HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 1997/04/15
". declare under penalty of perjury that I am
employed by the City of Chula Vista in the
Office of the City Clerk and that I posted
Tuesday, April 15, 1997 this Agends/Notice cn the Bulletin Board at .
the Public en,ees Building and at City Hall on . CouncIl Chambers
6:00 p.m. DATED, II 'l Ji~'l>ED~ .. Pubhc ServIces BUlldmg
Re1!Ular Meetinl! of the City of Chula Vista Itv Council
CALL TO ORDER
I. ROLL CALL: Councilmembers Moot _' Padilla _. RinJone _' Salas _' and
Mayor Horton _.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG. MOMENT OF SILENCE
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: April 8, 1997
4. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY:
a. Oath of Office: Ricardo Gibert - Board of Ethics.
b. Introduction of Miss Chula Vista, Gianna Suter. by Pageant Difèctor Joe Amaro.
c. Proclaiming April as "WalkAmerica for Healthier Babies Month." The proclamation will he
presented by Mayor Horton to Ruth Vasquez, Sales Representative, Chllla Vista Department of
Motor Vehicles.
'\
d. Proclaiming the week of April 14, 1997 as "National Youth Services Week." The proclamation
will be presented by Mayor Horton to James Alfaro, Chair, Youth Conunission, and youth
representatives from each of the participating agencies.
e. Recognition of Fair Housing Poster and Essay Contest Winners by Mary Scott Knoll, Executive
Director, Fair Housing Counsel of San Diego, and David McCain, Program Coordinator.
CONSENT CALENDAR
(Items 5 through 9)
The staff recommendations regarding the following items listed under the Consent CalentÚlr will be enacted by
the Council by one motion without discussion unless a Councilmember, a member of the public, or City staff
requests that the item be pulled for discussion. If you wish to speak on one of these items, please fill out a
"Request to Speak Fonn" available in the lobby and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. Items pulled
from the Consent CaIentÚlr will be discussed after Board and Commission Recommendations and Action Items.
Items pulled by the public will be the first items of business.
5. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
a. Letter from the City Attorney stating that to the best of his knowledge from observance of
actions taken in Closed Session on 4/8/97 in which the City Attorney participated, that there
were no reportable actions which are required under the Brown Act to be reported. It is
recommended that the letter be received and tiled.
Agenda -2- April 15, 1997
6. RESOLUTION 18625 AUTHORIZING SUBMISSION OF FISCAL YEAR 1997/98
TRANSPORT ATlON DEVELOPMENT ACT (TDA) ARTICLE 4.0 CLAIM
The fiscal year 1997/98 TDA Article 4.0 claim is in the amollnt of $5, 110,538
to support Chula Vista Transit operations and capital expenditures. Staff
recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works)
7. RESOLUTION 18626 APPROVING AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO FOR
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SERVICES FOR FISCAL VEAR 1997/98,
AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAME - The
agreement allthorizes the City to claim $108,553 of COllnty of San Diego TDA
Article 4.0 funds for Chula Vista Transit Service in the unincorporated area.
Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works)
8. RESOLUTION 18627 GRANTING EASEMENT TO SAN DIEGO GAS AND ELECTRIC TO
UNDERGROUND ELECTRICAL SERVICES FOR TEMPORARY
SCHOOL BUILDINGS AT LOMA VERDE SCHOOL - San Diego Gas and
Electric Company is requesting an easement on the Lorna Verde Recreation
Center parking lot for the electrical service installed to Lorna Verde Elementary
School's new temporary buildings. Staff recommends approval of the
resolution. (Director of Parks, Recreation, and Open Space)
9. REPORT REGARDING METROPOLITAN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT BOARD
(MTDB) RIGHT -OF-W A Y LANDSCAPE PROJECT IMPLEMENT A TION
(CIP NUMBER LDI06) - In Novemb"r 1996, COllncil directed staff to initiate
the development and negotiation of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
with MTDB and establish a detailed phased development plan and funding
commitment for the implementation of the MTDB Right-of-Way Landscape
Project. Over the past several months, staff has negotiated with MTDB staff to
complete the MOU. This report sets forth a completed MOU and funding
commitment for implementation of the project. Staff recommends Council
accept the report and approve the resolution. (Director of Planning and Director
of Parks, Recreation, and Open Space)
RESOLUTION 18628 AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH METROPOLITAN
TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT BOARD/SAN DIEGO & ARIZONA
EASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY FOR LANDSCAPING OF THE MTDB
RIGHT-OF-WAY WITH THE CITY AND TO REQUEST RELEASE OF
BILLBOARD RESERVE FUND MONIES
* * * END OF CONSENT CALENDAR * * *
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
This is an opportunity for the general public to address the City Council on any subject mailer within the
Council'sjurisdiction that is not an item on this agenda for public discussion. (Sta/e law, however, generally
prohibits the City Council from taking action on any issues not included on the posted agenda.) If you wish to
tuldress the Council on such a subject, please complete the "Request to Speak Under OraL Communications
Fonn" available in the lobby and submit it to the City Clerk prior /0 the meeting. Those who wish to speak,
please give your name and tuldress for record purposes and follow up action.
-~'---"--- .. . .. --.---_.._.__..~... .-.....---..------.-----..,.........--- -
Agenda -3- April 15, 1997
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
The following items have been advertised and/or posted as public hearings as required by law. If you wish to
speak to any item, please fill out the "Request to Speak Fona" availnble in the lobby and submit it to the City
Clerk prior to the meeting.
None submitted.
BOARD AND COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
This is the time the City Council will consider items which have been forwarded to them for consideration by one
of the City's Boards, Commissions, and/or Committees.
Non~ submitted.
ACTION ITEMS
The items listed in this section of the agenda are expected to elicit substantial discussions and deliberations by
the Council, staff, or members of the general public. The items will be considered individually by the Council
and staff recommendations may in certain cases be presented in the alternative. Those who wish to speak, please
fill out a "Request to Speak" ¡ona availnble in the lobby and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting.
10. RESOLUTION 18629 ACCEPTING A GRANT OF $10,000 FROM THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME FOR STAFF
COSTS RELATED TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF A CONCEPT AND
IMPLEMENT A TION PROGRAM FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL
SCIENCES INSTITUTE - The California Fish and Game has agreed to grant
to the City a total of $10,000 for the purpose of developing a concept plan and
implementation program for a proposed "environmental sciences institute" to be
located near the Lower Otay Reservoir in the sOlltheast planning area. Staff
recommends approval of the resollltion. (Director of Planning)
II.A. RESOLUTION 18630 ACCEPTING PETITION FOR FORMATION OF A SPECIAL
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NUMBER AD96-01 FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF STREET IMPROVEMENTS ON TWIN OAKS
A VENUE FROM NAPLES STREET TO EMERSON STREET - Approval
of this resolution will permit staff to begin assessment district formation
proceedings and award the contract for the improvements within tiscal year
1996/97. It is necessary to appropriate $180,000 from the general fund as in-
kind contribution from the City for a portion of the construction work within the
existing roadway. Staff recommends approval of the resolutions. (Director of
Public Works)
B. RESOLUTION 18631 APPROPRIATING $180,000 FROM THE UNAPPROPRIATED BALANCE
OF THE GAS TAX FUND INTO ACCOUNT STL-232 - 4/5th's vote
reqllired.
,.'_...~-,.,-.__.....,-_._.,_.~.._-_._----
Agenda -4- April 15, 1997
12. RESOLUTION 18632 APPROVING SUBMISSION OF FISCAL YEAR 1997/98
TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT (TDA) ARTICLE4.5 CLAIM
FOR HANDYTRANS OPERATION FUNDING - The TDA Article 4.5 claim
will fund HandYtrans operation from 7/1/97 through 9/30/97. A change in
HandYtrans service is proposed beginning 1011/97 to facilitate Americans with
Disabilities Act complementary paratransit service requirements. Staff
recommends Council approve the resolution and accept the report. (Director of
Public Works)
REPORT PROPOSED CHANGES TO HANDYTRANS OPERATION EFFECTIVE
OCTOBER I, 1997
13. REPORT FOLLOW-UP ON REQUEST FOR ALL-WAY STOPS ON LAKESHORE
DRIVE AT HARTFORD STREET AND CREEKWOOD WAY - At the
COllncil meeting on 2/4/97, the Mayor reqllested that staff reconsider the
installation of all-way stops on Lakeshore Drive at Hartford Street and
Creekwood Way. Subsequent to the Mayor's request, staff conducted further
investigations into the traffic conditions on Lakeshore Drive in the EastLake
area. Staff recommends Council accept the report and deny the recommendation
of the Safety Commission to install the all-way stops. (Director of Public
Works)
13.1 REPORT REGARDING HUMANE SOCIETY REPORT ABOUT THE CHULA
VIST A ANIMAL SHELTER - On 4/8197, Council requested a report be done
by staff on short term solutions to the 12 issues raised by the Humane Socidy.
Staff recommends Council accept the report. (Chief of Police)
ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR
This is the time the City Council will discuss items which have been removed from the Consent Calendar.
Agenda items pulled at the request of the public will be considered prior to those pulled by Councilmembers.
OTHER BUSINESS
14. CITY MANAGER'S REPORTlS)
a. Schedllling of meetings.
15. MAYOR'S REPORTlS)
16. COUNCIL COMMENTS
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting will adjourn to (a closed session and thence to) a special meeting on Wednesday, April 16, 1997 at
5:30 p.m. in the Council Conference Room, Administration Building, them:e to the regular City Coum;il meeting
on April 22, 1997 at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers.
A joint meeting of the City Council/Redevelopment Agency will be held iImnediately following the City Council
meeting.
.-- --.-...--,--..-... -- --.._.'.- - - ---.-------...".'.--+-------.------.-
"I declare ynder penelty of perjury that I am
employe<t by the City of Chula Viata In the
Office of the City Clerk end th&4: I posted
Tuesday, April 15, 1997 this Agende/Notice on the Bulletin Board at Council Chambers
6:00 p.m. the Public r ice. Building and at Ci~ ,Hall'tOJlic Services Building
(immediately following the City CounciPA'Ulm /17' SIGNED6'~ . ..
Citv of Chula Vista Citv Council
CLOSED SESSION AGENDA
Effective April 1, 1994, there have been new amendments to the Brown Act. Unless the City AI/orney, the City
Manager or the City Council states otherwise at this time, the Council will discuss and deliberate on the following
items of business which are permitted by Inw to be the subject of a closed session discussion, and which the
Council is advised should be discussed in closed session to best protect the interests of the City. The Council is
required by Inw to return to open session, issue any reports of final action taken in closed session, and the votes
taken. However, due to the typical length of time taken up by closed sessions, the vweotaping will be terminated
at this point in order to save costs so that the Council's return from closed session, reports of final action taken,
and adjournment will not be vweotaped. Nevertheless, the report of final action taken will be recorded in the
minutes which will be available in the City Clerk's Office.
I. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING - Existing litigation pllrsuant to
Government Code Secûon 54956.9
. Jones Intercable v. City of Chula Vista.
. Divinagracia v. City of Chula Vista.
CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR - Pursuant to Gnvernment Code Section 54957.6
. Agency negotiator: John Goss or designee for CVEA, WCE, POA, IAFF, Executive
Management, Mid-Management, and Unrepresented.
Employee organization: Chula Vista Employees Association (CVEA) and Western Council of
Engineers (WCE) , Police Officers Association (POA) and International Association of Fire
Fighters (IAFF).
Unrepresented employee: Executive Management, Mid-Management, and Unrepresented.
2. REPORT OF ACTIONS TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION
u-··__·-....._·_--~---
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item: tJd
Meeting Date: 4/15/97
ITEM TITLE: PROCLAMATION: Proclaiming the week of April 14,1997 National Youth
servic~ in the City ofChula Vista
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Parks and Recreatio
National YOllth Service Day is sponsored by The U.S. Conference of Mayors, Yo 11th Service America,
Jefferson Awards, Llltheran Brotherhood, the Points of Light Foundation, and the YOllth Volunteer Corps
of America. In 1988, YOllth Service America and Camplls Outreach Opportunity League recognized the
need to document and publicize the scope and vallie of the grassroots youth service movement at both the
local and national levels. Since its inception, the project has provided milch needed recognition and visibility
for the efforts of local programs and the young people who perform service during the year. The primary
objectives are:
· Recognizing the service efforts of young people nationwide
· Educating the public to see young people as resources
· Encouraging I.;ollahoration hetwecn youth service progr:ul1s, community agencies, sl'!I\lols,
IIniversities, and local, state, and national governments
Chllla Vista's YOllth service project is schedllled for Satllrday, April 19, 1997 and will complement the
national theme - "Eliminating Hunger." The Chula Vista Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Department,
and the Chula Vista YOllth Coalition will coordinate a youth service project as part of the Healthy Cities
Commllnity Garden at Chllla Vista Middle School. Teens from YMCA's PRYDE Program, the Boys & Girls
Club ofChula Vista, South Bay Commllnity Services, the Teens As Teachers group, the 4-H Mentors, and
the Chula Vista Youth Commission will participate in plot/soil preparation and planting for Chula Vista's
Commllnity Garden.
The Proclamation will be accepted by James Alfaro, Chair of the Chula Vista Youth Commission, and youth
representatives from each of the participating agencies.
Ub:Youth Pam Disk-ythsvc.047
i t:{- /
__.'______n'...n "-""-' "--'---"""-"---
í~~
April 10, 1997
TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: John D. Goss, City Managec
SUBJECT: City Council Meeting of Apri115, 1997
This will transmit the agenda and related materials for the regular City Council meeting of
Tuesday, April 15, 1997. Comments regarding the Written Communications are as follows:
5a. This is a letter from the City Attorney stating that to the best of his knowledge from
observance of actions taken in Closed Session on 4/8/97 in which the City Attorney
participated, there were no rreportable actions which are required under the Brown Act
to be reported.
IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THIS LETTER BE RECEIVED AND FILED.
JDG:mab
.. --
- ---"------,-_..
~~~
:=.d_ ~
~--..::~-..:
~"'".....~
"'"~~"'-
CllY OF
CHULA VISTA
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
Date: April 9, 1997
To: The Honorable Mayor and City
From: John M. Kaheny, City Attorn
Re: Report Regarding Actions T
for the Meeting of 4/8/97
The City Council met in Closed Session to discuss Divinagracia v.
City of Chula Vista, Public Employee Performance Evaluation - City
Clerk and Conference with Labor Negotiator.
The City Attorney hereby reports to the best of his knowledge from
observance of actions taken in the Closed Session in which the City
Attorney participated, that there were no reportable actions which
are required under the Brown Act to be reported.
JMK: 19k
C:\lt\clossess,no
5'12/ - /
276 FOURTH AVENUE' CHULA VISTA' CALIFORNIA 91910 . (619) 691-5037 . FAX (619) 585-5612
i'¿;...."'"""-.....
_._--~.._.---,--.,.,."-.----".-"-..-..-.,.-...-..---_.---.--".-.-..... --
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item &>
Meeting Date 4/15/97
ITEM TITLE: Resolution )?"t"<~roving submission ofFY 1997-98 Transportation
Development Act (TDA) ~rti' 4.0 Claim
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public ~orks r k.. Qf'¡
REVIEWED BY: City Manager J;:t buÓ ~r J (4/5thsVote: Yes_NoX)
The FY 1997-98 Claim for TDA Article 4.0 funds to support Chula Vista Transit (CVT) operations
and capital procurements was submitted to SANDAG and MTDB on April 1, 1997, as required by
State law. A "TDA Claim" is an application for TDA operating and capital funds for the upcoming
fiscal year. SANDAG issues the TDA guidelines, which includes the City's total TDA funds
available for next fiscal year, during the first week in March. Staff prepares the TDA claim and
submits it to both SANDAG and MTDB by the April 1 deadline. Staff then returns to Council in
April for ratification of the claim. An amendment to the claim may be made by direction of Council
after submission to SANDAG and MTDB. The total claim is in the amount of$5,11 0,538 consisting
of$5,001,985 claimed against the City ofChula Vista's TDA funds and $108,553 claimed against
the County of San Diego's TDA funds.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt resolution approving the FY 1997-98 TDA Article
4.0 claim.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
The FY 1997-98 TDA 4.0 Claim consists of the following components:
City of Chula Vista County of San Diego
TDA Account TDA Account Total
Operations $2,080,785 $108,553 $2,189,338
Capital $2,921,200 0 $2,921,200
Total $5,001,985 $108,553 $5,110,538
The $108,553 from the County's TDA account is for CVT service in the unincorporated areas
provided by Routes 705 and 711. The $2,080,785 is for the balance ofCVT operating costs claimed
against the City ofChula Vista's TDA funds as contained in the preliminary FY 1997-98 Transit
Division budget request.
b-!
Page 2, Item_
Meeting Date 4/15/97
The $2,921,200 in capital funds includes eleven (11) replacement buses for CVT and computer
equipment for the Transit Office as contained in the FY 1997-98 Transit Division budget request.
Following is a breakdown of estimated Transit Division costs and revenue sources for FY 1997-98.
Estimated Costs:
Contractual Service for CVT Operation $2,849,000
Other Supplies & Services 924,338
Capital Outlay 2,921,200
Total Estimated Costs $6,694,538
Estimated Revenue Sources:
Fare Revenue $1,521,000
IDA Article 4.0 Funds 5,110,538
Investment Earnings 63,000
Total Revenue Sources $6,694,538
The claim is based on estimated costs and revenues for FY 1997-98, and may be modified due to:
changes in the proposed FY 1997-98 Transit Division budget; and a difference between actual and
estimated costs and revenues in FY 1997-98.
FISCAL IMP ACT: The FY 1997-98 TDA Article 4.0 claim contains no City of Chula Vista
General Fund contribution. Transit Division operating and capital costs are funded by City ofChula
Vista TDA Article 4.0 funds, County of San Diego Article 4.0 funds, farebox revenue and
investment earnings.
The FY 1997-98 City of Chula Vista TDA Article 4.0 apportionment is $2,706,311; prior year
unallocated funds are $5,429,576, resulting in $8,135,887 available for transit operations and capital
expenditures. The FY 1997-98 claim of$5,001,985 from the City ofChula Vista TDA account will
leave a balance of$3,133,902 ($8,135,887 - $5,001,985). This balance will be carried forward to
next fiscal year, and may be used for future operations and/or capital expenditures.
WMG/File: OS-022
H:\HOMEIENGtNEERIAGENOA ITOA97 .BG
~ -.2
"---^- - ~.-.-+-~--
RESOLUTION NO. Jf!'¿..<ç
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA AUTHORIZING SUBMISSION OF FY 1997-
98 TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT (TDA)
ARTICLE 4.0 CLAIM
WHEREAS, the FY 1997-98 Claim for TDA Article 4.0 funds
to support Chula vista Transit (CVT) operations and capital
procurements was submitted to SANDAG and MTDB on April 1, 1997, as
required by State law; and
WHEREAS, the total claim is $5,110,538, consisting of
$5,001,985 claimed against the City of Chula vista's TDA funds and
$108,553 claimed against the County of San Diego's TDA funds.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the city of Chula vista does hereby authorize submission of FY
1997-98 Transportation Development Act Article 4.0 Claim in the
amount of $5,110,538.
Presented by Approved as to form by
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
C:\rs\TOA 4.0 ClaiM
~--3
"----"-,- - --~.__.~~..-.----._------~...........-,---
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item2
Meeting Date 4/15/97
ITEM TITLE: Resolution /~~,{Ú . .
Approvmg agreement between County of San DIego
and City of Chula Vista for public transportation services for FY 1997-98
SUBMITTED BY: D;"',o, of"'h1i, Wmk, ~~
REVIEWED BY: Ci" M_~ J:i ~ z:::- \ (4/5ths Vote: Yes_NoX)
This agreement authorizes the City of Chula Vista to claim $108,553 of County of San Diego
Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 4.0 funds for provision of Chula Vista Transit
(CVT) service in the unincorporated area of the County.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve resolution approving agreement with the County
of San Diego for public transportation services for FY 1997-98.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
This agreement authorizes the City of Chula Vista to claim $108,553 of County TDA Article 4.0
funds for CVT service provided by Routes 705 and 711 in the unincorporated area during FY 1997-
98. Route 705 operates between the Bayfront Trolley Station and Southwestern College. Route 711
operates between Plaza Bonita and Southwestern College. Both these routes pass through
unincorporated areas from their origin points to their destinations.
The estimated net cost (gross operating cost minus revenue credit) for CVT service in the County
next fiscal year is $108,553, a 2.6% increase from this fiscal year's cost of$1 05,799. This agreement
estimates a gross CVT cost per mile of$3.09, estimated 67,055 passengers, and total revenue credit
of $39,562(based on $0.59 per passenger). The $108,553 represents full cost recovery for CVT
service in the unincorporated areas, and includes the FY 1997-98 San Diego Transit contract cost
for CVT operation.
FISCAL IMP ACT: This agreement will authorize the City of Chula Vista to claim $108,553 of
County of San Diego TDA Article 4.0 funds for CVT service in FY 1997-98.
WMG:File D8-027
M:\HOME\ENGINEER\AGENDA \TRANAGMT.BG
7-/
....-..--- ".. ,....-...-...-". ----------.-. .._._._.~-
RESOLUTION NO. /~2?
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING AGREEMENT BETWEEN COUNTY
OF SAN DIEGO AND CITY OF CHULA VISTA FOR
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SERVICES FOR FY 1997-98,
AND AUTHORIZING MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAME
WHEREAS, this agreement authorizes the City of Chula
vista to claim $108,553 in County TDA Article 4.0 funds for
provision of Chula vista Transit (CVT) service in the
unincorporated area of the County; and,
WHEREAS, the estimated net cost (gross operating cost
minus revenue credit) for CVT service in the County next fiscal
year is $108,553; and,
WHEREAS, this agreement estimates a gross CVT cost per
mile of $3.09, estimated 67,055 passengers, and total revenue
credit of $39,562 (based on $0.59 per passenger).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the city of Chula vista does hereby approve an Agreement between
the County of San Diego and the City of Chula vista for Public
Transportation Services for FY 1997-98, a copy of which is on file
in the office of the City Clerk as Document No. (to be
completed by the city Clerk in the final document).
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of the City of
Chula vista is hereby authorized and directed to execute said
Agreement for and on behalf of the city of Chula vista.
Presented by Approved as to form by
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
c:\RS\TDA40.AGM
7'-~
~
.
^ _ ..._.._",,,,_~~,__,,,_,,,__, _.__.....,...__.._.__..___..._.w._.m_._.__
AGREEMENT BETWEEN COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
AND THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
FOR PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
FOR FY 1997-98
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into by and between the County of San Diego hereinafter
called "COUNTY" and the City of Chula Vista, hereinafter called "OPERA TOR".
RECITALS,
WHEREAS, COUNTY is desirous of providing public transit service to areas within the
jurisdiction of the COUNTY; and
WHEREAS, the City ofChula Vista is the OPERATOR ofChula Vista Transit; and
WHEREAS, OPERATOR has the knowledge and expertise to provide the service desired
by the COUNTY; and
WHEREAS, COUNTY recognizes the value of the service to be provided by OPERATOR
to its citizens and is willing to contract with OPERATOR to provide transportation service within
the unincorporated area of the COUNTY; and
WHEREAS, Public Utilities Code, Section 99288, authorizes COUNTY and OPERA TOR
to enter into a contract for OPERATOR to provide such public transportation service for the benefit
of the COUNTY and pennitting OPERA TOR, when such contract is entered into, to claim for local
transportation purposes, from the Local Transportation Fund, the apportionment of the COUNTY
or so much thereof as may be agreed upon, in the manner provided in Article 4 (commencing at
Section 99260) of the Mills-Alquist-Deddeh Act (Ch. 4, Pt. II, Div. 10 of the Public Utilities
Code);
NOW, THEREFORE, COUNTY and OPERATOR mutually agree as follows:
7:3I;u¡
Public Transportation SelVices Agreement Page I
F:\homc\cnginccr\billg\ 1771. 96
"....-.. - ~-_..._._......_- ------ _..~-~---.~~.-
I. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION
1.1. Public Tran~portation Services to be Provided
OPERA TOR shall provide public transportation services for the benefit of residents
of and visitors to COUNTY, upon those routes, during those times, and at the level of service
specified in Exhibit A.
1.2. Passenger Counts
OPERATOR shall perform at least once annually, a one-day count of passengers
boarding and departing the services provided under this Agreement. The number of counts and
specific methods of counting will be determined by the OPERA TOR, upon consultation with the
COUNTY, and in conjunction with the regional transit passenger counting program, where
practicable. A report summarizing the results ofthe count will be submitted to the COUNTY.
2. TERM OF AGREEMENT
2.1. Base Term
The term of this Agreement is from July 1, 1997 through June 30, 1998,
unless terminated earlier as provided herein.
3. COMPENSATION FOR SERVICES
3. I. Claim - OPERA TOR may, without further authorization, include in any claim filed with
the Local Transportation Planning Agency of San Diego County under the provisions of Article 4
(commencing with Section 99260) of the Mills-Alquist-Deddeh Act (Ch. 4, Pt. 11, Div. 10 of the
Pubjic Utilities Code), an amount up to but not exceeding $108,553 of the apportionment to the
unincorporated area of the COUNTY for FY 1996-97.
3.2. Service Actuallv Performed - OPERATOR shall be compensated for service provided
under this Agreement. If OPERA TOR performs only a portion of the services described in Exhibit
A of this Agreement, OPERA TOR shall be paid an amount equaJ to the unit of service actually
provided.
ll. It is estimated that in FY 1997-98 OPERATOR shall be compensated based on the
estimated net operating cost for services as described in Exhibit A.
UJ... If COUNTY and OPERA TOR agree to change the level or type of service
provided for in this Agreement, or there is a change in the level of service provided by OPERATOR
due to strike, civil disaster or other public calamity, COUNTY and OPERATOR shall negotiate a
mutually agreeabje cost rate for the specific additional or reduced service provided.
7--5
Public Transportation Services Agreement Page 2
F:\home\cngineer\billg\ 1771.96
~.....- >-...,-.-.----.-.--,.--.-. ---T---"'---"-'-" .,--.,..-----------.-;--.
3.3.2. OPERATOR shall revise and update Exhibit A annually. The level of public
transit service and the rate(s) for service shall be provided by OPERA TOR to COUNTY for approval
at least 90 calendar days prior to the beginning of any fiscal year covered by this Agreement.
3.4. Periodic Payments - OPERA TOR shall be compensated by periodic payments in
advance from the San Diego Association of Govemments (SANDAG), the Local Transportation
Planning Agency of San Diego County.
1.2. If the amount allocated to OPERATOR by the Local Transportation Planning Agency
is insufficient to meet the cost of services as described in Exhibit A, OPERATOR shall immediately
notify COUNTY. In that event, COUNTY agrees that this Agreement shall be amended to reduce
the services provided or to pay OPERA TOR from other sources the amount necessary to meet the
cost of services as described in Exhibits A and B.
4. INSURANCE
4.1. OPERATOR, through its Agreement with its contractor, shall produce the following
insurance, which may contain self insurance retentions:
4.1.1. Commercial General Liability Insurance including Business Automobile
Insurance coverage in the amount of $10,000,000 naming the COUNTY and its employees and
officers as additional insureds. This coverage shall include Comprehensive General Liability
Insurance including contractual liability, and personal injury liability.
4.2. On or before July 1,1997, OPERATOR shall provide COUNTY a complete copy of
OPERA TOR's contractor's Certificate ofInsurance indicating that the insurance required above has
been obtained. OPERA TOR shall give COUNTY 30 calendar days written notice of cancellation
or material change required by the insurance company in the insurance coverage required by this
Agreement.
U Occurrence means any event or related exposure to conditions which results in
bodily injury or property damage.
4.4. Neither OPERATOR nor its contractors shall cancel or materially change any of the
required insurance coverages.
5. AUDIT
.5..L At any time during nonnal business hours and as often as COUNTY may deem
necessary, OPERATOR shall make available to COUNTY for examination all of its records with
respect to all matters covered by this Agreement, shall pennit COUNTY to audit, examine and make
excerpts of transcripts of such records, and shall pennit COUNTY to perfonn audit procedures as
deemed necessary with respect to all invoices, payrolls, equipment, materials, and other data relating
to matters covered by this Agreement.
7- ¡"
Public Transportation Services Agreement Page 3
F:\home\engineer\billg\ 1771.96
--- ~ - - -...- -_._---~-_._-~
6. INDEMNITY
6.1. Except as may be provided otherwise in the Agreement, OPERA TOR shall investigate,
indemnify, defend and hold hannless the COUNTY, its officers, agents and employees nom any and
all claims, demands, joss or liability of any kind or nature whether real or alleged which COUNTY,
its officers, agents and employees may sustain or incur, or which may be imposed upon any kind of
or for any acts or omissions by OPERATOR, its officers, agents or employees hereunder.
7. WHEN RIGHTS AND REMEDIES NOT WAIVED
In no event shall any payment by the Local Transportation Planning Agency as provided
herein constitute or be construed to be a waiver by COUNTY of any breach of conditions or any
default which may then exist. The existence of any such breach or default shall in no way impair
or prejudice any right or remedy available to COUNTY with respect to such breach or default.
8. INTEGRA TED DOCUMENT
8.1. This document, including Exhibit A embodies the entire Agreement between COUNTY
and OPERATOR for the transportation service described herein and the terms and conditions. No
verbal agreements or conversation with any officer, agent or employee of COUNTY prior to the
execution of this Agreement shall affect or modify any of the terms or obligations contained in any
documents comprising this Agreement. No such verbal agreement shall bind COUNTY.
.!!...2.. This Agreement may be changed only by a written amendment signed by both parties.
9. SEVERABILITY OF PROVISIONS
If any provisions of this Agreement are held to be invalid, the remainder of this Agreement
shalj not be affected, provided the remainder conforms to the terms and requirements of applicable
law.
10. TERMINATION
10.1. COUNTY may terminate this Agreement at any time for reasonable cause, defined as
the failure by OPERATOR to substantially perform in accordance with the terms and conditions of
this Agreement, by giving written notice to OPERA TOR of such termination and specifying the
effective date thereof, at least 90 days before the effective date of such termination. OPERATOR
may terminate this Agreement at any time for failure by COUNTY to substantially perform in
accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement by giving written notice to COUNTY
of such termination and specifying the effective date thereof, at least 90 days before the effective
date of such termination.
.
7-7
Public Transportation Services Agreement Page 4
F:\homc\cngineer\billg\ 1771. 96
.. ^_.~..._.._._------- ----_.~._-------_._----
10.2. During the time between the written notice of termination and the effective date of
termination, both parties shall work toward remedying the cause or reasons for the intent to
terminate. If COUNTY terminates this Agreement without cause, COUNTY shall pay all settlement
costs, claims and attorneys arising out of such termination.
II. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR
For purpose of this Agreement, OPERATOR is an independent contractor, and no employee
of OPERATOR is, for purposes of this Agreement, an employee of COUNTY.
12. BUS STOPS
12.1. Specific bus stops shall be established by agreement with COUNTY.
13. REPRESENTATIVES OF CITY
13.1. The County's Director of Public Works or designated representatives shall represent
COUNTY in all matters pertaining to this Agreement and shall administer this Agreement on behalf
of the COUNTY.
14. EOUAL OPPORTUNITY AND AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
14.1. In performing under this Agreement, OPERATOR and COUNTY shall not
discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, creed, color, sex,
or national origin. This performance shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
employment, upgrading, demotion, transfer, recruitment advertising, jayoff or termination, rates of
payor other forms of compensation, and selection for training, including apprenticeship.
IS. NOTICE
.l.i.L. All notices and communications with respect to this Agreement shall be effective upon
mailing thereof by registered or certified mail (return receipt requested) and addressed as follows:
OPERA TOR COUNTY
City of Chula Vista County Dept. of Public Works
707 "F" Street 9335 Hazard Way, Suite 104, MS 0386
Chula Vista, CA 91910 San Diego, CA 92123
ATTN: Bill Gustafson, Transit Coordina- A TTN: Larry Wan, Principal Transportation Spe-
tor cialist
7-ð
Public Transportation Services Agreement Page 5
F :\home\engineer\billg\ 1771. 96
- -r·- "- .---,-_.- -.-_.._._----~-_.__._--
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed by their
respective representatives thereunto duly authorized on this _ day of ~1997.
APPROVED AS TO FORM CITY OF CHULA VISTA
By By
City Attorney Mayor
Attest
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
By By
County Counsel Clerk of the Board of
Supervisors
7~1
Public Transportation Services Agreement Page 6
F :\homc\cnginccr\billg\ 1771.96
""- ..._,,~ _._._-~---_.~_.._-~-
EXHIBIT A
SERVICE AND COST SUMMARY
FISCAL YEAR 1997-98
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO BUS SERVICE
CHULA VISTA TRANSIT
Gross Cost @ Projected Pas- Revenue Credit @
Route Miles $3.09 Mile sengers $0.59/Passenger Net Cost
705 20,505 $63,360 37,695 $22,240 $41,120
711 25,756 $79,586 29,360 $17,322 $62,264
Subtotal TDA Subsidy: $103,384
5% Administrative Pass-Through Claim: $5,169
TOTAL TDA AMOUNT: $108,553
Route Descrintion
Route 705: Enter County on Bonita Road, eastbound, at the intersection of Bonita Road and
Lynnwood Drive to the Chula Vista City limit line at the eastern boundary of Glen
Abbey Cemetery on Bonita Road. The inbound trip follows the same route in the
opposite direction.
Route 711: From Plaza Bonita, enter County at the intersection of Plaza Bonita Road and Bonita
Mesa Road, east of Bonita Mesa Road, north of Mesa Vista Road, east on
Sweetwater Road, south on Willow and to the Chula Vista City limit line. Re-enter
County on Bonita Road about one-fourth mile east of Otay Lakes Road, turn
northeast on Central A venue, south on Corral Canyon Road, and enter Chula Vista
City limit at a point approximately 400 feet north of County Vista Lane. The
inbound trip follows the same route in the opposite direction.
7-/0
Public Transportation Services Agreement Page 7
F :\homc\cngineer\billg\ 1771. 96
.---_._-_.._-~_.~._- ......,..--....--...-...-.-..-- .........-------
EXHIBIT B
ROUTE ANALYSIS
ANNUAL MILEAGE
FY 1997-98
Roundtrip No. of No. of Route Total Gross Cost @
Route No. Miles Trips Days Mileage Mijeage $3.09/Mile
705:
Weekdays 2.67 24 255 16,340
Saturdays 2.67 17 52 2,360
Sundays 2.67 13 52 1,805
20,505 $63,360
711:
Weekdays 7.8 13 254 25,756 25,756 $79,586
TOTALS $142,946
PROJECTED RIDERSHIP AND REVENUE
Revenue Credit @
Route Passengers $0.59/Passenger
705 37,695 $22,240
711 29,360 $17,322
TOTAL 67,055 $39,562
7-(/
Public Transportation Services Agreement Page 8
F:\home\engin~r\billg\177J .96
c··.m______...._ - - --_._----~----
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item: ~
Meeting Date: 4/15/97
ITEM TITLE: IIrJ"¿7
Resolution: Grantmg easement to San Diego Gas and Electric
to underground electrical services for temporary school buildings
at Lorna Verde School
SUBMITIED BY: Director of Parks, Recreation and Open spa~ f^:JV
REVIEWED BY: C"'......~ JGj 6¡) ~ (41_ y"., Ym - N,.xJ
San Diego Gas and Electric Company (SDG&E) is requesting an easement from the City of Chula Vista
on the Lorna Verde Recreation Center parking lot for the electrical service installed to Lorna Verde
Elementary School's new temporary buildings.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt the Resolution granting an easement to SDG&E,
and direct the Mayor sign the easement document on behalf of the City, and direct the City Clerk to
return the signed document to SDG&E.
BOARDS/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Not Applicable.
DISCUSSION: The Chula Vista Elementary School District located two portable classrooms on school
property in July for their kindergarten program. The buildings are adjacent to the Lorna Verde
Recreation Center parking lot. In order for SDG&E to provide electrical service to these buildings they
requested an easement directly across the Lorna Verde parking lot. To avoid any delays to the school's
schedule, permission was granted to SDG&E to proceed with the work. The electric service has been
installed and the necessary construction work completed.
SDG&E is requesting an easement for the purpose of entering property to repair, maintain and use
facilities installed. The easement will be in existence for an indefinite period of time. The requested
easement does not impact the recreation center's parking lot. SDG&E restored the area used to its prior
condition.
FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact is anticipated. All expenses have already been borne by either the
school district or SDG&E.
Attachments: "A" - Recording Requested by San Diego Gas & Electric
[H:\home\parksrec\A113 - SDGERqst.A13 - April 8, 1997] I 8'-)
l' ---~~---_.~.._._--"
RESOLUTION NO. / ð¡,;J.,,?
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA GRANTING EASEMENT TO SAN DIEGO GAS
AND ELECTRIC TO UNDERGROUND ELECTRICAL
SERVICES FOR TEMPORARY SCHOOL BUILDINGS AT
LOMA VERDE SCHOOL
WHEREAS, San Diego Gas and Electric Company (SDG&E) is
requesting an easement from the city of Chula Vista on the Loma
Verde Recreation Center parking lot for the electrical service
installed to Loma Verde Elementary School's new temporary
buildings; and
WHEREAS, the easement will be in existence for an
indefinite period of time, but does not impact the recreation
center's parking lot.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the
city of Chula Vista does hereby grant an easement to San Diego Gas
and Electric Company to underground electrical services for
temporary school buildings at Loma Verde School.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of Chula Vista is
hereby authorized and directed to execute said easement on behalf
of the City of Chula vista.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby
directed to returned the signed document to SDG&E.
Presented by Approved as to form by
Jess Valenzuela, Director of
Parks, Recreation and Open Space
C:\rs\ease.ent.sdg
?5~~
.. ..'--_._--"._~,.._._",- _.... ..~ .-~..__...__.- -r--
Recording Requested by
San Diego Gas & Electric Company
When recorded, mail to:
San Diego Gas & Electric Company
P.O. Box 1831
San Diego, CA 92112
Attn: Office Services, EB 5
SPACE ABOVE FOR RECORDER'S USE
Project No.: 605498-020
Const. No.: 2561590 Transfer Tax ~
APN No.: 624-010-72 SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY
EASEMENT
THE CITY OF CllliLA VISTA, a Municipal corporation, hereinafter called "Grantor",
grants to SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY, a corporation, an easement and right of way to
erect, construct, change the size of, improve, reconstruct, relocate, repair, maintain and use facilities
consisting of: (I) Underground electric facilities, and appurtenances for the transmission and
distribution of electricity, (2) Underground communication facilities, and appurtenances, together with
the right of ingress thereto and egress therefrom over said easement and over other practical routes
across Grantor's land situated in the County of San Diego, State of California, described as follows:
That portion of Government Lot 4 and that portion of the Southwest Quarter of the
Southwest Quarter of Section 13, Township 18 South, Range 2 West, San Bernardino Meridian,
described in deeds recorded July 6,1964 at Recorder's File!Page No. 121014 and recorded December 29,
1969 at Recorder's File!Page No. 234555 both of Official Records of said County of San Diego
The easement in the aforesaid property shall be 8.00 feet in width, the centerline of
which shall be the centerline of the facilities as installed on Grantor's property, the approximate location
being shown and delineated on the Exhibit "A", attached hereto and made a part hereof.
Grantor will exercise only such reserved rights in said land as will not interfere with or
prohibit the free and complete use and enjoyment by Grantee, its successor or assigns, of the rights
hereby granted. Grantee shall have the right to assign any or all rights granted in this easement in whole
or in part to other companies providing utility or communication services. Grantee shall have the right to
top, cut, remove, or trim interfering plants and trees, and to keep said easement free from and to prevent
any person, including Grantor and successors and assigns, from erecting, placing, or storing on said
easement any flammable or other hazards and any structures, objects, or earth fills/cuts or other
obstructions, except walls and fences.
8'-:J
S:\Land\Data\Dehesa\CtyChllla\.doc
,-.-." ----~r_..- - -.. ~'-'-'..'--'-'-. .'.-.-----
The legal description for this easement was prepared by San Diego Gas & Electric
Company pursuant to Section 8730 of the Business and Professions Code, State of California.
Dated
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA,
a Municipal corporation
By
By
Prepared by:M.B.Dehesa
Drawing: OS-I2252
Checked by
Date: August 6, 1996
[5"1
S:\Land\Data\DehesaICtyChulal.doc
. --...---. .....-......'f'.......-..-....-.--.-........- -----.
____-1
fffJ ---- J j.é&4¿ :
----
CJ/ -- PCJR 6()v'T. LCJT 4 f
---- ~I
-- 5W 14, 5W14 .56C /3,
1
4 í/ð5, RZN JðM
:1
ýtt.ðt
~ ~I t-A5éA4Wr
I.ß¡J/t yJí/J. eJ
1 - . Afé4
-i tL-~~µOOl--
U
~ --l
I
~ ~~
~ I
I~ I
I~
~ -J ÔWdé.e : I~
C¡T( Or Cfltlt..4 ¡/¡S1í4 I~ I I
--.. I' I
~ -J "" !v1t.l//ICI ,P.4¿ CORPaRAT/oN ~
I
Acf. 7-(¡.-t.t- /Z/¿J/4 ;
~ /2-Z9-&'9~ 234555 I
I\. ~
\2
----{- -<
'J -- 't
'J '-J I
~ I ~
I
I ~I
\0.:. \.... '-J I
\j \j
~ 4J I I
\~
I\'::: <:::)
V) ~
~
tA5T OR4¡J6E /nlElJúé
CONST NO. Z5¿,/59ó (/.6. ELECTRIC ___ /l¡¿tJ...l NA/6.e: A CK.
r1 e p . ~ (.()549ð- tJZO 1450 ¿ðNÁ ¿ANt: nlOI. IROI. j33().- ;:4
SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC EIIAWJIIIY: 'E.J4 a«TDIISTAU, DRAWING NO:
SAN DIEGO. CAUFORNIA ~ 1M D« cJ5 -/22.:5Z
L()MA Vé¿IJé éLéM&JíA,fý JcHOðL :ð-~ COOROINAT£S
_ CHdt..A 0.Jí4 ........
EXHIBIT "A"
_.._. _'0 _ _ _ __ _ __...____" ,.'....._____n._.___
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item î
Meeting Date 4/15/97
ITEM TITLE: Report regarding the Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB)
Right-of-Way Landscape Project Implementation.(LD-106)
Resolution /.?"~...(8-/Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a
Memorandum of Understanding with Metropolitan Transit Development
Board/San Diego and Arizona Eastern Railway Company for Landscaping
of the MTDB Right-of-Way within the City of Chula Vista, Request
Release of Billboard Reserve Fund Monies and Council Formally Revise
the Approved MTDB Right-of-Way Beautification Project.
SUBMItTED BY, 0""'0< of PI",""" j,¡i>( If: ;;tt/
OJ",,,,, of P,,,"', Rœ=ti~ Op~ - t
REVIEWED BY: City Manage~ ~Q 6 (4/5ths Vote: YesXNo-->
On November 5, 1996 Council directed sta f to t;rward a copy of the MTDB Right-of-Way
Beautification Project Summary Report to MTDB as Chula Vista's concept master plan for 4
miles of landscaping within MTDB's right-of-way in Chula Vista. Council also directed staff
to initiate the development and negotiation of a memorandum of understanding with MTDB for
implementation of the master plan and establish a detailed, phased development plan with a
funding commitment for implementation of the project.
The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the project and made a determination that
the project is exempt from environmental review as a Class 4(b) exemption.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council adopt resolution:
1. Authorizing the City Manager to execute a Memorandum of Understanding, substantially
in the form attached hereto with the Metropolitan Transit Development Board\San Diego
Arizona & Eastern Railway Company; and,
2. Requesting that MTDB release Billboard Reserve Fund monies in the amount of $54,000
for Phase I matching funds; and,
3. Requesting that MTDB appropriate $400,000 of Transportation Enhancement Activities
funds for implementation of Phase I of the Project.
9-/
--....-- ~...-
Page 2, Item _
Meeting Date 4/15/97
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not Applicable.
DISCUSSION:
Backexound
In December 1995, Council approved the filing of an application for the use of State of
California Transportation Enhancement Activities funds (TEA). TEA funds are available locally
for capital improvements under the Federal Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act
(IS TEA) of 1991. This funding request was unsuccessful. Staff in turn initiated discussions
with MTDB for possible alternative funding sources. MTDB had successfully acquired TEA
funds for distribution along their south line trolleys in National City, Chula Vista, and San
Diego.
In December 1996, Chula Vista made a formal request to MTDB for use of TEA funds to
implement Phase 1 of the MTDB beautification project. This request was granted and the
General Manager of MTDB was directed to work with the City of Chula Vista on developing
a memorandum of understanding to implement the MTDB right-of-way beautification project
within Chula Vista.
Funding
Funding sources for Phase I have been identified. Currently a total of $400,000 is available
from MTDB TEA funds for implementation of the beautification project. The City is, however,
obligated under this particular funding program to provide a matching fund of $54,000. A
Billboard Reserve Fund created in 1984 between the City of Chula Vista and MTDB has
available funds for use and is identified as a funding source for matching funds.
The Billboard Reserve Fund is currently set to expire in the Year 2000. Monies within this fund
are generated by an advertisement lease agreement between MTDB and an outdoor sign
company, Metromedia, for advertisement rights. Chula Vista is a third party to this agreement.
Approximately $8,000 each year are held in reserve by MTDB and available for use by Chula
Vista. Since the establishment of this reserve some monies have been released for use, however
$116,000 is currently available. Procedurally, to expend these funds the City and MTDB must
agree on the use of monies within this fund. A request by the City is set forth in the attached
Resolution for Council's consideration. The available MTDB TEA fund coupled with the City's
contribution results in a total of $454,000 available for Phase 1.
As other funding sources become available, other phases of the project will be brought back to
Council for consideration. One possible funding source staff has identified for consideration is
the Transportation Enhancement Act "2". Discussions at the State level will determine if these
funds will continue and become available later this year. If it is decided to continue with the
9-2
., -.- ----....,.....---.-.-.,.----
Page 3, Item _
Meeting Date 4/15/97
program, then applications to the State will be submitted in December 1997 for funding in FY-
98-99.
Proiect Costs
Project costs which were developed a number of years ago, estimated total construction and
implementation costs for the entire 4 mile corridor at $1,900,000. This estimate included the
preparation of construction documents for the 4 mile corridor and the construction of fencing,
decorative hardscape, street right-of-way enhancements at 9 locations, lighting, planting and
irrigation.
Staff proposes as a "cost reduction alternative" that the scope of Phase I be modified. The
approved master beautification plan divides the landscape improvements into 4 segments or
pieces within the right-of-way corridor. Phase I concentrates landscape improvements in the
proximity of 'E' Street. Phase 2 improvements are concentrated in the vicinity of Main Street.
Phase 3 improvements are concentrated within the vicinity of 'F' Street and landscape
improvements within Phase 4 are concentrated on the remaining area between 'H' Street and
Palomar Street.
As now envisioned by staff, Phase I would be modified to encompass the entire 4 mile length
of the corridor but the program would be limited to planting & irrigation. Within the 4 mile
length, staff will designate areas most in need of planting. "Planting enhancements" in the
remaining areas will be deferred at this time as well as other beautification enhancements
identified within the master plan. Staff will report back to Council as other funding sources are
identified to allow for the ultimate completion of all the improvements identified in the overall
master plan.
Maintenance Costs
It should be noted that the funding mechanism (TEA and Billboard Reserve funds) for Phase I
does not include funding for maintenance. The City is solely responsible for landscape
maintenance of the 4 mile corridor. The Parks Department has estimated that costs for
maintenance (includes labor and utilities) will require approximately $25,000 yearly to maintain
the 4 miles of Phase I improvements. Monies from the Billboard Reserve Fund could provide
a funding source for up to 3 years providing time for staff to investigate alternative sources for
funding. At this point however, once the Billboard Fund agreement ends, General Fund monies
will be required for on-going maintenance costs. Any consideration to extend the Billboard
Reserve Fund would be a decision by future Council and would not fully fund the maintenance
program as outlined. Per the "Tentative Schedule of Performance" City maintenance will begin
in FY-99-2000.
9-.:]
-·-~--···T···-·-·······-·"·- ....._-------
Page 4, Item _
Meeting Date 4/15/97
As other funding sources are identified for implementation of the remaining improvements such
as lighting, decorative hardscape, fencing etc., staff estimates a yearly maintenance cost of
$81,000 would be needed.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Funding for Phase I of this project has been identified through MTDB's 1994-95 Transportation
Enhancement Activities (TEA) funds. These funds ($400,000) are processed through the San
Diego Association of Governments, administered by CAL TRANS and MTDB and available to
the City of Chula Vista. The matching City monies ($54,000) are available from the Billboard
Fund which is administered by MTDB.
hnplementation
Costs
Phase I
(drawings & construction) $419,000
Contingency 35.000
$454,000
Funding
MTDB TEA Funds $400,000
Billboard Funds 54.000
$454,000
Maintenance costs for Phase I are estimated at $25,000 per year beginning in FY-99-2000
(construction contract will contain I year maintenance clause). Total maintenance costs includes
labor and utilities and are based on the proposed modified Phase I. Partial maintenance funds
are available from the Billboard Reserve Fund with mutual agreement between Chula Vista and
MTDB.
Maintenance & Utilities
Costs
Phase I (modified) $25.000
Per Year Costs $25,000
Once detailed construction plans are developed exact costs will be known. Remaining monies
in the Billboard Fund can provide funding for maintenance for approximately 3 years. Any
consideration to extend the Billboard Reserve Fund would provide an $8,000 off-set. If
Billboard Reserve Funds end and until other funding sources have been identified, General Fund
monies will be required for yearly on-going maintenance.
