HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 1995/06/13
Tuesday, June 13, 1995
6:00p.m.
,,) declare ,mder penalty of perjury that I am
emplo.;/ed by the City of Chula V:sta in the
Oif[co oJ '~::n City Cler;-\ end that I posted
this AGcndalNoUce on the B letin Board at
the Public ~er\ic<jS Building a at ~ity Ha
DATED, \p '1.. .C\~ SIGNED c!U- .....
1 ,
on Council Chambers
Public Services Building
Re.ular Meetin. of the Citv of Chula Vista Citv C
CALL TO ORDER
1.
ROLL CALL:
Councilmembers Alevy _' Moot _' Padilla _' Rindone _' and
Mayor Horton _'
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG. SILENT PRAYER
3.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
May 31, 1995 and June 3, 1995
4. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY:
a.
Oath of Office:
Robert Thomas - Planning Commission and James R. Robinson - Child
Care Commission.
b. Presentation by Cody Winslow, Miss Chula Vista 1995.
*****
Effective April 1, 1994, there have been new amendments to the Brown Act. The City Council must now
reconvene into open session to report any final actions taken in closed session and to adjourn the meeting.
Because of the cost involved, there will be no videotaping of the reconvened portion of the meeting. However,
final actions reported will be recorded in the minutes which will be availilble in the City Clerk's Office.
*****
CONSENT CALENDAR
(Items 5 through 12)
The staff recommendations regarding the following items listed under the Consent Calendar will be enacted by
the Council by one motion without discussion unless a Councilmember, a member of the public or City staff
requests that the item be pulled for discussion. If you wish to speak on one of these items, please fill out a
"Request to Speak Fonn" availilble in the lobby and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. (Complete
the green fonn to speak in favor of the staff recommendation; complete the pink fonn to speak in opposition to
the staff recommendation.) Items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be discussed after Board and
Commission Recommendations and Action Items. Items pulled by the public will be the first items of business.
5. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
a. Letter from the City Attorney stating that there were no observed reportable action taken
in Closed Session of 6/6/95. It is recommended that the letter be received and filed.
b. Letter of resignation from the Board of Ethics Commission - Martha C. Villegas, 460 Smoky
Circle. Chula Vista, CA 91910. It is recommended that the resignation be accepted with regret
and the City Clerk be directed to post immediately according to the Maddy Act in the Clerk's
office and the Public Library.
Agenda
-2-
June 13, 1995
c. Letter of resignation from the Veterans Advisory Commission - Joe A. Berlanga. it is
recommended that the resignation be accepted with regret and the City Clerk be directed to post
immediately according to the Maddy Act in the Clerk's office and the Public Library.
6. ORDINANCE 2630 AMENDING SECTION 2.28.110 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE
RELATING TO APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS TO THE BOARD OF
ETIDCS (second readin!! and adoDtionl - The Board of Ethics is proposing
a revision to the current Code of Ethics which is presented for Council's review.
The purpose of the revision is to allow for an alternative appointment process
should the Presiding Judge of the South Bay Municipal Court Judicial District
fail or decline to make an appointment. it is recommended that Council place
the ordinance on second reading and adoption. (Board of Ethics)
7. RESOLUTION 17920 APPROVING SIXTH AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH REMY
AND THOMAS FOR LITIGATION REPRESENTATION SERVICES IN
CONNECTION WITH THE CHAPARRAL GREENS LAWSUIT, AND
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE SAME - After the
Council and Board of Supervisors approved the Otay Ranch Project, Chaparral
Greens sued. on CEQA theories. The lower court trial is now complete and on
April 19, 1995, Chaparral Greens filed a Notice of Appeal, appealing the lower
court's denial of a writ of mandate. Ms. Thomas estimates $75,000 of
additional expenses for the appeal. Baldwin concurs with the increase and is
solely liable. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (City Attorney)
8. RESOLUTION 17921 APPROVING THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE EXISTING
AGREEMENT WITH COTTON/BELAND/ASSOCIATES, INC. TO
AUTHORIZE $24,950 IN ADDITIONAL CONSULTING SERVICES
RELATING TO THE PREPARATION OF THE ENVffiONMENTAL
