Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-10-22 MP COC Agenda Packet REGULAR MEETING OF THE MEASURE P CITIZENS’ OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA Thursday, October 22, 2020 VIA TELECONFERENCE 6:00 p.m. 1800 Maxwell Rd, Chula Vista 91911 PLEASE NOTE THAT, PURSUANT TO THE GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA'S EXECUTIVE ORDER N-29-20, AND IN THE INTEREST OF THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY, MEMBERS OF THE MEASURE P CITIZENS’ OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE AND STAFF MAY PARTICIPATE IN THIS MEETING VIA TELECONFERENCE. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE EXECUTIVE ORDER, THE PUBLIC MAY VIEW THE MEETING ONLINE AND NOT IN THE PUBLIC WORKS LUNCHROOM. HOW TO WATCH: Members of the public can access a link to the livestream at www.chulavistaca.gov/virtualmeetings. Members of the public who wish to join by telephone only, may call 1-408-418-9388 (United States Toll) and enter the access code: 146 912 1585. HOW TO SUBMIT COMMENTS: Visit the online eComment portal for this meeting at: www.chulavistaca.gov/virtualmeetings. The commenting period will be open shortly after the agenda is published for a particular meeting and will remain open through the meeting, as described below. All comments will be available to the public and the Measure P Citizens’ Oversight Committee using the eComment portal. Comments must be received prior to the time the Chair calls for the close of the commenting period. Comments received after such time will not be considered by the Measure P Citizens’ Oversight Committee. If you have difficulty or are unable to submit a comment, please contact the Finance Department/Sandi Delap for assistance at sdelap@chulavistaca.gov. ACCESSIBILITY: Individuals with disabilities are invited to request reasonable modifications or accommodations in order to access and/or participate in a Measure P Citizens’ Oversight Committee meeting by contacting the Finance Department at sdelap@chulavistaca.gov. (California Relay Service is available for the hearing impaired by dialing 711) at least forty- eight hours in advance of the meeting. ***The City of Chula Vista is relying on commercial technology to livestream and accept public comments via Granicus, Inc. With the increase of virtual meetings, most platforms are working to scale their systems to meet the new demand. If we have technical difficulties, we will resolve them as quickly as possible. City staff will take all possible measures to ensure a publicly accessible experience. *** City of Chula Vista Boards & Commissions Measure P Citizens’ Oversight Committee Page 2 ׀ Measure P Citizens’ Oversight Committee Agenda October 22, 2020 CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL: Committee Members Firsht, Freels, Hunter, Lengyel, Martinez, Redo, Romo, Sheridan, Vigilante, Voorhees, Ziomek, and Chair Garcias CONSENT CALENDAR The Board/Commission will enact the Consent Calendar staff recommendations by one motion, without discussion, unless a Board/Commission Member, a member of the public, or staff requests that an item be removed for discussion. If you wish to comment on one of these items, please submit comments electronically at: www.chulavistaca.gov/virtualmeetings. 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of July 23, 2020. Staff recommendations: Approve the meeting minutes. PUBLIC COMMENTS Persons may address the Board/Commission on any subject matter within the Board/Commission’s jurisdiction that is not listed as an item on the agenda. State law generally prohibits the Board/Commission from discussing or taking action on any issue not included on the agenda, but, if appropriate, the Board/Commission may schedule the topic for future discussion or refer the matter to staff. If you wish to comment, please submit comments electronically at: www.chulavistaca.gov/virtualmeetings. ACTION ITEMS The Item(s) listed in this section of the agenda will be considered individually by the Board/Commission and are expected to elicit discussion and deliberation. If you wish to comment on one of these items, please submit comments electronically at: www.chulavistaca.gov/virtualmeetings. 2. PREPARATION AND PRESENTATION BY THE COC TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE REQUIRED MEASURE P ANNUAL REPORT FOR FY19, AND POSSIBLE DIRECTIONS AND ACTIONS BY THE COC REGARDING SAME, INCLUDING FORMATION OF AN AD HOC SUB COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED ACTION: Provide input and take such action(s) as the COC deems appropriate regarding the preparation and presentation of the Measure P Annual Report. 3. DISCUSSION REGARDING OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2020 ANNUAL ACTIVITY REPORT AND AUTHORIZE STAFF TO FINALIZE AND SUBMIT RECOMMENDED ACTION: Committee to discuss activities, make any appropriate changes, and authorize staff to finalize and submit. Page 3 ׀ Measure P Citizens’ Oversight Committee Agenda October 22, 2020 4. CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MEASURE P SPENDING PLAN TO CHANGE TIMING OF EXPENDITURES IN CERTAIN EXPENDITURE CATEGORIES RECOMMENDED ACTION: Recommend City Council approval of proposed amendments. 5. DISCUSSION ON POSSIBLE REDUCTION IN COMMITTEE SIZE, CHANGE OF LOCATION, DATE AND TIME IN ORDER TO FACILITATE GREATER PARTICIPATION FROM COMMITTEE MEMBERS RECOMMENDED ACTION: Provide input and direction as the COC deems appropriate. STAFF PRESENTATIONS The items listed in this section of the agenda will consist of presentations by City staff members. No action is expected to be taken by the Committee on these items. If you wish to comment on one of these items, please submit comments electronically at: www.chulavistaca.gov/virtualmeetings. 6. MEASURE P ACCOUNTING AND ADMINISTRATION a. FY21 First Quarter Expenditures (David Bilby, Director of Finance) 7. MEASURE P PROJECT UPDATES a. Progress report on projects completed and underway (Iracsema Quilantan, Director of Public Works, William Valle, Director of Engineering & Capital Projects) b. Update on Loma Verde Recreation Center (Patricia Ferman, Principal Landscape Architect) c. Update on the Smart Irrigation Study (Tracy Lamb, Director of Community Services, Tim Farmer Parks & Recreation Administrator) 8. IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES AND POLICIES This item is reserved for Staff presentations and Committee input on issues and policies that are integral to the effective implementation of the Measure P program. OTHER BUSINESS 9. STAFF COMMENTS 10. COMMITTEE MEMBERS’ COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT to the regular meeting on January 28, 2021 at 6:00 p.m. in the Lunchroom of the John Lippitt Public Works Center, 1800 Maxwell Rd, Chula Vista, California. Page 4 ׀ Measure P Citizens’ Oversight Committee Agenda October 22, 2020 Materials provided to the Measure P Citizens’ Oversight Committee related to any open-session item on this agenda are available for public review at https://chulavista.granicusideas.com/meetings or by contacting the Finance Department at sdelap@chulavistaca.gov. Page 1 | Measure P Citizens’ Oversight Committee Minutes July 23, 2020 DRAFT MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE MEASURE P CITIZENS’ OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA July 23, 2020 Via Teleconference 6:00 p.m. Pursuant to the Governor of the State of California's Executive Order N-29-20, and in the interest of public health and safety during the COVID-19 pandemic, members of the Measure P Citizens’ Oversight Committee and staff participated in this meeting via teleconference. All votes were taken by roll call. CALL TO ORDER A Regular Meeting of the Measure P Citizens’ Oversight Committee of the City of Chula Vista was called to order at 6:07 p.m. in the Lunchroom of the Public Works Center, located at 1800 Maxwell Rd., Chula Vista, California and by teleconference. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Committee Members Firsht, Hunter, Lengyel, Martinez, Redo (arrived at 6:15 p.m.), Romo (left at 8:23 p.m.), Vigilante, Voorhees, Ziomek, and Chair Garcias. ABSENT: Committee Members Freels, Hurtado-Prater, Maldonado and Sheridan. ALSO PRESENT: City Manager Kachadoorian, Deputy City Manager Broughton, Deputy City Attorney II McDonnell, Director of Finance Bilby, City Clerk Analyst Hernandez, Engineering & Capital Projects Director/City Engineer Valle, Director of Public Works Quilantan, Assistant Director of Public Works Aguilar, Budget and Analysis Manager Prendell, and Management Analyst Delap. CONSENT CALENDAR Secretary Delap called for a two-minute pause to allow members of the public to submit any final electronic comments on items on the consent calendar. Secretary Delap announced that zero electronic comments had been received and zero comments had been received via email. 1.CONSIDERATION OF EXCUSED ABSENCE Committee Member Maldonado on April 25, 2019. Committee Members Sheridan on July 25, 2019. Committee Member Maldonado on November 20, 2019. Item 1, Attachment 1 Page 2 | Measure P Citizens’ Oversight Committee Minutes July 23, 2020 Staff recommendations: Excuse the absences. 2.APPROVAL OF MINUTES of November 20, 2019 and April 30, 2020. Staff recommendations: Approve the meeting minutes ACTION: Committee Member Romo moved to approve the consent calendar. Committee Member Firsht seconded the motion, and it carried, by the following roll call vote: 9-0. Yes: 9 – Committee Member Firsht, Hunter, Lengyel, Martinez, Romo, Vigilante, Voorhees, Ziomek, and Chair Garcias No: 0 Abstain: 0 PUBLIC COMMENTS Chair Garcias called for a two-minute pause to allow members of the public to submit any final electronic comments on items on the consent calendar. Secretary Delap announced that zero electronic comments had been received and zero comments had been received via email. ACTION ITEMS 3.APPOINTMENT OF COMMITTEE CHAIR, VICE CHAIR, AND SECOND VICE CHAIR FOR FISCAL YEAR 2020/21 TERM Committee Member Romo inquired why they needed to appoint a new chair; Deputy City Manager Broughton responded. Chair Garcias called for a two-minute pause to allow members of the public to submit any final electronic comments on items on the consent calendar. Secretary Delap announced that zero electronic comments had been received and zero comments had been received via email. City Clerk Analyst Hernandez announced Committee Member Redo’s audio was not working. ACTION: Committee Member Ziomek moved to re-appoint the existing Chair, Vice Chair, and Second Vice Chair. Committee Member Voorhees seconded the motion, and it failed, by the following roll call vote: 7-1. Yes: 7 – Committee Member Hunter, Lengyel, Romo, Vigilante, Voorhees, Ziomek, and Chair Garcias No: 1 – Committee Member Martinez Abstain: 0 Page 3 | Measure P Citizens’ Oversight Committee Minutes July 23, 2020 A break was taken to address technical difficulties experienced by the Committee and staff. Deputy City Attorney II McDonnell advised item #3 did not pass but could still be considered. Committee Member’s discussed the Vice Chair positions. Vice Chair Firsht offered to vacate the Vice Chair position, Committee Member Martinez said he was interested and spoke on his qualifications. Committee Member’s discussed the amendment and Deputy City Attorney II McDonnell confirmed it is an amended motion to select the existing Chair, Committee Member Martinez as Vice Chair and existing Second Vice Chair. Chair Garcias called for a two-minute pause to allow members of the public to submit any final electronic comments on items on the consent calendar. Secretary Delap announced that zero electronic comments had been received and zero comments had been received via email. Committee Member Romo requested information on the qualifications Committee Member Martinez. Committee Member Martinez responded. ACTION: Committee Member Ziomek moved to approve the amended selection of Chair, Vice Chair, and Second Vice Chair. Committee Member Firsht seconded the motion, and it carried, by the following roll call vote: 10-0. Yes: 10 – Committee Member Firsht, Hunter, Lengyel, Martinez, Redo, Romo, Vigilante, Voorhees, Ziomek, and Chair Garcias No: 0 Abstain: 0 Committee Member Romo requested information on the term of the Chair. Deputy City Attorney II McDonnell responded. Committee Member’s discussed the timeframe. 4.PREPARATION AND PRESENTATION BY THE COC TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE REQUIRED MEASURE P ANNUAL REPORT FOR FY19, AND POSSIBLE DIRECTIONS AND ACTIONS BY THE COC REGARDING SAME, INCLUDING FORMATION OF AN AD HOC SUB COMMITTEE Director Bilby spoke regarding the item. Committee Member Redo provided background on prior reports. Chair Garcias called for a two-minute pause to allow members of the public to submit any final electronic comments on items on the consent calendar. Secretary Delap announced that zero electronic comments had been received and zero comments had been received via email. Committee Member’s Romo, Redo, Martinez, and Chair Garcias volunteered for the Ad Hoc Sub Committee. Director of Finance Bilby and Chair Garcias discussed the timing of taking the report to Council. Page 4 | Measure P Citizens’ Oversight Committee Minutes July 23, 2020 ACTION: Committee Member Redo moved to approve the formation of the Ad Hoc Sub Committee selection. Committee Member Romo seconded the motion, and it carried, by the following roll call vote: 10-0. Yes: 10 – Committee Member Firsht, Hunter, Lengyel, Martinez, Redo, Romo, Vigilante, Voorhees, Ziomek, and Chair Garcias No: 0 Abstain: 0 5.CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MEASURE P SPENDING PLAN TO CHANGE TIMING OF EXPENDITURES IN CERTAIN EXPENDITURE CATEGORIES Engineering & Capital Projects Director/City Engineer Valle discussed the emergency CMP Council item. Committee Members Romo and Firsht asked questions, Engineering & Capital Projects Director/City Engineer Valle responded. Director of Public Works Quilantan discussed Public Works projects and the transferring of funds between projects. Committee Member Romo inquired about moving funds between projects and supporting the Fire Department. City Manager Kachadoorian responded. Chair Garcias called for a two-minute pause to allow members of the public to submit any final electronic comments on items on the consent calendar. Secretary Delap announced that zero electronic comments had been received and zero comments had been received via email. Committee Member Voorhees commented on abstaining from the vote due to the procedural matter of Council having approved the emergency CMP changes. Chair Garcias spoke on the oversight role of the COC. Director of Bilby spoke regarding revenue projections and unallocated funds. ACTION: Committee Member Firsht moved to approve the amended spending plan. Committee Member Romo seconded the motion, and it carried, by the following roll call vote: 9-0-1. Yes: 9 – Committee Member Firsht, Hunter, Lengyel, Martinez, Redo, Romo, Vigilante, Ziomek, and Chair Garcias No: 0 Abstain: 1 – Voorhees 6.DISCUSSION ON POSSIBLE REDUCTION IN COMMITTEE SIZE, CHANGE OF LOCATION, DATE AND TIME IN ORDER TO FACILITATE GREATER PARTICIPATION FROM COMMITTEE MEMBERS Page 5 | Measure P Citizens’ Oversight Committee Minutes July 23, 2020 Chair Garcias called for a two-minute pause to allow members of the public to submit any final electronic comments on items on the consent calendar. Secretary Delap announced that zero electronic comments had been received and zero comments had been received via email. Deputy City Attorney II McDonnell clarified any change in size of committee would need to go to Council any change in location, date or time can be done via Committee Resolution. Committee Members discussed various potential solutions. Committee Member Romo made a motion for the quorum to be lowered to 50% plus one attending the meeting, no second was made, and the motion failed. Deputy City Attorney II McDonnell provided direction on the item. Committee Members continued to discuss the item and staff responded. Chair Garcias asked Committee Member Firsht to work with staff and come back to the COC with recommendations. STAFF PRESENTATIONS 7.MEASURE P ACCOUNTING AND ADMINISTRATION Committee Member Romo left at 8:23 p.m. Director of Finance Bilby gave an overview of FY20 Fourth Quarter Expenditures. 8.MEASURE P PROJECT UPDATES Engineering & Capital Projects Director/City Engineer Valle reviewed the Engineering presentation for Fire Station 5 & 9 and provided a status of Engineering projects. Director of Public Works Quilantan reviewed the presentation on the status of Public Works projects. 9.IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES AND POLICIES There were no comments. Chair Garcias called for a two-minute pause to allow members of the public to submit any final electronic comments on items on the consent calendar. Secretary Delap announced that zero electronic comments had been received and zero comments had been received via email. OTHER BUSINESS 10.STAFF COMMENTS City Manager Kachadoorian advised on her promotion, the promotion of Deputy City Manager Broughton to oversee Measure P, the importance of the Measure and the COC, thanking them. Deputy City Manager Broughton spoke in support of the program. Chair Garcias asked questions, City Manager Kachadoorian responded. 11.COMMITTEE MEMBERS’ COMMENTS There were no comments. Page 6 | Measure P Citizens’ Oversight Committee Minutes July 23, 2020 ADJOURNMENT At 8:48 p.m., Chair Garcias adjourned the meeting to the next Regular Meeting on October 22, 2020 at 6:00 p.m. in the Lunchroom of the John Lippitt Public Works Center, 1800 Maxwell Rd, Chula Vista, California. ____________________________________ Sandi Delap, Secretary Page 1 of 9  DRAFT Annual Report of the Measure P Citizens Oversight Committee   Fiscal Year 2018‐19  Measure P Background  In November 2016, Chula Vista voters approved Measure P: a temporary, ten‐year, half‐cent  sales tax to fund high priority infrastructure needs. Collection of the sales tax began April 1, 2017.  The sales tax is projected to raise $178 million, which will be used to upgrade police, fire,  paramedic and 9‐1‐1 equipment, vehicles and facilities; fund streets and sidewalks; replace storm  drains to prevent sinkholes; improve parks; repair recreation facilities; and repair or replace other  city infrastructure.  Citizens Oversight Committee   The ballot measure also established a Measure P Citizens Oversight Committee (COC). The  Measure P Citizens Oversight Committee (COC) is composed of 16 members. The purpose of the  COC is to review and report on all Measure P expenditure plans, financial reports, and audits.  Eleven of the COC members serve as “Designated Members.” Designated Members were  nominated by local organizations and individuals such as the Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce,  Chula Vista Youth Sports Council, Chula Vista Growth Management Oversight Commission, and  the Chula Vista Police and Fire Chiefs. The remaining five members are “At‐Large Members”  selected from a pool of applicants who applied directly to the City. Five “At‐Large Members,”  included at least one resident from each of the four City Council districts and one nominated by  the Mayor.  The board is composed of 16 members appointed to a four‐year term.  Member Appointment  Criteria Term Expiring  Greg Martinez   District 1 Rep. 6/30/21  Christopher Redo (Chair) District 2 Rep. 6/30/21  Jason Hurtado‐Prater District 3 Rep. 6/30/21  Christopher Sheridan District 4 Rep. 6/30/21  Mona Freels At‐Large Rep. 6/30/21  Zulema Maldonado Designated Rep.1 6/30/21  Silvestre Vigilante Designated Rep.2 6/30/21  Lileana Robles Designated Rep.3 6/30/21  David Garcias Designated Rep.4 6/30/21  Todd Voorhees Designated Rep.5 6/30/21  Michael Lengyel Designated Rep.6 6/30/21  Hector Fernandez Designated Rep.7 6/30/21  Oscar Romo Designated Rep.8 6/30/21  Robert Ziomek Designated Rep.9 6/30/21  Donald Hunter  Designated Rep.10 6/30/21  Leon Firsht (Vice Chair)  Designated Rep.11 6/30/21  Item 2, Attachment 1 Page 2 of 9  Nominating Authorities are as follows:  1 ‐ Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce  2 ‐ Chula Vista Sports Council  3 ‐ Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment, San Diego Branch  4 ‐ San Diego and Imperial Counties Labor Union  5 ‐ San Diego County Taxpayers Association  6 ‐ Growth Management Oversight Commission  7 ‐ Parks and Recreation Commission  8 ‐ Sustainability Commission  9 ‐ Chula Vista Fire Chief  10 ‐ Chula Vista Police Chief  11 ‐ Chula Vista Director of Public Works  The specific duties of the COC are as follows:  1.Review and comment on each year's Finance Department Report (as defined in CVMC section 3.33.160.A); Measure P Spending Plan (as defined in CVMC section 3.33.160.B); and the Annual Independent Auditor’s Report (as defined in CVMC section 3.33.160.C). 2.Prepare an Annual Report regarding the Finance Department Report for presentation to the City Council at a public meeting. 3.Work with City staff to identify and apply "best practices" for tracking and reporting on Measure P revenues and expenditures relative to other City revenues and expenditures. Summary of fiscal year 2019 Independent Auditors’ Report on Compliance Revenues and  Expenditures  Major expenditures in the following categories incurred in fiscal year 2019:  Category FY 2019 Expenditures Major Items  Fire Services  3,610,687  Fire Vehicles, Fire Equipment, Facility Repairs  Police Services  1,615,789  Police Vehicles, Communication System,  Facility Repairs  Infrastructure  14,751,374   Streets, Other Public Infrastructure, Sports  Fields and Courts, Non‐Safety Vehicles, Public  Facilities, Traffic Signal Systems, Park  Infrastructure, Citywide Network  Replacement, Citywide Telecommunications  Staff Time    716,531  City Staff‐Time  Debt Service  8,120,250  Bond Debt Service  Administrative Expenses   12,243  Audit, Bond Administration Fees, Banking  Fees, Cost of Issuance  Total Expenditures  $      28,826,874   Page 3 of 9  Audited Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance  June 30, 2019  Revenues:  Local sales and use tax   20,016,492   Use of money and property  1,711,588  Miscellaneous  152,440  Total Revenues  $    21,880,520   Expenditures:  Contracted Services  7,450   Equipment and shared infrastructure costs  504,863  Capital outlay   19,712,435   Debt service:    Principal retirement  5,741,612    Interest and fiscal charges  2,860,514  Total Expenditures  $    28,826,874  Excess (Deficiency) of Revenues     Over (under) Expenditures  (6,946,354)  Net Change in Fund Balance   (6,946,354)  Fund Balance at Beginning of Year   69,075,056  Fund Balance as of June 30, 2019  $    62,128,702  Page 4 of 9  Plan Expenditures by Replacement Category  ($20,694,382)  Major Projects (Fiscal Year 2018/2019) by Cost Category  Fire Stations Repairs/Replacements (GGV0230):   Current activities include development of the Design/Build RFP for fire stations 5 and 9. The  scope, size, and features of the proposed Fire Stations 5 and 9 were analyzed by City staff,  including staff from the Fire Department. The locations of the new stations will be extensively  researched, and computer software technology called ADAM (Apparatus Deployment Analysis  Module) will be utilized to determine the optimum sites that provide the most reduction in  response times. The Fire Department’s present and future functional needs, technical constraints  and feasibility, and budget were considered in developing the project design criteria.   540,536  3,046,918  108,045  712,253  345,261  398,400  160,012  5,088,793 4,024,020  392,251  1,850,083  505,370  954,361  947,312  161,436  844,649  314,997 299,683  Fire Stations Repairs/Replacement (540,536)Fire Response Vehicles (3,046,918) Fire Safety Equipment (108,045)Police Response Vehicles (712,253) Public Safety Communication Systems (345,261)Police Facility Repairs (398,400) Police Equipment (160,012)Streets (5,088,793) Other Public Infrastructure (4,024,020)Sports Courts and Fields (392,251) Non‐Safety Vehicles (1,850,083)Recreation and Senior Centers (505,370) Civic Center and South Libraries (954,361)Other Public Facilities (947,312) Traffic Signal Systems (161,436)Park Infrastructure (844,649) Citywide Network Replacement (314,997)Citywide Telecommunications (299,683) Page 5 of 9  In March 2019, Council approved a Design Build Agreement with EC Constructors, Inc. for  design of Fire Stations 5 and 9. Estimated Completion: Spring of 2021.  Street Pavement Phases I & II (STL0427 & STL0430):    Pavement rehabilitation projects on various streets based on recommendations from City's  Pavement Management System for streets with pavement condition index (PCI). The PCI score  was utilized to identify failed (PCI 0‐25) and failing (PCI 25‐34) street segments that could be  addressed using Measure P funding.   Project STL0427 was awarded in January 2018, which was the first phase of the pavement  rehabilitation project and included street segments with PCI scores ranging from 0 to 15. The  second phase, STL0430, includes street segments with PCI scores up to 34. The second phase was  awarded by Council in April 2019. Estimated Completion: Summer of 2020.   Other Infrastructure ‐ CMP Rehabilitation Outside ROW Phases I & II (DRN0209, DRN0210, &  DRN0211):   Rehabilitation of failed Corrugated Metal Pipe (CMP) and other storm drain related repairs  outside the right of way. Project DRN0210 cleaned, videotaped and evaluated approximately  28,500 lineal feet of CMP.   Project DRN0209 began construction in March 2018 and was completed in March 2019. Twenty‐ eight CMP locations were repaired (3,419 linear feet of CMP) for a total project cost of $1.26  million.   Project DRN0211 will repair 136 CMP locations (approximately 19,000 linear feet of CMP) for an  estimated total project cost of $6.7 million. Contract Bids were opened in May 2019 and  construction is expected to be completed by December 2019.  Other Infrastructure ‐ Sidewalk Replacement Citywide (STL0428 & STL0443):   This project will replace damaged sidewalk at various locations throughout the City based on  recommendations from the Pedestrian Connectivity Plan. The first project (STL0428) to replace  sidewalks was awarded in June 2019 and is currently under construction. This second project  (STL0443) anticipated to be awarded in late summer of 2019 will repair roughly 6,200 locations  exhibiting moderate‐to‐small heave displacements. These repairs will be accomplished through  a multi‐year contract with a qualified on‐call concrete slicing contractor. Estimated Completion:  Summer of 2022.  Traffic Signal System‐Fiber Network (TRF0408):  Traffic signal replacements and improvements for 13 locations including: expansion of City fiber  optics, wireless and/or twisted pair communications, expansion of Adaptive Signal System, and  installation of traffic monitoring devices. Project is anticipated to start design in summer of 2020.  Page 6 of 9  Max Field/Loma Verde Accessibility Study (PRK0333):  City Council approved the creation of PRK0333 in September 2018. The City issued a Request for  Proposals and entered into an agreement with Hunsaker and Associates for the development of  the Max Field/Rienstra Park Accessibility Study in March 2019. The scope of work included an  evaluation of ADA access throughout Max Field (Rienstra Park), parking lot layout design to  increase ADA Accessible and overall number of stalls, an analysis for the drainage facility that  negatively impacts some of the ball fields and reestablishing the pedestrian connectivity to the  adjacent Loma Verde Center. Stakeholder meetings and community outreach will be performed  as part of the Accessibility Study effort. Estimated completion of the Max Field/Rienstra Park  Accessibility Study is summer of 2020.  Citywide LED Lighting Upgrade Project (GGV0232, GGV0233, GGV0234, PRK0326): $931,126   Phase I of this project was completed in April 2019 at a total cost of $931,126. This project  resulted in the installation of approximately 16,200 indoor LED lamps, 345 outdoor LED lights,  and 435 LED emergency lighting fixtures.   Civic Center Bathroom Remodel (GGV0231): $275,588  The total project cost is $275,588. This project was completed in June 2018. This project involved  the complete remodel of the Women’s and Men’s restrooms at the Civic Center Library, which  are located at the east entrance to the Library. These restrooms upgrades resulted in ADA  compliance and increased water efficiency.   Exterior Wood Surface Refinishing Project (GGV0234): $297,797  As part of this project, the exterior wood surfaces (doors, eves, benches, and trellises) at the Civic  Center Complex and Veteran’s Recreation Center were refinished and repainted. This project was  completed September 2018 at a total project cost of $297,797.  Harborside Park Resilient Surface Playground Replacement (PRK0326): $85,212  Total project cost $85,212. This project removed wood chips and replaced them with playground  poured rubber surfacing providing fall protection and a safe playground. This project was  completed in November 2018.   Pathway Resurfacing (PRK0326): $436,350  This project addressed pathway and walkway repairs and ADA access at three City parks –  Discovery, Greg Rogers, and Voyager Park. The total project cost is $436,350. This project was  completed in December 2018.  Resurfacing of Courts Citywide (PRK0327): $175,125  This project was awarded October 2017 and completed in December 2018. The project resulted  in the resurfacing of basketball and tennis courts at 22 locations at a total project cost of  $175,125.   Page 7 of 9  Irrigation and Controller Changeover Citywide Sports Fields (PRK0327): $185,227  Chula Vista Community, Discovery, Rohr Field 17 and 18 and Terra Nova. Total project cost  $185,227 (including FY2017).   Roof Replacement at Civic Center Library and Major Repairs at Civic Center Complex (GGV0231  & GGV0234): $865,050  This project replaced the roof at the Civic Center Library and addressed major roof repairs at the  Civic Center Complex (Buildings A, B, and C). This project was completed in April 2019 at a total  cost of $865,050.   Drinking Fountain Replacement at Various City Parks (PRK0326): $254,891  This project replaced 31 drinking fountains at 21 City parks with a standard drinking fountain  model that features 3 basins which accommodate ADA and pet hydration. This project was  completed in May 2019 at a total project cost of $254,891.   Reconstruction of Basketball Courts at Rohr Park (PRK0327): $335,536  This project resulted in the installation of new full‐size basketball courts at Rohr Park. A new  seating area, an ADA accessible picnic table, and a new drinking fountain were also added as part  of this project. This project was completed in April 2019 at a total project cost of $335,536.  Renovations at South Library (GGV0231): $92,381  Replaced 2 failed HVAC units and a new roof installation over the Literacy Wing. The new HVAC  units have improved energy efficiency and reliability. The new roof has a long‐term performance  guarantee. Total project cost is $92,831. This project was completed in November 2018.   Renovations at Norman Park Senior Center (GGV0233):  As of the end of fiscal year 2019, two (2) major projects were in the design phase. The first project  was the remodel of the kitchen and restrooms located on the ground floor. This project was  completed in fiscal year 2020; this project included the redesign of both the bathroom and  kitchen area and addressed ADA access to both locations. This project also improved the path of  travel from the parking lot to the building. The second project includes major repairs to the  exterior 2nd floor balcony deck and roof systems with the objective of eliminating water leaks in  the building and securing a long‐term performance guarantee. This project is slated to be  completed in Summer 2020.  Animal Care Facility (GGV0234):  The Animal Control (AC) Officers and Animal Care Facility (ACF) Dispatch currently work in a  trailer at the ACF. Work on the replacement of the existing trailer began in fiscal year 2019 but  was completed in fiscal year 2020. The trailer at the ACF was replaced with a new trailer that  provides for improved amenities, energy savings, and improved workflow for the AC Officers and  ACF Dispatch.  Page 8 of 9  Non‐Safety Vehicles:  Measure P allowed for the purchase of vehicles that were beyond their recommended  replacement date. The replacement of these vehicles improves reliability, reduces maintenance  and fuel costs and in some cases allowed for the transition to electric vehicles which supports  the City’s sustainability goals. An additional eleven electric vehicles were purchased in fiscal year  2019; 7 were assigned to Fire and 4 were assigned to Engineering. The vehicles listed below  represent only those not assigned to Safety. In fiscal year 2019 approximately $1.0 million has  been spent on public services vehicles. Major purchases include:  o One Bobcat Loader (Parks Division) o Two 5‐yard dump trucks o One 10‐yard dump truck o One Roadline stencil truck o One street sweeper o Four Chevy Bolts (electric vehicles) Conclusion  The Citizens Oversight Committee notes that this Annual Report refers only to the period from  July 1, 2018 to June 30, 2019. This report presents the second full year of collections and  expenditures for the Measure P funds. During this period the Committee took additional steps to  improve the format, content, and scope of reports on expenditures, work schedule, and public  information efforts required to provide citizens with transparency on the finances associated  with the implementation of Measure P.   In April 2017, City staff provided a status report to the Committee on the pending Measure P  bond issuance. The intent of the bond issuance was to advance the funds necessary to initiate  projects listed by the City as critical red assets (those in imminent stages of failure) in the City’s  Asset Management Plan.   On July 27, 2017, City staff reported to the Committee that the bond issuance had been  successful, generating $70,000,000 in net bond proceeds to be used for Measure P projects.  Accordingly, all budgets for the Measure P Spending Plan were prepared in compliance with the  ordinance, including the net bond proceeds.  The Citizens Oversight Committee has reviewed the Independent Auditor’s Report on  Compliance with Applicable Requirement prepared by the audit firm of Lance, Soll and Lunghard  (LSL), the Measure P Spending Plan, and various expenditure and revenue reports prepared by  the City staff. In its report dated June 30, 2019, the auditor “did not identify any deficiencies in  internal control over compliance…”.  Further, it was the auditor’s opinion that “the City complied,  in all material respects, with the requirements…” of the 2016 Measure P Sales Tax Fund.  We would like to acknowledge City staff for their dedication and support to the COC. They have  been responsive as we work to ensure transparency in the reporting of Measure P Funds.  Page 9 of 9  Attachment A – Copy of the FY19 Audited Report  Attachment B – Fiscal Year 2018‐19 Expenditure Report (For Informational Purposes Only)  ANNUAL ACTIVITY REPORT CITY OF CHULA VISTA BOARDS & COMMISSIONS FISCAL YEAR 2019‐2020 Board/Commission: Measure P Citizens’ Oversight Committee  Highlights of Activities during the past fiscal year:   The Measure P Citizens Oversight Committee (COC) is composed of 16 members. The purpose of the  COC is to review and report on all Measure P expenditure plans, financial reports, and audits. 1.Reviewed FY2019 Audited expenditures 2.Reviewed FY2020 quarterly expenditure reports 3.Made recommendations on Community Outreach for Measure P projects 4.Approval of FY21 MP budget 5.Approval of Amended Expenditure Plan  Board/Commission comments or recommendations to Council:  None  Item 3, Attachment 1 Infrastructure, Facilities and Equipment Expenditure Plan Funding Critical Priorities for a Stronger, Safer Chula Vista Item 4, Attachment 1 Infrastructure, Facilities and Equipment Expenditure Plan 2021 1  Amendment #7 Oct 2020  Introduction  The City of Chula Vista, like many cities throughout the country, is struggling to properly fund our  infrastructure needs. The City of Chula Vista (City) has been developing and implementing its Asset  Management Program to operate and maintain the City’s natural and built infrastructure.  Staff has  provided several updates to the City Council on the Asset Management Program. The presentations and  related publications can be found at www.chulavistaca.gov/infrastructure.      To address the City’s infrastructure needs and other City facilities and services, the City Council placed a  funding measure on the November 2016 ballot to address high priority infrastructure projects.  On  November 8, 2016, Chula Vista voters approved Measure P, authorizing a temporary ½ cent sales tax  increase on retail sales within the City for a period of ten (10) years. Staff prepared the Infrastructure,  Facilities and Equipment Expenditure Plan to identify the recommended allocation of the temporary ½  cent sales tax revenues which were originally estimated to generate $16 million per year. The updated  2020 revenue estimates are projected to generate $19 million per year.  The recommended funding is  based on the criteria established through the Asset Management Program which identifies the major  citywide infrastructure systems considered in critical need of repair or replacement.  Analysis conducted  by consultants experienced in evaluating infrastructure system conditions, ranked infrastructure from  lowest to highest probability of failure, identified a timeline for repair and replacement, and estimated  associated cost.  The sales tax revenues generated over the 10 year timeframe could address all  infrastructure assets designated with the highest probability of failure which, if not addressed, could  result in significant impact to public safety response or availability of highly used community  infrastructure.       Given the needs and limited availability of funds, the items proposed for funding under this plan  represent one‐time allocations of funds and not ongoing commitments. Funding of ongoing  commitments, such as salary and benefit increases, is not included in the Plan as they would result in  continuing financial obligations beyond the ten year temporary tax period.  Therefore, this Plan focuses  on the areas where one‐time funds could be used to address critical deferred maintenance or  replacement of city infrastructure improving safety and reducing risk to the City as well as strengthening  the City’s overall financial condition by avoiding costly emergency repairs or further deterioration of  existing failing infrastructure.    The following are the highest priority items for funding:   Pave, maintain and repair neighborhood streets and fix potholes Upgrade or replace aging police, fire and 9‐1‐1 emergency response facilities, vehicles and equipment Replace storm drains to prevent sinkholes Upgrade irrigation systems to conserve water and save energy Make essential repairs to older libraries, senior center and recreation centers Improve our Traffic Signal Systems Infrastructure, Facilities and Equipment Expenditure Plan 2021 2  Amendment #7 Oct 2020  Repair our Sports Fields and Courts and Park Infrastructure This Infrastructure, Facilities and Equipment Expenditure Plan also includes long‐term financing of  approximately $70.8 million in order to expedite the most critically needed repairs or replacements of  citywide infrastructure.  City Council approved the issuance bonds via Resolution 2017‐089 on June 6,  2017. This Plan also provides a component which identifies the potential annual allocations to projects  which could be included in the annual City Manager proposed Capital Improvement Budget for City  Council consideration and action.  Process for Creation of the Plan  Asset Management Program (AMP)   Since March 2014, the City has been working to enhance its asset management practices to promote  effective use of financial and physical resources and to develop a proactive approach to managing  infrastructure assets. As part of this effort, the City embarked on developing a comprehensive, citywide  Asset Management Program that includes the following asset management systems:   Wastewater Management System Urban Forestry Management System Building Management System Drainage Management System Parks Management System Roadway Management System Fleet Management System AMP Goals  The goal of the City’s Asset Management Program is to shift from reactive to proactive planning and  management of our infrastructure assets. The effort has helped the City to:  Gain better understanding of the current state of the infrastructure and its future needs Proactively identify the asset replacement and rehabilitation needs and plan the budget and resources accordingly Understand the probability and consequence of failure of each asset so that the City can manage high risk assets before failure and minimize the City’s overall risk profile Minimize the life‐cycle cost by incorporating latest technological advances in infrastructure to develop efficient and effective preservation and restoration strategies Develop a consistent and defendable methodology for prioritizing work and budget expenditure Focus on high benefit‐to‐cost ratio to ensure the budget is spent in the right place, for the right reason, at the right time, at the right cost Be transparent by involving the City Council and the public in the development of the Asset Management Program and the associated decisions Infrastructure, Facilities and Equipment Expenditure Plan 2021 3  Amendment #7 Oct 2020  It is important for the City to gain a better understanding and quantify current and future asset needs,  asset risk profile, appropriate levels of service, cost to provide services, and financial requirements to  sustain the delivery of services. City staff has worked to communicate this improved understanding of  the infrastructure status with the public and decision makers. This analysis and information has enabled  City staff to develop management strategies that deliver the established levels of service while  managing individual assets to minimize life‐cycle cost with an acceptable level of risk.   With this information, the City can better answer the following questions:   Catch Up – What levels of work, resources, and budget are required to bring the asset back to required conditional state to meet the safety, regulatory, and level of service requirements? Keep Up – Once the asset is caught up, what levels of work, resources, and budget are required to keep up the level of service? Moving Forward – What levels of work, resources, and budget are required to sustain the level of service? Asset Management Program Advisory Committee   To help identify the needs of our community and to evaluate the state of our infrastructure, the City  formed the Asset Management Program Advisory Committee (AMPAC) in March 2014. The committee  continues to provide input into setting priorities for the Asset Management Program.  Members of the AMPAC are residents, business owners, community leaders, and stakeholders.  AMPAC  members visited various asset management systems and observed and discussed the issues associated  with each system.  AMPAC reviewed the City’s overall Asset Management Program methodology and  helped to guide and reach consensus on how to address infrastructure deficits.  A technical committee was formed within AMPAC to further engage the public in the understanding and  review of the asset management methodologies and logic used to define preservation and restoration  costs and schedules.   A comprehensive inventory of assets took place for each asset management system. Where accessible,  assets were visited and their conditions were assessed. Based on the condition, actions required to  restore the asset were identified, and the cost and timing were estimated. Through assessment of risk  (probability and consequence of failures), activities were prioritized and communicated regarding  urgency and the financial and resource requirements.  Public Outreach and Public Opinion Surveys  In July and August 2015, the City of Chula Vista engaged a research firm to conduct a public opinion  survey to identify resident priorities and secure input on potential local funding mechanisms (bond or  sales tax) to upgrade, repair and maintain critical infrastructure. In addition, a survey mailer was  distributed to 54,000 households and an online version posted on the City website from January through  Infrastructure, Facilities and Equipment Expenditure Plan 2021 4  Amendment #7 Oct 2020  May 2016 to secure broad public input on infrastructure priorities. More than 3,000 responses were  received.   Public Opinion on Prioritizing Infrastructure Projects  Infrastructure, Facilities and Expenditure Plan   With the information gathered through the Asset Management process and community input, staff  developed this Plan taking into account projected available funding, priorities and timing considerations.  The actual allocations will be dependent on updated engineering cost estimates, project specific criteria  and available funding at the time the individual projects are proposed.    The following table presents the Infrastructure, Facilities and Expenditure Plan by Major Category.  On  page 14 of this Plan is a 10‐year outlook by fiscal year which includes long‐term financing to expedite the  most critically needed repairs/replacement of citywide infrastructure.    Infrastructure, Facilities and Equipment Expenditure Plan 2021 5  Amendment #7 Oct 2020  Infrastructure, Facilities and Equipment Expenditure Plan (By Major Category)  Plan Implementation   The ballot measure approved by the voters is anticipated to generate an estimated $196 million over a  10‐year period.  The projected revenues from the sales tax measure will address the items which are  considered high risk and in critical need of repair or replacement.  The estimated revenues will also  address approximately 11% of the assets identified as having medium probability of failure.    The measure provides that any proposed expenditures of new sales tax revenues in the initial year will  be presented in a form consistent with this Plan as budget amendments for City Council consideration.   For each subsequent year, the spending plan, after review by a Citizen Oversight Committee, will be  included in the City Manager’s proposed budget for Council consideration as part of the annual budget  process.   The measure requires that expenditure of new sales tax revenues be tracked in a variety of ways.  First  all new revenues will be accounted for in the General Fund as a separate line item.  Second, an  independent audit of measure revenues and expenditures will be performed and presented for public  review.  Finally, a Citizen’s Oversight Committee will review all proposed expenditure plans and all  audits.  Infrastructure, Facilities and Equipment Expenditure Plan 2021 6  Amendment #7 Oct 2020  Note:  This Plan is intended to guide City expenditures consistent with its terms.  It does not, however,  constitute a binding legal commitment on the City Council to approve any of the expenditures proposed  herein.  Provided that all proposed expenditures continue to be for City infrastructure, facilities and/or  equipment, this Plan may also be updated or amended from time to time by City staff, or by action of  the City Council, in order to address changed priorities, standards and/or funding availability.  There  shall be no third party beneficiaries to the terms of this Plan.  This Plan does not modify the terms of the  sales tax measure.  To the extent of any conflict between the terms of this Plan and the sales tax  measure, the terms of the sales tax measure shall govern.  Summary Description of Major Infrastructure Categories  To follow are descriptions of the major infrastructure categories within the Expenditure Plan. Included  within several of the categories described below is an emphasis on repairing and replacing existing  inefficient systems and equipment with newer, more efficient systems.  Funding for efficient systems  has been incorporated into the existing funding for police facility repairs, sports courts and fields, park  infrastructure, recreation and senior centers, libraries, and other public buildings.  Specific projects will  include: citywide lighting upgrades; citywide irrigation upgrades; citywide HVAC equipment  replacement; and other facility and park efficiency upgrades.  The projects will be consistent with the  priorities laid out in the original Measure P Expenditure Plan as well as the City's Smart Cities Plans.  The  projects will extend the life of the City's facilities and parks, allow for easier and more efficient  maintenance, and provide flexibility to allocate proper maintenance funds are in place to "keep up" with  ongoing maintenance on newly repaired facilities. Measure P funds will not be used to provide ongoing  maintenance.  Street Pavement:  One of the greatest challenges a City faces is maintaining, preserving and restoring its paved streets.   The City of Chula Vista utilizes the Streetsaver Pavement Management System to develop a multi‐year  pavement preservation program. The program has primarily been focused on sustaining more heavily  traveled major arterial and collector streets in good condition.  Through the Pavement Management  System, city streets are given a Pavement Condition Index (PCI).  The purpose of the pavement  management system is to enable the City to use its pavement dollars in the most cost effective manner  so that the overall pavement condition is as good as possible.  The pavement preservation approach  significantly prolongs the life of existing pavements for a fraction of what it would cost to rehabilitate  the street once it reached failure.  Unfortunately, local/residential streets have reached a failed state (0‐ 25 PCI) and the typical strategies used for preventative maintenance would be inadequate.  These  residential streets would require major rehabilitation.  The Measure P funding for Street Pavement  repair is intended repair these failed residential streets.  Additional information is available in the  Roadway Assessment Plan located at www.chulavistaca.gov/infrastructure.   Infrastructure, Facilities and Equipment Expenditure Plan 2021 7  Amendment #7 Oct 2020  Pavement Condition Index PCI = 21 PCI = 40 PCI = 68 PCI = 75 PCI = 95 Other Infrastructure (Storm Drains, Sidewalks, Trees, Drainage Systems)  Much of the City’s storm drain system is more than 50 years old.  There are approximately 13 miles of  corrugated metal pipes (CMP) located in the City of Chula Vista.  Some of the CMP have been  deteriorating due to their age and corrodible nature of the material.  