect with existing bicycle lanes/routes on this roadway. The project facilities would also
accommodate planned bus service on East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway, with no bus turnouts (or
other related facilities) proposed within the study area. Based on these conditions, no associated impacts
to alternative transportation are expected from these alternatives.
Under the No Project Alternative, existing bicycle facilities and planned bus service would not be
changed, with no associated adverse impacts.
54
Item _g - Would the proposed project result in impacts to rail, waterborne or air traffic?
The project alternatives would not involve conflicts with any existing or proposed rail, waterborne or air
traffic routes or facilities, with no associated impacts anticipated.
Item h -Would the proposed project constitute a "large project" as defined in the Congestion
Management Program?
As described in Section 2.0 and Item a of this section, Alternatives 1 and 2 would not generate any vehicle
trips, but are intended tO accommodate projected traffic volumes associated with approved or planned
development. Accordingly, implementation of these alternatives would not be expected to generate any
impacts related to development of a "large project" under the SANDAG Congestion Management
Program guidelines (i.e., an equivalent of 2,400 or more average daily vehicle trips, or 200 or more peak-
hour vehicle trips). Similarly, the No Project Alternative would not generate additional traffic or
associated impacts related to a Congestion Management Program "large project."
5.8 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Item a - Would the proposed project result in impacts to threatened or endangered species, sensitive
species, species of concern, or species that are candidates for listing?
A field reconnaissance of the project study area was conducted by HELIX on March 17, 2000 (Attachment
B). The study area is located in an area of extensive urban development, with native habitat or sensitive
species not observed and not expected to occur within areas of proposed grading and construction
(including retaining walls and noise abatement barriers). As noted in Attachment B, however, the
presence of mature eucalyptus trees within the study area could provide nesting sites for raptors or other
protected bird species. Nesting birds may be impacted, if present, during construction of Alternatives 1
or 2. These potential impacts would be addressed through implementation of the mitigation measure
listed below. Based on the described site conditions, no additional potential impacts to species of concern
or listed, candidate and sensitive species are anticipated from Alternatives 1 or 2.
Proposed Mitigation Measure
· Prior to the removal or alteration of landscaping during the months of January 15 through July 31, a
qualified biologist should conduct a pre-construction survey of such landscaping, as well as those
areas within the construction impact area established by the biologist, to determine if any nesting
raptors or migratory birds are present. In the event that an occupied nest(s) is/are found during the
survey, appropriate construction setbacks should be established as deemed appropriate by a
qualified biologist to ensure the protection of young birds.
Under the No Project Alternative, none of the proposed construction activities would occur and no
impacts related to species of concern or listed, candidate and sensitive species would be expected.
Item b. - Would the proposed project result in impacts to locally designated species (e.g., heritage
trees)?
No locally designated species are known or expected to occur on site, with associated impacts not
anticipated from implementation of any of the project alternatives.
Item c - Would the proposed project result in impacts to locally designated natural communities (e.g.,
oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)?
As noted above in Item a of this section, no native habitats are present within the study area, with
impacts to locally designated natural communities therefore not expected from implementation of any of
the project alternatives.
Item d - Would the proposed project result in impacts to wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian or
vernal pools)?
As noted above in Item a of this section, no native habitats are present within the study area, with
impacts to wetlands therefore not expected from implementation of any of the project alternatives.
Item e - Would the proposed project result in impacts to wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?
As previously described, the project study area has been completely developed or disturbed, and is
located in an area of primarily urban' development. Accordingly, no impacts related to wildlife dispersal
or migration corridors are anticipated from implementation of any of the project alternatives.
56
Item f - Would the proposed project result in impacts to regional habitat preservation planning
efforts?
The project study area does not contain any native habitat and is identified as a "take authorized area" in
the City of Chula Vista Draft Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Subarea Plan. Accordingly,
the project alternatives would not expected to impact any regional habitat preservation efforts.
Item g - Would the proposed project result in impacts to wild or scenic rivers or natural landmarks?
The project study area incorporates a previously disturbed or developed urban corridor, with no impacts
to scenic rivers or natural landmarks anticipated from implementation of any of the project alternatives.
Item h - Would the proposed project result in impacts to existing habitats or species through the
introduction of new plant or animal species?
As previously described, the project study area has been completely developed or disturbed, does not
contain any native habitats and is located in an area of primarily urban development, with adverse
impacts to invasive species therefore generally not anticipated. Pursuant to Executive Order (EO) 13112,
however, the project design includes a number of measures to address potential impacts from the
introduction of new species. The noted EO requires federal agencies to combat the introduction or spread
of invasive species, which are defined as "Ia]ny species.., not native to that ecosystem to cause economic
or environmental harm or harm to human health." Related guidance issued by FHWA on August 10,
1999 involves using the state noxious weed list to identify invasive plants that must be considered when
conducting a NEPA analysis. Implementation of Alternatives 1 or 2 would involve landscaping of
applicable disturbed areas such as slopes and medians. As described in Section 5.15 (Aesthetics) of this
IS/EA, project landscaping would utilize plant materials that conform with applicable Department and
City guidelines. Department guidelines include plant palettes that use appropriate native species where
feasible, and specifically omit species included on the described state noxious weed list. As a result, none
of these species would be used for project-related landscaping or (if applicable) erosion control efforts
(e.g., temporary hydroseeding). The project landscaping plan also includes interim and long-term
monitoring and maintenance efforts per Department and City guidelines. These efforts will specifically
include regular monitoring and weed removal to minimize the occurrence of invasive weed species.
Based on the described conditions, no adverse impacts related to the introduction of new species are
anticipated from the implementation of Alternatives 1 and 2.
57
Under the No Project Alternative, none of the project activities would occur and no impacts to existing
habitats or species would be expected.
5.9 ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES
Item a - Would the proposed project conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
Direct energy consumption associated with Alternatives 1 and 2 would include minor amounts of fuels
and electricity for construction activities, while indirect use would include vehicular-related fuel
consumption for on-site traffic after project completion. Alternatives I and 2 would provide adequate
capacity for projected traffic volumes (at acceptable LOS) related to currently approved and planned
development, and would meet applicable City and Department guidelines regarding construction
operations, alternative transportation (i.e., bicycle lanes/routes) and transit facilities (i.e., bus service).
Accordingly, no impacts related to adopted energy conservation plans would occur from implementation
of these alternatives.
Energy use associated with the No Project Alternative would be limited to vehicular-related fuel
consumption for on-site traftic. While impacts related to energy consumption would generally not be
expected for this alternative, the fact that unacceptable LOS could occur within the study area (based on
year 2025 traffic projections, see Section 5:7) could potentially impact energy conservation plans within
the study area with respect to provision of bicycle lanes/routes (as described in Section 5.7e) and vehicle
operation efficiency (i.e., due to congestion). Mitigation of such potential impacts would be limited to
improving traffic conditions through similar roadway modifications as described for Alternatives 1 and 2.
Item b - Would the proposed project use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient
manner?
Direct use of non-renewable resources from Alternatives 1 and 2 would consist primarily of fuels and
construction materials associated with proposed excavation, grading, paving and related activities. It is
not anticipated that use of such materials would occur in a wasteful or inefficient manner, as such misuse
would result in additional costs for the project contractor(s). In addition (as described in Section 5.6a),
recommendations have been provided to reduce the consumption of certain non-renewable resources by
implementing employee ridesharing. Indirect use of non-renewable resources would consist of vehicular
fuel consumption from local traffic, with such use not expected to be wasteful or inefficient due to
proposed design features and provision of acceptable LOS. Based on these considerations, no impacts.
related to wasteful or inefficient use of non-renewable resources are anticipated from Alternatives 1 or 2.
Use of non-renewable resources for the No Project Alternative would be limited to vehicular fuel
consumption from local traffic. As noted above in Item a of this section, this could potentially result in
impacts to energy use in association with projected local traffic volumes and LOS within the study area.
Mitigation of such potential impacts would be limited to improving traffic conditions through similar
roadway modifications as described for Alternatives 1 and 2.
Item c - If the site is designated for mineral resource protection, will the proposed project impact this
protection?
The project study area is not designated for mineral resource protection in the City of Chula Vista
General Plan or any other known source. The site is within an area designated as Mineral Resource Zone
3 (MRZ-3) for aggregate minerals by the California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG 1983). The
MRZ-3 designation is defined as "areas containing mineral deposits the significance of which cannot be
evaluated from available data."
No impacts related to protection of designated mineral resource are anticipated from implementation of
the proposed project and alternatives. This conclusion is based on the lack of protective mineral resource
designations within the study area, the existing developed nature of much of the study area and vicinity,
and the fact that all proposed development areas are designated and zoned for roadway, residential or
commercial use and are therefore unlikely to be authorized for mining activities.
Item d - Would the proposed project increase the rate of use of any natural resource?
As noted above in Items a and b of this section, natural resource consumption associated with
Alternatives 1 and 2 would include minor amounts of fuels, building materials and electricity for
construction activities, as well as vehicular-related fuel consumption for on-site traffic after project
completion. No substantial adverse impacts are expected in relation to the rate of natural resource
consumption from Alternatives 1 and 2. This conclusion is based on the temporary nature of construction
related consumption, as well as the fact that project facilities are intended to accommodate projected
traffic from currently approved or planned development.
59
5.10 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
T;';c, Three Hazardous Waste Initial Site Assessments (Ninyo & Moore 1998, 1999 and 2003~) and an
aerially deposited lead testing program (Ninyo & Moore 2000b) have been conducted within the project
study area. These studies are summarized below as applicable, with the complete reports available for
review at the City of Chula Vista Planning and Building Department, the Department District 11 office
and the South Chula Vista Public Library.
Item a - Would the proposed project involve a risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including but not limited to petroleum products, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)?
As described above in Section 5.5, hazardous material use associated with Alternatives 1 and 2 would be
limited predominantly to construction-related substances such as fuels and lubricants, as well as
maintenance-related activities such as pest control or graffiti removal. Potential impacts related to such
hazardous material use would be addressed through implementation of applicable existing NPDES,
Department and City standards, as described in the project environmental conditions listed on Section
5.5c.
Under the No Project Alternative, none of the proposed construction activities would occur, with no
associated construction related hazardous material impacts. Potential impacts related to maintenance
activities would be similar to those described above for Alternatives 1 and 2 (e.g., due to the presence of
existing landscaping).
Item b - Would the proposed project involve possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan?
East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway is identified as a potential emergency evacuation route in the
City of Chula Vista General Plan Safety Element. Implementation of Alternatives 1 and 2 would not
adversely affect this designation or the potential use of East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway as an
evacuation route. These alternatives would, in fact, !reprove the capability of this roadway to serve in
this role within the study area by widening portions of the roadway.
As discussed in Section 5.7c, temporary effects to emergency access could potentially occur during
construction for Alternatives 1 and 2, although these impacts are not considered substantially adverse
60
due to their short-term nature and existing requirements for traffic control during construction (including
maintenance of emergency access).
Under the No Project Alternative, retention of the existing roadways in the project study area could
potentially impact the ability of this corridor to effectively serve as an emergency evacuation route. That
is, portions of the existing roadway network would exhibit unacceptable LOS with projected year 2025
traffic volumes. Potential mitigation of this impact would include roadway improvements similar to
those described for Alternatives 1 and 2, or use of alternative routes for emergency evacuation.
Item c - Would the proposed project involve the creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazard?
Alternatives 1 and 2 include a number of freeway, ramp and surface street modifications within the study
area to accommodate projected traffic and improve safety conditions. Specific design features related to
improved safety include lane/ramp widening, traffic signals, ramp meters, sidewalks, bike lanes and
dedicated left- or right-turn lanes in applicable locations. Based on these proposed design features, no
substantial adverse health hazards would be associated with facility operation under Alternatives 1 or 2.
Potential construction related health hazards associated with the use of hazardous materials would be
addressed the design measures identified above in Section 5.5c. As a result of the described
considerations, implementation of Alternatives 1 or 2 is not expected to generate any substantial adverse
impacts related to health hazards.
Under the No Project Alternative, retention of the existing roadways in the project study area could
potentially result in substantial adverse health hazard (i.e., traffic safety) impacts associated with
projected local traffic volumes and unacceptable LOS. Potential mitigation of these impacts would
include roadway improvements similar to those described for Alternatives 1 and 2.
Item d - Would the proposed project expose people to existing sources of potential health hazards?
The above-referenced 1998 and 1999 Initial Site Assessments (ISAs) included visual inspection of the
project study area, review of historic air photos and a literature search of applicable regulatory agency
databases for known hazardous material sites within approximately 305 meters (1,000 feet) of the project
area. Based on this investigation, no evidence of current or previous use, storage or disch.~ge of
hazardous materials was observed within or adjacent to the site, although 13 recorded hazardous
material sites were documented within 305 meters (1,000 feet). These sites were documented on
61
numerous agency databases, and include uses such as underground storage tanks (USTs), vehicle repair
shops, maintenance yards, service stations and a dry cleaners. While a number of these facilities have
documented releases of hazardous materials or other violations, all are assessed a low probability to
affect the project study area due to: (1) their location hydrogeologically downgradient from the study
area; (2) intervening distance from the study area (i.e., approximately 60 to 305 meters [200 to 1,000 feet]);
and (3) their current regulatory status (i.e., most noted sites have been remediated and are listed as "case
closed" on agency lists, Ninyo & Moore 1999). Based on this assessment, no impacts related to health
hazards from existing known hazardous material sites are anticipated as a result of implementing
Alternatives 1 or 2.
The 1998 and 1999 project ISAs also cite previous Department testing results for aerially deposited lead
(ADL) at various 1-805 interchange bridges (including the 1-805/Main Street/Auto Park Drive
interchange). While detected lead levels at the 1-805 interchanges in southern San Diego County were
consistent with naturally occurring concentrations, the ISAs recommend testing for ADL in the project
study area to ensure that anomalous concentrations are not present. Based on this recommendation, a
testing program for ADL was conducted (pursuant to Department protocol) within the project study area
during January and February 2000. A total of 120 soil samples from 41 locations were tested for lead
content during this investigation. The results of this testing indicated that overall lead content for soils
within areas proposed for construction are below hazardous levels, and no special handling of on-site
soils will be required for project implementation (Ninyo & Moore 2000b). Based on these conclusions and
the results of the described ISAs, no substantial adverse impacts related to existing hazardous materials
or related health hazards would result from project implementation. Accordingly, associated project
environmental conditions are not required.
The 2003 ISA was prepared as an update to the previously referenced investigations. Similar
methodologies were used as described for the previous studies to incorporate current field
reconnaissance and database observations into the study area investigation of hazardous materials. The
2003 study concluded that no additional hazardous material sites (i.e., beyond those noted in previous
investigations) were observed on the ground or in age~cy records, and that no requirements beyond
conformance with applicable existing regulatory standards would be required for the project alternatives
as described. Specific regulatory standards noted in the ISA update include conformance with
Department and City requirements related to encountering unanticipated hazardous sites during
construction, and involve efforts such as discontinuing construction at the site, notifying appropriate
agencies and implementing approved remediation efforts.
62
Under the No Project Alternative, none of the proposed construction activities would ~ccur, with no
associated impacts from existing hazardous material sources.
Item e - Would the proposed project increase fire hazards in areas with flammable brush, grass or
trees?
The project study area extends through a developed urban (primarily residential) corridor. Existing and
proposed vegetation within and adjacent to the study area consists predominantly of irrigated non-native
landscaping varieties with a low fire potential. Based on these conditions, no impacts related to increased
fire hazards from brush, grass or trees are expected from any of the project alternatives.
5.11 NOISE
An Acoustical Assessment was conducted for the project alternatives by HELIX Environmental Planning,
Inc. (2002, as amended). This study is summarized below as applicable, with the complete report
available for review at the City of Chula Vista Planning and Building Department, the Department
District 11 office and the South Chula Vista Public Library.
Item a - Would the proposed project cause increases in existing noise levels?
The project acoustical report incorporates noise standards for applicable areas under Depa~'tment and
City of Chula Vista jurisdiction, as provided in: (1) the Code of Federal Regulations (23 CFR 772); (2) the
Caltrans Highway Design Manual Chapter 1100 and Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol (1998); (3) the
Caltrans Street and Highway Code - Section 216; (4) the Caltrans Technical Noise Supplement (TENS);
and (5) the City of Chula Vista Noise Control Ordinance (City of Chula Vista Municipal Code, Chapter
19.68.010). These standards identify appropriate procedures for noise evaluations in the associated
jurisdictions. Specifically, all sensitive noise receptors within the study area were evaluated under
federal criteria, with those sites where 1-805 is not the principal noise source (i.e., along East Orange
Avenue/Olympic Parkway) also assessed under City criteria (with both standards described below).
The FHWA (23 CFR 772) and Department (Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol and TENS) provide direction
on traffic noise prediction, impact assessment and noise abatement criteria (NAC). These standards are
based on the Leq noise descriptor, which is generally defined as the average A-weighted sound level
contalrdng an equivalent amount of sound energy as the varying levels of traffic noise over a set time
period. The A-weighted scale measures noise levels corresponding to the human hearing frequency
63
response and is included in all sound levels identified below and in the project Acoustical Assessment.
The FHWA/Department NAC identib/a peak hour Lq of 67 dBA as the maximum acceptable exterior
noise level for land use categories including residential, recreation, hotels/motels and parks. A summary
of the NAC for various land use and activity categories is provided in Table 4. The FI-IWA and
Department require the consideration of noise abatement measures for Type 1 projects when the NAC
(i.e., 67 dBA for residential use) are "approached or exceeded." The definition of approach is given as at
least one dBA less than the NAC, which would be 66 dBA for residential use (refer to Table 4). Type 1
projects are defined in the Traffic Analysis Noise Protocol (Caltrans 1998) as 'A proposed Federal or Federal
aid highway project for the construction ora highway on a new location, or the physical alteration of an existing
highway which significantly changes either the horizontal or vertical alignment, or increases the number of through
traffic lanes." Department criteria also identify a traffic noise impact if a "substantial noise increase"
occurs, with a substantial increase defined as an increase of 12 dBA over the existing noisiest hourly
average level.
Table 4
NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA FOR VARIOUS LAND USE/ACTIVITY CATEGORIES
(hourly A-weighted sound levels in dBA)
CATEGORY Les(h) L10(h)
A 57 (Exterior) 60 (Exterior)
B 67 (Exterior) 70 (Exterior)
C 72 (Exterior) 75 (Exterior)
E 52 (Interior) 55 (Interior)
DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITY CATEGORY
Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary
significance and serve an important pubic need and
where the preservation of those qualifies is essential ff
the area is to continue to serve its intended purpose.
Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports
areas, parks, residences, motels, hotels, schools,
churches, libraries, and hospitals.
Developed lands, properties, or activities not included
in Categories A or B above.
Undeveloped lands.
Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms,
schools, churches, libraries, hospitals and auditoriums.
The City of Chula Vista noise standards are based on the Day-Night Equivalent Level (Lan). Lan is the
equivalent A-weighted sound level during a 24-hour day, and accounts for increased noise sensitivity
during nighttime hours (i.e., 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) by adding 10 dBA to the average sound levels during
that period. The City of Chula Vista Planning and Building Department, through policies set forth in the
City Noise Ordinance, identifies a maximum exterior noise level exposure of 65 Lan at residential
64
properties. Accordingly, project-related noise levels that exceed 65 Lan at residential sites outside of the
Depa~ tment ROW would be considered substantially adverse and would require noise abatement.
Noise measurements were conducted as part of the project acoustical assessment to characterize existing
noise conditions at a total of 30 locations within the study area, including 28 locations along the 1-805
corridor and 2 locations along East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway (outside the area where 1-805 is
the predominant noise source; refer to Figures 3a through 3c in the project Acoustical Assessment,
HELIX, as amended 2002). These measurement locations are associated with 64 residential receptor sites
within the study area. No other sensitive receptor sites (i.e., other than the noted residential uses) would
be potentially subject to noise impacts from Alternatives 1 and 2. Noise measurements along the 1-805
corridor included continuous 1- to 2~day measurements at 3 locations and short-term (10-minute)
measurements at 25 sites, while the 2 measurements along East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway were
short-term (15-minute) efforts. The purpose of these measurements was to determine typical noise levels
associated with the adjacent roadways. Existing noise levels included 27 measured noise levels and 67
calculated noise levels. These noise levels are identified in Table 7 of the project Acoustical Assessment
(HELIX 2002, as amended) and described in more detail in the associated text. The three long-term
measurement sites along the 1-805 corridor were selected to minimize obstructions between the
measurement locations and the freeway (i.e., fences or walls), with peak hour Lq at these sites ranging
from 74 to 76 dBA. Short-term measurement sites along the freeway were selected to represent frequent
human use or acoustical equivalence areas (i.e., areas with a similar noise environment), with measured
noise levels at these locations correlated with long-term monitoring data to determine peak hour Leq.