DOCUMENTS FOR THE OT A Y RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN AREA ONE
PROJECT ENVffiONMENT AL IMPACT REPORT AND AUTHORIZING
THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID AMENDMENT - An
amendment to the original Three Party Agreement is necessary to cover an
expanded scope of work that was not anticipated. The Otay Ranch
Transportation Committee has recommended that the Environmental Impact
Report include an additional 29 intersections. Staff recommends approval of the
resolution. (Special Planning Projects Manager, Otay Ranch Project)
9. RESOLUTION 17922 APPROVING THE SUBMITTAL OF ONE APPLICATION FOR
SEVENTH CYCLE FUNDS OF THE STATE/LOCAL
TRANSPORTATION PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM (SLTPP) - Senate Bill
300 created the State/Local Transportation Partnership Program (STLPP) to
identify and construct locally supported projects with a minimum of State
planning and review in order to encourage local agencies to use funding sources
other than Gas Tax for these projects. Staff has prepared one application for
seventh cycle funding under this program. The application covers a Capital
Improvement project along Main Street, between Industrial Boulevard and
Broadway. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public
Works)
Agenda
-3-
June 13, 1995
10. RESOLUTION 17923 AUTHORIZING THE CITY ENGINEER TO EXERCISE THE CITY'S
RIGHT TO TAKE OVER AND UTILIZE A PORTION OF RANCHO DEL
REY PARKWAY AND TERRA NOVA DRIVE - McMillin Development
Company, in the process of developing the Rancho del Rey subdivision, has
built portions of Rancbo del Rey Parkway and Terra Nova Drive that serve
individual subdivision units within the overall development that are "backbone"
streets and essential to serve those individual tracts. Because the subject streets
were constructed and bonded as part of the individual tracts, they ordinarily will
not be accepted by the City until the work on the entire subdivision is complete.
Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works)
11. RESOLUTION 17924 ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT TO LEKOS
ELECTRIC, INC. FOR TRAFFIC SIGNAL INSTALLATION AT PASEO
LADERA AND TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD AND APPROPRIATING
FUNDS THEREFOR - On May 24, 1995, the Director of Public Works
received sealed bids from seven (7) electrical contractors for the installation of
traffic signals at Paseo Ladera and Telegraph Canyon Road. The low bid of
$63,200 was received from Lekos Electric, Inc. The low bid is below the
Engineer's estimate of $77,465.00. Staff recommends approval of the
resolution. (Director of Public Works) 4/5th's vote required
12. REPORT REQUEST BY THE BONITA HORSEMEN ASSOCIATION TO UTILIZE
THE JOGGING/PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE AT SWEETWATER RIVER -
Staff recommends Council approve a new equestrian trail alignment along the
outside of the new jogging/bicycle path and allow use of the bridge for crossing
the Sweetwater River only when the river cannot be crossed. (Director of Parks
and Recreation)
* · END OF CONSENT CALENDAR * *
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
The following items have been advertised and/or posted as public hearings as required by law. If you wish to
speak to any item, please fill out the "Request to Speak Form" available in the lobby and submit it to the City
Clerk prior to the meeting. (Complete the green form to speak in favor of the staff recommendation; complete
the pink form to speak in opposition to the staff recommendation.) Comments are limited to five minutes per
individual.
13.
PUBLIC HEARING
TO CONSIDER TESTIMONY ON THE FISCAL YEAR 1995/96 LEVY OF
ASSESSMENT FOR CITY OPEN SPACE DISTRICT NO.1 - Based upon
the advise of the City Attorney, EastLake Maintenance District No.1 and Open
Space District 1 and 10 have been separated due to conflict of interest concerns.
One Council member owns property subject to the proposed assessment in this
district. Staff will meet with property owners on June 8 and June 13, 1995 to
discuss any concerns and to answer any questions. Staff recommends Council
to open the hearing, take testimony and close the hearing. (Director of Public
Works)
Agenda
14.
PUBLIC HEARING
15.
PUBLIC HEARING
16.
PUBLIC HEARING
17.
ORDINANCE 2631
-4-
June 13, 1995
TO CONSIDER TESTIMONY ON THE FISCAL YEAR 1995/96 LEVY OF
ASSESSMENT FOR CITY OPEN SPACE DISTRICT NO. 10 - Based upon
the advise of the City Attorney, EastLake Maintenance District No. 1 and Open
Space District 1 and 10 have heen separated due to conflict of interest concerns.