According to the 2005 condition  assessment data, 1.8 miles of CMPs were recommended to be lined with CIPP liner and 0.4 miles of CMP  were recommended to be replaced immediately.  In order to accelerate the replacement of CMP and  address infrastructure needs in Western Chula Vista, the City issued $10.5 million in debt but despite the  City’s effort to reline and replace as much as possible of the problematic CMP based on the 2005 study,  not all pipe failures could be predicted.  In February 2015, a CMP located near one of the elementary  schools failed and created a sinkhole.  In order to prevent future failures and to drive lower life‐cycle  cost, the City utilized the asset management strategies to identify which CMPs have a greater risk of  failing.  As a result, the City repurposed $1.2 million from streets to fund CMP replacement or lining.   Additional information on the City’s Drainage system is located in the Drainage Asset Management Plan  located at www.chulavistaca.gov/infrastructure.  The City is committed to the goal of increasing the maintenance and number of trees within the city.   Healthy trees provide many benefits to communities, such as reducing storm water runoff, removing air  pollution, lowering summer temperatures, and reducing energy use in buildings.   Infrastructure, Facilities and Equipment Expenditure Plan 2021 8  Amendment #7 Oct 2020  Traffic Signal System:  Proposed funding could advance traffic signal replacements and upgrades that focus on improving two  major objectives: safety and performance. Each objective listed has a direct correlation to enhancing  safety at intersections or of City roadways while also improving efficiency and operability of the traffic  signal systems.  Tax measure funds could also be used as matching funds for federal, state and local  grants.  Improvements could include:  Replacement of aging or legacy traffic controllers and signal cabinet and equipment Replacement of rusted, faded or missing traffic signal back‐plates or signal heads Replacement of obsolete pedestal‐mounted traffic signals to overhead mounted traffic signals Repair and/or replacement of broken inductive pavement loops and failing video cameras Converting non‐actuated intersections to actuated Installation of pedestrian countdown indications and ADA compliant push buttons citywide Replacement of obsolete 8” traffic signal lamps to standard 12” traffic signal lamps Installation of Bicycle Detection System Citywide Replacement of legacy communications equipment and expansion of City Fiber Optics, Wireless, and/or Twisted Pair Communications Expansion of Adaptive Signal System Installation of Traffic Monitoring Devices: o Closed‐Circuit Television (CCTV) Cameras at intersection along Major Trolley, Freeway interchanges, or major cross streets in the City of Chula Vista o Expansion of Data Collection Systems to actively monitor Level‐of‐Service of City Streets o Changeable Message Sign System along Main Street to mitigate special event traffic for Sleep Train Amphitheater o Installation of Traffic Calming Devices Comprehensive Coordination Retiming Project Citywide Fire Response Vehicles (Apparatus):   The Fire Department’s fire apparatus fleet is currently experiencing excessive years of service.  This has  led to increased downtime, decreased reliability, and obsolete safety features.  The Fire Department and  Public Works Department are challenged on a daily basis with maintaining an adequate fire apparatus  fleet (frontline and reserve) due to the above factors.  The current fleet downtime report shows, for  every five days a fire apparatus is in service, it then requires one full day out of service for maintenance  and repair.  Fire apparatus replacement standards call for 10 to 12 years for front line service with five  years in reserve capacity.  Over half (10 of 17 fire apparatus) of the fire apparatus fleet exceeds 12 years  of service, three of which are beyond 20 years of service.  Funds could be used to replace Fire Engines  and Fire Trucks that are overdue for replacement by excessive maintenance expenses or obsolete  equipment improving response times.    Infrastructure, Facilities and Equipment Expenditure Plan 2021 9  Amendment #7 Oct 2020  Fire Equipment:   Major fire equipment needs include radio communications equipment, mobile data computer (MDC)  communications equipment, and respiratory protection breathing apparatus.  The City of Chula Vista participates in the Regional Communication System (RCS), which provides public  safety and public service radio communications to the San Diego County area.  Federal Regulations,  require the upgrade of the RCS to become compliant.  This requires its users to upgrade their handheld,  vehicle mounted, and dispatch radios to match the system backbone upgrade.  The Fire Department also uses mobile data computers (MDCs) to communicate critical emergency  incident information between response units and dispatch.  These MDCs are ruggedized, military grade  laptops to withstand use during emergency response.  These MDCs are beyond their useful life,  exceeding 10 years old and also no longer meet new operating system requirements to properly  communicate with dispatch.  The Fire Department is required to provide and maintain proper respiratory protection breathing  apparatus equipment for firefighting activity.   The current fleet of breathing apparatus is between 13 to  15 years old and beyond the useful life.  This has led to increased downtime, decreased reliability and  obsolete safety features.  Breathing apparatus are utilized when fighting fires and critical to the  protection of firefighter personnel.  Police Equipment:  Major equipment needs for the Police Department include body worn cameras, video management  system and replacement of network servers.  Use of body worn cameras has helped the Police  Department gather more evidence leading to successful prosecution of cases, as well as protecting both  the officer and citizens from allegations of excessive force or misconduct.  The video management  system will enable the Police Department to view recordings from different cameras when conducting  investigations and responding to calls.  In order to keep up with technology, network servers will be  updated in 5 year increments.    Fire Station Repairs/Replacements:   The Fire Department currently operates nine fire stations to provide a network of emergency response  service delivery.  Three of these fire stations are well beyond their service life.  Fire bay doors must be  enlarged to accommodate new fire apparatus and extensive termite treatment and repair is needed. In  addition, these fire stations are not compliant with seismic building codes.  Also, as emergency response  volume increases beyond the current network of response capacity, existing Fire Station 4 will require  expansion to accommodate a secondary response unit in order to meet the service delivery demand.   Funding is needed in order for the expansion to move forward and improve response times to the  community.   Infrastructure, Facilities and Equipment Expenditure Plan 2021 10  Amendment #7 Oct 2020  Police Vehicles:  There are 128 police vehicles in the Police Department. The vehicles in this fleet are technologically  complex and specially outfitted for law enforcement work. In addition to being very sophisticated pieces  of equipment they are subjected to very high levels of utilization. Approximately 41% of the fleet is  identified as needing replacement due to excessive repairs from high mileage and heavy use. The failure  of operating patrol vehicles would impact response times to the community.      Police Facility Repairs:   The Police facility is 12 years old and is in relatively good condition.  Although, the facility is in good  condition it is given the highest rating possible for Consequence of Failure. This is because the facility  operates 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.  The Asset Management Plan did identify a few items which  need immediate attention to avoid operational impacts with the most immediate being the replacement  of the heating and air conditioning system.  Failure of the system could cause disruption to critical  service delivery and the ability to dispatch police personnel.   Public Safety Computer Aided Dispatch System (CAD):  The Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) system is a critical Information and Technology (IT) component,  which serves as the lynchpin of the 911 emergency service frame work for the police department.  CAD  is critical because it is used to dispatch police officers to citizens’ calls for service, and its efficiency and  performance directly impact response times and officer safety. In 2015, the police department  processed 97,632 calls for service in the CAD system.  The department’s CAD system is also the central  repository for all records and data related to calls for service. It is a key performance measurement tool  used by supervisors and managers to make important tactical and strategic decisions.  Finally, the CAD  system’s reliability and stability are critical because it must have continuous availability.  In short, CAD is  the virtual and technical heart of all police department operations, especially pertaining to emergency  service delivery.  Public Safety Regional Communications System (RCS):  The Regional Communications System (RCS) provides public safety and public service radio  communications service to San Diego County, Imperial County, 24 incorporated cities, and a multitude  of other local, state, federal and tribal government agencies in the San Diego County/Imperial County  Region. The RCS infrastructure is approaching the end of its life cycle and must be replaced. The County  of San Diego has been working with member RCS partner agencies to plan for the replacement of the  RCS system with a “Next Generation” public safety interoperable communications system which will  comply with Federal Communications System (FCC) and the national Association of Public Safety  Communications Officials standards. These regulations set in place standards for communication  systems which allow for interoperability between different cities, agencies, and various state and federal  agencies. This has been done to ensure that during emergency events, various public safety and  emergency response personnel can communicate with each other.  The City of Chula Vista currently has  Infrastructure, Facilities and Equipment Expenditure Plan 2021 11  Amendment #7 Oct 2020  737 radios operating on the RCS. Based upon the radio count for the City, the approximate cost to the  City for participating in the Next Gen RCS project would be $4.5 million, not including financing cost. This  does not include the mandatory radio and equipment upgrades that would be needed at the City.   Other City Vehicles:  The “Other City Vehicles” comprises the remaining vehicles in the City’s inventory and supports all other  City provided services with the exception of those supporting the wastewater section.  These vehicle  replacements have been deferred for many years resulting in excessive repair costs.  The “out of  service” rates for many of these vehicles are at record highs impacting staff’s ability to provide services  to the community.  Funding is needed to replace these vehicles (including lawnmowers, pick‐ups, dump  trucks, forklifts, etc.) and help the City move toward a more environmentally friendly and economically  efficient fleet composition reducing emissions, fuel and related operating costs.  In addition, this  category includes the Fleet Infrastructure project for replacement of fuel systems, installation of EV  charging stations, a heavy duty in‐ground lift and replacement of the City’s obsolete fleet information  management system.   Sports Courts and Fields:  There is a high demand for use of the City’s various sports fields.  Most sports fields are reserved for City  programs coordinated through the Youth Sports Council.  The Youth Sports Council, which represents 22  member organizations in the City of Chula Vista, was formed in 1989 to assist the City in coordinating  youth sports programs and allocate field use in the City.  Due to the combination of budgetary cuts and  water use restrictions, the City’s sports fields are overdue for renovation including re‐seeding, aeration,  fertilizing, and in some cases sod replacement.  The Public Works department prepares a Field  Management Report which identifies the condition of the various fields.  The current Field Management  report, located at www.chulavistaca.gov/infrastructure identified four fields that are closed due to poor  condition of the fields.  Another 20 were classified as fair condition but at risk of deteriorating further.   This significantly limits the number of fields available to the various organizations providing youth sports  activities in the City of Chula Vista which includes participation of over 10,000 kids.       With additional funding, the sports fields could be brought back to good standings and available for field  allocation.  In addition, funds could be allocated to upgrade the irrigations systems to a smart system  allowing for efficient and effective water allocation which would assist in keeping the fields healthy even  through the drought.    In addition to the sports fields, there are a total of 62 tennis courts and basketball courts.  Based on the  most recent Court Management Report, located at www.chulavistaca.gov/infrastructure a total of 31  courts are considered in fair condition due to worn surfaces, visible cracks or separation and lifting  which will require replacement.   Infrastructure, Facilities and Equipment Expenditure Plan 2021 12  Amendment #7 Oct 2020  Park Infrastructure:  The City owns and manages 56 parks that cover approximately 560 acres.  The largest park, Rohr Park,  covers nearly 60 acres.  The asset management study identified several assets under the Park  Infrastructure category which included items such as barbeque grills, benches, drinking fountains,  irrigation controls, lights, picnic tables, play structures, playground surfacing, signage, trash bins, etc.   This Infrastructure, Facilities and Equipment Expenditure Plan recommends funding assets identified in  the AMP which are beyond their service life and in need of repair or replacement.  Additional details are  available in the Parks Asset Management Plan located at www.chulavistaca.gov/infrastructure.   Recreation and Senior Centers:  In 2015, there were nearly 800,000 visits to our recreation facilities participating in sports, recreation,  senior programs and other activities.  With nine recreation centers, two aquatic facilities and 56 parks,  the Recreation Department offers a myriad of opportunities for everyone to enjoy. Due to the high  volume use of these facilities any interruption or reduction in their availability directly impacts the City’s  residents. Additional funds could be used to replace roofs, water and waste water plumbing, heating  and air conditioning elements that have all reached or exceeded your expected service life.    More specifically, at the Norman Park Senior Center the condition assessment indicates that there is a  need to repair the perimeter exterior eaves, paint the interior and exterior of the building, repair the  kitchen and the restroom.   At Loma Verde Recreation Center the pool pump system, decking, lighting  and shower areas are also in need of repair.   The City’s newest recreation facilities, Salt Creek and  Montevalle, are now over 10 years old and are beginning to experience heating and air conditioning  failures and are in need of floor resurfacing throughout the gyms and classrooms.  Other facilities, such  as the Women’s Club, are also in critical need of repair or replacement.  Civic Center Library and South Chula Vista Library:  The Chula Vista Civic Center Library opened its doors in 1976 and is celebrating its 40th Anniversary.  The  Civic Center Library and South Chula Vista Library are highly valued and well used by the community.   Funding for the Library Department has been focused on increasing access to services and materials.   Over the years, through fundraising efforts by the Friends of the Chula Vista Library and Chula Vista  Public Library Foundation as well as State grants, the City has been able to do some cosmetic upgrades  to the interior of the buildings.  At this point, there is a need to address some more significant  infrastructure repairs such as the roof, water and waste water plumbing, bathroom upgrades, heating  and air conditioning systems that have all reached or exceeded their expected useful life.   Other Public Buildings: (Animal Care Facility, Living Coast Discovery Center, Ken Lee Building)  In addition to the buildings discussed previously, there are other public buildings such as the Animal  Care Facility, Living Coast Discovery Center, and Ken Lee Building which are also in need of heating and  air conditioning replacements, roof and plumbing repairs, flooring replacements, restroom renovations  and upgrades to meet ADA standards.   Infrastructure, Facilities and Equipment Expenditure Plan 2021 13  Amendment #7 Oct 2020  Citywide Network Replacement  The overall computer network which provides all the connectivity between PC’s, servers, phones and  other network attached devices throughout the City is outdated with 20% of the equipment beyond  end‐of‐life status, and a majority of the rest of the equipment within a year of end‐of‐life status. Due to  advancements in technology the City is proposing a complete restructuring of the City’s computer  network in order to bring it up to industry standards in terms of: 1) Capability to handle high‐volumes of  data traffic; 2) Provide industry standard reliability and redundancy to ensure near 100% up‐time across  the network; and 3) To ensure high levels of security and resistance to modern day malware/hacking  attacks. Measure P funds will be used to upgrade the network, which will directly benefit the community  by allowing for Smart City functionality which will reduce traffic congestion on streets, reduce associated  carbon emissions, enable enhanced energy savings in City buildings, provide advanced citizen  engagement through data sharing and capabilities of virtual City Hall, and enable enhanced security at  City parks and other locations.   In addition to updating the City’s network, the Public Works Department deploys approximately 45  laptops in the field in order for crews to be able to receive work orders in the field, and then capture  data regarding issues they see in the field back into our asset management systems. The current fleet of  laptops is over 5 years old and only has 3G wireless modems which allow them to transmit data back to  the Public Works Department. 3G’s data footprint in Chula Vista is shrinking due to wireless carriers  focusing on 4G and 5G deployments. There are many areas in the eastern portion of Chula Vista, which  do not have 3G connectivity. This means crews must return back to the Public Works Department to  enter data. Types of data transmitted include photos and videos which require high‐speed connections.  Additionally, older laptops are limited in terms of processing speed and memory, which affects overall  productivity of the laptop in a data rich environment. Measure P funds will be used to replace these  laptops which will provide time savings and better work productivity allocating more time for the crews  to be out in the field serving the public.  Citywide Telecommunications  Measure P funds will be used to upgrade its telecommunications system which is nearly 20 years old.  Although functioning, the back‐end equipment required to keep the phone system working is no longer  manufactured. This requires the City to find replacement parts through used equipment if any  equipment fails. Due to the age of the phone system, it is becoming extremely difficult to find used  equipment to keep the system working. The phone system is also very limited in terms of how it can be  used in a modern business environment. New modern systems are run over a computer network (Voice  Over I.P. – VOIP) rather than by an analogue system. Analogue systems have significant limitations on  how a phone system can be used, while more modern systems allow for video conferencing, computer  screen sharing, call following (“desk phone” can be accessed regardless of location), and other features  which increase productivity and responsiveness for employees to the public. An updated  telecommunications system will also significantly reduce the risk of systematic failure.  Infrastructure, Facilities and Equipment Expenditure Plan 2021 14  Amendment #7 Oct 2020  Annual Report of Board Commission AttendanceFiscal Year:2017‐2020KEY:  P ‐ PresentNA ‐ Not yet appointedQA ‐ AvailableBoard/Commission:Measure P Citizens' Oversight CommitteeE ‐ ExcusedC ‐ Meeting CancelledQANS ‐ Available ‐ No ShoDepartment:U ‐ UnexcusedQU ‐ UnavilableTotal # of meetings:QNR ‐ No ResponseFinance17Meeting DateVACANT Doyle‐Fernandez ‐ P&RLeon Firsht ‐ CV Dir of PWMona Freels ‐ @ LargeDavid Garcias ‐ SD & Imp Labor UnionDonald Hunter ‐ CV Police ChiefT. Michael Lengyel ‐ GMOCVACANT Maldonado ‐ CV ChamberVACANT Hurtado‐Prater ‐ D3Christopher Redo ‐ D2VACANT Robles ‐ Alliance of CA Coleman‐Romo ‐ Sustainability CommChristopher Sheridan ‐ D4Silvestre Vigilante ‐ CV Sports CouncilTodd Voorhees ‐ SDC Taypayer AssocWhitsell‐Martinez ‐ D1Robert Ziomek ‐ CV Fire Chief# of Absences3/28/2017PPPPPPPPPPPPPEPP14/18/2017PPPPPPEPPPPPPPPE27/27/2017PPPEPEPPPPPPEEPE59/28/2017EPEEPEPEPPPEPPPP611/30/2017EPPPPPEPPEPPPEPP41/25/2018PPPPPPEEPEEPPEPP54/26/2018UPEEPPPPPPEPPPPP47/26/2018N/APPPPPEEPUPEEP N/A P5S ‐ 11/1/2018PPPPUPEPPUPPPPN/AE4S ‐ 2/11/2019PPPPPPEPPUEEPEPP54/25/2019UPEPPEEUPUEPPPPP77/25/2019UPPPPPPUEUPEPEPE710/24/2019QQQQQQQQQN/AQQQQQQ‐S ‐ 11/20/2019UPPPPPEUP N/AUPUPPP51/23/2020QNR QU QANS QA QA QA QA QNR QAN/AQU QU QNR QU QA QA‐S Web ‐ 4/30/20N/APPPPPUUPN/APPPPPP2Web ‐ 7/23/20N/A PUPPPUUP N/A PUPPPP4Item 5, Attachment 1 2.25.105 Membership – Vacancies. A.Vacancies Mandated by the City Charter. If the City Clerk determines that a vacancy has occurred pursuant to Charter Section 602(c), the Clerk shall agendize the matter for City Council action. Between the occurrence of vacancy and the Council declaration of vacancy, the member shall be unable to continue serving as a board or commission member and shall have no duties of the office. The vacancy shall be effective on the date the Council declares the office vacant. B.City Employee. If a member becomes a paid employee of the City, the member’s status as a board or commission member shall automatically terminate. The effective date of vacancy shall be the date of hire. C.Member No Longer Qualified. If a member loses the status or classification that qualified the individual for his or her seat on a particular board or commission, unless otherwise provided in the board or commission membership rules, the City Clerk shall schedule the declaration of vacancy on an agenda of the City Council as soon as practicable after being informed of a qualifying circumstance. The vacancy shall be effective on the date the Council declares the office vacant. D.Removal for Cause. 1.A member may be removed for cause by three affirmative votes of the City Council. 2.A member may be removed for cause for the following reasons: a.Absence from more than 50 percent of the meetings of the board or commission in one fiscal year, whether or not excused by a majority vote of its members; b.Unavailability or conduct which interferes with the board or commission’s ability to conduct business; c.Failure to attend training sessions mandated by the City; d.Violation of any City policies or City, state or federal regulations that are the subject of mandatory training sessions; or e.Violation of the City’s code of ethics, which shall be processed in accordance with Chapter 2.28 CVMC. 3.A Council subcommittee comprised of the Mayor and Deputy Mayor shall monitor attendance and training records submitted pursuant to CVMC 2.25.120 and reports of situations described in subsections (D)(2)(b) through (D)(2)(d) of this section. The subcommittee may make recommendations to the full Council for a vote on the removal of a member for cause. 4.Prior to the subcommittee making a recommendation to the full Council for a vote on the removal of a member for cause, the member shall be notified and be provided a reasonable opportunity to submit an explanation for the subcommittee and Council’s consideration. 5.Should the Council vote affirmatively to remove the member for cause, the vacancy shall be effective on the date of the Council’s action. 2.25.105 Membership – Vacancies | Chula Vista Municipal Code Page 1 of 2 The Chula Vista Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 3489-A, passed May 26, 2020. Item 5, Attachment 2 The Chula Vista Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 3489-A, passed May 26, 2020. Disclaimer: The City Clerk’s Office has the official version of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. Users should contact the City Clerk’s Office for ordinances passed subsequent to the ordinance cited above. Note: This site does not support Internet Explorer. To view this site, Code Publishing Company recommends using one of the following browsers: Google Chrome, Firefox, or Safari. City Website: www.chulavistaca.gov Code Publishing Company E.Resignation. A member may resign by providing notice to the Chair, City staff, or the City Clerk. The resignation shall be effective on the date provided by the member, or, if no such date was provided, on the date the notice was given. (Ord. 3435 § 1, 2018). 2.25.105 Membership – Vacancies | Chula Vista Municipal Code Page 2 of 2 The Chula Vista Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 3489-A, passed May 26, 2020. 2.25.110 Attendance requirements – Excused absences. A.The City Council relies on advice of the City’s boards and commissions that grows from discussions among appointed members. The City Council anticipates that members appointed to the City’s boards and commissions will make every reasonable effort to attend all regular meetings of their respective boards or commissions, to attend special meetings, and to be prepared to discuss matters on their respective agendas. B.The City Charter requires that any board or commission member who is absent from three consecutive, regular meetings will be deemed to have vacated his or her membership on the particular board or commission, unless his or her absence is excused by a majority vote of the other members, as reflected in the official minutes of the board or commission. C.Board and commission members, by a majority vote, may excuse a fellow board or commission member’s absence from meetings for any of the following reasons: 1.Illness of the member, family member of the member, or personal friend of the member; 2.Business commitment of the member that interferes with the attendance of the member at a meeting; 3.Previously scheduled vacation of the member, notice of which was provided to the respective board or commission in advance of the meeting; 4.Attendance of the member at a funeral, religious service or ceremony, wedding, or other similarly significant event; 5.Unexpected, emergency situation that prohibits the member’s attendance; or 6.Other reason for which the member has given notice to the secretary of his or her unavailability at least seven days in advance of the meeting. D.Members shall vote on excusing a member’s absence from a regular meeting. The vote shall be reflected in the official minutes for the meeting at which the vote was taken. A member may vote to excuse his or her own absence. E.The secretary of each board or commission shall notify the City Clerk if a voting member misses three regular, consecutive meetings of the board or commission without being excused by a majority vote of the board or commission as expressed in its official minutes. The City Clerk shall proceed according to CVMC 2.25.105(A). (Ord. 3435 § 1, 2018; Ord. 3306 § 1, 2014; Ord. 3213 § 1, 2011; Ord. 3111 § 1, 2008). 2.25.110 Attendance requirements – Excused absences | Chula Vista Municipal Code Page 1 of 2 The Chula Vista Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 3489-A, passed May 26, 2020. Item 5, Attachment 3 The Chula Vista Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 3489-A, passed May 26, 2020. Disclaimer: The City Clerk’s Office has the official version of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. Users should contact the City Clerk’s Office for ordinances passed subsequent to the ordinance cited above. Note: This site does not support Internet Explorer. To view this site, Code Publishing Company recommends using one of the following browsers: Google Chrome, Firefox, or Safari. City Website: www.chulavistaca.gov Code Publishing Company 2.25.110 Attendance requirements – Excused absences | Chula Vista Municipal Code Page 2 of 2 The Chula Vista Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 3489-A, passed May 26, 2020. Measure PCitywide Infrastructure, Facilities and Equipment Expenditure Plan1/2 cent Sales Tax Revenues over 10 year periodSummary Table as of 9/30/2010‐YearTo DateFY 2019‐20To DateTotal by Major Category Timeframe Allocations Total Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 TotalsREVENUES:ASales Tax Revenues 195,249,278$      81,104,180$        42,084,180$     20,037,276$      ‐$                 ‐$‐$‐$‐$62,121,456$        BInvestment Earnings‐$ ‐$ 2,647,743$       944,122$           ‐$                ‐$‐$‐$‐$3,591,865$          CMiscellaneous‐$ ‐$ 152,838$           80,150$             ‐$                ‐$‐$‐$‐$232,988$             Total Revenues195,249,278$      81,104,180$        44,884,761$     21,061,549$     ‐$                ‐$‐$‐$‐$65,946,309$        EXPENDITURES:DFire Stations Repairs/Replacement 26,210,449$        25,253,040$        485,228$           6,572,672$       2,435,017$      ‐$‐$‐$2,435,017$       9,492,916$          EFire Response Vehicles19,847,580$        9,717,580$          5,737,443$       862,091$           276,830$        ‐$‐$‐$276,830$          6,876,363$          FFire Safety Equipment 5,197,913$          1,385,000$          463,854$           200,737$            ‐$                 ‐$‐$‐$‐$664,591$             Total Fire Services51,255,942$        36,355,620$        6,686,525$       7,635,499$       2,711,846$     ‐$‐$‐$2,711,846$       17,033,870$        GPolice Response Vehicles 12,951,470$        5,104,050$          2,701,498$       708,761$           47,490$           ‐$‐$‐$47,490$            3,457,750$          HPublic Safety Communication Systems 8,678,862$          4,268,078$          2,509,764$       537,559$           205,459$         ‐$‐$‐$205,459$          3,252,782$          IPolice Facility Repairs 2,101,000$          2,101,000$          657,880$           62,780$              ‐$                 ‐$‐$‐$‐$720,660$             JPolice Equipment 611,145$             243,384$             160,012$           13,154$              ‐$                 ‐$‐$‐$‐$173,166$             Total Police Services24,342,477$        11,716,512$        6,029,154$       1,322,254$       252,949$        ‐$‐$‐$252,949$          7,604,358$          KStreets23,643,861$        23,643,861$        7,345,523$       11,956,182$     509,025$        ‐$‐$‐$509,025$          19,810,730$        LOther Public Infrastructure 16,085,295$        11,831,000$        4,203,021$       5,466,618$       93,059$           ‐$‐$‐$93,059$            9,762,698$          MSports Fields and Courts 15,442,995$        2,061,400$          708,736$           4,740$                ‐$                 ‐$‐$‐$‐$713,476$             NNon‐Safety Vehicles11,195,100$        7,761,100$          3,073,765$       1,475,709$       55,316$          ‐$‐$‐$55,316$            4,604,789$          ORecreation and Senior Centers 14,676,617$        4,251,000$          565,917$           2,092,629$       293,108$         ‐$‐$‐$293,108$          2,951,654$          PCivic Center and South Libraries 4,032,000$          3,032,000$          1,224,173$       366,354$           37,759$           ‐$‐$‐$37,759$            1,628,287$          QOther Public Facilities 6,777,600$          4,794,812$          1,052,592$       1,042,660$       698,933$         ‐$‐$‐$698,933$          2,794,185$          RTraffic Signal Systems 7,000,000$          5,000,000$          164,285$           25,511$             107$                ‐$‐$‐$107$189,903$             SPark Infrastructure 10,307,740$        6,154,702$          1,312,176$       673,100$           13,666$           ‐$‐$‐$13,666$            1,998,942$          TCitywide Network Replacement 2,080,700$          2,080,700$          2,008,272$       76,067$              ‐$                 ‐$‐$‐$‐$2,084,339$          UCitywide Telecommunications2,155,602$          2,155,602$          1,797,647$       77,278$             117$               ‐$‐$‐$117$1,875,042$          Total Infrastructure113,397,510$      72,766,177$        23,456,107$     23,256,848$     1,701,090$     ‐$‐$‐$1,701,090$       48,414,046$        Total Allocations188,995,929$      120,838,309$      36,171,786$     32,214,601$     4,665,886$     ‐$‐$‐$4,665,886$       73,052,273$        VCity Staff Time‐$ ‐$ 1,329,726$       774,352$           181,474$        ‐$‐$‐$181,474$          2,285,552$          Total City Staff Time‐$ ‐$ 1,329,726$       774,352$           181,474$        ‐$‐$‐$181,474$          2,285,552$          WDebt Service Principal & Interest 78,234,834$        32,251,834$        15,994,584$     8,128,750$        ‐$                 ‐$‐$‐$‐$24,123,334$        Total Debt Service Expenses78,234,834$        32,251,834$        15,994,584$     8,128,750$       ‐$                ‐$‐$‐$‐$24,123,334$        XAudit 48,773$               15,302$               10,150$              ‐$‐$                ‐$‐$‐$‐$10,150$               YBond Administration65,356$               20,505$               50,543$             2,000$               ‐$                ‐$‐$‐$‐$52,543$               ZBanking/Investment Fees‐$ ‐$ 9,758$               ‐$‐$                ‐$‐$‐$‐$9,758$ AACost of Issuance 563,210$             563,210$             553,023$            ‐$‐$                ‐$‐$‐$‐$553,023$             Total Administrative Expenses677,339$             599,017$             623,475$           2,000$               ‐$                ‐$‐$‐$‐$625,475$             Total Expenditures267,908,102$      153,689,160$      1    54,119,570$     2    41,119,703$     4,847,360$      ‐$‐$‐$2    4,847,360$       100,086,633$      Notes:1Audited Total2Unaudited Total3FY19 Actuals include $3,263 audit error and $11,252.63 posted retention vs. actual DrawdownsPrior FYTotalsFY 2020‐21TotalItem 6a, Attachment 1 MAX FIELD/RIENSTRA PARK Accessibility Study MAX FIELD / RIENSTRA PARK Accessibility Study September 24, 2020 Item 7a, Attachment 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Project Introduction 3 Problem Statement 4 Site Analysis Land ownership 5 Existing Conditions 6 Site biology 7 Geotechnical Investigation 8 Process 9 Plan Recommendations Site Master Plan 10 Zone 1 11 Zone 2 14 Zone 3 16 Zone 4 17 Zone 5 18 Zone 6 19 Appendix 20 A - Full Size Plan B - Cost Estimate C - Geotechnical Report D - Biological Memo MAX FIELD / RIENSTRA PARK Accessibility Study September 24, 2020 MAX FIELD / RIENSTRA PARK Accessibility Study September 24, 2020 3 PROJECT INTRODUCTION Provide ADA Compliance Upgrades to Park Elements at and around Ball Fields •Walkways, ramps and stairs •Dugouts •Bleachers •Seating areas •Parking areas Improve Access to Adjacent Areas •Restored connection to Loma Verde Recreation Center & Loma Verde Elementary School •Connection to potential SDG&E overflow parking lot Accommodate Current and Future Parking Needs •Increased parking opportunities •Overflow parking options, including recreation center parking lot Local map Background Max Field / Rienstra Park is a neighborhood park located in an established neighborhood located at 1500 Max Avenue within the City of Chula Vista. The 13.26 acre park spans two parcels and consists of 7 baseball fields of varying dimensions for a range of age levels of organized sports play. The park is home to numerous sports leagues including South Bay Little League, PONY baseball and softball and a Challenger division providing team participation for disabled youth. The site also has bleachers, restroom facilities, a 107-stall parking lot and two concession stands. The concession stands are not city owned facilities; they are owned and operated by each of the two youth baseball leagues operating on site between February/March and July of each year. The park is adjacent to the Loma Verde Recreation Center and was previously linked by a wooden staircase and pedestrian bridge, which were originally installed in the 1980's and provided park users with easy access to the recreation center parking lot over the Palm Road Drainage Channel. The staircase and pedestrian bridge fell into disrepair and were removed in the summer of 2018 at the end of its lifespan, when it was identified as a potential risk for public safety. This study addresses park accessibility concerns, upgrades to deteriorating park components, parking needs and restoration of the connection to the Loma Verde Recreation Center across an existing drainage channel. The baseball fields' high use cannot be fully accommodated with the park's existing parking lot; overflow parking options are required to meet demand. The City of Chula Vista funded this study through Measure P a temporary ten-year tax to fund high priority infrastructure needs. This report summarizes the suggested improvements in accordance with the project goals and objectives listed below. Goals & Objectives N 3/27/2020 Chula Vista - Google Maps https://www.google.com/maps/place/Chula+Vista,+CA/@32.6316887,-117.164615,11z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x80d94e4565c3aacf:0x46ccb8734b8f2bd3!8m2!3d32.6400541!4d-117.0841955?hl=en 1/3 Map data ©2020 INEGI 2 mi Chula Vista ê Regional mapN Identify and Improve Drainage Issues •Palm Road Drainage Channel •Bioretention planting areas Conform to Chula Vista Landscape Manual •Improvements to parking lot and stall sizes •Improvements to landscape with trees and planting Upgrade, Repair and Improve Access to Existing Structures •Concessions buildings •Restrooms •Retaining Walls Identify Additional Improvement Opportunities •Future improvements outside of the current project scope E. O R A N G E A V E MAX AVE MAX FIELD / RIENSTRA PARK Accessibility Study September 24, 2020 4 B. Walkways have steps without equal accessible sloped or ramped option D. Cage posts in dining area block circulation routes, and site furnishings do not meet clear floor area requirements A. Some routes around fields are not developed or accessible F. Retaining walls are cracked and deteriorating C. Dugout entry and exit are not accessible and require crossing a step E. Drainage infrastructure is aging and is not protected from adjacent walkways; sloped paving areas exceed maximum slope requirements PROBLEM STATEMENT Existing Site Issues Parking Capacity and Layout •The existing parking lot does not accommodate the quantity of visitors during events or peak use. Use of adjacent land parcels for overflow parking will require coordination with other land owners. (see Parcel Map on page 5 for land ownership) •Overflow parking was previously accommodated at Loma Verde Recreation Center. Restoration of a pedestrian connection to the recreation center will enable use of its parking lot and reduce the park’s impact to the surrounding neighborhood. •The existing parking lot stall sizes and layout do not meet current Chula Vista Municipal Code size requirements. Improvements to the parking lot will need to correct the stall sizes as well as address non-compliant slopes at ADA parking stalls, which are currently too steep. Non-Accessible Connections and Amenities •Pedestrian connections around ball fields and to surrounding streets are incomplete or not fully accessible. (see image A) •Circulation routes include steps or stairways without equal ADA access ramps. (see image B) •Pedestrian connections to vehicular areas such as parking lots lack required detectable warnings for people with vision impairments. •Existing pedestrian paths exceed maximum slope requirements. •Dugouts lack required ADA clearances and have stepped entries that prevent a flush accessible entry. (see image C) •Seating areas do not have required circulation clearances or accessible seating options. (see image D) •Bleacher locations prevent required ADA circulation clearances. •Restoration of connection across Palm Road Drainage Channel is required to access Loma Verde Recreation Center and its parking lot. Site Infrastructure •Existing v-ditch and other drainage infrastructure is failing, leading to downhill erosion. (see image E) •Retaining walls are deteriorating and failing. (see image F) Vegetation and Soils •Some steep slope areas lack vegetation and are subject to erosion. •Development of vegetated areas of the site will require mitigation per Biological Resources Study. (See Site Biology on page 7 for locations) •Adjustments to the Palm Road Drainage Channel will require extensive permitting. A range of existing conditions inform and guide the proposed improvements to the park. In order to meet the accessibility and compliance goals of the master plan, issues related to site context and existing infrastructure are explored and addressed. These issues include but are not limited to: MAX FIELD / RIENSTRA PARK Accessibility Study September 24, 2020 5 SITE ANALYSIS SDG&E owned land Parcel map showing contextual land ownership SDG&E SDG&E E. ORANGE AVE LARKHAVEN DRMAX AVE N Land Ownership The land to the north and northeast of the park entrance are under SDG&E ownership. This master plan discusses the option for a potential overflow parking lot on the SDG&E land. Any improvements to these parcels will require additional permission and coordination with SDG&E. A utility enclosure maintained by SDG&E and a pump station maintained by the City of Chula Vista are both within the park property. For purposes of this study it was assumed that these existing utilities should remain in place and provide constraints on emergency access. Relocation or changes to these utilities could provide an overall benefit to the project but require coordination with SDG&E and the City of Chula Vista. LOMA VERDE RECREATION CENTER & ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Existing SDG&E utility enclosure Existing Max Field Sewage Pump Station SDG&E utility enclosure City of Chula Vista CV pump station MAX FIELD / RIENSTRA PARK Accessibility Study September 24, 2020 6 SITE ANALYSIS E. ORANGE A V E MAX AVELARKHAVEN DRSDG&E Park Rienstra Park Site analysis diagramN Existing Conditions The existing park is situated between Max Avenue to the east and E. Orange Avenue to the south. While its context near residential communities and the Loma Verde Recreation Center are opportunities for the park, its physical conditions and layout need to be accounted for in planning for park accessibility and use. SITE OPPORTUNITIES Proximity •The park is nestled in a valley between an established residential communities, and within close proximity to Loma Verde Recreation Center & Elementary School. •The park is within close proximity to open space to the north. Views •Steep slopes on both sides of the park allow views into it from the adjacent homes, school and community center. SITE CONSTRAINTS Vehicle Parking and Circulation •The current parking lot layout is inefficient and does not conform to the City of Chula Vista Municipal Code. Stall size and layout do not meet parking standards, and ADA parking stalls exceed maximum grade requirements. •Existing parking contains inadequate standard and van accessible parking stalls. Pedestrian Circulation •Steps, staircases and steep slopes to accommodate changes in grade create inaccessible routes. •The current locations of the bleachers for each field sit within the walkways and in some places prevent appropriate circulation clearances. •Field dugouts contain one step down creating a trip hazard as well as preventing universal access. •Overhead posts from the field backboards are obstructions resulting in non-compliant seating areas. Access to Surrounding Context •The park lacks any physical connection to the Loma Verde Recreation Center and Loma Verde Elementary School. A former wooden stairway previously connected the park with the Loma Verde Recreation Center, but it was removed after it fell into disrepair at the end of its life cycle. •Bus stops are nearby on E. Orange Avenue at Loma Lane, however the E. Orange Avenue park entrance is now closed. Park visitors must enter the park through a gated entry on Max Avenue. Steep Slopes •Moderate erosion has taken place on the site due to the removal of existing trees and lack of a protective vegetation layer. •The growth of permanent vegetation has not been successful partially due to lack of appropriate irrigation. •The site geology of sandstone and sand contributes to its erosive nature. •The existing V-ditch was constructed with the original fields in the 1960s. It has deteriorated and cracked; runoff has both overtopped or run below it, which adds to slope erosion (see red V-ditch on Biological Resources Map). Park Steep Slopes Non-compliant Parking Non-compliant Hardscape Structures Views Former Bridge Failing Retaining Walls Former Access Gate Pedestrian Circulation Informal Pathways Drainage Legend LOMA VERDE RECREATION CENTER & ELEMENTARY SCHOOL LOMA LN MAX FIELD / RIENSTRA PARK Accessibility Study September 24, 2020 7 SITE ANALYSIS Biological Resources Map Site Biology The existing site is largely comprised of developed land and associated non-native landscapes. Confining redevelopment to the existing developed areas, such as the ball fields, parking lot and facilities, will limit impacts to biological resources. Any changes to the undeveloped areas, such as the vegetated slopes or stream channel, will require additional coordination, review, permitting and mitigation. These requirements are listed below and further described in the Biological Review memorandum in Appendix C. Vegetation •A site visit was conducted in July 2019 to evaluate general vegetation communities and the potential to support special-status wildlife plant species. General vegetation mapping with general locations and habitat types is shown at right; focused surveys for rare plants or sensitive wildlife species were not conducted. Sparse, non-native vegetation zones are found along the park’s steeply sloped sides. •Some pockets of disturbed habitat can be found within non-native grassland. •Impacts to non-native grassland require mitigation ranging from 0.1:1 to 1:1 per the Chula Vista Subarea Plan. •Impacts to maritime succulent scrub require mitigation ranging from 1:1 to 2:1 per the Chula Vista Subarea Plan. •A biologist should review the path location between the Loma Verde Recreation Center / Loma Verde Elementary School and the park to determine that it is located within the least sensitive portion of the project site. Palm Road Drainage Channel •Boundaries of existing channel were mapped with a GPS unit in July 2019, although a formal jurisdictional delineation for the site was not conducted. The existing channel and wetland delineation flow north to south and follow the western portion of the park, as shown in blue at right. •The Biological Review recommends locating all development outside of the Palm Road Drainage Channel. Any impacts to the drainage channel will require permits from the following regulatory agencies: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). •Bridging the channel would not require permits listed above or associated mitigation, as long as all abutments are outside of the channel limits. N Project Boundary Channel Limits 26 x 5’ Culvert Vegetation V-Ditch Legend Developed Maritime Succulent Scrub Non-Native Grassland Non-Native Woodland Sparsely vegetated slopes Drainage channel along park’s western edge E MAX FIELD / RIENSTRA PARK Accessibility Study September 24, 2020 8 SITE ANALYSIS Geotechnical Investigation A geotechnical investigation was completed in June 2020 to study slope erosion issues and the retaining wall damage for the slope and retaining wall extending to the west and southwest from Max Avenue. It addressed both engineering geologic and geotechnical conditions through literature review, field exploration, laboratory testing, conclusions and recommendations. Observations and recommendations are list below, with additional and complete recommendations described in the full Geotechnical Report in Appendix D. Slope Stabilization and Remediation • The slope’s loose colluvial soil can move down slope due to gravity and surface runoff, especially in areas where there is no vegetation. The bedrock units are fairly young, are not well cemented and are made of up mainly sand. Over time the bedrock units have eroded and that subsequent soil has moved downslope through natural processes. Temporary stabilization methods are recommended in the areas where erosion has occurred, in addition to minor work to lower any areas over steepened from erosion. • The slope appears stable and is 3:1 (horizontal to vertical) at it’s steepest and 5:1 at the retaining wall. There are no indications of deep slope failure; areas where vegetation has not regrown reflect typical surface instability. • Vegetation on the slope is not supported by a permanent irrigation system. Vegetation has not regrown in areas of surface erosion. The addition of an irrigation system and hydroseeding the slope are recommended to protect the slope from surface erosion. • Ground squirrel burrows on the slope accelerate erosion of the slope face. A program should be implemented to limit the burrows on the slope. • A concrete v-ditch on the slope is in poor condition. Runoff that overtops the v-ditch or runs under it erodes the downslope side of the v-ditch and sometimes allows water to run underneath it. It is recommended to reconstruct the v-ditch and to install a new drainage system to current standards. A maintenance program should also be incorporated to clean the v-ditch of soil, to fill cracks in the v-ditch and to repair areas of erosion around the v-ditch. • Additional recommendations to reduce surface water runoff and address loose soils are included in the Geotechnical Report. Retaining Wall • The 55-60 year old masonry retaining wall at the base of the slope ranges from 2 feet to about 7-8 feet in height. It is in poor condition and appears to have had modifications in the past and have several cracks and areas that are bulging outward. The retaining wall has deteriorated likely due to elevated salt levels in the air, a lack of a drain behind the wall, previous modifications to the wall and the pressure being exerted on the wall by the vegetated slope. • The Geotechnical Report recommends removal and reconstruction of the retaining wall using current standards and materials. It also recommends removal of vegetation within 5 feet of the top of the wall to reduce pressure at the backside of the new wall, removal of loose soil behind the top of wall and construction of a v-ditch at the top of the wall to divert runoff to drainage inlets. Max Field at Rienstra Park Retaining Wall and Slope Erosion City of Chula Vista RMA Job No.: 20-0287-01 Figure 1 SITE LOCATION MAP Base Map: Google Earth SITE Area with little or no vegetation Max Field at Rienstra Park Slope Erosion and Retaining Wall June 19, 2020 City of Chula Vista RMA Job No.:20-0287-01 Figure 3 Photograph 5. V-ditch with grass growing cracks and joints in concrete.Grass growing on downslope side of v- ditch. Photograph 6. V-ditch with downslope erosion undermining v-ditch. Typically caused by surface runoff running over v-ditch and not being diverted to run down the v-ditch. Areas with little or no vegetation Downslope erosion undermining v-ditch, typically caused by surface runoff running over v-ditch N Max Field at Rienstra Park Slope Erosion and Retaining Wall June 19, 2020 City of Chula Vista RMA Job No.:20-0287-01 Figure 3 Photograph 3. Area on east end of project with little or no vegetation exposing sandstone. Photograph 4. Area in center of project, just west of snack bar without vegetation and higher erosion. Exposes pebble conglomerate and sandstone at base of exposure. Slope with little or no vegetation and exposed sandstone Max Field at Rienstra Park Slope Erosion and Retaining Wall June 19, 2020 City of Chula Vista RMA Job No.:20-0287-01 Figure 3 Photograph 15. Horizontal crack in wall with drain line exiting center of wall, area east of snack bar. Photograph 16. Damage to top course of wall, note loose soil at top of wall along with vertical cut into bedrock at top of photograph indicating that wall was not built high enough or upper courses of block were removed. Damage at top of retaining wall. Visible loose soil and vertical cut into bedrock indicate that wall is not high enough or upper course(s) of block have been removed. MAX FIELD / RIENSTRA PARK Accessibility Study September 24, 2020 9 PROCESS Community Outreach The first community outreach meeting was an opportunity to discuss the project goals and scope with the community, answer questions about the project and allow a chance for open feedback. Comments from the community included a variety of topics. The discussion items have been summarized as items that are within the Measure P scope of work and those that are potential long term improvements that could be completed to further enhance the park, increase functionality and/or safety. In-Scope Improvements Ū Pedestrian bridge Ū Channel cleanup/restoration Ū Locking gates/controlled access Ū Trees and planting Ū Sidewalks around little league fields Ū Improved parking Ū Restore entrance/exit Out-of-Scope/Long-term Improvements Ū New concessions building Ū Extra bathrooms Ū Sports lights Ū Fencing Ū Safety lighting Ū Trails/pathways to transit station Ū Doggie bags Ū Accessible SDG&E trails Community Workshop #1 Community Workshop #1 MAX FIELD / RIENSTRA PARK Accessibility Study September 24, 2020 10 PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS Overall Plan (full size plan in Appendix A)N MAX AVELARKHAVEN DRSDG&E Parcel Potential Gravel Overflow Parking Netlon Overflow Parking E. ORANGE AVE Ball Field #1(ADA Field) Ball Field #2 Ball Field #3 Ball Field #4 Ball Field #5 Ball Field #6 Ball Field #7(Tee-ball) 1 2 3 4 5 6 Site Master Plan Concrete Asphalt Gravel Decomposed granite Ballfield turf Planting area Surrounding native planting Netlon Drainage Dugout Bleachers Structure Project Limit of Work Legend Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Legend Phasing planN The overall site plan illustrates park improvements, adjacencies, and the project limit of work. This master plan divides the site into 6 zones for more detailed discussion on the following pages. A full size plan with conceptual spot elevations can be found in Appendix A. Both short term and long term improvements are described in this document. Improvements in Phase 1 area are high priority areas around fields 1-4 and are in the most heavily utilized portion of the park. They consist primarily of ADA access, sidewalk upgrades, retaining wall construction and the new pedestrian bridge connection to the Loma Verde Recreation Center & Loma Verde Elementary School. Improvements in Phase 2 include upgrades to the south end of the park including new sidewalks, field upgrades to the smaller fields, a pedestrian connection to East Orange Avenue, and potential overflow parking lot access off the old access point from East Orange Avenue. Phase 3 consists of potential improvements on the SDG&E owned land and may include an overflow gravel parking lot (east of Max Ave,) enhanced trail connections, site amenities or program. Phase 3 also includes upgrades throughout the park that are not considered to be ADA or maintenance issues such as sports lighting, new concessions and/or restrooms. Loma Verde Recreation Center & Loma Verde Elementary School 120'60'0' SDG&E Parcel MAX FIELD / RIENSTRA PARK Accessibility Study September 24, 2020 11 PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 7 5 9 Ball Field #2 10 N Site plan enlargement 11 12 Ball Field #1 (ADA Field)MAX AVE4 5 1 2 3 6 7 8 10 ADA parking stall reconfigured to meet City of Chula Vista Municipal Code requirements (see page 13 for parking layout enlargement) Realign existing fencing to allow a minimum five foot sidewalk around the ballfield New retaining walls, allowing for grade adjustments and soil retention Existing scoreboard to remain New CMU or cast-in-place concrete retaining walls at ramps and location of existing deteriorating retaining walls (see image 3 on page 12) Eliminate step between dugouts and adjacent walks/field (see image 2 on page 12) Adjust bleacher locations to allow minimum 5 foot wide circulation paths, with minimum 3 foot clearance at pinch points Seating area adjustments to allow clear path of travel ADA ramp with handrails (width varies: 8 - 11 feet wide, 1:12 maximum slope) New parking lot layout (see page 13) Cast-in-place concrete stairs with handrails and cheekwall, allowing circulation at approximately four feet of grade change. Directional signage to be located per ADA requirements. Existing channel / wetland Existing trail between Loma Verde Recreation Center / Loma Verde Elementary School and Max Ave Existing sewer pump station Existing V-ditch renovated for proper site drainage and to prevent future erosion 9 11 12 13 13 Zone 1 Site Improvements Legend 3LIMIT OF WORKLIMIT OF WORKLI M I T O F W O R K +164.25 +163.99 160.50+ 164.50+ +154.00 +156.50 PROPERTY LINEN Key plan 14 15 14 15 6 7 See page 13 for parking layout enlargement ZONE 6 MATCHLINE, SEE PAGE 19ZONE 2 MATCHLINE, SEE PAGE 14 156.50+ 163.25++161.00 +161.00 +164.00 2.8%1.5%1.6%8.1%60'30'0'PROPERTY LINE2 MAX FIELD / RIENSTRA PARK Accessibility Study September 24, 2020 12 PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS Zone 1 4. Stepping walkways between field #1 and #2 are to be replaced with compliant pathways. 