Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda Packet 1994/03/08
'" declare undar penalty of perjury that 1 am employe:! by the City of Chula Vista In, the 01fice of tl\e City Cler;, and that I pos...ed this Agenja!Nolice on the Bulletin Board at Tuesday, March 8, 1994 the Public r ices Buildin~ and ~on~, Council Chambers 6:00 p.m. DATED,3 C3: SIGNE~ ,~ Public Services Building Reeular Meetine of the Citv of Chula Vista Citv Council CALL TO ORDER 1- ROLL CALL: Councilmembers Fox _. Horton _' Moore _, Rindone _' and Mayor Nader _. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG. SILENT PRAYER 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: March I, 1994. 4. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY: a. Oath of Office: Rosalinda Nava - Otay Valley Road Project Area Committee. CONSENT CALENDAR (Items 5 through 9) The staff recommendations regarding the following items listed under the Consent Calendar 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 Form" available in the lobby and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. (Complete the green form to speak in favor of the staff recommendation; complete the pink form to speak in opposition to the staff recommendation.) Items pulled from the Consent Calendar 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. Claims against the City: Claimant Number I - Bud's & Son Trucking, Inc., John Miguel Butler and Robert Parks, c/o Royce, Grimm, Vranjes, McCormick & Graham, Attorneys at Law, P. O. Box 121512, San Diego, CA 92112-5512; Claimant Number 2 - Charles Garcia Morales, a minor by his Guardian Ad Litem, Rosemary Flores, c/o Timothy C. Rutherford, Barwick, Rutherford & Scott, Attorneys at Law, 3434 Grove St., Lemon Grove, CA 91945. It is recommended that the claim against the City filed by Bud's & Son Trucking, Inc., John Miguel Butler and Robert Parks be denied and that the application for Leave to File Late Claim filed on behalf of Charles Garcia Morales be accepted but that the claim be denied. b. Letter requesting the City Council change Municipal Code 8.24.060 to allow more flexibility in granting exemptions on trash pick up - Calvin and Colleen Jackson, 1322 Craun Ave., Chula Vista, CA 91911- It is recommended that this issue be referred to staff for analysis and recommendations. c. Letter of resignation from the Economic Development Commission (ex-officio) - Sheila H. Washington, Washington Enterprises, 225 Broadway, Suite 2250, San Diego, CA 92101. It is recommended that the resignation be accepted and the City Clerk be directed to post immediately according to the Maddy Act in the Clerk's Office and the Public Library. _0- _ __________".._.._~...____..~~____.____._,__._.___..__. Agenda -2- March 8, 1994 d. Letter requesting Council: (I) Adopt a resolution of support of AB 13 (making all workplaces, including restaurants, smoke free), with copies sent to the Legislature; (2) Contact the legislators who represent Chula Vista in Sacramento to urge them to vote in favor of this bill; (3) Lend their names to be used in a statewide lobbying effort to help ensure passage of this legislation; and (4) Adopt the City's own restaurant smoking ban in the interim - Paul Koretz, Councilmember, City of West Hollywood, 8611 Santa Monica Blvd., West Hollywood, CA 90069-4109. It is recommended that this request be referred to staff for analysis and reconunendation. e. Letter requesting a donation of $1,250 to help cover the tuition in the People to People Student Ambassador program to the United Kingdom and Ireland - Ethan Mullen, 2782 Caulfield Dr., San Diego, CA 92154. It is recommended that Mr. Mullen's request be denied, but that the City Council encourage the news media to assist in whatever way they can in helping him generate the funds to participate in this event. In addition, the City will put his request in a public service announcement as part of the televised Council Meeting. 6. RESOLUTION 17405 CALLING AND GIVING NOTICE OF THE HOLDING OF A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION AND REQUESTING SAN DIEGO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO CONSOLIDATE THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION WITH THE STATEWIDE GENERAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, JUNE 7, 1994, FOR THE PURPOSE OF ELECTING TWO MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND A MAYOR - The resolution before Council is for the purpose of calling a Municipal Election to be held on Tuesday, 617/94 for the purpose of electing a Mayor, two members of the City Council (Seats I and 2). Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (City Clerk) 7. RESOLUTION 17406 ACCEPTING A YOUTH AT RISK PROJECT AWARD FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA; AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO SIGN AN AGREEMENT WITH THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA - On 7/1192, the 4-H began a Latchkey Program at Lauderbach Community Center. The 4-H organization is a subsidiary of the University of California Extension Service. The 4-H receives funding, through the University of California, from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). In January of 1993, the 4-H requested that the City act as a subcontractor to expand youth-at-risk programs. The 4-H has received several large grants in the last two years of which $23,426 has been allocated for the subcontract with the City. Beginning with Fiscal Year 1993/94 in order to continue receiving funds for the 4-H programs, the City must enter into an agreement with the University of California for each year the program receives funds. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Parks and Recreation) 4/5th's vote required. 8. RESOLUTION 17407 EXPRESSING INTENT TO SHARE EQUALLY THE COST FOR THE EAST ORANGE A VENUE AND I-80S INTERCHANGE SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS - Staff recently received a letter from Caltrans requesting that Council adopt a resolution expressing intent to share equally the cost to construct traffic signals at I-80S and East Orange Avenue ramps. The resolution is required to finalize the Project Report that identifies work to be performed and a cost estimate. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works) ....--...,-..----.....-. .'.,-.-..----...-. -.---.-...-. Agenda -3- March 8, 1994 9. REPORT EAST OTAY MESA SPECIFIC PLAN - On 1/19/94, Council received a written communication from staff regarding the review of the proposed East Otay Mesa Specific Plan and accompanying Draft EIR. In the communication staff indicated it had serious concerns over the adequacy and use of the documents, and attached copies of two letters forwarded to the County of San Diego outlining the City's specific concerns. Since then, staff has not been contacted by the County or received responses to their comments. The report serves as a follow-up to the project based on the County's decision to hold a public hearing with the Planning Commission on 3/11/94 for final consideration of the project and EIR. Staff recommends Council accept the report and authorize staff to transmit a letter to the County of San Diego requesting that all discretionary action on the project be deferred until staff has been provided the opportunity to review the revised documents as well as the responses to their comments prepared as a part of the Final EIR. (Director of Planning) * * END OF CONSENT CALENDAR * * 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 Form" available in the lobby and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. (Complete the green form to speak in favor of the staff recommendation; complete the pink form to speak in opposition to the staff recommendation.) Comments are limited to five minutes per individual. 10. PUBLIC HEARING CONSIDERING ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING TELEGRAPH CANYON SEWER PUMPED FLOWS DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE (DIF) TO PAY FOR SEWER IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN TELEGRAPH CANYON SEWER BASIN AS A CONDITION OF ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS FOR CONSTRUCTION IN THE TELEGRAPH CANYON SEWER BASIN - On 10/20/92, the City established the Telegraph Canyon Sewer Development Impact Fee. Based on the "Telegraph Canyon Sewer Basin Improvement and Financing Plan Amendment Incorporating Pumped Flows" a fee of $560 per pumped Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU) should be established. Staff recommends Council place the ordinance on first reading. (Director of Public Works) Continued from the meeting of 2/15/94. ORDINANCE 2582 ESTABLISHING THE TELEGRAPH CANYON SEWER PUMPED FLOWS DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE TO PROVIDE FOR THE CONTINGENT CONSTRUCTION OF SEWER IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE TELEGRAPH CANYON SEWER BASIN IF SEW AGE IS DIVERTED FROM SALT CREEK AND POGGI CANYONS AS A CONDITION OF ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS FOR CONSTRUCTION IN THE TELEGRAPH CANYON SEWER PUMPED FLOWS BASIN (first readine) 11. PUBLIC HEARING PROPOSED FORMATION OF OPEN SPACE DISTRICT NUMBER 31, TELEGRAPH CANYON ESTATES - On 1/25/94, Council approved the Engineer's Report on the proposed Open Space District Number 31, Telegraph Canyon Estates and set 3/8/94 and 3/15/94 as the dates for the public hearings on the proposed formation. Staff recommends Council open the public hearing, receive testimony, and hold another public hearing on 3/15/94. (Director of Public Works) --~~----.---.---------..----.-..----_._-_.'-----.-~.-- Agenda -4- Marcb 8, 1994 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS This is an opportunity for the general public to address the City Council on any subject matter within the Council's jurisdiction that is not an item on this agenda. (State law, however, generally prohibits the City Council from taking action on any issues not included on the posted agenda.) If you wish to address the Council on such a subject, please complete the yellow "Request to Speak Under Oral Communications Form" available in the lobby and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. Those who wish to speak, please give your name and address for record purposes and follow up action. Your time is limited to three minutes per speaker. 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. None 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 staffrecommen1liltions may in certain cases be presented in the alternative. Those who wish to speak, please fill out a "Request to Speak" form available in the lobby and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. Public comments are limited to five minutes. 12. RESOLUTION 17408 APPROVING A CHANGE ORDER WITH GRANITE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY FOR MATERIAL COST INCREASES FOR THE OTAY V ALLEY ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 90-2 - On 6/30/92, Council awarded the construction contract for the Otay Valley Road improvements from 1-805 to 1,200 feet east of Nirvana to Granite Construction Company. Since the award, the project has been delayed approximately 18 months because of several problems: a lawsuit filed by the property owners, difficulties in selling the bonds for the project, and the discovery of contaminated soil in the fish and game mitigation area. During this time, several of Granite's subcontractors have gone out of business and material prices have increased for construction materials on the project. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works) l3.A. REPORT PROPOSED FUNDING ALTERNATIVES FOR PARKS IMPLEMENTATION PLAN WORK PROGRAM - On 11/2/93, staff presented a report regarding the activation of a Parks Implementation Plan (PIP) utilizing in-house staff. The PIP will serve to implement provisions of the City's General Plan Park & Recreation Element which call for preparation of a long-range (20 year) master plan to include programs for upgrading, expanding or replacing older facilities in western Chula Vista, and for installation of new facilities in accordance with adopted standards. The Council, while approving the Work Program for performance of the PIP in-house, expressed concerns that PAD funds would be used to reimburse the project. Council requested that staff investigate any sources or alternative funding sources for the PIP which could result in re-allocating PAD funds to the C1P project for land acquisition. The report discusses the availability of alternative funding for the PIP and proposes a funding apportionment plan for the PAD funds currently appropriated to the PIP. Staff recommends Council accept the report and approve the resolution. (Director of Parks & Recreation and Director of Planning) B. RESOLUTION 17409 RE-APPROPRIATING $26,250 IN PAD FUNDS FROM PR-I64 (PARKS IMPLEMENTATION PLAN) TO PR-185 (PARKLAND ACQUISITION) AND ADOPTING NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS-93-21 - 4/5th's vote required. . ,..-.... -- --.~--~--,._. ,._.._----,-~_._--_.__._,.,_.~~.__._._--,.__.."---- Agenda -5- March 8, 1994 14.A. REPORT GRADING ON TELEGRAPH CANYON EST A TES SUBDIVISION ADJACENT TO LEHIGH AVENUE - On 12/14/93, Council directed staff to meet with the residents on Lehigh A venue and Baldwin to discuss options to mitigate the slope which has been constructed on Telegraph Canyon Estates behind their houses. In addition, staff was instructed to discuss the issues with the City Attorney to make sure that no options are, or are soon to be, closed to mitigate the concerns of the residents. Staff recommends Council accept the report and approve the resolution. (Director of Public Works, Director of Parks and Recreation, and City Attorney) B. RESOLUTION 17410 APPROVING THE PROPOSED BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN THE PROPERTY OWNERS OF 867 AND 873 LEHIGH A VENUE AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT PLAT AND ASSOCIATED DEEDS ON BEHALF OF THE CITY 15. REPORT ARTIST SELECTION PROCESS FOR THE PUBLIC ART AT THE SOUTH CHULA VISTA LIBRARY - The budget for the South Chula Vista Library includes $46,821 for works of art, which the project team has identified to be a mural in the Children's Story Hour Room. The City's Consultant Administrative Guidelines are recommended as a model for the artist selection process. Staff recommends Council accept the report. (Library Director) 16. REPORT UPDATE ON SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL ISSUES - An oral report will be given by staff. 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. Public comments are limited to five minutes per individual. OTHER BUSINESS 17. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT(S) a. Scheduling of meetings. 18. MAYOR'S REPORT(S) a. Ratification of appointment to the CuJtural Arts Commission - Oscar C. Arias. 19. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilman Rindone a. Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB) Report: Appointment of new chairman and vice chairman. .. ._----- "--~-'-~'-'-~---"---- - _..~-_._-_._._-~-----_._~------ Agenda -6- March 8, 1994 ADIOURNMENT The City Council will meet in a closed session immediately following the Council meeting to discuss: Pending litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9- Christopher vs. the City of Chula Vista. Pending litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 - Chaparral Greens vs. the City of Chula Vista, Baldwin. Potential litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 - Chammas vs. the City of Chula Vista. Pending litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 - City of Chula Vista vs. the County of San Diego (Solid Waste Litigation). Instructions to negotiators pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6 - Chula Vista Employees Association (CVEA), Western Council of Engineers (WCE), Police Officers Association (POA), International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF), Executive Management. Mid-Management, and Unrepresented. Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957 - Performance evaluation of the City Manager, City Attorney and City Clerk. Personnel matter pursuant to Government Code Section 54957. The meeting will adjourn to (a closed session and thence to) the Regular City Council Meeting on March 15, 1994 at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. ..··.·.··..·0·. .._.. .._....___.__._.._ --.-.__..._-_._--_._--~---_._---- \ February 24, 1994 TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: John D. Goss, City Manager ~ií~t)l, SUBJECT: City Council Meeting of March 8, 1994 This will transmit the agenda and related materials for the regular City Council meet i ng of Tuesday, March 8, 1994. Comments regarding the Written Communications are as follows: Sa. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THE CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY FILED BY BUD'S & SON TRUCKING, INC., JOHN MIGUEL BUTLER AND ROBERT PARKS BE DENIED AND THAT THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE LATE CLAIM FILED ON BEHALF OF CHARLES GARCIA MORALES BE ACCEPTED BUT THAT THE CLAIM BE DENIED. 5b. This is a request from Calvin and Colleen Jackson to have the Municipal Code Section #8.24.060 expanded to allow more flexibility for exemptions to mandatory residential weekly trash collection. The Municipal Code currently allows only one exemption, requiring a resident to show proof of weekly trips to the landfill to dispose of household waste. Because the Jacksons recycle and use a trash compactor, they are request i ng the ability to show monthly proof of disposal. Since the existing exemption was determined 12 years ago when mandatory collection was established, IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THJS ISSUE BE REFERRED TO STAFF FOR ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. 5c. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT SHEILA WASHINGTON'S RESIGNATION FROM THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION BE ACCEPTED WITH REGRET AND THE CITY CLERK BE DIRECTED TO POST IMMEDIATELY ACCORDING TO THE MADDY ACT IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE AND THE PUBLIC LIBRARY. 5d. This is a letter from Paul Koretz, Councilmember from the City of West Hollywood, requesting that Council adopt a resolution of support of AB 13, urge legislators to vote in favor of this bill, join a statewide lobbying effort to ensure its passage, and adopt a Citywide restaurant smoking ban in the interim. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THIS REQUEST BE REFERRED TO STAFF FOR ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATJON. ~__.__.__...______~______u._..____".__.____~._____"·__." 5e. This is a letter from Ethan Mullen requesting a donation of $1,250 to help cover the tuition in the People to People Student Ambassador Program. In the past, the City Council has disapproved most individual requests for funding similar to this one, but has, on occasion, financially supported organizations or other groups that have in turn provided entertainment or other services on a gratis basis at various City functions or events. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT MR. MULLEN'S REQUEST BE DENIED, BUT THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ENCOURAGE THE NEWS MEDIA TO ASSIST IN WHATEVER WAY THEY CAN IN HELPING HIM GENERATE THE FUNDS TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS EVENT. IN ADDITION, THE CITY WILL PUT HIS REQUEST IN A PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT AS PART OF THE TELEVISED COUNCIL MEETING. JDG:mab -------" .. -~ -_._---~----,._---_._--_.__..._-,--,---"~--_._- COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT ~ Item ~ ~ Meeting Date 3/8/94 ITEM TITLE: CJ.aims Against the city SUBMITTED BY: Dir~ctor or PersonneJ. QØ- (4/5ths Vote: Yes_ N0.1L) REV:IEWED BY : City Managerj~ (. Claimant Bo. 1: BUd's 5 Son Trucking, Inc., John MiqueJ. Butler and Robert Parks c/o Royce, Grimm, vranjes, McCormick 5 Graham Attorneys at Law P. O. Box 121512 San Diego, CA 92112-5512 On December 15, 1993, the above claimants riJ.ed a claim against the city of Chul.a vista for implied indemnification in connection with superior Court Case Bo. SB2365, entitled Martin Calvo, et al., v. Larry Williams dba BUd's Trucking, et al.. An Amended Claim was riled on January 4, 1994 to reflect the date of service of the lawsuit upon the claimants. Suit was riled against BUd's 5 Son Trucking, Inc., et al., as the result of a pedestrian fatality on December 16, 1992 at Medical Center Drive and Telegraph canyon Road. The roadway at the time was under construction to install a new water line. The contractor, Tresize company, obtained a permit, signed a hold harmless agreement and posted insurance naming the city as an additional insured. Because of the city's remote. liability, it is the recommendation or our claims adjustors, Carl Warren 5 company, and Risk Management that the claim and amended claim be denied. Claimant Bo. 2: Charles Garcia Morales, a minor by his Guardian Ad Litem, Rosemary Flores c/o Timothy c. Rutherrord Barwick, Rutherrord 5 Scott '1". Attorneys at Law 3434 Grove Street Lemon Grove, CA 91945 On January 24, 1994, representatives ror Charles Garcia Morales riled an Application ror Leave to File Late Claim and a Claim Against the city of Chula vista seeking damages of $2 million in connection with a pedestrian/vehicle accident on July 8, 1993. Personal injuries were received by three-year old Charles Garcia Morales, an unattended minor, who was struck by a pickup truck after he wandered into the roadway at Fonn A-1l3 (Rev. 11/79) ~,,/ ---------' -- ~-- - -- - --.-, .....-._-~---_.._-,,---_.,..._---~ ---~,"_.._...,"--,----_..' _.,'.- ITEM MEETING DATE 3-8-94 300 Moss street. It is alleged the city is responsiÞle for the accident due to a posted 35 miles per hour speed limit, which is claimed to Þe too high, and Decause the City allegedly had notice of a dangerous con- dition. Government Code section 911.6 provides a tolling of the statute of limitations when the claimant is a minor at the time of the incident. In this case, the claimant was a minor and, therefore, it is the recom- mendation of our claims adjustors, Carl Warren , company, and Risk Management, that the City council accept the Application for Leave to File Late Claim. Due to remote liability on the part of the City, it is ~lso recommended that the claim on Þehalf of Charles Garcia Morales De denied. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Deny the Claim and Amended Claim filed DY Bud 's, Son Trucking, Inc., John Miguel Butler and RODert Parks. 2. Accept the Application for Leave to File Late Claim filed on Dehalf of Charles Garcia Morales; and 3. Deny the claim filed on Dehalf of Charles Garcia Morales. s;...ø2 _..____.____.._~m__ --+..... - --~-_.'"-..-_._.._"..,--_._~~- ";1 Œ - I. (0 P ,--;,::.._,,-..... ,Ii! l'-1 I'] [, '" ¡':-' {I ,~,,: ;--- .., _.' ::_;. "": ~; ~ , " FEB I' ., !: '--'-" 1 Feb. 11, 1994 -. TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Calvin and Colleen Jackson SUBJECT: Exemption from Mandatory Refuse Collection We use a trash compactor and set out one compacted bag every two weeks. I have a secure trash container, which is water proof anà fly proof, and am willing to provide a MONTHLY land f ill receipt. I would also be interested in having the City Council change the Municipal Code #8.24.060 allowing more flexibility in granting exemption. I feel the rate is not acceptable for our limited use of the service and wish to use our truck to dispose of small amount of trash. ~ ~ Calvin and Colleen Jackson -<-< ::u 1322 Crann Ave. ('")0 m T r""" (") Chula Vista, CA 91911 g¡~ ~ 1"1 (619) 425-8084 ~c: <: U')'- oJ> -0 1"1 m<: ... C m- -V> W 0-4 rn~ YJ . WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS ce,' ¿2 ~~Lj) ~ -;}?J//7 ~~ ei ~ ~J~ 7~~¡J;7þr~"2 £b-I - -_...------ .._-_..~._- ----, ---...----...- FEÐ-23-94 WED 11:28 P..82 WA,S:~'p;:N~TON .l~~i.1ilr~.:ES~S :",. ... . C<!mIUltant;l'l.'1*o',·~~~.~'t-~·. ~';"..," . 9~@..:D/i!yel~J\~ çén~r: =~~~=*==~====e==~====.=~..t~ e~þ=«*=====~=~~~~~~c~~~~=~~==~c=~ ", "'} ~ .' . I!.' . , . . 225 .i1íQ"d\f~~ SUit. :ì2SÓ~ ~·I!s:~ø.t~\~ :Ø21pl . ... * 619, U7-o~ 9 It tI19/23~':'OS~1 '('UfP:" .: . .' Febrùary 23, 1994 CUt CleJ:k..· '.. . ~ ~ Off ~e of ~G City clEÍr.k -<-< ;::0 00 éity of Ch~la Viaba ,'"T"i æ T me-; ("') 276 Ii'ollrth Av.e ::o::¡- ='5c: Cj T CÞul~ Vls~a, CA 91910 C/) r'h - 6:r> < '"T"ioe::: \ T "T - w 0 -V> Dear City Clerkl o-¡ '" . . m~ ,., . . B~ ~h1S 14!ttte-r....I :()fUÇ!1...1J:.¥:·:r.è~J,g,rr'¡!DY EJC-Pffioio ap ;?Oløtlllent t;o t~e '¢:tty of Cbulð; 'vt:$t'a!~¡:¢iíóll1~~ ~v.eloPlI\ent Comm1sf¡1on· effective Feb-ruary 3, 1994.. .' .,. ., '.".': " '., T?e '~r~ss~~es. o~.~u~~n~~~~~~~~.C9mmitll\ent~ hav~ .p;~vented m, frOI1i·.·PEU:'t~.dlpaUq:\h\:ª'.t~tt¡!:f'~t.t..·:' ..... 'OIy first meeting·1.1',1 August 4, 19~H 1 w~.~able·.t:o;.ðt;~;. n~:1;!A~Y.:$.~Tii!l: liIore meetinq, aq~ 1¡.l)at was ;: Sept~mbe~-;¡6t' U93.:' ~~t':t,~~:i~t1i¥<tegu-äte attention to .duties. ." ,," .'~ ',', ~. " . '.' Z"aI1I:very:'qratefu1 foz..the:·o»~Q~~'¥.'lty anÇ\ J:egret that I was not able ·to se,(ve. . . . . I M<t submhte<1.11\Y: "'L".,:~I;~.!l~·~i~~.:,s~atement", FOrm ·730 eaJ;'l1er thiS.month. I am ertclOS!n~'A"~~ . '. ;1CJ IJ . . .' C£.- ' (¡j()!;() eve. Sheila H. Washington OWner/President cc: William Tuchscher¡ ·Ch.l~ 'EPC' Cheryl Dye, m:> Mcm.ge-t'· .::: Encloøure . . Ceo 27i;('I) ~.~ WRIT~i'EN COMJ¡\UN;CJ\ TBO:;~S . . ~ 3/r//7 '''~.-J --.....--- --- - -------...,---, .----- -. - - - --~----, ..-.-.---- City of RECEIVED West Hollywood II "94 FEB 24 P12 :07 ~ITY OF CHUL ,'I VISTA ITY CLERK'S OFFiCE City Council Sal Guarriello February 15, 1994 Mayor Abbe Land City Council Mayor Pro Tempore John Heilman City of Chula Vista Paul Korelz '1:76 Fourth Avenue Babette Lang Chula Vista, CA 92010 - Dear Counci1member: Medical evidence has now established that second-hand tobacco smoke is the tIùrd-Ieading preventable cause of death in the United States today. Second-band smoke must be considered to be among the biggest public health hazards facing the residents of your city. Last fall, the cities of West Hollywood and Santa Monica joined the City of Los Angeles in adopting strict ordinances banning cigarette smoking in restaurants. At the state level, Assemblyman Terry Friedman has authored Assembly Bill 13, which would make all worlcplaces (including restaurarus) smoke free. This bill, which has been endorsed by the California Restaurant Association, was passed by the Assembly last year, but stalled in the State Senate. Assemblyman Friedman has stated that passage of this bill will be his top priority in what will be his final year in the Legislature. In addition to adopting our own smoking ban in West Hollywood, the City Council has also adopted a fonnal resolution in support for AB 13. I am writing to encourage you to consider taking the following actions on behalf of the health of residents of your city and all of California: · Adopt a resolution of suppon of AB 13, with copies sent to the Legislature; · Contact the legislators who represent your city in Sacramento to urge them to vote in favor of this bill; · Lend your name to be used in a statewide lobbying effort to help ensure passage of this legislation; and · Adopt your own restaurant smoking ban in the interim. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, over 53,000 American deaths per year may be attributed to exposure to second-hand smoke. A recent University of California study showed that waitresses today have the highest death rate among predominantly female occupations. Waitresses were found to die oflung cancer four times more often than women in other occupations, and both waiters and waitresses are more likely to get lung cancer than people in other professions, even when active smoking and other variables are factored out cc.~ 1[ ~:~".¿-¿Lw,,~!T"!~",5?.~~'~~~Îr . - ___._.._~..._..___ ._.. .__._.._..___ __ __",'___ ._._..·.._n_·_..._·,__..._.... _~..._._._______. ,'_."_"_'" ,_..._...___._.__._~._._ .. _______.______.._._.___._.._____ While action at the local level will be a significant conttibution towards protecting public health, a statewide smoking ban would effectively address the common concerns of restaurant owners regarding customer flight from localities which prohibit smoking in restaurants to those that allow it I am pleased to enclose a copy of West Hollywood's resolution in support of AB 13, which may be of use to you in drafting your own resolution. If you have any questions, are willing to lend your name to this cause, or would like to receive a copy of our smoking ordinance, please call me at 310/854-7460. I would be delighted to worlc with you on this most important issue. Sincerely, Enclosure 5' t/...J. -.--.-- .-.... . -----..-- -~._-_.- ~."___.__. .u______ _ _ _____ RESOLUTION NO. 1126 A RESOLUTIoN OF THE CITY CoUNCIL of THE CITY OF WEST HOLLYWooD IN SUPPORT OF AB 13, A BILL TO ESTABLISH A STATEWIDE SMOKING BAN IN ENCLOSED WORKPLACES WHEREAS, numerous studies have linked environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) to increased health risks to non-smokers; -and WHEREAS, environmental tobacco smoke is presently considered the third leading preventable cause of death in the United states, with over 3,000 ETS-related lung cancer deaths annually; and WHEREAS, AB 13 would establish a statewide smoking ban for all enclosed workplaces; and WHEREAS, this legislation will dramatically reduce the occurrence of ETS-related illnesses throughout the State of California; and WHEREAS, this legislation will also save an untold amount of money by defusing worker's compensation claims and saving business owners from installing and maintaining costly ventilation systems; then THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city Council of the City of West Hollywood supports AB 13, and endorses the establishment of a statewide smoking ban in enclosed workplaces. PASSED, ADOPTED AND APPROVED this 19th Day of April , 1993. J3~~ ATTEST: Mayor mC2A.-~ ~/:>-"-,~_ ~ C~ Cler 5f/.. J -- -.- ..-.- .------.--.--- - -~ STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) CITY OF WEST HOLLYWOOD ) I, MARY TYSON, CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF WEST HOLLYWOOD, CALIFORNIA, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution No. 1126, was duly and regularly introduced, approved and adopted by the City Council of the City of West Hollywood at a regular meeting of said Council held at the regular meeting place thereof on the 19th day of April, 1993, the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: GUARRIELLO, HEILMAN, KORETZ, LAND AND MAYOR LANG. NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE. ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE. ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE. WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL THIS 20TH DAY OF APRIL, 1993. '¡ . ~4 (0'v(-1 ,:Ju ~-'.A- MARY T SON'JfITY C~~ 5' e{- '/ _.. ~-_-··;-7.~C=,:"=_~,~.,=-__-=--=-,,__. -~- -.. --< ,.-------- ~.----- Th~ ~\òY\o<",b\e li'm ~Me."p 'fi"" WU~num ~+" ,.p.!! Ave VI>J..€.- FEB 2 8 1994 ~ C'\-'vc\o.. Vi'»Îo..j Ca. QI'1/0 February 21,1 ~94 CIT'( CO' ,. . Dear potential contributor: ,J~t.ll (¡FFICES CHUlA VISTA. CA ' _\ This letter is to introduce myself and my goal of traveling as a People to People Student Ambassador to the United Kingdom and Ireland this summer. My name is Ethan Mullen, and I am in eighth grade at Chula Vista Jr. High in Chula Vista. I was interviewed and will be notified of my acceptance in a few days. The program I was interviewed for is called the People to People Student Ambassador program, a 22-day program of exchange to the British Isles for meetings with teenagers and government officials and home visits with host families. People to People was started by President Eisenhower in 1956. Similar projects such as Sister cities, Project HOPE, and Pen Pals were founded at the same time as People to People, and since then have become independent programs. Student Ambassadors are carefully interviewed before their acceptance, and we are expected to share out-overseas experience with schools and civic clubs when we return. Because of its numerous educational activities, it is also offered for high school and college credit. Personally, I would like to become a Student Ambassador so I can learn more about other cultures and keep up on world affairs. I would also like to explore my roots because I am half Irish and Welch. It will also give me a chance to visit other places than North America and fill my mind with unforgettable memories. The program tuition for the program is $4,000.00, including all meals and transportation costs. In working with my parents, the final decision was for me to fund raise all of it to make my participation possible. I plan to ask three major contributors to donate $1,250.00 each to help me with my goal. Is it possible you could assist me by making a contribution? I plan to bring back a photo album of my trip or a copy of my journal of the events for all my contributors so they can share my experiences. My program tuition is due by April 1st, but please give me notice that you have received this letter and are considering my proposition by March 1 sl. "you have any questions, please call me at (619) 429-9028 anytime after 5:00 p.m.. Your help will go a long way in making my dream possible of visiting the British Isles as a representative of Chula Vista and the state of California. DD 'R c-c: 0 '7~(L/) Sincerely Yours~::;1 ::0 (")0 I fT1 ~~, at'4~ r- -r¡ (') Ethan Mullen rrlo ;;0 fT1 ;:oç:I:: t ~~r~ ~' &>L .c:: - vr"- < oþ ;e fT1 o..ce-ep-fed -r¡<: 0 0 P:S. je1 I -n- r DL'c{ -V> ~ (")-1 - ,..,~ N - -::~:\l-:b~. ~"I fil1a/VV í7~ A;JN~ Sa-n~ ('n. ~.1 S'1.i WRITIEN COMMUNSCA Y(ON , ~ -.. _._~,_,_,._",_.",_,_.__"* ".___..._______~_.,._.._______,__"_...._._~__...,____..n_'__'._'_ COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT ¿, Item Meeting Date March 8. 1994 ITEM TITLE: Resolution ) 7 J.j tJ 5 Calling and Giving Notice of the Holding of a General Municipal Election and Requesting San Diego County Board of Supervisors Consolidate the General Municipal Election with the Statewide General Election to be held on Tuesday, June 7, 1994 for the Purpose of Electing Two Members of the City Council and a Mayor. ~, SUBMITTED BY: City Clerk\V\'- 4/Sths Vote: Yes - No~ The resolution before Council is for the purpose of calling a Municipal Election to be held on Tuesday, June 7, 1994 for the purpose of electing a Mayor and two members of the City Council (Seats 1 and 2). RECOMMENDATION: Approve the resolution. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable. DISCUSSION: At the election held on November 3, 1992, the voters approved a Charter Amendment changing the date of the Municipal Election from November to June to coincide with the Statewide election. The purpose of changing the election date was to provide the ability to have run off elections in the event a candidate did not win by a majority vote. To appear on the June ballot for consideration will be the positions of Mayor and Council Seats 1 and 2. FISCAL IMPACT: There will be no fiscal impact. The Registrar of Voters estimates the election will cost approximately $40,000; $41,580 has been budgeted in the FY 93-94 budget. attach - Resolution t,-/ " ,-"....,-.--.-.-...--..-..--.- _..-.....__,_____ ____,___._______..' ·_~.____...M. RESOLUTION NO. 17'1', RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CALLING AND GIVING NOTICE OF THE HOLDING OF A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION AND REQUESTING THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO CONSOLIDATE THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION WITH THE STATEWIDE GENERAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, JUNE 7, 1994, FOR THE PURPOSE OF ELECTING TWO MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND A MAYOR WHEREAS, under the provisions of the Chu1a Vista Charter, a General Municipal Election shall be held on June 7, 1994 for the purpose of electing two members of the City Council and a Mayor; and, WHEREAS, it is desirable that the General Municipal Election be consolidated with the Statewide General Election to be held on the same date and conducted in all respects ae if there were only one election within the City with the same precincts, polling places, and election officers, and that the San Diego County Registrar of Voters canvass the returns of the General Municipal Election. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DOES RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE, AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That pursuant to the requirements of the Chula Vista Charter, there is called and ordered to be held in the City of Chula Vista on Tuesday, June 7, 1994, a General Municipal Election for the purpose of electing the Mayor and Councilmembers for seats 1 and 2, all for a full term of four years. SECTION 2. That pursuant to Section 23302 of the Elections Code, the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Diego is hereby requested to consent and agree to the consolidation of a General Municipal Election with the Statewide General Election on Tuesday, November 3, 1992, for the election of two Members of the City Council and the Mayor. SECTION 3. That the San Diego County Registrar of Voters is authorized to canvass the returns of the General Municipal Election. SECTION 4. That the City of Chula Vista recognizes that additional costs will be incurred by the County by reason of this consolidation and agrees to reimburse the County for any costs. SECTION 5. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to file a copy of this resolution with the San Diego County Board of Supervisors and Registrar of Voters. SECTION 6. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of Beverly A. Authelet Bruce M. Boogaar City Clerk City Attorney c: \rs\94e1ec ~/ ~"",2. -- --. .-...-.------."-- '._-_.,--,----_.. .--.-- ...-..-~.-'.__.. COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item~ Meeting Date 03/08/94 ITEM TITLE: Resolution I 7 'Ill ¡, Accepting a Youth at Risk project award from the University of California; and authorizing the City Manager, or his designee, to sign an Agreement between the City of Chula Vista and the Regents of the University of California SUBMITTED BY: Director of Parks and ReCreatio~ REVIEWED BY: City Manager G ~~ l. (4/Sths Vote: Yes _ No X) U On July 1, 1992, the 4-H began a Latchkey Program (4-H Youth Development Program) at Lauderbach Community Center. The 4-H organization is a subsidiary of the University of California Extension Service. The 4-H receives funding, through the University of California, from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). In January of 1993, the 4-H requested that the City of Chula Vista act as a subcontractor, to expand youth-at-risk programs, such as Wiz Kidz (Drug Prevention and Gang Diversion Service), and a Science Club, at Lorna Verde Community Center and Wiz Kidz at Lauderbach Community Centers. The original subcontractor arrangement was informal, whereby no formal agreement was signed by the two agencies, because the programs were begun in the middle of a fiscal year. For FY 93/94, the University of California has requested that a formal agreement be initiated with the City of Chula Vista. The program, which the City of Chula Vista provides, through the Parks and Recreation Department, is reimbursed by the University of California, from grant funds received from the USDA. The 4-H has received several large grants in the last two years, of which, $23,426 has been allocated for the subcontract with the City of Chula Vista. To continue to receive funds for the 4-H programs in Chula Vista, the City must enter into an agreement with the University of California for each year the program receives funds. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1. Accept the Youth at Risk Project Award from the University of California for the 4-H Youth Development Program; and 2. Authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to sign an Agreement between the City of Chula Vista and the Regents of the University of California. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: On April 21, 1992, the Child Care Commission unanimously voted to endorse and support the 4-H Youth Development Program (Attachment "A"). DISCUSSION: In 1990, the Chula Vista 2000 Child and Adult Care Subcommittee established a goal of encouraging cooperative approaches toward the development and implementation of child care services. The Child Care Commission and Chula Vista 21 have since included this goal in their anticipated needs for child care. As a result, the City approached the University of California 4-H organization regarding utilizing the grant funds they received from the USDA, for the purpose of offering a licensed latchkey child care program for elementary-age children at Lauderbach Center (Attachment "B"). On June 30, 1992, the City Council authorized the Parks and Recreation Department to enter into a Facility Use Permit with the 4-H Youth Development Program. The 4-H Youth Development Program started the [A1l3 - child2.AI3] 7") .. _..._...____ .___._._..__m...._____.__',__._··___ Item 7 Meeting Date 03/08/94 child care Latchkey Program on July 1, 1992. The 4-H Youth Development Program provides child care for 16 elementary age children year-round. The goal is to reach 28 elementary age children year-round, the maximum allowed by State Licensing. This program originally operated in the afternoon hours (2:00 p.m. - 6:30 p.m.), Monday through Friday. The Latchkey Program operates much like the Department's Elementary After-School Program; however, children are signed in and stay at Lauderbach Center until a parent or guardian picks the child up. This program utilizes one of the meeting rooms at Lauderbach Center, and periodically, the large multipurpose room; thus allowing the Department to conduct its special interest classes without interruption. The Oxford Seniors have provided volunteer support as part of an intergenerational program. The seniors assist with homework, reading and crafts. Recently the licensed child care program was expanded to include morning time hours. Parents are able to drop their children off at the Lauderbach Center at 7:00 A.M. and the 4-H staff walks them to school. This arrangement has assisted the 4-H Program to better meet the child care needs of this area. Expansion of Youth-At-Risk Programs With the grant funds from the USDA, the 4-H wished to expand youth-at-risk programs in the City of Chula Vista. The 4-H requested the Parks and Recreation Department to enter into a partnership to implement the programs. The 4-H designated $23,426 for expanded programming at several City Community Centers. At the Lorna Verde Community Center, programs are held during open recreation time and day camp. Examples of these programs, with number of participants since September, 1993, include: 0 Science Club - 89 participants 0 Drug and Gang Prevention (Wiz Kidz) - 1,604 participants 0 Activity Hour - 1,076 participants In addition, the drug and gang prevention program (Wiz Kidz) is run at Lauderbach Center with the 4-H funds. The participant figures listed above include Lauderbach Center. Most recently, the 4-H Youth Development Program has expanded into an association with the MAAC Project, the Otay Community Center, the community of Otay, and the Parks and Recreation Department, to provide at-risk youth programming for the teenage population. From September 1993 through February, the program at Otay has served 1,120 participants. The community of Otay is supportive of this program and the 4-H who has made it possible. Through partnerships like the 4-H Youth Development Program, the Department is able to continue to provide valuable community services throughout Chula Vista. [AIl3 -child2.A13] 2 7-,).. .-"_.~---_._." --.-.,......- ,-~,_._-.-,_.. _.._-_.._-------_.~-------,._. Item 7 Meeting Date 03/08/94 Agreement with the University of California For FY 93/94, the University of California has requested that the City sign an agreement which specifies the terms and conditions for the receipt and use of the project award funds. The University of California's fiscal year runs from September through August. The City received the request for this formal agreement well after the beginning of their fiscal year. The agreement the Council is recommended to approve has a term from September I, 1993 through August 31, 1994. Total costs to be incurred by the City under this agreement shall not exceed $23,426 for the term of the agreement, without the prior written approval of the University of California. FISCAL IMPACT: None. All funds received from the University of California will be used to support the program, with no expenses attributable to the City's General Fund. The Department has developed a budget for the 4-H Program, which distributes the award funds between the Drug Prevention Program (Wiz Kidz) - $8,040; Science Club - $963; Activity Hour - $7,729; and Teen Program (at Otay) - $6,694. Attachments: irA" _ Child Care Commission Minutes of April 21, 1992 NOT SCANNED liB" _ Council Report of June 30, 1992 NOT SCANNED "C" - Agreement [A1l3 - chiJd2.AI3] 3 7~J/?-1 --- - - -... ._-- ~... .._._-_....__._-----~-- RESOLUTION NO. I., i/, /, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING A YOUTH AT RISK PROJECT AWARD FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA; AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO SIGN AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA WHEREAS, on July 1, 1992, the 4-H began a Latchkey Program (4-H Youth Development Program) at Lauderbach Community Center; and, WHEREAS, the 4-H organization is a subsidiary of the University of California Extension Service and receives funding from the united States Department of Agriculture; and, WHEREAS, in January of 1993, the 4-H requested that the City of Chula vista act as a subcontractor, to expand youth-at-risk programs, such as wiz Kidz, and a Science Club, at Loma Verde Community Center and wiz Kidz at Lauderbach Community Centers; and, WHEREAS, the original subcontractor arrangement was informal, whereby no formal agreement was signed by the two agencies, because the program were begun in the middle of a fiscal year; and, WHEREAS, for FY 93/94, the University of California has requested that a formal agreement be initiated with the city of Chula Vista; and, WHEREAS, the program, which the City of Chula vista provides, through the Parks and Recreation Department, is reimbursed by the University of California, from grant funds received from the USDA; and, WHEREAS, the 4-H has received several large grants in the last two years, of which, $23,426 has been allocated for the subcontract with the City of Chula vista; and, WHEREAS, to continue to receive funds for the 4-H program in Chula vista, the City must enter into an agreement with the University of California for each year the program receives funds. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the city Council of the City of Chula vista does hereby accept the Youth at Risk Project Award from the University of California for the 4-H Youth Development Program. 1 7-.5' --~ -----------------~---_.~-~----.-.,.,._--,._,-"_.,'-~----"-"""----- BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the city council of the City of Chula vista does hereby approve that Agreement between the city of Chula vista and the Regents of the University of California, 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 city council does hereby authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to sign said Agreement Presented by /.. - .4~~_ "\ ) Jess Valenzuela, Director of I Bruce M. / ard, City Parks and Recreation Attorney C:\rs\4H "- 2 7"¿ /7-,38 -.-----.-...--.-.----.. -.-.---,.---.- ..,-~.~---_._-----,._. Attachment A-I CHILD CARE COMMISSION MINUTES OF THE APRIL 21, 1992 MEETING Tuesday 7:00 p... Parks and Recreation April 21, 1992 Conference RoOll ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++111111+++++++++++++111111+++++++ CALL MEETING TO ORDER: 7:13 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Vice Chair Hartman, Commissioners Canedo, Welsh, Reeves and Ex-Officio Members Tressler and Randolph MEMBERS EXCUSED: Chair Cavanah, Commissioners Huston and Joynes STAFF PRESENT: Bob Morris, David Harris, Lance Abbott and Kim Tefft 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSC (Welsh/Canedo) 4-0 to approve the minutes of the meeting of March 17, 1992 as submitted. Welcome and introduction of new Commissioner Nancy Reeves 2. COMMUNICATIONS a. Oral Communications - None b. Written Communications Vice Chair Hartman passed around copies of various child care publications including "Child Care Resource Service", forum flyer on Child Care and Development to be held on Friday, May 15th at UCSD, 1992 edition of "State Policy of Child Rearing - Kids Count", and the annual report by the "California Child Welfare Strategic Planning Commission". , 3. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. 4-H Program Presentation Jennie Hill, Before and After Child Care Coordinator for the 4-H program, then proceeded to provide an background information for the Commission on what the program has to offer. Cooperative Extension of which 4-H is a part, came into being by an act of Congress in 1915 funded by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Land Grant Universit~ (University of California, Davis, Berkeley, and Riverside campuses) and t e county in which they reside. Almost ever~ county within the U.S. has a 4-H program. 4-H is the louth portion of t e program with the challenge nation-wide to be the in ormal education arm of the Land Grant University in the State. The ~outh program has been in existence for about 75 years, but in the ear y 80 I S Cooper at ive Extens ion went through major shifts from beinp program focussed to issue focussed such as Youth At Risk and Latchkey Ch,ldren. f 1 7'7 .-_.---.--. .-,...........-_. .----+-- Attachment A-2 ... - Presently, there are eight sites operated in El Cajon with one that was temporarily licensed in San Diego. In E1 Cajon the 4-H Program operates in the School District system. The Park and Recreation Department of Chula Vista aPfroached the 4-H orRanization to explore the possibility of opening a Ch ld Care program ere. After lengthy discussion, the licensin~ processing has begun for a after school program at lauderbach Center t at will serve children ages 5-12. A survey of 101 out of 254 parents showed that there was a strong need for child care in that area. A start up grant has been received from the State Defartment of Education, along with a USDA Grant which will include addit onal services at the lauderbach Center. Within a year, 200 children will eventually be reached in some way through these programs. The lauderbach Center program will offer a variet~ of programs targeted for all ages, including some that will work wit Senior programs. A slidin~ scale payment will be offered to the lower income families who would ike to participate in the program. The cost to the City of Chula Vista is "in kind" in that Parks and Recreation facilities and support staff will be utilized. The hours of operation will be from 11:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. at a uniform fee of $45 per week, $50 for kindergarten. Ms. Hill then passed out two handouts: 1) the 4-H Mission Statement: and 2) the "4-H School-Age Child Care Reporter, Fall 1991". Jennie stated she will keep the Commission up-to-date on the progress of implementation of the program. MSUC (WELSH/CANEDO) TO ENDORSE AND SUPPORT THE 4-H AFTER SCHOOL PROGRAM AT lAUDERBACH AND lOMA VERDE. MOTION PASSED .4-0. It was agreed to table items C & D under Unfinished Business until a later date and to address item A. "CDBG Review - Community Development" later in the meeting. 4. NEW BUSINESS , a. Palomar Trolley Child Care - Community Development lance Abbott, Community Development Specialist, then provided a presentation of the Palomar Trolley Child Care rroject. This particular development project is a planned 18 acre retai shopping center on land that is currently vacant at the corner of Palomar and Broadway, adjacent to the Palomar Trolley Station. The Developer along with the City are trying to pull to~ether a proposal that will include a 6,000 sq. ft. building that wil provide child care services to approximatelll00 children. The non-profit operator would be Child Development Assoc ates, whom Commissioner Tressler is the Executive Director. . This is a great opportunity to get child care service and have state subSid~ in an area of the Cit,. that is predominately low income. Problems with t e proposal are due ma nly to the ability to finance the project. At this time there is nothing being asked of the Commission, Mr. Abbott , , 2 ï-ð' . ------------- -- - --_._-~. .__.~--_.._.~_._-"_.~..._.- Attachment B-1 , COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item Meeting Date 06f30.192 ITEM TITI.E: Report authorizing the Parks and Recreation Department to enter into a Facility Use Perinit with the 4-H Youth Development Program fDr the purpose of offering a licensed latchkey child care program. SUBMITTED BY: Director of Parks and Recreatio~ REVIEWED BY: City Manager (4/Sths Vote: Yes _ No X) During the FY 1991-92 budget process, the Parks and Recreation Department proposed to discontinue certain After-school Recreation Programs and re-direct the funds to establish a subsidized child care latchkey program at the Lauderbach Community Center. However, during a budget review session on June 5, 1991, Council expressed a concern regarding City-operated child care. Council suggested that the City Dffer the use of recreation facilities, and contract the child care services to an outside agency (Attachment "N). RECOMMENDATION: That Council authorize staff to allow the 4-H Youth Development Program to provide afternoon latch key services at Lauderbach Center. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: On April 21, 1992, the Child Care Commission unanimously voted to endorse and support the 4-H Youth Development Program (Attachment "B"). BACKGROUND: In 1990, the Chula Vista 2000 Child and Adult Care Subcommittee established a goal of encouraging cooperative approaches toward the development and implementation of child care services. The Child Care Commission and Chula Vista 21 have since included this goal in their anticipated needs fDr child care. . In an .effort tD be responsive to Council directiDn and the recommendation of the aforementioned citizen groups and Commission, staff investigated the feasibility of establishing a contract child care service for low-income families. The following are brief descriptions Df the two child care agencies that were contacted: 1. Project "Headstart" provides a comprehensive child development program including educational activities, health and social services, and opportunities for parental involvement. Their target population include preschool children who range in ages 3 through 5 years old and are from low income households. 2- The 4-H Youth Development Program is an informal educational youth program administered by the Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources of the University of California. The 4-H Program created the 4-H AM/PMclubs (child care) in 1987 to reach children who would otherwise be "latchkey kids." Their target population includes low income children who are in grades kindergarten through 6. .-. 1 i-'1 ---"---'-.'-.'----."'-"---""..- ".-----_.._._--_._.._,-~.." Attachment B-2 Item Meeting Date 0600/92 DISCUSSION: The 4-H Youth Development Program was chosen as a potential agency to Dffer child care because they offer a service to the elementary age children. The 4-H Development Program bas requested to start the child care latchkey program July 1, 1992. Dialogue began with the 4-H Program staff in August 1991, and has developed to the pre-licensing stage for Lauderbach Center as a child care site. In addition, a Conditional Use Permit has been applied for and grllnted by the Planning Department. In an effort to gauge whether a need exists for affordable latchkey services within the service area of Lauderbach Center, the 4-H Program staff distributed interest sutveys via Lauderbach Elementary School. 'The 4-H Program staff reported that 254 SUtveys were returned with 128 people requesting child care services (Attachment "C'). The proposed program at Lauderbach Center will provide child care for 25-30 elementary age children year-round. This program will only Dperate in the afternoon hours, with a potential for expansion of hours in the future. The proposed latch key program will operate much like the Department's elementary after school program; however, children will sign in and stay at the Center until a parent or guardian picks the child up. This program will not be using every room in the Center, thus allowing the Department to conduct its special interest classes without interruption. Staff will also be working with the senior program at Lauderbach to implement intergenerational activities with the senior citizens (Attachment "D"). All child care staff will be employed by the local 4-H Agency. . The employees would be covered by state mandated programs such as State Disability Insurance, State Unemployment, FICA, and WDrkers' Compensation. In addition, Federal and State income taxes will also be withheld by the 4-H agency. Other employee benefits vary depending on the agency's benefit programs but can include vacation, Äck leave, credits for taking additional coursework, reduced child care fees, and insurance (Accident Insurance Program - Attachment "E"). AlI4-H Programs enroll the youngsters in the 4-H insurance program at $2.50 per individual per year, which provides accident coverage for the youngsters while they participate in 4-H activities. The 4-H Youth Development Program utilizes the standard University liability coverage for use of facilities with schools and/or other agencies Dn whose grounds the 4-H YDuth Program operates. A Certificate of Self-Insurance is insured for $1,000,000 per occurrence or $5 million general aggregate at these program sites (Attachment "F). The City's Risk Manager has agreed to this coverage. The 4-H Youth Development Program staff will be talking with several Df the Department's part-time persoMel about working with the child care program under their direction. This staffing arrangement, if successful, will be of great benefit to the Department because staff will be able to work for the 4-H and the Department, and avoid exceeding the 999 hour limitation with the City. Full non-city funding for this program is available through various sources. For example, the 4-H Youth DeveIDpment Program received a State grant of $10,000 to be used as seed money for the Lauderbach location. In addition, this organization has received a Federal grant of $125,000 for the 2 ¡ 1- 7- It) ...-.-~..-..-'.-...-.-~-.'."'-.--.------.-.-~...- -_.'.'._- Attachment B-3 Item { Meeting Date 06130/92 proposed program. The funds will be utilized to pay for operational costs, to keep the expense of the program reasonable, and grant scholarships. In addition, the funds will allow for expanded curriculum programming at the Loma Verde Community Center during open recreation time and day camp. Examples of these programs include a Science Club and nutrition education. Attached is a packet that contains the Goals and Objectives of the 4-H AM/PM School Program (Attachment "G"), a detailed description of the program (Attachment "H"), sample daily schedules, lesson plans, calendars (Attachment "I") and an overview of day care license requirements (Attachment Or). To comply with licensing requirements, suggested alterations to the building could include reversing meeting room doors so that they open into the hallway, emergency lighting, replacing the plastic mini- blinds with metal mini-blinds and placing locks on the restroom doors. Initially, the erection of a fence surrounding one of the two playgrounds was planned; however, the 4-H staff has requested a waiver, using cones and/or pennant streamers. Waivers will also be requested to mitigate suggested building modification. Funds of approximately $8,000 to accommodate the licensing requirements are presently being investigated by 4-H staff and Department staff. All funds needed to retrofit the suggested building modifications will be received through grant money or donations. Once the licensing requirements are completed and the program has started, no City funds will be needed. - The agreement under which the 4-H Youth Development Program can occupy Lauderbach Center is recommended to be under the conditions of the Department's Facility Use Permit. Staff recognizes the need (due to funding sources) to allow the 4-H tD provide services as soon as possible. Therefore, in order to get this program established in a timely fashion, staff wishes to allow the 4-H Youth Development Program to sign a Facility Use Agreement, along with a Certificate of Insurance naming the City as additional insured, to utilize the facility during the weekdays. Thus, the organization wDuld be treated as a rental group, similar to Dther rental groups like the School District . or other non-profit community organizations. Since this group is non-profit, and a benefit to the community, fees would be waived for the use of the building. The 4-H Youth Development Program is currently operated at the EI Cajon School District, and the San Diego Parks and Recreation Department. Both Df these agencies entered into a Facility Use Permit with the 4-H group. The Department will require additional conditions of the 4-H Youth Development Program, which will be incorporated in the Facility Use Agreement (Attachment "K"). FISCAL IMPACf: None. Attachments: "Aft .. June 5, 1991 Council Minutes "B"o Minutes Df the April 21, 1992 Child Care Commission "C' 0 4-H Youth Development Program Survey "D".. Intergenerational Activities with Senior Information "E"o Accident Insurance Program "F' 0 Certificate Df Self-Insurance "G" 0 Goals and Objectives of the 4-H AM/PM School Program (o;bIoII 3 /- 1/ ." . _...__ _._"_... ...___....o......._u........ ______...__.-.._ Attachment B-4 Item - Meeting Date O6ß0192 ) "H" - Detailed Description of the Program "I" - Sample Daily Schedules, Lesson Plans, etc. "J" - Overview of Day Care License Requirements "K" - Conditions of Facility Use Agreement I _I 4 '7"/ :J- ._.._____.____.. _ _..__.._.____,·w__.___....__.._____ . - . - . Attachment B-5 . Attachment A Ho~.s ~rom June §. 1991 Council Budoet RAview Sesmion Lau4erbacb Latchkey ~roqr..· . Rindone: Concerned about high costs of offering child care Discussed potential partnerships with other agencies Nader: . Concerned about one year licensing procedure Had questions about state agency involved and where the one-year delay would occur Information and .eferral Services Moore: Concerned about number of non-residents .erved and the tact that the City is sUbsidizing service tor them Nader: Nader moved that Alternative f3 be the recoÌDmendation and that the statf recommended-Alternative '1 be placed on the wish list .. Goss: Proposed contacting other agencies tor financial support ~olicy Issue-Special zveDt~ Moore: Stressed that volunteers were capable ot loading and unloading tables and chairs tor special events and that the City should still provide staffing and equipment Atterscbool progr..s Nader: Questioned capability of other agencies (i.e. Boys and Girls Club) to accept children if we close tour sites Rindon.: Objected to closing any atterschool playground sit. Moved that seven instead ot Manager-recommended tour atterschool sites have double coverage and that timetable tor adding additional staft at other site. be amended from tive to three years-put on wish list CUltural arts Coordinator Gos.: Put on wish list T.bree members ot CUltural Art. Commission spoke in tavor ot tunding tor this position Nader: Questioned salary level of Coordinator and amount of tunding needed tor this position Î" J:J ..-----.'. .-.--..-.... ~--_...--,.__._~.._-_._,_.- - . Attachment 8-6 . MINUTES OP A SPECAL MEETING/WORICSESSION OP nm C1Y OP QMA VISrA I Wednesday, June 5,1991 Council Conference Room 6:08 p.m. Administration Building ~A1JJmTO ORDER.. 1. CAU. 1HE ROLL: PRESENT: CouncDmembers Malcolm, Nader, R.lndone, and Mayor Pro Tempore Moore ABSENT: CouncDmember Malcolm ALSO PRESENT: John D. Goss, City Manager; Bruce M. Boogaard, City Attorney; and Vicki C. Soderquist, Deputy City Clerk 1t1_!:!; 2- URGENCY REPORT STATE R.Ot11'E 125 TOU. ROAD PACIUTY City Attorney Boogaard informed Council he had just been made aware that the CEQA Statue of Limitations would expire on June 28, 1991. The City is currently soliciting proposals from companies to advise the City on options relative to the SR125 Toll Road proposal. This allows only 23 clays to retain a finn, appropriate a large sum of money, and file a suit. The City could attempt to solicit an agreement from the State and I CTB for waiver, or tolling, of the Statue of Limitations. It would be significantly less expensive for the City to pursue this option. It is estimated that $5,000 would be necessal)' and the City Attorney intents to retain Best, Best Be Kreiger to negotiate the Tolling Agreement. If unsuccessful, the City Attorney wûl retain this firm or other legal counsel to commence litigation in order to meet the Statue and to return to Council to obtain the necessal)' appropriation to do so. He requested that the Council approve the agenclizing of the item a it had arisen after the preparation of the agenda and could not reuonably wait until the next agenda. , MSC (Moore/Nader) to add State R.oute 125 Ton Road PacUity a aD urgency item to 1he agencla for discussioD and action. Approved 34-1 with Cound1man Malcolm abient. City Manager Goss stated that the City's position had been to ask questions and not take a for or against position. The appropriation of the $5,000 would req~ a 4/Sth's vote and therefore Council could Dot take action on that request tonight. His office would work with the City Attorney regarding funding. City Attorney Boogaard responded that his office would solicit a waiver and incur debt, coming back to Council at a later date requesting appropriation of funcls. City Attorney Boogaard requested that CouncD take the fonowing action: 1) authorize the City Attorney to . retain a firm of his choice, probably Best, Best Be Kreiger, to obtain a waiver of CEQA Statute of Limitations . from the State and CIV, otherwise set to expire on June 29, 1991, in order to preserve the option to challenge the toll road franchise for total faDure to obtain CEQA compliance prior to Issuance; and 2) in the event that a waiver can Dot be obtained from CIV and the State, to authorize the City Attorney to retain legal counsel to file suit to set aide the granting of the franchise on the ground that the State did not comply with CEQA, and to return to the Council at such time a the Council's Dormal meeting schedule pemúts to obtain the needed appropriation therefore. 1- 1'1 ......" _.___nm_________ . Attachment B-7 ".. . Minutes June-S, 1991 Page 2 ( MSC (MOOft/J1tiIIðone) ID .þþfOftthenquestfram the City AttDmey. A,>y&u...d 3-0-1 with c;w....nm... Malcolm ."-- City Attomey Boogaanllefi: me meeting at 6:15 p.m. 2. REVIEW OF BUDGET FINANCE, ÞARKS AND REæEA110N, OPEN SPACE, NATURE 1N11!RPRE11VE ŒNIER. UBRARY. CARRY.ovER 11EMS (IF DEEMED NE""C:C:~'Y), AND JIEVENUES NATURE 1N'I'F.RPRE'J1V nrvno:R City Manapi' Goø stated 1hat the budget was slightly reduced from last year. He recommended that the Bookstore Mmqer be CODVerted to a pennanent position as It was felt that revenues would off..et the position. MSC ~/RiDdone) ID -VylOVe 1I1e Nature IntdpI..¡ .e Cmterbuclget as presented. ,,*,p&u...d 3-0-1 with Coun~nm_ MaJe->lm -"-- . JllNANŒ DEPARTMENT City Manager Goas stated the onJy proposals for this budget were equipment related and had no imp.ct on 1I1e General P1mð. I....IC (MoanINacIer) ID -no,u..' 1I1e Finance Department's budget as presented. ,,*,yt~..d 3-0-1 with Co.......,...... M+nlm aw- PARKS AND lI"nn'.A11ON DEPARTMENT City Man.ger Goss stated there were many Issues cont.ined within this budgeL He complimented the Department for conceptualizing where the DepAl tment was going and including policy Issues, A revenue generation plan will be done by the Department this year. He then reviewed other important Issues f.cing the Department this fiscal year. Councilman RiDdone stated th.t the School Disuict h.d l.unched . child care program and that the costs involved were atremely bI¡h. He felt there should be . partnership between public agencies as they had an obllptlon ID the community. CouncDman Nader questioned whether the Child Care Cmnml'riom had reviewed the budget. less Val_wt, DIrector of Parks and Recreation. responded that they h.d reviewed the budget and supponed staff recomm....d.tions. The Commission Is aurently worlcing on a referral regarcling City facnlties In public pl.ces. Laudetb.ch Center is ClllTently being considered as a sight for .l.tchkey program. If chosen, there would be approximately. one year del.y due to the state licensing procedure. Councilman JUndone stated that the School District h.d just completed th.t - procedure and there was Jesisl.tion that currently exempted schools, He felt the City m.y want to punue . change In leglsl.tion to ...emptdties. 7- JJ ...----- - --- -- -..-----------. ,..--,---..- --_._--_......_._~- - Attachment B-8 .- . Minutes June S. 1991 Page 3 ) Councilman Nader apl'essed his concern of the period over time required to process the permit and requested that staff pt Input to find what could be done to speed up the process. He would also support Councilman Rindone'. ftCommendation regarding legislation. He also questioned whether there was an existing private or J1OD1ITOfit program that the City could "share" with. He would like a report regarding this option, what Stabt agency is Involved. reasons for lengthy the delay, and current legislation. . City Manager Goss stated that Supplemental Budget Memo 17 addressed the issue of funding for the Senior Information and Reieøa1 Center. He recommended Alternative 2 which would fund the amount of $66,782 from the City's General Fund to absorb the loss of Community Block Grant funds. The reduction In part time staff and supplies would result In longer response times but it wu hoped that volunteers would make up the loss In penonnel1ime. Mayor Pro Tempore Moore questioned whether the Center .erviced all of South County. He felt that because taxpayers money was being used to support the Center it should service the City only. Mr. Valenzuela respouded that the Center .erviced non·resldents of the City. There were approximately 15,800 people .elVed·with 10,800 being Chula Vista residents. The current response time is five minu~ for a simple inquiry mel15 minutes for a complex Inquiry. He would not be able to estimate the. response time if the Center was staffed only with the coordinator. Councilman Nader noted that the City could save $17.000 if all part.time persoMeI were reduced. The only impact of this cut wvuld be a longer response time. He felt this area should be revisited if the State cuts revenues to the City. City Manager Goss stated the department wu concerned about the historical role ~f providing staffmg and I equipment for the various special community events. Allocation of resources in this manner result in staff being removed from 1heir normal duties and additional workload being absorbed within their operating budget. Mayor Pro Tempore Moore felt the City should utilize volunteers rather than staff. City Manager Goss responded that there wu the liability issue and damage to equipment when utilizing volunteers. The Depanment is caught in the middle because additional funding is not being included in the budget to address this issue and there are no outside revenues to help offset these costs. Council then discussed the possible duplication of effort regarding the afterschool programs. Staff felt that four programs were located close to .im!lar programs being conducted by other agendes. Councilman Rindone did riot agree with the concept of being "dose" to other programs. He felt the afterschool programs were an Investment in human needs and the return wu tremendous. He also felt there was a need to have a male and female Instructor at each .ight. City Manager Goss responded that these were preUmlnuy options. In cue there was a need to cut back expenditureS or if the State cut back revenues to the City. He stated that the EutLake Community Center .. was now beginning CllllStruction document phue with completion anticipated In July 1992. It wül be a cha11enge for the Cit.J 111 come up with revenues In the 1992-93 budget for staffing and programming. . MS (Rindone/Moore) 111 amend staff ra.........mclatioD to double the CGftrage. add 7 new school versus 4 10 there is ruu double CØ9InIe In 3 yem versus 5)'UfS. 'Ibis wül be a cost of $16.916.50 or an increase of~.ooo. 7-1' --_._.-..__.__.~-_."_._-_.,,-,-.__._"_...~._.- - . . . . . Attachment 8-9 I Minutes June-S, 1991 Page 4 , ( J City Mana¡er Goss requested a c1arification of the motion. .AMENDMENT TO MemON: (JUDcIoDe/Moore) to add 7 schools to the list of double coverage With staff C01DJIIItÎD& !be aclðVion-1 costs. City MÌDqer Goss responded that It would be approximately $3,200 per site. Mayor Pro Tempore Moore requested that the item be put on the "Wish LIst" for review at the end of the . budJet. ~ Items on the list could then be compared and prioritized for possible funding. Co\llll'nm- Rindone agreed to adding it to. the "Wish Ust" but felt it was not a s\¡nlficant amount of money and that the City should make a commianem. StJBS11'J11Œ MemON: (Mooft/Nader) to add the addition of 7 schools to the wish list for review. Staff is to inducIe toW revenues invo1vecI for comparison. Approved ~1 with Counc:ilman Malcolm absent. MemON: (Nader) to add Alternalive 3, fimcIing of $49,192 (a cut of $17,000), for the Senior InfomIation and Referral Center, to the WISh Lisl". City ManaJer Goss stated he did not· feel a motion was necessuy u It was the consensus of the CouncD. The DruS Prevention/Gang Divenion Progrun will not increue in expenditures but will require General Fund support u State funding is no longer available. The department hu recommended a full time Cultural Arts Coordinator but the City does not have sufficient revenues to embark on new programs in the coming -,-,v. It is recommended that this position be deferred pendinJ a more detaDed evaluation by the I. .pariment u to what the impact of reducing portions of existing services would be and whether the State is Joing to significantly reduce City revenues. If service level expansion is possible It would be recommended that consideration be given to implementing the Cultural Arts Coordinator position either on a part-time buis or at a full-time basis mid-year. Irene Martel, 648 Via Curvada, Chula Vtsta, CA, spoke in opposition to the fees beinS charged the property ownen in Open Space District #5. There are onJy 122 property ownen supportinJ 13.0 acres of open space. Their fees are aurently $344 and with the new budget they will be paying approximately $400 which she felt was -excessive. She felt the usessment should have been reviewed when the Rancho del P.ey development wu built u it is on the other side of the open space. Mayor Pro Tempore Moore advised Mrs. Martel that a public hearing wu scheduled on Saturday for all those paying open space district usessments. The expenditures for the Individual districts would be addreased at that time. Councilman Nader requested that staff look !!ito the consolidation of open space districts, where possible. with a report back to Council. He also requested that maps of the districts be Included In the report. Lan)' Dumlao, 650 Jlivera Street, Chula VISta, CA, Member of the Cultural Arts Commission, upressed concern on the proviso beinS placed on the fundinS of the Cultural Arts Coordinator. He felt the CouncÐ should make a serious commianent. A full time penon was necessuy In order to obtain other funding sources. , P.alph Torres, 1035 Corte Marla, Chula Vtsta, CA, Member of the Cultural Arts Commission, encouraged CouncD to fund the position of Cultural Arts Coordinator. ï "'/7 '-0-'" - -- -~---.-.._..-_..,..----_.-_.._,---,--_."._. __n__. 'J . . Attachment B-lO Minutes June 5,1991 . Page 5 . ) Paul Hendricks, 286 Third Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, Member of the Cultural ArÞ Commission, encouraged Council to fund the position of the Cultural ArÞ Coordinator, ' MaJy Haymes, 1423 Eckman Avenue, Chula VISta, CA, requested that CouncD fund the plU'Chase of a 1V/VCR for the Tiny Tots Program. They have been offered a 575.00 discount on the unit with the final cost approzimately 5320.00. Councilman Nader questioned whether the Tiny Tots Program could utilize the 1V/VCR currently located at the pool during me daytime hOIln. Mr. Valenzuela responded that the 1V /VCR was utilized by the swimming staff for training of personnel only, not stUdents. Therefore, the unit could be stored in a cenuallocation so the insuucton for the Tiny Tots Program would have access. Mayor Pro Tempore Moore requested that the purchase of a1V/VCR be added to the "Wish List". MSC (MoonlRindone) to approve me Pm and Recreation Depa:tment'. budget as presented. Approved 3-0-1 with Councilman Malcolm absent. IJBRARY City Manager Goss stated that new facnities would be coming on line and revenues would be needed for suppon. He complimented staff on their reorganization and felt once evaluated, the reorganization may actually save positions. He then briefly reviewed the Literacy Grant and Lending Materials. I MSC (Moon/Nader) to approve me UbI'Bl)". budget as presented. Approved 3-0-1 wim Colm"''"·'' Malcolm absent. REVENUES City Manager Goss referred to Supplemental Budget Memo 4, State Budget: Status of Possible Funding Cuts, and Supplemental Budget Memo 18, Recommendation for Short and Long Term Revenue Enhancements. MSC (Moon/Nader) to authorize staff to pursue (dCge1op fDfonuation) Utility RoD Benefit Legislation,' MuDidpal FftlHomeowners Insurance, and Enterprise Operations. Avy"v.ec1 3-0-1 with Councilman Malcolm ."-,,, Councilman Nader felt that the Public Safety Assessment District should be consIdered In each new development proposal. All options should be weighed with recommendations to the Council for review. He did not feel there should be assessments on existing developments but there should be a policy change. He requested !hat this item be placed on the Agenda at me June 18, 1991 meeting under his comments. ORAL COMMUN'lC'.A110NS None ..,..Ii . . . ·_~_·____··__~_~·_··___~____.._~_~_m.___.___._______ . t', . Attachment B-11 Minutes , June 5, 1991 Page õ OTHER. 1U~~ 3. CI1YMANAGER'S REPORTCS"I . Informed eouncD lhat the canyover items, Mayor/Council Staffing and Town Manager, would be discussed at the MeetingIWo:ksesslon lCheduled for Monday, June 10, 1991 at 6:oo.p.m. in the Council n.am"'=n. -t. MAYOR'S REPORTCS"I - None S. COUNCL COMMENTS· None ADJOURNMENT ADJOURNMENT AT 8:15 P.M. to a Special City Council MeetingIWorltsession on Monday, June 10, 1991 at 6:00 p.m. in the City CouncD Ownbers. Respectfully ·submitted, BEVERLY A. AtmiELET, CMC, City auk by: ~~~~~'£t Vicki C. Soderquist, Depu auk . . . ï - 11 , - --~~...---.-----...----.---..~._-..--.--'-.--..--. .. _._"---_..._---~----- . Attachment B -12 . Attachment B CHILD CARE COMMISSION \ MINUTES OF THE APRIL 21, 1992 MEETING ) Tuesday 7:00 p... Parks and Recreation April 21, 1992 Conference Room ..+IUH+IIIIIII+IIIIIIII+II. u+++u IIIIIIII+U Illit+++++++++++++IIIIII+++++++ CALL MEETING TO ORDER: 7:13 p.m. MEMBERS PRESEIT: Vice Chair Hartman, Commissioners Canedo, Welsh, Reeves and Ex-Officio Members Tressler and Randolph MEMBERS EXCUSED: Chair Cavanah, Commissioners Huston and Joynes STAFF PRESEIT: Bob Morris, David Harris, Lance Abbott and Kim Tefft 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSC (Welsh/Canedo) 4-0 to approve the minutes of the meeting of March 17, 1992 as submitted. Welcome and introduction of new Commissioner Nancy Reeves 2. COMMUNICATIONS a. Oral Communications - None b. Written Communications ) Vice Chair Hartman passed around copies of various child care publications including ·Child Care Resource Service", forum flyer on Child Care and Development to be held on Friday, May 15th at UCSD, 1992 edition of "State Policy of Child Rearing - Kids Count", and the annual report by the "California Child Welfare Strategic Planning Commission". 3. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. 4-H Program Presentation Jennie Hill, Before and After Child Care Coordinator for the 4-H program, then proceeded to provide an background information for the Commission on what the program has to offer. Cooperative Extension of which 4-H is a part, came into being by an act of Congress in 1915 funded by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Land Grant Universit~ (University of California, Davis, Berkeley, and Riverside campuses) and t e county in which they reside. Almost ever~ county within the U.S. has a 4-H program. 4-H is the louth portion of t e program with the challenge nation-wide to be the in ormal education arm of the Land Grant University in the State. The {Outh program has been in existence for about 75 years, but in the ear y 80's Cooperative Extension went through major shifts from bein¥ program focussed to issue focussed such as .' Youth At Risk and Latchkey Ch ldren. 1 I .. ~ () " __ _..____.__.____..._....._..___.__.__._~_...._._._.._.....uo.___...... ,__._____....".__ Attachment B-13 . , ... . Presently, there are eight sites operated in El Cajon with one that was I temporarily licensed in San Diego. In El Cajon the 4-H Program operates in the School District system. The Park and Recreation Department of Chula Vista approached the 4-H or~anization to explore the possibility of opening a Ch11d Care program ere. After lengthy discussion, the licensin~ processing has begun for a after school prøgram at lauderbach Center t at will serve children ages 5-12. A survey of lDl out of 254 parents showed that there was a strong need for child care in that area. A start up grant has been received from the State Department of Education, along with a USDA Grant which will include additional services at the Lauderbach Center. Within a year, 200 children will eventually be reached in some way through these programs. The Lauderbach Center program will offer a variet~ of programs targeted for all ages, including some that will work wit Senior programs. A slidin~ scale payment will be offered to the lower . income families who would ike to participate in the program. The cost to the City of Chula Vista is "in kind" in that Parks and Recreation facilities and support staff will be utilized. The hours of operation will be from 11:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. at a uniform fee of $45 per week, $50 for kindergarten. Ms. Hill then passed out two handouts: 1) the 4-H Mission Statement; and 2) the "4-H School-Age Child Care Reporter, Fall 1991". Jennie stated she will keep the Commission up-to-date on the progress of implementation of the program. MSUC (WELSH/CANEDO) TO ENDORSE AND SUPPORT THE 4-H AFTER SCHOOL PROGRAM AT \ LAUDERBACH AND LOMA VERDE. MOTION PASSED .4-0. It was agreed to table items C & D under Unfinished Business until a later date and to address item A. "CDBG Review - Community Development" later in the meeting. 