One Council member owns property subject to the proposed assessment in this
district. Staff will meet with property owners on June 8 and June 13, 1995 to
discuss any concerns and to answer any questions. Staff recommends Council
to open the hearing, take testimony and close the hearing. (Director of Public
Works)
TO CONSIDER TESTIMONY ON THE FISCAL YEAR 1995/96 LEVY OF
ASSESSMENT FOR EASTLAKE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 -
Based upon the advise of the City Attorney, EastLake Maintenance District No.
1 and Open Space District 1 and 10 have been separated due to conflict of
interest concerns. One Council member owns property subject to the proposed
assessment in this district. Staff will meet with property owners on June 8 and
June 13, 1995 to discuss any concerns and to answer any questions. Staff
recommends Council to open the hearing, take testimony and close the hearing.
(Director of Public Works)
TO CONSIDER TESTIMONY ON THE FISCAL YEAR 1995/96 LEVY OF
ASSESSMENTS FOR CITY OPEN SPACE DISTRICTS 2-9,11, 14, 15, 17,
18,20,23,24,26,31, BAY BOULEVARD, AND TOWN CENTER AND
TO ESTABLISH ZONE 9 WITHIN OPEN SPACE DISTRICT NO. 20 -
The City administers 23 open space districts established over the last twenty-five
years. As part of this process, a levy of an annual assessment is necessary to
enable the City to collect funds for the proposed open space maintenance. Staff
will meet with property owners on June 8 and June 13, 1995, to discuss any
concerns and to answer any questions. A second public hearing is scheduled for
July 11, 1995. In a letter dated October 17, 1994, Sweetwater Authority
requested they be exempted from the yearly open space assessment for a lot they
own in Open Space District No. 14. Last, a zone needs to be established within
Open Space District No. 20 (Rancho del Rey) to pay for that development's
share of maintenance of Telegraph Canyon Channel. Staff recommends Council
open the hearing, take testimony, close the hearing, deny Sweetwater
Authority's request for exemption from the open space district charges until they
develop the site for their water facility, and delay action on the modified
Engineer's Report until July 11, 1995. (Director of Public Works)
ADDING SECTION 17.07.035 TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING
TO LANDSCAPING ACT PROVIDERS (second readil1l! and adoDtionl - As
a Charter City. Council has adopted a procedural ordinance for administration
and maintenance of open space districts which includes procedures for setting
assessments, as contained within Chapter 17.07 of the Municipal Code.
Property owners within open space districts are assessed annually via the
property tax rolls for upkeep of these districts. The assessments are based on
the annual district budgets plus reserves, which can fluctuate significantly from
year to year because of budget savings, excess reserves or unanticipated costs.
Assessments can thus go up or down each year because of these fluctuations,
Agenda
18.
PUBLIC HEARING
19.
PUBLIC HEARING
ORDINANCE 2633
-5-
June 13, 1995
which has been a concern of the property owners and staff. The inflation factor
proposed will not take effect this year, but staff is proposing a collectable which
is different from the assessment as provided for in this ordinance. This item
does not reuuire a Public Hearilll! but is a related item. Staff recommends
Council place ordinance on second reading and adoption. (Director of Public
Works)
DRAFT MULTIPLE SPECIES CONSERVATION PROGRAM (MSCP)
PLAN AND ENVIRONMENT ALIMPACT REPORTIENVIRONMENT AL
IMPACT STATEMENT (EIRIEIS) - The City of San Diego has released a
draft MSCP Plan and ElR/EIS for public review and comment. Staff
recommends that the Council direct staff to forward comments to the City of San
Diego regarding the draft Plan and EIR/EIS. (Director of Planning)
CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 19.04.022 AND
19.36.030 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO ALLOW MINOR
AUTOMOBILE MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR AS A CONDITIONAL
USE IN THE C-C CENTRAL COMMERCIAL ZONE - This is a proposal
to amend the Municipal Code to allow minor automobile maintenance facilities
by conditional use permit in the C-C Central Commercial zone. The request has
been submitted by Econo Lube '0' Tune, Inc. in conjunction with a conditional
use permit request to establish an automobile maintenance facility at the
southwester comer of 30th Street and Edgemere A venue. Staff recommends
Council place the ordinance on first reading. (Director of Planning)
AMENDING SECTION 19.04.022 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO
ALLOW MINOR AUTOMOBILE MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR
FACILITIES AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN THE C-C CENTRAL
COMMERCIAL ZONE (first readin2)
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
This is an opportunity for the general public to address the City Council on any subject mailer within the
Council's jurisdiction that is not an item on this agenda for public discussion. (State law, however, generally
prohibits the City Council from taking action on any issues not included on the posted agentla.) If you wish to
address the Council on such a subject, please complete the yellow "Request to Speak Under Oral Communications
Form" available in the lobby and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. Those who wish to speak,
please give your name and address for record purposes and follow up action. Your time is limited to three
minutes per speaker.