3. A new ADA ramp with handrails and retaining walls will replace an existing staircase between Fields #1 and #2, where there currently is no equal accessible route. 2. Adjustments to site grades will remove the inaccessible step condition at dugout entries. 1. Improvements to Field #1 include paved accessible routes all the way around Field #1. This can be accomplished through adjustments to site grading and field fence locations. Existing Site Photos MAX FIELD / RIENSTRA PARK Accessibility Study September 24, 2020 13 PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS N ADA parking stalls Ball Field #2 Ball Field #1 (ADA Field) Ball Field #3 MAX AVEZone 1 - Parking Layout Enlargement Site Improvements A key goal of this study was to maximize parking capacity while also adjusting the layout to meet minimum stall size requirements. The existing parking lot contains 107 stalls. During our study of the existing lot, it was noted that the stall sizes were substandard and do not meet the requirements of the City of Chula Vista. By incorporating approximately half compact and half standard size stalls, the updated layout results in 102 parking spaces. This plan also looks at landscape enhancements in the parking lot. While it is not a requirement to meet Chula Vista Landscape Manual requirements, shade trees and planting areas are proposed where possible without impacting the number of available parking stalls. The parking layout option has 102 total parking stalls: Ū 51 standard parking stalls (10'x18') Ū 46 compact car parking stalls (9'x18') Ū 5 ADA parking stalls (includes 1 van accessible ADA parking stall) Compact car parking stalls (9'x18') ADA van parking N Key plan LIMIT OF WORK LIMIT OF WORK+161 +154 +152 Parking lot enlargement c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c 60'30'0' SDG&E utility enclosure Sewer pump station Biofiltration Bleachers PR O P E R T Y L I N E Trash enclosure area per City of Chula Vista standards Existing double head luminaire on wooden power pole 24' minimum drive aisle, to meet CVFD approval Existing fence realigned to allow 5' minimum sidewalk Final design to incorporate wheel stops or triangular curbs between parking and sidewalk EX EX EX EX PR PR PR PR PRPR PR PR Storm drain / headwalls Wheel stops or triangular curbs between parking lot and sidewalk SIDEWALK SIDEWALK Traditional wheel stops Paving pop-outs EX EX PR PR PR PR PR PR EX Existing Adjacent Trees 6 PR New Trees 14 New Planting Area 3,902 sf Parking Lot Landscape Enhancements MAX FIELD / RIENSTRA PARK Accessibility Study September 24, 2020 14 Van accessible ADA parking stall reconfigured to meet City of Chula Vista Municipal Code requirements (see page 13 for parking layout enlargement) ADA ramp with handrails (1:12 maximum slope) Existing SDG&E utility enclosure Remove posts and replace with new netting for foul ball protection (see image 2 on page 15) Eliminate step between dugouts and adjacent walks/field Adjust bleacher locations to allow for three feet minimum circulation clearance Seating area adjustments to allow clear path of travel Planted bioretention area to slow and filter run-off before it enters channel (see image 1 on page 15) New retaining walls, allowing for grade adjustments and soil retention New CMU or cast-in-place concrete retaining walls at location of existing deteriorating retaining walls along eastern end behind concessions Realign existing fencing to allow a minimum five foot sidewalk around ballfield Existing privately-owned concessions and existing restrooms with ADA access. Improvements to facilities will require coordination with City of Chula Vista and youth baseball leagues Existing informal trail between Loma Verde Recreation Center / Loma Verde Elementary School and Max Ave V-ditch renovated for proper site drainage and to prevent future erosion (see image 3 on page 15) Painted crosswalk with ADA curb ramps create dedicated pedestrian crossing through parking lot Prefabricated metal pedestrian bridge spanning channel (see image 4 on page 15) Five foot wide ADA accessible concrete trail between the park and Loma Verde Recreation Center / Loma Verde Elementary School 42" tall post-and-rail fence along the trail's east side provides fall protection (see image 5 on page 15) Trash enclosure per City of Chula Vista standards PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS 4 5 1 2 3 6 7 8 10 9 11 12 Ball Field #2 Ball Field #3 Zone 2 18 1516 7 5 Site Improvements Legend 4 5 1 2 3 6 7 8 10 9 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 17 6 5 N Site plan enlargement LIMIT OF WORKLIMIT OF WORK+154 +154 +153 +156.5 +152 +154 +153.8 PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEN Key plan ZONE 1 MATCHLINE, SEE PAGE 11 ZONE 3 MATCHLINE, S E E P A G E 1 6 1.5%4.5%18 5 6 6 6 12 12 13 14 9 9 1.4% 1.63 % 1.0% 60'30'0' 19 20 19 Existing double head luminaire on wooden power pole Storm drain and headwalls to allow stormwater flow below parking lot21 Existing channel and wetland delineation Existing scoreboard 22 23 23 22 20 21 MAX FIELD / RIENSTRA PARK Accessibility Study September 24, 2020 15 PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS Zone 2 2. Non-compliant circulation clearances at the concessions area are remediated by removing posts and using netting for foul ball protection. 1. Planted biofiltration basin at existing drainage inlet will reduce erosion impacts and remediates steep drop-off surrounding non-compliant walkways. 5. 42 inch tall post-and-rail fence alongside paved trail to Loma Verde Recreation Center & Loma Verde Elementary School. 4. Prefabricated metal pedestrian bridge spanning channel, with concrete abutments outside of the stream channel Existing Site Photos Proposed Site Elements 3. Replacement of existing damaged V-ditch will prevent further erosion. MAX FIELD / RIENSTRA PARK Accessibility Study September 24, 2020 16 PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS Zone 3 N Site plan enlargement Ball Field #4 New retaining walls, allowing for grade adjustments and soil retention Eliminate step between dugouts and adjacent walks/field Adjust bleacher locations to allow for three feet minimum circulation clearance Seating area adjustments to allow clear path of travel Existing privately-owned concessions and existing restrooms with ADA access. Improvements to facilities will require coordination with City of Chula Vista and youth baseball leagues New concrete walkway extends south connecting to overflow parking lot and East Orange Avenue Existing channel and wetland Five foot wide ADA accessible concrete trail between the park and Loma Verde Recreation Center / Loma Verde Elementary School 42" tall post-and-rail fence along the trail's east side provides fall protection (see image 5 on page 15) V-ditch renovated for proper site drainage and to prevent future erosion (see image 3 on page 15) Existing scoreboard 4 5 1 2 3 6 7 8 Ball Field #3 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 4 4 LIMIT OF WORK+152 +154 +152 +150.8 N Key plan PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINESite Improvements Legend ZONE 2 MATCHLINE, S E E P A G E 1 4 ZONE 4 MATCHLI N E , S E E P A G E 1 7 9 10 2 3 5 9 10 1.5%1.5%10 60'30'0' 11 11 MAX FIELD / RIENSTRA PARK Accessibility Study September 24, 2020 17 PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS N Site plan enlargement Zone 4 Ball Field #5 Ball Field #4 Ball Field #6 New concrete walkway extends south connecting to overflow parking lot and East Orange Avenue New concrete paving is expanded west behind home plate to create continuous paved surface to dugouts Seating area adjustments to allow clear path of travel Eliminate step between dugouts and adjacent walks/field Adjust bleacher locations to allow for three feet minimum circulation clearance Existing channel and wetland Five foot wide ADA accessible concrete trail between the park and Loma Verde Recreation Center / Loma Verde Elementary School 42" tall post-and-rail fence along the trail's east side provides fall protection (see image 5 on page 15) 4 5 1 2 3 6 4 6 5 3 2 LIMIT OF WORKLIMIT OF WORK+144 +148 +149 +150.8 PROPERTY LINEN Key plan Site Improvements Legend ZONE 3 M A T C H L I N E , S E E P A G E 1 6 ZONE 5 MATCHLINE, SEE PAGE 18 7 8 1 4 4 4 7 8 1.6%1.0%60'30'0' MAX FIELD / RIENSTRA PARK Accessibility Study September 24, 2020 18 PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS N Site plan enlargement Zone 5 Ball Field #6 Ball Field #7 (Tee-ball) Netlon Overflow ParkingLegend (69 stalls) E. ORANGE AVE New concrete walkway extends south connecting to overflow parking lot and East Orange Ave. New barrier arm gate at existing entrance Overflow parking for 69 18’ x 10’ stalls Existing channel and wetland Cast-in-place concrete staircase with handrails for shortcut connection to East Orange Ave. (optional) Chainlink fence reconfigured for pedestrian access, with new fence and optional locking gate 1 2 3 4 4 1 2 3 Netlon system with event parking Netlon system cross-section reinforced lawn root zone with sand, soil and fiber sub-base compacted sub-grade grass LIMIT OF WORKLIMIT OF WORKLIMIT OF WORK 147.0+ +146 +145 +144 PROPERTY LINEN Key plan Site Improvements The following long-term improvements are proposed in Zone 5: Ū A 24,000 square foot overflow lot on the southwestern portion of the site accommodates approximately 69 additional parking stalls. Ū The parking lot is to be paved with Netlon Advanced Turf system, a load- bearing natural grass reinforced surface. This permeable system allows for flexibility as the site can be used for overflow parking or continued use of ball field #7. ZONE 4 MATCHLINE, SEE PAGE 17 1.0%1.0% 1 60'30'0' 5 5 6 6 MAX FIELD / RIENSTRA PARK Accessibility Study September 24, 2020 19 PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS N Site plan enlargement Zone 6 Legend Flashing rapid beacon push-button crosswalk Painted crosswalk with ADA curb ramps 16,000 square foot gravel parking lot with potential for 50 stall capacity; Higher capacity could be achieved if major earthwork was performed. Provide wood pole / header to demarcate parking stall layout at 10' O.C. Existing barrier arm gate Existing trail between Loma Verde Recreation Center / Loma Verde Elementary School and Max Avenue Existing informal trails 1 2 3 12 3 4MAX AVE Rapid beacon push button crosswalk Potential Gravel Parking (50 stalls) PROPER T Y LI N E PROPER T Y LI N E N Key plan 60'30'0'ZONE 1 MATCHL INE , SEE PAGE 11 4 5 6 5 6 6 Site Improvements The following long-term improvements are proposed in Zone 6. The potential gravel lot is proposed on land currently owned by SDG&E and would require coordination and an agreement negotiated with SDG&E. Additional traffic analysis and/or a study may be required to evaluate additional pedestrian safety improvement should be considered for the mid-block crossing. Potential improvement for consideration may include bulbouts, adding a pedestrian refuge island, or adding enhanced paving in the crosswalk. APPENDIX A Full Size Plan B Cost Estimate C Geotechnical Report D Biological Memo MAX FIELD / RIENSTRA PARK Accessibility Study September 24, 2020 CCCCCCCCCCCCCC C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C CB L E A C H E R S BLEACH ERS BLEACHERSBL E A C H E R S BLEAC H E R S BLEACHERSDUGOUTDUG O U T DUGOUTDUGOUT D U G O U T DUGOUTB L E A C H E R S BLEACHERSBLE A C H E R S CON C E S SI O N S DUGOUTCON C E S SI O N S RES T R O O M S U T I L I T Y E N C L O S U R E STRUCTUREDUG O U T B L E A C H E R S DUGOUT DUGOUTBLEACHERS DUGOUTDUGOUT VANMAX AVENUESITE RENNOVATION RECOMMENDATIONS E ORANGE AVENUE LOMA VERDE RECREATION CENTER & LOMA VERDE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL LARKHAVEN DRAPPENDIX A MAX FIELD/ RIENSTRA PARK - SITE MASTER PLAN Accessibility Study September 21, 2020 Granite Asphalt Gravel Decomposed granite Ballfield turf Planting area Surrounding native planting Netlon Channel Dugout Bleachers Structure Project Limit of WorkMAX FIELD/ RIENSTRA PARK - SITE MASTER PLAN Accessibility Study September 21, 2020 Netlon Overflow Parking Ball Field #6 Ball Field #5 Ball Field #4 Ball Field #3 Ball Field #2 Ball Field #1 (ADA Field) Ball Field #7 (Tee-ball)LARKHAVEN DRE. ORANGE AVE MAX AVEPotential Gravel Overflow Parking SDG&E Parcel Loma Verde Recreation Center & Loma Verde Elementary School SDG&E Parcel APPENDIX A Max Field/Rienstra Park Accessibility Feasibility Study 9/19/2020 PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST 1.0 Site Improvement Items Item No. Location/Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Cost Onsite Park Improvements - ADA 1 ADA Ramps & Handrails 1,052 SF $25.00 $26,300 2 Cast In Place Stairs and Cheek walls w/ Handrails 80 SF $100.00 $8,000 3 Retaining Wall & Footing-height varies-to level out areas for accessibility 1,980 SF $49.00 $97,020 4 Concrete Paving - std. gray broom finish (Ballfield and parking lot areas)36,558 SF $12.00 $438,696 5 Concrete Paving - std. gray broom finish (connection to East Orange Ave)4,168 SF $12.00 $50,016 6 Grinding for Removal of striping 1,080 LF $2.55 $2,754 7 Grind & Overlay (portion of parking lot to make accessible)10,000 SF $4.00 $40,000 8 Trees, Vegetation and Irrigation 1 LS $60,000.00 $60,000 9 AC Slurry Seal 50,000 SF $0.99 $49,500 10 Parking Lot Striping (102 parking stalls)1,080 LF $1.09 $1,177 11 Dugouts - remove steps and replace benches (to make accessible)12 EA $5,000.00 $60,000 12 Upgrades to Accessibility for Restroom/Concession Buildings*1 Allowance $50,000.00 $50,000 13 Stair access from East Orange Avenue @ Field #7 120 SF $100.00 $12,000 14 Site Revegetation and Irrigation Repair 1 LS $20,000.00 $20,000 SUBTOTAL $915,463 $1,318,267 Onsite Park Improvements - Failing Infrastructure 15 Railing 500 LF $28.00 $14,000 16 Temporary Shoring 2,610 SF $20.00 $52,200 17 Retaining Wall Replacement (Footing & Wall & Backfill & Drains)2,610 SF $39.00 $101,790 18 V-Ditch Replacement (New Ditch & R&R)500 LF $25.00 $12,500 19 Revegetation of Barren Slope Areas 11,100 SF $0.75 $8,325 20 Erosion Control/Slope Surface Stabilization (Hydroseed)13,300 SF $0.50 $6,650 SUBTOTAL $195,465 $281,470 Pedestrian Bridge & Accessible Path & Railing (for access to Loma Verde Rec Center) 21 Pedestrian Bridge (Per separate Cost Estimate)1 LS $148,069.00 $148,069 22 Concrete (std. gray broom finish) or DG Pathway - (connection to Rec Center)4,300 SF $12.00 $51,600 23 42" Tall Post and Rail Fence 860 LF $40.00 $34,400 24 Grading for Pathway 400 CY $30.50 $12,200 25 Subgrade Prep 4,300 SF $0.44 $1,892 26 Erosion Control 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000 SUBTOTAL $253,161 $364,552 Field #7 Parking Lot - Optional 27 Netlon Reinforced Turf Parking Area (base, drainage only - doesn't include turf)23,500 SF $20.00 $470,000 28 Turf at Netlon area 23,500 SF $2.00 $47,000 SUBTOTAL $517,000 $744,480 Overflow Parking Lot East of Max Avenue - Optional 29 Overflow gravel parking lot 16,000 SF $2.00 $32,000 30 Wheel stops (Wooden Posts)500 LF $10.00 $5,000 31 Flashing Rapid Beacon Push Button Crosswalk 1 LS $35,000.00 $35,000 32 Crosswalk paving and striping 1 LS $1,000.00 $1,000 SUBTOTAL $73,000 $105,120 Onsite Park Improvements - Optional 33 Site furnishings 1 Allowance $25,000.00 $25,000 34 New Vehicular Entrance Gate 1 Allowance $10,000.00 $10,000 SUBTOTAL $35,000 $50,400 SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS (ALL CATEGORIES)$1,989,089 MOBILIZATION 3%$59,673 DESIGN, SURVEY & CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION 15%$298,363 CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION 6%$119,345 CONTINGENCIES 20%$397,818 TOTAL PARK IMPROVEMENTS COST $2,864,288 TOTAL THIS CATEGORY (INCLUDES ITEMS/CONTINGENCIES NOTED BELOW,44%) TOTAL THIS CATEGORY (INCLUDES ITEMS/CONTINGENCIES NOTED BELOW,44%) TOTAL THIS CATEGORY (INCLUDES ITEMS/CONTINGENCIES NOTED BELOW,44%) TOTAL THIS CATEGORY (INCLUDES ITEMS/CONTINGENCIES NOTED BELOW,44%) TOTAL THIS CATEGORY (INCLUDES ITEMS/CONTINGENCIES NOTED BELOW,44%) TOTAL THIS CATEGORY (INCLUDES ITEMS/CONTINGENCIES NOTED BELOW,44%) *This cost does not include improvements to structures. These structures are privately owned and managed by Southbay Little League (SBLL). Any future improvements to structures to be coordinated between City of CV & SBLL S P U R L O C K L a n d s c a p e A r c h i t e c t s GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION OF SLOPE EROSION AND RETAINING WALL DAMAGE MAX FIELD RIENSTRA PARK 300 MAX AVENUE CHULA VISTA, CA for City of Chula Vista Department of Public Works 276 Fourth Ave Chula Vista, CA 91910 June 19, 2020 20-0287-01 APPENDIX C Carson 310.684.4854 | Concord 925.243.6662 | Rancho Cucamonga 909.989.1751 Sacramento 916.631.7194 | San Diego 858.609.7138 | San Jose 408.362.4920 June 19, 2020 City of Chula Vista Department of Public Works 276 Fourth Ave Chula Vista, CA 91910 Attention: Patrick Moneda, Senior Civil Engineer Subject: Geotechnical Investigation of Slope Erosion and Retaining Wall Damage Max Field Rienstra Park 300 Max Avenue Chula Vista, CA Dear Mr. Moneda: In accordance with your request, a geotechnical investigation has been completed for the above referenced project. The report addresses both engineering geologic and geotechnical conditions. The results of the investigation are presented in the accompanying report, which includes a description of site conditions, results of our field exploration, laboratory testing, conclusions, and recommendations. We appreciate this opportunity to be of continued service to you. If you have any questions regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact us at your convenience. Respectfully submitted, RMA Group Ken Dowell, PG, CEG Project Geologist CEG 2470 Jorge Meneses, PhD, PE, GE, D.GE, F. ASCE Principal Geotechnical Engineer GE 3041 Max Field at Rienstra Park Slope Erosion and Retaining Wall June 19, 2020 City of Chula Vista RMA Job No.: 20-0287-01 Page i TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 1.00 INTRODUCTION 1 1.01 Purpose 1 1.02 Scope of the Investigation 1 1.03 Site Location and Description 1 1.04 Site Observations 2 1.05 Investigation Methods 2 2.00 FINDINGS 3 2.01 Geologic Setting 3 2.02 Earth Materials 3 2.03 Surface and Groundwater Conditions 3 2.04 Faults 3 2.05 Historic Seismicity 4 2.06 Landslides 4 3.00 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 4 3.01 General Conclusion 4 3.02 General Earthwork and Grading 5 3.03 Slope Remediation 5 3.04 Faulting 6 3.05 Seismic Design Parameters 6 3.06 Liquefaction and Secondary Earthquake Hazards 7 3.07 Retaining Wall Foundations 8 3.08 Miscellaneous Concrete Flatwork 8 3.09 Footing Excavation and Slab Preparations 8 3.10 Lateral Load Resistance 9 3.11 Drainage and Moisture Proofing 10 3.12 Plan Review 10 3.13 Geotechnical Observation and Testing 10 4.00 CLOSURE 11 Max Field at Rienstra Park Slope Erosion and Retaining Wall June 19, 2020 City of Chula Vista RMA Job No.: 20-0287-01 Page ii TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) PAGE FIGURES AND TABLES Figure 1 Site Location Map Figure 2 Regional Geologic Map Figure 3 Site Photographs Table 1 Notable Faults within 100 Km Table 2 Historical Strong Earthquakes APPENDICES Appendix A Laboratory Tests B1 Appendix B General Earthwork and Grading Specifications C1 Appendix C References D1 Max Field at Rienstra Park Slope Erosion and Retaining Wall June 19, 2020 City of Chula Vista RMA Job No.: 20-0287-01 Page 1 1.00 INTRODUCTION 1.01 Purpose A geotechnical investigation of slope erosion and retaining wall damage has been completed for the slope and retaining wall on the south side of Max Field at Rienstra Park in Chula Vista, California. The purpose of the investigation was to observe and summarize geotechnical and geologic conditions at the site and also the condition of the existing masonry retaining wall and slope, and to provide geotechnical and engineering geologic design parameters. 1.02 Scope of the Investigation The general scope of this investigation included the following: • Review of published and unpublished geologic, seismic, groundwater and geotechnical literature. • Examination of aerial photographs. • Logging, sampling and backfilling of 2 shallow exploratory borings excavated with a hand auger. • Laboratory testing of representative soil samples. • Geotechnical evaluation of the compiled data. • Preparation of this report presenting our findings, conclusions and recommendations. Our scope of work did not include a preliminary site assessment for the potential of hazardous materials onsite. 1.03 Site Location and Description The subject retaining wall and slope are located on the south side of Max Field at Rienstra Park in the City of Chula Vista, California. The retaining wall and slope are bounded by baseball fields to the north, residential properties to the south, Max Avenue to the east. The slope and retaining wall extends about 750 feet to the west and southwest from Max Avenue. Limits of the investigation are shown on Figure 1 Elevations at the toe of the slope range from 145 to 165 feet above sea level and elevations at the top of the slope range from 180 to 200 feet above sea level. The gradient ranges from 3:1 (horizontal to vertical) on the west end of the project to 5:1 (horizontal to vertical) on the east end of the project. The slope is vegetated with native shrubs and annual grasses and a few large eucalyptus trees (Photographs 1 and 2). A concrete v-ditch is located on the slope (Photograph 2) and the slope is not irrigated. The slope does have a few local areas devoid of vegetation (these areas are indentified on Figure 1) (Figures 3 and 4). The masonry retaining wall located at the base of the slope ranges from 2 to about 7-8 feet in height and based on historic aerial photographs was constructed in the 1960’s. The wall is painted, appears to have had modifications completed in the past and has several cracks and has areas that are locally bulging outward (Photographs 8, 11, 12 and 14). A concrete sidewalk is located at the base of the wall. A concrete staircase is located about 120 feet west of Max Avenue and is about 8 feet in height. Max Field at Rienstra Park Slope Erosion and Retaining Wall June 19, 2020 City of Chula Vista RMA Job No.: 20-0287-01 Page 2 1.04 Site Observations The slope is made up of a peddle conglomerate and sandstone sedimentary bedrock of the San Diego Formation (Figures 3 and 4). These bedrock units are fairly young (early Pleistocene to late Pliocene) about 850,000 to 3 million years old and are not well cemented and are made up of mainly sand. They are subject to erosion that creates the loose colluvial soil that then can move down slope due to gravity and surface runoff. This is particularly evident in the areas where there is no vegetation. Over time the bedrock units have eroded and that subsequent soil has moved downslope through natural processes. The slope itself appears stable, at its steepest it is 3:1 (horizontal to vertical and ranges from 3.5:1 to 5:1 where the retaining wall occurs. There are not indications of deep slope failure just typical surficial instability where vegetation has not regrown to protect the surface of the slope from erosion. The slope is vegetated with bushes and wild grasses and it does not have an irrigation system to promote growth of more permanent vegetation. Further there are numerous ground squirrel burrows on the slope, due to their digging actions this create loose soil and accelerates erosion of the slope face The concrete v-ditch dates to the construction of the retaining wall and baseball fields in the mid-1960’s and is in poor condition (Photographs 2, 5, 6, 7, 8) . While it is not clogged with soil or vegetation, it is cracked and some areas runoff has either overtopped the v-ditch or run under it, eroding the downslope side of the v-ditch and allowing water to even run underneath it in places. The masonry retaining wall (Photographs 9 – 16) appears to be solid grouted is solid grouted at least all of the exposed cells at the top of the wall and those areas exposed during prior modifications are filled with grout. It does have open joints on the first course to allow drainage, but a majority of them have been covered, or partially covered, by pavement (Photograph 10). The soil behind the wall is at the top of the wall or overtopping the wall and in some locations soil is being held back by boards on top of the wall. Behind the wall in some areas the bedrock is exposed in verticals typically less than 1 foot in height, however, this could be an indicator that other modification have taken place, such as lowering of the wall by removing the upper course of block (Photographs 9, 11, 14, 16). East of the snack bar the wall has a horizontal crack and an area is bulging outward (Photographs 15 and 16). Near this area, the wall looks like it was modified to allow for more bleacher space and is also bulging outward (Photographs 11-13). Also in this area is a section where you can see behind the wall. A drain was not visible behind the wall. In this area the footing is exposed and only looks to the about 3-4” thick (this is the area that looks to have been modified at one time). Another modified section is located to the west of the press box and it too is bulging outward (Photograph 14). At the end of the v-ditch, behind the bathroom building the wall has been extended higher with dry stacked block above the retaining wall. Overall the condition of the wall is very poor. It is almost 55-60 years old, the cement in the block appears to have started to deteriorate; probably due to the elevated salt levels in the air; by a lack of a drain behind the wall, and previous modifications to the wall and the pressure being exerted on the wall by the bushes growing on the slope are all conditions leading to the deterioration of the wall. 1.05 Investigation Methods Our investigation consisted of office research, field exploration, laboratory testing, review of the compiled data, and preparation of this report. It has been performed in a manner consistent with generally accepted engineering and geologic principles and practices, and has incorporated applicable requirements of California Building Code. Definitions of technical terms and symbols used in this report include those of the ASTM International, the California Building Code, and commonly used geologic nomenclature. Max Field at Rienstra Park Slope Erosion and Retaining Wall June 19, 2020 City of Chula Vista RMA Job No.: 20-0287-01 Page 3 Technical supporting data are presented in the attached appendices. Appendix A presents a description of our laboratory testing and the test results. Standard grading specifications and references are presented in Appendices B and C, respectively. 2.00 FINDINGS 2.01 Geologic Setting The site is located on the western side of the Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province. The Peninsular Ranges are one of the largest geologic provinces in the North America, extending from Los Angeles to the tip of Baja California. Much of the Peninsular Ranges is composed of intrusive, granitic rocks. Within the coastal San Diego region, the granitic is overlain by Pleistocene age and older sedimentary units. The project site is underlain by mainly colluvium and sedimentary bedrock consisting of sandstone and pebbly conglomerate of the early Pleistocene to late Pliocene. A regional geologic map of the area (Figure 2) indicates that the site is underlain by Pleistocene age sedimentary bedrock. 2.02 Earth Materials Our investigation encountered colluvium and sedimentary bedrock. Colluvium is soil deposited mainly by gravity and water runoff typically at the base or face of a slope. Colluvium is typically loose. The colluvium encountered at the site was light brown to gray in color and derived from the erosion of the sedimentary bedrock. The sedimentary bedrock encountered at the site has been regionally mapped at part of the San Diego formation. The bedrock exposed at the site consists of a yellowish-brown to gray, fine to medium grained sandstone and reddish-brown pebble and cobble conglomerate that is poorly indurated and poorly cemented. The sandstone was found to be dense and the conglomerate was very dense. Two hand auger boring were attempted at the site and both achieved refusal at depths between 3 ½ feet to 5 feet, mainly due to encountering the gravel and cobbles of the conglomerate. Regional mapping and our site mapping indicate that the bedding in the bedrock generally slopes to the south to southwest at very shallow angles (regional mapping indicated a dip of the bedding at 3-4 degrees to the southwest, our site mapping indicated that the bedrock dips about 3 to 5 degree to the south to southwest). The dip of the bedrock is into, or neutral to, the existing slope face. 2.03 Surface and Groundwater Conditions No areas of ponding or standing water were present or observed on or at the base of the slope at the time of our study. Further, no springs or areas of natural seepage were found on the slope. Groundwater was not encountered in our borings. 2.04 Faults The site is not located within the boundaries of an Earthquake Fault Zone for fault-rupture hazard as defined by the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act and no faults are known to pass through the property. The nearest Max Field at Rienstra Park Slope Erosion and Retaining Wall June 19, 2020 City of Chula Vista RMA Job No.: 20-0287-01 Page 4 Earthquake Fault Zone is located about 8 miles to the west of the site along the Silver Strand branch of the Rose Canyon fault. The nearest mapped fault to the site is parts of the La Nacion Fault Zone, located about 1 mile to the east at its closest location. The last motion along the fault zone is estimated to be Quaternary aged or more than 10,00o years ago. The fault zone is not considered active by the State of California. The distance to notable faults within 100 kilometers of the site is presented on Table 1. 2.05 Historic Seismicity The nearest large historic earthquake in the vicinity of the site was the magnitude 5.4 Oceanside earthquake of 1986 which was approximately 51 miles northwest of the site. Strong earthquakes that have occurred in this region in historic time and their approximate epicentral distances are summarized in Table 2. Our research of regional geologic and seismic data did not reveal any known instances of ground failure within the site associated with regional seismic activity. Seismic design parameters relative to the requirements of the 2019 California Building Code are presented in Section 3.05. 2.06 Landslides Landslides were not observed during our investigation of the slope. Topographic landforms suggestive of landslides were not apparent in the field or on aerial photographs. The existing slope does have local areas of surficial failure. Investigation of these areas during our site visit indicated that these were very shallow features that were only a few thick and most likely caused by erosion from water running down the face of the slope and loose colluvium on the face of slope. These areas were also devoid of vegetation. Regional geologic and landslide hazard maps do not map any landslides within the site. 3.00 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 3.01 General Conclusions Based upon our site visit and information gathered we would recommend the following general recommendations for the slope. The v-ditch should be reconstructed to current standards, place some temporary stabilization methods on the slope particularly in the areas where the erosion has occurred with some minor work to lower any areas over steepened from erosion, install an irrigation system and hydro seed the slope to promote sustainable vegetation to protect the slope from surface erosion. There are also a lot of ground squirrel burrows, especially in the lower part of the slope, which adds to the erosion. A program should be instituted to limit the burrows on the slope. Additional information for remediation of the slope is provided in Section 3.03. Due to the age and condition of the existing retaining wall, we would recommend that it be removed and reconstructed using current standards and materials including clearing away the bushes within 5 feet of the top of the wall to prevent pressure being applied to the backside of the new wall, removing the loose soil behind the top of the wall and construction a v-ditch at the top of the wall to divert runoff to drainage inlets and not into Max Field at Rienstra Park Slope Erosion and Retaining Wall June 19, 2020 City of Chula Vista RMA Job No.: 20-0287-01 Page 5 the soil behind the wall and collect soil carried by the runoff. Additionally, a maintenance program for the site should include removal of loose soil from the v-ditch at the top of the wall. Additional information for design of retaining wall is included in Section 3.11. 3.02 General Earthwork and Grading Any grading should be performed in accordance with the General Earthwork and Grading Specifications outlined in Appendix C, unless specifically revised or amended below. Recommendations contained in Appendix C are general specifications for typical grading projects and may not be entirely applicable to this project. It is also recommended that all earthwork and grading be performed in accordance with Appendix J of the 2019 California Building Code and all applicable governmental agency requirements. In the event of conflicts between this report and Appendix J, this report shall govern. 3.03 Slope Remediation Based upon our review of the current slope conditions, it is our opinion that the existing slope is structurally stable and no indications of active or former slippage or sliding (such as fissures or earth cracks, large areas of slumped soil, diversion of the existing v-ditch) is evident, the surface of the slope is undergoing the natural erosion processes created by gravity and surface water runoff. Disruption of surface water runoff and stabilization of the surficial face of the slope will limit the downslope erosion of the slope face. Remediation of the slope should include the items listed in Section 3.01. The slope currently is covered with annual grasses and chaparral bushes and a few large trees. The annual grasses do provide some measure of stabilization for the slope but only when they are actively growing, once their growth cycle is complete and the plants die they no longer provide stability to the surface of the slope and can typically accelerate erosion of the surface soils during rain storm in the non-growing season due to loosened soil in the root zone or upper few inches of soil. We would recommend that slope be hydroseeded with a more permanent vegetation mix that will provide year round stability for the slope. This may also include installation of a permanent irrigation system. A landscape architect could be consulted to determine the best hydroseed mix for the area In the areas where vegetation is mainly the grasses or thin or lacking vegetation the surface of the slope may be stabilized using materials such as jute mesh and straw waddles to slow the movement of water and soil down the slope face. The three areas indicated on Figure 1 where the vegetation is scarce or absent also has locally steepened slope faces due to erosion in these areas. Loose soil from these areas should be removed and the slope face returned to match the existing surrounding slope faces. This should be accomplished using compacted fill soil. To promote the growth of vegetation in these areas the fill soil should not be compacted to more than 85% relative compaction and the face of these areas should be covered with jute mesh and straw waddles placed upslope from them to limit surface water runoff. The existing v-ditch should be removed and a new drainage system installed to current City standards. It should be designed by a civil engineer to provide positive drainage off the slope into an appropriately sized drainage system. Further, a maintenance program should be installed that include cleaning the v-ditch of soil, filling cracks in the v- ditch and repairing areas of erosion around the v-ditch. An annual maintenance program that would include inspection, repair and cleaning of the v-ditch, repair of any Max Field at Rienstra Park Slope Erosion and Retaining Wall June 19, 2020 City of Chula Vista RMA Job No.: 20-0287-01 Page 6 future surficial failures and maintenance of good surface vegetation should be implemented. 3.04 Faulting Since the site is not located within the boundaries of an Earthquake Fault Zone and no faults are known to pass through the property, surface fault rupture within the site is considered unlikely. 3.05 Seismic Design Parameters The potential damaging effects of regional earthquake activity must be considered in the design of structures. Mapped seismic design parameters have been developed in accordance with Section 1613 of the 2019 California Building Code (CBC) using the online U.S. Geological Survey Seismic Design Maps Calculator (ASCE 10 Standard), a site location based on latitude and longitude, and site characterization as Site Class C based on our preliminary geotechnical investigation. The parameters generated for the subject site are presented below: 2019 California Building Code (CBC) Seismic Parameters Parameter Value Site Location Latitude = 32.60333 degrees Longitude = -117.04615 degrees Site Class Site Class = C Soil Profile Name = Very dense soil and soft rock Mapped Spectral Accelerations (Site Class B) Ss (0.2- second period) = 0.946g S1 (1-second period) = 0.326g Site Coefficients (Site Class C) Fa = 1.2 Fv = 1.5 Risk-Targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake Spectral Accelerations (Site Class C) SMS (0.2- second period) = 1.135g SM1 (1-second period) = 0.49g Risk-Targeted Design Earthquake Spectral Accelerations (Site Class C) SDS (0.2- second period) = 0.757g SD1 (1-second period) = 0.326g The above table shows that the mapped spectral response acceleration parameter a 1-second period (S1) < 0.75g. Therefore, for Risk Categories I, II and III the Seismic Design Category is D and for Risk Category IV the Seismic Design Category is D (CBC Table 1604.5 and Section 1613.3.5). Consequently, as required for Seismic Design Categories C through F by CBC Section 1803.5.11, slope instability, liquefaction, total and differential settlement, and surface displacement by faulting or seismically lateral spreading or lateral flow should be addressed. The above table shows that the mapped spectral response acceleration parameter a 1-second period (S1) < 0.75g and spectral response acceleration parameters are SDS ≥ 0.50g and SD1 ≥ 0.20g. Therefore, the Seismic Design Category has been determined from Tables 1613.3.5(1) and 1613.3.5(2) using a Risk Category of I, II, II and/or IV is D for all Risk Categories (CBC Section 1613.5.6). Consequently, as required for Seismic Design Categories C Max Field at Rienstra Park Slope Erosion and Retaining Wall June 19, 2020 City of Chula Vista RMA Job No.: 20-0287-01 Page 7 through F by CBC Section 1803.5.11, slope instability, liquefaction, total and differential settlement, and surface displacement by faulting or seismically lateral spreading or lateral flow have been evaluated. Applicable portions of CBC Section 1803.5.12 have also been evaluated including dynamic lateral loading of retaining walls. Peak earthquake ground acceleration adjusted for site class effects (PGAM) has been determine in accordance with ASCE 7-10 Section 11.8.3 as follows: PGAM = FPGA x PGA = 0.417g x 1.2 = 0.500g. 3.06 Liquefaction and Secondary Earthquake Hazards Potential secondary seismic hazards that can affect land development projects include liquefaction, tsunamis, seiches, seismically induced settlement, seismically induced flooding and seismically induced landsliding. Liquefaction Liquefaction is a phenomenon where earthquake-induced ground motions increase the pore pressure in saturated, granular soils until it is equal to the confining, overburden pressure. When this occurs, the soil can completely lose its shear strength and enter a liquefied state. The possibility of liquefaction is dependent upon grain size, relative density, confining pressure, saturation of the soils, and intensity and duration of ground shaking. In order for liquefaction to occur, three criteria must be met: underlying loose, coarse-grained (sandy) soils, a groundwater depth of less than about 50 feet, and a potential for seismic shaking from nearby large-magnitude earthquake. Due to shallow sedimentary bedrock beneath the site, soil liquefaction at the site is unlikely and liquefaction calculations were not performed. Tsunamis and Seiches Tsunamis are sea waves that are generated in response to large-magnitude earthquakes. When these waves reach shorelines, they sometimes produce coastal flooding. Seiches are the oscillation of large bodies of standing water, such as lakes, that can occur in response to ground shaking. Tsunamis and seiches do not pose hazards due to the inland location of the site and lack of nearby bodies of standing water. Seismically Induced Settlement Seismically induced settlement occurs most frequently in areas underlain by loose, granular sediments. Damage as a result of seismically induced settlement is most dramatic when differential settlement occurs in areas with large variations in the thickness of underlying sediments. Settlement caused by ground shaking is often non-uniformly distributed, which can result in differential settlement. Based upon the shallow bedrock beneath the site, settlement caused by ground shaking is estimated to be minimal. Seismically Induced Flooding The site is not located within a potential dam inundation area. In addition, there are no up gradient water reservoirs or dams located in close proximity of the site. Consequently seismically induced flooding at the site is unlikely. Max Field at Rienstra Park Slope Erosion and Retaining Wall June 19, 2020 City of Chula Vista RMA Job No.: 20-0287-01 Page 8 Seismically Induced Landsliding According to the California Geological Survey Landslide Inventory (https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/lsi/app/), there are no mapped landslides within the project area. Based upon the general geologic structure of the sedimentary bedrock the makes up the subject slope, particularly the low dip angle of less than 5° and the into slope or neutral direction of the dip relative to the slope face, landsliding due to seismic events is unlikely. 3.07 Retaining Wall Foundations Isolated spread footings and/or continuous wall footings are recommended to support the proposed structures. Footings should be established in firm bedrock or two feet of compacted fill materials 90% relative compaction. If footings transition from being founded in bedrock to being founded on fill and construction joint should be placed where the transition occurs to limit differential settlement. Footings may be designed using the following allowable soil bearing values: Retaining Wall Footings: Footings for retaining walls should be founded a minimum depth of 12 inches and have a minimum width of 12 inches. Footings may be designed using the allowable bearing capacity and lateral resistance values recommended for building footings. However, when calculating passive resistance, the upper 6 inches of the footings should be ignored in areas where the footings will not be covered with concrete flatwork. This value may also be increased by 8% for each additional foot of width or depth to a maximum value of 3,000 psf. Reinforcement should be provided for structural considerations as determined by the design engineer. The above bearing capacities represent an allowable net increase in soil pressure over existing soil pressure and may be increased by one-third for short-term wind or seismic loads. The maximum expected settlement of footings designed with the recommended allowable bearing capacity is expected to be on the order of ½ inch with differential settlement on the order of ¼ inch. 3.08 Miscellaneous Concrete Flatwork Miscellaneous concrete flatwork and walkways may be designed with a minimum thickness of 4 inches. Large slabs should be reinforced with a minimum of 6x6-10/10 welded wire mesh placed at mid-height in the slab. Control joints should be constructed to create squares or rectangles with a maximum spacing of 15 feet. Walkways may be constructed without reinforcement. Walkways should be separated from foundations with a thick expansion joint filler. Control joints should be constructed into non-reinforced walkways at a maximum of 5 feet spacing. The subgrade soils beneath all miscellaneous concrete flatwork should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction for a minimum depth of 12 inches. The geotechnical engineer should monitor the compaction of the subgrade soils and perform testing to verify that proper compaction has been obtained. 