4. NEW BUSINESS a. Palomar Trolley Child Care - Community Development Lance Abbott, Community Development s~ecialist, then provided a presentation of the Palomar Trolley Child are ¡roject. This particular development project is a planned 18 acre retai shopping center on land that is currently vacant at the corner of Palomar and Broadway, adjacent to the Palomar Trolley Station. The Developer along with the City are trYin~ to pull to~ether a proposal that will include a 6,000 sq. ft. build ng that wil provide child care services to approximatel,. 100 children. The non-profit operator would be Child Development Assoc ates, whom Commissioner Tressler is the Executive Director. . This is a great opportunity to get child care service and have state subSid~ in an area of the Cit!. that is predominately low income. Problems with t e proposal are due ma nly to the ability to finance the project. At this time there is nothing being asked of the Commission, Mr. Abbott , 2 ' , .., - :LI ...__._..._,._.,_...._._.._~_.__._--------_.-.-._--~~_.~ ~--_._--- '. .- Attachment B-14 . .' . . . .. Attachment C ) BuullB from Parent Survey/L,"ð"lrbach School Surveys distributed: 832 S~ys returned: 254 Surveys indicating need for child care: 128 Numbers and Ages of Children Needing Care: ~ 5-6 year olds ~ 7-8 year olds n 9-10 year olds .Ii 11-12 year olds FamI1I8II Jndk'·tI~g Need for Care: Monday-Friday B§ Of those who indicated a need for child care on less than a weekly basis the response was as follows: Day of Week: Monday Tuesday Wecinesday Thursday Friday ) 2 2 5 5 4 These are not necessarUy the same families each day. Undesignated: 2Q Houzs: BeIpo11aU McmIng ear. .Azrlnl BetweeZl: 6 a.m. - 7 a.m. 13 7 Lm. - 8 a.m. 17 Aftamocm Departure Between: Houzs: Raponau 2 p.m. - 3 p.m. 2 3 p.m. - 4 p.m. 9 4 p.m. - 5 p.m. 20 5 p.m. - 6 p.m. 27 . 6 p.m. - 6:30 p.m. 19 Three families indicated need for care until 7 p.m.- 8 p.m. 75 famDies desire intercession care. The majority of families (75) need care because of employment. Nineteen Indicated it was because of job trairùng programs and 16 because they are seeking work. Many (36) indicated they desire after school activities for their child also. Most of the latter responses were coupled with one or the other of the ftrst two, employment or seeking work or trairùng. 69 respondenlB indicated there are two parenlB in the home. 41 homes are single parent. ì-~4... - ->_.. - - -~'-_."'--'-'+'--"-"-----"'--"'-~'-'--"'._"- --.- ~. . .." . , : . Attachment B-15 . Income Diatribution and Number of ChIldren lapruented In ~ BracJœt Income FamWu ChIldren Under 10,000 29 40 10,000-14,999 31 55 15,000-19.999 17 27 20,DDD-24,999 8 15 25,000-34.999 18 28 35,000 & Over 11 16 .After School Children participate primarily in recreation and sports activities. Eleven families indicated children participate in recreation programs. Twelve families indicate children participate in Sports activities. Three families are Involved In Scouts. Children from two families þarticipate in school sponsored activities. Orùy two families who responded in Spanish indicated their children participate in after school activities. - ! ......,...~j .-.---._-_._--_...__....._----_.~--~- Attachment B-16 .. . . Dear Lauderbach Parents: ÇoDperative Extension 4·} I provides many different programs for YDuth and families. One program is school age child care. The child care program operates before and after. schoDI. .It includes homework time, snacks, craft~, science and outdoor play. ) CONFIDENTIAL CHILD CARE SURVEY We bope to open a cbild care program for Lauderbach students at Lauderbach Community Center. This slln-ey _ill attempt to determine the need. All responses will be treated conlidentiaUy. 1. ~ you bave school aie cbildren for whom you wish after·scbool care? a. ( ) Yes b. ( ) No. If answered no, skip to number 9. 2. Wbat are the ages of your cbildren wbo need care? Designate number of cbildren in eacb group. a. ( ) S~ years _Number oC Children b. ( ) 7-8 years _Number oC Children c. ( ) 9-10 years _Number of Children d. () 11-12 years _Number of Children 3. Wbat bour do you need cbild care? Check any that apply. .. ( ) Monday tbrough Friday b. ( ) Only specirlC days, indicate wbicb ones . c. ( ) After scbool until d. ( ) Before school from a.m. ... Would you need care during scbool vacations? .. ( ) Yes b. ( ) No S. Reason desiring cbild care: (Check an that apply) a. ( ) Employment b. ( ) Student or Job Training ) c. ( ) Seeking work d. ( ) Desire after scbool activities for cbild Co ( ) Other To determine fees 10 be charged, we need the fonowing information: . 6. Are you: Married_ Single_ 7. If you are married, is your spouse employed outside the home? YES_ NO_ 8. Wbat is the average annual income of your household? (Check one) under 510,000 520;000 - $24,999 $10,000 . $14,999 525,000 . 534,999 _$15,000 - 519,999 _535,000 and over 9. Does your child panicipate in any of the following arter-school activities? .. ()4-H b. ( ) Scouts c. ( ) Campfire d. ( ) Recreation programs Co ( ) Private lessons f. () Scbool sponsored activitiesy.. ( ) Sports (Utt1e WaUl.', Pop Warner, Soa:cr, elC.) Ia. ( ) Other PLEASE RETURN TO YOUR CHILD'S SCHOOL IN THE ENVELOPE PROVIDED. PLEASE COMPLETE ONE FORM PER FAMILY. ) Thank you Cor your assislanœ. Please: leeep us. Informed about tbe child care program: :L!/ ~~ ~~ Address: -. Zip Code Day Phone: Evening Phone: - --... . .' ~._.., ..--.-.--.. ---.--.- - -~~ . Attachment B-17 Attachment D Oxford Senior citizens Club 333 Oxford street ( Chula Vista, Ca 91911 . December 16, 1991 Sue S. Manqlallan 4-H Youth Development Advisor 5555 OVerland Avenue, Buildinq 4 San Dieqo, Ca 92123 Dear Sue: !his letter is in support of the proposed 4-H before school, after school and holiday care proqram for the elementary school aqe children in the Lauderbach area. !he Oxford Senior Club is a very active qroup. The proqram will provide an opportunity for our volunteers to be involved in a learninq proqram where they may tutor, assist children with arts and crafts projects, cookinq and 8harinq. ~ On behalf of the Oxford senior Club, we support this proqram and are lookinq forward to the partnership with the San Dieqo county 4-H proqram. I sincerely, . ð.~h'~:<J Barbara Harbin, President Oxford Senior Club . , I 7 - :1S- . ___"_ _ _"_ _ "d._. __.__. _._._m__+___~+_._._~____ - Attachment 8-18 Attachment E Blanket Accident ment within 180 days after the date of accident. - Insurance Program The Hartford will pay as shown below: ) sight of both eyes $15.000. Who Is covered? both hands or both feet $15.000. one hand and one foot $15.000. 4·H members and volunteer leaders are protected either hand or foot and when taking part in or attending an approved. sight of one eye $15.000. either .hand or foot $ 7.500. regularly supervised activity. One time participants sight of one eye $ 7.500. are also covered. They're also covered while thumb and Index finger of traveling to or from a unit activity. and while travel· either hand $ 3.750. ing dlTecUy between home and a group meeting place for a scheduled activity. loss of hand or foot means severance through or What Is covered? , above the wrist or ankle joint. loss of eye means entlTe and irrecoverable loss of sight. loss of thumb and index finger means actual severance The California 4·H Accident Insurance Program is 1hrough or above metacarpophalangeal jOints. an ··accldent only"" policy. It is designed to provide benefits to group members for cella in losses result· The Hartord will nol pay more than the largest mg from a covered acclde~t or.!y. sub)ect 10 the amount shown fo~ all losses d...e 10 the same hm~atlons of the policy. accident. Exclusions c. Accident medical expense This policy does nol cover loss resulting from: Subject to the ma\,mum bene~11 of $7.500.. The sic.lo,ness or disease (exeep! as mentioned in Har:~ord w:¡! pa~· 1";e r£oðsonable a"\d customary Optional SiC~ness covHagel. in1entionally self· expenses" tor necessa'y medical or surgical infhcted inJU'les. sJlclde or at:e~p~ed suicide. l~ealmenl. sef\/IC&S o~ sOJ,pohes if the first expense whe-the! sar,e or -:n~ane: I.)'I!":; If'; ar¡y a'rcraft other 'S :'1CU'rec w'th¡r. 52 w€e;"'s c! date o! accident. For than a regularly scheduled a;~ine: injury sustained aT"!}' o~;e a~cide~1. all co...e'ec expenses will be paid . as a 1eam nëmbE:~ whl!e pract:clng for or pariicipa1· ¡.;p 10 :~£- r.·a)·I"1~-';:'r! Amoun1 If the~' are incurred ing In ary a1t~:e~¡c ga~e. e\/e~! or tournament I'o:th:n Iwe ~ea's ~'o'" Ihe dale of accident. Injury to ) spo~so'd by C' uode' l~e d,'e::!lon of a"y organ· na!u,a' tee!" IS oa,'ace to a ma,imum of $1.000. ¡zed a~a1e;Jr ica;:JE:-. CO'1f€rexe or association, or· trav~I:r.g to O· ;'0'"" f,¡,;cr' p~ac.!:ce or pa:'hClpa110n: D. Optional sickness coverage w:, ,I,,: ~:ï'~,c;:J:ï::":9 ¡il a- ac~-,~.., \",.I-;.c"'. conS1J!utes c;::.....p.:,:,~~or- Of-~...~f-~ ;¡ ;)e~::o~ and a" anIMal: In aco't'O" to Accident Be"el:ts. special Sickness £o).p~"ses lr,c¡;~reC! tor lN~ fe-03'" or replacement of be"e~lts are ava:!abie fo' 41·H sponsored camps or _<€._,£~,..,£ C~"'~..·E-: P3;; ~- Ci=-::...·e.s,. b~aces. fixed or o¡her tr'ps a1 an aoo,~icna' pei person per day rate. le~·o·..a:)'i: t· cç:-2S c.: C~"'t~ a"~~,' a' de~ta! restora- \~J'1en a membe~ oeco·....es i :,duri~g a covered : ~"': ::1.~';;~ :-~.:- ,:~':..."-=': ':,. :'-.~ re::~:' o· re¡:>:ace- ce:r;od. Tné Ha~'o~(1 \";;1' par 1he reasonable and ,....-2~j -:.'!;:_ =~ -; E'..i=~ .J:~~~. €~.;:Of-~ses ¡!1ciJ~~ed for cus:or.-:a~y eype:"5-ES' '0' r.ecessa!"y medical or ~~t' ~~~;:" ~' .~::- ~-:':"E'~~~"'~ C· ,::"'~fc'al !!mbs or ortho- surg!ca' t'ea:'TIerl. se;·..::es o~ swpp~¡es if the first ped:~ b~f.te:S exper-,se I~ H':c;,;·~ed \';.~~.r; 30 aa,'"s a~~E" the sick· What are the benefits? ness DE'gi~5-. Fo' a:,y o....e s~ckness. ali covered expenses Win bê- pa d Lip to th~ MaY¡~ul"!'i Amount of 52.000 if they a'e incurred w:thin 52 weeks from A. Accidental death the date of the SIckness. II an ,")"r~ rEsults In loss of I,fe w.thin 180 days . reasonable and customa",. expenses means the a'te, lI'e da:e of aCCIdent. The Hartford will pay the amount of SUC." e)pe!":ses Whlc.h are not In excess of the Awden!al Loss of life bene!.1 01 $5.000.00. average chargef made fo~ such medic.al or surgical B. loss 01 sight and dismembermen1 treatment. serVIce! for S:.JDpiieS if' the locality where treatment. services or sup;:>!les are rece1ved. taking into :~ a'" H"IJU·y' resu:ts In ~oss Of sigh: or dls~ember- cC"Is'deratl::)'"I the na~",~t' a"d SP've',ly c~ t'-'E! inlury. , 7 ...~ (. . ....-..,- u_., _"____ Attachment 8-19 . Attachment F Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources No: DANR 05 91/92 University of Ca1i!or~ia This Certificare is issued to: 300 Lakeside Drive, 6th Floor County Directors and 4·H Youth Advisors Oakland, CA 94612·3560 in the State of California (415) 987 -0859 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA CERTIFICATE OF·SELF·INSURANCE This is to cc:nify dw the Ulliversity of Califamia is lClf-iDsurcd far the following CO\-....ges: T,pe or Coverage Selr·lDIured Llmitl L GENERAL LIABll.ITY: Each o...-....~ S 1,000,000 Produc:u and Completed Operations AgRpre S Penonal and Advenising Injury S 1,000,000 OIlIer S 0eIIeral AgRpre (Bodily Injury " P...,t"""!Y Damap) S 5,000,000 D. AUTOMOØn.E LIABILITY: VehicleS owncd, Non-owned and Hired S 1,000,000 (CSL) III. SPECIAL TERMS " CONDITIONS: 1. This certificate is issued to cover University of California, Cooperative Extension, including 4-H, activities throughout the State of California for the period July 1, 1991 through June 30, 1992. 2. It should be expressly understood, however, that the intent of the insurance evidenced herein follows the provisions of the Bylaws and Standing Orders of The Regents of the University of California, which do not permit any assumption of liability which does not result from and is not caused by the negligent acts or omissions of its officer, agents, or employees. Any indemnification or hold harmless clause with broader provisions than required under such Bylaws and Standing Orders shall invalidate this certificate. Renewal of Certificate No. DANR 05 1990-91 Should any of die above desc:ribeèI pro¡rams of lClf·insunncc be """'¡lied or cancelled befCR the expiration date shown below, The Regents of die UlÚvcnity of Califomia will give 30 days written notice to the named cc:nificate holder. DATE ISSUED: Kay 28, 1991 ~.~~}- A1.TIH RIZED SIGNA 'lURE . CERTIFICATE EXPIRES: June 30, 1992 . Risk Manqcr 1-':/''1 ..-'.-'-- ---- --~- . Attachment R-20 . .. Attachment G GOALS AND OBJECI'IVES OF TilE 4·H AM/PM SCHOOL PROGRAM . ! GOAL: To develop a quality after school educational program that providc:s a safe, secure environment for the enhancement and development of school age youth. OBJECI'IVES: Provide an altemåtive after school environment for children of wor~ng parents and for other youth who wish to participate. Provide enriching and educational activities which lead to greater community involvement, . particularly for youth who have Dot had access to this experience. Create positive adult/child interaction and communication. Introduce the child to community responsibility thrDugh positive involvement. UtJlize a curriculum which introduces youth to scientific methodology and discovery. Utilize 4·H delivery methodologies; ieo, experimental activities and leam-by-doing projects. Recognize and utilize volunteer talents within 4-H program. ) Cultivate community support and expertise in carrying out the program. ... . -_. .- 7-;LV .. . , -_.._--.__._,----~-_._--~---_.._,--_._---~._--~.._-,+--..".-.,--".'" ". · . Attachment B-21 .. - . . . Attachment H . · . · 4-8 AM/PM CLUB PROGRAMS WHO WE ARE The 4-H Program is the non-formal educational youth program administered by the Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources of the University of California. Its mission is to provide youth with opportunities to' develop basic akills which they can use throughout their lifetime. Theae "life skills" equip a person to be self-directing and productive, and to function effectively in a changing world. To reach children who would otherwise be "latchkey kids" the 4-H program created the 4-H AM/PM clubs (Child Care) in 1987. WHAT WE PROVIDB * Age appropriate curriculum devel0I:ed by UC cooperative Extension, around weekly themes wh ch include science and engineering, creative arts, agriculture, outdoor recreation and field trips. * Homework Assistance. . * Nutritious snacks. * Trained staff who, at a minimum meet State licensing requirements for education and experience. * staff training. * supervision of children in. 1:14 staff-child ratio. ... . * Administrative functions. * 4-H AM/PM staff hiring and training. * Liability insurance through UC. * Installation and maintenance of phone. * Application for license from state Child Care Licensing Department. * Budget Management. * program policies and procedures including: Emergency plans . Discipline plans program flyers and literature printing Student enrollment Fee collection . 7--';¿9' - I ~---~----- -------~~---- ... . . . - Attachment 6-22 - , . WHAT THE SCHOOL PROVIDES . * Indoor space. * Access to restrooms tor children and staff to meet licensing standards. * Playground space. * Tables, chairs, (benches). * Message box in school office. * Distribution of notices. . * Referral of students to the program. * District agreed upon custodial services. * A school map which indicates AM/PM location, entrances and exits to buildings, bathroom locations, electricity, water and gas shut-off locations (Required by law). STEPS :IN ESTABL:ISHING A 4-H AM/PH CLUB PROGRAM 1. Meet with school administration to discuss program, licensing requirements and space usage. ) 2. Needs assessment for child care through parent survey. 3. Contract with school district for use of school space. 4. Begin licensing process. . M~et with parents to discuss program curriculum. 5. Preregistration of children to be using program. 6. All administrative functions listed above. I 4-H AM/pN SCHOOL SHARED DEC:ISIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES * Determination of space to be used by the child care program. * Coordination of school needs for space provided to child care program. . The 4-H AM/pN clubs are committed to the children of the community. We provide an essential service which can build strong communi ty relations for our program and the school. Mutual . flexibility and communication between 4-H and the school are keys to ongoing success of the program. 7- 3d "···.·.w...._..~_.,_...__~___~M ._"___ _ ~_.,.__.._.___~._.__ - ~ Attachment 1-23 .. . . Atta¿hm~t I ø: :zH !) fS o~ i ··I~i~ I! .t' ..:I 8 ~ : ~~~r.¡ã 't r.¡t58g: 0 g: HCI: GI .. . ~ ø:lHto ~~t8~ §i :§tIJ :E: IIJH r.¡ Hg¡~5S 8.~ Egg !) .cu H ~ ~ "I:!~~ fj tlJffë~=r 1m ........ ~ 8Hm.. !; If ... ·...mmm ...... ..... >.GI...."fi 1II>'1II-6JGlCCI11I0 CI>OC .-tuO....UO-6JtJlc II.... CI\Ø .0...." ............ClO -6J CI.-t -6J tJI ~ >'CI>. . U 0 .... U....III .... ~~-6J Glò .... ø,~ 0 IIS.-t II .-6J .-4 ~GI c.... .-4....u:GI~\Ø 8:~e >.ø,~ ;~'8 0....~~~1t! IIS....~C... :-6J8 ø,.... GI :s C 1'1 .c>-6J 1 III.... lIS 0 i III III .....-tGlN t.-t U .~.-t .... .-t fiIllC:S~\Ø ,C>ClC ·IIICGlIII fi=UIIJ" -6J....U....m ........... u ....11I11I ....c GI tJI....... tJI "',a( .:J=.... ~....ï::01! C .tJI~ê5 í "o~"oo II .... 0 ~< ,,-6J0 GI C >oIlS III .-t.-t. ... t . . ulIS-6JcgmllllGm III 0",. tJI" 0 C III cIII....i.......c~:s III III ~ .1'111I0 IIS:J UI.... ø,1II 0 111-6J ~ ....III .-to 'ellS...... IIS~IIIß III c.... .,a( 1 o.-t GI U ..0 CI m. mill CIIIIII,. >Ulm C ø, GI'" ~IIIOCD u.-t........GI CB ...." U III ~IISS"....~ .mlll ..." C 0... . ... U ...:s~.... ....1IS0~:s....... .-. GI .... 0-6JGI" g. .... 00 It! "GI-6J.-t .-t1lS-6JC -6J.-tIllOrt CIII,COOCO-6JIIICI C,EUlIS III.-t.. HIOo-6JCa.OUIII>,C H .cUCl:IOo-- .' . .0 .. IIII' U GIGI ... fi'" . .. . c:a. .. U II ... ..c:... ~... 8....... ¡..... ...'IS 10 gll'" Q >. on ....·0 ... .0 10 . .. .. ... ........e;:;:.:;: OQ}N"'.... 4IJ '" .cCDNG\'" N..rt ~... ,. r:..f"t 8 "':;: ...: .Duo 01>01010 rot>NC)"" :¡¡::o...~ ...,;c01D~ ~ NNtO ....0,.'" ~oo~o!l:'" .c:O<NN'" 00<01010 8 0"", 8laNIO:g !i~ ~~ 1I.c:. ~OOIlNNO u 0 o N\ÞO ...,N,..O g ·"''''0 -aN"'o "II cnCUO'lCDm .cCO"&nCD ecn"'CDCD ':O\Nm "fi....Ø\e¡-. .,Ø\Nco .. '&::'=O"'ICD g... 2 ... U'¡... 0 II 10 uo~bo :s 10 1j0 10 . 0 1ju~.!.o III 0 10 0<"',. .lIð:,. tI) 112 0":""" c:..~ID... lIð"''' co....ð:.... ct)C ...... i~15 :::; ...... co IDU"'" :Jtj ",'" c: .'" .. I) COt"t co"" ..,., "" on'" III ..... ..3... '" CII .. C . 1I.c: .. 1>10< '" 'IS... -= i.. .. III" . II I ~...~ C .. II C .. U 0 è .. .c...i - g§i - g=~ ··i f1! tIS.. .. ~.£j .. c: ,......c· ...... CD,o-. c:: ft:I 0.._ >.... 0 .... «It-: 0"- ..0.,-.0··.. ... £ 0 ... "II 0 GI. '" :¡COI' ....... 0<111....... .. GI C -ro\co .t ."",,11)" ~1:I1i'! ! 0=6 10 '" ,""1' II 110.....·11 ........ II =,.u "c. II II o . II c: VI -a ra:I II c: II lI>ðä¡ "". GlIoIIICc: :.. {j~c: ~"'ðäc: ouoc: u UO. ~ uo; § uo; IIOUOII C:...>O i.."g"'....c: 3 tDlII...fu B......f3 iE"'...fu .0 f. "10 '=u "'Po -t f"'I~ø..... c:......fu =:...fu ...... u 110... ...... = ti"'ra:I ... ::;101 ~ ....,., .... III.... .ow ~ W j "''''101 ..:I ...... ..:! ... ..:I =<",w...:! ~ ..:! >... . . I tD . ...11I... > . .! 0;>0, ä 3/ Ii...... '7 .. ... 8'§ ..... c 0...0 U 100 PoU ..-. ---- .- - _....._.....___ __ _ ____.....____ _n _________.._____....._n . J . . " , Attachment B-24 '. . .. 11\ ACTIVI'CY l'LAN ':J':J':J Tille: CLIDERS Date: Approx. Time: 45 min-1 hr. I ....H'...................._ . Purposes of Activity: 1. To learn ho.. airplanes can 1'1)'. 2. To learn the 1'our 1'orces necessar)' tor anything to 1'1)'. ,. To learn ho.. to make a aimple paper glider. Kateriala Needed: Sheets 01' Paper 8-1/2 x 11 Glue (optional) Paper olips (optional) Harker Fens (optional) Scisaors (optional) Background Information: There are four forces working tocother to make a plane stay in the air: LIFT is created by air flowing over the wings. The air lifts the plant upward. You oan see li1't at work it you hold a piece ot paper in 1'ront 01' your mouth and blow across the top 01' it. The paper will rise. , GRAVITY ia expressed as the total weight ot the loaded plane that !lUst be lUted. THRUST is the torward pull by the propeller, jet engines, rocket, or your hand in thro..ing e glider. DRAC ia the 1'riction ot the air pulling the plana back. Hore streamlined airplanes have less air friction thus leis drag. Kore Gravit)' (weight) and Dras . More Thrust and Litt to FLY. ¡ : Directions for Activity: ¡ , I I 1. Demonstrate LIFT by blowing over sheet ot paper. Have whole group do thil. : 2. Demonstrate GRAVITY by dropping a piece óf paper, then a rock. o, Then drop them at the same time. Have others in group try it. ,. Demon.trate THRUST by throw ins a clump ot crushed paper first .ottly and then vary hard. Have others in group try it. : 4. Demonstrate DRAG by throwing an uncrumpled .heet 01' paper then , throwing a olump ot crushed paper. Have sroup do it. , ,. Hand O1,It piece. of paper to ¡roup. 01' 3-5 people. Have groups make . an airplane out ot an ainSle sheet of paper. No rules except tho 1 onl)' I118tedals will be a piece of paper. Goal will be to saa whicll sroup's airplane will travel tarthest when thrown. Run many practice flights. Have tinal competition with run-oUs ot pairs t ohallenaing or each ¡roup throw and let lie their airplane 1'rom a , line. 6. Have individuals make airplanes out ot lingle Ihect ot popel' and ¡ then uøinl optional material I øuch as glue, paper cUps, marker ,. pens, or aciasors 1'orm, ahape, and d-.corate planes. Test 1'ly. !. Have competition for 1'astest, slo..eat, lons.st 1'light, heavIest to !: tly, prettiest, and most innovative. No a"ards needed, just recognition. I 7.... 32- """,'.'...._"._w..._.m ________ _____ "_~__.,..__"__.. . ¿ ",-. ,.;, _..- Attachment B-25 0, ~ , . Special Lnrnins Hints I 1. Reter to four forces frequently. 2. Rerer to airplane pictures. ,. Let kids use their lmaslnatlons. . Strensths and Weaknesses of Sessionl , . ! .! , References. ! ! 1. "Hodel Airplanes", California 4-H Publloation 4-H B-8' I 2. "4-H Rocketry Member's GUide," California 4-H Publication 4-H-3002 ,. "4-H Rocketry Leadar's Manual," California 4-H Publication 4-H 3001 . , , ; , - , .- . j 0- I I .. ¡ . j , 0 i 0 i ¡ /- 33 ! , 1 -~-_.__.__.,--- ".._----_._---_..__._--~~------_._-_.- r a.. ; ') . >- , 88: 0 ." .. ;:) - - r- ) o ,..,.. - I/) .. - - - . ~ ci:-O i ~. ::s- ~ '3 '^ ~D e ~~ 8-0+ ~ ........ ~ ~Ji r:>Jì .~ g~-:J < :~*::::;::::; ....~:J ." ~ ...,.,·x'·'·' 4: -:z i,n';;\. ~ 8 IoCOd& . 'C ~ I""""'I:I: M . S =") '0 ~ u. . it ~ ~ ':) M 'Z 'w , 0 ~ .n >- ~"..,.. 3 \~ UJ ~~ ~ ~ o ~iC S?iLQ C .0 ~ i¡) 'ö: ]~] .,,::s W \I) be .J ..a .J W ~ -. '" c ,;):t ?: ~ ~ 3t ".c:> -s.- ~~ . .È ~ w c.1: otù ~~S~ t- P"""'I :r; =~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~l~ &' 1J ... ~ 71-01 ¡\! '-8 ~ u. 0 ~ ~ cn-è'd "'. :3 ~" 38' Q) . '.' ~2UJ q~ .~§ ~s '~~ð c __ 4:1- ~ ~8 5 ." ~æl-" Q) . c. ::s \/I ... I!) t'- .: P"""'I6cOc8 éBtJ ) ~ t-c{ t:O ~ ~:> . ~ ~"Z ~ ~! ~w c1'\ , 'I ~ .- >. ~.:¡ " E.!l ~ ., 0 3 c o~ 'ðl .soU ..'. ." .J ~~ ~~~~ '" 0 -l G ~ ~8 c;,¡;; : 1 = ;:) ....~ ;'::çB l- t- _.; ,. '"'" 'N C"1 <:) ~~ ø . ~~.~ ~:t ~ ~ ¡ 1~ iC,~ A ~ ~,. ~ '« ~~ '- ~ ~,w ::;)-~ ~l ~ ~~'iÆ ,0 ~~~ ~~~'£ rycJ !,g >~ ~ Z 'N ?~ ~ ~ =-ŠEcI ~ ~ .~ - - '="- ct. . ~ ,~.~.~ 'I:n 0 >- UI, ~~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ""'), '- .. I -¡-3~ . ,__..._ ..._._ __---'.._.m___+~____ --_..~._,---..---_._~ ~W~~~~~~!!~~!~~~!:?f!~~:~~~~~~~~~f-:2i" (-::.'~'~~;'- ·l¡f;..,i;!'~~~~~-~.-· r»'~*7f,:..~;~~r:ë:.f·ftt.e1i¥'~·~~~:1~~t¥~~j/~:,~~ !;~~ .£:Ç~~~~;:;¿,- \'~¡'"J('., - .~.'~:~;1 _ .,........... ",:: _,;~~~.. .~ .... ,"':"_.....>-:. :.......,[.!..;, .::,O..~.::..-.?!-'k..,'"'!-;!.~~:.._...~::.""'T:-.'"';..;¿~.,¡~t<:'.-:·.·'EI)I'I.-·-:....~·-'''''.'M '...._:,.. .,_~..,_IW_·~. r'\~'¡- :.;:......·......-.M :-........-J.;-......._...:..~«... ..,-~~,....,C"";':O>....->......~~t{~_.:. -.~~,,~§þ.....;.¡,..,lr«r~...--:..;-_r--:~~..._ ,',..' .'.;.~:r...... - ~:,,:,,';'- .~. ~'t ·:.r.!·~..·.;.;.~r...-~· ··'·-'lB- .........t..-......¡e. '-:".:'J.'i; Lot .::-)'\ .L.... S. 't'..... .....;;;.A.._'*,l..~·4':..,.tC-}. .:..:,':;.. -" -....-, .:..~ .~: . ~~·;:.;·"f,,:·i'. ~" '.;:.~~::;.'.~=..:.' ~:., ,.' - 'ì\iT 'fld7TI'" ,.. 'f:E"""SO:;::f-i:/,:.-· ~S-'~ ....-.}~. ·h:¡:r'......~ -~~-<-~ 2"...·:.c;»il··-;· ';' ~~..L{-:.' -.. <,;., -.-::;';:':'-~ ...~ ?~~;'J~' t;:.¡;::.~' ,:. '··'~~¡~5~;.fc."".~;,"::.; '..: ',' " . .,. '-u..;"··:,"·:: .~: ._~: ,i,,: > ~ 'k'c ',' . ". ¡'ij~':';' 5,':1 ~t~~~.';...:. ...~;:.'..-v.:: 4 ..., .~~..;¡;!i;·.~·'};~¡;~i1.~1<¿.w~~J: . ~''ff..à~;~~;ft.¥('';Z;~~~~~V~~~~l~~'~·~~~:-~·:'~:''· "--::':":1 ,.' _. I.' ~. .......!-_ ~- '':'. :I.',j,"~'''<;J.. ~Io! . J'.~'1""''' ~.~. ',_ .n' oog;- .. ...~ ., j ..- ""J' ..' ~ ,:"¡~':.,:,_" '.1:',., ,'.;'1i.~I"t;:"'oL":.!..-.;.ÎòÌ:h ""'....-':.,. .'04." ~ ,;%,-.,:o..;.. ~,. ...... ......,;-!.' '~'::....' --:,,:-~_.,- 1'J'; ." ...... '_'.' ... ....., ¡........ -,....0;. "-.1. ."'; :. -,' "?_. ................ . '''''!:' ............ ",,,,' --·..~·...I '.' .,-."-' ~.,~,f:¡, ':',," \gJ~~ ~!þ'*._",."....."".,..~~,,:;¡;.~~. ..~~·1-'U~;:h~J>,,;.!~~7,~(,;,~";;¡,1'..·, ,.,'~", :t<;;<: . ',~~~, .~3'¡;:f~ c:.:~œ' S' : ..0' ·r" ":~-i' "'§X""'æ' ·ar' --"-e' ·n·:~ ·ts'·¡::: ¡,.::t;¡~ =š-:~: ;';":: ..' .;...., _'. " :-." ~ _ ..._--::, r. ...~~~.1 .·:cU· >t.......f....... 'iL{;¡. ....'./;.. .... .. -- ,~.". .-:. . . .-. . .'.". . .. "'- . - .'. '. ~,~., "I~l~-:-~. _..-¡"f~.. :~-!":'.-' .,~..\_.._".....ý,¡:: ~J ..., ¡ ..'::..I.a¡...-$:..".....,.'*~ :'·..f..;'.....· ",..-...-v............ ",.-' :,~.~~',' 7:.'''.'C .4,H Altmchool~·,"r~%r.i"'!!";; ,~·"....,~:......·J.t.,1~., ,ê'i~' '..,.;.~" n.....¿.~....,~f'~\../ø. ....~...:.;i,., '1" ',. ',..:"....""... .~~...& _.~~.w~'.....""~r i.~' .;;-Jr....'f.;¿.~~ "~.~?- ~¿.,;;.........~..~.. .r.....".:..::.;;:1-~.~"r....~. ,:.:r·.Jt.~"',·~"i--!~l.....:-;-~ -:..:r'... ,:,,:...; .,;. " .,.,¡.....~....,;;. . \ ..;;" . .f;.., ~~, ....~. t...T'O· .' M'~ .~~ ._ _ _ ,.-);. ....~"&- ......_..,"~:rf7,;,..4 !...··.,~ ". . :'~.' '::'~'#_..'.:' ~.j~~-r ~... J'; ,,,-... .r" .....:".......v-..~~t.c:....I.~.";=t't1;'!.{".t.t..~;.·...~:-~!S·y·-Æ·f .... \j,,~.~.....~2\~~~:.c~:J..~... ..~....,..... ~., ~'J"" ;;~~y~:~':;~~.. ':." .~.;. ~ ". ~.,~~...~~.. ~~~' w~:''''~'';.~ ." ...~~.. ".4:"'~'~'.J""·:~:·.'!.:_·'.i'-j;~."><'$'C~',:"·-;:~h~'':'~:':~~~,~:-=···)f~~'-"'·-.r.:'-~;\·\ ~:~'~~tJ7;,·~~~·~;'~,:~~:·~,1f;:"!i -·T;¡'¡'A~\~·¡'~f·S" THE· .,' - S· )S· !."1N':"~ .; ·'C·...,·)IßLD~~~ ,,' i.....M!;·REN··:·-~,.,·· .'4': ~':{~:'¿~"/J~".¿~.;;J~~'~"~~'::þ.";~~r::;·: ::" ~"~~ "I. ~rz:.:,~. '.-'~ ~:;':'fI';?'. 4~ ?~<\ ~..... '.:~': "'"R,Þ·, ""-1;p..~J:'" '7-":'" Ec:".:;Jt.-:;;~. ..' . _. ......)'fP.!'~~o{,.f ""~,!f. ~¿,..;:.\ .,\....."'... {~......~ . :J_';:'':-JI'.~~;;:~.~~,~.('~ \rJ·:.;....: ~'-' . .:J;fl.Œff.~r:;~~f"-~~1'~4't~;:!~>;,~~,>:~~,):·,::-:.,,·:/;~;:;.¡t.;:.:;'>i't~"~~·:f.i~t1~~~:·~::~?J.¡'#!ft:..."!rìit.1¡.ifl~;~·;~£;'·;~' ~ L'" """.~,~"..,... '. u' ,..,'. . ',' ............ Do-..- Clldallacll ....-- _..::';.'L_c Sp«-'-III( rf.,.. "I I' ,..-» "-...,-,,...~ ~r._'"'''' . .'" ":.1......~.4.....'" ·.f."":_..'·. .~~ ~~ .Q__.~ .'""-,' JV -..,~.......--, ';Þ<tll!.~·";.·..·_,,.· _ 'f... ...... "'_ ., ... ~.. ,:" ... ." ~~. ~ _ *". . . .. . .... . - .rr-. .'~"".., .... _.~.., . . '.,~ ~:::~·¡;;r ~;:;Eis~·1.: ",ìf~'~·~:·;'··f':~}Be\ .~;~ ·<~';;hö:~~~~'-~·~'~-':f::; :{- :t'·~itreü~,;:::j:.i~~};~1~~~~~~~~t~}¥:Ø~~~?~~;~~:i1~~~~ì-:~ ~~\~.~j~:- .' .....:.._;.., .. :1.... m '\WI" OKlo tt.u I WI I'~ Q . "~~;,,J>"' ~. ~ ~- ',..:- .....:'\ - .f.;..~~~..."\..-:- . ...~'r-....or ._or; .'1?:,..~.;.':::Þ',::"'~: ...- ...,......'... "..,.,.. "J. . ....- . ., ......... .... Dsto .. hfle!. '·'*"'-d '.u....:..:. '-.. ,'." , Jt:":'{\ ~;~~"·:Sheéan't.HemtoìetiliåO~n.Gñdllê~'~':;iX ,.LA ~urc .'. ,.&"..., ~.~!'Wf'!J:!-{~!i:·~"; . ~ .;-.1oi; ><: 4, .. .'O_IM.' ',.....~ "''-_....;...:.,.~_...: ~...- ·~.AJ.:;;'O~'.~ ,.,,,he 11 .fairly >ca1=.,....;~T Ùl her;öf --.... '.:;:--.'~;'~ ", ". .'".\. .øal .._..g.11IlS UQoIJTMAJ .n.¡,u.¡,n,c 4SIo~1'5#':tt-~~.....,.~- ..' .... .'.~ .... . . "~-.~;..';'::!' '.,f ,; "'*,>¿:,¡'::"'{ i!II" ieee'·' ~,,' '. iøid" .': ~.:-:;' .., 'he:.....'·~{'-COI1cerD8 ana uk hèI' to talk about w11lLt"Ii~':'-·',':':"" _Fr," '.<c'J-. "- ..... .. P Q .-... -'-. ..." "-,. ~'" >t " ,. ",. '\iV...... ,.., f¡....'.' ,',....--., ," '4 ...... .._ y ~. ,-...,..~.. IoU" . ~ ,..~ ... .c._,-, .-~'.'",,,,;?,,, ': ......., ;.AI4_ ..;.......·..:.,;f·· ·'..._··'z. . . ,'" ';=:_':>'\';"'-1":':'bõthëriDc .',. Ten ;her 'f . ·ak .to 1ee1--.,,,,,,,,,,, ' '~":.";ø·'. .",': ':;.r. uw.,." ~~.. ~HIU .nc·.... ~mp:y :ØlIQ"~~."':~'"'' '.JI' ..=:. -, ....~:.- r .~ " .:-... -r . ~ .; t':':1..;\...~ ~!.'.~~.~.y 'îrriiiibtè ·and cDnñòï iUiíí '¡;" ëOnœrÚ;,;,.;,·;~~f\'?;-.care... W~¡Y):Ir~ &114, ~ .hella ~:'~~;,~~.;'~. '. -"' '''', ... '-', . . ';"'o-em ".:.....-' the J8elbìI '''. ~""" -~ ..' ,,~, ;"'".-.,;J!..,..t-~ ~~ -. .. '" ø·. ...... '~.' '. " " J...~:.~,.-.¡ ~ GaV.IIItJ 18 .........iJ"#~1"-~¡. ..~. "~.....' -ø; .,~ '.:¡".\, S·"..; ........, """rf..' ,-"-,--~ ÌÍ/' "-··1....·'·-0,.,"· ",.. '., ' , ... ,., ' .",~.~ ~..,'J:...-"'''"T' ". .,,;:,.-;,,~;.:,!"" '1.. -", nIIl. ~ ~ ..,. UIK6 . .nqN..... "f· ...~~..t':.~~, . "'µ!," <J·':·"¡';'''.1o''Är':;':;:~~''~:t~.t..?~~f~''':·'-·f~;'~¡:v"v~,¿·; ',g;2?n<;>1IiIadrJdIu lateZ.., .MothcrU iDorri«f.,·:i:r.-,·,¡¡',::;....Ü ','w pay attentlon"io' .ire..· in··1he "¡f.,,;~,: , """')'1.'#; "C¿fv",,-,._. _. .... .....'.... '....-..} ,., ·y#·;f_·t...~1 " ~~~¡ .." ...t, ~ ...P""~.,p' . ",..":;.', ..\....~:.,." _.: ,~L·r..,..,:~~~·::...,·\'::G·;.¡· ".¡-;>:....:.~~......,...-:::- t--:·f. ·amUy D~duce' i.. U m',C"" ·u _tb1e' -& ·:...~~-'i~; 't-1O"'" ..¡,?., ....~,., \.... ......,.' .&\CI ,to ,uç¡¡ ç.-.~ ,.ft.;........ ":""..;.'~ .";'~~:- ''D'~ "'~,.'~~.,.'Í..:.:::.<:::....J..."¡;;a'l...~<.".:'Jr,~~¡;,::l.:",. -""d' ....;....,.; .. '. i.':, .. ," ..;. ._-.:.:.. '::b:<i".)..~"'. ", "',, ....wœn.~.UD~... "f'..'·'_;t.:,..,·...... .........JI18)'-.-..................,."'.-", " ';.:' ...,. _ . . _ . ":,.Z ~~..~#·4..:t.";.: ...:. .." - . Ã.> ..~~~.. ~ r~""":..~.... .' J'~ .. .~~~:: '- '......... ~.'..::' :;.:i< :;. : ~~: .;~, ì JL: .;"< ~...t..':.:~:A ~~\ ":.~: ~-' ;«~.'f ~ .. . ~~;.~~,"'-...?:!~ ·~t ~' Prea8urea and .._-'..::_....~'.:.; ...i~:.·~}tJ.;.~t .'.~ _...._..~J1...'. ~ -'Ï'""~-";"": .., .'. _.,. ',,,,~,. ,.-'" .. M' '" ._.--. ." . toaI.III&~.~ .....'. .~.... _4 ....." ·;:~rS L~~~.,*~;"{"·..~~;.~ ~~'C;;~ ~M-~ ~~"'.'...?Ç" ,::¡:r{::~(:7';:¡}~.:·.;.~q:ê~..·:?~.: ~ ~ ;. z:" ;.;--':';,:,;~ -",~ .~...~!..::.: jt"':~>";,(.~~~':-1--';'1,.~'}. ·!··:-~~:;:~t~"'~~·: :'~:~:':~,~\_~;,; ~ Hèlp yòi1r child under.tand whaU. ::,jè":-CC Jle1p' your chßd develop a 'heatthY .:~~ i~~::-: .~';,,,<.~'-<:~ "causlnll thl. .tres. and try to chanlle:t::.L)lfe .tvle.:~..A." ~ ~~';".~.~4 ~~l1t.\i?'":~~:; >" .'. ...- . .. ..h .. '. ".. . .,. . . > '.. '... p."._- ofeao1"-'" ·.·eep'"'' ._-~-" "-'--'" ..~. - -.. ' ~...~:::-ì;...:. . esecau88L,,,"'--·.-.:;,,::;~·-::,';../¡:,:,.·..,.::-..¡.~· ¿~...-4-~r¡.__....4_;:':..~,,"4''':- ~..~~, _ '':'IfI.,. Ii. ....t----.,-al¥A~;~··.,'~-:·~ <t!t"'~ ~:.:.4.:./,., { ". ." _:. .,' ..~'-': '$............ :;~:;~~,-·:~i4~.¡:-Î.c:;;:;,..:';-:~:-:::~-..~re1....lrii írill p~dé åêcUñ~:~ánd reaubï ~~~~.~~'. # .i~~...r~.:...--::.~,·r -tc HelD your cbDd team howto COD8i~;!:.'{~;"\'.tti'..'(L>·3~,...~"-.~itJ-..;;f':'~'--~1r.:4,,,~1:~'J;;¡'þi:>....,,..If'''- .,.':o'..~...!-:?¿';:-:t.t.,,..: .t~...."V:·.... '..,-:-..' ....·~,.·'\·,'t· ":/::t,,.~:'·;·.I~·~"',.."~~i:!fi!I.""'·""..1::"!1,"'·'':}¡:';·~·~'''''·''~·~'''''':··· ~¿. ":....~>~:' ~ ~ 'WIth .tres. 80 that It does not hurt...·~~·1··.~....., .!..;",::.:: ..~'.-J,..';..;-.~.'\1.~:.......-....} :-f"1t::I:~"-,,,..~·~;¡;t'..:$"1,ç:;··¡t..~"f'-!f9' -Af"-:: ,'. ~:-A::~';" ":,:~..!. ~ . ., ~ . .., .. . . ".1" ¿"'it'..~· "'f,¡': ··:A,..;JH" ·1···~.¡,)'O.';':·- :;'~hfl~' d· 'vi-·::'1~-hi'· + ~. ~I·· . "·1'1'. ~~'::"¡':~"-:'''¡' t'!~~~'."'~~---I ¡.!''.;''':JÞ~~'..", "':.'-~Ji~" ~...._···"~~:."·'F"~~t:-...!·-t::*.u:.,.~·--~:) "J:~"".......~..:¡,&' e Ð'Yourc ew 8. tuat on ~..~;~,f·\ ...O.Þ ~ .:....;~ '<........._ .,...~~..._ ""......... ~..#o "'~_Þ...~' ~(.. 'T'....'<\..." .;;.i,·......L ..'v'. ,.Jf..,C",' ."~ ..'r:.~~~&'i:r"..-,,· ./,jj... ~~1:..."·"·· . """t; ~':;'''''·''''!;''':':-:--?~':1.t::'¡~.;)~ ~;": -r-:·~'·.·more ÐOlltlvelY. U. child can he helped ~:~w~~t·~ ~ ,....,.... tv....... ,"'_ ~. '., ,i< '"}.......~:'.f-; ..)....,.:-...~..'._,.. . __. _, . ;. ..;.¡o' ......... 'P_.£..~..'..-"I.: ......r·~\ _ , ..'~.:.~-:\"'t...,.....~ ....~·:;t.......,,...""·'..·:»-'..A·... ......_.....L.I_..··..' '.:. :..1.1,' ........J.e.:.:.:."'--.õ(..-~..,-. ·:~,;,=:,,~".':.:.',t:~'~! ··';:~~..:r':;;M~ ';"7' ' ':';'.:. ·Y';'·;,1~~:'~~~t:·"::" ;>'¡~i', ~~ ,':!!M.' ~~ .,~. p~~ ':.~~'" .IUI"::~¡,;-,;.......\.._... ",:";a..~,,,~_...:-... i\....·.:".1·.:-a_~ '~.;~"~'.}"~!-';';:r-~'3"~.f'.;t.:.<--'" "_....'. .-'-'1 ..d- i~~ ".' -.,~::...-#'t.¡. .;;w...::.·...~.,. ...~. '-::.: - ::...~Õ!"'1)·'·d...~r':'~ ,.,:.-.:t.lS':...~~-r;::P&e,_~"'De,m ..O..ßftl¥'ll"ft1"ftOD;~~.....~~. ........l".-.~,.......f:. ':~"'.' .":, ·"t" ¡¡'~";"!.~.$:.:::'~~.:t..~.~.. -:"Í'~ .--:.~. ' . . -.....1 'ø·~· ...1..'.;.:L.:....._~ ..;..i ..1..':": -i.-:;;'-" 1'_ ;-;.,;. :fr~: "-", ;~r-:;7:;:o;.:;..f'¡:/: í.(:;~"':..,~::-:.-~'. ~I'';;'~ ...:"~~:~;t. ,,:. ~~:t~:';L7-, ...~ ~~.~.. ~PAIW~ \n_~WMr .~. \itii":- .~.~' .:- ,.'to }'i~,-,~~... .;;..-t¡... .. "':.,..;:~:...., ~......t40:.~ "'-':.'~"'2~......t\"'-·,J(;-":'~~-+¡"~~1I.....t..·_""·~1.~~"..:4.:''''''~'''J,..~-''' ,..;T:t '~.......: . \;-...:r;,.J.~'r.,."'.~;:' "t:tl~ ,,:;;: . M. ~~~..~1,..~~,·t ~~~~t ~~~~....--;.1:,'~~~.~~~~:r:;......~~"Í~~·;"';~;"'J·~...~,~..·~~.~l... ç 'r~!~.;'-:~~.: .~,~~' ..r±~~··~·,; ·,>-~:-;·;;:;,:,:C1..-:'..I'::;':· ~~~"~ ~ ..~"', , ;',..'4' _:~F:'...'_':~"'>:~~:w.: ."'A~~'"~-:';'''\,'~''' -::..' ~,w""'7'r-V"1i' :r'!1'f~:_Ì\:' ~~~."r ey~.':.~.~UDI..~DD". t-~U4,~...~,:t.·.:;:2·"· ""'f'".·.-.t"" 't.' ~,:,-¡'IQ\"'''!".'~~-'i''"'''~'''' ,'1__ ~ ....:1..:':.:.» .....:.._~'¥..."D.)'o-~..~....':,;...... .' ";4'.~.~.:"r~... .. .f.~.~,::t;.~ ,.....,...~ ->. enCl ove:I"¡OAUIt,m .~.J_,.z:J ur·';.~~"''''';-~,.,~: ..~~-...,.........'~. . ,.,...,,........,1,:;, -~>!...1'J..~........ ~'-I"'a '''bíièt1-1> ".-..t.....\ ,.~, , - ...:;.~~~·....A'_ - - '.... ... . .~ ... ..... 1· .-..:" '.. . ""1":" .. ~. '- j;':': :";"-:-'!t.-':(':: ....,""~.Q;~,.,~: }.¿-ï!<,:,·.~.:a·ft"l1>.aD UID on~'JOµC&DIIIIII"I'J'D1D:.i-:-.."'JÌ'5--: ':0 ,~~.~;,<o;-·it£...':'-.J, ,.':'::" -,.r":'~!;"'''''';·;¡;)'''~;''''':'Lnd ..,....;.':~.. ': .' ., ......._.:2. ,..s;_?,'(:~~"1 ~_\:;-;:..'(:"P~"-J"". -"~..,(,IJ" ~,~..~'; , ~~:.,.,~~....; .:'·'t'lt.:-..r;·~.c1U& Jêäirîi wavtl :.aÅ.""'."'.p lIDQ.reclUOl:,,).J¡ .~'..- ,.' ·....:"·'.."'~~.....t.... ........,. ,-", ~ '~'.;>!...$;:_.. ·:.<'t·:..:..-.··..·Á"i.-1.r.;:;_., ........ . ..: .,....,~..~:.'h~ - n~_" .,'-'t:-'·:'4"-:' .,'..,'>,.}._.,',....' .~,,>.,. ..-"'.' ·,r.. ~.><;_'......,,'.-...:...;_..;.._~...3_'~.. _.... _~.......;...."'..~'..,,.;:'){'";-~.: l. ~,.... ~.. ~ ._. . . ' t.. " ~ _.. ..,,)'.1. .~ ~ ... UIõJIIIII:I """,,,IJ ,U.I"1IO IrIIa&D. Att -..;11I"'-"'1':, \..;' !'t;:\:."::~~~.":; .~..~ ,:_" ~~.;..",.~...' ,: ''Ï:' .~~~"ttiâmi··b·= "i:i...'f_: WID :J.:.:.:.:~~..1.:,:..2..I..,~~~.;~~¡1t;,...t~ . $. (j,.~;~t~;,.~;."~'.' 'f..';:1~~" .~~~~ ~ .',_ . ";.':·~j?¡tÅ~ .~; .. ~ .__, ~~. .. ..:. ~.~..\ ~~F.~~f-"(;,";:.. -. ,~,...:!i-!' ......-.t.<,.. 0:" '.;\<..,,',¡},;,.... ~1.<,'$'~. ~ ~~~)¡ii':'H~'~'."~,,, ;;."rUb" ~¡;..1ml'" Ð1át '-.., .--. ....::..:.: !~!',,':"" \.tv.:'¡'.~ ",)!.,. ,~-,.."J'O·""c ,"_ ..rt--: A: .J(:.... .. ....... . ~~:. .WI.&I~.,_.-.u.am.,.,..' ".' ~.:~-l-J.?~Jtt1!f"; ~,- '-1;r..::~~4-"-"'. '-'''.'"''ii ~\1--'µ ....-.t',,~~. ..,. _....~. ¡a.r$:.·<:~"·èD":.L-': ...'-~.. &- ·(th'. D· ',101. -...;:.,........~_.:-. .:., '(,:"1,;..""....-..1,. ,-.. '....~_. Wha·,·· t d ''·i' ..,'£ ,~"., ..,; ','- cNrWUII--.O -- ...~....-,",.. .~., Gr;I-A-~~Ñ~ ~ f"" t can pare~.. .O~.;i~l)~,~þrd~~";:~·'*~ì·~;.: ~~~ ........ ~,"1:s~, -.~' "~". ;~~:.~J'~.~..c~"'t5.f:~¡~· ,...'1'":.... ~~ ~ ....-~.t /<~ _.~ 't,..~~- .. ...~"...,.,....... ~,'O(r.}:.~ Jh ..,....~'<'t},;y .. .y;.-...fIIIj.~....~~~~'t'-~... :..;('~~-~~6~~ ."..~J~'-4!:...,'.,,~ê.. '"~ ~-;~...~).J. ~ -:-!,~M.:'¡' ':.~-¡.;.: ~...;1.\"".-;.......j~....:" ~"J- _. .....1l..itt.:..¡.~!.~·--=-...!.(.1::o~t;r.... ......~~".~.:- _....:T~..<.:;'; ,,=;,..»p.s...:,¡,}.:A""'.;.-t...:"""¡:'~~...'" ~:.;,,-:-~' .:o'!··t'·;..·!·.:·~'..:.-'...,·~:~i ..J..i' ~::?--....,.. ''''~·.''~K ..~. ." ..,.~.:....._~Y":::~h:_.....". 1..~..~"C.;~ g..~¡..;:.¿.,¡I: ':1:"" ..-~.... ." ." ...~.. ~ . "'~""J,-,.,.., ~:r.t;;t '.s..~~~.';..;:~1'.~~~'"!-::¡:,..;~;~~~~.~..:..~~'~~": \~: ;s..tty:s.~~~.¡..~'.!.:..;.'~}}~: ~ J~ Editor duCln. 8tnH ~.:~~r;":' to: <:" ir·:.··.;¡' "114 Reèöíri\lZe'when â chfld I. streísea.~;::iir,': üi yowllr'ChndNn'. 1.1.... NatioDal "'......>1.... I... {~',-:!-~;".~ ..' .t"~"""·-' - ,,~,:...'~ ."-Ed ' ~y I'OLn:&-.. ~ ".~' _:.....t¡.'~· ~...: +¡'-:¡.I::.~¡.,. ·:..or.t~_·:l'~ ucatka.a ~~1 ,":l...·:i.If·(~·"'~t"!:......-.· .~~ ~.:..... ....:f' Be . alert to chanpe ~ J:»ebaViar ~A~ __.u(¡""''''!!-.c.. .,.... n"'''¿'''' ~..;. ":þ' -t .' ~'~'.t. ..... :..', i' !t"' ..:·~'';J.f.~~·.?h'..L~·~~''''''-' ,.~ ~"þ '!iùanels ....... ·ttlnr· ' ...;....... >'--" ~.~", "'''''.':' ',¡.,., --," ""~.' ~"'. . ,. ",' . '.- "....<, ,. ]' "}.~~ .... ."'.:"". .. INQ,we poor erw'œDw-aIilon.·.¡..,. .."'!r."'I"C","",=, ,;.r~"..,.~. t' "'-"~~~""'·.·8 ~ ..".'I.:..~... ~..'."t'..:.:'':-. ....;;....:!,~ ...~ .~........ -,-...,,:r.,:..t't :i':'':' , '. .' .!¡it................;!"....,. ~,{,...... f .......'":;'.ì <¡O"'~-.\.." . ,''''""". <:.,~ "'.~. ~!.~...""~",;.;,..; Þ;;.:t::¡)':'!{~". 111 £ ,;~ ~W'_L""NJ¡mJl"'.-d ~,.,.,..,. ~"c.~"'" .",.....,...,,¡..ftkjloØalìt.;,:-;¡ .,,~:~¡..- ~~.!:~--:';;."'~' :.M'''.Jt. .._",.,.,..._......"'~ NiIfI(øI.......___~................ __.nIRW~....................... ~7~·:~~""";.·-';. :. ¥~"::...~i~ r: v-M.,- .,.)--""-y' ~·........tIù llOll.tl;,,""""".""~AldaaIX""" ~,,"'''~~''''''5ï:':J;1:i:.Qf: ~~~;'~'t;5:~_:::''':· ........, t'-·~MJØ"""Dr. aJallDor. 0aWM4. ct "'lJ..IIIt114~4Df1.~·;;"J~.-;~ ~1~.;"··~,..~",~~~·~:.!:, ~.~~;JT"""~'~l.'-:i-""~;:¡Y:: . "'. . ~.. . ' .. .' ",' ....,. . ...,,;....... ..... _ A......:..J.. .....""...-..y.",,"" .....-...... ~...·...;·'.o£'·f·". "...~,....... ''''''S' ,:"",,:,·::...-,l;;.:"~r..::"~' :¡;.¡,~~d.......·, ) .. '1',",,-~-.~..Ií :-t. . "'''''')''{.'¿''':!'''''-''''Ñ .'t¡~'" '.;1' ;"-:-. :. 1~...;.:..;......-c."'t::'='!'''';;......·,~~..''':t:&;.",,,,·~1'''''''''¿'.''''~'_ .!-i. \"".··v.......· ~'. r:: ::~~:::r~~:~1~;rx~:-;~.';·)j~~:.;::~~~~·~~;:::·;~'.1\ ..;. ". .~ ~*l·:f-~*i~~~i-;~~~~.t4:·.·~iS:"-;(.·~:~H:C~~-·~:·!tÞ.:-"';".(::-:~·- '" ~ .A'_ _'. . ;,."_ ,'..... J;-::.....~ _ c..' ...,.....' - ::I:~T. ",,' -.."..-"..._~_._----..- , . A""h"" B-2~. - . 4 . -. . AFTERSCHOOL DAILY SCHEDULE School dismiss&:! to 3:30 p.m. - Greetings, hugs and shoring. Choice of' , . self-selected indoor and/or outdoor activities; ) free time, homework. interest cente~s. rest time 3:30 p.m. to 4 p.m. Snack and plsnning time 4 p.m. to 5 p.m. Theme week activities 5 p.m. to Ii p.m. Individualized club or free choice activities Complete homework Ii p.m. to 6:30 p.m. Clean up --- - 1:30 Center closes ) ~ ) 7"'G. . . . - _...,~.- __.,_._.__..____,__ ____.______.___~_. ___. _~ _n__ . Attachment 8-29 . . . Attachment J -. .. .- . OVERVIEW DAY CARE CENTER LICENSE REQUIREMENTS (School-age only) Please see State Department of Social Services (SDSS) manual for complete regulations. Topics addressed in SDSS manual 1- Qualifications a. Teachers. Directors. Aides (see training requirements) b. Duties c. Staffing ratio (for school age 1 teacher to 14 children) 2. Admission Policies a. center policies. goals. objectives. needs procedures. cliscipline b. state immunization requirements c. children's records I d. food and health services e. signing children in and out 1 f. activities g. etc: 3. Physical Environment Outside - 75 square feet per child In;Jide - 35 square feet per child Bathrooms Storage space Furniture. equipment & supplies Napping equipment Etc. 4. Note: If the program is run by the school district you need not be licensed. However it does provide a standard to follow. N.A.E.Y.C. Accreditation Program - an excel I ent resource that takes licensing regulations one step further. Write to: N.A.E.Y.C. . 1834 Connecticut Ave. N.W. I Washington D.C. 20009 7-'57 - _....----,,---- - ._--._._---_._~-_._.._---- - ----------- Attachment 8-30 Attachment "K" ) ADDmONAL RULES OR REGUlATIONS The 4-H AMJPM program will provide the following service with regards to the use of Lauderbach Center as the site of the Latch Key Program administered through the 4-H. · Provide age appropriate curriculum developed by UC Cooperative Extension, around weekly themes which include science and engineering, creative arts, agriculture, outdoor recreation and field trips. · Homework assistance. . · Nutritious snacks. · Trained staff who, at a minimum meet State licensing requirements for education and experience. · Staff training. · Supervision of child in 1:4 staff-child ratio. · Administrative functions. · Liability insurance through University of California for $1,000,000 per occurrence or ) $5 million general aggregate. · Application for license from State Child Care Licensing Department. · Budget Management. · Program policies and procedures including: Emergency plans Discipline plans Program flyers and literature printing Student enrollment Fee collection and accountability Grant compliance · Coordinates program with adjacent schools and Park and Recreation Department. ì - ì-j ~ . . . AGREEMENT NO. SA6035 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA and THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ~ wm1r .MiD RI!~.·J.·.Lt:ln Ur¡rnn,u1fHR!l' THIS AGREEMENT is entered into the first day of August, 1993, by and between The Regents of the University of California, hereinafter called "UC", and the City of Chula Vista, Parks aRà Reereat;ign DQPar~lIIe~ hereinafter called "Participant". WHEREAS, UC has ~ived a project award from the USDA, Extension Service for the purpose of conducting a Youth at Risk project entitled "4-H AM/PM Club - Chula Vista", said award designated as Project No. 92-EYAR-1-0072. Participant hereby acknowledges and agrees to conform with the Special provisions attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference. THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed that Participant will perform the work under the USDA, Extension Service Project Award as set forth below and outlined in the Scope of Work, Exhibit B, attached hereto and made a part of this agreement. Title: Support for Drop In and Teen Programs Leader: Robert Morris, Senior Recreation Supervisor, City of Chula Vista, Parks and Recreation Department Article I - Allowable Cost and PaYment A. Total costs to be incurred under this agreement shall not exceed $23,426 (Twenty-Three Thousand Four Hundred Twenty- six Dollars) without the prior written approval of UC. Limitation on costs must conform to the budget as outlined in Exhibits A and B. Inclirect costs are not allowable costs under this agreement. B. UC shall reimburse Participant for allowable direct costs incurred by Participant under this agreement in an amount not to exceed $23,426. Payment will be made by UC upon receipt ancl approval of invoices for actual costs incurred. Invoices shall be submitted not more frequently than monthly. Such invoices shall reference the agreement number SA6035 and shall be submitted to: Sue S. Manqlallan, 4-H Youth Development Advisor University of California San Diego County Cooperative Extension 5555 Overland Avenue, Building 4 San Diego, CA 92123 ,- .3' ,----- --,--~-_._--,_._~.._.- AGREEMENT NO. SA6035 page 2 The City of Chula Vista, Parks and Recreation Department Invoices shall contain supporting detail information as reasonably required by UC. UC may retain 10 percent of any payment request or 10 percent of the total award until required reports have been submitted in accordance with Article II.C. of this agreement and reviewed by Sue A. Manglallan, or upon satisfactory completion of the services and delivery of the required reports. Any unexpended funds remaining at the termination of this agreement shall be returned to UC. C. Participant acknowledges and agrees that, as part of UC's implementation of OMB Circular A-133, UC will monitor Participant's performance under this agreement and, in the event of incomplete performance, UC may require Participant to obtain, at Participant's own expense, an independent audit of costs claimed under this agreement. Article II - General Provisions A. It is hereby agreed by and between the parties hereto that this agreement will commence on September I, 1993 and will continue until August 31, 1994 or until such time as this agreement may be terminated by either party by giving written notice to the other party at least 30 days in advance of the proposed termination. B. Performance under this agreement shall be governed by the terms and conditions of the USDA, Extension Service Award attached hereto and made a part of this agreement. This agreement also includes the following: 1) 'Form AD-I048, Certification Regarding Debarment Lower Tier - Exhibit C: 2) Form AD-I049, certification Regarding Drug-Free Workplace Requirements incorporated by reference: 3) certification Regarding Lobbying and Disclosure - Exhibit D, incorporated by reference: 4) OMB Circular A-21 Federal Cost Principles for Educational Institutions incorporated by reference. C. Participant agrees to prepare and submit to Sue S. Manglallan quarterly progress reports and a year end financial report. The year end financial report is clue no later than September 15, 1994. D. Without the written consent of UC, this agreement is not assignable by Participant either in whole or in part. E. No alteration or variation of the terms of this agreement shall be valid unless made in writing and signed by the parties hereto, and no oral understanding or agreement not incorporated herein shall be binding on any of the parties hereto. ,- G/() "-'-""'-~"'---'-'----'--""'----'----~-~----'--'-"- AGREEMENT NO. SA6035 page 3 The City of Chula Vista, Parks and Recreation Department F. Participant, and the agents and employees of Participant, in the performance of this agreement, shall act in an independent capacity and not as officers or agents of UC. G. Financial records, supporting documents, and all other records pertinent to this agreement shall be retained for a period of four (4) years from the date of termination of this agreement. Records that are the subject matter of audits, appeals, litigation, or the settlement of claims arising out of the performance of this agreement shall be retained until such audits, appeals, litigations, or claims have been disposed of. Unless court actions or audit proceedings have been initiated, Participant may substitute copies made by microfilming, photocopying or similar methods for the original records. H. University, USDA, Extension Service, the Comptroller General of the United States, or any of their duly authorized representatives, shall have access to any books, documents, paper and records of Participant which are directly pertinent to this agreement for the purpose of making audits, examinations, excerpts and transcriptions. I. Participant shall defend, indemnify and hold UC, its officers, employees and agents harmless from and against any and all liability, loss, expense (including reasonable attorneys' fees), or claims for injury or damages arising out of the performance of this agreement but only in proportion to and to the extent such liability, loss, expense, attorneys' fees, or claims for injury or damages are caused by or result from the negligent or intentional acts or omissions of Participant, its officers, agents or employees. UC shall defencl, indemnify and hold Participant, its officers, employees and agents harmless from and against any and all liability, loss, expense (including reasonable attorneys' fees), or claims for injury or damages arising out of the performance of the agreement but only in proportion to and to the extent such liability, loss, expense, attorneys' fees, or claims for injury or damages are caused by or result from the negligent or intentional acts or omissions of UC, its officers, agents or employees. J. Participant in executing this agreement is certifying that it is not currently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participating in this agreement by and federal department or agency, as described in the attached "Certification ,..- 11 . .. ._-_._-~---. -- ,-"'- AGREEMENT NO. SA6035 page 4 The city of Chula Vista, Parks and Recreation Department Regarding Debarment, suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion-Lower Tier Covered Transactions", which is attached hereto as Exhibit C. K. Participant in executing this agreement is certifying that, as of December 23, 1989, it neither has used nor will use any appropriated federal funds to lobby for or otherwise influence the awarding or amending of this agreement, and that it will disclose the use of any non-federal funds used for these purposes, as described in the attached "certification and Disclosure Regarding Payments to Influence certain Federal Transactions", which is incorporated as Exhibit D. The sUÐstance of this clause shall be incorporated in all subcontracts under this agreement at any tier. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this agreement on the day and year first written. FOR: THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, FOR: THE REGENTS OF THE f!,lIr DRIBH'I' SF Yi<RKS " :ft:l!:eRMTIeH UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Signature and Date Carol Berman Contracts & Grants Coordinator Title & Address: Agriculture & Natural L hl\ 6î,;;s, (,-h¡ nl()I/'~'Í Resources University of California ~7t F3 rrh ,4YJ !hl/)f.)Jù~ 300 Lakeside Drive, 6th Floor ~;r,t ;;:1 í ; "7"Alvr~ Oakland, CA 94612-3560 M.6ð 7-'12.- "-~.._......._----"_..~-_.------ .A~reeT1ent No. SA6035 EXHIBIT A T L City of Chula Vista Department of Parks and Recreation Special Provisions The following Spacial Provisions supplement the General submitted including a reason why such equipment Provisions found in Chapter III of the Administrative cannot be purchased with regular, on·going program Handbook lor Cooperative Extension Work, OMS Cir· cular lunds. Equipment purchases In excesa 01 10 percent A·110, Title 7 of the Code 01 Federal Regulations (CFR) of the Federal budget must have prior approval of Sections 3015, 3017, and 3018 as amended. and are made E5-USDA. a part of this project. · Prior written agency approval is required to make . Funds will be authorized under the Payment changes to the project objectives, methods employed Management System process. Drawdowns must be to carry out the objectives. or budget changes in made on an as needed basis only. excess 01 10 percent 01 the Federal lunds budgeted. o No part of the approved Federal funds will be utilized · As a rule, projects are approved lor a 1·year period. lor tuition remission 01 the participating parties or lor It is p¡>ssible to secure a no·cost extension of time for the travel 01 Federal employees. up to one additional year. Form CFD-2104 should be used lor this purpose. This completed Form, o Overhead or indirect costs are not allowable costs signed by the Cooperative Extension Service against Smith-Lever lunds. Therefore, overhead or Director/Administrator, 18 to be used as your indirect costs will not be acceptable as the State lormal request lor a no-cost extension 01 tlm.. contribution or State match (when required). For further Intormatlon, _ the back 01 the Form. o As with any other joint endeavor, the cooperation · auarte~y or semi·annual progress reports. as set forth between ES·USDA, and the Cooperating Institu' tion, in the approval letter, are required to be submitted to will be acknowledged on any materials produced as a the ES-USDA liaison officer. result 01 work carried out under this project. The lollowing statement must be placed on any materials · As a requirement 017 CFR 3017, Subpart E. Section produced: 3017.510, the primary recipient agrees that it shall not knowingly enter into any lower-tiered covered "This material is based upon work supported by transaction with a person who is debarred, sus- the Extension Service, U.S. Department of pended, declared ineligible. or voluntarily excluded Agriculture, under special project number (enter Irom participation in a covered transaction, unless the applicable number here). . authorized by Extension Service. A signed Form AD-1 048 containing certification lor each lower· tiered o Copies 01 educational materials produced by these covered transaction should be maintained by the project lunds must be submitted as soon as they are primary recipient with the other records relating to this available. Please submit materials to the appro· priate project. Form AD-1048 is enclosed lor your use (n National Program Leader on the ES-USDA stall. Five applicable). (5) copies 01 each publication and two (2) copies of each audio· visual production are required. · As a requirement 01 7 CFR 3017, Subpart F, Section 3017.600, the recipient must certify that it will provide . In the event the project procedures involve the a drug·free workplace. Form AD-1 049 is enclosed lor collection of identical information from ten or more your use in assuring certification for a drug·free persons other than Federal employees, the wor1<place. By e!gnlng end aubmlttlng the ProJKt cooperator must submit to the ES'USDA liaison olfœr Application TItle Page, the prospective recipient Ie copies of all questionnaires andlor survey plansllorms providing requIred certification and Form AD-1049 to determine, in conjunction with the Planning. does not need to be submitted. Development and Evaluation Stall, il approval by the Office 01 Management and Budget is necessary prior · As a requirement of Section 319 of the Interior to their use. This is in accordance with Part 1320 01 Appropriations Act (PubliC Law 101-121, 31 USC Title V 01 the Code 01 Federal Regulations, Controlling 1352), the recipient (and any subsequent subtier Paperwork Burdens on the Public. recipient), is prohibited from making any payments from Federal funds lor lobbying Congress or any o The use of special project funds to purchase Federal agency in connection wnh the award 01 a equipment is discouraged. A full justification must be particular contract. grant, cooperative agreement or ,... <.{ ~ (continued on back side of page) ~__._ . __ _._____.____. ..._..___.__~____m.."_..___.,___··..·____.__···_ __'" ...... "" I.." I "I_r~' "1.."."""".- """""..."nil' "'1"1'.'- A~reement No. SA603S Exhibit B (pa~e I of 2) , The City of Chula Vista, Depa~tment of Parks and 1ecreation IOOIl'ßIT B 0ö\JLA VllTAAMIPM 8Gope orWork Cb1da \'lata Pm Ud....tIaa will bIre INS IUllllllllllllto GII!J oat after _11001 "'VV5-- for youth 8-1t at LaWlerbaGII; ad ¡,.-- v... "anatlon Qmtln III.d 10...\0 CIatel' at Otay Pule. \'be bRII oftlt., . . P'Owadll will be· drua _anlkm. .._ eduoab _ .... ,..41...4. lor at rIIk Ja1dh In OIInl. V1Ita, .... pI'OII'IIn wtIl be edua.~~ ud NOt:Uffmo~ In IW1n. Ina1u.ded III tbe IUbaontrIot budget WIll IJIo be h¡IpIy _., to CIIIIJ out a.......... ChuIa VIlla Padc ud hafMtlon wID promafiI tbr01IGl\ tbtIr utnrk Ibr each of.... pragrIIM. Pdt 11I4 "cnab !lid wm 1IIIIIIe 4-B .sUGatloa 01IIrfn11.Im In ItII training to ____t1helrncnatkmJll'OCll'&lß when. ~~ PIIk lIUI......tIaIft ItdwllllUllPlJ 811ft'n-t cilia II\d IrItbmIab em tb8 IlAt'In af1l1'1I Þ'OyadlllO tblt.. alii NpOJ't to UlnA. , .¡" . '.~. "v /(;,.,t.¿;·~',;;i_~~..2 f,-\;J 'C,\/·I......0 . iÇ;:~Z:.;i : ;.,':-',.;~-¿ . ;j~"¡~ ':':.;;~Ú , -'~7-~ ~,' ~ . ,T..__ .'.~., -;~""""':':"':.'~'''.:'''--'''-''-:'''''' ,,~ '7~ " _"_' ':"-"~r.-".:"~"""'!':~~'~-'.'~~'''''_:..:':~:'-''''-"''I';' 'I L 'OCT 121193 7-1q 9 /z #!ztOOSllS ..v::¡ '(JNV1)IVO ! ~9Z~.I1!u~:g!:?!_. . m "mn »W~~:Åg J.N:IS __n _ ___.__~m~___ ,.....____.._ _. .__ _ .~í ' :e :; '[" Exhibit B (page 2 of ~> . . ~{/?- .... ~-: ==~___"!IIIii ,;;:1t'~ J an' Of , CHUlA VISTA ::: PIIRKS ANO RECREATION O[~ARTMCNT November S, 1992 Sue S. Manalallan 4-H Youth Development Advisor, 5555 Overland Avenue, Building 4 San Diego, Ca 92123 J .. . J DeatSue: ; At our meeting on Tuesday, October 27, 1992, ~ _discussed the possibiUty or I co-spoasorship b<:twa:D &he: 4-H Youth Deve10pment Program and the Chula Vista Parks and Recreation DepanmenL TheluØested C:O-lJ!OftSOlShip includ~d programs already being oŒercd at the I.ol1)a Verde and Lauderbach Community Ccr*rs ~nd I pi!J IO$cd At·Risk Tc.:n ?lOgnm. Jp .addition. >'º" mentioned that there may be a possibility or obtaining [unels from your 1992 -93 Jirant tbrouab sub- coDtractina the work to the City in ordèr 10 assist with these programs. Tbe proeI'lftII to be JulM:onlrlCted to the Dcpartmellt that were disculsed II the meeting iødudcd the De¡imtmeat's Druø Pæ.entioft I'rop'am (WIJ: JCidz) It Loml Verde Ind Lauclerbach Cooummity Centen, the Science Club Program It Loma Verde Community CenlCl, the: AåMty Hours &. the Lorna Verde Ind- Lauderbach CommlUl1ty-Centers Ind a At-RGk Teen Program housed at tbe MAAC Buildillg .sjaœllt to Otay PlrklElèmeütary SdlooL 1bc ful!òwlng Is. I propœed budget rot Ibese propIIII: Activity Staft' ea.t Supplies P~ Budaet Drug ~lion ';'n9.52: !.:Ui.'- '''-j(Jo.lXV :,- ,-:¡.,"- :.s,õ:J9.5i' _ .._ ." 1W'g; KidZ) . -. ttai.. , .. ., . . "¡ - ',' ' :, I' 1·::"1,-.\n_~ -.<..; - I ,v ~¿^\~:v . ·¡'L-.... -u . ~.,.... .....·HO" .,.. ,-...) ..~~~~. :.....~~Pl~~. ~t'",~..i';':.~.. ~. _::"~_.~~--.~w,.-~~'-'"'7.:,,:.962.88"""!''':'''::'r.:--T'.:~--..,.~....~-~, '-.....~ .. AdivIty Hour 7,228.æ soo.oo .. 7,728.110· _ T_ Program 4,8904.$0 1,11OQ.00 6,6904.$0 TOTAL PROPOSED 23,425.10 The Cbula Vilta Paries and Recreation Department is ready to ÎIIIplcmenl the proposed co- Jponsonbip with the 4-H Youtb DevcloplllClIl Pro¡nm immc:diatcly. Should yoll lleee! further iDformation re¡udiD¡ Ibis lIO-çotIIOt1hip, pIcaac caD me. . SIoœ..Jy, . ...: /' "...".... · "/ ... ., . , I / ..",.. .. .-" .;',..' ~ . ...., ,. · ' . ..-- · Robert McrrII, SeII!or Reaadaa Super-.ÍIOI' ., _ <{ ~ 27e FOURTH AYE CHUV. VISTA. CAlIFORI>I'A 9191D;'e1,!, ";";~~I !lLG...#~<:tOOWS ,,:n'~~! WVQ¡::Q ! tG-Qt-¡: J .__._~_____ MG :)():AQ J.N3S Agr~emenL No. SA6035 EXHiBiT C 1he City of Chula viJJNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Department of Parks and Recreation CERTIFICATION REGARDING DEBARMENT, SUSPENSION, INELIGIBILITY AND VOLUNTARY EXCLUSION-LOWER TIER COVERED TRANSACTIONS This certification·.s fequired by the regulations imple· as Part IV of the January 30. 1989, Federal Register menting Executive Order 12549, Debarment and Sus· (pages 4722·4733). Copies of the regulation may be ob· pension, 7 CFR Part 3017, Section 3017.510, Partici· tained by contacting the Department 01 Agriculture agency pants' responsibilities. The regulations were published with which this transaction originated. (Before completing Certification, read /ns/ructlons on reverse) (1) The prospective lower tier participant certifies, by.submission of this proposal, that neither it nor ils principals is presently debarred. suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this transaction by any Federal department or agency. (2) Where the prospective lower tier participant is unable to certify to any of the statements in this certification, such prospective participant shall attach an explanation to this proposal. Organization Name PRlAward Number or Project Name Name and Title of Authorized Representative Signature Date (SIgned Form AD-1048 conlalnlng cerlmCIJllon ftN lowerl,.red covered 'ntn..cllon should no' be submllled 10 ES, but should be mslnlsln«l by the appl/can' wllh 'he o'her records ,..11I1109 '0 'he proposed projec'.) Fo,m AO·1048 (9 89) ~-c¡(, ....._..."-_.._._,..__.._._~.,.. \, " ., .. ,. .. INSTRUanoNS FOR CERTIFICATION 1. By signing and submftling thlBtonn. the grIrIIH 18 6. DefiJ1il!DnS of terms In tile NonplllCUl8fll8llt SU&pen- providing tha œrtiieatIon set out on p&g8.1 and 2. alon II1d Deblmlent cammon rule and Drug-F... Wcñ· place cammon tUIe apply II) this certlllcation. Grantees' 2. The certll\Cation setouton pages 1 and2iumaterlal attentiOn lseslllld,lnparliCUlar. totllelODowtngdallnl1ions representatiOn of fact upon which relianC8 is placed !rom U-1Ule8; when lheagøncy awards the gn¡nI.llit ill later determined that the grameeknowlngly rendered a false C8I1ilicatian, 'Controlled" substanc8 JII8IUIIa canwoIød $UbStaI1celn or 01herwÏS8 yI()Iates the requirementS 01 thl Drug-Free Sçhedules I through V of the ConttoIIIId SUbstances Aß. Wor1cpIace Act, the agency, In addition \0 i/I'I'I other (21 U.S,C. 812) and as further defined by regulation (21 remedias available to·tne Federal GovemmønL may take CFR 1308.11 through 1308.15); .. .: .:tion authorized under tile Drug-F_ WorIq)Iace At1.. "ConvicIiOn" means a Hndlng of Guilt (including a plaa 01 3. WorkpIace$ under grants. for grantees 01hIIr than nolo contenderel or imposilion of sentence, or bolli, by individuals, n_ not be identlftød on tile C8llfiCaIIOn. If i/I'I'I judicial body c;harged with the mponeiblllty to deler- known, they may be identified in the grant appIc8tiDn, If mine YioIaIions 01 the Federal Of State crirnNI drug tile gran\8tl does not Id8nIify tho workpIace8 at the tim8 sta1U!as; of application, or upon awanI, if there is no øppIïcallon, the grantee must kaep the identity of the workplace(s) on "Criminal dIU SIBIute' means a federal or non·FødeIaI file in its office and make the Informalion aVlÙlable for c:rinIlnal ctatutø InIIolving the manufaçture, distribution, Federal Inspectton. Faikn to Identity all known work- dispensing, use, or poIIIIBQSIon of any CXII1IrOIIed sub- places consihUUlS a violation of the grantee's drug.free stanCe: workpl_ requirementS. "EmpIO~e' means the ømpIoye8 of . granteB dInIc:tIy ._ Workp1ac8 idenliflclltiOns InJSt tndudII the açtuaI ad- engaged In the performance of work under . grant, drIIss of bUldlngs (or I*'S of buDellngs) or OIher sites IncIudng: (1)811 "direcIcharge"emptoyees; ~II.. 'IncA-8d where waitt under the vant takes place. CaIøgork:aI çbarge" ernplayøeS unl8es their lmpaCtorinvolllement is detcriptione may be used (a.g.. all vehiCleS of a mass Insignlbnt 10 the performance of tile grant; and, (II) tnInSI authority or State hl tMay dIpar1m8nt ..Ie In 18IJIPCIfIWY pII,...,..1 end c:onsultenla who ... directly operation, Slate eIIIpIOyeeIIln each Ioe8I uneniplo,ment engaged In the performanC8 ofwolk Uftderthe l'8lltand oIIk;e, ....,...mera in conceit halls or radio Ados). wI108l1l on1heGfMl88'S payIOII. Thlsclllflnllloncloes nOl n::Iud8 work8Is not on the payroll 01 the Grantee (e.g.. S. If the .oikplace idlll'llffled to the 8 8ncy changes volunl8elS, ewn If used to m... am8låling requirement; : ' ... durtng the performance. of the grant, the Graue shall. consuttants or In!Iaplllldant c:ontractorl not on the J . ~~.:.:,~:.:jnf )"'t tt\ltJ'II'"-r;;Y.~of-thèchange(s), If It prevtOualy~ ~'spaymu:oremplelyeasof~I!!(~sub- 1d8ntifteC the WOI1qIIaCØs in (f.ÍeSIÏoci(- iäïiIgì1iIib' contratIÞfItrrCCMrecI WOIkpI8CIIS). ~ tIwM). ... _~'IMI(IIEVIII!'I ì- ¥7 ".i'.' _JL/9 #!ZI9Q!;:QS ..":¥J...·ONV1>IVO ~.NVOC:9 ! ts-91-Z ! ~O :Jf1 :J.g .lN3S .__.._~ __._.. .H__.._____. ---_.~._~----- .\ UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE CER11FICATJON REGARDING DRUG-FREE WORKPLACE REQUIREMENT (GRANTS) . ALTERNATIVE 1-FOR GRANTEES OTHER THAN INDIVIDUALS Tills certllIc;aIIOn Is required by the regulations mple- .... emended Ind pubbhecl as Part II of !he May 25, menting Sec:IIOnIS151-5160 oItheDrug-FrwWorl'fll_ 1990 FedenJ n.ø.. (pages 21681-21681). CopIøa of Adof19B8 (Pub. L 100-690, TlløV,S&mtaIeD;41 U.s.C. the ~atI_m.ybeoblainødbycon'8Clihg1heDeparl· 701 81 eeq.), 7 CFR Part 3017, Subpart F. Section mentofAgric:ultureagancyoffering 1hegrani. 3017.600. Pwpoae. The January 31,1989. regulallon$ ~ øø/flpl.t/nø Cetf/flMtIon, rNtIlMttucttoft. CNt,.,. II - .', AItemIIIIve I A. TIle grantee œrdIIes thalli wit or WID ccnønua 10 provide . drug-free WOIIcpIICe by: ' ".' (8) Púllishlng e statement noIIIyIng employees that the untaWfuI manul8c:tu1e. dl8IrlbuIlon. dispensing. poues . slon, or use 01 a con1rolled SUbSIanCe is prohiI)l1eCI in 1118 grantee's workplace and specilying lheaclioí1s 1hat wit be taken againslamploy88s lor violation 01 such prohibition: . ¡ I.,i (b) Establishing 11II ongoing dnlg-free _n_ program 10 Worm employe.. 1IbouI- (1) The dangeI8 of dlUg abuse in hi _rkpI_; (2) The IiII1Iee'$ policy 01 mainlaì'ling a drug.free workpIB¡:e; (3) Any IIYI1IabII dtug counseling. ~tIon.1IICI emøfOy88111Î111nC1 programs; and ,(4) "lllllplllllllllHlllltmaybe IrnpotIIICI ~ ~ Iordnlg......vUIdIt"..9œumno 1n1he~; . "'¡:'~' (c) UaIcin ita fIIqIIlrement thai eacII employee 10 be enøaoecl in !he þ8IfoImance d the grIIIII be oNen a copy of the sIa18mØnt I9C UiNd ~ paragraph Ie): . ". . ,(d) NDlifying the employee In 1118 .tatement ~Irecl,by~~ (e), .hausa condition CJ! lII1II*!Y~r~U'Ider j I ,/ I~~~:;;'--:~~::_ ,.'~r_r.nt._~!",~W~-:" .... __ ._.:_~'~~ ~~ ;,:,-.:~.",~.~ .~,~v..: .... .... ~L.t'.~._._.._¡..".;...,! (1) AbIde by !he tennB of the statInI8nI; and - (2) NoIify the employer iI writing of hiS 01 her con\'lo1ion lor alllolldlon ofa criminal dru 8IaIuIe occurrinO In the WOIIcpIace no IØr than five c:Mndar days after euc:h COIIYÏCIiOI\; (e) Notifying 1118 8 8I1Cy in wrting. within te" calendar days aItIIr _lYing notiee uncIar lUbparagtlph (d)(2) from an employee OIotheIWi8ereœiYtng actual notiœ ofeuch conviction. EmpIo~ of_I.IcNd~... mueI provide naIIce, indudïng llllllkm title. to every grant olllcer on whoM lI'ant KINIIy'luoI_"ald employee , . ........u ". . :,....... . .' ..~...~L.. ;,,':. ~'*""'~~.",,,,,.' . :Ji¡,¡" \. . .,.:' Q~"'" '¡, .... .. ." ':' ;.' ~":I:,'~'''''''.\o .' '__'_IIEYMI) 7-rf ~'~~~~';:~.". . 9 ..1t~! ~OOWS_ ..v::¡ '(IN\I''))I\IO !YiVG¡: :!I! tG-9¡ -L;u uu u_ _uuu ~a Jf]:ÁQ J.N:IS .---.--....----------" ----- wu WOI1drv. unlÌt.1he FIIdcni II!ÌencY has desiGnated II central point forthe reoslpl 0I1IUCh notIcea. NoIìce ahaH Include the idenIifIcatIon runbllr(s) 01 each aIIected Qt8I1I; . (I) Taklng_ of 1he following action., wiIhIn 30 calendar days vI_~ notice under IUbpllragreph (d)(2), .wiIII reaped III any .mpIoyee who Is eo convlclld- ¡, ' (1) Tatmg 8 ) ) oprillle pet8OIIII8l don against IUCh an empIovee, up to II'Id Inckdng termination. conslllanl willi the ~ of 111. ReI1abiJitIIIio Aø, 01 1973, as IIJTNII1ded; or (2) Requiring such ~oyee 10 øartICiPBI8 satlsIKIDrII~ In a druG abuse 8S5istance or rehabIIIatian pmgram apptO\IØd for IUCh IlUrpoa.. !Iv a FedeI'aI, Slats. or Ioc:aI health, law entorœmenr. or adwr spprcpriate agen:y; (g) Makingagood faith effort tocontinueto maIn1aln aØ'ug-flHWOt1cpIace through ~lI!I1entation olparagraph$ (a), (b), Ie), Id), Ie) and (I). ~ ~ .. B. The g¡anI8e may Ins8It In 1118 8 IIœ provtcIed billow 1he _IS) for Ih8 partotmanceof work dona - in ...... -.INn with !he spøcIflo gran!: '--0 "0-" .' -~ . . -'.~ ~--'.. '--~.-_..-"- .. PIac8 of PellorlllllllC8 (S1teet adctress. àIy, CXIUI1Iy, State, zip codtl Check 0 if tIwe _ worIcpIICII on file __ not ldenlllied here. . '". Org...zaIIon Name Aw8nI Numbw or Pn> ect Name '~ /L ..J.~.~~_~....... ~'¡"'; \_~. ....--.J -'. -; . .' . ~ -. - " - j . ',- """1. ,.. . ,'.\..10..'" . I'... '. -.J . .....r..".... ....1·11.;.),._ --- -.~.--- .', ........-.-.-,......... .....- , ---,,. .- ,.... < .-~ ''"T'. ..-.--,-- ,..." ... ,."' ... and Tille 01 Au1horizIlll RitpI... ntaIhI8 1IignIIU.. Dale """" &D-11Mll1IIEV SIlO) 7-VY 9 IS #!Zt9SWS ..v.J 'CJN\I1) \/O ! NVÇZ:9 ! tQ-9t-Z ! MCI J!1:A9 J.N3S . _..,_.__~____.._...__.~. ..._n _ _ .__._~~__.____._.____ -~----- - ~greement No. SA6035 EXHIBIT D The City of ChuIa Vista Department of Parks and Recreation UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE EXTENSION SERVICE CERTIFICATION REGARDING LOBBYING The undersigned certifies, to the best of his or her loan, or cooperative agreement, the undersigned shall knowledge and belief, that: complete and submit Standard Form-LLL, 'Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying," in accordance with its instruc- (1) No Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will tions; be paid, by or on behalf of the undersigned, to any person lor influencing or attempting to influence an officer or (3) The undersigned shall require that the language of employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an this certification be included in the award documents lor officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a all subawards at all tiers (including subcontracts, Member 01 Congress in connection with the awarding 01 subgrants, and contracts under grants, loans, and coop- any Federal contract, the making 01 any Federal grant, erative agreements) and that all subrecipients shall cer· the making of any Federal loan, the entering into 01 any tify and disclose accordingly. cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal. amendment, or modification 01 any Federal This certification is a material representation of fact upon contract, grant, loan or cooperative agreement; which reliance was placed when this transaction was made or entered into. Submission of this certification is a (2) If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds prerequisite lor making or entering into this transaction have been paid or will be paid to any person lor influenc- imposed by section 1352, title 31, U.S. Code. Any person ing or attempMg to influence an officer or employee 01 who lails to lile the required certification shall be subject any agency, a Member 01 Congress, an officer or em- to a civil penalty 01 not less than $10,000 and not more ployee 01 Congress, or an employee 01 a Member 01 than $100,000 lor each such failure. Congress in connection with this Federal contract, grant. Organization Name Award N,umber or Project Name Name and Trtle of Authorized Representative Signature Date I-$'"O - -~- ~...--_..-.- -_.__._----_..~._--_.._---------_._,.._._------ - - ~greement No. SA6035 EXHIBIT D The City of Chula Vista Department of Parks and Recreation UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE EXTENSION SERVICE CERTIFICATION REGARDING LOBBYING The undersigned certilies. to the best 01 his or her loan. or cooperative agreement. the undersigned shall knowledge and beliel. that: complete and submit Standard Form-LLL. "Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying," in accordance w~h ~s ¡nstruc- (1) No Federal appropriated lunds have been paid or will tions; be paid, by or on behall 01 the undersigned. (0 any person for innuencing or attempting to innuence an officer or (3) The undersigned shall require that the language 01 employee 01 any agency. a Member 01 Congress. an this certilication be included in the award documents lor officer or employee 01 Congress. or an employee 01 a all subawards at all tiers (including subcontracts. Member 01 Congress in connection w~h the awarding 01 subgrants. and contracts under grants. loans. and coop- any Federal contract. the making 01 any Federal grant. erative agreements) and that all subrecipients shall cer- the making 01 any Federal loan. the entering into 01 any tily and disclose accordingly. cooperative agreement. and the extension, continuation. renewal, amendment. or modilication 01 any Federal This certilication is a material representation ollact upon con1ract, grant. loan or cooperative agreement; which reliance was placed when this transaction was made or entered into. Submission 01 this certilication is a (2) "any funds other than Federal appropriated lunds prerequisite for making or entering into this transaction have been paid or will be paid to any person lor innuenc- imposed by section 1352, title 31. U.S. Code. Any person jng or attempting to ¡nnuence an officer or employee of who lails to file the required certification shall be subject any agency. a Member 01 Congress. an officer or em· to a civil penalty 01 not less than $10,000 and not more ployee 01 Congress. or an employee 01 a Member of than $100.000 lor each such lailure. Congress in connection with this Federal contract. grant. Organization Name Award ~umber or Project Name Name and Trtle of AuthOrized Representative Signature Date 7- S"I ... ..- ...~~..~_._-_._-_._._--- COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item1 Meeting Date 3/8/94 ITEM TITLE: Resolution 17 i/' ? expressing intent to share equally the cost for the East Orange Avenue and 1-805 interchange signal improvements SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public workt' REVIEWED BY: City Manager ~/t~1. (4/5ths Vote: Yes_No X) I,' City staff recently received a letter from Caltrans requesting that the City Council adopt a resolution expressing intent to share equally the cost to construct traffic signals at 1-805 and East Orange A venue ramps. Caltrans has informed us that this resolution is required to finalize the Project Report that identifies work to be performed and a cost estimate. RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve the resolution expressing intent to share equally the cost for the East Orange Avenue and 1-805 interchange signal improvements. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable. DISCUSSION: In Fiscal Year 1990-91, Council appropriated $25,000 for City staff to initiate a project report with Caltrans to signalize the 1-805Æast Orange Avenue interchange ramps. Based on traffic volumes and accident history Caltrans determined that the proposed signal project met their safety criteria. Caltrans agreed to proceed with a project report with the understanding that the cost of the signal project will be shared equally. In accordance with Caltrans requirements and procedures, a Council resolution expressing the City's intent to fund its share of the project is required to finalize the Project Report. Caltrans realizes that the actual amount will not be available until the Council approves a project in next year's CIP and that in the budget process, this project could be dropped due to unavailability of funding. A Project Report will be the basis of a future cooperative agreement between the City and the State. Funding would be required when the cooperative agreement is brought forward. CalTrans is expected to complete the Project Report by April 1994, at which time the cooperative agreement process will be initiated. Once the cooperative agreement is adopted Caltrans will proceed with the preparation of construction drawings. This process is expected to take approximately 10 months. Construction of the traffic signal project therefore should begin in early 1995. An itemized listing of project costs as provided by Caltrans are shown on the following table: ¡t'1 ~_.._.__._.._.__...,---"--"-- -..-. Page 2, Item 8" Meeting Date 3/8/94 State City Share Share Total 50% 50% 100% Signals and Lighting $60,000 $60,000 $120,000 Other Improvements 52,500 52,500 105,000 Traffic Control 10,000 10,000 20,000 Minor Items 6,000 6,000 12,000 Roadway Additions (including 32,000 32,000 64,000 supplemental and contingencies) Construction Subtotal: $160,500 $160,500 $321,000 Preliminary Engineering 19,500 19,500 39,000 Construction Engineering 32,000 32,000 64,000 Subtotal: $51,500 $51,500 $103,000 Project Total: $212,000 $212,000 $424,000 City Staff Time: $25,000 Grand Total: 212,000 $237,000 424,000 State funds are expected to be available in Fiscal Year 1994-95 for the proposed project. At this time, Council appropriation is not required. Council has already appropriated $25,000 for staff to initiate a project report with Caltrans. Staff will be requesting Council to appropriate the additional funds as part of the Fiscal Year 1994-95 Capital Improvement Program. FISCAL IMP ACT: None at this time, future budgets will require the budgeting of sufficient funds to cover the City's share of the Caltrans proj ect cost of $212,000. File # BR-û50/ZAO WPC F:\home\engineer\agenda\orange.sig 030194 Cj"~ ----~---_._~._.. ..-........--.. -----~---- .-..- RESOLUTION NO. / 7'1 p 7 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA EXPRESSING INTENT TO SHARE EQUALLY THE COST FOR THE EAST ORANGE AVENUE AND 1-805 INTERCHANGE SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS WHEREAS, in Fiscal Year 1990-91, Council appropriated $25,000 for staff to initiate a project report with Caltrans to signalize the I-80S/East Orange Avenue interchange ramps; and, WHEREAS, based on traffic volumes and accident history Caltrans determined that the proposed signal project met their safety criteria and agreed to proceed with a project report with the understanding that the cost of the signal project will be shared equally; and, WHEREAS, city staff recently received a letter from Caltrans requesting that the City Council adopt a resolution expressing intent to sha~e equally the cost to construct traffic signals at I-80S and East Orange Avenue ramps; and, WHEREAS, Caltrans has informed us that this resolution is required to finalize the Project Report that identifies work to be performed and a cost estimate. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Chula vista does hereby express its intent to share equally the cost for the East Orange Avenue and I-80S interchange signal improvements. Presented by Approved as to form by iL'*. John P. Lippitt, Director of Bruce M. Boogaar , city Public Works Attorney c: \ rs\orange. sig g'.;:r -..--~~-----.-..---.~-..~-.-.-..-,.,--.---,-.-."...-----...--.-..- COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item -3- Meeting Date 3/8/94 ITEM TITLE: Report: East Otay Mesa Specific Plan SUBMITTED BY: Director of Planning/#,( REVIEWED BY: City Manager ~ ~ ~ l. (4/5ths Vote: Yes_No.lO y.' On January 19, 1994, the City Council received a written communication from staff regarding the review of the proposed East Otay Mesa Specific Plan and accompanying Draft EIR. In this communication staff indicated it had concerns over the adequacy and use of these documents, and attached copies of the two letters forwarded to the County of San Diego outlining our specific concerns (attached). Since that time, staff has not been contacted by the County or received responses to our comments. This report serves as a follow-up to this project's status in light of the County's decision to hold a public hearing with their Planning Commission on March 11, 1994 for final consideration of the project and EIR. RECOMMENDATION: That Council accept this report and authorize staff to transmit a letter to the County of San Diego requesting that all discretionary action on the project be deferred until staff has been provided the opportunity to review the revised documents as well as the responses to our comments prepared as a part of the Final EIR. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: None. DISCUSSION: The East Otay Mesa Specific Plan is a 3,300-acre mixed use industrial park located in the County of San Diego, immediately north of the US/Mexican border and east of and adjacent to the City of San Diego's industrial subdistrict. The discretionary actions for the project include General Plan and Subregional Plan Amendments, rezone, creation of a Sanitation District, adoption of Site Planning and Design Guidelines, Specific Plan adoption and Certification of the Final EIR. In December 1993, the Chula Vista Planning Department received from the County of San Diego a copy of the proposed East Otay Mesa Specific Plan (SPA) and accompanying Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for review and comment. Based on this review, staff submitted comments to the County on both documents on issues pertaining primarily to CEQA inconsistencies, transportation, public facilities phasing and financing, land use, biology and mitigation monitoring impacts. 9- / - -~_.-------"-'---"'---'--'---"----"'---"-'--'~------ Page 2, Item L Meeting Date 3/8/94 Subsequent to transmitting these letters, the City of Chula Vista on February 17, 1994, received from the County an East Otay Mesa Specific Plan hearing schedule. This schedule indicates that the Planning Commission will be considering the project on March 11, 1994. This notice also referenced that a revised Specific Plan had been prepared as a result of the comments received on the Draft EIR, and that this document would be available one week prior to the scheduled hearing. Given that the City of Chula Vista has not yet received the responses to our comments prepared as a part of the Final EIR, and the seriousness of the concerns raised in our letters, particularly the CEQA inconsistencies and the lack of adequate mitigation, staff remains concerned over the adequacy of the documents and feels that the public hearing process should be pushed back until such time as these documents have been made available for City review. Should staff receive any new infonnation prior to the meeting of March 11, we will infonn Council of any specific responses as well as any actions that we deem necessary in order to ensure that the concerns raised in our letter receive adequate response. FISCAL IMPACT: None. Attachments: Council Infonnation Memo dated January 19, 1994. RAL:LTF (f: \home\planning\eom-cc.al13) '1- .:l.. On__n_O _ _ ___,.~___..._._._.,_.____ ___ U_'__'__'__" .__.._.__.._. _.., . . . . -}" ;,', '. . . ,".il COUNCIL INFORMATION MEMO L ð~-( "- January 19, 1994 TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council VIA: John Goss, City Manager\ ,/ 1- #- FROM: Bob Leiter, Director of Pr~ng SUBJECT: Staff Review of the Draft ElR for the East Otay Mesa Specific Plan in the County of San Diego In December 1993, the Chula Vista Planning Department received from the County of San Diego a copy of the proposed East Otay Mesa Specific Plan (SPA) along with its draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and a Site Planning and Design Guidelines Manual for review. Receipt of this Plan represents the culmination of a three-year planning effort by the County towards developing a 3,300 acre mixed-use industrial park. Included in this total is 155 acres of Commercial and 750 acres of Hillside Residential land uses. The Plan is located immediately north of the U.S.lMexican border, and immediately east of the City of San Diego's industrial district (see attached locators). The discretionary actions for this project include General Plan and Subregional Plan Amendments, Rezone, creation of a Sanitation District, adoption of the Site Planning and Design Guidelines, Specific Plan adoption and Certification of the Final EIR. The site is currently approved for Industrial and Residential development, and is under the ownership of 34 separate property owners. Based on previous Council direction to carefully monitor new development proposals on the Otay Mesa, City staff conducted a thorough review of all documents submitted for this project. It should be noted that staff has coordinated its review effort with the County Planning and Traffic staff. As detailed in the attached letter to the County regarding EIR issues, staff has serious concerns over the adequacy and use of this document. The issues pertinent to the EIR include CEQA inconsistencies, transportation, land use and biological impacts. SPA issues include CEQA inconsistencies, transportation, public facilities phasing and fmancing, land use, and mitigation monitoring. '-.' 