BOARD AND COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
This is the time the City Council will consider items which have been forwarded to them for consideration by one
of the City's Boards, Commissions and/or Commit/ees.
Agenda
-6.
June 13, 1995
ACTION ITEMS
The items listed in this section of the agenda are expected to elicit substantial discussions and deliberations by
the Council, staff, or members of the general public. The items will be considered individually by the Council
and staff recommendations may in certain cases be presented in the alternative. Those who wish to speak, please
fill out a "Request to Speak" fonn avai/oble in the lobby and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting.
Public comments are limited to five minutes.
20. RESOLUTION 17925 APPROVING AN AGREEMENT AMONG THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA, LUTHERAN CHURCH OF JOY, AND RANCHO DEL REY
INVESTORS FOR A PARK AND RIDE FACILITY - The Lutheran Church
of Joy has heen processing a building permit for a new church at the intersection
of East H Street and Buena Vista Way. They are obligated to pay a
Transportation DlF fee for the development of the site. McMillin Development
Company (developer of Rancho del Rey) has a requirement for a park and ride
facility of 50 spaces, or to participate in an overall program to provide park and
ride facilities in the eastern area. The Church of Joy, McMillin and Callrans
have come to agreement for constructing and operating a park and ride facility
on the Church of Joy's properly. Staff recommends approval of the resolution.
(Director of Public Works)
21. RESOLUTION 17918 APPROVING THE FISCAL YEAR 1995-1999 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
INCLUDING BOTH THE FISCAL YEAR 1995-1996 COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) AND HOME INVESTMENT
PARTNERSffiP (HOME) PROGRAM BUDGETS AND AUTHORIZING
TRANSMITTAL OF FISCAL YEAR 1995-1999 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
TO THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT (HUD) - Council held a public hearing on 5/16/95 to review
and receive public comment 00 the draft fiscal year 1995-1999 Consolidated
Plan and to review all projects and programs being considered for CDBG and
Home funding. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of
Community Development) Continued from the meeting of 6/06/95.
ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR
This is the time the City Council will discuss items which have been removed from the Consent Calendar.
Agenda items pulled at the request of the public will be considered prior to those pulled by Councilmembers.
Public comments are limited to five minutes per individual.
OTHER BUSINESS
22. CITY MANAGER'S REPORTIS)
a. Scheduling of meetings.
23. MAYOR'S REPORT IS)
a. Ratification of Appointment: Stephen R. Arends - Veterans Advisory Commission
24. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Agenda
-7-
June 13, 1995
ADJOURNMENT
Tbe meeting will adjourn to (a closed session and thence to) a Special Worksession/Meeting on Wednesday, June
14, 1995 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, thence to the Regular City Council Meeting on June 20, 1995 at
6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers.
An Adjourned Special Redevelopment Agency will be beld immediately following the City Council meeting.
"'*"'''''''
CLOSED SESSION
Unless the City Allorney, 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 pennitted by Inw to be the subject of a closed
session discussion, and which the Council is advised should be discussed in closed session to best protectthe
interests of the City. The Council is required by Inw to return to open session, issue any reports of final action
taken in clnsed session, and the votes laken. However, due to the typical length of time taken up by closed
sessions, the videotaping will be tenninated 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 availnble in the City Clerk's Office.
25. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING:
1. Existing litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9
. Chula Vista and nine other cities vs. the County of San Diego regarding solid waste
issues (trash litigation).
2. Anticipated litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9
. Metro Sewer Adjustment Billing (water reclamation and expansion costs) and EPA lawsuit.
CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR - Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6
. Agency negotiator: John Goss or designee for CVEA, WCE, POA, IAFF, Executive
Management, Mid-Management, and Unrepresented.
Employee organization: Chula Vista Employees Association (CVEA) and Western Council of
Engineers (WCE), Police Officers Association (POA) and International Association of Fire
Fighters (IAFF).
Unrepresented employee: Executive Management, Mid-Management, and Unrepresented.
26. REPORT OF ACTIONS TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION
"'****
RECEIVED
'95 !lAY 32 p 3 :53
MARTHA C. VILLEGOfir' Of CHUlA VIS!
460 SMOKY CIRCIlfY ClE~K'S OFFIC-
CBULA VISTA, CA 91910
426-8424
May 31, 1995
Honorable Mayor Horton
City of Chula Vista
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Dear Mayor Horton:
I am a member of the Board of Ethics Commission. I am writing this
letter with great regrets to advise you of my resignation from the
commission because of personal matters.
I am willing to selVe until you appoint the new commissioner for this
vacancy.
It has been a learning and challenging experience. The Board of Ethics
Commissioners and Ms. Acton are very bright, intellegent and hard
working individnals. They should be commended for the excellent job
they are doing.
Sincerely, .
~d:t!. ~ ~j
MAR~.ENAS VILLEGAS
Commissioner
cc City Council Members
Board of Ethics commissioners
~~~l'1\
~~~I)
WfunEN COMMU~,fICA TIONS
6b-1
....
,",
""':'\".
.' -rAp :~. J0~~'~~2;~~=:
"
"~';'-/6 r /?/l/D .0, ~
' '......_7h' .... .... ...... ....' .
~~/A.// /~7'J-
c7~/...v..("rf' /...;
r-' .;>~
__ .. .. ~~. - - _.0'" . . ._
vJ.ti: T.6c !./e-rE'~r)N'; dl) cA~c),.eyOUMH'I.s.)/O>,)
...._.__i2~..,/c::.CI~(i(1 C)(4 S:""~rL.lCtC€)~. ~).
~o~e...-;7;f? & /, .' -:i..hf."4 ~ F1.Y/~ P re?o .~;.---.;.~
r ~IL~ (Y== -~;Y A4~ rp&r-/ A.-i -L~w '. l"vkt!:L.........---.:.
. '-. . .
15''' u,/'J ./~.~~~." -' -'9.,IU.D" ,.Is ../ij~?f~-
,.. - ,.- ~. ,"
f-A/t::...7,/J 4Y I~'B-7 /..{/>~6 /7/1/// ...L .
h,4.?I~ 12~C!:fil;'e-IJ 'Z"a + ~ ~/~ /"c) ~ t pA.f'C~
...;..-. r:J A. '. . r~ 7"1 .' -/7' . ..,..
/ rit.y~--, .."=='-:'.. '.,,<.(;./<::,,7"0 < /.<; . /L--:2oi/E . .... --
. .111-41'. ///(;/ 6/.JIc. '70 PA.O.!!/~~ ~.~.. ."
V 8';r-€:/2 t'L <<d~<::; (Z>~ X-f' /--/ r.~ S /Z>_~L) a..J~ f~'
,.--T~ lfr.' - 7:r~/p (1'7 '" H /l/.I? 18e: ~ ~~ -4 71"16 L ~
"" hl(-4&-S,(~}Z-l ~d<~ R2~ ",-.(77z.eJ
,M t/L- /7 y/ i?"/j' .. . t/6 T~"tt! ri-tt-Js:' . ,,4 D j//J~ ~7
, @f}.~I.tt-1 ,r$'<;; ~ f> 1/> . .
!;~....
',",
.,
~UZ;~~ 151-h..~~'f
"'.
.'.. ,
'.~~'.
.........,..
,w:1II, '
'- '. , .." .
~..
.... ...i. <.'.....5(e. I
. .' ~'> '. -". .' .'-:,
< - ~ '- -:~. . -' ,,-.' '"-' . .. - ....::, ,----
0...,"
".:......~~. " " .
":;~1 h.l~' (4)
~~""{
:'::\"'~lA:.-' . '. ...-:.....'. .....:-...'
L~"''''-'---'J~--;''",;_'~' '.-,.,':
, _._.~-,,-, ,L~Ie: . ......
~,''',",., ." '.....' --~. :., . . -. . . :...... . ." ....
