The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda Packet 1999/09/21 AGENDA September 21, 1999 6:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER 1. ROLL CALL: Council members Davis, Moot, Padilla, Salas, and Mayor Horton. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG, MOMENT OF SILENCE 3. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY A. Proclamation commending Luis Herrera Lasso on his term as Consul General of Mexico. Mayor Horton will present the proclamation. CONSENT CALENDAR (Items 4 through 10) The staff recommendations regarding thefollowing items listed under the Consent Calendar will be enacted by the Council by one motion, without discussion, unless a Councilmember, a member (~f the public, or City staff requests that the item be removedfor discussion. ffyou wish to speak on one (?fthese items, pleasefill out a "Request to Speak"form (available in the lobby) and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. Itemspulledfrom the Consent Calendar will be discussed after Action Items. Items pulled by the public will be the first items C?f business. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of June 29, 1999 ( Regular Meeting of the City Council) and June 29, 1999 (Joint Meeting of the Redevelopment Agency, City Council, and Housing Authority). 5. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS A. Letter from the City Attorney stating that to the best of his knowledge from observance of actions taken in Closed Session on September 14, 1999, there were no actions taken which are required under the Brown Act to be reported. Staff recommendation: The letter be received and filed. 6.A. ORDINANCE APPROVING THE GRANT OF A MODIFIED CABLE FRANCHISE TO COXCOM, INC., DBA COX COMMUNICA nONS SAN DIEGO AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE IMPLEMENTING FRANCHISE AGREEMENT (SECOND READING AND ADOPTION) B. ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 5.52.010 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO CONFORM THE FEES ASSESSABLE TO CABLE FRANCHISEES AND OTHER VIDEO PROGRAMMING PROVIDERS TO THOSE ALLOWED BY STATE AND FEDERAL LAW (SECOND READING AND ADOPTION) This report presents a proposed amendment to the City's franchise with Cox Communications. Among the terms of this proposal is a recommendation to increase the franchise fee from the current 3% of gross revenues to the industry standard level of 5% as contemplated in the revenue projections approved by Council as part ofthe 1999/2000 annual budget. Agenda 2 September 21, 1999 Staff recommendation: Council place the ordinances on second reading and adoption. (Special Projects Manager) 7. RESOLUTION AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 1999/2000 BUDGET FOR THE CITY CLERK'S DEPARTMENT TO ADD A RECORDS MANAGER POSITION AND APPROPRIA TING $27,000 IN ADDITIONAL FUNDING (4/5TH'S VOTE REQUIRED) Approval of the resolution will add one full time equivalent position to the City Clerk's Office. The proposed position, under the direction of the City Clerk, will organize and manage the city-wide inactive records program, supervise and assist in the document imaging activities of City Clerk staff, and provide staff training to all departments in records procedures and the imaging software. Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution. (City Clerk) 8. RESOLUTION APPROPRIATING UNANTICIP A TED FEDERAL GRANT REVENUES IN THE AMOUNT OF $24,965 FOR THE PURPOSE OF PERFORMING A FINANCIAL AUDIT OF HIGH INTENSITY DRUG TRAFFICKING AREA GRANT EXPENDITURES, WAIVING THE CONSULT ANT SELECTION PROCESS, AWARDING AN AUDIT SERVICES CONTRACT TO CALDERON, JAHAM & OSBORN, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE CONTRACT (4/STH'S VOTE REQUIRED) On September 5, 1995, Council approved the Police Department to act as a "fiscal agent" for the California Border Alliance Group (CBAG) and act as a conduit to obtain civilian support personnel and to acquire related services and supplies. The mission of CBAG is to develop multi-jurisdictional cooperative strategies to gather intelligence, investigate, arrest and successfully prosecute persons involved with illegal drug trafficking. CBAG is requesting to contract services through the City in order to conduct a financial audit of the CBAG "high intensity drug trafficking area" (HIDT A) grant expenditures. Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution. (Chief of Police) 9. RESOLUTION APPROVING PURCHASE OF 10 COMPRESSED NATURAL GAS BUSES IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE METROPOLIT AN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT BOARD The Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB) has proposed the Chula Vista Transit exercise its option to purchase 10 additional Compressed Natural Gas buses, and that the cost be shared 50 % MTDB and 50 % the City. Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution. (Director of Public Works) 10. RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SUBMITTAL TO CAL TRANS OF EIGHT APPLICATIONS FOR THE FEDERAL FISCAL YEAR 2001/2002 HAZARD ELIMINATION SAFETY PROGRAM The Federal Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 created the Hazard Elimination Safety Program by combining several existing safety programs. The Program provides funds for safety improvements on all public roads and highways, except the interstate system. These funds serve to eliminate or reduce the number and severity of traffic accidents at hazardous public roads and highway locations, sections, and elements. Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution. (Director of Public Works) Agenda " -' September 21, 1999 ORAL COMMUNICA TIONS ACTION ITEMS The items listed in this section of the agenda are expected to elicit substantial discussions and deliberations by the Council, staff, or members of the public. The items will be considered individually by the Council, and staff recommendations may, in certain cases, be presented in the alternative. If you wish to .\peak on any item, please fill out a "Request to Speak "form (available in the lobby) and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. 11. UPDATE ON BROWN FIELD (Director of Planning and Building) 12. RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH THE METROPOLIT AN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT BOARD FOR CONTINUATION OF THE CHULA VISTA BILLBOARD RESERVE FUND AND EXPENDITURE OF REVENUE WITHIN THE FUND Eller Media and Outdoor Systems, the current co-owners of the three signs, have requested an extension which would allow three existing billboards along Interstate 5 to remain in place through 2015. Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution. (City Manager) 13. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT WITH SECURITY TRUST COMPANY FOR ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 428 "F" STREET FOR CITY OFFICE SPACE PURPOSES; APPROPRIATING $1,145,000 FROM THE AVAILABLE FUND BALANCE IN THE CIVIC CENTER COMPONENT OF THE PUBLIC FACILITIES DIF TO THE CIVIC CENTER EXPANSION PROJECT (GG-139) TO ACQUIRE THE PROPERTY AND MAKE INTERIOR BUILDING MODIFICATIONS; APPROPRIATING $13,400 FROM THE A V AILABLE FUND BALANCE IN THE GENERAL FUND FOR UTILITIES AND JANITORIAL SERVICES; AND AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 1999/2000 BUDGET TO REFLECT THESE APPROPRIATIONS (4/5TH'S VOTE REQUIRED) The City has been steadily adding statT to respond to increased demands on City services resulting from growth in eastern Chula Vista as well as the need for renewed attention to deferred maintenance and infrastructure needs in western Chula Vista. As a result, the Civic Center complex is currently at capacity and cannot accommodate the additional employees that will soon join the City workforce. StatTrecommendation: Council adopt the resolution. (Director of Community Development) 14. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AN ABATEMENT OF $22,546 OF THE INTERIM SR- 125 DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES PAID FOR THE CLUBHOUSE AT EASTLAKE COUNTRY CLUB LOCATED AT 2375 CLUBHOUSE DRIVE AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS FROM THE UN APPROPRIA TED FUND BALANCE OF THE INTERIM SR-125 DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE FUND (4/5TH'S VOTE REQUIRED) Agenda 4 September 21, 1999 On October 20, 1998, Council authorized an abatement of$33,050 of the Interim SR-125 Development Impact Fees paid for the Clubhouse at EastLake Country Club. EastLake Country Club Partnership requested this refund because they felt the fee of$66,0 1 0 collected was based on too high an estimate of the traffic generated due to the new facility. Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution. (Director of Public Works) ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR OTHER BUSINESS 15. CITY MANAGER'S REPORTS A. Scheduling of meetings. 16. MAYOR' S REPORTS 17. COUNCIL COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT to a Closed Session and thence to the Regular Meeting of September 28, 1999, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. *** A Regular Meeting of the Redevelopment Agency will be held immediately following the City Council Meeting. *** ~'I declare under penalty of perjury that I am emplo:'o-! h:' th~ .. it' 01 Chula Vista In the OHico 0J !''':l "ih.' ~-Im',.; <~I1'; Hnt I posted th~s .n, '.:n ,';.,: i.: ,..1 ',;';0 ~;:u!I~Un Board at Tuesday, September 21, 1999 ~:T~~~i~lllol~r~;;-;~~~;::o City ~ \ ouncil Chambers 6:00 p.m. ' Public Services Building (immediately following the City Council Meeting) CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL CLOSED SESSION AGENDA Effective April 1, 1994, there have been new amendments to the Brown Act. Unless the City Attorney, the City Manager or the City Council states otherwise at this time, the Council will discuss and deliberate on the following items of business which are permitted by law to be the subject of a closed session discussion, and which the Council is advised should be discussed in closed session to best protect the interests of the City. The Council is required by law to return to open session, issue any reports of final action taken in closed session, and the votes taken. However, due to the typical length of time taken up by closed sessions, the videotaping will be terminated at this point in order to save costs so that the Council's return from closed session, reports of final action taken, and adjournment will not be videotaped. Nevertheless, the report offinal action taken will be recorded in the minutes which will be available in the City Clerk's Office. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING: . Existing litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a) 1. Preserve South Bay v. SANDAG, City ofChula Vista, etc. 2. Buell v. City of Chula Vista . Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b) I, Three cases. Tuesday, September 21, 1999 6:00 p.m. (immediately following the City Council Meeting) Council Chambers Public Services Building CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL CLOSED SESSION AGENDA Effective April 1, 1994, there have been new amendments to the Brown Act. Unless the City Attorney, the City Manager or the City Council states otherwise at this time, the Council will discuss and deliberate on the following items of business which are permitted by law to be the subject of a closed session discussion, and which the Council is advised should be discussed in closed session to best protect the interests of the City. The Council is required by law to return to open session, issue any reports of final action taken in closed session, and the votes taken. However, due to the typical length of time taken up by closed sessions, the videotaping will be terminated at this point in order to save costs so that the Council's return from closed session, reports of final action taken, and adjournment will not be videotaped. Nevertheless, the report of final action taken will be recorded in the minutes which will be available in the City Clerk's Office. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING: . Existing litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a) 1. Preserve South Bay v. SANDAG, City ofChula Vista, etc. 2. Buell v. City ofChula Vista . Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b) 1. Three cases. ~ Septem ber 21, 1999 UI~cfi er penalty of'Perjary that t'am em~royed by the City of Chula Vista in the Of.flce of the City Cieri, and that I posted 6:00 p.m. this Age~da/Notice on the Bulletin Board at CALL TO ORDER b~eT~~~Il~J'l0f9tj Bs~~~~b an at Cit Hall 1. ROLL CALL: Council members Davis, Moot, Padilla, Salas, and May Horton. ~ 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG, MOMENT OF SILENCE 3. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY A. Proclamation commending Luis Herrera Lasso on his term as Consul General of Mexico. Mayor Horton will present the proclamation. CONSENT CALENDAR (Items 4 through 10) The staff recommendations regarding thefollowing items listed under the Consent Calendar will he enacted hy the Council by one motion, without discussion, unless a Councilmemher, a memher l?f the public, or City staff requests' that the item be removedfor discussion. {fyou wish to .\peak on one (?fthese items, pleasefill out a "Request to Speak" form (availahle in the lobby) and suhmit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. Itemspulled.from the Consent Calendar will be discussed after Action Items. Items pulled by the public will be the first items (?f business. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of June 29, 1999 ( Regular Meeting of the City Council) and June 29, 1999 (Joint Meeting of the Redevelopment Agency, City Council, and Housing Authority). 5. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS A. Letter from the City Attorney stating that to the best of his knowledge from observance of actions taken in Closed Session on September 14, 1999, there were no actions taken which are required under the Brown Act to be reported. Statfrecommendation: The letter be received and filed. 6.A. ORDINANCE APPROVING THE GRANT OF A MODIFIED CABLE FRANCHISE TO COXCOM, INe., DBA COX COMMUNICA nONS SAN DIEGO AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE IMPLEMENTING FRANCHISE AGREEMENT (SECOND READING AND ADOPTION) B. ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 5.52.010 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO CONFORM THE FEES ASSESSABLE TO CABLE FRANCHISEES AND OTHER VIDEO PROGRAMMING PROVIDERS TO THOSE ALLOWED BY ST ATE AND FEDERAL LAW (SECOND READING AND ADOPTION) This report presents a proposed amendment to the City's franchise with Cox Communications. Among the terms of this proposal is a recommendation to increase the franchise fee from the current 3% of gross revenues to the industry standard level of 5% as contemplated in the revenue projections approved by Council as part of the 1999/2000 annual budget. Agenda 2 September 21, 1999 Staff recommendation: Council place the ordinances on second reading and adoption. (Special Projects Manager) 7. RESOLUTION AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 1999/2000 BUDGET FOR THE CITY CLERK'S DEPARTMENT TO ADD A RECORDS MANAGER POSITION AND APPROPRIA TING $27,000 IN ADDITIONAL FUNDING (4/5TH' S VOTE REQUIRED) Approval of the resolution will add one full time equivalent position to the City Clerk's Office. The proposed position, under the direction of the City Clerk, will organize and manage the city-wide inactive records program, supervise and assist in the document imaging activities of City Clerk staff, and provide staff training to all departments in records procedures and the imaging software. Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution. (City Clerk) 8. RESOLUTION APPROPRIATING UNANTICIP A TED FEDERAL GRANT REVENUES IN THE AMOUNT OF $24,965 FOR THE PURPOSE OF PERFORMING A FINANCIAL AUDIT OF HIGH INTENSITY DRUG TRAFFICKING AREA GRANT EXPENDITURES, WAIVING THE CONSULT ANT SELECTION PROCESS, AWARDING AN AUDIT SERVICES CONTRACT TO CALDERON, JAHAM & OSBORN, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE CONTRACT (4/5TH'S VOTE REQUIRED) On September 5, 1995, Council approved the Police Department to act as a "fiscal agent" for the California Border Alliance Group (CBAG) and act as a conduit to obtain civilian support personnel and to acquire related services and supplies. The mission of CBAG is to develop multi-jurisdictional cooperative strategies to gather intelligence, investigate, arrest and successfully prosecute persons involved with illegal drug trafficking. CBAG is requesting to contract services through the City in order to conduct a financial audit of the CBAG "high intensity drug trafficking area" (HIDT A) grant expenditures. Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution. (Chief of Police) 9. RESOLUTION APPROVING PURCHASE OF 10 COMPRESSED NATURAL GAS BUSES IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE METROPOLIT AN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT BOARD The Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB) has proposed the Chula Vista Transit exercise its option to purchase 10 additional Compressed Natural Gas buses, and that the cost be shared 50 % MTDB and 50 % the City. Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution. (Director of Public Works) 10. RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SUBMITTAL TO CALTRANS OF EIGHT APPLICATIONS FOR THE FEDERAL FISCAL YEAR 2001/2002 HAZARD ELIMINATION SAFETY PROGRAM The Federal Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 created the Hazard Elimination Safety Program by combining several existing safety programs. The Program provides funds for safety improvements on all public roads and highways, except the interstate system. These funds serve to eliminate or reduce the number and severity of traffic accidents at hazardous public roads and highway locations, sections, and elements. Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution. (Director of Public Works) Agenda " -' September 21, 1999 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ACTION ITEMS The items listed in this section (~f the agenda are expected to elicit substantial discussions and deliherations hy the Council, staff, or memhers of the puhlic. The items will be considered individually hy the Council, and staff recommendations may, in certain cases, he presented in the alternative. ff you wish to ,\peak on any item, pleasefill out a "Request to Speak "form (availahle in the lohhy) and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. 11. UPDATE ON BROWN FIELD (Director of Planning and Building) 12. RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH THE METROPOLIT AN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT BOARD FOR CONTINUATION OF THE CHULA VISTA BILLBOARD RESERVE FUND AND EXPENDITURE OF REVENUE WITHIN THE FUND Eller Media and Outdoor Systems, the current co-owners of the three signs, have requested an extension which would allow three existing billboards along Interstate 5 to remain in place through 2015. Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution. (City Manager) 13. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT WITH SECURITY TRUST COMPANY FOR ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 428 "F" STREET FOR CITY OFFICE SPACE PURPOSES; APPROPRIATING $1,145,000 FROM THE AVAILABLE FUND BALANCE IN THE CIVIC CENTER COMPONENT OF THE PUBLIC FACILITIES DIF TO THE CIVIC CENTER EXPANSION PROJECT (GG-139) TO ACQUIRE THE PROPERTY AND MAKE INTERIOR BUILDING MODIFICATIONS; APPROPRIATING $13,400 FROM THE A V AILABLE FUND BALANCE IN THE GENERAL FUND FOR UTILITIES AND JANITORIAL SERVICES; AND AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 1999/2000 BUDGET TO REFLECT THESE APPROPRIATIONS (4/5TH' S VOTE REQUIRED) The City has been steadily adding staff to respond to increased demands on City services resulting from growth in eastern Chula Vista as well as the need for renewed attention to deferred maintenance and infrastructure needs in western Chula Vista. As a result, the Civic Center complex is currently at capacity and cannot accommodate the additional employees that will soon join the City workforce. Staffrecommendation: Council adopt the resolution. (Director of Community Development) 14. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AN ABATEMENT OF $22,546 OF THE INTERIM SR- 125 DEVELOPMENT IMP ACT FEES PAID FOR THE CLUBHOUSE AT EASTLAKE COUNTRY CLUB LOCATED AT 2375 CLUBHOUSE DRIVE AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS FROM THE UNAPPROPRIATED FUND BALANCE OF THE INTERIM SR-125 DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE FUND (4/5TH'S VOTE REQUIRED) Agenda 4 September 21, 1999 On October 20, 1998, Council authorized an abatement of$33,050 of the Interim SR-125 Development Impact Fees paid for the Clubhouse at EastLake Country Club. EastLake Country Club Partnership requested this refund because they felt the fee of$66, 010 collected was based on too high an estimate of the traffic generated due to the new facility. Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution. (Director of Public Works) ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR OTHER BUSINESS 15. CITY MANAGER'S REPORTS A. Scheduling of meetings. 16. MAYOR'S REPORTS 17. COUNCIL COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT to a Closed Session and thence to the Regular Meeting of September 28, 1999, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. ***A Regular Meeting of the Redevelopment Agency will be held immediately following the City Council Meeting. *** ~~~ -.- r....,;;'" ~ --=---=- ..........~~~ CllY OF CHUlA VISfA MEMORANDUM From: September 15, 1999 The Honorable Mayor and City Council /C\ f\ David D. Rowlands. Jr., City Manager~~ ~\ Council meeting of September 21, 1999 To: Subject: This will transmit the agenda and related materials for the regular City Council meeting of Tuesday, September 21, 1999. Comments regarding the Written Communications are as follows: 4a. This is a letter from the City Attorney stating that, to the best of his knowledge from observance of actions taken in Closed Session on September 14, 1999, there were no actions taken which are required under the Brown Act to be reported. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THIS LETTER BE RECEIVED AND FILED. DDRmab MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA Tuesday, June 29, 1999 6:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER A Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista was called to order at 6: 10 p.m. in the Council Chambers located in the Public Services Building, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, California. 1. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Council members Moot, Padilla, Salas and Mayor Horton ABSENT: Councilmember Davis ALSO PRESENT: City Manager Rowlands, City Attorney Kaheny, City Clerk Bigelow 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG, MOMENT OF SILENCE 3. APPROV AL OF MINUTES There were none submitted for approval. 4. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY There were none submitted. CONSENT CALENDAR (Items 5 through 7) 5. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS A. Letter from the City Attorney stating that to the best of his knowledge from observance of actions taken in Closed Session on June 22, 1999, that there were no actions taken which are required under the Brown Act to be reported.. Staff recommendation: The letter be received and filed. 6. RESOLUTION 19508, AMENDING FISCAL YEAR 1998/99 BUDGET IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE BUDGET TRANSFER POLICY (4/5TH'S VOTE REQUIRED) The Council Policy on Financial Reporting and Transfer Authority requires that all departments complete the fiscal year with a positive balance in each summary category account (Employee Services, Supplies and Services and Capital Outlay). In order for all departments to comply with the intent of this policy, transfers are recommended to be approved. Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution. (Director of Finance) CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued) 7. RESOLUTION 19S09, AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 1999/2000 BUDGET FOR THE PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT TO ADD AN ASSOCIATE PLANNER POSITION TO AUGMENT STAFFING FOR THE COMMUNITY PLANNING SECTION, FUNDED BY UNANTICIPATED REVENUE FROM A DEVELOPER PROCESSING AGREEMENT (4/STH'S VOTE REQUIRED) The City reached tentative agreement with EastLake Development Company to process plans for the EastLake Business Park Phase II and EastLake III on an expedited basis. In order to meet the proposed schedule, staffhas determined that an additional Associate Planner in the Community Planning section of the Planning and Building Department is needed immediately. Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution. (Director of Planning and Building) ACTION: Mayor Horton moved to approve staff recommendations and offered the Consent Calendar, headings read, texts waived. The motion carried 4-0. ORAL COMMUNICA nONS Bob Crane, 1925 Otay Lakes Road # 196, realtor, asked the Council for assistance in a real estate transaction wherein an offer was made and accepted for the purchase of a mobilehome, and the parties subsequently found out that the rent had been raised. He stated that when he requested a hearing before the Mobilehome Rent Review Commission, he was informed that the Commission is not expected to meet for two or more months. Mayor Horton asked Mr. Crane to call her office to schedule a meeting for Thursday afternoon with her and the City Attorney regarding the matter. The following persons asked the Council to investigate and warn the community about questionable physicians and practices at a women's medical clinic located at 335 H Street: Troy Newman, representing Foothills Presbyterian Church, San Bernardino Marcie Northum, P. O. Box 712772, Santee Phil Magnan, representing Calvary ChapellLife Source, Chula Vista Heather Mechanic, MFCC, RN, Poway Sylvia Sullivan, 7892 Hillside Drive, La Mesa Cheryl Sullenger, California Life Coalition Mayor Horton informed them that the City has no jurisdiction over alleged medical malpractice but that the matter would be referred to the County Health Department and the District Attorney for investigation. Jennifer Heatherly, representing INTRAX, asked for host families to house overseas students arriving on July 8, 1999. Page 2 - Council 06/29/99 PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES 8. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER GRANTING A WASTE MANAGEMENT FRANcmSE RENEWAL TO PACIFIC WASTE SERVICES THROUGH SEPTEMBER 4,2007 WITH AN OPTION TO EXTEND UNTIL THE YEAR 2015 SUBJECT TO SATISF ACTOR Y PERFORMANCE, AND POTENTIAL ADDITIONAL EXTENSIONS AT CITY'S SOLE OPTION UNTIL THE YEAR 2031 (CONTINUED FROM JUNE 22, 1999) A. ORDINANCE 2792, GRANTING A WASTE MANAGEMENT FRANCHISE RENEWAL TO PACIFIC WASTE SERVICES THROUGH SEPTEMBER 4,2007 WITH AN OPTION TO EXTEND UNTIL THE YEAR 2015 SUBJECT TO SATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE, AND POTENTIAL ADDITIONAL EXTENSIONS AT CITY'S SOLE OPTION UNTIL THE YEAR 2031 IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE FRANCHISE AGREEMENT, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAME (FIRST READING) B. RESOLUTION 19501, APPROVING IN CONCEPT A LANDFILL AGREEMENT WITH OT A Y LANDFILL, INe. REGARDING CITY TRASH FLOW AND LANDFILL MITIGATION The current solid waste and recycling Franchise Agreement expires on September 4, 2002. In anticipation of the end of that agreement, staff worked with the City's current service provider, Pacific Waste Management, to develop the terms and conditions for a proposed solid waste management franchise renewal and a companion landfill agreement. Staff recommendation: Council place the ordinance on first reading and adopt the resolution. (Conservation Coordinator) Notice of the hearing was given in accordance with legal requirements, and the hearing was held on the date and at the time specified in the notice. Conservation Coordinator Meacham presented an overview of the proposed franchise renewal and companion landfill agreements. He stated that the proposed franchise renewal is for an eight-year period, beginning with a five-year extension of the current agreement. The agreement will provide a number of benefits, including a guaranteed lowest residential rate in the County, a small reduction in small-business rates, a reduction in apartment recycling rates, and free recycling, yard waste and trash service for all city facilities, such as libraries and the senior center. He referred to the "Most Favored Nation" clause, which guarantees that Chula Vista's ratepayers will always have the lowest residential rate; if a lower rate is offered to any other city in the County, Chula Vista's ratepayers will also benefit. He then commented on proposed service enhancements, including more convenient collection times, two free passes annually to the landfill site, increased educational funding to help businesses take advantage of potential cost savings and meet the state-mandated recycling goals, more attractive street litter bins, and a number of energy-related benefits and commitments. Another benefit is a commitment to consider a variable rate option, wherein ratepayers in the future could pay based on the amount of trash they generate. Page 3 - Council 06/29/99 PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES (Continued) Mr. Meacham further explained that a few years ago, Allied Waste Systems purchased the County's landfill system. Chula Vista has a unique relationship with the company in that its hauler is the same company that provides disposal for a major portion of the County, and one of its landfills happens to be just outside Chula Vista. Because of the location ofthe landfill, the City has been able to negotiate measures that will make the landfill a better neighbor and provide benefits to all Chula Vista residents. Among the benefits of approving the landfill agreement are that up to a 54-acre parcel will be donated to the City to provide a buffer between the closest Chula Vista residences and the landfill operation; up to $4 million will be donated to improve and develop the acreage as a park; the City will receive an annual bonus and franchise fee, amounting to $818,000 during the next fiscal year, for use for other City services, such as police and fire services, and these funds will not result in increased rates to ratepayers, either currently or in the future. Mr. Meacham stated that in exchange for the many benefits to the City, Pacific Waste Services is asking that the current contract, which expires in three years, be extended for five years, for a total of eight years. At the end of the eight years, the City Manager may extend the contract for an additional eight years if the company has performed adequately and is in full compliance with all the service and legal requirements of the contract. In addition, the current 50% CPI increase would increase to 66.6%; the City's disposal would be reduced from 10% to 5%, which is actually more representative of the City's disposal for the past two years; and there would be minor reductions in the number and scope of performance penalties. The company has also agreed to meet and confer regarding any remaining landfill issues. In summary, Mr. Meacham stated that the City has negotiated a below-market deal; Chula Vista's current trash rate is the lowest unsubsidized rate in San Diego County. The City will receive additional benefits and services, such as free mixed paper for multi-family housing units and free bottle and can services for restaurants. Staff believes that the City will receive a better package and better value than if the contract were to be bid. By combining the collection agreement with the landfill agreement, the City will not only receive a better price, but will also receive landfill mitigations that otherwise would not be achieved. Two cities in the County have attempted to obtain lower rates by going out to bid; Chula Vista's rates are about $1.50 lower than one of those cities and $2.50 lower than the other. In studying 21 cities in Los Angeles, Riverside and Orange Counties that went to bid, 11 received lower rates initially but were paying rates equal to or higher than before within six to eighteen months. Mayor Horton asked how service would be monitored to ensure customer satisfaction. Mr. Meacham responded that performance measures were specifically included in the contract. For example, the company must respond within 24 hours, or face a fine of up to $15, for each inquiry regarding missed service. Also, the company funds two education officers to work with residents and businesses regarding the recycling program, and the officers also monitor service in the field. In addition, 20 to 25 liquidated-damage-type of issues are included wherein Pacific Waste would face penalties severe enough to provide a financial incentive to provide the best service possible. Councilmember Moot referred to the study of cities in Los Angeles, Riverside and Orange Counties and asked how cities could go out to bid and ultimately end up with a higher rate than initially bid. Page 4 - Council 08/29/99 PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES (Continued) Mr. Meacham stated that the contracts contained clauses permitting the companies to request a rate increase due to certain circumstances. Such clauses in the City's contract are carefully worded; and the City's contract contains the requirement for Chula Vista to have the lowest rate in the County. Also, in some bid situations, smaller companies submit a low bid but then have to request rate increases in order to adequately perform. In the meantime, the quality of service may suffer. Mayor Horton then opened the public hearing and asked if anyone from the audience wished to speak. Joanne Clayton, 945 Nacion, asked the Council to approve the agreements, stating that Pacific Waste's services are efficient and cost-effective. Jim Ambroso, District Manager of Allied Waste Industries, stated that the City has the opportunity to extend a potentially long-term partnership to provide the ratepayers ofChula Vista with long-term disposal capacity at the lowest rates while preserving the City's environmental resources. No other agreement in the County guarantees the lowest residential rate for the next 20 years; no other franchise agreement has secured a long-term source of revenue which could amount to over $22 mi11ion to the City during the next seven years; and the agreement contains extensive measures to expand the recycling programs and educational efforts. The agreement also provides the opportunity to extend the relationship with Pacific Waste as a community leader; the company has supported many organizations in the community. With the landfill agreement, the Council also has the opportunity to secure protections and environmental enhancements for residents who will eventually live and work near the landfill. He then submitted letters of support from the following businesses: San Diego Taxpayers' Association, Adrian Arms Properties, the San Diego Metro KOA Campground, Pacific Southwest Association of Realtors, Hometown Realtors, The Paul Miller Company, and Tyco Property Management Company and Investments. He asked the Council to support the proposed agreements. Suzanne Belmonte, representing Christmas in April-Greater San Diego and South Bay Community Services, asked the Council to approve the agreements, stating that Pacific Waste Services has provided invaluable services and advertising to non-profit organizations in the community. Robert Pinnegar, representing the San Diego County Apartment Association, expressed support for the proposed franchise agreement and enumerated the benefits, such as lower rates, Christmas tree recycling and free bulky pickup service, that it provides to the multi-family community. He stated that there has been value added to multi-family service that is far greater than found in other cities in the County. He also mentioned that Pacific Waste has assisted the association with community service projects. Jerry Harmon, 1021 Madison Avenue, Escondido, felt it was not in the best interest ofthe ratepayers to continue re-approving contracts that seem to never end. He commended stafffor an excellent job in negotiating but pointed out that everything that had been negotiated could be included in a request for proposals that would be sent out to bid. He suggested that the Council not proceed at this time for the following reasons: (I) the Council previously indicated that the City would go out to bid prior Page 5 - Council 06/29/99 PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES (Continued) to the end of the current contract in September 2002, and nothing has happened to warrant a change in that policy; (2) it is a very large contract and should be bid; (3) the City will take up to 15% of the revenues paid by ratepayers, and he questioned whether or not Proposition 218 would apply in this instance; (4) a neighboring city recently bid its contract, and Chula Vista's incumbent hauler lost that contract; thus competitive bidding can make a difference in rates; and (5) the proposed franchise needs to be adjusted to address construction and demolition service problems documented by contractors. He asked the Council to table the contract extension to further consider competitive bidding. John Clingan, representing the Boys & Girls Club ofChula Vista, spoke in support of Pacific Waste's contract extension, stating that the Club and children have greatly benefitted from the company's involvement in terms of both financial and staff support to the Club's environmental and recycling programs. Gregg King, 554 Dawn Court, representing Debris Box, expressed concern that there was no competition for the contract. He stated that it is a large contract for a long term; the City is taking 15% in franchise fees, paid by ratepayers, while the current rate in other cities is 8%; and there are construction and demolition industry issues which are unresolved. He asked why there had been an unannounced change in policy since last August, when staffhad indicated that the contract would be bid before the September 2002 renewal date; and why staff had returned to the Council at this time with a negotiated renewal agreement with Pacific Waste. He felt that a contract of such a scope should be periodically bid. Council member Moot stated that the franchise fee included in the contract is 10% and asked why Mr. King cited a 15% fee. Mr. King responded that the franchise fee is 10%; however, there are additional payments required to be made to the City. Council member Moot stated that the agreement specifically states that the additional payments cannot be passed through to the ratepayer, so they cannot affect rates. Mr. King replied that the City could have reduced rates by 5%, passing savings along to ratepayers, rather than taking the money for City coffers. He stated that Imperial Beach ratepayers received a 4% reduction in rates. Councilmember Moot pointed out that Chula Vista rates are lower than those paid by Imperial Beach ratepayers. Mr. King explained that Chula Vista is closer to a landfill, is six times larger than Imperial Beach, and has newer neighborhoods and wider streets, providing easier access for the hauler. He stated that he was not complaining about the service, however he felt that a contract of this scope should be bid. Councilmember Padilla commented that he knew of no other franchise agreement structured similar to the one before Council at this time, wherein there is a guaranteed, unsubsidized, lowest residential rate; and he felt that no other provider would be able to match the terms, given the infrastructure in place under the current provider. He also stated that the agreement specifically states that the increase in franchise fees cannot be passed on to ratepayers. Mr. King again pointed out that all the negotiated contract terms could be included in a request for proposals, to which a number of qualified haulers would respond because of the City's significant growth rates and the opportunity to break into the San Diego County market. Page 6 - Council 06/29/99 PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES (Continued) Deputy Mayor Salas commented that Imperial Beach chose a different provider for animal shelter services last year due to a lower bid and now regrets that decision because it has received a lower level of service as a consequence. A low bid is not always the best in the long run. Art Luhan, Business Manager of the San Diego Building Trades Council, which represents all the construction unions in the community; Chairman ofthe Board of National City Park Apartments; and Vice President of San Diego and Imperial Counties Labor Council, which represents 110 unions, including Teamsters Local 36, spoke regarding his organizations' commitment to the people they represent and the commitment of Pacific Waste to its employees. On behalf of the members of Teamsters Local 36, representing 200 employees working for Pacific Waste, he urged support of the proposed contract extension, stating that Pacific Waste is an employer which is dedicated to its employees. Christina Williams, representing South Bay Family YMCA in Chula Vista, and also a resident at 335 E Street, encouraged the Council to support Pacific Waste's contract extension, stating that the company is unsurpassed in its support oflocal human services agencies. Rod Davis, representing the Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce, stated that Chula Vista is more than 12 times larger than Imperial Beach, and, therefore, what works in Imperial Beach may not work in Chula Vista. He also stated that if the contract went out to bid, the most likely successful candidate would be the company that owns the landfill, because the carrier can deliver the flow cheaper to a landfill that it owns. On behalfofthe Chamber, he asked the Council to support Pacific Waste, which has demonstrated community leadership and has guaranteed the lowest rate for the life of the contract. Emerald Randolph, 447 F Street, spoke in support ofthe contract extension, stating that the company is responsible, reliable and provides good service. In addition, it supports service agencies and residents, and its level of caring and commitment to the community are rare. Shane l.A. Erickson, representing South Bay Community Services, stated that the organization is very appreciative of the support given by Pacific Waste over the years. With in-kind and other financial support, totaling approximately $20,000 per year, the generous offerings of Pacific Waste have helped the agency serve children, youth and families throughout Chula Vista. The company is a local, community-based business helping local, community-based agencies, and South Bay Community Services supports an extension of the contract. There being no further comments from the audience, Mayor Horton closed the public hearing. She stated that the Council has worked hard for the citizens to ensure competitive rates and high quality service. She commended stafffor negotiating a package that insures that the City will have the lowest rates in the County for many years to come. She also noted that the only persons who came forward to speak in opposition to the proposed contracts at this advertised public hearing were persons she believed had a financial interest in breaking the contract with Pacific Waste. Page 7 - Council 06/29/99 PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES (Continued) Mr. Meacham submitted two written communications for the record. One, from C. 1. Weisner Construction, discussed the difficulty of obtaining forty-yard dumpsters at construction sites. The other, from Penhall Company, asked that construction and demolition hauling services be excluded from the trash hauling contract. Mr. Meacham also reiterated that the proposed action is a five-year extension ofthe contract, which has three years remaining, and any further extensions would be solely at the City's option. In addition, Chula Vista is guaranteed the lowest rate in the County, and revenue that is paid to the City by Pacific Waste as a result of the contract will not be passed through to ratepayers. Vice Mayor Salas stated that the agreement will benefit the residents of Chula Vista, guaranteeing the lowest rate in the County and continued good service. In addition, Chula Vista is on the forefront with its recycling program, and the proposed agreement further improves upon it. Council member Moot stated that the City has the opportunity to guarantee the lowest rate without the risk of going to bid and then being faced with higher rates, as has been experienced by some other communities. A responsible public official needs to protect the ratepayers and ensure the best service at the lowest price. By taking advantage of the fact that the landfill is adjacent to the City and that there is a unique relationship between the hauler and the landfill, the Council has the opportunity to guarantee something for the ratepayers that no other city can match. Councilmember Padilla stated that the premise that the market can compel lower rates by competition is a general one and does not mean that lower rates are guaranteed in each and every case. Further, public officials need to examine all options before them, and while he supported the concept of open bidding in most cases, in this instance, he felt that staff was to be commended for taking the initiative to negotiate, under a unique set of circumstances, a terrific deal for the ratepayers of Chula Vista. He also stated that trash franchises are increasingly becoming a political issue, and the citizens of Chula Vista need to be aware that Council members have suffered political threats during the past few weeks and have been told that if the Council chooses to adopt the agreement, it may become the subject of a referendum, filed and funded by persons whose motivations are unclear and who are not members of this community. The City has an agreement that guarantees residential ratepayers the lowest unsubsidized rate in the County for the term of the agreement, and the agreement should be approved. Mayor Horton stated that the proposed agreement provides Chula Vista ratepayers with the lowest rate and a better package than is being offered anywhere in this region and beyond. She also mentioned that the City has been a leader in meeting its AB939 goals, and she thanked Mr. Meacham and Assistant City Attorney Googins for their hard work on this item. ACTION: Mayor Horton then offered Ordinance 2792 for first reading and Resolution No. 19501 for adoption, headings read, texts waived. The motion carried 4-0. At 8: 12 p.m., Mayor Horton declared a brief recess. The meeting reconvened at 8:25 p.m., with all Council members present except Councilmember Davis. Page 8 - Council 06/29/99 ACTION ITEMS 9.A. RESOLUTION 19510, APPROVING FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT WITH THE CHULA VISTA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE TO PROVIDE CHULA VISTA CONVENTION AND VISITORS BUREAU PROMOTION SERVICES B. RESOLUTION 19511, APPROVING FIFTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT WITH THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE TO PROVIDE VISITOR AND TRANSIT INFORMATION SERVICES AT THE CHULA VISTA VISITOR INFORMATION CENTER AND CHAMBER OF COMMERCE MAIN OFFICE Pursuant to Council Policy Number 230-01, staff negotiated a contract extension with the Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce for operation of a Chula Vista Convention Center and Visitors Bureau and for the performance of certain designated visitor and convention promotional services. The proposed contract runs through the end offiscal year 1999/2000. A corresponding one-year extension to the existing contract with the Chamber for operation of the Visitor Information Center is also recommended. Since Council policy stipulates a review five years after its adoption date, staff intends to bring a mid-year report to Council fully examining the five-year history of the Chula Vista Convention & Visitors Bureau and operation of the Visitor Center with recommendations for future operations. Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolutions. (Administration) ACTION: At the recommendation of staff, Mayor Horton moved to continue the item 90 days and to authorize the City Manager to extend the current contract until that time. Deputy Mayor Salas seconded the motion, and it carried 4-0. 10. RESOLUTION 19512, AUTHORIZING A NO INTEREST LOAN FROM THE GENERAL FUND, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $500,000, TO USA SOFTBALL FOR THE COMPLETION OF PHASE I OF THEIR TRAINING F ACILITY AT THE ARCO OL YMPIC TRAINING CENTER AND AMENDING THE PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR 2000 BUDGET TO INCLUDE THE LOAN AND APPROPRIATE A V AILABLE FUND BALANCE FOR THE AMOUNT OF THE LOAN (4/5TH' S VOTE REQUIRED) The City Manager's Office worked with the Director of the Olympic Training Center on a variety of projects to help enhance the viability ofthe Center and its ultimate economic impact on the City. Notwithstanding that the Center is a great asset to the City, in its current form, it is still a "diamond in the rough" that, when its full potential is realized, will make current efforts pale by comparison. Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution. (Assistant City Manager) ACTION: Mayor Horton offered Resolution No. 19512, heading read, text waived. The motion carried 4-0. Page 9 - Council 06/29/99 ACTION ITEMS (Continued) 11. RESOLUTION 19513, APPROVING A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH SUNLINE TRANSIT FOR HYDROGEN FUEL CELL BUS DEMONSTRATION PROJECT Staff was directed to develop a hydrogen fuel cell bus demonstration project in conjunction with the California Energy Commission and Ballard Power Systems. Over the course of development ofthe project, the City identified a partnership for implementation ofthe project. Staff recommends approv~l of a preliminary negotiating agreement to set the framework for a cooperative agreement to demonstrate a bus powered by a Daimler-Benz-Ballard Corporation hydrogen fuel cell. The California Energy Commission has committed $500,000 to the City for the fuel cell demonstration project, with the stipulation that the City and Sunline Transit enter into an initial agreement by June 30, 1999. Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution. (Director of Planning and Building) ACTION: Mayor Horton offered Resolution No. 19513, heading read, text waived. The motion carried 4-0. 12.A. RESOLUTION 19514, APPROVING RENEWAL OF COMMONWEALTH ENERGY POWER SERVICES AGREEMENT AND GREEN POWER ADDENDUM FOR THE CITY'S ELECTRIC SERVICE PROVIDER AND INCLUDE GREEN POWER IN ALL FUTURE BID REQUESTS AND ELECTRICITY PURCHASING CONTRACTS B. RESOLUTION 19515, AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 1999/2000 BUDGET BY APPROPRIATING $13,500 TO PLANNING DEPARTMENT BUDGET FROM AVAILABLE FUND BALANCE IN THE GENERAL FUND TO IMPLEMENT A PUBLIC EDUCATION PROGRAM FOR CHULA VISTA RESIDENTS ON ELECTRICITY CHOICES A V AILABLE TO CONSUMERS, SPECIFICALLY RELATING TO GREEN POWER (4/5TH'S VOTE REQUIRED) In June 1998, staff was directed to participate in the SANDAG power pool and switch some of its meters from the default energy supplier, SDG&E, to Commonwealth Energy, under the SANDAG contract. Council also directed staff to identifY possible green power options for switching the City's meters to a more environmentally favorable power mix. Commonwealth has an attractive option to its original power contract. The option has two elements: The power comes from a 100% renewable resource, and it is cheaper than the original 2.5% discounted rate. The new Green Power option reduces the cost by approximately 5%, according to SANDAG. Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolutions. (Director of Planning and Building) ACTION: Council member Moot offered Resolution No. 19514 and Resolution No. 19515, headings read, texts waived. The motion carried 4-0. Page 10 - Council 06/29/99 ACTION ITEMS (Continued) 13. RESOLUTION 19516, APPROPRIATING FUNDS FROM THE OT A Y VALLEY ROAD ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 90-2 CONSTRUCTION FUND TO THE OT A Y VALLEY ROAD WIDENING CAPITAL PROJECT FOR PROJECT RELATED COSTS (4/5TH'S VOTE REQUIRED) Council approved the formation of Assessment District 90-2 (Otay Valley Road) on June 23, 1992, for the purpose of funding the road widening and other improvements from 1-805 to 1,200 feet east of Nirvana Avenue. Other funding sources were also used on the project. The construction work was completed a few years ago; however, the contractor on the project, Granite Construction, sued the City, and the settlement was just reached in December 1998. ACTION: Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution. (Director of Public Works) Council member Padilla offered Resolution No. 19516, heading read, text waived. The motion carried 4-0. OTHER BUSINESS 11. CITY MANAGER'S REPORTS There were none. 12. MAYOR'S REPORTS A. ACTION: ACTION: Ratification of appointments to the Board of Ethics: Teresa Thomas (to fill vacancy created by Member Schulman, whose term expires June 30, 2000); and Kenneth Culver (to fill vacancy created by Member DeVore, whose term expires June 30, 2003); and to the Mobilehome Rent Review Commission (Ex-Officio): Edmund "Pat" LaPierre (to fill vacancy created by Commissioner Biggers, whose term expires June 30, 2001). (Continued from June 22, 1999) Mayor Horton moved to ratify the appointments of Teresa Thomas and Kenneth Culver to the Board of Ethics. Deputy Mayor Salas seconded the motion, and it carried 4-0. Mayor Horton moved to ratify the appointment Edmund "Pat" LaPierre to the Mobilehome Rent Review Commission. Councilmember Padilla seconded the motion, and it carried 4-0. Mayor Horton also noted a SANDAG General Session meeting to be held July 1, 1999, 7:30 a.m., at the San Diego Hilton Hotel. Page 11 - Council 06/29/99 13. COUNCIL COMMENTS A. Council member Davis: Ratification of appointment to the Economic Development Commission: Dan Horn (to fill vacancy created by Commissioner Rodrigo, whose term expires June 30,2001). It was the consensus of the Council to continue this item, since Council member Davis was not present. B. Councilmember Padilla stated that he would be on vacation on July 13th and asked to be excused from the Council meeting on that date. ADJOURNMENT At 8:58 p.m., Mayor Horton adjourned the meeting to the Adjourned Meeting ofthe Redevelopment Agency, City Council and Housing Authority and thence to the Regular Meeting of July 13, 1999, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Respectfully submitted, -:::;:::::5lv. tu.- ~<(~ Susan Bigelow, CMC/ AAE, City Clerk Page 12 - Council 06/29/99 ~~lt- ~~ ......,;......,;~~ ~ ~"""--"""-- ---- CllY OF CHUlA VISTA OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY Date: September 9, 1999 From: The Honorable Mayor and City Council John M. Kaheny, City AttorneyJ11? Report Regarding Actions Taken in Closed Session for the Meeting of 9/14/99 To: Re: The City Council of the City of Chula vista met in Closed Session on 9/14/99 to discuss: . CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR Government Code Section 54956.8 Pursuant to Property: 428 "F" Street, Chula vista, California 91910. Assessor's Parcel No. 568-181-34, 35, 36, 37 (portion), 41 (portion) Negotiating Parties: Security Trust Company and City of Chula vista (Sid Morris) Under Negotiation: Property Acquisition The City Attorney hereby reports to the best of his knowledge from observance of actions taken in the Closed Session in which the City Attorney participated, that there were no reportable actions pursuant to Conference with Real Property Negotiator which are required under the Brown Act to be reported. JMK: 19k H. \home\lorraille\lt\clo!;!ses8 .no -3~ - / 276 FOURTH AVENUE. CHULA VISTA. CALIFORNIA 91910. (619) 691-5037. FAX (619) 409-5823 0'';;, Post-Consumer Recycled Paper ~~.. ("\\/ / :-\~/ #~// ~<y 0,~ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF C~~' VISTA APPROVING THE GRANT OF A MODI~D CABLE FRANCHISE TO COXCOM, INC ..;A.\) /DBA COX COMMUNICATIONS SAN DIEGO AND.,~.HORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE IMPLE~ING FRANCHISE AGREEMENT . / ORDINANCE NO. WHEREAS, on April 16, 1964, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 882 granting a franchise to Area Television Antenna, Inc. to operate a community antenna television system in the City of Chula Vista, which franchise was subsequently taken over by Cox Com, Inc., dba Cox Communications San Diego ("Cox Cable"), substantially amended in 1984; and is currently scheduled to expire in January, 2009; and WHEREAS, under the current terms of the franchise, the City is paid a 3% fee on Cox Cable's gross receipts, which rate is substantially below the industry standard of 5%; and WHEREAS, staff has been negotiating with Cox Cable to make certain modifications to the franchise for the benefit of the City in exchange for a ten year extension of the franchise term; and WHEREAS, on August 31, 1999, in accordance with City Charter Section 1201, the City Council approved a Resolution of Intention to consider the proposed Franchise ("Franchise") at a public hearing set for September 14, 1999; and WHEREAS, notice of that public hearing was published in the Star News on September 4, 1999, a copy of whicn was provided to Chula Vista Cable; and WHEREAS, the noticed public hearing was duly held on September 14, 1999 at 6:00 p.m. to consider the proposed Franchise and all public testimony was taken and considered by the City Council including City staff's recommendation to approve the Franchise. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION I: Any and all protests or objections presented to the granting of the Franchise are hereby overruled. SECTION II: The City Council hereby makes the following findings and determinations in connection with the proposed Franchise: /t/J/j (1) Whether there be significant positive or negative impacts on the community being served. Through the increased high-speed internet capacity and cable modem technology, the community should benefit from greater access to city services and information. (2) Whether there will be an unreasonable adverse economic or aesthetic impact upon public or private property within the area. This Franchise should not significantly change the aesthetics of the overhead or underground network of cable facilities in the city or the effect of such facilities on property values. (3) Whether there will bean unreasonable disruption or inconvenience to users, or any adverse effect on future use, of utility poles, public easements, and the public rights-of-way contrary to the intent of Section 767.5 of the Public utilities Code. This Franchise agreement should not significantly effect the current or future use of utility poles or rights-of-way. (4) Whether the franchise applicant has the technical and financial ability to perform. Cox Cable has demonstrated the ability to perform since 1984 and continues to be a preeminent cable service provider nationwide. (5) Whether there is any impact on the franchising authority's interest in having universal cable service. By specifying the terms for extension of service to individual homes, businesses or new developments, this proposed Franchise should facilitate greater availability of service. (6) Whether other societal interests generally considered by franchising authorities will be met. The proposed Franchise includes provisions regarding notice to customers regarding the procedures for blocking unwanted/indecent programming, specification of minimum customer service standards, and enhanced public access to city services and information via Smart Community and cable modem technology. (7) Whether the operation of an additional cable television system in the community is economically feasible. The Chula Vista community has supported two cable companies since 1987. This proposed Franchise should not alter the economic feasibility of either franchise. -2- ~4/;L (8) Such other additional matters, both procedural and substantive, as the franchising authority may determine to be relevant. Aside from dealing with current issues such as access to cable services and technology, the proposed franchise modification also provides for a mid-term system and services review to respond to changes in the industry, technology, and regulatory environment and to changes in customer demands for service. SECTION III: The grant of the Franchise and the implementing Franchise Agreement with Cox Cable are hereby approved in substantially the form presented, with such minor modifications as may be required or approved by the city Attorney; a copy of the Franchise Agreement shall be kept on file in the office of the City Clerk. SECTION IV: Upon execution by Cox Cable, the Mayor of the City of Chula Vista is hereby authorized and directed to execute the Franchise Agreement for and on behalf of the City of Chula Vista. SECTION V: This ordinance and the Agreement, shall take effect and be in full force on the thirtieth day from and after its second reading and adoption. SECTION VI: The city Clerk is hereby directed to publish a summary of this ordinance in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Chula vista. Presented by Approved as to form by Michael Meacham, Special Projects Manager c-z )-//-7 ,/ ~/ (- / H: \home \lorraine \or\cox -3- 6~3 ORDINANCE NO .~;~S~?~/ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA ~~ / AMENDING SECTIONS. 52.010 OF THE CHULA'I'A./ MUNICIPAL CODE TO CONFORM THE FEES A . LE TO CABLE FRANCHISEES AND OT ,/ VIDEO PROGRAMMING PROVIDERS TO THO~~ LOWED BY STATE AND FEDERAL LAW '2~ ~ The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION I: That Section 5.52.010 of the Chula vista Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 5.52.010 Annual payments to city required in lieu of any licenoe fee or buoineos licenoe tax. All persons engaged in the business of transmitting, by means of the lease of a frequency or frequencies from the grantee or grantees of community antenna television systems~ or by use of a cable systems, a signal or transmission providing a television picture or other video, audio or data services to subscribers thereof in the City of Chula Vista for the paYment of a fee shall pay the city annually, in lawful money of the United States, ~ franchise/riqht-of-way access fee equal to a percentaqe of its qross receipts in an amount determined by the City Council throuqh a neqotiated franchise aqreement or by independent City Council action. The current fee shall be set at five percent (5%) of the service provider's qross receipts but may be modified in a neqotiated aqreement. In no event shall a fee charqed hereunder exceed the maximum fee allowable by applicable federal or state law. three percent of the tot.:11 grooo receipto collected or received by the gr.:1ntee in e.:1ch c.:1lend.:1r ye.:1r, or portion thereof, during the term of the fr.:1nchioe. Such peroono eng.:1ged in the buoineoo knm.n .:10 "p.:1}' tele'Jioion, II ',:hether they h.:1vC Such fees shall apply reqardless of whether a party providinq such services(s) has a fixed place of business within the city or not, oh.:111 be oubject to the .:1nnu.:1l fr.:1nchioe fee of three percent. In any case in which a person transmittinq a siqnal providinq a television picture or other service to subscribers thereof is not subiect to a local franchise but is, per applicable laws, subiect to in-lieu or other fees payable to the local franchisinq authority for use of riqht -of -way or for other lawful consideration or purpose, said person shall pay to the City annually, in lawful money of the united States, an in-lieu fee equivalent to the franchise fee in effect under this section. SECTION II: 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 Michael Meacham, Special / fl /( Jo n proj ects Manager f# U H:\home\lorraine\or\cox COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT ITEM: 7 MEETING DATE: September 21, 1999 SUBMITTED BY: ~ City Clerk City Managr Amending the Fiscal Year 1999-2000 budget for the City Clerk's Department to add a Records Manager position and appropriating $27,000 in additional funding ITEM TITLE: RESOLUTION REVIEWED BY: Approval of the resolution wil1 add one FTE position in the City Clerk's Office. The proposed position, under the direction of the City Clerk, wil1 organize and manage the city-wide inactive records program, supervise and assist in the document imaging activities of City Clerk staff, and provide staff training to al1 departments in records procedures and the imaging software. RECOMMENDATION: The Council amend the FY 1999-2000 budget to add a Records Manager position to the City Clerk's Office, funded by $11,000 from the available fund balance in the General Fund and $16,000 from the Records Management Capital Improvement Project (GG 129). BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable. DISCUSSION: The City Clerk's Office has recently been reorganized to reflect the current City Clerk's background in records management. While staff is cross-trained in al1 areas under the City Clerk's purview, for the purposes of day-to-day operations, staff is divided into two sections, Records Management/Document Imaging/Research and Administration. Under the former City Clerk, the Deputy City Clerk was primarily responsible for records management, and the position title at that time was "Deputy City Clerk/Records Manager," Since the current City Clerk intends to direct the records management program herself the Deputy City Clerk's responsibilities wil1 focus on Council support and other administrative duties, such as agenda and agenda packet preparation, Council meeting fol1ow-up (finalization of ordinances, resolutions, contracts), recordations, postings, conflict of interest and campaign filings, board and commission administration, municipal code updates, and so forth. 