9---1
......-.-.........-.----. - -'r'-·-~·_··-----_·.. ------~-
Page 5, Item _
Meeting Date 4/15/97
Funding
Billboard Funds (minus
matching funds) $62,000
Billboard Funds available
until year 2000 (approx.) 24.000
Total A vail. Funds $86,000
Attachments:
1. Vicinity Map. NOTSCANNEU
2. Draft Resolution. NOTSCANMw
2. Memorandum of Understanding.
(H :\IIOME\PLANNING\GARRYW\MTDB.113) April 9, 1997
9-'3
"'T" -,...~..._._._-_._--~._._--
RESOLUTION / Z5tbe{KE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE
A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH METROPOLITAN
TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT BOARD/SAN DIEGO & ARIZONA
EASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY FOR LANDSCAPING OF THE MTDB
RIGHT-OF-WAY WITHIN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND TO
REQUEST RELEASE OF BILLBOARD RESERVE FUNDS MONIES
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Transit Development Board/San Diego Arizona & Eastern
Railway ("MTDB") has right-of-way located within the City of Chula Vista; and the City of Chula
Vista ("City") has developed the MTDB Right-of-Way Beautification Project Summary Report as
a concept master plan which consists of four phases in its entirety for the landscaping of said
right-of way located within the City of ChuJa Vista ("PROJECT"); and MTDB has State of
California funding which is processed through the San Diego Association of Governments herein,
administered by the California Transportation Department, and awarded to MTDB which is
available to the City to construct a portion of said Project; and,
WHEREAS, on November 5, 1996, the City forwarded a copy of the Project to MTDB as
the concept master plan for landscaping of the MTDB right-of-way located within the City of Chula
Vista, and directed staff to initiate the development and negotiation of a Memorandum of
Understanding ("MOU") with MTDB, and to develop a detailed, phased development plan and
funding commitment for the Project; and,
WHEREAS, on December 12, 1996, MTDB: 1) received the City's request for the use of
Federal Transportation Efficiency Act grant funds for the purpose of landscaping the MTDB right-
of-way located within the City of Chula Vista; 2) approved the MTDB Right-of-Way Beautification
Project Summary Report developed by the City of Chula Vista for landscaping of the MTDB right-
of-way located within the City of Chula Vista; and, 3) directed the General Manager to negotiate
the terms of a MOU with the City of Chula Vista for subsequent Board action to establish a
detailed, phased development, maintenance, and funding plan for implementation of the Project;
and,
WHEREAS, a Billboard Reserve Fund contains funds MTDB and City mutually agree are
available for enhancement of the MTDB corridor in ChuJa Vista; and,
WHEREAS, City and MTDB concur that the Project is a Class 4 (b) exemption under the
California Environmental Quality Act [Section 15034 (b)] and does not require state environmental
review; and,
WHEREAS, the City and MTDB desire to enter into a MOU to cause the development of
construction drawings for the Project, the commitment of funding, and the installation and
maintenance of landscaping to implement Phase I of the Project as briefly described in Exhibit A
of the MOU in accordance with the tentative schedule of performance provided in the MOU.
(Phases II, Ill, and IV of the Project shall be the subject of a separate, future Memorandum of
Understanding); and,
WHEREAS, the Project includes prototype plans, material matrixes, estimates of probable
costs for improvements and other information related to implementation; and,
9-¿
"--_._------.----- .~ .·"t···---··----- -- -.--..----.---~
WHEREAS, the Project will provide widespread benefits to the City and MTDB, in visual
enhancement, air quality, and will enhance the overall riding experience of the patrons of MTDB.
NOW, THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Chula Vista
does hereby authorize the City Manager to execute a Memorandum of Understanding, substantially
in the form attached hereto with the Metropolitan Transit Development Board\San Diego Arizona
& Eastern Railway Company.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council requests that MTDB release
Billboard Reserve Fund monies in the amount of $54,000 for Phase I matching funds.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council requests that MTDB appropriate
$400,000 of Transportation Enhancement Activities funds for implementation of Phase I of the
Project.
Presented by Approved as to form by
Robert Leiter
Director of Planning
H:\HOME\PLANNING\MTDB\AESOS (April 8, 1997 (9;15am)
9-7
·-----t· __.___u_..,"_..____.__.
r-- ~]J.l1T ;:§ ~
-- ã:~
~ª. ~
:: I
L -'" I
. ~ CITY ld..MIT
C ! >
; : 0
--"\~ ¡ ~ I
I; E STFEET
] ! :
_ F STREET !
> :
~ ¡ I:
a: ¡ I
II.. ¡ I
:: G STREET
CJ :
W ::
Õ ª
/ ¡
. - STREET I I
_ I 5 RtET
w
-'
:ï
!!
w I
~ ~ I
u '
ø I
i
o I
I
>
I-
-
2
-
u
:>
ATTACHMENT - 1
.-... .---...-........-.--
L 0317.0-97
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
BElWEEN
METROPOLITAN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT BOARD,
SAN DIEGO & ARIZONA EASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY,
AND
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
FOR
MTDB RIGHT-OF-WAY LANDSCAPING WITHIN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
WITNESSETH
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Transit Development Board/San Diego Arizona & Eastern
Railway herein referred to as "MTDB" has right-of-way located within the City of Chula Vista; and
the City of Chula Vista herein referred to as "City" has developed the MTDB Right-of-Way
Beautification Project Summary Report as a concept master plan which consists of four phases in
its entirety for the landscaping of said right-of way located within the City of Chula Vista herein
referred as "Project"; and MTDB has State of California funding which is processed through the
San Diego Association of Governments herein referred to as "SANDAG", administered by the
California Transportation Department herein referred to as "CAL TRANS", and awarded to MTDB
which is available to the City to construct a portion of said Project; and,
WHEREAS, on November 5, 1996, the City forwarded a copy of the Project to MTDB as the
concept master plan for landscaping of the MTDB right-of-way located within the City of Chula Vista,
and directed staff to initiate the development and negotiation of a Memorandum of Understanding
herein referred to as "MOU" with MTDB, and to develop a detailed, phased development plan and
funding commitment for the Project; and,
WHEREAS, on December 12, 1996, MTDB: 1) received the City's request for the use of
Federal Transportation Enhancement Act grant funds for the purpose of landscaping the MTDB
right-of-way located within the City of Chula Vista; 2) approved the MTDB Right-of-Way
Beautification Project Summary Report developed by the City of Chula Vista for landscaping of the
MTDB right-of-way located within the City of Chula Vista; and, 3) directed the General Manager to
negotiate the terms of a MOU with the City of Chula Vista for subsequent Board action to establish
a detailed, phased development, maintenance, and funding plan for implementation of the Project;
and,
WHEREAS, City and MTDB concur that the Project is a Class 4 (b) exemption under the
California Environmental Quality Act [Section 15034 (b)] and the Department of Transportation
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) guidelines categorical exclusion [Section 771.117 (a)(7)]
and does not require environmental review; and,
WHEREAS, the City and MTDB desire to enter into a MOU to cause the development of
construction drawings for the Project, the commitment of funding, and the installation and
maintenance of landscaping to implement Phase I of the Project as briefly described in Exhibit A,
attached hereto and herein referred to as "Phase I," in accordance with the tentative schedule of
performance provided in Exhibit B, attached hereto and herein referred to as "Schedule" (Phases
II, III, and IV of the Project shall be the subject of a separate, future Memorandum of
Understanding); and,
WHEREAS, the Project includes prototype plans, material matrixes, estimates of probable
costs for improvements and other information related to imyrementation: and,
tJ-p 9~9
Page 1 of 4
'T-"····'" _.._-,.__._~_.__.._---
WHEREAS, the Project will provide widespread benefits to the City and MTDB, in visual
enhancement, air quality, and will enhance the overall riding experience of the patrons of MTDB.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, MTDB and City agree as follows:
SECTION A.
City agrees as follows:
1. CITY SHALL cause the preparation of construction drawings for the Project and construction
of the landscape improvements for Phase I in general accordance with the Schedule. Said
drawings shall be designed in accordance with MTDB design standards and Light Rail
Transit (LRT) design criteria and approved in total by MTDB in writing.
2. CITY SHALL work with MTDB as requested to complete CalTrans required field review and
environmental documentation, as required, to obtain CalTrans Notice to Proceed (NTP) for
Phase I.
3. CITY SHALL comply with provisions of the California Clean Air Act, the National
Environmental Policy Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Secretary of the Interior's
Standards, and Guidelines for Archeological and Historic Preservation, and any other
federal, state, and/or local laws and/or regulations as applicable to this Project.
4. CITY SHALL obtain a "Right of Entry Permit" from MTDB for construction and maintenance
purposes. Construction may not begin on San Diego and Arizona Eastern (SD&AE) Railway
or MTDB property before permit is issued. The City or its contractor shall pay all flagging
costs associated with the construction of the landscaping. The City or its contractor shall
maintain railroad protective insurance for all work within MTDB Right-of-Way.
5. CITY SHALL submit Final Construction Plans and special provisions for the intended Phase
I construction work to MTDB for approval prior to commencing with final reproduction of the
contract documents to ensure compatibility with the South Line Landscaping Master Plan,
MTDB design standards, and Light Rail Transit design criteria.
6. CITY SHALL ensure that the landscape construction and maintenance will not interfere with
the operation of the San Diego Trolley, San Diego and Imperial Valley Railroad, or the Chula
Vista Transit system.
7. CITY SHALL not accept the construction work as complete until MTDB conducts an
inspection of the work done and informs the City that it is acceptable. Such approval by
MTDB shall not be unreasonably delayed or withheld.
8. CITY SHALL, at its own expense, assume liability for the work conducted in Phase I within
the MTDB corridor and shall maintain landscaping, irrigation, and architectural
enhancements (including labor and water) installed in Phase I within the MTDB corridor in
accordance with the provisions set forth in the Permanent Right of Entry Permit.
9. CITY SHALL maintain full and complete records of the costs for Phase I, in accordance with
generally accepted accounting principals. These records shall be maintained for at least
three years after completion of Phase I and shall be available for inspection by MTDB and
CalTrans during normal business hours.
'7-/67
Page 2 of 4
.._"......_n-.-~_.'._ ._"n _ ____~ -----_.~_..,--
,
SECTION B
MTDB Agree as follows:
10. MDTB SHALL provide up to $400,000 in Transportation Enhancement Act (TEA) funds,
subject to release of said funds and issuance of a Notice to Proceed (NTP) from the
California Department of Transportation (CaITrans); and, shall approve the use of $54,000
in MTDB billboard reserve funds as the required local match to fund this Project.
MTDB SHALL invoice State within 20 days of receipt of letter from the City requesting
reimbursement, supported by receipt of invoices with proper documentation including
summary of staff time charges and contractor invoices. MTDB shall release funds to the
City within 10 days of receiving funds from the State. City shall provide a schedule for
reimbursements to MTDB following execution of each contract required for implementation
of Phase I.
11. MTDB SHALL allow the balance of funds remaining in the Billboard Fund after withdrawal
of $54,000 for Phase I and any future revenues accruing to the Billboard Fund to be applied
toward maintenance of Phase I. MTDB shall forward all allowable funds to the City following
written request which shall be accompanied by City approved budget each fiscal year.
12. MTDB SHALL waive all MTDB permit fees. MTDB staff review and inspection costs
associated with Phase I are to be considered eligible costs and shall be charged as such
from the original funding, not to exceed $20,000.
13. MTDB SHALL work with the City and CalTrans to obtain a NTP to use Transportation
Enhancement Activities funding in a timely manner.
14. MTDB SHALL provide technical resources, such as existing surveys, to the City for use in
the preparation of technical drawings.
15. MTDB SHALL grant a "Right of Entry Permit" to the City or its designee in a timely manner
prior to the start of construction, and grant a permanent "Right of Entry Permit" to the City
for maintenance purposes following the installation of Phase I landscape improvements.
16. MTDB SHALL determine the access and egress of City maintenance vehicles agreeable to
the City to allow for the maintenance of landscaping on the MTDB Right-of Way which shall
be set forth in the Permanent Right of Entry Permit.
SECTION C
General Provisions:
17. In the event Phase I is completed at a cost greater than budgeted under this MOU, the City
and MTDB agree to work together to identify additional sources of revenue to cover
additional costs. However, MTDB is not obligated to fund this additional cost unless agreed
to in subsequent amendments to this MOU.
18. In the event that Phase I is completed at a cost less than budgeted under this MOU,
balance of maximum allowable funding shall be applied to future phases of the Project.
19. This MOU shall become effective immediately upon full authorized execution hereof.
Page 3 of 4 9-//
m__·__·_·~·____·_'__
20. This MOU may be modified in writing, only by mutual consent of the City and MTDB.
21. Each party participating in this MOU shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless each other
participating party from all costs, demands, actions, liability or loss which may arise from or
be incurred as the result of injury or damage to persons or property in connection with each
party's own performance under this MOU, or as the result of any negligent act or omission
of any of its employees, agents, contractors, or subcontractors.
22. Parties agree that all recitals shall be incorporated herein and made a part of this MOU.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and MTDB have caused this MOU to be executed as of
the date set forth.
"MTDB" "CITY"
METROPOLITAN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT BOARD, "MTDB" CITY OF CHULA VISTA, "CITY"
Thomas F. Larwin, General Manager John D. Goss, City Manager
DATE: DATE:
H:\HOME\PLANNING\MTDB.MQU April 9, 1991 2:06pm
Page 4 of 4 9-/2
--..---- -..-----------------.--.--
Exhibit A
Phase I of Project
Phase I includes the preparation of construction drawings for landscaping the MTDB right-of-
way from the northern to the southern limits of the City of Chula Vista (MTDB Southline) as
described in the MTDB Right-of-Way Beautification Project Summary Report approved by
MTDB on December 12, 1996. Phase I also will provide construction of planting and irrigation
within the limits of the Right-of-Way corridor.
H:\HOME\PLANNING\MTDBPHAZ [April 9. 1997 1 :54pm]
9-/3
-_..,...._._~-_._--------
Exhibit B
TENTATIVE SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE·
MTDB Right-of-Way Beautification Project
Preparation of Construction Drawings
and
Phase I Construction Schedule
April 1997 Initiate RFP for Construction Drawings
July 1997 Select Consultant for Construction Drawings
November 1997 Complete Construction Drawings (revisions during December)
January 1998 City approval of Drawings
January 1998 MTDB approval of Drawings
February 1998 Advertise Construction Bid for Phase I
May 1998 City Awards Construction Contract for Phase I
June 1998 Start of Construction of Phase I
October 1998 MTDB Certifies Compjetion of Phase I
October 1998 City Accepts Construction of Phase I
One Year Contract Maintenance Begins
October 1999 City Maintenance Begins
·Schedule subject to change
H,\HOME\PLANNlNGIMTDBSCHD [April 8. 1997 9,t5arn]
9-/7
,___.~_u___~____.____"._~__._.._..~._________ --..
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item / ¿}
Meeting Date 4/15/96
ITEM TITLE: RESOLUTION / ref c2, 1 Accepting a Grant of $10,000 from the
California Department of Fish and Game for Preliminary Planning of an
Environmental Sciences Institute Concept Plan and Implementation
Program
SUBMITTED BY: Director of pjanning ~
REVIEWED BY, Ci" "'mgo< JL1 \.;i~¿: /) (4IStO, Vo<" Y~_N.-'<J
The California Department of Fish and Game DFG) has agreed to grant to the City of Chula
Vista a total of $10,000 for the purpose of developing a concept plan and implementation
program for a proposed "environmental sciences institute," to be located near the Lower Otay
Reservoir in the southeast Chula Vista planning area. Staff has been working with the UCCV
Task Force and has received prior direction from the City Council to continue discussions with
interested parties on the institute concept, but has not taken a position on the concept.
Preliminary discussions have occurred with staff from CDFG, the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS), the County of San Diego and UCSD regarding the institute concept.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt the attached resolution accepting a grant of
$10,000 from the California Department of Fish and Game for preliminary planning of an
environmental sciences institute concept plan and implementation program.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not Applicable.
DISCUSSION:
Background
On November 26, 1996 staff provided the Council an update on the University of California at
Chula Vista (UCCV) Task Force activities related to planning for the proposed university on
Otay Ranch (please see attached Council Minutes). A recommendation was brought forward to
the Council from the UCCV Task Force to pursue an environmental sciences institute with
UCSD officials that could be located at or near the designated university site on the Otay Ranch.
Council directed staff to open up discussions with the interested parties on the concept of an
environmental sciences institute, but did not take a position on the concept at that time. Staff
has continued discussions on the environmental sciences institute concept with UCSD officials,
the wildlife agencies, the UCCV Task Force and staff with the County of San Diego.
/ ¡J "/
+_...u.___ ,..--.-.- .. ..,.¡-., .-_._._~,.._.__._~...._-,.._---~-
Page 2, Item _
Meeting Date 4/15/96
Through discussions with the California Department of Fish and Game regarding the
environmental sciences institute concept and planning for the Draft Multiple Species
Conservation Program, possible state grant funds were identified that could be used to help
support the City in funding these on-going planning efforts. Staff prepared a grant proposal to
fund planning activities rejated to the institute concept and the City's Draft MSCP Subarea Plan.
The City of Chula Vista has received notice that the state has approved an appropriation of
$10,000 to be used toward further planning efforts related to Chula Vista's MSCP "subarea
plan" and the related refinement of the environmental sciences institute concept for possible
integration of this concept into the City's overall MSCP subarea plan (please see Attachment 1).
The state has asked that the City confinn acceptance of the grant funds through the adoption of
a resolution by the City Council.
Pumose of Grant Funding
The purpose of the grant funding would be to study the establishment of an environmental
sciences institute near the Lower Otay Reservoir and near the university site identified on the
approved Otay Ranch GDP/SRP. The institute would provide opportunities for research and
academic programs in the field of wildlife biology, specifically related to the sensitive habitats
which are known to exist in this area, and have led to the proposal by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service to establish the Otay-Sweetwater Unit of the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge in this
location. At the same time, this institute could potentially support the study of other
environmental issues which exist in southwest San Diego County and the International Border
region.
Relationship of Environmental Sciences Institute to Otay Ranch Universitv Site/MSCP Planning
In 1993, the City and County adopted the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP, which included the designation
of a "future university site" in Villages 9 & 10 of the Otay Valley Parcel, including a portion
of Salt Creek Canyon (please see Attachment 2). During subsequent review of this proposal by
the federal and state wildlife agencies in conjunction with the preparation of MSCP Subarea Plan
by the City and the County, it has been indicated by them that development of university
facilities on portions of this site would create serious problems with regard to the overall design
of the proposed open space preserve system for this area.
The City has agreed to study alternative locations for university facilities in the context of its
MSCP Subarea Plan, which is being analyzed in conjunction with the overall MSCP Plan and
EIR/EIS. The "environmental sciences institute" concept is viewed by staff and the UCCV Task
Force as potentially resulting in a reconfiguration of the overall "university site" that would be
more acceptable to the federal and state wildlife agencies, and could resolve a significant
outstanding issue with regard to the City's MSCP Subarea Plan.
/¿}~ .2
~, ·"t'· ...__._._----_.~-
Page 3, Item _
Meeting Date 4/15/96
The federal and state wildlife agencies have acknowledged the significant effort made by the City
in its MSCP subarea plan, and significant agreement which has been reached on major preserve
design issues related to our plan. The wildlife agencies previously committed in writing to the
City their willingness to cooperate in resolving this "university site" issue, and their desire to
enter into a memorandum of understanding to accomplish this (please see Attachment 3). The
proposed grant would allow the City to complete its analysis of, and implementation planning
for, the "environmental science institute" concept, with the goal that a mutually acceptable
implementation plan for this concept could lead to resolution of planning issues related to the
"university site" designation in the MSCP, and allow the City to proceed with the overall
process of review and possible adoption of the MSCP Subarea Plan by later this year.
Coordination with Other Agencies
Consistent with prior Council direction to open up discussions with interested parties related to
the " environmental sciences institute" concept, staff has had ongoing meetings with
representatives of UCSD to refine the institute concept from their perspective. In addition, City
staff have been meeting with staff from the County of San Diego to evaluate potential sites in
the vicinity of Otay Lakes.
Conclusion
Additional staff time is expected to be spent in coordination with interested agencies to establish
a site for the environmental sciences institute, as well as to appropriately modify the university
options within the City's MSCP Subarea Plan. Please see Attachment 5 for estimated staffing
resources and tasks expected to be supported by the $10,000 state grant funds.
FISCAL IMPACT: Staff costs associated with planning for the institute, MSCP and other
university-related activities are expected to exceed the $10,000 grant appropriation; however,
unless the City is successful in obtaining additional funds from the state and/or federal
governments in support of the MSCP planning and implementation efforts. These additional
costs will be General Fund supported.
Attachments
I. City COllncil Minutes of November 26, 1996 NOT SCAi,¡..íJJ
2. Locator Map NOTSC~
3. May 23, 1996 Letter from CD FWS ~
4. March 18, 1997 Letter from CDFG ,
5. NCCP Grant Proposal Table "
(h:\home\planning\uccv\grant.all
)tJ -- J
.-.....- - - --ï---- -.----.-.."..-" ,-- - ....-..--.
RESOLUTION NO. /86:< I
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING A GRANT OF $10,000 FROM
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND
GAME (CDFG) FOR STAFF COSTS RELATED TO THE
DEVELOPMENT OF A CONCEPT AND IMPLEMENTATION
PROGRAM FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
INSTITUTE
WHEREAS, on October 28, 1993, the City Council adopted a General Plan Amendment
and General Development Plan for the Otay Ranch which included a site designation for a future
four year university; and
WHEREAS, on May 23, 1996, the City received correspondence from the California
Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (collectively the Wildlife
Agencies) proposing that the City and Wildlife Agencies coordinate on the siting and acquisition
of an alternative university site due to significant biological concerns with that portion of the
university site designation within Salt Creek Canyon; and
WHEREAS, on May 28, 1996, the City Council authorized staff to include draft policy
language relating to the proposed university site in the City's Draft MSCP Subarea Plan to
ensure that a range of habitat preserve plan alternatives would be adequately analyzed within the
Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) for the MSCP; and
WHEREAS, on July 16, 1996, the City Council reestablished the University Task Force
to work with City staff in evaluating the currently designated university site on the Otay Ranch,
as well as other options which are being evaluated in conjunction with the Multiple Species
Conservation Program (MSCP); and
WHEREAS, on November 26, 1996 City staff provided the Council with an update on
the University Task Force activities, which included a recommendation by the Task Force to
pursue an environmental sciences institute with University of California at San Diego (UCSD)
officials that could be located at or near the designated university site on the Otay Ranch; and
WHEREAS, on November 26, 1996 the City Council directed City staff to open up
discussions with interested parties on the concept of an environmental sciences institute.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Chula Vista
does hereby accept a grant for $10,000 from the State of California for staff costs related to the
development of a concept and implementation program for an environmental sciences institute.
/éJ--i
r""'_"_ ________ _.,.,__ .._..._._._--_.."_.._--~-...~---~--~.,---
Presented by Approved as to form by
Robert A. Leiter
Director of Planning
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista,
California, this 15th day of April, 1997, by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers:
NA YES: Councilmembers:
ABSENT: Councilmembers:
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers:
Shirley Horton, Mayor
ATTEST:
Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) ss.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA )
I, Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk of the City of Chula Vista, California, do hereby certify that
the foregoing Resolution No. was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City
Council at a regular meeting of the Chula Vista City Council held on the 15th day of April,
1997.
Executed this day of April, 1997.
Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk
(h: \shared\attorney\ucgrant.res)
JIJ --~
,.. --~.__._~_....'",.- ····'T··-··- -- .'----... -.---.--..-.-------~-.,..
Minutes
November 26, 1996
Page 8
-
.
~---- __···_____n__ __no. -~--
17. MAYOR'S REPORTIS)
. Mayor Horton requested a change in the agenda to have Oral Communications located after the Consent
Calendar.
a. Conceptual adoption ofUCCV Task Force recommendation to pursue Environmental Science Institute and giving
direction to staff to work with appropriate agencies.
Mayor Horton gave an update regarding the University Task Force, who were reviewing the status of the future
university site designated in the Ûtay Ranch general development plan, as well as considering some of the
environmental issues regarding the site. The make-up of the task force consist of the original members, including
new members from UCSD, Wildlife agencies, and Greg Cox, County Supervisor. The task force has met three
times and learned the University of California was not in a hurry to site a new university, except for the campus
already designated in the Central Valley area. Nick Aguillar, a task force member who works for UCSD, invited
a representative ofUCSD's biology department to discuss the concept oflocating an environmental science institute
at the university site. The task force also talked with the head of the biology department who concurred that an
environmental science institute at the university site is a viable idea. The task force favorably received this idea
and ask staff to explore this concept in more detail and report back at their next meeting. The concept of an
environmental science institute is an effort to make the most of the limitations of the existing university site, and
to establish a University of California presence in the South Bay with the hope of one day expanding it to a full-
scale university. An example of this would be Scripps Institute of Oceanography, as it was initially a resource
institute at Berkeley. An institute could provide educational and research facilities related to the environmental
resources existing within the proposed Otay Ranch .Preserve System, adjoining Ûtay Reservoir, and the proposed
National Wildlife Preserve Refuge. The institute would be the only facility dedicated to environmental study
sciences in Southern California. UCSD lacks such a program, and there is interest within the university to develop
the program. The task force voted to support having staff continue to pursue the University of California affiliation
with the environmental science institute concept with UCSD officials, as well as staff from wildlife agencies,
property owners, and other interested parties, including the County of San Diego.
MS (HortonlAIevy) for CollX1cil to conceptually adopt the University of California ChuIa Vista Task Force
recommendation to pursue an Environmental Studies Institute and give direction to staff to work with the
appropriate agencies on this concept. (Motion was later rephrased.)
Councilmember Rindone desired reviewing the memorandllm regarding this item prior to directing adoption of the
concept. The initial discussion was to direct staff to investigate further and provide that information in order to
evaluate the recommendation and impact as to whether this will enhance a University of California ChuIa Vista
campus. He suggested modifying the motion to direct staff to investigate and report back to Council.
Mayor Horton understood the concern, but stated there is a lot of interest from the UCSD organization and wildlife
agencies. The goal is to ascertain a more firm proposal to bring to Council, and she recommends conceptually
adopting the recommendation because time is of the essence. Because of the environmental concerns in this
particular area and with the MSCP plan in close proximity, there is also the idea to perhaps bringing in an
interpretive center. JtJ / ~ .:".'
ATTACHMENT 1
'__'_0'- -""--.----.- ~.__._--_._.------_.
Minutes
November 26, 1996
Page 9
O:>uncilmember Moot supported the task force's recommendation, because the concept is a viable and realistic
approach of a future dream of a major university presence in our community.
o:>uncilmember Padilla was excited at the prospect of anything that could incrementally assist us moving towards
the goal of reali¡j¡¡g a univelliity presence in Chula Yi&II, but Council i& being üked 10 give conceplull adoplion
and directing staff to make contact to begin the process. He also requested the opportunity to review materia!
regarding this item prior to giving conceptual adoption. He wanted basic questions answered such as how much
money would it cost, how much time is involved, who are the people staff will talk to, and what is the goal.
O:>uncilmember Alevy briefly read the memo regarding this item and indicated he supported the motion.
MSUC (Horton! Alevy) to let staff open up discussions with the interested parties on the conceptual idea or
plan that the University of California Chula Vista Task Force brought forward.
. Mayor Horton recently attended the Salvation Army's bell ringing celebration, and they are requesting ben
ringers from 11/22/96 through 12/24/96. If anyone is interested, they can call Barbara Swift at 422-7027.
. Mayor Horton recently attended a League of Cities luncheon and had the opportunity to listen to the Fire Chief
from Carlsbad, who shared some of the horror stories they recently experienced. We all know that wild land fires
are a regular threat to communities throughout Southern California, and the recent fires are a stark reminder of this
ever present threat. It is her understanding that Chula Vista's current ordinance for new development is to ensure
these types of fires will never happen, but it is also her understanding that in some of the older parts of the
communities, the same standards are not met. She requested Fire Chief Hardiman report back to Council on the
local wild land urban interface issues and discuss the guidelines being drafted by the San Diego Fire Chiefs
~ Association. The guidelines are outlined to protect against wild land fires and include stricter standards for new
ì construction. She also requested possibly strengthening the City's ordinance to bring it to a higher level.
.. -
.
/tl" ?
I
-,-_.._.,~._- --.._..~ - ----.. --r-~--- .--.-,..-.------~-.--"~-----,-
:'~~~,.J
I'Q.
PROCTOR V1>J..1Ef 0
011,.. <
Fu/JJte ~o\'~
--
VlIIoge7
OIByL_ COUnty Pari<
PROPOSED UNIVERSITY SITE
;'¡y (PER OTAY RANCH IlDP/SRP)
GenersJ Plan Boundary
j!
(H:\HOME\PLANNING\lJCCV'IGRANTEStCDR)
CHULA VISTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
LOCATOR PRO.J£CT PROJECT DESCRlI'llON,
C) APPlICANT, City of Chula Vista ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES INSTITUTE CONCEPT
Acœplance of slate grant funds for planning related to siling an
environmental sciences institute/university.
SCALE, FILE NUMaER: jðJ-ð-"
NORTH No Scale Not Applicable
ATTACHMENT 2
"._..~.~.-~_.""'''-''-''- ·..··---~T+----...._·_----.._· ------ -..."..-------.--.~~-.-.
f,:} ~:. ~.'" ~':': ....,:-::." ~-.
'i. ._~.....' .
~.: :: !; !;:<
\,,'.J.. .....
.~ U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service CA Dept. ofFish and Game
-.-
~ Eastside Federal Complex " 1416 "mili S,"",
~ pi I' \:-., ¡".
_,--1'1,';.. , ~. . P.O. Box 944209
91I N.E. lIth Avenue
':\:. '../ Portland, Oregon 97232-4181 ;':., Sacramento, CA 94244-2090
....-....
May 23, 1996
Honorable Shirley Horton
Mayor of the City ofChula Vista
276 4th Avenue
Chula Vista, California 91910
Dear Mayor Horton:
The California Department ofFish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(collectively the Wildlife Agencies) appreciate the significant effort the City ofChula Vista (City)
has made in developing a Chula Vista Subarea Plan for incorporation into the Multiple Species
ConselVation Program (MSCP) plan. It appears that we are in significant agreement on issues
related to the future configuration of the preseIVe and the habitat that will be authorized for take
pursuant to Natural Community ConselVation Planning (NCCP) Act and the State and Federal
Endangered Species Acts except with regards to the use of Salt Creek land as a future university
campus.
The proposed university site as described in the Otay Ranch Project's General
Development Plan includes lands within Villages 9 and 10 and portions of Salt Creek easterly to
Wueste Road. The Otay Ranch university site was sejected to provide the local community with
an opportunity to actively pursue the siting of a University of California campus or similar
.
university within the City. .
The WIldlife Agencies have analyzed the biological resources present on1he portion of
City's proposed university site east of Salt Creek. The analysis provided to the City at a meeting
between the WIldlife Agencies and the City on May 21, 1996, indicates that the proposed
development on the site would result in substantial adverse impacts to regional populations of
California gnatcatchers and cactus wrens. As a result of the analysis, the City and the WIldlife
Agencies have agreed to identifY alternative sites to accommodate a university Within the City's
sphere of influence. Relocation of the university site will ensure that all Otay Ranch project lands
in Salt Creek and easterly to Wueste Road (Wueste Road Property) are conseIVect1!s part of the
MSCP plan. Alternative lIB in the City's Subarea Plan designates this area as conseIVed and it
will be analyzed as such in the MSCP's environmental documents under the:MHPA alternative.
Alternative IIA in the City's Subarea Plan will also be analyzed in the environmental documents.
/Ó-t //¡J- '1 ATTACHMENT 3
.
...-.. .....-..-....--.....-."...'.r-.....--...-.---. .... -' ---
Honorable Shirley Horton
May 23, 1996 '.'
Page 2
The WIldlife Agencies propose that the parties develop a Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) that sets out a process and timeframe under which an alternative university site is
identified and acquired. The Wildlife Agencies propose that the following principles guide the
development of the MOU:
· the parties to the MOU will use their best efforts and available resources to cany out their
. respective obligations under the MOU;
· the uses on the alternative university site will be limited to its use as a university which would
be at least equivalent to a California State University. in stature and educational programs;
· land acquisitions and exchanges will be carried out consistent with the State and Federal laws,
regulations and rules for such transactions;
· acquisition of the Wueste Road site as a preserve site would be in the general time frame of its
anticipated transfer to the Preserve Owner Operator as detailed in the Sectional Plan Area
One;
· the resources to acquire the Wueste Road site may come from a variety of sources, including
state and federal appropriations and land holdings, and other sources associated with
implementation of the MSCP;
· the acquisition of the alternate university site will be contingent on appropriate zoning of the
site by the city; and
· the document transferring the alternate university site to the City will include a reversion
clause which incorporates the time frame for developing the university specified in the Otay
Ranch General Development Plan.
The Wildlife Agencies would like to move forward with completing the MOU regarding
the university and we would appreciate the City identifYing any steps that will have to be taken
prior the development of the MOU. .
Mr. Gail Kobetich will be the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service contact and Mr. Ron Rempel
will be the Department ofFish and Game contact for developing the MOU. They can be
contacted at (619) 431-9440 and (916) 654-9980, respectively.
Sincerely,
~~~~~
Ronald D. Rempel
Regi 81 Director NCCP Program Manager
U.S. Fish and WIIdlife-$ervice California Department ofFish and Game
cc: See next page.
/& -jO
--'-",...'''---.-'''----- . --- -,----_._~-_._---
. 5rA TE OF CALIFORNIA THE RESOURCES AGENCY ~ r? ';"'",-, t"._ ..-~. PETE WILSON, GoV!'mor
, II'~ ,~ - , " ' ~>
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME ,r- ~ _~_'__ _' -_ @
IJ/ - --
1416 NINTH STREET ,,'-
P.O. BOX 944209 ,- 27
I J,"",'''-"
_ ,_..J, ..
SACRAMENTO?, CA 94244-2090
(916) 653-766 ,-",-,---
. '---'--'~_/
'------.~--,--
-
March 18, 1997
Mr. Robert A. Leiter, Director
Planning Department
City of ChuIa Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, California 91910
Dear Mr. Leiter:
Congratulations! I am extremely pleased to inform you that the Department ofFish and
Game (DFG) has selected your proposal to receive local assistance grant funds for implementation
of urgent project activities related to the Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP)
Program. DFG recognizes the importance and significance ofIocal participation and partnerships
in contributing to meeting the goals of the NCCP through proactive planning efforts such as that
demonstrated by the City of ChuIa Vista.
In regards to the project activities accepted to receive funding, the following task summary
and associated costs have been identified:
1. Environmental Sciences Institute- $10,000 have been identified for the development of a
concept and implementation program that would establish an institute to serve as the focal point
for research on the coastal sage scrub ecosystem. This project activity will bring land managers and
researchers together to help insure that the San Diego Multiple Species Conservation Program Plan
and other NCCP's are utilizing the best scientific information available.
DFG staff will be contacting you shortly to initiate the contract processing procedures.
During the interim we will need for you to submit a resolution of authorization from your
jurisdiction that confirms their approval of the project and grant monies. In addition, please
submit a revised budget to reflect the tasks selected for funding. Please forward these documents
as soon as possible to:
Mr. Ron Rempel, NCCP Program Manager
California Department ofFish and Game
1416 Ninth Street, Room 1341
Sacramento, California 95814
I)) /) / ATTACHMENT 4
-
_ ____~ .~m...~.~_.~~~_.___.......t- .. ..____ -. .._..__~__.______~
Mr. Leiter
March 18, 1997
Page 2
Again, we want to express our enthusiasm and appreciation for your interest and success in
the NCCP Program.
If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Ron Rempel, NCCP Program Manager,
Environmental Services Division, at (916) 654-9980.
Sincerely,
~
Jacqueline E. Schafer
Director
cc: Mr. Ron Rempel
Department ofFish and Game
Sacramento
/¿J -/2
.-.._---------_._......__.---_.~...-------~.._-_.
co '" '" 0
õ 0 m 0
I- '" ~ 0
m ci
.,. ~
.,.
c: '" '" 0 CO CO
CO ~
'(3 '" CO
<ri CO
'2 .,.
.J::: CO
'-' .,.
Q)
I-
g
'2
c:
co
ïï:
~ '" 0 0 0 0 '" 0
Q) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ CO '" '"
c: .... '"
c: M <0
co M
ïï: ~ .,.
:¡; Q)
~ 1ü
'(3
CJ 0
II>
0 II>
~ «
c..
Z ~ '" <0 <0 <0 <0 0 ....
0 iJj Q) '" '" <0 '"
c: m ~
¡::: ~ c: ,..: 0
co .,;
~ :J ïï: <0
0 .,. .,.
Z :r: õi
W x: I.ª
:¡; ~ '-'
W c:
--' 0 'C:
c.. ~ c..
:¡;
- c:
0 0
Z .¡¡;
« II> .!!1
c: E
Z 0
~ § c: E
II> 0 8
c.. c: 0 :;::;
I- 0 ,g co 'C
§ - c:
c.. c: co
W 0 'ë Q)
U c: E '(3
Z Q) ::J I~ c:
- u.. ::J ~
0 Cñ 'C E 0 ~
u Cñ c: ~
W co - co
I- W c: c: 1ií
:J 'C 0 co <3 0
Q) :;::; ïï: ê c..
l- II> .¡¡; .J:::
¡::: 8- - g
I'~ g 0 '3'
W en u.. en c:
--' Z e '-' ~ I- :;::;
In c.. « c: "" en c:
« en - 0 II> 0 , 0 'C:
'E 0 Q) u co .J::: eo-
I- W - I- ~ U
--' U Q) II> Cñ c: ~ en
E ~ ~ --'
« Z - 0 W W j
en«w II> 0 t: .~ Z U
II> co II> 8- Q) iJj
01-0 Q) c: ,~ > 'C ~ Z > 13
c..enen ~ « Q) '2 c: ~ 0 ~ c
0>--, ~ co :J ::J ~
Q) co :J ~ 0 0 en w §
g:~~ - c: - ~ en
II> ~ « 0 .J::: :r: .J::: I-
'C - c: ~ W 0
I-:JZ Q) ;> c: '3' 'C: x: iJ¿ c.. Z W .3
Q) 0 co ~ So CJ '"
Z:r:w.... en Z co co :;::; ~ Q) .:J « 0 c
~U:¡;m x: ~ c: c: ~ .J::: 0 Q) ~ 'ë' /¡J//3
zm en 'E 'E ~ c: .!2 ~ 1ü en :J c
CJu..O~ :;::; W In '"
~ '(3 ~ ~ Q) :c ~ 0 ::::; 9-
c..°~M æ. ~ Q) ::J --' I- --' "
u~>'2 , c.. c.. c.. :¡; c.. ~ g> , c.. ~ E
In In c.. 0
U_Zo. :J 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 :J :J 0 !' ATTACHMENT 5
zuw« en ~ N M -oi .,.; <ri ?- m en en I- :S
- .-',-. .;-.,.....---..-.. ~_.._._._,..- ._._----.---~_.-
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item J(
Meeting Date 4/15/97
ITEM TITLE: ;f. Resolution / ?'¿:J ~ccePting petition for formation of a special
Assessment District #AD96-01 for the construction of street improvements
on Twin Oaks Avenue from Naples Street to Emerson Street.
g, Resolution /8&3/ Appropriating $180,000 from the unappropriated
balance of the Gas Tax Fund into account STL-232
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works
REVIEWED BY: City Manager JQ ~
-'7 (4/5ths Vote: Yes...x..No->
The City Engineer has received a petition from property owners in the 1100 to 1150 block of
Twin Oaks Avenue, south of Naples Street to north of Emerson Street, requesting that special
assessment proceedings be commenced for construction of missing street improvements such as
curb, gutter and sidewalks. Upon acceptance by the Council, the petition will be filed in the City
Clerk's office. Approval of this resolution will permit staff to begin assessment district formation
proceedings and with the objective of awarding the contract for the improvements within Fiscal
Year 97/98. It is necessary to appropriate $180,000 from the Gas Tax Fund as in-kind
contribution from the City for a portion of the construction work within the existing roadway.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve the resolution accepting the petition for formation of a special
assessment district for the construction of missing street improvements on Twin Oaks Avenue
between Naples Street to Emerson Street.
Approve the resolution appropriating $180,000 from the unappropriated balance of the gas Tax
Fund into account STL-232.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not Applicable
DISCUSSION:
On May 7, 1996, Mr. Norman Quinlan, a resident of 1109 Twin Oaks Avenue, Chula Vista,
submitted a petition (Exhibit A) requesting that the City form a special assessment district to
construct the missing street improvements on Twin Oaks Avenue from Naples Street to Emerson
Street. Sections 2804(a)(3) and 5871(a) of the Street and Highways Code require that such
petitions be signed by owners of more than 60% of the area, unless otherwise approved, and be
signed by owners of more than 60% of the frontage footage. The signatories of the petition
owned 88.2 % of the area of the property in the proposed district (18 of 20 properties) and, they
1/-/
_...._.__._--_.,_.._--,-~--
Page 2, Item
Meeting Date 4/15/97
were 89.5% of the owners of that property (17 of 19 owners) having footage fronting Twin Oaks
Avenue thus complying with the Code.
In order to comply with the requirements of Proposition 218, the "Right To Vote On Taxes Act",
which was passed by a majority of the state voters in a generally held election of November 5,
1996, staff had to prepare ballots. Proposition 218 requires that a ballot be mailed to all property
owners which may be subject to an increase in their property taxes. The results of the voting
ballot returns as of April 9th show the following: 14 in favor ($74,166) and 2 against ($19,834)
the formation of an assessment district, representing 78.9% of the returned ballots financial
obligation voting in favor. The other 4 property owners had not yet responded with their ballots
(see attached ballot summary Exhibit H). Based on the property owner's total financial obligation
of $114,858, a total of $74,166 (64.57%) of the property owner's submitted ballots in favor of
the district. There is a majority to form the assessment district at this time, even if the final four
ballots are returned with a "NO" vote. Staff has prepared this report to commence the Assessment
District 96-01 via the Improvement Act of 1911. This Improvement Act has been used for other
similar assessment districts and provides for the construction of street improvements. The
proposed district boundaries are shown as Exhibit B.
The 1911 Improvement Act Process
The procedure which will be followed consists of the following sequence:
1. The legislative body orders plans and specifications. This project was adopted by the
1996/97 CIP budget.
2. The legislative body accepts the petition to install street improvements.
3. A Resolution of Intent is passed and a public hearing is held. If there is not a majority
protest, then the legislative body proceeds with the work by ordering the construction of
the improvements.
4. If the contractor's bid is satisfactory, a construction contract is awarded and the
contractor commences work. If the Contractor's bid is unsatisfactory, then the Council
and the residents may decide to change the scope of the project or the amount of financial
participation. If there is no resolution on the matter, the proceedings must be abandoned
for at least one year.
5. After the construction work is complete, there is another public hearing to file the
assessment and confirm the assessment on the properties within the district.
)/---;¿
",,,·_··__________,,_·,_·'·r___·"_"·
Page 3, Item
Meeting Date 4/15/97
6. The property owners then have 30 days to payoff any or all of the assessment on their
property without interest or penalty.
7. The unpaid portion of the assessment, which is subject to an interest rate, is then placed
on the property tax bills due in April and December of each year for 10 years.
The Improvement Act of 1911 provides that the assessment shall become a lien upon being
recorded in the office of the County Recorder. Properties are subject to foreclosure in cases
where there is an unpaid lien.
Property Ownerls Conditions of Approval
The property owners in favor of forming the assessment district agreed to the following terms:
A. That the improvement costs will be charged to the property which benefits from
the project as outlined on the payment schedule (Exhibit C), including their land;
B. That the cost of legal and other incidental expenses will be included in the project
cost;
C. That each property owner may pay his/her assessment either in cash without
interest or in installments with 7% interest over a period of ten years;
D. The property owner's assessment is estimated at $114,868 (Exhibit C) and the
estimated total of the improvements is budgeted at $340,000 (Exhibit D);
E. That property owner's have expressed an unwillingness to continue this project
if their share exceeds $100 per lineal foot of property frontage;
F. That property with an assessment lien is subject to foreclosure in cases of
delinquency and non-payment;
G. That they consented to the formation of the Assessment District in accordance
with Section 2804 of the Streets and Highway Code of the State of California and
waived any rights to protest against the formation of said assessment district;
H. That they agreed to dedicate all required rights-of-way or easements necessary for
the works of improvement, all dedications to be accomplished before the ordering
of improvements;
/1-3
-,.- ~--- '... ,~,,-,,------"-----.----~_. -
Page 4, Item
Meeting Date 4/15/97
Those not signing the petition either opposed spending money on the street improvements which
include pavement, curb, gutters, driveway aprons and sidewalks or had some other financial
hardship and felt that it was entirely the City's responsibility to improve the street.
Improvements and Costs
Improvements on Twin Oaks Avenue, extending from Naples Street to Emerson Street would
consist of grading, excavation, Portland cement concrete, asphalt, pedestrian ramps together with
appurtenances and appurtenant work, to serve and to benefit properties located within the
boundaries of the assessment district. Although the existing street is paved and varies in width,
but is typically about 22' in width, there are no paved parking areas (shoulder), curbs, gutters,
driveway aprons and sidewalks (Exhibit E). When it rains, water ponds along the edge of the
roadway and localized flooding on some of the properties occurs. This proposed project will
address these issues and minimize the amount of water runoff from the street onto private
properties. Wooden utility poles will be relocated closer to the property line so that they are not
within the future curb and gutter area. The relocation of these utility poles will be done at the
expense of San Diego Gas & Electric Company and therefore will not be included in the project
costs.
Although staff has completed a more current project cost estimate of $302,000 (Exhibit F), the
CIP Program Detail and budget should remain at $340,000 (Exhibit D) to account for any
unforeseen issues and the possibility that construction bids may come in higher than expected.
It is estimated that the following costs will be incurred for the improvement of Twin Oaks
Avenue:
Costs
CONSTRUCTION
City's Share $101,200
Property Owner's Share $114,800
DESIGN & INSPECTION/SURVEYING
City's Share $ 71,000
Property Owner's Share $ 0
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT FORMATION
City's Share $ 15,000
Property Owner's Share $ 0
$302,000
Staff recommends that the City pay the estimated $86,000 costs of: design ($45,000); inspection
and surveying ($26,000); as well as the assessment district formation ($15,000). With the City
//~i
",.,.,.., --_.._--+_..+-,~_.-.........---
Page 5, Item
Meeting Date 4/15/97
paying these direct costs, it is consistent with past practices and Chula Vista Policy 505-01
(Exhibit G). This policy allows the City and benefiting property owners to participate in the
construction of the missing street improvements and share in the funding. Based upon this policy,
staff included only the actual construction cost in the petition. Per Exhibit E, the property
owner's share of the construction cost represents that amount of work which is between the
existing edge of pavement and their property line. A 53% portion ($114,800) of the $216,000
construction costs will therefore be the responsibility of the property owners. The City's
construction cost share represents the cost of the work within the existing paved portion of the
roadway. To construct the project through the assessment district financing, $180,000 would need
to be appropriated from the unappropriated balance of the Gas Tax Fund so that only the
resident's share of $114,800 is funded as a loan from the Trunk Sewer Fund which will be repaid
with 7% interest over a period of 10 years.
The FY97/98 CIP Program Detail sheet (Exhibit D) shows that the financing total is estimated at
$340,000 of which $115,000 is being loaned from the Trunk Sewer Fund and $180,000 is
appropriated from the Gas Tax Fund. Staff intends to utilize the $45,000 already appropriated
from the Gas Tax Fund.
Based on the staff recommendation and an initial cost estimate of $94 to $100 per lineal foot of
frontage, the assessments for each parcel would range from a low of $5,000 to a high of $13,900,
with 14 of the 20 (70%) assessments at $5000.
The properties have not previously been considered for inclusion in the Block Act for the
following reasons:
1. Twin Oaks A venue is a two-way local residential street with comparatively low traffic
volumes when compared to other unimproved streets within the City limits;
2. Previously, sixty percent or more of the owners have not requested that the street
improvements be done;
3. Before January 1, 1986, this area, known as Castle Park, which was part of the
Montgomery Annexation was not within the city limits of Chula Vista, but rather the
County of San Diego.
Staff recommends that this street improvement project be approved for staff to begin assessment
district fonnation proceedings. The City will participate in the financing by funding the design,
inspection and project administration costs per City Council Policy # 505-01. The property
owners will be allowed to finance the improvements over a ten year period with the 7 % interest
charges included in their annual property tax bills. The annual assessments would be included on
their property tax bills and payable in semiannual payments.
------
J/-~
,..-. -- ,..._.'''u, --~---_.__..._.."_.._-_.__.._._-_.._-~._..-
Page 6, Item
Meeting Date 4/15/97
Future Actions
1. Staff will return to Council with the Resolution of Intention declaring the City's intent
to form a district.
2. Staff will continue to meet with all of the property owners to discuss the improvement
project and its financing.
3. Two public hearings, as required by law, will be held.
Therefore, tonight's action by the City Council is not binding on the property owners in the event
the bids come in higher than the estimated $302,000. After the bids are opened, the project comes
back to the Council for award, the actions will include notice to the property of a public hearing
with an opportunity to review their proposed charges: At that time, the property owners will be
able to request the Council to eliminate the district because of the costs. After construction is
complete, and the final costs are known, there will be another public hearing to consider the actual
assessments.
All of the property owners and residents which are within the proposed assessment district
boundaries to receive these improvements and would be assessed have been notified of this
meeting and sent a copy of staff's report with attachments.
Exhibits B, C, E and F are available on transparencies for Council viewing and discussions
FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of the resolutions authorizes staff to proceed with this project.