. ,..~...., ..-
>~~J;:--_., .vv:v~~, . . ,.... _.'
":--. ~ -...
("
,.': >1
..':<
Exhibit B
Additional Modifications suggested by the Ethics Board
at their meeting of June 2, 1995
ORDINANCE NO. ~'- 30
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING SECTION
2.28.110 OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO
APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS TO THE BOARD OF ETHICS
SECTION I: That section 2.28.110 of the Chula vista
Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
2.28.110 Organization.
A. The Board shall be composed of seven members appointed by the
City Council for a term of four years, as prescribed by the
provisions of the City Charter and the Municipal Code of the
city of Chula vista. Prior to exercising their authority to
appoint a person for the first time to membership, the City
Council shall refer for recommendation the list and quali-
fications of applicants to the Presiding Judge of the South
Bay Municipal Court Judicial District or his or her designee
from among the judiciary, who shall review the list of
applicants and their qualifications, who should select. if at
least five aoolicants are available. not less than five~ (but
if less than five aoolicants are available. as many as
oossiblel for the purpose of conducting in-person interviews
and who shall conduct such interviews. One additional
aoolicant should be selected for interviews for each
additional vacancy. If said Judge or designee declines or
fails to review such applicants, or conduct such interviews,
or make such recommendations, than the Council shall appoint
a person from a list of retired judges, which list shall be
assembled as needed by the City Attorney, to conduct. oro
bono. such interviews and make such recommendations. If such
retired ;udae can not be retained to review the aoolicants on
a oro bono basis. than the city Council shall be authorized to
review the aoolicants themselves. select five for interview.
conduct the interviews themselves and make the aooointment
without anv other recommendation. on four affirmative votes
suooortina the aooointment. In the event of a reaooointment
of an existina or former member to the Ethics Board. this
orocedure need not be followed and the Council mav exercise
their aooointment without such a orior recommendation. No
such person may be appointed as a member, or shall be entitled
to retain their membership, if he or she, within the past ten
(10 years prior to the date of appointment, has been convicted
of a crime inVOlving moral turpitude, or has been found to
have committed a criminal violation of the Fair Political
Practices Act.
B. The Board shall elect from its membership a chairman and a
vice-chairman. The term of the chairman and vice-chairman
shall be for the period of one year, commencing on July 1 each
year. The chairman shall preside at all meetings. In the
absence of the chairman at any meeting, the vice- chairman
shall preside, and in the absence of both chairman and
"6-/ /&-5'
vice-chairman, the Board members present shall elect a
chairman pro tempore for said meeting.
C. The City Attorney or an appointed representative shall act as
secretary to the Board. The secretary shall cause notice of
the meetings of the Board to be kept and distributed. The
secretary shall also give appropriate and required written
notice of all meetings to all members and persons having
business before the Board.
SECTION II: This ordinance shall take effect and be in
full force on the thirtieth day from and after its adoption.
~
6 -~
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item '7
Meeting Date 6/13/95
ITEM TITLE:
Resolution )1q~ Approving sixth Amendment to
Agreement with Remy and Thomas for Litigation
Representation Services OA Sl
Bruce M. Boogaard, city Attorney{6~
4/5ths Vote: Yes No-X-
SUBMITTED BY:
After the City council and Board of Supervisors approved the Otay
Ranch Project, Chaparral Greens sued on CEQA theories. The City
retained Remy & Thomas at Baldwin's expense. The lower court trial
is now complete-and on April 19, 1995, Chaparral Greens filed a
Notice of Appeal, appealing the lower court's denial of a writ of
mandate. Baldwin has brought Ms. Thomas' bill current as billed,
a total of $557,000. She now estimates $75,000 of additional
expenses for the appeal. Baldwin concurs with the increase, and of
course, is solely liable.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve the attached resolution approving the
sixth Amendment to the city's Agreement with Remy and Thomas for
legal representation in the Chaparral Greens litigation.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: N/A.
DISCUSSION:
Approval of the resolution will increase the maximum compensation
set forth in the Agreement by $75,000 from $557,000 to $632,000.
It will allow continued representation of the City by Tina Thomas
of Remy and Thomas, the attorney who has provided advice with
regard to compliance with CEQA and the adequacy of the EIR
throughout the entire planning process. Both the City and the
county are named as Real Parties in Interest in the litigation, and
the defendant is the Baldwin Company, through its corporate entity,
Otay vista Associates.