9-,] -_.~_. -_.^._,_."'_.,-_._---,_._-~,- --- . . ., \ City Council -2- January 19, 1994 , The atùlched letter was forwarded to the County Department of Planning and Land Use on Monday, January 17, 1994, and it is staffs intent to meet with County staff to discuss our concerns if necessary. In addition, a separate letter outlining concerns with the Specific Plan documents will be forwarded to the County in few days. We will keep the Council infonned of any specific responses received from the County of San Diego on this matter, as well as any future response that may be necessary in order to ensure that the concerns raised in the letter receive adequate response. cc: Bruce Boogaard, City Attorney Sid Morris, Assistant City Manager George Krempl, Deputy City Manager Duane Bazzel, Principal Planner Cliff Swanson, City Engineer Atùlchments LTF: (f:\bome\planning\c.-otay. mcm) I 1-'/ .._~_._-_.._.. --_.._..._.---_._._-._-~._._-----~- -_._---~._-----_._.,--- - I . . , ; I I I' I. ' ¡, '.\' '" IòI I I I " ,.. : ífl' I :'., , ,. ~ II: ~ I . . I , =:- I' '., . ~ I ... ' I ..., · I I .B I : .:~ ,2 it:' "" I _' I .._~ , "'." · c ' ' 'I;" . - I W I IF}, "" .. I tit Ii . I··) . ..... ._,.'.... at ' , ; (/) CD I ....,. 'oN· .:.: ....~. ~." Ii · . I... .,~,~-:-.<,.,.{~"" Ii; l:: " . B' ·i·' ""'....;." ':;' '. ~'. '". <I"~ 'I " . z . i· '. w;,·.~· >/.~!,;.~. ;'''; ,i . . 1_ I d·.:~'')'·'''· ..V."»~ ,x .'... ~. · i ~ J.;f·'.)"'~~Y.·""·~ ....'~ ·'.,"<)':1 '8 ... -:"'$ '';'', '::,:::: -,x .' ~''''v:.> .... " ¡ R I Ç¡, ''.~'N>j;;):';llc v.^-:~.\~:¿:".;. I gl c..J ,... .., . -i1 . ., .'= l\ I , ..' . r"i.r·'.! ::,::.:,<·"I·;·;b;;;::.;..... í ¡.\. ____.__.......¡;t oJ :;= :,;,,~.'~' .,- 11. . . : '- ......_"':"~~~ . ~-.;..:t - ... : jt: .~I;I »(... .;1 , J~ . ......;; .....þ o'i,·,':u···, ttB .. "m .... .' vm H 1 , ~u_'__.'_,_.m'_.m>. ~}~" '.- Ui! -' .~: .........-_.... ...... .._.. ' f '" ' I' --:;------- ' , , · -- ....;:............. I: '" _n____.' ......... ....... I' ]I . ~ ... .._n__._____n_ .......,.."."",.,'.' 1._ _ I _ .~___ > : i: . . 1+-1- T J~-:- -; ----. <C 1 ,_ . \ t ·1 ' . Z __ '" I . <" )' . . _ '_.'. __ _.___~:-___.---"-_-_ - __ - 1.....- I ..._ 5./ · . I ------~---- .__n________... ' ,,",' iIS I \ - - ,----t----- if -. I "'1' ,.'1 , ,. I I _.;~_~--:;:~~=-"'''''.----- _ . ..'~.' _., \ ¡--..···Jv.:1L' ! :;--. .~:-= _ _ _ _ ¡_.- ._ . .o::.:t-r!1i--¡' ..- , .\ J · .,/ l' _,_.. I . /: .. . . I . , :L Ii i. ~ ' , .,'1" \ ~. to " ".:'#J,~. . .~ :..! .. \ " //;1:::' .. l ~'....' ' ·rarI.J~''''' . ----------- . - . . ' . ..... T ________---.....--:-T--+---- . ..' . ,,'" '" " I' ---. ._~ . \ ~ ... .... . .,....,..., . ~, ......... ~ ' .~,.. ...... . ~: ,,_. .... ;;~{:<:.~ I It: .;.,r', t .... .!to... ., _..~ ·I.:.:'~;·' . ^ _ ___--.- ":.:ii'.<. ... ..It.... . . . ..;^r' .- . ~I· . .,':..~...>; .,~~ ¡~~N '_':.. _ .... ..--";'''':. f;,:f:/ .,. . I .... .~;: ~. ~~_.._.._.u.__ _~2..:~.-r.-_.i¡r.:':::- .;/:. . ' _;_'1:£- - I: . . . IIj~",~ -/A.. · __ Ii..! ,.·,,,k: ..~ . ____ ..__.___, 0" ,_.,.__'_', n.._______._ --'- -- --------. - . .. _.._ . ._ ._~_ ..__ .__ .._ ·0 ...~- , ' . : I ~~~~~~~B~ ~~~ ~ nPl~~l,q II PH . ,. III )1)1 1 ~ J q I i I· . ~ .. liB . EÐ ~ I ~ B Illìiï' 0,: " ¡ I' 1 )' I hi !,' ~ ~ ,I 'I, . A A ¡ I ' .~ I } I II ' ....- ~ ...- -- = ~ ..... -=~ d '.~, .~, II..=: t.) 'I . ~ . '=~ -- ~ _.... U'.)., ~ ...-- ~ I ! ..__ o. C'I 9",,/. IP ~è v I, 11 uti ; i ...... _.__..__._--_.__._---~- ~ - " . ~ -. - _.-~ "--., - .- n _ . - _. . - -- ----...- ----- . ~~~ :: ~~-~ . ,~~~ ( 01Y OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT JIIIU8I)' 14, 1994 Mr. Guy FiDk . Ean-hOJ"T~,"AI Management Specialistm County of San Diego . DepartmCDt of plAnni!\g and Land Use S201 Ruffin Road, Suite B San Diego, CA 92123-1666 Subject: Draft EIR for the East Otay Mesa Specific Plan - (GPA-94-02, Log No. 93-19-6) Dear Mr. FiDk: The City of Cbula Vista bas completed its review of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (FJR) for the East Otay Mesa Specific Plan (SPA). The following are our comments regarding the above referenced document: tf.DA Consi!rtenCv - EIR 1. Although the Draft EIR does not specif1ca11y state that this is a progT"mmAtjt document, JIIDDeI'OUS references are made throughout the text to future implementation measures and speculative mitigation actions to imply that this is a Program EIR. It bas been our experience that for this type of document to fuDction as a Program EIR. it must first evaluate the project as a worst case. then set sta""AtÜ$ for the mitigation of those impacts to a level below signiflCaDt and identify specific mitigation measures which can be implementP4 to avoid those impacts. but wbh:h can only be considered at a future date. The EIR clearly ið...mfies many "~Ðtia1" envhol",~,.IA1 n.,p.r.tII wbh:h are DOt mitigated at this level of analysis. 1berefore, the term "potential" n.,p.r.tII Ihould be eliminAted for reasons of clarity, aDd the EIR Ihould Itate that there will or will not be ~ n.,p.l'U. Significant ~ may occ:ur at this level of analysis In .. programmatic EIR but may be recÞ....... to insignificant In future emho""",nhll analysis "be it through some IUbseqUeDt EIRor subsequent initial stUdy aDd oegative declaration. However, at this point In analYsis, it must be Itated that there are aigniticaDt ~1CtS. Among these ;..,pacts is biolOl)', which includes several RDSitive habitats such as paPI"nds, vernal pools, aDd coastal sage 1CNb. Within these habitats, of course, are IIUJDefOUS species that are either listed as eDdangered. ~ or as a sensitive species ! UDder various systemS of classification. 9-7 '. ,,,. ... ~""._..._.....__...uu..'--_."" .............a..." .lite1l Cln1 -- ------- ------~---~ .. -' < .'" ~--"-------' . . Gary Fink -2- Jmuary 14, 1994 I 2. Also UDdcr consideration by the County in this pl.nning process is a geueral plan ....~ment (GP A), which in this case. the County is the project Ploponent. Based on our UDderstarvling of die Goleta ruling die County should be considering alternativc sites for their. proposed. general plan amendment. If this were 8 private application for 8 aeneral plan amendment on a specific parcel UDdcr tbc ownership and c(11&ol of a single party then there would be dispute about the lack of an off-site alternative inalysis. . Howcver, this is not the case.. The County bas other acreagc throughout many square miles which this project could be loc.t....; and, therefore, they should look at alternativc -sites for iDdustrial uses and screen. those sites in mricwing not only tbc Soals and objectives of tbcir intent but also tbc environmental sensitivity of the various alternative sites. Tnnmnrtation 1. On pagc 4.7-7 it states that the draft Circulation Plan bas been devcloped consistent with tbc Congcsûon Managemcnt Program (CMP) as required by State statutes and tbc Regional Growth Managcment Program. Howevcr, an integral compouent to tbc CMP, which was notincludcd in the discussion or idcDtificdas having been conducted or evaluated in the EIR. is the cnh...,..... CEQA review process which is ¡equired of all "largc" projects, i.e., projects generating more than 2.400 ADT or 200 or more peak hour trips. The CEQA revicw process requires a local jurisdiction. prior to taking action on a largc project, to conduct an ~h.""cd traff'1C analysis to ensure proper inalysis and mitigation for project impacts to thc regional circulation system. including state highways, the regional arterial system and transit routes. Given that tbc project generates over 100,000 ADT, the traffic study should be updated to include an C"'h.....cd CEQA review to evaluate tbc potential for regional traffic impacts. The study should show tbc impacts of the proposed project on tbc CMP system for . existing and buildout coDditions as it relates to existing and future growth in tbc South Bay region. In CODducting this study, it is rccom....-lcd that tbc "1993 Gvið..IiMS for CMP TraffIC JmpactReports" be fonowed to promote consistencY and UDifonnity in the preparation of CMP reports. 2. The draft Circulation PJern"nt of the Specific Plan does not provide an impl~riOD program (action plan) consistent with policies ccmt"bwl in tbc Circulation Element of tbc Otay Subregional Plan (see Circulation policies 8, b aDd c). Specifically, the Plan's . implementation "strategy" falls to provide for the estaÞ1IR"'-nt and coordiDation of circulation system financing for construetion. improvement. and mitigation. Instea"', the Plan lists 8 uumber of development and financing strategies and asR""Iptions to provide thi: DCCeI"'Y service capacity and circulation links to allow develupmcøt of East Otay Mesa. r 9-~ ,_____..__. .'._..m._.__U __~M_,_"_,._.___._._n____~ ,_.__ ".__"'___.'_"0 _____'__',.._..'. .____.__~.,_"..,,'" - - - . - - ----------------.--.-. ._- . I Gary Fink -3- January 14, 1994 At minimlJID, we believe the SpecifIC Plan should implement all of the policies contAined in the cin:u1ation element of the Otay Subregional Plan, aDd the EIR should evaluate the Public Facilities FiDaDcing Plan's (PFFP) ability to ICC()IIID1Odate all of the regional tranSportation fiDancing œeds generated by the project. In addition, ID evaluation of the PFFP's ability to mitigate off-site impacts of East Otay Mesa development on'the existing aDd plAnned regional and subregional circulation system should be conducted. 3. Related to the above comm<""t ICgarding the application of mitiPdon measures, it is also recommended that mitigation measure No.2 on page 4.7-28 which ICfereuces the requirement for project-specific traffic evaluations, be changed from "should" to "sbal1 be required" for all major· developments proposed within the East Otay Mesa Specific Plan Area. and that the traffIC evaluatioDS bè conducted in a mAn.- CODSllIt"'nt with the October 1993 CMP Guidelines. 4. The tranSportation analysis and circulation system evaluated in the traffic study improperly assumes completion of required OD- and off-site iDfrastn¡cture improvements uecessary to serve the project, as well as western Otay Mesa and the Otay Ranch project. Examples of some of the development assumptions used in developing the East Otay Mesa Specific Plan include the exteDSion and widening of SR-90S, construetion and . . operation of SR-125 , the availability of future sewer capacity and/or having the fiDancial ability to constrUCt a reclamation plant and accommodate Phase 2 development. It is important to note that none of the improvements mentioned have identified any fI..vtl11g 1OUl'CC, nor do they have commitments from private, local, state or federal interestS. Another assumption implies the estBb l.bm~ of a Joint Power Agreement between the Cities of San Diego and Chula Vista and the County of San Diego to provide sbared services and/or fiDancing of key facilities. While this may be one of several ways in which a public agency is able to provide sbared regional facilities, it is improper to base a traffic study on a phased or built out circulation system without first describing the issues of fiDancing, timing, existing c:ommitments. or even the process of how these decisioDS will be ttacJ>M when entering into these agreements. The City of Cbula Vista is of the opinion that without ID approved Transportation pb..ing Plan (TPP) that is linked tolD adopted Public Facilities FI""nr.I11g Plan, 110 usurm::cs can be made that a working, ICgional-serving circulation system will be in place, ~SIJrIte with need. S. The CircUlation Element of the East Otay Mesa Specific Plan depicts a SR 125 roUte aJ\g!m'eJ)t (S2) that is different from that shown in the Otay Ranch General Develupment Plan (SI). a project recently approved by the County of San Diego aDd City of Vista. 6. Page U4. The ADT on the ICIJDCDt of Otay Valley Road east of 1-805 shou1cI be u¡)cIAtM to ICßect the 1993 COUD1 of 19,000 ADT. ( 7. Page U-6. The City of Cbula Vista uses the LOS "C" ADT only IS a reoc.."..-vt.,.t' design capacity. If the foreca!lt.ed ADT is higber than the ICCO"'..-to:d LOS "C" ADT &)'<7 "._._..___~_~ ____...__ ________n________ - .- _. - -.----.' --- -'--~ ...- .'----.- .. --- ... . . . I Gary Fink 4- January 14, 1994 the word ·over· is used aud further analysis of the affected segment and/or intersection is required to determine the impact of the projected traffic. For existing conditions, Chapter 11 of the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual is used. 8. The report should note that the segment of Otay Valley Road between I-SOS aud Nirvana Sttcet is underconstruetion u a 6-1ane Major with a recommeDded LOS ·C· ADT of 40,000. The segment of Otay Valley Road east of Nirvana Street to the city limit is under design u a 4-1ane Major with an LOS ·C· ADT of 30,000. 9. Page m-3, Figure 4. La Media Road north of LoDestar Road is shown to be carryiDg 57,000 ADT. 'Ibis volume is over the LOS ·C· ADT for a Prime .Arterial. Improvements should be recommended to mitigate the road deficiency. 10. Page m-18, Figure 6. The folloWÍDg corrections should be made: a. The extension of Heritage road north of Otay Valley Road is a 6-1ane Prime Arterial rather than a 4-1ane Major Road. b. The extension of Otay·Valley Road east of SR 125 is a 6-1ane Prime Arterial rather than a 4-1ane Major Road. c. The strcetjust east on-sos aud north of Otay Valley Road (Brandywine Avenue) is a Collector Street. d. The South Bay model for the Otay RaDch Progress Plan highway netWork shows only 4 crossings of the Otay River (includiDg SR 125) east on-sos. A discussion of the basis for addiDg this fifth crossing shown in this figure (Ca1i....œ Road) needs to be included in the report. 11. Page m-19. The Draft EIR makes uumerous memJCeS u to the poSS1'bility of not providing Alta Road u. a future river crossing. Some discusqon of wbetber a traffic analysis and/or forecast bas been prepared under this 1CCIIIri0, i.e., no Alta Rd. crossing should be provided, along with an UR''''''- of traffic impacts on the W"_inil1¡ crossings aud circul~OD systems of East Otay Mesa aud Cbula Vista. 12. Page IV-6, In the first paragraph it is iniIiCl'tM that the best opportuDity for improviDg the accessibility of Otay Mesa wou1d appear to be an exteDSion of SR 90S freeway to Heritage Road aloD¡ the expected ultimate sJr- of the route. Fi¡ure D in AppeniIh' A . ¡raphica1ly depicts this statement shoWÍDg traffic on Otay Mesa Road alIeadY exw-"il1¡ the rerQ'"''"-'~ LOS ·C· capacity of the street. Unless a grade separation I is provided at the intersection of SR 90S aud Otay Mesa Road, we believe that most of the traffic added to the circulation system by upgradiDg SR 90S east of Heritage Road will follow Heritage Road nortbcrly to Otay Valley Road aud Otay Valley Road to I-80S. ~-)tJ ....___m._·__.·..·. ___~_,_ _,____~.____..___,.+__ _____._.__~_______.___.~.."_. ._- . -- ---- - ----~-_. ~------ "-~,.:.....-.- ~.._- --------_:"----_.~. ~-- . . . ¡ Gary Fink -5- January 14, 1994 A discussion of this possibility IIId the likely impact on the Chula Vista circulation system should be added to the report. , ,"m Use 1. The Draft EIR should provide a brief discussion of all discretionary lCtions required to implement the project. including those not cumnt1y proposed but plannf'1l in the immeðiate future. It is also recommended that both dOCl 1ftf!nß (SPA 8Dd EIR) provide an exhibit to leflect the AJDentIm~ to the OIay Subregional Plan showing the change in location to the General Industrial (16) boundAry, as ploposed by the East OIay Mesa Specific Plan. The above discussion should also indicate the acreage change for all affected land use districts. 8Dd discuss the rationale for each change. 2. The City of Chula Vista has long been concerned over the amount 8Dd intensity of land devoted to industrial use on the OIay Mesa, both in the City of San Diego 8Dd in the unincorporated area of the County. The LaDd Use Element of the Specific Plan dësignates approximately 75 percent of its total land area (2,36O acres) to industrial land uses, which, when added to the City's industrial base, yield a total of over 6,700 acres . of plan....n industtial for the OIay Mesa. Other land uses planned within the SPA boundaries include commercial (155 ac.) and residcntia1lands (750 ac.); however, it is the intent of the Specific Plan to acquire or exact those areas zoned for residential uses to provide for permanent open space, and to mitigate impacts to biologically sensitive resource areas plannf'1l for industrial and commercial development. In light of the above information, the City of Chula Vista is of the opinion that the land use section of the Draft EIR does not provide an adequate analysis of the jobs/houSing imbalance cæJv-d by the project's elimination of residentially-zoned land; nor does it recognize that a cumulative land use imbalance already exists on the OIay Mesa. Policies that encourage increases in ú1tensive, eaiployment-generating land uses, without off- setting increases. in Iesidentia1 usage, will further exacerbate the jobs/hoUsing imbalance and impact OIay Mesa 8Dd the surrounding ",,,,,,,"nltics in termS of traffic, air quality and economics. As such, it is reco!"""enð'" that this section be expa....... to include a cumulative land use impact analysis of all existing and future growth in the South Bay region. . 3. Implementation of the East OIay Mesa Specific Plan wU1 result in lIÍg7I;fi~nt unmitigated land use compatibility impacts between residenrial8Dd a IDDDber of different uses, policy iDconsistencies with the Otay Subregional ¡uidell-. leguding sensitive resources. 8Dd with the goals 8Dd prelimlnaT')' plans for the OIay Valley Regional Park (please refer to the complete listing of impacts on pp. ES-4 8Dd the mitigation measures on pp. 4.1-33 through 4.1-35). 9-1/ _._---".._--"." .-.--.---"------ -,-_.._-----_."_._~------- - ._. .... - . .---- . --.- - - .' . - .. -.-..------.------------------- -----. . . I Gary Fink -6- January 14, 1994 The Specific Plan attempts to address aDd mitigate these impacts through the application of ovcrlay zones, zoning regulations and compliance programs, but berlU'" of inaðequatc or conflicting mitigation measures. the Specific Plan fails to achicvc consistency with the goals set forth in the Otay Subregional Plan aDd the County's Regional Land Use aDd Conservation Elements. The!'.JR should address these inconsistcncics mr devclop specific mitigation measures that mitigate them to a Icvcllcss than "tgJtlfi".m, It is our opinion that the fonowing should be accomplished: a) Providc a I"mmar)' matrix table depicting the results of lllaff's consistency analysis with the goals. policies aDd objectivcs of each pt._ll1g document cvaluated, i.c., the Specific Plan, Subregional Plan. Resource Conservation Plan. ctc. b) Describe the pcrformauce standards, devclopment criteria. etc. that might be used to strengthen thc Sensitive Resource Area Regulations mJJor ~h.~ the mitigation measures to: 1) guarantee the cffectivcness of the design review process. 2) be applicablc at thc time of SpecifIC Plan adoption instead of Final Map approval, aDd 3) providc for a comprehensive open space system ut\1171111 consistent Plan to Plan land use designations aDd regulations. The above discussion should also address the impacts ep"-' by these regulatory aDd mitigation measures. For examplc, do the mitigation measures aimed at protecting the viability of pl..-.d residential iDdirect1y prec1udc their devclopment due to additional and more stringent application and pcrmjtring requirements (please refer to mitigation measures 2-7 on pp.4.1-34)? 4. The Draft E1R falls to address several p&n".lly significant land use compatibility ;."p'lCtS of projects that ire under consideration, choosing to defer tbeIr evaluation until such time as they arc proposed. Tbcsc projects include the County landfill, the City monor¡l1 project, and the "alternativc tccbnnlogics" composting project. Becll''''' of the local ïmportancc and regional signifiC8DCC ofthescprojects. the E1R should Jð-tIfy thoie probable cnvironm..mAI effects that can be ideDtificd.' In doing 10, the County could ensure consideration of c:umu1ativc ""'P'ICtS that might be cited on a c:ue-by-casc basis, and allow i1se1f the c.þ}/Ortunity to œnsider broad policy altcnIativcs and p1'u51am-widc mitigation measures at an carly tIlDe when it has the flexibility to deal with problems of çmnul_tivc ;."p.MS. ( 5. Mitigation proposed to offset impacts identified regarding Spccif'IC Plan cons1dCDCÏC5 with the Otay Valley Regional Park do DOt appear to be sufficient. The Otay Valley Regional Park Policy Committee should be included in the consultation process wbcD cIetermining '1-/:2.. . --- .-..----------....---- - -- ~._- - -- ..- - . .. -. __ _.._ .. _.___ ____.__ .;......__~__.__. . __0_, _u . . . ¡ Gary Fink -7- January 14, 1994 the appropriate land use for Johnson and O'Neil Canyons (See EIR page 4.1-35). In addition, while the SpeciflC Plan accommodates a trail system which links to the proposed Regioual Park there· may be iDconsÎ5teœies in providing the trail through property uû1ized by the Donovan Prison facility rather than incorporating the trail system into the Specific Plan through a JIlt'Jlningful trail design which links activity areas of the Plan (See EIR page 4.1-31). RinlollV . The DEIR states that development of the project would result in direct and cmnt,J] l.tive impacts to sensitive vegetation. and wildlife, particularly coastal sage scrub and the federally listed California gnatcatcber which occupies this and other habitat. It also recognizes that prior to gaiDing approval of the project, the applicant will need to obtain the necessary take permits to mitigate Impacts consistent with NCCP Process Guidelines. Given the importaDCC of excbanging information about the demand, supply and biological value of mitigation lands within this subregion, and the need for estab]j~hing acceptable procedures consistent with the J:ntfangered Species As;t 4(d) special rule to coordinate subregioual management and monitoring to prevent (interim) habitat losses from exceetling the 5% guideline, the City of Cbula Vista recommends that the Final EIR provide a complete discussion and consistency analysis as to how the project's impact and mitigation areas relate to the recently adopted NCCP guidelines as they are c:urrcntly established. liœ 1. Another area of significant impact is acoustics. Tbcrc are major arterials within the project area in addition to an airport on the north side of the border and an intematioual airport on the south side of the border. All of these Impacts should be cumulatively analyzed to determine their 1JUe impacts on not only residents of the westerly areas of the Otay Mesa closer to I-80S and residents on existing and future streets in the southeasterly porûon of Cbula Vista but also the cumulative analysis of these acoustical Impacts on sensitive biological resources within and adjacent to the proposed project. fJ¡þlic Servil'L~ &: Utilities - W.!lteWater . 1. The wasteWater peaking factor of 1.5 jrIlIit-.aœd on page 4.11-25 is b...orrcct'based on the average daily Bow of 4.44 mgd and peak Bow of 8 mgd (1.8) to 11 mgd (2.48). 2. The teport should incorporate an exb1'bit showing all of the tnmk sewer ~ to wbich lCference is made. The prison line, OIC line, and Otay Valley Tnmk are è:a11ed different names by different people and use of the terms is confusing unless a "glossary" is provided. 9"'/3 ..... --..--------------...--. ------- ---- - - - _.._- - - - .-. -- ".-. -- ---- ~ -- .---. -.-- .--. ...~ , , f Gary FiDk -8- January 14, 1994 3. ÐR page 4.11-28: The tep<>rt estimates that capacity flow will be reacbPñ in the Otay Valley Tnmk Sewer by 1999. How much Chula Vista flow has been iDcluded in this 1SSC!'""ent'1 4. ÐR page 4.11-28: The tep<>rt stateS that the City of Chu1a Vista may use capacity in the Otay Valley trunk sewer "in the interim". Does this assume that Chula Vista's use of this line will be temporary? It c:urrendy appears that San Diego (assuming that San Diego's OIC line or a downstream extenSion of it is involved) would be more willing to ICll permR_nt capacity rather than rent temporary capacity in this sewer line. 5. The EIR states that the Otay Valley Water Reclamation Plant will be operational by 1998. This schedule has been abandoned by the Clean Water Program, although the San Diego Area Wastewater ManagetnCnt District (SDAWMD) is recol)Sidering constrUCtion of this facility. ConstrUCtion of this facility in conjunction with other local agencies (such as the City of Chula Vista) should be considered as an option. 6. Both the EIR and the Specific Plan should iDclude coordination with the City of Chula Vista as a requirement in recommending alternatives for wastewater tpn.....lu\on and treatment and a regional reclaimed water system. 1bank you for the opportunity to present our comments on the Draft EIR. We would be happy to meet with you and discuss these COlICCrns in greater detail prior to the flnø.1ization of the EIR. In addition. the City of Chula Vista requests that it be coDSUlted!contacted at an early stage in tbe final review period for this project, and request advance notice of future bearings of the . plRnni11g eommlulon and City Council. If you have any questiOI)S or require clarification regarding our C(.'ft'm~£, please do DOt besitate to comact Doug Reid, the City's EnvironJDental Review Coordinator, at 691-5101. Sincerely. P/liÚ. Robert A. Leiter . . Director of plRnnl", R.AL:LF c:c: John Goss, City Manager George Krempl. Deputy City Manager Cliff Swauson, City EDgincer Duane Bazzel, Principal Planner ."r .... . ,.... -110 ~-li -- ---_.._.__.,-~--+--,-_...- ._,,-,,-- -- ------~~-~._------- ~~~ :: 1't:~ ~ ~~~~ ......~- - CI1Y OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT January 18, 1994 Mr. Mark Carroll Associate Planner County of San Diego Department of plAnning and Land Use 5201 Ruff'm Road, Suite B San Diego, Ca. 92123-1666 Subject: Comments on the East Otay Mesa Specific Plan - (GPA-94-02, Log No. 93-19-6) Dear Mr. Carroll: The City of Chula Vista bas completed its review of the East Otay Mesa Specific Plan (SPA) and draft Environmental Impact Report prepared for this project. This letter will focus on the issues identified in our review of the Specific Plan, while our Jetter to Mr. Gary Fink, dated January 14, 1994, will address these and other impacts identified in the draft EIR. In our judgment, the Specific Plan raises a number of concerns within its implementing components, and causes significant concerns as to the Plan's ability to implement the goals, policies and procedures contained within the Otay Subregional Plan. These concerns are detailed below: Imnlementation of Mitillation Measures The City of Chu1a Vista requests that the Specific Plan establish and provide the requisite mitigation of impacts and the establishment of mitigation monitoring programs to ensure compliance of the Specific Plan with adopted policies. Said policies may pertain to the project itself, or to regional programs which may affect the project, such as the NCCP program and CMP Program. Pursuant to State requirements, per CEQA, a pIAnn;", agency must adopt a mitigation monitoring program whenever it either 1) adopts a mitigated Negative Declaration, or 2) adopts an EIR with CEQA findings denoted by Public Resources Code Section 21881. Tnonmnrtation 1. The draft Circulation Element of the Specific Plan does not provide an implementation program (action plan) consistent with policies contAinl"1l in the Circulation Element of the Otay Subregional Plan (see Cin:ulation policies a, b and c). Specifically, the Plan's implementation "strategy" fails to provide for the establiRmn..nt and coordination of circulation system financing for construcûon, improvement, and mitigation. Instead, the Plan lists a number of development and financþ1g strategies and a.....mptions to provide 9-1,5' .__.._.___~___...~~_ __ ....._.__",... ____~_"._..·_··_____~w. _. , Mark Carroll -2- January 18, 1994 the øecessary service capacity and circulation links to allow development of East Otay Mesa. At minimum, we believe the Specific Plan should implement all of the policies contained in the circulation elem..nt of the Otay Subregional Plan, and the EIR should evaluate the Public Facilities Financing Plan's (pFFP) ability to accommodate all of the regional transportation financing needs generated by the project. In addition, an evaluation of the PFFP's ability to mitigate off-site impacts of East Otay Mesa development on the existing and plannl'.d regional and subregional circulation system should be conducted. 2. The transportation analysis and circulation system evaluated in the traffic study improperly assumes completion of required on- and off-site infrastructure improvements necessary to serve the project, as well as western Otay Mesa and the Otay Ranch project. Examples of some of the development assumptions used in developing the East Otay Mesa Specific Plan include the extension and widening of SR-90S, construction and operation of SR-I2S, the availability of future sewer capacity and/or the financial ability to construct a reclamation plant and accommodate Phase 2 development. It is important to note that there are no identified funding sources or financial commitments, either by private, local. state or federal agencies to provide these facilities. Other assumptions include phased or equal development by both the City and County of San Diego and/or the formation of Joint Powers of Agreements between the local municipalities and developers to provide for the first phase ()f local and regional facility improvements necessary to support the first SOO gross acres of development on the East Otay Mesa. While this might be one of several ways in which a public agency or developer can provide shared regional facilities, it is improper to base a traffic study or implementation program on a phaSed or built out circulation system without first describing the issues of financing, timing, existing commitments, or even the process of how these decisions will be reached when entering into these agreements. AJ such, the City of Chula Vista recommends that the Specific Plan rely less upon development assumptions to make a program work, but instead to develop a coordinated work program that is equitable, and supportable through agreements and consistent plan- to-policy implementation measures. Such implementation melSI1reS should ensure that all facilities are adequately evaluated, Ii............, phaSed and mitigated. , ..nd Use 1. It is recommended that the Specific Plan doc:ument provide an exh1'bit to reflect the Amendment to the Otay Subregional Plan, showing the change in location to the General Industrial (16) boundary, as proposed by the East Otay Mesa Specific Plan. The above should also indicate the acreage change for all affected land use districts, and discuss the rationale for each change. 2. The City of Chula Vista has long been concerned over the amount and intensity of land devoted to industrial use on the Otay Mesa, both in the City of San Diego and in the 1 / ¿, unincorporated area of the County. The land Use Blemen1 of the Specific Plan .". _ __,_,...... _'__H"_",__"_~__'___.__.____ _____ · Mark Carroll -3- January 18, 1994 designates approximately 75 percent of its total land area (2,360 acres) to industrial land uses, which, when added to the City's industrial base, yield a total of over 6,700 acres of planned industrial for the Otay Mesa. Other land uses planned within the SPA boundaries include commercial (155 ac.) and residential lands (750 ac.); however, it is the intent of the SpecifIC Plan to 1It.''¥JÍI'C or exact those areas zoned for residential uses to provide for permaœnt open space, and to mitigate biologically sensitive RSOUICe areas planned for industrial and commercial development. In light of the above information, the City of Chula Vista is of the opinion that the Specific Plan does not adequately address the jObslhousing imhAlance ....."oM by the project's elimination of residentially-zoned land; nor does it recognize that a cumulative land use imbalance already exists on the Otay Mesa. Policies that encourage increases in intensive, employment-generating land uses, without off-setting increases in residential usage, will further exacerbate the potenûaljobs/housing imbalance and impact Otay Mesa and the surrounding communities in terms of traffic, air quality and economics. 3. The Otay Valley Regional Park Policy Committee should be included in the consultation process when determ;n;1\g the appropriate land use for Johnson and O'Neil Canyons. In addition, while the Specific Plan accommodates a trail system which links to the proposed Regional Park there may be inconsistencies in providing the trail through property utilized by the Donovan Prison facility rather than incorporating the trail system into the Specific Plan through a meJln;T1gful trail design which links activity areas of the Plan. Thank you for the opportunity to present our comments on the Specific Plan. We would be happy to meet with you and discuss these concerns in greater detail prior to public hearings on the Specific Plan. If you have any questions or require clarification regarding our comments, please do not hesitate to contact Lance Fry with our office at 691-5101. Sincerely, ;tu: ¡J I~ Robert A. Leiter Director of Plann;1\g RAL:LF cc: John Goss, City Manager George Krempl, Deputy City Manager Cliff Swanson, City Engineer Duane Bazzel, Principal Planner (f:~I.1d) 9-/7 - - ---'---'---"---'---"'---"--'--~---'-------------- COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT If) Item4A Meeting Date 2/15/9'1 ''f -- ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing on Adoption of the Telegraph Canyon Sewer Pumped Flows Fee Ordinance ~.r~,^ Establishing the Telegraph Canyon Sewer Pumped Flows Development Impact Fee (DIF) to Pay for Sewer Improvements within the Telegraph Canyon Sewer Basin SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works" rp/ REVIEWED BY: City Manage~ P-ð 6.~ì (4/5ths Vote: Yes_No..xJ On October 20, 1992, the City established the Telegraph Canyon Sewer Development Impact Fee of $184 per Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU), as recommended in the Telegraph Canyon Sewer Basin Improvement and Financing Plan prepared by Willdan Associates. A subsequent amendment to that plan entitled "Telegraph Canyon Sewer Basin Improvement and Financing Plan Amendment Incorporating Pumped Flows", provides for the pumping of flows generated by the EastLake and Salt Creek Ranch Developments within the Salt Creek Basin, and EastLake Development within the Poggi Canyon Basin into the Telegraph Canyon Sewer Basin. Based on this plan and as updated by staff, a fee of $560 per pumped EDU should be established. RECOMMENDATION: That Council conduct subject public hearing and place the Ordinance establishing the Telegraph Canyon Sewer Pumped Flows Development Impact Fee on the flfSt reading. This ordinance allows developers to use a Letter of Credit as an alternative to payment of impact fees. BOARDS/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable. DISCUSSION: The Telegraph Canyon Sewer Basin Improvement and Financing Plan for the gravity flow basin was prepared by Willdan Associates on July 31,1992. This report included an estimate of sewage flows, recommended the type, size and location of improvements, and established a fee for gravity flows tributary to the Telegraph Canyon Basin. Based on the report's recommendations, the City Council established a Development Impact Fee of 5184 per Equivalent Dwelling Unit on October 20, 1992. At the time that the gravity basin plan was being prepared, staff recogJ1i7ed that Eastlake Development would temporarily pump flows ftom portions of EastLake Greens located in the Salt Creek and Poggi Canyon Basins into the Telegraph Canyon Basin. These flows were not included in the gravity basin plan because it was anticipated that most of them would be re-routed to the new Salt Creek Trunk Sewer within approximately two years. However, due to the uncertainty of the type and construction schedule of downstream facilities, it now appears that the pumped flows may remain in the Telegraph Canyon Basin for several years. These flows therefore need to be included in the design capacity of the Telegraph Canyon sewer line. According to the Salt Creek Basin Gravity Sewer Analysis report 7(/"/ _..___ ._~_..._ - n_____ ________ It} Page 2, Item r Meeting Date 2/15/94 , prepared by Wilson Engineering (9/22/93), the Salt Creek Basin flows will be eventually conveyed to either the future Otay Valley Water Reclamation plant, the existing Metro trunk sewer, or the City of San Diego's Otay Valley Trunk SewerlPrison Line. The properties anticipated to convey flows to the Salt Creek Interceptor include: I) Salt Creek Ranch 2) EastLake (Business Center, Greens, Woods, Vistas, Trails and Olympic Training Center) 3) Otay Ranch (Otay River Valley, Proctor Valley, and San Ysidro Parcels) 4) Hidden Valley Estates City Council approved an amendment to the Telegraph Canyon Gravity Basin Plan to include the pumped flows generated by EastLake and Salt Creek Ranch Developments within the Salt Creek Basin, and EastLake Development within the Poggi Canyon Basin (pumped Flows Report). This report was completed by Willdan Associates on June 9, 1993. According to the Pumped Flows Report, sewage from a total of 7,800 EDUs will temporarily need to be pumped into the Telegraph Canyon Basin. This includes 3,592 single family and 3,137 multiple family dwelling units (including apartments and condominiums), the Olympic Training Center, 29.2 acres of commercial use, six schools, 75.1 acres of parks, 15.8 acres of Community Purpose Facilities and a reservoir site. ¡ The incorporation of the pumped flows in the plan results in an additional 25,280 feet of parallel or replacement sewer lines being required. The construction cost will increase from an estimated $1,740,290 for only the gravity flow basin to $5,890,246 for the gravity basin plus pumped flows. The higher cost of upgrading the sewer to serve pumped flows is due to the fact that the original design for the Telegraph Canyon Trunk sewer included capacity for anticipated future gravity basin flows but not pumped flows (Report on Collection, Treatment and Disposal of Sewage and Industrial Waste, Engineering Science 1959). The pumped flows report analyzed two fee conditions for distributing the cost of improvements between the gravity and pumped flow basins. Both fee conditions assumed that the sewer segments which needed improvements only if pumped flows were added would be paid entirely by the pumped flow developments. Fee condition I allocated the remaining costs based on the proportion of maximum pumped flows to maximum total flows (gravity plus pumped) to the pumped flow developments . Fee condition ß allocated to the pumped flow developments the difference in cost between the total facilities and the facilities needed to serve the gravity basin flows only. The fees calculated for the pumped flow developments were S615 per EDU for Condition I, and S553 for Condition ß. The fees for the gravity flow basin would be reduced to S135 per EDU under Condition I, and would remain at S184 per EDU under Condition ß. In the fmal report, the number of EDU's used for assessment of the capacity fee was reduced from 7,800 to 7,508 to account for the building permits already issued. However, after the report was I completed, City staff updated that number from 7,508 to 7,416 based on a field investigation and current infc.mation from the Building and Housing Department. Consequently, the fees were revised ..,.. :--10'2- · P... " ..m~j Meeting Date 2/15/94 ", to $622 for Fee Condition I, and $560 for Fee Condition ß. City staff recommends the adoption of the $560 per EDU fee obtained by Condition II. These flows are temporary and the pumped fee is relatively high. It would seem most reasonable to require the pumped flow developments to pay only for the additional facilities required to provide for these flows. Under this option, the fee for gravity basin developments would not need to be modified. We provided EastLake and Baldwin with information on the report preparation at various stages. The information on projected development and land uses was confmned by them, i1nd their comments were addressed in the final report. A public meeting was held on September 21, 1993 to discuss the fmal report and staff recommendations for establishing the fee and was attended by representatives of EastLake Development and the Baldwin Co.. Bruce Sloan, of EastLake Development, requested that the revenues from the gravity basin DIF and the pumped basin DIF be deposited in different accounts to allow an easier transfer of funds to the Salt Creek Trunk fund if required. Such a transfer would be inconsistent with our intention to refund unused DIF collections to the homeowners rather than to the developers and therefore staff does not support the proposal. Mark Burbrink of Wilson Engineering and Jeff Warmoth of The Baldwin Co. requested that the City perform flow simulations and monitoring more frequently than yearly to obtain a more accurate assessment of upgrading requirements. Engineering Staff has software provided by the consultant and proposes to update the computer models as individual developments occur. Staff will then schedule periodic flow metering at strategic locations in the basin to detect sewer capacity deficiencies which will trigger the sewer improvements. The pumped flows report recommends replacing the sewers along J Street downstream of the intersection of Hilltop Drive and J Street instead of paralleling the existing facilities. This is mainly due to the existence of numerous underground utilities, including an existing parallel sewer. The developers inquired about the possibility of combining sewer rehabilitation funds (from Fund 226) with DIF funds; (ôr' coÒ$""çtion in that area. Since the use of this fund is restricted to repair or rehabilitation of facilities and the upgrading is for the expansion of capacity, staff does not support this proposal. Projects are included in the Sewer Rehabilitation Program based on the results of sewer TV inspections. These inspections are performed in phases according to the age of the lines. Approximately 55% of the existing parallel sewers on J Street were constructed in the early 1970's. These lines are too new to require extensive rehabilitation and will not be televised in the near future. The other sewer segments were built in two phases, one in 1959 and the other in 1964. These segments will be televised at the time the upgrades are needed to assess the need for rehabilitation.. If it is found that rehabilitation work is needed, the estimated cost associated with that rehabilitation could be contributed by the City to partially offset the replacement cost. The agenda statement and ordinance prepared for the December 7, 1993 Council meeting stipulated that the Telegraph Canyon Sewer Pumped Flows DIF would be payable at the time the building permits were issued. EastLake Development and Baldwin Co. staff members requested that the City 10" 'J; _ ~...--.-.___......____.._ "___ _ _ _ .'__'.' ____ . . .~.._ M___."___' ________...._._..._._ lð Page 4, Item~ Meeting Date 2/15/94 I consider use of a Letter of Credit in lieu of payment. They were concerned about the need to pay sewer fees to construct facilities in both the Telegraph Canyon and Salt Creek basins. The proposed ordinance now includes the option of providing a Letter of Credit for the applicable DIF amount in lieu of paying the fee in cash. This Letter of Credit shall be placed on deposit with the City at or prior to the time a fmal subdivision map is approved by the City for units subject to the DIF. The amount of the Letter of Credit may be adjusted to reflect changes in land use or density, updated costs of construction, or completion of segments of improvement. The City may draw on the Letter of Credit, I) to plan, design and construct Telegraph Canyon sewer facilities, 2) if the property owner fails to maintain the required amount in the Letter, or 3) if there is a risk that the Letter of Credit may not be honored in the future. Environmental review of this project is not necessary ,at this time. Such review will be perfonned later, prior to project construction. At that time, an Initial Study Application will need to be filed with the City of Chula Vista Planning Department in accordance with CEQA requirements. City staff prepared the enclosed map (Exhibit 2) showing the developments subject to pumping and the basin boundaries which will be used for fee assessment purposes. A portion of the boundary line along the east side of the basin was based on tentative maps and the natural ridge line and will be amended in the future as additional development infonnation becomes available. FISCAL IMPACT: Passage of this ordinance will result in revenues of approximately $4,149,956, I plus increases due to an annual adjustment for inflation. These revenues plus the $1,740,290 obtained from the gravity basin developments would be specifically used for design and construction of sewer improvements and flow monitoring in the Telegraph Canyon Basin. RM:ST-002 Exhibits: I. Revised Fee Calculation 10 -~5 2. Map of Developments Subject to Pumping S éé @ WPC F:\HOMElENGINEEIlIAGENDAI'ICI'lJMPFE.AI3 I ~/(}-4 . . EXHIBIT , T jreph Clnyon Sewer Blsln Improvement and Flnlnclng Plan Amendment Incorporating Pumped Flows Maximum number of EOU'. e.timated in tha basin - 7.800 EOU'. available for ...e.sment of Capecity fee - 7,800· EOU'. permitted In the.bllln Number of units built or buDding pennlt. ".ued .. of September '893 Eutlek. areen. Subdlvl.lon Unit. EdulEqulv II of EOU. I . Unit " '36 0.75 '02 Unit 5 14 1.00 '4 Unit 1 1 38 1.00 38 Unit 8 26 1.00 26 Unit 14 2 1.00 2 Sub Tota' - '82 ftth., ~Jl:I.tlnð ~DU·. Estimated EOUs from Eastlake High School . 192 Estloy¡ated EOUs from Eastlake Golf Club House - 10 Sub Total. 202 Tot.' .xI.tlng/permitted EOU. In the b..ln - 384 IOU'. evellable for ......m.nt of Cep.clty f.e - 7,800 - 384. 7,416 RevIsed fH C8Iculatlon Cnndition ,. .4,614,499 _ .622.24 per EOU 17.800-384) Cnrutltion ~. .4,149.956 _ .559.59 per EOU ; uae U60.00 per EOU .__nd.d 17,800-3841 A:\ÆERECAUCLS "'........ 10112113 P.~ Io-~ " ___.~__._..._,._...___"..,_ w_,__."__'___' .._."--'-'-~ ,-.----..'.-.---- EXHIBIT 1 . Telegraph Canyon Sewer Basin Improvement and FinancIng ) Plan Amendment Incorporating Pumped Flows Maximum number of EDU's estimated in the basin.. 7,800 EDU's available for assessment of Capacity fea .. 7,BOO - EDU's permlned in the basin Number of IØlIta buDt or buDding permits Issued as of September 1993 !utlake Gmns Subdivillon Units EdulEquiv II of EDUs l Unit 17 136 0.75 102 UnitS 14 1.00 14 Unit 11 38 1.00 38 Unit 8 26 1.00 26 Unit 14 2 1.00 2 Sub Totel - 182 Other ~.ldin9 EDU'a .EstimatedEDUs from Eastlake High School .. 192 Estimated eDUs from Eestlalr.e Golf Club House - 10 Sub Tota' - 202 ì T..... existing /permitted EDUs In tha basin .. 384 EDtJ·s aøDeble for ..._ment of Capacity fee .. 7.800 - 384.. 7,416 RevIsed F.. Calculation Cnnditinn , ~ $4.614.499 _ $622.24 per EDU (7,800-3841 ~nnditinn ,- $4.149.956 _ $559.59 per EDU ; use $560.00 per EDU Recommended (7,800-3841 A:\ÆÐlECALXLS A. _ 1011211I3 . . I Pege 1 /rP'~ ORDINANCE NO. 2582 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA ESTABLISHING THE TELEGRAPH CANYON SEWER PUMPED FLOWS DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE TO PROVIDE FOR THE CONTINGENT CONSTRUCTION OF SEWER IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE TELEGRAPH CANYON SEWER BASIN IF SEWAGE IS DIVERTED FROM SALT CREEK AND POGGI CANYONS AS A CONDITION OF ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS FOR CONSTRUCTION IN THE TELEGRAPH CANYON SEWER PUMPED FLOWS BASIN WHEREAS, developers of land within the City should be required to mitigate the burden created by development through the construc- tion or improvement of sewer facilities within the boundaries of the development and either the construction or improvement of sewer facilities outside the boundaries of the development which are needed to provide service to the development in accordance with city standards or the payment of a fee to finance a development's appropriate portion of the total cost of the sewer facilities; and, WHEREAS, all development within the City contributes to the cumulative burden on various sewer facilities in direct relation- ship to the amount of population generated by the development or the gross acreage of the cOllllllercial or industrial land in the development; and, WHEREAS, the Telegraph Canyon Sewer Pumped Flows Basin ("Pumped Flows Basin") is that area of land shown on the map attached hereto as Exhibit "2" (Exhibit 1 omitted) which map is generally comprised of those portions of Poggi Canyon and Salt Creek drainage basin within the City of Chula Vista, or its sphere of influence, from which wastewater will be collected and pumped into the Telegraph Canyon Sewer Basin ("Gravity Basin"); and, WHEREAS, the City desires and desired to oversize the Gravity Basin sewer facilities as a backup plan in order to accollllllodate sewage flow from the Pumped Flows Basin in the event that flows from the Pumped Flows Basin, in combination with the Gravity Basin flows, exceed the capacity of the Gravity Basin sewage system before adequate alternate sewage facilities (gravity drainage, treatment plants, reclamation plants, etc.) are available in the Salt Creek and Poggi Canyon drainage basins to handle the Pumped Flows; and, WHEREAS, this was and is intended to be a "backup plan" inasmuch as the city expects that the flows in the Pumped Flows Basin will, with the construction of the necessary sewer facilities ("Poggi Canyon/Salt Creek Facilities"), eventually drain by gravity f low into the Poggi Canyon and salt Creek Sewer Basins ("Poggi JQ " ? ____..._..__ '._'.__nn__"" canyon/Salt Creek Sewer Gravity Basins"), and then into the otay Valley; and, WHEREAS, at such time as it appears, in the sole discretion of the City Council, that such Poggi Canyon/Salt Creek Facilities are imminent of construction, it is the intention of the City Council to terminate the imposition of this Development Impact Fee, and further, at such time and in such manner as the City Council, in its sole discretion, determines to be fair and equitable return any unused funds to the property owners existing at that time of the properties for which the fee was collected initially; and, WHEREAS, on February 25, 1992 the City Council passed Resolution No. 16518 approving an amendment to the agreement between the City of Chula vista and Willdan Associates for preparation of said Backup Plan, therein referred to as the "Amended Plan"; and, WHEREAS, on February 25, 1992 the City Council passed Reso- lution No. 16519 approving the First Amendment to the Telegraph Canyon Basin Sewer Monitoring and Gravity Basin Usage Agreement to provide that EastLake should pay for the preparation of the "Telegraph Canyon Sewer Basin Improvement and Financing Plan Amendment Incorporating Pumped Flows" ("Backup Plan"). WHEREAS, pursuant to said agreement with Willdan, willdan Associates have prepared a proposed Backup Plan dated June 9, 1993 for approval by the City Council (herewith done); and, WHEREAS, on September 21, 1993 a public meeting was held between Staff and the developers of developments located within the Pumped Flows Basin to discuss the final Backup Plan and city Staff recommendations for establishing the Telegraph Canyon Sewer Pumped Flows Basin Development Impact Fee; and, WHEREAS, on December 7, 1993 a Public Hearing was opened but not completed before the City Council to provide an opportunity for interested persons to be heard on the approval of the Backup Plan and establishment of the Telegraph Canyon Sewer Pumped Flows Fee; and, WHEREAS, said hearing was continued various times the final one of which was to February 15, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the "Public Hearing"); and, f:\home\engineer\tcspump.rld Pumped Flows Basin DIF February 25, 1994 Page 2 jé)...r ~.. _··_____.··___h_. .._.,,____~..._~_ WHEREAS, the proposed Backup Plan determines that new development within the Pumped Flows Basin will create adverse impacts on the city's existing sewer facilities within the Gravity Basin (to wit, that the sewage expected to be generated from new development within the Pumped Flows Basin, when combined with the sewage flows from the Gravity Basin, will exceed the capacity of the current sewer system in the Gravity Basin). These impacts must be mitigated by the financing and construction of certain sewer facilities identified in this ordinance; and, WHEREAS, said proposed Backup Plan (1) includes an estimate of ultimate sewer flows anticipated from the Pumped Flows Basin; (2) recommends improvements to handle the combined incremental increases of sewage flow anticipated from the Pumped Flows Basin and from the Gravity Basin; and (3) establishes a fee payable by persons obtaining building permits for developments within the Pumped Flows Basin benefiting from Gravity Basin trunk sewer improvements; and, WHEREAS, sewer improvements and a fee to be levied on new development in the Pumped Flows Basin have been justified in the proposed Backup Plan; and, WHEREAS, the city council determined, based upon the evidence presented at the Public Hearing, including, but not limited to, the Backup Plan and the various reports and other information received by the City Council in the course of its business, that imposition of the sewer facilities development impact fee on all developments within the Telegraph Canyon Sewer Pumped Flows Basin in the city of Chula vista for which building permits have not yet been issued is necessary in order to protect the public safety and welfare and to ensure effective implementation of the City's General Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the amount of the fee levied by this ordinance does not exceed the estimated cost of providing the public facilities. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: section 1. Approval of Backup Plan. The City Council has independently reviewed the proposed Backup Plan herewith presented, finds that it is fair, reasonable f:\home\engineer\tcspump.rld Pumped Flows Basin DIF February 25, 1994 Page 3 J(l'1 -~_. ---- - -~---_.---- and equitable to all parties, and herewith adopts same in the form on file with the City Clerk as Document No. , and on file in the Office of the City Engineer. section 2. "Facilities". The facilities which are the subject matter of the fee herein established are fully described in the Backup Plan at page 24 thereof, and the locations at which they will be constructed are more fully described on Plates 1 through 14 under the section thereof entitled "Improvement Locations", all of which facilities may be modified by the city Council from time to time by resolution ("Facilities"). The City Council may modify or amend the list of projects herein considered to be part of the Facilities by written resolution in order to maintain compliance with the City's Capital Improvement Program or to reflect changes in land development and estimated and actual wastewater flow. section 3. Territory to Which Fee Is Applicable. The area of the City of Chula vista to which the Fee herein established shall be applicable is set forth as an Exhibit to the Backup Plan, entitled "Developments Subject to Pumping (Pumped Flows Basin) , Telegraph Canyon Sewer Basin, Improvement and Financing Plan Amendment, Incorporating Pumped Flows, " shown as being "Prepared: June 23, 1993" not yet revised, shall be referred to herein as the "Territory" or alternatively "pumped Flows Basin" and is generally described as that area to the East of the Telegraph Canyon Sewer Basin, within the Salt Creek and Poggi Canyon Basins. section 4. Purpose. By Ordinance No. 2533, the city Council approved a plan ("Gravity Basin Plan") for the financing and construction of the sewer-related facilities necessary to serve only the sewage transmission demands for the EDU's in the Gravity Basin. The purpose of this ordinance is to provide the necessary financing to oversize such sewer-related facilities in the Telegraph Canyon Sewer Gravity Basin, as defined in Ordinance No. 2533, section 2, Territory ("Gravity Basin"), to accommodate sewage flows pumped into the Gravity Basin from the Pumped Flows Basin. f:\home\engineer\tcspump.rld Pumped Flows Basin DIF February 25, 1994 Page 4 /(/~ J¿) . . ....-.-.,-- -- - --_..~.-----."_..._~_.,.._~~_._---- section 5. Establishment of Fee. A development impact fee ("Fee"), to be expressed on a per Equivalent Dwelling unit ("EDU") basis, and payable prior to the issuance of a building permit unless security therefore by Letter of Credit, as herein permitted, is on deposit with the ci ty, for a development proj ect wi thin the Terri tory, is hereby established. section 6. Due on Issuance of Building Permit; Exception for Letters of Credit Procedure. A. When Payable. The Fee shall be paid in cash upon (early payment is not permitted) the issuance of a building permit, except as provided in subparagraph B. B. Letter of Credit. A building permit may issue without the payment of the Fee in cash if (use of the following procedure shall herein be referred to as the "Letter of Credit Procedure") the Property owner of the property for which the building permit is sought, or her/his predecessor in interest, has placed on deposit with the City Engineer at or prior to the time a final subdivision map is approved by the City for the units which would otherwise be subj ect to the Fee on the issuance of a building permit, a letter of credit in a form acceptable to the City Attorney and which, at a minimum, provides for the following: a. The Letter of Credit shall be irrevocable until released in writing by the City in the manner herein provided. It shall also specifically provide that a change of ownership of the property for which the Fee is payable shall not be a basis for releasing or cancelling the Letter of Credit. b. The Letter of Credit shall be for a term not less than 3 years unless a shorter term is allowed by the City Attorney in conjunction with the City Engineer. c. The Letter of Credit shall provide that at the expiration of the Term, the bank issuing the Letter f:\home\engineer\tcspump.rld Pumped Flows Basin DIF February 25, 1994 Page 5 /11"// _._.._._ - _.,_...n _______._ .~.______.__~_,_~_ of Credit shall pay the full amount over to the City unless the Term thereof is extended or the obligation excused by written direction of the City Attorney and city Engineer. d. The Letter of Credit shall provide that the City may unconditionally draw on all or part of the Amount on demand by the City by written notice thereof and without offering any other justification or documentation (Authority for draws on the Letter of Credit as between the city and the Beneficiary is hereinbelow provided). e. The Letter of Credit shall initially be in a minimum amount as determined by applying the rate of the Fee times the number of Equivalent Dwelling units ("EDUs") within the territory of the Final Map. Such amount shall be increased or decreased from time to time as the rate of the Fee is adjusted by the City Council. \1. Right of city to Draw on the Letter of Credit. \~__d_-~_~ The City may exercise ~ts ,right to draw . on the letter of cred:L t :Ln any of the following circumstances. a. The property owner who would otherwise be re- sponsible for paying the Fee hereunder fails to maintain the Letter of Credit in the minimum amount required by this Ordinance, in which case the full amount of the Letter of Credit may be drawn upon by the city. b. The city determines, in its sole discretion, that all or a portion of the Letter of Credit is necessary to plan, design or construct, or other- wise assist in the planning, design or construction of, all or a portion of the Facilities, in which case the City is authorized to draw, for each such Facility, or portion thereof, from time to time as planning, design and construction proceeds, an amount which represents the entire actual cost of the Facility, including extra work and overruns, times a fraction, the numerator of which equals the f:\home\engineer\tcspump.rld Pumped Flows Basin DIF February 25, 1994 Page 6 IP"'It2. ______'_u,'. estimated costs of the Facility to be borne by the Pumped Sewer Flows, as set forth in the latest Engineer's Report updating the DIF, and the denominator of which represents the total cost of the Facility as estimated in the latest Engineer's Report updating the DIF. c. The property owner otherwise responsible for the payment of the Fee takes any act or suffers any act, or the bank on which the Letter of Credit is drawn takes any act or suffers any act, which, in the sole opinion and discretion of the City, creates a reasonable risk that the Letter of Credit may not be honored on demand by the City, in which case the city is authorized to draw on the Letter of Credit in such an amount as the city determines is necessary to avoid the risk of loss. 2. Release of the Letter of Credit by city. The city shall issue to the Bank written release of the Letter of Credit, or such appropriate portion thereof, in any of the following circumstances: a. The beneficiary has constructed, or caused to be constructed, to the satisfaction of the City, the Facilities or portion thereof agreed to by the City in accordance with the procedures for developer construction hereinbelow set forth in sections 12 and 13. b. The city Council has determined, in its sole discretion, that such Poggi Canyon/Salt Creek Facilities are imminent of construction. 3 . Remedies of City if Letter of Credit procedure violated. In the event that a draw on the Letter of Credit is not honored on demand as herein provided, the beneficiary (e.g., the Developer) of the Letter of Credit shall immediately deposit with the city the full amount thereof in cash, which shall be deemed to be a debt immediately due and payable of the benefici- ary, and upon the failure to do so, the city is authorized among other remedies, to institute f:\home\engineer\tcspump.rld Pumped Flows Basin DIF February 25, 1994 Page 7 It/'I.J .- ------,-"_.._-'- ~...._.... ---------.---... litigation and to withhold approval of any additional permits or other entitlements. section 7. Determination of Equivalent Development units. Each single family detached dwelling or single family attached dwelling shall be considered one EDU for purposes of this Fee. Each unit within a mUlti-family dwelling sha 11 be considered .75 EDU. Every other commercial, industrial, non-profit, public or quasi- public, or other usage shall be charged at a rate calculated in accordance with Figure 5, Page 9 of the Backup Plan. section 8. Time to Determine Amount Due; Advance Payment Prohibited. Unless the Letter of Credit Procedure is used, the Fee for each development shall be calculated at the time of building permit issuance and shall be the amount as indicated at that time and not when the tentative map or final map was granted or applied for, or when the building permit plan check was conducted, or when application was made for the building permit. If the Letter of Credit Procedure is used, the amount of the Letter of Credit shall be determined at the time the Final Map is approved and shall be adjusted from time to time as the city determines appropriate. section 9. Purpose and Use of Fee. The purpose of the Fee is to pay for the planning (including preparation of the Backup Plan), design, construction, repair, maintenance, and/or financing (including the cost of interest and other financing costs as appropriate) of the Facilities, or reimbursement to the City or, at the discretion of the city if approved in advance in writing, other third parties for advancing costs actually incurred for planning, designing, con- structing, or financing the Facilities. section 10. Amount of Fee; Amendment of Master Fee Schedule. f:\home\engineer\tcspump.rld Pumped Flows Basin DIF February 25, 1994 Page 8 /1/#/'1 ..._.._----_.._.~_..,~_..."._.."'-- The Fee shall be calculated at the rate of $560 per EDU. Chapter XV of the Master Fee Schedule is hereby amended to add section B, which shall read as follows: liB. Telegraph Canyon Sewer Pumped Flows Development Impact Fee. This section is intended to memorialize the key pro- visions of Ordinance No. , but said Ordinance governs over the provisions of the Master Fee Schedule. For example, in the event of a conflict in interpretation between the Master Fee Schedule and the Ordinance, or in the event that additional rules applicable to the imposition of the Fee, the language of the Ordinance governs. a. Territory to which Fee applicable. The area of the city of Chula Vista to which the Fee herein established shall be applicable is set forth as an Exhibit to the Backup Plan, entitled "Developments Subject to Pumping (Pumped Flows Basin) , Telegraph Canyon Sewer Basin, Improvement and Financing Plan Amendment, Incorporating Pumped Flows," shown as being "Prepared: June 23, 1993" not yet revised, shall be referred to herein as the "Territory" or alternatively "Pumped Flows Basin" and is generally described as that area to the East of the Telegraph Canyon Sewer Basin, within the Salt Creek and poggi Canyon Basins. b. Rate per EDU. The Fee shall be calculated at the rate of $560 per EDU, which rate shall be adjusted from time to time by the city Council. c. EDU calculation. Each single family detached dwelling or single family attached dwelling shall be considered one EDU for purposes of this Fee. Each unit within a mUlti-family dwelling shall be considered .75 EDU. Every other commercial, industrial, non-profit, f:\home\engineer\tcspump.rld Pumped Flows Basin DIF February 25, 1994 Page 9 /,?.-/ > ._..__....__._.__,.u.__. .._____ _.n__.",__,.__."_ .________~_ public or quasi-public, or other usage shall be charged at a rate calculated in accordance with Figure 5, Page 9 of the Backup Plan. d. When Payable. The Fee shall be paid in cash not later than immediately prior to the issuance of a building permit, except that a Letter of Credit Procedure is permitted for this Fee in the adopting Ordinance, as same may, from time to time, be amended." The city council intends to review the amount of the Fee annually or from time to time. The City Council may, at such reviews, adjust the amount of this Fee as necessary to assure construction and operation of the Facilities, the reasons for which adjustments may include, but are limited to, the following: changes in the costs of the Facilities as may be reflected by such index as the Council deems appropriate, such as the Engineering-News Record Construction Index; changes in the type, size, location or cost of the Facilities to be financed by the Fee; changes in land use on approved tentative maps or Specific Plan Amendments; other sound engineering, financing and planning information. Adjustments to the above Fee may be made by resolution amending the Master Fee Schedule. Section 11. Authority for Accounting and Expenditures The proceeds collected from the imposition of the Fee shall be deposited into a public facility financing fund ("Telegraph Canyon Sewer Basin Pumped Flows Development Impact Fee Fund", or alternatively herein "Fund" or "TCSBPF DIF Fund") which is hereby created and such proceeds shall be expended only for the purposes set forth in this ordinance. The Director of Finance is authorized to establish various accounts within the Fund for the Facilities identified in this ordinance and to periodically make expenditures from the Fund for the purposes set forth herein in accordance with the facilities phasing plan or capital improvement plan adopted by the city Council. f:\home\engineer\tcspump.rld Pumped Flows Basin DIF February 25, 1994 Page 10 I~ pI' ....--..--.--.- ----..---~,-..-...- ...--....----- ---- ~------~---_. section 12. Revision and Refund of Fees A. Suspension. At such time ("Gravity Access Point in Time") as a parcel of property within the Territory is, in the opinion of the city Engineer, able to obtain sewer service by virtue of gravity sewer service available in the Salt Creek or the Poggi Canyon Basins, the Fee for such parcel shall be suspended. B. Refund. If the Fee has already been paid in cash for the parcel, the Fee shall be returned to the owner or owners of the property at the time the Council passes a written resolution certifying the completion of the entire planned Poggi/Salt Creek Facilities for the poggi/Salt Creek Sewer Gravity Basin system, and then to each owner in a manner deemed fair and equitable by the City Council. In the absence of an alternative determination of fairness by the City Council, a refund which divides the remaining unused balance by the EDU's which contributed to the Fund shall be deemed a fair method. C. Release of Letters of Credit. If the cash payment of the Fee has been avoided by a developer by the deposit of a Letter of Credit pursuant to the Letter of Credit Procedure herein authorized, the Letter of Credit shall be released either (1) at such time that the city Council certifies by written resolution that the entire poggi/Salt Creek Sewer Gravity Basin Facilities exists for all parts of the Salt Creek and poggi Canyons or (2) at such sooner time as the city Council determines that the total balance of the letters of credit is not necessary to complete the planning, design and con- struction of the Facilities (Le. , in Telegraph Canyon Sewer Basin) , certifies the amount needed to complete construction of the Facilities, and authorizes the release of 75% of the remainder by written resolution, specifying the recipients of such released Letters of Credit in a fair and equitable manner. section 13. Findings. The City Council finds that collection of the Fees established by this ordinance at the time of the building permit is f:\home\engineer\tcspump.rld Pumped Flows Basin DIF February 25, 1994 Page 11 II) "/7 -----.-'.""..- -_....._.._-,-_._,.__.~-- ------_._~ .~.._-_.._._.- necessary to ensure that funds will be available for the construction of facilities concurrent with the need for these facilities and to ensure certainty in the capital facilities budgeting for growth impacted public facilities. section 14. Fee Additional to other Fees and Charges. The Fee established by this section is in addition to the requirements imposed by other city laws, policies or regulations relating to the construction or the financing of the construction of public improvements within subdivisions or developments, and is specifically intended to be in addition to a development impact fee for the construction of the poggi canyon and/or Salt Creek Sewer Gravity Basin Facilities, such that a payor of this fee may also be required to pay any development impact fee charged for such facilities. section 15. Mandatory Oversiz ing of Facili ty; Duty to Tender Reimbursement Offer. Whenever a developer of a development project in the Territory of the Pumped Flows Basin is required as a condition of approval of an entitlement (e.g., General Plan Amendment, Pre- zoning, General Development Plan, SPA Plan, etc.) to cause a portion of the sewer system which is the subject matter of a Facilities enhancement planned for improvement under the Gravity Basin Plan to be oversized under the Backup Plan, the city may require the developer to install the Facilities according to design specifications approved by the city, that being with the supplemental size or capacity in order to accommodate estimated ultimate flow as indicated in the Basin Plan and subsequent amendments. If such a requirement is imposed, the City shall first grant credits against the developer's obligation to pay the Fee, and, as to any excess, offer to reimburse the developer from the Fund either in cash or over time as Fees are collected, at the option of the City, for costs incurred by the developer for the design and construction of the Facility not to exceed the estimated cost of that particular Facility as included in the calculation and updating of the Fee, and in an amount agreed to in advance of their expenditure in writing by the city. The city may update the Fee calculation as City deems appropriate prior to making such offer. This duty to extend credits or offer f:\home\engineer\tcspump.rld Pumped Flows Basin DIF February 25, 1994 Page 12 II) -/ i" . .____.__......____. _.... ...__.__u.. ._,._.~. reimbursement shall be independent of the developer's obligation to pay the Fee. section 16. Voluntary Construction of a Portion of the Facilities; Duty of City to Tender Reimbursement Offer. If a developer is willing and agrees in writing to design and construct a portion of the Facilities in conjunction with the prosecution of a development project within the Territory ("Work"), the City may, as part of the written agreement, grant credits against the Developer's obligation to pay the Fee, and may thereafter, use the proceeds of the Fund to reimburse the developer from the Fund either at the time the expenditures are incurred or over time as Fees are collected, at the option of the city, for costs incurred by the developer for the design and construction of the Facility not to exceed the estimated cost of that particular Facility as included in the calculation and updating of the Fee, and in an amount agreed to in advance of their expenditure in writing by the city. The City may update the Fee calculation as City deems appropriate prior to making such offer. This duty to extend credits or offer reimbursement shall be independent of the developer's obligation to pay the Fee. section 17. Procedure for Entitlement to Reimbursement Offer. The city's extension of a credit or a reimbursement offer to a developer pursuant to section 15 or 16 above shall be conditioned on the developer complying with the terms and conditions of this section: a. written authorization shall be requested by the developer from the City and issued by the city council by written resolution before developer may incur any costs eligible for reimbursement relating to the Work. b. The request for authorization shall contain the following information, and such other information as may from time to time be requested by the City: (1) Detailed descriptions of the Work with the preliminary cost estimate. f:\home\engineer\tcspump.rld Pumped Flows Basin DIF February 25, 1994 Page 13 It}'/ 'J . . _"_"_.'."'_'0' '___'.__',___'" . ____.'_.'._______..m c. If the Council grants authorization, it shall be by written agreement with the Developer, and on the following conditions among such other conditions as the Council may from time to time impose: (1) Developer shall prepare all plans and specifications and submit same to the city for approval; (2) Developer shall secure and dedicate any right-of-way required for the Work; (3) Developer shall secure all required permits and environmental clearances necessary for construction of the project; (4) Developer shall provide performance bonds in a form and amount, and with a surety satisfactory to the city; (5) Developer shall pay all City fees and costs. (6) The City shall be held harmless and indemnified, and upon demand by the City, defended by the developer for any of the costs and liabilities associated with the construction of the proj ect. (7) The developer shall advance all necessary funds to design and construct the project. (8) The developer shall secure at least three (3) qualified bids for work to be done. The construction contract shall be granted to the lowest qualified bidder. Any claims for additional payment for extra work or charges during construction shall be justified and shall be documented to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. (9) The developer shall provide a detailed cost estimate which itemizes those costs of the construction attributable to the Work. The estimate is preliminary and subject to final f:\home\engineer\tcspump.rld Pumped Flows Basin DIF February 25, 1994 Page 14 /t? ~.20 ----.. ....-...-....-.--.-- --".-.---.--..,---- determination by the Director of Public Works upon completion of the Public Facility Project. (10) The agreement may provide that upon determination of satisfactory incremental completion of a Facility, as approved and certified by the Director of Public Works, the City may pay the developer progress payments, or grant incremental credits, in an amount not to exceed 75 percent of the estimated cost of the construction completed to the time of the progress payment but shall provide in such case for the retention of 25% of such costs until issuance by the City of a Notice of Completion. (11) The agreement may provide that any funds owed to the developer as reimbursements may be applied to the developer's obligations to pay the Fee for building permits to be applied for in the future. (12) When all work has been completed to the satisfaction of the city, the developer shall submit verification of payments made for the construction of the proj ect to the City. The Director of Public Works shall make the final determination on expenditures which are eligible for reimbursement. (13) After final determination of expenditures eligible for reimbursement has been made by the Public Works Director, the parties may agree to offset the developer's duty to pay Fees required by this ordinance against the City's duty to reimburse the developer. (14) If, after offset if any, funds are due the developer under this section, the City shall reimburse the developer from the Fund either at the time the expenditures are incurred or over time as Fees are collected, at the option of the City, for eligible costs incurred by the developer for the design and construction of the Facility not to exceed the estimated cost of that particular Facility as included in the calculation and f:\home\engineer\tcspump.rld Pumped Flows Basin DIF February 25, 1994 Page 15 )/)-:J..( -_._~ ..' ...,._..._^,,-,.....-.... -_.~~--~-~- updating of the Fee; or the developer may waive reimbursement and use the amount due them as credit against future Development Impact Fee obligations. section 18. Procedure for Fee Modification Any developer who, because of the nature or type of uses proposed for a development project, contends that application of the Fee imposed by this ordinance is unconstitutional or unrelated to mitigation of the burdens of the development, may apply to the City Council for a modification of the Fee and the manner in which it is calculated. The application shall be made in writing and filed with the city Clerk not later than ten (10) days after notice is given of the public hearing on the development permit application for the project, or if no development permit is required, at the time of the filing of the building permit application. The application shall state in detail the factual basis for the claim of modifica- tion, and shall provide an engineering and accounting report showing the overall impact on the DIF and the ability of the city to complete construction of the Facilities by making the modification requested by the applicant. The City Council shall make reasonable efforts to consider the application within sixty (60) days after its filing. The decision of the City Council shall be final. The procedure provided by this section is additional to any other procedure authorized by law for protection or challenging the Fee imposed by this ordinance. section 19. Fee Applicable to Public Agencies Development projects by public agencies, including schools, shall not be exempt from the provisions of the Fee. f:\home\engineer\tcspump.rld Pumped Flows Basin DIF February 25, 1994 Page 16 lð"~~ . ._--. - -- ---.~.-_.._-.--..-.-.~..~-~------'--- section 20. Assessment District. If any assessment or special taxing district is established to design, construct and pay for any or all of the Facilities ("Work Alternatively Financed"), the owner or developer of a project may apply to the City Council for reimbursement from the Fund in an amount equal to that portion of the cost included in the calculation of the Fee attributable to the Work Alternatively Financed. In this regard, the amount of the reimbursement shall be based on the costs included in the Backup Plan, as amended from time to time, and therefore, will not include any portion of the financing costs associated with the formation of the assessment or other special taxing district. section 21. Expiration of this Ordinance. This ordinance shall be of no further force and effect when the City Council determines that the amount of Fees which have been collected reaches an amount equal to the cost of the Facilities. section 22. Time Limit for Judicial Action. Any judicial action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void or annul this ordinance shall be brought within the time period as established by Government Code section 54995 after the effective date of this ordinance. section 23. CEQA Findings for Statutory Exemption. The City Council does hereby find that the Fee herein imposed is for the purpose of obtaining funds for capital projects necessary to maintain service within existing service areas. The Council finds that the proposed Facilities are in existing rights of way parallel to or replacing existing sewer lines. Therefore, the City finds that the adoption of this Ordinance is statutorily exempt under the provisions of Public Resources Code section 21080 (b) (8) and CEQA Guidelines section 15273. section 24. Other Not Previously Defined Terms. For the purposes of this ordinance, the following words or phrases shall be construed as defined in this Section, unless f:\home\engineer\tcspump.rld Pumped Flows Basin DIF February 25, 1994 Page 17 111--'-1 . _.._. __'__'_..__'m _._~._.~._ ____....._._ from the context it appears that a different meaning is intended. (a) "Building Permit" means a permit required by and issued pursuant to the Uniform Building Code as adopted by reference by this city. (b) "Developer" means the owner or developer of a development. (c) "Development Permit" means any discretionary permit, entitlement or approval for a development project issued under any zoning or subdivision ordinance of the City. (d) "Development Project" or "Development" means any activity described in section 65927 and 65928 of the state Government Code. (e) "Single Family Attached Dwelling" means a single family dwelling attached to another single family dwelling ¡each on their own lot. section 25. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective sixty ~60) days after its second reading and adoption. (/; Presented by '!::1 'I fo~ John P. Lippitt {Bruce M. Boog Director of Public Works City Attorney ---' f:\home\engineer\tcspump.rld Pumped Flows Basin DIF February 25, 1994 Page 18 Id "~'I . .._._,._.~.,-"-,--------_._...__.._-_.~------_. ---~_..~--- E~h; bit :JL tþ OAII ¡ "'!.l\o\e. e... r!lS8 ~ I . :z: ~ 0 I ~ ª 0 :z: on ~~ ~ ïá~ z ::c "" ¡¡ u~ - >- >- U ~ ø.~ ~ :COOl ~ 11\ ~ :z: ~ < ø. ~ ~ ~ ~~ :;~ ø.~ ø. ~¡: = t§ i i ~Q ~~ Š~ ~ !i!> ~z ¡;J~ 0=0 ~ E I ~~ ~~ I-t;¡ ~~~ on ~ø. tIJ::Eu ~::t::t ~uØ-o =æ~ ~~t.::) ~tIJ~ ¡....~ ~z~ tIJ~¡"" >-::E~ ¡....Ø-o::t -o¡.... ~~o >¡.... t.::)~o o~ . ......