Based on this procedure, correlated peak hour Leq at the described short-term measurement sites ranged
from approximately 53 to 76 dBA, with specific noise levels for all measured sites provided in the project
Acoustical Assessment (HELIX 2002, as amended). The measured short-term Leq at both sites along East
Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway was 62 dBA, with Lan at these sites calculated at 65 dBA (based on
existing traffic volumes and the observed traffic mix).
The prediction of future noise levels at sensitive receiver locations was based on a comparison of
projected level of service (LOS) C traffic volumes and the associated Alternative 1 and 2 improvements.
Specifically, future "worst case" conditions were determined on the basis of LOS C traffic volumes, which
assumes 1,850 vehicles per hour (vph) per lane (i.e., 7,400 vph northbound and 7,400 vph southbound).
The "worst case" assumption for these conditions is based on the associated vph and vehicle speed
conditions. That is, a higher LOS (better, for example LOS B) would entail a substantial decrease/n vph
(and associated noise level[s]), while a lower LOS would substantially reduce vehicle speeds (and noise
generation). The peak hour L~q levels for the described "worst case" build scenario (i.e., LOS C volumes
65
and proposed improvements) were calculated using the Depactm~nt SOUND 32 noise model for all
sensitive receivers within the project study area, while Lctn and the associated noise level increases were
also calculated under a similar scenario for noise sensitive receivers along applicable portions of East
Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway (i.e., where East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway traffic is the
predominant noise source). The following results from these calculations apply to both Alternatives 1
and 2.
Based on FHWA and Department criteria, receptor sites that currently approach or exceed federal noise
standards (i.e., exhibit a peak hour Leq of 66 dBA or more) represent existing noise impacts rather than
project-derived noise impacts. That is, noise levels at such receptors will exceed federal criteria whether
or not the project is implemented. It is FHWA and Department policy, however, to address existing noise
conditions as part of the project design. As a result of this policy and measured/calculated noise levels
identified in the project Acoustical Assessment, it was determined that numerous residential properties
within the study area exhibit noise levels exceeding federal noise standards, with site-specific modeled
noise levels and other applicable information provided in Table 5 and the project Acoustical Assessment
(HELIX 2002, as amended). Sixteen noise abatement barriers were identified in the project Acoustical
Assessment to address existing and predicted noise conditions within the study area in accordance with
federal noise standards. The Acoustical Assessment evaluated barrier heights ranging from 1.8 meters (6
feet) to 4.27 meters (14 feet) for all applicable locations, with the barriers proposed as noise abatement
structures representing the smallest structures capable of achieving a minimum of 5 dBA insertion loss
(i.e., noise reduction). These described noise barriers are shown on Figures 8a through 8c and specifically
include barrier numbers B1,B1A, B2, B3, B4, BS, B6, B7, B8, B9, BI0, B12, B13, B14, B15 and B16.
CEOA Analysis - City Noise Criteria
The City noise criteria specifically apply to project-generated noise rather than existing noise. Based on
an evaluation of the project using City noise criteria, two of the previously identified noise abatement
barriers (i.e., B8 and B12) along Olympic Parkway east of 1-805 are associated with residences that would
be subject to noise levels of 65 dBA Lan as a result of adjacent proposed roadway improvements and
associated traffic level increases. These sites would exceed applicable City noise criteria as a result of
project-related noise; impacts at these locations are considered substantially adverse. The proposed
barriers associated with these impacts (B8 and B12) are shown on Figure 8b.
66
+z'5 i
67
E~'o ,.
68
The Project Noise Abatement Decision Report (NADR, Rick Engineering Company, 2003) evaluated the
feasibility and reasonableness of the 16 identified noise abatement barriers. Feasibility criteria used in
this evaluation are based on technical engineering considerations (such as topographic or access
restrictions). The determination of reasonableness involves a number of objective end subjective features,
such as costs (including costs associated with purchasing temporary and/or permanent easements),
environmental issues and community response (as described below). A summary of the preliminary
feasible and reasonable conclusions identified in the project NADR are provided in Table 6. As shown on
this table, the NADR also provides recommendations of whether the identified barriers should be built,
with these recommendations based primarily on community response and cost considerations (assuming
all barriers are feasible, as shown in Table 6). The cost considerations involve a comparison between
calculated "reasonable" costs and actual costs, while the community response data were generated by
soliciting comments from affected property owners. For cost considerations, a number of barriers
exceeded the calculated "reasonable" cost for reasons including the cost of acquiring temporary
(construction) and/or permanent easements. All of these barriers are recommended for construction in
the project NADR, however, based on the assumption that local finds from City Developer Impact Fees
(DIF funds) will be used to make up the cost difference.
Table 6
SUMMARY OF NADR FEASIBLE/REASONABLE ASSESSMENTS
AND CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS
Noise Barrier Feasibility Reasonable
Barrier Dimensions
Barrier Cost
Height, Length
ID Type meters (feet) Acoustical Physical Allowance
B1A/B1 Wall H=3.05 (10) YES YES 403,000
Lz71 (233)
B2 Berm H~1.82 (6) YES YES 465,000
L-432 (1,417)
B3 Wall H=3.05-3.66 (10-12) YES YES 132,000
L=141 (462)
B4 Wall H-3.05 (10) YES YES 700,000
L--438 (1,437)
B5 Wall H=3.66 (12) YES YES 140,000
L=102 (335)
B6 Berm/ H=1.82-3.05 (6-10) YES YES 651,000
Wall L=393 (1,289)
B7 Wall H=2.44 (8) YES YES 33,000
L=33 (108)
B8 Wall H=2.44 (8) YES YES 62,000
L=51 (167)
Estimated
Recommen-
Construction
dation
Cost
404,410 Build
297,028 Build
197,417 Build
575,858 Build
149,654 Build
750,887 Build
38,349 Build
104,048 Build
69
Table 6 (cont.)
SUMMARY OF NADR FEASIBLE/REASONABLE ASSESSMENTS
AND CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS
Noise Barrier Feasibility Reasonable Estmmted
Barrier Dknensions Recommen-
Barrier Cost Construction
Height, Length Acoustical Physical Allowance Cost dation
ID Type meters (feet)
B9 Berm/ H--3.05 (10) YES YES 231,000 132,174 Build
Wall L=121 (397)
H=3.05-3.66 (10-12)
Bi0 Wall L--174 (571) YES YES 296,000 244 016 Build
B12 Wall H=1.83-2.44 (6-8) YES YES 87,000 84,221 Build
L=76 (249)
H~2.44 (8)
B13 Wall L=87 (285) YES YES 58,000 53,984 Build
H--2.44-3.05 (8-10)
B14 Wall L=450 (1,476) YES YES 740,000 557,010 No Build
B15 Wall H=1.82 - 2.44 (6-8) YES YES 124,000 115,563 Build
L=112(367)
H=1.83 (6) YES YES 99,000 108,040 No Build
B16 Wall L= 99 (325) --
Source: Rick Engineering Company (2003).
Affected property owners were surveyed to determine the number of residents in favor of, or opposed to,
construction of the proposed noise abatement barriers. The Department protocol for community response states that
a minimum of 50 percent of the affected property owners should be in favor of a given barrier to justify
construction. Based on these criteria, the project NADR recommends that two erie of the identified barriers (ET
B14 and BI6) not be constructed due to homeowner opposition. Specific opposition noted in the project NADR
includes issues such as obstruction of views and/or breezes, loss of backyard area and £mancial burdens related to
construction find/or maintenance. Barriers B14 and B16 .{as well as the J~51~4 barriers recommended for
construction) are evaluated for environmental issues throughout this IS/EA, however, due to the fact that the NADR
recommendation is preliminary and could potentially change as a result of the public review process.
The project Acoustical Assessment also identified alternative noise abatement for three proposed noise barriers (B2,
B6 and Bg) to include the use of earthen berms or berm/wall combinations instead of masonry block walls (with
walls depicted on Figures 8a through 8c). The alternative berm and berm/wall barrier locations are shown on
Figures 9a through 9c, with additional discussion provided below.
70
As noted above, all 16 barriers have been evaluated for environmental concerns in this IS/EA. The
locations and dimensions of noise barriers identified on the basis of the project Acoustical Assessment
and NADR are shown on Figures 8a through 8c and 9a through 9c. Specifically, Figures 8a through 8c
depict the use of masonry noise walls at all locations, while Figures 9a through 9c identify the use of
berms and berm/wall combination structures for barriers B2, B6 and Bg. The decision to use berm and
berm/wall barriers at the three .noted locations was based on potential visual and maintenance cost
concerns associated with masonry walls (refer to Section 5.15). Typical masortry wall and berm cross-
sections are shown on Figures 10 and 11.
It should be noted that identified noise abatement barriers may change or be eliminated from the final
project design, if pertinent cl~anges pccur (e.g., reasonable/feasible conclusions or homeowner
preferences) occur as a rcoult of public rcvicw. Specific homeowners, for example, may decide not to
authorize wall construction on their private property, with walls still proposed on adjacent lots (i.e., with
more than 50 percent of affected property owners still in favor). The creation of such a "gap" in a
proposed wall under this scenario would require the construction of "wing walls" on one or both sides of
the gap to maintain adequate noise abatement at adjacent sites (i.e., to prevent noise from "leaking"
through the gap and into adjacent sites). Under such circumstances, additional technical and/or
environmental reviews could be required prior to implementing the proposed changes. The following
noise abatement measure would address all noise impacts identified above:
Proposed Noise Abatement Measure
Prior to completion of project construction, noise abatement barriers should be constructed at
applicable locations along the 1-805 corridor and East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway both east
and west of 1-805, pursuant to the project Acoustical Assessment (HELIX 2002, as amended) and
direction for applicable barriers by the City of Chula Vista, the Department and FHWA as identified
in the project NADR (Rick Engineering Company 2003). Preliminary noise abatement barrier
locations and dimensions are depicted as locations BI through B16 in Tables 5 and 6 and on Figures
8a through 8c and 9a through 9c in this IS/EA.
Implementation of Alternatives 1 or 2 would also generate noise in association with construction
activities including clearing and grubbing, excavation and base preparation, paving and cleanup.
Associated maximum noise levels at approximately 15.25 meters (50 feet) for the types of equipment
typically used in roadway projects (e.g., tractors, backhoes and pavers) range from approximately 75 to
90 dBA. The Department standard specifications for construction projects include requirements for
71
allowable equipment related noise generation. Specifically, these requirements mandate that contractors
comply with all local sound control and noise level rules, regulations and ordinances that apply to work
conducted under the contract. In addition, internal combustion engines used for contract related
activities are required to be equipped with mufflers that meet manufacturer recommendations. All
construction activities associated with Alternatives 1 or 2 would meet these existing construction noise
requirements. No substantially adverse construction noise impacts are expected from Alternatives 1 or 2;
therefore, no mitigation is required.
Under the No Project Alternative, none of the proposed facilities would be built, and none of the
described project-related noise impacts would occur. The existing noise impacts associated with the 1-805
corridor, however, would continue to exceed applicable criteria under this alternative.
5.12 PUBLIC SERVICES
Item a - Would the proposed project affect or result in the need for new or altered fire protection
services?
The project consists of several freeway/roadway modifications and associated (low fire potential)
landscaping. Accordingly, the project would not include facilities subject to fire hazards, and
implementation of Alternatives 1 or 2 is not expected to generate increased demand for fire protection
services or associated impacts.
Under the No Project Alternative, none of the proposed facilities would be built and no associated
impacts related to fire protection services would occur.
Item b - Would the proposed project affect or result in the need for new or altered police protection
services?
The project consists of several freeway/roadway modifications and associated landscaping. Accordingly,
the project would not include facilities or activities requiring police service, and implementation of
Alternatives 1 or 2 is not expected to generate increased demand for police protection services or
associated impacts.
Under the No Project Alternative, none of the proposed facilities would be built and no associated
impacts related to police protection services would occur.
72
I
I
I
I
I
Item c - Would the proposed project affect or result in the need for new or altered schools?
The project consists of several freeway/roadway modifications and associated landscaping, and would
not result in increased population (see Section 5.2) or associated requirements for schools. As a result,
implementation of Alternatives 1 or 2 is not expected to generate increased demand for schools or
associated impacts.
Under the No Project Alternative, none of the proposed facilities would be built and no associated
impacts related to schools would occur.
Item d - Would the proposed project affect or result in the need for new or altered maintenance of
public facilities, including roads?
Freeway/roadway improvements to be constructed .under Alternatives 1 or 2 would generate
requirements for associated maintenance, including street sweeping, landscaping and upkeep/repairs for
road and/or wall facilities (e.g., retaining and noise walls). These potential impacts are not considered
substantially adverse due to the fact that project maintenance will be included in and administered
through the project budget.
Under the No Project Alternative, none of the proposed facilities would be built, and no associated
impacts to new or altered maintenance requirements would occur.
Item e - Would the proposed project affect or result in the need for new or altered efforts for other
government services?
The project consists of freeway/roadway facilities and associated landscaping, and would not include
facilities or activities requiring government services other than those already discussed. Accordingly,
implementation of Alternatives 1 or 2 is not expected to generate increased demand for other government
services or associated impacts.
Under the No Project Alternative, none of the proposed facilities would be built and no associated
impacts related to other governmental services would occur.
5.13 LOCAL SERVICE THRESHOLDS
Item a - Would the proposed project adversely impact the City of Chula Vista fire/EMS service
threshold standard?
As noted above in Section 5.12, the project alternatives would not generate demand for fire protection (or
EMS) services, with no associated impacts to City fire/EMS service threshold standards anticipated.
Item b - Would the proposed project adversely impact the City of Chula Vista fire police service
threshold standard?
As noted above in Section 5.12, the project alternatives would not generate demand for police protection
services, with no associated impacts to City police service threshold standards anticipated.
Item c - Would the proposed project adversely impact the City of Chula Vista traffic service threshold
standard?
As previously described in this document, Alternatives 1 and 2 would accommodate projected traffic
volumes, provide acceptable LOS and improve safety levels through the year 2025. Accordingly, these
alternatives would improve local traffic circulation, service level and safety, with no associated adverse
impacts to City traffic service threshold standards anticipated.
Under the No Project Alternative, none of the proposed improvements would occur and
freeway/roadway facilities within the project study area would remain in their current condition. Based
on the projections for local traftic volumes previously described in this document, portions of the existing
on-site transportation system could experience unacceptable LOS, traffic congestion and traffic safety
levels, with associated substantial adverse impacts. Potential mitigation of such effects would likely
involve freeway/roadway improvements similar to those described for Alternatives 1 and 2.
Item d - Would the proposed project adversely impact the City of Chula Vista parks/recreation service
threshold standard?
The project alternatives would not generate demand for park/recreation service, with no associated
impacts to City parks/recreation service threshold standards anticipated.
Item e - Would the proposed project adversely impact the City of Chula Vista drainage service
threshold standard?
As discussed in Section 5.5, the project alternatives would not substantially alter runoff volumes or
drainage patterns within the study area. On-site drainage facilities installed as part of Alternatives 1 or 2
would be designed and sized to meet all applicable Department and City of Chula Vista requirements,
with no substantial adverse impacts to associated City drainage service threshold standards anticipated.
Item f - Would the proposed project adversely impact the City of Chula Vista sewer service threshold
standard?
The project alternatives would not impact any existing sewer facilities or generate any demand for sewer
services, with no impacts to associated City threshold standards anticipated.
Ite_~.e_e_e_e_e_e_e_~ - Would the proposed project adversely impact the City of Chula Vista water service threshold
standard?
Water use associated with Alternatives 1 or 2 would include short-term construction needs (e.g., dust
control) and long-term street sweeping and landscape irrigation. Water use associated with the No
Project Alternative would be limited to long-term road maintenance and landscaping needs (i.e., for
existing facilities). Because of the short-term and/or incremental nature of such uses, no associated
substantial adverse impacts to water service threshold standards are anticipated from the project
alternatives. As identified in Section 5.5, potential project-related impacts to water quality (and related
City standards) for Alternatives 1 and 2 would be addressed through conformance with applicable water
quality criteria of the NPDES Municipal Stormwater Permit (NPDES No. CAS108758) and the related
SUSMP (San Diego Co-permitees 2002). No adverse impacts to water quality or associated City
thresholds would be associated with the No Project Alternative.
5.14 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Item a - Would the proposed project require new or substantially altered facilities for power or
natural gas systems?
Power demands associated with Alternatives 1 and 2 would be limited to minor use from construction
activities, street lighting and traffic signals, with no associated substantial adverse impacts anticipated.
Power use under the No Project Alternative would be limited to existing street lights and traffic signals,
with no associated substantial adverse impacts.
Item b - Would the proposed project require new or substantially altered facilities for
conununlcations systems?
The project alternatives would not generate any impacts to existing facilities or new demand for
communication systems, with no associated impacts anticipated.
Item c - Would the proposed project require new or substantially altered facilities for water treatment
or distribution systems?
The project alternatives would not generate demand for water treatment systems, with distribution
facilities limited to minor irrigation pipelines for Alternatives 1 and 2 (and no additional water
distribution requirements for the No Project Alternative). Based on these conditions, no substantial
adverse impacts related to the need for water treatment or distribution systems are anticipated from any
of the project alternatives.
Item d - Would the proposed project require new or substantially altered facilities for sewer or septic
tank systems?
The project alternatives would not generate demand for sewer or septic tank facilities, with no associated
impacts anticipated.
Item e - Would the proposed project require new or substantially altered facilities for storm water
drainage systems?
Storm water drainage demands associated with Alternatives 1 and 2 would be limited to minor runoff
increases from paved areas, with no associated substantial adverse impacts anticipated (refer to Section
5.5 for additional discussion of existing and proposed storm drain facilities).
Under the No Project Alternative, none of the proposed facilities would be constructed, with no
associated impacts to storm water drainage.
76
Item f - Would the proposed project require new or substantially altered facilities for solid waste
disposal systems?
Solid waste demands associated with the project alternatives would be limited to minor short-term
construction debris (Alternatives 1 and 2 only) and long-term litter control. No associated substantial
adverse impacts to solid waste disposal systems are anticipated.
5.15 AESTHETICS
A Visual/Aesthetic Technical Report was prepared for the project alternatives by KTU+A (2002). The
results of this study are summarized below, with the complete report available for review at the City of
Chula Vista Planning and Building Department, the Department District 11 office and the South Chula
Vista Public Library.
Item a - Would the proposed project obstruct any scenic vista or view open to the public, or create an
aesthetically offensive site open to public view?
Existing visual conditions in the project study area were defined by visual character units and views, as
described below.
The project study area is characterized by seven distinct visual character units, including: (1) 1-805; (2)
East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway; (3) Palomar Street; (4) Main Street/Auto Park Drive; (5) single-
family residential development; (6) multi-family residential development; and (7) open space. A visual
character unit is defined as an area containing consistent visual and perceptual characteristics, Individual
units are determined by elements such as landform, vegetation, architectural character, scale and land
use, and can range in size from a few to several hundred hectares (acres). Visual character units in the
project study area were evaluated for existing visual quality (including criteria such as landform,
vegetation, color, diversity, harmony and adjacent scenery) and sensitivity to change (i.e., the ability of an
area to absorb visual changes), with the results summarized in Table 7.
77
Table 7
VISUAL CHARACTER UNIT SUMMARY
VISUAL VISUAL VISUAL
CHARACTER UNIT QUALITY SENSITIVITY
1-805 Low/Moderate Low/Moderate
E. Orange Ave./Olympic Pkwy. Low Low
Palomar St. Low Low
Main St./Auto Park Dr. Low Low
Single-family residential Low Moderate
Multi-family residential Moderate Moderate
Open space Moderate Moderate
As seen from these summary data, visual quality and sensitivity within the project study area are
classified as low to moderate, due to the predominantly developed urban character and the presence of a
major freeway corridor as the principal on-site feature. Existing views in the project study area were
assessed on the basis of several criteria, including: (1) viewer groups; (2) viewer quantities (i.e., the
number of individuals with views); (3) viewer sensitivity; and (4) viewing duration. A summary of these
criteria within the project study area is provided in Table 8.
Table 8
VIEWER SUMMARY
VIEWER VIEWER VIEWER VIEWING
GROUP QUANTITIES SENSITIVITY DURATION
Freeway drivers High Moderate Short
Local drivers High Moderate Short
Single-family residential Moderate High Extended
Multi-family residential Low Moderate Extended
Pursuant to Department and FHWA guidelines, the project Visual/Aesthetic study also identified twelve
candidate keyviews to provide representative views within the study area. These keyview points were
photo-documented, with photos included in the Visual/Aesthetic Technical Report (KTU+A 2002). Three
of the keyview points were selected (based on direction by the Department) for visual simulations to
document existing, proposed (i.e., with project facilities) and mitigated (e.g., with landscaping and
color/texture treatments) views. These simulation photos are included in the Visual/Aesthetic Technical
Report (KTU+A 2002). Based on the described visual/aesthetic characteristics within the project study
area, potential impacts from Alternatives 1 and 2 were evaluated in relation to four aesthetic criteria:
78
visual quality, landform quahty, view quality and conununity character. Potentially substantial adverse
impacts were identified for visual quality, view quality and community character for one or more
elements of Alternatives 1 and 2, based on proposed vegetation removal and construction of retaining
walls and noise barriers. Based on the similar or nature of proposed activities and facilities in these two
alternatives, associated impact levels would be essentially identical. These impacts would be addressed
through implementation of the mitigation measures described below. These measures include policy and
guidelines from the City of Chula Vista General Plan, Olympic Parkway Master Plan and Design Manual,
as well as applicable Department landscaping and irrigation criteria.
