HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 1996/04/16
Tuesday, April 16, 1996
6:00p.m.
"I dodare ..nder penalty of perjury that I am
em' :ovBd b"~: 1:he n'i:y of ~.;h!l!',~1 ~,:'!9!-a in the
Otfica G1 the Lit'! ('Jer;. an t "., : !,(,~ ~d
this ~i;endaINolice on tile :,:vi"';,:1 B,,'Hd at
the Public er ices Building .no at City lia)1 on
DATED, I Slm, ED f,:J\~"
VISED ,
Remlar Meetin.. of the Citv of Chula Vista It v Council
I
Council Chambers
Public Services Building
CALL TO ORDER
1.
ROLL CALL:
Councilmembers Alevy _' Moot _, Padilla _. Rindone _. and
Mayor Horton _'
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG. SILENT PRAYER
3.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
April 9, 1996 (City Council Meeting) and April 9, 1996 (Special Joint
Meeting of the City Council/Redevelopment Agency)
4. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY:
a. Oath of Office:
Joanne D. Clayton - Housing Advisory Committee;
Michelle Monroy - Youth Commission;
Virgil Whitehead - Board of Ethics.
b. Proclaiming Monday, April 21, 1996, as "Earth Day" and the week of April 21 through April
28, 1996 as "Earth Week." The proclamation will be presented by Mayor Horton to a
representative from San Diego Earth Day.
c. Terry Thomas, President, Chula Vista-Odawara Sister Cities Association, will be welcoming
people to participate in the activities of the Friends of Odawara, including a teacher exchange.
d. Terry Thomas, Larry Breitfelder and Fran Larson will present an update on the Chula Vista
International Sister Cities Foundation.
"''''''''''*
Effective April 1, 1994, there have been new amendments to the Brown Act. The City Council must now
reconvene into open session to report any final actions taken in closed session and to adjourn the meeting.
Because of the cost involved, there will be no videotaping of the reconvened portion of the meeting. However,
final actions reported will be recorded in the minutes which will be available in the City Clerk's Office.
"''''''''''*
CONSENT CALENDAR
(Items 5 through 13)
The staff recommendations regarding the foUowing iJems 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 iJ 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. Letter from the City Attorney stating that there were no reportable actions taken in Closed
Session on 4/9/96. It is recommended that the letter be received and filed.
Agenda
-2-
April 16, 1996
6. ORDINANCE 2669 AMENDING CHAYfER 3.48 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO PERMIT
THE REFINANCING OF REGIONAL UTILITY PROJECTS UPON A
FINDING OF CITY BENEFIT (second readilll! and adootion) - San Diego
Gas & Electric (SDG&E) has requested that the City take the necessary steps to
become legally able to assist them in refinancing two Industrial Development
Bonds, similar to financing the City did for them in 1992. Staff recommends
Council place the ordinance on second reading and adoption. (City Attorney and
Director of Finance)
7. RESOLUTION 18254 AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 1995/96 BUDGET TO INCLUDE 1.00
FULL TIME EQillV ALENT POLlCE AGENT POSITION, SUBJECT TO
CONTINUED GRANT FUNDING, TO PARTICIPATE WITH THE
UNITED STATES CUSTOMS SERVICE (USCS) SAN DIEGO
AIRIMARINE NARCOTICS INTERDICTION GROUP; ACCEYfiNG AND
APPROPRIATING UNANTICIPATED GRANT REVENUES IN THE
AMOUNT OF $65,000 FROM IDGH INTENSITY DRUG TRAmCKING
AREA (IDDT A) GRANT FUNDS - The Police Department has one agent
working with the uses which is a coordinated multi-agency drug interdiction
unit that services the southwest border area. The agent's position is funded
through a HIDT A grant. As a result of the ongoing success of Operation
Alliance, the USCS submitted another HIDT A grant to fund an additional agent
position. The grant has been approved, and the USCS is now requesting the
position be filled. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Chief of
Police) 4/5th's vote required.
8. RESOLUTION 18255 ENDORSING IN CONCEYf THE CONVEYANCE OF A PORTION OF
THE SD NTC, KNOWN AS CAMP NIMITZ FOR USE AS THE SAN
DIEGO REGIONAL PUBLlC SAFETY TRAINING INSTITUTE -
Conveyance of Camp Nimitz is currently under review. Two proposals have
been submitted for consideration. The first one is a proposal by the City of San
Diego to acquire and develop Camp Nimitz for use as the San Diego Regional
Public Safety Training Institute. The second proposal has been submitted by the
Port District for expansion of the airport. Police staff has reviewed both
proposals and believes the 102 acres available can be used to meet both
proposers' needs. The compromise solution would provide for a world-class
public safety training institute and expansion of the airport. Staff recommends
approval of the resolution. (Chief of Police)
9. RESOLUTION 18256 ACCEYfING IRREVOCABLE OFFERS OF DEDIC A TION FOR STREET
PURPOSES, DEDICATING AND NAMING STREET EAST ORANGE
A VENUE WITH EASTLAKE GREENS DEVELOPMENT AND
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 94-1 - Right-of-way for East Orange
A venue with EastLake Greens, previously offered to the City through an
irrevocable offer of dedication, must be accepted prior to final payment of
acquisition of improvements in Assessment District Number 94-1. A separate
irrevocable offer to dedicate document for East Orange Avenue offsite right-<Jf-
way has been prepared and is also ready for acceptance. Staff recommends
approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works)
10. RESOLUTION 18257 APPROPRIATING FUNDS FROM THE UNAPPROPRIATED BALANCE
OF GAS TAX FUNDS FOR THE PURCHASE OF PROPERTY FOR SHY
LANE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY ENGINEER
TO SIGN AN AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY TO PURCHASE TWO
TAX-DEFAULTED PROPERTIES - The County of San Diego's Tax
Collector's Office notified the City of several parcels of land that were to be
auctioned for back taxes. There were two parcels staff determined should be
purchased. The County has prepared agreements to complete the purchases.
Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works)
4/5th's vote required.
Agenda
-3-
April 16, 1996
11. RESOLUTION 18258 APPROPRIATING FUNDS, ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING
CONTRACT FOR "REPLACEMENT OF SEWER MAIN CROSSING IN
BONITA ROAD JUST EAST OF I-80S FREEWAY (SW-207)" - Sealed bids
were received on 4/10/96. The work consists of removing 4 existing concrete
encased 8' diameter PVC sewer mains and replacing with a new 18' concrete
encased PVC sewer main just east of 1-805. Tbe work includes excavation and
grading, asphalt concrete pavement, shoring, reconstruction of base of existing
manholes, traffic control, preservation and restoration of property, and other
miscellaneous work required by the specifications. Staff recommends approval
of the resolution. (Director of Public Works) 4/5th's vote required.
12. RESOLUTION 18259 APPROVING SUBMISSION OF FISCAL YEAR 1996-97
TRANSPORT A TION DEVELOPMENT ACT (TDA) ARTICLE 4.0 CLAIM
The fiscal year 1996/97 TDA Article 4.0 Claim is in the amount of $6,400,495.
The claim was submitted to the Metropolitan Transit Development Board
(MTDB) and San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) on 4/1196 as
required by State law. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director
of Public Works)
13. RESOLUTION 18260 APPROVING SUBMISSION OF FISCAL YEAR 1996/97 CLAIM FOR
HANDYTRANS OPERATION - The fiscal year 1996/97 claim to support
Handy trans Operation was submitted to MTDB and SANDAG on 4/1196 as
required by State law. The claim, in the amount of $399,000, consists ofTDA
Article 4.5 funds, Transnet funds, MTDB/ADA funds, and estimated fare
revenue. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public
Works)
* * END OF CONSENT CALENDAR * *
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
The foUowing items have been advertised andlor 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
individllill.
14.
PUBLIC HEARING
PCM-94-04; CONSIDERATION OF A STREET NAME CHANGE FOR
THE SEGMENT OF EAST ORANGE A VENUE BETWEEN HUNTE
PARKWAY AND WUESTE ROAD - The proposal consists of changing the
street name to 'Olympic Parkway.' This is the first phase of an overall
program to rename East Orange A venue from Interstate 805 to Wueste Road.
Future street name change phases will occur as the area along East Orange
Avenue is developed. Staff recommends the nuhlic hearil12 he continued to
the meetil12 of 5/7/96. (Director of Planning) Continued from the meeting
of 3/26/96.
Agenda
-4-
April 16, 1996
IS.
PUBLIC HEARING
PROPOSAL TO DEFINE "COMMUNITY PURPOSE FACILITY" IN THE
EASTERN AREA DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE FOR STREETS AND
MODIFY THE FEE RATE SCHEDULE - Currently, the "Eastern Area
Development Impact Fee for Streets" (TransDIF) program does not discuss the
land use category "Community Purpose Facility" (CPF). Other fee programs
such as the Public Facilities DIF (PFDIF) and the SR-125 DIF exclude CPF
from the fee programs. Staff proposes to correct the inconsistency by defining
the CPF land use, and excluding that class from the TransDIF. Staff also
proposes to refund or reimburse certain fee payments previously made by
Community Purpose Facility Projects. Staff recommends the Dublic hearin2 be
continued to the meetin2 of 4/23/96. (Director of Public Works)
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 l1!l1. an item on this agetula for public discussion. (State law, however, generaUy
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 andlor Committees.
None submitted.
ACTION ITEMS
The items listed in this section of the agetula are expected to elicit substantiol discussions and deliberations by
the Council, staff, or members of the general public. The items will be considered individuaUy by the Council
and staffrecommendations 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.
16.A. RESOLUTION 18261 APPROVING THE PROPERTY TAX TRANSFER AGREEMENT WITH
THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO FOR OT A Y RANCH - The proposed
Property Tax Transfer Agreement sets forth the financial terms and conditions
that have been negotiated by City and County staff to be applied upon
annexation to those portions of the Otay Ranch that are included in the City's
current Sphere of Influence as well as those portions of the Otay Ranch that are
anticipated to be added to the City's Sphere of Influence at the 5/6/96 meeting
of the Local Agency Formation Commission. The Property Tax Transfer
Agreement is contingent upon the adoption of the companion Landfill
Agreement. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Deputy City
Manager Thomson)
Agenda
-5-
April 16, 1996
B. RESOLUTION 18262 APPROVING AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
REGARDING THE OTAY RANCH SPHERE OF INFLUENCE AND
OPERATION OF OT A Y LANDFILL - M. a component of the pending actions
on the proposed Sphere ofInfluence for Otay Ranch and subsequent property tax
agreement and annexation of the western parcel, the County wishes to ensure
that the City will not interfere with the ongoing operation or expansion of the
Otay Landfill. They do not wish the current litigation and potential early closing
of San Marcos Landfill to be repeated in the South Bay as a result of actions of
the City. The agreement addresses that protection. Staff recommends approval
of the resolution. (City Manager)
17. RESOLUTION 18252 APPROVING EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATING AGREEMENT WITH
JOELEN ENTERPRISES FOR HOTEL DEVELOPMENT ON CITY-
OWNED PROPERTY - On 11115/94, Council directed staff to return with a
new exclusive negotiating agreement with Joelen Enterprises to develop the
proposed hotel located on the 44oo block of Bonita Road adjacent to the Chula
Vista Municipal Golf Course. Staff recommends approval of the resolution.
(Director of Community Development) Continued from the meeting of
4/9/96.
18. RESOLUTION 18251 APPROVING AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY
OF SAN DIEGO AND SOUTHWESTERN COMMUNITY COLLEGE
DISTRICT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE, AND
OPERATION OF THE SOUTHWESTERN COLLEGE BUS STOP
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT - On 10/3/95, Council approved an agreement
with the County of San Diego and Southwestern College. The estimated cost
of the Southwestern College Bus Stop Improvement Project is $1,350,000. The
County has designated $9OO,OOO for the project, leaving a shortfall of $450,000.
Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works)
4/5th's vote required. Continued from the meeting of 4/9/96,
19. RESOLUTION 18263 DENYING REVOCATION OF ENCROACHMENT PERMIT NUMBER
PE-340 ISSUED TO BETTIE WARREN FOR A FENCE AND GATE ON
CITY PROPERTY ADJACENT TO 89 FIRST A VENUE - Bettie Warren,
owner of the property known as 89 First Avenue, recently applied for and was
granted an encroachment permit to allow her to install chain link fencing and a
gate across a City-owned parcel, in front of her house. The neighbors are
petitioning for revocation of the encroachment permit. Staff recommends
approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works)
20. RESOLUTION 18264 ACCEPTING BIDS AND A W AROING CONTRACT FOR THE
"BROADWAY STREET RECONSTRUCTION BETWEEN NAPLES
STREET AND ANITA STREET (ST-143)" - On 3/29/96, sealed bids were
received. The work to be done includes removal and disposal of existing
improvements, excavation and grading, asphalt concrete pavement, monolithic
curb, gutter, sidewalks, landscaped medians, storm drain and other
miscellaneous work shown on the plans. Staff recommends approval of the
resolution. (Director of Public Works)
Agenda
-6-
April 16, 1996
21. RESOLUTION 18265 APPROPRIATING ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION
OF A PORTION OF THE SALT CREEK SEWER LINE, ADOPTING
THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND AUTHORIZING THE
PURCHASE OF MITIGATION PROPERTY - On 2/13/96, Council approved
an appropriation of sewer funds for the construction of a portion of the Salt
Creek Sewer Trunk line which lies within the same proposed easement as
SDG&E's pipeline 2000 project high pressure gas line. On 2/27/96, Council
approved a Joint Use Agreement and a Joint Construction Agreement with
SDG&E for the joint use of an easement in Salt Creek and construction of the
sewer line by SDG&E as part of their gas line project. Staff recommends
approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works and Director of Planning)
4/5th's vote required.
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
22. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT(S)
a. Scheduling of meetings.
23. MAYOR'S REPORTIS)
a. Current City Council Committee assignments.
24. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Rindone
a. Scheduling of meeting, considering further Solid Waste Transfer Station Agreement.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting will adjourn to (a closed session and thence to) the Regular City Council Meeting on April 23, 1996
at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers.
A Meeting of the Redevelopment Agency will be held immediately following the City Council Meeting.
Agenda
-7-
April 16, 1996
*****
CLOSED SESSION
Unless the City Attorney, the City Manager or the City Council states otherwise at this time, the Council will
discuss and tkliberote on the foUowing items of business which are permitted by law to be the subject of a clased
session discussion, and which the CouncU is advised should be discussed in closed session to best protect the
interests of the City. The Council is required by law to return to open session, issue any reports of jjngJ action
taken in clased session, and the votes taken. However, due to the typical length of time taken up by closed
sessions, the videotaping will be terminated at this point in order to save costs so that the CouncH's return from
clased sesslan, reports of jjngJ action taken, and adjournment will not be videotaped. Nevertheless, the report
of final action taken wUl be recorded ln the minutes which wiU be available in the City Clerk's Office.
25. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING:
1. Existing litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9
. SNMB. L.P. vs. the City of Chula Vista.
2. Anticipated litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9
. Tiger Development Two Bankruptcy.
SALE AND DISPOSITION OF REAL PROPERTY - Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9
. Purchase of property from R.E. Hazard Contracting Company, 1855 Maxwell Road, Chula Vista,
CA.
CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR - Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6
. Agency negotiator: John Goss or designee for CVEA, WCE, POA, IAFF, Executive
Management, Mid-Management, and Unrepresented.
Employee organization: Chula Vista Employees Association (CVEA) and Western Council of
Engineers (WCE), Police Officers Association (POA) and International Association of Fire
Fighters (IAFF).
Unrepresented employee: Executive Management, Mid-Management, and Unrepresented.
26. REPORT OF ACTIONS TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION
*****
April 10, 1996
FROM:
The Honorable Mayor and City counci~GJ
John D. Goss, city Manager~ ~~1
city council Meeting of April 16, 1996
TO:
SUBJECT:
This will transmit the agenda and related materials for the regular
City Council meeting of Tuesday, April 16, 1996. Comments
regarding the Written Communications are as follows:
5a. This is a letter from the City Attorney stating that there
were no observed reportable actions taken by the City Council
in Closed Session on April 9, 1996.
IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THIS LETTER BE RECEIVED AND FILED.
JDG:mab
~~~
~::
.-...::~~.-...:
.......~""""-::;...
~~~-
CllY OF
CHUlA VISTA
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
Date:
April 11, 1996
From:
The Honorable Mayor and City coun~1J
Bruce M. Boogaard, city Attorneyt01[)
Report Regarding Actions Taken in Closed Session
for the Meeting of 4/9/96
To:
Re:
The city council met in Closed Session to discuss pending
litigation re Fritsch v. the City of Chula Vista~ Christopher v.
the City of Chula Vista, Chula vista and nine other cities v. The
County of San Diego regarding trash litigation; prospective
litigation involving park issues with EastLake Development Company;
the purchase of property from R. E. Hazard Contracting Company at
1855 Maxwell Road; and Tiger Two (Baldwin) Bankruptcy--Motion for
Relief from Stay to Process SPA I.
The City Attorney hereby reports to the best of his knowledge from
observance of actions taken in the Closed Session of April 9, 1996,
there were no actions that are required to be reported under the
Brown Act.
BMB:lgk
C:\lt\clossess.no
~"I
276 FOURTH AVENUE' CHULA VISTA' CALIFORNIA 91910 . (619) 691-5037 . FAX (619) 585-5612
'/~'i PI:I5I{.(r&.r!uRoc)dOOP~
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
ITEM TITLE:
/?
Item //,' .,'
,. '-"0
.. '///,
Meeting Date -it9/96/ v '7/
.24.~1 ' '..'- fV'
Ordinance - Amending Chapter 3.48 of the Clluta Vista Municipal
Code to Permit the Refinancing of Regional Uulity Projects upon a
Finding of City Benefit "'0:') ,.,
. ...J
Resolution 18'.2~tng a Refin:ce Participation Fee at .25 Percent of
the Principal Amount for the Proposed SDG&E Industrial Development
Bond Refinancings, Payable at the Time of Issue
Afi
. I
. \' ~
(~. ~ \ ,d 1
w" J
SUBMITTED BY: City Attorney Ga6-~ ~
Director of Finance /)4
REVIEWED BY: City Managerf! (4/STHS Vote: Yes_No-XJ
..
San Diego Gas & Electric Company ("SDG&E") has requested that the City take the necessary
steps to become legally able to assist them in refinancing two series of Industrial Development
Bonds (IDBs) , similar to the financing the City did for SDG&E in 1992. SDG&E is
f simultaneously working with the City of San Diego on the same two refinancings, and intends
. to make a decision further along in the process as to which city will be asked to do each of the
two refinancings. While Chapter 3.48 of the Municipal Code currently authorizes the City to
issue revenue bonds to finance projects of this nature, it doesn't specifically provide for the
refinancing of bonds that were originally issued by another City, in this case the City of San
Diego. The attached ordinance amends Chapter 3.48 to include language to permit the
refinancing of bonds originally issued by another municipality, as long as the refinancing meets
the criteria that City interests would be served by the refinancing.
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the attached ordinance which permits the City to issue
revenue bonds to refinance industrial development bonds originally issued by another
municipality, when the refinancing provides benefit to the City. Adopt the resolution setting a
refinancing participation fee for the two proposed series of IDBs.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not Applicable.
DISCUSSION: SDG&E has submitted a request to work with the City to qualify Chula
Vista to possibly refinance two series of IDBs that become callable in the near future. SDG&E
is simultaneously going through the process to quality the City of San Diego for the same
refinancing. Their intention is to leave their options open as to which city will be requested to
do the actual refinancing, based on what they think is best for them at that time. SDG&E will
pay all costs associated with this effort including City of Chula Vista staff time, any
administrative expenses, and outside legal costs. The City has an outside legal counsel
representing the City's interest as part of this process.
!I~I// t -/
('
Page 2, Item -'-L
Meeting Date 4/9/96
Any bonds issued by the City on behalf of SDG&E will be limited obli~ation revenue bonds and
will not constitute an indebtedness against the general credit or taxing power of the City or the "
State of California. Payment of the bonds will be solely from and secured by a pledge of
revenues to be received from SDG&E pursuant to a Loan Agreement to be entered into prior
to the issuance of any bonds.
In 1992, the City issued $250 million in lDBs to finance projects for SDG&E. Besides paying
for City staff and administrative costs, SDG&E paid the City a one-time fee of .25 percent of
the principal amount of the bonds or $625,000. SDG&E also reimbursed Chula Vista staff time,
administrative costs and all bond counsel costs.
The two refinancings that are the subject of the current request are for $81.35 million and $25
million. The resolution under consideration sets the fee for these two refinancings at that same
.25 percent rate charged in 1992. As charter cities, San Diego and Chula Vista are the only two
cities that SDG&E is dealing with on these refinancings.
The City of San Diego charges to SDG&E have been .25 percent of the initial issue (the same
as Chula Vista) plus staff charges (which have been a minimum of $20,(00) and an annual
administrative fee of .025 % of the outstanding bonds for the life of the issue. City of Chula
Vista staff is not recommending an annual administrative fee since there is no ongoing
requirement of Chula Vista staff involvement once the bonds are issued. The County of San
Diego also charges .25 percent initial fee with no annual administrative fee for IDB financings.
When SDG&E chose to do the lDB financing with Chula Vista in the past, they did so on the
basis that the fees were less expensive and the process less cumbersome than the City of San
diego process. By setting the fee at this time, SDG&E will know in advance what the City
charges, and we don't put ourselves in the position of appearing to be in competition.
~
i
There are several steps required to qualify Chula Vista to do the refinancing, with a very tight
schedule for the first refinancing, the $81.25 million issue. The steps and time frame are:
I. Apr 9 First reading of Bond Ordinance
2. Apr 16 City Council adopts Bond Ordinance to allow refinancings (second
reading)
3. May 17 Bond Ordinance becomes effective
4. May 21 City Council Adopts Bond Resolution giving preliminary approval
for the issuance and sale of bonds
5. May 23 SDG&E Files complaint for Validation Action in Superior Court
(required for the City to do refinancing)
6. Aug 12 Approx. end of court proceedings - SDG&E makes final
determination of which city will proceed with the first refinancing
7. after Aug 12 - If SDG&E decides to proceed with the City of Chula Vista,
City Council adopts Resolution to approve the Official Statement,
Bond Purchase Agreement and the specifics of bond financing
8. Sept 3 Refinancing bonds issued to refinance the $81.35 million issue
)bY j-c2
Page 3, Item 1/
Meeting Date 4/9/96
i There is a possibility that a delay at any stage could take Chula Vista out of consideration for
the refinancing of the $81. 35 million issue. The greatest unknown in the process is the
Validation Action in court. This is a decision in Superior Court that it is within the "municipal
affairs" of the City to do the refinancing. For the 1992 IDB issue, a similar process took 96
days in court. There is no way of knowing whether the time frame will be similar this time.
The second refinancing of $25 million is scheduled for June 1997. There is also the potential
for future IDB refinancings that the proposed ordinance changes will facilitate.
Attached is a letter received from the City of San Diego expressing their displeasure with Chula
Vista contemplating these refinancings with SDG&E.
FISCAL IMPACT: SDG&E will reimburse the City for any staff costs and administrative
expenses associated with this process whether or not Chula Vista ultimately does the refinancing.
SDG&E also pays all legal counsel, financial advisors and bond issuing costs directly, including
counsel representing City of Chula Vista interests. Per the participation fee set by the
resolution, ifChula Vista does the refinancing, the fee would be $203,375 for the $81.35 million
issue and $62,500 for the $25 million issue. Any fees paid would be revenue to the City's
General Fund.
Attachments:
Ordinance
City of San Diego letter dated April I, 1996
rlD:\data\mcmotl\dim:tor\adge4. J 13
p~ ,Ire,}; ). - tf
St.CO~O RE.AO\l'~G ~~O
ORDINANCE NO. ~ J," , ~<S"
- r-~'\'
~ "
~ ~>'~
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 3.48 QF ,'tHE
CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE TO p~ THE
REFINANCING OF REGIONAL UTII..IJ'V~IWJECTS
UPONAFINDINGOF~~nT
p..QOfl1\ON
WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista (the "City") is a municipal corporation
and charter city duly organized and existing under a charter (the "Charter") pursuant to
which the City has the right and power to make and enforce all laws and regulations in
respect to municipal affairs and certain other matters in accordance with and as more
particularly provided in Article XI of the Constitution of the State of California (the
"Constitution") and Section 200 of the Charter;
~
WHEREAS, Chapter 3.48 of the Municipal Code of the City (the "Municipal
Code") authorizes the City to issue bonds for the purpose of financing or otherwise assisting
the acquisition of projects located within the City to promote the health, safety and welfare of
the City, to encourage industrial and commercial development within the City and to enhance
the financial resources of the City;
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City has heard public testimony and
reviewed written materials, which together with the personal knowledge of the members of
the City Council, evidence the need for the City to provide financial assistance with respect
to regional gas transmission and distribution facilities and electric generation, transmission
and distribution facilities in order to promote the aforementioned City interests;
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City, acting under and pursuant to the
Constitution and the Charter, finds and determines that the public interest and necessity
require the adoption of this ordinance to authorize issuance of revenue bonds for the purpose
of refinancing regional gas transmission and distribution facilities and electric generation,
transmission and distribution facilities and that providing such assistance constitutes a
municipal affair of the City;
NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does ordain
as follows:
INFORMATION PACKET
SCANNED AT FIRST READING
OF THIS ORDINANCE ON:
4-q-9b
h-/
THE CITY OF
SAN DIEGO
ClVlCCENTERPLAZA . 1200 TH1RDAVENUE . SUITE 1620
SAN DIEGO, CAUFORN1A 92101 - 41 78 . TELEPHONE. (619) 236-6039
FAX: (619) 236-6512
ECONOMIC
DEV'ELOPME!\T
SERVICES
April 1, 1996
Mr. Robert Powell
Director of Finance
City of Chula vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
RE: outstanding City of San Diego 1'86 and 1'87 Industrial
Development Bonds (IDB's)
Dear Mr. Powell:
I am writing to express strong concern regarding San Diego Gas &
Electric company's (SDG&E) reported attempt to instigate one or
more refundings by the City of Chula Vista of the above-mentioned
debt obligations of the City of San Diego. Such an action would
clearly place the city of Chula Vista in the position of
improperly infringing upon the municipal affairs of the city of
San Diego, and I therefore respectfully request that the city of
Chula vista immediately and permanently suspend all proceedings
regarding this SDG&E-proposed action.
SDG&E's proposal attempts to establish a dangerous precedent:
enabling IDB borrower firms to play one jurisdiction against
another to extract exceptional refinancing terms. I assure you
that the City of San Diego has no desire or intent to refinance
outstanding city of Chula vista debt previously issued for the
benefit of SDG&E. I correspondingly do not believe that Chula
vista officials desire to initiate a "bidding war" over
outstanding City of San Diego debt Obligations. As I recall, in
1992, the City of Chula vista set its bond origination fee at the
same level as San Diego's in part in order to avoid any such
situation, and the city of San Diego did not object to Chula
vista's 1992 new money issues.
11-..1"
/
~
,-
~,~
~
~ ;,f I
DIVERSITY
BP'.~:;S us A~l iOGE"
April 1, 1996
Mr. Robert Powell
Page Two
I
You may also be interested to know that, in accordance with San
Diego city Council Policy 100-12, lOB origination fee revenues
are reinvested in other economic development efforts. Many of
these activities (e.g., Regional Technology Alliance programs)
have had regional benefits: half the loans approved to date by
the EmTek Seed Capital Fund, for example, have been to San Diego
County companies located outside the City of San Diego; in fact,
EmTek's first loan was to a Chula vista company I
If, as I confidently expect, the City of Chula vista wishes to
continue to cooperate with and support our regional economic
development efforts, the SDG&E proposal should be firmly
declined. If, however, the city of Chula Vista opts to proceed
with the judicial validation process proposed by SDG&E, the City
of San Diego has identified a number of legal options which may
be available.
Please do not hesitate to contact me at 236-6550 with any
concerns or questions, or if I can provide additional
information. I am seeking a prompt and definitive resolution of
this matter and look forward to our continued collaboration in
pursuit of mutual regional economic development objectives.
Sincerely,
--/' / ---= --.;1 ('
/~'----"~,-
.'
Kurt A. Chilcott
Community and Economic
Development Manager
~
~
.........--
I/::.f,/ ? ~?
...--
SECTION 1. That Section 3.48.010 of the Municipal Code be and hereby is amended
in its entirety to read as follows:
3.48.010
Fmdings aod Determinations.
The city council finds and determines as follows:
A. The full employment of residents of the city, and the prevention of unemployment and
underemployment of such residents, serves a vital and compelling public interest of
the city and promotes the public health, safety and welfare of the city by reducing the
incidence of crime, improving the mental and physical health and well-being of the
city's residents, alleviating the financial drain upon limited public and private
resources for welfare programs and unemployment assistance, and enhancing the
fmancial resources of the city.
B.
The encouragement of industrial and commercial development within the city serves a
vital and compelling public interest of the city and promotes the public health, safety
and welfare of the city by increasing the employment of residents of the city,
increasing the tax and revenue base and thereby enhancing the financial resources of
the city, and preventing physical deterioration and abandonment of industrial and
commercial areas within the city. In addition, the city's participation in the financing
of such development serves the public interest by ensuring that such development will
reflect the needs and objectives of the community more so than if such development
were undertaken without city participation.
~,
.~~
C. Basic utilities such as gas, water and electricity are necessities of life, essential to
public health, safety and welfare and to industrial and commercial development within
the city. City assistance in financing and refinancinl: improvements to gas, Sill! water
lIRe eleetrieity transmission and distribution systems and electricity I:eneration.
transmission and distribution systems throughout the region will reduce the costs of
providing such utility service within the city and thereby reduce the rates of providing
such rates to be paid by industrial, commercial and residential utility customers within
the city. The city's participation in such financing and refinancinl! also RSStlreS
ensures that the city's future gas, water and electricity requirements will be served as
regional growth places heavier demands on such services.
D. Encouraging industrial and commercial development and the provision of basic
utilities pursuant to this chapter (1) will promote the health, safety and welfare of the
city, including those public interests enumerated above, and will improve the social,
moral, economic and physical condition of the community thereby, and (2) constitutes
a municipal affair of the city, a valid exercise of the police powers of the city, and a
public purpose in which the city has a peculiar and unique interest.
2JM--X t -;t
I
SECTION 2. That Section 3.48.020 of the Municipal Code be and hereby is amended
in its entirety to read as follows:
3.48.020
Defmitions.
Unless the context otherwise requires, the following definitions shall govern the
construction of this chapter:
A. "Acquisition" and its variants means acquisition, construction, improvement,
furnishing, equipping, remodeling, repair, reconstruction or rehabilitation.
B. "Administrative expenses" means all reasonable and necessary expenses incurred by
the city in the administration of the provisions of this chapter with respect to a
particular project and the financing or refinancinl! thereof, including without limitation
compensation to city agents, employees and staff, fees and expenses of paying. agents,
trustees, bond counsel and financing consultants, and costs of printing and
advertising.
C. "Bonds" means any bonds, notes, interim certificates, debentures or other obligations
issued either by the city pursuant to this chapter, or by any other le~aI entity for
Dumoses rermitted by this chaDter, which oblil!ations are payable exclusively from
revenues and other funds permitted by the apDlicable law under which such
obligations were issued or entered into.
D. "City" means the city of Chula Vista, California, a chartered city in the state existing
under and exercising powers pursuant to the city charter and the constitution of the
state.
E. "City charter" means the charter of the city, as amended from time to time.
F. "City council" means the city council of the city.
G. "Costs" means, with reference to a project, any or alJ of the following costs incurred
for the acquisition or financinl! thereof:
1. Obligations of the participating party incurred for labor and materials in
connection with the acquisition of the project;
2. The cost of acquisition of any property, whether real or personal and improved
or unimproved, including franchise tights and other intangible property, and
any interests therein, required for the acquisition of the project;
3. The cost of demolishing, removing or relocating any building or structure, and
the cost of making relocation assistance payments required by law;
3 ~L.. '7
4.
The cost of contract bonds and of insurance of all kinds that may be required
or necessary during the course of the acquisition or financine of the project;
i!
5. All costs of engineering, legal and consultant services, including the costs of
the participating party for surveys, estimates, plans and specifications and
preliminary investigation therefor, and for supervising construction, as well as
for the performance of all other duties required by or consequent upon the
proper acquisition of the project;
6. All costs incurred in connection with proceedings by the participating party
necessary to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as
amended;
7. All amounts required to fund any reserve funds for bonds and any interest on
bonds becoming due and payable during a period not exceeding the period of
acquisition of the project and twelve months thereafter;
8. All administrative expenses;
9. All costs which the participating party shall be required to pay, under the
terms of any contract or contracts, for the acquisition or financinl! of the
proj ect;
10.
The refinancing of existing indebtedness secured by an interest in any real
property comprising any portion of the project, so long as and to the extent
that such refinancing does not cause interest on the bonds to become taxable
under Section 103 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended;
i
.lL. All costs incurred in connection with the refundine of any bonds issued with
respect to a proiect: and,
.lL Any sums required to reimburse the participating party for advances made for
any of the above items or for any other costs incurred and for work done
which are properly chargeable to the project.
H. "Exempt organization" means an organization.described in Section 501(c)(3) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.
I. "Finance" and its variants. includine without limitation refinance and refinancinl!.
mean5 the lending of moneys or any other thing of value, or the purchase of loans or
the entering into of leases or installment sale agreements, for the purpose of:
1. Paying or otherwise providing for or assisting the payment of any or all of the
costs of a project pursuant to this chapter; or
4
IJA--'r b - /0
2. Providing funds to be used as working capital or otherwise for general
expenditures of exempt organizations pursuant to this chapter;
J. "Participating party" means any person, corporation, partnership, firm or other entity
or group of entities requiring financing for the acquisition or refinancim! of a project
pursuant to this chapter.
K. "Project" means real property improved with an industrial~ ef commercial or utility
structure, including but not limited to real property to be used by an exempt
organization in connection with its authorized purposes, and all property in connection
therewith or incidental thereto, including all machinery, equipment and furnishings,
the acquisition or refinancine: of which is financed or otherwise assisted pursuant to
this chapter; provided, however, that no project to be financed or refinanced may be
located outside the city unless the city council shall find and determine that such
project would directly benefit the citizens of the city by substantially promoting one
or more of the public interests recited in Section 3.48.010. Project also includes
qualified residential rental property as described in and within the meaning of Section
142(d) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and regulations and
rulings promulgated thereunder, including all property in connection therewith and
incidental thereto.
L. "Ordinance" means Ordinance No. 1970, passed and adopted by the city council of
the city on February 9, 1982, pursuant to the City Charter as amended from time to
time.
M. "Revenue" means, with respect to a project, all amounts received as repayment of
principal, interest and all other charges received for, and all other income and
revenue (including the proceeds of insurance) derived by, the city in connection with
such project, and any receipts derived from the investment of such income or
revenue, including moneys deposited in a sinking, redemption or reserve fund or
other fund to secure the bonds or to provide for the payment of the principal of or
interest on the bonds and such other moneys as the city council may in its discretion
make available therefor.
N. "State" means the state of California.
SECTION 3. That Section 3.48.030 of the Municipal Code be and hereby is amended
in its entirety to read as follows:
3.48.030
Powers.
The city is authorized and empowered:
A. To determine the location and character of any project to be financed or refinanced
under the provisions of this chapter and to finance or refinance such projects;
5
jJA,5 ~ ~I/
B. To issue bonds:
1. For the purpose of financing or otherwise assisting the acquisition of projects
authorized by this chapter, or
2. For the purpose of providing funds to be used as working capital or otherwise
to finance general expenditures of exempt organizations, or
3. For the purpose of funding or refunding bonds issued by the citv or any other
le~al entity for pUl1'Oses permitted by this chapter;
C. To fix fees charges and interest rates for financing any project, and to revise such
fees, charges and interest rates from time to time, and to collect interest and principal
on any loan made to a participating party together with such fees and charges incurred
in such financing, and to contract with any person, partnership, association,
corporation or public agency with respect thereto;
D. To hold deeds of trust as security for financing any project and to pledge the same as
security for repayment of bonds issued therefor;
E. To establish the terms and conditions for the financing of any project undertaken
pursuant to this chapter;
F. To require that the full amount owed on any loan for the financing of a project
pursuant to this chapter shall be due and payable upon sale or other transfer of
ownership of such project;
G. To acquire by deed, purchase, lease, contract, gift, devise or otherwise, any real or
personal property, structures, rights, rights-of-way, franchises, easements, mortgages
and other interests in property located within the state necessary or convenient for the
financing or acquisition of a project, upon such terms and conditions as it deems
advisable and to lease, sell or dispose of the same in such manner as may be
necessary or desirable to carry out the objects and purposes of this chapter.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing in this chapter is intended or shall be
construed in any way to authorize any exercise of the power of eminent domain with
respect to any project;
H.
To employ or contract for such engineering, architectural, accounting, collection,
economic feasibility or other services in connection with the servicing of loans made
to participating parties, as may be necessarj' in the judgment of the city council for
the successful financing of a project. The city may pay the reasonable costs of
consulting engineers, architects, accountants, construction experts and economic
feasibility experts, if, in the judgment of the city council, such services are necessary
to the successful financing of a project and if the city is not able to provide such
services. The city may employ, contract for, and fix the compensation of financing
1
6
~/:;~/2
consultants, bond counsel and other advisors as may be necessary in its judgment to
provide for the issuance and sale of bonds;
1. In addition to all other powers specifically granted in this chapter, to do all things
necessary or convenient to carry out the purposes of this chapter.
SECTION 4. That the city clerk is hereby authorized and directed to cause a digest
or a copy of this ordinance to be published at least once in a newspaper
of general circulation published and circulated in the city within fifteen
days after the passage of this ordinance pursuant to Section 312 of the
Charter.
SECTION S. This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force on the thirtieth day
from and after its second reading and adoption.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
Robert Powell, Director of Finance
c: \or\chap .348
7
//4'7 6/}
--
1~~6
STUART H. SWETT
SlNlOJl. ClllEf DS'1JTY em AT1"ORNU
OPFIC!! OF
THE CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF SAN DIEGO
John W. Witt
TED BROMFIELD
LESLIE 1. GIRARD
HAROLD O. VALDERHAUO
onr.r DDP1JTY CITY ATTORNP:Y$
CTrY ATTORNEY
CITY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
201 'C' STIIEET
SAN DIBOO. CALII'ORNIA 9210\.3863
TELBPIIONB (619) 23606220
PAX (619) 236-7215
10HN M. KAHENY
ASSlS'TANT an ATrORNEY
CASEY G, GWINN
PRINCIPAL ASSISTANT 1'071111 CITY A'M'OItNEY
April 16, 1996
Honorable Mayor and City Council
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Honorable Mayor and City Council:
City of San Diego Opposition to Proposed City of Chula
vista Refunding of Outstanding Industrial Development
Bonds Issued by The City of San Diego for the San Diego
Gas & Electric Comn&nv
The City Manager has requested this office to express the
City's opposition to Chula Vista's ordinance on its April 16,
1996, consent agenda approving a refunding by Chula Vista of San
Diego Gas & Electric Company industrial development bonds issued
by The City of San Diego.
To our knowledge, no city in California has previously
refunded bonds issued by another city. The concept seems clearly
inconsistent with the legal proposition that the issuing city
make appropriately public purpose findings and that the issuance
be a legitimate "municipal affair" in order to initially issue
the bonds. In addition, it is unclear how such bonds could be
refunded without a hearing by the City of San Diego, even if the
City of San Diego concurred in your proposal. In our fact
situation, the City of San Diego made such findings and
authorized the issuance of the various industrial development
bonds for SDG&E. It is our understanding that the proceeds of
the bonds have been used for the public purpose improvements
identified in the bond documents. At this point, SDG&E is merely
attempting to obtain a lower interest rate through a refunding
and issuance 'of the bonds for the very improvements which have
already been built. It is also our impression that the sole
reason SDG&E has approached the City of Chula Vista and requested
your city, rather than the City of San Diego, to refund our bonds
c;,-j!5
Mayor and City Council
~2-
April 16, 1996
is that SDG&E feels that a reissuance through your city may be
less expensive.
The City of San Diego strongly objects to this proposal and
intends to likewise strongly object in court in the event you
proceed with your action and pursue judicial validation of this
unique concept.
The concept of the beneficiaries of various industrial
development bond financings "shopping" from city to city seeking
to find a city which will charge the lowest rate for issuance and
administration of such bonds when such a refinancing occurs, is
inconsistent with the public interest in having the issuing
entity continue to administer and monitor the project or projects
which were funded by the tax exempt bonds. Furthermore, we do
not feel such a transaction constitutes a valid "municipal
affair" for the City of,Chula.Vista.
We have previously':'expressed the City's opposition to your
proposed refinancing of our bonds to your City Attorney and your
Director of Finance, and we will continue to vigorously oppose
your refunding of our bonds.
Therefore, we respectfully request that you not adopt the
ordinance before you on April 16 relating to the City of San
Diego's industrial development bonds for SDG&E.
Than you for your consideration.
Sincerely yours,
JOHN W. WITT, City Attorney
By
Harold O. Valderha
Chief Deputy City A
HOV:ps:4BO.3
cc Honorable Mayor and City Council
Jack McGrory, City Manager
Bruce M. Boogaard, Esq.
William'M. Lofton, Esq.
Kurt Chi'lcott
Mark Sullivan
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
ITEM
I
MEETING DATE
4-16-96
SUBMITTED BY:
Resolution (1) j8;?~~ Amending the FY
95/96 budget to include 1.00 FTE Police
Agent Position, subject to continued grant
funding, to partici~ate with the United
states Customs Serv1ce (USCS) San Diego
Air/Marine Narcotics Interdiction Group;
accepting and appropriating unanticipated
grant revenues in the amount of $65,000
from High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area
(HIDTA) grant funds.
. f 0 ()~.;./
Ch1e of Po11c~
ITEM TITLE:
REVIEWED BY: City Manager0 (4/5th's Vote: Yes x No-1
oJ
The Chula vista Police Department has one agent working
with the United states Customs service (USCS) at Operation
Alliance. Operation Alliance is a coordinated
multi-agency drug interdiction unit which services the
southwest border area. The agent's position at Operation
Alliance is funded through a High Intensity Drug
Trafficking Area (HIDTA) grant. As a result of the
ongoing success of Operation Alliance, the USCS submitted
another HIDTA grant to fund an additional Chula vista
Police Agent's position for the Air/Marine group. The
grant has been ap~roved and the USCS is now requesting us
to fill the posit10n. The USCS Air/Marine group has the
sole responsibility for narcotics interdiction via air and
sea along the southwest border.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve one agent's position for the USCS
San Diego Air/Marine Group. Accept the
$65,000 in HIDTA grant funds and amend
the FY 95/96 budget to include 1.00 FTE
Police Agent (salary and benefits
including overtime)
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: N/A
BACKGROUND:
The united states Customs Service (USCS) San Diego
Air/Marine Group is located with the San Diego Air
operations Branch on Coronado Island nine nautical miles
from the united States/Mexico border. Staffing consists
of one group supervisor, eight agents and one officer.
This group has the sole responsibility for interdiction of
narcotics via air and sea along the southwest border
region. The area of operation encompasses numerous inland
-1-1
waterways, harbors, inlets, and a multitude of marinas.
Due to the increased effectiveness of "Gatekeeper", it is
believed that smugglers are utilizing ship~ing lanes,
resulting in a need for the interdiction V1a air and sea
along the southwest border. statistical information for
the Air/Marine Group for FY '95 and the beginning of '96
include several successful investigations, and cash
seizures in excess of two million dollars.
The funding through HIDTA is aimed at developing multi-
~urisdictional, cooperative strategies to: A) gather
1ntelligence on dru9 traffickers; B) investigate drug
trafficking activit1es; C) arrest persons involved with
illegal drug trafficking; and, D) to successfully
prosecute those arrested. San Diego and Imperial Counties
have been designated as High Intensity Drug Trafficking
Areas, due to the volume of illegal narcotics entering the
united states through the international border frontier.
Application for HIDTA funding is made prior to each
federal fiscal year.
DISCUSSION:
For the past several years, the Chula vista Police
Department has enjoyed a favorable working relationship
with the uscs. They have been our counterparts in a
variety of investigations, including money laundering,
homicides, kidnapings, and drug cases. In July of 1994,
the police department assigned one agent to operation
Alliance under a HIDTA grant. The goal was to help
disrupt the illicit drug trafficking activities occurring
along the southwest united states/Mexico border within the
county of San Diego, giving primary attention to the cases
involving the city of Chula vista. Our partici~ation
significantly increased arrests and narcotic se1zures
among large scale drug traffickers, several of whom were
residing in Chula vista. The Operation Alliance position
also generates cash and property seizures for the city.
Other benefits have included enhanced communication,
cooperation, and intelligence networking with other local,
state, and federal agencies.
Members of CVPD's Narcotics Enforcement Team (NET) have
had prior experience working with the uses Air/Marine
Group. CVPD's NET and the uses Air/Marine Group were the
lead agencies aimed at dismantling an organization
responsible for smuggling multi-ton quantities of
marijuana into the United states. This extensive
investigation, entitled "operation Zodiac" lasted nearly
eight months and culminated with the indictments and
arrests of approximatel~ twenty five individuals, a
majority who were one t1me ehula vista residents.
Our participation at Air/Marine would further advance our
efforts to deter narcotic traffickers via enhanced
inter-agency cooperation.
FISCAL IMPACT: The funds from HIDTA will offset the costs
associated with having one additional
'7 -d--
pOlice agent. HIDTA will specifically
reimburse the agent's salary, benefits and
overtime. One undercover vehicle from our
current fleet will be utilized for this
position until approval is made for an
additional vehicle in next year's HIDTA
grant.
~~~
(~
RESOLUTION NO. 18''''.5',/
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA AMENDING THE FY 95/96 BUDGET TO
INCLUDE 1.00 FTE POLICE AGENT POSITION,
SUBJECT TO CONTINUED GRANT FUNDING, TO
PARTICIPATE WITH THE UNITED STATES CUSTOMS
SERVICES (USCS) SAN DIEGO AIR/MARINE NARCOTICS
INTERDICTION GROUP; ACCEPTING AND
APPROPRIATING UNANTICIPATED GRANT REVENUES IN
THE AMOUNT OF $65,000 FROM HIGH INTENSITY DRUG
TRAFFICKING AREA (HIDTA) GRANT FUNDS
WHEREAS, the Chula Vista Police Department has one agent
working with the United States Customs Service (USCS) at Operation
Alliance; and
WHEREAS, Operation Alliance is a coordinated multi-agency
drug interdiction unit which services the southwest border area;
and
WHEREAS, the agent's position at Operation Alliance is
funded through a High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA)
grant; and
Alliance,
additional
group; and
WHEREAS, as a result of the ongoing success of Operation
the USCS submi tted another HIDTA grant to fund an
Chula vista Police Agent's position for the Air/Marine
WHEREAS, the grant has been approved and the USCS is now
requesting us to fill to position; and
WHEREAS, the USCS Air/Marine group has the sole
responsibility for narcotics interdiction via air and sea along the
southwest border.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the
City of Chula vista does hereby amend the FY 95/96 budget to
include 1.00 FTE Police Agent Position, subject to continued grant
funding, to participate with the United States Customs Service San
Diego Air/Marine Narcotics Interdiction Group; accepting and
appropriating unanticipated grant revenues in the amount of $65,000
from High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area Grant funds.
Presented by
~
ved as
Richard Emerson, Chief of
Police
Bruce M.
Attorney
c: \rs\hidta
/..1
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
ITEM
g
MEETING DATE
4/16/96
ITEM TITLE:
Resolution IS'Q~< - Endorse in concept the
Conveyance of a portion of the SD NTC, known
as Camp Nimitz for Use as the San Diego
Regional Public Safety Training Institute
Chief of Police ~0
SUBMITTED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
ci ty Manager 9
(4/5THS VOTE: YES___ NO XX)
Conveyance of the Camp Nimitz portion of the SD NTC which is
currently under review. Two proposals have been submitted for
consideration. The first one is a proposal by the City of
San Diego to acquire and develop Camp Nimitz for use as the San
Diego Regional Public Safety Training Institute. This proposal is
supported by Congressman Brian Bilbray, the San Diego County Board
of Supervisors, San Diego City Councilman Byron Wear, and the
San Diego County Police Chiefs' and Sheriff's Association of which
I am the President. The second proposal has been submitted by the
Port District for expansion of the airport. This proposal is
supported by the Lindbergh Improvement Federation, San Diego Power
and Cooling and Qualcomm, Inc. Police staff has reviewed both
proposals and believes the 102 acres available can be used to meet
both proposers' needs. The compromise solution would provide for
a world-class public safety training institute and expansion of the
airport.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the city Council endorse, in concept, the joint use of Camp
Nimitz by the City of San Diego and the Port District for expansion
of essential airport services and operations at Lindbergh Field and
development of a San Diego Regional Public Safety Training
Institute.
BOARDS/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: N/A
BACKGROUND:
A Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) consisting of Regional Law
enforcement and fire agencies and the San Diego Community College
District proposes to acquire the Camp Nimitz section of the
San Diego Naval Training Center under the Public Benefit
~-I
PAGE 2, ITEM
MEETING DATE 4/26/96
Reconveyance Plan. The purpose of the proposal is to establish a
centralized, state of the art Regional Public Safety Training
Institute providing both entry level and advanced education and
training for police, deputy sheriffs, firefighters, correctional
officers, dispatchers, and emergency medical technicians throughout
San Diego County including state, national and inter-national
users.
The Port District also proposes to acquire Camp Nimitz for
expansion of Lindbergh Field. The Port District plans to use the
land primarily for vehicle and aircraft parking as well as future
gate expansion to the terminal now under construction. This will
provide for a partial temporary solution to airport expansion
problems. Lindbergh Field is presently nearing 100% capacity due
to its single runway.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION:
The City of Chula vista has been active on the airport issue since
1990, mainly in opposition to Twinports. In June, 1992, 83% of
city voters voted "No" on Proposition H, an advisory vote on
whether or not a bi-national airport should be located on
Otay Mesa. In June, 1994, the City Council and 55% of the voters
supported a Countywide advisory measure to relocate the airport to
Miramar should that site no longer be critical to the military.
During the entire airport debate, the City has been
maintaining Lindbergh Field as the region's airport.
also supported allowing for Lindbergh's reasonable
expansion until such time as an alternative airport
agreed upon by the region.
supportive of
The city has
and necessary
site might be
DISCUSSION:
It is staff's belief that the San Diego region can have both an
expanded airport and a Regional Public Safety Training Institute.
If both parties reach a compromise solution, both proposals could
co-exist creating a win-win situation. The 102 acres at Camp
Nimitz can accommodate airport expansion so that airport operations
will not be impeded as well as a Regional Public Safety Training
Institute. Additionally, the General Dynamics/Convair site
adjacent acreage can provide for expansion of the airport to
include a new taxiway, terminal and parking. Locating the Public
Safety Training Institute on Camp Nimitz, along with additional
vehicle and aircraft parking, in addition to expanding the
~~d-
PAGE 3, ITEM
MEETING DATE 4/16/96
airport to accommodate the needed taxiway, terminal and parking on
the Convair site and adjacent property would create the greatest
economic impact for the region.
Environmental and aesthetic impacts would be positive and
beneficial to the region. Preservation and expansion of the Least
Tern colony habitat can be accomplished. Eight acres of the site
can be used for the Metro Waste Water Department, in partnership
with San Diego State University, to construct a water testing and
treatment laboratory adjacent to the boat channel.
Economic benefits to the region would include creation of permanent
and immediate construction jobs, generate additional revenues and
provide for 17 acres for a first-class hotel to serve both the
public and out-of-town institute students and their families. The
hotel will generate transient occupancy and sales taxes for the
region.
The region will receive a significant benefit with the development
of the San Diego Regional Public Safety Training Institute.
Expansion of existing entry level training will be augmented at the
local, state and federal level with advanced specialized training
being offered to our region. This is also a more cost effective
method with an enhanced delivery of service.
The Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce has reviewed both proposals and
reached a consensus to encourage both parties to work together and
reach a consensus to provide for both the Regional Training
Institute and airport expansion. A copy of the Chamber's letter is
attached for your information.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Support of this proposal results in no fiscal impact to the general
fund.
~-3
RESOLUTION NO. 1(5'45
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA ENDORSING IN CONCEPT THE
CONVEYANCE OF A PORTION OF THE SD NTC, KNOWN
AS CAMP NIMITZ FOR USE AS THE SAN DIEGO
REGIONAL PUBLIC SAFETY TRAINING INSTITUTE
WHEREAS, conveyance of the Camp Nimitz portion of the SD
NTC is currently under review; and
WHEREAS,
consideration:
two proposals have been submitted for
(1) A proposal by the City of San Diego to acquire and
develop Camp Nimitz for use as the San Diego
Regional Public Safety Training Institute.
(2) A proposal by the Port District for expansion of
the airport.
WHEREAS, Police
believes the 102 acres
proposers' needs; and
staff has reviewed both proposals and
available can be used to meet both
WHEREAS, the compromise solution would provide for a
world-class public safety training institute and expansion of the
airport.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the
city of Chula vista does hereby endorse in concept the conveyance
of a portion of the SD NTC, known as Camp Nimitz for us as the San
Diego Regional Public Safety Training Inst' u e.
fO']
Presented by
Richard P. Emerson, Chief of
Police
Bruce M. Boog
Attorney
, city
C:\rs\nhitz
y,~
i
i
I,
AN
INVESTMENT IN
THE FUTURE
,-- (
\ ,\
0~"" '-
CHITLA VISTA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
ACCREDITEe
:ou-.. Of' =-"'f.-c:r.
April 12, 1996
,........,,--....
,.................
The Honorable Susan Golding
Mayor, City of San Diego
Chair of the Base Reuse Commission
BOARD OF DIRECTORS 202 C .Street
P 'd San Diego, CA 92101
reSI ent
Chris Lewis
President Elect
Dave Ward
Vice Presidents:
Patricia Barnes
JoAnne'Clayton
Gary Nordstrom
Brad Wiison
Members:
Renee Bute
Jose Doria
Mike Green
Susan Hemey
Dan Higgins
Tom McAndrews
Berta Mensik
Len Moore
Scott Mosher
Robert Penner, MD
Ben Richardson
Frank Scott
Mary Anne Slro
Bob Thomas
Jon Ulsh
Executive Dlrector/
Rod Davis
Dear Mayor Golding:
Chula Vista is the fastest growing and second largest city in the San Diego
region. Our business community is always concerned with ensuring that our region
has an airport that will serve our individual and corporate needs well into the next
century .
Similarly, we as a business community regard public safety as a key issue for
business success. People live, shop and work where they feel safe. In this regard, we
are supportive of the San Diego Regional Public Safety Institute. The cost savings to
our individual communities and to our region by having the very best training
facilities available locally is a real advantage.
We have had the opportunity to listen to Port Commissioner David Malcolm and
to Chula Vista Police Chief Rick Emerson. It is the opinion of the Chula Vista
Chamber that both the airport expansion and the Public Safety Institute can co-exist
on the former NTC property. The benefits to the community will be tremendous.
Consensus and creative thinking will be required by personnel who are dedicated to
fmding a way to make this project work.
We strongly urge the Base Closure Commission to support the transfer of the
NTC property to the Port of San Diego, and we further urge the Port to immediately
enter into a contractual relationship with the Public Safety Institute to ensure the co-
usage of subject property.
~,
Sincerely,
Chula Vista Chamber of C07rce
-]/ /
~~4~,iI.!'~
Christopt(er H. Lewis i -;
President
pc:
County Board of Supervisors
City Council, City of San Diego
Mayor and City Council, City of Chula Vista
POrt of San Diego
Linda M. Geldner, RA., Base Closure Manager
Rick Emerson, Chula Vista Chief of Police
2 3 3 F 0 U A T H A V E N U E . C H U l A \/ 1ST .\, C A L I F 0 A N I A .) 1 9 1 0 . i::: L. (6 1 9) .t 2 ~ . 6 ~ 0 J
1-S
A'l"l'Al:IiMJ;:;N'1'
fl
.....
....;
i
i i
Ii
~
;~ .
Z
<t
-l
Q..
o
t-
Z
o
)
, -)
:) {,,'-"';
c-
:-r:
'~7
E-<
:::>
E-<
H
E-<
UJ
Z
H
y
"
Z
H
Z
H
~
E-<
><
E-<
W
~
,,;
UJ
U
H
H
P4
~ ~
H
,,;
Z
o
H
"
W
~
o
"
W
H
Q
Z
,,;
UJ
~
--
. .,--::'~, ~\ ,,~
~'. ,,"0. "~
- '--. :.,~:-;~..,,~~> l,'~ ':
,~.r~f~'''';. .. ~:~ ..1
" .. "I- i' ''', ~ "y~
. ....,.--\~~I. \';., :'.-t~ 1
i / ~ \ '.' '\ '" g .' ,
., -; ,,' :::r \ " \ :'\ ~ ..1., .2
''0- \.-->--;::: -: U ~\ \ 1",
/'::- -, - "1 - -, ' "~II '1,! -
'I \, \.[.... -",- "10.' II . \ I ~-..\ i g,
j., ."'~/~- " ,~..., '~i\1I' ~ is
~",J j>... # \. i} e. ~ I \ \ t"~ i - __
T-..( "I' "If'~ : ' " ""~ .I'~" ~
-<< I-f-',a I'i'i' ,""' ",1.,',,:":,
;.J. \, 1 · ~ \ I. f ' ' ,f- -:::
. r ~ ' I ~, " ~/' I 1a: \. ...
Y i \\1411 " <I r ':oUQr."' ~ (l)
.4J+. 'T -r *' -)( ~ I.. ,,~; "" I",.~ \.;.=\ t) ~ U E "
~~' 1""7- \ ! 't ~19<f>' t; "'31::;' OJ ,
/............ . ..', ~"'- -~'" \ Q.
. .... "'(" .., ; u... 0
:1 "I;:-"~L~'.__k ~- . ~ - ~ ~ <3
,Ii ,,' .:A;':; ~ '-71' : P' :~:~/'-:~~~\'% '-,' \ t -g, g: g
, ,1.~ ;I. ~ X d. ~ ',JII.- ~ ", '- (])
J '; ~~ ';~~I~~~ S \" ~ 0 ~'
1f1~-' II}~; ~~~ !tj>idL'~'; ~ -g .tJ.' B
I V :o~1\; ~. ! L '.' '~~, " "
. i'a; l~ ~\-f I \:~ ',,- .E
~ :......'--- A\..- !' ' '~~3,:-, '\;2 \ 2
)r-- "'~ <t- "'l~ j, ).'~'! , -, ',j ....:~"
). ..!. I ~.~ ~ . l---- ., ~ \. Q..
-J / ' 111' i~ ---, \' .!.\ E
(-'i:.. j:~'i~, JI,G-1. \- , ;,~'i~
;, ..J 'y -. .:-:.:- ~l f. , ~I, ~ ,_ "(~ rn
" 1~'-i"-~ ~1r~1i'~:~'~"\:~'.:, ~ 0
" ; 0 ;:, t .-:: - -_P!_].,~ : ; -1:;. \~I .
-'''"As.'- ~,-,,~! i .! J' 'f. ,'~ \ \. ~~ g j, "
i ~:~~ J' "''''....,. :.. ).~ ;': 1;,
'~~::-.,~~~:.~' -\\,,/,
. ~~~~~~~~"'8~" ,[\~",\\~~' \~
'~ . m'i' # t'''' v'
-......, '.. ,'j.'~ ' ' - I, ", .
...... . r.;~'5 . %:, ~ ~ . ..0-
.J~'~l}, . '''___'' ~ '
:.~ ta'~~
, - ~. \
~. i
.~ ,
:.-... ~~" ~"
"''f', :'
\. \
-. - ,~.
'i, .,
, II
/j
..' 1/.
1/ ;;-
.
>< i
{1"
~f.
- ',.,.-
N
~
I
.~-
'""....
':~.::L?;(~2:~: ':~
:.
", ~ '.;.-~~ .
-------...
-f~
"~<I
.,.,
~ '
'"
"~
'-.,
.....'"
"~
,~.. ~jlt..~:-J,~\~:~."'_
,
'\7
ATTACHMENT J>
. .
.. ~.
-
;:. ':::~":;?i~=~:: ::.
" .
..
c
ro
,',
0..
I'
"
'I
II
ii
/,..~
'-..
'"
-.-r.
"0
, .-r^
'"
."'1\.
"
~
;;
.
. .
.
.
.
"
----------=-- .
~
",
"
'I 7
0-
f'~
SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT TO THE PROPOSAL TO CONVEY
THE CAMP NIMITZ SECTION OF SAN DIEGO NAVAL TRAINING CENTER
TO THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO FOR DEVELOPMENT OF
ATTACHMENT
u
THE SAN DIEGO REGIONAL PUBLIC SAFETY TRAINING INSTITUTE
April 2, 1996
I. INTRODUCTION
Camp Nimitz combines a number of unique and critical features which together provide a OIill-time,
non-replicable opportunity to develop a world class Regional Public Safety Training Institute in San
Diego, The benefits of Institute development to the San Diego region will include:
. A comprehensive physical facility and curriculum meeting virtually all of the basic and advanced
training needs of local public safety personnel; the opportunity to develop coordinated, cooperative
and creative inter-disciplinary approaches to incidents of major and minor proportions; and vastly
expanded and enhanced public safety services to the residents of San Diego County with no added
burden to taxpayers.
. An internationally recognized training center with unique resources unavailable elsewhere,
centralized location, ease of access, and on-site accommodations to support entrepreneurial training of
other municipal, state, federal, multinational and private sector personnel.
. The opportunity to retain the use of critical existing resources which have helped to make San
Diego a model for public service providers.
. Resources to support a national center for technological innovation in communications, safety,
transportation, hazardous materials management, weaponry, education and training, which will expand
San Diego's reputation and attract vital new industry.
. Multiple areas of compliance with the criteria of the Tidelands Trust, and enhancement of
environmental features.
. Expanded ability of the Community College District to provide affordable education, enhance the
work force, and support new industry.
. Minimal noise, traffic or environmental impact on the area, which has resulted in strong support
from local residents.
. Access to State and federal grant funds for technology reinvestment, community college
development and Crime Act funding.
Public safety training has reached a crisis point in San Diego. The basic law enforcement academy at
Miramar College is at full capacity. All fire training has already moved to Camp Nimitz, and has
nowhere else to relocate. Miramar College is over capacity and cannot proceed with long-range
development until the law enforcement academy relocates.
The Institute will serve the needs of 11,000 public safety personnel county-wide, including: 4,464
Police Officers, Deputy Sheriffs and Corrections Deputies; 2,595 Firefighters (599 of whom are also
'I'
y.r
Paramedics); 299 San Diego Police, Fire and Sheriff Communications personnel; 65 San Diego
Lifeguards; 302 San Diego County Marshals; 174 District Attorney and Welfare Fraud Investigators;
309 Deputy Probation Officers; 375 Police and Sheriff Reserve Officers; 1,622 San Diego Sheriff and
Police Volunteers; and 675 Child Protective Services personnel.
II. UNIQUE FEATURES AVAILABLE ONLY AT THE CAMP NIMITZ FACILITY
For many years San Diego public safety personnel have researched potential sites throughout the
county, and found that none provides the basic requirements for a comprehensive, revenue generating,
first class facility. Camp Nimitz provides the only immediate opportunity for meeting the tniining
requirements of San Diego public safety personnel. Such an opportunity is unlikely ever again to
present itself for the rapid development of an all-encompassing training site. A unique combination of
features at Camp Nimitz presents an opportunity for San Diego to develop a Regional' Public Safety
Institute unparalleled in the Western United States or the Pacific Rim. These include:
. Existing Facilities Available for Immediate Use: Conveyance of Camp Nimitz for the San Diego
Regional Public Safety Training Institute will ensure the immediate use and preservation of the
majority of existing structures, as encouraged by the Department of Defense. San Diego basic and
advanced Firefighter training is presently conducted at Camp Nimitz. .Law enforcement training will
be relocated in phases beginning immediately upon recommendation by the City Council for
conveyance of the property to the Institute.
. Adjacency to Water: No other location will accommodate the water-related training needs of
local, state, federal and private users. The site is accessible by channel to harbor patrol, fireboats,
and many private craft, and is convenient for Coast Guard, cruise and merchant lines. Critical
practical training can be conducted in the channel. In addition, participation of the Metro Waste
Water Department in constructing the water testing laboratory is dependent upon adjacency to San
Diego Bay.
. Fire Simulator: The $22 million fire simulator in use on Camp Nimitz is one of only 19:in the
world. Twelve are operated by the U.S. Navy and one is operated by the FAA. Six are operated by
non-federal government agencies, all on the east coast. The simulator is adapted to both shipboard
and land structure firefighting, confined space, search and rescue training. Organizations from
throughout the Pacific Rim express interest in utilizing the simulator on a fee basis. In 1995, with no
marketing or promotion, the simulator drew revenue in excess of $50,000 from outside users.
It is critical that fire training be presented in an integrated manner. A stand alone simulator located
miles from other training facilities has no value as a training tool. The cost and inconvenience of
staffing, operation, maintenance, travel and liability of retaining the simulator at Camp Nimitz, with
other core training facilities located elsewhere, cannot be sustained by the San Diego Fire Department.
If Firefighter training must leave Camp Nimitz, the simulator and all potential revenue and savings
will be lost, probably permanently. The $22 million cost to replicate the simulator at an alternate
location is so prohibitive as to make this prospect unlikely.
. Proxinlity to Mass Transit: Federal agencies have expressed almost universal interest in the
availability of a quality training institute at Camp Nimitz. This interest is based to a large extent upon
the proximity to Lindbergh Field, convenience of ground transportation, and the availability of on-site
lodging. These factors will be an obvious draw to other jurisdictions and private corporations as well.
')'
.~.
d
/1 .. 'j
~ ,
. Topography and Surrounding Environs: The Camp Nimitz parcel is of ideal size and
configuration for this major facility. It also provides a unique environment for the Emergency Vehicle
Operation Course, which will be another major source of revenue. Use of the driving course at
Miramar College is limited by the potential for noise disturbance to surrounding neighbors. The
EVOC course on Camp Nimitz is buffered on all sides by water, surface roads, the airport and
MCRD, facilitating night driver training which is unavailable at Miramar College. The U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service indicates that the portion of the property which comprises the Least Tern habitat may
be used for off-road driving training during the seven months of the year that the species is off-site.
. Aircraft Firefighting Training: New FAA requirements mandate increased levels of aircraft
firefighting training for all airport personnel nationwide. This training is unavailable elsewhere in the
region. A propane generating system, critical to the training, exists on Camp Nimitz. The site is also
uniquely suited to this training because of its immediate proximity to the airport.
III. COST SAVINGS RESULTING FROM THE CONVEYANCE
. Facilities Construction, Planning, Design and Land Savings: The value of resources on Camp
Nimitz which are PRESENTLY IN USE by San Diego public safety personnel is in excess of 535
million. The value of the existing buildings on Camp Nimitz is estimated at $51 million. The Navy
will not release information on the value of the land. Environmental, planning and facilities design
studies specific to the site have been completed at a cost of $20.000. Similar studies for an alternate
site could be substantially higher.
The cost to develop Camp Nimitz to State and federal Regional Public Safety Training Institute
specifications will be approximately $25 million, all of which will be recaptured through revenue
identified in the original application for public benefit conveyance. The facility will be put to
immediate use, with full development anticipated in seven years.
Revised estimates put the cost to develop a minimal training facility on undeveloped land at $124
million, including a comparable fire simulator. With $28 million recovered in revenue (a generous
estimate for an alternate site. as it would be a lesser facility), the net additional cost to taxpayers
would be $96 million. It would require at least 10 years to develop, and would never fully replicate
the training that can be provided at" Camp Nimitz, including shipboard fire fighting , water search and
rescue, boating safety, and related training.
. Fire Department Training Savings: Fire Department use of Camp Nimitz presently saves the City
a minimum of $318,000 in yearly facility costs. Administrative and training classroom activities use
21,000 square feet; storage and outdoor training space is virtually unlimited. The cost of
classroom/administrative space ranges from $0.85 to $1.35 per square foot monthly on the open
market; at $1.00 per square foot per month, the City would spend $252,000 yearly for alternate
facilities to house the Fire Department's training program. Ten thousand square feet of storage space
at $0.55 per square foot would add $66,000 yearly.
The City of San Diego has no facility adequate to conduct basic Fire Academy training other than
Camp Nimitz. Should the Fire Department be forced to vacate that training site, it will likely be
necessary to send 28 San Diego Firefighter Recruits yearly to Palomar Firefighting Academy for basic
Academy training, at a cost to the City of $76,000 per year.
:;r-
\ /~J
~) f"...
The State mandates a minimum of 28 hours per year of continuing training per person for fire
personnel. Annual costs to the City of $21,000 for advanced training not available in San Diego will
be saved by availability of these classes at the Institute. In addition. the Fire Department is eligible
for federal grants (a recent one provided $13,000) to host various training classes. The ability to host
an increased variety and quality of classes will enhance the ability to attract these grants.
. Police Department Training Savings: The State requires a minimum of 24 hours per year
continuing training for peace officers. Virtually all law enforcement agencies require significant
additional hours of training, and recommend many optional courses in subjects such as critical incident
management, community policing, homicide, vice, sex crimes, traffic, domestic violence, sexual
harassment, supervision. automation, etc. Hundreds of these classes are currently available only
outside the region, requiring student travel, accommodations and other expenses.
Many of these expenses are reimbursed by POST. However, in 1995 the San Diego Police
Department sent 809 students out of the county for training, costing the Department over $100,000 in
officer salaries for travel days, which are not POST-reimbursable. Similar annual expenses for the
Sheriff's Department and other county law enforcement agencies are $150,000 and $50,000,
respectively.
. Lifeguard Training: In addition to an 18-day basic academy, the S~n Diego Lifeguard Service
requires 60 hours of annual in-service training for each of its 65 permanent employees. One
Lifeguard official states that the service experiences a serious, ongoing need for suitable training
facilities, particularly a vehicle operations course to teach emergency response driving.
. Liability Reduction: Nearly every government agency nationwide faces a staggering, and
escalating, loss of funds to liability costs. With law enforcement, fire prevention and safety issues
ever more complex and technological. public safety providers must have access to comprehensive,
state-of-the-art training, Although few studies exist to document liability savings, public safety
officials are in agreement that enhanced training will reduce liability costs.
IV. EDUCATIONAL AND RELATED ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE CONVEYANCE
. Miramar College Development and Growth: The availability of new, low-cost educational
opportunities is of critical importance to the well-being of the community. Enhanced individual
opportunity translates directly into higher employment, higher standard of living, an expanded tax
base, and a more productive and skilled work force with which to attract new industry to the region.
The State Five-Year Capital Outlay Construction Planning process allocates funding (contingent on
voter approval of bond initiatives) for community college development. Once allocated, the District
must move quickly to construct buildings. As long as the law enforcement academy occupies its
present site, Miramar College cannot realistically request funding from the State, long-range
development plans are delayed, and funding opportunities are lost. If the Academy can vacate
Miramar College in the immediate future. District ofticials anticipate initiation of at least one $10
million near-term construction project which will create 65 construction and related jobs. Impact on
the local economy in increased employment, production and services is frequently estimated at more
than double the actual construction costs.
Ultimate build-out at Miramar College, which could exceed $100 million, will result in a net Full-
Time Equivalent Student (FTES) increase of 1.000. (By comparison, total San Diego Community
~
(i . f
J- / I
College District FTES is under 40,000.) District officials estimate that this FTES increase will
translate into an annual primary effect of $3 million FTES funds coming into the region, and 50 new
permanent jobs (30 instructional and 20 instructional support). Miramar College presently occupies
179.000 gross square feet. At build-out. the College will occupy 766,280 gross square feet.
In addition to traditional classes, Miramar College development will permit the addition of other new
educational programs and opporrunities, particularly in the area of contract education, which are
expected to generate at least another $1 million yearly.
. San Diego Regional Public Safety Training Institute Development and Job Creation: Instirute
FTES enrollment, as illustrated in the original proposal, is anticipated at 1,328, a net increase of 435
over the 893 at Miramar College. The initial $8.5 million development phase will create 330 new
temporary jobs. At full development, the Instirute will generate approximately 38 new, full-time
permanent jobs, including five facility maintenance, five vehicle maintenance, 12 custodial, four
grounds maintenance, two clerical, and ten EVOC Instructor positions.
V. ENTREPRENEURIAL POTENTIAL OF THE INSTITUTE
Interest in a comprehensive, multi-purpose training facility has been u~iformly enthusiastic throughout
San Diego and the nation. A variety of training and funding mechanisms exist, including direct user
fees, certification of courses through the Community College District and accredited upper division
universities, and reimbursement by POST and other organizations involved in professional training.
A few examples (in addition to those presented in the original proposal) of the opporrunity to expand
training capabilities which will generate revenue include:
. Standards and Training in Corrections: The State requires 119 hours of core training for
Correctional Deputies. San Diego County provides a 420 hour certified course which all Correctional
Deputies must complete. Presently, no regional location provides a comprehensive core curriculum.
As a result, most agencies must provide their own training.
The San Diego Sheriff's Department also conducts one of only two Jail Managers' Courses available
in California (the other is in Santa Rosa). The potential for training in corrections is limited only by
availability of facilities and space. The Instirute will be equipped to provide training in every
detention issue. In addition to local needs, informal discussions with Corrections officials in Arizona
and Nevada on general detention training issues have revealed a general need for training opporrunities
throughout the western states.
. Shipboard Firefighter Training: The San Diego Fire Department conducts shipboard fire fighting
for the U.S. Coast Guard on Camp Nimitz on an ongoing basis. The Coast Guard is presently in the
process of gaining federal accreditation for this training.
In 1995, 183 cargo ships and 8 cruise vessels visited San Diego, each with a large crew offering a
potential market for training or refresher courses in shipboard firefighting. The marine fire fighting
school in San Francisco will soon close, leaving San Diego as the only port of call on the west coast
capable of providing training in shipboard fire fighting for small passenger vessels. The San Diego
Fire Department has provided training for 12 passenger vessels and the entire crews of two large
private yachts, the Golden Odyssey and the Golden Shadow. Significant need and interest have been
expressed for this training to remain available in San Diego.
~
1
.s -,;;(
. County Child Protective Services: CPS is responsible for identifying, managing and preventing
child endangerment, neglect and abuse. This work frequently involves close association with law
enforcement personnel. CPS provides a basic five week in-house core training course to all new
employees, and requires 30 hours per person of annual in-service training for its staff of 675. CPS
officials describe their training facilities as inadequate, and have expressed strong interest in the
Institute as a training resource. They are also interested in expanding their basic training to a six
week program which could include law enforcement relations, defensive tactics, negotiating, and
related topics.
. Private Trainers in Public Safety: With the lack of any known association of trainers from which
to capture information, the potential for this industry is difficult to estimate, but appears to .be vast.
Discussions with local trainers indicate that the Institute may attract a substantial clientele from this
market. For lack of better facilities, much current training is conducted in hotels, which are ill-suited
to the purpose. SDPD Training Division estimates the potential to for a minimum of 15 one-week
classes per year with an average attendance of 28 students each, for 16,800 student hours.
. Tourism and Family Visits: Hundreds of State, federal and international students will come to the
Institute for classes ranging from a few days to several weeks. The convenience of the Institute,
combined with economical. first class accommodations. will encourage many to bring families and to
stay over to enjoy San Diego's many attractions is tremendous. Institute plans include encouraging
family visits and stay-overs.
VI. REGIONAL TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT, TESTING AND APPLICATION:
NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL IMPLICATIONS:
The San Diego Regional Public Safety Institute at Camp Nimitz will provide San Diego with the
opportunity to host an unprecedented international center for technology development and application.
Areas for potential development include automation, systems integration, hazardous materials
management, weaponry, safety equipment, fire prevention and management, disaster/major incident
management and advanced communications.
. The U.S. Department of Justice Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center, whose
main responsibilities are drug interdiction and border security, has expressed strong interest in
relocating its office and test bed site to the Institute. Technology Center officials have cited as
incentives for this move the Institute's technological potential, proximity to the harbor and airport, and
the concentration and variety of trainees which will provide a pool of individuals to test equipment as
incentives for such a move. This relocation would not be feasible at an alternate location.
. The Metro Waste Water Laboratory at the Institute will attract science and industry in
environmental management, and will greatly expand the potential for mitigating recurrent pollution
problems along the California and Baja Mexico shoreline. Naturally, participation of this facility is
contingent on adjacency to the harbor.
. Transborder Commerce Enhancement: N AFT A presents important international training
opportunities. Agencies conducting transborder commerce must meet certain U.S. safety regulations in
such areas as hazardous materials transport and management, mitigation of hazardous materials spills,
safety inspections, and disaster management. N AFT A also includes provisions for expansion of bi-
national Urban Search and Rescue mutual aid agreements. Relevant training is available from a
limited number of sources. The Institute will be uniquely qualified and situated to provide training in
u
:>/-/3
water and roadway commerce issues. As NAFT A requirements are met, commerce and international
relations will expand.
. International Training and Exchange: The San Diego Fire Department has entered into an
agreement to conduct firefighter training for 80 Mexican Bomberos. Training requests are expected
to increase over the next few years, and to include departments from throughout Baja Mexico. Area
law enforcement and fire fighting personnel also participate in international Firefighting and Law
Enforcement Exchange programs which will be enhanced and expanded by the presence of this
superior training facility.
VII. TIDELANDS AND ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES: The San Diego Regional Public Safety
Training Institute meets Tidelands Trust criteria in a number of areas:
. Least Tern Habitat: Institute plans include not only preservation, but enlargement and
enhancement of the least tern habitat. Development will not require risky and time-consuming
relocation of the established habitat, and will result in no detrimental impact on the species. The U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service is strongly supportive of this impact-free plan.
. Training of Harbor Police, San Diego Firefighters Assigned to Port District, Other Airport
Safety Personnel and Lifeguards: The San Diego Regional Law Enforcement and Fire Academies
provide basic academy training to the I08-person Harbor Police Department, and to San Diego
Firefighters assigned to the airport. The Police Department also provides Advanced Officer Training,
menu training, and POST certitied classes for Harbor Police. The San Diego Fire Department
provides in-service training to firetighters and other personnel assigned to the airport. The Camp
Nimitz facility will permit expansion of training to include water and navigation related training such
as shipboard firefighting, water rescue. boating safety and enforcement, and lifeguard training.
. Shipboard Firefighting: The San Diego Fire Department provides in-service structural and
shipboard fire fighting training for airport personnel, private yacht and recreational sailors from
throughout the world, and U.S. Coast Guard personnel. Institute development will permit expansion
of this service to cruise lines and merchant ships. The fire simulator will be the only such facility
available for non-military use in the entire Pacific Rim, and is an invaluable resource to international
navies and private seagoing organizations.
. Public Benefit: Institute plans include a Public Safety and Maritime Museum, as well as greenbelt
park, running and walking trails open to the public. The Institute will present an attractive, campus-
like atmosphere, and will be open to school tours, Neighborhood Watch meetings, Citizens' Law
Enforcement Academy and similar public uses.
. Metropolitan Waste Water Department Laboratory: A partnership with the Metro Waste Water
Department includes plans for a state-of-the-art water testing and analysis laboratory supporting
research and development in pollution abatement along San Diego/Baja Mexico coastal waters.
. Commerce: The original Institute proposal included a 1P A-operated lodging and food facility
serving only Institute trainees, and providing a training ground for Hospitality Services programs
through the San Diego Community College District. However, Institute plans are readily adaptable to
the presence of a corporate resort-quality hotel and food service in the North West corner of Camp
Nimitz (approximately 8 to 10 acres), with the condition that suitable room availability and rates are
provided to Institute trainees.
1
, :'--
'.J
..I..
, /
VIII. PUBLIC SAFETY FUNDING AND ASSISTANCE OPPORTUNITIES:
. Joint Task Force Six: This military umbrella organization provides assistance to law enforcement
agencies engaged in drug interdiction activities. One type of assistance they provide is training facility
construction. JTF-6 is presently concentrating its border drug interdiction efforts in the San Diego
region. If Institute development coincides with their presence here, the likelihood of obtaining their
assistance is very high. A delay in the initiation of development activities may seriously impact the
assistance that JTF-6 is able to provide.
. Federal Crime Act Funds: The City of San Diego has the lowest proportion of officers to
civilians (1.65:1,000) of any major city in the nation. The Violent Crime Control and Law',
Enforcement Act of 1994 provides funding through the year 2000, offering San Diego, and' all
agencies throughout the county, an unprecedented opportunity to increase the number of officers at a
greatly reduced local cost. The limited capacity of the current academy, with departments vying for
available positions, limits regional ability to derive full benefit from Crime Act funding.
Although the number of Crime Act officers the City has accepted has been limited by matching fund
requirements, future circumstances could mitigate this limitation. The federal government may grant
a waiver of the local match, or Congress may revise the Crime Act to provide block grants with no
match requirement. Under either scenario, availability of adequate sll\dent facilities would greatly
increase the Crime Act revenue the City can access.
The City of San Diego is authorized to receive funding for 50 new officers in 1996, and 25 additional
officers annually through the year 2000. These officers must be in addition to the number which
would be added without the grants. Considering that departments throughout the county are interested
in accessing these hiring funds, it is clear that the present Academy cannot begin to absorb the full
complement of Crime Act resources. If the City can accept all 150 authorized positions, at $75.000
per new officer over three years, Crime Act hiring funds to the City will total $ 11.25 million.
Conversely, if we can accommodate only half our authorized number (an optimistic estimate, given
the existing Academy facilities) the City will forfeit over $5.6 million in federal funds, with
proportionate losses throughout the county.
. Defense Conversion Funds: As a component of military downsizing, the U.S. Departments of
Defense. Communications and Commerce, and the California Trade and Commerce Agency provide
millions of dollars in grants for conversion of military-related research and technology to civilian uses.
As a premier science and defense technology center, the City of San Diego has already received in
excess of $7.5 million in defense conversion and business development funds. and is a partner (with
San Diego State University) in another $7 million. Primary industry clusters which are expected to
expand in San Diego. and which involve products and/or technologies adaptable to public safety and
security, include telecommunications (such as hostage negotiations, real-time wireless audio/video
surveillance, and major disaster response): information technology (such as prepackaged software,
computer programming services. integrated systems and computer simulation training); surveillance
technology (such as night vision equipment, and heat and motion sensors); and education services
(such as public and private training techniques). The timely availability of a facility capable of
supporting comprehensive research and development, coupled with the presence of former defense
related industry, will provide the groundwork for private industry partnerships to enhance San Diego's
access to conversion funds, and its reputation for excellence in national science and technology
development and applications.
,,-g::
J .,
>, -1-:::>
. State Crime Prevention Funding: AB 1020 was designed to authorize $850 million for
construction and development of regional public safety training academies throughout the State.
Although the Bill recently died in Committee, information from Sacramento indicates that the reason
for the lack of support was Governor Wilson's plan to introduce a complete crime package later this
year which will include funding for regional public safety training institutes. If San Diego has an
established site, we will be ideally positioned to take full advantage of funding opportunities.
. POST Plan V: In order to encourage and support regional training and development, the
California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training will allocate $15 million statewide to
for local program development and delivery. Reimbursement is expected to be from $5 to $6 per
student contact hour. Although the Institute cannot receive POST Plan V funds directly, individual
agencies can access the funds and commit them to the Institute Joint Powers Authority. These funds
will be over and above funding identified in the original proposal. The expanded Institute resources
augment the regional ability to create and deliver training programs to attract these funds.
. Full Time Equivalent Student Funds: State reimbursement to the San Diego Community College
District is approximately $3,200 per FTES, per year. As presently structured, Miramar College
returns 80% of FTES generated by the fire and law enforcement programs back into these programs.
(The remainder is allocated to maintenance and new programs.) Based on discussions with Miramar
College officials, the prospect that a similar allocation would apply to .Institute programs is favorable.
With the Institute assuming all of its own operation and maintenance costs, such a would be
financially beneficial for both Miramar College and the Institute.
IX. COMMUNITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
The environmental impact on surrounding residents and businesses will be negligible. Noise will be
well within acceptable limits, and all activities will be buffered on all sides by water. land, and the
airport. Using SANDAG data, a community college generates 1.6 trips per day per student. This
translates to an Institute impact of only 620 daily trips on local access roads. Even this low number
overstates the actual impact, however, as many students will be lodged on the facility.
As a result of the low neighborhood impacts, the presence of the San Diego Regional Public Safety
Training Institute is unlikely to generate any noticeable change in traffic or noise in surrounding
neighborhoods. Believing that the Public Safety Institute will be a good neighbor, nearby residents
are strongly supportive of this development over alternative uses.
The Institute may also provide resources and facilities for training in various vocational programs such
as Rap, GAIN and PIC, further enhancing and supporting San Diego's labor pool and quality of life.
Institute construction and development will result in ecological, visual and educational enhancements
on the surrounding area. The Institute will provide a focal point for regional pride and prestige. The
ability to accommodate numerous community activities will further the goals of neighborhood policing
by expanding opportunities for community partnerships, communication and understanding.
b:\narative
~,
'] ,/
'- --- / {::
cJ .
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
ITEM TITLE:
Item~
Meeting Date 4/16/96
1i'.2ft.
Resolution Accepting Irrevocable Offer of Dedication for street
purposes, dedicating and naming said street East Orange Avenue within
Eastlake Greens development and Assessment District No. 94-1
Director of Public Work~
City Manager J~ ~ ----z
(4/Sths Vote: Yes_NoX)
SUBMITTED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
Right-of-way for two portions of East Orange A venue within Eastlake Greens, previously offered
to the City through an irrevocable offer of dedication, must be accepted by the City prior to final
payment for acquisition of improvements in Assessment District No. 94-1.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve the resolution accepting irrevocable offers of
dedication for street purposes, dedicating and naming said street portions East Orange Avenue.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
As a condition of development of Eastlake Greens and the acquisition agreement associated with
Assessment District No. 94-1 (AD 94-1), Eastlake Development Company is required to provide
the right-of-way for East Orange Avenue and Hunte Parkway. For AD 94-1, the limits of the
dedication are along the subdivision boundary (Exhibit A). Portions of the Orange Avenue right-
of-way, within the subdivision boundary, were offered for dedication but rejected on Map 13292
(Lots C and D). In accordance with Section 66477.2 of the Subdivision Map Act, rejected offers of
dedication remain open until the City accepts or terminates and abandons the offers by Council
resolution. The balance of the right-of-way, off-site, will be granted to the City in the near future
via a separate document and administratively accepted by the City Clerk pursuant to Resolution
#15645.
In June of 1995, the City approved AD 94-1 which provides for acquisition of grading and storm
drain improvements in East Orange A venue along the south boundary of Eastlake Greens and
Hunte Parkway south of South Greensview Drive. For improvements constructed or acquired
under Improvement Assessment District Acts (1911 or 1913 Acts), it is necessary that the improve-
ments being acquired be public. In the case of the grading for East Orange A venue and Hunte
Parkway, the improvements become public by public ownership of the property (or in this case,
public right-of-way). Eastlake Development Company anticipates the grading will be completed
and ready for acceptance in mid-April and will request payment from bond proceeds for this
portion of the overall improvements. Consequently, it is now appropriate for Council to accept the
9-/
Page 2, Item ,
Meeting Date 4/16/96
Orange Avenue right-of-way, which was previously rejected, dedicate it to public use and name the
street East Orange Avenue.
The streets, as they are only graded, will not be open to public use until street improvements, i.e.
paving, have been completed. This may not occur for several years. The street will be barricaded
to prevent vehicular access. Additionally, Eastlake Development Company has agreed, via letter,
to be responsible for weed control, debris removal and erosion control until such time as street
improvements are constructed.
Staff recommends naming the street East Orange Avenue at this time because Council has not
taken [maJ action on the proposaJ to rename the street Olympic Parkway. If Council chooses in the
future to rename the street, it could be accomplished in conjunction with the other street segments
and no additional procedures would be required. There will also be no issues regarding addresses
as no homes or businesses will have addresses on this street segment.
FISCAL IMPACT: None. All staff costs associated with the processing of the dedication will be
reimbursed from developer deposits.
Exhibit A - Plat showing location of dedications and easements
Exhibit B - Eastlake letter regarding nuisance maintenance
DDS:0600-80-ELGOlA
M:\HOME\ENGINEER\AGENDA \ELGIOD.DDS
9 ..,l.
RESOLUTION NO. IJr.2J('~
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING IRREVOCABLE OFFER OF
DEDICATION FOR STREET PURPOSES, DEDICATING AND
NAMING SAID STREET EAST ORANGE AVENUE WITHIN
EASTLAKE GREENS DEVELOPMENT AND ASSESSMENT
DISTRICT NO. 94-1
WHEREAS, as a condition of development of Eastlake Greens
and the acquisition agreement associated with Assessment District
No. 94-1 (AD 94-1), Eastlake Development Company is required to
provide the right-of-way for East Orange Avenue and Hunte Parkway.
For AD 94-1, the limits of the dedication are along the subdivision
boundary; and
WHEREAS, portions of the Orange Avenue right-of-way,
within the subdivision boundary, were offered for dedication but
rejected on Map 13292 (Lots C and D); and
WHEREAS, in accordance with section 66477.2 of the
Subdivision Map Act, rejected offers of dedication remain open
until the City accepts or terminates and abandons the offers by
Council resolution; and
WHEREAS, the balance of the right-of-way, off-site, will
be granted to the city in the near future via a separate document
and administratively accepted by the City Clerk pursuant to
Resolution #15645; and
WHEREAS, staff recommends naming the street East Orange
Avenue at this time because Council has not taken final action on
the proposal to rename the street Olympic Parkway.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the
City of Chula vista does hereby accept Irrevocable Offer of
Dedication for street purposes, dedicate and name said street East
Orange Avenue within Eastlake Greens development and Assessment
District No. 94-1.
Presented by
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
C:\rs\EOrange.IOO
1'.1 If-If
E 'x ki \Ji -t -A
(
r
MAP NO. 13292
,eHEn . OF . aHEE'
" -....s
...... ..............-
--r..-_.-.-.--.-
.,.........- ---..
........... ---
_____1DIr ,...
............... .
-..... .....
CIiULA VISTA
-
..
H
--
..,
.relC...
,
"
....
-
IIWIIC sc.w: ,.. __
. .
.. U! 111), . Ion"
I
rODs '10 ee: .,v-~o:> IcD
- -_.~- - -
9--f
.y
,
~....,,.,
".,..,...C'...
iii' 96 (MON) l311 Et
April I, 1996
Ms. Donna Snider
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, Califon'
Re: Erosion Ce' '
Dear Donna:
This is to confirm ti',.
for the erosion COD" ,
following Rights-c' '
I. Hunte Park.,
2. East Oral1eC' '
the SDG&. "
Please contact me ,"
information.
Sincerely,
EASTLAKE DEV,
TtA-/~
Thomas E. Adler
Project Manager
TEAsm
TEL 619 421 1830
E xhlb,f 8
: "nte Parkway and East Orange Avenue
:' p Development Company will be responsible
'Daternent, and debris removal, etc., for the
Greensview Drive to East Orange Avenue.
.: ):[1 Hunte Parkway to the westerly boundary of
'vst convenience if you need additionlll
,p,-r COMPANY
9"~
P 002
I., I
..
~
~
fASTLAKE
DEVROPMeNT
COMPANY
Q()() LQI'Ie Avenue
SUite 100
ChuJa VISta. CA 919141
(019) 421-0127
~Jo:t. (019) 421-1830
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item
Meeting Date 4/16/96
~4
Resolution 1I'.,2f ~ppropriating funds from the unappropriated balance
of Gas Tax Funds for the purchase of property for Shy Lane right-of-way
and authorizing the City Engineer to sign an agreement with the County to
purchase two tax-defaulted properties. .
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public work~~
REVIEWED BY, Ci" M''''''0:j ,~
Recently, the County of San Diego's Tax Collector's office notified the City of several parcels
of land that were to be auctioned for back taxes due on them to the County. There were two
parcels that staff determined should be purchased. The County has prepared agreements to be
executed by the City to complete the purchases. Staff is requesting that Council authorize the City
Engineer to sign the agreements on behalf of the City and to appropriate the funds necessary to
complete the purchase of one of the properties.
ITEM TITLE:
(4/5ths Vote: Yes-X..No~
RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt the resolution appropriating $900.00 for the
purchase of right-of-way for Shy Lane and authorizing the City Engineer to sign the agreement
with the County for purchase of two tax defaulted properties on behalf of the City.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
Last November, the County Treasurer-Tax Collector's office sent a notice of nine tax-defaulted
parcels in the City that were scheduled to go to public auction. The Public Works Department
determined that the City would benefit from the purchase of two of the parcels shown in Exhibits
A and B.
Parcell:
This parcel is located on the north side ofL Street near Third Avenue (see Exhibit A). It contains
9,060 square feet (0.21 acres) It is not a desirable piece of property on which to build because
Telegraph Canyon Creek crosses the land making it impractical to develop without spending an
exorbitant amount for a box culvert or other drainage improvements which would severely restrict
the usability. The City is proposing to construct channel improvements on this section of the
creek as part of the budgeted Telegraph Canyon Creek project. Obtaining this parcel would be
of great benefit to the City, both in using as a staging area for the project and precluding the need
to acquire the necessary drainage easement through the property. Should the parcel not be
purchased through this tax default sale, the cost of purchasing an easement in the future would
probably exceed the $2,700.00 asking price of the whole parcel. Staff intends to use funds from
Capital Improvement Program project no. DRl18 - Telegraph Canyon Channel Design, which was
IP"/
Page 2, Item II
Meeting Date 4/16/96
appropriated to do the design of the unimproved portion of Telegraph Canyon Channel west of
1-805 .
Parcel 2:
This parcel is entirely within the right-of-way of Shy Lane (see Exhibit B), which was recently
improved under a block act by the City. This parcel, containing approximately 8,620 square feet
(0.2 acres), belongs to a property owner who had asked a price for the land, which staff believed
to be inflated, when approached by City staff at the time. Since the land had been used for many
years as a street, it was deemed unnecessary to acquire it as right -of-way and that the risk of
damages resulting from inverse condemnation were minimal. In order to obtain clear title to the
entire Shy Lane right-of-way and eliminate any potential future problems, however minimal, that
the City could be involved in an inverse condemnation action, and because the purchase amount
is low, it is recommended that Council approve the resolution appropriating the funds needed to
purchase the parcel since the original project has long since been closed out. The County is
asking $650.00 for this parcel.
Agreement:
The agreement prepared by the County of San Diego Tax Collector's Office (see Exhibit C for
copy) is ready for execution by the City. It has been reviewed by the City Attorney's Office and
found to be acceptable. The agreement provides that the sale transaction is in accordance with
Division 1, Part 6, Chapter 8 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. It contains the conditions that:
1) the City agrees to pay the cost of giving notice of the agreement (the price range quoted was
$200.00 to $500.00) and; 2) that the City agrees to pay the sale price of $3,350.00 for both
parcels. In order to complete the requirements of the agreement the cost of acquisition of the Shy
Lane parcel ($650.00) and one-half the estimated noticing costs ($250.00) needs to be
appropriated. The total to be appropriated is $900.00. The Agreement has been reviewed by the
City Attorney.
FISCAL IMPACT:
An appropriation of $900.00 from the unappropriated balance of Gas Tax Fund Number 250 needs
to be made. In addition an estimated $2,950.00 will be used from CIP project no. DR1I8 _
Telegraph Canyon Channel Design to purchase and notice the acquisition of the L Street parcel.
There are sufficient funds in both Gas Tax Fund 250 and CIP project number DR-1I8 to cover
these acquisitions. Purchase of the Shy Lane parcel could save potential legal fees should a buyer
decide to pursue inverse condemnation. Purchase of the L Street parcel will save higher future
costs to purchase a drainage easement.
Exhibits:
A - Plat showing Parcell; 200 Block of L Street
B - Plat showing Parcel 2; Shy Lane
C - Agreement with County to be executed by City
/P'';'
RESOLUTION NO. If' J.f 7
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROPRIATING FUNDS FROM THE
UNAPPROPRIATED BALANCE OF GAS TAX FUNDS FOR
THE PURCHASE OF PROPERTY FOR SHY LANE RIGHT-
OF-WAY AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY ENGINEER TO
SIGN AN AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY TO PURCHASE
TWO TAX-DEFAULTED PROPERTIES
WHEREAS, recently, the County of San Diego's Tax
Collector's office notified the City of several parcels of land
that were to be auctioned for back taxes due on them to the County;
and
WHEREAS, there were two parcels that staff determined
should be purchased; and
WHEREAS, Parcel 1 is located on the north side of L
Street near Third Avenue and contains 9,060 square feet (0.21
acres) wherein the City is proposing to construct channel
improvements on Telegraph Canyon Creek as part of the budgeted
Telegraph Canyon Creek project; and
WHEREAS, obtaining this parcel would be of great benefit
to the city, both in using as a staging area for the project and
precluding the need to acquire the necessary drainage easement
through the property and should the parcel not be purchased through
this tax default sale, the cost of purchasing an easement in the
future would probably exceed the $2,700.00 asking price of the
whole parcel; and
WHEREAS, Parcel 2 is entirely within the right-of-way of
Shy Lane, which was recently improved under a block act by the City
and contains approximately 8,620 square feet (0.2 acres) and
belongs to a property owner who had asked an inflated price for the
land when approached by City staff when the Shy Lane improvements
were being designed; and
WHEREAS, since the land had been used for many years as
a street, it was deemed unnecessary to acquire it as right-of-way
and that the risk of damages resulting from inverse condemnation
were minimal and in order to obtain clear title to the entire Shy
Lane right-of-way, it is recommended that Council appropriate
$900.00 to purchase the parcel since the original project has long
since been closed out; and
WHEREAS, the County has prepared agreements to be
executed by the city to complete the purchases; and
1
//);;1
WHEREAS, staff is requesting that Council authorize the
city Engineer to sign the agreements on behalf of the City and to
appropriate the funds necessary to complete the purchase of one of
the properties.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the
City of Chula vista does hereby appropriate $900.00 from the
unappropriated balance of Gas Tax Fund No. 250 for the purchase of
property for Shy Lane right-of-way.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Engineer is hereby
authorized to sign the agreement with the County of San Diego for
purchase of two tax-defaulted properties on behalf of the City of
Chula Vista, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City
Clerk as Document No.
Presented by
ved as
~
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
Bruce M.
Attorney
C:\rs\shylane.app
2
II) , 'I
IIKII
ST.
'I
,
,
1
L
..... _,__J
-- -
- -\
J:
-7\)
CJ
_-1
~-
AI"I"/?OXIMA,E, Al..IGNMIH/T <;.---
OF TEl..EGRAPH CANYON CReEK ..,
,0 aE 1/rll",eovEP ~VCI7V.~.../
, ..,~ / t-^\GUE
-0..
U)
~...._~
()
DR. z.
CJ
}>
<
m
.
------ -_.~-
~
~
SI ERRA
)>
<
~I
i
.
PAt<CEL 2
IILII
ST
- -- -
FILE NO. ",or". 001
DWN BY: ~I./
DATE: tjl'l~/~'.
EXH/8/ T 'A II
.
"'''
"
~
1>
I
""
..
SHY I..N.
PAl. A~ Sf.
1> ~
:< ~
J
i i I L-J
OXFORD ST.
J
1 I , I I i /
, I I
--
I I i I
I I I I -- --
I I I I I I /
-l iSHY I
1 I
ILN; I ,
I 1- ,
..,... / ,
/
II -
~. PAf?CcL 1..-" I~I;( /
I
I-- .... / _ D
.." Y"""l< y.~::o
- 11"'1 . , }b
11
-I ~, ""
I.J.. - ~n
~
\..' :-4 .
~ PF S ~, T i ST
....<- ~ ,
m I
. i
I
i
I I
,
PALOMAR I ST.
~
c:.
~
-I
:r.
}>
<
m
FILE NO. JY'OOI
DWN BY: J~
DATE: ,j'l9!'"
EXHI BIT 118/1
/~-
CHAPTER VIII AGREEMENT #6935
PARCELS 573-490-2900 , 618-302-0500
NO. COUNTY CONTRACT NO.
ON MOTION of Supervisor , seconded by Supervisor
, the following resolution is adopted:
WHEREAS, there is presented to the Board a letter from the Tax
Collector, Board of Supervisors Document No. , transmitting and
recommending that the Board approve and authorize the Chairman to execute and
the Clerk to attest to a proposal Agreement No. 6935, between the County of
San Diego and the City of Chula Vista, approved by the State Controller of
the State of California, for the purchase by the City of Chula Vista of
certain tax defaulted lands situated within the County of San Diego, as
listed in Exhibit "A" attached to and made a part of said proposed Agreement.
Said property has become subject to the Tax Collector's Power to Sell by
Notice of Power of Sell recorded in San Diego County.
IT IS RESOLVED AND ORDERED that said proposed Agreement be and it is
hereby approved; and that the Chairperson of the Board of Supervisors is
authorized and directed to execute said Agreement for and on behalf of the
County of San Diego.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of San
Diego, State of California, this day of
by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
. r(L/il:.JJ r\.':) ru f-,Jl(id ru~U lCL,..1 .
,UNT'! COUNSf~
ca:v.ih~~
-if'II'" 3IW'li.:
EXH/8/T
11 C JJ
/~,. ')
CHAPTER VIII AGREEMENT #6935
PARCELS 573-490-2900 , 618-302-0500
AGREEMENT TO PURCHASE TAX-DEFAULTED PROPERTY
This agreement is made on the
day of
,19_,
by and between the Board of Supervisors of San Dieqo County, State of
California, and the City of Chu1a Vista ("PURCHASER"),
pursuant to the provisions of Division 1, Part 6, Chapter 8, of the Revenue
and Taxation Code.
The real property situated within said county, hereinafter set forth and
described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof, is tax-
defaulted and is subject to the power of sale by the Tax Collector of said
county for the non-payment of taxes, pursuant to provisions of law:
It is mutually agreed as follows:
1. that as provided by Section 3800 of the Revenue and Taxation
Code, the cost of giving notice of this Agreement shall be
paid by the PURCHASER, and
2. that the PURCHASER agrees to pay the sum of $ 3.350.00 for the
real property described in Exhibit "A" within 10 davs after the
date this Agreement becomes effective. Upon payment of said sum to
the Tax Collector, the Tax Collector shall execute and deliver a
deed conveying title to said property to PURCHASER.
If .11 or any portio.. of ...y iI1dividual p.rc.l liat.d iI1 Bxhibit "A" ia r.d....d prior to the
.ff.ctiv. d.t. of thia .gr......t. thia .gr......t ah.ll b. ..ull ...d void .a to that iI1dividual
p.rc.l. Thia .gr......t ahall .lao b.c".. ..ull ...d void ...d the right of r.d..ptio.. r.ator.d
upo" the PURCHASER'S f.ilure to co.ply with the t.ra. ...d co..ditio..a of thia .gr......t. ~ia.
i. of the ...ence.
553791, 3791.3 3793 R'T Code
/p...~
TDL 8-13 (5/92)
ex. 'C" Pg. Z
CHAPTER VIII AGREEMENT #6935
PARCELS 573-490-2900 , 618-302-0500
The undersigned hereby agree to the terms and conditions of this agreement
and are duly authorized to sign for said agencies.
ATTEST:
THE CITY OF CRULA VISTA
(Purchaser)
By
(SEAL)
ATTEST:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Thomas J. Pastuszka
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
San Dieao
County
By
(Deputy)
By
(Chairperson)
(SEAL)
dHOVED AS TO f()1I;~ r...u Ltc,..
JI!h'ij] D)U~-", .
:~~.~ CW6-
~---"'~~3DT,i,'
This agreement was submitted to me before execution by the Board of
Supervisors and I have compared the same with the records of San Dieao
County relating to the real property described therein.
PAUL BOLAND
San Diego County Treasurer-Tax Collector
Pursuant to the provisions of Sections 3775 and 3795 of the Revenue and
Taxation Code, the Controller agrees to the selling price hereinbefore set
forth and approves the foregoing agreement this day of
, 19
Kathleen Connell
State Controller
By
NOTE:
EXHIBIT "A" MUST BE ATTACHED
CJ(. "C" PfJ. 3
TO THIS
/P'~
FORM
, .. ~ ~~2S~~ 0 ~ ~g~~ !1 ~jUI
0 !"
. ~ .. "'!I!!~ m ..
0" .. i:i p;>~~ .. ~Ci>~
~ In . .
.. Sit U).ir-~ .. !II~S_ = . ~
.. ..
I m ~E~~~ m .~o mz~o
..
III i mmato( III ~' .... III" >!
S ~ S!~~~~* ~ ~~n~ fIn
!!I 8~S~I~ ~d~
~ I ~J!jg a !;! II 0
.. ~
.. , ~~~B! '" ~s~~
'" as
! .. i:io~ ~
i ~I;;~ ~ ~ . ~m~ ..
~ A
n-~ '" ~p~ ~
0
~..~~j .. ~ m~% '"
g r~ ~
~
o 2< m:;!
)~~~ ~~
f iO iO ~i - ~ iO 5i n~u
..
.. .. .. ..
.. ~ .. .." .. .. .. A"
8 00 ~ ia do ~!1
!" "'- .. ..
iO 0- ~~ ~Ii..~
.. ..'" ..
.. .. g!!! <5
.. ..
!II
.'. .. .~
. . . U
.. '"
... .. ~
g g
g 8 8
...
~~
"
iii~
..
. . ~
.. jI; ;;I ~
0
.m
. . I m
- -
.. ..
0 !>
8 8 }.....
. Ii iii~ IF
..
.. .
8 ..
..
8
>"
i~
"'I
. +H~.... Wi:
~ ",~ ..... "
in
un
J~05
i1h, Ii
&;'. '~R
Ex, 'C. P.,.4 .
10 -Ill
-~_..-...-
o-c:
"'''
...
~
0
.:i"
~
0'
"
51
l
8'
..
}!a.
!2.
..en
a"
_i
0<1
i~'
..,.
~
0",
:5.<
II. :a
i5
of'
~:::!'.
00
c'=
;:~
:-[
-:
::10
co..
. -
9[
II
co'
. -
2.~
l~
5',.
ill"
S:;.
II ~t
..=
&. :::!'.
....!!
"0
11-
g'l
~!1
!Ii
g
-
2-
iD
~
f.'
-
[
1
-
lID
....
if
1
i
::I
'<
[
0-
lD
6"
.
.
.. !:'
..
..,
" '"
~ 6'
..
Ii .
)>
... .
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item II
Meeting Date 4/16/96
Resolution J ~.,t(" ~ppropriating funds, Accepting bids and awarding
contract for "Replacement of Sewer Main Crossing in Bonita Road just east
ofI-80S Freeway in the City ofChula Vista, CA (SW-207)"
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Work~
REVIEWED BY, Ci'y M~',,~ 1J~ (4ISth. Vore, Y"XNo...J
At 2:00 p.m. on April 10, 1996 in Conference Rooms 2 & 3 in the Public Services Building, the
Director of Public Works received sealed bids for "Replacement of Sewer Main Crossing in Bonita
Road just east ofI-80S Freeway in the City ofChula Vista, CA (SW-207)." The work to be done
consists of removing four (4) existing concrete encased 8" diameter PVC sewer mains and replacing
with a new 18" concrete encased PVC sewer main just east ofI-80S. The work includes excavation
and grading, asphalt concrete pavement, shoring, reconstruction of base of existing manholes, traffic
control, preservation and restoration of property, and other miscellaneous work required by the
specifications.
ITEM TITLE:
RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve the resolution: 1) appropriating $14,600 from the
Trunk Sewer Capital Reserve Fund, fund No. 222, (0 project SW207 - Bonita Road Crossing Sewer
Replacement; and 2) accepting bids and awarding a contract for "Replacement of Sewer Main
Crossing in Bonita Road just east ofI-80S Freeway in the City of Chula Vista, CA (SW-207)" to
B. L. Walling Construction, in the amount of$lS,lS1.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
Included in the FY 1995-96 budget is a project for the replacement of the four-8" pipes sewer main
crossing in Bonita Road just east ofI-80S freeway (SW-207) with one 18" sewer pipe to eliminate
the current restriction in the sewage system. In order to accomplish this work, Sweetwater Authority
needs to relocate a 36" transmission water line. The City Council on March 19, 1996 approved
Resolution 18231 authorizing staff to issue a purchase order to Sweetwater Authority for the
relocation ofthe 36" transmission water line in Bonita Road (Attachment A). The water company,
at this time, proposes to do this work starting Sunday, April 28, 1996. Staff is working with the low
bidder to follow up immediately with the sewer work after the adjustment of the water line is
complete. This will minimize the disruption to the motoring public along Bonita Road.
Bids were received from 2 contractors to perform the work as follows:
//,,1
Page 2, Item II
Meeting Date 4/16/96
Contractor Bid Amount
B. L. Walling Construction - Descanso $15,151.00
Basile Construction, Inc. - San Diego $15,818.39
The low bid by B. L. Walling Construction is below the Engineer's estimate of $20,340 by $5,189
or 25.5%. Staff received excellent bids for the proposed work. The Engineer's estimate was based
on prices received for similar work in the last several years. Staff contacted references provided by
the contractor and their work has been satisfactory.
Prevailin~ Wa~e Statement
The source of funding for this project is Sewer Funds. No prevailing wage requirements were
necessary as part of the bid documents. No special minority or women owned business requirements
were necessary as part of the bid documents. Disadvantaged businesses were encouraged to bid
through the sending of the Notice to Contractors to various trade publications.
Disclosure Statement
Attached as Attachment B is the contractor's disclosure statement.
Environmental Status
The Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that this project is categorically exempt
under Class 1, Section 15301 (b) of the California Environmental Quality Act (Minor Alterations
of Existing Public Improvements or Public Structures).
Financial Statement
FUNDS REQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION
A. Contract Amount $15,151.00
B. Staff Costs (Staff and design) 10,000.00
C. Contingencies (approximately 20%) 2,849.00
TOTAL FUNDS REQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION $28,000.00
FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR CONSTRUCTION
A. Bonita Road Sewer Crossing Sewer Replacement (SW-207) $13,400.00
B. Appropriation of Funds from Trunk Sewer Capital Reserve
Fund 222 to Project SW-207 14,600.00
TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR CONSTRUCTION $28,000.00
II-~
Page 3, Item II
Meeting Date 4/16/96
When this project was originally budgeted, staff estimated the cost ofthe utility relocation expenses.
However, after Sweetwater Authority reviewed the project and prepared the plans for their water line
relocation, our $40,000 share of their construction estimate, which was the basis for the purchase
order to Sweetwater, was higher than anticipated. Therefore, additional funds need to be
appropriated from the Trunk Sewer Capital Reserve Fund to complete the project.
FISCAL IMP ACT: Funding used for this project will come trom the Trunk Sewer Capital Reserve
Funds. Upon completion of the project, the sewer main will require routine City maintenance
involving cleaning of sewer on a periodic basis.
Attachments
A - Resolution 18231 & Agenda Stat~~
B - Disclosure Statement ~O~ ~C~>.
SLH:sb
M:\HOME\ENGINEER\AGENDA \SW207.SLH
File No: 0735-IO-SW207
/I-J /'I-f
RESOLUTION NO. I~~~
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROPRIATING FUNDS, ACCEPTING
BIDS AND AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR "REPLACEMENT
OF SEWER MAIN CROSSING IN BONITA ROAD JUST
EAST OF 1-805 FREEWAY (SW-207)"
WHEREAS, at 2:00 p.m. on April 10, 1996 in Conference
Rooms 2 & 3 in the Public Services Building, the Director of Public
Works received the following two sealed bids for "Replacement of
Sewer Main Crossing in Bonita Road just east of 1-805 Freeway in
the City of Chula Vista, CA (SW-207):
Contractor Bid Amount
B. L. Walling Construction - Descanso $15,151. 00
Basile Construction, Inc. - San Diego $15,818.39
WHEREAS, the low bid by B. L. Walling Construction is
below the Engineer's estimate of $20,340 by $5,189 or 25.5% and
staff contacted references provided by the contractor and their
work has been satisfactory; and
WHEREAS, the source of funding for this project is Sewer
Funds and no prevailing wage requirements were necessary as part of
the bid documents; and
WHEREAS, no special minority or women owned business
requirements were necessary as part of the bid documents, however,
disadvantaged businesses were encouraged to bid through the sending
of the Notice to Contractors to various trade publications.
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has
determined that this project is categorically exempt under Class 1,
section 15301 (b) of the California Environmental Quality Act
(Minor Alterations of Existing Public Improvements or Public
Structures) .
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, ORDER AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
section 1. That the City Council does hereby determine
that this project is categorically exempt under Class 1, section
15301 (b) of the California Environmental Quality Act (Minor
Alterations of Existing Public Improvements or Public Structures) .
section 2. That the City Council does hereby accept the
bid of B. L. Walling Construction as responsive.
1
11'..1'
Section 3. The City Council awards the contract for
"Replacement of Sewer Main Crossing in Bonita Road just East of l-
805 Freeway (SW-207)" to B. L. Walling Construction in the amount
of $15,151. 00, the lowest responsible bidder which submitted a
responsive bid to the approved specifications.
hereby
behalf
section 4.
authorized and
of the city of
The Mayor of the
directed to execute
Chula vista.
City of Chula Vista is
said contract for and on
Section 5.
appropriated from the
222, to Project SW207
That the amount of $14,600 is hereby
Trunk Sewer Capital Reserve Fund, Fund No.
- Bonita Road Crossing Sewer Replacement.
Presented by
ve~s
John P. Lippitt
Director of Public Works
Bruce M. Boog
city Attorne
C:\rs\Bonita.sew
2
I/'/,
A TT ftclf"" i:N T A-
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
ITEM TITLE:
Item3
Meeting Date 3/19/96
Resolution ! <;? Z 31 Authorizing staff to issue Purchase Order to Sweetwater Authority for
relocation of 36" Transmission Water Line in Bonita Road
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Work~
REVIEWED BY: City Manager
(4/Sths Vote: Yes_NoX)
Approved in the FY 1995-96 budget was a project for the replacement of a four 8" mainfold seWer main crossing
Bonita Road just east ofI-805 freeway (SW-207). The purpose of this project was to replace the four existing 8"
sewer lines with one 18" sewer line to eliminate the current bottleneck in the sewage system. In order to accomplish
this work, Sweetwater Authority needs to relocate a 36" Transmission Water line.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve the resolution authorizing staff to issue a purchase order to
Sweetwater Authority in the amount of $40,000 to provide for the relocation of an existing 36" transmission water
line in Bonita Road.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
In order to construct the new I 8" sewer line in Bonita Road, Sweetwater Authority (SW A) must adjust their existing
36" transmission main. This is the major water feed to the City of Chula Vista and SW A prohibits this main from
being turned off from May I to November I in any given year. SW A has provided us with a letter (Exhibit A)
indicating that the City's share of the cost to relocate this main is approximately $40,000. Staff is requesting
Council authorize the Purchasing Agent to issue a purchase order to SW A to allow this work to proceed
immediately.
Normally, staff would have Council authorize funds for relocations of utilities during the award of the contract.
However, because of the timing and the immediate need to have this line relocated prior to receipt of bids, staff is
requesting Council action at this time.
Staff is currently requesting bids for the construction of the sewer main and will be receiving bids on April 10, 1996.
Award of the contract is scheduled to be April 23, 1996. Waiting for authorization until April 23, 1996 for
relocation of water facilities is not sufficient time for SW A to order parts and perform the work prior to May I.
FISCAL IMP ACT: Approval of this action item will allow staff to issue the purchase order immediately and will
authorize the expenditure of $40,000 for that purpose. The estimated cost of the sewer construction work which
will be separate action after bids are received is $20,000. Adequate funds are available in project account SW207
to pay for the work.
M:\HOMEIENGINEERIAGENDA \ W A TERLOC.SLH
11'7
EXHIBIT A
SWEETWATER AUTHORITY
~t.TIN!'I~
fl.