The city will absorb approximately $41,000 for: inspection and surveying ($26,000); and
assessment district formation ($15,000), if the project goes to construction. The estimated
$115,000 from the Trunk Sewer Fund will be reimbursed with 7% interest, the terms of which
may be amended prior to a future public hearing.
Attachments: A - Petition
B - Proposed Twin Oaks A venue Assessment District Boundary
C - Payment Schedule
D - CIP Detail & Proposed 5 Year Plan
E - Cross-section for Twin Oaks A venue dated 06/28/96
f F - Preliminary Cost Estimate For Total Costs & Shares
G - Policy #505-01
H - Ballot Summary
Aprit 10, 1997 (11:41am) (H:IHOMEIENGlNEERIAGENDA IAD96IRPT . FXR)
)/~Þ
.-.------...
/ ðYb.:J ¿J
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING PETITION FOR FORMATION
OF A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT #AD96-01 FOR
THE CONSTRUCTION OF STREET IMPROVEMENTS ON
TWIN OAKS AVENUE FROM NAPLES STREET TO EMERSON
STREET
WHEREAS, the city Engineer has received a petition from
property owners in the 1100 to 1150 block of Twin Oaks Avenue,
south of Naples Street to north of Emerson Street, requesting that
special assessment proceedings be commenced in accordance with the
Improvement Act of 1911 for the construction of missing street
improvements such as curb, gutter and sidewalks; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the requirements of
Proposition 218, the "Right To Vote On Taxes Act", a ballot has
been mailed to the affected property owners and 65.57% of the
property owners are in favor of the district; and
WHEREAS, upon acceptance by the Council, the petition
will be filed in the city Clerk's office; and
WHEREAS, approval of this resolution will permit staff to
begin assessment district formation proceedings and award the
contract for the improvements within Fiscal Year 97/98; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the city Council of the
City of Chula vista does hereby accept the petition for formation
of a special Assessment District #AD96-01 for the construction of
street improvements on Twin Oaks Avenue from Naples Street to
Emerson Street and direct staff to proceed with the assessment
proceedings as required by the Improvement Act of 1911 and
Proposition 218.
Presented by Approved as to form by
G---~~
John P. Lippitt, Director of John M. Kaheny, city Attorney
Public Works
///?--/
-, ....._<-- -- -,-." ---"'------.,,"---.--.--.--------
RESOLUTION NO. 1'1)6:5 /
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROPRIATING $180,000 FROM THE
UNAPPROPRIATED BALANCE OF THE GAS TAX FUND
INTO ACCOUNT STL-232
WHEREAS, the Twin Oaks Avenue street improvements
identified in the Petition Requesting Formation of an Assessment
District, adopted by Resolution 18630, ("Project") has been
identified in the 96/97 CIP Budget; and
WHEREAS, staff intends to utilize the $45,000 already
appropriated from the Gas Tax Fund for this Project; and
WHEREAS, staff is recommending that $180,000 be funded as
an additional City obligation from the Gas Tax Fund; and
WHEREAS, City Council has already authorized a loan from
the Sewer Service Fund to fund the non-gas tax portion of the
Project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the
City of Chula vista does hereby appropriate $180,000 from the
unappropriated balance of the Gas Tax Fund (No. 250) into CIP
Project Account STL-232.
Presented by Approved as to form by
Director of Ur- ~ ~
John P. Lippitt, John M. Kaheny, City Attorney
Public Works
c: \rs\ad9601
//13//
_._,.._.._-~._---_..-.,_._.._. ,...,_·...,.,_u_..·,_.. __._.,_..._..__._.___~~_.
-----., í E)t,~\B'T A
/ RECEIVED / íJ 3 5_0s ,./:..'\/ IG~
CITY OF CHUlA VISTA I
ENGINEERING DEPT. I
9'6 IlAY -7 AM I): 09 1:rJ/
Property Owners
On Twin Oaks Ave.
(Naples To Emerson)
Chula Vista, CA .
91911
5/3/1996
Cliff Swanson
Deputy Public Works
Director/ City Engineer
The property owners are requesting the city to initiate a
a 1911 Block ACT project for installation of SIDEWALK, CURB,
and GUTTER for the improvement and beautification of TWIN
OAKS A VENUE between Naples and Emerson.
SIGNATURE ADDRESS DATE
(b'1Q] "Twin Oaks Ave. S-- 0-9C-,
5" - 3~ ¿.
win Oaks Ave 5~3-?,
Twin Oaks Av . 5·
_Twin Oaks Ave. .5- 3- ? ¿,
s- '3>~f ¿
-t- {, -:;L-
/ S-3-r¡(p
5- -
~ / j~ 0 "9 ~
'f,-Lticc,Jj"r/Ö .. Corner House S--S'-9(o
/
- '~~._.._."....._._- ... .--..-..--,------..---..-
l?"X!-\- I fJlT Â
SIGNATURE ADDRESS DATE
C//YUU J.. l^uA'Y7A~ _ "Twin Oaks Ave.
c
Twin ak Ave. S~ j -<76
'{if.~.-li~;'¡ _Tw;n~ak:Ave, £-_3- q,4
~J (ì~ \ _win Oaks Ave. 68-?'6
C(~"y{ ~f~"TwinoaksAve. ~h/íéf
K. (}~--f ~/'=u~ ....win Oaks Ave. S IS- /96
/ /
9--)~zjl. ~j~ "'Twin Oaks Ave. ,V-?/9'b,
Thank You!
Sincerely
Norman Quinlm
71pUrf~ 4 cf~a.-.-L-
Project Coordinator
Norman Quinin
1109 Twin Oaks Ave.
Chula Vista, CA. 91911
(619) 420-8568
ATT:C1iff Swanson
THE PROPERTY OWNERS ARE REQUESTING INDIVIDUAL CONTRACTS
PRIOR TO THE ACTIVATION OF THE TWIN OAKS PROJECT FROM
THE CHULA VISTA CITY SPECIFICALY INDICATING THE
ACCOUNTABILITY TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS AND COST PER
FOOTAGE VIA THE 1911 BLOCK ACT PROJECT.
.- ---..--- ~_.._- - -- -- ~--_._--- ---- -----~._-
;L.
- -- - ,~-~----_._.
'. (J (?73;_ 0:,-_ J::.Y-ICO
":£~;:':'\if;:""
. -,-."
I;IT '( OF Ç;H'U::"¡:' ·;,tiiU exHI BIT - .~
!::rJGINEERIN~ !:If", A
96 a.2 ....~ 11
Property OWners
On Twin Oaks Ave
(Naples to Emerson)
Chula Vista, CA. 91911
6-12-96
Cliff Swanson
Deputy Public Works
Director/City Engiheer
As per your request the signatures of all property owners
showing there approval of initiating the 1911 Block Act
Project for the Twin Oaks Project (between Naples and Emerson)
was turned in to your office on 5-8-96.
Pl~ase·:resP9na.as to the status of the 1911 Block Act Project
for the installation of Sidewalk,Curb,& Gutter.
Enclosed is a copy of signatures requested and a return
envelope.
THANK YOU
71tUJ"~.4 C¡;~æ~
NORMAN G, QUINLAN
. .
Project Coordinator
Norman .¡;. iQu'l.nl·an
1109 Twin Oaks Ave
Chula Vista, Ca. 91911
(619)420-8568
3
,...._._-~_._-_..~- . .-..--,."'-'.
if
-----_..._~_.._-~._....,~ ,--~-.~_.- "'---'---" ._..._~~_..
Ext+IBIT 13
~ -
,
r
I
- - - -
I - - --
I
-----r----- 0
... -.- ï - - - T-
I , ,
I I I I ï -..,
I I I
NAPLES I I I ST.
I I
. "II' 1111 .............
~ ' ' , 23,5 :~ 1101:
. .
- - - - ': .1109·
~ ....i... .
· .'
: 1112 1115 :
· ·
: 1116 ·
· 1127 ·
: 1120 ·
· 00
:::c : 1130 1131 ·
· ~
·
: 1134 1133 · n
·
· 0
. : 1136 1135 :
· 1137 :
: 1138
: 1140 1143 :
- -- I ...... ('T1 ......,..
I ~ :. : I I I
. .
EM I T: 1150 ~230 I i
r .- ........ 'U, 1111- , I
I I 1
I I I
>
; ;3
>
-< .
t!j
.
----- rr1 ~
j~
II
BOUNDARY OF PROPOSED DISTRICT: III"''''''''' fi
J
"
DRA1Rf BY I A. STEVENS PROPOSED TWIN OAKS AVENUE
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
DATI: I 07102/96 S
....-"---~----_._~-_..-
fa
,..--. --.'- -- -_.__....~ .... --"--..~'~"._...---.----.
... ~
~ =
.:¡ 'i E!
> ~ '"
~ = ..
U 1>1",,,-
-
:.E = "'"'-O\C'-O'-O'-OI..OI..C'-O~t--I..OQOOOI..O\C
~ f"') ";i-EI ('<) "::I" "Of" "1" "='" '<:t "Ot '<:t "Ot" ~ ~ "<T i£ ~ '<T "'<t
I:¡,) '.c:!~ ~ N N N N N N N N " ~ N ~ " N N
.. .¡¡¡== :; 0:: 0\ O'I~ 0\ 0\ O'I~ 0\ 0:: ~ ;::: O'Í ::::! ::! O\~ O'Í
~ ..... ...E-o~ fA ~ ~ ~ fA fA fA fA fA fA fA fA f; q fA fA fA
..
=
t 'a -....
..... c,¡, at 1:1
- 1'I1..!.:I S
-< ';: EI -= >.
110I 110I = ell
1>100<"-
- '¡ 1:1
=..!. ::I ~ .
.-C=~ ' I . , , I I , I I , I , I , "-
~¡;;¡== 9999999999999999 C"I
_~<~_ fA fA fA fA fA fA fA fA fA fA fA fA fA fA fA fA 0'\
~
-
~
i ~ ~
.~,¡e ~
~ ë ~ -<
1>1",,,- c
o
OJ
_ \0 N N It") If') ::c
N- 1:1 oooOOOOOO-NOoooo 0 ra
=-¡s If') 0'1 0'1 0\ 0'1 0'1 0'1 0'1 0'1 N N 0'1 0'1 0'1 g 0'1 ._
CI#:=........ _O\O\O'IO'IO\O'IO'IO'\N'..,PO\__O\O\ ra
,> ï: = «I ..... ~ r--~ ~ ~ ~ r-: ......" r-: N r--:........... t--~ r---" >
..c ~~~ fA fA fA fA fA fA fA fA fA fA fA fA fA fA fA fA ('tI
~ ~ w
- ~ ~
- Q,J "CI -...
~.L.. ... 110I, «I = .-
- ~ ~._.. = ~
eJ\ ......... ';;:ec~ >
r~ 110I110I== ~
O·~ 1>100<"- -
~ ~
Zs -~ §
t......... = 1:1 .-
~ - I C -
UQ .!'e;=- t'--1fì1("¡1.I")V)1t")lr)1£)1t")("'--I""}'rIt--t-V)'rI ~
!iJ ;t::¡;;¡..... M \0 IC 1,,0 1.0 \C \0 1.0 \0 or) 0\ \0 "<t o::t \0 \0 .....
; =c,¡,== N________o::tN_NN....._ .;:;
_{ 'J<~ fA fA fA fA IA fA fA fA fA fA fA fA fA fA fA fA <J')
c
... U 0
rI)rI) ... ~ u
~ ~ 1:1 C
Q~ .~õia 0
> ~ '"
~~ &!'::o': ]
~ ~
... M_ 0000 'w
'-0 N N N N N N N NON M M N CLJ_
-< ......._~ MO\O'IO\O\O\O'IO\O\\OO\O'IOO~O\ ?J'ro
00 ~ _=¡;;¡ '-0 \Q '-0 \0 I..C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ 6 6 ~ ~ -E
( 'j~ ~~"S~ O'I~'¿'¿'¿\C~'¿'¿\C~'¿- .¿__~~.¿ e._
~ ; ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ e~
( 'j = ~~
( 'j '" _ 0 OJ
-< ~ 'g -; = Õ .~
~ .~·.!.::I5 0>
....... ;¡.. 5 æ .... ....... ~
&!JJ < 0': ~
OJ .
cCO
.- '"
-;1:; -:~
-; '::Ie 0)-
'-'i=~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ N N ~ ~ ~~
~~=~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ s:: s::; ~ s=; :¡: ~ ~ U
~r.n<~ ~~~~~~~~I:A~{,F .EA~fAl:A~ ~~....J
~¿; ~
....::=- õ:= ~
[S ~ 1;; C 9
1U~ o~ ~
.~-;.:'Ie ue D
t.: "'" 'Ie "'C 3 5
,,~~ ~o <
'" c 0
... E ~ z
= 4:Þ ~ ''¡::; e LLJ
~_. 000000000 ~\Oooooo VI~f..J
Sell O"! \OOOOOOOOOoI.OO~~oO (l)VI..r'
._ .... ¡;¡ .. t"- t"- t"- t"- t"- t"- t"- t"- 0 ~ ("'\ t"- 0 0 r- t"- e....-&
~.~[S~ "¿~~...¡~~~~..,¡~~~~~~~~"'¡~r-:~~"'¡ o~ u.J
~ _u~ ~ {,F . EA EA ~ EA EA ~ fA EA ~ ~ EA I:A fA EA "'Cu ~
"J OJ~ -
"<I!I; -= -= VI e tJ
_ N u u n:I ._ Z
.. 0" ._.- CO u- "'
-Q,1 §cd "'CI !a;:"" (o: g 55 w
~ S .!:::J e 'E ti ~ ~ ~ .D 8 ..2 V) "2 0" ~ -= -= ~
~ ~~~~~8æÆ~~8g~~gg ~
. ..
.. I
-
ª~ _ _. M ~ ~ ~ t"- 00 ~ 0 - N M ~ ~ \0
;I ~ '" - - - - - -
-<
l
~ . ,_... -..-..-,..- "....~."~,----
'" ~
~ ..
.!3 -; e
~ ~ ...
~ .. ..
u == ¡... ""
-
:E ;; '-C\O\l:I;!
._ M =_ E! o::t o::t 'Of" f""I
..s:::::: Q,I '.CS~ N N N ~
.>< ;;.. '¡ = I I a\ a\ O"Ï ~
~ ::: _~=- €A óA €A '^
..
=
t "0 -....
- ~. «I 1:1
- .... = e
< 'tEã~
=:J5<1f
_ I ëii 1:1
.! 'ë ~ E , I , , r--.:
~Q,I=~ 9999 ~
_oo<~_ €A €A €A €A ~
-
"0 .... ~
~-=e 00
.- «I ~
~ ë ~ «
~~~ c
o
Q)
.... M ~
N -;_~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~
OJ;.!.... 0-.0-.0\ C'tI
~ !~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
-.-.I ; Q)
- - ~
- C ,) "CI -....
I.Å .;::: ~ I = 1:1 .-
- ~ --=e ~
=" ....... '> e 1:1 ..... :>
. rl'\ Q,I 110I = «I ""C
O~ ==00<"" -
~ ~
Z,..;¡ _ ~ g
~ ~ «11:1 .-
U~ :¡..!.=e V"I tr:I Vi t- U
[¡j .,,:5=..... 1..0\0 \0 M :J
;¡ =1IoI~œ _ _ _ N ~
_oo~~ €A €A €A €A ~
c:
... U 0
0000 .".... U
ÞOO-I Q,I 1:1 c
~E-4 '~'E~ 0
~Z ~~= ~
Z~ "" ~
~S; ~ N N N \C g1~
,.,. -< _ -; _ e! 0\ 0'1 0'1 M C'tI \'tI
II..J. "". OJ'- «I ;;;; 'C \0 1..0 \C +-' E
(I.) ,.... ..:t:: ~ ~ ,,¿ \O~ 'li 0\ r::: .-
~ ;: ~~ø.. ~ €A 'iA 'iA Et::Q)
,~ .. ~
IIJ = --c
00 t"CI _.... Ow
-< _ Q,I .= a·~
:( '~'-e'æe O~
;;.. =..... -
~~<~ ~~
Q) .
c:CO
.- '"
-;~ ~~
3~=e V"I tr:I tr:I N (1)-
:t:: e 1:1..... M M M 00 Q..J:
cQ cco MMM"d" -.:tu
_CI)<=- €A 'iA 'iA 'iA CF'I ~ ...J
~~ ~
~~ o~ <
=«1 _- Q
1U~ ~§ ~
.~ ";j.5.¡c U c: ~
t.::""'''' ""C~;Ç
==~~ 20 <
'" c: 0
_ E~ z
e !! ooooo~ "-5:SLU
e -; «Ie 0 0 0 \0 00 CLJ </') ~
rIJ :ct:'.CiC t-" 1:-" 1:-" t'-... -.:t" ct:: õ!
rlJï:¡="" '<t'<t'<t\O oow
~_u~ 'iA'iA'iA'iAJA ..........ULU
rIJ ....._ Z
~ Q) ro -
........ </') c L:J
-; œ B ~ü: z
=~ ~6'g.fá ~
E-c a ::ö -= ..c:: ~ :¿
Z= o~.~Q) 0
==",a¡== I
* -;-:
* * I
-
~:;t r-- 00 CI'\ 0 '3
fIJ - - - N 0
-< ¡...
~
u"_"_"_"__..__"___
U .,; 0 . >-- ObJj = c::
.-:: ~z ~ t:: ~ ~ c:: « ~
'" Q) ~
..c Q) Q) a. Q) Q),ç 0
>-. >-0-'" ..r::. .- ~ c::
..c:: o § ~ Q) -- 0-'"
>< 00." -... '" o c::
u.J ~ .- o '" -... '"
- ~ Q) '" ,,0
-... c:: r;; <J>
o Q) -.....c::
,,- 0-0 c:: Q) .-
oE Q)c Q)~ c:::=:
" E .- Q) ~ := '"
'\: -- ~ a.
Q) 0 .2'~ ~ .J::ç <l.J ïJ
-
o.c:: Q)Q)2 _ <J> o.c::
'" 0 o...c:: c:: '" ~ o'¡::
'"
~ .- - Q) ~u 0"-
Q)- C'tS~+-, E u .,¡~
>.2 <J> '" 0 ~11:
o 0 ~ ~ '" c:: ~
~<J> Q) 0 E c:: Q) "" 0
E~ ð E '" > -"'U
~ Q) 0_
'" ~ <J> Q) '"
c:: Q) ~Q)~ OJ -5 .
c::..r::. E - Q) _ c::
0.._ è '" .-
",- ~ c:: ..r::. .- Eu...
'" '" ~
~ c:: c:: Q) 0 õ"~U .- "
'" Q) .- c:: >- " Q) 11: Q)
u.J 0.- C'tS ¿, Ol) ..."'C.....c Q) .~
> ~ 'ü ~ ~ c:: '" Q) - - >
~ o c:: Q) .- t:;~£ <J> Q)
" '" 0.Q).Ç 0e<:
-< 1=tí(3 Q) Q).- u
..c:: .- W ~ ~
Z -- Q) .
~_ rtI
co= - o 0 '" _c::_ ..r::. ~
<J> >- .!: ~ c _-"1
.... ~..c " 0 C::O
:. - Q)
~" -" " <J> E 0"
'" c::
-< c:: Q) Q) . 2·- Q) "Q)
l- .- > >-- trí '" >- Q) Q)-
"0 -"'~ ",t:~ <J> 0
Z c:: .- E Q) bJj "'..c::
c:: ~ o:-Q-
.... '" a. a.'" ..c ~
~ _a. +-' rtI ~ "'0- Q) - .
'" '" <J> a. '" u I.... ~ -<J>ü
~ .9- Q) Q) <J> U U a. ~ '" Q) Q)
àJ'- U '" Q) "'C ~._
u- -cQ)w
~ c:: '" _~o Q) Q) 0
.- " c::- c: -£ "'C -Dca.
.... ~ Q) ._ c:: I.- '" Q) '"
0 o...r::. - Q) Q) . <J> 0 <J>
~U <J>E>è r;;Eo --Q)
Z ~V'J"'C ...... V"J Q).- 0...- +-' c::::::: _
C::<J>..r::.U .- +-' C Q) 0 Q)
0 c:: _ Q) Q) Q) U U .- E " "õ.
Q) c:: .= E <J> .- Q) c:: Q) ~
~ E Q) '" <J>..c::..c:: .¡::£ 2 ~Q)E
~ >-E<:r >-« ~ - a. _ c:: 0.,,0
'" ..c::
Q2 \'t1 >- ~ Cl. ctI ..._ ::<'tIQ) c:: U
a.", +-' "'C.- " '" ~
u _ a. <J> -0Q)~ c:: ~- ~O.8
'" '" .- ~'=-t::- Q) 0 ~
.... '" Q) - E E E .- 10... U
c::..c:: c:: c:_WC > c:: '"
Q c:: - Q) c:cu-Q) >-~ ~ Q) '-
'" <J> E ",o.~E '" Q) <J> wQ)'E
..L'- Q) .1.. 'ü C'tS OJ Co....... Qj ..c::..co
E .~ ~ Ec:~Q) Q) ~ c:: _ Q) U
.- ~ c:: '" ~ ->- '"
Q)..c:: bJj Q) '- trJ 0.0 o ~ 0 c:: rc ''¡::: ><
(/)1-'" rJ') c.. ._ ro ~...c: c: '"
Q) <J> '" §
~ Q) Q) '"
a. -='! E 0
ê ra .- ~
>-
E ~ <J> 0
'" .- z
"'_..c:: w
~ N M 00: LJ
u.J u.J u.J U"", ;;¡
> > > w
w
l- I- ~ z
« « i3
z
Z Z Z v; w
e<: e<: e<: ¡¡¡
.... :;¡
u.J u.J u.J l-
I- I- ~ 0 0
....J ....J :;
« « « z Ï
1
._....n ..-. --... ..--.----.-..--.-.-.-
{ 0
- --- - - -.- - on __.nn
..
~... ç ... ExHIBIT D
L&.I' ~
..
¡ Ii" Ii
..
it
..
,I Ii" Ii
I ~
i it
Ifi ¡.. Ii" Ii
~
.... .. it
ë .. ..
Iii ~ w
~ !il II! Ii 0 ~ g g 8_ 8 § 8
>C~ ;¡Ii!ti i - ~ ~ ~ ~ g ~ !5~:~1!-g g¡1:!j
tiS E!iã ~ .... - ~ .~~!si $I~
> f iIi~Œ it ,æn. .,.ª''' .. iiI
~w ~~i~§ i ~
5 ffi h g g § 0 0 § i § § ~ð'~ ~ ~ ~~;
::IE ..w \j¡ 0" ","~'"'' ~-"
~~ ;¡d~~~ - ~ ~ '!j ~ Ì5~iij¡¡~ ~.~~
>-0 !5Œi3 -g'-e1!- n.!;,1r.
t:1I: ....0 ",:it::-~ a:"a;
(,)II.,,¡¡¡ 1:!'i i!! ~'x Z.<:j¡¡
i!!i i ~j!: ~.lIlg§.2 ~:¡¡y
~ i ~i~il ~I~ ~
~ 8 n.ioS' ~_ii! 8
~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ i ~ ~, i f~~ J t . î i ~ ~
w .. g ~ ¡;¡ ~ >~ :2 ii! If. ~ ~ J! ~ _ 1! '> g
1 ... CII.!I!,,~i! 0..2 1:!
~ ¡:: oS >< .e >. ! .6 ª' Iii
J ~ ~g!8.°l- E
I ~ -ëi!~.~:g:grU §
!i ~ ....~ ::>;;;~o>-.~1iS",I/'''' i
¡ 0 uw>, ~-~t:: -
! .... g õ"~;;;ë~"8.~ :2
1 ~ .~~ði~~~·6õ1 §
i õ ]í ~ .:" g¡ m 1:1 i õ ~
c z ~~(- ð~a a;
a ~ [ ~, ~ ~~ !' ~ §. £
¡¡¡ ~ E (} - ,~ ~.. ~ ..
~H i ~i~~¡:2~~ ~ 51 i ¡
f. _z_O>::> Iii"&. 0> .
. ~ n."CII Ë" N
~ ~ t.. .q ." ~ g ï ~ I ~ ~ ~ í
~ ~ { 1 " I! ~ Hh¥lUH~~ I
~ ~ ~ 'i.'" ~ g ~ i! ~ 0 ~ ., ~!;, 8. ~ 'S
': i!i ¡;; c!: oS ~ ~ !i! 0: .. ~ t-n..1J l~ ~ 'II
¡":I ~ õ \Ii ~ .§ 2,~2'!51iE~"å5
eo (/ Z w.... _1:1 n.,,'_....§.~
_ _ _ ì!: > II. ¡!: ~ ," ·w e :2 S. æ
ð ~ :U:'I!. ~ ~ r 1 ~
t
___. II
- ---- --
-------
: ex t-f ( BI T f)
"I
"I
,
)
j
;¡
'"
~ g
d. ~ ~
z ~
.¡;
. -
,~ t. ë-
¡ <:i ,
~j ~ ~
.'~ ~ ~
~ ~
" 8 ~
. ~
J ~= .
. 0
'i'~;; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ð?
,- Q.... >- >- >- ;.. >- >- >- >-
'i ·15 E ; - u... u... u....... u... ..... u...
¡ ~ßo
¡;i)
-'"
~,~:; Q: Q: ;;. ¥, ~ 8. g
· 'g ö;... >- >- ;;- >- >- >- >-
: ~ ~ - u... u... u... u... u... ... u...
· ,
~ ! <
20 Q C C C Ä ~c c 02 0 0 0 0 <:) 0 ç,
: §' ~ (5.................... 1'1 (! ~...... ..... 0.'1($ ................. VI..... VI VI
· ¥' ".
' :~'- & &~ ~
,~ : u... ~;:; "" ~ ~
~. ~
01' x 0 ceo 0 <:;) ::;? ;020 c 02 Coo 0 0 0 0
0<:>::;( ::5.................... ..... ~ 15...... VI .....(5 VI VI ..... VI VI VI VI
'"~, - - 8 g
'~ ;:';;,q >- 2"!j ,~: v~ ,,.-:
'~ ~ ìt u... ~;:; ;; VI ,::;¡
~ 0
,,~ 8~, "'''~, x 0 00 Q Q X ;;;00 Ox ° 0 0 0 0 x x
0::5 -'õ?"'"' <3................ VI...... 15 ðVl VI Vlð ..... VI VI VI...... Õ 15
~~~i1i !:1~ 8.;;; g g g '" -'
"' i':" 8 0 >- 0, "-- 0
:>7-"'~ t:u...~'" - ..; VI VI N
;;.¡,;.... :,..' VI VI VI VI
, :s ~ >- "- 'ª -. _ 0 0 x x 0 '" '" '" '" '"
'" :.J L'! i¡'¡ ~ ...: ~ ~ ð...· VI""; Vt..... 8 g;;;:; ..... VI IS Õ ~ Õ Õ ¡s Õ Õ
:t:>:> ~ 0..... c· o' 0' 0' 0 r: \r; <r,"....; o¢ -.i
Uo¡¡; g 0:;0- 0.. 8 coo v-, -r, .......... [_ <>Q 1"1
u...C::o..<:: c..;" 2....: ,...., V) VI VI VI VI VI ...... VI
" 0e;;!.LI;: ~u... Q.. "" VI v; Vi
' ~"It '
~ ¡::...J2~ ~O:~ § § § § § § § §§ § §§ :;::;::;: :;::;: :;: :;:
u~o_ z._ .,.., , " . ,_
~¡;G: .';..f =~:J,~ ~~ <', Ë~r;~~
0. : u...:t ..... ...... ..... VI ............... VI
; "s. 51 51 5' s:;;¡ 7, :;;;;¡ ;;; "" '" '" :;: 51:;: :;: :;:
-2 , ~
!:i Cl,...,,-,
~e¢:;:
~ u...
~ <
.... cr,
t! ;::j
;.. ;;..
~t1 :.-: ~:/. 1.1) :..- '/1 X :..- x X
¡ ~ ~ :.:: <' < ,< ~ ,-c :r: '< -..¿" < < -:: _ ,..,
.~ ;::> 6 /1 '. ,/,;' ¡;::; t;;" ;' ,/, I;; =:¡ v, ~ 7 ~' :r:
' ~VI ~ F d:~ 'S:: -;;r: ::i:.';::2 ;; P -c ,--; ~ _, :-
-' - 'f, '" '" VI ç,... ,./"¡ ,r, '"' v '-' '-' v :-.J
ê ê § ê §§i§§§§§
:'1 "'; ~., 0 ,.: ....; ,n' cr: -: ,.-)
:' - .Q r-, 'r, 'r, r-- r-- r- "" ,_
*II (j - M VI "~ VI VI VI VI VI t5í ....
~; VI VI j, '3 VI
:::¡- ~
.
, ~
: 0:; ,~" c~ ~/_~;; ~" ~ ¡:; ~ 0
~ ~ t- '/'. -;: '" '.-: ,<":I - ;:. ,'" x;/ '/ ;..: .
~ ¡; . ~": /, ... - :r. _..: ::.. "'.2 f;:: ~ :.¡ 0 __
iï: '"",..., ," C ,... .~ <":I i. r'J <":I _ '?
--- -J '"" -' c ;; ¡;; -: : ......:s .... ~.c .c.c ~ "1:1 C
it 0 < 2 ,;: ":;"-."::: r- ,'" ~ y :x:::.. ~ Po. Po.::.. .!:: '- C
0:: X P.. ç '" "'ª:.., ~ VI / Q/. c: c:: v;:; ¡:: ~]
~ '" 2: E E - '" ~ § (. ~... :;:::: -::: < --:: <i v_~
9.' - ?; ~¡;~ 0Ë ';;E _ ... ~ ~~ 'i" '"".:.: ... aC
u ~ ;: 2 =:'/', i ,E ..2 :'l] .£ .2.2 ,.g .f
'-' /. c>::.. "",:"" r-':" ::::::: VIP.. ::r: c::¡::::: C ,.... ¡::'
~ ~ "
. ~ ~ ,=~; :: 3 c, 5" ~ ?i
~ ==2 -:; ''/. ç,/; ¡;:t;;,/',~~
Ie
.,.._.___m_.___~
"~""'" "--'''''' "'~'~-'~=-~.
,
~
eXH 'BIT E.
~ VI "'Ê moo
Ñ tw: ~ ;; ~ ~ d
- !:o ¡¡: oo .. ~ ¡: ;c oo
- - 5 Oz:; ::Ez
:I.... rIJ ~~ Ww 0, ~.
o ::Ea ~::E ~ 0
o I:II:W ~
~ e. c..~ 1:1I: m;
~~ ::E 1:1I: c.. I
1.1 ~ !i ò!i !<
~~ ~~ ~~
E ... " ~. 1;; !:! Ii: oo
. ~ ~æ~ <~ ~~
~ ! ~~" ~u H~
rIJ ~<~ u< ~i
~ <1:1I:0 W , M .
~ c..~o %~ WI
ò ~ - - ~ ~t;~ §~ ::
w ~ ~~ö u~ 0
~ 0g o ',., ðØl
. C .~~ w,., ~
" U I~U< 0<
" .... w.... ~
-\ § d
. ,., %
= ~ ~
~~~ ~ ;
e ~ ~ (II
rIJ W m I
Oz %
~~ ~ rIJ :
tI " ~ .. .... ;;
~ "' <~ t!! 15¡¡ 6 .. S
. 'I %: .. 0
W -L =
o "
~ I I
=
13 .__~.
IV-
--,....---
~
- .
55 000 on 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I('¡ MOO 0 0 oc 81 ~
St 1.0 ~ OOIt"'lO\OIr\(,,\ NOOOOOOO I"') r""¡oooo \C g E)(H-I T F ~
.... 0\ ~ OOV1-~":t""" OQOO\l"lOtrl...... 10 ltiOOOO 0 ' ' ....
4= -.. ::; !2 ó":;'¿ö ....; ~OÓN~~ ~ "r-:r-:r-: ~ ..,¡ó.,:;.¿.r; N" <'f~
o - ¿: (J'J ~ N - N f""I - - - ~ f") - '<t" N - g ,.. q
~ 0
~ -
~
o
LIJ)o)o ~ 00 t'ooooooooooo f'- 0
~!<== t:;!j ~qC'!f"'1o;o;o;qo;o;o;o;o;qo; g8:~
UJ Q æ æ c ¡¡¡ 00 _OV"lNMOV"lOOV:lOOO ";Ò"';",
~ ~¡j Ç,,)~ g..g.. g.. ~SlSl M_~N
....!!:! zoon - rt'Ir---t'-- r-
reû ~~N- 8;..
~!:: ~cnu..u..u..u.u..u..«u.t.t.<CI: tI) ~ $
~ ..J...J en V'.J ...J tI) ...J cn uJ uJ ...J ..J uJ ...J ...J r- "'..J.
o
...
~ ~ 0000 0 0
- r--r-- 00 00
~ cncnO\O\OO\\C~N~OONcniZ
« ..J...J .. .. -.:r \,Q 0\.... ..J ...J
~ ;;;I NN \C M
~ ¡... OOI("'¡OOOOOOOoooo II'< M 001'
Z OV'l\O NNOO 000 I('¡ \C u..
;.:¡ 0000 V'\ 00 OV'lv) II"¡ MOO"
~ 52 a-,"oöô "oÖÑa:: r--"I"".fr--" vi a:: V"-:
~ M ¿ - -- - '" - - v
~< - Q.
~ 00
~ ~;;;
~ ~ 0 1:'""'00000000000 r- II'"'"
(o¡ ONMOOOOOOOOOOO r.I) r-...
t- .c::< (.¡ ci....:....:d..,..;~~d..,..;oò..,..;odci 0 1Ie'"
tIIIIII( ~ f g - g ~~~ U ~
r~ ~!: ~ .. M'Ñr--" c:: ~ II
-..l 5 ~ ~ .§ ]
~ r.,., ~ ~ > ~ ~
h """ \,,) i:: 0 -< to, ~
~ _ t: tn(J",dJ".t.t.U.t.t.u...«u..U.<"'''' ~ rJ:J ..j &
CI:! ~ ~~ ...JCl'.JCI'.J.....JCI'.J..JtlH.JJIJJ.....J.....Jt.tJ.....J.....J õ~.....
~ ~ Q... - -¡g ~
, ~ _ -::::u"
""~ ~ ... "'~ ..J 0v s
Q t."'IIII ~ ç.::t: \C\C 00 ..( ~Oß ~
~ Q... ~ Cl'.JNN ~~NO N CI'.J <....... ...·e ~
~ L k .....JMM 0 ~.....J ~ ~
~ r~ 1:""1 < ["'0. r-: CI'. \C M 0 ..... >
"<::.: -,J ~ 1; ... ¡;;; -< ~
..... i::ì ~ 6
~ C ~ ~ 00000000000000 ~ 00000 0 ~
\:) r..; ;Z 0 0 0 M 0 '" 0 0 0 QC N 0 0 0 0 0 Q.
~ > '!"".J. :;¡ 0 0 ["'0. ~..,. ~ '" 0 0'1 N 0 0 0 0 N ~
~ ~ r \ ~ e ô'¿r--:'o M -"-: o.rî iii" "'''O'''''''\C''o.rî r--:' :S
l>~ "-J ~ "" N -N ..... __-.:tN_ ~ a::
~ ~ < - ~
to¡ .... "<: Eo. !@
~ ~ ~ t;,I') 00 r-oooooooooo f"- 0..,. 0 !:!:I
~\:) ~ QtJ ~~~C"1~~~~~~~~~~ ~8:~ ¡... w
"V ~ ~ ~ U ¡ 00 O"'NMOII')~II')OO ";ÓN"vÍ CI.:I ~,
~ ~ t'.j '" 88 8 ~8 M_..,.N 0 ;
~ C tI) ~ O\C" -: t"'ÎvÎ U :I
h ~~ ~ON ¡:>
~ ~ ~!: CI'.J{/)u..u..~u..¡.¡.u..<..(u..¡.¡.<Cl'.Jcn _.......c
\..) ~ ~ u ~ .....J..JCl'.JCI'.J.....JCI'.J...JCl'.Jt.tJu.¡...J..Ju.¡...J...J U èì3
..J
..... ~ N N -<
~ cnCI'.J~~OO 00 enen 5
~ < ..J.....J..;~,,~::;s =:=:...J...J ¡...
o __
'"
~ 'Êc ~~ ~
00 "'- ~
~ 5; ~~ z
> Õ II) ~o 'õ;'
[~, e CQ Õ 11"I '" >. . "'¡) .-
I'IIIiIIII c...~ Nil') t:::=-~g~(Õ'
Eo..... ~oocaIl"lO......
I:'< _::::IrJJ N g-C(~c..t!-~
c c \C a-. t,I ... ð.. -t!- _Z
õ~o =:~ ] c.. ~ Q
Q.. ~< ~ 16 2 ¡... =->- ¡-.
::. C!) t,I _... 0 ca _ ca< <
'n ~ ë -- .. > U» ~
~J2~ ~ t,l 2: ~ - ~~ ZC2
0'" E !Co< 00 1L1u.. 00
c0"'O ~ b >. ~ í;; ~o f=u..
o c c e ..... cc J!i 0 1L1¡-. U
'Z'- cø Co :; ~"'¡) 'ª § u ~::c IJJ ¡-.
cø ~ II) E '" ~ ã ~ c .~ '':: '20' t:: r.... B; ~ "'C
=¡-o - ca-¡:::"'"c..... cc or.;...,~""" ~ ...
5 ë. OÐ ~~";jð~8"Q):S 0 _ë2 a::E- 7
:act'O _.S..... -e~~ Uc~ '5 £: cnu.. o:!3 6-
_OZ ~.'E 5 ..u::lV5...IL1t3Q)~å ~ u u.¡o zO :::
"" elt) _......,u ~- -( ...
~ - u.J Q)"'e:::'-Io.o,-e::~,.::.¡:lo.oõ"O ex:: Uzz ,,"'z -¡
..J 10.0 > 6hoooo~.5°~ã ~ u.Jo""" ~
¡... 0 :e~!:icccco.....Jco rn "'~ a:::;: s:
~ -. . e·g·g·g ,g u c .g U § Z Z en Z >- ~ ¡::
!- ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ u ~ Jg Jg ~ V¡ .;; Jg ~.'§ 0 ~ S '" ~ {/) ~
~ eèaJ«u~~~~)(ö~l5~ ~ ô8~"~ ~
..., 3r.,= - - Ucccc- - c~'" -< u............=>....... "'C
o ...........OC'V\CQ..____Noo:r_r-c.. ¡... ...........CI'.J........ 5 tí!
æ: g - N M ~ '" \C r- ~ ~ a-. =: - N M:! ~ ;! I~ ~
,-.........-.....-..........------.-..----
~x /-1I13IT F
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a CO ....
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a '"
cø ¡¡;
. cD ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ci cD <Ó ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ci cri CO !::!
....~ r!) a a a a a a a a r!) r!) a on on a a a a a r!) ..¡ N
~~ ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... a '" ..... a a ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... 0
cD -<i -<i -<i -<i -<i -<i -<i -<i M cD -<i ¡-: ¡-: -<i -<i -<i -<i -<i cD ....
(J ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ~ ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ....
... .,.
IJJ
(! ('oj
~~ N a a a a a a a a C) C) a on on a a a a a N ('oj
",<te ..... on on on on on on on on '" 00 on ..... ..... on on on on on ..... C'!.
O~ ~
a: ....
N CD ~
~ '" ~
C) ~ N C)
~ ~ ~ 00 ~
C) N N 00 ~ C) N
C) C) a a
« r!)
« « C) '" « C)
l) ~ C) l) ~
l) l) C) C)
I- "' '" ó ó « « '" «
U '" ¡¡¡ l) ¡¡¡
'" i'! OJ OJ l) l)
0::: :> OJ OJ '" :>
<:( ",,, 0 0 l'i l'i
IJJ " '" .c '"
l- I- ~- a: .. :; c: c: '1:: :J :; .¡::
CIJ Q ~ .t:: '" '" 0 c: .t:: 0
Q '" l) CJ) CJ) CD 0 l) CD
Ci) C "" E
~ .~ (! e ~
- '" :::
::- I- ::;¡ " 'It. (
- i'! ...: :J
Z ¡::!2 "" m 0 c:
:1;;1; OJ OJ
W CI)~ " OJ ¿ c:
::¡: - OJ '"
LlJ2 - '0 II) ..J
UJ OJ OCUJ
<:( CIJ ~ "" II)
OJ ..... '" m
c CIJ l- e. Q .... - ~Q .... II) 0 0
-i E C) CJ) ~ .SJ
WW - ..... .t:: c: 00 c: '0
:::> CI) 0 - "'- x '" ~
t/)t/) 0 CI) x .... ~ 0 CD ~
0 0 '" <!)CI) CD
:r:: OCIJ OJ CD z
a..« t).!: 00 on 0 ~ C)
0 on ;b.... ..... '" ~
ü ~ .... ..... a.: on ~ 00
0 W >-:8 0- .... C)CI) 00 ~ '"
0::: ::> - CI) I!!
0::: OJ '" q:
a.. z '" UJ N õOJ
OJ ¡¡; OJ UJ .t:: II) o c:
:§~ c:
LL W !::! ~ c: '" 0 OJ -;:
'" c: 1:: N .¡:: :c OJ a
> '" N C OJ OJ
0 _0 " E '" 'E ~ a '::; :J .t:: 0 ~~
« m ::;; 0:::
~~ 1ii :J .!!1 0 0 ~ c. -OJ
~ ~ OJ II) ¡¡¡ ãi '" - C:c.
0 N I- '" OJ ~ 0- '" '" II)
t/) ãJ E CT cj ::;; 0 .<: II) :J ,ge
ILl ~ '15. 0::: II) :J ~
ujgj ..,j <Ii ~ 0 ¡¡¡ ~
~ :1;-' OJ :; i:ñ e OJ I- OJ en -; .¡:: OJ '" I- ~c. I
>- >- '" ..,j ..,j c: c: >- :J OJ OJ I
~"b --, ~ >; OJ I- ~ ~
« c: ~ '" OJ '" ~ ~ .9 I- c..t::
0:8 '" cð '" '" .!!! :c .¡:: .t:: 'E
I- '0 ~ ~ OJ .c .2: --, OJ '" c. cð c: a-
0 '" E w '" '" ~ m '" a >-
'" "" .t:: '" cð .<: ::;; ãi '" ~õ
tl m ~ '" J: C3 0 l) cð 0 CD ...: ::;; 'E I-
- '" - cð '0 CD J: a Ü 0 CJ) u.. -a,þ
Z ~ cð OJ cð cð a cð ci > <9 ..,j cð '" .SJ (/)
Ü ill c. l) '0 --, OJ cð -; .g 0 u.. Eß"=
¡,j a OJ en 0 c: ~ 0::: c: c: --, c: 0
~ -; 0 '0 --, _ .c
'ë II) N <!) c: '" a 1:: 1:: OJ '0 C. '" (,,) o ,(ñ
I- '" OJ '" ~ '" E õi c: II) E '0 E OJ OJ .c ~ a c:
OJ "" 'S; .t:: -c:
0; 0 E ~ '0 >- c: '0 C. ~ ~ .c .c .¡:: >- II) a
II) '" 0 a '" a a '" a '" '" 0 a OJ OJ II) OJ C
E!:. :J '" 0 C3 '" :J as a c.
w --, --, --, l) ..J 0::: 0 0::: <!) Z 0 J: 0::: 0::: J: <!) 0::: Z 011) a;
0( = OJ
'" ~ s:
~ OJ
OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ :J: OJ.<: en
¿ ¿ ¿ ¿ ¿ ¿ ¿ ¿ ¿ ¿ ¿ ¿ ¿ ¿ ¿ ¿ ¿ ¿ - >- '"
OJ I- a OJ ~
'" - ~
~ OJ C) c: ~
II) II) II) II) g¡ II) II) II) II) ~ II) II) II) II) g¡ g¡ II) II) II) êi5 '" '" 0
"" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" Z c:- z
'" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" êi5 '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" ~
Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c: W ajg
Q
"" II) a ...J '0-
c: c: c: c: c: c: c: c: c: OJ c: c: c: c: c: c: c: c: c: ~ OJ II) z
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ e. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ OJ ...J II) E :5
'" E '" OJ a.
¡¡; Z W 0( .c~ >
a a 00 CD .... a a r!) N ~ C) on ..... ~ '" on ..... '" I- ~ c: 0
on .... '" '" '" '" N ~ ~ on a a ~ N '" '" '" '" .... a 0 m.Q ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '" I- J9õ
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N W
II) :J W
8~ z
r!) ..... 00 C) a ~ N '" .... 00 ~ N '" on r!) ..... 00 C) a ~ _c: <3
~ ~ ~ ~ N N N N N N a a a a a a a a ~ ~ g¡ 8 z
ã: N N N N N N N N N N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
N N N N N N N N N N '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" 3;!<IJ
"" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~£ :;
C) C) C) C) C) C) C) C) C) C) C) C) C) C) C) C) C) C) C) C) 'C~ 0
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1:42 :;
CD CD r!) CD CD CD CD CD CD CD r!) CD CD CD CD CD CD r!) r!) r!) :i
.
((p
,.____. _~__~_____.___",_u
E=XHIBJT c¡
COUNCIL POLICY
-""".
, '-~ CI1Y OF a;uLA VISTA
, .
Sl1B.JECT POLICY EFFECTIVE P."E
NLMBER DATE ,..,
PARTICIPATION BY THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA IN
1911 BLOCK ACT PROGRA!~ PROCEEDINGS 505-01 _ 8-30-63 1 of 7 _
ADOPTED BY RESOLUTION NO. 11373 DATED: 8-30-63
BACKGROUtJD
There are properties wi thi n the Ci ty 1 imits that do not have full street
improvements. In the past, Council has directed the owners of critical
unimproved parcel s to install their mi ssi ng pub1 i c improvements. The 1911
Block 'Act Proceedi ngs were util ized in most instances. As an encouragement
for property owner parti cipati on, the Ci ty has contri buted funds for the
completion of certain items of work (i.e., grading, pavement installation,
etc. ). A1 so, the Ci ty consi stently has contri buted engi neeri ng i nspecti on
and admini strati ve servi ces at no chal1:e to the property owner( s). Ho\~ever,
there is no Council adopted policy regarding City participation in 1911 Block
Act improvement construction proceedings.
This policy is designed to encourage the installation of missing improvements
./' along developed residential lots. It specifically sets City participation
goals tor the improvement of corner, non-corner, and double frontage
residential lots. The pol icy reaffinns City Council intent to require the
install ation of pub1 ic improvements adj acent to undeveloped property
(residential, commercial, and industrial) through the tonnatlon of 1911 Act
Assessment Di stri cts or through the subdi vi si on and buil di ng pennit approval
procedures.
, This policy shall only apply to areas incorporated on or before this policy's
effective date.
PURPOSE
To establish a policy for participation by the City in the construction of
pub1 i c improvements vi a the 1911 Block Act Proceedi ngs (Chapter 27, Streets
and Highways Code of the State of California).
POLICY
The City Council establishes the following policy for Citý participation in
1911 Block Act Program proceedings:
I. General Participation
A. The Ci ty, at no cost to the property owner( s) shall provi de all
engi neeri ng, i nspecti on and admi ni strati ve servi ces n'ecessary to
install missing improvements via the 1911 Block Act Program
proceedi ngs.
17
Form: cn- 90J ':N 0 _ &
R8_~_ ul, ot:'O 00 - . .____ :1 ,'_____=---¡-"--'
-.......-.-.--....-.--.., -
exHIBIT c¡
COUNCIL POLICY
--"
I , CIlY OF 0iU1.A VISTA
.-
SlJRJEcr POLICY EFFECTIVE PAGE
NLMBER DATE
PARTICIPATION BY THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA IN
1911 BLOCK ACT PROGRN~ PROCEEDINGS 505"701 8-30-83 2 of 7
-
AtOPTED BY RESOWTION NO. 11373 DATED: 8-30-83
B. It shall be the Ci ty' s responsibility to relocate all existing
public improvements found to be in conflict with the proposed street
improvement constructi on.. Such improvements shall include, but not
be limited to: street 1i ghts, traffic signal standards, drainage
structures, fire hydrants, etc. -
C. Engi neeri ng staff shall meet i ndi vi dually with each property owner
prior to the program's public hearing to hand deliver initial
correspondence and to explain the p1 ans, proceedi ngs and this
pol icy. Final engi neeri ng plans and project specificati ons shall
reflect as close as practicable, the property owner(s) concerns
provided they reflect standard engineering practice.
D. Prior to the end of each fiscal year, the City Engineer shall submit
- - to the City Council for approval under this program, a. recommended
list of projects for scheduling in the ensuing fiscal year. Funding
for the program shall be detennined annually and shown in the
Capital Improvement Program.
E. City participation in this program shall be limited to developed
parcels that cannot be split into lots or building sites.
II. Developed Residential Lots
A. Non-Corner Lots
It shall be the City's responsibility to overlay or reconstruct the
roadway traveh~ay adjacent to non-corner lots when the trave1way is
a1 ready improved and needs an over1 ay or reconstructi on to
accommodate drainage or traffic safety requirements.
,
The City's responsibi1 ity described above is shown on Figure 1
(attached) .
B. Corner Lots
For the purposes of this policy, the corner lot front lot line shall
be defined to be the shorter of the two adjacent street lot 1 ines.
In the case of a non-rectangu1 ar corner lot, the front lot 1 i ne
shall be the average width of the lot. (See Figure 2).
It shall be the City's responsibility to:
-.
1. Insta 11 curb, gutter, si dewa 1 k and pavement (f f non-exi stent) I
adjacent to 1/2 the corner lot's side street frontage.
1<6
£~_~:~O~_ººI. _1>¡)rL rm-(1& ---"---- .- -+=--
~}(HIBIT c¡
COUNCIL POLICY --....