Proposed Mitigation Measures
Noise abatement barriers B2, B6 and B9as shown in the project Acoustical Assessment (HELIX 2002,
as amended) should incorporate earthen berms (or berm/wall combinations) rather than walls, and
space for screening vegetation such as large shrubs (e.g., by use of retaining walls).
· All berms should be permanently irrigated and landscaped with trees, shrubs and groundcover to
provide 100 percent coverage within one year.
Sound wall planting pockets should be used when ROW areas are too narrow to accommodate berms
or landscaped buffers. A safety barrier with a 1-meter (3.2-foot) wide planting area between the
barrier and the sound wall should be used.
Noise and retaining walls should maximize shrub and vine plantings on both sides of the wall (i.e.,
based on direction from Depaatment and City staffs and the amount of plantable space available).
All shrubs removed or damaged during project activities should be replaced at a 3:1 ratio within the
same area with size number 5 specimens (i.e., 19-liter [5-gallon] specimens).
· Replacement trees should be 0.6-meter (24-inch) specimens, except for eucalyptus trees which should
be size number 5 specimens (i.e., 19-liter [5-gallon] specimens).
· Groundcover replacement should be provided in disturbed plantable areas to achieve 100 percent
cover within on~' year.
79
· All disturbed planting areas within the Department ROW should be fully planted with vines,
groundcover, shrubs and trees.
Project landscaping should be installed during or immediately after project construction, and a three-
year establishment period should be included in the construction contract(s) specifications. The
three-year establishment period should be reviewed annually by the Department and the City, and
may be terminated before the end of the third year (i.e., if landscaping conditions are acceptable) or
extended for an additional (i.e., fourth) year ff necessary. The selection of plant materials for all
project landscaping should conform with applicable Department and City guidelines and
requirements (including the state noxious weed list).
All irrigation systems installed as part of the project should be fully automatic and permanent and
should conform with applicable Department and City requirements. Repai~/replacement of existing
systems (i.e., those not affected by project activities) should be conducted by the Department to
provide 100 percent coverage for planted areas.
Plantings and design along East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway should conform with
landscaping and design guidelines in the City of Chula Vista General Plan Land Use and Circulation
elements, and the Olympic Parkway Landscape Master Plan, including landscaping and paving in
the median and ROW, as well as use of public art and banners where applicable.
· A maintenance walkway should be provided along the landscaped East Orange Avenue/Olympic
Parkway median.
Retaining and noise wall colors, textures and details should compliment and enhance local
community character, with the use of standard concrete kept to a minimum and wall designs
coordinated with City planning efforts to establish East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway as a
gateway access to the eastern portion of the City. Coloring within the Department ROW should
conform with the approved Department color palette.
The design of all project-related noise barriers and retaining wails (including landscaping) should be
compatible with existing and proposed wall design in the project study area, to the maximum extent
feasible (per direction by Department and City staff), and should conform with applicable
Department and City design standards.
80
Proposed noise walls should be sited and designed per direction by Depa~[~ent and City
engineering staffs to minimize the size of 'the wall visible to local residents to the maximum extent
feasible.
A water-based, volatile organic compound (VOC) compliant (per federal, state and local standards)
and graffiti-resistant coating should be applied to all walls. The coating should be clear in color, have
a low-sheen finish and be free of lead, chromium, mercury and similar heavy metals.
Vines should be planted approximately every 2 to 3 meters (6 to 10 feet) at appropriate locations (as
determined by Department Landscap~ Architects and City landscape staff) along all walls (i.e., the
top and/or base) to discourage graffiti, reduce visual scale and improve streetscape character.
All landscaping, retaining wall and noise barrier plans should be submitted to the Department and
the City of Chula Vista for review andapproval..The results and recommendations of these reviews
should be included in the final design, as appropriate.
The installation contractor(s) would be responsible for monitoring and maintenance of the above-
described landscaping and related irrigation systems for a period of three years (as ctescribed above).
Long-term monitoring and maintenance of project landscaping and irrigation systems would be
conducted by the Department within the 1-805 ROW and the City of Chula Vista for areas outside the 1-
805 ROW.
Under the No Project Alternative, none of the proposed facilities would be constructed and no impacts
related to visual/aesthetic resources would occur.
Item b - Would the proposed project cause the destruction or modification of a scenic mute?
East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway/Olympic Parkway is identified as a scenic roadway in the City
of Chula Vista General Plan Land Use Element. Based on the design measures and project environmental
conditions described above in Item a of this section, implementation of Alternatives 1 or 2 would not be
expected to result in substantial adverse impacts to the scenic roadway designation of East Orange
Avenue/Olympic Parkway/Olympic Parkway (KTU+A 2002).
Under the No Project Alternative, none of the proposed facilities would be constructed and no impacts
related to scenic routes would occur.
81
Item c - Would the proposed project have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect?
As described in Item a of this section, a number of potentially substantial adverse impacts related to
negative aesthetic effects were identified for Alternatives 1 and 2 in the project Visual/Aesthetic
Technical Report (KTU+A 2002). These potential effects are associated with visual quality, view quality
and community character issues, with a number of related mitigation measures identified to address
those concerns.
Under the No Project Alternative, none of the proposed facilities would be constructed and no impacts
related to aesthetic issues would occur.
Item d - Would the proposed project create new light or glare sources that would increase the level of
sky glow or result in non-compliance with Section 19.66.100 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, Title
197
Lighting associated with Alternatives 1 and 2 would be limited to streetlights and traffic signals in
applicable locatio ,ns within the study area. The study area is within a predominantly urban area, with
proposed lighting not expected to notably increase local illumination levels. The location and design of
project lighting would be required to conform with all applicable Department and City of Chula Vista
requirements. No associated substantial adverse light and glare impacts are anticipated. Specific design
elements associated with proposed lighting may include features such as low sodium light fixtures or
shielding of streetlights to reduce and direct illumination.
Under the No Project Alternative, no additional lighting would be added within the project study area
and no associated impacts would occur.
Item e - Would the proposed project result in an additional amount of spill light?
As noted above in Item d of this section, no substantial adverse lighting effects are anticipated from
implementation of the project alternatives.
82
5.16 CULTURAL RESOURCES
A Historic Property Survey Report was prepared for the project alternatives by Kyle Consulting (2000).
The results of this study are summarized below, with the complete report available for review at the City
of Chula Vista Planning and Building Department, the Departme,nt District 11 office and the South Chula
Vista Public Library.
Item a - Would the proposed project result in the alteration or destruction of a prehistoric or historic
archaeological site?
The referenced Historic Property Survey includes the following historic and prehistoric investigations
conducted pursuant to Department and City of Chula Vista requirements: a record search; field survey;
post-1945 short-form Historic Architectural Survey Report (HASR) and MOU Short Form; Archaeological
Survey Report (ASR); California Historic Bridge Inventory Print-Out Sheet; and preparation of Area of
Potential Effect (APE) maps. The referenced report also evaluated Alternatives 1 and 2 under applicable
criteria of the National Historic Preservation Act (Section 106), and concluded that no associated impact
would occur. Based on the results of these investigations, no historic or prehistoric sites are present
within the project study area, and no additional work is recommended (Kyle Consulting 2000).
Accordingly, no impacts related to prehistoric or historic sites would occur from implementation of any
of the project alternatives.
Item I~ - Would the proposed project result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or
historic building, structure or object?
As noted above in Item a of this section, no cultural resources are present within or adjacent to the study
area and no associated impacts are anticipated from implementation of any of the project alternatives.
Item c ~ Would the proposed project have the potential to cause a physical change that would affect
unique ethnic cultural values?
No unique ethnic cultural values are present within the study area, with associated impacts therefore not
expected from implementation of the project alternatives.
83
Item d - Would the proposed project restrict existing religious or scared uses within the potential
impact area?
The project study area does not encompass any religious or sacred uses, with no associated impacts
anticipated from implementation of the project alternatives.
Item ~ - Is the proposed project study area identified in the City of Chula Vista General Plan EIR as an
area with high potential for archaeological resources?
The project study area is not identified in the City of Chula Vista General Plan EIR as having high
potential for archaeological resources. Accordingly, no associated impacts are expected from
implementation of the project alternatives.
5.17 PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Based on project grading/construction plans and the project geotechnical report (Ninyo & Moore 2000a),
excavation and grading activities under Alternatives 1 and 2 could potentially encounter undisturbed
portions of the Quaternary Lindavista and/or Tertiary San Diego formations. These formations are
assigned moderate and high potential (respectively) for the occurrence of sensitive paleontological
resources (Dem~r~ and Walsh undated), with associated impacts considered potentially adverse and
substantial. These potential effects would be addressed through the following mitigation measures:
Proposed Mitigation Measures
A qualified paleontologist should be retained by the City of Chula Vista to implement a
paleontological monitoring and recovery program as a condition of the project construction contract.
A qualified paleontologist is defined as an individual with an M.S. or Ph.D. in paleontology or
geology who is a recognized expert in the identification and recovery of fossil materials.
The qualified paleontologist should attend the project pre-construction meeting to discuss project
grading plans with the project contractor(s). If the qualified paleontologist determines that proposed
excavation/grading would likely cut into undisturbed portions of the Quaternary Lindavista or
Tertiary San Diego formations, then monitoring should be conducted as outlined below.
84
The project paleontologist or a paleontological monitor should be on site during ori~nal cutting of
the above noted geologic units. A paleontological monitor is defined as an individual who has
experience in collection and salvage of fossil materials, and who is working under the direction of a
qualified paleontologist. Monitoring of the noted geologic units should be at least half-time at the
beginning of excavation, and should be either increased or decreased depending on initial results (per
direction by the project paleontologist).
· . In the event that well-preserved fossils are discovered, the project paleontologist would have the
authority to temporarily halt or redirect construction activities in the discovery area to allow recovery
in a timely manner (typically on the order of 1 hour to 2 days). All collected fossil remains should be
cleaned, sorted and catalogued, and deposited in an appropriated scientific institution such as the
San Diego Museum of Natural History.
A report (with a map showing fossil site locations) sununatizing the results, analyses and conclusions
of the above described monitoring/recovery program should be submitted to the Department and
the City of Chula Vista FlarmJng and Building Department within three months of terminating
monitoring activities.
5.18 RECREATION
Item a - Would the proposed project increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks, or other
recreational facilities?
The project alternatives would not generate any new homes or population, with associated impacts to
demand for park and recreational facilities therefore not expected.
Item b - Would the proposed project affect existing recreational opportunities?
Because no existing recreational facilities or sites are located within or adjacent to the project study area,
no associated impacts are anticipated from implementation of any of the project alternatives.
Item c - Would the proposed project interfere with parks and recreation plans or programs?
No known park & recreation plans or prograrns encompass the project study area, with associated
impacts therefore not anticipated from the project alternatives.
85
Item d - Would the proposed project result in the use of any publicly owned land from a park,
recreation area, or wildlife and water fowl refuge?
The project alternatives would not involve the use of any publicly owned 'land from a park or
wildlife/waterfowl refuge, with no associated impacts expected.
6.0 SUMMARY CEQA EVALUATION
6.1 INI'I~ODUCTION
Tlxis section provides a summary evaluation of project-related impacts and mitigation measures pursuant
to CEQA guidelines. As described in Section 1.0, the proposed project is subject to review under both
federal (NEPA) and state (CEQA) guidelines, with the body of this IS/EA encompassing elements of
both. The terms significant or significance are not used to qualify impact levels in Section 5.0 (or other
relevant locations) due to the fact that NEPA and CEQA have somewhat different definitions and
requirements for these terms. Specifically, under NEPA, these terms are used to determine whether an
Environmental Impact Statement (ELS) or a lower level of documentation (e.g., an EA) will be required.
Some impacts determined to be significant under CEQA Guidelines may not be of sufficient magnitude to
trigger an EIS requirement, with the use of such terms thus presenting inherent difficulties for a joint
analysis. In addition, CEQA requires that environmental documents (e.g., MNDs) include a
determination of impact significance, while NEPA documents (e.g., EAs) do not require such a
determination, but rather the analysis focuses on context and intensity. An IS was prepared for the
project under CEQA based on the determination (pursuant to the City's CEQA Guidelines) that an EIR
would not be required.
6.2 EVALUATION OF PROJECT IMPACTS UNDER CEQA
Based on the above-described conditions, the assessment of project-related impacts in this document
intentionally omitted a determination of significance. Pursuant to CEQA requirements, however, such a
determination is provided below, along with a summary discussion of impact assessments and CEQA
mandatory findings of significance. As described in Section 5.0, the format for identifying and evaluating
environmental issues for the project was based in part on the City of Chula Vista CEQA Environmental
Evaluation Checklist. This checklist is provided below, followed by summary discussions of impacts
assessed as sigrtificant, potentially significant or less than significant under CEQA.
86
CEQA ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION CHECKLIST
LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
Potentially
Potentially SignificantLess than
Significant Unless Significant
Impact Mitigated Impact
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? O
Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over
the project (including the Coastal Zone Management
Plan)?
Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g.,
impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from
incompatible land uses)?
c)
Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income
or minority community)?
O
No
Impact
0 0 0 ·
0 0 0 ·
0 0 · 0
POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections?
Induce substantial growth in an area either directly
or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an
undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)?
c) Displace existing housing (especially affordable
housing)?
d) Affect lifestyles, or neighborhood character
or stability?
0 0 0 ·
0 0 · 0
0 0 0 ·
0 0 · 0
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC. Would the proposal:
a) Affect minority, elderly, handicapped, transit-
dependent or other specific interest groups?
b) Affect employment, industry or commerce,
or require the displacement of businesses or farms?
0 0 · 0
0 0 0 ·
87
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant Less than
Unless Significant
Mitigated Impact
No
Impact
C) Affect property values or the local tax base?
d) Affect any medical, educational or scientific
community facilities?
e) Support large commercial or residential
development?
f) Conflict with federal Environmental Justice
requirements?
0 0 · 0
0 0 0 ·
0 0 0 ·
0 0 · 0
GEOLOGY/TOPOGRAPHY. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Unstable earth conditions or changes in geologic
substructures?
b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or
overcovering of the soil?
c) Change in topography or ground surface relief
features?
d) The destruction, covering or modification of any
unique geologic or physical features?
e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils,
either on or off the site?
Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands,
or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which
may modify the channel of a river or stream or
the bed of the ocean or any bay inlet or lake?
Exposure of people or property to geologic
hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud-
slides, ground failure or similar hazards?
0 0 · 0
0 0 · 0
0 0 · 0
0 0 0 ·
0 · 0 0
0 0 0 ·
0 0 · 0
HYDROLOGY/WATER QUALITY.
Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns,
or the rate and amount of surface runoff?
0 0 · 0
0 0 ® 0
b) Exposure of people or property to water-related
hazards such as flooding or tidal waves?
88
c)
d)
e)
0
g)
h)
i)
Discharge into surface waters or other alteration
of surface water quality (e.g., temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity)?
Change the amount of surface water in any
water body?
Changes in currents, or the course or direction of
water movements, in either marine or fresh waters?
Change in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations?
Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
Impacts to groundwater quality?
Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters?
Substantial reduction in the amount of water
otherwise available for public water supplies?
Poienlially
Significant
Impact
0
0
0
0
Potentially
Significant
Unless
0
0
0
0
0
Less than
Significant
Impact
O
O
Impact
O
0
0
0
0
AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
to an existing or projected air quality violation?
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature,
or cause any change in climate, either locally or
regionally?
d) Create objectionable odors?
e) Create a substantial increase in stationary or
non-stationary sources of air emissions or the
deterioration of ambient air quality?
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION.
Would the proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
b)
Hazards to safety from design features (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
O
O
O
89
c)
a)
e)
f)
Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby
uses?
Insufficient parking capacity on or off site?
Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicychsts?
Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts?
A "large project" under the Congestion
Management Program? (An equivalent of 2400
or more average daily vehicle trips or 200 or
more peak-hour vehicle trips.)
Potentially
Signifkant
Impact
0
0
0
0
0
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal
result in impacts to:
a) Endangered, sensitive species, species of concern
or species that are candidates for listing? O
b) Locagy designated species (e.g., heritage trees)? O
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? O
d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and vernal
pool)? O
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? 0
f) Regional habitat preservation planning efforts? 0
g) Wild or scenic rivers or natural landmarks? O
h) Existing habitats or species through the introduction
of new plant or animal species? O
ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? O
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? O
Potenlially
Significant
Unless
I~itigated
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Significant
Impact
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No
Impact
O
90
Point, ally L~ss ~
Significant Significant
Impact Impact
c) If the site is designated for mineral resource
protection, will this project impact this protection?
d) Increase the rate of use of any natural resource?
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigated
No
Impact
10.
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS.
Would the proposal involve:
a)
A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to petroleum
products, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)?
b) Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard?
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of
potential health hazards?
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable
brush, grass, or trees?
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
·
11.
NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels?
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
O
O
O
O
O
O
12.
PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an
effect upon, or result in a need for, new or altered
government services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection?
b) Police protection?
c) Schools?
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including
roads?
e) Other governmental services?
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
91
13.
14.
15.
potentially
Significant
Impact
LOCAL SERVICE THRESHOLDS. !A4ll the proposal
adversely impact the City of Chula Vista s Threshold Standards.
a) Fire/EMS O
b) Police O
c) Traffic O
d) Parks/Recreation O
e) Drainage O
f) Sewer O
g) Water O
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial
alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas?
b) Communications systems?
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities?
d) Sewer or septic tanks?
e) Storm water drainage?
f) Solid waste disposal?
AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Obstruct any scenic vista or view open to the public
or will the proposal result in the creation of an
aesthetically offensive site open to public view? O
b) Cause the destruction or modification of a scenic
route? O
c) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? O
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigated
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Less than
Significant
Impact
0
0
0
0
0
·
0
0
0
No
Impact
·
·
·
·
·
0
0
0
92
d) Create added light or glare sources that could
increase the level of sky glow in an area or cause
this project to fail to comply with Section 19.66.100
of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, Title 197
e) Result in an additional amount of spill light?
Potenltally
Significant
Impact
O
Poten6ally
Significant
Unless
Mitigated
Less than
significant
Impact
No
Impa~
O
O
16.
CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
Will the proposal result in the alteration of or
the destruction of a prehistoric or historic
archaeological site?
Will the proposal result in adverse physical or
aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic
building, structure or object?
Does the proposal have the potential to cause a
physical change which would affect unique
ethnic cultural values?
d) Will the proposal restrict existing religious or
sacred uses within the potential impact area?
Is the area identified on the City's General Plan
EIR as an area high potential for
archaeological resources?
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
17.
PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Will the
proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction
of paleontological resources?
0
O
O
18.
RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or
regional parks or other recreational facilities?
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities?
c) Interfere with recreation parks & recreation
plans or programs?
e) Result in the use of any publicly-owned land
from a park, recreation area, or wildlife and
~'ater fowl refuge?
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
93
Potentially
Significant
Impact
19. MANDATORY CEQA FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE:
Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause
a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or restrict
the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal
or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
Does the project have the potential to achieve
short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term,
environmental goals?
c)
Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of
past projects, the effects of other current projects,
and the effects of probable future projects.)
O
Does the project have environmental effect
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigated
O
Less than
Signlfkant
Impact
No
Impact
O
O
O
94
6.2.1 Impacts Mitigated Below a Level of Significance
The following issues are subject to potentially significant impacts from project implementation. These
impacts would be avoided or reduced below a level of significance through the identified mitigation
measures, with these measures and related implementation responsibilities also described in the project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) included as Attachment A to this document.
Geology/Topography
Potential impacts related to checklist Items a (unstable surface or subsurface conditions); b (soil
disruptions, displacements, compaction); c (topography); d (unique geologic features); and g
(earthquakes, landslides, ground failure) were determined to be less than significant for the reasons
summarized below.
Item a - Potential unstable conditions identified for the study area in the project geotechnical study
(Ninyo & Moore 2000a) were limited to corrosive soils. Potential effects from these soils (e.g.,
deterioration of concrete or steel) would be avoided or reduced below a level of significance through
implementation of standard geotechnical and construction guidelines contained in sources such as the
UBC (1997) and the "Greenbook' for public works projects (2000). Specifically, these guidelines involve
measures such as the use of corrosion-resistant materials.
Item b - Native topsoils have been disturbed or removed from all areas proposed for development, with
project activities to employ industry standards for engineering and placement of fill deposits.
Item c - Proposed project grading would entail only minor alterations of existing topography, which
reflects previous roadway development (i.e., no previously undeveloped topographic features would be
affected).