.1,
I r'
:r. ~;A,
'(;"'HO"\~
March 6, 1996
!05 GARRm AVENUE
POST OFFICE BOX 2328
CHULA VIST.... CALIFORNIA 81812.2328
(8111) 420.1413
FAX (818) 425-7489
Mr. Shale Hanson
City of Chura Vista
Engineering Department
276 Fourth Ave.
Chuta Vista, Ca. 91910
/ '!>,\-1234$
, r.0 e..>
c,,"
.\. !$>
<0 ~ ,p
::." ~ 2!: ..
~ $;5 SiC> . ~
N -::;;: lIS N
C4 _S r:;
c:-' e:::::; ~
"'c> ~
, C"'!tt, Cb'
'. c L~OC:6~ a\ L.\
GOVERNING BOARD
GEORGE ti. WATERS, CHAIRMAN
MARGARET COOK WELSH, ViCE CHAIR
JAMES F. DOUD, SR
SUE JARREn
IUD POCKUGTON
JMtES $. WOI.NIEWlCZ
CAllY' WRIGHT
WANDA AVERY
-..suRE"
..... J. REEVES
SECRETARY
Subject:
BONITA ROAD CROSSING SEWER REPAIR
SWA FILE: ST.IMP.#95-10
CHULA VISTA WORK ORDER # SW207-9
Dear Mr. Hanson:
Sweetwater Authority has reviewed the plans for the replacement of four 8-inch
manifolded sewer lines with one 18-inch sewer line on Bonita Road, approximately 330
feet west of Plaza Bonita Road.
The Authority has determined that the proposed work will require the installation of an
offset fitting on our 36-inch transmission main at an estimated cost of $80,000.00. The
City's share of this cost (50%) would be $40,000.00. The cost to install the offset fitting
is so high due to the following reasons: the traffic in this location, the cost of pipe for
an offset of this size, and the requirement to hi-line the Ramada Inn, Denny's and other
businesses in this vicinity due to a 12-hour shut down of water to tie this offset into the
existing main. Upon receipt of the purchase order, the Authority will order the offset
fitting and schedule the required work.
It is estimated that the time required to have the offset fitting manufactured is
approximately five weeks and installation of the offset will take approximately one
week. Due to the fact that this water main is the main feed to Chura Vista, the Authority
prohibits this main being turned off from May 1 to November 1. Therefore, this work
must be completed before May 1, 1996, or it will have to wait until November 1996.
//...1'
A Public Agency,
Serving Natio1l/l1 City, Chu/Q Vista and SlIITOUnding Amzs
Mr. Shale Hanson
City of Chula Vista
Re: BONITA ROAD CROSSING SEWER REPAIR
SWA FILE: ST. IMP. #95-10
March 6,1996
page two
If you have any questions regarding this request, please contact Mr. Tom Justo at 422-
8395, Ext. 611.
Very truly yours,
-tOk jL.."
Jame . Smyth
Chief Engineer
JLS:T J:ln
pc: Ms. Debbie Shaw, Sweetwater Authority
I:\eng_pool\sewer.po
II~'
RESOLUTION NO. 18231
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA AUTHORIZING STAFF TO ISSUE PURCHASE ORDER TO
SWEETWATER AUTHORITY FOR RELOCATION OF 36"
TRANSMISSION WATER LINE IN BONITA ROAD .
WHEREAS, approved in the FY 1995.96 budget was a project for the replacement of
a four 8" mainfold sewer main crossing Bonita Road just east of 1.805 freeway (SW.207); and
WHEREAS, the purpose of this project was to replace the four existing 8" sewer lines
with one 18" sewer line to eliminate the current bottleneck in the sewage system; and
WHEREAS, in order to accomplish this work, Sweetwater Authority needs to relocate
a 36" Transmission Water line; and
WHEREAS, Sweetwater Authority has indicated that the city's share of the cost to
relocate this main is approximately $40,000; and
WHEREAS, staff is requesting council authorize the purchasing agent to issue a
purchase order to Sweetwater Authortty to allow this work to proceed immediately.
NOW, THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED the city council of the City of Chula Vista does
hereby authorIZe staff to Issue a purchase order to Sweetwaier Authority in the amount of
$40,000 to provide for the relocation of an existmg 36" transmission water line in Bonita
Road.
~ ,
ruce M. Boogaard
City Attorney
Presented by
(
J P. Lippitt
P lic Works Director
//., I()
Resolution 18231
Page 2
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the city council of the City of Chula Vista.
California. this 19th day of March, 1996, by the followlf1g vote:
AYES:
Councilmembers:
Alevy, Moot. Padilla, Rindone, Horton
NAYES:
Councilmembers:
None
ABSENT:
Councilmembers:
None
ABSTAIN:
Council members:
None
ATTEST:
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ss.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
I, Beverly A. Authelet. City Clerk of the City of Chula Vista, California, do hereby certify that
the foregoing Resolution No. 18231 was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City
Council at a regular meeting of the Chula Vista City Council held on the 19th day of March.
1996.
Executed this 19th day of March, 1996.
Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk
11..11
J}'T!JctftJJlFNT 8
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
..'-
au are required to file a Statement of Disclosure of cenain ownership or financial interests, payments. or campaign contributions.
on all matters which will require discretionary action on the part of the City Council, Planning Commission, and all other official
bodies. The following information must be disclosed:
1.
2.
List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the propeny which is the subject of the application or the Contract,
e.g., owner, applicant, Contractor, subcontractor, material supplier.
-5hdCl5fr~ ,SuPplf' supplt'a
B ,L, f)Ja 11111 (l1'J7J,<jf. - Ccwlt-ac/or
If any person. identified pnrsuant to (I) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all individuals owning more
than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership.
3.
If any person. identified pursuant to (I) above is non-profit organization or a trust, list the names of any person serving as
director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust.
4.
Have you had more than $250 worth of business transaCted with any, 'jIember of the City staff, Boards, Commissions,
Committees, and Council within the past twelve month? Yes _ No .j!., If yes, please indicate person(s):
5.
Please identify each and every person, including any agents, employees, consultants, or independent Contractors who you
have assigned to represent you before the City in this matter.
!3ct rr8 L, tUQ. (tc'nt
6.
Have you and/or your officers or agents, in the aggregate, contributed more than $1,000 to a Council ffit:Dlber in the current
or preceding election period? Yes _ No X- If yes, slate which Council members(s):
Date:
4 -[ 0 -1((;
107
· · · (NOTE: Attached additio
)0
. Per.<on is defined as: "Any individUIJI. firm. co-partnership, joinl venture, association, social club, fraternal organization,
corporation. estate, trust. receiver, syndicate, this and any other county. city or country, city municipality, district. or other political
subdivision, or any other group or combination acting as a unit. I J. J,;J..
14
~
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item I;'
Meeting Date 4/16/96
Resolution If' ;.1''1 Approving submission ofFY 1996-97 Transportation
Development Act (TDA) Article 4.0 Claim
Director of Public Works rr:.
Ci<y M~g~ ~ ~ (4I5tb. Vo<" V,,--N'l[)
The FY 1996-97 Claim for TDA Article 4.0 funds to support Chula Vista Transit (CVT) operations
and capital procurements was submitted to SANDAG and MTDB on April I , 1996, as required by
State law. A "TDA Claim" is an application for TDA operating and capital funds for the upcoming
fiscal year. SANDAG issues the TDA guidelines, which includes the City's total TDA funds
available for next fiscal year, during the first week in March. Staff prepares the TDA claim and
submits it to both SANDAG and MTDB by the April I deadline. Staff then returns to Council in
April for ratification of the claim. An amendment to the claim may be made by direction of Council
at any time after submission to SANDAG and MTDB. The total claim is in the amount of
$6,400,495 consisting of $6,294,696 claimed against the City of Chula Vista's TDA funds and
$105,799 claimed against the County of San Diego's TDA funds.
ITEM TITLE:
SUBMITTED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt resolution approving the FY 1996-97 TDA Article
4.0 claim.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
The FY 1996-97 TDA 4.0 Claim consists of the following components:
City of Chula Vista County of San Diego
TDA Account TDA Account Total
Operations $2,049,696 $105,799 $2,155,495
Capital $4,245,000 0 $4,245,000
Total $6,294,696 $105,799 $6,400,495
The $105,799 from the County's TDA account is for CVT service in the unincorporated areas
provided by Routes 705 and 711. The $2,049,696 is for the balance ofCVT operating costs claimed
against the City of Chula Vista's TDA funds as contained in the preliminary FY 1996-97 Transit
Division budget request.
/~"'I
Page 2, Item 12
Meeting Date 4/16/96
The $4,245,000 in capital funds includes $2,000,000 for partial funding for three (3) hydrogen fuel-
cell buses as part of a demonstration program in Chula Vista. The balance of the proposed capital
program for next fiscal year in the amount of $2,245,000 ($4,245,000 - $2,000,000) is contained in
the FY 1996-97 Transit Division budget request and includes: nine (9) replacement buses for CVT
and concrete bus benches.
Following is a breakdown of estimated Transit Division costs and revenue sources for FY 1996-97.
Estimated Costs:
Contractual Service for CVT Operation $2,758,250
Other Supplies & Services 857,245
Capital Outlay 4,245,000
Total Estimated Costs $7,860,495
Estimated Revenue Sources:
Fare Revenue $1,410,000
TDA Article 4.0 Funds 6,400,495
Investment Earnings 50,000
Total Revenue Sources $7,860,495
The claim is based on estimated costs and revenues for FY 1996-97, and may be modified due to:
changes in the proposed FY 1996-97 Transit Division budget; and a difference between actual and
estimated costs and revenues in FY 1996-97.
FISCAL IMP ACT: The FY 1996-97 TDA Article 4.0 claim contains no City of Chula Vista
General Fund contribution. Transit Division operating and capital costs are funded by City of Chula
Vista TDA Article 4.0 funds, County of San Diego Article 4.0 funds, farebox revenue and
investment earnings.
The FY 1996-97 City of Chula Vista TDA Article 4.0 apportionment is $2,706,844; prior year
unallocated funds are $4,808,982, resulting in $7,515,826 available for transit operations and capital
expenditures. The FY 1996-97 claim of $6,294,696 for the City of Chula Vista TDA account will
leave a balance of$I,221,130 ($7,515,826 - $6,294,696).
There are two additional Article 4.0 potential expenditures in FY 1996-97 that would reduce this
balance: a maximum amount of $450,000 for the Southwestern College Bus Stop Improvement
Project, and a $144,134 increase in contribution for the MTDB Regional Transit Service
Assessment, trom the current $175,844 to $319,978. These two expenditures total $594,134
($450,00 + $144,134).
/.2--.,1.
Page 3, Item I).
Meeting Date 4/16/96
Therefore, assuming all potential projects and expenditures are implemented would leave a TDA
Article 4.0 balance in FY 1996-97 in the amount of $626,996 ($1,221,130 - $594,134). These
projects and expenditures include: the FY 1996-97 Transit Division Budget ($7,860,495); the City's
contribution to the Southwestern College project ($450,000); and an increased assessment for the
Regional Transit Service Fund ($144,134).
WMG/File: DS-022
WPC F:\HOMEIENGINEER\AGENDA\TDA40.BG
1.2--:; )/~-J(
RESOLUTION NO.
18'~'
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA AUTHORIZING SUBMISSION OF FY 1996-
97 TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT (TDA)
ARTICLE 4.0 CLAIM
WHEREAS, the FY 1996-97 Claim for TDA Article 4.0 funds
to support Chula Vista Transit (CVT) operations and capital
procurements was submitted to SANDAG and MTDB on April I, 1996, as
required by State law; and
WHEREAS, the total claim is $6,400,495, consisting of
$6,294,696 claimed against the city of Chula Vista's TDA funds and
$105,799 claimed against the County of San Diego's TDA funds.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city Council of
the city of Chula Vista does hereby authorize submission of FY
1996-97 Transportation Development Act Article 4.0 Claim in the
amount of $6,400,495.
Presented by
form by
l
d, City
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
Bruce M.
Attorney
C:\rs\TDA 4.0 CIai.
J,;. -f
vJ0
/
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item 1;1
Meeting Date 4/16/96
R I. 1f",,2~PA . S b .. f F .
eso utIOn pprovmg u miSSIOn 0 Y 1996-97 Claim for
HandYtrans Operation Funding
Director of Public Works ~
City Manage0~ ~ ~ (4/Sths Vote: Yes_NoX)
ITEM TITLE:
SUBMITTED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
The City of Chula Vista's FY 1996-97 claim to support HandYtrans operation was submitted to
SANDAG and MTDB on April I, 1996 as required by State law. A "claim" is an application for
State of California operating or capital funds for the upcoming fiscal year; the claim for HandYtrans
operation includes Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 4.5 funds, Transnet funds, and
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Regional Assessment Funds administered by MTDB.
SANDAG issues the claim guidelines in the first week in March; staff prepares the TDA claim and
submits it to both SANDAG and MTDB by the April I deadline. Staff then returns to Council in
April for ratification of the claim. An amendment to the claim may be made by the direction of
Council at any time after submission to MTDB and SANDAG. The FY 1996-97 claim consists of
the following funding sources: $197,879 in TDA Article 4.5 funds; $27,727 in Transnet funds;
$91,394 in MTDB/ADA Regional Assessment funds; and $82,000 estimated fare revenue.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve the submission of the FY 1996-97 claim for
HandYtrans operations.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION: The following is a breakdown of estimated HandYtrans operating costs and funding
sources for FY 1996-97 based on the preliminary budget request:
Estimated Cost
Contractual Services $397,040
Other Supplies & Services 1,960
Total $399,000
1:1-/
Estimated Funding Sources
TDA Article 4.5 $197,879
Transnet 27,727
Fare Revenue 82,000
MTDB/ADA Support *91,394
Total $399,000
· Includes $55,000 of City of Chula Vista
State Transit Assistance Funds (ST AF)
1\\
,
/
Page 2, Item I J
Meeting Date 4/16/96
In the San Diego Region, MTDB and SANDAG have designated all the TDA Article 4.5 funded
systems, like HandYtrans, as Complementary Paratransit Services under the ADA. Federallaw
requires full compliance with the ADA by January 27,1997. Council may recall that at its meeting
on March 5, 1996, Council accepted the attached report on proposed changes to HandYtrans service
that will take effect in January 1997 to achieve ADA compliance, and also approved a resolution
extending the agreement between the City of Chula Vista and the American Red Cross for
HandYtrans service from July 1, 1996 through September 30, 1997. Full compliance with the ADA
means that HandYtrans service must be available during the same hours of operation as CVT and
the other fixed route services in Chula Vista, including the San Diego Trolley, San Diego Transit
Route 29, and MTDB contract Route 932. In effect, HandYtrans service must be available seven
days a week, approximately between the hours of 4:00 am and 2:00 am or about 22 hours per day.
The estimated cost of$399,000 next fiscal year for HandYtrans service is approximately 68% higher
than the current fiscal year cost of$233,000. This cost increase includes a six month period next
fiscal year during which HandYtrans must be in full compliance with the ADA (the period between
January and June 1997).
Funding for this partial year of ADA Complementary Paratransit Service compliance is composed
of the traditional funding sources for HandYtrans, including TDA Article 4.5 funds and Transnet
funds, but adds a new funding source which is called MTDB/ADA support. The MTD Board
recently approved the establishment of this regional pool of funds to supplement other funding
sources in order to comply with the ADA mandate. For the purpose of ADA Paratransit Service, the
MTDB area is divided into four zones, and each fixed-route operator (CVT, San Diego Transit, San
Diego Trolley) is assessed a designated amount based on fixed-route miles operated. Chula Vista
is in Zone 4. The CVT assessment is $0.0489 per mile times approximately 1.2 million annual
miles. Therefore, the CVT assessment for next fiscal year is approximately $55,000 (please refer
to "Estimated Funding Sources" table on page 1). The source of this assessment will be State Transit
Assistance Funds (ST AF) which have accumulated to approximately $140,000 in the City's account.
However, the City ofChula Vista claim for HandYtrans operation includes $91,394 for the ADA
assessment amount in order to fund estimated HandYtrans operation after January 1997 when ADA
full compliance is effective. Part of the fixed route assessment is contributed by the San Diego
Trolley and San Diego Transit. Since HandYtrans will be providing ADA Complementary
Paratransit Services to these systems, the assessment from these operations will be used to fund the
ADA service provided by HandYtrans.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The total estimated cost for HandYtrans operation for FY 1996-97 is $399,000 which includes six
months of full compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. HandYtrans operation is
funded by the following sources: TDA Article 4.5 funds; Transnet Funds; STA Funds; and fare
revenue. There are no City of Chula Vista General Funds used to support HandYtrans operation.
File No: DT-005
M:\HOME\ENGINEER\AGENDA \TDA45.WMG
I:J "-J..
RESOLUTION NO.
/S,2/,()
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING SUBMISSION OF FY 1996-97
CLAIM FOR HANDYTRANS OPERATION
WHEREAS, the city of Chula vista's FY 1996-97 Claim to
support HandY trans operation was submitted to SANDAG and MTDB on
April 1, 1996 as required by state law; and
WHEREAS, the claim consists of $197,879 in TDA Article
4.5 funds; $27,727 in TransNet funds; $91,394 in MTDB/ADA Regional
Assessment funds and $82,000 estimated fare revenue.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the City of Chula Vista does hereby approve submi ion of FY 1996-
97 Claim for HandY trans operation.
ed ~ 0 forJ}
Presented by
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
Bruce M. city
Attorney
C:\rs\4.5 TDA
/:1";1
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item I ()
Meeting Date 3/5/96
ITEM TITLE: Report on Proposed Changes to HandYtrans Service as required by the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
Resolution li22.1 Approving First Amendment to Agreement between
City of Chula Vista and American Red Cross for HandYtrans Operation
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works ~
REVIEWED BY: City Manager
(4/Sths Vote: Yes_NoX)
HandYtrans has been designated by MTDB and SANDAG as a Complementary Paratransit Service
as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990. The ADA mandates full
compliance with the Complementary Paratransit Service requirements by January 26, 1997, which
requires paratransit services, like HandYtrans, to be available for ADA certified persons who cannot
ride or access fixed-route transportation systems such as Chula Vista Transit and the San Diego
Trolley. Moreover, this "complementary" service must operate during the same hours as the fixed-
route services. I The American Red Cross is currently operating HandYtrans for the City of Chula
Vista under a three year agreement that extends through June 30, 1996. This agreement has the
option to extend the term for a period of two years, from July 1, 1996 until June 30, 1998. Staff
recommends that the agreement be extended for 15 months, from July 1, 1996 until September 30,
1997 to allow for eventual implementation of a more regional approach to providing Complementary
Paratransit Service in compliance with the ADA. This recommendation and additional background
is discussed in greater detail below.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council: 1) accept the report and direct staff to bring back the
final plan for ADA Complementary Paratransit Service to the City Council for consideration and
adoption; and 2) approve the resolution approving the First Amendment to Agreement between the
City ofChula Vista and the American Red Cross for HandYtrans operation.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION: Following is a summary of the major issues that will be discussed in this report:
. Complementary Paratransit Service requirements of the ADA.
. Achieving ADA compliance in the MTDB area of jurisdiction.
. Extension of the American Red Cross Agreement for HandYtrans operation.
. Funding for ADA Complementary Paratransit Services.
1 For Council's information, the terms "paratransit" and "demand response" are
synonymous, and describe transportation services in which an individual makes an advance
reservation for service and is transported from point of origin to destination.
/:J .f
Page 2, Item , 0
Meeting Date 3/5/96
The ADA: Comnlementarv Paratransit Service Requirements
Attached for Council's information (Exhibit I) is an Agenda Statement dated January 7, 1992 which
is a "Report on Complementary Paratransit Service plan as required by the Americans with
Disabilities Act prepared by the Metropolitan Transit Development Board" which discusses the
ADA requirements. In accepting the staffrecommendation of this report, the City Council agreed
to authorize MTDB to develop and submit to the federal government a Complementary Paratransit
Service Plan for the MTDB area. All the other jurisdictions in the MTDB area operating fixed-route
transit systems also authorized MTDB to submit a Regional ADA Complementary Paratransit
Service Plan.
As discussed in the attached memo to Council (Exhibit 2) dated August 8, 1995 the Complementary
Paratransit Service requirements of the ADA mandate the following by January 26, 1997:
Complementary Paratransit Service must be provided to supplement fixed route serv.ices like
Chula Vista Transit and the San Diego Trolley. Persons eligible for this service are
individuals who cannot access the fixed route service (for example, walk to or wait at a bus
stop) or cannot ride the fixed route service at all because of mobility limitations.
The ADA specifies six criteria for Complementary Paratransit Service:
. Service Area - Must cover a 3/4 mile radius on either side of the fixed route corridor,
or a 1.5 mile total corridor width.
. Response Time - Requires next day reservation service and allows for reservations
up to fourteen days in advance.
. Fares - May be a maximum of twice the base fixed route fare. (For example, the CVT
base fare is $1.00, so the HandYtrans fare may be no more than $2.00).
. Trip PUI:pose - Prohibits restriction for purpose of travel. (For example, a medical
appointment trip has no priority over a shopping trip).
. Hours and Davs of Service - Service must be available during the same hours and
days as fixed route service. (In the case of Chula Vista from about 5 a.m. to 11 p.m.
for CVT; and ITom about 4 a.m. to 2 a.m. when the Trolley is included).
. CI~pacity constraints - Prohibits restrictions on number or frequency of trips. (In other
words, a certified ADA individual may not be denied service because of insufficient
vehicle capacity, nor limited to a certain number of trips).
Compliance with the ADA Complementary Paratransit Service Reauirements
In 1993, SANDAG, in cooperation with MTDB, contracted with Crain and Associates, Inc. to study
options for meeting the ADA mandate. This study analyzed a number of options for the region, one
of which was to divide the MTDB area into four Complementary Paratransit Services zones as
/:J"'t
Page 3, Item \ 0
Meeting Date 3/5/96
indicated in Exhibit 3. Zone IV includes National City, Chula Vista, Imperial Beach, City of San
Diego, and Coronado. The study recommended that there be one operator or service provider in each
of these zones to provide ADA Complementary Paratransit Service. The study concluded that one
service provider in a relatively large area as defined by these zones could facilitate inteIjurisdictional
trips on a more efficient and cost-effective basis compared with multi operators serving smaller areas
and limited to jurisdictional boundaries.
In Zone IV, there currently are three senior/disabled TDA Article 4.5 funded paratransit services,
administered by National City, Chula Vista and the County of San Diego. National City contracts
with American Red Cross for "Wheels" service in National City; the City of Chula Vista contracts
with American Red Cross for HandYtrans service in Chula Vista; and the County of San Diego
contracts with American Red Cross for services in Imperial Beach, South San Diego and Coronado.
Coincidentally, although three separate government entities currently administer these paratransit
services in Zone IV, the American Red Cross is the one service provider under contract with all three
jurisdictions.
The City of Chula Vista Transit staff has been meeting with the staffs of MTDB, SANDAG,
National City and the County to discuss options to implement the study recommendations for full
ADA compliance by January 1997. Since the County of San Diego already administers paratransit
services for a large portion of Zone IV, and the City of National City has indicated an interest in
having the County provide the ADA Complementary Paratransit Service for that jurisdiction, an
option for establishing one service provider in Zone IV would be for the County to contract with a
service provider for all ADA Paratransit Service in Zone IV. This service could be funded by a
combination of currently available sources used for the existing paratransit service in this area,
including TDA Article 4.5 and Transnet, with the likely addition ofTDA Article 4.0 funds. Other
options for implementing the study recommendations are being evaluated; a preferred option should
be determined by Spring 1997. It is staff s intent to return to Council at that time for its
consideration and adoption of a preferred option. Acceptance of this current staff report and
approval of the agreement extension for HandYtrans, does not commit this Council to anyone option
to implement the Crain and Associates, Inc. study recommendation.
A~reement Extension with American Red Cross for operation of HandYtrans
The First Amendment to the agreement between the City and the American Red Cross is proposed
to be extended for 15 months, trom July I, 1996 to September 30, 1997 to set the stage for having
one ADA Paratransit Service provider in Zone IV. The service level between July 1, 1996 and
Januaty 1, 1997 (prior to full ADA compliance) is basically a continuation of the existing
HandYtrans service level, operating Monday through Friday trom 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and on
Sunday trom 8:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. Be~inninll January 2 1997 throul;h September 30. 1997.
HandYtrans would ODerate in full compliance with the ADA. HandYtrans must be available for
"complementary" service to CVT between the hours of approxintately 5 :00 a.m. to II :00 p.m.,seven
days a week. In addition, since there are other fixed route services operating in Chula Vista provided
by San Diego Transit, MTDB contract services and the San Diego Trolley, Complementaty
Paratransit Service must also be available for these services. Therefore, Complementarv Paratransit
Service must be available in Chula Vista for all fixed route services trom !lPproximatelv 4:00 a.m.
I:J~/
Page 4, Item ~
Meeting Date 3/5/96
to 2:00 a.m seven davs a week. The cost to provide ADA paratransit service for fixed-route systems
operating in Chula Vista other than CVT (the Trolley, San Diego Transit Route 29, and MTDB
Contract Route 932) will be funded by those systems. The specific funding mechanism still is being
developed by MTDB and area fixed-route operator staffs and should be finalized by Fall 1996. Staff
will report to Council on the funding proposal at that time.
The estimated service requirements between January 2, 1997 and September 30, 1997 are shown on
attached Exhibit 4. This table shows the total hours during which ADA Complementary Paratransit
Service must be available in ChuIa Vista.2 Staffhas estimated the hours during which service would
be provided and the potential cost of this service, which is $408,623. This amount is onlv an
estimate based on potential demand. The actual demand, and therefore cost, will not be known until
after January 1997. Furthermore, it may take months to gauge service demand, depending on
community awareness of service availability. However, based on late night/early morning demand
in other cities that have attempted full ADA compliance before January 1997, demand for paratransit
service during late night/early morning hours generally is low.
The American Red Cross rate for this 15 month period is divided into two different rates based upon
"day" and "evening". The day time hourly rate for the 15 month period of the agreement extension
is $27.203, a 3.6% increase over the current hourly rate. The evening rate is $21.643 which is 21%
less than the current rate. The evening rate is lower than the day rate because certain fixed costs for
administration and facility costs included in the day rate are not included in the evening rate. The
costs not included in the evening rate generally are those items that do not directly pertain to the
"evening" service, such as management salaries, non-vehicle services, and utilities.
Cost Comnarison: Other Service Providers
For Council's information, the following Table I shows HandYtrans proposal costs that were
submitted in response to the HandYtrans Request for Proposal (RFP) in Spring 1993:
Table I.
HANDYTRANS PROPOSAL COST: JULY I, 1993 THROUGH JUNE 30,1996
Proposer
Three Year Cost
Three Year Hourly R~t.. A vera!!e
Red Cross
Medi-Ride
DAVE Systems
Mayflower
$ 694,678
$ 902,493
$1,002,498
$1,353,750
$26.089
$33.923
$37.682
$47.126
2 The service components under the headings "Service Period", "Service Area", and
"Service Time" further delineate the requirements by fixed-route operator responsibility. The
service area designated "West of Hilltop" indicates service coverage when Chula Vista Transit is
I1Q1 operating, but fixed-route service is provided by the San Diego Trolley, the MTDB contract
Route 932 on Broadway, and the San Diego Transit Route 29 on Third Avenue.
11" Ii'
Page S, Item -1.0.-
Meeting Date 3/5/96
As indicated in this table, the Red Cross rate and total three year cost for HandYtrans service ending
June 30, 1996 was substantially lower than the other three proposals. In addition, the current County
of San Diego contract rate with American Red Cross for the period July I, 1996 through September
30, 1997 is $30.397; therefore, the 15 month "daytime" rate for HandYtrans service between July
1,1996 and September 30,1997 of $27.203 is approximately 12% lower than the County of San
Diego rate for the same period.
In summary, it is staff s opinion that the American Red Cross rates for the agreement extension
period are competitive with, and lower than, other service providers. Therefore, because of the
favorable cost proposed, and the proposed extension of the agreement for 15 instead of 24 months,
staff does not recommend issuing an RFP for HandYtrans service.
Funding for ADA Complementarv Paratransit Services
As shown in Exhibit 4, staff estimates that the maximum cost for HandYtrans service provided by
the American Red Cross for the fifteen month extension term is $530,000. The estimated cost for
FY 1996-97 (July 1, 1996 - June 30, 1997) is $393,040, a 68% increase over the current fiscal year
cost of $232,800. However, next fiscal year includes six months of full ADA service compliance
(January through June 1997). The cost for the six month period prior to full ADA compliance, July
1, 1996 through January 1, 1997, is $121,054, an increase of 3.6% over the current fiscal year cost.
The estimated cost for the first complete fiscal year of ADA compliance, which is July 1, 1997
through June 30, 1998 is $611,000. However, this is only an estimate based on possible demand;
a much better idea of the cost of this service will be known after January 1997, when full compliance
becomes effective.
The Transportation Development Act (TDA) provides funding for both Chula Vista Transit and
HandYtrans. TDA funds are derived from 1/4% of the local sales tax. TDA funds are further
divided into numerous "Articles" which designate the funds for certain purposes. Article 4.0 funds,
for example, are used for fixed-route services like CVT, and Article 4.5 funds are designated for the
ADA paratransit services. However, Article 4.0 funds may also be used for ADA paratransit
services if needed. SANDAG allocates the IDA funds to San Diego area jurisdictions and the
MTDB approves all expenditures within its jurisdiction. There are no Chula Vista General Funds
nor federal funds used for either CVT or HandYtrans. In addition. there are no federal funds
available to imulement the Com'plementarv Paratransit Service requirements of the ADA.
In this region, 5% of the total TDA funds are set aside as Article 4.5 funds to operate the ADA
Complementary Paratransit Services. Unlike the Article 4.0 funds, which are allocated to
iurisdictions on a per-capita basis, the Article 4.5 funds are allocated to transit operators on a
discretionary basis. During the current fiscal year, the City ofChula Vista's Article 4.5 allocation
. is approximately $150,000 and HandYtrans' total budget is $241,000. The balance of the budget
is funded by fare revenue ($66,000) Transnet Funds ($23,000) and investment earnings ($3,000).
MTDB currently is exploring options to fund the ADA Complementary Paratransit Service
requirement. Since new revenue sources seem unlikely, the use of Article 4.0 funds contributed by
13'"
Page 6, Item 10
Meeting Date 3/5/96
each jurisdiction seems to be the primary potential source to fund the ADA paratransit services.
However, until the demand for ADA service is known in January 1997 and beyond, it is difficult to
estimate the full cost impact at this time.
SUMMARY
. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Complementary Paratransit Service
requirements specify that by January 1997 all fixed-route public transportation operators
must provide ADA Complementary Paratransit Service. This service must be "comparable"
to fixed-route services in terms of service hours, and service coverage.
. In 1992, Council authorized MlDB to submit to the Federal Transit Administration (FT A),
a Regional ADA Complementary Paratransit Service Plan. All the other jurisdictions in the
MTDB area have also authorized MTDB to submit a regional plan.
. A regional ADA Compliance Study conducted by SANDAG recommended that the MTDB
area be divided into four zones for ADA Complementary Paratransit Service. Zone IV
includes the cities of National City, Chula Vista, Imperial Beach, South San Diego and
Coronado.
. The Study recommended that one ADA service provider operate in each of the four zones.
. In order to implement this recommendation in Zone IV, staff is recommending that the City
ofChula Vista's agreement with American Red Cross for HandYtrans service be extended
for 15 months, ITom July I, 1996 through September 30,1997.
. Beginning October I, 1997, one service provider would operate the ADA Complementary
Paratransit Service in Zone IV. Options for implementing this concept still are being
considered and evaluated.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The American Red Cross hourly rate for HandYtrans service for the 15 month agreement extension
is $27.203, a 3.6% increase over the current rate. In addition, a new "evening" hourly rate of
$21.643 will become effective in January 1997 when full ADA compliance begins. The estimated
contract cost for FY 1996-97 is $393,040, a 68% increase over the current fiscal year cost of
$232,800. However, this cost includes 6 months (January through June 1997) of ADA
Complementary Paratransit Service full compliance, which is an estimate based on possible demand
for increased service.
HandYtrans is funded by the following sources: TDA Article 4.5, Transnet, and fare revenue. In
addition, TDA Article 4.0 funds may be used to fund the service if required. There are no City of
Chula Vista General Funds used for HandYtrans operation. Furthermore, even with the potential
estimated significant cost increase to implement the ADA Complementary Paratransit Service
requirements in Chula Vista, there will be sufficient City TDA Article 4.0 funds available to
supplement other funding sources for HandYtrans service, based on the City's current TDA Article
J;J"'/~
Page 7, Item \0
Meeting Date 3/5/96
4.0 allocation and TDA fund balance. For example, the City's current TDA unallocated balance is
approximately $4.8 million. $2 million of this balance is set aside as partial funding for the City's
hydrogen fuel cell bus demonstration program, leaving an approximate $2.8 million balance for
future CVT operations and capital expenditures, and for increased costs for ADA Complementary
Paratransit Service.
Attachments:
Exhibit I - January 7,1992 Agenda Statement
Exhibit 2 - August 8, 1995 Council memo
Exhibit 3 - Complementary Paratransit Service Zones
Exhibit 4 - Estimated Services Requirements
WMG:DT-007
M:'HOME'ENGINEER\AGENDA \REDCROS2.BG
1:1-/1
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item -4--
Meeting Date 4/16/96
ITEM TITLE:
Public Hearing: PCM-94-04; Consideration of a street name change for
the segment of East Orange A venue between Hunte Parkway and Wueste
Road
Resolution Approving a street name change for the segment of
East Orange Avenue between Hunte Parkway and Wueste Road to
"Olympic Parkway"
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Planning i}J
REVIEWED BY: City Manage~
(4/5ths Vote: Yes_No--.X)
The City Attorney has recommended that this item be continued to the May 7, 1996 Council
meeting to allow EastLake additional time to review and sign the "Nypro Agreement. "
(m:\home\planning\PCM94-04.con)
))1-1
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
April 10, 1996
TO:
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
SUBJECT:
....,
John Goss, City Manager(,+
Bob Leiter, Director of p:~ning .Q[
Public Hearing: PCM-94-04, Street Name Change for the segment of Orange
Avenue between Hunte Parkway and Wueste Road.
VIA
FROM:
On March 26,1996 the City Council continued this item to the April 16, 1996 meeting in order
to allow City staff time to address EastLake's interpretation of the "First Concession Granting
Agreement Between City of Chula Vista and EastLake Development Company ("Nypro
Agreement").
After discussing this issue with City staff, EastLake representatives reconsidered their position
and concurred with staff s interpretation of the "Nypro Agreement." However, to further clarify
and memorialize this interpretation of the "Nypro Agreement", the City Attorney prepared an
addendum and has forwarded it to EastLake for consideration and signature.
EastLake has not been able to complete their review of the addendum on time to be included
in the April 16, 1996 Council Agenda Statement. Thus, the City Attorney has recommended
that this item be continued to the May 7, 1996 Council meeting to allow EastLake additional
time to review and sign said agreement.
(M:lhomelplanninglluisIPCM-9404.CCM)
1"1- 2..
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item If
Meeting Date 4/16/96
ITEM TITLE:
SUBMITTED BY:
Public Hearing regarding the proposal to define "Community
Purpose Facility" in the Eastern Area Development Impact Fee for Streets
and modify the fee rate schedule
Director of Public Works ~/
City Manage~ ~ 6Jjyi
(4/5 Vote: Yes_ No--X..)
REVIEWED BY:
Currently, the "Eastern Area Development Impact Fee for Streets" (TransDIF) program does not
discuss the land Use category "Community Purpose Facility" (CPF). Other fee programs in Chula
Vista, such as the Public Facilities DIF (PFDIF) and the SR-125 DIF exclude CPF from the fee
programs. Staff is finalizing the ordinance with the City Attorney.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council continue the public hearing until 4123/96.
If" I
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BY THE CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL will hold
a public hearing to consider the following:
Defining Community Purpose Facility in the Eastern Area Development Impact Fee
for Streets and modifying the fee rate schedule. For further information call Steve
Thomas, Senior Civil Engineer, at 691-5116.
If you wish to challenge the City's action on these matters in court, you may be limited to
raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this
notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk's Office at or prior to the
public hearing.
SAID PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE CITY COUNCIL on Tuesday,
April 16, 1996, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Services Building, 276 Fourth
Avenue, at which time any person desiring to be heard may appear.
DATED: April 3, 1996
/0- 7'/
"....-- .",
~
~~~~
cm Of
CHUIA VISTA
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
TELEFAX COVER LETIER
Te1ecopier No. (619) 585-5612
DATE:
!/3/i?
/ /
TO: Star News Le~al / Manha
FAX NO: (619) 426-63%
FROM: C~dvJ#'
SUBJECT: if~4 9?~
'-
PUBIlCATION DATE:
c2
~/9?
TOTAL NO. PAGES (including cover):
If all pages are not received, please call Carla @ (619) 691-5041.
,
276FOURTH AVENUE. CHULA VISTA. CALIFORNIA 81810 . ('18) $SI1.50~1
'* ..--...
/5-3
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item .1lt-El-
Meeting Date 4-16-96
ITEM TITLE: Resolution 1'r:J.'-' : Approving the Property Tax
Transfer Agr~ith the county of San Diego for
the otay Ranch ~~
SUBMITTED BY: Deputy city Manager Thomson JI
REVIEWED BY: city Manager. f (4/Sths Vote: Yes No-X)
The proposed Property Tax Transfer Agreement between the City of
Chula vista and the County of San Diego sets forth the financial
terms and conditions to be applied to those portions of the otay
Ranch which are included in the City's current Sphere of Influence
(as amended in February 1996) as well as the portions of otay Ranch
that are anticipated to be added to the city's Sphere of Influence
at the May 6, 1996 LAFCO meeting. The geographic areas covered by
this agreement are: (1) the western (Otay Valley) parcel which
includes all otay Ranch parcels west of the Lower otay Lakes
Reservoir, (2) the II Inverted L" parcel north of the Upper otay
Lakes Reservoir, and (3) the Mary Birch Patrick ranchhouse area
south of the Upper otay Lakes Reservoir. These areas are detailed
in Exhibit A.
Under state law, an agreement on the negotiated exchange of
property tax revenue is required before LAFCO can approve an
annexation. The city and county entered into a Master Property Tax
Transfer Agreement in 1984 which covers smaller, more routine
annexations. Under the terms of that agreement, the city receives
41% of the pooled property tax (i. e. the combined property tax
revenue received by the County and special districts) and the
County retains 59%. The Master Property Tax Transfer Agreement
does not, however, apply to annexations which have an assessed
value of $35 million or more on the current equalized tax rolls,
and the General Development Plan/Subregional plan for the otay
Ranch specifies that a separate property tax agreement will be
negotiated by the city and County for annexations within the otay
Ranch. As such, the proposed Property Tax Transfer Agreement has
been negotiated, after lengthy discussions with the County, to
cover the aforementioned areas of Otay'Ranch.
Under the provisions of the proposed Property Tax Agreement, which
are described in detail in the Discussion section of this report,
staff estimates that over a 30-year period the city may receive
about $37.6 million more than we would receive under the terms of
the 1984 Master Property Tax Agreement.
I ~ 1)- J
otay Ranch Property Tax Agreement
Page 2
As indicated above, part of the area that would be covered by the
agreement is not yet in the city's Sphere of Influence. The
addition to the City's Sphere of Influence of the southern part of
the western parcel, which is sometimes referred to as the panhandle
or the peninsula, is scheduled to be considered by the Board of
Supervisors on April 17 and by LAFCO on May 6. The proposed
Property Tax Agreement is therefore contingent on LAFCO's approval
of the addition of the panhandle area (excluding the County
landfill), or at least a minimum of village III and Planning Area
18-B, to the city's Sphere of Influence by August 5, 1996.
The proposed Property Tax Agreement is also contingent on the
approval of a separate Landfill Agreement by both the City and the
county, and on the detachment of the County landfill from the City.
Both the Landfill Agreement and the Property Tax Agreement, as well
as the Sphere of Influence issue regarding the panhandle area, are
scheduled to be considered by the Board of Supervisors on April 17.
The Landfill Agreement is discussed in a separate agenda item on
the Council's April 16 agenda. The County staff report to the
Board of supervisors is attached as Exhibit G.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt the resolution approving the
Property Tax Transfer Agreement with the County for Otay Ranch, or
in the alternative, approve the concepts of the Agreement.
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: On September 12, 1995 the Council
appointed Mayor Horton and Councilmember Moot as an ad hoc Council
Subcommittee regarding the property tax agreement with the county
for Otay Ranch. This ad hoc Council subcommittee recommends
approval of the proposed property tax agreement.
DISCUSSION
The Discussion section starts with an overview of the proposed
Property Tax Agreement and then goes into more detail on specific
aspects of the agreement.
OVERVIEW
Under the terms of the proposed Property Tax Transfer Agreement,
the City and County will split the pooled property tax (the amount
of the property tax available to the city, County and special
districts) on an equal, 50-50 basis. This represents a twenty-two
percent (22%) increase over the City's standard property tax share
of 41%. Even at this increased property tax share, however, fiscal
impact studies of the Otay Ranch indicate that the City may still
have residual operating deficits during the development's early and
mid-buildout years (i.e. deficits which are not covered by the
City's 50% share of the pooled property tax in conjunction with
I~ f) - ~
otay Ranch Property Tax Agreement
Page 3
other project revenues). Conversely, these same studies (Ralph
Anderson and Associates, 1995) indicate that the project will
generate a fiscal surplus for the County throughout its
development.
As such, City and County staff have agreed in the proposed Property
Tax Agreement to share the overall economic surplus expected to be
generated by the otay Ranch project in such a way as to offset the
residual City operating deficits that are projected in the Ralph
Anderson and Associates analysis. The proposed agreement calls for
(1) the City and County to jointly undertake an annual fiscal
impact analysis of the project area for twenty years commencing
with fiscal year 1997-98, and (2) for the County to utilize a
portion of its annual fiscal surplus to offset any residual
operating deficits incurred by the City through fiscal year 2016-
17, subject to constraints detailed below.
Based on the Ralph Anderson study, the proposed agreement means
that developers are NOT projected to have any ancillary fiscal
obligation to offset negative operating cost impacts resulting from
the development. The operating cost obligation of the project's
developers may thus be limited to paying for the cost of the annual
fiscal impact studies; staff is currently analyzing a potential
developer-financed reserve fund program, as described below, to
cover the annual fiscal impact studies and potentially to serve as
an "insurance" fund should City deficits exceed the levels the
County will be obligated to offset.
To further protect the City and developers, the county has agreed
to also transfer to the city up to 3% of the annual net County
surplus generated by the otay Ranch project (Le. the surplus
remaining after any transfers are made to offset City operating
deficits) during the same twenty year period. This reduces the
likelihood that the city would have to seek reserve fund payments
from developers if variations in the fiscal impact analysis create
minor increases in city operating deficits.
Overall, the County has agreed to transfer up to 67% of its annual
surplus to the City from FY 1997-98 through FY 2016-17 in order to
(1) offset any residual city operating deficits and (2) provide the
City with a minimum 3% share of the project's net surplus. These
transfers are subject to an overall cap on the County's cumulative
transfer payments to the City of $16.6 million over a 20 year
period as well as annual maximums ranging from $400,000 to
$1,700,000. The maximum total transfer amount of $16.6 million
from the county to the city as well as the annual maximum transfer
payment amounts will be adjusted on an annual basis to reflect
changes in the Consumer Price Index.
Based on the most recent Ralph Anderson FIND Model analysis (1995)
}'R-3
otay Ranch Property Tax Aqreement
Page 4
and the provisions of the proposed Property Tax Transfer Agreement,
the City is projected to receive a surplus of approximately $18.4
million dollars (in current year dollars) from development in the
parts of the otay Ranch covered by this agreement over a 30 year
period. This is $37.6 million more than the potential $19.2
million deficit that would be projected if the 1984 Master Property
Tax Transfer Agreement applied to the otay Ranch rather than the
proposed Property Tax Agreement.
Under the terms of the proposed agreement, the county's staff costs
to participate in the annual fiscal analysis, that determines the
amount of its transfer payment to the City, will be paid for by the
City unless the city arranges for a third party to pay the County's
staff costs. staff anticipates these costs, which have specified
limits described in section H of this report, will be covered by
the developer Reserve Fund discussed below.
The proposed Property Tax Agreement is contingent on three events:
(1) the inclusion by LAFCO of the entire area shown in Exhibit A,
or at a minimum the addition of Village III and Planning Area 18-B,
into the city's sphere of Influence by August 5, 1996; (2) mutual
approval of the separate Landfill Agreement; and (3) detachment of
the County landfill from the city.
Substantive changes in key revenue or expenditure variables, as
well as significant changes in the development's land use mix or
phasing could generate City operating deficits which exceed the
levels that the County is obligated to offset (for example,
deficits which exceed 67% of the County's surplus in a given year).
To provide further protection for the city, it is staff's intention
to formulate a Reserve Fund program with the developer of SPA 1 and
with all future Otay Ranch developers as a backup "insurance"
policy to cover this contingency. The proposed Reserve Fund will
also provide funds to cover the City and County costs of the annual
fiscal impact studies.
The proposed Otay Ranch Property Tax Transfer Agreement resulted
from lengthy negotiations with County staff and could be viewed as
a significant example of "collaboration." On the one-hand, the
fiscal impact analysis indicates that the project will generate a
significant economic surplus for the County while the city will
suffer operating deficits during the development's early years. On
the other hand, it is the City which has the wherewithal to make
the project "happen": it has excess sewer capacity to meet the
proj ect ' s start-up needs; it has a transportation development
impact fee program to provide needed road improvements; and it has
a public facility development impact fee program to pay for the
infrastructure needed to serve new development. The project could
only become a reality through a collaborative effort, marked by the
City's special resources and the County's willingness to share the
It, IJ-~
otay Ranch Property Tax Agreement
Page 5
overall economic surplus to help offset projected City operating
deficits. It was also helpful that the Council appointed an ad hoc
Property Tax Agreement Council subcommittee (Mayor Horton and
Councilmember Moot) and the Board of Supervisors appointed a
similar Board subcommittee (Supervisors Cox and Horn).
The specific details of the proposed Property Tax Agreement,
including details of the fiscal impact model, are discussed in the
remainder of this report.
A. Area Covered by the Property Tax Agreement
The proposed agreement covers the western (otay Valley) parcel
which includes all otay Ranch parcels west of the Lower otay Lakes
Reservoir, the "Inverted L" parcel north of the Upper otay Lakes
Reservoir and the Mary Birch Patrick ranchhouse area south of the
Upper otay Lakes Reservoir. These areas are detailed in Exhibit A.
This agreement does NOT cover adjacent non-Otay Ranch parcels which
include the Nelson-Sloan Quarry, the Watson-McCoy parcel (south of
the "Inverted L"), or several smaller "out" parcels, all of which
are designated in the map included as Exhibit A. These excluded
areas would annex to the city under the terms of the 1984 Master
Property Tax Transfer Agreement. These non-otay Ranch areas are
NOT included in the fiscal impact analysis discussed in subsequent
sections of this report.
The otay Landfill is specifically excluded from both the proposed
Property Tax Agreement and the 1984 Master Property Tax
Agreement. Thus the Landfill, as well as the portions of the
otay Ranch that are not covered by the proposed Agreement, cannot
be annexed to the city unless and until a subsequent property tax
agreement is adopted by the city and County.
B. The Fiscal Impact Model
During the initial planning for the otay Ranch, staff from the
Baldwin company, the city and the County worked with Ralph
Anderson and Associates to assess the fiscal impact of the otay
Ranch.
citywide and countywide expenditure, revenue and development data
was analyzed to establish the marginal costs and revenues
attributable to residential, commercial and industrial land uses
within each jurisdiction. Using Ralph Anderson's FIND Model
(Fiscal Impact of ~ew Development), these cost and revenue
factors were applied to the specific level and mix of development
projected for each year of Otay Ranch's development. The
resulting analysis produced a representation of city and County
J~tI-5
otay Ranch Property Tax Agreement
Page 6
fiscal impacts for any given year and throughout the project's
estimated thirty-year buildout period.
Exhibit B provides an example of how the FIND Model allocates
operating costs for City services based on land use.
The FIND Model is dynamic and the marginal cost and revenue
factors will be updated annually to reflect changes in City and
County. expenditure and revenue patterns, based on actual budget
data for the preceding year, as well as actual development
(residential, commercial, or industrial) that occurred in the
previous year. When development is actually underway, revenue
data for major revenue sources such as property and sales taxes
will be based on the revenue generated within the project area.
The first fiscal impact analysis will be jointly undertaken by
City and County staff in 1998-99 for fiscal year 1997-98. It is
anticipated that an alternative, less expensive procedure than
that represented by the FIND Model may be used until some minimum
number (such as 500-1,000) of dwelling units are occupied in the
otay Ranch area.
c. Projected city and county Fi$cal Impacts
Based on the development mix and phasing contained in otay
Ranch's General Development Plan/Subregional Plan (GDP/SRP) AND
using the standard City property tax share of 41%, the Ralph
Anderson FIND Model analysis (1995) projected that (1) the County
would achieve a net operating surplus over a 30 year development
period and that the County's surplus would begin to accrue from
the project's onset and (2) the city would incur a net operating
deficit over a 30 year development period and that the City would
not achieve an annual surplus until the 23rd year of development.
overall, the County's cumulative, 30 year surplus was projected
at $110.8 million (believed to be somewhat overstated); the
city's cumulative 30 year deficit was projected at $19.2 million.
However, by the end of Year 30 the city was projected to have an
annual operating surplus of approximately $1.1 million in current
year dollars. The year-by-year FIND Model projections are
summarized in Exhibit C. These projections provided the basis
for the City and County property tax negotiations.
D. property Tax Agreement--Fixed City Share of the property Tax
Of the total property tax generated on the otay Ranch, about
21.3% is available to the city, County and special districts
(i.e., library, flood, and fire districts) and is referred to as
the "pooled property tax revenue." The remaining 78.7% goes
Ita II-t:,
otay Ranch Property Tax Agreement
Page 7
primarily to the school districts. It is therefore only the
approximate 21.3% of the total property tax revenue--the amount
available to the City, county and special districts--that is
subject to redistribution by establishing a percentage split
between the city and County for an annexation. The property tax
received by school districts is unaffected by the City/County
split.
As noted earlier, smaller annexations are covered under the 1984
Master Property Tax Transfer Agreement which provides the City
with 41% of the pooled property tax revenue that is available to
the city, County and special districts. Under the proposed
agreement, the city share is increased from 41% to 50%, and the
County's share is correspondingly decreased from 59% to 50%.
Over a 30-year period, the additional 9% city share of the
property tax is projected to generate an additional $21.0 million
in city revenue. At the 50% property tax share, the City is
projected to have an on-going, annual surplus of approximately
$2.2 million at the end of 30 years. This is double the $1.1
million annual surplus that would be projected at the city's
standard 41% property tax share. This data is summarized in
Exhibit D.
However, even at the increased 50% property tax share, the City
is still projected to have annual operating deficits during the
first part of the development. As detailed in the following
section, these annual deficits are projected to be offset through
supplemental transfer payments from the County to the City.
E. Offsetting Annual city operating Deficits
As detailed in Exhibit E, the City's re~idual, annual operating
deficits are projected by the Ralph Anderson FIND Model to total
$15.742 million over a 19 year period if the city receives 50% of
the pooled property tax. Both County and city staff have
implicitly agreed that, based on the FIND Model analysis, no
direct offsets would be sought from the developer(s) for
operating deficits up to this amount. As such, the proposed
Property Tax Transfer Agreement calls for the County to transfer
a portion of the economic surplus generated by the Otay Ranch
project to the city to cover these residual operating deficits.
To account for variations in development phasing from those
contained in the FIND Model, the City will be eligible for County
transfer payments for fiscal years through FY 2016-17.
F. A Minimum City Share of the Net Economic Surplus
To further protect the City and Otay Ranch developers, the County
11&1f-?
otay Ranch Property Tax Agreement
Page 8
has agreed to also transfer to the city up to 3% of the annual
net economic surplus generated by the project (i.e. the County
surplus remaining after any transfers are made to offset City
operating deficits). Based on FIND Model projections, this
provision will generate an additional $858,000 for the city over
20 years as indicated in Exhibit F. This transfer will provide a
minimum surplus for the City from the project's onset. It also
reduces the likelihood that the City would have to seek payments
from developers if variations in the fiscal impact analysis
create slightly higher operating deficits than currently
projected by the FIND Model.
G. constraints on county's Transfer Obligation to the city
Overall, the County has agreed to transfer up to 67% of its
annual surplus generated by the project (as determined by the
FIND Model) to the City in order to (1) offset any residual City
operating deficits and/or (2) provide the city with a minimum 3%
share of the project's net economic surplus. These transfers are
subject to a cap on the County's cumulative transfer payments of
$16.6 million, over a 20 year period of FY 1997-98 through 2016-
17. (The $16.6 million total is based on the $15.7 million to
offset potential City deficits and $858,000 to provide the City
with a minimum share of the project's net surplus as projected by
the FIND Model and as shown in Exhibit F.) The maximum
cumulative transfer amount of $16.6 million from the County to
the City will be adjusted on an annual basis to reflect changes
in the Consumer Price Index.
The proposed agreement also limits the County's annual transfer
payment obligation to the City as follows:
Years
Maximum Annual Transfer Payment
1-3
4-6
7-8
9-11
12-20
$400,000
$1 million
$1. 3 million
$1. 5 million
$1.7 million
These maximums are higher than the transfer payment amounts
projected by the FIND Model, as shown in Exhibit F. These
maximum amounts will also be adjusted on an annual basis to
reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index.
The proposed agreement calls for seventy-five percent (75%) of
any annual transfer payment from the County to the City to be
l~/}- ~
otay Ranch Property Tax Agreement
Page 9
made in general funds. The remaining twenty-five percent (25%)
may be paid in either general funds or unrestricted gas tax
funds, at the County's discretion.
H. Reimbursement of county Staff Costs
The proposed Property Tax Agreement provides that an outside
party will pay for the County's staff cost to participate in the
annual fiscal analysis that determines the amount of the County's
transfer payment to the City for the previous fiscal year. If
the city does not provide a mechanism, such as the developer-
financed Reserve Fund discussed below, to pay for these County
costs, then the City itself will be obligated to pay for these
costs. The County's costs are limited to $10,000 per year,
except that in the first year the FIND Model is run the cap will
be $30,000 and in the second year it will be $15,000. These
maximum amounts will be adjusted to reflect changes in the
Consumer Price Index and may also be adjusted by mutual agreement
of the City and County. It is also likely that the city may want
to contract with a financial consultant, such as Ralph Anderson
and Associates, to run the FIND Model, particularly the first
timers) that the FIND Model is run as the basis of annual County
transfer payments. Staff anticipates that the County, City, and
any financial consultant costs required to perform the annual
FIND Model analysis will be reimbursed by the Reserve Fund
discussed below.
I. The Proposed Agreement is Contingent on Three Events
The proposed Property Tax Transfer Agreement is contingent on:
(1) LAFCO including the entire area shown in Exhibit A (as "Areas
sUbject to 1996 Otay Ranch Property Tax Agreement"), or at a
minimum the addition of Village III and Planning Area 18-B, in
the city's Sphere of Influence (SOl) by August 5, 1996; (2)
mutual approval of the separate Landfill Agreement; and (3)
detachment of the County landfill from the City.
The City's SOl was amended in February 1996 to include the entire
area shown in Exhibit A except for the "panhandle" area. The
panhandle area includes Village III, Planning Area 18-B, the
Nelson-Sloan Quarry, small private ownerships in the southwestern
area, and the Otay River Valley area proposed for a regional
park. The first contingency described above requires that LAFCO
by August 5, 1996 include the panhandle area in the City's SOl,
or at least a minimum of Village III and Planning Area 18-B. If
this minimum area is not added to the city's SOl, then the city
and County will have to renegotiate the Property Tax Agreement.
The Village III and Planning Area 18-B areas are planned for
)/'/i -9
otay Ranch property Tax Agreement
Page 10
industrial development and the revenues produced by the proposed
development are needed to meet the City's minimum fiscal needs.
J. Reserve Fund Agreement with Developers
In accordance with the terms of the General Development
Plan/Subregional Plan (GDP/SRP), City staff are in the process of
formulating a separate Reserve Fund program with the developer of
SPA 1. It is anticipated that similar Reserve Fund programs will
be applied to all future SPAs in the otay Ranch. The Reserve
Fund will provide funds for the annual fiscal impact studies to
be conducted by the City and County AND will potentially provide
an "insurance" fund should City deficits exceed the levels that
the County is obligated to offset (e.g. in excess of 67% of the
County's gross surplus in a given year).
K. The Importance of Commercial Development
The FIND Model projects that sales taxes will produce over 25% of
the direct revenue generated for the City from the otay Ranch
project over a 30 year periOd. This analysis is based on the
GDP's present land use mix, which includes over 7,500,000 square
feet of commercial development. Development phasing, however,
often varies in response to market factors. To the extent that
planned commercial development in the otay Ranch is foregone or
deferred for a significant amount of time, the City's revenue
base will be significantly impacted as sales tax dollars flow to
shopping centers north of the city or to the otay Mesa area south
of the otay Ranch. The importance of this commercial
development, particularly the more regional oriented retail
development planned for the Eastern Urban Center, cannot be
overstated. Not only will the Eastern Urban Center development
enable the City to more fully capture the revenue potential
within the otay Ranch, but it will also help to stem sales tax
leakage occurring in existing and future EastLake and Rancho del
Rey developments. Staff are working to establish a reasonable
nexus between residential and commercial development which will
be sympathetic to both market forces and the economic needs of
the city and that will maintain the planned "village" orientation
of the project.
L. Planning for the otay Ranch
Upon annexation of otay Ranch territory, the City will revise the
existing Public Facility and Transportation Development Impact
Fees to incorporate infrastructure needs related to the otay
Ranch. These revisions will necessarily represent interim
I' IJ- /()
otay Ranch Property Tax Agreement
Page 11
adjustments until supporting master plans (e.g. for
stations, libraries, police facilities, etc) can be
updated.
fire
more formally
K. Caveats About the FIND Kodel
The FIND Model provides a representation of the MARGINAL costs
and revenues generated by new development. As standard in nearly
all fiscal impact models, FIND principally applies AVERAGE cost
and revenue patterns as a basis for its projections. These
averages reflect HISTORICAL relationships. Several important
caveats need to be recognized about this approach:
By focusing on MARGINAL costs, the model does not
assess the impact of pre-existing revenues, such as the
transfer of 50% of base pooled property taxes to the
City. These base taxes that will be transferred to the
City are roughly estimated to be $80,000 per year and
when accounted for, will nullify the FIND Model's
projected City deficits during the early start up
year(s). Furthermore, when base property taxes are
taken into account, the annual transfer payments from
the County to the City are never projected to exceed
50% of the County's gross surplus. This is far enough
below the 67% constraint described previously to
provide a cushion to account for reasonable year-to-
year fluctuations.
The FIND Model methodology apportions service costs on
an AVERAGE basis. This means that costs are spread
evenly throughout the development period, rather than
at their actual occurrence.
The fiscal impact projections are subject to
significant variation if HISTORICAL patterns change.
For example, as recently experienced, shifts in State
revenue allocations can have substantial negative
impacts on both the City's and County's fiscal well-
being. Conversely, a change in sales tax allocation,
such as allocating a portion of the sales tax on a per-
capita rather than a point-of-sale basis could
potentially increase city revenues. Similarly, changes
in the City's historical cost patterns, such as efforts
to "rightsize" the organization, could reduce the costs
of servicing new development and enhance the projected
fiscal impact on the city.
The FIND Model did not project revenues or expenditures
for the proposed university site in Villages 9 and 10.
l' R-I(
otay Ranch Property Tax Agreement
Page 12
Because of uncertainties regarding the type, size and
financial impact of a potential university, the FIND
Model did not address revenues or expenditures for
Villages 9 and 10. When an actual project is being
planned for that area, its financial impact will need
to be reviewed carefully. The annual FIND Model
analysis, conducted to determine the need and amount of
transfer payments from the County to the City, will
also address the financial impact of the university
site when it is built.
FISCAL IMPACT: ,Based on the most recent Ralph Anderson FIND
Model analysis (1995) and the provisions of the proposed Property
Tax Transfer Agreement, the City is projected to receive a
surplus of approximately $18.4 million dollars (in current year
dollars) from development in the parts of the otay Ranch covered
by this agreement over a 30 year period. This is $37.6 million
more than the potential $19.2 million deficit that would be
projected if the 1984 Master Property Tax Transfer Agreement
applied to the otay Ranch rather than the proposed Property Tax
Agreement. The city's actual 'impact will depend on a myriad of
factors involving the actual land use mix and phasing of the
development'as well as City (and County) cost and revenue
patterns.
staff also intends to, formulate Reserve Fund programs with the
developers of otay Ranch. The Reserve Fund will provide funds
for the annual'fiscal impact studies needed to implement the
proposed Property Tax Agreement and potentially will serve as an
"insurance" fund should City deficits in the buildout years
exceed the levels the County is obligated to offset by the
proposed agreement.
Exhibits:
A. Areas subject to Property Tax Transfer Agreement
B. Example of FIND Model Cost Projections
Fiscal Impact of otay Ranch Assuming FIND Model and:
C. 1984 Master Property Tax Agreement (41%/59% split)
D. 50%/50% Split of Pooled Property Tax
E. County Transfer Payments to Offset City Deficits
F. County Transfer Payments to Provide Minimum city Share
of Surplus
G. County staff report to Board of Supervisors on Sphere of
Influence/Annexation, Property Tax Agreement, and Landfill
Agreement
(M:\HOME\ADMIN\JT\OR~PTAX.113)
I'D-/'-.
RESOLUTION NO.~ I
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE PROPERTY TAX
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE COUNTY OF
SAN DIEGO FOR THE OTAY RANCH
WHEREAS, the proposed Property Tax Transfer Agreement
between the City of Chula vista and the County of San Diego sets
forth the financial terms and conditions to be applied to those
portions of the Otay Ranch which are included in the city's current
Sphere of Influence (as amended in February 1996) as well as the
portions of Otay Ranch that are anticipated to be added to the
City's Sphere of Influence at the May 6, 1996 LAFCO meeting; and
WHEREAS, the geographic areas covered by this agreement
are: (1) the western (otay Valley) parcel which includes all Otay
Ranch parcels west of the Lower otay Lakes Reservoir, (2) the
"Inverted L" parcel north of the Upper Otay Lakes Reservoir, and
(3) the Mary Birch Patrick ranchhouse area south of the Upper Otay
Lakes Reservoir as detailed in Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the City and County entered into a Master
Property Tax Transfer Agreement in 1984 which covers smaller, more
routine annexations and under the terms of that agreement, the City
receives 41% of the pooled property tax (i.e. the combined property
tax revenue received by the County and special districts) and the
County retains 59%; and
WHEREAS, the Master Property Tax Transfer Agreement does
not, however, apply to annexations which have an assessed value of
$35 million or more on the current equalized tax rolls, and the
General Development Plan/Subregional plan for the Otay Ranch
specifies that a separate property tax agreement will be negotiated
by the City and County for annexations within the Otay Ranch; and
WHEREAS, as such, the proposed Property Tax Transfer
Agreement was negotiated to cover the aforementioned areas of otay
Ranch; and
WHEREAS, under the provisions of the proposed Property
Tax Agreement, staff estimates that over a 30-year period the City
may receive about $37.6 million more than we would receive under
the terms of the 1984 Master Property Tax Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Property Tax Agreement is also
contingent on LAFCO amending the City's Sphere of Influence;
AMENDING THE the approval of a separate Landfill Agreement by both
the City and the County; and the detachment of the County landfill
from the City; and
1
I~'B - J'3
WHEREAS, both the Landfill Agreement and the Property Tax
Agreement, as well as the Sphere of Influence issue regarding the
panhandle area, are scheduled to be considered by the Board of
Supervisors on April 17.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the city Council of the
City of Chula vista does hereby approve the Property Tax Agreement
between the City of Chula vista and the County of San Diego for
Otay Ranch, on file in the office of the city Clerk as Document No.
BE' IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of the City of
Chula Vista is hereby authorized and directed to execute said
Agreement for and on behalf of the City of Chula vista.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
James R. Thomson, Deputy
City Manager
Bruce M. Boogaard, City
Attorney
C: \ rs\ proptax. Or'
2
J~9-/~
....J
L.~
t-J
~,..
>1'1
i~
-
L-:.
I',
I:
I:
--I
I ~
I :
c
....
t.)
!ii:
CD
1/1
I
"
!n
i I~~I~
.)'
.
.
~z
o
o
r::
~
-
'<
r
I>>
~
Q,
:!I
/(;Jj - /5
f)
a
#
.. .... ~
\
,....
\
r
I
I
..
-
I
rl
L_.,
I
I
I
H~~*M*~P:
.;~:{::::hl~d:
~~"~~i~i.
+t4'Nc.
Mi**t*~n~
~"'C....~
(Q'" co.,
.., 0 CO CD
CD'tI ....1>>
CD CD !ii:1/I
3::\.1>>1/1
CD'< 1/1 r::
~-I_C'
"'1>>(1)-.
>C"'~
-
-
o
~/~d
m
><
::T
-.
C"
-.
.....
)>
. ,
,
"
,
,
,
....
........
,
,
.....
.
,
'---I
I
I
I
I
I
r
m
C)
m
z
c
~"'C....~
(Q'" co"",
.., 0 CD CD
CD'tI en I>>
CD CD 01/1
3::\._1/1
CD'< I>> r::
~-t<C'
.... D>> ;xj'ii
>Cl>>n
~-
n-
;:,-0
cn;u
--.
..,<
CD CD
1>>..,
3 !I'
1/11>>
~
Q,
00
;::;:;:,-
'< r::
ri>>
3 :5
;::;:1/1
1/1 -
I>>
EXHIBIT B. An Example of FIND Model Cost Projections
COST AREA: Street Division, Public Works Operations
COST AllOCATION BY lAND USE: The FIND Model apportions the costs for the
City's Street Section as follows:
land Use
% of Costs
Commercial
Industrial
Multi-Family
Single Family
36.10%
11.32%
21.95%
30.63%
100.00%
IDENTIFICATION OF VARIABLE COSTS: The FIND Model identifies the portion of the
Street Divisions annual budget which will vary as development proceeds (e.g. the direct
costs for road maintenance and repair). This figure, adjusted for overhead was
assessed at $4,450,438 in the most recent FIND Model analysis.
CALCULATION OF UNIT EXPENSES: Using the land use allocations detailed above,
the Model calculates the following unit costs:
land Use
Unit Cost
Commercial
Industrial
Multi-Family
Single-Family
$1,723.83 per acre
$ 894.78 per acre
$ 36.04 per dwelling unit
$ 57.46 per dwelling unit
Thus, in a year in which 1,000 single family and 1,000 multi-family dwelling units are
occupied and 10 commercial acres are built in the Otay Ranch area, the City's Street
Division costs would be projected as follows:
Land Use
Annual Street Division Cost for Otav Ranch
Commercial
Industrial
Multi- Family
Single Family
$ 17,238 (10 acres * $1,723.83 cost per acre)
$ 0
$ 36,040 (1000 dwelling units * $36.04/dwelling unit)
$ 57.460 (1000 dwelling units * $57.46/dwelling unit)
$110,738
/Ml- It
.-'
EXHIBIT C. City/County Fiscal Impacts . Standard Property Tax Shares
(City - 41\; County - 59\)
FISCAL IMPACT BEFORE TRANSFERS FISCAL IMPACT AFTER TRANSFERS
CITY COUNTY COUNTY CITY CITY
TRANSFER ANNUAL CCMULATIVE
YR 0.41 0.59 PAYMENT IMPACT IMPACT
I ($76,745) $221.573 $0 ($76,745) ($76, 745)
2 ($241,524) $550,053 $0 ($241,524 ) ($318,269)
3 ($475,343) $856.167 $0 ($475,343) ($793,611)
. ($709,758) $1,192,927 $0 ($709,758) ($1,503,369)
5 ($906,206) $1,556,626 $0 ($906,206) ($2,409,575)
6 ($1,081,394) $1,946,836 $0 ($1,081,394) ($3,490,969)
7 ($1,319,759) $2,270,491 $0 ($1,319,759) ($4,810,729)
8 ($1,532,473) $2,611.447 $0 ($1,532,473) ($6,343.201)
. ($1,739,146) "$2.875,814 $0 ($1,739,146) ($8,082,347)
10 ($1,885,779) $3,225,568 $0 ($1,885,779) ($9,968,126)
11 ($1, 969, 984) $3,480,833 $0 ($1,969,984) ($11,938,110)
12 ($2,101,547) $3.639,284 $0 ($2,101,547) ($14,039,658)
13 ($2,132,055) $3,806,948 $0 ($2,132,055) ($16,171,713)
"' ($2,210,393) $3,903,598 $0 ($2,210,393) ($18,382,106)
15 ($2,229,585) $4,030,413 $0 ($2,229,585) ($20,611,691)
16 ($1,348,322) $4,330,802 $0 ($1,348,322) ($21,960,013)
17 ($1,353,540) $4,460,506 $0 ($1,353,540) ($23,313,553)
18 ($1,201.983) $4,564,212 $0 ($1,201,983) ($24,515,536)
19 ($1,036,367) $4,620,468 $0 ($1,036,367) ($25,551,903)
20 ($816,376) $4,700,008 $0 ($816,376) ($26,368,279)
21 ($511, 244) $4,806,087 $0 ($511,244) ($26,879,523)
22 ($146,703) $4,901,224 $0 ($146,703) ($27,026,226)
23 $118,399 $4,995,605 $0 $118,399 ($26,907,827)
2' $601,211 $5,118,736 $0 $601,211 ($26,306,616)
25 $1,088,473 $5,264,658 $0 $1,088,473 ($25,218,143)
26 $1,317,346 $5,334,968 $0 $1,317,346 ($23,900,797)
27 $1,259,705 $5,353,520 $0 $1,259,705 ($22,641,093)
2. $1.202,064 $5,372,073 $0 $1,202,064 ($21,439,029)
2' $1,144,422 $5,390,626 $0 $1,144,422 ($20,294.607)
30 $1,086,781 $5.409,178 $0 $1,086,781 ($19,207.825)
$0
/b1-1'1
EXHIBIT D. City/County Fiscal Impacts . PROPOSED Property Tax Shares
(City - 50%; County - 50%)
FISCAL IMPACT BEFORE TRANSFERS FISCAL IMPACT AFTER TRANSFERS
CITY COUNTY COUNTY CITY CITY
TRANSFER ANNUAL ctJMULATIVE
YR O.S O.S PAYMENT IMPACT IMPACT
1 ($49,302) $194,130 $0 ($49,302) ($49,302)
2 ($166,064) $474,593 $0 ($166.064 ) ($215,366)
3 ($347,215) $728,039 $0 ($347,215) ($562,580)
4 ($525,560) $1,008,729 $0 ($525,560) ($1,088,140)
S ($658,121) $1,308,541 $0 ($658,121) ($1,746,260)
6 ($763,075) $1,628,517 $0 ($763,075) ($2,509,335)
7 ($932,260) $1,882,992 $0 ($932,260) ($3,441,595)
. ($1,081,715) $2,160,689 $0 ($1,081,715) ($4,523.309)
. ($1,216,970) $2,353,638 $0 ($1,216,970) ($5,740,279)
10 ($1,305,431) $2,645,220 $0 ($1,305,431) ($7,045,710)
11 ($1,338,412) $2,849,261 $0 ($1,338,412) ($8,384,122)
12 ($1,435,658) $2,973,395 $0 ($1,435,658) ($9,819,780)
13 ($1,433,111) $3,108,004 $0 ($1,433,111) ($11,252,891)
14 ($1,480,265) $3,173,470 $0 ($1,480,265) ($12,733,156)
IS ($1,476,420) $3,277,248 $0 ($1,476,420) ($14,209,575)
16 ($538,046) $3,520,526 $0 ($538,046) ($14,747,621)
17 ($515,936) $3,622,902 $0 ($515,936) ($15,263,551)
18 ($331,354) $3,693,583 $0 ($331,354) ($15,594,911)
"' ($146,940) $3,731,041 $0 ($146,940) ($15, 741, 850)
20 $91,848 $3,791,785 $0 $91,848 ($15,650,003)
21 $423,406 $3,871,438 $0 $423,406 ($IS,226,S97)
22 $815,427 $3,939,094 $0 $815,427 ($14,411,170)
23 $1,103,794 $4,010,210 $0 $1,103,794 ($13,307,376)
24 $1,614,439 $4,105,509 $0 $1,614,439 ($11,692,938)
2S $2,128,490 $4,224,642 $0 $2,128,490 ($9,564,448)
26 $2,373,100 $4,279,214 $0 $2,373,100 ($7,191,348)
27 $2,319,946 $4,293,280 $0 $2,319,946 ($4,871,403)
2. $2,266,791 $4,307,346 $0 $2,266,791 ($2,604,612)
2. $2,213,637 $4.321,412 $0 $2,213,637 ($390,975)
30 $2,160,482 $4,335,477 $0 $2,160,482 $1,769,507
$0
/ {.; II-If}
--"._--~--_.'--
EXHIBIT E. SO/50 PROPERTY TAX SPLIT
COUNTY TRANSFER PAYMENTS TO OFFSET PROJECTED CITY DEFICITS
FISCAL IMPAcr BEFORE TRANSFERS FISCAL IMPACT AFTER TRANSFERS
CITY COUNTY COUNTY CITY CITY
TRANSFER PAYMENT: ANNUAL CUMULATIVE
YR O.S O.S DEFICIT OFFSET IMPAcr IMPAcr
1 ($49,302) $194,130 $49,302 $0 $0
2 ($166, 064) $474.593 $166,064 $0 $0
3 ($347,215) $728,039 $347,215 $0 $0
. ($525,560) $1,008,729 $525,560 $0 $0
S ($658,121) $1,308,541 $658,121 $0 $0
. ($763,075) $1,628.517 $763,075 $0 $0
7 ($932,260) $1,882,992 $932,260 $0 $0
8 ($1.081,715) $2,160.689 $1,081.715 $0 $0
. ($1,216,970) $2.353,638 $1,216,970 $0 $0
10 ($1,305,431) $2,645,220 $1,305,431 $0 $0
11 ($1,338,412) $2,849,261 $1,338,412 $0 $0
12 ($1,435,658) $2.973,395 $1,435,658 $0 $0
13 ($1,433,111) $3,108,004 $1,433.111 $0 $0
14 ($1,480,265) $3,173,470 $1,480,265 $0 $0
IS ($1,476,420) $3,277,248 $1,476,420 $0 $0
"' ($538,046) $3,520,526 $538,046 $0 $0
17 ($515,936) $3,622,902 $515,936 $0 $0
18 ($331,354) $3,693,583 $331,354 $0 $0
19 ($146,940) $3,731,041 $146,940 $0 $0
20 $91,848 $3.791,785 $0 $91,848 $91,848
21 $423,406 $3,871,438 $0 $423,406 $515,253
22 $815,427 $3,939,094 $0 $815,427 $1.330,680
23 $1,103,794 $4,010,210 $0 $1,103.794 $2,434,474
24 $1,614,439 $4,105,509 $0 $1,614,439 $4,048,913
2S $2,128,490 $4,224,642 $0 $2,128,490 $6,177,402
2. $2,373,100 $4,279,214 $0 $2,373,100 $8,550,502
27 $2,319,946 $4,293,280 $0 $2,319,946 $10,870,448
28 $2,266,791 $4,307,346 $0 $2,266,791 $13,137,239
2. $2,213,637 $4,321,412 $0 $2,213,637 $15,350,875
30 $2,160,482 $4,335,477 $0 $2,160,482 $17,511,357
$15,741,850
Ibll- /q
EXHIBIT F. SO/SO PROPERTY TAX SPLIT
COUNTY OFFSET OF CITY DEFICITS
3\ CITY SHARE OF NET SURPLUS
FISCAL IMPACT BEFORE TRANSFERS PISCAL IMPACT AFTER TRANSFERS
CITY COCNTY COCNTY COUNTY COUNTY CITY CITY
TRANSFER PAYMENT: TRANSFER PAYMENT : TOTAL ANNUAL ctMJLATIVE
YR 0.5 0.5 DEPICIT OFFSBT 3\ SURPLUS SHARE TRANSFERS IMPACT IMPACT
1 ($49,302) $194,130 $49,302 $4,345 $53,646 $4,345 $4,345
2 ($166,064 ) $474,593 $166,064 $9,256 $175,320 $9,256 $13,601
3 ($347,215) $728,039 $347,215 $11,425 $358,639 $11,425 $25,025
. ($525,560) $1,008,729 $525,560 $14,495 $540,055 $14,495 $39,521
5 ($658,121) $1,308,541 $658,121 $19,513 $677,633 $19,513 $59,033
. ($763,075) $1,628,517 $763,075 $25,963 $789,038 $25,963 $84,996
7 ($932,260) $1,882,992 $932,260 $28,522 $960,781 $28,522 $113,518
8 ($1,081,715) $2,160,689 $1,081,715 $32,369 $1,114,084 $32,369 $145,888
. ($1,216,970 ) $2,353,638 $1,216,970 $34,100 $1,251,070 $34,100 $179,988
10 ($1,305,431) $2,645,220 $1,305,431 $40,194 $1,345,625 $40,194 $220,181
11 ($1,338,412) $2,849,261 $1,338,412 $45,325 $1,383,737 $45,325 $265,507
12 ($1,435,658) $2,973,395 $1,435,658 $46,132 $1,481,790 $46,132 $311,639
13 ($1,433,111) $3,108,004 $1,433,111 $50,247 $1,483,358 $50,247 $361,886
1. ($1,480,265) $3,173,470 $1,480,265 $50,796 $1,531,061 $50,796 $412,682
15 ($1,476,420) $3,277,248 $1,476,420 $54,025 $1,530,444 $54,025 $466,707
I. ($538,046) $3,520,526 $538,046 $89,474 $627,520 $89,474 $556,181
17 ($515,936) $3,622,902 $515,936 $93,209 $609,145 $93,209 $649,390
18 ($331,354) $3,693,583 $331,354 $100,867 $432,220 $100,867 $750,257
19 ($146,940) $3,731,041 $146,940 $107,523 $254,463 $107,523 $857,780
20 $91,848 $3,791,785 $0 $370 $370 $92,218 $949,997
21 $423,406 $3,871,438 $0 $0 $423,406 $1,373,403
22 $815,427 $3,939,094 $0 $0 $815,427 $2,188,830
23 $1,103,794 $4,010,210 $0 $0 $1,103,794 $3,292,624
2' $1,614,439 $4,105,509 $0 $0 $1,614,439 $4,907,062
25 $2,128,490 $4,224,642 $0 $0 $2,128,490 $7,035,552
2. $2,373,100 $4,279,214 $0 $0 $2,373,100 $9,408,652
27 $2,319,946 $4,293,280 $0 $0 $2,319,946 $11,128,597
28 $2,266,791 $4,307,346 $0 $0 $2,266,791 $13,995,388
2. $2,213,637 $4,321,412 $0 $0 $2,213,637 $16,209,025
30 $2,160,492 $4,335,471 $0 $0 $2,160,492 $18,369,507
$15,741,850 $858,150 $16,600,000
It?/j- 1.0
---,-_...~ .-.,.-
----"- ._~ ....----
(ID\M~~1r
AGREEMENT BETWEEN COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
ANO CITY OF CHULA VISTA
REGARDING TERMS OF OTAY RANCH ANNEXATION TO CHULA VISTA
INCLUDING PROPERTY TAX TRANSFER AGREEMENT
This Agreement dated this day of , I996, by and between
the County of San Diego, a political-SUbdivision of the State of California,
and the City of Chula Vista, a municipal corporation of the State of
California provides as follows:
RECITALS
A. Revenue and Taxation Code Section 99 requires the negotiation of any
exchange of property tax revenues occasioned by jurisdictional changes between
the agencies affected. Under such circumstances the Board of Supervisors is
authorized to negotiate such property tax revenue exchanges on behalf of the
County and of affected special districts.
B. The Otay Ranch project has been jointly planned by the City of Chula
Vista and the County of San Diego. The City and County jointly developed a
fiscal impact model known as the "Fiscal Impact of New Development (FIND)"
Model.
C. Both the City of Chula Vista and County of San Diego have mutually
determined that all of the area within the Otay Ranch shall be excluded from
coverage under the Master Property Tax Transfer Agreement [County, Nov. 20,
1984 (17); City of Chula Vista, Nov. 27, 1984 (#11852)].
D. The Board of Supervisors has negotiated with Chula Vista and special
districts to determine an equitable exchange of property tax revenues
applicable to the "western parcel," the "inverted l" and the "Mary Patrick
Birch Estate Ranch House" of Otay Ranch (Exhibit A attached hereto).
E. County and City have negotiated and entered an agreement entitled
"Agreement Between the County of San Diego and the City of Chula Vista
regarding Otay Ranch Annexation and Operation of Otay landfill ("Otay landfill
Agreement".) The Otay landfill Agreement is on file with the Clerk of the
Board of Supervisors as Document No.
NOW THEREFORE, COUNTY AND CITY AGREE AS FOllOWS:
Section 1. DEFINITIONS. The following terms shall have the following
meanings for purposes of this Agreement.
"Affected Territory" includes all lands within the boundaries of Exhibit A,
attached hereto, that has been annexed to the City by the close of any given
Subject Fiscal Year, said years defined below.
"City" shall mean the City of Chula Vista.
"City Operating Deficit" shall mean City revenues minus City expenditures
within the Affected Territory as determined by FIND, with any Developer
Contribution to the City counted as a revenue. In assessing City and County
/ u'/l-.2.J
lID 00 ill ~1f
-2-
expenditures for the Affected Territory, service costs shall not exceed the
respective Citywide or Countywide average cost as based on the service level
provided to residents throughout the City or County.
"Contract Officers" shall mean one employee of the County designated in
writing by the County Chief Administrative Officer, and one employee of the
City designated in writing by the City Manager, authorized to make certain
specified decisions pursuant to this Agreement.
"County" shall mean the County of San Diego.
"County Gross Surplus" shall mean County revenues minus County expenditures
within the Affected Territory, as determined by FIND, for a specified Subject
Fiscal Year. County Gross Surplus shall be calculated prior to and exclusive
of any Transfer Payments.
"Developer Contri but ions" shall mean any payments made by property owners or
developers to offset the fiscal impact on the City from development within the
Affected Territory. It does not include (a) payments to offset the costs of
rendering direct services, (b) payments made to cover a residual City
Operating Deficit not offset by Transfer Payments from the County because of
constraints relating to caps on annual and cumulative transfer amounts, as
detailed in Section 2, paragraph C, (c) payments made to offset City costs
which are not part of FIND, such as sewer fees, development impact fees or
park acquisition and development fees, and (d) payments made to obtain
tangible or nontangible City assets.
"Deve 1 oper Payments" shall mean any payments made by property owners or
developers to offset City and County costs of implementing this Agreement.
"FIND" shall mean the Model "Fiscal Impact of New Development" which is
described in the Service/Revenue Plan adopted by the County Board of
Supervisors on October 28, 1993 and by the City Council of Chula Vista on
October 28, 1993. The Model uses actual Citywide and Countywide expenditure,
revenue and development data to establish the marginal costs and revenues
related to residential, commercial and industrial land uses within each
jurisdiction. These Citywide and Countywide factors are in turn applied to
the specific level and mix of development occurring in the Affected Territory
on a year-by-year basis, thereby providing a representation of City and County
fiscal impacts for any given Subject Fiscal Year. The Model is dynamic in
that the marginal cost and revenue factors are updated annually. By mutual
agreement of City and County Contract Officers, "FIND" can be replaced with a
different fiscal model to be used for the same purpose.
"Maximum Cumulative Transfer Payments" is a limitation on total Transfer
Payments to be paid during the life of this Agreement. It is the sum of
Transfer Payments from Year One plus those in all subsequent-years.
"Maximum Transfer Payments" are limitations on the amount of Transfer Payments
to be paid for any Subject Fiscal Year pursuant to this Agreement.
IWl-;2L
w rn&~lr
-3-
"Net Combined Surplus" shall mean the sum of the surplus of the City and
County derived from within the Affected Territory, as determined by FIND. It
shall include the sum of the following: "City revenues minus City
expenditures" and "County revenues minus County expenditures."
"Running the Model" means inputing the data for the Subject Fiscal Year into a
computer, obtaining written results, and within 30 days, agreement by the
Contract Officers that the results are accurate. If results are not deemed to
be accurate due to program or data entry errors in FIND, the Model shall be
rerun and another 30 days shall be authorized for evaluating the accuracy of
the results.
"Subject Fiscal Year" is a specific fiscal year for which a FIND analysis, or
a mutually agreeable alternative fiscal analysis, is performed under the terms
of this Agreement. Unless otherwise determined by the Contract Officers, the
fiscal year shall run from July 1 of one calendar year through June 30 of the
following calendar year. Each subject fiscal year shall become known in
sequence as "Year 1," and numbered sequentially through Year 20.
"Transfer Payments" shall mean the payments made by the County to the City
pursuant to the terms of this Agreement.
"Year One of this Agreement" shall be fiscal year 1997-1998, which shall be
the first Subject Fiscal Year.
Section 2. PROPERTY TAX EXCHANGE AND TRANSFER PAYMENTS.
A. This Agreement covers the geographic area known as the "western parcel,"
the "inverted L" and the "Mary Patrick Birch Estate Ranch House" of Otay
Ranch with the exclusion of the County landfill and exclusion of the
inholdings that are not a part of Otay Ranch. Exhibit A filed with the
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors as Document No. and with the
City Clerk as Document No. is the boundary of the covered area.
An informational unofficial copy of Exhibit A is attached hereto. This
Agreement is not applicable to other portions of the Otay Ranch. Other
portions of Otay Ranch may not be annexed to the City without an
additional negotiated agreement.
B. The split of all property tax revenue (including base and annual tax
increment ["ATI"]) shall be as follows: 50% of the pooled revenue of the
County and detaching special districts shall be allocated to the County
of San Diego, and 50% shall be allocated to the City of Chula Vista.
C. The County shall make Transfer Payments to the City on the following
basis:
(l)
For Subject Fiscal Years 1 through 20, the County shall make
Transfer Payments to the City to fully cover the City's Operating
Deficits as determined by FIND, subject to the constraints detailed
in Section 2 Paragraph C subparagraph (4).
1t;?/J-t3
wOO&~1f
-4-
(2) For Subject Fiscal Years 1 through 20, in addition to the Transfer
Payments in subparagraph (1) above, the County shall make additional
Transfer Payments to the City if needed to assure that the City
receives a guaranteed minimum of 3% of the Net Combined Surplus for
each Subject Fiscal Year, subject to the constraints detailed in
Section 2, paragraph C, subparagraph (4). If the City surplus
comprises 3% or more of the Net Combined Surplus in a given Subject
Fiscal Year, no Transfer Payment shall be made for that Subject
Fiscal Year.
(3) For any Subject Fiscal Year for which a Transfer Payment is required
pursuant to subparagraphs C(l) or C(2) above, seventy-five percent
(75%) of the total Transfer Payment shall consist of general funds.
The remaining twenty-five percent (25%) of the Transfer Payment may
be remitted in any combination of general fund or gas tax funds, at
the County's discretion. If gas tax funds are remitted, the
transferred funds shall be unrestricted as to use except for the
normal constraints which apply to other gas tax funds received by
the City.
(4) Subparagraphs (1), (2) and (3) above are subject to the following
restrictions:
(a)
No Transfer Payments shall be required for fiscal years other
than Subject Fiscal Years 1 through 20.
Annual Maximum Transfer Payments for Subject Fiscal Years 1-3
of this Agreement shall not exceed $400,000; for Subject Fiscal
Years 4-6 shall not exceed $1,000,000; for Subject Fiscal Years
7-8 shall not exceed $1,300,000; for Subject Fiscal Years 9-11
shall not exceed $1,500,000; and for Subject Fiscal Years 12-20
shall not exceed $1,700,000.
(b)
(c)
Maximum Cumulative Transfer Payments shall not exceed
$16,600,000.
(d)
The County will not make any Transfer Payment of any amount in
excess of 67% of the County Gross Surplus for any Subject
Fiscal Year.
(e)
For any given Subject Fiscal Year, the caps on County Transfer
Payments specified in subparagraphs (a) through (d) above may
prohibit the County from fully offsetting a City Operating
Deficit or from fully providing for the minimum 3% City share
of the Net Combined Surplus. If this occurs, there shall be no
carryover of the County obligation to offset this residual
deficit nor to provide for the unmet minimum share of the
surplus in subsequent years. Similarly, if the City achieves a
surplus in any given Subject Fiscal Year, there shall be no
carryover of that surplus amount as an offset against County
obligations to offset City Operating Deficits occurring in
/4711-2 tf
OOOO&~TI
-5-
future years nor as an offset to provide for the minimum City
share of the Net Combined Surplus in those future years.
(5) The Maximum Transfer Payments and Maximum Cumulative Transfer
Payments in subsection (4) above as well as the cap on County costs
in Section 3.B below shall be adjusted annually during the term of
this Agreement, with the first adjustment to be made in February
1997. The adjustment will be based on the percentage change in the
Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers for the San Diego Area,
as published in February by the U.S. Department of labor, Bureau of
labor Statistics, for the preceding calendar year. If the U.S.
Department of labor ceases to publish this CPI index or changes its
publication cycle, the City and County Contract Officers will meet
and confer in good faith to determine an equivalent replacement CPI
index or modify the timing of the annual adjustment to achieve an
equivalent annual adjustment.
Section 3. TRANSFER PAYMENTS. The County and City agree that the Transfer
Payments described in Section 2 above shall be in accordance with all of the
following provisions and conditions:
A. For Subject Fiscal Years 1 through 20, the FIND Model shall be run
to determine the amount of any Transfer Payments. The FIND Model
will be run during the fiscal year following the Subject Fiscal
Year, so that actual Citywide and Countywide revenues and
expenditures can be used for the Subject Fiscal Year.
Unless changed by mutual consent of the Contract Officers, the
underlying methodology and assumptions used in the FIND Model
described in the Service/Revenue Plan, dated January 21, 1993, and
adopted by the County Board of Supervisors and City Council on
October 28, 1993, shall be used in Running the Model, with the
exceptions or specific stipulations detailed below:
(I)
The FIND Model shall include the budget categories "County
Rents and leases" and "County Capital Department" as variable
costs, as per the County-preferred methodology described on
pages 75 through 78 of the "Otay Ranch Service/Revenue Plan"
dated January 21, 1993.
(2)
Wherever verifiable data for significant revenue sources is
readily available for the Affected Territory, that data shall
be substituted for the FIND Model estimates. It is anticipated
that:
(a)
Revenue generated by sales tax within the Affected
Territory shall be based on actual figures for the Subject
Fiscal Year provided by the City Finance Department and
based on data obtained from the City's sales tax
consultant.
~&-25
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
lID OOill~u
-6-
(b)
Revenue generated by property tax within the Affected
Territory shall be based on figures provided by the County
Auditor.
(c)
Revenue generated by the property transfer tax within the
Affected Territory shall be based on figures provided by
the County Treasurer.
(3)
For more minor revenue Sources or when verifiable data is not
readily available for the Affected Territory, revenue data used
to establish the marginal revenue factors applied to the
Affected Territory shall be based upon actual Citywide and
Countywide revenue data for the Subject Fiscal Year.
Expenditure data used to establish the Citywide and Countywide
marginal cost factors applied to the Affected Territory shall
be based upon actual Citywide and CountYWide expenditure data
for the Subject Fiscal Year.
(4)
Population estimates relating to the Affected Territory shall
be based on the number of occupied dwelling units as of
December 31 of the Subject Fiscal Year, to be provided by the
City Planning Department.
Other development inputs relating to the Affected Territory
(e.g., commercial acreage) shall be based on actual development
certified for occupancy as of December 31 of the Subject Fiscal
Year, to be provided by the City Building and Housing
Department.
(5)
(6)
If quality data is not available from the sources specified in
sUbparagraphs (2), (3), (4) and (5) above, the Contract
Officers may agree to derive the data from another source.
The FIND Model shall be modified each year to incorporate
changes in local, State or Federal revenue allocations or
changes in City or County tax rates for the Subject Fiscal
Years in which such changes become effective.
The FIND Model shall be modified to correct for errors in City
or County inputs as Soon as practical after such errors are
identified.
Upon mutual consent of the Contract Officers or their
designees, other minor adjustments to the FIND Model may be
made as required.
Upon mutual consent of the Contract Officers, the FIND Model
may be replaced on an interim or ongoing basis with another
fiscal model or simpler methodology.
/~/l- .26
~OOill~~
-7-
(II) The County Board of Supervisors and Chula Vista City Council
may, at any time, agree to discontinue the annual fiscal
analysis described in this Section upon mutually agreeable
terms.
B. The County's annual staff costs to monitor, review, construct, and
in all ways participate in all runs of the FIND Model shall be paid
by an outside party. If the County's costs are not paid in full by
Developer Payments, the City of Chula Vista may pay these costs from
City funds. The County shall not make any Transfer Payment for any
Subject Fiscal Year for which the County's staff costs are not paid
by an annual date to be mutually agreed upon after the first year of
this analysis. The County agrees that it will not request
reimbursement for staff costs exceeding $10,000 per year, except
that in the first year the Model is run the cap shall be $30,000 and
in the second year the Model is run the cap shall be $15,000. These
maximum amounts of staff cost reimbursement will increase annually
in accordance with the provisions in Section 2.C (5) above and may
also be adjusted by mutual consent of the Contract Officers. The
maximum payments to the County for its staff costs for a particular
Subject Fiscal Year may also be increased in accordance with the
provisions of the following paragraph.
For any Subject Fiscal Year, if the City is reimbursed by Developer
Payments for the costs of implementing this Agreement in an amount
exceeding the above stated caps, the County shall be eligible for a
similar reimbursement amount if justified by their expenditure of
time and materials. In determining whether the City is reimbursed
by Developer Payments for the costs of implementing this Agreement
in an amount exceeding the above stated caps, the following types of
reimbursements shall be excluded: costs for contracting with a
third party to run the FIND Model, or an agreed upon alternative
model, including contractor charges associated with data entry,
programming changes, printing reports, or developing a new or
revised model.
All City or County requests for reimbursable expenses related to
this Agreement shall be made in writing to the City Contract Officer
and shall specify the staff person involved, the work done, the
hours spent, the hourly charge rate and the associated overhead cost
using the jurisdiction's applicable full cost recovery rate. The
City, County, and developer have the right to audit all City and
County records of time spent on reimbursable activities.
It is assumed that the cost of Running the Model shall be paid by
Developer Payments. The County will not be responsible for any costs
of Running the Model whether or not developer payments are actually
collected for that purpose.
C. The County agrees to make the Transfer Payment within 90 days after
the Model is run. The specific annual timing of Running the Model
/b~t7
rnoom~u
-8-
shall be determined after the first year the Model is run, with the
understanding that the Model will be run and revenues transferred in
each fiscal year for the preceding Subject Fiscal Year.
Section 4. MISCELLANEOUS.
A. Resolution of Disagreements Regarding FIND Application. In the
event of a disagreement between the parties regarding the data to be
processed in the agreed upon FIND Model, or the appropriate
application of such FIND Model to such data, the parties agree to
attempt, in good faith, to resolve such disagreement in accordance
with the provisions set forth below:
(1) Meet and Confer. The parties shall state their respective
positions on the disagreement in writing and exchange such
statements. Thereafter, at times and locations mutually
agreeable to the parties, the parties shall meet and confer to
attempt to resolve their disagreement. If the parties are not
able to resolve their disagreement by the date falling 30
calendar days after their first meeting on the subject, unless
the parties otherwise agree, the matter shall be submitted for
non-binding mediation in accordance with the terms and
conditions set forth below.
(2) Mediation.
(a) ADDointment/Oualifications of Mediator. In the event that
the parties are unable to resolve their disagreement by
meeting and conferring among themselves as provided above,
the parties shall meet to select a mediator who will
attempt to resolve the disagreement. Unless otherwise
agreed by the parties, the mediator shall have at least
ten years combined experience in financial analysis and
contract interpretation. In the event that the parties
are unable to agree on a mediator by the date falling 10
calendar days after the expiration of the meet and confer
period, the parties shall petition the presiding Judge of
the Superior Court of the County of San Diego to appoint a
mediator who possesses the above-described qualifications.
If the Presiding Judge is unable or unwilling to appoint a
mediator, the parties will meet and confer in good faith
to identify an alternate third party to appoint a
mediator.
(b) Conduct of Mediation. The mediation shall occur at times
and locations agreed upon by the parties. The parties
shall submit to the mediator their respective statements
on the disagreement and any and all other relevant
documents or evidence supporting their position that each
may choose to provide. Neither party, nor the mediator,
shall have any discovery powers in the proceeding. The
/68-t8
wOO&~TI
-9-
mediator shall meet with the parties and attempt to
resolve their disagreement by facilitating discussions
between them. The mediator shall not take a position on
the dispute unless requested to do so by both parties. In
the event that mediation process does not resolve the
disagreement by the date falling 15 days after the
appointment of the mediator, unless extended by the mutual
agreement of the parties, the mediation process shall
terminate. All discussions at the mediation shall be kept
confidential and shall not be discoverable in any
subsequent proceedings. Each party shall bear their own
costs in the mediation and the parties shall share equally
in any and all costs charged by the mediator. Any costs
to be borne by the County under this Section shall not be
subject to the provisions of Section 3B hereof.
(c) Non-bindino Nature of Process. Although the parties are
required to participate in the above-described dispute
resolution process in good faith, neither party shall be
obligated to agree to any particular proposed resolution
to the disagreement at issue, whether proposed by the
other party or the mediator, and each party reserves the
right, in its sole discretion, to reject any or all
resolutions that are proposed during the process. In the
event that a resolution of the disagreement at issue is
not reached, each party reserves the right to pursue any
and all remedies available at law or in equity with
respect thereto.
(d) ADDlicabilitv. This provision described in Section 4A(2)
of this Agreement shall apply only to disagreements over
the subject matter specifically set forth in Section 4A.
In the event of a disagreement over some other subject
matter, the parties shall not be obligated to engage in
this process, and the parties reserve the right to pursue
any and all remedies available at law or in equity with
respect thereto.
B. Jurisdiction and Venue.
The parties agree that this contract shall be governed by the laws
of the State of California, and in the event that litigation is
instituted by either party, it shall be instituted in the State of
California, and in the court of appropriate jurisdiction in San
Diego County.
C. Entire Aoreement.
This Agreement represents the entire agreement of the parties as to
the subject matter herein addressed.
1~#-29
wOOill~u
-10-
D. Severabilitv.
If any non-material prOVlSlon of this Agreement is for any reason
deemed to be invalid and unenforceable, the invalidity or
unenforceability of such provision shall not~affect any of the
remaining provisions of this Agreement that shall be enforced as if
such invalid or unenforceable provision has not be contained herein.
E. Not i ce.
Any notice required or permitted to be provided under this Agreement
shall be provided by first class mail, postage prepaid, to the
following persons:
City: City Manager, with copies to City Attorney and Contract
Officer for this Agreement, City of Chula Vista, 276
Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, California 91910
County: Chief Administrative Officer, with copies to County
Counsel and Contract Officer for this Agreement, County
Administration Center, 1600 Pacific Highway, San Diego,
California 92101
or such other address either party provides or requires for the
providing of notice.
F. Eaual ParticiDation in Draftina.
This Agreement shall be interpreted and construed reasonably and
neither for nor against either party, regardless of the degree to
which either party participated in its drafting.
Section 5. LANDFILL AND CONTINGENCY OF THIS AGREEMENT.
A. The Otay Landfill shall be excluded from coverage from any property
tax agreement previously adopted by the County Board of Supervisors
and by the City Council of Chula Vista. The includes the "Master
Property Tax Transfer Agreement" adopted by the County on
November 20, 1984 (17) and by the City on November 27, 1984
(#11852). The landfill cannot be annexed to the City unless and
until a subsequent property tax agreement is adopted covering this
property.
B. This Agreement is contingent upon adoption by both the City and
County of the companion agreement "Agreement Between the County of
San Diego and the City of Chula Vista Regarding Otay Ranch ~
Annexation and Operation of Otay Landfill." This Agreement is also
contingent upon LAFCo approval, by August 5, 1996, of an amended
sphere of influence for Chula Vista that incudes all territory shown
as "areas subject to 1996 Otay Ranch Property Tax Agreement" on
/~/f- .10
lID 00 ill ~ lJ
-ll-
Exhibit A, or at least a minimum of Village III and Planning Area
18-B. If the companion agreement is not mutually adopted, or if the
City's sphere is not amended to include a minimum of Village III and
Planning Area 18-B, this Agreement shall be null and void.
C. This Agreement is also contingent upon the detachment of the County
landfill from the City in a reorganization that includes the first
annexation of territory pursuant to this Agreement.
D. Section 2 of this Agreement is contingent upon the County's
continued ability to operate the Otay Landfill as defined in the
companion agreement "Agreement Between the County of San Diego and
the City of Chula Vista Regarding Otay Ranch Annexation and
Operation of Otay Landfill." If the Remedies for a Major Breach in
the latter agreement are to be imposed, those remedies shall be
implemented and shall supersede the provisions of Sections 2 and 3
of this Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF THE PARTIES HERETO HAVE SET THEIR HAND ON THE DATE AND
TIME FIRST ABOVE INDICATED.
County of San Diego by
City of Chula Vista by
BOARD02\OTAY.AGR;tf
/d7I9- ~/
fFlLAI~II~IIII~I(Qj !FO[fF<Q>!F01r
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
REVISED REPORT
DATE: April 17, 1996
TO: Board of Supervisors
SUBJECT: SPHERE OF INFLUENCE/ANNEXATION, PROPERTY TAX AGREEMENT AND LANDFILL
AGREEMENT FOR OTAY RANCH (Districts 1 and 2)
SUMMARY:
Issue
Should the County Board of Supervisors reconsider its positions on the
"peninsula" area of the Chula Vista Sphere of Influence (Sphere); and the
phasing of potential annexation areas affecting the Otay Ranch project?
The Board's present positions are to exclude all of the "peninsula" area
from the Sphere which includes.the County landfill, Village 3, Nelson-
Sloan Quarry, small ownerships in the southwestern portion and the Otay
River Valley area proposed for regional park. The Board has also
recommended that annexation should be phased pursuant to the development
phasing approved as part of Board Policy 1-109, Subcommittee and Plans to
Guide DeveloDment of the Otav Ranch Proiect.
An agreement on the negotiated exchange of property tax revenues for Otay
Ranch is needed before LAFCo can consider any annexations within Otay
Ranch. Both the City of Chula Vista and County agreed that the Master
Property Tax Agreement would not apply to this project, and that a
special agreement would be negotiated. On September 15, 1995, the Board
appointed Supervisor Greg Cox and Supervisor Bill Horn as the Ad Hoc
Board Committee for Otay Ranch property tax negotiations.
In the course of property tax negotiations as well as during the
deliberations on sphere of influence, the boundaries to be covered by
this agreement became an issue. Specifically, the County has concerns
about the annexation of the remaining portion of the Otay Landfill
because of potential interference by the City with ongoing landfill
operations. To ameliorate these concerns, a separate landfill agreement
has been proposed. This landfill agreement ties into the property tax
agreement with severe financial penalties to the City for interference
with landfill use.
Alternatives:
1. Take one of the following actions on the "peninsula" portion of the
Sphere proposal and direct the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) to
transmit that recommendation to the LAFCo:
(a)
Reaffirm the Board's position as stated on September 20, 1995
(1), (2) which excludes the County landfill; Village 3 mixed-
/~I?- J2
000001APR 17%
SUBJECT: SPHERE OF INFLUENCE/ANNEXATION, PROPERTY TAX AGREEMENT AND LANDFILL
AGREEMENT FOR OTAY RANCH
use area; Nelson-Sloan Rock Quarry; and the Otay River Valley
area proposed for regional park acquisition
(Attachment 1); OR
(b) Modify the Board's previous position to approve the City of
Chula Vista recommendation which includes all of the
"peninsula" in the proposed Sphere (Attachment 2); OR
(c) Modify the Board's position to approve the LAFCo staff
recommendation which includes all of the areas of the
"peninsula", except the County landfill which would be
designated a SDecial Studv Area (Attachment 3).
2. Take one of the following actions on the annexation process:
(a) Reaffirm the Board's position as stated on December 14, 1994
(9), that annexation of the Otay Valley parcel should be phased
the same way as development will be phased under the Villaoe
Phasino Plan (Attachment 4); OR
(b) Modify the Board's position and approve the City of Chula Vista
recommendation which allows all of the Otay Valley parcel areas
within the Sphere to be annexed at one time.
3. Take one of the following actions on the property tax exchange
agreement:
(a) If the Board is willing to adopt a property tax agreement that
includes all of the western territories within the Chula Vista
sphere of influence including Village 3,
Approve and authorize execution by the Clerk of the Board of
the AGREEMENT BETWEEN COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO AND CITY OF CHULA
VISTA REGARDING TERMS OF OTAY RANCH ANNEXATION TO CHULA VISTA
INCLUDING PROPERTY TAX TRANSFER AGREEMENT (Attachment 5).
(b) If the Board retains the previous County position on the Chula
Vista sphere of influence and wishes to reinforce that position
by retaining those boundaries in the property tax agreement,
Direct the CAO to return to negotiations with Chula Vista on a
. property tax exchange agreement for the County-preferred sphere
of influence boundaries.
4. Upon receipt, approve and authorize execution by the Clerk of the
Board of the AGREEMENT B~EEN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO AND THE CITY
OF CHULA VISTA REGARDING OTAY RANCH ANNEXATION AND OPERATION OF OTAY
LANDFILL (Attachment 6).
- 2 -
NJl- J3
000002 AP1I17%
SUBJECT: SPHERE OF INFLUENCE/ANNEXATION, PROPERTY TAX AGREEMENT AND LANDFILL
AGREEMENT FOR OTAY RANCH
RecOI1I11endation
CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER:
Adopt Recommendations l(c), 2(b), 3(a), and 4 above.
Advisory Statement
N/A
Fiscal Impact
No fiscal impact is anticipated from action on the Sphere or annexation
phasing. However, the project (if annexed and built according to the
plan) will result in net revenues (after costs are subtracted) ranging
from $194,000 (Year 1) to $4.3 million annually at buildout. Regarding
the tax distribution agreement, if approved, this request will result in
$0.0 current year cost, up to $1.7 million annual cost and the addition
of 0.0 staff year. Staff costs are estimated at $30,000 (FY 199B-99),
$15,000 (FY 1999-2000) and $10,000 annually thereafter for the next 2B
years, to be reimbursed by developers or by Chula Vista. The funding
source is the General Fund and the Road Fund. Attachment 7 provides
fiscal projections for the fiscal impact to the County upon annexation
and development of Otay Ranch under the proposed property tax agreement.
BACKGROUND:
On March 20, 1996 (3), the Board of Supervisors continued this item to allow
staff to complete negotiations with Chula Vista on the Landfill Agreement.
The Board also authorized a General Plan Amendment and Rezone of the
incorporated portion of the landfill to allow it to be detached from the City
of Chula Vista.
SPHERE OF INFLUENCE STATUS (RECOMMENDATION #1)
On February 5, 1996, LAFCo took action to approve the Chula Vista Sphere of
Influence (Sphere) which would align the Sphere on the: 1) Northern Boundarv
to include the "inverted L" planning area and the adjoining Watson property;
and 2) Eastern Boundarv to include the Upper and Lower Otay Lakes Reservoir
and a 50 acre parcel immediately north of the Lakes, but exclude the Resort
Planning Area. This action supports the Board of Supervisors position for
these areas as stated on September 20, 1995 (1) and (2). LAFCo, however,
deferred action on the Southern and Western Boundarv which is commonly
referred to as the "peninsula" and includes the County Otay Landfill; Village
3 mixed-use area; the Nelson-Sloan Rock Quarry; small private ownerships in
the southwestern area; and the Otay River Valley area proposed for regional
park acquisition. LAFCo continued the hearings on the "peninsula" until
April 1, 1996, so as to provide an opportunity for the for City of Chula Vista
to meet with those property owners opposing inclusion in the Sphere. In
addition, LAFCo expressed hope that the County and City would utilize this
period to reconcile remaining differences on the Sphere, tax distribution and
- 3 -
/r;4/- 3'1-
OOOOOJAPR 17%
SUBJECT: SPHERE OF INFLUENCE/ANNEXATION, PROPERTY TAX AGREEMENT AND LANDFill
AGREEMENT FOR OTAY RANCH
the operation of the County landfill. At this time four alternative Sphere
alignments for the "peninsula" area remain under discussion:
o Count v Recommendation: Excludes all of the areas within the "peninsula"
from the Sphere. These areas are the County Otay landfill; Village 3
mixed-use area; Nelson-Sloan Rock Quarry; small private ownerships in the
southwestern portion; and the Otay River Valley area proposed for
regional park acquisition (Attachment 1);
o Chula Vista Recommendation: Includes all of the areas within the
"peninsula" in the Sphere (Attachment 2);
o lAFCo Staff Recommendation: Includes all of the areaS within the
"peninsula" in the Sphere, except the County Otay Landfill area which
would be designated a SDecial Study Area. This alternative allows the
City and County to continue negotiations over the long-term operation of
the facility. If an agreement is reached, this area could be
reconsidered for inclusion in the Sphere and annexation (Attachment 3).
o Results of Citv/County Discussions: Includes all of the areas within the
"peninsula" in the sphere, and includes the entire portion of the County
Otay Landfill (not just the unincorporated portion) as a Soecial Study
Area. In addition, when the first annexation within Otay Ranch is
processed, the City would include the detachment of the existing City
part of the landfill as part of the reorganization.
ANNEXATION PHASING (RECOMMENDATION 121
lAFCo also stated their intention to consider the issues of annexation phasing
at the next scheduled hearing. The Board has recommended to lAFCo
[December 14, 1994 (9)] that annexation of the Otay Valley parcel should be
phased the same way that development applications are required to be phased in
the Vi11aae Phasina Plan that envisions the Otay Valley parcel to be built in
four phases.
The first phase includes Villages 1 and 5 adjacent to Telegraph Canyon Road.
Development applications for these villages have been filed with the City of
Chula Vista as well as annexation applications to lAFCo. The second phase
includes Villages 2, 3 and 6 which are located west of Wolfe Canyon. The
third phase will include Villages 4, 7 and 11 which will complete all
development west of SR 125. The final phase four will include Village 8,
Villages 9 and 10 (which are the potential university sites) and Village 12,
the Eastern Urban Center.
Otay Ranch is anticipated to be built over a 30 year time span. The Vi11aae
Phasina Plan was intended to serve as a guideline for the orderly development
of the Otay Ranch project and avoid discontinuous, "leap frog" or otherwise
premature development. It was also intended to serve as a guide for the
orderly and feasible provision of urban services and facilities based on an
- 4 -
/ t:;#'-J.5
000004 APR 1796
SUBJECT: SPHERE OF INFLUENCE/ANNEXATION, PROPERTY TAX AGREEMENT AND LANDFILL
AGREEMENT FOR OTAY RANCH
anticipated rate of market absorption. The entire Otay Valley parcel will
contain a planned build-out of 18,800-21,600 dwelling units and a population
of 54,000-62,000 people in addition to the East Urban Center. Because LAFCo
will assess the demonstrated need for services and the City's ability to
provide them at the time of need, annexation phasing has continued to be a
significant issue to that agency.
The alternative position for the Board is to concur with the Chu1a Vista
recommendation that the entire Otay Valley parcel (as well as the "inverted L
area") be considered for annexation at one time and concurrently processed
with their current Specific Plan development proposal for Villages 1 and 5. A
single annexation of the Otay parcel would facilitate comprehensive long-range
land use and financial planning because it will allow the city to establish
comprehensive Development Impact Fees or other funding mechanisms for the
entire area. It would also facilitate advance planning; would enhance
community and property owner communication and participation during
development review; would be an early revenue source (property tax) for the
City; and would eliminate redundant LAFCo fees and processing. Finally, if
the Board agrees to wording in the landfill agreements stating that the County
will not oppose annexation of the "peninsula", then the County loses its
ability to influence LAFCo on later phases of annexation anyway.
The Otay Ranch Subcommittee (Supervisors Jacob and Cox) met on March 12, 1996
to discuss these Sphere and Annexation issues. The Subcommittee reviewed the
various options.
PROPERTY TAX AGREEMENT (RECOMMENDATION #3J
The Ad Hoc Otay Ranch Committee (Supervisors Cox and Horn) met on March 4,
1996 to discuss the property tax issues. The Committee reviewed staff's
proposed tax agreement.
The Otay Ranch General Development Plan specifies that the Master Property Tax
Agreement that covers routine annexations of cities does not apply to any
property within Otay Ranch. This means that until the County and City reach
agreement on the future distribution of property tax revenues, LAFCo may not
consider any annexations in the affected territory.
The Master Property Tax Agreement covers routine, relatively minor projects.
Normally the County and cities share property tax revenue in proportion to the
historic City/County share of property tax within the pre-existing City
boundary. Fiscal impact statements evaluating County costs and revenues are
not normally performed on annexations. However, due to the size of this
project, extensive work has been done analyzing the fiscal impact of Otay
Ranch on both the City and County.
- 5 -
/6~J6
000005 APR 1796
SUBJECT: SPHERE OF INFLUENCE/ANNEXATION, PROPERTY TAX AGREEMENT AND LANDFILL
AGREEMENT FOR OTAY RANCH
"Fiscal Imoact of New Develooment" (FIND) Model
Staff from the City, County, and developer worked for several years with the
assistance of a consultant to build a model to estimate the fiscal impact of
the development of Otay Ranch over 30 years. The model, known as the Fiscal
Impact of New Development ("FIND") model, uses the County and City budget as
its base. It uses a "marginal cost" methodology. The model identifies the
"variable" costs and revenues of City and County government and determines
what types of land uses create the service demand or produce the revenue
(e.g., social services costs are attributable only to residential development,
while law enforcement costs are generated by residential, commercial, and
industrial land uses). Costs and revenues are also separated into "regional"
and "unincorporated area only."
The model has been run several times for various land use plans. The
consistent results have been that the County receives a large revenue surplus
from the Otay Ranch development, while the City is in a deficit position for
the beginning years of the project, evolving into a positive financial
position as the commercial areas are built later in the project.
Neaotiated Aareement
Based on the model results, the City and County entered into property tax
negotiations. It was clear that the City could not be expected to subsidize a
huge revenue loss while the County generated a sizeable surplus. Although the
General Development Plan stated that the developer would cover any operating
deficits, the magnitude of the deficits make it infeasible for any developer
to cover such sizeable amounts. It became clear that for the development to
occur at all, it would be necessary for the County to relinquish some of its
usual property tax share.
The property tax share should be set once and kept constant. Because the
City's deficit is temporary, it was not reasonable to set the property tax
rate at the City's worst case, because then the County would permanently
relinquish much more revenue than the City needed. In order to deal with the
temporary nature of the City's fiscal needs, the property tax rate was
negotiated at a level acceptable to both parties as a long-term rate. The
parties agreed on a 50-50 split, that is, of the amount of property tax
available, half would go to the County and half to the City. (The source of
property tax available is from the County and detaching special districts.
The districts' shares are not significant because the flood control and
library shares are very small, and the Rural Fire District only serves a small
portion of the annexing area, the "inverted L.")
To deal with the City's short-term needs, the parties agreed that the County
would make "transfer" payments to the City to cover the City's deficit and to
additionally guarantee the City a minimum share of 3% of any surpluses within
the annexed areas. These transfer payments would run for a maximum of 20
years, starting in fiscal year 97-98, and would be limited in total dollar
- 6 -
I&/J- 37
000006 APR 17%
SUBJECT: SPHERE OF INFLUENCE/ANNEXATION, PROPERTY TAX AGREEMENT AND LANDFILL
AGREEMENT FOR OTAY RANCH
value to $16.5 million, and would be further limited to 67 percent of the
County's total surplus. Revenues and costs would be updated annually using
the FIND model. County staff costs for participating in the model run would
be fully covered by either the developer or the City.