-.. Ø-o ::E :> Ø-o Vol ~ - I ffi 00 ~ - >- E- ¡:.: Vol < < ::;¡ ¡:.: .. ¡:Q =: ¡¡¡ LI. ., 8 . = ~ Q J()-~'j Q ~-z-s! i - ______u.. - -~. -- COUNCll.. AGENDA STATEMENT ~' Item " .2 Meeting Dat 17193 "~'I ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing on Adoption of the Telegraph Canyon Sewer Pumped Flows Fee Ordinance -2,Ç!J' :2.. Establishing the Telegraph Canyon Sewer Pumped Flows Development Impact Fee (DIF) to Pay for Sewer Improvements within the Telegraph Canyon Sewer Basin SUBMITIED BY, Direct''''' P,h¡;, w,~ ~ REVIEWED BY: City Manager.J4 ~....;\ (4/5ths Vote: Yes_No.L) On October 20, 1992, the City established the Telegraph Canyon Sewer Development Impact Fee of $184 per Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU), as recommended in the Telegraph Canyon Sewer Basin Improvement and Financing Plan prepared by Willdan Associates. A subsequent amendment to that plan entitled "Telegraph Canyon Sewer Basin Improvement and Financing Plan Amendment Incorporating Pumped Flows", provides for the pumping of flows generated by the EastLake and Salt Creek Ranch Developments within the Salt Creek Basin, and EastLake Development within the Poggi Canyon Basin into the Telegraph Canyon Sewer Basin. Based on this plan and as updated by staff, a fee of $560 per pumped EDU should be established, RECOMMENDATION: That Council conduct subject public hearing and place the Ordinance establishing the Telegraph Canyon Sewer Pumped Flows Development Impact Fee on the first reading. BOARDS/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable, DISCUSSION: The Telegraph Canyon Sewer Basin Improvement and Financing Plan for the gravity flow basin was prepared by Willdan Associates on July 31, 1992, This report included an estimate of sewage flows, recommended the type, size and location of improvements, and established a fee for gravity flows tributary to the Telegraph Canyon Basin, Based on the report's recommendations, the City Council established a Development Impact Fee of $184 per Equivalent Dwelling Unit on October 20, 1992, At the time that the gravity basin plan was being prepared, staff recognized that Eastlake Development would temporarily pump flows from portions of EastLake Greens located in the Salt Creek and Poggi Canyon Basins into the Telegraph Canyon Basin, These flows were not included in the gravity basin plan because it was anticipated that most of them would be re-routed to the new Salt Creek Trunk Sewer within approximately two years. However, due to the uncertainty of the type and construction schedule of downstream facilities, it now appears that the pumped flows may remain in the Telegraph Canyon Basin for several years. These flows therefore need to be included in the design capacity of F:\HOME\ENGrnEER\SEWER\TCPUMPFE.AI3 ßr1: ? .1r- / L) -ó>.~ - -----.--.---.- ~-"_....- -..- ._._,._------"'.,.-,._------,-----------~ ----~" ..... 2, I~ Meeting Date ¿J I So 1-1 Telegraph Canyon sewer line. According to the Salt Creek Basin Gravity Sewer Analysis report prepared by Wilson Engineering (12/16/92), the Salt Creek Basin flows will be eventually conveyed to either the future Otay Valley Water Reclamation plant, the existing Metro trunk sewer, or the City of Sari Diego's Otay Valley Trunk Sewer/Prison Line. The properties anticipated to convey flows to the Salt Creek Interceptor include: 1) Salt Creek Ranch 2) EastLake (Business Center, Greens, Woods, Vistas, Trails and Olympic Training Center) 3) Otay Ranch (Otay River Valley, Proctor Valley, and San Ysidro Parcels) 4) Hidden Valley Estates City Council approved an amendment to the Telegraph Canyon Gravity Basin Plan to include the pumped flows generated by EastLake and Salt Creek Ranch Developments within the Salt Creek Basin, and EastLake Development within the Poggi Canyon Basin (Pumped Flows Report). This report was completed by WilIdan Associates on June 9, 1993. According to the Pumped Flows Report, sewage from a total of 7,800 EDUs will temporarily need to be pumped into the Telegraph Canyon Basin. This includes 3,592 single family and 3,137 multiple family dwelling units (including apartments and condominiums), the Olympic Training Center, 29.2 acres of commercial use, six schools, 75.1 acres of parks, 15.8 acres of Community Purpose Facilities and a reservoir site. The incorporation of the pumped flows in the plan results in an additional 25,280 feet of parallel or replacement sewer lines being required. The construction cost will increase from an estimated $1,740,290 for only the gravity flow basin to $5,890,246 for the gravity basin plus pumped flows. The higher cost of upgrading the sewer to serve pumped flows is due to the fact that the original design for the Telegraph Canyon Trunk sewer included capacity for anticipated future gravity basin flows but not pumped flows (Report on Collection, Treatment and Disposal of Sewage and Industrial Waste, Engineering Science 1959). The pumped flows report analyzed two fee conditions for distributing the cost of improvements between the gravity and pumped flow basins. Both fee conditions assumed that the sewer segments which needed improvements only if pumped flows were added would be paid entirely by the pumped flow developments. Fee condition I allocated the remaining costs based on the proportion of maximum pumped flows to maximum total flows (gravity plus pumped) to the pumped flow developments. Fee condition II allocated to the pumped flow developments the difference in cost between the total facilities and the facilities needed to serve the gravity basin flows only. The fees calculated for the pumped flow developments were $615 per EDU for Condition I, and $553 for Condition II, The fees for the gravity flow basin would be reduced to $135 per EDU under Condition I, and would remain at $184 per EDU under Condition II. F,IHOME\ENGINEERISEWERITCPUMPFE.A13 ~ /O..).V Jl-¿.r: ,.....--- ..-.----- .--..---.---------.-------..----.------ Page 3, I~ 9 Meeting Date 2-1 IS I"!.., In the final report, the number of EDU's used for assessment of the capacity fee was reduced from 7,800 to 7,508 to account for the building permits already issued. However, after the report was completed, City staff updated that number from 7,508 to 7,416 based on a field investigation and current information from the Building and Housing Department. Consequently, the fees were revised to $622 for Fee Condition I, and $560 for Fee Condition n. City staff recommends the adoption of the $560 per EDU fee obtained by condition n. These flows are temporary and the pumped fee is relatively high. It would seem most reasonable to require the pumped flow developments to pay only for the additional facilities required to provide for these flows. Under this option, the fee for gravity basin developments would not need to be modified. Since the developments being pumped to the Telegraph Canyon Basin will discharge to the Salt Creek and Poggi Canyon Basins when gravity sewerage facilities become available, developers could be required to pay fees to construct facilities in both basins. The requirement for payment of fees will depend on the available sewerage facilities at the time building permits are issued. If gravity sewer service becomes available in the Salt Creek and/or the Poggi Canyon Basins prior to construction of the full Telegraph Canyon improvements, the fee will be separately revised for each basin to cover only the costs incurred prior to diversion of pumped flows to the gravity basins. These costs should include expenses incurred for Amended Plan preparation, sewage flow monitoring, design and construction and all related City staff costs (including flow monitoring, flow modeling, engineering design and review). City will refund the existing property owners the difference between the fees paid and the revised fee. Refunds will be calculated on a per EDU basis. If flow monitoring indicates that the full Facilities must be constructed before gravity sewer service becomes available in the Salt Creek and/or the Poggi Canyon Basins, developers will be responsible for paying the full Fee. Pumped flows will be rerouted to the Salt Creek and/or Poggi Canyon Basins when the downstream facilities are completed. We provided EastLake and Baldwin with information on the report preparation at various stages. The information on projected development and land uses was confirmed by them. and their comments were addressed in the fmal report. A public meeting was held on September 21,1993 to discuss the fmal report and staff recommendations for establishing the fee and was attended by representatives of EastLake Development and the Baldwin Co.. Bruce Sloan, of EastLake Development, requested that the revenues from the gravity basin DlF and the pumped basin DIF be deposited in different accounts to allow an easier transfer of funds to the Salt Creek Trunk fund if required. Staff agrees with this idea and proposes to set up a new account for this purpose. Mark Burbrink of Wilson Engineering and Jeff Warmoth of The Baldwin Co. requested that the City perform flow simulations and monitoring more frequently than yearly to obtain a more accurate assessment of upgrading requirements. Engineering Staff has software provided by the consultant and proposes to update the computer models as individual developments occur. Staff will F:\HOMEIENGlNEERIAGENDA \TCPUMPFE.AI3 ~ /D-ø2.7 ~ -2..'/ -_...__.._,+,-_..~.- .----..-.------,-.-----.- Page 4, I~ 9 Meeting Date ?./, ~ then schedule periodic flow metering at strategic locations in the basin to detect sewer capacity deficiencies which will trigger the sewer improvements. The pumped flows report recommends replacing the sewers along J Street downstream of the intersection of Hilltop Drive and J Street instead of paralleling the existing facilities. This is mainly due to the existence of numerous underground utilities, including an existing parallel sewer. The developers inquired about the possibility of combining sewer rehabilitation funds (from Fund 226) with DlF funds for construction in that area. Projects are included in the Sewer Rehabilitation Program based on the results of sewer TV inspections. These inspections are performed in phases according to the age of the lines. Approximately 55 % of the existing parallel sewers on J Street were constructed in the early 1970's. These lines are too new to require extensive rehabilitation and will not be televised in the near future. The other sewer segments , were built in two phases, one in 1959 and the other in 1964. These segments will be televised at the time the upgrades are needed to assess the need for rehabilitation. If it is found that rehabilitation work is needed, the estimated cost associated with that rehabilitation could be contributed by the City to partially offset the replacement cost. Environmental review of this project is not necessary at this time. Such review will be performed later, prior to project construction. At that time, an Initial Study Application will need to be filed with the City of Chula Vista Planning Department in accordance with CEQA requirements. City staff prepared the enclosed map (Exhibit 2) showing the developments subject to pumping and the · basin boundaries which will be used for fee assessment purposes. A portion of the boundary line along the east side of the basin was based on tentative maps and the natural ridge line and will be amended in the future as additional development information becomes available. FISCAL IMPACT: Passage of this ordinance will result in revenues of approximately $4,149,956, plus increases due to an annual adjustment for inflation. These revenues plus the $1,740,290 obtained from the gravity basin developments would be specifically used for design and construction of sewer improvements and flow monitoring in the Telegraph Canyon Basin. · RM: ST-002 Exhibits Revised Fee Calculation · F:\HOMEIENGINEEIlIAGENDAITCPUMPFE.AI3 ~/().df EXHIBIT 1 ~-Iegraph Canyon Sewer Basin Improvement and Financing ., .n Amendment Incorporating Pumped Flows Maximum number of EDU's estimated in the basin = 7,800 EDU's available for assessment of Capacity fee = 7,800 - EDU's permitted in the basin Number of units built or building permits issued as of September 1993 Eastlake Greens Subdivision Units Edu/Equiv # of ED Us Unit 17 136 0.75 102 Unit 5 14 1.00 14 Unit 11 38 1.00 38 Unit 8 26 1.00 26 Unit 14 2 1.00 2 Sub Total = 182 Other Existing EDU's Estimated EDUs from Eastlake High School = 192 Estimated EDUs from Eastlake Golf Club House = 10 Sub Total = 202 Total existing/permitted EDUs in the basin = 384 EDU's available for assessment of Capacity fee = 7,800 - 384 = 7,416 Revised Fee Calculation Condition 1: $4,614,499 = $622.24 per EDU (7,800-384) Condition 2: $4,149,956 = $559.59 per EDU ; use $560.00 per EDU Recommended (7,800-384) A:\FEERECAL.XlS R. Miranda 10/12/93 pag~ I {) -ð-1 '1 2..'1- "---_.__.._'--,.._,._.~-~_.._._~-_._,--_."..._-,---,--..._-- - THIS PAGE Bu.NK · · · · ~ !(),30 ORDINANCE NO. .:(.šf5~ - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA ESTABLISHING THE TELEGRAPH CANYON SEWER PUMPED FLOWS DEVELOPMENT IMPACf FEE TO PAY FOR SEWER IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE TELEGRAPH CANYON SEWER BASIN AS A CONDmON OF ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS FOR CONSTRUCTION IN THE TELEGRAPH CANYON SEWER PUMPED FLOWS BASIN WHEREAS, the Telegraph Canyon Sewer Pumped Flows Basin ("Pumped Flows Basin") is that area of land within the City of Chula Vista from which wasteWater will be collected and pumped inlo the Telegraph Canyon Sewer Basin (Gravity Basin), which area is shown on the map attached hereto as Exhibit "2'; and, WHEREAS, on February 25, 1992 the City Council passed Resolution No. 16519 approving the First Amendment 10 the Telegraph Canyon Basin Sewer Moniloring and Gravity Basin Usage Agreement 10 provide for the preparation of the "Telegraph Canyon Sewer Basin Improvement and Financing Plan Amendment Incorporating Pumped Flows" (Amended Plan). Said Amended Plan was 10: (1) include an estimate of ultimate sewer flows anticipated from the Pumped Flows Basin; (2) recommend improvements 10 handle the combined incremental increases of sewage flow anticipated from the Pumped Flows Basin and from the Telegraph Canyon Sewer Basin ('Gravity Basin "); and (3) establish a fee payable by all dwelling units discharging within the Pumped Flows Basin and benefiting from trunk sewer improvements; and, WHEREAS, on February 25,1992 the City Council passed Resolution No. 16518 approving an amendment 10 the agreement between the City of Chula Vista and Willdan Associates for preparation of said Amended Plan; and, WHEREAS, pursuant 10 said agreement, WiIldan Associates have prepared said Amended Plan dated June 9, 1993; and. WHEREAS, the Amended Plan has determined that new development within the Pumped Flows Basin will create adverse impacts on the City's existing sewer facilities (10 wit, that the sewage expected 10 be generated from new development within the Pumped Flows Basin will exceed the capacity of the current sewer system to handle said additional sewage). These impacts must be mitigated by the financing and construction of certain sewer facilities identified in this ordinance; and, WHEREAS, sewer improvements and a fee 10 be levied on new development in the Pumped Flows Basin have been justified in the Amended Plan; and, WHEREAS, developers of land within the City should be required 10 mitigate the burden created by development through the construction or improvement of sewer facilities within the boundaries of the development, the construction or improvement of sewer facilities outside the boundaries of the development which are needed 10 provide service 10 the development in accordance with City standards and the payment of a fee 10 finance a development's portion of the Iotal cost of the public facilities; and, WHEREAS, all development within the City contributes 10 the cumulative burden on various sewer facilities in direct relationship 10 the amount of population generated by the development or the gross acreage of the commercial or industrial land in the development; and, WHEREAS, on September 21, 1993 a public meeting was held with the developers of developments located within the Pumped Flows Basin to discuss the final Amended Report and City Staff recommendations for establishing the Telegraph Canyon Sewer Pumped Flows Basin Development Impact Fee; and, /D-3~~ ··~·___·_~_~·_···______·'__"'·___.~·U__·._ Ordinance No. _ Page 2 WHEREAS, on December 7. 1993 a Public Hearing was conducted before the City Council to provide an opportunity for interested persons to be heard on the approval of the Amended Plan and establishment of the Telegraph Canyon Sewer Pumped Flows Fee; and, WHEREAS, the City Council determined, based upon the evidence presented at the Public Hearing, including, but not limited to, the Amended Plan and the various reports and other information received by the City Council in the course of its business, that imposition of the sewer facilities development impact fee on all developments within the Telegraph Canyon Sewer Pumped Flows Basin in the City of Chula Vista for which huilding permits have not yet been issued is necessary in order to protect the public safety and welfare and to ensure effective implementation of the City's General Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the amount of the fee levied by this ordinance does not exceed the estimated cost of providing the public facilities. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DOES ORDAlN AS FOLLOWS: · SECTION I. Facilities. The facilities which are the subject matter of the fee herein established are fully described in the Amended Plan at page 24 thereof, and the locations at which they will be constructed are more fully described on Plates I through 14 under the section thereof entitled 'Improvement Locations", all of which facilities may be modified by the City Council from time to time by resolution ("Facilities"). The City Council may modify or amend the list of projects herein considered to be pari of the Facilities by written resolution in order to maintain compliance with the City's Capital Improvement Program or to reflect changes in land development and estimated and actual wastewater flow. , SECTION n. Territory to Which Fee Is Applicable. The area of the City of Chula Vista to which the Fee herein established shall be applicable shall be to the East of the Telegraph Canyon Sewer Basin, within the Salt Creek, Otay Lakes and Poggi Canyon Basins, and from which the generated sewage will be pumped into the Gravity Basin. The Pumped Flows Basin is defined as that territory shown on a map on file in the Office of the City Engineer entitled "Developments Subject to Pumping' and dated June 23. 1993, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit '2" ("Territory"). SECTION 1lI. Establishment of Fee. · A development impact fee ("Fee"), to be expressed on a per Equivalent Dwelling Unit ("EDU") basis, and payable prior to the issuance of a building permit for a development project within the Territory, is hereby established. SECTION IV. Determination of Equivalent Development Units. Each single family detached dwelling or single family attached dwelling shall be considered one EDU for purposes of this Fee. Each unit within a multi-family dwelling shall be considered. 75 EDU. Every other commercial, industrial, non-profit, public or quasi-public, or other usage shall be charged at a rate calculated in accordance with the method for estimating EDUs set forth in the Master Fee Schedule for the purpose of estimated Sewer Capacity Charges currently located · ~ /P'~>- ~ Ordinance No. Page 3 in Chapter XII ("Engineering - Sewer), Section A.3. or successor thereto, as same may from time to time be modified by the City Council. SECTION V. Time to Determine Amount Due; Advance Payment Probibited The Fee for each development shan be calculated at the time of building permit issuance and shan be the amount as indicated at that time and not when the tentative map or fina1 map was granted or applied for, or when the building permit plan check was conducted, or when application was made for the building permit. SECTION VI. Purpose and Use of Fee. The purpose of the Fee is to pay for the planning (including preparation of the Amended Plan). design, construction, repair, maintenance, and/or financing (including the cost of interest and other financing costs as appropriate) of the Facilities, or reimbursement to the City or other third parties for advancing costs actually incurred for planning, designing, constructing, or financing the Facilities, including those facilities appurtenant to the Salt Creek Interceptor as provided in Section IX of this ordinance. Any use of the Fee shall receive the advance consent of the City Council and be used in a manner consistent with the purpose of the Fee. SECTION VII. Amount of Fee. The initial amount of the Fee shan be $560 per EDU. The City Council shan annually review the amount of the Fee. The City Council may adjust the amount of this Fee as necessary to reflect changes in the costs of the Facilities as may be reflected by such index as the Council deems appropriate, such as the Engineering-News Record Construction Index, or such other basis; or changes in the type, size, location or cost of the Facilities to be financed by the Fee, changes in land use on approved tentative maps or Specific Plan Amendments, and upon other sound . engineering, fmancing and planning information. Adjustments to the above Fee may be made by resolution amending the Master Fee Schedule. SECTION VIII. Authority for Accounting and Expenditures The proceeds collected from the imposition of the Fee shan be deposited into a public facility financing fund ("Telegraph Canyon Sewer Basin Pumped Flows Development Impact Fee Fund", or alternatively herein "Fund") wbich is hereby created and shall be expended only for the purposes set forth in this ordinance. The Director of Finance is authorized to establish various accounts within the Fund for the Facilities identified in this ordinance and to periodically make expenditures from the Fund for the purposes set forth herein in accordance with the facilities pbasing plan or capital improvement plan adopted by the City Council. SECTION IX. Revision and Refund of Fees If gravity sewer service becomes available in the Salt Creek and/or the Poggi Canyon Basins prior to construction of the full Facilities, the Fee win be separately revised for each basin I 0 ~:S.:S ~ ::q -~ ~ , H.___..,_ -.-...--.-~----.--'--.--'-~.---_._'~--~_. Ordinance No. _ Page 4 to cover only the costs incurred prior to diversion of pumped flows to each gravity hasin. These costs should include expenses incurred for Amended Plan preparation, sewage flow monitoring, design and construction and all related City staff costs (including flow monitorinS. flow modelins. ensineerins design and review). City will refund the existins property owners the di fference between the fees paid and the revised fee. Refunds will be calculated on a per EDU basis. If flow monitorinS indicates that the full Facilities must be built before gravity sewer service becomes available in the Salt Creek and/or the Poggi Canyon Basins, developers will be responsible for paying the full Fee. Pumped flows will be rerouted to the Salt Creek and/or PoSgi Canyon Basins when the downstream facilities are completed. SECTION X. Findings. The City Council finds that collection of the Fees established by this ordinance at the time of the buildinS permit is necessary to ensure that funds will be available for the construction of · facilities concurrent with the need for these facilities and to ensure certainty in the capital facilities budgeting for growth impacted public facilities. SECTION XI. Fee Additional to other Fees and Charges. The Fee established by this section is in addition to the requirements imposed by other City laws, policies or resulations relating to the construction or the financing of the construction of public improvements within subdivisions or developments. SECTION XII. Mandatory Oversizing of Facility; Duty to Tender Reimbursement Offer. , Whenever a developer of a development project is required as a condition of approval of a development permit to cause a portion of the sewer system which is the subject matter of a Facilities enhancement planned for improvement under the Basin Plan (Work for the removal of a Critical Sewage Constriction) to be enlarged to accommodate the sewage flow created by the development, the City may require the developer to install the Facilities according to design specifications approved by the City, that being with the supplemental size or capacity in order to accommodate estimated ultimate flow as indicated in the Basin Plan and subsequent amendments. If such a requirement is imposed, the City shall offer to reimburse the developer from the Fund either in cash or over time as Fees are collected, at the option of the City. for costs incurred by the developer for the design and construction of the Facility not to exceed the estimated cost of that particular Facility as included in the calculation and · updating of the Fee. The City may update the Fee calculation as City deems appropriate prior to makinS such offer. This duty to offer reimbursement shan be independent of the developer'. obligation to pay the Fee. SECTION XIII. Voluntary Construcûon of a Portion of the Faciliûes; Duty of City to Tender Reimbursement Offer. If a developer proposes to design and construct a portion of the Facilities in conjunction with the prosecution of a development project within the Territory, or is required by Section 11 "Mandatory Oversizing' to design arid construct a portion of the Facilities described in the · llì ,3~ ~ Ordinance No. Page 5 Amended Plan ('Work'), the City shall offer 10 reimburse the developer from the Fund either at the time the expenditures are incurred or over time as Fees are collected, at the option of the City, for costs incurred by the developer for the design and construction of the Facility not 10 exceed the estimated cost of that particular Facility as included in the calculation and updating of the Fee. SECl10N XIV. Procedure for Entitlement 10 Reimbursement Offer. The City's duty 10 extend a reimburæment offer 10 a developer pursuant to Section 12 or 13 above shall be conditioned on the developer complying with the terms and conditions of this section: a. Written authorization shall be requested by the developer from the City and issued by the City Council by written resolution before developer may incur any costs eligible for reimbursement relating to the Work. b. The request for authorization shall contain the following information, and such other information as may from time 10 time be requested by the City: (I) Detailed descriptions of the Work with the preliminary cost estimate. c. If the Council grants authorization, it shall be by written agreement with the Developer, and on the following conditions alOOng such other conditions as the Council may from time to time impose: (I) Developer shall prepare all plans and specifications and submit same 10 the City for approval; (2) Developer shall secure and dedicate any right-of-way required for the Work; (3) Developer shall secure all required permits and environmental clearances necessary for construction of the project; (4) Developer shall provide performance bonds in a form and amount, and with a surety satisfactory to the City; (5) Developer shall pay all City fees and costs. (6) The City shall be held harmless and indemnified, and upon demand by the City. defended by the developer for any of the costs and liabilities associated with the construction of the project. (7) The developer shall advance all necessary funds 10 design and construct the project. (8) The developer shall secure at least three (3) qualified bids for worle 10 be done. The construction contract shall be granted 10 the lowest qualified bidder. Any claims for additional payment for extra work or charges during construction shall be justified and shall be documented 10 the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. (9) The developer shall provide a detailed cost estimate which itemizes those costs of the construction attributable 10 the Work. The estimate is preliminary and subject 10 ~ ,/t?~~S- ~ "- ---- .. -- - _......_~._~._...._-_.__.~_._--_..""-, ..---.- Ordinance No. - Page 6 final determination by the Director of Public Works upon completion of the Public Facility Project. (10) The agreement may provide that upon determination of satisfactory incremental completion of a Facility, as approved and certified by the Director of Public Works, the City may pay the developer progress payments in an amount not to exceed 7S percent of the estimated cost of the const111ction completed to the time of the progress payment but shall provide in such case for the retention of 2S c¡¡ of such costs until issuance by the City of a Notice of Completion. (11) The agreement may provide that any funds owed to the developer as reimbursements may be applied to the developer's obligations to pay the Fee for building permits to be applied for in the future. (12) When all work has been completed to the satisfaction of the City, the developer sball submit verification of payments made for the const111ction of the project to the City. The Director of Public Works shall make the final determination on expenditures which are eligible for reimbursement. · (13) After final determination of expenditures eligible for reimbursement has been made by the Public Works Director, the parties may agree to offset the developer's duty to pay Fees required by this ordinance against the City's duty to reimburse the developer. (14) If, after offset if any, funds are due the developer under this section, the City shall reimburse the developer from the Fund either at the time the expenditures are incurred or over time as Fees are collected, at the option of the City, for eligible costs incurred by the developer for the design and const111ction of the Facility not to exceed the estimated cost of that particular Facility as included in the calculation and updating of the Fee; or · the developer may waive reimbursement and use the amount due them as credit against future Development Impact Fee obligations. SECTION XV. Procedure for Fee Modificatioo Any developer who, because of the nature or type of uses proposed for a development project, contends that application of the Fee imposed by this ordinance is unconstitutional or unrelated to mitigation of the burdens of the development, may apply to the City Council for a modification of the Fee and the manner in which it is calculated. The application shall be made in writing and filed with the City Clerk not later than ten (10) days after notice is given · of the public hearing on the development permit application for the project, or if no development permit is required, at the time of the filing of the building permit application. The application shall state in detail the factual basis for the claim of modification, and shall provide an engineering and ACCOunting report showing the overall impact on the DIF and the ability of the City to complete const111ction of the Facilities by making the modification requested by the applicant. The City Council shall make reasonable efforts to consider the application within sixty (60) days after its filing. The decision of the City Council shall be final. The procedure provided by this section is additional to any other procedure authorized by law for protection or challenging the Fee imposed by this ordinance. · J¡{ _J.!J- ~ rD< ~ (()"~ Ordinance No. Page 7 SECfJON XVI. Fee Applicable to Public Agencies Development projects by public agencies, including schools, shall not be exempt from the provisions of the Fee. SECfJON XVII. Assessment District. If any assessment or special taxing district is established to design, construct and pay for any or all of the Facilities ("Work Alternatively Financed"), the owner or developer of a project may apply to the City Council for reimbursement from the Fund in an amount equal to that portion of the cost included in the calculation of the Fee attributable to the Wort Alternatively Financed. In this regard, the amount of the reimbursement shall be based on the costs included in the Basin Plan, as amended from time to time, and therefore, will not include any portion of the financing costs associated with the formation of the assessment or other special taxing district. SECfJON XVIII. Expiration of this Ordinance. This ordinance shall be of no further force and effect when the City Council determines that the amount of Fees which have been collected reaches an amount equal to the cost of the Facilities. SECfJON XIX. Time Limit for Judicial Action. Any judicial action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void or annul this ordinance shall be brought within the time period as established by Government Code Section 54995 after the effective date of this ordinance. SECfJON XX. CEQA Findings for Statutory Exemption. The City Council does hereby find that the Fee herein imposed is for the purpose of obtaining funds for capital projects necessary to maintain service within existing service areas. The Council fmds that the proposed Facilities are in existing rights of way parallel to or replacing existing sewer lines. Therefore, the City finds that the adoption of this Ordinance is statutorily exempt under the provisions of Public Resources Code Section 21080 (b) (8) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15273. SECfJON XXI. Other Not Previously Defmed Terms. For the purposes of this ordinance, the following words or phrases shall be construed as defined in this Section, unless from the context it appears that a different meaning is intended. (a) "Building Permit" means a permit required by and issued pursuant to the Uniform Building Code as adopted by reference by this City. (b) "Developer" means the owner or developer of a development. IO~ ~1ß ,/3- .~ ~_.- ._---_..._..~---~._......._._---_._-._-..~_._._~-~_._...----- Ordinance No. - Page 8 (c) "Development Permit" means any discretionary permit, entitlement or approval for a development project issued under any zoning or subdivision ordinance of the City. (d) "Development Project" or 'Development' means any activity described in Section 65927 and 65928 of the State Government Code. (e) "Single Family Attached Dwelling" means a single family dwelling attached to another single family dwelling; each on their own lot. SECTION XXll. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective sixty (60) days after its . Presented by John P. Lippitt Bruce M. Boogaa Director of Public Works City Attorney , , " /.¿. ''JL ~ _.~ 1()..3 II I I I I ~~~ i I ~ , --- -- --- --- ~ ~ ------ -- -- - - CllY OF CHUIA VISTA I I TELEGRAPH CANYON SEWER BASIN IMPROVEMENT AND FINANCING PLAN I AMENDMENT INCORPORATING PUMPED FLOWS I I , i I JUNE 9, 1993 i , I I I /tJ-~tJ - TELEGRAPH CANYON SEWER BASIN IMPROVEMENT AND FINANCING PLAN - AMENDMENT INCORPORATING PuMPED FLOWS - CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA - - CITY COUNCIL Tim Nader - Mayor Robert Fox Leonard M. Moore - Jerry R. Rindone Shirley Horton - CITY STAFF - John P. Lippitt Director of Public Works Clifford Swanson City Engineer Roger L. Daoust Senior Civil Engineer - Elizabeth Chopp Associate Civil Engineer - CONSULTANT - WiJldan Associates Engineers & Planners - - - June 9, 1993 - - Telegraph Canyon Sewer Ba..\in /v/I/ Improvenwnt and Financing Plan Incorporating Pumped Flows - TELEGRAPH CANYON SEWER BASIN IMPRoVEMENT AND FINANCING PLAN AMENDMENT INCORPORATING PuMPED FLows TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page I. Introduction 1.1 Background and Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.2 Land Use .. . . . . . " .. . ... .. . . . .. . . .. .. .. . ..... . . 1 1.3 Summary of Facility Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1.4 Summary of Fees . . .. .. '" . " . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . 6 II. Methodology 2.1 Gravity Flows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.2 Development Forecast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.3 Sewage flow rates . ... .. .. . . .. .. .. . . ....... ... .. . .. 8 2.4 Future Requirements and Costs .. . .. .. '" . .. .. . .. ... .... 14 III. hnplementation 3.1 Financing Alternatives ..... ... . .... .... .. .. ... . .. ... 18 3.2 Fee Methodology .. .... . ... ..... . . . . .. " .. . " . .. . . 20 3.3 Collection of School Fees '" ... ... " .... .. .. ... .. . ... 20 3.4 Advance Construction of Sewer Improvements . . . .. . .. . .. .. . . . 28 APPENDIX (see tab) · Pumped Sewer Analysis · Gravity Sewer Analysis Update · Maps of Improvement Locations Telegraph Canyon Sewer Basin / f} ~i;z Improvem£nt and Financing Plan Inco1porating Pumped Flows -~._..- __n__ LIST OF FIGURES Fieure Page I Sewer Basin Boundaries (Map) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2 Developments Subject To Pumping (Map) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3 Development Subject to Pumping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4 Fees per Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5 Flow Rates and Equivalent Dwelling Unit Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6 Total Pumped EDU's by Land Use Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 7 Points of Connection for Pumped Flows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II 8 Required Capacity of Pump Stations . .. .. .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. II 9 CONDITION 1 Full Development Completed During Phase 1II . . . . . . . . . . 12 10 CONDITION 2 Full Development Completed During Phase IV . . .. . . . . . . 13 II Phasing Condition I Phase 3 Plus Pumped Phasing of Improvements . . . . . 15 12 Phasing Condition 2 Phase 4 Plus Pumped Phasing of Improvements . . .. . 16 13 Cost of Improvements (Gravity + Pumped) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 14 Required Sections of Improvements due to Gravity Flows. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 15 Sewer Segments and Costs due to Gravity Flows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 16 Gravity Basin EDU Capacity Limits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 17 Sewer Segments and Costs for Pumping Improvements Only . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 18 Segments Affected by Both Gravity and Pumped Flows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 19 Fees per Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " 27 20 Telegraph Canyon Pumped Flow Basin (Map) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Back Pocket Tel~gr{Jph Canyon Sewer Basin j¿J/73 lmprovernen! and Financinlj Plan lncOIporaring Pumped FLows _ _ _.+....____._._.._~_ .w.._""__._._,_____~___ I. Introduction 1.1 Background and Purpose On January 23, 1990, the City entered into an agreement with EastLake Development Company whereby EastLake would fund the preparation of an Improvement and Financing Plan for sewerage improvements within the Telegraph Canyon sewer basin in return for permission to pump flows into the basin on a temporary basis. The plan would allocate cost responsibility for providing trunk sewer improvements and ensure that such improvements would be constructed in a timely manner so as not to exceed the capacity of the trunk sewer at any point in time. A report dated July 31, 1992 was prepared by Willdan Associates which identified the improvements necessary to accommodate gravity sewage flows generated within the basin to buildout. In response to the City's further request for engineering services related to the identification of improvements necessary to accommodate the addition of pumped flows originating from selected development in the Salt Creek and Poggi Canyon Basins, Willdan Associates was selected to prepare this pumped flows amendment to the basin plan. The drainage basin boundaries are shown on Figure I and in more detail on Figure 20. As the gravity basin plan was being completed, the EastLake I Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) was approved. The SPA deleted a residential development and added commercial development in the EastLake Village Center area, resulting in a net estimated increase of 297 equivalent dwelling units (EDU's). City staff updated the Telegraph Canyon Sewer Basin Improvement and Financing Plan dated July 31, 1992, to include these new flows resulting from the change in land use and the City Council adopted the fee schedule of $184 per EDU to fund improvements totalJing approximately $1,740,290. 1.2 Land Use This report addresses those sewage flows that will be pumped into the Telegraph Canyon sewer basin from portions of the Salt Creek Ranch development, from . portions of Eastlake, and from the Olympic Training Center as presented in Figure 2. These developments were analyzed in the following two phasing conditions: PHASING CONDI110N 1: Full development of Salt Creek Ranch and the portion of EastLake within the Salt Creek and Poggi Canyon Basins completed during Phase III. /tJ~zjr I Telegraph Canyon Sewer Basin Irnprlwernenr and Financing Plan Incorporaring Pumped Flows ..-.-.- ._-"....,-_.._~. INTRODUCTION PHASING CONDITION 2: Full development of Salt Creek Ranch and the portion of EastLake within the Salt Creek and Poggi Canyon Basins completed during Phase IV. Phasing Condition I is created by adding the fiows pumped into the gravity system during the development of Phase III, immediately following the development of all units within phases I and II of the gravity fiow basin. Likewise, Phasing Condition 2 is created by adding the pumped fiows into the gravity system during the development of Phase IV, immediately following the development of all units within phases I, II, and III of the gravity flow basin. The development associated with these phases are tabulated in Figures 9 and 10. The land use for future development in the Telegraph Canyon basin was assumed to follow the development forecast provided in the Growth Management Program which is based on final maps, tentative maps, general development plans and, for Otay Ranch, the Phase II Progress Plan (GDP/CP Statistics, 2-21-92, provided by the Otay Ranch Project Group. The Salt Creek Ranch project is anticipated to contain 404 single family dwelling units within the Otay Lakes Drainage Basin and 611 dwelling units within the Salt Creek Basin. Since the fiows from the Otay Lakes basin naturally drain to Upper Otay Reservoir which is a potable water source, a permanent lift station will pump sewage flows to the Salt Creek Basin. Together, the flows requiring pumping from Salt Creek Ranch in the Salt Creek Basin total 1,015 dwelling units as identified in Figure 3. /i/ /Ij Telegraph Canyon Sewer Ba.yin lmprovement and Financing Plan 2 incorporaring Pumped Flow.) - .-~_.....~ . ---"-_...._.._,.__.-----_..._._-~~--~--~-----_..._~--....--.--.....- I u:J en N II: N + C1JWÑ ¡;-.. Z m + Z < -< < u + ~ ~8 + üoE: I + o Z z Cf.) <~. z Cf.) en ~ a:N >- D < ~ ~ a: >- >- < Z Z - a: c < z i3~ < z () D c " >- '" Z Z ~ 0 Z 0 I Z W W 0 Z " <D D. < W <CJO 0 < u a: W <D a: a: u o æ ~ ü w C>z i3z ...::: ~ ;< w- g~ ...:¡" ~ W ~V1 ~V1 ..l~ --' Ü W w< « ...:¡" ~ V1 ~<D D.<D V1<D enØ - Z ~ ~ o I!¡ () ~ ~ (/) Z (/) <C CD ¡y w ~ w (/) :.:: w w ¡y U f- -' <C (/) 0 Z <C - Z 0 >- Z <C U 1 CJ I CJ 0 CL F . z 0 >- Z <C U w :r: ;;i. CL ~-z- u <C V1 ¡y 0 CJ ... W ... -' 0 w z f- - /Ô~y~ ü - c: ...---..----.-. ...... ..-- '-'._""---.--'. I W"'N O:N ..~~ µ:¡ W ¡:;;¡ Þþ "- <. E-<§~ to Þ .. .. <: :5 ~ Þþ .0. . Þþ ""'- .:. _ 0. ~ Þ-þ .... l) Q ~ I Þ'þ "'- ..... o z Z I>þ .... W":¡ W'" ~ 0: N >- <: w ~ w ~ >- <r Z - ~ '" Z (;~ 0 0 .., Z '" ~ Z z ~ 0 Z => '" W Q , ' Z => 0 '" '" -< c" 5 , 0 <D <r ~ V> ~ W <D U", Q ~ ~ I l.? z rU ~ Q. I: ¡¡; U ::; ..J .. ~ w ~~ V> ... ~ '7 ...J U '" i:\ ~ => ~ :::15 <D 0 Q. , . ' - (I) ~ : ¡s.~"- ~ Z ø '·01' \ o~ :tD' ..... "ø .' _HI: I / ~ ", L..-.........., \.s" " .".- , .-- , :>-....., t .~ ]1 ü , . z: , .. - .. 0.. \ (. ::;;: :::::> 0.. 0 l- I- U W -:> OJ :::::> IJ) IJ) I- z: w I ::;;: ! 0.. 0 ~ -.J W > W 0 ~ ~ ~ -z-: Q z - / /)J ~J/7 l.? N ¡;:: -,-- .---- - -. .._-- --- ----------. INTRODUCTION FIGURE 3 DEVELOPMENT SUBJECT 10 PuMPING EastLake Olympic Salt Creek Development Training Land Use Ranch Company Center Total SFDU 1,015 2,577 0 3,592 MFDU 0 2,987 150 3,137 Commercial Acres 0 19.0 10.2 29.2 High School Site 0 I 0 I Jr. High School Site 0 I 0 I Elementary School Sites 1 3 0 4 Reservoir Site 0 1 0 1 Park Acres 22 53.1 0 75.1 0. T. C. Training Facil. 0 0 81 81 O. T. C. Residential Dorm 0 0 1,0001 .1,000 0.T.c. Support Staff 0 0 5241 524 0. T. C. Visitor Ctr. 0 0 14.8 14.8 Acres CPF2 Acres 7 8.8 0 15.8 1 Users per day. 2 CPF = Community Purpose. Facilities /¡J~'-/~5 Telegraph Canyon Sewer Basin Improvement and Financing Plan lncorporaring Pumped Flow~; - -_._--.'. N'__ __ ~___. _ ___._.~._ INTRODUCTION 1.3 Summary of Facility Costs Computer modeling of the addition of pumped flows shows that additional sewer facilities will be required near the end of Phase III under phasing condition 1 and throughout Phase IV under phasing condition 2. The facilities needed include parallel relief and replacement relief sewer lines. Monitoring of the existing sewer line is also required. The total cost of facilities and incidental expenses is $5,890,246. These costs are itemized in Figure 13. 1.4 Summary of Fees The City of Chula Vista required as part of this report that a separate fee be established within the Salt Creek and Poggi Canyon Basins to pay for the cost of construction of the additional sewer improvements required in the Telegraph Canyon Basin to serve developments located within those basins. A5 a result of City requirements, the fees were calculated separately for the following two fee conditions: FEE CONDmON 1: The fee is allocated based on the proportion of maximum pumped flows to total additional gravity plus pumped flows. FEE CONDmON 2: The fee is allocated based on the incremental increase above the cost for the facilities needed to serve the basin gravity flows. Telegraph Canyon Sewer Basin Iv ~ti9 Improvement and Financing Plan 6 Incorporating Pumped Flows _ -- _.,.__...__...._..._-_._~--_._.__._._--,--------_.-..-._--- ---_.-- INTRODUCTION FìGURE 4 FEES PER LAND USE Condition 1 Condition 2 Land Use EDU Factor Fee Fee Residential - SFD 1.00 DU $ 615 DU $ 553 DU Residential - Multi .75 DU 461 DU 415 DU family Commercial 10.00 acre 6,150 acre 5,530 acre High School 192.00 site 118,080 site 106,176 site Junior High School 112.00 site 68,880 site 61,936 site Elementary School 36.00 site 22,140 site 19,908 site Reservoir Site 1.00 site 615 site 553 site Park 2.00 acre 1,230 acre 1,106 acre o.T.C. Training Facility 1.00 DU 615 DU 553 DU O. T. C. Residential .32 pers 197 pers 177 pers Dorms . 0.T.c. Support Staff .32 pers 197 pers 177 pers Dorms 0. T. C. Visitor Center 16.00 acre 9,940 acre 8,848 acre CPF 10.00 acre 6,150 acre 5,530 acre Telegraph Canyon Sewer Baj1n / ¿J50 Improvement and Financing Plan 7 lnc01poraring Pumped Flows ~_.._- -- --...........---.----. ----- _n____. -....... _.__......_-_.._-------_.._~-.._._._-----_.._,.- -.-- II. Methodolo!!v 2.1 Gravity Flows The flows associated with development to buildout of the Telegraph Canyon Drainage Basin are outlined in the report entitled "Telegraph Canyon Sewer Basin Improve- ment and Financing Plan" dated July 31, 1992. The improvements resulting from the buildout of the basin are required in phase IV of the development forecast. Figures 14, 15, and 16 of this report were taken from the above mentioned report and are included here for information and consistency. 2.2 ·Development Forecast The development creating the pumped sewage flows identified in Figure 3 have been forecasted to take place in either Phase III or Phase IV of the development for the basin as identified in the gravity flow report dated July 31, 1992. The developments associated with these two conditions are identified in Figures 9 and 10. 2.3 Sewage flow rates The sewage flow rates used in this study are those used in the gravity flow study for the Telegraph Canyon Basin as presented in Figure 5. These flow rates are based on sewerage flows accepted by Chula Vista as being generated by similar land uses in the area. Figure 6 identifies the Equivalent Dwelling Units based on the sewage fl ow rate factors. The approximate wasterwater flows of 15 and 20 gallons per day per student for elementary and junior/senior high schools is taken from Water and Wastewater Technology, Second Edition, Mark J. Hammer, Published by John Wiley and Sons, Copyright 1986, pp 332. Flow rates are slightly higher for junior and senior high schools due to physical education classes, industrial arts classes, and science laboratory classes. These rates are also used in the Telegraph Canyon Sewer Basin Plan for gravity flows. Telegraph Canyon Sewer Bw;in jjJ/f/ Improvement and Financing Plan 8 IncorporaTing Pumped Flows ---.....-. - -_._-,.._~.._--_. -.-.. _.._m METHODOLOGY Figure 5 identifies the land uses subject to pumping as presented in figure 3. The sewage flow rate for each land use is converted into Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDU's) by dividing the flow rate by 250 gallons per day. The Kaiser Medical Center has been included in the gravity flow basin. The total number of EDU's has been estimated at 665 for this 30.6 acre facility. FIGURE 5 FLow RATES AND EQUIVALENT DWELLING UNIT FACI'ORS Land Use Sewage Flow Rate EDU Factor Residential - SFD 250 gpd/DU LOO/DU Residential - Multi-Family 187 gpd/DU .75/DU Commercial 2.500 gpd/acre 10.00/acre High School 48,000 gpd/site' I 92.00/site lumor High School 28,000 gpd/site' 112.00/site Elementary School 9,000 gpd/site' 36.00/site Reservoir Site 250 gpd/site LOO/site Park 500 gpd/acre 2.00/acre O.T.C. Training Facility 250 gpdiDU LOO/DU O.T.C. Residential Dorms 80 gpd/pen;on .32/persoD O.T.C. Support Staff 80 gpd/pen;on .32/persoD O.T.C. Visitor Center Acres 4,000 gpd/acre 16.00/acre CPF 2,500 gpd/acre 1O.00/acre t High School Gcncrution · 2(J gullstudmtlday · 2,400 sn..dent capacity 2 Junior High School Generation · 20 gal/student/day · 1 ,400 student capacity 3 Elementary SchooJ Generation · 15 gul/student/day · 600 student cllpacity Telegraph Canyon Sewer Basin lôß improvement and Financing Plan 9 Incorporating Pumped Flows --.-._--~--- .-.-,-.------------- -...,..--.------.--.....-----..-.-...----..--- METHODOLOGY Figure 6 presents the total pumped EDU's per land use by multiplying the EDU factors for each land use developed in figure 5 times the pumped' units per land use developed in figure 3.. The total pumped EDU's equal 7,800. FIGURE 6 TOTAL PUMPED EDU's BY LA:'<D USE TYI'E TOTAL PUMPED LAND USE EDU FACfOR PUMPED UNITS EDU's SFDU LOO/DU 3.592 DU's 3,592 MFDU .75/DU 3,137 DU's 2,353 Commercial Acres lO.OD/acre 29.2 acres 292 High School Site 192.00/site 1 site 192 Jr. High School Site 112.00/site 1 site 112 Elementary School Sites 36.00/site 4 sites 144 Reservoir Site LOO/site 1 site I Park Acres 2.00/acre 75.1 acres 150 O.T.C. Training Facility LOO/DU 81 DU's 81 O.T.C. Resident Dorms .32/person 1,000 persons 320 O.T.C. Support StaiI· .32/person 524 persons 168 O.T.C. Visitor Ctr. 16.00/acre 14.8 acres 237 CPF Acres 10.00/acre 15.8 acres 158 Total Pumped EDU's 7,800 Telegraph Canyon Sewer Basin /v/53 improvement and Financing Plan 10 incorporating Pumped Flows ---.-.+.'--- .".--.-+..----. - ---~-- ------..._____.0·" METHODOLOGY Figure 7 identifies the manhole locations where the 7,800 EDU's of pumped jows enter the Telegraph Canyon Basin gravity line. Figure 7 Points of Connection For Pumped Flows Manhole No. Pumped EDU's 116 1,463 EDU's 120 6,337 EDU's Total 7,800 EDU's Figure 8 identifies the location of the six pump stations, the average jows entering the station, and the required capacity of the pumps in gallons per minute. Figure 8 Required Capacity of Pump Stations! Pump Station Pump Station Average Flows Required No. Location (GPM) Capaci ty (GPM) 1 Salt Creek 203 432 Ranch 2 Orange 658 1,259 Ave. 3 Otay Lakes 1,100' 2,009 Road 4 EastLake 254 529 Parkway 5 arc 201 428 6 arc 2.8 8.8 Boathouse ! Utilizes peaking factor from Telegraph Canyon Gravity Basin Report dated July 31, 1992. , Avemge flows of 1,100 GPM assumes 239 GPM gravity flow from EastLake plus 203 GPM from Salt Creek Ranch pump station, plus 658 GPM from Orange Ave. pump station. Telegraph Canyon Sewer Basin /(Jr~Y Imp1"ovemenr and Financing Plan 11 Incorporaring Pumped Flows - - -....-....-..--..--.........----...--.,....-----.......----..-----..--.,..'-'--,,----.--..-...- ;.- ~ ~ ~ "- ~ - - ~ '" ": 00 '" or> "! ¡¡ - ê Io.~ ",o..¡¡; ::¡ 0." ..,. ~ - 00 " ...: - :... ~~ u~ .... ~ ~ 'i;3 \¡ Q \j s: 9- :: tI) ~ :::: ~ ~ - '" ~ 00 o~O\ N §i..to.... ¡:: ...~ ~ '" ... .,.¡ 0 ..., ¡:Ji:2 '" ~ " '" '" .. ¡:: § ~'2 ~< - - .... - '" - .... ¿ - U '=! ;=; ì:: c -'" §.~~ - '" N ~ :... :::: C =v: 0.0 ~ I..,¡ 0'" ~ ~...:: .c.-:=: ~ ~ rJ.:'" -::: 00 '" '" u . L.: ~ ... ... ... :---.~- b - o;>u..: ~ ..,. ..,. ..,. N .... .... uec '" "! "! r--"'~ - - 0¿S" æ 0;; - U::';::; '" '" '" ~ Ç"I1: -v¡ oæ;:¡ . =~ '" :;: ~z 3~ ,., ,., '" 0., ~t~ 0 <=> <=> ~ ..., ,., ,., ~t: .-.... ¡., 'Cc" -'" '"'"..: ï: ~ ;:¡:;u 15;;; -."u a.,ZQ.I¡:t ..,. ..,. '" ..,. I: ,IO~O ~_ II:; ,..; i2 0 ..; ::¡::ë.µ" " " '" :;; N "C.- '"' ,., '" or> 6Lõ æ ª c-=:£ - .- z = - lo.ou;S u_", CE- o "1 ,., c: N .... ..,. ~ '"- " z ' " ~ '^ '" ~ '" 0 ~ r-: <=> e'· ë,;:¡ " .. - N - - .... N 0 .s.. 0" " - u'"..: ~o e '"'" ::æ 0 00 '" N " 0 ~ " ;:j - ~ .¿ Q'- >. N 00 0 ..., 00 '" '" " 0 -0> - N ..,. N '" - ..., " Io.z "CI::::: '" 1: :: e N .., .., - ð;:¡:;æ "" .:: N " JS ..,. 0 ..,. " ..,. :;;: ,., 0 '" ;;; ,., ,., 0 .s:~~ '" N " ..., 0 ..,. ..,. '" " N or> - I:l)'- .... N ..,. ,., - " ..., '" o. "'. o. "'. ~ c e's N - ..,. ..,. '" ";r. ¡;;~;:¡ - .~ '" 11 11 õ: "- "- s ~ ~ ¡:: E 0 ~ E ~ ~ - ;; " ;; - .= .= e:- e:- o. ¡: '" " " ~ :1. ~ '" '" ~ "" c '" = u 0 ;;i - c '" ." ~ '" - - c c " ~ -" '" ~ -" " " ü v; - - '" æ 0:: '" " L? c U .c c '" ;> "- '" c5 -" -" u .- ¡:: ~ ! u ~ '" "" -", '" æ g c ~ g 0 ~ ¡:: "- ~ '" u '" ~ '" ~ 0 - 0:: ." ~ "" c U "" U .c " u ~ 0 "V; c ,;¡ '" ~ 1<' '" ~ æ c ~ ~ " " " ;> " " -æ ~ " 0 -æ Õ 0 u '" V) UJ 0:: '" V) UJ V) 0 0:; 0 c:i u.i r.:i -Î ¿ :i - ..: u.: ::; ..; ..; :.: '" '" ::: " - = .= - 0. /iJ ~->~ ~-"--'-----~-' _,.___~a ......_ G s::: s::: ¡;: .~ ~ - 0 0 ": ¡t' 00 ~ '" '" - ~ ~ ~~ -.o..¡¡; - ... ... - .- 00 " '" - ....¡ "'.. :.... ~~ u~ - N ~ \,¡.... \,¡ ~ C ~ ~ ',. t.-:I ~ Si ¡: 0 '" '"' 00 N - 0 '" <> §¡¡:o.... ....~ .,f - vi 0 0 t-' ,.; N r-i c; Ê'~ ~ '" .. .. - - N - - - V> N '"' N ¿ " V - ~ s::: 0::: "'< \.) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ - - N V> - ,. '"' o s::. ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ,g.,:: -.. ~- ~ So tÍ'i'" -" 00 '" ,. U . s.: ~ .,f ~ ... fo-o..\!i..... u - - o;;.u< " ~ ~ uS§ N "' "l '" .....¡:¡ - 00" ¡::¡'" õõ - U==~ ,. ,. '" E-c u·... ~~ Or::5 ,,:;¡ ~Z ..c< '" ~ ~ "'.. -;""'¡c 0 0 ó V" '" '" '" ""... :.aëb " - .- u ~ð< ~~ N"OU OZa,¡ø::: " ~ 0 <:> ~ -O~O J,_ '" ,.; ...; 0 Ó ...; f: ¡:ë..'"'" " " " '" "0.- '"' '" ~ '" '"' ~ ~Õ E §5 c=< - .... Z 0 tn - ¡"OU;:¡ ·U-rr. " " 0 '" 0 N ,,'" I "¡ rc '" " ~ '"' Ez ~ .,; ; t-' ~ 0 'JÒ Ó Co;:¡ ::'Q '"' - N N - - '" ~ .:.. 0" V U"< 110 5 "0< Q~ ;j =S 0 00 ,. N N r-- 0 r-- r-- "", 'Q.... ~ N 00 0 '" '" 00 V> .. r-- Q ¡,.::> "0,:= - N ~ N N '" - '" r-- UJ Z " " 5 N N' ,.; - 0;:;; " u ¡,. .., ~ " 0 ~ r-- " N '" 0 .. ~ " V> .. ~ :§ ~~'" V> N r-- '" 0 ~ " " V> '" N r-- - '" .9 þ,I)....- N " ~ - r-- '" N, 0, "' o. ~ .. E " 5'5 " N - r--' ..; ï;; ¡;;r:;:¡ - "§ - ~ " '5 '5 '5 c: c: '5 ~ ~ - " E § § - .... 0 0 0 0 - :ci - :ci :ci ~ .Q ~ ~ ~ ~ E " " " " ~ '" '" '" '" v. - v. v. -¡¡ Õ " " >- - ~ " " " - ~ '" " - æ ~ v. ï;; " 0:: .... æ v:i " ~ - " - 0:: Ü " '" 0 " 0; " u "' " ti :> " Q 0.. .... u .... .- ~ ~ " u v. " " -" " g ß .... 0 v. ~ " ~ j " u Õ ~ " " '" u U '" .., "' u ~ >. .Q ~ U v. 0 " " ï;' " >- '"" " ~ v. v. " v. ~ ~ õ ~ :> ~ ~ " ;§ Õ ~ 0 -¡; 0 U UJ VJ UJ '" '" VJ UJ VJ Q a; u: 0 ¡,¡j ,,; 0 .J :;¡ - < :r: ..: ..: :.:: z " v. 2: " - :::: ..c - '" /{J~~ o·oh_O·___ METHODOLOGY 2.4 Future Requirements and Costs Based on a given slope, diameter, coefficient of friction, and maximum allowable depth of flow to pipe diameter ratio, each segment of sewer has a fixed maXimum capacity. When this fixed maximum capacity is exceeded, a replacement sewer of larger diameter or a parallel relief sewer is required. Figures II and 12 present the reaches of deficient sewer identified after the addition of all gravity and pumped flows. Figure II identifies when improvements are needed if the pumped flows are delivered to the existing gravity sewer during the development of Phase III. Figure 12 identifies when improvements are needed if the pumped flows are delivered to the existing gravity sewer during the development of Phase IV. For reference purposes, the total EDU's per phase are summarized below: Phase EDU's I 708 II 2,146 III 2,499 IV 4,406 Pumped 7.800 17,559 As directed by the City Engineering staff in June of 1992, all deficient sewer segments downstream of the intersection of Hilltop Drive and J Street (MH 34) will be replaced. All deficient sewer segments upstream of this intersection will be mitigated with the construction of parallel relief sewers. The decision to replace rather than parallel relief lines was based upon the genera] age and condition of the existing lines and the existence of numerous underground utilities downstream of manhole 34. Telegraph Canyon Sewer Basin /tJ-57 lrnprovem.enr and Financing Plan 14 Incmporaring Pumped Flows -- ~.- .-."-_._._.._.__._...._-"_..._.._.._~_._" MErnODOLOGY Figure II lists the improvements required following the completion of Phase 2 develop- ment and during Phase 3 development resulting from flows generated by a combination of new development in the gravity basin plus new development pumping into the basin. The "Total EDU's" are calculated by adding the incremental increase of Phase III development to the total Phases I and II EDU's of 2,854. Figure 11 Phasing Condition 1 Phase 3 Plus Pumped Phasing of Improvements Construe- MH MH tion Phase Down Up When Needed A 55 95 Improvements are ne.eded after construction of 5,431 Total EDU's or 2,577 EDU's in Phase IlL B 107A 109 Improvements are needed after construction of 6,957 Total EDU's or 4,103 EDU's in Phase IlL C 46 55 Improvements are needed after construction of 7,014 Total EDU's or 4,160 EDU's in Phase III. DI 31 34 Improvements are needed after construction of 7,091 Total EDU's or 4,237 EDU's in Phase III. D2 34 41 Improvements are needed after construction of 7,091 Total EDU's or 4,237 EDU's in Phase III. E 1 4 Improvements are needed after construction of 7,610 Total EDU's or 4,756 EDU's in Phase Ill. F 95 103 Improvements are needed after construction of 7.788 Total EDU's or 4,934 EDU's in Phase III. G1 8 11 Improvements are needed after construction of 9,305 Total EDU's or 6,451 EDU's in Phase III. G2 12 31 Improvements are needed after construction of 10,076 Total EDU's or 7,222 EDU's in Phase III. H 41 46 Improvements are needed after constructjon of all 10,299 EDU's in Phase III plus 486 EDU's in Phase IV. 1 4 6 Improvements are needed after construction of all 10,299 EDU's in Phase III plus 584 EDU's in Phase IV. /tJ~sr Telegraph Canyon Sewer Basin Improvemenr and Financing Plan 15 Incorporating Pumped Flows -----.- ------..--.- -.-...- .~-,-...-..,*_.---------_.- METHODOLOGY Figure 12 lists the improvements required following the completion of Phase 3 develop- ment and during Phase 4 development resulting from flows generated by a combination of new development in the gravity basin plus new development pumping into the basin. The "Total EDD's" are calculated by adding the incremental increase of Phase IV development to the total Phases I, II, and III ED D's of 5,353. FIGURE 12 PHASING CONDITION 2 PHASE 4 PLUS PuMPED PHASING OF IMPROVEME.''TS Construction MH MH Phase Down Up When Needed A 55 95 Improvements are needed after construction of 5,431 Total EDU's or 78 EDU's in Phase IV B 107A 109 Improvements are needed after construction of 6,957 Total EDU's or 1,604 EDU's in Phase IV C 46 55 Improvements are needed after construction of 7,014 Total EDU's or 1,661 EDU's in Phase IV DI 31 34 Improvements are needed after construction of 7,091 Total EDU's or 1,738 EDU's in Phase IV D2 34 41 Improvements are needed after construction of 7,091 Total . EDU's or 1,738 EDU's in Phase IV E 1 4 Improvements are needed after construction of 7,610 Total EDU's or 2,257 EDU's in Pha,,, IV F 95 103 Improvements are nt:eded afœr construction of 8,291 Total EDU's or 2,938 EDU's in Ph as" IV Gl 8 11 Improvements are needed after construction of 9,305 Total EDU's or 3,952 EDU's in Phase IV G2 12 31 Improvements are needed after construction of 10,076 Total EDU's or 4,723 EDU's in Phase IV H 41 46 Improvements are needed after construction of 13 ,639 Total EDU's or 8,286 EDU's in Phase IV I 4 6 Improvements are needed after construction of 13,737 Total EDU's or 8,384 EDU's in Ph as" IV Telegraph Canyon Sewer Bæln /¡9-Þ/ improvement and Financing Plan 16 incO/poraring Purnped Flows .--- ---------.- -_._---~---,---._--._--------- METHODOLOGY Figure 13 identifies the improvements required to support sewage flows resulting from new development in the gravity basin plus flows originating from adjacent basins which will be temporarily pumped into the Telegraph Canyon basin. fiGURE 13 COST OF IMPROVEMENTS (GRAVITY + PUMPED) Construc- MH MH Size Improvement Length Unit Total tion Phase Down Up (Inches) Type (Feet) Cost ($) ($) A 55 95 15 Parallel 21,220 82.00 1,740,040 B 107A 109 15 Pamllel 600 82.00 49,200 C 46 55 18 Pardllel 2,050 96.00 196,800 DI 31 34 27 Replace 1,330 160.00 212,800 D2 34 41 21 Pardllel 2,440 1]0.00 268,400 E I 4 27 Replace 970 160.00 155,200 F 95 103 12 Pardllel 3,000 70.00 210,000 G1 8 11 21 Replace 590 130.00 76,700 G2 12 31 21 Replace 6,620 130.00 860,600 H 41 46 12 Pardllel 1,490 70.00 104,300 I 4 6 24 Replace 260 144.00 37,440 CONSTRUCTION TOTAL 40,570 3,911,480 Engineering, Inspection, Surveying @ 15 % 586,722 Contingencies @ 25 % 1,124,550 SUBTOTAL 5,622,752 Momtoring @ $3,000 each MH Up-Down: 3-4,6-8.12-15,52-59,62-65,78-92 and 105-107 21,000 Fee Report and Analysis 131,000 TOTAL 5,774,752 City Administration @ 2 % 115,494 GRAND TOTAL 5,890,246 )¿/~~V 7èlegraph Canyon Sewer Ba.yin improvement and Financing Plan 17 incorporaring Pumped Flows . ......... ..n.__. -'---"~~"--'-""--""'-'~'~"-'---------'---- III. ImDlementation 3.1 Financing Alternatives This report clearly shows that future development in the Telegraph Canyon Sewer Basin will create the need for additional sewer facilities. There are two types of financing approaches that can be used to fund sewer improvements. One is a "pay- as-you-go" method that involves the collection of fees when development occurs. This approach establishes equity between developments but, unfortunately, does not collect enough funds for constructing improvements until the last building permits are granted and the fees have been collected. The other approach involves the use of an assessment procedure whereby the cost of the sewer improvements are assessed to all benefitting properties and bonds are sold to generate the funds to construct the improvements. Since the improvements are needed during Phases III and IV of development, an assessment procedure would not be appropriate since it would cause potential pressure to develop the Phase III and IV properties. Despite the fact that the "pay- as-you-go" approach would not generate all the funding required until late in the development forecast, the approach is preferred when used in conjunction with reimbursement agreements assuming that the improvements will be constructed by property owners in advance of development. The City of Chula Vista required as part of this report that a separate fee be established within the Salt Creek and Poggi Canyon Basins to pay for the cost of construction of the additional sewer improvements required in the Telegraph Canyon Basin to serve developments located within those basins. As a result of City requirements, the fees were calculated separately for the following two fee conditions: FEE CONDmON 1: The fee is allocated based on the proportion of maximum pumped flows to total additional gravity plus pumped flows. FEE CONDmON 2: The fee is allocated based on the incremental increase above the cost for the facilities needed to serve the basin gravity flows. Fees for sewer improvements can be established under either the Subdivision Map Act, Government Code Section 66483, or through Development Impact Fees, Government Code Section 66000. Of the two methods, the most preferred is the establishment of a fee using Government Code Section 66000. The code requires Telegraph Canyon Sewer Basin jV/? / Improvement and Financing Plan 18 Incorporating Pumped Fluws - ..._,-._-~.-.__._._.,_._-~-~._~"--_.~-----,. IMPLEMENTATION that a city establish a reasonable relationship, or "nexus", between a development project or class of development projects and the public improvement for which a developer fee is charged. The City must: · Identify the purpose of the fee; · Identify the use to which the fee will be put; · Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the fee's use and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed (a "type" nexus); and · Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the public facility and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed (a "burden" nexus). In addition, when a city imposes a fee as a condition of development approval, it must determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public facility or portion of that facility attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed. Government Code Section 66000 also requires that the public agency segregate and account for the fees received separate from general funds. In addition, if a city has had possession of a developer fee for five years or more and has not committed or expended that money for a project, the city must make findings describing the continuing need for the fees each fiscal year after the five year period has expired. Fees excluded from the requirements of Section 66000 include: · Fees charged in lieu of park land dedication under the Quimby Act; · Regulatory and processing fees; · Fees collected pursuant to a development agreement; · Fees collected pursuant to a reimbursement agreement that exceed the developer's share of an improvement; · Assessment district proceedings or taxes; and · Service charges for utility services such as sewer, water, and electricity. Telegraph Canyon Sewer Basin ItJ-"2 lmprovement and Financing Plan 19 Incorporating Pumped Flows '".._~ ,-"_.._------------_.. IMPLEMENTATION 3.2 Fee Methodology The fee, assessed against all benefiting undeveloped land uses within Salt Creek Ranch, Eastlake and the Olympic Training Center to pay for the costs of the sewer improvements resulting from the pumping of sewage flows from out-of-basin development, were considered for apportionment on an equivalent dwelling unit (EDU) basis under two conditions as described below. Figure 14 identifies 15,290 feet of improvements required as the result of gravity flows in the Telegraph Canyon Basin. The total estimated cost of these gravity sewer improvements is $1,740,290 as defined in the Telegraph Canyon Sewer Basin Improvement and Financing Plan dated July 31, 1992 as modified by City Council Ordinance 2533 adopted October 20, 1992. Figure 15 itemizes these improvements and costs. Figure 17 identifies 40,570 feet of improvements required as the result of pumped flows being introduced into the Telegraph Canyon Trunk Sewer. The total estimated cost of these improvements due to pumping is $4,149,956. Fee Condition I, beginning on page 25, uses the percentage of maximum pumped flows in EDU's to the total additional capacity in EDU's required for both gravity and pumped flows to determine the cost of sewer segment improvements to be allocated to gravity and pumped flows. This percentage is applied only to those line segments requiring improvements for both gravity flows and combined gravity and pumped flows (MH 84-81,80-65,55-46,41-32). It is assumed that the pumped flow EDU's will pay the total costs of the remaining segments. Fee Condition 2, beginning on page 26, subtracts the cost of gravity improvements determined by the gravity report from the total cost of improvements for both gravity and pumped flows and divides the result by the available future pumped flow EDU's. 3.3. CoUection of School Fees There are five schools planned for future construction in the developments subject to pumping as identified in figure 3. EastLake High School has already been constructed and its flows are currently being pumped into the gravity basin. The remaining five schools consist of one junior high and four elementary schools. New schools are required to obtain a building permit from the State Architect, not the City. As a result, the City may not be able to require payment of the sewer impact fee. However, Government Code 54999 dictates the process by which a city may impose a capital facilities fee on a school district. The Code indicates that the City may impose the fee on schools only after agreement with the school district. On January 6, 1992, the City Public Works Director issued a letter to the Chula Telegraph Canyon Sewer Basin //J/¿J Improvement and Financing Plan 20 IncOJporating Pumped Flows __._..___...__... _u_,_______ ______ _._ .___ IMPLEMENTATION Vista Elementary School District regarding the payment of sewer capacity fees. A similar letter and procedure needs to be initiated be the city to ensure payment of these fees by the school district. FIGURE 14 REQUIRED SECTIONS OF IMPROVEMENTS DUE TO GRAVITY FLows IN TELEGRAPH CANYON BASIN Upstream Downstream Existing Pipe Recommended 00- Length Manhole Manhole Size provement Pipe Size Affected 84 81 15" 10" Relief 1,800 ft 80 78 15" 10" Relief 1,200 ft 78 65 15" 12" Relief 6,900 ft 55 52 18" 12" Relief 280 ft 52 46 18" 12" Relief 1,770 ft 41 34 21" 12" Relief 2,440 ft 34 32 21 " 24" Replacement 900 ft TOTAL 15,290 ft Telegraph Canyon Sewer Basin /¡/~¿'tJ improvement and Financing Plan 21 Incorporating Pumped Flows -- ......__..._--.._-_._"-,....__.-..__.---~---_."~-'----- IMPLEMENTATION FIGURE IS SEWER SEGMENTS AND COSTS DUE TO GRAVITY FLows IN TELEGRAPH CA~-YON BASIN . ReplacemenURelief Facilities Cost 3,000 feet of 10" sewer @ $60/foot' $180,000 Engineering, Inspection, Surveying @ 15% 27,000 Contingencies @ 25 % 51,750 Subtotal 258,750 11,390 le"t of 12" s"wer @ $70/foo[' 797,300 Engineering, Inspection, Surveying @ 15 % 119,595 Contingencies @ 25 %2 229,225 Subtotal 1,146,120 900 feet of 24" sewer @ $144/foo[' 129,600 Engineering, Inspection, Surveying @ 15% 19,440 Contingencies @ 25 %' 37,260 Subtotal 186,300 Monitoring @ $3,000/sjle 15,000 Fee Report and Analysis 100,000 Total 1,706,170 City Administration @ 2 % 3 34,120 GRAND TOTAL $1,740,290 I Th~ unit prices (1992 dollars) for sewe.r line.s are based on recent Southern Califomi:. ConSU"UCtiOIl cosls for sewer lines of similar siu; and type, and includes p:Ncment removal and rephicemcnl, trcnl,b excavation, bedding, backfill. and compaction 2 Con~e.ncy @ 25 % cakulated on conslJ'Uction cost plus E.l.S. 3 City Admin. @ 2 % calculuted on Total Cost. Telegraph Canyon Sewer Basin /!J~~~ lmprovemenr and Financing Plan 22 Incorporating Pumped Flow~· .._...._..,.._._ _______m____m. .-....---.......---..--.-. IMPLEMENTATION Since Phase IV of development in the gravity basin will occur over a period of time, construction of relief sewers can be done in segments as necessary to avoid sewer capacity problems. Figure 16 identifies the number of gravity basin EDU's which, when developed, will generate flow exceeding the existing sewer capacity in each section. Figure 16 Gravity Basin EDU Capacity Limits Upstream Manhole Downstream Manhole Total Gravity EDU Limit! 84 78 6,075 78 65 4,777 55 46 7,014 41 32 7,091 It will be necessary for the City to meter the sewer flows over time to determine sewer capacity as well as monitor development proposal activity in order to schedule the timely initiation of sewer design activities followed by construction. 1 Based upon the single most critical reach in each sewer segment at or approaching Did of .75. Telegraph Canyon Sewer Basin /û/i? Improvement and Financing Plan 23 Incorporating Pumped Flows ___n___ -------..- ..---- ....__._-~~........_----". __n___ IMPLEMENTATION fiGURE 17 SEWER SEGMENTS AND COSTS FOR PuMPING IMPROVEMENTS ONLY MIl MIl Add'l Improvement Length Unit Total Phase Down Up Size Type (Feet) Cost ($) ($) (Inches) Difr. Al 55 65 5 Parallel 4,400 82.00 360,800 A1 65 78 3 Parallel 6,900 ]2.00 82.800 A3 78 80 5 Pardllel 1,200 22.00 26.400 A4 80 81 15 Pamllel 600 82.00 49,200 AS 81 84 5 Parallel 1,800 22.00 39,600 A6 84 95 15 Pamllel 6,320 82.00 518,240 B 107A 109 15 Par-oillel 600 82.00 49,200 CI 46 52 6 Parallel 1,770 26.00 46,020 C2 52 55 6 Parallel 280 26.00 7,280 D1 31 32 27 Replace 430 160.00 68,800 D2 32 34 3 Replace 900 16.00 14,400 D3 34 41 9 Par-oillel 2,440 40.00 97,600 E I 4 27 Replace 970 160.00 155,200 F 95 103 12 Parallel 3,000 70.00 210,000 GI 8 II 21 Replace 590 130.00 76,700 G2 12 31 21 Replace 6,620 130.00 860,600 H 41 46 12 Parallel 1,490 70.00 104,300 I 4 6 24 Replace 260 144.00 37,440 CONSTRUÇTION TOTAL 40,570 2,804,580 Engineering, Inspection, Surveying @ 15 % 420.687 Contingencies @ 25 % 806.317 SUBTOTAL 4,031,584 Monitoring @ $3,000 each MH Up· Down: 6-8 and 105-107 6,000 Fee Report and Analysis 31,000 TOTAL 4,068,584 City Administration @ 2 % 81,372 GRAND TOTAL 4,149,956 Telegraph Canyon Sewer Basin / ¡) /? 7 24 improvement and Financing Plan Incorporating Pumped flows -'"-..-....- --, -_.--._---,--_._----~._._~ IMPLEMENTATION FEE CONDITION 1: The fee is allocated based on the proportion of maximum pumped flows to gravity plus pumped flows. Maximum Pumped Flows = 7.800 EDU's = 44.4% Total Gravity + Pumped 9,760 + 7,800 EDU's FiGURE 18 SEGMENTS AFFECTED By BOTH GRAVITY AND PUMPED FLows Phase Length Unit Cost Total (feet) ($) A2 6,900 $82.00 $565,800 A3 1,200 82.00 98,400 A5 1,800 82.00 147,600 CI 1,770 96.00 169,920 C2 280 96.00 26,880 D2 900 160.00 144,000 D3 2,440 110.00 268,400 Construction Subtotal 1,421,000 Engineering, Inspection, Surveying @ 15 % 213,150 Contingencies @ 25 % 408,540 City Administration @ 2 % 40,854 Total of Shared Segments 2,083,544 ) tl '--!p ¿! Telegraph Canyon Sewer Bæ,'in Improvement and Financing Plan 25 IncorporaTing Pumped Flows ._._.~_.__..._n'_'·'_,_·_·~··_·_ IMPLEMENTATION Pumped Flow EDU Calculation 44.4% of shared segments ($2,083,544) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $925,093 Total of pumped only segments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,651,666 Pumped flows monitoring costs (2 X $3,000 X 1.02) . . . . . 6,120 Pumped flows report & analysis costs ($31,000 X 1.02) . . . . . . . 31.620 Total $4,614,499 $4.614.499 = $614.6I1EDU = $615/EDU 7,5081 Gravity Flow EDU Calculation Total cost of gravity + pumped improvements . . . . . . . . . . $5,890,246 Less cost of Condition I pumped flows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.614.499 Total $1,275,747 $1.275.747 = $134.9I/EDU = $135/EDU 9,4562 FEE CONDITION 2: The fee is allocated based on the incremental increase above the cost for the facilities needed to serve the basin gravity flows. The fees for the gravity flow basin would not change. The following formula is used to determine the cost per EDU. Total cost of improvements (gravity + Pumped) . . . . . . . . . . $5,890,246 Less cost of Improvements due to gravity only. .. . . . 1.740.290 Cost of improvements due to pumping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $4,149,956 EDU's Available for assessment of capacity fee = 7,800 - 292 = 7,508 EDU's. The 292 EDU's represents EDU's for which building permits have already been issued as follows: 90 EDU's tor multi- residential; 10 EDU's for golf course clubhouse; and 192 EDU's for the EastLake High SchooL 2 A total of 9,463 EDU's were proposed for construction in the gravity basin. However, 250 single family units and 72 multi-family units from development phase I and II have already been constructed and therefore cannot be assessed connection fees. Added to this are 297 EDU's from the Kaiser Medical Center leaving 9.456 EDU's available for asst:;ssment. Telegraph Canyon Sewer Ba:;in /érj¡ lmprovemem and Financing Plan 26 Incorporating Pumped Flows -- _.._-~-_.. "--.--------------,,.- _._-------~-~~-----_._-'" IMPLEMENTATION Total Cost of ImDrovements = $4.149.956 = $552.74/EDU = $553/EDU Total EDU's 7,508' All fees will be subject to an annual adjustment based on the Engineering News Record (ENR) construction index. The fee per EDU for the pumped flow areas is apportioned on the various land uses as shown in the following table. FIGURE 19 FEES PER LAND USE IN PuMPED Fww AREAS Condition 1 Condition 2 Land Use EDU Factor Fee Fee Residential - SFD 1.00 DU $ 615 DU $ 553 DU Residential - Multi-fami- .75 DU 461 DU 415 DU Iy Commercial 10.00 acre 6,150 acre 5,530 acre High School 192.00 site 118,080 site 106,176 site Junior High School 112.00 site 68,880 site 61,936 site Elementary School 36.00 site 22,140 site 19,908 site Reservoir Site 1.00 site 615 site 553 site Park . 2.00 acre 1,230 acre 1,106 acre O. T. C. Training Facility 1.00 DU 615 DU 553 DU O. T. C. Residential .32 pers 197 pers 177 pers Dorms O. T. C. Support Staff .32 pers 197 pers 177 pers Dorms O.T.C. Visitor Center 16.00 acre 9,840 acre 8,848 acre CPF 10.00 acre 6,150 acre 5,530 acre I EDU's Available for assessment of capacity fee = 7,800 - 292 = 7.508 EDU·s. Tbe 292 EDU's represents EDU's for which building permits have already been issued as follows: 90 EDU's for multi- residential; 10 EDU's for golf course clubhouse; and 192 EDU's for the EastLake High School. Telegraph Canyon Sewer Basin jtl-70 Improvement and Financing Plan 27 Incorporating Pumped Flows . ._.... .__._L__, .' ..... _ ~._____..,_.______~___ _. _.__.. IMPLEMENTATION 3.4 Advance Construction of Sewer Improvements In case an owner/developer proposes to construct some of the recommended sewer improvements in advance, or is required to build a portion of the sewer in advance of adequate funding, the owner/developer may request authorization from the City. This project would be handled in a manner similar to the transportation DIF projects. The procedure to be followed will be established by ordinance. Telegraph Carryon Sewer Basin /t1-7! Improvement and Financing Pllln 28 Incorporating Pumped Flows - ---,-~_._,-"~-_._. _._._-"...._---_.._,----,--_._~._-- SEWER ANALYSIS Gravity + Pumped Teleg,apb Canyon Sewer Basin Improvement and Finand,rg Plan J¿J- 72 blcorporatitJg Pumped Flows - --'--'-'-".'-'~~'~-'-"'-'-~- METHODOLOGY OF SEWER STUDY A. Sewage Flows (Pumped) There are several factors to predict and calculate sewage flows from a particular area. The method used for this study uses unit flow coefficients for the various land use types in the study area. These unit jow coefficients are listed in the following table. FLow COEFFlQENT LAND USE UNIT (GPD) (CFS) Residential EDU 250 0.000387 Multi-Family EDU 187 0.000289 Commercial Acres 2,500 0.00387 Reservoir Site 250 0.000387 Park Acres 500 0.00077 O.T.e. Training EDU 250 0.000387 O.T.C. Dorms Person 80 0.000124 O. T.C. Support Person 80 0.000124 O,T.C. Visitor Ctf. Acres 4,000 0.006189 CPF Acres 2,500 0.00387 Schools Elementary Site 9,000 0.01392 Junior High Site 28,000 0.04332 High School Site 48,000 0.07426 The average sewage flow is calculated using these unit flow coefficients. The average jow is incorporated into the peaking curve method where: Qpeak = I. 98 (Qavg) 0.91 (CFS) This equation closely approximates the City of Chula Vista's peak to average sewage jow curve. Telegraph Canyon Sewer Basin j¡J ~7 3 Improvement and Finandng Plan Incorporating Pumped Flows -.- .".-..-....-.....-..-..- .,._-~.-----_._._._.__.._'.._",.._---_._._. -~-,...---- B. Hydraulic Analysis and Computer Model The hydraulic analysis of the gravity and pumped sewer system is based on the following criteria: . Plow calculations are based on the use of the Manning formula for open channel flow with a coefficient of friction, n = 0.013 for VCP and RCP and n = 0.012 for PVC pipe. . Evaluation of pipeline capacity of existing sewers and sizing of proposed sewers is determined by limiting the peak flow depth to pipe diameter (Did) as follows: I Pipe Size (Inches) I Did I Zero to 10" 0.50 12" and Greater 0.75 Where: D = Depth of Plow d = Pipe Diameter It should be noted than an indication of a capacity deficiency when compared to the capacity definition does not alone justify the construction of a new sewer. Judgement considering such items as the length of sewer reach affected and status of land use buildout within the tributary area should be exercised to determine whether a deficiency is significant enough to warrant construction of a new facility. The computer program used to evaluate the Telegraph Canyon sewer system is the Sewer Program. This project combines the uses of AutoCAD graphics and the Sewer program. The program uses basic mathematics and hydraulic principles to calculate all such data as cross-sectional area, average flow, peak flow, velocity, normal depth, and depth ratio. Each manhole, at the end or beginning of a constant slope reach, is assigned a number. The land use and acreage for each sub-area is then input at the appropriate manhole. The computer calculated the average flow entering the sewer at each manhole and accumulates the flow into each manhole. This gives the average daily flow in the sewer which is the sum of the upstream tributary inflows plus the inflow at the manhole. The empirical peak-to- average relationships used to project the peak daily flow. This peak flow is the Telegraph Canyon Sewer Basin /O~7i Improvement and Financing Plan Inc01poraring Pumped Fluws -.----. ---_..< -~_._..,---,_.__._.._-,... maximum experienced in the sewer throughout any given day and is the flow for which a new sewer must be designed or that which an existing sewer must carry. The program then calculates the capacity of the sewer. The capacity is the greatest flow that the sewer can carry when flowing at the maximum depth stipulated under the evaluation criteria (DId). If the peak flow is greater than the capacity, the sewer is identified as deficient. For any sewer that does not have sufficient capacity, the program will indicate pipe sizes for a parallel relief sewer and a replacement sewer at the same slope as the existing facility. Due to the level of accuracy with which the Master Plan flow projections can be made, a theoretical surcharge of approximately ten percent (10%) of the pipeline capacity was allowed before designating a particular trunk sewer segment deficient. Therefore, 12" and 24" diameter sewerlines with a depth to diameter ratio (DId) greater than 0.85 were found to be deficient and scheduled for either replacement or parallel relief. If there was any surcharg- ing for sewer lines with lower D/d ratios, it would generally occur only during peak flow conditions, which normally occur for short intervals (less than one hour) . The computer model output for the gravity plus pumped flows is included in the following pages. Telegraph Canyon Sewer Basin J[}~7S- lmprovem.ent and Financing Plan incorporating Pumped Flows -..