Item d - The project study area has been largely developed, with no unique geologic or physical features
present.
Item g - No active or potentially acting faults are located within or adjacent to the study area, or all
proposed development would encompass standard industry seismic design and construction measures.
Specifically, these would incorporate techniques from sources such as the City General Plan, UBC and
95
Greenbook, including proper fill composition and placement, and appropriate design of concrete, walls, bridges, and
related feamres.
Pursuant to checklist Items e and f, potentially significant erosion/sedimentation impacts were identified in
association with proposed grading, excavation and construction activities. Specifically, such impacts would be
related to the potential erosion and downstream transport of material from areas destabilized by project grading, etc.
Such effects would be particularly applicable between construction and the establishment of project landscaping and
could, if left unchecked, potentially result in damage to manufactured slopes (i.e., filling, etc.) siltation of
downstream drainage facilities and degradation of downstream water quality and biological habitats (e.g., through
increased turbidity and transport of other contaminants). These potential impacts would be avoided or reduced
below a level of significance through conformance with existing regulatory requirements including the NP_DES
General Construction Activity Permit (and related BMPs from sources including the Stormwater Quality Task Force
Handbooks [1993]), and the NPDES Municipal Stormwater Permit and related City SUSMP (San Diego Co-
Permittees 2002). These requirements specifically include the following types of measures:
· Existing vegetation shall be preserved wherever feasible;
· Construction activities shall not be conducted during the rainy season (November 15 to March 15) when
feasible;
· Construction access points shall be stabilized through measures such as temporary gravelling or paving;
· Runoff over manufactured slopes shall be avoided through the use of measures such as slope drains, dikes
and/or brow ditches;
· Sediment trapping devices such as gravel bags, hay bales and fiber rolls shall be used to minimize off-site
sediment transport;
Applicable graded areas (e.g., slopes) shall be temporarily revegetated (e.g., by hydroseeding) and protected
(e.g., by application of duff or bonded fiber matrix) to provide igterim stability prior to the installation of
permanent landscaping;
96
· Permanent landscaping shall be installed as soon as feasible after construction (but no later than one
year after grading) and shall include native or drought-tolerant varieties where feasible; and
Project erosion control and drainage facilities shall be regularly monitored and maintained to ensuze
proper working order. While the timing and frequency of BMP monitoring and maintenance efforts
vary somewhat by nature and location, pertinent guidelines typically require contractors to inspect
construction erosion/sedimentation BMPs bi-weekly during the winter season, before and after each
storm event, and at 24-hour intervals during extended storms (regardless of the season).
Requirements for permanent erosion/sedimentation BMPs include inspections conducted annually
and following major storm events in known problem areas, as well as "periodic" efforts to remove
sediment, debris or other potential obstacles to effective BMP operation. Responsible parties for such
activities will include the project contractor(s) during construction, the Department for long-term
maintenance in portions of the project within the 1-805 ROW, and the City of Chula Vista for areas
outside the I~805 ROW.
These requirements are formalized in the following mitigation measure:
1. The project contzactor(s) shall implement all applicable BMP requirements related to
erosion/sedimentation as identified in existing NPDES, Department end City of Chula Vista
guidelines. Proposed comphance activities (i.e., specific written methods proposed to comply with
the noted requirements) shall be submitted to the Department and the City for review and approval
prior to grading to ensure that all requirements will be adequately addressed. Inspection and
maintenance of all erosion control BMPs will be conducted by the project contractor(s) during
construction activities and by the Department and the City (in their respective ROWs) over the long-
term.
HydrologyfVVater Quality
Potential impacts related to checklist Items a (absorption rates, drainage patterns and runoff); b (flooding,
tsunami hazards); d (surface water bodies); e (water currents or movements); f (groundwater quantity); g
(groundwater movements); i (floodwater movements); end j (public water supplies) were determined to
be less than significant for the reasons outlined below.
97
Item a - The project would result in minor alterations to local drainage, runoff and absorption through
construction of paved surfaces. These impacts would be less than significant, however, due to the
developed nature of the site and the small area involved.
Item b - The project area is located outside of all 100- and 500-year floodplains (as mapped by FEMA
1997) and is located approximately three miles inland, and is thus not subject to significant flooding or
tsunami (or tidal wave) effects.
Item d - The project would not involve any impacts to the amount of water in any surface water body.
Item e - As stated in Item a, the project would not result in significant impacts to existing drainage
patterns. Based on the project nature and location, no associated impacts are anticipated to currents or
water movements in any marine or fresh water bodies.
Item f - The project would not directly use any groundwater resources, with potential effects to local
aquifers limited to possible construction dewatering. Such impacts (if required) would be less than
significant due to the short-term duration and small quantities involved.
Item g - Potential impacts to groundwater directions or flow rates are considered less than significant for
similar reasons as noted above for Item f.
Item i - Potential impacts to floodwater movements are considered less than significant due to the nature
of local flooding potential (see Item b) and the fact that project facilities would not generate substantial
floodwater obstructions.
Item j - Water use associated with project facilities and activities would be limited to minor needs such as
construction watering (e.g., dust control) and landscape irrigation. Due to the small quantities involved
with such uses, no significant impacts to public water supplies would result.
Pursuant to checklist items c and h, potentially significant water quality impacts were identified in
association with the disposal of extracted groundwater (if required), the use and storage of construction-
related hazardous materials (e.g., fuels and lubricants), the use of hazardous materials for long-term
maintenance activities (e.g., graffiti removal), and long-term facility operation. Specifically, such
potential impacts would be associated with: (1) discharge of contaminated groundwater or generation of
erosion/sedimentation effects from the uncontrolled discharge of extracted groundwater; (2) accidental
98
discharge of constTuction related hazardous materials in association with activities such as paving
operations, material use and storage, or vekicle operation and maintenance (e.g., refueling); and (3)
accidental discharge or improper use of chemical contaminants related to maintenance activities such as
graffiti removal (e.g., solvents) or landscape control (e.g., herbicides or pesticides). Such occurrences
could result in the introduction of physical and chemical contaminants to local surface waters and/or
groundwater aquifers. While many of these potential impacts would be addressed through conformance
with existing regulatory requirements (e.g., the NPDES Municipal Stormwater, Dewatering Waste
Discharge and General Construction Activity permits), potentially significant water quality effects could
still result (e.g., if measures are not fully or properly implemented). Specific measures identified in these
guidelines include requirements such as:
Sediment catchment and filtering devices (e.g., hay bales, sand bags and filter fabric) shall be placed
around storm drain inlets in areas downstream from paving and dewatering discharge operations;
· Paving slurry and wastes shall be contained, collected and disposed of properly;
· Hazardous material storage shall be minimized on site (i.e., only a few days supply), and shall be
restricted to designated locations;
· Hazardous material storage sites shall encompass berms, ditches and/or impervious liners to prevent
off-site discharge in the event of a spill;
· Hazardous material preparation use and disposal shall comply with manufacturer's specifications;
Fueling and maintenance areas shall be designated for construction equipment, with mobile fueling
(i.e., outside the designated areas) to be avoided whenever feasible. The described fueling and
maintenance areas shall be located away from storm drains or water courses, and shall include
measures to protect and contain hazardous materials (e.g., impervious liners or berms);
Appropriate construction employees shall be trained by the project contractor(s) in proper hazardous
material use, handling, storage and disposal techniques prior to commencement of project
construction. Construction employees shall also be trained on appropriate action to take in the event
of a spill, including containment techniques and agency notification; and
· Extracted groundwater shall be tested and (if appropriate) treated prior to disposal.
Potential water quality impacts would be avoided or reduced below a level of significance through the
following mitigation measures to form~llze the described regulatory requirements:
The project contractor(s) shall implement ail applicable BM?Ps related to disposal of extracted
groundwater and construction-related hazardous material use identified in existing NPDES,
Department and City of Chula Vista guidelines. Documentation of proposed compliance with these
existing standards shall be submitted to the Department and the City for review and approval prior
to issuance of a grading permit.
The project applicants shall implement all applicable BMPs related to long-term operation and
maintenance activities identified in existing Department guidelines and RWQCB Order 2001-01.
Documentation of proposed and ongoing BMP maintenance efforts shall be kept on file at the
Department District 11 and City of Chula Vista Planning and Building Department offices.
Biological Resources
Potential impacts related to checklist Items b (locally designated species); c (locally designated natural
communities); d (wetlands); e (wildlife movement or migration); f (regional habitat preservation
planning); g (wild or scenic rivers, natural landmarks); and h (introduction of new species) were
determined to be less than significant as described below.
Item b - No locally designated species are known or expected on site, with no associated project impacts
anticipated.
Item c - No native habitats are present within the study area, with no associated project impacts
anticipated.
Item d - No wetlands are present within the study area, with no associated project impacts anticipated.
Item e - The project study area is completely developed or disturbed, and is located in an area of
primarily urban development. As a result, no project-related impacts to wildlife dispersal or migration
corridors are expected.
100
Item f - The study area is within a "take authorized area" in the City of Chula Vista Multiple Species
Conservation Program 0'M_SCP) Subarea Plan,'with associated project impacts not anticipated.
Item g - The project study area does not encompass any wild or scenic rivers or natural landmarks, with
associated project impacts not expected.
Item h - While the project may include the introduction of new plant species, no associated impacts to
existing habitats or species are expected due to the absence of native habitat and the
developed/disturbed nature of the site.
Pursuant to checklist Item a, potentially significant impacts to nesting birds were identified from the
proposed removal of several mature eucalyptus trees that could be used for nesting sites. These potential
impacts would be avoided or reduced below a level of significance through the following mitigation
Prior to the removal or alteration of landscaping during the months of January 15 through July 31, a
qualified biologist should conduct a pre-construction survey of such landscaping, as well as those
areas within the construction impact area established by the biologist, to determine if any nesting
raptors or migratory birds are present. In the event that an occupied nest(s) is/are found during the
survey, appropriate construction setbacks should be established as deemed appropriate by a
qualified biologist to ensure the protection of young birds.
Noise
Potentially significant noise impacts were identified in checklist Items a and b from the generation of
project noise levels (i.e., from traffic) which exceed applicable noise criteria. Specifically, such impacts
would be associated with noise generation exceeding City noise criteria for several residences located on
the north and south sides of Olympic Parkway east of 1-805. The noise effects identified along the 1-805
corridor and along East Orange Avenue west of the freeway in Section 5.11 of this document are
associated with existing noise generation from adjacent roadways, rather than project-generated noise.
Pursuant to Department Noise Protocol and the federal Noise Abatement Criteria, applicable existing
noise generation is required to be evaluated for abatement, as described in Section 5.11. The City noise
criteria specifically apply to project-generated noise rather than existing noise. Project-generated noise
along the 1-805 corridor and East Orange Avenue west of the freeway do not exceed the City noise
criteria. Based on these conditions, an evaluation of noise impacts in these areas were not required and
101
no significant noise impacts under CEQA would occur. This conclusion applies to Barrier Nos. 1, lA, 2-7,
9-10, and 13-16, as depicted on Figures 8a-8c and 9a-9c of this document. Significant noise impacts under
City criteria and CEQA are therefore limited only to five residences along Olympic Parkway. These
impacts would be avoided or reduced below a level of significance through the following mitigation
measure:
Prior to completion of project construction, noise abatement barriers will be constructed at applicable
locations along Olympic Parkway east of 1-805, pursuant to the project Acoustical Assessment
(HELIX 2002, as amended) and direction by the City of Chula Vista, the Department, and FHWA as
identified in the project NADR (Rick Engineering Company 2003). Preliminary noise barrier
locations and dimensions required as mitigation are depicted as locations B8 and B12 on Figure 8b of
the project IS/EA.
Aesthetics
Potential impacts related to checklist Items b (scenic routes); d (light and glare); and e (spill light) were
determined to be less than significant for the following reasons.
Item b - East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway is the only designated scenic route in the study area
(City of Chula Vista 1995). Based on design elements and mitigation measures (as noted below)
identified for the project, no significant impacts related to this scenic roadway designation are expected.
Ite___m d - Proposed project lighting is limited to street lights and traffic signals in appropriate locations
within the predominantly urban study area. The noted lighting would also conform with related
regulatory guidelines, with no associated significant light and glare impacts expected.
I__te.m e - As noted above for Item d, no significant lighting effects are expected from project
implementation.
Based on the visual/aesthetic characteristics within the project study area, potential impacts from
Alternatives 1 and 2 were evaluated in relation to four aesthetic criteria: visual quality, landform quality,
view quality and community character. Potentially significant impacts were identified for visual quality,
view quality and community character for one or more elements of Alternatives 1 and 2, based on
proposed vegetation removal and construction of retaining walls and noise barriers. These impacts
would be avoided or reduced below a level of significance tkrough implementation of the mitigation
102
measures described below. These mitigation measures include policy and guidelines from the City of
Chula Vista General Plan, Olympic Parkway Master Plan and Design Manual, as well as applicable
Department landscaping and irrigation criteria.
Noise abatement barriers B2, B6 and B9 as shown in the project Acoustical Assessment (HELIX 20(~2,
as amended) shall incorporate earthen berms (or berm/wall combinations) rather than walls, and
space for screening vegetation such as large shrubs (i.e., by use of retaining walls).
7. All berms shall be permanently irrigated and landscaped with trees, shrubs and groundcover to
provide 100 percent coverage within one year.
8. Sound wall planting pockets shall be used when ROW areas are too narrow t0 accommodate berms
or landscaped buffers. A safety barrier with a 1-meter (3.2-foot) wide planting area between the
barrier and the sound wall shall be used.
9. Noise and retaining walls shall maximize shrub and vine plantings on both sides of the wall (i.e.,
based on direction by Department and City staffs and the amount of plantable space available).
10. All shrubs removed or damaged during project activities shall be replaced at a 3:1 ratio within the
same area with size number 5 specimens (i.e., 19-liter [5-gallon] specimens).
11. Replacement trees shall be 0.6-meter (24-inch) specimens, except for eucalyptus trees which shall be
size number 5 specimens (i.e., 18.9-1iter [5-gallon] specimens).
12. Groundcover replacement shall be provided in disturbed plantable areas to achieve 100 percent cover
within one year.
13. All disturbed planting areas within the Department ROW shall be £-ully planted with vines,
groundcover, shrubs and trees.
14. Project landscaping shall be installed during or immediately after project construction, and a three-
year establis~hment period shall be included in the construction contract(s) specifications. The three-
year establishment period shall be reviewed annually by the Department and the City, and may be
terminated before the end of the third year (i.e., if landscaping conditions are acceptable) or extended
for an additional (i.e., fourth) year ff necessary. The selection of plant materials for all project
103
landscaping shall conform with applicable Department and City guidelines and requirements
(including the state noxious weed Est).
15. All irrigation systems installed as part of the project shall be ~ully automatic and permanent and shall
conform with applicable Department and City requirements. Repair/replacement of existing systems
(i.e., those not affected by project activities) shall be conducted by the Department to provide 100
percent coverage for planted areas.
16. Plantings and design along East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway shall conform with landscaping
and design guidelines in the City of Chula Vista General Plan Land Use and Circulation elements,
and the Olympic Parkway Landscape Master Plan, including landscaping and paving in the median
and ROW, as well as use of public art and banners where applicable.
17. A maintenance walkway shall be provided along the landscaped East Orange Avenue/Olympic
Parkway median.
18. Retaining and noise wall colors, textures and details shall compliment and enliance local community
character, with the use of standard concrete kept to a minimum and wall designs coordinated with
City planning efforts to establish East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway as a gateway access to the
eastern portion of the City. Coloring within the Department ROW shall conform with the approved
Department color palette,
19. The design of all project related noise barriers and retaining walls (including landscaping) shall be
comparable with existing and proposed wall design in the project study area to the maximum extent
feasible (per direction by Department and City staffs), and shall conform with applicable Department
and City design standards.
20. Proposed noise wails shall be sited and designed per direction by Department and City engineering
staffs to minimize the size of the wall visible to local residents to the maximum extent feasible.
21. A water-based, volatile organic compound (VOC) compliant (per federal state and local standards)
and graffiti-resistant coating shall be applied to all walls. The coating shall be clear in color, have a
low-sheen finish and be free of lead, chromium, mercury and similar heavy metals.
104
22. Vines shall be planted approximately every 2 to 3 meters (6 to 10 feet) at appropriate locations (as
determined by Department Landscape Architects and City landscape staff) along all walls (i.e., the
top and/or base) to discourage graffiti, reduce visual scale and improve streetscape character.
23. All landscaping, retaining wall and noise barrier plans shall be submitted to the Departmeni and the
City of Chula Vista for review and approval. The results and recommendations of these reviews shall
be included in the final design as appropriate.
Paleontological Resources
Impacts to paleontological resources were identified as potentially significant due to proposed excavation
in previously undisturbed portions of the Quaternary Lindavista and/or Tertiary San Diego formations
during project grading. These potential impacts would be avoided or reduced below a level of
significance through the following mitigation measures:
24. A qualified paleontologist shall be retained by the City of Chula Vista to implement a paleontological
monitoring and recovery program as a condition of the project construction contract. A qualified
paleontologist is defined as an individual with an M.S. or Ph.D. in paleontology or geology who is a
recognized expert in the identification and recovery of fossil materials.
25. The qualified paleontologist shall attend the project pre-construction meeting to discuss project
grading plans with the project contractor(s). If the qualified paleontologist determines that proposed
excavation/grading will likely cut into undisturbed portions of the Quaternary Lindavista or Tertiary
San Diego formations, then monitoring shall be conducted as outlined below.
26. The project paleontologist or a paleontological monitor shall be on site during original cutting of the
above noted geologic units. A paleontological monitor is defined as an individual who has
experience in collection and salvage of fossil materials, and who is working under the direction of a
qualified paleontologist. Monitoring of the noted geologi~ units shall be at least half-time at the
beginning of excavation, and shall be either increased or decreased depending on initial results (per
direction by the project paleontologist).
27. In the event that well-preserved fossils are discover'ed, the project paleontologist shall have the
authority to temporarily halt or redirect construction activities in the discovery area to allow recovery
in a timely manner (typically on the order of 1 hour to 2 days). All collected fossil remains shall be
105
cleaned, sorted and catalogued, and deposited in an appropriated scientific institution such as the
San Diego Museum of Natural History.
28. A report (with a map showing fossil site locations) summarizing the results, analyses and conclusions
of the above described monitoring/recovery program shall be submitted to the Department and the
City of Chula Vista Planning and Building Department within three months of terminating
monitoring activities.
6.2.2 Impacts Determined to be Less than Significant
In addition to the specific issues noted above in Section 6.2.1, the project CEQA analysis identified no
impacts or less than significant impacts for the following issues: land use and planning; population and
housing; social and economic; air quality; transportation/circulation; energy and mineral resources;
hazards and hazardous materials; public services; local service thresholds; utilities and service systems;
cultural resources; and recreation.
It should be noted that the above less than significant impact assessments assume that all project design
conditions (as described in Section 3.0) are implemented as proposed. A summary discussion of these
issues is provided below.
Land Use and Planning - Alternatives 1 and 2 would not conflict with any land use or zoning
designations in the City of Chula Vista General Plan (1995), and is not within the Coastal Zone (or any
related planning area). The site is completely developed or disturbed and exhibits no agricultural use or
potential. The proposed facilities are associated with existing freeway and roadway corridors, and would
not disrupt or divide any communities.
Population and Housing - Implementation of Alternatives 1 and 2 would not result in any displacement
of existing housing, construction of new housing, or population growth, with no associated impacts.
Proposed facilities involve roadway improvements and related facilities (e.g., retaining walls, noise
barriers and landscaping), with this development considered consistent with existing neighborhoods and
not expected to significantly affect local character or stability.
Air Quality - The project is included in (and conforms with) current SANDAG RTIP (2002a0~) and RTP
(20C~2000 and 2003) documents, as well as the 2000/2001 Regional Air Quality Strategy/State
Implementation Plan (RAQS/SIP). Based on these conditions, no significant impacts related to air quality
106
standards or violations, or deterioration of ambient air quality are expected. The project air quality
analysis included a CO microscale analysis, which concluded that no significant "hot spot" impacts
would result. The project would not generate substantial odors (with potential sources limited mainly to
dust and vehicle exhaust) or result in large obstructions to air movements. Accordingly, no related
significant impacts would occur.
Transportation/Circulation - The project would not generate vehicle trips per se, but rather is intended to
accommodate traffic from existing and planned development. As a result, no significant impacts related
to traffic congestion or design hazards would occur. The project would not generate any impacts to
parking capacity or rail, water or ak traffic. Project construction could affect local access (including
emergency access) through temporary lane closures or restrictions, although these impacts would be
avoided or reduced by implementing traffic control plans to be approved by the City and Department
engineering staffs. Project design including a number of improvements related to pedestrian and bicycle
access (e.g., bike lanes/routes, lighted intersections and crosswalks), with no related significant impacts
expected. The project would also accommodate existing and proposed alternative transportation (e.g.,
bus services and bicycle access), and would not constitute a "large project" per SANDAG Congestion
Management Program definitions (i.e., a project generating an equivalent of 2,400 or more average daily
trips or 200 or more peak hour trips). As a result, no associated significant impacts would occur.