7// During the 1999/00 budget presentation to Council, the City Clerk's Office indicated its renewed commitment to records management. There are many phases ofthe program in progress, including the centralization of storage for the inactive records of all departments, the initiation of a city-wide document imaging system, and the recategorization of the City Clerk's active records. A permanent Records Manager position, under the direct supervision of the City Clerk, is essential to the successful continuation of the programs in progress, as well as to the implementation offuture programs. FISCAL IMP ACT: Funding for the position is proposed to be split for the next few years between the General Fund and the Records Management Capital Improvement Project Account, GG-129. The position will belong to the Confidential Unit, and a full year's cost is $40,553.20. The CIP account will be used to fund 48.5% of the position during Fiscal Years 1999/2000 and 2000/200 I. During FY 2001/2002, theCIP account may be used to fund up to 33.33% of the position. Beginning in FY 2002/2003, the position will need to be fully funded from the General Fund. For FY 1999/2000, a total of $33,000 is needed to fund the position, $16,000 from GG-129 and $17,000 from the General Fund. However, the City Clerk's General Fund budget already contains $6,000 in a salary account allocated to document imaging, and the $6,000 would be applied to the $17,000 needed. Thus, the net impact on the General Fund for FY 1999/2000 is $11,000. 7-cJ- RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 1999-2000 BUDGET FOR THE CITY CLERK'S DEPARTMENT TO ADD A RECORDS MANAGER POSITION AND APPROPRIATING $27,000 IN ADDITIONAL FUNDING WHEREAS, on June 17, 1999, the City Council approved, in principle, the budget for the Office of the City Clerk for Fiscal Year 1999-2000; and WHEREAS, due to a reorganization of responsibilities in the City Clerk's Office and an expanded focus in the area of records management, including the centralization of storage of inactive records of all departments, centralized retrieval of inactive records of all departments, and the implementation of an updated document imaging program for use by all departments, the City Clerk's Office requires the addition of a Records Manager position. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City ofChula Vista does hereby approve the addition of 1.0 full-time, permanent Records Manager position, to be funded 48.5% from the Capital Improvement Project Account GG 129 and 51.1 % from the General Fund for Fiscal Years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001; 33.33% from the Capital Improvement Project Account GG129 and 66.66% from the General Fund for Fiscal Year 2001-2002; and 100% from the General Fund thereafter. BE IF FURTHER RESOLVED that the amount of$II,OOO is hereby appropriated from the available fund balance in the General Fund and $16,000 from unanticipated staff reimbursement revenue from the Records Management Capital Improvement Project (GG 129). Presented by Approved as to form by Susan Bigelow City Clerk ~~~ J . Kaheny " ty Attorney U PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, California, this day of September, 1999, by the following vote: AYES: Council members: NAYS: Council members: ABSENT: Councilmembers: Shirley Horton, Mayor ATTEST: Susan Bigelow, City Clerk 7-J STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) CITY OF CHULA VISTA) I, Susan Bigelow, City Clerk of Chula Vista, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting of the Chula Vista City Council held on the 21 st day of September, 1999. Executed this _ day of September, 1999. Susan Bigelow, City Clerk 7~Y COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item: ~ Meeting Date: 09/21/99 REVIEWED BY: RESOLUTION Appropriating Unanticipated Federal Grant Revenues in the Amount of $24,965 for the Purpose of Performing a Financial Audit of High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area Grant Expenditures, Waiving the Consultant Selection Process, Awarding an Audit Services Contract to Calderon, Jaham & Osborn, and Authorizing the Mayor to Execute the Contract. ChiefofPolice~ ,C\~ City Manager~ ~ ~ \ (4/5ths Vote: Yes l No_) ITEM TITLE: SUBMITTED BY: BACKGROUND: On September 5, 1995, the City Council approved the City of Chula Vista Police Department to act as a "fiscal agent" for the California Border Alliance Group (CBAG) and act as a conduit to obtain civilian support personnel and to acquire related services and supplies. The mission of CBAG is to develop multi-jurisdictional cooperative strategies to gather intelligence, investigate, arrest and successfully prosecute persons involved with illegal drug trafficking. CBAG is funded through a "high intensity drug trafficking area" (HIDTA) funding provision contained in the Federal Appropriations Act for each federal fiscal year beginning in 1988. San Diego and Imperial Counties have been designated a "high intensity drug trafficking area" (HIDTA) due to the volume of illegal narcotics entering the United States through the international border. CBAG is requesting to contract services through the City of Chula Vista in order to conduct a financial audit of the CBAG "high intensity drug trafficking area" (HIDTA) grant expenditures. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council accept and appropriate unanticipated Federal Grant funds in the amount of $24,965 for the purpose of conducting a financial audit of the CBAG "high intensity drug trafficking area" (HIDTA) grant expenditures, waive the consultant selection process, award an Audit Services Contract to Calderon, Jaham and Osborn and authorize the Mayor to execute the contract. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable. ~-/ Page 2, Item_ Meeting Date: 09/21/99 DISCUSSION: The California Border Alliance Group has requested an internal audit of "high intensity drug trafficking area" grant expenditures. The scope of work will include a review of contractual services between the California Department of Justice (CDOJ)/Narcotic Information Network (NIN) and CBAG. The review will cover service level agreements for the three-year period 1996-1998. The audit will include review of invoices, personal interviews of involved staff and the associated trace of source documents. The work product to be provided to CBAG includes written summaries of identified issues, progress meetings with CBAG representatives, and a final report outlining responses to the findings and recommendations for corrective actions as outlined in the Scope of Work contained in the attached contract (Attachment 1). A total of $24,965 is available to conduct an audit of the grant expenditures. CBAG has selected the firm of Calderon, Jaham and Osborn (CJ&O) to conduct the requested audit because the firm has had previous experience in conducting audits for the City of San Diego and for the State of California. The HIDTA funds to be audited have been processed through the City of San Diego and the State; consequently the record and bookkeeping methods used by both the City of San Diego and the State are familiar to the firm of Calderon, Jaham and Osborn. The familiarity of the record and bookkeeping methods should expedite the auditing process and minimize costs. Staff recommends waiver of the selection process and that the contract be awarded to Calderon, Jaham and Osborn since they have previously participated in the competitive selection process with the City of Chula Vista and are currently under contract with the City for audit services. Staff feels that the performance of Calderon, Jaham and Osborn, while under contract, has been satisfactory. The City's current year contract totals $39,525. The City, acting as a fiscal agent for CBAG, may execute the attached contract to engage the previously selected firm for additional services as requested by CBAG. Although federal funds will be used to pay for the contract services, federal purchasing guidelines do not apply to this agreement. Staff recommends that the funds be accepted for the purpose of conducting an outside audit of the HIDTA grant expenditures. The total reimbursement to the City will include a processing fee payable to the City that will be calculated at 2% of the total funds passed through the City on behalf of CBAG. FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of staff's recommendation will result in a total appropriation of $24,965 which includes a single fixed fee amount of $20,475 for the audit and final report, a $4000 "not to exceed" travel reimbursement fee, and a 2% or $490 processing fee payable to the City entirely funded by Federal Grant monies. Attachment: 1. Contract g,c2 RESOLUTION RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROPRIATING UNANTICIPATED FEDERAL GRANT REVENUES IN THE AMOUNT OF $24,965 FOR THE PURPOSE OF PERFORMING A FINANCIAL AUDIT OF HIGH INTENSITY DRUG TRAFFICKING AREA GRANT EXPENDITURES, WAIVING THE CONSULTANT SELECTION PROCESS, AWARDING AN AUDIT SERVICES CONTRACT TO CALDERON, JAHAM & OSBORN, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE CONTRACT WHEREAS, on September 5, 1995, the City Council approved the City of Chula Vista Police Department to act as a "fiscal agent" for the California Border Alliance Group (CBAG) and act as a conduit to acquire related services and supplies; and WHEREAS, CBAG has selected the firm of Calderon, Jaham and Osborn to conduct the requested audit; and WHEREAS, the California Border Alliance Group has requested an outside audit of high intensity drug trafficking area grant funds; and, WHEREAS, $24,965 are appropriated for said purposes; and, WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista is currently under contract for auditing services which can be expanded to include the high intensity drug trafficking area grant expenditures; and, WHEREAS, the California Border Alliance Group will pay the City of Chula Vista a processing fee calculated at 2% of the total funds passed through the City to CBAG; and, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council accept unanticipated funds in the amount of $24,965 for the purpose of conducting an outside audit of the California Border Alliance Group "high intensity drug trafficking area" grant expenditures, waive the consultant selection process, award an audit services contract to Calderon, Jaham & Osborn and authorize the Mayor to execute the contract. ~-'3 Presented by: Richard P. Emerson Police Chief H\Shared\Attny\CBAGaudtdoc g--f- Approved as to form by: {JcAc~~~ JohJ;lM. Kaheny .. Cl,W Attorney v AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITYOF CHULA VISTA AND Calderon, Jaham & Osborn An Accountancy Corporation For Consulting Services Agreed Upon Procedures For IDDTA Grant Program This Agreement ("Agreement"), dated September 2, 1999 for the purposes of reference only, and effective as of the date last executed unless another date is otherwise specified in Exhibit A, Paragraph 1 is between the City-related entity as is indicated on Exhibit A, paragraph 2, as such ("City"), whose business form is set forth on Exhibit A, paragraph 3, and the entity indicated on the attached Exhibit A, paragraph 4, as Consultant, whose business form is set forth on Exhibit A, paragraph 5, and whose place of business and telephone numbers are set forth on Exhibit A, paragraph 6 ("Consultant"), and is made with reference to the following facts: Recitals Whereas, on September 5, 1995, the City Council approved the City of Chula Vista Police Department to act as a "fiscal agent" for the California Border Alliance Group (CBAG) and act as a conduit to acquire related services and supplies; and Whereas, CBAG has selected the firm of Calderon, Jaham and Osborn to conduct the requested audit; and Whereas, the California Border Alliance Group has requested an outside audit of high intensity drug trafficking area grant funds; and, Whereas, the City of Chula Vista is currently under contract for auditing services which can be expanded to include the high intensity drug trafficking area grant expenditures; and, Whereas, Consultant warrants and represents that they are experienced and staffed in a manner such that they are and can prepare and deliver the services required of Consultant to City within the time frames herein provided all in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City and Consultant do hereby mutually agree as follows: 1. Consultant's Duties --- </,... ? {)'v A. General Duties Consultant shall perform all of the services described on the attached Exhibit A, Paragraph 7, entitled "General Duties"; and, B. Scope of Work and Schedule In the process of performing and delivering said "General Duties", Consultant shall also perform all of the services described in Exhibit A, Paragraph 8, entitled" Scope of Work and Schedule", not inconsistent with the General Duties, according to, and within the time frames set forth in Exhibit A, Paragraph 8, and deliver to City such Deliverables as are identified in Exhibit A, Paragraph 8, within the time frames set forth therein, time being of the essence of this agreement. The General Duties and the work and deliverables required in the Scope of Work and Schedule shall be herein referred to as the "Defmed Services". Failure to complete the Defmed Services by the times indicated does not, except at the option of the City, operate to terminate this Agreement. C. Reductions in Scope of Work City may independently, or upon request from Consultant, from time to time reduce the Defmed Services to be performed by the Consultant under this Agreement. Upon doing so, City and Consultant agree to meet in good faith and confer for the purpose of negotiating a corresponding reduction in the compensation associated with said reduction. D. Additional Services In addition to performing the Defined Services herein set forth, City may require Consultant to perform additional consulting services related to the Defmed Services (" Additional Services"), and upon doing so in writing, if they are within the scope of services offered by Consultant, Consultant shall perform same on a time and materials basis at the rates set forth in the "Rate Schedule" in Exhibit A, Paragraph 11 (C) plus expenses not to exceed 15% of fees, unless a separate fixed fee is otherwise agreed upon. All compensation for Additional Services shall be paid monthly as billed. E. Standard of Care Consultant, in performing any Services under this agreement, whether Defined Services or Additional Services, shall perform in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions and in similar locations. 2 sYr-? F. Insurance Consultant represents that it and its agents, staff and sub-consultants employed by it in connection with the Services required to be rendered, are protected against the risk of loss by the following insurance coverage's, in the following categories, and to the limits specified, policies of which are issued by Insurance Companies that have a Best's Rating of "A, Class V" or better, or shall meet with the approval of the City: Statutory Worker's Compensation Insurance and Employer's Liability Insurance coverage in the amount set forth in the attached Exhibit A, Paragraph 9. Commercial General Liability Insurance including Business Automobile Insurance coverage in the amount set forth in Exhibit A, Paragraph 9, combined single limit applied separately to each project away from premises owned or rented by Consultant, which names City and Applicant as an Additional Insured, and which is primary to any policy which the City may otherwise carry ("Primary Coverage"), and which treats the employees of the City and Applicant in the same manner as members ofthe general public ("Cross-liability Coverage"). Errors and Omissions insurance, in the amount set forth in Exhibit A, Paragraph 9, unless Errors and Omissions coverage is included in the General Liability policy. G. Proof of Insurance Coverage. (1) Certificates of Insurance. Consultant shall demonstrate proof of coverage herein required, prior to the commencement of services required under this Agreement, by delivery of Certificates of Insurance demonstrating same, and further indicating that the policies may not be canceled without at least thirty (30) days written notice to the Additional Insured. (2) Policy Endorsements Required. In order to demonstrate the Additional Insured Coverage, Primary Coverage and Cross-liability Coverage required under Consultant's Commercial General Liability Insurance Policy, Consultant shall deliver a policy endorsement to the City demonstrating same, which shall be reviewed and approved by the Risk Manager. H. Security for Performance. (1) Performance Bond. In the event that Exhibit A, at Paragraph 19, indicates the need for Consultant to provide a Performance Bond (indicated by a check mark in the parenthetical space immediately 3 fj' ? preceding the subparagraph entitled "Performance Bond"), then Consultant shall provide to the City a performance bond by a surety and in a form and amount satisfactory to the Risk Manager or City Attorney which amount is indicated in the space adjacent to the term, "Performance Bond", in said Paragraph 19, Exhibit A. (2) Letter of Credit. In the event that Exhibit A, at Paragraph 19, indicates the need for Consultant to provide a Letter of Credit (indicated by a check mark in the parenthetical space immediately preceding the subparagraph entitled "Letter of Credit"), then Consultant shall provide to the City an irrevocable letter of credit callable by the City at their unfettered discretion by submitting to the bank a letter, signed by the City Manager, stating that the Consultant is in breach of the terms of this Agreement. The letter of credit shall be issued by a bank, and be in a form and amount satisfactory to the Risk Manager or City Attorney which amount is indicated in the space adjacent to the term, "Letter of Credit", in said Paragraph 19, Exhibit A. (3) Other Security In the event that Exhibit A, at Paragraph 19, indicates the need for Consultant to provide security other than a Performance Bond or a Letter of Credit (indicated by a check mark in the parenthetical space immediately preceding the subparagraph entitled "Other Security"), then Consultant shall provide to the City such other security therein listed in a form and amount satisfactory to the Risk Manager or City Attorney. I. Business License Consultant agrees to obtain a business license from the City and to otherwise comply with Title 5 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. 2. Duties of the City A. Consultation and Cooperation * City shall regularly consult the Consultant for the purpose of reviewing the progress of the Defined Services and Schedule therein contained, and to provide direction and guidance to achieve the objectives of this agreement. The City shall permit access to its office facilities, files and records by Consultant throughout the term of the agreement. In addition thereto, City agrees to provide the information, data, items and materials set forth on Exhibit A, Paragraph 10, and with the further understanding that delay in the provision of these materials beyond 30 days after authorization to proceed, shall constitute a basis for the justifiable delay in the Consultant's performance of this agreement. 4 ~-r B. Compensation Upon receipt of a properly prepared billing from Consultant submitted to the City periodically as indicated in Exhibit A, Paragraph 18, but in no event more frequently than monthly, on the day of the period indicated in Exhibit A, Paragraph 18, City shall compensate Consultant for all services rendered by Consultant according to the terms and conditions set forth in Exhibit A, Paragraph 11, adjacent to the governing compensation relationship indicated by a "checkmark" next to the appropriate arrangement, subject to the requirements for retention set forth in paragraph 19 of Exhibit A, and shall compensate Consultant for out of pocket expenses as provided in Exhibit A, Paragraph 12. All billings submitted by Consultant shall contain sufficient information as to the propriety of the billing to permit the City to evaluate that the amount due and payable thereunder is proper, and shall specifically contain the City's account number indicated on Exhibit A, Paragraph 18 (C) to be charged upon making such payment. 3. Administration of Contract Each party designates the individuals ("Contract Administrators") indicated on Exhibit A, Paragraph 13, as said party's contract administrator who is authorized by said party to represent them in the routine administration of this agreement. 4. Term. This Agreement shall terminate when the Parties have complied with all executory provisions hereof. 5. Liquidated Damages Not Applicable. 6. Financial Interests of Consultant A. Consultant is Designated as an FPPC Filer. If Consultant is designated on Exhibit A, Paragraph 15, as an "FPPC filer", Consultant is deemed to be a "Consultant" for the purposes of the Political Reform Act conflict of interest and disclosure provisions, and shall report economic interests to the City Clerk on the required Statement of Economic Interests in such reporting categories as are specified in Paragraph 15 of Exhibit A, or if none are specified, then as determined by the City Attorney. B. Decline to Participate. Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC Filer, Consultant shall not 5 ?~I make, or participate in making or in any way attempt to use Consultant's position to influence a governmental decision in which Consultant knows or has reason to know Consultant has a fmancial interest other than the compensation promised by this Agreement. C. Search to Determine Economic Interests. Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC Filer, Consultant warrants and represents that Consultant has diligently conducted a search and inventory of Consultant's economic interests, as the term is used in the regulations promulgated by the Fair Political Practices Commission, and has determined that Consultant does not, to the best of Consultant's knowledge, have an economic interest which would conflict with Consultant's duties under this agreement. D. Promise Not to Acquire Conflicting Interests. Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC Filer, Consultant further warrants and represents that Consultant will not acquire, obtain, or assume an economic interest during the term of this Agreement which would constitute a conflict of interest as prohibited by the Fair Political Practices Act. E. Duty to Advise of Conflicting Interests. Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC Filer, Consultant further warrants and represents that Consultant will immediately advise the City Attorney of City if Consultant learns of an economic interest of Consultant's which may result in a conflict of interest for the purpose of the Fair Political Practices Act, and regulations promulgated thereunder. F. Specific Warranties Against Economic Interests. Consultant warrants and represents that neither Consultant, nor Consultant's immediate family members, nor Consultant's employees or agents ("Consultant Associates") presently have any interest, directly or indirectly, whatsoever in any property which may be the subject matter of the Defmed Services, or in any property within 2 radial miles from the exterior boundaries of any property which may be the subject matter of the Defined Services, ("Prohibited Interest"), other than as listed in Exhibit A, Paragraph 15. Consultant further warrants and represents that no promise of future employment, remuneration, consideration, gratuity or other reward or gain has been made to Consultant or Consultant Associates in connection with Consultant's performance of this Agreement. Consultant promises to advise City of any such promise that may be made during the Term of this Agreement, or for 12 months thereafter. 6 ~//O Consultant agrees that Consultant Associates shall not acquire any such Prohibited Interest within the Term of this Agreement, or for 12 months after the expiration of this Agreement, except with the written permission of City . Consultant may not conduct or solicit any business for any party to this Agreement, or for any third party which may be in conflict with Consultant's responsibilities under this Agreement, except with the written permission of City . 7. Hold Harmless The Consultant agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City, its officers, employees and agents, from and against any and all claims, demands, liability, and for any costs or expenses, including reasonable attorney's fees incurred by the City whatsoever for injury to any person or property, including the Consultant, its officers, employees, or agents, the City, its officers, employees or agents, or other persons arising out of or resulting from the Consultant's performance under this Agreement, unless such injury is caused by the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City, its officers, employees or agents. 8. Termination of Agreement for Cause If, through any cause, Consultant shall fail to fulfill in a timely and proper manner Consultant's obligations under this Agreement, or if Consultant shall violate any of the covenants, agreements or stipulations of this Agreement, City shall have the right to terminate this Agreement by giving written notice to Consultant of such termination and specifying the effective date thereof at least five (5) days before the effective date of such termination. In that event, all finished or unfinished documents, data, studies, surveys, drawings, maps, reports and other materials prepared by Consultant shall, at the option of the City, become the property of the City, and Consultant shall be entitled to receive just and equitable compensation for any work satisfactorily completed on such documents and other materials up to the effective date of Notice of Termination, not to exceed the amounts payable hereunder and less any damages caused by Consultant's breach. 9. Errors and Omissions In the event that the City Administrator determines that the Consultant's negligence,errors, or omissions in the performance of work under this Agreement has resulted in expense to City greater than would have resulted if there were no such negligence, errors or omissions, Consultant shall reimburse City for any additional expenses incurred by the City. Nothing herein is intended to limit the City's rights under other provisions of this agreement. 10. Termination of Agreement for Convenience of City City may terminate this Agreement at any time and for any reason, by giving specific 7 ~r- /1 written notice to Consultant of such termination and specifying the effective date thereof, at least thirty (30) days before the effective date of such termination. In that event, all fInished and unfInished documents and other materials described hereinabove shall, at the option of the City, become City's sole and exclusive property. If the Agreement is terminated by City as provided in this paragraph, Consultant shall be entitled to receive just and equitable compensation for any satisfactory work completed on such documents and other materials to the effective date of such termination. Consultant hereby expressly waives any and all claims for damages or compensation arising under this Agreement except as set forth herein. 11. Assignability The services of Consultant are personal to the City, and Consultant shall not assign any interest in this Agreement, and shall not transfer any interest in the same (whether by assignment or novation), without prior written consent of City. City hereby consents to the assignment of the portions of the Defined Services identified in Exhibit A, Paragraph 17 to the subconsultants identified thereat as "Permitted Subconsultants" . 12. Ownership, Publication, Reproduction and Use of Material All reports, studies, information, data, statistics, forms, designs, plans, procedures, systems and any other materials or properties produced under this Agreement shall be the sole and exclusive property of City. No such materials or properties produced in whole or in part under this Agreement shall be subject to private use, copyrights or patent rights by Consultant in the United States or in any other country without the express written consent of City. City shall have unrestricted authority to publish, disclose (except as may be limited by the provisions of the Public Records Act), distribute, and otherwise use, copyright or patent, in whole or in part, any such re- ports, studies, data, statistics, forms or other materials or properties produced under this Agreement. 13. Independent Contractor City is interested only in the results obtained and Consultant shall perform as an independent contractor with sole control of the manner and means of performing the services required under this Agreement. City maintains the right only to reject or accept Consultant's work products. Consultant and any of the Consultant's agents, employees or representatives are, for all purposes under this Agreement, an independent contractor and shall not be deemed to be an employee of City, and none of them shall be entitled to any benefits to which City employees are entitled including but not limited to, overtime, retirement benefIts, worker's compensation benefits, injury leave or other leave benefits. Therefore, City will not withhold state or federal income tax, social security tax or any other payroll tax, and Consultant shall be solely responsible for the payment of same and shall hold the City harmless with regard thereto. 14. Administrative Claims Requirements and Procedures 8 :? ~/c2 No suit or arbitration shall be brought arising out of this agreement, against the City unless a claim has fIrst been presented in writing and filed with the City and acted upon by the City in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 1.34 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, as same may from time to time be amended, the provisions of which are incorporated by this reference as if fully set forth herein, and such policies and procedures used by the City in the implementation of same. Upon request by City, Consultant shall meet and confer in good faith with City for the purpose of resolving any dispute over the terms of this Agreement. 15. Attorney's Fees Should a dispute arising out of this Agreement result in litigation, it is agreed that the prevailing party shall be entitled to a judgment against the other for an amount equal to reasonable attorney's fees and court costs incurred. The "prevailing party" shall be deemed to be the party who is awarded substantially the relief sought. 16. Statement of Costs - Not applicable 17. Miscellaneous A. Consultant not authorized to Represent City Unless specifically authorized in writing by City, Consultant shall have no authority to act as City's agent to bind City to any contractual agreements whatsoever. B. Consultant is Real Estate Broker and/or Salesman If the box on Exhibit A, Paragraph 16 is marked, the Consultant and/or their principals is/are licensed with the State of California or some other state as a licensed real estate broker or salesperson. Otherwise, Consultant represents that -neither Consultant, nor their principals are licensed real estate brokers or salespersons. C. Notices All notices, demands or requests provided for or permitted to be given pursuant to this Agreement must be in writing to the Contract Administrator. All notices, demands and requests to be sent to any party shall be deemed to have been properly given or served if personally served or deposited in the United States mail, addressed to such party, postage prepaid, registered or certified, with return receipt requested, at the addresses identified herein as the places of business for each of the designated parties. 9 fiY rj J D. Entire Agreement This Agreement, together with any other written document referred to or contemplated herein, embody the entire Agreement and understanding between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof. Neither this Agreement nor any provision hereof may be amended, modified, waived or discharged except by an instrument in writing executed by the party against which enforcement of such amendment, waiver or discharge is sought. E. Capacity of Parties Each signatory and party hereto hereby warrants and represents to the other party that it has legal authority and capacity and direction from its principals to enter into this Agreement, and that all resolutions or other actions have been taken so as to enable it to enter into this Agreement. F. Governing Law IV enue This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Any action arising under or relating to this Agreement shall be brought only in the federal or state courts located in San Diego County, State of California, and if applicable, the City of Chula Vista, or as close thereto as possible. Venue for this Agreement, and performance hereunder, shall be the City of Chula Vista. G. Year 2000 Compliance Nothing in this contract/agreement represents or guarantees in any manner that City is, or will be, protected against issues arising from Year 2000 compliance, or lack of, attributed to computer systems, hardware, software, documentation, or processes. End of page. Next page is Signature Page. 10 2{~/1- SIGNATURE PAGE TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND Calderon, Jaham & Osborn, An Accountancy Corporation for Consulting Services IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City and Consultant have executed this Agreement thereby indicating that they have read and understood same, and indicate their full and complete consent to its terms: ,19_ City of Chula Vista Dated: by: Shirley Horton, Mayor Attest: Susan Bigelow, City Clerk Approved as to form: ~q~CY~ [Name of Consultant] By: 1'\ Dated:~b; Iq q By: [name of person, title] By: [name of person, title] Exhibit List to Agreement (X) Exhibit A. 11 C-;:V ,--- () -- J"/ EXHIBIT A TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND Calderon, Jaham & Osborn, An Accountancy Corporation 1. Effective Date of Agreement: September 21, 1999 2. City-Related Entity: (X) City of Chula Vista, a municipal chartered corporation of the State of California 3. Place of Business for City: City of Chula Vista, 276 Fourth A venue, Chula Vista, CA 91910 4. Consultant Calderon, Jaham & Osborn, An Accountancy Corporation 5. Business Form of Consultant: ( ) Sole Proprietorship ( ) Partnership (X) Corporation 6. Place of Business, Telephone and Fax Number of Consultant: Calderon, Jaham & Osborn 600 "B", Suite 1400 San Diego, California 92101 Voice Phone 234-5137 Fax Phone 234-5162 7 . General Duties: Assist City of Chula Vista Police Department, as a fiscal agent for CBAG, in its efforts to provide accountability within the HIDT A Grant program. 8. Scope of Work and Schedule: A. Detailed Scope of Work: Required assistance will include: 12 g-//t Consultant shall perform agreed upon procedures of the described activities in accordance with standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants for the HIDTA Grant for which the original grant periods were Jan. 1, 1996 through Dec. 31, 1996; Jan. 1, 1997 through Dec. 31, 1997 and Jan. 1, 1998 through Dec. 31, 1998. The procedures will not include a detailed audit of all of the transactions recorded in the accounts of the participating agency, unless otherwise herein specified, but will be based upon tests of accounting records and other supporting evidence for selected periods during the grant periods under review sufficient to enable the contracting independent consultant to express an informed written report on: 1. The propriety of accounting principles followed. 2. Compliance with applicable laws & ONDCP Guidance. 3. The [mancial accountability of officers and employees. Reports to be Issued Following the completion of the agreed upon procedures engagement, the consultant shall issue a report which will include: A. Executive Summary B. Background C. Scope & Methodology D. Findings E. Recommendations Consultant is required to make an immediate written report of all irregularities and illegal acts or indications of illegal acts of which they become aware to the City's contract administrator. Detailed Scope of Work Phase I 1. Determine criteria and document understanding. a. Obtain an understanding of the service level agreements for 1996, 1997 and 1998. b. Review HIDTA grant agreements for 1996, 1997 and 1998. c. Review Memorandum of Understanding between CBAG and California Department of Justice ("CDOJ") d. Review other funding sources. 2. Provide a written request of information needed from CDOJ prior to beginning of the audit. 3. Document auditor's understanding of the pooled cost methodology. a. Interview SINS project director at CDOJ and document understanding of the service level agreement cost process in a narrative and flow 13 f{~ /? chart. b. Perform sufficient test work to verify step 3a. 1. Trace to source documents on a sample basis. 2. Recalculate a sample representative of the population. 4. Select a representative sample of invoices from 1996, 1997 and 1998 billed to CBAG for reimbursement from HIDTA funds by CDOJ. a. Obtain documentation to support amounts billed. b. Trace to source documents (Le. payroll records, invoices, etc.) c. Verify that costs are allowable HIDT A expenses and are included in the approved budgets. d. Verify that expenses invoiced/budgeted in HIDTA funds were not also invoiced/budgeted in another funding source. 5. Provide CBAG a written summary of issues and solutions to include in agenda for step 6. 6. Hold progress/planning meeting with CBAG representatives as deemed appropriate. 7. Obtain a written representation letter from CDOJ officials. Phase II 1. Prepare a draft report. a. Executive summary. b. Background. c. Scope and methodology. d. Findings. e. Recommendations. 2. Meet with CBAG and CDOJ representatives as deemed appropriate to discuss findings/recommendations. 3. Include CDOJ responses to any fmdings/recommendations and issue final draft. 4. Issue final report. B. Date for Commencement of Consultant Services: (X) Same as Effective Date of Agreement C. Dates or Time Limits for Delivery of Deliverables: Deliverable No.1: Draft Report and Presentation by December 1, 1999 D. Date for completion of all Consultant services: 14 ?r/~ December 1999 9. Insurance Requirements: (X) Statutory Worker's Compensation Insurance (X) Employer's Liability Insurance coverage: $1,000,000. (X) Commercial General Liability Insurance: $1,000,000. () Errors and Omissions insurance: None Required (included in Commercial General Liability coverage). (X) Errors and Omissions Insurance: $250,000 (not included in Commercial General Liability coverage). 10. Materials Required to be Supplied by City to Consultant: Not applicable. 11. Compensation: A. (X) Single Fixed Fee Arrangement. B. Phased Fixed Fee Arrangement. Not Applicable. C. Hourly Rate Arrangement. Not Applicable For performance of the Defined Services by Consultant as herein required, City shall pay A single fixed fee in the amounts and at the times or milestones or for the Deliverables set forth below: Single Fixed Fee Amount: $20.475 payable upon completion of final report. This estimate is based on anticipated cooperation from HIDT A personnel and the assumption that unexpected circumstances will not be encountered during the engagement. If significant additional time is necessary, consultant will discuss with the City and arrive at a new fee estimate before consultant incurs any additional costs. Rate Schedule Category of Employee of Consultant Hours Hourly Rate Fees Name Partner Thomas J. Saiz 20 $175 $3,500 15 ?r/f Manager Amy Runge 60 $120 $7 .200 Senior 80 $ 65 $5 .200 Staff 80 $ 55 $4 .400 Clerical 5 $ 35 $ 175 Total estimated fees $20,475 12. Materials Reimbursement Arrangement For the cost of out of pocket expenses incurred by Consultant in the performance of services herein required, City shall pay Consultant at the rates or amounts set forth below: () None, the compensation includes all costs. Cost or Rate ( ) Reports, not to exceed $_NA_: see note ( ) Copies, not to exceed $_NA_: see note (X) Travel, not to exceed $4.000_: see note ( ) Printing, not to exceed $ NA: see note ( ) Postage, not to exceed $_NA_: see note ( ) Delivery, not to exceed $_NA_: see note ( ) Long Distance Telephone Charges, see note not to exceed $_NA_. () Other Actual Identifiable Direct Costs: , not to exceed $ , not to exceed $ Travel reimbursement will be in accordance with Federal Government Travel Regulation, not to exceed $3,600 as noted above. 13. Contract Administrators: City: Leonard Miranda, Captain Special Operations, 276 4th Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910, (916) 691-5230 Consultant: Thomas J. Saiz, Partner, 600 "B" Street, Suite 1400, San Diego, CA 92101, 234-5137 16 ? -:>;( Cl 14. Liquidated Damages Rate: Not Applicable 15. Statement of Economic Interests, Consultant Reporting Categories, per Conflict of Interest Code: (X) Not Applicable. Not an FPPC Filer. ( ) FPPC Filer () Category No.1. Investments and sources of income. () Category No.2. Interests in real property. () Category No.3. Investments, interest in real property and sources of income subject to the regulatory, permit or licensing authority of the department. () Category No.4. Investments in business entities and sources of income which engage in land development, construction or the acquisition or sale of real property. () Category No.5. Investments in business entities and sources of income of the type which, within the past two years, have contracted with the City of Chula Vista (Redevelopment Agency) to provide services, supplies, materials, machinery or equipment. () Category No.6. Investments in business entities and sources of income of the type which, within the past two years, have contracted with the designated employee's department to provide services, supplies, materials, machinery or equipment. ( ) Category No.7. Business positions. ( ) List "Consultant Associates" interests in real property within 2 radial miles of Project Property, if any: N/A 16. ( ) Consultant is Real Estate Broker and/or Salesman N/A 17. Permitted Subconsultants: N/A 17 g~ 02/ 18. Bill Processing: A. Consultant's Billing to be submitted for the following period of time: ( ) Monthly ( ) Quarterly ( X) Other: upon completion B. Day of the Period for submission of Consultant's Billing: ( ) First of the Month ( ) 15th Day of each Month (X) End of the Month ( ) Other: C. City's Account Number: 19. Security for Performance (N/A) ( ) Performance Bond, $ ( ) Letter of Credit, $ ( ) Other Security: Type: Amount: $ () Retention. If this space is checked, then notwithstanding other provisions to the contrary requiring the payment of compensation to the Consultant sooner, the City shall be entitled to retain, at their option, either the following "Retention Percentage" or "Retention Amount" until the City determines that the Retention Release Event, listed below, has occurred: ( ) Retention Percentage: ( ) Retention Amount: $ Retention Release Event: ( ) Completion of All Consultant Services ( ) Other: J\User\Al13\CBAGCONT .doc5 18 g r- cl:2 COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item 9 Meeting Date 9/21/99 ITEM TITLE: Resolution Approving Purchase of 10 Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) Buses in Conjunction with the Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB) SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works REVIEWED BY: City Manag~ ~ (4/5ths Vote: Yes_ No ----X-J On January 12, 1999, Council approved an agreement between the City of Chula Vista and the MTDB to purchase 15 CNG buses for the CVT fleet. These buses are part of a regional bus purchase for various transit operators included in a Joint Bus Procurement Contract between MTDB and New Flyer of America. The contract contains an option to purchase up to 10 additional CNG buses for CVT at the same cost as the 15 buses, ifthe option is exercised by October 23, 1999. In the attached letter (Attachment 1) from MTDB General Manager Thomas Larwin to Transit Coordinator Bill Gustafson, MTDB proposes to exercise this option for 10 additional CNG buses, and also to share 50 percent of the cost of these buses. The total estimated cost ofthe 10 buses is $3.4 million, with the City's share estimated at $1.7 million. Mr. Larwin has requested Council approval of this proposed option to purchase the 10 buses. RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt resolution approving purchase ofl 0 CNG buses with the MTDB on a cost share basis of 50 percent City of Chula Vista Transportation Development Act (TDA) funds and 50 percent Federal funds contributed by MTDB. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable DISCUSSION: The option to purchase 10 additional CNG buses for the CVT fleet under the New Flyer contract coincides with City Transit staffs planned phased replacement of the fleet's diesel buses with new CNG buses as approved by Council in January 1999. The delivery of the initial 15 buses on order currently is scheduled for July 2000; delivery of the 10 additional buses is anticipated in late 2001 or early 2002. The MTDB staff plans to request approval from the MTDB Board at its meeting on September 23, 1999 to exercise the option with New Flyer to purchase additional buses for CVT and other operators. MTDB and City Transit staffs will finalize the exact cost and funding details ofthe option procurement by December 1999, and an agreement will be brought back to Council for approval at that time. 9~/ Page 2, Item Meeting Date 9/21/99 FISCAL IMPACT: The total estimated cost of the 10 CNG buses for the CVT fleet is $3.4 million. The City's 50 percent share is $1.7 million; the funding source is City of Chula Vista TDA Article 4.0 funds. The expenditure of $1.7 million for this bus procurement in FY 1999-00 would result in an estimated balance of$1.6 million in the City's TDA account. Attachment: Letter from Thomas Larwin to Bill Gustafson dated 9/3/99 File: DS 028 H:\HOME\ENGINEER\AGENDA \1 OBUS.WMG 9-~ RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING PURCHASE OF 10 COMPRESSED NATURAL GAS (CNG) BUSES IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE METROPOLITAN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT BOARD (MTDB) WHEREAS, on January 12, 1999, Council approved an agreement between the City of Chula vista and the MTDB to purchase 15 CNG buses for the CVT fleet which buses are part of a regional bus purchase for various transit operators included in a Joint Bus Procurement Contract between MTDB and New Flyer of America; and WHEREAS, the contract contains an option to purchase up to 10 additional CNG buses for CVT at the same cost as the 15 buses, if the option is exercised by October 23, 1999; and WHEREAS, MTDB proposes to exercise this option for 10 additional CNG buses, and also to share 50 percent of the cost of these buses; and WHEREAS, the total estimated cost of the 10 buses is $3.4 million, with the City's share estimated at $1.7 million and MTDB has requested Council approval of this proposed option to purchase the 10 buses. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Chula vista does hereby approve purchase of 10 Compressed Natural Gas Buses in conjunction with the Metropolitan Transit Development Board on a cost share basis of 50 percent city of Chula vista Transportation Development Act (TDA) funds and 50 percent Federal funds contributed by MTDB. Presented by Approved as to form by John P. Lippitt, Director of Public Works C )<_/,,-/.J? ~ JohpM. Kaheny, City torney ;,/ H:\home\attorney\reso\10buses.cng 9~3 MTDB EXEC OFFICE ID:619-234-3172 SEP 03'99 15:40 NO.016 P.02 ~..i~~"~':;~:~"~\I:':\::\Y~~\.~ ~'.: ~ :;.'.. ~.~('~~11/" >\.:, ':~ ~.( i' . ..:'.,~.l';,) ': ~\; ":";," ,:;'", :'"\:.::,, ,,4 ':. /"" 1\11'1.' I'): j,'"" ':' ";'..; r" 'II,!:: "'i:" Iii Lid' (,', 11,'I'ii 1 )')\t "1<1: \, :1.\, 1/ ': II ;;11" I I .,,~~,;, ", '''I' ,':.i;~~ ':~:":~'":!" ~I: i "":~'fl"v: ~.>~ '" ,\, '''~:.~~~.~~... '~\'~rJ,~~ " '1.1' ,:L1>:.\O ',; , ':1"" . ':'.";\;';;?;~ffjj~ff.lit!!E!f'I, . .. \ li/.I " / '. . i?',l~\ /rill 'PI j"I/Wt '1'11('. ~';lIil(: ';(IOU ~';<:rII.lir,HC', (;/\ n:'jOI /I:~}U (C'j!:) ?:~i,'II:(>(; I AX (GiH) ~':'IIl<~.':O"t ,..I..."..."..."..................."....~......~...~a~IjilJ~~""'*.il.\f1IlI~loiI-41~.,""'r.'" r..'f"'o.'II.,l......;.....r September 3, 1999 OPS 920.4 (PC 10448) Mr. Bill Gustafson Transit Coordinator Chula Vista Transit 707 F Street ChuJa Vista, CA 91910 Dear Bill: Subject: NEW BUS PURCHASE, MTD BOARD OF DIRECTORS ITEM ON SEPTEMBER 23, 1999 We will be taking an agenda item to the MTD Board of Directors on September 23, 1999, that will authorize the General Manager to exercise options for the purchase of 10 now CNG low"floor buses for Chula Vista Transit (CVT). These options have been included in the .Joint Bus Procurement Contract (MTDB Doc No. 60096.0-95) with New Flyer of America that was executed on October 23, 1998. As wo have discussed, with the availability of federal funding, a maximum of 50 percent local share will be required from CVT or about $1.7 million in local money. This will result in substantial operating cost savings. We are expecting CVT to provide $1.7 million in Transportation Development Act ITDA) funds from its bus capital reserve or un allocated TDA for fiscal year 2000. Please notify me in writing, by September 22, 1999, regarding your decision related to this MTD Board item. Following action by our Board of Directors, MTOB would prepare a draft amendment to our existing Memorandum of Understanding (MOUI for your review and comment. A gonl would then be to completo all work on the amended MOU by approximately Novembor 15, 1999, with final approval tentatively scheduled for the MTD Board of Directors meeting on December 9. 1999. Sincerely, ~~=:==._~.,.... ~~~ Thomas F. Larwill Goneral Manager DGunn L-GUST AFSONBUSES.JCODLI cc: Elliot Hurwitz. MTDB rvklldll'f /',I,II.:I,(:lt"!: (, Hy of ~ ,:lllJli' V J~ :~i I Cil~' ~If .( ~w IIf li:rli I, ( :;i v j I! [ I (:j :j; I; I. ( ;il I' ( 'I I.! II H ~l Ii ~t I ~(:jJ( :11, (:lIy r d I : I Mr~!;; I, (: iIi' fll I (~rlll.111 / ; I f1vI'. Cit~1 (11 hi ,'II itlll; II r;II' I (:il\1 ell,. I . ,( .-[, I 1'" r 1 ('IIV ld .,t',lill:l; (.(t['jl!V III ~,'illl r I,(:!'IC" :;1;1":: ,.j L;;:II(jfld;, ~, . J (\-\,1.\..1) II ,1(.11 .It:tll! 1,".ldl~\P.\lliJlIll '!li:II:.!I.J II~VI~!lIlllli('111 HfliJllllr., {.(I/lrdilliqr'i (d :ilf'.M("'ltl'r1Iil'"r1"lr'III"j[ "'\1"11>" '" IJ'J ["-'..1.1'1' "I ^ . . <. .". I " . , . . .. I."'.' 'I I ,. I I H. 'I' ~ i';^ll.ol I , ',1 11111111.;1, ~Il iU11 ,'IIII!'IlL\II~'I:(IIII(!I,dllrll~':ll....~I,I'~;H\I)ir'r~(11';:rl~,ltl.:':llflpr:;I;"lrl )[;'.I:.;q:')h:~\(I'IIPjh"I' hl( 'JllIllnl':""',J"""",,, /1"" . I....' ,", J' ~'.' ".j .' '.. '.... ~ .'.. '1'.' ". /(JlI~, .....tl~ 11 .i\I\'.'r;~' .11111J1l;I,,1 ,,,, "('11'('/1."1"/'1'/;;/11111'" ", 1("0/"',II,"II..d,;,,',. ".'11' .~:t(l.(:()MM("'1 ('.. "1.',11(",/ :'/i'/, "'ilt.'i"."(i"'11l1ll1l1a""''':''''''9._ y COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item / tJ Meeting Date 9/21/99 ITEM TITLE: SUBMITTED BY: Resolution Approving the submittal to CalTrans of eight (8) applications for the Federal Fiscal Year (FY) 2001/02 Hazard Elimination Safety (HES) Program Director of Public W ork~ I City Manage~ '1JVtJt!\ (4/5ths Vote: Yes_NoX) REVIEWED BY: The Federal Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 created the Hazard Elimination Safety (HES) Program by combining several existing safety programs. The HES Program provides funds for safety improvements on all public roads and highways, except the interstate system. These funds serve to eliminate or reduce the number and severity of traffic accidents at hazardous public roads and highway locations, sections, and elements. CalTrans regulations require that official applications be submitted in order for projects to be considered for funding. In order for the application to be official, Council must approve a resolution authorizing submittal of the Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2001/02 HES program. Projects are chosen and then approved for funding after the applications have been evaluated by CalTrans. RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve a resolution approving the submittal to CalTrans of eight (8) applications for the Federal Fiscal Year 2001/02 Hazard Elimination Safety (HES) Program. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable. DISCUSSION: For projects to be eligible for HES Funding, a specific safety problem must be identified for correction and the project must correct or substantially improve the condition. In addition, the completed local Federal assistance project must provide for, or consider, the upgrading of related safety features to the appropriate standards. The local safety project financed with HES Funds may be located on any road functionally classified as a "local road or rural minor collector" or higher. Projects eligible for HES funding are prioritized under two categories. The first category is for those projects qualifying based on calculated Safety Index. This is calculated by using accidents directly related to the correction proposed by the project or using all accidents at the location and applying a "Reduction Factor". Projects are then prioritized statewide by descending safety indexes. The second category is for those projects qualifying based on Work Type priority. Work type is used to fund projects with safety needs that cannot be quantified by Safety Index due to the lack of sufficient accident data. Safety Index projects receive approximately 25 percent of available HES Funds, whereas Work Type priorities receive approximately 75 percent. /Cr / Page 2, Item_ Meeting Date 9/21/99 The following are descriptions of work type priority project applications that we propose to submit to CalTrans for the Hazard Elimination Safety Program for FFY 2001102 funding (The Federal Fiscal Year starts on October 1 and ends on September 30): 1) Traffic Signal Installation at Hilltop Drive and Oxford Street - Installation of a fully actuated 8-phase traffic signal system. This intersection ranks #4 on the City Traffic Signal Priority List. 2) Traffic Signal Installation at Eastlake Parkway and Clubhouse Drive - Installation of a fully actuated 8-phase traffic signal system. This intersection ranks #5 on the City Traffic Signal Priority List. 3) Traffic Signal Installation at East "J" Street and Paseo del Rey - Installation of a fully actuated 8-phase traffic signal system. This intersection ranks #6 on the City Traffic Signal Priority List. 4) Traffic Sign Replacement - Replacement of existing school zone engineer-grade yellow sheeting signs with the new high-visibility fluorescent green school signs. This project will replace, add and/or install the new school signs and Tel-Spar perforated, square tubing, break-away posts at approximately 50 school corridors. 5) 8-inch Red Traffic Signal Indication Upgrade at Various Location - This project will includes the replacement of existing 8-inch red indications with the newer 12-inch Light Emitting Diode (LED) Red indications at 21 locations. Current signal standards require 12- inch indications to enhance the visibility of the traffic signal phasing to the motorist. 6) Traffic Signal Upgrade - Modification of existing traffic signal to a fully actuated 8-phase traffic signal system. This project will also include the installation of the Emergency Vehicl e Pre-Emption (EVPE) System, protective/permissive left turns and other hardware required. The existing signalized intersections to be modified are as follows: a. Allen School Lane and Otay Lakes Road b. Broadway and "D" Street c. Fifth Avenue and "L" Street d. Moss Street and Third Avenue 7) Internally Illuminated Street Name Sign (lISNS ) Installation - Replace existing traffic signal mounted reflective street name signs with internally illuminated street name signs at 51 intersections throughout the City. These existing signs have lost their reflectivity and the visibility factor has been diminished. This project will include all hardware required for retrofitting various signalized intersections. / V .-c:2 Page 3, Item_ Meeting Date 9/21/99 8) Street Light Installation - Installation of additional street lighting on Palomar Street between Third Avenue and Broadway. This project will add twelve (12) new 250-watt High Pressure Sodium Vapor (HPSV) street lights to improve the existing lighting conditions at night. The projects are listed in priority order in the following table: Project Construction Engineering & Total Administration 1. Traffic Signal Installation at Hilltop $157,000 $40,000 $197,000 Drive and Oxford Street 2. Traffic Signal Installation at Eastlake $133,000 $33,000 $166,000 Parkway and Clubhouse Drive 3. Traffic Signal Installation at East "J" $163,000 $33,000 $196,000 Street and Paseo del Rey 4. Traffic Sign Replacement $106,000 $19,000 $125,000 5. 8-inch Red Traffic Signal Indication $70,000 $10,000 $80,000 Upgrade at Various Location 6. Traffic Signal Upgrade at Four (4) $310,000 $90,000 $400,000 Locations 7. Internally Illuminated Street $435,000 $65,000 $500,000 Name Sign Installation 8. Street Light Installation $116,000 $34,000 $150,000 TOTAL $1,490,000 $324,000 $1,814,000 Project costs include preliminary engineering, construction engineering, and construction. Very minor right of way and environmental costs may also be eligible for HES Funding. The approved projects need not wait until FFY 2001/02 for funding. Funds can be authorized for the Preliminary Engineering (PE) Phase before that time. Funding authorization for the Construction Phase of these proj ects before FFY 2001102 is contingent upon the availability of funds. All projects must have all preliminary design activities completed and the contract awarded before September 30 of the year programmed. / t5J .:] Page 4, Item_ Meeting Date 9/21/99 The local agency's share should be identified in the application. State funding of the local share is subject to inclusion of the project on the State HES Program list. Conversely, State programmed cooperative projects cannot use local RES Funds unless the local share is identified in the 10 cal RES Program. Federal funds are considered" allocated" to each project phase when the Office of Local Programs (OLP) Area Engineer at CalTrans authorizes the work through the Federal Highway Administration (FRW A) delegated authorization process. These funds are reserved for the project, but the local agency will not be reimbursed for any phase until after the contract is awarded. The project reimbursement ratio is determined at the time of the "Authorization to Proceed" regardless of the Federal funds shown on the HES project list. The standard reimbursement ratio is 90 percent. However, the following types of work are 100 percent Federally funded: ~ Traffic control signalization ~ Traffic lights ~ Impact attenuators ~ Pavement markings ~ Traffic signs ~ Guardrails ~ Concrete barrier end treatments ~ Breakaway utility poles ~ Priority control systems for emergency vehicles at signalized intersections A copy of the application package is located in the City Clerk's Office for Council's review. FISCAL IMPACT: Potential total revenue to the City of $1 ,814,000. The actual amount is dependent upon which of the projects is approved for funding by CalTrans and the amount that they approve. It is proposed that matching funds come from the Traffic Signal Fund. Ifthe City's matching requirement is 10% and all projects are approved, the estimated City share would be $181,400. This resolution approves the submittal of the applications, and does not formally approve the implementation of the projects. These projects will be submitted for approval in the FY 2000-01 CIP. File No.: 0740-75-KY026 H:\HOME\ENGINEER\ADVPLAN\99A-HES I.RDJ /6J "7 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE SUBMITTAL TO CALTRANS OF EIGHT (8) APPLICATIONS FOR THE FEDERAL FISCAL YEAR (FY) 2001/02 HAZARD ELIMINATION SAFETY (HES) PROGRAM WHEREAS, the Federal Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 created the Hazard Elimination Safety (HES) Program by combining several existing safety programs; and WHEREAS, the HES Program improvements on all public roads interstate system; and provides funds and highways, for safety except the WHEREAS, these funds serve to eliminate or reduce the number and severity of traffic accidents at hazardous public roads and highway locations, sections, and elements; and WHEREAS, Caltrans regulations require that official applications be submitted in order for projects to be considered for funding; and WHEREAS, in order for the applications to be official, council must approve a resolution authorizing submittal of the Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2001/02 HES Program; and WHEREAS, projects are chosen and then approved for funding after the applications have been evaluated by Caltrans. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Chula vista does hereby approve the submittal to CalTrans of eight (8) applications for the Federal Fiscal Year (FY) 2001/02 Hazard Elimination Safety (HES) Program. Presented by Approved as to form by John P. Lippitt, Director of Public Works rney Joh / v' H,\home\attorney\reso\hesapp.8 Jv.~S COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item / c:2.. Meeting Date 9/21/99 ITEM TITLE: Resolution Approving an Agreement between the City of Chula Vista and the Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB) for Continuation of the Chula Vista Billboard Reserve Fund and Expenditure of Revenue within the Fund. SUBMITTED BY: City Managk 4/5 Vote: Yes_ No-X In 1984, the City of Chula Vista agreed to allow Gannett Outdoor Company and Metromedia, Inc. to install two outdoor billboards in the San Diego Arizona & Eastern Railway (SDA&E) right-of-way along Interstate 5 between liE" and IIH" Streets. SDA&E is owned by the Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB). It was agreed that these signs would remain in place for 15 years (through 1999). At the same time, a billboard reserve fund was created by MTDB, funded by the billboard companies, for the exclusive use of the City of Chula Vista. In 1990, a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) was issued to Patrick Media Group. In exchange for removing 5 signs from within the City boundaries and agreeing to contribute to the billboard reserve fund, the company was allowed to relocate one sign to the SDA&E right-of-way for a period of 10 years. Eller Media and Outdoor Systems, the current co-owners of the three signs, have requested an extension, as allowed in the 1984 settlement, which would allow the three signs to remain in place through 2015. While a CUP can be issued administratively, city staff will make the processing of that permit contingent upon: (1) the Council's and MTDB's approval of the attached agreement between the City and MTDB and, (2) upon approval of a lease agreement between the billboard companies and MTDB. In exchange, additional signs will be removed from one of the City's redevelopment project areas, and the payments into the billboard reserve fund will be increased substantially. RECOMMENDATION: That the Chula Vista City Council approve the resolution approving an Agreement between the City of Chula Vista and the Metropolitan Transit Development Board for Continuation of the Chula Vista Billboard Reserve Fund and Expenditure of Revenue within the Fund. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: None /.:2-/ page 2, Item No. Meeting Date: 9/21/99 DISCUSSION: Background In March of 1984 (Resolution #11506), the City of Chula Vista agreed to allow Gannet Outdoor Co. and Metromedia, Inc. to place two double-facing, illuminated billboards in the SDA&E right-of-way along Interstate 5. This was done as part of a litigation settlement between MTDB, which owns SDA&E, and the two billboard companies. The agreement called for the two billboards to remain in place for 1 5 years. The agreement also stated that at the end of the 1 5 years the billboard owners might request an extension from the City and from MTDB. At the same time, MTDB developed a billboard reserve which is funded by the billboard owners ($4,1 OO/billboard/year) and from which the City of Chula Vista may draw funds for purposes which have a clear nexus to mass transit. These uses include, but are not limited to: landscaping the areas along the right-of-way, graffiti and litter removal in these same areas, pedestrian improvements along the trolley line within city limits, etc. In 1989, the City utilized $10,518 from the billboard reserve to buyout a sign adjacent to (but not within) the trolley right-of-way at "E" street and Interstate 5. The action qualified for these funds because it enhanced the appearance of the right-of- way. In 1990, the City issued a 10-year CUP (PCC-91-13) to Patrick Media Group for the installation of a sign along the freeway which was within the trolley right-of-way, and which is equivalent to the two signs which were installed in 1985 (i.e. double-facing and illuminated). In exchange, Patrick Media Group removed 5 billboards from the City's downtown area and increased the deposit into the dedicated fund by an additional $4,100 per year. Current Conditions The ownership of all three billboards has changed since they were first installed. One of the billboards in question is now wholly owned by Eller Media. The second and third billboard are co-owned by Eller Media and by Outdoor Systems. The City Council voted in April of 1997 and again in January of 1998 to commit/request $54,000 from the billboard reserve to be used as part of a Federal grant match to begin to install landscaping along the trolley line within city limits. An additional, $25,000 from the billboard reserve fund will be used to maintain the landscaping during its first year. This project has been moving forward and Phase I is expected to be completed by the end of this calendar year. The City Council/Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency voted on August 31, 1999 to: (1) commit $70,000 of the existing billboard reserve to assist in funding a pedestrian and vehicle access from the Palomar Street Trolley Station and the San Diego County / -2 ;- oZ. page 3, Item No,_ Meeting Date: 9/21/99 Family Resource Center and, (2) to commit $65,000 of future billboard reserve funds for this same project. This latter amount is pledged to repay a loan from the General Fund within one year. The current billboard reserve is $163,366. After subtracting $79,000 for landscape materials and maintenance, and $70,000 for the access project, the billboard reserve will be reduced to $14,366. Under the terms of the existing agreement, an additional $4,099.99 will be placed into the reserve by the end of the calendar year -- bringing the reserve balance to $18, 465.99. Should the Council choose not to extend the life of the billboards beyond 12/31/99, there will be insufficient funds in the billboard reserve to repay the $65,000 loan from the General Fund. Requested Citv Council Action As stated earlier, the existing billboards are now in shared ownership between Eller Media and Outdoor Systems. The firms have approached the City and MTDB with a request to extend their agreement with these two agencies through 2015. In exchange, Eller Media has agreed to remove all 4 of its billboards from the City's Redevelopment Project Area along Main Street. The two firms will increase their contributions to the billboard fund to $25,000 per sign per year ($75,000). Representatives from MTDB have indicated that they are agreeable to having the three signs remain. FISCAL IMPACT: The City will benefit from the approval of this agreement (and subsequent issuance of a CUP) by $75,000/year for 15 years; a total of $1.125 million. The growth in revenue represents an increase of 509% from the current revenue stream provided by the three billboards. Another benefit, though one not easily assigned a dollar value, will be the removal of 4 billboards in one of the City's Redevelopment Project Areas. These billboards are frequent targets of graffiti and add to the visual blight of the area. Attachments: . Agreement between the City of Chula Vista and the MTDB . Resolution # 11 506 Approving Erection of 2 billboards for 1 5 years (111 /84) . Minutes from the City Council Meetings of 1/10/84, 2/14/84 & 3/20/84 . Agenda Statement from City Council Meeting of 1/10/84 . Conditional Use Permit PCC-91-13 (12/18/90) . Resolution #15554 Waiving Fees for Conditional Use Permit PCC-91-13 (3/20/90) . Agenda Statement from City Council Meeting of 4/15/97 . Agenda Statement from City Council Meeting of 1/10/98 C:\... \agenda statements\billboard3.doc Jc2,3 RESOLUTION NO. 18286 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA RECERTIFYING THE FINAL SECOND-TIER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FEIR 95-01) AND ADDENDUM FOR THE OT A Y RANCH SECTION PLANNING AREA (SPA) ONE PLAN AND APPROVING AND IMPOSING CONDITIONS ON THE OT A Y RANCH SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) ONE PLAN (PCM 95-01), WHICH INCLUDES THE OVERALL DESIGN PLAN, VILLAGE DESIGN PLAN, PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCING PLAN AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS, PARKS, RECREATION, OPEN SPACE AND TRAILS PLAN, REGIONAL FACILITIES REPORT, PHASE 2 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND SUPPORTING PLANS, NON- RENEWABLE ENERGY CONSERVATION PLAN, RANCH-WIDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLAN, SPA ONE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLAN AND THE GEOTECHNICAL RECONNAISSANCE REPORT WHEREAS, an application for adoption of the Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) One Plan, was filed with the City of Chula Vista Planning Department in July, 1994 by the Otay Ranch L.P. ("Applicant"); and WHEREAS, the SPA One Plan also includes the following documents: Overall Design Plan, Village Design Plan, Public Facilities Financing Plan and Supporting Documents, Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan, Regional Facilities Report, Phase 2 Resource Management Plan and Supporting Plans, Non-Renewable Energy Conservation Plan, Ranch- Wide Affordable Housing Plan, SPA One Affordable Housing Plan and the Geotechnical Reconnaissance Report (all documents referred to herein as "Project"); and WHEREAS, the SPA One Plan project area includes all of Village Five and the portion of Village One east of Paseo Ranchero and is comprised of approximately 1,061.2 acres of land located south of Telegraph Canyon Road between Paseo Ranchero and the future alignment of SR-125 ("Project Site"). The area west of Paseo Rancho has been excluded from this SPA One Plan due to the difficulty in master-planning a village with a major roadway, Paseo Ranchero, bisecting it. In addition, habitat in Village One, west of Paseo Ranchero, needs further analysis; and WHEREAS, a GDP amendment was required to process this SPA without the area west of Paseo Ranchero due to a requirement in the GDP that stated that all villages must be master-planned as a unit; and WHEREAS, a GDP amendment was approved by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista on May 14, 1996, to allow the SPA to be processed without the area west of Paseo Ranchero; and WHEREAS, the SPA refines and implements the land plans, goals, objectives and policies of the Otay Ranch GDP adopted by the Chula Vista City Council on October 28, 1993, and amended on May 14, 1996; and Resolution 18286 Page 2 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for hearings on said Project and notice of said hearings, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City and its mailing to Property Owners and tenants within 1 ,000 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property at least 10 days prior to the hearing; and WHEREAS, the hearings were held at the time and place as advertised on November 8, 1995 and November 15, 1995 in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission. Said hearings were continued to March 27, 1996, April 10, 1996, April 24,1996 and May 1, 1996 by a motion of the Planning Commission at which time, said hearings were thereafter closed; and WHEREAS, a Second-tier Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) EIR 95-01, a Recirculated Second-tier Draft EIR and Addendum, and Findings of Fact and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program have been issued to address environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the Project; and WHEREAS, the Second-tier EIR 95-01, the Recirculated EIR and Addendum incorporates, by reference, two prior EIRs: the Otay Ranch General Development Plan/Subregional Plan (GDP/SRP) EIR 90-01 and the Chula Vista Sphere of Influence Update EIR 94-03 as well as their associated Findings of Fact and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Program EIR 90-01 was certified by the Chula Vista City Council and San Diego County Board of Supervisors on October 28, 1993, and the Sphere of Influence Update EIR 94-03 was certified by the Chula Vista City Council on March 21, 1995; and WHEREAS, the City Council of Chula Vista certified EIR 95-01 as adequate in compliance with CEOA at a duly noticed public hearing on May 14, 1996 and recertified said EIR on May 21,1996 to assure compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21092.5(a). The City now desires to once again recertify this document as adequate in compliance with CEOA; and WHEREAS, to the extent that these findings conclude that proposed mitigation measures outlined in the Final EIR and Addendum are feasible and have not been modified, superseded or withdrawn, the City of Chula Vista hereby binds itself and the Applicant and its successors in interest, to complement those measures. These findings are not merely informational or advisory, but constitute a binding set of obligations that will come into effect when the City adopts this resolution approving the Project. The adopted mitigation measures are express conditions of approval. Other requirements are references in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program adopted concurrently with these Findings and will be effectuated through the process of implementing the Project; and WHEREAS, the City Council of Chula Vista held a workshop on April 30, 1996 and a duly noticed public hearing on May 14, 1996 regarding the Project. The public hearing was continued to May 28, 1996 and June 4, 1996. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Chula Vista does hereby find, determine, resolve, and order as follows: Resolution 18286 Page 3 I. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS The proceedings of all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission and City Council at their public hearings on the Draft EIR, the Recirculated EIR and Addendum held on November 8, 1995, November 15, 1995, March 27, 1996 and March 28, 1996, their public hearings held on this Project on November 15, 1995, March 27, 1996, April 1 0, 1996, April 24, 1996, May 1, 1996, May 14, 1996, May 28, 1996 and June 4, 1996 and the minutes and resolutions resulting therefrom, are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding. These documents, along with any documents submitted to the decision makers, including documents specified in Public Resources Code Section 21167.6 subdivision(s), shall comprise the entire record of the proceedings for any California Environmental Ouality Act (CEOA) claims. The comments, oral and written submitted, as made either by EastLake or their attorneys, Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps, that relate to. CEOA's procedural and substantive compliance were withdrawn by EastLake and their attorneys and are not a part of this record of proceedings. II. FEIR 95-01 REVIEWED AND CONSIDERED The City Council of the City of Chula Vista has reviewed, analyzed and considered the FEIR 95-01 and Addendum and the environmental impacts therein identified for this Project. III. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CEOA The City Council does hereby find that FEIR 95-01 and. Addendum, the Findings of Fact, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and the Statement of Overriding Considerations are prepared in accordance with the requirements of the CEOA, the State EIR Guidelines and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista. IV. INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT OF CITY COUNCIL The City Council finds that the FEIR 95-01 and Addendum reflects the independent judgment of the City of Chula Vista City Council. V. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL The City Council hereby approves the Project subject to paragraph VI of this Resolution and the conditions, set forth in Exhibit "A", attached hereto. VI. PHASE TWO RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN APPROVAL The City Council does hereby approve the Phase Two Resource Management Plan subject to the following conditions: said Plan shall apply to the processing and conveyance of preserve lands associated only with SPA One; no other village or SPA shall be approved until the Phase Two Resource Management Plan is reevaluated and amended by the City of Chula Vista; the Property Owner of SPA One and/or Applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City, prior to the first tentative map approval for the SPA, to implement the terms of said Plan. Resolution 18286 Page 4 VII. CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN The proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan for the following reasons: A. THE PROPOSED SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN IS IN CONFORMITY WITH THE OTAY RANCH GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND THE CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLAN. The Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan reflects the land uses, circulation system, open space and recreational uses, and public facility uses consistent with the Otay Ranch General Development Plan and Chula Vista General Plan. B. THE PROPOSED SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN WILL PROMOTE THE ORDERLY SEQUENTIALlZED DEVELOPMENT OF THE INVOLVED SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA. The SPA One Plan and Public Facilities Financing Plan contain provisions and requirements to ensure the orderly, phased development of the project. The Public Facilities Financing Plan specifies the public facilities required by Otay Ranch, and also the regional facilities needed to serve it. C. THE PROPOSED SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT ADJACENT LAND USE, RESIDENTIAL ENJOYMENT, CIRCULATION OR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY. The land uses within Otay Ranch are designed with a grade-separated open space buffer adjacent to other existing projects, and future developments off-site and within the Otay Ranch Planning Area One, four neighborhood parks will be located within the SPA One area to serve the project residents, and the project will provide a wide range of housing types for all economic levels. A comprehensive street network serves the project and provides for access to off-site adjacent properties. The proposed plan closely follows all existing environmental protection guidelines and will avoid unacceptable off-site impacts through the provision of mitigation measures specified in the Otay Ranch Environmental Impact Report. VIII. CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT, MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS A. Adoption of Findings of Fact The City Council does hereby approve, accept as its own, incorporate 8S if set forth in full herein, and make each and everyone of the findings contained in the Findings of Fact, Attachment" A" known as Document Number C09S-05S, which is on file in the office of the City Clerk. Resolution 18286 Page 5 B. Certain Mitigation Measures Feasible and Adopted As more fully identified and set forth in FEIR 95-01 and Addendum and in the Findings of Fact for this project, which is Attachment n A n to this Resolution known as Document Number C096-056, which is on file in the office of the City Clerk, the City Council hereby finds pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEOA Guidelines Section 15091 that the mitigation measures described in the above referenced documents are feasible and binds itself and the Applicant and its successors in interest, to implement those measures. C. Infeasibility of Mitigation Measures As more fully identified and set forth in FEIR 95-01 and Addendum and in the Findings of Fact for this project, which is Attachment "A" to this Resolution known as Document Number C096-056, which is on file in the office of the City Clerk, the mitigation measure regarding habitat noise mitigation described in the above referenced documents is infeasible. D. Infeasibility of Alternatives As more fully identified and set forth in FEIR 95-01 and Addendum and in the Findings of Fact, Section XI, for this project, which is Attachment "A" to this Resolution known as Document Number C096-056, which is on file in the office of the City Clerk, the City Council hereby finds pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEOA Guidelines Section 15091 that alternatives to the project, which were identified as potentially feasible in FEIR 95-01 and Addendum were found not to be feasible. E. Adoption of Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program As required by the Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, City Council hereby adopts Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ("Program") set forth in Attachment "B" of this Resolution known as Document Number C096-057, which is on file in the office of the City Clerk. The City Council hereby finds that the Program is designed to ensure that, during project implementation, the permittee/project Applicant and any other responsible parties and the successors in interest implement the project components and comply with the feasible mitigation measures identified in the Findings of Fact and the Program. F. Statement of Overriding Consideration Even after the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures and any feasible alternatives, certain significant or potentially significant environmental effects caused by the project, or cumulatively, will remain. Therefore, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista hereby issues, pursuant to CEOA Guidelines Section 15093, a Statement of Overriding Considerations in the form set forth in Attachment "C", known as Document Number C096-056, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk, identifying the specific economic, social and other considerations that render the unavoidable significant adverse environmental effects acceptable. Resolution 18286 Page 6 IX. NOTICE OF DETERMINATION That the Environmental Review Coordinator of the City of Chuta Vista is directed after City Council approval of this Project to ensure that a Notice of Determination is filed with the County Clerk of the County of San Diego. This document along with any documents submitted to the decision makers shall comprise the record of proceedings for any CEOA claims. X. ATTACHMENTS All attachments and exhibits are incorporated herein by reference as set forth in full. XI. EXECUTION AND RECORDATION OF RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL The Property Owner and/or Applicants shall execute the document attached as Exhibit "B", said execution indicating that the Property Owner and/or Applicant have each read, understand and agree to the conditions contained herein. This does not provide the Property Owner and/or Applicant with any "vesting" of entitlements to this Project or any of the corresponding documents approved herein, that is not otherwise provided by state and federal law. Said document to be placed on file in the City Clerk's office as Document No. C096- 086. Presented by Approved as to form by Gerald Jamriska, nager Special Planning Pr jects C~~~l, ,. -~lt~G.-,-~ Ann Y. Moore Assistant City Attorney Resolution 18286 Page 7 Exhibit A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR OTAY RANCH SPA ONE GENERAL PROVISIONS 1. All of the terms, covenants and conditions contained herein shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the heirs, successors, assigns and representatives of the Developer as to any or all of the Property. For purposes of this document the term "Developer" shall also mean "Applicant". 2. If any of the terms, covenants or conditions contained herein shall fail to occur or if they are, by their terms, to be implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted including issuance of building permits, deny, or further condition the subsequent approvals that are derived from the approvals herein granted, institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. 3. Applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend and hold the City harmless from and against any and all claims, liabilities and costs, including attorney's fees, arising from challenges to the Environmental Impact Report for the Project and/or any or all entitlements and approvals issued by the City in connection with the Project. ENVIRONMENT AL 4. The Applicant shall implement all mitigation measures identified in EIR 95-01, the Candidate CECA Findings for this Project (Attachment A) and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reports Program (Attachment B). 5. The Applicant shall comply with all requirement of the Phase 2 Resource Management Plan (RMP) as approved by City Council on 06/04/96. a. The Applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City prior to the approval of the first Tentative Map for this Project, to implement the provision of the Phase 2 Resource Management Plan. 6. The Applicant shall comply with any applicable requirements of the California Department of Fish and Game, the U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. DESIGN 7. The Applicant shall provide a residential alley product, as such product is defined in the Village Design Plan, within Phase Two of Village Five as shown on the SPA One phasing plan and a future phase of Village One. Resolution 18286 Page 8 STREET, RIGHT-OF-WAY AND IMPROVEMENTS 8. The segment of the north/south vehicular road from Telegraph Canyon Road to the first residential street intersection within Village One (located between Buena Vista Way and Apache Drive) ("Temporary Roadway") shall be open for public use only until such time as a road from Village One to Orange Avenue is approved by the City Engineer to carry vehicular traffic. The Temporary Roadway shall be designed and constructed to City standards and the Otay Ranch SPA One standards. The Applicant shall be responsible, at its sole cost and expense, for the removal and restoration of the roadway at the request of the City Engineer. Subsequent to removal of the roadway, said roadway shall be regarded and reconstructed to be consistent with the streetscape of Telegraph Canyon Road, as directed by the City Engineer. The Applicant shall install signs, as directed by the City Engineer, indicating that the Temporary Roadway shall be closed once the permanent road is opened for public use. Notice shall be provided in any residential sales disclosure documents that the Temporary Roadway will be closed to vehicular traffic when access to East Orange Avenue is provided. 9. The Applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City, prior to approval of the first final map, to fund the cost of the transit stops. Said stops shall be designed in the manner consistent with the transit stop details as described in the Village Design Plan, as approved by the City's Transit Coordinator and Planning Director. 10. Residential street parkways shall be no less than six feet in width. The Applicant shall plant trees within said parkways which have been selected from the list of appropriate tree species described in the Village Design Plan and approved by the Directors of Planning, Parks and Recreation and Public Works. The Applicant shall provide root barriers and deep watering irrigation systems for the trees. An irrigation system shall be provided from each individual lot to the adjacent parkway. As a condition of approval of the first tentative map, the Applicant shall be required to submit Improvement Plans for the residential street parkways for review and approval by the City Engineer, Directors of Parks and Recreation and Planning. 11 . Street cross sections shall conform to those standards contained in the SPA One Plan. All other design criteria shall conform to the design standards contained in the document entitled Street Design Standards and the Subdivision Manual both as amended by the City from time to time, ("City Design Standards"). Any proposed variation from the City Design Standards which are not addressed in the SPA Plan shall be approved by the City and indicated on the appropriate tentative subdivision map. The following table indicates the relationship between the Otay Ranch SPA One roadway designations (Le., cross sections) and the approved City designations in the Circulation Element of the General Plan for purposes of determining the appropriate design standards for all streets within SPA One. Resolution 18286 Page 9 COMPARISON OF OTAY RANCH STREET CLASSIFICATIONS TO CITY STREET CLASSIFICATIONS FOR DETERMINATION OF DESIGN STANDARDS TO BE UTILIZED IN TENT A TIVE MAP AND IMPROVEMENT PLAN PREPARATION FOR OT A Y RANCH USE DESIGN STANDARDS FOR CITY CLASSIFICA TION OF STREET CLASSIFICATION OF Scenic Corridor Prime Arterial Prime Arterial Prime Arterial Primary Village Entry Class I Collector Secondary Village Entry Class II Collector Village Core Class I Collector Residential Promenade Class III Collector Core Promenade Residential Village Main Residential Village Plaza Residential Residential A and B Residential Alley Alley Standards 12. The Applicant shall provide a 60 foot wide pedestrian paseo between Neighborhoods R-8 and R-9. As a condition of approval on the appropriate tentative map, said paseo shall be required to be dedicated to the City at the final map stage. Street improvements will not be required to be installed, but may be required at some future date should it become apparent that vehicular access is needed. 13. As directed by the Director of Planning and the City Engineer, the Applicant shall construct a pedestrian bridge connecting Village One to Village Five at the vicinity of Palomar Street crossing over La Media Road. The timing of the construction of said bridge shall be determined by the City at the time of approval of the first tentative map and shall be a condition of the first Tentative Map. The Applicant shall be solely responsible for the construction of said bridge. 14. In addition to the pedestrian bridge described above, the SPA One Plan provides for the construction of a pedestrian bridge connecting Village One to Village Two and a pedestrian bridge connecting Village Five to Village Six. The Applicant shall agree to fund half of the cost of constructing the two pedestrian bridges and to identify the mechanism to be used to fund said cost at the time of approval of the first final map. Said items shall be included as conditions of approval of the first tentative map. Resolution 18286 Page 10 15. The Applicant shall provide a conceptual design of the traffic circles delineated on the SPA One Plan for review and approval by the City Engineer and Planning Director prior to approval of the first tentative map. 16. In the event the Federal Government adopts ADA standards for street rights of way which are in conflict with the standards and approvals contained herein, all such approvals conflicting with those standards shall be updated to reflect those standards. Unless otherwise provided for in the future ADA regulations, City standards approved herein may be considered vested, as determined by Federal regulations, only after construction has commenced. 1 7. Vehicular access shall not be required to EastLake Parkway between the two Otay Water District parcels. Pedestrian, cart and bicycle access, however, shall be provided. A sixty foot easement for roadway and other public purposes to accommodate said access shall be dedicated with the approval of the appropriate final map. Design of said pedestrian, cart and bicycle access shall be implemented in such a way so as not to preclude the option of future provisions of vehicular access should it become necessary. GRADING AND DRAINAGE 18. The Applicant shall comply with all prOVISions of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and Clean Water Program. 19. The quantity of runoff from the development shall be reduced to an amount equal to or less than present 1 OO-year frequency storm. Retention/detention facilities will be required as approved by the Director of Public Works to reduce the quantity of runoff to an amount equal to or less than predevelopment flows. Said retention/detention facilities shall be provided by the Applicant. 20. The Applicant shall provide drainage improvements in both Telegraph Canyon and Poggi Canyon in accordance with the Master Drainage Plan for Otay Ranch SPA One, Villages One and Five by the Director of Public Works. Said Master Plan shall be consistent with the approved SPA Plan. PUBLIC UTILITIES (SEWER, WATER, RECLAIMED WATER, WATER CONSERVATION) 21 . The Applicant shall provide water and reclaimed water improvements in accordance with the report entitled Sub Area Master Plan for Otay Ranch Villages One and Five Sectional Planning Area One ("SAMP") prepared by Montgomery-Watson dated June 1995 or as amended by the Applicant and approved by Otay Water District. The SAMP shall be consistent with the SPA Plan. The Applicant shall be responsible for obtaining the approval of any amendment to the SPA One SAMP in order for the SPA One SAMP to be consistent with the approved SPA Plan prior to the approval of the first final map. 22. The Applicant shall pay fees in accordance with the City of Chula Vista ordinance or provide trunk sewer improvements to both the Telegraph Canyon and Poggi Canyon trunk sewers as indicated in the report entitled "Overview of Sewer Service for SPA One at the Otay Ranch Project" (SPA One Sewer Report) prepared by Wilson Engineering dated June 15, 1995 or as amended by the Applicant and approved by the Director of Public Resolution 18286 Page 11 Works. The SPA One Sewer Report shall be consistent with the approved SPA Plan. The Applicant shall be responsible for obtaining the approval of any amendment to the SPA One Sewer Report in order for the SPA One Sewer Report to be consistent with the approved SPA Plan prior to the approval of the first final map. PARKS/OPEN SPACE/WILDLlFE PRESERVATION General 23. The SPA One project shall satisfy the requirements of the Park Land Dedication Ordinance (PLDO). The ordinance establishes a requirement that the project provide three (3) acres of local parks and related improvements per 1 ,000 residents. Local parks are comprised of community parks, neighborhood parks and pedestrian parks (to the extent that pedestrian parks receive partial park credit as defined below). A minimum of two thirds (2 acres/1 ,000 residents) of local park requirement shall be satisfied through the provision of turn-key neighborhood and pedestrian parks within SPA One. The remaining requirement (1 acre/1 ,000 residents) shall be satisfied through the payment of fees. 24. All local parks shall be consistent with the SPA One PFFP and shall be installed by the Applicant. A construction schedule, requiring all parks to be completed in a timely manner, shall be approved by the City. 25. All local parks shall be designed and constructed consistent with the provisions of the Chula Vista Landscape Manual and related Parks and Recreation Department specifications and policies. 26. The Applicant shall coordinate consultant selection with the City. The consultant selected for all park design shall be acceptable to the City. 27. Parks located within gated communities shall not receive park credit. 28. The Applicant shall receive surplus park credit to the extent the combined park credit for neighborhood parks, pedestrian parks, the town square park and the community park exceeds the 3 acres per 1,000 residents standard. This surplus park credit may be utilized by the Applicant to satisfy local park requirements in future SPAs. 29. The Applicant and the City shall mutually agree on a PAD fee reimbursement schedule in coordination with the adopted construction schedule. Milestones will be established for partial reimbursement during the construction process. The City may withhold up to 20% of the park construction funds until the park has been completed and accepted. Reimbursement of PAD fees shall include the interest accrued by the City on said PAD fees minus the City's cost of processing and administering this reimbursement program. 30. Pedestrian Parks: Pedestrian parks less than five acres, as identified in the SPA One Plan, shall be maintained by a funding entity other than the City's General Plan. Pedestrian parks shall receive a minimum of 25% and a maximum of 50% park credit, as determined by the Director of Parks and Recreation pursuant to City wide small park credit criteria which shall be approved by the City Council. Resolution 18286 Page 1 2 31. Neighborhood Parks: The Applicant shall pay PAD fees based on a formula of 2 acres per 1 ,000 residents for the first 500 dwelling units. . The Applicant shall commence construction of the first neighborhood park in SPA One, in a location determined by the Parks and Recreation Director, no later than issuance of the building permit for the 500th dwelling unit. The level of amenities required in the first phase of construction of the first neighborhood park shall be determined by the City in conjunction with the park master planning effort required by the City of Chula Vista Landscape Manual. Said level of amenities shall be equivalent to five acres of neighborhood park improvements as described in the PLDO ordinance and the Park Master Plan as approved by the Parks and Recreation Director. The Applicant shall complete construction of the first phase of the first neighborhood park within six (6) months of commencing construction of said park. Prior to issuance of the building permit for the 11 50th dwelling unit, the Director of Parks and Recreation shall determine the level of amenities required for the second phase of construction of this park consistent with the PLDO and the Park Master Plan, or in lieu of the second phase, require the construction of another neighborhood park at a different location. The location of the other neighborhood park, if any, shall be determined in conjunction with the phasing study noted below. At no time following completion of construction of the first phase of the first neighborhood park shall there be a deficit in "constructed neighborhood park" based upon 2 acres!1 ,000 residents. Applicant agrees that the City may withhold the issuance of building permits should said deficit occur. For purposes of this condition, the term "constructed neighborhood park" shall mean that construction of the park has been completed and approved by the Director of Parks and Recreation as being in compliance with the Park Master Plan, but prior to the mandatory 9-12 month maintenance period. This condition is not intended to supersede any of the City's maintenance guarantee requirements. The Applicant shall provide a maintenance period in accordance with the City of Chula Vista Landscape Manual. The 1.7 acre Town Square in Village Five shall receive 100% neighborhood park credit if constructed consistent with the criteria contained in the General Development Plan and if improvements constructed within the Town Square receive the approval of the Director of Parks and Recreation. The 7.3 acre neighborhood park (P-2) currently indicated in Village One south of Palomar Street on the SPA plan shall be relocated easterly within Neighborhood R-12. The Applicant shall receive reimbursement of PAD fees should they deliver a turn-key facility to the City in accordance with the Parks Master Plan. 32. Community Parks: The Applicant shall pay PAD fees for the Community Park based upon a formula of 1 acre per 1 ,000 residents, until such time as a turn-key facility has been accepted by the City. Said turn-key facility is subject to the reimbursement mechanism set forth below. .'" Resolution 18286 Page 13 The first Otay Ranch Community Park, to satisfy SPA One demand, shall be located in Village 2 as identified in the GDP. The Applicant shall identify the relocation, if any, of the Village 2 Otay Ranch Community Park prior to issuance of the building permit for the 1,1 50th dwelling unit. Said relocation may require an amendment to the Otay Ranch General Development Plan. Notwithstanding that the community park requirement (1 acre/1 ,000 residents) shall be satisfied through the payment of PAD fees, the Applicant shall commence construction of the first phase of the Community Park prior to issuance of the building permit for the 2,650th dwelling unit. The first phase of construction shall include, but not be limited to, improvements such as a graded site with utilities provided to the property line and an all weather access road acceptable to the Fire Department. The Applicant shall commence construction of the second phase of the Community Park prior to issuance of the building permit for the 3,OOOth dwelling unit. Second phase improvements shall include recreational amenities as identified in the Park Master Plan. The Community Park shall be ready for acceptance by the City for maintenance prior to issuance of the building permit for the 3,900th dwelling unit. If the City determines that it is not feasible for the Applicant to commence construction of the first phase improvements of the community park prior to issuance of the building permit for the 2,650th unit, then the City shall have the option to utilize the PAD fees for said improvements, or to construct another park or facility, east of the 1-805 Freeway within an acceptable service radius of SPA One, as set forth in the GDP. The Applicant shall provide a maintenance period in accordance with the City of Chula Vista Landscape Manual. The Applicant shall receive reimbursement of PAD fees, excluding the cost of construction of the all weather access road, for the community park should they deliver a turn-key facility to the City in accordance with the Parks Master Plan. 33. Trails: The first final map shall not be approved until the SPA One Open Space Master Plan is approved by the Director of Parks and Recreation. The Open Space Master Plan shall be based upon the Concept and Analysis Plan, the requirements of which are outlined in the City of Chula Vista Landscape Manual and include, but are not limited to elements such as final recreational trail alignments and phasing. The Concept and Analysis Plan shall be developed during the tentative map review process. All trails shall connect to adjoining existing trails in neighboring development projects to the extent feasible, as feasible is determined by the Director of Parks and Recreation. 34. Community Gardens: Community Gardens shall be consistent with the guidelines in the SPA One Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Master Plan, including Resolution 18286 Page 14 creation of the Community Garden Committee and their responsibilities. Water lines shall be stubbed from the nearest water main to the site(s) in order to facilitate development of the Community Gardens. Maintenance of Community Gardens shall be funded by an Open Space Maintenance District, Home Owner's Association or other funding mechanism approved by the City. Community Gardens shall not receive park credit. 35. Open Space: The Applicant shall prepare a study to determine the feasibility of establishing a master open space district under the 1972 Lighting and Landscape Act for the Otay Valley Parcel of Otay Ranch. Said feasibility study shall be submitted to the Directors of Parks and Recreation and Public Works for their approval, prior to approval of the first tentative map. If applicable, an Open Space District shall be formed prior to approval of the first final map. AGREEMENTS/FINANCIAL 36. The Applicant shall install Chula Vista Transit facilities, which may include but not be limited to benches and bus shelters, in accordance with the improvement plans approved by the City. Since transit service availability may not coincide with project development, the Applicant shall install said improvements when directed by the City. The Applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City to fund these facilities. The requirement for said agreement will be made a condition of the first tentative map. 37. The Applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City of Chula Vista, prior to approval of the first final map, regarding the provision of affordable housing. Said agreement shall be a condition of approval of the first tentative map. Such agreement shall be in accordance with the Chula Vista Housing Element, the Ranch Wide Affordable Housing Plan and the SPA One Affordable Housing Plan. 38. No final maps may be recorded within SPA One until such time that an annexable Mellow Roos District, or some other financing mechanism approved by the school district, to provide for the construction of needed elementary, middle and high schools is established. 39. The Applicant shall pay, prior to approval of the first final map, their fair share of a collaborative study analyzing local park needs for the area east of the 1-805 Freeway. 40. The Applicant shall prepare a design study to determine the feasibility of providing grade separated intersections for East Orange Avenue at Paseo Ranchero and Telegraph Canyon Road at Otay Lakes Road. Said study shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to approval of any tentative map for SPA One. 41 . The Applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City of Chula Vista, prior to approval of the first final map within SPA One, to participate, on a fair share basis, in any deficiency plan or financial program adopted by SANDAG to comply with the Congestion Resolution 18286 Page 1 5 Management Program (CMP). 42. The Applicant shall be required to equitably participate in any future regional impact fee program for correctional facilities should the region enact such a fee program to assist in the construction of such facilities. The Applicant shall enter into an agreement, prior to approval of the first final map, with the City which states that the Applicant will not protest the formation of any potential future regional benefit assessment district formed to finance correctional facilities. 43. In order to satisfy their fair-share contribution for financing the light rail transit system, the Applicant shall complete the following: 1) dedicate to the City the Light Rail Transit (LRT) right-of-way on the final map containing said right-of-way, as indicated on the approved tentative map; 2) rough grade said LRT alignment; and 3) enter into an agreement with the City which states that the Applicant will not protest the formation of any potential future regional benefit assessment district formed to finance the LRT. 44. A reserve fund program has been established by Resolution No. 18288 for the Otay Ranch Project. The Applicant shall fund the Reserve Fund as required by the Reserve Fund Program. SCHOOLS 45. The Applicant shall prepare and submit an application for an amendment to the Otay Ranch General Development Plan replacing the Village Seven High School location with a site in either the area west of Paseo Ranchero in Village One or the northern portion of Village Two. The City shall not issue building permits for more than 1,400 units within SPA One until the City has acted on the proposed plan amendment unless the District consents to the further issuance of such permits. The Applicant shall deliver to the School District a graded high school site including utilities provided to the site and an all weather access road acceptable to the District prior to issuance of the 2,650th building permit (504 students) or upon written request by the District not prior to 1,800 permits. The all weather access road shall also be acceptable to the Fire Department. This schedule is subject to modification by the School District as based on District facility needs. 46. The Applicant shall deliver to the School District, a graded elementary school site including utilities provided to the site and an all weather access road acceptable to the District, located within Village One, prior to issuance of the 500th residential building permit (150 students). The all weather access road shall also be acceptable to the Fire Department. This schedule is subject to modification by the School District as based on District facility needs. 47. The Applicant shall deliver to the School District, a graded elementary school site including utilities provided to the site and an all weather access foad acceptable to the District, located within Village Five, prior to issuance of the 2,500th residential building permit (750 students). The all weather access road shall also be acceptable to the Fire Department. This schedule is subject to modification by the School District as based on District facility needs. 48. The Applicant shall deliver to the School District, a graded elementary school ~.<""~'~'~'T''':':'~~':-:'.~".".'''l~'~ Resolution 18286 Page 1 6 site including utilities provided to the site and an all weather access road acceptable to the District, located west of Paseo Ranchero, prior to issuance of the 4,500th residential building permit (1,350 students). The all weather access road shall also be acceptable to the Fire Department. This schedule is subject to modification by the School District as based on District facility needs. MISCELLANEOUS 49. The Applicant may file a master final map which provides for the sale of super block lots corresponding to the units and phasing or combination of units and phasing thereof: If said super block lots do not show individual lots depicted on the approved tentative map, a subsequent final map shall be filed for any lot which will be further subdivided. All super block lots created shall have access to a dedicated public street. The Applicant shall post bonds to secure the installation of improvements in the amounts determined by the City Engineer prior to approval of a master final map. Said master final map shall not be considered the first final map as indicated in the conditions of approval unless said map contains single or condominium multiple family lots shown on a tentative map. 50. The Applicant shall comply with all requirements and guidelines of the Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan, Public Facilities Finance Plan, Ranch Wide Affordable Housing Plan, SPA One Affordable Housing Plan and the Non-Renewable Energy Conservation Plan. 51. Approval of the Otay Ranch SPA One does not constitute approval of the final lot configuration, grading and street design shown within the SPA Plan. 52. The Applicant shall secure approval of a Master Precise Plan for the Village One and Village Five Core Areas, prior to submitting any development proposals for commercial, multi-family and Community Purpose Facility areas within the SPA One Village Cores. 53. The Applicant shall fund the revision of the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee (PFDIF) Program, which shall be prepared by the City, as directed by the City Manager or his designee and approved by the City Council prior to approval of the first final map within SPA One. Said requirement shall be made a condition of approval of the first tentative map. The Applicant shall receive 100% credit towards future PFDIF for funding this update. 54. Pursuant to the provisions of the Growth Management Ordinance and the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP), the Applicant shall fund the preparation of an annual report monitoring the development of the community of Otay Ranch. The annual monitoring report will analyze the supply of, and demand for, public facilities and services governed by the threshold standards. An annual review shall commence following the first fiscal year in which residential occupancy occurs and is to be completed during the second quarter of the following fiscal year. The annual report shall adhere to those guidelines noted on page 353, Section D of the GDP/SRP. Resolution 18286 Page 1 7 55. The Applicant shall include maintenance of Telegraph Canyon channel east of Paseo Ladera in any open space district formed for SPA One on a fair share basis. This includes but is not limited to costs of maintenance and all costs to comply with the Department of Fish and Game and the Corps of Engineers permit requirements. 56. The owners of each Village shall be responsible for retaining a project manager to coordinate the processing of discretionary permit applications originating from the private sector and submitted to the City of Chula Vista. The project manager shall establish a formal submittal package required of each developer to ensure a high standard of design and to ensure consistency with standards and policies identified in the adopted SPA Plan. The project manager shall have a well rounded educational background and experience, including but not limited to land use planning and architecture. PHASING 57. Pursuant to the provisions of the Growth Management Ordinance and the Otay Ranch GDP, the Applicant shall prepare a five year development phasing forecast identifying targeted submittal dates for future discretionary applications (SPAs and tentative maps), projected construction dates, corresponding public facility needs per the adopted threshold standards, and identifying financing options for necessary facilities. 58. The Applicant acknowledges that the Otay Ranch General Development Plan is based on a village concept that provides for the construction of multi-family homes and commercial uses along with single family residential homes within SPA One. The City has allowed the early phases of the project to consist almost exclusively of single family detached neighborhoods due to current market conditions. However, the Applicant understands that it is the City's intent to require the Applicant to focus development on only one of the SPA One village cores in order to increase the viability of the core and to fulfill the objectives of the Otay Ranch General Development Plan. In order to facilitate this objective, the Applicant shall prepare a project phasing update to determine which of the two villages the Applicant will concentrate development in. The phasing study shall provide for the following: 1) access to the high school site, community park site and neighborhood park which is economically and physically feasible; 2) establishment of a residential phasing program to complement the east-west access selection (East Palomar Street or East Orange Avenue); 3) identify the village that will be the focus of accelerated development; 4) consideration of market conditions, product absorption and location of appropriate product to meet demand; 5) limitation of public services in the village which is not the focus of accelerated development; and 6) provision for affordable housing opportunities as identified in the approved Affordable Housing Plan. The study shall be undertaken prior to issuance of the 11 50th building permit and shall be submitted for approval by the Planning Director and City Engineer prior to the issuance of the 1,401 st building permit. As a condition of approval of the first tentative map, the Applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City in which the Applicant agrees to implement the results of said study as determined by the City Council. If the Applicant fails to implement the results of the study as directed by City Council, the City Council may take such actions as it deems necessary, including but not limited to withholding building permits. Resolution 18286 Page 18 59. Phasing approved with the SPA Plan may be amended subject to approval by the Planning Director and the City Engineer. 60. The Public Facilities Finance Plan or revisions hereto shall be adhered to for the SPA and tentative map with improvements installed in accordance with said plan or as required to meet threshold standards adopted by the City of Chula Vista. The PFFP identifies a facility phasing plan based upon a set of assumptions concerning the location and rate of development within and outside of the project area. Throughout the build-out of SPA One, actual development may differ from the assumptions contained in the PFFP (i.e., the development of Eastlake III). Neither the PFFP nor any other SPA One document grant the Applicant an entitlement to develop as assumed in the PFFP, or limit the SPA One's facility improvement requirements to those identified in the PFFP. Compliance with the City of Chula Vista threshold standards, based on actual development patterns and updated forecasts in reliance on changing entitlements and market conditions, shall govern SPA One development patterns and the facility improvement requirements to serve such development. In addition, the sequence in which improvements are constructed shall correspond to any future Eastern Chula Vista Transportation Phasing Plan or amendment to the Growth Management Program and Ordinance adopted by the City. The City Engineer may modify the sequ~nce of improvement construction should conditions change to warrant such a revision. The SPA One PFFP, at Applicant's expense subject to a Reimbursement Agreement, shall be updated not later than six (6) months after approval of a PFFP for the EastLake III GDP Area, and the conclusions of such update, including without limitation, the nature, sizing, extent and timing for the construction of public facilities caused by SPA One, shall become a condition for all subsequent SPA One entitlements, including tentative and final maps. CODE REQUIREMENTS 61. The Applicant shall comply with all applicable sections of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. Preparation of the Final Map and all plans shall be in accordance with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and the City of Chula Vista Subdivision ordinance and Subdivision Manual. 62. The Applicant shall comply will all aspects of the City of Chula Vista Landscape Manual. 63. The Applicant shall comply with Chapter 19.09 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code (Growth Management) as may be amended from time to time by the City. Said chapter includes but is not limited to: threshold standards (19.09.04), public facilities finance plan implementation (19.09.090), and public facilities finance plan amendment procedures (19.09.100). 64. The Applicant shall pay reimbursement associated with undergrounding of utilities in accordance with the City of Chula Vista Resolution 17516 dated June 7, 1994. 65. The Applicant shall comply with City Council Policy 570-03 adopted by Resolution 17491 if pump stations for sewer purposes are proposed. 66. The Applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City, prior to approval of each final map for any phase or unit, whereby: Resolution 18286 Page 19 a. The Applicant agrees that the City may withhold building permits for any units in the subject subdivision if anyone of the following occurs: (1) Regional development threshold limits set by the adopted East Chula Vista Transportation Phasing Plan in effect at the time of final map approval have been reached. (2) Traffic volumes. level of service. public utilities and/or services exceed the threshold standards in the then effective Growth Management Ordinance. b. The Applicant agrees that the City may withhold building permits for any of the phases of development identified in the Public Facilities Financing Plan (PFFP) for Otay Ranch SPA One if the required public facilities. as identified in the PFFP or as amended by the Annual Monitoring Program have not been completed. 67. Applicant shall apply for and receive a take permit from the appropriate resource agencies or comply with an approved MSCP or other equivalent 1 O(a) permit applicable to the property. 68. The Applicant acknowledges its understanding that the City is in the process of amending its Growth Management Program and Ordinance. to establish updated development phasing provisions necessary to ensure compliance with adopted threshold standards. In order for the Otay Ranch SPA One Project to be consistent with the City's growth management provisions. the Applicant hereby agrees to comply with the pending amendments to the Growth Management Program and Ordinance in order for the City to approve this Project. Said provisions shall also be included as a condition of approval of the first Tentative Map. and any subsequent tentative maps. within SPA One. 69. This analysis recommends that actual conveyance occur as follows: The Applicant shall convey fee title. or upon the consent of the POM and any lien holder. an easement restricting use of the land to those permitted by the RMP. to the POM upon the recordation of each final map for an amount of land equal to the final map's obligation to convey land to the Preserve. Where an easement is conveyed. the Applicant shall be required to provide subordination of any prior lien holders in order to ensure that the POM has a first priority interest in such land. Where consent and subordination cannot be obtained. the Applicant shall convey fee title. Where fee title or an easement is conveyed. each tentative map shall be subject to a condition that the subdivider shall execute a maintenance agreement with the POM stating that it is the responsibility of the Applicant to maintain the conveyed parcel until the Habitat Maintenance District has generated sufficient revenues to enable the POM to assume maintenance responsibilities. Where an easement is granted. each tentative map is subject to a condition that fee title shall be granted upon demand by the POM. Resolution 18286 Page 20 Exhibit B AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND OTAY RANCH, L.P. RELATED TO SPA ONE APPROVAL The Property Owner and the Applicant shall execute this document by signing the lines provided below, said execution indicating that the Property Owner and Applicant have each read, understood and agreed to the conditions contained in Resolution No. 18286, and will implement same to the satisfaction of the City. Upon execution, this document and a copy of Resolution No. 18286 shall be recorded with the County Clerk of the County of San Diego, at the sole expense of the Property Owner and/or Applicant, and a signed, stamped copy returned to the City Clerk. Failure to return a signed and stamped copy of this recorded document within thirty days of recordation to the City Clerk shall indicate the Property Owner/Applicant's desire that the project, and the corresponding application for building permits and/or a business license, be held in abeyance without approval. Signature of Property Owner Date Signature of Property Owner Date [For purposes of recording only] Attach Resolution No. 18286 This document is on file in the Clerk's Office and is ~own as: C096-0S6 and Recorded Document 9~ -61:3 9.?J3~ , Resolution 18286 Page 21 PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, California, this 4th day of June, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers: Alevy, Moot, Padilla, Rindone, Horton NAYES: Councilmembers: None ABSENT: Councilmembers: None ABSTAIN: Councilmembers: None ~/~ Shir y Horton, Mayor ATTEST: ~()~ Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ss. CITY OF CHULA VISTA I, Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk of the City of Chula Vista, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 18283 was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting of the Chula Vista City Council held on the 4th day of June, 1996. Executed this 4th day of June, 1996. ~t2~ Beverly A Authelet, City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND METROPOLITAN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT BOARD (MTDB) FOR CONTINUATION OF THE CHULA VISTA BILLBOARD RESERVE FUND AND EXPENDITURE OF REVENUE WITHIN THE FUND WHEREAS, in 1984, the City of Chula vista agreed to allow Gannett Outdoor Company and Metromedia, Inc. to install two outdoor billboards in the MTDB right-of-way along Interstate 5 between "E" and "H" Streets; and WHEREAS, it was agreed that these signs would remain in place for 15 years (through 1999); and WHEREAS, in 1990, a Conditional Use Permit was issued to Patrick Media Group to allow a billboard to be relocated to the MTDB right-of-way for a period of 10 years; and WHEREAS, in exchange, the billboard companies have removed 5 signs from within the City boundaries and agreed to the creation of the Billboard Reserve Fund to which they contribute and Chula vista is the only agency eligible to withdraw money from this fund; and WHEREAS, Eller Media and Outdoor Advertising, the current co-owners of the three signs, have requested an extension which would allow the three signs to remain in place through 2015; and WHEREAS, while a Conditional Use Permit granting this extension can be issued administratively, city staff will make the processing of that permit contingent upon the Council and MTDB's approval of the attached agreement between the City and MTDB. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Chula vista does hereby approve an Agreement between the City of Chula vista and the Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB) for continuation of the Billboard Reserve Fund and Expenditure of Revenue with the Fund, a copy of which shall be kept on file in the office of the City Clerk. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of the City of Chula vista is hereby authorized and directed to execute said agreement on behalf of the City of Chula vista. Presented by Approved as to form by David D. Rowlands, Jr., City Manager ~./ / tj /. : ~. / t<.i-;tf-l(A'i c. Jo,hn M. Kaheny, ! .j, /ct::<. City Attorney h:\HOME\ATTORNEY\RESO\BILBOARD )(:2 ~i Agreement Between the City of Chula Vista and the Metropolitan Transit Development Board for Continuation of the Chula Vista Billboard Reserve Fund and Expenditure of Revenues within the Fund This Agreement ("Agreement") is entered into effective as of , 1999, by and between the City of Chula Vista ('City') and Metropolitan Transit Development Board ("MTDB") with reference to the following facts: Whereas, in March 1984, the City, as part of a litigation settlement between MTDB, SDA&E and two billboard companies, agreed to allow Gannet Outdoor Co. and Metromedia, Inc. to place two billboards in the MTDB right-of-way along Interstate 5; and Whereas, at the same time, MTDB developed a Chula Vista Billboard Reserve Fund which is funded by the lease revenues from billboard owners; and Whereas, in December 1990, City issued a CUP for another billboard company allowing the relocation of one billboard into the SDA&E right of way in exchange for the removal of 5 billboards and an annual contribution to the Billboard Reserve Fund; and Whereas, City and MTDB have maintained and disbursed funds from the Billboard Reserve Fund for projects which benefit mass transit; and Whereas, the parties now desire to memorialize their understanding of the terms and conditions under which monies for this fund are generated and disbursed. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the recitals and the mutual obligation of the parties set forth herein, MTDB and City agree as follows: I, Chula Vista Billboard Reserve Fund MTDB shall maintain a reserve fund known as the "Chula Vista Billboard Reserve Fund" ("Fund"). Rev'enues for this Fund shall be generated from lease payments from private parties for the use of billboards located within the SD&AE right-of-way within the City of Chula Vista. City shall determine all terms and conditions related to the permitting of the billboards. This includes, but is not limited to, the time period the billboards will be permitted for and fees to be charged to the applicant. MTDB shall determine all terms and conditions related to the leasing of the SD&AE right-of-way. These revenues shall be held in trust by MTDB for use by the City on projects which benefit mass transit occurring within the City ("Qualified Projects"). Qualified pr.ojects shall include, but are not limited to, landscaping the areas along the right-of-way, graffiti and litter removal in these same areas, pedestrian improvements along the trolley line within city limits, and other projects as may be agreed to by City and MTDB. ) d. /S- 2. Expenditure of Billboard Reserve Fund Revenues In order to access Fund monies, City shall submit a written request to MTDB. The request shall include a description of the Qualified Project, the amount of funds requested, and a schedule for expenditure. Each request shall be subject to approval by a majority vote ofMTDB and the Chula Vista City Council. 