Justification for ProDertv Tax Exchanae
This property tax agreement is more favorable to the City of Chula Vista than
the normal Master Property Tax Transfer Agreement. However, there are unusual
circumstances that the CAO believes justify this recommendation, as follows:
o Based on the FIND Model, the County will receive a substantial excess of
revenue even after all expenses are covered.
o The Otay Ranch has been jointly planned by the City of Chula Vista and
the County.
o The property tax agreement is contingent upon the City entering into the
Landfill Agreement. Part of the Otay Landfill is already within the City
boundaries. The Landfill Agreement provides guarantees to protect
operation of the Otay Landfill from interference by Chula Vista.
Summarv of the ProDosed Aareement
In summary, the property tax agreement has the following attributes:
o All property tax revenues available to negotiate (both current revenue
and future growth) would be divided 50-50.
o The "FIND" model would be run each fiscal year for the preceding fiscal
year, with the County making the transfer payments to Chula Vista
(subject to applicable caps):
o The amount needed for the City to break even; plus
o An additional amount which will provide the City with a guaranteed
3% of the overall surplus.
o These transfer payments could be made with general funds or, at the
County's option, up to 25% could be made with gas tax revenues.
o Caps on County payments would be as follows:
o The County would not pay more than $16.6 million over the life of
the agreement; and
o The County would not pay more than 67% of its own surplus in any
given year; and
- 7 -
/hfl-.38
000007APR 17%.
SUBJECT: SPHERE OF INFLUENCE/ANNEXATION, PROPERTY TAX AGREEMENT AND LANDFILL
AGREEMENT FOR OTAY RANCH
o Payments would run for a maximum of 20 years starting in fiscal year
1997-98; and
o Payments are capped at $400,000 for years 1-3; at $1,000,000 for
years 4-6; at $1,300,000 for years 7-8; at $1,500,000 for years 9-
11; and at $1.7 million for years 12-20.
o County staff costs to annually participate in the fiscal analysis is
estimated at a maximum of $30,000 in the first year, $15,000 in the
second year and $10,000 thereafter. These costs would be paid by the
developers or by Chula Vista, along with the costs of the consultants.
o The boundaries of the territory covered by the tax agreement:
o This agreement must describe the territory covered by this
agreement. Chula Vista staff has indicated that they will only
recommend this agreement if it covers all of the western parcel
(including Village 3).
o The agreement does not cover the resort or eastern parts of
Otay Ranch which cannot be annexed unless and until a separate
agreement is reached for those geographic areas.
o The agreement does not cover Nelson-Sloan Quarry or the other
properties in the vicinity that were not covered by the Otay
Ranch General Development Plan. All of those properties would
be annexed under the terms of the Master Property Tax Transfer
Agreement with the exception of the Otay Landfill.
o There is a provision in the Otay Landfill Agreement (see below)
that excludes it from coverage under any existing property tax
agreement. Thus, it can never be annexed to Chula Vista in the
future unless and until the County would agree to a property
tax exchange agreement (even though there is no property tax
revenue generated, an agreement is still required under State
law) .
Landfi 11 Issues
The County and the Solid Waste Authority have substantial concerns regarding
the potential annexation of the Otay Landfill. Based on the County's
experiences with the San Marcos Landfill, the County recognizes that once
landfills are within cities, cities can take numerous types of actions that
jeopardize the continued operation of landfills such as imposition of host
fees or restricting road access to the landfill.
The Otay Landfill is already partially located within Chula Vista, with the
other portion in the area proposed for inclusion in the Chula Vista Sphere of
Influence. The problems that have been encountered in San Marcos have not
- 8 -
/6/J-.J9
000008 'APR 1796
SUBJECT: SPHERE OF INFLUENCE/ANNEXATION, PROPERTY TAX AGREEMENT AND LANDFILL
AGREEMENT FOR OTAY RANCH
occurred relative to the Otay Landfill. However, the County is concerned
about protecting future County interests in the landfill, particularly if the
remaining portion of the landfill were annexed to Chula Vista in the future.
The CAO has entered into negotiations with Chula Vista on a special agreement
regarding the landfill to provide assurances to the County that its operations
will not be jeopardized. Specifically, Chula Vista will agree to detach the
portion of the landfill that is presently in the city limits and not to annex
it in the future. They also will agree to maintain access roads in good
condition and to complete the Otay Valley Road Widening Project. In the event
of breach of the agreement, which would occur if Chula Vista fails to continue
any of the above agreements or imposes host fees or tolls directed at the
landfill, then: (1) the property tax exchange ratios would be modified to the
detriment of the City; (2) all transfer payments made by the County to the
City would be repaid with interest; and (3) the City would pay all landfill
closure and relocation costs.
Negotiations are still underway at the time this letter was docketed. There
were still a number of significant unresolved issues. The County's original
draft of the agreement is found in Attachment 6. It is anticipated that a
revised agreement on the landfill will be available by the time of the Board
hearing.
RelationshiD of SDhere Recommendation. ProDertv Tax Aareement and Landfill
Aareement
The Property Tax Agreement and the Landfill Agreement are both contingent upon
LAFCo approval of inclusion of the "panhandle" but not including the landfill
in Chula Vista's sphere of influence. Additionally, the Landfill Agreement
(as likely to be amended through ongoing negotiations) will require the Board
of Supervisors to support the inclusion of the "panhandle" in the sphere and
to testify at LAFCo on that position. The Property Tax Agreement is also
contingent upon the Landfill Agreement.
Chula Vista Position
The City Council has not yet acted on this proposal because LAFCo referred the
related issues of the sphere of influence boundaries back to the County for
further consideration. However, Chula Vista staff has indicated that the
property tax agreement would only be acceptable to the City if the entire
western parcel (except the landfill) is included in the area to be covered by
the agreement. The reason for their position is that Village 3 is slated for
industrial development in the City's plan. With the City's land use plan,
Village 3 generates surplus revenues for the City and thus, would increase
both the short-term and the long-term fiscal impact for the City. (The County
fiscal impact is similarly improved by the inclusion of Village 3 in the
annexation proposal.) City staff has indicated their need to obtain more
revenue from the County in the event that Village 3 is not included in the
- 9 -
/6/J- 'I-()
000009 API\ 17%
SUBJECT: SPHERE OF INFLUENCE/ANNEXATION, PROPERTY TAX AGREEMENT AND LANDFILL
AGREEMENT FOR OTAY RANCH
deal. Attachments 7 and 8 to this report provide a comparison of the fiscal
impact on the City and the County with and without Village 3 included.
Respectfully submitted,
GARY R. STEPHANY
Chief Administrative Officer (Acting)
By4~
LARI S~EEHAN
Deputy Chief Administrative Officer
cc: Dennis Verrilli, DPLU, MS 0650
Joan Vokac, DPLU, MS 0650
Jim Griego, Auditor Controller, MS A5
Tom Webster, DPW, MS 0383
Mohammed Fakhrriddine, DPW, MS 0383
Joe Convery, LAFCO, MS A216
John Goss, City of Chula Vista, 276 4th Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910
Jim Thomson, City of Chula Vista, 276 4th Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910
Marty Chase, City of Chula Vista, 276 4th Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910
Jerry Jamriska, Otay Ranch Project Office, 315 4th Avenue, Chula Vista,
CA, 91910
Kim Kilkenny, c/o the Baldwin Company, 11975 El Camino Real #200,
San Diego, CA 92130
Greg Smith, PO Box 2786, Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067
Abel Parra, 845 East 8th Street, National City, CA 91950
I (P;J- Lf-!
)
/-
000010APR 17%
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA ITEM
INFORMATION SHEET
SUBJECT: SPHERE OF INFLUENCE/ANNEXATION, PROPERTY TAX AGREEMENT AND LANDFILL
AGREEMENT FOR OTAY RANCH
SUPV. DIST.: 1 and 2
VU1I
COUNTY COUNSEL APPROVAL: Form and Legality [X] Yes
[ ] Standard Form [] Ordinance [ ] Resolution
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER/AUDITOR REVIEW:
4 VOTES:
[ ] N/A
[ ] Yes
[] N/A
[X] Yes ;/ Ii I
[X] No e. J'UI.f7
[X] N/A
CONTRACT REVIEW PANEL: [] Approved
CONTRACT NUMBER(S): N/A
PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOARD ACTION: Previous Relevant Minute Order: March 20,
1996 (3) continued to April 17, and authorized staff to commence GPA and
Rezone on landfill property; September 20, 1995 (1),(2) adopted County
preferred boundaries for Chula Vista sphere of influence; September 19, 1995
(15) appointed Supervisors Horn and Cox to the Ad Hoc Committee to study Otay
Ranch property tax negotiations; December 14, 1994 (9) took position on
annexation phasing; October 28, 1993 adopted Otay Ranch General Development
Plan.
BOARD POLICIES APPLICABLE: Board of Supervisors Policy 1-109
CITIZEN COMMITTEE STATEMENT: N/A
CONCURRENCES: Department of Public Works ~~
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: Department of Planning and Land Use
CONTACT PERSONS:
JOAN VOKAC 694-3765 M.S. 0650
APRIL 17. 1996
MEETING DATE
BOARD02\OTAYAGR.LTR;tf
OOOOU~PR 17CH,
/~I!. L/2
~
t-
Z
w
::E
:I:
o
~
<
-
c:
'"
c::
o
c
iii
III
.c
a..
CD
o
.!!
~
-
c
CD
E
c.
o
a;
>
CD
Q
CD
CI)
ctI
.r:
a..
c:
....
CD
-
CI)-
CD
~
-
f!?
u.
-
CD
CJ
.c~
U C. en
a>-a>
a:a>CI)
-as
>- C6 .c
ca>c.
-
0>-
ca
-
o
E
oS
~CD
3:gJ
.r:.r:
1::::0..
:::J
o
U.
E
CD
-
CI)
CD CD
~~
-c.r:
c:a..
o
o
CD
en
/&8 -. '1-3
o
c:
....
CD
-
CI) CD
CDCI)
~jg
-ca..
....
.-
.r:
I-
00001.'; r,r~ 77%
ATTACHMENT 7
ANTICIPATED FISCAL IMPACTS OF
OTAY RANCH PROPERTY TAX AGREEMENT
INCLUDING ENTIRE WESTERN PARCEL
Net Fiscal Impact County
Before Transfers Transfer Payment CITY COUNTY
Year COUNTY CITY to City Net Income Net Income
1 $194,130 ($49,302) $53,647 $4,345 $140,483
2 $474,593 ($166,064) $175,320 $9,256 $299,273
3 $728,039 ($347,215) $358,639 $11,425 $369,399
4 $1,008,729 ($525,560) $540,055 $14,495 $468,674
5 $1,308,541 ($658,121) $677,633 $19,513 $630,907
,
6 $1,628,517 ($763,075) $789,038 $25,963 $839,479
7 $1,882,991 ($932,259) $960,781 $28,522 $922,210
8 $2,160,688 ($1,081,714) $1,114,083 $32,369 $1,046,605
9 $2,353,638 ($1,216,970) $1,251,070 $34,100 $1,102,568
10 $2,645,219 ($1,305,430) $1,345,624 $40,194 $1,299,595
11 $2,849,260 ($1,338,411) $1,383,737 $45,325 $1,465,524
12 $2,973,395 ($1,435,658) $1,481,790 $46,132 $1,491,605
13 $3,1 08,004 ($1,433,111) $1,483,358 $50,247 $1,624,646
14 $3,173,470 ($1,480,265) $1,531,061 $50,796 $1,642,409
15 $3,277,247 ($1,476,419) $1,530,444 $54,025 $1,746,803
16 $3,520,526 ($538,046) $627,520 $89,474 $2,893,006
17 $3,622,902 ($515,936) $609,145 $93,209 $3,013,757
18 $3,693,583 ($331,354) $432,221 $100,867 $3,261,362
19 $3,731,040 ($146,939) $254,462 $107,523 $3,476,578
20 $3,791,784 $91,848 $372 $92,220 $3,791,412
21 $3,871,437 $423,406 $0 $423,406 $3,871,437
22 $3,939,093 $815,428 $0 $815,428 $3,939,093
23 $4,010,210 $1,103,794 $0 $1,103,794 $4,010,210
24 $4,105,508 $1,614,439 $0 $1,614,439 $4,105,508
25 $4,224,641 $2,128,490 $0 $2,128,490 $4,224,641
26 $4,279,214 $2,373,100 $0 $2,373,100 $4,279,214
27 $4,293,279 $2,319,946 $0 $2,319,946 $4,293,279
28 $4,307,346 $2,266,791 $0 $2,266,791 $4,307,346
29 $4,321,411 $2,213,637 $0 $2,213,637 $4,321,411
30 $4,335,476 $2,160,483 $0 $2,160,483 $4,335,476
$89,813,911 $1,769,513 $16,600,000 $18,369,513 $73,213,911
lir9- iff:
000034 APR 17%
ATTACHMENT 8
ANTICIPATED FISCAL IMPACTS OF
OTAY RANCH PROPERTY TAX AGREEMENT
EXCLUDING "PENINSULA"
Note: Chula Vista has not agreed to this agreement.
This is provided for information only,
to demonstrate different results for different boundaries.
Net Fiscal Impacts County
Before Transfers Transfer Payments CITY COUNTY
Year COUNTY CITY to City Net Income Net Income
1 $194,130 ($49,302) $53,647 $4,345 $140,483
2 $<:74,593 ($166,064) $175,320 $9,256 $299,273
3 $728,039 ($347,215) $358,639 $11,425 $369,399
4 $1,008,729 ($525,560) $540,055 $14,495 $468,674
5 $1,308,541 ($658,121) $677 ,633 $19,513 $630,907
6 $1,628,517 ($763,075) $789,038 $25,963 $839,479
7 $1,882,991 ($932,259) $960,781 $28,522 $922,210
8 $2,160,688 ($1,081,714) $1,114,083 $32,369 $1,046,605
9 $2,346,458 ($1,224,112) $1,257,782 $33,670 $1,088,676
10 $2,635,354 ($1,351,439) $1,389,957 $38,517 $ 1 ,245,398
11 $2,832,215 ($1 ,391 ,562) $1,434,782 $43,220 $1,397,433
12 $2,953,665 ($1,527,676) $1,570,456 $42,780 $1,383,209
13 $3,081,094 ($1,532,271 ) $1,578,736 $46,465 $1,502,358
14 $3,143,875 ($1,618,292) $1,664,060 $45,767 $1,479,816
15 $3,240,473 ($1,621,589) $1,670,155 $48,567 $1,570,317
16 $3,481,067 ($722,083) $804,852 $82,770 $2,676,214
17 $3,576,263 ($707,115) $793,189 $86,074 $2,783,074
18 $3,644,259 ($561,400) $653,885 $92,486 $2,990,373
19 $3,667,356 ($391,269) $489,551 $98,283 $3,177,804
20 $3,722,732 ($230,218) $334,993 $104,775 $3,387,739
21 $3,788,024 $87,058 $29,195 $116,252 $3,758,830
22 $3,850,311 $401,344 $0 $401 ,344 $3,850,311
23 $3,907,067 $675,428 $0 $675,428 $3,907,067
24 $3,996,996 $1,108,337 $0 $1,108,337 $3,996,996
25 $4,101,769 $1,608,104 $0 $1,608,104 $4,101,769
26 $4,150,973 $1,774,979 $0 $1,774,979 $4,150,973
27 $4,165,038 $1,721,825 $0 $1,721,825 $4,165,038
28 $4,179,104 $1,668,671 $0 $1,668,671 $4,179,104
29 $4,193,170 $1,615,516 $0 $1,615,516 $4,193,170
30 $4,207,235 $1,562,362 $0 $ 1 ,562,362 $4,207,235
$88,250,725 ($5,178,711) $18,340,790 $13,162,079 $69,909,935
)Ip'}. lf5
000035 APR 17%
~I~
:---~--:
-----
~- --
- -
CI1Y OF
CHULA VISTA
MRMORANDUM
Item 9 A
Meeting Date: Apri110. 199/i
April 26, 1996
TO
The Honorable Mayor and City Council
John D. Goss, City ManagerrJ ~
Jim Thomson, Deputy City Manager U
VIA
FROM
SUBJECT
Supplemental Information Regarding Property Tax Agreement with San
Diego County for the Otay Ranch
At its April 16, 1996 meeting, the City Council considered the proposed Property Tax
Transfer Agreement with the County of San Diego for the Otay Ranch, and continued the item
to the April 30 Council meeting. Individual Council members requested further information be
provided to them either individually prior to April 30 or as a supplemental report. Staff has
been attempting to schedule meetings with the Councilmembers that had specific questions in
order to provide them with additional background information on the FIND Model and the
Property Tax Agreement, and this report is intended to provide additional supplemental
information to the Council.
Specifically, this report provides additional information regarding: (A) comparative
information on master property tax agreements in other southern California counties as well as
other property tax agreements that have been negotiated with San Diego County for other
annexations; (B) additional information on the FIND Model and its methodology; (C)
additional information on the commercial property in the parts of the Otay Ranch covered by
the proposed Property Tax Agreement; and (D) additional background information on the
proposed Developer Reserve Fund and the provisions of the General Development Plan related
to the Reserve Fund. Each of these issues is discussed below.
(A) PROPERTY TAX AGREEMENTS IN OTHER COUNTIES AND FOR OTHER
ANNEXA nONS WITHIN SAN DIEGO COUNTY
During fiscal year 1995-96, the County received approximately 21.3% of the property tax
revenue generated from the Otay Ranch properties. Approximately 18.5% went to the
County General Fund, 1.6% to the County Library System, and 1.2% to support the
County's Flood Control function.
. . j
Item
Meeting Date: April10, 1996
Page 2
Under the Master Property Tax Sharing Agreement the City of Chula Vista would receive
41 % of the property taxes currently received by the County, or 8.73 % of the property tax
generated by the Otay Ranch Properties. Under the proposed Otay Ranch property tax
agreement, the City of Chula Vista would receive one half of the 21.3%, or 10.65% of
the property tax generated by the Otay Ranch Properties. These percentages do not
include the proposed additional transfer payments of up to $16.6 million to be made from
the County to the City outside of the property tax allocation process.
The following sections describe the property tax splits negotiated for other Chula Vista
annexations, for annexations by other cities within San Diego County, and for annexations
in other Southern California counties.
Exhibit H summarizes in chart form the annexations described below within San Diego
County. The chart and the text below highlight the fact that the proposed Otay Ranch
property tax agreement provides a favorable split to the City of the "pooled property tax"
revenue that is available to the City, County and special districts. The chart and text also
highlight the relatively small portion of the total property tax revenue for Otay Ranch that
is available to the City, County and special districts. That is a result of both: (1) the
relatively limited pre-existing special districts (such as fire, library, flood, and lighting
districts) in the Otay Ranch that would increase the size of the pooled property tax revenue
base, and (2) the state's recent property tax shifts from cities and counties to school
districts.
OTHER rH1J1 A VISTA ANNEXATIONS
Although the annexation of Bonita was never consummated, the tax sharing agreement
negotiated with the County at the time (1988) called for the City to receive 44 % of the
pooled property tax revenues from the annexed property, which equated to 20.9% of the
total property tax revenue generated in that area. This percentage of the total property tax
revenue is comparatively high due to the existence of a fire district, two lighting districts,
a flood control district, and a library tax, all of which were included in the base tax to be
shared .
The tax sharing agreement for the Montgomery annexation which took place in 1985,
resulted in the City receiving 41 % of the pooled property tax revenue previously going to
the County, which equated to 18.9% of the total property tax revenue generated in that
area. This percentage of the total property tax revenue is comparatively high due to the
existence of a fire district, six County Service Areas, and two Flood Control Zones, all
of which were included in the base tax to be shared.
OTHER ANNEXATIONS TN SAN DTEr.O r01JNTY
The two most recent annexations in San Diego County other than the Montgomery
annexation were the Ecke Ranch annexed by Encinitas last year, and Otay Mesa annexed
by the City of San Diego in 1983. The County's property taxes relative to the Ecke Ranch
> -,
:') , ^_.A'"
Item
Meeting Date: April10, lQQfi
Page 3
were shared 43% to the City of Encinitas and 57% to the County, It should be noted that
because there was a fire protection district in existence at the time of the annexation, the
County's 57% share of the pooled property tax (available to the County, City, and special
districts) still amounted to almost 20% of the property taxes generated by those properties,
In the case of Otay Mesa, the taxes were shared on a different basis depending on whether
the property was developed or undeveloped at the time of annexation. For developed
property, the 1983 agreement called for the City of San Diego to receive 17.5% of the
base pooled property tax revenue previously going to the County and 30% of the future
growth in pooled property tax revenue on these properties. For undeveloped property, the
City received none of the base revenue and 30% of the future growth or tax increment
from the property annexed. This sharing agreement is significantly different than any
other that we reviewed and without more data regarding base revenues is impossible to
compare to the proposed agreement. However, it is clear that the City of San Diego had
no more than 30% of the pooled property tax that would otherwise be received by the
County so the split was at least 70/30 in favor of the County.
ANNEXATIONS IN NFmHRORING rOTTNTIE<;
San Bernardino
The County of San Bernardino has a Property Tax Distribution Agreement for City
Annexations which covers all annexations other than those which include a County facility,
library, fire station, or major industrial complex. The agreement provides the annexing
City with all of the County non-General Fund tax revenues and a percentage of the County
General Fund tax revenues equal to one half of the percentage that the City currently
receives from property already in the City boundaries, reduced by the County non-General
Fund revenues already allocated. In the case of the Otay Ranch, such an agreement would
provide the City of Chula Vista with only 7.5 % of property tax revenues generated by the
Otay Ranch properties.
Riverside
The Property Tax Sharing Agreement for annexations in the County of Riverside is a
simple formula which provides all County non-General Fund property tax revenues to the
annexing City, plus 25 % of the County General Fund property tax revenues. In the case
of the Otay Ranch, such an agreement would provide the City of Chula Vista with only
7.4 % of the property tax revenues generated by the Otay Ranch properties.
Los Angeles
The County of Los Angeles has a complex formula as the basis for their Property Tax
Sharing Agreement that generally utilizes the existing tax allocation for a typical "tax rate
area" already within the annexing City as the basis for determining the sharing in the area
to be annexed. This formula is utilized for most annexations, but often times there are
further negotiations according to County Staff, with wide variations as to the results. The
r'-'
~ ~
......,'"
Item
Meeting Date: April 10 lQQI';
Page 4
variations are typically due to developed property. Under the formula utilized by Los
Angeles the City of Chula Vista would receive 47.7% of the County's share, or 10.16%
of the property tax revenue generated by the Otay Ranch properties.
Orange
Information received from Orange County was somewhat sketchy due to the organizational
turmoil that they are still going through following the bankruptcy. However, the most
recent two annexations which took place in fiscal year 1993-94 and 1994-95 resulted in the
County General Fund property tax revenue being allocated 16% to the annexing City and
84% to the County in the first, and 18% to the annexing City and 82% to the County in
the second. Assuming the City of Chula Vista would receive the 18% allocation, our
share would be only 3.8% of the property tax revenue generated by the Otay Ranch
properties.
(B) BACKGROUND REGARDING THE FIND MODEL
Attached as Exhibit J is a description of the Fiscal Impact of New Development (FIND)
Model that was included in the Service Revenue Plan adopted by the Chula Vista City
Council and the Board of Supervisors on October 28, 1993 in conjunction with the Otay
Ranch General Development Plan. This attachment provides a good summary of the
conceptual framework and methodology used in the FIND Model. That report, however,
was for the entire Otay Ranch and therefore included several geographic areas that are not
part of the current discussions related to the City's Sphere of Influence and proposed
annexations; these additional areas included the Resort and the Otay Mesa industrial
planning areas. That October 1993 report was based on the City's and County's budgets
for FY 1991-92. Therefore, the two hundred pages of results and analysis that are part
of that October 28, 1993 report are not attached since they are not relevant to the current
proposals.
There were several runs of the FIND Model made subsequent to the October 28, 1993
report, that used more current fiscal information for both the City and the County (i.e.,
the FY 1993-94 budgets for both agencies), and that focused on the geographic areas of
the Otay Ranch currently being discussed for annexation. Those results are summarized
in Exhibits B, C, D, E, and F to the April 16, 1996 Council agenda statement regarding
the Otay Ranch Property Tax Agreement. There are also several hundred pages of reports
resulting from these more recent FIND Model analyses, and staff can make them available
to individual Councilmembers if you would like to review them. They are, however, quite
extensive and take a considerable amount of time to understand, and that is why staff
provided the summary exhibits in the April 16, 1996 Council agenda statement rather than
attaching the volumes of analyses.
All of these FIND Model analyses use the same basic approach and methodology described
in Exhibit J. The major differences in the analyses are the geographic area analyzed, the
development planned for those areas, and the budget data incorporated as inputs to the
model.
f
/c.I
\.,..0-"" '
Item
Meeting Date: April1D lQ9I'i
Page 5
As discussed on page II of the April 16, 1996 Council Agenda Statement on the Otay
Ranch Property Tax Agreement, the FIND Model methodology apportions service costs
on an average basis. This approach results in costs being spread evenly throughout the
development period, rather than at their actual occurrence. The Model thus tends to
overstate some of the City's costs, particularly in the early years. Conversely, staff
believes that the Model's methodology for accounting for sales tax revenue tends to
understate the City's revenue, particularly in the early years. Specifically, as discussed
in the following section relating to commercial development, the FIND Model's sales tax
revenue projections are based on the development of commercia1 acreage and do not reflect
any sales tax revenue that may result from residential development independent of
commercial development. For these, among other reasons, staff believes that the FIND
Model projections are very conservative for the City and that our fiscal impact is likely to
be more positive than projected by the FIND Model. This provides a safety net for the
City in conjunction with the County transfer payments provided in the proposed property
tax agreement. As discussed in the next section, commercial development, particularly
the regional shopping mall in the Eastern Urban Center, has a major fiscal impact.
(C) COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
The General Development Plan contains 335.9 acres of commercial development in the
geographic areas of the Otay Ranch that are currently under discussion. This commercial
acreage is planned to include:
74.7 acres of village related (neighborhood) commercial
106.2 acres of freeway commercial
25.0 acres of regional (shopping mall) commercial, as part of the Eastern Urban
Center (EUC)
The remaining 130 acres of commercial development is principally planned for office and
visitor commercial uses in the EUC.
From a revenue perspective, the most significant impact is associated with the regional
shopping mall in the EUC. At buildout, the regional center is projected to add
approximately $2 million in net revenue to the City per year. If the center was not built,
therefore, the loss of this revenue would significantly reduce the City's projected annual
surplus in the FIND Model.
It should be noted, however, that the FIND Model projects all sales tax revenue from
commercial development rather than from residential development. This means that until
commercial development occurs, no sales tax revenue is projected by the FIND Model
analysis. In actuality, sales tax dollars will be generated within the City from the project's
onset, even if no commercial development occurs within the Otay Ranch project area.
Thus, the revenue to the City is somewhat understated by the FIND Model, particularly
in the early years of the project. Until the regional shopping mall develops, there would,
however, likely be significant sales tax leakage to centers north of the city or south to the
Otay Mesa.
.' -
"'7\ ~>
~f_'
Item
Meeting Date: April10, 199/i
Page 6
(D) DEVELOPER RESERVE FUND
Attached as Exhibit I are pages 264-265 of the General Development Plan approved by the
Chula Vista City Council and the Board of Supervisors on October 28, 1993. As indicated
on Page 264 of Exhibit I, the General Development Plan adopted a policy that. All City
local services provided to the incorporated portions of Otay Ranch, including direct and
indirect costs, and including capital and operating costs, shall be covered by project
revenues and project exactions. Shortfalls shall be covered through a specially designated
fund established by the developer and through an agreement between the City of Chula
Vista and the County of San Diego. Capital costs for regional facilities shall also be
covered by project revenues..."
As indicated on Page 265 of Exhibit 1, the General Development Plan also includes an
Implementation Measure that states . A reserve fund program shall be established
concurrent with the approval of the first SPA, to correct any annual operating deficiencies
incurred by the applicable jurisdiction. The reserve fund program shall finance the cost
of an annual review and updated fiscal impact analysis, and be the basis for any transfer
of monies from the reserve fund..."
As described in detail in the April 16, 1996 Council agenda statement regarding the
proposed Property Tax Agreement with San Diego County for Otay Ranch, the Property
Tax Agreement calls for the City and County to jointly undertake an annual fiscal impact
analysis of the project area for twenty years commencing with FY 1997/98 and for the
County to utilize a portion of its annual fiscal surplus to offset any residual operating
deficits incurred by the City through FY 2016-17, subject to specified constraints.
From staffs perspective, the Developer Reserve Fund could therefore have three potential
purposes:
I. To provide funds for the annual fiscal impact studies to be conducted by the City
and County for the above 20-year period to determine whether and how much of
a transfer payment the County will provide to the City for the previous fiscal year.
2. To cover any potential City deficits that may not be covered by the County through
transfer payments during the first twenty years if the limitations in the Property
Tax Agreement prevent the City from being fully covered by the County's transfer
payments.
3. To cover any potential City deficits that might occur after the County's twenty year
transfer payment obligation period ends.
Staff believes that the first item above, providing funding to conduct the annual fiscal
analysis to determine whether County transfer payments are required, should clearly be
a requirement of the Developer Reserve Fund. In our preliminary discussions with
Baldwin representatives, they have concurred that they have a responsibility to fund this
portion of the reserve fund. Staff is currently discussing other aspects of the proposed
p I
3,
Item
Meeting Date: April10, 199/i
Page 7
reserve fund program with representatives of Baldwin, such as the degree to which items
2 and 3 above should be addressed by the reserve fund. Staff is therefore not yet prepared
to make a finn recommendation to the Council on the extent of the reserve fund program.
Attachments:
Exhibit H:
Exhibit I:
Exhibit J.
Comparison of Property Tas Sharing Agreements
Excerpts of 1993 General Development Plan Related to Reserve Fund
Excerpts of 1993 Service Revenue Plan Describing FIND Model
M:\HOME\ADMIN\JT\SUPPREPT.OR
37
EXIllBIT H
COMPARISON OF PROPERTY TAX SHARING AGREEMENTS
OTAYRANCH MONTGOMERY BONITA ECKE OTAY MESA
(proposed) ANNEXATION AGREEMENT ANNEXATION ANNEXATION
County/City Split of Pooled
Property Tax 50/50' 59/41 56/44 57/43 >70/<30
SHARES OF TOTAL
PROPERTY TAX REVENUE
Original County Share 21.30% 46.10% 47.55% 35.06%
---------------------------- --------------- ----------------- -------------- ---------------- --------------
Negotiated County Share 10.65 % 27.20% 26.70% 19.98%
Negotiated City Share 10.65%' 18.90% 20.85 % 15.08%
'Plus transfer payments of up to $16.6 million from the County to the City ofCbula Vista.
31
I
I
!
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
,
I
I
I
OTAY RANCH
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
OTAY SUBREGIONAL PLAN,
VOL. 2
October 28. 1993
Applicant:
Otay Vista Associates
11975 El Camino Real
San Dlego.CA 92130
Prepared By:
The Otay Ranch Joint Planning Project
315 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista. CA 91910
Approved By:
~{f?
~~-~
~~~~
""""""'~~
01Y OF
CHUIA YISfA
The City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Ave n ue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
The County of San Diego
1600 Pacific Highway
San Diego. CA 92101
11
-4',4
", ,.
--
tv
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
DOCUMENT CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify tbat the contents of this document incorporate and
represent the final version of General Development Plan text and
maps for the Otay Ranch Project (pCM-90-03) as duly passed,
approved and adopted by the City Council of the City of Chula
Vista on October 28, 1993.
W~&~
Robert A. Leiter, Director of Planning
t.jD
,
Oto.y Ranch GDP/SRP C Part II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ongoing benefit assessment mechanism. Any
additional fees or taxes levied against property In
order to pay for enhanced services wtll not be
Included toward the 2.00 pereent limit mentioned
below.
Revenue Sharing
The City of Chula Vista and the County of San
Diego shall enter Into a Master Property Tax
Agreement covering all annexations wtthln an
agreed-upon geographic area In Otay Ranch. That
Agreement shall consider the distribution of
property tax revenues, as well as the allocation of
total project revenues between the City and the
County in accordance with the (ollowtng policies.
All County local services provided to the
unincorporated portions of Otay Ranch, Including
direct and indirect costs. and Including capital and
operating costs. shall be covered by project
revenues and project exactions.. Shortfalls shall be
covered through a specially designated fund
established by the developer and through an
agreement between the City of Chula Vista and the
County of San Diego.
All City local services provided to the incorporated
portions of Otay Ranch, including direct and
indirect costs, and including capital and operating
costs, shall be covered by project revenues and
project exactions. Shortfalls shall be covered
through a specially designated fund established by
the developer and through an agreement between
the City of Chula Vista and the County of San
Diego. Capital costs for regional facilities shall also
be covered by project revenues, except for any
regional capital costs being paid for through an
equitable finanCing plan as described below.
All County regional services. Including direct and
indirect costs, shall be covered by project revenues.
Shortfalls shall be covered through a specially
designated fund established by the developer and
through an agreement between the City of Chula
Vista and the County of San DIego.
When the County determines that a need for
regional capital facilities Is anticipated to serve
residents of Otay Ranch, an equitable financing
plan will be established by the County. The
financing plan shall be based on the best estimate
of the future need and the costs created by various
October 28, 1993
,
Objective:
Policy:
Policy:
Policy:
Policy:
t./I
Page 264
I
I
I
I
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Otay Ranch GDp/ SRP C Part II
developments including Otay Ranch and the costs
that are created from changes In demographic
patterns within existing development. At that time.
the property owners and residents of atay Ranch
shall be expected to pay the fair share of the costs
of those regional facUlties according to the nexus.
Implicit In this Is that other property owners within
the benefit area also pay their fair share
apportionment of costs.
Implementation Measure: An annual.fiscal revlew will be
conducted to evaluate, revise and amend the asswnptions
related to (a) land use types. tntensity, density. and tirrUng: (b)
economic conditions; (c) market conditions; (d) demographic
factors affecting cost and revenue estimates: (e) allocation of
local, regional. state, andfederalfunds; and (fJ any other factors
mutuaUy deemed relevant. These actlustments wiU be
incorporated intD the Fiscal Impact for New Development (FIND)
model to determine the need for applicable adjustments in
revenue allocations to assure that the policles above are fulfilled.
The developer's .flexibility to control buildout shaU not be
constrained by the FYND model nor by the City's or County's
revenue needs as long as the above policies are fulfilled.
Implementation Measure: A reserve fund program shaU be
established concurrent with the approval of the first SPA, to
correct any annual operating de.fkiencies incurred by the
applicable jurisdiction. The reserve ji.uId program shall.firu:mce
the cost of an annual review and updated fiscal impact
analysis, and be the basis for any transfer of moneys from the
reserve fund. The foUowing issues shall be addressed at the
time of the determination of the content of the reserve fund: the
nwnber of reserve ji.uId program agreements; funding sources
for the reserve.fund; duration and termination of the reserve
ji.uId agreement(s); responsibility for operating de.fkiencles: and
present value analysis methodology.
Objective:
As a general guideline. efforts should be made to
keep the effective tax rate (ETR), including all
property taxes and special assessments. not to
exceed 2.00 percent of the assessed value of the
property.
The total ETR consists of the basic 1.00 percent ad
valorem property tax levy mandated by Proposition
13, plus the following:
. Ad valorem property tax overrides for retirement
of voter-approved bonded Indebtedness;
. ExIsting non-ad valorem tax overrideS--lncluding
special taxes, assessment Installment payments,
and parcel charges--for public facilities or
Polley:
October 28. 1993
Page 265
LI :;
I ' .
(~
Ralph Andersen
& Associates
1446 Ethan Way, Suite 101
Sacramento, California 95825
(916) 929-5575
January 21, 1993
)
FINAL REpORT
FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
OF THE
CITY/COUN1Y RECOMMENDED
PLAN FOR THE
OTAY RANCH PROJECT
)
SacromenJo
Dallas
, .
Newport Beach
13
----
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
i
I
,
DOCUMENT CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that this document incorporates and represents the
final version of the Service/Revenue Plan, which constitutes a
Support Document to and a part of the approved General
Development Plan for the Otay Ranch Project (pCM-90-03) as
duly passed, approved and adopted by the City Council of the City
of Chula Vista on October 28, 1993.
/~;:f U~
Robert A. Leiter, Director of Planning
L/V
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER I-INTRODUCTION
Background
Purposes and Applications of FIND
Report Organization and Con/em
PAGE
1
1
3
4
CHAPTER II~TAY RANCH: AN OVERVIEW
The Otay Ranch Study Area
Developmem and Phasing Assumptions
Service Providers
7
7
9
11
CHAPTER III-BmLDING THE FIND MODEL
Overview of FIND Methodologies
FIND Methodologies fllustrated
Other Considerations and Assumptions
13
13
17
17
)
CHAPTER IV-DETAILED ASSUMPTIONS: CIIT
Expenses
Revenue
Special Assumptions
Summary
27
27
36
43
46
CHAPTER V-DETAILED ASSUMPTIONS: COUNTY GENERAL
FUND. ROAD FUND. LIBRARY AND FLOOD CONTROL
DISTRICTS AND RURAL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 47
Expenses 47
Revenue 59
Special Assumptions 66
Summary 69
)
CHAPTER VI-FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS OF
mE OTAY RANCH: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
Determining Net Fiscal Impact Using the FIND Model
The Net Fiscal Impact of the Otay Ranch Project:
A Summary
71
71
74
,/5
In/rothJe/ion
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
)
The end product of the Fiscal Impact Analysis is a computerized model that will
enable the City of Chula Vista and the County of San Diego to conduct fiscal impact
analyses of the Otay Ranch Project on a continuing basis. This report documents
the study assumptions and methodologies used for developing the Oiay Ranch FIND
(Fiscal Impact of New Development) Model This report also identifies the resulting
net fiscal impact of the Qtay Ranch project, as currently proposed, on the City of
Chula Vista, County General Fund and County Road Fund, hDrary and flood control
districts and the Rural Fire Protection District. As an introduction, this chapter
presents general background information regarding the study and the FIND Model.
The organization and content of the report is also summarized to facilitate use and
review.
BACKGROUND
The City of Chula Vista and the County of San Diego are participating in a joint
planning program with the Baldwin Company to prepare a development plan for
the Otay Ranch. Consisting of 23;297 acres of undeveloped land in the
unincorporated area of the County, it is the largest project to be undertaken in San
Diego County and one of the largest in the State of California.
)
To assist the Service/Revenue Technical Committee in analyzing the on-going fiscal
impacts of selected and alternative development plans for the area, Ralph Andersen
& Associates was retained to develop the Otay Ranch FIND Model. The FIND
Model will achieve the following objectives:
Page 1
~i~
Introdliction
. Forecast City costs and revenues associaJed with developmenl of the Dray
Rmtch project within the incorporaJed area of the City of Chula VLSta
. Forecast County General Fund and Road Fund costs and reve1Wes associaJed
with developmenl of the project, including both regional costs and reve1Wes
throughout the project area, and local costs and revenues in the area to
remain wUncorporaJed
. Forecast selected special district costs and revenues assoc:iaJed with the
developmenl of the Dray Rand! project inchuiing flood contro~ library and
rural fire.
In order to develop the FIND Model, a variety of assumptions about the project
and the services that will be provided by each agency have been .made. Specific
methodologies to allocate costs and revenues to land use have also been developed.
These assumptions and methodologies are documented herein.
The FIND Model reflects operations and maintenance revenues and expenditures.
A subtotal is provided both with, and without Otay Ranch's share of two County
budget items: rents and leases, and capital costs for regional facilities. This total
is shown both ways because it represents a different treatment of City and County
expenditures. For the City of ChuIa Vista, all capital costs were excluded from the
FIND analysis because those costs will be covered by developer exactions through
the land development process.
The County was treated the same except in two areas for which no provision has
been made:
. The first item, rents and leases, is a cost item for the Counly but not for the
City because the Counly does not own sufJicienl buHding spaa to house all
needed Counly functions and therefore expends funds annually on mils and
leases. All City costs for space occupancy arr!" covered through ongoing
mainJenance costs, with the capital components for the existing residents
already paid, and with developer conJributions for new space needs.
. The second item, regional capital costs, represents an annJJDl general fund
expenditure to provide additiorwl regional capital costs to serve the expanding
population. Unlike the City that finances all of its new buildings by developer
Page 2
J-/7
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
J
t
I
I
I
f
t
,
.
Introduction
fees, the County lacks the authority to impose County-wide developer fees for
the expansion of regional facilities, therefore, general funds are used for this
purpose.
The FIND Model has been applied to the City /CCJunty Recommended Plan for the
Otay Ranch project in order to determine the net fiscal impact of the project on
the City, CCJunty General Fund and CCJunty Road Fund, library and flood control
districts, and Rural Fire Protection District. This analysis is presented in the final
chapter of this report.
.;
.
PURPOSES AND APPLICATIONS OF FIND
r
)
Fiscal impact assessment is an analytic technique used by local governments to
identify the costs and revenues associated with different land uses. Fiscal impact
analysis is used to determine whether a given land use, new development, the
general plan or proposed annexation will pay for itself, generate a surplus of
revenues, or result in higher costs of service than revenue produced. Fiscal impact
assessments are widely used by local governments. The concept has gained
increased popularity as local governments experience shrinking revenue bases or
have had their ability to raise revenues limited.
CCJnsidering the myriad of development options and alternatives for the Otay Ranch
Project, the FIND Model is a critical tool for both the City of Chula Vista and the
CCJunty of San Diego for assessing the fiscal impacts that development will have
on each agency. To illustrate, the FIND Model can quickly assess the following
types of questions:
. What is the fiscal impact of the Otay &nch Project on the City and the
County if a Village is located in the unincorporated area of the County as
opposed to the City?
. What is the net fiscal impact of the project on both entities assuming lower
density development?
j
Ji'
,. ,
Page 3
Introdllction
. How does the fiscal impact change if a higher density mix is allowed to
dl!Velop?
. What is the net fiscal impact of the project assuming minimal commercial
and industrial developmen/?
. How does this impact change if iru:reased levels of commercial and industrial
dl!Velopmen/ occru?
. Will the proposed development represent a sound jinandD1 decision for both
the City and the County?
To be useful on a continuing basis, the FIND Model is designed to be updated
annually and anm;n;<tered by City and County staff. Although designed to
specifically analyze the Otay Ranch Project, the Model is fle.xible enough to allow
the City and County individually to assess the fiscal impacts of other development
proposals on its own agency.
REPORT ORGANIZATION AND CONI'ENT
The assumptions and methodologies for the Fiscal Impact Analysis have been
developed and discussed with the ServicejRevenue Technical Committee. This
report resummarizes all study assumptions and methodologies. To facilitate review,
this document is organized as follows:
. ChaD/er I-Introduction-Provides an overview of the background for the
study and the purposes and applications of the FIND Model. An outline
of the report format and content is also included.
. ChaD/er I[-Olav Ranch: An Overview-Presents the development and
phasing scbedules of the City/County Recommended Plan for the Otay
Ranch study area. These assumptions are used as the foundation for
assessing the proposed project on the City, and Rural Fire Protection
District, County General Fund and County Road Fund, library and flood
control districts.
Page 4
; I ,'>
t"""-j. '/
l
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
~
,
~
,
t
I
.
,
t
~
)
)
Introduction
. CharlIer 1/I-Buildine Ihe FIND Model-Su=arizes the general concepts,
methodologies and assumptions used in building the FIND Model for this
project. A series of tables and graphs illustrating how these assumptions
and methodologies are used in computing specific cost and revenue
allocation factors by land use type is also included in this chapter.
. CluJDter lV-Detailed AsrumlJtWns: Citv--Presents all expense and revenue
assumptions used to compute specific City cost and revenue allocation
factors by land use type, which are used by the FIND Model to forecast
costs and revenues. Specific areas addressed include fixed versus variable
items, distribution methods and the resulting cost and revenue allocation
factors.
. ChaDter V-DetaUed AsrumlJtWnS: County GenemI Fund and Road Fund:
Ubra~ ~nd Flood Control Districts and Rural Fire Protection District and
ImlJacted SlJeciaJ Districtr-Presents all expense and revenue assumptions
used to compute these County and impacted special district cost and
revenue allocation factors, which are used by the FIND Model to forecast
costs and revenues. Specific areas addressed include fixed versus variable
items, distribution methods, area served and the resulting cost and revenue
allocation factors by land use type.
. Chaoter VI-Net Fiscal ImlJact Analvsis: Finmnl!s and Conclu-
~lImmarizes the results of the net fiscal impact of the project on the
City, County General Fund and County Road Fund, h"brary and flood
control districts, and Rural Fire Protection District and Flood Control
District. Study assumptions and sources for all assumptions are also
summarized.
. ADoendice.r-Contains original source documents on existing County
development from SANDAG and the development and phasing
assumptions provided by the Baldwin Company.
Page 5
50
InrrodlJction
. Attachments-The detailed reports generated from the FIND Model that
document all study assumptions and resulting cost and revenue allocation
factors are presented in a series of attachments. For easy reference, these
materials have been indexed and are contained under the tab labeled
"FIND Model Detail" for the City and County, respectively. The
assumptions and results for the County General Fund and County Road
Fund, library and flood control districts, and the Rural Fire Protection
District are all contained within the County analysis. The resulting
expenditure and revenue forecasts, as well as the net fiscal impact analysis
comparison, are also contained as attachments.
The FIND Model has been developed based on the assumptions and methodologies
documented in this report. Based on these assumptions, the Model has computed
specific cost and revenue allocation factors by agency and land use type. These
factors are included as attachments. It is these factors which are' applied against
the proposed development scenario for the project area in order to determine the
net fiscal impact of the project on the City, County General Fund and County Road
Fund, library and flood control districts and the Rural Fire Protection District.
Page 6
::;1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
r
,
1.
t
,
t
I
j
t
.
Olay RDnch: An Ovuvi<w
CHAPTER n
OTAY RANCH:
AN OVERVIEW
j
This chapter provides a description of the study area and the Cty /County
Reco=ended Plan of the area that is the subject of this analysis. An overview
of the service providers to the area as development occurs is also provided.
)
THE OTAY RANCH STUDY AREA
The County of San Diego and the Cty of CbuIa Vista are participating in a joint
planning program with the Baldwin Company to prepare a plan for the development
of the Otay Ranch. The project consists of 23).97 acres of undeveloped land in the
unincorporated area of the County lying easterly of the Cty. It is the largest single
development project in the County and one of the largest in the State.
)
Exhibit n.1 presents the location of the Otay Ranch study area. As indicated, it
is anticipated that development will occur within both the Cty of CbuIa Vista and
the County of San Diego. As currently proposed, the project will include a variety
of single family (detached) and multi-family (attached - townhouses, condos and
apartments) residential units developed in a series of separate villages. Single family
development in the project area is anticipated to range in value from $180,000 to
$600,000 per unit, witb multi-family development anticipated to range from $110,000
to $160,000. In addition to residential development, the project will include a variety
of commercial uses including freeway, neighborhood and regional commercial,
office/business park and resort development.
Page 7
5-'1
./
.
Dray RDnch: An (Navin<'
.~ "'~r-:-~'..
'1~ ~- ~~~~
~~ibi~t
~J" ,~~,:,=--:~-
. ", .
-. -','
...,. -
,
fit"
./ .. -.'",'
"
...."...:~:::~.... \1
.- -,d-" ~~.
I
. ~
,'.
"
,
'0=
..-I
"
~
'"'.
...
"
...
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO I
-- -. -~.,::
," . - \ 04'~~ '..
,r ._:;::J 1
....~.': ~.
. "\~ . -
\
,
'.....
, ..
.r'
''\
.,-1
.~.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
-,
"
-.......-
-
- .
, '-1.
./'
-~ '"
-.'
-'..- .
,"".-.
_.'
-
-
: .T
..,~
:'"
,':.:".....
',-
--- .
--
E)--
o-
S
E:J
[2)-
GJ-
11II--
o
e
e
e
e
e
'I
"
--
[D =:=..-:=..-
EI =-----
E!-
EJ-
E!-
I
" ". ~i-
-:r;-
;a"; , .
.. .....
-, "L
!. . ~
- ~'.
'-~
,... ~-
-
'-
~ - -
-
-
-
1.1 "'_-_~~
-'-~'
~
f....
~i'._
,-~
--
CITY OF SAN DIEGO
._-~
OTAY RAN<I
aTY /COUNIY RECOMMENDED PI.1P-
JURISDICTIONAL ASSUMPTIOI'i
f'"'7l
~
Jurisdictional Boundary
I
An.,)'" ."'umes Ihat V,II.ges I Ihrough 11, Jocaoed on .h, O..y V.II,y Po",,,. will b< .nnmd 10 Ih, C"yor J
Vuta
Page 8 I
r: /') ,
,
.j ,-,'
Otay Ranch: An Owrview
DEVELOPMENT AND PHASING ASSUMPTIONS
The phasing and absorption scbedules for the project bave been provided by the
Baldwin Company, which are contained in Appendix A The detailed phasing
schedules of anticipated development to occur in both the City and the County, as
formatted for the FIND Model, is presented in the attachments at the end of this
report labeled "Phasing/Other Assumptions" for both the City and the County,
respectively. A summary of this information is presented in Exh11>it II-2.
Exhibit II-2 presents the cumulative number of single family, multi-family and
co=ercial lodging units anticipated to be developed during the years 1993 (first
year of the project), 1997, 2001, 2006, 2011, 2016 and 2022 (the last year of
development). Co=ercial and industrial acres, as well as cnmnh.tive population,
are also shown. Population figures are based on the assumption of 3.2 people per
single family residential unit and 2. 7S people per multi-familY unit. These
assumptions have been provided by protect team staff to the Service/Revenue
Committee and are based on area trends.
)
Recognizing that development will occur in both the City and the County, phasing
information has been broken into three categories: urban (City), rural (County) and
combined. As indicated, the majority of development is anticipated to occur within
the City including the majority of single family residential development and all multi-
family residential, co=ercial and related development. Of the total anticipated
population of 89,169 in the study area at build-out, 2,147 will reside in the
unincorporated area of the County.
Jurisdictional boundaries assumptions are necessary to calculate fiscal impacts. The
jurisdictional assumptions used in this analysis are for modeling purposes only; they
do not suggest a preferred jurisdictional arrangement. The model can easily be
adjusted to respond to any jurisdictional arrangement.
)
Sd
Page 9
Olay Ranch: An OveTYiffl
EXHIBIT 1~2-oT"'Y RANCH CITY/COUNTY RECOMMENDED PLAN
PHASING ANO POPULATION SUMMARY
(cumulatIYo data)
I- I- 2003 2008 2013 201. 2023
URBAN
Singlo Family 400 3.789 71187 8.487 10'- 10,866 10,866
Rosldontial Unill
Multi-Family 400 2,806 4,807 5.141 7$11 8.015 10.011
Roaldontial Unill
Commorclal ""'0. 0 17.4 " 141.1 271.7 374.5 378.4
Indu.1rlal ""'0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
HoIolfRoOOr1 Unill 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Population
~
Singlo Family 0 120 m 2,32e 3,368 3,753 4.131
RooIdonUoJ Until
Mu~amlly 0 0 140 141 1,241 2.OD6 2.OD6
Roaldontial Until
Commorclal /goo 0 0 30.4 32.8 113.7 IIe.2 81.2
lnduo1rlol /goo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ho1olfRolOr1 Until 0 0 400 400 100 100 aoo
Population 0 384 3,515 8,217 14,204 17,521 11,731
.... ..' ...... ....>> ii....
Singlo Family 400 3,808 1,01I5 ""'3 14.334 14.718 15,087
Rosldential Units
Multi-Family 400 2,806 8.047 8,483 1,122 11,D21 12.022
RooJdonUal Until
Commorclal /goo 0 17.4 111.4 118.5 342.4 440.7 444.8
lnduo1rlol /go. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ho1olfRolOr1 Until 0 0 400 400 100 100 100
Population 2,380 20.500 311.888 55.857 70.1211 77.408 ".371
Page 10
-
L- .
/i.. ,
.J .-!
~
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.- ~- --
OlDy Ranch: An Overvi~
SERVICE PROVIDERS
As the study area develops, the primary service providers to residents and businesses
will include the:
. City of Chula Vts/a
· County of San Diego
. County Library and Flood Control Districts
. RJual Fire Protection District.
The City of Cbula Vista will assume responsibility for providing an urban level of
service to all development within the incorporated area of the City. These services
will include, among others:
, '
)
. Building and Housing
. City Clerk
. Community DevelopmenJ
. Fire
. Library
. Park and Recreation
· Planning
. Police
. Public Works.
Within the unincorporated area of the county, the County General Fund and County
Road Fund, library and flood control districts, and Rural Fire Protection District
will be responsible for providing rural levels of service. These services, among
others, will include:
. Animal Control
. Fire (Rural Fire Protection District)
. Flood Control (Flood Control District)
. Housing and Community DevelopmenJ
. Law Enforcement
. Library
. Planning and Land Use
. Public Works (including road maintenance).
)
Page 11
50
Olay Ranch: An OveTView
In addition, there are a number of services that the County will be responsible for
providing to development within the entire study area. These county-wide services
include, among others:
· AgricuIturefWeights and Measures
· Air Pollution Comol
· Alternative Defense Counsel
· Area Agency on Aging
· Assessor
· Conflict Public Defender
· County Clerk
· Detention
· District Attorney
· Fann Home Advisor
· Grand Jury
· Health Services
· LAFCO
· Marshall
· Medical Examiner
· Mumcipal Court
· Regional Parks and Recreation
· Probation
· Public AdministraJor
· Public Defender
· Recorder
· Registrar of VOlet:\'
· . .social Services
· Superior Court
· Transborder Alfair.s
· Treasurer-Tax Collector.
The fiscaJ impact analysis of the Otay Ranch project will consider the impacts of
development on each of these service areas of the Qty, County, Rural Fire
Protection District, Flood Control District, and County Library District consistent
with the development and phasing assumptions identified previously.
Page 12
57
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
r
t
Bui/mng the FiND Model
I
CHAPTER ill
BUILDING THE
FIND MODEL
This chapter provides an overview of the methodologies and assumptions used to
develop the Otay Ranch FIND Model. Graphic illustrations of how these
assumptions and methodologies are used to compute actual cost and revenue
allocation factors by land use type are also provided.
)
OVERVIEW OF FIND ME1HODOLOGIES
To achieve the objectives of this assignment, the FIND Model has been developed
and tailored specifically to assess the impact of the Otay Ranch Project on the City
of ChuIa Vista, San Diego County General Fund and Road Fund, horary and flood
control districts, and Rural Fire Protection District. The development of the Otay
Ranch FIND Model has required a comprehensive data collection and analysis effort
to identify and compute specific City, County General Fund and Road Fund; horary
and flood control districts; and Rural Fire Protection District cost and revenue
allocation factors by land use. Exhibit ID-l summarizes the overall process for
determining these specific allocation factors.
)
As indicated in Exhibit ID-l, all City, County General Fund and Road Fund; library
. and flood control districts; and Rural Fire Protection District operating expenditures
and revenues have first been categorized as either fixed or variable. Variable
costs/revenues are those items that are directly impacted by growth and change;
flxedcosts/revenues are nol. For example, salaries and benefits for police officers
or sheriff deputies will grow as a direct result of development and growth in that
Page 13
c::-::,'
0':'
Bui/(fjng the FIND Molkl
EXHIBIT 1II-1-FIND SYSTEM FLOWCHART
A""... I ~.'l11'lO ~t
I .._~
/'
II' I=-I
1)1"'''10'''-- '0
.......-
C.lc:wl~.
Coo.
AI loc:at 10ft
.......
CIIlcvlot.o
--
Alloc.tl.,.
.......
more police officers or sheriff deputies will be needed to provide the same level
of service to a larger population. These costs, therefore, are variable. In contrast,
sa1aIy and benefit costs for the City Manager or County Chief.Anmini.trative Officer
will not change as a direct result of growth in that the City and County only needs
one City Manager or County Chief .Anmini.trative Officer regardless of the
population served by the agency. These costs, therefore, are fixed.
Using the City and County budgets, the consultants developed a preliminary list of
fixed and variable cost/revenues. This information was reviewed with appropriate
City and County department representatives. Based upon input received at these
review meetings, the consultants finali7.ed the fixed and variable cost/revenue
allocations. The next steps in developing the FIND Model include:
· Allocating City variable costs/reverwes for each department and division to
an applicable land use through an appropriaJe land use distribution method
Page 14
5~
J
-I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.->
j.
Building the FIND Model
. Allocating County General FwuJ and Road Fund, library and flood control
districts and lWral Fire Protection District costs/revenues for eoch department
to an applicable land use through an appropriaJe land use diJtribution method
. For the CounJy relaJed analysis, detenninUJg whether the costs/revenues are
impocted only by development in the unincorporated area of the County or
by regional development throughout the CounJy
. DetenninUJg City unit cost/revenue allocation factors for each land use
. Detennining CounJy General Fund, Road Fund, library and flood control
districts, and Rural Fire Protection District unit cost/revenue a1Iocotion factors
for each applicable land use pertaining to the spedfic jurisdiction.
The cost/revenue distribution methods and specific cost/revenue allocation factors
that have been used to develop the Otay Ranch FIND Model are summarized below
and on the following pages.
)
COST !REvENUE DISTRIBtmON METIlODS
There are four ways in which specific departments of the subject agencies are
affected by new development. Some have a clearly defined relationship to particular
types of land uses or have workload measures that indicate different service/cost
requirements for particular types of development. Other department costs have
a more general relationship and are affected proportionately by all types of
development. Still other departments are essentially artm;n;~trative or internal
service functions and have only an indirect relationship to development. With this
in mind, the following cost/revenue distribution methods have been used in
developing the Otay Ranch FIND Model.
. Generol Land Use Distribution Method-COsts/revenues are distributed to
each land use in the proportion (as a percentage) that the area of each
existing land use is to the total area.
)
. Demand For Service Distribution Method-Costs are distributed to each land
use based upon the proportion of total workload/service demand that is
attributable to each land use, based upon an analysis of available records.
Page 15
&0
Building rht FIND Mod"
Examples would include Police Department and Fire Department costs,
which are distributed to land useS based upon actual experience with caBs
for service.
. Direct RelationshiD Distribution Method-COsts/revenues are distributed to
each land use based upon a known, direct relationship to one or more land
uses, based upon available records or known relationships. An example
would be recreation costs distnDuted directly to residential land uses.
. Indirect RelationshiD Distribution Method--Ccsts/revenues are added to the
cost/revenue distributions of the other three methods as a percentage.
This method is used for costs/revenues that correlate to overall increases
in other cost/revenues rather than directly to a specific type of develop-
ment An example of this method is an overhead department such as
personnel. Personnel management and ..nm;n;~tration costs are typically
more closely related to the number of employees within the organization
rather than to development
UNIT MEASURES FOR COSTIREvENUE ATJOCATlON FACTORS
After total costs/revenues are distributed among the various land uses, per-unit
allocation factors are computed. The specific cost/revenue allocation factors
calculated by the Otay Ranch FIND Model include:
. Costs/revenues per single family dwelling unit
. Costs/revenues per multi-family dwelling unit
. Costs/revenues per commercial acre
. Costs/revenues per industrial acre.
Individual allocation factors associated with each of the four identified land use
types have been developed for the City, County General Fund, Road Fund, library
and flood control districts, and Rural Fire Protection District
Page 16
01
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
t
~
;
,
~
.
)
.,.
<
.
,
1
)
Building th. FIND Model
FIND METHODOLOGIES ILLUSTRATED
To illustrate how the methodologies and assumptions described above are used to
compute specific cost and revenue allocation factors, a series of graphics have been
prepared documenting each step of the process described above. These graphic
illustrations correspond, as appropriate, to the detailed reports generated by the
FIND Model, which are presented as attachments at the back of this report under
the tab labeled "FIND Model Detail". Actual City and County related programs
are used as examples to clarify the formulas used to make each calculation.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS
The general concepts and methodologies described above have been used in
developing the Otay Ranch FIND ModeL Other considerations and assumptions
used in building the Model are summarized below.
. LDnd Uses- The land uses included within the proposed development plan
of the Otay Ranch area have been built into the Model. These include
single family residential (detached), multi-family residential (attached.
townhouses, condos and apartments), commercial and industrial.
. Ffnancial Dola Base- The primary source of financial information is each
agency's adopted budget for fiscal year 1991-92. This information is used
to determine the costs of providing services at their current level and the
resulting revenues generated. The FIND Model includes an analysis of
all operating funds.
. SDecial Revenue AssumDtions-Becausc of the importance of property,
property transfer, sales and transient occupancy taxes, the Model allows
for the forecast of these revenues based on very specific assumptions. All
other revenues are forecast based on current trends by land use type.
Page 17
/ ~)
{J'/--
Building the FIND Modtl
U)
I-
a:
o
D.
w
a:
..J
~
W
o
w
:::I
Z
w
i:i
a:
....
w
U)
Z
W
D.
~
II.
o
~
w
>
a:
~
~
5
..
~
o
t3
..
u""
",E
8.""
.,~
a:_
<
>8
~~
8''5 .
Q. E i
t"h
. .. ~
- - ..
. .."
8~7I
71 ..
.. ... ~
S eC ~
~" 5
li_
..
u
e.
c.E.
t'EI
8 ~
~ t':!
8 't) ~
~ ~ ~
,,=~
~."
~ ~ ~
... .. "
.
c
o
U~2!
"'-0
8.<1:)
": "CD G) as
:"O::e ~
ii
.......a:
~ .. .
!g.i
>-"ii i
... .....
....-
!i~
~ " E
1 ~
,; I~.
~ E I
~ ~
~!1.
1tC:.;I
..
...~
>oJ:) =' ~
"'''1E
.~-
. . " :t
~ " ~ ~
~ " "
1i!.1
~X'ti.!!
~!~t'
. c: E .
lUi
. .
Q
~,j~jiilll. )
~@i;III13: '
.~I'~;f~~!J~
bf)~"
1.11
.., ,,-,-',', "
!\;! . o!: 1>
11c
1; ~~
"lli ....0;
~.h
11I1I ~!!J
~~"
.! iU! .! i I
. .
Q
:>.j:.
'<:<:,/~~':'i)' :;:
'l~
a:.;'
'0>
o
..
..
~
~I
I~
ir
> "
.1~
ioi!i!
~t'x
ii
il
""
jiL
- !
:2 ~
! I
~ i
jj ~
Z51 i
.
Q
. '"
::
.2
. :'i:'\.~.<
,....,1D';5....'
... .J!J .
<~.&
;r);;:j:.::
.... 'c..
iO. Ii
c=..!! I
_'t5~:I
t ~Sj
:j!s il
h:~ ~
t~J8 ~
:I~~
.!!.~j~ l3 ~ ~
S !.. .! .is
. .
Q
.. t'l
""to" . ! ..
.~ I! 'B I
<.. it H =
l~"", J[ ~
....9 . Ii ;;
.a:2! .~ "1 '&
-.: i "5 it ,,= ..
]i .1 U ;;c. 1
0 li:oi! .. Z5i'
. . . .
I-
m
~
~
U)
I-
U)
o
u
.
.
.
.
U)
w
=>
Z
w
i:i
a:
Page 18
~3
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-)
)
Building /he FIND Motk/
- U") ~ ....
U") '" -
- ... '" "<
+.!!!. as ..; g - .:g",
'I3.!!! .... '" M vi
"!. M - .... -= . - 0>
OlD - - N 'jj; -:-....10 '"
.1=,. ... ~ I: uo- ~
ii-I: ,.
"O"t: 01 '" II>
I: ,. D ._ U ~
-> vi o>..~
I: ~ II>
'" 1!j~ ..
"I: 1ii
'" U") g 8 .!!1 =E 8
U") .... :J! ~:J!
- - CI) N
"0 N :i N ..; ~ .!
- .... U") 16 s ;..1:
~ '" on -
... sf .. ..~'& f
1ii "0 ~ ..
, ~ 8 . .. co
&1 ~~~ ~
en .... .
z 'B ,I-!
0 gj ~ on - i . ~ E - -:.
i= .. - - "0
- .... CI) l!~ ~
:!: .. ,.tI) ~ ~ ~ to: ~
C 0 g
:I co O.
Q. C . - N !
~..2. - - ~
:;; 0 ... ~ .1: ~
0 Q. D
E .. I: ..
0 'i: co 4D'!co 'in
0 .. 0 c.. :z5 8
~ 0 > ..
en j jl-
0 co -j
0 ':is. .:~ 18 c ... ~
.~ '::o(;-/B. -
~ i "!. i~ E~ ~ "2
.. '. - uS
III .<::; ::::::~J::<-; on ....
C( ~ - "24!:e "2
":g .-:"......0
= .'..0 -~ II
~ ~ i -8- I :i!~ U"
Ci .........~ ~1 c
c g [~ g
z
C( I. .. ""0 ~ !
c it:. ~ g ~ - 'in -"2 11~
w .. c ~ 8 i.. ..
>< a: ;.. ~ g ~ ~ E it ! "Ii i! 1
if -
1i C') N I!!
N N 1!
... CII - [ co Iii co
:S ." 'B ... ~ I!CI J:! 25
~ 'iII !II =1; I 4!
iii ',. ~'i ~
~ - 1;1 ~
"'.. s: II I
c - Bl
~
I!! ~ t 6~ .. "I} co
8' >- 11 ~ 25 ~;
. ~ ! ~ l;-CO€ B ell &co_
Q. i~ 'B
.... II> s~:o :1 t'E
c ..c B III i Of
.11> ~Oi 0~0g> Y .!I
~ ~:;; o 0 J i.!!1
-~-- - Q. ti! ~
!. .2icol ;1ii;~ '& r >s
_~u~ a: +'i
II> D-- c-c- 0; i
c ::::aU)'O .O.Q.. J 'it j'i t~ l~
Q. Q. C) C) c f
0
= 'i: -J8~ 'E1ii
r;- ,. )(0- ~
l: 'S -:0 .:'5
..
I: C .!:!
II> ~ OJ -
CII 8 .. - a U" :Eo ~
C( () u .!!!- - -
Page 19
&--1
-....- -
'-" .-.... ~
-
Bui/{fjng th, FIND ModLl
Page 20
-
:E.
..
..
..
~ :.
B :>-
16 '!! ~
0. ~~
~
~ ~ E
0.. .
c &.
i= 0
:J Iii It
!!! 1; .. 'E
~~..
~ .....~ I
C)
:: -
;/\\ ...1
c.
z .:(
ct
en
c
o
~
~
z
o
1=
:J
ID
~
en
C
~
'1:
.dD
C
8.
E ~
o .;
(J .II
~
.r.
,.
.~
':c .!.
.5! ...15
]j
i i
c is
<
~ I
3: ..
~ cz:
E
C
Z
;
...
~ - ~ 9~
..
j ~ ~ i
E ~ r! r!
~ :2 !i ~
I I I I
. . . .
.cec.c:,;c
i~HH~!
:!!i!.!!i.!!!
:Dil"':"':'"
~
~
c
~
l.
.
a.
l
1
E
t,
I
is
I
hi ~
c! .!!i as
:'" l~
f
1 5
~ a I:! ~i ~
..
j ~
E ~
~ :2
~ i
r! r!
... ...
~ en
f~ttfftf
B~sIB~Si
"I~"I~i~i~
JiSJI5JiSJiS
<
:>
c
~
l.
"
.
~
1
t,
~
.
e:
~
If Ir
.:!1 "Ie:
U U
c c
l:-
e:
~
8
0~
. .;
-: D O~
;.2 c jj
4;~ E -g"
lie: .2 _'0
".0 8 '0..51
e: ~
i$ ;s~1
r .n~~
..1 'S]"'K
. c: Jji-e
I. j! e: '0 e: i!
~~ i;;~
11 !"U
"]5. IS 6,!=
i 1 III f!
l!. 91=1
1..... Jll1:'O
it i js i j:
..:i ~.t
,:J )~~
sJI 1:!i
.!~1 ~i;6
! ~ ie:o:S
JI!I! "'.-
:~= 1i3!~.!
!I.!j f;-i"'!
l~i I~!~
~)I U~I
81' l.rt'5!
r~i ~.~.!
ill 1~1~
I 1 li~1
~~I'!!;i
& i ~~. ! ~ ·
Ei!!I[(i
l!i1iJlf
!l:~!~,,~.
isJih~1&
Ii ~1 Go ~ ~ ! I
j< till';~:!.
! I ili ~l:J lll!
u
~ .e:'U :[.E::
]
]
J
]
]
]
J
J
J
]
J
1
J
J
Builtling tht FIND Model
N 0 ~~- Cb~~;12
~ ~:3"'N'"
N N ~ C"')......co m
.. ~~mN~ m~a5~a5
c _ C'? (0. r.J~~~ .,
0 ,..:-=-~c.o"': ~
'3 -
... .. - ~ ""
D co
't: ~
1;; CD
C ~
- .,
: Co) ID- ~9~ ~ !:p, ~I~ 'I::
- 8.
.~ t1~
CD e !
Iii .~ g ~
D-
~ D-
e CD CD
W to -g !!!
UI .. e ~
;:) CD .! ~
0 E l- S
Z to ~ 5: ~
,::I:: "Ii
S r'~ s s '& i u
0 I:!~J;!J;! I:!~J;!J;! i 1
1-'" CD &!., CD .,., ~
.i E~ CD E-.;CDCD 0
z- ~ a::a:: ~::Ia::a::
0!!1 <..y.,' ~u..u.. ~u..u. Z }
g~ _::Een _::EUI Ir: 0 ~
CD -
mm I1I1 - ~ .s; ~
-l- &/) - 1: to
I=z ~ ~ Q.
cD :& a:: ~ .
) UlW ~ >- oS ~
-t.) "': 1
Oa: - - 'I:: .2 :D
u..W ?",~: ... ~ ~
0'1" ~ 1
s CD
Zo , ~ '&
OZ c.........".:,..::::... CD i a::
1=< .-,',. l t ~
s~ -.,-.;:;:;.-:--;.:-:-::,.-
'---,-,
;:)w B ~
t.)O .....E E e
..J
C[ I! i ,g i +
? 8' 'i to
~ 25
II'> Q. 1 -I!!
:5 il< -
1: CD ~
l- I:! .. ;-CD U ~ ~ ~
ii5 E c ~f ~
.. I!
:i: 'I" 1: i
~ '0 !. ..~ ::I 0 ! 'i i
c CD ~- o!i ~ 1
~ '.:.it:;) ~~ ~~
CD .!=!I ~ t ~ i
0 ;Jii
~ \. :aU) 50 ~ ~ ::E
::I
.s; A- t:! ~ I
1ii . f +
::E ;,; 5.2 CD J
c t' c :~ :is
0 0
~ c ;: ..
CD .. .s;o 't:
D ~ ?;- :; ~~ ..
't: co >
- ~ ::> u
., 8 'ii m a ~ ~
is t.) t.) -
)
Page 21
I J
ell:?
9_
Building the FIND Mod"
Iii
~
~
W
m
:>>
o
z
:3
o
~
miD
z-
OC/)
g~
IDID
~f3
C/)a:
5U
~!
z<
oa:
I=~
:3w
:>>0
~
<
Cf
~
~
in
s:
~
Page 22
..
c
o
'5-
,ZJ II>
--
...
,.
5
~~-
.!!! I'- :E.
:.- "
II> 0 II>
~.e ~
.~~<
.;.1.'-
c.'" .~
:>
,"ID
C$_
cco....u
;'c J;;-
."ji .11>
_E
"><c.
Wo
..,....,;.:.,.,.,...,-...-,.
.: .,'., ",.'.
,.,... ..,.
,,:c..,....:...._;...:...':'_',
I~
:;)'"
~E
Cz"
.. ~
:.. :.+"7;'
.-
. :.",
-,.
iE
C'C' .'1:-
.'C c....::.'B
'C
..
b
,-:
e
..
c
..
o
~
.c
,.
~
c
o
~
ZJ
'I:
;;
is
~"';1;~",,:::
NRJ.......m
:8:8~;:~
M _ IN
....
~~!3~8
C! C! C":! u;';
:!;1;~~~
Choc ......
':NrD ,.:
N.......
]I
~]I:g:g
E~~~
e!ja:a:
8'B1L1L
~m
....
~
~
N
....
E
.f
8'
...
Go
~ ~
.. =
~ 8 go
!. e"2
II> II c
C.!!
o II>~
o
>-
g ~
II C
co :>
< 8
II>
~
CD
C
~
5:
f
c.
II>
1::
8-
e
2
e
..
e
..
f=
-m
'8
~
o
z
Ii:
~
-
~
f
1i
II>
I
.~
I
e
8
y
f
c
.2
~
]
..
c
o
;:
.!!!
=
u
'ii
U
-",,-:
. /, .
~ I
;1- i
.co
""2
w_
II>
'5
E >- 19
C'CI c 0
~ 0 _
~ .!? aj '0
Q.CPECI') en
.. '5.",:> ''0
~c~II> iii
~ E e~ e
o E c.~ u
~ 8-~ ~ E
'211:- ~
- ~"O~"i I
..!!. ::g. CD~
II> ;.,.;::-.c II>
1:-_10
~ =go~.!? 0
~ 8'Bi~ 1
- ~'R~" ~
~ B:m: i i
B ..'8;;;u 11
€ -s~~..
Ii] >-! _ 15
.D__j
I~:~
=~i;
>-~ ~ c'
!-=.2
5!~1
~ i ~ ~!
i 8-'!!0-S
~ 1 ~J~
g ~O_!
i l"1;.!!!
1 I;"~
C y - ~"O
1 ~!~I
c .!! -= CD
- 1!:~-S
j ~!~~
~ j rii
i ill>~1
.!! 'i'5gg
>:0 ';(5"2"2
wu.:;,:"
o
-
...
.;
a:
oj
1::
8-
e
-
.!2.
B s:
t
~
-
~
;
'E
.!!
~
'6"
i
e.
~
!
.
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.,;
!!
'E
.!!
~
c :D
.2 1
~ \1
B !
f i
~ -!
! ~
~ j
i f
i i :_;o~
II II
~
~
.-
Bui/tling rht FIND MotUl
)
W
A.
~
W
UI
::I
C
z
5
g
UI-
z.!!.
OUl
gin
lDeI:
_ID
~~
2i~
u..W
o~
Zoo
W
1= a:
52i
::I
g
eI:
~
I-
m
:i:
~
)
:2 ~ ~~
~ If) 8 r')
o ~ _!I!
~ M M
.e
- "
.
is
.-:~ E
r~! ~...
I;~ ". ~
e. Ii D-
...<iJ1.
...~...
~- ~.
~ ~
1;
!
.'. 'J!
....1
~~
.;.fl~ ~ ~
:.e;2 .1!
j<~/l~
....
,'~' \:.,..,;",
,
:':::\:::~.!
..........::,..11 :i i
;.....~:! II
~t;
~
i;~i g
;;1~1
"
..
II,
~ ..,.;5
il ~
iLl
:I o~
c D-
O
~
.D
i
2i
f
-
t ~
o
, .
o~;
.! g !
18 ;.
1;:"
. E 8
~ D- e
" 0_
8Et
~ JEJ
~ !'2~
~ -<~j
. ~":i
~ [81
~ . J.!!
1 ti'O-P
i. g..s
i ,~!
! s.--
! 1; it!
; I !~l
~ .I5JJ
~ g.s _
Iii Iii
! 11 ) ~Ii
i I I 1~1
f tIff]
i ! i i~i
It! Iii
. i5. 15 11 ~
Iii ;iI
! i I ill
j I e li~.
. j!! ~J1
j ! i l~j
~ ~! i i j~! i.
~ ~ ~ } ~~~}
;;.n~.:I..:11
.II
~ ;!: a .!!. ~
0'1
!
J i
~ 1
t '0
~ I
!. ! .
t i 1
I!! I I
i i I
"ii
f f I
t )
l ~ ~
t t i
::I ,. ~
i i i
E :II
i J
1 '0
1 j I
) ~ i
j -i
I I I
1; IE S
Page 23
Building th. FIND Modd
Page 24
0'
I-
a:
o
~
w
e.-
ll)
a:
o
I-
(,)
<
IL
l-
II)
o
(,)
..J
<
Z
(;
a:
<
~
IL
o
Z
o
~
~
(,)
..J
<
?
II)
E
. .:!::~ %:2: . .z:::r
.....cc cc: n"'CC
1: ~!~~ ~< ~!<<
~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~~~I
~~ ~~::?N :o...~::!;;;;!
~...
:2:
ri
..E
~j
!
IH~ !i
!n~~ ~~
t::J I:i~
c e ~~~~ !Hi
i ~!n ~!
i
Q
?-
m
:E
~
1:2:
;).
~I
~.z
sf ~
.
"ii.
o
.
'!-
i
Ei
'8
.c
1ii
~
c
o
'S
.D
;:
-
co
C
'iI i= =:
'7\ . c i i
".:!!~ i'"
~H.! .!l
~hlj; !!11j;
E
.
1 I
In
l.
to
i
~ ~
o
...,:!
H~~
N_!;!~
~ s: . .
. .",~
""'...
--.
~~~~
~~~~
......It)C)
;;. - ...
. .2:::::
b t; c c
. . :;) :;)
...........................
N....M,..
_01-0.
~~~~
a::i~::
..~:!
JJ:5~
i8~i
":N'r.m
~~~~
:S:SIi!~
-
i~ · ii
ilii l.ii
j!.!.! J.!.!
'\2...... '\2......
Ji~U) ..~U)
~ oC
J II
II )1
~
c:
~ ~
o 8
(. - J
:J!
::>
It
II
~
!i
8
.s ot- ~
j! H $ '&
f pI.!
i tiJ!!
i Blt.8
b ~&~ J
c: !1~:C:
~ ~It.~
I f! ~ ~
S !o5 f
. S-,E r
i IiI t
- 8.1- I
~ ! i ~
[ ..t-!...:.
! =~c:! ..
! i!5~J 1
i ;f!s J
t li!1 !
i sfr~ !
! 1~"8J ~
I t~i! I
I ihl i
liiilt I
~~ii!i it
f~8.!i~I!51
ili li~li
III h~-l
.~ii{;lf~
j ~c.:l.~J!:I:.
.!
~
..
~ .!. eu B
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
Building /he FIND Model
. Special Districts- The core Model is designed to look at the net fisca!
impact of development on both the City and the County Genera! Fund
and Road Fund. Other agencies that have been built into the Otay Ranch
FIND Model include the County library and flood control districts and
Rura! Fire Protection District.
. Service Mix and Levels- The current mix of services provided by the City,
County Genera! Fund, Road Fund, library and flood control districts and
Rural Fire Protection District is assumed to continue at their current
levels. If new services or significantly increase service levels are provided,
appropriate modifications to the Model would need to be made.
. Revenue Sources-As with costs, the FIND Model deals with the current
mix of revenue sources at their current rates. No attempt bas been made
to predict new sources of revenue or changes in the rates of the various
revenue sources.
)
. InflatWn-The Model is designed to allow the user to define different
inflation rate assumptions. Default assumptions bave assumed an inflation
rate of zero so that all ana!yses reflect a constant dollar ana!ysis.
. Enterorise Funds- The FIND Model does not include an analysis of
enterprise funds as those are or should be operated on a pay as you go
basis. In that there is no resulting net fiscal impact, these costs (and
revenues) are not included in the Model.
. State Bud(1e1 Impacts of 1992-93-This analysis is based on currently
available assumptions regarding service and funding levels as reflected in
each agency's 1991-92 budget. The FIND Model and supporting ana!ysis
does not reflect recent State cuts to local government agencies, the specific
impacts, of which, are unknown at this time. The analysis is based on the
current known service and revenue allocation structure, which may change
over time.
Specific methodologies and assumptions developed for associating City, County
Genera! Fund, Road Fund, library and flood control districts, and Rura! Fire
Protection District costs and revenues to specific land use types is presented in
) Chapters IV and V, respectively.
Page 25
7,)
...
Page 26
"1/
_..__r_ ,
..,..- . .- ~~.
- .":'-'-4;,5i.."--"!..'-"~-::~.-:-_
l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
)
)
Detailed AtsumptiOTU: City
CIIAPI'ER IV
DETAILED
ASSUMPTIONS: CITY
This chapter presents the specific assumptions used for liDking City costs and
revenues to different land use types. The assumptions identified include fixed versus
variable cost/revenues, distn"bution methods and, as appropriate, percentage
distributions to land use type. To facilitate review, this chapter is organized as
follows:
· Expenses
. Revenues
. SpeciDJ Assumptions.
The resulting cost and revenue allocation factors resulting from these assumptions
are also discussed.
EXPENSES
To calculate a specific cost factor by program and land use type, all City operating
program costs have been allocated to appropriate land use categories. To make
these allocations, specific assumptions have been developed regarding:
. Fixed ver:ses variable expenses
. Basis of distributing costs to land uses
Page 27
~I
."')
/~
I>
Dtttu/,d Assumption.r: City
· As appropriate, specific percentage distributions to land use types based on
an arwlysis of workload rela/ed indica/ors.
Tbese assumptions have been identified and documented for all general fund and
road fund programs. All of these assumptions are presented below and on the
following pages.
FIXED VERSUS V ARlABLE EXPENSES
The specific distributions between fixed and variable expenses that have been
developed, by City program, are presented at the end of this report under the tab
labeled "FIND Model Detail" under "Distribution Methods", In developing these
distributions, the consultants reviewed in detail the City's 1991-92 budget and all
available supporting documentation. Based on this review, initial distnoutions were
made between fixed and variable expenses. This information was reviewed and
discussed with appropriate City department representatives during the analysis
process and prior to finalizing the distributions.
Examples of items that have generally been allocated as fixed include:
· Salarie.s and benefits of management positions
. Supplie.s and service.s relaJed to the dired support of management positions
. One-time costs for special studie.s and service.s unrelaJed to growth and
developmenJ
. Capital costs unrelared to growth and development.
Identified fixed costs have been subtracted from each program's total operating
budget in order to determine the resulting variable costs for the program. To assist
the City in updating the Model for future years, the budget worksheets that were
used to detennine fixed costs by program have been provided for reference and are
on file with the Project Team.
Page 28
73
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
,
Detailed Assumprioru: City
t
i
DISTRIBUTION BASIS
Once fixed and variable costs have been determined by program, the variable
program costs must be distributed to appropriate land uses. The four distribution
methods that have been used, as described in Chapter ill, include:
I
.
. General
. Demand for Service
. Direct
. Indirect.
#
Determination of an appropriate distribution method has been made based on
discussions and meetings with City department representatives. Through these
meetings, the consultants reviewed and coDfirmed the nature of services provided
and the impact that land use has on providing these services.
)
Exhibits outlining the programs that have been distributed by each distribution
method follow. Supporting distribution methodologies and assumptions are likewise
discussed.
f'..eneraJ-Exhibit IV -1 summarizes the City programs, by department, that have been
recommended to be distributed based on the General distribution method. This
distribution method assumes that services are provided to all land uses, and that
the cost of providing service is not impacted by the type of land use served. For
example, the workload generated from an aae of commercial development is not
significantly different from the workload generated from an acre of industrial
development.
EXHIBIT 1V.1-em' PROGRAMS
DISTRIBUTED ON GENERAL BASIS
Department
8utUMNO a ~
Community eav.lopmenl
AdmInIaIration
C.",onl PlannIng
Advonca Planning
Admlnll1ratlon
~apoctlon
eo..MUNrTY DEYI1..DP.,DIT
PLNo_
)
Page 29
.'j' /
j."f
Detoiled A.!sumpti01l.!: City
EXHIBIT rv-1-CnY PROGRAMS
DISTRIBUTED ON GENERAL BASIS
Deportment . Progrom
Puauc WORKa EnglnHring Admlnlotration
Operationa Admln~.tion
OoIign EnglnHring
Und DoYoloprnont
ConaIructIon hopocllon
Geographic hIormation Sya1aml
SlrHl T... MIIntananco
WaIIowalOr UII Station MIInlOnanco
Demand-Exhibit IV-2 summarizes the Cty programs that have been distributed
based on the Demand for Service distn1>ution method. These programs are
characterized by the fact that they are impacted by all land use types, but the nature
of the impact on workload is not the same. For example, one acre of single family
residential development generates more workload than one acre of commercial
development.
Because programs that have been distn1>uted on this basis are impacted differently
by different types of land use, percentages need to be developed by land use to
reflect this difference. A brief overview of the basis for making these determinations
in each noted department follows.
. lIa- Through discussions with Fire Department staff, available calls for
service data has been used for distributing these services to land use
category. Based on an analysis of this data, it has been estimated that 41
percent of calls are generated from multi-family. uses, 40 percent
commercial, 17 percent single-family residential and 2 percent industrial
uses.
. Polict'- To assess the differing impacts that the various land uses have on
the Department's services, calls for service data was reviewed by land use
type. Based on an analysis and review of this data with City staff, it was
estimated that 41 percent of the Department's workload is generated by
multi-family (attached - townhouses, condos, apartments) uses, 40 percent
commercial, 17 percent single family (detached) and 2 percent industrial
uses.
Page 30
V-j ~~-
, ~.,-,
,
1
1
l
l
1
J
.1
J
]
1
I
..
_J
De/aUod Assumptions: City
. Public Works-- The distribution of various traffic and street maintenance
related services bas been made based on trip generation factors available
by land use type. Based on a review of available factors and discussions
with Department staff, 36 percent of these costs have been allocated to
co=ercial uses, 31 percent single family residential, 22 percent multi-
family residential and 11 percent industrial uses.
All of these specific percent distributions are presented in Exhibit IV-2.
t'
t FIN
Admlnll1Tation CFS .17 .41 .40 .Q2
Training CFS .17 .41 .40 .Q2
_mien CFS .17 .41 .40 .Q2
) Suppreaalon CFS .17 .41 .40 .Q2
Pouco
Admlnlolration CFS .17 .41 .40 .Q2
AuxIliary Se....... CFS .17 .41 .40 .Q2
Support Servlceo CFS .17 .41 .40 .Q2
Uniform Patrol CFS .17 .41 .40 .Q2
ftaatlgallona CFS .17 .41 .40 .Q2
Puauc _
Tratnc engineering Tripe .31 .22 .3IJ .11
Tratne Signal & St. Ugh! Malnl Tripe .31 .22 .3IJ .11
Tratnc Oparallona Malnl Tripe .31 .22 .3IJ .11
Straat Malnl Tripe .31 .22 .3IJ .11
Stroat Sweoplng TripI .31 .22 .3IJ ,II
EXHIBIT 1V.2-CITY PROGRAMS
DISTRIBlITION ON DEMAND FOR SERVICE BASIS
,,-- - ------..... , ",'
i<: .~.;o.;;,~~ o.~orI ... " .
.. .Jnd...
)
Direct-Exhibit JV.3 presents those City programs, by department, that are
recommended for distribution using the Direct distribution method. By definition,
these programs are impacted by only selected land uses, Furthermore, all of these
programs have been determined to be impacted only by residential uses as indicated
Page 31
,. I
/ ~
/ j
Derailed Arsumption.s: City
by the distribution basis noted as "people". Consistent with discussions witb
department staff, these programs and services are directly impacted by population
as opposed to other types of growth and development. Because the nature of the
impact of these programs is people, it is not necessary to identify specific percentage
distributions by land use type.
.
EXHIBIT 1V-3-C1TY PROGRAMS DISTIUBUTlON ON DIRECT IlASIS
x".,',....... ."i _..',.../,',......".,."'.,?..~=~~~hJ,J0f\.,
"",,~;,...,.. .................................................'........U....
. ,.,.,,' '.' "'. ';VFieo.;;,.M"A..t:. )coirllit<; ·
:it:1ncI.
';
EuCt1OHO
Section. I People .504S AQ58
Poua
Animal ConIrol People I .504S1 M58 I
PARK . RECREAT10II
Admlnll'b'ation People .504S M58
Parte Malmenanoe People .504S AM
Recreation/Alhlttica People .504S M58
Recreation-North PeopIt .504S M58
Recreation-South People .504S M58
Recreation-Aquatica PeopIt .504S AM
Recreation-Stnlor Cltlnn People .504S .4~
Recreation-Sptclal Programa People .504S AM
St. I&R Con.r People .504S AM
I.JaIwn' DEPAImIENT
Admlnlttration People .504S AM
Adult Service. Peoplt .504S M58
Children'. Service. People .504S M58
Audio \'Iaual Servlooa People .504S AQ58
Acquloltlon. People .504S .4~
a,culatlon People .504S .4~
Bldg. MalnL . UIIlltitl Peoplt ~5 .4~
AuIomtlad SeMca. Peoplt .5045 .4~
CoS1I. Park Branch Peoplt .5045 .4~
Woodlawn Park Bunch p.opl. .5045 .4958
Page 32
,. / # I
I
. I
1
1
l
1
I
.\
. ,
.1
~ \
I
\
I
,I
J
.
Delm/ed Asswnption.r: Oty
Indirect-Exhibit IV-4 presents those City programs and services that have been
recommended to be distributed based on the Indirect distribution method. Based
on discussions with appropriate City staff, it has been determined that these
programs are not directly impacted by outside growth and development, but are
rather impacted by growth in other City departments and programs.
In that these program costs will grow in relationship to growth in other City
programs, the FIND Model does not compute a specific cost allocation factor for
these programs. Tbese costs, instead, are allocated to each non-indirect program
and grow in the same relationship as the individual City program grows. Tbese
costs, therefore, are treated as overhead items. As such, a separate cost forecast
is not computed by the Model.
EXHIBIT IV-4-CrTY PROGRAMS DISTRIBlITED ON INDIRECT BASIS.
EiMRDNII....AI. _Ell""
PIRIoNNEI.
CIty CouncIl
CIty N.ItJmtry
CIty aertc
/odmInIoIration
Public hformation
p"jIcy AnaIyIIa & Program Evaluation
Wonnation SyoWmo Dillillon
__ng
I!nvItonrnental Management
,,",-"-,.I Operatione
QuaIit)' 01 Work U'-
Labor JManagement Granl
1IDIunIee, SeMceI
)
em eou.....
em A,""""",
em CuRK
_110M
_Ell"" & INFO Svca.
--.-
"-'" W_
Operatione
PurahUIng
CommunIoatione
CDnetnIOIIon/Alpalr
CueIodIel MaIntenance
fllWlCl
)
Prol!Tsms Not ImDscted By Growth And DeveloDment-Wben analyzing the City's
programs, if it is determined that the program will not be impacted by growth and
development, all program costs have been categorized as fixed. Examples include
programs that are totally funded from fees, charges or other revenues directly tied
to the program. (Note that these corresponding revenues would also be treated
Page 33
/ /,
i /
Detailed Assumptions: ary
as fixed to avoid overstating available revenues.) Since there are no variable costs
to allocate to the various types of land uses, distribution methods have not been
identified for these programs. Exhibit N-5 identifies these City programs, by
department.
EXHIBIT IV~ITY PROGRAMS
NOT IMPACTED BY GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT
Bcwu:. AND Cou..~
Planning Commlaalon
Board of Appeal.
CMI Servic>> CommIaaIon
Board 01 Elhlca
Human Rtlallona CommIaaIon
.-.wrnatlonal FrlenclahJp Commlulon
Ubrary Board of T_.
Partca & _lion CommIaaIon
~ ConMIYation Commlaaion
Safety CommIaaIon
Youth CommIuIon
CommIaaIon on Aging
Montgomecy PlannIng CommIaaIon
EoonomIo Dawlopmant CommIaaIon
Cultural ArIa CommIaaIon
0IIId Care CommIaaIon
DoaIgn _ Comm_
CommunIty Promollona Comm'-
QIy Conwrl Sarlea
Chula Illata Jay c...
Ubrary OIamber Conwrla
U.N. Day
_ PlannIng s.-
SanItary s.- MaIntenance
J SIrHt MaIm.nanco
Open Space Dlatrlcta
o.ula IIIaIa Women" Oub
CI.SA Uleracy (CIty)
Nurance
Non-OopartmentaJ Expo_
OIay Ranch Project
PuIlUC Woou<o
P_ . RICIWo'OON
LJ_
M~ I "'''E0U8
Reference should be made to the report attached at the end of this documented,
under the tab labeled "FIND Model Detail" headed "Distribution Methods" under
City assumptions. Generated by FIND, this report identifies all City programs by
department and documents the recommended fixed and variable costs. The
proposed method of distribution including General, Demand for Service, Direct and
Indirect, is also identified. For the specific percent distributions recommended, refer
Page 34
Y!~i
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Detailed Assumptions: City
"
;
to tbe report beaded "Percentage Allocations", which is also located behind the tab
labeled "FIND Model Detail", This latter report only applies to those programs
that bave been allocated on a Demand for Service basis,
AI.WCATlON FACTORS
Based on the assumptions regarding fixed and variable costs, distribution methods
and percentage allocations, the FIND Model computes specific cost allocation
factors by department and program. These cost allocation factors are computed
by dividing all costs allocated to a given land use (ie., single family residential,
multi-family residential, commercial and industrial), by existing residential units,
commercial acres and industrial acres served, respectively.
r
)
Exhibit IV-6 presents the existing development information that has been used for
computing these factors. All data was provided by aty staff. The resulting cost
allocation factors generated by the FIND Model are attached at the back of this
document under the beading "Cost!Revenue Allocation Factors", which is located
behind the tab "FIND Model Detail".
EXHIBIT IV-&-EXISTlNG DEVELOPMENT ASSUMPTIONS
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
L..IInd Use
Slngle-famDy Residential
Units/Acres
23,722 units
3,954 acres
Mulll-famDy Residential
27,108 units
2,428 acres
932 acres
626 acres
Commercial
Industrial
Source: City SlBft, Spring 1992.
)
Page 35
t
{
!
!
De/ailed Arsumprioru: City
REVENUE
To calculate specific revenue factors by revenue source and land use type, all but
a few of the City's general fund revenues have been allocated to appropriate land
use categories. The exceptions include property, property transfer, sales and
transient occupancy taxes. These revenue sources have been forecast based on very
specific assumptions, which are presented at the end of this chapter.
To compute the revenue allocation factors for all other revenues, specific
assumptions have been developed regarding:
· Fixed verses variable revenues
· Basis of distributing revenues to land uses
· As appropriate, specific percenlage distributiOlU to land use types based on
an analysis of the re1o/iolUhip of land uses and the specific revenue source.
These assumptions have been identified and documented for all general fund and
road fund revenues. All of these assumptions are presented below and on the
following pages.
FIXED VERSUS V AJUABLE REvENUES
The specific distn'butions between fixed and variable revenues that have been
developed, by revenue category, are presented at the end of this report under
"Distribution Methods", which follows the tab labeled "FIND Model Detail", Unlike
the analysis of expenses, virtually all revenues are variable. Exceptions include
revenues designated for a specific purpose that would not be impacted.by growth
and development, as well as certain grants. All assumptions in this area bave been
reviewed and confirmed by appropriate City staff.
DISTRIBtmON BASIS
Once fixed and variable revenues have been detennined, the variable revenues must
be distributed to appropriate land uses. For allocating revenues to land use
Page 36
,'-'
/
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
DtliUltd ~nJmptioru: Ciry
categories, three distribution methods have been used. As described in Chapter
ill, these include:
. General
. Direct
. Indirect.
Determination of an appropriate distribution method has been made based on
discussions and meetings with City finance staff. Through these meetings, the
consultants reviewed and confirmed the nature of each revenue source and the type
of impact that land uses would have on forecasting these revenues.
Exhibits outlining the revenues that have been distributed by each distribution
method follow. Supporting distribution methodologies and assumptions are likewise
discussed.
)
General-Exhibit IV.7 summarizes City revenues, by revenue category, that have
been reco=ended to be distn'buted based on the General distn'bution method.
This distribution method assumes that revenues are generated from all land uses
evenly. For example, revenues generated from an acre of co=ercial development
would not vary significantly from revenues generated from an acre of industrial
development.
c.w.o.. _ CuIIRENT -
PlumbIng Pwmlll
EIecIrtcaI Permlll
ZDnIno .....
Bubel_ FMH'IannIng
SubdMaIon Tralftc Sign .....
SubdMoIon _Eng_rIng
Spedal _ Dopt. SeMce'
~tchlng SeMce'
SlrHl Ugh~ng ....
Plan ~ng ......B&H
EngI....rIng ......Inapec:. & Othor
Allng ......en.. As..... Form.
Allng _En.. Impoct Roport
Ptan Checking F....P1annlng
CoIrH)perated Machine Revenue
lJef-- AND ,.,.."..
)
J>age 37
~C;__,.,......
Detailed Assumption.r: CiJy
EXHIBIT rv-7-cm REVENUES DISTRIBUTED ON GENERAl. BASIS
!leY...... Category R....nu. SoUII>I
OntfJ' R[VDfuU SaIl 01 Stroet T,oe.
Pollee Training Relmb. Program
Roimbu....-Dov. Impact Foe.
_ril. on Oamagod Properly
Stmg Motn Ino1rumonlation Prg
VYIInI.. Foe
Sorvlol Chargo-Rotumod QIICIc
P.Y. RoYInUlfBank Rooon N)J
Cull Overag.
Direct-Exhibit IV-S presents those revenues, by revenue category, that are
recommended for distribution using the Direct distribution method. By definition,
these revenues have been determined to be impacted directly by selected land uses.
Under this distribution method, it is necessary to determine whether or not these
revenues are impacted only by population or if other considerations need to be
taken into account. To reflect the former instance, the term "people" is identified
as the basis of distribution. In the latter instance, the term "percent" is presented.
In those few instances where "percent" has been indicated, specific percentages have
been developed for purposes of allocating these revenues to the appropriate land
use categories. A brief discussion related to the basis for these percentage
distributions follows.
. Franchise Ta%e~Franchise taxes are generated from public utilities based
on their gross sales. To distnoute these revenues to land use type, data
available from the Southern California region on utility usage by land use
type has been used. Specific data includes average kilowatts and therms
expended by residential unit and commercial and industrial square foot.
The specific factors include:
- 4,800 KW per residential WliI, 9 KW per commercial square foot, 14
KW per office square foot, and 5 KW per industrial square foot
- 480 Therm per residential unit, .25 per commercial square fOf?t, .23 per
office square foot, and .15 per industrial square foot.
Page 38
,
i
:1
1
]
J
J
]
J
]
J
J
J
J
J
Detailed AJsump/ioru: City
)
These factors have been applied to existing development in the City, as
presented in Exhibit IV -SA, to determine an appropriate distribution of
usage by land use type. The resulting percentages, which are presented
in Exhibit IV-8B, have been applied to City franchise tax revenues.
. Utililv Users Tax-The utility users tax is paid by consumers based on a
percentage of their utility bills for such items as gas, electricity, and phone
services. Although the tax payer is different as compared to the franchise
tax, the basis for payment is am;)"". Therefore, this revenue source has
been distn"buted to land use categories on the same basis as franchise taxes
with the addition of phone usage factored in the equation. Based on data
available for the Southern California region, it has been assumed that
average phone costs per residential unit amount to $540, with commercial
and industrial uses assumed at $1.20 per square foot. Refer to Exhibit IV-
SA for the resulting computations. .
)
IXHI8IT IV~PVTATION Of' JIIfI(Jlct.1 TAX Ale VIUTY__ TAX PDCIMTAU ~
-,-1') -_I') -_1')
... - ..
...- .. .... .. .... .... .... ....
. . . "(.) .... .... '- .... - - .... - .... - T....
SD_~__ ..... - - .. .......... - .... ...- -
&..1t'S.N'--.a...L . .,_770 .... ~ - ... .... ...... ....
l.m.ot""'" III- L , 1,""''' ... JS ..."" ,.. .... 2,l1IJ21 ...
/.,_0,-<<_-
P)..sc-c~J''''''~
. Business License Tax-Business license tax revenues are levied against
businesses for the privilege of doing business in the City. By definition,
this revenue is only impacted by commercial and industrial land uses. For
purposes of distn"bution, it has been assumed that one acre of industrial
development will generate the same amount of revenue as one acre of
commercial development. Based on this assumption, the percentage that
each land use type represents of all n~n-residential acres has been used
as a basis of distributing these revenues to the two land use categories.
)
Page 39
i
"or
i
Detailed AJsumption.r: City
1
· Housinf! Permits- Tbese revenues are directly impacted by residential uses. 1
The percentage distributions between single fami1y and multi-family
residential uses is based on the number of existing units that each land use 1
type represents of total residential units.
As indicated in Exhibit IV-BB, most of the revenues distnouted on this basis have )
been determined to be driven by population.
1
]
]
J
J
J
!
~IT 1V"~DONDIREcrlASlS
I!i!;!i!~;[~!; :'If''':'i'::':::,:i':''''''''::''''''' '., ': .,'"
:...".,.....,.,.,..,.,p_I\1&"" DI.trlbutlon . .,,:
.,.........,..,.".,.,...-,...,..
....,..,.,....",.,.....
'\1'1"'."" 'iL .
.""!iN:;' )'" "ea;':"COiMIl"t:i Ind.
0nwI I.ocAo. TAXD
franchi.. T.... _nt .41 M .0; .112
l/IIli1y IJIIr T.... ~ .40 M .11 .D3
LJcoHaa AND _".
IIuaInHI Ucon... ~ .110 .40
AnImal LIDon_ .....pIe .11045 A855
BIcycI. Uoon_ .....pIe .11045 A95S
Houllng Pormlts Porcont A7 .53
fIND, foRRrTvRa a ........T1D
Ordinance lIIolationo "-<>pIe .11045 A855
Ubrary Fin.. .....pI. .11045 A95S
OTHER AoDiCl..
SI. Motor V.hlcl. LIDonoa I'M .....pIe .11045 A855
Clgar.1Io T.... .....pIe .11045 .495S
()WOO.. POll CuIUIEIfT SEJMCD
MlcrofIlm_ .....pIe .11045 .495S
SaI. 01 Mapa & Publication. "-<>pIe .11045 A855
Neighborhood Watch Servloo. "-<>pIe .11045 A855
AnImal Sh.Ito, Po.. .....pI. .!04S A95S
emergency Reapon.. .....pI. .&04S .495S
SwImming Pools .....pI. .!04S .495S
Rlcr'ltJon Program. .....pIe .11045 .495S
Parle Reservation Fe.a .....pl. .11045 .49SS
Oihe,r Park & Rect.atJon Po.. .....pl. .!i04S .49SS
cm.... REVtHUt'I
DonaUon. P-.opl. .!i04S .495.5 I I
Page 40
r'> !--
j
J
./
I
)
Dttailed Assumptions: City
EXHIBIT IV"!H:ITY REVENUES DISTIHBl1TED ON DIRECT BASIS
Percentage DI.trlbut!on
:R....nu. Caw-goryfRev.n&M Source llaolO Sf R... MF R... I Comm. Ind.
Uaf Of MONEY' PRoPERTY
nvestmen1 Earning. Peopl. .5045 .4055
OntEA MfNCID
Stoll Ga. T...Soction 2106 Peopl. .so45 .4055
Stoll Gal T..-Soction 2107 PeopII .so45 .4D55
Stol. Gal T..-Soction 2107.5 Peopll .so45 A055
"Fellllm' Fodoral Gran! PeopII .so45 .4D55
P.Y. _nuofBank _ ADJ PeopII .so45 AD55
OIIIor MIa<:. Reoolpll People .so45 A055
OniEJII REVOIu[I
District _somenll I Peopll I .so45 I .4D55 I I
)
Indirect-Exhibit IV -9 presents those revenues that have been recommended to be
distributed based on the Indirect distribution method. Based on discussions with
appropriate City staff, it has been determined that these revenues are not directly
impacted by outside growth and development, but are rather impacted by growth
in other City revenues.
In that these revenues grow in relationship to growth in other City revenues, the
FIND Model does not compute a specific revenue allocation factor for these items.
These revenues, instead, are allocated to each non-indirect revenue and grow in
the same relationship as the individual revenues grow. As with the program
expenses allocated on an indirect basis, a separate revenue forecast for these
revenues is not computed by the Model.
EXHIBIT IV+-CITY REVENUES
DISTRIBl1TED ON INDIRECT BASIS
-... c.tegory R_..... Sou..... ,',,"
GENERAL FUND
UN Of' MONrY & PMWI'PTY Aim Vkt.o tnloUrance o.ar;.
On,r" R[V'ViIUD SaI. of Real & Poroonal Prop.rIy
)
Page 41
De/lU/ed Assumption.r: City
Revenues Not ImD8cted By Growth And DeveloDment-As with the expenses, ceruiln
revenues are not impacted by growth and development. In these instances, either
the revenues are directly tied to the provision of certain services (i.e., sewer
connection permits) or are simply not impacted by outside growth (i.e., rentals and
leases of buildings). Exhibit N-IO identifies these revenue sources by fund and
revenue category.
EXHIBrr rv.1~ REVENUES NOT IMPACTED BY GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT
n......... , ,...
II........~
GENERAL FUND
....
R_n,i;'S4iiJOii'iMnij;;./
...............".....
....".... ,......
-N.......'....w.-..........
.'c-'
lJcDIao .....D PaIMm
Sower ConnectIon Parmltl
u.. '" MoNfY' ~
_Itmanl EarnIng.
Ronlall & laM.Bulkllng.
Ronlall & laM.Land
Rontal. & .......Bueball FIeld.
0tK........_
Fedoral Gran!
DiIutM Proparodnool Grant
Contrlbullona
C>woDa _ eu-xr SIJMca
National CIty Impounda
Impotlal 80.." Impounda
EDP So......
Pump Station MoInto_
Mlac. So..... etwgo.
0tKEJI REVENUES
Rolrnbu.......nl-Stall Abondonod VohIdo
RoImburwmont-Olho< ~ncIo.
Rolmburwmont-CIP PIojocto
~lmburMment Rad...IDpment~
St. Mobllo Homo PotIc Act Foo
OIhor Mlac. Rocelpto
Reference should be made to the report attached at the end of this documented
headed "Distribution Methods" under "FIND Model Detail" within the City
assumptions. Generated by FIND, this report identifies all City revenues by revenue
category and documents the recommended fixed and variable revenues. The
proposed method of distribution including General, Direct and Indirect, is also
identified. For the specific percent distributions recommended, refer to the report
headed "Percentage Allocations", which is also presented under the tab labeled
"FIND Model Detail". This latter report only applies to those revenues that have
been allocated on a Direct basis other than by population.
Page 42
r....
.1
l
I
. I
~
l
1
1
-\
'/
\
1
,I
D./ml.d AsswnptioTIJ: City
ALLOCATION FACTORS
Based on the assumptions regarding fixed and variable revenues, distribution
metbods and percentage allocations, the FIND Model computes specific revenue
allocation factors by revenue source and land use type. These revenue allocation
factors are computed by dividing all revenues allocated to a given land use (i.e.,
single family residential, multi-family residential, commercial and industrial), by
existing residential units, commercial acres and industrial acres served, respectively.
Refer back to Exhibit IV-6 for the existing development information that has been
used for computing these factors. All data was provided by Oty staff. The resulting
revenue allocation factors generated by the FIND Model are attacbed at the back
of this document under the heading "Cost/Revenue Allocation Factors", which is
presented under the tab labeled "FIND Model Detail".
') SPECIAL ASSUMPTIONS
Because of the importance and significance of selected revenue sources to the Oty,
the Otay Ranch Find Model has been designed to forecast certain revenues based
on very specific assumptions. These revenues include:
. Property tax
. Property transfer tax
. Sales tax
. Transient occupancy t=
The specific assumptions for each of these revenues is presented briefly below and
on the following page.
. ProlJertY Tax-A number of different factors and assumptions influence the
forecast of property tax revenues. For purposes of this analysis, the FIND
Model has assumed tbe following:
- City share of the 1 percen! property tax levy is 13.9015 percent
)
Page 43
(
\
,.
q, -
,.. ~ '.~
',,""' - .. ,. -...,
-
Deta;/ed Asrumption.r: City
-increased assessed values associaJed wiJh the purchase of any land
wiJhin the project boundaries thaJ Baldwin CUTTently holds with an
option to buy.
-Auessed values for all development, as provided by the Baldwin
Company (refer to 'Tax Role and Other Assumptions" report on the
tab labeled "Phasing/Other Assumptions").
To ensure revenues are not overstated, the State homeowner's property
tax has been deleted as a line item from the analysis.
· ProlJertv Transfer Tar-For purposes of forecasting the property transfer
tax, the FIND Model assumes the following:
- City tax rate of $.55 per $1000 of sales amounJ of transferred property
- Tunwver raJes of property tmU11Ied at 8 years for single family
residential, 12 years for mulJi-family residential and 15 years,
respectively, for commercial and industrial property.
These assumptions are documented under the tab labeled "Phasing/Other
Assumptions".
· Sales and Use Tar-To compute sale tax revenues, the Model multiplies
taxable sales figures by total square footage of commercial and industrial
development anticipated to come on-line. The Oty's 1 percent sales tax
levy is applied against the resulting taxable sales to compute anticipated
sales tax revenues.
For purposes of this analysis, a weighted average of taxable sales per
commercial development has been computed using available information
from the Urban Land Institute and data generated through previous
analysis. Specific assumptions that have been used in computing the
weighted average include:
-Business Park - Ta:.cahle sales per square foot of $25.00
- Freeway Commercial - Taxable sales per square foot of $155.00
- Commercial - Non EVC - Taxable sales per square foot of $144.00
Page 44
(--" ,
,\ ,I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
)
f
)
l
r
r
[
[
[
[
[
I
)
Detailed Asswnptio1lJ: City
-RLsort - Hotel- Taxable sales per square foot of $7.45
-Resort - Commercial - Taxable sales per square foot of $168.00
-Regional Mall- Tamble sales per square foot of $183.00
-EUC - VISitor - Tamble sales per square foot of $168.00
-EUC - Office - Taxable sales per square foot of $25.00.
By applying these factors to the anticipated mix of commercial and office
development in Otay Ranch, the weighted average taxable sales per
commercial development can be calculated. However, this average will
change if the jurisdictional boundaries shift. Based on the boundary
assumptions for the City/County recommended plan, the weig1tted average
of taxable sales per square foot of commercial development amounts to
$85.65. Exhibit IV -11 presents the supporting computations. Taxable sales
of $25 per square foot have been assumed for industrial development.
EXHIBIT JY.11-COMPUTATlON OF WElGKTED SALES TAX ASSUMPTION
TuMIe ..., WoIg_
CIty Square ~ Iq."'- T.... Ta ..... -'--ge
Bull..... Part< 1,0D3.D08 S25 127 .32!5.2DO
Fr..way Comm.rclaJ 1125,214 155 '43.-,'07
ComIMion-EUC. NB ',183,743 144 17O,458,D;2
Center
EUC Roglonal 1.2DO.000 183 218,1100.000
Commercial
EUCIIIIIIor 500,000 188 14.000.000
Commercial
EUC 0It\c0 . ~ '.85',_ 2!5 48,787 .2DO
EUC 0It\c0 . Med/Hgh 1,30S,800 2!5 32.m.ooo
e, I 110,253 M8U24,2811 SI5.es
. Transient OCCUDancv Tax-Assumptions used by the FIND Model to
forecast these revenues include:
-Average room rale of $]25 per night
_ Occupancy rale of 68 percent
- Tax rale of 8 percent.
Page 45
"
1J
.
'1"
, ,
I
1
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Derailed Asswnption.r: City
Tbese assumptions are consistent with area trends as confjnned by
members of the Service/Revenue CoIDIIriuee.
To allow significant flexibility to the user, the Otay Ranch Model has been designed
so that changes and modifications can be made to all of the assumptions impacting
the forecast of property, property transfer, sales and transient occupancy taxes.
SUMMARY
This chapter has presented all of the assumptions and methodologies used for
distributing City costs and revenues to appropriate land use categories. As discussed
previously, these assumptions directly impact the subsequent calculation of cost and
revenue allocation factors. FIND Model generated reports documenting all of these
assumptions, as well as the resulting cost/revenue allocation factors, are presented
and indexed at the end of this report under the tab labeled "FIND Model Detail".
Page 46
D.tDiled Assumptions: CoUflIy
CHAPTER V
DETAILED ASSUMPTIONS:
COUN1Y GENERAL FUND, ROAD FUND
LIBRARY AND FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICfS
AND RURAL FIRE PROTEcrION DISTRICf
)
This chapter presents the specific assumptions used for linking County General fund,
Road Fund, library and flood control districts, and Rural Fire Protection District
costs and revenues to different land use types. The assumptions identified include
fixed versus variable costs/revenues, distribution methods and, as appropriate,
percentage distributions to land use type. To facilitate review, this chapter is
organized as follows:
. Expenses
. Revenues
. Special .As.rumptions.
The resulting cost and revenue allocation factors resulting from these assumptions
are also discussed.
EXPENSES
To calculate a specific cost factor by program and land use type, all County General
Fund, Road fund, library and flood control districts, and Rural Fire Protection
District operating program costs have been allocated to appropriate land use
)
Page 47
"') ~
,."-..,.....,.
Detajled Arsumption.s: COUfIty
categories. To make these allocations, specific assumptions have been developed
regarding:
· Fixed verses variable expenses
· Basis of distributing costs to land uses
· As appropriaJe, specific percenJage distributions to land use types based on
an analysis of workload related indicators.
These assumptions have been identified and documented for the County General
Fund, Road Fund, library and flood control districts and Rural Fire Protection
District. All of these assumptions are presented below and on the following pages.
FIXED VERSUS V ARlAJILE EXPENSES
The specific distributions between fixed and variable expenses that have been
developed for the County General Fund, Road Fund, horary and flood control
districts, and Rural Fire Protection District are presented at the end of this report
under "Distribution Methods", which is a report under the tab labeled "FIND Model
Detail" following County assumptions. In developing these distnoutions, the
consultants reviewed in detail 1991-92 budgets and all available supporting
documentation. Based on this review, initial distn'butions were made between fixed
and variable expenses. This information was reviewed and discussed with
appropriate County and special district representatives during the analysis tasks and
prior to fin"Hzing the distributions.
Examples of items that have generally been allocated as fixed include:
· Salaries and benefils of managemenJ positions
. Supplies and services related to the direa support of managemenJ positions
. One-time costs for special studies and services unrelated to growth and
developmenJ
· Capital costs unrelated 10 growth and developmenJ.
Page 48
1::
"
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
D<lmled ksumpDons: County
Identified fixed costs have been subtracted from each program's total operating
budget in order to determine the resulting variable costs for the program. To assist
the County in updating the Model for future years, the budget worksheets that were
used to determine fixed costs by program have been made available for reference.
The City and County are not in agreement on the methodological treatment of
capital costs. Capital costs are shown two ways because it represents a different
treatment of City and County expenditures. For the City of ChuIa Vista, all capital
costs were excluded from the FIND analysis because those costs will be covered
by developer exactions through the land development process.
The County was treated the same except in two areas for which no provision has
been made. These include:
. Rents and leases
. Regional capital costs.
)
The first item, rents and leases, is a cost item for the County but not for the City
because the County does not have sufficient building space to house all needed
County functions and therefore expends funds "nnm.11y on rents and leases. All
City costs for space occupancy are covered through ongoing maintenance costs, with
the capital components for the existing residents IIlrcady paid, and with developer
contributions for new space needs.
The second item, regional capital costs, represents an "nnnp.l general fund
expenditure to provide additional regional capital costs to serve the expanding
population. Unlike the City that finances all of its new buildings by developer fees,
the County lacks the authority to impose County-wide developer fees for the
expansion of regional facilities, therefore, general funds are used for this purpose.
DISTRIBUJ10N BASIS
Once fixed and variable costs have been determined by program, the variable
program costs must be distributed to appropriate land USeS. The four distribution
methods that have been used, as described in Chapter m, include:
)
Page 49
..!~
,
Dtlail.d Arsumptions: COWlty
. General
· Demand for Service
· Direct
. Indirect.
Determination of an appropriate distribution basis has been made based on
discussions and meetings with County and special district representatives. Through
these meetings, the consultants reviewed and confirmed the nature of services
provided and the impact that land use has on providing these services.