3.09 Footing Excavation and Slab Preparations All footing excavations should be observed by the geotechnical consultant to verify that they have been excavated Max Field at Rienstra Park Slope Erosion and Retaining Wall June 19, 2020 City of Chula Vista RMA Job No.: 20-0287-01 Page 9 into competent soils. The foundation excavations should be observed prior to the placement of forms, reinforcement steel, or concrete. These excavations should be evenly trimmed and level. Prior to concrete placement, any loose or soft soils should be removed. Excavated soils should not be placed on slab or footing areas unless properly compacted. Prior to the placement of the moisture barrier and sand, the subgrade soils underlying the slab should be observed by the geotechnical consultant to verify that all under-slab utility trenches have been properly backfilled and compacted, that no loose or soft soils are present, and that the slab subgrade has been properly compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction within the upper 12 inches. Footings may experience and overall loss in bearing capacity or an increased potential to settle where located in close proximity to existing or future utility trenches. Furthermore, stresses imposed by the footings on the utility lines may cause cracking, collapse and/or a loss of serviceability. To reduce this risk, footings should extend below a 1:1 plane projected upward from the closest bottom of the trench. Slabs on grade and walkways should be brought to a minimum of 2% and a maximum of 6% above their optimum moisture content for a depth of 18 inches prior to the placement of concrete. The geotechnical consultant should perform insitu moisture tests to verify that the appropriate moisture content has been achieved a maximum of 24 hours prior to the placement of concrete or moisture barriers. 3.10 Lateral Load Resistance Lateral loads may be resisted by soil friction and the passive resistance of the soil. The following parameters are recommended. •Passive Earth Pressure = 430 pcf (equivalent fluid weight). •Coefficient of Friction (soil to footing) = 0.41 •Retaining structures should be designed to resist the following lateral active earth pressures: Surface Slope of Retained Materials (Horizontal:Vertical) Equivalent Fluid Weight (pcf) Level 37 5:1 39 4:1 41 3:1 43 2:1 55 These active earth pressures are only applicable if the retained earth is allowed to strain sufficiently to achieve the active state. The required minimum horizontal strain to achieve the active state is approximately 0.0025H. Retaining structures should be designed to resist an at-rest lateral earth pressure if this horizontal strain cannot be achieved. •At-rest Lateral Earth Pressure = 60 pcf (equivalent fluid weight) Max Field at Rienstra Park Slope Erosion and Retaining Wall June 19, 2020 City of Chula Vista RMA Job No.: 20-0287-01 Page 10 The Mononobe-Okabe method is commonly utilized for calculating seismically induced active and passive lateral earth pressures and is based on the limit equilibrium Coulomb theory for static stress conditions. This method entails three fundamental assumptions (e.g., Seed and Whitman, 1970): Wall movement is sufficient to ensure either active or passive conditions, the driving soil wedge inducing the lateral earth pressures is formed by a planar failure surface starting at the heel of the wall and extending to the free surface of the backfill, and the driving soil wedge and the retaining structure act as rigid bodies, and therefore, experiences uniform accelerations throughout the respective bodies (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2003, Engineering and Design - Stability Analysis of Concrete Structures). •Seismic Lateral Earth Pressure = 18 pcf (equivalent fluid weight). The seismic lateral earth pressure given above is a triangle increasing with depth, and the resultant of this pressure is an increment of force which should be applied to the back of the wall at 1/3 of the wall height from the wall base. The seismic increment of earth pressure should be added to the static active earth pressure. Even for the at-rest (Ko) condition, the seismic increment of earth pressure should be added to the static active earth pressure, not to the at-rest static earth pressure (SEAOC Seismology Committee 2019). Per 2019 CBC Section 1803.5.12 dynamic seismic lateral earth pressures shall be applied to foundation walls and retaining walls supporting more than 6 feet of backfill. Dynamic seismic lateral earth pressures may also be applied to shorter walls at the discretion of the structural engineer. 3.11 Drainage and Moisture Proofing Retaining structures should be drained to prevent the accumulation of subsurface water behind the walls. Backdrains should be installed behind all retaining walls exceeding 3 feet in height. A typical detail for retaining wall back drains is presented in Appendix C. All backdrains should be outlet to suitable drainage devices. Retaining wall less than 3 feet in height should be provided with backdrains or weep holes. Dampproofing and/or waterproofing should also be provided on all retaining walls exceeding 3 feet in height. Cal/OSHA construction safety orders should be observed during all underground work. 3.12 Plan Review Once a formal grading and foundation plans are prepared for the subject property, this office should review the plans from a geotechnical viewpoint, comment on changes from the plan used during preparation of this report and revise the recommendations of this report where necessary. 3.13 Geotechnical Observation and Testing The geotechnical engineer should be contacted to provide additional observation and testing during the following construction activities: •During the clearing and grubbing of the site. •During the demolition of any existing structures, buried utilities or other existing improvements. •During excavation and overexcavation of compressible soils. •During all phases of grading including ground preparation and filling operations. Max Field at Rienstra Park Slope Erosion and Retaining Wall June 19, 2020 City of Chula Vista RMA Job No.: 20-0287-01 Page 11 • During trenching and backfilling operations of buried improvements and utilities to verify proper backfill and compaction of the utility trenches. • After excavation and prior to placement of reinforcing steel or concrete within footing trenches to verify that footings are properly founded in competent materials. • During fine or precise grading involving the placement of any fills underlying driveways, sidewalks, walkways, or other miscellaneous concrete flatwork to verify proper placement, mixing and compaction of fills. • When any unusual conditions are encountered during construction. 4.00 CLOSURE The findings, conclusions and recommendations in this report were prepared in accordance with generally accepted engineering and geologic principles and practices. No other warranty, either expressed or implied, is made. This report has been prepared for City of Chula Vista to be used solely for design purposes. Anyone using this report for any other purpose must draw their own conclusions regarding required construction procedures and subsurface conditions. The geotechnical and geologic consultant should be retained during the earthwork and foundation phases of construction to monitor compliance with the design concepts and recommendations and to provide additional recommendations as needed. Should subsurface conditions be encountered during construction that are different from those described in this report, this office should be notified immediately so that our recommendations may be re-evaluated. FIGURES AND TABLES Max Field at Rienstra Park Retaining Wall and Slope Erosion City of Chula Vista RMA Job No.: 20-0287-01 Figure 1 SITE LOCATION MAP Base Map: Google Earth GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS SITE Area with little or no vegetation REGIONAL GEOLOGIC MAP Scale: 1" ≈ 3,700' Source: Kennedy and Tan, 2008 SITE Max Field at Rienstra Park Retaining Wall and Slope Erosion City of Chula Vista RMA Job No.: 20-0287-01 Figure 2 Partial Legend Qyaa - Younger Alluvium Qop, - Old Paralic Deposits Qvop- Very Old Paralic Deposits Tsdss - San Diego Formation Sandstone Tsdcg- San Diego Formation Conglomerate REGIONAL FAULT MAP Scale: 1" ≈ 2 miles GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS Orange - Holocene fault displacement Green - Late Quaternary fault displacement Purple - Quaternary fault Black - Pre-Quaternary fault Partial Legend Base Map: California Geological Survey Fault Activity Map of California, 2010 SITE Max Field at Rienstra Park Retaining Wall and Slope Erosion City of Chula Vista RMA Job No.: 20-0287-01 Figure 3 Max Field at Rienstra Park Slope Erosion and Retaining Wall June 19, 2020 City of Chula Vista RMA Job No.: 20-0287-01 Figure 3 Photograph 1. Typical slope condition at west end of project. Photograph 2. Typical slope condition at east end of project, including portion of existing v-ditch with grass growing in concrete joints and cracks. Max Field at Rienstra Park Slope Erosion and Retaining Wall June 19, 2020 City of Chula Vista RMA Job No.: 20-0287-01 Figure 3 Photograph 3. Area on east end of project with little or no vegetation exposing sandstone. Photograph 4. Area in center of project, just west of snack bar without vegetation and higher erosion. Exposes pebble conglomerate and sandstone at base of exposure. Max Field at Rienstra Park Slope Erosion and Retaining Wall June 19, 2020 City of Chula Vista RMA Job No.: 20-0287-01 Figure 3 Photograph 5. V-ditch with grass growing cracks and joints in concrete. Grass growing on downslope side of v- ditch. Photograph 6. V-ditch with downslope erosion undermining v-ditch. Typically caused by surface runoff running over v-ditch and not being diverted to run down the v-ditch. Max Field at Rienstra Park Slope Erosion and Retaining Wall June 19, 2020 City of Chula Vista RMA Job No.: 20-0287-01 Figure 3 Photograph 7. Cracks in v-ditch. Max Field at Rienstra Park Slope Erosion and Retaining Wall June 19, 2020 City of Chula Vista RMA Job No.: 20-0287-01 Figure 3 Photograph 8. End of v-ditch with storm drain inlet. Also note build up of soil to left of v-ditch covered with dry grasses and the dry stacked blocks to restrain loose soil from slope. Max Field at Rienstra Park Slope Erosion and Retaining Wall June 19, 2020 City of Chula Vista RMA Job No.: 20-0287-01 Figure 3 Photograph 9. Typical section of retaining wall, note soil and grass nearly overtopping wall and bushes growing near top of wall. Photograph 10. Base of wall with weep holes (open joints) that are nearly completely covered by pavement. Max Field at Rienstra Park Slope Erosion and Retaining Wall June 19, 2020 City of Chula Vista RMA Job No.: 20-0287-01 Figure 3 Photograph 11. Wall east of snack bar. Area appears to have been previously modified. Soil at top of wall is being held back with boards or removed by hand. Wall appears to have been built too low and is bulging outward and footing is exposed (see Photograph 12). Photograph 12. Showing exposed footing at base of wall from Photograph 11. Footing only about 3-4” thick and bottom of footing is exposed with soil visible above asphalt pavement. Max Field at Rienstra Park Slope Erosion and Retaining Wall June 19, 2020 City of Chula Vista RMA Job No.: 20-0287-01 Figure 3 Photograph 13. Section of wall just east of Photograph 11. No drain is visible behind wall. Max Field at Rienstra Park Slope Erosion and Retaining Wall June 19, 2020 City of Chula Vista RMA Job No.: 20-0287-01 Figure 3 Photograph 14. Another area of wall modification that is bulging outward, located west of the press box. Max Field at Rienstra Park Slope Erosion and Retaining Wall June 19, 2020 City of Chula Vista RMA Job No.: 20-0287-01 Figure 3 Photograph 15. Horizontal crack in wall with drain line exiting center of wall, area east of snack bar. Photograph 16. Damage to top course of wall, note loose soil at top of wall along with vertical cut into bedrock at top of photograph indicating that wall was not built high enough or upper courses of block were removed. Max Field at Rienstra Park Slope Erosion and Retaining Wall June 19, 2020 City of Chula Vista RMA Job No.: 20-0287-01 Tables Maximum Slip Distance Distance Moment Rate Fault Zone & geometry (km)(mi.)Magnitude (mm/yr) Coronado Bank (rl-ss)24 15 7.4 3.0 Earthquake Valley (rl-ss)76 47 6.7 2.0 Elsinore - Temecula (rl-ss)86 53 7.8 5.0 Elsinore - Julian (rl-ss)71 44 6.8 5.0 Newport-Inglewood (rl-ss)71 44 6.9 1.5 Rose Canyon (rl-ss)14 9 6.9 1.5 Notes: Fault geometry - (ss) strike slip, (r) reverse, (n) normal, (rl) right lateral, (ll) left lateral, (o) oblique Fault and Seismic Data - California Geological Survey (Cao), 2003 and U.S. Geological National Seismic Hazards Maps online Sources Parameters NOTABLE FAULTS WITHIN 100 KILOMETERS AND SEISMIC DATA TABLE 1 Epicentral Distance Date Event Causitive Fault Magnitude (miles) Dec. 16, 1858 San Bernardino Area uncertain 6.0 96 Feb. 9,1890 San Jacinto uncertain 6.3 71 May 28, 1892 San Jacinto uncertain 6.3 67 Dec.25, 1899 San Jacinto San Jacinto 6.7 81 Sept. 20, 1907 San Bernardino Area uncertain 5.3 109 May 15, 1910 Elsinore Elsinore 6.0 76 April 21, 1918 Hemet San Jacinto 6.8 78 July 23, 1923 San Bernardino San Jacinto 6.0 96 March 11, 1933 Long Beach Newport-Inglewood 6.4 91 Dec. 4, 1948 Desert Hot Springs San Andreas or Banning 6.5 100 July 8, 1986 North Palm Springs Banning or Garnet Hills 5.6 99 July 13, 1986 Oceanside uncertain 5.4 51 June 28, 1992 Big Bear uncertain 6.5 108 Notes: Earthquake data: U.S. Geological Survey P.P. 1515 & online data, Southern California Earthqua California Geological Survey online data Magnitudes prior to 1932 are estimated from intensity. Magnitudes after 1932 are moment, local or surface wave magnitudes. Site Location: Site Longitude: -117.10047 Site Latitude: 32.6317 HISTORIC STRONG EARTHQUAKES IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SINCE 1858 TABLE 2 APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTS Max Field at Rienstra Park Slope Erosion and Retaining Wall June 19, 2020 City of Chula Vista RMA Job No.: 20-0287-01 Page A - 1 APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTS B-1.00 LABORATORY TESTS B-1.01 Maximum Density Maximum density - optimum moisture relationships for the major soil types encountered during the field exploration were performed in the laboratory using the standard procedures of ASTM D1557. B-1.10 Direct Shear Direct shear tests were performed on representative samples of the major soil types encountered in the test holes using the standard test method of ASTM D3080 (consolidated and drained). Tests were performed on remolded samples. Remolded samples were tested at the insitu density and moisture of the sandstone and conglomerate. Shear tests were performed on a direct shear machine of the strain-controlled type. To simulate possible adverse field conditions, the samples were saturated prior to shearing. Several samples were sheared at varying normal loads and the results plotted to establish the angle of the internal friction and cohesion of the tested samples. B-1.14 Density of Split-Barrel Samples Soil samples were obtained by using a split-barrel sampler in accordance to standard method of ASTM D1586. B-1.16 Test Results Test results for all laboratory tests performed on the subject project are presented in this appendix. Max Field at Rienstra Park Slope Erosion and Retaining Wall June 19, 2020 City of Chula Vista RMA Job No.: 20-0287-01 Page A - 2 DENSITY - MOISTURE Sample Number Moisture (Percent) Density (lbs/ft3) Sandstone 9.1 113.5 Conglomerate 6.1 120.9 Max Field at Rienstra Park Slope Erosion and Retaining Wall June 19, 2020 City of Chula Vista RMA Job No.: 20-0287-01 Page A - 3 DIRECT SHEAR TEST ASTM D3080 Sample ID:Sandstone Maximum Dry Density (pcf) = 123.4 Optimum Moisture Content (%) = 11.3 Initial Dry Density (pcf) = 113.5 Initial Moisture Content (%) = 11.3 Final Moisture Content (%) = 20.0 Normal Peak Residual Pressure (psf)Shear Resist Shear Resist 1000 912 900 2000 1728 1704 4000 2892 2880 Peak Residual Cohesion (psf) =330 310 Friction Angle (deg) =33 33 Peak Residual 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500Shear Stress (psf)Normal Stress (psf) Max Field at Rienstra Park Slope Erosion and Retaining Wall June 19, 2020 City of Chula Vista RMA Job No.: 20-0287-01 Page A - 4 DIRECT SHEAR TEST ASTM D3080 Sample ID:Conglomerate Maximum Dry Density (pcf) = 127.3 Optimum Moisture Content (%) = 9.2 Initial Dry Density (pcf) = 120.9 Initial Moisture Content (%) = 9.2 Final Moisture Content (%) = 16.3 Normal Peak Residual Pressure (psf)Shear Resist Shear Resist 1000 1836 1800 2000 2184 2172 4000 3348 3336 Peak Residual Cohesion (psf) =1250 1220 Friction Angle (deg) =27 28 Peak Residual 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500Shear Stress (psf)Normal Stress (psf) APPENDIX B GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS Max Field at Rienstra Park Slope Erosion and Retaining Wall June 19, 2020 City of Chula Vista RMA Job No.: 20-0287-01 Page B - 1 APPENDIX B GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS B-1.00 GENERAL DESCRIPTION B-1.01 Introduction These specifications present our general recommendations for earthwork and grading as shown on the approved grading plans for the subject project. These specifications shall cover all clearing and grubbing, removal of existing structures, preparation of land to be filled, filling of the land, spreading, compaction and control of the fill, and all subsidiary work necessary to complete the grading of the filled areas to conform with the lines, grades and slopes as shown on the approved plans. The recommendations contained in the geotechnical report of which these general specifications are a part of shall supersede the provisions contained hereinafter in case of conflict. B-1.02 Laboratory Standard and Field Test Methods The laboratory standard used to establish the maximum density and optimum moisture shall be ASTM D1557. The insitu density of earth materials (field compaction tests) shall be determined by the sand cone method (ASTM D1556), direct transmission nuclear method (ASTM D6938) or other test methods as considered appropriate by the geotechnical consultant. Relative compaction is defined, for purposes of these specifications, as the ratio of the in-place density to the maximum density as determined in the previously mentioned laboratory standard. B-2.00 CLEARING B-2.01 Surface Clearing All structures marked for removal, timber, logs, trees, brush and other rubbish shall be removed and disposed of off the site. Any trees to be removed shall be pulled in such a manner so as to remove as much of the root system as possible. B-2.02 Subsurface Removals A thorough search should be made for possible underground storage tanks and/or septic tanks and cesspools. If found, tanks should be removed and cesspools pumped dry. Any concrete irrigation lines shall be crushed in place and all metal underground lines shall be removed from the site. B-2.03 Backfill of Cavities All cavities created or exposed during clearing and grubbing operations or by previous use of the site shall be cleared Max Field at Rienstra Park Slope Erosion and Retaining Wall June 19, 2020 City of Chula Vista RMA Job No.: 20-0287-01 Page B - 2 of deleterious material and backfilled with native soils or other materials approved by the soil engineer. Said backfill shall be compacted to a minimum of 90% relative compaction. B-3.00 ORIGINAL GROUND PREPARATION B-3.01 Stripping of Vegetation After the site has been properly cleared, all vegetation and topsoil containing the root systems of former vegetation shall be stripped from areas to be graded. Materials removed in this stripping process may be used as fill in areas designated by the soil engineer, provided the vegetation is mixed with a sufficient amount of soil to assure that no appreciable settlement or other detriment will occur due to decaying of the organic matter. Soil materials containing more than 3% organics shall not be used as structural fill. B-3.02 Removals of Non-Engineered Fills Any non-engineered fills encountered during grading shall be completely removed and the underlying ground shall be prepared in accordance to the recommendations for original ground preparation contained in this section. After cleansing of any organic matter the fill material may be used for engineered fill. B-3.03 Overexcavation of Fill Areas The existing ground in all areas determined to be satisfactory for the support of fills shall be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches. Scarification shall continue until the soils are broken down and free from lumps or clods and until the scarified zone is uniform. The moisture content of the scarified zone shall be adjusted to within 2% of optimum moisture. The scarified zone shall then be uniformly compacted to 90% relative compaction. Where fill material is to be placed on ground with slopes steeper than 5:1 (H:V) the sloping ground shall be benched. The lowermost bench shall be a minimum of 15 feet wide, shall be a minimum of 2 feet deep, and shall expose firm material as determined by the geotechnical consultant. Other benches shall be excavated to firm material as determined by the geotechnical consultant and shall have a minimum width of 4 feet. Existing ground that is determined to be unsatisfactory for the support of fills shall be overexcavated in accordance to the recommendations contained in the geotechnical report of which these general specifications are a part. B-4.00 FILL MATERIALS B-4.01 General Materials for the fill shall be free from vegetable matter and other deleterious substances, shall not contain rocks or lumps of a greater dimension than is recommended by the geotechnical consultant, and shall be approved by the geotechnical consultant. Soils of poor gradation, expansion, or strength properties shall be placed in areas designated by the geotechnical consultant or shall be mixed with other soils providing satisfactory fill material. B-4.02 Oversize Material Oversize material, rock or other irreducible material with a maximum dimension greater than 12 inches, shall not be placed in fills, unless the location, materials, and disposal methods are specifically approved by the geotechnical Max Field at Rienstra Park Slope Erosion and Retaining Wall June 19, 2020 City of Chula Vista RMA Job No.: 20-0287-01 Page B - 3 consultant. Oversize material shall be placed in such a manner that nesting of oversize material does not occur and in such a manner that the oversize material is completely surrounded by fill material compacted to a minimum of 90% relative compaction. Oversize material shall not be placed within 10 feet of finished grade without the approval of the geotechnical consultant. B-4.03 Import Material imported to the site shall conform to the requirements of Section 4.01 of these specifications. Potential import material shall be approved by the geotechnical consultant prior to importation to the subject site. B-5.00 PLACING AND SPREADING OF FILL B-5.01 Fill Lifts The selected fill material shall be placed in nearly horizontal layers which when compacted will not exceed approximately 6 inches in thickness. Thicker lifts may be placed if testing indicates the compaction procedures are such that the required compaction is being achieved and the geotechnical consultant approves their use. Each layer shall be spread evenly and shall be thoroughly blade mixed during the spreading to insure uniformity of material in each layer. B-5.02 Fill Moisture When the moisture content of the fill material is below that recommended by the soils engineer, water shall then be added until he moisture content is as specified to assure thorough bonding during the compacting process. When the moisture content of the fill material is above that recommended by the soils engineer, the fill material shall be aerated by blading or other satisfactory methods until the moisture content is as specified. B-5.03 Fill Compaction After each layer has been placed, mixed, and spread evenly, it shall be thoroughly compacted to not less than 90% relative compaction. Compaction shall be by sheepsfoot rollers, multiple-wheel pneumatic tired rollers, or other types approved by the soil engineer. Rolling shall be accomplished while the fill material is at the specified moisture content. Rolling of each layer shall be continuous over its entire area and the roller shall make sufficient trips to insure that the desired density has been obtained. B-5.04 Fill Slopes Fill slopes shall be compacted by means of sheepsfoot rollers or other suitable equipment. Compacting of the slopes may be done progressively in increments of 3 to 4 feet in fill height. At the completion of grading, the slope face shall be compacted to a minimum of 90% relative compaction. This may require track rolling or rolling with a grid roller attached to a tractor mounted side-boom. Slopes may be over filled and cut back in such a manner that the exposed slope faces are compacted to a minimum of 90% relative compaction. Max Field at Rienstra Park Slope Erosion and Retaining Wall June 19, 2020 City of Chula Vista RMA Job No.: 20-0287-01 Page B - 4 The fill operation shall be continued in six inch (6") compacted layers, or as specified above, until the fill has been brought to the finished slopes and grades as shown on the accepted plans. B-5.05 Compaction Testing Field density tests shall be made by the geotechnical consultant of the compaction of each layer of fill. Density tests shall be made at locations selected by the geotechnical consultant. Frequency of field density tests shall be not less than one test for each 2.0 feet of fill height and at least every one thousand cubic yards of fill. Where fill slopes exceed four feet in height their finished faces shall be tested at a frequency of one test for each 1000 square feet of slope face. Where sheepsfoot rollers are used, the soil may be disturbed to a depth of several inches. Density reading shall be taken in the compacted material below the disturbed surface. When these readings indicate that the density of any layer of fill or portion thereof is below the required density, the particular layer or portion shall be reworked until the required density has been obtained. B-6.00 SUBDRAINS B-6.01 Subdrain Material Subdrains shall be constructed of a minimum 4-inch diameter pipe encased in a suitable filter material. The subdrain pipe shall be Schedule 40 Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene (ABS) or Schedule 40 Polyvinyl Chloride Plastic (PVC) pipe or approved equivalent. Subdrain pipe shall be installed with perforations down. Filter material shall consist of 3/4" to 1 1/2" clean gravel wrapped in an envelope of filter fabric consisting of Mirafi 140N or approved equivalent. B-6.02 Subdrain Installation Subdrain systems, if required, shall be installed in approved ground to conform the approximate alignment and details shown on the plans or herein. The subdrain locations shall not be changed or modified without the approval of the geotechnical consultant. The geotechnical consultant may recommend and direct changes in the subdrain line, grade or material upon approval by the design civil engineer and the appropriate governmental agencies. B-7.00 EXCAVATIONS B-7.01 General Excavations and cut slopes shall be examined by the geotechnical consultant. If determined necessary by the geotechnical consultant, further excavation or overexcavation and refilling of overexcavated areas shall be performed, and/or remedial grading of cut slopes shall be performed. B-7.02 Fill-Over-Cut Slopes Where fill-over-cut slopes are to be graded the cut portion of the slope shall be made and approved by the geotechnical consultant prior to placement of materials for construction of the fill portion of the slope. Max Field at Rienstra Park Slope Erosion and Retaining Wall June 19, 2020 City of Chula Vista RMA Job No.: 20-0287-01 Page B - 5 B-8.00 TRENCH BACKFILL B-.01 General Trench backfill within street right of ways shall be compacted to 90% relative compaction as determined by the ASTM D1557 test method. Backfill may be jetted as a means of initial compaction; however, mechanical compaction will be required to obtain the required percentage of relative compaction. If trenches are jetted, there must be a suitable delay for drainage of excess water before mechanical compaction is applied. B-9.00 SEASONAL LIMITS B-9.01 General No fill material shall be placed, spread or rolled while it is frozen or thawing or during unfavorable weather conditions. When the work is interrupted by heavy rain, fill operations shall not be resumed until field tests by the soils engineer indicate that the moisture content and density of the fill are as previously specified. B-10.00 SUPERVISION B-10.01 Prior to Grading The site shall be observed by the geotechnical consultant upon completion of clearing and grubbing, prior to the preparation of any original ground for preparation of fill. The supervisor of the grading contractor and the field representative of the geotechnical consultant shall have a meeting and discuss the geotechnical aspects of the earthwork prior to commencement of grading. C-10.02 During Grading Site preparation of all areas to receive fill shall be tested and approved by the geotechnical consultant prior to the placement of any fill. The geotechnical consultant or his representative shall observe the fill and compaction operations so that he can provide an opinion regarding the conformance of the work to the recommendations contained in this report. Max Field at Rienstra Park Slope Erosion and Retaining Wall June 19, 2020 City of Chula Vista RMA Job No.: 20-0287-01 Page B - 6 RETAINING WALL DRAINAGE DETAIL Soil backfill, compacted to 90% relative compaction* Filter fabric envelope (Mirafi 140N or approved equivalent) ** Minimum of 1 cubic foot 3" diameter perforated PVC pipe (schedule 40 or equivalent) with perforations oriented down as depicted minimum 1% gradient to suitable outlet. 3" min. Wall footing Compacted fill Finished Grade Retaining wall Wall waterproofing per architect's specifications *Based on ASTM D1557 ** If class 2 permeable material (See gradation to left) is used in place of 3/4" - 1 1/2" gravel. Filter fabric may be deleted. Class 2 permeable material compacted to 90% relative compaction. * SPECIFICATIONS FOR CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL (CAL TRANS SPECIFICATIONS) Sieve Size % Passing 1" 3/4" 3/8" No.4 No.8 No.30 No.50 No.200 0-3 0-7 5-15 18-33 25-40 40-100 90-100 100 per linear foot of 3/4" crushed rock 50 feet on center to a joints or outlet drain at Provide open cell head suitable drainage device . .. . . . . .. . . . . APPENDIX D REFERENCES Max Field at Rienstra Park Slope Erosion and Retaining Wall June 19, 2020 City of Chula Vista RMA Job No.: 20-0287-01 Page C - 1 APPENDIX C REFERENCES 1.Bryant, W.A. and Hart, E.W., 2007, Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California: California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42, Interim Revision 2007 and online updates. 2.California Building Standards Commission, 2019 California Building Code. 3.California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, 2008, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, Special Publication 117. 4.Green Book, 2018, Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (SPPWC). 5.Google Earth, Aerial Photographs, 2016, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2009, 2006, 2005, 2003, 2002, 1996. 6.Historicaerials.com, Aerial Photographs, 2012, 2010, 2009, 2005, 2002, 1996, 1978, 1972, 1967, 1966. 7.Jennings, C.W., 1994, An Explanatory Text to Accompany the Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas: California Division of Mines and Geology Map No. 6. 8.Jennings, C.W., and Bryant, W.A, 2010, Fault Activity Map of California, California Geological Survey, Geologic Data Map No. 6. 9.Kennedy, M.P. and Tan, S.S., 2008, Geologic Map of the San Diego 30’ x 60’ Quadrangle, California: California Geological Survey Map No. 3. 10.Martin, G.R. and Lew, M., 1999, Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117, Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction Hazards in California, Southern California Earthquake Center publication. 11.SEAOC Seismology Committee, 2019, “Seismically Induced Lateral Earth Pressures on Retaining Structures and Basement Walls,” August 2019, The SEAOC Blue Book: Seismic Design Recommendations, Structural Engineers Association of California, Sacramento, CA. 12.Seed, H.B. and Whitman, R.V., 1970, Design of Earth Structures for Dynamic Loads in American Society of Civil Engineers Specialty Conference State-of-the Art Paper, Lateral Stresses in the Ground and Design of Earth- Retaining Structures. 13.Tokimatsu, K. and Seed, H.B., 1987, Evaluation of Settlements in Sands Due to Earthquake Shaking, Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 113, No. 8. 14.Youd, T.L. et al. (2001). "Liquefaction resistance of soils, summary report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF workshops on evaluation of liquefaction resistance of soils, Journal of Geotechnical and GeoEnvironmental Engineering, ASCE (127) 4, pp. 297-131. 11883 1 May 2020 MEMORANDUM To: Mr. Frank Rivera, City of Chula Vista From: Patricia Schuyler, Dudek Subject: Biological Review of the Max Field Project Site Date: May 20, 2020 cc: Sean Kilkenny, Dudek Attachment(s): Figure 1, Biological Resources Dudek biologists reviewed the project site for biological constraints pertaining to the redevelopment of Max Field (Reinstra Park) located in the City of Chula Vista. The purpose of this memo is to provide an analysis of potential biological constraints within the site that would affect permitting, scheduling and cost for the re-development of the property. The potential biological resource impacts have been evaluated without a preliminary design. Design adjustments may be necessary to minimize impacts to regulated resources in order to reduce costs and expedite the development process. 1 Location and Surrounding Uses The project site is located along Max Avenue within the City of Chula Vista. Approximate center coordinates of the site are 32.602932, -117.047155. The Loma Verde Aquatic Center and elementary school are located to the west of the project site. Residential development surrounds the project site. A San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) easement abuts the project site to the north and is the only open space within the vicinity of the project site. 2 Existing Conditions and Constraints A site visit was conducted in July 2019 by Dudek biologists Patricia Schuyler and Katie Dayton. The project site was evaluated for general vegetation communities and the potential to support special-status wildlife and plant species. During the site visit, Dudek biologists utilized a GPS unit to map the boundaries of an existing channel; (see Figure 1)however, a formal jurisdictional delineation for the site was not conducted. Focused surveys for rare plants or sensitive wildlife species were not conducted. The project site is largely comprised of developed land (parking lot, baseball fields and facilities) and associated landscaping. Non-native grassland with a small pocket of maritime succulent scrub occurs in the northwestern portion of the project site. Scattered non-native trees are located along the western edge of the site. The general location of these vegetation communities are shown on Figure 1. It should be noted that detailed vegetation mapping was not conducted for the project site, only general locations and habitat types were recorded. There may be pockets of disturbed habitat located within the non-native grassland. APPENDIX D Memorandum Subject: Biological Review of the Max Field Project Site 11883 2 May 2020 The SDG&E easement located north of the project site may provide for local wildlife movement but it is expected that only urbanized wildlife such as coyotes and raccoons would utilize this area due to the intensity of the surrounding development. 3 Biological Constraints As previously stated, the project site is largely development. If redevelopment of the site is confined to developed areas, no impacts to biological resources would occur. There is a channel immediately adjacent to the project site. Any impacts to this feature would require permits from the Regulatory Agencies (i.e. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) (discussed in Section 4). Bridging the channel, as long as the abutments are located outside of the limits of the channel, should not require permits from the Regulatory Agencies or associated mitigation. However, Dudek recommends attending a pre-application meeting with the Resource Agency to present the project and confirm that permit applications would not be required. The City and the Resource Agencies do not require a specific buffer between development and stream channels or wetlands. The existing channel is located immediately adjacent to development, with a minimal buffer. It is recommended that re-development activities stay within the existing development footprint. In addition, a formal delineation can be conducted for the project site to clearly define the limits of the stream channel should it be needed. Any impacts to non-native grassland and maritime succulent scrub would require mitigation per the Chula Vista Subarea Plan. Mitigation for non-native grasslands would range from 0.5:1 to 1:1 (impact to mitigation) depending on the location of the mitigation. Mitigation for maritime succulent scrub ranges from 1:1 to 2:1. Should the re- development consider providing a more permanent walking path from the school to the project site, it is recommended that a biologist review the path location to determine that it is located within the least sensitive portion of the project site. 4 General Information on Wetland Permits Impacts to certain habitat types that are considered to be jurisdictional aquatic resources (i.e., wetlands/riparian habitat, waters/streambed), will require permits from the following jurisdictions: the (USACE) pursuant to Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act; the RWQCB pursuant to Section 401 of the federal Clean Water Act; and the CDFW pursuant to Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code. These permits would be required for impacts to the channel located along the western edge of the project site. USACE Permitting Requirements. The actual extent of USACE regulated resources within the project site will be ultimately determined by the USACE and how they apply the new Navigable Waters Protection Rule. This discussion assumes that the USACE will assert jurisdiction over the stream channel. Nationwide Permits (NWPs) are issued for a variety of projects with minimal impacts (typically less than 0.5 acre and 300 linear feet) to waters of the U.S., including wetlands. The NWP Program requires the submittal of a Pre- Construction Notification (PCN) to the USACE. The PCN needs to include a project description, a purpose and need statement for the project, a description of efforts to avoid and minimize impacts to jurisdictional areas, and a conceptual mitigation and monitoring plan to compensate for proposed impacts. Additional environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is not required for a NWP. As a result, once the USACE has Memorandum Subject: Biological Review of the Max Field Project Site 11883 3 May 2020 determined that the application is complete and the project meets the requirements of the NWP, authorization to use the NWP can be issued. It has been our experience that the USACE can take anywhere from three to six months to even a year to issue a NWP. Typical reasons for delay involve interpretations of the NWP conditions, additional requirements to avoid and minimize impacts to jurisdictional areas, circulation of the PCN to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and if appropriate and necessary, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), responding to the USFWS and EPA comments and finalizing the conceptual mitigation and monitoring plan. In addition, it should be noted that the USACE will not typically authorize the use of NWPs until the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) document for the project is certified by the lead agency and the RWQCB has issued a Water Quality Certificate in accordance with Section 401 of the federal Clean Water Act. Applications could be submitted to the USACE prior to certification or adoption of the CEQA document. However, the schedule for beginning construction should acknowledge the six month-to-one year processing time for the NWP and that a NWP cannot be issued until the CEQA document is certified/adopted. Another source of delay with the NWP process can be conforming to review requirements of the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) for cultural resources. Review and acceptance by SHPO will be critical for processing the Nationwide Permit, should any cultural resources occur on site. Please note that should impacts to jurisdictional waters of the U.S., including wetlands, exceed 0.5 acre or 300 linear feet, a Section 404 Individual Permit from the USACE may be required in lieu of a Nationwide Permit. An Individual Permit requires NEPA compliance (that is, preparation of an Environmental Assessment), preparation of a Section 404(b)(1) Alternatives Analysis and may take well over a year to eighteen months complete. The USACE may waive the linear restriction depending on a number of factors including the quality of the waters and the length that the impacts exceed the 300 foot limitation. CDFW Permitting Requirements. Pursuant to Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code, a Streambed Alteration Agreement will be needed from the CDFW prior to impacts to streambed and/or associated riparian habitat. An application is submitted to the CDFW Lake and Streambed Alteration Program which contains the following information: a detailed project description; a statement of purpose and need; an impacts analysis; a discussion of avoidance and minimization of impacts; evidence of a jurisdictional delineation; a draft conceptual mitigation and monitoring plan; all associated figures (vicinity maps, project site map, construction/grading cross- sections, mitigation area, etc.) and copies of the permit applications submitted to the RWQCB and USACE. Once the notification package has been submitted to the CDFW, the CDFW has 30 calendar days to determine if the notification package submitted is complete. Once the package has been deemed complete, the CDFW has 60 days to issue a draft agreement. Therefore, the total timing needed to obtain a Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement is 90 days. Additional processing time may be needed by the CDFW to review and approve all revegetation efforts prior to issuing the Agreement. Similar to the USACE, the CDFW will not issue the Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement until the CEQA document for the project is certified. Our experience with CDFW in obtaining 1602 Agreements is that although the timing is set at 90 days, rarely is the Agreement received in that time period. Assuming receipt of the Section 1602 Agreement in six months is probably more realistic. RWQCB Permitting Requirements. A Water Quality Certification is required from the RWQCB in accordance with Section 401 of the federal Clean Water Act prior to impacts to jurisdictional areas. The RWQCB must certify that the Memorandum Subject: Biological Review of the Max Field Project Site 11883 4 May 2020 project will not adversely impact the water quality downstream. Typically the RWQCB evaluates the type of facilities proposed at drainage outlets such as rip-rap dissipaters necessary to control the velocity of runoff from the project, as well as other Best Management Practices (BMPs) such as grassy swales for storm water treatment. An application is submitted with much of the same information as required for the USACE PCN and CDFW, but requires additional information regarding impacts to beneficial uses of the impacted watershed in accordance with the Region 9 Basin Plan, impacts to wildlife corridors, information regarding the character of the impacted stream channel upstream and downstream, and cumulative impacts within the watershed. The RWQCB has 30 days following receipt of an application to notify the applicant regarding completeness of the submitted material. Once an application has been deemed complete, the RWQCB has anywhere from 60 days to one year to either issue the permit or deny the project. During this time, the RWQCB can request additional materials to better clarify project impacts, pre- and post-construction water quality treatment, mitigation, or other aspects of the project. Assuming completeness at the time of submittal, the timing for obtaining a 401 certification is approximately 90 days. Similar to the USACE and CDFW, the RWQCB will not issue the Section 401 Water Quality Certificate until the CEQA document for the project is certified. Attachment A Figure 1 – Biological Resources Date: 8/1/2019 - Last saved by: ckubacki - Path: Z:\Projects\j1188301\MAPDOC\WORKING\Figure1_Channel_Limits_Vegetation_11x17.mxdSOURCE: SANGIS 2017 0 10050Feetn DEV, Developed MSS, Maritime Succulent Scrub NNG, Non-Native Grassland NNW, Non-Native Woodland FIGURE 1 Vegetation "J 2 6x5 ft culvert Channel Limits Project Site Max Field Reinstra Park Biological Resources Category CIP #Description Status Measure P Allocation Est. Completion Date Public Safety Buildings GG230 Construction began March 5, 2020 and the current schedule shows a completion date of March 5, 2021. 10,284,456$ Early 2021 Public Safety Buildings GG230 Construction began March 5, 2020 and the current schedule shows a completion date of April 15, 2021. 9,715,544$ Early 2021 Total Public Safety Buildings*20,000,000$ Infrastructure STL0430 Construction Phase II - Began July 2019. Field work completed August 2020; Project currently in closeout phase 16,511,295$ Summer 2020 (Closeout phase) Infrastructure TRF0408 Award Council date: October 6, 2020. Project on course to transfer to construction. 5,000,000$ Fall 2021 Infrastructure DRN0216 Emergency design and repair of corrugated metal pipes citywide. 400,000$ On-going project Infrastructure STL0443 Construction Phase - Multi-Year (3 Year) Contract; Council Award/Appropriation: August 2019. Quadrant 1 work was completed June 2020. Quadrant 2 work underway as of July 2020. 1,130,000$ Fall 2022 (Phase II) Total Infrastructure 23,041,295$ Study PRK0333 Consultant: Hunsaker & Associates. Accessibility Study completed September 24, 2020. Presentation to COC estimated: October 2020 120,000$ Accessibility Study completed 9/24/20 Total Planning 120,000$ Infrastructure STL0428 Construction Phase - Began September 2019. Completed December 2019.520,000$ Closeout Phase; NOC in Progress Infrastructure STL0427 Construction Phase I - Began March 2018. Completed December 2018. 6,768,626$ NOC Filed 2/21/19 Infrastructure DRN0209 Construction Phase I - Began March 2018. Completed December 2018. 