( -~.- CI1Y OF a-fU1.A VISTA
SIJBJECf POLICY EFFECTIVE PAGE
NlMBER DATE
PARTICIPATION BY THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA IN
1911 BLOCK ACT PROGRAI~ PROCEEDHIGS 505-01 8-30-83 3 of 7 _
AOOPTED BY RESOWTION NO. 11373 DATED: 8-30-83
2. Overlay or reconstruct the side and frontage street's travel way
when needed to accommodate drainage or traffic safety
requ i rements.
3. In the event that there are improvements already existing along
the corner lot's side property frontage already existing, these
improvements shall be credited to the City if they need not be
removed to accommodate the improvements to be installed.
The City's responsibil i ty descri bed above is depi cted on Fi gure 3
(attached) .
C. Dual Frontage Lots
It shall be the City's responsibility to:
-,
1. Install curb, gutter, sidewalk, and pavement (if non-existent)
adjacent to the entire lot's rear street frontage.
2. Overl ay or reconstruct the lot's rear street travel way when needed
to accommodate drainage or traffic safety purposes.
For purposes of this policy, dual frontage lots shall be a lot having
frontage on two parallel or approximately parallel streets, none of which
is an "alley".
III. Developed Industrial/Commercial Lots
The City contribution towards the construction of improvements adjacent to
developed industrial/commercial lots shall be limited to:
1. The overlay or reconstruction of existing roadway travel way areas
when found to be required for drainage or traffic safety purposes.
IV. Undeveloped Residential, Industrial and Commercial Lots
Thi s pol icy shall reaffi nn the Ci ty Counci 1 's intent to requi re the
installation of missing improvements adjacent to undeveloped lots (both corner
and non-corner with and without double street frontages) through:
1. 1911 Act Assessment Di stri ct procedures.
2. subdivi sion requirements, and
Il
..~~':'fIl:CO;g111 W-! 8'oo-og:,j::_. '---~r
EXHI ßIT <i
COUNCIL POLICY -....
~ ",:.
i CIlY OF QiULA VISTA
SlIBJEO' POLICY EFFECTIVE PAGE
NLMBER MTE
PARTICIPATION BY THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA IN
1911 BLOCK ACT PROGRAM PROCEEDINGS 505-01 8-30-83 4 of 7_
AOOPTED BY RESOWTION NO. 11373 MTED: 8-30-83
-
3. building permit approval requirements.
There shall be no City contribution towards the construction of improvements
adjacent to undeveloped residential, industrial and commercial lots. In the
event that an owner peti ti ons the Ci ty for i ncl usi on of hi s/her undeveloped
parcel in a 1911 Block Act Program, all expenses shall be borne by said owner.
V. Applicability
This policy shall be applicable to areas within the Chula Vista City limits on
or before its effective date.
.' WPC 0583E .
.
?-o
Form : CQ~9gl ..peN[C(1-o~ -,
..-..,-.
£xHIBt, q
COUNCIL POLICY
.ì CI1Y OF OiULA VISTA .
( SUBJECT POLICY EFFECTIVE
NLMBER MTE PAGE
PARTICIPATION BY THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA IN
1911 BLOCK ACT PROGRAM PROCEEDINGS - FIGURE 1 505-01 8-30-ß.3- 5 of 7
AIXJPTED BY RESOWTION NO. 11373 DATED: 8-30-83 -
I::
0
.-
>, .....
..... u .
'- "'.....
I II ~ ~ I::
.- ..... '"
I I' .0 VI E
.- I:: OJ
VI o >
I II I . § I u '"
~ I 0.
h. ~I '"
I II ~ '"
;:)1\1 :ij I::
cx: ~ '-
I II \.)\¡¡ ~ 0.....
~ >, VI
..... >,.-
I II ~;:¡ tI) '- '" x
wI ~ '"
II IJ,¡ '"
I ì:::~ > ....
~ ~"IU & o 0
I II ~
"( ,
. o~ , 11/ \¡j ð I
>-
!- I
.... I I ~
.....I
....
-) co , II '"
- I::
VI ,I I .-
z I I:: VI
0 0 VI
0... II . I:: '-
VI I I ! '" e
LU i '" ....
cx: I II i I '" '- ~
I ..... ~
l- I:: '" '"
z I II I 0 I:: .....
LU 1:;>1 ~ .- VI
::;: .... ~ I::
LU::;: '- ~ .-
><t r- ~ ~ '" '"
OCX: I h IU I .- ~ ..... 0
ex:,-" .0 .- I:: .....
0...0 I !I~L .- ..... '"
Zex: ì I VI I:: U -0
-0... I >< \} I:: '" '"
'- IU :t: .J I 0 0 ~
1-1- e. ~ ..... '-
wo VI 0 '"
<t.....l I '" .... ~ CT
I ex: '" '"
><=ex: I " I "'" ..... ~
WLU ~ ~ .....
oz I I '" '" '" "'"
.....lex: " I I:: 3 '" ~
coo 3 '" 0
w I I 0 -0 .... 3
- I 1/ .- 0
-z ~ VI ....
0\0 , 0. 0
-z :!\ ~ ~ -0 '-
I '" I:: ~ VI
0. '" e
0 e '" .
I ~ ~ 0 .....VI
"- '" ~ .-.....
..... .... I::
I /I <!I~ ..... .........; ~'"
/I ~~ '" "'e
'" I:: I:: ..c:",
"'''' .....>
. e..... 00
II ~~ .0 "'VI .~
I ~ >.- ~ 0.
ìD~ '" '" X ~e
I u 0.", "'.-
) 1/
I 1/ . . .
I .... N M
V'H- 0:: "'" LA,U-
u..a:oz.....ccC)w
Form: C~ã9B1 PPH &;0-08 L-J
..-.".
. ~ ." ...
----~ . .--- -..-(
.. .... ExHI BIT cr
..
COUNCIL POLICY
-:) CI1Y OF Q-lULA VISTA·
! SUBJECT POLICY I EFFECTIVE PAGE
NLMBER DATE
PARTICIPATION BY THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA IN I 6 of 7
1911 BLOCK ACT PROGRAM PROCEEDINGS - FIGURE 2 505-01 8-30-83
AOOPTED BY RESOWTION NO. 11373 DATED: 8-30-83 -
Ù 9
II ¡.-1.l.I d
~ ::2~ I
O.J
D:: I II
+('.1 IL' I 'I
d II I 'I
>- J
I- U 'I
-
--J I I J
-
"" J .....
-
V') VI
2: '"
a 3:
Cl. 0
V') ....
W ....
e: 2: '"
a ~ <:
1-1-- '"
2:al-
:..0) W--Je:( .J .<::
:>i: 2: .....
we:_
::>l.J.J:E: ~ VI
az"" '"
""""w "0
Cl. al- -
:Z:UL.:..J '" .
- '" <:VI
c: .~ .....
I-e:(W '+-<:
U--J2: '" 0
e:(=>- "0....
<!)--J '+-
""2: VI
U e:( I- .~ 0
aI-a 3:
--J U--J "'.....
"" w .J '"
e: I- '" Q
- 12: ......<::
-za c-.l <: .....
0'>0"" 0
-z..... -- ....'+-
- .....0
-..1
--
------
------
d
. ,
;,)
...
Form:C~ã9g¡ fPI'I roo·o8' L2-
_.~ --....~-
_m·_~_·~···'"_~n..._.._
Ex.. H IBIT ~
COUNCIL POLICY
.' CllY OF OiULA VISTA
( -
SUBJECT POLICY EFFECTIVE PAGE
NlMBER DATE
PARTICIPATION BY THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA IN
1911 BLOCK ACT PROGRAM PROCEEDINGS - FIGURE 3 505-01 8-30-83 7 of 7
AOOPìED BY RESOWTION NO. 11373 DAìED: 8-30-33 -
..... QJ
~ ~
QJ ro.µ >.
~ 6-g ~O.-6ooI
s... C' C,- '+-OGJ
... <:1;. QJ os<+-
>- rø 00>, eQJ Ero
f-- s:: 'r-U~ Q)""'C COCII
- >¡ 'µUQJ >- ou
...J QJ .µ Utts4- roen -uu
-..c ...... :::I to C. ... to·,...
a].µ ,.... s...o", V) U 'to-
- .......µ.µ oð- ~o'+-
V') Ln ..Q en U ,.... s........1Ci
Z to ..... c:.µ.,... ~QJ +.I S-
a VJ Oc::::4- .........u cn+JI+J
~ '"C (\, s:: U Q) 4- VI s... C c::
V') We ~ a IEta ro OQJoa
1.J.J CV1 ~ C. Q)QJSo.. ..c.. UE
0::: .....µ t· V1 s->.µ s... QJQJaJ
4-c: ..... OJ 1'0 Q.,IQ).J: s...>r:n
I- QJO "I '" ...0.... .......c::..... "''''
z -0... ~" 0 'µ'µOI s...c..c
l.i.J 4- >, C'lQJ :::I c: 0 or-
:E: V') ~ .µ >, c: C'I O'I.Jfll QJ C'I to
l.LJ ·....0 ~ ..... ro....."' .- >.cs...
> 3: t\. U ,.... .µ .. 0) '" or- ""'C
o QJ .µ 'w... i:: s... (/).;: ..Q c: Q) ,- .µ
c::: C'I QJ0r-1'O s...oc S-V)Q)
c..~ rø QJ Ct) > X s... ::s,.....,... cu·.....µ
:E:<..µ..c I't\ OQJ"'O Ura_ >Xro
-ã g..... èi:\tJ OQJ"Q
I-O...<+- ;:, Q . .
- we::: u. 0 r\ ...... .-4 .......
:~ V-t(/) N
uo L 4- I
0-' QJ .~ ...
-' QJ
mer: +-oJ -~ c: .µ
w.J c:n_ c:,.... os... c _
-z c_ OJ..- 'µ-::s QJ _
.- c:: ..... .µ u ro c.µ U to
.::.!. C') . QJ QJ
0)0 ,..------, s... C .µ E--=:I ~ ......
-u I I -QJ ~.....u~ QJ ~.....~
'W - c: .,... _ u c
~ 1,1. II. 0._ :>,«:.~ >~..o :>,«:.~
I\U" n::I "' s... 1'0
'" ~\l¡ 18 :>, QJQJ 3:":':0 0."'::1 3:":':0
;>"" I I)) I .. -0 <: -0 u ..... - U -0 U .....
-0 ...... II ...- '-- 'r- t'O 0 QJ .....
~ ......-...J () .-- ~..... 0 '"0 '"OQJ<1J 1'00
o I ..... 0 r-..J r- So.. 00 Q) .__ U ~ . E ~ "'0
". Q) I .~............. 3:........ -QJ
I ,::¡: '" ..0 QJO OO·~ '" 00'"
1)( I Q .~ .~ ..... .µ....:::I ....., a. ~ ....., .µ .;
,",., - CT QJ QJ
I" I ð \N"µ QJ5-Q) <1JQJ~ QJs..g'
L I Co -. I: s::::::as... '+-..c.:;] COs..
___..J \0 0 f't i.__ .....,..... 10. I
..J V) s... .....-s...~ ~N U -- .
.1..07 ~O .J./'IOèY.:3 & "'0 '+- a. So.. ~ _\N s:::::: ,.....- ~ ~
N C C') O. .-- .to') O.
~ I So.. ra~ S::::::'µ3~ oðC') Q.·c......-V)
......... OJ - o.__s::::::.µ S::::::~E --c::>......
- c: ~ r- -.:.::: t'O '+- c:: ~ O'r- to ~ to '+- C
t :;: .......... QJ.µ So.. ...... a OJ ..........r-..c. So.. So...µ 0 OJ
- 0 ~uc::l'O~ E V)rc~ to'" E
- So.. to a.'r- t.h OJ s... Q.'r- '^ OJ
' ~I'O'µ X5> -_ or-
Ii! <0 ~ s...C.V')EQJaJO s....µ ora 5~@~
\t) So.. QJ '--01'µ5- Q)C:-=~Ol'µs...
~ ~ QJ ~C1>("'<:'~0. ~"'.....u "'<:'~o.
Co c: QJ ~ 0 e ....., C1r- '+- 0 E
'" I I 0 ::10, <:....~ ::I~<:QJ <:....~
~ So.. 0'1..... c:.µ QJ 0')..... QJ OJ.µ OJ
..... ~.... t'OOC::~..r::cn )(r-..c: C'+- co.
4i r:::fY37~.1.07dIYOà9 Q.. ..o'"QJ<:~·~6.;: ..o'"';'QJ3: g¡'~~.;:
..... ........... 5-C:'+-QJQJ V') s...=c:"'O OJQ,I vt
~<: - - '3 -+ B~:,:,~,;::::,~, B g:= i ~.==.~
< ~ .L:3:3è1.LS ~t7.J.IYOð:d ' 0._ '" E 0._ '" S
~ Ç) . . o· .
O')Q¿ ~ N M..... N po)
....~
~ ~ VH- 0: LLJ U.U- V1 f- cr::: &.I &.I ....
u..o::oz......c:(f.:)&.I V').....OLI.I /
Form: CRã9R¡ rPN?Do -O~ 23..__~ u_" .
2'--1_._
EXHIBIT H
BALLOT SUMMARY
TWIN OAKS AVENUE
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 96-01
Assmt Inltlai \,;ost Cumulative Cumulative
No. Name Estimate Yes or No Dollar Amt Percent
1 Yepiz $6.768.00
2 Truman $4700.00 -
3 Zepeda $4700.00 Yes $4 700.00 4.09%
4 Simer $4 700.00 Yes $9400.00 8.18%
5 Willard $4 700.00 Yes $14100.00 12.27%
6 Cook $4 700.00 Yes $18 800.00 16.37%
7 Perez $4 700.00 Yes $23 500.00 20.46%
8 Barbaro $4 700.00 Yes $28 200.00 24.55%
9 Rasco $4 700.00 Yes $32 900.00 28.64%
10 Halley $13 066.00 No
11 Gaps $8 366.00 Yes $41 266.00 35.92%
12 Quinlan $4 700.00 Yes $45 966.00 40.02%
13 MarQuez $7,050.00 Yes $53016.00 46.15%
14 Brown $7 050.00 Yes $60 066.00 52.29%
15 Delphenich $4 700.00 Yes $64 766.00 56.38%
16 Delohenich $4 700.00 Yes $69 466.00
17 Robles $4,700.00 -
18 Montova $4 700.00 Yes $74166.00 64.57%
19 Bishoo $4 700.00 -
20 Reynante $6 768.00 No
Total $114,868.00
. Meets minimum 60% requirement of property owners in favor of forming assessment district.
--- No ballot received from property owner as of 3/27/97.
h:lhome\engineer~anddev\ed961 bal.wq1
Zr
-..-"- --- ..+......._..~._.._...,- ... ._'-"'''._..._-~....
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item~
Meeting Date 4/15/97
ITEM TITLE: Resolution / Õ t 31pproving submission of FY 1997-98 Transportation
Development Act (TDA) Article 4.5 claim for HandYtrans operation funding.
Report on proposed changes to HandYtrans operation effective October I,
1997.
SUBMITTED BY: m=w"fP"büo Wocb ~
REVIEWED BY: City Mmmg,\JC, b<¡J ,;. ~ (4/5ths Vote: Yes _ NoXJ
The City of Chula Vista 1997-98 TDA Article 4.5 claim to support HandYtrans operation was
submitted to SANDAG and MTDB on April I, 1997 as required by State law. A "claim" is an
application for the State of California operating or capital funds for the upcoming fiscal year.
SANDAG issues the claim guidelines during the first week of March; staff prepares the TDA claim
and submits it to SANDAG and MTDB by the April I deadline. Staff then returns to Council in
April for ratification of the claim.
The TDA Article 4.5 claim is in the amount of $73,000, which will fund HandYtrans operations for
a three month period in FY 1997-98, July I, 1997 through September 30,1997. Beginning October
1,1997 it is proposed that HandYtrans operation become part of the Americans with Disabilities
Act ( ADA) Complementary Paratransit Services operated by the County of San Diego in the
Southbay area, which currently includes the cities of National City, Imperial Beach, Coronado,
South San Diego, and portions of the unincorporated area. The ADA Complementary Paratransit
Service provided by one operator in the Southbay area will facilitate compliance with the ADA,
enhance mobility options for eligible ADA Paratransit clients in Chula Vista and in other Southbay
jurisdictions, and will implement recommendations of the Metropolitan Transit Development Broad
(MTDB) ADA Complementary Paratransit Service Plan.
A preliminary discussion of changes to HandYtrans service as a result ofthe ADA was discussed
in the attached report presented to and approved by Council on March 5, 1996 (Attachment I). Also
contained as part of Attachment I are other agenda statements and reports to Council between 1992
and 1996 concerning the ADA Complementary Paratransit Service issue.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council: (l) approve submission of the FY 1997-98 TDA Article
4.5 claim for HandYtrans operations for a three-month period, July I, 1997 through September 30,
1997; and (2) accept report on changes to HandYtrans service effective October I, 1997.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
J':¿-/
.....-...-- .. ._."-_...,.._---~-
Page 2, Item
Meeting Date 4/15/97
DISCUSSION:
BackI!round on TDA Article 4.5 Funded Paratransit Services in the San Die\!o Area
The Transportation Development Act (TDA) was passed by the State Legislature in 1972 in order
to assist local jurisdictions improve public transportation services. The TDA created a local
transportation fund (L TF) in each County, which is funded by 1/4 cent State sales tax collected in
the County. SANDAG, as the Transportation Planning Agency (TPA) for the San Diego region,
is responsible for the annual allocation of monies from the L TF. The County Auditor serves as fund
trustee, and the MTDB approves the allocation of funds for its eleven member jurisdictions, which
includes ten San Diego metropolitan area cities and portions of the County. (The North County
Transit District Board directs the allocation ofTDA funds for its member cities).
Public transportation services managed by the City ofChula Vista are Chula Vista Transit (CVT)
and HandYtrans. CVT is funded by TDA Article 4.0 funds, which in the MTDB area are allocated
to iurisdictions on a per capita basis. HandYtrans is funded by Article 4.5 funds, which are allocated
to paratransit service ODerators. HandYtrans was started in 1979 as a paratransit service providing
curb-to-curb transportation for seniors 60 years or older, and persons with disabilities of any age who
had difficulty riding CVT. Between 1979 and 1993, HandYtrans operated (with minor changes)
Monday through Friday from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., and on Sunday from 8 a.m to 2 p.m. From 1993 until
January 1997, service hours were extended on weekdays from 7a.m. to 6 p.m. in preparation for
ADA full compliance. The annual operating cost has averaged about $235,000, funded by TDA
Article 4.5 funds, Transnet funds, and fare revenue. Average daily ridership has been 150
passengers (70 on Sunday).
The ADA and chan~es to Paratransit Services
The passage of the Americans with Disabilities (ADA) of 1990 changed the function ofTDA Article
4.5 funded transportation services in the San Diego region. As discussed in the attached report
(Attachment I, page 2), the ADA contains a Complementary Paratransit Service requirement, which
mandates provision of paratransit service to "complement" the fixed route services in a jurisdiction.
Among other requirements, this service must be available during the same operating hours as fixed
route services, travel time must be comparable to the fixed route services, and trip denials generally
are not pennitted.
After the passage of the ADA, MTDB and SANDAG designated the TDA Article 4.5 funds to be
used for provision of ADA Complementary Paratransit Services. The ADA mandated full
compliance by January 26, 1997. HandYtrans implemented full compliance on January 4, 1997, and
is now available for service seven days a week from approximately 5:00 a.m. until 2 a.m., providing
complementary paratransit service to CVT, San Diego Transit Route 29, MTDB Route 932, and the
San Diego Trolley, all of which operate in Chula Vista. HandYtrans now carries only individuals
/.2~.2
.._-^-- -----_...~- -"- ..-.".,.-- ".'.---."...------.---....,--'
Page 3, Item
Meeting Date 4/15/97
certified as eligible for ADA service. Therefore, as a result of the ADA, HandYtrans, as well as all
the other TDA Article 4.5 funded paratransit operations, have changed from senior and disabled
services, to ADA Complementary Paratransit Services.
Regional Approach to ADA ComDlementarv Paratransit Service Requirements: Ouerations
In a report to Council on January 7,1992 concerning the ADA paratransit requirements, Council
authorized the MTDB to submit a Complementary Paratransit Service Plan to the Federal Transit
Administration (FT A) as required by the ADA. All the other jurisdictions in the MTDB area also
authorized the MTDB to submit a regional ADA plan. This plan discussed how the ADA paratransit
requirements would be achieved by the January 26, 1997 compliance date. (This agenda statement
is Exhibit I to Attachment I).
In 1993, SANDAG, in cooperation with MTDB, contracted with Crain and Associates to study
specific options for meeting the ADA Complementary Paratransit Service requirements. The study
analyzed a number of options for the region and recommended dividing the MTDB area into four
zones. These zones are presented as Exhibit 3 in Attachment I (second to the last page of
Attachment I). Zone 4 includes National City, Chula Vista, Imperial Beach, South San Diego,
Coronado and Southbay unincorporated areas. The study recommended that there be one ADA
paratransit service provider in each of these zones. One service provider in the relatively large sub-
areas defined by these zones would facilitate inter jurisdictional ADA paratransit trips, and operate
on a more efficient and cost effective basis compared to multi-operators in smaller areas limited to
jurisdictional boundaries.
Last fiscal year in Zone 4 there were three TDA Article 4.5 funded ADA paratransit services,
administered by National City, Chula Vista, and County of San Diego. These three services were
providing ADA paratransit service as stipulated in the MTDB Complementary Paratransit Service
Plan. Coincidently, all three of these services were operated by one contract service provider, the
American Red Cross. The City of National City contracted with American Red Cross for service
in National City; the City of Chula Vista contracted with American Red Cross for HandYtrans
service in Chula Vista; and the County of San Diego contracted with the American Red Cross for
service in Imperial Beach, South San Diego, and Coronado.
The attached agenda statement presented to Council on March 5, 1996 (Attachment I) updated
Council on the ADA Complementary Paratransit Service requirements, and also extended the City
of Chula Vista's contract with American Red Cross for a fifteen month period, July I, 1996 through
September 30,1997. The City's contract with American Red Cross was extended until September
30, 1997 to coincide with the County of San Diego's contract termination with the American Red
Cross on September 30,1997. On July I, 1996 the City of National City did not renew its contract
with American Red Cross, and requested the County of San Diego to incorporate ADA
Complementary Paratransit Service in National City under its contract with American Red Cross.
/~<]
.---....- - .."...__._.._-~.._.__..,.-
Page 4, Item
Meeting Date 4/15/97
Therefore, since July 1, 1996 American Red Cross has been providing ADA Complementary
Paratransit Services in Zone 4 under two contracts: the City of Chula Vista for HandYtrans service,
and the County of San Diego for "Wheels" service in National City, Imperial Beach, South San
Diego and Coronado.
Rer.¡ional Approach to ADA ComplementarY Paratransit Service Requirements: Fundin~
The cost of HandYtrans service since full compliance with ADA Paratransit Service requirements
were started on January 4, 1997 have been approximately $29,300 per month (for the months of
January, February and March, 1997). The annual cost, therefore, based on this limited operating
experience, is $352,000, compared with an average annual cost of about $235,000 prior to ADA full
compliance, or a 50% increase.
The projected cost for ADA Paratransit Service in all four zones in the MTDB area for next fiscal
year is shown in Attachment 2, page I of 3. The estimated operating cost for ADA Paratransit
Service in Zone 4 is $1,204,000. This table also shows estimated revenues to fund the projected
cost.
Last fiscal year, MTDB and the ADA paratransit operators realized that there were insufficient TDA
Article 4.5 funds to meet the ADA Paratransit Service cost. Therefore, beginning in the current
fiscal year, each fixed route operator in each of the four zones was accessed a designated amount
based on fixed route miles operated. The Chula Vista Transit (CVT) assessment for the current
fiscal year was approximately $55,000 (based on approximately 1.2 million miles annually times
0.0489¢ per mile). The source ofthis assessment could be either City ofChula Vista TDA Article
4.0 funds, or State Transit Assistance Funds (STAF), which had accumulated to approximately
$140,000 in the City ofChula Vista's account. This assessment was based on an estimate of the cost
to fund ADA Complementary Paratransit Service in Zone 4 for a six month period (January 1997
through June 1997).
As shown on Attachment 2, page 2 of 3, the City of Chula Vista's assessment for a twelve month
period next fiscal year (FY 1997-98) is $93,734. Attachment 2, page 2 of 3, also shows the
assessment for each of the other fixed route operators in Zone 4. The total ADA funding in Zone
4 for next fiscal year is $427,542. This ADA supplemental funding, in addition to the TDA Article
4.5 funds, should be sufficient to provide the ADA Complementary Paratransit Service in Zone 4
for FY 1997-98. There are sufficient STA funds in the City ofChula Vista's account to fund the
$93,734 assessment.
Benefits from proposed chanlle in HandYtrans service bellinninll October 1. 1997
As mentioned earlier in this report, one recommendation of the Crain and Associates study was to
have one service provider in Zone 4. One provider facilitates trip-making within Zone 4 by
/O?-lj
. ···"-'~---·-·-···1~
Page 5, Item
Meeting Date 4/1 5/97
minimizing transfers within the area, and also allows for more efficient utilization of vehicles and
capacity, particularly during high demand periods to and from certain destinations (such as Adult
Protective Services, ARC Starlight Center, and dialysis centers). Since the County of San Diego
already contracts for ADA paratransit services in all of Zone 4 except in the City of Chula Vista,
incorporating the HandYtrans ADA paratransit service as part of the County contract would achieve
the objective of one service provider in Zone 4 beyond September 30, 1997. With this approach, the
County of San Diego would be administering the ADA Complementary Paratransit Services for the
MTDB area fixed-route operators in Zone 4, which are Chula Vista Transit, National City Transit,
San Diego Transit, MTDB contract routes, and the San Diego Trolley.
The County of San Diego has an option to extend its contract with American Red Cross for one
additional year beyond October 1, 1997, and at this time it appears that the County will exercise that
option. After the expiration of the extension, the County will issue a Request For Proposal(RFP)
for ADA service in Zone 4 beginning October 1, 1998.
Summary
0 On January 2, 1992, Council authorized MTDB to submit to the Federal Transit
Administration (FT A) a regional ADA Complementary Paratransit Service plan (Attachment
I, Exhibit 1). All the other jurisdictions in the MTDB area also authorized MTDB to submit
a regional plan.
0 In 1993, a regional ADA compliance study conducted by SANDAG recommended that the
MTDB area be divided into four zones for ADA Complementary Paratransit Service, and
that one operator provide paratransit service in each zone. Zone 4 includes the cities of
Chula Vista, National City, Imperial Beach, San Diego, Coronado and portions of the
unincorporated area.
0 The ADA Complementary Paratransit Service requirements specify that by January 26, 1997
all fixed route public transportation operators must provide ADA Complementary Paratransit
Service. Under its current contract with American Red Cross for HandYtrans service, the
City of Chula Vista achieved full compliance on January 4, 1997.
0 The City of Chula Vista's contract with American Red Cross for HandYtrans service
terminates on September 30, 1997, the same date as the County of San Diego's contract with
American Red Cross for ADA paratransit service in the rest of Zone 4.
0 Staff recommends that the ADA Complementary Paratransit Service in Chula Vista be
operated by the County of San Diego beginning October I, 1997.
Representatives from both MTDB and the County of San Diego are present at tonight's meeting to
answer any questions Council may have on this agenda item.
);2-S
___.n .-...".'---.~-
Page 6, Item
Meeting Date 4/15/97
FISCAL IMPACT: The TDA Article 4.5 claim for HandYtrans ADA Complementary Paratransit
Service operation for the first three months ofFY 1997-98 is $73,000. Fare revenue is estimated at
$15,000 for a total operating cost for three months of $88,000, or $29,333 per month. Although
HandYtrans has only been in full compliance with ADA Complementary Paratransit Service since
January 4, 1997, ridership and cost experience to date indicates that this operating cost should be
sufficient for the three month time period.
Prior to ADA Complementary Paratransit Service full compliance, the City of Chula Vista has
received annually approximately $175,000 in TDA Article 4.5 funds for HandYtrans operation.
These funds, in addition to fare revenue and Transnet funds in the combined amount of
approximately $60,000, have been sufficient to provide HandYtrans service, which was
approximately $235,000 annually. However, under full compliance with ADA, annual operating
costs are estimated to increase to approximately $352,000, and could be greater if demand for service
increases.
Since there are insufficient TDA Article 4.5 funds regionally to provide the ADA Complementary
Paratransit Services, a formula was developed by MTDB last fiscal year, whereby each fixed route
operator contributes funds to supplement ADA service costs. The assessment is based on fixed-route
service miles operated in each jurisdiction. The City of Chula Vista assessment is $93,734 for FY
1997-98. The source of this assessment can be either TDA Article 4.0 or State Transit Assistance
Funds (STAF). For the current fiscal year, and next fiscal year, the City of Chula Vista is using
ST AF funds for the assessment. No City of Chula Vista General Funds are required for the ADA
paratransit services.
Under the proposed ADA service plan beginning October I, 1997, the County of San Diego would
be allocated the TDA Article 4.5 funds previously allocated for HandYtrans operation.
Attachment ~~council Agenda Statement dated March 5, 1996, with Exhibits related to
ADA Paratransit Service Requirements
~o:>q ADA Complementary Paratransit Funding
~
File No. 0760-DT-005
H:\HOMEIENGINEERIAGENDA \TDA45.BG
April 8, t 997 (2:25pm)
/0<-&
.... _. .·.._.uu _ __.._, '____"_M.._......_. ....._________.-----,--_
RESOLUTION NO. / g"~.J;Z
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING SUBMISSION OF FY 1997-98
TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT (TDA) ARTICLE
4.5 CLAIM FOR HANDYTRANS OPERATION FUNDING
WHEREAS, the City of Chula vista's FY 1997-987 Article
4.5 Claim to support HandY trans operation was submitted to SANDAG
and MTDB on April 1, 1997 as required by state law; and
WHEREAS, the TDA Article 4.5 claim is in the amount of
$73,000, which will fund HandY trans operations for a three month
period in FY 1997-98, July 1, 1997 through September 30, 1997; and
WHEREAS, beginning October 1, 1997, it is proposed that
HandY trans operation become part of the Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA) Complementary paratransit Services operated by the County
of San Diego in the South Bay area, which currently includes the
cities of National City, Imperial Beach, coronado, South San Diego,
and portions of the unincorporated area; and
WHEREAS, the ADA Complementary paratransit Service
provided by one operator in the South Bay area will facilitate
compliance with the ADA, enhance mobility options for eligible ADA
paratransit clients in Chula vista and in other South Bay
Jurisdictions, and will implement recommendations of the
Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB) ADA Complementary
paratransit Service Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the City of Chula vista does hereby approve submission of FY 1997-
98 Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 4.5 Claim for
HandY trans operation funding.
Presented by Approved as to form by
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
C:\,.,s\4.5 TDA
/02- ?
-- -'--'-'-' n__.___, ..__.__..,~_,_,_ ..,---
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item /3
Meeting Date 4/15/97
ITEM TITLE: Follow-up Report on Request for All-Way Stops on Lakeshore Drive at
Hartford Street and Creekwood Way
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works ~'Ltì
REVIEWED BY: City Manager J~ ~ ~y I (4/5ths Vote: Yes_NoX)
On October 10, 1996, the Safety Commission voted, against staff's recommendation, to install all-way
stops at the intersections of Lakeshore Drive at Creekwood Way and Hartford Street. In accordance
with the Safety Commission Policy, adopted by resolution of the City Council on March 14, 1995
as Council Policy No. 110-09, it is required that whenever the City Engineer declines to
implement a safety control measure recommended by the majority of the Safety Commission, the
Safety Commission has the power, by a vote of at least four commissioners, to refer the matter
to the City Council for final resolution. This item, denying the request for all-way stops at the
intersections of Lakeshore Drive at Hartford Street and Lakeshore Drive at Creekwood Way, was
presented to the City Council at their meeting of 12/10/96. At this December meeting, after
hearing public testimony and a statement from the chairman of the Safety Commission, the
Council voted to accept staff's recommendation to deny the installation of all-way stops at
Creekwood Way and Hartford Street on Lakeshore Drive.
At the City Council meeting of February 4, 1997, Mayor Horton requested that staff reconsider
the installation of all-way stops on Lakeshore Drive at Hartford Street and Creekwood Way.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council accept staff's report, and deny the
recommendation of the Safety Commission to install all-way stops at the intersections of
Lakeshore Drive at Hartford Street and Creekwood Way.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: On October 10, 1996, the Safety Commission
voted 6-0-1 (Hoke absent), against staff's recommendation to deny the request, and to install all-way
stops at the intersections of Lakeshore Drive at Creekwood Way and Hartford Street.
DISCUSSION:
Subsequent to the Mayor's request, staff conducted further investigations into the traffic conditions
on Lakeshore Drive in the EastLake area. The original report containing the information upon which
staff made its initial recommendation to City Council is attached to this report, should Council desire
to review the conditions as previously reported. Neither of these two locations met the warrants for
the installation of all-way stops based on the point system established in the City Council policy. This
report will contain only new information and data collected by staff since the Mayor's request.
13-/
_._~._.~--+.....-
Page 2, Item_
Meeting Date 4/15/97
Staff has reviewed the accident history for this area and has found no reported accidents since the
original report was filed in December of 1996. Previously, there were three (3) accidents reported on
the entire 1.21 mile long loop of Lakeshore Drive. One of these accidents took place at Ashbrook
Place and Lakeshore Drive on April 10, 1996 and was caused by a driver who was stopped at the stop
sign on Ashbrook Place, backing up and hitting a vehicle that was stopped behind her. The other two
(2) accidents were at the intersection of Clearbrook Drive and Lakeshore Drive and both occurred in
June of 1996. The first of these two accidents was on 6/4/96 and occurred when a driver on
Clearbrook Drive pulled into the path of a vehicle on Lakeshore Drive violating the right -of-way of
the driver on Lakeshore Drive. The second of these two accidents took place on 6/15/96 and occurred
when a driver who was stopped at the stop sign on Clearbrook Drive pulled into the intersection on
Lakeshore Drive and broad-sided a vehicle making a left turn from Lakeshore Drive onto Clearbrook
Drive. The driver claimed to have not seen the vehicle that was turning left immediately in front of
him. None of these accidents were determined to be speed related, but were instead caused by driver
inattention. Two of the three would not have been corrected by the presence of an all-way stop at the
location where the accidents occurred, and none would have been corrected by the installation of all-
way stops at the locations where they are presently being requested.
Staff made further observations of the Lakeshore Drive circle to observe traffic and to count
pedestrians at various locations around the circle. These observation were made over a four (4) day
period and were conducted from 4:30 P.M. to 6:00 P.M. This was done to observe traffic during the
P.M. Peak Hours, which seemed to coincide with the heaviest pedestrian traffic. A sketch is attached
to reflect the results of these pedestrian counts. To summarize staff's observations, the following
notable items were observed:
1. The highest number of pedestrians crossing Lakeshore Drive are doing so at the existing all-
way stops at the intersections of Lakeshore Drive and EastLake Drive.
2. Traffic around the circle is relatively light and there are adequate gaps in vehicular traffic for
pedestrian traffic to cross safely with minimal delays.
3. The majority of pedestrians, joggers, bicyclists and people on roller blades are using the
sidewalks around the circle and for the most part stay on one side of the street. They stay on
either the inside of the loop or the outside of the loop, at least until they get to the access
points to the lake recreation area, which are located at the same locations as the existing all-
way stops and crosswalks.
4. There are a number of pedestrians, between the ages of four (4) and ten (10) years old, that
are crossing the street without parental supervision.
5. The limitation of sight distance for pedestrians crossing the street is only a consideration if the
pedestrian is crossing the street from the inside of the loop to the outside. In this case the
visibility is reduced because of the curvature of the roadway.
J.J-eJ
-.. .--_.._--~----.--..,.--
Page 3, Item_
Meeting Date 4/15/97
Visibility is marginal at three of the four comers where stop signs are being considered, but generally
within minimum standards. The worst case of visibility for pedestrians is the crossing on the east leg
at Hartford Street from the inside or south side of Lakeshore Drive to the outside or north side where
there is 300' of visibility which is adequate for a vehicle approaching at 40 M. P. H. The posted speed
limit is 30 M.P.H. and the approach speed at this location in the critical direction (westbound) is 41
M.P.H. During the 1.5 hours of observation at this intersection, there were 4 pedestrians observed
crossing at this location, and the westbound approach speed was less than 35 M.P.H. The 85th
percentile speed of 41 M.P.H. was determined from a 24 hour accounting of all vehicles. The speed
is reduced during the peak periods when traffic, both vehicular and pedestrian, is at its highest. This
would tend to support the position of the Basic Speed Law which presumes that 85 percent of drivers
will drive at or below the speed which is safe, given the conditions which are readily apparent to the
motorists. Increased vehicular traffic and increased pedestrian activity appears to affect the driving
behavior of the majority of drivers observed during the P.M. Peak Period. The higher speeds were
recorded during non-peak times including off-peak mid-day and late night/early morning hours. These
are times when there is likely to be less pedestrian activity in the area.
While it is still staff's recommendation that stop signs be denied, should the Council decide that the
all-way stops should be installed, it is staff's recommendation that they be installed at these two
locations. In the western part of Chula Vista, where the streets are in a grid system, the collector class
streets have controlled intersections at quarter mile increments along the grid. Lakeshore Drive is
approximately 1.21 miles around the loop, with all-way stops at the approximate mid-points. These
two locations, Creekwood Way and Hartford Street, would approximately bisect these two segments.
The distances between the stops would be, on the south half of the loop, from EastLake Drive to
Creekwood Way, 2045', and Creekwood Way east to EastLake Drive 1722'. On the north half of the
loop the distances would be, from Eastlake Drive to Hartford Street, 1192' and from Hartford Street
east to EastLake Drive, 1434'. These locations would, as near as practical, divide the circle into four
nearly equal segments, each approximately one quarter of the distance around the circle. Previously,
there had been a request to install an all-way stop at the intersection of Clearbrook Drive. This
location, while more nearly dividing the segment into two equal lengths, was dismissed because of
visibility issues created by the curvature of the roadway and the trees that line the street in this area.
Staff and the Safety Commission agreed that Creekwood Way was a much more desirable location for
an all-way stop, should one location be installed.
All residents in the area directly affected have been notified of tonight's meeting and notices have been
posted at the subject intersections.
FISCAL IMPACT: Installation costs for two (2) all-way stops with advance warning signs and
legends is approximately $1,000.00. Funds for material, labor, and equipment for installation are
available from the street signs operating budget, Accounts 100-1432-5101, 5345, and 5269. The
added fuel costs to citizens is approximately $22,757 per year if both stops are installed on Lakeshore
Drive.
/J-J
. .~,-- -. ..,....._"...-~---~~..
Page 4, Item_
Meeting Date 4/15/97
Attachments: A) Council Agenda Statement from the meeting of 12/10/96 with all of its
attachments.
B) Accident Summary Report (TEE-30) for the entire loop for the period of
1/1/96 through 12/31/96.
C) Accident Summary Reports (TEE-40) for the two intersections where accidents
occurred in the period from 1/1/96 through 12/31/96.
D) Area Map showing pedestrian activity observe over a four day period.
E) Area Map showing the distance between intersections around the loop.
F) Minutes of City Council meeting of 12/10/96 (excerpt)
G) Minutes of City Council meeting of 2/4/97 (Mayor's Reports)
H;\HOME\ENGINEER\AGENDA \LAKESHOR.DMW
March 26, 1997 (9:24am)
/3-(
---,..~..,_._,--_._.~.__.,,_._---
...- ...-.----- ----~--
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item No. 13.1
Meeting Date 4/15/97
ITEM TITLE Report - Regarding Humane society Report about
the Chula vista Animal Shelter
SUBMITTED BY Chief of Police
REVIEWED BY city Manager~
(I
This is in response to your request for additional information to
the 12 points raised in the Humane society's report dated 3/25/97.
Addressed are the two primary concerns identified as animal care
problems and facility problems.
Outlined in this correspondence are the issues we have addressed
and our plan to resolve any construction issues which have not been
completed as of the date of this memo.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report.
ANIMAL CARE PROBLEMS
1) Lack of veterinary Care for sick or Injured Animals
It is the staff's practice upon picking up an animal, or
discovering an animal in the kennels that may be ill or in
need of veterinary care, that the animal is taken immediately
to the Bonita Pet Hospital. The veterinarian will then
examine the animal and if it requires hospitalization, it will
remain at the hospital. Once treatment is completed, a
release from the veterinarian will be obtained and placed in
the animal's record at the shelter so that the owner may be
aware of the treatment or if the animal is suitable for
adoption after the treatment, that record is also available
for the new owner.
We do have voluntary veterinarians who visit the facility who
also check the animals and treatment is provided at that time
or hospitalized if necessary. with regards to the shelter
staff, we have instituted a new policy that requires shelter
staff to inventory the animals three times a day which
requires a welfare check of the animals at that time. A log
is kept on file for those checks by the kennel attendants.
It should also be noted that our most recent Animal Control
Officer hired is a recognized veterinarian in Mexico. This
hire, by the way, occurred after the Humane Society
inspection.
/3.1- /
. . --_..._-_.~ ,. -.,..'---~-------~_.
2) Lack of Appropriate Humane Euthanasia Procedures
The veterinarian with whom we have an open purchase order to
provide veterinary service, Dr. Tomblin from the Bonita Pet
Hospital, instructed the staff at the shelter on the proper
methods of euthanasia, which instruction staff has followed.
Dr. Bischel, our voluntary Veterinarian, who has visited the
shelter, has made recommendations for the use of restraint
drugs for the animals which are more aggressive prior to
euthanasia, which is not part· of the instructions we received
from our contract veterinarian.
As an alternative, we are in the process of having staff
install a restraint gate in the euthanasia room that will
assist the inoculation of restraint drugs on the more
aggressive animals prior to euthanasia.
Construction staff has been requested to install a restraint
gate in the euthanasia room. This should eliminate any need
to do any type of intracardial injections for euthanasia on
the animals that are more aggressive.
For your information staff is conducting, on a regular daily
basis, euthanasia of those animals that are not adoptable and
have met the criteria for euthanasia on a regular daily basis.
This procedure requires at least two staff members to be
present during the euthanasia period.
3) Lack of Welfare Checks on Animals in custody
As of 3/25/97, daily inventory checks of the animals are being
conducted by staff which requires the staff to walk through
the kennels and assure that all of the animals' needs are
being met. This includes a welfare check of the animal
itself. If it shows any indication of any illness or any type
of sickness, the staff person will then bring this to the
attention of the shelter manager or Sr. ACO on duty. The
animal will then be transferred to the contract veterinarian's
facility unless the voluntary veterinarian is on-site and a
treatment will be performed for those animals. This procedure
will be done three times a day and recorded on a daily log
which will be maintained in the office records. Any treatment
conducted by the veterinarian will be noted on a
Veterinarian's report which will be attached to the animal's
record when it is returned to the shelter.
4) xisquided Priorities for Kennel Protocol
The policy and procedure guidelines for the animal shelter
were written in 1987. Their day-to-day implementation and
priorities set for staff was the responsibility of William
/0./:'-2
.---- ._-_...".._---~_._.~_.
Will, who has been out on sick leave since last summer and,
unfortunately, will not be able to return to work. Mr. will
would have been the best person to address the Humane
Society's concerns regarding kennel policies and procedures.
In his absence, Lt. Becker, as part of his assignment, will be
reviewing the policy and procedures and updating them
accordingly. And, as mentioned above, the daily welfare
checks are being conducted with records being maintained by
the office staff. The kennel staff have been instructed that
animal welfare is the priority prior to any other duties in
the kennels.
5) xmproper Procedures for Cleaning Kennels
Staff was retrained in February, 1997 in proper cleaning
procedures. The shelter, however, does not have the proper
space to move animals from one kennel to another prior to
cleaning. Dogs that are aggressive and wish to play in the
water will be removed prior to cleaning as will litters and
nursing mothers. Those dogs that are currently sprayed
accidently during cleaning will be towel dried immediately
after cleaning. This problem will be eliminated once the
steel siding is placed in the kennels which should be
completed by May 1st, 1997.
6) Lack of Proper Organization in Placing and caring of Animals
All dog collars are being removed at this time as well as any
ropes or harnesses when they come in the facility.1 Care is
taken in placing the larger animals in the large kennels when
available and maintaining the feeble animals in a location
frequently observed by staff. Those animals that are
aggressive and wish to "fence fight" are separated in the
facility. This issue will also be eliminated by the
installation of the steel by May 1st, 1997.
On 3/25/97, the adoption kennels were moved to the front row
of the facility so that they would be a maximum distance away
from the quarantine kennels.
1The Humane Society recommends removing all collars from
animals. We have elected to remove collars from the animals as
they are brought into the facility. Those collars will be hung at
the top portion of the kennel inside the gate so they cannot be
removed by visitors to the shelter. As with many of these issues,
this is a subject where there are different, yet acceptable,
practices, as other shelters in the county place collars on all
animals in their facility to aid in tracking "in custodies."
/3./ - 3
__..._u. . _.._..._......___._.,,_.. .'.. ..¡_.___.________.._.._.___.________
PACILITY PROBLEMS
1) Improper Barriers Between Kennels
The kennels currently are constructed of chain link fencing.
By May 1st, 1997, construction crews will have installed steel
barriers between the kennels as well as adding additional
steel to the rear portion of the quarantine kennels. This
will prevent airborne diseases from passing between kennels
and animals as well as steel constructed on top of the block
splash walls between the adjacent kennel banks. On 4/10/97,
construction staff delivered sand to fill the existing cracks
in the floors of the shelter facility. commencing 4/11/97,
staff will fill the cracks with sand and cement and should
complete the repairs to the floors of the shelter by 4/16/97.
2) Insufficient Size of Kennel Enclosures
We currently have kennels that will house animals 95 pounds or
less. We do have larger kennels in the quarantine area that
can be used in an emergency basis for large animals.2
However, this could be addressed more efficiently with the
future shelter construction. At this time, we believe that
volunteers will be available to exercise the larger dogs if
necessary.
3) Create Better provisions for Cold Weather
The coils in part of the Shelter are working, but in the part
where they failed, they were replaced. To aid in creating a
warmer environment, however, staff has located additional gas
heaters and they will be evaluated by public works staff by
4/25/97 for installation.
At the present time we have wooden pallets that will need to
be replaced which are used by the animals to escape the wet
floor and concrete after cleaning. We currently have 12
donated pallets which are more conducive to cleaning than the
wooden pallets. We also are looking to purchase 60 additional
plastic pallets for the remaining kennels in the facility at
a cost of approximately $2,220 and to obtain at least five
whelping boxes at a cost of approximately $350.
Staff is currently providing bedding during the closed hours
of the facility for the animals during the night. Tarps that
are currently located on the sides of the shelter are new and
2Several shelters utilize larger kennels for more than one
dog. We make all attempts not to double up dogs as occurs
sometimes in other shelters.
/3./ - 4
~_._." . ·-T···---··~·-'··--·--
were replaced in March, 1996. The construction of a cattery
will eliminate any air flow from the north portion of the
facility.
4) Inadequate Quarantine Area
We currently have a quarantine area where the sides of the
kennels are covered with sheet metal. with the addition of
the sheet metal to the remaining kennel by May 1st, 1997, the
construction staff will also add sheet metal to the rear
portion of all of the quarantine cages thereby curtailing the
threat of airborne diseases traveling from the quarantine
kennels to the other kennels in the facility. Also, this will
reduce any accidental splashing created with the cleaning of
the kennels by the staff.
5) Lack of Separate Facilities for Cats and other Animals
On 4/9/97, a work request for construction plans for a new
cattery to be constructed to the existing facility on the
north wall was requested from the construction staff. The
ideas for these plans were presented verbally to the Humane
Society by captain Wolf on 4/9/97 and Humane Society staff
verbally okayed the plans at that time. The Humane society
staff will be asked to review the completed construction plans
prior to construction beginning. The cattery will be designed
to house all cats separate from the Canines. It will contain
an isolation room, a quarantine room, and a petting room where
they get acquainted with their potential owners. The cattery
will be designed in such a way that the cats housed in the
facility will not be able to see or come in contact with any
canines. Construction staff has advised those plans are in
the process of being prepared, and once that is accomplished
volunteer construction workers will be able to commence work
on the cattery.
6) Safety Hazards and Drainage Issues in the Xennel
The cables that were broken during the inspection of 2/19/97
have been repaired; however, they will be eliminated by the
construction staff when the steel is installed between the
kennels to be completed by May 1st, 1997. The depth of the
drainage gutters between the kennels cannot be addressed at
this facility and should be addressed when designing a new
facility in a long-range plan. Once the steel barriers are
completed, installation of an automatic watering system in the
kennels as well as automatic feeders will be installed in the
gates of the kennels. This will be after May 1, 1997. This
will eliminate any hazards to the animals by having watering
bowls on the gates near the floor. The cracks in the floor
will be repaired as stated above by 4/16/97.
/3./- 5
. --,..._._-----._--------~._--
In conclusion, the staff is working diligently to finish the items
outlined in these 12 points. The major construction projects are
in the planning stages and should be completed by April 16th with
the exception of the cattery which construction should begin
shortly. Once the written plans are approved, and we receive
volunteer construction information, we will contact those companies
and address any unfinished construction issues.
It should be pointed out that there are divergent views in shelter
management, such as in areas of euthanasia procedures, contract
vets vs. on-staff vets, collar usage,' exercise and cage size.
Also, you should be aware that much of our staff resources are
devoted to field services where a much higher level of service is
provided than in the unincorporated areas.
Finally, because of illness and injury, the Animal Control staffing
levels were below 'the budgeted staffing levels for this operation.
Even with temporary people filling vacancies, it was not operating
as efficiently as it was previously. Subsequently, those that were
injured or ill are back with the unfortunate exception of Mr. Will,
who is being replaced by Lt. Becker. Also, a new ACO position was
created by the City Council and is now filled by an employee who is
a trained veterinarian from Mexico.