Exhibits outlining the programs that have been distncuted by each distncution
method follow. Supporting distribution methodologies and assumptions are likewise
discussed. For purposes of review, all County General Fund programs are first
presented followed by the Road Fund. The hcrary and flood control districts and
the Rural Fire Protection District follow thereafter. For the Rural Fire Protection
District, projected costs reflect a pro-ration of existing costs. Recognizing the
potential for serving a very different mix of development than currently served, the
pro-ration of existing costs may not be adequate to serve the proposed development
General-Exhibit V-l summarizes the County General Fund, Road Fund and subject
special district programs that have been reco=ended to be distncuted based on
the General distribution method. This distribution method assumes that services
are provided to all land uses, and that the cost of providing service is not impacted
by the type of land use served. For example, the workload generated from an acre
of co=ercial development is not significantly different from the workload
generated from an acre of industrial development
EXHIBIT V.I-COUKTY ANO SPECIAL DISTRICT PROGRAMS DISTRIBUTED ON GENERAL BASIS
~'nr:f/fvnd
COUKTY GENERAL FUND
Farm Homo AdYIIof
PlannIng and Land Uoo
Public _
_110O<
lAFCO
Community ~mont
AKord.r
Tranobordor Altai..
Tr.uu,.,.Tax CollectoJ
FLOOO CONTROL DISTRICT
Flood Control Service.
Page 50
/J --
0~-';
, ,-,"
l
l
1
-,
I
"I
I
.\
-,
I
"I
. '
De/ailed Arsumption.s: County
'Demand-Exhibit V-2B summarizes the County General Fund and Road Fund
programs that have been distributed based on the Demand for Service distribution
method. Note that none of the special district programs bave been recommended
to be allocated on this basis. Tbe County programs distributed on this basis are
characterized by the fact that they are impacted by all land use types, but the nature
of the impact on workload is not the same. For example, one acre of single family
residential development generates more workload than one acre of commercial
development.
Because programs that have been distributed on this basis are impacted differently
by different types of land use, it is necessary to identify through percentages what
this difference is. A brief overview of the basis for m"JnTlg these determinations
in each noted department follows.
. AlJematil'e Defem;e Coun.l'el- This function is related to the activities of the
courts. For distribution purposes, these expenses have been allocated
based upon the workload of the municipal court. See discussion for courts.
)
. Conflict Public DeferuJer-As with Alternative Defense Counsel, this
function is related to the activities of the courts. For distribution purposes,
these expenses have been allocated based upon the workload of the
municipal court. See discussion for municipal court.
. CoulllY Clerk-Based on an analysis olthis program, it was determined that
the marriage license activity of the program is impacted by residential land
uses, whereas the fictitious bn.'ness name activities are impacted by non-
residential uses. For purposes of distributing overall program costs to land
use type, the marriage license activity has been allocated based on
population. Tbe rf'm"'n'ng component of the program has been allocated
to commercial and industrial uses based on the percentage that each
currently represents of total non-residential, developed acres. The resulting
percentage distributions include 18 percent to single family and multi-
family uses, respectively, 42 percent to commercial and 22 percent to
industrial uses.
. Di~rict Attome\'- This function relates to the activities of the courts. For
distribution purposes, these expenses have been allocated to land use type
)
Page 51
1ro
Detailed Assumptiofl.l: County
based on the workload of the municipal court. See discussion for
municipal court.
. Marshall-As with other services, this function is related to the activities
of the courts. These expenses, therefore, have been allocated to land uses
based on the workload of the municipal court. See discussion for
municipal court.
. Municipal Court-The activities of the municipal courts include jurisdiction
over all criminal misdemeanors, infractions, traffic offenses, civil cases
under $25,000, small ,,)Aim. and preliminAry felony case hearings. These
activities have been allocated to the various land use types based upon the
distribution of calls for police service by land use. See discussion for
Sheriff's Department, enforcement.
. Probation-This function relates directly to the activities of the courts, and
therefore, has been allocated based on the same percentage distribution
as the municipal court. See discussion for municipal court.
. PublU: Defende1'- This function relates directly to the activities of the courts,
and therefore, has been allocated based on the same percentage
distribution as the municipal court. See discussion for municipal court.
. Sheriff Department. Detention-Based on a review of avai1able data and
discussions with County staff, it is assumed that the ratio of individuals
incarcerated is related to the calls for police services. These costs,
therefore, have been distn'buted to land use types on the same basis as
enforcement services for the Department. See discussion for Sheriff
Department, Enforcement.
. Sheriff Department. El\forrement-Recognizing that public safety calls for
service generated by land use type will be the same in the Otay Ranch
project whether development occurs in the City or the unincorporated area
of the County, it is important that distributions in this area be consistent
between the City and the County. In that detailed calls for service
infonnatiort was readily available from the City, the same calls for service
per unit of development identified in the City was applied against existing
development in the County in order to compute resulting percentage
Page 52
1~!
---.-"
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
Detm/ed Amunptio1U: County
distributions by land use type in the County. Tbese computations are
presented in Exhibit V-lA Tbe reswting percentage distributions by land
use type include 37 percent to commercial, 32 percent multi-family
residential, 28 percent single family residential and 3 percent industrial.
EXHIBIT V-2A-CA!.CULA110N OF SHERIFF PERCEKTAGE DISTRIBU110NS
ExlatinV County CIty CFS By UncI Total CFS ,.,.;.'""v. 01 Tola!
Unln=rpor.tod Dowlopmonl 11M Typo
l1li.944 IInvl. lamlly unlla __/unIt 2._ 28"
47.845 multi-family unlla _funK 3,011 ~
1,944 commercial .ern 1.7WSI/__ 3.485 In'
2.054 JndustriaJ aCt.. .1342/__ 2715 K
)
. Superior Coul1-The superior court has jurisdiction over all felonies, civil
cases over S2S,OOO, cases involving title and possession of real property,
dissolution of marriage, probate, conservatorship, mental health, and
juvenile proceeding5. The land uses that impact these activities vary by
activity. The resulting percentage distributions that have been developed
for this program are based on case type and weighted judicial workload
data as provided by the court.
. Road Maintenance-This program has been allocated to land uses based
on an analysis of trip generation factors. Recognizing that the trips
generated by land use within the Otay Ranch project will be the same
regardless of whether the development occurs in the City or the
unincorporated area of the County, it is important that distn"butions in this
area be consistent between the City and County. To ensure consistency,
this program has been distributed to land uses on the same basis as City
street maintenance costs, which assumed an average of 10 daily trips per
single family residential unit, 7 per mwti-family unit, 300 per commercial
acre and 140 per industrial acre. The methodology used to allocate trips
to land use is the same as was used for police ca1ls for service described
above.
All of these specific percent distributions are presented in Exhibit V-2B.
)
Page 53
()(
i
, ,
Detailed Assumprion.s: County
EXHIBIT V-2IH:OUNTY PROGRAMS DISTRIBIJnD ON DEMAND FOR SERVICE BASIS
" ~ ,.
N.. , P....nlaae DIotrlbutlon
Av-noy /Fund/Provram s.;:1"" SF Rea. 1;';,',,";:'1' I
Baal. Comm. Ind.
CouHrt G.......
All. Del. Coun..1 A Percent .17 :ST .43 .03
Conftlct Pub. Defender A p.,cent .17 :ST .43 .03
Countv aerie A Percent .18 .18 .42 .22
Dlotrtc\ Attorney A Peroont .17 :ST .43 .03
, _all A Percent .17 :ST .43 .03
Municipal Coull A Percent .17 :ST .43 .03
Probation A Percent .17 :ST .43 .03
Public Defender A Percent .17 :ST .43 .03
Shertll-Detondon A Percent .28 .32 :ST .03
Shertll-Enforoomant U Percent .28 .32 :ST .03
Superior Coull A Percent .33 .47 .1; .01
RQAI) fUND
Road MaJntenance I U Percent A4 .14 I .281 .14
(I) "A" dea/pnlJllona Ind/cllllt _ _ piO'tIIded 10 ._ CDcmIy. __ V do4/pn1J11onl ..- .._a
only pffNldod Ie fhfI unlncorpora1Od .,.. 01 fhfI County.
Direct-Exhibit V.3 presents those County General Fund, h"brary district, aild Rural
Fire Protection District and special district programs that are recommended for
distribution using the Direct distribution method. By definition, these programs
are impacted by only selected land uses. Under this distribution method, it is
necessary to determine whether or not these programs are impacted only by
population (i.e., residential uses) or if other considerations need to be taken into
account. To reflect the former instance, the term "people" is indicated under the
basis of distribution. In the latter instance, the term "percent" is presented.
In only one instance has "percent" been indicated. In this case, specific percentages
have been developed for purposes of allocating these program costs to the
appropriate land use categories. Supponing information for this one program is
presented below.
Page 54
I)
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
DetajJed MsumptiOns: Counry
. Al!riculturelWeil!hts &: Measure.l'-Based on a review of services provided
in this area, it has been determined that agricultural enforcement is directly
impacted by industrial land uses, whereas weight and measure activities
are impacted by commercial uses. Based on these assumptions, 90 percent
of all program costs have been allocated to industrial uses and 10 percent
have been allocated to commercial uses.
EXHIBIT V4-Cou~.:~ s....'..............E........C..........IAL......~~............D...... I. STRICT 'ROG..RAM..,;...........,....,.s.....' ...D.............;.....~....'..........,;;:. ;;;;.;,;,o;DI"';~~:Oft....~.t. ..,.....'.......~~....:....'.....'....t....'..
;;;;-.:""._.:.::.:~.~~:::;::'::::::~:i~)%w:;:~r _ _ _ ...'" - _ _ __ _ -.- ....wvw - - -.-. --- - ----
Ag"nrryfFllttd/",*;"',,,ii.)?SfR.L.J.iIi~~~;Ej~;llr>ct.
CouNTY GENERAL
GrondJury A Pooplo .5342 .-
,.... Agency on Aging A People .5342 .-
Hoallh Servico. A Pooplo .5342 .-
SodoI Service. A PoopIo .5342 .-
Ag./WIlghll & Me....... A "-reont .10 .80
Animal Control U People -.11872 .312B
) Housing & Comm. 00Y. U People .11872 .312B
Ub<ary U People .11872 .312B
Medico! examiner A People .5342 .-
_ & _e.tion A PoopIo .5342 .-
Public Admin. A People .5342 .-
Roglatrll 01 Vole.. A People .5342 .-
1Ja.....
Ubflty u I Pooplo I .11872 .312B I
Filii DoI'naCr
FI.. I u I Poople .11872 .312B I
(a) 'A't>>./g_altKt_ ___"'-" - Cooa>Iy, - V~.....,,-
only pIOYIdod" fire un/ncOrpOrDd.... "'fire County.
Indirect-Exhibit V-4 presents those County General Fund programs and services
that have been recommended to be distributed based on the Indirect distribution
method. Note that none of the special district programs have been recommended
to be allocated on this basis. Based on discussions with appropriate County staff,
it has been determined that the noted programs are not directly impacted by outside
growth and development, but are rather impacted by growth in other County
) General Fund departments and programs.
Page 55
/)0
D~toj/~d AIsumprio1U: County
In that these program costs will grow in relationship to growth in other County
General Fund programs, the FIND Model does not compute a specific cost
allocation factor for tbese programs. These costs, instead, are allocated to each
non-indirect program and grow in the same relationship as the individual County
General Fund programs grow. These costs, therefore, are treated as overbead items.
A5 such, a separate cost forecast is not computed by the Model.
EXHIBIT V-4-COUNTY PROGRAMS DISTRIBUTED ON INDIRECT BASIS
....ney IFund Proar.n!
COUNTY GENERAL Auditor & Controllor
_ of SuporvllO"
0>101 Admin. OffICer
Oorlc of Bowd
County Counoel
Cep/lelAaIot Laulng
eM! Service
EJect. Syo. & Equlpmont
Equel OpporlUnIty Manegoment 0IIIc0
equipment Acquloition
Gene'" Servlceo
Humen Resourceo Deporlmont
nforrnetion Servlceo
Major -"."..
Public ServIce UtlI.
PurcIIuIng & Contract
_uo & Rocovery
Prolmlms Not Imnscted By Growth And Develonment-Wben analyzing the County
General Fund and Road Fund, libraI)' and flood control districts and Rural Fire
Protection District programs, if it is determined that the program will not be
impacted by growth and development, all program costs have been categorized as
fixed. Examples include programs that are totally funded from fees, charges or other
revenues directly tied to the program. (Note that these corresponding revenues
would also be treated as fixed to avoid overstating available revenues.) Since there
are no variable costs to allocate to the various types of land uses, distn'bution
methods have not been identified for these programs. Exhibit V-S identifies these
programs. None of the Road Fund or subject special district programs fall into this
category .
EXHIBIT Y.5-COUNTY GENERAL FUND PROGRAMS NOT IMPACTED BY GRownt AND DEVELOPMEIlT
~on.YfFund Provrun
COUNTY GENERAl. Nr Pollution Control
Coble TV
Clap/to! Departmont
Rents and Llluel
Page 56
/1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ItI
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Detailed As.rumprio/IJ: County
)
Reference should be made to the report attached at the end of this document
headed "Distribution Methods" under the tab labeled "FIND Model Detail",
Generated by FIND, this report identifies all County General Fund, Road Fund,
library and flood control districts, and Rural Fire Protection District programs and
documents the reco=ended fixed and variable costs. The proposed method of
distribution including General, Demand for Service, Direct and Indirect, is also
identified. For the specific percent distributions reco=ended, refer to the report
headed "Percentage Allocations" following the tab labeled "FIND Model Detail",
This latter report only applies to those programs that have been allocated on a
Demand for Service or Direct Percent basis,
ALWCATION FACTORS
)
Based on the assumptions regarding fixed and variable costs, distribution methods
and percentage allocations, the FIND Model computes specific cost allocation
factors by fund/agency, department and program. These cost allocation factors are
computed by dividing all costs allocated to a given land use (i.e.. single family
residential, multi-family residential, co=ercial and industrial), by existing
residential units, co=ercial acres and industrial acres served, respectively.
Recognizing that certain County services are provided to all areas in the County,
whereas other services are only provided to the unincorporated areas of the County,
different existing development assumptions have to be applied to reflect these
distinctions in computing the allocation factors, Exhibit V-6 identifies those
programs that serve only the unincorporated areas of the County and those that
serve the entire County area.
)
Page 57
c ..
! J..,,__"./'
J,
Detailed Assumptions: County
EXHIBIT V+-COUNTY AND SPECIAL DISTRICT PROGRAMS AND AREA SERVED
Unlncory>olated ~..
CouNTY GV.EAAL
ShertH-Enforcement
Animal Conltol
Houling & Community DoYOlopmenl
Ubrary - Genera! Fund Contribution
Planning & Land UN
Public Wor1<a
Auditor & Controllor.UnI~ated
Board 01 SuporvlOO<l-Unlncorporated
CIIIoI Admin. OIfioor-lJnlncorporated
Clerk 01 Board.Unlncorporated
County Counoo~Unlncorporated
Capital _I Laulng-lJnincorporated
ROAD
Road
CIvIl Sorvioo-Unl~ated
e.ct. Sya. & EqulpAJnlncorporated
Equal Opport. Mgt. Offico-Unlnco<p.
equip. .-.:qulo.-lJnI~alod
Genaral Sorvlcoo-Unlncorporated
Human Rooourcoo-lJnInco<poralod
Into Sorvlcoo-lJnInco<porated
Mojo< MaInt.~ated
Pub. Sorv. UtiI.-IJnII_ated
Purch. & Contr...~ated
Ronta & L.aueo-IJnIncorlod
Cap/taI-IJnInCO
I.IaRAIo'r
Ubfary
FLDOO eo.n-
Rood Control
CouNTY GEN......
All. o.r. Counool
ConIIicI Pub. Dolondor
County Clerk
DIatrIcI AItomOy
Grand Jury
-..,
MunlCourt
Pl'obation
Public Dolondor
Sherlfl..Dotontion
Superior Court
Ma foQo""" on foQlng
HoaIth SorvlcoO
SocIal Sorvlool
foQ.fWolghta & MeUUrol
~r Pollution ConIrol
Farm Homo AdvIsor
Medical ExamInaf
_ & _oa_
Public Admin.
Aoglotrar oI_re
_uor
Auditor & ControI'-r-Nt
Board 01 Supo~1
0>1ol Admin. 0ItIc0r""1
Oorlc 01_
Community ~mont
County CounaoI-AII
LAFoo
AlCcfde.r
Tranabo<dar Maire
Trouu.....T.. CoI_
CapItal - I.auInQ-AII
a.a Sorvico-NI
Elect. Syo. & Equlp.""1
Equal Oppof\. Mgt. 0Ifi00-AI1
equip. .-.:qula.""1
Gen. SoIYl.-Nt
Human 110__1
Into Sorvlco_1
Mojo< _-Nt
Pub. Sorv. UtI"""1
Purd1uIng & Contract"'"
Ronta & Lauo~1
_..... &-ry
CapItaI-AII
Exhibit V-?, thereafter, presents the existing development assumptions for the
unincorporated area of the County and the entire County. Program costs that reflect
services provided to the unincorporated areas of the County have been divided by
existing development assumptions for the unincorporated areas of the County.
Simi1arly, service costs associated with uses county-wide have been divided by
county-wide development figures. Refer to Appendix B for SANDAG source data
noting that acreage data includes only the western third of the County, and
remaining areas are unsurveyed at this time. In addition, more complete data on
total County land use acreage will be available in 1993 for future runs of the FIND
Model.
Page 58
/03
J
-1
1
-.\
]
1
1
J
..,
J
'I
I
DeUliltd A.rsumprio1lJ: County
,
(
, I
.
.
EXHIBIT V-7-EXlSTlNG DEVELOPMENT ASSUMPTIONS
SAN DIEGO COUNTY AND IMPACTED SPECIAL DISTRICTS
UnNorpOrlted ArM "".""CoIIiit)'-wIila Flra OI."lct
Land U..
Ac... Unlto Acr.. UnIto Ac,.. Unlto
5Inolo-Iamllll Roald. III 46718 l1li V4-4 118 I!9V _705 N/" 8000
Mult!-Iamllll Rosld. f.1 28 022 47 846 73 385 478 53!5 N/" 0
Commercial Ibl 1 V4-4 N/" 18 542 N/... 0 N/"
Indul\1la1 Ib\ 2.054 N/... 18881 N/" 0 N/"
_: F_ conlrDl ../W. anllll unincorpotrllW1_ d",. County.
(I) Source: SANDAG'. ActMty Cen"'lI r:>-ha_, 1lIIIO.
fb) Source: SANDAG, UncI UN by Ju1fad/ction, 188&
R.,., fD Appendix A
The resulting cost allocation factors generated by the FIND Model are attached
at the back of this document under the heading "Cost Allocation Factors" following
the tab labeled "FIND Model Detail",
)
REVENUE
To calculate specific revenue factors by revenue source and land use type, all but
a few of the County General Fund, Road Fund and subject special district revenues
have been allocated to appropriate land use categories. The exceptions include
property, property transfer, sales and transient oc:cupancy taxes. These revenue
sources have been forecast based on very specific assumptions, which are presented
at the end of this chapter.
To compute the revenue allocation factors for all other revenues, specific
assumptions have been developed regarding:
. Fixed ver.ses variable revenues
. Basis of distributing revenues to land uses
)
. As appropriaJe, specific percentage distributions to land use types based on
an analysis of the relaJionship of land uses and the specific revenue source.
Page 59
I () If'
,
Da~kd~~mprio~:Co~~
Tbese assumptions have been identified and documented for the General Fund,
Road Fund, library and flood control district and Rural Fire Protection District.
All of these assumptions are presented below and on the following pages.
FIXED VERSUS VARIABLE REvENUES
Tbe specific distributions between fixed and variable revenues that have been
developed, by revenue category, are presented at the end of this report under
"Distribution Methods", which is presented behind the tab labeled "FIND Model
Detail" following County assumptions. Unlike the analysis of expenses, virtually
all revenues are variable. Exceptions include revenues designated for a specific
purpose that would not be impacted by growth and development, as well as certain
grants. All assumptions in this area have been reviewed and confirmed by
appropriate County and special district staff.
DISTRIBUTION BASIS
Once fixed and variable revenues have been determined, the variable revenues must
be distributed to appropriate land uses. For allocating County General Fund, Road
Fund, and subject special district revenues to land use categories, two distn'bution
methods have been used. As described in Chapter III, these include:
· Direct
. Indirect.
Determination of an appropriate distn"bution basis has been made based on
discussions and meetings with County and special district finance staff. Through
these meetings, the consultants reviewed and confirmed the nature of each revenue
source and the type of impact that land uses would have on forecasting these
revenues.
Exhibits outlining the revenues that have been distributed by each distribution
method follow. Supporting distribution methodologies and assumptions are likewise
discussed.
Direct-Exhibit V-8B presents those County General Fund, Road Fund and subject
special district revenues that are recommended for distribution using the Direct
distribution method. By definition, revenues recommended to be distributed using
Page 60
I. }r-'
,-.1 _
]
]
I
J
J
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
DetJJj/.d Asnunprion.s: County
this method are impacted directly by selected land uses. As noted in Exhibit V-S,
most of these revenues have been determined to be impacted by residential uses
as indicated by the disttibution basis noted as .people". Consistent with discussions
with County and other staff, these revenues are directly impacted by population as
opposed to other indicators of growth and development
In those instances where "percent" has been indicated, it has been determined that
these revenues are impacted by considerations other than population. To disttibute
these revenues to different land use types, specific percentages have been developed
to reflect the relationship that land use has on revenue generation. A brief
discussion related to the basis for these percentage distributions follows.
)
. Franchist Tans-Franchise taxes are generated from public utilities based
on their gross sales. To distribute these revenues to land use type, data
generated by land use type has been used. Specific data iDcludes average
kilowatts and therms expended by residential unit and commercial and
industrial square foot The specific factors include:
- 4,80() KW per residential unit, 9 KW per commerc:iaJ squll1'e foot, 14
KW per offict square foot, and 5 KW per industrial squll1'e foot
- 480 Therm per residentiaJ unit, .25 per commercial squll1'e foot, .23 per
offict square foot, and .15 per industrial squll1'e foot.
These factors have been applied to existing development in the
unincorporated area of the County, as presented in Exhibit V -SA, to
determine an appropriate distribution of usage by land use type.
EXHIBIT V-lA-CQMPUTATlOH OF FRANCHISE TAX PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTIONS
:::: ::~:,h:~>t'::::;:>y::,;:::;.
: ':':';;":':::':'~:':::~:::::: ....;.;......-...
. , ,:.;.:,:::.:" ".,:;::. .:.:.:: ::'-.:': ~. :
COUlllJ'oUM..orporilw .
ED"ng DI.JlcplJiant (8)
;.',;.::::;:
']rl?(Kii:':~'u.'~p('Ib):: "),i:{i:. .,:" 1.;:-:;:;i)t~1f:~~:j~~=:=j~t.)~:!:;:~:i:~:::
.-.
:::"':>>:::':':::
1,317,731 ......",.rdaI oq.1\.
828.608 IndUOlrlal oq. I\.
(o) Sou,.,.: SANDN3. _ II> AppMIdbt B.
(/>) Sou,.,.: SaMc:.JRr.-n.... 70chnlcal eomm_.
KW..... ""01 TIIeIa
UnIt ToI8I "- ToI8I ..... UnIt ToI8I 11M,. "" 01 Total
4.800 e81),427 ,200 - 410 ee,042.720 -
. 11_.571 3 .25 321.433 ,..
8 4.143.040 '" .18 124.211 0'10
137.. ..tIcIontlal unllo
)
/)(p
Page 61
DeUUkd A3swnpOons: Cow>ry
· Trial Cour1 fUndinp- These revenues relate directly to the activities of the
courts, and therefore, have been allocated based on the same percentage
distribution as the municipal court (refer to discussion of County expenses).
· Cour1 Fines and Forfeitures- These revenues relate directly to the activities
of the courts. For distribution purposes, therefore, these revenues have
been allocated based on the same percentage distn1>ution as the municipal
court (refer to discussion of County expenses.)
· Business License Tar-Business license tax revenues are levied against
businesses for the privilege of doing business in the unincorporated area
of the County. To simplify this analysis, it is assumed that this revenue
is only impacted by commercial and industrial land uses. For purposes
of distn1>ution, it has been assumed that one acre of industrial development
will generate the same amount of revenue as one acre of commercial
development. Based on this assumption, the percentage that each land
use tYPe represents of all non-residential acres has been used as a basis
of distributing these revenues to the two land use categories.
As indicated in Exhibit V -8B, most of the revenues distn"huted on this basis have
been determined to be driven by population.
EXHIBIT Y-IB-COUN1Y AHD SPECIAL DISTRICT REVENUES
DISTRIBUTED ON DIRECf BASIS
GENERAL fUND
Ontao I.DcAL T.....
OllIe< T..-NrcraII A .....".. JI342 .AIS8
_" U _nt .1135 .345 .0'5 .oos
Ontao AD.......
Trial Court Funding A I'M>ent .,7 S1 .43 .(13
SIal' Monda*! eolt 1101mb. A "-"pie .5342 .-
Motor Vehld. ~u T.. A .....".. .11342 .-
Tran., ~U.u Tax A "-"pie .11342 .-
Ogaren. T ..... U "-"plo .11872 .3128
Page 62
/()7
L
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
-
t
t
i
Detailed Assumptions: County
.
)
EXHIBIT V-aB-COUHTY AND SPECIAL DISTRICT REVENUES
DISTRIBUTED ON DIRECT BASIS
. I.. . ,,',.
...... P.,oenloge DloIrIbutl....
Ge__ Sf MF ConvR :..
R....nu. Cal&gory/R_nua Souroe . 1 from (a) ,:Bul. R... R... ",,:::';;"" Incl.
MI8CEU.AHE0U8
Coun An.. and ForteJturH A Pa....nt .17 .zr A3 .03
Bulin... l.Jcen.. Tax.. U Pa....nt All .61
ROAD FUND
T.... Oth.r than PToparty A People .5342 M58
Uoan.... Parmlla, ffancIIl... U People .8872 .3128
Rn... Forfeiture.. P8natt1.. A People .5342 M58
Total Aid, Other U People .8872 .3128
Owg.. !of Currant SeNloH U People .8872 .3128
Mlacallanaoua _nua U People .8872 .3128
Other Souroa. U People .8872 .3128
......... DomacT
T.... Other than PToparty U People .8872 .3128
Owg.. !of Service. U People .8872 .3128
FIRE DomacT
EMSRtcoYery U People .8872 .3128
Othor U People .8872 .3128
(aj Ind_. __"lIIne_Coo"'! ~tM rA,oronly6em ""1IIIIncoIpo.__"''''' Coumy
('V).
t
I
t
t.
f
,
.
.;
.
I
Indirect-Exhibit V-9 presents those revenues that have been recommended to be
distributed based on the Indirect distn'butionmethod. Based on discussions with
appropriate County and district staff, it has been determined that the revenues
presented in Exln'bit V-9 are not directly impacted by outside growth and
development, but are rather impacted by growth in other revenues.
In that these revenues grow in relationship to growth in other revenues, the FIND
Model does not compute a specific revenue allocation factor for these items. These
revenues, instead, are allocated to each non-indirect revenue and grow in the same
relationship as the individual revenue grows. As with the program expenses
allocated on an indirect basis, a separate revenue forecast for these revenues is not
computed by the Model.
)
If ('
u.
Page 63
Detailed Assumption.!: COW11y
EXHIBIT Y+-COUNTY AND SPECIAl DISTRICT REVENUES DISTRIBlTTED ON INDIRECT BASIS
Agoncy/fund ..... Program
COUNTY GENERAl
MJaCE1..LAHrDUa Other RtYenue
UBRARY DISTRICT Mlacollanooul Rownuo
Othe, So~
Revenues Not Imnacted Bv Growth And Develonment-As with the expenses, certain
revenues are not impacted by growth and development. In these instances, either
the revenues are directly tied to the provision of certain services or are simply not
impacted by outside growth. Exhibit V-IO identifies these revenue sources by fundi
agency and revenue category.
EXHIBIT V.1~OUNTY AND SPECIAl. DISTRICT REVENUES
NOT IMPACTED BY GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT
COUNTY GENERAL
CuNIEN'r ""-~" TAXD
__Iopmont Agroomonll
_relln-Uou Tax
Open Spoco Lend
0Ih0< Row. Hold _II
lnto'OIt on Oopcolto
Intortund TranoIo,.
fund BoIonco
Total AId, _rei
Uoo 01 Money
fund BoIonco
Uoo 01 Money
IntorgOYOrrvnontoJ Money
Fund BoIonco
Commun/Iy OOYolopmont Fool
Dralnaoo Foo
Fund BoIonco
Oopt. 01 Wele, RooourCOI
Other Alwnue
0nt!R AD.......
"~I...ItE~
0'rHER AsaUMP110Na
ROAD FUND
UBRARY DISTRICT
FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
FIRE DISTRICT
SpocIaI Fundi
Plan O>ock Fool
Bur.au of Indtan Main
Interel1
Reference should be made to the report attached at the end of this documented
headed "Distribution Methods" under "FIND Model Detail" for the County.
Generated by FIND, this report identifies all County General Fund, Road Fund,
Page 64
/oq
..
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Detailed AJsumptioTIJ: County
library and flood control district, and Rural Fire Protection District revenues and
documents tbe recommended fIXed and variable revenues. The proposed method
of distribution including Direct and Indirect, is also identified. For the specific
percent distributions recommended, refer to the report headed "Percentage
Allocations" following the tab labeled "FIND Model Detail", This latter report only
applies to those revenues that have been allocated on a Direct basis other than by
population.
AfT.ocATION FACTORS
Based on the assumptions regarding fixed and variable revenues, distribution
methods and percentage allocations, the FIND Model computes specific revenue
allocation factors by revenue source and land use type. These revenue allocation
factors are computed by dividing all revenues allocated to a given land use (i.e.,
single family residential, multi-family residential, commercial and industrial), by
existing residential units, commercial acres and industrial acres served, respectively.
)
Recognizing that certain County General Fund and Road Fund, h'brary and flood
control districts, and Rural Fire Protection District revenues arc generated from
all areas in the County, whereas other revenues arc only generated from the
unincorporated areas of the County, different existing development assumptions have
to be applied to reflect these distinctions in computing the allocation factors.
Exhibit V.ll identifies those revenues that are generated from the unincorporated
areas of the County and those that arc generated county-wide.
The resulting cost allocation factors generated by the FIND Model are attached
at the back of this document under the heading "Cost/Revenue Allocation Factors",
which is presented following the tab labeled "FIND Model Detail". Refer back to
Exhibit V-? for the existing development information that has been used for
computing these factors.
)
/ /D
Page 65
Dttailtd Anumption.s: County
1
EXHIBIT V.11-cOUNTY -'ND SPECIAL DISTRICT REVENUES AREA GENERATED FROM
UnlncorporaMd All County Ar..
COUNlY GENERAl FUND COUNlY GENERAL FUND
OnIER LocAL T AXU Ontoo LocAL T....
Franchi... 0Iher T..-N,cran
AtvENUE FROW OntER AoDtCaO _...". Ontoo Ao~~
Cigarette Tax Trial Court Funding
Slaw Mandated Rolmbunement
MIaCEUAHEOUI Motor V.hIdo lrHJeu T..
Buoln... Certificate. Trailer IrHJeu T..
Other Reven~
.....-. t a..fOiI.
Court fine. & _1Iut..
0Iher Rown..
ROAD FUND ROAD FUND
Uoonoo., Pormlto & _1M. T..H 0Iher Than PIoporty
Total Aid OIho, CM. Ano., __ &_.
\JM 01 Money & Proporty
etwg.. for Curnnt _
Mlacellanooul Rownu.
Other Source.
FLOOD CONTROL
Flood Control Proporty T..
UBRARY
Cu".nt "'.porty Tax
T.... Oth.. Than "'.porty
\JM 01 Money & Proporty
"""rgYl Flown..
etwg.. for SorvIcH
Misc. Rown..
Other Source.
.,
J
1
1
']
]
1
J
-1
.J
SPECIAL ASSUMPTIONS
Because of the importance and significance of selected revenue sources to the
County General Fund and subject special districts, the Otay Ranch Find Model bas
been designed to forecast certain revenues based on very specific assumptions.
These revenues include:
· Property tax
. Property tran.sfer tax
Page 66
11/
DeliU/ed Assumptions: County
· Sales tax
. TransienJ occupancy tax.
The specific assumptions for eacb of tbese revenues is presented below and on tbe
following page.
. horm" Tax-A number of different factors and assumptions influence the
forecast of property tax revenues. For purposes of the analysis of this
development scenario, the FIND Model bas assumed the following:
- County General Fund share of the 1 percent property tax levy for
property locaJed in the unincorporaJed area of the County is 27.5862
percent
_ County General Fund share of the 1 percent property tax levy for
property locaJed in the incorporaJed area of the County is 20.0046
percent
)
- Library fund share of the 1 percent property tax levy is 1.7988 percent
_ Flood Control District share of the 1 percent property tax levy is 1.2888
percent
_ Rural Fire Protection District share of the 1 percent property tax levy
is 2.000000 percenJ
_ ]naeased assessed values associated wiJh the purchase of any land
within the project boundaries for whidl Baldwin cwrently holds an
option to buy.
-Assessed values for all development, as provided by the Baldwin
Company (refer to 'Tax RDle and Other Assumptions" report following
the tab labeled .Phasing/Other Assumptions".)
As jurisdictional boundaries cbange for various development scenarios, the
local sbare of tbe property tax levy will also change. The user bas the
flexibility to change these factors. To avoid double counting revenues, the
)
/!~
Page 67
J
D,'ail,d ArsumptiOfU: Cowtty
-County tax: raJe of $.55 per $1000 of sales amounJ of transfe"ed
property locoJed in the incorporaJed area of the County
J
1
1
1
]
1
]
]
]
.I
J
State Homeowner's Property Tax bas been deleted as a liDe item from this
analysis.
· ProrJertv Transfer Tar-For purposes of forecasting the property transfer
tax, the FIND Model assumes the following:
-County tax: raJe of $1.10 per $1000 of sales amounJ of transfe"ed
property located in the unincorporoJed area of the County
- Tunwver raJes of property assumed oJ 8 years for single family
residential, 12 years for mulri-family residenJiDI and 15 years,
respectively, for commercial and industrial property.
These assumptions are presented following the tab labeled "Phasing/Other
Assumptions".
· Sales and Use Tax-To compute sale tax revenues, the Model multiplies
taxable sales figures by total square footage of commercial and industrial
development anticipated to come on-line. The County's 1 percent sales
tax levy is applied against the resulting taxable sales to compute anticipated
sales tax revenues.
For pmposes of this analysis, a weighted average of taxable sales per
commercial development has been computed using available information
from the Urban Land Institute and data generated through previous
analysis. Specific assumptions that have been used in computing the
weighted average include:
,
J
- Commercial - Non EUC - Taxable sales per square foot of $144.00
- Reson - Hotel - Taxable sales per square foot of $7.45
-Resort - Commercial- Taxable sales per square foot of $168.00
By applying these factors to the anticipated mix of commercial and office
development in Otay Ranch, the weighted average taxable sales per
commercial development can be determined. The resulting factor is
Page 68
//3
II
I
.
II
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Detailed Assumptions: County
$4421, as presented in Exhibit V-12. Taxable sales of $25 per square foot
have been assumed for industrial development.
EXHIBIT Y-12-<::OMPUTATlON OF WEIGHTED SAlES TAX ASSUMPTION
County Square Footage TuabN Sal.., Total Tax s.J.. Wolgh'-<l
Squ.r. fMt Averag.
Reoort Hotol 550,000 7.45 4.097.500
RISon Commercial 108.900 168 18.295.200
Comm . NB ConlO'" 67.518 144 8.722.592
725,418 32,115.292 44.21
· Transient Occuoont:Y Tax-Assumptions used by the FIND Model to
forecast these revenues include:
-Average room rale of $125
- Occupancy rale of 68 percent
- Tax rate of 9 percent.
)
These assumptions are consistent with area hotel data as confirmed by
members of the Service/Revenue Committee.
To allow significant flexibility to the user, the Otay Ranch Model has been designed
so that changes and modifications can be made to all of the assumptions impacting
the forecas(of property, property transfer, sales and transient occupancy taxes.
SUMMARY
)
This chapter has presented all of the assumptions and methodologies used for
distributing County General Fund, Road Fund, library and flood control districts,
and Rural Fire Protection District and impacted special district costs and revenues
to appropriate land use categories. As discussed previously, these assumptions
directly impact the subsequent calculation of cost and revenue allocation factors.
FIND Model generated reports documenting all of these assumptions, as well as
the resulting cost/revenue allocation factors, are presented and indexed at the end
of this report under the tab labeled "FIND Model Detail" for the City and County,
respectively.
Page 69
Ilf
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Meeting
Item NO.1I..!3....-
Date 4/16/96
Resolution Ig~hd_ Approving Agreement Between the
County of San Diego and the City of Chula vista
Regarding Otay Ranch Sphere of Influence and
Operation of Otay Landfill
SUBMITTED BY City Manage~ 4/5 Vote: Yes No~
As a component of the pending actions on the proposed Sphere of
Influence for Otay Ranch and subsequent property tax agreement and
annexation of the western parcel, the County wishes to ensure that
the City will not interfere with the ongoing operation or expansion
of the Otay Landfill. They do not wish the current litigation and
potential early closing of San Marcos Landfill to be repeated in
the South Bay as a result of actions of the city. This agreement
addresses that protection.
ITEM TITLE
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve in concept the business points of the landfill agreement
and provide any input on issues that should be conveyed to the
Board of Supervisors on April 17, 1996.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: N.A.
DISCUSSION:
On February 16, 1996, the County provided a draft agreement to the
ci ty. The city and County staff have been meeting as frequently as
possible to reach closure on the document so as to keep on schedule
with the May 6, 1996 continued LAFCO Sphere of Influence hearing
for the Otay Ranch. The Property Tax Agreement is discussed in a
separate agenda statement on the April 16, 1996 Agenda.
As a condition of the proposed negotiated Otay Ranch property Tax
Agreement, a "landfill" agreement must be agreed to between the
City and the County. A second condition is that the County must
support the "panhandle" for inclusion in the city's Sphere of
Influence. A third condition is that the City side of the landfill
must be detached.
A. principal Business Deal Concept
The County desires the following basic protection for the Otay
Landfill: protection from the use of the City's governmental
authority to interfere with their use as a landfill, protection
against "host", toll or any other fees, access to the landfill on
existing streets and adequate maintenance thereon, and protection
against land use changes adjacent to the landfill which might
negatively affect its operation or result in its closure. They are
It 8-J
paranoid about this based on their extremely negative experience
with the San Marcos Landfill.
A major assurance offered by the City to the County in order to
protect the landfill use is the detachment of the City side of the
landfill. The landfill is currently located partly in the County
and partly in the City. The detachment would place the entire
landfill in the County's jurisdiction and under their governmental
control. The detachment is being processed concurrently with the
annexation and is a prerequisite to the effectiveness of both the
landfill agreement and the property tax agreement. It is our
expectation that the annexation and the detachment can be processed
together and within the same time frame.
In exchange for the City protecting the Otay Landfill use, the
County will provide the City with the following: County support of
the Sphere of Influence Amendment (i.e., Village 3 and Planning
Area 18-B) for the Ranch, approval of the proposed Property Tax
Agreement (which is a better split than the County-wide Master
Property Tax Sharing Agreement formula), non-opposition to
annexation of the Sphere, and payment by the County over time of
$327,000 toward the county share of the Otay Valley Road Assessment
District.
Should the city breach the agreement, the county wants very severe
penalties (so-called "Poison pills") as follows: (a) revision of
the Property Tax Exchange Agreement for the Ranch to the detriment
of the city, (b) refunding, with interest, previous funds
transferred to the City, and (c) requiring the City to pay for the
closure costs of otay Landfill and its relocation. This latter
case would only occur should the City ever reannex the landfill and
exert regulatory authority over the landfill. This qualification
is still somewhat of an open issue with the County staff and we
will update Council at your meeting on April 16.
The County Board of Supervisors will consider this Agreement on
April 17, 1996.
B. provisions of the Agreement
1. The County staff is willing to recommend the support of the
amendment of Chula vista's Sphere of Influence before LAFCO.
They wish to have the current County portion of the landfill
property remain as a Special Study Area and thus an exception
to the balance of the Sphere as recommended by LAFCO staff.
2. The County agrees not to oppose annexations wi thin the adopted
Sphere of Influence.
3. The County shall agree to pay $327,000 to the City as its
share of the otay Valley Road Assessment District. The amount
is to be paid in equal annual installments over a 5 year
2
/~B -~
period beginning July 1, 1996 without interest.
widening project has now been completed.)
(The road
4. The city shall acknowledge that the landfill use (and its
planned expansion) is consistent with the Chula vista General
Plan. The City retains the ability to review and comment on
any future environmental or other documents associated with
any future expansion plans by the County.
5. The city agrees to amend its General Plan to non-residential
habitation uses within a 1000' buffer area of the boundaries
of the landfill (within the newly annexed area, essentially
Village 2 of the otay Ranch). The balance of the buffer area
is currently designated industrial, open space, or is already
developed.
6. Chula vista shall agree to maintain the access to the
landfill, namely otay Valley Road from I-80S to otay Rio Road
and Maxwell Road from otay Valley Road to the landfill
property, in the same condition as the rest of the road
system. Further, the city agrees not to restrict access by a
toll, weight restriction or any other fee or charge.
7. The City shall consent that it will not interfere with burn
ash being transported over City streets to the landfill.
8. The most significant part of the agreement which could impact
the city are the events of major breach and the remedies
associated therewith. The events of major breach (mentioned
previously) include adopting restrictive or limiting land use
regulations or controls on the landfill property should it
ever be reannexed; applying tolls, host fee, weight
restrictions or any other fees on the main access roads to the
landfill; amending our General Plan or zoning such that it
impedes the continued use of the landfill or negatively
affects it or approving incompatible land uses to the landfill
(i.e., new residential habitation uses not reflected on the
current General Plan) within a stated buffer area. As
previously stated, the buffer is defined as a 1,000 foot
distance from the property line boundary of the landfill
ownership.
Existing residential uses reflected on the City's General Plan
as of the date of execution of this agreement shall be
grandfathered and not affected by this agreement.
9. There are notice requirements the County must provide to the
city in the event of an alleged breach and the City must be
given an opportunity to cure. Events beyond the city's
control, such as acts of God, natural disasters, etc., are
excluded.
3
"8 -3
10. The remedies of major breach include three very significant
penalties.
a) Reallocation of Property Tax - In the event of a breach,
the property tax allocation shall be changed so that the
base revenue and annual tax increment shall be allocated
59 percent to the County and 41 percent to Chula vista.
(This compares to a 50-50 split under the proposed to be
adopted Property Tax Agreement for the Ranch.)
b) Refund and Termination of Prior Year's Transfer Payments
- In the event of a breach, the total amount of funds
transferred to the city pursuant to the Property Tax
Exchange Agreement shall be repaid to the County. The
repayment shall be made within 90 days and shall include
interest computed at the prime rate from the date of each
transfer payment. There will also be no further transfer
payment made by the county under the Property Tax
Agreement in the event of a breach.
c) City Responsibility for the Closure Costs for Closing
otay Landfill and its Relocation - In the event of
reannexation of the landfill and a breach which has the
effect of making continued operation of the otay Landfill
infeasible or impractical, the County has the right to
close or relocate it. In that event, all of the County's
costs associated with such closure and relocation shall
be paid by Chula vista. This includes various design,
monitoring, inspection, environmental and legal costs
associated with closure. Relocation costs may include
land acquisition, engineering, administration and
development of a substitute facility.
11. The business license tax for Aptec, which is calculated at 10%
of their gross receipts, would be lost due to detachment of
the landfill. Should the County institute a business license
tax, or otherwise collect the fee and the facility remain in
operation as a for profit venture, the city and County would
prepare to split the revenue 50/50.
12. The County shall have the right, with 120 days notice and
consultation with the city, to cease use of the landfill and
convert the property to other uses. The uses would have to be
consistent with those for a closed landfill.
13. All provisions of this Agreement will terminate on closure of
the otay Landfill Property except the reuse provision above.
The life of the landfill could be another 20-25 years with
expansion into new areas, new liners and increase of the
height of the fill areas.
4
1'8-~
c. Discussion
Attachment A is a chart outlining 19 issues and the respective City
staff and County staff positions. Agreement has been reached on 16
of the issues and discussion is ongoing on the balance (i.e., #2,
#6 and #14).
At an early point in the negotiations, the draft business points
outlined County and City duties and stated if the City did anything
on a wide variety of fronts to jeopardize the landfill operation,
then the City was subject to all penalties including closure/post
closure and relocation costs for the otay Landfill. The approach
of city staff, then, has been twofold. First, we have tried to
find ways to completely mitigate the County's concern and fears so
that no penalty is required whatsoever. Second, we have tried to
sidestep the most serious penalty, that is the landfill closure
issue, to make it as remote and unlikely as possible.
Thus, when the County wanted to subject us to penalties for trying
to exercise land use control over the landfill, our mitigation
response was to detach the landfill. In response to penalties for
instituting tolls or host fees, the City has suggested that we
agree in those cases to turn any money collected directly to the
County. The above then became non-issues.
On a couple of other issues, the City is willing to provide the
protections desired by the County but has attempted to have any
remedies for breach apply only to monies collected or referenced by
the Master Property Tax Agreement. As an example, the city has
agreed not to apply any special weight restrictions on the primary
access streets to the landfill so as to preclude trash trucks from
using the landfill. Likewise, we agree to maintain the access
streets in a reasonable driving condition similar to other streets
of a comparable age and design elsewhere in the city.
A further example of city-county agreement is on the establishment
of a "buffer" zone around the landfill where the City would agree
not to amend its General Plan to allow residential habitation uses.
conversely, the city will process a General Plan Amendment for
areas within the buffer area not yet developed, which are presently
shown as residential use, i.e., areas within Village 2 of otay
Ranch. The buffer zone is described as an area 1,000 feet from the
exterior boundary of the landfill property. The actual definition
of uses compatible within the buffer area is still being worked on
by staff. Should the City breach these provisions, then the future
property tax allocation would change from a 50/50 split to a 59/41
split in the County's favor. Also, prior year transfer payments
made by the County to the City would need to be refunded. As
stated previously, any allegation of breach would require adequate
notice to the City and an ability on the city's part to cure before
any penalties take effect.
5
I~B -5
Under the city's scenario, the most onerous penalty, that of
closing the landfill and paying for its relocation, would only
occur in the event that the landfill is detached from Chula Vista,
for some reason reannexed in the future, and then the City takes
some action which impairs the operation of the landfill, causing
its closure per the breach language of the agreement. How this
obligation is calculated and what is available as a credit against
the cost and how much the County contributes is still being
negotiated.
Conclusion
The City realizes a significant benefit from the agreement as far
as realizing our proposed Sphere of Influence for otay Ranch
annexation of the Ranch (western parcel) a more favorable tax
sharing agreement than the Master Property Tax Agreement, and a
financial contribution by the County toward the otay Valley Road
Assessment District Project.
The county realizes a significant property tax benefit, control
over the entire landfill property as a result of detachment,
protection against tolls and fees, guaranteed landfill access, and
General Plan protection and the creation of a 1,000 foot buffer
around the landfill.
The downside to the City are the risks and penalties if we do not
live up to the terms of the agreement. The penalties have been
significantly mitigated or reduced but not eliminated. For the
most part, the penalties involve reversionary provisions concerning
property tax revenue and transfers as a result of annexation of
otay Ranch. The prospect of having responsibility for closing and
relocating otay.Landfill is a very onerous penalty. As written,
though, it would require the City to have somehow reannexed the
landfill.
FISCAL IMPACT
Estimating the overall fiscal impact of the agreement is difficult
to do because of the complexity of the FIND Model, the many
variables, and the unknown as to what point in time the Agreement
might be breached. However, if the Agreement were breached in or
before FY 97-98, the property tax exchange effect would be up to
$37.6 million in current dollars over 30 years and an ongoing loss
of $1.1 million per year thereafter. If the agreement were
breached in FY 2026-27, the property tax effect would be $16.6
million in current dollars plus interest at the prime rate for 10-
30 years plus an ongoing loss of $1.1 million per year thereafter.
The costs to close otay Landfill could be $30 million. It is
known whether or not the landfill could be relocated, or where
the County has estimated the replacement costs could be
million.
not
but
$60
c: landfill
6
lit, fJ - ,
ATTACHMENT A
LANDFILL AGREEMENT ISSUES
4/11/96
Issue County position City position
1. Completion of Agree Agree
detachment as a
condition of
annexation
2. Completion of Subject to Willing to process but
General Plan additional will likely take longer
redesignation of negotiations on than annexation
the buffer as a 4/12/96. processing. If GPA fails,
condition of willing to be subject to
annexation Poison pills A and B, if
given ample notice and
opportunity to cure.
Also, willing to make
Poison pill A retroactive
as a tradeoff for not
being subject to C.
3. city subject Agree Agree
to Poison pill C
if landfill
detached and
reannexed
4. Aptec business Agree If Aptec remains open and
license upon if it is run by a for
detachment profit entity and if the
County institutes a
business license tax, then
the City and County shall
split the tax 50/50.
5. Covenants on Agree. County Agree
landfill operation warrants no plans
to expand the
landfill on the
city side of
landfill beyond
that currently
permitted.
Landfill uses are
to be those
authorized by the
permits issued by
State and Federal
agencies for a
Class III
landfill.
J'~-7
Issue County position city position
6. Uses allowed subject to Uses other than for
in the buffer zone additional residential habitation
negotiations on allowed. No finding of
4/12/96. inconsistency shall be
made.
7. Conditions to See #14. See #14.
effectiveness of
liquidated damages
8. Process for Agree County decision is subject
determining breach to jUdicial review after
with Poison pill notice and reasonable
opportunity to cure.
9. Indemnity for Agree County agrees to indemnify
detachment city against litigation
litigation only challenging solely the
adequacy of environmental
review of the detachment
proposal.
10. County to Agree Agree
support sphere and
not oppose
annexation
11. Tolls, host Agree Agree to pass $ on to
fees county.
12. Landfill, Agree Agree
access streets,
weight
restrictions
13. Burn ash Agree Agree
hauling non-
interference
14. Landfill Subject to City should receive credit
closure costs additional for Poison pill A & B, for
formula negotiation on amounts County has charged
4/12/96. for closure fees, and for
remaining useful life.
15. Rights to Agree city wishes to preserve
review and comment their review rights to the
on expansion same extent it exercises
proposals and it on the County side of
environmental the landfill currently and
review therewith so state in the document.
16. Post Closure Agree Agree
Uses
17. Completion of Agree Agree
otay Valley Road
)/, g-<i'
Issue county position City Position
18. contribution Agree Agree
by County to
assessment
district costs
19. Landfill Agree Agree
Agreement is
contingent on
minimum SOl
approval of
Village 3 and
Planning Area 18B
and mutual
approval of the
Property Tax
Agreement
GK:mab
j imlandfl
/'8-1
RESOLUTION NO. J c;{',)./,.J..
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING IN CONCEPT THE BUSINESS
POINTS IN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF SAN
DIEGO AND THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA REGARDING
OTAY RANCH SPHERE OF INFLUENCE AND OPERATION
OF OTAY LANDFILL
WHEREAS, as a component of the pending actions on the
proposed Sphere of Influence for otay Ranch and subsequent property
tax agreement and annexation of the western parcel, the County
wishes to ensure that the City will not interfere with the ongoing
operation or expansion of the Otay Landfill; and
WHEREAS, the County does not wish the current litigation
and potential early closing of San Marcos Landfill to be repeated
in the South Bay as a result of the actions of the City and this
agreement addresses that protection.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the
City of Chula vista does hereby approve in concept the Business
Poinaof an Agreement between the County of San Diego and the City
of Chula vista regarding Otay Ranch Sphere of Influence and
Operation of Otay Landfill.
Presented by
JI- ~ 0 fO"]J
Bruce M. , City
Attorney
John D. Goss, City Manager
C:\rs\landfill.agr
/1, (J -/t)
c.
~17
MEMORANDUM
April 16, 1996
FROM:
Honorable Mayor and City Council / Q^
John D. Goss, City ManagerJ~ b~~
Chris Salomone, Community Development DirectorC-S,
TO:
VIA:
SUBJECT:
Bonita Hotel Exclusive Negotiating Agreement
This is to inform you that staff and the Citrons are recommending that the Council
consideration of the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA) that is on tonight's meeting
agenda be continued to the meeting of April 23. The staff report and the draft ENA could not
be finalized for delivery to the Council due to unresolved issues regarding specific technical
language in the EN A, and not due to any fundamental disagreement regarding the critical "deal
points. "
The language in question is very close to being resolved, and staff is confident that the item
will be available for Council consideration on the 23rd. It is not felt that the one week delay
will have any significant impact on the proposed project.
rJ/
/ /- /
Apr-15-96 07:49P Josef & Lenore C;tron
619 223-3313
P_O~
". "~"'J' ,ti.....<'}iI;r".'"~ :..,':<V. .', ...
., "'~l"" -, -'. '."'.--"... -/, ..' " .",' .. '. '
.,<< 'II"
',<.;, /~,:, ,;,'.;:~~iJ>\:J'~_, ',-,;,,;/~} ;.:L,:.:;<> ;~/. -" ,';,,'
'F ,. . 'JmlIeC6Yw~
,<,.~.:.. .,.,.....'..
To:
Company:
Phone:
Fax:
From:
Company:
Phone:
Fax:
Date:
Pages Inel. This page:
Hon. Shirley Horton
Mayor, Chula Vista
691-5044
476-5379
Josef A. Citron
Joelen Enterprises
(619) 222-9966
(619) 223-3313
04/15/96 8:46:28 PM
1
$?7 /7
~~
APR , 6 1996
COUI,CllOFfICfS
CIIUl A VISTA. CA
SHIRLEY: We understand that' today has been very busy for you, so are taking this means to
contact you. There are two matters that will be brought before you tomorrow night, Tuesday, in
Council meeting, one in closed session, and we would like to mention a couple of things we feh that
you would like to know beforehand. (You've since reached us from your car; thank you.)
One is in regard to our golf resort hotel proposal. In our meeting at which you were kind enough to
allow us to personally present our latest plans for the project, you expressed concern about the time
line, and why we asked for up to 24 months to finalize financing arrangements. After our meeting,
we spent considerable time revisiting that issue and the fact that we now have a letter of intent
We hope it is understood that we will have to have practically all of the architectural, engineering,
environmental and design work done on the project, -guest rooms, public rooms, meeting rooms,
ballrooms, restaurants, kitchens, health club, pool & Jacuzzi, staff offices, housekeeping, laundry,
back-of-the-house, -as well as the, purchasing, management, construction, employment, booking,
operations and other contracts agreed upon. before a binding agreement can be reached with the
lender. Doing all of that in one year will be very quick. The construction part is the easiest and
fastest part for us to do. We've already spent many months working on the financing, and have
gotten much stronger interest from funding sources than originally, so we have proposed to reduce
the time by v., to 12 months. We have corresponded that to the CVRDA in writing last week and
had hopes that you would already have been furnished copies of our lender's letters.
On the closed session item. we now have $337,063 cash invested in the 'B~ processing
thus far and have to put another $300,000 in the escrow, just to close the land to build the first 6-
unit building. That's over $100,000 pre-construction costs per unit, not counting: $600,000+ City
fees to be paid.' .That's why we need Council acceptance of the Redevelopment Agency Director's
suggestion. NYPRO and MCA are both recent examples of this being done.
W,oppreciU'~~~='::~
/ '/-c:(
Thanks for your interest
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item /8"
Meeting Date 4/16/96
ITEM TITLE: Resolution nifl Approving Amendment to Agreement between the
County of San Diego, Southwestern Community College District, and the
City of Chula Vista for the construction, maintenance, and operation ofthe
Southwestern College Bus Stop Improvement Project
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works ~
REVIEWED BY:
, ("'-
City Manager 0 1("
{<'
(4/5ths Vote: YesLNo_)
This item was continued from the meeting of April 9, 1996 in order to have staff discuss the history
of the project with newer Councilmembers. Staff has also discussed with College staff wording in
the Agreement that may alleviate concerns that the Council has with the License provisions. The
Southwestern Community College District Board of Directors approved the Agreement as submitted
at their meeting of April 10, 1996.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve the resolution and authorize the Mayor to sign the
Agreement subject to a revision satisfactory to the College Board and City Council of Section II c.
(Relating to license to operate).
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not Applicable
DISCUSSION:
Council continued this item on April 9, 1996 to allow time for staff to meet with the three newer
Councilmembers who were not familiar with the project in order give a briefing on the history and
major past issues. As of this writing (April!! ,1996), staffhas met with two councilmembers (Moot
and Alvey) and is scheduled to meet with the third Councilmember (Padilla) later on April!l, 1996.
One serious concern discussed was the license to serve issue. As the agreement currently reads, the
College could revoke the license at any time without our input or agreement. The City could live
with this provision when the agreement was first approved in October 1995, because the City was
not contributing any funds to the project. If the College revoked the license, we would not be hurt
financially and would return to the street for service. However, now with the possibility that the City
may have to contribute up to $450,000, we need assurance that after an expenditure of that size, we
would not be in a position that the College could unilaterally revoke the license at any time. College
staff has agreed to relook at this issue. Since the agreement would have to return to the College
Board in May and since it is desired to keep the construction on schedule for this summer, staff
recommends that the Council approve the agreement subject to a satisfactory resolution of item IIc
in the agreement. With that item the only issue, it is believed that the County would advertise for
bids and keep the project on schedule. The final approval for section II c would come back to
Council prior to the County awarding the construction contract.
/3'--'()
Page 2, Item / K
Meeting Date 4/16/96
Collel!e Contribution
Concern was expressed at the April 9, Council meeting that the report did not indicate that the
College was contributing their "fair share." The College is providing the land necessary for the
facility. It encompasses 1.5 acres that would cost the City over $600,000 if we were to locate the
facility off campus. The College has also agreed to pay for the utilities for electricity and water and
do routine maintenance of the facility. In staffs' opinion, this indicates a major contribution by the
College.
Attachments
NOT SCANNED
Attached to this item is a packet with background material of past council actions and a brief
chronological history of the project as well as last weeks Agenda statement.
M:\HOME\ENGJNEER\AGENDA \SWCSUPP.JPL
18",(),tJ
RESOLUTION NO. I r,J..S/
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, SOUTHWESTERN
COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT, AND THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA FOR THE CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE,
AND OPERATION OF THE SOUTHWESTERN COLLEGE BUS
STOP IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
WHEREAS, at its meeting on October 3, 1995, Council
approved a resolution approving an agreement among the County of
San Diego, Southwestern College and the City of Chula vista for
construction, maintenance, and operation of the Southwestern
College Bus stop Improvement Project; and
WHEREAS, in FY 1990-91,
programmed $900,000 for this project,
been spent on planning and design
$630,000 for implementation; and
the County of San Diego
and over $270,000 to date has
work, leaving an estimated
WHEREAS, final design of the transit facility has been
completed; the total project cost, including contingencies, is
estimated at $1,350,000, leaving a potential shortfall of $450,000;
and
WHEREAS, the actual project cost will be known after the
receipt of bids for the construction contract; and
WHEREAS, both Southwestern College and the County have
indicated that they have no additional funds to contribute to this
project; therefore, the County has requested that the city of Chula
vista authorize expenditure of a maximum of $450,000 in its TDA
Article 4.0 funds to supplement the estimated project shortfall.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the city Council of the
City of Chula vista does hereby approve Amendment to Agreement
between the County of San Diego, Southwestern community college
District, and the City of Chula Vista for the construction,
maintenance, and operation of the Southwestern College Bus stop
Improvement Project, a copy of which is on file in the Office of
the City Clerk as Document No.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of the City of
Chula vista is hereby authorized and directed to execute said
Amendment on behalf of the city of Chula Vi a.
. OV]"(
t Bruce M.
Attorney
Presented by
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
C:\rl\awc...nd.1.t
~J~-f
I'XRST :AMENDMENT TO
AGREEMENT BBTWEEN THB COUNTY 01' SAN DXBGO, SOuun".STBRN COMMUlfXTY
COLLBGB DISTRICT AND THE CITY OF CRULl. VISTA I'OR THE
CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION OF THE SOUTHWESTERN
COLLEGE BUS STOP IMPROVEKBNT PROJBCT
This First Amendment to the Agreement for the Construction,
Maintenance and Operation of the Southwestern College Bus stop
Improvement Project is hereby made and entered into this day
of
, 1996, by and between the COUNTY OF SAN
DIEGO, a political subdivision of the State of California, 1600
Pacific Highway, San Diego, California 92101, hereinafter referred
to as "County"; the SOUTHWESTERN COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT, a
community college district of the State of California, 900 Otay
Lakes Road, Chula Vista, California 91910, hereinafter referred to
as "College", and CITY OF CHULA VISTA, a municipal corporation of
the State of California, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, California
91910 hereinafter referred to as "City".
WITNESSETH
WHEREAS, the above parties entered into an Agreement (County
Contract No. C35415-A) for construction of the Southwestern College
Bus stop Improvement project on November 7, 1995; and
WHEREAS, the above parties now desire to amend the Agreement to
specify additional funding responsibilities;
NOW THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed that county Contract No.
C35415-A is hereby amended as follows:
J'l4-.I"f '\/ '::f
~_/ /c_ /
- 19 ... 'A..
1. "SECTION III CITY AGREES SUBSECTION D" IS HEREBY ADDED TO READ
AS FOLLOWS:
D. To contribute an amount not to exceed $450,000 of
Transportation Development Act Article 4.0 funds to the
extent necessary for development and construction of the
Project.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this
Agreement to be entered into the month, day and year above-written.
SOUTHWESTERN COMMUNITY
COLLEGE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
By
By
Clerk, Board of Supervisors
Joseph M. Conte
Superintendent/President
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
APPROVED TO FORM AND
LEGALITY BY COUNTY COUNSEL
By
By
Deputy
AP~D
ATTO
By
2
n~
J sr ~
-, (, (
l'if" :3
.)
,)
.~
I .'~1~1~ \ "1-
./ ~~~, \\\\\\\T T T W I
I ~ ~ ' ....."\ w
...
'" " "\ S
u . ,l tllll- l "'"" !
. , J
i w
, I
I ~
~ . " U
., ': . c-.
.
I".;
" e.:'"
. .~. i
. .
! "
~~
~
uet. .~JS ~~.rO~A ~u.m.^o~dmI do~S eng .I.tto~ ~.~..^q~nos
t ~U8mq~.~~y, _~ J ,Y
!
>I.,
n
I;
-
]
\
I
\
:::
.
.
~
"-
.
"
~
'..
'=:t:
t':'.
. ) "
-' fJ1IJJJJJ.TJJJ::J:JJ11fl
IU:Tlmn'ft:'.1m\~\a
r-
I
I
I
I
I
I
:1
I-
Ll
j.;
(
''"'--
/=.->
L
J
J
I
~i
Q.
CII
~
>-
CD
~
f6;1
4D
~
CD
==
0>
U
E
~
0001'
c@
G!)
.
J::.
~
~
o
U>>
t
l'
I!
-..1
il
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COmrry OF SAN DIEGO, SOUTAwlOSTBRN COMMtlHITY -)
COLLEGE DISTRICT AND THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA FOR THE "
CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION OF THE SOUTAwlOSTBRN
COLLEGE BUS STOP IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
TftIS AGREEMENT is hereby made and entered into this
day
of , 1995, by and between the COUNTY OF SAN
DIEGO, a political subdivision of the state of California, 1600
Pacific Highway, San Diego, California 92101, hereinafter referred
to as "county"; the SOUTHWESTERN COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT, a
community college district of the State of California, 900 Otay
Lakes Road, Chula Vista, California 91910, hereinafter referred to
as "College", and CITY OF CHULA VISTA, a municipal corporation of
the State of California, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, california
91910 hereinafter referred to as "City".
WITNESSETH
:)
WHEREAS, under Section 99400.5 of the California Public
Utilities Code, the County has the authority to finance the
construction of multimodal transportation terminals anywhere in the
County; and
WHEREAS, the County, at the request of the College and City,
has completed a feasibility and site location study for a transit
facility at Southwestern College; and
WHEREAS, the study concluded that the Southwestern College Bus
Stop Improvement Project, hereinafter :r:eferred to as the "Project",
is necessary and feasible, and the project should be constructed;
and
WHEREAS, the Project will benefit the College by providing ~
more convenient and accessible public transportation for students
I'
~ J,:; / 1 1~'5'
and College employees; and
WHEREAS, the Project will benefit the City by facilitating .
Chula yista Transit operations; and
WHEREAS, the study and its recommendations have been reviewed
and accepted by the College, the City and the County; and
WHEREAS, the County desires to reach agreement with the
College and the City in carrying out the responsibilities of all
parties for the financing, construction, maintenance and operation
of the Southwestern College Bus stop Improvement Project; and
WHEREAS, the Southwestern College Bus stop Improvement Project
is included for design and construction in the County's Capital
Outlay Fund and the FY 1995-FY 2001 Short Range Transit Plan; and
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, the parties
agree as follows:
I. COUNTY AGREES:
A. County shall contribute Transportation Development
Act (TDA) funds in an amount not to exceed $900,000
for development and construction of the Project.
The College shall in no way be responsible for any
capital costs in conjuction with the project.
B. County shall act as lead agency for construction
and shall use its best efforts to construct or have
constructed a Bus stop Improvement at the site
depicted in Attachment 1, "Southwestern College Bus
Stop Improvement Project Site Plan".
C. County shall be respon!>ible for all preliminary
2
yt5
1\
-T ,J
;' ~/'i'-~
,
engineering, design, preparation of environmental -~
aocuments ana construction management, including .
.
construction engineering, inspection, and final
acceptance all of which shall be subject to final
approval by the City and the College. The
necessary work shall be performea in accordance
with the City of Chula Vista, College and County
standards.
The design shall be subject to the
approval of the College Board of Trustees and the
D.
Chula Vista City Council. The design shall include
landscaping of the site and a six-bus bay facility
with shelters, benches and information aisplays.
The County shall be responsible for costs directly
resulting from any changes to utilities required
for the installation of the Project.
~
E. County agrees to submit design plans to the
Department of the State Architect for approval.
II. COLLEGE AGREES:
A. Following acceptance of construction by the County
and final approval by the City and College,
utilities (electrical and water) for the Project
operation will be paid for by the College for the
auration of bus stop operation. Water for the bus
-
stop operation will be connectea to the College
water.
B.
Following acceptance of construction by the County
.
3
J-3'~1 G
i,y ~ /;; 1~-7
and final approval by the City and the College,
College will be responsible for daily routine -
maintenance and cleaning of the Project, which
shall include but not be limited to trash pickup,
landscape maintenance (including tree trimming),
removal of stains/spills from pavement or structure
surfaces and graffiti removal.
C. The College hereby grants the City a license for
access to the site for bus operations, major
maintenance and repair of Project structures as
long as it is mutually agreeable to both parties.
III. CITY AGREES:
A. Upon execution of this Agreement, the City shall be
responsible for the major maintenance ~d repair of
the Project, including damage to the structures.
B. The City shall maintain insurance or self-insured
responsibility for negligent major maintenance and
operation of the completed facility, which names
the College and County as additional insureds.
C. The College, its agents, officers and employees
shall not be held liable for any claims,
liabilities, penalties, fines or for damage to any
goods, properties or effects of any person
whatsoever, nor for personal injuries or deaths of
them, or to any of them, caused by or resulting
from negligent major maintenance, repair and
4
J3<::I(
.
-- I "
/ ,~, I / / J fi- i'
.'
operation of the completed facility by the City,.')
its agents, employees or representative; the City .
.'
further agrees to defend and indemnify and save
free and hold harmless the College and its
authorized agents, officers, and employees against
any and all foregoing liabilities and any costs and
expenses, including reasonable attorneys fees,
incurred by the College on account of any claim
therefore, including claims involving the major
maintenance, repair and operation of the Project;
and in the event that a Court of Competent
Jurisdiction should determine that the City has no
authority to provide by agreement the performance
of the services set forth above, the city a
nevertheless agrees to assume the forgoing
obligations and liabilities by which assumption it
is intended by all parties that the City agrees to
indemnify and hold the College harmless from all
claims arising by reason of the work done by, or
any act or omiss ion of, the City, its agents,
employees or representatives, in connection with or
in performance of the agreed upon services of work
provided for in this Agreement.
IV. IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED:
A. The County shall furnish to the College and the
City, within three months of the execution of this
.
5
~
I~
/ ()
/b/-}~-Y'
J
.,
Agreement,
percent
conceptual
design,
30
.'
preliminary plans and specifications for the
college and City review and comment. The College
and the City will have thirty days to respond with
their comments.
The County shall furnish to the
College and the City, within seven months of
execution of this Agreement, 70 percent conceptual
design, preliminary plans and specifications for
the College and City review and comment. The
College and City will have thirty days to respond
with their comments.
The final working drawings
and specifications for the Project shall be
submitted to the College and the City for their
approval within ten months of the execution this
Agreement.
The County shall, in good faith,
respond to all College and City comments.
B. The College, the City and the County anticipate
that this Agreement may, from time to time, be
modified.
All such modifications, including any
change in the responsibilities of the parties,
shall be incorporated in wri ting into this
Agreement by appropriate amendment(s).
C. The Superintendent/President of the college shall
.
be the contract administrator representing the
College in all matters pertaining to this
Agreement.
The Director of Public Works of the
6
J3~;:r1-,{V- /! ) ~ ~IO
"
"
County shall be contract administrator for the
County in all matters pertaining to this Agreement.
The Director of Public Works of the City of Chula
Vista shall be the contract administrator
representing the City in all matters pertaining to
this Agreement. All are hereby authorized to make
administrative decisions to carry out the full
intent of this Agreement.
D. This Agreement shall terminate as to the County
upon City and College final approval of
construction on the Project. This Agreement shall
terminate between College and City upon mutual
.:)
E.
agreement of both parties, or termination of use by
the facility as a bus stop, which ever first
occurs.
The County, its agents, officers and employees
.
shall not be held liable for' any claims,
liabilities, penalties, fines or for damage to any
goods, properties or effects of any person
whatsoever, nor for personal injuries to or deaths
of them or any of them, caused by or resulting from
any acts omissions of the College or the city,
their agents, employees or representatives; the
College and the City separately and not jointly
further agree to defend and indemnify and save free
and harmless the County and its authorized agents,
.
7
.~ '//6 .~"""(/ I~~)I
.
F.
officers and employees against any of the foregoing
liabilities and any cost and expense incurred by -
the County on account of any claim therefore,
including improvement services, or any other work
or services done or provided to the County by the
College or the City pursuant to this Agreement; and
in the event that a court of competent jurisdiction
should determine that the College or the City has
no authority to provide by agreement the
performance of the hereinabove set forth services,
the College or the City separately, not jointly,
nevertheless agree to assume the foregoing
obligations and liabilities by which assumption it
is intended by all parties that the Callege or the
Ci ty agree to indemnify and to hold the County
harmless from all claims arising by reason of the
work done by, or any act or omission of, the
College or the City respectively or its agents,
employees or representatives, in connection with or
in performance of the agreed upon services of work
provide for in this Agreement. It is agreed that
the liability hereunder of the College or the City
shall not be joint and several, but shall be
separate unto each agent for its own actions and
the actions of its agents and employees only.
The College or the City, their agents, officers and
B
,~ (If,:J '/ J~~ II..
~-<.;;><\
employees shall not be held liable for any claims,
liabilities, penalties, fines or for damage to any'
goods, properties or effects of any person
whatsoever, nor for personal injuries to or deaths
of them, or any of them, caused by or resulting
from any acts or omissions of the County, its
agents, employees or representatives; the County
further agrees to defend and indemnify and save
free and harmless the College and the City and
their authorized agents, officers and employees
against any of the foregoing liabilities and any
cost and expense, including reasonable attorneys
fees, incurred by the College or the city on
account of any claim therefore, including claims by
reason of alleged defects in engineering services,
or any other work or services done or provided to
the College or the city by the County pursuant to
this Agreement; and in the event that a court of
competent jurisdiction should determine that the
County has no authority to provide by agreement the
performance of the hereinabove set forth services,
the County nevertheless agrees to assume the
foregoing obligations and liabilities by which
assumption it is intended by all parties that the
County agrees to indemnify and to hold the College
or the City harmless from all claims arising by
9
~ Jir-cI~ 1~-/3
")
~.
.
reason of the work done by, or any act or omission
of,
its
the County,
employees
agents,
or
.
.
representatives,
connection
or
in
in
with
performance of the agreed upon services of work
provided for in this Agreement.
G.
Contractor,
subcontractors
Contractor's
and
suppliers,
if any,
shall
comply with the
Affirmative Action Program for Vendors as set forth
in Article IIIk (commencing at Section 84) of the
San Diego County Administrative Code, which Program
is incorporated herein by reference,
unless
specifically exempted in accordance with the
Articles' rules and regulations.
H. Contractor will comply with the provisions of Title
VII of the civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 USC 2000,
et seq., as amended by the Equal Employment
Opportunity Act of 1972), the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act of 1976, the California Fair
Employment & Housing Act, and Board of Supervisor's
Policy C-17, in that it will not discriminate
against any individual with respect to his or her
compensations, terms, conditions, or privileges of
employment; or discriminate in any way which would
deprive any individual of employment opportunities
or otherwise adversely affect his or her status as
an employee because of such individual's race,
10
\3--~
Tk /,~3 N--If
/-
.
J.
I.
color,
national origin,
)
religion,
sex,
age,
handicap, medical condition or marital status.
Contractor shall ensure that services and benefits
are provided without regard to race, sex, age or
national origin in accordance with Title VI of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 (as amended). Contractor
shall comply with section 504 of the Rehabilitation
Act of 1973, as amended (29 USC 794), pertaining to
the prohibition of discrimination in employment or
provision of services against qualified handicapped
persons under any program or activity which
receives or benefits from Federal financial
assistance.
Any notice required or permitted -under this
)
Agreement may be personally served on the other
parties, by the party giving notice, or may be
served by certified mail, return receipt requested,
to the following addresses:
Director, Department of Public Works
County of San Diego
5555 Overland Avenue, Building 2 (MS 0333)
San Diego, CA 92123
County:
College: Superintendent/President
Southwestern Community College District
900 Otay Lakes Road
Chula vista, CA 91910
Director of Public Works
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
City:
.
11
~
~ ';l-~"L/I5r'~6
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this
Agreement to be entered into the month, day and year above-written. .
"
SOUTHWESTERN COMMUNITY
COLLEGE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
By
By
Joseph M. Conte
Superintendent/President
Clerk, Board of Supervisors
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
APPROVED TO FORM AND
LEGALITY BY COUNTY COUNSEL
By
By
Depl.<ty
APPROVED TO FORM BY CITY
ATTORNEY
By
12
~
~,;.~
)j " -
I~ -/~
~
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
ITEM TITLE:
Ir;
Item--.!/J / /.
Meeting Date ~L9196 '1//4-/7"
Resolution Il'd/APprOving Amendment to Agreement be':~en the
County of San Diego, Southwestern Community College District, and the
City of Chula Vista for the construction, maintenance, and operation of the
Southwestern College Bus Stop Improvement Project
REVIEWED BY:
Director of Public Work~c<? f- f- J../JL
City Manager~ ~ ~\ (4/5ths Vote: Yes.x...No_)
SUBMITTED BY:
At its meeting on October 3, 1995, Council approved a resolution approving an agreement among
the County of San Diego, Southwestern College and the City of Chula Vista for construction,
maintenance, and operation of the Southwestern College Bus Stop Improvement Project (copy of
the agenda statement and agreement are attached as Exhibit A). In FY 1990-91, the County of San
Diego programmed $900,000 for this project, and over $270,000 to date has been spent on planning
and design work, leaving an estimated $630,000 for implementation. Final design of the transit
facility has been completed; the total project cost, including contingencies, is estimated at
$1,350,000, leaving a potential shortfall of $450,000 (this estimate is presented in Exhibit B). The
actual project cost will be known after the receipt of bids for the construction contract. Both
Southwestern College and the County have indicated that they have no additional funds to contribute
to this project; therefore, the County has requested that the City ofChula Vista authorize expenditure
of a maximum of $450,000 in its TDA Article 4.0 funds to supplement the estimated project
shortfall.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve the resolution amending the agreement and
authorize the County of San Diego to claim a maximum of $450,000 of City of Chula Vista
Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 4.0 funds if needed to supplement the $900,000 in
County funds for the Southwestern College Bus Stop Improvement Project.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
As indicated on the first page of Exhibit B, the construction contract for the project is estimated at
$593,375. Additional project costs include: soundproofing windows in existing College buildings
facing the bus stop project ($25,000); project inspection and administration ($118,675); plan
preparation and final design ($110,611); and contingencies ($122,832). For Council's information,
in January 1996, the County completed a transit facility at Grossmont College which is similar to
the one planned for Southwestern College. The total Grossmont College facility cost was
$1,166,379 and the construction contract was $685,000.
fl--r /~- /
Page 2, Item I'
Meeting Date 4/9/96
)
County staff has indicated that this estimate of$I,350,000 for the project is conservative, and that
the project cost should be less than this estimate. However, it is the County's policy to secure
funding for projects before advertising for bids for construction. The County has indicated it has no
additional funds to supplement the $900,000 committed to this project in FY 1990-91. Southwestern
College is donating the land for the bus facility and has also agreed to pay for utilities and daily
routine maintenance after project completion. The College has indicated it does not have funds to
contribute to project construction. Therefore, it appears the only additional funding source for this
project is the City ofChula Vista's TDA Article 4.0 funds.
For Council's infonnation, the original project site location on Otay Lakes Road had an estimated
total cost in 1992 of $1,150,000, which would have required the City contributing up to $250,000
in its TDA Article 4.0 funds to supplement the $900,000 from the County. Since this original
proposed location was not implemented, additional costs were incurred between 1992 and 1995 due
to evaluation of alternative sites, and development of a plan and detailed drawings for the new
location.
In addition, on Page 2 of the attached agenda statement (Exhibit A), staff pointed out to Council that
in the agreement, which Council approved on October 3, 1995 (Section IIC), the College grants the
City a license for access to the transit facility as long as it is mutually agreeable to both parties.
Although the City Attorney would have preferred language that grants the City an irrevocable ,)
license, the College declined this change. However, since the College requested the transit facility .
in this location, it is unlikely that a situation would arise in which the College would deny the City
or CVT access to the site.
In summary, it is staffs opinion that the Southwestern College Bus Stop Improvement Project is
important for current and future CVT operations. The facility will improve service to Southwestern
College, and also will provide a transfer point for future CVT service to the eastern Chula Vista area.
A representatives from the County is present at tonight's meeting to answer any questions Council
may have on this project.
FISCAL IMP ACT: The total estimated cost of the Southwestern College Bus Stop Improvement
Project is $1,350,000, which includes the construction contract, soundproofing of windows in
Southwestern College buildings, project inspection and administration, planning and design, and
project contingencies. The County of San Diego has programmed $900,000 for this project leaving
an estimated shortfall of $450,000. The contribution of up to $450,000 ofChula Vista IDA Article
4.0 funds to the Southwestern College Bus Stop Improvement Project will leave a sufficient IDA
balance through FY 1996-97 for other Cityof Chula Vista Transit Division capital and operations
projects.
The City of Chula Vista's current TDA Article 4.0 fund balance is approximately $4.8 million.
Based on the preliminary budget for next fiscal year which staff has prepared, the TDA balance
through FY 1996-97 is estimated at $1.2 million (the preliminary Transit Division Budget includes
.~
a-.~ J S5 /' J.-
,/
Page 3, Item 13
Meeting Date 4/9/96
a capital program of $4.2 million, which consists of $2 million as part of the $6 million hydrogen
fuel cell bus program and an additional $2.2 million to replace nine of the older CVT buses in the
fleet). Therefore, should the total amount of $450,000 be required for the Southwestern College Bus
Stop Improvement Project, the City of Chula Vista's TDA balance next fiscal year would be
approximately $771,000 ($1,221,130 - $450,000).
For Council's information, the Metropolitan Transit Development Board will request next fiscal year
additional TDA funds from each jurisdiction in its area to support regional transit services. The
estimated Regional Transit Service Fund assessment for the City of Chula Vista next fiscal year is
$319,978, an increase of 82% over the current assessment of $175,844. (The current regional
assessment has been in effect since 1985 and does not include San Diego Trolley service. As
stipulated in State Legislation, Council must approve any change to the current regional assessment.)
Staff estimates that the City of Chula Vista TDA fund balance for next fiscal year would be
approximately $627,000 assuminil that all anticipated Droiects and expenditures are irnplemented
includin~: the FY 1996-97 Transit Division Budget which includes a $4.2 million capital program;
approval and expenditure of $450,000 for the Southwestern College Bus Stop Improvement Project;
and a Regional Transit Service Fund assessment of$319,978.
WMG:sb
File No: DS-022/OS-037
M: \HOME,ENGfNEER\AGENDA \SWCFUNDS.WMG
Exhibit A - Agenda Statement dated 10/3/95
.P~:?/)
.,
-~
EKH;8IT II
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item '0
Meeting Date 1013195
ITEM TI'iLE: Resolution '~OS" Approving Agreement Among the County
of San Diego, Southwestern Community College District and City of
Chula Vista for Construction, MaintenaDC~ and Operation of the
Southwestern College Bus Stop Improvement Project
SUBMJI uD BY: Director of Public wor~
REVIEWED BY: City Manager ("/5tbs Vote: Ya_NoA.)
At its meeting on February 20, 1990, Council approved an agreement among the County of San
Diego, Southwestern College and City of Chula Vista for a Southwestern College Transit
Center Feasibility Study. This study determined that a transit center at Southwestern College
would be both feasible and warranted to provide more convenience and accessible public
transportation service to the College and to eastern Chula Vista. The study recommended a
facility adjacent to Otay Lakes Road on the College campus between the Gotham and Elmhurst
Streets entrances to the campus. The Southwestern College Board of Directors approved this
site in Spring 1992. On May 5, 1992 this site was considered and rejected by Council due to
opposition from area residents and impacts on the landscaping in front of the College.
t
Since May 1992 the College, City and County have been working together to fmd an alternate
mutually agreeable site. The staffs of the three parties have agreed to expand the existing bus
stop area on the College campus that Chula Vista Transit (CVT) has been using for many
years. This location and conceptual expansion is shown in Attachment 1 to the proposed
agreement. In addition, as indicated in the attached letter (Exhibit 1) from Southwestern
College President, Joseph Conte to Mayor Horton, the College Board approved the conceptual
site plan for the project at its meeting on August 9, 1995. Since this proposal essentially is an
expansion and enhancement of the existing bus stop area, all three parties have suggested that
this project be referred hereafter to as the Southwestern College Bus Stop Improvement Project.
The estimated cost of the project is $500,000, including contingencies. The total design and
construction cost of this project would be paid for by County of San Diego Transportation
Development Act (TDA) funds.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve agreement among County of San Diego,
Southwestern Community College District and City of Chula Vtsta for the construction,
maintenance, and operation of the Southwestern College Bus Stop Improvement Project.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
~ /N~9
Pale 1, Item~
Meetiol Date 1013195 )
DISCUSSION: The bus stop improvement project at Southwestern College would serve
two main p,urposes: improve current and future CVT service to the College; and function as
a tranSfer Point for CVT routes operating in the area east of Southwestern College. The
proposed project expands the current bus loading area that accommodates 3 buses to an area
for 6 buses. Also included are landscaping, passenger amenities (such as shelters and benches),
and accessibility improvements consistent with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
,
The agreement authorizes the County to proceed with (mal design and construction of the
project and defIDes maintenance and operation responsibilities between the College and the City
once the project is completed. Because of anticipated disruption to traffic circulation on
umpus during project construction, the College has requested that construction take place
during Summer 1996. In order to meet this schedule, it is necessary that this agreement be
approved by all three parties in October 1995. If Council approves this agreement, the
Southwestern College Board of Directors will consider the agreement at its meeting on
Wednesday, October 11, 1995, and the Board of Supervisors will consider the agreement later
in October.
The major components of the agreement are:
Countv will:
)
contribute up to $900,000 in IDA funds for project development
act as lead agency for design and construction.
CoHelle will:
be responsible for daily routine maintenance and cleaning of the site, including trash
pickup, landscape maintenance and removal of stains, spills and graffiti from structure
surfaces.
pay for utilities (electriclwater) after project completion.
City will:
be responsible for major maintenance and repair of the facility, including damage to
structures.
In addition, under Section DC (page 4), the College grants the City a license for access to the
site for bus operations, major maintenance and repair of project structures IS long IS it is
mutually agreeable to both parties. City staff requested the College either grant an "irrevocable
license" or a license for access to the site for a specific time period of ten years in order to
ensure transit access to the facility and to assure an adequate time in which to amortise the
County's investment. The College declined this change. ThetlCoun~, whit.hthwill be funding .'.:
the project construction, will accept the agreement IS curren y wntten, WI out the change
requested by the City. Although City staff would have preferred this additional languaCe
regarding the license, it is not an essential component of the agreement. As also indicated in
~ /R/jt7
'age 3, Item~
Meeting Date 1013/95
I
Section DC, this project is mutually beneficial both to the College and to Chula Vista Transit
(CVT). Since the College requested the expansion of the current bus stop area for this project,
it is unlikely that a situation would arise in which the College would deny the City or CVT
access to the site for transit service.
In summary, the County will construct the project, the College will be responsible for on-going
maintenance, and the City will be responsible for major maintenance and repair if needed. The
project will be designed to provide improved bus service to the College and eastern Chula
Vista with low on-going maintenance costs. The project will provide 6 bus bays, 3 shelters,
approximately 16 benches, and landscaping. Shelters will be large covered structures without
side panels to minimize frequent maintenance and to discourage graffiti. The physical concept
and function are similar to the bus stop facilities at the WE" and WH" Street Trolley Stations.
FISCAL IMPACT:
1) The total estimated cost of the Southwestern College Bus Stop Improvement Project is
S500,OOO, which includes design and construction. The County of San Diego has
programmed S900,000 for this project. Approximately S250,000 has been spent on this
project since its inception; therefore, approximately S650,000 remains for
implementation.
.
2) Costs associated with major maintenance and repair at the completed facility will be
funded by City of Chula Vista TDA Article 4.0 funds. It is difficult to estimate an
annual cost for repairs, since repairs may be needed only infrequently. For example,
during the ] 4 years that the "H" Street station has been in operation, the bus shelters
at the Transit Center area have been repaired 4 times. Based on the projected TDA
allocation projected for the City of Chula Vista during the next five years, there will
be sufficient funds to pay for repair costs that might occur.
File No. DS030/037
Exhibit I:
Exhibit 2:
Letter Dated August 15, 1995 from Joseph Conte to Mayor Horton
Site Plan
(W:'. ... _ . -.030....)
.J-y~ /k~ / /
<<~
Southwestern
College
EXJ-!,'r;.,'71
ill
m 00 ~ 0 w m ~!
ALX; II 1995 .l!J
.~
COUNCil Off ICES
em 'I AVISTA ca
GOY"""'; loord
Augie Boreno
G. Gordon Browni'lg. 0.'-1.0
Jerry J. GrIIII.n
Moria Neve.Perman
Judy Schulenberg
JOseph M. ConIe
~rln1endenl'Pre_nt
August 15, 1995
The Honorable Shirley Horton, Mayor
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 9f012
Dear Mayorio on: ~ ..Lv..
t)'W'- '.
In the evenJ ou have not yet been made aware, the Governing Board of
Southwest' ern College, upon my recommendation, has approved the last jointly
developed plan for an on-campus Transit Center.
County. city. and college representatives appear to be in agreement with the
proposed plan. I assume the City Council will follow a similar action to the
College Board's.
Sincerely,
"
~
oseph M. Conte
uperintendentlPresident
JMC:RG
.
~/S- ~/,2
900 OIoy Lakes ~ood. ChIAO Vista. CA 91910. (619) 421-6700 FAX (619)482-6.413. Southwestem Community CoOege District
"r:
J 1...1.::
./ \ :~l:'::\;.l' \\\\\\\T T T
1\\\,"
:, ~:~ ~" ~ '\
l IIW; I l ~'/", !
I :
.~"""!OIO 046..11......1-4
~.' ~ iI .::
.... ~ . - .. ..
"
~
:"-- )
4
~ 11
] i~
UWld "HS
.'
-1
!_;:~::;::~: I
1\\aUlUUlUIOOUffie
/!
~~"rO~d ~u..w..^o~dmI do~s eng ..1"110~ u~"~s"^4~nos
. 1~ I,~ c:.-~
\
I
,
(
...
I.J I
I.J
L...
~ oJ ~
w .
-'
<t
U
VI
L
~
~
~
-==
-==
@
o
C
b
@)
oC='
IIiiJ
-
.t::.
oC='
:2J
o
U>>
J
J
i
r.! t
:1:1 l.
c. i!
IV ,,'
....1
~ ..
>- ,
CD
~
,:, 06.96 14:2;
tr619 694 3562
'-
u
~
~
z
:>
u
z
o
u
~
0::
~
"'lO
ZO)
O.
~~
C\~
~.;,
'-0
.q:
::E
i::
en
W
u.
o
~
'"
>
<i!
z
.q:
o
...
~
V'J
.'
~~~
~g~
o
,..
~
o
"-
N
CD
~
~
,..
~
It)SCDIO....OCO
..... c-'),....~81')
M MlOCD I')
I')IOO)IDOOO)
cnC\lV)~......U')1t)
II) ~~
-'
bl-.q:
~..J
~< I-
~ I- U
.0 W
01-
N 1-,....
z< w~ ~
I- o::! 00,#Q.
U i:U I- It)
~ g: ~ t
z ... SI2 ~ ~o C)ffi
It) 0 ,,, .... z ~
(J)U....O-~
~z~....~J: ...I Z
~0u.>-<!!2 ~ ~
<'I-OO....z z
....t;ozzOiL: ::I 8
J::>a:::W_<00 I-
e>a:::Q..C)l-gwo 0
5~~~frl~Effi ~
~~5~5;~~~ ~
.I-OUJO:!;W:>O Q..
1.'3 -d:7
<.
.....
w
~
It
o
:r
o
o
:>
it
a:::
::I
o
~OOl
bill G- fi't~ .
"'1\ - ~ 1"11
EX'ftj'fJ,'T B
-
.
li I i
~
I "'s
"~\"j
:
I ~. i .
l..Bf:
/,R '~)
.,.06/96 14:28
:619 694 3562
L."d P4enmnp
U"." 0NI9"
L.ettCUC8,Oe .tt:I'lfec,.,...
~-'i>1 Land Planning
"
Statement of Opinion on Probable Construction Costs
ProjKt:
So~m College Bus Stop Improvement Facility
Chula VISta, CIIllfomla
Dete:
March 4, 1896
Reference:
Conwel Plans and Speclfi~. awe! 3-1-" for O.S.A. RevI_.
~LP No.:
111.02
The Opinion of Probable Construction Costs. as provided henein, are IRpared on the basis of
Estrada L.lnd Planning's que6ncations Ind experience on _nt construction projects of SimIlar
scope and scale.
Estrada land Planning his no control over costs, nor the price of labor. equipment or m8WriaIs,
market conditions. nor over thl Contr.lctDr's method of priCing.
Estrada land Planning makes no _minty. exprelSld or implied. as to the accul'lC)l of such
opinions. as compared to bid Dr actual construction costs.
EeWda LInd Planning, Inc.
$f~'
Steve Estrada, ASLA, APA
Prasidlnt
SEldg
SJ3'_ _"'"
__c-..ont01
N -.o>q
trU ." _"
1
1~
/ ~ /~-l.?'
IlJ002
.)
.
.
..1 06. 96 14: 29
~619 694 3562
Ili003
tend """dip
vre.~ Oft,,'"
I."""","".. Aftl'trtt(IutW
~.~..J Land PI. .
., "'"........,. anmng
..
Opinion of Probable Construction Costs
Southwestern College Bus Stop Improvement Facility
Chula Vista, California
March 4. 1996
(based on ConlrClct Plans and Specifications, dated 3-1.96 for O.S.A. Review)
Item Unit 01 Unit
No. Article Meaure Quan. Cost Cost
1.0 MOBIUZATION LS 1 10.000 10.000.
Sub Total 110,000.
2.0 TRAFFIC CONTROL LS 1 3,000. 3,000.
Sub Total $3,000.
3.0 OEJIOLmON ANO SITE CLEARJNG
3.1 Site Demolibon. LS 1 25,000. 2~,OOO.
3.2 Remolle Existing wall. LS 1 4.000. 4,000.
33 RemOlle exIsting Wa1er Main. LS 1 5.000. 5.000.
34 Remove exIsting Sewer l.8teral. LS 1 1.000. 1,000.
3.5 Remove Exi5bng Storm Drain. LS 1 SOC. SOC.
Sub Total 135,100.
4.0 SURFACE IMPROVEMENTS
4.1 Pedesllian (Curb) Ramp. EA 16 500. 8,000.
4.2 6" P.C.C. Curb. Type G-1. LF 440 10. 4,400.
4.3 6" P.C.C. Curb and GullBr. Type G-2. LF 645 13. 7,085.
4.4 g" P.C.C. Pavement, Bus Zones. SF 11,630 6. es,7eO.
4.5 6" Aggrwgate liese, Bus Zones. TN <140 20. 8.800.
4.6 6" P.C.C. Pav.ment, Peclel1rian Zones. SF 18.B80 .. 75,520.
..7 4" Aggregat8 Bale, PtdeItMn Zones. TN 480 20. 1,500.
4.8 Reinfon:ed Concrete Retaining Wall. SF 800 40. 32,000.
4.9 Concrete Planter Wall. LF 186 40. 7,440.
U3F__:JOO 2
... ~ """""- 02701
ff8231-01""
ou: SfJ 23645>8
~-~~ / Y r c1 Cj
n.J '06/96 14:29
tt619 694 3562
Iii 004
.--
- -.-
'.
.)
'""'~.,.;.~
_..fI""-:....J"""t
4.10 Concnlte Steps. L5 1 2,000. 2,000.
4.11 Concrvle Header. LF 155 5. 775.
4.12 Concrete Planter Wall at Ex. Trees LF 124 8. m.
4.13 Exc.V8lion. Cy 800 12 8.600.
4.14 SUbgrade Preparation. SF 30,830 ,50 15.415.
Sub Total 1211,407.
5,0 UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS
5.1 4" PVC Water LF 17 20. ~.
5.2 6" PVC Weter. LF 27 20. 5otO.
5.3 8" PVC Water. LF 437 25. 10,925.
5.4 Connect to Exiltin9 Water. L5 1 4.000. 4,000.
5.5 Relocate Existing F=ire Hydrant EA 2 1,000. 2,000 a
5.6 Water Valve. EA 6 800. 4.800
5.7 510rm Drain. LF 20 20. 400.
5.8 DB 1212 Inlet EA 1 1,500. 1,500.
5.9 Relocate Inlet EA 1 1,000. 1,000.
5.10 Replace Sewwr Leteral. EA 1 600. 600.
5.11 8" Pwforated Sch. 40 PVC Pipe. LF 200 15. 3,000.
Sub Total 121,105.
11.0 MISCELLANEOUS CONSTRUCTION
81 8' Concrete Bench. EA 8 800. 8.400.
6.2 Bus Route Marker. EA 6 600. 3,600.
6.3 Bus Route Directory. EA 1 3.500. 3.500
8.4 Train Receplade. EA 6 750. 4,500.
6.5 Raised Concrete P~ter Beds. SET 3 3.000. 9,000.
6.6 Bus Shetterw, including !oundatiol1$, EA 3 42,000. 126,000.
precul columns, 1OIIiIa. roof panels.
mile. meIIIl, hardwe1e. IIIE;.
6.7 Pedestrian Railing. per SDRSD M-24. LF 180 15. 2,700.
6.8 Steel Post EA 4 200. 000. .
3
~ ) "f -,? c::::)
<, 06. 96 14: 29
tt619 694 3562
~005
:~""',J
, , ~'i.J'.
, ,
Sub Total '116,100.
7.0 ELECTRICAL
7.1 12' High Wllkwly lighting. EA 8 1.700. 13.600.
7.2 Bus Shellar Ughting. EA II 925 !5.S5O.
7.3 IMres, ConduitS. Pull 80_, LS , 12,000. 12,000.
Pedestals. Panel EIoards.
Enclosure. etc.
Sub Total $31,150.
1$.0 LANDSCAPING
8.1 48" Box Trae. Standard. EA 18 1,350. 24.300.
82 8' BTH Palm Tree. EA 11 .00. 4,400
8.3 5 GaUon Shrub. EA 618 16 U88
;; 84 Groundcover Area. LS 1 1,450 1,450.
v
.
8.5 Turf/Lawn Area. LS 1 3.225 3,225.
8.6 Soil Preparation. InCluding SOIllHtIngs. LS 1 1.350. 1,350
amendments, fIIr1iliZers, mulch, line
grading, etc.
87 Staking, tree drains, root barriers. etc. LS 1 1,200. 1,200.
8.8 Maintenance (90 days). LS 1 110O. 900.
Sub Total $41,713.
9.0 IRRIGATION
9.1 Irrigation System, Inctucling lite LS 1 24,000. 24.000.
preparation, pointli of connection, wive
usemblies, controller, hud.. In8inHn.,
Iater1lls. baddIow -'lbli.., IleeYes,
wive boxes, pull boxa, control wires,
fittings, etc.
8ub Total mOOG.
10.0 MISCELLANEOUS
10.1 Tl1I!Iic Signege. LS 1 2.000 2,000.
10.2 Signage LS 1 4,000. 4,000.
4
.J3~3t /:Y.3/
..;.06,96 14:30
:'.:' #1e".,,-01
~619 694 3562
'.
..
Sub Total
TOTAL
BID AL TERNA TES
8.9 Bid Alternate No. 1
36" Box TfHS
EA
18
590. 12. 420.
5
J.~-.:::~2 /c-f/ ~-:>2
11,000.
11I3,3'15.
1Zi006
')
)
.
i'
I
1. CHRONOLOGICAL HISTORY OF SOUTHWESTERN COLLEGE TRANSIT
FACILITY PROJECT
. 1988: City Transit staff met with County of San Diego and Southwestern College staff to
discuss feasibility of a Transit facility at the College.
. 1989: Southwestern College project included in MTDB short range plan.
. March 1989: Southwestern College Board approved the proposal to conduct planning study
for the transit facility.
. March 1989: County Board of Supervisors approved project in FY 1989-90 Transit Center
Program for feasibility study and $900,000 approved for project.
. February 1990: Southwestern College Board approved agreement among County of San
Diego, Southwestern College, and City of Chula Vista for feasibility study.
. February 1990: City Council approved agreement among County, College and City for
feasibility study.
. Fall 1990: Feasibility study began.
. February 1991: Public information meeting held on Chula Vista Transit Studv and update
to CVT short range plan; Transit facility identified and included in this plan.
. March 1991: City Council adopted Chula Vista Transit study.
. May 1991: Southwestern College Board considered Transit Feasibility Study and approved
alternative one design concept. (Location on Otay Lakes Road)
. Spring 1992: Southwestern College Board approved agreement for constructing Transit
Center.
. June 5, 1992: Agreement for constructing Transit Center presented to Council and referred
back to staff by City Council. (Council agenda item attached)
. June 9, 1992: Agreement brought back to council, recommended location rejected by
Council and Council directed staff to look at other locations which would not impact
existing grass, or landscaping area on campus. Council members Rindone and Horton
appointed to Council subcommittee to facilitate transit facility location discussions. (June
9, 1992 agenda statement attached)
. October 5, 1992: Meeting held among agency staffs and neighborhood residents to discuss
facility location.
/j- .33
. October 30, 1992: Second meeting held and census reached on three sites, out of twelve
sites evaluated. (These sites discussed in attached November 9, 1992 memo to Mayor and
Council. City staff preferences for the transit facility as a result of this evaluation in
October 1992 was either site 6A, 6AI, (the location currently under consideration) or site
1BI, which was located midway between Otay Lakes Road and the current location.
. February 11, 1993: These three alternative site locations discussed at Southwestern
College Board meeting. Board approved none of these three locations but a different site
near the proposed library/learning resource center in the vicinity of the stadium. (Letter
from Joseph Conte to John Goss attached)
. February 1993 - summer 1994: During this period of approximately 11/2 years various
meeting were held between City and County's staff discussing college preferred location.
Staff had major concerns about access to site and increased costs for CVT operations.
. April 12, 1994: Council considered a "report of Southwestern College Transit facility"
in which staff recommends that the City not pursue developing a Transit facility at the
future college library/learning resource center and also schedule a joint meeting between
Council and College to discuss the project. (Agenda statement attached) Council adopted
recommendation NO.2 only and directed staff to schedule joint meeting between Council
and College Board.
. August 2, 1994: Council considered agenda statement which discusses proposed joint
council/board meeting on Wednesday August 10, 1994 and provides additional information
to Council on project. (Agenda statement attached)
. August 9, 1994: Memo sent to Council regarding additional information for August 10,
1994 joint meeting. (Memo attached).
. August 10, 1994: Joint meeting did not resolve transit center location issue. Consensus
not reached on location.
. February 1995: City staff sent letter to college indicating that since Transit facility project
does not seem feasible, City staff would recommend to Council that all CVT bus routes
stop on Otay Lakes Road in front of college once traffic signal at Gotham was activated.
. Feb/March 1995: Mayor Horton meets with Mr. Conte he indicated that the College was
receptive to considering the feasibility of expanding existing bus stop location on campus.
This was the site that in previous site evaluations identified as 6A/6A1.
. August 15, 1995: Memo sent to Council on status of project. (memo attached) This memo
informed Council that site under evaluation is expanding existing bus stop area on campus
(formally identified as 6A/6A1). This concept plan presented to college Board of
Directors on August 9, 1995 and Board approved concept on the condition that sound
proofing in certain building windows near the new bus stop area be incorporated into the
/:J" 31
project. Included in this memo (last paragraph, second page) is status of funding for
project, including information that additional funds may be needed for project when cost
estimate for project was completed.
. October 3, 1995: Council approved agreement among County, College and City for
project. (agenda statement and minutes of meeting attached)
. October 1995 - April 1996: County through its consultant prepares engineering drawings
in preparation for construction bid. Cost estimate prepared.
. April 9, 1996: Resolution presented to Council amending agreement approved on October
3, 1995, in which it was proposed that City contribute up to $450,000 of its TDA Article
4.0 funds to supplement potential short fall, based on engineer's estimate. Council did not
approve this first amendment and refers project back to staff for additional information.
2. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUESTED BY COUNCIL
. Value of land being donated by College: The project will occupy approximately 11h acres.
Although it is difficult to estimate the market value of this land on the college campus,
comparable land in adjoining areas that need to be purchased if the city were to build a
transit facility off site would be approximately $650,000 based on $10 per acre.
. College has agreed to do routine daily maintenance of the completed facility and utilities.
The Transit Division currently pays for utilities and maintenance at the transit center (bus
loading area) at the H Street station and for the Bay Front Station. Bay Front Station
annual cost for utilities is about $5400 and maintenance is about $20,000, not including
maintenance and repair to the visitor information center building. However, the Bay Front
Station does have a number of parking spaces, which the facility at Southwestern College
would not have. Perhaps a more comparable facility is the one at H Street and city transit
currently spends approximately $7500 annually at that location for maintenance and
cleanup, not including utilities, which is paid for by MTDB. Staff estimates that routine
maintenance and utilities. the Southwestern Collelle facili1y. based on expenditures at both
the Bay Front Station and H Street Station would be approximately $10.000 annually.
3. COUNTY EXPENDITURES TO DATE ON PROJECT
This information will be provided by County staff.
WMG:rb
M:IHOMEIENGINEERIBILLGITIMELINE.SWC
;,)'/ ~ 3-'
0> ~ '" 0> 0 ;:!: 0 on
on 0 ~ on '" 0 .....
...J ,...: ,...: ~ ~ ..; 00 ci .,;
~ '" .... ~ 0> '" .... .... on
on '" '" '" 0> 0>
a ,...: on <'i on N
I- 0> '" '" .....
~ '"
.... ~ 0 '" .... 0 on
Q) 0 ~ ~ ..... 0 0
cO ,...: ..i ~ cO ci ci
'" .... .... '" on .... .... '"
0> ~ '" 0> '" 0> '"
~ 00 on on cD cD
Q) '" '"
~
'" Q) ~
'" "": .....
'" N ~ ..;
0> ~ .... '"
~ '" 0 "'.
N cD ~
~ '"
'" '"
~ ~
~ ~
.... Q) Q)
0> "'. "'.
>- ~ ~
lL
.... co 0
0> co ~
on on ~
'" 0 .... '"
0> co co
>- ..F ..F
u.. '" '"
0 '" ~ 0 .....
0 "": '" co
0: ci ~ on ..; .,;
W N 0 '" 0 '" 0>
I- 0> ...... .... N '" co
Z >- ~ on ,...:
W lL '" '"
0
I-
en on 0> on 0>
Z ..... on 0 '"
~ cO cO cO ..;
~ Q) ..... .... ~
I- 0> co. .... ..... 0>
W >- ..... <'i to ,...:
C> u.. ~ ~ '"
W
...J -
...J
a
0
z en
0: w i3
0: '"
W ::J ", - 0
l- t: ~ 0 ~ ~ lf c(
en 1;) en
w 0 -' -, :ii:
~ z w en ::J ::J ::J ::J
J: W
I- a..
::J x I- ci
a w z J:
lL ~ 0: I-
en ::J
. a a
'" c( ...J
..... ...J ::J J: :.:: c(
a :;;: en 0 0: I-
a I- z 0: ~ a
J: w a ::J I-
:.:: 0 . 0 a..
_.-
~
-
Q)
Q)
r-
en
~\i- ~ ~ \:)
'J i>\ c ~
o 'ik '" ~
. , , ~
~
Q)
'"
'"
a..
4
~
?
~
1:/--36
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item
Meeting Date 5/5/92
ITEM TITLE: Resolution Approving agreement between the County
of San Diego, Southwestern Community College District, and the
City of Chu1 a Vista for construction, maintenance and
operation of the Southwestern College Transit Center
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works f)Y1I
REVIEWED BY: City Manager (4/Sths Vote: Yes___No-x-)
At its meeting on February 20, 1990, Council approved an agreement between the
County of San Diego, Southwestern College and the City of Chu1a Vista for a
Southwestern Coll ege Trans i t Center feas i bi1ity study. The study whi ch is
included as part of the attached agreement, determined that a transit center
at Southwestern College is both feasible and necessary to provide more
convenient and accessible public transportation to the college and eastern
Chu1a Vista. Alternative 1 (figure 6 and 7 in the study) is the recommended
site plan. The agreement, and Alternative 1 Conceptual Site Plan, have been
approved by the Southwestern College Board of Directors.
The total estimated cost of the transit center project is $1,150,000,
including contingencies. This agreement authorizes the County to proceed with
final design and construction of the transit center, and defines maintenance
and operation responsibilities between the College and the City once the
center is completed. According to County staff, the project will follow
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines for environmental
approvals, and it should require only a Negative Declaration. The agreement
also authorizes the County to claim up to $250,000 of City of Chu1a Vista TDA
4.0 funds, if the cost exceeds $900,000 which the County has programmed for
this project.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve: 1) agreement between the County of
San Diego, Southwestern Community College District, and the City of Chu1a
Vi sta for the construct i on, maintenance and operation of the Southwestern
College Transit Center, and 2) conceptual site plan Alternative 1 as shown in
the Southwestern College Transit Center feasibility study.
BOARDS/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
A transit center at Southwestern College would serve two main purposes:
improve current and future CVT service to the college; and function as a
transfer point for future CVT routes operating in areas east of Southwestern
College.
The transit center includes a bus loading area for six vehicles. It would be
located between Gotham and Elmhurst Streets and includes a traffic signal at
the intersection of Elmhurst Street and Otay Lakes Road to facilitate traffic
flow from the center and the college. The major components of the agreement
state that the:
/:1-31
.
PAge 2, ItH
Meeting Date 5/5/92
Count v wi 11 :
Contribute up to $900,000 in TDA funds for transit center
development.
Act as lead agency for construction.
Colleae will:
Dedicate real property for the transit center to the City of Chula
Vista.
Pay for utilities (electrical and water) after transit center
completion.
Be responsible for daily routine maintenance and cleaning of the
transit center, including trash pickup, landscape maintenance, and
removal of stain/spills from structure surfaces.
Citv wi 11 :
Authorize County to claim up to 5250,000 of City of Chula Vista TOA
Article 4.0 funds for transit center development, if needed, after
expenditure of 5900,000 in County funds.
Be responsible for major maintenance, repair and operation of the
transit center, including damage to structures, graffiti removal,
and tree trimming (costs associated with these repair or maintenance
items will be covered by TOA Article 4.0 funds).
Maintain insurance or self-insured responsibility for negligent
maintenance and operation of the completed facility.
If this agreement is approved by all parties, construction of the transit
center tentatively would begin in January 1993 and completed in Summer 1993.
FISCAL IMPACT: The total estimated cost of the Southwestern Transit Center
is 51,150,000, which includes the completed feasibility study, engineering
drawings, and construction. Southwestern College will dedicate the land to
the City for the transit center. The County of San Diego has programmed
5900,000 for this project, and the City will commit up to $250,000 of its TDA
Article 4.0 funds to this project, if needed, after expenditure of the County
funds. It is difficult to estimate annual major maintenance and repair costs,
or potential liability costs related to completed center operations. However,
SCOOT maintenance and repair costs at the "H" Street Trolley Station Transit
Center (which is a comparable facil ity to the one proposed at the College)
have averaged about 5800 annually over the past ten years, and there have been
no liability costs related to the Transit Center.
WPC 1532T
File: 05-030/05-037
/J-3fl
1rT.,fcIl/l1E~1 9.
I~
..tt.. Data 'IIIIt
ITDI TmE: Resolutton I '-Lo\\ Approving arrl...nt Ht...n tilt County
of San Di.go, Southwest.rn CoIaunity Colleg. Di.trict, and the
City of Chula Vista for construction, ..intlnane. and
eptration of the Southwt.~..rn~lleg. Transit Cent.r
S&IIIITTED BY: Director of PubHc Works f)f'" .
REVIEWED IY: City Mana~.'i (4/1t111 'ote: ,......JIo..L)
.
Council consid.red this it.. at its ...ting on May 5, 1'92, and directed Itaff
to provide the following additional' inforaation on the transit c.nt.r proj.ct:
the traffic pattern .xiting the coll.ge and transit c.nter at El~ur.t St; a
~re detail.d cost br.akdown of the project; the cost of other transit center
alternatives ..ntioned in the f.asibility .tudY; and lolicit the City
Attorn.y's review of the contract to .nsure that it contain. adequate cost
control language. Attached for Council'l infonlation il the ag.nda Itat...nt
(including the f.lsibility .tudy and agreement) consid.r.d by Council on May
5, 1992 (Exhibit 1). This ag.nda .tat...nt will pres.nt the additional
inforaation request.d by Council.
IECOIIIEIDATION: That Council approve:
COUNCIL ~nn& STATEMEKT
1.
Agr....nt between the County of San Diego, Southwest.rn c-mity Coll.ge
District, and the City of Chula Yistl for construction, ..int.nanc., and
operation of the Southwestern Coll.ge Transit C.nt.r; and
Conc.ptual site plan Alternath. 1 as Ihown in the Southwest.rn College
Transit Center F.asibility Study. .
IDMDS/CDIIISSIOHS IEtcllCENDATlON: Not appHcabl..
DISCUSSION: '
2.
~
The conceptual design of the transit c.ntlr "as been' .'i,htly lIOdified to
provide bett.r ..nage...nt of traffic on the colleg. 'access road (El.urst
Street .xtended) and to its int.rsection with Otay Lakes Road. As IICIted on
the attached diagr.. (Exhibit 2), a rai.ed "rrier t.,and ... been
tncorporated tnto the de.i,n for the purpol. .f creating an exclu.ive
right-turn bus 1 an. and to reduce confu.ion at tilt Otay Lake. Road
tnt.r.ection. Th. lIOdifted ..ign creat.. HU.r definition of tilt tran.it
centlr exit driveway and .hould re.ult tn optt_ lafety perfol'lllllCe .f the
Dtay Latt. Road/ElIlhul..t Street tnt.rsection.
After it was det'nlintd that the Hst tocation for the Transit Cent.r was 1n
the proposed location it WIS d.t.nain.d that a traffic li,nll would be
required at the int.rsection of Otay Lakes Road and E1Murst Street in orel.r
/ f-31
~
'age Z, It.. ,~
~t1ng Date 6/9/92
to ,.,.1t bus traffic to safely and expeditiously ..ke a left turn out of the
center to go lIorth on Otay Laltes Road. It tIOuld also ,rov1de the Mcessary
brake in Otay Lakes Road traffic to anow busses COIling fl'Oll the south to
enter the Transit Center at 50th.. Street.
Under this ,lan it 11 also ex,.cted that conege traffic w111 be attracted to
the signalized 1l1tlrslction. SincI thl ranking of the intersection of 50tham
Street and Otay Lakes Road is based on the .ntering yolume of traffic, which
is bas1ca'ly warrantld by the college traffic and IIOt the ..1ghborhood
traffic, the diversion of traffic to E'lIhurst tIOuld efflct thl .&.bar of
stgnal ,rtor1ty ,01nts that thts 1nterslct1on receivls. It was concluded that
re-d1str1bution of traffic due to the Transit Center tIOuld also reduce
conflicts at the Cotham Street intersection but tIOu'd cause a greater tllpact
at the El~urst Street intersection.
Calt Rr.a1cdown
A cost estt.ate for the ,roject 11 attached as Exhibit 3. Transit Center
construction, including the traffic stgnal and a 151 conttnglncy, is estt..tld
at $745,000 or about 65' of the total project cost. The other aajor cost
COllPonents of the project are: the feasib11tty study, design, construction
inspection, and ,roject ..nagement. Land .111 be dld1cated by thl Colllge.
As indicated in the attached litter from Sharon .Jasek Reid, Deputy Director
Public Works. County of San Diego (Exhibit 4), the two ..in objlct1ves of the
project design were to develop a facility whose function tIOuld 1~rove transit
service and auto access to and from the Colllge; and also be aesthetically
COllPatible with COlllge architlcture and enhance existing develOplllnt in the
area.
tast a( 11t.rnat1v@s
Detailed cost esti.ates were prepared only for Alternative I, the reco.llnded
site plan. All four alternatives share the same basic design COllj)onents; the
only aajor difference among the alternatives that tIOuld affect cost 11
location. The County staff and consultant for the ,roject, Estrada Land
Planning. esti..te that the recOlllllnded Alternative 1 and Alternative 4 are
coaparable in cost, wh11e Alternatives Z and 3 tIOuld be aore expenstve.
tttv Itte"".y '.vtw It' AaN..nt
The attached llttlr fl'Oll Ms. "asek Reid (Exhibit 4) ind1catls that the
agreeaent anows an threl ,art tiS cost ,control through thl dlsign and revtew
,rocIlS. Section I.C. requires thl County to obtain City and Conege ftnal
approval of ,roject design and Section IV.A. Itates that thl County w111
subll1t 301, 70s, and final tIOrking drawings and l'lcifications to thl City and
College for approval. Thl City Attorney bas revttwtd the agre..nt and
concurs that the axisting language ,rovidls adequatl cost control for thl Ctty
on the ,roject.