1,256,000$ NOC filed 3/8/19 DRN0210 CMP CCTV completed 140,000$ Early Spring 2018 DRN0211 All field work complete. Completion of sinkhole repair work at 855 Energy Way and tunneling under Energy way will be done in a separate CIP project 8,185,000$ Cloeout Phase in progress; Early 2020 Infrastructure STL0421 Project completed in January 2017 23,385$ NOC Filed 6/12/17 Total Completed 16,893,011$ 60,054,306$ Other Infrastructure - CMP Rehabilitation Outside ROW Phase II Project Status Updates Measure P - In progress Public Safety Buildings Infrastructure Completed Projects Facility (Project) Street Pavement Traffic Signal System Sidewalk Rehabilitation Citywide Fire Stations Repairs/Replacements Fire Station 9: design and construct Parks Study Max Field/Loma Verde Accessibility Study Reinstra Park/Loma Verde Rec Center - bridge construction, parking needs and ADA review. Added scope: retaining wall failure and slope stabilization. Department of Engineering and Capital Projects Traffic signal replacements and improvements Fire Stations Repairs/Replacements Fire Station 5: design and construct Pavement rehabilitation on various streets based on recommendations from City's Pavement Management System for streets with pavement condition index (PCI) ranging from 0-26 Rehabilitation of aged Corrugated Metal Pipe (CMP) and other storm related repairs outside ROW Corrugated Metal Pipe Emergency Repair Street Pavement Pavement rehabilitation on various streets based on recommendations from City's Pavement Management System for streets with pavement condition index (PCI) ranging from 0-25 Pavement rehabilitation on Floyd AvenueStreet Pavement Perform drainage infrastructure assessments Citywide of approximately 28,500 LF of CMP outside ROW TOTAL PROJECT ALLOCATIONS Replace sidewalk damaged at various locations based on recommendations from the Pedestrian Connectivity Plan Other Infrastructure -Sidewalk Replacement Citywide Replace sidewalk damaged at various locations based on recommendations from the Pedestrian Connectivity Plan Infrastructure Other Infrastructure - Drainage Pipe Assessment Outside ROW Rehabilitation of aged Corrugated Metal Pipe (CMP) and other storm drain related repairs outside ROW Other Infrastructure - CMP Rehabilitation Outside ROW Updated 10/08/2020 Page 1 of 2 Item 7a, Attachment 2 Project Status Updates Measure P - In progress Department of Engineering and Capital Projects Estimated Amt Task Order Execution Date Notes $188,922.00 2/19/2018 Rick Engineering Company $99,958.58 6/26/2018 IBI Group 9,989.65 1/22/2019 Southern California Precision Concrete Inc. 452,000.00 12/10/2019 Southern California Precision Concrete Inc. Estimated Amt Task Order Execution Date Notes $618,050.00 3/12/2018 Consultant: O'Connor Estimated Amt Task Order Execution Date Notes $115,536.00 12/12/2017 Consultant: PPC $94,865.00 12/22/2017 Consultant: DHS (task terminated) $325,314.00 4/27/2018 Consultant: PPC $626,775.00 4/27/2018 Consulant: PPC $191,004.00 11/19/2018 Consultant: PPC (Construct. review & bid support) $997,726.00 4/10/2019 Consultant: Kleinfelder $35,080.00 7/3/2019 Consultant: PPC $161,000.00 10/30/2019 Consultant: PPC Estimated Amt Task Order Execution Date Notes $99,959.58 6/26/2018 Consultant: IBI Estimated Amt Task Order Execution Date Notes CIP Awarded 11/21/17 STL0430 Street Pavement Rehab Phase II TRF0408 Traffic Signal System (Fiber Network) PO 2201516STL0443 Sidewalk Rehabilitation Task Order # On Call Consultant Contracts (Available for Measure P Projects) CIP GG230 Fire Stations Repairs/Replacements Awarded 05/15/18 TASK #STL430 Task Order # Task Order # CIP Intelligent Transportation Systems Consultant (Traffic Engineering) 5 Design Build teams deemed qualified with the intention of requesting proposals from the top 3 available and interested ranked firms at RFP time. Design Build Construction Teams STL0428 - Sidewalk Replcmt (Heaves 1.5" +)TASK #STL428 TASK #STL443 STL0430 - Street Pavement Rehab Ph II Now Available: IBI Group, Iteris, Kimley-Horn, STC Traffic TASK #DR209 Task Order # Construction Management (Civil Projects)Now Available: Kleinfelder, DHS Consulting, Project Professionals Corporation. Construction Management (Facilities /Buildings) Now Available: Kimley-Horn; NV5; Rick Engineering Co. and; TY-LIN International. Now Available: Kitchell CEM; O'Connor Construction Management. TASK #GG230 A, B, C Awarded 9/19/17Civil Engineering PO 2181583 Task Order # PO 2182005 STL0427- Street Pavement Rehab Ph I DRN211 - CMP Rehab Outside ROW Ph II STL0428 Sidewalk Replcmnt (Informal Bid)PO 219148 CIP Prequalified List Determined 10/11/17 STL0443 - Sidewalk Slicing Awarded 11/7/17 PO 2182005TRF0408 - Traffic Signals Sys TASK #STL427 CIP DRN0209- CMP Rehab Outside ROW STL0430 - Street Pavement Rehab Ph II TASK #STL430 A STL0427- Street Pavement Rehab Ph I TASK #STL427 TASK #DRN211 Updated 10/08/2020 Page 2 of 2 CategoryCIP #Facility (Project)DescriptionStatusMeasure P Allocation FY17Measure P Allocation FY18Measure P Allocation FY19Measure P Allocation FY20Measure P Allocation FY21Measure P Allocation TotalEst. Completion DatePublic Safety VehiclesNAFire VehiclesFire VehiclesIn Progress385,000$ 1,730,680$ 2,807,500$ 2,626,500$ 7,549,680$ OngoingPublic Safety VehiclesNAPolice VehiclesPolice VehiclesIn Progress463,940$ 1,798,760$ 653,000$ 494,850$ 3,410,550$ OngoingNon-Safety City VehiclesNANon-Safety City VehiclesPublic Services Fleet and Public Works EquipmentIn Progress2,818,000$ 749,000$ 1,520,100$ 5,087,100$ Ongoing.Non-Safety City VehiclesGG235Non-Safety City VehiclesFleet Infrastructure (Replacement of fuel stations) Design1,000,000$ 1,000,000$ EV Chargers: Civic Center- Completed Public Works- Completed Police- Completed Replacement of Fuel Management System anticipated to be completed by Summer 2021Fire EquipmentNAFire EquipmentRescue airbag replacement, radios, etc.In Progress183,000$ 1,385,261$ 1,568,261$ Ongoing Breathing Apparatus was purchased using FEMA Grant FundsPolice EquipmentPolice EquipmentNAPolice EquipmentBody worn cameras, video camera equipment, etc.Effort has not commenced 187,384$ 28,000$ 215,384$ Fall 2021Police Equipment NA Police EquipmentPolice Communications & dispatch SystemIn progress86,153$ 196,994$ 283,147$ OngoingPublic Safety BuildingsPublic Safety BuildingsGG232Police Facility RepairsReplacement of bulletproof glass in jail cellCompleted9,000$ 9,000$ CompletedPublic Safety BuildingsGG232Police Facility RepairsBuilding Automation Systems (BAS) In Progress500,000$ 500,000$ Video Management Camera System Phase I- Completed BAS anticipated completion Spring 2021Public Safety Buildings GG232 Police Facility RepairsFire Protection SystemCompleted110,000110,000$ Replaced 13 carbon monoxide detectors. Replaced Wet Sprinkler System including parking facility. Public Safety BuildingsGG232Police Facility RepairsElectrical Service & Distribution (VFD)Design350,000$ 350,000$ Police HVAC Replacement ProjectTBDPublic Safety BuildingsGG232Police Facility RepairsTurbocor HVAC Completed40,000$ 40,000$ Completed emergency replacement of Turbocor Unit 1 & 2Public Safety BuildingsGG232Police Facility RepairsVarious energy efficiency projects Design500,000$ 500,000$ Phase 1 LED Lighting Project Complete. Phase 2 Police HVAC Replacement Project - TBDPublic Safety BuildingsGGV0232Police Facility RepairsP.A. System replacementEffort has not commenced 20,000$ 20,000$ Winter 2020Public Safety BuildingsGGVO232Police Facility RepairsGate Drive Replacement: replace failing motorsCompleted72,000$ 72,000$ CompletedPublic Safety BuildingsGGV0232Police Facility RepairsReplace boilers, chillers and heating and air conditioning systemDesign400,000$ 100,000$ 500,000$ Police HVAC Replacement Project TBDPublic Safety BuildingsGG230Fire Stations Repairs/ReplacementsFire Station 5: Secure properties, design and construct In Progress23,000$ 6,500,000$ 1,008,619$ 2,535,280$ 198,601$ 10,265,500$ Spring 2021Public Safety BuildingsGG230Fire Stations Repairs/ReplacementsFire Station 9: Secure properties, design and constructIn Progress23,000$ 6,500,000$ 1,008,619$ 2,535,281$ 198,601$ 10,265,501$ Spring 2021Public Safety BuildingsGG230Fire Stations Repairs/ReplacementsFire Station 1: Functional upgradesDesign-$ NewPublic Safety BuildingsGG230Fire Stations Repairs/ReplacementsFire Station 1: Roof ReplacementCompleted203,000$ 203,000$ CompletedPublic Safety BuildingsGGVO230Fire Stations Repairs/ReplacementsGate Drive Replacement: replace failing motorsDesign72,000$ 72,000$ Spring 2021Public Safety BuildingsGGV0242Fire Stations Repairs/ReplacementsFire Station 2 Fueling Tank ReplacementDesign277$ 761,383$ 761,660$ Winter 2021Public Safety BuildingsGGV0249Fire Stations Repairs/ReplacementsFire Station Door ReplacementsCompleted1,500,000$ 1,500,000$ CompletedPublic Safety BuildingsGGV0252Fire Station 1 Repair/ReplaceRenovation: enlarge apparatus bay, repurpose exercise room into turnout room, install 4 dorms, new windows Effort has not commenced 2,185,380$ 2,185,380$ NewInfrastructure NASports Courts and FieldsIrrigation and controller changeover at lighted Fields (5 Parks)Completed85,000$ 85,000$ Chula Vista Community Park (January 2018)Discovery Park (January 2018)Terra Nova Park (April 2018)Rohr Park Field 17 & 18 (June 2018) InfrastructurePR327 Sports Courts and FieldsIrrigation and controller changeover Citywide sports fieldsIn Progress2,000,000$ (1,523,600)$ 476,400$ Citywide Smart Irrigation System - Consultant hired for DesignInfrastructurePR327 Sports Courts and FieldsSport complex amenities: multipurpose fields, bleachers, handrailsEffort has not commenced 1,500,000$ (500,000)$ 1,000,000$ Spring 2021Infrastructure PR327Sports Courts and FieldsSalt Creek Soccer Arena - Replacement of turfEffort has not commenced NewInfrastructurePR327Sports Courts and FieldsResurfacing 36 courts CitywideCompleted200,000$ 200,000$ CompletedInfrastructurePR327Sports Courts and FieldsRohr Park: Reconstruction of Basketball CourtsCompleted300,000$ 300,000$ CompletedInfrastructurePR327 Sports Courts and FieldsVarious energy efficiency projects. Citywide sports courts and fields lighting.Effort has not commenced 500,000$ (500,000)$ -$ Summer 2021Infrastructure GG228Park InfrastructureParkway - Replacement of Pool Decking and interior and exterior wall repairs and painting.Completed250,000$ 250,000$ CompletedInfrastructurePR326Park InfrastructureReplacement of Citywide playgrounds and resilient surfacingCompleted217,800$ 217,800$ Harborside- Completed Rancho Del Rey- Completed InfrastructurePR326Park InfrastructureReplacement of Citywide playgrounds and resilient surfacingIn Progress1,282,200$ (500,000)$ 782,200$ Breezewood - Completed Rohr Park- In Progress Explorer Park- In ProgressInfrastructurePR326 Park InfrastructureSmart controllers, irrigation, drainage Citywide parks Design2,000,000$ (1,500,000)$ 500,000$ Santa Cora Park Irrigation Pump- Completed Harborside Park Irrigation Pump- Completed Montevalle- Completed InfrastructureProject Status UpdatesMeasure P - In progressPublic Safety VehiclesNon-Safety City VehiclesFire Equipment 10/12/2020Page 1 of 3Item 7a, Attachment 3 CategoryCIP #Facility (Project)DescriptionStatusMeasure P Allocation FY17Measure P Allocation FY18Measure P Allocation FY19Measure P Allocation FY20Measure P Allocation FY21Measure P Allocation TotalEst. Completion DateProject Status UpdatesMeasure P - In progressInfrastructurePR326 Park InfrastructurePark asset replacements: barbeque grills, benches, drinking fountains, picnic tables, lightsIn Progress500,000$ 250,000$ 750,000$ Drinking Fountain Replacement Project- Completed Roof Replacements- Completed: Greg Rogers Park Menzel Field Restroom Discovery Park Restrooms and Snack Bar InfrastructurePR326 Park InfrastructurePath/walkway repairs and ADA access Citywide parks and parking lotsIn Progress1,000,000$ 75,000$ 69,000$ 305,925$ 1,449,925$ Discovery- CompletedGreg Rogers- CompletedVoyager Park- Completed Bay Blvd Park- Completed Eucalyptus Park- In Progress Los Ninos- In Progress Rohr Park- In Progress Terra Nova-In Progress Reinstra Park Staircase demolition complete; next phase - ADA Study Rohr Jogging Trail- Completed Remaining Parks to be completed Spring 2021InfrastructurePRK0326 Park Infrastructure Replace existing destressed park pathway lights In Progress75,000$ 68,654$ 411,123$ 554,777$ Windingwalk - In Progress Veterans - In Progress Spring 2021InfrastructurePR326 Park InfrastructureVarious energy efficiency projects. Citywide park pathway lightingEffort has not commenced 500,000$ 500,000$ Summer 2022Infrastructure PRK0328 Park InfrastructureReplace restroom at Rohr Park; plumbing, termite damage, roof leaks, and drainage issuesDesign800,000$ 800,000$ Spring 2021InfrastructurePRK0329 Park InfrastructureLauderbach Park repairs and improvements; $1m CA Youth Soccer grant received will be used to maximize impact of grant fundingDesign250,000$ 250,000$ Winter 2020InfrastructurePRK0333Park InfrastructureMax Field / Loma Verde Accessibility StudyCompleted100,000$ 100,000$ CompletedInfrastructureSTL421/STL427 Street Pavement Pavement rehabilitation on various streets based on recommendations from City's Pavement Management System for streets with pavement condition index (PCI) ranging from 0-25Completed363,940$ 6,768,626$ 7,132,566$ CompletedInfrastructureSTL430 Street Pavement Pavement rehabilitation on various streets based on recommendations from City's Pavement Management System for streets with pavement condition index (PCI) ranging from 0-25In Progress8,750,000$ 8,592,295$ 17,342,295$ Summer 2020 (Closeout Phase)InfrastructureTF408 Traffic Signal System-Fiber Network Traffic signal replacements and improvements Design3,000,000$ 2,000,000$ 5,000,000$ Fall 2021InfrastructureDR209Other Infrastructure - CMP Rehabilitation Outside ROWRehabilitation of aged Corrugated Metal Pipe (CMP) and other storm related repairs outside ROWCompleted1,121,000$ (315,000)$ 806,000$ CompletedInfrastructureDR210Other Infrastructure - Drainage Pipe Assessment Outside ROWPerform drainage infrastructure assessments Citywide of approximately 28,5000 LF of CMP outside ROW Completed140,000$ 140,000$ CompletedInfrastructureDR211Other Infrastructure - CMP Rehabilitation Outside ROWRehabilitation of aged Corrugated Metal Pipe (CMP) and other storm related repairs outside ROWCompleted5,639,000$ 165,000$ 5,804,000$ Spring 2020InfrastructureDR216Other Infrastructure - CMP Rehabilitation Outside ROW Phase IIOngoingInfrastructureSTL428/STL443Other Infrastructure -Sidewalk Replacement CitywideReplace sidewalk damaged at various locations based on recommendations from the Pedestrian Connectivity PlanIn Progress2,500,000$ (850,000)$ 1,650,000$ Phase I- Winter 2019 Phase II- Fall 2022infrastructureCTY0226Other Infrastructure-Dead/Dying TreeIn Progress100,000$ 100,000$ OngoingPolice Communications & Dispatch Systems NAPolice Communications & Dispatch SystemsCAD ReplacementCompleted17,660$ 170,238$ 86,377$ 170,238$ 444,513$ System installed and went live July 2017. Debt Service payments will continue through FY2026-27.Regional Communications Systems (RCS) NA Regional Communications Systems (RCS) Portable and mobile radiosCompleted1,396,460$ 535,000$ 350,000$ 350,000$ 2,631,460$ Equipment purchase complete. Debt service payments will continue through FY2026-27.Fire Response VehiclesNAFire Response VehiclesPumper, Fire Engines, Ladder Truck LeasesCompleted244,400$ 385,000$ 385,000$ 1,014,400$ Debt Service payments will continue through FY2026-27.Public Facilities GG231Civic Center Library and South Chula Vista LibraryCivic Center Library: Foyer bathroom remodel for ADA complianceCompleted250,000$ 250,000$ Completed Public Facilities GG231Civic Center Library and South Chula Vista LibraryCivic Center Library: Adult and Children restrooms (4) remodel for ADA complianceDesign500,000$ (100,000)$ 782,000$ 1,182,000$ Summer 2021Public Facilities GG231Civic Center Library and South Chula Vista LibraryCivic Center Library: Roof replacementCompleted550,000$ 550,000$ CompletedPublic Facilities GG231Civic Center Library and South Chula Vista LibraryCivic Center Library: Exterior stucco repairsEffort has not commenced -$ Summer 2021Public Facilities GG231Civic Center Library and South Chula Vista LibrarySouth Chula Vista Library: FlooringDesign300,000$ 300,000$ Summer 2021Public Facilities GG231Civic Center Library and South Chula Vista LibraryCivic Center Library: Upgrades to electrical, lighting, HVACDesign900,000$ (900,000)$ -$ Part of Citywide HVAC Project Summer 2021Public Facilities GG231Civic Center Library and South Chula Vista LibrarySouth Chula Vista Library: Upgrades to electrical, HVAC In Progress500,000$ 250,000$ 750,000$ Emergency replacement of two failed HVAC units- Completed Roof overlay Literacy Wing- Completed Public Facilities GG231Civic Center Library and South Chula Vista LibrarySouth Chula Vista Library:: Roof (BUR) Replacement Completed-$ CompletedPolice Equipment and Capital Lease PaymentsPublic Facilities 10/12/2020Page 2 of 3 CategoryCIP #Facility (Project)DescriptionStatusMeasure P Allocation FY17Measure P Allocation FY18Measure P Allocation FY19Measure P Allocation FY20Measure P Allocation FY21Measure P Allocation TotalEst. Completion DateProject Status UpdatesMeasure P - In progressPublic Facilities GG233 Recreation and Senior Center RepairsLoma Verde Recreation and Aquatic Center: Pool Plaster, Pool Deck, Pump and Equipment; Upgrades to electrical, roof, exterior stucco, painting; Replace gymnasium floor1,450,000$ (450,000)$ (1,000,000)$ -$ New project - GGV0247Public FacilitiesGG233Recreation and Senior Center RepairsNorman Park Center: Kitchen remodelCompleted100,000$ 100,000$ CompletedPublic FacilitiesGG233Recreation and Senior Center RepairsNorman Park Center: Women's restroom remodelCompleted250,000$ 250,000$ CompletedPublic FacilitiesGG233Recreation and Senior Center RepairsNorman Park Center: Flooring, decking, drainageCompleted550,000$ 651,000$ 1,201,000$ CompletedPublic Facilities GG233 Recreation and Senior Center RepairsWomen's Club: Upgrades to electrical, HVAC, plumbing, roof, windows, stuccoIn Progress400,000$ 400,000$ Roof Replacement- Completed Windows/Stucco/Paint- In Progress Spring 2021Public Facilities GG233 Recreation and Senior Center Repairs Energy efficiency projects: Recreation and Senior Center In Progress2,250,000$ (1,050,000)$ 500,000$ 1,700,000$ Phase 1 LED Lighting Retrofit- Completed Phase 2 Citywide HVAC Project Summer 2021Public Facilities GGV0247 Recreation and Senior Center Repairs Loma Verde Aquatic and Recreation CenterDesign1,500,000$ 1,500,000$ Public Outreach- In progress State Grant Application submitted August 2019 - Project not eligible Submersible pool lights - Completed Pool line leak - Completed Aquatic Center roof replacement- CompletedPublic Facilities GG234 Other Public BuildingsAnimal Care Facility: electrical, HVAC, plumbing, roofing other structures, trailer replacementCompleted500,000$ 500,000$ Replaced damp wall with tile back receiving area- Completed HVAC-Replaced condenser and evaporator coil- Completed HVAC- Replace heating, ventilating and air conditioning units- In progress Trailer Replacement Project- Completed Public FacilitiesGG224Other Public BuildingsLauderbach Center: various improvementsIn Progress-$ Winter 2020Public Facilities GG234 Other Public BuildingsLiving Coast Discovery Center: alarm systems, septic tank, decking and rail supports, sliding doors, exterior retaining wall repair, interior/exterior lighting, electrical, HVAC, roofing and stucco repairsIn Progress1,000,000$ (500,000)$ 150,000$ 650,000$ Roof assessment - Completed Fire Alarm Panel- Completed Install 2 AC Units- Completed Roof Replacement - Completed Public Facilities GG234 Other Public BuildingsKen Lee Building: roofing, HVAC, electrical, Fire Protection SystemIn Progress250,000$ 250,000$ HVAC air conditioning units- Completed Roof replacement- Completed Summer 2021Public FacilitiesGG234Other Public BuildingsBoys and Girls Club: roofIn Progress-$ Fall 2020Public FacilitiesGG234Other Public BuildingsBoys and Girls Club : electrical distribution boardIn Progress100,000$ 100,000$ Summer 2021Public Facilities GG234 Other Public BuildingsPublic Works Corp Yard: HVAC, lighting, Building Automation System, Fire Protection SystemDesign600,000$ 350,000$ 491,600$ 1,441,600$ Winter 2020Public FacilitiesGG234Other Public BuildingsPolice Department: roof over dispatchCompleted250,000$ 250,000$ CompletedPublic Facilities GG234 Other Public BuildingsCivic Center - Exterior wood surfacesCompleted500,000$ 500,000$ Veterans Rec Center- Completed Civic Center Buildings- Completed Public Facilities GG234 Other Public BuildingsVarious Energy efficiency projects: Citywide Public FacilitiesCompleted2,000,000$ (1,357,788)$ (500,000)$ 142,212$ LED Lighting Retrofit Phase I- CompletedPublic Facilities GG234 Other Public BuildingsCitywide Gate Drive Replacement: replace failing gate motorsEffort has not commenced 36,000$ 36,000$ Summer 2021Public FacilitiesGGV0234Other Public BuildingsCitywide plumbing replacement and retrofitEffort has not commenced 50,000$ 325,000$ 375,000$ Summer 2021Public Facilities GGV0234 Other Public BuildingsPW Garage - Replace Plymovent Exhaust Recovery SystemEffort has not commenced 50,000$ 50,000$ New InfrastructureGG236Citywide Network ReplacementCitywide network replacementCompleted2,045,000$ 35,700$ 2,080,700$ CompletedInfrastructureGG237 Citywide TelecommunicationsCity ITS staff has begun working on the Citywide Telecommunications project which will replace the entire PBX based phone system at City facilities with a IP Based phone system. This phone system will provide significant productivity advantages and include collaborative tools such as video conferencing In Progress2,000,000$ 155,602$ 2,155,602$ Summer 2021 $ 3,200,000 79,245,965$ 12,500,738$ 14,842,279$ 3,674,630$ 113,463,612$ In ProgressCompletedTOTAL PROJECT EXPENDITURES 10/12/2020Page 3 of 3 Measure P - In ProgressProject Detail ReportCategoryCIP # PO #VendorEnc. AmountMP Account NumberDescriptionNon-Safety City VehiclesNon-Safety City VehiclesGG235SDGE56,070$ GGV0235-220-FleetEV Chargers: one-time participation feePublic Safety BuildingsPolice Facility Repairs GG2322181541 DG INVESTMENT INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, 2 INC 120,369.73 GGV0232-BASAUTO-PDPD: Video Camera Replacement System2181911 DG INVESTMENT INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, 2 INC 18,668.00 GGV0232-BASAUTO-PDPD: Replace 5 PTZ Cameras2181912 DG INVESTMENT INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, 2 INC 20,980.00 GGV0232-BASAUTO-PDPD: Replace 15 jail cameras and 2 exterior fixed cameras2181928 ATEL COMMUNICATIONS INC5,459.42 GGV0232-BASAUTO-PDPD: Cabling for new CPE cameras2181994 COMMPEDIA INC17,578.22 GGV0232-BASAUTO-PDPD: Category 6 cabling for 23 camera locations2181641COUNTYWIDE MECHANICAL SYSTEMS INC7,528.00GGV0232-220-FIREPROSYS-PDPD: Replace 13 carbon monoxide detectors2181687TYCO FIRE & SECURITY MANAGEMENT INC5,760.00GGV0232-220-FIREPROSYS-PDPD: Fire Protection five year certification inspection on wet sprinkler systems 2181825TYCO FIRE & SECURITY MANAGEMENT INC27,297.29GGV0232-220-FIREPROSYS-PDPD: Replace wet sprinkler system including parking facility2180857SAN DIEGO MECHANICAL44,328.00GGV0232-220-INFRASTRPD: Replace failed compressor TT400 (Unit 1)2181217SAN DIEGO MECHANICAL42,828.00GGV0232-220-INFRASTRPD: Replace failed compressor TT400 (Unit 2)2181658SCHINDLER ELEVATOR CORPORATION60,187.88GGV0232-220-INFRASTRPD: Replace 6 total door operators in 4 PD elevators2181859MESA ENERGY SYSTEMS6,474.00GGV0232-220-INFRASTRPD: Replace failed 5 HP Century Motor and Yaskawa variable frequency drive2191371MESA ENERGY SYSTEMS7,357.00GGV0232-220-INFRASTRPD: Replace 15HP VFD and motor on AH-32201287COUNTYWIDE MECHANICAL SYSTEMS INC17,584.00GGV0232-220-INFRASTRPD: Replace turbocor cooling solenoid2181631ENERGY RETROFIT CO/MARKETING POWER INC150,511.91GGV0232-220-ENERGYEFF-PDPD: LED Lighting Upgrade Project 2181689PROJECT PROFESSIONALS CORPORATION57,668.47GGV0232-220-ENERGYEFF-PDPD: CIP Construction Management - LED Lighting Upgrade Project2181826IRC TECHNOLOGIES3,800.00GGV0233-220-ROOF-PDPD: Roof assessment2190735DOORWORKX12,865.65GGV0232-220-BLDGEXT-PDPD: Replace Door System2191362INDUSTRIAL DOOR GROUP INC46,815.72GGV0232-220-BLDGEXT-PDPD: Replace Door System2201508DOORWORKX5,748.06GGV0232-220-BLDGEXT-PDPD: Replace Door System barrel (broken spring)2200531KITCHELL COPORATION32,090.00GGV0232-220-HVAC-PDPD: Consultant services for HVAC upgrades2210750COUNTYWIDE MECHANICAL SYSTEMS INC3,037.36GGV0232-220-HVAC-PDPD: Replace failed circon vav controllerGG232 Subtotal714,936.71$ Fire Station Door ReplacementGGV02492191533JEFF KATZ ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES20,000.00$ GGV0249-220-INFRASTRFS: Fire Station Door Replacement (2, 3, 4, 6, 7) Bid Documents2201134JEFF KATZ ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES6,000.00$ GGV0249-220-INFRASTRFS: Fire Station Door Replacement (2, 3, 4, 6, 7) Design Administration Services2201747PROJECT PROFESSIONALS CORPORATION52,351.00$ GGV0249-220-INFRASTRFS: Fire Station Door Replacement (2, 3, 4, 6, 7) Construction ManagementSAN DIEGO NEIGHBORHOOD NEWSPAPERS84.56$ GGV0249-220-INFRASTRFS: Fire Station Door Replacement (2, 3, 4, 6, 7) Advertise2201835KUNZIK AND SARA CONSTUCTION, INC.1,134,263.44$ GGV0249-220-INFRASTRFS: Fire Station Door Replacement (2, 3, 4, 6, 7) Project2200335KIMLEY-HORN4,800.00$ GGV0249-220-INFRASTRFS: Fire Station Door Replacement (2, 3, 4, 6, 7) Construction Management2202293CHRIS R. SPERBECK, INC.6,910.18$ GGV0249-220-INFRASTRFS: Fire Station 7 Replace lift master gate operator2202276AAIR PURIFICATION SYSTEMS2,500.00$ GGV0249-220-INFRASTRFS: Fire Station 2 Shorten exhaust duct for vehicle exhaust system2191679PROJECT PROFESSIONALS CORPORATION943.18$ GGV0249-220-INFRASTRFS: Fire Station 1 Roof warranty workGGV0249 Subtotal1,227,852.36$ InfrastructureSports Courts and FieldsPR3272181143ZUMAR925.38PRK0327-220-INFRASTCity logo stencil for Tennis and Basketball Court Resurfacing Project2181041SEQUOIA SURFACING & ENGINEERING169,290.00PRK0327-220-INFRASTSPORTS COURTS/FIELDS (38): Tennis and Basketball Court Resurfacing ProjectP57177SITEONE74,156.70PRK0327-220-IRRIGATION-SPORTFIELDSPORTS FIELDS: Irrigation controllers various fields2181502EWING IRRIGATION PRODUCTS23,107.22PRK0327-220-IRRIGATION-SPORTFIELDCHULA VISTA COMMUNITY: Irrigation and controller parts2181536FSH ENTERPRISES INC9,982.81PRK0327-220-IRRIGATION-SPORTFIELDDISCOVERY PARK: Master flo sensor2181543EWING IRRIGATION PRODUCTS9,407.94PRK0327-220-IRRIGATION-SPORTFIELDDISCOVERY PARK: Irrigation and controller parts2181563IMPERIAL SPRINKLER SUPPLY2,181.65PRK0327-220-IRRIGATION-SPORTFIELDDISCOVERY PARK: Shut off valve and sensor valves2190942GRANGETTO'S FARM & GARDEN1,131.43PRK0327-220-IRRIGATION-SPORTFIELDEUCALYPTUS PARK: Irrigation and controller changeover2191423EWING IRRIGATION PRODUCTS2,384.21PRK0327-220-IRRIGATION-SPORTFIELDPARK VIEW LL: Irrigation and controller changeover2200138SITEONE11,422.36PRK0327-220-IRRIGATION-SPORTFIELDMONTEVALLE PARK: Irrigation and controller changeover2200452EWING IRRIGATION PRODUCTS4,739.54PRK0327-220-IRRIGATION-SPORTFIELDPARKS: Citywide Irrigation parts2181718NV5 INC21,448.00PRK0327-220-COURTS-ROHR PARKROHR PARK: Professionals services for bid documents for Basketball Court Reconstruction Project2190485NINYO AND MOORE GEOTECHNICAL6,578.00PRK0327-220-COURTS-ROHR PARKROHR PARK: Basketball courts; soils testing for construction SAN DIEGO NEIGHBORHOOD NEWSPAPERS133.26PRK0327-220-COURTS-ROHR PARKROHR PARK: Rohr Park Basketball Court Replacement Project - Advertising cost 10/12/2020 Page 1 of 6 Measure P - In ProgressProject Detail ReportCategoryCIP # PO #VendorEnc. AmountMP Account NumberDescription2190974PROJECT PROFESSIONALS CORPORATION59,724.68PRK0327-220-COURTS-ROHR PARKROHR PARK: Rohr Park Basketball Court Replacement Project - Construction Management Services2191170BYROM-DAVEY, INC247,613.58PRK0327-220-COURTS-ROHR PARKROHR PARK: Rohr Park Basketball Court Replacement Project - Contractor2181754IMPERIAL SPRINKLER SUPPLY11,293.36PRK0327-220-IRRIGATION-SPORTFIELDTERRA NOVA: Irrigation/controller changeover sports fields2181849SITEONE LANDSCAPE SUPPLY17,466.68PRK0327-220-IRRIGATION-SPORTFIELDROHR PARK: Irrigation/controller changeover sports fields2181955GRANGETTO'S FARM & GARDEN2,547.21PRK0327-220-IRRIGATION-SPORTFIELDROHR PARK: Water meter2181959IMPERIAL SPRINKLER SUPPLY8,940.29PRK0327-220-IRRIGATION-SPORTFIELDROHR PARK: Calsense parts for controller installation2181960EWING IRRIGATION PRODUCTS7,032.02PRK0327-220-IRRIGATION-SPORTFIELDROHR PARK/TERRA NOVA PARK: Irrigation controllers and nozzles for installation2181961FSH ENTERPRISES INC9,986.32PRK0327-220-IRRIGATION-SPORTFIELDROHR PARK: Irrigation master valve and flo sensors2181975VAUGHN IRRIGATION SERVICES INC5,340.00PRK0327-220-IRRIGATION-SPORTFIELDROHR PARK: Install flow sensor and decoder and related items2181996SITEONE LANDSCAPE SUPPLY9,003.30PRK0327-220-IRRIGATION-SPORTFIELDROHR PARK: Irrigation parts and fittings for nozzle and head replacements2181984WAYNE GRAF9,500.00PRK0327-220-IRRIGATION-SPORTFIELDIrrigation consulting services: various sport fieldsPR327 Subtotal725,335.94$ Park InfrastructurePR3262181251AO REED9,986.00PRK0327-220-PRKAMENITYVOYAGER PARK: Replace 2 stainless toilets and lavatories 2181634MOST DEPENDABLE FOUNTAINS INC3,912.25PRK0326-220-PRKAMENITYSKATE PARK: Drinking fountain 2181816NV5 INC14,269.00PRK0326-220-PRKAMENITYPARKS: Professional services for bid documents for drinking fountain replacement project2181962DAVE BANG ASSOCIATES8,575.25PRK0326-220-PRKAMENITYPARKS: Tennis court nets (22)2181963DAVE BANG ASSOCIATES5,010.32PRK0326-220-PRKAMENITYPARKS: Basketball nets (69)2190349DAVE BANG ASSOCIATES2,266.29PRK0326-220-PRKAMENITYPARKS: Playworld slash proof swing infant seat (10)2190398JAMESTOWN ADVANCED PRODUCTS CORP6,308.56PRK0326-220-PRKAMENITYPARKS: Standard Park Grills (20)2191064KLEINFELDER INC36,327.00PRK0326-220-PRKAMENITYPARKS: Replacement of Drinking Fountains at City Parks Project - Construction Management2191169SHAWN HUNTER204,221.00PRK0326-220-PRKAMENITYPARKS: Replacement of Drinking Fountains at City Parks Project - Contractor2200585CALIFORNIA ELECTRIC SUPPLY5,063.72PRK0326-220-PRKAMENITYMARISOL/MEMORIAL PARKS: Replace LED Lights2200586SHAWN HUNTER5,100.00PRK0326-220-PRKAMENITYMONTEVALLE PARK: Replacement of drinking fountain in dog parkSAN DIEGO NEIGHBORHOOD NEWSPAPERS74.31PRK0326-220-PRKAMENITYPARKS: Replacement of Drinking Fountains at City Parks Project - Advertising Cost2181621SLOAN ELECTRIC CO1,192.26PRK0326-220-IRRIGATION-PARKSSANTA CORA PARK: Replace failed motor for irrigation pumpSAN DIEGO NEIGHBORHOOD NEWSPAPERS56.38PRK0326-220-IRRIGATION-PARKSPARKS: Citywide Irrigation Master Plan RFP- Advertising Costs2200749DELORENZO INTERNATIONAL INC230,000.00PRK0326-220-IRRIGATION-PARKSPARKS: Consultant services Irrigation Master PlanTHE STAR NEWS PUBLISHING COMPANY74.31PRK0326-220-PATHWAYPARKS: Sidewalk and Pavement Improvements Project - Advertising Cost2181297NV5 INC9,078.50PRK0326-220-PATHWAYPARKS: Professional services for bid documents for Sidewalk and Pavement Improvements Project 2181813FRANK & SON'S PAVING INC377,234.06PRK0326-220-PATHWAYPARKS (3): Sidewalk and Pavement Improvement Project (Discovery/Greg Rogers/Voyager)2181817PROJECT PROFESSIONALS CORPORATION49,942.15PRK0326-220-PATHWAYPARKS (3): CIP Construction Management- Sidewalk and Pavement Improvement Project2202003NV5 INC9,695.00PRK0326-220-PATHWAYPARKS (3): Bid documents - Sidewalk and Pavement Improvement Project Phase II (Eucalyptus/Los Ninos /Rohr)SAN DIEGO NEIGHBORHOOD NEWSPAPERS76.88PRK0326-220-OTHERSRVPARKS (3): Advertising Services - Sidewalk and Pavement Improvement Project Phase II2200758PROJECT PROFESSIONALS CORPORATION80,136.00PRK0326-220-PATHWAYPARKS (3): CIP Construction Management- Sidewalk and Pavement Improvement Project Phase II2181995CASS CONSTRUCTION INC9,979.00PRK0326-220-PATHWAYLOMA VERDE: Demo existing pedestrian bridge 2181993LG EQUIPMENT INC79,648.00PRK0326-220-PATHWAYROHR PARK/GOLF COURSE: grade walking/jogging trail around perimeter of golf course2181999SOUTH BAY FENCE9,995.00PRK0326-220-PATHWAYLOMA VERDE: Install permanent chain link fence with gates2190973PAL GENERAL ENGINEERING66,491.34PRK0326-220-PATHWAYBAY BLVD PARK: Pathway repairs and ADA access2190972ROOF CONSTRUCTION40,955.00PRK0326-220-ROOF-GREGROGERSGREG ROGERS MAINTENACE SHED: Roof replacement2191749S&J BUILDERS AND RESTORATION9,986.33PRK0326-220-RESTROOMS-GREGROGERSGREG ROGERS: Restroom renovation damaged by roof leaks2191684NV5 INC18,438.00PRK0326-220-ROOF-MENZLFIELDMENZEL FIELD RESTROOM: Professional services for bid documents for roof replacement project2191746KLEINFELDER INC17,749.51PRK0326-220-ROOF-MENZLFIELDMENZEL FIELD RESTROOM: Construction Management services for roof replacement project2200532WEATHER TECH ROOFING INC21,918.00PRK0326-220-ROOF-MENZLFIELDMENZEL FIELD RESTROOM: Roof replacement project2191684NV5 INC22,816.00PRK0326-220-ROOF-DISCOVRYPKDISCOVERY PARK RESTROOM/SNACK BAR: Professional services for bid documents for roof project2191746KLEINFELDER INC17,749.51PRK0326-220-ROOF-DISCOVRYPKDISCOVERY PARK RESTROOM/SNACK BAR: Construction Management services for roof project2200532WEATHER TECH ROOFING INC36,250.00PRK0326-220-ROOF-DISCOVRYPKDISCOVERY PARK RESTROOM/SNACK BAR: Roof project2181631ENERGY RETROFIT CO/MARKETING POWER INC14,691.86PRK0326-220-ENERGYEFF-PARKSPARKS (35): LED Lighting Upgrade Project2181689PROJECT PROFESSIONALS CORPORATION16,469.54PRK0326-220-ENERGYEFF-PARKSPARKS (35): CIP Construction Management- LED Lighting Upgrade Project2190907GOTHAM POURED RUBBER CORP85,212.00PRK0326-220-PLAYGRNDS-PARKSHARBORSIDE: Replace resilient playground surfaces2191599NV5 INC5,117.50PRK0326-220-PLAYGRNDS-PARKSPARKS (9): Exhibits illustrating playground areas to install new resilient surfaces2191881DAVE BANG ASSOCIATES132,521.93PRK0326-220-PLAYGRNDS-PARKSRANCHO DEL REY: Replace resilient playground surface and playground structure2202136PACIFIC PLAY SYSTEMS INC285,000.00PRK0326-220-PLAYGRNDS-PARKSBREEZEWOOD: Replace playground structure2201119NV5 INC7,495.00PRK0326-220-LIGHTING-PARKSVETERAN'S/WINDINGWALK PARKS: Bid documents Replacement of Pedestrian/Parking Lot Lights2202319GA ABELL INC337,597.00PRK0326-220-LIGHTING-PARKSVETERAN'S/WINDINGWALK PARKS: Replacement of Pedestrian/Parking Lot Lights ProjectSAN DIEGO NEIGHBORHOOD NEWSPAPERS74.31PRK0326-220-OTHERSRVVETERAN'S/WINDINGWALK PARK: Advertising services Replacement of Pedestrian/Parking Lot Lights2202289PROJECT PROFESSIONALS CORPORATION37,730.00PRK0326-220-PATHWAYVETERAN'S/WINDINGWALK PARKS: Construction Management Replacement of Pedestrian/Parking Lot lights2202268NV5 INC21,129.50PRK0326-220-ELECTRICAL-EUCALYPTPKEUCALYPTUS: Bid documents Electrical Distribution Board 10/12/2020 Page 2 of 6 Measure P - In ProgressProject Detail ReportCategoryCIP # PO #VendorEnc. AmountMP Account NumberDescription2202159WATKING ENVIRONMENTAL INC26,510.00PRK0326-220-INFRASTRROHR PARK RANGER STATION : Demolition of building PR326 Subtotal2,380,123.57$ Rohr Park Restroom PR3282191095KIMLEY-HORN96,209.00$ PRK0328-220-RESTROOMS-ROHRPKROHR PARK: Restroom Replacement Project bid documents2202247PROJECT PROFESSIONALS CORPORATION38,633.00$ PRK0328-220-RESTROOMS-ROHRPKROHR PARK: Construction Management Restroom Replacement ProjectSAN DIEGO NEIGHBORHOOD NEWSPAPERS71.75$ PRK0328-220-RESTROOMS-ROHRPKROHR PARK: Restroom Replacement Project advertising services2191121H M PITT LABS1,125.00$ PRK0328-220-RESTROOMS-ROHRPKROHR PARK: Environmental services, asbestos testing2191481NINYO AND MOORE GEOTECHNICAL9,900.00$ PRK0328-220-RESTROOMS-ROHRPKROHR PARK: Geotechnical evaluation of restroom building2200986NINYO AND MOORE GEOTECHNICAL3,900.00$ PRK0328-220-RESTROOMS-ROHRPKROHR PARK: Supplemental geotechnical evaluation servicesPR328 Subtotal149,838.75$ Public FacilitiesCivic Center Library/South LibraryGG2312181142NV5 INC4,397.50GGV0231-220-RESTROOMS-CCLIBRARYCCLIBRARY: Professional services for bid documents for ADA Restroom Improvement Project2181643CYBER PROFESSIONAL SOLUTIONS CORP225,052.58GGV0231-220-RESTROOMS-CCLIBRARYCCLIBRARY: ADA Restroom Improvements Project2181688PROJECT PROFESSIONALS CORPORATION44,391.23GGV0231-220-RESTROOMS-CCLIBRARYCCLIBRARY: CIP Construction Management - ADA Restroom Improvement Project2181127H M PITT LABS 770.00GGV0231-220-RESTROOMS-CCLIBRARYCCLIBRARY: Environmental services, asbestos testingTHE STAR NEWS PUBLISHING COMPANY74.31GGV0231-220-RESTROOMS-CCLIBRARYCCLIBRARY ADA Restroom Improvements Project -Advertising cost2201404 KIMLEY-HORN229,389.00 GGV0231-220-RESTROOMS-CCLIBRARYCCLIBRARY: Adult/Children's restroom (4) Remodel for ADA compliance and upgrades to parking lot2202183 H M PITT Labs825.00 GGV0231-220-RESTROOMS-CCLIBRARYCCLIBRARY: Environmental services Adult/Children's Restroom (4) Remodel2181431INDEPENDENT ROOFING CONSULTANTS (IRC)1,300.00GGV0231-220-ROOF-CCLIBRARYCCLIBRARY: Roof assessment2190754PROJECT PROFESSIONALS CORPORATION63,931.00GGV0231-220-ROOF-CCLIBRARYCCLIBRARY: Construction Management services for the Civic Center Library Roof project2190988ERC ROOFING742,382.10GGV0231-220-ROOF-CCLIBRARYCCLIBRARY: Roof Replacement Project2191097INDEPENDENT ROOFING CONSULTANTS (IRC)2,650.00GGV0231-220-ROOF-SOLIBRARYSOLIBRARY: Inspection of roof system2190975A GOOD ROOFER35,206.00GGV0231-220-ROOF-SOLIBRARYSOLIBRARY: Roof overlay - Literacy Wing 2191684NV5 INC29,346.00GGV0231-220-ROOF-SOLIBRARYSOLIBRARY: Professional services to develop bid document for (BUR) roof replacement project2191746KLEINFELDER INC17,749.52GGV0231-220-ROOF-SOLIBRARYSOLIBRARY: Construction Management services for roof replacement project2200532WEATHER TECH ROOFING INC130,316.00GGV0231-220-ROOF-SOLIBRARYSOLIBRARY: Roof Replacement Project2201384COUNTYWIDE MECHANICAL SYSTEMS INC4,457.00GGV0231-220-ROOF-SOLIBRARYSOLIBRARY: Install 12" curbs on relief damper exhaust and supply intake on roof top2201834SYLVESTER ROOFING COMPANY INC31,456.51GGV0231-220-ROOF-SOLIBRARYSOLIBRARY: Copper roof replacement2181910NV5 INC7,993.00GGV0231-220-OTHERSRVCCLIBRARY/SOLIBRARY: Professional services to develop bid documents for roof replacement2190189COUNTYWIDE MECHANICAL SYSTEMS INC54,975.00GGV0231-220-INFRASTRSOLIBRARY: Replace 2 Trane HVAC units2191462TRANE2,330.00GGV0231-220-INFRASTRSOLIBRARY: Replace failed UC400 on boiler and furnish and install new UC400 controller2191469TRANE5,847.00GGV0231-220-INFRASTRSOLIBRARY: Replace BAS controllers2201875TYCO FIRE & SECURITY MANAGEMENT INC21,404.19GGV0231-220-INFRASTRSOLIBRARY: Replace fire system sprinklers2190486NINYO AND MOORE GEOTECHNICAL5,800.00GGV0231-220-FLOORING-SOLIBRARYSOLIBRARY: Required testing to replace flooring2191189ODDROSE STUDIO12,579.52GGV0231-220-FLOORING-SOLIBRARYSOLIBRARY: Replace flooring SO Library Energy Station2191491NINYO AND MOORE GEOTECHNICAL39,700.00GGV0231-220-FLOORING-SOLIBRARYSOLIBRARY: Evaluate causes/mechanisms of reported concrete floor cracking/moisture issues2200531KITCHELL COPORATION32,090.00GGV0231-220-HVAC-CCLIBRARYCCLIBRARY: Consultant services for HVAC upgradesGGV0231 Subtotal1,746,412.46$ Recreation Center/Senior CenterGG2332181890AQUATIC DESIGN GROUP INC7,140.00GGVO233-220-INFRASTRLOMA VERDE REC: Swimming pool assessment study2201952COUNTYWIDE MECHANICAL SYSTEMS INC2,625.00GGVO233-220-INFRASTRSALT CREEK: Replace controllerSAN DIEGO NEIGHBORHOOD NEWSPAPERS76.88GGV0233-220-OTHERNORMAN REC: Advertising services for Kitchen/Women's Restroom Remodel ProjectUPS24.65GGV0233-220-OTHERNORMAN REC: Ship contract documents for Kitchen/Women's Restroom Remodel ProjectSAN DIEGO NEIGHBORHOOD NEWSPAPERS87.13GGV0233-220-OTHERNORMAN REC: Advertising services for Roof/Deck Improvement ProjectSAN DIEGO NEIGHBORHOOD NEWSPAPERS76.88GGV0233-220-OTHERWOMENS CLUB: Advertising services for Window Replacement/Exterior Painting Project2181537O'CONNOR CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT53,430.00GGV0233-220-BLDGINT-NORMANRECNORMAN REC: Professional services DB bidding documents for kitchen/women's restroom remodel2191204KIMLEY HORN158,801.09GGV0233-220-BLDGINT-NORMANRECNORMAN REC: Professional services bid documents kitchen/women's restroom remodel projectPW PROJECT PERMIT 2,395.36GGV0233-220-BLDGINT-NORMANRECNORMAN REC: Building permit kitchen/women's restroom remodel project2191480RED HAWK FIRE AND SECURITY4,500.00GGV0233-220-BLDGINT-NORMANRECNORMAN REC: Replace Fire Alarm Panel2191488 KIMLEY-HORN109,254.79 GGV0233-220-BLDGINT-NORMANRECNORMAN REC: Professional services for bidding documents for second floor deck/roof replacement2191604NU FLOW AMERICA INC3,250.00GGV0233-220-BLDGINT-NORMANRECNORMAN REC: Pipe jetting and CCTV inspections of failed DEC drain pipes2191751H.M. PITT LABS INC920.00GGV0233-220-BLDGINT-NORMANRECNORMAN REC: Environmental services required for 3 bathrooms2191836RESTORATON HARDWOOD FLOORING11,783.00GGV0233-220-BLDGINT-NORMANRECNORMAN REC: Sand and finish gymnasium floor2191839HUFCOR INC3,688.00GGV0233-220-BLDGINT-NORMANRECNORMAN REC: Replace removable wall2191875KLEINFELDER INC69,081.95GGV0233-220-BLDGINT-NORMANRECNORMAN REC: Construction Management for kitchen/women's restroom remodel project2200238CUSTOM DESIGN PAINTING8,500.00GGV0233-220-BLDGINT-NORMANRECNORMAN REC: Paint foyer2200594CUSTOM DESIGN PAINTING800.00GGV0233-220-BLDGINT-NORMANRECNORMAN REC: Paint interior and exterior foyer doors 10/12/2020 Page 3 of 6 Measure P - In ProgressProject Detail ReportCategoryCIP # PO #VendorEnc. AmountMP Account NumberDescription2200568CALIFORNIA ELECTRIC SUPPLY1,729.13GGV0233-220-BLDGINT-NORMANRECNORMAN REC: LED lights2200810RED HAWK FIRE AND SECURITY9,200.00GGV0233-220-BLDGINT-NORMANRECNORMAN REC: Upgrade to Fire Alarm System2201383H.M. PITT LABS INC650.00GGV0233-220-BLDGINT-NORMANRECNORMAN REC: Environmental services 2201389NINYO AND MOORE GEOTECHNICAL1,347.00GGV0233-220-BLDGINT-NORMANRECNORMAN REC: Geotechnical material testing required for ADA parking modifications2200893SD REMODELING INC579,630.93GGV0233-220-BLDGINT-NORMANRECNORMAN REC: Kitchen/women's restroom remodel/ ADA upgrades project2201288ODDROSE STUDIO2,400.00GGV0233-220-BLDGINT-NORMANRECNORMAN REC: Consultant services for interior design2201599KING OF THE PAINTERS CO INC74,000.00GGV0233-220-BLDGINT-NORMANRECNORMAN REC: Paint lobby and window frames2201606ODDROSE STUDIO21,093.77GGV0233-220-BLDGINT-NORMANRECNORMAN REC: Install carpet, tiles and mats2201611S&J BUILDERS AND RESTORATION7,766.25GGV0233-220-BLDGINT-NORMANRECNORMAN REC: Framing and drywall replacements2201833MEACOR SIGNS5,862.96GGV0233-220-BLDGINT-NORMANRECNORMAN REC: Wall graphics2201876SAM'S FENCING INC1,350.00GGV0233-220-BLDGINT-NORMANRECNORMAN REC: Fireplace screen2201893THE GLASS COMPANY1,868.44GGV0233-220-BLDGINT-NORMANRECNORMAN REC: Clear/acrylic shelving2202120COUNTYWIDE MECHANICAL SYSTEMS INC4,990.00GGV0233-220-BLDGINT-NORMANRECNORMAN REC: Demo/remove existing ductwork2202022RED HAWK FIRE AND SECURITY6,000.00GGV0233-220-BLDGINT-NORMANRECNORMAN REC: Fire alarm testing and replacements2202151TYCO FIRE & SECURITY MANAGEMENT INC4,418.00GGV0233-220-BLDGINT-NORMANRECNORMAN REC: Wet sprinkler system 5 year certification inspection2202287MITY-LITE INC2,248.52GGV0233-220-BLDGINT-NORMANRECNORMAN REC: Chairs2202295ODDROSE STUDIO994.23GGV0233-220-BLDGINT-NORMANRECNORMAN REC: Remove/replace column protection in gymFASTSIGNS242.55GGV0233-220-BLDGINT-NORMANRECNORMAN REC: Signs "Sustainability"PCARD7,144.42GGV0233-220-BLDGINT-NORMANRECNORMAN REC: FFE2191683APLOMB MEDIA10,550.00GGV0233-220-BLDGEXT-NORMANPKNORMAN REC: Interior design foyer and hall2191748PORTILLO CONCRETE INC6,800.00GGV0233-220-BLDGEXT-NORMANPKNORMAN REC: Install 1 ADA Ramp2191860TYCO FIRE & SECURITY MANAGEMENT INC44,000.00GGV0233-220-BLDGEXT-NORMANPKNORMAN REC: Install backflow2200288STANLEY ACCESS INC18,930.00GGV0233-220-BLDGEXT-NORMANPKNORMAN REC: Install swing door2201312PROJECT PROFESSIONALS CORPORATION44,945.00GGV0233-220-BLDGEXT-NORMANPKNORMAN REC: Construction management for the Roof/Deck Improvement Project2201836DE LA FUENTE CONSTRUCTION572,163.43GGV0233-220-BLDGEXT-NORMANPKNORMAN REC: Roof/Deck Improvement Project2201333PORTILLO CONCRETE INC5,520.00GGV0233-220-BLDGEXT-NORMANPKNORMAN REC: Install 1 ADA handrail2201600SOUTH BAY FENCE995.00GGV0233-220-BLDGEXT-NORMANPKNORMAN REC: Modifications to existing walk gate2210979STARK MANUFACTURING COMPANY9,032.00GGV0233-220-BLDGEXT-NORMANPKNORMAN REC: Remove/replace sun shade structure2210798DE LA FUENTE CONSTRUCTION139,119.29GGV0233-220-BLDGEXT-NORMANPKNORMAN REC: Metal Roof Project2210887PROJECT PROFESSIONALS CORPORATION8,922.00GGV0233-220-BLDGEXT-NORMANPKNORMAN REC: Metal Roof Project construction management2190752O'CONNOR CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT13,040.00GGV0233-220-BLDGEXT-LOMAVRECLOMA VERDE REC: Preconstruction services for pool/recreation center renovation2190837H M PITT LABS 3,220.00GGV0233-220-BLDGEXT-LOMAVRECLOMA VERDE REC: Environmental services, lead and asbestos testing2191837ERIC DAVY ARCHITECTS9,950.00GGV0233-220-BLDGEXT-LOMAVRECLOMA VERDE REC: Architectural and design services for pool/recreation center renovationISTOCKPHOTO199.95GGV0233-220-BLDGEXT-LOMAVRECLOMA VERDE REC: Stock photosPETTY CASH50.00GGV0233-220-BLDGEXT-LOMAVRECLOMA VERDE REC: Stock photos2202317ACCI ROOFING31,829.42GGV0233-220-BLDGEXT-OTAYRECOTAY REC: Gutter Replacement Project2202248PROJECT PROFESSIONALS CORPORATION19,773.00GGV0233-220-BLDGEXT-WOMENSCLBWOMENS CLUB: Construction Management Window Replacement/Exterior Painting Project2210751M.W. VASQUEZ CONSTRUCTION CO, INC.165,828.00GGV0233-220-BLDGEXT-WOMENSCLBWOMENS CLUB: Window Replacement/Exterior Painting ProjectH M PITT LABS885.00GGV0233-220-BLDGEXT-WOMENSCLBWOMENS CLUB: Environmental services, lead testing2210617WATKINS ENVIRONMENTAL INC12,625.00GGV0233-220-BLDGEXT-WOMENSCLBWOMENS CLUB: Asbestos abatement for Window Replacement/Exterior Painting Project2180955H M PITT LABS 605.00GGV0233-220-ROOF-LOMAVRECLOMA VERDE REC: Environmental services, lead and asbestos testing2181826IRC TECHNOLOGIES2,200.00GGV0233-220-ROOF-LOMAVRECLOMA VERDE REC: Inspection of roof system2191859L&L ROOFING INC75,000.00GGV0233-220-ROOF-LOMAVRECLOMA VERDE REC: Aquatic Center roof replacement2181826IRC TECHNOLOGIES900.00GGV0233-220-ROOF-GREGROGERSGREG ROGERS MAINTENACE SHED: Inspection of roof system2181826IRC TECHNOLOGIES1,300.00GGV0233-220-ROOF-WOMENSCLBWOMEN'S CLUB: Inspection of roof system2190505H M PITT LABS 935.00GGV0233-220-ROOF-WOMENSCLBWOMEN'S CLUB: Environmental services, lead and asbestos testing2190976KIMLEY HORN103,659.00GGV0233-220-ROOF-WOMENSCLBWOMEN'S CLUB: Professional services bid documents roof replacement project2191744PROJECT PROFESSIONALS CORPORATION36,725.00GGV0233-220-ROOF-WOMENSCLBWOMEN'S CLUB: Construction Management services PW PROJECT PERMIT 787.00GGV0233-220-ROOF-WOMENSCLBWOMEN'S CLUB: Building permit cost for roof replacement projectSAN DIEGO NEIGHBORHOOD NEWSPAPERS84.56GGV0233-220-ROOF-WOMENSCLBWOMEN'S CLUB: Advertising services for roof replacement project2200529URBAN CORPS OF SAN DIEGO246,410.02GGV0233-220-ROOF-WOMENSCLBWOMEN'S CLUB: Roof replacement project2181631ENERGY RETROFIT CO/MARKETING POWER INC16,855.28GGV0233-220-ENERGYEFF-SRCENTERWOMEN'S CLUB/NORMAN PARK: LED Lighting Upgrade Project2181689PROJECT PROFESSIONALS CORPORATION8,646.79GGV0233-220-ENERGYEFF-SRCENTERWOMEN'S CLUB/NORMAN PARK: CIP Construction Management-LED Lighting Upgrade Project2181631ENERGY RETROFIT CO/MARKETING POWER INC52,850.69GGV0233-220-ENERGYEFF-RECCENTERSREC CENTERS: LED Lighting Upgrade Project2181689PROJECT PROFESSIONALS CORPORATION27,384.16GGV0233-220-ENERGYEFF-RECCENTERSREC CENTERS: CIP Construction Management-LED Lighting Upgrade Project2190531REGENCY ENTERPRISES INC20,616.43GGV0233-220-ENERGYEFF-RECCENTERSREC CENTERS: Replacement LED Lamps2191109BSN SPORTS LLC6,654.63GGV0233-220-RECAMENITY-RECCENTERSSALT CREEK REC: Replace indoor basketball court backboard padding2191108BSN SPORTS LLC8,088.25GGV0233-220-RECAMENITY-RECCENTERSOTAY REC: Replace indoor basketball court backboard padding 10/12/2020 Page 4 of 6 Measure P - In ProgressProject Detail ReportCategoryCIP # PO #VendorEnc. AmountMP Account NumberDescription2191118BSN SPORTS LLC11,198.00GGV0233-220-RECAMENITY-RECCENTERSPARKWAY REC: Replace indoor basketball court backboard padding2200234BSN SPORTS LLC5,562.50GGV0233-220-RECAMENITY-RECCENTERSSALT CREEK REC: Replace porter bottom roll curtain2201955BDN SPORTS LLC34,211.90GGV0233-220-RECAMENITY-RECCENTERSMONTEVALLE REC: Replace gym divider curtain2191279MISSION POOLS OF ESCONDIDO INC53,900.00GGV0233-220-POOL-LOMAVRECLOMA VERDE REC: Replace pool lights2191812A.O. REED & COMPANY32,223.62GGV0233-220-POOL-LOMAVRECLOMA VERDE REC: Pool line leak under slab2191657EMCOR15,998.00GGV0233-220-HVAC-MTVALLERECMONTEVALLE REC: Replace AC unit2200531KITCHELL COPORATION32,090.00GGV0233-220-HVAC-NORMANRECNORMAN REC: Consultant services for HVAC upgrades2202269NV5 INC30,535.00GGV0233-220-HVAC-NORMANRECNORMAN REC: Bid documents for replacement of AC Units.GGV0233 Subtotal3,113,168.85$ Other Public Buildings GG2342201160ACCO ENGINEERED SYSTEMS29,115.00GGV0234-220-BLDGINT-LAUDRBCHPKLAUDERBACH: AC Unit for meeting room #12201253ARDMORE CONSTRUCTION38,520.00GGV0234-220-BLDGINT-LAUDRBCHPKLAUDERBACH: Renovation 2201479AIRTEK INDOOR AIR SOLUTIONS, LLC8,450.00GGV0234-220-BLDGINT-LAUDRBCHPKLAUDERBACH: Environmental services2181399REID CONSTRUCTION5,777.00GGV0234-220-BLDGINT-ACFANIMAL CARE FACILITY: Replace damp drywall with tile2200592ATEL COMMUNICATIONS INC2,924.27GGV0234-220-BLDGINT-ACFANIMAL CARE FACILITY: Cabling network for new ACF trailer2201913SAS ACCESS SYSTEMS4,672.98GGV0234-220-BLDGINT-ACFANIMAL CARE FACILITY: 8 Door controller system2191752ODDROSE STUDIO4,200.00GGV0234-220-OTHEREXP-ACFANIMAL CARE FACILITY: Design services for new office trailer2191886GM BUSINESS INTERIORS58,045.22GGV0234-220-OTHEREXP-ACFANIMAL CARE FACILITY: Furnishings for new trailer: workstations, desking, seating, tables, storage2200748ODDROSE STUDIO3,400.00GGV0234-220-OTHEREXP-ACFANIMAL CARE FACILITY: Removal of furniture for auction2201080STARK MANUFACTURING COMPANY1,240.00GGV0234-220-OTHEREXP-ACFANIMAL CARE FACILITY: Disposal of removed aluminum awnings2201436TMP SERVICES INC3,195.94GGV0234-220-OTHEREXP-ACFANIMAL CARE FACILITY: Landing step and handrail for trailerPCARD1,042.22GGV0234-220-OTHEREXP-ACFANIMAL CARE FACILITY: Best Buy supplies2190753PROJECT PROFESSIONALS CORPORATION30,824.94GGV0234-220-BLDGEXTANIMAL CARE FACILITY: Construction Management service for ACF trailer replacement project2191394MODULAR BUILDING CONCEPTS INC256,903.75GGV0234-220-BLDGEXTANIMAL CARE FACILITY: Mobile Office Trailer2180914CUSTOM DESIGN PAINTING18,000.00GGVO234-220-BLDGEXTCIVIC CENTER: Staining 26 courtyard doors2180911CUSTOM DESIGN PAINTING8,000.00GGV0234-220-BLDGEXTCIVIC CENTER BLDG A: Exterior wood surfaces - 16 perimeter doors2180913CUSTOM DESIGN PAINTING25,000.00GGV0234-220-BLDGEXTCIVIC CENTER BLDG A: Exterior wood surfaces - exterior perimeter wood, eaves and trellis2190532GONZALEZ, DANIEL70,000.00GGV0234-220-BLDGEXTCIVIC CENTER BLDG B & C: Exterior wood surfaces - exterior wood ceiling/trellis; 3 benches2181570ART PONCE PAINTING5,047.15GGV0234-220-BLDGEXTCIVIC CENTER BLDG B & C: Exterior wood surfaces2181620ART PONCE PAINTING17,260.44GGV0234-220-BLDGEXTVETERANS PARK: Painting exterior wood surfaces2202070SOUTH BAY FENCE6,160.00GGV0234-220-BLDGEXTPUBLIC WORKS CENTER: Replace gate operator motor2200218BRAGG CRANE SERVICE1,391.00GGV0334-220-HVACCIVIC CENTER BLDG B: Crane services to replace compressors2200558BRAGG CRANE SERVICE1,391.00GGV0334-220-HVACCIVIC CENTER BLDG B: Crane services to replace compressors2200221TRANE7,694.82GGV0334-220-HVACCIVIC CENTER BLDG B: Compressors and parts2200477TRANE14,340.41GGV0234-220-HVACCIVIC CENTER BLDG B: Parts to repair HVAC units2200450REFRIGERATION SUPPLIES4,180.86GGV0234-220-HVACCIVIC CENTER BLDG B: Compressors and parts2201706A O REED & COMPANY5,986.30GGV0234-220-HVACCIVIC CENTER BLDG A: Replace water heater2181138MESA ENERGY SYSTEMS INC7,968.00GGV0234-220-HVAC-ACFANIMAL CARE FACILITY: Replace condenser and evaporator coil2190759ACCO ENGINEERED SYSTEMS9,733.00GGV0234-220-HVAC-PWCPUBLIC WORKS CENTER: Replace the split system in server room2200531KITCHELL COPORATION32,090.01GGV0234-220-HVAC-PWCPUBLIC WORKS CENTER: Consultant services for HVAC upgrades2202267KITCHELL COPORATION138,115.00GGV0234-220-HVAC-PWCPUBLIC WORKS CENTER: Consultant services for Boiler/Chiller Replacement Project2210714NORMAN S WRIGHT CLIMATEC MECHANICAL29,172.19GGV0234-220-HVAC-BOYSGIRLSBOYS/GIRLS CLUB: Replace rooftop downblast exhaust fans2181904NV5 INC11,868.15GGV0234-220-OTHERSRVBOYS/GIRLS CLUB: Professional services to develop bid documents for roof replacementSAN DIEGO NEIGHBORHOOD NEWSPAPERS66.63GGV0234-220-OTHERSRVBOYS/GIRLS CLUB: Roof Replacement Project- Advertising costsSAN DIEGO NEIGHBORHOOD NEWSPAPERS74.31GGV0234-220-OTHERSRVCIVIC CENTER BLDG A, B, C: Roof Replacement Project- Advertising costsSAN DIEGO NEIGHBORHOOD NEWSPAPERS51.25GGV0234-220-OTHERSRVPUBLIC BUILDINGS: HVAC Infrastructure Improvements - Advertising costsSAN DIEGO NEIGHBORHOOD NEWSPAPERS89.69GGV0234-220-OTHERSRVPUBLIC BUILDINGS: Roof Improvements-Ken Lee, So Library, Menzel Field , Discovery - AdvertisingSAN DIEGO NEIGHBORHOOD NEWSPAPERS82.00GGV0234-220-OTHERSRVBOYS/GIRLS CLUB: Roof Replacement Project- Advertising costs (2)SAN DIEGO NEIGHBORHOOD NEWSPAPERS89.69GGV0234-220-OTHERSRVLIVING COAST DISCOVERY CENTER: Roof Replacement Project - Advertising costsSAN DIEGO NEIGHBORHOOD NEWSPAPERS76.88GGV0234-220-OTHERSRVLIVING COAST DISCOVERY CENTER: Walkway and Handrail Replacement Project - Advertising costs2181431INDEPENDENT ROOFING CONSULTANTS1,650.00GGV0234-220-ROOF-OTHERBOYS/GIRLS CLUB: Roof assessments2181873INDEPENDENT ROOFING CONSULTANTS3,200.00GGV0234-220-ROOF-OTHERLIVING COAST DISCOVERY CENTER: Inspection of roof system2181431INDEPENDENT