RE/ah
/6//- 6
~..-.- - ---..., .,-.-_..-.-..--.--~-.--.-.-....~.-----,,---
~/~
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT /J- TTffclf P1 t:Pí I
~
Meeting D 3/5/96
ITEM TITLE: Report on Prqp,osed Changes to HandYtrans Service as required by the
Americans witli'Disabilities Act (ADA)
Resolution li22.1 Approving First Amendment to Agreement between
City of Chula Vista and American Red Cross for HandYtrans Operation
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works ~
REVIEWED BY: City Manager (4/5ths Vote: Yes_No.XJ
HandYtrans has been designated by MTDB and SANDAG as a Complementary Paratransit Service
as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990. The ADA mandates full
compliance with the Complementary Paratransit Service requirements by January 26, 1997, which
requires paratransit services, like HandYtrans, to be available for ADA certified persons who cannot
ride or access fixed-route transportation systems such as Chula Vista Transit and the San Diego
Trolley. Moreover, this "complementary" service must operate during the same hours as the fixed-
route services.! The American Red Cross is currently operating HandYtrans for the City of Chula
Vista under a three year agreement that extends through June 30, 1996. This agreement has the
) option to extend the tenn for a period of two years, from July 1, 1996 until June 30,1998. Staff
recommends that the agreement be extended for 15 months, from July 1, 1996 until September 30,
1997 to allow for eventual implementation of a more regional approach to providing Complementary .
Paratransit Service in compliance with the ADA. This recommendation and additional background
is discussed in greater detail below.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council: I) accept the report and direct staff to bring back the
final plan for ADA Complementary Paratransit Service to the City Council for consideration and
adoption; and 2) approve the resolution approving the First Amendment to Agreement between the
City of Chula Vista and the American Red Cross for HandYtrans operation.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION: Following is a summary of the major issues that will be discussed in this report:
· Complementary Paratransit Service requirements of the ADA.
· Achieving ADA compliance in the MTDB area of jurisdiction.
· Extension of the American Red Cross Agreement for HandYtrans operation.
· Funding for ADA Complementary Paratransit Services.
- / 1 For Council's infonnation, the tenns "paratransit" and "demand response" are
synonymous, and describe transportation services in which an individual makes an advance
reservation for service and is transported from point of origin to destination.
/
- ----~.". ---..--..--- "·_·_-·-'-'-"'_·'-·~---T----·-
Page 2, Item 1O
Meeting Date 3/5/96
-
The ADA: ComDlementarv Paratransit Service Reouirements
Attached for Council's information (Exhibit 1) is an Agenda Statement dated January 7, 1992 which
is a "Report on Complementary P!ft:atransit Service pjan as required by the Americans with
Disabilities Act prepared by the Metropolitan Transit Development Board" which discusses the
ADA requirements. In accepting the staff recommendation of this report, the City Council agreed
to authorize MTDB to develop and submit to the federal government a Complementary Paratransit
Service Plan for the MTDB area. All the other jurisdictions in the MTDB area operating fixed-route
transit systems aJso authorized MTDB to submit a RegionaJ ADA Compjementary Paratransit
Service Plan.
As discussed in the attached memo to Council (Exhibit 2) dated August 8, 1995 the Complementary
Paratransit Service requirements of the ADA mandate the following by January 26, 1997:
- Complementary Paratransit Service must be provided to supplement fixed route services like
Chula Vista Transit and the San Diego Trolley. Persons eligible for this service are
individua1s who cannot access the fixed route service (for example, walk to or wait at a bus
stop) or cannot ride the fixed route service at all because of mobility limitations.
- The ADA specifies six criteria for Complementary Paratransit Service:
· Service Area - Must cover a 3/4 mile radius on either side of the fixed route corridor,
or a 1.5 mile total corridor width.
· Resnonse Time - Requires next day reservation service and allows for reservations
up to fourteen days in advance.
· ~ _ May be a maximum of twice the base fixed route fare. (For example, the CVT
base fare is $ 1.00, so the HandYtrans fare may be no more than $2.00).
· Trip PUI:pose _ Prohibits restriction for purpose of travel. (For example, a medical
appointment trip has no priority over a shopping trip).
· Hours and Davs of Service - Service must be available during the same hours and
days as fixed route service. (In the case of ChuIa Vista ftom about 5 a.m. to 1 1 p.m.
for CVT; and ftom about 4 a.m. to 2 a.m. when the Trolley is included).
· C~acitv constraints - Prohibits restrictions on number or ftequency of trips. (In other
words, a certified ADA individual may not be denied service because of insufficient
vehicle capacity, nor limited to a certain number of trips).
Compliance with the ADA Comnlementarv Paratransit Service Reouirements
In 1993, SANDAG, in cooperation with MTDB, cor,tracted with Crain and Associates, Inc. to study
options for meeting the ADA mandate. This study analyzed a number of options for the region, one
of which was to divide the MTDB area into four Complementary Paratransit Services zones as
2
---".-.-
Page 3, Item \0
Meeting Date 3/5/96
indicated in Exhibit 3. Zone IV includes National City, Chula Vista, Imperial Beach, City of San
Diego, and Coronado. The study recoIl¥,I1ended that there be one operator or service provider in each
of these zones to provide ADA Compjementary Paratransit Service. The study concluded that one
service provider in a relatively large area as defmed by these zones could facilitate inteIjurisdictional
trips on a more efficient and cost-effective basis compared with multi operators serving smaller areas
and limited to jurisdictional boundaries.
In Zone IV, there currently are three senior/disabled TDA Article 4.5 funded paratransit services,
administered by National City, Chula Vista and the County of San Diego. National City contracts
with American Red Cross for "Wheels" service in National City; the City of Chuja Vista contracts
with American Red Cross for HandYtrans service in Chula Vista; and the County of San Diego
contracts with American Red Cross for services in Imperial Beach, South San Diego and Coronado.
Coincidentally, although three separate government entities currently administer these paratransit
services in Zone IV, the American Red Cross is the one service provider under contract with all three
jurisdictions.
The City of Chula Vista Transit staff has been meeting with the staffs of MTDB, SANDAG,
National City and the County to discuss options to implement the study recommendations for full
ADA compliance by January 1997. Since the County of San Diego already administers paratransit
services for a large portion of Zone IV, and the City of National City has indicated an interest in
having the County provide the ADA Complementary Paratransit Service for that jurisdiction, an
option for establishing one service provider in Zone IV would be for the County to contract with a ,-
service provider for all ADA Paratransit Service in Zone IV. This service could be funded by a
combination of currently available sources used for the existing paratransit service in this area,
including TDA Article 4.5 and Transnet, with the likely addition of TDA Article 4.0 funds. Other
options for implementing the study recommendations are being evaluated; a preferred option should
be determined by Spring 1997. It is staffs intent to return to Council at that time for its
consideration and adoption of a preferred option. Acceptance of this current staff report and
approval of the agreement extension for HandYtrans, does not commit this Council to anyone option
to implement the Crain and Associates, Inc. study recommendation.
Al!reement Extension with American Red Cross for operation of HandY trans
The First Amendment to the agreement between the City and the American Red Cross is proposed
to be extended for 15 months, from July I, 1996 to September 30, 1997 to set the stage for having
one ADA Paratransit Service provider in Zone IV. The service level between July 1, 1996 and
January 1, 1997 (prior to full ADA compliance) is basically a continuation of the existing
HandYtrans service1evel, operating Monday through Friday from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and on
Sunday from 8:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. Beiinnini January 2. 1997 throu!¡¡h SeDtember 30. 1997.
HandYtrans would operate in full compliance with the ADA. HandYtrans must be available for
"complementary" service to CVT between the hours of approximately 5:00 a.m. to 1 I :00 p.m.,seven
days a week. In addition, since there are other fixed route services operating in Chula Vista provided
by San Diego Transit, MTDB contract services and the San Diego Trolley, Complementary
Paratransit Service must also be available for these services. Therefore, Complementarv Paratransit
Service must be available in Chula Vista for all fixed route services from aDDroximatelv 4:00 a.m.
3
.,.....---.------- ----.-------r--...-.
Page 4, Item ~
Meeting Date 3/5/96
to 2:00 a.m. seven davs a week. The cost to provide ADA paratransit service for fixed-route systems
operating in Chula Vista other than .ÇVT (the Trolley, San Diego Transit Route 29, and MTDB
Contract Route 932) will be funded by 'those systems. The specific funding mechanism still is being
developed by MTDB and area fixed-route operator staffs and should be finalized by Fall 1996. Staff
will report to Council on the funding proposal at that time.
The estimated service requirements between January 2, 1997 and September 30, 1997 are shown on
attached Exhibit 4. This table shows the total hours during which ADA Complementary Paratransit
Service must be available in Chula Vista.2 Staffhas estimated the hours during which service would
be provided and the potential cost of this service, which is $408,623. This amount is onlv an
estimate based on potential demand. The actual demand, and therefore cost, will not be known until
after January 1997. Furthermore, it may take months to gauge service demand, depending on
community awareness of service availability. However, based on late night/early morning demand
in other cities that have attempted full ADA compliance before January 1997, demand for paratransit
service during late night/early morning hours generally is low.
The American Red Cross rate for this 15 month period is divided into two different rates based upon
"day" and "evening". The day time hourly rate for the 15 month period of the agreement extension
is $27.203, a 3.6% increase over the current hourly rate. The evening rate is $21.643 which is 21 %
,- less than the current rate. The evening rate is lower than the day rate because certain fixed costs for
administration and facility costs included in the day rate are not included in the evening rate. The
costs not included in the evening rate generally are those items that do not directly pertain to the .
"evening" service, such as management salaries, non-vehicle services, and utilities.
Cost Comparison: Other Service Providers
For Council's information, the following Table I shows HandYtrans proposal costs that were
submitted in response to the HandYtrans Request for Proposal (RFP) in Spring 1993:
Table 1.
HANDYTRANS PROPOSAL COST: JULY I, 1993 THROUGH JUNE 30, 1996
Proposer Three Year Cost 'Three YearHourlvR.t.. AVeral1e
Red Cross $ 694,678 $26.089
Medi-Ride $ 902,493 $33.923
DAVE Systems $1,002,498 $37.682
Mayflower $1,353,750 $47.126
2 The service components under the headings "Service Period", "Service Area", and
"Service Time" further delineate the requirements by fixed-route operator responsibility. The
service area designated "West of Hilltop" indicates service coverage when Chula Vista Transit is
IIQ1 operating, but fixed-route service is provided by the San Diego Trolley, the MTDB contract
Route 932 on Broadway, and the San Diego Transit Route 29 on Third Avenue.
Ý
-~_.._.,,- .. -.-,-.-.-----.------ ...-----.- --¡-----
Page 5, Item --1..0.-
Meeting Date 3/5/96
As indicated in this table, the Red Cross rate and total three year cost for HandYtrans service ending
June 30, 1996 was substantially lowel"than the other three proposals. In addition, the current County
of San Diego contract rate with American Red Cross for the period July 1, 1996 through September
30, 1997 is $30.397; therefore, the 15 month "daytime" rate for HandYtrans service between July
1,1996 and September 30,1997 of $27.203 is approximately 12% jower than the County of San
Diego rate for the same period.
In summary, it is staffs opinion that the American Red Cross rates for the agreement extension
period are competitive with, and lower than, other service providers. Therefore, because of the
favorable cost proposed, and the proposed extension of the agreement for 15 instead of 24 months,
staff does not recommend issuing an RFP for HandYtrans service.
Fundinl1 for ADA ComplementarY Paratransit Services
As shoVl'l1 in Exhibit 4, staff estimates that the maximum cost for HandYtrans service provided by
the American Red Cross for the fifteen month extension term is $530,000. The estimated cost for
FY 1996-97 (July 1, 1996 - June 30, 1997) is $393,040, a 68% increase over the current fiscal year
cost of $232,800. However, next fiscal year includes six months of full ADA service compliance
(January through June 1997). The cost for the six month period prior to full ADA compliance, July
1, 1996 through January 1, 1997, is $121,054, an increase of 3.6% over the current fiscal year cost.
.-
The estimated cost for the first complete fiscal year of ADA compliance, which is July 1, 1997
through June 30, 1998 is $611,000. However, this is only an estimate based on possible demand;
a much better idea of the cost of this service will be known after January 1997, when full compliance
becomes effective.
The Transportation Development Act (TDA) provides funding for both Chula Vista Transit and
HandYtrans. TDA funds are derived from 1/4% of the local sales tax. TDA funds are further
divided into numerous "Articles" which designate the funds for certain purposes. Article 4.0 funds,
for example, are used for fixed-route services like CVT, and Article 4.5 funds are designated for the
ADA paratransit services. However, Article 4.0 funds may also be used for ADA paratransit
services if needed. SANDAG allocates the TDA funds to San Diego area jurisdictions and the
MTDB approves all expenditures within its jurisdiction. There are no Chula Vista General Funds
nor federal funds used for either CVT or HandYtrans. In addition. there are no federal funds
avai1able to implement the Comnlementary Paratransit Service requirements of the ADA.
In this region, 5% of the total TDA funds are set aside as Article 4.5 funds to operate the ADA
Complementary Paratransit Services. Unlike the Article 4.0 funds, which are allocated to
jurisdictions on a per-capita basis, the Article 4.5 funds are allocated to transit onerators on a
cliscretionary basis. During the current fiscal year, the City ofChula Vista's Article 4.5 allocation
is approximately $150,000 and HandYtrans' total budget is $241,000. The balance of the budget
is funded by fare revenue ($66,000) Transnet Funds ($23,000) and investment earnings ($3,000).
MTDB currently is exploring options to fund the ADA Complementary Paratransit Service
requirement. Since new revenue sources seem unlikely, the use of Article 4.0 funds contributed by
S-
------_..-- ......_-,_.
Page 6, Item '0
Meeting Date 3/5/96
each jurisdiction seems to be the primary potential source to fund the ADA paratransit services.
However, until the demand for ADA service is known in January 1997 and beyond, it is difficult to
estimate the full cost impact at this ti;rle. ,
SUMMARY
0 The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Complementary Paratransit Service
requirements specify that by January 1997 all fixed-route public transportation operators
must provide ADA Complementary Paratransit Service. TIús service must be "comparable"
to fixed-route services in terms of service hours, and service coverage.
0 In 1992, Council authorized MTDB to submit to the Federal Transit Administration (FT A),
a Regional ADA Complementary Paratransit Service Plan. All the other jurisdictions in the
MTDB area have also authorized MTDB to submit a regional plan.
0 A regional ADA Compliance Study conducted by SANDAG reconunended that the MTDB
area be divided into four zones for ADA Complementary Paratransit Service. Zone IV
includes the cities of National City, Chula Vista, Imperial Beach, South San Diego and
Coronado.
0 The Study reconunended that one ADA service provider operate in each of the four zones.
. In order to implement this reconunendation in Zone IV, staff is reconunending that the City
ofChula Vista's agreement with American Red Cross for HandYtrans service be extended
for 15 months, from July 1,1996 through September 30,1997.
0 Beginning October I, 1997, one service provider would operate the ADA Complementary
Paratransit Service in Zone IV. Options for implementing this concept still are being
considered and evaluated.
FISCAL IMP ACT:
The American Red Cross hourly rate for HandYtrans service for the 15 month agreement extension
is $27.203, a 3.6% increase over the current rate. In addition, a new "evening" hourly rate of
$21.643 will become effective in January 1997 when full ADA compliance begins. The estimated
contract cost for FY 1996-97 is $393,040, a 68% increase over the current fiscal year cost of
$232,800. However, this cost includes 6 months (January through June 1997) of ADA
Complementary Paratransit SerVice full compliance, which is an estimate based on possible demand
for increased service.
HandYtrans is funded by the following sources: TDA Article 4.5, Transnet, and fare revenue. In
addition, TDA Article 4.0 funds may be used to fund the service if required. There are no City of
Chula Vista General Funds used for HandYtrans operation. Furthermore, even with the potential
estimated significant cost increase to implement the ADA Complementary Paratransit Service
requirements in Chula Vista, there will be sufficient City TDA Article 4.0 funds available to
supplement other funding sources for HandYtrans service, based on the City's current TDA Article
(0
.~.._....._..._--~. "--'--'-'--T-'
Page 7, Item \0
Meeting Date 3/5/96
4.0 allocation and TDA fund balance. For example, the City's current TDA unallocated balance is
approximately $4.8 million. $2 millipn of this balance is set aside as partial funding for the City's
hydrogen fuel cell bus demonstratiorl program, leaving an approximate $2.8 million balance for
future CVT operations and capital expenditures, and for increased costs for ADA Complementary
Paratransit Service.
Attachments:
Exhibit 1 - January 7,1992 Agenda Statement
Exhibit 2 - August 8, 1995 Council memo
Exhibit 3 - Complementary Paratransit Service Zones
Exhibit 4 - Estimated Services Requirements
WMG:DT-007
M:\HOME'ENGINEER\AGENDA \REDCROS2.BG
.
7
...-.-..--..........--.--.------ T--
8 ___ _m _ _ ¡-
- BILL GUSTAFSON -
.
R E eEl V E 0 ~Xff-ï3 í / lI."f"':""'flVIt_
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT c I I ,rr.Ll.f'T'-
DEC 3 1 1991 fL1 c-0r I
Item '--
C.ïYOFCHUlA VISTA
P"P.tJ~ WO!"(S OPERATION Meet i ng Date 117/92
ITEM TITLE: Report on Comp]ementary Paratransit Service Plan as required
by the Amerièàns with Disabilities Act prepared by the
Metropolitan Transit Development Board
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works ~
REVIEWED BY: City Manager (4/Sths Vote: Yes___No-x-).
As a public transit operator of Chula Vista Transit (CVT) , SCOOT must be in
compliance with the provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
which was passed by Congress on July 26, 1990. One ADA requirement is that
public entities operating fixed route transportation service also provide
complementary paratransit service to individuals unable to use the fixed route
system. A coordinated complementary paratransit plan is currently being
developed for the Metropol itan Transit Development Board (MTDB) area, with
input from all fixed route operators under MTDB jurisdiction (San Diego
Transit, San Diego Trolley, County Transit Systeln, Chula Vista Transit, and
National City Transit). If a plan is being submitted on behalf of more than
one agency, ADA regulations require that an authorizing resolution be adopted
by each agency and submitted to the regi on I s trans i t board and the Regi ona 1
Planning Organization, which in this region are MTDB and SANDAG.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council:
1. Accept th is report.'
2. Reconunend to SCOOT Board that the Board adopt a resol ut ion authori zi ng .
MTDB to submi t a Complementary Paratransit Servi ce Pl an on behalf of
SCOOT in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
The ADA is a comprehensive civil rights measure which prohibits discrimination
against individuals with disabilities in employment, housing, and
transportation. The intent of the law is to ensure equal access for persons
with dfsabilities to . publ;c acconunodations, public services,
telecommunications, and transportation. On September 6, 1991, the U. S.
Department of Transportation issued regulations implementing transportation
elements of the ADA. These regulations affect all transportation providers.
Attachment 1, which is Chapters 1 and 2 from the ADA Paratransit Handbook
issued by the Urban Mass Transportation Administration (UHTA) , presents an
overvi ew of the 1 aw in Chapter 1, and out 1 i nes complementary paratrans i t
service requirements in Chapter' 2. The key provisions of the ADA regulations
pertaining to transportation providers are:
- All newly acquired or re-manufactured buses and rail cars must be
~ accessible and have two wheelchair securement positions.
<1
. ---...---..---.----------¡--.
Page 2, Item
Meeting Date 1/7/92
- Demand responsive systems (like HandYtrans) must be accessible.
- Complementary paratl7~nsit service must be provided for those
individuals who canna use fixed route service. Thi s servi ce must
be comparable in terms of days, hours, and geographic coverage to
the fixed route service.
- All information services must be accessible to vision and hearing
impaired individuals.
- All mobil ity devices commonly used by the disabled must be
accommodated in transit vehicles.
- All employees who deal with d~abled individuals must be trained to
operate equipment safely and be sensitive to the needs of the
disabled.
- All new transit related construction must be accessible.
A coordinated complementary paratransit plan is currently being developed for
the HTDB area. The North County Transit District (NCTD) is developing a plan
for its area of juri sdi ct ion. The HTDB plan is being developed with input
from the disabled community and transit operators. ADA regulations require
that there be a public hearing on the plan. MTDB held a public advisory
,- meeting to discuss the draft plan on December 19, 1991, and a formal public
hearing is scheduled at the HTD Board meeting on January 9, 1992. Fi na 1 plan
approval is scheduled for January 23, 1992 at HTDB, and January 24, 1992 at
SANDAG.
Highlights of HTDB's Proposed Complementary Paratransit Plan are: .
.
- The pl an ut il i zes a five-year phasing period as allowed by the
regulations for complete implementation.
- Within two years, all fixed route buses in the HTDB area will be
accessible. Currently, all CVT and HandYtrans vehicles are
accessible.
- Bus stops will be made accessible to wheelchairs where practicable.
- Existing funding sources ('TDA Article 4.5 and Proposition A)
earmarked for senior and disabled transportation service will be
used to fund necessary improvements.
- ADA trips will be provided by the .existing elderly and disabled
transit service providers. Service improvements will be made on an
incremental basis over the 5-year period as demand warrants.
- The certification process for individuals who are eligible for ADA
trips has not yet been finalized, but probably will be handled by
designated social service agencies and the Coordinated
Transportation Services Agency (CTSA).
/0
-- _.~--~~-- --------------,----
Page 3, Item
Meeting Date 1/7/92
After submitting the Complementary Paratransit Plan to UMTA by January 27,
1992, as required by law, HTDB and transit operator staffs will spend the next
few months working out the .,petails of implementing the plan. A current
tentative schedule is to develop standard ADA eligibility and certification
procedures by July 1992, conduct a community outreach and information program
during July and August, and begin the certification process in September
1992.
Transit staff will update Council and SCOOT Board as detail s on plan
implementation are developed.
FISCAL IMPACT: It is anticipated that Transportation Development Act (TDA)
Article 4.5 funds for HandYtrans operations will be sufficient to comply with
the first fiscal year of ADA plan implementation (FY 1992-93). However, the
ultimate fiscal impact of the ADA is uncertain at this time, and depends to a
large extent on the demand for complementary paratransit services by eligible
ADA individuals.
WMG/file: DS-032, DS-036
WPC 1518T
,-
.
,
(I
-_.~." - -'. -- .-.-..--....-.. ..._--_.----~ --,.------
I ¿
~ ..,.....-- --~-
~_._--
ffm4CH¡1¡e"J.JT J ADA PAIlATRANm HANDBOOK
1
The Americans ,~th
Disabilities Act of 1990
and Related Regulations ,
Section 1. modifying work schedules; or other
An Overview of the Law changes that allow the person to fulfill the
The Americans with Disabilities Act of essential functions of the job. Employers
1990 (the ADA) is the culmination of with 25 or more employees must comply
almost 20 years of debate on the issue of with this section of the law by July 26,
disability rights. It provides a 1992. Employers with 15 to 24 employees
have an extra two years, or until July 26,
comprehensive framework and approach 1994, to meet these requirements.
for ending discrimination against persons
with disabilities. The stated national goals 7ïlle 11. Title IT addresses public
of the ADA are identified in its preamble services. Dis~m;n9tion against persons
and include assuring that persons with with disabilities is prohibited in all
disabilities have equality of opportunity, a services, programs, or activities provided
chance to fully participate in society, are by public entities.
-- able to live independently, and can be It is important to note that this section
economically self-sufficient. also covers services provided by private
The ADA has five sections, or Titles. The entities under contract to public entities. A
first four set out specific standards for contract provider -stands in the shoes" of
nondiscrimination and equal opportunity the granting agency. Public entities still
in four key ares. Title V includes several ' are responsible for m..1ri"g sure that these
administrative and miscellaneous services meet the requirements of the ADA
provisions. Titles I through IV are even if they do not provide them directly.
summarized below. A substantial part of Title IT addresses
7ïlle 1. Title I addresses employment. transportation provided by public entities.
Discrimination against qualified In general, the law prohibits public
individuals with disabilities is prohibited entities from denying individuals with
in all aspects of employment including disabilities the opportunity to use public
hiring, advancement, discharge, employee transportation services, if the individuals
compensation, and job training. are capable of using the system. It also
, Reasonable accommodation for qualified prohibits public entities from providing
applicants or employees also is required services wbich discriminate against
unless it imposes an undue hardship on persons with disabilities. Specific actions
the operation of the business. Reasonable which must be taken by public transit
accommodations include m..1ri'1g the job agencies, commuter rail authorities, and
lite accessible; providing employees with AMTRAK to avoid discrimination are
interpreters, readers, or communications delineated. For example, the law requires
equipment such as a telecommunications that: '
display device (TDÐ); partial restructuring . all newly purchased or leased
of non-essential elements of the job; vehicles used in fixed route
service must be accessible.
1-1
(3
.--.-----..- - ---...-.--.........-...--.."--------.------.-..,.---.'--
ADA PARATRANSlT H.u.1>BOOK
· public entities which provide fixed facilities, privileges, and advantages of
route public transportation any privately owned "place of public
service also must offer accommodation" by persons with
comparable paratransit service to disabilities. It is this section of the law
individuals with disabilities w~o that provides for access to hotels,
are unable to use the fixed rou~ restaurants, theaters, stores, professional
system. offices, schools, museums, terminal., de-
· new or used vehicles purchased or pot., or other .tøtio1U rued for public
1e8sed for use in general public trcuuportøtion, and a number of other
demand responsive service must privately owned places used by the
be accessible unless it can be general public. Barriers that can be
shown that equivalent service is eliminated without much difficulty or
provided to persons with expense must be removed by January 26,
disabilities. 1992. Alterations to existing facilities
· vehicles which are must provide for access. New facilities
remanufactured (defined to constructed for first occupancy after
include structural changes) to January 26, 1993 also must include
extend their usefu1life beyond a accessibility features.
given number of years (5 years for In addition to requiring access to facilities,
buses, 10 years for commuter and this section prohibits discrimination by
intercity rail cars) must include private entities in the provision of
accessibility features. services; the setting of policies; or other
· new facilities must be accessible. advantages, privileges and
· alterations to transit facilities accommodations }?rovided to the public.
must include features to make
them accessible. Alterations This Title also includes requirements for
covered by the law include the provision of public transportation by
changes that affect or could affect private entities. The law distinguishes
the usability of the facility. Not between companies providing
covered are normal maintenance, transportation as a prim.ary business and.
painting, or changes to the . companies, such as hotels or convention
electrical, mechanical, or centers, which offer transportation as a
plumbing systems. .econdary service. Companies offering
· key stations in rail systems must transportation as a secondary service
be made accessible by July 26, must purchase or lease vehicles which are -
1993. accessible üthese vehicles are to be used
· One car per train in rapid rail and in fixed route service and seat more than
light rail systems must be 16 passengers (including the driver). If a
accessible by July 26, 1995. fixed route service is offered using smaller
A chart of these requirements is provided vehicles, these vehicles also must be
accessible unless it can be shown that
as Table 1.1. . ' equivalent service is provided to persons
7ïtle HI. A significant difference with disabilities.
between the ADA and past disability laws Companies providing transportation as a
is that speci.ñc requirementa for primary service must purchase or lease
non-discrim;nAtion are extended to the new vehicles (except automobiles or
private sector. Title ill of the ADA over-the-road coaches) that are accessible
addresses public ac.:ommodations and ü the vebicles are to be used in fixed route
services operated by private entities. This service and seat eight or more passengers
section of the law provides for the full and (including the driver). If smaller vehicles
equal enjoyment of the goods, services,
1-2
1'-1
.-.....-- ""-""~--------'-r"- -.-
<
ADA PARATRANSIT HANDBOOK
. ...
- ... c: bII 1
'i ""c: 5 .
c.~ S :I.~
.z: f B. S SEg ~ ""
. :::: .,8 to -¡
.a~~ 5 j,!i~ ~ ""1:::¡S'"
~'" uE.g"i · e'" s.,8i ..,8" - '"
· f.gSC.:¡S
,~ .z: .! "" ., ::StillS ~ E·.z:
- .. ~,¡¡..~~..§ -ë · :I'~
,~ ... :I :I ., 1~ § "ÞO.~: ""'cE"
io Ii 'å:ï e .- .~-ec" ~;a.!"
.. c! :I · &!.¡~o~
.~ .:i E '¡ c. ., ,'\ ~§ SIo>E! :so.. = Co} iE,S.z::ï
""0:: fE-1! ::ø :: .. ",A C e ct!. · III . ......
.. ., '¡¡ it &J.!-¡~'- 8. III .!!' c: CD o¡:! §.! j
C , ·"1" · "A E'~ I! E1151
.z:,!Q ,,!¡:ï a ., ., 11I._ -.. S :ï:=::¡.,....
.. - C . - f · e E .-..z~=
.~ ., . :¡ s' E ..,!.:"
~.c" .. c ~.. I) 0
:¡ .c .. tj § .. I: !.1 :<I~'! '~-B"":ï::¡
'iie: t,) e) .. CD .,8
>:¡S.!!'Ë '!!!s"a~51 .. .~ 1 ~- C ..
~.; o .!!.,! ~ ~ ~",,,~s"
.s .- 'õ '~A t·'!E.¡¡., .,cc.. ~
J '> C .! = O¡ i ., ,A :I
:I::¡ .> t' 1: ~ ..r; ð Co .! O¡¡ -:: . E '> - to f 1 ..
·~~s :£:18:.. E;: ¡¡..III:I .. 1! :e;=,]_ c<~ ..~.!
"" C'iI : ~ ~.¡ ..:s
! ,5'! C g II! -'5 E.gl ' I E C 5
~ ., .. C .. ="B.!!~ "·1e"
." ~.2 "".... CI> ,~ ~.....::¡ 'i:.!!,!ic.'S
'" ... camols ....., :~g::ï..1 i ..~j ~S ::¡A
U § ,5 Jj ,!Ecl! tñ:ï cu .......- II III ,!.. .. ..;;.: .- 'i.! :J
:ä ë" ".! S ., 8 E S'~~ ~._., It.!
..C_ ..,!f!, ... .- i1i~i!
~ :I 0 . .. -= - :I:ï~1 :'E .. ."
if .,.::¡ 1:i .,! ~
C =-..cJ:? š\,a sf1! ~ ]! I :I _,~ .:;:;..S Eé
~ o &~ E·uA E"""~
:I,~ f ~f ., ,! ~
~ C·- ., c:Þ"Cg,= M., _ a C ~ ~~ _.CD
:.~ C öE1!, .... os:: "u CU·- ._ = II,) >
t ,'~ ., .. ., :> .. . = E-" -o¡.. ..0
Ø> ., cõe<oic;Ec g: ., < : bII 'û · I! .. '"
ì .. as.!:! ~ S Ii e ~c.
.. Q.- _ E ~ 0 ..s C'iI Q. ..:¡S :I f ...... . w C ~ ., ~"""..c
.z:EA 1o>.~·~liE" .. 0 CU_._ - _.-..11
.. " '" ..;Ë ¡;; , ",,"" -.. :E'-E "'E:¡SC~ ~~.°:ïS
Ii.g : ... 0., ,E " 8 ..., =.. c:. ._ ::1.-
'" ., -= s !C'it3 .~ "" ":ï bO
-=e>:.!i ~~ "~""tfEQ. .. '>'~ .!i
.. "!,C
",,~j š\, ..""- ~ ~... f.....,.!! .- .- = °E c
'" ., :5 t,) cu.!:! ., 1!e t>0I.l....~-5.Q š\, E tI g: .; ~l·ü '" 5
.."" <~¡;~ CD o Q. _ C." 0 u . ::I ....._ c'-.!:Q :.-
.- :s "'CI .;. .Q 0 .. c:... .. < ~ f cõ:£:l
~ :1- ., ... ~ tI.D >-= .~,~ 0 .,.z: S !, '~~ bO'¡¡. ~
. .,.u"" .,,~ ID CD., u ..-.~ ., 1 c·c8-
~ OJ W·- ~-c"e ü., ··>";>.!!E ~ê-=;~i
.. ., > ='w:S ._ u IJ·· IJ·. c
~ 0 ~'E 8eü AO ",,_...tlS..
J .,! .. "0:: III'¡¡ 1 U .."c ".0 'S: A ,a.. Q.
:is .- Q. "Ø CDlQþc > to .. Q.~ , :¡.!! I ... cz~ II ell!., i §,!!
~ C -, ~~~8&: 11= to) CI> >"c,.Q CI> . :Be~a
oÞ : "":ï -'~" '" Do::l ~ "C
::;= rñ :~ 0:a1 CI> .. C .. _ luØ> 0~B.,,2 .."C.s';bD~
";Q 8 -:= ~B:ï .. '" e"'CI>IOCI>.~ "" -... IJ c: ..., c: c:
,5 :! 'E .,- ,!oSc~t,! _ .,o!1:£:1s ;1 II c: IS·- ,-
~:;'~"I -.. '> S ,2 E ~ f
E'~ ....::: f-··II ~. ;=.=.
'c"" II! ""o;jg" o :I <.c.,.....E .c-:l§1o> .. -= .C c
!a.,'is ,;- ......!lÞ\ 1::': B ., 1!~JjE:.;¡ .
~ -5- ""g- :I ., .;¡... E-.!i
._ := c: ..c ...... CD x.. E>-e1.c "E "x§....III
""..0 ~'.c2C»- .. .. o CI u ¡~ c.::I ~.:. "C..< Ii c: 5
c: '- ::; ~~~11 III C') &'I IQ.. C . ..
~:ï § ,S 10> :I'i e~:¡ e"- .. C> .. 8 . f -~
~ 001! '~,S"e'"
c c "" :I :I c .. C bD lID ... 5'" e i I'JUG.'III:;:
_ 0 0 :!';.!. Q.- ..."c.-C'\Ic....:c ~:ï~,!s - E":¡Scc;Q
.. .. Q. .!i ::s c·¡ &'I 0·- to) " Þ\'. 0 0..
.. . .. - :ë C 10>0 .. - ,- ..:¡¡ e 5-5 Go)'" as fþ ~- "::¡.c ..
"ö ., ., c -~ þc'. ~ e 'i'i CCEiile~ .. 110 Co It)
C .. .. >-o:ï.!!.c" I: e "" ., " ., .,
..c&'l4D:Si _3 :Sll- .. tI C u
c!~~ ., .. ~,! ~=i:'" &'I CD U
I >So!E .. 0 > ÞO." :I < ~,! E ~.; c.f...:']~
..
8 oS ~
'f to
u
.~ - ~
< ðJ ~ ;ä .
., .,
., CIJ ...
.. ., of. ""
.. :I
rJ3 u ~ -.t.!!! i
'f .- ;:s
~ c£ -
to 1 ~ "" ;ä
. ! CIJ C
... ..
0 ~ ~'i ~ t
. ""t .
~ - ... .,
.~ :I ::¡
~ C C
..t! "" E ,~
-
, i .. i E 'û
- C
0 0 ..
< z Q:ï 0 ..
1-3
¡<Ç
... "'---.- ---------'_.__._-------~'_.
ADA PARATRANSIT HANDBOOK
are used, the company must purchase or requirements are spelled out in
lease new vehicles that are accessible or regulations issued by the implementing
provide service that is equivalent to that agencies. Several regulations have already
provided to the general public. been issued to implement the ADA.
Both types of companies must purcPase Regulations issued on July 26: 1991 by the
accessible vehicles used in demand'\ Equal Employment Opportunity
responsive service unless the system, Commission ŒEOC) implement the
when viewed in its entirety, provides employment provisions of the ADA
equivalent service to persons with contained in TItle 1. The Department of
disabilities. Justice (DOJ) issued regulations
Private airlines are exempted from the implementing Title II and Title ill and
covering all public services and public
ADA (but must comply with provisions of accommodation issues other than trans-
the Air Carrier Access Act) and special portøtion on July 26, 1991. The Federal
provisions are made for intercity bus Communications Commission (FCC) is
companies operating over-the-road responsible for implementing the
coaches. The law calls for a study to be telecommunications section (Title IV) and
undertaken to e.....mine the potential £blished its regulations in the Federal
demand for accessible intercity bus service gister on August I, 1991.
and the alternatives for providing this
service. Regulations covering transportation
7ïtle.Iv. This section of the law services provided by both public entities
(under Title ll) and private entities (under
addresses telecommunications access. Title III) were issued by the Department
Under this section, the nation's telephone of Transportation (USDOT). Two sets of
companies are required to begin offering regulations have been issued to date. The
telecommunications relay services for first, contained in the October 4, 1990,
individuals with hearing impairments or Federal Register, implemented
speech im~rments by July 26, 1993. requirements for purchasing or leasing
Relay services enable a person with a vehicles that are accessible. It also
speech or hearing impairment to call an required public entities providing .
operator using a telecommunications . para transit service to maintain present
display device (TDD). The operator, who levels of service until their plans for
also has a TDD, then relays the complementary paratransit service are
conversation by voice to a third party. submitted. The second set of regulations
Similarly, a person using the voice was published in the September 6, 1991,
telephone system can converse with an Federal Register. This rule supersedes
i individual with a speech or hearing the October 4, 1990, rule and implements
i disability through the same relay service. other provisions of the ADA.
Section 2. .. This second rule is contained in
Implementing Regulations Appendix A of this handbook.
The USDOT regulations include design
Many sections of the ADA, including the standards for both facilities and vehicles
transportation provisions, are open to issued by the Architectural and
interpretation. This is not unusual for Transportation Barriers Compliance . .
major legislation. The purpose of the law Board (Access Board). Design standards
is to set goals, define general types of for facilities are provided in Appendix A of
discriminAtion, ~d create a framework f'or the DOT rule. Vehicle design standards
addressing this discriminAtion. As with are included as Part 38 of the regulation
other civil rights legislation, specific
definitions, interpretations, and
1-4
(&
---....-- ----"------~
ADA PARATRANSIT HANDBooK
and are also included in Appendix A of this the first time, accessibility standards for
Handbook. vehicles and amends the standards for
~ Appendix K of this handbook facilities previously used by Section 504.
contains the names and phone numbers While the ADA changed the approach
of persons in each federal agency who to acce.. and nondiscrimination, it
can be contacted for further '\ did not replace Section 604. The
wormation about the implementing general requirement of Section 504 - that
regulations. entities not discriminate against persons
Section 3. with disabilities as a condition of
eligibility for federal funding - still exists.
Relationship to Section 504 Rather, the two laws are now interrelated.
Passage of the ADA and the issuance of Compliance with the provisions of the
ADA is now a condition of compliance with
implementing regulations changed many Section 504.
aspects of public dis- Many provisions of the
ability policy previously Acce.. to fized route BYBtemB is
established under Sec- required. Umùr the ADA. ADA are not yet in
tion 504 of the Re· parøtra1Ulit is not a BubBtitute for force. Requirements for
habilitation Act of 1973 fized route Bervice but a facility access and
(Section 504). The ADA Bupplement for thoBe who are complementary par-
established clear unable to use the fized route atransit service, for
national goals and a BYBtern. example, will not
Bpecific and tÙtailed become effective until
courBe of action required to meet those January 26,1992. During this transition
goals. Compared to Section 504, the ADA period, the provisions of Section 504 still
requires a much greater degree of apply. Compliance with the facility access
,- -affirmative action" in employment, provisions of Section 504 is also still
programs, services, and policies. As a civil required.
rights law, the ADA also elevates the The USDOT regulations also state that
importance of access and recipients of federal transit funding are
nondiscrimination beyond eligibility for . expected to make decisions during this .
federal funding. transition period that are consistent with
Several changes in transportation policy the future requirements of the ADA. If a
have been made. The ADA no longer decision about the design of existing
allows public entities providing general paratransit service will be made before
public transportation the option either of January 26, 1992, it should be in the
mAking their fixed route systems direction that will make compliance with
accessible or providing separate the ADA's complementary paratransit
paratransit service for persons with service provisions easier to achieve.
disabilities. Access to fixed route systems Similarly, modifications and alterations to
is required. Under the ADA, paratransit is facilities should include, whenever
not a substitute for fixed route service but possible, the latest ADA standards, even if
a supplement for those who are unable to they are not yet required.
use the fixed route system.. Finally, entities previously subject to the
The ADA is more extensive in its coverage employment provisions of Section 504
of the various modes of transportation. must now comply with Title I of the ADA
Detailed requirements for commuter rail, and with the regulations issued by EEOC.
rapid rail, and light rail vehicles and Compliance by these recipients offederal
, service are included. Another significant funding is required regardless of the
difference is that the ADA establishes, for number of persons they employ.
I·S
-
17
-- _._......_---_.._....._-.~. --*-,-- . ...--.------¡-.
ADA PARATRANSIT HANDBOOK
Section 4. obligations, rather than on the imposition
of sanctions. They also state that priority
Enforcement in enforcement will be given to situations
The ADA specifies the arlm;n;strative where there is a "pattern or practice" of
processes that regulating agencies ¡p-e to discrimination, rather than to isolated
follow in enforcing provisions of the law. operational issues.
The powers, remedies, and procedures set In addition to ailm;n;strative enforcement,
forth in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 apply the ADA gives private individuals the
+.0 the employment provisions of Title I and right to initiate legal action against
to the public accommodation and service entities that violate the law. These private
provisions of Title Ill. Injunctive relief is actions can be brought concurrent with
also permitted under Title ITI. any arlm;n;strative action. Section 505 of
Enforcement of Title I is the responsibility the ADA also provides for the awarding of
of EEOC. Title III enforcement is to be attorney's fees in any private action or
provided by DOJ with the assistance of administrative proceeding.
USDOT. Where state or local laws conflict with
The remedies, procedures, and rights provisions of the ADA, federal law applies.
which exist under Section 504 (set forth in The same would apply to local
Section 505 of the Rehabilitation Act of agreements, including labor-management
1973) apply to the requirements of Title IT. agreements. A local law or agreement that
Enforcement responsibilities under this did not allow bus drivers to leave their
Title are shared by seats, for example,
USD~T ~~ DOJ. .. ...priority in enforcement will be would be preempted by
~, Public entitie~ recelV1ng given to Bituatiom where there ü ø §37.16~ of the USDOT
, federal finanCIal "pattern or practice" of regulations. The ADA
assis~ce from USDOT discrimination, rather than to does not, however,
are subject to the üolated operational iBBueB. preempt state and local
enforcement procedures laws or agreements
of that agency. Other which have equal or additional
public entities are subject to the ,requirements. .
enforcement provisions in the DOJ .
regulations. DOJ and USDOT have Section 5.
coordinated their regulations so that all Important Definitions
transportation-related complaints will be rr Appendix B provides a
handled by USDOT. comprehensive listing of terms and
. Complaints concerning transportation definitions used in the USDOT
under both Title ß and Title m must first regulations and the sections of the ADA
be filed with the USDOT Office of Civil which relate to transportation.
~g!tts. YSDO~ will.then investigate and, Man of these terms and definitions also
ifVlolations ens~, wil! attempt to resolve are ~lained as they are used in the
the problem. IfVlola~oI?JI.a;e not . various chapters of this handbook. A few
corrected, USDOT willlDltiate.l!roceedings key definitions and general concepts which
to ~~ oft'fe~eral funds. In addit:i0n, all affect man different aspects of the
entitie~ subject to these ~~ati~ns may gulati r! are diScussed below.
be subject to further arlm1n1strative or re 0 .
judicial action by DOJ. What iB a -diBability"1 The term
. . ' "disability" is defined to include any
The USDOT re~tions ~tate that physical or mental impairment that
enfon;ement ofTi~~ n wll1 f~ on substantially limits one or more major life
ensunng that entities meet their activities, a record of such an impairment,
1-6
;i
..-. -"- ---------..-..~-r_
ADA PARATIlANSIT HANDBOOK
or being regarded as having such an with general or special service, including
impairment. Major life activities include charter aervice, on a regular and
caring for one's self, performing manual continuing basis. Commuter and intercity
tasks, wA11ñng, seeing, hearing, speaking, rail services are excluded from this type of
breathing, learning, and working. The public transportation because they are
definition used in the ADA is simi1~ to the treated separately by the ADA. Public
one used in Section 503 and Section 504 of school transportation is excluded because
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and in the it is covered under the Rehabilitation Act
many regulations implementing that law of 1973.
w:ïth ~~ additions: pe~ns with ~gnitive .Specified p blic transportation- refers to
disabilities and those WIth contagious or ? rail
noncontagious diseases (including transportation by bus, .' or any o~er
tuberculosis and HIV disease) are conveY&;1ce (othe~ than IUrcraft) proVld!d
specifically included in the d finiti b>: a pnvøte entity !-O the ~ene~ pu~hc,
. . . e ?n. WIth general or speaal semce (mcluding
~ A ~~~ed discussIon of specific charter service) on a regular and
disabilities and how they relate to the continuing basis.
provision of complementary paratransit . ..
service is provided in Chapter 4 of this Air s~r:'lce 18 excl~ded from bo~ of these
handbook definitions ofpubhc transportation
. . ., . because, as mentioned earlier, it is covered
Wh~t !_ ø "publIC entJty"1 A. public under the Air Carrier Access Act of 1986
entity IS defined as any State or local (P.L. 99-435).
government, any department, agency,
special purpose district, or any other These definitions are ADA spe<=!-fic and do
instrumentality of a not necessanly apply to
_ State or States or local Considering these definitiolUl, it is other laws or to th~
government, the clear that the ADA WØB intended to federal mass. transIt
National Railroad be comprehelUlive in its coverage of pro~. NeIther
Passenger Corporation all type_ oftrølUlportøtion not defini?on has the same.
(AMTRAK), or any already øddreued by other laws. ~~~ng as the term
commuter authority eliglble mass trans- .
under the Rail Passenger Service Act. . portation" used in
What is the difference between connection with programs ~ded under
-designated public trØ1Ulportation - ;.i~rban Mass Transportation Act of
and -specified public transportation '1 .
As noted earlier, the ADA contains Considering these definitions, it is clear
requirements for public entities that are that the ADA was intended to be
different than those for private entities. It comprehensive in its coverage of all types
also addresses modes of transportation of transportation not already addressed by
differently. The terms ·designated public other laws.
transportation- and ·specified public Bow are "'fú:ed route Nrvice-
transportation- were created to -demand respolUlive Nrvice- ~nd
dis~h between different modes and "parøtrøn.Bit- defi1UJd' The ADA broadly
entities. defines all types of transportation using
"Designated public transportation- refers these first two ~rms. F}zed route is
to transportation provided by a public en- defined as semce proVlded &.long a
tity (otlier than public school prescribed route according to a fixed
transportation) by bus, rail, or other sche?ule. I?e~ respolUlive is any
conveyance (other than transportation by semce whic:h .1S not fixed route. The ten;n
aircraft or intercity or commuter rail partJ!TØ1UI¡t IS commonly used ~ descnbe
transportation) that provides the public certain types of demand responsIve
1-7
/1'
,.. ...--....---.--- .~'--_.__.__.----------r--
ADA PARATRANSIT HANDBOOK
services. The USDOT's implementing and ramps). Ramps, lifts and other
regulations and this handbook use accessibility hardware need to be properly
"paratransit" to describe the comparable designed, however, to meet the needs of
transportation service that must be penons with disabilities and to
provided for individuals with disabilities accommodate different mobility aids.
who are unable to use fixed route s~tems. Access also involves proper t;rA;n;ng of
MaDy types of transportation, such ås penonnel and proper maintenance of
equipment. The operating policies and
route deviation systems and certain types procedures adopted by transit agencies are
of shuttle bus services, are not easy to also 811 important part of an -accessible"
classify using these broad definitions. . service. Finally, access means JrlA1ring
.. Chapter 2 discusses several of these public information and communications
and clarifies whether or not systems accessible to penons with vision
complementary paratransit service is and hearing impairments.
required in each case. .. Appendix E provides suggestions for
What makes a service "acceuible"1 developing accessible information and
Access is often thought of as physical communications.
access to vehicles and buildings (i.e. lifts
.
,
.
1-8
2.-6
.....-..,.--- ~ -'~~-~~-~----~T~ m
ADA PARATRANSIT HANDBOOK
2
Complementary; Paratransit
Service Requirements
Section 1. Commuter rail and intercity rail services
When Is Complementary , are not subject to complementary
Paratransit Service Required? paratransit service requirements because,
like public school transportation and
The underlying tenets of the ADA are transportation by aircraft, they are not
equal opportunity, full participation, and included in the ADKs definition of
independence. The law intends for persons ·designated public transportation".
with disabilities to have equal access to Commuter bus service also is exempted.
fa~~es an? to be able to fully and equally Thë regulations define commuter bus
partiopate m programs and services. service as being predominantly in one
Access to mainline, fixed route service is direction during peak periods, having
therefore, to be provided. ' limited stops, using multi-ride tickets and
While access to fixed route systems is the having routes of extended length, usu~ly
primary focus, the law acknowledges that between a central business district (or
some persons with disabilities are not able other employment center) and outlying
to use fixed route services even if these suburbs. Systems with limited route
services are accessible. The law also structures, limited stops, and a ,
acknowledges that until fixed route coordinated relationship to another mode
systems .are made completely accessible, of transportation also are defined as
alternative means of transportation need commuter bus services. A number of
to be provided to persons who are systems fall within this definition and are
otherwise able to use accessible fixed route mentioned specifically in the regulations.
services. Complementary parøtra1Ulit . They include:
service is required in Section 223 of the · shuttle bus services operated by
ADA to serve those persons whose needs public airports, which connect
cannot be met by fixed route systems. terminals, parking lots, or a
Complementary paratransit is not limited number of other local
required in all cases where fixed route destinations (§37.33)j
service is provided. Section 223 of the ADA · Fixed route systems operated by
applies only to desipøted public public universities (§37.25);
1rø1Ulporløtion as defined in Chapter 1.