. - -
! g ,- J/ [J
,
Aq-~
'age 3. It- ~
....tiDg Dat, &/11/112
FISCAL IMPACT: The total .stt..ted cost of the Southwestern College,
Transft Center is SI.150.000. whfch inc1udes the COIp1ettd feasibi1itl study.
engineering drawings. construction, tnspection, and project ..nag...nt,
inc1ud1ng a J5S contingency. Southwestern Co11ege wfll dedfcate land to the
Cfty for the Transft Center. The County of San Dfego "as progr_d SIOO,OOO
of its TDA funds for this project, and tire Cfty wnl co.aft up to S250,ooO of
its TDA Artfc1e 4.0 funds to thfs project, if needed after ,expendfture of the
County funds. It is dffftcu1t to estt..tl annua1 -.jor ..fntlnance and repafr
costs or potenUa1 Habt1ftl costs related to clnter operaUons. However,
SCOOT ..tntenance and repair costs at the H Street Tro1111 StaUon Transit
Center (whfch is a cOIIparab1e 'aen tty to the onl proposld at till Conege)
have averaged about $800 annual1y over the past ten Ylars and there haVI been
no ltabtlttl costs relatld to the H Street Station Transtt Clnter.
WMG:DS-030/DS-037
IIPC 1557T
.
'( "
I ~' -~ /
-A '" --'2
JtESOLOTION NO.~
USOLtn'ION OF THE CITY COWCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHt1l.A VISTA APPROVING AGREEMENT BAUuon THE
COti'NTY OF SAN DIEGO, aoOTBWJ:S'1'DN COMMtJIIITY
COLLEGE DISTRICT, AND THE CITY OF CIIUIA VISTA
. FOR CONSTRUCTION, KAnn'ENANCE AND OPERATION OF
THE SOt1'1'RWESTERN COLLEGE TRANSIT CZN'rER
WHEREAS, .t it. ...tin; of F.bruary 20, lttO, Council
.pprov.d .n .qr....nt betw.an tha County of San Di.;o, Southwa.tarn
Coll.q_ .nd th_ City of Chula Vi.ta for. Southwa.tarn Coll.;a
Tran.it Cantar faasibility .tudy; and
WHEREAS, tha faasibility study ha. been complat.d which
concluded that the Southwast.rn Coll.;. Tranait Cant.r Proj.ct ia
nac.ssary .nd feaaibla; .nd
WHEREAS, tha .;r....nt, .nd Alt.rnativ. 1 Concaptu.l Sit.
Plan, hava been .pproved by the Southw.at.rn COll.;. Board of
Dir.ctors; .nd
WHEREAS, the total .atimat.d coat of th. tranait c.nt.r
proj.ct i. $1,150,000, includinq contin;.nci.s; and
. WHEREAS, aaid .qr....nt .uthoriz.a tha County to proca.d
with construction of th. transit c.nt.r and d.fin.. .aintananc. and
operation responsibility between the COll.;. and tha City one. the
cant.r is complatad; .nd
WHEREAS, .ccording to County at.ff, tha projact will
follow California Environm.ntal Quality Act (CEQA) vuidalina. for
environmental .pprovals throu;h usa of . Na!jJativa Declar.tion; and
WHEREAS, Council, .t it. May 5, 1tt2 ..atin;, diract.d
staff to provida aora information ra;.rdin; tr.ffic patterns, co.t
braakdown and othar transit .ltarnativas. .
NOW, S'BEREFORE, BE rr USOLVED th.t tha City Council of
tha City of Chul. Viat. do.. her.by approve .qra_ant betwean the
COunty of S.n Die;o, Southwastarn COIIIIunity Collave District, and
tha City of Chub Vista tor construction, aaintan.nc. and oper.tion
of tha Southwastarn Coll.;a Transit Canter, a copy of Which i. on
file in the offic. of tha City Clerk.
BE IT TUK.ALK JtESOL~ th.t tha Mayor of the City of
Chub Vista i. hereby .uthoriz.d and dir.ct.d to axacut. .aid
.qr....nt for and on behalf of the City of Chub Vista.
/ f- 'lj<
-
BE IT PtJRTHER RESOLVED that the city Council doe. beraby
.pprove ~e conceptual site Plan Alternative 1 .. .hown in the
southwestern college Tran.it Center f...ibility, .tudy.
Pre.ented by
:ohn P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Work.
c..IT "-
, I')
') -13
-\ ~I,. -A q---fp
.
.'
. 1 f:-
. : ,
'/, I
.. ~
~.~-
I> ; '\
,- .:-;
: '. I.
q.
1Jrbon v~ 6 V.ronica E. ",on..
1'1 ecaI Lak.. Road
Cbul. V .ta, CA .un
...
I .
';.:i.
I '
-.. :
...y 28, 1"2
,
-:----.:
Pax.eS ~ (11') 425-611. o~ 5-21-'2 4.30 p...
lIonOrabl. llayor am! C1~y Council
Ci ~y of Chul. Vi."
276 4th Avenue
Cbul. Vi.ta, CA 11110,
8Ubje~. ~vu~ern COllev. ftan8i~ canter
JIonorable ..yor aneS COuncil ~-r.,
'!'his reque.t 18 for a iR=Uc be.dn; t:O allow inP\R fl"Oll t.b.
public into t.b. utter of t.be propo..d 'tr.nd~ oan~er vl~n t.b.
Southw..tern COlleg. CUpus and .101'; t.b. ....~ aieS. of otay !oak..
acaeS.
As you can a.. by our .eSf!re.. our boa. of t.be pa.t 26 year.
fronts on otay Lake. Ro.eS an4 wou14 be t.a.eSi.~ely acros. t.b.
street from t.b. propo..eS ~r.nai t c.nt.r. ..e baeS 10 years a;o a
'tr.nslt .~op in front of our boa. aneS ;o~ 1~ ~d ~ a CODerci.l
ar.. due ~ t.b. f... ane! incr....e! 'tr.ffic at our fron~ door. In
t.be int.rv.ning y..r. our .i4. of otay !oak.. va. d..ivn.~ee! by you
the Ci~y for no parkin; dudng .chool bour. a. t.b. 1apa~ on t.b.
r.ai4enc.. along ct.y Lake. va. ~oo vreat. ~r1e. bav. force4
U8 ~ put bars on all our vlndova ane! door. and t.bis 1. in part due
~o t.b. growth In t.b. ar.. paR of which vas on .!Jain Callpus
PropeRY. Although our requ..~ 1. a.lf activat.a4 in part it 18
al.o for the balance of t.b. CODunity.
n v.. 1n f.~ t.b. aftoR of a n.i!Jbbor a... blocks avay
froa Dtay Lak.. Ro.4 t.bat aleRe4 ua to t.b. approval of th. proj.ct
by the .outhw..tern Colleg. ao.rd of 'trUSt.ae.. Hi. .lan va. acr.
of an alan .. th. re.t of t.b. n.ilJbbor. ve bav. di.cus..e! ~.
vith are equ.lly concernacS v1t.b t.be nev.tive iapa~ of ~.
proj.~. .ft. followin; are 80lIl of t.b. oonoarna.
1. .0 aR va. filacS on t:ba proiect.
2. Southwe.tern va. oZ'1!Jinally plannecS ~ blOOM a 4 7HZ'
collev' and in f.~ vas pl'oaot.ac! .. auch for t.be bcmcS
financ!n; ~ acqulre the land and build the facUlty.
A. 'lbe efforte of t:be aoard of tnataa. in ..llin;
oft parcel. of lane! baa ncSuoad t:be land of the oupua
~ prevan~ t:be oonvaraion ~ ~ 4 year acbool.
I ~/~ //;'
,.~...., . ACt ..-4-
.
B. Any further r.duct:ion in av.l1abl. caapu. l.nd
.ill furth.r pr.v.nt future expansion of t:h. uiat.1ne;
~nstitution.
C. A r.view of th. ori9inal and a~.qu.nt bond
financin; vehicle. to check t:.be propriety of the
bo.rds a~ions r.l.tine; ~ t:h. ..l1ine; of land
. apecifically acquir.d for t:h. oaapua. .
D. A ~i.w of th. propriety of t:.be ~ to entar
. into a ,oint .entur. unr.lated to educaUon.
3. 1.ack of adequ.te 'traffic atudie. before the ~ 'tOOk
action and prior to foraulaUon of the propo..l.
.. Air qu.l1 ty studi.. on t:h. illpact: of aua pollution.
5. Moia. atudie. on th. lapact: of Doiaa on t:ha alSjoinine;
property own.n and atud.nt popul.t.1on.
6. Zndronaent.l 18.ue of nlSuct:ion of tn.. anlS plants ln
11.u of acr.. of concr.t. and a.ph.lt. Sound. like the
Br.zilian Rain por..t ayndrOa..
.,. A .tudy on th. lapact: on aria. due to incre..elS
vanai.nt popul.t.1on. .
I. A atudy on th. n..d anlS f...ibility lf a . ye.r caapu.
18 bul1 t el..wh.r. ln ar.. th.r.by po.sibly relSuct:in;
.tud.nt popul.tion. and rid.r.hip.
t. Incr....1S d.n9.r to orunior Bie;h anlS Bi;h SChool atud.nts
valk1n;, ridin; bicycl.., and drivin; to ar.. achool. on
otay 1.ak.. ao.d.'
10. Incr....d d.n;.r and con;..tion ~ colla;. caapu.
.tud.nts both drivln; and ..lkin; ~ colla;. froa ajoinine;
co_unity.
'1'0 our bowlad;. t.be.. 1..u.. bav. Dot been addre..ad. In
addition t.b. 1.Ck of noraal procedures to Dotify alSjotDin; aff.ctad
property own.r. 18 ap.llin9, unfair and nain..cant of ral1roadin9
techniqu.. of th. Bo.. '1'W..d day.. "for. you sma city aouncl1
pa.... jud9...nt on t.b. propo..d project: va are aak1nv you to be a
truly rapruentst.1v. fora of Vovarnaant.
.1.... bear u, protect: u'. and in all alnoarlq. represent
u.
''1'bank JOU and va look forward to v.tUn9 your napona..
...pectfullY your.,
U~~~
Vrbon v:~..
~ .{~
W~ . ,'(t1d/
.ronica . ne.
/) , / .
/o~JI.:J
\1...'t-'- ~/
.
..
.
.
'0
. CD
=
"..
CD
.,
.
.
-
I
I
-
.
..
/ f-L/ ~
.
'1HJS PAGE BlANK
.
.
.
,-
'~-41 .
I C CJ. -_-Jr'\
. A~ \,.of
.....
.
.
o.
1IIomas A. Davis
1657 60tha. Street
Chu1a Vfsta. CA .1.13
421-1577
"ay 21.. UU
.
l.."'
--- ..
- . ....
.
Th. Mayor and Cfty Councf1 of the Cfty of Chu1a Yfsta
276 Fourth Avenue
Chu11 Yfsta. CA .1.10
Dear Mayor and .e.bers of the Cfty Councf1:
In February of thfs ,ear J wrote to ,ou re,ardfn, a
decfsfon by the cfty staff not to fnsta11 a trafffc sf,na1
at the fntersectfon of Otay Lates Road and Gotha. Street.
When that letter Ippeared on the Cft, Councfl a,enda for
February 18. 1112. the cfty Itaff provfded ,ou wfth a brfef
wrftten fnfor.atfon report to substantfate thefr reasons for
not fnsta11fn, a trafffc sf,nal at the fntersectfon. and
reco..ended that ,ou recefve Ind ffle .y 1etter wfthout
further actfon - whfch WIS done.
After the Councf1 Ictfon 1 corresponded wfth the Cfty
Manager. requestfng further detafls that supported the Itlff
decfsfon not to fnstl11 a trlfffc sf,nI1. t.,.. trlfffc
warrants Ind trafffc ana1ysfs. and 10 on. J also asttd to
know why Inother fntersectfon further north on Otay Lites
Road. It CI~fno Del Cerro Grinde. hid a trafffc sf,nl1
funded Ind fnstllled. alon, wfth tat.nsf't curb and cross
watt i.prove.ents. ah.ad of other int.rsectfons (Gotha.
Street befn, one of these) thlt the cfty staff itself hid
establfshed as hl,fn, ,r.lt.r n.ed.
J dfd not recef't a rep1y to .y r.qu.st for infor.atfon
untf1 May 12. 1,.2. .or. than two Ind a half .onths 1ater. J
cln understand that the cfty .tlff ha. .Iny f.portant func-,
tfons and dutf.i to perfor.. and thlt r.spondfn, to cftfz.ns
r.qu.sts for fnfor.atfon intrud.s on thfs proC.SI. but.it
....s odd that it took .0 10n, to answ.r questions that
Ihould have .a1ready had answ.r. ff the d.cflion not to
instl11 a .f,na1 at Otay Lat.s ROld and Gotha. Strt.t .ad
pr.vfousl, b.en docu.ent.d. Whf1t thfl tf.. de1a, tl trrt-
tatfn,. tt now app.arl to b. a .fnor tllUt. .
Th. o,errtdtn, realon for not tnlta11fn, a trafffc
.f,nl1 at Otl, Lates 10ld and lothl. Strttt art cit,. c01-
1'1' and county plans f4r the conltructfon of a Transft
Center in place of the front Ilwn at Southwestern Co11.,.
lIon, Otay Lites Road. The Cfty of Chula Yfsta. San Dfego
/f - L/ g
---- ..
City Counc11. May 21, 1892. Page 2.
County and Southwestern C011ege Itaffl have been negotiating
for lo.e t1.e a.ong the.se1ves to develop a plan for the
construction of the Transit Center that .111 draw '900,000
d011ars fro. county transportation funds and $250,000 d01-
1ars fro. s1.11ar City of Chu1a Y1sta funds.
The front lawn of the c011ege ....s to IIn. been clloun .
as the site for the Transit Center in a roundabout .ay.
Southwestern C011ege contr011 adequate und.~e10ped land on
the corner of Otay Lakes Road and East" Str..t to bu11d.the
Transit Center. If this site were used, tile cost .1ght .ven
be 1ess th.n putting it on the front 1awn since there are
already tr.ff1c control devices installed in the i.med1ate
vicinity of the corner 10cat1on. However, the Southwestern
College administration wishes to r.serve tll1s undeve10ped
site for some future ~o1nt development venture with a .
yet-to-be-determ1nedpartner. As a result, tile col1ege.llas
chose~.crif1ce tile aestlletica11y pleasing and .nv1ron.en-
t.lly..~nign front lawn and convert it into an acre and a
h.lf of concrete, asph.1t, transp1anted p.1. tr.es and fake
-Aztec-11ke- p111ars.
When I appe.red before the City Counc11 in February and
appe.led to you to reverse the decision not to insta11 a
tr.ff1c s1gn.l at Ot.y Lakes Road and 60tham Street, tile
city staff informed you that their decilion ..s sound, based
on a significantly reduced traffic y01u.e at tllat intersec-
tion. The staff position was further .nhanced by c.rta1n
f1nanc1a1 benefits to the city derived from funding provided
by the county for the construction of the Transit Center.
The staff, it turns out, lIad not done a traffic Itudy at the
Ot.y Lakes Road/Gotham Street intersection, or the area, in
a number of years - the information provided to you in
February lIad no basis in fact, and was IU.ss-work.
It was not until April 28, 1"2, according to tile
traffic warrants provided to .e by the Director of Public
.orks in lIis May 12, 18'2 1etter, that a traffic lury.y was
actual1y done, lo.e twO .onths aft.r J app.ar.d b.fore tile
City Council. No accurate traffic.data app.ars to lIav. be.n
used in the Transit Center p1anning to this point, .ither.
The stat..ent that Itaff .ade to you in February that the
traffic count at tile &otlla. Street intersection "ad declined
to 1100 yehicles per day was wi1dly inaccurate. After the
Apri1 traffic count the previous1y r.ported y01u.e turned
out to be in .rror by 3781 - tile Apri1 count indicates the
average dai1y traffic y01u.e at &otha. to be 4110 yehicl.s
lIer dayl
/1 - 49
~~
.
City Council. MIY 21, 1'92. Plge 3.
It dlltr.llel .e thlt the city Itaff .al .0 car.l.11 fn
providing you .lth Iccurlt. fnfor.atfon. I f..l thlt thfl
I.ver.ly preJudfc.d your Ictfon on .y F.bruary r.qu'lt. It
.al .ade to appear that th.re .al no .ubltantfatfon or
tUltfffcatfon for .y Ippeal, Ind naturllly you Ict.d Iccord-
ngly. However, al.olt .v.ry Ilpect of the Itaff pOlftfon fn
February wal not supported by accurate facti (fn .one ca.es,
none at all). The 11tuatfon appears 1fttl. chang.d now,. even
after recefvfng the -Inlwerl- to .y queltfonl Iddr.ll.d to
the Cfty Mlnlger.
The Dfrector of Publfc Workl, for ,xlmple, fndfcatel fn
hfl MIY 12th repty. thlt the trlffic lurvey don. fnAprf1
demonstrltes that the Interlectfon of Otay Lak'l Road Ind
Elmhurst Street fs now busfer than the one at Gotha. Street.
My eXlmfnatfon of the .arrlntl c1elr1y showl thlt the trlf-
ffc volume at Elmhurlt (the minor Itreet) hll I volu.e of
2000 fewer vehiclel per day thin Gotham Str.et. So.ehow,
wfth a trafffc count half that of Gotham, Elmhurlt wal
aWlrded a maxfmum of 12 pofntl for vehicle volume - II
opposed to 6 pofntl for Gotham Str.et. Thfl kfnd of IUlpf-
cfous manfputltfon of ffgures produced a forced totll of 55
pofnts for Elmhurst and only 43 for Gotha. Street.
Another welkness in the trlfffc study fl the faflure
to tlke into account that trlfffc flow hll b.en I.ver.ly
reduced along OtlY Lakel ROld between the Gotha. Street
fntersectfon Ind Telegraph Canyon ROld b.caule of rOld
constructfon. For over I y.lr .uch of the trafffc that .ight
otherwise use Tetegrlph Clnyon fl, and has been, opting to
use East H Street rather thlt fight the conltructfon and
congestion on Tel.graph Canyon Road.
I also note thlt the city staff hal never produced
flctull Justfffcatlon for the Inltal1at1on of a traffic
11gnl1 Ind sfd. walk Ind curb f.prove.entl at the fnt.rlec-
tfon of OtlY Lat.s Road and Ca.fno D.1 C.rro Grand./Surr.y
Drfv.. Faf1ur. to sUPfort thil d.cflfon .fth facti .akel ft
appear .ore and .ore fte1y that the decflfon to fund a
Ifgna1 at that fnterlectfon wal .ade arbftrarfly, and ahead
of fnt.rlectfonl havfng a ,reat.r .eed.
There Ir. two r.qu'lt that I wflh to .ate of th. Cfty
Councfl. Ffrlt, J would 1fte the Cfty'l fnv01ve.ent fn the
.atter of the Tranlft Cent.r, and the co..ft.ent of fundi
for ftl conltructfon at the Ifte fn front of Southwelt.rn
College, to be f.partfally reexa.fned. Thfl proJect has
/J). ~ t)
---
~
.
City Council. May 21. 1992. 'age 4.
.ever properly involved the residents in the vicinity of the
college. and it has not received a realistic or accurate
.xamination of the .ffect of its construction on Otay Lates
Road traffic flOW. Second. I would request that a accurate.
straightforward. determination be .ad. of the traffic and
pedestrian situation at the Otay Lates Road/Gotha. Str.et
tntersection. wi~h s.rious consideration being ,iven to the
installation of . traffic signal there at the .arl1est
possible ti.e.
Thank you for your indulgence once again of this .at-
ter.
A"'ik.
~aviS
S-j/
~
.... _ d..l
?It
Robert C. Muff
874 Xavier Avenue
Cbula Vista,. CA '1913
<619> 421.3320
.
.' ..'
f. ~
.' .!_L.~:.._~_'_ '.
I
Io&yor Tim Nlder
276 <<h Avenue
Qaula ViIta, CA 91910
27 May 92
SUBI: P\u....iICd TrlDslt Cater . SoadlWCllerD CoUe,e.
J)car Mayor Nader:
I blve jast recently learned about die proposed traIIslt CCDter beiD, ,lanned for die
"'ront yard" of Southwestem eolle.e.
As a caacemed citizen and close .el,hbor 10 'swe. I .trn"..lv qnnolc ay plans 10
alter die belutiful landscaped arel iD front of die coUe.e borderin. Otay Lakes Road.
As Chula Vista rapidly clpands eastward. Otay Lakes Rold .. becomiD. more ad more
commerclaliud. One of die last remalDin. ,arden IpOts in dlls immediate area II die
swe campus. Much time. effort. and money bu been Ipent ,Iannln. and
malntalniDg the front approach 10 the campus. I would bate 10 ICe die U'CCS ad arus
removed 10 make WlY for lots of CODcrete 10 nppon a blDdful of aolsy and pollutiDS
busses.
Altematlvcs must be considered: ./
1. Empty lot . lOuthwest comer of Otay Lakes ad East "'If" Streets.
2. Another area on campus. possibly in the nhtl".. partiDa lot above . west of
&be stadium. (This approach would save lots of coDcrete...ud IUpayen mODey)
Unless )'ou blve forecuted and dOCDlllented a dramatic increase in pUICD,er traffic
into and out of Southwestem Colle.e. I acriously queldon die DCCesslty 10 increase
die capacity of die current bus atop. .
Request JOU ICCvaluate dIls vanslt center requirement before we Colle,e Eltltes
realdenu Iole Ibis beautiful area 10 yet anowr CODCrete Jaa.le.
~::kc~lt
~n C. Muff W
Copy 10: .
I. Couty Supemaor Bllbray
2. swe PrcaidCIIt OoDte
3. Star Ncwa EdilOr
/J-3~
-A 0--+.4:)""'-
.
THIS PAGE BLANK
,
.
.
.
.
,'g-53
.
.
.
.
f\ q ....4{p,
..
June 1, 1992
Mr. Jo.eph Conte, Pre.ident
Southwe.tern College
100 Ot.y L.ke. lo.d
Cbul. Vi.t., CA 91913
.e. 'ropo..d Southwe.tern College Tr.n.it Center
De.r Sir a
.ec.ntly it b.. come to our attention th.t S.n niego County and South-
v..t.rn Coll.g. are propo.ing to build a tran.it center at the pr...nt
front entr.nce to the colleg.. After reviewing the plan., w. ar. li.t-
ing b.loy . number of r...on. why v., a. re.ident. of Col1eg. E.tates
(the residential ar.a i..ediatelY to the E.,t of the COll.g.> .re
oppo.ed to the tr.nsit cent.r.
1.
2.
3.
4.
/
/1-'3""/
pre.ent economic condition. for Fed.ral, County and City do
not warr.nt this exp.ndure of t.x payer.' doll.r. (e.timat.d
cost $1,150,000.00). Budget deticiencie. b.v. forc.d .any
public employees to .ccept their jobs on . p.rt-ti.e b.si.,
or face l.y-otf.
In future pl.nning this Center may be . Dlus for E.st L.ke
developer.. Hoyever, it yill empact the residenti.l com-
munity that exi.t. all .round the campus (North, South,
E..t .nd We.t) by the .dditional traffic that would be
cre.t.d, a. well a. .dding to the pollution. Furth.rmore,
zoning h.. b.en changed .t the Ea.t Corner ot Ot.y L.k..
Road .nd H Stret, .aking this property avail.ble fOr .noth.r
.hopping .rea. Tog.ther with Ral~h'. .hopping center .nd
the 7-11 .trip ..11 .t the other end of Ot.y L.k.. lo.d, plUS
the Fire Station at El.hur.t, th. eventu.lity for an intoler.ble
conge.tion of tr.ffic in this i..edi.te are. i. very prob.ble.
We .eriouslY que.tion hoy the Tr.n.it Center would benefit
the .tud.nt. who attend Southwe.tern. Our home b.ing
directly acro.. from the ..in entrance to the c.mpu., .nd
al.o the f.ct City bu.e. .top almo.t directly in (ront of
our hou.e, we ob.erve a very ..all percent.ge (perh.p. ..
.mall a. 10~) of the .tudent. u.ing the bu.e. a. th.ir ..an.
of tran.port.tion to tbe college. We our.elve. al.o u.e the
bu.e. frequently (.,04 and .705), and find there i. a very
...11 perc.nt.g. of re.ident. t.king adv.ntag. of th... It
i. . w.ll-known fact th.t .tud.nt. of bigh.choOl and COllege
age ar. c.r-oriented, and .o.t of John Q. Public for th.t
..tt.r.
W. b.li.v. th.r. i. . ..f.ty ..tter to b. con.id.r.d .1.0.
With a Middle School, a High.ch001, and. College along
Ot.y L.k.. Ro.d, there ar. a larg. numb.r of th.ir .tudent.
who w.lk along thi. bu.y highw.y to and fro. .chool. Th~
po..ibility for ..riou. accident. to happ.n with the incr....d
flow of tratfic the C.nt.r would bring .hould not b. t.k.n
lilb'~y" ,..,
.^ ,..,
,
Mr. Je.eph Cente, president
seuthwe.tern Cellege
June 1, 1992
Page 2
5. Altheugh this oppesition ~o the Tr.nsit Center is .ere of ·
per.enal co.n.ider.tio.n, it is .1.0. one that we are aure i.
o.f co.nsider.ble cencern to. .11 Co.llege Estate heme owners.
We believe the Tr.nsit Center weuld .e.n a great deal ~ere
traffic than what we .lready contend with when attempting
to. enter Otay L.kes Readl weuld .ean .o.re .ir pollution
.nd litter I .nd . lowering of our pro.per~y v.lues.
6. The propesed loc.tion of the Tr.nsit Center at the .ain en-
trance to. the so.uthwestern Cellege wo.uld .ean de.tro.ying
the beautiful setting it new presents to. the public.
It is o.ur understan~ing after talking with perso.ns in the City o.f Chula
vista .dministratio.n that this pro.ject has been in the planning stage
new fer two. years. Ho.wever, it o.nly came to. o.ur .tt.ntio.n ten days ago.
Certainly mere advanced info.rmatio.n wo.uld h.ve been .ppreci.ted by these
o.f us living in the area.
Thank yo.u to. give o.ur o.bjectio.ns yo.ur .erio.us co.n.ideratio.n.
Robert F. Kelley, Sr.
~--~- ~X~
~~eano.r E. Keli;Y~-J
875 Otay Lake. Read
Chula Vi.t., CA 91913
482-1809
cc:
Brian Bilbr.y, supervi.o.r, City of Chula Vi.ta
Tim Nader, Mayer
Jerry Rindo.ne, co.uncilman
Leo.nard M. Mo.o.re. Co.uncilman
Shirley Gr....r.Ho.rto.ft, co.uncilwo.man
David Malc0.1m, Co.unci1man
Jo.hn Wil.o.n, so.uthwe.tern Co.ll.ge
To.m Davi., re.ident Co.llege E.t.te.
/~- 35
~,~)
.
~ Vr>jA~7y(borJt
~1 ~ '1~~';"G
" CfJlfZ.
.
~ 'ETITIOII O'POSIIG TH~R 011
jJfnIbllT ~-
. 8y the resfdents of C011ege [states and surroundfng areas
II... R.-"oI- Addr.ss Date Signature
!Ji~;;';;'~~__
~dt.:::Jii1fm____
CfvlA ~"';A e.lrY~1
~e.>M ~..... 15
"[If t 'It..
A PETITION OPPOSING THE CONSTRUCTION OF A TRANSIT CENTER ON
~AVN~F SOUTHWESTERN COLLEGE
By the residents of C011ege Estates and surrounding areas
Name Address Date Signature
"'
-t;o
~...-
(~&.1.
,~U\ \ltfJilt e,7y ~~NI~
~O" % fA tM It 1'5
"'''''1-
8y the r.sidents of C011.g. Estat.s and surrounding ar.as
.n. Address Date Signature
. _~:.~~'i_c:l__..!~__~o;. __ _':~:!.~__?r__ ~
i-'.~{c: R ./~/'.I'''.~- ,. ~.'.-l:~"'!. -a.iaT'>
-----------------~-- ------'-------y--_.....
~ /'. I ....
". . l~ If/II": ' .-....... . II . .,~
. .... ".,.J-...._~;:~_..,.,..,. -.. _.:=._____C"Lir~-~.: . ..:'}~~aM.' hr.~
" -0" .
-..n.~~-~~L-:~~;-c:J-~-- ~~. ~ ~~1..\:~..j . . I
---~~~~-C~~'--/)::~.;--~;.~:..---~~---; ,', ---..-----~.~:-:q.?--~ C~
--- ~---~--- -- - ----,-~------ ~
___~~!lCrJ:____rrJ:~:~l~~~_ _ .___..,_~_~__~____~___(
_L11f!..[/!i_t.._!!f1!;tfl~~_ ----- Y..-'/i/.!zd}ff"'- . , .
__Km__~~j;~l____ - - ~--c~_-~iJ-~c'J:1.(,~' .
~;~~t)~~t.~_ _C1L__!P..L8J..i.~__L._ .~_ :_
_7'..'.1_' It~~___ _~.!.'1t':!t_""""""'__.I.ttt.!~__~~_!~_I:U-:;r_..,L
L... I'. I. -, ~ "'" ~~~
cr.!S_I:.'E:.~f1,:U~___, ~____~__'-.Jluk_~
~~ f'r1 .,..'~ ~/{/ f'J"IAJ 'h~JI_J-",,"(l.
i.'~------ A {/ -;;'W::~-.::jw.--- """,. ~
~~_ _ _____ ~-~~___________~J
_ ___~ ~_____ ______ ____€{IJ!'t~~__12(!f~("~/r,f'
_~~!':i_G.\f__~':!'!-J~__\l.&--~=-t:tt!_~
_t1~f..'j!!_tL~~'Jit.__ _;,::__~~!;~__~~~",!..""k "''C::J
~ '.
D..A.'-I /'- .. v ~J.J.~ ~
- ""'..~-..<<.<":~~-- ____:&:l!.___ ~~i..:.~'~1~:
-1l,~_~__E_/:IJ:II1;.ls;.l---- -..--------__~~,+~ - . ~
.' C A1i1
_ __ _________1~_
---------~~~.~;
@
/ t- 5 IT
A<3~
aI/AI. tlsTI efTY,"_UNe.
~u~o" ~Te~ tt I~
"If%. .
ITER 01
Iy the residents of C011.ge Estates and surrounding areas
.ue Pr =^ + Address Date
. .
C.. . ."0-.
______________ ~ ~ .1'
. '. rI'-.. r . _ ~ ),;:;
_..~-~Q~.~
L!. /pJl.h!ttlt:!
~~-- ~-'
-~-~~-----------
..f!Ldt~I._StI!~u_ u
. ~-t!?:'lr~/-
~cv,~~ ;-C;:;i:;,\-,"\;; (;
_._~~~~W'-'w-~---
fl... I "7" I~
~~"x;.fuu
mAt;-.IltA~J.:c~_
G~JN_kh~d
l>>lf.1':t:~t'J.'?7-
_1A~'f~s--gt?U!!!Pu u_u_ u_u_ u___~~~_~:_t~"'_.~_ ~
__~!"_,,~n._CA_t:tJ"_Vu _ u _ _.:__i.:fi:.t1:- a;?j
~e.~" 21.4,- C:6' T ,
~ 't~"-- rA" t. t..~ ,'1~
-.6 ___~ ~~;S--r ~-.---- ------'--- 't. ~
~9:tif:(t;",,<-~ _C.(L1~~i:'f;r.CTf.. "V;,
Jubltl~5_A-f.qL-bJ!"..r:-- _ _CJL__':J:-u..~.:JFi;;;
-::J.aDt1~.JI.lN!rtL"-- - --~~-'-:-~.:~5.ldi.
_ '~~_~:_C.h~'!fQ!~--- u_ ----- _..c.\.:_P:_~.;!~_"v.:~~.u~
a;:V-\f.Au'---- _c..V___A:.1.:.fA~1i
"--n-- ----.:---- _C'IIf~--':I__-!!.-~~~ICd~
1~!;J--- __ _____ ___________~__~.j{:!~~~c;.~
__{{..-~--- u_ l.It__i:l:!?;- (; ~.4(.I- ,..JA<
.:~
{(;7 - '51
/0 "
~
~~.
/5 ~~. )~
.
('""LA '1ST A t'ft{'.IJMJf.IL.
. ~I O"~"*.'5
, '/~
'ETITIOII O"OSIII; THE eOIlSTRUCTIOII OF A
.y tll. r.sidents of CoU.g. Estltu and surrounding ar.ls
II... prillt . Addr.ss Dat. Signature
,
---L~--__11.'J.~ ~7~(
--~~---~---~~~~-
:01-. C.If!'. '1'1..'1
---------~7t--- . ~
"- - . . e.-&-{i't.
~----~:2_2.~__~ _ ~ .' _' P
--"=1~-~f(~
----------~!_:!~~h~~
~). - ~
. .
.u- .':'~v....~'i!~~M- ~
, .......'
,~
15- &0
~~
--------
--_.~~---~---~~~~
"
I'JlJid.mkf_
~~~&~-
_~b_I:?_!~~____
?3-KA~i4o(
:)'.i~u -~'~:,.S".l:.
.
.. Z.\)
.
~MJU VIST~ f:rry /J"rllu.,L
;~ nllM"/~
8y the residents of C011.ge Estat.s and surrounding.ar.as
Na.e Address Date Signature
'.M-
,
_cJz.~.J11J/ IS'I F)
_'~~r1Z-9/~/!1
~,:!_I(~7t_1Jf.n
..~..::-;...~l'!_V.,,si"
ialll:i!A_~~13
__!::I~o.~. 'J /9/..3
. ::21' J.k~~' :7' 7 :~
. I IJ.. ...,
____ i ' t 1'_
_~~~_\l!S1e._~_'1- '."1'113
___<<c~~_~/CA 'Iff.
C:is.l,"~_ VU li6 _J:A.__ q 1<1/ ~
(Jt~_-'{J.1A__c:t ~'4 tJ
__~!::_'-4_1!~-'l&c q III ~
__~j,jfJA..v.._1/J 13
I't\)
/f-?.:? A~:~'
~~~}~~~
ec-l.It VI~j, f!,T'I t!wAJ'/(
~} A~M_"
",.,IIt'&- _
& PETITIOII ~E CO~R 011
~~~ . HI
Iy the residents of C011ege Estates and surrounding areas
.u.n..tLUl_:044l~_
_i{-t;!i~!!t_~f..,€~-;I~_ _ u_
_EL.{'i-fI&J.fi:n1. F-.i~.fJ.!ii~-
_C'.I!~{(~ _IIA !-_~~~e___
H. . I M ~ f:J 'I,
___f.J.t'.!..P..:t..J"JU8AC~~u~LJ.j C.
tl!!.!~_t t::J.';F.!A~_~~j_!__
~J..R!i:_~JA~uu_
-
~
-~'-~~--~~-------------
_~~_~~~eL_____ - --
it~~i~___~_~______________
.~-Z)..~--~LZI.---"u _n
, I"I~ '4"~.
- ~--~~u:J--------- ----
Q .-'WI ~.1
--~'-" - - -
~~Quxw~_ _nn
Jt~ ~ /. $~~.
_~~ ~__,__~1_~~~~-------
t!~ --.;..
, , ..-
~~------------- -------
..' __W~~
.~. .
~~~~:: - ----
~--'----- -
-
-----------------------------------------------------------
17)
.-
/ J- &,3
.A~~/ .
(MA .,,,f41 t!f1I{ eooutt,l
~.1J01t 'f'I".(3
Cll~lu.
.JUft. 3. 1M2
CA .1.13
IIr. To. D.v~.
~1913
I
!
D..r IIr. D.v~.,
"1 .." not. M abl. t.o _Ie. ~t. t.o t.h. _t.1n" on .Jun. fth 11- t.o
work1n" obl1".t.~on..
% eupport. you ~n your ~~"ht. a".~ftet. t.h. 1net..ll.t.~on 01 a bue lI.pot.
on t.h. ~ront. 1..1'1 .r.. 01 Sout.hw..t..rn Coll.".. You ..Ie. ..ny v.l~d
po~nt.. about. t.h. proj.et.. .ep.e~.lly t.h. laele 01 coneult..t.1on wit.h.
and in10r..t.~on p....d t.o t.h. ~pl. in t.h. 1'I.~"hborhood t.h.t. will
. M ..11.et..d.
%1 % c.n ..Ie. it. t.o t.h. _t.in" on t.h. ,t.h % will "0 but. 11 % c.n
not. pl.... U.. ay 1.t.t..r t.o you a. a vo1o. a"a1net. t.h. bue lI.pot..
JJ,#
/J-'&~
Aq~~
;:s -.;.' ("
e~tJ~ ~ISi4 (!tlYc#II.''''
A6~v/~ 1 "'fM 13
"/f/' 'L
N
8y the residents of C011ege Estates and surrounding areas
Nt.e
Address
Date
Signature
-..I~
-----------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------
. -----------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------
-----------------..------------ ---- --------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------
/ g - ~5
~.~1
Min1,Jfel
J\lne 9. 1992
Paae 12
CoIm..n- w-e DIed ODe of Ibe critcia bldudad bl-culNrll upactI. ID nv\eWIDalbe rum It blduded
twO MuicID Nldo...lc.1iIbt 0IhIr HiIpIDics. _ Black, . of dIoaa listed we. 1mIIl., for hi...... ad
~eom~ '
.
"
~ Qruser Honon qreed wllb many of Mayor Nader'. concema ad awed It wu an GInIIIt1y
lwei cIaciII~ ID JIIIke.' She wu wry ImprelMd with Ibe list of architacII but due to die lima frame ad
fllnc!lnl. the felt mat the City would be neelvinl a beautifll1ly d.IJlled project mat Ibey could be wry
proud of. Ibe felt dlat If Council nvlewad die top aiaht candldatal It would be wry ~"* ad
dlDe coa--"'r ad alia di4 DOt feallba dlDe wu available for IIUCh a re9iew. ,
wm aN ymQN: _r--'..4 S.1~1 wid! NaIler ...., I ~ I f an4 Malcolm "-""'1.".
Mayor Nader nqueated !bat Iba CIty act docket, UDder Mayoi" C---, lor 7/21192. _lIIditlllbe'
CoWlCil policy for die Mlectlon of architectl.
Councilman Malcolm retlll't\ed to Ibe diu at 9:43 p.m.
13. USOumON 16611 APPIlCMNG AGREEMENT' BETWEEN THE muNrY OF SAN DIEGO,
SOUTHWES11JIN COMMUNITYCOUZGEDISTIUCT.ANDTHEu 1 iPOaCONS'1'1lUCttON,MAIN1'I!NANG
AND OPERA11ON OP THE sotmiWES11!RN COUZGE nANSlT aNTER. . Council COtIIidared this !rem
at Ita 5/5/92 _tinS and rtqutlted additional Information on Ibe project. Staft' recommenda CouncD
approve: 1) Ibe rtlolution, and 2) Ibe ConcepNaI Site Plan Alternative 1 u mown In the FeuibWty SNdy.
(Director of Public Works) CoDtinued from die 515192 meetinJ.
WDliam G\IaWIon, Transit Coordinator, summarized Ibe project.
CouncDtnan \lindone requelted clarification of Ibe dlfferenc.. of the plan. apeclfically reprdlnalbe aIt from
Ibe colleae 1In Elmhurst 5creet and the flow from Ibe collele exita.
.
Mr. GUltar.on lUted Ibe primary chanae wu the !lland beina extended to the Welt. It would "crePte Ibe
uaftic comina out of the coUele on Elmhurst atenaion from the bua traffic that would eilber meree Into
the Elmhunt area or to circle around an exit on Otay Lakel \load for the bUlaI budlnl .outh.
Councilman Moore quaationed wbelber there wu landacapina on the wand and the number of routtI to
the coUele In die fall.
Mr. G\IItafaon preaented a conceptual clrawina of the Iiland and landlcapina. He stated that tbtre would
be four rout. whIcb wu ODe lall route, but they would be adc!lnl all day ..mee OD Ilo\Itt 709. It would
be I... ro\IttI but more frequent ltI'Yice.
c;w....n...." Malcolm queationtcI wbttber there would be addlticma1 bUI trips - the nnslt -- wu
comp\eted. He alao queatlcmed wbetber b\IIt. would be allowed to Idle In die bays.
Mr. G\IItafaon rtIpODded that there would DOt be addlticma1 bUl1rips next fiaca1 Jlar but die fact that the
center wu Ibere would enable them ID upand ItrVice over Ibe JIarIIf needed. He lUted Ihert would be
a lay11ft!' for aome of Ihe ro\ittl, i.e. between five to NveI1l111nut...
Ml)'Or Nader cpaationed what new IrIffic liJllaliutl~ would be Included.
Mr. Gllltafson responded that a new aiJllll would be placed at Ibe intIrItCtIon at Elmhum and Otay 1AkeI
Road. '
/5-t6
itQ-~ ~~
Mizlutel
.JuDe 9, 1992
'lie 13
11IIlaIIowina peopl. 1pOt. ID opposition to Ibe 1rIDIit CIIIIIIiI' due to aDCIII1II fIl air poIIh'tloa, DOite
poUlItioa, ~ 0( CIpII'I lpaCl, COllI ID9Olwd, 1imirecI paddDa. ad .-Ibedc YIlue:
I IIIpne Dmbem, 1618 Elmhum Slnet, Quia VIIra, CA 91913
,
j I)aWD Dmbem, 1618 Elmhum SU'ltt, D1u1a ViIta, CA 91913
Do~d C.1odi., 16S4lrbaca, Quia ViIta, CA 91913
leathy Hibbard, 1651 Gotham SU'Itt, QuIa VIIra, CA 91913
John F. Markham Jr..I663 Gotham SU'ltt, Quia ViIta. CA 91913
lCatberiD. Belo, 875 Ota)' Laka Road, Quia ViIta, CA 91913
Cecilia Vuquez,171 Dray Lakes Road, D1u1a Vista. CA 91913
Samuel R. LoDpnecker, 1689lrbaca SU'Itt, Cbula ViIta, CA
Robert !. Chaft'ee, 1641 Gotham SllIet, D1u1a ViItI, CA
Veronica!. Jones, 891 Ota)' Lakes Road, D1u1a Vista. CA 91913
Urbon Jones, 891 Ota)' Lakes Road, Chula Vista, CA 91913
Mario Failla, 879 Ota)' Lakes Road, Chllla Vista, CA 91913
Margarete Failla, 879 Ota)' Lakes Road, Chllla Vasta, CA 91913
Barbara Lonaanecker, 1689Id1aca, D1u1a Vasta, CA 91913, was DOt pnMIIt when ailed to IpIIk.
Tom Davis spoke in opposition to the ItIIr ncommendation and pnHDted pedti=l1D "t'.-Jdcm with 165
lilnaNres. He also nfernd to his nquest nlardinl the installation or a D'lftic lIP on Gorham SIlItt and
Ota)' Lakes Road. He felt the Information relardina IW'W)' lIumbers sfwn to Council _ IDcomct.
Stew Hams, 713 Brookstone Road, "204, Chllla Vista. CA, spoke ID NppOn 0( Ibe lid r---endation.
Collllcilman Moore Informed the public rbat dlen was a lUte mandate to ImJaW Ibe air quality by
IDcreasinJ the number or riders per car. J( the City did Dot Improw ridership die AIr Quality ControI.Board
would set mandatory fees and fines. Therefore, the City was caulbt In die mIddlL 11II11111Dber 0( buMs
would not be inCrtlSed due to the transit cellter, the tIIm arouncl would allow lifer lIIOYIIIIent for the bllSlS,
but it would also mow the poUution doser to the homes. The question was whedIer it was die rflbt
location and be felt CouncD shollld direct staff to come badt with a ncommen".~ far the _nd best
,lace.
Collllcilman Malcolm ltated he was committed to public D'lnSlt but WllltecI to make it dear rbat the County
of San DieJo could IIIOW forward with the project without the approval 0( the City 0( QuIa VIItL 1111 cmIy
-II it was before the Council WIS because they _ requatinJ $250,000 toWards the project. He
wanrecI to haw a transit center then bur did Dot want the pst taken our. The faculty putdnJ lot ID front
"die CoUe,. could be udIiud IS a D'lnSlt center whldlwollld utIIir.e aIstInr paw4 arau. He did DOt feel
rbat public inpur ha4 beallnduded earl)' -uP In tile project. He would lib to IIIId It Net to lid to
- wbat could be done to lIDCourqe public panldpation, public avaIIabmty, ad to be abI. to _ die
ap- O(tIIe JnA)' ana. .
Co\nvIIwo... IUDdoM lUted he .we! on Ibe MeIropoIItaD 1'nuIIit DewlopIDIDf loud aDd r.lt a IrIIISIt
aliter was needed He abo nferred to Ibe lUte --""ates IIId npJadou and IIated he was WI)' IIIIId1
nnsIt DriIIIte4. 'I'bIs was III ~OII where -- CIIII. fDrth _the time bad _ _Ibere needed
.to be a balance. Most IpIIbn had ackDowIed,.d the need far . II'IIIIIt CIDtIIr ad be felt It IbouId be
nfG'rtd ~ atafr to look for Ibe nut but 10000tIon.
MS (II'-"-II~_Jer Hortoo) nfer ID lid to find "'~ ...,.c+1ate Iv tin a Jar the 1rIIIIk __ but
DOt to place it wIaere It would 4o..tov.J Ibe _Ihetk IIuuty fIllbe CoIIep.
/y- ~(
AQ--~
IS
~, 1992
14
dIIIIID Moan lpIdoned whether die City would baYe to be a 1IIe=an and MIl die CoImty 011 die
_ 1be CIty Council did not WUlt It 1here, 1IIIt dley would have to contributelllOft IIIODey IIDWII'd
dp, ad .., 111ft to IUppCIft _ 1afrutNc:Nn com also.
3I1ID&cm ,.., ~a~t4 dlat tbt Countywuned to do wbat 11M City WIIItH lID do mid 1he City WIDtH lID
iIat 1be public WUltH. They did Deed to 1IIk lID tbt CoIlep as 10IIII of 1be ..... diIcuIM4 ba4 bleD
oDIIIIy ~ ad di,...:'-d.
ICiImaD JUndOlll felt 1bert were OIher options to be COIIIldered, i... main parkIr1Ilot, IOIIdIeut portkm
aID lot, Ota)' lAkes Road at 1he \Iue wttb ahutde aervlce to die CoUele," He felt 1hat Scrutbw lRt'D
:p..-d to be a pod ~ and would work wI%b 11M CoImdlmld 11M Mfabbon.
w Nader stated that die neilhborbood was brouIht iDtO 1he proceu ra1her late aad felt a lot of dme
d lint beelllIvec! If there was a process early on where 1he public had beCI DOtIfied. He ~
:h1Mlcboads to _bUlh commlUlit)' plaMinl c_lb.
rE ON M011ON: ....I'.vn.~ 'ttftW"'''''ous!)'.
fOI Nader lnfonDeddle public of die existinl ordinanCe reprclJnl die acljo\lnllllent of a Co\IIIdI meet\DI
lO'.30 p.m. UIIIess 1IIere was a motion to continue. Due to Mvera! mCDIben of 1he public waiI\IIl to
:reD \IemS 0II1be a... he would prefer to 1ft 1IIe meetinl continued.
fa .. aoeed
.
(NacIer/MUcallD) lID condDue 1be meetinl to bear IIIms Sa, 14. 15, c:.mcD 1"-.
siIIII. ADIICbIr am. lID be condDued to 1he meetinI of J\IIIe 16. 1991-
"OlyD Buder, f7 Bishop Street, Chull Vistl, CA 91911, stated .he hid requeated dlat 51 be pulled from
: C-- Calendar and DOW requested thlt It be continued to the meetinl or June 16, 1992.
.,.......... lie ww1cI __ biJ madoJIlID , If"... bID Sa lID tbt JIme 16. 1992 III' ~"I'
t'f MIZIqer a- izIfonDed Counclldlat ium .,. required I 4/Sth's 'lOtI and nquemd dlat Co\IIIdI addrea
,titem.
J1DIdImaa Malcolm requested dlat Item . be docketed for the meetinl of June 30, 1991-
m (fi M011ON: .........._4 --..."""'us1y.
4. Dj>()J(f UGAJU)lNGnlEREQUESTBY1lOBERTOGRA'TIANNE,M.D..IOIlAUEN ,"
.GU!MENT IN UEU OF ru:ouriG A CASH BOND POIl'niE DEFERML OF PUBUC JMPaCMMI!NTS AT
6O"H' mEET . The owner of the property at 360 "H" Street Ia '.A\....tinlan aIatInr liDIIe faIIII1y
weI1Iq c1be lite to a medical olfice. The City has required widenlnl and \nata1linl public tmy.v. wsv--
Ions the froDtqe of "H" StreeL The owner has applied for and was aranted a deftmI of 1hIa nquIremIDt
IidI a CGDCIIt\oR a cub bond be poated !111he amount of '9,700. The owner has requestec! dlat 1be City
ccept alien c1be ...6pert)' illatead of postinI1he cuh bond. ". directec! by Co\IIIdI at 1be 5112192
...-... mila curranti)' ftY1si1111he policy reprd\nl the handlinl and ...,..v.aI of HaD ....-'\1&
iowftwr, becauae 1bIa requllt was alruC!Y !II process Won 1he Co\IIIdI WerraI. staff Ia IUWolftlftJdIe
'tqIIIIt to Council for consideration. Staft'recollllllencls Council accept die report and., 1be appUcantl
'eqIIIIL (DIrector ofPu!>Uc Works)
...,. Nader statecldlat CoIIDcD would consider am. 14 and 15 1Im\I1tIMOUII)'.
I~- (:;g
; A-9 ~30--
. .
..
-
TEL: 619-421-0346
Apr 6.94 15:19 No.001' P.02
. .
()i;t~ 10
o
~
."a4n11.eloorcl
AugIe 101_
;, ~oroc.n .O\O!II'\Q. O.M.O
""0.8r11111h
MoJo NOVOI~""" I
N6t~"
JoIcII>II M. CDI'Ie
-.lnIencIeIIIlPr..denl
MOVED BY GRIFFITH, SECONDED BY BAR!NO AND CARRIED,
~ APPROVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO,
CITY OF CHULA VISTA, AND SOUTHWESTERN COLLEGE FOR A
FEASIBILITY STUDY rOR A BUS TRANSIT CENTER AT
SOUTHWESTERN COLLEG~, AT NO COST TO THE DISTRICT.
AGREEMENT
FOR
FEASIBILITY
STUDY'
--------------------------
STATE OF CALIYORNIA)
)SS
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO)
I, JOSEPH M. CONTE, SECRETARY ~ THE GOVERNING BOARD OF THE
SOUTHWES~~KN COMMUNITY COL~RGR DISTRICT OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, ,
CALIFORNIA, DO HEREBY CERTIry THAT THE rOREGOING IS A PULL, ~RUE AND
CORRECT COfY OF A MOTION UNANIMOUSJ,' PASSED 8Y THE COVERNINe BOARD OF
THE SOUTHWESTERN COMMUNI'l'Y COLLEGE DISTRICT AT A UITING HELD ON THE
14TH DAY OF FiBRUAAY, 1990.
24'~ );, (;..u
RITARY COVERNING BOARD
~ . a
-I1Ta~1- / y _. t, ;
.--" --- --- --.-
'.r' -.... -.. .... ........-
.
<<~
~
~ IoorCI
,..,,;, lotetlO
;0.-" .~. OM.O
wry J. 5ttIftttl
McJIO N'~tt-I'ennon
A16t IChUItI'CltlQ
.IOMP'I M. Coni'
~lnt,ndt"'/PIOIIdorI'
.'
CHULA VISTA CITY, SAN DIEGO COUNTY AND TRANSIT
REPRESENTATIVES DISPLAYED ARCHITECTURAL RENDERINGS
AND DISCUSSED PROPOSED ~RANSIT CENTER AT SOUTHWESTERN
COLLEGE.
SUPERINTEN-
DENT I
PRESIDENT'S
REPORT
--------------------------
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
)SS
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO)
1, JOSEPH M. CONTE, SECRE'J,'ARY '1'0 '1'HE GOVERNING BOAJ\D OF "HE
SOU'1'HWJ:STERN COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT OF SAN DIIGO COUNTY,
CALIFORNIA, DO HEREBY CERTIFY 'tHAT THE lORF-GOING IS A FULL, ~UE AND
CORRECT COpy OF A MOTION UNANIMOUSLY PASSED BY 'l'KE GOVERNING BOARD OF
TH~ SOUTHWESTERN COMMUNITY COLLEGE DIS~ICT AT A MEETING HELD ON THE
8TH DAY OF KAY, 1991.
2~ '>'J1 (;..zi
ECRETARY '1'0 GOVtRNING BOARD
f- 7lJ
~TB~
_ _ _~__ _'-&::---;l1li pwtrlC:'
.
o
~
el.,JJJLq .,..
~ lorn>
; .CII'CIOn .O.,m;. O.M.I)
...... J. lillllltn
Marto ,-,,,.Pennon
.AI!6(~g
JcIMCt1 M. ConI.
~t\ItndtoV"..dllnl
.
MOVED BY GRIFFI~H, SECONDED BY PIRKAN AND CARRIED,
~ APPROVE AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO AND
CITY OF CHULA VISTA TO CONSTRUCT A SOUTHWESTERN COLLEGE
TRANSIT CENTER.
AGREEMENT
POR CON-
STRUCTION
OF TRANSIT
CP:NTER
,
--------------------------
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
)SS
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO)
I, JOSJ::PII M. CONTE, SECRETARY '1'0 THE GOVERNING BOARD OP THE
SOUTHWESTERN COMMUNITY COLLEGE DIS~~lCT OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY,
CALIFORNIA, DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE PCREGOING IS A PULL, TRUE AND
CORRECT COpy OF A MOTION UNANIMOUSLY PASSED BY THE GOVDNINC BOARD OF
THE SO~HWESTERN COKMUNITY COJ..LICE DISTRICT AT A ~E'1'I.G HELD ON THE
8TH DAY or APRIL, 1112.
~ ~ r.~'
CRETARY TO VERNING BOARD
,
,it!j
9CO OIay 1.1*01 QQod. CtUo VI.,.,. CA 91910. (619) ..,2-6301 "AX C610n "'00346. ~..... ~ "'--:... 0I01I1ct
.~_. w.~ _.. ww_v
.'r.
.
o
~
....,~ IoCPcI
~JaI-
crdOn _owN";, DM,O
WlyJ,Qrtlmtl
~o N'''I-Permatl
~ ~rt>t,g
"..,.., t.I. ConI'
>tMI,,,,,,,,,,/PrDlldOnl
CITY OF CHULA VISTA/COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO PRE-
SENTATION ON TRANSIT CENTER CONCEPT/LOCATION.
SID HORRIS, JOHN LIPPITT AND BILL GUSTAFSON,
CITY OF CHULA VISTA, REVIEWED SIT~ OPTIONS FOR
PROPOSED TRANSFER CENTER ON SOUTHWESTERN COMMUNITY
COLLEGE DISTRICT LAND. CINDY RESLER, STUDENT, ALSO
SPOKE TO STUDENT TRANSPORTATION NEEDS.
'l'HE GOVERNING BOARD EXPRESSED IN'1'EREST IN THE
CITY REVIEWING OPTIONS 6A, 6A1 AND 1B1 AND PROVIDING
EXPANDED INf'OIU1A'l'ION, AS WELL AS INFORMATION ON
RIDEnSHIP '1'0 THE COLLEGE AND THE SURnOUNDING
Hf;lGHBORHOOD.
THE DISTRIC~ WItL HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON TH~
TRANSFER CENTER CONCEPT AT THE DECEMBER 9TH KEETING.
--------------------------
-- -- ....-.-
TRANSIT
CENTER
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
)SS
COUNTY OF SAN DIRGO)
I, JOSEPH H. CONTE, SECRETARY TO 'tHE GOVIRNING BOARD or. 'l'HE
SOUTHWESTERN COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT OF SAN OlIGO COUNTY,
CALIFORNIA, DO HEREBY CERTIFY 'l'HAT THE FORBGOING IS A FULL, 'tRUE AND
CORRECT COpy OF A MOTION UNANIMOUSLY PASSED BY THE GOVERNING BOARD OF
'l'HE SOUTHWESTERN COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT AT A HERTING HELD ON THE
11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1992. .
m (~U
CRETARY TO GOVERNING BOARD
.f}\~ /?~7.3
. __~_~ _ _.""",," ~.,O\O.(.'9).a2_630, FAX(.'9)G'~.~MTI~Co..~l)IIlI'lct
TEL: 619-421-0346
Rpr 6.94 15:19 No.OOl P.06
o
~cn
"
"n"*'8 IeanI
~1aI_
80rClCln .ownng. DM.D
"'frY J 811!111"
MoIIQ Nevot-PDImcn
.NOt k:IUDrmorg
JIIMpI. M. Coni.
oc>or1nl....../PIeIiclenl
A. PtJBL1C HEARING ON PROPOSED 'l'RAHSIT CBNTER, 7.50 -
,.00 P.M.
STUDENTS CINDY RESLER, DENNIS JOHNSON, AND
PATRICIO M. FLORES, AND COMMUNITY RISIDENTS JOE
AND ELIZABETH BONNER, TOM DAVIS, ALLEN JONES,
ROBERT F. ~ELLY, AND CECILIA V. VASQUEZ ADDRESSED
THF. BOARD REGARDING THE PROPOSED TRANSIT CENTER.
SID MORRIS, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER, AND 8ILL
GUSTAFSON, CITY OF CHULA VISTA, AND BILL LIEBERMAN,
MTDS, ALSO ADDRESSF.D THE BOARD REGARDING THE MATTER.
AT THE CLOSE OF THE HF~ING, PRESIDENT 8ROWNING
ADVISED THE SOhRD WOULD CONSIDER THIS ITEM AT A
SPECIAL BOARD MF.r.TING, OR AT THE REGULAR
FEDnUARY 10 BOARD KEF-TING INASMUCH AS THE JANUARY
MEETING WOULD BE HELD AT THE SOUTHWESTERN COLLlGE
EDUCATION CENTER AT SAN YSIDRO.
--------------------------
'l'RANSIT
CINTER
STATE OF CALIFORNIA~
SS
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
I, JOElEPH K. CONTE, 8ECRETAltY 'lO 'lHE GOVERNING BOARD OF ;THE
SOUTHWESTERN COMMUNITY COL1.1GJI: DISTRICT OF SAN DIEGO COUN'l'Y,
CALIFORNIA, DO HF.REBY CERTIFY THAT !1'HE FOREGOING IS A PULl., TRUB ANn
CORRECT COpy OF A MOTION UNANDlOUSLY PASseD 8Y '1'HR GOVERNING BOAltD OF
THE SOU'1'HWES'J'&RN COMMUNITY COU.EGI DISTRICT AT A MlI'1'Im: HELD ON THI!:
'TH DAY OP DECEMB~R, 1992. .
}h~
'lO GOVERNING BOARD
~ /:5-7Lj'
.
..,"
.
o
mrttMIEStlJ'n
~l:i:)kgE
-'._1\II\g toard
~ 101Il'1O
~orCk>l\ .-*"G. DM.D
...., J. .,mnl'l
MorIo NeYeI-~
JA/lJy scruoroorll
~M. Conte
C)el'iI\IenOenl,PrOllClOllI
CONSIDER SITE O? !RANSIT CINTER.
~ DAVIS, 1657 GOTHAM ST., ROBERT ~ELLEY, 875
OTAY LAX!S RD., ALLEN JONES, 891 OTAY LAXES RD, MARIA
ISAB~L 'ARMER, 1363 PETERMAN DR., SAN DIEGO, JOHN
LIPPITT, CI'1'Y OF CHULA VISTA, AND BILL LIEBERMAN,
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, ADDRESSED THE GOVERNING
BOARD REGARDING THE PROPOS~D TRANSIT CENTER.
MOVED BY GRIFFITH, SECONDED BY BROWNING, TO
AUTHORIZE THY. SUPERINTENDEN~/PR!SID!NT, WITH CON-
TINU~D CONSULTATION WITH THE GOVERNING BOARD, TO
NEGOTIATE WITH THE APPROPRIATE TRANSIT AUTHORITIES
TO LOCATE A TRANSIT TRANSFER CENTER ON CAMPUS IN
THE APPROXIMATE OR ADJACENT LOCATION TO THE PROPOSED
NEW LIBRARY, AND THAT ANY AGREEMENT WITH APPROPRIA'l'E
TRANSIT AUTHORITIES WOULD CONTAIN THE ARRANGEMENTS TO
SUBSIDIZE THE RIDERSHIP OF PULL-TlM! SOUTHWESTERN
COLLEGE STUDEN'l'S.
DISCUSSION ENSUED WHICH INDICATED THAT WHILE ALL
7ELT THE LIBRARY LOCATION MIGHT BE BETTER ~N TMR PRE-
VIOUSLY IDENTIFIED FRONT OF THE CAMPUS, FACING OTAY
LAXES ROAD, AND THE BACK ROWS OF THE STAFF PARKING LOT
(PLAN IB1), THERE WAS LACK OF CONSENSUS ON A MANDATED
SUBSIDIZATION OF COLLEGE RIDERSHIP. THE GOVERNING BOARD
REQUESTRD THE SUPERINTENDENT/PRESIDENT TO PROVIDE THEM
A REPORT ON COMMUNITY COLLEGES 'rlIAT HAVE AGREEMENTS/
ARRANGEMF.NTS THAT CREATI A SUBSIDIZATION FOR 8'1'UOENTS.
MOVED BY GRIFFITH, SECONDED BY BROWNING AND CARRIED,
~ AUTHORIZE SUPERINTENDENT/PRES1DENT CONTE, WITH CON-
TINUKD CONSULTATION WITH THE GOVERNING BOARD, '1'0
NEGOTIATE WI~~ APPROPRIATE TRANSIT'AUTHORITIES TO RAVE A
BANSI'!' CENTER AT SOtrl'HWESTERN COLLIGE APPROXIMATELY AT
OR ADJACENT TO THE LOCATION or If HE 'ROPOSED NEW LIBRARY/
LEARNING RESOURCE CEN~KR.
A~~=Q>
/j- 75
t
IfRANS IT
CINTER
~0I0y\.CIII"-.s. Ch-'QVlltCl.C,","'10. (619)..2-6301 'AX (619)G10030&6 . ~tem Con'tt1UriIY C~IJ~ 0IIIr1Ct
TEL: 619-421-0346
Apr 6.94 l~:l~ NO.UUl ~.U~
'AGE -2-
'GOVERNING BOARD EXCERPT
FEBRUARY 10, 1993
----------------------
STATE OP CALIFORNIA)
)SS
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO)
I, .JOSEPH M. CONTI, SECRETARY '1'0 '!'HE GOVERNING BOARD OF '1'HE
SOUTHWESTERN COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY,
CALIFORNIA, DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT '1'HE FOREGOING IS A rULL, TRUI AND
CORRECT COPY OF A MOTION UNANIMOUSLY PASSED BY THE GOvERNING BOARD OF
THE SOUTHWESTERN COMMUNITV COLLEGE DlSTR AT A EETING HEL ON THE
10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1993.
~~ If-J6
"
INEORMATIOIS: ITEM
November 9, 1992
TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
VIA: John Goss, City Manager
VIA: John Lippitt, Director of Public Works
FROM: Bill Gustafson, Transit Coordinator
SUBJECT: Update on Proposed Southwestern College Transit Facility
In February 1990, Council approved an agreement among the County of San Diego,
Southwestern College and the City of Chula Vista for a Southwestern College Transit Center
Feasibility Study. This study examined possible locations for a transit center facility at
Southwestern College. In May 1991, the Southwestern College Board considered the
recommendations of the Feasibility Study and approved a conceptual site plan which located the
facility adjacent to Otay Lakes Road between the Gotham and Elmhurst Streets entrance to the
college. In Spring 1992, the College Board approved a three party agreement among the
County, College and City for constructing the Transit Center in that location. On June 9, 1992,
this agreement was presented to the City Council for approval. Council rejected the
recommended location for the facility and directed staff to look at other locations which would
not impact existing grass or landscaping on the campus, and to encourage public participation
in the planning process. Councilmembers Rindone and Horton were appointed to a Council
subcommittee to facilitate transit facility location discussions.
On October 5, 1992, a meeting was held in the Council Conference Room to discuss the
proposed transit facility. Attending this meeting were Councilmember Horton, representatives
from City staff, County of San Diego staff, Southwestern College, the South Bay Transportation
Coalition, and residents from the neighborhood near Southwestern College. The purpose of this
meeting was to re-examine this project by involving all interested parties and to identify other
alternatives for the transit facility that might be acceptable to all parties. The meeting concluded
With the understanding that City and County staffs would identify a greater number of possible
locations, both on and off Southwestern College campus that might be suitable for a transit
facility. City, County, and College staffs jointly identified additional sites; each site was
evaluated based on criteria that took into account concerns expressed by the College, the
community, and factors related to bus operations. (please refer to Attachment 1). These sites
/ i- 77
The Honorable Mayor and City Council
November 9, 1992
Page 2
included the original four locations evaluated in the Feasibility Study and additional campus
locations that the College previously rejected for consideration in the Feasibility Study.
A second meeting was held on Friday, October 30, 1992, to discuss these various site
alternatives. At this meeting were Councilmember Rindone, representatives City staff,
Southwestern College administration and students, County of San Diego, South Bay
Transportation Coalition, and the neighborhood near the college. The objective of this meeting
was to reach a consensus on up to 3 site locations for presentation to the Southwestern College
Board at its meeting on November 11, 1992 for further consideration. All sites on Attachment
1 were discussed; in addition, County staff had developed a few variations on these initial sites
that were also discussed. The meeting concluded with the group reaching consensus on the
following three sites in order of priority: Site 6A/6Al, Site IB1, and Site 4. As shown on
Attachment 2, Site 6A/6Al are variations on a concept that essentially expands the existing CVT
bus dropoff area on the Southwestern College campus ring road. Site IBl is a modification of
the original proposal approved by the College and presented to Council on June 9, 1992. This
proposal sets back the facility about 150 feet from Otay Lakes Road, is located between the
Gotham and Elmhurst Street entrances, but utilizes part of the existing parking lot area on
campus. Alternative 4 uses the Gotham Street entrance to Southwestern College and develops
a "horseshoe" concept that would establish a bus dropoffarea on both sides of the Gotham Street
entrance.
Each of these proposals addresses the two major concerns about the original location on Olay
Lakes Road expressed by both the Council and neighborhood residents: impacts on College
landscaping, and on homes on the east side of Otay Lakes Road. Each option still is a concept;
further examination needs to be done on traffic flow, and there may be variations on each
concept that can be further examined. However, it is the intent of the City and County staffs
to present these three concepts to the Southwestern College Board on November 11, 1992.
Staff will update Council again after the Southwestern College Board meeting.
WPC F,IHOME\ENGINEER\BILLG\287.92
/'1- It
- - ~ - --.-
II-T"f19CIf ~ I .
-
Evaluation of Possible South'Western College
Transit Facility Locations
Legend: 0 Good (2) e Fair (1) · Poor (0)
0iIeria 1 II I I II f 1 } J! ~
n "'I: "'I: I I Jj t
Sites t f I I If ~
~ i Ilf
II)
l.A. 0riSiJW hopoaal: a 0 0 . 0 a a . 0 0 0 0
B-.en Gotham.. 117
Ebnlnust (Opt. 1)
1.B. Modified hopoea1: 119 a 0 a a 0 b a a 0 0 0 0
Setback 100' from Otay
Lakes Road
2.A. 0riSiJW hopoea1: 116 a 0 e e a e a . 0 0 0 0
~~ of Gotham
( on 2)
2.B. Modified propoea1: a 0 e a a a . e a 0 0 0
Option 2 Setback IS
aehind Tree Line (100')
2.c. Option 2: Setback to 114 a e e e e 0 0 0 e . e e
Un swe Paddng Lot..
JUns Road
3. 0riSiJW hoposal: e 0 e 0 0 e . 0 . 0 . 0
North Parking Lot (Opt. I1s
S)
4- Honeah_ Vatns ~1 a 0 e 0 0 0 0 0 e 0 0 0
Cotham
5. 'H'Stl'eetv.maswe 8 . e . e a e . 0 . . e a
Stadiwn Eld:rance
6.A. JUns Road Option:
Expand Exlatblg B_ rulo 0 e 0 0 0 0 0 0 e 0 0
Ana with Dropoff@
AcbnIn. Bldg.
6.B. JUns Road Option: v_ a 0 e 0 0 0 0 e . . . e
Security Bldg. 14
'7. Vacant Lot: North 12 ke> e
Comer H StlOtay L.ak.- e e e 0 . . 0 0 e .
. Road
8. Off-6ite: South of 9
Te1epaph Canyon Road . . e 0 . . . 0 0 . 0 .
If-7j
~
i.OO~
O!
-.
r= ~
Ice
rr-4 -
:r~
~!
<P~
W....
. "'* ;
: CD ID
96-
d-4
o
O~
O.g
=== ::r
==='<
CD
.~
R))
c:={I
9
~
d
(ff>>
c::::o D
"'*
o
<P
d
"'*
CD
9
_r-
-
l~i2 .
I~ i If :.
Ii B
i 111 Ni
I"
/f-fo
.I'ilil
.~~I
:1',lIi
'II ~
I !;I
.II~!I
jilli
~
=F-
~
"I
t
-I
~
.
.-- ---- -. -
W L- I()'.
.
~~ L (,- ~ -
\-
.(' ~ .:1>
. ) )
,
~ .'
J
-
(
\..
-
/' D
/'
/'
/'
/' -t
/' ( J
/'" D-
/' ,---
/'
/' ~\ ~
/'
,/" "J
/' [)- ~
~ :z:
/" ,-~ ),
/ ) ~
/" -,---
/" )...\
./' ) D-
/' ,-~
/'" ( )
/' ,---
{'{~). ,- D. -(]
'~I-' ) ~. )
I ./
\f )
[) "J\.
ffD
.
LUJ r
--'-==:J
.
E)~
./ \. ./.~ rI
/ f- ffl
------_/
.
t
~ -
~-; 1:)1 I
b
J
-....
-- )
T1~
\
)
.~
)>
t-1
"
..
-
r
(--(
\..-/
r \ (
\. .../ "
.
.."
)
. .
t (7 c' /
, J-d;2.
.
~
~
~
~
-.
~
.
I! ~ ~ ~ ~ , I
I I -
I ~
I I I
-
- ~-\
j~ I ./ \. co /
(-) (-- """ r, ~"\ '-, '-,r--- P':-:=::
-' -' -' -' (,-
. I . . ) ('- - J
j I . --- --- '- '
r \ - - ~
Q./ \...... \./ ''''- \../ './ '---
- I I 0 "0 ( -
.. --
- n ,- 0
-I I ( .
I ) ; -'
"- ~ -
C)
-I~I I
I _I):
I = ~I 1:11 ~
~I~I l? t
I :i'
~
"
~
~I I I
~
~
, -I I I ~
I =1 I N
I .
II I
-
:=I I I .
-'
I ~ I , . /' "\
I - '...-
::1, I -
- .
- , I
"Ii I
-1 --- -'
. I . '---1
~ 11 '---
I
I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I lIS' f3
r\
,...- ,
-- -.---------- .- ~._- ---_.__._.~--_..-
. :::0 I -, r -F
If) I 0
10-/ :;;
:)
I I )>
"
(J)
0
I I -,r, r
( '--<-
-I
I I ) ( \
I '-- \'
C ,J
I I t~
,..-~
(>-t-<:
I I \ '
'"1
I I r
I I '- t
/
\,..- ~
- i
et ('- ~
I r '- ;
p
I I I
r. ----"
. -- ~ - - - J :rrr:IdJllITIl:n:rmTLrU-U
,I I -
,
I I
I f.11 ~
,
,I I ..
~
....
.... 0
I I ~ .---.....
f;1 -\
~ r, '-
I I -I ~\"/r' ,-I ~
\ '"
I -- -"
'-.. ) ~
I I r
0 ,
"
:>
I I )> /~- s1
~
(1)
0
~{~
:- ~~ -
~~~
- - --
CllY OF
CHUlA VISTA
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
ENGINEERING DIVISION
November 30,1992
File: DS-030
Mr. lohn Wilson
Director of Business & Operations
Southwestern College
900 Otay Lakes Road
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Dear Mr. Wilson:
Subject: Transit Facility
At the Southwestern College Board of Directors meeting on November II, the Board requested
some additional information on the proposed transit facility at the College. This information
included: existing and proposed Chula Vista Transit (CVT) service at the College; how the
transit facility would function both currently and in the future as additional transit facilities are
implemented in Eastern Chula Vista; and a breakdown of the estimated cost of the project. The
attached information discusses these questions raised by the Board.
We look forward to discussing this project funher with your Board at the December 9 meeting.
Thank you for your continued assistance on this project.
Sincerely,
W~GU~~
Transit Coordinator
cc: Sid Morris, Assistant City Manager
George Krempl, Deputy City Manager
lohn Lippitt, Director of Public Works
Larry Watt, County of San Diego
WPC p;aOMElENOINI!EII.\B1LLO\362.92
/J-f5
276 FOURTH AVE.'CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 91910 (E,1Q! (',91 SU~1
EXISTING CVT SERVICE TO SOUTHWESTERN COLLEGE
Four CVT routes currently serve Southwestern College: Routes 704, 705, 709, and 711.
These routes are shown on the attached CVT system map, and route schedules are a1so
enclosed. Three routes terminate at the College; Route 709 continues on to the EastLake
area. Due to current operations constraints at the College - primarily traffic and
insufficient space for buses - only Routes 704 and 711 enter the College campus; Routes
705 and 709 stop on Otay Lakes Road.
The current situation results in two main service impacts for Southwestern College
transit riders and CVT operations: 1) since not all CVT buses pick up/drop off College
riders at one location, the system's ability to coordinate service and schedules is
impacted; and 2) the two CVT routes that enter the College experience lengthy delays
at times during peak College periods.
The following table presents various information about each route including: number
of weekday trips to the College, boarding and deboardings at the College (ons and offs),
College ridership versus total route ridership, and percent of College riders compared
with total route ridership. Please note that this data is from FY 1991-92 (fiscal year
ending June 30, 1992).
Current No. FY 1991-92 At Southwestern College Route College
of Trips No. of Trips Daily Ridenhip
to College to College Ons Offs Total Activity Total % of Total
704 21 21 406 265= 671 1,128 59.5%
705 26 22 55 58= 113 791 14.3%
707 -- 11 86 118= 204 366 55.7%
709 18 11 36 72= 108 311 34.7%
711 13 16 90 53= 143 255 56.0%
78 81 1,239 2,851 43.5%
FY 1991-92
Southwestern College Routes
Daily Data
In July 1992 Route 707 was restructured to no longer serve the College; however,
additional service to the College on Routes 705 and 709 was added. The total number
of trips to the College currently is 3 less per day compared with last fiscal year. As
indicated on the table, College ridership on thesp routes last fiscal year was 1,239
persons daily which was 43.5% of the total ridership on these routes.
WPC F:\home\enpn_\biUg\340.92
Page 1
/f-pc::-
CVT schedules to and from the College attempt to accommodate peak class start and
end times; during these times, all four CVT routes are at the College. For example,
during a ID-minute period around 12 P.M., all four CVT routes are at the College (on
campus at Otay Lakes Road) with five buses in service (an extra "tripper" bus is used
on Route 704 at this time to accommodate the heavy loading). During other times of the
day not all CVT routes will be at the College concurrently. The primary reason all CVT
routes serving the College are scheduled to arrive/ depart simultaneously at peak times
is to maximize vehicle capacity by spreading the ridership demand among all the buses.
However, this allocation of riders does not work well under the current situation
because all buses are not at the same location. Most College riders tend to prefer the on-
campus Routes 704/711 rather than Routes 705/709 which means walking to/from the
campus and crossing Otay Lakes Road.
At the present time, transfer activity on CVT routes in the vicinity of Southwestern
College from non-College riders is minimal. A recent survey on Wednesday, November
8, 1992, of individuals transferring from one of the four CVT routes to another route
indicated seven transfers. Minimal transfer activity is to be expected presently because
of limited transit service east of the College. A more detailed discussion of future transit
services is presented in the next section, "Future Transit Service".
In summary, a transit facility at Southwestern College would improve current CVT
operations as follows:
Provide a terminal point for the CVT routes serving the College.
Enable better coordination of schedules and services for Southwestern College
passengers.
Improve access for CVT buses to and from the College, resulting in greater
operations efficiency.
WPC F:\home\engineer\biUg\340.92
/,'?- P7
Page 2
FUTURE TRANSIT PLANS
Preliminary Findine:s of the South Bav Public TransDortation Plan
The attached South Bay Conceptual Transit Network shows the proposed light railliries, bus
routes, park-and-ride lots, and a transfer facility at Southwestern College. Another graphic
shows the proposed light rail concept only. This plan would be implemented in phases as
development occurs; the time frame for total implementation could be 20 years or more.
Park-and-ride lots would be located on the proposed rail alignment at Plaza Bonita, H
Street/Terra Nova, Paseo del Rey, Otay Ranch Transit Center, La Media Road, and Caliente
Boulevard. Additional park-and-rides are proposed at Orange Avenue and 1-805, EastLake
Business Park, and East H Street at Paseo Ranchero and Ridgeback Road.
The function of the Southwestern College facility will be two-fold: The first and primary
function is a transit destination for students, faculty and other College employees. The
secondary function is a transit access and transfer point for the local community. However, as
transit facilities are expanded in eastern Chula Vista, transferring activity for passengers from
outside the general area will occur at various locations: EastLake Park-and-Ride, Otay Ranch
Transit Center, or Village 1 Station.
The long-range conceptual transit network shown on the attached graphic shows 5 routes
directly serving Southwestern College, one more than currently serves the College. These
routes are numbered 1 through 5. Route 3 is a new north/south route serving Rancho del Rey
and Otay Ranch; it would stop at the Village 1 Light Rail Station and provide service for
College destined riders transferring from the light rail line.
It should be pointed out that these plans are conceptual. However, a significant number of new
bus routes to the College is not anticipated. Plans envision a restructuring of service to meet
changing development patterns and ridership demands, and ereater frequency of service for
passenger convenience and to meet anticipated increased demand.
The primary functions of the Southwestern College transfer facility will be now, and in the
future, to serve College destined riders. Its use as a transfer point for non-college riders will
be a secondary function, and this function will change as transit services are developed. The
phased implementation of the long-range plan will provide more transit ridership options (for
instance, the EastLake Transit Center; various park-and-ride locations, new bus routes and the
light rail line); the Southwestern facility will be only one of many transfer locations.
As a transfer point, the facility should serve individuals within a limited radius of the College
(up to about 2 miles). Most riders beyond this distance west of the College would find it more
convenient to transfer to CVT routes west of 1-805; riders to the south and east will have more
convenient transfer options, or direct services to their destinations.
Based on current and projected CVT transfer activity, it is estimated that transfers at the
Southwestern facility should be between 5% to 7% of total College destined ridership, or
between 100 to 140 people daily. This estimate assumes: future college destined trips of 2,000
daily (compared with about 1,300 trips currently); and transfers increasing both as development
occurs and population increases in the eastern parts of Chula Vista.
WPC F:\home\engineer\bWg\350.92
y-YS'
,
.
t tf"
.~ . .It:!
. \'. . \........' ..... '11"
.,' I" ,..! '1r
'. ..'Oi\llIlIO".,...~.".. 'Ii'
U" .: '~.. "
. -~~, '.: )#'''~~j..'.'.;:~
. "4\#' # .: r -'"j
'.. '~".' \ ..~t.....~....t
: '(~\. "," ,....... "_H" .-. ,',;
.' ((\~ ., .",.' 1. :-.
'~'.,,\O #" ,'"'. ,.~.,.~~..., ._ .r
"!ole ".'" ,."... ... .~, _'.
_,-~e~"1J '" " ,-, ~.:.\,.;..,
...--'0('" 'III '-.'. '>'~:"'Ii..
i~ ,11" "' ,,'0''''.5 ..'.
~&' ". ~ .. ~o"': ...,
.::J .\ , , ',,,., :."
.9- t.- ,:," .
: , CD , .- .
--.-- \, , ,; a ,.J ,... "'-1.:
OI:Y vajje;"Rd.' 'It... ' #-', ~.
"J ...."'.._...... ',i-
I. -~
........... '"
'" '.,.:.: '.
,. ..-." ";
... . ", i' ..... ...........j '-,',./ "'"
__._..r .', t "i I'; 'lh.r''''' '1; '\
- =, ~ j f~... ~":.
: " l:.." ~ > , . ~
.. I ~MeS'Rd.. ."'."'..w,.w.+...... ~.
,llItmRRlRIIH'"''''1: IIllftl,,"IRIII"lIIlIIlIIlnlltfVIINHlfIIlIllUlWII )QNRI!lIlIrr..._._...... ~ ....N_~......... :
';""\:'~ ~ ~ ....1{=..~.:J~...} ..::::..."~r::.~::::':::.~*.~t.~:~~:.tL. ~=,'L.J=~~::=.:
/ )....".:.;...~~fu.:~~.,_.::;~~.; ,./,,: ..... .....J~tftmp.r'. ~IY~..
~.. . ........ ....~....
_.,...v."
i
.
.
.
.
,
.~
........................
@
..
. ... .,,'~ ,-.",..
.......-
.......
-'.
I
,:,
'f
.
..;
~ .,
,
':';"""',-
..
'-'III
..'"
~
.
@
,
:.\
..
'-"
. ..
?t. 411:-,:
o? ....,.
1>..", ..
'\v ."
"(
/",
.
..~"
.....
..
@J
;" ~(f\6.
....... .
s.
.;..~
?-t.-..
~.
->-2
'!'
MTDB
South Bay
Conceptual Transit Network
/t-t1
...."'0.
~~.,
~".
,;I-
q<,p
)"
>"~'-'.
o,"Jo
'~'. ,.{of~_
'<'*'~Ii:
"....cr.
\:r:
.d~':'C
... ::t
:0
:~
.....j~
o
2 Miles
Approximate Seale
Existing Rail
Proposed R.iI
Existing Bus
Proposed Bus
Rail Station
Park-N.Ride Lot
Transfer Facility
-
111011111111
-
o
.
.
CITY OF SAN DIEGO
STUDY AREA
J.,r ;;.oo.:,~,.:._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._..,
;'0
/
.
./ LEMON
./ 0 GROVE
.........'.-...-...w".-........ ....... ........ ,h....:....=:~;~_.._/. _/_.
.._..-.':~_.. .0
..............w...........l """"'..,.":,0...0"""""'.'.'0.""""""'".".
'7~ATIONAL CITY
"':
.~
SAN DIEGO COUNTY
l
\
\ San
. Diego
. Bay
\
\
\
\.
\
\
.'
./
..'
/
,..
~
.......... M.
. Parad~e "\'-a\\1N
.. Sweetwater
Re&~ojr
&1
@.
Upper
Olay
Reservoir
,,51.
"
9? ~
o :",
~ :~
~ ..
!t .
,-51.
.~.,
V'~'
.... Orange Ave.
Lower
Clay
Reservoir
""""'.@y..
:~
"
IMPERIAL BEACH
OTAY-NESTOR
!
.
I
....................
Olay M...
Border Crosoi
2MII.s
Approximate Scale
MTDB
South Bay Conceptual
LRT Network
-..-
Existing/Proposed Freeways
Study Area Boundary
San Diego Trolley (Existing)
Proposed Alignment
LRT Stations Under Study
-0......
~....w
111111111
.
'{-if}
SOUTHWESTERN COLLEGE TRANSIT CENTER
ORIGINAL DESIGN COST ESTIMATE $1,150,000.
SITES 1B AND 1B1 COST ESTIMATES ARE BASED ON THE ORIGINAL DESIGN
ESTIMATE.
CONSTANTS ARE: DESIGN, ADMINISTRATION (PROJECT MGMT.), CONSTRUCTION
INSPECTION, IRRIGATION, PLANTINGS, SHELTERS, STREET
FURNITURE AND (1) TRAFFIC SIGNAL.
THESE CONSTANT COST ESTIMATES TOTAL $ 750,000.
VARIABLES ARE: DEMOLITION, GRADING, PLATFORM, CURB & GUTTER, ACCESS
TO SITE, PCC CONCRETE, AC PAVEMENT, REPLACEMENT
PARKING (VISITORS LOT AND/OR FACULTY LOT) AND 15%
CONTINGENCY.
SITE 1B:
CONSTANT COST ESTIMATE...
VARIABLES COST ESTIMATE..
15% CONTINGENCY
$ 750,000.
280,000.
150,000.
$1,180,000.
$ 750,000.
350,000.
165.000.
$1,265,000.
SITE 1B1:
CONSTANT COST ESTIMATE...
VARIABLES COST ESTIMATE..
15% CONTINGENCY
NOTE:
THE 1B1 SITE IS MORE COSTLY THAN THE 1B SITE DUE TO THE
REPLACEMENT PARKING AT THE VISITORS LOT AND THE
RENOVATION OF THE FACULTY PARKING LOT ASSOCIATED WITH THE
1B1 SITE.
SITES 6A AND 6A1 AT THE EXISTING BUS TERMINAL WOULD BE UTILIZING
EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS AND WOULD BE AN EXPANSION PROJECT RATHER THAN
A NEW SITE PROJECT. THE COST OF THESE IMPROVEMENTS COULD BE
ESTIMATED BETWEEN $ 800,000. AND $ 900,000. TOTAL FOR EITHER SITE.
/J-l/
..--,,-
_I)
--cS' ~
/~
/
o
..--,
I-~
/~
o
/\
-~
..--,
~
./' ~
./' - I
I
I
W#m7aj~##moo
\\\\\\\T 1 T .
-' T T T T T T T T T T T
- ..-- '\ ..-- '\ ..-- '\ /" '\. ..-- '\
- ~.~[:'D~19-:!~,..L~r:i:cl=6:::r1={:D~:=-:l_.u-L_.u
oJ
r--o
o
o
.
~ll [I '"
l ~,.."
" 1 _ i'---.
-" _)1 '-. -: \ -::::
\ -."
':::: "
.----- "
\ 0 \~ ~
/../] ~ \~f
-\ 1',=11.2-:
tU1LR C~)~
( -
)
~-'_L.L ,:::;--DI (dj-'I~~J "-~\LLjl\L.LJ(l )...L(~=
fr l \ ) '-- ~ '-- \ ../ \. / '- ~ ) l )
'-.-' --- --- -
/ "--r;='\ /
\ 0L:) I l-;--'~ -/ 'j ( ::::
-/\i}.~/; ?~~" I I I I I~~':~'a ~~~) ~_"
'0 _ {j /} >-, " X ", '" /" /< \
"J /~ . '/"": ~.~..:::: ~I~ >::----- ;:- /" ~\"
..--
~
~
- -",
I. - "j
('-. --- j
~
~/
,
'~
. )
'j"'" /\ /\ "\ /\ f)-:-
\"'~.=1JT:-r:'cr;CL\=~='cv~3'=.C1::CJ ,I" :
/ - ~ UI
~ ~
~/
I .
o
o
-=0
~ )
~
.;
.,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
. I
1
- 11:1
- I
- I
.
g I
/\ /'"0
T=.r::~\._ 1..1
~
J;9
JfJ
(3
'^
l'5
,,-
e!~
1i '"'"
u
'- 0
\.:Y ~;
i);-
e:
~
J;9
Jfi
JfJ
1
I-:~
L-
I I,
I I
I I~
I 1_ I
11= I~
I 1=
I -:
I.:: 1
I I~ I
I I::
I~I=
I~I- 1
3-1
I~I-
[OJ::
I I-
I I '.-
-I-.~-
I -
I I::
I I :
J --,
( )
--".L " --
l~
----
./
~
-~
( ~:-
\.'A --
.
-,-- ,
\
\, .
---'----'
:'---"---=::::--'
.
"
/
~/
[]
, ,
(, ~
('- --- )
- I
\'-'0."\'0: r I T T T' T T 1--T T T T T 1 \- _ I
- --\ --\ ....-"\ ---, ..-'\ I
'~-b~::I~I,,-d::l=~_T::'JD=bc&~I={=CO::D::c[Lr.r:==rr:S'
- LLJ.LLr-)t~ I
~
I
I
- I
I
I
- I
- I
~ I
I
- I ~I
I
= I
.
II I
II
'--, /![J,
::m= 1.1
\/
'\ /'
, ./ /'
/'
/'
/ (
~#m1ffit$1%fj
.
.
~
.
00
/
//
//
/,/
//
//
, /
/,
.//
/'/
~/ //
// //
'.. --
..: \ ''---..
\,-, "'---
,~: '---..
\- "'---
~'",---
- '---..
- '---..
,=- \ "'---
-- ; '----
( ,,: I 0-..
, -, '---..
'~' "-
- '---..
". - \.............
\ , -
( - 'I'
//
//
/,/
/,/
//
//
/
~/ /
, /
." ~"
-'-,- ......
-" --.;:
/,'/'
L~
-;;- ......- "'"
~ ( 1
...-~ 0....____
w
) ~
-~ '--, /\'--, '--"C)
~\q:::LJ.h:::uJJ::r'rI7rT'b - ,
~ ~
r-.
.
1 I.
-- ,~ -- ri--r - /
fl:::ITc:r-Frn:r~rfI--r-J~'I1 , 1 I \LL1,cop -
:---=- ~ 1,,---1 ~) "__ ,__ \~ \___ '- ~)
CO /~\ ~
()\ (\ J -)'----/-\~./ -\( ~
J- ')7 -~~ I I I ~~/ (-~) ~
/<J, _4~ ~ ~~_ ~ ~ :3 ./:__\~~"'\
d /J '.' / .......~ ~I~ ~I?: ::;1 / . "'" I
t )
.
.
.
~
I~I~
I~I= I
'" -
" - I
/;,=
>-:
lal~
I I~
I j
- _.-
I
I I~
1 I = I
" I
- I
1-
Ir I
I
~) ~ I
I I
I-
I
- I I
1- I g I
1= I n::
'-----'" ) () 0 I
<j)
[/:..-/ ':-::.:/_~. / / "<, _r
// " 'f...... // " ~ - I
/~, /'/'" 0
l" ;;;; ~ '= ,\.:: ;;;; ~ ~ __J I
~J] / / :::::: == =:::: /.'--... ~ \ , - I
/' / '. " ,/ /' ," 1
6/ '-. ,/'// :::-.__/\'1 -
b 0 ~ ~ :;-)? ;;~ ~, \ / ~ I
~~ ~ \, /', ~ ~
. j).~ ~~ ~ ;;;; :::t~ '\ ~ I
~l C(~~'- /'/ ';!
~ ::7 7J ~ ::::- / =:::: ~
1.-:'" ;:;; ~. =:::: ;;;3. ~ ~ I II~I
, - \ ~'--... / ,/ ~. " / / I::
\=;.'--... /'/ ~-," /'/ I
( , , ,/ /' ~. ~ /' /
'r-. <-~~ / / ~ ) <:d
7 ,c:'.,0 ~ L_ " _I
," '\ '[' /.~,.>,.-' ,",'I-UTI rITLnJITITlrl.llrITIT[J'tr(l~I[j)lI~ITlJ11r" -
,LJ, ~~ - ' '" --,"ttr '
~ =)-Jff ~[J~I:JlJ~ \, I~ I
2:!!/' ~ ~ ~ ~-~\ ~[\)I' I
~._'~_:. (><):~~~::::?>:<>:<:::~:~:::~:~,:::~:::::~:>::::~c-:.~=:.'
~ ,Q:-:~~~" ' .. , .. ,.. ""....,
\ ~~~~~~.
J ~lby('---:- \.~ 1-- --;1";;
",~ ~,~I~l~iITCU~"rnTI~ll'~y:!.l1}.[.. -;m.
,/ " ", / / " "v ,- "
, / " '--... /,,~ / /
;; "'----.::: // ',/ /-~- \
/" // ,,~;; ~~)
~ ::::: ~ 0;:' / :::-:-::::- / ~ 'v ~ k:
/" ....., (.~/......., /' ",/" r \
;; ~ ~ ~.:" ,'~ ;: ;;. C " \) ,-
;; "--::::- L.:,A Y" /' / \ '- J! ........
/' "", l0)/ "" /' ~ --' \
'\ /' rl ./" ;::: ::::- ::::- /' / '\ )
./ /~ >_ // / " " ;; \ J " ../
~"-.~"~ ;:;; ::::::::. ~ ~, / '\ ~
/' ~ /,.- \ <(
/ ::::- ::::: / / J ~ 1!~ -< c
~. ~%: "'--') ~
~ ";; /
/
\
-',
- --J
--')
=7-
:l-
, 'f-1.6
I.
I
I
I
I
I:
[
I ~
I,
J
I'
I
I
~1 ~),
L..-/ ~~
" ~c]~r:::r
.
r--o:-.==
( ~:-;-, ---
, -'Cl:-,Lt::'T
.JrTlll
- - QJ.
r" ~ , ~V
'-.
~'....
,Qlq
(~ ) \. ./,-
/' /" rJ (IDl~t{
()
"- f"iLI}
----" c::
( ) -v
.--/
.......---- -- -- . ::::: .--/
-- ( /~
- I'---.. /'
- "--- - .-
----" -- ...:: '\ '--------- /'
( .--/
'"V -- "-... /'
'- / .--
- -" -- :::::
\- /
/
.--/
n '---------
~- - .--/
'--" //
0:' \'--------- /'
,~( ') ~V I:: -- / "-... .--/
( -'\---... /
...-
'--.. -::-- "-... /'
//
-
'--- .......-" /::.. \ //
, V /
\ - / '-----.., /
--
( -- "--- .-- /
\. ) /
L
---
'\
l )
~
/1-16
<C
'-91
~
( --....)
---)
---...... /
-=s I
---
~
{ .
,-- . .-
(r:~}r~~(~
I~L "
1'\
<t
~
/f- '17
-
.
~,
( \'"
---J-
"
'\ ,-\-u
) \ J
)~\ V
/ )
'---
.~~ ~ =0
a_
J
~'"
I
\
J
r
J
.
'"
,-<^ )
"--:'=-LLL
(
4>
~"
\1I\-r
(l )
- , n--i
rl
"
~~~
l)
I 1~~~3~
- C~= ~~
(
\
/' ~
---
--....
" .__n.
<<~
Southwestern
College
1V
;3/L L G- !/5TAt-So;J \} ",
,} . r
Jj/9/'13 ,~~) TrrI;'1 <~If ~
! J)' ~~
I. cP ~Jv
>f ~yj' c);rY'
fr
FEBRUARY 11, 1993
Qo, emlng Board
Augie Berene
G GOlden Browning, DMD
Jerry J. Grlff~h
Moria Neves.Perman
Judy Schulenberg
Joseph M. Conte
Superin .ndent/Presldent
MR. JOHN GOSS, CITY MANAGER
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
276 FOURTH AVENUE
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 91910
DEAR JOHN:
THE GOVERNING BOARD OF THE SOUTHWESTERN COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT,
AT THE REGULAR MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 10, 1993, UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED
~HE ~OLLOWING REGARDING THE TRANSIT/TRANSFER CENTER:
MOVED BY GRIFFITH, SECONDED BY BROWNING AND CARRIED,
TO AUTHORIZE SUPERINTENDENT/PRESIDENT CONTE, WITH CONTIN-
ING CONSULTATION WITH THE GOVERNING BOARD, TO NEGOTIATE
WITH APPROPRIATE TRANSIT AUTHORITIES TO HAVE A TRANSIT
CENTER AT SOUTHWESTERN COLLEGE APPROXIMATELY AT OR ADJACENT
TO THE LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED NEW LIBRARY/LEARNING
RESOURCE CENTER.
YOU ARE INVITED TO A MEETING ON THIS MATTER ON FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 26,
1993, AT 11 AM, IN CONFERENCE ROOM A, IN MY OFFICE. REPRESENTATIVES
FROM MTDB AND SAN DIEGO COUNTY TRANSIT ARE ALSO INVITED TO PARTICI-
PATE. PLEASE CALL MS. ALLIE ROBISON, 482-6301, TO CONFIRM YOUR
ATTENDANCE AND ARRANGE FOR VISITOR PARKING PERMITS.
INCERELY,
v..-,L--- VV\ ~
SEPH M. CONTE
PERINTENDENT/PRESIDENT
JMC:AR
CC: MEMBERS OF THE GOVERNING BOARD
KEN FITE, VICE PRESIDENT, FISCAL
AFFAIRS
JOHN WILSON, DIRECTOR, BUSINESS
& OPERATIONS
BILL LIEBERMAN, MTDB
AL CASTILLO, SD COUNTY TRANSIT
STEVE RON, SD COUNTY TRANSIT
900 Otay Lakes Rood. Chula Vista, CA 91910. (619) 421-6700 FAX (619) 482-6323. Southwestem Communl1y College District
/J)-92
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item I/'
Meetbaa Date .11219.
D'EM TITLE:
Jteport 011 Soud:._>>tm.. eon",e TIaDIit facility
Director of Public WOJb W
City ~er ~ -o~
(4f5du Vote: V.Jo.xJ
StJBku u;u _Y:
UVIEWED BY:
.
At the JuDe 9, 1992 meetiq. Council COIISiderecla locatiOll tor a traDIit facility at SouthWlltlm CoUege
IoeIted 011 Otay Lakes Road between the Ootbam aDd Elmhurst Streets _truce to the CoUese. Na1Iy
..ielma of the area objected to this IoeItiOll.at the CouDcil meetiq. CouDcil ntjectecl this tlaDsn facility
location aDd directed ad to look at other locatiODS which would Dot impact tIItistiDa ....d'etpiDa 011 the
CoUese campus, aDd also to eDcouraae public puticipatiOll iD the pl.....;I\& plOCIIS. C:C--";I"'embers
R:iDdOll~ aDd HortOII were appoiDted to a CoImcil nbr""''''iUee to facilitate tIaDsit facility location
dis,..,.etODS.
DCOMMENDATlON: That CoUJIcil:
I. Not pursue developiDa a trulSit facility at the ploposecI JocatiOll of the Southwestern CoUeae
LiInaJy/I..eamiDa R.esource Center. .
2. Schedule a joiDt meetiq betwun Council aDd the South~.tem CoUlle Board to discuss the
tlaDsit facility project.
BOABDS/COMMlSSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
On October 5, 1992, aU'-h"& was held iD the Council CoDf'InIIICe Room to discuss the fil'oposed trulSit
facility. 'Ibis meetiDa was auended by represeDtatives from the City, Ccnmty of SaD Dieao, Southwestern
CoUese, aDd residmts from the neiahborhood Dear Southwestern CoUlle. 1be meetiDa COIIduded with
the lmderstaDdiDa that City aDd County stafFs would ielmtify a pater Dumber ofpouible IocatiODS, both
011 aDd off Southwestern CoUeae campus. that miaht be suitable for a trulSn facility. City, Ccnmty, aDd
CoUlle stafFs joiDtly ielmtWed aclcliticmallites; ach lite was ~UatecI hued 011 criteria that took iDto
accou.&it C!OIIcerIIS tIItpIWISed. by the CoUll" the oommUJ!ity, &Del fac:tors related to but opIIUiOIIs. 1bese
lites are preseI1t.ed iD .&-...I."'mt 1.
A lICOIIeI meetiDa of this poup was helel 011 October 30, 1992, to disc:aa ...... moas lite altaDatives.
'lbe objective of this meetiq was to rach 00DSeIIIUS 011111' to three Ute locatiODS tor pi ."'~OII to the
South.".tm.. CoUt.e Board at its NCMmber II, 1992, 11I1-''''& tor OOIIIiclcatiOll. 'lbe poup NChed
OOIIMIIIUS 011 three lites iD order of priority: lite 6Al6AI; lite IBI; &Del lite 4. Thele lites are shown
011 A..,"'-mt 2. lite 6Al6A1 are variatiODS 011 aD .,....iOll of the tIItistiDa CVT but drop of! .... 011
the Soutb1Vlltml CoUlle riDa road. Site IBl isa 1II""U;...tiOll of both the oriaiDal.......-J t;pJII'C'"CI
by the CoUlle &DeI,.._Jllted to Co1mci1 011 JuDe 9, !992, aDd Site IB 011,&_.11 eDt I. 'Ibis ...~
lets beck the facility about 150 f_ of! o..y Labs R.oacI &Del _ part of u aiItiDa putiz!.; lot area.
lite 181 was icleDtified by the II'OUP at the October 30,1992 meetiDa u a lite that 1"'~I:Ally oouJd /f-tfI
"f-.
'.Ie 2, Item-&..
MeedD& Date 411~194
meet Trmsit Operations objectives and the CODcerns of both Council and area ...idmts. Site" is .
-horseshoe" desiiD that Illes the Gotham Street campus EtraDce and is perpendicular to Otay Lakes
~d. .
TMse lites wwe ....<1 ,...... to the Somh-un CoU"e Board at ita 8111....' on N~ber II, 1992.
At ~ meetina. the Board nquestecllOIDe adcIitioDal illfODDatiOD 011 the proposed traDIit Iaci1ity at the
College. iDcluclina existina and propoled Chula VISta TmDsit ICVice to the Coll"e. 'J1Iis illformation
was prllmted to the Board at i1a December 9, 1992 81"-;"'_ At this IIIMtiq, the Board also IOlicited
&IODUDmts from the public. The Board indicated that it would """-;1111' the trUIIfer Iaci1ity IocatiOD apin
at ill February 10, 1993 meetina.
At the FeWuary 10, 1993 meetiD&. the Soatb-un CoU"e Board Ioyid".ed a location for a transit
. Acility DIll the proposed new LiInlly!Lelmina Resource Ceate:r. This site is aIljaclDt to the Campus
lUna Road in the existina puking lot next to Devore Stadium; aQ)eSS is ofI Eut B Street. This site is
shOWD on Aaachmmt 3; it is also indicated as Site 5 OD .&-,.J""mt I. This lite raved the lowest
ICOfe of aU lites evaluated in FaU 1992. On February 26, 1993, . meeting was held between City,
County and Southwestern CoU.,e staffs to discuss this location. City lIIff'idmtified n1llDeI'OIII ooncems
.bout this location inc1udina: additional operatina oolt for CVT buses; acceu izr.t..".....eD1s that would
be needed both on East H Street and on campus; and the ';"';1\, of deve10piq a transit Iaci1ity with the
new LibrarylLeamina Resource Center, wbich the CoU.,e antieipates would not be bui1t for at least five
years.
The three parties involved in this project. the City, Southwestern COU"e. and County of San Dieao .
agreed that this location should be evaluated ftuther. The Coll.,e qreec:t to OOIdIet the udIitectural
firm, LPA. workina OD the LibrarylLelmina Resource Ceate:r plan, and request LPA to address some of
the development issues and concerns of. uansit facility at this location. A "'-;"1 was held on
November I, 1993, with the College to discuss this project. The aaacheel Jeaer from John WIlson,
Director of Business and Operations for the CoUeae. to Assistant City MaDa,er Sid Monis. prKmll the
Colleae's commitment to a uansit facility at this location (AUa,..h"'mt 4). The CoU.e has ukeel the
City to respond to this location for the uansit facility.
A transit facility at this location has aevere aooess 00DJtraints for CVT buses. It would inczase CVT's
operatina costs; it does not fuDction well as a trUIIfer location; and it would IWuIt in Jonaer trip time
OD most CVT routes for aU pweqers, iDc1udina those destined for the CoU"e.
......".it P'aeititv P'UDcbODS
Staff belilYlla traDIit Iaci1ity at Soatb-II-" CoU.elbould meet the foUowiq operaDOII objectives:
. Improve CVT .-viDe to L~.a.1em CoU.e.
. Serve as a tlaDlfer poiD1 for CVT.....:
. Improve CVT operatina .meilDC)', iDdudina I'IduciDa operatina 00Its.
'.
There an two bus operations functions that abou1d be acbiwed to meet .... ob,iecdval: flllidt acceu
to and from the Coll..e for CVT buses; and cenu:aJir,ation of aU CVT buses at .. location. CamDtly,
there an four CVT routes that .-vi SoatbWIIteID CoU.e: IloateI 704, 705, 709, and 711 (I-"""'ct
-.~
/ff-joZJ
Paae 3, Item J t.
Meetina Date 4/1~194
$ mows theae four CVT mutes). Route 704 IDterS the CoDcae CIZDpIII 011 Otay LIbs Road, aDd Routes
705, 709, IDd 711 baud IDd deboIrd put""lprS 011 OtayLak.. Road. 'l'hnrore. OI11y Route 704 eDtcrs
tile CoII..e QmpUS.
The a:iItiq CVT -.viOl to IoatbMltem CoD..e does IIOt IDIet two L...rotlwit ClplrlliOlll objectives
of'qaick Icces. aDd bus oeatraJiatioa.. Route 704, which... the campus, apm-.cll delays of 5-10
IIIimJIes duriDa oenaiD times of day, particularly whea eou..e "'.-es me stanirI& or _"I..,. SecoDdly,
aiDoe die four routes IIr\'iq die CoD..e do IIOt atop ill ODIloc:atiOD. bus ~P"'city illIOt IIIIcIlfticiently.
Most lludeats WlDt to ride die bus tbat IIden the CIIIDp1D; tbenf'ore, Route 704 is oftea Dv. capacity
while die other three routes that atop OD Otay Lakes Road me oftea aDder ""'pacity. c.tnliziDa the
Iiuses ill ODe locatiOD is also --..'Y ill order for die nuit AciIity to acve u a OC)Ay.u_ traDsfer
,oiDt for IIOD-CoD... destiDed CVT puSeDaers. This traDsfer ,oiDt would acve .. cvr routes
operatiDa ill the EastLake area, aDd avoid the Deed for aU CVT roateI to travel hID the IISterD part of
die City to ODe of the three TroDey statiODS.
When ~uatiDa the traDSit Dci1ity at the I"..posed LibrarylLeamiDa Resource C-ter lite apiDst the
bus HrVice aDd operatiODS objectives discussed above, dlere me oenaiD advamqes aDd disacIvaDtaaes
with this location. Attachments 6 aDd 7 mow how CVT mutes would be cIwIpd to Icces. this traosit
facility.
Mvurtacres
SiDce this locatiOD is Dot visible hm either Otay Lakes !toad or East B Street, there will be DO
....tive IWal ill\P"ct OD IW'rOlII1diDa Deiahborboocls.
- 1bere is lIIffic:ient space to develop a facility ill this .,. aDd DO appIftIDt lOll of ~
JaadscapiDa.
CVT buses IIr\'iq die eou..e would atop at ODe loc:atiOD. thereby iIDproviq bus capacity
nti1i...Uon.
- 1be locatiOD provides ccmveaient aecet. for CoD..e destiDed pllt""lprS to die DOrth aide of the
campus aDd the proposed Dew LibrarylLeamiDa Resource Cater.
DiadvamaRes
. Qat This lite would iDcnue CVT'. operatiq aDd capital 0CIIts. S1I&' I...... that ill order
III _.;""';,, the _eo! CVT urvice level a tIaDIit AciIity ill dais JocatiOD would add
Awo..a!_.wJy 1285,000 amnWIy to CVT'. operatiDa aDd capita1 0CIIts. This... iDcnue is clue
IIoth to the addidCllll1IDi111 to .COII. the Dci1ity from East B S1NIt, .. ..tAI'!I tbrae buses OD
aom.s 709 ael 711 aD ___IR";" ......~t.vice IwqueDcy ~... JJ.f!L_A . - . ...;.... die cost
III,p-ct of'dais 10caIiaa em mati'!l CVT lII'Yioe).
. .f.--'m the bI..~act.'.....t;aD... I .I!. the foDowiq probl_ for CVT Clplrllioas:
· Time' 'I'bIre II oouiderable traf6c _wm, the CoD.,. Wort ..J...... IIXitiDa Ifter
..J..... a:.d whea there me apec;aJ ~eDlI or acavities at the eoueae IIIch II footbalJ
pmes. Delays occar both pH-m";'!I east 011 East B Street, aDd westboW1d at tbe left
-- ~- I f- /0/
Pa.e 4, Item } t
Meetin& Date 4/12/94
turD sianaJ at the campus mtraDce 011 East H Street. For -....ple. 011 TuesdaY. JanIWY
25 and Thursday, Januuy 27, 1994, at AWIO";....tely 7:45 a.m., die Tlalllit Division
A"mi"ictrative Analyst recorded the time deJay for two approaches to the 1110-'" trIDIit
faeility lite. The time to Jd~ &om OIay LIkes Road and Elmhurst Street to the lite
was 10 miDutes. This routiDa simulates cvr Routes 704, 709 and 711. The other
approadI took about 6111iDutes, from OIay lAkes Road II01'th of East "II" Street (ID front
of BOIIita Pointe Plaza). This routiDa simulates cvr Routes 705 and 711. Por the two
cvr routes dlat jM.....-t to the 1f....I."" AnI . 709 aDd 711, dI.. delays would occur
011 both the inbound and outbouDd trips. nIUItiDa in ap to 16 minutes additioaaJ trip time
per OIIe I'OIIDd trip. Therefore, without .,.--ive ofIiite imprcmmeDtI 011 East H Street,
such u an exclusive bullIDe, buses would ecperiIDce lliJ1'iflcut delays 011 East H Street
wbile enteriq and IIXitina the campus duriDa cctaiD time periods. Th, CoDeae bas
committed to access improYemeDts OD campus 0DIy; ofF-tite ""O~II would be the
City's respoDSibility.
Traffic counts were takeD for vehicles eater:iDa aDd exitiq die campus via the East WJI"
Street at~ess road. The counts covered the period &om 12 p.m. MODday, December 6.
1993 dlroUJh 12 p.1I1. Friday. December 10, 1993. The lftIaIe daily Dffic (AD1) was
8,220, with 4,260 vehicles II1terina and 3,960 exitiq.
The counts showed definite peaks in traffic flow. aenerally coincidizla with dais IIIrt aDd
eDd times. For example, ~een 7 a.m. . 8 Lm.. aD averaae 668 vehicles eatered the
campus, or 16% of total daily II1teriDa vehicles. Another llil";ficant period for II1teriDa
vehicles was between 6 p.m. . 7 p.m., eeD 445 vehicles. 100.4 of die totalll1tering
vehicles, II1tered the campus. The major period for vehicles I.viq die ClUDpus was
between 10 LII1. aDd 2 p.m., eeD aD avenae of 385 vehicles Del' hour exited,
represeDtiDg 390.4 of all daily exiting vehicles.
These peak times for vehicles cterina and 1eaviDa die campus would impact cvr
operatiODS, aDd complicate cvr scheduliDa, &iDce schedules would bave to allow
sufficieDt trip time duriDa peak traffic periods. It should also be Doted dlat these traffic
counts did JIg1 include traffic ,eDerated byaportiDa 8YeDts (such u footbaI.I pmes). since
DO eveDts were scheduled MeD the counts were taken.
. Distance: The distaDce &om East H Street to die pI~ traDSit facility location is
approximately 1/4 mile (pJ.se see AuachmeDts 1 aDd 6). Thererore, fIYWY time a cvr
bus entered the campus. dlere would be an aWl()" 1m... 112 mill IOUDd trip clivellion from
East H Street to the facility aDd retum. Routes dlat do DOt t-oi...te at thl CoD.,.. but
...-i"ue OD to die lISt (___111 Routes 709 IDd 711) would eater die CIUDpIII JIgdI on
die outbound aDd iDbouDd trips. nnltiDJjD a ODe ",lie .....itimt to -"" .......... flip This
diversiOD to die traDSit facility would lDcnue CVT'. operatiDa ooats, Nduce service
frequeDCY due to m... ..ed travel diaIaDce. aDd is ID oat.of-diNc:liOD tIIV81 patter1I for
Don-CoDege destined cvr ,.--aerl.
. Noise' .ne eDUaDce road to die 'campus bas a ateep pade aDd dlere .ou1d be qine
Doise &om buses acceleratiq MIlD IDterina die CIUI1puI and ~ bake DOUe eeD
buses a.ii die CIUDpIII. 'I1IiI DOUe, aDd ..alt fumes from buses, could bave . Deptive
impact OD aiatiDa naidenc. adjacent to die CUIpIIIlDtrIDce road d East H Street.
. . ..u-
7T.
/f-/LJc7-/
Pate 5, ltem~
u_, Date .112194
. ~ This JocadOll Macts from the facility'. fllDction u . tnufer point,
putic:u1arly lor DOII-ColIeae cIestiDed "..~.en. Ita diatuce from Jut H Street, azul tbe oat-ol-
dincdOll travel ,.-tor tbrouah CVT ""'-I.,,, ',r :",. w.imore widtm uuI ill; na<l'llli_t
..... tb. eon... is lICIt ill -aCID, II1II CVT .... ... _ I II t to die tIaUit 1IciIit1.... ..... are
_ CoU.., deaiMCf ,."',.n.
III -~, lias I [I' r, ill tenDI DI_ uuI ~ce IN" --.Jar diaIdvuIIpI to dais Iocaticm. Bus
aCCIII tIlDe CID1IId be Jmp.h)~ ., _ -..".. traffic low ....~..... J .& ad ..bd1.. -lye .-site
....v. ..1.. OD Jut H Snet.. TIle eon..,.... ;...'i'CItecJ tIIat IDY off'oCUDJIIII ......v. I-would
lie the City"'MpOlllibUity. HoMYer. fttID with ~ ar pnf..malllas II; ,.1Ire dilUce to
tile locaIion from Eist H Street NVIJ'IIy cIcac:I:I from tbe tIIDIit &ci1ity'. ftmc:tiOD u . OIUf'er poinl
11IenIon, it is 1IIff'. nc Din'" 1IDdaD0II tIIat tbe City IIOt ptIIIUI .s.v.topiq . tIIDIit &ci1ity at dais
Iocaticm.
j.1temative T"-"tit ~ ~DD
As a N1I1t of City IDd Co1mty 1IIff'. ( [r ~ wi ~OII of adcIi1ioaal tIIDIit &ci1ity 1ocati0llJ ill Pall
1992 '._..j,"'eDt I). ODe lite tIIat met CVT'. operatiq objec:dvel, ad CoaDciI'. objlCltive of lICIt
foov~". aistiDa JlDcbcapiq GO tile IIIIDpuI, ..... Site IBI (.A~""'_t 2). This... wu also
OOIIcarred ill by the poup coIIIideriDa mous a1tenIativ, lites OD Oc:t.ober SO, 1992. 'Otis... is a
lII""ifiQtiOll of the site oriaizlally recomJDIIIded by the SouthWlltlm eoneae TJaIIIit CIDter PlUibUity
Study ad approved by the CoU,.e Board (modified ill that it required nmCl'41 of JIll an- apace). Site
lBI is located between the Gotham IDd Elmhurst Street etrIDCeI to lire CIIIIIpUS IIUt is..1Iack about
150 I. from Otay Lak. !load ad ntm_ part of ID aistiDa patkjq lot
Site lBl ~ ideDtified by th, poup u a matiOll of Site lB (~-"""'eDt 1). Site lBl is IoCItecJ about
50 feet further 011 campus dwllB, ad 1JIII part DlID .,.;..;". patkjq lot TIle primazy advudIpI of
dais lite are:
_ It would meet Tnmit 0pIIID0DI objlCltivel DI quick IOCIII to tile CoIt.,e. IDd
ceD1ralizaticm of bus ""*' at 0DI1ocaticm.
. It serves well u a Tnmit tIIDIIer poinl
. It IIIeeII CouDciI'. objectiw DlIICIt ~~... CUIp1II ...."-piaa.
. It should !law DO ..... . ....h:{- ..._...1 ~d OD tb8111iah"""""cul.
. Both M'lBD ad Coaaty III!ti n c tIIat dais . would ,..".;- ...u u a tllDSit
facility.
It is IIIB". Nt .., .....1fri0D tIIat CoaDciI 1CIIItduI. a joiIIt 1111-1". with lire SoadI_ J ItI... eon.., Board
to IICDIIIicler a 1IIDIit tiaciIity at tbe Site IB I Iocaticm.
~ftM ImfJftJV8llleDU fill Otav IBM . ,..~
l If' IihIIIr CoUll"';! ar SoaIh-*D eon... do lICIt wish to .... a tIIDIit facility at the IBl .. (or at
uy .....locatiOll off' Otay Ltbs Ilotd). IbID atd'.. '" -cb tIIat a trIDIit facility at the CoUeae
lICIt be ........ed further, ad that CVT routes botrd ad deboud ....IIIICI at ItopI OD Otay Lak.Ilotd.