ROOFING CONSULTANTS4,400.00GGV0234-220-ROOF-CIVICCTRCIVIC CENTER BLDG A, B, C: Roof assessments2190754PROJECT PROFESSIONALS CORPORATION3,534.00GGV0234-220-ROOF-CIVICCTRCIVIC CENTER BLDG A, B, C: Roof Replacement Project: Construction Management 2190988COMMERCIAL WATERPROOFING SYSTEMS, INC.49,502.49GGV0234-220-ROOF-CIVICCTRCIVIC CENTER BLDG A, B, C: Roof Replacement Project2181826INDEPENDENT ROOFING CONSULTANTS1,350.00GGV0234-220-ROOF-KENLEEBLDGKEN LEE BUILDING: Inspection of roof system2191684NV5 INC24,440.00GGV0234-220-ROOF-KENLEEBLDGKEN LEE BUILDING: Professional services to develop bid documents for roof replacement project2191746KLEINFELDER INC17,699.58GGV0234-220-ROOF-KENLEEBLDGKEN LEE BUILDING: Construction Management services for roof replacement project 10/12/2020 Page 5 of 6 Measure P - In ProgressProject Detail ReportCategoryCIP # PO #VendorEnc. AmountMP Account NumberDescription2200532WEATHER TECH ROOFING INC123,783.24GGV0234-220-ROOF-KENLEEBLDGKEN LEE BUILDING: Roof Replacement project2190958PROJECT PROFESSIONALS CORPORATION62,124.39GGV0234-220-ROOF-BOYSGIRLSBOYS/GIRLS CLUB: Construction Management - Roof Improvement Project2191470KIMLEY HORN75,989.00GGV0234-220-ROOF-BOYSGIRLSBOYS/GIRLS CLUB: Professional services to develop bid documents for Roof Improvement Project2201323COMMERCIAL WATERPROOFING SYSTEMS, INC.1,105,388.90GGV0234-220-ROOF-BOYSGIRLSBOYS/GIRLS CLUB: Roof Replacement projectPW PROJECT PERMIT 1,198.28GGV0234-220-ROOF-BOYSGIRLSBOYS/GIRLS CLUB: Roof replacement project building permit2191168ROOF CONTRUCTION36,645.00GGV0234-220-ROOF-PDPD Dispatch roof2181631ENERGY RETROFIT CO428,397.04GGV0234-220-ENERGYEFF-OTHERPUBLIC BUILDINGS (16): LED Lighting Upgrade Project2181689PROJECT PROFESSIONALS CORPORATION157,691.09GGV0234-220-ENERGYEFF-OTHERPUBLIC BUILDINGS (16): CIP Construction Management - LED Lighting Upgrade ProjectTHE STAR NEWS PUBLISHING COMPANY84.56GGV0234-220-ENERGYEFF-OTHERPUBLIC BUILDINGS (16): LED Lighting Upgrade Project -Advertising costs2191063KIMLEY-HORN42,031.75GGV0234-220-ENERGYEFF-OTHERPUBLIC BUILDINGS: Solar Inverters/Arrays Replacement/Restoration Project: Bid documents2191228CITY ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY2,686.13GGV0234-220-ENERGYEFF-OTHERSO LIBRARY: Replacement LED Lamps2200769CALIFORNIA ELECTRIC SUPPLY9,092.36GGV0231-220-ENERGYEFF-OTHERSO LIBRARY: Replacement LED Lamps2191375REGENCY ENTERPRISES INC2,763.51GGV0234-220-ENERGYEFF-OTHERPUBLIC BUILDINGS: Battery Back UP LED Egress Lighting2191745KLEINFELDER INC1,231.00GGV0234-220-ENERGYEFF-OTHERPUBLIC BUILDINGS: Construction Management solar inverter project2191861SOLTERRA LIGHTING INC10,086.78GGV0234-220-ENERGYEFF-OTHERPUBLIC WORKS CENTER: Replace LED lights - GarageHAWTHORNE MACHINERY CO421.62GGV0234-220-ENERGYEFF-OTHERPUBLIC WORKS CENTER: Replace LED lights - GaragePW PROJECT PERMIT 4,535.80GGV0234-220-ENERGYEFF-OTHERPUBLIC BUILDINGS: Solar Inverters/Arrays Replacement/Restoration Project: Building permits2200188SOLTERRA LIGHTING INC3,515.91GGV0234-220-ENERGYEFF-OTHERPUBLIC BUILDINGS: Replace LED lights : Civic Center Bldgs A, B, C2200232SOLTERRA LIGHTING INC271.01GGV0234-220-ENERGYEFF-OTHERPUBLIC BUILDINGS: Replace LED lights : Civic Center Bldgs A, B, C2200708REXEL USA INC4,327.66GGV0234-220-ENERGYEFF-OTHERPUBLIC BUILDINGS: Luminous exit signs for SO Library2191369COUNTYWIDE MECHANICAL SYSTEMS INC20,970.00GGV0234-220-INFRASTR-LIVCOASTDCDISCOVERY CENTER: Install 2 AC units2191443RED HAWK FIRE AND SECURITY5,350.00GGV0234-220-INFRASTR-LIVCOASTDCDISCOVERY CENTER: Replace Fire Alarm Panel2201145NV5 INC60,953.00GGV0234-220-INFRASTR-LIVCOASTDCDISCOVERY CENTER: Professional services to prepare bid documents for renovation activities2201635ATLAS COPCO USA HOLDINGS INC11,771.73GGV0234-220-INFRASTR-LIVCOASTDCDISCOVERY CENTER: Replace compressor2201661RED HAWK FIRE AND SECURITY5,121.62GGV0234-220-INFRASTR-LIVCOASTDCDISCOVERY CENTER: Replace Fire Alarm System cable2201891S&J BUILDERS AND RESTORATION10,095.32GGV0234-220-INFRASTR-LIVCOASTDCDISCOVERY CENTER: Closet mold remediation2201892PROJECT PROFESSIONALS CORPORATION27,305.36GGV0234-220-INFRASTR-LIVCOASTDCDISCOVERY CENTER: Construction Management Roof Replacement Project2202290COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL ROOFING CO INC127,196.00GGV0234-220-INFRASTR-LIVCOASTDCDISCOVERY CENTER: Roof Replacement Project2191747COUNTYWIDE MECHANICAL SYSTEMS INC73,204.00GGV0234-220-INFRASTR-KENLEEBLDGKEN LEE: Replace heat pumps and air conditioning units2200890AIRTEK INDOOR AIR SOLUTIONS, LLC3,500.00GGV0234-220-INFRASTR-KENLEEBLDGKEN LEE: Disposal of asbestos from HVAC duct work being replacedPERMIT FEES B20-07621,724.50GGV0234-220-INFRASTR-KENLEEBLDGKEN LEE: Rooftop head pumps (5)2201434NV5 INC14,304.00GGV0234-220-INFRASTR-KENLEEBLDGKEN LEE: Plans for in-kind replacement of AC units2201545TYCO FIRE & SECURITY MANAGEMENT INC8,674.24GGV0234-220-BLDGINT-PWCPUBLIC WORKS CENTER: Replace gauge, fire sprinklers, flow switch, rusted ITV piping2202095RED HAWK FIRE AND SECURITY9,311.00GGVO234-220-INFRASTRFIRE STA 6: Emergency Fire Alarm Panel replacement2202268NV5 INC21,129.50GGV0234-220-ELECTRICAL-BOYSGIRLSBOYS/GIRLS CLUB: Bid documents Electrical Distribution Boards ProjectGGV0234 Subtotal3,440,891.47$ TOTAL13,554,630.11$ In ProgressCompleted 10/12/2020 Page 6 of 6 Measure P Critical Needs Vehicle Replacements As of 9/30/2020 Department New Asset Tag New Equipment Description New EQ#Replacement Cost Building 103394 2017 Hyundai Ioniq Battery Electric Vehicle 10813 30,424.00$ Code Enforcement 103386 2018 Chevrolet Bolt Electric Vehicle 10814 34,902.47$ Code Enforcement 103389 2017 Hyundai Ioniq Battery Electric Vehicle 10808 30,424.00$ Code Enforcement 103390 2017 Hyundai Ioniq Battery Electric Vehicle 10809 30,424.00$ Code Enforcement 103391 2017 Hyundai Ioniq Battery Electric Vehicle 10810 30,424.00$ Code Enforcement 103392 2017 Hyundai Ioniq Battery Electric Vehicle 10811 30,424.00$ Code Enforcement 103393 2017 Hyundai Ioniq Battery Electric Vehicle 10812 30,424.00$ Construction Inspection 103473 Lease of 2019 Chevrolet Bolt 5 Door Wagon 10914 30,259.44$ Construction Inspection 103474 Lease of 2019 Chevrolet Bolt 5 Door Wagon 10915 30,259.44$ Construction Inspection 103475 Lease of 2019 Chevrolet Bolt 5 Door Wagon 10916 30,259.44$ Construction Inspection 103476 Lease of 2019 Chevrolet Bolt 5 Door Wagon 10917 30,259.44$ Construction Inspection 103512 2020 Toyota Tacoma 4x4 21001 31,892.48$ Construction Inspection 103513 2020 Toyota Tacoma 4x4 21002 31,892.48$ Construction Repair 103447 2019 Ford Transit Cutaway T-350 Truck 22902 59,322.93$ Construction Repair 103456 2019 Ford Transit Cutaway T-350 Truck 22903 62,122.15$ Construction Repair 103458 2019 Ford Super Duty F-350 23903 67,669.75$ Construction Repair 103457 2019 Ford Super Duty F-350 23904 71,068.19$ Custodial Services 103494 2019 Nissan NV200 15901 26,280.97$ Custodial Services 103495 2019 Nissan NV200 15902 26,280.97$ Fire 103255 Outfitting for Tiller 4528 81,493.47$ Fire 103295 2017 Chevrolet Suburban 4x4 19725 82,520.60$ Fire 103296 2017 Chevrolet Tahoe 19721 75,824.73$ Fire 103299 2017 Ford F250 22701 67,178.96$ Fire 103300 2017 Ford Utility Interceptor 10713 48,245.19$ Fire 103301 2017 Ford Utility Interceptor 10714 47,281.53$ Fire 103302 2017 Nissan NV Cargo Van 16701 31,590.36$ Fire 103360 Pierce Arrow XT Pumper 4529 846,475.68$ Fire 103361 Pierce Arrow XT USRA 4531 1,594,060.44$ Fire 103412 BME Type III Brush Engine 4530 439,863.45$ Fire 103427 Pierce Arrow XT Triple Combination Pumper E-4519 4532 820,139.65$ Fire 103428 Pierce Arrow XT Triple Combination Pumper E-4521 4533 805,325.98$ Fire 103451 2019 Chevrolet Tahoe EMS Division Chief 19906 60.88$ Fire 103452 2019 Chevrolet Tahoe Admin Deputy Chief 19902 60.88$ Fire 103453 2019 Chevrolet Tahoe PEMS Capitan 19903 60.88$ Fire 103454 2019 Chevrolet Tahoe Fire Marshal 19904 60,648.41$ Fire 103455 2019 Chevrolet Tahoe Fire Chief 19905 60,648.41$ Fire 103461 Ford Super Duty F-250 22904 55,839.03$ Fire 103464 Lease 2019 Chevrolet Bolts 10901 28,614.27$ Fire 103465 Lease 2019 Chevrolet Bolts 10902 28,614.27$ Fire 103466 Lease 2019 Chevrolet Bolts 10903 28,614.27$ Fire 103467 Lease 2019 Chevrolet Bolts 10904 28,614.27$ Fire 103468 Lease 2019 Chevrolet Bolts 10905 28,614.27$ Fire 103469 Lease 2019 Chevrolet Bolts 10906 28,614.27$ Fire 103470 Lease 2019 Chevrolet Bolts 10907 28,614.27$ Fire Outfitting for Fire Vehicles 53,341.45$ Fire 103549 2019 Chevy Bolt EV LT 10920 31,867.69$ Fire 103531 2020 Chevy Suburban 19201 105,035.56$ Fire 103566 Chevrolet Silverado 2500HD Short Bed 22011 43,158.98$ Fire 103565 Chevrolet Silverado 2500HD Short Bed 22004 41,005.78$ Fire 103564 Chevrolet Silverado 3500HD Long Bed 22003 52,151.92$ Parks 103362 Toro 6000 w/ 26.5 hp 7082 11,500.48$ Parks 103363 Toro 6000 w/ 26.5 hp 7081 11,500.48$ Parks 103366 Groundsmaster 4000-D T4 Mower 7078 70,670.01$ Parks 103367 Groundsmaster 4000-D T4 Mower 7079 70,670.01$ Parks 103368 Groundsmaster 4000-D T4 Mower 7080 70,670.01$ Parks 103408 Toro Reel Mower 7083 55,764.59$ Parks 103409 Toro Reel Mower 7084 55,764.59$ Parks 103463 2018 John Deere 4052R Compact Utility Tractor 57801 50,332.43$ Parks 103490 2019 Widenmann Terra Spike XF-6 57801.2 46,647.44$ Parks 103497 2019 Bobcat A770 T4 57901 140,603.98$ Page 1 of 4 Measure P Critical Needs Vehicle Replacements As of 9/30/2020 Department New Asset Tag New Equipment Description New EQ#Replacement Cost Parks 103529 Trailer mounted pressure washer (Powerjet TMS4035)31901 12,640.50$ Parks 103530 Trailer mounted pressure washer (Powerjet TMS4035)31902 12,640.50$ Parks N/A 2018 Black Trailer, PJ Model T8222 3211 9,241.66$ Parks N/A Felling Trailers 3212 9,241.66$ Parks N/A Felling Trailers 3213 9,241.66$ Parks N/A 2019 Zieman 1185 Ramp Trailer 3342 7,480.91$ Parks N/A 2018 Black Trailer, PJ Model T8222 3368 8,797.89$ Parks N/A Zieman 1166 TS-E Trailer for Parks Reel Mowers 3369 9,020.81$ Parks N/A Zieman 1166 TS-E Trailer for Parks Reel Mowers 3370 9,020.81$ Parks N/A 2018 Zieman 1166TS Trailer 3373 9,999.95$ Parks 103570 2019 John Deere Gator TX 8322 11,810.66$ Parks 103571 2019 John Deere Gator TX 8321 11,810.66$ Parks 103572 2019 John Deere Gator TX 8320 11,810.66$ Parks 103573 2019 John Deere Gator TX 8323 11,810.66$ Parks 103567 2019 John Deere Pro-Gator 2020A 8317 25,994.44$ Parks 103568 2019 John Deere Pro-Gator 2020A 8319 25,994.44$ Parks 103569 2019 John Deere Pro-Gator 2020A 8318 25,994.45$ Parks 103544 2020 F250 Super Duty SRW XL C 22007 34,939.82$ Parks 103543 2020 F250 Super Duty SRW XL C 22006 34,939.82$ Parks 103542 2020 F250 Super Duty w/ Knapheid Upfit 22005 41,011.33$ Parks 103503 2020 Ford F-250 (W2A) SRW XL 6.75' Box (Exhibit C)22008 34,016.44$ Parks 103496 2019 Chevrolet Silverado MD 24029 68,334.80$ Police 103279 2017 Ford Utility Interceptor 12776 48,419.34$ Police 103280 2017 Ford Utility Interceptor 127105 49,242.04$ Police 103281 2017 Ford Utility Interceptor 127104 49,242.04$ Police 103282 2017 Ford Utility Interceptor 127107 49,242.04$ Police 103283 2017 Ford Utility Interceptor 127103 49,242.04$ Police 103284 2017 Ford Utility Interceptor 12723 49,242.04$ Police 103285 2017 Ford Utility Interceptor 12713 49,242.04$ Police 103286 2017 Ford Utility Interceptor 12736 49,242.04$ Police 103287 2017 Ford Utility Interceptor 12712 49,242.04$ Police 103288 2017 Nissan Pathfinder 10701 28,503.06$ Police 103290 2017 Toyota Sienna 10704 27,810.00$ Police 103291 2017 Kia Optima LX 10705 21,242.27$ Police 103292 2017 Chevrolet Colorado 21737 33,311.68$ Police 103293 2017 Ford F150 10708 30,444.97$ Police 103297 2017 Nissan Pathfinder 10706 30,438.44$ Police 103298 2017 Nissan Pathfinder 10707 30,797.32$ Police 103309 BMW R1200 RT-P Motorcycle 1058 29,980.60$ Police 103310 BMW R1200 RT-P Motorcycle 1057 29,980.60$ Police 103311 BMW R1200 RT-P Motorcycle 1056 29,980.60$ Police 103312 BMW R1200 RT-P Motorcycle 1055 29,980.60$ Police 103313 BMW R1200 RT-P Motorcycle 1054 29,980.60$ Police 103314 BMW R1200 RT-P Motorcycle 1053 29,980.60$ Police 103315 BMW R1200 RT-P Motorcycle 1052 29,980.60$ Police 103316 2017 Honda Civic EX-T 10709 24,643.86$ Police 103317 2017 Toyota RAV4 10710 24,906.18$ Police 103318 2017 Toyota RAV4 10763 24,906.18$ Police 103319 2017 Ford Fusion 11703 27,272.70$ Police 103320 2017 Ford Fusion 11704 27,272.70$ Police 103321 2017 Ford Utility Interceptor 19701 49,238.84$ Police 103322 2017 Ford Utility Interceptor 12799 49,238.84$ Police 103323 2017 Ford Utility Interceptor 10715 49,238.84$ Police 103324 2017 Ford Utility Interceptor 12707 49,238.84$ Police 103325 2017 Ford Utility Interceptor 127108 49,238.84$ Police 103326 2017 Ford Utility Interceptor 127102 49,238.84$ Police 103327 2017 Ford Utility Interceptor 12752 49,238.84$ Police 103328 2017 Ford Utility Interceptor 12749 49,238.84$ Police 103329 2017 Ford Utility Interceptor 12721 49,238.84$ Police 103330 2017 Ford Utility Interceptor 12711 49,238.84$ Page 2 of 4 Measure P Critical Needs Vehicle Replacements As of 9/30/2020 Department New Asset Tag New Equipment Description New EQ#Replacement Cost Police 103331 2017 Ford Utility Interceptor 12710 49,238.84$ Police 103332 2017 Ford Utility Interceptor 12703 49,238.84$ Police 103333 BMW R1200 RT-P Motorcycle 1059 29,980.60$ Police 103334 2017 Nissan Murano 13703 29,241.82$ Police 103335 2017 Nissan Murano 13704 29,241.82$ Police 103337 2017 Dodge Journey 10711 28,882.66$ Police 103338 2017 Dodge Journey 10712 28,882.66$ Police 103357 2018 Ford Utility Interceptor AWD 12869 52,644.03$ Police 103358 2018 Ford Utility Interceptor AWD 128109 49,439.76$ Police 103387 2017 Hyundai Ioniq Battery Electric Vehicle 10806 32,123.94$ Police 103388 2017 Hyundai Ioniq Battery Electric Vehicle 10807 32,123.94$ Police 103395 2017 Hyundai Ioniq Battery Electric Vehicle 10817 32,123.94$ Police 103396 2017 Hyundai Ioniq Battery Electric Vehicle 10818 32,123.94$ Police 103397 2017 Hyundai Ioniq Battery Electric Vehicle 10819 32,123.94$ Police 103398 2017 Hyundai Ioniq Battery Electric Vehicle 10820 32,123.94$ Police 103413 2018 Ford F-150 22879 64,498.94$ Police 103414 2018 Ford F-150 22880 64,498.94$ Police 103437 2019 Ford K8A Utility Interceptor AWD 12952 42,915.65$ Police 103438 2019 Ford K8A Utility Interceptor AWD 12917 42,915.65$ Police 103439 2019 Ford F150 22924 66,625.73$ Police 103441 2019 Chevy Colorado 21957 34,920.72$ Police 103443 2019 Ford Transit 350 16902 61,531.64$ Police 103444 2019 Ford Transit 350 16903 43,887.21$ Police 103445 2019 Ford Transit 350 16901 44,162.07$ Police 103477 Lease of 2019 Ford Fusion Energi (POS) Titanium FWD 11901 29,224.78$ Police 103478 Lease of 2019 Ford Fusion Energi (POS) Titanium FWD 11902 29,224.78$ Police 103479 Lease of 2019 Ford Fusion Energi (POS) Titanium FWD 11903 29,224.78$ Police 103480 Lease of 2019 Ford Fusion Energi (POS) Titanium FWD 11904 29,224.78$ Police 103481 Lease of 2019 Ford Fusion Energi (POS) Titanium FWD 11905 29,224.78$ Police 103482 Lease of 2019 Ford Fusion Energi (POS) Titanium FWD 11906 29,224.78$ Police 103483 Lease of 2019 Ford Fusion Energi (POS) Titanium FWD 11907 29,224.78$ Police 103484 Lease of 2019 Ford Fusion Energi (POS) Titanium FWD 11908 29,224.78$ Police 103485 Lease of 2019 Ford Fusion Energi (POS) Titanium FWD 11909 29,224.78$ Police 103486 Lease of 2019 Ford Fusion Energi (POS) Titanium FWD 11910 29,224.78$ Police 103487 Lease of 2019 Ford Fusion Energi (POS) Titanium FWD 11911 29,224.78$ Police 103488 Lease of 2019 Ford Fusion Energi (POS) Titanium FWD 11912 29,224.78$ Police 103489 Lease of 2019 Ford Fusion Energi (POS) Titanium FWD 11913 29,224.78$ Police 103499 2019 Ford K8A Utility Interceptor AWD 12930 54,885.70$ Police 103500 2019 Ford K8A Utility Interceptor AWD 12944 54,885.70$ Police 103501 2019 Ford K8A Utility Interceptor AWD 12964 54,885.70$ Police 103520 2019 Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV 13902 42,469.05$ Police 103521 2019 Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV 13901 42,469.05$ Police Outfitting for Police Vehicles 171,156.65$ Police 103523 2020 Ford NGPI Hybrid 12006 70,210.62$ Police 103524 2020 Ford NGPI Hybrid 12070 68,159.56$ Police 103525 2020 Ford NGPI Hybrid 12038 63,401.75$ Police 103526 2020 Ford NGPI Hybrid 12072 68,593.47$ Storm Drain Maintenance 103406 GAPVAX MC Combo Jet/Vacuum Machine 2924 505,362.69$ Storm Drain Maintenance 103407 GAPVAX MC Combo Jet/Vacuum Machine 2923 505,362.69$ Street Maintenance 103347 2018 Freightliner 10-Yard Dump Truck 28701 143,036.14$ Street Maintenance 103364 Caterpillar 926M Wheel Loader 5710 153,050.35$ Street Maintenance 103365 Caterpillar 926M Wheel Loader 5711 153,050.35$ Street Maintenance 103410 CRAFCO Supershot 125 Diesel (Crack Sealer)3148 48,160.29$ Street Maintenance 103432 Elgin Crosswind Sweeper 2452 268,851.75$ Street Maintenance 103440 Powerland Roadrunner APM Front Mount for Skid Steer N/A 40,237.50$ Street Maintenance 103449 Freightliner M2 106 5-Yard Dump Truck 25901 136,779.23$ Street Maintenance 103450 Freightliner M2 106 5-Yard Dump Truck 25902 136,779.23$ Street Maintenance 103448 2020 Freightliner 108SD 10-Yard Dump Truck 28901 155,237.36$ Street Maintenance 103504 2020 Ford F-250 (W2A) SRW XL 6.75' Box (Exhibit C)22009 34,016.44$ Street Maintenance 103505 2020 Ford F-250 (W2A) SRW XL 6.75' Box (Exhibit C)22010 34,022.44$ Page 3 of 4 Measure P Critical Needs Vehicle Replacements As of 9/30/2020 Department New Asset Tag New Equipment Description New EQ#Replacement Cost Street Maintenance 103580 2020 Vermeer Stump Grinder 6210 62,962.11$ Street Maintenance 103581 2019 Vermeer BC1500 Chipper 6209 68,390.94$ Street Maintenance 103507 2020 Ford F-150 (W1E) XL 4WD 5.5' Box (Exhibit F)22021 36,646.63$ Striping and Signing 103345 2017 Ford F450 Chemical Sprayer 2409 89,803.99$ Striping and Signing 103346 2017 Ford F450 Roadline Stencil Truck 2408 126,947.56$ Striping and Signing 103506 2020 Ford F-150 (W2E) XL 4WD 22017 37,947.76$ Traffic Engineering 103384 2018 Chevrolet Bolt Electric Vehicle 10815 34,902.47$ Traffic Engineering 103385 2018 Chevrolet Bolt Electric Vehicle 10816 34,902.47$ Traffic Engineering 103545 2020 Ford F-150 XL 22018 37,601.32$ TOTAL 13,775,852.47$ Notes: (1) Total does not include any purchase orders that have not been paid, but vehicles/outfitting have been ordered. This totals approximately $2.1M (2) Total does not include Fire Leases anticipated to be paid via Measure P funding. (3) Total includes full cost of leased Electric Vehicles (EVs). Page 4 of 4 CURRENT MEASURE P SIDEWALK REPAIR PROJECTS Slicing construction work is ongoing.$1,130,000SIDEWALK REHAB CITYWIDE (MEASURE P)CIP STL0443R&R construction work is complete. Closeout memo is in progress.$520,000SIDEWALK REPLACEMENT CITYWIDE (MEASURE P)CIP STL0428 1ENGINEERING & CAPITAL PROJECTS| OCTOBER 22, 2020 Sidewalk Slicing and Rehabilitation–Item #7: Measure P Project Updates SIDEWALK HEAVING (1.5”) MAP REQUIRING R&R 2ENGINEERING & CAPITAL PROJECTS| OCTOBER 22, 2020 Sidewalk Slicing and Rehabilitation–Item #7: Measure P Project Updates MEASURE P WEBPAGE map-p/projects/interactive-works/measure-https://www.chulavistaca.gov/departments/public 3ENGINEERING & CAPITAL PROJECTS| OCTOBER 22, 2020 Sidewalk Slicing and Rehabilitation–Item #7: Measure P Project Updates R&R COMPLETED SIDEWALK REPAIRS– SIDEWALK SLICING QUADRANTS 4ENGINEERING & CAPITAL PROJECTS| OCTOBER 22, 2020 Sidewalk Slicing and Rehabilitation–Item #7: Measure P Project Updates SIDEWALK SLICING REPAIR FOR HEAVE LESS THAN 1.5 INCHES 5ENGINEERING & CAPITAL PROJECTS| OCTOBER 22, 2020 Sidewalk Slicing and Rehabilitation–Item #7: Measure P Project Updates CRACKED SIDEWALK PANELS 6ENGINEERING & CAPITAL PROJECTS| OCTOBER 22, 2020 Sidewalk Slicing and Rehabilitation–Item #7: Measure P Project Updates (Heave less than 1.5 inch but requires R&R) MULTIPLE FAILURES 7ENGINEERING & CAPITAL PROJECTS| OCTOBER 22, 2020 Sidewalk Slicing and Rehabilitation–Item #7: Measure P Project Updates (Heave less than 1.5 inch but requires R&R) MULTIPLE FAILURES 8ENGINEERING & CAPITAL PROJECTS| OCTOBER 22, 2020 Sidewalk Slicing and Rehabilitation–Item #7: Measure P Project Updates (Heave less than 1.5 inch but requires R&R) UPLIFTED PANELS FROM TREE ROOTS 9ENGINEERING & CAPITAL PROJECTS| OCTOBER 22, 2020–Item #7: Measure P Project Updates (Heave less than 1.5 inch but requires R&R and tree root pruning) UPLIFTED PANELS FROM TREE ROOTS 10ENGINEERING & CAPITAL PROJECTS| OCTOBER 22, 2020 Sidewalk Slicing and Rehabilitation–(Temporary wedge require R&R) CIP STL0443 Q 1&2 balance $37,000 = $746,000–$ 783,000 Funds needed to complete Quadrants 3 & 4 Funding Needed$291,000$51,000TBD$240,000ScheduleTotal (Estimate)Soft Costs (Estimate)Cole Data EstimateQuadrant 4Funding Needed$492,000$72,000TBD$420,000ScheduleTotal (Estimate)Soft Costs (Estimate)Estimate (PCC survey)Cole Data EstimateQuadrant 3$1.093MSub total Nov 2020Estimated Completion $382,720$80,000$302,720$364,283ScheduleTotal (Estimate)Soft Costs (Estimate)Estimate (PCC survey)Cole Data Estimate Quadrant 2Completed June 2020$710,913$142,863$568,050$452,090ScheduleT otalActual Soft CostsActual ConstructionCole Data Estimate Quadrant 1 11ENGINEERING & CAPITAL PROJECTS| OCTOBER 22, 2020 Sidewalk Slicing and Rehabilitation–Item #7: Measure P Project Updates SIDEWALK SLICING UPDATE ($1.13 M allocated)- Public Works Request for COC Budget Adjustments Citizens Oversight Committee Meeting -October 22, 2020 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT | UPDATED OCTOBER 13, 2020 Rohr Park Restroom Bids Closed 10/14 CIP # PRK0328 Rohr Park Restroom $ 800,000 Rohr Park Restroom Design/Bid Documents $ 96,209 Rohr Park Restroom Environmental/Geotechnical $ 14, 925 Restroom Replacement Project $ 675,000 Restroom Replacement Project Contingency $ 135,000 Restrooms Replacement Project CM $ 38, 633 Additional funds needed to allocate contingency funds and construction management costs. Excludes additive alternate ($ 25k) -stonework1 1 Total Shortfall Requested Funding ($ 159,767) $ 159,767 Public Works Request for COC Budget Adjustments Citizens Oversight Committee Meeting -October 22, 2020 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT | UPDATED OCTOBER 13, 2020 Norman Park Senior Center (NPSC) Batten Seam Metal Roof CIP # GGV0233 NPSC Metal Roof Structure (Change Order)$ 50,000 NPSC Metal Roof Project Contingency $ 28,000 NPSC Metal Roof Project CM $ 11,000 NPSC Metal Roof Project Structural Design $ 15,000 The recently completed thermoplastic polyolefin (TPO) roof and deck project did not include the failed batten roof structure discovered during construction. The condition of the roof revealed that some rafters and top fascia beams were rotten, which requires a structural engineer solutions and permitting to address replacement needs. Total $ 104,000 DETERIORATED DRIP EDGE TOP FASCIA BEAM DAMAGED PLYWOOD SOUTH EDGE OVERVIEW OF WEST WING ROOFING Public Works Request for COC Budget Adjustments Citizens Oversight Committee Meeting -October 22, 2020 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT | UPDATED OCTOBER 13, 2020 Norman Park Senior Center West Wing HVAC Replacement CIP # GGV0233 NPSC HVAC Phase I Project $ 180,000 NPSC HVAC Phase I Project Contingency $ 36,000 NPSC HVAC CM $ 20,000 Three heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) units, and related duct work in the west wing of the building have failed. These failed assets were discovered in the roof replacement project. Funding is requested to replace the failed units and associated duct work. Total $ 236,000 Public Works Request for COC Budget Adjustments Citizens Oversight Committee Meeting -October 22, 2020 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT | UPDATED OCTOBER 13, 2020 Legacy Solar Inverter & Panel Replacement CIP # GGV0234 Solar Inverter and Panel Replacement -GGV0234 Civic Center Building B Police Department West Police Department East Public Works Household Hazardous Waste Facility Heritage Park/Community Center $ 265,000 Solar Inverter and Panel Replacement Project Contingency $ 53,000 Solar Inverter and Panel Replacement Project CM $ 40,000 Total Project Cost $ 358,000 Funded by Police –GGV0232 –Police Facility Repairs $ 64,440 Funding is requested to replace failed solar inverters at various locations. Replacement of the units will allow the solar systems to generate energy resulting in reduced utilities costs. Total $ 293,560 Public Works Request for COC Budget Adjustments Citizens Oversight Committee Meeting -October 22, 2020 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT | UPDATED OCTOBER 13, 2020 Public Works Center Air Handler Unit Replacement CIP # GGV0234 Public Works –Air Handlers (6) Design Phase I $ 50,000 Public Works –Air Handlers (6) Design Phase II $ 150,000 An air handler unit at the Public Works Center failed and five other units are nearing the end of their useful life. Phase I of the project allows the design team to perform a condition assessment of the six air handlers and associated infrastructure . Phase II of the project will include the design work, permitting process, and preparation of bid documents. Total $ 200,000 Public Works Request for COC Budget Adjustments Citizens Oversight Committee Meeting -October 22, 2020 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT | UPDATED OCTOBER 13, 2020 Summary Rohr Park Restroom $ 159,767 Norman Park Senior Center Batten Seam Metal Roof $ 104,000 Norman Park Senior Center West Wing HVAC Replacement $ 236,000 Legacy Solar Inverter & Panel Replacement $ 293,560 Public Works Air Handler Unit Replacement $ 200,000 Grand Total $ 993,327 Date: October 21, 2020 To: Measure P Citizens' Oversight Committee From: Leon Firsht, Measure P Citizens' Oversight Committee Membelo Subject: Measure P Citizens' Oversight Committee Participation At the July 23rd, 2020 meeting, there was discussion about the participation of members of the committee. More specifically the challenge of meeting the minimum number of members in attendance required to meet a quorum. I was asked and accepted to work with staff to provide options. In consultation with City staff the following are options with supporting information or comments for discussion: Option 1 - No Change a. There are 16 member positions in total on the committee. b. Since the last meeting 2 positions have become vacant. c. Currently, 4 positions are vacant (District 3, Chamber of Commerce, Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment, Parks & Rec Commission). d. With 12 members a quorum is reached with 7 members present (50% +1). Vacant positions are not included in the calculation for meeting a quorum. Option 2 - Change DatelTime/Location a. The date/time/location has not changed since inception of the committee. b. A change would require the item be placed on the following meeting's agenda and majority vote to change by resolution. c. Due to the current pandemic committee meetings are being held virtually. There is no scheduled time frame to conduct meetings in person. Option 3 - Reduce the Number of Members on the Committee a. Would increase the chances to meet a quorum. The fewest members at a meeting have been 9. Two meetings have been canceled. b. Would eliminate opportunity for Nomination Authorities to replace vacancies. c. Could be seen as eliminating an opportunity to participate in a public process. d. Changing the number of members would require changing Municipal Code Section 2.61.050 Composition — Qualifications — Nomination. This would require City Council approval. e. Should consider requiring a minimum number of members at a meeting. In addition to the options, I've spoken to the City Clerk's Office and they have indicated that they are in various stages of filling the vacant positions. As a reminder, it is helpful if committee members reply promptly to the Secretary to confirm their attendance when emails are sent requesting attendance confirmation for upcoming meetings. Item #7: Measure P Project Updates 1ENGINEERING & CAPITAL PROJECTS| OCTOBER 22, 2020 Park Accessibility StudyRienstraMax Field and – ACCESSIBILITY STUDY BIOLOGICAL MEMOGEOTECHNICAL REPORTCOST ESTIMATESite Master Plan-PLAN RECOMMENDATIONSCommunity Outreach-PROCESSGeotechnical Investigation-Site Biology-Existing Conditions-Land Ownership-SITE ANALYSISExisting Site Issues-PROBLEM STATEMENT 2ENGINEERING & CAPITAL PROJECTS| OCTOBER 22, 2020 Park Accessibility StudyRienstraMax Field and –Item #7: Measure P Project Updates SITE MASTER PLAN SITE MASTER PLANSITE ANALYSIS DIAGRAM 3ENGINEERING & CAPITAL PROJECTS| OCTOBER 22, 2020 Park Accessibility StudyRienstraMax Field and –Item #7: Measure P Project Updates PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE 4ENGINEERING & CAPITAL PROJECTS| OCTOBER 22, 2020 Park Accessibility StudyRienstraMax Field and –Item #7: Measure P Project Updates 1 Department of Public Works 2020 Measure P Project Summary Citizens Oversight Committee Quarterly Meeting (Via Teleconference) Iracsema Quilantan Public Works Director October 22, 2020 2 FY 2020-21 MEASURE PP R O J E C T S T I M E L I N E Eucalyptus Park Los Niños Park Rohr Park Terra Nova Park DESIGNSOUTH LIBRARY FLOORING DESIGN REPLACEMENT OF PLAY- GROUNDS & RESURFACINGDESIGNSMART IRRIGATION CONTROLS Police Department Civic Center Library NPSC Public Works DESIGNHVAC REPLACEMENTS DESIGN FUEL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM COMPLETED NPSC GENERAL FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS –PHASE IIBIDDINGROHR PARK RESTROOMS JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN BIDDING CIVIC CENTER LIBRARY RESTROOMS & CHILDREN’S AREA Windingwalk Park Veterans Park IN-PROGRESSWOMEN’S CLUB WINDOW REPLACE- MENT & EXTERIOR PAINTING IN-PROGRESSNPSC BATTEN SEAM METAL ROOF REPLACEMENT DESIGNNPSC WEST WING HVAC REPLACEMENT IN-PROGRESSREPLACEMENT OF PEDESTRIAN & PARKING LOT LIGHTS UPDATED OCTOBER 12, 2020 DESIGNLIVING COAST DISCOVERY RAIL & DECK REPLACEMENT COMPLETED BOYS & GIRLS CLUB ROOF REPLACEMENT COMPLETED LIVING COAST DISCOVERY ROOF REPLACEMENT DESIGN PWC CHILLER & BOILER REPLACEMENT BIDDING ENERGY EFFICIENT SOLAR INVERTER REPLACEMENT IN-PROGRESS SIDEWALK & PAVEMENT IMPROVEMENTS AT CITY PARKS COMPLETED PLAYGROUND REPLACEMENT BREEZEWOOD PARK 3 2020 PROJECTS COMPLETEDRECREATION & SENIOR CENTER FACILITIES 4 2020 PROJECTS COMPLETEDPARK INFRASTRUCTURE 5 2020 PROJECTS IN PROGRESSFACILITY & PARK INFRASTRUCTURE 6 2020 PROJECT BID CLOSED 10/14PARK INFRASTRUCTURE: ROHR PARK RESTROOM 7 Information Technology Systems parks sidewalk & pavement improvements LED Lighting Improvement Civic Library Restrooms EV Playground Resilient Surface Wood Resurfacing Rohr Park Civic Center Library Restrooms Max Field Staircase Roof Replacement Police department elevator doors Pathway / Walkway Repair Electric Vehicles improvements LED Lighting improvement South Library HVAC Loma Verde Pool Light ADA Compliance HVAC Improvements Basketball Court Replacement Pavement projects Norman Park Senior CenterPark FountainsEnergy Efficiency Basketball CourtsEV Fleet NPSC Restrooms & KitchenSouth Library FlooringVarious Small Roof Rancho Del Rey Playground Fire Stations 1 Roof Replacement of Playground & Resurfacing Parking Light ADA Compliance HVAC ReplacementsElectric VehiclesSmart Irrigation Smart Irrigation ControlsVarious Roof Replacements Facility Renovations/Reconstructions Small Roof Repair Norman Park Improvements Small Roof Repair Basketball Courts Fire Station 1 Roof Non-Safety VehiclesFire Stations 1 improvements Women’s Club Civic Library improvements Max Field Lot Pavement Small Roofing Resilient Playground Surface Restroom Renovation Safety standardRohr ParkPolice Department Roof Playground Resilient Surface LED Lights NPSC Restroom & KitchenCivic Library Restrooms Pools EV Fleet NPSC improvements Roof & Deck Replacements Various Small RoofSolar Panel MAX FIELD/RIENSTRA PARK Accessibility Study MAX FIELD / RIENSTRA PARK Accessibility Study September 24, 2020 TABLE OF CONTENTS Project Introduction 3 Problem Statement 4 Site Analysis Land ownership 5 Existing Conditions 6 Site biology 7 Geotechnical Investigation 8 Process 9 Plan Recommendations Site Master Plan 10 Zone 1 11 Zone 2 14 Zone 3 16 Zone 4 17 Zone 5 18 Zone 6 19 Appendix 20 A - Full Size Plan B - Cost Estimate C - Geotechnical Report D - Biological Memo MAX FIELD / RIENSTRA PARK Accessibility Study September 24, 2020 MAX FIELD / RIENSTRA PARK Accessibility Study September 24, 2020 3 PROJECT INTRODUCTION Provide ADA Compliance Upgrades to Park Elements at and around Ball Fields • Walkways, ramps and stairs • Dugouts • Bleachers • Seating areas • Parking areas Improve Access to Adjacent Areas • Restored connection to Loma Verde Recreation Center & Loma Verde Elementary School • Connection to potential SDG&E overflow parking lot Accommodate Current and Future Parking Needs • Increased parking opportunities • Overflow parking options, including recreation center parking lot Local map Background Max Field / Rienstra Park is a neighborhood park located in an established neighborhood located at 1500 Max Avenue within the City of Chula Vista. The 13.26 acre park spans two parcels and consists of 7 baseball fields of varying dimensions for a range of age levels of organized sports play. The park is home to numerous sports leagues including South Bay Little League, PONY baseball and softball and a Challenger division providing team participation for disabled youth. The site also has bleachers, restroom facilities, a 107-stall parking lot and two concession stands. The concession stands are not city owned facilities; they are owned and operated by each of the two youth baseball leagues operating on site between February/March and July of each year. The park is adjacent to the Loma Verde Recreation Center and was previously linked by a wooden staircase and pedestrian bridge, which were originally installed in the 1980's and provided park users with easy access to the recreation center parking lot over the Palm Road Drainage Channel. The staircase and pedestrian bridge fell into disrepair and were removed in the summer of 2018 at the end of its lifespan, when it was identified as a potential risk for public safety. This study addresses park accessibility concerns, upgrades to deteriorating park components, parking needs and restoration of the connection to the Loma Verde Recreation Center across an existing drainage channel. The baseball fields' high use cannot be fully accommodated with the park's existing parking lot; overflow parking options are required to meet demand. The City of Chula Vista funded this study through Measure P a temporary ten-year tax to fund high priority infrastructure needs. This report summarizes the suggested improvements in accordance with the project goals and objectives listed below. Goals & Objectives N 3/27/2020 Chula Vista - Google Maps https://www.google.com/maps/place/Chula+Vista,+CA/@32.6316887,-117.164615,11z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x80d94e4565c3aacf:0x46ccb8734b8f2bd3!8m2!3d32.6400541!4d-117.0841955?hl=en 1/3 Map data ©2020 INEGI 2 mi Chula Vista ê Regional mapN Identify and Improve Drainage Issues • Palm Road Drainage Channel • Bioretention planting areas Conform to Chula Vista Landscape Manual • Improvements to parking lot and stall sizes • Improvements to landscape with trees and planting Upgrade, Repair and Improve Access to Existing Structures • Concessions buildings • Restrooms • Retaining Walls Identify Additional Improvement Opportunities • Future improvements outside of the current project scope E. ORANGE AVE MAX AVE MAX FIELD / RIENSTRA PARK Accessibility Study September 24, 2020 4 B. Walkways have steps without equal accessible sloped or ramped option D. Cage posts in dining area block circulation routes, and site furnishings do not meet clear floor area requirements A. Some routes around fields are not developed or accessible F. Retaining walls are cracked and deteriorating C. Dugout entry and exit are not accessible and require crossing a step E. Drainage infrastructure is aging and is not protected from adjacent walkways; sloped paving areas exceed maximum slope requirements PROBLEM STATEMENT Existing Site Issues Parking Capacity and Layout • The existing parking lot does not accommodate the quantity of visitors during events or peak use. Use of adjacent land parcels for overflow parking will require coordination with other land owners. (see Parcel Map on page 5 for land ownership) • Overflow parking was previously accommodated at Loma Verde Recreation Center. Restoration of a pedestrian connection to the recreation center will enable use of its parking lot and reduce the park’s impact to the surrounding neighborhood. • The existing parking lot stall sizes and layout do not meet current Chula Vista Municipal Code size requirements. Improvements to the parking lot will need to correct the stall sizes as well as address non-compliant slopes at ADA parking stalls, which are currently too steep. Non-Accessible Connections and Amenities • Pedestrian connections around ball fields and to surrounding streets are incomplete or not fully accessible. (see image A) • Circulation routes include steps or stairways without equal ADA access ramps. (see image B) • Pedestrian connections to vehicular areas such as parking lots lack required detectable warnings for people with vision impairments. • Existing pedestrian paths exceed maximum slope requirements. • Dugouts lack required ADA clearances and have stepped entries that prevent a flush accessible entry. (see image C) • Seating areas do not have required circulation clearances or accessible seating options. (see image D) • Bleacher locations prevent required ADA circulation clearances. • Restoration of connection across Palm Road Drainage Channel is required to access Loma Verde Recreation Center and its parking lot. Site Infrastructure • Existing v-ditch and other drainage infrastructure is failing, leading to downhill erosion. (see image E) • Retaining walls are deteriorating and failing. (see image F) Vegetation and Soils • Some steep slope areas lack vegetation and are subject to erosion. • Development of vegetated areas of the site will require mitigation per Biological Resources Study. (See Site Biology on page 7 for locations) • Adjustments to the Palm Road Drainage Channel will require extensive permitting. A range of existing conditions inform and guide the proposed improvements to the park. In order to meet the accessibility and compliance goals of the master plan, issues related to site context and existing infrastructure are explored and addressed. These issues include but are not limited to: MAX FIELD / RIENSTRA PARK Accessibility Study September 24, 2020 5 SITE ANALYSIS SDG&E owned land Parcel map showing contextual land ownership SDG&E SDG&E E. ORANGE AVE LARKHAVEN DRMAX AVE N Land Ownership The land to the north and northeast of the park entrance are under SDG&E ownership. This master plan discusses the option for a potential overflow parking lot on the SDG&E land. Any improvements to these parcels will require additional permission and coordination with SDG&E. A utility enclosure maintained by SDG&E and a pump station maintained by the City of Chula Vista are both within the park property. For purposes of this study it was assumed that these existing utilities should remain in place and provide constraints on emergency access. Relocation or changes to these utilities could provide an overall benefit to the project but require coordination with SDG&E and the City of Chula Vista. LOMA VERDE RECREATION CENTER & ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Existing SDG&E utility enclosure Existing Max Field Sewage Pump Station SDG&E utility enclosure City of Chula Vista CV pump station MAX FIELD / RIENSTRA PARK Accessibility Study September 24, 2020 6 SITE ANALYSIS E. ORANGE A V E MAX AVELARKHAVEN DRSDG&E Park Rienstra Park Site analysis diagramN Existing Conditions The existing park is situated between Max Avenue to the east and E. Orange Avenue to the south. While its context near residential communities and the Loma Verde Recreation Center are opportunities for the park, its physical conditions and layout need to be accounted for in planning for park accessibility and use. SITE OPPORTUNITIES Proximity • The park is nestled in a valley between an established residential communities, and within close proximity to Loma Verde Recreation Center & Elementary School. • The park is within close proximity to open space to the north. Views • Steep slopes on both sides of the park allow views into it from the adjacent homes, school and community center. SITE CONSTRAINTS Vehicle Parking and Circulation • The current parking lot layout is inefficient and does not conform to the City of Chula Vista Municipal Code. Stall size and layout do not meet parking standards, and ADA parking stalls exceed maximum grade requirements. • Existing parking contains inadequate standard and van accessible parking stalls. Pedestrian Circulation • Steps, staircases and steep slopes to accommodate changes in grade create inaccessible routes. • The current locations of the bleachers for each field sit within the walkways and in some places prevent appropriate circulation clearances. • Field dugouts contain one step down creating a trip hazard as well as preventing universal access. • Overhead posts from the field backboards are obstructions resulting in non-compliant seating areas. Access to Surrounding Context • The park lacks any physical connection to the Loma Verde Recreation Center and Loma Verde Elementary School. A former wooden stairway previously connected the park with the Loma Verde Recreation Center, but it was removed after it fell into disrepair at the end of its life cycle. • Bus stops are nearby on E. Orange Avenue at Loma Lane, however the E. Orange Avenue park entrance is now closed. Park visitors must enter the park through a gated entry on Max Avenue. Steep Slopes • Moderate erosion has taken place on the site due to the removal of existing trees and lack of a protective vegetation layer. • The growth of permanent vegetation has not been successful partially due to lack of appropriate irrigation. • The site geology of sandstone and sand contributes to its erosive nature. • The existing V-ditch was constructed with the original fields in the 1960s. It has deteriorated and cracked; runoff has both overtopped or run below it, which adds to slope erosion (see red V-ditch on Biological Resources Map). Park Steep Slopes Non-compliant Parking Non-compliant Hardscape Structures Views Former Bridge Failing Retaining Walls Former Access Gate Pedestrian Circulation Informal Pathways Drainage Legend LOMA VERDE RECREATION CENTER & ELEMENTARY SCHOOL LOMA LN MAX FIELD / RIENSTRA PARK Accessibility Study September 24, 2020 7 SITE ANALYSIS Biological Resources Map Site Biology The existing site is largely comprised of developed land and associated non-native landscapes. Confining redevelopment to the existing developed areas, such as the ball fields, parking lot and facilities, will limit impacts to biological resources. Any changes to the undeveloped areas, such as the vegetated slopes or stream channel, will require additional coordination, review, permitting and mitigation. These requirements are listed below and further described in the Biological Review memorandum in Appendix C. Vegetation • A site visit was conducted in July 2019 to evaluate general vegetation communities and the potential to support special-status wildlife plant species. General vegetation mapping with general locations and habitat types is shown at right; focused surveys for rare plants or sensitive wildlife species were not conducted. Sparse, non-native vegetation zones are found along the park’s steeply sloped sides. • Some pockets of disturbed habitat can be found within non-native grassland. • Impacts to non-native grassland require mitigation ranging from 0.1:1 to 1:1 per the Chula Vista Subarea Plan. • Impacts to maritime succulent scrub require mitigation ranging from 1:1 to 2:1 per the Chula Vista Subarea Plan. • A biologist should review the path location between the Loma Verde Recreation Center / Loma Verde Elementary School and the park to determine that it is located within the least sensitive portion of the project site. Palm Road Drainage Channel • Boundaries of existing channel were mapped with a GPS unit in July 2019, although a formal jurisdictional delineation for the site was not conducted. The existing channel and wetland delineation flow north to south and follow the western portion of the park, as shown in blue at right. • The Biological Review recommends locating all development outside of the Palm Road Drainage Channel. Any impacts to the drainage channel will require permits from the following regulatory agencies: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). • Bridging the channel would not require permits listed above or associated mitigation, as long as all abutments are outside of the channel limits. N Project Boundary Channel Limits 26 x 5’ Culvert Vegetation V-Ditch Legend Developed Maritime Succulent Scrub Non-Native Grassland Non-Native Woodland Sparsely vegetated slopes Drainage channel along park’s western edge E MAX FIELD / RIENSTRA PARK Accessibility Study September 24, 2020 8 SITE ANALYSIS Geotechnical Investigation A geotechnical investigation was completed in June 2020 to study slope erosion issues and the retaining wall damage for the slope and retaining wall extending to the west and southwest from Max Avenue. It addressed both engineering geologic and geotechnical conditions through literature review, field exploration, laboratory testing, conclusions and recommendations. Observations and recommendations are list below, with additional and complete recommendations described in the full Geotechnical Report in Appendix D. Slope Stabilization and Remediation • The slope’s loose colluvial soil can move down slope due to gravity and surface runoff, especially in areas where there is no vegetation. The bedrock units are fairly young, are not well cemented and are made of up mainly sand. Over time the bedrock units have eroded and that subsequent soil has moved downslope through natural processes. Temporary stabilization methods are recommended in the areas where erosion has occurred, in addition to minor work to lower any areas over steepened from erosion. • The slope appears stable and is 3:1 (horizontal to vertical) at it’s steepest and 5:1 at the retaining wall. There are no indications of deep slope failure; areas where vegetation has not regrown reflect typical surface instability. • Vegetation on the slope is not supported by a permanent irrigation system. Vegetation has not regrown in areas of surface erosion. The addition of an irrigation system and hydroseeding the slope are recommended to protect the slope from surface erosion. • Ground squirrel burrows on the slope accelerate erosion of the slope face. A program should be implemented to limit the burrows on the slope. • A concrete v-ditch on the slope is in poor condition. Runoff that overtops the v-ditch or runs under it erodes the downslope side of the v-ditch and sometimes allows water to run underneath it. It is recommended to reconstruct the v-ditch and to install a new drainage system to current standards. A maintenance program should also be incorporated to clean the v-ditch of soil, to fill cracks in the v-ditch and to repair areas of erosion around the v-ditch. • Additional recommendations to reduce surface water runoff and address loose soils are included in the Geotechnical Report. Retaining Wall • The 55-60 year old masonry retaining wall at the base of the slope ranges from 2 feet to about 7-8 feet in height. It is in poor condition and appears to have had modifications in the past and have several cracks and areas that are bulging outward. The retaining wall has deteriorated likely due to elevated salt levels in the air, a lack of a drain behind the wall, previous modifications to the wall and the pressure being exerted on the wall by the vegetated slope. • The Geotechnical Report recommends removal and reconstruction of the retaining wall using current standards and materials. It also recommends removal of vegetation within 5 feet of the top of the wall to reduce pressure at the backside of the new wall, removal of loose soil behind the top of wall and construction of a v-ditch at the top of the wall to divert runoff to drainage inlets. Max Field at Rienstra Park Retaining Wall and Slope Erosion City of Chula Vista RMA Job No.: 20-0287-01 Figure 1 SITE LOCATION MAP Base Map: Google Earth SITE Area with little or no vegetation Max Field at Rienstra Park Slope Erosion and Retaining Wall June 19, 2020 City of Chula Vista RMA Job No.: 20-0287-01 Figure 3 Photograph 5. V-ditch with grass growing cracks and joints in concrete. Grass growing on downslope side of v- ditch. Photograph 6. V-ditch with downslope erosion undermining v-ditch. Typically caused by surface runoff running over v-ditch and not being diverted to run down the v-ditch. Areas with little or no vegetation Downslope erosion undermining v-ditch, typically caused by surface runoff running over v-ditch N Max Field at Rienstra Park Slope Erosion and Retaining Wall June 19, 2020 City of Chula Vista RMA Job No.: 20-0287-01 Figure 3 Photograph 3. Area on east end of project with little or no vegetation exposing sandstone. Photograph 4. Area in center of project, just west of snack bar without vegetation and higher erosion. Exposes pebble conglomerate and sandstone at base of exposure. Slope with little or no vegetation and exposed sandstone Max Field at Rienstra Park Slope Erosion and Retaining Wall June 19, 2020 City of Chula Vista RMA Job No.: 20-0287-01 Figure 3 Photograph 15. Horizontal crack in wall with drain line exiting center of wall, area east of snack bar. Photograph 16. Damage to top course of wall, note loose soil at top of wall along with vertical cut into bedrock at top of photograph indicating that wall was not built high enough or upper courses of block were removed. Damage at top of retaining wall. Visible loose soil and vertical cut into bedrock indicate that wall is not high enough or upper course(s) of block have been removed. MAX FIELD / RIENSTRA PARK Accessibility Study September 24, 2020 9 PROCESS Community Outreach The first community outreach meeting was an opportunity to discuss the project goals and scope with the community, answer questions about the project and allow a chance for open feedback. Comments from the community included a variety of topics. The discussion items have been summarized as items that are within the Measure P scope of work and those that are potential long term improvements that could be completed to further enhance the park, increase functionality and/or safety. In-Scope Improvements Ū Pedestrian bridge Ū Channel cleanup/restoration Ū Locking gates/controlled access Ū Trees and planting Ū Sidewalks around little league fields Ū Improved parking Ū Restore entrance/exit Out-of-Scope/Long-term Improvements Ū New concessions building Ū Extra bathrooms Ū Sports lights Ū Fencing Ū Safety lighting Ū Trails/pathways to transit station Ū Doggie bags Ū Accessible SDG&E trails Community Workshop #1 Community Workshop #1 MAX FIELD / RIENSTRA PARK Accessibility Study September 24, 2020 10 PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS Overall Plan (full size plan in Appendix A)N MAX AVELARKHAVEN DRSDG&E Parcel Potential Gravel Overflow Parking Netlon Overflow Parking E. ORANGE AVE Ball Field #1(ADA Field) Ball Field #2 Ball Field #3 Ball Field #4 Ball Field #5 Ball Field #6 Ball Field #7(Tee-ball) 1 2 3 4 5 6 Site Master Plan Concrete Asphalt Gravel Decomposed granite Ballfield turf Planting area Surrounding native planting Netlon Drainage Dugout Bleachers Structure Project Limit of Work Legend Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Legend Phasing planN The overall site plan illustrates park improvements, adjacencies, and the project limit of work. This master plan divides the site into 6 zones for more detailed discussion on the following pages. A full size plan with conceptual spot elevations can be found in Appendix A. Both short term and long term improvements are described in this document. Improvements in Phase 1 area are high priority areas around fields 1-4 and are in the most heavily utilized portion of the park. They consist primarily of ADA access, sidewalk upgrades, retaining wall construction and the new pedestrian bridge connection to the Loma Verde Recreation Center & Loma Verde Elementary School. Improvements in Phase 2 include upgrades to the south end of the park including new sidewalks, field upgrades to the smaller fields, a pedestrian connection to East Orange Avenue, and potential overflow parking lot access off the old access point from East Orange Avenue. Phase 3 consists of potential improvements on the SDG&E owned land and may include an overflow gravel parking lot (east of Max Ave,) enhanced trail connections, site amenities or program. Phase 3 also includes upgrades throughout the park that are not considered to be ADA or maintenance issues such as sports lighting, new concessions and/or restrooms. Loma Verde Recreation Center & Loma Verde Elementary School 120'60'0' SDG&E Parcel MAX FIELD / RIENSTRA PARK Accessibility Study September 24, 2020 11 PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 7 5 9 Ball Field #2 10 N Site plan enlargement 11 12 Ball Field #1 (ADA Field)MAX AVE4 5 1 2 3 6 7 8 10 ADA parking stall reconfigured to meet City of Chula Vista Municipal Code requirements (see page 13 for parking layout enlargement) Realign existing fencing to allow a minimum five foot sidewalk around the ballfield New retaining walls, allowing for grade adjustments and soil retention Existing scoreboard to remain New CMU or cast-in-place concrete retaining walls at ramps and location of existing deteriorating retaining walls (see image 3 on page 12) Eliminate step between dugouts and adjacent walks/field (see image 2 on page 12) Adjust bleacher locations to allow minimum 5 foot wide circulation paths, with minimum 3 foot clearance at pinch points Seating area adjustments to allow clear path of travel ADA ramp with handrails (width varies: 8 - 11 feet wide, 1:12 maximum slope) New parking lot layout (see page 13) Cast-in-place concrete stairs with handrails and cheekwall, allowing circulation at approximately four feet of grade change. Directional signage to be located per ADA requirements. Existing channel / wetland Existing trail between Loma Verde Recreation Center / Loma Verde Elementary School and Max Ave Existing sewer pump station Existing V-ditch renovated for proper site drainage and to prevent future erosion 9 11 12 13 13 Zone 1 Site Improvements Legend 3LIMIT OF WORKLIMIT OF WORKLI M I T O F W O R K +164.25 +163.99 160.50+ 164.50+ +154.00 +156.50 PROPERTY LINEN Key plan 14 15 14 15 6 7 See page 13 for parking layout enlargement ZONE 6 MATCHLINE, SEE PAGE 19ZONE 2 MATCHLINE, SEE PAGE 14 156.50+ 163.25++161.00 +161.00 +164.00 2.8%1.5%1.6%8.1%60'30'0'PROPERTY LINE2 MAX FIELD / RIENSTRA PARK Accessibility Study September 24, 2020 12 PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS Zone 1 4. Stepping walkways between field #1 and #2 are to be replaced with compliant pathways. 