~ --- ----~-_._.._-_.-.__._--_._,,_._....._---~~-_.. -----_._~--~.__.._- 4/19/93 18:37:36 PAGE 1 SEWER ANALYSIS GEOMETRY TELEGRAPH CANYON SEWER BASIN' PHASE III + PUMPED MH MH ~~. Design Criteria ... Down Slope Up n or C Diem dID Flow Veloc 1 .005100 2 .013 24 .75 14.7 5.8 2 .008000 3 .013 24 .75 18.5 7.3 3 .004300 4 .013 24 .75 13.5 5.4 4 .010000 5 .013 21 .75 14.4 7.5 5 .010000 6 .013 21 .75 14.4 7.5 6 .010000 7 .013 21 .75 14.4 7.5 7 .010000 8 .013 21 .75 14.4 7.5 8 .015000 9 .013 18 .75 11.7 8.3 9 .015000 10 .013 18 .75 11.7 8.3 1D .015000 11 .013 18 .75 11.7 8.3 11 .033800 12 .013 18 .75 17.6 12.4 12 .014300 13 .013 18 .75 11.5 8.1 13 .014300 14 .013 18 .75 11.5 8.1 14 .014300 15 .013 18 .75 11.5 8.1 15 .015000 16 .013 18 .75 11.7 8.3 16 .015000 17 .013 18 .75 11.7 8.3 17 .015000 18 .013 18 .75 11.7 8.3 18 .015000 19 .013 18 .75 11.7 8.3 19 .017700 20 .013 18 .75 12.7 9.0 20 .017700 21 .013 18 .75 12.7 9.0 21 .017800 22 .013 18 .75 12.8 9.0 22 .008800 23 .013 21 .75 13.6 7.0 23 .013400 24 .013 18 .75 11.1 7.8 24 .012800 25 .013 18 .75 10.8 7.6 25 .012800 26 .013 18 .75 10.8 7.6 26 .012800 27 .013 18 .75 10.8 7.6 27 .012800 28 .013 18 .75 10.8 7.6 28 .013000 29 .013 18 .75 10.9 7.7 29 .015300 30 .013 18 .75 11.8 8.3 30 .036600 31 .013 18 .75 18.3 12.9 31 .004130 32 .013 21 .75 9.3 4.8 32 .003660 33 .013 21 .75 8.7 4.5 33 .003660 34 .013 21 .75 8.7 4.5 34 .003660 35 .013 21 .75 8.7 4.5 35 .003660 36 .013 21 .75 8.7 4.5 36 .003660 37 .013 21 .75 8.7 4.5 37 .003660 38 .013 21 .75 8.7 4.5 38 .003780 39 .013 21 .75 8.9 4.6 39 .003660 40 .013 21 .75 8.7 4.5 40 .003660 41 .013 21 .75 8.7 4.5 41 .017020 42 .013 18 .75 12.5 8.8 42 .017020 43 .013 18 .75 12.5 8.8 43 .017020 44 .013 18 .75 12.5 8.8 44 .017020 45 .013 18 .75 12.5 8.8 45 .017020 46 .013 18 .75 12.5 8.8 46 .008000 47 .013 18 .75 8.6 6.0 47 .008000 48 .013 18 .75 8.6 6.0 48 .008000 49 .013 18 .75 8.6 6.0 49 .008000 50 .013 18 .75 8.6 6.0 . 50 .008000 51 .013 18 .75 8.6 6.0 51 .008000 52 .013 18 .75 8.6 6.0 /(7 ~ 7(j _._._----_._,~._-_...._--,----- -'-'--'--"'-~----'----'--~-----"""-----' 4/19/93 18:37:36 PAGE 2 SE~ER ANALYSIS GEOMETRY ·ELEGRAPH CANYON SE~ER BASIN' PHASE III + PUMPEO MN MH ... Design Criteria _.. Down Slope Up n or C Diam d/O Flow Vetoc 52 .0084 70 53 .013 18 .75 8.8 6.2 53 .008470 54 .013 18 .75 8.8 6.2 54 .008470 55 .013 18 .75 8.8 6.2 55 .010600 56 .013 18 .75 9.9 6.9 56 .010360 57 .013 18 .75 9.7 6.9 57 .010360 58 .013 18 .75 9.7 6.9 58 .010600 59 .013 18 .75 9.9 6.9 59 .010600 60 .013 18 .75 9.9 6.9 60 .010600 61 .013 18 .75 9.9 6.9 61 .010600 62 .013 18 .75 9.9 6.9 62 .008000 63 .013 18 .75 8.6 6.0 63 .008000 64 .013 18 .75 8.6 6.0 64 .008000 65 .013 18 .75 8.6 6.0 65 .020000 66 .013 15 .75 8.3 8.4 66 .016500 67 .013 15 .75 7.6 7.7 67 .012000 68 .013 15 .75 6.5 6.5 68 .012000 69 .013 15 .75 6.5 6.5 69 .012000 70 .013 15 .75 6.5 6.5 70 .012000 71 .013 15 .75 6.5 6.5 71 .012000 72 .013 15 .75 6.5 6.5 72 .012000 73 .013 15 .75 6.5 6.5 73 .012000 74 .013 15 .75 6.5 6.5 74 .012000 75 .013 15 .75 6.5 6.5 75 .009000 76 .013 15 .75 5.6 5.7 76 .009000 77 .013 15 .75 5.6 5.7 77 .009000 78 .013 15 .75 5.6 5.7 78 .012000 79 .013 15 .75 6.5 6.5 79 .012000 80 .013 15 .75 6.5 6.5 80 .012000 81 .013 15 .75 6.5 6.5 81 .010500 82 .013 15 .75 6.0 6.1 82 .010500 83 .013 15 .75 6.0 6.1 83 .010500 84 .013 15 .75 6.0 6.1 84 .012500 85 .013 15 .75 6.6 6.7 85 .012500 86 .013 15 .75 6.6 6.7 86 .010000 87 .013 15 .75 5.9 6.0 87 .010000 88 .013 15 .75 5.9 6.0 88 .010000 89 .013 15 .75 5.9 6.0 89 .010000 90 .013 15 .75 5.9 6.0 90 .010000 91 .013 15 .75 5.9 6.0 91 .010000 92 .013 15 .75 5.9 6.0 92 .010000 93 .013 15 .75 5.9 6.0 93 .010000 94 .013 15 .75 5.9 6.0 94 .010000 95 .013 15 .75 5.9 6.0 95 .010000 96 .013 15 .75 5.9 6.0 96 .010000 97 .013 15 .75 5.9 6.0 97 .012000 98 .013 15 .75 6.5 6.5 98 .017400 99 .013 15 .75 7.8 7.9 99 .014000 100 .013 15 .75 7.0 7.1 100 .012300 101 .013 15 .75 6.5 6.6 101 .005000 102 .012 16 .75 5.4 4.8 102 .005000 103 .012 16 .75 5.4 4.8 /tJ~?7 4/19/93 18:37:36 PAGE 3 SE~ER ANALYSIS GEOMETRY [ELEGRAPH CANYON SE~ER BASIN-PHASE III + PUMPED MH MH .-- Design Criteria .-. Down Slope Up n or C Diam dID Flow Veloc 103 .016900 104 .012 16 .75 9.9 8.8 104 .010700 105 .012 16 .75 7.8 7.0 105 .010000 106 .012 16 .75 7.6 6.7 106 .010000 107 .012 16 .75 7.6 6.7 107 .140000 207 .012 15 .75 23.9 24.2 207 .005000 108 .012 15 .75 4.5 4.6 108 .010000 109 .012 15 .75 6.4 6.5 109 .013200 110 .012 15 .75 7.3 7.4 110 .033900 111 .012 15 .75 11.7 11.9 ·111 .023000 112 .012 15 .75 9.7 9.8 112 .031000 113 .012 15 .75 11.2 11.4 113 .054600 213 .012 15 .75 14.9 15.1 213 .010000 114 .012 15 .75 6.4 6.5 "4 .026000 115 .012 15 .75 10.3 10.4 "5 .026000 116 .012 15 · 75 10.3 10.4 116 .070000 216 .012 12 · 75 9.3 14.7 216 .027000 117 .012 12 · 75 5.8 9.2 117 .032000 118 .012 12 · 75 6.3 10.0 118 . 022000 119 .012 12 .75 5.2 8.3 119 .023200 120 .012 12 .75 5.4 8.5 420 .015000 121 .012 12 .75 4.3 6.8 -++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ END OF AREA ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ / Ú -?V _" _ __~_ .m._~______._"_ _ _ ..____~_....~..~_... _ _ _ __~~.._.__._ SEUER ANALYSIS LABELS TELEGRAPH CANYON SEUER BASIN-PHASE III + PUMPED 76 PASEO LADERA 95 OTAY LAKES ROAD 116 EAST LAKE PARKUAY 2D7 FAKE MH 213 FAKE MH 216 FAKE MH /t/' 77 ". ----._-- ----. .._",- --- - --.-----.---.--.----.--.,.,-....-"-.-----------. SEWER ANALYSIS UNITS TELEGRAPH CANYON SE~ER BASIN-PHASE III + PUMPED DISTANCE DIAMETER FLOII ELEVATION AREA FEET INCHES CFS FEET ACRES ) !)- ~O ,-~--- ,--- -----.-.-.. ,-~~_.._.- 4/19/93 18:37:49 PAGE 1 SEWER ANALYSIS LOAD SUMMARY TELEGRAPH CANYON SEWER 8ASIN,PHASE III + PUMPED Manhole Total Contributed Point Area Flow Source 4 4534.00 1.75 .00 5 58.00 .02 .00 6 515.00 .20 .00 7 35.00 .01 .00 8 36.00 .01 .00 10 89.00 .03 .00 15 928.00 .36 .00 19 761.00 .29 .00 23 43.00 .02 .00 24 23.00 .01 .00 25 20.00 .01 .00 26 19.00 .01 .00 27 26.00 .01 .00 28 26.00 .01 .00 29 27.00 .01 .00 30 528.00 .20 .00 34 77.00 .03 .00 35 9.00 .00 .00 37 9.00 .00 .00 41 47.00 .02 .00 43 70.00 .03 .00 48 50.00 .02 .00 51 145.00 .06 .00 59 573.00 .22 .00 62 72.00 .03 .00 66 408.00 .16 .00 67 6.00 .00 .00 68 646.00 .25 .00 69 69.00 .03 .00 70 51.00 .02 .00 72 43.00 .02 .00 73 495.00 .19 .00 74 327.00 .13 .00 76 909.50 .42 .00 82 28.00 .01 .00 87 311.50 .12 .00 88 48.00 .02 .00 92 139.00 .05 .00 95 1369.00 .53 .00 97 150.00 .06 .00 99 430.00 .17 .00 104 350.00 .14 .00 110 695.20 .69 .00 116 1507.55 .93 .00 120 5509.60 2.00 .00 121 1908.40 1. 10 .00 /()~8:/ --......--.,.....--. .-_....-'--- ." --~-_.._._.--_._~--_.- 4/19/93 18:37:52 PAGE 2 SEWER ANALYSIS SANITARY LOAD APPLICATIONS TELEGRAPH CANYON SEWER BASIN-PHASE III + PUMPED MH MH Slope Diam tapa- Area Flow Point Average Peak. Vel- Depth Under Capacity up Down city Input Source Flow Flow Deity Ratio Replace ReUef IdentHication 121 120 .01500 12 4.31 1908.40 1.10 .00 1.10 2.16 5.9 .47 120 119 .02320 12 5.36 5509.60 2.00 .00 3.10 5.54 8.5 .78 15 6 119 118 .02200 ,2 5.22 .00 .00 .00 3. ,0 5.54 8.3 .79 15 6 118 "7 .03200 '2 6.30 .00 .00 .00 3.10 5.54 9.8 .68 117 216 .02700 12 5.78 .00 .00 .00 3.10 5.54 9.' .72 216 116 .07000 12 9.31 .00 .00 .00 3.10 5.54 13.4 .53 FAKE MH 116 115 .02600 15 '0.29 1507.55 .93 .00 4.03 7.04 9.7 .57 EAST LAKE PARKWAY 115 114 .02600 '5 10.29 .00 .00 .00 4.03 7.04 9.7 .57 114 2'3 .0,000 15 6.38 .00 .00 .00 4.03 7.04 6.5 .82 ,8 '0 213 113 .05460 15 '4.9' .00 .00 .00 4.03 7.04 12.8 .46 FAKE MH 113 "2 .03100 15 11.24 .00 .00 .00 4.03 7.04 '0.4 .54 112 11' .02300 '5 9.68 .00 .00 .00 4.03 7.04 9.2 .59 111 110 .03390 15 11.75 .00 .00 .00 4.03 7.04 '0.8 .53 110 109 .01320 '5 7.33 695.20 .69 .00 4.72 8.13 7.5 .83 '8 10 109 'DB .01000 15 6.3B .00 .00 .00 4.72 8.13 6.6 >1.0 '8 12 '08 207 .00500 15 4.51 .00 .00 .00 4.72 B.13 6.6 >1.0 21 '5 207 107 . ,4000 '5 23.88 .00 .00 .00 4.72 8.13 18.9 .38 FAKE HH 107 '06 .01000 '6 7.58 .00 .00 .00 4.72 8. '3 6.8 .80 '8 8 106 '05 .0'000 16 7.58 .00 .00 .00 4.72 8.13 6.8 .80 '8 8 105 '04 .01070 16 7.84 .00 .00 .00 4.72 8. '3 7.0 .77 '8 8 W4 103 .01690 '6 9.85 350.00 .14 .00 4..86 1.35 I'> .66 103 '02 .00500 '6 5.36 .00 .00 .00 4.86 8.35 6.0 >1.0 21 15 102 10' .00500 16 5.36 .00 .00 .00 4.86 B.35 6.0 >1.0 21 15 10, 100 .0'230 '5 6.53 .00 .00 .00 4.86 8.35 6.8 >1.0 '8 '2 100 99 .01400 '5 6.97 .00 .00 .00 4.86 8.35 6.8 >1.0 '8 12 99 98 .01740 15 7.77 430.00 .17 .00 5.03 8.61 7.9 .83 18 '0 98 97 .0'200 '5 6.45 .00 .00 .00 5.03 8.61 7.0 >1.0 18 12 J j) - 'if d... . __...,__...,.__,~__"._"_ . ._.____._._~______.__.._____..__.____,..___"... '__n__ 4/19/93 18:38: 7 PAGE 3 SEWER ANALYSIS SANITARY LOAD APPLICATIONS TELEGRAPH CANYON SEWER BASIN-PHASE III + PUMPED MH MH Slope Diam Capa- Area Flow Point Average Peak Vel- Depth Under Capacity up Down city Input Source Flow Flow oeity Ratio Replace Rel ief Identification 97 96 .01000 15 5.89 150.00 .06 .00 5.08 8.70 7.1 >1.0 18 12 96 95 .01000 15 5.B9 .00 .00 .00 5.0B B.70 7.1 >1.0 1B 12 95 94 .01000 15 5.89 1369.00 .53 .00 5.61 9.52 7.8 >1.0 18 15 OTAY LAKES ROAD 94 93 .01000 15 5.89 .00 .00 .00 5.61 9.52 7.B >1.0 18 15 93 92 .01000 15 5.89 .00 .00 .00 5.61 9.52 7.8 >1.0 18 15 92 91 .01000 15 5.B9 139.00 .05 .00 5.67 9.60 7.B >1.0 21 15 91 90 .01000 15 5.89 .00 .00 .00 5.67 9.60 7.B >1.0 21 15 90 89 .01000 15 5.89 .00 .00 .00 5.67 9.60 7.8 >1.0 21 15 B9 88 .01000 15 5.B9 .00 .00 .00 5.67 9.60 7.8 >1.0 21 15 8B B7 .01000 15 5.89 4B.00 .02 .00 5.69 9.63 7.B >1.0 21 15 B7 86 .01000 15 5.B9 311.50 .12 .00 5.81 9.81 8.0 >1.0 21 15 B6 85 .01250 15 6.59 .00 .00 .00 5.B1 9.B1 8.0 >1.0 18 12 B5 84 .01250 15 6.59 .00 .00 .00 5.B1 9.81 B.O >1.0 1B 12 B4 B3 .01050 15 6.04 .00 .00 .00 5.81 9.B1 B.O >1.0 1B 15 B3 82 .01050 15 6.04 .00 .00 .00 5.B1 9.B1 8.0 >1.0 18 15 82 B1 .01050 15 6.04 2B.00 .01 .00 5.82 9.B3 8.0 >1.0 21 15 B1 BO .01200 15 6.45 .00 .00 .00 5.B2 9.83 B.O >1.0 1B 12 BO 79 .01200 15 6.45 .00 .00 .00 5.82 9.83 8.0 >1.0 18 12 79 7B .01200 15 6.45 .00 .00 .00 5.82 9.B3 8.0 >1.0 18 12 7B 77 .00900 15 5.59 .00 .00 .00 5.82 9.B3 8.0 >1.0 21 15 77 76 .00900 15 5.59 .00 .00 .00 5.82 9.83 8.0 >1.0 21 15 76 75 .00900 15 5.59 909.50 .42 .00 6.24 10.47 8.5 >1.0 21 15 PASEO LAOERA 75 74 .01200 15 6.45 .00 .00 .00 6.24 10.47 B.5 >1.0 1B 15 74 73 .01200 15 6.45 327.00 .13 .00 6.36 10.67 8.7 >1.0 21 15 73 72 .01200 15 6.45 495.00 .19 .00 6.55 10.96 8.9 >1.0 21 15 72 71 .01200 15 6.45 43.00 .02 .00 6.57 10.98 B.9 >1.0 21 15 71 70 .01200 15 6.45 .00 .00 .00 6.57 10.98 B.9 >1.0 21 15 / Ô ~~1 --., .,.- -.- ._.._,~ .. -..-----------.... ._-_._._.,._-"..__..__._~,.- 4/19/93 18:38:14 PAGE 4 SEWER ANALYSIS SANITARY LOAD APPLICATIONS ,ELEGRAPH CANYON SEWER BASIN' PHASE III . PUMPEO MH MH Slope Diem Capa- Area Flow Point Average Peak. Vel· Depth Under Cepee i ty Up Down city Input Source Flow Flow Deity Ratio Replace Relief Identification 70 69 .01200 15 6.45 51.00 .02 .00 6.59 11.01 9.0 >1.0 21 15 69 68 .01200 15 6.45 69.00 .03 .00 6.62 11.05 9.0 >1.0 21 15 68 67 .01200 15 6.45 646.00 .25 .00 6.87 11.43 9.3 >1.0 21 15 67 66 .01650 15 7.57 6.00 .00 .00 6.87 11.44 9.3 >1.0 18 12 66 65 .02000 15 8.33 408.00 .16 .00 7.03 11.68 9.5 >1.0 18 12 65 64 .00800 18 8.57 .00 .00 .00 7.03 11.68 6.6 >1.0 21 15 64 63 .00800 18 8.57 .00 .00 .00 7.03 11.68 6.6 >1.0 21 15 63 62 .00800 18 8.57 .00 .00 .00 7.03 11.68 6.6 >1.0 21 15 62 61 .01060 18 9.86 72.00 .03 .00 7.06 11.72 6.6 >1.0 21 12 61 60 .01060 18 9.86 .00 .00 .00 7.06 11.72 6.6 >1.0 21 12 60 59 .01060 18 9.86 .00 .00 .00 7.06 11.72 6.6 >1.0 21 12 59 58 .01060 18 9.86 573.00 .22 .00 7.28 12.05 6.8 >1.0 21 12 58 57 .01036 18 9.75 .00 .00 .00 7.28 12.05 6.8 >1.0 21 12 57 56 .01036 18 9.75 .00 .00 .00 7.28 12.05 6.8 >1.0 21 12 56 55 .01060 18 9.86 .00 .00 .00 7.28 12.05 6.8 >1.0 21 12 55 54 .00847 18 8.82 .00 .00 .00 7.28 12.05 6.8 >1.0 21 15 54 53 .00847 18 8.82 .00 .00 .00 7.28 12.05 6.8 >1.0 21 15 53 52 .00847 18 8.82 .00 .00 .00 7.28 12.05 6.8 >1.0 21 15 52 51 .00800 18 8.57 .00 .00 .00 7.28 12.05 6.8 >1.0 21 15 51 50 .00800 18 8.57 145.00 .06 .00 7.33 12.14 6.9 >1.0 21 15 50 49 .00800 18 8.57 .00 .00 .00 7.33 12.14 6.9 >1.0 21 15 49 48 .00800 18 8.57 .00 .00 .00 7.33 12.14 6.9 >1.0 21 15 48 47 .00800 18 8.57 50.00 .02 .00 7.35 12.17 6.9 >1.0 21 15 47 46 .00800 18 8.57 .00 .00 .00 7.35 12.17 6.9 >1.0 21 15 46 45 .01702 18 12.50 .00 .00 .00 7.35 12.17 8.8 .73 45 44 .01702 18 12.50 .00 .00 .00 7.35 12.17 8.8 .73 44 43 .01702 18 12.50 .00 .00 .00 7.35 12.17 8.8 .73 I tJ --;r1 -..--" -----.-..--..-- -- ------..------.----.-.---..- 4/19/93 18:38:22 PAGE 5 SE~ER ANALYSIS SANITARY LOAD APPLICATIONS TELEGRAPH CANYON SE~ER BASIN-PHASE III + PUMPED MH MH Slope Diem Capa· Area Flow Point Average Peak Vel- Depth Under Capacity up Down chy Input Source Flow Flow Deity Ratio Replace Rel ief IdentiHcation 43 42 .01702 18 12.50 70.00 .03 .00 7.38 12.21 8.8 .74 42 41 .01702 18 12.50 .00 .00 .00 7.38 12.21 8.8 .74 41 40 .00366 21 8.74 47.00 .02 .00 7.40 12.23 5.1 >1.0 24 15 40 39 .00366 21 8.74 .00 .00 .00 7.40 12.23 5.1 >1.0 24 15 39 38 .00378 21 8.88 .00 .00 .00 7.40 12.23 5.1 >1.0 24 15 38 37 .00366 21 8.74 .00 .00 .00 7.40 12.23 5.1 >1.0 24 15 37 36 .00366 21 8.74 9.00 .00 .00 7.40 12.24 5.1 >1.0 24 15 36 35 .00366 21 8.74 .00 .00 .00 7.40 12.24 5.1 >1.0 24 15 35 34 .00366 21 8.74 9.00 .00 .00 7.41 12.24 5.1 >1.0 24 15 34 33 .00366 21 8.74 77.00 .03 .00 7.44 12.29 5.1 >1.0 24 15 33 32 .00366 21 8.74 .00 .00 .00 7.44 12.29 5.1 >1.0 24 15 32 31 .00413 21 9.29 .00 .00 .00 7.44 12.29 5.1 >1.0 24 15 31 30 .03660 18 18.33 .00 .00 .00 7.44 12.29 11.9 .56 30 29 .01530 18 11.85 528.00 .20 .00 7.64 12.60 8.4 .80 21 10 29 28 .01300 18 10.92 27.00 .01 .00 7.65 12.61 7.7 .88 21 12 28 27 .01280 18 10.84 26.00 .01 .00 7.66 12.63 7.6 .89 21 12 27 26 .01280 18 10.84 26.00 .01 .00 7.67 12.64 7.6 .90 21 12 26 25 .01280 18 10.84 19.00 .01 .00 7.68 12.65 7.6 .90 21 12 25 24 .01280 18 10.84 20.00 .01 .00 7.69 12.67 7.6 .90 21 12 24 23 .01340 18 11.09 23.00 .01 .00 7.69 12.68 7.8 .86 21 12 23 22 .00880 21 13.55 43.00 .02 .00 7.71 12.70 6.9 .71 22 21 .01780 18 12.78 .00 .00 .00 7.71 12.70 9.0 .74 21 20 .01770 18 12.74 .00 .00 .00 7.71 12.70 9.0 .75 20 19 .01770 18 12.74 .00 .00 .00 7.71 12.70 9.0 .75 19 18 .01500 18 11.73 761.00 .29 .00 8.01 13.14 8.3 .84 21 12 18 17 .01500 18 11.73 .00 .00 .00 8.01 13.14 8.3 .84 21 12 17 16 .01500 18 11.73 .00 .00 .00 8.01 13.14 8.3 .84 21 12 /ð-?;S- n..__.~__.'___'_'_'__'___"_'__'__________~'__+'_______.._'_____n___n'__ 4119/93 18:38:29 PAGE 6 SEWER ANALYSIS SANITARY LOAD APPLICATIONS TELEGRAPH CANYON SEWER BASIN-PHASE III + PUMPED MH MH Slope Diem Capa~ Area Flow Point Average Peak Vel· Depth Under Capacity Up Down city Input Source Flow Flow Deity Ratio Replace Rel ief Identification 16 15 .01500 18 11.73 .00 .00 .00 8.01 13.14 B.3 .fJ/o 21 12 15 14 .01430 18 11.45 928.00 .36 .00 8.36 13.68 7.7 >1.0 21 12 14 13 .01430 18 11.45 .00 .00 .00 B.36 13.68 7.7 >1.0 21 12 13 12 .01430 18 11.45 .00 .00 .00 8.36 13.68 7.7 >1.0 21 12 12 11 .03380 18 17.61 .00 .00 .00 8.36 13.68 11.6 .62 11 10 .01500 18 11.73 .00 .00 .00 8.36 13.66 6.2 .90 21 12 10 9 .01500 18 11.73 89.00 .03 .00 8.40 13.73 6.2 .90 21 12 9 6 .01500 18 11.73 .00 .00 .00 8.40 13.73 6.2 .90 21 12 6 7 .01000 21 14.45 36.00 .01 .00 8.41 13.75 7.4 .72 7 6 .01000 21 14.45 35.00 .01 .00 8.43 13.77 7.4 .72 6 5 .01000 21 14.45 515.00 .20 .00 8.63 14.07 7.4 .73 5 4 .01000 21 14.45 56.00 .02 .00 8.65 14.10 7.4 .74 4 3 .00430 24 13.53 4534.00 1.75 .00 10.40 16.68 5.3 >1.0 27 15 3 2 .00600 24 18.45 .00 .00 .00 10.40 16.68 7.2 .69 2 1 .00510 24 14.73 .00 .00 .00 10.40 16.68 5.8 .85 27 12 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + END OF AREA + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + / ¡) -?(? - ~...__...---,.._..__._.,._",. -"-"-- - _..-_._._-_._-----~._-_.- ------- 4/19/93 18:42:30 PAGE 1 SEWER ANALYSIS GEOMETRY TELEGRAPH CANYON SEWER 8ASIN-PHASE IV + PUMPED MH MH --- Design Criteria .-. Down Slope Up n or C Diam dID Flow Velot 1 .005100 2 .013 24 .75 14.7 5.8 2 .008000 3 .013 24 .75 18.5 7.3 3 .004300 4 .013 24 .75 13.5 5.4 4 .010000 5 .013 21 .75 14.4 7.5 5 .010000 6 .013 21 .75 14.4 7.5 6 .010000 7 .013 21 .75 14.4 7.5 7 .010000 8 .013 21 .75 14.4 7.5 8 .015000 9 .013 18 .75 11.7 8.3 9 .015000 10 .013 18 .75 11.7 8.3 10 .015000 11 .013 18 .75 11.7 8.3 11 .033800 12 .013 18 .75 17.6 12.4 12 .014300 13 .013 18 .75 11.5 8.1 13 .014300 14 .013 18 .75 11.5 8.1 14 .014300 15 .013 18 .75 11.5 8.1 15 .015000 16 .013 18 .75 11.7 8.3 16 .015000 17 .013 18 .75 11.7 8.3 17 .015000 18 .013 18 .75 11.7 8.3 18 .015000 19 .013 18 .75 11.7 8.3 19 .017700 20 .013 18 .75 12.7 9.0 20 .017700 21 .013 18 .75 12.7 9.0 21 .017800 22 .013 18 .75 12.8 9.0 22 .008800 23 .013 21 .75 13.6 7.0 23 .013400 24 .013 18 .75 11. 1 7.8 24 .012800 25 .013 18 .75 10.8 7.6 25 .012800 26 .013 18 .75 10.8 7.6 26 .012800 27 .013 18 .75 10.8 7.6 27 .012800 28 .013 18 .75 10.8 7.6 28 .013000 29 .013 18 .75 10.9 7.7 29 .015300 30 .013 18 .75 11.8 8.3 30 .036600 31 .013 18 .75 18.3 12.9 31 .004130 32 .013 21 .75 9.3 4.8 32 .003660 33 .013 21 .75 8.7 4.5 33 .003660 34 .013 21 .75 8.7 4.5 34 .003660 35 .013 21 .75 8.7 4.5 35 .003660 36 .013 21 .75 8.7 4.5 36 .003660 37 .013 21 .75 8.7 4.5 37 .003660 38 .013 21 .75 8.7 4.5 38 .003780 39 .013 21 .75 8.9 4.6 39 .003660 40 .013 21 .75 8.7 4.5 40 .003660 41 .013 21 .75 8.7 4.5 41 .017020 42 .013 18 .75 12.5 8.8 42 .017020 43 .013 18 .75 12.5 8.8 43 .017020 44 .013 18 .75 12.5 8.8 44 .017020 45 .013 18 .75 12.5 8.8 45 .017020 46 .013 18 .75 12.5 8.8 46 .008000 47 .013 18 .75 8.6 6.0 47 .008000 48 .013 18 .75 8.6 6.0 48 .008000 49 .013 18 .75 8.6 6.0 49 .008000 50 .013 18 .75 8.6 6.0 50 .008000 51 .013 18 .75 8.6 6.0 51 .008000 52 .013 18 .75 8.6 6.0 /0 ~ '67 -- '..-.~-"--.....""-.--.- .__..._.~....._._.._. ..-.... .____.__,.,___._ _____u____. 4/19/93 18,42,30 PAGE 2 SE~ER ANALYSIS GEOMETRY TELEGRAPH CANYON SE~ER 8ASIN-PHASE IV + PUMPEO MH MH ... Design Criteria ~.- Down Slope Up n or C Diem dlO FLow Veloc 52 .008470 53 .013 18 .75 8.8 6.2 53 .008470 54 .013 18 .75 8.8 6.2 54 .008470 55 .013 18 .75 8.8 6.2 55 .010600 56 .013 18 .75 9.9 6.9 56 .010360 57 .013 18 .75 9.7 6.9 57 .010360 58 .013 18 .75 9.7 6.9 58 .010600 59 .013 18 .75 9.9 6.9 59 .010600 60 .013 18 .75 9.9 6.9 60 .010600 61 .013 18 .75 9.9 6.9 61 .010600 62 .013 18 .75 9.9 6.9 62 .008000 63 .013 18 .75 8.6 6.0 63 .008000 64 .013 18 .75 8.6 6.0 64 .008000 65 .013 18 .75 8.6 6.0 65 .020000 66 .013 15 .75 8.3 8.4 66 .016500 67 .013 15 .75 7.6 7.7 67 .012000 68 .013 15 .75 6.5 6.5 68 .012000 69 .013 15 .75 6.5 6.5 69 .012000 70 .013 15 .75 6.5 6.5 70 .012000 71 .013 15 .75 6.5 6.5 71 .012000 72 .013 15 .75 6.5 6.5 72 .012000 73 .013 15 .75 6.5 6.5 73 .012000 74 .013 15 .75 6.5 6.5 74 .012000 75 .013 15 .75 6.5 6.5 75 .009000 76 .013 15 .75 5.6 5.7 76 .009000 77 .013 15 .75 5.6 5.7 77 .009000 78 .013 15 .75 5.6 5.7 78 .012000 79 .013 15 .75 6.5 6.5 79 .012000 80 .013 15 .75 6.5 6.5 80 .012000 81 .013 15 .75 6.5 6.5 81 .010500 82 .013 15 .75 6.0 6.1 82 .010500 83 .013 15 .75 6.0 6.1 83 .010500 84 .013 15 .75 6.0 6.1 84 .012500 85 .013 15 .75 6.6 6.7 85 .012500 86 .013 15 .75 6.6 6.7 86 .010000 87 .013 15 .75 5.9 6.0 87 .010000 88 .013 15 .75 5.9 6.0 88 .010000 89 .013 15 .75 5.9 6.0 89 .010000 90 .013 15 .75 5.9 6.0 90 .010000 91 .013 15 .75 5.9 6.0 91 .010000 92 .013 15 .75 5.9 6.0 92 .010000 93 .013 15 .75 5.9 6.0 93 .010000 94 .013 15 .75 5.9 6.0 94 .010000 95 .013 15 .75 5.9 6.0 95 .010000 96 .013 15 .75 5.9 6.0 96 .010000 97 .013 15 .75 5.9 6.0 97 .012000 98 .013 15 .75 6.5 6.5 98 .017400 99 .013 15 .75 7.8 7.9 99 .014000 100 .013 15 .75 7.0 7.1 100 .012300 101 .013 15 .75 6.5 6.6 101 .005000 102 .012 16 .75 5.4 4.8 102 .005000 103 .012 16 .75 5.4 4.8 /tJ -g?š ,_.~.--.,-_._,._~_.__._----"_._- ~'----~"-"'--"---"'--'---"---- 4119/93 18,42,30 PAGE 3 SEUER ANALYSIS GEOMETRY TELEGRAPH CANYON SEUER BASIN,PHASE IV + PUMPEO MH MH ... Design Criteria --- Down Slope Up n or C Diem dlO Flow Veloc 103 .016900 104 .012 16 .75 9.9 8.8 104 .010700 105 .012 16 .75 7.8 7.0 105 .010000 106 .012 16 .75 7.6 6.7 106 .010000 107 .012 16 .75 7.6 6.7 107 .140000 207 .012 15 .75 23.9 24.2 207 .005000 108 .012 15 .75 4.5 4.6 108 .010000 109 .012 15 .75 6.4 6.5 109 .013200 110 .012 15 .75 7.3 7.4 110 .033900 111 .012 15 .75 11.7 11.9 111 .023000 112 .012 15 .75 9.7 9.8 112 .031000 113 .012 15 .75 11.2 11.4 113 .054600 213 .012 15 .75 14.9 15.1 213 .010000 114 .012 15 .75 6.4 6.5 114 .026000 115 .012 15 .75 10.3 10.4 115 .026000 116 .012 15 .75 10.3 10.4 116 .070000 216 .012 12 .75 9.3 14.7 216 .027000 117 .012 12 .75 5.8 9.2 117 .032000 118 .012 12 .75 6.3 10.0 118 .022000 119 .012 12 .75 5.2 8.3 119 .023200 120 .012 12 .75 5.4 8.5 120 .015000 121 .012 12 .75 4.3 6.8 ~+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ END OF AREA ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ /fJ-ry ^ .-.. -,.__._----_.._._..__...._.._-_......_-.-._..---~-_..---.-..-. -........-.-..---.. SE~ER ANALYSIS LABELS TELECRAPH CANYON SE~ER BASIN-PHASE IV + PUMPED 76 PASEO LADERA 95 OTAY LAKES ROAD 116 EAST LAKE PARK~AY 207 FAKE MH 213 FAKE MH 216 FAKE MH 1& ~9 [) SEUER ANALYSIS UNITS TELEGRAPH CANYON SEWER BASIN-PHASE IV + PUMPED DISTANCE DIAMETER FLOW ElEVA T I ON AREA FEET INCHES CFS FEET ACRES /!fJ~9( .~-'--~----'-~-~~'----~--,...- 4/19/93 18:42:43 PAGE 1 SEWER ANALYSIS LOAD SUMMARY TELEGRAPH CANYON SEWER BASIN-PHASE IV + PUMPED Manhole Total Contributed Point Area Flow Source 4 4534.00 1. 75 .00 5 58.00 .02 .00 6 515.00 .20 .00 7 35.00 .01 .00 8 36.00 .01 .00 10 89.00 .03 .00 15 928.00 .36 .00 19 761.00 .29 .00 23 43.00 .02 .00 24 23.00 .01 .00 25 20.00 .01 .00 26 19.00 .01 .00 27 26.00 .01 .00 28 26.00 .01 .00 29 27.00 .01 .00 3D 528.00 .20 .00 34 77.00 .03 .00 35 9.00 .00 .00 37 9.00 .00 .00 41 47.00 .02 .00 43 70.00 .03 .00 48 50.00 .02 .00 51 145.00 .06 .00 59 573.00 .22 .00 62 72.00 .03 .00 66 408.00 .16 .00 67 6.00 .00 .00 68 646.00 .25 .00 69 69.00 .03 .00 70 51.00 .02 .00 72 43.00 .02 .00 73 495.00 ·.19 .00 74 327.00 .13 .00 76 1580.50 .68 .00 80 671. 00 .26 .00 82 28.00 .01 .00 85 671.00 .26 .00 87 311.50 .12 .00 88 48.00 .02 .00 89 671.00 .26 .00 92 139.00 .05 .00 95 2059.20 .83 .00 97 150.00 .06 .00 99 1128.40 .53 .00 104 350.00 .14 .00 110 695.20 .69 .00 116 1507.55 .93 .00 120 5509.60 2.00 .00 121 1908.40 1.10 .00 / ¡) ~f} r:Å 4/19/93 18:42:46 PAGE 2 SEWER ANALYSIS SANITARY LOAO APPLICATIONS rELEGRAPH CANYON SEWER BASIN-PHASE IV + PUMPEO MH MH Slope Diam Capa· Area Flow Point Average Peak Vel- Oepth Under Capacity Up Down city Input Source Flow Flow oeity Ratio Replace Relief Identification 121 120 .01500 12 4.31 1908.40 1. 10 .00 1. 10 2.16 5.9 .47 120 119 .02320 12 5.36 5509.60 2.00 .00 3.10 5.54 8.5 .78 15 6 119 118 .02200 12 5.22 .00 .00 .00 3.10 5.54 8.3 .79 15 6 118 117 .03200 12 6.30 .00 .00 .00 3.10 5.54 9.8 .68 117 216 .02700 12 5.78 .00 .00 .00 3.10 5.54 9.1 .72 ~16 116 .07000 12 9.31 .00 .00 .00 3.10 5.54 13.4 .53 FAKE MH 116 115 .02600 IS 10.29 1507.55 .93 .00 4.03 7.04 9.7 .57 EAST LAKE PARKWAY 1 IS 114 .02600 15 10.29 .00 .00 .00 4.03 7.04 9.7 .57 114 213 .01000 15 6.38 .00 .00 .00 4.03 7.04 6.5 .82 18 10 213 113 .05460 15 14.91 .00 .00 .00 4.03 7.04 12.8 .46 FAKE MH 113 112 .03100 15 11.24 .00 .00 .00 4.03 7.04 10.4 .54 112 111 .02300 15 9.68 .00 .00 .00 4.03 7.04 9.2 .59 III 110 .03390 15 11.75 .00 .00 .00 4.03 7.04 10.8 .53 110 109 .01320 15 7.33 695.20 .69 .00 4.72 8.13 7.5 .83 18 10 109 108 .01000 15 6.38 .00 .00 .00 4.72 8.13 6.6 >1.0 18 12 108 207 .00500 15 4.51 .00 .00 .00 4.72 8.13 6.6 >1.0 21 IS 207 107 .14000 IS 23.88 .00 .00 .00 4.72 8.13 18.9 .38 FAKE MH 107 106 .01000 16 7.58 .00 .00 .00 4.72 8.13 6.8 .80 18 8 106 105 .01000 16 7.58 .00 .00 .00 4.72 8.13 6.8 .80 18 8 105 104 .01070 16 7.84 .00 .00 .00 4.72 8.13 7.0 .77 18 8 104 103 .01690 16 9.85 350.00 .14 .00 4.86 8.35 8.5 .66 .103 102 .00500 16 5.36 .00 .00 .00 4.86 8.35 6.0 >1.0 21 15 102 101 .00500 16 5.36 .00 .00 .00 4.86 8.35 6.0 >1.0 21 15 ·101 100 .01230 IS 6.53 .00 .00 .00 4.86 8.35 6.8 >1.0 18 12 100 99 .01400 IS 6.97 .00 .00 .00 4.86 8.35 6.8 >1.0 18 12 99 98 .01740 15 7.771128.40 .53 .00 5.39 9.17 7.5 >1.0 18 10 98 97 .01200 15 6.45 .00 .00 .00 5.39 9.17 7.5 >1.0 18 12 / ð /~ 3 .... ----.--.-...------.. .----...-..-..--.-....---.. ----.....--.-.-....--.-.. 4/19/93 18:43: 1 PAGE 3 SEWER ANALYSIS SANITARY LOAD APPLICATIONS TELEGRAPN CANYON SEWER BASIN-PHASE IV + PUMPED MH MH Slope Diem Capa- Area FLow Point Average Peak Vel- Depth Under Capacity up Down city Jnput Source Flow Flow oeity Ratio RepLace Relief IdentHication 97 96 .01000 15 5·.89 150.00 .06 .00 5.45 9.26 7.5 >1.0 18 15 96 95 .01000 15 5.89 .00 .00 .00 5.45 9.26 7.5 >1.0 18 15 95 94 .01000 15 5.89 2059.20 .83 .00 6.28 10.54 8.6 >1.0 21 15 OTAY LAKES ROAD 94 93 .01000 15 5.89 .00 .00 .00 6.28 10.54 8.6 >1.0 21 15 93 92 .01000 15 5.89 .00 .00 .00 6.28 10.54 8.6 >1.0 21 15 92 91 .01000 15 5.89 139.00 .05 .00 6.33 10.62 8.7 >1.0 21 15 91 90 .01000 15 5.89 .00 .00 .00 6.33 10.62 8.7 >1.0 21 15 90 89 .01000 15 5.89 .00 .00 .00 6.33 10.62 8.7 >1.0 21 15 89 88 .01000 15 5.89 671.00 .26 .00 6.59 11.02 9.0 >1.0 21 15 88 87 .01000 15 5.89 48.00 .02 .00 6.61 11.05 9.0 >1.0 21 15 87 86 .01000 15 5.89 311.50 .12 .00 6.73 11.23 9.2 >1.0 21 15 86 85 .01250 15 6.59 .00 .00 .00 6.73 11.23 9.2 >1.0 21 15 85 84 .01250 15 6.59 671. 00 .26 .00 6.99 11.62 9.5 >1.0 21 15 84 83 .01050 15 6.04 .00 .00 .00 6.99 11.62 9.5 >1.0 21 15 83 82 .01050 15 6.04 .00 .00 .00 6.99 11.62 9.5 >1.0 21 15 82 81 .01050 15 6.04 28.00 .01 .00 7.00 11.64 9.5 >1.0 21 15 81 80 .01200 15 6.45 .00 .00 .00 7.00 11.64 9.5 >1.0 21 15 80 79 .01200 15 6.45 671. 00 .26 .00 7.26 12.03 9.8 >1.0 21 15 79 78 .01200 15 6.45 .00 .00 .00 7.26 12.03 9.8 >1.0 21 15 78 77 .00900 15 5.59 .00 .00 .00 7.26 12.03 9.8 >1.0 21 18 77 76 .00900 15 5.59 .00 .00 .00 7.26 12.03 9.8 >1.0 21 18 76 75 .00900 15 5.59 1580.50 .68 .00 7.94 13.05 10.6 >1.0 21 18 PASEO LADERA 75 74 .01200 15 6.45 .00 .00 .00 7.94 13.05 10.6 >1.0 21 18 74 73 .01200 15 6.45 327.00 .13 .00 8.07 13.24 10.8 >1.0 21 18 73 72 .01200 15 6.45 495.00 .19 .00 8.26 13.52 11.0 >1.0 21 18 72 71 .01200 15 6.45 43.00 .02 .00 8.28 13.55 11.0 >1.0 21 18 71 70 .01200 15 6.45 .00 .00 .00 8.28 13.55 11.0 >1.0 21 18 /¡fJ -c¡( ..____._.___.·_·..m~·_·__·_·____ ___.._.________~_.,.._..__..._._,._.__ 4/19/93 18:43: 8 PAGE I. SEWER ANALYSIS SANITARY LOAD APPLICATIONS TELEGRAPH CANYON SEWER BASIN-PHASE IV + PUMPED MH MH Slope Diam Capa- Area Flow Point Average Peak. Vel- Depth Under Capacity up Down city Input Source Flow Flow Deity Ratio Repl ace ReUef IdentUication 70 69 .01200 15 6.45 51.00 .02 .00 8.30 13.58 11.1 >1.0 21 18 69 68 .01200 15 6.45 69.00 .03 .00 8.32 13.62 11.1 >1.0 21 18 68 67 .01200 15 6.45 646.00 .25 .00 8.57 13.99 '1.4 >1.0 21 18 67 66 .01650 15 7.57 6.00 .00 .00 8.58 13.99 11.4 >1.0 21 15 66 65 .02000 15 8.33 408.00 .16 .00 8.73 14.23 11.6 >1.0 21 15 65 64 .00800 18 8.57 .00 .00 .00 8.73 '4.23 8.1 >1.0 24 18 64 63 .00800 '8 8.57 .00 .00 .00 8.73 14.23 8.1 >1.0 24 18 63 62 .00800 18 8.57 .00 .00 .00 8.73 14.23 8.1 >1.0 24 18 62 61 .01060 18 9.86 72.00 .03 .00 8.76 '4.27 8.1 >1.0 21 15 61 60 .0'060 '8 9.86 .00 .00 .00 8.76 14.27 8.1 >1.0 21 15 60 59 .01060 18 9.86 .00 .00 .00 8.76 '4.27 8.1 >1.0 21 15 59 58 .0'060 18 9.86 573.00 .22 .00 8.98 14.60 8.3 >1.0 21 15 58 57 .01036 18 9.75 .00 .00 .00 8.98 14.60 8.3 >1.0 21 15 57 56 .01036 18 9.75 .00 .00 .00 8.98 '4.60 8.3 >1.0 21 15 56 55 .0'060 18 9.86 .00 .00 .00 8.98 '4.60 8.3 >1.0 21 15 55 54 .00847 18 8.82 .00 .00 .00 8.98 '4.60 8.3 >1.0 24 18 54 53 .00847 '8 8.82 .00 .00 .00 8.98 '4.60 8.3 >1.0 24 18 53 52 .00847 '8 8.82 .00 .00 .00 8.98 14.60 8.3 >1.0 24 18 52 51 .00800 18 8.57 .00 .00 .00 8.98 '4.60 8.3 >1.0 24 18 51 50 .00800 18 8.57 145.00 .06 .00 9.04 '4.68 8.3 >1.0 24 18 50 49 .00800 '8 8.57 .00 .00 .00 9.04 14.68 8.3 >1.0 24 18 49 48 .00800 18 8.57 .00 .00 .00 9.04 14.68 8.3 >1.0 24 18 48 47 .00800 18 8.57 50.00 .02 .00 9.06 '4.71 8.3 >1.0 24 18 47 46 .00800 18 8.57 .00 .00 .00 9.06 14.71 8.3 >1.0 24 18 46 45 .0'702 18 12.50 .00 .00 .00 9.06 '4.71 8.6 .92 21 12 45 "" .01702 18 '2.50 .00 .00 .00 9.06 '4.7' 8.6 .92 21 12 "" 43 .01702 18 '2.50 .00 .00 .00 9.06 14.71 8.6 .92 21 12 / (J ~9 3' ._"-..,,-- . -----_...__..-.,.-,-~ .--.--.. ---.---- 4/19/93 18:43:16 PAGE 5 SE~ER ANALYSIS SANITARY LOAD APPLICATIONS TELEGRAPH CANYON SE~ER BASIN-PHASE IV + PUMPED MH MH Slope Diam Capa~ Area FLow Point Average Peak. Vel- Depth Under Capacity "up Down city Input Source Flow Flow oeity Ratio Replace Rel fef Identification 43 42 .01702 18 12.50 70.00 .03 .00 9.09 14.75 8.3 >1.0 21 12 42 41 .01702 18 12.50 .00 .00 .00 9.09 14.75 8.3 >1.0 21 12 41 40 .00366 21 8.74 47.00 .02 .00 9.10 14.78 6.1 >1.0 27 21 40 39 .00366 21 8.74 .00 .00 .00 9.10 14.78 6.1 >1.0 27 21 39 38 .00378 21 8.88 .00 .00 .00 9.10 14.78 6.1 >1.0 27 21 38 37 .00366 21 8.74 .00 .00 .00 9.10 14.78 6.1 >1.0 27 21 37 36 .00366 21 8.74 9.00 .00 .00 9.11 14.78 6.1 >1.0 27 21 36 35 .00366 21 8.74 .00 .00 .00 9.11 14.78 6.1 >1.0 27 21 35 34 .00366 21 8.74 9.00 .00 .00 9.11 14.79 6.1 >1.0 27 21 34 33 .00366 21 8.74 77.00 .03 .00 9.14 14.83 6.2 >1.0 27 21 33 32 .00366 21 8.74 .00 .00 .00 9.14 14.83 6.2 >1.0 27 21 32 31 .00413 21 9.29 .00 .00 .00 9.14 14.83 6.2 >1.0 27 18 31 30 .03660 18 18.33 .00 .00 .00 9.14 14.83 12.4 .64 30 29 .01530 18 11.85 528.00 .20 .00 9.34 15.13 8.6 >1.0 21 12 29 28 .01300 18 10.92 27.00 .01 .00 9.36 15.15 8.6 >1.0 21 15 28 27 .01280 18 10.84 26.00 .01 .00 9.37 15.16 8.6 >1.0 21 15 27 26 .01280 18 10.84 26.00 .01 .00 9.38 15.18 8.6 >1.0 21 15 26 25 .01280 18 10.84 19.00 .01 .00 9.38 15.19 8.6 >1.0 21 15 25 24 .01280 18 10.84 20.00 .01 .00 9.39 15.20 8.6 >1.0 21 15 24 23 .01340 18 11.09 23.00 .01 .00 9.40 15.21 8.6 >1.0 21 15 23 22 .00880 21 13.55 43.00 .02 .00 9.42 15.24 7.0 .85 24 12 22 21 .01780 18 12.78 .00 .00 .00 9.42 15.24 8.6 >1.0 21 12 21 20 .01770 18 12.74 .00 .00 .00 9.42 15.24 8.6 >1.0 21 12 20 19 .01770 18 12.74 .00 .00 .00 9.42 15.24 8.6 >1.0 21 12 19 18 .01500 18 11.73 761.00 .29 .00 9.71 15.67 8.9 >1.0 21 12 18 17 .01500 18 11.73 .00 .00 .00 9.71 15.67 8.9 >1.0 21 12 17 16 .01500 18 11.73 .00 .00 .00 9.71 15.67 8.9 >1.0 21 12 / ¡J ~'7 V "._.__,_____ _ u__.__.n ~.~ ,-.-...---..----.--.-.,.--.....- 4/19/93 18:43:23 PAGE 6 SE~ER ANALYSIS SANITARY LOAD APPLICATIONS TELEGRAPH CANYON SE~ER BASIN-PHASE IV + PUMPED MH MH Slope Diam Capa- Area Flow Point Average Peak Vel- Depth Under tepee; ty ~ up Down city Input Source Flow FLow Dcity Ratio Replace ReL ief Identification 16 15 .01500 18 11.73 .00 .00 .00 9.71 15.67 8.9 >1.0 21 12 15 14 .01430 '8 11.45 928.00 .36 .00 10.07 16.20 9.2 >1.0 21 15 14 13 .01430 18 11.45 .00 .00 .00 10.07 16.20 9.2 >1.0 21 15 13 12 .01430 18 11.45 .00 .00 .00 10.07 16.20 9.2 >1.0 21 15 12 11 .03380 18 17.61 .00 .00 .00 10.07 16.20 12.3 .70 11 10 .01500 18 11.73 .00 .00 .00 10.07 16.20 9.2 >1.0 21 15 10 9 .01500 18 11.73 89.00 .03 .00 10.10 16.25 9.2 >1.0 21 15 9 8 .01500 18 11.73 .00 .00 .00 10.10 16.25 9.2 >1.0 21 15 8 7 .01000 21 14.45 36.00 .01 .00 10.12 16.27 7.5 .85 24 12 7 6 .01000 21 14.45 35.00 .01 .00 10.13 16.29 7.5 .85 24 12 6 5 .01000 21 14.45 515.00 .20 .00 10.33 16.58 7.5 .87 24 12 5 4 .01000 21 14.45 58.00 .02 .00 10.35 16.61 7.5 .87 24 12 4 3 .00430 24 13.53 4534.00 1.75 .00 12.11 19.15 6.1 >1.0 30 18 3 2 .00800 24 18.45 .00 .00 .00 12.11 19.15 7.3 .77 27 10 2 1 .00510 24 14.73 .00 .00 .00 12.11 19.15 6.1 >1.0 27 18 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + END OF AREA + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + /0 ~?? ----.-.---....-.".---,-,-"--" ".---... --_._,_._-.~......_----_._.__._.._- SEWER ANALYSIS Gravity Telegraph Canyon Sewer Basin /0/96 Improvement and Financing Plan Incorporating Pumped Flows _.~--_.._-- ..... ".-----.--....------.--- METHODOLOGY OF SEWER STUDY A. Sewage Flows There are several factors to predict and calculate sewage flows from a particular area. The method used for this study uses unit flow coefficients for the various land use types in the study area. These unit flow coefficients are listed in the following table. FLOW COEFFICIENT LAND USE UNIT (GPD) (CFS) Residential EDU 250 0.000387 Commercial Acres 2,500 0.00387 Industrial Acres 2,500 0.00387 Kaiser Hasp. Site 166,200 0.257133 Park Acres 500 0.00077 Public Facility Acres 1,000 0.00155 CPF Acres 2,500 0.00387 Schools Elementary Site 9,000 0.01392 Junior High Site 28,000 0.04332 High School Site 48,000 0.07426 The average sewage flow is calculated using these unit flow coefficients. The average flow is incorporated into the peaking curve method where: Qpeak = I. 98 (Qavg) 0.91 (CFS) This equation closely approximates the City of Chula Vista's peak to average sewage flow curve. /tJ -9! Telegraph Canyon Sewer BW'in improvement and Financing Plan Incorporating Pumped Flows ___ _______n_____"_".. "._...__.H__.______ .._____"."_________._~____.___._ B. Hydraulic Analysis and Computer Model The hydraulic analysis of the gravity sewer system is based on the following criteria: + Flow calculations are based on the use of the Manning formula for open channel flow with a coefficient of friction, n = 0.013 for VCP and RCP and n = 0.012 for PVC pipe. + Evaluation of pipeline capacity of existing sewers and sizing of proposed sewers is determined by limiting the peak flow depth to pipe diameter (Did) as follows: I Pipe Size (Inches) I Did I Zero to 10" 0.50 12" and Greater 0.75 Where: D = Depth of Flow d = Pipe Diameter It should be noted than an indication of a capacity deficiency when compared to the capacity definition does not alone justify the construction of a new sewer. Judgement considering such items as the length of sewer reach affected and status of land use buildout within the tributary area should be exercised to determine whether a deficiency is significant enough to warrant construction of a new facility. The computer program used to evaluate the Telegraph Canyon sewer system is the Sewer Program. This project combines the uses of AutoCAD graphics and the Sewer program. The program uses basic mathematics and hydraulic principles to calculate all such data as cross-sectional area, average flow, peak flow, velocity, normal depth, and depth ratio. Each manhole, at the end or beginning of a constant slope reach, is assigned a number. The land use and acreage for each sub-area is then input at the appropriate manhole. The computer calculated the average flow entering the sewer at each manhole and accumulates the flow into each manhole. This gives the average daily flow in the sewer which is the sum of the upstream tributary inflows plus the inflow at the manhole. The empirical peak-to- average relationships used to project the peak daily flow. This peak flow is the Telegraph Canyon Sewer Basin jiY ~/i70 Improvem.enr and Financing Plan Incorporating Pumped Flows -----....---- . __"e"·______ maximum experienced in the sewer throughout any given day and is the flow for which a new sewer must be designed or that which an existing sewer must carry. The program then calculates the capacity of the sewer. The capacity is the greatest flow that the sewer can carry when flowing at the maximum depth stipulated under the evaluation criteria (D/d). If the peak flow is greater than the capacity, the sewer is identified as deficient. For any sewer that does not have sufficient capacity, the program will indicate pipe sizes for a parallel relief sewer and a replacement sewer at the same slope as the existing facility. Due to the level of accuracy with which the Master Plan flow projections can be made, a theoretical surcharge of approximately ten percent (10%) of the pipeline capacity was allowed before designating a particular trunk sewer segment deficient. Therefore, 12" and 24" diameter sewerlines with a depth to diameter ratio (Did) greater than 0.85 were found to be deficient and scheduled for either replacement or parallel relief. If there was any surcharg- ing for sewer lines with lower Did ratios, it would generally occur only during peak flow conditions, which normally occur for short intervals (less than one hour). The computer model output is included in the following pages. I¡J-IO ( Telegraph Canyon Sewer Bæ.in Improvnnenl and Financing Pian Jnc(11)()raring Pumped FloH/s ...---.-". _...-, .._-~- 31 2/93 10:.2:32 PAGE 1 SEWER ANALYSIS GEOMETRY TELEGRAPN CANYON SEWER BASIN-EXISTING NN NN ... Oesign Criteria ... Down Slope Up n or C Diam diD Flow Veloc 1 .005100 2 .013 2. .75 1..7 5.8 2 .008000 3 .013 2. .75 18.5 7.3 3 .00.300 . .013 2. .75 13.5 5.. . .010000 5 .013 21 .75 14.. 7.5 5 .010000 6 .013 21 .75 14.. 7.5 6 .010000 7 .013 21 .75 14.. 7.5 7 .010000 8 .013 21 .75 14.4 7.5 8 .015000 9 .013 18 .75 11.7 8.3 9 .015000 10 .013 18 .75 11.7 8.3 10 .015000 11 .013 18 .75 11.7 8.3 11 .033800 12 .013 18 .75 17.6 12.. 12 .014300 13 .013 18 .75 11.5 8.1 13 .014300 14 .013 18 .75 11.5 8.1 14 .014300 15 .013 18 .75 11.5 8.1 15 .015000 16 .013 18 .75 11.7 8.3 16 .015000 17 .013 18 .75 11.7 8.3 17 .015000 18 .013 18 .75 11.7 8.3 18 .015000 19 .013 18 .75 11.7 8.3 19 .017700 20 .013 18 .75 12.7 9.0 20 .017700 21 .013 18 .75 12.7 9.0 21 .017800 22 .013 18 .75 12.8 9.0 22 .008800 23 .013 21 .75 13.6 7.0 23 .013400 24 .013 18 .75 11. 1 7.8 24 .012800 25 .013 18 .75 10.8 7.6 25 .012800 26 .013 18 .75 10.8 7.6 26 .012800 27 .013 18 .75 10.8 7.6 27 .012800 28 .013 18 .75 10.8 7.6 28 .013000 29 .013 18 .75 10.9 7.7 29 .015300 30 .013 18 .75 11.8 8.3 30 .036600 31 .013 18 .75 18.3 12.9 31 .004130 32 .013 21 .75 9.3 4.8 32 .003660 33 .013 21 .75 8.7 4.5 33 .003660 34 .013 21 .75 8.7 4.5 34 .003660 35 .013 21 .75 8.7 4.5 35 .003660 36 .013 21 .75 8.7 4.5 36 .003660 37 .013 21 .75 8.7 4.5 37 .003660 38 .013 21 .75 8.7 4.5 38 .003780 39 .013 21 .75 8.9 ..6 39 .003660 40 .013 21 .75 8.7 4.5 40 .003660 41 .013 21 .75 8.7 ..5 41 .017020 42 .013 18 .75 12.5 8.8 42 .017020 43 .013 18 .75 12.5 8.8 43 .017020 44 .013 18 .75 12.5 8.8 44 .017020 45 .013 18 .75 12.5 8.8 45 .017020 46 .013 18 .75 12.5 8.8 46 .008000 47 .013 18 .75 8.6 6.0 47 .008000 48 .013 18 .75 8.6 6.0 48 .008000 49 .013 18 .75 8.6 6.0 49 .008000 50 .013 18 .75 8.6 6.0 50 .008000 51 .013 18 .75 8.6 6.0 51 .008000 52 .013 18 .75 8.6 6.0 /:y -/ ¡fl ;L . _"_ _.___0.'__. . ---""""-----.-----.-.-.----.-----..---.---'.- 31 2/93 10:42:32 PAGE 2 SEWER ANALYSIS GEOMETRY TELEGRAPH CANYON SEWER BASIN-EXISTING MH MH ... Design Criteria .-. Down Slope Up n or C Diem d/O Flow Veloc 52 .008470 53 .013 18 .75 8.8 6.2 53 .008470 54 .013 18 .75 8.8 6.2 54 .008470 55 .013 18 .75 8.8 6.2 55 .010600 56 .013 18 .75 9.9 6.9 56 .010360 57 .013 18 .75 9.7 6.9 ·57 .010360 58 .013 18 .75 9.7 6.9 58 .010600 59 .013 18 .75 9.9 6.9 59 .010600 60 .013 18 .75 9.9 6.9 60 .010600 61 .013 18 .75 9.9 6.9 61 .010600 62 .013 18 .75 9.9 6.9 62 .008000 63 .013 18 .75 8.6 6.0 63 .008000 610 .013 18 .75 8.6 6.0 610 .008000 65 .013 18 .75 8.6 6.0 65 .020000 66 .013 15 .75 8.3 8.4 66 .016500 67 .013 15 .75 7.6 7.7 67 .012000 68 .013 15 .75 6.5 6.5 68 .012000 69 .013 15 .75 6.5 6.5 69 .012000 70 .013 15 .75 6.5 6.5 70 .012000 71 .013 15 .75 6.5 6.5 71 .012000 72 .013 15 .75 6.5 6.5 72 .012000 73 _013 15 .75 6.5 6.5 73 .012000 74 .013 15 .75 6.5 6.5 74 .012000 75 .013 15 .75 6.5 6.5 75 .009000 76 .013 15 .75 5.6 5.7 76 .009000 T7 .013 15 .75 5.6 5.7 T7 .009000 78 .013 15 .75 5.6 5.7 78 .012000 79 .013 15 .75 6.5 6.5 79 .012000 80 .013 15 .75 6.5 6.5 80 .012000 81 .013 15 .75 6.5 6.5 81 .010500 82 .013 15 .75 6.0 6.1 82 .010500 83 .013 15 .75 6.0 6.1 83 .010500 84 .013 15 .75 6.0 6.1 84 .012500 85 .013 15 .75 6.6 6.7 85 .012500 86 .013 15 .75 6.6 6.7 86 .010000 87 .013 15 .75 5.9 6.0 87 .010000 88 .013 15 .75 5.9 6.0 88 .010000 89 .013 15 .75 5.9 6.0 89 .010000 90 .013 15 .75 5.9 6.0 90 .010000 91 .013 15 .75 5.9 6.0 91 .010000 92 .013 15 .75 5.9 6.0 92 .010000 93 .013 15 .75 5.9 6.0 93 .010000 94 .013 15 .75 5.9 6.0 94 .010000 95 .013 15 .75 5.9 6.0 95 .010000 96 .013 15 .75 5.9 6.0 96 .010000 97 .013 15 .75 5.9 6.0 97 .012000 98 .013 15 .75 6.5 6.5 98 .017400 99 .013 15 .75 7.8 7.9 99 .014000 100 .013 15 .75 7.0 7.1 100 .012300 101 .013 15 .75 6.5 6.6 101 .005000 102 .012 16 .75 5.4 4.8 102 .005000 103 .012 16 .75 5.4 4.8 /tJ //tJ3 ----.-..-..------------------ -~--_.._._-..-._._.-"-------- 31 2/93 10:42:32 PAGE 3 SE~R ANALYSIS GEOMETRY TELEGRAPN CANYON SE~ER BASIN-EXISTING HN HH --. Design Criteria -.- Down Slope Up n or C Diam dlO Flow Veloc 103 .016900 '04 .012 16 .75 9.9 8.8 104 .0'0700 105 .012 '6 .75 7.8 7.0 105 .010000 106 .012 '6 .75 7.6 6.7 106 .010000 '07 .012 16 .75 7.6 6.7 '07 . , 40000 207 .012 15 .75 23.9 24.2 207 .005000 108 .012 '5 .75 4.5 4.6 108 .010000 109 .0'2 '5 .75 6.4 6.5 109 .013200 110 .0'2 15 .75 7.3 7.4 110 .033900 '" .012 15 .75 11.7 11.9 II' .023000 112 .0'2 IS .75 9.7 9.8 "2 .031000 113 .0'2 IS .75 11.2 11.4 113 .054600 213 .012 IS .75 14.9 IS.' 2'3 .010000 114 .012 IS .75 6.1, 6.5 111, .026000 115 .012 IS .75 10.3 '0.1, "5 .026000 116 .012 IS .75 10.3 '0.1, 116 .070000 216 .0'2 12 .75 9.3 11,.7 216 .027000 "7 .0'2 12 .75 5.8 9.2 "7 .032000 118 .0'2 12 .75 6.3 10.0 "8 .022000 "9 .012 12 .75 5.2 8.3 119 .023200 '20 .012 12 .75 5.1, 8.5 '20 .015000 '2' .012 '2 .75 4.3 6.8 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ END OF AREA ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ /Ó,/f)L( . _~..~.. "__..__.__..._._._" ....__". _"____."- .,,_ _0"_-'-''''' SEWER ANALYSIS LABELS YELEGRAPH CANYON SEWER BASIN-EXISTING 76 PASEO LADERA 95 OTAY LAKES ROAD 116 EAST LAKE PARKUAY 2D7 FAKE MH 213 FAKE NH 216 FAKE NH .--/ /O-/!J~ - ~--"~-~--_._----'-'-----.-.'---_." ,.--------...-.- SE~R ANALYSIS UNITS TELEGRAPH CANYON SEWER BASIN-EXISTING DISTANCE DIAMETER FLOII elEVATION AREA FEET INCHES CFS FEET ACRES /tJ ~/Ó? ".___ . _'0__'..- -.......-.... -.----- ---.------....----- -.--.......- --..-" .......---. 3/ 2/93 10:1,2:1,6 PAGE 1 SEWER ANALYSIS LOAD SUMMARY TELEGRAPN CANYON SEWER BASIN-EXISTING Hanhol e Toul Contributed Point Area Flow Source I, 1,531,.00 1.~ .00 5 58.00 .02 .00 6 515.00 .20 .00 7 35.00 .01 .00 8 36.00 .01 .00 10 89.00 .03 .00 IS 928.00 .36 .00 19 761.00 .29 .00 23 1,3.00 .02 .00 21, 23.00 .01 .00 25 20.00 .01 .00 26 19.00 .01 .00 27 26.00 .01 .00 28 26.00 .01 .00 29 27.00 .01 .00 30 528.00 .20 .00 31, 77.00 .03 .00 35 9.00 .00 .00 37 9.00 .00 .00 1,1 1,7.00 .02 .00 1,3 70.00 .03 .00 1,8 50.00 .02 .00 51 11,5.00 .06 .00 59 573.00 .22 .00 62 72.00 .03 .00 66 1,08.00 .16 .00 67 6.00 .00 .00 68 6/.6.00 .25 .00 69 69.00 .03 .00 70 51.00 .02 .00 72 1,3.00 .02 .00 73 1,95.00 .19 .00 76 579.00 . .22 .00 82 28.00 .01 .00 87 311.50 .12 .00 BB 1,8.00 .02 .00 92 139.00 .05 .00 95 1295.00 .50 .00 97 150.00 .06 .00 99 1,30.00 .17 .00 116 307.10 .12 .00 121 27.1,0 .01 .00 If) L'/CJ7 --..----... . ---... --.. _.._---_.~--_...,_._.- - .---.-. -..-.- - '" .,----.---.-. -----..---..-- . 31 2/93 10:43: 2 PAGE 2 SE~ER ANALYSIS SANITARY LOAD APPLICATIONS TELEGRAPH CANYON SE~R BASIN·EXISTING MH MH Slope Diam Capa· . Are. Flow Point Average Peak. Vel· Depth Under Capae i ty Up Down city Input Source Flow Flow oeity Ratio Replace Rel ief Identification 121 120 .01500 12 4.31 27.40 .01 .00 .01 .03 1.7 .06 120 119 .02320 12 5.36 .00 .00 .00 .01 .03 2.1 .06 119 118 .02200 12 5.22 .00 .00 .00 .01 .03 2.1 .06 118 117 .03200 12 6.30 .00 .00 .00 .01 .03 2.1 .04 "7 216 .02700 12 5.78 .00 .00 .00 .01 .03 1.9 .04 216 ,,6 .07000 '2 9.31 .00 .00 .00 .01 .03 3.1 .04 FAKE MH 116 115 .02600 15 10.29 307.10 .12 .00 .13 .31 3.9 .11 EAST LAKE PARK~AY 115 114 .02600 15 10.29 .00 .00 .00 .13 .3' 3.9 .11 114 213 .01000 15 6.38 .00 .00 .00 .13 .31 2.8 .14 213 113 .05460 15 14.9' .00 .00 .00 .13 .31 5.2 .09 FAKE HH 113 112 .03100 15 11 .24 .00 .00 .00 .13 .31 4.3 .11 112 111 .02300 15 9.68 .00 .00 .00 .13 .31 3.B .12 111 110 .03390 '5 11.75 .00 .00 .00 .13 .31 4.4 .11 110 109 .01320 15 7.33 .00 .00 .00 .13 .31 3.2 .13 109 10B .01000 15 6.38 .00 .00 .00 .13 .3' 2.8 .14 10B 207 .00500 15 4.51 .00 .00 .00 .13 .31 2.2 .17 207 107 .14000 15 23.88 .00 .00 .00 .13 .31 7.4 .08 FAKE HH 107 106 .01000 16 7.58 .00 .00 .00 .13 .31 2.8 .13 106 105 .01000 16 7.58 .00 .00 .00 .13 .31 2.8 .13 105 104 .01070 16 7.810 .00 .00 .00 .13 .31 2.9 . '3 104 103 .0'690 16 9.85 .00 .00 .00 .13 .31 3.4 .12 103 102 .00500 16 5.36 .00 .00 .00 .13 .31 2.2 .16 102 '01 .00500 '6 5.36 .00 .00 .00 .13 .31 2.2 .16 10' 100 .01230 15 6.53 .00 .00 .00 .13 .31 2.9 .14 100 99 .01400 15 6.97 .00 .00 .00 .13 .31 3.1 .14 99 98 .0'740 15 7.77 430.00 .17 .00 .30 .65 4.0 .19 98 97 .01200 15 6.45 .00 .00 .00 .30 .65 3.7 .21 / ¡) ~I þ;( ----_...-~--_..__._._----_._._....-------"------ 31 2/93 '0,43:'7 PAGE 3 SEWER ANALYSIS SANITARY LOAD APPLICATIONS TELEGRAPH CANYON SEWER BASIN-EXISTING MH MH Slope Diam tapå· Area Flow Point Average PeaK Vel· Depth Under Cepachy up Down city Input Source Flow Flow Dcity Ratio Replace Rel ief Identification 97 96 .0'000 ,5 5.89 ,50.00 .06 .00 .35 .77 3.5 .23 96 95 .01000 '5 5.89 .00 .00 .00 .35 .77 3.5 .23 95 94 .01000 15 5.89 '295.00 .50 .00 .86 1.72 4.5 .35 OTAY LAKES ROAD 94 93 .0'000 '5 5.89 .00 .00 .00 .86 1.72 4.5 .35 93 92 .01000 15 5.89 .00 .00 .00 .86 1.72 4.5 .35 92 9' .0'000 '5 5.89 '39.00 .05 .00 .91 1.82 4.5 .36 9' 90 .01000 15 5.89 .00 .00 .00 .9' 1.82 4.5 .36 90 89 .0'000 '5 5.89 .00 .00 .00 .91 1.82 4.5 .36 89 88 .0'000 15 5.89 .00 .00 .00 .91 1.82 4.5 .36 88 87 .0'000 ,5 5.89 48.00 .02 .00 .93 1.85 4.6 .37 87 B6 .01000 '5 5.89 3'1.50 .12 .00 '.05 2.07 4.7 .39 B6 85 .0'250 15 6.59 .00 .00 .00 1.05 2.07 5.' .37 B5 84 .0'250 '5 6.59 .00 .00 .00 '.05 2.07 5. , .37 B4 83 .01050 '5 6.04 .00 .00 .00 1.05 2.07 4.8 .38 83 82 .0'050 '5 6.04 .00 .00 .00 1.05 2.07 4.8 .38 82 8' .01050 '5 6.04 28.00 .0' .00 1.06 2.09 4.8 .39 8' BO .0'200 ,5 6.45 .00 .00 .00 1.06 2.09 5.0 .37 80 79 .0'200 15 6.45 .00 .00 .00 1.06 2.09 5.0 .37 79 78 .0'200 '5 6.45 .00 .00 .00 '.06 2.09 5.0 .37 78 77 .00900 '5 5.59 .00 .00 .00 1.06 2.09 4.5 .40 77 76 .00900 '5 5.59 .00 .00 .00 1.06 2.09 4.5 .40 76 75 .00900 '5 5.59 579.00 .22 .00 1.28 2.48 4.7 .44 PASEO LADER A 75 74 .0'200 '5 6.45 .00 .00 .00 1.28 2.4B 5.3 .41 74 73 .01200 '5 6.45 .00 .00 .00 1.28 2.48 5.3 .41 73 72 .0'200 '5 6.45 495.00 . '9 .00 1.47 2.82 5.5 .44 72 7' .01200 '5 6.45 43.00 .02 .00 1.49 2.85 5.5 .44 7' 70 .0'200 15 6.45 .00 .00 .00 1.49 2.85 5.5 .44 /¡J~/ð7 "__"_0.__- 31 2/93 10,.3:25 PAGE . SEWER ANALYSIS SANITARY LOAD APPLICATIONS TELEGRAPH CANYON SEWER BASIN-EXISTING HH HH Slope Diem capå- Area Flow Point Average Peak Vel- Depth Under Capac i ty Up Down cHy I""", Source Flow Flow Deity Ratio Replace Rel ief Identification 70 69 .01200 15 6.45 51.00 .02 .00 1.51 2.88 5.5 .45 69 68 .012:00 15 6.'5 69.00 .03 .00 1.510 2.93 5.5 ..5 68 67 .01200 15 6..5 646.00 .25 .00 1.79 3.36 5.7 ..8 67 66 .01650 15 7.57 6.00 .00 .00 1.79 3.36 6.. ... 66 65 .02000 15 8.33 .08.00 .16 .00 1.95 3.63 7.1 ... 65 610 .00800 18 8.51 .00 .00 .00 1.95 3.63 5.0 ..3 610 63 .00800 18 8.57 .00 .00 .00 1.95 3.63 5.0 ..3 63 62 .00800 18 8.57 .00 .00 .00 1.95 3.63 5.0 ..3 62 61 .0'060 '8 9.86 72.00 .03 .00 1.98 3.68 5.5 ..0 61 60 .01060 18 9.86 .00 .00 .00 1.98 3.68 5.5 ..0 60 59 .01060 18 9.86 .00 .00 .00 1.98 3.68 5.5 ..0 59 58 .0'060 '8 9.86 573.00 .22 .00 2.20 ..05 5.7 ..3 58 57 .01036 18 9.75 .00 .00 .00 2.20 ..05 5.6 ..3 57 56 .0'036 18 9.75 .00 .00 .00 2.20 ..05 5.6 ..3 56 55 .01060 18 9.86 .00 .00 .00 2.20 ..05 5.7 ..3 55 5. .008/07 18 8.82 .00 .00 .00 2.20 ..05 5.3 ..5 5. 53 .008/07 18 8.82 .00 .00 .00 2.20 ..05 5.3 ..5 53 52 ·.008/07 18 8.82 .00 .00 .00 2.20 ..05 5.3 ..5 52 51 .00800 18 8.57 .00 .00 .00 2.20 ..05 5.1 ..6 51 50 .00800 18 8.57 145.00 .06 .00 2.25 ..15 5.2 ..7 50 .9 .00800 '8 8.57 .00 .00 .00 2.25 ..15 5.2 ..7 .9 .8 .00800 18 8.57 .00 .00 .00 2.25 .. '5 5.2 .1;7 .8 1;7 .00800 18 8.57 50.00 .02 .00 2.27 ..18 5.2 ..7 1;7 .6 .00800 18 8.57 .00 .00 .00 2.27 .. '8 5.2 .1;7 46 .5 .01702 18 '2.50 .00 .00 .00 2.27 ..18 6.9 .38 .5 .. .01702 18 12.50 .00 .00 .00 2.27 ..18 6.9 .38 .. .3 .01702 18 12.50 .00 .00 .00 2.27 ..18 6.9 .38 ItJ~I/[) - -.-_..._-- -- ..._--._~--- -,_..._-_._------_.,.__._~_..-_...,-- 31 2/93 10:43:32 PAGE 5 SEWER ANALYSIS SANITARY LOAD APPLICATIONS TELEGRAPH CANYON SEWER BASIN-EXISTING HH HH Slope Diem Cape· . Area Flow Point Average Peak. Vel- Depth Under Capacity Up Down city Input Source Flow Flow oeity Ratio Repl ace Rel ief Identification 43 42 .01702 1B 12.50 70.00 .03 .00 2.30 4.23 6.9 .38 42 41 .01702 18 12.50 .00 .00 .00 2.30 4.23 6.9 .38 41 40 .00366 21 8.74 47.00 .02 .00 2.32 4.26 3.9 .47 40 39 .00366 21 8.74 .00 .00 .00 2.32 4.26 3.9 .47 39 38 .00378 21 8.BS .00 .00 .00 2.32 4.26 3.9 .46 38 37 .00366 21 8.74 .00 .00 .00 2.32 4.26 3.9 .47 37 36 .00366 21 8.74 9.00 .00 .00 2.32 4.26 3.9 .47 36 35 .00366 21 8.74 .00 .00 .00 2.32 4.26 3.9 .47 35 34 .00366 21 8.74 9.00 .00 .00 2.33 4.27 3.9 .47 34 33 .00366 21 8.74 77.00 .03 .00 2.35 4.32 3.9 .47 33 32 .00366 21 8.74 .00 .00 .00 2.35 4.32 3.9 .47 32 31 .00413 21 9.29 .00 .00 .00 2.35 4.32 4.1 .45 31 30 .03660 18 18.33 .00 .00 .00 2.35 4.32 9.0 .32 30 29 .01530 18 11.85 528.00 .20 .00 2.56 4.66 6.7 .41 29 28 .01300 18 10.92 27.00 .01 .00 2.57 4.67 6.3 .43 28 27 .01280 18 10.84 26.00 .01 .00 2.58 4.69 6.4 .44 27 26 .01280 18 10.84 26.00 .01 .00 2.59 4.71 6.4 .44 26 25 .01280 18 10.84 19.00 .01 .00 2.60 4.72 6.4 .44 25 24 .01280 18 10.84 20.00 .01 .00 2.60 4.73 6.4 .44 24 23 .01340 18 11.09 23.00 .01 .00 2.61 4.75 6.4 .43 23 22 .00880 21 13.55 43.00 .02 .00 2.63 4.77 5.5 .39 22 21 .01780 18 12.78 .00 .00 .00 2.63 4.77 7.2 .40 21 20 .01770 18 12.74 .00 .00 .00 2.63 4.77 7.1 .40 20 19 .01770 18 12.74 .00 .00 .00 2.63 4.77 7.1 .40 19 18 .01500 18 11.73 761.00 .29 .00 2.92 5.26 6.9 .45 18 17 .01500 18 11.73 .00 .00 .00 2.92 5.26 6.9 .45 17 16 .01500 18 11.73 .00 .00 .00 2.92 5.26 6.9 .45 /0 -i I / ^ ..__...-.~-'--~--"--' . ,,---------.-..--- _.-.----~---.-._._--~_..._-_.~"----_.._- 3/ 2/93 10:1.3:1.0 PAGE 6 SEWER ANALYSIS SANITARY LOAD APPLICATIONS TELEGRAPH CAHYON SEWER BASIN-EXISTING MH MH SLope Diem Cape· . Area Flow Point Average Peak. Vel· Depth under Capacity Up Down city Input Source Flow Flow oeity Ratio Replace Rel ief Identification 16 15 .01500 '8 11.73 .00 .00 .00 2.92 5.26 6.9' .1.5 '5 11. .011.30 18 11.1.5 928.00 .36 .00 3.28 5.81. 7.0 .1.8 ,1. 13 .011.30 18 11.1.5 .00 .00 .00 3.28 5.8/0 7.0 .1.8 13 12 .011.30 18 11.1.5 .00 .00 .00 3.28 5.8/0 7.0 .1.8 12 11 .03380 18 17.61 .00 .00 .00 3.28 5.8/0 9.5 .37 '1 10 .01500 18 11.73 .00 .00 .00 3.28 5.8/0 7.1 .1.8 '0 9 .01500 18 11.73 89.00 .03 .00 3.32 5.90 7.1 .1.8 9 8 .01500 18 ".73 .00 .00 .00 3.32 5.90 7.' .1.8 8 7 .01000 2' '1..1.5 36.00 .01 .00 3.33 5.92 6. , .1.3 7 6 .01000 21 '1..1.5 35.00 .01 .00 3.35 5.91. 6.1 .1.3 6 5 .01000 21 '1..1.5 515.00 .20 .00 3.55 6.26 6.2 .1.1. 5 I. .01000 21 11..1.5 58.00 .02 .00 3.57 6.30 6.2 .1.1. I. 3 .001.30 21. 13.53 1.531..00 1.75 .00 5.32 9.07 1..9 .56 3 2 .00800 21. '8.1.5 .00 .00 .00 5.32 9.07 6.3 .1.7 2 1 .00510 21. '1..73 .00 .00 .00 5.32 9.07 5.3 .53 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + END OF AREA + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + /{Î/ /!~ _ .-....-.....-...-..,---- - ,-_......_".~_.._- 31 2/93 10:25:28 PAGE 1 SEWER ANALYSIS GEOMETRY TELEGRAPH CANYON SE~ER 8ASIN-PHASE J MH MH ... Design Criteria .-. Down Slope up n or C Diam dlO Flow Velo!: 1 .005100 2 .013 21, .75 11,.7 5.8 2 .008000 3 .013 21, .75 18.5 7.3 3 .001,300 I, .013 21, .75 13.5 5.1, I, .010000 5 .013 21 .75 11,.1, 7.5 5 .010000 6 .013 21 .75 11,.1, 7.5 6 .010000 7 .013 21 .75 11,.1, 7.5 7 .010000 8 .013 21 .75 ,1,.1, 7.5 8 .015000 9 .013 18 .75 11.7 8.3 9 .015000 10 .013 18 .75 11.7 8.3 10 .015000 11 .013 18 .75 11.7 8.3 11 .033800 12 .013 18 .75 17.6 12.1, 12 .011,300 13 .013 18 .75 11.5 8.1 13 .011,300 11, .013 18 .75 11.5 8.1 11, .011,300 15 .013 18 .75 11.5 8.1 15 .015000 16 .013 18 .75 11.7 8.3 16 .015000 17 .013 18 .75 11.7 8.3 17 .015000 18 .013 18 .75 11.7 8.3 18 .015000 19 .013 18 .75 11.7 8.3 19 .017700 20 .013 18 .75 12.7 9.0 20 .017700 21 .013 18 .75 12.7 9.0 21 .017800 22 .013 18 .75 12.8 9.0 22 .008800 23 .013 21 .75 13.6 7.0 23 .0131,00 21, .013 18 .75 11. 1 7.8 21, .012800 25 .013 18 .75 10.8 7.6 25 .012800 26 .013 18 .75 10.8 7.6 26 .012800 27 .013 18 .75 10.8 7.6 27 .012800 28 .013 18 .75 10.8 7.6 28 .013000 29 .013 18 .75 10.9 7.7 29 .015300 30 .013 18 .75 11.8 8.3 30 .036600 31 .013 18 .75 18.3 12.9 31 .001,130 32 .013 21 .75 9.3 1,.8 32 .003660 33 .013 21 .75 8.7 1,.5 33 .003660 31, .013 21 .75 8.7 1,.5 31, .003660 35 .013 21 .75 8.7 1,.5 35 .003660 36 .013 21 .75 8.7 1,.5 36 .003660 37 .013 21 .75 8.7 ..5 37 .003660 38 .013 21 .75 8.7 1,.5 38 .003780 39 .013 21 .75 8.9 ..6 39 .003660 1,0 .013 21 .75 8.7 1,.5 1,0 .003660 ., .013 21 .75 8.7 1,.5 1,1 .017020 1,2 .013 18 .75 12.5 8.8 1,2 .017020 1,3 .013 18 .75 12.5 8.8 1,3 .017020 1,1, .013 18 .75 12.5 8.8 1,1, .017020 1,5 .013 18 .75 12.5 8.8 1,5 .017020 1,6 .013 18 .75 12.5 8.8 1,6 .008000 1,7 .013 18 .75 8.6 6.0 107 .008000 1,8 .013 18 .75 8.6 6.0 1,8 .008000 1,9 .013 18 .75 8.6 6.0 .9 .008000 50 .013 18 .75 8.6 6.0 50 .008000 51 .013 18 .75 8.6 6.0 51 .008000 52 .013 18 .75 8.6 6.0 jtJ -II) ~""-- --..-"-.,......- 31 2/93 10:25:28 PAGE 2 SE~R ANALYSIS GEOMETRY TELEGRAPH CANYON SEWER BASIN-PHASE I MH MH ~-. Design Criteria ... Down Slope Up n or C Diam dlO Flow Veloc 52 .008470 53 .013 18 .75 8.8 6.2 53 .008470 54 .013 18 .75 8.8 6.2 54 .008470 55 .013 18 .75 8.8 6.2 55 .010600 56 .013 18 .75 9.9 6.9 56 .010360 57 .013 18 .75 9.7 6.9 57 .010360 58 .013 18 .75 9.7 6.9 58 .010600 59 .013 18 .75 9.9 6.9 59 .010600 60 .013 18 .75 9.9 6.9 60 .010600 61 .013 18 .75 9.9 6.9 61 .010600 62 .013 18 .75 9.9 6.9 62 .008000 63 .013 18 .75 8.6 6.0 63 .008000 64 .013 18 .75 8.6 6.0 64 .008000 65 .013 18 .75 8.6 6.0 65 .020000 66 .013 IS .75 8.3 8.4 66 .016500 67 .013 IS .75 7.6 7.7 67 .012000 68 .013 IS .75 6.5 6.5 68 .012000 69 .013 IS .75 6.5 6.5 69 .012000 70 .013 IS .75 6.5 6.5 70 .012000 71 .013 IS .75 6.5 6.5 71 .012000 72 .013 IS .75 6.5 6.5 72 .012000 73 .013 IS .75 6.5 6.5 73 .012000 74 .013 IS .75 6.5 6.5 74 .012000 75 .013 IS .75 6.5 6.5 75 .009000 76 .013 IS .75 5.6 5.7 76 .009000 77 .013 IS .75 5.6 5.7 77 .009000 78 .013 IS .75 5.6 5.7 78 .012000 79 .013 IS .75 6.5 6.5 79 .012000 80 .013 IS .75 6.5 6.5 80 .012000 81 .013 IS .75 6.5 6.5 81 .010500 82 .013 IS .75 6.0 6. I 82 .010500 83 .013 IS .75 6.0 6. I 83 .010500 84 .013 IS .75 6.0 6.1 84 .012500 85 .013 15 .75 6.6 6.7 85 .012500 86 .013 15 .75 6.6 6.7 86 .010000 87 .013 IS .75 5.9 6.0 87 .010000 88 .013 IS .75 5.9 6.0 88 .010000 89 .013 IS .75 5.9 6.0 89 .010000 90 .013 IS .75 5.9 6.0 90 .010000 91 .013 IS .75 5.9 6.0 91 .010000 92 .013 IS .75 5.9 6.0 92 .010000 93 .013 IS .75 5.9 6.0 93 .010000 94 .013 IS .75 5.9 6.0 94 .010000 95 .013 IS .75 5.9 6.0 95 .010000 96 .013 IS .75 5.9 6.0 96 .010000 97 .013 15 .75 5.9 6.0 97 .012000 98 .013 IS .75 6.5 6.5 98 .017400 99 .013 15 .75 7.8 7.9 99 .014000 100 .013 IS .75 7.0 7. I 100 .012300 101 .013 IS .75 6.5 6.6 101 .005000 102 .012 16 .75 5.4 4.8 102 .005000 103 .012 16 .75 5.4 4.8 lð-/J¡' _.--_.__.~_.._-- -~..+..,.- --_._~.--~--~,_._-~_. 31 2/93 10:25:28 PAGE 3 SEWER ANALYSIS GEOMETRY TELEGRAPN CANYON SEWER BASIN'PHASE I MH MH -.- Design Criteria ... Down Slope up n or C Diam dID Flow Veloc 103 .016900 101, .012 16 .75 9.9 8.8 101, .010700 105 .012 16 .75 7.8 7.0 105 .010000 106 .012 16 .75 7.6 6.7 106 .010000 107 .012 16 .75 7.6 6.7 107 .11,0000 207 .012 15 .75 23.9 21,.2 207 .005000 108 .012 15 .75 1,.5 1,.6 1D8 .010DOD 109 .D12 15 .75 6.1, 6.5 109 .013200 110 .012 15 .75 7.3 7.1, 110 .033900 "1 .012 15 .75 11.7 11.9 "1 .023000 112 .012 15 .75 9.7 9.8 112 .031000 113 .012 15 .75 11.2 11.1, 113 .051,600 213 .012 15 .75 11,.9 15.1 213 .010000 111, .012 15 .75 6.1, 6.5 ,,1, .026000 115 .012 15 .75 10.3 10.1, "5 .026000 116 .012 15 .75 10.3 10.1, 116 .070000 216 .012 12 .75 9.3 11,.7 216 .027000 117 .012 12 .75 5.8 9.2 "7 .032000 118 .012 12 .75 6.3 10.0 118 .022000 119 .012 12 .75 5.2 8.3 119 .023200 120 .012 12 .75 5.1, 8.5 120 .015000 121 .012 12 .75 1,.3 6.8 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ END OF AREA ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ /[)~//S "U"_··_ -- -..----,..._--_..,.-- SE~R ANALYSIS LABELS TELEGRAPH CANYON SEWER BASIN-PNASE ¡ 76 PASEO LADERA 95 OTAY LAKES ROAD 1'6 EAST LAKE PARKWAY 207 FAKE MH 213 FAKE MH 216 FAKE MH It/-II/::> .- .._-,._..._-_.------_.._-~._---~._..~._,.._- ....~-~------~~-- SEWER ANALYSIS UNITS TELEGRAPH CANYON SEWER BASIN-PHASE I DISTANCE DIAMETER 'LOll ELEVATION AREA 'EET INCHES C'S FEET ACRES /¡J-/17 _.~._.~ ------_.._~---~-,.._- -_._"-. -,~----- 31 2/93 '0:25:42 PAGE' 5EWfR ANALYSIS LOAD SUMMARY TELEGRAPH CANYON SEWfR BASIN·PNASE I Manhole Total Contributed Point Area flow Source 4 4534.00 , .75 .00 5 58.00 .02 .00 6 5'5.00 .20 .00 7 35.00 .01 .00 8 36.00 .01 .00 '0 89.00 .03 .00 15 928.00 .36 .00 19 761.00 .29 .00 23 43.00 .02 .00 24 23.00 .01 .00 25 20.00 .01 .00 26 19.00 .0' .00 27 26.00 .01 .00 28 26.00 .01 .00 29 27.00 .01 .00 30 528.00 .20 .00 34 77.00 .03 .00 35 9.00 .00 .00 37 9.00 .00 .00 4' 47.00 .02 .00 43 70.00 .03 .00 48 50.00 .02 .00 51 145.00 .06 .00 59 573.00 .22 .00 62 12.00 .03 .00 66 408.00 . '6 .00 67 6.00 .00 .00 68 646.00 .25 .00 69 69.00 .03 .00 70 51.00 .02 .00 12 43.00 .02 .00 73 495.00 .19 .00 76 579.00 .22 .00 82 28.00 .01 .00 87 31'.50 .12 .00 88 48.00 .02 .00 92 139.00 .05 .00 95 '369.00 .53 .00 97 '50.00 .06 .00 99 430.00 . '7 .00 "6 370.50 .36 .00 121 27.40 .0' .00 /tÝ -J/~ ...---- ~..~~-------_..._"--_._. ----~--~_._..__.---------- "- ---------- 3/ 2/93 10:25:58 PAGE 2 SEYER ANALYSIS SANITARY LOAD APPLICATIONS TELEGRAPH CAHYON SE~R BASIN' PHASE I MH MH Slope Oiem Capl1. Area Flow Point Average Peak Vel- Depth Under Capacity up Down city Input Source Flow Flow oeity Ratio Replace Rel ief Identification 121 120 .01500 12 4.31 27.40 .01 .00 .01 .03 1.7 .06 120 119 .02320 12 5.36 .00 .00 .00 .01 .03 2. I .06 119 118 .02200 12 5.22 .00 .00 .00 .01 .03 2.1 .06 lIB 117 .03200 12 6.30 .00 .00 .00 .01 .03 2.1 .04 117 216 .02700 12 5.7B .00 .00 .00 .01 .03 1.9 .04 216 116 .07000 12 9.31 .00 .00 .00 .01 .03 3. I .04 FAKE MH 116 lIS .02600 IS 10.29 370.50 .36 .00 .37 .81 5.3 .18 EAST LAKE PARK~AY lIS 114 .02600 15 10.29 .00 .00 .00 .37 .81 5.3 .18 114 213 .01000 IS 6.38 .00 .00 .00 .37 .81 3.8 .23 213 113 .05460 IS 14.91 .00 .00 .00 .37 .81 7.0 . IS FAKE MH 113 112 .03100 15 11.24 .00 .00 .00 .37 .81 5.7 .17 112 III .02300 IS 9.68 .00 .00 .00 .37 .81 5.0 .19 111 110 .03390 IS 11.75 .00 .00 .00 .37 .81 5.8 .17 ',0 109 .01320 IS 7.33 .00 .00 .00 .37 .81 4.2 .21 109 108 .01000 IS 6.38 .00 .00 .00 .37 .81 3.8 .23 108 207 .00500 IS 4.51 .00 .00 .00 .37 .81 2.9 .27 207 107 .14000 IS 23.88 .00 .00 .00 .37 .81 9.8 .12 FAKE MH 107 106 .01000 16 7.58 .00 .00 .00 .37 .81 3.8 .21 106 105 .01000 16 7.58 .00 .00 .00 .37 .81 3.8 .21 105 104 .01070 16 7.84 .00 .00 .00 .37 .81 3.9 .21 104 103 .01690 16 9.85 .00 .00 .00 .37 .81 4.5 .19 103 102 .00500 16 5.36 .00 .00 .00 .37 .81 3.0 .25 102 101 .00500 16 5.36 .00 .00 .00 .37 .81 3.0 .25 101 100 .01230 IS 6.53 .00 .00 .00 .37 .81 3.9 .23 100 99 .01400 15 6.97 .00 .00 .00 .37 .81 4. I .22 99 98 .01740 IS 7.77 430.00 .17 .00 .54 1. 13 4.8 .25 98 97 .01200 IS 6.45 .00 .00 .00 .54 1.13 4.2 .27 If) ~/19 . ...---......-.-....-. ..-.--...........----.""" ~._--_.._--,. +.....__.~---_.-_. . 31 2/93 '0,26,13 PAGE 3 SEWER ANALYSIS SANITARY LOAD APPLICATIONS TELEGRAPH CANYON SEWER BASIN,PHASE I MH MH Slope Oiam Capa',. Area Flow Point Average Þeak Vel- Depth Under Capac:i ty Up Down city Input Source Flow Flow oeity Ratio Replace Rel iet Identification 97 96 .01000 15 5.89 150.00 .06 .00 .60 1.2. ..1 .30 96 95 .01000 15 5.89 .00 .00 .00 .60 1.2. ..1 .30 95 9. .01000 15 5.89 1369.00 .53 .00 1. 13 2.21 ..7 ..0 OTAY LAKES ROAD 9. 93 .01000 15 5.89 .00 .00 .00 1.13 .2.21 ..7 ..0 93 92 .01000 15 5.89 .00 .00 .00 1.13 2.2' ..7 .40 92 91 .01000 15 5.89 139.00 .05 .00 1. 18 2.31 4.8 .41 91 90 .01000 15 5.89 .00 .00 .00 1.18 2.31 4.8 .41 90 89 .01000 15 5.89 .00 .00 .00 1. 18 2.31 4.8 .41 89 88 .01000 '5 5.89 .00 .00 .00 1.18 2.31 4.8 .41 88 87 .01000 15 5.89 48.00 .02 .00 1.20 2.34 4.8 .42 87 86 .01000 15 5.89 311 .50 .12 .00 1.32 2.55 5.0 .44 86 85 .01250 15 6.59 .00 .00 .00 1.32 2.55 5.. .41 85 810 .0'250 15 6.59 .00 .00 .00 1.32 2.55 5.4 .41 810 83 .01050 15 6.0. .00 .00 .00 1.32 2.55 5.0 .43 83 82 .01050 15 6.010 .00 .00 .00 1.32 2.55 5.0 .43 82 81 .01050 '5 6.010 28.00 .01 .00 1.33 2.57 5.0 .43 8' 80 .01200 15 6.45 .00 .00 .00 1.33 2.57 5.3 .42 80 79 ·.01200 15 6.45 .00 .00 .00 1.33 2.57 5.3 .42 79 78 .01200 15 6..5 .00 .00 .00 1.33 2.57 5.3 .42 78 77 .00900 15 5.59 .00 .00 .00 1.33 2.57 4.8 .45 77 76 .00900 15 5.59 .00 .00 .00 1.33 2.57 4.8 .45 76 75 .00900 15 5.59 579.00 .22 .00 1.56 2.96 4.9 .49 PASEO lAOERA 75 74 .01200 15 6.45 .00 .00 .00 1.56 2.96 5.5 .45 74 73 .01200 15 6.45 .00 .00 .00 1.56 2.96 5.5 .45 73 72 .01200 15 6.45 495.00 .19 .00 1.75 3.29 5.7 .48 72 7' .01200 15 6.45 43.00 .02 .00 1.77 3.32 5.7 .48 71 70 .01200 15 6..5 .00 .00 .00 1.77 3.32 5.7 .48 /¡J-/c2Ò ~~_._._-_.~._---,-_._------_._,._-,-_._-_...,,---- 31 2/93 10:26:21 PAGE 4 SEWER ANALYSIS SANIYARY LOAD APPLICAYIONS TELEGRAPH CANYON SEWER BASIN-PHASE I MH MH Slope Diam Cllpa~ Area Flow Point Average Peak Vel· Depth Under Capae; ty Up Down city Input Source Flow FLow oeity Ratio Repl ace Rel ief Identification 70 69 .01200 15 6.45 51.00 .02 .00 1.78 3.35 5.7 .48 69 68 .01200 15 6.45 69.00 .03 .00 1.81 3.40 5.7 .49 68 67 .01200 15 6.45 646.00 .25 .00 2.06 3.82 5.9 .52 67 66 .01650 15 7.57 6.00 .00 .00 .2.06 3.83 6.6 .48 66 65 .02000 15 8.33 408.00 .16 .00 2.22 4.09 7.3 .47 65 64 .00800 18 8.57 .00 .00 .00 2.22 4.09 5.1 .46 64 63 .00800 18 8.57 .00 .00 .00 2.22 4.09 5.1 .46 63 62 .00800 18 8.57 .00 .00 .00 2.22 4.09 5.1 .46 62 61 .01060 18 9.86 72.00 .03 .00 2.25 4.14 5.7 .43 61 60 .01060 18 9.86 .00 .00 .00 2.25 4.14 5.7 .43 60 59 .01060 18 9.86 .00 .00 .00 2.25 4.14 5.7 .43 59 58 .01060 18 9.86 573.00 .22 .00 2.47 4.51 5.8 .45 58 57 .01036 18 9.75 .00 .00 .00 2.47 4.51 5.8 .45 57 56 .01036 18 9.75 .00 .00 .00 2.47 4.51 5.8 .45 56 55 .01060 18 9.86 .00 .00 .00 2.47 4.51 5.8 .45 55 54 .00847 18 8.82 .00 .00 .00 2.47 4.51 5.4 .48 54 53 .00847 18 8.82 .00 .00 .00 2.47 4.51 5.4 .48 53 52 .00847 18 8.82 .00 .00 .00 2.47 4.51 5.4 .48 52 51 .00800 18 8.57 .00 .00 .00 2.47 4.51 5.3 .49 51 50 .00800 18 8.57 145.00 .06 .00 2.53 4.60 5.3 .49 50 49 .00800 18 B.57 .00 .00 .00 2.53 4.60 5.3 .49 49 48 .00800 18 8.57 .00 .00 .00 2.53 4.60 5.3 .49 4B 47 .OOBOO 18 8.57 50.00 .02 .00 2.55 4.64 5.3 .50 47 46 .00800 1B 8.57 .00 .00 .00 2.55 4.64 5.3 .50 46 45 .01702 18 12.50 .00 .00 .00 2.55 4.64 7.0 .40 45 44 .01702 1B 12.50 .00 .00 .00 2.55 4.64 7.0 .40 44 43 .01702 18 12.50 .00 .00 .00 2.55 4.64 7.0 .40 I ¡J -;02 / -- ---....-----.-...-.-.----...--.-..--.--'"'.,- ---......--.,.,----...--- -.......-..--.- 3/ 2/93 10:26:28 PAGE 5 SEWER ANALYSIS SANITARY LOAD APPLICATIONS TELEGRAPH CANYON SEWER BASIN·PHASE I MH MH Slope Ciam Cepe" Area Flow Point Average Peak Vel· Depth Under Capacity Up Down city Input Source Flow Flow ocity Ratio Replace Rel ief Identification .3 .2 .01702 18 12.50 70.00 .03 .00 2.57 ..68 7.0 ..0 .2 1,1 .01702 18 12.50 .00 .00 .00 2.57 1,.68 7.0 .1,0 ., 1,0 .00366 21 8.71, 1,7.00 .02 .00 2.59 1,.71 1,.0 .50 .0 39 .00366 21 8.71, .00 .00 .00 2.59 ..71 1,.0 .50 39 38 .00378 21 8.88 .00 .00 .00 2.59 1,.71 1,.0 .1,9 38 37 .00366 21 8.71, .00 .00 .00 2.59 1,.71 1,.0 .50 37 36 .00366 21 8.71, 9.00 .00 .00 2.60 ..72 1,.0 .50 36 35 .00366 21 8.71, .00 .00 .00 2.60 1,.72 1,.0 .50 35 31, .00366 21 8.71, 9.00 .00 .00 2.60 1,.72 1,.0 .50 31, 33 .00366 21 8.71, 77.00 .03 .00 2.63 1,.77 1,.0 .50 33 32 .00366 21 8.71, .00 .00 .00 2.63 1,.77 ..0 .50 32 31 .001,13 21 9.29 .00 .00 .00 2.63 1,.77 1,.2 .1,8 31 30 .03660 18 18.33 .00 .00 .00 2.63 1,.77 9.2 .33 30 29 .01530 18 11.85 528.00 .20 .00 2.83 5.11 6.9 .1,1, 29 28 .01300 18 10.92 27.00 .01 .00 2.8/0 5.13 6.5 .1,5 28 27 .01280 18 10.8/0 26.00 .01 .00 2.85 5.11, 6.5 .1,6 27 26 .01280 18 10.8/0 26.00 .01 .00 2.86 5.16 6.5 .1,6 26 25 .01280 18 10.8/0 19.00 .01 .00 2.87 5.17 6.5 .1,6 25 21, .01280 18 10.8/0 20.00 .01 .00 2.88 5.18 6.5 .1,6 2. 23 .0131,0 18 11.09 23.00 .01 .00 2.89 5.20 6.6 .1,5 23 22 .00880 21 13.55 1,3.00 .02 .00 2.90 5.22 5.7 .1,1 22 21 .01780 18 12.78 .00 .00 .00 2.90 5.22 7.. .1,3 21 20 .01770 18 12.71, .00 .00 .00 2.90 5.22 7.1, .1,3 20 19 .01770 18 12.71, .00 .00 .00 2.90 5.22 7.1, .1,3 19 18 .01500 18 11.73 761.00 .29 .00 3.20 5.70 7.1 .47 18 17 .01500 18 11.73 .00 .00 .00 3.20 5.70 7.1 .47 17 16 .01500 18 11.73 .00 .00 .00 3.20 5.70 7.1 .1,7 / 0 ~ / ';¿d-- ----..-----.. ~._._-~-----_.~..~--_.--~-_._-_. 3/ 2/93 10:26:36 PAGE 6 SE~ER ANALYSIS SANITARY LOAD APPLICATIONS TELEGRAPH CANYON SEWER BASIH·PHASE I MH MH Slope Diam tapa- Area Flow Point Average Peak. Vel· Depth Under Capacity Up Down city Input Source Flow Flow oeity Ratio Replace Rel ief Identification 16 15 .01500 18 11.73 .00 .00 .00 3.20 5.70 7.1 .07 15 14 .01430 18 11.45 928.00 .36 .00 3.56 6.28 7.1 .50 '4 13 .01430 18 11.45 .00 .00 .00 3.56 6.28 7.1 .50 13 12 .01430 18 11.45 .00 .00 .00 3.56 6.28 7.1 .50 12 11 .03380 18 17.61 .00 .00 .00 3.56 6.28 9.8 .39 " 10 .01500 18 11.73 .00 .00 .00 3.56 6.28 7.2 .49 10 9 .01500 18 11.73 89.00 .03 .00 3.59 6.34 7.3 .50 9 8 .01500 18 11.73 .00 .00 .00 3.59 6.34 7.3 .50 8 7 .01000 21 14.45 36.00 .01 .00 3.61 6.36 6.2 .44 7 6 .01000 21 14.45 35.00 .01 .00 3.62 6.38 6.2 .44 6 5 .01000 21 14.45 515.00 .20 .00 3.82 6.70 6.3 .45 5 4 .01000 21 14.45 58.00 .02 .00 3.B/. 6.74 6.3 .45 4 3 .00430 24 13.53 4534.00 1.75 .00 5.60 9.49 5.0 .58 3 2 .00800 24 18.45 .00 .00 .00 5.60 9.49 6.4 .48 2 1 .00510 24 14.73 .00 .00 .00 5.60 9.49 5.3 .55 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + END OF AREA + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + /éJ -/oZ3 ....--~.._._.- .--.-.....--"-. --...-. 31 2/93 10:28:45 PAGE 1 SEWER ANALYSIS GEOMEYRY TELEGRAPN CANYON SEWER BASIN-PHASE II HH HH ... Design Criteria --- Down Slope Up n or C Diam dlO Flow Veloc I .005100 2 .013 24 .75 14.7 5.8 2 .008000 3 .013 24 .75 18.5 7.3 3 .004300 4 .013 24 .75 13.5 5.4 4 .010000 5 .013 21 .75 14.4 7.5 5 .010000 6 .013 21 .75 14.4 7.5 6 .010000 7 .013 21 .75 14.4 7.5 7 .010000 8 .013 21 .75 14.4 7.5 8 .015000 9 .013 18 .75 11.7 8.3 9 .015000 10 .013 18 .75 11.7 8.3 10 .015000 II .013 18 .75 11.7 8.3 II .033800 12 .013 18 .75 17.6 12.4 12 .014300 13 .013 18 .75 11.5 8. I 13 .014300 14 .013 18 .75 11.5 8. I 14 .014300 15 .013 18 .75 11.5 8. I 15 .015000 16 .013 18 .75 11.7 8.3 16 .015000 17 .013 18 .75 11.7 8.3 17 .015000 18 .013 18 .75 11.7 8.3 18 .015000 19 .013 18 .75 11.7 8.3 19 .017700 20 .013 18 .75 12.7 9.0 20 .017700 21 .013 18 .75 12.7 9.0 21 .017800 22 .013 18 .75 12.8 9.0 22 .008800 23 .013 21 .75 13.6 7.0 23 .013400 24 .013 18 .75 11.1 7.8 24 .012800 25 .013 18 .75 10.8 7.6 25 .012800 26 .013 18 .75 10.8 7.6 26 .012800 27 .013 18 .75 10.8 7.6 27 .012800 28 .013 18 .75 10.8 7.6 28 .013000 29 .013 18 .75 10.9 7.7 29 .015300 30 .013 18 .75 11.8 8.3 30 .036600 31 .013 18 .75 18.3 12.9 31 .004130 32 .013 21 .75 9.3 4.8 32 .003660 33 .013 21 .75 8.7 4.5 33 .003660 34 .013 21 .75 8.7 4.5 34 .003660 35 .013 21 .75 8.7 4.5 35 .003660 36 .013 21 .75 8.7 4.5 36 .003660 37 .013 21 .75 8.7 4.5 37 .003660 38 .013 21 .75 8.7 4.5 38 .003780 39 .013 21 .75 8.9 4.6 39 .003660 40 .013 21 .75 8.7 4.5 40 .003660 41 .013 21 .75 8.7 4.5 41 .017020 42 .013 18 .75 12.5 8.8 42 .017020 43 .013 18 .75 12.5 8.8 43 .017020 44 .013 18 .75 12.5 8.8 44 .017020 45 .013 18 .75 12.5 8.8 45 .017020 46 .013 18 .75 12.5 8.8 46 .008000 47 .013 18 .75 8.6 6.0 47 .008000 48 .013 18 .75 8.6 6.0 48 .008000 49 .013 18 .75 8.6 6.0 49 .008000 50 .013 18 .75 8.6 6.0 50 .008000 51 .013 18 .75 8.6 6.0 51 .008000 52 .013 18 .75 8.6 6.0 III ~/ cJ t( ."'.-_. -,,------ -_.~" __d" .. _.__.._...__,......_....._~.__ 31 2/93 10:28:.5 PAGE 2 SEWER ANALYSIS GEOMETRY TELEGRAPN CANYON SEWER BASIN-PHASE II MH MH .-- Design Criteria .-. Down Slope Up n or C Diam dID Flow Veloc 52 .008470 53 .013 18 .70 B.8 6.2 53 .008470 54 .013 18 .70 8.8 6.2 54 .008470 55 .013 18 .75 8.8 6.2 55 .010600 56 .013 18 .70 9.9 6.9 56 .010360 57 .013 18 .70 9.7 6.9 57 .010360 58 .013 18 .75 9.7 6.9 58 .010600 59 .013 18 .70 9.9 6.9 59 .010600 60 .013 18 .70 9.9 6.9 60 .010600 61 .013 18 .70 9.9 6.9 61 .010600 62 .013 18 .75 9.9 6.9 62 .008000 63 .013 18 .75 8.6 6.0 63 .008000 610 .013 18 .70 8.6 6.0 610 .008000 65 .013 18 .75 8.6 6.0 65 .020000 66 .013 IS .75 8.3 8.. 66 .016500 67 .013 IS .75 7.6 7.7 67 .012000 68 .013 IS .70 6.5 6.5 68 .012000 69 .013 15 .70 6.5 6.5 69 .012000 70 .013 15 .70 6.5 6.5 70 .012000 71 .013 IS .75 6.5 6.5 71 .012000 72 .013 IS .75 6.5 6.5 72 .012000 73 .013 IS .75 6.5 6.5 73 .012000 74 .013 15 .70 6.5 6.5 74 .012000 70 .013 15 .70 6.5 6.5 70 .009000 76 .013 15 .75 5.6 5.7 76 .009000 77 .013 15 .70 5.6 5.7 77 .009000 78 .013 IS .70 5.6 5.7 78 .012000 79 .013 15 .75 6.5 6.5 79 .012000 80 .013 IS .70 6.5 6.5 80 .012000 81 .013 15 .70 6.5 6.5 81 .010500 82 .013 IS .75 6.0 6. I 82 .010500 83 .013 IS .75 6.0 6. I 83 .010500 84 .013 IS .75 6.0 6. I 84 .012500 85 .013 15 .75 6.6 6.7 85 .012500 86 .013 IS .75 6.6 6.7 86 .010000 87 .013 15 .75 5.9 6.0 87 .010000 88 .013 IS .75 5.9 6.0 88 .010000 89 .013 IS .75 5.9 6.0 89 .010000 90 .013 IS .70 5.9 6.0 90 .010000 91 .013 15 .70 5.9 6.0 91 .010000 92 .013 IS .70 5.9 6.0 92 .010000 93 .013 15 .70 5.9 6.0 93 .010000 94 .013 IS .70 5.9 6.0 94 .010000 95 .013 IS .70 5.9 6.0 95 .010000 96 .013 15 .70 5.9 6.0 96 .010000 97 .013 15 .70 5.9 6.0 97 .012000 98 .013 IS .75 6.5 6.5 98 .017400 99 .013 15 .70 7.8 7.9 99 .014000 100 .013 15 .70 7.0 7. I 100 .012300 101 .013 15 .75 6.5 6.6 101 .005000 102 .012 16 .70 5.4 4.8 102 .005000 103 .012 16 ìtJ-ì~? -"-_... .-... ~._..--_._-_.__.._.._-- ,----...----.---- --- . 31 2/93 10:2B:45 PAGE 3 SE~R ANALYSIS GEOMETRY TELEGRAPH CANYON SEWER BASIN-PHASE II MH MH ... Design Criteria .-. Down Slope Up n or C Chm dID Flow Veloc 103 .016900 104 .012 16 .75 9.9 B.B 104 .010700 105 .012 16 .75 7.B 7.0 105 .010000 106 .012 16 .75 7.6 6.7 106 .010000 107 .012 16 .75 7.6 6.7 107 . 140000 207 .012 15 .75 23.9 24.2 207 .005000 10B .012 15 .75 4.5 4.6 10B .010000 109 .012 15 .75 6.4 6.5 109 .013200 110 .012 15 .75 7.3 7.4 110 .033900 "1 .012 15 .75 11.7 11.9 111 .023000 112 .012 15 .75 9.7 9.B 112 .031000 113 .012 15 .75 11.2 11.4 113 .054600 213 .012 15 .75 14.9 15.1 213 .010000 114 .012 15 .75 6.4 6.5 114 .026000 115 .012 15 .75 10.3 10.4 115 .026000 116 .0'2 15 .75 10.3 10.4 116 .070000 216 .012 12 .75 9.3 14.7 216 .027000 ,,7 .012 12 .75 5.B 9.2 117 .032000 ',B .012 12 .75 6.3 10.0 11B .022000 "9 .012 12 .75 5.2 B.3 119 .023200 120 .012 12 .75 5.4 B.5 120 .0'5000 121 .012 12 .75 4.3 6.B ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ END OF AREA ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ /¡/~ / J-- t- - -- ----_.. ----- -- - _.-._----~-_..._...._-~._.__._._--.~.,-_._...-_._.. SEW£R ANALYStS LABELS TELEGRAPH CAHYON SEWER BASIN-PHASE II 76 PASEO LADERA 95 OTAY LAKES ROAD 116 EAST LAKE PARKWAY 207 FAKE MH 213 FAKE MH 216 FAKE MH //)702- 7 __'''·_.··____u."'.__ SEWER ANALYSIS UNITS TELEGRAPH CAHTON SE~ER BASIN-PHASE II DISTANCE DIAMETER FLOII elEVATION AREA FEET INCHES CFS FEET ACRES /¡J~/;¿g/ .-.-....-... ------_._._~--_. ~--. _.---~----~.-.-----_.- ----------- 31 2/93 '0:28:59 PAGE 1 SE~ER ANALYSIS LOAD SUMMARY TELEGRAPH CAHYON SE~ER BASIN' PHASE II Manhole Total Contributed Point Area Flow Source I, 1,531,.00 1.~ .00 5 58.00 .02 .00 6 515.00 .20 .00 7 35.00 .01 .00 8 36.00 .01 .00 10 89.00 .03 .00 15 928.00 .36 .00 '9 761.00 .29 .00 23 1,3.00 .02 .00 21, 23.00 .01 .00 25 20.00 .01 .00 26 19.00 .0' .00 27 26.00 .01 .00 28 26.00 .01 .00 29 27.00 .01 .00 30 528.00 .20 .00 31, 77.00 .03 .00 35 9.00 .00 .00 37 9.00 .00 .00 1,1 1,7.00 .02 .00 1,3 70.00 .03 .00 1,8 50.00 .02 .00 5' 11,5.00 .06 .00 59 573.00 .22 .00 62 72.00 .03 .00 66 1,08.00 .16 .00 67 6.00 .00 .00 68 6106.00 .25 .00 69 69.00 .03 .00 70 51.00 .02 .00 72 1,3.00 .02 .00 73 1,95.00 .19 .00 71, 327.00 .13 .00 76 579.00 .22 .00 82 28.00 .0' .00 87 311.50 .12 .00 88 1,8.00 .02 .00 92 139.00 .05 .00 95 1369.00 .53 .00 97 150.00 .06 .00 99 1,30.00 .17 .00 110 695.20 .69 .00 ',6 370.50 .36 .00 121 27.1,0 .01 .00 I/) ~/v2 / ........."._--,-~-~.~-~---_..,._-,_._- 31 2/93 10:29:15 PAGE 2 SEWER ANALYSIS SANITARY LOAD APPLICATIONS TELEGRAPH CANYON SEWER BASIN-PHASE II MH MH Slope Diam Ca",,' Area Flow Point Average Peak. Vel ~ Depth Under Capacity up Down city Input Source Flow Flow oeity Ratio Repl ace Rel ief I dent i f i cat i on 121 120 .0'500 12 '.31 27.'0 .01 .00 .01 .03 1.7 .06 120 "9 .02320 '2 5.36 .00 .00 .00 .01 .03 2.1 .06 119 118 .02200 12 5.22 .00 .00 .00 .01 .03 2.1 .06 1'8 117 .03200 12 6.30 .00 .00 .00 .0' . .03 2.1 .0' 117 216 .02700 12 5.78 .00 .00 .00 .0' .03 1.9 .0' 216 116 .07000 12 9.31 .00 .00 .00 .01 .03 3.1 .0' FAKE MH 1'6 115 .02600 15 10.29 370.50 .36 .00 .37 .81 5.3 .18 EAST LAKE PARKWAY 115 11' .02600 15 10.29 .00 .00 .00 .37 .81 5.3 .18 11' 213 .01000 15 6.38 .00 .00 .00 .37 .81 3.8 .23 213 113 .05'60 '5 1'.91 .00 .00 .00 .37 .81 7.0 .15 FAKE MH 1'3 112 .03100 '5 11.2' .00 .00 .00 .37 .81 5.7 .17 112 111 .02300 15 9.68 .00 .00 .00 .37 .8' 5.0 .19 '1' 110 .03390 15 11.75 .00 .00 .00 .37 .81 5.8 .17 110 109 .01320 15 7.33 695.20 .69 .00 1.07 2.10 5.5 .35 109 108 .0'000 15 6.38 .00 .00 .00 1.07 2.10 5.0 .37 108 207 .00500 15 '.51 .00 .00 .00 1.07 2. '0 3.9 .'5 207 107 . "000 15 23.88 .00 .00 .00 1.07 2.10 13.0 .19 FAKE MH '07 106 . .01000 16 7.58 .00 .00 .00 1.07 2.10 5.0 .35 106 105 .01000 16 7.58 .00 .00 .00 1.07 2.10 5.0 .35 105 10' .01070 16 7.810 .00 .00 .00 1.07 2.10 5.1 .3' 10' 103 .01690 16 9.85 .00 .00 .00 1.07 2. '0 6.0 .30 '03 102 .00500 16 5.36 .00 .00 .00 1.07 2.10 3.9 .'1 102 101 .00500 '6 5.36 .00 .00 .00 1.07 2.10 3.9 .'1 '01 100 .01230 15 6.53 .00 .00 .00 1.07 2.10 5.1 .37 '00 99 .01'00 15 6.97 .00 .00 .00 1.07 2. '0 5.3 .36 99 98 .017'0 15 7.77 '30.00 .'7 .00 1.2' 2.'0 6.0 .36 98 97 .01200 15 6.'5 .00 .00 .00 1.2' 2.'0 5.2 .'0 /¿J~/50 ---." -~_....- - --,.-.-------.....---. . -.--.. 3/ 2/93 10:29:30 PAGE 3 SEWER ANALYSIS SANITARY LOAD APPLICATIONS TELEGRAPH CANYON SE~ER BASIN-PHASE II "" "" Slope Oiem cape- - Area Flow Point Average Peak. Vel· Depth Under Capac; ty Up Cown cHy 1nput Source Flow Flow oeity Ratio Replace Rel ief I dent i t; cat; on 97 96 .01000 15 5.89 150.00 .06 .00 1.29 2.50 4.9 .43 96 95 .01000 15 5.89 .00 .00 .00 1.29 2.50 4.9 .43 95 94 .01000 15 5.B9 1369.00 .53 .00 1.B2 3.42 5.3 .52 OTAY LAKES ROAO 94 93 .01000 15 5.89 .00 .00 .00 1.82 3.42 5.3 .52 93 92 .01000 15 5.B9 .00 .00 .00 1.82 3.42 5.3 .52 92 91 .01000 15 5.B9 139.00 .05 .00 1.B8 3.51 5.4 .53 91 90 .01000 15 5.89 .00 .00 .00 1.B8 3.51 5.4 .53 90 B9 .01000 15 5.B9 .00 .00 .00 1.88 3.51 5.4 .53 89 as .01000 15 5.89 .00 .00 .00 1.88 3.51 5.4 .53 as 87 .01000 15 5.89 48.00 .02 .00 1.90 3.54 5.4 .53 87 86 .01000 15 5.89 311.50 .12 .00 2.02 3.75 5.5 .55 86 85 .01250 15 6.59 .00 .00 .00 2.02 3.75 6.0 .51 85 B4 .01250 15 6.59 .00 .00 .00 2.02 3.75 6.0 .51 B4 83 .01050 15 6.04 .00 .00 .00 2.02 3.75 5.6 .54 83 82 .01050 15 6.04 .00 .00 .00 2.02 3.75 5.6 .54 82 81 .01050 15 6.04 28.00 .01 .00 2.03 3.77 5.6 .54 81 80 .01200 15 6.45 .00 .00 .00 2.03 3.77 5.8 .52 80 79 .01200 15 6.45 .00 .00 .00 2.03 3.77 5.8 .52 79 78 .01200 15 6.45 .00 .00 .00 2.03 3.77 5.8 .52 78 77 .00900 15 5.59 .00 .00 .00 2.03 3.77 5.2 .57 77 76 .00900 15 5.59 .00 .00 .00 2.03 3.77 5.2 .57 76 75 .00900 15 5.59 579.00 .22 .00 2.25 4.14 5.4 .60 PASEO LAOERA 75 74 .01200 15 6.45 .00 .00 .00 2.25 4.14 6.0 .55 74 73 .01200 15 6.45 327.00 .13 .00 2.38 4.36 6.1 .57 73 72 .01200 15 6.45 495.00 .19 .00 2.57 4.67 6.1 .59 72 71 .01200 15 6.45 43.00 .02 .00 2.59 4.70 6.2 .60 71 70 .01200 15 6.45 .00 .00 .00 2.59 4.70 6.2 .60 /¡J~/.J ( -.-.--.._.~.--.--.----~-------.-"'-'..--- 3/ 2/93 10:29:38 PAGE 4 SEWER ANALYSIS SANITARY LOAD APPLICATIONS TELEGRAPH CAHYON SEWER SASIN-PHASE II MH MH Slope Diam Capa"- Area Flow Point Average Peak Vel· Depth Under Capee; ty Up Oown city Input Source Flow Flow oeity Ratio Replace Rel ief Identification 70 69 .01200 15 6.45 51.00 .02 .00 2.61 4.73 6.2 .60 69 68 .01200 15 6.45 69.00 .03 .00 2.63 4.78 6.2 .60 68 67 .01200 15 6.45 646.00 .25 .00 2.88 5.19 6.3 .64 67 66 .01650 15 7.57 6.00 .00 .00 2.89 5.19 7.1 .57 66 65 .02000 15 8.33 408.00 .16 .00 3.04 5.45 7.8 .56 65 64 .00800 18 8.57 .00 .00 .00 3.04 5.45 5.5 .55 64 63 .00800 1S 8.57 .00 .00 .00 3.04 5.45 5.5 .55 63 62 .00800 18 8.57 .00 .00 .00 3.04 5.45 5.5 .55 62 61 .01060 18 9.86 72.00 .03 .00 3.07 5.50 6.1 .50 61 60 .01060 18 9.86 .00 .00 .00 3.07 5.50 6.1 .50 60 59 .01060 18 9.86 .00 .00 .00 3.07 5.50 6.1 .50 59 58 .01060 18 9.86 573.00 .22 .00 3.29 5.86 6.3 .53 58 57 .01036 18 9.73 .00 .00 .00 3.29 5.86 6.2 .53 57 56 .01036 18 9.73 .00 .00 .00 3.29 5.86 6.2 .53 56 55 .01060 18 9.86 .00 .00 .00 3.29 5.86 6.3 .53 55 54 .00847 18 8.82 .00 .00 .00 3.29 5.86 5.7 .56 54 53 .00847 18 8.82 .00 .00 .00 3.29 5.86 5.7 .56 53 52 .00847 18 8.82 .00 .00 .00 3.29 5.86 5.7 .56 52 51 .00800 18 8.57 .00 .00 .00 3.29 5.86 5.6 .57 51 50 .00800 18 8.57 145.00 .06 .00 3.35 5.95 5.6 .58 50 49 .00800 18 8.57 .00 .00 .00 3.35 5.95 5.6 .58 49 48 .00800 18 8.57 .00 .00 .00 3.35 5.95 5.6 .58 48 47 .00800 18 8.57 50.00 .02 .00 3.37 5.98 5.6 .58 47 46 .00800 18 8.57 .00 .00 .00 3.37 5.98 5.6 .58 46 45 .01702 18 12.50 .00 .00 .00 3.37 5.98 7.5 .46 45 44 .01702 18 12.50 .00 .00 .00 3.37 5.98 7.5 .46 44 43 .01702 18 12.50 .00 .00 .00 3.37 5.98 7.5 .46 /tY~/3;¿ .~ .__._,_.~-_.-.~---_.._~- --.----- 3/ 2/93 10:29:45 PAGE 5 SEWER ANALYSIS SANITARY LOAD APPLICATIONS TELEGRAPH CAHYOH SE~ER BASIH-PHASE II MH MH Slope Diam Capà- Area FLow Point Average Peak Vel- Depth Under Capad ty Up Oown city Input Source Flow Flow oeity Ratio Replace Rel ief Identification 43 42 .01702 18 12.50 70.00 .03 .00 3.40 6.02 7.5 .46 42 41 .01702 18 12.50 .00 .00 .00 3.40 6.02 7.5 .46 41 40 .00366 21 8.74 47.00 .02 .00 3.41 6.05 4.2 .58 40 39 .00366 21 8.74 .00 .00 .00 3.41 6.05 4.2 .58 39 38 .00378 21 8.88 .00 .00 .00 3.41 6.05 4.3 .57 38 37 .00366 21 8.74 .00 .00 .00 3.41 6.05 4.2 .58 37 36 .00366 21 8.74 9.00 .00 .00 3.42 6.06 4.2 .58 36 35 .00366 21 8.74 .00 .00 .00 3.42 6.06 4.2 .58 35 34 .00366 21 8.74 9.00 .00 .00 3.42 6.06 4.2 .58 34 33 .00366 21 8.74 77.00 .03 .00 3.45 6.11 4.2 .58 33 32 .00366 21 8.74 .00 .00 .00 3.45 6.11 4.2 .58 32 31 .00413 21 9.29 .00 .00 .00 3.45 6.11 4.4 .56 31 30 .03660 18 18.33 .00 .00 .00 3.45 6.11 10.1 .38 30 29 .01530 18 11.85 528.00 .20 .00 3.65 6.44 7.4 .50 29 28 .01300 18 10.92 27.00 .01 .00 3.66 6.46 6.9 .52 28 27 .01280 18 10.84 26.00 .01 .00 3.67 6.47 6.9 .53 27 26 .01280 18 10.84 26.00 .01 .00 3.69 6.49 6.9 .53 26 25 .01280 18 10.84 19.00 .01 .00 3.69 6.50 6.9 .53 25 24 .01280 18 10.84 20.00 .01 .00 3.70 6.51 6.9 .53 24 23 .01340 18 11.09 23.00 .01 .00 3.71 6.53 7.0 .52 23 22 .00880 21 13.55 43.00 .02 .00 3.73 6.55 6.0 .47 22 21 .01780 18 12.78 .00 .00 .00 3.73 6.55 7.8 .48 21 20 .01770 18 12.74 .00 .00 .00 3.73 6.55 7.8 .48 20 19 .01770 18 12.74 .00 .00 .00 3.73 6.55 7.8 .48 19 18 .01500 18 11.73 761.00 .29 .00 4.02 7.02 7.5 .53 18 17 .01500 18 11.73 .00 .00 .00 4.02 7.02 7.5 .53 17 16 .01500 18 11.73 .00 .00 .00 4.02 7.02 7.5 .53 /f}~/J3 +---"- ----_.."---" -. .._". 31 2/93 10:29:53 PAGE 6 SEWER ANALYSIS SANITARY LOAD APPLICATIONS TELEGRAPH CANYON SE~ER BASIN·PHASE II MH HH Slope Diam Cape'- Area Flow Point Average Peak Vel- Oepth Under Capac;ty Up Down city Input Source Flow Flow oeity Ratio Replace Relief I dent i fieat ion 16 15 .01500 18 11.73 .00 .00 .00 ..02 7.02 7.5 .53 15 14 .01430 18 11..5 928.00 .36 .00 ..38 7.59 7.. .56 ,. 13 .01430 18 11..5 .00 .00 .00 ..38 7.59 7.. .56 13 12 .01430 18 11..5 .00 .00 .00 ..38 7.59 7.. .56 12 11 .03380 18 17.61 .00 .00 .00 ..38 7.59 10.2 ..3 11 10 .01500 18 11.73 .00 .00 .00 ..38 7.59 7.6 .55 10 9 .01500 18 11.73 89.00 .03 .00 ..41 7.65 7.6 .56 9 8 .01500 18 11.73 .00 .00 .00 ..41 7.65 7.6 .56 8 7 .01000 21 1...5 36.00 .01 .00 ...3 7.67 6.5 ..9 7 6 .01000 21 14..5 35.00 .01 .00 .... 7.69 6.5 ..9 6 5 .01000 21 14..5 515.00 .20 .00 ..610 8.00 6.6 .50 5 . .01000 21 14..5 58.00 .02 .00 '.66 8.0. 6.6 .50 . 3 .00.30 2. 13.53 .53..00 1.75 .00 6.'2 10.75 5.1 .63 3 2 .00800 2. 18.45 .00 .00 .00 6.42 10.75 6.5 .52 2 1 .00510 2. 14.73 .00 .00 .00 6.'2 10.75 5.5 .60 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + END OF AREA + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + /¡J- / J Y ___.__ ______ . .__~_....___"__~_~__..._. .._ ~_____..__u..~_.___"_.'.__'·_~__'··__·'_·_·_~·_ 3/ 2/93 10:31:22 PAGE 1 SE~R ANALYSIS GEOMETRY TELEGRAPH CANYON SE"ER BASIN·PHASE III MH MH ... Design Criteria ... Down Slope Up n or C Diam dlO Flow Veloc 1 .005100 2 .013 24 .75 14.7 5.8 2 .008000 3 .013 24 .75 18.5 7.3 3 .004300 4 .013 24 .75 13.5 5.4 4 .010000 5 .013 21 .75 14.4 7.5 5 .010000 6 .013 21 .75 14.4 7.5 6 .010000 7 .013 21 .75 14.4 7.5 7 .010000 8 .013 21 .75 14.4 7.5 8 .015000 9 .013 18 .75 11. 7 8.3 9 .015000 10 .013 18 .75 11.7 8.3 10 .015000 11 .013 18 .75 11.7 8.3 11 .033800 12 .013 18 .75 17.6 12.4 12 .014300 13 .013 18 .75 11.5 8.1 13 .014300 14 .013 18 .75 11.5 8.1 14 .014300 15 .013 18 .75 11.5 8.1 15 .015000 16 .013 18 .75 11.7 8.3 16 .015000 17 .013 18 .75 11.7 8.3 17 .015000 18 .013 18 .75 11.7 8.3 18 .015000 19 .013 18 .75 11.7 8.3 19 .017700 20 .013 18 .75 12.7 9.0 20 .017700 21 .013 18 .75 12.7 9.0 21 .017800 22 .013 18 .75 12.8 9.0 22 .008800 23 .013 21 .75 13.6 7.0 23 .013400 24 .013 18 .75 11.1 7.8 24 .012800 25 .013 18 .75 10.8 7.6 25 .012800 26 .013 18 .75 10.8 7.6 26 .012800 27 .013 18 .75 10.8 7.6 27 .012800 28 .013 18 .75 10.8 7.6 28 .013000 29 .013 18 .75 10.9 7.7 29 .015300 30 .013 18 .75 11.8 8.3 30 .036600 31 .013 18 .75 18.3 12.9 31 .004130 32 .013 21 .75 9.3 4.8 32 .003660 33 .013 21 .75 8.7 4.5 33 .003660 34 .013 21 .75 8.7 4.5 34 .003660 35 .013 21 .75 8.7 4.5 35 .003660 36 .013 21 .75 8.7 4.5 36 .003660 37 .013 21 .75 8.7 4.5 37 .003660 38 .013 21 .75 8.7 4.5 38 .003780 39 .013 21 .75 8.9 4.6 39 .003660 40 .013 21 .75 8.7 4.5 40 .003660 41 .013 21 .75 8.7 4.5 41 .017020 42 .013 18 .75 12.5 8.8 42 .017020 43 .013 18 .75 12.5 8.8 43 .017020 " .013 18 .75 12.5 8.8 " .017020 45 .013 18 .75 12.5 8.8 45 .017020 46 .013 18 .75 12.5 8.8 46 .008000 H .013 18 .75 8.6 6.0 47 .008000 48 .013 18 .75 8.6 6.0 48 .008000 49 .013 18 .75 8.6 6.0 49 .008000 50 .013 18 .75 8.6 6.0 50 .008000 51 .013 18 .75 8.6 6.0 51 .008000 52 .013 18 .75 8.6 6.0 /1J--/55 --_.._.,~..._,-_. ~ --.---".,. 31 2/93 10:31 :22 PAGE 2 SEWER ANALYSIS GEOMETRY TELEGRAPN CANYON SEWER BASIN,PNASE III MH MH ... Design Criteria .-- Down Slope Up n or C Diem dID Flow Velo!: 52 .008470 53 .013 18 .75 8.8 6.2 53 .008470 54 .013 18 .75 8.8 6.2 54 .008470 55 .013 18 .75 8.8 6.2 55 .010600 56 .013 18 .75 9.9 6.9 56 .010360 57 .013 18 .75 9.7 6.9 57 .010360 58 .013 18 .75 9.7 6.9 58 .010600 59 .013 18 .75 9.9 6.9 59 .010600 60 .013 18 .75 9.9 6.9 60 .010600 61 .013 18 .75 9.9 6.9 61 .010600 62 .013 ',8 .75 9.9 6.9 62 .008000 63 .013 18 .75 8.6 6.0 63 .008000 64 .013 18 .75 8.6 6.0 64 .008000 65 .013 18 .75 8.6 6.0 65 .020000 66 .013 IS .75 8.3 8.4 66 .016500 67 .013 IS .75 7.6 7.7 67 .012000 68 .013 IS .75 6.5 6.5 68 .012000 69 .013 IS .75 6.5 6.5 69 .012000 70 .013 15 .75 6.5 6.5 70 .012000 71 .013 15 .75 6.5 6.5 71 .012000 72 .013 15 .75 6.5 6.5 72 .012000 73 .013 15 .75 6.5 6.5 73 .012000 74 .013 15 .75 6.5 6.5 74 .012000 75 .013 15 .75 6.5 6.5 75 .009000 76 .013 IS .75 5.6 5.7 76 .009000 77 .013 IS .75 5.6 5.7 77 .009000 78 .013 IS .75 5.6 5.7 78 .012000 79 .013 15 .75 6.5 6.5 79 .012000 80 .013 15 .75 6.5 6.5 80 .012000 81 .013 IS .75 6.5 6.5 81 .010500 82 .013 15 .75 6.0 6. I 82 .010500 83 .013 IS .75 6.0 6.1 83 .010500 84 .013 IS .75 6.0 6. I 84 .012500 85 .013 15 .75 6.6 6.7 85 .012500 86 .013 IS .75 6.6 6.7 86 .010000 87 .013 IS .75 5.9 6.0 87 .010000 88 .013 IS .75 5.9 6.0 88 .010000 89 .013 IS .75 5.9 6.0 89 .010000 90 .013 IS .75 5.9 6.0 90 .010000 91 .013 IS .75 5.9 6.0 91 .010000 92 .013 IS .75 5.9 6.0 92 .010000 93 .013 IS .75 5.9 6.0 93 .010000 94 .013 IS .75 5.9 6.0 94 .010000 95 .013 IS .75 5.9 6.0 95 .010000 96 .013 IS .75 5.9 6.0 96 .010000 97 .013 IS .75 5.9 6.0 97 .012000 98 .013 IS .75 6.5 6.5 98 .017400 99 .013 15 .75 7.8 7.9 99 .014000 100 .013 IS .75 7.0 7. I 100 .012300 101 .013 IS .75 6.5 6.6 101 .005000 102 .012 16 .75 5.4 4.8 102 .005000 103 .012 16 .75 5.4 4.8 /!Jr-¡3~ -"._."