3. Entire Agreement This Agreement, together with any other written document referred to or contemplated herein, embodies the entire Agreement and understanding between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof. Neither this Agreement nor any provision hereof may be amended, modified, waived or discharged except by an instrument in writing executed by the party against which enforcement of such amendment, waiver or discharge is sought. 4. Capacity of Parties Each signatory and party hereto hereby warrants and represents to the other party that it has legal authority and capacity and direction from its principal to enter into this Agreement, and that all resolutions or other actions have been taken so as to enable it to enter into this Agreement. 5. Governing LawNenue This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Any action arising under or relating to this Agreement shall be brought only in the federal or state courts located in San Diego County, State of California, and if applicable, the City of Chula Vista, or as close thereto as possible. Venue for this Agreement, and performance hereunder, shall be the City of Chula Vista. /2-t Agreement Between the City of Chula Vista and the Metropolitan Transit Development Board for Continuation of the Chula Vista Billboard Reserve Fund and Expenditure of Revenues within the Fund City of Chula Vista Metropolitan Transit Development Board by Shirley Horton, Mayor by Thomas F. Larwin General Manager Date Date ATTEST: City Clerk Approved in form by: Approved in form by: City Attorney Jack Limber General Counsel/Deputy General Manager Date Date /c2 ~ / ?'e-,i s ed 1/11/34 RESOLUTION NO. 11506 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF T2E CITY OF CHUL.2;. v~STA APPROVING METROPOLITk~ TR~~SIT DEvLLO?ME1\T BOAP~'S (MTDB) PROPOSED BILL30~Jm LITIGATI01~ SETTL~~E~ry The City Council of ~e City of Cn~la Vista does here~ as fo11::rv.'S: vTriE?~AS, ~ITD3 is a defendant in litisation arising =r~ removal of 4C billboa=cs alo~; tne Arizona & Eastern Rai1~ay, \'lliE?~.z;'S , Vist.a, an:5. 19 .....- \",1"'- t..'10se st::-uctu::-es we=e "v."i t.hin t.he City of ~iliE?~AS, ~IT~3 has ente=e= ~r.to a pr=?osed settlement. the plaint.iff billb:Jarc cO:TIpa~ies wr~1.C:1 "vlo::lc call ::0= t.he ltY of Cnula Vist.a to allo~ ~~e erect.ion of two =eplace~ent Ilboards, a:1:5. the t.wo billboards would be erectec on ~e east of liE II St.reet in a locat.io:1 subject to staff W-rlEPJ:~S, the two billboards would be approved for a ter.m fiftea~ (15) years after ~~ic~ time they would have to be ved unless further approval of the City COU:1cil is obtai:1ed, wriERE.z;'s, ~ITD3 v;ill dedicate the re:1t received for the gns, $4,100 per year per sign, for trolley maintenance and rovements v;ithin the City of Chula Vista. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL\~D that the City Council of of Chula Vista aoes here:,y approve of t..~e proposed settleme:1t subje~ to the follo~ing 1. There shall be two signs, sta:1oarcized double-faced, painted bulletir., ~ith 14 feet by 48 feet copy face a:1d customary cut outs and acd O:1S perrr.itted for a lease period of fifteen years comme~cins from the date on wrdch the cisplay structure is constructed. l~ -- g- ./ ' , --!"'17~~~-- 5~-~.?' /) // ~- , I , '- //S-7~ 2. T~e two stnJCt:.:res s-:1all .:::is locate:: to t~e ec.st ~- :;:-5 c.:-j~ nort.1'. cf "E" Stree-:. c:t a :"ocation -:'0 Je approved by Ci -:.y s-:aff. 3. The ::-ent. of $4,100 per year per SlgTI received by MTD3 will be dedicated for trolley rraintenance and improvements 'w-ithin the City of Chula Vista :;::JUrsuant to ~utual agreement between MTD3 and the City of C":l:.:la Vista. ~~is resolu~ion ~s s~bjec-: -:0 a;reeTlent ~it~: (a) "~TD3 "",'herein the $:),20CJ per yec:r :::-ecei ve::. ::ro::- the lease is ~ut into a join-: trust acco:.:nt --- special projects 'v.'hic." \>;i11 be c"hose:1 bv -:~:e City of C:ula Vista and app:::-oved ~v ~~3 _u_ w8:::-k ~n the t-ITD3 riSht-of-y,'ay. {- , ,~j Gannett 0:.:td80:::- anG. ~et.:::-crnec.ia y,':;erein t":lev .....-ill, y,'i tho:.:t \>;ai ving their right -::'8 re::-:.:e:::-: -.. extensio:1 beY:::>::1Q -:~')e fift.een-yea:::- leese, acree to ::-e~ove -:":le ~illboards ~it.h:::>ut. c:::>rr.pensation from City -::.he f:::>:::- Ci ~1~ a:1d ~,^~i.,,7e a:l)T c:):1t:'~l.:in~ --:':--.l e i =- --.-....- . -~,I.':'.... -:.0 S.'O _ u_ -:"~le :.:se. and .z".pproved as -:.0 io::m ~y ..----; I /. Barron, Ci~y At~or~ey 1;2 ~/ R- liS"" ADOPTED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF . . VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this , by the following vote, to-wit: 10tb day of January C o~ncilmen : Malcolm, Moore, McCandliss, Scott Councilmen: None Co:..n:iimen : None Cou~ilmen : Mayor Cox ~ tAl. l4N~ MAYOR PRO TEMPORE ~fJ?i7i';01)). ft-?~/ . City Clerk ~ CALIFORNIA ) ; OF SAN DlEGJ ) 55. , a-fULA \fiST A ) ': I, JENNIE M. FULASZ, CMC, CITY CLERK of the City of Chuia Vista, California, that the above and foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of ,and that the same has not been amended or repealed. City Clerk (seal) );2 -! tl r t r I I I i . , I I t 1 f i r I J ~. j i """'-- .~ city Council Meeting - 11 - January 10, 1934 ADJOU~NM~KT AT 9:35 p.~. to Closed Session for litigation and personnel. The meeting reconvened at 10:05 p.m. Item No. 9 was considered. (See page 5 for explanation) 9. R~SOLUTION 11505 APPROVI NG M::TRJPOLIT AN TR.A.NSIT DE\'ELOPI~Er\T BOARD IS (MTDB) PROPOSED B: LLBOARD L~TI GATI CJI~ SETTLE!1ENT (Continued frorr. the meetina af December 20, 1983) (City Attorney) ~ City Attorney Harron reported on the conceptual agreement with representatives of the :,illboard com;Jany - at the end of the 15 year lease period, although the bil1~oard company would have the right :0 request an extension, they would honor the City's request to remove the s i gr.s ane waive any ri ght to sue, or right oT compensation in connection vdth this removal. tliTDB has agreed to place the $8,200 yearly rental fee from the billboard company into a trust fund to be used for special projects approved by the City of Chula Vista for the ~TJ3 right-of-way. MSUC (Moore/Scott) ~hat these two amendments be approved. Mr. Jack Limber, representing MlDB said he would tal:e billboards company's and give them this specific wording. waiver of any suit after a 15 year period of time. this back to the :-!e 'vI'i 11 request a Mr. ~d Dato, representing Foster and Kleiser, asked it be spelled out specifically in the resolution what would be waived over a 15 year period of time. He indicated some other type of legislation may permit a suit during this period of time that is not forseen now. Mr. Limber discussed the hold harmless agreement for the City stati:1g the billboard companies will be holding the City harrr.less - they would viaive any rights of compensation for th e sign s. ADJOURNMEKT AT 10:00 p.m. January 17, 1984 at 7 p.m. to the .... mee...lng scheduled Tuesday, for ----- WPG:0378C PAG Jc1--J/ ,1 , . .- ~- I E ~- j i: . , ~ t J t , f " l I . !, 1 r f [ i I' L I j-..' i t' tc-:: r~ ~ r' r r:--, , r=: i ~-_I c-; - ~.:;. t..:. .~~ ". ~y f'" fi~'l &.:=- ., .' ~Ff ~t ~ ~~.~; v~: '?j' ~...t ~ r~. ' I ~ I;t: " ~ ~. --"~ .~ ~ . ~--:- .' ::-p~_,.-....:l. ,O:L j _ u. u C. ' .\ I',. . -' ...: . city c':J~r1:i1 Heft";,; - 2 - b. R~~~~ST TO ~~:~:NAT~ EIRD PRD3~~V ~N IIEII ;-,';;,rrT , ',r, -'r'''''rn '\';:-I'~I;:- ('nr 1,1 _ . ~ _ _ h . _ i l..L. \ 1.i r. _" ~ _ r-., : " . ~:;-:.. '. "_. I ) !.15UC (!bore/Cod to refer this i:err the ~he DO'v,'ntown .l-.ssociation \':itll c. reco~endation in writing by staff. Councii~~n Scott suggested using a fe~d designed to sterilize ~a1e birds. c. R::~UEST TO CC)IWUCT rORI.~AL ,"a'ORI~L CERH1Jt~Y TO Hut~ClR '\liAR DEAD (Jewi sh \I:ar V=:.erans .- - -) ;.JO--:- ~c . ~ w ~ Mr. SC~:lm:>n, f;.r-:r.~r lovme Pos:. 65 Cor.rrnander sugges:.e~ con:jucti ng Memorial Ceremony ~n Chula Vista :'0 honor the ~ar Dead. 7GriilCo 1 ~~S (M::Candiiss/l,jooie) to refer this ~:.em to s:af7 for a ;ep:)r~. Ci ty !'~a~lager G8SS s~a~ed thi s is bei ns ::Jone in Cht.:l2. Vi s:.a and is open :'8 :.he pub1i:. SUBST!TU7~ MDIIO~ "co write !'Ir. 30:or;;=.r1 c. le:ter ';nfoming him "cr,~s -IS Memorial 5Ervi~es are heid ~n 51en Ab~EY. MSUC (t~ooie/Cox) 7cr S:'2TT being oone in Ch~l! Vista. ORAL Cm.1i.1Jln U.llD!:S (I~one) RESOLUTIONS AND ~RD!~ANCES, FIRST R~!-.DING 5. R~SDLUTIOI~ AI'EIWIIJG R~SOLUTIC)t~ IJO. il5D5 BY C!-L~NGIIJG T~t: LOCATIOt! ::ClR ON~ jF THE 71't'0 SILLBO.~RDS II~ TH~ !.ETROPOUlh~, TR.~~;SIT Dt:VEL8?!"::I\T BOARD I S (t{iDS) BILLBOARD LITIGATIOlI S~TTLEJ.iEt-:T (City Attorney) Subsequent to Coun:il's action alloy:~na the construction of tv,'O bil1boaros in order to faci1ita:.e the settlement of the lawsuit between :.he billboard compani es and II;TDB, it was di scover-ed only one bill boa rd coul d be located at that site. The State has put in some fencin~ which mal:e it impossible for the billboard companies to either construct, or maintain a second site north of 'T" Street. Thi s resol uti on wou1 d authori ie the construct; on of one of the two previously approved billboards at :.he southeast corner of "H" Street and 1-5. Counci1 discussion ensued regarding \'forkino with various ;:Jarties \'dth :.his item; concern wi:h putting one on "H" Street; if billboard is placed fer enough northwarc DT "E" Street, it will net )e in Cht.:la Vista; 1-5 and "~" Street are excellent locations; "H" and "~" Streets are the t\-IO best entrances to the City of Chu1a Vista; pick Dne of the locations where the 19 signs were taken down; if :.ne sign at Brentwood ,railer Park is in -:.he Ci:y lirni:.s, t.:se that location; double-faced billbcard on "H" Street to ~e removed as 2- tradeoff . MSUC (Scott/I\~cCand-liss) to notify :.he bi11:,oard com;>any :.hat "H" Street site ;s not acce~tajle. JeJ- -J:J-- I I I f I : t t- - i:-- '- . L ~~ W o ~. ~J' t: ~- ,,-- .--;. r. E ~ l:::~ ::-1 C-~ R~ ~~ ~~. b~ ~ ~- K ~ ~- & I e i pj f: "'- L . '-<J.: city :::'8un:il FI~e-:~ n; .., - :; - Fe~iL12"'Y 14, 1924 Discuss~8n con~~n~~~ ieg2rding -:he merits of ~lacing th~ ~i11boar~s at various siteS c.!:Jng -:ne !f.iJ::' ri9r.~-cf-\...ay. M5UC (I'kCandliss/Scott) for staff to provide a listing of the nineteen si:es where :.he orisinal billboards are and some cOiir.i1ent about their availabilit.'l' now. councilman t'~al calm stated the si gns have been removed at 1-5 corn aor and wants staff to determine if Brentwood sign is in the City.s jurisdiction. 6. R:SOLl;TlOl~ 11540 GrJ"~TI IjG AN EXTENSIOt: OF TII~E TO C. ~. v:Y L..::i:: C~~STRUCTION SOM?ANY ~OR THE TOWN CENTRE PARKING STRJCTURE TO FEBRUARY 22, 1984 (City Attarn-ey) There have beer: a n~m:>er of change orders for the constructi on of the Town Centre ~'a i1: i ng S-:iuctuie. The Ci ty .t.ttorney recommended ;ianti"9 an extensi on of the:ontrac:. :~ me :.c C. E. ~'yi i e Construct; on Com;:;any to Februa iy 22, 1984. RESOLUTION OFFERED BY COUNCILMAN SCOTT, the reading of the text was waived ~y unanimous :o~sen:', ;:;assed and approved unanima~sly. 7. RES J:.. LJT I 01; ,~PPROVI NG AtJ A!ItEt~Dt.EI~T TO THE SANDA; JOT In Po\.!:::RS Ar:,'1,r;-I.A=-_~:-1 Cl-Gr nD. N~ ~"~1D""~lsr -i "IJ 0- ""'R....--OP.S (r'- ~r._~ -I" ;,:. P.r, 1 \:l \"',,)1'. ::./\ ....\ I . u ':- v l ,:,'v I. ..... 1 :y ~ttorney) SAtJD.b.G requested the City of Chula Vista, alon9 \'yith all other mem~er cities, to approve an amenamer.t to the SAIJDAG Joi nt Powers Agreement \...hi ch woul d allow SANDAG to unii a~erally set the compensation for its Directors without the necessity of amending the JPA to do so. RESOL UTi ON OF~ERED BY COUNCILWOWdJ 1"i:CANDLISS, the readi ng of the text was waived by unanimous consent. Counci 1 di scussi on ens~ed re gardi ng S,t..NDAG bei ng a j oi nt po\...ers a greement and they shoul d come back v;i th requests each time to insure a system of checl:s ane balances; compensation could be approved when each Municipal entity is approved once a year; thi s shoul d be done by the membership not the board. SUBSTITUTE MOTION MS(~1oore/Scott) meeti ng compensati on be recor.r.nended by the SAtJDAG Board at the same time the annual Ci ty contri buti ons are approved by the Joi nt Powers Agreement and be a~ended accordingly. Council~an Moore withdrew the motion, Councilman Scott withdrew the second. . SUBSTITUTE MDT!D~ MSUC (t~a 1 colm/Moore) to di rect staff to bri ng back a resol uti on authori zi n9 $75 fee for the t~a\'or (for attendance at a SAtWAG r.leeti ng) v,'i th a 1 etter relating Coun:;l 's conce,n. );2 ,-/3 - :;~, . .,- City (ouncil l~eet~iJg l"le rch 20, Boa APPROVING CHAI~GE ORD~RS 8 AND 9 FOR IH~ PAP.OJJ..Y ?fV)L AND GY'" RENOVATION AtJD APPROPRIATING FUlms THEREFOR(Director of Parks and Recreation/Direc:or of Building and Housing) - 7 - 1 0 RES:l~UTIOI.! 1 i 571 . on November 22, 1983, the City Council passed Resolution 11468 awarding a contract to O'Neill and Perry Construction Company in the ar.lount of $295,805 to renovate Park ~:ay Gym and Pool. The contract was amended on February 7, 1984, by Resolution 11535 authorizing Change Orders 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7. TwO additional Change nrders are determined to be necessary to provide a sound and well-functi oni n9 structure - strengtheni ng the floor of the mezzani ne storage roor.l and painting the pool (change orders 8 and 9). RESOLUTIOI~ OFF~P.ED SY IIaAYOR COX, the reading of the text was "..aived by unanimous consent, passed and approved unanimously. CONTINU::D ~t~TTERS .!..tJD S::COND READING OF ORDINANCES 11. P.ESOLUTION ACCEPTING GAANTS OF ~AS::M::NT FOR STREET PU?POSES .c..ND FOR TREE PLANTING AND ~AINTENANCE PURPOSES Continued from the meeting of t.iarch 13, 198! (City Engineer) The City Engineer noted the easements were not received. MSUC (Scott/Moore) to delete this item. 12. RESOLUTION 11572 AM~NDHlG RESOLUTIClN Nn. 11506 BY CHANGING THE LOCATION FOR ONE OF THE TIW BILLBOARDS IN THE "'ITD? 81 LLBOARD LITIGATION SETTLEMENT TO "J" STREET Continued from the meeting of March 13, 1984 - (City Attorney) At its !>'Iarch 13, 1984 meeting, the City Council directed staff to raise the issue of the removal of the bill boa rd at the southeast corner of "E II Street and 1-5 as a condition of the approval of the second billboard at "J" Street-. . Staff also recontacted MTDB staff and was i nfonned there ; s a settl ement meeting in Superior Court on l-1arch 22 and MTDB will have to satisfy the terns of the settlement on that date or will be subject to monetary damaaes. Staff represented that tl,TDR woul d be extremely appreci ati ve of any action Counci 1 may take to provide the two necessary sites. Given this background, the City Attorney recommended approval of the site at the northea~t corner of "J" and 1-5 as an alternative to one of the two sites previously approved to aid MTDB in the settlement of this lawsuit. RESOLUTION OFFERED BY COUNC I LW\N I'IALCOLM, the readi ng of the. text was waived by unanimous consent, passed and approved unanimously. /2--11/ city Council Meeting 3 1/, a rc h 20, 1984 MS (Cox/McCandliss) 5~aff prepare a letter to MTDR indicating a desire on the part of t.he Ci ty of Chul a Vi sta that revenues from thQse two bill boa res be first used to acquire the billboard as referenced in the letter received March 15 from Gannett Outdoor Adverti si ng in order to buyout the cost of that billboard in the amount of $7,562. Councilman '''alcolm stated it would be appropriate for staff to bring back a resol uti on to appropri ate the money and then request reimbursement but tal:e care of the sign removal immediately. Mayor Cox withdrew the motion, Councilwoman McCandliss withdrew the second. Councilman Scott suggested a beautification of the area encompassing the tracr. so there would be a screen be~ween the track and the City of Chula Vista. He Suggested the money from the sign shoul d be used for t hi s purpose. MTD? representative ft'lr. Limber stated they would be \'I'illing to work with staff's identification of the area to be developed. He also stated the removal of that sign would be conditioned upon the exercise by MTDB of its eminent domain to acquire that for a public purpose and that is the development of a station site. ".5 soon as that stati on s; te is to be acqui red and va ri OllS other properties there to be acquired, t~DB is more than willing to buyout the sign and the sian company is more than willina to sell it to them. It would be questionabfe as t'o whether or not they ,...ould have the authority at this point to purchase it absent an approved site and acquisition plan. t-ITDB will certainly agree to usi ng those revenues from the bill board as part of the acquisition for that sign at the time the station is approved. MSUC (Scott/Moore) for staff to look into the feasibillty of utilizing these funds for beautification of the line and its implementation and working in conjunction with MTDB. 13. REPORT OF THE CITY ~~NAGER a. PUBLIC INFORI'lATION COORDINATOR CLASSIFICATION STUDY The Public Information Coordinator position has been reviewed by the Personnel Department in terms of its duties and ,salary level. The study recommended the Publ i c Infornati on Coordi nator cl ass specifi cati on be revi sed to refl ect the position's current duties and its salary range be increased 32~ from $17,469-21,268 to $23,042-28,008. The City Manager recommended approval of the changes recommended in the classification study MSUC (t.~alcolm/Scott) to accept the report. ", b. City Engineer Lippitt gave an oral report on the ADl-'IA/Brown drainage problem on Bonita Road. He explained the saltation problem due to grading. AD~A. agreed to instail a brow ditch along the property lines which would make the water enter into a pipe. The water has to slow down as saltation blocks the entrance of the pipe. The brow ditch \'-IDuld enable the wa~er entering ~he pipe ",'ith higher velocity. ADttLA agreed to ;:.ay for this if ~he Brown's give ;2~~~?~O work on their property. I l '.:," ~~. .:':L~; ~I' '.. ...- J..,i-- --:~~' .r- ~_'t -~ ~!' '- ..'} ,'" ~. -<" '-:~ ~ ~~ COUNCIL AGFN.D.'\ S;'7-Mr~[~ _ ~ I.'"'. ; t.. lel\ I ~ ~ CJ'f'""" J. .......11 .::~~. ......r.. ,~-~. ~r. :,....... .:-1- ~:.."'" . 7' ,}-:-. { _L4 ~'l~=~ i ng D=.:e .'.= -:':-:"'--"""';- ~ -:. :.-:--,; -' -= , -=- _ :i;" :71-2:-.. -:. / /c: ' /~{/b- --,' ..- ~.--'" -- - :..::,::" - - \ ...:.......;-, ~ ~:::- -- .. - - -- - _,,_.....'.....i__.....~_'..~ I !.~__ ~ \ ..__ __ I -;.=-:':':;~.. 3:;=..:::' 1 ~, -''''- '-,.", _ -- ...'- .=:. .:. - _:J :." ~:- ::.:.. - . .:oS:: ::_2::102::-.:: ~- BY: __.:. '":.:'-:-:-~€\7 '/,- ./'" ..... (!/::r.s \' c. C'" .--' N8 ''- ~ VO:f: :":-.. .:.. .s =- '2 s.: __:.: :. :. G =--~ . ......... - y. --'-~''''':' =. __ _ fi: :~S::S:_ :\.- -=:. ~ -==-, ~ =.:-_:-. ~ -- :="':-1: ~.' -.- .....- -- - ..:: .: - . ~ -= ..... _ J~.,:::' _ _ :::. I -.--- --..- _.'___-.J......'::.._ _::: - -- -------.....- -:.....,':. ::: ~v.-:; i,'--: -----.-=. ::: - - =:.....- -- - -- - -,-\.- '-"-,-=" - ...... . -- ,...-= - ' ..,,'~~. " 5e:::":'..S .-..:-':"'= :):--.::. ~. =- E -: -= :-:-.. .-" '=' 'v.~ :."-.: __ ::. e~.;::.-:'_E , ,~-.- 1\ ,- :,. ':-.=..:"--'\..-=.:,. . - -,-- - ..... -' - - -_....;-'=---_':=~ =:.__::=-~=--:: =...------ --::._~~:::- :. =- :J": :;....... :.. .:y\- - ,,,,,,"'- -:.......:=. --- ~:;' ~::'l;':!':;:::2~:',:,:-:= ::.'~: : ....~:::.- - . ..... -' - --...... ~- - ............--- . ~ - ~;.- ~ - - -~. - '~J 3J~--=~ :J~.:!<=~= = ::~~ .:~~/ -- D:S::':'=:.5: ::~.:: ~(. ----- :- ~:: 'J !...:!\:~: ~~-~- :- = :':: ,. .' lP'~:: ....-- =---.--.---- - ...... - ..... ""- - -- ':= = . -- - - ......-- \-'. -- -_.-.../- - ::: J:7:::. ~ :-~ ~ =. :...:... :':-. ~:.. ;~. :-=-.-:1:'-\ - ~-. "7 c:>::::- ~ =-_:.- -2 ~ .-.'--- -- ..... -- _..- =:;~_.s-:':-''': =-:.:.- :;:-. - -- -.-. -----_::\. :':-.::~ -= =- - -- - -..- - --......- ~ ,.-;...:: -..-- -- v-'::" :..':-.:":-. -- - \. ,:,:):-:-:~=-:-.:.. -=- ~ .... -=-- '::. - . :- :;:-~ :.. -= :-:-..:-. =- :. :. :':-. :::....::: ~-== = -,' .......:-:::- c- -....... --- - - - - - -- -_..,--,- :;f. ..- 5:.:-2::' --- x:.: - _:. :: ::-. - - - , - ..- ..... - -.," =_.::-'::" -.. - - -- ----=--;:.. :.~=<=', , - .::...- _:;::'/:"':-:: :: :;::::;:- =-:-..:. e ~ '2 =-_ -:. -= .:- -=:::: P=~?::;.5e::. s~-:-:._e::7~=:-:-: 'v.~:--.:.~_...... -- . _~~'...:.:.:-es ,.___ "3~~tr.~eE: E-:.:-...:=:....::-~E ~:-J:: _ ;T"l::):':'::-::':::. -- __.I.. 9Lt:"le ::::;:..::-:........., :::.:::.:: =-:-l:: ~:.)::.:: s:.:::; ':"'~,,: ~3 ~~5~~ ::~~ _,'=' _=~.~::. ~~:o2::-. '":. :.-....... - s '=:. '":.- ,=,--::~::-.:" f 5~~a:J---...=."" ---'''-- :.,,:::; =--..:=...::':":-.:':; -..- ---'. -:;." .:-__'__ ____ ___.. ~-. :Jo2ce::-::Js:_ '::.,2.::'::::. - . . \..0_. 4 - o:;:.=..:..:-:e=, - -- -"----- =- ..... ~ - ~ --..'-- ...._.._--_.._~;. !'~:J~ ;-'=-~ :::- .:..::: J ...1... -= ::~:;~:..:_'.: :::"S::. =-e:;'JS~:'~:S ~ '-~~--::;' 1.'-,= ~ . ...... ---~ ~~ E: -:.:. ~:-..=.:' _1:::"':= =-::--:::- =,',,:-=. 1 :..-:-..::.. ~ :; :' -: ...,- _..._-----'~. h'---:---,:: -,=: .:=. ----- '- \,~- ---....-=--:=: '",: =,'-=, ~:. .5:..2..:-1:: aa;:-,;:: = S ~ . ...... . ~. '--... :..:.-=~:-=... -- - _. - - ~I.C___. _-=-- ~:= -~ =-= :,,-,,'-:::. - - ---~.- .,.: ~-= '\1::' _ __ ~:-~:...s 'v:':':" :. na:;::~ :.::-.:::-= -\'--=::le:-:-:.~ 'v:': -:":-..:"'::-.. , _. - - --......-::. ~~E:..=-. :::>-= ~ - - -- --..-- s:-..2:....:.. ~ :::::.:-.s:..:-...: =-=- e:: -. . - .1~' am:)'..::-. :.. - - ' .....- - , - -' ..... ~.E~:- . :";j'2 ,::..::-cc. ------ 'lA' ~ ~:-~ =.:=-:.ee:-: ~'-==:-~ . P:;::-S'': =.::-: 5:::;:-..S .... - ......., ~ ...:::. \. ":: ::'>02 :_e..,cv~ :: ...~~~ CO=--.IC~:"':S:' :/:-~ ::,-=:"-='-02:-: -. - - --..... ;-==_:::., 5e-:.:..~e:7le:-::. '",'~'..::':::. :::.;:,~:.-:\-e::. . :::>e ~)::..e:-_E"::' ~:-, 'v: e:--2 J= U:l2.~ss ,... ..... -,- .. '-- -.... :----'-- - :..':-. '2 -.:..--'':: 2. ::1:)'''::-. :. ::~::I=::= e ~ -------- -----'- ~.. --.. -- ~--..- --:-..----=-....- .. ------- - -- --~..::"':::. -- - -...: ::0:-; -.. - -- - co'..: :. :: ..s. \,'':: ~= 2'y.-=..:-::.e:: Y.:'J~ ' s ?.:-:::'::' :: . ~-s:-\': :-~ 41.. T:~E: C'--,=" _: - ~ ..... -::-------- ..... :' :: =. :...:.. :~:-~ c::---- -:=.-- - -- ..... - - ~-:.=..== ~~.E ~ :. :;:-~ ~, ...::. - - "-;- II :-J = ::- -_:_. - - - - -.- - ......- - --- a?p=-::.~:=..=- 'v::" _ _ ='-2 - ~ - - -.. ....-.....;.......-... p:"8-:e~-:. . Vis:.=.. =-::?S ::. :_ 2.:-. ::-= ;..-- - -. -.,,- - ..... - -.......-.. ~_"....__~- :..:-.~ "-"_ ,,-.~....._c. ,;{': /~~~,~ ~"'-r7- ~ ,<:p~~p~ d'-<:/1 .< F!S:_:-=- =!<?_:.~:~: /' -' -- ",.~<~":LL~' /"~ / .3 -7..../ / cJ -/ll7 ~/ / --- /; ~ i / /-- ///- ;,r / .:../ .--' ~ " :,~ \' . /, ~J~ ~~ --- --""""-....... ~-::....~--- ~" CITY OF CHUlA VISTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT December 18, 1990 Patrick Media Group, Inc. 1550 W. Washington Blvd. . Los Angeles, CA 90007 Attention: Edward Dato Subject: Conditional Use Permit, PCC-91-13, Relocation of Billboard The Zoning Administrator has considered your request to remove five billboards with a combined area of 2,400 sq. ft. in exchange for a single billboard of 1,344 sq. ft. (672 sq. ft. each side) and 64 ft. in height within the MTDB_ ri ght-of-way at the southeast quadrant of the I -5 Freeway and "H" Street in the C-V Visitor Commercial zone. The relocation of billboards (offsite advertising signs) is authorized by CVMC 19.58.225. See ZAV-91-03 for the companion application to this request. Based on the Initial Study, 15-91-12, and comments on the Initial Study and Negative Declaration, the Zoning Administrator finds that this project will have no significant environmental impacts and hereby adopts the Negative Declaration issued on 15-91-12. After reviewing your proposed project, site plan and the existing conditions in the immedi ate vi ci ni ty of the subject property, the Zoni ng Admi ni strator has been able to make the required fi.ndings to grant your request which is hereby approved subject to the following" conditions. 1. The five existing billboards located on Third Avenue (ejside njo Kennedy, 619-221-44) and Broadway (wjside sjo G, 567-200-11; ejside sjo Flower, 565-240-06; wjside n/o 0, 565-060-09; and e/side n/o C, 562-324-04) as depicted on Exhibit A shall be removed prior to or concurrently with the issuance of a building permit for the new billboard. 2. This permit shall be valid for a period of 10 years commencing on the date a building permit is issued for the new billboard. At the end of the 10 year period, the billboard shall be removed without compensation from the City. 3. Patrick Media Group, Inc. shall enter into the agreement called for by Resolution No. 11506 attached hereto is Exhibit B which should be used as an example. );2 --- ) 7 r-. Patrick Media Group, lnc. - -2- December 18, 1990 Failure to comply with any condition of approval shall cause this permit to be reviewed by the City for additional conditions or revocation. Findings of fact are' as follows: 1. The proposal to remove five existing billboards totaling 2,400 'sq. ft. in exchange for one new billboard totaling 1,344 sq. ft. (672 sq. ft. each side) for a ten year period will enhance the overall aesthetics within the City and is consistent with City Council Resolution No. 15554. 2. The Metropolitan Transit Development Board and the California Department of Transportation have approved the proposal. No objections have been received from surrounding property owners in response to the notice of the proposal. 3. The proposal shall be required to comply with all applicable conditions, codes and regulations prior to the issuance of a building permit and on a continuing basis thereafter. 4. The granting of this permit and companion application ZAV-91-03 1S consistent with the aesthetic policies and principles embodied in the Chula Vista General Plan. You have the right to appeal this decision to the Planning Commission. A completed appeal form along with a fee of $125.00 must be received by this office within ten days of the date of this letter. Forms are available from the Pl anni ng Department. In the absence of said appeal the deci s i on of the Zoning Administrator is final. Failure to use this permit within one year from the date of this letter shall cause the permit to become null and void unless a written request for an extension is re~eiV~ granted prior to the expiration date. ,en~~ I- Assistant Director of Planning WPC 8742P/2655P cc: City Clerk City Attorney Department of Transportation Attn: S. E. Lancaster 1120 N Street P.O. Box 9422873 Sacramento, CA 94273-0001 MTDB Attn: Jack Limber, General Counsel 1255 Imperial Avenue, Suite 1000 San Diego, CA 92101-7490 Department of Transportation Transportation Planning Gene Pound, Development Review P.O. Box 85406 San Diego, CA 92112 Attachments: Exhibit A: Locator map for five billboards to be removed Exhibit B: Agreement called for by Resolution riD. 11505 /.2 .r' / !J r:::v """,= -...Jl I' L \,,~-! "~ .\ .. .. :"'1 a j"' 1__' :-:-:: '~. '__ cD~~..",,~ 'e ".. ':.. ,'ii-. '-:.'..:':._ .' '--~-; 1. _ -.- " ~ . . - ~:' \ .~ :'! :.~/ ~~ ....,. - . - '. .-:: \~ .. . -. : " i ~ (.: -' -. 'D' . n. ' -.: : '-: \ f .... ~ ~ r .r :.rmi:-~Ji~~:t~~);.. ;1[- . · I'. .'::.;-.'7;~':;\- ~...-:./ j-"-;-; :" Ir..'-~~='=i'- . " -._1 1--.:' ,. - I' \ . . I i--' \..@~ I .__ . ,-, I I )., _ . t, === ..::...__ ~~....... . :<< :!:..'L .1,' :....:..... _, -' T ___--:.. t. -::'~"'. _.' . ~ {~ l'lll': {! -:-~:: :':~ ~: '-- ~t -,:..;..~:- .;'. >":. "- \ :; ~LJ~', - J ...; .-:-=--\':. .'::-" l!: ~ \ .-... '. "~.-' 1--~-""" ~ - . . , .....1.. .. __ ..-..... _' ". ') ~. - ---- 1',. :T.- .....;,.. ) ..;.' c.._" '-c: - ,'.\ ..,Ok _ .. -. :[~~ I~ ..:--' - ~'~. -- ._,~~ ,,:;: '"'-': .','-:- ~'~'.- iZ/ '", ' "~'- C. -'0"-..- .. __ 1..1.._ _ 1.. ....... :_ .0 _ _' , . .. : '.-;_~ . _' . .~_..._!.:: _ .....__ ...-.... ~.. ~ ;:--'''''.'1', t. ,--...1:,--:"-,. '.. ~. . ra. ":-0.. -- C I - -.. ,.;. ~I s.. t ..... / _. .. ..\. . ...... --~--~:- . -. --~:~ '- ~..- - .. t....... ~ '. , - . ., . ""'" . -.....:~[[]I' ~...,::-~_..Q..!T.:.. ~ _~L_~ v _ ~,--:.:::...:=--:....!::-~=....-:...~.~ ,,:. ~ ' f: j:"! _-=1 =- - ':_9. :IT:;; ~ .-..; ....:;.:.. '--' ! : '. .';;-!I.jl- ';:'"':J . l~ I' ~ --~1=:: ~,i: ~ --=-t::! '.~ . - - ....., - 5' ~ ~..J: :-; 'I ');l. : =. I · I - , - ,-.- . { ',-:. I J...- .' __t:. , \'k:O", , -=:~....I -. . -.. 1'-'. . _... ..~.. - :::..... --_- . _ ___.M..;""T..._.___ ~:. iL__"J . 11-1:-: _ .._~. ~". ~~ D:n Dr . .-::-:;-.,;--.--'rL~==-~ ~ ..--- ~~r-";;';: .~~ D .. r.." , .- .. .. \ . 11Ii"'IE .. .. I.~=' i -. . - II ; .; ._.~ \. "'-'.'-"':. '! ..' . "1'" . ~, . .' ,."\:::. "11"_"" = ....- , .~. ~. ':'-:-:"":7"' ==-._=-::-,._n.. '.':' ..---.:'-- "=-=:= __. .~~_ :.\. :.-:.:~ . @Z. : ~111 Ii ~ ML: - I'! . . . I 'r . c. Ir- ! ;--: -: : ~ 1 ~. ., ~~:.: : ~ ".; " ;~i ~ ij Itl!J:~~._-=...:.~...:-.-... - . ~i" t I~ ~'~~.i~.!'..~ i -! I i~.~___ ~~\ . 1(' 11Il\-/."! 11"- "',: ~ -- _L,,:.:r.Fr.:,.J/~'t.'-:;' \; ~.:= H!.:*,:.~;~ ,~'_ _-;;-~-' ~: ':~':":" / r..:' , . :: -1:! f - :-"_~.~ : ~ !._' .~ ==-:-J~ f~ f, F ::.b; .-~: J 1- J 1 It:1-:: 1.ILDlil)" . '1' -;' 1 ~ ~d~l".- (f'"7l..--! r->=.c..,..,~ I r: lilli' --=.-.--""'- /-.c,-,.-: - "; .'""".~ ' . . f 1 J'-':I'''! ::~ ~ '"";,............ ! ( 'Il'~g . ;','.:; .. t '-< . = :. I ~-=-=""-'~' . I \ ,'L!~_ .:f:j ..1 _...-_....!_" I" K "K IT-"_. f":_.; '1~ ~~-=="''' ..:..._ ,'d~l ,:-;-:-r;-mr-'~ ~I ';. /': - :~:.~~:~ ~-.,-:--::;;'--::\;.::.::..-~F -J}: ~:d=-'"':4 ~0.J: -- :-- --' - ; i'j L::';"2:~ -=--:'. ,"'=>~ ~,., ) . ~." Ii . - "1 I I It. - ---= -~~...-.'. i . .. ~~ .1 = ='p'~ ~r I:i II' liL ST.:- I. .._' .:.: r_=-~ 'f ;. ,-:. r!i i"'"""..)'= 'l~I'--- -Il~ -:t:f.,--:r_ =-;-./:0" in,' '. . ~ : -;; (-1'-:':::: .7 .' ii~~FI==;-;- ~..' , . I ,. ,-I .=-----. J . . -' .... _ . . .' . ~~ ~ -' . ..--: : .;=--=- .7 ......!..I; r. - I' - ,: ....... ....-0:". J" . ." r-__. :. · .. ~r-'! - :. ~ I :........... . I:......:...... ~.: -.. . -- - - I. u l .;.... ,;., I:; f. f.....:) l=--::t I:':-:~:U~ Ii ~ I: .~~.~;~~.: J~~:. ., -.- "'I;-:':j ~I:.-I'>:7~'~::~-:~'1 a C ' I. '. L. '~<--,- .: -- :'[I: '" f' ~'.. :./.;:=:~, -~: t. '1S I~-~I . I t= .1""'. -.:0..." ":1 '..:::.- .- ...:- ,. J _: .. -." .'b . r: ~;~., ~ ;ij o' 'I~[~"'T. .~ ~ .S::"._!~ _ ~:::==-.... ~ Lt.!.JLL-~_ ,/ ;ti" , r~ Joe -' J~I.\.: ( i ! , ;;.; ::[Li .~ ~~ -:;.!;='".~U ;.::: -' i(.l' ;:.1 . !: . ':"'"'"...;:"',----. ~ :. ._~-- =-==.;:''1'~ ).,,; '1: ~~:_ l:OrrD.D"'S~ L-'L~'.J_'~~_~_!_-L':_:.: ._=-':-"--t'.i-_''':'::''.dd_ 'L:::'"''':'iJ~ 11" ~I, I" --':-:-1:-:-:' "1~: ): L_ ~! ~ '=-=-==-=:i ( !::, ~ r : '~-:::---:~"'tt.N ~ @-=-:;'iJ':B"11 ...!I "~L.r..:-- '.=~":: ~ i '--1~-~Z~. f;:_,~_l'l{~ 1.' 'l-r~i.J' il~I~.L~".~_:~:~~'II' 7. 1_ :~ :~: :2~.;:~~i-~ ~; . . /-.. . ~ . . . I.. _"," _ _ . ' ~/....- -'- ! o"~ ~ '1-: ~ r' ----=_.J .=-- . =- -...,:.. · --'-:- .. . ---"- I ~04.,..-. -. t . ,I -...tl.'.~-......::o-....,.- .' I . . Or -'_11. I -'- ........ .-.,. I -.." -.... l -. 7'11 ,",--.=-' : ....... ".C:;"':~.. l~: :::..) -';: .:.JJ ~ I~~-~ ........ " . .. ~ -~ -=- \, , '- _.. /a:72~~:-" . '. -,....~C- 'I :~:, ~i.'" t.-;~ "'J..__....\).'r 6~j' :-~'-iPf:' . . I~ jl ..~_..:. ~ \ ~J.:o :::""'\"'~C".'.:.!..:. ~ : " /' 7 ~.. 1'--:' ..... 1.. --"'~:~:'I t. .::: . , ~~ I ....~ - .;1 ~,a..-.: J ,-- j:-. :::..=-:.-.1 -'"'--, '"'2--::.. -<1 ~ (3) ::::::::,' =-; '~~ .::::-=-~. _'L ~..:.:, .:' ,i ::-...:..i:' ~-:->I." .- i~'- -~(--~.. ~'.. ~ ::..---~~ I~ l"'::;/UJ--:='o_.-;; .-'-~' JJ [:. " ____ - '-......J 1" --. :-:...-'~'-__ ~-_ _____, ..... _;_ J '__.' .___' ___":.= -'--. (0~ ""'\-'.\-:'::"::~'.~~~~ ,,:]/~...:._~/:': ;,~~><'~~-:,=-'.~.;'~l'.; -,... 2r;-.j j'l7\ ::---'. ~::::::-:::-'~:::---:':""~""'-:::-JI-::-:-:'''' .' _.~.., ___.-,: /...., _ . .-=~ , ''- --~:-., \V (;\ \. ~:~~::-.::J ~ 'L~~' I. " '-~~.. ~ i.""~:lI:.~/~ ~ . \::.J " ,~~ ~ '- ~.) /... I I .' ~ . ~ ;-::... ,. J I 1"/ . @/ .---~- '<\ /',:::~..,... '~ r--l'-/ !...:,-"~.,,:....,,,.,/,_::,~:';':":."/~~.[. \~ ,~. -'--~:J ----- - - ."~.'~~ ,'.----;.... -. ;.' 'i... . :-0. -~--..::::::___ r::::-. "( j'- ,;.../:::- '01:., . -....-...J : r ..... ~ ~:~: ~__ --....... '. ..: '!\i.~J '-/"~ .'~ """ .... " ' ........ II .' . :.... . .-, "', ,'S I , / .~ )~,/.?~.--= . /."': I""'?' .I ___ J'~ I . /~-:'-"'~' ,.:.....:~-::-! '~'I~" , I ..-......' .;.-"t:::::' '..:' ..: - ,. /I, ...... ~~J ...... . / .;,.: .. "-'''-''' ,:.""!,,- t'TJ5' ""....1 --.......... I '. "'I!; ~""~'" ~ .--.....;., ,..... :--: ~LL'"""": DA!::D LDe" -1-;-"1"\ '5 I .:: .:.~, . ~f:~~"::'://i' ./! -. - . . ,.......,.! U, \.J. .... ---.,,"---< . ,_., )t-;2 -- / ~ ~ .~~(.~ { -, I '. . '. : 1-' I , - j EXHI BIT A \. ~ · - C~::>AJO L D:..o. mils G'~:"'~r.:;r#::....::.-: '''J~i..tl.~ ~ 3-1 ........... ........... negative declaration PROJECT NAME: 1-5 Billboard Initial Study PROJECT LOCATION: In' the MTDB right-of-way, 100 feet south of the intersection of "H" Street and Interstate 5 (APN 571-030-15) PROJECT APPLICANT: Patrick Media Group CASE NO: IS-91-12 DATE: October 9, 1990 A. Proiect Settinq The project site is located approximately 100 feet south of the intersec,tio,n of "H" Street and 1-5 in the right-of-way for the Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB) Trolley Line. The ~9B acre site abuts the existing flood control channel and retail commercial uses to the east. According to CalTrans' locational system, the project 1S located at approximately the 7.79 post mile limits of Interstate 5. B. Proiect Descriotion The proposed project includes the removal or r1ve existing billboards totalling 2,400 square feet and their replacement with a 1,344 sq. ft. two-sided advertising billboard at the intersection of "H" Street and 1-5. The five billboards being removed are located at Third Avenue and Kennedy Street; Broadway and "C", Broadway and "0", Broadway and "G", and Broadway and Flower Streets in Chula Vista. . The project requires approval from CalTrans for compliance with State requirements for outdoor advertising along a public highway. The proposed project must meet addit i ona 1 Ca 1 Trans requi rements due to its 1 ocat ion along a "landscaped freeway" designation of 1-5. C. Comoatibilitv with Zoninq and Plans The proposed project is located in ,the (CV) Visitor Commercial lone. The general plan designation is "Open Space" since the site consists of an open area adjacent to the MTOB Right-or-Way. A Conditional Use Permit is allowed for the purpose of relocating existing sign structures as encouraged by the Business and Professions Code, Section 5412. A variance is required since the dimensions of the proposed billboard exceed City standards for the C-V lone. Surrounding land uses include existing commercial uses to the east, Mueller Elementary School to the southeast, Interstate 5 to the west, open space for the MTOB Trolley line to the north and south, the MTDB trolley station and park and ride facility further to the north, and a mobilehome park to the northeast. city of chula vista planning department environmental review section ~Jft- -.- . -- --- --.. """"- ....... ---- -- )cl,-d-O '-.J \-. OW OF CHUL.\ VISfA ,........... -2- D. Compliance with the Threshold/Standards Policy 1. Fire/EMS The Threshold/Standards Policy requires that fire and medical units must be able to respond to calls within 7 minutes or less than 85% of the cases and within 5 minutes or less in 75% of the cases. The proposed project would not be subject to this threshold. 2. Police The Threshold/Standards Policy requires that police units must respond to 84% of Priority 1 calls within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority 1 calls of 4.5 minutes or less. Police units must respond to 62% Priority 2 calls within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority 2 calls of 7 minutes or less. The proposed project would not be subject to this threshold standard. 3. Traffi c The Thresho1 d/Standards Pol icy requi res that all intersections must operate at a Level of Service (LOS) "C" or better, with the exception that Level of Service (LOS) "0" may occur during the peak two hours of the day at signalized intersections. Intersections west of 1-805 are not to operate at a LOS below their 1987 LOS. No intersection may reach LOS "F" during the average weekday peak hour. Intersect ions of arteri a 1 s wi th freeway ramps are exempted from th is policy. The proposed project would not be subject to this threshold standard,. 4. Parks/Recreation The Threshold/Standards Policy for Parks and Recreation is 3 acres/l,OOO population. This threshold standard applies only to res i dent i a 1 projects; therefore, the proposed project wou1 d not be subject to this threshold standard. 5. Drainage The Threshold/Standards Pol icy requ i res that storm water fl ows and volumes shall not exceed City Engineer Standards [P]. Individual projects will provide necessary improvements consistent with the Drainage Master Plan(s) and City Engineering Standards. The proposed project would not be subject to this threshold standard. 6. Sewer The Threshold/Standards Policy requires that sewage flows and volumes shall not exceed City Engineering Standards [P]. Individual projects will provide necessary improvements consistent with Sewer Master Plan(s) and City Engineering Standards. The proposed project would not be subject to this threshold standard.~;2 ,-~~ -3- 7. Water The Thresho 1 djStandards Pol icy requi res that adequate storage, treatment, and transmi ssi on faci 1 it i es are constructed concurrently with planned growth and that water quality standards are not jeopardized during growth and construction. The proposed project would not be subject to this threshold standard. E. Identification of Environmental Effects ~n initial study conducted by the City of Chula Vista determined that the proposed project would have one or more significant environmental effects, therefore, the preparation of an Envi ronmenta 1 Impact Report wi 11 not be requ ired. A negat i ve dec 1 arat i on has been prepared in accord ance wi th Section 15070 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The proposed project has been determi ned to be assoc i ated wi th vi sua 1 impacts, however, visual impacts have been deemed to be less than significant. A discussion of potential visual impacts follows. Vi su a 1 Imna cts The proposed billboard is associated 'with potential visual impacts due to its highly visible location adjacent to Interstate 5. The sign will be illuminated and will be located along a portion of 1-5 which CalTrans has designated as a "landscaped freeway." Landscaped freeways are subject to more stri ngent revi ew standards by Cal Trans. Accordi ng to the Outdoor Advertising Act, no advertising displays such as the proposed billboard are allowed adjacent to a landscaped freeway unless it meets the exemption criteria set forth in Sections 5441 and 5442 of the Act. Visual impacts were analyzed to determine how the proposed project would block view corridors, impact surrounding land uses, add light and glare to the visual environment as well as create visual impacts to motorists traveling along 1-5. The surrounding area is characterized by freeway and trolley-oriented uses, with the MTDB Trolley line and Right-of-Way freeway commercial uses to the east, and the MTDB Troll ey Station and park and ri de facil i ty to the northeast. The proposed bill board wi 11 create an incremental change in the vi sua 1 environment to 1-5 motorists. Visual impacts associated with placement of the billboard at this location are not deemed insignificant due to the relatively small size of the billboard, the short duration of impact to motori sts travel i ng past the bi 11 board, and the character of the surrounding area with urbanized, freeway-related land uses. F. Mitiaation necessary to avoid sianificant effects The project is not associated with any significant environmental impacts, therefore, no specific project mitigation will be required. /;2 '-c2~ -4- G. Findinos of Less than Sionificant Impact A Negative Declaration has been prepared pursuant to Section 15070 of the State CEQA guidelines' and the following findings have been made. Based on the following findings, it is determined that the project would not have a significant environmental impact, therefore, no environmental impact report will be required. Through the provision of mitigation measures, potentially significant impacts have been reduced to a level of less than significant. 1. The project has the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wil dl i fe speci es, cause a fi sh or wi 1 dl i fe popul at i on to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or an i ma 1, or e 1 i mi nate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Although, the proposed billboard will create an incremental change in the visual environment for motorists along this portion of 1-5, it will not have a significant environmental effect due to its relatively small size and the short duration of exposure to passing motorists. 2. The project has the potential to achieve short-tenn environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-tenn environmental goals. The proposed billboard is an unusual type of land use which requires a CUP and a variance in order to comply with the General Pl an and zoning designations. The project will not achieve short-term goals to the disadvantage of long-term goals because these long-term goals would be achieved through compliance with City threshold standards, site preparation standards, and conditions of project approval. 3. The project has possible effects which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. As used in the subsection, "cumulatively cons i derab 1 e" means that the incrementa 1 effects of an i nd i vi dual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the. effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects. A 1 though the proposed project woul d create cumul at i ve impacts, such as temporary noise impacts relating to construction activities, these impacts are short-term and are not considered significant, since they would occur during the construction phase of the project only. The impacts to the surrounding community will consist of an incremental visual impact considered to be less than significant, but will not create growth inducing impacts to the surrounding community. /2r-~;J - 5- 4. The environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on ~uman beings, either directly or indirectly. There wi 11 be temporary noi se impacts associ ated wi th the construction phase of the project, but these will be short-term only. The project will not cause any substantial adverse impact to human beings, and no potential human health impacts were identified in the Initial Study. H. Consultation 1. Individuals and Oraanizations City of Chula Vista: Maryann Miller, Environmental Review Coordinator Roger Daoust, Engineering Department Alex Saucedo, Building and Housing Carol Gove, Fire Marshal Captain Keith Hawkins, Police Department Ken Lee, Planning Department Martin Schmidt, Parks and Recreation Sweetwater High School District: Thomas Sil va Ca 1 Trans: Stan Lancaster, Chief, Outdoor Advertising Section Applicant's Agent: Patrick Media Group 1550 W. Washington Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90007 2. Documents Calif. Admin. Code, Title 4, Chapter 6 1I0utdoor Advertising" issued by the Department of Transportation, November 1988 Chula Vista General Plan Chula Vista Municipal Code Outdoor Advertising Act, the Department of Transportation This determination, that the project will not have any significant environmental impact, is based on the attached Initial Study, any comments on the Initial Study and any comments on this Negative Declaration. Further information regarding the environmental review of the project is available from the Chula Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 92010.. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COORDINATOR EN 6 (Rev. 3/88) WPC 8404P 10175P Attachments: Location Map Site Plan Initial Study Checklist Public Comments J) -cJ-f RESOLUTION NO. 15554 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA WAIVING FEES FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO RELOCATE AN OFFSITE ADVERTISING STRUCTURE The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby resolve as follows: WHEREAS, Patrick Media Group has proposed the removal of five billboard structures in return for the relocation of one of them to the southeast corner of 1-5 and "H" Street, and WHEREAS, Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 19.58.225 prohibits offsite advertising in all zones except by approval of a conditional use permit for the purposes of relocation of existing structures, and WHEREAS, this proposal is consistent with the City's policy of encouraging the removal of billboards, and WHEREAS, the proposed relocation billboard would be permitted for a term of ten years. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby waive the filing fees for the necessary conditional use permit in order to encourage the proposal to remove the five billboards in return for one relocation site for a period of ten years. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Ci ty Council of the Ci ty of Chul a Vi sta does hereby approve the proposal in concept subject to the necessary public hearings. to form by ,--- ;2/ ;2!;? Resolution No. 15554 Page 2 PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the City Counci 1 of the Ci ty of Chu1 a Vi sta, California, this 20th day of March, 1990 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Councilmembers: Council members: Councilmembers: Counc i1 members: ATTEST: STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) ss. CITY OF CHULA VISTA ) McCandliss, Moore, Cox None Malcolm, Nader None I, Beverly A. Authe1et, City Clerk of the City of Chu1a Vista, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 15554 was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, California, at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the 20th day of Ma rc h, 1 990. Executed this 20th day of March, 1990. i " ~( f,~: ;~; ~ ~ ever y . / u. - e e, , y erk ) 02 ~cJ. t COL""NCiL AGE~1)A STATE:\fE~l Item Meeting Date ~!15/97 1 Lt.:\1 TITLE: RepoI1 regarding the Me~opolitan Tr-c.D.Sit Developme:lt Board i-:\1TDB) Right -of-Way Landscape Project Implementation. (LD-l 06) 51.""BMITTED BY: Resolution Authori7ing tile City ~anager to Execute a Memorandum of Underst2Ilding with Merropolitan Transit Development Board/San Diego and .A..f..zona Easte~ Railway Company for Landscaping of tbe MTDB Right-of-Way within tile Ciry of C~ula Vis+..a, Request Release of Billboard Rese:ve Fund Monies and Coscil Formally :Zevise lie Approved MTDB Right-of-Way Beautification ?:-oject. Dire:tor oi Planning /{l!( , -'" / Dire::wr of Parks, Recreation and Ope:} SDac~/] I..r' ~ {/ - - (>rr- it ../ City Manager (4/5ths Vote: Yes X ::\o~ ~.E'VIE"W.ED BY: On ~ovember 5, 1996 Council directed staf; to forward a copy of the MTDB Right-of-Way 3eautification Project Summary RepoI1 to MTDB as Chula Vista's concept master plan for 4- =iies of landscaping within MTDB's rilffit-of-wav in Chula V~..a. Council also directed staff - - -'" IO initiate the developmem and negotiation of a memorandum of understanding with MTDB for 3plementation of the m2.Ster plan and establish a detailed. phased development plan with a 5mding comminnent for implememation of the project. l.Je Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proj~t and made a determination that :he project is exempt from environmental review as a Class 4(b) exemption. REC O:M!\1E!\:l)A TION: r'1at the City Council adopt resolution: Autbor..z:ng the City Manager to exe~ute a Me:nor.wdum of unde3L2llding, substa.:.'1tially in tJ."le fo~ attached bere:o WiL.1 r.he Me:::-'Jpolitan T2TISit Developme:1t Board\San Diego A...rizorra & Eastern R.c.i1wav COmDaTIv: 2.:J.c.. ... ~ ...., . Requesting that MillB release Billboard ?-.ese:::-ve Fund monies in tile amount of S5.i,000 for Phase I matching funds; and, RequesI.ing that MillB appropriate ~OO. 000 of T:ra.::spor..ation E;1-";::ncemem .A.c:ivi:ies ":"T"''"" ::~: I" p ~-r: - - ph D -1 :: -;,p p-o.",.... ! U.lL..S ~vr .mp ....ITh..:1La."Od or ..2.5.... o! ...;..- .... ]...._~. )2 -;2 / Page 2~ Ire:n _ \leering Date 4/15/97 BOARDS/COMl\lISSIONS RECOMJvlEl'i"DA nON: Not Applicable. DISCUSSION: ~2s:~ETound =:: Jecember i 995, Council approved the filing or an application for w1e use or ,) r.ate or C~iifornia Tr2.!l..Sponation Enhancement Activities funds (TEA). TEA funds are availabie locally ~-or :apitaJ improvements under the Federal Intermodal Surface Transpor2rion E;;]c:e:l:::y Act :ISTE.-\) of 1991. This funding request was unsuccessful. Sr.a;; in illD initiated dis:::lSsions "viill MTDB ror possible alternative funding sources. MTDB had suc:::essfully acquir~d TEA fu;1ds for distribution along their south line trolleys in National City, Chula VisL.a. 2)d San 7""'i~':""() ,;...11....=_. :n :)ecember 1996, Chula Vista made a formal request to MTDB for :lse or TEA ~ds to ::::;;ieme:lt ?~2.Se 1 or the MTDB beaurincation project. This request \\'as granted 2.!)d the '::;~::.erG.l !vlc.nager or MTDB was dire:::ted to work with the Ciry of Chula Vista on de':eloping :;. :::e:norandum or underst2..nding to implement t.:1e MTDB right-or-way ~eautincatioIl proje:::t '.;:::'~:n C1Uia VLsL.a. ~'..!:JC!mg ?:mding sources for Phase 1 have been identified. Currently a total or S.iOO,OOO is 2.".ailable :rom MTD B T::::A funds for implementation of the t>eautificarion project. The City is. ~cwever, ]jiigated under this particular funding program to provide a matching :und of S54,rJOO. A 3ijlboard Reserve Fund created in 1984 between the Ciry of Chula Vista and MillB bas c..\"2..iiable funds ror use and is identified as a funding source for matching funds. lJe Billboard Reserve Fund is currently set to expire in the Year :WOO. Monies within ti::s fund 2"e generated by an advertisement lease agreement between MTDB 2..."1d an ourdoor sign :::H:1pany. Mes-omedia, for advertisement r~gbts. Chula Vista is a third p2.J.-:y' to this agree::nent. .~pproximatejy 58,000 each year are held in reserve by MTDB and available for use by Chula \i:sca. Sin::e the establishment of this reserve some monies have been reJe2.Sed for use, however ~: : S. 000 :s c'J;;-ently available. Procedurally, to expend these funds the Cry and MTDE :nust :~:-ee on :he '..lse or monies within w1is Tu:1d. A reouest bv w1e Citv is se~ fonh in the c.:-..ached - .. .I ~ ?:::~oiutjon fa. CClUncirs c~:mside:-2.tion. The 2.vaiiable MTDB TEA rund c0upled \-,,:ith :....r;e Cry's '::J;;:;-:burion :-esuits in a IOtal or 5.:.1)..1.000 avaii2..bje for Ph25e 1. ~_~ JL1e:- fUildir:g sources be:::ome 2.vailable, othe:- phases or "he project \>,'iil be brought jack to =.)t:nd ;'or::Jr..sideration. One possible funding source SL.aff h25 idemified for considerc..:.ion is ::-:~ -:-;-2.nsDor:a~ion Enhancement Act "2". Disc:lssions at the State level wiil determine i these ~':.:::cs ",vii] :::Jmi!!ue and became avaiiable later L1is year. If it is de:::ided :0 continue ';"::"1 :....l-]e );2-.2~ Page 3, Item _ \1eeting Date 4/15/97 program, then applications to the State will be submined in December 1997 for funding in FY- 98-99. ?;oiect Costs ?:-ojec: costs which were developed a number or years ago. estimated Latal construction and :wpie:nemation costs for L1e entire 4 mile corridor at 51,900,000. Tnis estimate included the :Jie:Jaration or c::>nstruction documents ror the 4 mile corridor and the construction or rencina . ... ':::" dec:Jrative harascaDe. sweet ij~ht-or-wav enhancements at 9 iocations, li~htina olantina and . - . - ::>'. ::> :i7l!~atlon. S tafT proposes as a "cost reduction alternative" :hat the scope of Phase 1 be modified.. Tne ~proved master beaurific3.tion plan divides u1e :andscape improvements into 4 segments or pieces within me right-of-way corridor.. Phase 1 concenrrates landscape improvements in the ?iOximiry or 'E' Street. Phase 2 improvements are concenrrated in the viciniry or Main Srreer. ?Jase 3 imDrovements are concentrated wiu1in L1e vicinirv or 'F Street CJ."1d landscaoe . -. iillprovemems within Phase 4 are concenrrated on the remaining area be:ween ' H' Street and ?ajomar Street. :\5 now envisioned by starr, Phase 1 would be modified to encompass the entire 4 mile length or Ihe corridor bur the program would be limited to planting & irrigation. Within the 4. mile length, srai; will designate areas most in need or planting. "Planting enhancements" in the :-emaining areas will be deferred at this time as well as other beautification enhancements idemified within the master plan. Starr will repon back to Council as other funding sources are identified to allow for the ultimate completion of all the improvements identified in the overall :naster plan. \12.imenance Costs It should be noted that the funding mechanism (TEA and Billboard Reserve funds) for Phase 1 does not include funding for maintenance... Tne Ciry is solely responsible for landscape maintenance or the 4 miie corridor. The Parks Depamnent has estimated that costs for ITIaintenance (includes labor and utilities) wiiI require approximately $25,000 yearly to maintain :'1e -+ wiles or Phase 1 improvements. Monies from the Billboard Reserve rund could provide a funding source for up to :3 years providing time for starr to investigate alternative sources for ~:!ndin~. At :.his Joint however. once ule 3illboard F'Jnd a~reement ends, General Fund worries - . - ';,-jJ be required for on-going illaimenance C::JSCS. Any cOI'.5ideration to extend the Biilboard ?ese:-ve Fund .,"ouid be a de~ision by future Council and would not fully fund the mainte::laIlce ;Jiograrn as outlined. Per :.he "Tentative Sc~edule of Perrorwance" Ciry maintenance will begin ::1 ?Y -99-:000. /2 -c21 Page 4~ Item _ .\1eeting Date 4/15/97 p...s other funding sources are identified for implementation of the remaining improvements such as lighting, decorative hardscape, fencing etc., staff estimates a yearly maintenance cost of 581,000 would be needed. FISCAL IMPACT: ?~nding for Phase 1 of this project has been identified through MTDB's 1994-95 Transportation sn.hancement Activities (TEA) funds. These funds (S400.000) are processed through the San Diego Association of Governments, administered by CALTRA.NS and MTDB and available to ule City or Chula Vista. The matching City monies (S54,000) are availabie from the 3illboard Fund which is administered by MTDB. Implementation Costs Phase 1 (drawinE:s & construction) , - S419,000 Cominge:lcy 35.000 $454,000 Funding: MTD B TEA Funds Billboard Funds 5400,000 54.000 5454,000 Maintenance costs for Phase 1 are estimated at S25,000 per year beginning in FY-99-2000 (c~mstruction contract will contain 1 year maintenance clause). Total maintenance COSts includes labor and utilities and are based on the proposed modified Phase 1. Parjal maintenance funds are available from the Billboard Reserve Fund with mutual agreement berween Chula V!.sLa and MTDB. Maintenance & Utilities COSts Phase 1 (modified) Per Year Costs 525.000 525,000 Once det.ailed construction plans are developed exact costs will be known. Remaining :nonies in Ihe Billboard Fund can provide funding for maintenance for approximately 3 years. Any c:or.sideration La extend the Billboard Reserve rund wouid provide an S8.000 off-se'::. If 3illboard Reserve Funds end and until other fundi.T'Jg sources ::c.ve been ide:1tified, General Fund :::m:ies wii] be =-equired for yearly on-going illaime:lance. /02 - J tJ Funding Billboard Funds (minus matching funds) Billboard Funds available until year 2000 (approx.) Total A vail. Funds ..i.Ltachments: 1 Viciniry Map. D~rr R~soJution. Me~Oj2Ddurn of Unde:-s-...anding. :::-i:'.HOME\PL~1!-IG\GARRYW\MTDB.l 13) Page 5, Item _ Meeting Date 4/15/97 $62,000 24.000 $86,000 ."."n; 9. ;997 /.2--3/ MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BE1WEcN METROPOLITAN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT BOARD, SAN DIEGO & ARIZONA EASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY, AND CITY OF CHULA VISTA FOR MTDB RIGHT-OF-WAY LANDSCAPING WITHIN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA WITNESSi::TH WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Transit Development 3cardlSan Diego Arizona & :=3stern Railway herein referred to as "MTDB" has right-of-way located within the City Df Chula Vis+.a; and the City of Chula Vista herein referred to as "City" has developed the MTOB Right-of-Way Beautification Project Summary Report as a concept master plan which consis+LS of four phases in its entirety for the landscaping of said right-of way located within the City of Chula Vista herein referred as "Project"; and MTDB has State of California funding which is processed through the San Diego Association of Governments herein referred to as "SANDAG", administered by the California TranspDrtation Department herein referred tD as "CA.L ~NS", and awarded to ivlTOB which is available to the City tD construct a portiDn Df said Project; and, WHEREAS, on November 5, 1996, the City fDrwarded a C::lPy of the Project to MTDB as the :::mcept master plan for landscaping of the MTDB right-of-way located within the City of Chula Vista. and directed staff tD initiate the development and negotiation Df a Memorandum of Unders-.anding herein referred to as "Moun with MTOB, and to develop a detailed, phased development pian and funding commitment for the Project; and, WHEREAS, on December 12, 1996, MTDB: 1) received the City's request for the use of ;=ederal Transportation Enhancement Act grant funds for the purpose of landscaping the i..-HDB right-of-way IDcated within the City Df Chula Vis+.a; 2) approved the MTDB Right-of-Way Beautification Project Summary Report developed by the City Df Chula Vista fDr landscaping Qf the MTDB right-of-way located within the City Df Chula Vista; and, 3) directed the General Manager to negotiate the terms of a MOU with the City Df Chufa Vista for subsequent Bcard action to establish a detailed, phased development, maintenance, and funding plan fDr implementation Df the Project; and. WHEREAS, City and MTDB concur that the Project is a Class 4 (b) exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act [Section 15034 (b)] and the Department of TranspDr.ation National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) guidelines categorical exclusion [Se~on 771.117 (2)(7)] and does not require environmental review; and, WHEREAS, the City and MTDB desire tD enter into a MOU to cause the development of :::mstruction drawings fDr the Project, the commitment of funding, and the installation and :naintenance of landscaping to impiement Phase I of the Project as briefly described in Exhibit A, ::l"..ached hereto and herein referred to as "Phase I," in accordance with the tentative schedule of Jeriormance provided in Exhibit B, attached heretD and herein referred to as "Schedule" (Phases l III, and IV of the Project shall be the subject of a separate, future Memorandum of 'Jnderstanding); and, WHER.~S, the Project inc!udes prototype pians, mater:al matrixes, estimates DT prc::able ::S75 for improvements and other informau::J!l re:ated to imple:.ie!ltation; ane:. 102-32 Pa:e 1 af 4 7. 3. WHER.EAS, the Project will provide widespread benefits to the City and MTD3, in visual enhancement, air quality, and will enhance the overall riding experience of t~e patrons ::Jf MTDB. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, MTDS and City agree as follows: SECTION A. City agrees as follows: 1. CITY SHALL cause the preparation of construction drawings for the Project and car.struction of the landscape improvements for Phase I in general accordance with the Schedule. Said drawings shall be designed in- accordance with MTD3 design standards and Light Rail Transit (LRT) design criteria and approved in total by MTDS in writing. 2. CiTY SHALL work with MTDS as requested to complete CaITrans required field review and environmental documentation, as required, to obtain CalTrans Notice to Proceed (NTP) for Phase l. ., v. CITY SHALL comply with prOVISions of the California Clean p.,jr Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Secretary of the interior's Standards, and Guidelines for Archeological and Historic Preservation, and any other federal, state, and/or local laws and/or regulations as applicable to this Project L CITY SHALL obtain 3 "Right of :::ntry Permif' from MTDS for construction and maintenance p"urposes. ConstructiDn may not begin on San Diego and Arizona Eastern (SD&AE) 2ailway or MTDS property before permit is issued. The City or its contractor shall pay all nagging costs associated with the construction of the landscaping. The City or its contractor shall maintain railroad protective insurance for all work within MTDS Right-of-Way. :J. CITY SHALL submit Final Construction Plans and special provisions fDr the intended Phase f construction work tD MTDS fDr approval priDr to commencing with final reproductiDn :Jf the contract documents tD ensure compatibility with the South Une Landscaping Master Plan, MTDS design standards, and Light Rail Transit design criteria. 5. CITY SHALL ensure that the landscape construction and maintenance will not interfere with the operation of the San DiegD TrDlley, San Diego and Imperial Valley Railroad, or the Chula Vista Transit system. CITY SHALL not accept the constructiDn work as complete until MTDS conduc:s an inspection Df the work done and informs the City that it is acceptable. Such approval by MTDB shall not be unreasonably delayed Dr withheld. CITY Si-:ALL, at its own expense, assume liability for the work conduc:ed in Phase j "Nithin the MiCa c:Jrridor and shall maintain landscaping, irrigation, and arc:,itec:uraf enhancements (including labDr and water) installed in Phase J within the MTDB c:JmoDr in accordance with the provisions set forJ1 in t1e Permanent Right of Entry Permit CITY Si-:.A.LL maintain full and c:)mplete rec:Jrds of the costs for Phase I, in accordance with generally accepted acc:Junting principals. These recDrds shall be maintained for at least three y,=ars after completion of Phase I and shall be available for inspection by Mi::3 and CalTi"ar.s during noriilal business hDurs. ?age 2 af 4 /.2 --Y} SECTION B MTDB Agree as follows: 10. MOTa SHALL provide up to $400,000 in Transportation Enhancement Act (TE.A.) funds, subject to release of said funds and issuance of a Notice to Proceed (NTP) from the Califomia Department of Transportation (CaITrans); and, shall approve the use of 554,000 in MTDB billboard reserve funds as the required local match to fund this Project MTDS SHALL invoice State within 20 days of receipt of letter from the City requesting reimbursement, supported by receipt of invoices with proper documentation including summary of staff time charges and contractor invoices. MTOS shall release funes to the City within 10 days of receiving funds from the State. City shall provide a schedule for reimbursements to MTDS following execution of each c:::mtract required for implementation of Phase I. I I. MTDS SHALL allow the balance of funds remaining in the Billboard rund after wit:'drawal of 554,000 for Phase I and any future revenues accruing to the Billboard Fund to be applied toward maintenance of Phase I. MillS shall forward all allowable funes to the City following written request which shall be accompanied by City approved budget each fiscal year. -:2. MTDS SHALL waive all MTDS permit fees. MTDS staff review and inspection costs associated with Phase I are to be considered eligible c::::sts and shall be charged as such Tram the~ funding, not to exceed 520,000. ~ \,'1;t\.~ldu 13. MTDS SHALL work with the City and CaITrans to obtain a NTP to use Transportation Enhancement Activities funding in a timely manner. 14. MTDS SHALL provide technical resources, such as existing surveys, to the City for use in the preparation of technical drawings. i 5. MillS SHALL grant a "Right of Entry Permit" to the City or its designee in a timely manner prior to the start of construction, and grant a permanent "Right of Enty Perm if' to the City for maintenance purposes following the installation of Phase I landscape improvements. 