The USDOT regulations implementing · bus systems used to supplement
this section of the law requires that, intercity rail service which
except for commuter buS, commuter rail, connect rail stations to a limited
and intercity rail systems: number of other points (§37.35)j
·...each public entity operating a fixed and,
route system, shall provide paratransit · ~edicated bus service to
or other special service to individuals commuter rail systems which are
with disabilities that is comparable to available only to users of the rail
the level of service provided to system and which have through
individuals without disabilities who ticketing arrangements (§37.35).
use the fixed route system." (137.121)
2-1
¿/
-.......-- --.-------------r..--
ADAPARATRANSIT HANDBOOK
A second important distinction is that human service agencies (e.g. a weekly
complementary paratransit service is "shopping shuttle- for a senior center). If
required only üthe fixed route service is this service is only provided to clients of
operated by a public entity (see definition the human service agency, complementary
in Chapter 1). The word "operate" is paratransit service is not required. If this
defined to include both direct operiÍtion service also is open to the public, however,
and contracted operation. A contract is complementary paratransit service must
broadly defined to include any fonnal or be provided.
informal arrangement. A founn factor in determining ü
Not all relationships are covered by this complementary paratransit service must
requirement. Complementary paratransit be provided is whether or not the service
service does not have to be provided by operated fits the definition of a fized
public entities which only license or route service. The regulation addresses
regulate an operator of fixed route service. several types of systems that do not easily
Similarly, complementary paratransit fit into the broad definitions of fixed route
service is not required ü and demand responsive
a public entity provides A.t a general rule, .ervice would service included in the
capital assistance to a be considered "under contract" to ADA. Specifically
~ed rout;e operll;tor but apublic agency if the .ervice mentioned are.
IS othel"Wlse not mvolved would otherwÎBe be operated by the vanpoolB, which are
in the design or funding public entity. designated as demand
of the operation. Nor ' responsive services in
does the regulation require the private 137.31, and øirportjitney and .huttle
entity receiving the subsidy to provide ay.tems, which also are categorized as
,- paratransit service, since the demand responsive in 137.33.
complementary paratransit service Case-by-case determinations will be
requirements only apply to public entities. needed for other systems which combine
S . h . elements of both fixed route and demand
ta~s whic pass-th:ough ~ctlon 18 or responsive service. Appendix D of the
Section 16(b)(2) funding to pnvate, . regulation offers guidance on this issue. It.
non-profit agenCles are n~t responsIble, . states that a key factor to be considered is
solely by re~son of awarding these funds,. whether riders must request the service,
to al~o proVIde complementary pa~translt typically by m..1riTlg a call. It further
semce. It should be noted. that, !"hi~e states that route deviation ay.teml, in
com~lementary paratranslt semce l~ not which rider requests determine the exact
req~red, for-profit and .non-profit pnvate route are considered demand responsive
entities must comply WIth all other rvi~s
applicable sections of the law. se. simi1
'. .. Route deviation and a . . ar type
As a.general rule, semce ~ould be . of service known as "point deviation"
con81dered "under contract to a public are discussed in more detail in Section
agency ü the service ~oul~ otherwise be 3 of Chapter 6. Guidance is offered on
operated by the public entity. the design of these types of services.
Third, complementary paratransit is _ A final clarification involves "unusual-
required only üfixed route service is open fixed route systems, such as inclined
to the general public. If fixed route service planes and aerial tramways. For these
is available only to a defined group,such types of systems, the feasibility of
as employees, complementary paratransit providing complementary paratransit
service is not required. This also would must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
apply to regularly scheduled The length of the system and the area in
transportation provided under contract to which it operates are factors to consider. If
2-2
'Z..--¿
.~_._.__,___._____. ..--..----..,--~--Mr····-
ADA PAIlATIlANSIT HA."'DBOOK
paratransit service as typically defined is The .econd category of eligibility
! not practical, reasonable efforts must be includes:
made to accommodate persons with . Any individual with a disability who
disabilities. Providing an alternative needs the assistance of a wheelchair
which would duplicate the service as lift. or other boarding assistance device
closely as possible (or provide imp1'Qved and is able, with such assistance, to
service) is permitted. ' board, ride, and disembark from any
Section 2. vehicle which is readily accessible to
and usable by individuals with
To Whom Must Complementary disabilities üthe individual wants to
Para transit Service be travel on a route of the system during
Provided? the hours of operation of the system at
a time, or within a reasonable period of
The regulations identify three categories of such time, when such a vehicle is not
individuals who are eligible for being used to provide designated public
complementary paratransit service. These transportation on the route,-
persons are considered "ADA Eligibility under this category depends on
paratrønsit eligible". Each public entity
"roviding complementary paratransit the accessibility of vehicles and routes. A
service must establish a process for person is eligible for paratransit service Ü
determining ADA paratransit eligibility. the fixed route on which they want to
travel is not yet accessible, Guidance on
The first category of eligibility includes: exactly what constitutes an accessible
· Any individual with a disability who is fixed route is provided in the regulation
unable, as the result of a physical or and explanatory appendix. For example:
mental impairment (including a vision · An individual is eligible for
impairment), and without the paratransit üa vehicle's lift or
assistance of another individual (except boarding device could not be .-
the operator of a wheelchair lift. or deployed at the stop which they
other boarding assistance device), to want to use;
board, ride, or disembark from any .
vehicle on the system which is readily . · An individual is eligible üthey
accessible to and usable by individuals use a ·common wheelchair- but
with disabilities.- cannot be served by the fixed
Included in this category are individuals route system because the lift. on
the vebicle they need to use does .
with mental or visual impairments who not meet the equipment
cannot ·navigate the system-, Recognizing standards contained in Part 38 of
destinations, understanding transfers, and the regulation. A common .
being able to distinguish between vehicles , wheelchair is defined as one that
at busy transfer stations are all examples can be accommodated by
of navigating the system. With the equipment meeting the
excepti<!n of assistance provided by the standards;
driver or other employees of the service, · A person is eligible üthe bus
eligibility under this category is based on a
person's ability to independently use the route on which they want to
service. A person traveling with a friend or travel is not 100% accessible.
attendant is still eligible for paratransit · Similarly, a person is eligible ü
service even ü they would be able to use they need to travel on a rapid or
the fixed route system with this other light rail system that is not yet in
person's help. full compliance with the
2·3
"2..3
.,--- .'--.-.. ... .-------...-~.,.---.,.-------__r..----
ADA PARATRANSIT HANDBOOK
regulation. Full compliance live. If these individuals have been
means that all key stations are certified as "ADA paratransit eligible· by
accessible and one car per train is another public entity, that certification
accessible. A:t1 individual would be must be honored for up to 21 days. If they
eligible in this example even,if have not been certified as eligible by ,
accessible bus service is províded another public entity but claim that they
in the same area. are ADA paratransit eligible, they are
The third category of eligibility entitled to "presumptive eligibility" for up
to 21 days. If service is needed beyond this
includes: period, Ü\ey can be required to apply for
"A:t1y individual with a disability who eligibility in the area they are visiting.
bas a specific impairment-related .. Chapter" of this handbook
condition which prevents such addresses each of these eligibility
individual from traveling to a boarding issues in greater detail. It also provides
location or from a disembarking guidance on establishing a
location on such system.· determination process in compliance
Two important qualifiers to this category with the regulations.
are included in the regulations. First, the Section 3.
"specific impairment-related condition·
must prevent the person from using the What Level of Service Is
fixed route system. Conditions which make Required?
getting to or from stops/stations more
difficult do not confer eligibility. Second, Complementary paratransit programs
architectural barriers not under the must provide a level of service that is
control of the public entity (such as comparable to that provided on the fixed
curb-cuts), and environmental barriers route system. Six criteria for determining
(such as distance, terrain, and weather) do comparability are included in the
not, when considered alone, confer September 6,1991 rule. These state that
eligibility. If, however, travel to or from a the paratransit service must:
boarding Jocation is impossible when these · Operate in the same "",ice .
factors are combined with the person's . area as the fixed route system.
specific impairment-related condition, · Have a re,ponlle tilM (defined as
paratransit service must be provided. the elapsed time between a
Paratransit service also must be provided request for service and the
to a personal care attendant traveling with provision of service) that is
an eligible rider. In addition to a personal comparable.
care attendant, the regulations require · Have comparable fare..
that service be provided to one companion · Have comparable do.y. and
accompanying an eligible rider. Other
persons accompanying the rider are to be houn of.e",iee.
, accommodated on a "space availableB · Meet requests for any trip
basis. Persons are considered to be purpo.e.
accompanying the eligible rider ü they are · Not limit service availability
picked up and dropped off at the same because of capøeity cOnlltrøint..
locations as the eligible rider. In addition, the regulations establish
The needs of visitors with disabilities also requirements for several aspects of
are addressed. Complementary operation, including:
paratransit service must be provided to · no-show policies;
ADA eligible individuals who travel to
areas outside of the region in which they
2-4
2Y
,..,..,-'----,""
ADA PARATIlANSIT HANDBOOK
· typeS of service; Persons with disabilities and groups
... representing them must be consulted in
· aubscnption semce; aU phCUles of the plAnn;ng process.
· equipment specifications; Outreach efforts are required to inform
. '. individuals who are likely to be affected
· mamtenance of access eqwp~~nt, that the plan is being prepared and to
· the use oflifts and securement invite their input. Plans must be available
systems; for public review and comment before
. accommodation of mobility aids !hey øreli7UÜiud, and must be provided
and life support equipment. m accesBlble f?rmats. upon :equest. At
, least one public heanng, WIth adequate
· the provision of accessible notice, also must be sponsored.
information and communications; Plans ustindi' te h ....11 "
d m œ w en UoW compüance
an , with the regulation will be achieved. Full
· employee training; compliance is required CUI «JOn CUI ï.
... The six service criteria and each of po..ible, but no later than JanWU'y 26,1997.
the operating ~tandards listed above Ifparatransit services in full compliance
are discussed In Chapter 5. cannot be implemented within one year,
Section 4. plans must include mil!stones which show
"measured and proportional progress." In
How and When Must Service be its review of plans , UMTA will determine,
Implemented? on a case-by-case basis, whether it
. . believes that progress toward compliance
A plan for .proV1~ng complementa.ry can be achieved in a more expeditious
_ paratransIt semce must be subIIlltted. on manner. Hit is determined that full
or ~rore Jan~ry 26, 1992 by all pubhc compliance is possible in a shorter
entities prepanng timeframe plans will
individual plans. An F II I· . . d be· cte d' 'ç
dditi nal' th· u comp JØnce ,. requIre CUI reJe even I,
a . 0 . SIX. ~on s IS soon CUI U possible, but no later compliance ï.
Pb,:ded ü aJOldtbPltwan them JanutJI'Y 2ti, 1997. If it u tk- proposed in leBB than-
IS emg prep~e .:>: 0 termined that full compliance u the maximum five
o~iliore Pïbli~ entities poBBible in a shorter timeframe, ~ear implementation
WI . over appIn~ or pla1lB will be rejected even if com- period.
contiguous semce areas .. d· le h '
or jurisdictions and they pllance ~ propoBe In . BB t an Implementation of each
find it impossible to the ~mum,.C:i year Imple- paratransit plan also
complete the plan by the mentatwn pe must commence on
January deadline. In . . . January ~6, 1992. A;n
these cases all elements of the joint plan UMTA deClBlon on the plan IS not reqwred
that can be' completed should be submitted before service is initiated. H changes are
on January 26, 1992. Remaining elements required as a result ofUMTA's review,
of the plan must be submitted by July 26, service design and operating procedures
1992. H all elements of a joint plan are not can be adjusted as necessary.
8ub~tted by Jan~ 26, 19~2. e~ch In order to begin implementation, a
ent!ty also J?ust proV1d~ ~rtiñ~tion of process for determ;n;ng who is "ADA
theIr conumtmen~ to ~ Jomt semce and paratransit eligible" must be a first
that.they ~ lIWn~ current leve~s of priority. H a process is not in place on
se~ce dunng the BlX month enenBlon January 26, 1992, it must be developed as
penod. soon thereafter as is pilm;n;stratively
possible.
2-5
.---
'6')
--- ---~~---_.._---_._"-_.._--..."_.__.._-_._,..,-~-_._-'---------.._,--"
AI;)A PARATRANSIT HANDBOOK
UMTA will review plans and will provide In cases where undue financial burdens
writen notice if a plan is disapproved. If a will still occur, the regulations provide for
plan, or any portion of it, is disapproved, a waivers to be granted by the UMTA
revised plan must be resubmitted within Adm;n;strator. It is important to note that
90 days of the receipt of a disappr~val waivers only apply to the six service
letter. The public participation process criteria described in Section 3 of this
required for the development of initial chapter. Operating requirements included
plans must be used for any revisions. in the regulation must be met without
fir Chapter 7 provides guidance on exception.
developing a paratransit plan. An undue flnAncia1 burden waiver can be
Section S. requested either at the time initial plans
are submitted or during the course of
Undue Financial Burden Waiver implementation. Waivers can only be
Provisions requested on January 26, 1992, ifit is
The law and regulations consider the determined that:
financial realities facing public transit . full compliance by January 26,
systems. Five provisions, listed below, 1997 is not possible; or,
were included to . measured
minimize the potential RequeBt. for waive,., muBt demo progress cannot be
financial buriien of . omtrate that CUI undue financial made in each year.
complying with the burden wiU re.ult from the imple· A waiver should be
requirements of the mentation of the required par· requested, for
regulations. atrtuUlit .ervice. Only tho.e co.t. example, if it is
· Service pro- tJB.ociated with providing reo determined that
vided to ADA quired .ervice. can be counted to· little or no progress
Paratransit EI- ward an undue burden. will be possible in
igible in- the first year.
dividuals by other paratransit Waivers can be requested during the
providers in the area can be , course of implementation if circumstances
counted as part of the total effort assumed in the initial plan change and
in the area. full compliance by January 26, 1997 is no
· The service area that must be longer poss~ble.
covered is limited to comparable Requests for waivers must demonstrate
fixed route corridors. that an undue financial burden will result
· Required eligibility is limited to from the implementàtion of the required
those who cannot otherwise use paratransit service. Only those costs
the fixed route system. associated with providing required
services can be counted toward an undue
· Fixed route bus systems are burden. Costs incurred providing services
considered accessible iflift buses to persons who are not ADA paratransit
are available by advance eligible or services which go beyond the
reservation through required service criteria cannot be
Call·A·Lift·Bus or On-Call Bus included.
programs. The regulations identify several factors
· A phase-in period of up to 5 years that will be considered by UMTA in
is provided for full determining whether or not an undue
implementation of complementary financial burden exists. Waiver requests
paratransit service.
2-6 2G
____ ~..__..u...._·· ~_ ...-.--- --. .__.._~ .~.._.,--...-"-.-.-.'u..-.---__________r..--·.
ADAPARATIlANSIT HANDBOOK
must contain information which will allow service be provided along key routes
UMTA to evaluate each of these factors. (defined as routes that run at least hourly)
"Appendix F of this handbook during morning, noon, and evening peak.
provides a listing of these factors and periods, even üto do so would cause an
other ipformation co.nceming ~due undue financial burden.
finanoal burden W81ver requests. Finally, it is important to note that if
If a waiver is approved, the public entity WøilJe,.. are INUIted, th~ wiU.be for a
may be asked to provide as much service limited and .peci(ied time period. If a
as possible without incurring an undue request is approved, a waiver will be
burden. UMTA also may ask that the plan granted for an amount of time beyond the
be changed üit feels that more efficient allowed implementation period which is
and effective ways to provide service exist. needed to achieve full compliance. This
This can include a requirement to work period of time will be determined from
more closely with other providers of information contained in the plan and
paratransit service in the area. UMTA also UMTA's evaluation of the public entity's
can ask that complementary paratransit financial and operating situation.
.-
,
.
,
2·7
2./
..~.-.--.~._.,_.._---~----'- - -_..-
26' ----¡-
-
. .~. ,., --
- -~_._--,-
MEMORANDUM EYH,'fJ/í ~.
-
August 8, 1995
File No: DT-002
TO: Hr,Dorable Mayor and City Council
VIA: John Goss, City Manager
VIA: John Lippitt, Director of Public Works ~
FROM: Bill Gustafson, Transit Coordinator ~c:
SUBJECT: HandYtrans Service under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
At the June 20, 1995 Council meeting under Mayor's comments, the Mayor requested
information on HandYtrans Service under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the
impact on seniors who may Dot be certified under the ADA. The Mayor also requested
information regarding how the City of Chula Vista could accommodate the needs of seniors
who want to ride HandYtrans. This memo will provide Council with background information
on the ADA, and its implications for HandYtrans service.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON HANDYTRANS SERVICE AND THE ADA
HandYtrans Fundin¡¡
The Transpo'\&tion Development Act (TDA) provídes the operating and capital funds for both
Chula Vista Transit (cvr) and HandYtrans. TDA funds are derived from 1/4% of the local
.sales tax in San Diego County. The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG)
allocates the TDA ~ San Diego area jurisdictions and the Metropolitan Transit Development
Board (MTDB) approves all expenditures within its area of jurisdiction which includes the City
of Chula Vista. There are no City of Chula Vista general funds, nor federal funds, used for
either system.
Five percent of regional TDA funds are set aside as Article 4.5 funds to provide ADA
"Complementary Paratransit Services.· HandYtrans is funded by Article 4.5 funds and,
therefore, is an ADA paratransit service provider. These funds are allocated to jurisdictions
on a discretionary basis. The remaining TDA funds, known as Article 4.0 funds, are allocated
to jurisdictions on the basis of population and are used to fund the fIXed route transit services,
such as cvr in the City of Chula Vista. For FY 1995-96, the City of Chula Vista's Article
4.5 allocation is SI49,870 and the total HandYtrans budget is S241,690. ,The balance is funded
by fare revenue (S66,OOO), Transnetfunds (S23,ooo) and investment earnings (S3,ooo).
All CVT buses ind related equipment are owned by the City. HandYtrans vehicles are
provided by the contract operator, cwrently the American Red Cross. The City has not
.2J?
-"---- ,..,._,_.._..~.-. +-~'--r'-
. ADAlHandYtrans Service ·2- August 8, 1995
purchased vehicles for HandYtrans because of insufficient TDA Article 4.5 funds to support
both operations and capital procurements.
HandYtrans Service: Before and Mer PassalZe of the ADA
HandYtrans began service in 1979 funded by the TDA Article 4.5 program. Between 1979
and 1993, HandYtrans service was intended for any senior person over 8,lZe 60 relZardless of
disabilitv and for any individual with a disability regardless of age. The service objective of
HandYtrans prior to the ADA was to provide an alternative transportation choice for
individuals who had difficulty riding CVT. The service objective of HandY trans now (and all
the other Article 4.5 funded systems in the region) is to provide transportation for mobility
limited persons certified under the ADA.
The ADA of 1990 is a federal law intended to eliminate discrimination against individuals with
disabilities. Beginning in FY 1993, the SANDAG Board changed the purpose ofTDA Article
4.5 funds to fund "complementary paratransit service" to meet requirements of the ADA. An
initial plan for local compliance with the transportation components of the ADA was submitted
by MTDB to the Federal Transit Administration in January 1992, with annual updates each
subsequent January. Full compliance is required by January 1997. The attached Council
agenda statement dated January 7, 1992 (Attachment 1) discusses the Complementary
Paratransit Service plan required by the ADA and also authorized MTDB to submit the
- Complementary Paratransit Service plan on behalf of SCOOT in compliance with the ADA (at
that time, the South Coast Organization Operating Transit, or SCOOT, was a joint powers
agency between the City of Chula Vista and the C.ounty of San Diego and was the governing
board of CVT). Attached to this report are excerpts from the ADA Paratransit Handbook
which discuss. the requirements of the ADA regarding paratransit service.
Complementary paratransit service required by the ADA is based on functional mobility
limitations and may be summarized as follows:
- Complementary paratransit service must be provided to supplement fixed route services
like CVT. Persons eligible for complementary paratransit service are those individuals
who cannot access the fixed route service (for example, walk to or wait at a bus stop)
or cannot ride the fixed route service at all because of mobility limitations.
- Complementary paratransit service must be provided within a 3/4 mile corridor offlXed
route services (bus or light rail).
- The ADA specifies six service criteria for complementary paratransit service:
· Service area· must cover 3/4 mile radius of the fIXed route corridor.
· Resoonse time - requires next day reservation service and allows for reservations
up to 14 days in advance.
· Em! - may be a maximum of twice the base fIXed route fare.
· Trio Durnose - prohibits restriction for pwpose of travel.
30
--. .,-- -------l--· .
. ADAlHandYtrans Service -3- August 8, 1995
. Hours and davs of service - service must be available during the same hours and
days as [¡xed route service.
. CaDacitv constraints "prohibits restrictions on number or ftequency of trips.
Attached for Council's information (Attachment 2) is the ADA complementary paratransit
service certification form used in the San Diego area. The American Red Cross has been
designated by MTDB as the Coordinated Transportation Service Agency (CTSA) for the
region, and it is the certifying entity for complementary paratransit service. The certification
process can be handled through the mail. Applications are also available at the Norman Park
Senior Center. The Senior Center staff is available to answer any general questions about the
application form and certification process. More detailed questions can be directed to the Red
Cross staff for assistance in compjeting the application.
Since 1993, HandYtrans has been giving priority service to persons certified under the ADA,
but generally has been able to serve all persons requesting service. However, as future demand
increases, HandYtrans may be able to accommodate only individuals who are certified under
the ADA since, by law, complementary paratransit service must be provided to those
individuals.
According to, the American Red Cross, there are currently 221 ADA certified individuals in the
, HandYtrans service area. May 1995 statistics for HandYtrans service indicates the following
.- categories of passengers carried on HandYtrans:
. Senior (Age 60+) 138
Disabled 2,481
Wheelchair 455
The average daily ridership in these categories is as follows:
Senior 5
Disabled 95
Wheelchair 18
It should be pointed out that some of the riders in the categories "Wheelchair" and "Disabled"
may be seniors; the individuals, categorized as "seniors" therefore are neither disabled nor use
wheelchairs. Based on these statistics, it is likely that most of the current individuals served
by HandYtrans would be eligible for ADA certification.
Since the intent of the ADA is to guarantee paratransit service for individuals with mobility
limitations, there may be some seniors who have no mobility limitations and, therefore, would
not be eligible for ADA certification. Therefore, seniors with mobility limitations probably
qualify for complementary paratransit service; those who do not qualify for ADA certification
may ride the fIXed route systems.
5/
""~ ---~---_..~--_."._"---'------'--.----
ADAlHandYtrans Service -4- August 8, 1995
.
,
.
Additional Service Consideration: Cost and Fares
The cost of providing paratransit se,rvice is substantially greater than fIXed route service. For
example, the subsidy per passenger Õn HandYtrans is approximately $4.25 compared with $.70
on CVT. In January 1997, when the ADA requires full compliance with its complementary
paratransit service requirements, HandYtrans service must be available during the same hours
as CVT services, which is approximately from 5:30 a.m. to 11:30 p.m. Currently, HandYtrans
operates from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday - Friday, and 7:30 a.m. - 1:30 p.m. on Sunday.
Therefore, by 1997 HandYtrans service must be available during evening hours Monday _
Friday, all day Saturday and expanded hours on Sunday. Since demand for this service during
these additional times is unknown, it is difficult to estimate the additional cost for providing
this service. However, the City of Chula VISta currently uses all of its Article 4.5 funds
available Jor HandYtrans services. On a region-wide basis, a substantial shortfall, estimated
at a minimum of $5 million annually, is anticipated to meet the requirements of ADA by 1997.
MTDB is currently considering various options to meet the ADA mandate, but there still is
uncertainty about the future demand for complementary paratransit service, the cost of the
service, and how to fund the service.
The fare structure in the MTDB area encourages the use of the fIXed route systems for those
individuals whose mobility enabjes them to do so. For example, a one-way HandYtrans fare
currently is $2.00. The cash CVT senior/disabled fare is $.75. In addition, a regional monthly
-- pass for seniors/disabled persons is available for $12.25 which permits unlimited ridership on
all the fixed route systems in the MTDB area, including CVT, San Diego Transit, and the San
Diego TroIJey. Since the cost of riding the fIXed route systems is substantially less for a senior "
then the complementary paratransit services such as HandYtrans, this fare structure encourages
use of the fIXed route system for those individuals who are able to ride them. In addition, in
the City of Chula Vista, the CVT routes 706n06A (the downtowner routes) have a fare of
$.25. Since these routes serve the central Chula Vista area, including many senior retirement
homes, senior ridership on these routes is substantial. For example, recent average daily
senior/disabled ridership on CVT was 1,200 trips compared with 118 trips on HandYtrans.
Summary and Recommendations
- The ADA requires full compliance for complementary paratransit service by January
1997. Due to anticipated demand and the cost of paratransit service, it is likely that
HandYtrans will serve only individuals who are ADA certified. In order to assist
seniors eligible for ADA certification, application forms are available at the Norman
Park Senior Center and the staff is available to answer basic questions about the form
and the certification process. The. CTSA staff is available to answer more detailed
questions and to assist the individual through the process.
- The cost of providing paratransit service is substantially higher than fIXed route service.
.The subsidy per passenger for HandYtrans is approximately six times higher than the
subsidy per passenger for CVT. In order to meet the ADA transportation mandates, and
to provide the most cost effective service to a1J seniors and disabled persons, individuals
3<-
.. ·c_····___····_··__'·'_'·..· ..".____.___~~....,...___-.-
.-"-.---..-
ADAlHandYtrans Service -5- August 8, 1995
'\ .
.
whose mobility limitations require paratransit service should be encouraged to appjy for
ADA cenification. However, those individuals who can ride the fIXed route bus
systems, like CVT, should do so.
'\
- The fare structure in the region encourages seniors and disabled persons to use the fIXed
route systems if possible. Senior/disabled ridership on CVT has increased substantially
during recent years, due partly to substantially lower fares compared with HandYtrans.
- There still are unresolved regional funding and service issues for meeting the January
1997 ADA complementary paratransit service mandates, including funding and service
provision. Currently there are insufficient funds to meet the anticipated service
requirements for 1997 and in future years. Unresolved service issues include:
provision of interjurisdictional complementary paratransit service - how to operate and
fund this paratransit service for regional routes (like the Trolley and some San Diego
Transit bus routes) that cross jurisdictional boundaries.
.
",,-~\odohyIr........
.
'3.3
-- .._....~- ......- -- ...,-..------. n___
3~ _
- ---....
. ---
-",-'
~ ..-.
,.".-
.-,' -..:..
.....>';,.,.c_._....;.·
·"':i)·
II
~
MTDB
Complementary Paratransit Service Zones E)(Ii;ß¡T 3,
3ç (+-.ríAc t4 ~~-I
'- -
.~...'._._._...",- ...- .,_.._--'---¡-----
30, _~
EXHIBIT 4 I
,
Period Vehicle Service Hourly Rate Maximum Cost AiTlKttfl1tvT I
. . Hours , .
-
July l, 1996 - 4,450 $27.203 $121,054
January I, 1997
January 2, 1997 - 13,204 (est) $27.203 (day) $359,189 (est)
September 30, 1997 2,284 (est) $21.643(night) $49,434 (est)
TOTAL(estimated) 19,93~ $529,677
SERVICE ALLOCATION: January 2, 1997 - September 30, 1997
Service Period Service Area Hourly Estimated Veh X Hrs x Days Rate Est Cost
Rate Hrs
(Weekday M-F)
4= - 5= West of Hilltop Evening 194 (lxlxl94) $21.643 $4,199
5= - 7pm Fixed-Rte. Day 10,864 (4xI4xl94) $27.203 $295,534
Comparable
7pm - 1I:3Opm Fixed-Rte. Evening 873 (lx4.5xl94) $21.643 $18,895
Comparable
1I:3Opm - 1:30= West of Hilltop Evening 388 (IX2XI94) $21.643 $8,398
SUBTOTAL 12319 !;327 026
(Saturday)
4= - 7= West of Hilltop Evening 117 (lx3x39) $21.643 $2,533
7= - 7pm Fixed-Rte. Day 1,404 (3xI2x39) $27.203 $38,194
Comparable ,
7pm - 10:3Opm Fixed-Rte. Evening 136.5 (lx3.5x39) $21.643 $2,955
Comparable
1O:3Opm - 2:45= West of Hilltop Evening 165.75 (lx4.25x39) $21.643 $3,588
SUBTOTAL 1 823.25 7.270
(Sunday)
3:30= - 7 :30= West of Hilltop Evening 156 (lx4x39) $21.643 $3,377
7= - 7pm Fixed-Rte. Day 936 (2xI2x39) $27.203 $25,462
Comparable
7pm - IOpm Fixed-Rte. Evening 117 (1x3x39) $21.643 $2,533
Comparable
10pm - 1:30= West of Hilltop Evening 136.5 (1x3.5x39) $21.643 $2,955
1,345.5 $34,327
TOTAL 15,488 $408,623
3)
,...~_._._._._._._- - - _._.~-~-~--_._-
35
------ --. ..~.---..._.--.--.--~-
.....-
ATTACHMENT ~, f' I o-f 3
QQQQQ'tI.OOOQQ",...
~ OQQOQOO~O~NN'"
~ QQQOQdO.O.~~Q
~ ~¿~~~o~¿¿~~¿~
~~ NNcm~_~~Nmm~o
~ ~~~*~ *~M_NN*
~ ~*~ ~ ~*~~~
:.:~.: .. .... o0.. .. N
;:::c::
::::·:it:":
OOONN'tI.NN"'ON~~
oOO~~"'~CC"''''.CCN
ooocoCCcxjCCCOLn_LnIl)CXt
"¡a5u:J"_""':_ ":cD"":Ò"':"":~
w0C:O-NM NNCO-N~O c
~N-000 01l)*CC~_* c
U ".(1)0" .. 4) 00'" C
...... - - I.t:I ~
.. * .. ;
..,
œ
c
~
OOO..'tI..CC"'.O"'''' ~
ooooOcnOCJ:Ir--r--MC")cn c:
qqq~~tå~~~~"?~~ ~
CX),....-O-NO_oq-CC-.:t("). 11:I
~~ONN NN~N"''''Q ~
.1.t:I_~*~ .r--.COLn,...... .>~
... "0(1)0'" .. .(I). **..
u- - ...... M ca
.. * .. ~
"
u
.E
'"
ooi
ooo~~'tI.~"'O~N"'~ œ
OOOLt)I.l)LCLC,....OMNMØ) U
OOO..CÔ.....O."'O 'f
ÑÖN'Mu) MÒ.,..:u)Ò,......~ c(
.COMLn0Ln *CONOLn_O <
...M0M (") _*N_,..... C
u* o0.. .. ** ~
o
o
o
",'
W ~
U ~ .
- CD..a c: CI
> 0000"''''~''''''NOCC'''= œ g
WOOOCCCOcx)CO~(")VNC:O(l) 11:I N
œ ~qqq~~cx)~~"?~~~= ~ ~
W CI.l)LnO,....,....oqo,....cnC:OI.l)_V~ ¡ ~
o .CONVM,.... (")LnLnLnNMQ ~ 0
...cnMC00CC *M_Ln_CO* ~ c:
~ ~Ñ*Ñ Ñ "":*"":"":Ñ ~ ~
.. .. * .. **- ~ !
U) 0 :;
Z 0 . i
..... q ~ ~
"""'" r-- CD >
a:: w *' ~~
.... Z . ~..,
o .. 'C ~
<I: N 0 "'_
o E 0
a:: CII r-= 0 CI
c::c a: ..§ en .; :l
a.. 0 cacn..._
J- c,":~¡
> ~ - g-g~~
a:: W z _ °ciüD.
<l:U) Q. O!Ž.!! 8,..,og
...." 0 ¡::_ "'w ·e- S2i~."
....... ....0:..., "~mm
"0 C... Z ...0 "'d"..::: . "g.-;
~ U en > . 0.0
W - < 0 _I- I-en Q m"'."
-= I- i=!!:« c::w ~ -g-g-a'i
-==u c« ~""ffi ~oo:3 g=.E;
Ww I- wU "ëñc::wo......oo c: -"...g
...J 0:- ~ WA' Q) GØ)G_
""') enen u.>--uo "'en" c en Z õi
D..o ow5¡::0::>-- zWw- o_~~
~ u~O~_oo~~ oo~~.... ~~!~
O a: c if¡ww:ß"'.,;.,; :i!;5:¡if¡ ;:~t- ~
c.. z>c::u:>l!' .fjjo::~w~ =~~!
U CX) ¡::w>->-enct;t;ZI-::;;;::Jen ¡¡ me
«o::cc~B««oo~~zoo 00 «~
<I: en o:w¡¡;¡¡;<~ Z<www ... ~~o'"
C > wo:mml-~«<I-z>en: ;:¡~
..... Q.<::J::JO cco:oowen õ t-
.... u.. 0 u. en en I- I- I- I- I- N 0: < z 3'7 ::; ¡;¡
·-·--------ï--·
(rITIK-H'Me¡..ïr 2/ f ,L l'f' 3
¡~m~No~m..~..~ ~ON~~.~~.m.~~Q
~~:.I~:S~:Ñ==~ ~:~~s~~~~~:~~:
o " . . . . " . . . . " .. 0."."........"
~~~"~~~N~NO~~. ~O~~~N.~~m.""~
~mftm~~N~M.m.~ ~Nmm~_ft".o.~m
~N_D__N"ftN~.N ø________m__N
,...- ~ ò Ñ'" ... -Ñ
_ N *
~ >:¡œol.ØooooCÞO"ON. ~ØlfD""OU)OOCDO_Oao N
...... COC")_ 0 N r-- LD CD .....,...I'(JC")____N_..........
-.....J C'"IOCICI"" ,... N en IØ ('1)_.... ID ('II... (I') IØ
'1~:Z::Gqj""; ~ ,..:".,; Ñ": % fD-... co; Ñ .. a; .,¡,.:
"'If-cnaøC") ID ,.... 0 LOr-- f-ONcn... (I') ID_N
...... :;)..,.N_... CO).... ... ::IN__" _... """
'< ~Ñ ..: .,; ~- ...
":¡
~
~LDOONO moooao..m >lifDOO-OID....OOOID....o
GO ..,. fD,... GOe") e'"I__...._wco___cnaoM
=~ G:!, utq ~q.. =r":. 0 C'!.~ q~cn..
0: ::!~ :== o~ g: CD~ :~z
(,)LD ID..-<'I (,)00'" UN ... __ __ID
t;..: .; =- --
~ ~
~""OOOOOOOI'GOOOM ~NOOOOOOOcnOOON
ZO ('II'" Zen-------""'..... N
::I ~ It!, II!.::I CC!. ~ ~
0"" IN roo 00 CD 0
~= :;: 9: : =
Q Q *
¡ ¡
W
(,,)
-> ~-Ø)ooooooo(')oo.., ~NI'GOOOOOOO,...OOCD
rècn.. ..,. CD a::C")ID-------(I')-- N
a: ~~"!. "t ": ...o..~ ~ "!.
W _ID "'.. 20., .,-
'It C") ID t") iii .... ... ..,. (Of
UJ q ut ~ U:! ::.-:
CO) CD N .-
~ - -
en
2
<C
a:
I-
<C
a:
<C
Q.
>- w w
a: 2 2
<Cen2 2
1-2
20
W Ii
::¡æ I- II) W
We,) w :Ii
W -' 0)
...J ..I:: i J.: en
c.."'"") U III> ow U III> o~
O ca ca >... 0 . III >... O_ø
::¡æ - G 0u- 0 11I::'1 ... III o'u- 0 GO)
.«Do. - .mo. -
a: fß .·-c .CJ_ a 0is .-c caO- a 00(
O Ø'Io .... =>o:!·C~>'!iDC:> CJ =S>o:!.C~>'!iDCc(
~- O.'-o.IIIOOIDOlllcalU Z I-ca'¡;o.iDoOcaOlllcaC
(,,)CIOS ':'5~X.::!E'::s~cë(l)A: ã lII'5u~:æE'::s~cë(l)o(
w z: e.lIIlIIoca.-.... Z 01..1:: e.lllltlo..-.... LO
<C en ::I-¡¡,g'uw_-J-JzQ..(I)(/) 0 ::'I"ii-"UW_-J-JZQ..U)(/) 0 ..e
z c: 'C: - - - - - - - - -I~ ¡! Ioio C 'C - - - - - - - - - l: ¡! Q"'"
C Ulomoooooooooëo omOOOOOooooco..em
>-~'ão.»»»»>~.. C:C·ã..»»»»>~....<O <-00
........................... ........................... N
<t u. A:~8üüüüüüüüü8 ~~8üüü(juüüüü8 !i Ñ
----..- ,-~-~--~----_.-.-.-..-
It-T rfTCH Ikctvr :J.., f ^ "3 rF 3
Ok:::ON~-~~~~mm~~oo
Nf::::::::: ~ N ~ ~ .... w m N N ~ m ~ N ..,.
It) ':,'-': co CO) ,... 0 LD ('II ('f) N ,.... IØ 0 ,... LD
~ ~1/iò~~~Ñ~W~~è~~.
~ ~ ... N ~ ~ .... .... CO) ('f) ~ 0 G CO) m
~ N co....................... ø .. ... N
:= ~.Er .. .. ~
'.'..'
-- > ¡If!j~ '" · 0 '" 0 0 '" 0 - 0 '" N 0
r{ c( . "CD C'f) ... ... .. ... N ... . ... ,... .. ...
m ~ ~-~ ~ ~ ~ ~~
% ~ 8 Ñ: ~ CO) ~ : ~
~0. N__... ...... v
~~~- ... ...
",ou
NCI)
(; ......
> 0 i? CD 0 0 .... 0 It) ,... 0 0 0 IØ ,.... 0 0
~ CO) CO)"'''''''''''' IØ co ... ... ... m co CO) ...
Z ~ ~ q ~~ q~~
~ . CO) LD co It) CO) m ..
o m:~:::~ :;: :~m
uw-/- --
Ii; t; i
~
>1- N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 moo 0 N g
N ø..................... N ... ... ... N
Z ~ fQ~ "";.""t
;:) 0 0 Ø) 0
OlD co co It)
en- ... ...-
~~-~:~ ...
¡ U Iii
~ ~::; Cl)cn fQi:~:(tN co 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,.... 0 0 CD 0
- ~t:~:JC') It) ... ... ... ... ... ... ... CO) ... ... N ...
IX wcø 0 'C:I' U)
~~U~ ò~ m ~
OZUN ,...- .. N
cnWc(~ ~ ::
~Ucn_ ...
:;, I-
Z :æ
w
~?
a:
-w
Zz
90
I-N
:;,
!!! a:
a: °
I- I-
!a ::;
Q w
I- II.
Z °
w <
~ Q
IØ <1{ ~
CI) ~c~ _
en ~~. ;
c:( . :..., , ~ en
w ~::Iß ~ ~~ g.~
,." c·..... "G 0·- CI co
- .:- - CD ...U 0 ·-c
<t s":C G'!!C: 00- Q Q
LÙ .:::::t: :g>o:a;.c~>·!occ(.'!::
~ I~ ~~Ti~ooaas~Q~
- ...·14 :::IU0."::; E-.¡:¡:=cc C("¡
~ ~~~!ðmj~~~l~~~~e ~
w "':zc~------~--~~~ c~
Z .::t.OŒloooooooool:o--<S!
f:!:. ·Õ...~»»~»>~...E- øe
o "'1:" GO._.::.::.::.::._.::'::.~O :I I-!;:! ~//
N ..:ø: a: U U U U U U U U U U u en ~ N ¥-,
.--..,-. - -~----~r-'-
~ß
COUNCIL AGE!\'DA STATEMENT
,-,
Item %
Meeting Date 12/10/1996
ITEM TITLE: Report Denying Request for All-Way Stops on Lakeshore Drive at Hartford
Street and Lakeshore Drive at7000 Way
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public wor~ _
REVIEWED BY: City Manager (4/Sths Vote: Yes_No.xJ
On October 10, 1996, the Safety Commission voted, against staff's reco=endation, to install all-way
stops at the intersections of Creekwood Way and Hartford Street with Lakeshore Drive. The Safety
Commission Policy, adopted by resolution of the City Council on March 14, 1995 as Council
Policy No. 110-09 (Exhibit" A"), provides that whenever the City Engineer declines to implement
a safety control measure reco=ended by the majority of the Safety Commission, the Safety
Commission has the power, by a vote of at least four commissioners, to refer the matter to the
City Council for [mal resolution. This report, denying the request for all-way stops at the
- intersections of Lakeshore Drive at Hartford Street and Lakeshore Drive at Creekwood Way,
) represents the Safety Commission's referral of the matter to Council.
RECOMMEl\'DATION: That the City Council accept staffs report, thereby denying the request
and reco=endation of the Safety Commission to install all-way stops at the intersections of
Lakeshore Drive at Hartford Street and Lakeshore Drive at Creekwood Way.
BOARDS/COMMJSSIONS RECOMMENDATION: On October 10, 1966, the Safety Commission
voted 6-0-1 (Hoke absent), against staff's reco=endation, to install all-way stops at the intersections
of Creekwood Way and Hartford Street with Lakeshore Drive.
DISCUSSION:
At the August 8, 1996 Safety Commission meeting, staff presented a report regarding a written request
from Geoffrey Çle=ons who lives at 1948 Clearbrook Drive to install an all-way stop on Lakeshore
Drive at Clearbrook Drive. At that meeting the Safety Commission voted to deny an all-way stop at
Lakeshore Drivé'and Clearbrook Drive. Since the Safety Commission and staff concurred that this
sign was not warranted, under the Council Policy this ends the issue. However, the Commission
requested tlÎat staff prepare and bring back at the October Safety Commission meeting all-way stop
studies for the Lakeshore Drive/Creel..wood Way and Lakesbore DrivelHartford Street intersections
and new speed surveys for Lakeshore Drive. On October 10,1996 staff presented the all-way stop
studies to the Safety Commission with a reco=endation that the all-way stops not be installed at said
-- locations. The Safety Commission disagreed with staff and reco=ended that the stops be installed.
The Safety Commission felt that something needed to be done now to control the speed of motorists
using the loop. They felt that installing all way stops at these two intersections was appropriate
because of they are located at equal distances between existing all-way stops. The Commission felt
I .__.~--_.....__._..._-_.. ." ._--.
Page 2, IteA'
.- Meeting Date 12/1 0/] 996
that the low point totals assessed to the proposed all way stop locations under Council Policy No. 478-
03 was not indicative of the problem that exists. In accordance to Council Policy ]] 0-09, the matter
was referred by the Safety Commission to the City Council for fInal resolution. Attached as Exhibit
"B" is a map showing the area.
Staff completed speed surveys on Lakeshore Drive and all-way stop evaluations for the intersections
of Lakeshore Drive at Creel.'Wood Way and Lakeshore Drive at Hartford Street. When considering
all-way stop control at an intersection, several factors are looked at to determine the need for
installation. These factors include: pedestrians and vehicle volumes, accident history, and physical
factors such as sight distances, speed of vehicles, and roadway alignment, including curve radii and
topography. All-way stop evaluation per Council Policy No. 478-03 and accident histories for the two
locations are attached as Exhibit "CO and Exhibit "D".
1. Creekwood Way at Lakeshore Drive
The intersection of Lakeshore Drive and Creekwood Way, as shown on Exhibit "B," is a T-
intersection with an existing stop sign for northbound Creel.'Wood Way. Lakeshore Drive, a loop
roadway around the lake at Eastlake I, is 42' wide curb to curb in this area with parking allowed along
the inside curb only and bike lanes on both sides. Lakeshore Drive at this intersection has an Average
Daily Traffic (ADT) of 2,470.
Creekwood Way is a 36-foot wide curb to curb residential street which begins on the outside of the
curve on Lakeshore Drive which provides excellent visibility from Creekwood Way for traffic on
Lakeshore Drive. Creekwood Way is intersected by Crosscreek Road, and ends at a temporary
barricade at the northerly subdivision boundary of the Telegraph Canyon Estates (St. Claire)
development. It is a two lane roadway with parking allowed on both sides of the street. The Average
Daily Traffic (ADT) on Creel.'Wood Way is 230 vehicles south of its intersection with Lakeshore
Drive. At the present time, vehicles from approximately 25 homes use the intersection of Creel.'Wood
Way and Lakeshore Drive daily. Creekwood Way is proposed to be connected to Chateau Coun
(formerly Gotham Street) at a future date when Phase ill of Telegraph Canyon Estates is completed.
The intersection is well lit by a street light near the center of the intersection.
The statewide frequency of accidènt occurrence for this type of intersection is once every 4.5 years.
A review of the accident history for this intersection from January 1, 1987 to present (a period of over
nine years) shows no reported accidents. No pedestrian accidents have occurred in the past nine years.
A horizontal curve with a 550 foot radii is located just west of the intersection limits the design speed
on Lakeshore Dnve to less than 35 MPH. The posted speed limit is 30 MPH. A speed study was
conducted on Lakeshore Drive in the vicinity of Creekwood Way. The eastbound 85th percentile
speed was 38 MPH; the westbound 85th percentile speed was 40 MPH while the average speed was
34 MPH and the median speed was 35 MPH. Sight distance at this intersection is clear for a distance
of over 450' to the west and over 500' to the east which exceeds the minimum stopping sight distance
of 200' needed for tbe speed limit of 30 MPH posted on Lakeshore Drive. A minimum stopping sight
distance of 280' is needed for 38 MPH and 300' is needed for 40 MPH.
:.:...:....-"
2...
.~- .- _..~._., -. .'._.w______....._...___._
Page 3, Item ff'
- Meeting Date 12/10/1996
Since Mr. Cle=ons indicated in his letter mat it was difficult for pedestrians to cross Lakeshore
Drive, staff conducted a field survey of existing conditions and pedestrian count at me intersection
location. There are only two facilities in me immediate area mat would be expected to attract
pedestrian traffic, Shorebird Park and me Eastlake Beach Club. Shorebird Park is located 600' east
of me intersection on me outside of me loop road (Lakeshore Drive), me same side of me loop as me
Creekwood Way housing. There are no homes fronting on me inside of me loop so Shorebird Park
would not be expected to attract pedestrians from across me street. The Eastlake Beach Club is me
only recreation area inside me loop mat could generate pedestrian traffic across Lakeshore Drive.
However, staff did not observe any pedestrians crossing Lakeshore Drive during several field trips at
different times of day; merefore, was unable to conf= mat a pedestrian crossing problem exists.
Utilizing me all-way stop policy warrant evaluation which assesses points to various traffic factors, me
Lakeshore Drive/Creekwood Way intersection received a total of 3 points out of a possible 54 points
(Exhibit "C"). The breakdown of me points given are as follows: two points for the horizontal curve to me
west of me intersection, and one point for pedestrians crossing near the intersection. Thirty points minimum
are required to justify me installation of an all-way stop. Since me intersection has an excellent safety record,
excellent visibility, relatively low traffic volumes, and mere is not a demonstrated congestion or a pedestrian
crossing problem, staff cannot support the request for installation of an all-way stop at this location. Staff
reco=ends mat an all-way stop sign not be installed and mat an evaluation be conducted after the
connection of Creekwood Way to Chateau Court is complete.
2. Hartford Street at Lakeshore Drive
The intersection of Lakeshore Drive and Hartford Street, as shown on Exhibit "B," is aT-intersection with
an existing stop sign for southbound Hartford Street. Lakeshore Drive, a loop roadway around the lake at
Eastlake I, is 42' wide curb to curb in this area wim parking allowed along the inside curb only and bike
lanes on both sides. Lakeshore Drive has an Average Daily Traffic (ADT) of 3,765 at this intersection.
Hartford Street is a 36 foot wide residential street, which begins at Hamden Drive and ends at its intersection
with Lakeshore Drive. Since the intersection is located on the outside curve of Lakeshore Drive, there is
excellent visibilitY from Hartford Street of vehicles traveling on Lakeshore Drive. Hartford Street is a two
lane roadway with parking allowed on both sides of the street. The ADT on Hartford Street, north of its
intersection wim Lakeshore Drive, is 1400 vehicles. Vehicles from approximately 100 homes use the
intersection of Hartford Street and Lakeshore Drive daily. The intersection is well lit by a street light near
the center of the intersection.
The statewide frequency of accident occurrence for this type of intersection is once every 4.5 years. A
review of the acéident history for this intersection from January I, 1987 to present (a period of over nine
years) shows no reported accidents. No pedestrian accidents have occurred in the past nine years. Curves
with 550 foot radii located east and west of the intersection limit the design speed on Lakeshore Drive to
less than 35 mph and the posted speed limit is 30 MPH. A speed survey taken on Lakeshore Drive on
September 9 and September 10, 1996 shows the eastbound 85th percentile to be 38 MPH. The westbound
85th percentile is 41 MPH with both an average speed and median speed of 36 MPH. Sight distance at this
intersection is clear for a distance of over 400' to the west and over 450' to the east. A minimum of two
..- hundred feet of stopping sight distance is needed for a travel speed of 30 MPH posted on Lakeshore Drive.
A minimum stopping sight distance of 280' is needed for 38 MPH and 310' is needed for 41 MPH.
3
..-....--..,...-.- ...~.----,_.__.._--- ." --"~------------r~-'-
Page 4, Itellf'"'"Li
Meeting Date 12/J 0/1996
,~-
A field survey and pedestrian counts were alsO taken at this location. There are also two facilities in the
immediate area likely to attract pedestrian traffic. These are Ashbrook Park and the Eastlake Beach Club.
Ashbrook Park is located approximately 100' west of the Hartford Street intersection on the north side or
outside of the Lalœshore Drive loop. The Eastlake Beach Club is on the inside of the loop. However, staff
observed only two pedestrians crossing Lakeshore Drive during several field trips at different times of day;
therefore, was unable to confirm that a pedestrian crossing problem exists.