FISCAL IMPACT: $75,000, the difference between the old
authorization ($557,000) and the amount herein approved ($632,000),
which by the agreement is to be paid by the Baldwin Company and the
establishment of a deposit account. The City has no funds exposed
for payment of attorney's fees in this matter. Our duty to pay the
attorney is dependent on collection of funds from Baldwin.
M:\Ho~e\Attorney\ChapprL3
'1-)
RESOLUTION NO. l1RdlO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING SIXTH AMENDMENT TO
AGREEMENT WITH REMY AND THOMAS FOR LITIGATION
REPRESENTATION SERVICES IN CONNECTION WITH THE
CHAPARRAL GREENS LAWSUIT, AND AUTHORIZING
MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAME
WHEREAS, the City, by Resolution No. 17347, on
January 4, 1994, approved an Agreement with Remy and Thomas for
Litigation Representation Services in connection with the Chaparral
Greens lawsuit; and,
WHEREAS, the city of Chula Vista, by Resolution No. 17426
on March 29, 1994, approved a First Amendment to Agreement to
provide for continued litigation representation services in
connection with the Chaparral Greens lawsuit, and an increase in
the maximum compensation from $75,000 to $160,000; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista, by Resolution No. 17481
on May 10, 1994, approved a Second Amendment to Agreement to
provide for continued litigation representation services in
connection with the Chaparral Greens lawsuit, and an increase in
the maximum compensation from $160,000 to $295,000; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista, by Resolution No. 17571
on July 19, 1994, approved a Third Amendment to Agreement to
provide for continued litigation representation services in
connection with the Chaparral Greens lawsuit, and increase the
total amount of compensation from $295,000 to $395,000; and
WHEREAS, the City of Chula vista, by Resolution No. 17650
on September 13, 1994, approved a Fourth Amendment to Agreement to
provide for continued litigation representation services in
connection with the Chaparral Greens lawsuit, and increase the
total compensation from $395,000 to $495,000; and
WHEREAS, the city of Chula Vista, by Resolution No. 17709
on November 8, 1994, approved a Fifth Amendment to Agreement to
provide for continued litigation representation services in
connection with the Chaparral Greens lawsuit, and increase the
total compensation from $495,000 to $557,000; and
WHEREAS, it is necessary to amend said Agreement to
increase the total amount of Agreement from $557,000 to $632,000;
and,
1
/-(;.
WHEREAS, Otay vista Associates is required by an
Indemnity Agreement to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City
regarding any litigation arising from City's approval of the otay
Ranch Project, including payment for legal counsel to represent
city in such litigation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the city of Chula vista does hereby approve the sixth Amendment to
Agreement with Remy and Thomas for Litigation Representation
Services in connection with the Chaparral Greens lawsuit, known as
document number C095-___, a copy of which is 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 sixth
Amendment and on b half of the City of Chula vista.
Bruce M. Boogaard
city Attorney
C:\rs\remy.6th
2
f
~3~1
JUN-01-95 THU 14:15
REMY 8t THOMAS
FAK NO. 9164439017
p, 02/03
SIXrH AMSNDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH
REMY AND THOMAS
UTIGAllON REPRESENTATION SERVICES
WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista, by Resolution 17347 on January 4, 1994, approved
an Agreement to provide fur litigation representation seIVices in connection with lhe Chaparral
Greens lawsuit; and
WHEREAS, the City ofChuIa Vista, by R~lution17426 on MarCh 29, 1994, approved
a First Amendment to Agreement to provide fur continued litigation representation services in
connection with the Chaparral Greens lawsuit, and an increase in the maximum compensation
from $75,000 to $160,000; and
WHEREAS, the City of ChUla Vista, by Resolution 17481 on May 10. 1994, approved
a Second Amendment to Agreement to provide for continued litigation representation services
in connection wilh the Chaparral Greens lawsuit, and an increase in the maximum compensation
from $160,000 to $295.000; and
WHEREAS. the City ofChula Vista, by Resolution 17.571 on July 19,1994, approved
a Third Amendment to Agreement to provide for continued litigation representation services in
connection with the Chapanal Greens lawsuit, and an increase in the maximum COmpensation
from $295,000 to $39',000: and
WHEREAS, the City of Chuta Vista, by Resolution 17650 on September 13. 1994,
approved a Fourlh Amendment to Agreemc:nt to provide for continued litigation representation
services in connection with the Chaparral Greens lawsuit, and an increase in the maximum
compensation from $395,000 to $495,000; and
WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista, by Resolution 17709 on November 8, 1994,
approved a Fifth Amendment to Agreement to provide for continued litigation representation
services in connection with the Chaparral Greens lawsuit, and an increase in the maximum
compensation from $495,000 to $557,000; and
WHEREAS, since that time, it has become apparent that litigation expense.~ will be
higher than originally anticipated it is necessary to amend said Agreement to in<:rease the total
amount of Agreement from $557,000 to $632,000; and
WHEREAS, the petitioners, Chapan:al GreenS filed a corrected Notice of Appeal on
April 19, 1995, appealing the lower court's denial of a writ of mandate.