16. MTDB SHALL determine the access and egress of City maintenance vehicles agreeable to the City to allow for the maintenance of landscaping on the fJlTDB Right-of Way which. shall be set forLh in the Permanent Right'af Entry Permil SECTION C General Provisions: 17. In the event Phase I is completed at a cost greater than budgeted under this MOU, the City and MTDS agree to work together to identify additional sources of revenue to cover additional costs. However, MTDS is not obligated to fund this additional cost unless agreed to in subsequent amendments to this MOU. i 8. In the event that Phase I is completed at a cost less than budgeted under this MOU, balance of maximum allowable funding shall be ap:Jiied ~o future phases of the Project. ~:: T;,is rIJou shall :,ec:ome effec::ive ir.1mediately upon 7L::1 authorized execution here~f. Page 3 of to /02 - Jf 20. This MOU may be modified in writing, only by mutual c::msent of the City and MTD3. 21. Each party participating in this MOU shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless each other pa~icipating party from all costs, demands, actions, liability or loss which may arise from or be incurred as the result of injury or damage to persons or property in connection with each party's own performance under this MOU, or as the result of any negligent act or omission of any of its employees, agents, contractors, or subcontractors. ....? L_. Parties agree that all recitals shall be incorporated herein and made a part of this r..10U. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and MTDB have caused this MOU to be executed as of the date set forth. "MTDB" METROPOLlT AN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT BOARD, "MTDB" "CITY" CITY OF CHULA VISTA, "CITY" ihomas F. Larwin, General Manager John D. Goss, City Mar.ager SAT::': DAle: '-!:~Lj:)ME\?!...ANNING"oM7:)2.MOU ADril 9. 1957 2:06pm ?age t. :.f 4 /:2 - -1> __~1l.l;'7 I ~ . I; I . ! I J J j 1>- I=- .! - i~ : I ~ :) A-I"":" n C' ",- l.-' ~I'(I~..l- . ._.;; - 1 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH METROPOUTAN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT BOARD/SAN DIEGO & ARIZONA EASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY FOR LANDSCAPING OF THE MTDB RIGHT-OF-WAY WITHIN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND TO REQUEST RELEASE OF BILLBOARD RESERVE FUNDS MONIES WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Transit Development Soard/San Diego Arizona & =astern iiaiiway ("MTDB") has right-of-way located within the City of Chula Vista; and the City of Chula Vista ("City") has developed the MTDB Right-of-Way Beautification Project Summary Report as a concept master plan which consists of four phases in its. entirety for the landscaping of said right-of way located within the City of Chula Vista ("PROJECT"); and MTDB has State of California funding which is processed through the San Diego Association of Governments herein, administered by the Caiifornia Transportation Department, and awarded to MTDB which is available to the City to construct a portion of said Project; and, WHEREAS, on November 5, 1996, the C:ty forwarded a copy of the Project to MTDB as the concept master plan for landscaping of the MTDB right-of-way located wit.'1in the City of Chula Vista, and directed staff to initiate the development and negotiation of a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") with MTDB, and to develop a detailed, phased development pian and funding commitment for the Project; and, WHEREAS, on December 12, 1996, MTDB: 1) received the City's request for the use of i=ederal Transportation Efficiency Act grant funds ~or the purpose of landscaping the MTDB right- of-way located within the City of Chula Vista; 2) approved the MTDB Right-of-Way Beautification Project Summary Report developed by the City of Chula Vista for landscaping of the MTD3 right- of-way located within the City of Chula Vista; and, 3) directed the General Manager to negotiate the terms of a MOU with the City of Chula Vista for subsequent Board action to establish a detailed, phased development, maintenance, and funding plan for implementation of the P;-oject; and, WHEREAS, a Billboard Reserve Fund contains funds MTDB and City mutually agree are available for enhancement of the MTDB corridor in Chula Vista; and, WHEREAS, City and MTDB concur that the Project is a Class 4 (b) exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act [Section 15034 (b)] and does not require state environmental ,eview; and, WHEREAS, the City and MTDB desire to enter into a MOU to cause the development of :::Jns::ruction drawings for the Project, the commitment of funding, and the installation and :7',aintenance of landscaping to implement Phase I of the Project as briefly described in Ex;,ibit A :f ::he MOU in accordance with the tentative schedule of performance provided in the MOU. ~Phases II, Ill, and IV of the Project shall be the subject of a separate, future Memorandum of :jnderstanding); and, WHEREAS, the Project includes prototype plans, material matrixes, estimates of probable ::::sts for improvements and other information related to implementation; and. /2 -J? WHEREAS, the Project will provide widespread benefits to the City and MTDB, :n visual ~:1hancement, air quality, and will enhance the overall riding experience of the patrons OT MTDB. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Chuia Vista coes hereby authorize the City Manager to execute a Memorandum of Understanding, substantially in the form attached hereto with the Metropolitan Transit Development Board\San Diego Arizona & =astem Railway Company. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council requests that MTDB release 3iilboard Reserve Fund monies in the amount of $54,000 for Phase I matching funds. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council requests that MTDB appropriate SLOO,OOO of T:-ansportation Enhancement Activities funds for implementation of Phase I of the ?r:>je~. ?:-esented by Approved as to form by ~ire::or of Planning John M. Kaheny City Attorney :=.:ibert Leiter ,,;:\;.t:)ME\?'Jo.NNING\MT::IBlRESDSIApril B. 1957 (9: 15amll /02 - J~ Exhibit A Phase I of Project Phase I includes the preparation of construction drawings for landscaping the MTDB right-of- way from the northern to the southern limits of the City or Clula Vista (MTDB Sombline) as described in the MTDB Right-of-Way Beautification Proj~t Summary Report approved by ::.1TDB on December 12, 1996. Phase I also will provide consu:uction or planting and irrigation ';,rir]1in the limits of the Right-of-Way corridor. :::'.:;OME"P~G\MTDBPHAZ [April 9. 1'?97 1:54pm] );2~JI April 1997 July 1997 ~ovember 1997 January 1998 January 1998 February 1998 May 1998 June 1998 October 1998 October 1998 October 1999 Exhibit B TEI'."TATIVE SCHEDULE OF PERFO~l\1..4..~CE. MTDB Right-of-Way Beautification Project Preparation of Construction Drawings and Phase I Construction Schedule Initiate RFP for Consrruction Drawings Select Consultant ror COIlSU1lction Drawings Complete Construction Drawings (revi..sions during December) City approval or Drawings MTDB approval of Drawings Advertise COIlSU1lction Bid ror Phase I City Awards ConstrUction Contract ror Phase I Sr.a..L or Construction or Phase I MTDB Certifies Completion or Phase I City Accepts Construction of Phase I One Year Contract Maintenance Begins City Maintenance Begins 'Schedule subject to change :::.;.;OM:S-,?!...!..~1NG'~v.:uESCHD [A.?ri1 8. :m ~::5arnJ /t~-t/o COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item 7 Meeting Date 01113/98 SUBMITTED BY: Resolution)? g--f4proVing an agreement between the City of Chula Vista and Estrada Land Planning, Inc~r landscape architectural services for the Metropolitan Transit Dist 'ct B6ard Right-of-Way Beautification Project (CIP-LD-106) II / Director of Planning/'" f .I City Manager G l~ {{7 f~J ITEM TITLE: REVIEWED BY: (4/5ths Vote: Yes _ No X) The City Council has approved a concept master plan for the MTDB right-of-way that provides for landscape enhancement along the 4 mile right-of-way corridor. The right-of-way averages 150 feet in width and runs between the most southerly and most northerly city boundaries and encompasses approximately 72 acres. The master plan discusses the need for beautifying this corridor through landscaping and other improvements and provides an outline and phasing program for implementing improvements per the concept plan. In September of 1997, Phase I of this project was started with the issuance of a Request for Proposal (RFP) to solicit interested landscape architectural firms for their services to prepare plans, specifications, cost estimates, and other project related items for Phase 1. This report discusses the consultant selection process, the scope of work and provides a recommendation for Council authorization to hire a consultant for Phase 1. As determined in earlier reports, both staff and City Council have concluded that this project will have a positive affect on local users of the trolley, residents of Chula Vista and international travelers travelling from San Diego to Mexico. Through the transformation of this transportation corridor, riders and Chula Vista's residents. will experience the corridor as an attractive landscape feature adjacent to interstate 5. RECOMMENDATION: That the Council approve the Resolution and authorize the Mayor to execute said Agreement with Estrada Land Planning, Inc. for consultant services for the MTDB right-of-way beautification project (CIP-LD-106). BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: N/A DISCUSSION: In September 1997, the Planning Department issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) to obtain a qualified landscape architectural firm to provide consultant services on the [AIl3 -rontract.cstradaj 1 7! J.2 - L/I Item Meeting Date 01/13/98 MTDB beautification project. Services are needed to assist in the design, construction plan preparation, writing of specifications and preparation of cost estimates as related to Phase 1 of the MTDB beautification project. Consultant Selection Process Council Policy #102-03 which outlines procedures for consultant selection, was followed in the selection of this consultant. The department advertised in the San Diego Daily Transcript and over 23 firms were given an RFP for their consideration. Ultimately, the Department received five replies (all San Diego County firms) to the RFP. To evaluate the proposals and select a consultant for council recommendation, a selection committee was formed. Made up of five members and comprised of representatives from the Parks and Recreation Department, Engineering Department, the Planning Department and metropolitan transit development board, the committee was charged with "scoring" each proposal and interviewing each firm. To assist the selection committee in scoring each firm, a rating sheet was prepared and specific criteria used. The criteria used was: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Related project experience. Firm's ability and capacity to perform the work. Grasp of the project requirements. Method to be used to fulfill the required services. Management approach for technical requirements. Time schedule planned for this project. Use of consultants that may work on the project. Firm's experience and methods used for: .Budgeting and financial controls. .Determining fee and compensation. Quality of oral presentation 10 points weight 5 points weight 10 points weight 15 points weight 10 points weight 10 points weight 10 points weight 9. 10 points weight 5 points weight The committee members were instructed to rate each firm, in each category on a scale of 1 to 5; 5 being the highest and 1 the lowest. Each criteria had a weight between 5 and 15 points. Their rating number was then multiplied by the weighted points to achieve a "score" for each criteria. The total points for each of the 4 firms, listed below in the table is a compilation of their final scores. (5 raters x each criteria score x weighted number = final score for each firm). The following are each firms score: [All3 -<:ontract.estrada] 2 p /2 -y~ Item Meeting Date 01113/98 Architect Score Rank Estrada Land Planning, Inc. 2042.5 1 Schmidt Design Group, Inc. 1940.0 2 DeLorenzo Incorporated 1827.5 3 ONA, Inc. 1817.0 4 Nowell & Associates 1442.5 5 At the conclusion of this process Estrada Land Planning, Inc. was judged the most qualified and desirable firm. The committee was impressed with Estrada because of their extensive experience, available resources, the continuity the firm could bring to the project because of their current involvement in the San Ysidro trolley facility, the firms excellent references, their interpersonal skills noted in the interview process, their community-teamwork philosophy, and their knowledge of design standards and guidelines of MTDB and knowledge of the proposed project. Estrada's references spoke very highly of the firm and unequivocally stated the firms qualifications and ability to complete work in a timely manner and within budget. In addition, Estrada Land Planning was the prime consultant providing site planning and landscape architectural design on the Bayfront trolley station and the Southwestern College Transit Center. Estrada will hold a public meeting using an interactive approach to involve the public. Simulated computer images will be prepared for use in this meeting. This community workshop will involve the landscape architect and design team and city staff. This information will be used as a basis to begin the design development phase. It is important to note that Estrada Land Planning, Inc. toured the site and evaluated the opportunities and constraints of the project prior to interviewing with the selection committee. Conversely, some of the other firms interviewed did not take time to make a site visit to understand the project's parameters. The Department believes that all five firms were qualified to perform the required consultant services. It was a very difficult choice to recommend one firm to the Council; however on the basis that Estrada has demonstrated competence and qualifications and will provide services at a fair and reasonable cost, the selection committee ranked Estrada Land Planning number one. [A1l3 -<Xll1tnct.estrada] 3 p;r /2 '-yy Item Meeting Date 01/13/98 Scope of Work: Phase I - Design ConfIrmation - will include: 1. Reconnaissance and Survey The landscape architect will provide a survey of the site by walking the project area with . city staff and riding the trolley to discuss the project. 2. Site analysis plan The project consultant will provide the city with a plan showing opportunities of the project area as well as constraints. Ad.ditionally the analysis plan will defme planting areas and prioritize those areas to remain within the available monies of Phase 1. 4. Prepare conceptual plan The project architect will prepare for the city a colored presentation plan, in elevations, sections as sketches. Information from the site analysis plan will be inserted into the plan, such as plant locations and areas prioritized. 5. Public meeting The services will include facilitation of one citizen input workshop meeting. The consultant will explain the design and goals to the citizens as well as explaining the proposed improvements. If necessary the concept plan will be revised based on citizens input. Scope of Work: Phase 2 - Construction Documents - will include: 1. Preliminary Submittal Three preliminary sets of plans, specifIcations and cost estimates of completion shall be submitted to the City for plan checking. 2. Plans. SpecifIcations. Cost Estimates The consultant will provide one complete set of original specifIcations and one original set of full size (24" x 36") photo mylars. All plans and specifIcations will be reviewed and approved by the City prior to acceptance. Detailed fmal cost estimates will be provided to the City for review and acceptance. In the event that the construction bids exceed the project budget by 10% or more, the consultant will revise the construction drawings so the project can be constructed to the City's satisfaction within the funds available. There will be no extra charge to the City for these revisions. A disc in autocad format will also be provided to the city. [A113 -a>ctract.CSlrada] 4 ryf /2 -'/Y Item Meeting Date 01113/98 The time schedule for the design confIrmation and construction document preparation phase(s) is estimated to be 15 weeks. The date for completion of all consultant services is April 30, 1997. The consultant will deliver the services in two primary components: (1) Design ConfIrmation and (2) Construction Documents. Cost of the Consultant Based on negotiation guidelines outline in the Municipal Code (Chapter 2.56 - Purchasing System, 2.56.230 - Consultants Selection Process, Section B.4. - Negotiating a Price determined to be fair and reasonable), the total contract cost of $36,895 includes all the components of the scope of work described above and meets all guidelines. Bids of Other RFP Respondents In order to compare the proposed contract price to the other firm's responses, the following is provided: FIRM FEE The Schmidt Design Group, Inc. $41,030 aNA Incorporated $39,493 Estrada Land Planning, Inc. $36,895 Nowell & Associates $34,400 DeLorenzo Incorporated $26,500 It should be noted that the selection committee did not select the firm with the lowest fee, for the following reasons: 1. The guidelines outlined in Chapter 2.56 - Consultants Selection Process, Section B.4, requires that a consultants fee be "fair and reasonable". Based on staff's cost estimate of $40,000 to provide the services outlined in the RFP, the selection committee was uncertain of the firms ability to perform at a cost so much lower than staff's estimate and believed it was not reasonable. [A1l3 -<Xlntrac:t.estrada ] 5 y J.2-1~ Item Meeting Date 01/13/98 2. Estrada scored the highest based on the selection criteria. Delorenzo scored third. It would have been hard to justify not selecting the highest score solely because of fee. Particularly when the fee was not a selection criteria. 3. The MTDB representative on the selection committee felt comfortable with the selection of Estrada and did not want to base their selection on the lowest fee. Most of the funds for Phase 1 are provided by MTDB. It should be noted that every fIrm was notifIed by phone of the fmal selection and no objections to the selection committees choice was expressed. FISCAL IMPACT: The cost of the contract for design and architectural services is $36,895. SuffIcient funds are appropriated and available in the MTDB right-of-way beautifIcation - Phase 1 account, 600-6000, LD 106, to pay for these services (1997-98). Funding sources for this account are from MTDB's, ICETEA and Billboard Reserve funds, $400,000 and $54,000 respectfully. Phase 1 focuses on landscaping only (no hardscape or lighting) for the full 4-mile right-of-way endorsed by Council Reso. 18628. The project budget proposed for the FY 1997- 98 CIP process includes $40,000 for design, $335,000 for construction and $25,000 for general administration, totally $454,000. Design will be completed in the fIrst quarter of FY 1998/99. Construction will take place during the second and third quarters of FY 1998/99. It should be noted that there are associated maintenance costs associated with the new landscaping, estimated at $25,000 per year for Phase 1 improvements. The exact cost however, is unknown until contract documents are developed. Attachments - 11 A 11 _ Agreement Resolution [AI13 -CODlraCl.CStTada] 6 ~ / c2-~b RESOLUTION NO. /6~S9 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND ESTRADA LAND PLANNING, INC. FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR THE MTDB RIGHT-OF-WAY BEAUTIFICATION PROJECT AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT WHEREAS, the City Council has an approved comprehensive master plan that when implemented will beautify the Metropolitan Transit Development Board right of-way corridor within the City; and WHEREAS, a project has been created that will implement this master plan and will be a cooperative effort between the City and the Metropolitan Transit Development Board and is envisioned to beautify the corridor through landscape enhancement; and WHEREAS, the project will encompass the entire length of the corridor and will be implemented in phases, Phase 1 is limited in scope to contract documents for planting and irrigation; and WHEREAS, the City and the Metropolitan Transit Development Board on May 17, 1997, entered into an agreement to implement Phase 1 ; and WHEREAS, Phase 1 will be implemented by the City through the City's Capital Improvement Project process (#LD-1 06) and is funded through MTDB's 1993-4 TEA funding and will cost $454,000 and includes final design, construction documents, implementation, general administration and project contingencies; and WHEREAS, the project necessitates the hiring of a consultant, and on August 29, 1997 the preparation and advertisement of a request for proposal to solicit interested and qualified landscape estimates and construction documents for Phase 1 was completed; and WHEREAS, the City received responses from five architectural firms providing proposals of interest, and, in following Council Policy on the selection of a consultant, a Selection Committee was appointed by the City Manager to review each proposal, interview and provide a recommendation to council of the most qualified firm; and WHEREAS, as a result of this selection process, Estrada Land Planning, Inc. was determined to be the most qualified and most responsible firm to provide contractual services to design Phase 1; and WHEREAS, Consultant warrants and represents that they are experienced and staffed in a manner such that they are and can prepare and deliver the services required of Consultant to City within the time frames herein provided all in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby approve an agreement with ESTRADA LAND PLANNING, INC. for the professional services for the MTDB Right-of-Way Beautification Project. a copy of which shall be kept on file in the :Y1 );2 - (? 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 Kenneth G. Lee Acting Director of Planning 0--- ~ ) rL.CL-- v John M. Kaheny City Attorney H:IHOMEIPLANNINGlMTDBIRESOS (January 13, 19981 -.~ / 2 -11~ Parties and Recital Page(s) Agreement between City of Chula Vista and Estrada Land Planning, Inc. for Landscape Architectural Services This agreement (II Agreement II), dated for the purposes of reference only, and effective as of the date last executed unless another date is otherwise specified in Exhibit A, Paragraph 1 is between the City-related entity as is indicated on Exhibit A, Paragraph 2, as such (IICityll), whose business form is set forth on Exhibit A, Paragraph 3, and the entity indicated on the attached Exhibit A, Paragraph 4, as Consultant, whose business form is set forth on Exhibit A, Paragraph 5, and whose place of business and telephone numbers are set forth on Exhibit A, Paragraph 6 (IIConsultantll), and is made with reference to the following facts: Recitals WHEREAS, the City Council has an approved comprehensive master plan that when implemented will beautify the Metropolitan Transit Development Board right of-way corridor within the City; and WHEREAS, a project has been created that will implement this master plan and will be a cooperative effort between the City and the Metropolitan Transit Development Board and is envisioned to beautify the corridor through landscape enhancement; and WHEREAS, the project will encompass the entire length of the corridor and will be implemented in phases, Phase 1 is limited in scope to contract documents for planting and irrigation; and WHEREAS, the City and the Metropolitan Transit Development Board on May 17th entered into an agreement to implement Phase 1; and Page 1 ~ /;2-1/7 WHEREAS, Phase 1 will be implemented by the City through the City's Capital Improvement Project process (#LD-I06) and is funded through MTDB's 1993-4 TEA funding and will cost $454,000 and includes final design, construction documents, implementation, general administration and project contingencies; and WHEREAS, the project necessitates the hiring of a consultant, and on August 29, 1997 the preparation and advertisement of a request for proposal to solicit interested and qualified landscape estimates and construction documents for Phase 1 was completed; and WHEREAS, the City received responses from five architectural firms providing proposals of interest, and, in following Council Policy on the selection of a consultant, a Selection Committee was appointed by the City Manager to review each proposal, interview and provide a recommendation to council of the most qualified firm; and WHEREAS, as a result of this selection process, Estrada Land Planning, Inc. was determined to be the most qualified and most responsible firm to provide contractual services to design Phase 1; and WHEREAS, Consultant warrants and represents that they are experienced and staffed in a manner such that they are and can prepare and deliver the services required of Consultant to City within the time frames herein provided all in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement; (End of Recitals. Next Page starts Obligatory Provisions.) Page 2 pk7 );2 ~SO Obligatory Provisions Pages NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City and Consultant do hereby mutually agree as follows: 1. Consultant's Duties A. General Duties Consultant shall perform all of the services described on the attached Exhibit A, Paragraph 7, entitled IIGeneral Dutiesll. B. Scope-of-Work and Schedule In the process of performing and delivering said IIGeneral Dutiesll, Consultant shall also perform all of the services described in Exhibit A, Paragraph 8, entitled IIScope-of-Work and Schedulell, not inconsistent with the General Duties, according to, and within the time frames set forth in Exhibit A, Paragraph 8, and deliver to City such Deliverables as are identified in Exhibit A, Paragraph 8, within the time frames set forth therein, time being of the essence of this Agreement. The General Duties and the work and deliverables required in the Scope-of-Work and Schedule shall be herein referred to as the IIDefined Servicesll. Failure to complete the Defined Services by the times indicated does not, except at the option of the City, operate to terminate this Agreement. C. Reductions in Scope-of-Work City may independently, or upon request from Consultant, from time to time reduce the Defined Services to be performed by the Consultant under this Agreement. Upon doing so, City and Consultant agree to meet in good faith and confer for the purpose of negotiating a corresponding reduction in the compensation associated with said reduction. D. Additional Services In addition to performing the Defined Services herein set forth, City may require Consultant to perform additional consulting services related to the Defined Services (IIAdditional Servicesll), and upon doing so in writing, if they are within the scope of services offered by Consultant, Consultant shall perform same on a time and materials basis at the rates set forth in the IIRate Schedulell in Exhibit A, Paragraph 11 (C), unless a separate fixed fee is otherwise agreed upon. All compensation for Additional Services shall be paid monthly as billed~ Page 3 ~ /;2 --~ I <.../ E. Standard of Care Consultant, in performing any Services under this Agreement, whether Defined Services or Additional Services, shall perform in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions and in similar locations. F. Insurance Consultant represents that it and its agents, staff and sub- consultants employed by it in connection with the services required to be rendered, are protected against the risk of loss by the following insurance coverage, in the following categories, and to the limits specified, policies of which are issued by Insurance Companies that have a Best's Rating of "A, Class V" or better, or shall meet with the approval of the City: Statutory Worker's Compensation Insurance. Commercial General Liability Insurance including Business Automobile Insurance coverage in the amount set forth in Exhibit A, Paragraph 9, combined single limit applied separately to each project away from premises owned or rented by Consultant, which names by endorsement the City and Applicant as Additional Insured, and which is primary to any policy which the City may otherwise carry ("Primary Coverage"), and which treats the employees of the City and Applicant in the same manner as members of the general public ("Cross-liability Coverage") . Errors and Omissions insurance, in the amount set forth in Exhibit A, Paragraph 9, unless Errors and Omissions coverage is included in the General Liability policy. G. Proof of Insurance Coverage. (1) Certificates of Insurance. Consultant shall demonstrate proof of coverage herein required, prior to the commencement of services required under this Agreement, by delivery of Certificates of Insurance in a form approved by the City's Risk Manager, demonstrating same, and further indicating that the policies may not be canceled without at least thirty (30) days written notice to the Additional Insured. Page 4 .~ ) J. -3:2 F (2) Policy Endorsements Required. In order to demonstrate the Additional Insured Coverage, Primary Coverage and Cross-liability Coverage required under Consultant's Commercial General Liability Insurance Policy, Consultant shall deliver a policy endorsement to the City demonstrating same, which shall be reviewed and approved by the Risk Manager. H. Security for Performance. (I) Performance Bond. In the event that Exhibit A, Paragraph 19, indicates the need for Consultant to provide a Performance Bond (indicated by a check mark in the parenthetical space immediately preceding the subparagraph entitled "Performance Bond"), then Consultant shall provide to the City a performance bond by a surety and in a form and amount satisfactory to the Risk Manager or City Attorney which amount is indicated in the space adjacent to the term, "Performance Bond", in said Paragraph 19, Exhibit A. (2) Letter of Credit. In the event that Exhibit A, Paragraph 19, indicates the need for Consultant to provide a Letter of Credit (indicated by a check mark in the parenthetical space immediately preceding the subparagraph entitled "Letter of Credit"), then Consultant shall provide to the City an irrevocable letter of credit callable by the City at their unfettered discretion by submitting to the bank a letter, signed by the City Manager, stating that the Consultant is in breach of the terms of this Agreement. The letter of credit shall be issued by a bank, and be in a form and amount satisfactory to the Risk Manager or City Attorney which amount is indicated in the space adjacent to the term, "Letter of Credit", in said Paragraph 19, Exhibit A. (3) Other Security In the event that Exhibit A, Paragraph 19, indicates the need for Consultant to provide security other than a Performance Bond or a Letter of Credit (indicated by a check mark in the parenthetical space immediately preceding the subparagraph entitled "Other Security"), then Consultant shall provide to the City such other security therein listed in a form and amount satisfactory to the Risk Manager or City Attorney. Page 5 % /2-5J I. Business License Consultant agrees to obtain a business license from the City and to otherwise comply with Title 5 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. 2. Duties of the City A. Consultation and Cooperation City shall regularly consult the Consultant for the purpose of reviewing the progress of the Defined Services and Schedule therein contained, and to provide direction and guidance to achieve the objectives of this Agreement. The City shall permit access to its office facilities, files and records by Consultant throughout the term of the agreement. In addition thereto, City agrees to provide the information, data, items and materials set forth on Exhibit A, Paragraph 10, and with the further understanding that delay in the provision of these materials beyond 30 days after authorization to proceed, shall constitute a basis for the justifiable delay in the Consultant's performance of this Agreement. B. Compensation Upon receipt of a properly prepared billing from Consultant submitted to the City periodically as indicated in Exhibit A, Paragraph 18, but in no event more frequently than monthly, on the day of the period indicated in Exhibit A, Paragraph 18, City shall compensate Consultant for all services rendered by Consultant according to the terms and conditions set forth in Exhibit A, Paragraph 11, adjacent to the governing compensation relationship indicated by a "check-mark" next to the appropriate arrangement, subject to the requirements for retention set forth in Paragraph 19 of Exhibit A, and shall compensate Consultant for out of pocket expenses as provided in Exhibit A, Paragraph 12. All billings submitted by Consultant shall contain sufficient information as to the propriety of the billing to permit the City to evaluate that the amount due and payable thereunder is proper, and shall specifically contain the City's account number indicated on Exhibit A, Paragraph 18 (C) to be charged upon making such payment. 3. Administration of Contract Each party designates the individuals ("Contract Administrators") indicated on Exhibit A, Paragraph 13, as said Page 6 ;u-r /2 --'Sf party's contract administrator who is authorized by said party to represent them in the routine administration of this Agreement. 4. Term. This Agreement shall terminate when the Parties have complied with all executory provisions hereof. 5. Liquidated Damages The provisions of this section apply if a Liquidated Damages Rate is provided in Exhibit A, Paragraph 14. It is acknowledged by both parties that time is of the essence in the completion of this Agreement. It is difficult to estimate the amount of damages resulting from delay in per- formance. The parties have used their judgment to arrive at a reasonable amount to compensate for delay. Failure to complete the Defined Services within the allotted time period specified in this Agreement shall result in the following penalty: For each consecutive calendar day in excess of the time specified for the completion of the respective work assignment or Deliverable, the consultant shall pay to the City, or have withheld from monies due, the sum of Liquidated Damages Rate provided in Exhibit A, Paragraph 14 ("Liquidated Damages Rate") . Time extensions for delays beyond the consultant's control, other than delays caused by the City, shall be requested in writing to the City's Contract Administrator, or designee, prior to the expiration of the specified time. Extensions of time, when granted, will be based upon the effect of delays to the work and will not be granted for delays to minor portions of work unless it can be shown that such delays did or will delay the progress of the work. 6. Financial Interests of Consultant A. Consultant is Designated as an FPPC Filer. If Consultant is designated on Exhibit A, Paragraph 15, as an "FPPC filer", Consultant is deemed to be a "Consultant" for the purposes of the Political Reform Act conflict of interest and disclosure provisions, and shall report economic interests to the City Clerk on the required Statement of Economic Interests in such reporting categories as are specified in Paragraph 15 of Exhibit A, or if none are specified, then as determined by the City Attorney. Page 7 ~ );2-):Y' B. Decline to Participate. Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC Filer, Consultant shall not make, or participate in making or ln any way attempt to use Consultant's position to influence a governmental decision in which Consultant knows or has reason to know Consultant has a financial interest other than the compensation promised by this Agreement. C. Search to Determine Economic Interests. Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC Filer, Consultant warrants and represents that Consultant has diligently conducted a search and inventory of Consultant's economic interests, as the term is used in the regulations promulgated by the Fair Political Practices Commission, and has determined that Consultant does not, to the best of Consultant's knowledge, have an economic interest which would conflict with Consultant's duties under this Agreement. D. Promise Not to Acquire Conflicting Interests. Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC Filer, Consultant further warrants and represents that Consultant will not acquire, obtain, or assume an economic interest during the term of this Agreement which would constitute a conflict of interest as prohibited by the Fair Political Practices Act. E. Duty to Advise of Conflicting Interests. Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC Filer, Consultant further warrants and represents that Consultant will immediately advise the City Attorney of City if Consultant learns of an economic interest of Consultant's which may result in a conflict of interest for the purpose of the Fair Political Practices Act, and regulations promulgated thereunder. F. Specific Warranties Against Economic Interests. Consultant warrants and represents that neither Consultant, nor Consultant's immediate family members, nor Consultant's employees or agents (IIConsultant Associatesll) presently have any interest, directly or indirectly, whatsoever in any property which may be the subject matter of the Defined Services, or in any property within 2 radial miles from the exterior boundaries of any property which may be the subject matter of the Defined Services, ( II Prohibi ted Interest II), other than as listed in Exhibit A, Paragraph 15. Page 8 ~ /2 /'_5~.. Consultant further warrants and represents that no promise of future employment, remuneration, consideration, gratuity or other reward or gain has been made to Consultant or Consultant Associates in connection with Consultant's performance of this Agreement. Consultant promises to advise City of any such promise that may be made during the Term of this Agreement, or for 12 months thereafter. Consultant agrees that Consultant Associates shall not acquire any such Prohibited Interest within the Term of this Agreement, or for 12 months after the expiration of this Agreement, except with the written permission of City. Consultant may not conduct or solicit any business for any party to this Agreement, or for any third party which may be in conflict with Consultant's responsibilities under this Agreement, except with the written permission of City. 7. Hold Harmless Consultant shall indemnify, protect and hold harmless the City, its elected and appointed officers and employees, from and against all claims for damages, liability, cost and expense (including without limitation attorneys' fees) arising out of the neglicent acts, errors or omissions of the Consultant, or any agent or employee, subcontractors, in connection with the execution of the work covered by this Agreement, except' only for those claims arising from the negligence or willful misconduct of the City, its officers, or employees. Consultants' indemnification of City shall not be limited by any prior or subsequent declaration by the Consultant. 8. Termination of Agreement for Cause If, through any cause, Consultant shall fail to fulfill in a timely and proper manner Consultant's obligations under this Agreement, or if Consultant shall violate any of the covenants, agreements or stipulations of this Agreement, City shall have the right to terminate this Agreement by giving written notice to Consultant of such termination and specifying the effective date thereof at least five (5) days before the effective date of such termination. In that event, all finished or unfinished documents, data, studies, surveys, drawings, maps, reports and other materials prepared by Consultant shall, at the option of the City, become the property of the City, and Consultant shall be entitled to receive just and equitable compensation for any work satisfactorily completed on such documents and other materials up to the effective date of Notice of Termination, not to exceed the amounts payable hereunder, and less any damages caused City by Consultant's breach. Page 9 ??r /;2 --,-S-? 9. Errors and Omissions In the event that the City Administrator determines that the Consultants' negligence, errors, or omissions in the performance of work under this Agreement has resulted in expense to City greater than would have resulted if there were no such negligence, errors, omissions, Consultant shall reimburse City for any additional expenses incurred by the City. Nothing herein is intended to limit City's rights under other provisions of this Agreement. 10. Termination of Agreement for Convenience of City City may terminate this Agreement at any time and for any reason, by giving specific written notice to Consultant of such termination and specifying the effective date thereof, at least thirty (30) days before the effective date of such termination. In that event, all finished and unfinished documents and other materials described hereinabove shall, at the option of the City, become City's sole and exclusive property. If the Agreement is terminated by City as provided in this paragraph, Consultant shall be entitled to receive just and equitable compensation for any satisfactory work completed on such documents and other materials to the effective date of such termination. Consultant hereby expressly waives any and all claims for damages or compensation arising under this Agreement except as set forth herein. 11. Assignability The services of Consultant are personal to the City, and Consultant shall not assign any interest in this Agreement, and shall not transfer any interest in the same (whether by assignment or novation), without prior written consent of City. City hereby consents to the assignment of the portions of the Defined Services identified in Exhibit A, Paragraph 17 to the sub-consultants identified thereat as "Permitted Sub- consultants". Page 10 ~ /2-56' 12. Ownership, Publication, Reproduction and Use of Material All reports, studies, information, data, statistics, forms, designs, plans, procedures, systems and any other materials or properties produced under this Agreement shall be the sole and exclusive property of City. No such materials or properties produced in whole or in part under this Agreement shall be subject to private use, copyrights or patent rights by Consultant in the United States or in any other country without the express written consent of City. City shall have unrestricted authority to publish, disclose (except as may be limited by the provisions of the Public Records Act), distribute, and otherwise use, copyright or patent, in whole or in part, any such reports, studies, data, statistics, forms or other materials or properties produced under this Agreement. 13. Independent Contractor City is interested only in the results obtained and Consultant shall perform as an independent contractor with sole control of the manner and means of performing the services required under this Agreement. City maintains the right only to reject or accept Consultant's work products. Consultant and any of the Consultant's agents, employees or representatives are, for all purposes under this Agreement, an independent contractor and shall not be deemed to be an employee of City, and none' of them shall be entitled to any benefits to which City employees are entitled including but not limited to, overtime, retirement benefits, worker's compensation benefits, injury leave or other leave benefits. Therefore, City will not withhold state or federal income tax, social security tax or any other payroll tax, and Consultant shall be solely responsible for the paYment of same and shall hold the City harmless with regard thereto. 14. Administrative Claims Requirements and Procedures No suit or arbitration shall be brought arising out of this agreement, against the, City unless a claim has first been presented in writing and filed with the City and acted upon by the City in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 1.34 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, as same may from time to time be amended, the provisions of which are incorporated by this reference as if fully set forth herein, and such policies and procedures used by the City in the implementation of same. Upon request by City, Consultant shall meet and confer in good faith with City for the purpose of resolving any dispute over the terms of this Agreement. Page 11 ~ /.2/~5/ 15. Attorney's Fees Should a dispute arising out of this Agreement result in litigation, it is agreed that the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover all reasonable costs incurred in the defense of the claim, including costs and attorney's fees. 16. Statement of Costs In the event that Consultant prepares a report or document, or participates in the preparation of a report or document in performing the Defined Services, Consultant shall include, or cause the inclusion of, in said report or document, a statement of the numbers and cost in dollar amounts of all contracts and subcontracts relating to the preparation of the report or document. 17. Miscellaneous A. Consultant not authorized to Represent City Unless specifically authorized in writing by City, Consult- ant shall have no authority to act as City's agent to bind City to any contractual agreements whatsoever. B. Consultant is Real Estate Broker and/or Salesperson If the box on Exhibit A, Paragraph 16 is marked, the Consultant and/or their principals is/are licensed with the State of California or some other state as a licensed real estate broker or salesperson. Otherwise, Consultant represents that neither Consultant, nor their principals are licensed real estate brokers or salespersons. C. Notices All notices, demands or requests provided for or permitted to be given pursuant to this Agreement must be in writing. All notices, demands and requests to be sent to any party shall be deemed to have been properly given or served if personally served or deposited in the United States mail, addressed to such party, postage prepaid, registered or certified, with return receipt requested, at the addresses identified herein as the places of business for each of the designated parties. D. Entire Agreement This Agreement, together with any other written document referred to or contemplated herein, embody the entire Agreement and understanding between the parties relating to the subject Page 12 ~ ).2 --~t/ matter hereof. Neither this Agreement nor any provision hereof may be amended, modified, waived or discharged except by an instrument in writing executed by the party against which enforcement of such amendment, waiver or discharge is sought. E. Capacity of Parties Each signatory and party hereto hereby warrants and represents to the other party that it has legal authority and capacity and direction from its principal to enter into this Agreement, and that all resolutions or other actions have been taken so as to enable it to enter into this Agreement. F. Governing Law/Venue This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Any action arising under or relating to this Agreement shall be brought only in the federal or state courts located in San Diego County, State of California, and if applicable, the City of Chula Vista, or as close thereto as possible. Venue for this Agreement, and performance hereunder, shall be the City of Chula Vista. [end of page. next page is signature page.] Page 13 ~ /.2---~/ Signature Page to Agreement between City of Chula Vista and Estrada Land Planning, for Landscape Architectural Services for the M.T.D.B. landscape beautification project IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City and Consultant have executed this Agreement thereby indicating that they have read and understood same, and indicate their full and complete consent to its terms: Dated: , 19 City of Chula Vista by: Shirley Horton, Mayor Attest: Beverly Authelet, City Clerk Approved as to form: ~ !\I\ f.+{<h..O-, I~~ John M. Kaheny, City Attorney Dated: Estrada Land Planning, Inc. By: Steve Exhibit List to Agreement (X) Exhibit A. Page 14 ~ ).:L/ t,J Exhibit A to Agreement between City of Chula Vista and Estrada Land Planning, Inc. 1. Effective Date of Agreement: 2. City-Related Entity: (X) City of Chula Vista, a municipal chartered corporation of the State of California () Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista, a political subdivision of the State of California () Industrial Development Authority of the City of Chula Vista, a () Other: 3. Place of Business for City: City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 4. Consultant: Estrada Land Planning, Inc. 5. Business Form of Consultant: ( ) Sole Proprietorship ( ) Partnership (X) Corporation 6. Place of Business, Telephone and Fax Number of Consultant: 85 Horton plaza, Suite 300 San Diego, California 92101 Voice Phone (619) 236-0143 Fax Phone (619) 236-0578 Page 15 ~ J2~;';> 7. General Duties: Consultant shall prepare plans, specifications, cost estimates and any other project related item for a landscape, beautification project within the Metropolitan Transit Development Board light rail corridor of the City of Chula Vista. 8. Scope-of-Work and Schedule: A. Detailed Scope-of-Work: Four meetings with City staff throughout the project; to be scheduled by City staff. Phase 1 (Design Confir.mation) Contract effective date through January 30, 1998: (1) Reconnaissance and Survey of the project area; field visit - walking-riding trolley (consultant and city staff) . (2) Site analysis plan: showing opportunities and constraints. (3) Site analysis plan: defined planting subareas; prioritize planting areas. (4) Prepare conceptual plan: provide City six computer simulations; provide City colored presentation plans; (elevations, sections and sketches) ; indicates plant locations; and prioritize the locations. February 06, 1998: (5) Citizen input/workshop meeting: explain design goals and explain proposed improvements. (6) If necessary, revise concept plan. Phase 2 (Construction Documents) March 06, 1998: (1) 50% completion, Plan Review Submittal, 4 sets of bluelines. Page 16 ~ u-t( April 03, 1998: (2) 90% completion, Plan Review Submittal, 4 sets of bluelines. April 30, 1998: (3) 100% completion, Plan Review Submittal, 4 sets of bluelines. (4) Final Plan Submittal, 24"X 36" photo blackline mylar(s); Disc in autocad format; Specification 8-1/2" X 11" in wordperfect. (5) Final Cost Estimate Submittal. B. Date for Commencement of Consultant Services: (X) Same as Effective Date of Agreement ( ) Other: C. Dates or Time Limits for Delivery of Deliverables: Deliverable No. 1 : Four meetings with City staff, to be scheduled by City staff. Deliverable No. 2 : January 30, 1998 Deliverable No. 3 : February 06, 1998 Deliverable No. 4 : March 06, 1998 Deliverable No. 5 : April 03, 1998 Deliverable No. 6 : April 30, 1998 D. Date for completion of all Consultant services: April 30, 1998 Page 17 ~ 12-~5 9. Insurance Requirements: (X) Statutory Worker's Compensation Insurance. () Commercial General Liability Insurance: $1,000,000. () Errors and Omissions insurance: None Required (if included in Commercial General Liability coverage) . (X) Errors and Omissions Insurance: $500,000 each claim/aggregate (not included in Commercial General Liability coverage) . (X) Business Automobile Liability Insurance, with a limit of not less than $1,000,000 for each accident. (X) Professional Liability Insurance. 10. Materials Required to be Supplied by City to Consultant: Autocad format base information provided by the City. 11. Compensation: A. ( ) Single Fixed Fee Arrangement. For performance of all of the Defined Services by Consultant as herein required, City shall pay a single fixed fee in the amounts and at the times or milestones or for the deliverables set forth below: Single Fixed Fee Amount: , payable as follows: Milestone or Event or Deliverable Amount or Percent of Fixed Fee 1. Interim Monthly Advances. The City shall make interim monthly advances against the compensation due for each phase on a percentage of completion basis for each given phase such that, at the end of each phase only the compensation for that phase has been paid. Any paYments made hereunder shall be considered as interest free loans which must be returned to the City if the Phase is not satisfactorily completed. If the Phase is satisfactorily completed, the City shall receive credit against the compensation due for that phase. The retention amount or percentage set forth in Paragraph 19 is to be applied to each interim paYment such that, at the end of the phase, the full retention has been held back from the compensation due for that phase. Percentage Page 18 '/~~ r-~f/ /2 -t? /:-~ of completion of a phase shall be assessed in the sole and unfettered discretion by the Contracts Administrator designated herein by the City, or such other person as the City Manager shall designate, but only upon such proof demanded by the City that has been provided, but in no event shall such interim advance payment be made unless the Contractor shall have represented in writing that said percentage of completion of the phase has been performed by the Contractor. The practice of making interim monthly advances shall not convert this agreement to a time and materials basis of payment. B. (X) Phased Fixed Fee Arrangement. For the performance of each phase or portion of the Defined Services by Consultant as are separately identified below, City shall pay the fixed fee associated with each phase of Services, in the amounts and at the times or milestones or Deliverables set forth . Consultant shall not commence Services under any Phase, and shall not be entitled to the compensation for a Phase, unless City shall have issued a notice to proceed to Consultant as to said Phase. Phase Fee for Said Phase Meetings $1,760.00 1. Design Confirmation $9,400.00 2. Construction Documents 50% Submittal 90% Submittal 100% Submittal $10,020.00 $8,830.00 $4,885.00 1. Interim Monthly Advances. The City shall make interim monthly advances against the compensation due for each phase on a percentage of completion basis for each given phase such that, at the end of each phase only the compensation for that phase has been paid. Any payments made hereunder shall be considered as interest free loans which must be returned to the City if the phase is not satisfactorily completed. If the Phase is satisfactorily completed, the City shall receive Page 19 ~ /2 /~) credit against the compensation due for that phase. The retention amount or percentage set forth in Paragraph 19 is to be applied to each interim payment such that, at the end of the phase, the full retention has been held back from the compensation due for that phase. Percentage of completion of a phase shall be assessed in the sole and unfettered discretion by the Contracts Administrator designated herein by the City, or such other person as the City Manager shall designate, but only upon such proof demanded by the City that has been provided, but in no event shall such interim advance payment be made unless the Contractor shall have represented in writing that said percentage of completion of the phase has been performed by the Contractor. The practice of making interim monthly advances shall not convert this agreement to a time and materials basis of payment. C. () Hourly Rate Arrangement For performance of the Defined Services by Consultant as herein required, City shall pay Consultant for the productive hours of time spent by Consultant in the performance of said Services, at the rates or amounts set forth in the Rate Schedule hereinbelow according to the following terms and conditions: (1) () Not-to-Exceed Limitation on Time and Materials Arrangement Notwithstanding the expenditure by Consultant of time and materials in excess of said Maximum Compensation amount, Consultant agrees that Consultant will perform all of the Defined Services herein required of Consultant for $ including all Materials, and other "reimbursable items" ("Maximum Compensation") . (2)( ) Limitation without Further Authorization on Time and Materials Arrangement At such time as Consultant shall have incurred time and materials equal to ("Authorization Limit"), Consultant shall not be entitled to any additional compensation without further authorization issued in writing and approved by the City. Nothing herein shall preclude Consultant from providing additional Services at Consultant's own cost and expense. Page 20 ~ J2-~r Rate Schedule Clerical Hourly Name Rate Steve Estrada $125.00 Scott Molentin $ 95.00 Mark Caro $ 70.00 Assigned by Consul. $ 55.00 Assigned by Consul. $ 35.00 Category of Employee of Consultant prin. Land Arch/Proj. Man. Assoc. Land Architect Landscape Architect Draft person Hourly rates may increase by 6% for services rendered after [month], 1998, if delay in providing services is caused by City. 12. Materials Reimbursement Arrangement For the cost of out of pocket expenses incurred by Consultant in the performance of services herein required, City shall pay Consultant at the rates or amounts set forth below: () None, the compensation includes all costs. Cost or Rate ( Reports, not to exceed $ ( Copies, not to exceed $ () Travel, not to exceed $ (x) Printing, not to exceed $ 1,800: () Postage, not to exceed $ (X) Delivery, not to exceed $~: () Long Distance Telephone Charges, not to exceed $ Other Actual Identifiable Direct Costs: not to exceed $ , not to exceed $ 13. Contract Administrators: City: Garry Williams, Planning Department, Public Services Building, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910, (619) 691-5098 Consultant: Steve Estrada, Estrada Land Planning, 85 Horton Plaza, Suite 300, San Diego, CA 92101 Page 21 ~ /.2 -- i~/ 14. Liquidated Damages Rate: $ per day. Other: 15. Statement of Economic Interests, Consultant Reporting Categories, per Conflict of Interest Code: (X Not Applicable. Not an FPPC Filer. FPPC Filer Category No.1. income. Investments and sources of Category No.2. Interests in real property. Category No.3. Investments, interest in real property and sources of income subject to the regulatory, permit or licensing authority of the department. Category No.4. Investments in business entities and sources of income which engage in land development, construction or the acquisition or sale of real property. Category No.5. Investments in business entities and sources of income of the type which, within the past two years, have contracted with the City of Chula Vista (Redevelopment Agency) to provide services, supplies, materials, machinery or equipment. Category No.6. Investments in business entities and sources of income of the type which, within the past two years, have contracted with the designated employee's department to provide services, supplies, materials, machinery or equipment. Category No.7. Business positions. ( ) List "Consultant Associates" interests in real property within 2 radial miles of Project Property, if any: Page 22 ~ 1;2---70 16. ) Consultant is Real Estate Broker and/or Salesman 17. Permitted Sub-consultants: 18. Bill Processing: A. Consultant's Billing to be submitted for the following period of time: ( Monthly ( Quarterly (X Other:By Phase B. Billing: Day of the Period for submission of Consultant's ( ) First of the Month ( 15th Day of each Month ( End of the Month (X Other: Completion of Phase C. City's Account Number: 600-6000-LD106 19. Security for Performance Performance Bond, $ Letter of Credit, $ Other Security: Type: Amount: $ Retention. If this space is checked, then notwithstanding other provisions to the contrary requiring the payment of compensation to the Consultant sooner, the City shall be entitled to retain, at their option, either the following "Retention Percentage" or "Retention Amount" until the City determines that the Retention Release Event, listed below, has occurred: Retention Percentage: % Retention Amount: $ Retention Release Event: ( ) Completion of All Consultant Services ( ) Other: Page 23 .?21 /2- 7/ L1 / COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT ITEM No. MEETING DATE 09/2 t /99 ITEM TITLE: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT WITH SECURITY TRUST COMPANY FOR ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 428 "F" STREET FOR CITY OFFICE SPACE PURPOSES; APPROPRIATING $1,145,000 FROM THE AVAILABLE FUND BALANCE IN THE CIVIC CENTER COMPONENT OF THE PUBLIC FACILITIES DIF TO THE CIVIC CENTER EXPANSION PROJECT (GG-139) TO ACQUIRE THE PROPERTY AND MAKE INTERIOR BUILDING MODIFICATIONS; APPROPRIATING $13,400 FROM THE AVAILABLE FUND BALANCE IN THE GENERAL FUND FOR UTILITIES AND JANITORIAL SERVICES; AND AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 1999-2000 BUDGET TO REFLECT THESE APPROPRIATIONS SUBMITTED BV: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR LB-~ REVIEWED BY: /"' CITY MANAGER cpV~ (4/STH8 VOTE: YES..x.... No--l As Council is aware, the City has been steadily adding staff to respond to increased demands on City services resulting from growth in eastern Chula Vista as well as the need for renewed attention to deferred maintenance and infrastructure needs in western Chula Vista. As a result, the Civic Center complex is currently at capacity and cannot accommodate the additional employees that will soon join the City workforce. Staff evaluated a number of options for meeting the City's current space needs while also taking into account long-term issues and concerns. The options included the use of portable buildings on the existing campus, and leasing and/or purchasing additional space near the Civic Center. After evaluating these options, staff recommends purchasing the former Mercy Health Clinic site located at 428 "F" Street across from the Public Services Building. Staff is confident that the site, which includes a 6,175 sq. ft. recently upgraded medical office building and 89 parking spaces, will adequately address the City's short-term needs while also leaving room for expansion opportunities on site to help address future needs. Staff has concluded negotiations for the property ($1,054,800) and is presenting the Purchase and Sale Agreement for Council consideration. Additionally, if Council approves the acquisition, staff is asking Council to approve an additional appropriation for necessary interior building modifications ($79,300) from the DIF and ongoing utility, maintenance and janitorial costs ($13,400) from the General Fund. Staff has also included approximately $11,000 in the DIF appropriation amount to cover anticipated escrow costs and an AL TA Survey, if necessary. It is recommended that the City Council adopt the resolution authorizing the execution of the Purchase and Sale Agreement with Security Trust Company for acquisition of property located at 428 "F" Street for City office space purposes, and appropriating $1,145,000 from the Civic Center Component of the Public Facilities DIF to the Civic /3-'/ PAGE 2, ITEM MEETING DATE 09/21/99 Center Expansion Project (GG-139) to acquire the property and make interior building modifications; and appropriate $13,400 from the available fund balance in the General Fund for utility and janitorial costs through FY 99-00. Not applicable. The adopted FY 99-00 budget included significant City-wide staffing enhancements of 34.95 FTE which were in addition to the net 47.36 FTE added the previous year. The staffing enhancements over the last two years have primarily occurred in the Planning and Building Department, Public Works, Human Resources, and Management and Information Services. Not all of these positions have been, or are planned to be, accommodated in the Civic Center complex. However, the current campus is at capacity and additional space is necessary for both short-term and long-term needs as the City continues to grow. Community Development staff was asked to look at various properties for sale in the immediate office market surrounding the Civic Center complex. Additionally, internal space planning teams were assembled from most every City department to evaluate space planning needs and various altematives which included the potential purchase and placement of portable office trailers and maximizing the allocation of staffing at all other existing satellite facilities. Staff recommends that the best solution at this time, both in the short and long-term, is to purchase the Mercy Health Clinic site across the street from the Public Services Building at 428 "F" Street. Site Description The property is located immediately south of the SDG&E substation and First International Bank at the southwest corner of Fourth and "F" Street. An apartment complex is located immediately to the west with medical offices located to the south. The property recommended to be purchased consists of approximately 44,370 sq. ft. of land (153' wide by 290' deep, or 1.02 acres) with 89 parking spaces and a 6,175 sq. ft. medical office building (parcel 2 on attached aerial). The building is in excellent condition with significant interior remodeling improvements of approximately $183,000 made seven (7) years ago, as well as, a new roof and HVAC enhancements within the last year. Pursuant to City parking standards, 31 parking spaces are needed to serve the building thereby leaving 58 spaces for additional "overflow" parking for City employees and/or City Hall visitors. It is important to note that there exists a row of 27 additional parking spaces (covering 8,990 sq. ft.) along the eastern edge of the property which is under lease to First International Bank. These spaces are clearly identified as being available for use by bank employees and customers only. Staff recommends that this property not be purchased at this time. Site Valuation and Neaotiations After evaluating a number of other options, staff began serious negotiations with the property owner of the Mercy Health Clinic. Staff had the property appraised by Kevin Thene, MAl, Lipman, Stevens, Marshall & Thene, at $1,070,000. Mr. Thene valued the building at approximately $65 per sq. ft. and the land at approximately $14 per sq. ft. The appraiser included the additional 8,990 sq. ft. of land (with the 27 parking spaces) and did not have benefit of the information regarding the building upgrades. During the course of negotiations, Mercy independently elected to vacate the premises and combine their operations in Bonita. This event presented a great opportunity for the City to immediately occupy the building and save potential relocation costs. Using the appraisal as a basis, however, staff negotiated a purchase price of $1,054,800 for the 44,370 sq. ft. unencumbered property. Using $65 per sq. ft as an appropriate building value (staff believes that the building value is higher due to the upgrades), the land was negotiated for approximately $17.00 per sq. ft. Again, 13--2 PAGE 3, ITEM MEETING DATE 09/21/99 staff is comfortable with this purchase price given the quality condition of the building and that the tenant voluntarily vacated the premises thereby allowing the City to avoid potential relocation costs. The bank is not interested in selling their property which they have under lease for another ten (10) years to 2009. The bank contends that they need the parking to adequately serve their customers and employees. Staff recommends that the City not purchase the additional property at this time. The property leased by the bank is not necessary for short-term or even medium-term purposes. Staff is concerned that if the City purchases the property now, it could arguably cost more since there still exists 10 years on the lease and there would be severance issues. It is staffs recommendation, that since we don't need the property now, it may be more prudent to wait and allow for the City's long-term plans to develop. Additionally, as part of the proposed transaction the property owner is required to notify the City, in writing, at least thirty (30) days prior to extending the lease or selling the property to the bank or another party. The City will also receive an easement from the property owner to use the most easterly access driveway so as to have proper ingress and egress to the site. Staff has completed an internal Phase I assessment of the site including review of historical building records, title reports and easement descriptions. Staff has concluded that a Phase II assessment will not be necessary since the property appears to be clear for the planned City purposes. However, further due diligence, including an AL T A Survey, if necessary, will be performed prior to the close of escrow currently anticipated to occur by October 15. Site Improvements Due to the conversion of the Mercy Health Center into office space, some internal modifications will be required. These include removal of sinks from former exam rooms, and addition of carpeting in these rooms. A total of $25,000 will be needed for this and associated remodeling, but the cost associated with furnishing the building has not yet been determined. Telephone and computer lines need to be extended from the Public Services building to the Mercy Health Center building to connect with the Citywide telephone and local area network (LAN) systems. The cost for trenching and conduit between the buildings is estimated to be $24,500. The cost of the cabling, installing phone and data jacks in each office, telephones and a network hub is $29,800. This is a total of $79,300 that is eligible for funding from development impact fees. In addition, $13,400 of the available fund balance in the General Fund monies is requested for utilities and janitorial services for the building for the remainder of this fiscal year. It is currently contemplated that some working groups or components of Planning and Engineering will occupy the building, but final decisions have not been made. Approval of the resolution will appropriate $1,145,000 from the available fund balance of the Civic Center component of the Public Facilities DIF to the Civic Center Expansion Project (GG-139) for acquisition and building modifications, as well as $13,400 from the available fund balance in the General Fund for utilities and janitorial services. H :\HOME\COMMDEVlST AFF.REP\09-21-99\Mercy Acquisition.doc (9/16/99) /J/3 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT WITH SECURITY TRUST COMPANY FOR ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 428 "F" STREET FOR CITY OFFICE SPACE PURPOSES; APPROPRIATING $1,145,000 FROM THE AVAILABLE FUND BALANCE IN THE CIVIC CENTER COMPONENT OF THE PUBLIC FACILITIES DIF TO THE CIVIC CENTER EXPANSION PROJECT (GG-139) TO ACQUIRE THE PROPERTY AND MAKE INTERIOR BUILDING MODIFICATIONS; APPROPRIATING $13,400 FROM THE AVAILABLE FUND BALANCE IN THE GENERAL FUND FOR UTILITIES AND JANITORIAL SERVICES; AND AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 1999-2000 BUDGET TO REFLECT THESE APPROPRIATIONS WHEREAS, on January 15, 1991, the Chula Vista City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2432 relating to a development impact fee to pay for various public facilities within the City of Chula Vista's general plan area boundary; and WHEREAS, Civic Center Expansion is a component of the public facility cost share referenced in this ordinance; and WHEREAS, a Purchase and Sale Agreement has been negotiated with the Security Trust Company to purchase the Mercy Health Center site at 428 "F" Street for $1,054,800; and WHEREAS, the proposed purchase price was negotiated based upon an appraisal, the high quality condition of the property, and other market factors, and therefore represents fair value for the property; and WHEREAS, the site includes 44,370 sq. ft. of land, a 6,175 sq. ft. medical office building and 89 parking spaces; and WHEREAS, the City's purchase of the Mercy Health Center building located at 428 "F" Street addresses current space needs for City staff and is therefore in the public interest; and WHEREAS, modifications to the Mercy Health Center building are necessary to convert it to office space; and WHEREAS, on June 29, 1999, Council adopted the City's fiscal year 1999-2000 budget, which did not include funding for these modifications. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, in consideration of the above recitals and findings, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby: 1) approve and authorize the Mayor to execute a Purchase and Sale Agreement with Security Trust company for acquisition of property located at 428 "F" Street; 2) appropriate $1,145,000 from the available fund balance in the Civic Center component of the Public Facilities DIF to the Civic Center Expansion Project (GG-139) to acquire the property, $79,300 from the available fund balance in the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee Fund for modifications to the Mercy Health Center building, and $13,400 from the available fund balance in the General Fund for utilities and janitorial services for the remainder of this fiscal year; and 3) amend the fiscal year 1999-2000 budget to reflect these appropriations. Presented by Approved as to form by ---\. -- Chris Salomone Director of Community Development ( / .~~ I pohn rvf'Kaneny 'City Attorney . ( ~ ---:> C ." '- .~:r;~.- ~. \ \ [(JW) ",IHOME\COMMOEVlRESOSIRSI (So,tomb" 16, 1999 (1O"jJ - i ---r h.1505 , " ! .. , IA -- \ ,j >. ~ " ~ " ... ,,' D PM 95 t J... . . . . . . /~~. . . . . . . ~, '.~ ,.., ~ __ --I ,,, ~ :J FOURTH 70(1 IJ =0 :;u . '-Ilt n;~~ ~ ') ;IJ \::3) . 'f.. 15 7$ ~l rN\' ~~ tAl ~ 1\1 -0' >> n;IJ ~.) J/~it ~ @OJ> <1> ;IJ 1/~~ ,1"(" '-j .. -0" .,.. ~ CD t1' 1,""Io/'Z5-f 1<1550(...... 5 > . ,#I~ @t~@ ~ tV\.~ (W\ . \::::).:vv @@ .)"'". .,~ I: ,/~.. ,JT";;r.-" I~!$ /45 'N@. . \"J -..J (.oJ ):> n Bank ~ @ 318 4th lRe. ~ ):> o &: /6!J /J~ (SECOND) AVE. ~ ;Q\ 'I \ I CENTER AVE. PLAT MAP ". . I /7,/ h? tn :-'-1 ~" I I SELLER: BUYER: ESCROW NO: H :\home\attomey\agree\mercy PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT AND JOINT ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS Security Trust Company Trustee of its Trust No. P.T. 1452 CITY OF CHULA VISTA, a municipal corporation First American Title Insurance Co. 411 Ivy Street San Diego, CA 92101 /r? - ? 9/16/99 3:08 pm PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT AND JOINT ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS This PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT AND JOINT ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS ("Agreement"), is entered into effective as of September 14, 1999 by and between Security Trust Company, Trustee of its Trust No. PT 1452, ("Seller"), and the CITY OF CHULA VISTA, a municipal corporation, ("Buyer"). NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants set forth herein, and for other valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, Seller and Buyer agree as follows: ARTICLE 1 AGREEMENT OF PURCHASE AND SALE 1.1 Description of Propertv. Seller owns certain improved real property ("Property") located 428 F Street in the City of Chula Vista, County of San Diego, California, comprised of three legal parcels (Assessor's parcel Nos. 586-181-34; 35; 36 and a portion of 41) located at 428 "F" Street totaling approximately 44,370 sq. ft. with a vacant medical office building of approximately 6,175 sq. ft. located adjacent to the northwest corner of APN 586-181-35. The Property is more particularly described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto. The Property shall include all improvements, fixtures and appurtenances attached to the Property as of the Effective Date and any personal property located thereon that the parties mutually agree to transfer from Seller to Buyer. Seller, or Seller's previous tenant with Seller's approval, may be allowed, subject to City's reasonable approval, to retain certain attached personal property, provided that City determines that such property is not necessary for the City's occupancy or intended use of the premises, and that Seller shall be responsible for the cost of repairing any damage caused by the removal thereof. 1.2 Offer to Purchase. Seller's execution of this Agreement constitutes an irrevocable offer to sell the Property on the terms and conditions stated herein. Such offer may be revoked by Seller by written notice to Buyer in the event that Buyer fails to (a) accept Seller's offer by approving this Agreement by no later than September 21, 1999 by formal Resolution, and/or (b) deliver an executed copy of this Agreement to Escrow (as provided herein) within ten (10) calendar days after the adoption of such Resolution. 1.3 Purchase and Sale. Buyer's execution of this Agreement within the time period specified in Section 1.2 shall create a binding agreement between the parties hereto, effective as of the date of Buyer's adoption hereof by formal Resolution whereby Seller agrees to sell the Property to Buyer and Buyer agrees to purchase the Property from Seller, on the terms and conditions stated herein 1 .4 Deposit. (a) Good Faith Deposit. Upon Buyer's approval of this Agreement, Buyer shall deposit One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000) into Escrow (defined below) as a good faith 2 /3 r-Y deposit ("Deposit"). Such deposit shall be made pursuant to the terms of Section 3.3 hereof, below. If Buyer proceeds to acquire the Property, Buyer's Deposit, plus any interest earned thereon, shall be applied towards the Purchase Price at Close of Escrow. Buyer's Deposit payments shall be in the form of either a direct wire transfer to Escrow, or a cashier's or certified check drawn on a California bank account payable to Escrow Agent. Buyer's failure to make the Deposit payments when required shall be a material default hereunder, and Seller shall have the right to terminate this Agreement. Escrow Agent shall invest the Deposit amounts in a federally-insured, interest-bearing account approved by Buyer, and all interest earned thereon shall be credited to Buyer. The Deposit shall be returned to Buyer if Buyer elects to terminate this Agreement and the Escrow for nonsatisfaction of any condition included in Section 5.1 as a result of Seller's default hereunder. (b) LIQUIDATED DAMAGES. IF BUYER FAILS TO COMPLETE THE PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY AND SUCH FAILURE CONSTITUTES A DEFAULT HEREUNDER, AND IS NOT THE RESULT OF NONSA TISFACTION OF CONDITIONS OR A DEFAULT BY SELLER, THE PARTIES ACKNOWLEDGE AND AGREE THAT (1) SELLER'S DAMAGES WILL BE EXTREMELY DIFFICULT AND IMPRACTICAL TO ASCERTAIN, AND (2) THE AMOUNT OF TWENTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($20,000) REPRESENTS A REASONABLE ESTIMATE OF SUCH DAMAGES, CONSIDERING ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE DATE OF EXECUTION OF THIS AGREEMENT. THEREFORE, THE PARTIES ACKNOWLEDGE AND AGREE THAT IN THE EVENT OF SUCH FAILURE TO PERFORM BY BUYER, SELLER SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO RETAIN $20,000 OF THE DEPOSIT AS LIQUIDATED DAMAGES PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTION 1671. SUCH LIQUIDATED DAMAGES SHALL CONSTITUTE SELLER'S SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE REMEDY AGAINST BUYER, ALL OTHER REMEDIES BEING HEREBY EXPRESSLY WAIVED BY SELLER. ANY REMAINING AMOUNTS OF THE DEPOSIT SHALL BE RETURNED TO BUYER. SELLER WAIVES ALL RIGHTS SELLER MAY OTHERWISE HAVE PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTION 3389 OR OTHERWISE TO SPECIFICALLY ENFORCE THIS AGREEMENT. BY SIGNING THEIR INITIALS BELOW, EACH PARTY CONFIRMS ITS CONSENT TO AND AGREEMENT WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS PARAGRAPH: Seller's Initials Buyer's Initials ARTICLE 2 PURCHASE PRICE 2.1 Purchase Price. The total purchase price ("Purchase Price") which Buyer agrees to pay and Seller agrees to accept for the Property is the sum of ONE MILLION FIFTY FOUR THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED DOLLARS ($1,054,800), payable through Escrow as follows: (a) The Deposit of $100,000 shall be delivered to Escrow Agent (defined below) as provided in Section 1.4; (b) The balance of $954,800 shall be delivered to Escrow Agent in cash, in the form of a cashier's or certified check or wired funds prior to the Close of Escrow. 3 /3 ~? ARTICLE 3 ESCROW 3.1 Escrow Aqent. First American Title Insurance Company, located at 411 Ivy Street, San Diego, Ca. 92101, ("Escrow Agent") is designated, authorized and instructed to act as Escrow Agent pursuant to the terms of this Agreement unless otherwise mutually agreed by the parties. Escrow Agent shall acknowledge the Opening of Escrow and its agreement to act as the Escrow Agent hereunder by: (a) executing the Consent of Escrow Agent attached hereto; and (b) promptly delivering a copy of the executed Consent to Seller and Buyer. 3.2 Escrow Instructions. This Agreement shall constitute initial escrow instructions to Escrow Agent. Escrow Agent's general conditions shall be attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and made a part hereof, to the extent they are consistent with the provisions of this Agreement. The parties shall execute any additional escrow instructions reasonably required by Escrow Agent to consummate the transaction provided for herein; provided, however, such additional escrow instructions shall not modify the provisions of this Agreement, unless such instructions (a) state the modification in full, and (b) are signed by both parties. 3.3 Openinq of Escrow. Within eight (8) business days after execution by both parties of this Agreement, Buyer shall deliver a fully executed copy of this Agreement and the Deposit to Escrow Agent. Opening of Escrow shall be the date Escrow Agent executes the Consent described in Section 3.1. 3.4 Close of Escrow. "Close of Escrow" or "Closing" means the date Escrow Agent records the Grant Deed in favor of Buyer and delivers the Purchase Price to Seller. If all conditions to Closing are satisfied pursuant to the terms of this Agreement, Escrow shall close on the day falling twenty one (21) days after the opening of Escrow below; provided, however, if all conditions are satisfied and all funds and documents required hereunder are deposited in Escrow at an earlier date, Escrow Agent shall close the Escrow on such earlier date. The Closing Date may not be extended except by a written escrow instruction signed by Buyer and Seller. If the Escrow does not close on or before the Closing Date for any reason other than non-satisfaction of Buyer's conditions to Close set forth in Section 5.2., or a default by Seller, and if the Closing Date has not been validly extended as provided hereunder, then Buyer shall be in material default hereunder and Seller shall have the unilateral right to terminate this Agreement and the Escrow by delivering written notice to Escrow Agent with a copy to the other party), in which event Seller shall have no further obligation hereunder. 3.5 Deliveries to Escrow. Prior to the Closing Date specified in Section 3.4, each party shall timely deliver to Escrow all funds and documents required of such party in order to complete the Closing under the terms of this Agreement, including, but not limited to, prorated amounts and other payments required under Section 3.7. 3.6 Completion of Documents. Escrow Agent is authorized: to insert the Closing Date and otherwise complete the documents deposited in Escrow, where appropriate and consistent with this Agreement. 3.7 Prorations, Escrow Fees and Costs. 4 IY"jcJ (a) Prorations. The following items shall be prorated in Escrow, as of the date of Close of Escrow: real estate taxes, based on the most recent information available in the office of the taxing entity. All prorations shall be made on the basis of a 30-day month and a 360-day year, unless the parties otherwise agree in writing. If Buyer receives, after the Closing, any supplemental bill for real estate taxes or assessments which relates, in whole or in part, to the period prior to the Closing, such supplemental bill shall be allocated between Seller and Buyer as of the Closing Date, and Seller shall pay the amount due to Buyer within thirty (30) days after Seller's receipt of a statement and request for payment. (b) Section 4.2. Seller's Payment. Seller will pay the cost of the Title Policy described in (c) Buyer's Payments. Buyer will pay all other Escrow costs including: (1) the County Documentary Transfer Tax; (2) any and all non-customary Escrow charges; (3) all of the Escrow Agent's fees; (4) the cost of any AL TA Title Policy or title endorsements; (5) all document recording and financing costs, if any; and (6) all other customary Escrow costs, except for Seller's payment provided above. (d) Default. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the event of a default by Buyer or Seller hereunder, all cancellation and other escrow charges shall be paid by the defaulting party. 3.8 Existinq Encumbrances. Escrow Agent is authorized to secure beneficiary demands and requests for reconveyance for those monetary liens which are not Permitted Exceptions pursuant to Section 4.2 and the Property shall be reconveyed from each of the foregoing at Close of Escrow. 3.9 Distribution of Funds and Documents. At the Close of Escrow, Escrow Agent shall do each of the following: (a) Payment of Encumbrances. Pay the amount of those monetary liens which are not Permitted Exceptions to the obligees thereof, in accordance with the demands approved by Seller, utilizing funds to which Seller shall be entitled upon Close of Escrow and funds (if any) deposited in Escrow by Seller. (b) Recordation of Documents. Submit to the County Recorder of San Diego County the Grant Deed for the Property and each other document to be recorded under the terms of this Agreement or by general usage, and, after recordation, cause the County Recorder to mail the Grant Deed to Buyer and each other such document to the grantee, beneficiary or person acquiring rights thereunder or for whose benefit said document was recorded. (c) Non-Recorded Documents. Deliver by United States mail (or hold for personal pickup, if requested): (1) the Title Policy to Buyer; each other non-recorded document received hereunder to the payee or person acquiring rights thereunder or for whose benefit said document was acquired. (d) Distribution of Funds. Deliver by United States mail (or comply with other unilateral instructions given by the applicable party): (1) To Seller, the Purchase Price, adjusted for prorations, charges and other credits and debits provided for herein. 5 / .3 #~ / / (2) To Buyer, any excess funds delivered to Escrow Agent by Buyer. ARTICLE 4 TITLE MATTERS 4.1 Preliminary Title Report. (a) Delivery to Buver. As soon as possible, but by no later than the Opening of Escrow, Escrow Agent shall provide to Buyer, at Buyer's expense, a preliminary title report ("PR") issued by First American Title Company, or such other company designated by Buyer and reasonably approved by Seller ("Title Insurer") reflecting the status of title to the Property. The PR shall include a plat map showing the location of all easements, and legible copies of all items shown as exceptions thereon. The PR will be deemed received by Buyer on the date of personal delivery or three (3) days after mailing by Escrow Agent. (b) Time to Obiect. Buyer shall have ten (10) business days after the date of receipt of the PR to notify Escrow Agent (with a copy to Seller), in writing, of its approval or disapproval of the legal description for the Property or any matters indicated as exceptions in the PR. Buyer shall not object unreasonably. (c) No Obiection. If Buyer's written disapproval is not received by Escrow Agent within said time period, Buyer shall be deemed to have approved the PR; provided, however, Buyer shall not be obligated to affirmatively object to monetary exceptions to title, all of which must be removed as a condition to Close of Escrow unless Buyer otherwise expressly agrees. (d) Time to Eliminate Exceptions. If Buyer objects to one or more exceptions indicated in the PR, Seller may cure such objection by delivering to Escrow Agent (with a copy to Buyer), within five (5) business days after Seller's receipt of Buyer's objection, Seller's written agreement to eliminate such exception(s) by the Closing Date. (e) Riqht to Cancel or Perform. If Seller does not agree to cure each exception to which Buyer has objected, Buyer shall elect one of the following, by delivering written notice to Escrow Agent (with a copy to Seller) within five (5) days after receipt of notice of Seller's election or expiration of the 5-day period described in (d) above (whichever occurs first): (1) to waive its objections, take title subject to such exceptions, and proceed with Close of Escrow; or (2) to terminate this Agreement and the Escrow, in which event neither party shall have any further obligation hereunder and Buyer shall be entitled to recover its Deposit. 4.2 Title Insurance. As of Close of Escrow, Title Insurer shall issue, or be committed to issue, at Seller's sole cost, a standard form CL TA Owner's Form B Policy of Title Insurance ("Title Policy") insuring Buyer's title to the Property in the amount of the Purchase Price, subject only to the following permitted exceptions ("Permitted Exceptions"): (a) current, non-delinquent real estate taxes and assessments; (b) the lien of supplemental taxes, if any, assessed pursuant to Chapter 3.5 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code; (c) the matters set forth in the PR and approved by Buyer pursuant to Section 4.1 (c) or (e); (d) any other matters approved in writing by Buyer; and (e) matters excepted or excluded from coverage by the printed terms of the Title Policy's standard form. City may, at City's sole option and expense, obtain an AL TA extended coverage form of title insurance and/or title policy endorsements. Title Insurance shall also include, at Seller's expense, assurances that Buyer shall be transferred an easement for 6 ;3-/2 ingress and egress rights over that certain approximately 12 foot strip of land running along the eastern edge of the Property as more particularly described on Exhibit A as Parcel B ("Access Parcel") 4.3 Grant Deed Easement. Prior to Close of Escrow, Seller shall deposit in Escrow a Grant Deed and Easement (with respect to the Access Parcel), duly executed and acknowledged in recordable form, conveying all Seller's right title and interest in and to the Property to Buyer subject only to all matters of record and the Permitted Exceptions. ARTICLE 5 CONDITIONS TO CLOSE OF ESCROW 5.1 Buyer's Conditions to Close of Escrow. Close of Escrow shall be subject to satisfaction of each of the following conditions precedent, which are for the benefit of Buyer, prior to expiration of the Contingency Period: (a) Title Matters. Buyer's approval of the PR, or Seller's election to cure each exception disapproved by Buyer, or Buyer's waiver of any remaining disapproved exception(s), pursuant to Section 4.1, and Title Insurer's commitment, upon Close of Escrow, to issue the Title Policy in favor of Buyer provided in Section 4.2 hereof. (b) Seller's Deliveries. Seller's delivery to Buyer, within five (5) business days after Opening of Escrow, of complete, legible copies of the following items relating to the Property: any and all reports, studies, investigations, surveys, agreements, permits or other Property related documents within Seller's possession or reasonably available thereto including, but not limited to, any reports, documents, or records pertaining to the existence and/or removal of any underground storage tanks, and if applicable, remediation of any related soil and/or groundwater contamination. Seller makes no representation or warranties as to the accuracy of any information contained in reports prepared by third parties. (c) Buyer's Approval. Buyer's determination, in Buyer's sole discretion, of its satisfaction with (a) the physical condition of the Property; (b) the suitability of the Property for the Buyer's intended use of the Property for administrative office space and/or other government purposes; (c) the status of approval of any and all required development entitlements, including obtaining the necessary environmental clearances pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and (d) the items delivered by Seller pursuant to Section 5.2(b). In order to conduct its analysis of the Property, Buyer shall have the right, after Opening of Escrow, to enter the Property, pursuant to Section 7.1. In the event that during the Escrow Period Buyer detects the existence of, or discovers information that leads Buyer to reasonably suspect the existence of hazardous materials on the property, or other physical condition, that makes the Property unsuitable for Buyer's purposes, Buyer has the right to terminate this Agreement without penalty by disapproving the condition of the Property, and/or the right to request that Seller cure such condition prior to Close of Escrow. Buyer and Seller shall meet and confer in good faith in order to determine possible terms upon which the Seller shall attempt to cure such condition and proceed with the purchase by Buyer from Seller thereof. (d) Required Tax Documents. Seller's delivery to Escrow of completed state and federal non-foreign affidavit and/or disclosure documents including, without limitation, those 7 13'-/J affidavits and/or certificates required pursuant to Internal Revenue Code Section 1445 and California Form 590 (Withholding Exemption Certificate). 5.2 Satisfaction. Waiver of Conditions. Buyer's approval, wherever required to satisfy a condition, shall be evidenced by written notice delivered to Escrow Agent (with a copy to Seller). If Buyer's written approval is not received by Escrow Agent within the specified time limit, the matter shall be deemed disapproved unless Buyer otherwise specifies in writing. 5.3 Seller's Conditions to Close of Escrow. (a) Buyer's deposit of the Purchase Price for the Property plus any of Buyer's closing costs required hereunder. 5.4 Failure of Conditions. If any of the foregoing conditions is neither satisfied nor waived by the benefited party within the specified time limit, such party may unilaterally terminate this Agreement and the Escrow by giving written notice of termination to Escrow Agent (with a copy to the other party). In the event of such termination, Buyer's Deposit shall be immediately returned, and neither party shall have any further obligation hereunder; provided. 5.5 Diliqence; Cooperation. Each party agrees to exercise due diligence in satisfying each and every condition to Close of Escrow for which such party is responsible. Each party agrees to cooperate with the other party in satisfying those conditions to Close of Escrow for which such other party is primarily responsible. ARTICLE 6 REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES 6.1 Buyer's Representations and Warranties. Buyer agrees, represents and warrants, as of the date of its execution of this Agreement and as of Close of Escrow, as follows: (a) Authority. Buyer has full legal right, power and authority to execute and fully perform its obligations under this Agreement, without the need for any further action; and the persons executing this Agreement and other documents required hereunder on behalf of Buyer are the duly designated agents of Buyer and are authorized to do so. (b) Investiqation of Property. Buyer will make an independent investigation, to the extent Buyer deems necessary or appropriate, concerning the physical condition (including the existence of hazardous materials), value, development, use, marketability, feasibility and suitability of the Property, including (but not limited to) land use, zoning and other governmental restrictions and requirements. Except for Seller's express representations and warranties set forth below, Buyer is acquiring the Property "AS IS," in its present state and condition solely in reliance upon Buyer's own investigation. 6.2 Seller's Representations and Warranties. Each party comprising Seller, on his or her own behalf, agrees, represents and warrants, as of the date of execution of this Agreement and as of Close of Escrow, as follows: (a) Authority; No Violations. Seller is the owner of the Property and has full legal right, power and authority to execute and fully perform its obligations under this Agreement and 8 15~)Y to convey the Property to Buyer and the persons executing this Agreement and other documents required hereunder on behalf of Seller are the duly designated agents of Seller and are authorized to do so without the need for any further action on the part of Seller's Board of Directors or any other authority. Seller's performance of its obligations hereunder will not violate any existing laws, regulations or agreements to which Seller or the Property is subject. (b) Non-Foreign Affidavit. Seller represents and warrants to Buyer that it is not a foreign person and is a United States person as defined in Section 7701 (1 )(30) of the Internal Revenue Code, as amended ("Code"). (c) Condition of Property. To the best of Seller's knowledge (1) there are no hazardous materials on the Property which violate any existing federal, state or local hazardous materials laws; (2) there is no physical condition of the Property which would prevent the reasonable development and Buyer's use of the Property for administrative offices or other general office purposes; (3) there are no existing or pending or threatened lawsuits against Seller involving the Property; (4) there are no existing leases or other agreements with respect to the Property that run with the land. Seller makes no representations or warranties as to the condition of any surface improvements on the Property, all of which Buyer shall be acquiring in an "AS IS" condition as of the Effective Date hereof. 6.3 Real Estate Commissions. Each party represents and warrants to the other party that no brokers or finders have been employed or are entitled to a commission or compensation in connection with this transaction. Each party agrees to indemnify, protect, hold harmless and defend the other party from and against any obligation or liability to pay any such commission or compensation related to this transaction arising from the act or agreement of the indemnifying party. 6.4 Survival of Warranties. The representations and warranties given by Buyer and Seller in this Article 6, and all obligations to be performed under the terms of this Agreement after Close of Escrow, shall survive the Close of Escrow and delivery of the Grant Deed to Buyer. ARTICLE 7 ADDITIONAL OBLIGATIONS 7.1 Access to Property. Between the date of September 21,1999, and the Close or earlier termination of Escrow, Seller shall allow Buyer and its agents free, reasonable access to the Property, upon reasonable verbal notice to Seller, for the purpose of inspecting, surveying and testing the same. Seller acknowledges and agrees that Buyer's due diligence may include asbestos analysis of the building, and any prudent analyses as part of a Phase I or Phase II environmental assessment of the physical condition of the property. Buyer shall indemnify, hold harmless and defend Seller and the Property from and against any and all liens, claims, liability, loss, damages, costs, expenses, suits or judgments for labor performed or materials furnished to or for Buyer, or for injuries to person or property damage, arising out of any accident or occurrence in any way connected with entry upon, testing or inspection of the Property by Buyer or its agents pursuant to this section. Buyer's due diligence shall be at Buyer's sole cost and expense. At Buyer's sole cost and risk, subject to Seller's prior approval, Seller also agrees to allow Buyer to install improvements on the Property prior to Close of Escrow, provided, however, 9 /s~/~ in the event that Escrow fails to close for any reason, Buyer shall be required to remove any installed improvements and return the Property to its original condition. 7.2 Governmental Permits and Processing. During the Escrow period, Buyer shall have the right to file applications for and to process, at Buyer's expense, applications for governmental permits and approvals for zoning, land use, subdivision, improvement, development and construction relating to the Property and Buyer's intended use. Buyer agrees to diligently pursue any and all such necessary approvals in order to permit the Close to occur prior to the Closing Date. Subject to Seller's reasonable approval, Seller authorizes Buyer to execute any applications or other documents referenced by applicable governmental authorities to authorize Buyer to process such permits and approvals, and shall cooperate reasonably with Buyer in connection therewith. Buyer agrees to process a Parcel Map, at its sole cost that shall result in the Property, and Seller's remaining property located immediately to the east of the Property, being legal parcels consistent with the requirements of California Law. 7.3 Condemnation or Damaoe. If, prior to Close of Escrow, an action is commenced for the condemnation of the Property or any material portion thereof or interest therein, or the Property is materially damaged by fire, earthquake or other cause, so as, in either event, to render the Property unsuitable for Buyer's use, then Buyer shall have the right to terminate this Agreement by delivering written notice to Seller (with a copy to Escrow Agent) within ten (10) days after Buyer receives notice of the condemnation or damage. If Buyer terminates this Agreement within such 10-day period, then the Escrow shall be cancelled, neither Buyer nor Seller shall have any further obligation under this Agreement, and Buyer's Deposit shall be returned. If Buyer fails to deliver written notice of termination within said 10-day period, Buyer shall be deemed to have waived and Buyer shall proceed to consummate the purchase pursuant to this Agreement. Buyer shall have no other remedies against Seller as a result of such condemnation or destruction of the Property except as set forth in this Section. 7.4 Possession; Removal of Personal Property. Possession of the Property shall be delivered by Seller to Buyer on the Closing Date after recordation of the Grant Deed. Prior to the Closing Date, Seller shall cause to be removed any and all personal property to be retained by Seller or the previous tenant in accordance with Section 1.1 hereof. Except as expressly provided herein, all risk of loss and damage to the Property from whatever source shall be the sole responsibility of Buyer after Close of Escrow. 7.5 Indemnities. Buyer shall indemnify, protect, defend and hold Seller, its officers, employees, representatives and agents, harmless from and against any and all claims, losses, damages, costs and expenses (including attorneys fees and court costs) arising out of any accident or occurrence after Close of Escrow (collectively, "Losses") excluding those Losses resulting from Seller's negligence or willful misconduct or the invalidity of Seller's express representations and warranties hereunder. Seller shall indemnify, protect, defend and hold Buyer, its officers, employees, representatives and agents, harmless from and against any and all claims, losses, damages, costs and expenses (including attorneys fees and court costs) arising out of any accident or occurrence before Close of Escrow (collectively, "Losses") excluding those Losses resulting from Buyer's negligence or willful misconduct. 7.6 Notice of Proposed Lease Extension or Sale. Seller agrees to give Buyer thirty (30) days prior written notice of any pending sale, lease (including an extension of any existing lease) or other conveyance of all or any portion of that certain improved real property comprised of approximately 41,796 square feet located at 318 Fourth Avenue immediately to the east of the 10 )J;)? Property. Such notice shall include a brief summary of the pending transaction. ARTICLE 8 GENERAL PROVISIONS 8.1 Attornevs' Fees. If either party commences legal proceedings for any relief against the other party arising out of this Agreement, the losing party shall pay the prevailing party's legal costs and expenses, including, but not limited to, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs as determined by the court. 8.2 Computation of Time Periods. All periods of time referred to in this Agreement shall include all Saturdays, Sundays and state or national holidays, unless the period of time specifies business days, provided that if the date or last date to perform any act or give any notice or approval shall fall on a Saturday, Sunday or state or national holiday, such act or notice may be timely performed or given on the next succeeding day which is not a Saturday, Sunday or state or national holiday. 8.3 Counterparts. This Agreement or any escrow instructions pursuant to this Agreement may be executed in multiple copies, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which shall constitute one Agreement after each party has signed such a counterpart. 8.4 Entire Aqreement. This Agreement, together with all exhibits attached hereto and other agreements expressly referred to herein, constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the purchase and sale of the Property. All prior or contemporaneous agreements, understandings, representations, warranties and statements, oral or written, are superseded. 8.5 Exhibits. All exhibits referred to herein are attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 8.6 Further Assurances. The parties agree to perform such further acts and to execute and deliver such additional documents and instruments as may be reasonably required in order to carry out the provisions of this Agreement and the intentions of the parties. 8.7 Gender. Number. As used herein, the singular shall include the plural and the masculine shall include the feminine, wherever the context so requires. 8.8 Governinq Law. This Agreement shall be governed, interpreted, construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of California. 8.9 Headinqs. The captions and paragraph headings used in this Agreement are inserted for convenience of reference only and are not intended to define, limit or affect the construction or interpretation of any term or provision hereof. 8.10 Modification. Waiver. No modification, waiver, amendment or discharge of this Agreement shall be valid unless the same is in writing and signed by both Buyer and Seller. The escrow instructions shall be considered a part of this Agreement, and no provision in said escrow instructions shall supersede or contradict the provisions of this Agreement, unless the parties agree in writing to such change. 11 /3--/7 8.11 Notice. Notice to either party shall be in writing and either personally delivered or sent by certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to the party to be notified at the address specified herein. Any such notice shall be deemed received on the date of personal delivery to the party (or such party's authorized representative) or three (3) business days after deposit in the U.S. Mail, as the case may be. Seller's Address for Notice: P.T. 1452 Security Trust P.O. Box 2243 La Jolla, CA 92038 Buver's Address for Notice: City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA. 91910 Attn: Community Development Director Either party may change its address for notice by delivering written notice to the other party as provided herein. 8.12 Severabilitv. If any term, provision, covenant or condition of this Agreement is held to be invalid, void or otherwise unenforceable, to any extent, by any court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of this Agreement shall not be affected thereby, and each term, provision, covenant or condition of this Agreement shall be valid and enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law. 8.13 Successors. All terms of this Agreement shall be binding upon, inure to the benefit of, and be enforceable by the parties hereto and their respective heirs, legal representatives, successors, and assigns. 8.14 Time. Time is of the essence of each provision of this Agreement, including without limitation all time deadlines for satisfying conditions and Close of Escrow. [Remainder of This Page Intentionally Left Blank] 12 /5~/JY SIGNATURE PAGE TO PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT AND JOINT ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have entered into this Agreement as of the date first written above. SELLER: Security Trust Company Trustee of its Trust No,. P.T. 1452 Paula Kent, Beneficiary By: J. Paul Spring, President and CEO BUYER: CITY OF CHULA VISTA, a municipal corporation By: Shirley Horton, Mayor ATTEST Susan Bigelow, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM BY John M. Kaheny City Attorney H: \home\attorney\ag ree\mercy 13 / 3~~/J CONSENT OF ESCROW AGENT SELLER: Security Trust Company Trustee of its Trust No. P. T. 1452 BUYER: CITY OF CHULA VISTA ESCROW NO.: The undersigned ("Escrow Agent") hereby: (1) acknowledges delivery of a Purchase and Sale Agreement and Joint Escrow Instructions ("Agreement") dated September 21, 1999 between the Seller and Buyer identified above, and delivery of the initial $100,000 Deposit described in Section 1.5 of the Agreement; and (2) agrees to act as the Escrow Agent in accordance with the provisions of the Agreement. This Consent is executed on , 1999 which shall constitute the "Opening of Escrow" pursuant to Section 3.3 of the Agreement. ESCROW AGENT: First American Title Insurance Company By: Escrow Officer / J '-02/7 A Legal Description of Property B General Escrow Conditions LIST OF EXHIBITS /5'~/ EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY [To be provided] A-1 /;l-~~ EXHIBIT "B" GENERAL ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS [To be provided] B-1 / Yr- r7/T COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item /1/ Meeting Date 9/21/99 ITEM TITLE: Resolution Authorizing an abatement of $22,546 of the Interim SR-125 Development Impact Fees paid for the Clubhouse at EastLake Country Club located at 2375 Clubhouse Drive and appropriating funds from the unappropriated fund balance ofthe Interim SR-125 Development Impact Fee Fund SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public wor~ REVIEWED BY: City Manage~~ "1' (4/5ths Vote: YesXNo_) On October 20, 1998, Council authorized kJ abatement of $33,050 of the Interim SR-125 Development Impact Fees paid for the Clubhouse at EastLake Country Club. EastLake Country Club Partnership requested this refund because they felt the fee of$66,010 collected was based on too high an estimate of the traffic increase between the temporary clubhouse and the permanent clubhouse. Staff is requesting final abatement to close this issue. Staff has conducted manual counts that show changes in traffic due to the construction of the Clubhouse. RECOMMENDATION: That Council authorizes an abatement of $22,546 of the Interim SR-125 Fee paid for the Clubhouse at EastLake Country Club and appropriate $22,546 from the unappropriated balance of the Interim SR-125 Development Impact Fee Fund. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable. DISCUSSION: EastLake Country Club Partnership was charged a total of $66,01 0 for the Interim SR-125 fee for the clubhouse at EastLake Country Club. EastLake Country Club Partnership paid the fee with the understanding that the City would adjust the fee accordingly based on a comparison between actual traffic counts prior to the construction of the new clubhouse and one year after the facility had been in operation. On October 20, 1998, Council approved Resolution 19223 (Attachment A) authorizing an abatement of$33,050 ofthe Interim SR125 Development Impact Fees paid for the Clubhouse. Urban Systems Associates, Inc.'s (USA) original study, recommended a refund of$55,996. However, Mr. Kuhn requested a refund ofthe entire $66,010, because he contended that the traffic for the golf course did not increase due to the construction of the clubhouse. Staff requested that Mr. Kuhn do a restudy of the traffic during a more comparable time of year. /y-( Page 2, Item_ Meeting Date9/21/99 Staff has now conducted manual traffic counts serving the Clubhouse and Country Club. Staff conducted this survey to compare these results with those of USA to determine the changes in traffic patterns on Fridays and Saturdays (Attachment B). This period was considered the "after" condition in the original study done by USA. Staff conducted manual counts on Friday, July 23, and Saturday, July 24, 1999, which simulated USA's counts conducted on Friday, May 8, and Saturday, May 9, 1998. These counts show an increase in weekday golf and non-golf traffic, an increase in non-golf traffic on Fridays, and a decrease in non-golf traffic on Saturdays. The combined traffic for both the Clubhouse and Country Club has increased. There is also golf activity, such as shopping in the pro shop or people meeting for lunch, that do not result in people playing a round of golf. Part of the increases in traffic for the Clubhouse and Country Club could be due to higher golf activities that occur in July, that do not occur in May while school is still in session. However, staff believes that all traffic activity will continue to increase as EastLake continues to develop and more people continue to move into the area. Based on staff s manual counts that show an increase in golf traffic, staff recommends accepting the Urban Systems Associates, Inc. analysis entitled "EastLake Golf Country Club Traffic Generation Study" conducted in May of 1998. This entitles EastLake Country Club Partnership to a refund of $22,546 in addition to the $33,050 previously refunded. This offer was presented to Mr. Kuhn in the City's letter dated August 4, 1999 (Attachment C). Mr. Kuhn, as indicated in his letter dated August 12, 1999 (Attachment D), has reviewed staffs analysis and concludes that we cannot properly replicate conditions such that a traffic analysis based on vehicle counts will be completely reliable and conclusive. Therefore, he agrees with the payment of$10,4l4 of the Interim SR125 Development Impact Fees and a refund of$22,546. FISCAL IMPACT: There is a minimal fiscal impact of $22,546 to the City's Interim SR-125 Development Impact Fee Fund due to tlW refund of a portion ofthe Interim SR-125 fee. Since these fees were paid during the 1996/97 Fiscal Year, this refund needs to be appropriated from the unappropriated balance of the Fund. Attachments: A. Resolution 19223 dated October 20, 1999 and Agenda Statement B. Memorandum dated July 29, 1999, on EastLake Golf Clubhouse C. Letter to Mr. Kuhn dated August 4, 1999 D. Letter from Mr. Kuhn dated August 12, 1999 File No. HX-OI3 / t/ --~ H:\HOME\ENGINEER\AGENDA \CLBHSE2.BOB RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AUTHORIZING AN ABATEMENT OF $22,546 OF THE INTERIM SR-125 DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES PAID FOR THE CLUBHOUSE AT EASTLAKE COUNTRY CLUB LOCATED AT 2375 CLUBHOUSE DRIVE AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS FROM THE UNAPPRO- PRIATED FUND BALANCE OF THE INTERIM SR-125 DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE FUND WHEREAS, staff received a written request at the time of building permit issuance from Mr. David B. Kuhn, Jr., President of Eastlake Country Club Partnership, requesting a refund of a portion of the Interim SR-125 DIF fee paid for his project located at the Eastlake Country Club on the grounds that the fee collected was based on too high an estimate of the traffic generated due to the new facility; and WHEREAS, Eastlake Country Club Partnership was charged a total of $66,010 for the Interim SR-125 fee for the clubhouse at Eastlake Country Club and while they did not agree with the figure, in order not to delay the issuance of their building permit, Eastlake Country Club Partnership decided to pay the fee with the understanding that the City would adjust the fee accordingly based on a comparison between actual traffic counts prior to the construction of the new clubhouse and one year after the facility had been in operation; and WHEREAS, staff subsequently received a letter dated June 16, 1998, from Mr. David B. Kuhn, Jr., President of Eastlake Country Club Partnership, stating that the study supports a refund of $55,596 of the $66,010 paid for the Interim SR-1235 DIF fee paid for his project, however, Mr. Kuhn requested a refund of the entire $66,010 because he contends that the traffic for the golf course has not increased at all due to the construction of the clubhouse and that the slight traffic increase shown by the study is due to factors other than the construction of the clubhouse; and WHEREAS, on October 20, 1998, Council authorized an abatement of $33,050 of the Interim SR-125 Development Impact Fees paid for the Clubhouse at EastLake Country Club; and WHEREAS, staff has conducted manual counts that show changes in traffic due to the construction of the Clubhouse warrant an additional refund; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula vista does hereby authorize an abatement of $22,546 of the Interim SR-125 Development Impact Fees paid for the Clubhouse at EastLake Country club located at 2375 Clubhouse Drive. /Y-;J BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the sum of $22,546 is hereby appropriated from the unappropriated balance of the Interim SR-125 Development Impact Fee Fund. Presented by Approved as to form by John P. Lippitt, Director of Public Works / "t:.. /i~-;-t!L A-;iz ~n M. KaherW :/ ,;~/2J::~ city Attorney H: \home\attorney\reso\abatefee. 125 /Lj-Y //l/ ,7/1&1/7/:)/'7'- -' RESOLUTION NO. 19223 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AUTHORIZING AN ABATEMENT OF $33,050 OF THE INTERIM SR-125 DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES PAID FOR THE CLUBHOUSE AT EASTLAKE COUNTRY CLUB, LOCATED AT 2375 CLUBHOUSE DRIVE, UPON THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE IMPLEMENTING ORDINANCE AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS FROM THE UNAPPROPRIATED FUND BALANCE OF THE INTERIM SR-125 DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE FUND WHEREAS, staff received a written request at the time of building permit issuance from Mr. David B. Kuhn, Jr., President of Eastlake Country Club Partnership, requesting a refund of a portion of the Interim SR-125 DIF fee paid for his project located at the Eastlake Country Club on the grounds that the fee collected was based on too high an estimate of the traffic generated due to the new facility; and WHEREAS, Eastlake Country Club Partnership was charged a total of $66,010 for the Interim SR-125 fee for the clubhouse at Eastlake Country Club and while they did not agree with the figure, in order not to delay the issuance of their building permit, Eastlake Country Club Partnership decided to pay the fee with the understanding that the City would adjust the fee accordingly based on a comparison between actual traffic counts prior to the construction of the new clubhouse and one year after the facility had been in operation; and WHEREAS, Mr. Kuhn hired Urban'Systems, Inc. to provide "before and after" traffic studies to determine if any increase in traffic resulted from the construction of the clubhouse and traffic counts were conducted in April, 1997, and May, 1998; and WHEREAS, staff subsequently received a letter dated June 16, 1998, from Mr. David B. Kuhn, Jr., President of Eastlake Country Club Partnership, stating that the study supports a refund of $55,596 of the $66,010 paid for the Interim SR-125 DIF fee paid for his project, however, Mr. Kuhn requested a refund of the entire $66,010 because he contends that the traffic for the golf course has not increased at all due to the construction of the clubhouse and that the slight traffic increase shown by the study is due to factors other than the construction of the clubhouse; and WHEREAS, Mr. Kuhn also believes that his position is supported by the traffic activity comparison done by the American Golf Corporation between the first three months of 1997, and the first three months of 1998, which shows that the number of golfers has decreased this year; and WHEREAS, upon review of the Urban System's Report, staff does not fully concur with Mr. Kuhn's statements and believes the following: (a) The "before" study provided by Urban Systems was done in April, 1997, during a time when the days were shorter, before the change to daylight-savings time. (b) The "before" study was done on a 24-hour basis while the "after" study only included counts taken between 6:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. /Lj-S- Resolution 19223 Page 2 WHEREAS, staff believes these factors could have a major impact on the golf traffic counts and although the American Golf Corporation comparison shows that the number of golfers has decreased this year, staff believes that this information is not representative of the full activity resulting from the clubhouse; and WHEREAS, staff believes bad weather conditions are the most logical explanation for the decrease in golfers this year, since golf is an outdoor sport and the study had been done in a more representative year, it would show an increase in traffic; and WHEREAS, the Urban Systems study indica'ted that the traffic increase is, in fact, lower than estimated when the fee was originally paid and that a refund is due to Eastlake Country Club Partnership on a portion of the Interim SR-125 DIF fee; and WHEREAS, based on the information provided in the Urban Systems study, staff does not believe that the traffic counted justifies a refund of $55,996 to$66~000 and has suggested that Mr. Kuhn do a restudy of the traffic during a more comparable time of year and such a study will be completed during the fall or next spring when the number of hours of daylight is comparable if Mr. Kuhn wants a further refund; and WHEREAS, based on the results of the subsequent study, an additional refund up to a total of $66,010 will be recommended if the traffic increase is lower. NOW, THEREFORE, BE ITRESOLVED the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby approve an Agreement with Eastlake Country Club Partnership, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk, known as Document Number C098-191, and authorize, based on the data provided by the Urban Systems study, an abatement of $33,050 from the Interim SR-125 Development Impact Fee for the clubhouse at Eastlake Country Club, located at 2375 Clubhouse Drive, contingent upon the following: a. Eastlake Country Club Partnership, who has requested said refund, sign and return to the City the attached Agreement. b. Ordinance No. 2579 authorizing said refund, be adopted by the City Council. c. Payment for said refund be due and payable upon sixty days after the adoption of Ordinance No. 2579. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor is hereby authorized to execute said Agreement for and on behalf of the City of ChLila Vista. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if Eastlake Country Club Partnership would like an additional refund of up to a total of $66,010, that the City Council would consider such request after the results of a subsequent study is conducted during a more comparable time of year, provided, however, Applicant understands that should such subsequent traffic study indicate that more traffic was generated by the project than indicated by the Urban Systems Study, Applicant shall return the comparable amount of the fee, not to exceed $33,050, to the City. ... Resolution 19223 Page 2 WHEREAS, staff believes these factors could have a major impact on the golf traffic counts and although the American Golf Corporation comparison shows that the number of golfers has decreased this year, staff believes that this information is not representative of the full activity resulting from the clubhouse; and WHEREAS, staff believes bad weather conditions are the most logical explanation for the decrease in golfers this year, since golf is an outdoor sport and the study had been done in a more representative year, it would show an increase in "traffic; and WHEREAS, the Urban Systems study indicated that the traffic increase is, in fact, lower than estimated when the fee was originally paid and that a refund is due to Eastlake Country Club Partnership on a portion of the Interim SR-125 DIF fee; and WHEREAS, based on the information provided in the Urban Systems study, staff does not believe that the traffic counted justifies a refund of $55,996 to$66~000 and has suggested that Mr. Kuhn do a restudy of the traffic during a more comparable time of year and such a study will be completed during the fall or next spring when the number of hours of daylight is comparable if Mr. Kuhn wants a further refund; and WHEREAS, based on the results of the subsequent study, an additional refund up to a total of $66,010 will be recommended if the traffic increase is lower. >~ NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby approve an Agreement with Eastlake Country Club Partnership, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City C'lerk, known as Document Number C098-191 ,and authorize, based on the data provided by the Urban Systems study, an abatement of '$33,050 from the Interim SR-125 Development Impact Fee for the clubhouse at Eastlake Country Club, located at 2375 Clubhouse Drive, contingent upon the following: N '1 ., :, a. Eastlake Country Club Partnership, who has requested said refund, sign and return to the City the attached Agreement. b. Ordinance No. 2579 authorizing said refund, be adopted by the City Council. c. Payment for said refund be due and payable upon sixty days after the adoption of Ordinance No. 2579. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor is hereby authorized to execute said Agreement for and on behalf of the City of ChLila Vista. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if Eastlake Country Club Partnership would like an additional refund of up to a total of $66,010, that the City Council would consider such request after the results of a subsequent study is conducted during a more comparable time of year, provided, however, Applicant understands that should such subsequent traffic study indicate that more traffic was generated by the project than indicated by the Urban Systems Study, Applicant shall return the comparable amount of the fee, not to exceed $33,050, to the City. /'/vi Resolution 19223 Page 3 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the amount of $33,050 is hereby appropriated from the unappropriated balance of the Interim SR-125 Development Impact Fee Fund. Presented by Approved as to form by 0hn P. Lippitt ublic Works Director ;17-? Resolution 19223 Page 4 PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, California, this 20th day of October, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers: Moot, Rindone, Padilla and Horton NAYS: Council members: None ABSENT: Councilmembers: Salas ABSTAIN: Councilmembers: None ~ Shirley Hort , Mayor ATTEST: STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO CITY OF CHUlA VISTA I, Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk of Chula Vista, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 19223 was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting of the Chula Vista City Council held on the 20th day of October, 1998. Executed this 20th day of October, 1998. ~ {/. tb/.JlJ Beverly . Authelet, City Clerk ITKt~ TITLE: SlJBMITTED BY: RL\'lliWlill BY: COUNCn.. AG~""DA 5TATE:ME~""T Item 7 Meeting Date 10/20'98 /72 J3 Resolution . A.nthori?:in~ an aDaI---ment of $33,050 of the lmerim SR-l25 Development hnpa=t Fees paid for the Clubhouse at Eastl.ake Commy Club kr..ated at 2375 Clubhouse Drive upon 1re effective date or the implementing onii.nan:e and appropriating funds from the unappropriated fund b~ of the Im..~ SR-l25 Development Impact Fee Fund. City M2mger 1:>\2- \?'6 ~ (4/5ths Vote: YesXNo~ SiZif r~"eived z wrin-""Il request from Mr. David E. Kuhn, Jr., President of E.as+Jake Country Club P~""iJleI5hip, r-..qu.esrin~ a refund or a portion of the Interim SR-l25 DIF fee paid for his project 10::ared at the F.2stlake Coumry Club on the grounds that the fee collected was based on too high an estimate or IDe rraffic gere:rated cine to the new facility. RECOMMENDATION: Tna! Council authorize an abatem...""Il! of $33 ,050 of the Interim SR-l25 Fee paid for the Clubhouse at Eastlake Country Club upon tk effe...'1ive date of the implementing ordinance and appropriate 533,050 from the unappropriated balance of the Interim SR-l25 Development lmpact Fee Fund.. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not Applicable DISCUSSION: E;>1:t1ake Coumry Club Partnership v,,>as charged z total of $66,010 for the Im..'"Iim SR-125 fee for the clubhouse at Eastlake Country Club. 'While they did not agree with the figure, in order not to delay the issu.anre of their building permit, E2stlake Coumry Club Partn...--rship decided to pay the fee with the understanding that the City would adjust the ree accordingly based on a comparison between acmaJ. traffic counts prior to the construction or the new clubhouse and one year after the facility had been in operation. Tills procedure v,,>as discussed in the City's letter dAted January 29, 1997, to Eastlake Country Club Partnership. Mr. Kuhn hired Urban Systems, Inc. to provide "before and after" traffic smdies (copy of report is available in Engineering) to determine if any ID-'lease in traffic resulted from the construction of the clubhouse. Traffic coums were conducted in April 1997 and May 1998. Staff subsequently r~ived a lener dated June 16, 1998, from Mr. David B. Kuhn, Jr., President of Eastlake / tj-r ~ Page :., ltem_ !