Utilizing the Council's all-way stop policy warrant evaluation which assesses points to various traffic factors,
the Lalœshore Drive/Hartford Street intersection received a total of 7 points out of a possible 54 points
(Exhibit "D "). The breakdown of the points given are as follows: two points for the horizontal curves near
the intersection; one point for pedestrians crossing near the intersection; two points for the volume of traffic
on Lakeshore Drive; and two points for the traffic volume percenæge split of 18.6%. Thirty points
m.inimum are required to justify the installation of an all-way stop. Since the intersection has an excellent
safety record, excellent visibility, relatively low traffic volumes, and there is not a demOl;l.strated congestion
or a pedestrian crossing problem, staff cannot support the request for installation of an all-way stop at this
location. Staff recommends that an all-way stop sign IlQ1 be installed at Hartford Street.
It should be noted that unnecessary stop signs may increase the amount of rear-end accidents and increase the
amount of air pollution and expense to motorists. The approximate additional fuel costs to motorists at thf'
.'~ intersection of Lakeshore Drive and Hartford Street is $13,742 and $9,015 per year at Lakeshore Drive a.
! Creekwood Way.
"
All area residents have been notified of tonight's meeting including those in the vicinity of Clearbrook Drive
and Riversview Drive.
F1SCAL IMP ACT: Installation costs for two (2) all-way stops with advance warning signs and legends is
approximately $1,000.00. Funds for material, labor, and equipment for installation are available from the
street signs operating budget, Accounts 100-1432-5101, 5345, and 5269. The added fuel costs to citizens
is approximately .$22,757 per year if both stops are installed on Lakeshore Drive.
Allachments: Exhibit" A"-Copy of Council Policy No. 110-09
Exhibit "B"-Area Plat
Exhibit "C"-All-way stop study with accident history for Creekwood WaylLakeshore Dr.
Exhibit "D"-All-way stop study with accident history for Hartford Street/Lakeshore Dr.
Exhibit "E"-Minutes of the Safety Commission Meetings; August 8, 1996 and October 10,
~ 1996 (excerpt)
M:\HOME\ENGINEER\AGENDA\LKSH-Hrt.mjd
,'. .i
.:'/
y:;
----.---- .-----....----..-.'.-----'-- .~--_.-
.-..--......--
April 14, 1997
MEMO TO: The Honorable Mayor & City Council
FROM: Patricia SalvaciorI'F
SUBJECT: UPDATE ON REQUEST FOR ALL-WAY STOPS ON LAKESHORE DRIVE
AT HARTFORD STREET AND CREEKWOOD WAY
Mr. David Villegas (482-8664), resident of Eastlake, called to express his support of all-
way stops on Lakeshore Drive at Hartford Street and Creekwood Way.
Mr. Villegas contends that there is a high volume of traffic in that area in the morning as
residents leave for work and in the evening when residents return home.
/3-(' //3 -3
_..._,,-,,"- -- ---------.-.....-,-....--
,
Mrs. Luzminda Reynante
3819 Wild Oats Lane
Bonita, CA
April 15, 1997
Honorable City Mayor Shirley Horton and the Chula Vista City Council
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
re: Opponent to Proposed formation of Special Assessment District
#AD96-01 for the construction of street improvements on Twin Oaks
Avenue from Naples Street to Emerson Street.
Honorable City Mayor Horton and the City Council of Chula Vista:
My name is Luzminda. I am the owner of the property on 230
Emerson St., Chula Vista, CA. It is located at the corner of Emerson and
Twin Oaks Avenue, My husband and I bought this property in 1988 for
$165,000.00, This is not our principal residence, Furthermore, since the
house faces Emerson Street, we believe the project shouldn't be imposed
on this property, We bought this house solely for investment. Apparently,
it was not a wise investment for we have not made any profit at all up to
the present. The value of the property has gone down since its purchase.
The rent is just enough to pay for the mortgage, We could hardly come up
with the money to pay for the property tax which is $2,286.56 a year, My
husband and I are no longer working. Unfortunately, my husband became
disabled in 1994. He had Heart Surgery and Kidney Failure. I had to quit
my job to take care of him. I have to drive him three times a week to the
Chula Vista Dialysis Center for Dialysis Treatment. Weare both
depending on his retirement pension from the Navy and his social security
benefit, It will be impossible for us to pay any additional expenses incurred
by this investment property. Therefore, we do not favor the formation of
Special Assessment District #AD96-01. We request that you exclude us
from any financial obligation concerning the formation of this Assessment
District. We are hoping for your kind consideration to this request.
Respectfully,
dR'Y""Πr/ 4 J
/3/jt
--"._-"._----'.-
t::- X If/BIT /
COUNCIL POLICY
- CITY OF CHUU. VISTA
-. Safety Commission Policy - Delegating POUCY EFFECTIVE
SUBJECT:
Additional Authority NUMBER DATE PAGE
. 110-09 3/14/95 10f4
ADOPTED BY: Resolution 17833· (Replaces Policy Number 110-09 DATED: 3/14/95
adopted 03-06-73 by Resolution 6772)
BACKGROUND
On March 6, 1973, the City Council adopted a Safety Commission policy establishing a procedure to b
followed by the Safety Commission in evaluating maners of vehicular or pedestrian safety within the publi
right-of-way within the City of Chula VIsta. The March 6, 1973 policy limits the Safety Commissio
responsibility to an advisory role to the City Council Presently, final authority to implement traffic contre
measures rests with the City Council
In recent years there has been a greater awareness and concern over traffic and safety related issues. Due t
population, vehicular ownership, and traffic growth in the City, this awareness and concern has resulted in a:
increase in traffic items brought before the City Council This situation coupled with other pressing demand
on the City Council has adversely impacted their ability to schedule public hearings and resolve the hig'
number of traffic and safety maners initiated by the public that warrant 'Pecal consideration.
Due to the importance placed on traffic and safety maners and the need to deal with such maner
e"1'editiousJy, the City Council has determined a need to create an administrative process in which delegatio:
-:- of authority is empowered to the Safety Commission and stBff to act upon traffic and safety maners.
-
PURPOSE -
"
The purpose of this policy is to establish an administrative procedure for the Safety Commission to condue
public hearings on maners related to traffic and safety issues. This policy prescribes guidelines and criteri
for determining appropriate actions in.accordance with City Council directions and delegation of authority.
1. GENERAL POLICY
It shall be the policy of the City, to be implemented by such ordinances and resolutions. as II¡ay be requireé
that, within, the budgetary constraints set by Council through the budget, the City Council hereby delegate
authority to establish and maintain vehicular and pedestrian traffic control measures, standards, an
requirements in the public right of way ('Traffic Control Measures")..except as hereinbelow provided, to th
City Engineer after review by the Safety Commission ("Commission"), unless, on affirmative vote of a majorit
of the membership of the Safety COmmission, the Commission objects to the proposed action by the Cit
Engineer. In such case, the maner shall be refe:cred to the City Council and the authority as to such manor.
shall, on such referral, be vested in the City Council to be exercised on the affirmative vote of three membe¡
of the City Council
The Commission shall not have the power to inirlate or order the implementation of a Traffic Contt<
Measure, but shall have the power to recommend to the City Engineer that s/he consider a proposed Traffi
Control Measure. If the City Engineer shall consider and decline to implement a Traffic Control MeasUI
proposed by a majority of the Commission, the Commission shall by a vote of at least four (4) Commission€!
have the .power to refer the maner to the City Council, and upon such referral, the authority to initiate an
j' order the Traffic Control Measure shall be thereupon revested in the City Council
.. .
..... .
-
S-
..._^---_.~-_._-'".".._..._,-.-.~_._--- u .. _______~._______._.~_________~__ __.._..,__._.___ ___~__
COUNCIL POLICY
CITY OF CHUL.o\. VISTA
-
-JBJEcr: Safety Commission Policy - Delegating POUCY EFFECTIVE
-,
Additional Authority NUMBER DATE PAGE
110-09 3/14/95 2 of 4
ADOPTID BY: Re~olution 17833 I DATED: 3/14/95
2. EXCEPTIONS:
A.. Traffic Control Measures budgeted by the Dty as II Capital Improvement Project Budge!.
The authority to establish a Traffic Control Measure for w!llch the Dty has appropriated funds
in the Dty's CIP budget shall be vested in the Dty Council, subject to reco=endarions of the
Dty Engineer and Safety Commission.
B. Special Event Regularions
(1) Public Co=unity Events.
-
The authority to establish and maintAin Traffic Control Measures for community
events using the public right-of-way.
(2) Road Construction Projects.
The authority to establish and maintAin temporary Traffic Control Measures for road
- construction projects shall be vested in the Dty Engineer, unJess oveITUled by the
affirmative vote of three members of the Council. The Dty Engineer shall, under the
following circumstances, advise theCounc:il seven days in advance in writing of the
following proposed Traffic Control Measures exercised under the authority of this
exception:
(a) the proposed Traffic Control Measure may involve complete road closures on
any road;
(b) the proposed Traffic Control Measure may involve significant interference
with traffic on !llgh volume roads; ~:"
(c) the proposed Traffic Control Measure may involve long term partial road
closures on any read;
(d) the proposed Traffic Control Measure may involve interference with IICttSS to
any business;
(e) the proposed Traffic Control Measure may involve the rerouting of traffic
through residenrial areas.
e. Emergency Traffic Regularions. -
-
JJ
. .
(
&
_.~_._-
COUNCIL POLICY
- CITY OF CHUU, VISTA
-, SUBJECT: Safety Commission Policy - Delegating POUCY EFFECTIVE
Additional Authority NUMBER DATE PAGE
11 0-09 3/14/95 3 of 4
ADOP'ŒD BY: Resolution 178:3 I DATED: 3/14/95
2. EXŒ.PTIONS (continued)
..
D. Traffic Control Measures Affecting Community Businesses.
The City Council reserves authority over all Traffic Control Measures designed to, or having
an impact on, the availability of parking for businesses, including but not limited to:
(1) Angle Parking
(2) Parking Meters
E. Traffic Control Measure associated with new developments and/or City projects.
3. ING.USJONS
A- Trial Traffic Regulations Chapter 10.12
Traffic Control Devices Chapter 10.24
Through Streets and Stop Intersec:tions Chapter 10.32
Yield Right-of-Way Sireets Chapter 10.36
Turning Movements Chapter 10.40 .-
One-Way Streets and Alleys Chapter 10.44
Stopping, Standing and Parking Chapter 10.52 (Except Angle Parking)
Loading Zones Chapter 10.60
Bicycle Parking Zones Chapter 10.72
Pedestrians Chapter 10.76
Permit Parking' in Residential Zones Chapter 10.86
-
Final ac:tions On matters requiring an Ordinance from City Council regarding Speed RegulationúChapter
, -
10.48); Angle Parking (Chapter 10.52); Parking Meter Zones (Clapter 10.56); Permit Parking '(Chapter
10.56) and Truc:k Routes (Chapter 10.64) shall be exempt from this policy. These items will be referred to
the City Council with recommendations from staff and the Safety Commission for final, disposition.
PROCEDURES
A- PUBUC INQUJR1ES
1_ Citizen requests for traffic and safety related improvements are submitted to the City
Engineer for evaluation.
2. The City Engineer performs traffic studies as necessary including the collec:tion of pertinent
data and any other reference material.
.
3. The City Engineer analyzes the traffic data and makes a traffic engineering determination On
." .. what, if any, traffic engineering improvements are needed.
. . ,.;
j
.
.'
Î
._..__."..._--._.._",.._._-~-_..~_.._-,.-~._.._--
COUNCIL POlJCY
CITY OF a-ru:IA VISTA
- SUBJEcr: Safety Co=issioD Policy· DeJegating POUCY EFFECI1VE
Additional Authority NUMBER DATI: PAGE
,-
11 0-09 3/14/95 4 of 4
ADOP1ED BY: Resolution 17832 r DATED: 3/14/95
,
.
A. PUBUC INQUIRIES (continued)
4. The City Engineer prepares a report to the Safety Co=ission presenting his/her findings
accompanied with a reco=endation to accept or deny the citizen's traffic safety
improvement request.
5. The City Engineer's report is placed on the Safety Commission's meeting agenda.
6. Citizen and other affected individua1s are notified of the date when their item will appear
before the Safety Commission. Notices are sent out not later thàn six days before the Safety
Commission meeting.
7. The Safety Co=ission conducts a public hearing, ,,!here staff presents their recommendation
to deny or approve the citizen's traffic safety improvement request to the Safety Commission.
8. The Safety Commission, by a majority vote of the Safety Commission, makes a determination
based on established CoUDC:i1 policies, the Municipal Code, the California Vehicle Code, and
standard traffic engineering practices to concur with or disagree with the City Engineer's
report to approve or reject the citizen's traffic safety improvement request.
-. \ .
, a. If the Safety Commission vote affirms the City Engineer's recommendation to approve
the citizen's traffic safety improvement request, staff is authorized to implement the
traffic safety improvement.
b. If the Safety Commission, by a majority vote of the Safety Commission, affirms the
City Engineer's recommendation to deny the citizen's traffic safety improvement
request, the denial is final and will not be fOIWarded by staff to the City Council for
their consideration unless one member of the Council within 10 days desires to hear
the item. Staff will notify Council of the Safety Commission hearing results through
the fOIWarding of an information memo outlining the action taken. Appeals to ~
City Council from decisions of the Safety Commission or City Engineer are a priority
and will normally be scheduled for a hearing 3 to 4 weeks from the date the appeal is
filed. After conducting a Public hearing, during which time the applicant and
interested parties may speak, the Council may -approved, conditionally approve, or
deny the request. The City Council's decision is final.
.
."j
:c/ '.'
,
~
..-......--,..... ._...... "..._..____._, n________.______ ...--..-.-...----------."
COUNOL POUCY
CITY OF CJ-I1JIA VISTA
- ¡ I
_ - SUBJECT: Safety Commission Policy - Delegaring POUCY EFFECTIVE
Addirional Authority NUMBER DATE PAGE
11 0-09 . 3/14/95 S of 5
ADOPTED BY: Resolurion 17833 I DA"Œ,D: 3/14/95
A. PUBUC INQUIRIES (conrinued)
c. If the Safety Co=ission's vote is contrary to the City Engineer's recommendation,
the traffic item will be referred to the City Council and the authority 85 to such
matters shall, on such referral, be vested in the City Council to be exercised on the
affumative vote of three members of the City Council The Commission shall not
have the power to initiate or order the implementation of a Traffic Control Measure,
but shall have the power to recommend to the City Engineer that s/he consider a
proposed Traffic Control Measure. If the City Engineer shall consider and decline to
impJement a Traffic Control Measure proposed by a majority of the Safety
Commission, the Commission shall, by a vote of at least four (4) l.ommissioners. have
the Dower to'refer the matter to the City Coun-::'~-" _t. -:L_
authority to Inmate and order the Traffic Control Me -'-~" t.e..theuupOIU(,esj,td..
jn the City Council. If new information or evidence presented at the hearing discloses
that the original recommendation is no longer valid, the City Engineer may take an
item off the City Council Agenda and concur with the Safety Commission's
recommendation thus waiving the appeal process_
B. TR,\trIC PlANNING
1. kJ.y precise plans or site plans for the construction of buildings or facilities that are proposed
to be built adjacent to or having access to or impact on major streets which, in the opinion of
staff (i.e. Director of Planning, Director of Public Works, or City Engineer) mav in light of the
pJans submitted create the potential for a hazardous condition which may have a detrimental
effect on vehicular or pedestrian traffic, will be forwarded, through the City Engineer, to the
Safety Commission for review, evaluation, and recommendations_ .
2. The Safety Commission shall evaluate said precise plans and site plans in reference to their
effect upon traffic problems, and shall submit their recommendations tp:-:-the Planning
Commission and City Council at the time such plans are considered by said bodies.
3. Trial Traffic Regulation:, Municipal Code 10.12.030 . In Cases where authority has been
delegated to the Safety Commission and City Engineer to approve traffic control devices, the
Safety Commission will hereby be authorized to approve the installation with the concurrence
of the City Engineer's reco=endation.
4. The Safety Commission will adopt a recommendation embodying such regulation, or any part
thereof, after the 8-month trial period or which regulation shall cease to be effective. Where
an ordinance is required for final 'approval, the Safety Commission will fOIWard their
recommendation to the City Council for adoption of the ordinance embodying such
regulation. '
y"
,C¡
---,.---....-.,.,----- -...-
~" 10
\ / /7 ¡Jr' ~ 0 \:
~0; ...J<C ~\
_ Á~} n . a.
. J II
co
~ . « ~
~ -
co m
>- UJ ~
",>« . -------'\..,. . ....
<::: cr S:. ~. a:.-
o < ;;: ~ ~. .~~ .Q
c.. . ...J 1-___
ffi :,:: C < . 6 ____ ~;gg I. :.c
" 0 £; " ,\'2.. ~ ~g~¡ x
UJ 0 m z - ·0; o'~
..J cr UJ' - t""I S'?- .:¡¡ 0 0 0 « W
~ ~ ~v >~~j .
Q. ~ 0 co OSý :i 8 ~ ¡
< ~ J: x 0" ...: Ñ ~ ..:
::;: < '" UJ?'?-. _.---- .-
'008/ --- -'1" g; 11111111111111~)I'~~~o~~.III'/~~ HII}J-.
. /A' \~':'cfi -L... i<J§tlèl=;r¡llli\I~15~V/IIIIIIIIIf7
/ ~!-' ",,'-..'£:F::¡~, I I ,0 ¡;::- \\111 1).1.
" ~t:--Ff7// '''0,", ' J)--' '- r-
':1 ~ '- ot.:::::'L11 :;:--¡' ¡;: -
~ =1 ¡.., -., I I ~ "-.....' -
! Á ~~~7 ~ ".~'" ./' U)"'LIIIII iT~~l%f:::c' .,j!)J),I,ì
: §t.. ~ r.J .' ~ ____. i ! J... "¡~/jOHS<J3Ii'7 ~~).l.t:j' _ ~f-- III II ~
'I·r, x-¡ U ",' \ co ~ . .h~ . m ~ :51 : I
...."l\.-¡1J J.;...:<::: 111"1 - 01 ;:LI
~~ r-..,..."O."-:'-, I.. w ° I -
\..LIII\ ' ". ~ r IIII-{-- w-
~ '.. '" Izl~ , r-.., '.\" - --;
"" -\.,~ z {. '---.: Ì8~ .-\
, v ;;.:: ~ :? I : \ . -.J .-'.
o ""~' \. . ~ ~H' '
~~;< 0. ~. \j\ ~::> l J.!=~ / I I ':--,
.:t~ " t:I.'\.:1:.... ......-.... w ".. r,.;'-/~ ~ _
4" ::J . 0...... . co ~ .... < .J
~~ ,§ ;IÝ~ ~ ~~ .:: ~ rl~ ÌTïìì~~1 IIII)'\~·
. y 1;::y? ~í . c¡ ., ~..:: ~ .,tmr8jo ~
. oW';) ~ -r en '-- :/ I;:: ""'"t ~'mo . /
-<., ~~<... ;ø . .fLo :: V77'- /
"'~ ?¡ I .. UJ '. -- _
. J (f-<& '0 'Ig' ; < \~, ~ ::', .:::::: 1: = '0'/
,.. /\ I <. ~ 0 'Î I co I, 'I " ./ II
~' D, :L~' \ ~
_ I-- ' -.. .",<5' :". .. "? j/ \ i .
_ ---->-' .,. ~ ' I'--.~ '.'" , ~ ~
~ ,,1-. ,,'V/_, ><',;.. ~--Q.,'7"-r-- rc-:\I""~" . ~. ]¡JJ -\--; -
- Yo-'''-, 'J ..,.."'L\J ~ ~ ~ :..J....,I;1 ':t ::t --' =
r- T ~ ~ >0 ',.,"J Á),,< ~"tb ' .' --r-
'~E'~~ ~/0\~ ~~~~~~ / \ ~ -- =:
\ I :..-.i:: I---' \/ ~..~ ~,~(::çxJi g __
-.¡ ~ - .'-.'1.. 1''../ ..,_: r-_.
J ""J~-;¡."lf/ft}f ~~ ~/ ~~ ~ ~ <,~:. ~ ~ :::: â':-<
~~~.I@ ~ .. .,.~o~/ ~!- ~~<.. ~:i:{J!/4 §â.,~_;;.,
: . .' ~.l.0 \ ~.$> / c'> 5' I \J .." ^'~
to ell . / ' l"'Y"c'j\ i'ï
_ 0 ~"-,. ~ ....
I
--,..-<-..---,.--.. .---.- - ~.. -,'-.
.·n_..·__.__·__·.,__,·_··_,_.·_.~·..,___.,.____
EX!fI1.3IT "C
,
COUNCIL POllCY
· ary OF œuIA VlSTA
·
¡
JUBJEC'I' POlICY EFFEC'I1YB
.' ALl·WAY STCf . ~
..
.-- 478-03 - 04-23·91 1 of g
-
AOOnEDBY: Resolution No. 16147 DA'I'fD; 04·23-91
.
..
.
B.l.CI:GROUlitl . . . .
.
'The Ca1Tnns Traffic Kanual Ind the Kanual on Unffol"lll Trafffc Control
Devices Hst criuri. in 6tUMllinin~ the IIHd for an ."....ay stop.
Actual nted for an ."....ay is deul"ll ned by In engineenng Stllclj' which
tu ! ines the spKial characurfstics of the siu. . .'
All-way stop signs are very restrictive coritrob sinc. they rtqllfre .11
lIotorfsts enuring the intersection to stop .t .11 tilles. When stop
signs are instal1ed for speed control Indlor there is no'apparent traffic
reason' for the .stop (Httl. or no cross traffic). ~torfsts regard the
stop sign as. an Wlnecessary 1l1 >!dil!!nt .and often tiMS do not IIII:t I
compleu stop. When this occurs the t:IC;>ectatfons of other drivers and
pedestrians are altered. thereby jeopardizing the nf.t,)' ~rfomance of
i the intersection. A1though s;>eeds win be lower in the , cinit,y of the
i stop, speeds will be higher .idblock .s eotorists try to-..keup for the
time lost It the un..arranud stop sign. Another negative aspect of
. un\iarranud sto~ signs is the increase in noise and pollution as ,ehicles
apply thefr bra IS to slow clO'II'I'I and accelerate out of the.1nttrstction.
It is 1!!practical and 111possible to install In all-way s~ (or other
traffic control device such 'as . traffic signal) whenever and wherever a
· request is liadei othe1'Yfse cluring peak periods. txun6ed delays to
lIotorfsts lIay resul t. thus forcing eotorfsts to seek al ternate roms
through parallels streets. often a residential . area. A Traffic
£ngi~eer's primary goal is to ..intain safet,y and reduc. ,ehicl. delay.
PtlRJ>OSE .
.
The purpose of a fully justiffed. Jlroperly.install.d .11-wa,y stop is to
.ffectively .ssign' right-of....ay. ..fntain saftt,)' and T'tdllC' ¥thicle
delay. ' &enenlly. .11-way sto;>s are installtd where trafffc signals are
warranted Indlor an .ccident history his b~n indicated by reported.
accidents of I trPt susceptiblt to c~rrection by an .11-wa,y stop.
. . . .
-. '.
POLICY STATM1(T ..
.
It sha" be the policy of tht CIt,)' of Chula Vista. through the Dtpan.nt .
of PubHc WOM:s!£ngfneering Division. to Wlrrant the instanation of
:: ".:;¡ An-Way Stops in Iccordanct with the fo11.owing poHcy sta~nts:
j ..
.
.
. . .
. (3) . . .
.
-- .- ...~,."._-_."---
,
· CX>UNCILPOUCY
. CITY OF æuIA VISTA
~
stJBJECI' POUCY . EfFECIIVE
NUMBER DA'IE PAGE
Al.t·VAY stOP ·
.- . . 478-03 04-23-91
- 2 of 9
ADOP'IEDBY: Res01uUon No. 16147 DA'IED: 04-23-91
. :
The Cal1fornia Vehic1e Code, Section 21350 thru' 21355, vhes the
authori~ to local agencies to instal1 all-w1Y stop traffic controls
upon streets in their respective jurfsdictfon.
According to federal and Stlte traffiç: control ¡uideHnes, al1-w1Y
stop instal1ations shoul d be reserved for the control of .vehicu1ar
trafffc connic~s at intersections and should. not be used IS devices
to contro1 sp!ed. .
The Ci~'s policy for the instal11tion of an al1-w~ stop control is
based on a point system. Points Ire assigned to traffic' factors
based on the severi~ of traffic conditions. Factors ~asured are:
- 1. Iccident records . .
,
! 2. unusual conditions :
3. pedestrian volumes .
.'
4. traffic volumes
~. traffic vo1ume differentials . : .'
. .
.
..
.
.
.
. .
.
. .
.
. ' . .
, .
. :
·
'j .
.
"
.' ~ .' .
. .
.
. ('I
- .-.....- .
--.--....---.-
.
COUNCIL POUCY
CTY OF CHUI.A VISTA
'-
.
SUBJE.Cr . POUCY ~
ALL-WAY STO? . . ",",' ....-..:
:
478-03 ,04-23-91 3 of 9
A001'TEDBY:. Ruolution No. '6147 DA1ED: 04-23-91
CITY or CHUlA VISTA -
ALl-~AY STD? CONIROL.~ARRANTS
Date: . f/18/9r,
IIIT£R.S£C:TIDI/ Lqke.sf..or~ Dri~"lcrukIllDoJ lJJaý I .
Tota' 1'0ints 3
I'IaJ or Street/1'l1 nor Street ; ( ~zz / 4;í)
, .
GEI/ERAl:
. 0
A ful1y justified, proper1y instal1ed .1'.....ay stop can effectively assfgn
right of way, reduce vehicle delay, and ~cruse accidents.· Senenlly,
an a11.....ay stop is reserved for the use .t the intersection of two
) thrOUfh hi~hwayS, and only .s an interim trrffic control .easure prior to
signa fzat on. Stop sfgns are not to be used for speed control. .
'The posting of an intersection for .11.....ay stop control should be based
. on factual data. Warrants to be considered include:
1. Accident records . .
2. Unusual conditions 0
3. Traffic volumes ..
4. Traffic vo1ume difference . .
. 5. Pedestrian volume
. . .
Points are assigned to each of these warrants. The total ~oints possible
aT'! 54. The insta11ation of an .".....ay stot. control is justified with .
zinimum of 30 points. unless any one of the Urans erfttrfa is Id.
0 ALL-WAY STOP PDIIIT SYSTEM CRrnRIA: -
.
1. AC:C:IDEIIT WAUA.IIT: ~
.
1W þOints are· .ssigned for tach accident susceptible to correction
. by an .11-way stop control· during ene full )'tar Fler to the
investigation c!lte. 7/t/rç To C,j:io/9&. 0 . '.' ." .
:5 Total number of .ccidents correctlble by ~ll-wI,Y stop: ~ .
KaxilltJl\ 14 þOints.- . _ stORE: ø' Points
,
. .
. . ¡S-
.-
....................-... --_... --"--- .---..---,-.-
.
COUNCIL POliCY
CITY OF aruu.. VISTA ,-
-
. .
SUBJECT POUCY . EnEcrrvE
NUMBER DA'm PAGE
ALL-WAY STOP .
.
~8-Ð3 04-23-91 ~ of ~ .
.ADOPIEDÐY:Resolutfon No. 16147 DA'ŒD: 04-23-91
.
2. UWUSUAL CONDITION WARRANT:
.
Where unusual conditions exist. such IS I schoo1. fire station.
playground. horizonta1 or vertica1 curves. etc.. points are assigned
on the bash of engineerinj¡ judgment. Unusua1 conditions shan be
considered onl1 if within 00. feet of. the sUbject intersection. in
residentia1 nefghbor:hoods where there' is I concentration .of schoo1
age children Ictivities separated from ~e residentf.1 neighborh~d
by a collector street Ind coupled with other conditions. the ~
Traffic Engineer II~ IPfr'l traffic engineerinf, Judgment and wa ve
the JU-po1nt lI!1nimum po nt requirement to qua ify the intersection
for In l'l-w~ stop control.
The 3D-pofnt minimum requirement ~y be waived and an a11-w~ stop
~ be fnstalled onl1 ff 1ess restrictive contro1s hive not
corrected a documented prob1em. .' .
Al1.....a1 stops.!!l be justified based on projected volumes and
Iccident fre~Uency when traffic signals are warranted and wi.11· be
fnstal'ed wit in I specified period of tfme. . '.
Kaxill3L!D , 0 points )..,';s f/ort'r.o...h. ( Cur(~ SCORE: ;L. . Pofnts
3. PEDESTRIAN VOLUMES
Consideratfonh given to 1arge numbers of pedestrians crossing the
aajor. str~et during the four busfesthours of In lveragedl,)'. "
Pedestrian Crossing Major Street, Tota' during 4 busiest traffic hours
y"""" U 01-100 1D1-15D 151-200 !01-DV£R
Pofnts: 1 2 . 3 -4 5
"
'0 . /.
.< .. SCO~: Pofnts
MixilUl 5 points .'
'. '. .
.
.
. . .
) ~. . ~IC VOLUMES
.-./
.Points are dtpendent upon the ~gnitude of Yehicu1ar volumes entering .'
the intersection during the four busiest hours of an average dl,)'.
¡¿ .
. .-. ..- -_..- .'-.-...-'--.-.-
- .
.
COUNCiL POUCY " ..
-
aIY OF œuIA \'1STA
JV1!1ECI' POUCY EPf'BC'I'IYE
ALL·'iJ. Y STCf .~.. ......... ~J.rm
.
. 478-03 04-%3-51 5 of S
~ .
AOO~BY: Resolution 110. 16147 J),A'Im ·~J-g1
. .
Traffic ~unts (circl. f~1/T' tlfghut hol/T' yolulllu):
-
Hour Ending At:
. - --
Dir 0600 0700 0800)0900 1000 "00 1200 13n0 1400 1500 1600 1700 lSOQ 1900 2000
-
3 /0 1& 9 ¡;, 1- if 'I b 7 Lf II ../
1!3 ·B /0 ~
SB - - - - - - - -. - - - - - - -
tB 7 q~ 127 7& 'f~ b3 £5 ~f 55 Ir? /ó{ 97 !liP 12~ BÇ
-
- G;
,~) liB Ii /2& BI ~~ 12 5/ ¥3 (,'3 77 71 1'1 66 75 &7
T 1,& IlO l~~ lb& 9& Wi /10 1M /zq J% 13D IBI t/3 227 /57
Trafffc Vo'~s Varrant
Points shan be assignee! in Iccoml'lC' with the fol1owing tab1es:
. .
ToUl of Kajor . " Total of Minor
Approach legs Approacb ugs
C.hour Yo' ume Points .-tlOI/T' Yo' IIIIe feints
[0. tm- 'ßM P ~:m f: . r
1001. 300
1301 . 1600 . ! ·601 - 800 ! '
. 1601 . UOO 3 :::~.-" 801 - 1000 J .
1~01 . %200 ~ . 1001 - 1200 4 .
%201 . %600 ¡ U01 - 1400 S
2601 . t900 . .... 1m - 1600 ,. .
- . . .
nOl . 3200 1 1601 - 1800 ' ' '7
3201 - 3500 . ! "801 - toOO 8
".,::.j 3501 - 3800 :,.", "', toOl - %200 .
.J . .
. . . . 10
3801 - over . .- 0 %201 - onr
StOP!: #. Points stœE: ~~
.~-_.._..-......_..,. L Itari.l!II.i _ _ . /7' ,"nip 10 -'
-.-......, ..--,....-. -_._,-~-
.
COUNCILPOUCY .
C1Y OF œuLA VISTA
.
-.
SUBJEÇT POUCY' E:FFBC11VE
. NUMBER DATE PAGE '.
AUAlAY STOP .
" .
,
478-03 04·%3-:91 5 of t
.AD01"IED!Y: Res01ution 110. 16147 . ÐAIEn:
. -04·!3·S1 .
'.
. .
5. nArnc YOLUME DIFFrRrNCE
..
Al1ooW1Y. stops operate best when the aajo'r and afnor strtet 'Ppro&ch
. trafffc y01umes are nur1y eQua1. Points shan be assigned fn
Itcordance vith the fonowfng Ub1e: .
24·Hour Mfnor St. A~~roach Y01umes :<~t7 = ?,:7,fPofnts
24.Hour ~jor St. ADDroach ~olumes X 100i · ,
95 - 100 10
85 - t4 ¡
75 - 84 . 8 .'
55 - 74 7
55 - 64 6
- 45 - 54 . - 5 .
,
. 35 - '" 4
25 - 34 3
15 -' 24 .2 ' .
5 - 14 0'
rÐ- 4 7". 7 '%
SCORE : : ~ Points·
Kuimlml 10 Points
CAl.TAAIIS CRITERIA (Char>ter 4 Ca1Trans Traffic Manua1)'
Arri . of 'the fo1lowin; eondftfòns aay warrant . 1t111tf-way 1TCf li¡n
insu11ation: ..' .
.
1. Whert traffic ¡i¡nab Irt ~rranted. and 1rritnt1y Meded. 'tht aJ1tiwa,y
.¡tot ~ be In interill .asure that can ·be fnsUntd CfUick1~ to
con ro1 traffic .mn. Irrangeœnts art hin; aide for the I ¡nI1
insUnatfon. ' .
. .
t. . An accident ~b1.. II' fndicated bY..ffn or .,rt ftporttd àccilStnts .
within I 12 IIOnth "riod .of a ~ susc.ptib1e to coumion b1 a
1111tfwa,y' stop fnsUnatfon.·· Suc accfcJtn.ts inc1ude 11¡ht- and'
J 11ft-turn conbions as ~n IS ri¡h.wn;1. conhfons. _
#0 ¡-~f0rft!. J ~c<-!.t.~/f.ff ;j;/n 10 '1p.t/9 C.
. ".- -.'
- .
. /3
. .- . . . .
-, _...._-~ ---.---
-+---_.^_.~._.__._-
,.
COUNCIL POUCY
,. CITY OF æuIÅ VISTA
"..-- -....
s:tmr::.Cr POlley ~
AU.-1iA Y STOP ur- -- ?~
, .-
~:..-:: 478.03 - 04-%3-91 7 of g
.
, .AI>OPIEDBY: Resolution ·No. ;6147 DA'ŒD: 04-%3-91
. ,
3. M'In'lÐUm traffic yolumes .
.
.. ibe total vehicu1ar volume 'entering the fnursectfon fJ'Ol al1
~o approaches aust Iverage at least SOO yehicles per hour for a~ .
. 8 hours of an averag! daj'. and . . .
b. The combined vehicular ind pedestrian yolume from the ainor
street or highw~ lUst average at lelst.2oo units per hour for
the same 8 hours. with 'an average delay to minor strut
~o vehicular traffic of at lIast 30 seconds per vehicle during
the mximn hour. but·· . -
.
c. When the as-percentile approach speed of the ajor street
( traffic exceeds 40 iles per hour. the miniazm ¥thicular
ì volume Wlrrant is 70 Jl!rcent of the above requfretnents.
.
. ,
, . .'
.
.
,
,
,
.
, "
'- . - . .
.- .
.
. . .
..
'0
:,.... .
.
.
,
/~ .
. ,
-.- ..---,.-....-.-............- - .,.--- ----.'.----
roUNt::IL POliCY
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
SUBJEcr roucy EFFECI1VE
NUMBER DATE PAOE
m-v.J.Y STOP
. . 478-03 04-23-91 of 9
ADOYIEDBY: Reso1ution No. 16147 DA'IED: 04-23-91
..
Þ.l.L-li.J. Y STO? stWARY
IrnR.SECTIOII:¿:>,kef¡#re.¥~~fUJcoJ ( ZZ z/ -t)O)
. ¡.<.)o/
DATE IIIYESTl&"TIOII WAS COH?LETED:
.
TOT.I.l. SCORE: 3 points out of I possib1e 54. The ain1lM!1
required to justify In al1-wey stop contro1 is 30 points.
-.
Ltnh..s J þt.~ Dr-,'I/~ II
8' fJi.
IZ' ~ -eJ'izl
'.f --
~ 5~ --IZ' 51..
,r'
.
RrCOMKrNDATIOHS: -
~ CLA-o- a.\\ "'-"':"\ ~\ Cr-þsscre.~ R"....{
~ \øL ~<à. .J:.:"'
..... ~ '\:>".1.... ~ .
C>ït.t\r"'O..à, ~ \,\C -
. .
.
REJiJ..P.KS: . .
........
.
.:,...... .
/
'--~
.
.' .. Zi?
_....,-~..._-- .'
- - --_..... -' ---..---..-----"-------..--!--..-----
~~- -- --- ----- ---
- COUNCIL POliCY
. CITY OF æuLA VJSI'A
~ .=. E:f'ÆCI!VB .
~.~ ' 'P H:¡;
ALL-\lAY STO? .
478-03 - ' 04-23-91 ~ of ~
ADOF'1EDBY: Resolution Woo '16147 DATED: 04-23-91
.
tIiY (f' tHULA YISTA
AlL-\lAY STΠEVALUATION WORJ(SHtET
.
I ~ . Ff1e';ZZ2-(-O
Interšection Lt7k~.st"r~ fr/~ Cru../cwçød /JJ4ý Date '1//8f'?fÞ
. lMJor. lMlnOr) I InveSt'Sla or ß1.:TLJ
Qualifies for ~~Stop based on 3D or .ore ~oints:
Yes No Points.3 X
QualIfies for ~ - aY Stop based on other criteria: Yes lio
If yes, explain:
., ) ~etcn of IntersectIon w1tn V1S1Þ111ty data
On back Attached X .
1. Accident Hlstor f'OlnU Possl!)1e
FrOOl 7 I / I ?çto ~ I ~o I t¡ ~
Accioents/yr correctable by StopS X 2 pts/accident ø· 1'4
/
2. Unusual Conditions
lI"r;~Þ'.~" I C.«.....~"
. 7..- 10
3. Pedestrian YolUlle ¡-
Pedestrians I-~ . 5
crossing the major street during 4 hour count .
4. Traffic Yo1~s (Puk 4 HourS) . ~
Major approaches t5r;,/ 5
Minor approaches ''1'/ 10 ,
.
5. Traffic Yo1œe Difftrtnce tf,7-% ·ø '0 .
,
TOm .. 3' '54
. . .
·'ì ~ni_ Points Required . 30
".~-,/ .
.
,
.
-
_ __,_.,.._... "L,,_., ¿(
..--._--->--". .~---
~.
:.~~ CEt:U. VIE::. ?~R J!7E: 5<;·55
:F.!!!IC CD1LISIO~ D~7LIL ?E?O?i
5I:~ ;~~E~{'~: ¿t ~J.E~:OE Dt ~!¿ C?Ei~ïJOD ïA! 1DCATI0~ CODE: 2221- r.
,
E~.~:: DA~::S f:~¡ ~;-v¡-~i ~c t¡·:l·;~
r[:;1I~l[!~ '¡'iG· T::: ?~In OF :r.::~ COL. ~-v G7EE5
...:':"'::.. C};~ISID!; -~y;; i!: :E'~:: FJ.C7C,: RDAD I~V E!ï ?Eb ---ŸEF.!CL:--- 'DEIY, J?ED .1.550:
I:r; !"_.-:- r~~ IIE I~ :! . :~L. ~O:!T!0~ vc ~~r,. G? ï:! ;~T s co~ ïIT C71 !Ç7 ~0. !? ~v DI~ l.GE 5!! SiD' !'E:-{:E"
:>.", .-...
~~ ~:~I}:~:: ï::=¡~ 7F.£ :::~:'I:5~ ?~::~D
.
¡
';J
'.'~
-..- ...----~.._._,. --_.~ 23. ---------- ----" -----_.....-
c:rrt OJ' Gn.;LA VISTA - Yt:-ncu: ~ »_T.?(
~Y.:::~ "''';:>DI. ST",-:;Y í 0 / /"/,¡/ ír- / I' -- - Î, '-:z:,. "
~-, ~,c;;' 't~r~"""{ 1'""" - -'C~ . .<,./.:> _.,....~
r/, ,; tdu._ rp .;~J}j\ CO ' . .
. OJ¡ /t; b 5'"~^\-;:y ~ -:::>J I ~/- v
DATI: :::- Jj "::::> :u,. W !;?Em
.u.ØM) .~ v -
.IY.E. 57 A-;;;T /;.'5? 'I1Y.E Th 1) ,'3 :t?() WEAT,..:DI. r/.....,~
DIREC!10N rJÙ -0 r I,) -/ c
w.r. -{ NUMBER OF YEHJCU5 - 'TOTAL ..
. . . .
IIJ
59
.5B
'ÇJ
.!6 I I
55
>4
53
52
51 I I
50 I
(9 .
~ .
4J I
~ I I I I I
i5 I I I
~
.(3 /' I / / II
a / I I I ç
'1 I D 0 ,
+:J ./ ./ ~ ~ c
æ ./ n rl .3 .3 c
35 ./'Í /' I ~ ,.2 c
'37 ./ Ie-: 'r;> I~ Ý o¥ ,
)6 V V VI :;¡ '" !
-7 3.5 ./ ./ 17 ./ 7 1/ /1r'J r n 1...-:; rì /2 ,..:2
~ ./ ../ ./ IrJ rJ r n n 0. ç -
33 ../ ./ /' ./ / V ./ ./ ./ n In .-: In /'? /3 (
:>2 ./ /' 1/ / / 1/ n n n 9 9- .
31 ./ ./ 0 0 .Ir n ;::t ..,.. ,
X) ./ / <in ( nl ~ 9- ~
29 /' ./ /' / n ......... r' n n f II' It? ..-
2! ./ n (" () ::> .7 /
V ./ n Î) é 7' ..¡ I
26 /' 0 (" { I I "" -;/
25 ./ / /
,
2' ./ ./ ,.2 ..:2 .
-
" 23
,
- 22
21
:z;¡ I I
t.ECORDE.R: tv'..r..I......... Cf ~ _--2..ï::..
."
d._ "_~.n3
.-
.
. .
.
.
. .
.
.
.
-
..J'.
I .
.1<{.
j
i
.
SU!JECT
;;1îTE~SECT10N
~...
........J"
. .
..
I
.
. -
.. . ......'"
-. ..
J . .
". .
:~'a'~ IT ~:r ...c .AREA.PLAT
. I-<::::na 1-<
- -~7 _
;
:....,.C UKESl:I-QREJ;>.BJYE_LCEEEKWOOD W)"Y:.._,
..-..-....-- ..-,.--....... - ..LA...._,__~
an' OF C:"i1.;'!.A ';"..ITA.. '\'D-:JCI.! ~ "~"Y£Y
£Gy'::~,U~,":J~5T:";;)Y ~L,;,;", çt.~.... /)r;,/ç (;=--:>-//..:;-,?- /),,0' ¿:;, 4~./~/"c/
PATE -O/~G !>'-!7..\TY:;;rr.-.iJ./.dSJ."/0<7 U',/!" p.~.w~--n
- TIJ£:S7A.j\i /[;1:3D A.v.fPM) TIME END /.':2] ~ ""<.ATr-:=::R r /"'~,... -
. DIREC:nON 0: LV . 0 Cu..). I C
MPH N1.J ME ER OF YEHJCl.ES . TOTAL ...
J . . .
6D I
59 I
58 ,
~
56
55
54
53 I
5:1.
51 I I
50 I I I I
(9 I 11
~ I I
-" /' I I I I I,
4ó I I I I n 0 q,
~- ~ I Ion 9
~ I I Dnq
(3 / /"Inl I .3 ~ 9
U / I I I '9
'1 //1/"")1-- 1 <./ "-I Q
4()_ I ~ Ilq
~ 77.; ,;¡ ;:)... ~
. 3!ì 7././ /' /" IrJ n r;75 ¡;:::; 9 '1 f
-:> :>7 7 ---;7 -;/ ,.-, ,-,1,-- ,.., ':f -:t ,;
36 7777-;;::::rn Ío Co ::
35 ./ /" / n () In í7 7 5< x ~
~ //.//./~~I~~h~~~ I~/L~
:>3 77 Ir'¡';::;in !? r :;¡ ~ oS'
32 717 /1 '2, '2, ",\;
31 7 i7 /1/1/ /n --f Ir Ir-:lrl /~/.!2 :¡
X) -;/ 7 ./]/ In --,.., n '>' '.Jr :::l.
29 71/ nl ~ '" /
2! 7 /' "l ,,,...., r: "> ., /;
V -;/ / n .. .~ ::¡ =
~ 1/10 r¡. -:¡; ::0: .,.
- 25 ,...11') I
24 /' I / I
23 I
22
21
2!J I I
__L~C0R.D~_~~~....æz.~.~. L-'_r.:-.........-"'_~ lI'JrJ__ --, 0",__
EXit/BIT I(D"
COUNCIL POUCY
aTY OF aruI.A VISTA
SUBJECr POUCY EñEC'I!VE
· Al.L-WÞ.Y STOP ~-.m= -
478-D3 04-23-91 1 of 9
ADOP'IEDBY: Resolution No: 16147 DA'IED: 04-23-91
-
BÞ.CKSROlOOJ .
.
The CalTrans Traffic Kanual and the Kanual on UnifoT'lll Traffic Control
Devices list criurfa in deunninin~ the need for an al1.....ay stop.
Actual need for anall-way is deul'll ned by an engineering study which
examines the s~cial characurhtics of the siu. .
All-way stop signs are very restrictive controls since they require all
motorists entering the intersection to stop at all times. When stop
signs are installed for speed control and/or.there is no'apparent traffic
reason for the .stop (Htth or no cross traffic). aotorhts. regard the
stop sign IS an unnecessary impediment .and of un tiMes do not uk! a
compl ete stop. When this occurs the expectations of other drivel"$ and
pedestrians are al teredo thereby jeopardizing the Ufef¡)' perfonnance of
the intersection. Although speeds will be lower in the vicinity of the
stop, sþ!eds will be higher midblock as ~torists try to ..keup for the
time lost at the unwarranted stop sign. Mother negative aspect of
· unwarranted stop signs is the increase in noise and pollution as vehicles
apply their brakes to slow down and accelerate out of the intersection.
It is impractical and impossible to install an al1-way stop (or other
traffic control device such as a traffic signal) ,whenever and wherever a
request is .lIIade; othe!"ll'ise during peak periods. exunded delays to
· motorists may result, thus forcing I!Otorists to seek alurnate routes
through parallels streets, often a residential . area. . A . Traffic
Engineer's prilllary goal is to maintain safety and reduce vehicle delay.
PURPOSE
The purpose of a fully justified. properly installed al1-way stop is to
effectively assign right-of-way. sain~in safety and reduce vehicle
delay. Generally. all-way stops are installed where traffic signals are
warranud and/or an accident history has been indiclud by reported,
accidents of a type susceptible to correction by an al1-way stop.
. . . .
POLICY STATEKEWT " --
.
It shall be the policy of the CIty of Chull Vista. through the Department
of Public Vori:s/Engineerfng Division', to warrant the installation of
:-;.;""/ A"-Way Stops in accordance with the fon.owing policy statements:
.'
3/ .
. .
--,.,. _.~._.__..._.__.'. .. ._~.._____..L-.
. COUNCIL POliCY
CTY OF œuu. VISTA -
SUBJECT POllCY . EPFECI1VE
NUMBER DATE PAGE
ALL-WAY STOP
478-D3 - . 04-23-91 2 of 9
ADOP'IEDBY: Resolution Wo. 16147 DA'IED: 04-23-91
.
The California Vehicle Code. Section 2135D thru' 21355. ghes the
authority to local agencies to install all~ stop traffic controls
upon streets in their respective jurisdiction.
According to Federal and State trafffç control ;uideHnes. a11-way
stop installations should be reserved for the control of'vehicular
traffic conflicts at intersections and should. not be used JS devices
to control speed.
The City1s policy for the installation of an all-way stop control is "
based on a point system. Points are assigned to traffic' factol"$
based on. the severity of traffic conditions. Factors measured are:
.
.---., 1. accident records .
2. unusual conditions :
3. pedestrian volumes ..
4. tra ffi c vol urnes
5-. traffic volume differentials ..
.
. .
:
.
.-
_:~; . .
. --
.
.
, -
32-
._......_...._..~ - ___".~__.__..__.._. __ ,..... ""___~n_.
COUNCIL POllCY
- arY OF ŒUlA VISTA
.
SUBJECI' . POUCY El'rECI1VE
ALL-WAY STO? ""'-~- - ,- 'þ..,.,t::
. 478-D3 04-23-91 3 of 9
AOOP'TEDBY:. RHolution No. 16147 DA"IED: 04-23-91
CITY or CHUt" VISTA -
ALL-WAY SlOP CON1ROL WARRANTS
. c¡/;! 19{.
Date: .
IIITERSECTIOII Lqke..5ho~ OÎí~/ liar/lord s.;. , .
'Total l'Oint~
I'IaJor StreetfA'l,nor Street ( 20' Z
GEIIERAl: .
.
A fully justified, properly 'Installed all-way step can effectively uSign
right of lilY, reduce vehicle delay. and decrease accidents. Generally.
/ In all.....ay stop f$ reserved for the use at the 'Intersection of two
throurh hirhways. and only IS an interim tr~ffic control ~asure prior te
signa ilat on. Stop signs are not te be used for speed control.
'The posting of In intersection for all-way stop control shoul d be based
. on factual data. Warrants to ,be considered include:
1. Accident records
2. Unusual conditions
3. Traffic volumes
4. Traffic volume difference ,
5. Pedestrian volume
.. . .
Points are assigned to each of these warrants. The total points possible
are 54. The installation of an all-way stog. control is justified with a
minimum of 30 points, unless II\)' one of the Hrans cnteria is met. .
..
ALl-WAY STO? POIIIT SYSTEM CRITERIA:
ACCIDEIIT W~RRAIIT: . .
1. ,
.
Two þOints Ire assigned for each accident susceptible to correction
by an all-way stop control during one full )'ear prior to the
! investigation ·date. "7/i/9S' -to t/30!'1~' . .
"...:) Total number of accidents correctible by .all-waj stop: .L
" ø points
Maxiaœ 14 points - SCORr:
, " .