._".-"--~ -----.-.------------.-..-----,------- 31 Z/93 10:3':22 PAGE 3 SEWER ANALYSIS GEOMETRY TELEGRAPH CANTON SEWER BASIN·PHASE III HH MH ... Design Criteria -.- Down Slope Up n or C Olam dID Flow Veloc 103 .0'6900 104 .012 16 .75 9.9 8.8 '04 .0'0700 105 .012 '6 .75 7.8 7.0 105 .010000 106 .012 '6 .75 7.6 6.7 '06 .0'0000 107 .012 16 .75 7.6 6.7 '07 . 140000 207 .012 15 .75 23.9 24.2 207 .005000 '08 .012 15 .75 4.5 4.6 108 .010000 109 .012 15 .75 6.4 6.5 109 .013200 110 .012 15 .75 7.3 7.4 110 .033900 1'1 .012 15 .75 11.7 11.9 1'1 .023000 1'2 .0'2 15 .75 9.7 9.8 1'2 .031000 113 .012 15 .75 11.2 11.4 '13 .054600 213 .012 15 .75 14.9 15.1 213 .0'0000 114 .012 15 .75 6.4 6.5 '14 .026000 115 .012 15 .75 '0.3 10.4 ,,5 .026000 116 .012 '5 .75 '0.3 '0.4 ,,6 .070000 216 .012 '2 .75 9.3 '4.7 216 .027000 117 .012 '2 .75 5.8 9.2 ',7 .032000 118 .012 12 .75 6.3 10.0 118 .022000 119 .012 12 .75 5.2 B.3 "9 .023200 120 .012 12 .75 5.4 8.5 120 .015000 121 .012 12 .75 4.3 6.8 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ END OF AREA ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ /ô-/37 ,-.,"._... . -. - --~.._--- _.._.~-_...__.~.......- SEWER ANALYSIS LABELS TELEGRAPH CANYON SE~ER BASIN-PHASE III 76 PASEO LADERA 95 OTAY LAKES ROAD 116 EAST LAKE PARK~AY 207 FAKE HH 213 FAKE HH 216 FAKE HH /¡/~/J~ __,_,..~____.n_._.·,·._·'n_·. _ ._.__.-- ".---.".....--.-- SEWER ANALYSIS UNITS TELEGRAPH CANYON SE~R BASIN-PHASE III DISTANCE DIAMETER FlOll ELEVATJOfrll AREA FEET INCHES CFS FEET ACRES /¿J~/J/ - ----_.._--_.~~-_.~_._._.._-_..,--_.._--------~---_..~~..--- 31 2/93 10:31 :36 PAGE I SEWER ANALYSIS LOAD SUMMARY TELEGRAPH CANYON SE~ER BASIN,PHASE III Manhole Total Contributed Point Area Flow Source , '53'.00 1.75 .00 5 5B.00 .02 .00 6 515.00 .20 .00 7 35.00 .01 .00 B 36.00 .01 .00 10 89.00 .03 .00 IS 928.00 .36 .00 19 761.00 .29 .00 23 '3.00 .02 .00 24 23.00 .01 .00 25 20.00 .01 .00 26 19.00 .01 .00 27 26.00 .01 .00 28 26.00 .01 .00 29 27.00 .01 .00 30 528.00 .20 .00 3' 77.00 .03 .00 35 9.00 .00 .00 37 9.00 .00 .00 41 47.00 .02 .00 '3 70.00 .03 .00 '8 50.00 .02 .00 51 145.00 .06 .00 59 573.00 .22 .00 62 72.00 .03 .00 66 '08.00 .16 .00 67 6.00 .00 .00 68 646.00 .25 .00 69 69.00 .03 .00 70 5'.00 .02 .00 72 '3.00 .02 .00 73 495.00 .19 .00 74 327.00 .13 .00 76· 909.50 .42 .00 82 28.00 .01 .00 87 311.50 .12 .00 88 48.00 .02 .00 92 139.00 .05 .00 95 1369.00 .53 .00 97 150.00 .06 .00 99 '30.00 .17 .00 104 350.00 .14 .00 110 695.20 .69 .00 116 370.50 .36 .00 121 863.'0 .65 .00 j¡)r /11/ ___m." .._.._~"_. ."".___._.".,_._".___~___.___~ 31 2/93 10:31 :52 PAGE 2 SEWER ANALYSIS SANITARY LOAD APPLICATIONS TELEGRAPH CANYON SE~ER BASIN-PHASE III HH HH Slope Clam Cap"- Area Flow Point Average Peak Vel· Depth Under Capacity Up Down city Input Source Flow Flow oeity Ratio Replace Rel ief Identification 121 120 .01500 12 4.31 863.40 .'65 .00 .65 1.33 5.2 ' .36 120 119 .02320 12 5.36 .00 .00 .00 .65 1.33 6.2 .33 119 11B .02200 12 5.22 .00 .00 .00 .65 1.33 6.0 .33 118 117 .03200 12 6.30 .00 .00 .00 .65 1.33 6.9 .30 117 216 .02700 '2 5.78 .00 .00 .00 .65 1.33 6.3 .31 216 116 .07000 12 9.31 .00 .00 .00 .65 1.33 9.0 .24 FAKE HH 116 '15 .02600 15 10.29 370.50 .36 .00 1.01 2.00 6.9 .29 EAST LAKE PARK~AY 115 114 .02600 15 10.29 .00 .00 .00 1.01 2.00 6.9 .29 1'4 213 .01000 15 6.38 .00 .00 .00 1.01 2.00 5.0 .37 213 113 .05460 15 14.91 .00 .00 .00 1.01 2.00 9.1 .24 FAKE HH 1'3 112 .03100 15 11.24 .00 .00 .00 1.01 2.00 7.3 .27 1'2 111 .02300 15 9.68 .00 .00 .00 1.01 2.00 6.7 .29 111 110 .03390 15 11.75 .00 .00 .00 1.01 2.00 7.7 .27 110 109 .01320 15 7.33 695 .20 .69 .00 1.71 3.22 6.2 .44 109 108 .01000 15 6.3B .00 .00 .00 1.71 3.22 5.6 .48 108 207 .00500 15 4.51 .00 .00 .00 1.71 3.22 4.3 .59 207 107 .14000 15 23.88 .00 .00 .00 1.71 3.22 14.6 .24 FAKE HH 107 106 .01000 16 7.58 .00 .00 .00 1.71 3.22 5.6 .43 106 105 .01000 16 7.58 .00 .00 .00 1.71 3.22 5.6 .43 105 104 .01070 16 7.84 .00 .00 .00 1.71 3.22 5.7 .43 104 103 .01690 16 9.85 350.00 .14 .00 1.84 3.45 6.9 .39 103 102 .00500 16 5.36 .00 .00 .00 1.84 3.45 4.4 .55 102 101 .00500 16 5.36 .00 .00 .00 1.84 3.45 4.4 .55 101 100 .01230 15 6.53 .00 .00 .00 1.84 3.45 5.8 .49 100 99 .01400 15 6.97 .00 .00 .00 1.84 3.45 6.1 .47 99 98 .01740 15 7.77 430.00 .17 .00 2.01 3.73 6.7 .46 98 97 .01200 15 6.45 .00 .00 .00 2.01 3.73 5.8 .52 /(}//Ljj ".__._---~._-~- ... ._-_.,._-"-"-"-~-_._--_._._-~-~'--'--""~- 3/ 2/93 10:32: 7 PAGE 3 SEWER ANALYSIS SANITARY LOAD APPLICATIONS TELEGRAPH CANYON SEWER BASIN·PHASE III H" H" Slope Diam Capa- Area Flow Point Average Peak Vel- Depth Under Capac; ty Up Down city Input Source Flow Flow Deity Ratio Replace Rel iet Identification 97 96 .01000 15 5.89 150.00 .06 .00 2.07 3.83 5.5 .56 96 95 .01000 15 5.89 .00 .00 .00 2.07 3.83 5.5 .56 95 94 .01000 IS 5.89 1369.00 .53 .00 2.60 4.72 5.7 .64 OTAY LAKES ROAD 94 93 .01000 IS 5.89 .00 .00 .00 2.60 4.72 5.7 .64 93 92 .01000 IS 5.89 .00 .00 .00 2.60 4.72 5.7 .64 92 91 .01000 IS 5.89 139.00 .05 .00 2.65 4.81 5.8 .64 91 90 .01000 IS 5.89 .00 .00 .00 2.65 4.81 5.8 .64 90 89 .01000 IS 5.89 .00 .00 .00 2.65 4.81 5.8 .64 89 88 .01000 IS 5.89 .00 .00 .00 2.65 4.81 5.8 .64 88 87 .01000 15 5.89 48.00 .02 .00 2.67 4.84 5.8 .64 87 86 .01000 IS 5.89 311.50 .12 .00 2.79 5.04 5.8 .66 86 85 .01250 15 6.59 .00 .00 .00 2.79 5.04 6.4 .61 85 84 .01250 15 6.59 .00 .00 .00 2.79 5.04 6.4 .61 84 83 .01050 15 6.04 .00 .00 .00 2.79 5.04 5.9 .65 83 82 .01050 15 6.04 .00 .00 .00 2.79 5.04 5.9 .65 82 81 .01050 IS 6.04 28.00 .01 .00 2.80 5.05 5.9 .65 81 80 .01200 15 6.45 .00 .00 .00 2.80 5.05 6.3 .62 80 79 .01200 15 6.45 .00 .00 .00 2.80 5.05 6.3 .62 79 78 .01200 15 6.45 .00 .00 .00 2.80 5.05 6.3 .62 78 77 .00900 15 5.59 .00 .00 .00 2.80 5.05 5.6 .69 77 76 .00900 IS 5.59 .00 .00 .00 2.80 5.05 5.6 .69 76 75 .00900 IS 5.59 909.50 .42 .00 3.22 5.74 5.7 .77 18 6 PASEO LAOERA 75 74 .01200 IS 6.45 .00 .00 .00 3.22 5.74 6.4 .68 74 73 .01200 IS 6.45 327.00 .13 .00 3.34 5.94 6.5 .70 73 72 .01200 IS 6.45 495.00 .19 .00 3.54 6.25 6.5 .73 72 71 .01200 15 6.45 43.00 .02 .00 3.55 6.28 6.5 .73 71 70 .01200 IS 6.45 .00 .00 .00 3.55 6.28 6.5 .73 / V - /l!c:L -,_.._,.._.,,,._---_.~-- --~---~-_.._.__.__..._,....._......----- 3/ 2/93 10:32:15 PAGE ~ SE~R ANALYSIS SANITARY LOAD APPLICATIONS TELEGRAPH CANYON SE~ER BASIN·PHASE III MH MH Slope Diem Cap8~ Area Flow Point Average Peak. Vel· Depth Under Capacity Up Down city Input Source Flow Flow oeity Ratio Replace Relief Identification 70 69 .01200 15 6.~5 51.00 ~02 .00 3.57 6.31 6.5 . 7~ 69 68 .01200 15 6.~5 69.00 .03 .00 3.60 6.35 6.5 . 7~ 68 67 .01200 15 6.~5 646.00 .25 .00 3.85 6.75 6.6 .78 18 6 67 66 .01650 15 7.57 6.00 .00 .00 3.85 6.76 7.5 .69 66 65 .02000 15 8.33 ~08.00 .16 .00 ~.01 7.01 8.2 .66 65 64 .00800 18 8.57 .00 .00 .00 ~.01 7.01 5.8 .64 64 63 .00800 18 8.57 .00 .00 .00 4.01 7.01 5.8 .64 63 62 .00800 18 8.57 .00 .00 .00 ~.01 7.01 5.8 .6~ 62 61 .01060 18 9.86 72.00 .03 .00 ~.o~ 7.05 6.5 .59 61 60 .01060 18 9.86 .00 .00 .00 ~.o~ 7.05 6.5 .59 60 59 .01060 18 9.86 .00 .00 .00 ~.o~ 7.05 6.5 .59 59 58 .01060 18 9.86 573.00 .22 .00 ~.26 7.~0 6.6 .61 58 57 .01036 18 9.75 .00 .00 .00 ~.26 7.~0 6.5 .61 57 56 .01036 18 9.75 .00 .00 .00 ~.26 7.~0 6.5 .61 56 55 .01060 18 9.86 .00 .00 .00 ~.26 7.~0 6.6 .61 55 5~ .00847 18 8.82 .00 .00 .00 ~.26 7.~0 6.0 .66 5~ 53 .00847 18 8.82 .00 .00 .00 ~.26 7.~0 6.0 .66 53 52 .00847 18 8.82 .00 .00 .00 ~.26 7.~0 6.0 .66 52 51 .00800 18 8.57 .00 .00 .00 ~.26 7.~0 5.9 .67 51 50 .00800 18 8.57 145.00 .06 .00 4.32 7.49 5.9 .67 50 ~9 .00800 18 8.57 .00 .00 .00 ~.32 7.~9 5.9 .67 49 ~8 .00800 18 8.57 .00 .00 .00 ~.32 7.49 5.9 .67 ~8 ~7 .00800 18 8.57 50.00 .02 .00 4.33 7.52 5.9 .68 47 ~6 .00800 18 8.57 .00 .00 .00 ~.33 7.52 5.9 .68 ~6 45 .01702 18 12.50 .00 .00 .00 ~.33 7.52 7.9 .53 ~5 ~~ .01702 18 12.50 .00 .00 .00 ~.33 7.52 7.9 .53 4ó ~3 .01702 18 12.50 .00 .00 .00 4.33 7.52 7.9 .53 j¿¡-/Y3 .-- ---- ..".- -,- -,.~_._...- ._~-"._-"..--.,_..,.--.__.__. 31 2/93 10:32:22 PAGE 5 SEWER ANALYSIS SANITARY LOAD APPLICATIONS TELEGRAPH CANYON SE~ER BASIN'PHASE III MH MH Slope Diam Capa~ Area Flow Point Average Peak Vel- Depth Under Cepae i ty up Down city Input Source Flow Flow oeity Ratio Replace Relief Identification .3 .2 .01702 18 12.50 70.00 .03 .00 ..36· 7.56 7.9 .53 1,2 1,1 .01702 18 12.50 .00 .00 .00 1..36 7.56 7.9 .53 .1 .0 .00366 21 8.7. 47.00 .02 .00 ..38 7.59 ... .67 .0 39 .00366 21 8.7. .00 .00 .00 ..38 7.59 ... .67 39 38 .00378 21 8.88 .00 .00 .00 ..38 7.59 ..5 .66 38 37 .00366 21 8.7. .00 .00 .00 ..38 7.59 ... .67 37 36 .00366 21 8.7. 9.00 .00 .00 ..38 7.60 ... .67 36 35 .00366 21 8.7. .00 .00 .00 ..38 7.60 ... .67 35 3. .00366 21 8.7. 9.00 .00 .00 ..39 7.60 ... .67 3. 33 .00366 21 8.7. 77.00 .03 .00 ...2 7.65 ... .68 33 32 .00366 21 8.7. .00 .00 .00 ...2 7.65 ... .68 32 31 .00.13 21 9.29 .00 .00 .00 ...2 7.65 ..6 .65 31 30 .03660 18 18.33 .00 .00 .00 ...2 7.65 10.6 ..3 30 29 .01530 18 11.85 528.00 .20 .00 ..62 7.97 7.7 .56 29 28 .01300 18 10.92 27.00 .01 .00 ..63 7.99 7.3 .60 28 27 .01280 18 10.84 26.00 .01 .00 '.6io 8.00 7.2 .60 27 26 .01280 18 10.84 26.00 .01 .00 ..65 8.02 7.2 .60 26 25 .01280 18 10.84 19.00 .01 .00 ..66 8.03 7.2 .60 25 2. .01280 18 10.84 20.00 .01 .00 ..67 8.0. 7.2 .60 2. 23 .013.0 18 11.09 23.00 .01 .00 ..68 8.06 7.3 .59 23 22 .00880 21 13.55 .3.00 .02 .00 ..69 8.08 6.3 .53 22 21 .01780 18 12.78 .00 .00 .00 ..69 8.08 8.2 .5. 21 20 .01770 18 12.7. .00 .00 .00 ..69 8.08 8.2 .55 20 19 .01770 18 12.7. .00 .00 .00 ..69 8.08 8.2 .55 19 18 .01500 18 11.73 761.00 .29 .00 ..99 8.5. 7.8 .60 18 17 .01500 18 11.73 .00 .00 .00 ..99 8.5. 7.8 .60 17 16 .01500 18 11.73 .00 .00 .00 ..99 8.5. 7.8 .60 J¡) -- Ii/if -------,.-..,----+-. -.--- -----"'-....--.- - - _._--~- 31 2/93 10:32:29 PAGE 6 SEWER ANALYSIS SANITARY LOAD APPLICATIONS TELEGRAPH CAHYOH SE~R BASIN'PHASE III MH MH Slope Diam tapa· Area Flow Point Average Peak Vel· Depth Under Capacity up Down city Input Source Flow Flow oeity Ratio Repl ace Relief Identification 16 15 .01500 1B 11.73 .00 .00 .00 ..99 8.5. 7.8 .60 15 ,. .01.30 18 11..5 928.00 .36 .00 5.35 9.10 7.8 .63 ,. 13 .0,.30 18 11..5 .00 .00 .00 5.35 9.10 7.8 .63 13 12 .01430 18 11..5 .00 .00 .00 5.35 9.10 7.8 .63 12 11 .03380 18 17.61 .00 .00 .00 5.35 9.10 10.8 ..8 11 10 .01500 18 11.73 .00 .00 .00 5.35 9.10 7.9 .62 10 9 .01500 18 11.73 89.00 .03 .00 5.36 9.16 7.9 .62 9 8 .01500 18 11.73 .00 .00 .00 5.38 9.16 7.9 .62 8 7 .01000 21 ".45 36.00 .01 .00 5.39 9.18 6.8 .55 7 6 .01000 21 ".45 35.00 .01 .00 5..1 9.20 6.8 .55 6 5 .01000 21 "..5 515.00 .20 .00 5.61 9.51 6.9 .56 5 . .01000 21 14..5 58.00 .02 .00 5.63 9.5. 6.9 .56 4 3 .00430 2. 13.53 4534.00 1.75 .00 7.38 12.21 5.3 .69 3 2 .00800 24 16.45 .00 .00 .00 7.38 12.21 6.7 .56 2 1 .00510 24 14.73 .00 .00 .00 7.38 12.21 5.6 .65 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + END OF AREA + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + /¿J~/'If _._-_."-,--,...~-- - - --..----..- ._--,- -- -_._._----,_.~~--~----".. 31 2/93 10:34: 5 PAGE 1 SEWER ANALYSIS GEOMETRY TELEGRAPH CANYON SEWER BASIN·PNASE IV MH NH ..- Design Criteria -.- Down Slope Up n or C Diam dlO Flow Veloc 1 .005100 2 .013 24 .75 14.7 5.8 2 .008000 3 .013 24 .75 18.5 7.3 3 .004300 4 .013 24 .75 13.5 5.4 4 .010000 5 .013 21 .75 14.4 7.5 5 .010000 6 .013 21 .75 14.4 7.5 6 .010000 7 .013 21 .75 14.4 7.5 7 .010000 8 .013 21 .75 14.4 7.5 8 .015000 9 .013 18 .75 11.7 8.3 9 .015000 10 .013 18 .75 11.7 8.3 10 .015000 11 .013 18 .75 11.7 8.3 11 .033800 12 .013 18 .75 17.6 12.4 12 .014300 13 .013 18 .75 11.5 8.1 13 .014300 14 .013 18 .75 11.5 8.1 14 .014300 15 .013 18 .75 11.5 8.1 15 .015000 16 .013 18 .75 11.7 8.3 16 .015000 17 .013 18 .75 11.7 8.3 17 .015000 18 .013 18 .75 11.7 8.3 18 .015000 19 .013 18 .75 11.7 8.3 19 .017700 20 .013 18 .75 12.7 9.0 20 .017700 21 .013 18 .75 12.7 9.0 21 .017800 22 .013 18 .75 12.8 9.0 22 .008800 23 .013 21 .75 13.6 7.0 23 .013400 24 .013 18 .75 11.1 7.8 24 .012800 25 .013 18 .75 10.8 7.6 25 .012800 26 .013 18 .75 10.8 7.6 26 .012800 27 .013 18 .75 10.8 7.6 27 .012800 28 .013 18 .75 10.8 7.6 28 .013000 29 .013 18 .75 10.9 7.7 29 .015300 30 .013 18 .75 11.8 8.3 30 .036600 31 .013 18 .75 18.3 12.9 31 .004130 32 .013 21 .75 9.3 4.8 32 .003660 33 .013 21 .75 8.7 4.5 33 .003660 34 .013 21 .75 8.7 4.5 34 .003660 35 .013 21 .75 8.7 4.5 35 .003660 36 .013 21 .75 8.7 4.5 36 .003660 37 .013 21 .75 8.7 4.5 37 .003660 38 .013 21 .75 8.7 4.5 38 .003780 39 .013 21 .75 8.9 4.6 39 .003660 40 .013 21 .75 8.7 4.5 40 .003660 41 .013 21 .75 8.7 4.5 41 .017020 42 .013 18 .75 12.5 8.8 42 .017020 43 .013 18 .75 12.5 8.8 43 .017020 44 .013 18 .75 12.5 8.8 44 .017020 45 .013 18 .75 12.5 8.8 45 .017020 46 .013 18 .75 12.5 8.8 46 .008000 47 .013 18 .75 8.6 6.0 47 .008000 48 .013 18 .75 8.6 6.0 48 .008000 49 .013 18 .75 8.6 6.0 49 .008000 50 .013 18 .75 8.6 6.0 50 .008000 51 .013 18 .75 8.6 6.0 51 .008000 52 .013 18 .75 8.6 6.0 /tJ,/yÞ - .__. _...__,_.______~...._~,__ ~_______.....__,_____.___ ____.._m .--.- 31 2/93 10:3.: 5 PAGE 2 SEWER ANALYSIS GEOMETRY TELEGRAPH CAHYON SEYER BASIN-PHASE IV MH MH ... Design Criteria ..- Down Slope Up n or C Diem dID Flow Veloc 52 .008/.70 53 .013 18 .75 8.B 6.2 53 .008/.70 5. .013 18 .75 8.6 6.2 5. .008/.70 55 .013 18 .75 8.6 6.2 55 .010600 56 .013 18 .75 9.9 6.9 56 .010360 57 .013 18 .75 9.7 6.9 57 .010360 58 .013 16 .75 9.7 6.9 58 .010600 59 .013 18 .75 9.9 6.9 59 .010600 60 .013 18 .75 9.9 6.9 60 .010600 61 .013 18 .75 9.9 6.9 61 .010600 62 .013 18 .75 9.9 6.9 62 .008000 63 .013 18 .75 8.6 6.0 63 .008000 610 .013 18 .75 8.6 6.0 610 .008000 65 .013 16 .75 6.6 6.0 65 .020000 66 .013 15 .75 8.3 8.. 66 .016500 67 .013 15 .75 7.6 7.7 67 .012000 68 .013 15 .75 6.5 6.5 68 .012000 69 .013 15 .75 6.5 6.5 69 .012000 70 .013 15 .75 6.5 6.5 70 .012000 71 .013 IS .75 6.5 6.5 71 .012000 72 .013 15 .75 6.5 6.5 72 .012000 73 .013 15 .75 6.5 6.5 73 .012000 7. .013 15 .75 6.5 6.5 7. .012000 75 .013 15 .75 6.5 6.5 75 .009000 76 .013 15 .75 5.6 5.7 76 .009000 77 .013 15 .75 5.6 5.7 77 .009000 78 .013 IS .75 5.6 5.7 76 .012000 79 .013 15 .75 6.5 6.5 79 .012000 60 .013 15 .75 6.5 6.5 80 .012000 81 .013 15 .75 6.5 6.5 81 .010500 82 .013 15 .75 6.0 6.1 82 .010500 83 .013 15 .75 6.0 6.1 63 .010500 8/. .013 15 .75 6.0 6.1 8. .012500 65 .013 15 .75 6.6 6.7 85 .012500 86 .013 15 .75 6.6 6.7 86 .010000 87 .013 15 .75 5.9 6.0 67 .010000 B8 .013 15 .75 5.9 6.0 88 .010000 89 .013 15 .75 5.9 6.0 89 .010000 90 .013 15 .75 5.9 6.0 90 .010000 91 .013 IS .75 5.9 6.0 91 .010000 92 .013 15 .75 5.9 6.0 92 .010000 93 .013 15 .75 5.9 6.0 93 .010000 9. .013 15 .75 5.9 6.0 9. .010000 95 .013 IS .75 5.9 6.0 95 .010000 96 .013 15 .75 5.9 6.0 96 .010000 97 .013 15 .75 5.9 6.0 97 .012000 98 .013 15 .75 6.5 6.5 98 .017.00 99 .013 15 .75 7.6 7.9 99 .014000 100 .013 15 .75 7.0 7.1 100 .012300 101 .013 15 .75 6.5 6.6 101 .005000 102 .012 16 .75 5.. ..8 102 .005000 103 .012 16 .75 5.. ..8 //)~/t/? -"._._.--~---,. ..... - - .-~----~_._~._,.._._-,.'.., -...----.- ,-~.__..,---. -'-'--'--~ 31 2/93 10:34: 5 PAGE 3 SEWER ANALYSIS GEOMETRY TELEGRAPH CANYON SEWER BASIN'PHASE IV MH MH ... Design Criteria ... Down Slope Up n or C Diam dlO Flow Veloc 103 .016900 104 .012 16 .75 9.9 8.8 104 .010700 105 .012 16 .75 7.8 7.0 105 .010000 106 .012 16 .75 7.6 6.7 106 .010000 107 .012 16 .75 7.6 6.7 107 .140000 207 .012 15 .75 23.9 24.2 207 .005000 108 .012 15 .75 4.5 4.6 108 .010000 109 .012 IS .75 6.4 6.5 109 .013200 110 .012 IS .75 7.3 7.4 110 .033900 111 .012 15 .75 11.7 11.9 111 .023000 112 .012 15 .75 9.7 9.8 112 .031000 113 .012 15 .75 11.2 11.4 '13 .054600 213 .012 15 .75 14.9 15.1 213 .010000 114 .012 15 .75 6.4 6.5 114 .026000 115 .012 15 .75 10.3 10.4 115 .026000 116 .012 15 .75 10.3 10.4 116 .070000 216 .012 12 .75 9.3 14.7 216 .027000 117 .012 12 .75 5.8 9.2 117 .032000 118 .012 12 .75 6.3 10.0 118 .022000 119 .012 12 .75 5.2 8.3 119 .023200 120 .012 12 .75 5.4 8.5 120 .015000 121 .012 12 .75 4.3 6.8 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ END OF AREA ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ j{fJr /'I~ --.-.-..-.-., -'--'~--"- ---...---- SEWER ANALYSIS LABELS TELEGRAPH CAHYOH SE~R BASIN-PHASE IV 76 PASEO LAOERA 95 OTAY LAKES ROAD 116 EAST LAKE PARKWAY 207 FAKE MH 213 FAKE HH 216 FAKE HH /ó-/t(r . ~.~....~- --.--- - --"--_._,-- -~---"--_._--"..._------- ------.."'-.-- SEWER ANALYSIS UNITS TELEGRAPH CANYON SE~ER BASIN-PHASE IV DISTANCE DIAMETER FLOII elEVATION AREA fEET INCHES CfS fEET ACRES I(J~/S-v , -. .--..- .--...-.. .-. - - - - --.--..--...- - -- 3/ 2193 '0:34: 19 PAGE' SEWER ANALYSIS LOAD SUMMARY TELEGRAPH CAHrON SEWER BASIN-PHASE IV Hanno l e Total Contributed Point Area Flow Source 4 4534.00 1.75 .00 5 5B.00 .02 .00 6 5'5.00 .20 .00 7 35.00 .0' .00 B 36.00 .01 .00 '0 B9.00 .03 .00 '5 92B.00 .36 .00 19 761.00 .29 .00 23 43.00 .02 .00 24 23.00 .01 .00 25 20.00 .0' .00 26 '9.00 .0' .00 27 26.00 .01 .00 2B 26.00 .01 .00 29 27.00 .0' .00 30 52B.00 .20 .00 34 77.00 .03 .00 35 9.00 .00 .00 37 9.00 .00 .00 4' 47.00 .02 .00 43 70.00 .03 .00 4B 50.00 .02 .00 5' T45.00 .06 .00 59 573.00 .22 .00 62 72.00 .03 .00 66 40B.00 .'6 .00 67 6.00 .00 .00 6B 646.00 .25 .00 69 69.00 .03 .00 70 51.00 .02 .00 72 43.00 .02 .00 73 495.00 .19 .00 74 327.00 · '3 .00 76 '5BO.50 .68 .00 BO 671.00 .26 .00 B2 2B.00 .0' .00 B5 671.00 .26 .00 B7 3'1.50 · '2 .00 B8 4B.00 .02 .00 89 671.00 .26 .00 92 '39.00 .05 .00 95 2059.20 .B3 .00 97 150.00 .06 .00 99 "2B.40 .53 .00 104 350.00 · '4 .00 1'0 695.20 .69 .00 "6 370.50 .36 .00 '2' 863.40 .65 .00 /¡)r'/5! ._._.~.- ..'-- - ..... ---------..--------...--....---..-- 31 2/93 10:34:35 PAGE 2 SEWER ANALYSIS SANfTARY LOAD APPllCArfONS TELEGRAPH CANYON SEWER BASIN'PHASE IV MH MH Slope Ciam Capå· Area Flow Point Average Peak Vel- Depth Under Capac i ty Up Down city Input Source Flow FLow oeity Ratio Replace Rel ief Identification 121 120 .01500 12 4.31 863.40 .65 .00 .65 1.33 5.2 .36 '20 119 .02320 12 5.36 .00 .00 .00 .65 1.33 6.2 .33 119 11B .02200 12 5.22 .00 .00 .00 .65 1.33 6.0 .33 lIB 117 .03200 12 6.30 .00 .00 .00 .65 1.33 6.9 .30 117 216 .02700 12 5.7B .00 .00 .00 .65 1.33 6.3 .31 216 116 .07000 12 9.31 .00 .00 .00 .65 1.33 9.0 .24 FAKE MH 116 1'5 .02600 IS 10.29 370.50 .36 .00 1.01 2.00 6.9 .29 EAST LAKE PARKWAY lIS '14 .02600 IS 10.29 .00 .00 .00 1.0' 2.00 6.9 .29 114 213 .01000 IS 6.3B .00 .00 .00 1.01 2.00 5.0 .37 213 1'3 .05460 IS 14.91 .00 .00 .00 1.01 2.00 9.1 .24 FAKE MH 113 112 .03100 IS 11.24 .00 .00 .00 1.01 2.00 7.3 .27 112 III .02300 15 9.68 .00 .00 .00 1.01 2.00 6.7 .29 III lID .03390 IS 11.75 .00 .00 .00 1.01 2.00 7.7 .27 lID 109 .01320 IS 7.33 695.20 .69 .00 1.71 3.22 6.2 .44 109 lOB .01000 IS 6.38 .00 .00 .00 1.71 3.22 5.6 .48 108 207 .00500 IS 4.51 .00 .00 .00 1.71 3.22 4.3 .59 207 107 .14000 '5 23.88 .00 .00 .00 1.71 3.22 '4.6 .24 FAKE MH 107 106 .01000 16 7.58 .00 .00 .00 1.71 3.22 5.6 .43 106 105 .01000 16 7.58 .00 .00 .00 1.71 3.22 5.6 .43 105 104 .01070 16 7.810 .00 .00 .00 1.71 3.22 5.7 .43 104 103 .01690 16 9.85 350.00 .14 .00 1.84 3.45 6.9 .39 103 102 .00500 16 5.36 .00 .00 .00 1.810 3.45 4.4 .55 102 101 .00500 '6 5.36 .00 .00 .00 1.84 3.45 4.4 .55 101 laD .01230 IS 6.53 .00 .00 .00 1.84 3.45 5.8 .49 lOa 99 .01400 IS 6.97 .00 .00 .00 1.84 3.45 6. I .47 99 98 .01740 IS 7.77 1128.40 .53 .00 2.37 4.35 7.0 .50 98 97 .01200 15 6.45 .00 .00 .00 2.37 4.35 6.1 .57 /tJ~/5~ ~"_.~. .._"U._____"__.____ - -- -- "---..._------ ---- - - -- ----- 3/ 2/93 10:31,:51 PAGE 3 SEWER ANALYSIS SANITARY LOAD APPLICATIONS TELEGRAPH CAHYON SE~ER BASIN-PHASE IV MH MH Slope Diam Capa- Area Flow Point Average Peak Vel- Oepth Under taped ty up Down city Input Source Flow Flow oeity Ratio Replace Relief Identification 97 96 .01000 15 5.B9 150.00 .06 .00 2.1,3 1,.1,5 5.7 .61 96 95 .01000 15 5.B9 .00 .00 .00 2.1,3 1,.1,5 5.7 .61 95 91, .01000 15 5.B9 2059.20 .B3 .00 3.26 5.B1 6.0 .71, OTAY LAKES ROAD 91, 93 .01000 15 5.B9 .00 .00 .00 3.26 5.B1 6.0 .71, 93 92 .01000 15 5.B9 .00 .00 .00 3.26 5.B1 6.0 .71, 92 91 .01000 IS 5.B9 139.00 .05 .00 3.32 5.B9 6.0 .75 1B 6 91 90 .01000 15 5.B9 .00 .00 .00 3.32 5.B9 6.0 .75 1B 6 90 B9 .01000 15 5.B9 .00 .00 .00 3.32 5.B9 6.0 .75 1B 6 B9 BB .01000 15 5.B9 671.00 .26 .00 3.5B 6.31 6.0 .BO 1B B BB B7 .01000 15 5.B9 I,B.OO .02 .00 3.59 6.31, 6.0 .BO 1B B B7 56 .01000 15 5.B9 311.50 .12 .00 3.72 6.51, 6.0 .B3 1B 10 B6 B5 .01250 15 6.59 .00 .00 .00 3.72 6.51, 6.7 .71, B5 54 .01250 15 6.59 671.00 .26 .00 3.97 6.95 6.7 .79 1B B 54 53 .01050 15 6.01, .00 .00 .00 3.97 6.95 6.1 .BB 1B 10 B3 B2 .01050 15 6.01, .00 .00 .00 3.97 6.95 6.1 .BB 1B 10 B2 B1 .01050 15 6.01, 2B.00 .01 .00 3.99 6.97 6.1 .BB 1B 10 B1 BO .01200 15 6.1,5 .00 .00 .00 3.99 6.97 6.6 .B1 1B B BO 79 .01200 15 6.1,5 671. 00 .26 .00 1,.25 7.38 6.5 .B6 1B 10 79 7B .01200 15 6.1,5 .00 .00 .00 1,.25 7.38 6.5 .56 1B 10 7B 77 .00900 15 5.59 .00 .00 .00 1,.25 7.3B 6.0 >1.0 1B 12 77 76 .00900 15 5.59 .00 .00 .00 1,.25 7.3B 6.0 >1.0 1B 12 76 75 .00900 15 5.59 15BO.50 .68 .00 1,.92 B.1,5 6.9 >1.0 1B 12 PASEO lADERA 75 71, .01200 15 6.1,5 .00 .00 .00 1,.92 B.1,5 6.9 >1.0 1B 12 71, 73 .01200 IS 6.1,5 327.00 .13 .00 5.05 B.61, 7.0 >1.0 1B 12 73 72 .01200 15 6.1,5 1,95.00 .19 .00 5.21, B.91, 7.3 >1.0 1B 12 72 71 .01200 15 6.1,5 1,3.00 .02 .00 5.26 B.97 7.3 >1.0 1B 12 71 70 .01200 15 6.1,5 .00 .00 .00 5.26 B.97 7.3 >1.0 1B 12 jfJ//;rJ .-_.~--"_.". ................--.-.-..-.--...---. ._.-.._._.._..~-_..,.._- 31 2193 10:31,:5B PAGE I, SEWER ANALYSIS SANITARY LOAD APPLICATIONS TELEGRAPH CANYON SEWER BASIN'PHASE IV MH MH Slope O;am Capll' Area Flow Point Average Peak Vel- Depth Under Capacity Up Down cHy Input Source Flow Flow oc ity Ratio Replace Rel ief Identification 70 69 .01200 15 6.1,5 51.00 .02 .00 5.28 9.00 7.3 >1.0 18 12 69 6B .01200 15 6.1,5 69.00 .03 .00 5.30 9.01, 7.1, >1.0 1B 12 6B 67 .01200 15 6.1,5 646.00 .25 .00 5.55 9.1,3 7.7 >1.0 1B 12 67 66 .01650 15 7.57 6.00 .00 .00 5.56 9.1,3 7.7 >1.0 1B 12 66 65 .02000 15 B.33 I,OB.OO .16 .00 5.72 9.67 B.I, .89 18 10 65 64 .00800 18 8.57 .00 .00 .00 5.72 9.67 6.0 .85 21 12 64 63 .OOBOO 18 8.57 .00 .00 .00 5.72 9.67 6.0 .85 21 12 63 62 .00800 1B B.57 .00 .00 .00 5.72 9.67 6.0 .B5 21 12 62 61 .01060 1B 9.86 72.00 .03 .00 5.71, 9.72 6.9 .71, 61 60 .01060 1B 9.86 .00 .00 .00 5.71, 9.72 6.9 .71, 60 59 .01060 1B 9.86 .00 .00 .00 5.71, 9.72 6.9 .71, 59 5B .01060 18 9.86 573.00 .22 .00 5.96 10.06 7.0 .76 21 6 5B 57 .01036 1B 9.75 .00 .00 .00 5.96 10.06 6.9 .77 21 B 57 56 .01036 1B 9.75 .00 .00 .00 5.96 10.06 6.9 .77 21 B 56 55 .01060 18 9.86 .00 .00 .00 5.96 10.06 7.0 .76 21 6 55 51, .00847 1B B.B2 .00 .00 .00 5.9. 10.0. ..2 .B6 21 12 51, 53 .00847 1B B.B2 .00 .00 .00 5.96 10.0. ..2 .B6 21 12 53 52 .00847 1B B.B2 .00 .00 .00 5.96 10.06 6.2 .86 21 12 52 51 .OOBOO 1B B.57 .00 .00 .00 5.9. 10.0. 6.0 .91 21 12 51 50 .OOBOO 1B B.57 11,5.00 .06 .00 6.02 10.11, 5.7 >1.0 21 12 50 1,9 .OOBOO 1B 8.57 .00 .00 .00 6.02 10.11, 5.7 >1.0 21 12 1,9 loB .OOBOO 1B B.57 .00 .00 .00 6.02 10.11, 5.7 >1.0 21 12 loB 1,7 .OOBOO 1B B.57 50.00 .02 .00 6.01, 10.17 5.B >1.0 21 12 1,7 1,. .OOBOO 1B B.57 .00 .00 .00 6.01, 10.17 5.B >1.0 21 12 1,6 1,5 .01702 18 12.50 .00 .00 .00 6.01, 10.17 B.5 .64 1,5 1,1, .01702 18 12.50 .00 .00 .00 6.01, 10.17 B.5 .64 1,1, 1,3 .01702 1B 12.50 .00 .00 .00 6.01, 10.17 B.5 .64 / (;J -;-> ( ------------ "-..- .-- --.~--~----_._-_._-_.-._-~"._-------~ 31 2/93 10:35: 6 PAGE 5 SEYER ANALYSIS SANITARY LOAD APPLICATIONS TELEGRAPH CAHYON SE~R BASIN-PHASE IV M" M" S~ope D;am Capa-' Area Flow Point Average Peak. Vel- Depth Under taped ty Up Down city Input Source Flow Flow oc; ty Ratio Replace Rel ief Identification 43 42 .01702 18 12.50 70.00 .03 .00 6.07 10.21 8.5 .64 42 41 .01702 18 12.50 .00 .00 .00 6.07 10.21 8.5 .64 41 40 .00366 21 8.74 47.00 .02 .00 6.09 10.24 4.5 .90 24 12 40 39 .00366 21 8.74 .00 .00 .00 6.09 10.24 4.5 .90 24 12 39 38 .00378 21 8.88 .00 .00 .00 6.09 10.24 4.6 .88 24 12 38 37 .00366 21 8.74 .00 .00 .00 6.09 10.24 4.5 .90 24 12 37 36 .00366 21 8.74 9.00 .00 .00 6.09 10.25 4.5 .91 24 12 36 35 .00366 21 8.74 .00 .00 .00 6.09 10.25 4.5 .91 24 12 35 34 .00366 21 8.74 9.00 .00 .00 6.09 10.25 4.5 .91 24 12 34 33 .00366 21 8.74 77.00 .03 .00 6.12 10.30 4.4 .92 24 12 33 32 .00366 21 8.74 .00 .00 .00 6.12 10.30 4.4 .92 24 12 32 31 .00413 21 9.29 .00 .00 .00 6.12 10.30 4.8 .83 24 12 31 30 .03660 18 18.33 .00 .00 .00 6.12 10.30 11.4 .50 30 29 .01530 18 11.85 528.00 .20 .00 6.33 10.61 8.2 .69 29 28 .01300 18 10.92 27.00 .01 .00 6.34 10.63 7.7 .73 28 27 .01280 18 10.84 26.00 .01 .00 6.35 10.64 7.6 .74 27 26 .01280 18 10.84 26.00 .01 .00 6.36 10.66 7.6 .74 26 25 . .01280 18 10.84 19.00 .01 .00 6.36 10.67 7.6 .74 25 24 .01280 18 10.84 20.00 .01 .00 6.37 10.68 7.6 .74 24 23 .01340 18 11.09 23.00 .01 .00 6.38 10.69 7.8 .73 23 22 .00880 21 13.55 43.00 .02 .00 6.40 10.72 6.7 .63 22 21 .01780 18 12.78 .00 .00 .00 6.40 10.72 8.8 .66 21 20 .01770 18 12.74 .00 .00 .00 6.40 10.72 8.7 .66 20 19 .01770 18 12.74 .00 .00 .00 6.40 10.72 8.7 .66 19 18 .01500 18 11.73 761.00 .29 .00 6.69 11.17 8.2 .72 18 17 .01500 18 11.73 .00 .00 .00 6.69 11.17 8.2 .72 17 16 .01500 18 11.73 .00 .00 .00 6.69 11.17 8.2 .72 /¡j~/5f' " . .. ^---_. ~_._._- --. _._-- "---.-- --,.__.._-_.._,._-~...-.--_.- --. 3/ 2/93 10:35:13 PAGE 6 SEWER ANALYSIS SANITARY lOAD APPLICATIONS TELEGRAPH CANYON SE~R BASIN'PHASE IV MH MH Slope Oiam Cape· Area Flow Point Average Peak Vel· Depth Under Capacity up Down I:Hy Input Source Flow Flow oeity Ratio Replace Rel ief Identification 16 15 .01500 18 11.73 .00 .00 .00 6.69 11.17 8.2 .72 15 14 .01430 18 11.45 928.00 .36 .00 7.05 11.71 8.1 .77 21 6 14 13 .01430 18 11.45 .00 .00 .00 7.05 11.71 8.1 .77 21 6 13 12 .01430 18 11.45 .00 .00 .00 7.05 11.71 8.1 .77 21 6 12 11 .03380 18 17.61 .00 .00 .00 7.05 11.71 11.4 .56 11 10 .01500 18 11.73 .00 .00 .00 7.05 11.71 8.2 .75 10 9 .01500 18 11.73 89.00 .03 .00 7.09 11.76 8.2 .75 21 6 9 8 .01500 18 11.73 .00 .00 .00 7.09 11.76 8.2 .75 21 6 8 7 .01000 21 14.45 36.00 .01 .00 7.10 11.78 7.2 .64 7 6 .01000 21 14.45 35.00 .01 .00 7.11 11.80 7.2 .64 6 5 .01000 21 14.45 515.00 .20 .00 7.31 12.11 7.3 .66 5 4 .01000 21 14.45 58.00 .02 .00 7.34 12.14 7.3 .66 4 3 .00430 24 13.53 4534.00 1.75 .00 9.09 14.76 5.4 .82 27 12 3 2 .00800 24 18.45 .00 .00 .00 9.09 14.76 7.0 .64 2 1 .00510 24 14.73 .00 .00 .00 9.09 14.76 5.8 .75 27 6 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... + ... ... ... + + ... ... + + + + ... ... ... ... ... ... + ... ... ... END OF AREA ...... +....................................... ++...... + +......... +......... /¡J ~/5b " __~_..~_~...,__...._.,_.._______.~_...____..~_.. __.._._______n_._ IMPROVEMENT LOCATIONS (GRAVITY + PUMPED) Plates I - 14 on the following pages identify the location of recommended replacement or relief sewers for both the gravity and pumped conditions. Replacement/Relief Sewer Between Manholes See Plate ~o. 107A & 109 13 95 & 103 12 & 13 55 & 95 5,6,7,8,9,10,11, & 12 46 & 55 5 41 & 46 4&5 34 & 41 4 31 & 34 3&4 12 & 31 1,2, & 3 8 & 11 1 4&6 1 1&4 I /0" /57 Te!t'graph Can:vol1 Sewer Basin Improw'mel1t and Financing Plan IncOIporaring Pumped F101~ls .·._m~__··___u ._-_.--_._-~_..- .- ---,',--',."'--"-.-------."--"-' - - ~ ~ ë ~ ~ZZ 0 ",0<1 > 2 :;>-ëC "It e 0- Z - ° .§ <{~a:: La.. ° '" 0 --' W ° .E =>xl- ~ .. ~ :I: 0... fI) - ~ 'I z-!-. 0 u<I<I '"4> .. LL. 0: ~ ~ 0 W § oOc:: <t a> ®~ --' W --' ~ <I 0 r.Jw a.. u u I-"'~ (j') '" ~ _I-W . u '" 0"") - ë 0 E ~ . ~ . ~ ~ I ~ ~ ! B Q ~'i III ;:0 ~ Ê E u j ã! 0 . ! ë h ¡¡¡ ~ 01 œ@ 00 ::: - '<> ; S N JtfftRSOtl .~ ::> 0 ¡¡¡ " ~ " a c.. + - ;; ~ - " ::> '<> 0 N ¡¡¡ 0 ::> r-- r-- 0 ~ ~ 0 ~ '<> N 00 0 r-- '"' ::> N 0 ¡¡¡ '" '" r-- \e ') '<> N \~\e{'i>\,'3: ::> 0 ¡¡¡ 0 co / tJ // s-2/ :Qtot . 0 \t\\.e.1ce 'i>,.t\ \)\e~ " .-... ..~.._. ....-. ---. ---- -- - I ë ;:zz " ::> E ~o:3 Q ~ '" ® E >>-a.. v 0 z - '" Co <[ <[ Q: ... '" 0 § '" N - ...JULLJ 0 ..- ~Z-~ ..s! :;) t- II(/) N N c;. ~ U~<t " -g lL..a::~ ~ W Ë ...J 0æc:: <l <[ E >- ...J I.L ..J' U 0 t-W~ D- o VI ~ _t-W . U VI ë " E r . ~ ~ ~ I J ~ I 5 Q ~!~ ~I ~ poi ~ f . ! ê i i!~ ~ e1 ~®~ .~ ::> ::> " " '" '" " '" ~ 0 E '" ö:: N + .~ "'á> -:; a> ~ ::0 (J) 0 '" "") "" '" 0 "" - - OO~ ! ~ ~ /P~/5J ---- -._--- --- - ---- 15 ..: Z 0 I-Z,,: E (/)0 -I . ~ >~o.. _ Ò Q. <t <{ a: u.. @ § 0", 0 0 -' l- I · :J :r (/) 'I') '" '" J:a...: " "" 0..: '" ~Z-,- 0 :!; I- "" ,,-'" ..: c 0"'" Ë "'", -' '" >--'~ a. I -' E ..: 0 1-"'", u Ü....(f) 0 ~ VI · 15 u E I " ~ ~i . I "I ~ ~, i ~, ~j -' . <t 0 · ~ I 8 '" h II I '" l- e ; n i ~I ~I ..: -' Z ~ i! sg I ~ e1 ~ @ ~ I ~j oo~ .~ ::> 5 ~ Q I " '" . " ~ § ö:: I + ;:c .;: Q 1: '" I '" (;) N OO~ N .,. ::> N ~ : Q I '" 0 0 - .,. 1 !::: I ~ (I) '" ~ N .,. fJ) N ....., I . è I ôl . ::>1 " I ~ ~~ ~ .. . I ! I ! oo~ /tJ-/tO ! ~ . I _.~.- ¡; ;:z~ ~ IJ')0...J V ...J ->-Il. u >z « > a:: ~ «;35 ~ w Ò .§ I- 5:r~ v « 0 " ...J N S 5a..« w .. ;: «;¡; I- , ,¿" ffi a:: « ., ~z_,- ... u °WUJ -I E ...J~ Il. w E >-ww ...J « 0 t:.....(I) 0 ~ 0 <I> . ¡; ~ ~ ~ " ~ ~ = . " ~ c:: I ~ . ! c:: (J o ! :0 i; I ~f ~ ~ c : H i ~f I '" J ~ r- Z ~i! h N 0) vo ~ e1~,"~ '" ~ N I IS! 1 ~ ~ ~ 1 ...J 0 « '" a:: "'" w ~ l- E j « ...J ö: + .> ~ I ~ D :0 I 0 '" 0 ~ 0 :::: I I ~; :0 c:: '" '" vo vo I '" N I ...J :0 « 0 a:: '" w I I- « ...J Co I '"á> a> ~ I (J) /V//~/ ...., -- ---- I ë <: 0 I-ZZ E ~o5 0 ~ ò e > >-a.. ~ Z - o c.. ««0: LL N .5 ..j0w 0 ~ .:> I- z-" ..E J:ã:V) Ii> ! ~ "E 0«« "'CI lL.a::~ I.LJ J lLI c 0° .... ..J Ë LaJ a:: « ~ « e )o-..Jw...J u 0 t-w;::Q.. (/) f ü....~ , . J <: ë 0:: 0 E !oJ .. I- ~ <I -' . I , , '" '" ::J ~ 0 i ~ ! '" I ~1 a I ð r. CI =~i ~. N f ~ ~ hi! r ~ 81 ~@ 00' I ~ a !> ~ .~ <6 ",\I€.' ::J I 0 ~ '" ~ ß ~ 5 I S6: "- + ~ ~ ~I .> I ;:: ~ 0 yo w! ® ;j OJ I 0 '" "" r. 0 é:: I -' <I I 0:: !oJ I- <: -' , '" I I I lv' /tf,2 ~I ~ ..~.u ..- - ë <1ZZ ~ I- <1 ~ cn0...J V ~ · >~Q. - 0 > UJ E <[ <:[ cr LL 0 .. r- E Uw 0 I ~. 0 .- ...J I- ~j '" · ::> J: VI (þ ..S! IQ.<1 .. ." U «::E W ~Z-c.. · ... a: I- 1 o C> a:: <{ @~ Ww ...J I W ~..J~ a.. ...J E <1 0 I-ww ! ~ 0 ül-(f) U e (/) .. " c · I E " => ~ 0 . UJ co · I 00 ~ => - ^ N ~¡ N ~ I -I r- i ~ I! . I ~I NI Q ;~ii If z '~a ~~ W = I 101 is IS I 't:J § 81 ~©OO CI3 ~ [ c: ~ ~ ::, I c: 0 (J UJ ~ ..c: . I ~ õ; S + ~ > Æ " . I " =>1 => 0 I UJ '"' ("'. '"' ~j co ::; I I I ~I ~I I zj I I Ç08 ;}~U~51;}~UI J¡J'/¿ J I ....._- ."------ -...., ë « Z I-z« I ~ ~~...J V · >zQ.. - > ò e <<(0: 1.1.. .. 0 e ...Juw 0 '" .- :) :r: t; ..... · l ~ .. .E :1:0.... Z-L " O«~ W · u. a: I- 1! OC)a:: « '" ~ "'''' ..J 0 ..J >- ¡¡j;: 0.. N « e !::I-W l c.> 0 · c.> VI VI ~ · ..J ë .. ~ a: '" " l I- ~ « . ..J ~ I . I 0 !;¡ ~ I 5 I 2 q i 51 "t:J ~··ï! "' ~ ::: i! ï ~ I ~ ~~ ~ 81 ~ @ ~ c: i ! ~ " I (J ~"" ;:J CI .c: ..J u¡ Q. « ~ I e a: '" § 0) I- .S! « ö:: ..J ,!E + I ¡" .;; " . " I ;:J CI OO~ u¡ e- n I ~ ~ N " := ..J « I ~~ a: '" I- ~ ¡ « ..J ;:J " . I CI ., u¡ J ~\ J '" ..J - .. - , a: <r~ \ '" I- Ñ! .. ..J , 00 ~' ., !§ ~. . ~ jiJ //v 1 ~ .~. ...------- - --- ---~....- ---- ---~._.. ë <t z !i! I- Z ct t: V) 0 , iii _)-.... ~ ~ >ZD..- (:) ~ <t;ja: lJ.. o ._ -' LIJ 0 N ... :J I- .£ rJ:V) CD ~ II UD...<t z-. ] <t;:e w _ ~ lJ..D: I- W Ë oæ5:3 ~ § >d~ D.. I (,) ... t:I-W (/) f 0 VI I ! I ~ , . j ~ I ~ ~ ! to w 10. ! ... ~~!I~I 2 d 81 ~I ~ § ~1 ~ ~ g I ~ ~ "C CO ).1: I O::J a: @ c ~ ~ 0 ~ >- Ie - ~ + o ..c:- I Q. ~ ~~ ~ 0 ~ ~ C) ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ '" o .,. I - I I I I I /¡J'/¿5 -_._-~---_. ,----- ë <t z · ~~<t E _,......1 V · >ZCL - > Ò E <z: « D: La.. 0 Co ...JUlIJ 0 N § ::> >- ,£ ::I: :r U) Q"I ~ .. Ull... z-!.,.. .. ..~ UJ · ... 0: >- .. o c:> CI: « UJ c Ë UJ UJ ..J ..J >-~~ a.. .. g J u !:::t-W '" 0 U '" E · E: ë · ". E ;::;1 " x c-. ~j . ~ i ~ I ~ !! ..J C ~ n Ii .. Z L i ä 0: ~ ~~ê h UJ >- 01 ~ ® 00 .. ..J , II) .~ ::> 0 ¡¡¡ ~ ., ~ ~ ~ Il. <ð + ¡ ~ .~ ß ~ 0 ~ ::> I ~ 0 ~ ¡¡¡ ðl <:> ~ ., ~ Y' ~ I l.:J' ßI ",' -I I I J I ::> I /fP/)~¿ 0 ¡¡¡ 0 c- c-, ~l - ___....___"_______.._"__ - "'·_··_··_u.__......_"_____ ____ _ ___ _ __ 1! ;:zz · II>o<t E _>-...J v · >Zo... - ° e <t<to: u. ° .§ ...JUW 0 '" ~J:t; 0 ~ .. - z-!.,. .so UQ..c:( - 1! <t::¡ w ... a: >- w 1! o C) 0: <t ..J ~ Ww ...J <t )-...J¡: l) § I- L.IJ . a. _>-W II> 0 l) II> ~ · 1! · E .. ~ . ~ ~ ~ I h !! Q ~ d !~ z H u i ~ I ,()~ ~ ~ H SH W · ~ -J e1~©OO ~ ~ '" ~ :0 0 ~0 '" ~ -I ~~ , cl ~ ¿; '" ~ + ~j ~ j :0 0 '" '3 ¡ ~ :::! J I 1 J I I jj/'/¡; 7 n _...._,-. _'___0" - - ~- ---.- ------_.._- -'-'--"--- --- - <>: z ; t;;~~ E ->i "It ~ > Z - o e 4<fo: LL o Ë' -lOW 0 N .- ::> t- o. :r: J: V> = 11 ..s U~~ W ~Z-. ] 4.D:: I- ~ -] OC)a: ~ I.&J u IJ.I W -' -' E >- ...J 3:: 0.. <t § !:: ~ LiJ (.) U U (f) '" 2 . ë . e .. ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ I !~"~:, Q ..~ .~ ,()~ zduaj~ ~ ~ n H i!~ G-O~ ~ 81 ~©fi) ~ ~ ~ ~Ob ~ .~ 7~ ~ ~ § i:. + .~ 6 ::J <=< lIJ '" o N N ~ /V-/c-F' ----~-------,--- - --.--..--...- .. -' --.----..-..-.- ._,-~_._,--_._. ë <I f-ZZ Ë ",o<1 . :> >-..J V - > zo.. - ° e o c. <[ ~cr: ..... N ë ..J W 0 ~ ._::> I- Z .. ~ XLV) N _. <.=; U~<t- - i u."':!! W w oC) ~ ..J Ë w'" <I ~ E >-Ld~ ¡[ V') 8 ~.....w ~ '" .. c Ë ~ . ~ ~ i ~ ! iîJl ~ !! ~ o = I i II ~j ~ ~ H ~ I øl ::; % w 1~ .. I :> ..J8 :@OO j ~ ~ ! -~ I ::0 0 LQ " ~ I 5 "'- + .~ I c 0 ::0 I 0 LQ '" ::01 ... ~ I 0, '" I ~j I ~ ~ <& I ~ ß I ~ ~ ~ /{J///J / ~ Y'" --." - - --- <{z~ ë ~O...J V ~ >>-Q. . Z U. > <to: . E <tuwo o Q. ...J I- o e ::> If/) !:2 C\l ':: Q a.. <t w ",£ «:::E I- ~ "'Q LLD:: « z-. 'II OC)D:: - ~ WW..J lLI " >...J:t: a.. ~ ê ':::~'" - o (.) V> ~ ~ . 1! ~ " ~ ® ~ . %- ~ I ~ t i ~ ~ ~ I! ill" ~. ~ Q : n i ~ I J ~ Z ~i& h ~ ë1œ@~ J ~ J ~ CI U) "" ~ I E ö: + I -> ~ - " J C$) ::> CI U) '" 0 1 ~ 00 I - ® I I J => CI u.Jr :2J '" J ('"JI -, 1 )0 --/ ?¿J -- I ... --- ¡; <lz~ ....O...J .q. Ë en >- 0. _ . > Z LL Ò e « ~ffi 0 0 .§ 5:c~ 'It N - Q a. <c : .. .E ~ ~ I- :> ~Z-~ ¡¡ ..... C) a:: <c I Q "!! °WW ...J '" Ë >--'~ Q. :': -' § ...WW <I Õl-U) U u V> ~ 1 i1 t>.\I<.o . 5 t>.~<' ~ .. L ® M J ~ . " ~ i ~ ~ J ~I n~i it ~ ~ o . ~ I ä ~1 Z Ë i ~ ¡¡g I ~ % m ë1~@~ :;> ~ 1 b ~ :, 1 ~ Q '" ¡¡ - " 3 I Q., + .;; . J " ;:0 J Q '" " - 00 N 1 ~I 1 c' ~j @ I 1 - I \ 1 1 )v-/71 @ - - 0- - 1 - ..,-~-- COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item II Meeting Date 3/8/94 ITEM TITLE: Public hearing to form Open Space Maintenance District No. 31, Telegraph Canyon Estates Resolution Ordering the improvements and the formation of Open Space Maintenance District No. 31, Telegraph Canyon Estates, confirming the district diagram and levying the assessments for fiscal year 1994-95. SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works ~4 Director of Parks and Recreatio ^' REVIEWED BY: City Manager ~ lI'í l, (4/5ths Vote: Yes_No2L) t,· On January 25, 1994, by Resolution No. 27374, the City Council approved the Engineer's report on the proposed Open Space District No. 31, Telegraph Canyon Estates and set March 8 and 15, 1994 as the dates for the public hearings on the proposed formation. This meeting shall afford all interested parties the opportunity to hear and be heard pursuant to Section 22590 of the Government Code. RECOMMENDATION: That Council: 1 Hold the first public hearing on March 8 and receive public testimony and close the hearing; 2 Hold the second public hearing on March 15, receive public testimony, and close the hearing; and 3 Mter the second public hearing on March 15, approve a resolution ordering the improvements, forming the district, confirming the district diagram, and levying the FY 1994-95 assessment for Open Space District No. 31, Telegraph Canyon Estates. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable. DISCUSSION: BACKGROUND Open Space District No. 31, Telegraph Canyon Estates is located on the north side of Otay Lakes Road, approximately 1,500 feet east of Rutgers Avenue and west of the SR-125 corridor. The adoption of this resolution will order the formation of Open Space District No. 31 to levy and collect assessments for the maintenance of Open Space Lots lA, IB, lC, 2A, 2B, and 3A as shown on the attached diagram of Open Space District No. 31, Telegraph Canyon Estates and consist of the following improvements: //-/ ...._-~-- _.. ... ----...---- .."---_._..~._._-----._-'~._.- Page 2, Item II Meeting Date 3/8/94 I. 11.04 acres of irrigated open space 2. 23.44 acres of non-irrigated open space 3. A .45 acre mini-park with tot lot and half basketball court 4. Two tennis courts 5. A pedestrian path 6. Sound walls 7. Exterior lights 8. Drinking fountains 9. Benches and picnic tables 10. Tennis court access road and parking lot II. Facilities necessary for the maintenance of the above mentioned improvements In addition, the district will contribute a pro rata share of: I. Median and parkway maintenance costs along Otay Lakes Road. 2. Telegraph Canyon Channel maintenance costs. The Engineer's report which was approved by Resolution 173 74 of the City Council is attached for Council viewing. The report includes: I. plans and specifications for the improvements; 2. an estimate of the costs of the improvements; 3. a diagram for the assessment district; 4. an assessment based on the improvement costs. The estimated total annual maintenance cost for the district is $140,500 which translates into $407.25 per dwelling. The anticipated time of turn over of the open space lots to the City for maintenance is December of 1995. The district will be assessed for a full year for fiscal year 1995-96 in order to accumulate a reserve pursuant to Section 17.070.030 of the Municipal Code. However, the assessment for FY 1994-95 is estimated to be only $25.22 per dwelling unit to maintain the prorata share of medians and the Telegraph Canyon Channel, since they are existing improvements. The engineer's report contains a detailed description of improvements, the boundaries, total cost estimate, cost breakdown and spread thereof. NOTICE These hearings have been noticed by the City Clerk in accordance with Sections 22556 and 54954.6 of the Streets and Highways Code. Letters were sent to all property owners (Baldwin) informing them of the proposed assessment 45 days prior to the public hearing stating the approximate assessment per parcel and informing the owner of the right of majority protest to abandon the proceedings. If at least 50% of the property owners by land area protest the formation of this district then the proceedings must be abandoned. The notice was published at least once a week for three weeks, and the last notice was at least 10 days before the second public hearing. //,,,2 -....-..- ------,---_.~.._-.- -- -------.--.--.---------.....-.---.'..--- Page 3, ItemJL Meeting Date 3/8/94 In addition, all future property owners that Baldwin sells homes to will be notified of the open space district and estimated cost pursuant to Ordinance 2275. The owners will also be notified that the open space and recreation facilities are public improvements maintained by Open Space District 31 and are available to the public at large. FUTURE ACTION The second public hearing is scheduled for March 15, 1994. Mter conducting the second public hearing, the final step in the proceedings for the formation of the district requires that Council adopt a resolution which: (I) orders the improvements, (2) forms the open space maintenance district, (3) confirms the district diagram, and (4) levies the assessment either as originally approved in the engineer's report or as modified by Council subsequent to the public hearing. FISCAL IMPACT: The City recovers costs from Open Space District Assessments. Costs associated with establishing the district are covered by a deposit made by Baldwin Vista Associates. Attaclnnents : A - Boundary Map B - Engineers Report for the proposed district C - Disclosure Statement NOT SCANNED TAlFile: 08-035 WPC F:\HOMEIENGINEER\AGENDA \OSD31 //-3 '--'- ---_.._~---,-"_._,,_..-. ....~-_..._--_._--~. .- E ~~\loìT '-';' -....-. , . OPEN SPACE DISTRICT NO. 31 I cITY OF CHULA VISTA COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO. STATE OF CALIFORNIA TELEGRAPH CANYON ESTATES . I :! -I-¡-I, I.. ..1;1'1' , ." :-:--:r:-::.,.j ~~ _ i I - .....~ -" 'IW'·· '-'-;' -I- ."" ~ I . !¡~ ~ ~......... u ..¡..¡.. "' .,.. -;- ~ ~ ~ .,¡¡ ~,. _I ... .. ~ ~ . .... ~",_t»I"'''Ia'''.~ ...::- .. ~ .. toO 10" .-=-.. ~ ~~ II . - ... II :å't~I·. WI ~ ..- ~ . - ~ 5 . A .".. ~ + 'to- no -~ . .. ~ - .. . .. ¡..,....-...... ~ . - ~ ... I . .. ...... r-;-" If L..._ ~ ~ " ~ . . ~.,.--. ~ . I ... - --=- . '" ~ . . ,I, . '.. ~ ..... T.:r- 1-? . . ..... ~ - .. . -=-~ ........ ~~ .. "t I "'_ .. t . ~ . -\.. .. "¡"j r Î ~ ¿ ø, ~..( n ~ " .. . ~, " " " ",. " "<%.>\ "".;,;¡" -.....1-1/ \:- '''.~' \\. IC ~}-r--. . :!I'SY~ '~W :lfi.~k-Im~ .."'~.'" .' I . ~ ." ç..~ % -~ . ~ - , ; -;- ~ -F+{.. rj¡. ~ ~ ..:. ~ . .'. " a i f~..~~-,·· ~ . . 'i: ~ --' Iu. :r.:.. -r ...... :::j 17"" ......."EA.. I r-;- - ¡.., 1...\.."' ~ ,. , I ¡: \- ').- , : ., 1Ut1t(!irtC1 IS ..lOt MADr to 'Ht COIN'" or ~ ~ ~}r. . ....tlG¡ONS or tNDNlDfJAL MICE"" ..~,..~ . _ ~'~ .. .__~.___.M - .~. i>t::> CITY 01' þ!u", _.. "AT( 01' CAI."-IA. ON ,..crLS ~ or LAND I~ ON TM,S Mf(IrIDED ........wr DIAOUM iliA". ~ SAID ~tsSllltNT WAS .,¡vItO OM fMl al'iñiwt'Y or -' :'\ ,"So .t.roct II _ YO TIC .. IOU. tttC<MtDED IN THE omtt or THE CITY CNGlMttlt FOI THE __. If.> -.-.----- :i". H.IleU or LAN:) IMØWtiI ON '"" MlENDtD ASS£uwtlilT . ... DMOItAM. ."~ if'·' . IiITT ~ - 1iiifH IlL" QIUI,A "TA IÞ" ,'& - t.tS ACIØ ____or_ClTY_orM un'l - IoU_I ern or CIOUi.A _A _ _ lA, or . ,"So un,e - ... ACIIØ LD" Þ _......tCIØ Gn"I .. ... _ ",IT IlL" ~ "IA un. - .....- nD _ _ orner or TIC CITY _ or YIlt CITY LOT M - I'" ACIØ or__A__IA'II' 110. ImEBP ÇIIT ~ _ IIj;ITT ... ØIUIA 1rDIA -.- --- ~ ~ IMIIE_ nD - ëiõi lA' II' -' '"' AY ëiüiiñii - TIlE. omct Of' M. COUNTY IiLDTOIt ,. ... OF laM _. "A" or __ I I _TrD oPt" .,ACt IIiiVUIITT AUP TVK ur .... IJII,IAI 1õUU'" l' ~ 2.. ... .,ð .. I ~i21 .. ·:y:\:··~;r "; _AI. WlDlCAot .._ ICAI.t ()J='-:-=:--=--- //-'inN PACE DlAICT NO.3' I .~ _....TrO OKII "ACt I _____-- MET NO. 1 or , I . _...._--~- ..----.-....---.-- .. t' t, E ~h~-i\ B ----. ENGINEERS REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED OPEN SPACE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT #31, TELEGRAPH CANYON ESTATES January 11, 1994 //-s- _._·"'.._·.····"'.._.__.__h_·' - ---...._.~. -..- - -------- -- - -- I. INTRODUCTION This report was prepared pursuant to City Council direction and in compliance with the requirements of Division 14, Part 2, Chapter I of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California and the Chula Vista Municipal Code, Section 17.07. On January 19, 1993, by Resolution No. 16960, the City Council approved the tentative map for Telegraph Canyon Estates, Chula Vista Tract 93-03 located on the north side of Otay Lakes Road, approximately 1,500 ft. east of Rutgers Avenue and west of SR-125. The conditions of approval for the tentative map required that all open space lots and the SR-125 corridor be included in an open space maintenance district. The developer requested the formation of said district in a letter dated May 19, 1993. The proposed open space maintenance district includes a public park with tot lot, half basketball court and two tennis courts. These public facilities will be maintained by only those property owners within the district. It is intended that 9.4 acres of dedicated open space later be used for transportation purposes related to the alignment of SR-125. A portion of Telegraph Canyon Channel is located within the district; however, staff is in the process of forming Eastlake Maintenance District No. I, Zone E, which upon Council approval will maintain Telegraph Canyon Channel. Telegraph Canyon Estates (OSD-31) will pay for this maintenance on a pro rata basis. OSD-31 will also pay for maintenance of medians and parkways along Otay Lakes Road on a pro rata basis along with EastLake Maintenance District No. 1. II. BOUNDARIES OF THE DISTRICT The boundary of OSD-31 is completely within the City of Chula Vista and corresponds to the boundary shown on the Assessment Diagram given in Exhibit C. As permitted in the Streets and Highways Code, the details of the individual lots (dimensions and bearings) are shown on the County Assessor's Maps for these properties, on file in the San Diego Assessor's Office. III. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Telegraph Canyon Estates proposes the construction of 345 residential and 6 open space lots. All dwelling units are on residential lots and will be single family, detached. The 36 acres of open space will contain passive and active uses to include: 2 tennis courts, a mini-park containing a half basketball court and tot lot, irrigated and on-irrigated open spaces, sound walls, lighting and a parking lot. /I-¿' Page 1 ~... ..-.-...---..----.--------- ~- - IV. MAINTENANCE ITEMS (Plans and Specifications) A Definitions 1. "Maintain" or "maintenance" means the furnishing of services and materials for the ordinary and usual maintenance, operation, and servicing of any improvement, including: a. Repair, removal or replacement of all or any part of any improvement. b. Providing for the life, growth, health and beauty of landscaping, including cultivation, irrigation, trimming, spraying, fertilizing, or treating for disease or injury. c. The removal of trimmings, rubbish, debris, and other solid waste. d. Providing administration for the maintenance of improvements. e. Maintenance will conform to approved plans for the subject area. 2. "Improvement" means one or any combination of the following: a. The installation of planting or landscaping. b. The installation or construction of supplemental facilities. c. The installation or construction of supplemental public lighting facilities. d. The installation of construction of any facilities which are appurtenant to any of the foregoing or which are necessary or convenient for the maintenance or servicing thereof, including grading, clearing, removal of debris, the installation or construction of curbs, gutters, walls, sidewalks, paving, water, irrigation, drainage, or electrical facilities. e. The installation of view, sound, wrought iron and decorative walls, pedestrian fences and retaining walls. f. The installation of pedestrian walks. g. The maintenance or servicing, or both, of any of the foregoing. B. Description of Items The facilities and items to be maintained by Open Space District #31 are shown on the improvement plans on file with the City Engineer (Drawing Nos. 93-198 to 93- 232) as follows: 1. Maintain open space lots owned in fee by the City of Chula Vista. Maintenance will conform to approved landscape plans for subject area. 2. Maintain wrought iron, sound and decorative walls. 3. Neighborhood park, children's play lot (tot lot), half baskethall court, pedestrian path, two tennis courts, parking lot with access road and accompanying facilities located on open space lots owned in fee by the City of Chula Vista. 4. Maintain a pro rata share of medians and parkways within Eastlake Maintenance District No.1, Zones A and B (Otay Lakes Road). //·7 Page 2 _·.·__··_______·,_·_·._m__.'_________.~__~__.____. - . -- -.. 5. Maintain a pro rata share of Telegraph Canyon Channel within proposed Eastlake Maintenance District No.1, Zone E also known as Otay Lakes Road Phase 1, Telegraph Canyon Road Phase 2, and Otay Lakes Road/Telegraph Canyon Road Phase 3. V. COST ESTIMATE The estimated annual costs for Telegraph Canyon Estates, Maintenance District 31, are as follows: Total Cost per Description Yearly Cost Dwelling Maintenance of open space $131,800 $382.03 lots and facilities Pro rata share of median $588 $1.71 and parkway maintenance Pro rata share of Telegraph $8,111 $23.51 Canyon Channel TOTAL $140,500 $407.25 A breakdown of the estimated annual maintenance cost is presented in Exhibit A. A similar cost breakdown for channel and median maintenance is presented in Exhibit B, and the total maintenance cost is displayed in a pie chart in Exhibit D. The estimated assessment on each parcel of land in the district is in direct proportion to the estimated benefit to be received by the parcel. Primarily, the District will be maintaining irrigated open spaces, the park and the tennis courts. Therefore, the assessment on each parcel should be equivalent for similar land uses in the district. Land uses are made comparable by converting them to Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDUs). Since all the residential 345 units are single family detached dwellings, they all have an EDU of 1 and are equally assessed. The computation of median and parkway assessments are based on the average daily trip (ADT) of each parcel to be consistent with Eastlake Maintenance District No. 1 (10 ADT - 1 EDU). The pro rata share of median and parkway maintenance is determined by dividing the total cost (estimated at $20,870 for FY 1993-1994) by the total number of equivalent dwelling units (EDU's) in Eastlake Maintenance District No.1, Zones A and B (11,890) plus the EDU's in Telegraph Canyon Estates (345). The channel assessment is based on the amount of storm water runoff. The spread factor (.33) used for calculating the pro rata share of the channel maintenance was derived from the subdivision density of 3.1 dwellings per acre and a runoff coefficient of .6. The pro rata share was determined by the methodology used above. . II- ~ Page 3 ~-'----- --..__..---- - - ...._.._.~..- -~~---,.._------_.. ._._-------~ .- -.-' - .~ . ,-..----.,'. -"--- VI. SPREAD OF ASSESSMENT All cost estimates will be revised as part of the District's annual update. The estimated assessment to be paid by the individual parcels during the first 5 years of operation is $407.25 per year. This is based on the estimated schedule for turnover of December 1995 and provides for an accumulation of a 50% reserve. A copy of the assessment roll will be on file with the City Engineer once an assessment is levied indicating the actual assessment for each parcel. - . JIIIo No.: œ.œs WI'C P:\IIoaw'""P-\114UI3 II- 'I Page 4 ___ ..___0'.- _,_____~.___._ ____. · .. Exhibit" A" d Annual Maintenance Cost Estimate Telep'8ph CaDymI Estates, OpeD Space DIs1rkt No. 31 ADnual lœm UDIt Somœ of MalnteD8Dce No. DescriUtiOD Ouantity Units ~ Cost Data Cost 1 Non-Irriuted Onen SDace 23.44 lAC. .00 1.Z ~14,064.00 2 Irri2ated ODen SDace 11.04 AC. 58000.00 1 588 320.00 3 1\un (Park Area) 0.45 AC. 524.470.00 1 511 011.50 4 Ornamental U'1tWV & Median) 0.36 AC. 510,420.00 1. 53.751.20 5 Electricitv + 530/Mo Meter Charl!e 27372 KWH 50.14 3 53 914.20 6 Tennis Courts 2 EA 51.552.00 3 53.464.00 7 If2 Basketball Court 1 EA 5802.00 3 5802.00 8 Exterior tilthts 13 EA 56.00 3 578.00 9 Drinkinl! Fountain 2 EA 525.00 3 550.00 10 Benches & Picnic Tables 14 EA 525.00 3 5350.00 11 Tennis Ct. Access Rd 4600 SF 50.08 3 5368.00 12 Tennis Ct. Parkinl! Lot 3225 SF 50.08 3 5258.00 13 5' D.G. Trail (ReDlace once/10YlÜ 1 EA 583.00 3 583.00 14 Children's play lot (rake sand) 1 EA 5500.00 ·2 5500.00 15 Fences 2950 SF 50.03 3 598.32 16 Walls Paint) 10392 SF 50.09 3 5938.61 17 Walls ~Dair) 3048 SF 50.10 3 5304.80 18 WroUI! ht Iron 21528 SF 50.16 2 53,444.48 Total: $131,800 _elDlla - 1....... .. 2 DlrcfCWI--"'-"--- , ÐCI'Ii'.....r . . TA:. ....- JIll. os.œs P'l Œ'_\&WIIIIL I/"/~ I . '.2. /, , "--- ------ -~-- ------- ------- --- . EXlnBIT B II Annual maintenance cost estimate lor the pro rata share 01 Otay Lakes Road median and Telegraph Canyon Channel" I. Medians Eastlake I 0Re0s Tel. CyII. Pst. Total Total Main........... Cost S20.870 Participating EDU's 9,970.6 1.919.1 345 12,234.7 Pro rata costlEDU $1.71 n. Channel (Based on proposed Eastlake Maintenance District No. I, Zone E.Y!) Rest or Zone B Tel. CyII. BsL Total Total mainteDBDœ cost $39.160 Parûcipatlng points 43S.86 113.8S 549.71 Pro rata costlEDU $23.5 1 NOTE: Points per EDU=EDU*Spread Factor Spread factor=.33 for a runoff coefficient of 0.6 and a density of 3.1 dwellings/acre Pro rata cost/EDU=(.33/S49.71*39160) (1) TIle cbatmei costs ultimale1y wDI be based OD a pro rata share or alI1bIee pItases of tbe cbatmei from tbe Eastlake area to just east of Pueo Laden. h Is aDtIclpaacd 1hat tbe additiDtlli cost of tbe cbatmei wDI be oIfIet by Ibe addition of participating EDU's. Wl'CP!~ -" _ . -"'$93 )}-I j. 11-// ~._.___~...._..__.___.___._, .._.._._ __..___... ___"' __._u._ - E ""i<o~ c.. I OPEN SPACE DISTRICT NO. 31 cm OF CHULA VISTA COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA I TELEGRAPH CANYON ESTATES . I , 'I~I, N "''''51". 211r1.0" :: ,I· ·1, I . ,I· . . . . . " '" :h······/. '::""1-*1= I I . . ....,..,.. '....... ~ I -~ .~ - - -- I . tr~~ -;--...,.........."' I"' It' "IQ ~ --;-: ~. :', " f//J I ..¡~ .. "'. . ~ ~ I . ¡¡¡¡. tit t-: 'Ii f. W .,. tal I. 'I'''~ .. t-:-- .. ~ .. 100 00' .~.. ~ - ~ ,. .. ~ ... I "·~&J~':I·. ... ).;... ... ~ , ~ ~ ..~. ~ ~ ! .. . .... - r..t" ..,_..,....1'- ~ . . J...... : ~ : . ., ... .. tit.,. ~" ~ __ ~ I ~ . ~ I~ -.,-.--/--- T 'it "11, !' : I . . . L -. u ., I" _ . I .. .. . .. -." . J.... n.a 1M ... ,..>.;. ." ~ ., ,. .. ......... . . -...J.." . I- "fa "It ~ I) .. .. >, ~ . .. _ ~ \- r-;;¡- ~ I ~ - .. .. ~> ~m,\.......L I r t;::: ~ ...' ~' ... I..·.. ~^~, " " ,., " "~fII .,::;.;;~_.." .~ J I ~:. "~..~,.:,, ,..\," "y. C M-q.:; '~ ~ ~ ..: T\:1Y ~ ~ v:1::; f-...~''f~ .~'f.. I I i ~ 4'~ '\'"2' Ih. 7;'-,!dø, i'. .,~. · " .....;.-1 ~~ tn L"""".., ~ ~ '" ." .. ! ; ~ :, ~ ......::.¡...¡.. ~ ~ ~..:: .'" i ;; ;:Ë.. u..0- \ .' '% ~ '(JP · . ..!!:.- « . . ~ ~ -r< ';;¡';'iJ' · ¡::, ..;-, ... 1ã...~ I ~ .. \.0 ~'"'¡:''0 :A... .~., I 7 ~.)..)-< . ., ttEnll[liIItr rs MEKIT MAD( TO THE COU'ITY or :Ë:. '" ~ y ~ .,' IA' Dlloo. ...<5101I .AIICl, ... FOIl DlTAlL1D ~ ~~ .. DIMENSIONS or IfIIDfYIDUAI. ,AltCL.$. "1;'( , .~. ~ .. _ . !'i~' ~O AN ASStSIIIItNT WAS I.EYItD IY TNt em COUNCIL. or THE J "I-~ ~ . ~. ~~ CIT'r Dr CHULA ....T.. ST'" Dr CAUFOIIM,., þI 'AllCl~ ~ or LAND S"'OWIiII ON TH!' ""["'IDED ASStSNNT DIAOft,w "A'. _ '" IA'D ASSUS.l.T .AS L1¥11D OM ,"1 ___ DAY Dr _. ~~ ~ '''3. IttrlUNeE II MADE TO THE ASSESSMENT IOu.. :\.~ ItECOfI'DtD IN tHE ornct or THE CITY tNGeNttlt f'OIII THE . EXACT AMOUNT or uc.. ASStSSWl:NT r.EVII:D ACAINST !AtH I "",. -". - -- ---.,. :i' .. DIAGRAM. _,.'to ,.'1"O~ . IIiõITT ~IIK - ÇlTT Of ÇNUI.A YlITA LOT ,. - '.13 ACItI .COIKD IN ,.. omct Of' TNE CITY IJIGIID't or THI: LOT ,. - '.12 ACII:I CITY OK 0tUr..A VISTA tHIS _ OAT or . '",. LOT T C - O.JI acllES LOTIA -_lOCOES lOIn PlUlllLLIII - ¡oJn gr ~ YØ'A LOTD- 1.4$ IOCIIES FLED '" 111[ omct or 111[ em CIPI< or 'lilt CIT'r LOTM- ...0 acllES or _ VISTA ,.,. _ DAY or . 'II'. ¡¡œ¡p arT I:LPK - ¡oJTT UJ I:MUUo VIi'A --- --- c:::> -- ruo'MI_ DAYf11i"iiiiiTë' '.SAT_" T" Of'f1CE or THE COUNTY TOIl: or M couwn or SA" DIEGO. StATE OF CALlnIItM. I I _tOATED OJ'tN ...ACt AJUNTT AI,IU-JUIr Of "" _UU IIfUU"TT L .; .... IOD ~ I ~jL~*. -.orAl. IAllDSCAPl .._ ICAIl ~ ....-IIIIGATtD DP£N PACt / /'I.~ [~) = =':'.::... - - S"ACE DtSTII1CT NO. 3T .....-.._-- SHEET NO. T or T ___ 1Ht'1" II _ .".. ...... _... _. .......... I .......1 -~_..._- . ------..-......--.-." _.-.~-.--._~---_.--_.._------~........_---- ..-....-----....---- .__._-~---_.~--_.~~. .- -- .---- . Exhibit D Total Maintenance Cost Breakdown Open Space $117,722 I'IEOIMlS J~8 . ... Park & B.B. ct $1.702 Walls & Walks $4.650 Tennis Courts $7.726 , ToW MJW&I~: $140.eoO ..)' ,~ //-/3 , --~,....__.._,-_.._-.._--_..-..,,- ._._-~._.__.._,._.~--_._-- "--'---"--"~---------'-'''--'-'''-' ....,------ ·~ .) . EXHIBIT C NOTICE OF SPECIAL TAXES AND ASSESSMENTS NOTICE OF SPECIAL TAX The Chula Vista Elementary School District and the Sweetwater Union High School District (collectively, the "School District") formed a community facilities district ("District") lllISuant to the provisions of the Mellos- Roos Community Facilities District Act of 1982, as amended ("Act"). The boundaries of the District include that certain development project commonly known as "St. Claire". Punuant to the Act. a local agency, such as the School Districts, may form a District for the sole purpose of providing certain additional public services and to finance a broad range of public and capital facilities thorough the levy of special taxes, including, but not limited to, construction of elementary, secondary and high schools and purchase of equipment. The home which buyer is purchasing within the St. Claire project is located within the boundaries of the District. Special taxes will be levied each year against all property within the boundaries of the District. including. the lot or unit which buyer is purchasing, for the purposes of paying costs and expenses of the public school capital facilities, and any bonds issued to pay for such school facilities, pursuant to authorization of the various formation documents for the District. Pursuant to the formation documents, the special tax will be payable for twenty-five (25) years or until all bonds issued for CFD No.5 have been discharged, whichever is earlier. If no bonds are issued, the levy will be collected for the entire 25 years. The special tax assessed under the authorization of the District will be payable as part of the general property taxes and subject to the same penalties established for nonpayment. However, the procedures in case of a delinquency or default are different, and you may not have as much time to cure a delinquency for nonpayment of your special taxes to prevent a foreclosure against your lot or unit as you may have . for nonpayment of other general property taxes. The maximum annual special tax that is payable for your lot or unit is as set forth on the accompanying chart (page 2). THE DISTRICT HAS BEEN FORMED AND THE SPECIAL TAX WILL BE LEVIED AGAINST THE BUYER'S LOT OR UNIT EVEN THOUGH THE BUYER MAY HA VB VOTED AGAINST OR NOT DESIRE THAT THE DISTRICT BE FORMED OR THAT THE FEE BE LEVIED. A copy of the Rate and Method of Apportionment of Special Tax and all other applicable documents and information may be obtained trom the Sweetwater Union High School District and the Chula Vista Elementary School District. NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT The City of Chula Vista has formed or is in the process of forming Open Space Maintenance District #31. A. Qpen Space Maintenance District #31: Assessment District No. 31 has been formed to provide maintenance for certain public improvements. The open space maintenance district is administered by the City of Chula Vista and the assessment has not been determined at this time. It is currently estimated, however, that the assessment, which is subject to annual adjuSbnent as determined by the City of Chula Vista will not exceed $407.25 in year one. This assessment is levied for the perpetual maintenance of open space lots, Telegraph Canyon channel and medians. All facilities located on open space lots will be maintained by the district. and will include, but will not be limited to: tennis courts, children's play lots, basketball courts, inigation systems, water fountains and parking lots. --_...~_. ....--...,--....--.----........-. ; NAME Œ øullŒR: THE BALDWIN COMPANY PROJECT: ST. CLAIRE PLAN" 1 (nE CROSSING) SQUARE FEET: '7711 YEAR I: JULYI.11113-.uŒ30.'.... COIIIoIUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. S CHULA V1STA ELEMENTRY SWEETWATER LIMON OPEN SPACE MAINTENANCE SCHOOL DISTRICT HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 31 YEAR , $2.1.21 1471.17 $407.25 '1,114." 2 "" ... -- $407.25 '1.171.13 S 1207.02 $410.21 $407.20 '1.1H.2I · 1SQS.71 NOO.o1 $407.20 '1.211." · $SOl." $510.01 $407.25 '1,227.11 I $318.05 ......, $407.25 '1,243.11 7 $322.37 $5SO." $407.2' '1.200'" , _.02 "'1.2S $407'" 'I.m'so · mi.'" """05 $407.20 '1,214.70 '0 $342.10 SOOS... $407.25 '1,112.41 " '30"" $574.35 $407.25 '1,330." 12 1305.13 .....&4 $407.25 '1,M'.02 IS $36S.04 SH7.56 $407.25 ".317.11 10 $370.31 $608.51 $407.25 '1.M7.0I " $377.71 $821.70 S407.25 ",401." II $381.27 $S34.13 $407.25 '1.421.1. 17 $392.97 _.02 $407.25 ",447.04 15 $400.83 $858.75 $407.25 ".417.13 It $408.1' $872.95 $407.25 .".....04 20 $417.02 $686.41 $407.25 $1,110." 21 $425.3& $700.13 $407.25 '1.132.71 22 $433.17 S714.'4 $407.25 ".556.21 23 $442.55 $728.42 $407.25 ",571.22 20 $451..0 '742.. $407.25 '1,101.14 2. SoIOO.43 $757.15 $407.25 ",125.153 EARLY DISCHARGE OF OBLIGATIONS: $3,181.00 $5.211.00 NA The Special Taxes and Assessments shown above are estimates and are collected on the annual property tax bill and are in addition to the base property taxes on the property. A supplemental property tax bill will be mailed to collect 10)' discrepancy between projeçted and actual special taxes and assessments. Community Facilities Disttict No. S provides for the early discharge of obligations by any purchaser within the boundaries of the districts at any time. The amounts shOWD above represent an estimate of the early discharge of obligations and vary each year based upon the actual date of early discharge of obligation and exact payoffs wbich are available by contacting the Sweetwater Union High School and the Chula Vista Elementary School District in writing. Open Space Maintenance District No. 31 does not provide for the early discharge of ob1igation since the special tax is for perpetual maintenanu of improvements and will be collec:ted in perpetuity. The seller an4'or its agents makes DO assurances as to the accuracy oftbe assessment rates stated above. Should you desire additional informadm" please contact the Chuta Vista Elementary School Disbic:t. the SweetWater Union Hi¡h SdJool DlsUicl, and the City orChula Vista. BUYERS INl11ALS BUYERS INITIALS /~"'/f -------_....__._-_.._~_._._._-~~-_.~._,--_.~. · NEIGHBORHOOD: 81. Claire PLAN: I SQUARE FEET: 1778 BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED: Year I: July I, 1993 - June 30,1994 OPTION I: Di~hA~e of Ohli¥ation I elect to discharge the following obligations through the close of escrow (initial as app"'priate): District No. S, Sweetwater Union High School _ Community Facilities District No. S Chula Vista Elementary School Dislrict _ Community Facilities Prior to the close of escrow, Escrow Agent shall provide Buyer with the exact amount for the early discharge of such obligations. OPTION 2: Pavment of 8.pecia1 Taxes and Assessmenl~ I agree to assume all special taxes and assessments per the attached disclosure. ACKNOWLEDGE: Buyer Buyer Date Tract Lot BUYERS INITIALS BUYERS INITIALS *(~ / /-/(, -..--..--- "._-- - - -,--- ----- .-_..,-_.,----_..-.._~---. --,_._--- ( PUBLIC HEARING ŒiECK LIST PUBLIC HEARING DATE: 3./"6 "t \5 , SUBJECT: AEt.:<....>o- 1Sl ...o.;:t-. j . AO ~'.'+ 0 LOCATION: SENT TO STAR NEWS FOR PUBLICATION -- BY FAX~ BY HAND_; BY MAIL PUBLICATION DATE '!2..ot - "2. ¡OS - 2..//2- . I / MAILED NOTICES TO PROPERTY OWNERS - NO. MAILED PER GC §54992 Legislative Staff, Construction Industry Fed, 6336 Greenwich Dr Suite F. San Diego, 92122 LOGGED IN AGENDA BOOK I,hì /33 COPIES TO: Administration (4) .,/ Planning ¡/ Originating Department Engineering ,/ Others City Clerk's Office (2) ,,/ POST ON BULLETIN BOARDS IIl.ì 1'1~ SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS: 7/93 '55- 1/-}7 -~--- ._--_..."--,,.-_..~ NanŒ OF INfENDED ASSESSMENf The City of Chula Vista by Resolution No. 17374 (below) declared its intention to form an open space maintenance district for the perpetual maintenance of open space lots and other lands by the property owners within Chula Vista Tract 93-03, Telegraph Canyon Estates. An estimate of the proposed assessment is $407.25 per year for each of the 435 proposed residential lots. The annual revenue raised by this district is estimated to by $140,500. The yearly assessment will be collected bi-yearly by the San Diego County Tax Assessor's office. Property owners within the Telegraph Canyon Estates Subdivision can call Tom Adler at (619) 691-5021 for additional information or send their written protest of the assessment to: City of Chula Vista Department of Public Works Attn: Tom Adler 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 or make your protest known at one of the public hearings scheduled for March 8 and 15, 1994 at 6:00 p.m. If at least 50% of the eligible property owners by land area protest the proposed assessment the proceedings for the formation of the district will be abandoned. RESOLUTION NO. 17374 RESOLUTION OF THE CITI COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DEClARING THE INTENTION TO ESTABLISH OPEN SPACE DISTRICfNO. 31, TELEGRAPH CANYON ESTATES, APPROVING THE ENGINEER'S REPORT AND DIRECfING THE CITY CLERK TO GIVE NOTICE OF AND SET THE DATES OF THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR MARŒ 8 AND 15, 1994 AT 6:00 P.M. WHEREAS, on October 19,1993, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 17283 directing staff to initiate the creation of Open Space District No. 31, Telegraph Canyon Estates by the preparation of an Engineer's Report; and WHEREAS, an engineer's report was submitted by the City Engineer for the cost of maintaining the open space district and for the first year shall be approximately $25.22 to be charged for each parcel and for each year thereafter shall be $407.25; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Streets and Highways Code section 22587, a public hearing is required to establish the proposed open space district; and WHEREAS, this report WaS prepared by the City Engineer or under his direction and was presented to Council at their meeting at which this resolution was adopted for approval in order to proceed with the public hearing set for March 8 and IS, 1994 in accordance with the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby declare tentatively, its intention to establish Open Space District No. 31, Telegraph Canyon Estates and approves the Engineer's Report for the FY 1995-96 spread of assessments for Open Space Maintenance District No. 31, Telegraph Canyon Estates. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby set March 8 and IS, 1994 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, City of Chula Vista, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, California as the date and time for the public hearings on said assessments. Presented by Approved as to form by John P. Lippitt Bruce M. Boogaard Director of Public Works City Attorney - ? . , :' >\ , NOTICE OF INTENDED ASSESSMENT The City of Chula Vista by Resolution # 17374 (below) declared its intention to form an open space maintenance district for the perpetual maintenance of open space lots and other lands by the property owners within Chula Vista Tract 93-03, Telegraph Canyon Estates. An estimate of the proposed assessment is $407.25 per year for each of the 435 proposed residential lots. The annual revenue raised by this district is estimated to be $140,500. The yearly assessment will be collected bi-yearly by the San Diego County Tax Assessor's Office. Property owners within the Telegraph Canyon Estates Subdivision can call Tom Adler at (619) 691-5021 for additional information or send their written protest of the assessment to: City of Chula Vista Department of Public Works Attn: Tom Adler 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 or make your protest known at one of the public hearings scheduled for March 8 and 15, 1994 at 6:00 pm. If at least 50% of the eligible property owners by land area protest the proposed assessment the proceedings for the formation of the district will be abandoned. (Place Resolution 17374 here) TA:rb (F:\HOME\ENOINEER\LANDDEV\NOTICEl. TA) //~// ___._ _..." . __ - __...____u._,_..._.___._.___..___ ..__ __ __.___.._.__._____.__ ~~~ ,- .- ~ ~~~~ ..................~ CllY OF CHULA VISTA OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK TELEFAX COVER LE1TER Te1ecopier No. (619) 425-6184- DATE: \ l-l. Þ--+ TO: Star News Lesral / Kim FAX NO: (619) 426-6346 FROM:~ ~ ~ SUBJECf: O~h.e. ~ J.l.-. A :.. ~ ~Q;tLA,.... 6 Jl.+n. a..J.. ~J ~ TOTAL NO. PAGES (including cover): 2- PUBUCATION DATE:~ - Y6 - 2!t2- / If all pages are not received, please call Lorna @ (619)691-5041. ///JO 276 FOURTH AVE/CHULA VISTA. CALIFORNIA 91910/(619) 691·50" 1 . . .-. --.-.--.,...-..---.,-..",---,,,-,. ',-_. COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item 1.2. Meeting DateW9; ITEM TITLE: Resolution 1.7 7' t' ~proving a change order with Granite co!tructio! I Company for material cost increases for the Otay Valley Road Improvement Project, Assessment District No. 90- SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Work REVIEWED BY: City Manager CI:~\ç (4/5ths Vote: Yes _No X) ~" On June 30, 1992, Council awarded the construction contract for the Otay Valley Road improvements from I-80S to 1,200 feet east of Nirvana to Granite Construction Company. Since the award, the project has been delayed by several problems, namely a lawsuit filed by the property owners, difficulties in selling the bonds for the project, and the discovery of contaminated soil in the fish and game mitigation area. These problems have resulted in the project being delayed approximately 18 months. During this time, several of Granite's subcontractors have gone out of business and material prices have increased for construction materials on the project. Thus, to facilitate the project's construction, staff requests that Council approve this change order for the construction of the Otay Valley Road Project. RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve Change Order No. I inclusive and authorize the Director of Public Works to execute it on behalf of the City. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable. DISCUSSION: In November of 1993, Granite Construction submitted a written request for material and labor cost increases for the 18 month period in which construction was delayed. Cost increases originally requested by Granite exceeded $250,000 as shown in the attached letter dated November 22, 1993. Staff's original position was to rebid the project but, due to time constraints, the potential loss of SB 300 funds of $1.1 million and potential delays to the Autopark, it was decided to negotiate a change order for increases due to the delays. The time constraints were caused by the revised Streambed Alteration Agreement with California Department ofFish and Game that mandated all brush clearance be completed by February 1, 1994. This project was also included in cycle 2 of the State-Local Transportation Partnership Program (SB 300). All cycle 2 projects had to be awarded by June 30, 1992 or the project would not be eligible to receive these funds. Staff was concerned that rebidding the project would cause it to lose the SB 300 funds. Further, the development within the Autopark was reaching the point where some of the improvements included in this contract were needed in order for that work to continue. Staff has reviewed and verified increases by requesting actual invoices for similar materials purchased at time of bid (June 1992) and at time of construction (January 1994); by comparing prices from material suppliers and verifying costs on items the City purchases (diesel, asphalt, base material, concrete). Price increases are listed as follows: A. Subcontractor increases: 1..2 -¡ , "'^.. ..__._....,-------_.~...__._- .'."- .---...--.----.-,--,--. Page 2, Item /).. Meeting Date 2f22/94- 3/8/1,/ 1. Cobra Engineering - Cobra Engineering is constructing the water facilities for the project The project specifications were originally bid using asbestos cement pipe which is no longer available for purchase in the United States. Because of liability concerns, the only company which was continuing to manufacture the pipe ceased to make that product in 1993. The Otay Water District specifications now call for polyvinyl/chloride pipe (PVC) which at this time is more expensive than the originally bid asbestos cement pipe. Cobra's original request was for an increase of $16,683. All recommended increases for Cobra Engineering are for materials only and amount to $8,767. 2. Golden West Fence Company - Documentation submitted by Golden West Fence Company indicates that fencing materials have increased by approximately 10 percent for an increase of $5,532. Their original request was for an increase of $5,909. 3. American Concrete Company - The unit price for Portland Cement Concrete has increased in the last 18 months by approximately 4 percent American Concrete's original request was for an increase of $15,730. The recommended material increase for American Concrete Company amounts to $13,561. 4. Progressive Concrete Company - Progressive Concrete Company is constructing all the decorative concrete for the median areas. Progressive's original request was for an increase of $6,265. The 4 percent increase in cost of Portland Cement Concrete increases their material cost by $5,707. 5. A.M. Ortega Company is constructing the underground SDG&E facilities and structures. Their materials include PVC conduit and underground concrete structures. Ortega's original request was for an increase of $5,958. Recommended material increases for their products are $5,579. 6. Animal Shelter - Runningwolf Construction - The responsible subcontractor has gone . out of business during the 18 month delay period. Staff required Granite to obtain three new bids for this work. These bids ranged from an increase of $20,500 to $40,500 on this $200,000 bid item. The recommended increase is for $20,500. 7. In addition, Granite requested increases for Valley Crest Landscape & Irrigation of $41,545.10 and Steiny Electrical Company, Inc. of $12,073.93. Based on our current bids, staff could not find a basis for approving these increases and they have been withdrawn. 8. Granite also requested an additional $32,296.40 for construction of a masonry retaining wall on the project and staff is looking at a redesign of the wall which, hopefully, will lower the cost This requested increase was also due to the subcontractor going out of business. This item may be reconsidered after the redesign. Total subcontractor increases equal $59,646. The following are material increases and labor increases submitted for Granite Construction Company: /.2-..2... ~~._--~-_._._-_._-~-------_._._--"....._._- Page 3, Item J)... Meeting Date-w 3/8í 9,-/ I. An increase in the cost of processed miscellaneous base. Original price bid was $5.89 a ton. The requested increase in price is to $6.07 a ton. Staff determined that the requested cost increase was supported by our current purchases. Based on the bid quantity of 27,000 tons the total increase would be $1,326. 2. Fuel increases - The wholesale price for diesel fuel has increased from $.62/gallon to $.79/gallon. Granite's request was for an increase of $14,781. Based on 28,077 gallons used, the increase for diesel fuel would be $4,773. 3. Labor increases - This project is bid at prevailing wage rates. Prevailing wage rates have increased during the 18 month delay period. Granite's original request was for an increase of $24,091. Based on estimates of total labor hours required, Granite Construction Company is due an increase in labor of $14,750. 4. Increase in dump fees - It is extremely difficult to estimate the amount of debris that the project will generate. The contractor will be recycling selective materials (asphalt, concrete, vegetation), which complicates and makes difficult the task of determining how much of the debris will be required to go to the landfill. Granite requested the increase on 54 loads, or 972 tons at $15.00 per ton. Staff was unable to determine how many loads Granite projected in their original bid, but believed the actual tonnage that will need to be disposed of in the landfill is more realistically in the neighborhood of 400 to 500 tons. Therefore, staff negotiated with Granite and got them to agree to look harder at recycling and to accept the increase on 450 tons. Staff also documented that the actual increase was $18.00 per ton. Therefore, staff is recommending that the City pay an increase of $15.00 per ton on 450 tons of material for an increase of $6,750. Any future increases in dump fees during the duration of the project are the contractor's responsibility. 5. Select sub-base material. The original bid price was $4.00/ton. The new increased price is $4. 99/ton. Because material on site (asphalt grinding and sand) is suitable for use as sub-base, the actual quantity of new material needed is unknown. Staff determined that the requested cost increase was supported by our current purchases. The City will pay $4.99/ton for new material required for the project. The total increase in materials and labor for Granite construction equals $27,599.00. Total increases to the contract for Change Order No. I is $87,245.00. This amount does not include increases that will result from the one time and material change. Attached as background information is Granite's original request for additional compensation (letter date November 22, 1993). Requests for increases not listed above were denied. Staff has negotiated what it believes is a fair increase for materials and labor changes since the time the project was bid. During this same time frame, the Engineering News Record construction cost index has increased 7.3 percent. The percent increase in the contract for this change order is approximately 2.2 percent. The recommended increases reflect the increases in the industry to lumber 1..1";1 "'-'--"----" .-."-..-.-,--. ---~----------- '- Page 4, Item 1.2.. Meeting Date ;;~)7i products (animal shelter), in Portland Cement, in steel mill products (fencing material), and prevailing wage rates. In order to simplify the changing of bid items and original bid prices, the change order was negotiated as a lump sum change. All bid quantities and all bid prices will remain the same with the exception of select sub-base material which will be handled as a separate item. Granite Construction will be compensated for the increases based on the $87,245.00 amount. The second lowest bidder at the original bid time of June 1992 was approximately $122,000.00 in excess of Granite Construction Company's bid. We, therefore, request Council's approval of this change order totalling $87,245.00. It should be noted that there are sufficient funds in the contingency balance of the project to cover these expenses. FISCAL IMP ACT: The estimated total cost of the Otay Valley Road project (Phases I and II) is $12,403,616. Prior contributions to this project total $5,465,703 plus $422,500 for the Darling Delaware properties. The balance offunds needed, $6,515,413, will be obtained from bond proceeds and cash payments. An outline of funding sources is presented in Table I. I TABLE 1 I RDA 996-9960 ST-123, 123A, OVOOl, RD205 $1,765,167(4) RDA 996-9960 ST-123 (slopes/improvements) 775,807 RDA 996-9960 ST-123, 994 (litigation) 172,836 Assessment No. 7 19,367 RDA TF-220 89,300 TSF TF-220, TF-208 100,000(4) Sewer Fund 222 1,161.000(2) SDG&E 20A 320,000(3) SDG&E 20A Oleander to Nirvana 642,226(3) Sewer Fund 222 420,000(1) Subtotal $5,465,703(5) Assessment District Cash & Bond Proceeds 6,515,413 City Advance for Series C Bonds 422,500 TOTAL $12,403,616 (1) This is a previously approved loan to the district which is to be repaid from future Transportation DlF for Otay Ranch area. (2) This is a previously approved loan to the district to be reimbursed by SB- 300 funds upon completion of construction. (3) Estimated cost of SDG&E work equals estimated allocation of 20A funds available for project from SDG&E. (4) Amounts include money already encumbered for the project. (5) Approved by Resolutions 16706, 16725, and 16886. An outline of costs is shown in Table 2. /.2',/ -- "----.- ". _..._.m_..._._,.____· _ __'__~'.._____.__. .,.___..____,_~..__,.__.__.__._._ Page 5, Item JJ... Meeting Date~ 3/ð"1,/ Table 2 Phase 1 Contract $4,319,428.00 Contract Change Order # I 87,245.00 Subtotal $4,399,923.00 Construction project Management (Leedshill) 64,500.00 InspectionlMaterial Testing Phase 1 200,000.00 Phase 2 150,000.00 Traffic Signal at 1-805 289,300.00 Undergrounding 832,226.00 Phase 2 Construction Estimate 2,777,140.00 Right of Way 1,550,466.00 Design 1,177,417.00 Incidentals 858,982.25 Contingency 96,911.75 TOTAL $12,403,616.00 The City will advance a maximum of $422,500 from Fund 996-9960-STl23 (RDA) to cover the Series C bonds. The Series C bonds are to cover the Rio Otay Subdivision (Darling Delaware properties. These bonds will be issued when the site is cleared of the environmental concerns. This money will be recovered if these bonds are issued. Assessment No.7 is the animal shelter property (City property). Staff recommended that this be paid off during the cash collection period at a cost of $19,367. This will come from Fund 996-9960-STl23 (RDA) and is included in Table I above. The City has obligated approximately $671,357 of General Fund money to cure any deficiency or delinquency which may occur in the Redemption Fund by failure of property owners to pay annual assessments. This is a Limited City Pledge. Funds so advanced shall be reimbursed to the City from payments of delinquent assessments and/or the proceeds of the redemption or sale of the parcel or parcels for which payment of delinquent assessment installments was made from City funds. DCD:AO-060 f\engineer\agenda\changord. ovr 022294 /02"5' //Z - 6 - - ~-- ---.- ----.------- - --- -------.-.-----"----..--.--..--------.-----. RESOLUTION NO. 17'1¿>!f' RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING A CHANGE ORDER WITH GRANITE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY FOR MATERIAL COST INCREASES FOR THE OTAY VALLEY ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 90-2 WHEREAS, on June 30, 1992, Council awarded the construction contract for the Otay Valley Road improvements from I- 805 to 1,200 feet east of Nirvana to Granite Construction Company; and, WHEREAS, since the award, the project has been delayed by several problems, namely a lawsuit filed by the property owners, difficulties in selling the bonds for the project, and the discovery of contaminated soil in the fish and game mitigation area which problems have resulted in the project being delayed approximately 18 months; and, WHEREAS, during this time, several of Granite's subcontractors have gone out of business and material prices have increased for construction materials on the project; and, WHEREAS, the original bid price on the sub-base material was $4.00/ton, however, the new increased price is $4.99/ton and the actual quantity of material needed is unknown at this time, but staff is requesting a change order on a time and materials basis; and, WHEREAS, to facilitate the project's construction, staff requests that Council approve a change order for the construction of the Otay Valley Road Project in the amount of $87,245.00 as well as authorization on a time and materials basis, the cost of which has not yet been approved, for the sub-base; and, WHEREAS, it will be necessary to amend the contract with the design consultant for services in connection with the construction. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Chula vista does hereby approve Change Order No. 1 in the amount of $87,245.00, as well as authorization on a time and materials basis for the purchase of sub-base materials, with Granite Construction Company for material cost increases for the Otay Valley Road Improvement Project, Assessment District No. 90-2. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Director of Public Works is hereby authorized to execute Change Order No. 1 on behalf of the City. Presented by AP~~d~. t John P. Lippitt, Director of ! Bruce M. Boogaa d, City Public. Works I 't _7 Attorney C:\rs\gran~te ~... J' ~ __ ~ ._..._....___.____+_.