\1eeting Date ] (I !2ft ''t8 Coumry Club ?mn:rship, staring that the smd)' supports a refund of $55596 of the $66.01 G Daid for tIre Interim SR-l25 DIP fee paid for his proje...'1.. However, Mr. Kuhn requested a refund of ~:mire $66,010 h"'..:-ause he contends that the traffic for the golf course has Dot increased al all ~ to the cOnsInL....uon of the clubhouse. His com..'"D1ion is tha1 the slight mrffic increase shown by the study is due to factors other than the construction of the clubhouse. Mr. Kuhn also believes that his position is supported by the traffic activity comparison ~ by the .American Golf Corporari:m between the first three months of 1997 and the first three IIlDIl!hs of 1998. Tnis comparison shows that the number of golfers has decreased this year. Upon review of lie report., staff does not fully COm:Dr with Mr. KDbn'5 sta!f:IICl!S. Tbe "before 9> smLiy provided by Urban SystemS was done in April 1997 dnriTlf a time wk:n the days were shaner, before 1be change to daylight-savings riIne. Th~ condu...'1:ed the 4-'afr.er9> SUldy during _~ and May LD98, after 1be change to dayTi~ht-savings time. Additionally, the "'before 9> smdy 'was done on a 24-hour basis, while the "afu:r~ smdy only 1nc1nded .counts 1ak-PD. between 6:30 a.m. and 5 :30 p.m. Staff believes that these ~""tS could have a major imp~ on the golf ~"Ti: COllIl!S . Furthermore, although the American Golf Corporation comparison shows that the number of golfers has d~~~ this year, staffbelieves that this information is not repr=semarive of the full ar:rivit:y resulrin~ from the clubhouse. Because this past winter has seen more ext...PJJSive rains than in years past due to ~E1 Nino~, staff believes these bad weather conditions are the most 10gi::a1 e.:planation for 1be decrease in golfers this year~ since golf is an outdoor spon. If the smdy had been done in a more represemarive year, staff believes it would have shown an m...."Tease in ~.:nc due to the cOIbuu...'"lion of the clubhouse. Conclusion Staff does not ~..lieve that the traffic information provided by the Urban SYSL'"ID.S smdy justifies a refund of $55.,596 to $66,010 requested by Eastlake Country Club Parm...~. Therefore, staff hzs suggested 1ha1 if Mr. Kui:m wants a refund of this amount that a resmdy of the traffic during a more comparable time of y~ be conducted. Such a stUdy will be completed during the fall or next spring wren the number of hours of daylight is comparable. The "'before~ smdy in the report submitted was done in April 1997, which was shortly before the change to d.aylight-savings time went into effe..."'"!.. Staff has also requested a longer traffic count covering all five weekdays. In order to be consistem with the original smdy, 24-hour counts will be performed. Ir...spite some problems with the Urban Systems smdy, it still appears that the traffic increase is, in fact, signifi:::am1y lower than estimated when the fee was originally paid and that a refund is due to Eastlake Country Club Parmership on a portion of the Interim SR-l25 DIF fee. Under the condition that an ensuing study will be conducted and financ~ by the developer in accordance 'with City requirements, based on the smdy prepared by the developer, staff is confident that the CiTy should rebare S33,050. Based on the results of the subsequent SUldy, an additional r~fund / '/- J '7 2- " Page 3, ltem_ Meeting Date ] (I '20 '98 up 10 a total of S66,010 will be recOIIlIIl-'"Ilded if the traffic ID--rease is lower provided, howev~, Applicant UIllL-stands that should such subsequent traffic smrly indicate that more rraf.fi: was g~rated by the project than indicated by the TIrban Systems Stllrly, Appli::ant shall retlL.-n the comparable amoun1 of the fee, not to exc~d $33,050, to the City. In order to refund the over colie...'1ion the Interim SR -125 DIF ordinance re:eded to be amended. T.ne Ciry COlm--il reld the public hearing and imrodur:ed the 0rr11mmce amending the Interim SR- 125 DIF orrlimm- on Octorer 6, 1998. Under a companion item on tonigb!'s agenda, the Ciry Cmm....-il was ~ to hold the second reading and adoption of that orrlirnm~. Tnat orrilmm":- will b--..come eff=rive in siny (60) days and the actual payment can be made at that time. FISCAL IMPACT: Tn=:re is a miTriTrnll:fiscal impa:t of S33,050 to the City's Im-PIim SR-l25 Development Impact Fee Frm!l her-.ause of the refund of a portion of the Im..'"Iim SR-l25 fee paid 'will be refunded from that :fu:n.d. Since these fees were paid during the 1996/97 Fisca1 Year, thi, refund needs to be a]Jl.llOprlated from the unaPl.llopriated balance of me Fund. &hibits: A... L..-ner to Mr. Kulm dated June 25, 1998 B. I---ner from Mr. Kuhn dated June 16, 1998 C. L..""tIer from Mr. Kuhn dated March 10, 1997 D. Lener to Mr. Kulm daterl January 29, 1997 E. Ordinance No. 2579 (Establishment of the Interim SR-l25 DIP) Fil: No. HX-013 H:\3DME\ENGIN.=.::.K\AGENDA \CLBHSE.BOB /Y-/t? -7---:T 1\1 E M 0 R ~.\ ~ D L M /-:... ~'~.'.'" .,-, 'd.'," ." ". - , -. /(, /_. t', ''-'/''_. .... ,./., , ~- ....,..J'... '-" Date: jU!\ 29.1999 File ~o. CYOG2 TO: Oilford L. Swanson, City Engineer~ FROM: Ralph R. Leyva, Senior Civil Engineer SUBJECT: EastLake Golf Clubhouse Traffic EngmeeTIng conducted manual traffic counts at the driveways serving the EastLake Golf Clubhouse and Country Club on Friday, July 23, 1999 and Saturday, July 24, 1999. The purpose of the survey was 10 compare the changes in traffic patterns since Urban SystemS Associates. Inc. (USA) conducted their manual counts on Friday, May 8, 1998 and Saturday May 9, 1998. This time period was considered the ..after" condition in the original stUdy by USA. Our manual count duplicated what USA did in May '88. Tne results of the manual count are shown on the four pages arrached to this memo. Page 1 shows that the weekday golf traffic increased from 341 to 406 or 19.1 % while the non-golf traffic increased from 548 to 885 which represents a 131.4 % increase. Combined traffic increased from 596 to 969 or 62.6% on the Friday activities. Page 2 shows the actual counts on an hourly basis and also counts the number of golf carts using the west access. Please note that the number of golf carts counted on May '88 was identical to the 152 carts counted on July '99 although there was a 19.1 % increase in the golf traffic. Apparently, there is golf activity such as shopping in the pro shop or just having lunch with friends that does not actually result in a round of golf. Saturday's activities are documented on page 3 and 4 of the attachment. Tne vehicular count shows that weekend golf traffic increased from 282 to 395 or 40.0% while non-golf actually decreased from 372 to 364. Combined traffic increased from 674 to 832 which is an increase of 23.4 percent. Please nore that the changes in the traffic take into account the number of vehicles in the parking lot at 6:30 am and the parked vehicles still remaining in the parking lot at 6:30 pm. The number of golf carts using the west access increased from 117 to 149 or 27.4% increase in conn-ast to the 40.0% increase in the golf traffic. Part of the increase could be that golf activities in July are at a higher level than during the month of May when school is still in session. However, it is safe to state that all activity will continue to increase as EastLake continues to develop and more people continue to move into the area. Trying to assess the impacts of this growth is like trying to hit a moving target. cc: George Krempl, Deputy City Manager H:\HOME\ENGINEER\TR~rIC\ELCLBHSE.RRL jLj-// :c 0 mo :...:- )> )>- :c I CIJ-1 0 0 -i-< s: m C 10 ...- I )>11 m )> ^o z G) -1 m, z 0 0- rC m Z Cr m CIJ OJ)> :::0 ...- ~< ~ -1 0 en en -i CIJ ZG) ;ti 0 UJ UJ 0 COO OCIJ )> -l 11 00-1 CDzr C-! ....., ~ 11 u)>)> CIJ? ....., m -I I 11 () r :;0 . . r OG) m-1 :::: CIJ m s:s:- -10 -i:;O Z Z )>r -1 Z III :::0)> m () U CIJ )>11 :::0 m )> 1111 2 :::0 11 0 Z ^ Om -1 z ()z m G) :::0 OG) z ~ eo ..... UJ r ~ N N c- eo ..... N 0 ..... ~ N Z 11 Zz eo ..... ~ 0 en -"" N co :::a .m ...- -I -0 """m m - CIJ:::O :AI c:.... C- CJ) C s:Z 0 ~ ~ N -"" 0 I s:G) z co -"" c.u ..... C -< )> co ~..... ..... -I N )> r -- UJ ::;0 ....., -< ~ -1 -"" 0 0 co )> co co ~~ -1 co I' en co ..... 0 )> co co c..., co en CJ) I C $: $: )> :;;J -< eo co X ~ r ~ CJ) 0 0 UJ - 0 N ~ ..... co 0 C1 G' ~ ~ 11 -- ----- 11 + + + + -- ----- N ~ 01 N -"" -"" co -"" co aeo Z en co co a CJ') ..... co "TI :::a - s: UJ N -"" ..... 0)> a 01 a c.' C-< a N a N -I co -"" -i co c..' N UJ 0 co u c..' co co ~ c ~ -I )> 0 co -< -'" > GJ m , ) tJ/J).- .;>. '<:" o ~ w c.? <{ ~ r:!... 0> ...... >- 0:: < C)~ Z~ -=:> 0:: en wI- Wz ~::> c)o Z() W() ()- _ll.. L.Lll.. L.L<{ <r:r: 0::1- I-w -en <:J ~o -:1: >co <:J -'-, :J() IW ()~ ll..< 0-' >-1- l-en :.-<{ ()W I !~ 110 I !~ '--lZ en :J 10 en 0 Z W u.. r') U ....J Nt) g ~<( ll.. ;;.- (5 >- CI) C) (3<( Z c::WZO u.. -Z w I- < o u.. ....J o C? Z ZO -Z u.. -' o C) I- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C::w < <{ < < ~ <t2 0 0 0 0 r') 1-_ r') c"? c"? c"? 0 (/)1-...... CD N,..... r') a:l ~ (j) LD...... CD u.. ...J o C) u.. ....J o C) VJ+-Z CI)::>O W oz U u :J <( g ...J , u.. <( ....J ,.., 10 &.i- I C9 &... " Z IZ wl~l~ u u.. ....J o I-C) CI):J Cl)0 W U U <( ..... CI) W ~ ~ I e I N ~ M N L.') I I ~~ I ll.. .....J o C) ll.. ....J o C) Z o Z ~ N o o a:l fD >- (/)<t I-~ c:: < () (j) C) fD >- ...... ....J ::> -, o o o co N o ...... I I I I 0 ,- I ~ ...... N o ~') o OJ co M ~ ~') co ...... r') o ~') o ...... N ~ ~ ..- I I Ie ~ r') ~ co o N N N N I I co I ~') I I I ~') I I (j) ...... ...... N o o o N ...... o ~ ..- c"? ..- LD N ~ I I 0 o ~') ~ ...... r...""') r') N N o co ~') ...... o 2 <t o c"? , I I L') I ...... L:": Ol ...... c"? ...... N N ,..... ~ N o ...... o N r') o ...... N N N ~ r:!... o c"? ...... N ......r--......co /i-!,Y ~ o ...... I I I;: I I~ i o ...... r') o ...... ...... co ...... ~') ..- I I c"? I N I I I I i I I I C"\; I I co ~ LD co co N c"? LD ...... o co ,..... N co ...... o o N I I...... o ~ N LO co ,..... N ...... o 0> ...... o ...... o LD ~ N ~ to r') ...... I lco I a:l o N co N L.,') ...... o ~ ~ ~ ~ 0... 0... 0... 0... o 0 0 0 c"? 0 r') ...... r') N r') ...... (j) N ...... r') ...... ~ ...... L,) ~ 0... o c"? t:; ~ r-: ..... ,..... N to N to to ...... o 10 N N ...... LD N ...... ~') r') ...... ~') co ...... ...... ,..... co ...... o r') ...... LD ~') ...... ...... ...... N ~') ...... ~ ...... N ~') ...... o ...... ...... o ,..... ...... (/) ....J < I- o I- Cf) ~ X W Cf) :J o co :J ..J () I >- < o r:r: ll.. -- .....J <t Z o en r:r: w Cl.. .- Ol (j) Z r:r: W I- Z :::: Z r:r: w I- Z :::: () I- o ....J C) z 52 c:: < ll. Z ...J < I- o I- u.. u.. <t c:: I- :.- c:: W W Z C) Z w W ~ o I -:-: I. to 0 r') N ...... ~ ~ <t 0... 0 0 r') r') to to :...:- I o ~ m -- m Z GJ z m m :;;J ~ :;;J :> "71 -n 9 z m :;;J Z ::::: Z ~ m :;;J z <0 <0 "'5 m :;;J CJ) o z :> r -- CJ) :> -l c :;;J o :> -< I CJ) C ~ ~ :> :;;J -< c.c c.c X r (j) ...., o ...., )> , en ~ ~ N ~ N o CD W N N W ~ + - w w Ol w w <0 (;) --l ~ /t/~J'I o 11 11 m ::u m z o m 0)0')"'" wwO 00...., u)>)> . . , S:S:z u )> ::u ^ --l W z o ~~r ~O)O <0 ...., N o Ol W 00 enzo COO CDZ, -l I ""ii 00 -l0 )>, ,11 en ~NN ~ 0 ~ N N 0 w ~~ ~o)CD -.& N Ol -.&ww Olo)<O co ~ '"', ~o (;). .... :......0-- __N~ . -- . T' I 'T' --- w ... ... W -.& '"', Ol CD -.& w ... ... ... ce N <0 ~ '"', (;) W N <..., --l C:l ~ N N o )> , o c , )> -l o z en -en z)> -l ~ OC c '-< -l N ~ -l~ Oce -lce )><0 , Zen )> -l O~ c)> -l-< ce -lce oco -ico ::> I mo )>- en-l -l-< '0 )>11 ^o mI Oc " e)> CD< I_ oen ----l '-)> en_ m-l -l::U ::u)> )>11 11 11 110 om oz 00 e- ZZ -lm m en::u e- s:Z ~G) )> ::u -< ~ o o 11 11 ... -:J :> G: ill w ,..... '-- ..;,. II~ I I I 1 , I I I i .... 0 L:"; - - N C OJ "- I ..- ~ 1.."; "- ::= N - ..- I - I ..- ..- - ..- ....2 I I I - en ::'10 I I I I en 02 W u.. I i 1 U ...J 0 M - LO N 0 I ~ ~ 1..'" N 0 N 0 0 ...... M U 0 <t LL I- ...J 0 eo U) C> 0 CJ) 0 0 ...... r- CJ) ...... r- M ~ LO M <( Z .... .... .... ...... ...... ...... ...... .... ...... ...... W z 0 - Z - LL ...J N ...... .... 0 ~ 0 M N M N N ...... ...... 0 N C> LL ...J 0 C> 0--- - N CJ) -N -N M M M LO N C") U) Z ~--- C") en ~ => 0 i W 0 Z I U u.. I I I u co ...J 0 0 I N "- "- N 0 ..- LO co LO ...... C") <( 0 I ..- - N ..- N ..- ..- - ..- ...J 0 I u.. I i I <( ...J ; I 0:: 0 I C? r- t- o N OJ LO OJ N lO 1..'" 0 C") LO ~ 1...., 2 I I z z 0 I w - 2 I I U u.. r- ...J ...... to C") N LO CJ) 0 CO CJ) CJ) N M r-- 0 ...- ..- N ...... ..- ..- N ...... ...... ...... ...- C> ,. _.- - ,.--- u.. ...J 0 - . C> 0 ...... ...... 0 ...- 0 0 N 0 0 0 r- eo I Z ~- 0 - - Z .- u.. ...J 0 0 0 0 ...- 0 ~ ...- 0 ...- N- O 0) 0 I- C> U) ::> CO U) 0 f1l r- W >- C") M N 0 ..- 0) eo "- 0) 0) ...... 0) ...... U CI) <( ..- - ...- - ...- ...... I- ~ U 0::: <( <( 0 I- 0) CJ) C> f1l ..- "- CJ) ~ N 1...., C") C") -=:- 0) LO 0 CO ~ W >- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- - ..- ...- ..-' ..- ...J ~ ::> -, LL ...J 0 C? ...... N ..- ..- ..- ...- 0 ...- 0 ..- 0 0 0) Z Z 0 - Z LL ...J ...- 0 0 0 M N 0 ~ N 0 0 0 N 0 ..- C> . ~ ~ ~ CI) I- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ...J <( <( Cl. <( O:::w <( <( <( <( 0 0 0 Cl. Cl. Cl. Cl. Cl. ~ <(~ 0 0 0 0 C") C") C") 0 0 0 0 0 0 1-- C") C") C") C") 0 ...- N C") C") 0 C") ...- C") N C") Cl)1- .. I- ...- eo N "- C") 0 ~ CJ) LO ...- eo ...- r-- ...- 0 ...- 0) N ..- C") ...- ~ ...- 1...., ~ u.. o ~OJ LU~ c:> <~ Cl.N >- ...J => --.> ~ o 0::: => ~ CI) W ~ o >- n:::: <( C>~ Z~ -::> O:::CI) WI- Wz ~=> C>O ZO Wo 0- _LL LLLL u..<( <(0::: o:::~ ~W -CI) ~::::> i:r.>0 -I >CO <(::> ...J...J ::::>0 IW 0:::::: LL<( O...J >-~ I-CI) -<( OW li--/5' C/) ...J X m m >- 0::: <( ~ ~ ::::> CI) I >- <( o 0::: ::::> ~ <( CI) .- ...J <( Z o CI) n:::: W 0... 0; O'l Z 0::: w ~ Z ::::: Z 0::: w ~ Z ::::: o u.. LL <( 0::: ~ I- 0:: o W ...J W C> Z Z c.9 ~eoO) m <(~;: ill a.. ~ Z 0 ...J ~ ~ ~ <t <( Cl. ,_ ~oo O~~ I-eoeo ~~f? ~~ .....,; ~-.-;~ .........................~ -~-- /' ) /~7 /~77/.(f'~~~ IC~:7 . I CllY OF CHUIA VISTA OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER August 4, 1999 Mr. David B. Kuhn, Jr. Lane/ Kuhn Pacific Corporate Office 14 Corporate Plaza Newport Beach, CA 92660 Re: Refund of Remainder of the Interim SR#125 Development Impact Fee Dear David: This is in response to your letter request of June 17, 1999 to get a full refund of all the SR#125 DIF fees you paid for the permanent clubhouse at Eastlake Country Club. I appreciate your patience in getting resolution of this issue and the time it has taken us to respond to your letter. Your request was forwarded to the Engineering Department fot review and analysis. As a result, they conducted additional traffic counts at driveways serving the golf clubhouse for two days during July, 1999. The results are enclosed. On the basis of the information which shows an increase in golf traffic and our mutual acknowledgement that we cannot recreate the perfect traffic analysis, it is our recommendation that we agree with the original conclusions of the Urban Systems Associates, Inc. analysis entitled "Eastlake Golf Country Club Traffic Generation Study" conducted in May, 1998. Therefore, I am advised that the fee should be $10,414. This would entitle you to a refund of $22,546 in addition to the $33,050 refund previously received. Added together, the sum equals the total of $66,010 origi'1ally paid. Please advise us so we may process the refund or discuss the matter further. Sincerely, --!-- ~<:-1~ ~ Krempl Deputy City Manager .......... cc: Cliff Swanson /.~-/~ 276 FOURTH AVENUE. CHULA VISTA. CALIFORNIA 91910' (619) 691.5031 · FAX (619) 409.5884 o~ Poat-C.aNumtl ~~ p~ . .;) LANE/KUHN PACIFIC Corporate Office 14 Corporate Plaza Newport Beach, California 92660 714/640-5251 Fax 714/760-0165 o ~ .!l & August 12, 1999 MI. George Krempl Deputy City Manager City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, California 92010 RE: Refund of Remainder of the Interim SR#125 Development Impact Fees Dear George: I am in receipt of your letter dated August 4, 1999 which was written in response to my June 17, 1999 request for a full refund of the SR#125 Development Impact Fees charged against the permanent clubhouse construction at EastLake Country Club. Thank you for your kind comments. I, in turn, would like to thank you for your patience and perseverance in trying to bring this matter to a fair resolution. After reading your letter and reviewing the Engineering Department's analysis, it is my conclusion that we will never be able to properly replicate conditions such that a traffic analysis based on vehicle counts will be completely reliable and conclusive. Therefore, I accept your proposal and agree to a payment of$10,414 in Interim SR#125 Development Impact Fees for the permanent clubhouse at EastLake Country Club. Please process a check for an additional refund of $22,546 and we can then consider this matter closed. Thank you again for your cooperation and for the City's willingness to attempt to find a fair and reasonable resolution to this problem. I G{ David B. Kuhn, JI. cc: Cliff Swanson /tj-) ? Regional Offices San Diego San Francisco ~:~:r.:~i -___. l...-. ~'-~~ '"--- -----~--;;:. ellY Of CHUIA VlSfA OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER September 21,1999 :Mr. Lawrence C. Monserrate Citv of San Die2:o ~ ~ Office of Land Development Review 1222 First Avenue, MS 501 San Diego, CA 921 01 Dear Mr. Iv1onserrate: The City of Chula Vista (the "City") appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIRIEA) and the associated Master Plan for the proposed San Diego Air Commerce Center at Brown Field. The City has retained the consulting firm Aviation Systems Associates and attorneys Richard C. Jacobs and Todd E. Thompson from the law firm ofHm:vard, Rice, Nemerovski, Canady, Falk & Rabkin to assist in the preparation of our comments, and the following therefore represents their legal and technical work as well as the work of the City's staff. Our comments are as follows: 1. The future land use assumptions included in the EIR identify the horizon year for the Otay Mesa area as "buildout" of the community, while surrounding areas, including Otay Ranch, were analyzed only as of the year 2015. The ErR should use consistent assumptions throughout, and we request that these issues be reanalyzed using consistent assumptions. Moreover, even a cursory review oftbe ''buildout'' case in the EIR reveals that Otay Valley Road is shown to have traffic volumes substantially less than is expected under the City of Chula Vista projections when full development of Otay Ranch occurs. As a result, the use of the differing assumptions understates the traffic impacts of the project. Please revise the ErR and use consistent assumptions and the same horizon year so that the full impacts of the project are properly presented. 276 FOURTH AVENUE' CHULA VISTA' CALIFORNIA 91910' (619) 691.5031' FAX (619) 585-5612 @ hx;~~~ 2. The proposed development of the master plan is dependent upon the availability of various circulation system improvements on Otay Mesa. The technical study addresses the type of circulation improvements, the time of need, and who is responsible for each of the improvements. However, there is no mechanism in the EIR that links or limits the pace of development of the master plan to the availability of the necessary improvements. Without such a mechanism, the project could proceed to full development without any of the critical circulation improvements in place. Such a mechanism is required under CEQA in order to ensure that mitigation as required by CEQA in fact occurs. It is not now provided either in the EIR or in the proposed Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Please provide it in specific terms as an enforceable mechanism. 3. Much of the project traffic will be related to significant truck terminal activity associated with cargo coming into and out of the airport. However, the technical study appears to have calculated all traffic as automobiles, rather than including additional allowances for the additional impacts that trucks create. This affects, at a minimum, the noise, air quality and traffic analyses. Please revise and recirculate the EIR with appropriate analyses that reflect this anticipated truck traffic. 4. Guidelines developed for use in the region by SANDAG require that all facilities in the regionally significant arterial system or freeways beanalyzed if they would experience traffic in excess of a minimum threshold as a result of the project. This requirement does not appear to have been followed with regard to freeways and other facilities. Please revise and recirculate the EIR with that analysis. 5. The traffic analyses in the EIR show traffic volumes on Otay Valley Road approaching I-80S from the project during its early years that appear artificially low, as compared to the same traffic in later years. Please explain this inconsistency. 6. Our consultants have attempted to replicate the results of the City of San Diego's calculations of intersection congestion and LOS. However, they have not been able to do so. It thus appears that the City of San Diego has not used the same version of its software for all of its analyses but has instead used differing versions without disclosing that fact. Under these circumstances, it is impossible to adequately comment on the traffic analyses. Please provide the City with the specifics of the software that was used for all of the traffic calculations. If differing versions were used, please recalculate all of the traffic analyses using the same version so that the public can analyze the results, and recirculate the EIR for public comment. 2 CITY OF CHULA VISTA "'::.J... 7. In order for the Project to proceed, the EIR concedes that at a minimum: (a) the current Master Plan for Brown Field will have to be amended, because it does not now include the proposed project; (b) a new Comprehensive Land Use Plan must be approved; (c) the City's Otay Mesa Community Plan must be amended; (d) the East Otay Mesa Specific Plan may have to be amended; and ( e) a LAFCO boundary shift may be required. The Master Plan also reports that a significant portion of the runways will require new construction and in some cases complete replacement. In addition, the EIR concedes that numerous approvals must be required from the appropriate state and federal agencies. Under these circumstances, there is no basis under CEQA for assuming that Brov.rn Field must be used in the future only for air cargo airport purposes. Accordingly, CEQA requires that the EIR include a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project, including different non-aviation uses of Brown Field. However, the EIR includes only varying runway lengths as alternatives and does not include any non-aviation alternatives. Please provide a reasonable range of other possible non-aviation uses of the site that may result in a reduction in environmental impacts. Please revise the ErR accordingly, and recirculate it for public comment. 8. CEQA also requires that the EIR include a factual analysis of the impacts of a reasonable range of off-site alternatives to the proposed project. There are a number of possible off-site airports that could be used for project purposes, including Lindbergh Field, March airfield in Riverside, Norton airfield in San Bernardino, LAX itself, Ontario Airport, and other general aviation fields, including Gillespie, Palomar, Montgomery and Ramona. The ErR, at page 6-2, recognizes that development and growth in the San Diego Region would not be impaired if a facility other than Brown Field were used, and that "it is clearly possible to continue development despite having to route most cargo through airport facilities to the north." The EIR must therefore include a full analysis of each of these alternative sites in order to comply with CEQA. Please provide these necessary analyses and recirculate the ErR. 9. CEQA specifies that if an EIR rejects possible alternatives as infeasible, it must explain in meaningful detail the reasons and facts supporting that conclusion. This EIR doesn't do that. It includes a conclusory three-page discussion of alternatives that were "considered but rejected." This discussion is inadequate under CEQA for at least the following reasons: First, no significant factual detail is provided. For example, the EIR reports on the Gillespie, Palomar, Montgomery and Ramona regional airports but rejects those as alternatives, because each of these airports has an airfield system that is currently designed for small general aviation aircraft and has other constraints which would require major efforts to overcome if those sites were to be used for cargo uses. 3 CITY OF CHULA VISTA However, exactly the same thing can be said about Brown Field. That conc1usory analysis thus does not provide any appropriate basis for developing Brovvn Field in preference to those airfields; unsupported factual conclusions are insufficient to advise the public and the decisionmakers of the necessary facts to determine whether those sites are in fact feasible. The EIR must discuss the potential development of each of those other airfields and analyze whether the environmental impacts of the proposed project would be reduced if placed in those locations. Second, the EIR for all practical purposes simply ignores other regional cargo airport possibilities, despite conceding that shipping cargo from these other regional airports would not significantly impact the economy of the San Diego Region. The EIR does not discuss Norton airfield in San Bernardino at all, even though currently existing runways at that closed base are more than sufficient to provide adequate runway length for long-haul cargo flights. With regard to March airfield in Riverside, the EIR notes that it is capable of handling B-747-400 operations, has plenty of room to expand, and at page 2-9 reports that "March is planned to have new air cargo facilities constructed in 2002." Nonetheless, it simply reports that it is "an approximated [sic] three-hour trucking distance north of San Diego" and apparently rejects the site for that reason alone, without any discussion of consequences of that travel time (which is less than the travel time to LAX), or the obvious significant reduction in environmental impacts on the Otay Mesa if that site were used. That conc1usory analysis thus does not provide any appropriate basis for developing Brown Field in preference to those airfields; unsupported factual conclusions are insufficient to advise the public and the decisionmakers of the necessary facts to determine whether those sites are in fact feasible. The EIR therefore must also analyze whether the purposes of the proposed project could instead by met by use of either March airfield in Riverside or Norton airfield in San Bernardino. The ErR must discuss the potential development of each of those other airfields and analyze whether the environmental impacts of the proposed project would be reduced if placed in those locations. Third, the ErR likewise does not appropriately analyze whether use of Ontario Airport is an adequate alternative, or explain in appropriate factual detail why that airfield is not a reasonable alternative and why it was rejected. It notes that this airport has inexpensive landing fees, plenty of room to expand, handles movements by six of the largest air cargo processors, and is currently attempting to attract additional air cargo uses. The EIR must discuss the potential development of Ontario and analyze whether the environmental impacts of the proposed project would be reduced if air cargo operations were instead provided at that location. Fourth, the EIR rejects future expansion of LAX itself as a feasible alternative, but, like the other sites discussed above, does not provide the necessary factual discussion 4 CITY OF CHULA VISTA and analysis to support that conclusion. It reports that LAJe offers a significant level of cargo service in terms of markets served, but then in a single sentence rejects LAX because it "may not be able to meet full demand levels." That discussion, for all of the reasons discussed above, is inadequate under CEQA. Fifth, the EIR is inadequate for the same reasons in its discussion of Lindbergh Field as a potential alternative. All the ErR reports (again in a single sentence) is that Lindbergh "may find it difficult to expand to meet existing or future cargo demand, without significant improvement to the taxiway system and additional air cargo development areas." That is an insufficient analysis under CEQA, because of the lack of any meaningful substantive analysis and because of the EIR' s lack of stated facts to support the conclusion. Moreover, Brown Field itself will have to have significant runway and taxiway improvements as well as additional air cargo development areas, and it is therefore inappropriate to reject an expansion of Lindbergh for that reason. The ErR's discussion of the Tijuana/General Rodriguez International Airport as a possible alternative is inadequate for the same reasons. Finally, the EIR must include an analysis of using some or all of these facilities in combination as a means for reducing the proposed use of Brown Field. For example, the EIR suggests no reason why some cargo traffic cannot go through Ontario, some through Lindbergh, and the remainder through LAX. Other combinations of the various regional airfields may also be quite feasible, but the ErR ignores that topic completely. Without that discussion, it is inadequate. 10. In order to determine whether a project will cause adverse environmental impacts and whether those impacts are substantial, there must always be a starting point for comparative measurement. CEQA provides that starting point, by specifying that the impacts of a project must be measured and analyzed by comparison with "the existing physical environment." Thus, the existing environmental setting is the comparative baseline against which the impacts of the project must always be measured. If an ErR assumes the construction of certain improvements and then calculates impacts on the basis of those hypothetical improvements, then the comparative baseline is artificially inflated, resulting in a misleading description of a lower level ofproject impacts. Such an artificially inflated baseline also affects the level of mitigation that would otherwise be required. Cases interpreting CEQA have therefore consistently held that the use of such an artificially inflated baseline invalidates the ErR. The EIR violates these rules with regard to its analyses in several ways: First, the EIR uses the a legally incorrect level of significance in making its determinations. It states that while LOS "C" is acceptable in rural areas, "LOS 'D' . . . is acceptable in urbanized areas" and since the Otay Mesa area would be urbanized "at the time the project is operating" LOS "D" is the appropriate standard. However, this 5 CITY OF CHULA VISTA -.:. conclusion is not based on current conditions but on future conditions, and it is for that reason Improper. Second, the EIR states at page 5.8-1 that it assumes "as a worst case" that the 6.5- mile long stretch of Route 905 from I-80S near Otay Mesa Road to the Otay Mesa Port- of-Entry" would be changed from its current configuration "as a four-lane expressway and would ultimately consist of six travel lanes and two commuter lanes." Since Otay Mesa Road is "the primary route to access Brown Field airport property from the west and east," this assumption thus improperly' created an analysis that is not based on current conditions, but upon assumed future conditions. Third, the "near-term (Year 2005) scenario" (without the SR-125 tollway or the Route 905 expressway) analysis beginning at page 5.8-13 "assumed that improvements for Heritage road, consisting of its widening to four lanes from Otay Mesa Road to Sikorsky Street, would be constructed." This is improper, since this additional assumption further creates a traffic analysis that is not based on current conditions but on the assumed construction of future facilities. Fourth, the "near-term (Year 2005) scenario" (with SR-125 only) makes the same assumptions with regard to Heritage Road and the 6.5 mile stretch of Otay Mesa Road noted above. This scenario then assumes even further that in addition to SR-125, "Otay Mesa Road [would be] six lanes \vide from I-80S to Interim Route 905 and a six-lane prime arterial classification from that point to AIta Road" and La Media Road would be "a six-lane primary arterial from Otay Mesa Road to Lonestar Road." This too is improper, since these further assumptions create a traffic analysis that is not based on current conditions but on the assumed construction of future facilities. Further, the analysis is made even more improper because it makes different assumptions for the same 2005 year analysis, without any explanation why. Fifth, the same assumptions are then built into the "near-term (Year 2005) scenario" (without SR-125, but with Route 905 built as a four-lane expressway). This analysis is yet a further violation of CEQA for the reasons already discussed. Sixth, the analysis of traffic impacts in the "year 2010 scenario" makes even further extensive assumptions without regard to the road network that mayor may not exist in that year. All of those assumptions are described at page 5.8-21. This analysis also violates CEQA for the reasons already discussed. The use of these assumptions regarding possible but as yet unbuilt roadway improvements is inconsistent with the requirements of CEQA and resulted in a highly misleading traffic and safety analysis. The effect of this assumption was to elevate the comparative baseline against which the traffic impacts of the project were determined. 6 CITY OF CHULA VISTA This methodology thus improperly minimizes the EIR's description of traffic impacts, affected the EIR's determinations of significance, and minimized the City of San Diego's obligation to mitigate traffic impacts. CEQA requires extensive detailed evaluations of the impacts of the proposed plans on the environment in its current state. Each of the analyses in the ErR that determine impacts by comparison with future conditions is improper. Please completely revise the traffic analyses in the EIR to comply with CEQA, and recirculate the revised document for additional public examination and comment. 11. For a number of reasons, the growth-inducing impacts section of the ErR is inadequate. First, the EIR concedes that "it has been forecast that over an additional 4,000 off- site permanent jobs. . . would be created" and that these jobs "would in turn generate the need for additional housing and services." However, these "over an additional 4,000 off- site permanent jobs" would occur only if additional businesses are located in the immediate area of Brown Field which are induced by the airfield. Additional businesses obviously have impacts (especially in terms of additional traffic), and "additional housing and services" likewise come only with additional environmental impacts. This is especially so since these induced off-site jobs are new jobs that were not anticipated under the 1981-adopted Master plan. These "over an additional 4,000 off-site permanent jobs" are, as the EIR elsewhere concedes, close to four times greater than the entire non- prison inmate population of the Otay Mesa census tract, so on a comparative basis this figure is extremely large. In addition, the EIR concedes that "it is considered a probable effect of the airport development" that it "would encourage other (off-airport) businesses to locate to Otay Mesa rather than elsewhere, or perhaps more quickly than they would otherwise have done." The EIR does not provide any analysis of any sort of these additional impacts, and it is inadequate for that reason. Further, it reports-without any substantive analysis of any sort-that "the proposed project is assessed as fostering economic growth on the mesa, and (thus) within the San Diego region" and that this "is considered a beneficial effect." CEQA specifies, however, that an agency may never assume that growth in an area is necessarily beneficial or oflittle significance environmentally, but may make such a judgment only after full and comprehensive analysis of the environmental impacts. This EIR does not do so. Please provide an appropriate factual and environmental analysis of the growth-induced impacts that will be caused by this project. 12. The Master Plan at page 2-4 refers to 1,800 cargo tons that would be shipped daily from Brown Field by the year 2016. At page 2-7, however, it refers to 7 CITY OF CHULA VISTA 2,359 daily tons. Please explain this discrepancy, and correct all statements in the EIR that rely on or are affected by the incorrect figure. 13. The Master Plan assumes that only a small percentage of operations will occur between 11 p.m. and 7 a.m. However, one of the most important principles of air cargo service (Federal Express is perhaps the best example) is the provision of overnight service, and cargo takeoffs and landings therefore must most often occur during the nighttime and early morning hours. Please explain how the cargo purposes of the proposed airport could possibly be met with only such a small number of nighttime and early morning operations. 14. Exhibit 3-6 in the Master Plan indicates that a 100% loaded 747-400 (indeed, even an 80% loaded 747-400) cannot fly without refueling to either Seoul or Manila, and that both locations are beyond the range of that aircraft under any circumstances. However, the EIR rejects any runway that is less than 11,500 feet in length on the ground that a shorter length would not allow such an aircraft to fly to Asia; for example, the EIR's summary states that only the 11,500 foot runway "would meet the objective of providing sufficient runway length to accommodate B-747 air cargo aircraft non-stop from Brown Field to Manila, Philippines. . . ." The ErR is therefore inconsistent with the expert consultants' report. It has posited a false dichotomy, and it rejects alternatives to the project based on that falsity. If any fully loaded 747-400 is going to require refueling to reach Asia, then there is no reason why the runways at Brown Field cannot be shorter than the proposed 11,500 foot project. Please analyze and explain this issue and explain why a shorter runway is not sufficient, taking into account the fact that a refueling stop at Anchorage has long been a standard operating procedure for cargo flights from the ,\7 est Coast to Asia. 15. Attached hereto are two sections of comments prepared by Aviation Systems Associates for the City of Chula Vista. The City requests a detailed factual response as required by CEQA to each of these comments. Some of these comments are of great importance on the issue whether the project is even necessary, and on the issue of the impacts that Vvi11 be caused if it proceeds. In particular, these comments note that the conversion of Brown Field into a major cargo airfield rests upon a series of "Critical Assumptions" that must be true for the project to succeed. Chula Vista requests a particularly detailed factual response to each of those "Critical Assumptions" with an identification of any background documentation or studies on which the response relies and the inclusion of that documentation as exhibits to the final EIR. 16. The ErR/EA, by making unsupported and potentially unrealistic assumptions about airport flight operations, has artificially constrained the scope of the 8 CITY OF CHULA VISTA -"1 project in its introduction and statement of purpose and need. More specifically, the assumed takeoff and landing patterns on which the entire EIR/EA analysis is based may never be realized, and the true nature of the flight tracks that will be used is not considered in the EIR/EA. Because noise impacts from airport operations are directly dependent upon the flight tracks used by the aircraft, the EIRJEA's discussion of noise impacts relies entirely on the assumptions made about flight tracks. For this reason, this aspect of the project description is of critical importance. In its discussion on runway utilization, the EIRIEA states that general aviation operations are expected to continue in a westerly flow (i.e., landing from the east and taking off to the west). Large cargo aircraft, however, would land from the west and take-off toward the west. The feasibility of such a "contra-flow" for the cargo aircraft is highly suspect, not only because it is an aberration to general airport operations and air traffic control principles but also because of the airspace utilization constraints west of the airport. The EIR/EA states that these "anticipated approach and take-off flight tracks have been the subjeCt of review by Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) staff for feasibility and safety and have been found to be both feasible and safe." No corroborating documentation and/or elaboration of this statement is provided or appears to be available. (If it is available, please provide it as part of the City's responses to comments.) On the contrary, the F~.<\..A. has not yet conducted an Airspace Management Study to determine whether or not the contra-flow or even the landings from the west would be workable. In fact, the consultants retained by the City have contacted the FAA staff and been told that the FAA has taken no position as to the appropriate approach and take-off flight tracks. As the EIRJEA's authors are undoubtedly aware, and as should be discussed in the EIR/EA, until theproject is approved the FAA will take no official action with respect to the proposed flight tracks. There is reason for concern because this "west to east track" opposes normal traffic on Brown Field (and other airports) under both VFR and IFR conditions. Approval for this approach would therefore be unusual under any circumstances. Moreover, there is already substantial air traffic over the coastal San Diego area, involving flights based not only at Lindbergh field but at two naval air stations and the Tijuana airport, making the east to west approach more attractive to the FAA. For these reasons, there would appear to be a significant possibility that the FAA will not approve the west to east track for large cargo aircraft landing at Brown Field. This is anticipated by the Master Plan for Brown Field. Section 3.5.4.3 of the Master Plan and Exhibit 3-13 describe the Brown Field flight tracks for Category C and D aircraft, which include the Boeing B-767 and the Boeing B-747. This section concludes that such aircraft will require doV\rn-wind traffic pattern flight tracks that will 9 CITY OF CHULA VISTA cause them to circle approximately 3.0 miles to the north of the runway, across the City of Chula Vista, and approach Brown Field from the east. The approach must be made from the north because the proximity of the Mexican border and the existing flight tracks in and out of Tijuana International Airport preclude sufficient airspace for C and D aircraft flight tracks to the south of Brown Field. Moreover, the approach cannot be made wholly from the east because of the presence of the San Ysidro Mountains. The Master Plan, therefore, appeared to consider the east-to-west track, with a circle over Chula Vista, to be a more likely result. Further, even the EIRIEA acknowledges that an eastern approach will be required 10% of the time. Yet because the project description excludes the east-to-west approach for large cargo aircraft, an eastern approach is never discussed in the remainder of the EIR/EA, nor are the environmental impacts associated with that approach ever discussed. For that reason, the proj ect descripti on in the document violates CEQA. In order to remedy these deficiencies, the following should occur: A) An FAA. Air Traffic Airspace study should be performed. The EIR/EA discusses a January 1998 "work shop" which generated significant comments related to the efficient use of the airspace in the San Diego area as a result of the Brown Field Expansion. Apparently, the FAA has not responded to these comments. The detailed airspace management study to be conducted by the FAA-Western Pacific Region Air Traffic Division, and referenced in the EIR/EA, is necessary to substantiate the airspace procedures needed to operate the A TC System with the proposed Brown Field Expansion, and in turn to understand the flight track impacts on Chula Vista. B) Because of the uncertainty ofF AA flight track approval, the EIR/EA project description should be amended to include the possibility of a predominance of east-to- west approaches for large cargo aircraft, using the flight tracks disclosed in the Master Plan, regardless of the results of the FAA study. C) The noise impacts analysis of the EIR/EA must be performed with a recognition of the possibility that such approaches might predominate. Please provide all of this additional information, and perform the additional analyses suggested. Without this additional information and analyses, the EIR is inadequate. 17. The single most important impact of an airport on its neighborhood is the noise generated by flight operations. The noise impact section of the EIR/EA is therefore the most important section in the document. Unfortunately, this section has numerous deficiencies: A) Neither the EIR/EA nor the Noise Technical Report disclose all of the basic information which would have been necessary to develop the CNEL contours and related 10 CITY OF CHULA VISTA ...:',,;, impact calculations found in the EIR/EA. For example, there are no flight tracks sho\vn in either document, nor are there any distributions of aircraft types and number of operations or mode of operation and time of day by each aircraft type on each flight track. The documents do provide runway usage, but that is not sufficient to judge the reasonableness of the contours. B) The noise impacts appear to be based on the assumption of a wholly west-to- east approach and east-to-west takeoff flight track. However, even the project description assumes that 10% of the approaches will occur from the east-which, as discussed above, will require a flight path over the City of Chula Vista. As further discussed above, there is a significant possibility that the FAA will require the predominant approach to be from the east (again, with City ofChula Vista overflight). Therefore, the noise impacts analysis should have included an alternate analysis that addressed the impact of east-to- west approaches featuring the overflight. of Chula Vista. C) The actual data used by the authors are not consistent with the EIR/EA' s assumptions about the predominant flight path. At the request of the City, the proponent supplied additional information to the consultants retained by Chula Vista regarding noise impacts. The additional information consisted of a computer printout of the data programmed into the Integrated Noise Model used to develop the noise contours. This printout, called an Echo File, indicated that 80 percent of the transport class aircraft would be landing on Runway 26R (from the east) and taking off on 26R (to the west), directly contrary to the EIR/EA's project description assuming that west-to-east approaches would predominate. Therefore, the noise contours in fact are based on the opposite pattern of approaches than described in the EIR/EA. In addition, the Echo File described different flight tracks than found in the Airport Master Plan; the east-to-west flight pattern used did not include the overflight of Chula Vista, shown in the Master Plan, which will be necessary to avoid the terrain to the east. We have attached a copy of the Echo File to this letter as an exhibit. Further, the noise analysis as reflected in the Echo File grossly understates the number oflarge cargo aircraft operations assumed in the EIR/EA. Page 2-4 of the EIR/EA states that there will ultimately be approximately 48 daily cargo operations (24 arrivals and 24 departures) by aircraft such as the Boeing 767, Boeing 757 and Boeing 747, with the Boeing 757 the primary aircraft at approximately 28 daily operations (14 arrivals and 14 departures). The Echo File, however, shows only 16.08 daily operations by this group of aircraft (consisting of 8.04 arrivals and 8.04 departures), with the Boeing 757 at 2.02 daily operations (or 1.01 arrivals and 1.01 departures). As a result, the noise contours, which are based on the Echo File, are undoubtedly greatly understated. These two factors-the understatement oflarge cargo aircraft operations and the use of an incorrect flight track--combine to render the noise contours entirely useless in understanding the actual noise impacts of the airport expansion. 11 CITY OF CHUL.A VISTA -:) D) In order to give a more accurate description of the noise impact of the proposed airport, the EIRJEA should include a 55 dB CNEL contour in all noise impact maps. The EPA has long advocated using the 55 dB CNEL, instead of the 65 dB CNEL, as the threshold of excessive noise for residential land uses. This is particularly important where, as here, the community is rural or low-density residential in nature or the climate is such that outdoor activities or open-window living are prevalent. Further, support is growing for the lower standard in the acoustical community, as can be seen in recent environmental documents for airport projects, and in professional groups, such as the Federal Interagency Committee on Aircraft Noise, because there are often substantial complaints about airport-aircraft noise from residents outside the 65 dB CNEL contour. Many Airport Land Use Commissions around California are revising their standards downward to 55 dB CNEL for residential land uses for this reason. E) CNEL measurements alone are insufficient to evaluate properly the impact of airport noise on residential development. CNEL is a time-averaged measure of sound prevalence, providing a sense of the average level throughout the day. For noise that is relatively constant throughout the day-e.g., road noise-the CNEL provides a reasonable measure of perceived noise level. Airport noise, however, consists of periodic, intense exposures. Residents near airports but outside the 65 dB C1\TEL report that single event noise levels (called SELs) are significant enough to significantly degrade their quality oflife. Despite this, the EIR!EA does not present any information on SELs, although there is no doubt that significant SELs will be generated by the large cargo aircraft overflying nearby residents. Although there are no local legal standards for SELs, in community after community across the nation, residents near airports complain that the SELs are what they hear and what annoy them, rather than the time-averaged C1\TEL. Therefore, no meaningful measure of airport noise can be provided in the absence of SEL data. F) Much more specific information can and should be developed regarding the impact of noise on the residential neighborhoods planned and under development to the west of Brown Field. As discussed in Section 5.1 of the EIR/EA, several specific residential developments located west of the airport are in various stages of construction or permitting. The likely pattern of development is therefore much more specific than presented in the Otay Mesa Community Plan, which is used as the basis for all of the EIR!EA's noise contour maps. The likely noise contours (once those contours have been correctly determined) should be mapped against the location of development disclosed in the various proposed plans for these developments. In addition, the number of residences to be affected should be tabulated, based on these development plans. Both of these will provide a more accurate presentation of the actual noise impact on these residences. Similar information should be developed for the area of Chula Vista that will be overflown for the purpose of east-to-west approaches. 12 CITY OF CHULA VISTA G) The EIRlEA's definition of "significance" in this context is unrealistic and inadequate. Three measures of significance for noise impacts are identified: (1) whether noise levels would exceed local noise criteria, (2) an increase greater than 1.5 dB CNEL in areas in which noise levels already exceed standards, and (3) an increase in noise levels of 12 dB CNEL over existing levels in any location. Under CEQA, the "significance" of any impact must be measured against the prevailing present-day conditions at the site. Therefore, only measures (2) and (3) consistent with that requirement. Wbile measure (2) may be appropriate an appropriate standard for significance, measure (3) requires far too great an increase in noise levels before a significant impact is found. As the EIR/EA notes, an increase of 10 dB in sound pressure is perceived by humans as a doubling in volume. Under the 12 dB CNEL measure adopted by the EIRlEA, no significant impact is found until the residents' perceived volume of noise throughout the entire day is more than doubled! Plainly a much smaller increase in CNEL should be treated as significant. H) Even if a proper measure of significance were used, the EIR/EA lacks the information necessary to apply it. As noted above, significance must be measured against prevailing conditions. There is no information in the EIRlEA with respect to prevailing CNEL in the areas affected, particularly those to the west of the airport. There is therefore no way to determine whether the increases imposed by the airport operations would result in a significant increase over current conditions. I) The airport's conclusion that no significant increase in noise levels will occur because "noise generated along major new roads through the area could exceed City standards. . . [and] any increase in airport noise in the area expected to occur by the year 2016 would not increase the ambient noise environment by 12 dB because ambient noise would rise with urbanization" applies an inappropriate measure of significance. Significance must be measured against existing conditions, not future, speculative conditions, even when buildout conditions are considered. The mere fact that certain neighborhoods might be more noisy in the future-and plainly it will only be those portions of neighborhoods near major roads which will be significantly noisier due to road noise--does not mean that the addition of airport noise will be insignificant. On the contrary, if those areas have become more noisy in the interim through non- airport noise, the added noise of the airport will simply make them even less livable; that is, the impact will be comparatively greater. Further, if-as the studies relied on by the EIRIEA state-future noise levels will exceed 65 dB CNEL (and therefore violate local regulations), the EIR/EA should apply its own measure of a 1.5 dB CNEL increase for determining significance, not the 12 dB C1\TEL measure. Alternatively, if (as is assumed) the future noise levels will be near a violation oflocal regulations, the increase added by the airport operations may push them past the legal limits, again triggering the EIRlEA's own standards for significance. None of this is considered, but it must be before the 13 CITY OF CHULA VISTA EIR/EA could possibly be adequate. J) The EIRIEA's sole suggestion for off-site noise mitigation-enforcement of noise insulation standards by the local jurisdictions-is facially inadequate. First, the obligation to mitigate is an obligation of the project proponent-not affected local jurisdictions. Second, even that suggestion is not included in the draft Mitigation and Monitoring Program. Third, even if the project could evade required mitigation by stating that noise issues should be dealt with by the local jurisdictions, this suggestion would mitigate only those impacts which occur indoors; no mitigation is even suggested for affected residents who happen to be outdoors. Fourth, even the noise insulation suggested would provide only a 15 dB insulation. While this might be adequate against 60 dB CNEL that occurs as a constant noise, it will be wholly ineffective against the substantial SELs to be expected of aircraft overflights, which will reach realtime sound pressure levels well in excess of 60 dB. The EIR/EA must undertake a serious consideration of noise mitigation, and all feasible mitigation measures to reduce noise impacts must be included. As the foregoing discussion suggests, a complete revision of the noise impacts section of the EIRIEA must be undertaken and the EIR must be recirculated. At a minimum, the proponent must provide the following information in order for the citizens ofChula Vista (and other surrounding residents) to fully understand the implications of the Brown Field proposal for the quality of their life: 1. A resolution of the inconsistency of the flight tracks and operational scenarios described in both the EIR/EA and Master Plan and those described in the Integrated Noise Model Echo File upon which the noise contours in the EIR/EA were based. Of course, this will require a realistic consideration of the manner in which aircraft will he flying into and out of BroV\'ll Field. 2. A depiction of flight tracks used for the noise modeling and contour development. 3. The expected distribution of aircraft on flight tracks, including aircraft types, number of operations, time of day, etc. 4. A description of any special profiles or procedures (e.g., noise abatement procedures) used in the modeling or that could be considered to alleviate C1\1EL or SEL impacts. 5. Development of SELs for the various aircraft types expected to use Brown Field and which would be overflying Chula Vista. This should include not only Category C and D aircraft but also any business jet aircraft which may 14 CITY OF CHULA VISTA :1. be used for general aviation flying or air taxi operations (over 4,000 air taxi operations per year are included in the Master Plan forecast). 6. Number of overflights and population affected at different SEL values in Chula Vista and west of the airport. 7. Development ofa 55 dB CNEL contour. 8. Annoyance analysis using the Schultz contour as modified by Feingold and Fidell for areas underlying flight tracks in Chula Vista. 9. Analysis of Speech Interference potential for outdoor and indoor living areas in Chula Vista under and adjacent to the flight tracks. 10. Since there is an acknowledged potential for night flights, an analysis of Sleep Disturbance potential for residents of Chula Vista and west of the airport. Only after such an analysis has performed will it be possible to state whether, and on which residences, a significant noise impact will occur. However, it is simply a matter of logic that an increase in operations of the magnitude proposed for this airport will have a significant noise impact upon some nearby residents. The EIR/EA' s conclusion to the contrary is unacceptable.and inadequate under CEQA. 18. The EIRIEA's analysis of air quality impacts relies on a standard of significance that is too demanding. The EIR/EA concludes that no significant air quality impact will occur unless the additional pollutants created by the increased airport operations will cause a violation of air quality standards in the San Diego basin. This standard is inadequate for several reasons. First, it entirely ignores the local impact on air quality. Even if the impact on air quality throughout the San Diego basin is not substantially affected by airport operations, local air quality easily could be. Second, the standard is unworkable. Since the EIRIEA concludes that the basin is already in violation of federal regulations governing particulates, at least at certain times of the year (see page 5.7-4), the airport expansion, which will result in the emission of some additional particulates, would appear to create a significant impact by definition- regardless of the absolute level of particulates emissions. Third, the standard adopted is simply too insensitive. The airport cannot be said not to have a significant impact merely because it alone does not push the entire San Diego basin into air quality violations. What is important is the airport's incremental contribution to San Diego air pollution. The EIRJEA's own calculations demonstrate that the airport will result in the release of over 2,000 tons of pollutants per year from aircraft and automobile operations. Surely that is a significant amount of pollution that will have a significant effect in the relatively 15 CITY OF CHULA VISTA remote portion ofthe basin surrounding Brown Field; as the EIRlEA notes, the airport will be a "major source" of air pollutants in the region. Further, even this inadequate measure is applied only with respect to a single pollutant, carbon monoxide. No attempt is made to determine whether the emission of other pollutants will have a significant environmental impact. Note also that the possibility that the proposed project will produce less pollution than planned under the 1981 plan (at least, by one definition) is entirely irrelevant, since significant impacts must be measured against current conditions, not speculated future conditions. Finally, because the EIR improperly concludes that there would be no significant air quality impacts, it completely fails to address mitigation for air quality impacts. The air quality analysis in the EIR must therefore be completely revised and recirculated. 19. CEQA Guidelines Section 15154 requires a public agency preparing an EIR in connection \vith airport operations to utilize the Airport Land Use Planning Handbook published by Caltrans' Division of Aeronautics. Please confirm that this handbook was used. 20. Figure 5.1-10 is one of the more important in the EIR/EA. The black-and- white copy included is nearly indecipherable. Please reprint this figure in color, both alone and with the airport noise contours (or the AIA, with an added 55 dB CNEL contour) superimposed upon it. 21. Table 5.2-2 appears to be incomplete. Please provide the complete information it purports to present. 22. Page 5.1-13 recites the standards for airport expansion in the Regional Transportati on Plan. These include allowance only if (1) a demonstrated need exists, (2) the expansion can be safely integrated into the regional airspace system, and (3) the noise will not adversely impact adjacent land uses. Please discuss and analyze the proposed project in this context. With respect to item (1), please discuss and analyze actual evidence (through studies, etc.) that San Diego-area air cargo transport needs cannot be adequately served by the use of Lindbergh Field and the various other regional airports now operating. The conclusory statements in the EIR/EA are inadequate under CEQA. With respect to item (2), please discuss and analyze evidence bearing on whether the increase in westbound coastal air traffic created by the expansion can be safely integrated into present coastal air traffic patterns. With respect to item (3), please discuss and analyze whether the noise created by the new air traffic will "adversely impact" surrounding land uses, particularly the proposed residential uses west of the airport. 16 r-,"'rV r'\C" r-UI II ^ \lICT^ Please discuss and analyze this factor independent of the EIRJEA' s inflated standard for "significant impact." 23. Section 5.3 and subsequent sections consider only direct impacts on wildlife from airport construction. That is, if the existing habitat is not disturbed by construction of the airport, the EIRJEA assumes there will be no impact on wildlife. The EIRlEA therefore improperly ignores the issue whether on-going airport operations- e.g., substantially increased daily aircraft flights, using much larger aircraft-will have any impact on local wildlife. Of particular concern in this regard is the effect oflarger aircraft flight operations on local raptors, such as the Golden Eagle, and any species listed on the federal or state endangered species lists. 24. The EIRlEA's conclusion that the airport will have no significant impact on farmland conversion because the farmland that will be taken by the airport is zoned for future industrial use applies the wrong standard. The EIRIEA must measure impacts against current conditions, not against future, speculative actions. Please provide an appropriate evaluation as required by CEQA. Our conclusion is that the EIRJEA is inadequate under CEQA for all of these reasons. Please provide all of the information and analyses requested, revise the EIRIEA's discussions appropriately, and recirculate the document for further public analysis and comment. Sincerely, /7.. '/]//7 D /'7 C / .&6r::)'---o/~- f~G-..c Y - David D. Rowlands, Jr. City Manager cc: Mayor/Council Michael T. Uberuaga, City Manager, San Diego Bob Leiter, Director of Planning & Building Duane Bazzel, Principal Planner Attachments: 2 17 rlTV n!= rH11I A VISTA S:::P-21 ,-99 09:53 . ". ~::...' _..:...: '." . FROM-HOYlARD.RICE.ET AL. (415) 217-5910 " . ".', +14152175910 T-113 P02 F-558 -.c,. SAN DIEGO AIR COM:MERCE CENTER AT BROWN FIELD CHULA VISTA ISSUE PAPER . ; .,- -. . .. .' '\ '. "/ '. I ._ '. '. . . . .' . .. '", .. " . .:. . . "... - . . .oo .;. . ..: ..",. .. " . .' . : . Aviation.systCmS ~sociates . .' ' 23430' H~~ome B6Uievarcl', .. .' : . Suite 200,.-BuildiJ;lg 3.. .... Torrance,. CA 90505 .. '(310)-378:-3299. " SEP-21-99 09:53 FROM-HOWARD.RICE.ET AL (415) 217-5910 +14152175910 1-113 P03 F-558 : .~ -=- L. :REVIEW OF FEASiBlLfl'Y OF BROWN FIELD CARGO . . ..- ....:. PROJECT .. ", I This'report is based on a readitig .