. 3-3
-. ,... ., "
----- +-_..----_..~-,----
COUNCIL POliCY
CITY OF ŒUlA VISTA
SUBJECI' POUCY ' EFFECIIVE
NUMBER DATB PAGE
ALL.liAY STOP
. .
478-03 - 04·23·91 of 9
AOOYŒDBY: Resolution Ho. 16147 DA'IED: 04-23-91
2. UWUSUAL COHDITIOH WARRANT:
Where unusual conditions exist, such as a school. fire station.
pl~ground, horizontal or vertical curves. etc.. points are assigned
on the basis of engineering judgment. Unusual conditions shall be
considered only if within 500. feet of .the subject intersection. In
residential neighborhoods where there is a concentration of school
Ige children activities separated from ~e residential neighborhood
by a collector street and coupled with other conditions. the C~ty.
Traffic Engineer lIIay ap{¡'y traffic engineering judgment Ind wa ve
the jU-po1nt !!I1nimum po nt requirement to quaHfy the intersection
for In al1-w~ stop control. .
,
-~
) The 3Q.point minimum requirement ~y be waived and an all.way stop
may be installed only if less restrictive controls have not
corrected a documented problem. .
,."......ay stops may be justified based on projected volumes and'
accident fre~enCy when traffic signals are warranted ,and w111 be
insulled wit in a specified period of time. ~.' .
Kaximum 10 points )r$ ;!er;r.fwtol- Curve.. . SCORE: ;2 Points
3. PEDESTRIAN VOLUMES
.
Consideration is given to hrge nlJlllbers' of pedestrians crossing the
~o~ str~et during the four busiešt hours of an average day. . .
Pedestrian Crossing Major Street, Total during 4 busiest traffic hours
Y""'''U 51-'DC 101.150 .151·200 201-DVER
Points: 1 2 3 -4 5
. / . -
~ /
MuilDUlD.5 pointS SCORE: Points
.
. .
.j) ~. TmtIC YOLœES
Points are dëpendent upon the Ngnitude of vehicular yolumes enterfng
the intersection during the four busiest hours of an Iverage day.
-......-----.-- L ..:s'i .
--.....-.-.
- ___._.,,_, .,._._~__._ __,.,.~_.__._ L._
COUNCIL POliCY
- crrY OF CHUlA VISTA
SU1!JECI' roucr E:PFEcrIVE
ALL-liAY STOP --- ....,.,.,
478-03 04-23-91 5 of 9
'. - .
AOOrn:DBY: RHolution lio. 16147 DATED: 04-23-91
Traffic Counts (circle four highest hour volumes):
.
Hour Ending At:
Dir 0600 0700Ô800 0900 1000 lioo 1200 .13001400'1500 í650 1700 1800 1900 2000
liS - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -
S6 2/ 57 82 '19 /7 2~ 33 3D 32- f~ 3'1 LIZ 3£3 £7 37
-
. '\ EB // 8° 2il NV 53 5Ø 71 ß5 77 /3l 11/3 12f ¡sr /ß /ð /
r
.'3 J.7 7ß Jól 'r~ sf 7'1 'if 88 !~7 /2B 177 /3? Ito /5Z @~
T 51 11S 5Z,~ 16f !2.~ ¡50 J7t 1~3 23& 3bf p-¿ 'j05 377 3bl ZZ~
Traffic VO'umfS Warrant
Points sha" be assigned in accordance with the following tables:
.
Total of Major Total of Minor
~proach Legs Approach Legs
4-hour Vol ume Points 4-1'1our Yo 1 UIfte Points
o . 1000 0 fo0. 400 :z II 0)
10D' .;300 , ,. 600 1 ,
(1301 .1600 ¡'IDe 2) '601· 800 2
1~[ 1 . 1jUO .;, 801 - 1000 3 .
1 POl . 2200 4 -. 1001 . 1200 4 .
- 2201 . 2600 5 1201 . 1400 5
. . 2601 . 2POO . -4. . , 1401 - 1600 . 6 .
2901 . 3200 3. 1601 - 1800 . . . 7
," . 3201 . 3500 . ! 1801 - 2000 e
~.
3501 . 3800 1 2001 . 2200 g
3801 . over 0 UOl - ever 10
-."'.'" l. ~:, ... 2-'oints 2~ ~!_: - _ ..'~h
COUNCIL POUCY ,
CITY OF aruI.A VISTA
SU?JEÇI' l'OUCY :EñEC'ID'E
NUMBER DATE PAGE .
ALL-W....y STO? .
478-Ð3 04-23-:9' 6 of ~
AD01"ŒD BY: Reso' uti on Woo 16147 . ÐA'I'ED:
04-23-9' .
-
.
.
5. TRmIC YDLUHE DIF'F!RrNCE
Al1~ay. stops operate best ~en the Njo'r and IIi nor street approach
traffic volumes are nearly tqua'. Points sha11 be assigned in
accordance with the fo11ow1ng tAble: .
24-Hour Minor St. ....PÞroach Vol um!s . 91J{) .'
Z4-Hour !".ajor St. Aooroacn Volumes X lD~ · 376.5' =jg,t'l.Points - - -
95 - 1 DO 10
85 - 94 9
75 - 84 8
65 - 74 7
55 - 64 6
45 - S4 5 .
. 35 - « 4
q: ~ /ß,t~ ~;>
1
0- 4 0
StORE: 'Ç-' P~ints
.
!t.uimum 10 Points
C.1.!.. TRAilS CRITERIA (Chapter 4 Ca1Tnns Traffic Þ/¿nual)'
J y . of the fo'1ow1ng conditions aa.Y wtTTant . aúltf~1j' STCf sign.
insulhtion: .
1. k'1ere traffic signals Irt 1RTTlnted. and U1"¡!nt1y ftttded. the .u1tfway
. stop aay be an interill _&sure that can be insu11td qufCkl~ to
'contro' traffic ~nt arran~nts are being aade for the s ¡nI1
insu11atfon. .
. -
2. . An accfdent ~b'm. ·as indiclted .bY..fin or ~rt "ported laccidents .
within a 12 IIOnth ~riod .of a .~ susceptib1e to cor.rection by .
.ultfway stop instAlhtion.· Suc accfdents inc1ude right- and'.
teft-turn co, Hsfons as we" as "f¡h.wn;', co11 fsions. _
.'
.... .-. .
. . .:::.:::.. .
.
..~_._-~. -
-..--'---.- ....._.~._-_.- _..-
H."_ ..-.--".--. -
COUNCIL POllCY
- CITY OF anJlA VISTA
su:BJECr I'OUCY EFrEc:nvE
ALl-W.f.Y STOP tH, TP
..
478-03 . 04-23-91 7 of 9
AOOF1EDBY: R.esolution Ho. 16147 DA1'ED: 04-23-91
,
3. Minimum traffic volumes
.
a. The total vehicular volume entering the intersection from all
approaches must Iverige at least SOD vehicles per hour for any
¡Jo 8 hours of an average day. and .
b. The combined vehicu1ar ind pedestrian yol LIme fran the IIi nor
street or highway lUst average It least 20D units per hour for
No the ume 8 hours. with an average delay to I\inor street
vehicu1ar traffic of at least 30 seconds per vehicle during
the lÐaxilm.l!!l hour, but . .
.
.~ I c. Ic'hen the 85-percentfl e approach speed of the lII.jor street
tJo traffic exceeds 40 Innes per hour, the l\inilMll vehicular
volume warrant is 7D percent of the above requf.rements.
.
.
.
,
.
. . .
. .
-
.
J
.
.- 37
, "_.- H·_······_·___~··
COUNCIL POUCY
,~ CITY OF œUI.A VISTA
SUBJECr roucy EfFEC'I1VE
NUMBER DAre PAGE
.l.!..l-WAY STOP
478-03 04-23-91 of 9
ADOFTEDBY; Reso1ution Ho.· 16147 DATED: 04-23-91
ALL-WAY STOP stW.ARY
IIIT!RSECTIOII:Lqte.sh,~ f)~r-I¡"'¡Sf( ;¿ Ò ~ Z -00)
OATE IIIYESTlGATIOII WAS CDH?lmD: rjlißG
The lIinillMll
I1~Q fJ
MIVE /1.' ..-
-
. 11~~/2.r
IY ..- .
......STOP
~
is
~ ,
~
. .,.
~
'::{
REC~IIDATIDIIS: ,..1' ' . .I<d ~~ .
$h..jf V~¡.t-1~ ~ ¿:¿'1- ¿:It! i'éJ¿, ~ vý¿~ ~
. ~ø ~-t ~ IwI:zwç~ é'.:; 1"5./i~
la'
¡-/~¡ .$k~¿t. ,." .
ROORKS: .
¡Ie r~f~,.-fJ Qc.c-:d~+<-I-3 //}!7 +0 7,Þ119~
_···.·H. 3î
_ --"--'-"'--- ~--_.... ---_.__... -...-..--------.,
,
COUNCIL POliCY
. CITY OF æuI.A VISTA
IÞUBJ:£I' POLlCY EFfECI!VE .
----- ,..,.-n: "A.r.~
ALL-WAY STOP
478-03 - . 04-23-91 9 of 9
ADOI"IEDBY: ~~so1ution No. 16147 DA'IED: 04-23-91
.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
AiL-WAY STΠEVALUATION 1i0RKSHEET
Intersection tqks/1f)Y(. OY-¡'V€.J /¡¡"r/~,-e{ .5~~ File' 20t-2-0
Da te r¡ 1(8/9 (p
. (!'\AJor). I lnor) Invest1ga or /YITl)
Qualifi~s for All-W~ Stop based on 3D Dr more points:
Yes 110. Points 1 )(
QualifIes for ~ ay Stop basea on other criteria: Y~s Ho
If y~s. explain: I
- ~etch or Intersect10n wltn V1S10111ty data
On bac!; Attached '¡( .
1. Accident History ? / 30/ rc.. POlnu Possible
,From 7 / I / 95" to
Accidents/yr correctable by Stops X 2 pts/accident ø
/10 r~fþ,.-fd /'jc.c./durÜ 14
/
2. Unusual Conditions
I!.r/z.p,,-it< / c..<{r~~ -
Z 1D
3. Ped~strian Vol~ I
Pedestrians I-SO 5
crossing the ~or stre~t during" hour count
4. Triffic Vo1œes (Peak" Hours)
Kajor approaches II.(0B L 5
Kinor approaches "d.ff . fj 10 ,
5. Traffic Yo1u.e Difference ¡t.t.g 2- 10 .
- 7'
TOm .. S.(
~nilUm Points Required 30
. -."' .
-'.
-'
.,.---.-..,- '-0' _ _____._,_~ ..-.......--. ,--,."."--..- - --".._.._~. 3Ci -
. C08BlE~TONE/¿K
.-
. .
.
'.
.
.
-
.
-,
.
.'
.
-.;q . . 1
.
.
. .
.. ..... . ~
. " -'
".( .'. . .
<f .
~JU,\/~ IT -r.n..c: . AREA· P.LAT
. "=::<R.l\';' . .
::J.":'C _ i:.iAK~_SäQR·~ ºRI'';~L~2-fìT¡:º_i3'[)§:I~Ë::._,..·· . 'z0 ___
--"--. ._ .._.__............... .......A...A._ .
Safety Commission Minutes 81118/1 "'è
August 8, 1996
,- Page 2
exit from the school parking lot and on East) Street south curb line as law permits into the school parking lot (Item
#11), and to create bus turnouts on East) Street (Item #13). The Commission supported the concept of a flashing
light on East) Street, (Item #6), but felt it would be too expensive to implement.
MS (Smith/Acton) set up four priorities in order as action should be taken. The priorities were:
1. To have the parking lot restriped immediately;
2. To install "No left Turn" signs on East) Street and parking lot exit to prohibit left turns into and out of the
school parking lot, as the law permits;
3. To move the school bus loading and unloading zone further west, adding footage from the parking lot as
permitted; and,
4. To entertain the addition of a new turnout area on the north side of the school, east of the existing parking
lot.
FRIENDlY AMENDMENT: (liken) to have staff report back on effects of Items 1, 2, and 3 in December and if
they do not work then look at Alternative 13. Agreed to by maker of motion.
VOTE ON MOTION AS AMENDED: Approved ó-{)41 with Vice Chair Miller abstaining due to conflict of
interest.
Chair liken asked Dr. Madison to send letters to the parents on the Safety Commission decision.
6. Reoort on Traffic Concerns at Bonita Vista Middle School and Bonita Vista Hi2h School
:.) Frarik Rivera presented staff's report.
To"; Silva, Sweetwater Union High School District, 1130 Fifth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91911, Director of
Planning, said the District was in favor of staff's recommendation with one exception. The District was not in
favor of flashing beacons in a future CIP. He did not recommend a split phasing to the traffic signal timing
because he felt it would cause additional delays.
Chair liken said he did not agree with the need for flashing beacons and that he wanted to see how the larger
speed limit signs worked out. He wanted to start out with the less expensive items. If the changes that were
made were not satisfactory, the District could come back 10 the Commission with other ideas. He wanted to see
police enforcement of the' signs,
Commissioner Cochrane was in favor of solar powered flashing beacons and suggested they be included in the
CIP ,budget.
Co~missioner Smith felt flashing beacons were not a good idea. He felt there were more pressing issues that
nee~ed to be covered by the CIP.
Ms0c (Miller/Hoke) to accept staff's report on Traffic Concerns at Bonita Vista Middle School and Bonita Vista
High School.
, .
7. ·ReGort on AII-Wav StOG Re(]uest at Clearbrook Drive and lakeshore Drive
1 .
Frank Rivera presented staff's report.
. . j .
....,:..'¡ Geoffrey Clemmons, 1948 Clearbrook Drive, Chula Vista, CA 91913, said that motorists did not slow down on
<,,/ lakeshore Drive. Vehicles on lakeshore Drive seemed to have less visibility. He agreed to the installation of
an all-way stop at Creekwood Drive rather than Clearbrook Drive, He believed there was community support
for t~e all-way stop at Creekwood Drive. . .YNOFFfCfAI
"t?~~r¡ ,."..~~ (/./
._~_.. --..--.--- I .. 'J ~ : ..... .::. .,. --"-----<
Safety Commission Minutes
August 8, 1996
_. Page~'
,.
David Villegas, 1936 Clearbrook Drive, Chula Vista, CA 91913, said that every new development had growing
pains. Eastlake I had speeding problems. He asked why there were only two crosswalks on Lakeshore Drive.
He had been involved in near misses because of vehicular speed. i
Chair Liken said there were only two crosswalks because there were two all-way stop locations. Crosswalks were
installed in conjunction with all-way stops, If crosswalks were installed at uncontrolled intersections, it could
give pedestrians an illusion of safety. '.' . "
Commissioner Smith asked if the streets were dedicated or private.
¡
"
Frank Rivera answered that Eastlake Shore Terrace and the streets inside the Lakeshore Drive loop were priv.ite.
Lakeshore Drive and the streets outside the loop were dedicated. ¡
Commissioner Smith asked if there was a Homeowners Association and asked if the CC&R's would allow fj~es
on speeders.
Mr. Clemmons said there was a Homeowners Association, but that it could not enforce speeding or get involved
in speed issues.
Frank Rivera commented that Eastlake I had an office at the clubhouse and it published a monthly newsletter with
general information. He felt an article about speeding could be put in the newsletter.
- Mr. Clemmons commented that most of the residents in Eastlake I community are renters and putting somethinb
\ in the newsletter was not a long term solution. An all-way stop would be a long term solution.
Mr. Villegas said the Homeowners Association was aware of the speeding issues. The Homeowners Association
wanted to install speed humps on Lakeshore Drive, but it did not meet standards for speed humps.
Commissioner Cochrane spoke in favor of the all-way stop. He had witnessed vehicular speeds and would like
the installation of an all-way stop at Creekwood Drive and Lakeshore Drive on a trial basis.
Chair Liken informed the public about all-way stop guidelines. He mentioned that the Commission looked at
special circumstances. Statistics showed that cars tended to speed up in between stop signs. He entered into tþe
record that he received 13 postcards in support of the all-way stop. Twelve postcards were received from area
residents, and one from a resident of Eastlake Hillside. He asked if the 'SMART' unit has been set up pn
Lakeshore Drive. .
Sgt. d' Ablaing said the machine was in for repairs.
Chair Liken said although the roadway did not meet the all-way stop criteria, the Commission looked at special
circumstances and said he would like staff to monitor the area. He asked staff to conduct a radar survey. .
Commissioner Cochrane asked if an all-way stop was ultimately planned by the City, why it could not be
installed immediately.
Frank Rivera commented that if staff was given a choice for the location of an all-way stop, the preference would· '
be Creekwood Drive. .
. ". " Chair Liken suggested tabling the item until September when it could be brought back with a study on Hartford
,:.::;'/ Street and a current radar study.
\'
Commissioner Smith commented on the traffic counts and how the vast amount of speeding was done on or after
7pm and felt it was possible that Lakeshore Drive was being used as a race track. '
. ,
._. ...__. .. .._.___.....___... .__.._ ,LL.:::L..
Safe'ty Commission Minutes
August 8, 1996
.' Page 4
Mr. Villegas commented that with the development of Eastlake Greens, motorists were filtering through the
community which created more traffic.
MSUC (Smith/Acton) to deny an all-way stop at lakeshore Drive and Clearbrook Drive and that staff bring back
an all-way stop study and speed survey in September on Creekwood Drive and Hartford Drive.
Frank Rivera suggested holding off the report until October so that staff would have more time to condllct all the
nec+sary studies while school is in session.
The Commission by consensus agreed to postpone the report until October.
8. Oral Communications - None.
STAFF REPORTS .
9. Action Summarv Uodate/Staff Comments
· 'Request for all-way stop at Second Avenue & Oxford Street and East Paisley Street & Monserate Avenue.
t
Frank Rivera indicated that staff was working on a report and would present it at the October meeting.
· Request for speed humps in vicinity of 600 block of Garrett Avenue.
I
~
. Frank Rivera indicated that a letter was prepared and delivery attemped to the resident. The home was found
vacaht and with a 'For Sale' sign in the yard.
¡
Chai~ Liken asked staff to contact Mayor Horton to see how to proceed on the request.
I
,
¡
10, Traffic Accident Summarv Mav & tune 1996· Distributed for Commission infonnation.
11. Informational Reoort, Proposed Rancho del Rey Middle School at East J Street and Paseo Ranchero.
\
· Presentation by Mr. Tom Silva, Director of Planning, Sweetwater Union High School District.
,
Tom Silva presented a rèport on the Rancho del Rey Middle School. The school is expected to open in July 1998.
He wanted to work closely with City staff and the Commission to avoid any traffic issues that could arise.
;
OTHER BUSINESS
12. i=Y 1996-97 Elections
MSUC (BierdlHoke) to keep present officers of John Liken as Chair and Cindy Miller as Vice Chair.
!
,
13. Commissioner Comments:
,
..... 1
:>...:.;' ~ John Liken· Annual schedule of meetings.
.,./ 1
chair Liken asked why the July meeting was cancelled. UNO FF t c tAL M I N UTe s
t ~
___ ,~;{ ._,____ ...n___..... ___.___,.
·
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CHULA VISTA SAFETY COMMISSION
Thursday, October 10, 1996 Council Chambers
7:00 p.m. Public Services Building
CALL TO ORDER
1. Roll Call:
Present: Chair liken, Vice Chair Miller, Commissioners: Acton, Bierd, Cochrane, and Smith
Absent: Commissioner Hoke
Also present: Bill Ullrich, Senior Civil Engineer; Mike Donnelly, Asst Engineer II; Sgt. Gene d'Ablaing; and
Diana Vargas, Recording Secretary
2. Pledge of Allegiance/Silent Praver
3. ODening Statement - Read by Chair liken
4. ADoroval of Minutes: August 8, 1996
MSC (Acton/Smith) to approve the minutes of August 8, 1996 as presented. Approved 6-0-1 with Commissioner
Hoke absent.
MEETING AGENDA
5. ReDor! on AII-Wav Stoo Reollest at lakeshore Drive at Clearbrook Drive.
Background: The Commission directed staff at the August 8, 1996 meeting, to prepare a follow-up, report on this
item, and requested that an updated speed survey be conducted at this intersection. Staff requested that the speed
survey be delayed until after the schools were in session in order to acquire a more accurate survey of the traffic
and speed conditions at that intersection.
Bill Ullrich presented staff's follow-up report and indicated there were no changes to the previous report. He
further indicated that the updated speed survey showed no difference in the 85th percentile speed of 40 MPH,
which exceeds the posted speed limit of 30 MPH.
In addition, the warrant evaluation conducted at this intersection assessed a total of 9 points out of a possible 54
points. According to Council's policy on the installation of an all-way stop, a minimum of 30 points are required
to justify the installation.
Staff Recommendation: Mr. Ullrich indicated that utilizing established guidelines,the outcome failed to
demonstrate the need for the installation of an all-way stop at this location and therefore, staff recommends denial
of the request.
Public Hearine: Chair liken opened up the Public Hearing and indicated there were five request slips to speak.
Geoffrey Clemmons, 1948 Clearbrook Drive, Chula Vista 91913, indicated he contested the sight
: .-", distances that were noted by staff during the slide presentation, and indicated the speed at which
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
__LfCL ...- ---. -'.----~~.._. .'"--..-..-.-------..----------
Safety Commission Minutes
October 10, 1996
Page 2
offenders are driving, cuts down on the reaction time. He further stated that although he would like to
see the all-way stop installed at Clearbrook Drive, he supported staff's recommendation that perhaps the
better alternative site would be at Creekwood Way because of the proposed connection of Creekwood
Way to Chateau Court when the adjacent Telegraph Canyon Estates development is completed. He
encouraged the Commission to continue to look into creative ways that cOllld slow down the speed of
cars traveling on the southwest side of the loop.
Armando Montes Jr., 1975 Clearbrook Drive, Chula Vista 91913, stated he lives on the corner lot of this
intersection and he personally witnesses speeding cars. He further stated that because he will not
jeopardize the safety of his family, he has had to place his home on the market to prevent a tragedy from
occurring and have a car end up in his front living room.
Ruben Padilla, 801 Woodspring Drive, Chula Vista 91913, stated that on June 14, 1995 at 7:35 p.m.
he had a car fly into his back yard and ended up approximately 5 feet from his kitchen. Fortllnately, his
four children were inside the house, and a greater tragedy did not occur. Mr. Padilla stated that because
of the angle the photos were taken, he did not believe they represent a true picture of the sight distance.
Joseph Dombrowski, 1967 Clearbrook Drive, Chula Vista 91913, stated that he and his 6 and 8 year
old sons frequently cross that intersection on their way to visit a family member that lives inside the loop.
There is no pedestrian crosswalk and there is poor visibility on Lakeshore Drive when they are coming
back home. There have been times when his children will wait up to 10 minutes trying to cross
Lakeshore Drive, due to poor visibility and speeding cars.
Ken Comardo, 1966 Clearbrook Drive, Chula Vista 91913, stated that in his opinion there is a blind spot
created by the curve on the lakeshore Drive where you don't see the car coming for the last 100 feet
before reaching Clearbrook Drive. He felt that the photos were not a true representation of the sight
distance motorists have when they are at the intersection.
Public Hearing Closed.
Commission Discussion:
Commissioner Acton questioned whether the Commission has discussed the feasibility of installing speed bumps
at the last hearing.
Chair liken indicated that due to the collector street and it posted over 25 MPH, it did not meet the criteria stated
in the speed bump policy.
Commissioner Cochrane expressed his concern over the safety of this area and indicated he has personally
witnessed the speeding cars because he and his wife regularly walk through this neighborhood. Commissioner
Cochrane stated that if the 85th percentile is traveling 10 miles in excess of the posted speed limit, that means
that the remaining 15 percent are traveling at speeds that far exceed the posted speed limit. He indicated that
he believes an all-way stop sign at this intèrsection is warranted.
Commissioner Miller indicated that she empathized with the residents and felt that perhaps the Commission could
..- - review this item with the next item on the agenda, and somehow come to a consensus on where to recommend
". the installation of an all-way stop.
Bill Ullrich indicated that the photos are taken from an angle that closest represents the motorists' view.
...
._----.-- U ..". ,._~~----
Safety Commission Minuter -
~'.
- ;: October'O, '99&
Page 3
Chair Liken indicated that the Commission does make an effort to visit these sites prior to them being discussed
at the meetings, and they do drive in and out of the different approaches to get a well-rounded perspective. He
further indicated that speed in this area is a concern to the Commission as a whole, and asked staff what measures
could be implemented to control speed.
Bill Ullrich indicated that there could be stricter enforcement of the speed limit.
Chair Liken stated that, although he is concerned about the speeding cars, he would not support the all-way stop
at the Clearbrook Drive intersection, but rather, at the next intersection, which is Creekwood Way and lakeshore
Drive. He further indicated that it would be at this location that the all-way stop could be warranted at a future
date with the impact the adjacent development will have when it is completed.
Bill Ullrich indicated that staff could reevaluate the installation of an all-way stop at the Creekwood Way and
lakeshore Drive intersection at a later date, after the connection to Chateau Court and the completion of the
development.
MSC(Miller/Biercl) to approve staff's recommendation to deny the installation of an all-way stop at lakeshore
Drive and Clearbrook Drive. Approved 4-2-1 with Commissioners Smith and Cochrane voting no, 'and
Commissioner Hoke absent.
6. Reeer! on AII-Wav Stoe reouest at Creekwood Wav and lakeshore Drive
Backeround: The Commission directed staff at the August 8, 1996 meeting to prepare a study on this item as an
alternative location to a request to install an all-way stop at the Clearbrook Drive and lakeshore Drive
intersection. Staff requested that the study be delayed until after the schools were in session in order to acquire
a more accurate survey of the traffic and speed conditions at that intersection.
Bill Ullrich reported that staff conducted the study utilizing the same evaluation methodology as the other
intersection and it did not receive enough points to warrant the installation of an all-way stop at this time.
Staff Recommendation: That the Commission deny the request for the installation of an all-way stop at the
Creekwood Way and lakeshore Drive intersection, and that staff be directed to re-evaluate it when the Telegraph
Canyon Estates are completed.
Public Hearine: Chair Liken open the Public Hearing and indicated that there were two request slips to speak.
Ken Comardo, 1966 Clearbrook Drive, Chula Vista 91913, stated that he did not support the stop sign
at this location: He urged the Commission to stoP. looking at a point system policy, and make their
determination on a case by case basis based on merit and safety.
Armando Montes Jr., 1975 Clearbrook Drive, Chula Vista 91913, stated he too did not support the stop
sign at this location and urged the Commission not to :-vait to reevaluate this item until the completion
of a future development that may not take place.
Public Hearine Closed.
Commission Discussion: Commissioner Bierd asked staff if there was a time frame of when to expect the
". . completion of this project.
:.","
_...... v¿
H' __._..____
-, Safety Commission Minutes
" I October 10, 1996
Page 4
Bill Ullrich indicated that Baldwin Builders was going through bankruptcy court, and they had received
allthorization from the court to move forward and complete the existing homes that had been partially framed.
He further stated that it was his understanding that the work would commence as soon as possible, however, it
was uncertain if the courts were going to allow them enough funds to complete it. In addition, Mr. Ullrich
informed the Commission that it was IIncertain if they were going to be able to complete the additional phases
of the project where construction of homes had not yet begun.
Commissioner Acton stated that she supported the Commission taking measures that would mitigate the existing
needs, addressing the residents' concerns, and not wait IIntil the the conditions are exacerbated by possible future
development.
Commissioner Cochrane stated that he supported Commissioner Acton's previous comment and felt that the City
needed to be able to offer some kind of relief to these residents and alleviate the speeding problem at this
location.
Commissioner Acton questioned the appropriateness of discussing these two item together, rather than as two
unrelated items.
.
Commissioner Smith indicated that he remembered discussing this issue,at a previous workshop, and that the
Commission had agreed that they needed to take the items as listedòn the agenda, and that if it was their desire
to revisit or combine items, staff could be directed to do so and bring, it back at a future meeting.
--" Commissioner Smith offered his reasoning for voting against staff's recommendation in the previous item. It is
his opinion that a stop sign is needed at both intersections, because by clltting down on the distance between stop
signs that are fairly separated, motorists tend to modify their behavior and slow down because they know that
another stop sign is coming up.
Chair Liken stated that he disagreed with the previous comment, and stated that in his opinion placing too many
stop signs that are too close together, tends to make the drivers roll through the stop sign, which gives the other
motorists a false sense of security. Similarly, putting cr,osswalks where you don't have an intersection, then
people feel that as soon as they step into the crosswalk they have the right-of-way, which is a false sense of
security for those pedestrian.
Commissioner Miller stated that she agreed with Chair Liken's comment, and felt that this is the intersection that
makes sense because of the future development, although it may not be in the immediate future, and did not
agree with staff's recommendation to deny the stop sign at this location.
MSC (Miller/Acton) that the Commission not approve staff's recommendation to deny the stop sign and that
the Commission request that an all-way stop sign be placed at Creekwood Way and lakeshore Drive. Approved
6-0-1 with Commissioner Hoke absent.
7. Reoort on AII-Wav Stoo Evaluation on lakeshore Drive at Hartford Street.
t
Back2round: The Commission directed staff at the August 8,1996 meeting to study the installation of an all-way
stop at the intersection of lakeshore Drive and Hartford Street as part of the Commission's review of stop control
needs on lakeshore Drive.
.. .... ) Staff conducted the study and the intersection received a total of 7 points out of a possible 54 points. A minimum
of 30 points are required to justify the installation of an all-way stop.
....
.._.__._._-_..._~-----_.,---- UNOFFICIAL MIf\!~!~S_______~7 -.
Safety Commission Minutes ~
--
October 10, 1996
Page 5
Staff Recommendation: That the Commission deny the installation of an all-way stop at Lakeshore Drive and'
Hartford Street.
Pllblic Hearine: Chair Liken indicated there were no request slips to speak on this item.
Commission Discussion: Chair Liken stated he had requested the review of an all-way stop at this location
because if an all-way stop was installed at one end of the loop, then it would be a matter of time before the
residents on the other side would be reqllesting the installation of a stop sign at their end of the loop. If a stop
were to be installed at the south end of the loop, the tendency would be for motorists to take the alternate loop
where there are no stops and would also encourage speeding at the north side of the loop.
Commissioner Cochrane supported Chair Liken's comments and recommended a all-way stop be installed at
Hartford Street and the other at Clearbrook Drive to balance Ollt the loop.
o Commissioner Miller asked staff if there were any 'Children Playing" signs posted where there are parks. If not,
-, could the homeowners association place one?
.'¡ii
:~ Mr. Ullrich indicated that there were no 'Children Playing" signs because they cannot be placed in the public
\' right-of-way, and would be a zoning violation to place them in private property.
MSC (Liken/Smith) that an all-way stop be installed at Hartford Street and Lakeshore Drive. Approved 6-0-1
with Commission Hoke absent.
8. Reoort on all-wav stoe reauest at Oxford and Second Avenue.
Backeround: In July 1996, staff received a petition to consider installation of an all-way stop at this intersection.
The request cited the need because of the high speed of vehicles traveling east-west on Oxford Street and the lack
of traffic control devices on Oxford Street between Third Avenue and Hilltop Drive.
Staff conducted a study and this intersection received a total of 14 points out of a possible 54. A minimum of 30
points is required unless there are overriding considerations such as a high accident rate history of the type of
accident susceptible to correction by an all-way stop installation. During the period 4/1/94 to 3/31/95, there were
five accidents susceptible to correction by an all-way stop, and therefore, meets the Caltrans criteria contained
within Council policy to warrant the installation of the all-way stop.
Staff Recommendation: That the Safety Commission accept staff's report and recommend the installation of an
all-way stop at this location.
Public Hearine: Chair Liken opened up the Public Hearing and indicated there was one request slip to speak.
Donna Saar, 221 Oxford Street, Chula Vista, stated that ten years ago she spoke before the Safety
Commission on this same matter and the request was denied. She has personally witnessed many
accidents at this intersection, most recently involving one of her students in"the Teen Mother Program
who was 4 months pregnant. The safety of this intersection is of great concern to the residents of that
area.
Public Hearine Closed:
.:..<;/
Commission Discussion: Commissioner Miller thanked staff for their support and recommendation for approval
..-. -~. _.__.,_.._..._.~.. - -- --.- .~. ..-. ..--.----.---- -------.,-.-....-..--.... (Lv
T-~O CHUlA VISTA RUN DAiE: 2-1?-9ì
TRAFFIC COLLISION DETAIL REPORi .41TA-CH b
SITE LOCATION: at CLEARBROOK DR and LAKE SHORE DR LOCATION CODE: 2D51~ 0
SEARCH DATES from 01·01·96 to 12·31-96
-
COLLISION VIC-· TVPE POINT OF PRIM COl. M-V OTHER
REPORT COLLISION TIMS OF IMPACT FACTOR ROAD INV R/W.PEO ---VEHICLE--- ORIV./PEO ASSOC
NO. DATE OA TIME IN FA COL. LOCATION VC SEC GP WEA LIT S CON WIT CTL ACT NO, TP MV DIR AGE SEX SID FACTOR
60586 06-0H6 TU 1932 3 0 BROO Ol?' 21802 1 CLR OAY A H C 0 A 1 A B S 19. FAN
2 A B E 20 f A N
60635 06-t5c96 SA t125 o 0 BROO 01 ? 2t802 7 CLR DAY A H C.A A IDA N 37 M A N
2 A E W 23 M A N
. -
. .~..- ... .. - .-
.-.... ..-
,.
t:.. .
, .
-~.'-_._.,~. ..-. -'..__.. ._. ~___. _' ..,.. _.._ ___.. . . . __ ..~__..u. -,,- ..-- -. -...... .-.', -.... ....
-- ---. - ... .
-.. - .-.. .-~. ... ~..~C¿ l' .. -...
___·_...m.._'_·_·_'_ -- -_._.._..._-_.~_.-
HI CHULA y'ISTÁ RUN DAT,: ,-':-:7
.
TRAFFIC COLLISION LOCATION SUMMARY
SITE LOCATION: at CLEARBROOK DR and LAKE SHORE DR LOCATION CODE: 205T- 0
SEARCH oms from 01-01-96 to 12-31-96
t. COLLISION TYPES 3. lIGHTING CONOITIONS
TOTAl PERC. TOTAL PERC,
HEAD-ON , 0 ,0 . DAYLIGHT 2 100.0
SIOESWIPE ,0 .0 DUSK-DAWN 0 ,0
, REAR END 0 .0 OARK, ST LIGHTS 0 , .0
BROADSIDE 2 100,0 DARK, NO ST lIGHTS 0 .0
HIT OBJECT 0 ,0 DARK, ST lIGHTS ,NOT
OVERTURN EO 0 ,0 FUNCTIONING, 0 .0
AUTO/PEDES o - ,0
OTHER 0 ,0 TOTAL 2 100,01
... TOTAL'· 2·100,01· .' .-
.
2. MOTOR VEH. INVOLVED WITH 4. COllISION SUMMARY
DESCRIPTION Tom PERC. DESCRIPTION ---T 0 TAL ---
COll FERS PERC
NONCOlLISION 0 .0 .
PEDESTRIAN 0 ,0 FATAL 0 0 .0
OTHER MOTOR VEH, 2 100,0 INJURY 1 .3 50,0
M.V. ON OTH RDWY 0 . .0 PROP DAMAGE '1 50,0
PARKED M. V, . 0 ' .0
TRAIN 0 .0 Toms 2 3· 100.01
PEDICYClE 0 ,0
ANIMAl- :- 0 .0
FIXED OBJECT . 0 ,0
OTHER OBJECT 0 .0
Toms 2 100.01
j .-.". .
.
¡
.~-..;:- :.,-~_._-. -', .- .-. .... ~.- . ...- - .... __ .".._ "'n_ ~~ .. ..'.. --.
:1
i I
1
,
...... . .. - '. _... .--.' ._.__ -0 ,__. ._., -
<
<
1.
h· __ .." --.., .... .. .-.
B·:; ',;........
~', , '.' ._-
åf '-. ." " '.;,~~. ",. .' . . . . .. , .u ........!__ ._.-'." . _.n'''._ ._.. .. ___._.... ~. ..h ~ ,.,__._._._,,~ -
r.-.. .h· .-' ....---....-.- -- ··.h ...-... .... .-....
-
..
. ...... .'_d ..... _.. .... 0-. ... . , '. . .- . - .
.
..
J
._..-._. - - -.-.-- . .h ,. ."._-- -. H__~i:..CQ - - n'" -'n .. --.- _.- ." ..._-----....-
_w _. .·.._.___.__.__·.__·_·__u_.",._·~
:-40 CHULA VISTA RUN DATE: 3-19-91
,-
TRAfFIC COLLISION DETAIL REPORT A TfALH L
SITE LOCATION: at LAr.ESHORE DR and ASHBROOK DR LOCATION CODE: 105E- 0
SEARCH DATES from 01-01-96 to 11-31-96
COllISION VIC- TVPE POINT OF PRIM eOL, M-V OTHER
REPORT COLliSION TIMS OF IMPACT FACTOR ROAD INV R/W PED ---VEHICLE--- DRIV./PED ASSOC
NO, DATE, DA TIME IN FA ,COL LOCmON VC SEC GP WEA LIT S CON WIT CTl ACT NO. TP MV DIR AGE SEX SID FACTOR
60372 D4-10-96 W 1450 o 0 OTHR 01 ? 12106 '14 CLR DAY A H C D A 1 A G E 38 F' A N
. 2 A A E 42 F A N
..
I
, -,
.. - - ~ - - .
.
.. ~.. - ' ..
/.
.n··_·. -. .". -'-- . - --.. -.. -- -..
- ,
-- .
. ' ¢:LS'I
.. ~ ~ ~ a A A . . . - -
- .... C:-:,.;.!. ,:3;;' ~;), >,-::: ;-:;-;1
RCV;: 5:G~ENi COLLISION 5U~¥'ARY '-- LHtSHORE DR
IN1?5CTN t2CSS SiRE:i ~A¥.E sm! rE?100 1: 1- H5 'Ó IHH5 ?EF.l0D 2: 0- û- 0 to G- 0- 0 C~gG:
lOC~TlCN om. HO so RE so Hi 0' PE OT!NT SEG . HO so RE so HT 0' PE OT INT SEG IN
CODE MILES ON SW AR SO os iN 0 HR Cll Cll ON SW AR SO OB TN 0 HR Cll Cll RAiEX
- 2053 EASTlAKE DR 1 00000000 0 00000000 0
.09 00000000 0 00000000 0
-, 2054 WATERBURY 1 00000000 0 00000000 0
,05 00000000 0 00000000 0
;
. 2055 BROOKSTONE RO W{PVT) QOOOOOOO 0 00000000 0
-, ,os 00000000 0 00000000 0
- 2056 ASHBROOK OR 00000001 1, 00000000 0
.06 o 0 0 O' 0 0 0 0 0 00000000 0
2057 CLEAR BROOK OR 00020000 2 00000000 0
.11 00000000 0 00000000 0
2221 CREmOOO WAY 00000000 0 00000000 0
,10 00000000 0 00000000 0
2223 H,AOOWBROOK lN o O· 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000000 0
.OS 00000000 0 00000000 0
2058 SOUiHSHORE OR 00000000 0 00000000 0
" 00000000 0 00000000 0
, ,~
2059 EASTlAKE DR 2 o 0 0 0 0 00 0 O· o 0 0 0 00 0 0 0
.06 00000000 0 00000000 0
2050 EDGE WATER DR (PVT) 00000000 0 00000000 0
. OS· 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O· 0 o . 0 0 0 00 0 0 0
2051 EASTSHORE iERR·¡PVT) 00000000 0 00000000 0
.13 00000000 0 00000000 0
. 2062 HARTfORO ST . 00000000 0 00000000 0
" ,06 '00000.000 0 00000000 0
2063 . STONECRm Pl 0.0000000 0 00000·000 0
). .04 00000000 0 00000000 0
2064 NORTH SHORE OR (PVT) o 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 00000000 0
.;: .07 00000000 0 00000000 0
2065 BLUHm OR , 00000000 0 000.00000 0
.06 00000000· 0 00000000 0
2053 . EASTLAKE DR 1 00000000.·0 0,0 0 0 0 00 0 0 ' '
,
;
.. SUKKARY Toms " 1.21 3. 0 .0 . 0 ..' -'
. n .. ...... '"
- ) TRAffIC VOL/COLLISION RATE: . 0/ .000 0/ .000 ,000 .
'.J
,. . ')3 -, . ..-.
--------
HI CHULA YlSTA RUN DATE: ;-i~-;7
TRAfFIC COLLISION LOCATION SU~MARY
SITE lOCATION: at LA!::SHORE DR and ASHBROOK DR lOCATION CODE: 20SS- 0
SEARCH DATES from 01-01-96 to 12-31-96
1. COLLISION TYPES 3, LIGHTING CONDITIONS
. .....- TOTAL PERC, TOTAL PERC.
HEAD-ON 0 .0 DAYLIGHT 100,0
SIOESWIPE 0 .0 DUSK -DAWN 0 ,0
, REAR END 0 .0 DARK I ST LIGHTS 0 ,0
, BROADS I DE 0 ,0 DARK, NO ST LI GHTS ,0 .0
HIT OBJECT 0 .0 DARK, ST LIGHTS NOT
OVERTURNED 0 .0 fUNCTIONItlG 0 .0
AUTO/PEDES 0 ' .0
OTHER 100,0 TOTAL 1 100.0S
.. .... .. p"-' -.-
, TOTAL 1 100.0S
:
2. MOTOR VEH. INVOLVED WITH 4. COLLISION SUMMARY
DESCRIPTION TOTAL PERC, DESCRIPTION ---T 0 TAL ---
COLL PERS PERC
NONCOLlISION 0 ,0
PEDESTRIAN 0 ,0 FATAL 0 0 .0
OTHER MOTOR VEH. 1 100,0 INJURY 0 0 .0
M.V, ON,OTH RDWY 0 ,0 PROP DAMAGE 1 1 0 D.O'
PARKED M, V, 0 ,0
TRAIN 0 .D TOTALS I o 100.0S
PEDICYCLE '0 ,0
ANIMAL 0 .0
FIXED OBJECT 0 .0
OTHER OBJECT 0 .0
TOTALS I 100.0S
.-..- .-
"
f··~-·~ '-.. . ..-.. ". ..- h _. ..'. .
i
c
~-- ... - - . - . ~..._" -'-.'" -.-
, '
-.-. - .
i
t-,";·~ .-; ". '7"'\ .- .-- ,- .... . ..... - '-0 . ---
i;' . ' . . ..
.'.." ,
,- ;.. fo , '.. ..' .
j -
...... -- -~~- "W ._.'.~..___.._. ~._ . q___.... .u.. .w__ .' -~ .. ........- . -'."-.-- w"'_"" ._ -..- -- ._.
....
._ __ _ u _. __ ,. -.. -----. . .-. .... .... .0 _ . -.--.. _. __._0_..
.
-- . ---. .-- cçy ." "
Jj
Pedestrian Count Summary ./
C033LES=ïON= /PA¡::¡Ï<
4:30 P.M. to 6:00 P.M.
Weekdays
.
.
.
.
I
v . L'
G
èJ
r::
u
DR.UIN BY, M W If TITLE AR E A M A P
D. . 0 e
DATE 3/24/97 Pedestrian Ac'tivity Observed
-. ~S~ . - .-- ------. - """ -..- -------------,-.-
£;
/
.
;
!
I
I
,
i
I
.'
.
. .
. .
"~~ 1722'
ng.. '.
t-
Toial Distance Aroun
6393 Feet v . c~
1.21 Miles Ð
¡"
c::
() ....
DR...IlN BY, M W If TJ:TLE ARE A MA P
D. . 0 e
D"'TE 3/24/97 Distances Between Intersections
-- 'Î7tF7 ""__._.__..u_._u_._,_
.- -t--.
.A !TACH' ¡-
Minutes
December ] 0, ] 996
Page II
,-
BOARD AND COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
None submitted.
ACTION ITEMS
18. REPORT DENYING REQUEST FOR ALL-WAY STOPS ON LAKESHORE DRIVE AT HARTFORD
SJ'REET.AND LAKESHORE DRIVE AT CREEKWOOD WAY - At the 8/8/96 Safety Commission meeting,
a report was presented regarding a written request from Geoffrey Clemmons at ] 948 Clearbrook Drive requesting
an all-way stop be installed on Lakeshore Drive at Clearbrook Drive. At that meeting, the Safety Commission voted
to deny an all-way stop and that staff bring back all-way stop studies and new speed surveys for Cree\"'Wood Way
and Hartford Street at the October Safety Commission meeting. Staff recommends Council not approve the
installation of all-way stops at Creekwood Way and at Hartford Street on Lakeshore Drive. (Director of Public
Works)
Counciimember Padilla abstained from voting due to the proximity of the subject intersection to his residence.
Cliff Swanson, Deputy Director of Public Works, stated City staff reviewed the subject intersections at the request
of the Safety Commission and found they did not meet the warrants for all-way stops. Staff recommends denial
of installing the all-way stops.
-, MS (RindonelSalas) to accept smfrs recornmendation to deny the insmllation of all-way stops at CreeJ..'Wood--
Way and Hartford Street, on Lakeshore Drive.
Counciimember Moot stated this is not the first time staffs recommeodation differs with the recommendation of
a Commission. He understood the warrant system which is partly based on past accidents, but often, the purpose
of the stop sign is to prevent an accident from occurring.
Mr. Swanson explained there are several reasons for stop signs, and speeding is not one of them. Accident warrant
is one of the conditions and it depends how many accidents happen. Both these intersections have a good accident
rate with none in nine years. Installing stop signs that are not warranted could cause accidents.
. Geoffrey Clemmons, 1948 Clearbrook Drive, Cbula Vista, CA, a resident in the neighborhood, has observed
an oogoing problem with the excessive speed of traffic around the loop road of Lakeshore. Approximately six
months ago, he brought his concerns to the Safety Commission with a suggestion that a stop sign might alleviate
the problem. The Safety Commission recognized a problem existed and asked the Engineering Department for
alternative recommendations. The Engineering Department did not come up with any alternatives. AJthough the
Safety Commission recognized that stop signs were not the preferred method of controlling speed, they approved
the installation of all-way stop signs. He requested Council deny staffs recommendation and support the Safety
Commission's decision to install the all-way stop signs.
. John Liken, 609 Forrester Lane, Cbula Vista, CA, Cbair of the Safety Commission, opposed staffs
recommendation and suggested a joint meeting of the Safety Commissioo and Council.
VOTE ON MOTION: Passed 3-1-0-1, with Moot opposed and Padilla absmining.
,
_.._....~-_..----_.- "----- ~SJ ----------" _ . _'_..n_________ .___. .'. ".____.__
ATTACH. ~
Minutes
F<hruary 4. 1997
Pligt: 8
Buù:.rcl Prot.:é:Ss. Mr. Goss rc::.portcd last Yl2f a~ part of the hud£~t process, department heads presented infonnation
.. r<~arding th<ir d<partment's op<rations and hlldgets. He asked Council if they wanted staff to repeat what was done
..' last yt:ar in an updah:d fashion.
" Councilmemher Moot indicated the preference for staff to concentrate on the goals and perforrrumce criteria and
rtquc..~löd staff nol rep~t historical infonnation in their presentations. He also requested that Council receive a copy
of 1a.~1 year's goals and o~ieclives prior to the meeting.
Councilmemher Rindone rt:quested the department heads provide an assessment of the goals and o~.iectives as to
what thry pt:n.:t:i"t: they £H.:hit:\'t:u and 10 assrSS what wasn '{ achÎt:vc::.d and how it could he better addressed.
15. MAYOR'S REPORTCSI
a. Ratification of appointments: Child Care Commission - Sylvia Cunningham (to fill vacancy created by
resignation of Commissioner Gish, whose term expires 6/30/97); and, Housing Advisory Commission - M. Theresa
Ahamed (to fill vacancy croated hy resignation of Commissioner Massey, whose term expires 6/30/97).
MSC (Horton/Moot) to appnint S)''''ia Cunningham to the Child Care Commission, and M. Theresa Ahamed
to the How.in~ Ad"isnr,y Commission. approved 4-0-1 with Padilla absent.
h. Rc:cnnsiuc:rdtinn of ttll-wíl~' ...Ior si£'ns nn Lakc:shorc: Drive: at Hartford Street and Lakeshore Drive a1 Creek.'Wood
Way.
Mayor Horton Ttà UC;:SIc:d TêCO",¡eJt:ring this ih::m for the all-way stop signs at these locationf' due to an accident that
n\,;currc:d oaT thí~ Im;atlOn.
MSC (Horton/Mont) to reconsider the all-way stop signs, approved 4-0-1 with Padilla absenL
c. City Council committee assi,gnments.
,
! Mityor Honon stÔ'\l~d Council was pro\'Îdt:d with a list of the. committee assignments [01:' the year. There were a
It:-w 4:ldjustments with Councilmemher Salas taking over positions. held hy former Counci1me!ßber Ale\'y. plus
mO\'lng hc:r anto Couricilmc:mher Moot's pm.ition on the: South Count)' Economic Development Council. Everything
d...c- n:::mainc:.d th~ sam~ t:::Xl:t:::pt for th~ Intt:::mational Council for Local Environmentallnitiatives which meets once
m twic~ a year with Councilmemher Moot, the delegate, and Councilmember Rindone, the alternate.
Cnundlm~mh~r Rindon~ felt it would he more heneficial for other Councilmemhers to have exposure with the
Int~mational Council for Loca1 Environmental Initiatives and suggested Councilmember Salas as the alternate.
Councilmemher Sala.o;; agreed.
16. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Cnuncilmember Salas
Plannint'! Commission. Councilmemher Salas urged Council to forward their selection of applicants 10 iaterview
in nrdt:::T to appoint a nt:w Commi!;;!;;ioner as !;;oon as possible.
-~..._-_.,--- .-..-- ._~~ ~to/ .--"--~....- ..- -.-.