3. A new ADA ramp with handrails and retaining walls will replace an existing staircase between Fields #1 and #2, where there currently is no equal accessible route. 2. Adjustments to site grades will remove the inaccessible step condition at dugout entries. 1. Improvements to Field #1 include paved accessible routes all the way around Field #1. This can be accomplished through adjustments to site grading and field fence locations. Existing Site Photos MAX FIELD / RIENSTRA PARK Accessibility Study September 24, 2020 13 PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS N ADA parking stalls Ball Field #2 Ball Field #1 (ADA Field) Ball Field #3 MAX AVEZone 1 - Parking Layout Enlargement Site Improvements A key goal of this study was to maximize parking capacity while also adjusting the layout to meet minimum stall size requirements. The existing parking lot contains 107 stalls. During our study of the existing lot, it was noted that the stall sizes were substandard and do not meet the requirements of the City of Chula Vista. By incorporating approximately half compact and half standard size stalls, the updated layout results in 102 parking spaces. This plan also looks at landscape enhancements in the parking lot. While it is not a requirement to meet Chula Vista Landscape Manual requirements, shade trees and planting areas are proposed where possible without impacting the number of available parking stalls. The parking layout option has 102 total parking stalls: Ū 51 standard parking stalls (10'x18') Ū 46 compact car parking stalls (9'x18') Ū 5 ADA parking stalls (includes 1 van accessible ADA parking stall) Compact car parking stalls (9'x18') ADA van parking N Key plan LIMIT OF WORK LIMIT OF WORK+161 +154 +152 Parking lot enlargement c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c 60'30'0' SDG&E utility enclosure Sewer pump station Biofiltration Bleachers PR O P E R T Y L I N E Trash enclosure area per City of Chula Vista standards Existing double head luminaire on wooden power pole 24' minimum drive aisle, to meet CVFD approval Existing fence realigned to allow 5' minimum sidewalk Final design to incorporate wheel stops or triangular curbs between parking and sidewalk EX EX EX EX PR PR PR PR PRPR PR PR Storm drain / headwalls Wheel stops or triangular curbs between parking lot and sidewalk SIDEWALK SIDEWALK Traditional wheel stops Paving pop-outs EX EX PR PR PR PR PR PR EX Existing Adjacent Trees 6 PR New Trees 14 New Planting Area 3,902 sf Parking Lot Landscape Enhancements MAX FIELD / RIENSTRA PARK Accessibility Study September 24, 2020 14 Van accessible ADA parking stall reconfigured to meet City of Chula Vista Municipal Code requirements (see page 13 for parking layout enlargement) ADA ramp with handrails (1:12 maximum slope) Existing SDG&E utility enclosure Remove posts and replace with new netting for foul ball protection (see image 2 on page 15) Eliminate step between dugouts and adjacent walks/field Adjust bleacher locations to allow for three feet minimum circulation clearance Seating area adjustments to allow clear path of travel Planted bioretention area to slow and filter run-off before it enters channel (see image 1 on page 15) New retaining walls, allowing for grade adjustments and soil retention New CMU or cast-in-place concrete retaining walls at location of existing deteriorating retaining walls along eastern end behind concessions Realign existing fencing to allow a minimum five foot sidewalk around ballfield Existing privately-owned concessions and existing restrooms with ADA access. Improvements to facilities will require coordination with City of Chula Vista and youth baseball leagues Existing informal trail between Loma Verde Recreation Center / Loma Verde Elementary School and Max Ave V-ditch renovated for proper site drainage and to prevent future erosion (see image 3 on page 15) Painted crosswalk with ADA curb ramps create dedicated pedestrian crossing through parking lot Prefabricated metal pedestrian bridge spanning channel (see image 4 on page 15) Five foot wide ADA accessible concrete trail between the park and Loma Verde Recreation Center / Loma Verde Elementary School 42" tall post-and-rail fence along the trail's east side provides fall protection (see image 5 on page 15) Trash enclosure per City of Chula Vista standards PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS 4 5 1 2 3 6 7 8 10 9 11 12 Ball Field #2 Ball Field #3 Zone 2 18 1516 7 5 Site Improvements Legend 4 5 1 2 3 6 7 8 10 9 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 17 6 5 N Site plan enlargement LIMIT OF WORKLIMIT OF WORK+154 +154 +153 +156.5 +152 +154 +153.8 PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEN Key plan ZONE 1 MATCHLINE, SEE PAGE 11 ZONE 3 MATCHLINE, S E E P A G E 1 6 1.5%4.5%18 5 6 6 6 12 12 13 14 9 9 1.4% 1.63 % 1.0% 60'30'0' 19 20 19 Existing double head luminaire on wooden power pole Storm drain and headwalls to allow stormwater flow below parking lot21 Existing channel and wetland delineation Existing scoreboard 22 23 23 22 20 21 MAX FIELD / RIENSTRA PARK Accessibility Study September 24, 2020 15 PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS Zone 2 2. Non-compliant circulation clearances at the concessions area are remediated by removing posts and using netting for foul ball protection. 1. Planted biofiltration basin at existing drainage inlet will reduce erosion impacts and remediates steep drop-off surrounding non-compliant walkways. 5. 42 inch tall post-and-rail fence alongside paved trail to Loma Verde Recreation Center & Loma Verde Elementary School. 4. Prefabricated metal pedestrian bridge spanning channel, with concrete abutments outside of the stream channel Existing Site Photos Proposed Site Elements 3. Replacement of existing damaged V-ditch will prevent further erosion. MAX FIELD / RIENSTRA PARK Accessibility Study September 24, 2020 16 PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS Zone 3 N Site plan enlargement Ball Field #4 New retaining walls, allowing for grade adjustments and soil retention Eliminate step between dugouts and adjacent walks/field Adjust bleacher locations to allow for three feet minimum circulation clearance Seating area adjustments to allow clear path of travel Existing privately-owned concessions and existing restrooms with ADA access. Improvements to facilities will require coordination with City of Chula Vista and youth baseball leagues New concrete walkway extends south connecting to overflow parking lot and East Orange Avenue Existing channel and wetland Five foot wide ADA accessible concrete trail between the park and Loma Verde Recreation Center / Loma Verde Elementary School 42" tall post-and-rail fence along the trail's east side provides fall protection (see image 5 on page 15) V-ditch renovated for proper site drainage and to prevent future erosion (see image 3 on page 15) Existing scoreboard 4 5 1 2 3 6 7 8 Ball Field #3 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 4 4 LIMIT OF WORK+152 +154 +152 +150.8 N Key plan PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINESite Improvements Legend ZONE 2 MATCHLINE, S E E P A G E 1 4 ZONE 4 MATCHLI N E , S E E P A G E 1 7 9 10 2 3 5 9 10 1.5%1.5%10 60'30'0' 11 11 MAX FIELD / RIENSTRA PARK Accessibility Study September 24, 2020 17 PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS N Site plan enlargement Zone 4 Ball Field #5 Ball Field #4 Ball Field #6 New concrete walkway extends south connecting to overflow parking lot and East Orange Avenue New concrete paving is expanded west behind home plate to create continuous paved surface to dugouts Seating area adjustments to allow clear path of travel Eliminate step between dugouts and adjacent walks/field Adjust bleacher locations to allow for three feet minimum circulation clearance Existing channel and wetland Five foot wide ADA accessible concrete trail between the park and Loma Verde Recreation Center / Loma Verde Elementary School 42" tall post-and-rail fence along the trail's east side provides fall protection (see image 5 on page 15) 4 5 1 2 3 6 4 6 5 3 2 LIMIT OF WORKLIMIT OF WORK+144 +148 +149 +150.8 PROPERTY LINEN Key plan Site Improvements Legend ZONE 3 M A T C H L I N E , S E E P A G E 1 6 ZONE 5 MATCHLINE, SEE PAGE 18 7 8 1 4 4 4 7 8 1.6%1.0%60'30'0' MAX FIELD / RIENSTRA PARK Accessibility Study September 24, 2020 18 PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS N Site plan enlargement Zone 5 Ball Field #6 Ball Field #7 (Tee-ball) Netlon Overflow ParkingLegend (69 stalls) E. ORANGE AVE New concrete walkway extends south connecting to overflow parking lot and East Orange Ave. New barrier arm gate at existing entrance Overflow parking for 69 18’ x 10’ stalls Existing channel and wetland Cast-in-place concrete staircase with handrails for shortcut connection to East Orange Ave. (optional) Chainlink fence reconfigured for pedestrian access, with new fence and optional locking gate 1 2 3 4 4 1 2 3 Netlon system with event parking Netlon system cross-section reinforced lawn root zone with sand, soil and fiber sub-base compacted sub-grade grass LIMIT OF WORKLIMIT OF WORKLIMIT OF WORK 147.0+ +146 +145 +144 PROPERTY LINEN Key plan Site Improvements The following long-term improvements are proposed in Zone 5: Ū A 24,000 square foot overflow lot on the southwestern portion of the site accommodates approximately 69 additional parking stalls. Ū The parking lot is to be paved with Netlon Advanced Turf system, a load- bearing natural grass reinforced surface. This permeable system allows for flexibility as the site can be used for overflow parking or continued use of ball field #7. ZONE 4 MATCHLINE, SEE PAGE 17 1.0%1.0% 1 60'30'0' 5 5 6 6 MAX FIELD / RIENSTRA PARK Accessibility Study September 24, 2020 19 PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS N Site plan enlargement Zone 6 Legend Flashing rapid beacon push-button crosswalk Painted crosswalk with ADA curb ramps 16,000 square foot gravel parking lot with potential for 50 stall capacity; Higher capacity could be achieved if major earthwork was performed. Provide wood pole / header to demarcate parking stall layout at 10' O.C. Existing barrier arm gate Existing trail between Loma Verde Recreation Center / Loma Verde Elementary School and Max Avenue Existing informal trails 1 2 3 12 3 4MAX AVE Rapid beacon push button crosswalk Potential Gravel Parking (50 stalls) PROPER T Y LI N E PROPER T Y LI N E N Key plan 60'30'0'ZONE 1 MATCHL INE , SEE PAGE 11 4 5 6 5 6 6 Site Improvements The following long-term improvements are proposed in Zone 6. The potential gravel lot is proposed on land currently owned by SDG&E and would require coordination and an agreement negotiated with SDG&E. Additional traffic analysis and/or a study may be required to evaluate additional pedestrian safety improvement should be considered for the mid-block crossing. Potential improvement for consideration may include bulbouts, adding a pedestrian refuge island, or adding enhanced paving in the crosswalk. APPENDIX A Full Size Plan B Cost Estimate C Geotechnical Report D Biological Memo MAX FIELD / RIENSTRA PARK Accessibility Study September 24, 2020 CCCCCCCCCCCCCC C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C CB L E A C H E R S BLEACH ERS BLEACHERS BL E A C H E R S BLEAC H E R S BLEACHERSDUGOUTDUG O U T DUGOUTDUGOUT D U G O U T DUGOUTB L E A C H E R S BLEACHERSBLE A C H E R S CON C E S SI O N S DUGOUTCON C E S SI O N S RES T R O O M S U T I L I T Y E N C L O S U R E STRUCTUREDUG O U T B L E A C H E R S DUGOUT DUGOUTBLEACHERS DUGOUTDUGOUT VANMAX AVENUESITE RENNOVATION RECOMMENDATIONS E ORANGE AVENUE LOMA VERDE RECREATION CENTER & LOMA VERDE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL LARKHAVEN DRAPPENDIX A MAX FIELD/ RIENSTRA PARK - SITE MASTER PLAN Accessibility Study September 21, 2020 Granite Asphalt Gravel Decomposed granite Ballfield turf Planting area Surrounding native planting Netlon Channel Dugout Bleachers Structure Project Limit of WorkMAX FIELD/ RIENSTRA PARK - SITE MASTER PLAN Accessibility Study September 21, 2020 Netlon Overflow Parking Ball Field #6 Ball Field #5 Ball Field #4 Ball Field #3 Ball Field #2 Ball Field #1 (ADA Field) Ball Field #7 (Tee-ball)LARKHAVEN DRE. ORANGE AVE MAX AVEPotential Gravel Overflow Parking SDG&E Parcel Loma Verde Recreation Center & Loma Verde Elementary School SDG&E Parcel APPENDIX A Max Field/Rienstra Park Accessibility Feasibility Study 9/19/2020 PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST 1.0 Site Improvement Items Item No. Location/Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Cost Onsite Park Improvements - ADA 1 ADA Ramps & Handrails 1,052 SF $25.00 $26,300 2 Cast In Place Stairs and Cheek walls w/ Handrails 80 SF $100.00 $8,000 3 Retaining Wall & Footing-height varies-to level out areas for accessibility 1,980 SF $49.00 $97,020 4 Concrete Paving - std. gray broom finish (Ballfield and parking lot areas)36,558 SF $12.00 $438,696 5 Concrete Paving - std. gray broom finish (connection to East Orange Ave)4,168 SF $12.00 $50,016 6 Grinding for Removal of striping 1,080 LF $2.55 $2,754 7 Grind & Overlay (portion of parking lot to make accessible)10,000 SF $4.00 $40,000 8 Trees, Vegetation and Irrigation 1 LS $60,000.00 $60,000 9 AC Slurry Seal 50,000 SF $0.99 $49,500 10 Parking Lot Striping (102 parking stalls)1,080 LF $1.09 $1,177 11 Dugouts - remove steps and replace benches (to make accessible)12 EA $5,000.00 $60,000 12 Upgrades to Accessibility for Restroom/Concession Buildings*1 Allowance $50,000.00 $50,000 13 Stair access from East Orange Avenue @ Field #7 120 SF $100.00 $12,000 14 Site Revegetation and Irrigation Repair 1 LS $20,000.00 $20,000 SUBTOTAL $915,463 $1,318,267 Onsite Park Improvements - Failing Infrastructure 15 Railing 500 LF $28.00 $14,000 16 Temporary Shoring 2,610 SF $20.00 $52,200 17 Retaining Wall Replacement (Footing & Wall & Backfill & Drains)2,610 SF $39.00 $101,790 18 V-Ditch Replacement (New Ditch & R&R)500 LF $25.00 $12,500 19 Revegetation of Barren Slope Areas 11,100 SF $0.75 $8,325 20 Erosion Control/Slope Surface Stabilization (Hydroseed)13,300 SF $0.50 $6,650 SUBTOTAL $195,465 $281,470 Pedestrian Bridge & Accessible Path & Railing (for access to Loma Verde Rec Center) 21 Pedestrian Bridge (Per separate Cost Estimate)1 LS $148,069.00 $148,069 22 Concrete (std. gray broom finish) or DG Pathway - (connection to Rec Center)4,300 SF $12.00 $51,600 23 42" Tall Post and Rail Fence 860 LF $40.00 $34,400 24 Grading for Pathway 400 CY $30.50 $12,200 25 Subgrade Prep 4,300 SF $0.44 $1,892 26 Erosion Control 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000 SUBTOTAL $253,161 $364,552 Field #7 Parking Lot - Optional 27 Netlon Reinforced Turf Parking Area (base, drainage only - doesn't include turf)23,500 SF $20.00 $470,000 28 Turf at Netlon area 23,500 SF $2.00 $47,000 SUBTOTAL $517,000 $744,480 Overflow Parking Lot East of Max Avenue - Optional 29 Overflow gravel parking lot 16,000 SF $2.00 $32,000 30 Wheel stops (Wooden Posts)500 LF $10.00 $5,000 31 Flashing Rapid Beacon Push Button Crosswalk 1 LS $35,000.00 $35,000 32 Crosswalk paving and striping 1 LS $1,000.00 $1,000 SUBTOTAL $73,000 $105,120 Onsite Park Improvements - Optional 33 Site furnishings 1 Allowance $25,000.00 $25,000 34 New Vehicular Entrance Gate 1 Allowance $10,000.00 $10,000 SUBTOTAL $35,000 $50,400 SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS (ALL CATEGORIES)$1,989,089 MOBILIZATION 3%$59,673 DESIGN, SURVEY & CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION 15%$298,363 CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION 6%$119,345 CONTINGENCIES 20%$397,818 TOTAL PARK IMPROVEMENTS COST $2,864,288 TOTAL THIS CATEGORY (INCLUDES ITEMS/CONTINGENCIES NOTED BELOW,44%) TOTAL THIS CATEGORY (INCLUDES ITEMS/CONTINGENCIES NOTED BELOW,44%) TOTAL THIS CATEGORY (INCLUDES ITEMS/CONTINGENCIES NOTED BELOW,44%) TOTAL THIS CATEGORY (INCLUDES ITEMS/CONTINGENCIES NOTED BELOW,44%) TOTAL THIS CATEGORY (INCLUDES ITEMS/CONTINGENCIES NOTED BELOW,44%) TOTAL THIS CATEGORY (INCLUDES ITEMS/CONTINGENCIES NOTED BELOW,44%) *This cost does not include improvements to structures. These structures are privately owned and managed by Southbay Little League (SBLL). Any future improvements to structures to be coordinated between City of CV & SBLL S P U R L O C K L a n d s c a p e A r c h i t e c t s GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION OF SLOPE EROSION AND RETAINING WALL DAMAGE MAX FIELD RIENSTRA PARK 300 MAX AVENUE CHULA VISTA, CA for City of Chula Vista Department of Public Works 276 Fourth Ave Chula Vista, CA 91910 June 19, 2020 20-0287-01 APPENDIX C Carson 310.684.4854 | Concord 925.243.6662 | Rancho Cucamonga 909.989.1751 Sacramento 916.631.7194 | San Diego 858.609.7138 | San Jose 408.362.4920 June 19, 2020 City of Chula Vista Department of Public Works 276 Fourth Ave Chula Vista, CA 91910 Attention: Patrick Moneda, Senior Civil Engineer Subject: Geotechnical Investigation of Slope Erosion and Retaining Wall Damage Max Field Rienstra Park 300 Max Avenue Chula Vista, CA Dear Mr. Moneda: In accordance with your request, a geotechnical investigation has been completed for the above referenced project. The report addresses both engineering geologic and geotechnical conditions. The results of the investigation are presented in the accompanying report, which includes a description of site conditions, results of our field exploration, laboratory testing, conclusions, and recommendations. We appreciate this opportunity to be of continued service to you. If you have any questions regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact us at your convenience. Respectfully submitted, RMA Group Ken Dowell, PG, CEG Project Geologist CEG 2470 Jorge Meneses, PhD, PE, GE, D.GE, F. ASCE Principal Geotechnical Engineer GE 3041 Max Field at Rienstra Park Slope Erosion and Retaining Wall June 19, 2020 City of Chula Vista RMA Job No.: 20-0287-01 Page i TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 1.00 INTRODUCTION 1 1.01 Purpose 1 1.02 Scope of the Investigation 1 1.03 Site Location and Description 1 1.04 Site Observations 2 1.05 Investigation Methods 2 2.00 FINDINGS 3 2.01 Geologic Setting 3 2.02 Earth Materials 3 2.03 Surface and Groundwater Conditions 3 2.04 Faults 3 2.05 Historic Seismicity 4 2.06 Landslides 4 3.00 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 4 3.01 General Conclusion 4 3.02 General Earthwork and Grading 5 3.03 Slope Remediation 5 3.04 Faulting 6 3.05 Seismic Design Parameters 6 3.06 Liquefaction and Secondary Earthquake Hazards 7 3.07 Retaining Wall Foundations 8 3.08 Miscellaneous Concrete Flatwork 8 3.09 Footing Excavation and Slab Preparations 8 3.10 Lateral Load Resistance 9 3.11 Drainage and Moisture Proofing 10 3.12 Plan Review 10 3.13 Geotechnical Observation and Testing 10 4.00 CLOSURE 11 Max Field at Rienstra Park Slope Erosion and Retaining Wall June 19, 2020 City of Chula Vista RMA Job No.: 20-0287-01 Page ii TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) PAGE FIGURES AND TABLES Figure 1 Site Location Map Figure 2 Regional Geologic Map Figure 3 Site Photographs Table 1 Notable Faults within 100 Km Table 2 Historical Strong Earthquakes APPENDICES Appendix A Laboratory Tests B1 Appendix B General Earthwork and Grading Specifications C1 Appendix C References D1 Max Field at Rienstra Park Slope Erosion and Retaining Wall June 19, 2020 City of Chula Vista RMA Job No.: 20-0287-01 Page 1 1.00 INTRODUCTION 1.01 Purpose A geotechnical investigation of slope erosion and retaining wall damage has been completed for the slope and retaining wall on the south side of Max Field at Rienstra Park in Chula Vista, California. The purpose of the investigation was to observe and summarize geotechnical and geologic conditions at the site and also the condition of the existing masonry retaining wall and slope, and to provide geotechnical and engineering geologic design parameters. 1.02 Scope of the Investigation The general scope of this investigation included the following: • Review of published and unpublished geologic, seismic, groundwater and geotechnical literature. • Examination of aerial photographs. • Logging, sampling and backfilling of 2 shallow exploratory borings excavated with a hand auger. • Laboratory testing of representative soil samples. • Geotechnical evaluation of the compiled data. • Preparation of this report presenting our findings, conclusions and recommendations. Our scope of work did not include a preliminary site assessment for the potential of hazardous materials onsite. 1.03 Site Location and Description The subject retaining wall and slope are located on the south side of Max Field at Rienstra Park in the City of Chula Vista, California. The retaining wall and slope are bounded by baseball fields to the north, residential properties to the south, Max Avenue to the east. The slope and retaining wall extends about 750 feet to the west and southwest from Max Avenue. Limits of the investigation are shown on Figure 1 Elevations at the toe of the slope range from 145 to 165 feet above sea level and elevations at the top of the slope range from 180 to 200 feet above sea level. The gradient ranges from 3:1 (horizontal to vertical) on the west end of the project to 5:1 (horizontal to vertical) on the east end of the project. The slope is vegetated with native shrubs and annual grasses and a few large eucalyptus trees (Photographs 1 and 2). A concrete v-ditch is located on the slope (Photograph 2) and the slope is not irrigated. The slope does have a few local areas devoid of vegetation (these areas are indentified on Figure 1) (Figures 3 and 4). The masonry retaining wall located at the base of the slope ranges from 2 to about 7-8 feet in height and based on historic aerial photographs was constructed in the 1960’s. The wall is painted, appears to have had modifications completed in the past and has several cracks and has areas that are locally bulging outward (Photographs 8, 11, 12 and 14). A concrete sidewalk is located at the base of the wall. A concrete staircase is located about 120 feet west of Max Avenue and is about 8 feet in height. Max Field at Rienstra Park Slope Erosion and Retaining Wall June 19, 2020 City of Chula Vista RMA Job No.: 20-0287-01 Page 2 1.04 Site Observations The slope is made up of a peddle conglomerate and sandstone sedimentary bedrock of the San Diego Formation (Figures 3 and 4). These bedrock units are fairly young (early Pleistocene to late Pliocene) about 850,000 to 3 million years old and are not well cemented and are made up of mainly sand. They are subject to erosion that creates the loose colluvial soil that then can move down slope due to gravity and surface runoff. This is particularly evident in the areas where there is no vegetation. Over time the bedrock units have eroded and that subsequent soil has moved downslope through natural processes. The slope itself appears stable, at its steepest it is 3:1 (horizontal to vertical and ranges from 3.5:1 to 5:1 where the retaining wall occurs. There are not indications of deep slope failure just typical surficial instability where vegetation has not regrown to protect the surface of the slope from erosion. The slope is vegetated with bushes and wild grasses and it does not have an irrigation system to promote growth of more permanent vegetation. Further there are numerous ground squirrel burrows on the slope, due to their digging actions this create loose soil and accelerates erosion of the slope face The concrete v-ditch dates to the construction of the retaining wall and baseball fields in the mid-1960’s and is in poor condition (Photographs 2, 5, 6, 7, 8) . While it is not clogged with soil or vegetation, it is cracked and some areas runoff has either overtopped the v-ditch or run under it, eroding the downslope side of the v-ditch and allowing water to even run underneath it in places. The masonry retaining wall (Photographs 9 – 16) appears to be solid grouted is solid grouted at least all of the exposed cells at the top of the wall and those areas exposed during prior modifications are filled with grout. It does have open joints on the first course to allow drainage, but a majority of them have been covered, or partially covered, by pavement (Photograph 10). The soil behind the wall is at the top of the wall or overtopping the wall and in some locations soil is being held back by boards on top of the wall. Behind the wall in some areas the bedrock is exposed in verticals typically less than 1 foot in height, however, this could be an indicator that other modification have taken place, such as lowering of the wall by removing the upper course of block (Photographs 9, 11, 14, 16). East of the snack bar the wall has a horizontal crack and an area is bulging outward (Photographs 15 and 16). Near this area, the wall looks like it was modified to allow for more bleacher space and is also bulging outward (Photographs 11-13). Also in this area is a section where you can see behind the wall. A drain was not visible behind the wall. In this area the footing is exposed and only looks to the about 3-4” thick (this is the area that looks to have been modified at one time). Another modified section is located to the west of the press box and it too is bulging outward (Photograph 14). At the end of the v-ditch, behind the bathroom building the wall has been extended higher with dry stacked block above the retaining wall. Overall the condition of the wall is very poor. It is almost 55-60 years old, the cement in the block appears to have started to deteriorate; probably due to the elevated salt levels in the air; by a lack of a drain behind the wall, and previous modifications to the wall and the pressure being exerted on the wall by the bushes growing on the slope are all conditions leading to the deterioration of the wall. 1.05 Investigation Methods Our investigation consisted of office research, field exploration, laboratory testing, review of the compiled data, and preparation of this report. It has been performed in a manner consistent with generally accepted engineering and geologic principles and practices, and has incorporated applicable requirements of California Building Code. Definitions of technical terms and symbols used in this report include those of the ASTM International, the California Building Code, and commonly used geologic nomenclature. Max Field at Rienstra Park Slope Erosion and Retaining Wall June 19, 2020 City of Chula Vista RMA Job No.: 20-0287-01 Page 3 Technical supporting data are presented in the attached appendices. Appendix A presents a description of our laboratory testing and the test results. Standard grading specifications and references are presented in Appendices B and C, respectively. 2.00 FINDINGS 2.01 Geologic Setting The site is located on the western side of the Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province. The Peninsular Ranges are one of the largest geologic provinces in the North America, extending from Los Angeles to the tip of Baja California. Much of the Peninsular Ranges is composed of intrusive, granitic rocks. Within the coastal San Diego region, the granitic is overlain by Pleistocene age and older sedimentary units. The project site is underlain by mainly colluvium and sedimentary bedrock consisting of sandstone and pebbly conglomerate of the early Pleistocene to late Pliocene. A regional geologic map of the area (Figure 2) indicates that the site is underlain by Pleistocene age sedimentary bedrock. 2.02 Earth Materials Our investigation encountered colluvium and sedimentary bedrock. Colluvium is soil deposited mainly by gravity and water runoff typically at the base or face of a slope. Colluvium is typically loose. The colluvium encountered at the site was light brown to gray in color and derived from the erosion of the sedimentary bedrock. The sedimentary bedrock encountered at the site has been regionally mapped at part of the San Diego formation. The bedrock exposed at the site consists of a yellowish-brown to gray, fine to medium grained sandstone and reddish-brown pebble and cobble conglomerate that is poorly indurated and poorly cemented. The sandstone was found to be dense and the conglomerate was very dense. Two hand auger boring were attempted at the site and both achieved refusal at depths between 3 ½ feet to 5 feet, mainly due to encountering the gravel and cobbles of the conglomerate. Regional mapping and our site mapping indicate that the bedding in the bedrock generally slopes to the south to southwest at very shallow angles (regional mapping indicated a dip of the bedding at 3-4 degrees to the southwest, our site mapping indicated that the bedrock dips about 3 to 5 degree to the south to southwest). The dip of the bedrock is into, or neutral to, the existing slope face. 2.03 Surface and Groundwater Conditions No areas of ponding or standing water were present or observed on or at the base of the slope at the time of our study. Further, no springs or areas of natural seepage were found on the slope. Groundwater was not encountered in our borings. 2.04 Faults The site is not located within the boundaries of an Earthquake Fault Zone for fault-rupture hazard as defined by the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act and no faults are known to pass through the property. The nearest Max Field at Rienstra Park Slope Erosion and Retaining Wall June 19, 2020 City of Chula Vista RMA Job No.: 20-0287-01 Page 4 Earthquake Fault Zone is located about 8 miles to the west of the site along the Silver Strand branch of the Rose Canyon fault. The nearest mapped fault to the site is parts of the La Nacion Fault Zone, located about 1 mile to the east at its closest location. The last motion along the fault zone is estimated to be Quaternary aged or more than 10,00o years ago. The fault zone is not considered active by the State of California. The distance to notable faults within 100 kilometers of the site is presented on Table 1. 2.05 Historic Seismicity The nearest large historic earthquake in the vicinity of the site was the magnitude 5.4 Oceanside earthquake of 1986 which was approximately 51 miles northwest of the site. Strong earthquakes that have occurred in this region in historic time and their approximate epicentral distances are summarized in Table 2. Our research of regional geologic and seismic data did not reveal any known instances of ground failure within the site associated with regional seismic activity. Seismic design parameters relative to the requirements of the 2019 California Building Code are presented in Section 3.05. 2.06 Landslides Landslides were not observed during our investigation of the slope. Topographic landforms suggestive of landslides were not apparent in the field or on aerial photographs. The existing slope does have local areas of surficial failure. Investigation of these areas during our site visit indicated that these were very shallow features that were only a few thick and most likely caused by erosion from water running down the face of the slope and loose colluvium on the face of slope. These areas were also devoid of vegetation. Regional geologic and landslide hazard maps do not map any landslides within the site. 3.00 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 3.01 General Conclusions Based upon our site visit and information gathered we would recommend the following general recommendations for the slope. The v-ditch should be reconstructed to current standards, place some temporary stabilization methods on the slope particularly in the areas where the erosion has occurred with some minor work to lower any areas over steepened from erosion, install an irrigation system and hydro seed the slope to promote sustainable vegetation to protect the slope from surface erosion. There are also a lot of ground squirrel burrows, especially in the lower part of the slope, which adds to the erosion. A program should be instituted to limit the burrows on the slope. Additional information for remediation of the slope is provided in Section 3.03. Due to the age and condition of the existing retaining wall, we would recommend that it be removed and reconstructed using current standards and materials including clearing away the bushes within 5 feet of the top of the wall to prevent pressure being applied to the backside of the new wall, removing the loose soil behind the top of the wall and construction a v-ditch at the top of the wall to divert runoff to drainage inlets and not into Max Field at Rienstra Park Slope Erosion and Retaining Wall June 19, 2020 City of Chula Vista RMA Job No.: 20-0287-01 Page 5 the soil behind the wall and collect soil carried by the runoff. Additionally, a maintenance program for the site should include removal of loose soil from the v-ditch at the top of the wall. Additional information for design of retaining wall is included in Section 3.11. 3.02 General Earthwork and Grading Any grading should be performed in accordance with the General Earthwork and Grading Specifications outlined in Appendix C, unless specifically revised or amended below. Recommendations contained in Appendix C are general specifications for typical grading projects and may not be entirely applicable to this project. It is also recommended that all earthwork and grading be performed in accordance with Appendix J of the 2019 California Building Code and all applicable governmental agency requirements. In the event of conflicts between this report and Appendix J, this report shall govern. 3.03 Slope Remediation Based upon our review of the current slope conditions, it is our opinion that the existing slope is structurally stable and no indications of active or former slippage or sliding (such as fissures or earth cracks, large areas of slumped soil, diversion of the existing v-ditch) is evident, the surface of the slope is undergoing the natural erosion processes created by gravity and surface water runoff. Disruption of surface water runoff and stabilization of the surficial face of the slope will limit the downslope erosion of the slope face. Remediation of the slope should include the items listed in Section 3.01. The slope currently is covered with annual grasses and chaparral bushes and a few large trees. The annual grasses do provide some measure of stabilization for the slope but only when they are actively growing, once their growth cycle is complete and the plants die they no longer provide stability to the surface of the slope and can typically accelerate erosion of the surface soils during rain storm in the non-growing season due to loosened soil in the root zone or upper few inches of soil. We would recommend that slope be hydroseeded with a more permanent vegetation mix that will provide year round stability for the slope. This may also include installation of a permanent irrigation system. A landscape architect could be consulted to determine the best hydroseed mix for the area In the areas where vegetation is mainly the grasses or thin or lacking vegetation the surface of the slope may be stabilized using materials such as jute mesh and straw waddles to slow the movement of water and soil down the slope face. The three areas indicated on Figure 1 where the vegetation is scarce or absent also has locally steepened slope faces due to erosion in these areas. Loose soil from these areas should be removed and the slope face returned to match the existing surrounding slope faces. This should be accomplished using compacted fill soil. To promote the growth of vegetation in these areas the fill soil should not be compacted to more than 85% relative compaction and the face of these areas should be covered with jute mesh and straw waddles placed upslope from them to limit surface water runoff. The existing v-ditch should be removed and a new drainage system installed to current City standards. It should be designed by a civil engineer to provide positive drainage off the slope into an appropriately sized drainage system. Further, a maintenance program should be installed that include cleaning the v-ditch of soil, filling cracks in the v- ditch and repairing areas of erosion around the v-ditch. An annual maintenance program that would include inspection, repair and cleaning of the v-ditch, repair of any Max Field at Rienstra Park Slope Erosion and Retaining Wall June 19, 2020 City of Chula Vista RMA Job No.: 20-0287-01 Page 6 future surficial failures and maintenance of good surface vegetation should be implemented. 3.04 Faulting Since the site is not located within the boundaries of an Earthquake Fault Zone and no faults are known to pass through the property, surface fault rupture within the site is considered unlikely. 3.05 Seismic Design Parameters The potential damaging effects of regional earthquake activity must be considered in the design of structures. Mapped seismic design parameters have been developed in accordance with Section 1613 of the 2019 California Building Code (CBC) using the online U.S. Geological Survey Seismic Design Maps Calculator (ASCE 10 Standard), a site location based on latitude and longitude, and site characterization as Site Class C based on our preliminary geotechnical investigation. The parameters generated for the subject site are presented below: 2019 California Building Code (CBC) Seismic Parameters Parameter Value Site Location Latitude = 32.60333 degrees Longitude = -117.04615 degrees Site Class Site Class = C Soil Profile Name = Very dense soil and soft rock Mapped Spectral Accelerations (Site Class B) Ss (0.2- second period) = 0.946g S1 (1-second period) = 0.326g Site Coefficients (Site Class C) Fa = 1.2 Fv = 1.5 Risk-Targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake Spectral Accelerations (Site Class C) SMS (0.2- second period) = 1.135g SM1 (1-second period) = 0.49g Risk-Targeted Design Earthquake Spectral Accelerations (Site Class C) SDS (0.2- second period) = 0.757g SD1 (1-second period) = 0.326g The above table shows that the mapped spectral response acceleration parameter a 1-second period (S1) < 0.75g. Therefore, for Risk Categories I, II and III the Seismic Design Category is D and for Risk Category IV the Seismic Design Category is D (CBC Table 1604.5 and Section 1613.3.5). Consequently, as required for Seismic Design Categories C through F by CBC Section 1803.5.11, slope instability, liquefaction, total and differential settlement, and surface displacement by faulting or seismically lateral spreading or lateral flow should be addressed. The above table shows that the mapped spectral response acceleration parameter a 1-second period (S1) < 0.75g and spectral response acceleration parameters are SDS ≥ 0.50g and SD1 ≥ 0.20g. Therefore, the Seismic Design Category has been determined from Tables 1613.3.5(1) and 1613.3.5(2) using a Risk Category of I, II, II and/or IV is D for all Risk Categories (CBC Section 1613.5.6). Consequently, as required for Seismic Design Categories C Max Field at Rienstra Park Slope Erosion and Retaining Wall June 19, 2020 City of Chula Vista RMA Job No.: 20-0287-01 Page 7 through F by CBC Section 1803.5.11, slope instability, liquefaction, total and differential settlement, and surface displacement by faulting or seismically lateral spreading or lateral flow have been evaluated. Applicable portions of CBC Section 1803.5.12 have also been evaluated including dynamic lateral loading of retaining walls. Peak earthquake ground acceleration adjusted for site class effects (PGAM) has been determine in accordance with ASCE 7-10 Section 11.8.3 as follows: PGAM = FPGA x PGA = 0.417g x 1.2 = 0.500g. 3.06 Liquefaction and Secondary Earthquake Hazards Potential secondary seismic hazards that can affect land development projects include liquefaction, tsunamis, seiches, seismically induced settlement, seismically induced flooding and seismically induced landsliding. Liquefaction Liquefaction is a phenomenon where earthquake-induced ground motions increase the pore pressure in saturated, granular soils until it is equal to the confining, overburden pressure. When this occurs, the soil can completely lose its shear strength and enter a liquefied state. The possibility of liquefaction is dependent upon grain size, relative density, confining pressure, saturation of the soils, and intensity and duration of ground shaking. In order for liquefaction to occur, three criteria must be met: underlying loose, coarse-grained (sandy) soils, a groundwater depth of less than about 50 feet, and a potential for seismic shaking from nearby large-magnitude earthquake. Due to shallow sedimentary bedrock beneath the site, soil liquefaction at the site is unlikely and liquefaction calculations were not performed. Tsunamis and Seiches Tsunamis are sea waves that are generated in response to large-magnitude earthquakes. When these waves reach shorelines, they sometimes produce coastal flooding. Seiches are the oscillation of large bodies of standing water, such as lakes, that can occur in response to ground shaking. Tsunamis and seiches do not pose hazards due to the inland location of the site and lack of nearby bodies of standing water. Seismically Induced Settlement Seismically induced settlement occurs most frequently in areas underlain by loose, granular sediments. Damage as a result of seismically induced settlement is most dramatic when differential settlement occurs in areas with large variations in the thickness of underlying sediments. Settlement caused by ground shaking is often non-uniformly distributed, which can result in differential settlement. Based upon the shallow bedrock beneath the site, settlement caused by ground shaking is estimated to be minimal. Seismically Induced Flooding The site is not located within a potential dam inundation area. In addition, there are no up gradient water reservoirs or dams located in close proximity of the site. Consequently seismically induced flooding at the site is unlikely. Max Field at Rienstra Park Slope Erosion and Retaining Wall June 19, 2020 City of Chula Vista RMA Job No.: 20-0287-01 Page 8 Seismically Induced Landsliding According to the California Geological Survey Landslide Inventory (https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/lsi/app/), there are no mapped landslides within the project area. Based upon the general geologic structure of the sedimentary bedrock the makes up the subject slope, particularly the low dip angle of less than 5° and the into slope or neutral direction of the dip relative to the slope face, landsliding due to seismic events is unlikely. 3.07 Retaining Wall Foundations Isolated spread footings and/or continuous wall footings are recommended to support the proposed structures. Footings should be established in firm bedrock or two feet of compacted fill materials 90% relative compaction. If footings transition from being founded in bedrock to being founded on fill and construction joint should be placed where the transition occurs to limit differential settlement. Footings may be designed using the following allowable soil bearing values: Retaining Wall Footings: Footings for retaining walls should be founded a minimum depth of 12 inches and have a minimum width of 12 inches. Footings may be designed using the allowable bearing capacity and lateral resistance values recommended for building footings. However, when calculating passive resistance, the upper 6 inches of the footings should be ignored in areas where the footings will not be covered with concrete flatwork. This value may also be increased by 8% for each additional foot of width or depth to a maximum value of 3,000 psf. Reinforcement should be provided for structural considerations as determined by the design engineer. The above bearing capacities represent an allowable net increase in soil pressure over existing soil pressure and may be increased by one-third for short-term wind or seismic loads. The maximum expected settlement of footings designed with the recommended allowable bearing capacity is expected to be on the order of ½ inch with differential settlement on the order of ¼ inch. 3.08 Miscellaneous Concrete Flatwork Miscellaneous concrete flatwork and walkways may be designed with a minimum thickness of 4 inches. Large slabs should be reinforced with a minimum of 6x6-10/10 welded wire mesh placed at mid-height in the slab. Control joints should be constructed to create squares or rectangles with a maximum spacing of 15 feet. Walkways may be constructed without reinforcement. Walkways should be separated from foundations with a thick expansion joint filler. Control joints should be constructed into non-reinforced walkways at a maximum of 5 feet spacing. The subgrade soils beneath all miscellaneous concrete flatwork should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction for a minimum depth of 12 inches. The geotechnical engineer should monitor the compaction of the subgrade soils and perform testing to verify that proper compaction has been obtained. 3.09 Footing Excavation and Slab Preparations All footing excavations should be observed by the geotechnical consultant to verify that they have been excavated Max Field at Rienstra Park Slope Erosion and Retaining Wall June 19, 2020 City of Chula Vista RMA Job No.: 20-0287-01 Page 9 into competent soils. The foundation excavations should be observed prior to the placement of forms, reinforcement steel, or concrete. These excavations should be evenly trimmed and level. Prior to concrete placement, any loose or soft soils should be removed. Excavated soils should not be placed on slab or footing areas unless properly compacted. Prior to the placement of the moisture barrier and sand, the subgrade soils underlying the slab should be observed by the geotechnical consultant to verify that all under-slab utility trenches have been properly backfilled and compacted, that no loose or soft soils are present, and that the slab subgrade has been properly compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction within the upper 12 inches. Footings may experience and overall loss in bearing capacity or an increased potential to settle where located in close proximity to existing or future utility trenches. Furthermore, stresses imposed by the footings on the utility lines may cause cracking, collapse and/or a loss of serviceability. To reduce this risk, footings should extend below a 1:1 plane projected upward from the closest bottom of the trench. Slabs on grade and walkways should be brought to a minimum of 2% and a maximum of 6% above their optimum moisture content for a depth of 18 inches prior to the placement of concrete. The geotechnical consultant should perform insitu moisture tests to verify that the appropriate moisture content has been achieved a maximum of 24 hours prior to the placement of concrete or moisture barriers. 