~ftbIee do~umcnts.: . '. . San Diego Air Comm~e te:nter~ da.tcdNovember 12, .1998 md prefaced by a letter . from Samuel J. -Sandy" ~to 8m. Diego Cotmcil~o;nllIdudY McCarty . ..' .' ..... . AirPort Mast~ ~lan Study 'daWi~arch 29: 19~9.' . ...' .. .' - . . . .. . A SANDACC at Brown Field ~ ~lan.E.1RfE-~ this copy undated 1 ::', . . . ' . In the Master p~ at page 1_i.therc'was':reference to a "Cargo Markd: ASsessment'". . . srody but tbis was Dot included nor read. '. . . . . . The specific. purpose oftbis i:epC?ri'~d as~gnnii:nt is ~ evaluate and .c~rnment on the forecasts arid .economic f=asibility'of.~ project. The writer,-whO has 30 years avialion experience including cargo studies fOr a _jor airJi:Qe and a21l-:yeancsidcnee in SoUth"",. California is familiBr:wi~ 'and quslifi~ to p=:rfonri this task objectively-' . . .... .'. .....: :>..:-."......::...:.... .../.~:f... . :.' . '.' . .: '. A review of the dataSUPPJied indicai.:s that the concept of an ahema.ti"e air cargo facility . at Brown Field is)ogiOallY ~. aiu1migbt. in the ltingtim aIIIaCl ",Casunble amounts of cargo. Howeve:t,the signific.ani expense' of-project development.when combined with a smalfnUmber of c:.argQaircraft flightS sUggest theiprojcct "{ould have a. very difficult ti.Ine __br~akiDg ev!:ll-. . .: : .. " . . . .. . ...". ... . ~. '. . , .... 0" .' . . " '. . '. .,. AS a pre;faef: there aPPear to be' certain illCclDtr6~bie pou1ts::., . . .: :: ...... ,... :.,": ...:..' '. ". ..-' :....::. : :.;.;..::. . ~.' :.' >:. :.: ::'-':. . ....... . ': - . .. Air. cargo is growing in vol~e, boJli WtPTTlationally: ai1d ~mestically: . . .: . ..' .-' .". ",' ". :. .., .. ,.' .' . . s~tijego'~ r;;;.~~g!i r:icici:~ ~'j.,'SP8<:" ;"<..,' ... ... C~~k~~...Df~~; ::~~~thi,s~ rig~ ~or~cn ".' Mexico, to' Los AngelesILAX':' :'. ".::, :.':. ......: .'.:' '. .. ~~gq~~~~~~~e1d~~4:...... .. ......:... .. ~ " .'. ~..:' '.:' :~'. :.'t', :.' '.: .:: .\.:','.:':.' '<'.' :-':::'; < .:....... . ,. .. . . ': ~. . AceOmInodate ~e, i:argo expansion ....~. ,. .:. '. . ..' , ... . ." !.:.... ;.>.-.:., .:-:. ....... ".:' :. .' ~ ... . . . . : ~ '. .~R;~apture'L*'~c. ~~~ to.'~:~~leakage~". ,:. . .: ..'; .... :.. '; :;. ...-:. . . .,_: ::..", '. 0" .' . .' '.. . ".' I. .; '..'=' . -.' ..'. ~ ;.- " '. ..,: ",.. . . :3 ',. . . "... S~P-21-99 09:54 . FRDM-HD'liARD.RICE.ET AL. (415) 217-5910 +14152175910 T -11 3 P 04 F-5Sa _...... ....JlI. , ;'''l. Not answered are sucll questions as .~J5 this the best al"""""v'e", "what are some of the other options not melllioncd nor studied"' lIDlI "wllal 'would be the qusnlified result if ....~ "'d'" .' ..' DOuuug wcr= one. .. ... ., .... . . . .... . . . . ..As seen in an at\ll.Cb11lOIl1 to this ~a; San Diego's UDdbergb Field ranked 9151 in worldwide tcitid cargo vOlume in 1998;Y c;ar ova year gniWlh at 3.6% ....... modest ci>mparedtoov.el' 20% i1iC yesr befor..Nmielheless SAN had a positive yc;ar-to'-yeaI groWlh wbi)i:'many other lities di4 Dot. In tOtal volume SAN. ranks above such majm cities as (;leve1and.San Jose Bnd ev~ tho all-cargo aiIportRickcI\backc:r Field. . ." The m-guJOcot Could be IIlllde that. SAN does not appesr saturated at this "oint- Otherwise, . th= would be ",;.growth.Tbis SllII1e anacbJneOt slWWs LAX with a negative groWlh. . . Anoth~ar~ent~s~ by Bro~ ~ieidsu~~OtU:IS ~ ~:~anDiOgo ~ 11% of the 10tal state PoPWation. .lIDlI12% of total eniili!neml:ols but only 2% of total cargo . .lumd1ed. '!'bUs. the argorocnt go';" this 9% doficit in Cll!gD must be being ttUCked to 1..AX. .': '" . ", " :.' ' .. ,,' '" . . '.. This is not prov;"'" aI.d to the ~ it m.y hold.tr1lO, docs Dot a prion.ihp.;cate a. . deficie.nq 81. SAN or opportunity at BrOwn Field- The Drst. issue is Whether popu1a.~o~ ' . enp1.n=-S imd. cargo toIlS me dir.ouy ri:la1=cL Bocausc major c;iticS .-n be cargo hubs .. as well aspaSs""~c:r CeDterS~ it stm;uis 1O.reaBOn,tnat certain cities; suc?h as Dallas. Denver . and PittSbutgh might !i;mil1e mDr'-cargo than the population would Suggest <!ucla cargo .., .:. ttaDsfc:rS. SecondlY, the proo= ofa lilrge hub route StructurC clacs, Over yearS c.use. . .' '. . indUsiriiis end sbiPPeISto 1Ooat1: riw these major bub cities. FiDally. certain cities with ". Jarge proportions ofrenIees aDiif.ai: !iit1e mannfacniring oftco opeIate in. deficit position .; . '. sucii as S anDL'-go' s, Foi exiwiplc l'aIIIl sptiDi;.. FOrt Mycls, Tucson end Las Vegas all . h.v~ cargo vOJwn.<s far I... tbBIi ~vc passorigcr wlu:meo'-. ... :" .. . To provcU,cpoint fu~.sANsi,;ps ~ diSpr~~ortiOn8i: voiume orcir&o ~o LAX ....ould . ".. ' .' requiri: an c:xteDSivc .urvey of ioanUfaclliring and shiPPing palicins. in the area. The '. .;";. questioii coulnb: asked .''wllal'' ii tbirt is mamif>cfured in SmDiego tha1 is being ... .. . . .' ;'. tnickedto iJlXfoisii .sliippiiig": In irnth; feW 6omp1lictS Or elCcironicl'iuu are built in . .. . . >.: .': saii Diego' Wi. s1icl1 high Vabic itcio51illikeU,p';' largcportiim of .it catllo. SliDl ]'liego is. ..: . . ....... .kn9wn: as ".flower.prodUcing _y<itb some outbound dotblo& ShipmeiJ1.,.;ro", Mexico. .s. . .' ,Whiie..thW:,,;aybe: i>i:lSima! ~ aiic\ iiocbllmmal'~fraigbli~ sbipped /!lii>' . .. . . .' . Sari Diego~. out\>OUIid' tra.fficmay.~ bc'of Sllfficicnl voiuinem 1uCIatiVi. Cnough to . . . .oPera>eall =go: aii<;ra,ftin. both ~ .' - .. . . .' .' . H, ri~C;;~i~:~~~~~~.;.i~o~~~~ituati~;,maYexi51 lnother areaS .'. .. .' :<;: . as. welL For.~le; .frel;no :will main Ijkely. liave l,ess ca;.go Volil!Do .stsIeWide thaa, ... , .' .>..' p.s,.=.n Stockton m.y fall:;'; tile illUDe categOrY i.A ~o'n fOr;hiS is !,hiil1011g h.ul ill' ~.. / . . . : . .' cargo airc,aft'opaaiQrs pfCierrOr b~c ecOnOmic reasons to hav~l!'i'gci. inorc. . . . . . ..... con~traied operations.l\.n exarIipli: would be Kore.n.AirlinCs. Ifwe'..siime tha1 they .. have 1 Gall cargo flights into LAX evl'I)' wCek. wbat inceiuivC: wouldtbm be to move '.' - 4: , . . .. _. . 1" . .- ., : . -, ~;... S::P-21'-99 09:54 FROM-HOWARD,RICE.ET AL (415) 217-5910 +14152175910 T-113 P OS/27 F-558 ..~ -........ ~:'I-. thI-ee of these ten to some other aiIpon. bi: it Lindbergh or Brown? Tn the absence of OVeJ'Wbe~g competition. KorcBI!- is indifferent'to the surface 1IUc:~~'c:osts and will continue CXpBnsioIl attb.c 1aicwn aiIport (LAX) over the uncc:irtainty ora new one. . Although 'common wisdOm bas LAx rmming out of spacr::, jUst like ,SAN. the suggestion lhafLAX'ofPcials willlct cargo" azidjobs. slip away is a tenuouS one. ' ....:. .' .". :.... ..' ."... .. .... . . ~cr than 'debate tb~e 'i~S' ~n ~ phiIosophi~ ~~. ~~~~c:r. a smvey is clearly . caned for. It ~ust b~ determined (a). how many manufafturc:rS there ar~ in the San Diego , area; (b) what airfreigh~ items the;y currently ship:and (~) if~ is used, why'it is .... . " prekned "vC!. SAN. '. .' .' " . . .' ." .' . .' . .. . - : .,' . . . ,Little mentiOn is made in all three reports ~f'wh2t may be the smile: lirgeSt.causc of ~ '., mIr:cight'bcini. ~y~d ~~ San Diego' to'ios' AngeleS~ .This is.no~ any l~ck of ~ace or __ gro~d. It is not a short runway., It is.~ ~clad 'Curlew that proh!~its scheduled takeoffs after 1130pm at nigm. \vm1e this Curf~ may allow'out1?oUnd cargo.dcpanurcs ~1-m a 6 , PM cutoff:time; it disallows inbo~d.c:argo flights y.rhich .no!T"Q lly ar,rive between .' . mi,dnight m.d :S:oo am. . . . ," . . ~ The statem;:nt is ~ here th2.t this may be as much a pOlitic.a11~s~'aS a 'physical one. . By CI""'-a~g a Brown Field '?3I'8o cOmplex, ~m Diego ,is a.tt..~Jltmg to expon its. aircraft noise"and prohibited after~Urfew operi.ti.~ns.fr~ ~De airp~rt.to anoth~r. To the eXtent all . are'S3.tisficd with this arrangein~fand it reSults' in jobs' or aitaininen.t ~f desired' objeCtives: ws' may be a good policy and no judgmeD1 is rcndcred h~e;' the point is' . brought up "solely to '3ccord it reCognin~n. ". - _ ". '.' '" '.', --:'.. ..... :. ..' ' .' . - . . . . . '..... . . - .: . . . . . . One itistmcation' f~'a BrO~ Ficllci:p~6n'~ to point to 'the succes~ of seVeral other . . rcc~tly dev~lopedcargo ports"SP=Cmcally:'~e A.iIP~rt in~Ft>Wortb, TeXas and : .~. . " Rickenbackex: AiIp~rt in Columb~~ Obio~ (Note: the' cargo' groWth at the former Mather . .' - .' AFB in SaC:r~n;,~ cOuld also have been uSed:as, well as ElliIlgton:.A.FB in Houston). . . '. HOVliexe.r;'for ev~ ~'~ccss '~iy in ~e couvci5ioilof Ajr For;e'b"as~5 to, cargo' ports . . .' th.::rc. exists .all empty airport ~ 1w not yet caUght on..:;In CaIifOIDi~' Norton AFB and ' : . .' '. .~ <,M3rthl san BerT\An;no bo:tb, 13Ck ~aigo :camcrs:desPlte 'strCD.UoUs ~oits;, A ~ ',' ,:-"., '," "~', ~,. siniatipri ~ at CaSt1c~..~,l;iiC~c:and ~l? ~~rmet.,G~ge'~'i:1~Yic~Ue." ,::' , .' _~ In shOrt; the-~ that'Stich a. copversion ~ DeeD SuccE:ssftil tWice~ ~r fom: or siX '~es mO' '.. '.:' ",_.,:; thiS-cotinlIfcaIJDi;,t~.a.Ii.y:drcmn..S~'be.1nieq,rcied to m~'anBroWn F.ield is':' :~ .:~:,.'_/ ~~.'~ ~~~~7':r\.:.(j:\"("iD:..;'~:";?::: ........ .'::, ._:, ':'.: ::: It is'uprortWia~.~'r::o~versi~'p~.for ~~ 2.ir?aSe.EITorci ~e::s~ mdefuuic;;: . ,'~ . .' . Ccitainly ~t;bis Orange County'Ai#Port is''aPp(o~~ for evening cargo, ~p~ons it could . .-,', ~',' jeopaz:diZe the ~jIitY 'ofBrcwn :field 'as.EI 'roio~ ~i44 draw c'm-go. .~om all .diieetiODs. '.. S~~ly ~t ~sjJnf~.a~e:~ m~rC_~ocjp~vc ~or1q~g. ~.cm,i;D.tWi$M~~c~ ' . .. ..;..... ..'au~oritics"ai1Q the. Tijilana AiIPort" cannot be,'schfeved1lt IDfgbt m2kemdie' sense to fund . .:.<." .', . :.:.... aiiJIiw.ay ~on'antfiU1draCiIiti~'a(that~ori'~~'t1ian'.~y'e~o '~~peting' . .-' . "::"". facilities .'Withiri. tcIIIniles of'ea:ch either. ' !~: ~., ..:', . '.'.' .,.':.: '.,.: .'/...' ....-.. .:. .'. " ;. .... .. . ,_. '. . 00" . '. . . '. . .' :.... ..: ..' :.... 0, 'Op: .0' '.' .;.' . . 0" . " ........:. .' .... 0.. :. ........ .... " . : :" :. : . .. .'. . . ; . . ." - -"":" '.. . ',' . . -.. ".. " . .. . ..' ,,', .... . .' .,' .;, . ":s :. ,':. ". ':'::': '. - : . . -. . ". '.' S5P-21-99 09: 55 FROM-HOWARD, RICE, ET AL (415) 217-5910 +14152175910 T-113 P.06/27 F-558 ,~ .:~ Conversion ofBrovro Field into a maj~r cargoport restS upon a scries of "Critical Assumptions" which requrre theY .be trUe in order for the concept to succeed. Several of these critical asmmptions have already been di5CUSied and inclUde: . . ' . . " . '. . .' . Critical As~ption #1: thai 'Witli only 2% of ~te cargo volume versus 1 i % of . popu1a.tio~ Lindbergh Field is ~'spilling" traffic ~ L\X. '. .. . ~ ' Diti~al ~sumptio~ #2;' that LAX Canno~ Teach its 42 nri~on. capacity 'goal by 2Cn 5 ~ . and will, be" sc:rio~ly con.sttain~... '::.' - . ~. .' :..'. '.' ' .. . .': .... . The third Critical Ass~ption~ . and from whicli all else flow~ is tha1',a cargo air ~arri.cr , ',~.,' SuTvey. ~m be'totany relied upon iri buildirig this faclity;. In pm l' on .page 2-4 of the ' : : ~ ,Master Phm it states ..'[B]ased. .on '. :'.nume:rous discussions 'with' many of the world's most _ prominent.air cargo operB.torS. it was pos.sible to estiID.a.te the n1?IDbcr of carriers and daily -op:ratici~'tb.ai'Browri Field would att;rac;t.~..n. Without any attempt at being faeetiouS.' . , t1:u:seconversations could. have gone like this with the ansWCI'S being iPvexi by a cargo aircr~,op~~,' ,... . " Q: Do YOll agree ~ Lindbergb Field is crowded .a:nd not an ideal airport for cargo . op~atioIlS . . . . " " A:, .Y es' '. ....... . . Q;' . Do you. bclieye tha~ iarge amo~ts <;)f cargo are b~mg .~cked up~ from SAN to "board.8tLAX:-.'~, '.':.' ,... . .': -.' :".-.. ':'. ....:... . .. ' . . .,. .' .... . .' .... .', ".. '., ,".' .A;.'. . Yes." ..' ".' . . . . "..' .. .. ", . ..' '. . Q.' . If a low cc~ state of tb~ art alternative w~ -developed to Lindbergh. would you ~nsidcr.:u.smgit .<" .: :'.~ '. . ...:. .......:....~ .~ .':' "~..':':..' . . ." . .,,', ..... '. .' : . : :' . 6 S~P-21~99 Q9:55 FRDM-HDWARD.RICE,ET AL. (415) 217-5910 +14152175910 T-113 P.07/27 F-558 ..f-:." "... .. ...-~ fo~ of whether simple, leading que500nS such as above were used.. . The point is, it would be a rare carrier that did not express op.tim;STn or'implicq patronage of any new .aiIpcrt since it costs nothing to state favorable intcn~On5 'and may open added . . . comp:tition among airports and lead. to lower cOstS ifac~ed..We need to know '\\rho . are these carriers and exactly what did they say"Y'J .' . . , - . . . .' . '. It should b'e noted thaI some of the saIne earners that 'mpp~rted Brown. field in 'concept- have also expressed optimism for El Toro as a' ciligo port.. The add te~t is not in the Q & 'A but wheth~ they Will commit .to. op~onS, sign a.l~~ ~d pl~ge a bond issue. . Bro'Wll .Field propoDCIlts will corrcctly poiDt out tlia.t a coii.ceptual survey is only the first . . step and no expansion will get. underway withoutobtaiDing these commitments. . Opp~ne:nts will point out that a verbal "pItmuse tc~e" is jUst lh.B:t;. . . . ."' ". .. ., .. .:. . . . . r' ~ . . . ".' . Criticaf AssUmption #4.follows upon #~. The assUmption is th~these14 pledged cargo . . flights will op:rate With a 75% lo~ :W:tor. No proo.f of this is provided, except in the . r circular logic tha1: camezs wouldntt'op~e flights!l.i1:l:1 a lower 1~8d factbr and by" . .' 'agreeing to offer fllghts. it must mean these carriers expe::t this load:factor. Additional . proof and justification of these. cargo ~~Um~ is'.required.. . . Critical Assumption #5 is that no shipper intervieWs arid DO detailedtrafiic flow studies' .. need to be conducted because ever}rof1e: knows much' air cargo is being trucked from San Die EO to L..-\X and this cargo logically w~uid lise'BroWn Field i.f7whei1 developed.. - . .", .: _. . - . .'. . 'Whauareor could .be some reas~ris: ~~d.cS ~se stated, that cargo ge~ trucked to LAX? One reason may be Competitio~ in ~ mUltiple caiiicis often serve the same points and . offer shippers greate:r choice. Another mign.t 'be s~1i~u1es: BritiSh Aiiways for example '. seves London ~th DoIistoPs daily. Another reason might be .caPacity: japan Airlines bas a ~y 74 7 frei~ier. Anotb.ei: re2S9n .might ~e ~g: the ChiDa ~~es Camhi aircraft departs late: enough to carry c:nd-of-.day. smpmCIltS. ~th.cr reason cOuld be geographic: from ~orth San Diego County jt play take more time to get t~ LA;(but, fox: a variety of . . .' .::. reasoris it is not excessive consicIe.riD.g othe;r b'enents'; Anot1:Lei IeaSQIl !night be. . - ..,..,. ... .' .. :. '.':,' ~iratiOIi:'a smgl~ ~ck d1:iven ~nce a day Up'~ baCk from ~ ~acccss over 80 . '. .': difrererrt airl.i.nCs faimore thaD.at SAN~ ". :. ..', '::. -.'~.<..' ,. ":.:-' ", .'. .' '. . . . '. .' - ........" . . ~". '. . .'-' .... .... -"', .- . . . . .;> Th~';~~~.is:'"wiili'out.~v~'~dfurth~.:~tudy.Ofth~'~~:~~Tkei; ~odi~cs. . ...... ':.".: 'shipped andieas6ns.~ai.cboi~ made. .~. cannot aS~. a'&igzrlpcaDt'percentage of ..,; ". .:....-:presen~Y~.carg9Will~iOIIiancal1ydiverttQ.BrownF~e1cL..:. '.'. .;' '. .., .... .<' .....:.... ,-/ .... ....<. '. :.::.......:... .:..:.:/:(~: '.:-:~'.~..::.~.:.>'. .:.::.:...:.:.;..:..:........::.... ......... . .' .." Filially ~ thCre is the .econoimc feasibility.is~e. Sf?C1i~~ 4:-25 ~f the. II;laster p~an Study lists. . ~~. a'CQst'ofS121 million exCluding ~~~~on cOst Ifwe ~~ 280,.OO()'sq: ft. 'of .' . :. ~ .... buildirig'at SSO co.st pc:.sq:.tl this' woUld add another 514 ririllion for ~ total of$141- : '" ':,' :~~~llion:~:....:.....:\... : : .': ::. ':::'. .-.: :'" '.:.'. ~~.:-;->~:;:: :~'~..:.;.'.'.'..' ::~. f':.-:':.:'--" :.;~', .....:....;..<:;::.: '''':'. .... . ~ . ":. .'. . . ..' .. . ... '. " . . " -, . -; . .' . . ..:. Page 74 detai~ a f~'m.or~ 'expens.i~e p~ ~ted to. ~ost..$3S1~4 millio~ w~e page . .... 7-6has.a$J36milli~ri:fi~ '.::' ::'.~ :.:.'..: <....~:.... .:':. ::'~~:.:>." . . .' . . -.. . '.. ". . :':..:' . .' . . . . . .' '. 7 " .... S~P-21'-99 09:56 FROM--HOYlARD.RICE.ET AL (415) 217-5910 +14152175910 1-113 P,OB/27 F-55B ...:.!.,. '~ - '. <-... Let US assume tba1 indebtedness to build Brown Field full up is S200 million, exduding , grants. AIP' 5naDcing and the like. Let US as~l:UDe a 3o-y~ life, for all iIIiprO'1emcnts, or , . let US'a5su:rne a. 3O:year'rcpaymcnt ~edule atleast.-At a '''0 interest, repaying prmcipal ~ interest on $200 1Dillion over ;30 y~.wiU. cost appr~xima1ely $16 million per year- The ~du1e is b~~ ,~~ {4 dauyOpctatiQIlS inoreasWg to 48 .attcr 20;ears. . , Let us as~.e, an ~vCrage nUmber. ~f operatic;)])s to be 34. This eqwUs 17 landings ,~ly. . Let uS JlllllliJlly17 dailylan<ilngsby 286 daY. pet YeM. afii:=llSed in the Master PIsn. . .. 17 x ~86 '7.4862 ~g6 mr~~'laD~g pe:r.y~- .' ". . ... ~: .' '"; ,\. . ,. .' I. ." . . . . . . . $16 million annual cost+::.4g~2 ~diD~s.-. ~ding f~.ofS3291'per operation! Note: tl,es~.are ~ ~ to b~ cIelmi~ve;.mti.<tics: Th~ iire iTh,.-ive and cpnjectural only. No~etheieSs thcy~Ca1~'thst.tb.e liI;rge.cost of converting. Rrown Field'coUpled. with the ~1aIivcJY' small nmnb~ Qf op::ra.ti'?us may result in higher than anticipated per operati~n ~c:s. ~.' >,., . "... '. ~.:~..': .; ". . ..' .', .' :'. - . " . . . .,~ To the above.exercis~:'"$ould be added th~ following caveats:' .' . . . .. '. .... 1- RMc1y do:. any .;;;p~ r~caiitUreits cO';' .ol<:1yvia J3ndmll fees- NonethelesS, ev~ if Ino's~ cOsts are covered tbrougl;lland. an~.bui1~r~ts and conce~si"n. fces; on a per . operation basiS the eqUivalent c:mrio~ be ~cd mcx.pcnsive.' We suggest' the airport ' .. .~!'DDCIll3 P1D"ille inofe~onoii their. CD~ aDd revCllUC pIojcc~ons. . . 2". Th~e an: otbcr~~ ~15.tt W; aupDIt that will bclp supportihe ~. . . . Agreed. although :gCIieral aViation. andcmrent users conttibute far less. than $>00,00.0 . awually under cun-ent circumstances. ~d.. even i! 'for example. a Iiew custoi:n.? . ''-''. '... ~. . broker was enticed'tO" tbeimpo~'On ~ equivalent basis. thedeVC!lopment costand .. ... ... .: . .o"i:rhead per tcWuii are sigmliC8nt~... ~ . ..: - ... . .... ...' .: ;....~:::-'..:.-../ ~".....::...:;:.:.~. ":.>>:::.'::...:.~.' ;.:. .":.'.:.,: ..: . . . . ,3. - MuCh' qf~ p~j~.c:Ould be ~an~'!,y. is; fr~ ~?~ ~~ POSSibly, however . <." . ': "'. these'rpay.~ye to:be reveii.Uc ~oiids \>a~ solely..byprojectrevcnues. In this case'. ..' ..' > : '. ' the'iIu,erest rate'paid maY' Dot b'e'as fiivorabie. VIe -need to ascertain'whCtlier any .. ...,' ,- _~.-; . .... /m~4~t}?~.ft~lffai~~~~~~~~~~~~U;.D~k.tht:SebO~";:,: . . _ .... . .',0-: .-:. . ....<. ....:..~:.~: .....:.;: :...... ':_'.< ...'...>...... '.;,. ." .~ :,:: ,...' ......r. . .....: .'. ~ ':";.- '.' , .. 4. ._ No' ~tirig or selling cost have been oullt in'to this formula:; as far as 'can be ..'. ....' .:.... d~~eImin~:.. ::< :_..~:;,.. ... ...' .. ; .' ',...... . ":,..." ,....... .... ".>>:':: " :. . . .,::"'c, ,....... '.: . . .'. .. ", ''-5'':'..No:~cV:~loperpro~~his'1;'~.btil1t~(~;':'-:. ~.' .....:.. .:'. .'.0'..:':.:. '. .' :.:: :_ ,._;....~ ~.'.... '.' " - . ;-.: .':/~': .:. L." ::'-.: '..:'.'..~'::>':...,::.~:: ....: :.:' .::' :" .....'::......:..,:..:--:.'.... :-:. .'.,. . .. .: 6: As, tbe~~ itsclf"oteS, fed~ial~; iocbJdi;t,g ~aDd .(U!' furids crinnot be , _ .:.... '" counted.on: Citbc:i. as to. amouDfcr.timi,ng. . " ': .... ',: . .. . . '. ..' '..". . ... :..;. .,.......... :, '. '..: : ........ ...... " ;':--, '" .. .... .' . . '. :.. :..~...:~ '.' ." .." .' . . :. ',' '. ".. .~. 1',... . " ... .... '. ' . .. .,.: .' ," . ": g. . :. ~~::-21-99 09:57 FROM--HOWARD,RICE.ET AL (415) 217-5910 +14152175910 1-113 P.09/27 F-558 '" .,. ..~.- .~ '\Vhat' follows below are.8 serious of additional notes. questions. and observations from reading ~.1;bree dot;UIIlcnts: . " . . . . l. 111; ~ report, page 1-2, section 1.1.2 itself DOtes '"TJ:ie. ~t nat,ure of p:oject . . . development would dcpcod'Dli'markct Deeds during.the next 2~ years. These needs . . . Bje. to ~ome eXtent unknown becaUse the result fiom.a unique .si~tion..."; While. tlUsis a 'once-only remark. it does .have meaniJig and adds to our r=marks conc~ing . . the: ~cd fez: addc:Q.' resean::h.. '. . .... .. 2~. Th~ Master Plan at page 2-4 references 1800 cargo tons daily,by 2016. Same sourc~ ~page 2..7 :ref~c~ 2359 dailytODS.. .. .... 3.. :The M~te:r p1ans~efeirenceS 3pO trucks daily wJ:1ich ~ll ~ve'cargo to Brown ~Field . . instead of LAX. The .effect '00 the Brown Field adjacent comm1.ID.ity and road.System rrtay ~eed to be furtli:r. addressed . -. - . ..... . '4.' . The MasterPlan asserts 6cly 5.5% of oper2lioIlS Will:.o~ur b~ce:n 2200~(J700 hem "; 1o"ca1. Considering Fed Ex and other operators often promise delivcty before lOam .' . . . .' and have nubs departing benveen 0000 arid 0300 locaI'this seem~ i.r:D.probahle. . ",.. .. . . ....." 0" . . - . . 5~' The Master'plan refer~ces a Mazri1a cargo hub in the making. Further details. are . . .' ; . requestc:.:i . . . . '. ... ..... . .' '. - . . :.. ; 6.'.':p:le repOrt refer=nccs the ~C""..d fOr.an ~ed nmway such that aircra;ft can fly '. . _.' noD.stop tq such places as S:au1:ai1d Manila: Exhibit ~-5 on' page .3-16 t?f~e Master'. .' . . .' pian deDioxistIate this is D~t p~ssib.~~ for ~erp.o~t Wi~ ~-?S~ wci~t load factOr. ~. ~..'. : . '. I....... . . 7.: '. AssumptlOI15 for payloa,b'angc cb.a:rU in SectiOn 3 arc not giv=ri.~. AXe. 'perform&ncc ,. .. sta.tistics' for year rauDd operation With 90% probability? Vt1hat temperature and winds . . are used?'Whai'fuell:nlmmarl..-up basbecn Cmploy~?.Are individ~ carriers reserve ". :.' '~'.. p.~~ici~~ref1ec~ ~r just lCAO .staDdard?. .' . .'. .... . . C.'..: .' '. . . . .-~: .":' ..'" 'c. :~. "Th~'rep.ortp~ a'gr~'reli~e' on~ c:~p~ilities ~s~ th~-racitlc. 'Why no~ __- --. :;. . ...: ~'. . .~.jus{make a ~ siop ""ith.a shorter IimWay'Z;AIi~chc1rag-e ~cl. ~p for cargo .... . )~~. .: .;.-<': '~.oP~~I;Sh2slOngbeenastandaIdpro~urc.Admi~edlYa':~~~f~..i~bei:tCrb~tat . ..<':.-.:~:.":.':._-"~' :);~~7~~.e:~~.~t~~..~~.1~~~.~.;~~~..:.:;:"':,:,:.::.:.......: ".:~~':::~._:, \::~:-..' ..' ,,: .-..... . .' ~. -9~ '''The MasicrPlaD.elizr.riD.a1es all.i.1teiIlaiive:afrpom.'sUCh as 'SAN'~.MarchAFB; ONT . . -.' .:. . .. :'~'~~' .' :.::.~d~1U~ W.e'~.~i~eces~~y agree~.~ ~es'therep~.tha.t'Br~~':fi~ldis.the only' _- ....-.....:...:.....VlablesolubOIL.:.:... '. .' ...... .' ....:-..... .... .' . . .'. I." . . .<.' .:: ..~.::-~>~io~ ni~.iriicp~~:(atpa~~5.10-2 ~~~~.~tth~.needfor~~~~~.~llksS~ (as a _-~':.' < ..... ....~~sultofNAFTA).~~~decrC8Sed..ne:dbeenprope:rl}'~~?~. ". .' '. :. . ..': 1.1~.1:~~1~~~~.~~~f;;.~Od..d~.~ti~:~i~ ~~~~ t~O.d~~~..;~~O~O p~~a~ .>:, ~utr.>.tri.P.sp~ day_.~as the'fu.U i,mpact bCcnevaluated?' ..... ,- ~ ..::;.... ':" c : .' . .. .- .. . '. . ". . .. . .' .'. . .- .. ,;. -. .9 . " SEOP-21-99 09:57 FROM-HOWARD. RICE.ET AL (415) 217-5910 +14152175910 T-113 P.10/27 F-558 -. ~ ...-.... ~"'"' 12~ The Master PlaD. frequently references "s~e of ~e art" cargo. facilities. Cargo . operations oft:n reqUire simply acres of concrete and a simple. ~oss-dock warehouse with t:rUck loading dockS...What arc.tbes~."sta1C ofthc art improvemC:n~' and define how th,..a will cram' airlines'. . . . . : . .... .'. "J. ~ . .. '. .' . 13. Brown Field., it 15 said will offer: ':'l~w fuel costs"~ Why ~. fuel'co~ be any less here ...than anywb~ ds~?' ..:..... . ~ '. . .. .,' . 14. .S~on 2~ 15 indic~e.S a majo~:mc:rease in air taxi' gro~ ~ot ref~enced anyWhere in the text;. Thisnee4sexplanati~.. .' .. .. .. : '.. : I. ( ;..' .. . ~ . .. . :..- .' .. . .. '. . 15. At lmder 900 acres, Brown F.ie1d is relativelY' SIi1all cOi:nP.~ t.o some 'other airports: . For compwOIl purpo~es acreage at SAN, ~ OJ:'IT and 'o~cr 'ajrports woUld be helpful. ...... :~:.'" .:.: ....:: . .. .. -. ."~ ".::" '. .... . 16~ Table 7-4 of the Mam:erP1anrefei~es a rental ia~e oi$6~,637 p~'aCIe. what is the . source of this estimate andj'UStiiication for its use,' ....... .- . . . . - 'W :- . '.. .. -"";' , . . . 17. Same s:...'Lion details debt' SeMcc: ,?f $5 Irrlmon per year. ExP1aiIi what. is included herein.. .' . . . . .' .' .' .. . ..' ..... . .' . 18~ _The expenditure figures in the MasterPlan at page ~2S and Table 7-1 on page 7-6 do . . . not mmdl. . . '.." . .'. .' ..... . . '. .' .' . . '. ...... ". . .. . '. . '111' s~ary" as indicated at the begi:iming~' ~e beli~e the Brown Fiel~ Cargo Port . cc:mcept c~uld ~ork andmost' c~Y ~i1fto some extent.:. :$ui to"su.gge~t that' all : . . questions have been aIlSWerCd by tli~ three documc:nts.reVicW~and that the project should proceed fo~~th would be;in oUr judgril.c~t.pr~e b.~ed ~ results and data disclosed to date. .: '.' "';:. '.. .. '..:. ",." . . .... '. '.' '.:' .' . '. ".". . ," . '. ... ... . . . ,'. .. . ',..... : ':"". '. . : In order to 'remove s~~ aithe ~C;rtairi~ diS'~ussed. herem:; :~. fo~~part research' proj eet .-. as detail~'.:On.the pages foll.OWing .SlioUld.~e'lmclertaken.:~.:., . :.' .:. '.', .,-:..... .... ~ :. . . . -.. ':.~. .....,..~. .". .'~' ':. .:.: .'~. '.- :-:' '. ,', :':.:.'. ...... : o:'.';~:::'-.:,'::-..:".~. .~: .....' "':' . "'..u:;. ....... .: ';:.:<:~~-:-~~~~-;;':>>>;;' ~. , :. '... ~. discUSs~.~ the report; .~ 'r~~h ~s iiec:.~. iIi. f~~(~#c .~~:~: .'; .. '. ',,: . "~ ::...., _;. :. '.' :.' "":'.:' .: :." .:":':.~'>'. .:~. ~ .~: :..:: J..:. :.. .,:.:: :.... .:-;':~-:..' .:' :'." l~:: C2rgo}loWs ~d.origin.."A #p'i;':h~iive'sliniey of'inajormanufactw-eI'S would be . un~en.:Tbls :wci~d be ~ s~J#lg..tyP,e' report Witli aWri~en:questi~jmaire . followed by seleCted personal suiveys~~ An ancriipi wou1c1 be.:It1adC to 'd...~e . . . . - . _.', ....",... '.. ...". .....,. I,'. I'" '". . . . "": product(s) manufact,u:red, :vol~ shipped bi. aiifiCig}:lt arid: of this vqlwrie how much . ,':. .'~',,, is.~ked ~r.aii'shipmCnt~. ~'v~ S~:. P.~:~:0ri~~~ Shippers,'reasans '_.: . . . . ...: ':.- for so doing wouldbe detemiliieci arid the Brown Field concep(would be imioduced.' . ',' '.. .' . .. : . .' .. '. ..... '. . .::. .....: J"~ '. - ".- .:'.. ':. - . :. .... ..' :". . . " . ;. .... " I ; ", .. .. " ...........:~ '.< !.: .::~.::....:-':" .",'. -.. .... -...... '. . . '';',' :.' ,:. ......" ' : ':.. , . . .... " '. . . . .10. .. . . . . '. S::P-21-99 09:58 FROM-HOWARD.RICE.ET AL. (415) 217-5910 +14152175910 T-113 P.l1/27 F-558 -. ' .. .:=-..., 2. Air cargo opeiat.orS need to be revisited and their forecasts and comminnents re- affu:m~ Ideally a profit ~ ~oss stB.t:incn1 should be provided them and iiL more specifi~ statemcrit o~ intCnt &h.oul~ be attempted-. . . . .... . . ". ...' -' . 3: Th~.~tire'P!ojectfinanciDg~ar~ needs to be revalidated. All reVCDue and cost asSumptions should bechallengcd andtboroughlyreviewCd or done on a zero-base b-.iS,Tbemarl<etfug Plan fOT~ tenants ~ to also be eoWnine<i .. . .' . . '4: Alternatives have to be feviE;",cd.~or example ,-,,:bat is the iituaucn regar~g offset air cargo space SUI!~unding SAN.. Is. the' airport capable 'ofh~g smaller aircraft . . lesser dis.taIi~es. F:or eXamp!i, do~ a FedEx MD-ll toMcmphis work? If So~ why is ". this IiOtDOW beixig doDe?,.WbaI = LAX 1'1ans tD",*""",oliaIC future cargo growth? . .. 'It is'~m';ed mat ih~~';';'~c~;,vo~ take ~ctwe~fom mm-m~ and a ye~ iD . sccoinplish.:' . :' ~. ..:. ., .... - . . . ... '. '. ... .' . ~ '...: . . . . .... .. .. . . .... .' ..'- . .i. . . .... . . . . .' .. ,'":': .',...; .... .,' . -,' ..' . .:'. . . . ,. .. ,'". .~: ~ " .... C":. ~,:.._.:,.:..- .... . ..','..' . : ,'. .~.:. .. ..,. . -'. . , . . . .. " , .... , .... . . . ',. . '. '. .... .: "" .'. .- , .".. .". '. ...... : - ...... . .pO... .' .. .:.:. . ...,....0 ~'.." .. ":.. ..... ':.~ ..~.~". :."":~:l". 00. - ., , . .. , ..,.....;' :'.;,: '... ..,.', '0""":' .... ...- '1;:~ ,., '. .. . . .. -- ::". .,' .'.. ' ~ . .' . . .' . . . . .' . .' '. ':" ......-::;..: :'::/..'::.':':.:~.::':.') ~:>'.>'. ;:-.,. ....:. ,'. .-.....;:.. ....~..: : ..:.. .:;" .. . ;.P.... ~" .0.. .' . ..' : , .' . . .. .~. ." ...... . ..' ...... p', . .. . . .f .' .. .....: '" .') .... ...". .... ." . ',..' . ..' ....:... .~.....':' wo. . . .. ;,.~ ":. .....: .. 0 ... ',...... ,. . . . " .: . .' "<:: "" :'."'. -: <:J:;; ..>>~., ,:.; '.: .. J."o '.. ".'~ " _, . ..,: , .. .'. ..... . o. :. : :'::'.. :.- . : . ": :. '.. .':, ..... ~ .' . . . .. '.. . ... . ". .. - .' .. . ...w ..:..~. :" ~ . - ;' . . . '.. .. . . - 0 .......~ ;. ~ . . -. ," ." . . , . . . : ." .:...- '. . ." . , ' . . . ': . 0' .... '.~ .'" : ..:. ,'" ... .- . . .' '. . I .:.':' ;. . .' ..' . ". '" ... .,' 11 '. ' .;...... .. .' ." . .. S~P-21-99 09:59 FRDM-HD'IIARD.RICE.ET AL (415) 217-5910 +14152175910 T-113 P 12/27 F-558 . . ". . -..----- . ..' ill. AIR TRAFFIC OVERVIEW - SAN DIEGO AIR COl\IMERCE CENTER AT BROWN FIELD .. . '. ,. 0"' . .'.\ . Thf~" following' is an:. overview. of Air T~c conditions. which could Impact aircraft mo\i~TDeTlti;. to., or. from' the proposed Brcwu Field project.. .' 'It'. is based upon on;--site observationS and. an 'analysis. of air n-8ffic flows and procedUres and their .relatioD.sbip to. . the ope:riting prOp~sals- con~nCd in the. .A.iIport Mister' ~l~. Study prepared by PB Aviation. inc.~ dated.MayS; 1.999: ,The.collectiOn of any commentary from Air Tra:fi:i.c pexSoiuicl at. ~Q-cAi:. ~C9N~. which is the F.AA faCilitY rCspansibl~ ror OPeratlng the' . . Air ~Traffic-systCIii. in 'the. area,.. 'was' denied by FAA .management du:c t~ the aPparent- . '. . . political'sensitiVitY which the prOposal has g~' . ..' ". . . ... I ' . . .... . : . ~ .:. Ooerarin~ Conditions' . The pririlaIy area of coneenI' is a con:fin~ block' of airsPaCe sUIround.i.rig' _' San Riego.. California, .approximat:ly 35 mile5 wide (e~ to. w~). by-20 . '. iniles high: (north to south). . Whbin this area. are 7 V.S. airports and one ". Mexican aiIpo~ 5' c~villiin and 3 military ~. ~c ai,tports of most conceIn are :. .' .. . _ . '. those Dcaiest Brown FieltL" . This incl1J:des Tijilana. Airport. directly' south. of " . BrownField ~ss"t;h~ border in Mexico, .ImPcnal Beacl:i.NOI;.F loca!ed 7 .., .'. ..miles .westof.B~Wri.Field,.North Isl~d NAS-'1.~t:ax.ed.14'~.es northwest. . '.' .... and'San Diego Intl-Lmdbergh Field located.. 15 milesnortb.w~st Nearly all . .' .... _.= .:....: . ..<' '.="'o{these iuIport.~eas .o~erlap.with adj~eri~..fieids..Or u~ flight paths that .' '. .:....... "_ ..' . . ~ . .:...'~ ~ct wi*.the flight.paths Qr rou~ to' or from th~ .other aUports. .' . . ...:........_... . :...: :~: .:..'::":: :., .~. ';::: ...... :.: ::'.. ." ....0.-......-.... '. . . .....~. .:'.' .,' >..... .... <' . .Th=b6IQer.ofM~Co aDd tbe presenCc. of the TijUmaAitpoitj~ south of. <.:~ <<.~:.~ ::.' ......,>.::'. ..;..~..Bro~!~e1d.~.~s~~~.~~ons'~~~~.~~~B~'FicldInigbt ...., ........ ....!.:-: ~::-,9th=wis~ bc.ha.;ndled:. ..Largc;.airCraft that.would use.run~ay 26R dO tJ,Ot .~:..'. .....:. ..' _..... hive.':sufiiCient SpaCe;'on::.thc..U.S~ sidc'ofthe-border to'operat: south' of'. .'~ '. _.... ....:- '. ;." :..... .~; .'~ ..~B~~17ieJd:... In tbe-:p'~~ effOrtS ~'nego1ia.ti? ~th~~ ~.~c~ Goveamient.. : . ;:: .';'.: .... _: ..; :";.: :' :.'.,:.': :.::'far a.jiic;n;e-'~.(j~tcd OJ.: ~cd ~: ~~the. airsp~~::ai~g the bord~ have..... :-:. -:.: . .:. '.: ':..:(;.i..:"::!'~:':: ..~e~Il ~cC~sfti1.... 0:( equal impo~~'i{tlieprOximit)'- of the San Ysidro' '" ..,';=~_ ~..: . .: . : .,'"" .':. '. ..' '..;.MomitaiDS'"~wbich . lie: .diieCt1y to:'tbe 'east of. . Btown: Field: mid limit 1h~" ~ ~~:.:,~:",>":...:"'!.' -...._:.. ....=:, .:Iiavigab~e,: 'a.iI-Spac~.;DeCess~ for' romcU:v~ring 'larger: ~:rcraft' or for" . . ..' '. _.' _ - ._..... . ....:: devc1pp~g instrUmel!-tIir~cedures tQ'the prcfcn;ecpa.ndiiJ.g runway. ',<h .'. ., > '.' ~.,:..;:~~~.;;;'~~iti~iis;::.1heim:i ~ual1Y .~~~/~ ,~) opo:raliODS. '. ..' -, .'. . .:" ...... ;., .:./:I:I.owever:..; ~~_C?~er,. .~: cargo;, ~". t.aJd. afurmlli~' flights' generally, . .' _. _' ~;. . :-'.-',':.'. ='-:9P~:wi$ID the ~ (IFR)..sy~ to .cor;iduot'tbeir op'crarions. The' . . '. . ',' ~..' ::'.: .." -Cl~~'.~.'~~ whichcn~Pass~'~ostof.thc.aiipart.s..requires some .: "':':'" _'::' ":..: ~'.':., .._'~'.;~_'-levelofp~sitiv~ control for2lmost all fligb1S' outsid~ ~edmmediate traffic. ....: ..... '.' ....:,. ..:. ';: :::.' .........; ....':...:.... ":'"'' .;' .-':':'" '.: ..:." ........ ":':. .. . . ,...: '. :..... . ",:, .... . . . ..' . '. . . . '. . .... ..' . . " . -I,' -' . 16 " . . .:- S::P-Zl-99 09:59 FROM-HOWARD.RICE.ET AL (415) 217-5910 +14152175910 T-113 P 13/27 F-558 ....."...-- J'i ....- .';!o .... . "".--- pattern of their respec::ti'Ve airport.. This puts added ~ressure on the control facility. . . . . - .' .. Pre~ailipg' winds~ prImarily from' -;he w~ at: all. the aiI;ports,' favor '. operations .on parallel run"'aYs 26R\L ~ :aroWn' FicIci' . Since the proposal suggestS that all large ai:rcraft land on rtinway. 08L aDdd.epart on runway . i6R. an opposite flow to nearly every airpords wtroduced. In other words. when: traffic' is gomg from' east to, west. "at' ~e other' aitports. arrivals at BroWn Field will be going frOm west to east.', When traffic at the other airportS is' ~arting from west: to' wt;' 4ep~es at 'B'fO~ Fi~d. will. be . ~oing from east to wc:S~. ". -...' .... '. ..... . . . . . ,'. . Inadd5~~ ~~ ~~'conditi~ ~(,hc;,..,.n~ ~er wind,' '..' .' velocity oould>iequire mgDl:fii;antdoWD~'T.ing.:'of. &ir~ lift;...capacity to '. . aCcoIDlDodatC a.doWJ:!.wind,'takcOff'mi'~Way'2~. nlls 'of co~e equates to less'cargom.oved and lowcrreve:n't1C~. This woi4d be esp:d.allY ti1iC if the nmway1~gthf:liing of~wa~.08.IJ26R. doei,~o{ oc~~':": . . . .'. . .1. 3. Qo'Dosine: operations . .. . ~ .... .. . . . a.' '.' SimultaDceus. oPposire dir=.=tion operation~' are.nO! 'peiini~~ by ~ FAA IegUlations' St. aiIports'. whereparallef IUIiwiys' are. . less. . . ~.1409 feet aPart: ~S.lS .to pr~vidc:-ror a~CqUa~ sepch-ation : . ,. . in the' eycnt of suCh things 25. an 'aborted ~g: Or, go.;.around. .... '.' .' or any slight deviation ftpm' eo~e:that ~~.reSult' from Cross . .winds or pilot. action. ..At BroWIl Fielc(the p~~ent runways are 525. feet apart. . All op:raiio~' 0i:1 rUnWay' 26L:~ which is -now . caPabie.' of :~dling most: snialler' gen~1:' aviation aircraft. '..' '.' , . .... ....' " . :..... woUld. ~ve. to. be S1.1:SPencied 'fQr' a. cargo aircraft hlnrling..'on . ." ,< :.",:runwayOBL' . ':. ........::. "-"~".: <......... ..... . :.. " . ." \. . .',::n,: ~:~,:~ini~;.i:'}~~:~:~j~ty of . . .. <:'._ ~ _ ,.... -.; :,_. :'Brown"Field..u:s~:th=:miall'prlvat~.-airCiaft; to the thi-cat of... . .' . . : . ... .,..... ....: '. ': .'~~:~wen~c;.~~ ~e.'large..c;ai'g~~~i#aft.~ ~ho~ they: .. .:. , . ",. __".:' ": . :.' : 'wi>i1!d.l1c. foIC"P" s~, th~sc A~.e: Jiari!llel runways,. For '. ,:.. . . . , ' . .'. . "" .' _' ~~~.~b~e.ncC"pllII;ose~., theSe nmways are~ccii\Sidf:r:ed as oue' .. '. .' . '. ..... ...ni?~a)'::.whe.rc.:."H~avi"~~"aJ:C?~:.of>~~g- '.' ^t~ least 2 . '. ' . '.-' '. '.' . ~utes sepSIati6n ~ust be, app1i~ tQ. aii~ oPerating behind '.' ,:>:.:'.,~.' .'.:..> ...: :'.' .tbO~'Hc;aVy" ~th"amcdirt:ction, or 3 'mjnut;$when operating ,:.;.. __: , . ',' ". .,:__ :",:' '. '.' -- . .',. . ,,:.'-. in opposite dirOctioils. ", :--' --. '. " -- . ,,",,- .: -- .. . ...,.:. .,. .....J ;., . ...:'........: -::'" '. ..~.:. ......:...:. ~...' '.' ....::...:.....'.... ..' ..' " :';- .,.... .' " .., .' .' .., .... .i~~B~~~LF. n-iRsr::'::.':< ....... '.' ..' . ' ~ ". . ,.' .. . _ ..... .,' " ...., . I ,.,' . L Brown Field (SD~ . .. . ," '.. " '" . . . ..' " . .;. '. ... . . . *. . . *....- ",.'; . . ....: . . " .".. . . n' _,.. ;'.'" .:': 17: . . o. :, . . ,,' " " ." ..*.. .. S~P-2~-99 10:00 FROM--HOWARD,RICE.ET AL. (415) 217-5910 +14152175910 1-113 P 14/27 F-558 ~~~ . . . ~. . 4 .;...... . .... " . Traffic. at this facility would be drastically' affected by large: airc:raft 'e,XccutiD.g approacbes to Brown. Field fro~ the west.. The t'\VoinstIument approach. procedures presently in use at NRS' lie bctweeo: the two aiIpons.Duiing a large: aircraft approach 'to . Brown Field, these pTo?Cdures'tO NRS would nOt be usabl~. far several minuteS. oI'if in uSe,. $= large airCraft would be delayed untiL the ~ace was' clear. . These .. proc~ure:s 'c;annDt be applied. simultaneouSly- . . . a... . . ": .' . 3. . . North Island ~AS: (NZY) . . . . ", a.... '..Th~.an1y'pr~'approac:hto.NZY'i& the ~,?nApproacl1 . . :," . . .' RD.d3r to"IUnway. 29. . Th~: v~ pa~m. to. the final appIoach . .'. CoUIS~. passCi dire:ct1y. ova':',NRS'.8nd .~ougb..tl;le proposed":" : . ~_ . . '. .. .;.' appro~ and dep~e path to Bn:J'w~i Field. nu:rlI1g periods of : . : .... ..;....:. .... . heavy)'ad3r. ti~c ~ ~. cautIOl of the. ''BO~.~ the' vector' . . . . . .' pattc:m. Is releaSed by the','F AA.. TRA;CON ~ontrOllers to the. . "controlleiS 'B.t NZY~" This:ielieves some of.the workload from . controllers 31.the F A.A.. fil.Cility- " This would not be possible if . ~I1f1icting.: carg? flights 'were passing tlWugh the ""BOX" ". ~ac~, . . 'b. ~.." nie TACAN Na~aid aPproaches to' Iuxl'way''29 aDd'runway. 3'6. . . . . ':."~ atNlY::would.also confl,ict with oidelay' aIlY. cargo flights to ;.'. ...... ~ ." B~civm:.FieJd. eith~ a:i:!i~g Or.'dCpaIting siDce"both would have . .'. :.... -}O cross the. pUblished T ~CAN iDbound co~es. -. .... :. . .. '-. .. .. .'. . . . . . ,.. - c.,.. . The NASNI- TWO . Standard Instnmient. DepartUre directs all . . '. ". mghts'SoUtbofNZY.and S:Cioss thc..prop~scd arriValJdeparture . ~.., ._, : '. ..... . :~ path to .B~Ovro Field. Durmg climb~o~~ '~(~e'NZY departures . :' .... :'" ....... :.:~: '~.heid a%a low~'a1~'fdrBrCwn:.~i~~~ traffic they become . .._" ,:':.:.:.: ". ," .~. . . '.:., . :': a.factoI'.tortraffic. being ~ted to. the instIJlm=:nt. appro'aches . ':>:: ~ " >::::..,'~ :::;: '~~.;:' ;:..<,:,.::.:. >/' ..'. :'.' " . , '''-: ~ '. .,'.::": : _.- ,',,-:. 4....' Sm Dieg~ JNTL-Lindb~ FIeld {SAN}.:.:.... :. ..':' :..~:r.::U( ':-:. '.'c':', \. ~':'hc~~dIiD~.FOilit~~ ~i])q,~;;"DffDf "., . '. ..... . .. . '., . ." .. . .. .... .' '. '. ..' .'. . ..: . .... . . . . . ....~.,.~: . .: -.:. '.' .... .'-:,.: '.. '.:~ :.: ....:....imiWayZ1;.t;lir~fP.ghiS ~o~fbo~d.tO ~~urse opposite. . ;-'-..' .:.: '. . " ~'. . ':.... ~ :" "::'.' the'pWposcd'caI-go:flight.'.departmc'ioute. frOm: BroWn' field:. _" ._. ...' .... . .... ::.: .. _:,. .:. .:' :'.:-1'his'Dii.aDS if alSo ov~li~..the':ProPo~ed'.arriv81 ~ute to Brawn :. " .' " ::. '." .'.-~. . .' .' '. ", ::_::: '. ;. .Field.~ c;>ni:~op~cn Of ~~. c$e:r .i:Di~~,~coUnter delays since :,:-,:':~:'.<."".- .... ~ ."'..'~'<::: .......:' thcy:cap;riot.ocCtipythe~~c"~ace'siin~~couSlY,' ..... .. .' ..' . '. .. ::.-::;., .- ::.' .",'. .....::. .. .'" '. '. ..:..,.... .~..:....." : '.~'.' .'~' -.: . . _' .:.'.. :'.. :.....,-., .'::'. ...... b:.-"" . Th=-j~ARET: FotJR'sWi~4Teniii1ji1(Arii...al Ro~ directs: .:.-' :.' <> .... ': .~ >. .:. ,:',..' :"-". ":. ...:::.. "'all.. tiirboJet':air~nj~d.nboUD~ 'to..~~"froiri: ~ east over the '. ." .~ ~. :... ..' .... '.' ". "; :. /" POQGl.YOR'I'AC (2.:3NM north o~ Brovm Field) descending , .' . .....:. .: ........ . ~ ..-.." "', : . .. .:.;.'. . ,'. > .... 7 . :.', .,' . .. . ...., . .'," . .' . . .. "'. ';'. .', :,' . ." '. . .' . r; . '18. , .. . .. .. . . SEP-21 ~99 10: 00 . . . .... ',...:-- . . -.. .-.. . , ~" . -I. n_' ., , . ~"....~ . .... :: ~ . ." ':. ''';' ."... . ~ ~;. ..~.... .... ...- . ..... .' -' . ..... : . - ..' .. .I ..,' _' : .,....... .' . . .. . .' . . . t '".' .... -. .J ,. , - . . .. .. . ~. . . 1 ". . ,", ." ".: C. FROM-HOWARD, RICE, ET AL (415) 217-5910 +14152175910 1-113 P.15/27 F-558 .'~ into the t~ airspace strUcture. Under noxm.al westerly landing conditions' ~ route \y~Uld.have oDly JTlinimal affect on traffic operations' at. the' Brown. Field' cargo complex, Howcvcr~ during easterly laIuiiIlgii. this pro'cedurc would place this . SAN flow. into . ~t conflict. with ~rown: F~eld cargo op~ratio~. :; . . . . 5. Tij~AiIpart (rn) '" ...' : . '. . . . ': a.'. The routine: traffic flow to this aiIpOrt ~ou1d have little affect . on cargo. opera;rians at Brown Field. ...Ho~cver. as with SAN. . wbetl1aDdiD~.aI-e to the east, a'direet'coiiflict with Brown Field . ". '.. .cargo".departureS QJl'~~ay'. i6R wo~ci result.' E~ ~andings to' ., . : . . TO are controlled by..the Mexican facility m u.s. aJripace: The ." . '. .' approaCh cO~e is' qii'ectly eyex:' NRS:. ~d wo~d. b~ directly in. . . .... .";" the p.ath 'of any .cargo-dCpartures~ Ungtliy delays ',to' ~aft on. . .,.. ': the groUnd .could be. expeCted due to the sVaii~ed tiaffic flow of: . . , . :.. 'the' BARE'( FOuR.. AIrival 'to' S..\N . and'. the; lower'''level inst:r.lJIri~ approiches.~ Tijuma' Airport .wbiCbme passing iIi . oPpoSite dircc~. .... .' .... . .., . . ..' . b.' It may' be possible. to 'mingate tbe'.pro!Ji~ .of some . opposite . . . directi~ Bro~ Field, tak~ffs .dming an. e~ .operation.' . The . . :. easterly:' 'WiD~"lisuallY" bring~ 1''1:) limited.. visibilitY.. ." Applying: : high takeo1;f lIrinirrlUms' arid a southeast coUrse .*,om' runway .- OSL,. cargo 'flightS . could dePart' under, tli{c-o;itrol of Mexiem . ", ATC until'ieachii:1g'. an.' altin1de that would permit trarisition to .' ,..~ . thc::ir'; planned :rOuti.:"', If ~ ~s'; ~. ~r. op=iari~n" ~u1d be : .'. developi:d' arid ,negotiated "With. the ' MeXican:: Government it '. . would greatly facilitBt: aiIciaft :mov~cnts' by. el;Tn~n~:tiD.cr. the .' . .. .'. ' . . . . C> '.' :.. .: eppDsit~.dii'ectioD::floW..' :'. .:.... .'..: .' ::' ::':": :.... '.' :. .... . . .'<.':" . .::. >:~.' "~ .<: >:~.:.. ".:..":" .. ~ ...:.--:-.'.=.-:' ..~ "':~"'" .,.~.\:.> '.. ~: . ........ . Sl,mmalV .... ..,. . .. , .... . . . ". ..' '. .' .',; ....< -'.' ''-':. ,.'.':' . .': .:....:..> ~'.' ....' ....;.......... >.~. :.- > ~:'. :. \....~.: ':" ...'.... '" 1.'. . . Ba;sed"on piojecti~. 6(.the: 'AirPort, M~tef: .Pl~. Stu4y and the ,. ...,.. E.nViTOJn;,~t~. ImpaCt 'Report' for. $e. San'. Diego.':'Ai:(' .commerce ...-.t~ti:r,'At ~~o~".Fi~d,)t ~,iIidica}~'.$31~mosf.,?argo operations' .' ." ~ould eventu3i1y..?~ '~Iid~te4~dUririg'-.~"hoU:r;s~f higher 'activitY,- . . i~e..:' 7:00 .Alv1-.to:.?:OO'PM,.at ~.tbe ..airpo~..su::n;ounding Brown . Field. .; Evcn':th~ugh ~nitial plans. czLP.."for aJo'w. number-- of daily . ." :' flights. '4~g t1l~.:.m'~: feW yeatS 'of: the: plm~. the' more' ambitious . .'. . '. :. n~bers ~t =wou1d...fu~w...'woUl~:. ~do~i?tC4IY'.:g;ncrate fr-..quent, . --: possibly lcngthy.~lJ1.y.s.'- .:'. . '. '.. ..... :'.:. .' ..~,'. .:: : '. . ';.::-. . . '. ~:.; .: >.,.:--: >". ';' ;.... ......:. .,.. .: .:-- :' ~.:- .....'~ .">,: ~.:.. '. ; '.' ..... AIr tIa,ffic delays are. o:fu:Ii: the 'result ef..th~..work- load' associated' .' With thecoorrl~,;:ti~n:.~~een .Co#~l p'.~si~~~,:~~:one or'more .... . - " . .' -0- . .' ~ .. . : .: ... ; - .'. . '''. . i9 EP-21-99 10:01 FROM-HOWARD,RICE,ET AL.(415)217-5910 +14152175910 T-113 P.16/27 F-558 --.. ;.-.:'-. air traffiC: facilities. The. more' complex the . operRtion to be coordinated. i.e.~ 'an aircraft operating ~'a.gainst the grain", the greater . "th~~~~o~d~~Y,' ',' ~so~ceof this ~~~pl~fY' '~gbt b~' ~~~d if fuiur~ mili~ base closures or consolidations removed. o~ or more of the nemby' facilities. OtheIWi.se. this busy and c~ngeSte'd area ~-ill contiIiue to challenge the resource of availa~lc:, airsPace within which , the' safe. and: efficient.flow of: air traffic must be maintained.: If anotherdi ve:rs~ system of , flight requirements is introduc~ it ~aY,,~.~t in 'd=!ogating 'the. systCIIl within t1ii.s area. . .. --.. ~. .; .:' .. .... .', , ' . .," . . . . ~ ',": "'l>,' . ... .... . .:. . . ..',.. . ....- '. , . . .. . ',: . .:'" , " " .... . '.\ , . ' . ',::' .. .~.. .. " ," " ... ". ~ : - . 'w'" . ", ... . ' .. '.- ".. '" ':. -. . -. '1 .. . - .r , '. . . . ~ 'I " . '. . ..... .. .... .. -'", ::.' ~ . .... . . . . .: :." ..: . . ~ .',. '~:":".J :......,. ....... . ".. .' .' .. . 1 " " ' , ::,":-." ". .:" *. .. .\.,..... .r,~. ..... . . . .........":,' . . . . . ..... ,: .' .' ~::-. " '. .;~ .-: . : -~.:'.."...' -....- . . . :-:.: ..... . " .~. '. .'. u ....... '. .' .... '.. . .' .. .- . . -- ..... ..' '. .,: :,'.: . '''',' ..~ ." . . .' ". .. ." . .... :.. .,:. '. -' .. . . ..... .. - " I.... .' . . .: ..- , . " , . .'; . 1;- :'. ... >:,... .... . . . . ..'.,. .' .' J.... -.:' .. . .~. '. -' . .". . .-.:1"" .:.'." :',.' .... .' . .,," '.:' ." . ... .. '.' '.' '., . ... .' .. . p' .., ..' "\ . ..... . .., .' '. ':'. .' " . ......: .'. .'". ..' '.: . . . ....... '. . , . . . . :' . ,~".-,.,,'. 7 .' ',:': \.'. . . ...~. :': ~:''':''':''::'':, \~ ',:.;.:"': '.' '. ~ , ';'.~' :"" . . ..... ~ -' . '. , ' .... ..-: .'. . '. , . . .. -- .. , .... . . .' .' j.~ . . , r~- , . .1;~ .l~ . . . '.' . ~. .' , '. '.. .. :-... 20 . .,' . ECHO REPORT August 23, 1999 S=P-21-99 10:01 FROM-HOWARD,RICE,ET AL. (415) 217-5910 +14152175910 ~~/~JI.~S 16:1~ F~ 513 4%1 9B51 PB AVIATION T-113 P.17/27 F-558 ~ 00UOI0 ~~.l ECHO REPORT ~3-Aug-99 15:34 :'"'I)Y: 3.:\ADMJN\nvro\IN!\.15 CASE\BRO"WN\SDMl1500\ reaIfld : OS-Oct-57? lS:21 ""nits : Bngliab .i:rpc:'t : SDM }escripticn: 3wwn Fie1.d 11.500 SE: CSl5B ~-2.l::d. date: 08-Ckt-Sl7 16:35 :>::scription: Case 201611,500 "L"DY AIRPORT -al: : 32.572240 d:g ...ong : -116.980240 dcg ~:v : 524.00 'ft ~:Dp : 57.10 F ~s : 29.92, in-Hg :\'md : 8.00 knt UDY lUJ}I.~AYS ;&L La! : 32.573731 deg Long : -116.993520 ticg X : -0.6733 mm y : 0.0893 nmi El.e1:'ation: :523.7 :ft Otbe:-End: 26R L=net!th : 11.556 ft Gradicrn : -0.16% Wmd : 8.0 kat Tko Tbrsh ; a ft _~ 'I'hrsb. : 0 it l8R La! : 32.571584 deg Long : -116.984334 deg X : -0.2076 nmi y : -0.0393 mni. Elevation: 518.6 ft cr..hcrEnd : 26L I...t:ngth : 3104 ft ~e:c1 : ~.4S% Wmd : 8.0 knt Tko Thrsh. : 0 ft A1'1l Ibrsh : 0 ft 2.SL Lax : 32.570854 deg Long : -116..974296 deg X : 0_3014 nmi Y : -0.0830 nmi "Elevarion: 504.7 ft O~h.-rFnrl : om L=:lgth : 3104 1\ Gmtic:at : 0-45% Wmd : 8.0 ktn Tnl'IbrBh : 0 it _~Thrsh : 49 ft 2..5R !.at Long .x : 32.570701 deg : -116.956179 deg : 1.2200 nmi ;~P-21-99 10:02 FROM-HDWARD.RICE.ET AL. (415)217-5910 uti! ~:l/B9 15: n Fll ~l~ Ul 1111'57 Pi) AVIA'I'IO!\ y : -0.0920 nmi Elevation: 50S.4 It CY~erEnd; 08L L=ngth : 11556 it Gradi::nt: 0.16% Wmd : 8.0 kIlt TheTm:sh : 0 It App Th::nob. ; 0 ft UDY TRACKS ~.'wyld.OpT)'pc- Trldd Sub PccSub TIk.Typc Delt8(fl) 18L-APP-Al o 100.00 Points 0.0 18L-APP-AJ 1 o 100.00 Points 0.0 .l8L-APP-A5 a 1 DO.DO Poi.n1E 0.0 ) 8!rDEP-T 1 o 1 00.00 ~oints 0.0 )EL-DEP- T8 o 100.00 Peints 0.0 )8R-i..PP-.-\.6 o 100.00 Points 0.0 J8R-APP-A 7 o 100.00 Points 0.0 J8R-APP-A8 o 100.00 Pamts 0.0 )8R-DEP- T2 o 100.00 Points 0.0 lBR-D:EP-T7 o 100.00 Points 0.0 !6L...A..PP-A4 . Q 100.00 Points 0.0 . :\.PP-A5I .... 100.00 Points 0.0 ~6L-DEP- 1'3 D 100.00 Points 0.0 26I,DEP-T6 o 100.00 Palms 0.0 26R-APP-AI0 o 100.00 Points 0.0 26R-APP-A2 o 100.00 Poims O.D ~6R-A?P-A.3 D 100.00 Points 0.0 26R-DEP-T4 o 100.00 Ptrim:s 0.0 26R.-DEP-T5 o 100.00 Points 0.0 rtJ"DY TRACK DET An.. Rwyld-~Typc-'Irl:ld-Sub"I!:k SegTypc Pa:raml p81"iUI1.2(nmi) Og~APP-Al -0 E~ ~> 1 Points 0.5560 mni. 2..9510 2 Pointlii OA82.0 nmi 1.9740 3 Pomts; 0.4070 nmi l.g4~O 4 Poims 0.3000 ram 1.6710 5 Points 0.1780 %lmi 1.6440 6 Points -0.1180 .nmi 1.6440 7 Palms -0.4150 mm 1.6250 8 Points -0.8150 umi 1.52.50 --<oi +14152175910 1-113 P 18/27 F-558 la!OO:l/OlO S::P-21-99 10:02 FROM-HOWARD,RICE,ET AL (415)217-5910 _ __. __ _____ ___ ___ ....._ ...VI .r,z;, ^'i.LA11Un 9 Points -1.0400 IlDJi 1.4000 -" 10 Poims -1.164() mni 1.1010 11 Points -1.2390nmi 0.8020 12 Points -1.1890mni 05020 13 'Poims .1.0900 nmi 0.2780 14 Points -0.9650 'Dllll 0.1780 15 Points -0.6730 nmi 0.0890 ,8L.APP-Al J -Q 1 Points 6.4980 mni 1.0100 2 Poin"".i -0.5 160 mni 1.6250 3 Points -0.9900 mni 1.4500 4 Points -1.2.140 nmi 0.8770 ~ Points -1.1890 mni 0.4280 6 Points -0.9900 nmi. 0.1530 7 Points -0.6730 mDi 0.0890 lSL-APP-AS -0 1 Poinls -5.7510 mni 0.6200 2 Points -0.6730 1J%Di 0.08~O JEL-DEP- il -0 1 Points -0.6640 Drni 0.0910 2 Poirlts 1.2160 mni -0.0880 3 Paints 6.4600 nmi -0.5760 )8L-DEP-T8 -0 1 Points -0.6730 nmi 0.0890 2 PoiIl1s 1.2190 mn; -0.0900 3 Points 1.5280 mni -0.) 070 4 Peints 1.8390 nm.i 0.2230 5 Points 1.9320 nmi 0.8100 6 PointS 1.6320 Dml 1.23 50 7 Points 1.2530 nmi 1.4700 g Points -6.2030mni 2.1920 In-APP-A6 -0 1 Pa:iDlB -S.7770 mn.i 0.5390 2 Paints -0.2080 mni -0.0390 )8R-APP-A 7 -0 1 Points -5.8720 mni -1.8730 2 Points -0.5900 mni 0.0000 3 'Points -0.2080 nmi -0.0390 ~.AP;p-.~ .0 1 Points 5.6220 mni -1.1990 2 Point5 -0.6410 DJ:Oi -0.6700 3 PoimB -0.8730 mni -0.4040 4 Points -0.8650mni -0.2210 5 PoinIs -0.7240 m:ci. -0.0540 6 Points -0_S760 m:m -0.0140 7 Paints -0.2080 nmi -0.0390 JER-DEP-1'2 -0 1 Points -0..1080 'nmi ..{l.0390 2 Points 0.2.940 mm. -0.0880 3 Points 6.S220 mni -t).SS90 J!R-DEP-T7 -0 1 Pointi -0_2030 nm:i -0.0390 2 Points 0.29.50 mni -0.0880 3 Points 0.6040 mni -0.1200 4 Points 0.7310 mni -0.2260 5 Peints 0.7680 nmi -0.3220 6 Points 0.7770 n:mi -0.4100 7 Points 0.7620 nmi -0.5220 8 Points 0.7080 DIDi .(t6230 9 Points 0.5440 mni -0.7130 ~ 0 Points 0.4290 nmi -0.7430 11 Points -5.944(1 nmi -0.0910 :6L-APJ'-A.4 -Q +14152175910 T-113 P 19/27 F-558 ~ 00411110 S::P-21-99 10:02 FROM-HDWARD.RICE.ET AL, (415) 217-5910 ,,-. --,.,- .~................. ...., ""'.I. 1'0;)'/ .l"'.I:S AVIATION 1 Points 5.4200 mIll -0.6200 2 Points 0.3010 ami -0.0890 5L-A,P:?-A9 -0 1 Po;n.ts -5.6450 mni -0.1750 2 Points 0.4610mni -0.7550 3 Points 0.7170 mni -0.6330 4 Points 0.7850 nmi ...0.3370 5 Pcmts O.6360nmi -0.1210 6 Points 0.3010 nmi -0.08.90 ~DEP-T3 ..0 1 FoiDts 0.2g80 nmi -0.0850 2 Points -0.1980 nm; -0.0430 3 Points -S .9300 mni 0.S700 51..-DEP- T6 -0 1 Points 0.3010 nmi -0.0890 2 Points -0.2050 Dmi -0.0410 3 Pomts -0.4650 I1mi -0.0140 "Points -0.6020 nmi -0.0780 5 PoiIns -0-5720-mni -0.1830 6 Points -0.70.20 nmi -0.3260 7 Points -0.6780 mn; -0.4;10 8 Pomts -0.6390 nmi -0.5610 9 Points -0.5570 mni -0..64.3 0 10 Point!; 0.1300 mni .0.7070 11 Points 6.4220 mni -L3010 SR-APP-AI0 -0 1 Points -5.6160 nmi 2,1290 2 Poinnl 1.5540 nmi 1.4480 3 Points 2.1990 nmi 1.2690 4 "Points 2.3980 nmi 0.9190 5 Points 2..3790 mni 0.3510 6 Points ~1390 mni -0.0.590 7 Points 1.6250 nmi -0.1360 8 Points 1.2200 mni -0.0940 SR-APP-.A2 -0 1 Points 0.5420 mni 2.9370 2 Points 0.4820 nmi l.g240 :3 Poi.nts 0.5020 mni 1.6980 4 Points 0.5830 nmi 1.:5900 5 Paints O.5l330 mni 1.5090 6 Points 1.6340 mni 1.4320 7 Pomr.s 2.1890 mni 1.2590 8 Point& 23980 mni 0.9390 9 PoTnt5 2-379011ID.i. 0.3900 10 Pointi 2.13~nmi -0.0690 11 Points 1-6290 nmi -0.1360 12 roinu 1~180 mr1i -0.0940 5R-.p..PP-A3 -0 1 Points 5.9050 mni ..0.5660 2 'Feints 1.2180nmi -0.0960 5R-DEP-T4 -0 1 Points 0.67.90 IItOi -0.0390 2 PciDu -0.6640 nmi 0.0890 3 PoimB -6.1180 nmi 0.6570 iR-DEP-TS -0 1 Pcims 1.2100.ami -0.0890 2 p~ -O.6S00nmi 0.0270 3 Points -1.0760nmi 0.1880 4 Points -1.2.020 mni 0.4050 5 Pcmts -1.2560mni O.7~ 5 Points -L1660nmi 1.1210 7 Pcr.ms -0.8950 Tat1t 1.5600 g Pomts -0.2820 nmi 1.6690 +14152175910 T-113 P 20/27 F-558 lal 005/010 5EP-21-99 10:03 FROM-HO'l/ARD,RICE,ET AL (415) 217-5910 +;4152175910 __'a_'.p _w.~. ~nA ~~~ ~~~ ~C~I r~ AVIATION 9 Points 3.2330 m:ni 1.3090 10 P0111l.S 6.5980 mDl 1.0060 JOY AIRCR..6..FT 2. 7E...~1 Standard data 27042 Standard daIa 47400 Standard QllI, S7PW Standard data. 67CF6 Standard data ~oo Standri data ~ 10 S1mld.ard data lECS 8P St:an.dard data ~OMJET Standard data :OMSEP S1:nndard data lHC6 Standard data iN Standard data UDY SUBSTn1JTION AlRCRArl' 57Fl Acft Per;c::D! 757PW 100.0 % S7F2 Adt Fe.."'Cc:mt 751PW 100.0 % ER-D~~ NOISE Type. TmLlSt Crv 200 400 630 1000 2000 4000 6300 1??oo 16000 25000 ,ER-DEFTh;""BD PROFILES OpType Prof Wci&ht{Ib) D.-DEFINED PROFILE POINrS Distanc:(ft) Altitw.:b::{ft) Spe-...d(knt) Th'rust Curve :ER-DEFLNED PROCEDURES SlepType Flep Thr'fyp= Paruml Pi0'2J'D.2(knt) Param3 lOHT OPERATIONS u:tU.d Op ProfRwy Track Oroull Day Eve Night '27EMl APP Sl OBL AS 0 CdM 0.4200 0.1500 0.0300 '27EMl AP'P Sl 26R. A3 0 COM 1.6700 0.6000 Q.14oo 27EMl DE? 53 OSL n 0 COM 0.4200 Q.1500 0.0300 '27EMl DEE' 53 26R. T4 0 COM 1.6700 0.6000 0.1400 '27EM2APP Sl OSL A5 0 COM 0.1400 0.0500 0.0100 27EM'2 APP Sl 26R A3 0 COM 0.5600 0.:2000 0.0500 '27EM2 DE.'P S2 08L Tl 0 COM 0.1400 0.0500 0.0100 '2'7.EM2 DEP 82 26R T4 0 COM 0.5600 0.2000 0.0500 'S7PW AP:P 81 OiL AS 0 COM 0.1400 O.OSOO 0.0100 -S7PW APP Sl 26R A3 0 COM 0.5600 0.2000 0.0500 57PW DE? S2 081. Tl 0 COM 0.1400 0.0500 0.01 00 'S7PW DEP S2 26R T4 0 COM 0.5600 0.2000 0.0500 '67CF5 APP 51 08L AS 0 COM 0.2800 0.1000 0.0200 '67CF6 APP Sl 26R A3 0 COM 1.1100 0.4000 0.0900 '670"6 DEP S4 08L Tl 0 COM 0.2100 0.1000 0.0200 67CF6DEP S4 26R T4 0 COM 1.1100 0.4000 0.0900 \..310 APP S lOlL AS 0 COM 0.1400 0.0500 0.0100 (310 APP SI 26lt A3 0 COM 0.5600 0.2000 0.0500 \.310 DEP 54 08L TI 0 COM 0.1400 0.0500 0.0100 u 1 0 DEP 54 Z6R 1'4 0 COM 0.5600 Cl.2000 0.0500 ~ECS8P APP Sl OSL Al 0 GA 0.3800 0.0400 0.0100 IECSKP APP 81 08L All 0 GA 0.0700 0.0100 0.0000 T-113 P.21/27 F-558 1<<I005/D1D ...:' 1~ :;~~-Ll-99 i[:C3 rRm':-HJ'i;,;RD,RICE,~T t..L (415) 217-5910 U~/~J/.~ l~:li fAX 51~ ~Zl 96!1 PB AVIA~ION EC5€P AEP Sl DEL)~ 0 GA 0.3800 0.0400 0.0100 ,ECS&P APP Sl O~ A6 Q GA 0.3800 0.0400 0.0100 ,zCS8P APP Sl 08R A7 0 GA 0.3800 0.0400 0.0100 ;EC58P .1'..1'1' 51 G8R A8 0 GA 0.0700 0.0100 0.0000 :EC58P APP 51 261. A4 0 GA 1-5200 0.1:500 0.0300 ,BeS8? APP 81 26L A9 0 GA 0.1500 0.0100 0.0000 1ECS8P }..PP 81 26R AIO 0 GA 1.1600 0.1100 0.0200 ~EC58P APP S 1 26R. A2 0 GA 6.0700 0.5800 0.1100 3ECSEP MI! 51 26R A3 0 GA 5.0700 0.5800 0.1100 3EC5,gp DEP 51 08L T1 0 GA 0.7600 0.0700 0.0100 ~E.C5gp DEP 51 OiL T8 0 GA 0.0700 0.0100 0.0000 fEC58P DEP Sl 08R T2 0 GA 0.7600 0.0700 0.0100 3ECS&? DEP Sl OER. T7 0 GA 0.0700 0.0100 0.0000 3:EC58P DE? 51 25L 1'3 0 GA 15100 0.1500 0.0300 ~EC5gp DE? S1 26L T6 0 GA O.lSOO 0.0100 0.0000 ~EC58P DEI' Sl 26R T4 0 GA 12.1000 1.1600 0.2200 lEC58P DEP 51 25R TS 0 GA 1.2000 0.1200 0.0200 ~O!V.!.SEP APP S1 08L A1 0 GA 1.1600 0.1200 0.0200 ~OMSEP.APP Sl OEL All 0 GA 0.2.400 0.0200 0.0000 XJMSEP ~p 51 08L A5 0 GA 1.2600 0.1200 0.0200 :OMSEP APP S 1 08R A6 0 GA 1.2600 0.1200 0.0200 ~OMSEP APP 51 O&R. A7 0 GA 1.2500 0.1200 0.0200 :OMSEP APP 51 om. Ai 0 GA 0.2400 0.0200 0.0000 :OMSEP APP Sl 25L A4 0 GA 5.0600 0.4900 o.mmo :OMSEP }';PP Sl 26L A9 Q GA 0.4900 0.0500 0.0100 ~o:w...sEP APP Sl 26R A 10 0 GA 3.8800 0.3700 0.0700 XlMSEP APP Sl 26R A2 0 GA 20.2400 1.9500 0.3500 :OMSEP APP 51 25R. A3 0 G:A. 20.2400 1.9500 0.3600 ~aMSEP DEP Sl 08L T1 0 GA 2.5200 0.2400 0.0500 ~OMSE? DE? S 1 eEL is 0 GA 0.2500 0.0200 0.0000 :OMSEP DEP 51 O&R T2 0 GA 2.S200 0-2400 0.0500 ;QMS'F"P DE? Sl Olm. T7 0 GA Q.25oo C.0200 0.0000 :DMSEPDEP Sl 26L 13 0 GA 5.0500 0.4900 0.0900 ~OV~EPDEP Sl 26L T6 0 GA 0.5000 0.0500 0.0100 ~OMSEPDE.P Sl 25R T4 0 GA ~.3600 3.R9OO 0.7200 ~QM:SEP DE? Sl 25R. T5 0 GA 3.9900 0.3900 0.0700 >HC6 AP? 51 OKL Al 0 COM 0.2300 0.0200 0.0000 )HC6 JJ~P 8J 08L All 0 COM 0.0400 0.0000 0.0000 }HC6 APP SlOB!. AS 0 COM 0.2300 0.0200 0.0000 lHCfi A.."Pp 81 08R A6 0 COM 0..2300 0.0200 0.0000 )ECS .A?P Sl DgR A7 0 COM 0.2300 0.0200 0.0000 >B:C6 .APP S 1 08R A8 0 COM 0.0400 0.0000 0.0000 ~HC5 AP? S 1 26L A4 0 COM 0.9300 0.0900 0.0200 JRC6 APP S 1 26L A9 0 COM 0.0900 0.0100 0.0000 lHC6 APP 51 26R. AlO 0 COM 0.7100 0.0700 0_0100 'BeG J:iPP 81 26R A2 0 COM 3.7000 0.3600 0.0700 IHC6 APP 81 26R. A.3 0 COM 3.7000 0.3600 0.0700 iHC6 DEP Sl 08L Tl 0 COM 0.4600 0.0400 0.0100 JHC6 DEP Sl 08L T8 0 COM 0.0500 0.0000 0.0000 IHC6 DEP 51 08R T2 0 COM 0.4600 0.0400 0.0100 )HC6 DEP Sl om T7 0 COM 0.0500 0.0000 0.0000 iHC6 DE? Sl 26L T3 0 COM 0.9200 0.0900 0.0200 !:ice>> D~ Sl 26L T6 0 COM 0.0900 0.0100 0.0000 'Re6 DE? Sl 26R T4 0 COM 7.35)00 0.7100 0.1300 tHC6 DE? Sl 25.R TS 0 COM 0.7300 0.0700 0.0100 "IV APP SI OiL Al 0 GA 05300 O.OSOO 0.0100 .IV APP 51 OSL All 0 GA 0.1000 0.0100 0.0000 :rv APP S1 oaL A5 OGA 0.5300 0.0500 0..0100 :rv APP S 1 OiR A6 0 GA 0.5300 0.0500 0.0100 .rv AJ!P Sl OiR A7 0 GA 0.5300 0.0500 0.0100 'IV A'FP Sl D8R AS DGA 0.1000 0.0100 0.0000 TV APP Sl 26L A4 0 GA 2.1300 0.2100 0.0400 -IV APP S 1 25L A9 0 GA 0.2000' 0.0200 0.??oo .;.~41S21;5S10 "1-113 P 22/27 r:-558 ~ DCi 1010 S~P-2 1-99 10: G3 FROM-HOWARD. RICE. ET AL (415) 217-5910 +14152175910 T -113 PZ3/27 F-558 UOIt.':'/tUI ~~:~U rAA ~~~ q~~ ~~~1 t'.ti AV1A.'.l-lDN ~ DD8I01D :rv . /-:PP S1 26R A10 0 GA 1.6300 0.1600 0.0300 ,IV APP 81 26R A2 OGA 8.5100 0,8200 0.1500 TrY APP 51 26R A3 aGA 8.5too 0.8200 0.1500 ;'lV DEP Sl 081.. Tl OGA 1.0600 0.1000 0.0200 iIV DEF 51 08L T8 OGA 0.1000 0.0100 0.0000 iIV DEP 51 Q&R. 'I2 OGA 1.0600 0_1000 0.0200 mr DEP 51 Q8R T7 OGA 0.1000 O.OlOO 0.0000 iN DE? 51 261. T3 OGA 2.1200 0.2000 0,0400 31V DEP Sl 251. T6 OGA 0.2100 0.0200 0.0000 3IV DEP Sl 26R T4 DGA 16.9800 1.6400 0.3100 JIV DEP Sl 26R T5 OGA 1.6800 0.1600 0_0300 JNUP OPERATIONS ID X(mni) Y(mci) Head Thrust Time(sec) Day iER-DEFINED METRlCS 'IY?e Family Dey Eve: Night Time(dB) ;.ER-DEF~'"ED FLAP COEFFICIENTS Flap Op CoeffR CoaffC_D CoeffB lER-DEFINED lET THRUST COEFFICIENTS ThrType CoefiE CocffF CoefiOA CacmGB iER-DEFJNED PROP nm.UST COEFFICIENTS Thrl)'pB E~dmJ.I:Y Power \IDS X(mni) Y{mni) Ang(deg) ::m. Contour -8.0000 .8.0000 0.0 3-1 Standard -1.1340 0.2467 0.0 }IO Standm'd -2.0910 0.1151 0.0 3-11 Standard -2.1710 0.0493 0.0 ::i12 Standard -22532 -0.032.8 0.0 313 Sumdard ..2.3519 -0.06S8 0.0 }14 Standatd -2.4835 0.4440 0.0 315 Stmclan1 .2.187S 0.7072 0.0 ::i16 Standard .2.3519 0.7730 0.0 :iI7 ST:IlD.d.m:d -2.4177 0.8717 0.0 32 Sta:ndani -1.1920 0.2.631 0.0 :i3 Standard -1.3157 O.37E2 0.0 34 S1andard -1.3898 O.444{) 0.0 35 Standani -1.5131 0.0000 0.0 36 Standsnl -1.5789 0.1151 0.0 37 Standard -1.6118 Q.2302 0.0 3-8 Sl:a:n.dard -1.7105 0.1644 0.0 39 St2ndard -1.92.40 0.0493 0.0 IN OPTIONS ~ Type : SingleMerttic ~ois~ : CNEI.. fA T.hrcsb.o1d : 85.0 dB ::>0 Terrain : No ::>0 Centaur : Yes ~CIlt : 8 rol=nmc:e : LOO jo Population: No ::lo LoCaticms ; No :lg Stand.Grid : Yes :lo Detai1.Grid.: No :'cw Cutoft' : 60.0 :ugh Cutoff : 75.0 :.ompute S)'E1ecJ Metrics: Eve Night CocfiH. Di&tl{nmi) DistJ{mDi) NI NJ ] 6.0000 115.0000 2 2 1.0000 1. 0000 1 1 1.0000 1.0000 1 1 1.0000 1.0000 1 1 1.0000 1.0000 1 1 1.0000 1.0000 1 1 1.0000 1.0000 1 1 1.0000 1.0000 1 1 1.0000 1.0000 1 1 1.0000 1.0000 1 1 1.0000 1.0000 1 1 1.0000 1.0000 1 1 1.0000 1.0000 1 1 1.0000 1.0000 1 1 1.0000 1.0000 1 1 1.0000 1.0000 1 1 1.0000 1.0000 1 1 LooOO 1.0000 1 1 S~P-21-99 10:04 FROM-HOWARD,RICE,ET AL (~15)217-S910 ~O/~~!-~!.-J.D:~A.A2!~ !UH31 r~ A\'J.A'llU~ :lNL :NQ G..""U : Yes LAEQ : No LA.EQD : No LAEQN : No SEL ; No 1-A.MAX : No TAl-A :No NEF : No '"WECPNL ~ No EPNL : No FNLTM :No TAPNL : No +14152175910 1-113 P 24/27 F-558 IdlDDIl/010 T-113 P.25/27 F-558 +14152175910 FROM-HOWARD, RICE, ET AL. (415) 217-5910 S~?-21-99 10:04 ~ i! ... ... . (D .... t.n g .... Q ". ~~ II 1""", "" ~ ~ o Q HI -~ ~I .Q CD a i t- t- I ~ ~ N C : ~ ~ 'L.,~ \I) 0 I ~ ~ G'l Ut 0 I:' ~ t..l "" 0 ................. -::::. \\ s: c-' J.... -..P ~ -s::. ~4 .-;. l.~ ~ - ~. .. ~ "'-.. _. !'~~ \~ ---"- .; ., d\ -z.. rt'} E I ~ + I ~ III ; .. _./ c: a ... .. a.. -. " " to I. . .. " ~. ,"n. ~.. ~T" YW3 ft..~T D~i~.~Gn unTTVT.W a, nTn/nTnlBl SEP-21-99 10:05 FRDM--HDWARD.RICE,ET AL. (415) 217-5910 +14152175910 1-113 P 26/27 F-558 CARY MIKO. AllIN . Vice President GENEIlAI.IPlAlHAnorcs Dr. Allen has over 28 yean of technical arad legal experience in aVIatiOn, engineering, :md environmental plannin~. A substantial part of his t:ar~r has been devoted to airport compatibiliry planning ':md :malyitU IUch as noise/1and use, airspace obstruction evaluation, airc:aft accid::ttt pat.et1ual, land use ri...k asSC55D1Cl1t and electromagnetic: intai'crena: (EM!) studies. In recent years, Dr. Allen bas been heavily involved in c-valuating tht: airspace issues under FAR Part n for telecommunications projcCl!t arou.nd the United States. ElPERJEJJCE During his c.aret:r, Dr. Allen has designed Ilnd c:onduacd noi.~e monitoring :and computer modeling studies at numcro1l.'i of civili:m airporu :md heliports ilcross the nation including Los Angdr:s InternatiDnal, San Diego's Lindbergh Field., John Wayne Airport, Salt Lake City International, Houston lntercontineo'tal, Will Rogers World and Wiley Pon airpons in Oklahoma City, Oaklmd International, and ScaTac Intcm:ltional. Dr. Allen .use collaborated wi'th these airport oper~!On to develop noue abatemcntlland use compatibility plaflJl thaI met legal and public acccpl:lbility criu:nll- Hc h;s b~n similarly involved. in Air lnst.allwon Compa~ible Use Zone (AlCUZ) studies for military airfir:lds such as NAS AlI:L.-ncd:t, NAS Barbers Point, MCAS Kmcobc Bay, anc CGSC Eli7.:lberh City. Recently Dr. Allen completed an extensive llirspacc madding using SIMMOD for the civilian reuse ofNoT'ton Air Force ElISe 2.11d a Daise roldy fer the civilian reuse of Guam', N;wal Air St:n.ion. Dr. Allen bas condUCted many aircraft accident potential and l-and use risk lSS:mnent nucic:s for lmd use development projec:u ne~ such airpo1"tS ;s John Wayne, Riverside Municipal, Bermuda DUDCS, French Valley, Los AlmJ.itos A:my Airfield, and Camarillo Airports. Addi~ionally. be has been involved in E)i.[[ nuci:s for FM broadcasters lU'ound 'the na'tion cancerned with intc:rmodulation effects onairpo1"t naviga.tion aids. Alia, Dr. Allen was a. pioneer in wind. turbiae noise Stu.dia and in community noise and land use pl~g. EDUCAIDI Dr. Allen holds a law d~cc from 'Western Stale UniveI"iity Collt'gc of Law and a Ph.D. fram California WCS'Lcm Univenity. He also holds an cDgineerin~ degree and advanced ~ree' in management and. e.avUo.nm..eDtal sciences from Californill universities. All of his graduate stUdies emphasized :lviation and aitport operations. PUlUCAIIlIB "Protectic.g the N;tvigablc Airspace: FAR Pann, " Aviation;md Space Law Symposium Proc.eed.i.ngi (April 1998) .Windnnn Noise Issuu," Windpower 'liS proa!edingr Uuly 1985) -Environmental Noise Israes," ~e9"able Energies Symposium Proceedinp aUDe 1985) .Wind Energy Dc:"clopmc:nt Noise Consideration5,. Amrnc:a.n Wind Energy Conf. Proceed.ings Guly 1984) "Environmental Eva1u::1~ion of Airport Site Selection Alte.."UaOvcs," Cal Wcstc:rn Univ. (Dee... 1981) "Consult:mt's Role in Proceuing of Airport Environmenl:al Actions,. AOCI ProceediDi:5 (March 1978) AFRUllllDll Member, California Stl1te Bar Member, LaWYCT-Pilou Bar ASiociztioD Member, Amcric::m Bar Asliociation Member, Feder.al Bar Anoc:i:ltion Member, ABA Committee 011 EnvironmeDtal CODtrols and S'Ub-Committc:e 011 Air Quality G ~t~~ ,. S~?-21-99 10:C5 FROM-HOWARD,RICE,ET AL (415) 217-5910 +14152175910 T-113 P.27/27 F-558 nom CHAVIII VIce PnilJdelll. of Air Transportation SyBteJllll .,.... IIIIR;I~ Mr.. ChBvm has over 40 yell!!> of apc:rience as aD CIl,gWC:Ct, pilot 1IViation prognms admiaistatDt, aDd ccmsultaDt. For 27 of !hose }'em, Mr. C'.Allv'km held inrn:.asingly m~ responsible positions vim the FcdcnJ AviBtion ~tiQll. (FAA) culminatiDg with his sppoimmcn, lIS kgiOl1lll AdminismuDr of me Wen:::m Pac:i& RegiOD- He bas an ~ive ttdmical bacltground IIDd c:peDe.DCC in govemmentRl and public. ~!ions as well as a thorough kDDWlcdgl: of me regulatory, !lecwiry. sUety. and air tramc cuntrol funcUons of civil IIViatiOD.. Mr. Chavkin is II ~ commer=ial p110f Aftd holds single lIDd mulli-e.agiae.. iDnrume.Dt and jet mi.a.gs tart- .:I Prior ttl ;oinil1g Ibc FAA, Mr. ChAvkin.~ seven }'Can in 1hc U.s. Air Force as 'Power Plant pzejeo Engineer at the Air Fon::r: Power Plant Labol'lltDry line ~ 70 Frogmm Of:iia lit Wright P~cm Air Foter Base. Mr. O1avkm began his FAA Ulft!el u OUef Propulsion F"ngmeer and then was luigDed B!l the Maoagcr of Plans and Programs for Ute National Supenomc Tamport Progr.un. During UUs six ~sr petiod, he WDS respomlbk WDDDg omer things ror cu,ginc development, pn:pusticn of congte!liionallEStimony 2SId bYdget and pbmaiag documr:ntaticn.. For 16 yelln, Mr. O1a~bn served on du: FAA Washington Hca.d'i~ suffwbele his uy a:spaosibilltics included exccuti~ d.i::ec:ticm of the FAA Nau01\a1 Roto~ ~ro~ the ~ EI1ginee.ring snd Cemnca'lian Pmgnm. the System E=.g;.aeeMg Oaia and Aslloc:illtcd .AUpoft Cwpac:ity and .Ai% Ttuf6c CcnttDl Sys~ Dc",e1opraent, tlDd lhe Shott Haul AviatiOll System Development Pmgmm.. Mr. QUlvkin WIS then ~5ipd for ftnoee YR1'!I ti Deputy Regional AdmiDisEIBfDf of the FAA C".aJtnI1 R:giao. in Ksme Gty when: he shared ~C:DOD of me mur-JrtJUE lEgicm ~ was also n:spom1Dle for mWl ai.r:t:D1ft ceo:i1iation world wide. l-k comp\etai his FAA cuecr II.S R:giOD.ll.AdmiDl:tnltof of 1hc W~t=m Pacific IU:giOI1 badquart=-= 1st un .Angeles whct!: he dire~d FAA openuons for'CWC ycU! ill me 'Wc::otem suta. U.5. Tc::rito::i.er ill 1he paciDc md me PaciDc Rim nshons. In m.u m1e, Mr. Olavkin "as priDcipa1ly relponsible for xcllltiDPS widllUlIE md 1cca1 ~~. the aviation iDdustry tmdme miliwy. He also directed mIljor inrem.atiaDa1 aviatioo aaivioe! \rim. OW AviBtiaD. .Aul!bori1:U:t in me Paci5c Rim. . Since 1990. Mr. auvlQn hIS comul~d on. number of major domeni.c and ja~!mItional av;ttioe! pm;eCE!I indodiDg:a Dew nil transit IJ'5I1!m tiuDugh l.A...'X. . pmpo!1ed bi-nntioml air camet a:itport on Ibe. u.s./Maic:D baIdcr near Sm Diego. the mode.miuDoa of me Aunm1im .Airspace S}'$re!n awi a DeW MasteT Plm for me. Gu.ml lDtr:matiDllIll Aitpcm. He mo cODsu1n:d DO 1be DW1Agement mid openluoa of ~ pz:ivatEly mmagcd Los ADgeles County and Rmnidc CoWlty peul .vUnion ai!pons. ReCCDdy. Mr. 0uivkiD hIS been inva~ in m.magiog msp.ce obumaian atudiCll for major wirelest. cn.....nnniratiDIIS. projectS- He. hn wor:ked with every major ~ commu:oicaticms COU1;P8l1Y in the CClUDU)' in nlsnage.me:nt of lI.C1'DD>>utir.a1 obnmcDaI1 !l'tUdiet of their tr'lIn5'lPisricc 1Dwe:a. Mr. Cl:Ulvkin hIlS also pmWIed consulting aid espert wimeSi lema:s to a number of maicr law fimu throughout the U.S- IIKI_ Mr. Chsvkin holds. Badu:lor of Science in Mechanic.~ Eoginecnng &om me ID.ioais lnsutu1E: of Technology aDd I M&SteT of Sci.eDt:e ill Air TrmsponaUOft from 1be UniVUJiity of Caiifoutia. 8