~_ ___··__'__·___·_~u_._ I GRAI1ITE mnSTRucnon November 22, 1993 mmPRny S¡~ City Of Chu1a Vista 278 Fourth Avenue Chu1a Vista, Ca. 92010 . Attn: Dennis Davies, Civil Engineer Re: Subcontractor, Materials, and Labor Increases for the City Chula Vista, Otay Valley Road Project. Phase 1. Gentlemen: Enclosed please find the information on the Increases for the above mentioned Otay Valley Road Project. They are arranged by category so that they might be analyzed easily. If you have questions concerning any of the information please call our office. This letter supersedes all other letters for subcontractor, labor, and material increases. SUBCONTRACTOR INCREASES: 1) Cobra Engineering: $16,682.98 2) Valley Crest Landscape and Irrigation: $41.545.10 3) Steiny Electrical Company Inc.: $12.073.93 4) Goldenwest Fence Co.: $ 5,908.78 5) American Concrete Co.: $15,730.20 6) progressive Concrete Co.: $ 6,264.55 7) A.M. Ortega: $ 5.958.14 8) "'Animal Shelter: $25,844.95 9) "'Masonry Wall: S43.296.40 '" substituted original subcontractor due to bankruptcy TOTAL SUBCONTRACTOR INCREASES . $ 173,305.03 San Diego Bronch P.O. Box 232406 San Diego, CA 92193 Phone 619/46<1-8995 /.2 - i FAX 619/464-6725 u._ ....~ .___.__~._ __. .. _. .._...._ __ ___._._u -_._----_.'.. OTAY VALLEY ROAD, PHASE 1 LABOR INCREASES\FUEL PRICE INCREASES GRANITE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY . This represents all increases for Laborers, Operating Engineers, and Teamsters for Granite Construction (please see . attached. ) TOTAL LABOR INCREASE: $ 24,091,32 Please see attached for all fuel price increases for equipment. TOTAL FUEL PRICE INCREASES: $ 14,781.22 GRAND TOTAL FOR BOTH LABOR/FUEL COST INCREASES· $ 38,943.04 /.2'/{) --_._----~._....._-- -- , MATERIALS. INCREASES: 1) Dump Fees Increases: Dump fee increase: There is 54 Loads of debris that will have a disposal fee increase. 54 loads at 18 tons load .. 972 tons' $ 15.00 per ton increase .. $ 14,580.00 , 2) PMB Agg Base: Bid Qty 27,000 Tons Material Original Bid Price was $ 5.89 Ton .. $ 162,564.00 New price increase is $ 6.07 Ton .. i 163.890.00 Total increase .. $ 1.326.00 3) Select Sub-base Material: 23,325 tons Materials Original Bid Price was $ 4.00 Ton .. $ 93,300.00 New price increase is $ 4.99 Ton .. ~ 116.392.00 Total Increase .. $ 23,092.00 4) Import Borrow: 30.000 tons Materials: Original Bid Price was $ 2.55 Ton .. $ 76,500.00 New price increase is $ 2.75 Ton .. ~ 82.500.00 Total Increase .. $ 6,000.00 TOTAL MATERIALS INCREASE .. $ 44,998.00 j:l'I/ , ~----"- --"------ -- - ------~------ ---.,---..--- _.,_._,_._..,.._-~-----~-,_.,...~,. .----.----.- - SUMMARY OP ADDITIONAL COSTS SUBCONTRACTOR: $173,305.03 , MATERIALS: $ 44,998.00 FUEL AND LABOR: £ 38.943.04 TOTAL COST $257.246.07 STIPULATIONS: 1) Granite Construction Company at this time would like to also add a subcontractor to this contract for the Earthwork operations. This is due to the length of time it took to get a contract for this project, and now the Earth moving equipment that was available to do the work has been moved and is being used on another project now under construction. 2) Granite proposes that any additional erosion control, winter maintenance and reconstruction (not covered by the original contact) caused by winter rains and runoff be paid for on a time and materials basis. Thank you in advance for this opportunity to negotiate this change order for such an important project. We look forward to your issuance of the contract and change orders at your earliest convenience. Sincerely iwt Kurt Kniffin Assistant Branch Manager DC/dw pc:file )). .. /~ ._-~ . ,.---- --.-'. _____., 0"._-.--."'.-.-.-.----.-..--.--..------.-----.--..--._.__________.. COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item 1;1 Meeting Date 03/08/94 ITEM TITLE: Report: Proposed Funding Alternatives for Parks Implementation Plan Work Program Resolution 17J/t/1 Re-Appropriating $26,250 in PAD funds from PR-l64 (Parks Implementation Plan) to PR-185 (Parkland Acquisition) and Adopting Negative Declaration IS-93-21 ~ SUBMITTED BY: Director of Parks and ~li Director of Planning REVIEWED BY: City Manager ~ \'51, (4/5ths Vote: Yes Å No -.J (.' On November 2, 1993, at Council's direction, staff presented a report describing how the Parks Implementation Plan (PIP) would be conducted by in-house staff. The PIP will serve to implement provisions of the City's General Plan Park and Recreation Element, which call for preparation of a 10ng- range (20 year) master plan to include programs for upgrading, expanding or replacing older parks and recreation facilities in western Chula Vista, and for installation of new facilities in accordance with adopted standards. The Council expressed concerns that $75,000 in Park Acquisition and Development (PAD) funds would be used to reimburse the project. In particular, Council requested that staff investigate any sources of alternative funding for the PIP; which could result in re-allocating PAD funds to the CIP project for land acquisition. This report discusses the availability of alternative funding for the PIP, and proposes a funding apportionment plan for the PAD funds currently appropriated to this study. RECOMMENDATION: That the Council: 1. Approve the report regarding the proposed funding for the staff time to conduct the Parks Implementation Plan Work Program, at a cost not to exceed $48,750; and 2. Approve the Resolution to re-appropriate $26,250 from PR-l64 (Parks Implementation Plan) to PR-185 (Parkland Acquisition); and 3. Adopt Negative Declaration IS-93-21 (Attachment A). BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: On March 22, 1993, the Resource Conservation Commission recommended that the Negative Declaration for the Parks Implementation Plan be adopted (Minutes are Attachment B). On September 16, 1993, the Parks and Recreation Commission unanimously supported the proposed Parks Implementation Plan Work Program, including the use of a professional research firm to perform the Needs Assessment Survey in the community. (Attachment C) [A-113 -pip-3.AI3] 13-/ -._._,~--------~._--,._~--_.__. Page 2, Item I:J Meeting Date 03/08/94 On March 11, 1993, the Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC) discussed the Parks Implementation Plan as part of the Parks and Recreation Department's Annual Report to the GMOC. The GMOC's 1992 Annual Report subsequently contains a recommendation to Council stressing the PIP's timely completion. Council adopted the GMOC's report on July 20, 1993. (Attachment D) Both the Chula Vista 2000 Committee and the CV21 Committee supported a Parks Master Plan in their final reports to the City Council. (Attachment E) DISCUSSION: In October, 1992, the Department issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) in order to obtain a qualified consultant to provide services to develop a Parks Implementation Plan for the western area of Chula Vista. The Parks Implementation Plan will address such issues as: - Possible ways to decrease the City's park acreage deficiencies (specifically in Western Chula Vista), including an analysis of ways to formulate a park equivalency factor; i.e., use of recreation structures, or joint use of schools, as credit in the 3 acres/I,OOO residents standard, as a means to mitigate the park deficiency; and - Identification of potential acquisition sites for parks and recreation facilities in Western Chula Vista, and related fiscal strategies. However, when the contract for the consultant was considered at the February 23, 1993 Council meeting, the City Council directed staff to come back at a future date to present a proposal to perform the Parks Implementation Plan in-house (Attachment F). On November 2, 1993, staff returned back to Council with a Proposed Work Program for the Parks Implementation Plan (PIP) (See Attachment G). It was envisioned that the Work Program, including a proposed Needs Assessment Survey, would be performed by City staff from the Parks and Recreation Department and the Planning Department. Other staff assistance during various phases of the project would come from the Community Development Department, the Engineering Division, and the Building and Housing Department. Although Council expressed concern for the use of PAD funds, they did not rule out the use of these funds for this study. Council then directed staff to review other funding alternatives. The current PAD allocation of $75,000 for the PIP was scheduled to be used to reimburse staff time. The number of staff hours was estimated to be divided in the following fashion: 600 hours for the Planning Department and 1,000 hours for the Parks and Recreation Department. The Planning Department, in preparing their FY 93/94 budget, proposed use of the PAD funds allocated for the PIP (and other planning projects), as a method to reduce their Department's dependence on the General Fund, and perform advance planning tasks in-house. Staff has met with other Departments to evaluate the availability of alternative revenue sources for the PIP. In reviewing current CIP projects, the City is faced with limitations on funding which can legally [A-1I3 -pîp.-3.A13) /).-,2. ---.~ --.- - -- --..__.__._------,,_._-_.._------~...~._~- Page 3, Item 1:1 Meeting Date 03/08/94 be used for park projects. Gas Tax, Sewer funds, Drainage funds, etc., cannot be used for park projects. The remaining available funding sources have the following limitations: 1. Projects funded with Parks Acquisition and Development funds, could, under existing Council policy, have excess funds allocated to the Parkland Acquisition project, or returned to the unappropriated balance to be utilized for other parks and recreation CIP projects. At the present time, all available PAD funds have been appropriated to CIP projects, which are in the design phase, out-to-bid, or under construction. Delaying or cancelling these projects could cause undue financial or legal hardships on the City. With the guidance that excess PAD funds should be placed in land acquisition, staff does not believe it would be consistent with this intent to delay any existing PAD projects for the PIP. 2. Federal regulations concerning Community Development Block Grant funds specify that if any amount of CDBG funds are allocated to a project, the entire project must meet the conditions for a low/moderate housing/income project. In this case, the PIP, while concentrating on western Chula Vista, considers and evaluates aspects of the entire City for planning purposes. As such, the PIP is not concentrated in one area to be CDBG-eligible. Staff has diligently reviewed and researched potential funding sources which can be used for this park project. Based on staff's analysis, the options for alternative funds do not exist. However, staff is offering, for Council consideration, two alternatives for funding the PIP. Alternatives: ODtion 1: [Staff's Recommended Option] The PAD funds ($75,000) appropriated to the Parks Implementation Plan (PR-l64), would be partially re-allocated in the following fashion: 65% of the $75,000, or $48,750, would remain in the project, to support $38,750 for staff reimbursements for Planning Department staff working on the PIP and $10,000 for a professional research firm to perform the Needs Assessment Survey and 35 % of the $75,000, or $26,250, would be re-appropriated to Parkland Acquisition (PR-185). Staff recommends this option in order to retain some funds to defray Planning Department's staff expenses. Under this option, Parks and Recreation Department staff would work on the project as part of their regularly assigned work tasks. The Parks and Recreation Department budget would absorb costs associated with the project. The Planning Department would reimburse their budget up to $38,750, and $10,000 would be utilized for the professional needs assessment survey. Justification for Use of Professional Research Firm for Resident Household Survey Ten thousand dollars is requested to finance a Parks and Recreation needs assessment. However, it is staff's belief that the resident household telephone survey, and its resultant data analysis and report preparation, is a technical skill that is not available within staffs expertise. Preparation of such a statistical survey is labor intensive. Staff also lacks the resources and expertise to prepare valid survey questions, set-up measurement parameters, train the appropriate survey staff; and tabulate data without [A-II3 - pip-3.AI3] J:J~J --~-~._-_.._- -'-""-'-'-'--"-"'-'-"~"-'--"-'--'-"-~~---'-"'-----.--.----..--." Page 4, Item n Meeting Date 03/08/94 the use of research-specific computer programs. Staffs recommendation is to utilize the professional research firm for the basic survey work which would include the creation of a survey instrument; the trained telephone team, and a report depicting the results of the survey (the report will include a parks and recreation demand analysis; an estimate of existing parks and recreation facility demand; and a forecast of future parks and recreation facility demands to the year 2015]. The Management Services Division, the City's research and policy analysis component, has in the past, when surveys were required, utilized outside professional expertise. For one such survey, the City contracted with SANDAG, who also utilized an outside professional research firm to perform telephone survey work. Therefore, it is staff's recommendation that the survey component of the Parks Implementation Plan be performed by a professional research firm in order to obtain valid results. Option 2: The PAD funds ($75,000) appropriated to the Parks Implementation Plan (PR-I64), would be: (a) $65,000 re-appropriated to Parkland Acquisition (PR-185). Both the Parks and Recreation and Planning Departments would pursue the Parks Implementation Plan Work Program utilizing existing in-house staff and General Fund resources. At the March 1, 1994 Council meeting, the Planning Department presented their Departmental Work Program to Council. The Planning Department's report identified projects which are both General Fund and non-General Fund supported. If a portion of the Planning Department staff work is not charged to PAD funds, then there would be a corresponding increase in General Fund support required for the Advance Planning program. This could either be determined to be acceptable, or staff could be directed to identify other General Fund-supported activities in the Advance Planning program that should be reduced or delayed. (b) $10,000 retained for the needs assessment survey. SUMMARY: It is in the City's interest, for long-term planning for parks and recreation facilities, to achieve a Parks Implementation Plan. While decisions still need to be made regarding the funding of the PIP, staff has commenced the project by designing a Work Program, assembled a project team from several City departments, and is gathering data from internal sources to utilize in the plan. City staff continues to be available to perform the Work Program in-house. Budget constraints are necessitating the continued use of PAD funds to partially support staff working, in the Planning Department, on the Parks Implementation Plan project. It is also in the City's best interest to continue to accumulate funds for future park acquisition, especially in western Chula Vista. Staff's recommendation for a 65%/35% re-allocation of PAD funds will enhance the funding for parkland acquisition, and support the work of the Planning Department. In addition, PAD funds would be used to ensure a professional research needs assessment survey which will compile data from which the interest and demands of the community will be considered in the Parks implementation Plan. [A-H3 ~ pip-3.A13] / J.-L( -.- Page 5, Item J:3 Meeting Date 03/08/94 FISCAL IMPACT: Both the adopted FY 93/94 operating budget and the FY 93/94 CIP provide for the use of $75,000 in PAD funds to support preparation of the Parks Implementation Plan (PR-164). The adoption of either Option #1 or Option #2 would change the funding for both budgets. Under Option 1, $26,250 in PAD funds, currently appropriated in the Parks Implementation Plan (PR- 164), would be re-appropriated to Parkland Acquisition (PR-185), augmenting the land acquisition set aside from $750,000 to $776,250. It would, however, reduce support for General Fund operations by $26,250. Under Option 2, $65,000 in PAD funds, currently appropriated the Parks Implementation Plan (PR-I64), would be re-appropriated to Parkland Acquisition (PR-185), augmenting the land acquisition set aside from $750,000 to $815,000. It would, however, reduce support for General Fund operations by $65,000. Attachment: nA" _ Negative Declaration - 15-93-21 liB" _ Resource Conservation Commission Minutes NOT SCANNE.r» lie" _ Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting Minutes of September 16, 1993 liD" _ Council Minutes of July 20, 1993 considering the Growth Management O~sight Commission Report Minutes of March 11, 1993 ~. "E" - Excerpts from the Chula Vista and CV21 Committee Report to iI lip" _ Council Minutes from February 23, 1993 ..~ "G"- Council Report of November 2, 1993 and Minutes ~~ [A-l13 -pip-3.AI3] 13,..Ç . - _.._,_..._,_..,------_._._-----_.__._"_._-,------~--_.----- RESOLUTION NO. 17'1', RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA RE-APPROPRIATING $26,250 IN PAD FUNDS FROM PR-164 (PARKS IMPLEMENTATION PLAN) TO PR-185 (PARKLAND ACQUISITION) AND ADOPTING NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1S-93-21) WHEREAS, on November 2, 1993, staff presented a report regarding the activation of a Parks Implementation Plan (PIP) utilizing in-house staff; and WHEREAS, Parks Acquisition and Development (PAD) funds had been approved, for the FY 92/93 CIP program, in the amount of $75,000, for use in connection with the implementation of the PIP; and WHEREAS, Council, while approving the Work Program for performance of the PIP in-house, expressed concerns that PAD funds would be used to reimburse the project; and WHEREAS, Council requested that staff investigate any sources of alternative funding for the PIP; which could result in re-allocating PAD funds to the CIP project for land acquisition; and WHEREAS, staff recommends that the PAD funds ($75,000) appropriated to PR-164, Parks Implementation Plan, be reallocated with 65% of the $75,000, or $48,750 remaining in the project to support two functions: (1) $38,750 for staff reimbursements for Planning Department staff working on the PIP; and (2) $10,000 for a professional research firm to perform the Needs Assessment Survey; and WHEREAS, 35% of the $75,000, or $26,250, would be reappropriated to PR-185, Parkland Acquisition Fund. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby adopt Negative Declaration 15- 93-21- BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the city Council does hereby re-appropriate $26,250 in PAD funds from PR-164 (Par Implemen- tation Plan) to PR-185 (Parkland Acquis' . on). Presented by alt /, ~ ¡Bruce M. Boogaar , ~ Jess Valenzuela, Director of Parks and Recreation Attorney C:\n\pip.pad /J"~ -----",- ----,--."-~-,---,_.._----.._...__._. --- - Attachment A negative declaration PROJECT NAME: Parks Implementation Plan PROJECT LOCATION: Western Chula Vista ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. N/A PROJECT APPLICANT: City of Chula Vista Parks and Recreation Department CASE NO: IS-93-21 DATE: February 2, 1993 A. Proiect ~etting The proposed project covers the western Chula Vista area, which is bounded by the San Diego Bay to the west, the City of National City to the north, Interstate 805 to the east, and the city boundary with the City of San Diego.to the south. (See Figure I for park locations). The proposed project excludes the portion of the city east of Interstate 805. However, part of the Parks Implementation Plan will be to take into consideration not only a Parks Implementation Plan for the area west of 1-805, but to correlate the Plan with development east of 1-805. A major component of the park planning system for the western area of Chula Vista is designed around the Chula Vista Greenbelt. B. Project Description . The Parks Implementation Plan will consist of two phases. Phase I will be an assessment of needs based upon a review of the existing parks and recreation system including community service programs, open space areas, schools, and private recreation facilities in planned residential development and apartment complexes. Potential deficiencies in existing facilities will be identified, and a demand analysis for future facilities will be performed. Phase I will also review the existing Parks and Recreation, Open Space Conservation, and Land Use Elements of the City's General Plan, and establish criteria and guidelines standards for parks and recreational facilities. . Phase II of the Plan will be an Action Plan involving recommendations on goals and policies for the development of a plan for the Parks and Recreation Department's Capital Improvement Program, and establishing guidelines and criteria for the implementation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. C. Compatibility with Zoninl! and Plans Objective One of the City's Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan is to , 1.3-7 ~{ft.. -.- ~......~~ . city of chula ylsta planning department ~~~"':'j OJY Of enYlronmental reylew aeetlon _ CHULA VISTA ~'.'--'- -_._.__._._~"~._----,._-_.._._-". "Prepare or update the master plan of older existing parks. This should include programs for upgrading, replacing or expanding older facilities on the west side of Chula Vista and, where possible, installing new facilities in accordance with applying the park standards to the local community." The proposed Parks Implementation Plan is designed in part to implement this objective of the General Plan. The project will not impact or alter any of the zoning designations of the city. If the Parks Implementation Plan recommends rezones on specific parcels of land to increase park land acreage lI:ithin the City, further environmental review on those discretionary actions will be required. D. Compliance with the Threshold Standards 1. Fire/EMS The Threshold Standards require that fire and medical units must be able to respond to calls within 7 minutes or less in 85 % of the cases and within 5 minutes or less in 75 % of the cases. This Standard applies to specific sites, therefore it is not applicable to the proposed Parks Implementation Plan. The City of Chula Vista Fire Department has indicated that the project will not result in a need to increase fire equipment or personnel. Requirements from the Fire Department will be submitted if buildings are constructed in association with the project. 2. Police The Threshold Standards require that police units must respond to 84 % of Priority 1 calls within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority 1 calls of 4.5 minutes or less. Police units must respond to 62.10% of Priority 2 calls within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority 2 calls of 7 minutes or less. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard, since the Parks Implementation Plan will have no effect on Police services. 3. Traffic The Threshold Standards require that all intersections must operate at a Level of Service (LOS) "C" or better, with the exception that Level of Service (LOS) "D" may occur during the peak two hours of the day at signalized intersections. Intersections west of 1-805 are not to operate at a LOS below their 1987 LOS. No intersection may reach LOS "E" or "F" during the average weekday peak hour. Intersections of arterials with freeway ramps are exempted from this Standard. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard, since the Parks Implementation Plan will not have an impact on traffic or circulation. Individual park construction will require additional environmental review to 2 11...7 -- ----.._~- ___~~..~.·m__.'___..__ _. _ ____~,_.______.______ ensure that impacts to traffic are nqt significant. 4. Parks/Recreation The Threshold Standard for Parks and Recreation is 3 acres/l,OOO population. The proposed Parks Implementation Plan involves reviewing existing park and recreation facilities, and identifying potential deficiencies in relation to this Standard. The project will also complete a demand analysis for parks and recreation facilities, project future needs, and establish criteria and guideline standards for these facilities, thereby implementing the Standards. 5. Drainage The Threshold Standards require that storm water flows and volumes not exceed City Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary improvements consistent with the Drainage Master Plan(s) and City Engineering Standards. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard. The proposed Parks Implementation Plan will not adversely impact drainage systems or capacity. Individual projects must meet drainage standards as required by the City Engineering Division. 6. Sewer The Threshold Standards require that sewage flows and volumes not exceed City Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary improvements consistent with Sewer Master Plan(s) and City Engineering Standards. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard, since the Parks Implementation Plan will not have an impact on sewer flow or volume. 7. Water The Threshold Standards require that adequate storage, treatment, and transmission facilities are constructed concurrently with planned growth and that water quality standards are not jeopardized during growth and construction. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard, with compliance to the requirements of the Sweetwater Authority. Because Southern California is in its 6th consecutive critically dry year, the County Water Authority is recommending a voluntary 10% reduction in water consumption for new development through the use of low flow fixtures and drought-tolerant landscaping. Applicants may also be required to participate in whatever water conservation or fee off-set program the City of Chula Vista has 3 13 -9 -_.~,-_._.__... - .-.-.....-.-.-.......-.-,- ...-.-..--- in effect at the time of building permit issuance. E. Identification of Environmental Effects An initial study conducted by the City of Chula Vista determined that the proposed project will not have a significant environmental effect, and the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report will not be required. A Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with Section 15070 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The following impacts have been determined to be less than significant. A discussion of each of these less than significant impacts from the proposed project follows. Public Facilities and Services The proposed Parks Implementation Plan has been scheduled as a Capital Improvement Project (CIP). The Plan will provide a fiscal and implementation analysis whereby recommendations will be made for a park acquisition and development priority plan. This plan will include cost estimates for acquisition, development, maintenance and identification of funding alternatives. The City of Chula Vista will be maintaining the park acreage and water supply to ensure the upkeep of these facilities. The project could have a positive impact on public facilities and services by increasing the number of parks and recreation facilities available to City residents. Noise , The proposed Parks Implementation Plan will not in itself have an impact on noise levels in the City. If the Parks Implementation Plan recommends the construction of particular parks or recreation facilities, noise from these facilities could potentially impact surrounding residents. At the time specific park or recreational facilities are proposed, projects will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis to determine if further environmental analysis is required to ensure that noise impacts are not significant. Therefore, noise impacts from the proposed Parks Implementation Plan are found to be less than significant. F. Miti&ation necessary to avoid si!!nificant effects The proposed project is not associated with any significant or potentially significant environmental impacts, therefore, no project specific mitigation will be required. G. Findings of Insi!!nificant ImDact Based on the following findings, it is determined that the project described above will not 4 /3- 10 ______'.______ ______.__ _~__~__·_.__H._·..·___ -".._,,-------------_. ---.--. -- have a significant environmental impact and no environmental impact report needs to be prepared. 1. The project has the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a nsh or wildlife species, cause a nsh or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminpte important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. The proposed project does not have the potential to significantly impact the quality of the natural environment. A major component of the park planning system for the western area of Chula Vista is designed around the Chula Vista Greenbelt, which could enhance the quality of the Greenbelt. Specific park projects recommended by the Parks Implementation Plan will be subject to further environmental review to assess potential impacts. 2. The project has the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals. The Parks Implementation Plan will not achieve short-term environmental goals at the expense of long-term goals. The project is in compliance with the City's General Plan and zoning. The Parks Implementation Plan will enhance recreational opportunities within the City and chart long-term requirements for parks and recreation facilities. 3. The project has possible effects which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. As used in the subsection, "cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects. The Parks Implementation Plan will not have a cumulative or growth-inducing impact. The Plan will identify potential deficiencies in existing parks and recreational facilities and project the future recreational needs of the City. The Plan will include recommendations .of goals and policies that will guide the City in the orderly development, renovation, and improvements to parks and recreational facilities. 4. The environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. The proposed Parks Implementation Plan does not have the potential to adversely 5 /3 -1/ - -.-...- 'm__.'.____ '__m__.'.___ --,-_.._._---_._-~.---.--_._- impact human health. The project could have beneficial impacts on humans by implementing the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, which will insure that all individuals have access to parks and recreational facilities. Noise impacts were determined to be less than significant. No other potential impacts to humans or human health were identified in the Initial Study. H. Consultation 1. Individuals and Orl!anizations City of Chula Vista: Diana Lilly, Planning Roger Daoust, Engineering John Lippitt, Engineering Cliff Swanson, Engineering Hal Rosenberg, Engineering Bob Sennett, Planning Ken Larsen, Building and Housing Carol Gove, Fire Marshal Captain Keith. Hawkins, Police Dept. Martin Schmidt, Parks and Recreation Chula Vista City School District: Kate Shurson Sweetwater Union High School District: Tom Silva Applicant's Agent: Nancy Woods, City of Chula Vista Parks and Recreation 2. Documents General Plan, City of Chula Vista Title 19, Chula Vista MuniciDaI Code 3. Initial Study This environmental determination is based on the attached Initial Study, any comments received on the Initial Study and any comments received during the public review period for the Negative Declaration. Further information regarding the environmental review of this. project is available from the Chula Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 92010. h~ð ð-.-~ Q, ì~t~ ENVIR NMENTAL REVIEW COORDINATOR 6 I:],;' /~ --.-- -_.-- _ -.- --..--.,..-.---,.----,.."--.------ ----~_._--~- --~._.__..~_. CITY PARKS Figure 1 ,.. I Nei~hborhood Parks ( con't. ) '. . COMMUNITY PARKS 1 Diooowry Park 400 B...... Villi Way 18 Chnøe Ave. ñelds 160 E. CranS" Ave. 2 Eucalyptus Park 4th Ave." 'C St. 19 OtayPark 1613 Albo'ìj,.¡Ave. 3 T _ Marina Boyoide Pukwoy 20 Palomar Park 13S0Park ve . Gres Rogers Park 1101 Oleander Ave. 21 Pueo Del Roy Park 750 Pueo Del Rey 5 IIl>hr Park 45C8 Sweetwalor Rd. 22 Ranåto Del Roy Park 1311 Buena Villi Way 23 Jt.eiJsno BoD FieIda 1500 Max Ave. NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS 24 SÐG " E Puk 1450 HUllop Drive 25 Sunbow Park 500 E. NaP. St. 6 Boy Blvd. Park 'F St." Boy Blvd. 26 SunricIp Park E. T5I. 7 BonIta Long CAnyon Park Carra! CAnyon Rd. 'D Tern No.. Park 450 Hidden Villi Dr. ¡¡ FriendllUp Park 4th Ave. " 'F St. 28 1lffony Park 1713 Ebnhunt Ave. 9 HaI_ Park 4t5Eut 1'St. 29 VaDe LIndo Puk 515 5ec¡ucia Dr. to HUllop Park 780 HUltop Drive 11 Independence Park 1248 cane Santi.ago MINI PARKS 4t TOT-LOTS 12 lAuderbodl Park mOxford St. 13 LøIna Verde Park 1420 LøIna lADe 30 ConncIey Park 1561 COMa/or Circle t4 Loa Nine» Park 150 Teal St. 31 HolidAy Estalell COMa/or Circle t5 MariN View Park 800 Marina Parkway 32 HolidAy Ealalel D COMa/or Circle t6 M....oriIl Park 38S Park Way 33 IAncerlol 750 'K' 51. 17 Norman Park 27U 'F SL 34 Sllenvood Puk 69 Sberwood St.~ ~ ft... :~-~ ~~.........~ --- --- PARK LOCATIONS Cll" Of CHULA VISTA :JJ ',n WI.uel San Diego Mountai". , -- Sa,. Yaklr. OIay ".unlll"l ).3",,3 - ...~,._---_._~~_...__._-_..~---_...- --- ------,----~--_.~-~~-_._------ Case No. IS-93-21 . CITY DATA P. PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1. Current Zoning on Site: Proiect covers western Chula Vista North n/a South n/a East n/a West n/a Does the project conform to the current zoning? n/a 2. General Plan land use designation on site: Proiect covers western Chula Vista North n/a South n/a East n/a West n/a Is the project compatible with the General Plan Land Use Diagram? n/a Is the project area designated for conservation or open space or adjacent to an area so designated? Yes. parks and the Chula Vista Greenbelt Is the project located adjacent to any scenic routes? Potentially (If yes, describe the design techniques being used to protect or enhance the scenic quality of the route.) Park facilities located adjacent to scenic routes may enhance the aesthetic Quality of the route 3. Schools If the proposed project is residential, please complete the following: Students Permanent Temporary Current Generated School Capacity Ca.pacity Enrollment Prom Proiect Elementary Junior High N/A Senior High 4. Remarks: ---.Jî t· )1uUt l J-IJ-I ~!J Director of Planning or Representative Date' 7 J J ,/'/ m_ __________'·'.m "'_-_"'_~-_.._-_._._.__.,,----_."---_._._--,.,_..,-_..,-.---.-....-,,--. APPENDIX I ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM (To Be Completed By Lead Agency) Background 1. Name of Proponent: Citv of Chula Vista Parks and Recreation Deoartment 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista 691-5071 3. Date of Checklist: Februarv 2. 1993 4. Name of Proposal: Parks Imolementation Plan 5. Initial Study Number: IS-93-21 Environmental Impacts YES MAYBE NQ 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or changes in geologic substructures? 0 0 ~ b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? 0 0 II c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? 0 0 II d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? 0 0 II e. Any increase in wind or water 'erosion of soils, either on or off the site? 0 0 II f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? 0 0 . g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes. landslides. mud slides, ground failure, or similar hazards? 0 0 II Comments: The proposed Parks Implementation Plan will not have an adverse effect on soils or geological conditions since it consists mainly of studies of existing park facilities and recommendations for future facilities. Therefore, at this time, the Engineering Division does not require any geotechnical reports be performed. 8 /,1- /S./ -- .----.-_.- __'__._.._ _n.._'_____"'_~_.______.~ _ _"__ When actual construction of park or recreation facilities are proposed, further environmental review will be required to ensure geotechnical impacts are less than significant, and all recommendations of the City Engineering Department must be adhered to. 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: YES MAYBE riQ a. Substantial air pmissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? 0 0 I!!I b, The creation of objectionable odors? 0 0 III c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? 0 0 III Comments: Deterioration of regional air quality would not result from the Parks Implementation Plan. No air emissions would result from implementation of the Plan. A positive impact on air quality could result from the creation of new parks and landscaping. 3. Water. Will the Proposal result in: YES MAYBE !iQ a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? 0 0 III : b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? 0 0 I!iI c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? 0 0 11II d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? 0 0 II!! e. Discharge into surface waters, or any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? 0 0 ø f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? 0 0 51 g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer 9 I}' I' - - ---..---------- ...-- - ----_.._---.----~_.-.._----_._-_._--- ~--~--- by cuts or excavations? 0 0 IiiI h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? 0 0 II i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? 0 0 J8 Comments: The proposed Parks Implementation Plan will not impact the Quality of ground or surface waters. Specific proposals for park construction must comply with the City's requirements for low-flow water fixtures and drought-tolerant landscaping, and participate in whatever water conservation or fee off-set program the City has in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: YES MAYBE ..m2 a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? 0 0 II b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? 0 0 II!I c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenish- ment of existing species? 0 0 II d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? 0 0 II!I Comments: The proposed Parks Implementation Plan is designed around the Chula Vista Greenbelt, which could enhance the Quality of this area. An increase in the amount of park area could have a positive effect on the Quantity and diversity of plant life in the City. Further environmental review will be required at the time specific development is proposed. 5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: YES MAYBE ..m2 a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms or insects) ? 0 0 II!I b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? 0 0 II!I 10 I J - /7 -..---. .__,_'.u__._. ----"_.._-,.,----_._--_..__...."~._---"._-- c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? 0 0 ICI d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? 0 0 IiC Comments: Development of an increased number of parks could potentially increase habitat available to wildlife. Further environmental review will be required at the time specific projects are proposed to ensure that impacts to wildlife are not significant. 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: YES MAYBE fJ!.Q a. Increases in existing noise levels? 0 III 0 b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 0 0 ~ Comments: The proposed Parks Implementation Plan would not cause noise levels in the City to change or increase. Individual parks will be reviewed on an as-needed basis for noise impacts. 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal YES MAYBE fJ!.Q produce new light or glare? 0 0 11\ Comments: The proposed Parks Implementation Plan will not produce any new light or glare. Specific facilities which may be recommended in the Plan will be subject to additional environmental review to ensure impacts from increase light or glare are not significant. 8. land Use. Will the proposal result in YES MAYBE NO a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? 0 0 KI Comments: The proposed Parks Implementation Plan will not alter or impact the underlying land use or zoning designations on parcels of land within the City. If zone changes are recommended in the Parks Implementation Plan to increase the amount of designated park land in the City, further environmental review will be required to ensure that the land use is compatible with surrounding development. 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: YES MAYBE fJ!.Q a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? 0 0 III Comments: The proposed Parks Implementation Plan would not cause a change or increase in the rate of natural 11 /3-/1 --.- - ----.- ""~-_._-- ---------.--------...---.---.--.----- resource consumption. 10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve: YES MAYBE till a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? 0 0 III b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? 0 0 ØI Comments: The proposed Park Implementation Plan would not cause a risk of upset in the City. The project will not release toxic or hazardous material into the environment during upset conditions. 11. Population. Will the proposal alter YES MAYBE till the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? 0 0 I!!I Comments: Neither population nor demographics would be impacted by the proposed Parks Implementation Plan. 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect YES MAYBE NO existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? 0 0 I!!I Comments: The proposed Parks Implementation Plan will not have any impact on housing stock, or create a demand for additional housing. The Plan deals exclusively with facilities related to Parks and Recreation. 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: YES MAYBE NO a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? 0 0 III b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? 0 0 I!!I c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation· systems? 0 0 11II d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? 0 0 151 12 1;1../1 - .__._o·_H...____..____ ....--.------- e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic] 0 0 II!I f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians] 0 0 12 g. A "large project" under the Congestion Management Program] (An equivalent of 2400 or more average daily vehicle trips or 200 or more peak-hour vehicle trips). 0 0 Il!I Comments: The proposed Parks Implementation Plan is not applicable to and will not have any impact on transportation or circulation systems. 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: YES MAYBE IiQ a. Fire protection] 0 0 i!'!I b. Police protection] 0 0 IiiI c. Schools] 0 0 Il!I d. Parks or other recreational facilities] 0 II!! 0 e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads] 0 0 III f. Other governmental services] 0 0 III Comments: The proposed project may have a positive effect on parks and recreation facilities, by inventorying existing facilities and identifying the need for new facilities. Routing forms from City staff indicate that the Parks Implementation Plan will not effect fire, police, schools, or other public services. 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: YES MAYBE. IiQ a. Use of substantial amount of fuel or energy] 0 0 I!I b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources or energy, or require the development of new sources of energy] 0 0 18 Comments: The proposed Parks Implementation Plan will not have any impact on energy or fuel consumption. 13 IJ-' Jß "H.'. ..__. ~~.._ ._--"_._~-_._-...,._.-.,.-."-".-,,,,.,-.-..---,-------.------...- ---.-. 16. Thresholds. Will the proposal YES MAYBE tiQ adversely impact the City's Threshold Standards? 0 0 II Comments: The proposed Parks Implementation Plan will aid in the implementation of the Parks and Recreation Threshold, by identifying potential deficiencies in existing facilities in relation to the Standard. City routing forms indicate that no other City Threshold Standards will be impacted. 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: YES MAYBE tiQ a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? 0 0 B b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? 0 0 ~ Comments: The proposed Parks Implementation Plan would not have an adverse impact on human health or safety. Compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1 990 as a result of the project could have a positive impact on humans. 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result YES MAYBE NO in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? 0 0 IJI Comments: The proposed Parks Implementation Plan could have a positive impact on the visual and aesthetic quality of Chula Vista by increasing the number of parks in the City. 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result YES MAYBE tiQ in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? II 0 0 Comments: The proposed Parks Implementation Plan will identify deficiencies in existing recreational facilities, project future demand for facilities, and recommend development, renovation and improvement of these facilities, thereby having a positive impact on recreational facilities. 20. Cultural Resources. YES MAYBE tiQ a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? 0 0 'ill 14 l.f-~J .-.....--.- --_.~._--_._.._-------------- "-_._~"----- b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? 0 0 a c. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? 0 0 III d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? 0 0 .BI Comments: The Parks Implementation Plan will not have an effect on cultural values. Development of specific park or recreation facilities recommended by the proposed Parks Implementation Plan will require additional environmental review to ensure that cultural and historical resources are not impacted by construction activities. : 15 13 ., ).~ . ---"---. ... - ----~._-------_.__..__.- ----- - Attachment B / I Resource Conservation Commission Page 2 Ne2ative Declaration for IS-93-21 Parks Implementation Plan - Since this project consists of two phases, commissioners stated they would accept Phase I with the contingency that they also see and review Phase n. It was MSUC (Myers/Hall) to accept the negative declaration; 4-0. Favorable comments were made on the format of the Environmental Checldist Form. However, questions relating to water reduction, consumption and ability to provide same, were inadC4U8tely covered. Reid stated since this was a CEQA form, staff hesitated in making any changes. Otay Ranch discussion - Reid stated the County and City Planning Commissions tentatively approved the EIR with a few areas of contention. Myers stated her objection to staffs recommendation. She further stated that RCC's duty is to take all actions necessary to provide the people with clean air, water, enjoyment of aesthetic qualities, freedom from excessive noise, prevent the elimination of wildlife, safeguard the city's historic prehistoric past, and provide long-term protection of the environment. The EIR does not provide for this protection, but defers most of these elements to the SPA level. STAFF REPORT: City Council, Planning Commission and Resource Conservation Commission will hold a joint meeting in late May to discuss CEQA and its implementation. A new member for RCC, Cindy Burrascano, will be sworn in at the next Council meeting. CHAIRMAN'S COMMENTS: RC4uested City Staff copy all its documents onto both sides of the paper to eliminate waste. ECO Art Contest is scheduled for April 3rd at Rohr Park. Kracha noted that EDCO collection service distribute stickers for greens recycling. COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS: Johnson questioned the city's jurisdiction with regard to approval of low income housing. He was advised to contact the Community Development Department. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned by Chairman Kracha at 7:48 p.m. Respectfully submitted, EXPRESS SECRETARIAL SERVICES - ~) '7ið/L" kA.P.- Barbara Taylor /J-'..2:J ___________n.._______._.___...__ ". __ _........_"'_,,___,____"_________.__.__~__.__."__,__"'___.___ Attachment C PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION PAGE 2 September 16, 1993 Paul Slater of the Otay Valley Regional Park Citizens Advisory Commission discussed the various aspects of CALPAW and its potential benefits to the Southbayarea. In addition, he gave a status report of the number of signatures obtained thus far toward placing this initiative on the ballot. He then answered various questions from the Commission regarding deadlines and actions required to further this Bond Act. He invited the Commissioners to offer their assistance in gathering signatures. Motion for the Commission recommend to Council that they support CALPAW. MSC ALEVYIPALMA 5-0 New Business a. PARK IMPLEMENTATION PlAN Sr. Management Assistant Nancy Woods gave a background summary of the parks implementation plan and highlighted the report that had been distributed to the Commission. She gave an overview of the purpose of a parks implementation plan for the benefit of the new Commissioners. Commissioner Sandoval-Fernandez asked how many acres of Otay Valley Regional Park lie within the City of Chula Vista and could be used to make up the park acreage deficiency west of 805. Director Valenzuela stated that they have identified at least 30 acres in the valley that could be used toward this deficiency. Commissioner Alevy would like to see the Commission to be a unifying force to bond eastern Chula Vista with Western Chula Vista. He feels that there is too much separation, almost as if it were two cities. Motion to approve the park implementation plan. MSC SANDOVAUFERNANDEZ/ALEVY 5-0 (CARPENTER/WILLE'IT OUT) b. SIGNAGE FOR GOLF COURSE Commissioner Alevy expressed his concerns about the potential for balls hit from the golf course striking persons on the jogging trail and as a result of the injury claim a liability against the City. He thinks that there should be some kind of liability relief for the City and for the golfers who are using the golf course. His concern is both for the joggerlwalker rights and for the rights of the golfers. Commissioner Palma feels that the issue of contributory negligence on the part of the joggers would tend to mitigate the City's liability. Director Valenzuela feels that this is a valid point and that the issue should be taken up with the City Manager and the City Attorney. ¡:J -.:1'1 -- --_.~-_..- ..____..,.,_.____._.___._.__...__.~._.__._,.____~__..___n_._._ , Minutes July 20, 1993 Attachment 0-1 Page 10 . Mayor Nader requested that the City Attorney look at that requirement prior to the 8/10/93 meeting as he had been informed it did not require 4/Sth's vote. von: ON M0110N: approved 4-O-G-1 with Rindone abstaining. 23. PUBUCHENUNG IUMEW AND CONSmEMUON OF 1HE GROWIH ~ l OVERSIGHT COMMlSSION'S (GMOC) 1992 ANNUAL REPORT - Pursuant to requirements of the City's growth management program, the annual repon reflects the· outcome of analysis of information presented by various City departments and external agencies regarding the impacts of growth on each of the eleven facility and service topics covered by the Threshold Standards. The repon serves to identify whether or not the City is in compliance with each of the standards and to make related recommendations to Council on any actions believed necessary to remedy identified deficiencies and/or ensure continuing compliance. It is recommended that Council accept the 1992 Annual Repon and direct staff to undenake actions necessary to implement the Repon's recommendations; and (2) direct staff to prepare the necessary Statements of Concern for issuance by the Mayor regarding the Water, Schools, and Air Quality Thresholds. (Director of Planning) . Will Hyde, Chair of the Growth Management Oversight Commission, informed Council that Elizabeth Allen was also present from the Commission. He gave a brief review the history of the GMOC and felt it was now well established and well run. Councilmember Fox stated Council had been told that eastern development was not responsible for the development problems in the City and the repon implied the opposite. He questioned whether the GMOC discussed what responsibilities, if any, development east had regarding the problem. Mr. Hyde responded the drainage problem had been discussed thoroughly and staff was asked if some of the problems in the areas west of (-805 were amibutable, in pan or in whole, to the development east of 1.805. Staff informed the GMOC that the answer was "no". Therefore, the Committee indicated that they had been advised that the drainage problem was not in and of itself caused by development east of 1·805 but they were sufficiently concerned and would revisit the issue next year. Councilmember Fox requested that if the Commission felt the same next year, he would like an analysis of why they came to that conclusion and make recommendations to Council. The GMOC had recommended monitoring of several items and he questioned whether the Commission was recommending that the repons be submitted to Council. Mr. Hyde stated the interim repons for performance standards for Priority I calls should be given to Council. The Commission felt they were on the edge and that it would be appropriate to monitor. Councilmember Fox questioned if Council adopted the GMOC recommendations if staff would be going forth with the Green Belt Master Plan or Council was approving it in concept. Mr. Hyde stated they felt the Park and Recreation Threshold should be revised so there would not be rwo standards of requirements for park space. One of the reasons Council had not acted on that in the past was because a Park Implementation Plan had not been completed. The GMOC felt the Park Implementation Plan should be completed as soon as possible. They also recommended that as pan of the Park Implementation Plan there be reference to the fact that there should be a Green Belt Master Plan. The General Plan stated there "shaJ1 be developed a Green Belt Master Plan' and it had never been done. Mayor Nader stated the City had failed to meet the Police Threshold, marginally, for the second year in a row and questioned whether it was Mr. Hyde's opinion that given trends and additions to the police force in the current fiscal year budget that the issue would be adequately addressed. /3- .;1~ _ ___~N__'_·'___'.'______·_~~·____"_____,'___,__ ZAttachment 0-2 Minutes July 20, 1993 Page 11 Mr. Hyde responded that in speaking for himself, he felt they were moving in the right direction. He was not qualified to say whether what was being proposed was adequate. The GMOC suggested the Police Department make an effort to evaluate the Threshold Standard. They were not convinced that response performance alone was the only and best way of evaluating the growth impacu upon police service. Mayor Nader stated the report indicated that the threshold issues regarding police were not necessarily related to growth but felt it clear that an additional increment of growth would add to the need for police services. Mr. Hyde agreed, they felt the standard was decent but were not sure it was the best standard for evaluation. Mayor Nader stated his concern was that they were stressing an analysis of what impacu growth up to the present had already caused. What he was interested in as a growth manager, was what impacu would be caused by the next increment of growth. If the City found iuelf in a situation where the Police Threshold was not being met, even if the cause was not growth, but more growth would aggravate it, the City needed to enforce the growth management ordinance which called for a moratorium under those conditions. Mr. Hyde responded that it would be a very'tough call to prove that growth, in and of iuelf, was causing the police performance sta.ndard to diminish to the point Council woukl stop, slow, or reduce growth. Mayor Nader felt the issue was not whether growth had already caused that decline in the standard but whether additional growth would aggravate that decline. He had been informed that an increasing number of Priority 2 caUs were "killed by communications". He questioned whether that was an issue reviewed by the Commission. Mr. Hyde responded no. Mayor Nader suggested the GMOC invite the POA to send a representative when police Thresholds were considered. He questioned whether the report was approved by the Commission unanimously. Mr. Hyde responded that was conect. The Montgomety Planning Committee had not been able to take action on the report due to a lack of quorum. The Planning Commission approved the report 6-1 with a two.part motion: 1) approved the report; and 2) the Council be requested to expedite the processing of the Park Improvement Plan and development of a Green Belt Master Plan. Mayor Nader stated he had concern with the tone of the Letters of Concern in the past and felt they should be drafted in a friendly manner. The letters should include the recommendations of the GMOC indicating the City's willingness to "step to the plate' in support of the agencies fulf¡ ling their missions. Regarding the Park Implementation Plan, he felt the City needed a series of actions rather than a plan. A higher priority should be given to the development of Otay Valley Regional Park and to monitor development proposals that potentiaUy impacted the Green Belt. Mr. Hyde felt it needed to move from concept to something that had some degree of definition. Then the property owners would have an idea of what lands the City felt should be protected. Mayor Nader hoped that in presenting and developing reports to Council on discretionary land use decisions the comments Mr. Hyde made would be automatically incorporated into staff recommendations, It was part of the General Plan to have a Green Belt and the City should be following that in good faith. Councilmember Rindone refened to the recommendation of ·assisting the school district...· and requested further clarification. Mr. Hyde responded that the nature of what could be done was cooperation to make it easier for schools to work within the framework they had in land use planning. / J .,~ ~ -. .. - - .-.~------~--- Minutes Attachment D-3 , July 20,1993 , Page 12 CountUmember Rind one referred to the retommendation regarding a new standard for alternative fuels and entouraged staff to fotus on that recommendation. He was pleased to hear that growth may not be the best measure in astenaining the impatts on the polite department. It might be the best measure, however, it I might not be the only measure. ....... CountUmember Horton stated she would have to leave the meeting but requested that Item 18 be tontinued to the 7/27/93 meeting and that Councilmember Rindone give CountU and the publit the presentation he made a the Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce regarding the Waste Participation Agreement. MSUC (NaderlRindone) to continue Item 18 to the meeting of 7/27/93. Councilmember Horton left the meeting at 9:20 p.m. ...... This being the time and plate as advertised, the public hearing was declared open. There being no publit testimony, the public hearing was closed. CountUmember Moore stated there were fifty items retommended for attion in the report. He questioned whether there were other developments to the east, other than Telegraph Canyon, that adversely impatted the City. John Lippin, Direttor of Community Development, responded that Telegraph Canyon was the major one that would impatt the west. The areas south were not developed yet. CountUmember Moore stated that most of the flooding, if subtratting Telegraph Creek, was taused by the fatt that Chula Vista drainage was usually a dip in the road. In reviewing the minutes from the GMOC report last year, the following recemmendations were approved: 1) bring back to CountU a formula for a weighted fattor as to atreage for gymnasiums, pools, tommunity tenters, ett. If CountU was waiting for a master plan, he felt that should tome before a master plan and the data then be used in the master plan. 2) Evaluate park expansion potential south of Main Street, during budget review, as a means of addressing park needs. He did not remember that being a supplemental during the budget protess. 3) Bring baclt report on potential and logistits for a joint use agreement with the sthool distritt for use of these fatUities. He felt that should be done well before, and utilized in, the master plan. The City tould become a full partner with the sthools by sharing fatUities and helping to pay the operation and maintenante (0 lit M). <4) Review zoning, ett. and report where park atreage tould be sited west of 1·805, list present usage and purchase tost. 5) City Manager bring batk a report during budget review regarding short range measures to address East "H" Street, west of Hilltop, other than widening the stteet to mitigate traffit. Those items were now one year old and he had not seen any results. Mayor Nader requested the City Manager, next week, advise CountU when those items outlined by Councilmember Moore would be presented to staff. MSC (pOS/NaAler) to appnm! staff recommendation: l)at«pt me 19092 GMOC Annual Report md recommendations contained therein, and direct staff to undertake actioDS neœssary to implement mose recommendations; and 2) direct staff to prepare me necessary Statements of Contern for issuante by me Mayor repnIiDg the Water, Sdlools, and 1Jr Quality Thresholds. It should also be und...t..ocf Ibat eounål would set Ibe quarterly MDDitorma R.eports for Ihe polite Priority 1 IeMte calls. ApproYecl 4-0-1 wilb Horton absent. MS (Rinclone/MOOre) direct staff to look into Ibe cJevelopment of m additional quality of atancIanI for alternative fuels for future consideration by Council. /3-,~7 - ._,._--_._._-,--_._--~.__._----------~.__...__._- ~ Attachment 0-4 Minutes July 20, 1993 Page 13 Councilmember Moore felt that maybe it should not be a new item but could be incorporated into the Air l Quality Th!"eshold. Mayor Nader felt dlat would be more appropriate, agreed to by the Seconder ot the motion. VOTE ON MOTION AS AMENDED: approvecl4-0-1 with Horton absenL . . . . Council recessed at 9:35 p.m. and reconvened at 9:45 p.m. · · · · 24. PUBUC HEAJU1'i!G TEm"ATIVE SUBDMSlON MAP PCS-90-07; APPEAL OF 1HE PLANNING COMMISSION DEOSION TO APPROVE ONE·YEAR TIME EXTENSION FOR 1HE SUNBOW n SUBDMSlON, 11lAcr 90-07 _ On 7/14/93, the Planning Commission unanimously approved a one-time extension request for the Sunbow II Subdivision. Due to time constraints and legal requirements ot the application, the applicant f1Ied in advance an appeal of the Planning Commission decision to ensure that any potential appeal, including the applicant's own; could be considered by Council before the map expires (7/21/93) Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Planning) RESOLtmON 17177 DENYING 1HE APPEAL AND APPlRMING 1HE PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLtmON TO APPROVE A ONE-YEAR TEm"ATIVE MAP EXTENSION FOR 1HE SUNBOW n SUBDMSION, 11lAcr 90-07 Ken Lee, Assistant Director of Planning, stated staff had talked to Mr. Hall and explained to him that the action requested by Council was an extension of the Tentative Map and did not deal with the land use issue per se. The land use issue was serued through the General Development Plan and SPA Plan in 1989·90. The industrial land was not adjacent to the property but approximately one·quaner mile to the east and was a limited industrial zoning category and se¡>arated topographically by two ridges from the residential area. Mayor Nader stated the prevailing party was appealing against itself in order to make sure there was a timely hearing in order to expedite the process. If they waited, there was concern there could be regulatory or economic consequences for the holder of the map. It was due to a series of regulatory circumstances. This being µ¡e time and place as advertised, the public hearing was declared open. . Jim Dawe, 750 "B' Street, Dan Diego, CA, representing Sunbow II, stated the Mayor's explanation was accurate and that due to City ordinances it appeared it was necessary tor them to come torward with an appeal so the map would not expire. Other than a one or two sentence letter from Robinhood Home Subdivision, they did not receive any comments in opposition to the extension. City Attorney Boogaard requested that Mr. Dawe express his clients agreeability to the new conditions imposed on the extension. Mr. Dawe responded that his clients had already signed a letter agreeing to that except there was one modification in Condition #95, last sentence, which was clarified "may require reconsideration" rather than "will require reconsideration". It was his understanding that would be acceptable to the staff. City Attorney Boogaard questioned if all other conditions were acceptable. Mr. Dawe responded yes. . A. W. Hall, 1675 Pt. Reyes Court, Chula Vista, CA, member of the Resource Conservation Commission, was not present. Mayor Nader read the following comment into the record: "I object to this extension because of the land use permitted on the south side of Orange Avenue towards Robinhood". I:J~ ;;.J -_..- ...~_._-,..__. .--..-...----.. -~. ~--- ~ ~--- --~ ._---,-,------" ........ - ,. Attachment E benefit districts and the potential impacts on homeowners of various tax rates. The subcommittee also reviewed the question of a City-wide benefit district and election vs. one limited to the neighborhood west of 1-805, and discussed regular vs. special elections. As part of its review, the Resources Subcommittee heard presentations by a financial consultant and by the organizer of a bond campaign in another city. It also formulated a potential fund raising program, "2000 Steps for Chula Vista," which is summarized in the next section. The Resources Subcommittee discussed its findings at several meetings of the overall Chula Vista 21 Committee. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Chula Vista 21 Committee was pleased to find that a number of the Chula Vista 2000 recommendations have already been implemented or are in the process of being implelllented. Examples include: · Establishing the Economic Development Commission, the Cultural Arts Commission, and the Child Care Commission; · Starting a City-wide Park Master Plan; .., Establishing the Youth Sports Council; · Joint use agreements with school districts, such as the one for the new Youth Center; · Progress on planning the Otay Valley Regional Park; · Hiring a Conservation Coordinator and Environmental Resource Manager; · Implementing a mandatory recycling ordinance; · Providing intergenerational programming at some community centers; · Obtaining a major California state grant to build a library in south Chula Vista; · Approving use of the City owned building at 633 3rd Ave. as a Chula Vista Heritage Museum; · Creating and distributing an Arts Directory. Of the Chula Vista 2000 recommendations which have not yet been fully implemented, the Chula Vista 21 Committee has identified two lists of projects to highlight. Each list is discussed separately below. One list consists of projects the Committee has voted to support in concept without any other specific action being recommended by Chula Vista 21. Many of the projects on this list, which is provided in Attachment 8, involve the City's operating budget. The Committee does not feel it is in a position to prioritize these projects in relationship to other parts of the City's operating budget 4 I;J ~ Á9 ._.._----"~--_._._----_.~--- Attachment F-l Minutes Febru¡uy 23, 1993 Page 2 RESOLlJI10N 16994 ADOPTING POUCY REGARDING DEVELOPMENT ON PROPERTIES Wl-DCH 11UGGERS TI-IE REQUIREMENT TO INSTALL OR ALTER PUBUC IMPROVEMENTS IN TIiE ADJOINING PUBUC RlGI-IT-OF-WAY 7. RESOLlJI10N 16995 DESIGNATING Atm-lORJZED CITY REPRESE/lITATIVES TO ACQUIRE SURPLUS PROPER1Y FROM TI-IE CAUFORNlA STAn: AGENCY FOR SURPLUS PROPER1Y (CAn:GORY I) . The City has been requested by the Department of General Services of the State of California to update the list of authorized representatives for acquisition of surplus property. The list was last updated in August 1989. In order for the City to be eligible to continue to participate in the program, it is necessary to update the information. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (City Manager) 8. RESOLlJI10N 16996 AUTHORllJNG EXPENDl1URE OF FUNDS FOR CREATION OF A NON- PROFIT CORPORATION TO BE KNOWN AS CHUI.A VISTA INFORMED, INC., AND Atm-lORJZlNG AGREEMENT WI11i CORPORATION FOR MAlUNG SERVICES· By establishing Chula Vim Informed, Ine., the City wouId be able to take advantage of lower non.profit postage rates and save approximately $6,000 per year on the mailing of the 'ChuIa Vista Quarterly' newslener. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Administration) 9. RESOLlJI10N 16997 REJECTING A NON-RESPONSIVE BID AND ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING CO/IITRACf FOR PUROiASE OF BODY ARMOR· Bids were received in the office of the Purchasing Agent for the purchase of body armor for use by Police Officers. The contract will be for a one year period for an estimated total of 90 pieces of body armor. Purchases will be made based on fund availability. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Finance) 10. RESOLlJI10N 16998 AMENDING FISCAL YEAR ]992-93 BUDGET, PROVIDING FOR ~ UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE TRUST FUND APPROPRIATION TO TIiE UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACCOUNT· The City pays for its Unemployment Insurance Claims by reimbursement. It was agreed in 199]-92 no! To request the normal budget requirement but rather to appropriate each quarter from the Unemplo~men; lnsurance Account Fund. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Personnel) "¡5th's vote required. 11. RESOLlJI10N 16999 APPROVING AGREEMENTWITI-I SCHMIDT DESIGN GROUP TO CONDUCf Tl/iI.F AUDITS - The South County Turf Water Management Program is sponsored by the San Diego County Water Autho,iry (CWA) and the Metropolitan Water District. The purpose of the program is to evaluate large water consumers irrigation systems. The srudy will provide guidelines to the agency to become more efficient in water management, thus reducing cost of water utilities. Schmidt Design Group, Inc. was selected by CWA to perform water audits for South County agencies. Staff has designated the following sites to have the irrigation system analyzed and evaluated: Greg Rogers Park, Palomar Park, and Rienstra Sport FieJds. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Parks and Recreation) 12. RESOLlJI10N 17000 APPROVING ~ AGREEMFNT wni-I ROBERT MITOiElL AND ASSOCIA1ES FOR DEVELOPMENT OF APARXS IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (OP-PR-] 64). AND Atm-lORJZlNG TIiE MAYOR TO EXEClTŒ SAID AGREEMENT· During Fiscal Year 1992·93 Capital Improvement Project budget process, Council appropriated $75,000 in Park Acquisition and Development (PAD) funds to contract for a Parks Implementation Plan. In accordance with Objective One of the City's Park and Recreation Element of the Genera} Plan, a Parks Implementation Plan will serve as an update to the Park and Recreation Element of the General Plan and will address areas within the City's boundaries, as well as the City's Sphere of lnfluence. The Plan is intended to be a collaborative effort between staff and the consultant. Staff I J" 'CJ .. ....._...._..___.. ~._m__.._.___".._.___.__~~._~_..__._ Attachment F-2 Minutes February 23, 1993 Page 3 recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Parks and Recreation) Pulled from the Consent Calendar. Mayor Pro Tern Rindone questioned on what basis staff felt the administrative staff of the Parks and Recreation Department could not handle the responsibility of the project over a period of time. Jess Valenzuela, Director of Parks and Recreation, stated that some of the responsibilities could not be done by staff, specifically an area such as the survey work. In the area of Americans with Disabilities Act there would be technical expertise to evaluate the park system, west of 1-805, for compliance with the new law. In other areas staff could look at available vacant land and things of that nature although it would be vety time consuming. He felt it would take one and one-half years to complete such a study. Mayor Pro Tern Rindone stated he was not convinced that staff could not complete the project more fiscally prudent than what was being presented. One of the administrative functions of a department was to come up with a recommendation of a master plan. There were a number of workshops being offered regarding ADA compliance and he felt staff could be more proactive. He was concerned regarding the proposal of an Ad Hoc Systems Advisory Task Force and felt it would take away some of the functions of the Parks and Recreation Commission. MS (RindoneIHorton) to refer the item to staff to come up with a more prudent recommendation, particularly survey needs and others, and try to conduct most of the activities in-house. Councilwoman Horton stated Mayor Pro Tem Rindone had expressed many of her concerns. She felt staff could do the Needs Assessment Survey. She questioned the services needed for ADA and whether some of the survey work regarding ADA compliance could be done in conjunction with the Engineering Department. Mr. Valenzuela responded the consultant would look at the accessibility of all of the parks/recreation facilities in the western part of the City. The consultant would also be looking at existing land that was available, looking at studies, past survey work, ete. which was a very labor intensive process. Some of that work was currently being coordinated with other depamnents but it was a long arduous process. The proposal would help to speed up the process. The study had been supported by the GMOC. Chula Vista 2000 and 21 in terms of master planning. Councilman Fox felt there was a need for a Needs Assessment Survey and that it should be done outside due to the labor intensiveness. City Manager Goss stated the Parks and Recreation Depamnent had made a request to his office for the current budget year of $125,000. Knowing the sensitivity of the Council to the issue the proposal had been modified to about half of the amount so the Master Plan could be compiled in a timely fashion. Staff could do much of the work the consuItant would be doing but it Was a maner of prioritization. Mayor Pro Tern Rindone stated the intent of the motion was that staff would go back and review all aspects. If a survey could be done in-house, it should be included. A little longer time in providing a Park Master P an was a good trade·off for $70,000. He commended staff for their realization of the need for a Park Master Plan. Councilman Moore felt the key issue was workJoad. He questioned what projects would be trailed if done in-house and felt that future reports should contain that information. VOTE ON MOTION: approved 4-0-1 with Nader absent. 13.A. RFSOLlTT'JON 17001 APPROVING TIiE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS AND DESOUBING TIiE IMPROVEMENTS FOR CONSOUDATlNG OPEN SPACE DlSTIUCf NUMBERS 14 AND 24 (BONITA LONG /J. 31 ~.'_~_____'__·'_'_._____m.__'_'_'_'___'_'_'''__________.__ " . Attachment G-1 COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item _1"2- Meeting Date 1 I 102/93 ITEM TITLE: Report: Proposed Parks Implementation Plan Work Program SUBMITTED BY: Director of Parks and Recreation / ~ Director of Planning , I I'" '. . REVIEWED BY: City Manager L; ,ii., i (4/Sths Vote: Yes _ No ..xJ ;;/) '" During the FY 92/93 CIP budget process, the City Council appropriated $75.000 in Park Acquisition and Development (PAD) funds, to contract with a consultant for a Parks Implementation Plan (PIP). The PIP will serve to implement provisions of the City's General Plan Park and Recreation Element which call for preparation of a long-range (20 year) master plan to include programs for upgrading, expanding or replacing older facilities in western Chula Vista, and for installation of new facilities in accordance with adopted standards. Focusing primarily on western Chula Vista, the PIP will address such issues as: - Possible ways to decrease the City's park acreage deticiencies (specitically in Western Chula Vista). including an analysis of ways to formulate a park equivalency factor; i.e., use of recreation structures, or joint use of schools. as credit in the 3 acres/l.ooo residents standard. a.' a means to mitigate the park deficiency; and - Identification of potential acquisition sites for parks and recreation facilities in Western Chula Vista. and related tiscal strategies. In October, 1992, the Department issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) in order to obtain a qualified consultant to provide services to develop a Parks Implementation Plan tÙr the western area of Chula Vista. In addition, the RFP requested services to perform a Needs Assessment Survey encompa.,sing the entire city (including a cross-section of all age groups). The survey wa.' to include an analysis of demographic data. participation rates, and a demand-for-services evaluation. However. at the February 23, 1993 Council meeting, the City Council directed staff to come back at a future date to present a proposal to perform the Parks Implementation Plan in-house. As discussed in the Council minutes (attached), Council's motion to request further staff analysis for the purpose of utilizing City staff for the Parks Implementation Plan, included latitude to "try to conduct most of the activities in-house". This report discusses a proposed in-house staff work program for the Parks Implementation Plan, with the exception of proposing an outside consultant for the Needs Assessment Survey. RECOMMENDATION: That the Council approve the proposed Parks Implementation Plan Work Program, including the use of a professional research tirm to perform the Needs Assessment Survey. 1Jrip-2.AIII IJ -3'z --- --..--- -------------- · Attachment G -2 Page 2, Item \"2- Meeting Date 11/02/93 BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: On September 16, 1993, tbe Parks amI Recreation Commission unanimously supported the proposed Parks Implementation Plan Work Program, including the use of a professional research firm to perform the Needs Assessment Survey in the community. On March II, 1993. the Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC) discussed the Parks Implementation Plan as part of the Parks and Recreation Department's Annual Report to the GMOC. The GMOC's 1992 Annual Report subsequently contains a recommendation to Council stressing the PIP's timely completion. Council adopted the GMOC's report on July 20, 1993. Both the Chula Vista 2000 Committee and the CV21 Committee supported a Parks Master Plan in their final reports to the City Council. DISCUSSION: The Parks Implementation Plan will serve as an Action Plan for future park development. The proposed staff work program is divided into three (3) phases: Phase I will be the Survey/Needs Assessment, Phase II will be the Analysis; and Phase III will be the Implementation Plan/Program. In accordance with the attached work program proposal. the following provides a brief overview of each phase: Phase I _ Survev/Needs Assessment - will consist of a general City-wide overview and a more intensive Western Chula Vista review, which would address physical and demographic characteristics (e.g. land use, population (age, ethnicity, income, family characteristics], housing, growth rates, etc.), and an inventory of existing park, school and open space sites. and public/quasi-public recreation facilities and programs. Data collection will be from various in-house data bases and field surveys. During Phase I, staff from the Planning Department, the Parks and Recreation Department, and the Management Information Services Division, will accelerate the study of a park equivalency factor. It is staffs intent to present a proposal for a park equivalency factor to the City Council in February of 1994. Phase II - Analvsis - will consist of a City-wide analysis of existing and projected park and recreation facilities demand, with the major emphasis on the demand in the area west of 1-805. Principal components of the analysis are an analysis of the interrelationships of the demand differences between the eastern and western areas of Chula Vista; a deficiency assessment for western Chula Vista; the availability of land and a feasibility analysis for acquisition, leases and development; and proposed policies and options including school-park joint usage, and park equivalency factors/credit systems. An additional analysis of identified sub-areas within Western Chula Vista will occur under a separate and subsequent effort. Also, as part of Phase II, the City proposes to issue a new Request for Proposal (RFP) to contract with a professional survey research firm to perform a resident household telephone survey. The cost of this service is estimated to be $10,000. This estimation of costs was determined from the original RFP's for the consultant services for the Parks Implementation Plan. In addition, since that time, Jpjp·2.A111 /J - 33 ~ _._----_.._~...._._-~ ---" ---~------~.__._-~..._"---_..