3.10 Lateral Load Resistance Lateral loads may be resisted by soil friction and the passive resistance of the soil. The following parameters are recommended. • Passive Earth Pressure = 430 pcf (equivalent fluid weight). • Coefficient of Friction (soil to footing) = 0.41 • Retaining structures should be designed to resist the following lateral active earth pressures: Surface Slope of Retained Materials (Horizontal:Vertical) Equivalent Fluid Weight (pcf) Level 37 5:1 39 4:1 41 3:1 43 2:1 55 These active earth pressures are only applicable if the retained earth is allowed to strain sufficiently to achieve the active state. The required minimum horizontal strain to achieve the active state is approximately 0.0025H. Retaining structures should be designed to resist an at-rest lateral earth pressure if this horizontal strain cannot be achieved. • At-rest Lateral Earth Pressure = 60 pcf (equivalent fluid weight) Max Field at Rienstra Park Slope Erosion and Retaining Wall June 19, 2020 City of Chula Vista RMA Job No.: 20-0287-01 Page 10 The Mononobe-Okabe method is commonly utilized for calculating seismically induced active and passive lateral earth pressures and is based on the limit equilibrium Coulomb theory for static stress conditions. This method entails three fundamental assumptions (e.g., Seed and Whitman, 1970): Wall movement is sufficient to ensure either active or passive conditions, the driving soil wedge inducing the lateral earth pressures is formed by a planar failure surface starting at the heel of the wall and extending to the free surface of the backfill, and the driving soil wedge and the retaining structure act as rigid bodies, and therefore, experiences uniform accelerations throughout the respective bodies (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2003, Engineering and Design - Stability Analysis of Concrete Structures). • Seismic Lateral Earth Pressure = 18 pcf (equivalent fluid weight). The seismic lateral earth pressure given above is a triangle increasing with depth, and the resultant of this pressure is an increment of force which should be applied to the back of the wall at 1/3 of the wall height from the wall base. The seismic increment of earth pressure should be added to the static active earth pressure. Even for the at-rest (Ko) condition, the seismic increment of earth pressure should be added to the static active earth pressure, not to the at-rest static earth pressure (SEAOC Seismology Committee 2019). Per 2019 CBC Section 1803.5.12 dynamic seismic lateral earth pressures shall be applied to foundation walls and retaining walls supporting more than 6 feet of backfill. Dynamic seismic lateral earth pressures may also be applied to shorter walls at the discretion of the structural engineer. 3.11 Drainage and Moisture Proofing Retaining structures should be drained to prevent the accumulation of subsurface water behind the walls. Backdrains should be installed behind all retaining walls exceeding 3 feet in height. A typical detail for retaining wall back drains is presented in Appendix C. All backdrains should be outlet to suitable drainage devices. Retaining wall less than 3 feet in height should be provided with backdrains or weep holes. Dampproofing and/or waterproofing should also be provided on all retaining walls exceeding 3 feet in height. Cal/OSHA construction safety orders should be observed during all underground work. 3.12 Plan Review Once a formal grading and foundation plans are prepared for the subject property, this office should review the plans from a geotechnical viewpoint, comment on changes from the plan used during preparation of this report and revise the recommendations of this report where necessary. 3.13 Geotechnical Observation and Testing The geotechnical engineer should be contacted to provide additional observation and testing during the following construction activities: • During the clearing and grubbing of the site. • During the demolition of any existing structures, buried utilities or other existing improvements. • During excavation and overexcavation of compressible soils. • During all phases of grading including ground preparation and filling operations. Max Field at Rienstra Park Slope Erosion and Retaining Wall June 19, 2020 City of Chula Vista RMA Job No.: 20-0287-01 Page 11 • During trenching and backfilling operations of buried improvements and utilities to verify proper backfill and compaction of the utility trenches. • After excavation and prior to placement of reinforcing steel or concrete within footing trenches to verify that footings are properly founded in competent materials. • During fine or precise grading involving the placement of any fills underlying driveways, sidewalks, walkways, or other miscellaneous concrete flatwork to verify proper placement, mixing and compaction of fills. • When any unusual conditions are encountered during construction. 4.00 CLOSURE The findings, conclusions and recommendations in this report were prepared in accordance with generally accepted engineering and geologic principles and practices. No other warranty, either expressed or implied, is made. This report has been prepared for City of Chula Vista to be used solely for design purposes. Anyone using this report for any other purpose must draw their own conclusions regarding required construction procedures and subsurface conditions. The geotechnical and geologic consultant should be retained during the earthwork and foundation phases of construction to monitor compliance with the design concepts and recommendations and to provide additional recommendations as needed. Should subsurface conditions be encountered during construction that are different from those described in this report, this office should be notified immediately so that our recommendations may be re-evaluated. FIGURES AND TABLES Max Field at Rienstra Park Retaining Wall and Slope Erosion City of Chula Vista RMA Job No.: 20-0287-01 Figure 1 SITE LOCATION MAP Base Map: Google Earth GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS SITE Area with little or no vegetation REGIONAL GEOLOGIC MAP Scale: 1" ≈ 3,700' Source: Kennedy and Tan, 2008 SITE Max Field at Rienstra Park Retaining Wall and Slope Erosion City of Chula Vista RMA Job No.: 20-0287-01 Figure 2 Partial Legend Qyaa - Younger Alluvium Qop, - Old Paralic Deposits Qvop- Very Old Paralic Deposits Tsdss - San Diego Formation Sandstone Tsdcg- San Diego Formation Conglomerate REGIONAL FAULT MAP Scale: 1" ≈ 2 miles GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS Orange - Holocene fault displacement Green - Late Quaternary fault displacement Purple - Quaternary fault Black - Pre-Quaternary fault Partial Legend Base Map: California Geological Survey Fault Activity Map of California, 2010 SITE Max Field at Rienstra Park Retaining Wall and Slope Erosion City of Chula Vista RMA Job No.: 20-0287-01 Figure 3 Max Field at Rienstra Park Slope Erosion and Retaining Wall June 19, 2020 City of Chula Vista RMA Job No.: 20-0287-01 Figure 3 Photograph 1. Typical slope condition at west end of project. Photograph 2. Typical slope condition at east end of project, including portion of existing v-ditch with grass growing in concrete joints and cracks. Max Field at Rienstra Park Slope Erosion and Retaining Wall June 19, 2020 City of Chula Vista RMA Job No.: 20-0287-01 Figure 3 Photograph 3. Area on east end of project with little or no vegetation exposing sandstone. Photograph 4. Area in center of project, just west of snack bar without vegetation and higher erosion. Exposes pebble conglomerate and sandstone at base of exposure. Max Field at Rienstra Park Slope Erosion and Retaining Wall June 19, 2020 City of Chula Vista RMA Job No.: 20-0287-01 Figure 3 Photograph 5. V-ditch with grass growing cracks and joints in concrete. Grass growing on downslope side of v- ditch. Photograph 6. V-ditch with downslope erosion undermining v-ditch. Typically caused by surface runoff running over v-ditch and not being diverted to run down the v-ditch. Max Field at Rienstra Park Slope Erosion and Retaining Wall June 19, 2020 City of Chula Vista RMA Job No.: 20-0287-01 Figure 3 Photograph 7. Cracks in v-ditch. Max Field at Rienstra Park Slope Erosion and Retaining Wall June 19, 2020 City of Chula Vista RMA Job No.: 20-0287-01 Figure 3 Photograph 8. End of v-ditch with storm drain inlet. Also note build up of soil to left of v-ditch covered with dry grasses and the dry stacked blocks to restrain loose soil from slope. Max Field at Rienstra Park Slope Erosion and Retaining Wall June 19, 2020 City of Chula Vista RMA Job No.: 20-0287-01 Figure 3 Photograph 9. Typical section of retaining wall, note soil and grass nearly overtopping wall and bushes growing near top of wall. Photograph 10. Base of wall with weep holes (open joints) that are nearly completely covered by pavement. Max Field at Rienstra Park Slope Erosion and Retaining Wall June 19, 2020 City of Chula Vista RMA Job No.: 20-0287-01 Figure 3 Photograph 11. Wall east of snack bar. Area appears to have been previously modified. Soil at top of wall is being held back with boards or removed by hand. Wall appears to have been built too low and is bulging outward and footing is exposed (see Photograph 12). Photograph 12. Showing exposed footing at base of wall from Photograph 11. Footing only about 3-4” thick and bottom of footing is exposed with soil visible above asphalt pavement. Max Field at Rienstra Park Slope Erosion and Retaining Wall June 19, 2020 City of Chula Vista RMA Job No.: 20-0287-01 Figure 3 Photograph 13. Section of wall just east of Photograph 11. No drain is visible behind wall. Max Field at Rienstra Park Slope Erosion and Retaining Wall June 19, 2020 City of Chula Vista RMA Job No.: 20-0287-01 Figure 3 Photograph 14. Another area of wall modification that is bulging outward, located west of the press box. Max Field at Rienstra Park Slope Erosion and Retaining Wall June 19, 2020 City of Chula Vista RMA Job No.: 20-0287-01 Figure 3 Photograph 15. Horizontal crack in wall with drain line exiting center of wall, area east of snack bar. Photograph 16. Damage to top course of wall, note loose soil at top of wall along with vertical cut into bedrock at top of photograph indicating that wall was not built high enough or upper courses of block were removed. Max Field at Rienstra Park Slope Erosion and Retaining Wall June 19, 2020 City of Chula Vista RMA Job No.: 20-0287-01 Tables Maximum Slip Distance Distance Moment Rate Fault Zone & geometry (km)(mi.)Magnitude (mm/yr) Coronado Bank (rl-ss)24 15 7.4 3.0 Earthquake Valley (rl-ss)76 47 6.7 2.0 Elsinore - Temecula (rl-ss)86 53 7.8 5.0 Elsinore - Julian (rl-ss)71 44 6.8 5.0 Newport-Inglewood (rl-ss)71 44 6.9 1.5 Rose Canyon (rl-ss)14 9 6.9 1.5 Notes: Fault geometry - (ss) strike slip, (r) reverse, (n) normal, (rl) right lateral, (ll) left lateral, (o) oblique Fault and Seismic Data - California Geological Survey (Cao), 2003 and U.S. Geological National Seismic Hazards Maps online Sources Parameters NOTABLE FAULTS WITHIN 100 KILOMETERS AND SEISMIC DATA TABLE 1 Epicentral Distance Date Event Causitive Fault Magnitude (miles) Dec. 16, 1858 San Bernardino Area uncertain 6.0 96 Feb. 9,1890 San Jacinto uncertain 6.3 71 May 28, 1892 San Jacinto uncertain 6.3 67 Dec.25, 1899 San Jacinto San Jacinto 6.7 81 Sept. 20, 1907 San Bernardino Area uncertain 5.3 109 May 15, 1910 Elsinore Elsinore 6.0 76 April 21, 1918 Hemet San Jacinto 6.8 78 July 23, 1923 San Bernardino San Jacinto 6.0 96 March 11, 1933 Long Beach Newport-Inglewood 6.4 91 Dec. 4, 1948 Desert Hot Springs San Andreas or Banning 6.5 100 July 8, 1986 North Palm Springs Banning or Garnet Hills 5.6 99 July 13, 1986 Oceanside uncertain 5.4 51 June 28, 1992 Big Bear uncertain 6.5 108 Notes: Earthquake data: U.S. Geological Survey P.P. 1515 & online data, Southern California Earthqua California Geological Survey online data Magnitudes prior to 1932 are estimated from intensity. Magnitudes after 1932 are moment, local or surface wave magnitudes. Site Location: Site Longitude: -117.10047 Site Latitude: 32.6317 HISTORIC STRONG EARTHQUAKES IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SINCE 1858 TABLE 2 APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTS Max Field at Rienstra Park Slope Erosion and Retaining Wall June 19, 2020 City of Chula Vista RMA Job No.: 20-0287-01 Page A - 1 APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTS B-1.00 LABORATORY TESTS B-1.01 Maximum Density Maximum density - optimum moisture relationships for the major soil types encountered during the field exploration were performed in the laboratory using the standard procedures of ASTM D1557. B-1.10 Direct Shear Direct shear tests were performed on representative samples of the major soil types encountered in the test holes using the standard test method of ASTM D3080 (consolidated and drained). Tests were performed on remolded samples. Remolded samples were tested at the insitu density and moisture of the sandstone and conglomerate. Shear tests were performed on a direct shear machine of the strain-controlled type. To simulate possible adverse field conditions, the samples were saturated prior to shearing. Several samples were sheared at varying normal loads and the results plotted to establish the angle of the internal friction and cohesion of the tested samples. B-1.14 Density of Split-Barrel Samples Soil samples were obtained by using a split-barrel sampler in accordance to standard method of ASTM D1586. B-1.16 Test Results Test results for all laboratory tests performed on the subject project are presented in this appendix. Max Field at Rienstra Park Slope Erosion and Retaining Wall June 19, 2020 City of Chula Vista RMA Job No.: 20-0287-01 Page A - 2 DENSITY - MOISTURE Sample Number Moisture (Percent) Density (lbs/ft3) Sandstone 9.1 113.5 Conglomerate 6.1 120.9 Max Field at Rienstra Park Slope Erosion and Retaining Wall June 19, 2020 City of Chula Vista RMA Job No.: 20-0287-01 Page A - 3 DIRECT SHEAR TEST ASTM D3080 Sample ID:Sandstone Maximum Dry Density (pcf) = 123.4 Optimum Moisture Content (%) = 11.3 Initial Dry Density (pcf) = 113.5 Initial Moisture Content (%) = 11.3 Final Moisture Content (%) = 20.0 Normal Peak Residual Pressure (psf)Shear Resist Shear Resist 1000 912 900 2000 1728 1704 4000 2892 2880 Peak Residual Cohesion (psf) =330 310 Friction Angle (deg) =33 33 Peak Residual 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500Shear Stress (psf)Normal Stress (psf) Max Field at Rienstra Park Slope Erosion and Retaining Wall June 19, 2020 City of Chula Vista RMA Job No.: 20-0287-01 Page A - 4 DIRECT SHEAR TEST ASTM D3080 Sample ID:Conglomerate Maximum Dry Density (pcf) = 127.3 Optimum Moisture Content (%) = 9.2 Initial Dry Density (pcf) = 120.9 Initial Moisture Content (%) = 9.2 Final Moisture Content (%) = 16.3 Normal Peak Residual Pressure (psf)Shear Resist Shear Resist 1000 1836 1800 2000 2184 2172 4000 3348 3336 Peak Residual Cohesion (psf) =1250 1220 Friction Angle (deg) =27 28 Peak Residual 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500Shear Stress (psf)Normal Stress (psf) APPENDIX B GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS Max Field at Rienstra Park Slope Erosion and Retaining Wall June 19, 2020 City of Chula Vista RMA Job No.: 20-0287-01 Page B - 1 APPENDIX B GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS B-1.00 GENERAL DESCRIPTION B-1.01 Introduction These specifications present our general recommendations for earthwork and grading as shown on the approved grading plans for the subject project. These specifications shall cover all clearing and grubbing, removal of existing structures, preparation of land to be filled, filling of the land, spreading, compaction and control of the fill, and all subsidiary work necessary to complete the grading of the filled areas to conform with the lines, grades and slopes as shown on the approved plans. The recommendations contained in the geotechnical report of which these general specifications are a part of shall supersede the provisions contained hereinafter in case of conflict. B-1.02 Laboratory Standard and Field Test Methods The laboratory standard used to establish the maximum density and optimum moisture shall be ASTM D1557. The insitu density of earth materials (field compaction tests) shall be determined by the sand cone method (ASTM D1556), direct transmission nuclear method (ASTM D6938) or other test methods as considered appropriate by the geotechnical consultant. Relative compaction is defined, for purposes of these specifications, as the ratio of the in-place density to the maximum density as determined in the previously mentioned laboratory standard. B-2.00 CLEARING B-2.01 Surface Clearing All structures marked for removal, timber, logs, trees, brush and other rubbish shall be removed and disposed of off the site. Any trees to be removed shall be pulled in such a manner so as to remove as much of the root system as possible. B-2.02 Subsurface Removals A thorough search should be made for possible underground storage tanks and/or septic tanks and cesspools. If found, tanks should be removed and cesspools pumped dry. Any concrete irrigation lines shall be crushed in place and all metal underground lines shall be removed from the site. B-2.03 Backfill of Cavities All cavities created or exposed during clearing and grubbing operations or by previous use of the site shall be cleared Max Field at Rienstra Park Slope Erosion and Retaining Wall June 19, 2020 City of Chula Vista RMA Job No.: 20-0287-01 Page B - 2 of deleterious material and backfilled with native soils or other materials approved by the soil engineer. Said backfill shall be compacted to a minimum of 90% relative compaction. B-3.00 ORIGINAL GROUND PREPARATION B-3.01 Stripping of Vegetation After the site has been properly cleared, all vegetation and topsoil containing the root systems of former vegetation shall be stripped from areas to be graded. Materials removed in this stripping process may be used as fill in areas designated by the soil engineer, provided the vegetation is mixed with a sufficient amount of soil to assure that no appreciable settlement or other detriment will occur due to decaying of the organic matter. Soil materials containing more than 3% organics shall not be used as structural fill. B-3.02 Removals of Non-Engineered Fills Any non-engineered fills encountered during grading shall be completely removed and the underlying ground shall be prepared in accordance to the recommendations for original ground preparation contained in this section. After cleansing of any organic matter the fill material may be used for engineered fill. B-3.03 Overexcavation of Fill Areas The existing ground in all areas determined to be satisfactory for the support of fills shall be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches. Scarification shall continue until the soils are broken down and free from lumps or clods and until the scarified zone is uniform. The moisture content of the scarified zone shall be adjusted to within 2% of optimum moisture. The scarified zone shall then be uniformly compacted to 90% relative compaction. Where fill material is to be placed on ground with slopes steeper than 5:1 (H:V) the sloping ground shall be benched. The lowermost bench shall be a minimum of 15 feet wide, shall be a minimum of 2 feet deep, and shall expose firm material as determined by the geotechnical consultant. Other benches shall be excavated to firm material as determined by the geotechnical consultant and shall have a minimum width of 4 feet. Existing ground that is determined to be unsatisfactory for the support of fills shall be overexcavated in accordance to the recommendations contained in the geotechnical report of which these general specifications are a part. B-4.00 FILL MATERIALS B-4.01 General Materials for the fill shall be free from vegetable matter and other deleterious substances, shall not contain rocks or lumps of a greater dimension than is recommended by the geotechnical consultant, and shall be approved by the geotechnical consultant. Soils of poor gradation, expansion, or strength properties shall be placed in areas designated by the geotechnical consultant or shall be mixed with other soils providing satisfactory fill material. B-4.02 Oversize Material Oversize material, rock or other irreducible material with a maximum dimension greater than 12 inches, shall not be placed in fills, unless the location, materials, and disposal methods are specifically approved by the geotechnical Max Field at Rienstra Park Slope Erosion and Retaining Wall June 19, 2020 City of Chula Vista RMA Job No.: 20-0287-01 Page B - 3 consultant. Oversize material shall be placed in such a manner that nesting of oversize material does not occur and in such a manner that the oversize material is completely surrounded by fill material compacted to a minimum of 90% relative compaction. Oversize material shall not be placed within 10 feet of finished grade without the approval of the geotechnical consultant. B-4.03 Import Material imported to the site shall conform to the requirements of Section 4.01 of these specifications. Potential import material shall be approved by the geotechnical consultant prior to importation to the subject site. B-5.00 PLACING AND SPREADING OF FILL B-5.01 Fill Lifts The selected fill material shall be placed in nearly horizontal layers which when compacted will not exceed approximately 6 inches in thickness. Thicker lifts may be placed if testing indicates the compaction procedures are such that the required compaction is being achieved and the geotechnical consultant approves their use. Each layer shall be spread evenly and shall be thoroughly blade mixed during the spreading to insure uniformity of material in each layer. B-5.02 Fill Moisture When the moisture content of the fill material is below that recommended by the soils engineer, water shall then be added until he moisture content is as specified to assure thorough bonding during the compacting process. When the moisture content of the fill material is above that recommended by the soils engineer, the fill material shall be aerated by blading or other satisfactory methods until the moisture content is as specified. B-5.03 Fill Compaction After each layer has been placed, mixed, and spread evenly, it shall be thoroughly compacted to not less than 90% relative compaction. Compaction shall be by sheepsfoot rollers, multiple-wheel pneumatic tired rollers, or other types approved by the soil engineer. Rolling shall be accomplished while the fill material is at the specified moisture content. Rolling of each layer shall be continuous over its entire area and the roller shall make sufficient trips to insure that the desired density has been obtained. B-5.04 Fill Slopes Fill slopes shall be compacted by means of sheepsfoot rollers or other suitable equipment. Compacting of the slopes may be done progressively in increments of 3 to 4 feet in fill height. At the completion of grading, the slope face shall be compacted to a minimum of 90% relative compaction. This may require track rolling or rolling with a grid roller attached to a tractor mounted side-boom. Slopes may be over filled and cut back in such a manner that the exposed slope faces are compacted to a minimum of 90% relative compaction. Max Field at Rienstra Park Slope Erosion and Retaining Wall June 19, 2020 City of Chula Vista RMA Job No.: 20-0287-01 Page B - 4 The fill operation shall be continued in six inch (6") compacted layers, or as specified above, until the fill has been brought to the finished slopes and grades as shown on the accepted plans. B-5.05 Compaction Testing Field density tests shall be made by the geotechnical consultant of the compaction of each layer of fill. Density tests shall be made at locations selected by the geotechnical consultant. Frequency of field density tests shall be not less than one test for each 2.0 feet of fill height and at least every one thousand cubic yards of fill. Where fill slopes exceed four feet in height their finished faces shall be tested at a frequency of one test for each 1000 square feet of slope face. Where sheepsfoot rollers are used, the soil may be disturbed to a depth of several inches. Density reading shall be taken in the compacted material below the disturbed surface. When these readings indicate that the density of any layer of fill or portion thereof is below the required density, the particular layer or portion shall be reworked until the required density has been obtained. B-6.00 SUBDRAINS B-6.01 Subdrain Material Subdrains shall be constructed of a minimum 4-inch diameter pipe encased in a suitable filter material. The subdrain pipe shall be Schedule 40 Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene (ABS) or Schedule 40 Polyvinyl Chloride Plastic (PVC) pipe or approved equivalent. Subdrain pipe shall be installed with perforations down. Filter material shall consist of 3/4" to 1 1/2" clean gravel wrapped in an envelope of filter fabric consisting of Mirafi 140N or approved equivalent. B-6.02 Subdrain Installation Subdrain systems, if required, shall be installed in approved ground to conform the approximate alignment and details shown on the plans or herein. The subdrain locations shall not be changed or modified without the approval of the geotechnical consultant. The geotechnical consultant may recommend and direct changes in the subdrain line, grade or material upon approval by the design civil engineer and the appropriate governmental agencies. B-7.00 EXCAVATIONS B-7.01 General Excavations and cut slopes shall be examined by the geotechnical consultant. If determined necessary by the geotechnical consultant, further excavation or overexcavation and refilling of overexcavated areas shall be performed, and/or remedial grading of cut slopes shall be performed. B-7.02 Fill-Over-Cut Slopes Where fill-over-cut slopes are to be graded the cut portion of the slope shall be made and approved by the geotechnical consultant prior to placement of materials for construction of the fill portion of the slope. Max Field at Rienstra Park Slope Erosion and Retaining Wall June 19, 2020 City of Chula Vista RMA Job No.: 20-0287-01 Page B - 5 B-8.00 TRENCH BACKFILL B-.01 General Trench backfill within street right of ways shall be compacted to 90% relative compaction as determined by the ASTM D1557 test method. Backfill may be jetted as a means of initial compaction; however, mechanical compaction will be required to obtain the required percentage of relative compaction. If trenches are jetted, there must be a suitable delay for drainage of excess water before mechanical compaction is applied. B-9.00 SEASONAL LIMITS B-9.01 General No fill material shall be placed, spread or rolled while it is frozen or thawing or during unfavorable weather conditions. When the work is interrupted by heavy rain, fill operations shall not be resumed until field tests by the soils engineer indicate that the moisture content and density of the fill are as previously specified. B-10.00 SUPERVISION B-10.01 Prior to Grading The site shall be observed by the geotechnical consultant upon completion of clearing and grubbing, prior to the preparation of any original ground for preparation of fill. The supervisor of the grading contractor and the field representative of the geotechnical consultant shall have a meeting and discuss the geotechnical aspects of the earthwork prior to commencement of grading. C-10.02 During Grading Site preparation of all areas to receive fill shall be tested and approved by the geotechnical consultant prior to the placement of any fill. The geotechnical consultant or his representative shall observe the fill and compaction operations so that he can provide an opinion regarding the conformance of the work to the recommendations contained in this report. Max Field at Rienstra Park Slope Erosion and Retaining Wall June 19, 2020 City of Chula Vista RMA Job No.: 20-0287-01 Page B - 6 RETAINING WALL DRAINAGE DETAIL Soil backfill, compacted to 90% relative compaction* Filter fabric envelope (Mirafi 140N or approved equivalent) ** Minimum of 1 cubic foot 3" diameter perforated PVC pipe (schedule 40 or equivalent) with perforations oriented down as depicted minimum 1% gradient to suitable outlet. 3" min. Wall footing Compacted fill Finished Grade Retaining wall Wall waterproofing per architect's specifications * Based on ASTM D1557 ** If class 2 permeable material (See gradation to left) is used in place of 3/4" - 1 1/2" gravel. Filter fabric may be deleted. Class 2 permeable material compacted to 90% relative compaction. * SPECIFICATIONS FOR CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL (CAL TRANS SPECIFICATIONS) Sieve Size % Passing 1" 3/4" 3/8" No.4 No.8 No.30 No.50 No.200 0-3 0-7 5-15 18-33 25-40 40-100 90-100 100 per linear foot of 3/4" crushed rock 50 feet on center to a joints or outlet drain at Provide open cell head suitable drainage device . .. . . . . .. . . . . APPENDIX D REFERENCES Max Field at Rienstra Park Slope Erosion and Retaining Wall June 19, 2020 City of Chula Vista RMA Job No.: 20-0287-01 Page C - 1 APPENDIX C REFERENCES 1. Bryant, W.A. and Hart, E.W., 2007, Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California: California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42, Interim Revision 2007 and online updates. 2. California Building Standards Commission, 2019 California Building Code. 3. California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, 2008, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, Special Publication 117. 4. Green Book, 2018, Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (SPPWC). 5. Google Earth, Aerial Photographs, 2016, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2009, 2006, 2005, 2003, 2002, 1996. 6. Historicaerials.com, Aerial Photographs, 2012, 2010, 2009, 2005, 2002, 1996, 1978, 1972, 1967, 1966. 7. Jennings, C.W., 1994, An Explanatory Text to Accompany the Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas: California Division of Mines and Geology Map No. 6. 8. Jennings, C.W., and Bryant, W.A, 2010, Fault Activity Map of California, California Geological Survey, Geologic Data Map No. 6. 9. Kennedy, M.P. and Tan, S.S., 2008, Geologic Map of the San Diego 30’ x 60’ Quadrangle, California: California Geological Survey Map No. 3. 10. Martin, G.R. and Lew, M., 1999, Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117, Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction Hazards in California, Southern California Earthquake Center publication. 11. SEAOC Seismology Committee, 2019, “Seismically Induced Lateral Earth Pressures on Retaining Structures and Basement Walls,” August 2019, The SEAOC Blue Book: Seismic Design Recommendations, Structural Engineers Association of California, Sacramento, CA. 12. Seed, H.B. and Whitman, R.V., 1970, Design of Earth Structures for Dynamic Loads in American Society of Civil Engineers Specialty Conference State-of-the Art Paper, Lateral Stresses in the Ground and Design of Earth- Retaining Structures. 13. Tokimatsu, K. and Seed, H.B., 1987, Evaluation of Settlements in Sands Due to Earthquake Shaking, Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 113, No. 8. 14. Youd, T.L. et al. (2001). "Liquefaction resistance of soils, summary report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF workshops on evaluation of liquefaction resistance of soils, Journal of Geotechnical and GeoEnvironmental Engineering, ASCE (127) 4, pp. 297-131. 11883 1 May 2020 MEMORANDUM To: Mr. Frank Rivera, City of Chula Vista From: Patricia Schuyler, Dudek Subject: Biological Review of the Max Field Project Site Date: May 20, 2020 cc: Sean Kilkenny, Dudek Attachment(s): Figure 1, Biological Resources Dudek biologists reviewed the project site for biological constraints pertaining to the redevelopment of Max Field (Reinstra Park) located in the City of Chula Vista. The purpose of this memo is to provide an analysis of potential biological constraints within the site that would affect permitting, scheduling and cost for the re-development of the property. The potential biological resource impacts have been evaluated without a preliminary design. Design adjustments may be necessary to minimize impacts to regulated resources in order to reduce costs and expedite the development process. 1 Location and Surrounding Uses The project site is located along Max Avenue within the City of Chula Vista. Approximate center coordinates of the site are 32.602932, -117.047155. The Loma Verde Aquatic Center and elementary school are located to the west of the project site. Residential development surrounds the project site. A San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) easement abuts the project site to the north and is the only open space within the vicinity of the project site. 2 Existing Conditions and Constraints A site visit was conducted in July 2019 by Dudek biologists Patricia Schuyler and Katie Dayton. The project site was evaluated for general vegetation communities and the potential to support special-status wildlife and plant species. During the site visit, Dudek biologists utilized a GPS unit to map the boundaries of an existing channel; (see Figure 1) however, a formal jurisdictional delineation for the site was not conducted. Focused surveys for rare plants or sensitive wildlife species were not conducted. The project site is largely comprised of developed land (parking lot, baseball fields and facilities) and associated landscaping. Non-native grassland with a small pocket of maritime succulent scrub occurs in the northwestern portion of the project site. Scattered non-native trees are located along the western edge of the site. The general location of these vegetation communities are shown on Figure 1. It should be noted that detailed vegetation mapping was not conducted for the project site, only general locations and habitat types were recorded. There may be pockets of disturbed habitat located within the non-native grassland. APPENDIX D Memorandum Subject: Biological Review of the Max Field Project Site 11883 2 May 2020 The SDG&E easement located north of the project site may provide for local wildlife movement but it is expected that only urbanized wildlife such as coyotes and raccoons would utilize this area due to the intensity of the surrounding development. 3 Biological Constraints As previously stated, the project site is largely development. If redevelopment of the site is confined to developed areas, no impacts to biological resources would occur. There is a channel immediately adjacent to the project site. Any impacts to this feature would require permits from the Regulatory Agencies (i.e. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) (discussed in Section 4). Bridging the channel, as long as the abutments are located outside of the limits of the channel, should not require permits from the Regulatory Agencies or associated mitigation. However, Dudek recommends attending a pre-application meeting with the Resource Agency to present the project and confirm that permit applications would not be required. The City and the Resource Agencies do not require a specific buffer between development and stream channels or wetlands. The existing channel is located immediately adjacent to development, with a minimal buffer. It is recommended that re-development activities stay within the existing development footprint. In addition, a formal delineation can be conducted for the project site to clearly define the limits of the stream channel should it be needed. Any impacts to non-native grassland and maritime succulent scrub would require mitigation per the Chula Vista Subarea Plan. Mitigation for non-native grasslands would range from 0.5:1 to 1:1 (impact to mitigation) depending on the location of the mitigation. Mitigation for maritime succulent scrub ranges from 1:1 to 2:1. Should the re- development consider providing a more permanent walking path from the school to the project site, it is recommended that a biologist review the path location to determine that it is located within the least sensitive portion of the project site. 4 General Information on Wetland Permits Impacts to certain habitat types that are considered to be jurisdictional aquatic resources (i.e., wetlands/riparian habitat, waters/streambed), will require permits from the following jurisdictions: the (USACE) pursuant to Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act; the RWQCB pursuant to Section 401 of the federal Clean Water Act; and the CDFW pursuant to Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code. These permits would be required for impacts to the channel located along the western edge of the project site. USACE Permitting Requirements. The actual extent of USACE regulated resources within the project site will be ultimately determined by the USACE and how they apply the new Navigable Waters Protection Rule. This discussion assumes that the USACE will assert jurisdiction over the stream channel. Nationwide Permits (NWPs) are issued for a variety of projects with minimal impacts (typically less than 0.5 acre and 300 linear feet) to waters of the U.S., including wetlands. The NWP Program requires the submittal of a Pre- Construction Notification (PCN) to the USACE. The PCN needs to include a project description, a purpose and need statement for the project, a description of efforts to avoid and minimize impacts to jurisdictional areas, and a conceptual mitigation and monitoring plan to compensate for proposed impacts. Additional environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is not required for a NWP. As a result, once the USACE has Memorandum Subject: Biological Review of the Max Field Project Site 11883 3 May 2020 determined that the application is complete and the project meets the requirements of the NWP, authorization to use the NWP can be issued. It has been our experience that the USACE can take anywhere from three to six months to even a year to issue a NWP. Typical reasons for delay involve interpretations of the NWP conditions, additional requirements to avoid and minimize impacts to jurisdictional areas, circulation of the PCN to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and if appropriate and necessary, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), responding to the USFWS and EPA comments and finalizing the conceptual mitigation and monitoring plan. In addition, it should be noted that the USACE will not typically authorize the use of NWPs until the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) document for the project is certified by the lead agency and the RWQCB has issued a Water Quality Certificate in accordance with Section 401 of the federal Clean Water Act. Applications could be submitted to the USACE prior to certification or adoption of the CEQA document. However, the schedule for beginning construction should acknowledge the six month-to-one year processing time for the NWP and that a NWP cannot be issued until the CEQA document is certified/adopted. Another source of delay with the NWP process can be conforming to review requirements of the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) for cultural resources. Review and acceptance by SHPO will be critical for processing the Nationwide Permit, should any cultural resources occur on site. Please note that should impacts to jurisdictional waters of the U.S., including wetlands, exceed 0.5 acre or 300 linear feet, a Section 404 Individual Permit from the USACE may be required in lieu of a Nationwide Permit. An Individual Permit requires NEPA compliance (that is, preparation of an Environmental Assessment), preparation of a Section 404(b)(1) Alternatives Analysis and may take well over a year to eighteen months complete. The USACE may waive the linear restriction depending on a number of factors including the quality of the waters and the length that the impacts exceed the 300 foot limitation. CDFW Permitting Requirements. Pursuant to Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code, a Streambed Alteration Agreement will be needed from the CDFW prior to impacts to streambed and/or associated riparian habitat. An application is submitted to the CDFW Lake and Streambed Alteration Program which contains the following information: a detailed project description; a statement of purpose and need; an impacts analysis; a discussion of avoidance and minimization of impacts; evidence of a jurisdictional delineation; a draft conceptual mitigation and monitoring plan; all associated figures (vicinity maps, project site map, construction/grading cross- sections, mitigation area, etc.) and copies of the permit applications submitted to the RWQCB and USACE. Once the notification package has been submitted to the CDFW, the CDFW has 30 calendar days to determine if the notification package submitted is complete. Once the package has been deemed complete, the CDFW has 60 days to issue a draft agreement. Therefore, the total timing needed to obtain a Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement is 90 days. Additional processing time may be needed by the CDFW to review and approve all revegetation efforts prior to issuing the Agreement. Similar to the USACE, the CDFW will not issue the Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement until the CEQA document for the project is certified. Our experience with CDFW in obtaining 1602 Agreements is that although the timing is set at 90 days, rarely is the Agreement received in that time period. Assuming receipt of the Section 1602 Agreement in six months is probably more realistic. RWQCB Permitting Requirements. A Water Quality Certification is required from the RWQCB in accordance with Section 401 of the federal Clean Water Act prior to impacts to jurisdictional areas. The RWQCB must certify that the Memorandum Subject: Biological Review of the Max Field Project Site 11883 4 May 2020 project will not adversely impact the water quality downstream. Typically the RWQCB evaluates the type of facilities proposed at drainage outlets such as rip-rap dissipaters necessary to control the velocity of runoff from the project, as well as other Best Management Practices (BMPs) such as grassy swales for storm water treatment. An application is submitted with much of the same information as required for the USACE PCN and CDFW, but requires additional information regarding impacts to beneficial uses of the impacted watershed in accordance with the Region 9 Basin Plan, impacts to wildlife corridors, information regarding the character of the impacted stream channel upstream and downstream, and cumulative impacts within the watershed. The RWQCB has 30 days following receipt of an application to notify the applicant regarding completeness of the submitted material. Once an application has been deemed complete, the RWQCB has anywhere from 60 days to one year to either issue the permit or deny the project. During this time, the RWQCB can request additional materials to better clarify project impacts, pre- and post-construction water quality treatment, mitigation, or other aspects of the project. Assuming completeness at the time of submittal, the timing for obtaining a 401 certification is approximately 90 days. Similar to the USACE and CDFW, the RWQCB will not issue the Section 401 Water Quality Certificate until the CEQA document for the project is certified. Attachment A Figure 1 – Biological Resources Date: 8/1/2019 - Last saved by: ckubacki - Path: Z:\Projects\j1188301\MAPDOC\WORKING\Figure1_Channel_Limits_Vegetation_11x17.mxdSOURCE: SANGIS 2017 0 10050Feetn DEV, Developed MSS, Maritime Succulent Scrub NNG, Non-Native Grassland NNW, Non-Native Woodland FIGURE 1 Vegetation "J 2 6x5 ft culvert Channel Limits Project Site Max Field Reinstra Park Biological Resources LOMA VERDE RECREATION CENTER SEGMENTS 1 AND 2 1420 Loma Lane Measure P Citizens’ Oversight Committee – 10/22/20 Patricia Fermán, Principal Landscape Architect, pferman@chulavistaca.gov Hilltop Drive Rienstra Sports Complex LOMA VERDE RECREATION CENTER 1420 Loma Lane Loma Verde Elementary School Loma Lane LOMA VERDE RECREATION CENTER 2019 – PUBLIC OUTREACH The 2019 community’s input resulted in a Program Concept Subsequently, the City issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) to a list of prequalified Design- Build firms. After evaluation, the contract to design the Center was awarded to EC Constructors Inc. and Jeff Katz Architecture Existing Floor Plan NORTH LOMA VERDE RECREATION CENTER SITE PLAN LOMA VERDE RECREATION CENTER SEGMENT 1 WITH EXISTING BUILDING FACADE LOMA VERDE RECREATION CENTER MASTERPLAN SITE PLAN – Segments 1 and 2 LOMA VERDE RECREATION CENTER FUTURE MASTERPLAN PROJECT – Segment 3 Segment 3 is NOT part of this project. This image represents a high- level concept which requires further design development LOMA VERDE RECREATION CENTER FLOOR PLAN – Segments 1 and 2 LOMA VERDE RECREATION CENTER ENTRY LOMA VERDE RECREATION CENTER ENTRY LOMA VERDE RECREATION CENTER MULTI-PURPOSE ROOM LOMA VERDE RECREATION CENTER AQUATICS LOMA VERDE RECREATION CENTER Elevation – Segments 1 and 2 Looking north-east from the parking lot LOMA VERDE RECREATION CENTER Elevation – Segments 1 and 2 Looking north-west from Loma Lane Next Steps Project schedule subject to change: •Design Development •Public outreach – November 2020 •Presentation to Parks & Rec Commission – Nov. 2020 •Presentation to City Council – December ‘20/January ’21 •Preparation of Construction Documents – through June ‘21 LOMA VERDE RECREATION CENTER QUESTIONS? This presentation will be posted at www.chulavistaca.gov/lomaverde Patricia Fermán, Principal Landscape Architect, pferman@chulavistaca.gov The picture can't be displayed.DeLorenzo International Measure P COC Presentation,October 22, 2020WELCOME!Chula VistaSMART IRRIGATION PROGRAM The picture can't be displayed.CITY OF CHULA VISTASMART IRRIGATION PROGRAMPAGE 2AGENDA•Purpose•Status•Issues•Recommendations Summary•Questions The picture can't be displayed.CITY OF CHULA VISTASMART IRRIGATION PROGRAMPAGE 3PURPOSEThe purpose of the Smart Irrigation Program is to:•Improve Public Safety•Replace Equipment That Is Beyond Its Service Life•Reduce Labor Costs•Reduce Energy Use•Reduce Recurring Expenditures•Increase Water Use Efficiency and Conservation The picture can't be displayed.CITY OF CHULA VISTASMART IRRIGATION PROGRAMPAGE 4STATUS•Visited 87 sites•Inspected nearly 200 controllers•Tested water pressure at more than 130 meters•Assessed 26 pump systemsWe visited all pertinent Parks and Recreation Department maintained properties including: The picture can't be displayed.CITY OF CHULA VISTASMART IRRIGATION PROGRAMPAGE 5STATUS (cont.)To date we have:•Completed site assessments•Prepared draft site recommendations•Reviewed draft site recommendations with staff and set project priorities•Prepared final site recommendations and budget estimates•Started finalizing the recommendations summary report The picture can't be displayed.CITY OF CHULA VISTASMART IRRIGATION PROGRAMPAGE 6ISSUESImprove Public Safety•2 sites where domestic water uses served by irrigation main•9 sites without code required domestic water backflow prevention •Many older sites don’t have flow sensors and master valves to stop a mainline break The picture can't be displayed.CITY OF CHULA VISTASMART IRRIGATION PROGRAMPAGE 7ISSUESEquipment Beyond Service Life•20 to 30‐year‐old controllers and pumps•2G/3G cellular connections not supported after 2021, affecting 11 sites and 22 controllers•Central control radios and modems failing•Controller front panels, dials and switches failing The picture can't be displayed.CITY OF CHULA VISTASMART IRRIGATION PROGRAMPAGE 8ISSUESLabor Costs•Stand‐alone controllers require staff to manually adjust irrigation programs on a regular basis•Over 25 small battery‐operated clocks require regular battery replacement and reprogramming•Some older web‐base controllers more time intensive to program for special events or fertilizing The picture can't be displayed.CITY OF CHULA VISTASMART IRRIGATION PROGRAMPAGE 9ISSUESHigh Energy Use•Numerous old, inefficient fixed‐speed pumps•Old pumps working off pressure switch, not a controller program•Fixed‐speed pumps designed for highest water demand can over pressurize and damage small spray systems The picture can't be displayed.CITY OF CHULA VISTASMART IRRIGATION PROGRAMPAGE 10ISSUESRecurring Costs•City spends approximately $20,000 per year on irrigation controller communication services alone•Some water meters are larger than required resulting in higher monthly fixed meter costs The picture can't be displayed.CITY OF CHULA VISTASMART IRRIGATION PROGRAMPAGE 11ISSUESWater Conservation•Can’t effectively monitor wateruse or identify line breaks with systems lacking flow sensors•Poor sprinkler coverage in some older parks and fields•Sprinklers irrigating across pavements•Battery controller programs not regularly adjusted for weather conditions The picture can't be displayed.CITY OF CHULA VISTASMART IRRIGATION PROGRAMPAGE 12RECOMMENDATIONS SUMMARYRecommendations Budget Estimate Summary:BASE ESTIMATEALTERNATE ESTIMATETOTALPRIORITY 1 $2,607,163‐$5,812 $2,601,351PRIORITY 2 $951,325 $82,243 $1,033,568PRIORITY 3 $1,982,069 $0 $1,982,069PRIORITY 4 $1,821,941 $169,336 $1,991,277TOTAL $7,362,498 $245,766 $7,608,264 The picture can't be displayed.CITY OF CHULA VISTASMART IRRIGATION PROGRAMPAGE 13RECOMMENDATIONS SUMMARYKey Public Safety Recommendations :Provide $145,000 for domestic water separation work at Eucalyptus Park, Menzel Field and Rienstra Sports ComplexProvide $98,000 for domestic water protection work at Bonita Long Canyon, Friendship/Central Library, Hilltop, Terra Nova, Rohr‐Sweetwater and Sunridge ParksInstall master valves and flow sensors for 86 controller systems to shut down a mainline break The picture can't be displayed.CITY OF CHULA VISTASMART IRRIGATION PROGRAMPAGE 14RECOMMENDATIONS SUMMARYKey Equipment Recommendations :Upgrade 71 Maxicom controllers for another 10 to 20 years of service at less cost than replacementReplace 29 Maxicom controllers with Calsense ET‐based controllers to reduce scheduling laborReplace 23 non‐ET and 9 stand‐alone controllers with web‐based ET controllersReplace 7 failing pump systems with new VFD (variable speed) pumps ($252,000)Repair and/or upgrade 21 pumps to VFD ($110,000) The picture can't be displayed.CITY OF CHULA VISTASMART IRRIGATION PROGRAMPAGE 15RECOMMENDATIONS SUMMARYKey Labor Savings Recommendations :Replace 9 stand‐alone and 26 battery clocks with smart controllersUpgrade more controllers to ET‐basedKey Energy Cost Savings Recommendations :Replace 7 failing pumps with new VFD pumpsRenovate or upgrade 21 pump systems with VFD controlsConnect all pumps to associated controllers The picture can't be displayed.CITY OF CHULA VISTASMART IRRIGATION PROGRAMPAGE 16RECOMMENDATIONS SUMMARYKey Recurring Cost Savings Recommendations :Connect to Ethernet and switch from analog to cellular phone where practicable$8,200 potential annual savings by reducing water meter size where applicableKey Water Conservation Recommendations :Install flow sensors on 86 systems to monitor and record water use more efficientlyRepair 3 Maxicom weather stations to provide ET$2.2M in potential irrigation redesign projects The picture can't be displayed.CITY OF CHULA VISTASMART IRRIGATION PROGRAMQUESTIONS?