Energy. and Mineral Resour~ces - The project would use only minor amounts of energy and mineral
resources and would not employ wasteful or inefficient methods for use of non-renewable resources (e.g.,
fossil fuels). As a result, no associated significant impacts are expected. The project would not
significantly increase the rate of use for natural resources, ~ith stich use limited mainly to short-term
construction needs. The project study area is not located in any designated mineral resource protection
zone, with no associated impacts.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials - The use of hazardous materials would include construction-related
sources (fuels, etc,), with long-term uses' consisting of activities such as potential pest control or graffiti
removal. Potential impacts associated with these uses would be avoided or reduced below a level of
significance through conformance with existing regulatory standards such as the NPDES Municipal
Storrnwater Permit. The project includes improvements to existing freeway and roadway facilities (and
access) in a developed urban area, and would not result in significant impacts to emergency response or
evacuation plans, health hazards or fire potential. Based on the results of Hazardous Waste Initial Site
Assessments and lead testing conducted for the project (Ninyo & Moore 1998, 1999~ a,'-,d 2000b and 2003),
107
no potential release of or exposure to existing sources of hazardous materials (e.g., underground storage
tanks) would occur, with no associated significant impacts.
Public Services - The project involves improvement/modification of existing roadway structures and
construction of related facilities (e.g., noise barriers and landscaping). Because such features would not
require new or altered police, fire, school or other services, no associated impacts would occur. The
proposed facilities would involve some ongoing maintenance requirements (e.g., landscaping), although
related impacts are less than significant due to inclusion of maintenance fimding in the project budget.
Local Service Thresholds - The project would not generate demand for fire, police, park/recreation,
sewer or drainage services, with no associated impacts to City thresholds. The project would improve
k)cal traffic circulation, with no adverse impacts to traffic service thresholds. Water use related to the
project would be limited to minor or short-term applications (e.g., landscape irrigation or dust control),
with no significant impacts to City water service thresholds. Potential impacts to local water quality
thresholds would be avoided or reduced below a level of significance through implementation of existing
regulatory requirements, such as the NPDES Municipal Stormwater Permit and City SUSMP.
Utilities and Service Systems - The project would affect existing facilities or require new services related
to communications, water treatment or wastewater services. Project-related use of power/natural gas,
water, drainage, wastewater and solid waste systems would be minor and/or short-term, with no
associated significant impacts anticipated.
Cultural Resources - The project area is completely developed or disturbed, with no impacts to
prehistoric or historic cultural sites or related desigrmtions, uses or ethnic values identified in the project
cultural report (Kyle Consulting 2000).
Recreation - The project would not involve effects to or increased demand for park sites, recreational
opportunities, park and recreational plans or programs or wildlife refuges. This conclusion is based on
the location of the project in previously developed or disturbed areas with no park/recreation or wildlife
designations present, as well as the nature of proposed actions (i.e., roadway improvements). Based on
these considerations, no impacts related to recreation are anticipated.
108
6.3 MANDATORY CEQA FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Item a - Alternatives 1 and 2 could potentially degrade the quality of the environment through: (1)
erosion/sedimentation; (2) impacts to water quality associated with use of construction-related
hazardous materials, disposal of extracted groundwater (if required) and long-term facility
operation/maintenance; and (3) impacts to views and visual resources. These potential impacts would be
avoided or reduced below a level of significance through incorporating applicable exisffng requirements
into the project design (e.g., the N'PDES Municipal Stormwater Permit/City SUSMP, Caltrans Design
Manual and Standard Contractor Specifications) as well as the mitigation measures identified in
applicable sections of this document.
Alternatives 1 and 2 would not substantially reduce fish or wildlife habitat, but could potentially affect
avian nesting sites (if present) through the removal of vegetation such as mature eucalyptus trees. These
potential impacts would be avoided or reduced below a level of significance through the mitigation
measure described in Section 5.8a of this report.
Alternatives 1 and 2 would not impact any historic or archaeological cultural resources, although project
grading could potentially result in significant impacts to paleontological resources. These potential
impacts would be reduced below a level of significance through the mitigation measures identified in
Sections 5.17 of this report.
Item b - Alternatives 1 and 2 are not expected to threaten any long-term environmental goals, due to the
fact that all identified significant impacts wo~ld be avoided or effectively mitigated through identified
design and mitigation measures.
Item c - Based on the disturbed/developed nature of the project study area, the short-term nature of
most potentially significant impacts, and the fact that all such effects would be avoided or effectively
reduced through identified design/mitigation measures, no significant cumulative impacts are
anticipated from implementation of arty of the project alternatives. It should be noted that the proposed
mitigation measures identified for noise impacts on Olympic Parkway east of 1-805 (i.e., Barrier nos. B8
and B12 on Figure 8b) could conceivably not be constructed if associated property owners change their
current position and oppose these structures. No significant cumulative impacts are anticipated from the
project as proposed, however, based on the following considerations: (1) project-related noise increases
in this area associated with Barrier B12 are projected at 3 dBA or less, and therefore below the discernable
threshold of human hearing; and (2) both affected property owners associated with Barrier B8 are
109
currently in favor of constructing this wall. If thia 3ituation wcrc to chnngc during thc public rcvicw
pcriod, additional technical and/or cnvironmcntal analysis may be rcquircd.
Item d - Alternatives 1 and 2 could potentially result in significant impacts to human beings through
activities such as increased noise levels, accidental spills of construction-related hazardous materials, or
impacts to local visual resources. All of these potential adverse impacts to human beings would be
avoided or reduced below a level of signfficance through the design and mitigation measures identified
in this report. As noted above in Section 6.2.1 and Item c of this section, mitigation for project noise
impacts (in the form of noise abatement barriers) would be offered to applicable property owners along 1-
805, East Orange Avenue and Olympic Parkway. If individual property owners decide not to accept or
authorize the construction of noise abatement barriers on their property, those barriers would not be
built. Noise impacts from the project as proposed are not considered significant, however, for the
following reasons: (1) project-related noise level increases (as noted above for Item c) would be 3 dBA or
less for all receptor sites except the two homes associated with Barrier B8, with such increases below the
discemable threshold of human hearing; and (2) affected property owners associated with Barrier B8 are
currently in favor of constructing this wall. If this 3ituation wcrc to changc during thc public rcvicw
pcriod, additional technical and/or cnvironmcntal analyais n-,ay bc rcquired.
6,4 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED/DETERMINATION
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated," as
indicated by the checklist on the preceding pages.
O Land Use and Planning
O Population and Housing
O Social and Economic
· Geology/Topography
· Hydrology/Water Quality
O Air Quality
O Transportation/Circulation
· Biological Resources
O Energy and Mineral Resources
O Hazardous Materials
· Noise
O Public Services
O Thresholds
O Utilities and Service Systems
· Aesthetics
O Cultural Resources
· Paleontological Resources
O Recreation
· Mandatory Findings of Significance
110
DETERMINATION
basis o[ thia initial cvaluafion:
I find that thc proposcd project COULD NOT havc a sig, dfica~ cffcct on thc cnvironmcnt, and
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will bc prcparcd.
I find that although thc proleooed project could havc a ~i~-dficant effect on the cnvironment,
thcrc will not bca ~ignlficant effect i~ this ca~c because thc described nrdtigation mcasurc~
havc bccn added to thc project. A MITIGA'I I~v NEGATIVE DECLARATION
will bc prep~cd.
I find that thc propoocd project MAY have a si~,aficant cffcet on thc c~vironmcnt, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is rcquircd.
I find that thc propooed project MAY havc a si~-dficant cffcct(a) on thc cnvinzea~cnt, but at lc0~t
onc cffcct: 1) ha~ b~cn adequately analyzed in an earlier doem~cnt pursuant to applicablc lcgal
3tandard~, and 2) has [~ccn addrcz~cd by zL~iti§ation mcasurc~ based on coarlict ~maly~ia as
dcacribcd on a~tached shect~. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT i~ rcquircd, but it
mu~t analyze only thc cffcct~ that remain to bc addrc~ed.
Si~aturc Datc
Environmcntal Rcv/cw Coordinator
City of Chula Viata
Date
Chief, Envirora'r, cntal Analysis Braneh
T~c D~t,c, rh.,cnt District 11
Da~
Projcct Managcr
Thc Dcpas~.ncnt District 11
111
7.0 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
Preparation of this draft environmental amalysis involved extensive interaction with Department and City
of Chula Vista technical and environmental staff. This document will be circulated for public review
pursuant to applicable NEPA and CEQA guidelines, with associated comments to be reviewed, evaluated
and incorporated into the project environmental analysis and design as appropriate.
7.1 PERMITS
Implementation of Alternatives 1 and 2 would require conformance with existing regulatory conditions
under NPDES General Construction Activity Storm Water, Dewatering Waste Discharge and Municipal
permits, as described in Sections 5.4e and 5.5c.
7.2 PUBLIC AND AGENCY REVIEIN
As noted above, this draft environmental analysis will be circulated for a 30-day public review and
comment period pursuant to applicable NEPA and CEQA guidelines. This will include document
distribution to appropriate federal and state agencies, as well as local agencies, community groups,
political representatives, organizations and individuals. The public review and comment process will
also involve appropriate public noticing such as distributing a notice of availability in English and
Spanish that specifically includes all property owners within 500 feet of the project area, as well as
posting the notice of availability at the County Clerk's office. Additional opportunities for public review
and comment will occur during: (1) a public noise workshop; (2) a public hearing/information meeting
to be conducted during the public review period for the project environmental document; and (3) a public
hearing to be conducted for document certification during a Chula Vista City Council session.
7.3 COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONlVIENTAL DOCUMENT
The public review process for the project environmental document extended from February 7, 2003
through March 10, 2003, and involved the following efforts:
Distribution of a bilingual (English/Spanish) Notice of Availability (NOA) for the IS/EA to all
property owners within 500 feet of the study area. The NOA was also posted at the San Diego
County Clerk's office. The NOA provided information on the preliminary conclusions, availability
(location, etc.) and public review process for the IS/EA, with approximately 1,200 NOAs distributed.
112
· A bilingual ad was placed in the Chula Vista Star News on February. 7, 2003, with this ad providing
similar information as described above for the NOA.
Copies of the IS/EA and related technical documents were provided for public review at the Ci.ty of
(]hula Vista Planning and Building Department, the Depa~h~tent District /L1 office, and the South
Chula Vista Public Library..
Fifteen copies of the IS/EA an a Notice of Completion (NOC) were delivered to the State Governor's
office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse, on February 7, 2003 for distribution to
applicable state agencies, including the following:
- Air Resources Board, Transportation Projects
- California Highway Patrol
- Caltrans, District 11
- Department of Fish and Game, Region 5
- Departntent of Parks and Recreation
- Department of Water Resources
- Native American Heritage Commission
- Office of Historic Preservation
- Regional Water Ouality Control Board, Region 9
- Resources Agency
- State Lands Commission
A noise workshop was held at the Ci,ty of Chula Vista City Hall Building on December 14, 2002 to
discuss proposed noise abatement barriers with affected property owners and solicit related
comments and concerns.
A public hearing/irrfornaation meeting was held at the City of Chula Vista City Hall Building on
February 24, 2003 to discuss the environmental/technical documents with interested/affected
residents and to solicit related comments and concerns. This hearing/meeting included
opportunities to provide written comnaents (on forms available at the hearing~/meeting), as well as
taped testimony (with an English/Spanish translator present), Taped comments were transcribed
into written form to facilitate response in this document (as described below).
113
A public Resource Conservation Commission (RCC) meeting was held on March 3, 2003 at the City of
Chula Vista Planning and Building Department office to review and discuss the comments and
concerns o{ the RCC and any interested members o{ the public.
One copy of the IS/EA was provided to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service by Department staff.
Copies and/or written transcripts of all comments received during the noted public review period are
provided below, along with numbered responses. Based on these comments and responses, no
substantive changes are proposed to the IS/EA, and the conclusions and determinations contained
therein are accurate and correct as described.
To bc providcd aftcr complction of thc public and agcncy rcvicw.
114
115
116
m.
o
C
o ~
117
118
I II
8
120
I I t !
121
122
I
123
124
i
125
127
128
129
130
XIlJl
131.
"XI1]I
132
133
Xllil
134
135
136
137
8.0 LIST OF PREPARERS/REVIEWERS
The following individuals were principally responsible for the preparation and/or review of the
preceding environmental analysis and associated technical studies.
The Department
Chuck Davis - Project Manager
Kelly Finn - Environmental Analyst
Kent Askew - Landscape Architect
Marty Rosen - Cultural Resource Heritage Coordinator
John Kempf - Project Engineer
Jayne Dowda - Environmental Engineering Branch Chief
Robert Avilla - Environmental Engineer
City of Chula Vista
Marilyn Ponseggi - Environmental Review Coordinator
Marisa Lundstedt - Environmental Projects Manager
HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.
Dave Claycomb - Project Manager
Dennis Marcin - Environmental Specialist
Pacific Noise Control
Mike Komula - Principal
Giroux & Associates
Hans Giroux - Principal
KTU+A
Sharon Singleton - Senior Associate
Kyle Consulting
Carolyn Kyle - Principal
Rick Engineering Company
Kal Raimer - Project Manager
Edgar Camerino - Project Engineer
Carl Schmitz - Project Engineer
138
9.0 REFERENCES
American Public Work's Association (APWA)
2001 Southern California Chapter, Work Area Traffic Control Handbook. Ninth Edition.
California Department of Transportation (Department, formerly Caltrans)
2002a Letter from Mr. John Kempf, Department Project Engineer, to Mr. Gary Hamby, FHWA
Division Administrator. November 8.
2002b Letter of Transmittal from John Kempf of the Department to Edgar Camerino of Rick
Engineering Company, regarding current period (1998-2000) accident data. January 11.
2001 Field Guide to Construction Site Dewatering. CTSW-RT-01-010. October.
2000 Facsimile transmittal from Mike Owen of Caltrans to Dennis Marcin of HELIX
Environmental Planning, Inc. August 3.
1999 Standard Specifications. July.
1998 Traffic Analysis Noise Protocol. October.
1997a Construction Contractor's Guide and Specifications. August.
1997b Caltrans Storm Water Quality Handbooks. September.
1995 Highway Design Manual. July.
1991 Standard Test Methods.
California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG)
1983 Mineral Land Classification: Aggregate Materials in the Western San Diego County
Production-Consumption Region. Special Report 153.
139
City of Chula Vista
2002 Facsimile Transmittal of Median Income, Ethnicity and Population Data for Census
Tract Block Groups 133061,133062, 133069 and 133121. November 25.
2001 Personal communication with Marisa Lundstedt, Environmental Projects Manager.
October 24.
1995 City of Chula Vista General Plan. Revised through September 5.
Dem~r~, Thomas A. and Stephen L. Walsh
Undated Paleontological Resources, County of San Diego.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
1997 Flood Insurance Rate Map, Map Number 06073C2156 F. June 19.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
1998 California Division Environmental Checklist, "Draft" Environmental Documents.
September 3.
Giroux & Associates
2003 Memo to HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. regardIng RTP and R'Ill~ corfformity.
March 31.
2002 Memo to HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. regarding current RAQs/SIP status.
February 27.
2000 Air Quality Impact Analysis, 1-805/Orange Avenue Interchange Improvements.
August 18.
Greenbook Committee of Public Works Standards, Inc.
2003 Memorandum to HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. regarding current RTP and
RTIP status. March
2000 Greenbook Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction.
140
HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.
2002 Interstate 805/Orange Avenue Acoustical Assessment Report~
amended through J~nuary 2003.
International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO)
1997 Uniform BuildIng Code, Structural Engineering Design Provisions.
KTU+A
2002
Kyle Consulting
2000
September 16, as
Interstate 805/Orange Avenue Environmental Assessment Visual/Aesthetic Technical
Report. September.
Historic Property Survey Report for the Interstate 805/Orange Avenue Interchange
Project, City of Chula Vista, California. June.
Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB)
2001 Personal communication with Mr. Mike Daney, Transportation Planner. November 15.
1993
Ninyo&Moore
2003
2000a
2000b
South Bay Public Transportation Plan. March.
Hazardous Waste Initial Site Assessment Update Report, 1-805/Or~ange Avenue
Interchange, Chula Vista. California. March 28.
Interstate 805 K.P. 5.9 to 8.1 Chula Vista, California Geotechnical Design Report.
March.
Soil Sampling for Aerially-Deposited Lead, 1-805 and Orange Avenue Interchange,
Chula Vista, California. May 5.
Hazardous Waste Initial Site Assessment Report, 1-805/Otay Valley Road Interchange,
Chula Vista, California. October 4.
Hazardous Waste Initial Site Assessment Report, 1-805/Orange Avenue Interchange,
Chula Vista, California. April 6.
1999
1998
141
Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)
2002 2002 CWA Sect-ion 303(d) Draft List of Water Quality Limited Segment. October 15.
Rick Engineering Company
2003 Feasibility and Reasonableness of Noise Abatement (Noise Abatement Decision Report
2002a
2002b
2001
San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG)
2003 2030 Regional Transportation Plan. March.
2002a Regional Transportation Improvement Plan. July.
2002b Profile of General Demographic Characteristics:
www.sandag.org.
2000a Rcgional Transportation Improvcmcnt Plan. July.
[NADR]), Route 805 from the Main Street Undercrossing to the Palomar Street
Overcrossing. January.
Draft Project Report for the 1-805/Orange Avenue Interchange Project. August 23.
Facsimile Transmittal from Edgar Camarino, Rick Engineering Company, to Dermis
Marcin, HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. December 9.
Project Study Report for the 1-805/Orange Avenue Interchange Project. April.
2000b 2020 Regional Transportation Plan. AprilAdoptcd Fcbruary 25.
San Diego Co-Permittees
2002 Final Model Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan for San Diego County, Port
of San Diego, and Cities in San Diego County. February 14.
Stormwater Quality Task Force
1993 Califorrfia Storm Water Best Management Practice Handbooks. March.
2000, Chula Vista, California.
142
United States Depal'tment of Health and Human Services (HHS).
2002 The 2002 HHS Poverty Guidelines. http://aspe.h.hs.gov/poverty/O1poverty.htm.
United States Soil Conservation Service (SCS)
1973 Soil Survey, San Diego Area, California. December.
Urban Systems Associates (USA)
2002 Facsimile Transmittal from Andrew Schlaefli, USA, to Edgar Ca, memo,
Engineering Company, regarding updated (2001) existing traffic. April 18.
2OO0
1999
1997
1996
Rick
Facsimile Transmittal from Andrew Schlaefli of USA to Dennis Marcin of HELIX
Environmental Planning, Inc. April 4.
Transportation Analysis for The Coors Amphitheatre. October 1.
Transportation Analysis for Telegraph Canyon Road and Orange Avenue Combined
Traffic Impact Report. April 7.
1-805 Interchanges in Chula Vista Existing Traffic Volumes and Future Estimates for
Telegraph Canyon Road and Orange Avenue. December 23.
143
CEQA MItIGATiON MONITORING
AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Appendix A
CEQA MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
INTItODUt;'i'iON AND MMRP REQUIREMENTS
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires public agencies to adopt a Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program 0VIMRP) for approved Environmental Impact Reports (EIP, s) and
Miligated Negative Declarations (MNDs). This MMRP was prepared for the 1-805/East Orange
Avenue/Olympic Parkway project to ensure compliance with adopted mitigation measures, verify that
required measures effectively mitigate identified impacts, and provide guidance for future actions. The
MMRP provides overall mitigation monitoring program requirements for Alternatives 1 and 2 (i.e., the
"build alternatives"), including provision of mitigation measures, proposed monitoring activities and
timing, as well as identifying responsibility for monitoring and reporting. The Department and the City
of Chula Vista (City) will identify a mitigation compliance coordinator (MCC) to oversee implementation
of the MMRP, including such duties as assigning qualified personnel for specific monitoring tasks,
ensuring adequate documentation of findings, and modifying the extent and/or frequency of monitoring
activities, if necessary (and with concurrence from the Department and the City). Approved changes in
monitoring requirements will be duly noted in activity logs and monitoring reports, with this MMRP
modified accordingly. The MCC will be ultimately responsible for verifying the implementation of
required mitigation measures, although he/she may utilize existing materials to avoid duplication of
effort. Specifically, this may include using documents such as construction progress reports or activity
logs to document mitigation compliance.
If authorized to do so by the Department and the City (and to the extent that such actions do not conflict
with enforcement activities or regulatory guidelines of other applicable agencies), the MCC will also
enforce the implementation of mitigation measures and monitoring activities in the field. This may entail
interrupting construction activities to resolve conflicts over compliance issues.