~ - Attachment G·-3 Page 3, Item 12. Meeting Date 11/02/93 staff received an updated estimation of costs for a Needs Assessment Survey from a research firm; the proposed costs exceeding $20,000. The consultant's estimation of costç included a wider range of statistical analysis of the survey-provided data base. Staff's recommendation is to utilize the professional research firm for the basic survey work which would include the creation of a survey instrument; the trained telephone team, and a report depicting the results of the survey (the report will include a parks and recreation demand analysis; an estimate of existing parks and recreation facility demand; and a forecast of future parks and recreation facility demands to the year 2015]. Justification ror Use or Consultant ror Resident Household Survey When the Council directed staff to prepare a proposal to perform the Parks Implementation Plan with City staff; affected staff met to discuss the components of a scope of work for the project. The majority of the work required to complete a Parks Implementation Plan, can readily be performed by City staff. However. it is staff's belief that the resident household telephone survey, and its resultant data analysis and report preparation, is a technical skill that is not available within staft"s expertise. Preparation of such a statistical survey is labor intensive for staff; staff also lacks the resources and expertise to prepare valid survey questions, set-up measurement parameters, train the appropriate survey staff; and tabulate data without the use of research-specific computer programs. The use of untrained staft' is tempting due to the perceived potential for cost savings, Such a perception may not fully appreciate the fact that accurate respondent selection; complete and correct data collection; as well as proper recordation of answers constitute important links in the chain of tasks necessary to implement a valid consumer research eft'ort, Trained and professional interviewers are essential in order to ensure data validity and maintain cost control. The Management Services Division, the City's research and policy analysis component, has in the past, when surveys were required, utilized outside professional expertise. For one such survey, the City contracted with SANDAG, who also utilized an outçide professional research tirm to perform telephone survey work. Therefore, it is staff's recommendation that the survey component of the Parks Implementation Plan be performed by a consultant in order to obtain valid results. The expenditure for the professional tirm will fall within the existing appropriation for the project. Phase III - ImDlementation Plan/Pro!!ram - will he structured in two parts; the tirst consisting of City wide goals. objectives and policies, and addresses the interrelationships hetween eastern and western Chula Vista, and the second focusing on goals, objectives and policies for Western Chula Vista, and recognizing the more specific conditions presented within identified sub-areas. The Implementation Plan will include discussions and recommendations regarding funding sources, feasible joint-use agreements, a capital improvement strategy. and the proposed Implementation Plan's relationship to other planning efforts and programs; Le., Otay Valley Regional Park Plan, Jpip-2.All) J,J - 31 .Ji ~ -""--"---'~--"-"'-----~~'---~-"~----- - " Attachment G-4 Page 4, Item \"2- Meeting Date 11/02/93 The majority of staff work described in the work program will be performed lIy the Parks and Recreation and Planning Departments. It is estimated this project will take 12-18 months, however, it is staffs intent to formulate a proposal for a park equivalency factor by February 1994. The Planning Department estimates that their portion of the workload for the Parks Implementation Plan will entail approximately 600 staff hours. These hours are included as part of an overall Advance Planning Division major project~ work program for FY 93/94 which will be presented to Council in the near future as part of an overall Planning Department work program for Council action. Parks and Recreation Department estimates staff hours in excess of 1.000 hours, due to being responsible for overall project management; and the direct staff hours affiliated with working with not only the Planning Department. but other City departments. the consultant, and the community. At various times during the project, the Engineering Division, Building and Housing Department, and Community Development Department will be involved. Staff will focus community involvement at community at-large at public workshops, during which the Parks and Recreation Commission will play an active role. Fundin2 Issue Park Acquisition and Development (PAD) funds are currently appropriated and budgeted for this project in PR-I64. However, when the CIP was approved by the Council, utilizing PAD funds, it was with the understanding that the funds would be paid to an outside consultant. Should Council approve this report and staff proceeds with the Parks Implementation Plan in-house, it is staffs recommendation to spend the PAD funds to reimburse staff services costs on the project. PAD funds are allowed, by State law, to be used for planning purposes for parks and recreation facilities. Besides staff services. there will be some expenses for printing and binding. data collection, public notices and communication with the community; and maps. etc., for which funds are not budgeted in the affected Departments' General Fund budget for FY 93/94. In Supplemental Budget Report #14, dated June 2. 1993, the Planning Department indicated it could spend 600 staff hours on the Western Chula Vista Park Master Plan. This was intended to be funded from the PAD fees in CIP project PR-I64. In addition, with the staff recommendation to use a professional research firm for the Needs Assessment Study, PAD funds would be used to pay the consultant. FISCAL IMPACT: Sufficient Park Acquisition and Development (PAD) funds ($75,000) are appropriated and available in the Parks Implementation Plan CIP Project account, 6OO-6004-PR-I64. Attachments - Proposed Work Program Minutes from February 23, 1993 Council Meeting Minutes from September 16, 1993 Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting Minutes from March II. 1993 Growth Management Oversight Commission Meeting Description of CIP PR-I64 ¡pjp-2.Alt) 13- ~S . J ~:_':t_. --- ~_.._-_.__..-._,.-._--- -----_._----"_.._---~-- Attachment G-5 PROPOSED WORK PROGRAM OUTLINE FOR THE PARKS IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (February 1994) INTRODUCTION/STATEMENT OF PURPOSE The proposed Parks Implementation Plan (PIP) is intended to implement provisions of the amended Parks and Recreation Element adopted in conjunction with the City's comprehensive General Plan Update in July 1989. Goal 1, Objective 1 of those provisions establishes the need to simultaneously upgrade existing park facilities and plan for new park facilities to meet established parks standards. This will be accomplished through preparation of a long range (20-year) master plan which includes programs for upgrading, expanding or replacing older facilities on the west side of the City, and for the installation of new facilities in accordance with adopted standards. The Parks and Recreation Element recognizes that the parks planning setting and issues are to a large extent bisected between the older developed portion of the City, west of the 1-805 freeway, and the developing area to the east. In this context, the PIP's proposed structure is intended to be two-tiered, the first consisting of a general analysis addressing overall facility needs and usages, and establish the planning conditions and relationship(s) between the eastern and western portions of the City, and the second to develop a more detailed plan to address deficiencies in Western Chula Vista, including development of sub-area plans and strategies. Both tiers may consist of the following components: An inventory of existing and projected physical and demographic conditions. An analysis of existing and projected parks and recreation facilities demand and any deficiencies - An identification and feasibility analysis of potential means to mitigate deficiencies; including joint-use possibilities and identification of potential acquisition sites for parks. Policies, options and any related fiscal analysis. - Development of an Parks Implementation Plan establishing goals, objectives and policies, a capital improvement strategy, and relationships to other planning efforts and programs. A core Project Team will be formed and comprised of staff from the Parks and Recreation and Planning Departments. The Project Team will also utilize staff from other City Departments such as Building and Housing, Community Development and Public Works/Engineering in completing the PIP. The following Work Program is intended to provide greater detail as to the range and nature of tasks to be undertaken: PHASE 1- SURVEY/NEEDS ASSESSMENT A. INVENTORY OF EXISTING CONDITIONS 1. Determination and description of the overall Study Area and any sub-areas. This will consist of a brief City-wide overview and a more intensive Western Chula Vista review, which would address physical (land use, character, resources, etc.) and [A-II3 - pip-2.A13] 13 #' ~, ......-.-.- ----------- . - --.-.- Attachment G-6 PIP Program -2- February 1994 demographic characteristics (population [age, ethnicity, income, family characteristics, etc.], housing, growth rates, etc.), and an inventory of existing park, school and open space sites, public and quasi-public recreation facilities and programs. Data collection will be from various in-house data bases and field surveys. Presentation of data will be cross referenced in both tabular and map form. In Western Chula Vista, potential planning sub-areas will be defined based on such factors as demographics, demand, and geography; and would provide the above noted data for each sub-area. 2. Survey existing plans and policies for applicability. a. Chula Vista General Plan and other planning policies (includes evaluation of proposed park sites and the current General Plan system of site designation). Project Team members will review the existing General Plan for location of future and proposed park sites, recreation centers, open space and related land use elements. b. Park and Recreation Planning Standards, Guidelines and Policies (Federal, State and Local). Project Team members will review applicable guidelines and standards from the City, State and National level. c. A review of the "Otay Valley Regional Park" joint staff efforts will be conducted to determine a preliminary list of elements to be evaluated within the Study Area during the inventory process. This review will include the recommendations of the Resource Enhancement Plan. c. ADA requirements. The Project Team will prepare a preliminary list, based on input from the Building and Housing Department, of ADA standards which apply to the facilities within the Study Area. 3. Vacant and Available Lands Inventory for parks and recreation purposes. This task will utilize both in-house data base evaluations as well as field surveys and confirmations. All lands will be evaluated, including existing elementary, middle and high school sites and open space areas. The draft Parks and Recreation Department Landscape Manual will be used to aid in initially defining acceptable sites. [A-1l3 -pip-2.A13] 1.1 '}ì "'-~-"'-~-'---"'--'- '~-"-"'---"-"~'---"""-'-"--'--".-"--~-'--.'-.' -. Attachment G-7 PIP Program -3- February 1994 PHASE II - ANALYSIS A. DEMAND ANALYSIS An analysis of the interrelationships of the demand differences between the eastern and western areas of Chula Vista will be conducted at the City-wide level, with the major emphasis on the demand in the area of 1-805. An additional analysis of identified sub-areas within Western Chula Vista will occur under a separate and subsequent effort. 1. Existing use/need levels. This will consist of statistical tallies of Parks and Recreation Department program records, questionnaires, and the application of established parks plarming standards and guidelines to current demographic conditions as derived in Phase I (A. 1.). The types of Parks and Recreation Department records utilized will be program attendance statistics and questionnaires from special events. 2. Public Opinion Survey on desired parks and recreation facilities. A telephone survey of 600 resident households will encompass all age groups. The survey will extract data on activity participation, attitudes, expected demand, potential demand, and types of programs. The results will be tabulated and a written sununary will be prepared. 3. Historic / Forecasted Population and Housing growth. An overview of historical population growth volumes and rates for the Chula Vista area, the region, and the County as a whole during the 1980 to 1993 period will be prepared. For Western Chula Vista, a population growth analysis will include changes in the demographic characteristics of the population during this time frame with particular emphasis on those factors that are predictors of parks and recreation demand patterns (age, income, family size, etc.). Projections of growth through the year 2015 will be compiled as principally derived through an analysis of information collected by SANDAG (Series 8 regionwide forecast), the California Department of Finance, and the City Planning Department. 4. Projected Demand for Facilities and Programs for Western Chula Vista (utilizing items 1-3 above). The projected demand for new parks and recreation facilities will be quantified and balanced with an analysis and overview of existing facilities with potential for expansion, or in combination with other agencies' facilities through joint-use agreements. [A-H3 -pip-2.A13] IJ-Jr' --..... .",.--.'.-,-.' ._~._---- Attachment G-8 PIP Program -4- February 1994 (Public Input) The Parks and Recreation Commission would host a public meeting at this point to share the results of the inventories and demand analyses, and solicit input and comment. This meeting will facilitate finalization and acceptance of the information which will form the foundation for subsequent deficiency assessments and plan development. B. DEFICIENCY ASSESSMENT FOR WESTERN CHULA VISTA 1. Current Levels The Department's existing Parklands and Public Facilities Ordinance describes certain standards for parks and recreation facilities. These standards will be compared to the existing provision of facilities (both east and west), and a deficiency level will be determined. 2. Projected Levels For Western Chula Vista (2015) Based on the current levels of deficiency and the potential for additions to the system; any continuing deficiencies will be projected to the year 2015 based on the Demand Analysis and the City's growth factors. 3. ADA Compliance Evaluation of Existing Facilities This assessment will compare the results of Phase I inventories to the Demand Analysis to reach conclusions as to ADA surpluses and/or deficiencies in needed parks and recreation facilities. The assessments should be conducted with the intent of identifying those existing parks/facilities/programs which could be modified to meet the Federal mandate. C. LAND AVAILABILITY / FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS FOR ACQUISITION, LEASES AND DEVELOPMENT 1. This analysis will compare the vacant and available land inventory from Phase I to the Deficiency Assessment in Phase II, in conjunction with existing policies and standards for parks provision/development. Focus will be given to the Western Chula Vista area. Dovetail proposed studies regarding use of the SDG&E easements for park and recreation purposes and evaluate the viability of including certain land areas in the parkland inventory. Such studies are envisioned to address the SDG&E proposals for commercial uses. D. POLICIES AND OPTIONS 1. Facilities/Land Area Park Acreage Credit System. An analysis will be performed to determine the feasibility of including existing public/quasi-public active recreation structures such as gyms, community centers or {A-H3 - pip-2.A13) 13..39 .. "^ ._---_.._-_.._-_._....,-_._~._--_.,-----,_._,--_...,-----,"--'-- Attachment G-9 PIP Program -5- February 1994 aquatic facilities in a park acreage equivalency fonnula. In addition. joint use opportunities with other public or quasi-public entities will be identified as another way to factor in park acreage credit. a. City-Owned Facilities. The City's current recreation facilities will be identified as to whether its structures can be encompassed in a land area credit system. b. School-Park Joint Usage Policy. An analysis will identify the two school districts with which any potential agreements can be negotiated to share facilities, and recommend a policy for implementation. The analysis may reveal a potential to allow park credit for use of school facilities and lead to the development of a school park policy. c. Quasi-Public Facilities Credit. Based on the Inventory of Existing Conditions perfonned in Phase I, the quasi- public facilities (i.e., Boys and Girls Clubs, Churches, and the YMCA) will be identified and recommended for credit against the parks acreage standard in order to mitigate a portion of the deficiency. 2. Park Site Selection Policy. The Parks and Recreation Department has developed a Park Site Selection Policy and will recommend its inclusion in the Parks Implementation Plan for adoption by the City Council. 3. Differential standards for seniors housing. As the City of Chula Vista has no current standard for seniors' housing as a separate housing density group, an analysis based on demographics will recommend a classification. 4. Parks Development Impact Fee (DIF) collection for apartments. An analysis will be perfonned on whether a Parks DIF should be instituted to facilitate additional revenue to support existing and/or new parks and recreation facilities. 5. SDG&E Right-of-Way Usage. Further analysis will be given in developing parks in the SDG&E easements. The Special Study Area noted in the Montgomery Specific Plan will be the primary document studied . [A-113 -pip-2.A13J JJ~ <If) _.__. ~. '_______,' .m·o.....·n.·_____.._ . _.._,.._._-----~-,._- -._-- Attachment G-IO PIP Program -6- February 1994 It is envisioned that the above analyses would result in an Issues Paper identifying policies the City would need to consider in developing a final PIP. E. CONCLUSIONS (public input) PHASE III - IMPLEMENTATION PLAN / PROGRAM A. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN The Implementation Plan will be structured in two parts, the first being a brief overview of a City-wide Plan which addresses the interrelationships between eastern and Western Chula Vista, and the second focusing on Western Chula Vista (with defined sub-areas). The Parks Implementation Plan will be structured as follows: 1. City-wide Goals, Objectives, Policies. At minimum, will address a revised Parks and Recreation Threshold Standard, a Parks Credit Policy, a review of the existing General Plan Diagram approach to designating park sites along with establishment of techniques for the future designation and development of parks, and identification of needed amendments to any existing General Plan Elements. 2. Western Chula Vista Goals, Objectives, Policies Will establish specific guidelines which will ensure implementation of the in Western Chula Vista, recognizing the more specific conditions presented with in each sub-area studied. B. IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM 1. The Parks Implementation Plan will recommend adoption of the implementation program by the City Council. 2. The Parks Implementation Plan will discuss and recommend the available funding sources to effectuate the components of the Plan; this will include: a. A Western Chula Vista Capital Improvement Strategy; b. A proposed American with Disabilities Act strategy to retrofit recreation facilities; and c. Maintenance and operations funds for acquisition and development of any parks and/or recreation facilities which may be proposed. [A-H3 -- pip-2.A13] 1:/" LI/ . .__.._.,-,._-~_._,._..,-- --------....---.-----.----....-- ._~__.__._._ """ H .___.._...__......__.. ...___....___ Attachment G-ll PIP Program -7- February 1994 3. The Parks Implementation Plan will recommend feasible joint-use agreements with proposed affected agencies, and also suggest funding sources should the joint-use agreements entail building renovations or land development. C. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PLANNING EFFORTS AND PROGRAMS 1. Schools Study, Otay Yalley Regional Park (OYRP) Plan, Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP), Main Street Study, SDG&E Right-Of-Way's. (public review and hearings) [A-I13 - pip-2.AI3] 1].,4"'- _ _,'_'..'_ u_._.____,_~_ _w_.________.__.____~._.__.__.______.._._ Attachment G-12 Minutes November 2, 1993 Page 3 '--" has notified the City that the fee interest in 73 remaining undeveloped lots in the EastLake Greens, Unit 8, is to be purchased by them .from Century American Corporation. They have requested that the original subdivision improvement agreement and supplemental subdivision agreement be replaced with new agreements signed by them. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works) 11. RESOLUTION 17294 ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT POR nmcoNSTRucnON OP ROHR COMMUNl1YPARK RENOVATION-PHASE II IMPROVEMENTS ·On 10/13/93, 13 sealed bids were received for the construction of Rohr Community Park Renovation-Phase II improvements in the City. Of the 13 bids, the bid in the amount of $172,455.00 from Basile Construction was found to be the lowest. Funds for the construction were included in the Fiscal Year 1992193 CIP Project Budget (pR·166). The work to be done includes asphalt pavement, street lights, concrete work, irrigation system, and landscaping. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works) Pulled from the Consent Calendar. Mayor Nader realized the item was part of the current year ClP budget, but questioned if the CIP project was looked at by the Parks and Recreation Commission. Jess Valenzuela, Director of Parks and Recreation, responded that it was. Mayor Nader stated it would be helpful to him in the future if under the Board/Commission recommendation the background infonnation be included. He would be more comfortable in knowing that someone with more of a focus on the parks and recreation needs in the City had reviewed the item. RESOLUTION 17294 OFFERED BY COUNClLMEMBER MOORE, reading of the text was waived, passed and approved unanimously. 12. REPORT PROPOSED PARKS IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (PIP) WORK PROGRAM· Aß part of the Fiscal Year 1992193 Capital Improvement Project budget, Council appropriated $75,000 in Park Acquisition and Development (PAD) funds to contract with a consultant for preparation of a PIP. The PIP will serve to implement provisions of the City's General Plan Parks and Recreation Element which calls for preparation of a long·range (20 year) master plan to include programs for upgrading, expanding, or repla~'ing older facilities in western Chula Vista and for installation of new facilities in accordance with adopted standards. Focusing primarily on western Chula Vista, the PIP will address such issues as possible ways to decrease existing park acreage deficiencies, fonnulation of a parks equivalency factor for active recreation facilities, and identification of potential acquisition sites for new parks and facilities. On 2/23/93, Council directed staff to develop a program for in-house preparation of the PIP and return at a later date. The report presents the in-house work program proposal. Staff recommends Council approve the PIP Work Program and initiate the commencement of work. (Director of Parks and Recreation and Director of Planning) Pulled from the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Rindone referred to page 12-4 and questioned if PAD funds were used to pay for the inhouse staff if it would reduce the PAD funds available to purchase parks, especially in western Chula Vista. He further quest¡'oI\ed if there was an alternative to utilizing those funds. He was interested in amassing as many funds as possible for the acquisition of parks. He supported a portion of the recommendation as it addressed Council's previous concern, but he would like to see what other funding sources could be utilized rather than PAD funds. Jess Valenzuela, Director of Parks and Recreation, responded that Council had set aside 20% of all park acquisition and development funds toward acquisition. The funds for inhouse staff were not a part of that account. There was approximately $500,000 in a set aside account for acquisition. It had been separated out in its own capital improvement project account. The source was park acquisition and development monies, but it was not part of the set aside monies. The funds could be used to enrich the funds for purchase of parks. He could return to Council with several other funding options, but could not think of any immediately. - 13 ..ý3 --..--...--.. ____.___.____.,...____.~_.__·u___,_____·__·__,····____.. Attachment G-13 Minutes November 2,1993 Pa~e 4 -..-/ City Manager Goss stated if the concern was with the consultant doing the survey, one possibility would be to talk to SANDAG. As a member of SANDAG the City was eligible for minor projects for free. If Council was referring to the overall amount of the project, staff would have to look at it and return to Council. He recommended the item be continued for two weeks to allow staff time to review the funding issue. MSUC (Rjndone/Moore) to continue for two weeks for a supplemental report on alternatives for funding. * * END OF CONSENT CALENDAR * * PUBUC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES 13. PUBUC HEARING AMENDMENT TO TIiE MUNICIPAL CODE, PCA-94-01 - CONSIDERATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO MUNICIPAL CODE SEcnON 19.14.0S0A TO AlLOW APPUCANfS FOR PLANNING PERMITS TO BYPASS TIiE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR AND HAVE 'I1iEIR APPUCATIONS CONSIDERED BY TIiE PLANNING COMMISSION IN PUBUC HEARING - CI1YINlTIATED - In Februaty, Council requested staff pursue several permit streamlining actions which had been referred for evaluation. One of the items was to prepare a draft ordinance which would provide an applicant with the option to bypass the Zoning Administrator and take applications for certain permits directly to the Planning Commission. Staff recommends Council place the ordinance on first reading. (Director of Planning) ORDINANCE 2575 AMENDING SEcnON 19.14.0S0A OF TIiE MUNICIPAL CODE TO AlLOW APPUCANfS POR PLANNING PERMITS TO BYPASS ZONING ADMINISTRATOR HEARING TO EXPEDITE CONSIDERATION BY PLANNING COMMISSION (first readinlr) This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was declared open. There being no public .j testimony, the public hearing was declared closed. ORDINANCE 2575 PLACED ON PIRSf READING BY MAYOR NADER, reading of the text was waived, passed and approved unanimously. . 14.A. PUBUC HEARING PROPOSED DISSOLUTION OP TIiE MONTGOMERY PLANNING COMMITfEE AND SEATING OP TIiE REMAINING MEMBERS ON TIiE SOlmiWEST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA COMMITrEE - On 8/17/93, Council directed staff to proceed with the proposal to dissolve the Montgomery Planning Committee (MPC) and determine an appropriate process to seat the remaining MPC members on the Southwest Project Area Committee (PAC). Staff recommends Council place the ordinance on first reading. (The Redevelopment Agency has already directed the Southwest PAC to consider remaining MPC member Platt for membership on the PAC.) (Director of Planning and Director of Community Development) ORDINANCE 2576 REPEALING SEen ON 2.~.200 OF TIiE MUNICIPAL CODE TI-lEREBY DISSOLVING TIiE MONTGOMERY PLANNING COMMI'ITEE (first readinsr) . B. REPORT PROCESS OP SELEenNG TIiE NEXT NEIGHBORHOOD POR TIiE IMPLEMENTATION OP TIiE NEIGHBORHOOD REVlTAUZATION PROGRAM IN TIiE MONTGOMERY AREA· In April 1989, Council established the Neighborhood Revitalization Program (NRP) and selected the Otay Town Neighborhood as the first area in which to implement the program. City staff has worked with the community for the past four years in planning and providing the needed public and private improvements. Recently, Council directed staff to look into the selection of the next neighborhood for the implementation of NRP. The report is in response to Council direction and is intended to provide information on the process staff proposes to follow in the selection of the next neighborhood. Staff recommends Council accept the report and direct staff to continue the process of selecting the next neighborhood for the implementation of another NRP. This reoort does not reQuire a Dublic hearimt but is a related item. (Director of Community Development) J],L/Y ._-. "---- - -'",'-'-'_."-~-~---'---""---"-' - CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item No. J r Meeting Date 3/8/94 ITEM TITLE: Report concerning grading on Telegraph Canyon Estates subdivision adjacent to Lehigh Avenue Resolution J?lfl tJ approving the proposed boundary adjustment between the property owners of 867 and 873 Lehigh Avenue and authorizing the Mayor to execute the boundary adjustment plat and associated deeds on behalf of the City. SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works~ ~ Director of Parks and Recreatio City Attorney ~ ~ ~ REVIEWED BY: City Manager í~~ l. (4/5 Vote:Yes No X ) - - At the December 14,1993 Council meeting, staff was instructed to meet with the residents on Lehigh Avenue and Baldwin to discuss options to mitigate the slope which has been constructed on Telegraph Canyon Estates behind their houses. In addition, staff was instructed to discuss the issues with the City Attorney to make sure that no options are or are soon to be closed to mitigate the concerns of the residents. RECOMMENDATION: That Council accept the report and authorize the Mayor to execute the boundary adjustment plat and associated deeds on behalf of the City. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not Applicable DISCUSSION: Staff has met with Baldwin and the residents on Lehigh Avenue to discuss options to mitigate the slope which has been constructed on Telegraph Canyon Estates behind their houses. In addition, staff has discussed the issues with the City Attorney to make sure that no options are or are soon to be closed to mitigate the concerns of the residents. Staff meet with Baldwin representatives on January 3, 1994 to discuss various options which could be done to reduce the height of the slopes. Those options included: /L/~ I -"_.- ~ - -. --'~~---'-'~'-'-'--~-----"'--"-'-"----'-'--"'---'-.--.-..-------.-- Page 2, Item~1f Meeting Date: 3/8/94 I. Regrading the pads on lots 80-83 to slope away from the street. 2. Regrade portions of lots 81-83 to drain away from Marquette Road, eliminate lot 80 and regrade the lot thereby moving the slope away from the residents at 867 and 873 Lehigh Avenue. (This option would require relocating a lot to another location on the site if the same number of lots were to be retained.) 3. Lowering Marquette Road to reduce the slope height adjacent to the residences. This would require lowering the 20 inch steel waterline from the Otay Water District storage facility. Baldwin considered the alternatives mentioned above and found all of them unacceptable. However, they did come back with another alternative to deed the property which contained the slope to the adjacent property owners, install side and backyard fencing for them and install an irrigation system connected to their houses at no cost to the owners. This was proposed for the properties located at 849 (Javier), 855 (Appel, resident; Gutierrez, owner), 861 (Murnane), 867 (Murray, resident; Roochi, owner) and 873 (Barnhill) Lehigh Avenue. The Mc Murray property at 879 Lehigh Avenue was not considered to be impacted significantly by the slopes constructed on Telegraph Canyon Estates and was not included as part of this proposal. The area adjacent to this property has not been graded for the first 50 feet east of the common property line. In addition, the area immediately adjacent to 879 Lehigh Avenue was granted to the City in fee for open space. Should the same proposal be considered by Council for this property, the City would have to deed approximately 8150 square feet of City open space property to Mrs. McMurray. Approximately 5,300 square feet of that area would be relatively level more than tripling the size of her usable back yard. The proposal by Baldwin does require the City to grant some of the open space property to the Barnhill's (873 Lehigh). The area which would need to be dedicated to Mr. Barnhill is estimated at 2,600 square feet. The additional area will double the size of the Barnhill's back yard. However, only 800 square feet of the estimated 2,600 square-foot adjustment will be relatively level. A small area of City open space would also need to be deeded from the City to the Roochi's (867 Lehigh Avenue). That area is estimated at 50 square feet. Baldwin would process the boundary adjustment plat and deeds necessary to accomplish the land transfer. (See Exhibit "A ") MEETING WITH PROPERTY OWNERS The property owners that spoke at the Council meeting on December 14,1993 were invited to discuss this option on January 20, 1994. Three of the four property owners attended the meeting. Those in attendance lived at 855 (Appel), 861 (Murnane) and 873 (Barnhill) Lehigh Avenue. The owner of 879 (McMurray) Lehigh Avenue did not attend. The owner of 861 (Roochi) Lehigh Avenue lives in Washington State and has not responded to any of the notices concerning this project. Mr. Barnhill has indicated that he has attempted to contact them as well. The main item discussed with the property owners was the boundary adjustment proposal since that was the only option that Baldwin was agreeable to institute. Staff indicated that there are /'/~ ,2. _._-~~-----_.__._-~-_._~_...__..._--,._-,_..,---~_._..--- Page 3, ItemL'1 Meeting Date: 3/8/94 other options that could reduce the impact by reducing the height of the slope. Those options required area that is presently planned to drain towards Marquette Road to drain to their property. Staff indicated that the same areas previously drained towards their property. Each alternative was discussed with them. A detailed discussion of these alternatives did not occur because those in attendance did not indicate a desire to discuss each in more detail. Staff indicated to the owners that the alternatives would be included in this agenda statement and each will be addressed separately below. BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT The boundary adjustment will give the property owners more land some of which is relatively level. They would also be able to construct retaining walls at the base of the slope and possibly increase their usable backyard area by up an additional to 10 feet in depth. In addition, the owners would have control over the maintenance of the slope where it was not proposed to be taken care of by an open space district. This option can only be exercised if the property owner is willing to accept the property. If an individual property owner was not willing to accept the property, the remaining owners could still accept the land, however, this would result in weird lot line configurations. As an example, Exhibit D shows one of a number of scenarios which could occur. That exhibit shows the lot lines if the land were accepted by the owners of 873, 861 and 844 Lehigh Avenue and rejected by 867 and 855 Lehigh Avenue. New deeds must be executed by the property owners, the City and Baldwin in order to assure deeds with the proper legal description are on record for future real estate transactions and to comply with State law. If the boundary adjustment is approved by Council, Baldwin would need to process a variance in order to meet setback requirements from the rear property line. By deeding the property from the top of slope to the adjacent parcel to the owners of 867 & 873 Lehigh Avenue, the distance required from the front and rear property line for lot 80 near the southerly lot line would not allow the structure to be constructed without encroaching into those setbacks by approximately 2-3 feet. The Planning Department has indicated that the variance could be processed through the administrative procedure and is acceptable to them. Two of the three residents in attendance indicated that the boundary adjustment was a solution that was acceptable to them as a compromise to removal of the slope. Those two reside at 861 (Mr. Murnane) and 873 Lehigh Avenue (Mr. & Mrs. Barnhill). These are two of the property owner's with the highest slopes adjacent to their property. The resident (not the owner) at 855 Lehigh Avenue (Mrs. Appel) was not responsive to this proposal whatsoever and only found complete removal of the slope acceptable. Mrs. Appel has always had a 4-6 foot high slope in her back yard. The grading on Telegraph Canyon Estates adjacent to Mrs. Appel's added another slope of 5-10 feet in height (please see Exhibit E). The slope on Telegraph Canyon Estates adjacent to 855 Lehigh is not visible from the backyard but is visible from the bedroom window on the second story of the house. The view from the bedroom to the distant mountains will be somewhat obstructed when the homes are built. The back of the home that will be JJ]'}. .'.. ...,-,----------........----.-..,.--.'-.- Page 4, Item ) 'I Meeting Date: 3/8/94 constructed on lot 82 will be at least 100 feet away from the common property line with 855 Lehigh Avenue (slides are available which show the situations mentioned above). The owner of 855 Lehigh Avenue is the Gutierrez Family Trust. Staff has not heard directly from the Gutierrez Trust on the grading issue but Fred, Felizardo and Maria Gutierrez did sign the petition relating to the street closure as did Anna Neila, all signing as residents of 855 Lehigh Avenue. Mrs. Appel is a relative of the Gutierrez family. Staff has estimated the areas that each property owner would receive within 10 %. The exact numbers have not been calculated and will differ somewhat from the numbers indicated below. 849 Lehigh Javier 600 square feet 855 Lehigh Gutierrez 1200 square feet 861 Lehigh Murnane 1800 square feet 867 Lehigh Roochi 2000 square feet 873 Lehigh Barnhill 2600 square feet REGRADE A PORTION OF LOTS 80-83 TO DRAIN WESTERLY AND LOWER LOT 80 Slope height reduction would be obtained by lowering the pad on lot 80 approximately 3.5 feet and grading a portion of lots 81-83 behind the building pads to drain towards Lehigh Avenue. (See Exhibit "B ") This option would lower the slope heights approximately 2-4 feet adjacent to all impacted lots along Lehigh Avenue and would almost eliminate the impact of the slopes on Telegraph Canyon Estates as they relate to the properties at 849 and 855 Lehigh A venue. The slope adjacent to 849 Lehigh would not be visible from the back yard and the slope adjacent to 855 Lehigh would just be visible from the second story of the house.( 1-3 feet showing above the current site obstructions as shown on Exhibit D). This option would also drain portions of the lots towards the Lehigh properties. Since the area previously drained in that direction, there would be no additional runoff over what existed before the grading. Additionally, the area proposed to be drained in that direction will be back yards of the lots within Telegraph Canyon Estates. The water would have to be collected in a brow ditch at the top of the slope then conveyed to the existing ditch in the Barnhill property. The existing ditch is adequate to carry the amount of flow that would be generated from the area in question. Since it was originally constructed to collect water from east of the Lehigh Avenue properties. This option would also require the sewer that is to be installed in Marquette Road to be approximately 4 feet deeper than originally planned. This will add additional construction cost for Baldwin. The regrading will also add cost to the project to remove the material and place it in another location. The estimated additional cost for this option is $27,000. /'1- Y - ---.-.... -.- ......--.-., .- -_.,_._~--~---..---~_.._-----------~-,-_.,._.__.- Page 5, Item /'1 Meeting Date: 3/8/94 REGRADE PORTIONS OF LOTS 81-83 TO DRAIN WEST. ELIMINATE LOT 80 This option would reduce the maximum slope height to approximately 11 feet and would move the slope away from 867 and 873 Lehigh resulting in a situation much closer to what was there prior to the grading for those two parcels. (See Exhibit "C") This option would result in a loss of one lot. In the meeting with the property owners, Mr. Tim O'Grady of Baldwin indicated that this was unacceptable in that there is no place to add a lot in the development and therefore they would loose a lot. In addition, this would require a significant regrading of the area by Baldwin and installation of the brow ditch at the rear of the lots with a connection to the existing ditch in the Barnhill's back yard. The estimated cost to regrade and provide proper drainage under this proposal is $21,000. There would also be a loss of income from the elimination of one lot which is estimated to amount to $10,000.00. Total cost to Baldwin is estimated to be $31,000.00. LOWER THE WATERLINE AND REGRADE THE ENTIRE AREA This option would reduce the impact the most but is by far the most costly. The estimate to lower the water line alone is $500,000-$600,000. The grading would cost an additional $400,000-500,000 since the site is currently balanced (all material moved on the site is used within the site) and any material removed would have to be trucked offsite to a disposal site. Baldwin stated that they would have graded the site lower if it had been economically feasible because the grading would have resulted in a better lot configuration. Baldwin would be impacted significantly with this alternative. MOBILE HOME PARK COMMENTS Recently, staff has been contacted by Mr. Norm Harwood a resident of the mobile home park which is adjacent to Telegraph Canyon Estates. Mr. Harwood indicated that some of the residents immediately adjacent to the newly graded slopes had lost their view and they had requested an adjustment of rents associated with the situation. Apparently, the rent issue is currently being discussed between the residents and the owner. The owner of the mobile home park was notified when the SPA and tentative maps went to Planning Commission and the City Council, however, according to Mr. Harwood, the owner never passed the information on to the residents. Staff contacted The Baldwin Company to see if any contact had been made by them with the residents of the mobile home park. Baldwin indicated that they had met with the association in September 1993, about a month after grading started and discussed the work. Until January 31, 1994, staff had not received any comments relative the project from the mobile home park owner or residents. Staff has provided a notice to those mobile homes immediately adjacent to Telegraph Canyon Estates of this item being considered tonight. /Lf'p '"..._.___n_ .. _._--_."-"~----~" Page 6, HemE Meeting Date: 3/8/94 DISCUSSION RELATIVE TO VESTING OF BALDWIN'S RIGHTS One issue which is important to Baldwin's rights hinge upon the property owners receiving due process. In this case the property owners had 4 public hearings which were noticed in accordance with City policy and one public forum. The City's public notice policy exceeds that required by state law. The notices were sent to those persons contained on a mailing list. The property owners along Lehigh Avenue were included on that list. Although nothing in the notice mentioned the extent of grading, the slopes that are in question were shown on the tentative map and that map was also used for the SPA plan processing. In addition, the staff reports for both the SPA and tentative maps indicated that the slopes adjacent to the properties in College Estates would be 8-12 feet in height. The tentative map (which illustrates the proposed slopes) and SPA plan were conditionally approved by Council in 1992 and early 1993. Grading plans were processed for the site in conformance with the tentative subdivision map in 1993. Final maps have been recorded on portions of the site. The area in question has not had a final map or improvement plans approved by the City as yet. Both are in the plan check process at the present time. Section 66474.1 of the Subdivision Map Act states "A legislative body shall not deny approval of a final or parcel map if it has previously approved a tentative map for the proposed subdivision and if it finds that the final or parcel map is in substantial compliance with the previously approved tentative map. " This section of the Map Act would require the approval of the final map if all applicable conditions of approval have been met and the alignment and grades are in substantial conformance with the tentative map. To date it is staff's opinion that the grading and improvement plans meet the substantial conformance requirement. Approval of a final map does not in itself confer a vested right to develop. Zoning can still be changed or other police power ordinances can be adopted after final map, grading or other permits have been granted or until actual building permits or other identifiable buildings have been issued and substantial work has been issued and substantial work has been done thereafter in reliance on those permits. A further discussion of this issue is contained in the attached memorandum from the City Attorney. In conformance with the opinion expressed in the City Attorney's memorandum, Council could change zoning or adopt a moratorium and prohibit the issuance of a building permit on the lots as graded but could not deny the final map if all conditions are met and the work is in substantial conformance with the tentative map. Since the zoning is consistent with the area and there appears to be no justification for a moratorium at this time, Baldwin could go forward with the project as graded with the lots as configured without addressing the issue. The City Attorney has indicated that it would be difficult to force Baldwin to regrade the site. J't...¿ _ _ __~__._~...._..._,_._._.._.,,_._.__..___w____ ... Page 7, Item / Lj Meeting Date: 3/8/94 RECOMMENDATION After considering the cost to implement each alternative, the legal opinion given by the City Attorney, the Lehigh Avenue property owners comments relative to the alternatives and Baldwin's position, staff recommends that Council approve the boundary adjustment between the property owners and the City and authorize the Mayor to execute the boundary adjustment plat and deeds on behalf of the City. FISCAL IMPACT: None to the City and between $27,000 and $1,000,000 for the Baldwin Company. Attaclunents Exhibits A-E Council Mmute, 12I14I9NOT SCANNED Memo from Bruce Boogaard WAU/B5 f:\home\engineer\agenda\tcegrade. wau EY-386 021894 /L/- 7 _._~. ..---..----..--,.-,-.-...,.-----.- RESOLUTION NO. 17~/t? RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE PROPOSED BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN THE PROPERTY OWNERS OF 867 AND 873 LEHIGH AVENUE AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT PLAT AND ASSOCIATED DEEDS ON BEHALF OF THE CITY WHEREAS, at the December 14, 1993 Council meeting, staff was instructed to meet with the residents on Lehigh Avenue and Baldwin to discuss options to mitigate the slope which has been constructed on Telegraph Canyon Estates behind their houses; and WHEREAS, in addition, staff was instructed to discuss the issues with the City Attorney to make sure that no options are or are soon to be closed to mitigate the concerns of the residents; and, WHEREAS, staff has met with Baldwin and the residents on Lehigh Avenue to discuss options to mitigate the slope and discussed the issues with the City Attorney; and, WHEREAS, since the city appears to be limited in the type of changes that can be made to those which Baldwin is agreeable to process, staff recommends that Council approve the boundary adjustment between the property owners and the City and authorize the Mayor to execute the boundary adjustment plat and deeds on behalf of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the City Council of the city of Chula vista does hereby approve the proposed boundary adjustment between the property owners of 867 and 873 Lehigh Avenue. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of the City of Chula vista is hereby authorized to execute the boundary adjustment plat and associated deeds on behalf of the city of Ch la vista. / Pro"ontod by ì Y"'r Vod~ " 't f ! M C't John P. Llppltt, Dlrec or 0 Bruce . , 1 Y of Public Works Attorney C:\rs\lehigh J¥ ~ ~ . ,_ ____.__.. __m_ _H.____._ . .._,.._ "'_"'..__.___.,_,._____..___.._ -----0 EXHIBIT -A. 849 JAVIER 600 SF LOT 83 ---- U 855 PPEL GUTIERR Z (0) LOT 82 ~ œ -- - - - - 1800 0 SF ~ 861 0 CD MURNANE LOT 81 ------ 2000 867 SF MURRAY Rooe I (0) -- LOT 80 ----- 2600 SF 873 z ... 0.. BARNHI VI· >. . . o· CD . E::] :=J ....""" VI· -- U.J -- -- BALDWIN LAND ~ > oc( 879 CITy················ TO BE TRANSFERRED. ... '" .." """ "" ..." ,,,..... " ...",,, ...., ,,,,,,,... ... , ..." "'. OPEN McMURRA '''''' ,... .., . ...... CITY OPEN SPACE m3 .."",,,. . " ., ..., :I: ...",,,. ... "" ....... ,...", ,. ... " "..... ...""",........""" .. TO BE TRANSFERRED. ... . . . l:) SPACE .."",. . "" '...:::: :I: .'.'" ,. , "... ..." . ...""" ..., "., ,... ...", . ... . "."" U.J ... '" ..."".. .. ...J LOT·· .. "....,,, ... ... ::. ':"'. ... ..:,: :,:,:~,',»:..:..: ',', J'I-Cf DRAWN BY: TITLE: TELEGRAPH CANYON EST A TES-LEHIGH J.P.P DATE: AVE. PROPOSED BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT. 2/28/94 _..-----_._--.-_.._._-_."~_.~-,.".._....._._"------~_.-._-~-~--_.,..._._- -----~_...- / '6- /-~--~ --..----- I "-----l.5-11 ! ""Ei' \ - . . 845 ALLE~9 . ~ ~.. 0 /: .\ r.0 ~~. ~:; x , q, ¡/J~' f \.IA:"L -1 -10 ~~ ~~ N~Y"L.. :J82 6 ¿ X ! .... \.lA' , 581.1' )( ( A 8lc" ~ I c. / l \ H A ')..~.."'= 5804 , , ~". ,. ." - ......-, GO '6- ~~>" ~;::. .'f-..~.J'~' ;~,~:'" .~~:-,~._~.~: "~ ~" ~. ":",t;!. : -jf; '''_i. "'.C'l' . ,,: ''''Io:\.,-, .. ,~/ Äél~~, .' , / .-' ,,'._,."~- .~; / r-'......~...; , -/' )f, .,,~' , ~ ~X;~,,-, "~;>,~ -'9n5 ¡'-,; .;; . 'b/ 'Jl,.. f --ó: .. -1 , 8~ ~I "L.. 5826 ZR X . ... ..,......, 'viA' --. 87~ Mt>f.~ _..~.__...- --.-----.------ t \ \~ I 5929~xJ "'1..' ,b/ q; '~... -'"-.- , )", '1,/' >rJ) . r.f ~ Á\ "'.so L 84~59Ú5 ,è~HI8V D ~ . ~_ VIE , Y 1:>,,' ~,,/ f;¢I ~ ~ , /" ,ff. " _....._ I "'-. {A'-JÞ~'~" - .- '~rJ .- 0/ ", tfÆ7\ . ~ / Ñ V."q. / ,¡ ~,.,. ./r"· t! ,. . c}\l "" (JI' ..-.,.., "()~ C>Y¡ ì~;. 7-" ® F ~ \¡ , /b1, --. ~JAJJ~ OIG I ' r,,, , .w . 1J 'f -~ ' !' '-- ip " '. r. ~ t: ~"1 / ~ ;-- '\ MURRA'( //? IH..,;-·;R~· ~HI. ® ø( I; I . - : z:':;/' .-? 7 Ib J1. ~'-. ," -- ") :!. '~-:---'"lL -j'---, .. _ c \ . rPo· ~ ..... \ 1 \. , ". ..' . -i-:L. II -~ f Ý \I-L'7 ~~ ~,~ --9'5" , Ý IQUfftLLlj ~~0 .. \ ... ;s: , <ì j-,c· , - L~ II.. ¿ > -n/ , \, '- '\.. ~ , , - ~.~ =--- __:1467 I I ri /I J:::1. 11 'I '--' - '" ~ ~ " ~. r ' ~ ~ ~ ß ~ - ~ . , ~ "-'. . / . \ - . /\\ I ~"-. ./.\', I 7 ........ v' __...__ .... <II .... ð (f) W <II % ;:) . ... Z o o. 0.... > % N II) II: ... .... .. 0- ~ ~ 0 « 011: ,__ _;:) . . - - ~~ %>..... l- e;:) :r: CD'" I.... U ~ I W 19 U I __ I <II = I (f) :r: I =U I 0 (f) W . Z I ' 0 ~ \ ð (f) -1 Z _ II: I ~ CD \ c:Þ 0 LO I II: \ c:Þ - It oJ 0:::: I r"\ ' 0 \ e UJ ' :r...'ó % , "\ ro N X \AI.J \ ~ CD' W ~... \ 1-, cO o Z "-z \ ~I 00 = I 0 \AI;: \ W ~II: C I Z ~c¡ \ - ~ 0 - WI;> 0:\ .. oJ C I 0 \ ..J 1-4 I ~:t:. ; - 0....... -' ..... CO a::......... c en . ~ ~ z - I en z :r: CJ) <t ë <t ~ X W Z II: W ~ 0 0.... Z <t ~ 01i o .... Z ,.. 0.... au ~ .... Z Oz ..... _ - 0.... ..... ~ ~ ~... W ~ ~ L- l- II: ~ <II ~ -.J 0 <II ~ ~ o .... ã <II ~ ... Q ... ¥.... o u~ ¥~ ~¡ u;:) ~2 II) i 1ft 0 ØI II) o 0 0 II) ! g : =J'I-dj 1'1- ;7_ .." ---~,_.,",. Minutes December 14, 1993 Page 17 p.e.e. trapezoidal channel, tunnelling under or replacement of existing garage strocture, pipe collars. plugging of existing drainage pipes, connection of existing drainage pipes to new improvements, protection and restoration of existing improvements, traffic control, and other miscellaneous work required by the plans. Staff recommends Council: (1) Appropriate $293,507 from the unappropriated balance of Fund 253 Transportation Partnership Funds to elP Fund 253-2530 _ DR-tt6 Central Drainage Basin; and (2) Accept bids and award contract to T.C. Constroction Company, Inc. in the amount of $1,107,496.07 for construction of Alternate A (dual concrete reinforced concrete pipes) and with the provision of delaying start of construction until 5/1/94. (Director of Public Works) 4/5th's vote required. Councilmember Horton questioned wby the low bid by T.C. Coostruction Company was 12.6% above the staff estimate. John Lippitt, Director of Public Works, responded that it was a very difficult project. It dealt with difficult sections of pipe, etc. Fourteen or fifteen contractors took out bids, but due to the difficulty of the job, only five contractors turned in bids. Counci1member Rindone questioned what the project would do to alleviate the flood problem just east of the Pep Boys parking lot. Mr. Lippitt responded that wbere the pipe went below the garages, it would be taken out and two new pipes, probably double the current size would be placed along the driveway of the apartments. One pipe would go directly down H Street and west of the ARCa station thereby doubling the capacity of the downstream system. If awarded, the contractor expected to complete the temporary measures by the end of the year. Councilmember Hortoo questioned why the project was not subject to compliance with Federal and State Minority and Women Owned Business requirements. She further questioned how staff would encourage minority business participation. Mr. Lippitt responded the source of funding was primarily the Charter Point account and did not come from Federal or State funding. Advertisements were placed in publications that specialized in getting the word out to minority businesses. Staff could provide an informational report on the actual publications. Councilmember Moore stated compliance was not required but questioned if that meant the City did anything different. Mr. Lippitt stated that was correct. Under jobs where the Federal government required it there could be a requirement for a certain amount of subcontractors be minority contractors. Mayor Nader questioned if those requirements were met in the project even though they were not requirements. Mr. Lippitt stated he did not believe there was a minority subcontractor. Mayor Nader requested a list of the minority media the project was advertised in and the City's policy on prevailing wage. He requested that his staff flag those items when received. He did not feel a need to wait to vote on the item as it was a project of public necessity. His only disappointment was that he would have liked it to have been done prior to the rainey season. RESOLUTION 17343 OFFERED BY COUNCILMEMBER RINDONE, reading ofibe text was waived, passed and approved unanimously. 29. REPORT GRADING FOR TELEGRAPH CANYON EST A TES SUBDIVISION AND THE EFFECT ON ADJACENT PROPERTY ON LEHIGH AVENUE - On 10/19/93, a resident on Lehigh Avenue, adjacent to the Telegraph Canyon Estates Subdivision, expressed a concern about the grading of the subdivision and its effect on their property. Council directed staff to return with information on the grading. Staff )J./-/ 'I ,..~.._._--,,-- ~~.--_.__..- ---- Minutes December 14, 1993 Page t 8 has discussed the grading with the resident and indicated the reasons the grading was done in the manner it was done with the safeguards to their property. Staff recommends Council accept the report. (Director of Puhlic Works) Councilmember Fox questioned what the City's flexibility was in making the decision. in particular, what rights were vested by the developer if Council went to the extreme to require re-grading. City Attorney Boogaard stated there was no development agreement and the rights were only vested after suhstantial expenditure of funds were made with regard to the project. He questioned whether there bad been substantial foundation pourings. Clifford Swanson, Deputy Public Works Director/City Engineer, responded all of the grading on the sile was close to done, he did not know the extent of completion. Some of the foundations for the models had been poured.. City Attorney Boogaard stated he would have to evaluate the degree of expenditure of the developer before he could respond. Mr. Swanson stated the tentative map had been approved and believed the first two phases of the final map had been approved. He did not believe the area in question had a map on it yet. Council member Fox referred to the 12/14/93 letter from some of the homeowners and stated one of the allegations made was that they did not receive proper notice, i.e. in laymans terms that their view would be destroyed. Robert Leiter, Director of Planning, stated notices were mailed at both the SPA plan level and tentative map level which described the general design of the project, indicated the number of units, and indicated that it would be an urban development of the entire site. There were also indications given that reports and plans describing the project were available for review. There was not a specific description of grading proposals on specific sites as that was normally presented at the public hearing and in the agenda statements. Councilmember Fox questioned who would be responsible for the maintenance of the hill. If it was the new property owners, he questioned if the Council had the option of putting it in an open space district for maintenance. Mr. Swanson responded that a section was set aside as open space. The hill in question was currently shown as private property. It could be changed to open space district so the City would maintain the slope. The entire open space district for the subdivision would pay those costs rather than maintenance by the individual property owners. Mayor Nader stated staffneecled to confer with the City Attorney if they were not clear on what constituted vesting. The Council mayor may not have the option of making the change Councilmember Fox suggested. If that option was available, that was a decision for the Council to make and the staff report assumed Council did not have that option without checking to make sure. He felt Council did not have enough information to know whether they had that option. Councilmember Fox stated the letter also requested a dialogue between the developer, residents, and staff. It was his understanding that bad already been done. Mr. Swanson stated one of the residents had been in to talk with staff. To his knowledge it had not been discussed with the property owners and Baldwin. Mr. Swanson then gave a brief slide presentation of the existing homes and grading that had been completed. . Tim O'Grady, 11975 EI Camino Real, San Diego, CA, representing The Baldwin Company, stated they supported staff recommendation, but it appeared that things could go in another direction. The report was not made available to him until the afternoon of the meeting and if Council chose to take action other than accepting the report or making any modifications to the subdivision, he hoped they would be afforded some time to prepare and address specific comments on the issue. J'I-/~ __",_____ ____~_"_._'_""m' ._._..._.__."._.._..___._.._____.... - - - -_....~-_. ..__..~._--_._. --..- ----. ~~._-_.... --- - Minutes December 14, 1993 Page t 9 Mayor Nader felt that as a matter of due process, if Council were to entertain changes to the subdivision, it would be agendized so they would be given an opportunity to prepare and submit comments. It appeared througb no fault of Baldwin a real bardship bad been imposed on other property owners and it was going to take some remedial work to fix. It did not seem fair that the burden should fall entirely on the Baldwin Company who acted within approved maps and guidelines given to them by staff. He felt it could possibly be changed by eliminating some lots from the subdivision in that particular location and adding some density to the subdivision somewbere else to compensate Baldwin. He questioned if Baldwin would be willing to discuss that with the City. Mr. O'Grady responded that it would be something they would be willing to talk about, but would have to investigate as be was not certain there was room in the subdivision to do that. They were open to alternative options and felt they bad shown that in the Gotham Street extension. There was more involved than simply removing the lots as the grade was there because there was a major water facility under that slope. Mayor Nader stated be did not mean pbysical removal of the lot. he meant removal of the lot as a building entitlement under the subdivision map. . Russ Bamill, 873 Lehigh Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, stated they had filed a report regarding the grading of the Telegrapb Canyon Estates subdivision and the effect on the adjacent properties. They received the staff report on Saturday and noted tbey had been given a set of plans after the 10/93 meeting. He had met with staff and Mr. O'Grady and felt he bad enough information and had done his homework. He was also speaking on behalf of several of his neighbors and felt their home values would be depreciated, their views to the east were eliminated, and erosion problems would occur. They requested the area be regraded and lowered. . Sylvia McMurray, 879 Lehigh Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, stated she was in opposition and would let Mr. Barnhill speak on ber bebalf. . Michael W. Murnane, 861 Lehigh Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, stated he could no longer use his swimming pool because it was dirty, as was bis home. He now had a thirty-thirty-five foot hill in the back of bis home that was not previously there. During tbe last two rainstorms he bad a problem with drainage wbich he bad never had before. Two years ago his bome was appraised at $225,000, two months ago his home was reappraised at $185,000. The appraiser informed him that they bad numerous upgrades, but property values bad dropped wbicb would account for $20,000-$25,000 and the remainder was due to the grading behind bis backyard. . Solina M. Appel. 855 Lehigb Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, stated their view had been destroyed by the grading. MS (Nader) to not accept the report and direct staff to meet with the residents and Baldwin Company to develop a soluûon to the issue that would, as much as possible, provide residents abutting the development with the enjoyment of their property that they had prior to the grading that took place. He suggested that as one opûon to be looked at would be to move the hill back further away from the property lines, to eliminate two or three lots from the subdivision map and compensate Baldwin for that change with a density transfer to another part of the subdivision. Councibnember Fox stated he would second the moûon provided the option to create an open space district to maintain the slope in the moÛon. Agreeable to the Maker of the Moûon. Councilmember Moore stated some of the slides showed there was a steep bank there to begin with. He could support encouraging the developer to work with staff and residents to see if they could negotiate the perceived problems. but he was not going to tell them how to do it due to his lack of knowledge. He did not want to tie the developers hands on a map tbat was already approved. One of the problems was that the development was built in a bole. He was also concerned that if there was a slope, the drainage should be caught half-way down to prevent erosion. If the Mayor agreed that the motion was to include maximum flexibility to try to come to a consensus to the perceived problems. be could support it. Councilmember Fox stated the intent of the motion was not to dictate a solution, but give them flexibility in coming up with those solutions and the Mayor's suggestion was only that, a suggestion. Ii/-I? ---.-._-_.---+..~._~_..._-- --. -~ -- -- - - - --- Minutes December 14, 1993 Page 20 Mayor Nader stated that was correct, it was only one solution to be looked at. He expected a report addressing the problem and within that he wanted to give the parties all the flexibility in the world to come up with a solution they felt was best. He questioned if tbere was a problem in bringing hack the report on 1/11/94. Mr. Swanson stated that with the holidays and other items scheduled in the next few weeks, staff would be more comfortable with the end of January. Mayor Nader stated he would ac:œpt the report at the end of January if also included within the motion, with the Seconds consent, that staff would immediately meet with the City Attorney 10 cletennine the City's legal options and take any step he advised 10 ensure that no options were dosed during thatlÏme. Agreeable to the Second of the Motion. VOTE ON MOTION AS AMENDED: approved unanimously. 30. REPORT REQUESI' FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) FOR EXTERIOR ADVERTISING ON CHULA VISTA TRANSIT (CVT) BUSES - On 917/93, Council approved exterior advertising on CVT buses and directed staff to prepare a RFP to implement the ad program. The report discusses the major requirements of the RFP. Staff recommends Council accept the report. (Director of Public Works) Mayor Nader questioned if there was any particular reason why the contract had to provide that a copy of each specific advertising contract had to be provided in full to the City. William Gustafson, Transit Coordinator, responded the City would then know and be able to track the amount of advertising the contractor sold. It would be helpful to know how many of those advertisers had been involved, what price the contractor was getting for the ads, and the revenue could be traced hack to the source. It was probably more essential if the City was on a percent basis and not dealing with one contractor or a specific flat rate. Mayor Nader questioned if copies of advertising copy being provided to City staff in advance along with regular revenue reports to tbe City for inspection would not also meet the intent and result in less papelWork for botb the contractor and the City. Mr. Gustafson felt it might work and suggested that once the proposals were received staff could recommend on how to proceed. Mayor Nader questioned if the proposals could be due in a shorter time period after the submission conference and then have the evaluation completed a few days earlier so a Council docket of a week or two earlier could be accomplished, i.e. the end of February rather than mid-March. He further questioned if there was any preference for disadvantaged business enterprises. Mr. Gustafson stated there was nothing specifically regarding disadvantaged or minority businesses. Criteria 3, page 30- 10 did give up to five points, on a sliding scale, for businesses that committed to advertising the local Chula Vista businesses or services. Mayor Nader stated he would like to see, without necessarily awarding certain points, reference that it was desirable that disadvantaged businesses be promoted through the program. City Attorney Boogaard felt Council was getting close to the constitutional limitations. He requested that staff be allowed to research that in light of recent cases. Mayor Nader stated he did not want to delay the item any further but requested that staff look at what was appropriate while the proposal was pending. He questioned if there was some way to put into it some ability to consider the impact on the local economy that would result if the advertising contractor was local, i.e. tax revenues, economic advantages that in turn resulted in tax revenues to the City. He stated there had been a referral to staff regarding that issue and its inclusion into RFP's. /1'/7 ----"--.-.. -,,~ .. ..'_..__._ _ ___u.__u_ __ __"_ '__ _ ____.._...___ _m._________ ----_.._,- ----- MEMORANDUM OF THE CITY ATl'ORNEY DATE: March 2, 1994 TO: The Honorable Mayor and city council Cliff Swanson, Deputy Director of Public Works Bill Ullrich, Senior civil Engineer FROM: Bruce M. Boogaard, City AttorneyêMG(":JðßS.) RE: Telegraph Canyon Estates Grading/Sloping Issue with Lehigh Avenue Tenants ------------------------------------------------------------------- You have inquired: 1. Does the City have the power to change the zoning or other entitlements? It is a factual issue as to whether rights have vested. The test is whether substantial expenditures have been made by Baldwin in above-the-ground improvements. As of today, it appears that Baldwin has graded the tentative map are>. (344 houses) , they have installed some 1/3 of all sewer, water, electrical, cable TV, telephone, gas lines, curb, gutter and sidewalk pavement, 94 (of the 344 proposed) building permits have been issued, 94 foundations have been poured and framing has been commenced (and in many cases completed) on 94 lots. It is my opinion that they would be able to make good equitable arguments that their rights have vested. My conservative advice would be that we should not attempt to alter their entitlements, especially in light of the fact that Baldwin's proposal to adjust the boundary lines, thereby giving them more property in lieu of slope removal, seems acceptable to 3 and possible 4 of the 5 owners. 2. Assuming the rights have not vested, does the City have the power to directly force Baldwin to remove the newly graded slopes and return them to their original condition? No. Baldwin always has the option to leave the land fallow, although this will be at some substantial expense to them. Practically speaking, we may have enough legitimate governmental interest in protecting neighborhood views to coerce them to change the slopes as a condition to the further development of the project. The point is that even if we were to have the power to change the entitlements, it may be of no avail since the city would /tf~/r _,___,_ ,_.....___.n._....___._. __..__ -..,-.-- March 2, 1994 Page Two not have the power to change grading done under a lawfully granted permit. 3, If the Council wanted to risk the litigation on the vested rights issue, what other legitimate land use could be appropriate there if the City were to engage in a rezoning or replanning? Although staff is not recommending that the City require a change in the slope by force or negotiation, if the issue was presented earlier in the planning process, it may have been appropriate to put the Open Space or Park in this location. 4. Were the Lehigh Avenue residents deprived of lawful due process? No. They were given legally adequate notice on four separate occasions. Planning Department records indicate that notices were sent of the following four meetings: the SPA Plan at the Planning commission and City Council, the Tentative Map approval at the Planning Commission and at the City Council. Nothing in the notice mentioned the extent of the grading, but both the staff reports (on the tentative map and the SPA Plan) and the tentative map itself reflected the proposed creation of the slopes. BMB:lgk c:\lt\lehigh.cc 11-/1 -...... - ----.._,-----.._~._-------_. COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT ITEM /5 MEETING DATE March ·8. 1994 ITEM TITLE: Report on the Artist Selection Process for the Public Art at the South Chula vista Library SUBMITTED BY: Library Director ~ ~ Parks and Recreation Direct ()t REVIEWED BY: City Manager)~ (4/5ths Vote: Yes___No-X-) X~ Council Referral # The California Library Construction and Renovation Bond Act grant budget for the South Chula vista Library includes $46,821 (one percent of the construction budget) for works of art. The City currently has a percentage set aside program for pUblic art within redevelopment areas, but there is no city-wide pUblic art/selection policy. The Cultural Arts Commission has been charged with eventually developing such a policy, but it does not appear that the policy can be formalized within a time frame compatible with the new library construction. The city's contract with the architectural firm of LPA calls for the architect to select works of art for the new library. After discussions with the Cultural Arts Commission it became apparent that there should be some public process in the artist selection. Therefore, it is proposed that the City's Consultant Administrative Guidelines be used as a model for the artist selection process. RECOMMENDATION: That Council accept the report outlining the process to select an artist to execute a pUblic art mural in the Children's Story Hour Room at the new South Chula vista Library based on the theme of II International Friendship and Understanding. II BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Library Board of Trustees, on January 23, 1994, and the Cultural Arts Commission, on February 8, 1994, voted to support the recommended artist selection process (ATTACHMENTS A and B). DISCUSSION: In November, after months of discussion with the architects and the State Library, the Project Team identified the Children's Story Hour Room as an ideal location for the work of art called for in the project budget. Further it was proposed that the art work be a mural of approximately 750 square feet that will entirely cover the room's principal wall. The Story Hour Room was chosen because of the desire by the Project Team to make that room a very special place with warmth and appeal to children of all ages. Although the Construction Bond Act allows for a one percent set aside for art, it does not it does not specify interior versus exterior placement. . 1>'1 --.--.-- - ITEM /5 PAGE 2 , MEETING DATE, 3/8/93 Design architect Ricardo Legorreta has proposed that an artist design a mural for the story Hour Room and then involve the children of the community to assist with the painting of the panels before they are hung on the wall. "International friendship and understanding" has been selected as the subject matter in light of the bi -cuI tural, bi-national theme of this library. The wide ranging nature of this theme should allow artists considerable artistic freedom in selecting and executing a specific design. Although the City's contract with the project architect, LPA, Inc. calls for the architect (Ricardo Legorreta) to select the art, it was clear that a mechanism was needed to solicit artists. In December the Library Director attended the Cultural Arts Commission meeting to discuss this issue and at that meeting some Arts Commissioners suggested that there be a more formal pUblic selection process. In response, the Library Director and Felicia Shaw, the City's Cultural Arts Coordinator have identified the Consultant Services Guidelines as a probable model for a selection process. This concept has been taken to both the Library Board of Trustees and the Cultural Arts Commission for their approval. Under this plan: * The City's Cultural Arts Coordinator will assist the Library with the development of an RFQ for the design of the mural and for coordination of the artist selection process. * A workshop for prospective artists will be conducted during the RFQ phase. * Five names will be sent to the City Manager for his consideration in naming a Artist Selection Committee. * The Cultural Arts Commission will nominate two names. * The Library Board of Trustees will nominate two names (one of which will be selected by the Board of the Friends of the Chula vista Public Library). * The Cultural Arts Coordinator and the Library Director will jointly nominate the fifth name. * The City Manager will formally appoint the Selection Committee. 1$ ,.~ ,-. . ITEM /5 PAGE 3 , MEETING DATE, 3/8/94 * The Selection Committee will be charged with reviewing all responses to the RFQ and select seven to ten proposals for further review. This number may be revised based upon the number of submittals received. * The selected artists will make formal presentations to the Selection Committee. * Following these presentations the Selection Committee will recommend three artists to the Architect. * After his review, the Architect will numerically rank the three finalists. * The Library will then attempt to negotiate a contract with the number one ranked finalist. * City Council will then be asked to award a contract to the selected artist. FISCAL IMPACT: The $46,821 allocated for the art work is a specific line item in the Library Construction and Renovation Bond Act grant received by the City of Chula vista to construct the South Chula Vista Library. Under the grant, 65% of the costs are paid by the State and 35% are paid by the City. The funds were appropriated in the FY 1993-94 Capital Improvement Program. lýJ ._-~.._-,.._~._--- --..--"... " -'--'-'..-.. ATTACHMENT A Library Board of Trustees - 2 - January 26, 1994 2. Works of Art Director Palmer informed the Trustees that one percent of the South Chula vista Library's construction costs (approximately $47,000) has been earmarked for works of art; 65% of which is funded by the State. The contract with the architect specifies that the architect will select the artist for any art work in the building. The art work would be cOl1U1lissioned to make the Children's room area more attractive and inviting to children. Architect Ricardo Legorreta proposed the Library commission an artist to design and produce a mural that would then, under artist supervision, be painted by children in the community. Director Palmer informed the Trustees that Mr. Legorreta had commissioned a mural such as this for a world class children's museum he designed in Mexico city and that the examples of this art work were outstanding. Mr. Palmer discussed the mural concept with LPA staff, Felicia Shaw, Chula vista's Arts Coordinator, and Gale Goldman, Public Arts Coordinator for the city of San Diego. Further, Ms. Shaw has applied for a grant with the San Diego Community Foundation to obtain additional funds for administrative costs associated with this project. Director Palmer attended an Arts Commission meeting to ask for help in identifying artists for this project. Based upon commissioner's cOl1U1lents frpm that meeting, Library staff agreed that a public art selection process be put into place. Mr. Palmer then turned the meeting over to Felicia Shaw, Chula vista's Arts Coordinator, to provide details of the proposed public art selection process. Ms. Shaw explained that public art has become very controversial. Communities demand that art placed in their neighborhoods and facilities be reflective of local sentiments. Therefore, it is important that the public be allowed a role in selecting the artist and theme for a piece of public art. The City of Chula vista currently has no public art selection pol icy. Ms. Shaw proposed that Chula vista's administrative guidelines for selecting a consultant for contracts $25,000 and above be used 15'-"'- _~_m _~ _. ... _._. .._..,_,.__._.__ Library Board of Trustees - 3 - January 26, 1994 in place of a formal policy. These guidelines specify that the City Manager appoint a selection committee of three to five qualified individuals. This committee will review the proposals and make a selection. Ms. Shaw further proposed that a Project Coordinator be hired to coordinate and follow through on the selection process, which is expected to take six months. (Trustee Clover Byrum arrived at 4 PM) This process will be open to any artist. Ms. Shaw gave the Trustees an overview of the preliminary art selection process that staff is recommending. Proposed Public Art Selection Process: a. Develop a request for proposal (RFP) . Determine the product desired, artist's qualifications, and how the artist should respond to the request for proposal. b. Appoint a selection committee. Ms. Shaw recommended a committee of five individuals: two appointed by the Library Board, one of which could be solicited from the Friends of the Library; two appointed by the Cultural Arts Commission and one, who is a professional in the field, appointed by Mr. Palmer and Ms. Shaw. Director Palmer reminded the Board that the City Manager will formally appoint members to this committee, the names presented to him are, in effect, nominees. c. Release information to the public through press releases and flyers. d. Conduct a workshop to help the artists put their proposals together. e. Deadline and acceptance of RFP's. Copies of which will be sent to the selection committee. f. The selection committee will meet to narrow the RFP's to an approximate number (10) . g. The selection committee will meet again to narrow the RFP's to the final three. h. The final RFP's will then be sent to the architect for selection according to contract. i. The architect's choice will be submitted to the City Manager and city council for approval. Director Palmer asked the Trustees for comments and also asked their support of the public arts /5~~ _ _ w___~._·~·_ ".._.__'_......_..___.___ __ _._____._._......___.____~._._~___.__ Library Board of Trustees - 4 - January 26, 1994 selection process as proposed and the selection of committee members. MSC (Williams/Donovan) to approve the public arts process as explained by Felicia Shaw (4-0-1 Trustee Alexander absent) MSC (Williams/Donovan) recommend that one member of the Library Board of Trustees and one member of the Friends of the Library be appointed to the selection committee (3-0-2 Trustee Alexander and Trustee Clover Byrum absent). This item will be placed on the February agenda to formalize the Trustee I s selections to this committee. ¡r'Î _"__.m_~·_ __....._._______ .._._._..,,___~_ ._ _._,_ n_. .__.. _.____'" " _...._..__.___.~__"_,___. ____ ATTACHMENT B Cultural Arts Commission 2 February 8, 1994 Meetings Minutes commissioner McAllister nominated and Mr. Pelayo accepted to take the lead in organizing the booth at the Festival. c. Communication with SUHSD - Eastlake Performing Arts Facility The Sub-Committee Chair was directed by the commission to approach Eastlake High School to discuss potential partnership with their new Performing Arts Facility. commissioner Souval negotiations was not very successful and no progress was made ~ith the High school. Chair Cernitz suggested the possibility to facilitate the process by writing a formal communication to Council encouraging them to explore all possible options of a partnership with the City and Eastlake High school. Mr. Gates read the original council request. MSC [Souval/Pelayo] (Castillo/Torres) 6-0 to direct staff, with the Commission's assistance, to prepare a letter encouraging the Council to continue pursuing arrangements for partnership of joint usage of the new Performing Arts Facility. Action a. Library Mural Project - The Commission discussed the presentation made by the Library at the past meeting. The Commission had a concern whether the process of developing a murals program was a public project or whether the architect had full authority in hiring an artist. Library Director Palmer outlined the process that the Library plans to implement in determining the mural project selection at the new South Chula vista Library. A proposal was presented to the Library Board and also to the Cultural 'Arts Commission. In lieu of a public art policy in the City (none exists in the city), the City has a City Ordinance Consultant Services Agreement. The city Manager will appoint a three to five member selection committee to serve in a selection process. Once a consultant has been appointed, five individuals will then serve on a selection committee. The Library Board and the Cultural Arts Commission were both asked to chose two individuals each to serve on the Committee. /5"~ H__"'_.__..'_. .,._'..."," __ _._'" _ Cultural Arts Commission 3 February 8, 1994 Meetings Minutes Mr. Pelayo noted the Commission should cooperate and help the Library move forward with the process, however there were concerns there is no public art policy in place. The Cultural Arts Commis3ion has the ability to implement policy for Council approval. Mr. Palmer asked the Commission to have this item placed on the agenda for action to decide which Commissioners will be nominated to serve on the Selection Committee. The final appointment of these nominees will be done by the City Manager. MS [Sou val/Wheeland] 6-1 (Pelayo voted against, Castillo/Torres absent) to approve the outlined procedure for the artist selection process in the new South Chula Vista Library. Mr. McAllister requested Mr. Torres be notified. b. Retreat - The scheduled Retreat of January 29, 1994 was canceled. A new date was set for March 12, 1994 at Eastlake Library. 3. NEW BUSINESS - Action a. Communication with Southwestern College - MSC [Wheeland/Sou val] (Castillo/Torres absent) 6-0 to direct staff to assist in drafting a letter on beha If of the Commission to the Mayor and Council encouraging them to contact Southwestern College and suggest the College consider the use of the College facilities by the community. b. Supplemental Budget Request - Cultural Arts Coordinator and Conferences MSC [Souval\Pelayo] (Castillo/Torres) 6-0 to move forward with the two s~pplemental budget requests including the Cultural Arts Coordinator to a full-time position and request funding to attend the annual NALLA Conference. The Commission will need to draft the justifications in report form. The Commission will forward the information for staff to put into Supplemental Budget Request Report form. I:?í ~---"..--- -.-..--'---. "--'" ----_._.._-_..._-_..,-~-_._~~----_..-._..._-.__._-