It. DIW fn!ic aipallDd croaMlb will lie iaataJltd by S-......' I t94 at Gotham Street IDCI Otay Lakes
aoe4 0II0e tbe aipraJ is aaiYIIId, eon... cIeItiDe;: CVT pl.,.. wilIllave a III. -y tiel aroas Otay
1..1... Jtoed wile boudiDa. cIeboardiDi CVT.... h "f.~.er aIDIIIiti.111Cb u aheIterIlDd"(?_/C3
. . ...-. I J'
Pa.e 6, Item I"
M~I Date 4112194
beDdIeI could be iDIta11ed em Otay Lakes Road. This ara would serve CoUea' destiDed CVT pusqen .
ad also MrYe u a uusfer poim for CVT ,.,,-,en with miDor low 0CIIt imp.v.'1I _tit
...........rv
A tllaittaciJjty at the ...~II~.td Library/l-"'"'a ReIoarce c.- wvuld w... evr. ~ ClOSt,
nduce .-vice dcieDcy aDd d."..,. aDd nIII1t ill .. omrvtDi- ... ..... putiauJarly for DOD"
ooU... deRiDed ~ pusqerl. Sd does DOt II( Q II ",IDCI pumaiDa a tIUIIit taci1ity at Ibis location.
A trUJit fac:illiy at Site IBl, Jo.:-.... abcM 200 ft. oIfOCay LU. Road iD aD.ms.ma pIIkiDa lot, would
meet CYT'. opatiDa objectives. If Site IBl II DOt a feuibl. aItImative lor the taci1ity, - IIaft"
It( ,-v". _.Ir;.., minor mpita1 ~V.tol'- 011 OCay LabI Road aDd 1IoIrdiq"" dIboIntiDa all
CVT ,.v-I" iD lbislocaSioo. . .
. .
mCAL IMPACI': The Co1mty rtf SaD Dieao lias cWieated a tDtaI oU9OO,ooo lor the Ldh_.um
CoU.., uansit facility. Approximately SllO,ooo lias beeD apeDt to *te 011 pl.....;..' aDd _iF work;
th_OR, $720,000 ,.....;... for Ibis project. It is iliff. apillicm that the tnDSit f&c:Uity 1ocati0ll at the
LibraryJI..eamina Reaource Cater lite lias access aDdoperatioas poblllDl that aumot all be mitipted,
~eD with siJDificut d.iJD aDd eqiDeeriDa impro...m..'-,1IICb u _ChJSiVe laDe lor..... OD H Street
ad priority ai-1".1iatiOD for bus. cteriDa aDd .utiDa the CIUDPIJI. JDcIadiDa oIfIite irIlpro.MUDtS
IQch u these u part rtf the project would _cted aubstaDtia11y the S720,ooo ......;..;." iD the County rtf
SaD Dieao', budlet for Ibis project. The Co1mty lias iDdieated that additicmal fcmds an DOt pailabl. for
Ibis project. South_altern CoU..e lias 00IIIIDitted to amll ......~.- 10 0II1UIIpUI 0D1y; oIf-aite
......o.emIIIt& would be the City'. ~.poDSibi1ity..
Staff' also lltimates that a traDlit f&c:Uity at lbisloc:aticm would iDcnUe CYT'. _- - iDitiatly
by $215,000 annually ill order to _.;....;.. the CllfteDt CVT ICYice 1M.
J-"""'ents:
A-"""'ent 1 -
,A."''''''''eDt 2 -
A,..,.t.""ent 3 .
A_..h"'ent 4 .
A...~h""eDt 5 .
~_..h"'ct 6 .
"._..h"'ct 7 .
A-"""'mt 1 .
~-~"'eDt 9 .
,~...~""'_t 1 0 .
AJtemate TIaDsit facility Matrix
Transit facility Sites IBl, 6Al6Al, aDd 4
South..-ern CoU..e Board "'t"CI~ TIaDIit facility ~OJI
Letter tram John W&lJoD to Sid Marris
ExistiDJ CVT batII to South--"I- CoU..e Map
CVT batII .... COU...:....tNv..td Tauah fac:iJity (ara)
CVT Raae. .... CoU..-rI"v,..cS Tnuit fac:iJity (dIailecl)
~..... CVT 00It to .-ve COUep..ppnmcI lite
CouDcil ApDda "'-eDt A ~ 01 JaDe 9, 1m
~yt w;..- tram Soada_.a'- ('oJl... Board
WMG'F1Ie: 1)5.030
WC.- .laIID---'-....,..".
~
/.~- /;)-1
&
Page 6, Item ;}.. 0
Meeting Date 812/94
FISCAL IMPACT: The County of San Diego has dedicated a total of 5900,000 for the
Southwestern College Transit Facility. Approximately S180,ooO has been apent to date on
planning and design work; therefore S720,OOO remains for this project. Additional funds
required for the facility could come from City of Chula Vista TDA Article 4.0 funds.
File: DS-030
WMG:SB
m:~""'cc:nIr.wm.a
1172194 . .
;/ -.t?.5
COUNCD.. AGENDA STATEMENT
SUBMlJ u~O BY:
Item ~O
Meeting Date 811/94
Report on Joint Meeting between City Council and Southwestern College
Board to discuss Southw~. <jDege Transit Facility Project
Director of Public Works ~
City Manager ("/5ths Vote: Yes_No...xJ
ITEM TITLE:
REVIEWED BY:
At the April 12, 1994 meeting, Council considered the attached report on the Southwestern
College :Transit Facility. Council adopted recommendation #2 only which was to schedule a
joint meeting between Council and the Southwestern College Board to discuss the project
(Council did not adopt staff recommendation #1). The joint meeting between the College
Board and Council is scheduled for Wednesday, August 10, 1994 at 6:00 p.m. at Southwestern
College. The purpose of this report is to provide information to Council and Southwestern
College on the proposed project prior to the August 10 meeting, and to receive any direction
from Council to assist in preparation for the meeting.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council accept this report.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
The attached report which Council considered on April 12, 1994 discussed the proposed transit
facility project in detail and presented City staffs reasons why the College's proposed site at
the future LibrarylLeaming Resource Center (LRC) does not meet the City's objectives for a
transit facility. These objectives are:
. Improve Chula Vista Transit (CVI') service to Southwestern College,
. Serve as a transfer point for cvr routes,
. Improve cvr operating efficiency including reducing costs, and
. To meet the transportation requirements of all cvr riders including Southwestern
College students, Bonita Vista Middle and High School students, and the general public.
At this point the City and College differ on the recommended site for the transit facility. The
College recommended site is identified on AttI~hment 3 of the IlUached April 12. 1994 report
and is also shown on the Att.~hment 1 (evaluation matrix) as site S. The College
recommended site is located on the north side of the campus near the perimeter campus road
and Devore Stadium in the vicinity of the proposed LibraryILRC. Access to this site would
be from the East H Street entrance to the campus. The City staff recommended location is site
IBI, identified on Attachment 2 of the April 12, 1994 report. This site is a modification of
,j-//) 0
Page 2, Item ;;. D
Meeting Date 812/94
the site originally recommended by the Southwestern College Transit Center Feasibility
approved by the College Board. Site IB I is located between the Gotham and Elmhurst Street
entrances to the campus, but is set back about 150 feet from Otay Lakes Road and utilizes part
of an existing parking lot.
Following is. a summary of the advantages and disadvantages of theses two sites:
Site 5 (Collelle Recommended site)
Advantages:
. Visual Impact - Since this location is not visible from either Otay Lakes Road or East
H Street, there should be no negative visual impacts on surrounding neighborhoods.
. Landscaping - There is sufficient space to development a facility in this area with no
apparent loss of existing landscaping.
. Bus Service - CVT buses serving the College would stop at one location, thereby
improving bus capacity utilization. The location provides convenient access for College
destined passengers to the north side of the campus and the proposed new LibraryILRC.
Disadvantages:
. Cost
It is estimated that this site would add approximately $304,000 annually to CVT
operating cost (page 3 of the April 12 report, and attachment 8-A). Please note that
Attachment 8 has been updated (8A) to reflect CVT's operating costs for FY 1994-95;
the original attachment 8 was based on FY 1993-94 operating costs.
. Access
Several disadvantages exist including: time, distance, and potential noise impact
(discussed on pages 3 and 4).
. Transfer function
The distance of this site from East H Street detracts from its function as a transfer point
particularly for non-college passengers (discussed on page 5).
. Safety
The relative isolation of this site on campus raises safety concerns for passengers,
particularly during early morning and late evening hours and at times when College is
not in session.
. Timing of development
It is staff's understanding that the College LibrarylLRC will not be built for at least five
years. Coordinating transit facility development with the LibrarylLRC raises two
issues:
, f- / j) 7
Page 3, Item ~O
Meeting Date 812/94
I) If the transit facility is built now, perhaps five years in advance of the
Library/LRC, the facility will not serve the present campus well; however,
2) The County staff has indicated it would like 10 implement this project in the
near future, since it can reallocate the remaining $720,000 10 other projects if
the Southwestern ttansit facility is not built.
Site IBI (Citv Staff Suooorted Site)
AB a result of City and County staft" s conceptional evaluation of additional ttansit facility
locations in Fall 1992 (Attachment I . April 12, 1994 report), one site that met CVT's
operating objectives and Council's objective of not impacting existing landscaping on campus
was site IBI (Attachment 2-2 of the April 12 Report). This site was also concurred in by the
neighborhood representatives who considered various alternative sites on Dctober 30, 1992.
Site IB I is a modification of the original site recommended by the Southwestern College
Transit Center Feasibility Study and utilizes an existing parking lot on the Southwestern
College campus. Site IBI is set back about 150 feet from Otay Lakes Road.
Advantages:
This site meets ttansit objectives for a transit facility and provides the following advantages:
CVT Doerations
. It would improve CVT bus service 10 Southwestern College by centta1izing all bus
routes in one location, thereby improving CVT's bus capacity utilization.
. It would allow quick access 10 and from the College campus.
. It provides a convenient point for CVT buses ending at the College (for buses not
proceeding 10 the Eastlake area) 10 terminate and turn around before proceeding back
10 western Chula Vista. It also provides a terminus for future CVT routes serving the
Eastlake area.
. This site serves well as a transfer point for non College destined passengers.
Other Advantalles
. Visual Impact . This site, by being located in an existing parking lot, would have
limited aesthetic or environmental impact on the neighborhood.
. Both MTDB and County staff concur that this site would function well as a transit
facility.
. Safety - This site offers good visibility from both on campus and from Otay Lakes
Road and should present no safety concern for transit passengers.
i - ,/J f
Page 4, Item ~ D
Meetiug Date 1/2/94
Disadvantages:
.
Impact on Existing Landscaping - Although this site is proposed to be located in an
existing parking lot, there would some removal of existing grass for buses to access this
site from the Gotham Street and Elmhurst entrances to the campus.
Some parking spaces would either be lost or could be relocated to a vacant area.
Relocation would mean loss of some grass.
.
Alternative Tran.it Site
If Councilor Southwestern College do not wish to pursue a transfer facility at the IBl site (or
at any alternate location off Otay Lakes Road), staff recommends improvements on Otay Lakes
Road to better accommodate bus passengers as the next best alternative. A new traffic signal
and crosswalks at the intersection of Gotham and Otay Lakes Road would facilitate movement
to and from the Southwestern College campus for CVT riders. Installation of a traffic signal
at this location is being held in abeyance pending resolution of the transit facility project, since
a transit facility off Otay Lakes Road would require a signal to function properly. Since three
of the four routes currently Southwestern College do not enter the campus, but stop on Otay
Lakes Road, the installation of a traffic signal would result in pedestrian movement to and
from the College for CVT riders. Bus passenger amenities such as shelters and benches could
also be installed on Otay Lakes Road.
Advantages:
. Capital Cost - Minimum compared to all other transit facility sites. Estimated
improvement cost is between $100,000 - $150,000 (including traffic signal, crosswalks,
shelters, and benches).
. CVT Operating Costs - No major change to present CVT operating costs. Perhaps
small decrease in cost since Route 704 would no longer enter the College campus.
(Under this alternative, all four CVT routes currently serving the College would board
and de-board passengers on Otay Lakes Road).
. CVT Operations - Since all CVT buses would stop on Otay Lakes Road and not enter
the College campus, bus capacity utilization would be improved.
Disadvantages:
. Southwestern College Service - Since one of four CVT routes currently enters the
Southwestern College campus, College destined passengers who ride Route 704 would
experience a longer walk between Otay Lakes Road and the campus.
. CVT Operations - This alternatives does not provide the planning and operations
flexibility offered by most transit facility sites. A transit facility would provide a
specific central location in which buses could terminate, layover, or dischargeIboard
i' f.-/t) :1
Page S, Item d. 0
Meeting Date 812/94
passengers and continue on to eastern Chula Vista. A transit facility provides more
convenient transfer opportunities for passengers.
~nmmarv
. The College preferred transit facility location near the stadium and the future
LibrarylLRC would result in substantial operating cost increase for cvr, currently
estimated at approximately 5300,000 based on the current fIScal year operating cost.
This cost includes the additional' miles and buses that would be required to retain the
existing CVT service frequency to the College.
. The College preferred site, while meeting the objectives for further College
development, does not function well as a transit facility for non-college destined
passengers .
. There currently remains approximately 5720,000 in County funds for the transit facility
project. While a detailed cost analysis has not been done of all sites, City and County
staffs estimate that any of the transit facility sites would cost at least 5720,000 to build.
The County has indicated it does not have additional funds to supplement the 5720,000
remaining for this project. Any additional funds required to implement a transit facility
could be supplemented by City of Chula Vista Transportation Development Act (IDA)
Article 4.0 funds.
. In October 1992, a number of additional sites were evaluated as shown in Attachment
I in the April 12 Council report. Any site for a transit facility removed from the
Southwestern College campus (for example' south of Telegraph Canyon/Otay Lakes
Road) would cost more to develop and serve the College than an on-campus site, since
bus shuttle service from a remote site to the College would need to be provided.
. Making improvements on Otay Lakes Road would better accommodate cvr buses and
passengers is a low cost alternative to building a formal transit facility. This alternative
basically is an improvement to current CVT service to the College area. This
alternative does not provide the operations and passenger service convenience and
flexibility of some transit facility alternatives (such as site IB I), but from a cvr
operations standpoint, is preferable to the College preferred location.
A copy of this report, including the April 12, 1994 staff report, has been sent to Southwestern
College. In addition, prior to the August 10, 1994 joint meeting, staff will send a meeting
notice to approximately 570 households in the following areas:
I) The neighborhood bounded by Otay Lakes Road, Rutgers Street, and East H Street (east
of Southwestern College);
2) Residents in the area on and to the east of Buena Vista Wsy (west of Southwestern
College).
/ ;s:>- II I)
~.../~
R7'rIJCHtttGuT ,.
Evaluation of Possible Southwestern College
Transit Facility Locations
Legend: ~ Good (2) E> Fair (1) · Poor (0)
_.'!"""
. II I
Criteria i I J J t u
t
II if
Sites I t'll f J I ~
~ I 11f
l.A. 0riFJW Propoaa!: e 0 0 . 0 a 8 . 0 0 0 0
.eeween GotIua" 17
"lI\ll1lftt (Opt. 1)
1... Mo41fIedF.-r =- r-'. tL9 e 0 8 a 0 p 8 80 0 0 0
....ck.J.l!5!:. fI'oID eta)'
Lak.. Road
z.A. 0riFJW Pn",par-'. e 0 8 a a 8 8 . 0 0 0 0
__UIDt~ A6
on:&
2... ModIfted ~_~ CMJ.1. e O' 8 a a a . a8 0 0 <>
Option :& Setback 15
.ehbad n.' h.. ~).
~
2.c. Option 2: s.\back to . ;"4 e e e e a 0 0 0 e . e e
u.. ewe p.....,... Lot"
~R0a4 - .-
J. 0IIFM1 ~_J..G.a1: e 0 e 0 0 a . 0 . 0 . 0
...JoIDI'th PuldDa Lot (Opt. tL5
a)
.......hoe Uab!a Zl e 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0
m .
ot u.lna ewe 8 . e . e e e . 0 . . e e
BIdI'UIft
1=_ ~Io 0 e 0 0 0 0 0 0 e 0 0
~.rdf.
.
J.r1l....., 11M 114 e 0 e 0 0 0 0 e. . . e
.
'.',') /f-/// ,forth ke> e
01&7 y .1...... .L2 e e e 0 . . 0 0 e .
~
-
-. ...
--'-
'.. I
....... .
. "- "'~ ~ ~ ~ ,
I I \ -
.......,
I I ~ ( /-
l' r
I I ./ \....-
1-\ 1- ..... . r, ~"\ ....."....." (T"'- ,....."
11 r.
I I
~J I
~I I
).
~I fJl
~
~I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
-t
1 I I
I I
I I
Q./ \,.,
./ ./ ..-
.
\.,., \.,.,
-
..... l.....
. J r--}
- \..
n
..... .
i
.
~i
\\ ~
,., ~
.,
~
.'
[W!W',,1,,1$ftwm
) .I./&,-//d
r\
I
V
D ~c
n (~(
UJ \.__
r \(
a ~J \
./
-
. )
~
I
.
\
)
~
.I'
r
\. -
,-'"
( I
'-/
.
\J
--
/)-//3
.
.
:;ul ---
I - ... . --
. - ._-~..
:, r
I 0
;f
::J @
I )> .
...,
('I) \
0
I. /-.......r'\
I I \ . "../..-
I ....... J / \
-/\'"
I () \ ,J
~--~
I / ~
\ "-
,-
I I
I
-
=t
r
I
I
I . -
I
~I ,
,. ,
1
I ~ I
. j
I ,
'"
...
I ! ~
\.
I
I I ~ r '\ ,
~\JC '"
I
I
.-
0 n )
.
IlJ
1:; : ::J
~t.~11
-
~
. .
fIE
1-"'~',
~'~'1 7
WnlOV,LS
{
-
...
+~ '-'<
J[ -a, ViA'" · ·
. ~^-nV5 .A
. a....~ON ~'
ArrRC/fplf-AlT3. I U~TL~ Itf-//5
,..'_ .."_.... .../......._ . "'_ ~wesT~ t}~
l1~" ~"::''''''7-. .-.,,6''3r,'IO
-~ .-
.. ,"
...-. =- .,:.'
. . - . .....
.'''; t :' '" .:', .. ...
e. ..._.......1.
~. ... I. . -- ...
.... .- .... ,,. . ..--
.. ... _~.., I
: I
i..:
.,
C,(:. ~ Wf..t6- :rP~ ."'
. '. '
,r0\ I
~.J ,}
~.:"";' -
o
~Em
--1:OUEgE
~JfJtle-vr ~ (l.,..riL
.. ._.*'1 IoaId
~Iar_
., sarOOn .~. D.M.D
JPY.I.SIIIIIII'I
MellO ,.. "'1'ff\Cf\
JA/IIIt~rg
. Ifovember 10, 1993
;\ ..- ~
, I
H' -!
1'--
I
1/ -
1'-.
.
I
.
JS3n:~ 15 t..1f II: 13
.!II/I(I/I\ M. c:onre
~ -.....".....,
Kr. Sid Horri.
~.i.t.nt City Man.ger
City of Chul. Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chul. Vista, CA 91910
Dear Sid:
I h.ve enclo.ed the information from our archit.ct which yOu
r.quested reg.rding the loc.tion and project d.lcription for the
improv.ment. to our acce.. ro.d from -H" str..t and parking lot
improvements near our .tadium.
-'
In r.f.rence to our commitment to the project, the District will
be r..ponlibl. for the widening of our acc.ss road from -H"
str..t and the parking lot improv.m.nts in the stadium parking
lot. ~h. City/County would be r.spon.ibl. for the construction
of the ~ransit Cent.r and the -fifth lane" for bus traffic.
I have ett.ch.d the correspondence th.t Hr. Conte s.nt to
Hr. John GOII in F.bru.ry regarding the approv.d .ite by our
Governing Board.
If you h.v. any furth.r qu.stiOns, pl.... contact .. at 482-6320.
Sinc.rely,
~ )J1 'tt( d.,{J&o./
~1K. Wilson, Dl:.ctor
siD.ss and Operations
JMW/ym
.
-+::--
r-
. j
.
I
L
r
!
.
-----
cc: Jos.ph H. Cont., superint.nd.nt/president
Zen Fite, Vice Preddent, Filcal Affairs
.ill Lieberaan, Jrl'DB
St.ve Ron, San Diego county 'trand t
JcIm uU-.tI.1., CLt;y of ,.....,. ~
enclosure '
H :.,
~ "-
, . .
,., '-1 ~.~
-;; 1
- I I .
i. . I
If-Ilf;: .,H"r'
1WL~~
W\~~CC\\us
A4-1
-- ....- .-- - .-..--
110'" 0 \993
MEMORANDUM
John Wilson
Southwestern College
FROM: Joe Yee
DAre
NOYember 3, 1993
TO:
Rf:
Orculation Description
for the North Parking
Lots and Transit Center
PROJECT NAME: . Southwestem College
PROJECT NO.: 93072.10
cc Dan Heinfeld, LPA
Glenn Carels, LPA
MEMO:
.
The entry drive has two lanes entering and two lanes exltin. the north
parking lots via 'H' Street. At the 'H' Street Intersection there are five lanes
fA traffic, two for entering the campus and three for exiting the campus. (See
Alternative '8' diagram.)
Connected to the entry drive Is a two lane semi-loop road travelin. two ways
and linking to the campus rln. road. The semi-loop road will also be
serviong the parking lots In this sector .nd Transit Center with six bus
parking spaces for the Ioadin. and unioadin. fA pusen.ers.
Nt altematiYe to the two-way semi-loop road wftl be to desfsnate It a one-
way, 2 lane, road. (See Alternate IN dlasram.) The entry drive connedlns
to 'H' Street will remain the same.
The construction fA a ftfth entry drive line delfit::ated for bulllMces would
require addltionallntrusJon Into the slope fA the stadium, Into the paled .....
west fA the hid house, and .ddltlonal heJsht to nrlalnIn& walls. ~uaIIy the
Iktpe bank will need to be N-landscape, ICreeNna and saftenInI the intrusion
d additional roadway Into the stadium ...... ThIs will need to be dont with
the four lane entry drive also. I think that the ded'ac:atecI bus line ClIft be built
~d the visual Impact between . four lane road and a tve lane lOad Is
minimal and can be resolved. .
-
--
Ij- //7
--41\ ~, ~
'LPA
~-=~"!'I
r~":rtrn I
........ ;)rl".
Lar.,"",'J::~ A1\:.'!~:t.:.
0.,.. Cafty
.... D/tp
~
.._ a.oc.
011-
.... JOO
........ C~ ':.'11
M.~ ~.:"JJ.lUI
~n.1D07
1: ; : :.:j
. .
-
,
./
,-
,"
~
--
'"
. .
- ."~
tV:
~. r-'
. "~
. " "",
-~
~
r
.
1-1f~ ..
ON' ~'i
r
,.....
,
wruOY.l.S
-
L
[
-
111 "~
" -
11
~ t . - ~:l
.
. . . . ~.,~
... .
( . . .
. . ..
. .
-
~ ,.
.
.tII: .
q; ,
4
wnoVlS
II)
.
-
II
..
"
,4~H '.
~ ~'\ . .
. ~~tO
~u,."w "et,J.,~ · .
., l.f^.".,;'..'.." -:.......- .' -"~~''''.I
...
/5'-11'/ /
. ....... .
. ..... .
- This Page Blank -
.'
'. . -:- .- .,.
. .
/J'-/~{)
-:Ptt --'5-
~
~
~
~
~
~
.. If
Jh
~ ~I
It 'I
~
:e;
cc
o~
(>~
c;
:-
~(o
CO
~ ~ ~ E
J J J J
~
(,0
'1G.
~
~Q;
~~
~e)
<
~
o
u;
~
-;;
o
w
/1-/,;2/
,
o
-
.
:>
o
-;
t3
I
(\<
("\\.0__
.
-
c
Ji
=e
.
~
~
i
I&;
1
" !t
t Ii.
i ]1 S-
"''' I
t ~ ~ ! ~ E
~ i J J J J
'-J)
~
~
~
~
<i:l
'ti
cc
oC:-
<>~
Q
(0\
co(
-
~
o
~
~
Cr.
0"1;
G-~
v~
~
o"'~
"ci
~<
~
~
~
~
w
a
-
.
:>
J2
~
~
(,)
/
/ ;? - /:1~
(\(
c\~_
.
"b,.
~
i "
~
~
. .
)
~
J
a
I
.o,""'f / f -/~3
d'{EJno1.andum
August 9, 1994
File: DS-030
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
VIA: John Goss, City Manager
VIA: John Lippitt, Director of Public Works ~
FROM: Bill Gustafson, Transit Coordinator ~&-
SUBJECf: Additional1nformation on Southwestern College Transit Facility
At the August 2, 1994, Council meeting, under discussion related to the joint meeting between the
Council and Southwestern College Governing Board on August 10, 1994 regarding the proposed
transit facility, Council requested the following additional information:
Timing of development of the proposed Library/Learning Resource Center (LRC) and the
transit facility.
County of San Diego funding commitment.
Parking lot impacts of Alternate Site 1B1.
Proposed facility location on CVT selVice.
Following are responses to these issues.
1. Development Timine:
According to John Wilson, Director of Business & Operations at Southwestern College, the
LibrarylLRC has been accepted by the State as a viable project. However, the project, like
other State education construction projects, is currently not funded. The LibrarylLRC
project was included in the Higher Education Facilities Bond Act which failed to pass in
June 1994. Therefore, funding for the project depends upon passage of a future bond issue.
Southwestern College staff anticipates that implementation of the LibrarylLRC will not
occur for at least five years.
2. County Fundine: Commitment
The County of San Diego has dedicated $900,000 for the Southwestern College Transit
Facility. Approximately $180,000 has been spent to date on planning and design work.
Therefore, $720,000 remains for this project. Any additional funds required to implement
a transit facility at Southwestern College would probably need to be supplemented by City
/x-/,;<~
John Goss
August 9, 1994
Page 2
of Chula Vista IDA Article 4.0 funds since County staff has indicated that it has no
additional funds for this project.
Regarding the time commitment of the County to reselVe funds for this project, County
staff has indicated that a decision regarding how long to reselVe funds for this project would
be made by the Board of SupelVisors. However, County staff would like to implement this
project this fiscal year since it has requests for other transit facility projects. Therefore, the
County staff recommendation to the Board of SupeIVisors would be to reallocate the
$720,000 remaining for the Southwestern College project if Council and Southwestern
College Board decide not to proceed with project implementation this fiscal year.
3. Parkin!! Lot Impacts of Alternate Site 181
A preliminary sketch plan for Site IBl (Attachment 1) shows that 24 existing parking spaces
would be removed. However, 22 of these 24 spaces could be relocated to an existing vacant
area adjacent to the parking lot where the spaces would be lost. The addition of these 22
spaces would require approximately 0.18 acres and would add those 22 spaces to an existing
parking lot. Also attached for Council's information is the conceptual site plan for
Alternative lB. Site IB does not use any of the existing parking lot but does replace more
existing open space since it is located in a grass area closer to Otay Lakes Road.
4. Transit Impact on CVT Operations
Transit staff has indicated that the College proposed transit facility near the LibrarylLRC
site would impact CVT operations and would result in an estimated $304,000 increase in
operating and capital costs annually to maintain the existing CVT selVice level for the four
routes that would initially selVe the facility. This cost estimate is based on FY 94-95
operating and capital costs, and would increase as operating and capital cost increases occur
in the future.
The attached information memo (Attachment 2) to Council dated August 1, 1994, discusses two
CVT selVice modification options that would eliminate this estimated $304,000 cost increase to
selVe the proposed facility. While staff does not recommend these options, they are meant to show
two approaches that could be implemented to reduce this cost. Both options impact CVT selVice,
resulting in less frequent selVice either to routes selVing the transit facility, or cutting selVice on
other CVT routes.
In addition, one access alternative to the proposed site recently discussed by College and City staffs
is to permit CVT buses to use either the East H Street and/or the Gotham Street/Otay Lakes Road
entrances to the campus and the campus perimeter ring road. Use of the ring road does not fully
mitigate access concerns and would still result in delays for CVT buses, thereby impacting CVT
schedules, for the following reasons:
/fI- /.:15
John Goss
August 9, 1994
Page 3
Using the ring road would save an estimated 5 minutes by bypassing the left turn
movements at the East H Street/Otay Lakes Road intersection and the East H Street
entrance to the campus for existing Routes 704 and 709. However, buses using this routing
still would require at least 10 minutes additional travel time compared to present schedules
during peak traffic conditions at the College. Buses would be operating on campus in a mix
of automobile and pedestrian traffic. The ring road has speed bumps which results in slow
movement for CVT buses. In su=ary, accessing the proposed facility using this on-campus
traffic pattern would save some time compared with using Otay Lakes Road/East H Street.
However, it would still result in a service reduction in terms of longer headways (less
frequent service), or additional cost to maintain existing frequency by adding more buses
to these routes.
Another impact of this alternative access pattern would be impact on non-college destined
passengers who use bus stops near the intersection of East H Street and Otay Lakes Road
(please refer to Attachment 3). SANDAG passenger counts for Routes 704 and 709 show
80 passenger "ons" and 72 "offs" at stops near the East H Street/Otay Lakes Road
intersection. Most of these passengers are non-college destined because Route 709
passenger counts show 121 "ons" and 151 "offs" at Otay Lakes Road/Gotham and Otay
Lakes Road/Elmhurst (most of these passengers are destined for Southwestern College).
Therefore, diverting Routes 704 and 709 through the campus would be a service reduction
for present and future passengers destined for Bonita Vista High School and other activities
in the vicinity of East H Street/Otay Lakes Road.
cc: Joseph Conte, Superintendent/President, Southwestern College
m:home~eerlJilllg\twfac.wmg
/g- /;(0
\/
\/ ~ WWl#l#m~
./
\\\\\\\T T T T T T' T T T T T T T T
- ----'\ ----'\ ----'\ ----'\.----'\
~1='DJt:":CCI._I~d~=)rP-r::r,(=-LLL.L_L_LLLJ::t
/-------
./
./
----
C----.
- ----
, 0
<~~1 ~
lU1
,
( .
,
o
o
oJ 0
----
"
~) ) ~)
, ~
(
"
~
~
~
~
~
r, ro
11-
..
. 1
N
'i .r
} 0 I Q2j_+____~
r') .')-
'J r [I "'-
. I .~ ij (':.: 'y2.
-,-:::J ,~"
,- '>-'"
<>::::::
\--/"
~ "
"
.o-:\~
'- --;--
( ..: "
, ..I "
" '" '-
~ "-
- "
-- \"
=,- "
( -
c:;:\
) -
"-"\ r\ ......" /''\ r, {)_--
_~~dr:.:o;L=\::v..:o:b~:J.1 .:
~ ~
n
, - "-
(. '.i
--- ) ,K5.1-'--'--'/~...b.I{~~( -:-,1 J <W\LJ ~~LLJ(l-'r-(~
fr.. ) \ )" ~ \.../ I.. ./ '--- ~ ) \ )
- '../ '- .-'" --- -
____ ~'\ r
:: QQ ( \~/ '\( ~
/~ i"~' ~ ~ ~~;~\f-/~1
I
I
I j _
I '~
L-
I I
I I I
- I I I~
- I I I I
I 11= r=
I I 1=
I I -.
1= I
I
I 1= I
a I I 1=
I I~I=
11:1 Q:: -
I~I= I
- I :3 I
I~I-
I C)
- 1 I::
,
CI I II
u
.I I /
I
-I--
I -
I I-
I I :
- I
""""''I..'0J T l~[ T' T T L-T T T I
- --- '\ --- '\ --- '\ --- '\ --- '\-- I
'-t:,J'-_IAEortU~1:=JD=f=~~~I=j':=D====I:J5>
( ) \ j'<\ I
~
I
- I
- I
- 1
I
- I
- I
" \
- I
- I ~I
I
1
g I
JI'I
"-----
D
-, ~
/'
1/
. \. /'
. ./ /"
/"
Wm##m7ml$Mffi
.
.
-
"
it
~
~
t
---
-,
I,~:-
C-.
.
--- -~ ---:>. ~ ---
. if~':~rrrrrm-m~ i ' . C)
I Q(m~li tV 0
~I r ~...";;:;,, :::: ;;~' tll]
I _ i'---.. /"/' "- ://" (-~ _
-: p ~:;@ ~~ ~@ ~~,tV()Oh~
~~ 0 ~L@ ~~ "% ;), ..0- () !
1-10--.. /' /' "- "- /' /' ~
,,_,"-- /" '--"- /". v,
:;: -;:: :/ :/ :::: :::: ;>;; I' C)
; \" ,-; ~ ::::- ::~ ~ ~ ~ 0 -
. / -' '\-: >' /-" :::: ~ ;; ..
L--
.
-, \
~---~
-
-- --~
.
~
-;; --"
~ I )
o ___
'"
~
./\ /,\ '\ ,\ ')
\~(~ \ t. - ---
-_'1.__J..,.A_~--I.I.cr } .1/ I I -r.:;; - -
~
,'\ _,./ i\o~)' I
.
o
-" ~
(, ---J r-. .
i' --- \ ___ ::p ~ ---
.r;::::r~ LD1( ,.
- IY)) \." ../ '- ~ ) l )
r-~ r-I " .-/ -- '-. -- '-. -- ~ -
CD --- '\ ./
(" I J , ./ .) l 5
~J h;:; ~I I~I ~ C=J (-~) ~"
II ~ ?I~ ~~ ?i~ ~ /" ~\" ;If-/2,t
.
,
.
,
.
I
1- 1
~I
I
\-
I .~
I 1-
L-
I I [
I I ~
I \=
I I ~ I
11=
I-
I I~
I I~
- I
I II
\ 1=
I~I=-
I~I:: I
'" - I
,-'
~I=
\01=
I[
I 1
-!-.- -
1 .
I[
I I:: I
- I
INFORMATION MEMO
~H~2-
-
August 1, 1994
File No: DS-030
.
FROM:
Honorable Mayor and City Council
John Goss, City Manager
John P. Lippitt, Director of Public Works ')PLj'-JC:-
Bill Gustafson, Transit Coordinator 13 c:-
TO:
VIA:.
VIA:
SUBJECT: Additional Information on Southwestern College Transit Facility
Supplemental information was requested on Item 20 for the August 2, 1994 council
meeting, the report on Joint Meeting between City Council and Southwestern College
Board to discuss Southwestern College transit facility project. In that report, Transit staff
estimates (Attachment SA) that the net cost increase to maintain the existing CVT service
level at the College proposed transit facility site would be approximately $304,000 annually
based on FY 1994.95 operating costs. It was requested that Transit staff develop one or
more options that would result in no cost increase for CVT based on the College preferred
facility location.
While staff does not recommend either of these two options, they do attempt to respond
to Council's request by presenting two possible CVT service change alternatives that would
involve no additional cost to serve a transit facility near the proposed College Library/
Learning Resource Center. Both options involve CVT service reductions to accomplish this
objective. Option 1 reduces service frequency on Route 709 and restructures Route 711.
Option 2 adds 2 buses to Route 709 to maintain current service frequency, restructures
Route 711 and eliminates about 65,740 annual CVT miles by reducing service on Routes
701, 703, and 705.
Council should also be aware that staff developed these options in a short time period.
They are meant to show only two cost reduction approaches that could be evaluated
further.
Option 1
CVT route structure under Option 1 is shown on Attachment 1. The following is a
summary of the service changes for each of the four existing CVT routes serving
Southwestern College, including cost and service impacts.
1. Route 704:
No change to existing service.
/f-/~l
Southwestern College Transit Facility
-2-
August 2, 1994
2. ,Route 705:
Terminate route at new SWC transit facility; elimineoteaervice on Otay Lakes Road,
Gotham and Rutgers Streets.
Retain current frequency of approximately 40 minutes.
Annual cost savings estimated at $37,500.
3. Route 709:
Restructure route to serve SWC transit facility, Eastlake High School/Library, and
terminate at intersection of East H Street and Eastlake Parkway.
Reduce frequency from current 30 minutes peak/45 minute off-peak to 1 hour.
Annual estimated cost increase of $65,700.
4. Route 711
Terminate at SWC transit facility; eliminate service to Eastlake area (Eastlake area
service provided by Route 709)
Current service frequency of approximately 1 hour and 20 minutes improve to 1
hour.
Annual estimated cost savings of $85,000.
5. Annual estimated total cost savinlZS is $57.500 or about 21,300 miles based on
current CVT total operating cost.
Option 2
Under option 2 CVT Routes 704, 705, and 711 would be the same and described in Option
1. However, two buses would be added to Route 709 in order to maintain the current
service frequency. The following is a summary of estimated changes and impacts.
1. Route 704 (Same as Option 1)
2. ,Route 705 (Same as Option 1)
S. Route 709
Maintain current 30 minute peak/45 minute off-peak frequency. Restructure Route
as under Option 1.
, f-/3iJ
Southwestern College Transit Facility
-3-
August 2, 1994
Estimated annual cost increase is $300,000, including $250,000 operating cost, and
annual depreciated cost over 15 years of $50,000 for two new buses.
.
4. Route 711 (Same as Option 1)
5. Total annual estimated cost increase is $177.500.
6. Estimated annual cost increase under this option of $177,500 is 65,740 miles based
on CVT total operating cost of $2.70 or about 5.5% of total CVT system annual
miles. In order to make up this cost increase, staff looked at reducing service on
a number of routes. Although staff has not had time to do a detailed analysis,
following is an example of some potential service cuts that could be evaluated
further.
Eliminate Route 705 Sunday service: 14,200 annual miles
F,liminate four evening trips on Route 701: 22,000 annual miles. (The last trip on
Route 701 would depart H Street station at 8:00 pm instead of 10:00 pm.)
Route 703: Eliminate two evening trips for a savings of 11,000 miles. (The last
trip would depart H Street at 7:45 pm instead of 10:00 pm.)
The balance of the mileage could be made up by reducing Route 701 weekend
service (Saturday and Sunday) from current 30 minutes to 1 hour frequency.
In addition, listed below for your information is a current ridership boarding and
deboarding from Southwestern College from CVT Routes 704, 705, 709, and 711. This
data was collected by SANDAG in Fall 1993. This data shows that total College ridership
for these four routes is 1,420 or approximately 47% of total ridership for these four routes.
Southwestern College Routes
Daily Data from FY 1993/94 Passenger Counts
Route # IT 1993/94 Route College
Trips to At Southwestern College Daily Ridership
SWC One OOs Total Total Percentage
704 22 370 329 699 1,048 66.70%
705 26 95 104 199 1,007 19.76%
709 20 164 245 409 874 46.80%
711 13 66 47 113 212 53.30%
Totals 81 695 725 1,420 3,141 46.64%
WIIG:S8
M,\BOKB\ENOINZD\IIILLO'BWCllOOBE
/ f- /3/
. .
- ~~
" -~\.
~ ~IJ J-
~ !I
~ ~!~
t: in ~I ~~
Ita..
~ ji
II
~; ~ct
illra
Ira. l!IIii~fI)
:+,' ~!t
rI' ., .& -~i Cbfl)e~
floO (I)~J;!
8 fI).tCbi
- ! ... ~o
-
-
I!l _ :15==
-=- 0 (I) 0
III) -==- a: 0
,..........
::::::$:~
.... .;.;.
.'.Ji'
....::.:?-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
/,1- /3,2
tf)
~
~
~
t
. ..
~ .
.! ~
> u
ID
.
" ~
C ..
. -
.. :t
.
"
o
iii.
.
.
..
.
~
o
...
..
.Ii
of
.
...
~2
/%,-,(33
-gi.\\ G-
MEMORANDUM
August 15, 1995
File # DS.{)3Q
~
TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
VIA: John Goss, City Manager
John P. Lippitt, Director of Public Works ~
FROM: Bill Gustafson, Transit Coordinator
SUBJECT: Status of Southwestern College Transit Center Project
As Council is aware, staff has been working with the County and College staff over the last few
months to revisit the Southwestern College Transit Center. The staffs have been looking at
expanding the current transit stop area that is adjacent to the Administration Building. On July
19, 1995 a meeting was held at Southwestern College to discuss the Transit Center project.
Attending the meeting were staff representatives from Southwestern College, the City of Chula
Vista, and the County of San Diego. The attached concept plan for the Transit Center was
accepted by all parties. This plan accommodates six buses and essentially expands and improves
the bus stop location on the Southwestern College Campus that CVT has been using for many
years.
Southwestern College President, Joe Conte, presented this concept plan to the College Board of
Directors at its meeting on Wednesday, August 9, 1995. According to John Wilson, Southwestern
College Director of Business & Operations, the Board concurred with the proposed location with
the condition that sound proofmg in certain building windows near new bus stalls be incorporated
into the project. The next step is to develop a three-party agreement among the County. College
and City for project implementation, which will include construction, operation and maintenance
of the Transit Center. The staff of the three entities will meet soon to discuss the agreement. The
tentative schedule is to bring an agreement to the Southwestern College Board at its September
13, 1995 meeting.
In Spring 1992, a three-party agreement for construction, operation, and maintp.1]aDCC of a Transit
Center at Southwestern College was approved by the Southwestern College Board. This
agreement was brought to Council in May 1992 for approval, but was not approved because of
objections to the Transit Center site location from area residents. This site was located on Otay
Lakes Road between the Gotham and Elmhurst Street entrances to the College. The major
components of that agreement specified the following pertaining to each of the three parties to the
,
/J- 13-1
Southwestern College Transit Center
-2-
August IS, 1995
agreement:
County
Contribute a maximum of $900,000 in TDA funds for Transit Center development.
Act as the lead agency for project implementation including planning and construction.
Southwestern Colle~e
Dedicate real property for the Transit Center to the City of Chula Vista.
Pay for utilities (electrical and water) after Transit Center completion.
Be responsible for daily routine maintenance in cleaning up the Transit Center including
trash pick up, landscape maintenance, and remove stains/spills from structure services.
~
Authorize County to claim up to $250,000 of City of Chula Vista TDA Article 4.0 funds
for Transit Center Development, if needed, after expenditure of $900,000 in County
funds.
Be responsible for major maintenance, repair and operation of the Transit Center,
including damage to structure, graffiti removal and tree trimming. Costs associated with
these repair or maintenance items would be covered by City of Chula Vista TDA Article
4.0 funds.
Maintain insurance or self-insured responsible for negligent maintenance and operation of
the completed facility.
Although the staffs of the City, County, and Southwestern College have not yet discussed the
specific details of the project implementation agreement, the 1992 agreement will be used as a
basis for the new agreement.
A tentative schedule for implementing the project is:
. Au~stlSl:.Ptember 1995 - approval of agreement to implement Transit Center project
. NovemberlDecember 1995 - finalize project specifications and bid documents
.
JanuaIYlFebruary 1996-
advertise and award construction contract
. Summer 1996 - construct project
Of the original $900,000 the County allocated for this project, approximately $720,000 remains.
When the cost estimate for this project is completed, we will know if the $720,000 is sufficient
to construct the Transit Center. If additional funds are needed, City staff may recommend to
Council that City of Chula Vista, Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 4.0 funds be
used to supplement the County of San Diego funds budgeted for the project as proposed in the
1992 agreement.
/1- /.3:;-
Southwestern College Transit Center
-3-
August 15, 1995
Staff will keep Council informed on the status and progress of the project. The agreement
between the agencies will need to be approved by Council, which is scheduled for September.
(F:\bomc\eneillee'l'\BILLG\tnDcDU .80)
/1-/3,0
Minutes
October 3, 1995
"age 2
.
8. RESOUITION 18051 ADOPTING NEGATIVE DECLARATION 15.95-30; APPROVING THE
CLOSURE OF CENTER STREET BETWEEN THIRD A VENUE AND CHURCH A VENUE ON THURSDA Y
AFTERNOONS BETWEEN 2:00 P.M. AND 7:00 P.M. FOR A FARMERS' MARKET SPECIAL EVENT
SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS; AND WAIVING BUSINESS LICENSE FEES FOR THE VENDORS
PARTICIPATING IN THE SPECIAL EVENT. 011 812/94, Council approved the closure of Third Avenue
between oEo Street and Davidson Avenue for a one year period to accommodate a Farmers' Marlcet on Thursday
aftemOODS which is spoosored hy the Downtown Business Association (DBA). 10 July oflhis year, the DBA Board
of Directors evaluated the Marlcet operation and reevaluated its location and voted to relocate the Marlcet to Ceoter
Street east of Third Avenue for the 1996 MUOn. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of
Commuoity Developmeot) .
9.A. RESOLUTION 18053 WAIVING CONDITION NUMBER 38 OF RESOLUTION 17618 APPROVING
THE TENT A TIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR TRACT 88-3A, EASTLAKE SOUTH GREENS - 011 12/6/94,
Council approved the Tentative Subdivision Map for Tract 95-01. EastLake South Greens. Unit 27, known as
Fieldstone Crest. 011 7/18/89. Council also approved the Tentative Subdivision Map for Tract 88-3. EostLake
Greeos. 011 8/16/94, Council approved an amendment to the southerly portion of said EastLake Greens tentative
map. desiJDated as EastLake South Greens. Tract 8S-3A. Staff recommends approval of the resolutions. (Director
of Public Works)
B. RESOLUTION 18054 APPROVING FINAL MAP AND SUBDMSION IMPROVEMENT
AGREEMENT FOR TRACT 95-01 EASTLAKE SOUTH GREENS, UNIT 27, FIELDSTONE CREST,
ACCEPTING ON BEHALF OF THE PUBLIC THE PUBLIC STREETS DEDICATED ON SAID MAP,
REJECTING ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA THE OPEN SPACE LOTS GRANTED ON
SAID MAP, ACCEPTING THE EASEMENTS GRANTED ON SAID MAP WITHIN SAID SUBDIVISION
C. RESOLUTION 18055 APPROVING SUPPLEMENTAL SUBDMSION IMPROVEMENT
AGREEMENT REQUIRING DEVELOPER TO COMPL YWITH CERT AINUNFULFn..LED CONDITIONS
OF RESOLUTIONS NmmER 17749 AND 15200 APPROVING A TENT A TlVE MAP FOR PARCEL R-27,
KNOWN AS FIELDSTONE CREST, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAME
~. RESOLUTION ]8056 APPROVING AGREEMENT AMONG THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, .~
~~UTHWESTERN COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTR]CT AND CITY OF CHULA VJST A FOR It\
CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION OF THE SOUTHWESTERN COLLEGE BUS
STOP IMPROVEllIENT PROJECT -The agreement specifies the responsibilities for construction and maintenance
of the Bus Stop Improvement Project. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works)
Pulled rrom the Consent Calendar.
. Thomas Davis. 1657 Gotham Street, Chula Vista, CA, feU Southwestern College should be served' by the bus
lines in Chula Vista, but he objected to the method by which the decision was being made. At one time there was
a petition siJDed by over 300 people in opposition to the location or the bus stnp. The agroomeot before Council
was not brought to the residents altetttion and only a rew people had been notified that it was on the agenda. He
did not feel $650,000 of tax payers money was DOt a minor improvement. 011 2122/93, the Board directed the
President of the College to participate in negotiatinns with the City but specified where they wanted the bus stop
and the proposal before Council was not that location. He requested the item be postpoDed until there was a clear
definition of what the Board'a position was and include the residents in the process.
Mayor Horton stated she had worked with Mr. Cooti and it was her understanding that the Board appmved the
proposal before Council.
Mr. Lippitt gave a brief history of the project and process utilized. Mr. Conti had taken the item to his Board and
final action on the allreement was scheduled on 10/11/95. Southwestern College had not notified the property
owners regarding their actions
Bill Gustafson, Transit Director, informed Council ~t aU the people that spoke at the public hearing in 1992 had
been notified of the 10/3/95 -'inll' That included aU the homeowners on Otay Lakes Road directly acroSS the
street from the coUege. The proposed lite before Council was the first choice in October, 1992 by a group of
/Y-/37
. Minutes
October 3, 1995
PaEe 3
individuals which included residents of the oeil:hborhood, city/county staff, MTDB, and Colleee represeotalives.
II had taken three years to implement the proposal. II was an expaosioo of the existine bus stop locatioo 00 campus.
Mr. Davis stated a College representative had informed him that they had oot chaneed the positioo taken in 1993.
The item was 00 the 8/9/95 aeenda as a President's Report item at which time no CODIIDeDt was made. He fell it
was the City's and Board's oblieatioo to ootify the residents.
. Robert F. Kelley, 875 Otay Lakes Road, Chula Vista, CA, stated he objected to the secrecy. He questiooed
if the staff parkinelot at the froot of the school would be expanded.
Mr. Gustafsoo respooded that the existine facility where the buses stopped, by the circular road OD campus, would
be expanded. The frootlot woilld oot be expanded.
Couocilmember Rindone stated it had been a contentious issue for a lone time. He complimented the Southwestern
College Board and Mr. Conti for reviewing all alternatives and considerine both the College and City interests.
He had originally pulled the item from the Consent Aeenda due to tbe resideots coocerns, aestbetic impacts, etc.
and be felt those issues bad beeo addressed. He questiooed whether Chula Vista Transit would be addine addiliooal
buses for routes serving Southwestern College and eastern Chula Vista.
Mr. Gustafsoo responded that the potential was there to add routes to serve eastern Chula Vista within the oext
several years.
RESOLUTION 18056 OFFERED BY COUNCILMEMB::R RINDONE, reading of the text was waived.
CoUDcilmember Moot questioned if there was a reason why those previously involved had oot beeo ootified.
Mr. Gustafson respooded that those individuals at the public hearinE in 1992 and those participatine in Ibe two
meetings in 10/92 were ootified. Site 6A, which was before Council for approval, had been identified at Ibe first
priority site at that time.
VOTE ON RESOLUTION 18056: approved unanimously.
10.1 RESOLUTION 18063 AUTHORIZING A DEFERRAL OF TRIPS FOR FUTURE CITY FACILITIES
IN RANCHO DEL REY AND ASSIGNING THOSE TRIPS TO THE PROPOSED YMCA ON PASEO
RANCHERO _ The YMCA is proposing to construct a new facility on Pas.eo Ranchero to serve resideots. II was
determioed that the facility bad oot been I:iven any trip assienments in previous studies and an enviroomeotal impact
may result from the additional trips. The YMCA is requesting the City consider offseuing, on a temporary basis,
the traffic eenerated from the new facility aeainst future traffic from the fire stations and library located within the
aame traffic analysis zone. An assienment of trips would allow the YMCA to prepare a mitieated negative
declaratioo and to proceed with the desien review of the Dew building. Staff recDDllDeDds approval of the
resolutioo. (Director of Public Works and Director of Plaonine)
. . END OF CONSENT CALENDAR · ·
PUBLIC HE....RINGS ....ND REL....TED RESOLUTIONS ....ND ORDIN....NCES
II. PUBLIC HE....RING CONSIDERING V....CATION OF A PORTION OF ORANGE A VENUE ALONG
THE FRONT....GE OF DON LUIS MOBILE ESI'ATES AT Ul ORANGE AVENUE - 00 9/12/95, Council
declared its iotention to vacate an excess portion of Oranee Avenue rieht-of-way alonl: the frontaee of the Don Luis
Mobile Estates mobile bome park and set 10/3/95 as the date for the public hearinl:. Staff recommends the Duhlic
hearin2 be continued to 10110/95. (Director of Public Works)
This beine the time and place as advertised. the public hearine was declared open.
MSC (PadillalHorton) to continue the public bearing to the meeting of 10/1 0/!l5, approved 4-0-1 with Moot
absent.
.)
/ S. - /.3.f
EXH;8,T IJ
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item '0
Meeting Date 1013/95
ITEM TITLE: Resolution '1105 fD Approving Agreement Among the County
of San Diego, Southwestern Community College District and City of
Chula Vista for Construction, Maintenance and Operation of the
Southwestern College Bus Stop Improvement Project
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public wor~
REVIEWED BY: City Manager (4/5ths Vote: Yes_No.X"'>
At its meeting on February 20, 1990, Council approved an agreement among the County of San
Diego, Southwestern College and City of Chula Vista for a Southwestern College Transit
Center Feasibility Study. This study determined that a transit center at Southwestern College
would be both feasible and warranted to provide more convenience and accessible public
transportation service to the College and to eastern Chula Vista. The study recommended a
facility adjacent to Otay Lakes Road on the College campus between the Gotham and Elmhurst
Streets entrances to the campus. The Southwestern College Board of Directors approved this
site in Spring 1992. On May 5, 1992 this site was considered and rejected by Council due to
opposition from area residents and impacts on the landscaping in front of the College.
Since May 1992 the College, City and County have been working together to fmd an alternate
mutually agreeable site. The staffs of the three parties have agreed to expand the existing bus
stop area on the College campus that Chula Vista Transit (CVT) has been using for many
years. This location and conceptual expansion is shown in Attachment I to the proposed
agreement. In addition, as indicated in the attached letter (Exhibit 1) from Southwestern
College President, Joseph Conte to Mayor Horton, the College Board approved the conceptual
site plan for the project at its meeting on August 9, 1995. Since this proposal essentially is an
expansion and enhancement of the existing bus stop area, all three parties have suggested that
this project be referred hereafter to as the Southwestern College Bus Stop Improvement Project.
The estimated cost of the project is $500,000, including contingencies. The total design and
construction cost of this project would be paid for by County of San Diego Transportation
Development Act (TDA) funds.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve agreement among County of San Diego,
Southwestern Community College District and City of Chula Vista for the construction,
maintenance, and operation of the Southwestern College Bus Stop Improvement Project.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
/%-/39
Page 1, Item~
Meeting Date 1013/95
DISCUSSION: The bus stop improvement project at Southwestern College would serve
two main purposes: improve current and future CVT service to the College; and function as
a transfer point for CVT routes operating in the area east of Southwestern College. The
proposed project expands the current bus loading area that accommodates 3 buses to an area
for 6 buses. Also included are landscaping, passenger amenities (such as shelters and benches),
and accessibility improvements consistent with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
,
The agreement authorizes the County to proceed with fmal design and construction of the
project and defmes maintenance and operation responsibilities between the College and the City
once the project is completed. Because of anticipated disruption to traffic circulation on
campus during project construction, the College has requested that construction take place
during Summer 1996. In order to meet this schedule, it is necessary that this agreement be
approved by all three parties in October 1995. If Council approves this agreement, the
Southwestern College Board of Directors will consider the agreement at its meeting on
Wednesday, October II, 1995, and the Board of Supervisors will consider the agreement later
in October.
The major components of the agreement are:
Countv will:
contribute up to $900,000 in TDA funds for project development
act as lead agency for design and construction.
Collelle will:
be responsible for daily routine maintenance and cleaning of the site, including trash
pickup, landscape maintenance and removal of stains, spills and graffiti from structure
surfaces.
pay for utilities (electriclwater) after project completion.
City will:
be responsible for major maintenance and repair of the facility, including damage to
structures.
In addition, under Section TIC (page 4), the College grants the City a license for access to the
site for bus operations, major maintenance and repair of project structures as long as it is
mutually agreeable to both parties. City staff requested the College either grant an "irrevocable
license" or a license for access to the site for a specific time period of ten years in order to
ensure transit access to the facility and to assure an adequate time in which to amortise the
County's investment. The College declined this change. The County, which will be funding
the project construction, will accept the agreement as currently written, without the change
requested by the City. Although City staff would have preferred this additional languase
regarding the license, it is not an essential component of the agreement. As also indicated in
/!S- /~()
Page 3, Item~
Meeting Date 10/3/95
Section IIC, this project is mutually beneficial both to the College and to Chula Vista Transit
(CVT). Since the College requested the expansion of the current bus stop area for this project,
it is unlikely that a situation would arise in which the College would deny the City or CVT
access to the site for transit service.
In summary, the County will construct the project, the College will be responsible for on-going
maintenance, and the City will be responsible for major maintenance and repair if needed. The
project will be designed to provide improved bus service to the College and eastern Chula
Vista with low on-going maintenance costs. The project will provide 6 bus bays, 3 shelters,
approximately 16 benches, and landscaping. Shelters will be large covered structures without
side panels to minimize frequent maintenance and to discourage graffiti. The physical concept
and function are similar to the bus stop facilities at the "E" and "H" Street Trolley Stations.
FISCAL IMPACT:
1) The total estimated cost of the Southwestern College Bus Stop Improvement Project is
5500,000, which includes design and construction. The County of San Diego has
programmed 5900,000 for this project. Approximately 5250,000 has been spent on this
project since its inception; therefore, approximately 5650,000 remains for
implementation.
2) Costs associated with major maintenance and repair at the completed facility will be
funded by City of Chula Vista IDA Article 4.0 funds. It is difficult to estimate an
annual cost for repairs, since repairs may be needed only infrequently. For example,
during the 14 years that the "H" Street station has been in operation, the bus shelters
at the Transit Center area have been repaired 4 times. Based on the projected TDA
allocation projected for the City of Chula Vista during the next five years, there will
be sufficient funds to pay for repair costs that might occur.
File No. DS030/037
Exhibit 1:
Exhibit 2:
Letter Dated August 15, 1995 from Joseph Conte to Mayor Horton
Site Plan
(M:~.030.w...)
/f-iLI/
<<~
Southwestern
College
EXH/IJ/TI
-
ill ~(;~OW~ ~!
AIJ; ? I 1995 .~
COUNCil Off ICES
(111'1 A VISTA C.
Govemlng loard
Au!;!!e Bareno
G. GordOn Brownin!;!. D.M.D
Jerry J. Grtlfi1h
Morio N8vas--Parmon
JudV 5chUenb8tg
JOseph M. Come
5upeIlnlendenlfP,elident
August 15, 1995
The Honorable Shirley Horton, Mayor
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 9f012
Dear Mayor Ho;!o'n:\~ .
In the event~u have not yet been made aware, the Goveming Board of
Southwes(ern College, upon my recommendation, has approved the last jointly
developed plan for an on-campus Transit Center.
County, city, and college representatives appear to be in agreement with the
proposed plan. I assume the City Council will follow a similar action to the
College Board's.
,
~
oseph M. Conte
uperintendenVPresident
\...
JMC:RG
9CO Otay Lakes Rood . Chula VIsta. CA 91910 . (619) 421.6700 FAX (619) 482-6413 . Southwes1em Community College Dlstrtct
/ff- Ff~
~
uW1d .~JS ~~.rO~d ~u.w.^o~dmI do~S ana .1.110~ u~.~a.^Q~nos
1 2u."II~..2V.
I ,'~1~1~ \
./ "~'\\\,0. \\\\\\\\T T T
I ~.~ - r"
:. '~'\ r '\ '\
. :\ 1111,. (WI-
i I
I
~:, '"
i .a'~~ .
~' ~-.
. .
~'
-
/ f-/V
0-
W
'w
10.
~
I
s
J
W
-J
..
U
VI
. .~' ~
.
@)
"i ~
" CB})
.....
'.. -=
@
~ 0
....
'=t:
~ C
. ) b
@>
+'
C/Ii)
G\!)
~
J::.
+'
-.J !j;~~r:r:;: I L :2J
e
tII\\\U:I1\11\U\\\\\\\\1J W
\
I
\
(
I J
J
I
r.! J
11 1:'
0. i!
ftI ..'
...1
::!: II
>-
eD
~
'+QUNrTL AC'...ENDA STATEMENT
, -
Item_
Meeting Date 4/9/96
ITEM TITLE: Resolution Approving Amendment to Agreement between the
County of San Diego, Southwestern Community College District, and the
City of Chula Vista for the construction, maintenance, and operation of the
Southwestern College Bus Stop Improvement Project
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works
REVIEWED BY: City Manager
(4/Sths Vote: YesX-No_)
At its meeting on October 3, 1995, Council approved a resolution approving an agreement among
the County of San Diego, Southwestern College and the City of Chula Vista for construction,
maintenance, and operation of the Southwestern College Bus Stop Improvement Project (copy of
the agenda statement and agreement are attached as Exhibit A). In FY 1990-91, the County of San
Diego programmed $900,000 for this project, and over $270,000 to date has been spent on planning
and design work, leaving an estimated $630,000 for implementation. Final design of the transit
facility has been completed; the total project cost, including contingencies, is estimated at
$1,350,000, leaving a potential shortfall of $450,000 (this estimate is presented in Exhibit B). The
actual project cost will be known after the receipt of bids for the construction contract. Both
Southwestern College and the County have indicated that they have no additional funds to contribute
to this project; therefore, the County has requested that the City ofChula Vista authorize expenditure
of a maximum of $450,000 in its TDA Article 4.0 funds to supplement the estimated project
shortfall.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve the resolution amending the agreement and
authorize the County of San Diego to claim a maximum of $450,000 of City of Chula Vista
Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 4.0 funds if needed to supplement the $900,000 in
County funds for the Southwestern College Bus Stop Improvement Project.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
As indicated on the first page of Exhibit B, the construction contract for the project is estimated at
$593,375. Additional project costs include: soundproofing windows in existing College buildings
facing the bus stop project ($25,000); project inspection and administration ($118,675); plan
preparation and final design ($110,611); and contingencies ($122,832). For Council's information,
in January 1996, the County completed a transit facility at Grossmont College which is similar to
the one planned for Southwestern College. The total Grossmont College facility cost was
$1,166,379 and the construction contract was $685,000.
/ y- //;/1"
Page 2, Item
Meeting Date 4/9/96
County staff has indicated that this estimate of$I,350,000 for the project is conservative, and that
the project cost should be less than this estimate. However, it is the County's policy to secure
funding for projects before advertising for bids for construction. The County has indicated it has no
additional funds to supplement the $900,000 committed to this project in FY 1990-91. Southwestern
College is donating the land for the bus facility and has also agreed to pay for utilities and daily
routine maintenance after project completion. The College has indicated it does not have funds to
contribute to project construction. Therefore, it appears the only additional funding source for this
project is the City ofChula Vista's TDA Article 4.0 funds.
For Council's information, the original project site location on Otay Lakes Road had an estimated
total cost in 1992 of$I,150,000, which would have required the City contributing up to $250,000
in its TDA Article 4.0 funds to supplement the $900,000 ITom the County. Since this original
proposed location was not implemented, additional costs were incurred between 1992 and 1995 due
to evaluation of alternative sites, and development of a plan and detailed drawings for the new
location.
In addition, on Page 2 of the attached agenda statement (Exhibit A), staff pointed out to Council that
in the agreement, which Council approved on October 3, 1995 (Section lIe), the College grants the
City a license for access to the transit facility as long as it is mutually agreeable to both parties.
Although the City Attorney would have preferred language that grants the City an irrevocable
license, the College declined this change. However, since the College requested the transit facility
in this location, it is unlikely that a situation would arise in which the College would deny the City
or CVT access to the site.
In summary, it is staffs opinion that the Southwestern College Bus Stop Improvement Project is
important for current and future CVT operations. The facility will improve service to Southwestern
College, and also will provide a transfer point for future CVT service to the eastern Chula Vista area.
A representatives ITom the County is present at tonight's meeting to answer any questions Council
may have on this project.
FISCAL IMP ACT: The total estimated cost of the Southwestern College Bus Stop Improvement
Project is $1,350,000, which includes the construction contract, soundproofing of windows in
Southwestern College buildings, project inspection and administration, planning and design, and
project contingencies. The County of San Diego has programmed $900,000 for this project leaving
an estimated shortfall of $450,000. The contribution of up to $450,000 ofChula Vista IDA Article
4.0 funds to the Southwestern College Bus Stop Improvement Project will leave a sufficient IDA
balance through FY 1996-97 for other Cityof Chula Vista Transit Division capital and operations
projects.
The City of Chula Vista's current TDA Article 4.0 fund balance is approximately $4.8 million.
Based on the preliminary budget for next fiscal year which staff has prepared, the TDA balance
through FY 1996-97 is estimated at $1.2 million (the preliminary Transit Division Budget includes
'I ,.7.
I, - / f'-/
Page 3, Item
Meeting Date 4/9/96
a capital program of $4.2 million, which consists of $2 million as part of the $6 million hydrogen
fuel cell bus program and an additional $2.2 million to replace nine of the older CVT buses in the
fleet). Therefore, should the total amount of $450,000 be required for the Southwestern College Bus
Stop Improvement Project, the City of Chula Vista's TDA balance next fiscal year would be
approximately $771,000 ($1,221,130 - $450,000).
For Council's information, the Metropolitan Transit Development Board will request next fiscal year
additional TDA funds from each jurisdiction in its area to support regional transit services. The
estimated Regional Transit Service Fund assessment for the City of Chula Vista next fiscal year is
$319,978, an increase of 82% over the current assessment of $175,844. (The current regional
assessment has been in effect since 1985 and does not include San Diego Trolley service. As
stipulated in State Legislation, Council must approve any change to the current regional assessment.)
Staff estimates that the City of Chula Vista TDA fund balance for next fiscal year would be
approximately $627,000 assumin~ that all anticipated proiects and expenditures are implemented
including:: the FY 1996-97 Transit Division Budget which includes a $4.2 million capital program;
approval and expenditure of $450,000 for the Southwestern College Bus Stop Improvement Project;
and a Regional Transit Service Fund assessment of$319,978.
WMG:sb
File No: DS-022/DS-037
M:\HOME\ENGINEER\AGENDA \SWCFUNDS.WMG
Exhibit A - Agenda Statement dated 10/3/95
/fJ-/.L/&
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, SOUTHWESTERN COMMUNITY
COLLEGE DISTRICT AND THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION OF THE SOUTHWESTERN
COLLEGE BUS STOP IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
THIS AGREEMENT is hereby made and entered into this
day
of , 1995, by and between the COUNTY OF SAN
DIEGO, a political subdivision of the State of California, 1600
Pacific Highway, San Diego, California 92101, hereinafter referred
to as "county"; the SOUTHWESTERN COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT, a
community college district of the State of California, 900 Otay
Lakes Road, Chula Vista, California 91910, hereinafter referred to
as "College", and CITY OF CHULA VISTA, a municipal corporation of
the State of California, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, California
91910 hereinafter referred to as "City".
WITNESSETH
WHEREAS, under section 99400.5 of the California Public
utilities Code, the County has the authority to finance the
construction of multimodal transportation terminals anywhere in the
County; and
WHEREAS, the County, at the request of the College and City,
has completed a feasibility and site location study for a transit
facility at Southwestern College; and
WHEREAS, the study concluded that the Southwestern college Bus
Stop Improvement Project, hereinafter z:eferred to as the "Project",
is necessary and feasible, and the Project should be constructed;
and
WHEREAS, the Project will benefit the college by providing
more convenient and accessible public transportation for students
/1/- //;- j
and College employees; and
WHEREAS, the Project will benefit the city by facilitating .
Chula Vista Transit operations; and
WHEREAS, the study and its recommendations have been reviewed
and accepted by the College, the City and the County; and
WHEREAS, the County desires to reach agreement with the
College and the City in carrying out the responsibilities of all
parties for the financing, construction, maintenance and operation
of the Southwestern College Bus stop Improvement Project; and
WHEREAS, the Southwestern College Bus stop Improvement Project
is included for design and construction in the County's Capital
outlay Fund and the FY 1995-FY 2001 Short Range Transit Plan; and
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, the parties
agree as follows:
I. COUNTY AGREES:
A. County shall contribute Transportation Development
Act (TDA) funds in an amount not to exceed $900,000
for development and construction of the Project.
The College shall in no way be responsible for any
capital costs in conjuction with the project.
B. County shall act as lead agency for construction
and shall use its best efforts to construct or have
constructed a Bus stop Improvement at the site
depicted in Attachment 1, "Southwestern college Bus
stop Improvement Project site Plan".
C. County shall be responsible for all preliminary
2
,1- /1'/
engineering, design, preparation of environmental
documents and construction management, including -
construction engineering, inspection, and final
acceptance all of which shall be subject to final
approval by the City and the College. The
necessary work shall be performed in accordance
with the City of Chula Vista, College and County
standards.
The design shall be subject to the
approval of the college Board of Trustees and the
Chula Vista City Council. The design shall include
landscaping of the site and a six-bus bay facility
with shelters, benches and information displays.
D. The County shall be responsible for costs directly
resulting from any changes to utilities required
for the installation of the Project.
E. County agrees to submit design plans to the
Department of the state Architect for approval.
II. COLLEGE AGREES:
A. Following acceptance of construction by the county
and final approval by the City and College,
utilities (electrical and water) for the Project
operation will be paid for by the College for the
duration of bus stop operation. Water for the bus
-
stop operation will be connected to the College
water.
B. Folfowing acceptance of construction by the County
3
t'l " /;
, -//IY
and final approval by the city and the College,
College will be responsible for daily routine -
maintenance and cleaning of the Project, which
shall include but not be limited to trash pickup,
landscape maintenance (including tree trimming),
removal of stains/spills from pavement or structure
surfaces and graffiti removal.
C. The College hereby grants the City a license for
access to the site for bus operations, major
maintenance and repair of Project structures as
long as it is mutually agreeable to both parties.
III. CITY AGREES:
A. Upon execution of this Agreement, the City shall be
responsible for the major maintenance and repair of
the Project, including damage to the structures.
B. The City shall maintain insurance or self-insured
responsibility for negligent major maintenance and
operation of the completed facility, which names
the College and County as additional insureds.
C. The College, its agents, officers and employees
shall not be held liable for any claims,
liabilities, penalties, fines or for damage to any
goods,
properties or effects of any person
-
whatsoever, nor for personal injuries or deaths of
them, or to any of them, caused by or resulting
from negligent major maintenance, repair and
4
,-.1- /3-fJ
operation of the completed facility by the City,
its agents, employees or representative; the City -
further agrees to defend and indemnify and save
free and hold harmless the College and its
authorized agents, officers, and employees against
any and all foregoing liabilities and any costs and
expenses, including reasonable attorneys fees,
incurred by the College on account of any claim
therefore, including claims involving the major
maintenance, repair and operation of the Project;
and in the event that a Court of Competent
Jurisdiction should determine that the City has no
authority to provide by agreement the performance
of the services set forth above,
the city
nevertheless
agrees
to
assume
the
forgoing
obligations and liabilities by which assumption it
is intended by all parties that the City agrees to
indemnify and hold the college harmless from all
claims arising by reason of the work done by, or
any act or omission of, the City, its agents,
employees or representatives, in connection with or
in performance of the agreed upon services of work
provided for in this Agreement.
IV. IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED:
A. The County shall furnish to the college and the
City, within three months of the execution of this
5
/ 0_ '5- /
/ J / ,..
Agreement,
30
percent
conceptual
design,
preliminary plans and specifications for the
college and City review and comment. The College
and the City will have thirty days to respond with
their comments.
The County shall furnish to the
College and the City, within seven months of
execution of this Agreement, 70 percent conceptual
design, preliminary plans and specifications for
the College and City review and comment. The
College and City will have thirty days to respond
with their comments.
The final working drawings
and specifications for the Project shall be
submitted to the College and the City for their
approval within ten months of the execution this
Agreement.
The County shall, in good faith,
respond to all College and City comments.
B. The College, the City and the County anticipate
that this Agreement may, from time to time, be
modified.
All such modifications, including any
change in the responsibilities of the parties,
shall be incorporated in writing into this
Agreement by appropriate amendment(s).
C. The Superintendent/President of the College shall
-
be the contract administrator representing the
College in all matters pertaining to this
Agreement.
The Director of Public Works of the
6
-y- /6d
County shall be contract administrator for the
County in all matters pertaining to this Agreement. -
The Director of Public Works of the City of Chula
Vista
shall
be
the
contract
administrator
representing the City in all matters pertaining to
this Agreement. All are hereby authorized to make
administrative decisions to carry out the full
intent of this Agreement.
D. This Agreement shall terminate as to the County
upon
City
and
College
final
approval
of
construction on the Project. This Agreement shall
terminate between College and city upon mutual
agreement of both parties, or termination of use by
the facility as a bus stop, which ever first
occurs.
E. The County, its agents, off icers and employees
shall not be held liable for any claims,
liabilities, penalties, fines or for damage to any
goods,
properties or effects of any person
whatsoever, nor for personal injuries to or deaths
of them or any of them, caused by or resulting from
any acts omissions of the College or the City,
their agents, employees or representatives i the
-
College and the City separately and not jointly
further agree to defend and indemnify and save free
and harmless the County and its authorized agents,
7
/f- /5-1
,
F.
officers and employees against any of the foregoing
liabilities and any cost and expense incurred by -
the County on account of any claim therefore,
including improvement services, or any other work
or services done or provided to the County by the
College or the City pursuant to this Agreement; and
in the event that a court of competent jurisdiction
should determine that the College or the City has
no
authority
provide
agreement
the
by
to
performance of the hereinabove set forth services,
the College or the city separately, not jointly,
nevertheless
to
the
foregoing
agree
assume
obligations and liabilities by which assumption it
is intended by all parties that the College or the
City agree to indemnify and to hold the County
harmless from all claims arising by reason of the
work done by, or any act or omission of, the
College or the city respectively or its agents,
employees or representatives, in connection with or
in performance of the agreed upon services of work
provide for in this Agreement.
It is agreed that
the liability hereunder of the College or the city
shall not be joint and several, but shall be
.
separate unto each agent for its own actions and
the actions of its agents and employees only.
The tollege or the City, their agents, officers and
8
,/2- /39'
employees shall not be held liable for any claims,
liabilities, penalties, fines or for damage to any -
goods, properties or effects of any person
whatsoever, nor for personal injuries to or deaths
of them, or any of them, caused by or resulting
from any acts or omissions of the County, its
agents, employees or representatives; the County
further agrees to defend and indemnify and save
free and harmless the College and the City and
their authorized agents, officers and employees
against any of the foregoing liabilities and any
cost and expense, including reasonable attorneys
fees, incurred by the College or the city on
account of any claim therefore, including claims by
reason of alleged defects in engineering services,
or any other work or services done or provided to
the College or the City by the County pursuant to
this Agreement; and in the event that a court of
competent jurisdiction should determine that the
County has no authority to provide by agreement the
performance of the hereinabove set forth services,
the County nevertheless agrees to assume the
foregoing obligations and liabilities by which
assumption it is intended by all parties that the
County agrees to indemnify and to hold the College
or the city harmless from all claims arising by
9
':r- /'--=>--5
reason of the work done by, or any act or omission
of, the County, its agents, employees or
representatives, in connection with or in
performance of the agreed upon services of work
provided for in this Agreement.
G. Contractor, Contractor's subcontractors and
suppliers, if any, shall comply wi th the
Affirmative Action Program for Vendors as set forth
in Article IIIk (commencing at Section 84). of the
San Diego County Administrative Code, which Program
is incorporated herein by reference, unless
specifically exempted in accordance with the
Articles' rules and regulations.
H. Contractor will comply with the provisions of Title
VII of the civil Rights Act of ~964 (42 USC 2000,
et seq., as amended by the Equal Employment
Opportunity Act of 1972), the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act of 1976, the California Fair
Employment & Housing Act, and Board of Supervisor's
Policy C-17, in that it will not discriminate
against any individual with respect to his or her
compensations, terms, conditions, or privileges of
employment; or discriminate in any way which would
deprive any individual of employment opportunities
or otherwise adversely affect his or her status as
an employee because of such individual's race,
10
.. ~-/:f&
color,
religion,
sex,
national origin,
age,
handicap, medical condition or marital status.
I. Contractor shall ensure that services and benefits
are provided without regard to race, sex, age or
national origin in accordance with Title VI of the
civil Rights Act of 1964 (as amended). Contractor
shall comply with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation
Act of 1973, as amended (29 USC 794), pertaining to
the prohibition of discrimination in employment or
provision of services against qualified handicapped
persons under any program or activity which
receives or benefits from Federal financial
assistance.
J. Any notice required or permitted under this
Agreement may be personally served on the other
parties, by the party giving notice, or may be
served by certified mail, return receipt requested,
to the following addresses:
County:
Director, Department of Public Works
County of San Diego
5555 Overland Avenue, Building 2 (MS 0333)
San Diego, CA 92123
College: superintendent/president
Southwestern community college District
900 otay Lakes Road
Chula vista, CA 91910
City:
Director of Public Works
City of Chula vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula vista, CA 91910
11
~
f- /57
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this
Agreement to be entered into the month, day and year above-written. -
SOUTHWESTERN COMMUNITY
COLLEGE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
By
By
Joseph M. Conte
Superintendent/President
Clerk, Board of Supervisors
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
APPROVED TO FORM AND
LEGALITY BY COUNTY COUNSEL
By
By
Deputy
APPROVED TO FORM BY CITY
ATTORNEY
By
12
/~- /5 f'
'r:
I I' ",:~ '!':;
-"1","
./ ~~I:i'\;':' '\\\\\\\T ~ T
t I' '
:).i:\ -- \ -- \
.l (JWI- I l V/p ,
>-
W ...
W ;
@~ t..
3: 'i
w t
~ ...J
<[
U
'"
I
upv.....~ 16.III...WI-1
,\, ~~ ;;,; .:::
.'''' ':' ..... ..
@>
~
@>>
=
=
@
U
~
b
@)
'*"
WJ
@)
~
..if:.
'*"
:2J
@
00
~
:R... )
I~
K
.-J
li~;:;;=~;;; J L
-\\\\\-\\\\~
...~
.!!"
.<:1-
_...
" ~
--
en.
II!IIHiH
~
"
is
-
o
...J
J
.
3
i
~
-
J:; f!!
ii ,!!!.
Q:I
a. ""I
..'
IV ....
....1
::!E i!
>.
CD
~
,..=
--
IDe;
.....
:OlD
ID_
9:::: '"
~.: 'EI' ~'
, .--
~'
"'
'"
,
;r
,
I
\
~ (
I ./
.~
]
~
"
"
';,f
U~td a.JS .~arO~d .uawa^o~dmI do.S sng a2atto~ u~a.sa~4.nos
t .uaw4~~.~v.
/ f- /5Y
,:, :16.-96 ,14: 27
-
u
~
-
I-
Z
~
U
Z
::)
U
:;)
CC
l-
V)
ztO
::)~
c..:>'Cij
1:'::E
WJJ>
....0
-<
:;;E
-=
en
UJ
u.
o
~
V)
>-
-J
-<
Z
-<
U
I-
~
V)
t:3t:3~
888
~ CD C>
'0'619 694 3562
o
.....
~
CD
CD
CO)
~
.....
o
.....
N
IOOCDIO~OCD
.....8M.....~8M
M McQCO M
MIOC>COOOC>
Q)C\lIl)~,....U')t.t)
10 ~~
ilJ001
h/l I (T t1'\ ~
G.'I\ -.., \"11
EX'ffi'fJ.,'T B
-
~
0"-
;:,...
"
t"I\ "
"..
o
-
~ -
-J
~
?1. g
o-J
-< t-
I-
?1. -0 ()
0 ()I- w
N ..,
1-' ,0
WID
;:) 0::
I- V)CI)'$.c.
I- 10
() >
cr U ..
0 z w i ..
~ w C> 8 !
C> ~
..J Z
~OU:>c(V) ~ ~ a:: -
...
Z 0 :e
-Ou-z z 0 :I:
....I-ozz- ;:)
ua::wou. 0 () V)
:I:;:) C)-<V) t- V)
C)~c. t- u I ~S
;:) O~()O!:!:!a:: u ;:)
Ov)ZI-~C2!::w w ~
.., ..~~
crZ;:)Z I-...I:I: 0 a::
:J:OOO~V)~I- a:: ;:) ~
t-uV)u_w=>O c. V) i~! j
..
: ~ 13 :
/ 'y-/&V
.. 06,' 96 14: 28
:619 694 3562
~002
L."d PI_fining
U"". DaHpo
t_ftfIM;.". .",.....ee'''',.
s; ,""_-i:"'1 lAnd Planning
Statement of Opinion on Probable Construction Costs
Project:
Southwatem College Bu. Stop Improvement Facility
Chula VISta, California
eate:
March 4, 1996
Reference:
Connct Plans and Specifications, daWcl 3-1-16 for O.S.A. Review.
~L.PNo.:
111.02
The Opinion of Probable Construction Costs, as provided herein, are prepared on the basis of
Eslrilda Land Planning's qUilUfications and experience on ~nt construction projects of Similar
scope and scale.
Estrada Liind Planning has no control over costs. nor the price of labor, equipment or materials.
market conditions, nor over the Contracto~s method of pricing.
Eslrilda lilnd Planning makes no warranty, expressed or implied, as to the eccuracy of such
opinions. as compared to bid or actual construction costs.
Estnda L.and Planning, Inc.
~.
Steve Estrada, ASLA, APA
President
SEldg
533__ _300
Son 000g0. c._ 'Z107
81" 23IoO'Jq
IIiU' 81" U&-o$7I
$".
/p-/&//
,,1 06,'96 14:29
1:619 694 3562
141003
'-O"d pte"""'p
U,o." o.''SJ1'I
i..ndKe,e Al'ClIIr,.erut't
,i, ";"';..>1 Land Planning
Opinion of Probable Construction Costs
Southwestern College Bus Stop Improvement Facility
Chula Villa, Califomia
March 4. 1996
(based on Contract Plans and Specifications. dated 3-1-96 for O.SA Review)
Item Unit 01 Unit
No. Article Measure Quan. Cost Cost
1.0 MOBIUZATION LS 1 10.000 10.000.
Sub Total $10,000.
2.0 TRAFFIC CONTROL LS 1 3,000. 3,000.
Sub Total $3,000.
3.0 DEMOLITION AND SITE CLEARlNG
3.1 Sne Oemolibon. LS 1 25,000. 25,000.
3.2 Remove Existing Wall. LS 1 4.000. 4.000.
3.3 Remove ExIsting water Main. LS 1 5,000. 5.000.
3.4 Remove ExIsting Sewer Lateral. LS 1 1,000. 1.000.
3.5 Remove Existing Storm Drain. LS 1 500. 500.
Sub Total $35,500.
4.0 SURFACE IMPROVEMENTS
4.1 Pedestrian (Curb) Ramp. EA 16 500. 8,000.
4.2 6" P.C.C. Curb, Type G-1. LF 440 10. 4,400.
4.3 6" P.C.C. Curb and Gutter, Type G-2. LF 545 13. 7,085.
4.4 9" P.C.C. Pavement, Bus Zones. SF 11,630 6. 69,780,
4.5 6" Aggl1l9ate Base, Bus Zones, TN 440 20. 8.800.
4,6 6" P ,C,C. Pavtmen~ Pedestrian Zones, SF 18,880 4. 75,520,
4.7 4" Aggl1l9ate Base, Pedestrian Zones. TN 480 20. 9.600,
4.8 Reinlon;ed Conc~ Retaining Wall. SF 800 40. 32,000.
4,9 Concrete Planter Wall. LF 186 40. 7,440,
a3F__300 ;%,
Son 0iIg0. CoiIDmOo PZlO1
..8-.01<3
IIiU 51. 23s.0578
/j'- /&2
Lhi Utj, ~6 14; ~U
"0'619 694 3562
I€JUU4
----
~- ---
'.
""";~~
_.. "/--.I'''i
4.10 Concrete Sleps. lS 1 2,000. 2.000.
4.11 Cencrete Header. IF 155 5. 775.
4.12 COl1cr.te Planter WaJI at Ex. Trees LF 124 8. m
4.13 Excavation. CY 800 12. 9,600.
4.14 SUbgrade Preparation. SF 30,830 .50 15.415.
Sub Total 1251,4107.
5.0 UTIUTY IMPROVEMENTS
5.1 4" PVC Water IF 17 20. 340.
5.2 6" PVC Water. IF 27 20. 540.
5.3 8" PVC Water. IF 437 25. 10,925.
5.4 COnnect to Existing Water. LS 1 4.000. 4,000.
5.5 Relocate Existing Fire Hydr1lnt EA 2 1,000. 2,000.
5,6 Water Valve. EA 6 800. 4.800.
5,7 Stonn Drain. LF 20 20. 400.
5.8 DB 1212 Inlet SA 1 1,500. 1,500.
5.9 Relocate Inlet SA 1 1,000. 1.000.
5.10 Replace Sewer Lateral. EA 1 600 600.
5.11 5" Perforated Sch. 40 PVC Pipe. IF 200 15. 3,000.
Sub Total 121,105.
8.0 MISCELLANEOUS CONSTRUCTION
61 8' Concrete Bench. EA 8 800. 8,400.
6.2 Bus Route Marker. EA 6 600. 3,600.
6.3 Bus Route Directory. EA 1 3.500. 3,500
6.4 Trash Receptade. EA S 750. 4,500.
6.5 Raised Concrete Planter Beds. SET 3 3,000. 9.000.
6.6 Bus Sheners, induding foundatrons, EA 3 42,000. 126,000.
precast COlumns, soffits, roof panels.
misc. metal. hardware, etc.
6.7 Pedestrian Railing, per SDRSO M-24. IF 180 15. 2,700.
6.8 Steel Pest EA 4 200. 800.
-X
/j)-- /&3
':,1)6,96 14:29
'a619 694 3562
14)005
~=r;:::,-oi
Sub Total $156,500.
7.0 EI.ECTRJCAI.
7.1 12' High Walkway Lighting. EA 8 1,700, 13,800,
7.2 Bus Shelter Lighting. EA 8 925 5,550.
7.3 Vllires. Conduits, Pull Boxes. LS 1 12,000, 12,000.
PedestalS, Panel Boards,
Enclosure. etc,
Sub Total $31,150.
".0 LANDSCAPING
8.1 48" Box Tree, Standard. EA 18 1,350. 24,300.
8,2 8' BTH Palm Tree. EA 11 400. 4,400
8.3 5 Gallon Shrub. EA 618 16, 9,888,
84 Groundcover Area. LS 1 1,450 1,450.
8.5 Turf/Lawn Area. LS 1 3,225 3,225.
8.6 Soil Preparation, including SOil testings, LS 1 1.350, 1,350.
amendments, fertiliZers, mulch, fine
grading, etc.
8,7 Staking, tree drains, root barriers, etc. LS 1 1,200. 1,200.
88 Maintenance (90 days), LS 1 900. 900.
Sub Total $46,713.
9.0 IRRIGATION
9.1 lITigation System, induding site LS 1 24,000 24,000.
preparation, points of connection, valve
assemblies, controller. heads, mainlines,
laterals, bac:kftow assemblies. sleeves,
velve boxes. pull boxes, control wires.
fittings. etc.
Sub Total mOOO.
10.0 MISCELLANEOUS
10.1 Tl'IIfIic Slg".ge. LS 1 2,000, 2.000,
10,2 Signage, LS 1 4,000. 4,000.
..c:.
/d '/ / /
,'(J-/</7
'.. 06; 96 .l4: 30
'C'619 694 3562
~.:'l'C"~
"
TOTAL
Sub Total
BID AL TERNA TES
8.9
Bid Alternate No, 1
36" Bo)( TfHS
EA
<$
//f- /05
18
690. 12.420.
16.000,
$593,375.
~006
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item~
Meeting Date 4/16/96
ITEM TITLE: Resolution 18.2 & :J Denying Revocation of Encroachment Permit
No. PE-340 issued to Bettie Warren f r a fence and gate on City property
adjacent to 89 First Avenue
(4/5ths Vote: Yes_No X )
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works
City Manage~
REVIEWED BY:
Ms. Bettie Warren, owner of the property known as 89 First Avenue, recently applied for and was
granted an encroachment permit (Exhibit "H") to allow her to install chain link fencing and a gate
across a City-owned parcel, in front of her house. When the work was started, several phone calls
and a letter (Exhibit "E") were received by this departtnent from a neighbor expressing
dissatisfaction with the City for allowing a property owner to cut on access that members of the
community have enjoyed over the years.
The neighbors are petitioning for revocation of the encroachment permit. Under the standard
conditions of the permit, the Council has the right to revoke it. The conditions state that it is
revocable upon thirty (30) days written notice to the permittee. Staff is recommending against the
revocation. Residents within 1000 feet have been notified that this item is on the Council agenda.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt the subject resolution denying revocation of
Encroachment Permit No. PE-340.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: No boards or commissions actions are
necessary for this matter.
DISCUSSION:
BacklITound:
In 1959, a 40-foot-wide by approximately 850-foot-long strip ofland was granted to the City (Exhibit
"A"). It was granted in fee by the owner of the adjacent land to the east. Although the deed to the
City does not so indicate, the intention was that it would be for future street use. While it has been
a continuous practice of the City to require dedication of right-of-way or future right of way as part
of the land development process, this dedication took place approximately 37 years ago and it is
unclear whether the dedication was required as part of the subdivision of the land or was voluntary.
The City Council accepted the property, but has not named nor dedicated it as public right-of-way.
The reasons for this lack of naming and dedication are: a) This parcel has no connection to a
dedicated street at either end; and b) The width is not sufficient to construct a street which will meet
our minimum standards. Consequently, the property has remained simply a parcel of land owned
by the City and not currently open for public use.
1'- J
Page 2, Item I'
Meeting Date 4/16/96
The south end of the subject strip of City-owned land terminates about 135 feet north of "D" Street,
separated by a parcel currently owned by Teodulo Garcia and known as 99 "D" Street. Two vacant
parcels owned by the Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency are located at the north end of this parcel.
The south levee of the Sweetwater Flood Control Channel is beyond the parcels to the north. The
levee is a popular place for walkers and joggers. One of the access routes to the levee has been
through Mr. Garcia's property, along the City's parcel and through the Redevelopment Agency's
land.
Ms. Bettie Warren and her late husband purchased property which abuts the City's land in the
vicinity of its southerly end (Exhibit "A"). The Warrens built a home in the early 1960s. 89 First
A venue was the address assigned to the property, since it fronted on the City-owned parcel, and, if
ever dedicated as street right-of-way, the parcel would become known as First A venue. No other
dwellings have been built in the area, although six other parcels abut the City's land and are
otherwise landlocked. If any of the other property owners were to build on their land at this time,
they would be required to install a.c. pavement from "D" Street to their parcel. At the time the
Warrens built their dwelling, the City had no such requirements.
Some time after moving in, the Warrens installed a chain link fence and gate across the gravel
driveway (Exhibit "B") to block entrance to vehicles. This fence was placed on Mr. Garcia's
property. Pedestrians and bicyclists were able to get around the end of the fence, when the gate was
locked. However, motorized vehicles were blocked.
Then in March of 1995, Ms. Warren, tiring of cars hot rodding, children on bicycles, pedestrians
walking their pets (and not cleaning up after them), transients attracted by the remoteness of the area,
and generally concerned for her safety, asked permission from Mr. Garcia to erect a new fence and
gate across the driveway on his property, and that permission was granted. This new fence location
allowed connection to a neighhor' s fence to the west to hlock all access. Ms. Warren was also
concerned that if the Fun Center were to be approved this area would hecome more of a travel way
to that facility from the neighborhood.
Shortly after this fence was erected, the City received a letter dated 3/6/95 from Ms. Susan Luzzaro
of 95 D Street, complaining of the blocked access (Exhibit "C"). She stated that free passage had
been enjoyed for years hy many of the area's residents, including teachers at Rosebank Elementary
School taking their classes on Held trips to the Sweetwater Valley.
When the fence was brought to City staff's attention, it was discovered that it also crossed a public
sewer easement located on Mr. Garcia's property (Exhibit "D"). The City advised him hy letter
dated 4/10/94 that he must either remove the fence and gate from our easement or apply for an
encroachment permit. He opted to have the entire fence and gate removed by Ms. Warren. She
sued Mr. Garcia for the cost of installing and removing the fence and gate, claiming she had his
permission to place them on his property. Ms. Warren lost the civil suit and had to have the fence
removed.
/9'';'
Page 3, Item
Meeting Date 4/16/96
I'
Subsequent to that action, Ms. Warren applied for an encroachment permit from the City to place
the fence and gate across the City-owned parcel. Staff investigated the situation and the legality of
granting the permit was administratively reviewed. (This type of encroachment may be approved
by the City Engineer in accordance with Section 12.28.030 of the CYMC.) The permit was granted,
conditioned to include the requirements that a Knox Box be attached for emergency and sewer crews
to pass and that Ms. Warren provide keys to the owners of the landlocked parcels to the north of
her. The Knox box has also been installed.
Ms. Warren requested the City's Permits Engineer go to the site to show her where she should install
the fence. Ms. Warren was advised that it would be her or her fence installer's responsibility to
determine the locations of any property lines and that if the fence was located on any private
properties other than the City-owned parcel, permission from the owners would be necessary. She
was also told that the only sure way to locate the property lines was to have it surveyed by a licensed
surveyor, and that such survey work was the applicant's responsibility.
On January 11,1996, the permit was issued and shortly thereafter, Ms. Warren had the installation
started (Exhibit "B"). Almost immediately, this department received one telephone call from Ms.
Luzzaro and two from Mr. Luzzaro. In those conversations they expressed their displeasure with
the City's actions and implied that the City did not take the public's concerns into consideration when
issuing the permit to Ms. Warren. The basic underlying complaint from all of the neighbors appears
to be that they have had access to the river via this route in the past and that they should be allowed
to have that access continue.
A letter was submitted by the Luzzaros on February 12, 1996, (Exhibit "E") in which they protested
the issuance of the encroachment permit. It was stated in the letter that the City's decision should
have been based on input from the community and that the permit should not have been granted
without first holding a public hearing. A public hearing is not required for issuance of an
encroachment permit, although in the future staff will holding an "administrative" hearing similar
to those held by the Zoning Administrator for zone variances. Notice was provided to all property
owners abutting the City owned parcel who would need access through the gate to get to their
property .
Mr. and Mrs. Luzzarro' s letter rderred to the City's action (granting the permit) as violating "the
property rights of others." Legally, citizens do not have the right to pass through private property
without first having an easement granted to them by the property owner. Prescriptive rights might
be obtainable through court action by the citizens, but Mr. Garcia has not granted an easement for
public access and may restrict passage at any time. Any decisions regarding prescriptive rights that
may be claimed by those opposed to the issuance of the permit would have to be made in civil court.
The letter also mentions that the fence encroaches into private property belonging to Edward Malago
at 83 Minot Avenue and that the Malagos object to the fence being on their property. Ms. Warren
refutes this in her letter to Clifford Swanson dated February 29, 1996 (see Exhibit "F"). Mr.
/9'J
Page 4, Item
Meeting Date 4/16/96
I'
Malago has submitted a letter (Exhibit "G") objecting to the issuance of the permit and retilting the
accuracy of the sketch accompanying the encroachment permit issued to Ms. Warren. In order to
make a proper determination on this issue a property survey would be necessary. While it is a
standard condition of encroachment permits issued by the City to require any surveys needed to
properly carry out the permit to be done by the permittee, we do not believe one was necessary
relative to crossing the City property because it does not matter exactly where the fence crosses this
long strip of land. Because of that, we have not done such a survey and do not know whether or
not the fence encroaches onto Mr. Malago' s property. The encroachment permit was granted to
allow the fence to be installed across City property only, and not over any other private lands. Mr.
Malago's proper course of action should he believe that the fence was installed on his land is to seek
redress in Civil Court.
Findin!!s:
It is evident to staff that the Luzzaros (and other opponents of the fence) believe the strip of City-
owned property is there for all citizens to use, when, in fact, it has never been dedicated for public
use. At this time it is merely a parcel of land under City ownership. Until such time as sufficient,
additional land is granted to provide an adequate width in which to build a street, plus allowing a
physical connection to another dedicated street, staff will not recommend that Council name and
dedicate it as a public street.
Ms. Warren commented that vehicles and many children on bicycles use the driveway. Also, the
Luzzaros' letter states: "That road is used by hundreds of bicyclists, birdwatchers, joggers per
month." Up to now, there have been no particular problems with the current use of the City's
property. However, it is staff's position that, because the City's parcel is unimproved and is not
illuminated, authorizing the use of the area may open the City to some liability should something
happen to one of those persons using it as a travelway.
The contention of the Luzzaros is that the City is denying their right to access the Sweetwater Valley
area and the levee. The northerly terminus of the subject City parcel abuts a large parcel owned by
the Redevelopment Agency. This property was purchased from the County in 1986, using
Redevelopment Funds and was to be used at one time for the relocation of mobile home residents.
It remains vacant, and also is currently not intended for public use. The properties being accessed
are privately owned and if free passage is provided, it could be implied that the City is encouraging
citizens to trespass. There are other access points to the valley: 1) the northerly end of Las Flores
Drive and 2) North Second Avenue adjacent to the Sweetwater Flood Control Channel.
Conclusion:
Since the City's parcels referred to in this report have not been named and dedicated for public use,
due to potential liability the area should not be so used. As an added note, staff would probably
have issued an encroachment permit to allow Mr. Garcia to install a fence and gate across our sewer
easement on his property, if he had pursued the matter.
11"'1
RESOLUTION NO. 18".;./,J
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA DENYING REVOCATION OF ENCROACHMENT
PERMIT NO. PE-340 ISSUED TO BETTIE WARREN FOR
A FENCE AND GATE ON CITY PROPERTY ADJACENT TO
89 FIRST AVENUE
WHEREAS, Ms. Bettie Warren, owner of the property known
as 89 First Avenue, recently applied for and was granted an
encroachment permit to allow her to install chain link fencing and
a gate across a City-owned parcel, in front of her house; and
WHEREAS, when the work was started, several phone calls
and a letter were received by Engineering from a neighbor
expressing dissatisfaction with the City for allowing a property
owner to cut off access that members of the community have enjoyed
over the years; and
WHEREAS, the neighbors are petitioning for revocation of
the encroachment permit; and
WHEREAS, under the standard conditions of the permit, the
Council has the right to revoke it; and
WHEREAS, the conditions state that it is revocable upon
thirty (30) days written notice to the permittee; and
WHEREAS, staff is recommending against the revocation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the
city of Chula vista does hereby deny revocation of Encroachment
Permit No. PE-340 issued to Bettie Warren for a fence and gate on
City property adjacent to 89 First Avenue.
Presented by
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
C:\rs\PE340.bw
11"'> )r;-~
j
-1
..
-'
-,
-
,
r
I
- -
<
ITI
OWN BY: JH
DATE: 5/1 Z/""
~ 4t? /1
Il&PEV.
A681/CY
,
,
I ~ / ,
I-- ' I I I
_____ ...'_ 1-- I I I
- .., I
I '- I I I I
_~ _1.-
,.. _I-....
I I
I I
, .
R ~ :
J '\
I
, I
! ,
J J I
--~ \
,-- . --- - ! I
--I I I
__ I
--1\ ( , r--
I ,
, ...... '---
- -- --
---
--- --
--- --
CITY
~
-
Z ----
I
-4 L
MAUC.tJ ~ .GAIlCIA
\ , I I I
\ , '. 1 'I 0"
I
I
I
I
I
I
FLOW
T.
ROSES,AAlI(' .
c.'-~MEA/7AIly'
~(;"D~
EXHIBIT ~ 1/
.19.~7
FILE NO. PE-340
NOTE:
rl<lIS PlAT IS NOT TO S&ALE
AND Loc.A 71olw'S OF I TEM$ S"'(JW~
AilE A~P""OXIMAT€, OAlLY.
I
C CI ry )
A~~IPX. IAomOli....~
F~C~ AvrHOlflz~D '
6'1' ENC. PE~MIT
( MALAGO )
.4~ MIA/Dr A1I4.
I
FINC4 UI$rA
11 I ~~E~i':t:~*:J
~ I,
/<J!~{t;A~&IA) ( LlJzt4flO)
I.~~'P ~
/ 'I -,~"D'$r. -9~
( NAUEN )
"M ~/ftT II liE.
t?,Il/(;IA/AL $NCE
ED .II's
IY M/I,eIlEN
'I/U,?1I6ST.
.0" 5T12cc i
+ -
ir
~~ ~'v' fiLE NO. p~. 340
OWN BY:.J II EXHIBIT liB II
DATE: '//l/~~
/9- 17 -Ib
..
. .
~
Susan Luzzaro
9S D SlI'eet
Chula Vista, CA 91910
426-1841
E:~j L:.R I?
/C. ". ;'3
;1- "'T
March 6, 1995
Dear Clifford L Swanson:
1 am writing you this letter to complain about the receut construction of a fence
which blocks all pedestrian or bicycle access to the canyon and 10 the levee in the
lower Sweetwater Valley. The fence is constructed acroll what would be the
continuation of First Avenue, ( and indeed there are two houses with Fint Avenue
addresses beyond this point), had the city of Chula Vista dedicated the III'eet. This is
a highly contested area and the boundaries, rights, and privileges are, to .y the
least, murky. 1 believe it is incumbent on the city to clear up this problem cmce and
for all.
In the immediate period ) would like you to consider these facts. The fence that Bettie
Warren financed extends, now. out over a drainage cIitch. ) believe the cbinale area
is city property--) have often seen city workers clearing that area. Aside from the
question of ownership, the additional impediments repreaem a problem for this area
which is often subject to flooding. Further. during the lIIIIIIDenime tha'e was a fire
in the canyon. Fortunately. it was a small fire and there were no Santa ADa winds for
when the fire !rUcks arrived the pte was locked. They had to cut the 1ock. ADother
possible problem that ) believe the city Ihould consider is IUppose we Deed to
summon a Paramedic 10 the canyon. The canyon will coatinue 10 be peopled ODe way
or another.
There are a number of stories and iDconsiJteDcies reprdina this whole area. ODe
week there is a city lip attached 10 a fence, citin& the ordi"",,'~ about do& droppin&s.
The implication of the lip is that the P"uy<<ty beyoad the lip is city P""I"'"ty.
Now there is just a lip that .ys private P".,...,.1)'. What is Jour procedure for
placiDa and removiDa sips?
The Malaps who live on Minot wen their P"uy<<ty ateDcls down 10 the ceater of
die dirt road-and they Jive carte blanche penttiuIon for people to pa__ on their
property.
The police have been IIIIIIIDODed to the propat) a _ber of times. At ODe time a
police officer went down with Michael Huaaey to the ''''''';"1 ~bi:Idd and looked
at a tnap cF the area. This was tnaIted as a COUIIty fOld. The police IIfeed that the
public had a right to access.
/1- /1
EXI-I/8/T '~ II
f'~
Senior citizens who DOnDalIy walk IIId bicycle tbrouJb the _ are ..,.,.. denied
Iccess, Childrea who take 1bia Iborteut to scbool nther dIaD the buIy III'eetI are
allO denied accell. Teachcn at FeaIer SdIooI can 110 Joaaer tab there cbiIdreD OD
aalUre walks. Yesterday I watched I mother &lid bel' two IIDa1l cbildraI who ued to
CO for walks out there be tumed bIck by the pte. WbeD I moved to 1bia .. we ~
promised a public park. There is 110 put clole to bere. It's rea.-bJe for chDdrea
aDd parenti to waat to make use of the area aDdIor at lea. use the accelS to set out
alODl the levee aloD& the Sweetwater River.
The siluation is extremely volatile. I beve aeea Bettie WIn'eII use the feDce to smash
the back of a YOUlll toaD walkiDa away. I _ve aeea a flat fI&ht between Beuie
Warea's aephewaDd IOmeoDe who went fiahia&. She ba...,.,.. joiaecI a Seaior Citizen
patrol IIId is usiDa ber uniform to hector passerby.. It is really time for the city to
do IOmetbiDa about this situation. City workcn maintaia that road, aDd there is city
property at the ead of it But beyond that, it seems realODable aDd fair that everyoae
should be able to walk or bicycle down that road.
Tank you for your attention to this matter, I look forward to beariDg from you.
Sincerely,
;
J
,
,~-)Y'; "
~
I
f. --:: 4/'3 ~-: ~ '-
SUSAN lU%t.Alto
/9-/;),
J:" ~ ~ PI: 7.
CITY
/f,
1//
I /I
-..,f" /!
g Iff I SCIo'E.e ES/#7'
/, V~f'~ TO CITY (I H'D)
f. '1/
. f.~~
l ~., I
Vi'. ~'>
IY ,.
(I .
I '
/ -,~ '0' $T.
~I
I I
)
L..
/VAlUE^'
"", FIIlST .4 'IE .
MALAGO
-.I' MINDT .4V~.
I. IIZZ,4IlO
~ 95
+ .D" STllc,E i
rj
X~ ~'v'
FILE NO. PE. 340
OWN BY: J I{ EXHI81T
DATE: '/11/'1' "0"
February 12, 1996
RECEIVED
I'n' Of p1\J~" V1S1 ~
C ENGlfoIEtftlNG DEPT.
" fEB \ 2 . I): 2t
Dear Clifford Swanson,
Weare directing our correspoDdence aDd Jrievance to you because we laIow you are
familiar with the Betti Warren fence lituation al per your letter to Teodulo Garcia
on April of iast year--allO because Mr. Hardesty bas IOld UI that he bears 110
responsibility for this decision. Apparently your department bas aranted an
encroachment permit 10 Betti W~ 10 fence the undedicated portion of First
Avenue and block (once agam) access to members of the community. This is an
outrageous and reprehensib[e act
Who in this community was consulted before the decision was made? Tbat road is
used by hundreds of bicyclists, birdwatchers, jo&gers per month. Rosehank teachers
often take their classes out into the canyon for nature walks. Last lUIIIIIIer over
seventy neighbors signed a petition demanding the fence be taken down. It is this
community's access, and bas been for years, to the walkway along the Sweetwater
River.
Last summer when Betti Warren pressured Teodoro Garcia into putting up a fence the
entire community rallied behind him--to the point of paying his court fees when she
sued him. At that time your letter to Mr. Garcia stated ....once the fence is relocated
out of the sewer easement ... the City's involvement will end." But IIOW the City
authorizes Betti Warren, whose history of vindictive behavior is laIown to the City,
to put up yet another fence. This decision has effectively cut off access 10 the canyon
by memher's of the community--and created the canyon area as Betti Warren's own
private domain.
The City's decision should have been hased on oommunity qrot Tbe fact that not a
single individual on Minot would allow Betti Warren to put a fence on their land is
indicative of the neighborhood's feeling reprding the need for a fence as well as
feelings towards Betti Warren.
This weekend the fence was under COIIIII'Uction. Betti Wmen has IIOt only piaced
polls on what should rightfully be considered public land, public acceas-her fence
also trespasses on Mr. and Mrs. MalaBo's land. Mr. Malallo came down and asked the
man doing the construction and Betti IIOt ~ put the fence on his land-Betti Warren
IOld the worker IIOt to listeD 10 the .aeni1e old man" even tbou&h Mr. MaIago bad two
separate documents provlna his land riallts.
Tbe City bears relpoDllbility in this lituation and for future problems. 1Ddeed, the
City has &iven preferential treatment 10 a IiDI1e iDdividua1 over the aeeds and
common practices of an entire aela/'hodIoocL Lut time Betti Warren built a fence
the top purposefully bared the sharp points of the chain link. Still people lifted
their dogs over then climbed over themselves, young kids taking a short cut ~ IChooI
EXHIBIT "e II
I? - /.5
climbed over, ad bicyclists 1ifted dleir bikes over. Who will be reIpODSible fix" a
injury?
1 enclose two supportin& documents. The court action dlat oa1y pve Betti Warren die
right to pass over die IIDd, UId Mr. UId Mrs. MaJaao's lUJ'Vey. Botb ~
establish die exteDt of dleir pi' operty a. well a. defiDe die limitatiolll of Betti
Warren's access ri&hts. Her poupg'ty ends In front of IIer boule UId dlat II where
sbe sbouId build a fence. Surely a decision dlat robs 10 maD)' of pleuure UId violatea
die ptupetty ri&hts of odIers caDDOt be ri&ht PJeue look into dais matter u IOOD u
possible.
7 sinCferel , ~
jU-Ak", J~,"?", 04-~- v
Frank ad S Luzzaro
95 D Street
Chull Vista, CA 91910
cc: John Hardesty
a
-...
,
/1-/0
&. Z' ~ Ft-2,
. CHit!). aV._..DAT&__
s
.
W
. :> .
, ~
0
. .SI
~
o
-
c:::
-
~
-----.-.--------.....-.......... ....-............
&[2,Q,~~L ~~ \/\I1~"tI.:i
J r\T 2..~} ~'t> 2.,:zt,.
_&11'1' NO_...._OF.J..,
.lOa 110. .3.aJS.____
!!;rAI ~ ~ ,":"$0'
'.
ki:~~Q,~t,) ~'(...
\)~\L\.\~~ - I2E'lI\}c)\.f>~
7' N, 4 U>I . A'iE..
Ct.I\,)LA "1~"'A. '\ CA
4~-SLfOO
.
~
.
2
.
o
oS
j)I'lEt=oA..12t;~ 1=t)2'.
fCMIA2.\~ 1... N\~\.A!.(.)
e~ N\\""QT ~"E.
W\J'-" "'~"T" ~~ .
\1)
Fo~f) "'''..K
"R.c.~ ''"t!>\~ I,
..........
Nt) 1t&(.. ~
El\\b. ,'I:t.lc..
~=WIO
Lo-r
1-'
, I
I ,-,-,. , 1'\
1-. '.' I ,_J
.
o 0
,'1 ·
, ,- -r .....,
I_.~). I -,
c ~
~ 0
&. . <r
g ~~
po 0
~
d -
o rtJ
~ .
, '-) -r '.1'-
,-.'- I L....)
l='o~It,,1'~ ,.~{ M p~
..~ E: 1D17()" _
NCI 1tE.e...
~
I ,)-r '.1 ,
~..... I '-.,
w
r
w
~~
1&1
AI 70. ,e,' E
~'(P.2.S
.~
I=ou~t) ~ "D)h.a
~I~, ~t). ..c..;
..~'T o.~a
...... T ., '.."loa S
LOT 2.2.-
MAP Z~7(o
~, . :2.0
1\.170.'e'l;
.
o
.s
, r' - ,-
t-, '..1 ,
...",..~
f....
1;7.>(7
Ex. "E" R;. .3
I
.
fft2AVE/-
IZOAI)
..
: !F-
~
...
=
&JI
-
"
Oft
D'"
J
J
J
-
-
\
\
\
\
\
,
\
PHILlIPS-REV~ .DS ENGINEERING, INC.
CIVIL ENGINEERING.LAND SURVEYING
n IIIR1II fCIUII1It AVEIIUE - QUA VISTA. CA 11010
(714) 426-5400 November 13. 197
'1'0 Mrs. Mary F. Mlllgo
83 Minot Ave.
Chu1. Vista. CA 112010
... -.of'...~ ...vcae
Job No. 3815
10/12 - 11/9/79
Boundary Survey (Rear Corners On1y) -
APN 566-12-25 - Lot 22. Map 2376
Survey Crew 2-Man:
3.0 hrs. , $57.S0/hr.
$172.50
Principal Surveyor:
2.0 hrs. II $32.S0/hr. 65.00
AMOUNT DUE .....$237.50
.
,)4....-
'.* *
;1Il1i
~~.u * ·
) , /</CJ ....
'-
,.
f !';'I() .
t
I ?- I g
Ex. -E'l Ft.4
~ --:1 t.' turn ~.L"~'~ "E. .WP....l
/, i 8"l 7-".-.1. t:J......L- ..
~ v~.~-'I
: . H.T. 1J\:iInUT
AttcmflY at S-
2 2110 U.S. N4tion41 3L~; !ld~.
San >>ie.~t California 12101
3 !tL&r~OHt: 233.7253
-'
4
5
6
1
.
9
10
II
12
13
14
.~
"':t
ii-
i6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2'-
25
26
2"
2S
531
~:u/o
, ~..Ir.. ,
..
~l~ 11 1974
i
I
j
.-. .
--
SU."Ei'.IOr. ccu~-:r QT ~ ~.~ ~T C.".urc~':;l..'\
~;)t:~"'T! or SA!i w!:;r;:,;
~
"
~ r.ILLIA.~ E. \OA!;.'U::~ AND
~ Br':'T!X J. IiJ'.JlJ'.t1;,
~ Pldntiffs.
"
I YS.
,: ~'j:;..l.A:;; A 5111.'1011, JD..1; ~. SAl."Inll. )
.i CI':"!' or C""rlUl.A VI:;'=A, T:'-I:I .'!tn/!Oi'! )
'! Dr WIn, "."'''Y JAJ,r DE WIn', ED.ARD )
'L .,a" ""'1"\ ....I.~1 r -,...' ..~... ....,..',.-.,."T.'..I-... )
I . ~",""':'I, ._u .. ""~."""1"": ..:'1.... "..-.
:I AUXILIARY COMPAIIY. as 'truste., B"':,X or )
A.'!?:UCA. HATI :JSAl. TRUST & SAvINr;~ ...sS"CIATION t )
~.:: Dt'VES'l'MrJn- t UC. t .. trust... lEU. )
SAVDlG5 AND 1,,:)AN ASSOCIATION. nitST A:i1:JUCA" )
'1'1TLE MD TRUST COKPMY. ... .Cl'llu....cJ:WTRAl, )
I 'f1:DrIV.1. SAVIU~S $ tAU A$..')CIATIOH or SAN D:m;O.)
BANK or AMUlCA RA'1'10IfAL 1'MlS1' , IAVIJIGS )
i A:>:;!:C:A~!:::I. u ~te.. FAA2ICIS ]to It:;tI;ESS. )
:<;'t!.VIA T. BUR:;ES:; Id DOES I DROtJ:R Y. )
incll:S ive : )
; )
i;e!.nda."1U: )
: )
liD: 12311012
JUIAO"1EIn'
~tJn':'I!'~ '!'ITI.!:
......D tNJOI!iIN~
DtT'tN])AN!'S :
or... abon .n1:1~1.d call!!O c._ cn "[\Ilarl:;o tor a.erin,
~..n M.re~ II . 1:1'711. in- ~p.1"t1r.ent en. of t:!\. abc...entitled C~.
i 'to'!. !'!CTlorable .T.... L. Foc:'lt. J\ld~. PNa!cU,,nI. ai~1; w..'th_t a j
I j1Zr7, and H.... LA"'DG1V.1'. apr-eari:l! .. a't't-.y for plain'tif1'_. andj
. it .ppearin~ 1:0 ~~e Co~. end ~'IoI! !"?UT't r..1\d:.:tr that ..:'Yi~ of I
~ 1. I
Ii I
~ !
U '
/'1- JI/ ;
ex., ~E" P6.5
-.
1;
~
I
~
"
l't"'"
"U7Tnns on _fsftl!M~S: ~~ A. ~..t."!O}f. 3J:N: G. SAlIIO..
&.12
2 Fl'.ED .'t;"tiIOJ< DE VITr. "J'~ .'NeE H 1In'f. EDIlAJa) I.. ~O. KAZf r.
3
4
",!.LI\~C. eo;m~AJ. AUltXLIAF.Y cnsl'M!'. ~ ~~... &Me 01' MDICA
JL'TIt'KAL '1'Jtt1'T 1..'11) IAYl__ ASSoaADCIII. flU: r...~tIEIIr.' DC... ..
5 ~~... 'lEU. .Ames n:n uwr n:soev.uoc. JTItft A,'fDICAX D'J'U:
,
"'iD TJlUST Cmr!'AJIY. .. tzotataa. ..........u. n:aEJtAL UVIHn5 . UIAJI
7 ASSOCIATIOt/ 07' SAX >>mo. MID: 01' A.WJ:P.CICA 1lAne>>w. Du&: & IAnRS
I
1.~C~I".'l'ICI:;. u u-u.~... ~lS t. 1ItI1I';~. f:!'t.1'YA T. Su_..... ClUj
.. ",?;S I '%'MRCt;r.H ". Inc:llaiY.. ".. ACcor,:ol1at..~ PU!'lU&ll~ to Se~I011 !
.
0'
~ '115.30 of ~. C&U.~~. ~ of 1:1911 1'.
I
U sdd de fendan~s hu ad:n'''1edr;e4 "ft~ of .
/;
/: Inee hlvine to!!" -.elSe em 1"~.lr of _" aueh def_daftts. _d "'sir
,I ~ faults h.vir.~ hfo.n "eT'e~0"n7'l! e"~cN". _:! ~M Ccourt f1Irthsr
9
10
II
-- and 'tIYt _ch of
or.. ad _ appe_
12
13
I~
:, !indinF: th.t C:.fenc:ar.~. C'I'i'Y ar Ch""J. 1'IST.... Juu hsre~ofore _de
IS
..
:: · confession of ~\ldfl"en~ in r.vo:- of t:,e ~o'...-n_d ~l&in~iff..