Documentation of specific monitoring activities will utilize a checklist type format, with additional
narrative attached as separate sheets, if required. A sample monitoring report form is included at the end
of this section, with the final format to be approved by the Department and the City. If requested by the
Department and the City, summary mitigation monitoring reports will also be prepared by the MCC
following the completion of project construction activities. Such reports will describe all monitoring
activities during applicable periods, the success of associated mitigation measures, and any
recommendations for futttre MMRP actions.
A-1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUMMARY
Alternative 1 - East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway Alignment
This alternative consists of modifying and improving the existing diamond interchange at 1-805 and East
Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway, adding a second lane to the southbound 1-805 off-ramp at Main
Street/Auto Park Drive, and adding auxiliary lanes to portions of the north- and southbound mainline
freeway both north and south of East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway. All proposed roadway
facilities and related construction activities would be located within or immediately adjacent to existing
Department rights-of-way. Accordingly, this alternative would not directly affect any existing homes,
businesses or other structures, with related effects consisting of minor right-of-way (ROW) acquisitions,
construction of retaining walls and noise barriers, and removal of freeway landscaping. The construction
period for project implementation would be approximately 18 months, and would involve standard
construction equipment, materials and methods. Proposed road and freeway lanes would generally be
3.6 meters (11.81 feet) wide, with minimum angles of 60 degrees between surface streets and the
associated freeway ramps (pursuant to the Department design standards).
Project grading would be confined within the existing ROW boundaries in most areas, although such
activities would also encompass a number of small ROW acquisitions (as previously noted). Project
grading would be balanced, with no excess material import or export anticipated, and maximum
manufactured slope ratios of 1:1.5 (vertical to horizontal). Construction-related equipment/vehicle access
and staging would be confined within the described study area corridor, with disturbance to areas
outside the existing ROW limited to grading/construction within the noted ROW acquisition areas and
potential construction of noise abatement barriers along applicable property boundaries.
Alternative 2 - Modified East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway Alignment
This alternative is identical to Alternative 1, with the exception that the East Orange Avenue/Olympic
Parkway overcrossing would be widened on both (i.e., north and south) sides and Olympic Parkway east
of the freeway would be realigned approximately 3.7 meters (12 feet) to the south. The realignment of
Olympic Parkway to the south would require a 52-meter (170-foot) long and 3-meter (10-foot) high
retaining wall beginning approximately 25 meters (82 feet) east of the freeway. This widening on the
south side would also require ROW acquisitions approximately 3.7 meters (12 feet) wide for a length of
115 meters (380 feet). Grading specifications for this alternative would be essentially the same as those
described above for Alternative 1. Project activities related to material export and disposal, construction
A-2
access and staging, and disturbance to off-site areas would also be the same as those described above for
Alternative 1.
SPECIFIC MMRP ELEMENTS
The proposed 1-805/East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway Interchange project MMRP includes the
following elements:
· Mitigation measures identified in the IS/MND (summarized where appropriate)
· Mitigation monitoring and reporting activities
· Timing of monitoring and reporting activities
· Allocation of responsibility for monitoring and reporting
These elements of the MMRP are identified and explained below in Table A-1.
A-3
0 ~4
A-5
Z
Z
A-6
A-7
Z
0
A-8
A-9
A-'lO
A-11
Z
A-12
DATE:
WEATHER CONDITIONS:
PROJECT/LOCATION:
MITIGATION MEASURE:
The Department/City of Chula Vista
MITIGATION MONITORING REPORT
1-805 ! East Orange A~/enue/Olympic Parkway Interchange
I REPORTNUMBER: I MONrFOR:
DISCIPLINE:
ri Geology/Topography
['] Hydrolog'j/~Nater Quality
ri Biological Resources
Noise
Aesthetics
Paleontology
['1 Compliance
FI Noncompliance
MONITORING
P LANNO.:
COMPLIANCE:
OBSERVATIONS:
Acceptable
n Unacceptable
Follow-up Required
RECOMMENDATIONS:
BY PARTY RESPONSIBLE FOR.VERIFICATION (RV):
RECEIPT BY:
Signatures:
COMMENTS/ACTIONS:
IREPORT APPROVAL (MCC):
Date:
Date:
COPY ISSUED: FI MCC FIDEPARTMENTENGINEER FICITYENGINEER r'ICONTRACTOR [']OTHER:
BIOLOGICAL RECONNAISSANCE MEMO
subject:
job number:.
MEMORANDUM
March 17, 2000
Dennis Marcin
Deborah Pudoff
1-805/Orange Avenue improvements
RIC-03
This memo presents information to evaluate the potential for
significant impacts to biological resources from the proposed 1-
805/Orange Avenue improvements. A reconnaissance level site visit
was conducted within the project study area orr March 17, 2000, with
the results of this investigation summarized below.
The improvement area consists of pavement and ornamental
landscaping surrounded by residential and commercial
development. There are no native habitats in the project area. The
presence of eucalyptus trees suggests that raptor nests could occur in
the area to be improved. According to the federal Migratory Bird
Treaty Act, active raptor nests can not be disturbed. If construction
would occur during the raptor breeding season (approximately
December through June), a survey should be conducted by a
biologist to determine if there are any active nests. If an active nest is
detected, it is recommended that construction activity remain at least
300 feet from it. Once the nest is determined no longer active by the
biologist, construction can move into the area of the nest.
Other than the potential for raptor nests, the lack of native vegetation
and highly urbanized setting of the project area indicates that there is
no potential for any other significant impacts to biological resources
from the proposed improvements.
8100La Mesa Blvd., Suite 150
La Mesa, CA 91941-6476
e-mail: admin~helixep£ com
phone: (619) 462-1515
fax: (619) 462-0552
NEPA MITIGATION MONITORING
AND REPORTING RECORD
~ o o
C-2
0
C-$
Z
~Z
0
U U ~ U
U U U U
C~
(:-5
Z
C-6
U U
C-$
C-9
mm
0~
om
x
MATCH TO FIGURE 8b
MATCH TO FIGURE
MATCH TO FIGURE 8c .
MATCH TO FIGURE 8b
04/29/2003 07:32 FAX 6193976254 CHULA VISTA DPW ~oo2
FROM Rick ~Binmering Compan~
FRX N~. :
Rp~. 2E 2~3 05:24F~ P2
ATTACHMENT ~
]~'mm~l, ~003
~ pUrlmS~ o~vJnis letter is to addr~s fl~e oa~,~+ Im~m~d sound ~mll emMl~m~afion plmmed ~ ~ I-
SOS/East Ornn~ Avenuo'Olymp~ Parkway lnum~ban~ Improvmn~nt pm~ect..~ discuo.,,a in tim
~luter~t~ S0S ~b~ W~ ~. bid ~y. ~ 14. ~ m~ ~
E~;-~ng Co~uy ~ ~e C~ ~C~ Vis~ ~ ~y ~ ~ ~ ~d w~ ~11 n~ ~
pm~ For ~e ~ ~ ~ ~ ~Z0, 911, ~13 ~ ~ 3 ~n ~ ~ ~ Av~ ~
Ol~pic P~ ~ly ~ ~i~ ~ ~ ~ (d~ ~ 21. 20~).
We welcome the oppommity to dlsn2~ this ~equ~st in mom d0~l and am ~ your help *~ bring ot~
conca'fu to the al:~mpria~ agen~ea ~or consideration. We ~nvld llke to emphuizc here o~r unanimous
~m~.luaio~ ~at a souad wall is n~ted alon~ ~,~ l~op~iea ]i.~._. Olympio Pag~ay, in~ludlng ID # I 0.
#11. at2 and #13.
ID #10 ID #1 ] ID #12
Patsy Goodman Mar~ Gaxza Ricardo a~d Lourdns Dizon
ID#13
490 l~ C~.
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF CITY OF
CHULA VISTA ADOPTING THE MITIGATED NEGATWE
DECLARATION/ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (IS-00-49) AND
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM AND
ACCEPTING THE PROJECT REPORT FOR THE INTERCHANGE AT
1-805 AND EAST ORANGE AVENUE AND OLYMPIC PARKWAY
I. RECITALS
WHEREAS, the interchange at 1-805/East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway is
proposed to be widened to accommodate additional lanes on the bridge deck and
approaches between Melrose Avenue and just east of Oleander Avenue; and
WHEREAS, additional items of work include auxiliary lanes, landscaping, ramp
widening, traffic signal modifications; and
WHEREAS, the construction of the interchange improvements necessitates the
construction of a combination of sound walls and earthen sound berms that together form
the sound bathers required for noise mitigation; and
WHEREAS, this facility will ultimately provide the roadway capacity needed in
the area and will ser~e both the westerly and easterly portions of the City; and
WHEREAS, approval of this Resolution will constitute acceptance of the Project
Report and begin the process of advertising the project for bids so that construction can
begin later this year; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed
project for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and has conducted
an Initial Study, IS-00-49. Based upon the results of the Initial Study, the Environmental
Review Coordinator has determined that the project could result in significant effects on
the environment. However, revisions to the project incorporated into the project would
avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects
would occur; therefore, the Environmental Review Coordinator has prepared a Mitigated
Negative Declaration, IS-00-49.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City council hereby find,
determine and resolve as follows:
II. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA
The City Council does hereby find that the Mitigated Negative
Declaration/Environmental Assessment (MND/EA) (IS-00-49) and Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program has been prepared in accordance with requirements
of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines and
the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista, and hereby adopts the
MND/EA and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (IS-00-49).
III. INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT OF CITY COUNCIL
The City Council finds that the MND/EA and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program (IS-00-49) prepared for this Project reflects the independent judgment of the
City of Chula Vista City Council, and hereby adopts the MND/EA and Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program (IS-00-49).
IV. ADDITIONAL PROJECT INFORMATION
The proposed improvements to the 1-805/East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway
interchange are an important component of the City of Chula Vista's transportation
system. The proposed project will improve traffic circulation on 1-805 and on East
Orange Avenue and Olympic Parkway. Without these improvements to the interchange,
motorists will have to find alternative routes which 'may increase congestion to
unacceptable levels and may decrease safety to motorists and the surrounding public.
V. PROJECT REPORT
The City Council hereby accepts the Project Report for the Revise Interchange at 1-805
and East Orange Avenue and Olympic Parkway, dated March 18, 2003, a copy of which
shall be kept on file with the City Clerk.
Presented by:
Approved as to form by:
Cliff Swanson
Director of Engineering
City Attorney
J:Attorney\Reso\mitigated Negative Declaration IS-00-49
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item: [~
Meeting Date: 05/06/03
ITEM TITLE:
RESOLUTION WAIVING THE COMPETITIVE
BIDDING PROCESS AS IMPRACTICAL, AUTHORIZING
THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE A SOLE SOURCE
AGREEMENT WITH SPECIAL T FIRE EQUIPMENT FOR
PURCHASE OF SELF CONTAINED BREATHING
APPARATUS AND APPROPRIATING $41,573 FROM
UNANTICIPATED REVENUES AND $179,852 FROM THE
AVAILABLE BALANCE OF THE GENERAL FUND.
SUBMITTED BY: Fire Chief~~'~
REVIEWED BY: City Manage
(415ths Vote: Yes X No __)
Purchase of Self Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA) cannot be phased-in
due to operational and training issues. Every firefighter has to be able to
respond to an emergency with the proper training and ability to operate on the
same type of SCBA system. Almost half of the cost of purchasing new SCBA's
has already been appropriated creating an opportunity to equip all fire apparatus
with new breathing apparatus. Purchase of new SCBA's will enhance firefighter
safety and fireground operations.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council waive the competitive bidding process as
impractical, authorizing the Mayor to execute a sole source agreement with
Special T Fire Equipment for purchase of Self Contained Breathing Apparatus
and amend the FY03 Fire Department budget to appropriate $221,425 to the
operating capital budget from unanticipated revenues in the amount of $41,573
from the Urban Search and Rescue Task Force and $179,852 from the available
balance of the General Fund.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: N/A
BACKGROUND
During the FY 02-03 Capital Improvement Budget Process, Council approved the
purchase and outfitting of a pumper, aerial ladder truck and light & air / rescue for
the Otay Ranch Fire Station. This station is currently under construction and
anticipated to open September 11, 2003. Included in the firefighting equipment
and outfitting appropriation for the new fire apparatus is $60,000 for the purchase
of SCBA' s and spare air bottles. On November 19, 2002, Council accepted and
appropriated $35,515 funds from the FY01 Office of Justice Planning (OJP) grant
for additional breathing apparatus. Thus, a total of $95,515 has been
appropriated for the purchase of new SCBA's. An additional $41,573 in
unanticipated revenues from the Urban Search and Rescue Task Force and
$179,852 from the General Fund is recommended to be appropriated for this
purpose.
DISCUSSION
Following the Council appropriation, the fire department's Apparatus &
Equipment Committee began a research and potential purchase project for new
SCBA's. In evaluating breathing apparatus equipment, the existing equipment is
no longer in compliance with the NFPA 2002 standards on SCBA's. Additionally,
the existing SCBA's do not have firefighter safety and life saving features
currently available in newer systems. In addition, the current SCBA's are not
inter-operable with neighboring fire agencies.
SCBA's are breathing devices used in entering an Immediately Dangerous to Life
Hazard (IDLH) or firefighting atmosphere. A breathing apparatus device includes
a mask, backpack harness and air bottle system. The Fire Department currently
uses MSA, which are five years old, and in compliance with the 1997 NFPA
standards, but do not meet the 2002 standards. The NFPA 2002 standards
require a Rapid Intervention Crew (RIC) value or fitting to supply air to another
firefighter in an emergency or rescue situation. The existing SCBA's do not have
this capability and cannot be retrofitted to perform this function. Additionally, as
previously mentioned, several life-saving and fire safety features are now
available on new systems that will provide for more efficient and safer fireground
operations:
· Buddy Breathing System - Allows two firefighters to breath off the same
air bottle in an emergency or rescue situation.
Heads Up Display (HUD) - New masks include a telemetry system that
consists of a series of warning lights that tell a firefighter how much air
remains in their air bottle. This is critical in an intense firefighter situation
when it is easy to lose track of time and a diminishing air supply.
Heat Alarm - Due to the increased protection offered by modern
firefighter protective clothing, it is often difficult to have a sense of heat in
a working fire environment. The heat alarm provides additional protection
by gauging the cumulative heat encountered by a fireflghter, This
cumulative heat knowledge is important during flreground operations and
during the rehabilitation of personnel on the flreground.
Voice Amplifier - New masks include a voice amplifier device, which
provides clearer communications in a working fire atmosphere. Our
existing system does not have an amplifier, which negatively affects
communications.
SCBA Wei(~ht Distribution - The weight of the new SCBA is redistributed
from the shoulders to the lower lumbar and hips due to a redesign of the
backpack harness system. This redesign allows firefighters to work
safely and prevent injury.
Air Bottle - Staff recommends the purchase of a lighter weight bottle
(model #H30) that will make Chula Vista Fire department more
compatible with other fire agencies in Zone 4/5 and the City of
San Diego. In addition the lighter bottle lessens the weight on a
.firefighters back and prevents injury.
Air Purification Respirators (APR) for Weapons of Mass Destruction
The new breathing apparatus will enable firefighters to wear their mask
only in situations or known or suspected weapons of mass destruction
(VVMD) exposure. Firefighters will be able to breath thru their standard
issue SCBA mask with the addition of a WMD cartridge for extended
periods of time. Our current masks can be retrofitted for this feature, but
at additional expense.
Furthermore, existing SCBA's are not compatible with other firefighting agencies
in Zone 4/5 and the City of San Diego. As a result, during mutual aid situations
and/or large scale emergency incidents the lack of interoperability may pose
operational and safety problems.
Urgency
Purchase of breathing apparatus cannot be phased-in due to operational and
training issues. Every firefighter has to be able to respond to an emergency with
the proper training and ability to operate on the same type of SCBA system.
New breathing apparatus are needed to property outfit fire fighting personnel and
apparatus associated with the Otay Ranch Fire Station. The funds allocated for
this purpose and the unanticipated grant revenues have created a unique
opportunity to replace all breathing apparatus at this time.
The County Office of Emergency Services has notified the Fire Department that
the Office of Justice Planning is requiring the OJP FY2001 grant funds be spent
within the next sixty days.
Award of Purchasin~l Aqreement
Staff is recommending Council waive the competitive bidding process as
impractical and approve a purchasing agreement with Special T Fire Equipment
for the purchase of Mine Safety Appliance self contained breathing apparatus.
Special T Fire Equipment is the only authorize Fire SCBA contractor on the State
of California Contract #1-0-42-04 which expired on February 15,2003. Due to the
current State budget problems, a new State bid contract has not been issued and
at this time. However, informally Special T Equipment has been requested to
extend the State contract pricing until a new State Contract is signed. The quote
received from Special T Fire Equipment is compatible and for some of the
equipment lower than the State Contract.
Sole Source Justification
A three-day in depth evaluation of SCBA's was conducted by the Fire
department. The consensus was to purchase SCBA's from Mine Safety
Appliances (MSA) for the following reasons:
The department has been using MSA breathing apparatus for over 30
years. Continuing with the MSA product line will derive a savings of
training and maintenance.
· In comparison with other major brand breathing apparatus companies,
MSA has a lifetime warranty where as the others have a limited warranty.
MSA has a patented two-way valve that is certified by National Institute
for Occupational Safety and Heath (NIOSH) that allows for rescue
breathing by two fire fighters. No other breathing apparatus
manufactures have this patented two-way value.
· MSA SCBA's include all of the new features available to be NFPA 2002
compliant.
MSA breathing apparatus has recently been approved by the American
National Standard Institute (ANSI) for compliance with Chemical,
Biological, Radiological and Nuclear requirements. As of this time MSA is
the only breathing apparatus manufacture that is in compliance with this
standard.
The Special T Fire Equipment quote includes a trade-in allowance for
existing breathing apparatus.
Fundin(~ Summary
Council has appropriated a total of $95,515 for purchase of self-contained
breathing apparatus. Sixty thousand was appropriated during the CIP budget
process for the Otay Ranch Station and $35,515 in November from an OJP
grant. Staff recommends an additional $41,573 be appropriated from the Urban
Search and Rescue Task Force and $179,852 from the General Fund for this
purpose. The total cost for SCBA's for the entire fire department is $316,940.
The following is a summary:
Funding Source Council Action Amount
Development Impact Fees Otay Ranch Fire Station apparatus and outfitting $ 60,000
costs approved during the ClP budget
Office of Justice Planning
FY01 (OJP) Emergency
Services Funds
Agenda Approved on November 19, 2001 per
Council Resolution #
$ 35,515
Unanticipated revenues
from the Urban Search
and Rescue Task Force
Staff recommends Council accept and appropriate $ 41,573
Total Funding $137,088
Total Expenditure for new MSA Self Continued
Breathing Apparatus for the entire Fire
Department
$316,940
General Fund Net General Fund Cost $179,852
FISCAL IMPACT
The cost of new SCBA's for the entire Department is $316,940. A total of
$95,515 has been appropriated for this purchase. Staff is recommending Council
amend the FY03 Fire Department budget and appropriate $221,425 to the
operating capital budget from unanticipated revenues in the amount of $41,573
from the Urban Search and Rescue Task Force and $179,852 from the available
balance of the General Fund. The ongoing maintenance and repair of breathing
apparatus is included in the Fire department's operating budget.
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA WAIVING THE COMPETITIVE BIDDING
PROCESS AS IMPRACTICAL, AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR
TO EXECUTE A SOLE SOURCE AGREEMENT WITH
SPECIAL T FIRE EQUIPMENT FOR PURCHASE OF SELF
CONTAINED BREATHING APPARATUS AND
APPROPRIATING $41,573 FROM UNANTICIPATED
REVENUES AND $179,852 FROM THE AVAILABLE BALANCE
OF THE GENERAL FUND.
WHEREAS, the fire department's breathing apparatus equipment is in need of replacement
and several new fire apparatus are ready to be delivered to the City for the new Otay Ranch Fire
Station, which is currently under construction; and,
WHEREAS, the existing Self Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA's) are five years old
and out of compliance with National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 2002 federal standards; and,
WHEREAS, over half of the cost of purchasing new SCBA's has already been
appropriated creating an opportunity to equip all fire apparatus with new breathing apparatus with
minimal impact to the General Fund; and,
WHEREAS, purchase of new SCBA's will significantly enhance firefighter safety and fire
ground operations; and,
WHEREAS, staff is recommending Council waive the competitive bidding process as
impractical and approve a purchasing agreement with Special T Fire Equipment for the purchase of
breathing apparatus; and,
WHEREAS, the department has been using MSA breathing apparatus for over 30 years.