16
, .me! tr.e Co'rt h.vi.,,. ;,,,""-,. ~.* evickz'.QO. ..,... ".1ft" lua;( advi:aed
,.
I:. \" .
Ii 1."1 ~..e PNBU....~
I
I IT IS n........T O~ZP.T.:). A!I.n.~ A.'It! m:cm:I:D AS fOLLIT.l,h
I ont.'t the ~!.ne o! ~l&!.."\~f!a b ad ~o "'e JlU'Oe1 Ian.-
I
, !....!'te!' otellC'!'ibed 10:' 115: and .n'~:I': by plaimlffa ,_ ri.,.~
, o! \I~ J>V1"Pn.ell lor .':" ..... ~o IE'Id f'1ea "'. n_l of ll1ftd ~ed
I !'I" t~elll .~':u.':ed 1.'\ ':he ~,'\L..t-: o~ Sc\ !)ie!!". S':cte o~ C&lilam1a. I
i .
110" pL-tie:a1ar1)' ....c::011.ecS.. !oll_s:
~e liort!lerlY 210.00 feft of the Soft!te,.ly .'0.00 feet o! all
~hat pol"tion of "'a ....Ur~ IaaU of tIM EMu!'1y bal.f of 10
ac:N !At 1 b ~r Ie cUm ::'25 u! Itaac:.'to J)e La ..cion. JII
tile City of Oaula nata 1ft the C:-ty of laD llieao. I~
o! CaUfOn\la. a~L"\1! to _I> 1:he~! ~ MDl'ril .0. 11'.
fUed In tII. offloa 01 Coaty ....-1'IIer 01 .sa D!ep " _L",
17
II
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
21
.
..
,
~
"
.-
..
~f:
. .
~.:. t
~-: .
.'
.::r
~.;
~~
-.
','1
1:-~
.:.:
lefinDinc at "'a
r .a IS 10 aeN loDt
,
I'
~
,
ZI(~ -...
~
I
i ,
I
.
SoIrthv_tel'ly 0..._.1' 01 add Ealtt U1f of
1. ~"'''ee a1G1:1~ ~e Vuter1:' u.~ o! ~..1cS
2.
l'f-.:JO
Cx. "p.~. to:;
11
s:t3
1
J
J
4
5
;".A.Jt I.ill!. IOor'th 180 Ill' eO" Wes'!:, 2i.01l hr.t to tile true point
of 1>etinn1nv.: 'l'banoc aJ.on& puaUal with ~ louther1y 1iM of -
aaid Lot' 1, :ic:'V\ 710 1.2' I;&st, 2U. n f..,u 'lhen~ lIorth 1.0 '"
"'.at, .n.oo r.et to the Worth liIIe of t2\. loath "0,00 teet of
..de: 10 acre Lot 1: 'l'boncc a10nf t.itc 1Io:'tJIerly 1Jae of add
Soatb '10.00 fMt,.lnth 71 12 ....t. 211.71 1.lt. ... _
1&.. to the Ven UM of latd Eat half of eo ... IoGt 11
~n_ alan& the ....t.r1,. Uae of .aid Eatno1y 11&1" 80trth
It 1;1' ,!." );ast, S":;.c.o feet to the tl'lle poJAt .f ..,I_h,..
6 EXCEPnNt: mtlttFJtOM 'J'HAT POr.:IO); .w.:r.1.0r mx; 1In'IIItl '1'EE
FOLLOWDiC m:SCaIBEtI UoHD I .
7
"~1nJ at the loatheanarl,. _or of Lot 25 of 11 IDaho
Villa, accorc1iJl, to ::a;. thu.,,' ::0. :3'''' t kJ.n, .lao . pobt
in the Sovthe:rlv line of the We.t.r-1v half" :If .a1d 10 aen Lot: 1,
9 tnicta..,'!: thereon'Sout!. 71012' "e.t ;i.91. feet frea the Sollthoat
Po cumer thoreof; '!hence Wan!! 71" 12' Eaat, alCIII~=d lCIIItJIerl,.
10 ~ li". IjO.!lC f.et: ~_ce Jlortherl)' al=; a Uno pa-all.1
I wi'th and 110.00 reet Eater1,. &'t rilh't -&1ea froe the to1~in&
11 . eSeac:ribec course. in 'the J:eater1,. bo-daz7 Uao of .aid 1:1 Janoho
Vi1lu, Nort.~ IS 0 112' W...t, to III an!!:lo p01nt, th.nce
12 IliOZ"tb.o liS' 35. Een to .. point in tl\6 l:etterly lin. (If the
r. Eanerly balf of aud '0 ac:re Lot 1. Min& aleo the true point
I! of 1>e~inl:linr: ':'t.enee :;"r~h CO IIC' IS" wet. 1;.. a point in the
r: l:"n"rlv line of ~!'tf! Ii.."tp.rly 110.00 fe.t of .aid Eater1,. halr
lo! .0 aCN Let 1: TlIer.ce alt'n!: aaig Easterly line to a point
! CI:'I 'the ::or't:. line of the Sou~h "0.00 rut tot a.id .0 eere
Ii :..tIt: Thence :;Nr.~ nO 12" lies,,;, along sue: lio!"th ]in-, !lO.O!)
:: f.et to . point in the ~e.'terlv line 0: aaid ra.te:rlv half
II f'! .6\d !.-I": ~e::~ .;;o:-u'\.!, 16<" ~l' 1i0" <:e!it, alon,t I:ai~ Iie.terly
line 'to 'the tt'Ue lIOi."It of 1>erinninr,
l:Ie and it is hereb,. q1l1eted iD ~l~'titfa' aaid I'1ld1t of VJ17 for
.
13
14
IS
I
17
11
19
20
21
a-a purpoa.. "~a "aezoibed as fo1~.:
M __nt for ri~t of v.,. for 1l1poa.. and opoaaa . o".~, &e2'OSa
end elo."ll; a ~o:rtiC'n ot Lot 22. 1:1 ~ohoc Villa, ~ to Nap
thereot 110.2176 11115 . 1IOrt10:0 of .0 Acre Lot 1. J.D QuaJotar lectioll
'125, !'Iancho te 111 !.aciO"" accon1in. to Hap thereof Ho. 15& .-de by
Horr111, all bdnf in th~ City ot Chula nata, c..-.t7 of la:n l>ioJO
State of Cali forn:!.a, filet., in the o:>ffice o! the (ow:t)' Jlecordar of I
San D1eCO County d.-"cor1I>ed _ foUcwa:
22
23
24
P.uCEL 1:
25
26
27
21
,. ItI'1p of land 12.00 feet v1eSe 1,.111, 1.00 f..t _ liCeI' aide of
ee:lter line cle. c:r.L!>ed .. fol1owr:
Beg1r.nint at the 5olrtbe..tv1y co~er of I.ot 25. 1:1 ".0 Y111a,
aCCOl'd1na to Hap thaNO! 110. 217&. NocmSed ill the office of "e
JleconSer, San Die$:o County, 1:Ie.in, aleo a point iD t2\. IOIItbar1y
line of tb. ....Url,. half of .aid .e Acre Let 1, diatlllat tbarecin
South 710 01' DO. ..at. 51." feet, (South 710 12' ., ...t.'l.16
~.
Ii
/Y-~I
Ex. ''t'' Ft. 7
I
I
I
I
!.
.
.
;
; .
.
~ ,
~
;
I
I
i
I
!
;
!
..
".
J
J
II
,
l
.
1
~.
j
t
)!
...
~
I
. J
2
:5
.
,
6
7
.
9 I
JO
11 ~
J2 "
13 ~
14 i
I
15 i
,
16 1
I
17 :1
JI !
J9
20 .,
~
:!l
22 n
!I
23 'I
24 ~
2.5 I
26
27
:!S
,
SM
~~..t. record) ~ 'th. So~_. ClDl'Der of 9'be ....t.r17 II&1f of
..id 10 Acre Lot 11 th..ce .~ 110 ,.' .,- weat, 11.00 r..t to ,
t~e J7cUberly ript or ".y of en- Itn~ .. .n_lialsed '" Do~ 'tt
liD. IUU, tiled 1ft tbe ... Diep C~.....t,. """'1". orn_, "-yl1
195D; thuce ICI'th no 01' DO. Eut..L...~.DO ,..t &1_. aai4
lOI'ther1l I'1pt of .., 1Sae 'to" 'DUE ru~T or Imr..l-.., tile
lortll 07 . '" as- J:u'. 2....' '"' ~. ~ ___ :u- of 0&1.
12.00 hOt .triJt to _ ~....c1_ dC tile s.t a..da7 or .
We.t '0.00 f..' to tbe Eat 1Ialt)' .0 A-. loot 1, Qurt.1' IiMt1aB
1'!5, landlo .. 1.a 1Iad._. ft. ..,de U"," .f aad 11 .80 ~ atri
'0 M U'C...d .. ....taMeS f.- po1ata at rip' -f~. to t2aa...
of the _tal' JJae to 1atc.Met 'Che Z_t IIoaduy 0 tII. v.at.I'~
1I:t.OO feet of the Eat IIalt of .&1410 A-. kit 1.--.1 the ~ ~
tocnzndarJ or tJiIe Iovthel'ly ZI.OO '.n of .aid '0 Acft kit I,Quart'j
Secdo" 125. 'acho de 1. kelcm. .
r:,~C'tT. 2:
%h. Nort.'t.rly 26.00 f_t of 1:I1e Southao17 215.00 ~t of tile I
We"terly 50.00 het of the Eult 1I&1f. 10 AC'Z'& kit 1. Qu.rter
S.~1e>n 125, !teacho de 1& :.acior, 111 the Ci~ of Oul. Viata. I
C"unty of San !Ii_so. 5tp.t" flf Cali!crmia. i
IT :t n.;n'H!:R a~~!lED that defendanu be. ard tney are
. .
,..,,~ein.1 ,~'" en~.~\i"\~ ~ or' ir.te1'ferinr ..it" J:laindff.'
rrr,:.4; tC' the u!:_ and .~~C'!'DUIt ef ....1d IE"" for .CCl!U ~U~I...
:.u.... , , ,:r>,a
IIlV't _... ,_,~
!",";~-': "~.., :31...
rcnftOl 10. )'oC2!
.J'-'f.....,L Qf" "IU. :\",r:.J'.J.UX ~J&;KT:
.. -'-' ".,
.&tt~_. '.-'~'..4'.I.'.I..'~
III-wu .. .1..~"""""*,_,,
~ . ..........". :.... ..,
. A._ ':"IWt...J..t 11.("'" .!'
~ .O$U1Jl, ;_ ~,~=,"~tI[t~~ft.~
'~~~;?'
'., ..do... ~""
. . . ;!.~. ~. .tDJI
7~646S6
fiLL' ~;.a ..;.....
1001_.
UCaIUIEII tllQl/iSt 1111
u, ); :D,~~u.:r'
Mii'~ 3 It" fK 'lit
orFICINoIECGlDI
UII1IIIGOCllllln.U!-IF.
....Ln '.I&.I1II
I!'CGIN'
,.
$6.00 I
li-~~
EI(, "E" PG.~
~.
~
.
:i
.
4
,
1 ~
J
J
i
7 .-
,
!
.
....
~
~
.'
.,
.;.
..
:~
~
..';:
.~
.
".
.
..
:J,
j:j
.'
.
t
I
I
I
,
,
I
I
i
I
I
"I"to"
"'~. ~i:.."'~-
._ 'fC~U\.~'l"'~
, " ( ~ ~ Ort'''
. " ,.,~" ;:ilt~.'
c:~,_, ..-
t6 ita 29 ",,,,,
FEBRUARY 29, 1996
HR. CLIFFORD SWANSON
ENGINEERING DEPT.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CA.
DEAR MR. SWANSON;
THIS LETIER IS IN DIRECT WImAL.."1'02IHE::t.mER:.:SE61'.:TO..YOU BY
FRANK AND SUSAN LUZZARO.
THIS FENCE IS NOT A COMMUNITY ISSUE. THE ISSUE HERE IS MY
SECURITY. IT WILL GREATLY ENHANCE MY SAFETY BY KEEPING OUT
THE VEHICLES. THERE ARE NO HOMES BEYOND KINE AND ANYONE
CO!lING DOWN THIS EASEMENT IS TRESPASSING AND INTRUDING.
MOST OF THE COMMUNITY DOESN'T EVEN KNOW THIS EASEMENT EXISTS
MUCH LESS WANTING TO USE IT AND I'M SURE THEY WOULD FEEL IT
WOULD BE TRESPASSING AND INDEED IT IS.
I HAVE VANDALIS~I BY THE YOUNG PEOPLE. THEY HAVE CUT nns.-..:~
FENCE ALREADY SINCE I HAD IT PUT UP. THEY ALSO CUT CAL-TRANS
Fi:NCE BY THE FREEWAY IN SEVERAL PLACES. THEY HAVE TO KEEP
~EPAIRING IT CONSTANTLY.
KOA CAMPGROUNDS SECURITY TOLD ME RECENTLY THAT CRIME IS ON THE
INCREASE IN THIS AREA AND THAT IT IS ACTUALLY DANGEROUS. I
HAVE NO STREET LIGHTS AND NO POLICE PATROL.
PEOPLE USING THIS FOR NATURE WALKS TAKE THEIR WALK AND GO HOME
AND DO NOT KNOW OF THE PROBLEHS I HAVE HITH VANDALS AND PEOPLE
DRIVING CARS DOWN INTO THIS AREA AT ALL HOURS OF THE NIGHT.
THE PERMIT HAS BEEN ISSUED, THE FENCE IS UP AND I KNOW IT WILL
HELP A GREAT DEAL. I AM INSTALLING A MOTION DETECTOR THAI TURNS
ON LIGHTS AROUND THE FENCE AND WILL SET OFF AN ALARM.
PEOPLE OWNING PROPERTY BEYOND MY HOUSE NORTH WILL HAVE A ICEY POR
THE GATE TO GAIN ACCESS TO THEIR PROPERTY AND A KNOX LOCK WILL
BE PLACED ON 'IIIE GATE POR POLICE AND FIRE DEPT. TO ENTER.
...
THE WAUCERS, BICYCLIST, ETC., HAVE'mREE OTHER DIRECTIONS TO GO
AND 'IIIE ENTRANCE TO 'IIIE SWEETWATER DIKE IS OFF SECOND AVE. 'IIIE
aOSEBANK SCHOOL PRINCIPAL HAS PUT OUT A BULLETIN TO HIS STAFF 1<<)T
TO BRING THEIR CLASSES TO THIS AREA BECAUSE OF THE DANGER AND
IF A CHILD SHOULD GET HURT THE SCHOOL DISTRICT IS SUBJECT TO
LAWSUITS.
IT IS TOO BAD A FEW HAVE TO RUIN IT FOR EVERYONE. AS POPULATION
HAS GROWN AND WITH YOUTH CRIME NOW ALMOST OUT OF CONTROL, I HAVE
TO PROTECT MYSELF AS BEST I CAN. -"MY- PROPERTY IS POR-sALE AS~-
I FEEL IT IS UNSAFE TO LIVE DOWN HERE BUT REAL ESTATE IS NOT SELLING
EXI-/I 8/ T NF'/ /'l-2.E
.-
WELL AT THIS TIME. AS YOU KNOW AND I HAVE BEEN TOLD BY THE ENGINEERING
DEPT. THE CITY OWNED EASEMENT DOWN HERE IS NOT A DEDICATED ROAD NOR
IS IT IMPROVED AND IS NOT MEANT FOR PUBLIC USE.
I SINCERELY HOPE THE CITY COUNCIL WILL NOT CONSIDER REVOKING THIS PERMIT
AS UY SAFETY IS CERTAINLY MORE IMPORTANT THAN A FW NAroRE WAUtERS WHO
AS I SAID HAVE THREE OTHER WAYS TO GO AND CAN ENTER THE AREA mEY
ARE TRESPASSING TO - OFF OF SECOND AVENUE.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION IN THIS MATTER.
SINCERELY,
BEnIE WARREN
89 FIRST AVE.
CHULA VISTA, CA 91910
THIS FENCE IS ACROSS THE CITY'S 40' EASEMENT AND NOT ON MR. KALAGO'S
PROPERTY.
ALSO I WANT THE COUNCIL TO KNOW THAT I WAS HIT ON THE HEAD AND SIDE
EY A LOCAL YOUTH BY HIS SLAMMING A FENCE GATE TO ON ME PURPOSELY
WHEJ.', I TOLD HIM HE COULD NOT COME DOWN THIS EASEMENT AT A HIGH RATE
OF SPEED IN HIS PICK UP. THERE IS A POLICE REPORT AND PICTURES. I
HAD TO HAVE A RESTRAINING ORDER PUT ON HIM.
ALL OF THESE T"rlINGS HAPPEN AT MY HOUSE. I 00 NOT GO TO OTHER PEOPLE'S
HOI-lES AND CAUSE TROUBLE. THEY COME TO lITNE.!!y TRESSPASSING.
I f-~Jf
Ex. "F" PeS. 2
,
i
From: E.L. Malago, Owner Lot 22, Map 2376
83 Minot Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910 ~6 lIAR 12 PM ) 26
ri!:.CEIVED
C'i v OJ' CHULl. VIS1 A .
~NUI'JEERING DEPT.
To: Clifford L. Swanson, Deputy Public Works Director,
City Engineer
Ref. A. Authorization for Encroachment In City Right of Way, Permit
No. PE-340
Enclosures:
(1) Sketch showing area for gatelfence Installation Issued
with Permit No PE-340
(2) Sketch showing descrepancies of sketch Issued with
Permit No. PE. 340 (Ene!. 1)
~
(3) Sketch by E.L. Malago showing extended area of Encl. (1)
(4) Lot 22, Map 2376 survey, Dated 11-9-79
.
(5) Lot 22, Map 2376 Survey Dated 7-22-87'
(6) City Map 2376, in part, Area Concerned
Subject: Objection and Reasons for Protesting REF. A.
1. I strongly object to the authorization of Permit No. Pe.340,
Ref.A, refers, for the following reasons:
A. The sketch issued with Permit No. PE.340, Encl (1) refers, is
filled with errors as I see it as shown on Encl (2), using Encl's (3),
(4) & (6) for verification. Even the north direction Insignia is 18
degrees In error to the west. bid the City validate the accuracy of
the sketch?
B. The three (3) fence posts Installed going north to south are
definitely on Lot 22 as shown on EncI's (2) and (3). My land survey,
Encl. (4), shows that my property extends Into the road about six (6)
feet in the easterty direction and about twenty .four (24) feet In the
northerty direction. I insist that the three (3) posts be removed.
EXH/8/T
/?-':(5
~G II
..-----..---
"
C. This is the third differe"" location Bettle Warren has installed a
fence/gate on the graveUdlrt road on City and adjacent properties.
Not one (1) foot of fence was on Warren property. The two (2)
previous locations I also protested. The present location I can
contest and hold the City liable.
(1) Being as the City owns a forty (40') foot Itrip of land east of
-my property, I respectfully request the City do a land
lUrvey, the tlndlngs could be very lurprlslng.
D. One of the reasons I bought our property was I loved my view
from the back yard, a NraI appearance where one may enjoy some
open space. Mr. Warren (now deceaSed) had horses on the norther end
of his property. I visited with him, talked horses, enjoyed that, for I
owned horses. I enjoyed seeing people, children with dogs, walking
toward the open space. Bettie Warren has been trying to take that
away for many years, dis-enchanting herself with all her neighbors.
E. I saw a young girl strain for about ten (10) minutes to get her
two (2) dogs over the previously Installed fence/gate. Very
saddening. Also saw young people lifting, straining, and dropping
bicycles over the fence/gate. I do not want tG see more of that.
...
~'
2. I do not know what reasons were offered to the City to authorize
Permit No. PE.340. If one (1) of them was vehicular traffic, the only
vehicular traffic that I notice belongs to the renters that live on the
north end of the Warren property that previously was a horse barn
and horse corrals.
A. When I bought my property, I was Informed by the Realtor, all
lots in the area are R.1 lots, when was the Warren property
designated R.2??
3. Confrontations with Bettle Warren at times prompted me to have \
land surveys In 1979 (Encl. 4) and In 1987 (Encl. 5). At a cost of
$600.00 Wooden IUrface markers were Implanted, within a short
period of time the markers would disappear. Mrs. Warren Is well
aware that lhe must trespass on my property In a vehicle to get to
her residence due to the Superior Court granting a judgement to
William E. Warren and B8ttIe J. Warren for right of way, egress and
Ingress to their property, Superior Court Document No: 323442, .
dated March II, 1974. Refers. . .
A. Does the right of right of way apply to the renters also?
,
;1, ~0
cx. (;" ,q. 2.
4. Some of the topics mentioned above may not be pertinent to the
subject of this letter, But. It is my opportunity to present to
responsible City officials just a few of the problems and questions
that me and my neighbors would like resolved.
5. We do not want fences/gates on City property that would
obstruct access to the rural valley and open apace that we tax
payers/voters enjoy.
6. I am available for questionslinterview anytime.
Respectful! ,
C: ;1. ~
83 MINOT AVE.
CHULA VISTA, CA 91910
426-2750
~
cc Sid Morris, Assistant City Manager
George Krempl, Deputy City Manager
Shirley Horton, Mayor, Chula Vista
;-
/?- ,.<7
E '6" D.
x. re;. ..3
"
Rlco1'dUlg rtipltstld by IZ1Id
pleDsI rttll17l to:
City Clerk
City of Cbula Vista .
P.O. Box 1087
Chula Via. CA 91912
[ X) This documeDt benefits
permiaee. RecordiDa
lee required.
'C,~
, ,~.
T (This IpICe for Recorder'. _. OII1y) T
Affecu Assessor'. Parcel No. 566-131..()7-OO
AUTHORIZATION FOR ENCROACHMENT IN CITY RIGHT OF WAY
Permit No, PF_:\40
Application Fee:
Receipt No.:
Insprition Fee:
"'-.
Receipt No.:
~105 00 .
141~10
S1 ~~ 00
,1..Q,\';,
",'
Pursuant to Chapter 12.28 of the ChuJa Vista Municipal Code, permission is hereby JlUI!ed by the City
of ChuIa Vista (hereinafter 'CITY') to: RE'1TIE WARREN (hereinafter 'PERMITTEE') to do work
within a portion of land belonging to the City of Chula Vista (Assessor's Parcel No. 566-131-13-(0).
All tenns and conditions of this pennit IS to the PERMITTEE shall be a burden upon permitlee' s land and
Ihall run with the land. All conditions apply to PERMITTEE and all bislber/their heirs, assp, lU~c'ssors
or transferees. .
WberelS, the PERMITTEE hIS requested the permission from CITY to eacroad1 on uId CITY'. parcel
adjacent to IDd for the direct benefit of the foUowlD& described property:
ADDRESS: 19 FIRST AVENUE
LEGAL DESCRJP'I10N: III die CIty f1l ChuIa VIIta, CCIIIIIty f1l Sa DIIao, Ikate f1l Callronda, beIDa
tbe DOI'thtrlJ 270 flit of the ..........., a5 reet of the 1NIterI7 215.71 reet of tbt IIOItbtut qurter
or Qauter SedIoa W, _.... to Map thereof No. III,... -ill! III tbt amce tl tbt CCIIIIIty
Jt.coadei of Did CCIIIIIty MayU, I"', excepdDa th..4.Gm Chat IaDd tr-~ totbe CIty ofChula
VIa by GtDe O. McMmiD rworded III tbe CoaDty .......-'. aIIIce AprI110,1t59,1II Book '571,
Pap 460 of omdal Records,
f
l<f-,J,B
~l
~ /). /t - j/fJlf"r J
^ EF, ,." C\~
Ex, 6" f5 ~-
PERMISSION IS HEREBY GRANTED to do the roDowIDa wcll'k: IDDD. dIaID IIDk fIace.. IIId
CltyoOwued parcel ill accordaDce with the anached _etch.
(bereiaafter "ENCROACHMENT")
Now. 1berefore, in COIISideration of their IDUIII&I promises. UId ocher aood UId vahllble COIII!deruioD, 1be
panies hereto agree IS follows:
Permission is hereby JntUed PER.MITI'EE UI izIsIaII die above-Jr....1nr-' ENCROACHMENT on die real
property of CITY described above in accordance with the followiDa eOJlllir1ons:
1. The ENCROACHMENT shall be insW1ed UId "'.;....lrIM in. life UId IIJIiwy 1IIIJIIIer IS
determined by CITY.
2. Said installation shall, in no way interfere with the operation of my existing lIti1ity (except IS
indicated in Item 5, below), including but not limiled Ulllorm drain lines 0WDCd and 1fI.;",.i'led
by CITY. Any changes of or to any lIti1ity due UI die insWlation by PERMITI'EE of private
facilities shall be at the sole expense of PERMITTEE.
3. Maintenance, removal or relocation of the above-mentioned insWlation of die private facilities
shall be the sole responsibility ofPERMITI'EE. andlor pERMITI'EE'slessee. should there be any,
at no expense to CITY.
..
4. Said installation shall conform to all standards and specirlcations IS staled in die Chula Vista
Municipal Code.
5.' PERMITTEE shall provide a ten. foot-wide gate in the fence to provide access for City crews to
maintain existing sewer facilities lying within said City-ownec! parcel and. If locked, PERMITTEE
is to provide a key to the Department of Public Works Operations Division.
6. If said gate is locked, PERMITTEE shall provide a key to all owners of properties dlat abut said
City-owned parcel and that have no other legal means of entry from a dedicated street or alley.
7. PERMmEE shall attach a Knox Box or Knox Lock UI die ,ate in accordance with the
requirements by the CITY's Fire Department.
8. PERMITTEE shallllOt allow ENCROACHMENT 10 block IIIIIIral draiDqe of Itormwater within
die drainage course in the vicinity of die proposed ENCROACHMENT.
This permit is revocable upon dIirty (30) days wlm..11 notice UI die permitrec. mS upon such DOtice. die
lmta11ation must be removed or relocated. IS and wben specified by CITY. at PERMITTEE'. eoat. If
PERMITTEE fails 10 ra:aove or relocate ENCROACHMENT wiIIIID die period ano-'. aTY ->' cause
such work to be done and the eoat tbereof shall be imposed IS a Jim upon PERMITI'EE'. iII~'
PERMITI'EE shall defend. iJItI""",ify. protect UId bold harmless die CIty. III eIec:tId IIId "W"Wted officers
and employees. from and apinst all claimS for damales. liability. COlt and cxpenae (1DcludinI wIIbout
limitation attorneys' fees) arising out of die conduct of Ihe PERMl'ITEE. or any qent or C'JIployee.
subcontraCtOrs. or ocherS in COIIJIeCri"" with die execution of die work covered by Ibis ~t. except
19-19
Pl&1~
Ex.. ~" -P~ S
only for those claims willa from the sole aealipIICC or sole wi11fu1 ~'(:I of the City, ill officers, o~
anployees. PERMITTEE's iDdermlification aba11 iDcJIIde any and all COlIS, ..rr. __ =-. uromeya' &es and
liability Incurred by the City, lis offic:en. apnIS. or anployees in. defeadiDa -.,.- auch c\aimJ. wbether
the ume proceed 10 JudImem or IIOt. Funher. PE.RMITI'EE 11 lis own apaIIC Jba1I, upon wriIreD request
by the City. defend any such suit or action brouaht apiDst the City. lis ofticen. aaems. orllllployees.
PERMITTEE's iDdemnificalion of City aba11110t be 1imited by any prior or JUbaequem cleclaruion by the
PERMITTEE.
PE.RMITI'EE beIeby apes 10 and Jba1I cIefmd CITY. ill elective and appoiDdve boIrdJ. ot!Jcm. IIeDtS
and IIIIployees apinst any claim, and in any suit or proceediJl&. 11 Jaw or in equity. for dlmqes CIIIICd,
or alleaed 10 have been caused. by actions tIIcen or alIeaed 10 have beeD tIIcen UDder this permit by
PERMITI'EE directly or by hislber/their aaellt(s). comractOr(s). or aaems or anployees of _.
PERMITTEE further qrees 10 and aba11 iDd.....nify and hold Iwmlesa CITY. ill elective and appoiDdve
boards. omeen. aaems and employees. IS iDcf....nit-. for any claim. suit or proc.-4ma aubmiUec!.
brouaht or iDstiMed apiDst CITY IS a result of actions tIIcen. or allqed 10 have beeD tIIcen, UDder this
permit. iDcludq. but not limited 10. any usened liabi1ity for Iou of or dImqe 10 property or for personal
injury. includina death.
The undersigned PERMITTEE hereby accepts the foreaoilla encroachmellt permit upon the terms and
conditions stated herein and agrees to comply with all stated terms and conditions and with all applic:able
laws, including any spplicable provision of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. It is further aareed that if
any part of PERMITTEE's ENCROACHMENT or PERMITTEE's riJllts under this encroac:hmem permit
should interfere with the future use of the CITY's right of way by the aeneral public, It must be removed
or reloc:ated at PERMITTEE's expense and such right shall be terminote<las and when ind;r'r.... by CITY.
. .
In the event of a dispute arising as to the terms or interpretation oj-this permit. the City Engineer shall Jj\;
resolve said dispute in his sole and unfenered discretion, reasonably applied. it
(End afpage. Nut is Signature Page.)
,
/'1-30
. Do., J
Ex. {;" Pts:~
.
~
Cln'-IIW"6D
PItIlP4ItTY'
4()'
/
I I
/ /
/ I
/~/
/~'<I~ I
/ ~ /
/ Q
/ ~'<J~/
I ,.," /
r (J/
/ /
,," v'v
,4- It}
'< ~
to
"D"
.
.;'
WAlt1t4N
P~"'4,"Y
STIl.E~T
SI<~7c..H IS.s"f.E~ WITH
E'1'Jc.R<M.CHfI1EN'T 1l=e~"T ,. P. ~.e~e,.;
. .
/1-3/
6 ~"
'X. u .Fj; .--7-
.
.~ --;
EN.C-L.( t)
€CIT'I./JIIIN4D
. ,L-T-a.:I '~"'4~T'I'
Lo~-1.""
P,~CC.T1' AI I'/4.Il.I(.
, /i'- .01'1= T.~
""t"-,,..D ,.,.".1
..,
( J!e;Je:l.f"\.1 I..O.J,z /..0 r- 2. l.-
~cr<1..3
. eX.rEN/).5 .$1"1. ~') ~~eT
INrtJ <11t. t4 liE (. ROA-J?. _f -.
._~~
/
"A. ~~
,~ ~
'< ::.~
to
4()'
,
l
)C.
l I
I
WA*.4/1
'~.'"t
MfR. "I. Locolfn ,. H
N"'7"~ IHsV/iI..r..el
. "<-,
\ a, St!7'1 .L./..)-
/. /
If;,' ',48
/ / -IN
/~/f
/ ill'
I (J~J. / if
/,<;V / I~
/.;'
1r.,,4'/ ),
r' / w
/ ;)
/ IiI
UT' ;to. Bf:,.:J 1:>
.
ItP, Nor .3'"
.
.o'
"0" S T IlE~ T
" J'Kt!n:..H-' ~HO&"JlN 6
!.. E V IS. €.')>
pfl ~ ~ .4<! c.., ,c....7E. . ~1;.(r&.l4 'I.
-~
/'1- ?/)"
1=" '%''' ~:~
.
.~ .';
ENU. (V
A/"r
-.~
~
-
"'. '~"'.' c:
.~ '- ,--'-
~ I< s:."ic. _:.r' ':;!..I.~ I).~ ...--,; ~
_ _ I Ii:";':' ~~~
;.::. ...... ."J'" . -
....1..1 I'.:."': 1'-~~
;:::_'. 1_.~ .' 0_....
- '
. ,-
.' ,
[I-. L/2.t.- 275 ()
LOT-rq
1. c r"- 2:. !;
'- ~ .,. - ;:.
,"1
,~
.
.
.
,
1-C-- :...:. - I
-....-
I
, ZI" .: .' : := - ~::; ;- .'. t.' -~ ;.~ -.y .~.
f"\ ;'4."_ .!
_':' 7", ~.~,; : .~... .: ;.."
;'~f' ,"" "-'.' W::;;)i: ~_:-.7"~'; ';," ~
-..",. _ l
,4 ,<~ .'.. }/;
') - J - ., .~.' f ~ -= ;;
'./.., ,f.. ,<,,.,,:::,,,,,,, -
,..'
--."' ~
" -
H
'-
~'. - -
.. '.:",""" ~...
;':...-.. ::".,
",- .2.3
1;...=''';:;: "I
:i
-
'"
.;
-
,
,
'~
l~, .
;,
"
, ')'
\ \'
'-
,
I~
... \~
~
~
~
'-Of 2.'-1
EK.~" ~ q
1./0 ·
C'I or 'I
f~~"".t:.
<;
: f.1
:'i
-
:'
::0 :"..
\,
';"
v
I,. j ,
v/--.
'~ -
-
"
-
,..-
I~:
~, I
- .
,'"
. - :;.
.
'.
-
.// p~~' --
-:;...4.....
~: - -
--- _.
~..:..'';' :..~-
" ..~.. "-.... ~,...) ~ ~
'3
.-
-J
, /
I
'<.'
I
I
f
I
'"
'.
;:,
.,.
.--::- ~
1...7.
,;... ,.."'
I... .....'
., ~ .,
.u - S,....
""
,
.~.jI.
/
f
,I
.-
'-
::-
. ., '0./
..' ", ~.~ ,.._,/
. . -'. - ~ .
-..
I R.= "'r~~ i
,R~/;)~N:E.;
..'S~~tfr~' ..;
~:~:i~ E~~. ~
--- . ."
/9-33
ENC.',(!.J
..y .)LN\
CHKD. .Y
DAft \\-~-7") .U..,KCT kT SMaWINr.- 1!!.'II'...'T'Ito.1La
DATa &~L R.DAo. ~ VI.II~ I~
I C'.T 2..~} MA. 't> 2.~~t..
"UT __..1-01'.1-
.lOa NO. ..3aJ1S
<rat c:. c....I..:~O'
. .
j)ne.T:IO..'2~~ .1=(;)2',
E~I:Ia..'XN.C.. eCM.IA2.,,) 1-. N\Q.~C)
e~ ",,\~c::rr A'll:.,
~:WIO Dl\J\.JII.. "\~.,.,, ~~~ .
. \0
...,;- ~..
: -( 1='o~""f) J." ....~~
"Q.t.~ ,~~\.,..
~Q 1Z&C.. -,
~'t~12. ~t) ~'r":.
\>~,'-\.. \ y~ - I2.E'iI\)CI..t)~
11 N. 4 ~ A'IE.,
c.~ \,) LA "1 !. T"A '\ CA
42b-S~ .
,
o
..g
, C- -~
L J I
- I
, ,-,-r "p.
1-.. ,_", 1_1
.
'0 a
.1 ·
, r- -,- . ':."1
,__ ,-) I "
c ~
1. ~
o &--
CI ~
~ 0
to
rJ -.
o VI
~ .
~
.
UJ
~ .
~ 0
- ,J)
.
l-
e
:2
w
i
w.
is ~
~
I ,-)-r '.1,-
1__'- I L...)
j.OO~I) !f~" i>J p~
..~ t; 11>1'7(;)" _
1\1t.~ ~e.c...
~
.
, '-J-r ':'.J I
~. '- . L. I
~
-
-
<:
^' 70" It,' E
E, L (YJII-Io.M; 0 3'(P,2.S.
LOT Z2.,
MAP Z~7(O
.~
.
o
.s
E. 1.., m.~.I,~ ~ 0
~\J~'t) 'j{ o~
),~. ~Q. t.,-: .
UN'" O. ~a
~""T ., ~N.
I .~O
1\.170.'6'1:
o
oS
I r.. -F-
l-. c..,.I I
. I
//1
I I
I
I "
'","'~
f... ,
I~- 34-
CNC &.. ('1-)
- "", "
_",.. Qe ,n
.
(i,12A.VEb
7Z0t '"
. ".';
,
----_._-- - .---
DOCUMENT NO..
CHV,A VIST"';
CORNER
RECORD
4(1;(/, -O~t7 :1:5
COUNTY OF
SAN DIEGO
. CALIFORNIA
. ..
SEC, . T,
tOT r.t O~ EL RAMC#O
-'MERIDIAN
. R:. -
w' .. _ ~ . ~..... . ..
j//,L.AS PER MAP NO. -Z.!17ti--
-...-..-.-....
I
I
I
I
~ ,w"
, CORNER TYPE':' : I;"COORDINATES
..
GOV'T. CORNER .0 CONTROL- D- ,'N. - 1'1~
.
MEANDER [] PROPERTY . L' 174-5
, .
RANCHO [] OTHER I [J ~~. ~
--- . . .. . ~ -. . 'w'__
"
~
.
~
~
---- ----
DATE OF SURVEY'
7-Z~-87 ., .
ELEV.
. I
CORNER - LEFT AS FOUND []
FDUND . AND TAGGED []
REE~':ABLISHED :.
"EBUIL T []
.'
PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION OF CORNER FOUND' .EVIDENCE USED TO IDENTIFY THE CORNER
. .rOt/NO A:7INTS AS MOTC'O (.s&C SNEEr 2 O~ z.J.
. ~VAlO PK NAIL P&R CITY o.r Co//. T/ES, Bk: 4$5-2A ~./~~.-
( ) RECORO OATA peR MAP .-</0. r,S7/1.
I ~ .
PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION OF MONUMENTS REBUILT. PERPETUATED. OR RESET
o SET ~N.x/t!rJ.R WITH O/SC'ST..-?MPED RCE /Z89&..
-........... -
A CO"NE" RECORD ....Y IE UIED TO R~O"T THE RECOYlRY
0" ~E"~ETUATION 0' IURVEY IoIONUIlENTI.O" TO INDW THE REUTAlLIINM[NT
0' IoIONUIoIENTI WHERE "ELD CONDITIONS _E[ IUIITAIITIALLY WITH IIECORD
I. THE CORNER RECORD II TO IE .R~ARED IY A LICENSED LAllI IURYlTOR DR REIIITIIIED CIYIL _1_ _ nLID WITH THE _TV
IURYEYOR lOR COUNTY ENGINEER) 0' THE COUNTY '" WHICH THt CORNER II LOc:ATED.
Z. A CORNER RECORD IHALL IE "LED WITHIN 10 DAYS Of' THE 'DATE D' THE IIECOYEIIY USE l1li IIftWTAlLIIHM[NT fW A CORNE"
UNLESS THE CO"NE. II TO IE IHOWN ON A RECO"D O. IURYlT. PAllCEL OR "IIAL ii4P DUIYID nOli TIlE _YIT WIlleN UIED DR
LOc:ATED 1A10 CORNER. ., .. . ." .'. " '.
S. A CORNER RECORD ....T IE "LED TO IHOW THE PER~[TUATION Of' AIIT EIIITING OR MLlTIIIATED _l1[li fW 'nil I""YlT 0'
THE ~UILIC LANDS. AI lAID CORNERS ARE IIPINED IN TIlE 'MANUAL ., INITRueTIONS '011 TIll IURVEY JII' _IC L_I O' TIlE
UNITED ITATES' 0' THE IUREAU or LAND ......AIEII[NT. THE IDENTIFICATION Of' IUCH COIIICIII lMALL IE IF "'''ILl IN ACCORDAIIeE
WITH THE ..ITEII 0' IDENTI"c:AT'ON .,VEN IT lAID IlAllUAL ., IIIITRUCTIONl, . . ..,.' .
.. AT TIlE OPTION O. THE IURYlTOR OR l1li1_. A _l1[li RECORD MA" IE "LID FOR "'OPERTV CORICIII. "'_TV eoMTIIDLLl1ICI
COR_I. RE'ERENC[ IoIONUII[NTI OR Ac:cIIIOR,.1 TO PRoPERTY CORNERI ......tME COIIIITY _Yl"" l1li COUMTT MINEER
DETERMINES THAT NONE o. TIlE CONDITI_ REOUIRI.. A RI_D ., _YIT UIS1' AI OUTLICD .111 IICTIOII 1712 fW THE
LANDIURYlTORIACT ',' ._..~.l'or:.~, .
I. TIlE COUNTY IURYlTO" OR eDUNTT EMlINEtR INALL IIAIIINE TIlE CORII[II RIeDRD WlTH'N 10 DAn FOR ~- WITH 'IECTlON
Ins 0' THE LAND IURVETOR. ACT. U~ON DETERIIINATION TNAT THE AlOVE LilTED CONDITI_ AIlE lA=m AlII THAT THE
IN'OR....TION lEOUIRED ELSEWHERE ON THII 'OR" II CO"LETE. THE COUNTY IUtlYlTOR 011._'_ ~"'LE _INDEX TIlE
~, CORNER IIECORD AlII NOTIFT THE IURVETORII..hCER ., IUCH "Ll III. .... _. - .'
. CORNER RECORDI IUlIIITTED 'OR IURYlTI WHleN. _ IECTIOII I?SI .,. THE LAllI IUIImOllI ACTdlEDUIRI A lllCOIID fW IUIIYIT
I"ALL IE RETURNED TO THE IURYlTOII 011 INGINEER TDIITHER WlTII A ITATII<<NT oP TIlE RWOII ,. IUc:M KTUIIN .
1, CALIFOIINIA COORDINATE InTEII DATA MAY IE lNOWN, IUT lllOULD IE _"AlliED IY All IDIIITInGATlOII fW'" ._" fW I\ICH
'WOll....T.OM. . ' .
I. " Imc" INO..III RPIIIENCE TIES TO ACCIIIOIIIEl l1li OTHER '!DENTlfIAlLE OIJtCTI IN THE VICINITY ., TIll CDII1I[II I"ALL IE
PROTlDED WHERE W~RO~RIATE. ~HOTOIRWHI AIII/OII TOP_WHT ., TIlE __T _ IURROUNDI" AIIIA AlII ---
DPW'oom""R..11I21 Ex.~" .fJ:,:~7~.SHEET I~~-~-~'~:_- ~-g';;~c.~("!-(a~s~s 1.
~---
-- --
. --- .-...
._---~.._- - ~_.
.. - -_._~
CORNER RECORD
DOCUMENT NO.
r
- --: .~:. \ ';,..:., ~i
~'. -.-
.. . .1 . - .
. i 1, . ,-'": .' "-rr
-" .... .-.
.----.... ---. - ...._~...-
-- .....__..
COUNTY OF"
SAN nTFGn
.~ CALIF"ORNIA
~ . -'
'.. ...
'i" . . .,
I ,! .;.__~_1; i ~I
Ii! i CL___.-:_ ~ - l'
-+--t1i'- . .
. l' I.
.: '\...1
, . I."; I !
. iT!
!I-' I
'. -.j ,
i'~
" ...
. .
!
---..-
o1cr:~A~.J.~-.w/"-
Jr::J J",sC - ~CI,.,i'"
. . ~,(IIf)'~4'"Q1~.D.
. -, - -t
, 1'I"~--::-:-:-'19"" .-.--.-. --7 .01
-----. - ----------- ,~
, '-,~--
.?-' D:rzr~71r./t'/-..~ .:.'
.I '1'" . j,~.g;~I~I7".!.-'_ ~~
; Nf1 ~4rD'D., ;
, " .~--
-.- ---- -?~I-t~ _.._~--\!,!~ .
--.----' .j..,....--'.....-""T.'""": -:~ . ~
_ ?!t::. :"',"j ~~. -
(3/5.Z0' . -.;:,"1)
).,._ .._~.. ~__.::....:.. --J-)~~~-'~-' -~. .1'\
, ',- .... .' r ' . . ~..'
.~ --.-.---.-~----.. - -)E
. ~ I '.,' , . . ", ~:_
-~.~. '?/I'- -&:
~ .......-j'. ......._~
.~._-~.
i
-~. ';
;S
-;-'-I"--~
. ;._1.:___ ,-: - -~
, .-- ~ .~.
co
-
:- '--r::::.""-"
_._:0-. u:.. . .-~.
~_-_"--s-~
----../1.
____-=:1-_
I
1---- - --- . ":.>,',
L=-~-" ~
1.___
I'
r --...
C:'~_]'
:2:=:-
--J ... '
.c.:;:), .
.-....-.
,
...~.~-:
...... - ~
.--- ...,.. -" .
. _.__~1_ ~-::_,~..:~~-~~."T.~.~-t.T- ~
IU~'t:YO~'S CEnl'ICATE
.1;OUICT't l~mo~'1 CEIInPlCATE
TNIS CORNEll RrCO~D WAI RECEIVD
.' ......i
. ,. ..~.
;... \J
. r,~ ~ ,
THII ~NEII ~ECORD WAI P~EP.~ED IV ME O~
.
..:
..
":""
..- ;. ,~.
.' ~,.
.. ,
. .
1'fLI' 'POR. 'ft.II; CrMnn"V ~t:TN1=J:R
-., J ..f;.. 1
.:.......
,'t . ..
. " .., ''-f-
,. ,. '!"
. ~ . . ":., ,.
SEAL
,
i .,t .r' . . ...... .j .,,:,
."; I. ~ '. ......~ ..~, ~ .t ~.~ t.'
~ ... . '_. .:t....) :'"~ ....,. . ...~.. ..)
'. .' '" ',:\' ,."".: .' :," . I '~..:
., !....,
'.. ..
. ;,:"
....,
.,...
......:....
"'-.'
.. .....
... ",-
..::: .""..
.':
..: ....
.- -
...
..
.,
.,. ..
....'11..
'1' ,~ .
. . .: tJ!~f"'-'
. 't';' .... '7J .
~ ~ '-'
r::X. -~:
SHEET 2 OF 2' .~,.;~
E Nc...L(s:)""'~;
c
-. -(
I
.
:
"
..
:tl.
~!
"
.
. i
- .
.
) .t:
.. .
--.-.
.",0
..
,
..
..
,
z;n,
@)
O..-oAC.
13
)
'" 12
24...
@
~
...... u
~
.e!l' 7"
@UI
4 0."7'
.....:. ......~iJt:J.......
@)
~". 3
@
..
~. _ 2.'_
~.... . ~oo......
@)
.. 00
"'&.0&
..
o
..
1."0 ,'U."
I ,-!...,
-'.ft
I'1I;P- 237'
,
.
-==-==..-:.
-
2.IS..,.:
1'..'7. ..
G> 0
'''loCo _..c.
I? J
..
Ie (
--'qJ,
..
.....
go
t ,
<:) I
-- .......' ~
e o .
e.U/C.. . U
e .CD
u
CD
..
:10 CD
. :~ u
.
..
II:
..
.
40
@
L"~.
14
,E"'"
tt....,. @
_..c.
15
., I...
16 @
a....
.'.11-
17 ~
~20..'"
16 @ ,
H ~,.. ."
19 @ .
, ~
.. 3,..3C
.
20 ~ H
. r
y
I .3,
21 ~ .
.. ~'~.2.
22 ~
. H
,
"
,
..
aI
@: C!) .e
:i'
aD
. S4 ..'-
61"
!... ,.
. ~_. -., ...
I ~~
- :
D
'.
E NC-( .(l)
Ex. 2;"
/f'- ,,37
Pis.-IE-
- This Page Blank -
.
/'1-38
G-14
Recording requested by and
please rttllrn to:
0~'" /1?J ~~ 7?,tP9...r
~0~ .'
City Clerk
City of Chu!a Vista
P.O.. Box 1087
Chula Vista, CA 91912
( X] This document benefits
permittee. Recording
fee required.
T (This IpICe for Recorder'aUIC. 0DIy) T
Affects AIIessor' a Parcel No. 566-131.07-00
AUTHORIZATION FOR ENCROACHMENT IN CITY RIGHT OF WAY
0710 -kJ
Permit No. PE-340
.,'
Application Fee:
Receipt No.:
Inspection Fee:
;.
~ipt No.:
$105 00 .
141~IO
113500
'~Q'\hl
Pursuant to Chapter 12.28 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. permission is hereby granted by the City
of Chula Vista (hereinafter "CITY") to: RETTIE WARREN (hereinafter "pERMJ1TEE") to do work
within a ponion of land belonging to the City of Chula Vista (AIIessor's Parcel No. 566-131-13-00'.
AD tenns and conditions of this pennit as to the PERM1TI'EE IbalI be a burden upon .-uJittee'a1and and
shall run with the land. All conditions apply to pERMJ1TEE and all hislberltbeir heirs. assigt"<, lIJC(C$sors
or transferees.
Whereas, the PERMIlTEE has requesled the permission from CITY to encroach on &aid CITY'a parcel
adjacent to and for the direct benefit of the fonowing described propeny:
ADDRESS: 19 FIRST AVENUE
LEGAL DESCRJP110N: ID the CIty 01 CbuIa VIa, c-tJ 01 Su Diep, be 01 c.aronda, IIIID&
the DortberIy 270 feet 01 the ,...ot'-ty .e85 feet 01 the WIIterIy 215.78 feet 01 the DKtbeut qurter
01 Quarter SedIo.o w, twlfdlDa to Map 1IIIreoI No. III, ._dW ID the GftIce 01 the CcIaDty
Record. oI_d CcIaDty May 11, 1869, ",~"I... tlk.4k4IID tb8t JacJ duded to the CIty 01 CbuIa
VIIta by Gee O. McMDIID _WID the c-ty 1tecorW'. GftIce April 10, U59, ID Book 7578,
.. _ of 0ftk:Ial Records,
/'1- 39
'.11
EXHIBIT ''/-(''
PERMISSION IS HEREBY GRANTED to do die ,...... wwk: ........ dIaID IIak r-.. laid
etty.....bed ....... III acconIance with die --..heel Iketcb.
(bereiDafter "ENCROACBMENT")
Now.Ib.,ef<<e. ill ~~ oflbeir DJlllalplOiabIeI,1IId OIlIer aoocIlIId valuable coaaideration, die
pania bereIo aaree II foUows:
PenDiIaion II bereby ..,ufiod PERMITI'EE to Imra1l die IboYe-meaIioaed ENCROACHMENT CD die real
I"~ of CITY cIacribed above ill ICCOrdaDce 1riIh die foIlowiq CODditioas:
.~>;
1. The ENCROACHMENT shall be iDIIa1Ied IIId ....lnniftNI ill I life IIId IIDiWy llllllller II
dctmniDed by CITY.
2. Said iDsIallltion shall, ill DO WIY interfere with die operation of any exi.,n" utility (except II
indicated in Item S, below), includina but not limited to aorm drain lines owned IIId ....intoi11ed
by CITY. Any changes of or to any utility due to die Wi-II_tion by PERMITTEE of private
flcilities shall be It the sole expense of PERMITTEE.
3. Mlintenance. removal or relocation of the lbove-mentioned instaIJation of the private facilities
Iha1I be the sole responsibility of PERMITTEE. and/or PERMJ'ITEE'slessee, ahouId!here be any.
I! DO expense to CITY.
~
4.
Said installation shall conform to all standards IIId apeCrficatioas II lilted in die ChuIa Vista
Municipal Code.
'"t),'
S. PERMITTEE shall provide I ten-foot-wide gate in the fence to provide access for City crews to
maimain existing sewer facilities lying within said City-owned parc:el1IId. if Iodted. PERMITI'EE
is to provide I key to the Depanmem of Public Works Operatioas Division.
6. If said gate is locked. PERMITIEE shall provide I key to all owners of ptoperties dill abut said
City-owned parcelllld that have DO other legal means of entry from I dedicated IU'eet or alley.
7. PERMI1TEE shall attach I Knox Box or Knox Lock to die pie in accordance 1riIh the
requirements by die CITY', Fire Depat1meDt.
8. PERMI'ITEE sbaII DOt allow ENCROACHMENT to block IIIIUrII draiDaae of IIOIm.... wiIbin
die drainaae course in die vicinity of die propoMd ENCROACHMENT.
This permiI Is revocable upon 1biny (30) days wriIten DDtiI:e to die _~. IIId upon JUCh nodc:e. die
iDStalIaIion IIIUIt be removed or reIorMM. IIIIId wIleD apecIfied by CITY. It PERMITJ'EE', COlI. If
PERMITI'EE failI10 ,__ft or re10cate ENCROACHMENT wIdIin die period 11Ioaed. CITY BY CIIIIe
such work to be done IIId die COII1bereof shall be ..., .,..., II I lien upon PERM1'ITEE"I"~' .
PERMITTEE IbaU defend, iW........il'y. proteet IIId bold barmIeIa die CiIy. ill elected IIId ~ oftic:en
and employees, from IIId IgaiDlt all claims for cIamqes. liability, COlt IIId e'Cpellle (includiDa without
limitation attorneys' feel) arising out of die conduct of the PERMITTEE, or ar,y agent or employee, ..
~.ctorI, or otben in c....~ wiIh die aec:udoa of die work coverec! by Ibis ~, except T
/1-4.C
......
~ wLl" n Z
~X. rr r'~.
----
-------
j
only for those claims arising from die sole ueJligeuce or sole wl1ifui c:oaduct of die City. iii officen, 'or
employees. PERMITTEE', iDdemnification IbI1I iDcIude III)' and a1I COltS. rxpenr~ , attorDeyI' fees and
liability incurred by die City. ill officen, qeuII, or ~Ioyees in defendiDa "",11m IUCb claims, whether
die ume proceed 10 .r~ or DOt. l'unber, PERMITTEE 11 ill own ~ 1bI1I, IIpOII wriaaI request
by the City, defend any IUCh suit or action brouJht _pin.. die City. iIa officera. apIIII. or employees.
PERMITTEE', iDdemDifu:aIion of City IbI1I not be JimIted by III)' prior or IIIbIequed decIaracion by die
PERMI1TEE.
(
PERMITTEE hereby qrees 10 and IbaJJ ddcIId CJ1Y. ill eIec:dve and ~~i.e bauds, (>ffi. f,...,ems
and employees IpiDIIIII)' claim, and ill 111)' IUit or plorteA"'a. It law or ill equity, for dImaps caused,
or a1Ieged to have been cauJed. by ICtiODIIIb:D or aIJepd 10 have been Iaken aDder this permit by
PERMJ1TEE directly or by bislberltbelr qeut(1). CCIIIII'8CIOr(I), or apIIII or empIoyea of ame.
PERMl1TEE furdIer qrees to and IbI1I -if)' and bold barmIas CJ1Y. III eIecdve aDd appolDdve
boards. officen, qemslJld employees. II ...,.......10_, for III)' claim, IIIit or .-,,~eed, ........itt-A.
brouJ!It or instituted apiDIt CITY II a rault of 1CIiODI1Ib:D. or aJJepd 10 have been IIb:D. aDder chis
permit. iDcluding. but DOt limited 10. III)' .-ned liability for IaII of 01' damap 10 .......ty or far penonaI
injury. iDcluding death.
The undersigned PERMIITEE hereby accepts the foregoing eucJ'()II. hn_ permit upon die terms and
conditions stated herein and agrees to comply with a1I stated terms and CODditions and with a1I applicable
laws, including any applicable provision of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. It Is further agreed that if
any pan of PERMITJ'EE's ENCROACHMENT or PERMITTEE', ri&bts UDder chis eucJ'()IIrmn."" permit
should interfere with the future use of the CITY', right of way by the general public, it IDUIt be removed
or relocated at PERMITTEE's expense and such rip sbalI be termm.....d II and wba1 inrIir,,'ed by CITY.
In the event of a dispute arising as to the terms or interpretation 9..f'this permit. Ibe City EDaineer abaIl
resolve said dispute in his sole and unfettered discretion, reuona5ly applied.
(End of page, Next is SignatuTe Page.)
'~
.';Ii'.
'.
F/-J/fJ
,~
Ex. "1-111 P~. 3
SIGNATURE PAGE
MTV OF CIIULA VISTA:
Permit lppI'OVecI by:
d
L. SwmIJOII, Deputy Public Works Director!
City Engineer
rMu:~
(City Cleric to attach acJawwldgrrttnl to IItJCt page.)
PJ:RMITM:E:
..
,~.-rr:>> lJ)d
I-....J
0;-
Date: j-.3o -96
(Notary 10 attach ac1cnowledgme1lt to 11m page.)
Apnroved AS to form:
~~Zfi.1"" lr.'i~.i:z:'01+:S:
BN . Boopard, Ctty ttomey
NOTE: Pmnin" illO nbmit Q check or InOIII)' order"""''' eo.." of Sa DIqo '" tire -..rt oj
SUllO 10 _ the cost o/filmg this permit wilh tire ec-ty hcordtr.
ItJ-J,fa.
.........
Ex. "1-1 n Pa. 4-
CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOaE ACKNOWLEDGMENT
....110'I
I
State of C IP,,(. ,;r tPte41 ",/9
County of .r A A/ ~u € t;" 0
On ti.P d 1'9..,1 '" 9 , (. before me, /P '" - ~J 7:' a"'4'/;'~ _T--, 11t4
...TE _........0I_.......____0IaC
personally appeared 4c.rr1c &.I. A/~A~e'''''''
_01_1
o personally known to me - OR - ~roved to me on the basis of eatisfactory evidence
to be the person(~ whose name01) Is-'-
subscribed to the withIn Instrument and ac-
knowledged to me that ../she,.. executed
the same In "/her/~ authorized
capaclty(_). and that by laia/her/tM:i:r
signature(.) on the Instrument the person(tQ,
or the entity upon behalf of which the
person(s) acted, executed the Instrument.
1- -.:.- - ~T~~ - ~i
- i~~ c~.106ID69 I
I ..' < No1OtY _Iic.califOmlO J
. ,. '; SANDiE~COUN1V -
J ~ _ :. _My_C~~~~N_ 2~1~ .1
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
.A'~ v. d'.J'_.
..:" 'IIGNATUIIIE Of NOTAlty
OPTIONAL
Though the data below is not required by law, ft may prIM valuable 10 pe~ relying on !hi documInI and ooutd pmlent
fraudulent reattachment ollhis lorm.
CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER
~INDIVIDUAL
o CORPORATE OFFICER
DESCRIPTION OF AnACHED DOCUMENT
",.,T/~~"".A"'../ '-if)" ,4k:.-tOAe'
1'1tU OR TYPE OF DOCUMENT""'~
1mE(S)
o PARTNER(S)
OUMITED
o GENERAl
-.,-
NUMBER OF PAGES
o A'TTORNEY-IN-FACT
o TRUSTEE(S)
o GUARDIAWCONSERVATOR
o OTHER:
JD t,/","/ ~,,(,.
DATE OF DOCUMENT
SIGNER IS REPRESENTING:
_ OI"-SIOI\ENTJT\'IIISI
SlGNER(S) OTHER THAN NAMED ABOVE
... NATIONALIIIC1fAlrr AllIOCIATICH' _ _ _.. ,.0.... 71'" ~ __ CA "_7'"
/?-43
Ex. "JI" PiI.-S
CIT'/-IIW".O
'~iJP4~TY'
4()'
/
/
/ /
/ /
/~/
/ ~#(,~ I
/Q~ /
/~V/
/ ~ '
,," '
( fiT J
I /
I /
.
.:-
NA1141t/
'~~.ltTr
"D" STREET
" l(,
f1 '~
~ ~
'< \ ~~
,.
.
/9-LfLf .~"
a. fI" A-~
.
..
t
i
\ rt
J \'
CHULA VISTA ELEM!:.NTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT
ROSEBANK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
80 Flower Street. Chula Vista, CA 91910 . (619) 422-8329
April ] 6, ] 996
To Whom it May Concern:
When I spoke with Mrs Warren in the fall, I was left with the impression that the road our
children took on their nature walks was a private drive. However, after I spoke with our teachers
and other members of the community, I discovered that the road is not her private drive.
I spoke to our kindergarten teachers who take their class down the road four times a year about
alternative routes. We could not find an acceptable route. I also spoke with them about the
necessity of being good neighbors and being as non-disruptive as possible while taking their
walks.
Our students continue. with my knowledge, to use the road to go on their nature walks These
walks are highly supervised and our students are very respectful of our neighbors and their
property I am personally very comfortable having the children go on these walks and feel as
though their safety is not a concern.
As I am sure you are aware, the taking of nature walks to share common outdoor experiences
adds greatly to the educational experience of our students. It would be a great loss, if we were no
longer able to take such walks.
Sincerly,
)----- ~/ ---
---..J; c:" ? ~ ~ & '. ;r-'
Steve Van Zant
Principal
.J.
~'- -5
I
From: E.L. Malago, Owner Lot 22, Map 2376
83 Minot Avenue. Chula Vista, CA 91910
I..; ",-,.> th"L'0 c,c. -::- ']) To :::"c/ -I-,u" "w', J /Io,<,e,!.
Kr<i.3- Y>7P/' !- /!oK7d,.l t1;V' ,+/ri-K. 7. v":.. '_if IL:
.,'>.,-,.." i32>.r .:T .([;1'/''''' kee..+<-<.....-
(~/V1-j .
,..,
( ..
\. \ \
"
To: Clifford L. Swanson, Deputy Public Works Director,
City Engineer
Ref. A. Authorization for Encroachment in City Right of Way, Permit
No. PE-340
Enclosures:
(1) Sketch showing area for gate/fence installation issued
with Permit No PE-340
(2) Sketch showing descrepancies of sketch issued with
Permit No. PE. 340 (Enc!. 1)
(3) Sketch by E.L. Malago showing extended area of Ene!. (1)
(4) Lot 22, Map 2376 survey, Dated 11-9-79
(5) Lot 22, Map 2376 Survey Dated 7.22-87
(6) City Map 2376, in part, Area Concerned
Subject: Objection and Reasons for Protesting REF. A.
1. I strongly object to the authorization of Permit No. Pe-340,
Ref.A, refers, for the following reasons:
A. The sketch issued with Permit No. PE-340, Encl (1) refers, is
filled with errors as I see it as shown on Encl (2), using Encl's (3),
(4) & (6) for verification. Even the north direction insignia is 18
degrees in error to the west Did the City validate the accuracy of
the sketch?
B. The three (3) fence posts installed going north to south are
definitely on Lot 22 as shown on Encl's (2) and (3). My land survey,
Enc!. (4), shows that my property extends into the road about six (6)
feet in the easterly direction and about twenty -four (24) feet in the
northerly direction. I insist that the three (3) posts be removed.
o (
"
'.'
o
,)
,/ /, /7
I' I '"
'=.)
, ,
C. This is the third different location Bettie Warren has installed a
fence/gate on the gravel/dirt road on City and adjacent properties.
Not one (1) foot of fence was on Warren property. The two (2)
previous locations I also protested. The present location I can
contest and hold the City liable.
(1) Being as the City owns a forty (40') foot strip of land east of
my property, I respectfully request the City do a land
survey, the findings could be very surprising.
D. One of the reasons I bought our property was I loved my view
from the back yard, a rural appearance where one may enjoy some
open space. Mr. Warren (now deceased) had horses on the norther end
of his property. I visited with him, talked horses, enjoyed that, for I
owned horses. I enjoyed seeing people, children with dogs, walking
toward the open space. Bettie Warren has been trying to take that
away for many years, dis-enchanting herself with all her neighbors.
E. I saw a young girl strain for about ten (10) minutes to get her
two (2) dogs over the previously installed fence/gate. Very
saddening. Also saw young people lifting, straining, and dropping
bicycles over the fence/gate. I do not want to see more of that.
2. I do not know what reasons were offered to the City to authorize
Permit No. PE-340. If one (1) of them was vehicular traffic, the only
vehicular traffic that I notice belongs to the renters that live on the
north end of the Warren property that previously was a horse barn
and horse corrals.
A. When I bought my property, I was informed by the Realtor, all
lots in the area are R-1 lots, when was the Warren property
designated R-2??
3. Confrontations with Bettie Warren at times prompted me to have
land surveys in 1979 (Ene!. 4) and in 1987 (Ene!. 5). At a cost of
$600.00 Wooden surface markers were implanted, within a short
period of time the markers would disappear. Mrs. Warren is well
aware that she must trespass on my property in a vehicle to get to
her residence due to the Superior Court granting a judgement to
William E. Warren and Bettie J. Warren for right of way, egress and
ingress to their property, Superior Court Document No: 323442,
dated March II, 1974. Refers.
A. Does the right of right of way apply to the renters also?
/'/1/7
I
4. Some of the topics mentioned above may not be pertinent to the
subject of this letter. But, it is my opportunity to present to
responsible City officials just a few of the problems and questions
that me and my neighbors would like resolved.
5. We do not want fences/gates on City property that would
obstruct access to the rural valley and open space that we tax
payers/voters enjoy.
6. I am available for questions/interview anytime.
Respectfully,
83 MINOT AVE.
CHULA VISTA, CA 91910
426-2750
cc Sid Morris, Assistant City Manager
George Krempl, Deputy City Manager
Shirley Horton, Mayor, Chula Vista
/ '/ rf)
CITY- ()WN~O
PRO P6R Ty"
4<:J I
/
/
/
/
/ ~ "
/ ::.,<;i> /
J ~\ (
,/ <J"r /
) ,
/ '
/ ::.,<;V/
( <1-'?' /
r 0 .
/ /
/
" Iv
<}" ~V
v.' ~0
\"
/
,
.
,
"D 1/
WAICJi!CN
PICOPcRTY
STREET
SI</ZTCH ISJ'-'1.EP lJflH
E /Ve. R ();fC tf fI1 E" IV T :f1= i? 01 ~T 7<1'" -:3. LJfM:! ~ EN .
//~/i
.~.
ENC-L.( ()
€CtrY.OWN.!O
L<lT-2.-;I PROPERTY
LoT"-,-~
4<)'
I
\
l
WA~~clv'
PteOPcRTy'
fti1r'iZo". Loc.i?-Tl ~ N
FcjJ~6~ IN5v8l.c..Ei
M. '" X )(
P/-e6.CT/d ^' /pq.R.I< .
/? 0 f;IIF " ;= 1= To G.lcS7' l
PIZOPO,EO PENc.E
I J"" ".1 \ -:7 I
. ri:t/'6.::.r'f A/'~"';
)..... C 1-- 2 Z-
1-0',-7..-3
ur ;z.oo 3(5~ D
Q
/1-p/ NtJT 3~
1
"D" STREET
/
" x,
l}" ~\)
,<' :;.'v
'?-
V JK€TGIf -5How1N6
f.. E V I> E:)>
p1, ~ ~ t4-<2 c: I...( 1L~'n=.- . ~t;{T~ Y .
/'/~.5' [)
.~. .
EN(!...L. CV
//....-
,\:- ,
- ,
. - -= -;
~/.:'::"-.: :......
j::; r'
r :;."...
. j. -;"
1"-
L()T- . ~
L D r-
,'-- ~
"
-
~
.-'
'? ,:
-- - "
"
...1.: -"',
,0
- 7-7..
"I
~N'
J~
J" 'I'
I U
--
..... "- '- -
=-
('<..
;.,;) "
23
-"
/.-.oTZL!
.. .
,-' -.
--
:':'-~;'/ ,~.': . ,.
-C
..-::: "
'1
~~::..-2
-' ~
1(:. s:'C,4-t.-tZ
~
','
-.
'Jo",;'.) _ _...;'
'?:.' --. ~
).,6 r- 2. '2-
...:- .::.
-
.' - "
,
'-
- .
7 ~~-
.; ~1
9'
./ :!
,
-;'1
,je
, ,
I
"" I
- - -
,
"'"
~
40 I
C, "I
P_~..J.~.>
<.....'-" r- "-
I
I
"
,
/
c~~
'-. -
"'DCI
'I
~- ,
",
-
--
1
;'
I ,
v'./
\
-~
, ----.
~
?6 f1I(./;
'- t t::-
.J
01fi<ttrJ/'
{:65iJ)~~
:
,
r
I
/
i
!
!
"
.-.
- >
Co
-sr.
'4-31
I / /'
c,
I ,~-,,-,,~, .
._ 1,;':;_ '
(; -:-/ 1"' ~~N -;:::;
",.~:.I -__,
~
,~:;:~~~~:~~=~ E~'~;:: .
.,
-
--l
-......J
1
,
I
I
ENC.C..( 3,)
CHKO. BY ________OATE_____h__
5UI!JECT _kT___~f:i~~L~\.;._~:n~_1JJ~~~
6.1Th..~~r~:L___R...D.~___~~___
-LD-T_.2..2...r~&~--2..~_"&_________
BY __..)J~~____ OA TI!;_L~:3=B
---------------------------------
,
l-
e
<
---
<.
~i:::~A..Qc.i) >:,'(:.
\)I-\IL\..\ V::, - 12\:::'(1'\;) O\..f:>:,
7/ N, 4"0 A'VE..
CJ...lDl.J~ '\/J ~rA. ~ CA
4Z0-SL.!OO
SHEET NO.____-1___01".1___
JOB NO. _3_8J5___________
-~L&._~_L=_~2.~_h
IJRE ):>A..12C\; 1=C)\2.',
E 1)\J\JAl2.i) L. N'\ l4l...Abl")
e-::, IV\\ NC)T A,'\re..
C.WIJLj:>., -v, '::.Ie, ) (A..
'r-U)\a
E !'\1b. II\lC..
,
o
-..9
I r- -,.-
L ~) I
, --
r
I I
1/-,-, 1(1.
'- - \._" I / t'_J
o
~
I (' - - r '::1
1-_ _) L L"
o
..S)
I t-)-"- ~.Jr-
1__ \... I !_ "-)
~
I /- - r -) I
1-_'-)' L_.
1\) 70" /6' E
3/1.." :z.S'
o
..s
Fl. (!J4J,.4GO
LOT 22-
M /:.. P z ~ 70
31~,?-a
1\J700'8'f:;
o
..s
I /-'-r- -.;"~
!-. 1_.1 I f... ."
'7:z..o I 0
H:,"'~ (') "0/4" 1>. i'E.
"r2.c.~ \'7:'1"'"
-
I'\! C) t2.sc... ..........
1:-001\.1,1) 3/.:.j"?/ i'>::
"I(. C (0171.:.' __
I'\.\() rz.~c...
E. J... /J'J.J..f...,4 c:; c
RJu>..\'U 7'4"C~
~\"?E:, "" C\. ~ =c....-
e.",,,"""i' 0, ~C\
W~T 0>- LINE.
ENe L. ('f)
/ 7" 3~
,
C> c
<! ~
0
DI
t;) t1J
:
~ 0
R. c.q-
0 ~ --
I::l ..;j'"
~ 0
Q)
d
0 VJ
\.L ()
~
~
w
'i
l!J
,/J a
::r ~
I..i.J
'0
IY\
--
~
- --
6J<AVEL
j I rzOAI)
/ /
I
,
I
~
~..~...._-
DOCUMENT NO.
C;'(VLA' t//ST/1
CORNER
RECORD
.5cP<:?-/ZO -C?S
COUNTY OF
SAN DIEGO
CALIFORNIA
SEC,
LOT ZZ OF Ei.
T,
RA')J'CHO
. R.
J//Lt'../lS PER /v1/lP NO. '237':;"
- MERIDIAN
- ..- .-.,. -
CORNER TYPE' COORDI NA TES
........ GOV'T. CORNER 0 CONTROL 0 N. /7~
\:J 0 . /745
MEANDER PROPERTY E.
~ RANCHO 0 OTHER' 0 ZONE :JZI
\XJ
I1J DATE OF SURVEY' 7-Z2'-87 ELEV.
CORNER - LEFT AS FOUND 0
FOUND AND TAGGED 0
REESTABLISHED .
REBUILT 0
PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION OF CORNE,R FOUND' EVIDENCE USED TO IDENTIFY THE CORNER
. FOUND POINTS /?S NOTED (SEE SHEET 2' OF Z).
. FOt/ND PX-NA/L PER C/T'T'OF C.~ T/ES I BK",S-2'/? P6./Gc;.
( ) R.ECORL? O/?T/? PER MA'P "uO. .?37cP.
PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION OF MO~<UMENTS REBUILT, PERPETUATED, OR RESET
o Sc7 .J4"X/8"J.P. IY/Th' DISC ST/?MPED RCE /Z89~.
A CORNER RECORD MAY BE USED TO REPORT THE RECOVERY
OR PERPE7UATION OF SURVEY MONUMDHS,OR TO SHOW THE REESTABLISHMENT
OF MONUMENTS WHERE FIELD CONDITIONS AGREE SUBSTANTIALLY WITH RECORD
I. THE CORNER RECORD IS TO BE PREPA.RED BY A LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR OR REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER AND FILED WITH THE COUNTY
SURVEYOR (OR COUNTY ENGINEERJ OF THE COUHTY IN WHICH THe CORNER IS LOCATED.
2. A CORNER RECORD SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 90 DAYS OF THE DATE OF THE RECOVERY. USE OR REESTABLISHMENT OF A CORNER
UNLESS THE CORNER IS TO BE SHOWN ON A RECORD OF SURVEY, PARCEL OR FINAL MAP DERIVED FROM THE SURVEY WHICH USED OR
LOCATED SAID CORNER.
3. A CORNER RECORD MAY BE FILED TO SHOW THE PERPETUATION OF ANY EXISTING OR OBLITERATED CORNER OF THE SURVEY OF
THE PUBLIC lANDS, AS SAID CORNERS ARE DEFINED IN THE .MANUAL OF INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE SURVEY OF PUBUC LANDS OF THE
U~jITED STATES' OF THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT. THE IDENTIFICAT!ON OF SUCH CORNERS SHALL BE IF POSSIBLE IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE SYSTEM OF IDENTIFICATION GIVEN BY SAID MANUAL OF INSTRUCTIONS.
4. AT THE OPTION OF THE SURVEYOR OR ENGINEER, A CORNER RECORD MAY BE FILED FOR PROPERTY CORNERS, PROPERTY CONTROLLING
CORNERS. REFERENCE MONUMENTS OR ACCESSORIES TO PROPERTY CORNERS WHEN THE COUNTY SURVEYOR OR COUNTY ENGINEER
DETERMINES THAT NONE" Of" THE CONDITIONS REQU!RING A RECORD OF SURVEY EXIST AS OUTLINED IN SECTION 8762 OF THE
LAND SURVEYORS ACT .
~. THE COUNTY SURVEYOR OR COUNTY ENGINEER SHALL EXAMINE THE CORNER RECORD WITHIN 20 DAYS FOR CONFORMANCE WITH SECTION
61B OF THE LAND SURVEYORS ACT. UPON DETERMINATION THAT THE ABOVE LISTED CONDITIONS ARE SATISFIED AND THAT THE
INFORMATION REQUIRED ELSE\.yHERE ON THIS FORM IS COMPLETE. THE COUNTY SURVEYOR OR ENGINEER SHALL FILE AND INDEX THE
CORNER RECORD AND NOTrFY THE SURVEYOR/ENGINEER OF SUCH FlUNG..
6. CORNER RECORDS SUBMITTED FOR SURVEYS WHICH, UNDER SECTION 6762 OF THE LAND SURVEYORS ACT, REOUIRE A RECORD OF SURVEY
SHALL BE RETURNED TO THE SURVEYOR OR ENGINEER TOGETHER WITH A STATEMENT OF THE REASON FOR SUCH RETURN
7. CALIFORNIA COORDINATE SYSTEM DATA )"lAY BE SHOWN. BUT SHOULD BE ACCOMPANIED BY AN IDENTIFICATION OF'THE SOURCE OF SUCH
INFORIrIA TION,
B. A SKETCH SHOWING REFERENCE TIES TO ACCESSORIES OR OTHER IDENTIFIABLE OBJECTS IN THE VICINITY OF' THE CORNER SHALL BE
PROVIDED WHERE APPROPRIATE. PHOTOGRAf'HS AND/OR TOPOGRAPHY OF THE 1.40NUMENT AND SURROUNDING AREA ARE ENCOURAGED.
--.- --- -- - -
-E N~'-. (~) C2.~SHrf t
- -.- ---- - - - ~., -- ------ --~
OPW Form 117 (Rev 6/82)
'1-53
SHEET I OF 2 ,-
I
Ie
DOCUMENT NO.
CORNER RECORD
~
- (
SAN DIEGO
COUNTY OF
CALIFORNIA
, '
1-._~-::\ ----.:
,~ I
~~ -r-
..:. '- ~ :- ~-- :("\!, . -~ :
g~-_.-- -~ ~__~-1~J 1
\::,
.~ ~~~~----;JIT;~~k;/~9:-
-~- -;.</0 RECORO. - ,
__~____~=.~_-= Ujg ~= _~~_~=
~
~-rr--:- ---::=-_
.~
-- -- - ~
<J(
t-..-
"-
. . 4j
\
. - ~
,~
.~
.
.~
"~
-J'--
____J__ __
----- - - -
z
.
-.:..- ---:-,.t=Z{ .u<7/.'/1I/-=-::
_;_ ?O_P/S?,~R€~/7.f', ~ _
;,</0 eECoRo.
-~---~:=.~
I~
Ie
1-
..
i,
,.
,Z
'.
'i~
~
'"
,.
,-- r::: --
__0
I
I
I . -'---r'---'
_~n_ __.n.__.:J,.,
~
~___~~~~==-=--=-21~...-.= _-_~-=-~-~:~
'.3/':;.2'5)
-, :?:;:::.'
--~ /'37S~o:J
.::-,~
'~Q>;
~Ii)
,>
>
iz
i'
,"
!ot
!~
:;
,.
D
}~
"1:
_..=--
,"
i.
1-
,..M.
i
I~
1=.
'>
10
10
1-
I~
I~
I~-
I~
2
h ___. __
/1
.,....____=.r'_____
, ,-
I
1____
-~
-~
. --- <\ tf).
:? /1 --.-- -.- ~ _..J
--->-r. _ . ._u _ ~ . ~
. __G. ... j
-,- I _-=::_1
1--.-
\J
~
~-
-)
-0
.-=--~: :-__73-~~~= ~~.:
-- ---~_._-
i -- -~--
~.
L ___~.__~__
!
r
f---..
I
i
I
I
I
~._----
-1
-? --.:---
25
OJ
SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE:
COUNTY SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE
.
THIS CORNER RECORD WAS PREPARED BY ME OR
THIS CORNER RECORD WAS RECEIVED
19_
AND EXAMINED AND FILED
19_
LAND SURVEYORS
i987
BY'
"'TLE' FOR THE r:oUNTY ENGINEER
SIGNED'
=OR
"
SEAL
COUNTY
'.'
C /\fL.L (.s0
'/-1-57'
SHEET 2 OF 2
'0
m ""
0 @ 0 =
, , I ~ aD
,~ '30 35 3.
'. ,.,
'.
-, . D
~ .
V>
::r /"T"..
~
JO
~
~
~
,~.~s
o .
" -
,
Z/O
e
0,90 AC.
ZJO
G
I.""" AC.
.,
~
"
"
,
13
)
""12
14
.
~
1
" .
., ,
15 ,
@ ~."'O./~'€. 3/5.9
J6.BZ....~ "ni.BZ @ ,
~ 16 0 <;
" .; c
, ~
488.~ ..~ @
J~/.5~
0 0 @
<0 '" 17
de'? 7' e '"
:3 20.4.7 ~ -
@) .r..s
y 18 @
" ~
4:7Q.77 ,
" 3/9. 4/
2C'O. . ~
...;" '@ " @ .
19 4
4;11.83 !
W .. 318. 3~ ~
@ > .
20 ~ ,
<t: , g
." l
"'Z.III 317.31 ,
...... LOO
e ...... ,
0, 21 @
Z~ " 311..25
4~5.00
23 @
22
4-:; G. 06
Z8Z.S~
c c
~ '"
.11
, I
1.40 --Z,,/.17
i
-Ir.n
.~.1f'.$'
,
.j.~ ~T 0.....'
.:!.~!.!.~-~
/-.. 0 5T
r4""'? '
,.",
A-~ ~ ,~ /
-if
o
AI
2Z5,2'7'
f\1i? P
(rN
237h
--- ('\
t: NC-(. ~)
/}/_55
~o
'2'5,18 ...
I' ~./e.
G
I.OIAe.
8
o..aO,AC.
J
i
1
17
IS
I>
!!6
~
.~. t"
.....
~.. o.L
.~.
n
:iI
<>
0 .~
-'" ...~. --'L,_
0
0 : o.tZ AC.. 22
0 CD
23
CD
2.
:~0 CD
:~ "
.
l
CD
c
I !
~, I
I
PETITO;,\; TO REVOKE ENCROACHMENT PERMIT NO. PE - 340
We the undersigned, taxpayers and voters, do hereby petition Mayor Shirley Horton
and Members of the City Council to revoke Encroachment Permit No. PE-340 granted
to Bettie Warren of 89 First Avenue on the 31 of January. We believe that the fence
which is constructed across a City road, unfairly inhibits and/or prohibits access to
the undedicated portion of First Avenue and the footpath which connects to the
Sweetwater River. The road provides access for adults and children to go fishing,
biking, jogging, birdwatching and dog walking along the estuary. The road and path
have been established by years of past practice--for some community members past
practice exceeds twenty years. For the City to grant a single individual the right to
fence out the community is both unfair and undemocratic.
NAME
1.0/ /%~~
2. {)-11~ ~~'i{X,---,
3. ~uwJ{U a.1i aU/11.h/flJA"r'L
4. ~A{Jl"-- Q rf(MNJ
bA~l,t~ (!. u'\.oV.1tuvJY.....
5.
!A~CL~~~r
7. ,~)I~J4uy
8. )JJ <:-j~:J:JlC'v0~i\I'_CL".LL~
9/~"d () 1%/JE? ~i
IO./~ !'c:J/
^ /..:t:-,j~ '7
If ~L~"'1-{c:i.......J , \_~
.2 t/~ -/f.?" fVc:\{,.v,~"-\...\:'",cU,~)
I . 1)6~Y ~X'~ '
6.
~
~
/9- 5?
ADDRESS
/0
I]
rc)
--
f'
']-
,
"'L
-~
PETITON TO REVOKE ENCROACHMt:NT PERMIT NO, PE - 340
We the undersigned, taxpayers and voters, do hereby petition Mayor Shirley Horton
and Members of the City Council to revoke Encroachment Permit No. PE-340 granted
to Bettie Warren of 89 First Avenue on the 31 of January. We believe that the fence
unfairly inhibits and/or prohibits access to the undedicated portion of First Avenue
and the footpath which connects to the Sweetwater River. The road provides access
for adults and children to go fishing, biking, jogging, birdwatching and dog walking
along the estuary. Tbe road and path have been established by years of past
practice--for some community members past practice exceeds twenty years. For
the City to grant a single individual the right to fence out the community is both
unfair and undemocratic.
NAME
ADDRESS
I.
)
'.
. ,
//lll
,\ '?/
7
/11.1;
2. L.
j( , \;
3. g i~") \",\ I ' (', L- I v
, .
j -<-,J
1~ i:".! <;)' ....\ v'
4. '4;' . 1''1 vi :..;
, _,1/_", <--I
I \. I . ..t ~ I
I
\ ,I ,'(
! r~f-f--..J
)
5.
((.\ L
c
, '-I
I\:JT1.f;)C.~
'.'j)
6.: ,{:
1 'J ' ,
,,;' vI.. J ...'-7
('{' '7}7/
7. /' ,.
}l,
(
\1irUlt.l..-
)
o
i
, .
, -, \ ~,~
8.' ,.', :'" "'v/-2lh,t~.
/7
9.: 1\.~\'--"~ 1\ ,LO Dc
10. ~J C'rr"i cvJ
'J
I '1- 5.~
PETITON TO REVOKE ENCROACHMENT PERMIT NO. FE - 34()
We the undersigned, taxpayers and voters, do hereby petition Mayor Shirley Horton
and Members of the City Council to revoke Encroachment Permit No. PE-340 granted
to Bettie Warren of 89 First Aveooe on the 31 of January. We believe that the fence
unfairly inhibits aDd/or prohibits access to the undedicated portion of FtrSt Avenue
and the footpath which connects to the Sweetwater River. The road provides access
for adults and children to go fishing, biking, jogging, birdwatching and dog walking
along the estuary. The road and path have been established by years of past
practice--for some community members past practice exceeds twenty years. For
the City to grant a single individual the right to fence out the community is both
unfair and undemocratic.
NAME
ADDRESS
, /' 1;.
I. / YJ O---LC C-L, 0/L. .
)
/7
~. /) . ...--;-/ --o,..L-
2. (/i.-fA.....-<--<- ~ /:?)/~LA.....
3.~e~
4. ~ 6da~
,
5. ,-1:{a ;{ f<( !: I' )!../
Y i, I
,
I'
U ,'I
"
6 f 'iv,; h)^, .. -,. (,
o If -, -'1.'[/",- 'J'l.L'- J,-.<<.~
v
.....,. ~ ~ 'f..-' \ ,-, J, {/(
l. L
7. )i&~'-,( DDj .{.~~>'/i u:4iJ ~
~'-- 1
8. ;('""~' L //~ ,
9. \'ciY-j ff)C"fJ~~ ( 5
/"', V'
If ..::<'
/1~ L_~A
'}O'
.,
10.
':-:1 f
/ {I "j
PETITON TO REVOKE ENCROACHMENT PERMIT NO. PE - :J4()
We the undersigned, taxpayers and voters, do hereby petition Mayor Shirley Horton
and Members of the City Counell to revoke &croachment Permit No. PE-340 granted
to Bettie Warren of 89 First Avenue on the 31 of January. We believe that the fence
unfairly inhibi1S audlor prohibi1S access to the undedicated portion of FIrst Avenue
and the footpllth which connects to the Sweetwater River. The road provides access
for adults and children to go fishing, biking, jogging, birdwatching and dog walking
along the estuary. The road and path have been established by years of past
practice--for some community members past practice exceeds twenty years. For
the City to grant a single individnal the right to fence out the community is both
unfair and undemocratic.
NAME
ADDRESS
l. .J 0 c.J Lo 2-.-0. (l 0
2.UU~ Uav~
3.SQC(~ icdr~c
4. JSILC\.e0 0 ~od( ~~C
5. ~~.() P(O~~)
6. /v1t~ ~
7.1k/f6['/fT 5c/OFtt/ku/
8. ,j[)/3 /!,A1 d /Z-O
9. -1.. j'Yl~ ;;~
I O.Jo\,\(\\ t) ~\'(n
/'/-59
PETITON TO REVOKE ENCROACHMENT PERMIT NO. PE - 340
We the undersigned, taxpayers and voters, do herehy petition Mayor Shirley Horton
and Memhers of the City Council to revoke Encroachment Permit No. PE-340 granted
to Bettie Warren of 89 First Avenue on the 31 of January. We helieve that the fence
which is constructed across a City road, unfairly inhihits and/or prohihits access to
the undedicated portion of First Avenue and the footpath which connects to the
Sweetwater River. The road provides access for adults and children to go fishing,
biking, jogging, hirdwatching and dog walking along the estuary. The road and path
have heen established hy years of past practice--for some community members past
practice exceeds twenty years. For the City to grant a single individual the right to
fence out the community is both unfair and undemocratic.
NAME
ADDRESS
l.a ~
07 . \\
2. ~w.r"\.~
3. f20....u-l... ~
4J~- ;;~ bJ
:;11:~1~
(/jw,G. fc.! '~UJl~v.~ /
/' / I /--4.. ~
~
/"
~V~
!-U/~ (!).
/~r~-' t GJ
9 I yl 0
'4: LIt..rcZ /;-1-
I/J k CA tJ!W/
, ,\ + "j "e, \~'
ill' >JI",u....;, , ' 'I ' l
8 . ~~ 'VVC -4H~WCl'1
9. OD~ d fcJL-
<1'
{tc (j; ~~ 1f
1/1/{;
I" Vlfz;...
'Ii 71{
J-
10. -1.QA.hA,-~' D\ 0l;1\..~~
II J.-.( n.ct,,-,< ;{1~v~J
~w..9:czV ( '., k\
CA \
l
~
''J
I (~,
4~ I'L t;, l-e I ,,-,'
c
(' ,,-2';'
'- '-
~-
, 1l...\/"LU.o-
6
- -
----- -
------ -----
----= ------=-..
!!I,
~~;' '::<r
.::; / /)
/ ~/_(tJV
I'ETITON TO REVOKE ENCROACHMENT PERMIT NO. PE - 340
We the undersigned, taxpayers and voters, do hereby petition Mayor Shirley Horton
and Members of the City Council to revoke Encroachment Permit No. PE-340 granted
to Bettie Warren of 89 First Avenue on the 31 of January. We believe that the fence
which is constructed across a City road, unfairly inhibits and/or prohibits access to
the undedicated portion of First Avenue and the footpath which connects to the
Sweetwater River. The road provides access for adults and children to go fishing,
biking, jogging, birdwatching and dog walking along the estuary. The road and path
have been established by years of past practice--for some community members past
practice exceeds twenty years. For the City to grant a single individual the right to
fence out the community is hoth unfair and undemocratic.
:\AME
ADDRESS
I.M\~b~~
2. . --:"<-""-~i,,--H'L-
3. (V A'lJ.JL (;)~...... 'l>
~
4 .~'.c < t! .J......Vtil~~. ;;",,0<02_
;J'"/r ,,{at-iJe :11.'",>
6.
c4..1 )1.-[ '--'
jt! c<.< ,,-.
7. K~Jurl .
8.6C1/w-frt'- fJ.-/ChU)CL
9.0GY'^& ~)rl"CC)(J- ,
,;?}lc (J"",i !Jld7
7:\
, ,::)
/1-?/
PETITON TO REVOKE ENCROACHMEYf PERMIT NO. PE - 340
We the undersigned, taxpayers and voters, do hereby petition Mayor Shirley Horton
and Members of the City Council to revoke Encroachment Permit No. PE-340 granted
to Bettie Warren of 89 First Avenue on the 31 of January. We believe that the fence
unfairly inhihits and/or prohibits access to the undedicated portion of First Avenue
and the footpath which connects to the Sweetwater River. The road provides access
for adults and children to go fishing, biking, jogging, birdwatching and dog walking
along the estuary. The road and path have been estahlished by years of past
practice--for some community members past practice exceeds twenty years. For
the City to grant a single individual the right to fence out the community is both
unfair and undemocratic.
NAME ADDRESS
I. c(~ Wl, ~
2. *LLut-{'/ ~~~I
3[J~\1 L1Q,,~~\
;J!M~ qJ2.~
4.
Cf
,
5.~ ..' ~
c;( ~~ LA) .<.- 1. , c-1 c.€-.t.- {
,
6.
<')
7. M~cr. ~
8. Y/(~d~
9. 1(9 fV1' 0.h I cf
10. Ml.tMer~ (1s k~~~l&.
II, ifr+' HI, rrf~ff ~I
17 /Jllld.Jtc--fJ))"~~
\ ') L /;.~7c~' l < //(:: '7
c..
~
.J
'f-b~
~.zC.-Ig'';/,/
PETITON TO REVOKE ENCROACHMENT PERMIT NO. PE - 340
We the undersigned, taxpayers and voters, do hereby petition Mayor Shirley Horton
and Members of the City Council to revoke Encroachment Permit No. PE-340 granted
to Bettie Warren of 89 First Avenue on the 31 of January. We believe that the fence
which is constructed across a City road, unfairly inhibits and/or prohibits access to
the undedicated portion of First A venue and the footpath which connects to the
Sweetwater River. The road provides access for adults and children to go fishing,
biking, jogging, birdwatching and dog walking along the estuary. The road and path
have been established by years of past practice--for some community members past
practice exceeds twenty years. For the City to grant a single individual the right to
fence out the community is both unfair and undemocratic.
NAME
ADDRESS
8.
1.~~
2.V~~
3.~~
i:f;~ J 3~~t~
. 3,. /,4.. _ _ C
5. "-j;;tVt1A- .77 ~A-{r <:Vl,
6.~ ~~
7 .r;~/JI / S' ~~-/
tJ .1Jd;~
--- /
-e k;a 41 a 11.../
~
(J/
9.
10.
/ l' - fI' '3
PETITON TO RIWOKE ENCROACHMENT PERMIT NO. PE - 340
We the undersigned, taxpayers and voters, do hereby petition Mayor Shirley Horton
and Members of the City Council to revoke Encroachment Permit No. PE-340 granted
to Bettie Warren of 89 First Avenue on the 3l of January. We believe that the fence
which is constructed across a City road, unfairly inhibits and/or prohibits access to
the undedicated portion of First A venue and the footpath which connects to the
Sweetwater River. The road provides access for adults and children to go fishing,
biking, jogging, birdwatching and dog walking along the estuary. The road and path
have been established by years of past practicenfor some community members past
practice exceeds twenty years. For the City to grant a single individual the right to
fence out the community is both unfair and undemocratic.
NAl\lli
ADDRESS
.'d~k~d~
1.
2.~~~
3 //", FTLL ( ;:j,( ,,'jTi( !:-I. '(( I/,
. Ii]' 'C. CI/'CA .
4.0Jt ~-<4 YV1 1\ {;J/fl/l4
5~/4>r#
6.
~
7.
8.
9.
10.
/'1-0-(
l'ETITON TO REVOKE ENCROACHMENT l'ERMIT NO. PE - 340
We the undersigned, taxpayers and voters, do hereby petition Mayor Shirley Horton
and Members of the City Council to revoke Encroachment Permit No. PE-340 granted
to Bettie Warren of 89 First Avenue on the 31 of January. We believe that the fence
which is constructed across a City road, unfairly inhibits and/or prohibits access to
the undedicated portion of First Avenue and the footpath which connects to the
Sweetwater River. The road provides access for adults and children to go fishing,
biking, jogging, birdwatching and dog walking along the estuary. The road and path
have been established by years of past practice--for some community members past
practice exceeds twenty years. For the City to grant a single individual the right to
fence out the community is both unfair and undemocratic.
NAME
ADDRESS
1.
K ~tvW-VU 7/j, cl(duu-df
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
II}
/1-?:.S
PETITON TO REVOKE ENCROACHMENT PERMIT NO. PI<: - 340
We the undersigned, taxpayers and voters, do hereby petition Mayor Shirley Horton
and Members of the City Council to revoke Encroachment Permit No. PE-340 granted
to Bettie Warren of 89 First Avenue on the 31 of January. We believe that the fence
unfairly inhibits and/or prohibits access to the undedicated portion of First Avenue
and the footpath which connects to the Sweetwater River. The road provides access
for adults and children to go fishing, biking, jogging, birdwatching and dog walking
along the estuary. The road and path have been established by years of past
practicenfor some community members past practice exceeds twenty years. For
the City to grant a single individual the right to fence out the community is both
unfair and undemocratic. .
NAME
ADDRESS
2. .
,
~ #Zl}
(~)
!
'.. .-;;-tLi..f
,
J '
,
1. ~,\..; '- ,J/(.'(..I
;r-
3.
"
J", '
~.I .)
4. ~;////>/;//l',' c,-(
5 ~~2S~~
6. ~~4~
7. ~\ ~j1:~
8. f){2,(e,/< Petfj
9.;L~ i ldif
1 O. ~ ~ C: '-PJ:ity
/',-'
J
'-'
o
Ie)
I7ID
'0
:>
. ~ /'
-"/-1//-:;
I -- y;~
Q....,;IJ
I",
,
-<~
C) .
CD .....,C) 0
c: ("")~ CJ
- ~c:: -I
~ >~ ~
- <- 0:>
:I u;~ _
CD ~>I ~
"'z 00
:. ~i\
z-
:c -;;;;!:
o
c
'"
-
:;,
ca
'..LyQ
:::u
IT1
(')
~~
<'-
r,;
o .
~
t
'-
~., - >
c ~ ,..
m
o
;:
c
>
...
m
"'
-<
.ON .UW~...
,
t~ ~ ~ ~ ~
[' ~
f~
, ,
~
~
.'f-i~7
I
~I
o
,.. '"
. .
I
~
~--
.
"-
I;:).
I
>-.J
~
\
~
~
N !! ~ OO!!Z O~ '" N " > 0 '" N "
~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ 'i ~
~ ~ ~~g~ ~/; 00 > ~ '" >
" -< ~ " -< 0 ~ " -<
0 ~::Ie 0 Zoot > z ~ 0 ~ 0 m 0
" z <CII~,," ::::!m Om 0 ~ Z 0
m Q)I>~ - O:D o ~ ~ '" m ~
II) )o..tO ~ >"'0 n m '" ~ n ~
a mCII z,..m m ,; m
~ '0 '0'" 004 m:D Z Z Z
'" '"
:D - ~ - c~ 0 m > ~
lAm 0--
'" "0:= )I> r-.... ~ Z ~
Ii: Ii! ~!1~ m ~ m n ~
~ '0 > z'O ..~ ~ m
m ." r- a:D >m > ~
~ ;" z '" m
m > "'> '" ..
~ , CIIZ'2: O~ 0 z
~
(; ;:! NO:;> -<~ m 0
_ m. moot ~n 00 z
z '" ~ o~!!; ~ " " ~
m ~ o=: t: '0 ~! ~ ~ ~
< > z "',..~", _ 0 m > Z ~
? m zo < ~ '" < 0 m
""" "')0 m ~ '"
m >~ " oz ~ 0 > ~
ii ~ ~ ~ " n
0 ;; Z m
~ Z m Z
!1 ..
m
A"LICANT
I I
- O~}~{iHi
,-~J;3I~
~- ~.tl;li
\ ... Hi, -
, "" .f2"
~, H~1i~'!!
~.H 'I[p~
'it '1 11) ~
j--pl+ti
i :.1-1
:, oilP
I 1ia.i
~
C">
C">
g 0
z
...
z~
:> og
:> . :4
o
LENDER
I I
; - ql?
!! H
. f -f}
f I ~3,
;,~
"1
h
{q
II:
-,.
PI
i!~
-fI
WOll'iKER"S COMPENSATION
"I
~il{s 11:9 -=. 0 ~ i ~ {r 0
!
.. :t-("i :I~ "" .l~ 1', ... ~ ! H -
11 ~ i,.. ~ 51! -~ ~ - -:' . ~
~ !~~ ~ji; ii~~ ! ; : - .'
l!II~ r!~ iic~ ~ ! i!il ~
1- ~c. ia I i.;: a ~ r>[:Z; ''''
l' g i C oh, { f ip j
i~~t= ~U p~:; ! . :\~ ~
i .
,,'Pi! i'" I ; !'\
IJi,i ~'j; ~ =~ i ! .h
. . f .
.,h til' 'ii. ..\~
. , ~
P~F !t i f1~~ ;~'
,Ii
lns~ ;j{ ~ 1!
OWf'tEfI:,.UILDER
""""""""
II
~ Jill?
i Ii'}
! ~H'
t. 1",1
1 to.,
; .';;-
i HF
I ft'l
'I"
i';.
JI~
Q
..:;!
",!i:
"'..
-4z
Z'"
:.0"
<:.0
"'<
~!
s...
"'0
>>0...
<'"
->>0
.."
';:i!
.....
:~
~o
-"
a.
,5
.....
...51
...
;....
!:>>o
..
-0
:z
.,....
U
....
..
I
{I? 'if~I'11? ~~H~tll llBt! !!!Im~mi~!:1?
1, id' '" l'Utpi}~l"'!11 IFil' ..~{
I j !hL1Z!h ~;!:l.flbl~1 Ih~:III~E:hfl~fj
, '1' {:- !'i"!-J~\~ .- _',"1
. _ l t~'" ~ , '1 .-_.J t ...1... ..
f Ij~!~i~ :11~'iHi':!' H~h~!!.!;Uhl
r i,~- i ~i!~I-' .', lJ" 9Ii" Ir-
H!Fi~ tf;:,iill~j! JIlI'"aj'l' n
.;r-ip ;t}l~!'hn 'rIH';'ii U1
I'i'" .101-' ii" ~-rlfl,il!' t
, i-! I ,nj U -i i
!!ihi~ h~flHi hI n'i~L!iltH!I~
"ljl'IJ q 1"'~'l J', ~li"r~
!, .\; 11,11.1,.rl i..I,I,.(I!,r,
.
.
.
o
o~
f .
. "
~ C
o z
. ~
o .
Ii ~ .
~ ~ ~ \~
~ ~ ~
m 0
ill'!> 0
\~
i ; ~ \~
11\> '"
8-\'" c
~\~'^~ z
\ ~ ~ p ~ t'-~
g z t ~
0" g
~
'"
o~ oS
<n <z
"'::I roo~
cn,.,j "';-4
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item ~.o
Meeting Date 4/16/96
Resolution I "J.~~ccePting Bids and awarding a contract for the
"Broadway Street Reconstruction Between Naples Street and Anita Street in
the City ofChula Vista, CA (ST-143)"
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public wor~
REVIEWED BY: City Manager ~~: ........, (4/5ths Vote: Yes_NoX)
At 2:00 p.m. on March 29, 1996, in Conference Idoom 3 in the Public Services Building, the Director
of Public Works received sealed bids for "Broadway Street Reconstruction Between Naples Street
and Anita Street in the City ofChula Vista, CA (ST-143)." The work to be done includes removal
and disposal of existing improvements, excavation and grading, asphalt concrete pavement,
monolithic curb, gutter, sidewalks, landscaped medians, storm drain and other miscellaneous work
shown on the plans.
ITEM TITLE:
RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve the resolution accepting bids and awarding a
contract to Southland Paving, Inc. in the amount of$I,942,775.50 for improving Broadway between
Naples Street and Anita Street.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
The Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget includes funding for the design and the
reconstruction of Broadway from Naples Street to Anita Street (STl43). The project includes the
renovation of the existing medians, the widening of Broadway at Palomar Street to accommodate
dual left turn lanes, the installation of a new storm drainage system, and the reconstruction of the
asphalt pavement.
On April 25, 1995, Council held a public hearing on the project and by Resolution No. 17878
approved the design concept proposal, including the retention of medians and the installation of
landscaping and directed staff to complete the design and final plans for the project (Exhibit A). On
December 5, 1995, staff reported to the City Council on the progress of the design work for the
subject project. The report (included as Exhibit B) described needed changes to the scope of work.
Due to the changes in the scope of work which increased the cost, Council approved the submittal
of Chula Vista's Transportation Improvement Program to SANDAG on March 5, 1996 which
included additional funding of $460,000 in TransNet funding for this project for Fiscal Year 1996/97
(Exhibit C). SANDAG, in turn will include these TransNet funds in the 96/97 Regional
Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP). Because the TransNet funds are not available until
FY96/97 the appropriation of the additional funds will be included within the City's upcoming
1996/97 CIP budget. However, in order to complete the work by mid-November in order to be out
of the way of the holiday shopping season, the contract needs to be awarded now. The schedule
.2.0 -/
Page 2, Item ~
Meeting Date 4/16/96
based on the amount of work to be accomplished could not be completed before the holiday
shopping season if the contract was awarded in July after approval of the CIP Budget. Since
SANDAG must approve our request for TransNet funds, there is a minor risk that they might not do
so. However, the TransNet funds are given to each City on an entitlement basis, not on an
application basis, with SANDAG's approval under the law and for them to withold approval of a
City's project would be a radical departure from previous actions without any apparent basis for such
action.
Bid Results
Staff advertised this project for competitive bidding on March 29,1996. On the bid opening date,
bids were received from eight contractors as follows:
Contractor Bid Amount
1. Southland Paving, Inc. - Escondido $1,942,775.50
2. R.E. Hazard Contracting Co. - San Diego $2,022,962.00
3. Ortiz Corporation - Chula Vista $2,090,459.17
4. L.R. Hubbard Inc. - San Diego $2,131,150.50
5. Sim J. Harris - San Diego $2,183,636.00
6. Builders StaffInc. - Cardiff by the Sea $2,214,814.05
7. Castello, Inc. - Escondido $2,266,614.00
8. Wier Construction Corp. - Escondido $2,426,185.41
The low bid by Southland Paving, Inc. is below the engineer's estimate of $2,317,950 by
$375,174.50 or by 16.2%. The City has received excellent bids for the project. The low bidder,
Southland Paving, Inc., has previously done satisfactory work for the City during the construction
of two previous segments of Broadway the first between F Strret and I Street and the second is
between L Street and Naples Street.
In reviewing the qualifications of Southland Paving, staff determined that the work previously done
on the two phases of Broadway physically was good. However, on the project between L Street and
Naples Street, Southland had some difficulties caused by the relocation of the water facilities, the
construction of a large storm drain in the driving lanes of one side of the road and relating to their
ability to coordinate improvements with the area business people. As a result of these concerns staff
has incorporated extensive measures within the project specifications to assure proper coordination
between the contractor and the area businesses. These measures will collectively diminish the
adverse impacts of the construction activities and assure that the contractor will comply with the
improvement goals and be responsive to the merchants' concerns (See Exhibit D for a listing of these
measures). In the design process staff also took care in locating the storm drains to be constructed
so as to minimize the potential impacts. This segment of Broadway does not have the same water
utility problems that the LlNaples phase had. Therefore, staff believes that the measures included
in the specifications, which were developed for the last project on Broadway and were successful,
~ 6".).
Page 3, Item .2t1
Meeting Date 4/16/96
will enable both the contractor and the area business people to maintain close, proactive
communication to diminish the daily inconveniences attributable to construction activities. Since
Southland Paving has not done any work in the City since the Broadway project, staff has reviewed
Southland Paving, Inc.' s references, verified their license and determined that they have the relevant
experience and resources to complete the project on time and within budget. We, therefore,
recommend that the contract be awarded to Southland Paving.
The highly competitive and excellent low bid received from Southland Paving will allow the City
to award the contract now using only the currently available funds which are sufficient to fully fund
the actual contract. Construction activities by Southland will not start until approximately mid May
and will continue through mid November (in next fiscal year). In addition, the funds needed to cover
the water utility relocation costs by Sweetwater Authority must to be encumbered now so that
Sweetwater can do the work in June. Currently available funds are sufficient to fund those costs at
this time also. Therefore, the additional required funding for contingencies, stafftime, and materials
testing can be appropriated during the normal 1996/1997 CIP budget approval process since the
majority of these expenses will not occur until next fiscal year (FY 96/97).
Disclosure Statement
Attached is a copy ofthe contractor's disclosure statement (Exhibit E).
Environmental Status
A Negative Declaration (1S-94-08) has been prepared in conformance with Section 15070 of the
state CEQA guidelines and filed on October 13, 1995 with the County Clerk's office.
Prevailinl.( Wa!!e Statement
The source of funding for this project is TransNet funds. Contractors bidding the project were not
required to pay prevailing wages. No special minority or women owned business requirements were
necessary as part of the bid documents. However, disadvantaged businesses were encouraged to
participate and the project was advertised with various minority trade publications per the City's
outreach policy.
Financial Statement
Funds Required for Construction
A. Contract Amount $1,942,775.50
B. Contingencies (10%) 194,277.50
C. Staff (Inspection, surveying and material testing) 170,238.00
D. Water utilities relocation cost (Sweetwater Authority) 60,000.00
TOTAL FUNDS REQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION $2,367,291.00
d()'..3
Page 4, Item .).1
Meeting Date 4/16/96
Funds Available for Construction
A. Broadway Street Reconstruction. (ST-143) $2,031,291.00
B. Additional funding, 96/97 eIP Budget (ST-143) $336,000.00
TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR CONSTRUCTION $2,367,291.00
FISCAL IMPACT:
The current CIP budget includes an appropriation of $2,031 ,291 in unencumbered TransNet funds
for the construction of the project. The City Council approved an additional funding of $460,000
in the RTIP program adopted by Resolution 18226 on March 5,1996. However, due to the excellent
bids we received for the project, only $336,000 of the additional funding will actually be needed for
the construction ofthis project. The remaining balance, along with any unused contingencies will
revert to the TransNet fund for other projects. These funds will be included in the 96/97 CIP Budget
request. As indicated above, there is a minimal risk that SANDAG could choose to not approve our
request for TransNet funds.
After project construction, only routine maintenance will be required.
Attachments:
Exhibit A;
Exhibit B:
Exhibit C:
Exhibit D:
Exhibit E:
Council Agenda Statement for Resolution 17878
Report to City Council
Council Agenda Statement for Resolution 18226
Listing of measures imposed by the project's specification.
Contractor's Disclosure Statement ~ ~
SA:ST-143
m:\home\engineer\agenda\st143awd.sa
~p",~
RESOLUTION NO.
I JI-tt,f
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING
CONTRACT FOR THE "BROADWAY STREET
RECONSTRUCTION BETWEEN NAPLES STREET AND ANITA
STREET IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CA. (st-
143)"
WHEREAS, at 2:00 p.m. on March 29, 1996, in Conference
Room 3 in the Public Services Building, the Director of Public
Works received the following eight sealed bids for "Broadway Street
Reconstruction Between Naples Street and Anita Street in the City
of Chula Vista, CA (ST-143)":
Contractor Bid Amount
1. Southland Paving, Inc. - Escondida $1,942,775.50
2. R.E. Hazard Contracting Co. - San Diego $2,022,962.00
3. Ortiz Corporation - Chula Vista $2,090,459.17
4. L.R. Hubbard Inc. - San Diego $2,131,150.50
5. Sim J. Harris - San Diego $2,183,636.00
6. Builders Staff Inc. - Cardiff by the Sea $2,214,814.05
7. Castello, Inc. - Escondida $2,266,614.00
8. Wier Construction Corp. - Escondida $2,426,185.41
WHEREAS, the low bid by Southland Paving, Inc. is below
the engineer's estimate of $2,317,950 by $375,174.50 or by 16.2%
and the low bidder, Southland Paving, Inc., has previously done
satisfactory work for the City during the construction of two
previous segments of Broadway the first between F Street and I
Street and the second is between L Street and Naples Street; and
WHEREAS, in reviewing the qualifications of Southland
Paving, staff had one major concern relating to the contractor's
ability to coordinate improvements with the area business people
since staff has incorporated extensive measures within the project
specifications to assure proper coordination between the contractor
and the area businesses which will collectively diminish the
adverse impacts of the construction activities and assure that the
contractor will comply with the improvement goals and be responsive
to the merchants' concerns; and
WHEREAS, staff has reviewed Southland Paving, Inc.' s
references, verified their license and determined that they have
the relevant experience and resources to complete the project on
1
.,ld-f
time and within budget and recommend that the contract be awarded
to Southland Paving; and
WHEREAS, the highly competitive and excellent low bid
received from Southland Paving will allow the city to award the
contract now using only the currently available funds which are
sufficient to fully fund the actual contract; and
WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration (IS-94-08) has been
prepared in conformance with section 15070 of the state CEQA
guidelines and filed on October 13, 1995 with the County Clerk's
office; and
TransNet
required
WHEREAS, the source of funding for this project is
funds and contractors bidding the project were not
to pay prevailing wages; and
WHEREAS, no special minority or women owned business
requirements were necessary as part of the bid documents, however,
disadvantaged businesses were encouraged to participate and the
project was advertised with various minority trade publications per
the City's outreach policy.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, ORDER AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
section 1. That the City Council does hereby adopt
Negative declaration (IS-94-08) prepared in conformance with
section 15070 of the State CEQA Guidelines and filed on October 13,
1995 with the County Clerk's office.
section 2. That the City Council does hereby accept the
bid of Southland Paving, Inc. as responsive.
section 3. The City Council awards the contract for "The
Broadway Street Reconstruction between Naples Street and Anita
Street in the City of Chula Vista, CA (ST-143)" to Southland
Pavings, Inc. in the amount of $1,942,775.50, the lowest
responsible bidder which submitted a responsive bid to the approved
specifications.
section 4. The Mayor of the
hereby authorized and directed to execute
behalf of the City of Chula vista.
Presented by
of Ch la vista is
contr t for and on
"J:
d
John P. Lippitt
Director of Public Works
c: \rs\broadway. bid
2
.}"..~
EXHIBIT -A- 1
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Iteml
Meeting Date 4/25/95
ITEM TITLE: Public htaring on ll)e "Improving Broadway from Naples Street 10 Anita Street"
project.
Resolution t -,~ 7cg Approving the retention of medians. the installation
of landscaping w11f1in those medians and directing staff 10 complete the design and
final plans for the "Improvement of Broadway from Naples Street 10 Anita Street
Project"
SUB~fITTED BY: Director of Public Work~.'.r
REVIEWED BY: City Manager (4/5ths Vote: Yes_No..XJ
On November 7, 1972, Council passed Resolution No. 6655 adopting Council Policy 576-12. This
policy requires that a public hearing be held prior to any widening of travelways within the City.
Additionally. in response to the business community concerns regarding medians, Council has directed
staff to bring back the medians issue in advance of any design work. The FY 1994-95 Capital
Improvement Program (CIP) budget includes funding for design of the reconstruction of Broadway from
Naples Street to Anita Street (STI43). The project includes the renovation 'of the existing medians
where necessary and the widening of Broadway at Palomar Street to accommodate dual left turn lanes.
This public hearing addresses the section of Broadway from Naples Street to Anita Street.
RECO~fME1'\;DATIO~: It is recommended that Council:
1. Hold a public hearing on the "Improving of Broadway from Naples Street to Anita Street"
project.
2. Approve the retention of the medians, the installation of landscaping within those medians, and
direct staff to complete the design and final plans for the project.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: On April 13, 1995, the Safety Commission
reviewed the proposed reconstruction project. The Sa~ety CommiSsion voted 6-0-1 with Commissioner
Bierd absent to recommend retaining the existing medians. Attached as Exhibit" A" is I copy of the
Safety Commission minutes (excerpt).
DISCUSSION:
On October 17. 1989, Council by Resolution No. 15349 approved the basic street standards for various
streets shown on the Circulation Element of the General Plan. Broadway is classified as I four-lane
major roadway on the circulation plan. In previous fiscal ytarS, Council has approved the widening
of Broadway both to tJJe north and south of this project's limits to meet these City standards.
Specifically, Broadway was recently widened from "F" Street to "I" Street and reconstructed from "L"
Street to Naples Street last fiscal ytar. The portion between "I" Street and "L" Street is now under
construction and is expected to be completed this ytar.
'.2/1. ?
.. EXHIBIT -A- 2
Page 2, Item .C\
Meeting Date_4!2S!9S
A notification Jetter was sent on March 2 to all 250 owners and tenants affected by this project to attend
a Public Information Meeting. Also notified were the Broadway Business Association and the Chula
Vista Chamber of Commerce. This meeting was held on Thursday, March 23, 1995. with about 20
propeny owners and tenants potentially impacted by this reconstruction project in attendance. During
the meeting the merchants voiced concern about the impact the construction activities will have on their
businesses and provided suggestions as to how these impacts could be diminished. Tbe Broadway
Business Association and most in attendance were in opposition to maintaining the median islands. In
general. however. all attendees were supponive of the reconstruction project. Their major
comments/recommendations are discussed below and are summarized on Exhibit "B". attached. Prior
to our March 2 meeting. staff met with the Broadway Business Association on February 23. 1995 to
give the members an update on the planning of the project.
The general scope of the project is to reconstruct the travelway in this portion of Broadway in order
to replace deteriorated asphalt pavements and to install missing improvements and sidewalks. In
addition. the east side of Broadway immediately south of Palomar Street will be widened to allow for
double left turn lanes to north-bound traffic. The construction of missing improvements and the
widening to provide the two way left turn lane should make this section of Broadway both safer and
more beneficial to the adjacent businesses. Most of the existing curb. gutter and sidewalk on both sides
of Broadway will remain in place. New construction is proposed only where needed such as missing
improvements. deteriorated and cracked slabs and sub-standard improvements not meeting the American
with Disabilities Act (ADA). Some existing improvements such as drainage system, pavement. traffic
signals and certain driveways will be removed and replaced to meet our current standards. A two (2)
feet in width strip of right-of-way will be required to allow for the needed widening at the southeast
corner of Broadway and Palomar Street. No other right-of-way will be required for the project with
the exception of minor property acquisition on some corner lots necessary to construct new curb returns.
Exjstin~ Raised Medians
The City Council at its meeting of February 2, 1990 provided staff with general policy direction
concerning construction of street improvements along the Broadway corridor including construction of
raised median islands. At this meeting. Council accepted the following recommendation based on staffs
report and input by the Chamber of Commerce:
I. The street to be widened as necessary.
2. Existing medians to be maintained and new med~ would be permitted only at major
intersection.
3. All landscaping shall be low growing shrubs which do not block sianage.
Subsequently. during the design of the Broadway project between F Street and I Street, concerns
brought forward by the business community caused the Council to direct that staff bring forward for
review all funher proposals for Broadway which include raised medians.
Also. on February 22. 1994. while considering the adoption of the seven year TransNet Local Street
and Road Program for the FY 1995-:~OOI period. Council directed staff to return to them to consider
the retention of the medians in this portion of Broadway. Attached as Exhibit C is the Council Agenda
St..,ement and minutes for the February 2, 1990 Council meeting and the minutes of the February 22,
11;'94 Council meeting.
~I)- ~
EXHIBIT -A- 3
Page 3, Item q
Meeting Date ~(25/95
Between Naples Street and Main Street, Broadway has existing full median islands. Median islands to
the north and south of the project are currently fully landscaped, however, the existing median islands
within this project limit are currently paved with asphalt concrete. (See Exhibit OD" showing existing
improvements). In response to public input and in preparation for tonight's Council meeting, staff
reviewed three different options that Council may evaluate in its decision to improve/remove the existing
med~ns: .
Alternate I. Maintain existing median curbs with one minor change in configuration and construct
hardscape and landscape in place of the asphalt paved islands. (See Exhibit oE")
Alternate 2. Completely remove and replace existing medians with DeW laDdscaped islands. (See
Exhibit "F").
Alternate 3. Eliminate most of the existing medians and construct a paved, stripped two-way left turn
lane with median islands constructed only at the intersections due to overriding safety
concerns. (See Exhibit "G").
These alternatives were evaluated utilizing a matrix containing the following factors: Cost of median
area work. Safety Commission recommendation. merchant's preference, continuity with adjacent
Broadway segments. aesthetics, existing paltern of traffic. meeting our standards, accident level, design
capacity and ease of construction. This decision making matrix is attached as Exhibit oW. In
evaluating factors impacting the existing medians, staff considered the fact that these medians have been
in existence in the area for more than twenty years. Therefore, ingress and egress traffic patterns to
business are well established in this area of Broadway. Also, new median islands do currently exist to
the north and south of this project. With regard to traffic safety, there is strong evidence, on local and
regional level. that high volume business streets, such as Broadway, experience less mid-block accidents
where raised medians exist than similar streets without medians. To illustrate this point, staff prepared
a report on accident rates on Broadway as they relate to the various traffic conditions existing between
C Street and Main Street for a twelve month period from January 1 . December 31,1994. This report
is included as pan of Exhibit A. Based on this evaluation process, staff is recommending that alternate
I be adopted for this section of Broadway. Per this alternative, we would retain the existing median
and maintain the existing concrete curbs while replacing asphalt paving within the islands with attractive
stamped concrete hardscape and landscaped pockets. The decision making matrix summarizes the
advantages/disadvantages of each alternative. By Resolution No. i2030, the City Council adopted the
median landscaping policy No. 576-08 revised on May 22,1985. The subject policy established various
median design standards. The staff proposal conforms to all these standards including 65 percent
hardscape to 35 percent landscape of the entire median surface area.
PubHc Hea.rinR R~auir~mt!nt
Council had directed, during several previous actions. that medians be brought forward for consideration
prior to the construction of the new improvements on Broadway. To prepare for tonight's public
hearing, staff met with the area owners and tenants on March 23, 1995 and with contractors of previous
segments of Broadway on March 8, 1995. The pl.rpose of these meetings was to obtain input from the
affected merchz.:lts and feedback from contractors in the design aDd subsequent constrUction of the
proposed proj":t. Through this communication process, we have obtained suggestions which will
diminish the ilnpacts associated with construction activities of this magnitude and nature.
.2~'9
EXHBIT -A- 4
,
Page 4, Item' q
Meeting Date 4/2~/9~
Since the March 23 meeting, we have worked to address each of the merchant's major
comments/recommendations. The majority of these comments/recommendations have been found to
be appropriate and will be implemented.
Specific measures which we plan to implement as a result of this consultation process include:
. Do one side of street first and only \4 mile at a time - the contractor would be
required to complete the improvements on one side within the \4 mile before
moving to the next section
. After removal of the existing curb, gutter and sidewalk the new improvements must be
installed within 10 working days
. Construction of all curbs. gutters and sidewalks to be completed before
demolishing and removing pavement
. Use high early strength cement for driveway construction
. Provide .Open for Business. signs for each business
. Prohibit work from November 1995 to January 1996
. Have contractor work 10 hour days
. keep full-time inspector(s) on the job
. Equip the inspector(s) with a pager - provide the pager number(s) to the
merchants
. Inspector(s) to personally contact each merchant prior ~o actual work
commencement adjacent to the shop
. Keep on-street parking as long as practicable
. Minimize depth of structural section
. Maintain all driveways signed and open
. Maintain access to bus stops at all times
. Meet weekly with merchantS and/or the Broadway Business Association during
construction
. Start north end of project and work south
. Advertise shops are open for business during construction period
Measures considered. but not recommended:
. Do work durinQ th~ ni~ht only
Implementation of this suggestion will increast the construction cost of this project
significantly. In addition, the noise generated by construction activities would disrupt
the tenants of the apartments located on the east side of Broadway between Oxford Street
and Palomar Street.
. Relocat~/Tedesi~n curb onenin~ snuth of Palomar Street
An opening in the median south of Palomar Street was suggested to facilitate left turn
movements by large vehicles into a business in this area. This suggestion was considered
at the Safety Commission meeting and was rejected because it is contrary to the
Commission'~ goals of reducing mid-block intersections as much as possible (Exhibit A).
, ,<d"'/tJ
EXHIBIT -A- 5
Page 5, Item q
Meeting Date 4/25/95
Based on our meeting with the merchants, it is staffs opinion that, in general. they are supportive of
the project. One of the major reasons for their support is that they are able to compare the existing
condition of this reach of Broadway with the two improved portions to the north and south. Other
general reasons include the fact that the existing pavement is deteriorated and requires reconstrUction
and the street is currently carrying high traffic volumes. Nevertheless. several merchants and Broadway
Business Association favored the elimination of the existing medians in order to give more direct and
immediate mid-block left turn access to their businesses.
Con~tTuctjon Schedulin~
Based on the comments received from the merchants and the experiences gained from the previous
projects, we propose to begin the street widening work in January 1996.
Once commenced, the contractor will be allowed to progress JA mile ahead of new improvements and
will have up to 100 working days to complete the project. The merchants we met with understand that
this schedule will impact their sales: but that it is proposed with their overall interest in mind while
accommodating the City's bidding/funding constraints. Minor disruption due to construction activities
is expected for this reach of Broadway, because no street widening will be necessary, except at the
southeast corner of Broadway and Palomar Street (to provide an additional left-turn lane for northbound
Broadway to westbound Palomar Street motorists). In addition, utilities are already undergrounded and
only minor relocation work is expected from utilities rather than a major undergrounding efforts as was
the case in the previous segments of Broadway. The Sweetwater Authority will replace its water main
along this project's limits prior to commencement of our work. We are 'Currently working with
Sweetwater Authority staff to coordinate both projects and assure that disruption to businesses is kept
to a minimum.
Prooertv Access DurinQ Construction
Perhaps the major concern expressed by the merchants was that of property access during construction.
Several options were discussed and are proposed by staff. They are:
. Use early strength cement - allowing driveways to be open within 72 hours to
veh icular traffic as opposed to one week
. Place driveways 11.1 at a time - keeping access to the property open at all times
. Properties with more than one driveway will keep at least one open driveway at
all times
. Install 4 ft. x 4 ft. wooden signs adjacent to each'business advertising shop is
open to business and/or clarifying access points
. Keep close contact with merchants to plan work schedules which accommodate
their merchandise delivery periods
. Wherever possible, provide alternate access point
. Set limits on number of hours contractor can block/disrupt access to the property
. Only limited number of driveways will be reconstrUcted
Staff R~comm~ndation
It is staff's recommendation that Council direct that we proceed with the completion of the plans and
specifications to reconstruct Broadway f..,m Naples Street to Anita Street while retaining medians with
one minor change in configuration and constructing landscape in place of the asphalt paved islands.
",J~"/I
EXHIBIT -A- 6
Page 6, Item '9
Meeting Date 4/25/95
Staff has been receptive to the merchant's concerns regarding disruption to their businesses during the
construction activities. We propose to prepare a "tight" set of specifications which include measures
that diminish this adverse impact. In addition, we propose a construction schedule, which is designed
to minimize the construction period while eliminating disruptive activities during the merchant's busiest
period of the year. Staff will maintain close, daily communications with the area merchants and act
proactively to diminish the daily inconveniences attributable to construction activities. The inspector
will contact each merchant prior to commencement of work activities immediately adjacent to hislher
shop and provide the merchant his pager number in case they need to discuss the work activity with
him. All the concerns expressed by the merchants at our March 23 meeting will be addressed on the
contract specifications.
Conclusion
The purpose of the proposed Improvement of Broadway between Naples Street and Anita Street is to
provide a travel way that accommodates existing and projected traffic volumes. Widening of Broadway
to the north and south of this project's reach has been completed previously.
The concerns raised by the merchants impacted by the construction activities are listed above and all
will be addressed in the contract's plans and specifications. Staff believes that the concerns expressed
by the merchants at the March 23 meeting are valid. The project as proposed. incorporates a1l the
measures the merchant's suggested and collectively will diminish these adverse impacts. Staff has
endeavored to balance the merchant'~ concerns/desires with the physical construction requirements
which will enable the City's contractor to complete the project in the shonest time while maintaining
a safe environment for all (construction workers. merchants and traveling public). All property owners
and tenants impacted by this project have been notified of the public hearing.
nSCAL IMPACT:
5230,500 has been appropriated for the design of this project. The FY 95/96 proposed CIP includes
a recommendation to appropriate 52.108.000 in TransNet funds for the construction (contract,
inspection, and contingencies) of the project. This project and its funding is pan of the RTIP program
approved by Council on February 22, 1994 by Resolution 17396. The actual appropriation of
construction funds is contingent on Council's adoption of the FY 95/96 CIP. The annual landscape
maintenance cost for the entire length of this project is estimated to be approximately_~_6,OOO.
lAJJ'iIt N..: IT.I''''
1II:_.......''''....''''.Jpb..''
Exhibil 'A'. Slf.., COIIIIIIiui............
Exhibil -.-. Public ~ ~"ncommcnd.&iDns.
Exhibi. 'C'. Council pnviouI di~.... ..1IIIdianI11ooI..........y MiIIIIIa & AI- s...,.....,
Exhibi. 'D'. pilI _illa.lliai., ooodili....
Exhibil 'E' .:plltlllowinl........Ii.. I.
Exhibil 'F'. pilI -ilia ._liyo 2.
Exhibit 'G'. :pll' .-i., .1I0maliy. 3.
Exhibi. 'H'. Doci.i.. DllLi., DIItri,.
.2.(') ../.2-
EXHIBIT "B" 1
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item~
Meeting Date 12/5/95
ITEM TITLE:
Report on the progress in the design of final plans for the "Improvement of
Broadway from Naples Street to Anita Street Project (ST-143)"
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works ~
REVIEWED BY: City Manager
(4/5ths Vote: Yes_NoX)
The FY 1994-95 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget includes funding for the design of the
reconstruction of Broadway from Naples Street to Anita Street (STl43). The project includes the renovation
of the existing medians where necessary and the widening of Broadway at Palomar Street to accommodate
dual left turn lanes. On April 25, 1995, Council held a public hearing on the project and approved the
retention of the medians, the installation oflandscaping within those medians, and directed staff to complete
the design and final plans for the project.
The project design is about 60% complete and is ready to enter its final stage. Our work, however, shows
that changes to the project need to be made to make it more effective in cost and to minimize its impact on
the general public. The major change involves the need to reconstruct the existing medians in this section
of Broadway and to reconstruct about 2/3's of the pavement vs. 1/3 as originally proposed. Since the cost
to provide the proposed modifications is sizeable, approximately 20%, staff, therefore, is presenting this
issue to Council before continuing to complete the design, and plans and specifications, should Council
decide to change the scope of the project.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve the report, direct staff to finalize the design plans, and bid
the project, including the reconstruction of the medians.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: N/A
DISCUSSION:
On April 25, 1995, Council held a public hearing on the subject project end by Resolution No. 17878
approved the design concept proposal for Broadway between Naples Street to Anita Street (Exhibit A). The
general scope of the project, as approved in the FY 1994-95 CIP and subsequently authorized by Council
in the April 25, 1995 meeting, is to replace deteriorated asphalt pavements, install missing improvements
and sidewalks, widen the east side of Broadway immediately south of PalomaI' Str~et and,'.pg!'sde traffic
signals and certain driveways to meet our current standards. In addition, staff recommended, and Council
approved, the retention of existing median curbs and the installation ofhardscape and landscape in place of
the asphalt pavement within those medians.
CIP Cost Estimatin~ Process
The cost estimating p;"cess for CIP projects starts out with very rough estimates. ':'he staffhas a conceptual
idea of what the project is to accomplish. With that conceptual idea, an estirnat~ is prepared which is not
e:(1J..J :J
EXHIBIT "B" 2
Page 2, Item,1l
Meeting Date 12/5/95
based on a detailed design or information from the Survey crew. Therefor, the estimate of quantities is not
accurate. Furthermore, in street reconstruction projects, issues arise during the design phase, which can have
impacts on the scope of the project as well as the cost. This is because soil and pavement testing is done
during the design phase. If the material is much worse than detected at the CIP budget process stage, than
the costs will increase in order to do more pavement work. Also, other items arise during the design phase,
such as utility conflicts and drainage problems that are apparant during the project concept stage. This
project experienced several changes that have arisen since the CIP budget approval.
Chanl!es to the Scone Of Work
In developing the conceptual plans for the project and preparing the preliminary scope of work, staff
incorporated comments and recommendations made by area merchants and owners, while meeting our
design standards and Council directions and recommendations. The initial scope of work was first presented
to Council during the CIP approval process, and again at the April 25, 1995 Council meeting. During the
design process various changes to the scope of work have emerged. Although staff believes that the
magnitude of these changes is minor in comparison to the size of the project, (20%), we felt it prudent to
bring these revisions to Council's attention prior to proceeding to fmalize the project since the dollar
amount was sizeable ($457,000). These changes are summarized below:
1. Extent of asphalt concrete pavement reconstruction:
The initial assessment of the pavement condition during the preliminary planning of the
project, indicated that a 2 inch asphalt concrete overlay would be sufficient to rehabilitate
this part of Broadway. Attached as Exhibit B is the original CIP detail sheet for the project.
The conceptual design plan brought to Council during the April 25, 1995 meeting assumed
that up to Va of the pavement had to be completely replaced and the remaining part would
be merely overlaid. After the project was approved, and as part of the design process, staff
and the City's geotechnical consultant, performed detailed soil testing and pavement
structural analysis. It was concluded that the existing pavement structural section and the
underlying soil do not have the physical properties to withstand the design traffic loads.
Working with our consultant, staff has determined the need to completely replace about 0/3
of the pavement and to overlay the remaining part with a 3" Asphalt Rubber Hot Mix
(ARHM), a stronger and more expensive pavement alternative. The level of testing and
analysis required to determine the exact amount of pavement to remove in a reconstruction
project is extensive and expensive and not done during the CIP budget process. Initial
estimates of pavement removal are taken from filed review. The expansion of pavement
reconstruction will increase the project's cost by an estimated $394,750. (Exhibit C).
2. Storm drainage system:
The original scope of work included limited storm drainage improvements, amounting to the
resizing of inlet structures. However, the completed hydrology and hydraulics studies for the
project indicate the need for two drainage systems. The first, extends about 600 feet
immediately south of Naples Street. The second, is located on Broadway south of Palomar
Street and extends about 1,000 feet. The need for these systems was not found during. the
budgeting studies because at this stage of the process, the need for drainage faciliti~3 is
determined by reviewing historical drainage studies only. A further and more detailed mldy
,,2(J"I'I
EXHIBIT "B" 3
Page 3, Item~
Meeting Date 12/5/95
is performed during the fInal design of the project. In this case, for the preliminary stage staff
relied on a specia1 study of storm drain facilities for Chula Vista performed back in 1964 by
Lawrence, Fogg, Florer and Smith. (the "Fogg report"). This study is usually very reliable
for most of Chula Vista and is used extensively by staff and consultants. However, for this
particular location, which was under the County's jurisdiction in 1964, a redirection of
drainage pattern occurred and became apparent during the design process. These drainage
systems are estimated to cost a total of$171,400 (Exhibit C).
3. Additional median opening on Broadway South of Palomar:
During the consultation process with property owners and merchants, and before the public
hearing for the project on April 25, 1995, staff received a request from property owners and
tenants to allow an opening in the median south of Palomar Street. In the Council agenda
statement for the April 25, 1995 meeting, staff informed Council of these discussions and
recommended not to provide the opening. Council concurred with our recommendation.
However, staffhas since reconsidered the possibility ofsuch an opening in an endeavor to
accommodate merchant's concerns/desires. In addition, the new opening was requested by
the property owners on the southeast comer of Broadway and Palomar Street during the
negotiation for right-of-way acquisition at that location. In return, the property owners have
agreed to grant the City gratis, the needed right-of-way (a saving of $7,500). Staff has
developed a median opening at the requested location which will balance the concern for
safety with the merchant's desire and is now recommending the incorporation of this opening
in the projects plans. Attached as Exhibit D is a plat showing the staff suggested solution.
Staff estimates the cost of providing a median opening to be very similar to rebuilding a new
median, thus, the additional cost of the option is minimal.
4. Removal and replacement of existing median curbs:
The existence of raised medians in this section of Broadway was brought to Council's
attention at the April 25, 1995 meeting. At this meeting, Council directed staff to keep the
existing medians based on the following factors: cost, Safety Commission recomme!1dation,
merchant's preference, continuity with adjacent Broadway segments, aesthetics, existing
pattern of traffic, meeting our standards, accident level, design capacity and ease of
construction. In making its decision, Council evaluated three alternatives and approved the
retention of medians and the installation oflandscape and hardscape within those medians.
However, as a cost saving measure, staff recommended and council approved that the
existing median concrete curbs be maintained with minor changes in confIguration.
Staff is now recommending reconstruction of the existing median concrete curbs due the
following:
. The need to reconstruct about two thirds of the asphalt concrete pavement adversely affects the
contractor's ability to preserve the existing median curbs. As originally proposed (mostly overlay),
the contractor had to trench only behind the median curbs to a1low for landscaping. However, since
we now know that we need to reconstr'~ct the structura1 section with 19 to 24 inches of asphalt..
..2d-l..s
EXHIBIT "B" 4
Page 4, Item'~
Meeting Date 12/5/95
concrete, the contractor will need to trench in front and behind the median curbs. Therefore,
preserving the curbs would cost more than originally envisioned.
. The need for storm drain system improvements dictates the need to select the best location for the
proposed system along Broadway. Staffhad no choice but to locate the systems along the center of
the roadway across a large portion of the medians. This location was chosen to prevent conflicts with
existing utilities, to reduce public inconvenience and traffic conflicts during the construction period,
to be compatible with construction phasing and to avoid trenching in the middle of a driving lane.
. Originally, staff concluded from the records available for our review that a concrete slab under
Broadway ended at Moss Street. However, soil testing in the segment between Naples street and
Anita street revealed the existence of the 18 foot wide concrete slab under the full length of
Broadway. Portions of this slab have to be removed to allow for the new pavement and for the
landscaping of the medians. The removal of this concrete slab will necessitate the removal of the
median curbs above it. It will be more expensive to keep the median curbs in this case during
construction because it will require an elaborated saw cutting operation to the concrete slab under
the curbs.
The above factors, combine to make the retention of the median curbs a constructability problem to
contractors since a large portion of the curbs will be within an area targeted for demolition and
reconstruction. Selective demolition is typically more expensive because of the added pOssibility of damage
due to construction equipment scraping or breaking the improvements. Therefore, contractors tend in cases
like this to increase their demolition bids to account for the business risk associated with such an
arrangement. Due to these factors, staff is recommending now the complete replacement of the median
curbs. The medians would be reconstructed to the same extent and width as exists now. No changes to the
landscaping work is proposed. The original CIP budget for median reconstruction was $250,000. The
increase in reconstruction costs will increase the median construction costs by about $60,000 above the
originally budgeted cost to $310,000. (Exhibit C)
Alternate Median Treatment
As discussed in the April 25 report, (Exhibit A), we discussed the option of a raised median as well as
removing the median (except near major intersections) and paving with asphalt (similar to the section
between F Street and L Street). For several reasons, it was recommended to keep the existing median curbs
and construct 65% decorative paving and 35% landscaping in the medians. The other alternatives were to
completely rebuild medians with 65% decorative paving and 35% landscaping or remove medians, except
at major intersection(s) (new staff recommendation), or pave with asphalt.
One of the reasons in favor of the original recommendation was that the cost would be less expensive. In
the April report, removing the raised medians alternative was more expensive than keep existing median
curbs, but was less expensive than completely removing the existing median and rebuilding a new median.
Other reasons that staff recommended a raised median included:
I) Safety Commission recommended to keep the raised medians;
2) Merchant preference;
..2/) . / t
EXHIBIT "B" 5 .
Page 5, Itenl~
Meeting Date 12/5/95
3) Consistent with adjacent Broadway segment (i.e. Broadway between Main Street and Anita
Street, and between L Street and Naples Street has raised landscaped medians);
4) Aesthetics;
5) Meeting our standard for this class of highway;
6) Already raised medians, so won't impact businesses; and
7) Lower accident level with raised medians vs. paved medians.
Staff has estimated that since we're now proposing to remove and construct new medians and curbs, we
would save $75,000 to $100,000 by removing the median and replacing with asphalt pavement. Council
may wish to consider this option. If Council does wish to remove the median islands, we recommend the
item be referred back to staff for more accurate estimates and to set up meetings with affected property
owners along the routes, then return with a public hearing before Council to consider removal of medians.
If Council accepts staff's recommend8tion to build new raised medians, the additional work with preparing
new design and estimate and working with property owners will not be necessary.
FISCAL IMPACT:
$230,500 has been appropriated for the design of this project. The FY 95/96 CIP includes an appropriation
of$2,108,000 in TransNet funds for the construction (contract, inspection, and contingencies) of the project
for a total of$ 2,338,500. This project and its funding is part of the RTIP program approved by Council on
February 22,1994 by Resolution 17396. The new changes in scope of work will raise the total cost to
$2,795,000. Attached as Exhibit C is a detailed cost summary showing itemized impact of the scope of work
changes. Staff will return at the time award of contract is scheduled to appropriate additional funds. These
costs are still estimates and once bids are received, a more accurate amount of additional funds will be
determined.
Attachments:
Exhibit A - Council Agenda Statement.
Exhibit B - CIP details sheet
Exhibit C . Cost summary sheet.
Exhibit D. Plat showing proposed opening south of Palomar Street.
SAlFileNo.: 073S-IG.ST.I43--6
M:\homelenaineer\aa:eftda\st143rpt.jpl
.2./J .. 17
EX~UMTu,--C" 1
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
.
Item~
Meeting Date 3/05/96
ITEM TITLE:
Public Hearing on the Chula Vista Transportation Improvement Program for the next seven
fiscal years
Resolution t~ 'J~ Adopting the Seven-Year TransNet Local Street and Road Program
of Projects for Fiscal Years 1996-97 through 2002-2003 and approving the submittal of
Chula Vista's Transportation Improvement Program to the San Diego Association of
Governments (SANDAG) for inclusion in the Regional Transportation Improvement
Program (RTIP)
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works
~
REVIEWED BY: City Manager
(4/Sths Vote: Yes_NoX)
The San Diego Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) is a seven-year program (fiscal years 1996-
1997 through 2002-2003) of proposed major highway, arterial, transit, bikeway, and aviation projects. The alUlUa]
development and approval of the R TIP by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) is a requirement
for the continued receipt of State and Federal transportation project funding. The "Proposition 'A' TransNet
Transportation Improvement Program - Ordinance and Expenditure Plan" also requires that all proposed projects
funded with TransNet funds be included in the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP). Said
rroposition was enacted by the voters of San Diego County on November 3,1987. Proposition 'A' is a Y:z percent
increase in the County-wide sales tax lasting 20 years for specified transportation programs and projects. One third
of the revenues are specified for allocation to the local agencies for local street and road pW'poses. The other two
thirds will be equally shared for two additional primary pW'poses: Regional Highway and Public Transit
improvements. SANDAG administers the program County-wide.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council conduct the public hearing and upon its completion approve a resolution
adopting the City's RTIP Program and approve its submittal to SANDAG.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
The Proposition' A' Ordinance and Expenditure Plan states that the revenue generated by the sales tax measure will
be used solely for transportation improvement projects in accordance with the following priorities:
I. To repair and rehabilitate existing roadways.
2. To reduce congestion and improve safety.
3. To provide for the construction of needed facilities.
In accordance with said priorities, the proposed RTIPlTransNet Expenditure Plan was prepared as shown on Table
I (attached). Tables 2 and 3 (attached) show projected revenues and expenditures for corresponding fiscal years.
2hula Vista's total revenues as projected by SANDAG over the next seven fiscal years are estimated to be $18.15
..w'lr
EXHIBIT "C" 2
Page 2, Item ~
Meeting Date 3/05/96
million. The City has the option to amend the RTIP in 1997 when new projections become available. Based on
future interest earnings and changes in the projects, an amendment will be necessary to eliminate the negative
carryover balance for FY 1997/98. The positive balance at the end of FY 2002/2003 will be carried over to FY
2003/2004. The proposed RTIP is consistent with the City's CIP program and includes eight projects utilizing
TransNet funds in Fiscal Years 1996-97 through 2002-03. The projects and their corresponding amounts are
programmed as follows:
PROJECT AMOUNT FISCAL YEAR
I. Otay Valley Road, additional funds' $201,000 1996-97
2. Broadway, Naples to Anita, additional $460,000 1996-97
funds2
3. Main Street, Industrial to Broadway - I $2,039,000 1996-97
4. Main Street, Industrial to Broadway - II $2,786,000 1997-98
5. Palomar Street, 1-5 to Industrial $854,000 1998-99
6. "E" Street, 1-5 to Broadway $767,000 1998-99
7. Main Street, Broadway to Third $4,500,000 1998-99 thru 2000-01
8. Main Street, Third to Hilltop $5,000,000 2000-01 thru 2002-03
TOTAL 516,607,000
I Approved by the City Council and Redevelopment Agency on February 6,1996.
2 Latest estimate based on approved plans and specifications.
The projects as listed in terms of priority involve widening and extensive reconstruction including but not limited
to: installation of asphalt concrete pavement, curb, gutter, sidewalks, street lights, drainage facilities, etc. All eight
projects have been approved in previous RTIPs. Table 4 (attached) includes a project information form for each
of the eight projects. Table 5 lists all the TransNet projects that have been completed since the inception of the
program. The deadline for local agency project submittals of the 1996-03 RTlP to SANDAG is March 15, 1996.
SANDAG will distribute the draft R TIP for review and comment in the latter part of April 1996. Adoption of the
final RTIP is scheduled for SANDAG Board of Directors action at its meeting of June 28, 1996.
FISCAL IMPACT: TransNet sales tax revenues totaling approximately $16,607,000 to be allocated to the City
of Chula Vista for Fiscal Years 1996-97 through 2002-03.
SMN :rb
File No. 0390-50-KYI74
~:\HOME\ENGINEER\AGENDA IRTIPHRG I .SMN
.2p'19
EXHIBIT D
Specific measures which the contractor and staff will implement per the project's
specifications.
. Do one side of street first and only 'A mile at a time - the contractor would
be required to complete the improvements on one side within the 'A mile
before moving to the next section
. After removal of the existing curb, gutter and sidewalk the new improvements
must be installed within 10 working days
. Construction of all curbs, gutters and sidewalks to be completed before
demolishing and removing pavement
. Use high early strength cement for driveway construction, if needed.
. Provide "Open for Business" signs for each business
. Prohibit work from November 1996 to January 1997, if needed.
. Have contractor work 10 hour days
. keep full-time inspector(s) on the job
. Equip the inspector(s) with a pager - provide the pager number(s) to the
merchants
. Inspector(s) to personally contact each merchant prior to actual work
commencement adjacent to the shop
. Keep on-street parking as long as practicable
. Minimize depth of structural section
. Maintain all driveways signed and open
. Maintain access to bus stops at all times
. Meet weekly with merchants and/or the Broadway Business Association
during construction
. Start north end of project and work south
. Advertise shops are open for business during construction period
M:\home\engineer\agenda\st143d.exh
.2d ',.2.1)
EXHIBIT "E"
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
You are required to file a Statement of Disclosure of cenain ownership or financial interests, payments, or campaign ~ontributioDS,
on all matters which will require discretionary action on the pan of the City Council, Planning Commission, and all other official
bodies. The following information must be disclosed:
I. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the property which is the subject of the application or the Contract,
e.g., owner, applicant, Contractor, subcontractor, material supplier.
2. If any person. identified pursuant to (I) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all individuals owning more
than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any pannership interest in the partnership.
3. If any person. identified pursuant to (1) above is non-profit organization or a trust, list the names of any person serving as
director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust.
4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of the City staff, Boards, Commissions,
Committees, and Council within the past twelve month'! Yes _ No ...!. If yes, please indicate person(s):
5. Please identify each and every person, including any agents, employees, wnsultants, or independent Contrd<:tors who you
have assigned to represent you before the City in this matter.
6. Have you and/or your offi<:ers or agents, in the aggregate, contributed more than $1,000 to a Council member in the current
or pre<:eding election period? Yes _ No .!.. If yes, state which Council members(s):
Date: MARCH 27, 1996
* * * (NOTE: Attached additional rasr ~
Signature of Contractor/ Applkant
RICHARD FLECK, PRESIDENT
Print or type name of Contrdctor/ Applicant
· Person is defined as: "Any individual, firm, co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal organization,
corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, this and any other county, city or country, city municipality, district, or other political
subdivision, or any other group or combination acting as a unit.
.2/;'.2/
31
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
ITEM TITLE:
Item :J../
Meeting Date 4/16/96
Resolution I "..2~ppropriating additional funds for the construction
of a portion of the Salt Creek Sewer line, adopting the negative declaration
and authorizing the purchase of mitigation property
U5/~
(Su'7
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public ~~
Director of Plannin'(1 ~: ~
REVIEWED BY: City Manag:J~ ~ -4 ~ (4/5ths Vote: Yes X No-J
On February 13, 1996 the City Council approved an appropriation of sewer funds for the
construction of a portion of the Salt Creek Sewer Trunk line which lies within the same proposed
easement as SDG&E's pipeline 2000 project high pressure gas line. On February 27, 1996 the
Council approved a Joint Use Agreement and a Joint Construction Agreement with SDG&E for
the joint use of an easement in Salt Creek and construction of the sewer line by SDG&E as part
of their gas line project. SDG&E has received the bids and, in order to complete the construction,
additional funds need to be appropriated. In addition, the Addendum to the Negative Declaration
needs to be adopted and authorization needs to be obtained to purchase mitigation property in
cooperation with The Environmental Trust.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council appropriate an additional $280,000 to project
SW210 - Salt Creek Sewer/SDGE pipeline from the available balance of sewer fund number 222 -
Trunk Sewer Capital Reserve Fund, approving the negative declaration and addendum and
authorizing the purchase of mitigation property to offset the loss of coastal sage habitat.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: None.
DISCUSSION:
The City and San Diego Gas and Electric Company have been working cooperatively to include
the construction of a portion of the Salt Creek Trunk Sewer with the high pressure gas line being
constructed by SDG&E in the Salt Creek area which had been identified by the City as the
location of the future sewer. To that end the City and SDG&E have entered into agreements for
the joint use of the area and for the joint construction by SDG&E. The Council appropriated
$600,000 in Trunk Sewer Capital Reserve funds on February 13 based upon a very preliminary
estimate without the benefit of survey work or even preliminary design. The plans have been
completed, SDG&E has received bids and additional funds are needed.
The developers originally approached the City about constructing this portion of the Salt Creek
Sewer along with the SDG&E pipeline in mid January. At that time the City had no knowledge
of the project and no specific details upon which a more accurate estimate could be based, but
.2/ ". /
Page 2, Item .;./
Meeting Date 4/] 6/96
SDG&E's schedule for advertising their project was mid March. Therefore, in order to be able
to meet SDG&E's schedule City staff quickly prepared the preliminary estimate and requested
funds accordingly. In order to permit the City to take advantage of cost savings in the SDG&E
bid, there was insufficient time for more detailed research. The $600,000 budget request was
based on an estimate of $480,000. Subsequently, plans and specifications were completed and
a revised engineers estimate was prepared which brought previously unknown factors to light.
Such items as the potential for rock excavation and breaking, dewatering, placing the sewer in a
casing above the County Water Authority waterlines, trench shoring and constructing an access
road to a manhole located outside the joint use area were items that had not been anticipated in
the preliminary estimate, but were included as a result of the details brought out in the design.
While staff tried to anticipate the impact of SDG&E's schedule on the sewer, the potential affect
on the bid was a total unknown. In addition, the width of the easement, which was restricted in
order to avoid more significant environmental impacts, added to the costs. The revised engineer's
estimate was $640,000. When SDG&E received bids on the joint project they ranged from
approximately $709,000 to approximately $779,000.'
The bids contain two items of work which are only included based on a potential for the situation
to arise. These two items are rock breaking and rock blasting. While staff believes that the need
for these items is minimal based on the minimum soil borings done by SDG&E for their project,
bids were requested for these items in order to have a unit price available if needed and not be at
odds with the contractor on a change order. An estimated amount of this work was included so
that a high, unbalanced price would not be included in the bid. If no rock is encountered the cost
of the contract would be lowered within a range of $25,000 to $90,000.
The Joint Construction Agreement with SDG&E provides that if the bids are more than 125 %
above the engineer's estimate, the City has an option to not proceed with the sewer work and opt
out of the agreement. The low bid, as initially submitted, is 111 % of the final engineers estimate.
Staff has reviewed these estimates, discussed them with the contractors and believe that they are
reasonable. Further, if the City were to postpone the work at this time and undertake the project
after SDG&E's gas line is in place, staff believes that the project cost could go as high as three
to four times the current cost due to the difficulty of working next to an active high pressure gas
SDG&E's procedures are somewhat different from the City's in that after they
receive the bids they have the ability to discuss items with each of the bidders where they
believe the contractor may have submitted a higher bid due to lack of information. Often this
process, which provides contractors with clarifications in areas that the bids were not as clear
as originally thought, results in changes which lower the cost. The City is taking part in this
process as it affects the sewer bids, however, we are guaranteed the lowest bid price with a
potential to go lower. SDG&E does not wish the specific details to be made available to the
bidders and have requested that we not itemize the bids. While staff can provide the Council
with the bid summary confidentially if desired, staff believes that the low bid is reasonable.
.:; /. ~
Page 3, Item .)./
Meeting Date 4/16/96
line and/or environmental considerations necessary to mitigate if the current allignment could not
be followed.
Ne~ative Declaration
In 1994 the Environmental Review Coordinator conducted an Initial Study of the size of the
facility and the establishment of a benefit area fee to fund construction of the Salt Creek gravity
sewer interceptor. This Initial Study concluded that there would not result in any significant
environmental impact and a negative declaration was prepared (IS-94-24). This negative
declaration specified that as the specific location of the sewer line was determined, a more specific
and detailed environmental analysis would be conducted.
Because the precise location of the sewer line within and near the SDG&E pipeline 2000 project
area is now known, a refinement of the environmental analysis was required. A site specific
biological analysis was conducted because of the habitat and species value. This further analysis
concluded that there would be no significant effect and an addendum to the previous negative
declaration was prepared (attached as Exhibit A)
The seweriine corridor uses the same alignment for the streambed crossing as the Pipeline 2000
gas line. It also uses the same alignment for crossing tributaries to Salt Creek. The spur
seweriine that extends west from the trunk seweriine crossing of Salt Creek is incremental to the
wetland impacts resulting from pipeline 2000. The incremental impacts to wetland and riparian
habitat amount to 0.01 acres.
The construction of the sewer line would result in the incremental impact to Coastal Sage Scrub
(CSS) in two areas. The amount of additional habitat impacted by the seweriine "spur" is 0.05
acres of CSS. The amount of additional habitat impacted by the seweriine is 0.49 acres of CSS.
The total amount of additional habitat impacted by the construction of the Salt Creek sewerline
is 0.54 acres. Because the additional areas impacted are linear and narrow strips of habitat along
the existing road and proposed SDG&E corridor, no impacts to the California gnatcatcher are
anticipated. Because the construction for the sewerline would use the same construction
techniques and timing, no impacts to breeding gnatcatchers are expected.
Coordinating the construction of the Salt Creek seweriine with the SDG&E Pipeline 2000 to use
the same alignment and same timing results in the overall minimization of impacts to the CSS
habitat and California gnatcatchers located in Salt Creek. By using the same alignment, the
construction of the seweriine does not require an additional permit from the Department of the
Army, Corps of Engineers (Nationwide Permit).
Miti~ation Property
In order to mitigate the 0.54 acre of coastal sage scrub that will be impacted by the construction,
it is recommended that Council authorize the purchase of I acre of coastal sage scrub located in
the Marron Valley Environmental Preserve. As described in the negative declaration and
,,;/- :J
Page 4, Item ~ I
Meeting Date 4/16/96
addendum, the project site is not inhabited by the California gnatcatcher. The mitigation site is
Coastal sage habitat, is not inhabited by the gnatcatcher, and is an appropriate mitigation site.
Two other properties were reviewed prior to the determination to recommend purchase of the
Marron Valley Environmental Preserve parcel. The first property in O'Neill canyon cost $12,000
an acre. The second property located in the Otay Valley area cost over $20,000 an acre.
The $5,300 amount for Marron Valley property from the Marron Valley Environmental Preserve
includes costs for: purchase of the property by the City and transfer of title to The Environmental
Trust, escrow fees, and management in perpetuity by The Environmental Trust.
The acre of land purchased would be used for mitigation of this project and the balance would be
used for subsequent mitigation of other City projects.
A'ppropriation
The total additional amount to be appropriated is $280,000. This amount is based on the
following figures:
Contract $708,925.00
SDG&E costs (Inspection, soil testing, Biological, 25,000.00
Archeological)
Contingencies (10%:t) 71,075.00
Subtotal $805,000.00
City Staff Costs
Environmental Review/mitigation 5,000.00
Design (4%:t) 29,700.00
Inspection (5 % :t) 35,000.00
Land Purchase for Environmental Mitigation 5,300.00
Total needed $880,000.00
Less previous appropriation to SW-21O 600,000.00
Amount to be appropriated $280,000.00
Funds are available in fund 222, the Trunk Sewer Capital Reserve Fund. As with the original
appropriation this amount will be included in the Salt Creek Sewer Basin Development Impact Fee
(SCSBDIF) as a trade off for regional facilities that would have otherwise been constructed using
the Trunk Sewer Capital Reserve funds. The developers have agreed to this trade off in order to
.21.. ~
Page 5, Item ..21
Meeting Date 4/16/96
construct this portion of the line now and save considerably higher future costs. Because there
is insufficient time to change the SCSBDlF now and still meet the required timeline for this
project, staff will return in the future with an amendment to the SCSBDIF to accomplish that
action.
FISCAL IMPACT: $600,000 has been appropriated to CIP account SW210 - Salt Creek
SewerlSDGE pipeline from the Trunk Sewer Capital Reserve Fund. An additional appropriation
of $280,000 needs to be appropriated from that fund. Insufficient funds are currently available
in the SCSBDlF to construct this project at this time. If the City constructed the pipeline at a later
time when the line is needed and funds are available in the SCSBDIF, it is estimated that the costs
could be considerably higher because of conflicts with the gas line requiring extensive shoring or
dealing with enviromnewntal mitigation problems if a different aligmnent had to be found to avoid
those construction impacts.
The Trunk Sewer Capital Reserve Fund has a balance of approximately $8 million in anticipation
of the need to construct major regional facilities. The total of $880,000 required for this project
will not jeopardize the construction of those future facilities.
Attachments:
Exhibit A - Addendum to Negative Declaration (IS-94-24) dated April 2, 1996
Exhibit B - Salt Creek Sewer Mitigation site map
m:\home\engineer\agenda\ scswr3.cls.
File No. 0735-1O-SW21O
2.5
';/~.r )/-6
. '.
RESOLUTION NO. 19'~4-f
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROPRIATING ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR
THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PORTION OF THE SALT
CREEK LINE, ADOPTING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION
AND AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF MITIGATION
PROPERTY
WHEREAS, on February 13, 1996 the City Council approved
an appropriation of sewer funds for the construction of a portion
of the Salt Creek Sewer Trunk line which lies within the same
proposed easement as SDG&E's pipeline 2000 project high pressure
gas line; and
WHEREAS, on February 27, 1996, the Council approved a
Joint Use Agreement and a Joint Construction Agreement with SDG&E
for the joint use of an easement in Salt Creek and construction of
the sewer line by SDG&E as part of their gas line project; and
WHEREAS, SDG&E has
complete the construction,
appropriated; and
received the bids and, in order to
additional funds need to be
WHEREAS, in addition, the Addendum to the Negative
Declaration needs to be adopted and authorization needs to be
obtained to purchase mitigation property in cooperation with The
Environmental Trust.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the
City of Chula vista does hereby appropriate an additional $280,000
to Project SW210 Salt Creek Sewer/SDG&E Pipeline from the
available balance of Sewer Fund No. 222 - Trunk Sewer Capital
Reserve Fund.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby
approved the negative declaration and addendum and authorizes the
purchase of mitigation property to offset the loss of coastal sage
habitat.
Presented by
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
C:\rs\SCswr3
,,1/-7
~02/
ADDENDUM TO NEGATIVE DF("I.A1tATlON
(lS-M-24)
APRIL 2. 1996
PROJECT NAME:
PROJECl' LOCATION:
Salt Creek Sewer
PROJECl' APPLICANT:
Within Salt Cleek SolIdI ollbe ~III,... of east 0aDp Ave. and
DOrth of tile OII.y VaUey
'!be City of Chula VISta
CASE NO.:
I. INTRODUCTION
IS-94-24
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). tile CEQA GulMline$ ant the Environmental
Review procedures of the City of Chula Vista provide that where a Neptive Declaration has
been prepared DO additional Negative n-lllraUon need be prepared UDless:
1. Substantial changes are proposed in the project wbich will mquiJe major revisions of the
previous Negative Declaration due to the involvement of Dew Ji&nificant environmental
effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously ~tified 1i&J'lfi......t effects;
2. Substantial changes occur with zapect to the c:irmm-DCeI under which die project is
undertaken, which will require master revisiOl1l of die previous Neptive n-1.raUon due
to the involvement of Dew lipificant envUnnmMtaJ effects or . substantial increase in
the severity of previously identified ttI&J'lfiC-ftt effects; or
3. New information of substantial impoltance to die project becomes aY"1I.h1e, and
(A) The information was not known and could not bPe been blown with die aercise
of IeUODIble cIele&ence at die time die NepIive DecIuation was iIOOpt""'. and
(B) The new information Ibows lOy of die foIlowina:
1. '!be project will have oae OJ' _ -ip1fitoMlt effects not Ai.......... in the
previous DCptive dec:IIzation;
2. Sipificant dfects pMViously _.",ltwl will be substantially men severe
than shown in die Deptive decJuation;
~/- R-I
.----
-
3. Mitigation masures or I1temativa previously found not 1ID be feasible
would in fact be fN.;h1e and would lUb-nri,!l1y reduce oae or more
aipificant effects of the project; or
4. Mitiption masures or I1temativa which are CO"Jitlombly difference from
diose in the ueptive decIuatioD wbidI would IUbltlntially reduce oae or
more aipificant effects on the eaWaameat.
The City of Cbula Vista is preparina this ~ to ~ Neptive Declaration becallle:
1. Noae of the conditions "-'""bed above ....m'" for preparation of a IUbsequent
Neptive Declaration have oc:eumd;
2. Only minor technical cbanges or Idditions are "<<~I"'Y to make the Neptive
Declaration under consideration adequate under CEQA; and
3. The cbanges to the Neptive Declaration mIde by the addendum do not raise
important new issues about the significant effects on the environment.
An addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the
Negative Declaration.
The decision-making body shall consider the addendum with the Neptive Declaration prior to making
a decision on the project.
n. PROJECT DFSCRIPI'lON
The San Diego Gu Ie. Electric (SDG&E) Pipeline 2000 project includes the construction of an
underaround 36-inch diameter natural ps transmission pipeline wbich traverses approximately 6.S miles
in the southern portion of San Diego County bc:t\..<<:n the 1':...tl..b rquJator atation lOuth of Otay Lakes
RaId and the Harvest rquJator atation near the intcnection of harvest Road and Otay Mea RaId. The
ri&ht-of-way for the pipeline c:onstruction will be 100 feet acept in areas of bioJolical senaitivity in Salt
Creek and O'Neal Canyons, wbcre the ri&ht-of-way corridor will be 40 feet. Construction activities
will CO".;d of dialinl a trench, wddinl pipe IectionJ loJedIcr. iii-mill the pipe in the tIeIICh. and
....1rfImfll. The dimensions of the trench are eri.-1poted to raqe from 7.5 to 10.0 feet in depth and
5.0 to 6.0 feet in width.
.) /- A - a
.
A IeWel'line has been pJarmed, for . number of years, 10 be ......Hod IkIa& tile access rOId which nms
the length of Salt Creek. Ita pmpose 11 to _Ibe residential deYe1apmeDt of the yet-fo-be..(' 1Jo..1truCted
OIay Ranch Vil1a&es, RutT ..b j Salt Creek RaIIch IDd 0Cber ja~ in eutem Cbula Villa. 1be 24-
inch cfiameIer IeWerline it j).c.poted to be Ioc:ated within IppfCo.i_~1y tile lime corridor u tile SDG&E
pjyJine 2000 &lon, Salt Creek. The p.~ IeWedine 11 ftICrle!ed 10 Ibe Salt Creek ana, ad tIIus
does DOt impact areas in Ibe vicinity of tile OIay River, O'Neal CIIIycm, .. JGbnJon Canyon. The
c:onstruction 1e('hniqlJeS IDd time frame would be Ibe lime U for Ibe "'_Jlt 01 Pipdine 2000 ......t~
in Salt Creek. PJacin& both pipeoJines within tile lime tIIIIch, MI1 tMo~ tile IeWerline may DOt be
used for IOIIIe time, would reduce the impacts to Irio1oJical raourcea to. minimum.
m. PROJECT bJ:;ll1NG
The project site is within Salt Creek portion of the OIay Ranch va mve to tile west of the Lower Otay
Lake Reservoir and to tile soutllwest of tile Olympic Training Center. Ibe cenenI area 11 designated
as part of tile Otay Ranch preserve and designated U . 90" p1 f"YC area in the Cbula Vista
recommendation on tile Draft Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP). The area involves
Coastal Sage Scrub (CSS) habitat which includes COIWlI California JI"t....tt'Jter territory. There is also
wetland and riparian habitat at tile lower elevations of Salt Creek.
The Salt Cleek area is part of tile Chula Vista Greenbelt which it in~ to provide a system of
continuous 28 mile trail, open space and park link around the City. The assure continuous ICCesS for
maintenance and security tile trail is envisioned as a paved IUrfIce wide eIIOUJh for use by vehicles in
addition to recreational activities.
IV. PROJECT IMPACTS
The aewerIine corridor usea the ame aliinment for tbe ....mhM CIOIIina at tile Pipeline 2000. It also
uses the same alignment for crossin, tributaries to Salt Creek. TIle IpUJ' IeMdine that ~s west
from the IeWerline a crossin, of Salt Creek that it incremental to tile wetland impacts raultin, from
pipeliDe 2000. The incremental impacts to wetlIDd IDd ri.p-..u.n blbitat amount to 0.01 acres.
The construction of Ibe ICWerIine would result in Ibe h.w_~.-'ft..1 1...,- to CSS in two areas. The
amount of Idditional babitat impacted by tbe IeWedine elpUJ'e is 0.05 acres of CSS. TIle amount of
additional habitat impacted by the IeWerline it 0.49 acres 01 CSS. 1be IIOtal amount .Mitinml1 babitat
impacted by the construction of tile Salt Creek IeWerline is 0.54 acres. Pec-1.I1t tile additional areas
impacted are linear and narrow strips of habitat aloni tbe mdt'll rOId IDd proposed SDGe corridor,
,5?/-A-3
DO impacts to the California rtt'JItt'.N.r are anticipttl!d. ......... ibe CDIIItI'Udion for ibe eewerline
would \lie tile DIlle c:oastructioft _hniquea and timi., 110 ''''P'''"" to bJeeding pIIICItChen are
ca~.
Coordinatin& tile c:oastructioft of tile SIlt Creek IeWediDe wiJh tile SDGU Pipeline 2000 to \lie the
ame .111"-t and ame timiD& rau1tI in tile ovenJlnnfthni_tiftft of In.)*)tI to the CSS Mhitst aDd
Ca1ilomIa .,..t........... ka~ in SIlt Creek. By usIq tile ame ,.,~-t, the constnICdaD of the
IeWediDe does DOt require an additioaal permit fIOm tile ~ba...ut of tile Army, CoJpI 01 EJI&ineen
(NadoDwkIe Permit).
v. MI11GA110N
The City will mitipte the impact to O.S4 acres of CSS through the qnllition of alike amount of CSS,
decliC'ltiQft U part of the MSCP 1'1] Tr"ve area aDd pIOVidiD& for mainlellanCe in petpetuity of the
Plopeat)'. Details reprding this mitiption will be provided with the cumption from tile 4(d) rule
process and will be subject to approve by the City of Chula Vuta, the u.s. FISh and W"JJdlife Service
and the California Dept. of Fish and Game.
VI. CONCLUSION
The project will result in non-significant impacts that are minor in nature aDd can be fully mitipted.
These are minor technical changes that do DOt raise any important DeW issues regarding lipiticant
environmental affects. Given the amount of bioloJical elm that bas been available over time for the
update of the Chula Vista General plan and the Otay Ranch project reprding the type aDd quality of
habitat present this does not constitute new information.
Tberefote, pursuant to Section 15164 of the State CEQA Ouideli-- aDd based upon the above
discussion, I bereby find that tile revisions to the J'I.....-d project will rault in only minor ~it'JIl
changes or ~ititwl. and that the previously prepared Neptive DecImIioD adequate is UDder CEQA.
~
~~~
ENVIRO . AL REVIEW COORDINATOR
,
0/- ,Q-4
REFERENCES
. The Chula Vista General Plan (1989)
The Chula Vista Genera Plan Update EnviJOnmental ''''P''ct Report (EIR-88-2)
Title 19 of the Chula Vista MUDicipal Code
City of Chula Vista Environmental Review Proc:edures
Salt Creek Basin Gravity Sewer IDitial StudylNeptiw DecIIratioo
.
.:-.-..-:101....
c
(-
.::{/- R-5
,
,~
MlMORANDVM
To
Prom
Date
Il6 :
.Doua Reid, City of QuIa V.
.a>>m
ADiIa Hayworth, ~" !It &"'"0"1.,...
PcbIIwy 29, 1996
PIpdbt, 2<<JO l1li4 s.II o.d: s.wrlbu CoOl.,,,"
The San Diego Gu A PJcctric (SDG&:E) Pipelille 2000 project -"od- !be CXIIIIUUCtion of
an underground 3~iDch diameter DIIUrIl pi tp......l..ion pipeliDe which travenea
approximately 6.S miles in the IOUtbern portion of San I>ieao Coway b.:t..~ the Eastlake
1'eJUlltor _lion IIOU1h of OIay LaIces Road IIId die Harvest rquJator IIation IIW' the
intmection of Harvest Road aDd Otay Mesa Road <Figure 1). Tbe ript-of-way for tbc
pipeline COdfIttuction will be 100 feet except in areu of biolop:al leIIIitivtty AD Salt Creek
IDd O'Neal Canyons, where the right-of-way corridor will be 040 feet. CoastnIc:tion activities '.
wUl consisc of diaJinll CI'CDCh, weldiDg pipe ICWons toptber, insDIlioa tbc pipe in the
treIICb. IDd backf'1lling. The dimenlions of tile trench are andcipated to IIDF from 7.5 to
10.0 feet in depth IDd S.O 10 6.0 feet in width.
. SDG&E is buildiDa Cbe Pipeline 2000 project in cmScr to ",."nm... to provide reliable Datural
pi aervkc to ita c:ust.omerS. Currently, tbc au presAreS iD die IO"~ aDd c:utem
portions of tbcir diltribution ayIIan drop to ~le 1evelI duriD& cold wimer days.
The constrUCtion of I 3~inI:.h di._ DItura1 ps 1P_lodftn pIpe1illl! wiJ1ll1ow SDGAE
to provide a hiab-pressure, 1arJe-capacily supply of DI&III'II pi to ~ Cbeir eDr111g and
future Otay Mesa CUJtoID(rs. Reliability of natural pi eervice wW be ........"".l1y improved
over die k&ncc cummly provided by ID ~ l~aa Aioo- tu wll-lar~-1 in Otay
Mesa ROI4.
A InoCI&5 has bccD 1"--', for a -'- of ycan, to be lot'" "led aIoaa die ICCCII laid
whIocb MIS die IeD&1h of Salt Creek. III pIIpoIt is to ~ tile r..~..I.1 dewlopmeat of
die yet. to be~ Otay IWx:h Vw.,a IIoa& tile --~-...1Ide of die Otay Valley
Pucc1. 'Ibe 24-iDch dbn ~ eewcrIiDe is pI~ to be Ie----" wIddII ~QIo.i.. ....Iy die
IIIIIC ripI.-of-way . the &I)G.to1l ,.,..Ii_ DJO IIId b"_IWIMla.-""'Y 4000 fIet of Cbe
corridor aIoaC Salt Creek. 'I11e "'~~ ___lidt It .-rlc:lld to die Salt Oect area, aad
em doeIlIOt ~ areal iD tbc vicinity of die 0Iay River, O'Neal CDyoa.. ar ""'-;m
Canyon. TIle IeWCI'liDe waakI be placed below tbe ~aa ,,~ pal. within die lime
traICh. Tbe COIIIIrUCtioD ....hniqua and time frame woaId be die same as for lilt qment of
Plprli~ 2000 lorfted In Salt Crr.et. PIIciDa boCb p1podn- wIdIiD die IIIIIC 1rCIICb. CVIIl .
tboup tile eewaIiDe may DOt be !lied for IOIIIe time, woa14 teIhIce die il'4~ II to bioqical
IeIOI1I'CCI to . ,,"mmllm.
~~)- A -tp
~I"'T~ ID ~ I.~.~ GI:.. DOl )oIooLt
Potential ~ to riplriaftlwet1mS baIriw, coasta1saaelClUb (CSS),1he least BeU', vireo
(\ireo beWi pIISillIu) mI cbe Ca1ifonlia rlr)afdw (PoliqJII/Il ~ Mli/DmIaI) were
lIIII1yzcd for die SDG&E ...,.,Ii_ 2000 project. h was ................ by cbe U.S. Fish IDI1
. Wildlife Service (Service) tbat JIO direct ~ to cbe vireo ~ occur _ to cbe timing
of conatnJCtioa IdiviIies (Auaust llIIroQp March 14) tD be c-,I>>~ cbe ~t.., ICaIOD of
die vireo. The~ of 1.7 ICIa of Jow-quality ripIriII1 !IIbitat woaId be mcactated
olllite in combiDation witb pardIue of offaite Dative babitat It. 1:1 ratio. 'Ole PVlmc
2000 CODSttuction will rault ill the dbturbaDce of 2.8 ICIa of as, wbIch pmvldes a portion
of tile babitat for two pIin of pltr-"trber. The itiiraarbucc Ira wiI1 be I'&\..e""~ IIpOD
completion of tile project resu1tiD& ill ~ in,p-tc _i." 10 O.IICre. h was
concluded that indirect impaC1s such IS DOise aeneraIed by tile COIIIIJUCtion of die project are
DOt anticipated to affect r~."'~ Idvcnc1y. Other "....1IIIeS 10 be q'--'t.... to
minimize or 'on.cpeilSlte for impaC1s 10 tile patcatchcr mI its babitat iDcbrdC' tile l'CItriction
of brush clearing IDI1 gradiDg ICtivitics to a period outside Ihe .,.....-- br-ti'lg ICaIOn,
defiDed as February 15 to August 15, IDI1 acqaiaition of 1.8 acres of as babitat offlite (1: 1
ratio). An altemative to the above mitiption ""","'-es Iw been COIIC1vded tD be ICCeptable
by the Service and includes reducing Ihc current OOlite reItOI'ation efforts IDI1 directing the
lavings to investing in habitat acquisition aDd prelUVation WIlder die SDG&E Sub-Re.ional
NCCP.
In addition to the BiolOJic:a! Opinion issued by die Service pw1IWIt to scc:don 7 of the
~nd.'lgered Species Act of 1973, as amended, SOOAE received I NatioDWide Permit from
the Department of tbe Army, Corps of Enainem mI a Section 1601 Streambed Alteration
Aereement for the Pipeline 2000 project. The pcnnits iDc1ude activitieI w....... In SaIl Creek
(three crossings), Otay River, and JoImIoo Canyon Creek.
The incremental impacu of tile Salt Creek ltWerliae coDSaUCdoD to !be P\po'lw 2000
coDltruction impacts were lIIII1yzed by Allita Hayworth, Dudek .t: Astociares. The current
ali&Dment IDI1 aradiDa plaDs (dated February 27, 1996) of Ibe ewertine conidor were
supt. ib..yosed on die P~Ii~ 2000 corridor. Areas of tile eewerIine COIIItrIICtiaD corridor
that falJ outaidc of cbe Pipeline 2000 corridor were mapped tor "'I~ 'I1ae were
oollSidered to be the j~~~i-^,..I ~ of tbe c.uo.u...au.. of tbe Salt Cleek wwerIiDe.
The ~ corridor 1l1l:I die IIJIIe an....~ for &be .......t-t c:rouiD& ~...... b<<ween
......""1... IS 1DI116. h also 1IICI die lime .ICI\I.- tor Q'OIIq tribuIIries to Salt CreeIc.
'Ole IpW' Ie'Ir'edine tbat exteDds west from IDIIIhole 3 FIr1'''eI . CI'OIIiD& of Salt Creek that
illr.c.~1 tD !be edaDd ~ I'eIUJdDa from Pipclb 2000. tile iac..~.....1 ~ctS
tD .-...... mI riparian babitat aount tD 0.01 1CIa.
1be COIIItrUCdor1 of tile aewerIiDe wouJ4 remit ill the inc.......4111 ~ to CSS in two
areas. The amOI11It of additioIIII habitat ~ by tbe eewertiDe 'spur' II 0.05 acres of
as. 1be ......... of additioaa1 babitat i...(~ by tile lnerllne (bet'4 f11......tan\es 4 IDI1
6) is 0.49 acres of CSS. TIle ICtal --- .....;nnn.1 ....... "Teta! by die OOIIIItIlICtion of
die Salt CRet aewatiDe is 0.54 1CIa. . ..,- cbe ..tfflti.wl areas ~ lie linear and
IIIn'OW strip, of babhat alq tile ",,1..1.., mad IDI1 PfI1l"-' SDG.t:E corridor, 110 impacts to
&be CaliforDia v-ucber are 1IIIic~. BecaUIe tile CCIIIIUUCIicm tor &be I8WeI'IiDe would
~ (JJ- ~-L
- .,
",
lilt the same COIIItnIction -....iqIJes aDd timiDa. lID in1paCII to br-'"" r--u:bm IJ'C
expected.
CoordinatiD& the CODItrUCtion of tile Salt Creek IeWCrIine with die SDGa:E Ptpo-Iw 2000 to
1IIt de same alil~d.-=ui aDd IIIDI timJDa resuJu iD cbe ovaaIt .......:...!__ltftQ of..."..-.. 10 1bc
CSS habitat n4 Califomia pa:aldlm ...... in Salt Cnet. By 1IIID& lie I11III: .1i.1"'~II1.
tile CODIUUCtioD of tile awed_ does 80t require ID .....iMaa1 penDit 6aa Ibe DepInmeut
of the Ju:my. CoIps of J;~-eD (N1ticmwide Pemai1). A ~ .~ permit for
tile 0.01 acre ...".... to pt'."'" may be nquired from die Ca1ifomIa D-.....~ of FiIh
IDeS Game. '
.
f
. :), {-- ~ - ~
"/"'d
S3.Lt:flJOSS1:j , >OaJ'1Q Wd1i11:Ee 96. 1>0 ~
.. ;.
~/
._._----,--~---"
negative declaration
PROJEer NAME: Salt Creek Gravity Basin Sewer ADaJysis
PROJECT LOCATION: Salt Creek Basin (West of die Otay Lake Reservoirs aDd
along die Otay River Valley) aDd portiODS of die Otay Lake
Basin.
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.:
Parcels in Assessors Parcel Books: 595, 624, 643, 644,
aDd 645
CASE NO: IS-94-24
City of Cbula Vista - EDginecring Department
DATE: J~ 29, 1994
PROJECT APPLICANT:
A, Proiect Settinl!
The project setting is the Salt Creck and Otay Lake Drainage Basins, which arc located
west of the Otay Lake Reservoirs, along the Otay River Valley within die City of Chula
Vista's General planning Area and the Proctor Valley Drainage Basin.
B. Proiect Descrintion
The project is the determination of die ultimate size of die Salt Creek Iatcrccptor based
on projected peak flows and the creation of a Benefit Area Fcc to ftmd c:onstruction of
the interceptor. The study area of the Analysis includes five "ptupo;.ties" Iotated within
the Salt Creek Basin aDd portions of die Otay Lake Basin. Flows from J:J".tT ...... and
portions of Salt Creek Ranch and Otay Ranch arc tributary to die Salt Creek Basin.
These flows will be P'1ftIP"" iDto die Telegraph Clnyon Sewer Basin IIIdil fIciIities are
available in die Salt Creek Basin. The TclCJI'&Ph Clnyon PtIftlP"" Flow Report provides
for the c:onstruction of interim facilities in die Tclcgraph Clnyon 1yIIaD. Flows from
Hidden Valley Estates, adjacent pfopcrtics aDd portions of Salt Creek Ranch aDd Otay
Ranch arc located within die Otay Lake Basin. Since die Otay Lake Basin drains
Daturally imo the Upper Otay Reservoir, dcvclUywent within 1hia buin will nquirc the
pcnnancnt pumping of leWqe imo die Salt Creek Basin.
The Salt r-"1Uc;n GravitY'Sewer AntI\ysis was JRPUed by WiIIoD ~j""fling for
the Baldwin Company to ret(RUn..."" ICWCI' hut-.o.ea"".I~ --'Y to convey leWage
flows from tJ1e Salt Creek Basin to existing or proposed dOv....b......1eWCrqC facilities.
The Analysis recommends the c:onstruction of die Salt Creek IDtcn:cptor in die Salt Creek
Basin aDd Otay River Valley to traDsport IeWIIC flow from tbeIc dcvcl~'''-
doWDStrCllD tpnani",,\on aDd u-~ ficil;,w., Since tbere arc DO exi.m,g~
City ofChula Vista facilities capab~f~dIe~W~3:: ~~~~ .
_............m... .aute. .u,...., 0tlIA ~ ' ~ .
;</-It1 './
facilities were considered: 1) Construction of a new Otay Valley Water Reclamation
Plant, 2) Construction of an Idditional trunk sewer which would div.N1'JC to the existing
Metro interceptor located adjacent to Interstate 5, or 3) Connection to the City of San
Diego's Otay Valley Tnmk Sewer Prison Line. TIle feasibility of Options 2 and 3 would
depend on the availability of capacity in the Metro mlceptor.
Reach 9 will not be needed if the Otay Valley Water Recl.....rinu fEility is COIIIttUCted
or if Reach 8 can be CO..I~ted to the City of SaD Diego's Otay Valley Trunk
SewerlPrison Line. Since Reach 9 is a rqional facility which would probably receive
flows from other basins, it is m''''''.............. that its CODItIuction be fi......"'eIJ duough the
regular Chula Vista sewer capacity fees rather dIaD by this DIP.
The Analysis assumes that the interceptor constrUCtion ~lChtt 1 tbrou&h 8) will be
(;........ed through the ~~ of a Dcvelopmem ,~ Fcc (DIP) payable by all
developers located in the benefit fee area (Exlubits 1 and 2). The method recommended
for the determination of cost per EDU follows. The cost per EDU wu calculated based
on the total ultimate number of EDU's requiring sewer ICI'Vice in the Otay Lake and Salt
Creek Basins. Under this method all ploperties contribute the same fee per EDU
regardless of where their flows enter the Salt Creek Interceptor. Since all developwems
would be provided with the same service, it is equitable- for all deve10pmems to be
charged at the same rate.
The DIF fee has been calculated to be $240 per EDU to be consistent with the definition
of an EDU provided in the Telegraph Canyon Sewer Pu"'P"" Flows DIP u shown in
Exhibit 3. This fee would be payable at the time that building permits arc issued and
would be in addition to the existing sewer capacity charge of $2,220 per EDU. . The fee .',
will be adjusted annllal1y to reflect the varying cost of construction and inflation and to
reflect any cbanges in proposed development within the basin.
The size of the interceptor wu dctennincd to be 36" for Reaches ~9, 30" in Reach 5,
21" in Reaches 3 and 4, and 18" in Reach 2 and IS" in Reach 1. Several developments
and/or parcels in the Otay Lake Basin arc within the unincorporated portion of the
County of San Diego. These parcels would be potentially affected by the construction
of the Salt Creek Interceptor, since it would be the only sewer ICI'Vice in the area. If
these parcels were to be developed, sewer connection would probably be required and
annexation to the City of Chula Vista may or may not be feasible at the time sewer
ICI'Vice is needed. It is ploposcd that an ~ between the County of SaD Diego
and the City also be prepared prior to construction of the Salt Creek IDten:eptor in order
to resolve annexation and sewer capacity iuues.
Additional CDYiluuweatal review will be required when the exact location of the sewer
interceptor has been determined.
TIle discretionary action auociatcd with this item is the adoption of an orrI;na~ 18
determine the boundary of and establish the Salt Creek Basin Dcve1~ Impact Fee
to pay for sewer improvemettts within the Salt Creek Sewer Basin.
~
.:IICII,ND
:1,1 ~ A - 10
Pile 2
----.------
C.
Comnatibilitv with 7nnino ..tvt P1.n~
..
Reaches 3-8 are within the Otay RaDch. The enactment of a district to collect fees is in
compliance with the goal cstablisbed in Pan n, Chapter S of tile Otay RaDch General
Development Plan to "provide a bealthfuI and sanitary JleWel'lie col1cction and disposal
aystem for the residents of Otay Ranch and the region. .
Reaches 1,2 and 9 are within the City ofCbula Vista City BouDdaries. The -............
of a district to collect fees is in compliance with 5.2 of the Public Facilities Element of
the General Plan. Objective 4 states, "Costs of impro\-..wems wbich Ire ~"ry to
serve DeW development, IUCh as exteDSions of service and pump faci1itics, IbalI be
fi"''''''ed by the developer. This policy docs DOt preclude tile use of Ullt.~ districts
or similai meclulni!m1~ to finance improvements. "
D. Identification of Environrnl'!ntal Effects
An initial study conducted by the City of Chula Vista (including the attached
Environmental Checklist Form) determined that the p.upOSCd project will DOt have a
significant environmental effect, and the preparation of an EDvironn.....tAllmpact Report
will not be required. This Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with
Section 15070 of the State CEQA Guidelines.
E. Consultation
1. Individuals and Or2::1ni7~tions
City of Chula Vista:
Barbara Reid, PlAnning
Roger Daoust, EDgioecring
Cliff Swanson, EDgioecring
Hal Rosenberg, EDgincCring
Bob Sennett, plAnning
Ken Larsen, Director of Building &. Housing
Carol Gove, Fire Marshal
Crime Prevention, MaryJaoe Diosdada
Marty Schmidt, Parks &. Recreation Dcpt.
Rich Rudolf, Assistant City Attorney
Chula Vista City School District: Kate Sburson
SweetWater Union High School District: Tom Silva
Applicant's Agent: City of ChuIa Vista, Engineering Dcpa.lWo:nt
2. Documents
Chula Vista GcneraI Plan (1989) and EIR (1989)
Title 19, Chula Vista Municipal Code
.:\SCI.ND
;},/ - A -II
....c3
,
Otay Ranch Geueral Development P1aDI0tay Subregional Plan, 1993
Otay Ranch Genera1 Development Plan FiDal Program EIR. 1992
3. Initial Studv
This enviromnental determination is based on die ~1"'"' IDitiaI Study, any
~ received on the IDitial Study aDd any t--....~I.I. received duriD& the
public review period for 1his Negative Declaration. 'Ibe report reflects die
iDdepeDdent judgment of the City of Cbula Vista. Purtber iDformation reprding
the environmental review of 1his project is availIble from the CbuJa Vista
plannillg Department, 276 Fourth AvemJe, CIIJ1a Vista, CA 91910.
~':JfIt /J~)
ENVIRONMENTAL RE COORD ATOR
EN 6 (Rev. 5/93)
.:ISCI.ND
~/- A-I~
....e 4
Cue No. 1S-t4-24
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1. Name of PropoDellt: City of Chula VJIta . ~-m, ~
2.
Lead AaeacY Name ad Addna:
City of ClluIa VIata
276 Fourtb A__
ClluIa VJIta. CA 91910
3. AddrfG ad PboDe Number of Prop 0 ..at: 276 Fourtb AYeIIIIe, CIIuIa Villa
... Name of Proposal: Salt Creek Gravity JIuID AIIIIysu
5. Date of 0Ieddist: JUDe 20, 1994
-
- - --
- -- - lie
- - - -
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the
proposal:
a) CoDflict with ,eneraJ plan delipatioD or [] [] [] B
IODiDe?
b) CoDflict with applicable eaviroDlDenta1 pIaDs or [] [] [] B
policies adopted by apDCies with jurisdictiOD
over the project?
c) Affoct qricu1tural resources or opamons (e.,., [] [] [] B
Impacll to lOiII or farm1aDds, or ""p-'< from
iDoompalible Iud _)?
d) Dimtpt or divide the pbysical mapmeaI of aD [] [] [] B
eltabliJhed commUDity (UIC1udiq a 1ow-iDcome
or miDority community)?
('_ ......t.: 1bi1 propoaa1 does DOt I'IIUIt Ia ahenIioD of t'" I IF or pI_....t Iud _. 'I1Ie propoaa1
II a ftIIUIt of pm'i0Ul aOD to eltabliJh ~., and odaec !aDd _ Ia a previouIIy --eel area.
IL
POPULATION AND HOUSING. WCIIIId the
propo6a1:
a) Cumulatively exceed otficiaI JIII!oIIaI or local
popuIatiOD projections?
b) IDduce IUbitaDtial po....th Ia aD area either
directly or iDcIirectIy (e.,., throup projecllla
aD 1IIJIIeveIoped .. or ateJJlioD of major
iaftutnIcIure)?
[]
[]
[]
B
[]
[]
[]
B
~J..tl:J3
Pap'
tM:..,\IIOII~."
""'-
- - --
...... - - ..
.... ........ .... ....
c) DispWce -iot;".IIouiD&. .-pecillly IIf'fonWIle D D D III
Ito-I.;~?
c--ts: 'DIe requIr=eat for paymeut of ID m.p.ct fee by deveIopcn of Iud wIdaiII tile City will
_ a1ter die IocItioD. diItributioD. deuity. or powtII nde of die p"p"'I00tU.ior anile a ~ ..A for
IIddiIioIlll -.I", but will ..ut iD tile -!tip"- of .,,~ ...1 J .....
t'-
m. GEOPHYSICAL. WIHIld rite prtIIJOMl NRlt 111 or
ClqltMe p<<JpIe to ptJUllJiGl1IIpIcu 1111IOIviIIt:
a) UaItabIe -'II ~ or ..-..... iD pololic D D C II
~?
II) DiInptioDl, di.p~ .aftlUl!llltc. [ ~~~~ or D D D III
cmrcoveriDl of die 1Oi1?
c) CbaDce iD lDpO,.y or pouad I1IrliIce relief C D D III
r.tures?
d) The demuctiOD, ooveriq or mocIificmoD of IDY D D D II
IlDique polocic or physical feaIures?
e) AI1y iDcreue iD wiDd or water _ioD of 10m. D C D III
either OD or off tbe lite?
f) CbaDces iD depositioD or erosiOD of be8ch saads, D D D III
or dwales iD 1iliati0D. depositioD or erosioD
which may modify tbe "".,,_1 of a river or
ItnIIIII or the bed of tbe _ or IDY bey iDIet
or 1Ke?
I) &po5UI'C of people or 1"()jM1y to polocic D D D III
Iauards IIIcII u eanhquak5, ludalides. mud
1Iides. pouad failure. or Iimi1u 1Iuards?
C-_Is: 'DIe ellablisbmeal of Salt Creek JIuiD DeveIopmeat ImpICt Fee to flUId --
Improvemeats witbiD tbe Salt Creek aDd Otay I1aiDs is a Jeci"mvc act aDd . IIIdI will llavc DO
Iml** OD die eanh. Oace developmeat pIIDa llavc beea IIIbmItted aDd alplCific IocItIoD for tbe
iDterceptor ideatified, eaviroDmeataJ aIIIIysil ofdle impll:l of die 00IIItnICti0D aDd plKlllleat oftbe
IoAoceptor will be UDCIertakea.
IV. WATER. WIHIld rite prtJIIOMl _MIl 111:
a) Qaups iD IbeorpdoD ...... ..... patterDI.
or tile nte aDd .-OUDt of...rr- ruofrl
II) II1qI-II'C of peop1e or l"'urWtY to water IIIIted
~ IIIdI . -", or IidII waves?
c) I)I-Ioo~ _ .mce .... or DIller a1tentioD
of _r..... water quality (e.I..lllllpenIIIre.
diIIolved OIYI'II or tud)idity)?
d) c::u..,c. iD die _01IIII of IIIUface water iD aay
water body?
c
D
c
III
c
c
c
III
c
D
D
II
D
c
D
III
WIle M:WIOMI\IUJOID4iCNMI."
.;ql- 8 -14
.... 2
-
- ...... a.._
...... - ...... No
- - - -
e) Cbanps ill cuneutI. or die coune of directiOD C C C B
01_ movemeDl5. ill eitbcr IIIIriDe or freIh
WIIers? .
f) Cbanp ill die quutity of poUDd ...... eilber C C C II
aroup direct IllditioDl or witbdrawllJ, or
tIuoqb iDtercepIioD of In IIqIIifer by CUll or
_wtioDl?
c> AJtend directiOD or nte of flow of C C C ID
pouadwller?
h) l1li1** to ~ quality? C C C II
i) Alterations to die coune or flow of flood C C C ID
WIIers?
j) Substantial reductiOD in the IDIOunt of water C C C ID
otherwise available for public _ aupplies?
Comments: M die project does DOt include JI1IdiD, or recoDStl'llCtioD. dI_ wID be DO Imp-'" to
water.
V. AIR QUALITY. Woll1d the proposal:
a) Violate aDY air quality staDdard or coDtribute to C C C B
aD existiDg or projected air qualjty violation?
b) Expose sensitive receptors to poUUt&Dts? C C C II
c) Alter air movement. moisture. or temperature. C C C II
or cause aDY cbaD,e in climate. eilber locally or
reJionally?
d) Create objectionable odors? C C C II
e) Create a substantial increase in lIatioaary or C C C II
IIOn-statioaary lOurces of air emillioDl or die
deteriOratiOD of ambieDt air quality?
Comments: M Ibe project doeI DOt include JI1IdiDI or ncolllU\lctioD. Ibere wID be DO I"V""" to air.
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. WOfIld
1M proposal nsldl in:
a) LA I --i wbicle trips or ttaftic 00-... Ii.)n? C C C ID
b) Hazards to afety from _ill' fDatIaN (e.,., C C C ID
Ibarp curvs or daDprous iDtcnectioDI) or
iDcompatible _ (e.,., farm equipment)?
c) lDadequate emerpDCY __ or __ to -'>>Y C C C II
_?
d) 1llluf'licieDt pukiq cap8City OD-site or off-tite? C C C II
;,J,/ - R-15
wtC":\IIOM~.04 Pop 3
f) CoIIfIicll wi1IIldopted policiel -wvtIiDa
a1terDative traIIIportatiOD (e.,. bus tarDouts.
bicycle neb)?
&) Rail. MIeIbome or air traffic nov-?
-
- ...... --
...... -- ...... 110
..... ....... ..... ~
C C C .
C C C .
.
e) Hazards or burien for .........iaaI or bicydiIIa?
c
c
c
.
b) A".. project" uder tile CoqeIIiOD C C C .
MaDqemeDt Proar-? (All equiVllem of2AOO
or more avenae daily wilicle UipI or 200 or
more peak-hour vehicle trip'.)
o--ts: No tnftic will be paented . a -'t of tile _I.J:'" W oftbla ocdl-" e. ~..y
1nffic impacts will reIIIh from the CODItrUCIioD of tile project I11III ~ will be ualyzecI . tile time
developmCZlt plans have been received.
VD. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would die proposal
re.sull in impacts to:
a) EDdan,ered. lCIISitive species. species of C C C .
CODcern or species that are candidales for
listin,?
b) Locally desiJD&led species (e.,., beritaJe trees)? C C C .
c) Locally desi,D&Ied uaturaI communities (e.,. oaIc C C C .
forest. coastal habitat, etc.)?
d) Weiland babitat (e.,.. marsh. riparian aad venW C C C .
pool)?
e) Wildlife dispersal or miJraliOD oorridon? C C C .
f) Affect re,ionaJ babitat preserVation pI_nni", C C C .
efforts?
Comments: There is DO impact to plant or uimallife . the project II the adopCioD of aD ordI"'~,
Analysis of impacts to plant aad uimallife will be aarried GIlt ... ~- ... IIaw been
IUbmitted aad a lpeclfic \ocaIIOD of the .....oeptor ciIIII'IaIned.
VDI. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. WDtIld
die proposal:
a) CoDf\ict with Idopted -.y ~ plans? C C C .
b) U. _-'>Ie _ ill a MItIIful and C C C .
iDefficieDt IIWIIICf?
c) If the lite Is delipated for miDera1 - C C C .
protectiOD, will tills project impact tbIs
protection?
:J./ - A -llP
1fIICM:\IIOW~.'"
.... 4
-
- ....... ...-
....... - ....... ..
- ........ - -
C_-ts: The proposal wbich cIeIermiDeIthe .It;..._ Iize of the Salt Creek I,... ........., lIMed OD
projecled flows, will DOt rault ill a iDcI'eue ill . ...,t upoD -.eIJY 1DUI'CCiI.
-
IX. HAZAVnc;:. WOMId 1M JII'fIIIDIIll Utwnve:
a) A riIk of ~ IIIpIoaioD or __ of C C C .
Uzardoaa IllbIIuceI (iIIdudiD&. but !lOt limited
to: petroleum producIa, ~. elllllllnol. or
ndiatioD)?
b) 1'uaI'bIe iatco:C~_ wItb 811 -.-"'1 C C C .
IWIpODIe pIaD or -.-"1 -- pIaD?
c) The creatiOD of 8IIY ...th bazard or poIeIItiaI C C C B
IaeaIth bazard?
d) Exposure of people to exilliD,lOUI'CCS of C C C III
poteDtial health bazards?
e) IDcreued fire bazard ill areas with filmmable C C C B
brush, Jl'Us. or trees?
Comments: The creatiOD of a beDefit area free wID have DO Impact on COIIIIrIIdiOD.
X. NOISE. Would the proposal resull in:
a) IDcrease& ill exilliD, DOise levels? C C C B
b) Exposure of people to severe DOi&e levels? C C C B
Comments: No DOi&e or lipt wID result from the cnatiOD of a IleDefit Area FuIId to COIIItr\ICt the
iD1=eptor.
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. WOMId the proposalllave l1li
tdftc1 IIJ'O", or resull in " Med for _ or a1Jered
lom-runetll stJl"llicu in /lIlY D/thefollowinl-:
a) rU'e protection? C C C B
b) PoJige proIeCIion? C C C ID
c) Schools? C C C B
d) tof.; . -~ of public &ciIitieI. ilK-JudI", C C C B
roeds?
c) 0Ihcr aovemmCDtalIKVice&? C C C B
.
Comments: No DeW JOverDJDeII\aIlKVice& wID be required u a NIUIt of thiI project. AI the time
development plaDs are IIIbmitted, ualysil of the u..p-. to fire _Iicc&, poJige pjotecti.1n, 1Cbool&,
pub,libraries, ma1DtcDaDce of public &I:iIit* &lid oIbet 10--- 1.1 _~ will be carried out.
,;{/- A-II
WPC":\IIDM~,N
"'5
XII. Tbnsbolds. Will 1M propo.sallldwndy ~ 1M
Oty.s 'nwshold fl:M.J'D'ds t
~
........
-
C
-
........
-
....
C
--
........
-
C
lie
-
.
.
,.. delcribed below, die plvpOted project "lICIt ......nely ..... ID)' of tile - nr.IIold
SIaIIdanIs.
I) FuelEMS C C C .
1be 11an:IboJd !Jt-.......ss nquireI tbat tire ad. -_1 1I11III ... be .... to oil; .. ~ to
cda wItbiD 7 JDiIIuteI or ... ill .,,, of tile _ ad wIIIaiD 5 1 . or ... .. '75" of
die _. 'I1Ie City ofCllula V.. _I.... .", tbat.... j;hld....." wDllIe met,
aiDce die ~ fire IlltiOD II laDe _y ad -W be IT I'~ willi I S-.IIaDte
nIpODIe time. 'I1Ie plOJIOIed project will -PY willi .. 'D..",A()Id .... to. d.
Collllllellts: At the time clevelopmeat plans are 1IIbmitIed, iliff It the Fire ~ aw libel thai
!bey be notified if IDY road c101U1'e1 or waIer maiD lbutdowDl are _'~I')'.
b) Police
c
c
c
B
The Threabold StIDdards require thai poUoe 1IIIits ..lilt o-a-OAd to 14" of PrIorIty 1 aaIJa
withiD 7 miDUIe$ or leu and ....;_In ID avenae nIpODIe time to aD Priority 1 aaIJa of 4.5
miDUIe$ or less. Police Wlill ..lilt r-.poDd to 62.10" of Priority 2 cda wItbiD 7 miD\Jte6
or less and maiDlIiD ID lvera,e nIpOIIIe time to aD PriorIty 2 calls of 7 IIIiDuta or leis.
The proposed project will oomply with this 11an:Ibo1d SII~.rd.
Comments: NODe.
c) Traffic
c
c
c
B
'I1Ie Threabold SIIDdards require tbat aD iDten I ctiona mlllt va-.... It I Level of Senice
(LOS) .C" or betIer, wi!b the acepcion tbat Level of Service (LOS) "D. l1li)' occar cIuriDa
the pea1c two boun of the day It ,",pi;""" iDIaIe!:liou. .... 1!:Iiou WIlt of 1-105 are
nol to operate at a LOS below their 1987 LOS. No mtellleclioD IDlY NICh LOS "E. or
"F" durio, the Iwrap week.y peaIc bour. lllleneclioDl of arteriaIa willi rr-y -pi
are aempted from this SI."""rd. 'I1Ie Ibn80Id ItIIIdarda for tnfBc do lICIt apply to !be
proposed project, . !bere II DO ...~ -:-.4 willi It It .. time.
CoIIIIIIeIIts: NODe.
d) ~OD
c
c
c
.
'I1Ie 'I1IreIbold Studard for Pub ad JtecnItioD II S __11JXJ ,."..-... De
'I1IreIbold -nd-ds for Pub ad b l1ioo do lICIt apply to tile pluruM project . tIere
II DO deveIopmeDt ~ willi II It .. time.
c-meuts: NODe.
,JJ-~
.... 6
WK:",\IIOU~."
-....
-
-
-
....
-
-
a- ...
-
-
c
..
e) DNiDaae
c
c
..
-
III
'I1Ie 11Ireabold SIaDdcds requiJe tbat IIiDnII WIler tIowI .. ... -- _ .....
City ~ SIaDdIrds. IDdividllll projeca wiD proYlde -= ry
iIIIpro~_.. 00IIIisteat with die DNiDa&e Mater PIu(I) ... City ""II J.
-11"-"111. 'Be Dnlbold ~ for dr8Iup do -II'PIY III ... ........-4
project . tbere II DO ~ __ II tbiI time. .
OD--ta: AI tile time of COIIIIrudioD, tile dfitlopa ID1IIt oIaiD a NI'DES ...._. perIDit for
IliDnllwater cIiIdaarpI .......1-.1 wid! 00DItnIc:d0D aclivity.
f) Sewer
c
c
c
III
The TbreIbold _...t.... requiJe tbat -ce tIowI ... .m- _ ..... CIty
~I SIaDdcds. IDdividual projects will provide _1111 ry impro-=-
CODlil!eDt witb Sewer Muter PIaD(s) aDd City ~I Studords.
Cemments: The future CODltnlctiOD of tbe SlIt Creek Gravity Sewer iDIcrcepCor wiD mer- aDi1ary
__ capacity.
I) Water
c
c
c
III
The TbreIbold StaDcIards require !bat Idequate stomp, u.tmetlt, ... troP-1ooIoD
&cilities are coDltrUcled cciDCUrreDtly with platmed puwtb ... tbat WIler quality ItaDdards
are DOt jeopardized duriD, arowtb aDd CODllructioD. The 'I'JI.-old f' '."111 for water do
DOl apply to Ibis project u tbere is DO CODltnlctiOD iDcIudecI witb dill project.
Applic&Dtl may also be required to particlpale ill wllatever WIler oo..,'I!IioD or fee otf-aet
proaram tbe City of Chula Villa bu ill effect at tbe time of buiJdi.., perIDit _0_.
Cemments: Applic&Dtl may also be required to participale ill wIIatever WIler COllllmdioD OJ' tee off-
.. proaram tbe City of Chula Villa bu ill effect at tbe time of ,"'Ildl", pamit Iaat'_.
xm. UIn.1TIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. WOM1d
the proposaJ rcsull in " IfUd for new "sums. or
IIIbstanJiqJ altmllions tD the ft1lJowiItIlIIi1ilies:
a) Power OJ' uturaJ ...? C C C III
b) CommUDic:atiODl aystems? C C C .
c) LocaJ OJ' feIiouI water u--- or dlatributioD C C C III
facilities?
cI) .... OJ' DIpIic 1IIIb? C C C .
e) SIorm WIler dr8Iup? C C C .
f) Solid wute cIiapoaaI? C C C .
('....-'.1: 'I1Ie proposaJ is tbe fint Itq! ill provldiq additlODa1 _ .-vice for .. _ yet III be
developed.
,5?/-A-I'"
~"'\IICIM_."
.... 7
-
- - --
...... - ...... .
..... ....... ..... .....
XIV. Ab"nuu.CS. WDMld 1M JI"DPD6IIl:
a) 0IIItnIct uy ~ YiI&a 01' yiIJw os- eo die D D D B
public or will !be ...~ .-It Ia !be cr.tiOD .
of aD IIIIbedcIIJy 0<<-1".. opeDID pIIbIic
YiIIw?
b) c..e die deIIruaIioD 01' IIOCIIfiCIIIioD of a ~ D -C D ID
1OIde?
c) Have. . loIj_trable Mptivc II .1"';'- effect? D D D B
cI) er.e IIIded IiPt or pre _OIl fait ~ C C C .
h- II die level of Iky JIow Ia _ _ 01'
_ tbis project eo fail to oompIy willi SectiOD
19.66.100 of the Quia Villa Mu~ Code.
Title 191
e) Reduce u additioaaJ aDIOWIt of IpillliPt? D D D B
CommeDts: As the project doea DOt lavolve ~..._t. tbtft will DOt be obItructioD of _y IOIIIIic
vista or view.
XV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. WDMld 1M proposal:
a) Wall the proposaIl'ellllt ill the aItentioD of or
die deltructioD or . prehistoric 01' hiItoric
~Ioaical .ite?
b) Wall the proposal reIIIIt ill adverse pbymcal or
.....etic cffectl to a prehistoric or biItoric
buildiDa. ItrUctUre or object?
c) DoeI the proposal have die poteDtiaI to _ a
phy.ical cbaDle which would afCect llllique
cdmic cultural values?
D
D
D
II
D
D
II
D
D
c
II
c
d) Wall the proposal rwtrict aiItiDa rellJiou or Dee .
__ _ witbiD die ,....tial impact _?
e) ..die _ ldeatifiecl OD die City'. o-.Il'IaD D DeB
Em . _ _ of blab poteIIIi_1 for
m:IIeoJop ,_?
C--ts: As tba'e II DO CIDIIItnIctioD or de\~ 11." Iavohed Ia tbiI project, tIIeIe II DO "-;_1 to
impact c:uJtunI 01' ","""..Iropcal _.
XVI. PALEONI'OLOGICAL USOURCES. MIl 1M
propoMl1YSlllt 111 1M _It r.Jtbl t1/ Dr 1M" -dDtt
t1/~,ictIJ 1WDIII"Gt
C_-ts: See oommeall uder c:uJtunI _ above.
~/- ~ "do
WIC..:,....~...
C
C
ID
D
....
. --.-.-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
-
..
-
XVD. RECREAnON. WHId tile proptMal:
.
.) mer- die ......."" for aeilhbodloocl or D D D
nP>aa1 pub or odaer ncr..aiouI facilitiea?
b) Affect _Hti", ~ ~tiea? C C D
ID
.
c) ....r..... wida ......-iOIl pub A .-.-tioll Dee ID
piau or pI'OIr&IIII?
0--15: '" there Is ~ devek.r tat illwlwd, there -.lei be 110 iIIIpec:t IIpOIIdIe quality or
qaaatity of "-'II..;.., ......-ioulll opporIUIIitiea.
XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE:
s~~ Negllliw lHclaratimt for ~ jlNJings of
lign/fictutc~. If QII EJR is nuded. this l<<:Iion
lhould be completed.
a) Does the project have the potential to cIepwIe C C C ID
the quality of the envirolllllalt, IUbltaDtially
reduce the habitat of . fish or wildlife lpeCies,
cause . fish or wildlife populalioll to drop below
IeIf-sustainine levels, thra!en to NImh..,... .
plant or animal community, reduce the DUmber
or restrict the ranee of . rare or eodIqered
plant or animal or eliminate iJDportaDt eumples
of the major period& or Californi. history or
prehistory?
Comments: As there is no COnstructiOD or developmeot Uavolved with the cnaIioD of. BeDefit Area
Fee to fund coDstruction of . _ iDterceptor, the project does not have the potaItiaI to deInde the
quality of the environment.
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve
abort-term, to the disadvaatap of JoDc-term.
eavironmentaleoa1s?
C.....-ts: Policy 5.2(4) ill the Public F8CiJItiea El1III"" ofdle o-.J PIa NqIIhw that die "COlIs
of iJDprovemeats wbicIa are 1* 'Y to _ _ .".r-IIIt, IIIda . at--'- of.... pamp
&ciIities, Iba1J be 41_--' by the developer." 11aiI policy does DOt pncIude tile _ of 1 meal
districts or aimiIar ~.ft;."'. to 4Iwu.~ .....v..~.
C
c
C
II
11Ie project _pl_ with that policy. lulllda, die project "DOt !lave die ,.-..uol to dieve
abort-tenD aoaJI to die diIadvaDIap of ..,.... lIlY'" - . I pis.
c) Does die project llave ""~ that are
illdividua1ly limited, but cumulatively
OODSiderable? ("Cllmulatively 'C IIIV' -bJe"
__ that die b.w__1 eft'ecII of. project
are COIIIidenbIe wIleD Yiewed ill lJ!1""'1?D wida
die eft'ecII of past projects, die eft'ecII of ocber
canal projects, ..... die Ift'ectI ofproWJle
fIatIIre projects.)
C
C
c
ID
;2,/- A-~ I
...'
WPC M:\IK*E\PI..ANNINCNID.OII
- -
- - --
- - ...... ..
...... ....... ...... ......
Comments: The project does DOt have tile poCeDIiaJ for _ulmively ~ 1"\1- . tile
ordiDance ameodmeat i. to lei up aD ,-_."'eat district to collect". PIdare -.tr~ will require
IIdditioDal eDvirolllDelltal review.
.
d) Dos tile project have _viroameaIaI e<<.ct C C C .
whic:Ia will _ ._.1 __ e<<.cts OD
h_lleiq., either direclJy or iDdireI:dy?
Comments: The ~D of. Beaeflt Area Fee 10 ftmd ...-b..AkID of tile hA......... does _ have
tile poteDtiaJ to __ advene e<<.cts OD h_ beiqI either directly or iDdireI:dy.
..:;,/ - A -~~
'-'" 10
WPC ":\HOM~."
-----.-.- -
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The enviromnental factors checked below would be potentially affected by 1his project, Involving at least
one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Sipificant lJDIess Mitipted," as
iDdicated by the checklist on the following pages.
o I.aDd Uae aDd PIaIming
o PopuIItiOllaDd HouaiDg
o Geophysical
o Wiler
o AIr Quality
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
.
o 'I'r1mIporwianI0rcuJm0ll
o BiolopcaJ ItaCJun:es
o EDerJy IDd MiDeralItaCJun:es
o Hazards
o Noise
o Mandatory FiDdiDgs of $i.,.;fi_
o Pab1ic SerYiceI
o UtWlielIIId Semce I).......
o Aadletil'f
o CII1IuraI ReIoun:es
o RecraIion
I find thai the proposed project COULD NOT have. .iplificant effect 011 the ar.i>..........t. aDd EI
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a IiJDificant effect 011 the eaviJOmDent. 0
there will not be . siJDificant effect in this cue becauae the mitigatiOll _ described 011 an
attached sheet have been added to the project. A MmGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
will be prepared.
I find that the propoaed project MAY have . IiJDificant effect 011 the eavinmmell1. aDd an 0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have. siJDificant effect(s) 011 the eavinmmeII1. but at Ieut
one effect: I) bas been adequately analyzed in an earliet .......,n-.. pursuant to 1pp1icable Ie",
standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigatiOll _ hued 011 the earliet analysis as
deacribed on anaclIed sheets. if the effect is a 'potentially IiJDificant impacts. or "poteatiaIly
IiJDificant unless mitigated.' AD ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. but it
must analyze only the effectS thai remain to be addteued.
&':::n.f:.;I~:':~J~~#
City of Chul. Vista
WPC ".~0\206994
~....,. ,;z P, 1'99Y
Date
~/ - A-~3
....< II
APPENDIX m
..
CITY DATA SHEET
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
I.
Current 7.nninr on site: PC
NorIh PC
Saudi PC
East PC
West PC
.
Does !be project conform 10 !be current zoniDa? Yes...dIe mom will involve die ..nnmnrril)n
of an ~nr nvt hAC DO inmsarot on 7"",;no.
D. General Plan land use desipation on.: 0.-. ~.r..
NorIh 0.-. Snace
Saudi OIIen SDace
East OIIen SDace
West OIIen "n.r..
Is die project compatible widl die GeIIeral Plan lind Use Diagram? Yes.
Is die project area designated for conservation or open IpICe or adjacent 10 an area 10 designated?
Yes. The Droiect area is Renerallv desilmAted as 0Den ftKII,..~ in die CieDeral Plan.
Is the project located adjacent 10 any scenic routes? Yes. The Dram is ,""""",!Iv adi......nt 10 the
Otav Vallev Road and Otav , "Ir... Rrullll whi~h are scenic "."'wavs.
(If yes, describe the design ""'hniques being used 10 protect or ...,h.nr~ !be scenic quality of Ihe
route) This nroiect does not aDDlv to thiR issue as it is a Dfoooled ~M for the ult ~1c buin.
As the sewer will be undernnnnd. desim fN"hniaues to flmhJl~ the ....,M\1r mUl1itv of the route are
DOt necessarv.
m. &hools
If Ihe proposed project is residentia1, please complete !be folJowiDg: NI A
School
l"...ftIIl":itv
Enrollment
Uni1s
Pnmosed
o_.~
FIICtars
Students
GeIIeraIed
f:rom Proiect
Elementary
JlDlior High
Senior High
.30
.29
.10
IV. Remarks:
. ~~..,~/ 1* L7~,~
Director of 1annll1g 0 Rcpresen 've
~~ ..2 ~ 199'7
Date .
Pagel
J), 1- ~ -01.4
7S-5'f6
c- No. :r:5-q~-:2.'f
.
INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMENT SHEETS
ENGINEERING DIVISION
.
L
praina2e
A. Jllbe project lire wiIhin a flood plain'? ~o. Ab..T"AI. ~A-A.U.H- ~ ~ AfN .
If 10. .. which PEMA PJoodway Flequracy Boundary. ~ .
B. What ~ die Joc:aiOllIlld descripdon of "i~ ..... dndDIp flcDltiH? S'F..Ar:#J LIAII=
~~Y"'I#" /AlrJl! A""'~"~.''''- ~ ~Lr~
C. Are they adequate to laVe the .project'? ~ A
If not. please explain briefly.
D. What is the location and description of existinl off,sDe drainIae facilities'? Sl.LT" "1:'-~r
~A(....~~,... WAY.
E. Are they adequate to serve the project'? ^I. M
If not. please explain briefly. A)a
n. ]nnSDonation N,A. ~ IS ~ se~ '-I#J~ ~.,.,t>>-l ~ ANt>
A. What roads p~~p~~';:~ ~'f~ T'flAFFfc.. ~__c..T'I; .
B. What is the estimated number of one-way auto 1rips to be pnenred by die project (per day)'?
C. What are the Avaqe Daily TraffIC (A.D.T.) y01o- lID dIe.pimary ICC8II ftIIIIa Wen and
after project compJetion'?
Snet Name Before AftIJl
Do any of dlese volumes r--' die Cry'. Left1-of-Servk:e (LO.5.) "C" dIIi&n ADT
volume'? If JCS, please apecify.
.~/- R -;),5
~_"'.ICI.tS)""-.)
....1
.
Ys-~,"
c- No. p::A<.I-~
If the AD.T. or L.O.s. .C' desiJn volume ill anIaIowII or not IppJiclNe. explain briefly.
.
. D. Ale die primary 8CCeSI roIds IdeqUIte 10 ~ .. pojecI'l
If aot, pJeue G)'Wn briefly.
E. Would Ihe project crure -.......,"~ Levels 01 Service (LOS) . Ww_I~. rlj-.. to
or in the vicinity or the project lite?
If 10. identify: Location
Cumulative L.O.s.
F. Is the proposed project I .1qe project" under Ihe Conpstion MInar'-'t Propm? (An
equivalent of 2400 or more lveraae daily vehicle atps or 200 or _ pak-hour vehicle
atps). If yes. I TraffIC Impact Analysis (11A) will be required. 1ft 1bis cue die TIA will
have to demonstrale thll the project will not c:reIIe 11\ anmitiptable adverse impact. or that
aD rellled traffIC impacts are not Initialled 10 I level or 1ICIII-sipIificance.
Yes No
The foUowing questions apply if I TraffIC Impact Analysis is not required.
G. Is traffIC mitiption required 10 reduce nffic: impatu that will I8I1Ih from iImpJanr:IItIIi of
the proposed project'? Yes No
If yes. please describe.
H. Is Ihe project c:ansistalt with die c:riIaia ..~ ladle City', '1\.... ....wIaD ...... PlIn.
. .
GencnI Plan Tnffic ElI--t, IIId aD 0IhIr peniaeaI nmc ,.....~ ... ..6.-=c. lilY
other uaftic impacI....;..~ for IOadWl)' lip_A dill l1li)' lie ... .I.~'" ~ die ..uywUd
project.
L
J.
Is I traffIC scud)' required?
Is Ihcre an)' declic-i'JII aquind7
If SO. pJeue qecify.
Ya
No
:J. / - G::iJo
WI'C:F:ID~-" ~.IIILft)(III.!IafS)
.....'
r-, -91'
.
c.e No. rs...q" -:2.'1
K. Is theR my IIrect widenini nquired?
If 10, pJease specify.
.
L Aft 1here my OIlIer IIrect butooo.. ..1. ~
If 10, pJeue apec1fy Ibe pocnlllllln of Ibe .:m~ ..,.~. .-410",
M. Will the project IIId ftJaIed public ...povementa I"'v.iIk ....1101_..., ..me ~.ice for
aiIrina conditions IIId fuIure buiJdOUl Genenl PIIn. "1tWw? (Pa. I"'v.ide · ~
explanation).
m. ~
A.
B.
C.
Aft there InY mticipated adverse pocec:hnical conditions CIIIthe project.? U#J.IcNLJWIJ.
If yes. specify these conditions.l:J./A
Is a Soils Report necessary? YE~' ~l>L ~ -nHti. t~. ~aJao ~ Q~~
","NP/~ CDlJ~T"(C#.J ~IT"S.
IV. .Land Fonn
A. What is the average narura] slope of the site? ,,, (11./ '%:II--.r ~ .:;0-'-' it ~ ""'''''~''''-':::)
B. What is the maximum narura] slope of the site? ~X{frD€ 0.- - - - "LoT"' ~~.)
v. ~
Ale there InY uaffic-related noise Jevds impacrinathe . that _lipificaat eaoqh 10 justify thai
a noise ltIIIysis be required of the Ipplicant? IJO'
VL Waste Qer....at:on NA... c:-.JS7"/fIue:ntJIJ t:JF S;lJ..T"(*"~".. S/lS4~n'Y ~'," IN'fY'" .<AC-.
1t(1t.J- ''''C~' ~1'f1III.Y S.""/E.I&. ~~rTY.
How muc:b solid IIId liquid (1eWtII') WIlle WiD be.... I~ by Ibe I"''''~ P'DJIcI,.. day'1
Solid
Liquid
What lithe k,. .'1nI\ IIId aia of.... ...,1iDea - . _11 .--.... 1M.?
Are they IdequIIe 10 acve the I"'~ DIed I"'vject? (If DO. pIeaae ~'.ht)
2/- e-.:1/
.....
_...--- .~m"&tr.lIII.ln)CIIf.~)
.
Ys ~""
c.eNo.~
vn. tlarionaJ Pol1utant Disehanre Elimination SYStem ~ES\ !tUl.II"""'~~ Reo~d~l..ntl
WiD the applicant be required to file a Notice of Jnmnt with die ".W.. h..__ Coaao1 Board
for c:overaae under an NPDES Storm_ PamiI? a~ L-. .#~ 15-.... D .....,..~ ~J!ltrY.
-...- .
~_~~ft_'_'_~"'~ ,,-,, ~ .:.~~~N~
.Y';;',~ penDit(.) IIId explain wily . NPDES pIIIIIII II ~.AN JJ~_-;;;I
./:.....ue.......L ~.u,.,. ~ ~...~ W~.. ~""""~ A<<e~.cA~ w,."...,
,.~C.~',~~' ~~I/,Y'V Mucr...r A&.'t"':a.IAI~ .\I~---.r'~.(:c;) T'1f1li'r
~~ft.&l..LY ~c..,.,,-r ~ ~.,. ~ ". &.eINn:y c.,.... '''''''''''~~.
W1I1 a Stann Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) be required for die ..~ project?
X Yes No
Additional comments IJDAlE .
VD. ,Remarks
Please identify and discuss any remainina potentialldvene impacts, adttptillll measures, or ocher
issues. 1JaJ~ .
~~
City ar L..___ tr'\'C
~ I - fd.::a:J
yM~
Date
_ ~:._- --u..................IINmJI~' IIDI"') (lit IIIUJ)
"'5
/'
,
.
c.e No. '5-q~-;w.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
A. What is the distInce 10 Ihe DeII'eIt fire 1Wian? aMI willi 11_ Fire DlJ-tu-;t'. ""'~
auction lime? J.a:uJt I '5" th i"". . .
:
.. WaDdie Pirc ~ be able .. .......ide .. ..... inti " .. ... d\r !MJo. far Ihe
to..posed facility wkhout 811 fncn r-In eq.dpmaII. t- ~".-"1 .J.f" Co
C. Remarks :r: (' CArl Y r- 0 f1 d ~l O~ u r~ ...", --:..tI ,.., r-
uj~r Mca.',V""\ .5~l)U~Wt'\< are. n.~r..s~o.ry
~a~' I'\D~P II~, Dof'\,~'
c;;. ~; fL,----,
. Marshal
04- a.,-q,f'
Date
.
.
. .
. .
;xj- A -J.'1
....'
........ -RAlDIIIGw. ....,...-.....)-.....).
~
-
-
-
-
c- No. 15. q4.~
PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT
A. Is pro.ieci aut!jed to Parks and Recration 'I1ueIhoJd not.dlamnts'l ~
If not, pluM aplain. t-U\ . ~ ~ ~..a"
:B. How IIIIIIY II:ftI ofpartJand.. Ml'I .1)' to -- die ...01101" project?
C. Ale abdn. Deiahbolbood IIId .......-Icy pIIb .. die JII'DJecI ... liD .-.e die
1'O'P'.1~ IDc:nIR nn1dnJ from 1hiI..1)jed1
Nei&bbortlood
CommIlJlity Parks
D. If not. .. parkland dedications or adIer JPltiprlon l"(lpoICd . pan of die ..oject ldequare
to serve Ihe population increase?
Nei.hborllood
Community Parks
E. To meet City nquilements. wiD IppIiClDt be nquired to:
Provide land?
Pay a fee?
f. Remarks:
. -
~.
~ !rJ, '7:3 .
,- ~
'l.1.....~
I)IIe
"
Parks IIId Rlc:nron J)irec:Iar ar....1I -'llive
..-c#~ -. -- -'l11D.,.. ....... U, 1Gla)"'. ....,,)
,{).I- p- 3D
....'
IS-94-24
Cue No. :'
APPENDIX IV
.
Comments
Received During the Public Review Period
_ No Comments Wen: Received Durin, the Public Review Period
p-.-
."
.
WC_=-PJ/u.IIZIJS)(W.ID.PJ)
/).,/- &:3J
"
2885 Echo Valley Road
jamul, CA 91935
AprU16, 1994
.
Mr. Douglas D. Reid
Environmental Review CoordJnator
City of Chula Vista Planning Department
276 Fourth Avenue
Cbula Vista, CA 91910
Dear Mr. Reid,
It Is Incomprehensible that you would consider putting my home,
which is In Jarnul and on the eastern side of the Urban Umlt Une, in
the benefit area for the Salt Creek Sewer Interceptor. Must I remind
you that Is the opinion of the Jarnul Dulzura Planning Group that the
sewer is growth-inducing and completely Incompatible with the rural
life style my neighbors and I enjoy?
What 1 find most disturbing is the overriding attitude that we In
Echo Valley wl1l ultimately be under the sphere of Influence of the
City of Chula Vista. I also wonder If It Is coincidence that your
deadline for comments Is the day before the next meeting of the
Jarnul Dulzura Community Planning Group.
My only options are 1) to make the County Board of Supervisors
aware of your Intention to Include my neighbors In the service fee
area for this sewer 2) Have a response for' you from the Planning
Group after the next meeting, 3) be sure my neighbors are aware of
the ImpUcations of your actions, and 4) consider Iepl action If you
proceed with this course of action.
Thank you for your time.
Jay A. Haron, Ph.D.
c.c: D. jacob, County Supervisor
;2,1- A - '3;2.
Jamul Dulzura Community Planning
P.O. Box 613
Jamul, CA 91935
April 30. 1994
Group
f, ~ .
.....'i. ['
"
,.
.
Mr. Douglas D. Reid
Environmental Review Coordinator
City of Cbula Vista Planning Department
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Dear Mr. Reid,
Tbe Jamul Dulzura Community Planning Group met on April 26, 1994
and authorized me to submit this letter by a vote of 8 Yes, 0 No, 0
Abstain.
The Jamul Dulzura Community Planning Group bistorically and
currently oppose bringing sewers past the Urban Limit Line.
We also feel that Chula Vista should not process projects outside of
their sphere of influence if the reach of the tributary area sbown in
the Salt Creek Basin Benefit Fee Area map is the benefit area
boundary. drawn, we must conclude
Please correct the boundary lines priqr to processing.
~,
OWr, JDCPG
Lf
P.S. If you wisb to contact me, or address the Planning Group, feel
free to call me during business bours at 4SO-202S. or at lame at
669-1577.
c.c: Supervisor Jacob
Mayor Nader
~/- R- 33
..
,
.
Ma y 6. 1 994
~1~:LIt:.;'le.= [I. Fo.elo
En\~ronmental Fev1ew Cccro1natcr
F .C'_ ~o;. l\:'8?
C~W}~ vleta. CA ~:~i~
_ . ~!- ~..... ~.ti" ~ .::
.....e-. 0::'-.-1...0:-0 r"!_.lC.=. c- i"lltla.1 St.UC...... -tor oe'terlTilnll,tlOr"l 0';
__....,.:_'.:.:. :.:.:"€' c.'.,. :::._!'t. ::......C'C"~. c'.,rti.Vlt.,1 =.ewE~ lr,'t,,"'ceotor .MC
:~ .~-l~ ~.E~ -ee t~ ~uno ~'e LQn5~t~uctlon of tne 6e~2r
l ~..- :-. -:C':-. -:.:. .-.~. .
"__ ;":"Ic;.[ ::';8:'C:..-:.:t?~ ..jrrr~L,l In tne t.r:rHltarv er.ec- t)ol...\r;oarv
;.r.::.".. 1'....";' t.r,FI~ c'ur" C:Ol"':'Ttunit\1 Wl": 'j Der'lefit -Frc.(f; tt"115
:'~''LE,'t-'C.E':J'':::.:)r. j~rHJ.l l= ~ cOmrT'IUnltv tnp't. aeoendS en sectic:
~~s~~r,~ ana 6~ a reEioe~t. a5 every other Jemut re.ident.
=~ ~[,l ce~E~lt ~rom t~15 lntercep~or.
~. ~er~~lt'~ Q4 se~er 11n~s ~re ~rowtn lnducin~ and do imp~ct
't;';E' E'n,> lr'CjnLl.erl't,. Sewer-s E\11 ow -for the ms.:.:imum growth and
m~r'~. ~nere=\ CiJS1M9 tne oestructlon of senEltlve rural
?,r"p~:~ .
; :- J~. :: '=II':"r'!~,-li 1 't:." P 1 ann 1 n;l lEI,rea. 15 opposed to sewer extens 1 on
1n~D G.r D,ann1ng a~~a. The C1tv oi Chula V15ta should nDt
;'=~,'",€ (Ce"- C:DlflmLln1t.v w1l1 Denei1t. To ma1nta1n our rural
c:ommL':-'lt.... c:r'..~ac:ter. .xten51on oi sewer is oDDosed nere.
Tne,..~,.o'-e. C1tv oi CnLd 1\ Vista snoulO not even cons1der
...5'. H.\, ".s to he', 0 Dav icr the 1nterceDtor wh1c:h 1& to
c:.ene- n t.roe City 0.. Chul a Vista ano 1& of NO Denef1t to our
~ C:!':"tTlI,Jrll tv.
6inc....Ii!.,v~. ,,"\
" ~lilt
~ ~ at I:'ibel ka
2835 Echo Vallev ~oad
,j"'T!U i . CA 9193':.
coC;:-J.~'19
~r. Bo~!~o O. 5ucerVlsors
0/- A-34
e t hkb:f f3
.
..
...
('>
..
...
..
('>
Q
t">
...
..
':z.
.
......=:
~.
-~--------
I MITIGATION lITE ~
CHULA VISTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
'OCATOR PltOJfCT City of Chulli Vista PItOJfCT DUCWIION:
C) API'lJCANT, Salt Creek Sewer Mltlllatlon
PltOJ!CT Not Applicable
ADDIESS:
SCi.Il: fU_
NORTH No IcClIe
AI-':B-I
~ THU IT:e~ TNE EHYJROH"EHTAL TRUST 61. a.. ....
P..2
,3TI\L''SI\OE 8CnUD
f
1000
.
)
"
.,IM3
...,
:;OAN COASTAL
_,6
.
...;.:.
j
~
April 11, 1996
TO: Honorable Mayor and Council
FROM: Armando Buelna, Assistant to the Mayor and Council
SUBJECT: REPORT ON CURRENT CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS
Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention Task Force (ADAPT)
Meets everv other month 12:00n at Rainwaters on Kettner Blvd. San Diego
Member - Councilman Padilla
Bayfront Conservancy Trust
Meets 4th Tuesdav 1 :30 p.m. of every other month 1996 Schedule:
1/23, 3/26, 5/21, 7/20, 9/24, 11,26.
Member - Mayor Horton
Alternate - Councilman Moot
Bayfront Subcommittee
Also represents the city as the Bayfront Planning Subcommittee. Both meet
as needed.
Member - Mayor Horton
Councilman Moot
Border Environmental Commerce Alliance Advisory Board
Meets on Second Friday of Each Month at 8:00 a.m. at 477 Marina Parkway.
Member - Mayor Horton
Alternate Councilman Moot
Council Subcommittee on Citizen Board, Commission, and Committee Attendance
Meets as needed.
Mayor
Mayor Pro-Tempore
Hightech/Biotech Subcommittee
As needed. Mayor retains membership. Rotates among councilmembers each year.
Member - Mayor Horton
Current Council Representative - Councilman Moot
Inter-Agency Water Task Force
Meets 2nd Fridav - 8:30 a.m. of each month.
Member - Mayor Horton
Councilman Padilla
,:J,:::J .... - J
Subject: REPORT ON CURRENT CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS
Page 2
International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI)
Generally, as-needed. GreenFleets meets twice per year. C02 Project meets
once per year. Locations vary.
Member - Councilman Rindone
Alternate - Councilman Moot
Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO)
Meets 1st Mondav 9:00 a.m. at 1600 Pacific Highway, Third Floor, San Diego.
Meeting dates for 1996: 1/8,2/5,3/4,4/1,5/6,6/3,7/1,8/5,9/9,10/7,11/4, and 12/2.
Member - Mayor Horton
LAFCO Cities Advisory Board
Meets 3rd Fridav at 10:00 a.m., at 1600 Pacific Highway.
Member - Councilman Alevy
Alternate - Bob Leiter, Planning Director
Legislative Committee
Mayor Horton
City Manager
Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB)
Meets on 2nd and 4th Thursdav each month at 9:00 a.m., at 255 Imperial Avenue,
San Diego, 10th Floor.
Member - Councilman Rindone
Alternate - Councilman Padilla
Expanded Multiple Species Conservation Program Policy Committee (MSCP)- Meets
on an as-needed basis. Location and times vary.
Member - Mayor Horton
Alternate - Councilman Alevy
Otay Ranch Subcommittee
Also serves as Property Tax Sharing Negotiation Subcommittee.
Members - Mayor Horton
Councilman Moot
Otay Valley Regional Park Policy Committee
Meets 1 st Fridav - every other month.
Member - Mayor Horton
.230..-).
~.' -
Subject: REPORT ON CURRENT CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS
Page 3
San Diego Association of Governments' (SANDAG)
Meets 4th Fridav each month - 8:30 a.m., at 401 B Street, San Diego.
Member - Mayor Horton
First Alternate - Councilman Rindone
Second Alternate -
'SANDAG Board of Directors Delegate also serves as the delegate for the following
subcommittees of SANDAG: San Diego County Regional Transportation Commission,
Regional Planning and Growth Management Review Board, Integrated Waste
Management Task Force, Airport Land Use Commission etc. All of the aforementioned
subcommittees, if necessary, convene during the regular SANDAG Board meetings.
SANDAG - Automated Regional Justice Information System (ARJIS) - Meets one hour
prior to SANDAG meetina.
Member - Mayor Horton
SANDAG - Bayshore Bikeway Policy Committee - Meets as-needed.
Member - Mayor Horton
SANDAG - Regional Housing Element Advisory Committee -Meets as-needed.
Member - Mayor Horton or Alternate-
San Diego County League of California Cities Executive Committee
Meets 2nd Mondav - 11:45 a.m.
Member - Mayor
Alternate - Deputy Mayor
San Diego Service Authority for Freeway Emergency/Abandoned Vehicle Service
Authority (SAFE/AVA)
Meets 3rd Thursdav at 2:00 p.m.- every other month beginning in January, at 1600
Pacific Highway, San Diego.
Member - Councilman Padilla
South County Economic Development Council
Meets 1st Tuesdav 7:30 a.m. of each month at 2727 Hoover Street., National City.
Member - Councilman Moot
Alternate - Mayor Horton
University of California - Chula Vista
When reconvened, may need one, possibly two representatives
dl3o--3
i
;~~=: ()