Continuing with the MSA product line will derive a savings of training and maintenance; and
WHEREAS, In comparison with other major brand breathing apparatus companies, MSA
has a lifetime warranty where as the others have a limited warranty; and,
WHEREAS, MSA has a patented two-way valve that is certified by National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Heath (NIOSH) that allows for rescue breathing by two fire fighters. No
other breathing apparatus manufactures have this patented two-way value; and,
WHEREAS, MSA SCBA's include all of the new features available to be NFPA 2002
compliant; and,
WHEREAS, MSA breathing apparatus has recently been approved by the American
National Standard Institute (ANSI) for compliance with Chemical, Biological, Radiological and
Nuclear requirements. As of this time MSA is the only breathing apparatus manufacture that is in
compliance with this standard; and,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista
does hereby waive the competitive bidding process as impractical, authorizing the Mayor to
execute a sole source agreement with Special T Fire Equipment for purchase of self contained
breathing apparatus and appropriating $41,573 from unanticipated revenues and $179,852 from the
available balance of the general fund.
Presented by:
Approved as to form by:
Moor
City Attomey
LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES
2003 SPECIAL MEETING OF THE LEAGUE GENERAL
ASSEMBLY
VOTING DELEGATE FORM
CITY:
1. VOTING DELEGATE:
(Name)
(Title)
2. VOTING ALTERNATE:
(Name)
(Title)
ATTEST:
(Name)
(Title)
PLEASE COMPLETE AND RETURN TO:
League of California Cities
Attn: Lorraine Okabe
1400 K Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
Fax: (916) 658-8240
Deadline: Friday, May 9, 2003
Better Cities-A Better Life
April 7, 2003
RECEIVED
'03 APR 10 gll :47
CITY' CHULA
CITY OLERKrS OFFICE
Leo jue of California aries
www. cacities.org
To:
The Honorable Mayor and City Council
From:
John Russo, League President, City Attorney, Oakland
Re,"
Designation of Voting Delegate for a Special Meeting (May 15th) of the
League of California Cities General Assembly
Response required by May 9.
The Executive Committee of the League Board of Directors has called a Special Meeting of the
General Assembly of the League on Thursday, May 15, 2003 at the Sacramento Community
Center Theatre, beginning at 1:00 p.m. The purpose of this Special Meeting is to consider one
or more proposals prepared by the Board of Directors concerning the state budget and state-
local fiscal reform. It is important that alii cities be represented at this Special Meeting on
Thursday, May 15, at 1 '00 p.m. at the Sacramento Community Center Theatre. The
meeting should be over by 3:30 p.m. (estimated).
League bylaws state that "Any official of a Member City may, with the approval of the city
council, be designated the city's designated voting delegate or alternate delegate to any
League meeting. Designated voting delegates (or their alternates) constitute the
League's General Assembly." To expedite the conduct of business at this important meeting,
each city council should designate a voting representative and an alternate who will be present
at the meeting. League bylaws provide that "representatives of each Member City present and
in good standing collectively cast one vote." A voting card will be given to the city official
designated by the city council on the enclosed "Voting Delegate Form."
Please complete and return the enclosed "Voting Delegate Form" to the Sacramento office of
the League at the earliest possible time (not later than Friday, May 9, 2003), so that proper
records may be established for the conference. The voting delegate may pick up the city's
voting card at the designated Voting Card desk located in the lobby of the Sacramento
Community Center Theatre. The Voting Card desk will be open from 11:30 a.m. - 1:00 p.m. in
the lobby of the Sacramento Community Center Theatre.
The voting procedures to be followed at this conference are printed on the reverse side of this
memo.
Your help in returning the attached "Voting Delegate Form" as soon as possible is appreciated.
If you have any questions, please call Lorraine Okabe at (916) 658-8236.
Headquarters
1400 K Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
916658.8200
FAX 916.6588240
Southern California Office
602 East Huntington Dr, Suite C
Monrovta, CA 91016
626.305.1315
FAX 62630%1345
·
,
-~, "
',- .< ,,/
, \ ~
¡ ç,":,'
League of California Cities
Special Meetinq of Leaque General Assembly
Votinq Procedures
1. Each member city has a right to cast one vote on matters pertaining to
League policy.
2. To cast the city's vote, a city official must have in his or her possession
the city's voting card and be registered with the Credentials Committee.
3. Prior to the Special Meeting, each city should designate a voting
delegate and an alternate and return the Voting Delegate Form to the
League Credentials Committee.
4. The voting delegate, or alternate, may pick up the city's voting card at
the voting card desk in the lobby of the Sacramento Community Center
Theatre.
5. Free exchange of the voting card between the voting delegate and
alternate is permitted.
6. If neither the voting delegate nor alternate is able to attend the Special
Meeting, the voting delegate or alternate may pass the voting card to
another official from the same city by appearing in person before a
representative of the Credentials Committee to make the exchange.
Prior to the Special Meeting, exchanges may be made at the "Voting
Card" table in the Sacramento Community Center Theatre lobby. At the
Special Meeting, exchanges may be made at the "Voting Card" table
located in the theatre area. Exchanges may not be made if a roll call
vote is in progress because the Credentials Committee will be
conducting the roll call.
7. In case of dispute, the Credentials Committee will determine the right of
a city official to vote at the Special Meeting.
~i'\C- :$\O\\J~
Ð..o..\ Gc:".",.Y\'\,^"'\C",~......j
If Chu/a Vista has residential streets
In this sh.p....
What they need is an Asphalt-Rubber Cape
· Cost Effective - Saves Taxpayers' 111111111
Dozens of Southern California cities have saved millions of dollars using
Asphalt-Rubber Cape Seals.
· Long Lasting & Maintenance Free
30 years of proven peñormance - outlasts any conventional paving material.
· Minimal Public Inconvenience
Quick application periods decrease public inconvenience.
· Maximum Public Safety
No need for deep excavations, edge drop-offs or other risk factors associated with
conventional reconstruction strategies.
· Recycles California's Scrap Tires
Asphalt-Rubber Cape Seals incorporate crumb rubber from scrap tires, benefiting
California's recycling effort.
Become one of the many municipal users to save dollars during these
times of reduced budgets, without sacrificing quality and longevity.
~P~A For more infonnation, contact the
II Western Pavement Maintenance Association
';5J~
_.~ 213-683-1300 www.westempma.org
"",-,~,,,~~~"'¡;"'I~I -.;;n:7TI~"'""7
""J "'-_1"-_ Y~~A&_ _____u___, -----
A RESOLUTIONJ RELATING TO STATE-LOCAL FISCAL RELATIONS AND A
STATE BUDGET RECOVERY PLAN
Source: Board of Directors
Recommendation to Mav 15.2003 Special Meeting of General Assemblv:
WHEREAS. the state of California faces an estimated budget deticit of $34 billion or
more in FY 2002-03 and FY 2003-04 (combined), and in previous state budget crises the state
has showed a disturbing willingness to balance its budget by taking traditional local tax revenues
that fund vital community services: and
WHEREAS. the current raid of local property tax dollars by the state (ERAF) will cost
cities statewide $779 million in 2002-03, and, after payments to cities from state general fund
programs and the Proposition 172 public safety sales tax are deducted, cities will provide $489
million in net subsidies to the state of California in 2002-03; and
WHEREAS, the Governor's original budget proposal and many of the proposals by
caucuses of the Senate and Assembly suggest that local governments make a "contribution" of
increased local tax revenue to solving the state budget crisis without imposing any restrictions on
the ability of the legislature to raid local tax funds in the future; and
WHEREAS, city ofticials support state leaders who chm1 a responsible and balanced
course in addressing the state budget crisis and call on the Governor and other state leaders to
ensure the state lives within its means and does not rely on vital local financial resources to
balance the state budget; and
WHEREAS. it is vital to the health of cities that the state continue to meet its
constitutional obligation to adequately fund public education; and
WHEREAS, the state budget recovery plan should include a proposal to the voters to
constitutionally shield local general tax revenues that fund public safety, street maintenm1ce.
parks and libraries, and other vital services from state raids in the future; now, therefore, be it
RESOL VED, by the General Assembly of the League of California Cities assembled in a
Special Meeting in Sacramento, May IS. 2003, that the board of directors may support a state
budget recovery plan in accordance with the following principles and guidelines:
Section 1. League Support Conditional Upon Local Revenue Protection. (a) The
support of the League of California Cities for any budget recovery plan that relies on increased
"contributions" of city revenues or temporary taxes to reduce part of the budget deficit is
expressly conditioned upon the submission by the legislature to the voters of a ballot measure at
the earliest possible election. amending the state constitution to limit the ability of the legislature
to take local government general tax revenues as described in subsection (b).
3 This is a draft version of the resolution that will be reviewed and approved, as amended, by the board of directors,
when it meets the morning of May 14,2003.
5
(b) The proposed constitutional amendment should limit tþe ability of the state to seize,
take, shift, divert or otherwise reduce the property tax, saleS tax, VLF (including VLF backfill)
and all other locally approved tax revenues of local governments unless: (1) the Governor
declares a state fiscal emergency, (2) the legislature approves such action by a supermajority
vote; and (3) the measure authorizing the seizure of the local tax funds provides for its
reimbursement in the next fiscal year.
Section 2. Balanced Budget Recovery Plan. Any budget recovery plan should rely
significantly on cuts to state general fund (SGF) expenditures while avoiding reliance on local
tax revenues to finance the current deficit or future state spending. If the budget recovery plan
also relies on the issuance of debt instruments or temporary taxes to finance part of the deficit
over a period of years, strict limitations should be imposed on state general fund spending;
provided, however, the state should give high priority to public safetyprograrns. The voters
should be asked to approve a prudent general fund reserve requirement.
6
aooeannL! In pentun Ul;lUIC GlICµH::::SIi:allt1.U vc U.l U.ll;; \....-.lI;;Ul;;uua.l;:') "--'VUllunL""\'" LV .lHaJ\..1;; LHI;;
'\
,
,
\
'\
League of California Cities
Special Meeting of League General Assembly
Voting Procedures
May 15, 2003
I. Each member city has a right to cast one vote on matters pertaining to League policy.
2. To cast the city's vote, a city official must have in his or her possession the city's voting card
and be registered with the Credentials Committee.
3. Prior to the Special Meeting, each city should designate a voting delegate and an alternate
and return the Voting Delegate Form to the League Credentials Committee.
4. The voting delegate, or alternate, may pick up the city's voting card at the voting card desk
in the lobby of the Sacramento Community Center Theatre.
5. Free exchange of the voting card between the voting delegate and alternate is permitted.
6. If neither the voting delegate nor alternate is able to attend the Special Meeting, the voting
delegate or alternate may pass the voting card to another official from the same city by
appearing in person before a representative of the Credentials Committee to make the
exchange. Prior to the Special Meeting, exchanges may be made at the "Voting Card" table
in the Sacramento Community Center Theatre lobby. At the Special Meeting, exchanges
may be made at the "Voting Card" table located in the theatre area. Exchanges may not be
made if a roll call vote is in progress because the Credentials Committee will be conducting
the roll call.
7. In case of dispute, the Credentials Committee will determine the right of a city official to
vote at the Special Meeting.
7
·
Honorable Mayor and City Council.
Tentative subdivision map of Zenlth II
September 27, 1973
page 2
Prior to the issuance of building pennits, the appl icant shall submit
~~ the Planning Department for review, the design of the walls an~ benns
at the rear of lots 7-16 backing up to the I-805 f~eeway. .Ac~ordlng to
the EIR adopted on Sept8nber 12, 1973 by the Plannlng ~ommlss10n, the
following dimensions shall be included in the wall deslgn:
14 15 d 16 10-12 foot noise barrier (combin-
a. For lots 9, 10, , ,an ,a
ation of wall and benn).
b.
For lots 11, 12 and 13, a 9 foot noise barrier.
For lots 7 and 8, a 6 foot noise barrier.
c.
3. The lots adjacent to the I-805 freeway shall util~ze si~gle stor'y
dwellings whenever feasible, given site planning conslderatlonsi. w~e~ a
tI~o stor structure is util ized it shall adhere to eleme~ts out .lne 1n
S 91 ~706 (a) (b) and (c) of the draft of the San 01ego NOlse Orcl1n-
a~~~, f~r the achieve;¡ent of a 30 dßA noise loss through the walls.
I
4.
Specific plot plans
for lot 47 shall be submitted, showing the location
- 2 -
(
1175-E-762,885
ll-SD-Bo5
4.8
.-f
The existing rence rabric shall be salvaged, and when grading 1s completl
shall be reinstalled in its original position to furnish control of aeee¡
until the sound attenuation wall is constructed. Construction of the
wall shall be completed 60 days prior to í'inal acceptance of subdivision
improvements.
Landscaping shall begin within 60 days after grading within highway
R/w is co¡;;pleted, and shall include a one-year plant establishment perioc
at tl:e permittee's expense. Construction details and material speci.ficat
for this work shall be equivalent to those provided in State Highway
Planting Project, Contract 11-123274 (11-3D-do5, 4.8-5.3)
~~rsuant to General Provision # 13 - Expense or Inspection, a pror.re3S
billilt'; to tiw perJ:littee (American HousinG Guild) ¡-Jill be i:Ütiated for
in3pe~tion ûxyenses at reasonable intervals. Failure to provide for
pro:;lpt pé\~'::!~mt of' these bills shall \-¡arrant suspension 01' the lior;:.
Reductions in the auount 01' the per:nlt bond will be considered on request
as v[ü"~ouu units of rlOrs: are cO::1,Jletcd, tllese units baint; (1) ùrairwge
appurtenances, (2) landscaping and (3) sound atten'.le.tion \-tall.
Galtrans Ð:)pro\"al of ~:radj n:~ n.nd ,"{lÐ.ll CO~lS t-rl.1ct~_on \·:~s :i,n tc~s of sj n:~~' C:
stor~r con~·,·.l"t!.:::t.JOn.~ but t.:dG.i.t2_c::>~..:1 C(:"3~c)er¡:::t~c.·T~ l~,~~\rc rG!i:~;.t.;~d ili é~~.l·;'.i-
......",....., :, .-)·,........;J·,'v·,···i~'.l O~" 1--\-n_.:!'':''''··Ó"'Y7 t·c···,.,<=: (:"'~)""''''''.J'' .....J- r:":r.ìv '. 17' :-~+. -J..f"':T'1 J'. - ..'r::.)'
_ '. \.~ J.J. '_'--.. .... ......" Q........1.~ ................ ....~J_ _v.~ .' \'..._..... ..../ _I _~ ............" _
to be u;"i.Î..l t. :JTo....,.jGed t~·!at c::c~~r:ic:: y:ülJ.:-: 'pr:j...!'.~:';û éI. "JGu Ell t1:'2n~!.....ißEdcf1
l03S) [::101 "L:.:.:.t t!·:ere ê.J"e no seC:'::nld-~~tOl'Y Hi~·l;.jO'.'-S í·acin~.; the ::;:·.rG;:ua~...
~_....__._"
w
t
~!
~
"-
'Z
Co
I~
i:
'ì-,
"-
'ì'
~
~~ -~--- "\
"
J
"
r~
r-
~\..
1"-
r'
)-..
~
-
'0
0-
:'\.
"
~
Ç:-.
":þ,
"
~
~
\r.
~
"
1\ \-1
>¡¡
~1~
~1 <:>
'2 V¡
~
))
~
r-
~
C_
'Ì1
V
'1
~
1ì¡
~
,
,,~
\
\1"-.
, \
~
c::.
~
~
~
~
~
.. !ìI
~
~
t; c::c
::.
. ?:
\A 'I
'Ii *
-'...."
';2 ~
~ .....
,.
":
r. {", ~
~
f t
'\
è;
...~
~
:0~
~Ì71
1"-
r-~1"ì1
r" ~ .........
ú c¡-- ("
'\~ ;
~\ Iì\~ ~
~~~,:\r~è
r- \/' C -
... ;:-\ ". )\
~~ -;:'\:'''
è: <:: " -L
~"(
è !:' ~ \fo.
r:ù\)~
~, \), "- ~
\ ",,'
I'"), ^ r~ V\
'-O~\~\~
C:,~\J'
'4 3. ~
C: \~)
OJ
.,.
Iì1
\
~
,
~
~
~
fh
V)
'-^"
(""i\ ~
(\
c. <>;
"è ~
~
'.J> (\
'I \))
:t~
~~
"
,\ t
,"-
'JJ ~
~
~
---
~ \i' ^........
Co ~ ::s
~ ~~Ï\'\
"'~c>'¡:
1">\ 1!\ -) -
"r-Ï1It
1)-\ 'ï1 ~
<::: ~ VI
'" ~ ,\
I' 1Í\:::ï\
~'1:~
~~~
~~.
~:;j
---I't
+ ()
~"
~Ì"1
~1't1
- '<-
~~
~.,
1
"-
\AI
\]'--
~
~
"-
~
~
~J
c:,. \~
,.... ....,
\A -r-
'""<\ ':11
~ "t.
t:I\ 'Ì'
~ ~
~ 0
~ 'ì-I
~ v
1:))
)
'-
?0
^
<:.
iì\
c;:_
r-
c..
<>.
"'I.
-
<..
Ç '
E:
t]\
co
:-9J
<:..
rn
f.
~
~
..¡
~
~ '"
,~
......
\)
,
~
"'t
~
'1',
~
~
o
'\
~b
e:,~
'\~
'"
~l
c"'"
.&.*
~~
-\""
~~
~~
~ a.
~
,". .:';,J, 't..ÍI t,
. .;.c",.>;,-.,.
.'.·..,:¡!>'fi!\k.·.·· "
";ìf,:\~i
"':F.
í'
'"'--
'-1'
~\
::--
\51
,.
r
0;::.
\ì\
\r',
f'o. -.l
\: \
'\1 :"s
'>-
VI "'0
~ ;
~~
~~
f ~
".
~
F\'-...
\. ".
/
"ì
c·
G
~
-
~
<:ì'
<:
'ì'
f_
('
"'"
<:c..
;:!,
Z.
'\ì
V',
'"'\
'1-\
....
'"
~
-?::
\-.¡
"-
V-.
\,
~ ...
.~
c.
£:,
,~
0
~
~.\
\C.
-;:
~
......
w
-..---
'-..
.~
~f
""r-
'\ "
~~
"'-~
,Q'.
"-
~
~ ¡:;
\>, to
In
'I
V\
\í\
":L~
"'~
\i:''''
~,¿
:;:
~
Co
v
., -\
~
~
~
1..:\
"1' -- -- ........ ......,..
. ...a....a .........II......a
.1D.1;:JC:D/~b:;:)U
p. !
11m..
~......
.,. '."-: '., ' .,'
'..-- '. .... .' ........... '-'.'
. .,. , '. " '.
. '...
'.. "
, ....
. .
" '.~,,,,::_,,
Supporting Your Organization
Never Tasted so Good!
Where: 1 PI4%.48øritIQ "4/0
When: ~~~
Time: 1~:Oð.~ ~
Rrlvæ...u e 1~~r'1
10% of all the/Jl'OCNds will be donated to Woo- COO 1'1(..1/ , MIen you pl'8Sent
' this flyer at the time of your Older!
You Must bring This Flyer to Pat & Oscar's!
Come in and enjoy Pat & Oscar's great ribs, chicken, gourmet
pizzas, sandwiches, wide assortment of superb salads, and our
Hot, Hand rolled, Homemade Breadsticks! While enjoying your
. meal you will qe . supporting
,".
..~1~:>..,.
, . .'
",... .
""', '. '-.
"....~.-.\.,.......
". .
.. . '.
. , . , ", , .
. ','. - ".~,." . "'-,
,....... ,.".~~.,
,;'};.7' . "4
..... '.,'>'
Sorry, cannot be combined with any
otherotrers. Available for Dine In or
r"f(t!Ofltmry
~{~
=~:
~s~~
CßY Of
CHUIA VISTA
ATBLETICSSECTlON
SLOW-PITCH SOFTBALL
SUMMER 2003
-&\.s:
t\'\ \J~ ~\r
L REGISTRATION INFORMATION
A. TEAM FEE
The team fee if for a tea g¡une regular season and the top four teams go to the playoffs, The team ~
includes:
MEN COED WOMEN
I. ASA Registration $10,00 $10,00 $10.00
2, Awards $30,00 $30,00 $30,00
3. Game Balls $25,00 $25,00 $25.00
4. General Fund $90.00 $90.00 $90,00
5. Gypsum $5.00 $5.00 $5,00
6, League Coordinator $40.00 $40.00 $40.00
7, Score Keeper $70,00 $70,00 $70.00
8. *Foñeit Deposit (Refundable) $40.00 $40,00 $40,00
RESIDENT TEAM TOTAL FEE $310.00 $310.00 $310.00
9. Non-Resident Surcbarge $110,00 $110,00 $110.00
NON-RESIDENT TEAM TOTAL FEE $420.00 $420.00 5420.00
Umpire fees- You will pay $10 per game on the field for the flmpires. Cash is reqflired, and
YOflllUlst bring the exact change. Please plan ahetuJ for this! III
'This deposit toven two nights of umpire fees. If your team forfeits a game the eøtire fee for the umpires of
$20 will be deducted from this depolit. If you forfeit a _oad time. you will bave until Friday of the curreot
week (or the following Monday for Friday teams) to reimbane tbe entire fee of $40, or forfeit yoar spot In
tbe league. However, if your team does not forfeit a game or doesn't Ole the entire depoIit, it will be
refnnded to yon, or you can roll It over to the oen season and not have to pay It again. Play-offs faD under
the I8JI1e rules for forfeits.
B. REGISTRATION PROCEDURE
Managers Meetings: Men-April 28, 2003, Coed-April 29, 2003, Womeo-April 30, 2003, All meetings
will be held at 6:00. Registration starts the night of the Managers meeting (If you have a completed
roster). Registration will be taken from 2:00 to 7:00 pm Monday - Friday until May 30, 2003. The
season will begin on the week of June 9, 2003,
Resident Teams: Teams with 70% of its players who are residents of the City of Cbula Vista will be able
to register as a resident team, SpoRlOred teams may also register as a resident team if the business is
located in the City of Chula Vista, Verificatiou of residencylbusiness must be attached to the roster when
2. The full protest must be typed and submitted to the Parlcway Gymnasimns office within two
days of the game in question. Protests must be lICCO!l1pIIDied by 520,00, to be refunded only if the
protest is judged valid.
. Protests may be judged valid but not necessarily enforced.
4. test will not be considered if it concerns a decision based solely on the accurncy of . udgment
on e part of the referees.
Forfeit: A team must have 7-
period will be given to a
time.
D, PLAYER
1. A player ej
player may be
foñeit the game.
2. A player ejected fro a game wiD face a ODe game lU.peIlSiOD whim will
the player's actions t it, they may be required to meet with the
Supervisor. Depending on severity of the action, the player may face
Coordinator has final decision;
nforœd the following game. If
Coordinatoc and the Recreation
'on trom the league. The League
DJ!: OF CONDUCT
ftom a game shall leave the area of the field innnediately. If instructed
. to leave the sidelines and the pad<. Failure to do so may cause the
4. A team is responsible for its own
game. The referee will warn the t
olmoxious or tmruIy fan they could foñeit the
5. Any player determined to bave been linking before or
Trash talk, taunting and foul language wiI
ejection.
ring tbe game will not be allowed to play.
Any violation of this rule will result in an
ill CITY OF CHULA VISTA LEAGUE R S
ImufBnce: Players are responsible for providing
SCMAF.
Pre-se8Jon: Teams are expected to bave players'
REGULATIONS
own insurance and may purchase insurance through
tative of their normal team at thepre-season game.
Placing: The placing is done at the discreti
competitive Leagues as possible.
eties Section. The goal is to have the most
Game times: WID be between 6:00 PM
Balls: Each manager is responsible fo
down. This must be a regulation size
on will use your team's ball during your
Cleat.: Metal dem will not be
ster players at game time to avoid a fo
it needs it to field a proper roster. This .
't. A mandatory to-minute grace
will be deducted ftom the game
TIed-games: C fomla T\e-breaker- Team. are given four offen.ive plays, temating pos....lon,
.tarting at ml fteld. After tbe completion of eight plays tbe team gaining the
yardage i. de red the winner. Team. must complete all four play.,
Team. are given one time out
Penalties are enforced tbe .ame a. in regulatiOD play,
Team. intercepting a pan have tbe option oftaldng the result oflbe play
baD althe previous .pot. .
Teams scoring have an opportunity for an extra point coDvenjoD.
Standings will be with the scorekeeper each week.
registering. The roster must have the first aDd last names of at least dgbt players. Aœeptable
forms of verification shaD be copies of:
a. Current drivers license
b, Current utility bill
c, Current utility bill
d. Business license 1/
Non-ResldeDt TelUDl: Teams who do not meet the resident team requirements will register as a non-
resident team. These teamS will have to pay the non-resident sun:barge,
C. PAYMENT OF FEES
The entire fee mDlt be paid at the time of registration. No partial payments will be aœepted.
AdditlODaDy, the payment optiODs are a) ODe check. b) aD cash, or c) ODe cbeck aDd the rest cash.
We are DOt aDowed to take more than one check. AIIO, DO post-dated cheeks will be accepted. If the
bank for any reason returns the team's check, the team manager will be contacted and will have one day
to correct the problem, A S15 seIViœ charge win also be required.
D. LEAGUE DAYS AND FIELDS
Men's Leagues- Monday - Friday, Coed - Thursdays and Fridays, Women - Tuesdays, When a
team ¡egisters they will be guarnnteed the night that they request as long as there are openings for that
night. There are Umited spaces on each night. With this, field placement cauuot be guaranteed. We
wiD attempt to place you in a league of competitive balance.
E. WAITING LIST
When the maximum nwnber of teamS allowable have been registered, or after the registtation deadline,
the remaining teams will be placed on a waiting list in order of first come first serve priority, Teams that
are contacted will have two days to submit the enIIy fee.
F. REFUNDS
Refunds will only be given to teamS if another team on the waitiog list is willing to play on that night or,
if the League is cancelled. Ref1mds will not be given to teams who are not willing to play at a specific
field or league.
ß. GENERAL INFORMATION
A. ROSTERS
I. The team roster, with at least eight player's names, must be submitted with the enlly
fee.
2. All players must sign the team roster before they play, Each roster may have a
muimum of twenty-two players throughout the season,
3, Player additiou after the fifth game of the season, or those that cause the team to
exceed the twenty-two-player Jimit must have written approval from the Athletics
Section,
4. Players must be at least 18 years old. If 18 years old, the player nmst have graduated
high school. All players must meet the age minimums of the league,
5. Last names of players must be used on all score sheets.
6, Players changing teamS during the season must have the approval of the Athletic
Section.
7, Players must have a valid California Identification card, or a California Drivers
License, or a copy of an identification card with an identiflllhle picture (It is UDder the
discretion of the League Coordinator to determine if the picture is identifiable) in
order to play in the League.
B. FORFEIT
A team that cannot field eight roster players at game time (coed must have 4 men and 4 women) win have
a mandatoI)' ten-mimte grace period to field proper roster. This grace period will be deducted from the
game time, If a team does not comply after the grace period, a forfeit sball be declared,
A forfeit will be declared if a player is not able to show proof of eligibility as indicated above
A team using an ineligible player, in whatever sense of the word ineliglòility may have, may be forced to
foñeit the game or games in which the ineligible player played in, The Athletics Section will make this
decision,
C. PROTEST
The following procednre must be followed in order to have a protest considered:
I. The manager of the protesting team must notify the following people immediately
(before the nest piteh):
a, Umpire behind home plate
b. Opposing manager
c, League CoordioatorlLeague Assistant
2. The full protest must be typed and submitted to the Parlcway Gymnasiwn office
within two days of the game in question. Protests must be accompanied by $20.00,
to be refunded only if the protest is judged valid
3. Protests may be judged valid but not necessarily enforced.
4. Protest will not be considered ifit concerns a decision based solely on the accuracy
of the judgment on the part of wnpires,
D. PLAYER CODE OF CONDUCT
I. A player ejected from a game shall leave the area of the field immediately, If
instructed by the wnpire, the player may be required to leave the bleacher area and
the parle. Failure to do so may cause the player's team to fotfeit the game,
2. A player ejected from a game will face a one game IUspension which will be
enforced the foDowing game. If the player's actions warrant it, they may be
required to meet with the League Coordinator and the Recreation Supervisor,
Depending on the severity of the action, the player may face suspension from the
league, or worse. The League Coordinator has the final decision.
3. A player who is ejected from a game a secoud time shall be ineligible from further
participation this season.
4. A team is respotlS1òle for its own fans, If a team cannot control an obnoxious or
unmly fan they could foñeit the game, The wnpire will warn the teams first before
foñeiting the game.
5. Any player determined to have been drinking before or during the gune will
not be allowed to play. Trash talk, taunting and foul language will not be
tolerated, Any violation of this rule will resuIt in ejection,
IlL CITY OF CHULA VISTA LEAGUE RULES AND REGULATIONS
The Amateur Softball Auociation Softball ru1es sbaD he enforced unless otherwise noted.
Insnrance: Players are respotlS1òle for providing their own insnrance.
Placing: League placement is done at the discretion of the Athletics Section, The goal is to have the most even and
competitive leagues as X!SS1òle,
Game times: Game times will be 6:30, 7:40, and 8:50. Each game will last 60 minutes, at this time the game will end.
If the inning is not complete at this time, the inning will be completed TIIERE WILL BE NO EXTRA INNINGS,
unless there is still time on the clock and 7 innings have been completed. (Game times can change due to league size)
Cwfew at eveI)' field is 10:00 pm. Games in progress will be called at this time.
Balls: Each manager is responsible for providing a back up baIl prior to the start of the game. Back up baDs- MEN _
COR .44 or lower, COED and WOMEN - COR .47 or lower. A team can request to use their own back-up ball
when batting, if it's available. It's encouraged that all teams bring extra balls in case the three baIls that you are
playing with are not Ietrieved,
Bats: MEN-You may use any A.S.A. approved bat (See league bat list). COEDIWOMEN- Only single wall bats
and bats considered not being high performance bats may be used. The bats must have a Bat Performance
Factor (BPF) of 1.20 or under and must foUow league bat ndes (See appendix). H yoo are caught with an megal
,
bat you will be ejected. If an illegal bat 10 fOUJld out in tbe dugout the mmer of the bat will be ejected. If the
mmer does Dot come forward, the manager will be ejeded.
Batting: A player arriving after the game begins must be added to the end of the batting order and may bat when there
turn comes up. Teams have the options ofbatûng up to 15"players (Coed 16- players), If the manager elects to bat all
players present at game time, he will have ftee substitutions,
Cleats: Metal cleats will not be allowed
CourteJy Runners: No more than 2-<:ourtesy runners may be used without opposing m.....V'" s approval. Courtesy
runners shottld be used for legitimate injmies only, The amrtesy runners must be declared before the game to the
umpires, Before the game the umpire will ask you if you would mther use amrtesy runners "as needed".
Forfeit: A team must have 8-roster players at game time to avoid forfeit (Coed 4 men' and 4 women), A mandatory
IO-minute grace period will be given to a team if it needs it to field a proper roster. This time will be deducted from
the game time,
Line-upl: Tbe player's first and last name must be on the 1ine-up, The line-up is to be given to the scorelreeper before
the game starts.
Home Team: The home team is the second team listed on the schedule game time.
Home RUB,: Tbe "one-up" rule will be in effect unless it's waived by the two managers dming their pre-game meeting
with the umpire. The "om;-up" rule states that no team may hit more than one home run more than the opposing team.
An illegal home run will be ruled a foul ball (at Euealyptul an illegal homeruø will be ruled an out).
Mercy Rule: The mercy rule will be in effect when any team is winning by 15+ runs after 5 complete innings, At this
point the game is over,
League play: The leagues will be played as follows: All teams will playa round robin plus additional games chosen at
the discretion of the Athletics Section. Your standings seat you in the tournament.
Tournament Play: The top four teams in the leaguè are eligible for the tournament (l1ús can be adjusted depending
on league size), League rules stand for post-season play, For a player to be eligible for the post-season tournament,
they must play in half of the games during the season. This tournament will be played in one night and the top two
winners of the tournament will receive the awards, There will be no awanIs for the best records during the season.
Your season standings seat you in the tournament ouly, IF A TOURNAMENT GAME ENDS IN A TIE, THE
TEAM WITH THE BEST RECOKD IN THE STANDINGS FROM THE REGULAR SEASON WINS THE
GAME. THERE WD..L BE NO EXTRA INNINGS (Exception- There will be no extra innings to settle a game
unless there is stiJl time left on the 60 minute clock and 7 innings have been completed.)
Tied-games: If a game is tied after time expires and the last inning has been completed, the game will end in a tie.
Each team will receive a 'f.z win 'f.z loss, There will be no extra innings to settle a game unless there is stiJl time left on
the 6O-minute c10ck and 7 innings have been completed. If this occurs see "Game Time" in this packet.
Standing/!: Standings will be with the scorekeeper each week, Tiebreakers in the ItaDding/! will be decided using this
criteria and in this order: a) head to head record, b) totally runs head to head, c) least runs allowed, d) most runs scored,
and e) play-off game,
ADDmONAL HOUSE RULES: ALL LEAGUES
Strike Zone - 17" from rear of plate, making 17"x 34" rectangle, A legally pitched ball not struck: at that lands ON
ANY PART OF the strike zone which is 17" wide and 34" in length including the plate, will be ruled a strike by the
umpire,
Base Running - Any runner may leave a base as soon as the ball leaves the pitchers hand If the catcher throws to the
base and the ball is caught by an infielder while touching the base and the runner is not touching the base yet, the
runner is out.
Called Game - In a "called game" 4 complete innings constitutes a complete game, With this, after 3 1/2 innings if
the home team is winning and the game is called this will be a complete game and the home team will get the win.
Extra Innings - If seven innings have been completed and the game is tied before 60 minutes is up, extra innings may
be played until time is up, Follow our end of ganie rules,
"Wet Bag Condition" - As field conditions change there may be a situation where the umpire declares a "WET BAG
CONDmON" RULE. This will happen, if in the umpire's opinion, the bases are not safe to pivot on when rounding
the bases either when advancing on a batted ball or a multiple base hit If "WET BAG CONDmONS" is declared it
means that all nnmers must go "over the topJbreak the vertical plane of the base" when rounding the bases. If any
rwmer does not break the vertical p1ane of the base it is an "appeal play" after time is called just as leaving a base too
early on a caught ball is handled. If there Is a force out a player must toueh the base. This rule is a judgment call
by the umpire and cannot be protested.
Removal from line up- Any batter failing to bat, due to removal from the lineup for any reason, regard1ess of the
number of batters in the batting order, will be automatically out if no legal substitute is available at the tint time the
said batter fails to bat, If this penalty is missed, said penalty shall sti11 apply if the error is discovered in the same
inning as the ßÙssed at-bat. An additional out will be awarded to the defensive team, This space shall be skipped for
the remainder of the game with no further penalty,
HOUSERULE- WOMEN ONLY
"6 RUNS PER INNING RULE"· AS WNG AS BOTH MANAGERS AGREE you have the option 01 using this
rule. You wiD make the decision during the meeting with the umpire. If a team scores 6 runs in an inning, tbere
at bats would he over and they would take the field no matter wbat the situation Is during the at bat. HopefuUy
this would lessen the amount 01 serious blow-outs and keep tbe games moving.
COED AND WOMEN
FOUR STRIKE RULE-When after having two strikes, If the batter hits a second foul ball the batter is ont.
FOR COED SPECIFIC RULES SEE APPENDIX tON THE BACK PAGE
Bad weather: In case of bad weather call 691-5084 after 3:00 PM for the status of the day's games.
DrinkiDg and playing: No player detennined to be drinking before the game will be allowed to play.
Smoking: Smoking is prohibited in the dugout.
Glan containers: No 81_ bnerage containers are aUowed in City parks.
Children: Children may nut he left unattended in the City Parl<s. Also, children may not be in the field dugout.
Pets: Pets may not be left unattended in the City parks.
Sportsmanship: Trash ta1k, taunting, and foul language will not be tolerated. Disruptive behavior will be punished.
Ejecdon: Any player ejected from a game is ineligible to play the following game.
If you have any questions please call 69t-S084. THANK YOU.
!
APPENDIX 1
COED RULES
Tbe Amateur Softball Ass«K:iation Softball ndeI shall·be emoreed UBIeu noted by the following ndeI:
1. A defensive team shall CQIISist of 10 players, with a maximum of 5 men and 5 women in.the game
defensively at all times, However, a game may be played without furfeit with (9) rostered players with no
more than 5 of either sex. (Example: 4 women-5 men; or 5 women-4 men,) Substitutes must be listed at
the bottom. Substitutions or courtesy runners must be of the same sex as the individual being rep1aced, A
team may also play with eight players (4 men and 4 female) without furfeit. If you have lower than 8
rostered players the game will be forfeited.
2, Batting order, A batting order must be submitted prior to the game and followed during the game, Tbe
batting order may not exceed 16 players and must list men and women separately and fullowed alternately
such that two batters of the same sex may never bat consecutively,
3. Courtesy runners shall be the last recorded out made by the player of the same sex, If no player of the same
sex bas recorded an out, the player of the same sex listed last in the batting order shall be the courtesy
runner, Teams are allowed one male and one female courtesy runner in each inning.
4, A minimum of 3 outfielders must be behind an outfield restriction line (160 foot arc from home plate) when
the batter hits the pitch, While a female is batting, the rover can only be a fema1e, Penalty: the batter and
all base runners will be awarded one base unless each bas advanced one base safely, in which case the play
proceeds without reference to the violation.
5, 1ñere will be no restrictions on a player (man or woman) as to which defensive position he or she may play
except for rover position when a female is at bat,
6, A male batter, who is walked on 4 consecutive balls without any strikes received during his time at bat or
intentionally walked prior to any pitches, shall be awarded second base. Base runners advance only if
forced to vacate their base. Note: After a male batter receives 1 or more strikes and is then issued an
intentional walk, he shall be awarded first base. If there are two outs and a male is walked on four
straight pitches, the following woman bas' the ootion to advance to first base or bat after the male has
advanced to second base.
APPENDIX 2
BAT RULES (COED AND WOMEN)
If your bat falls into any or all of these categories it will be declared
illegal.
1. Titanium bats will be illegal
2. Multi-shelled bats will be illegal.
3. Multi-walled bats will be illegal
4. Any bat exceeding a 1.20 Bat Performance Factor (BPF) will be
illegal.
5. If your bat is in question and we are unable to read any of the
specifications, it will be considered illegal.
BAT RULES (MEN)
The City of Chula Vista Men's Softball leagues will be using the
criteria of ASA Softball. Any bat that is marked as "ASA
approved" may be used. A bat list will be with your scorekeeper,
and you may obtain a list of these bats by going on line at
softball.org.
SOFTBALLS
All of our game balls that we use are Dudley SW12. In the Men's
league we use a .44 COR, and Coed and Women use a .47 COR.
For your league you may use any brand of ball as long as the COR
does not exceed what is used in your league.
:;.,
\f"
\,',) .
"OÛt-lDED 1896'
'·~I"lill.
I I ¡ I 6i""\11"
lQdqUQ of fdlifornia Gtipo; 11
..~,~
o,p~J
ir'NG TOG~
Better Citics-A Better Life
April 7, 2003
To:
From:
Re:
~j.fJ '"' .\ \O'?
, /~~,~ '<-'0\('-
q ~~ 'Y.f RECEIVED
~ ~. :, :C;~L:V~:~
CITY CLERK'S OFFICl'
League of California Cities
WWw.caCltles.org
The Honorable Mayor and City Council
John Russo, League President, City Attorney, Oakland
Designation of Voting Delegate for a Special Meeting (May 15th) of the
League of California Cities General Assembly
Response required by May 9.
The Executive Committee of the League Board of Directors has called a Special Meeting of the
General Assembly of the League on Thursday, May 15, 2003 at the Sacramento Community
Center Theatre, beginning at 1 :00 p.m, The purpose of this Special Meeting is to consider one
or more proposals prepared by the Board of Directors concerning the state budget and state·
local fiscal reform, It is important that all cities be represented at this Special Meeting on
Thursday, May 15, at 1 :00 p.m, at the Sacramento Community Center Theatre. The
meeting should be over by 3:30 p.m. (estimated),
League bylaws state that "Any official of a Member City may, with the approval of the city
council, be designated the city's designated voting delegate or alternate delegate to any
League meeting. Designated voting delegates (or their alternates) constitute the
League's General Assembly." To expedite the conduct of business at this important meeting,
each city council should designate a voting representative and an alternate who will be present
at the meeting, League bylaws provide that "representatives of each Member City present and
in good standing collectively cast one vote," A voting card will be given to the city official
designated by the city council on the enclosed "Voting Delegate Form."
Please complete and return the enclosed "Voting Delegate Form" to the Sacramento office of
the League at the earliest possible time (not later than Friday, May 9, 2003), so that proper
records may be established for the conference, The voting delegate may pick up the city's
voting card at the designated Voting Card desk located in the lobby of the Sacramento
Community Center Theatre. The Voting Card desk will be open from 11 :30 a,m. - 1 :00 p.m. in
the lobby of the Sacramento Community Center Theatre.
The voting procedures to be followed at this conference are printed on the reverse side of this
memo.
Your help in returning the attached "Voting Delegate Form" as soon as possible is appreciated.
If you have any queslions, please call Lorraine Okabe at (916) 658-8236.
Headquarters
1400 K Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
916,658,8200
FAX 916,6588240
Southern California Office
602 East Huntington Dr,. Suite C
Monrovia, CA 91016
626,305,13]5
FAX 626305,1345
;rJ ....
''¡'> '"I
,~. .....
LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES
2003 SPECIAL MEETING OF THE LEAGUE GENERAL
ASSEMBLY
VOTING DELEGATE FORM
CITY:
1. VOTING DELEGATE:
(Name)
(Title)
2. VOTING ALTERNATE:
(Name)
(Title)
ATTEST:
(Name)
(Title)
PLEASE COMPLETE AND RETURN TO:
League of California Cities
Attn: Lorraine Okabe
1400 K Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
., Fax: (916) 658·8240
Deadline: Fridav. Mav 9. 2003