WHEREAS, Otay Vista Associates (Baldwin) is responsible for and agn:es ro pay all
costs involved in defending lhe litigation as a result of the Indemnification Agreement approved
by the Council as pan of the final approval of the Otay Ranch Project.
NOW, 'IHERBFORb, the parties hereto agree as fOllows;
[-So
JUN-01-95 THU 14:16
REMY S. THOMAS
FAK NO. 9164439017
p, 03/03
1. 'Ibat Paragraph 2.b.iv. be amended to change the amount of $5:57,000 to
$632,000.00 to read as follows;
"iv. Consullant shall not incur costs or billings which, in total, clI:ceed Six Hundred
Thirty-Two Thousand Dollars ($632,000.00) without fUIther written approval of the
City. .
2. All other tenus and conditions not modified by this Fifth Amendment to
Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.
TN WITNESS WHEREOF, City, Consuham an<1 Developer have executed this SilI:th
Amendment to Agreement this day of , 1995.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
REMY AND THOMAS
-_ ,Mayor
~v C. )-4~/r:).----
Tllla A. Thomas
Attest;
GrAY VISTA ASSOCIATES
City Clerk
;zx
Bruce M. Boogaard
City Attorney
~ll502S7.100
\-~
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item Number
~
Meeting Date 6-13-95
ITEM TITLE: Resolution \1 tl d.. , Approving the First Amendment to the Existing
Agreement with CottonIBeland/Associates, Inc. to authorize $24,950 in
additional consulting services relating to the preparation of the environmental
documents for the City of Chula Vista Otay Ranch Specific Plan Area One
Project Environmental Impact Report and Authorizing the City Manager to
Execute Said Amendment. n~\ ^
SUBMITfED BY: Special Planning Projects Manager, Otay Ranch Proj~ ~ ~
REVIEWED BY: CityManager.J~ bl.O iM~ (4/5ths Vote: Yes_NoX)
On January 30, 1995 the City of Chula Vista entered into a three paIty contract with
CottonlBeland/Associates, Inc. and The Otay Ranch, L.P., a California limited partnership
(Baldwin Co.) to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the City of Chula Vista Otay
Ranch Specific Plan Area One Project. That contract was in compliance with Section 2.56.220.C
of the City of Chula Vista Municipal Code which states as follows: "Contracts for environmental
services, regardless of the amount, shall be negotiated by the Environmental Review
Coordinator....and awarded by the City Manager or designee." The original contract was for a
not-to-exceed amount of$190,825. The reason for this aInendment is to expand and complete the
transportation analysis as recommended by the Otay Ranch Transportation Committee for the
Otay Ranch Specific Plan Area One Project Environmental Impact Report.
CottonlBeland/Associates, Inc., The Otay Ranch, L.P. and Project Team have agreed that the
amendment, in the amount of $24,950 to the Original Three Party Agreement contract, is
necessary to cover an expanded scope-of-work that was not anticipated when the Three Party
Agreement was prepared. The scope of the work was expanded based upon the recommendation
of the Otay Ranch Transportation Committee which recommended that the EIR include an
additional 29 intersections which will require additional data collection, coding and analysis of
existing transportation system conditions as well as several additional alternatives to test network
and interchange alternatives at Palomar Street and Orange Avenue. This level of analysis was not
anticipated in the original scope-of-work. The Amendment has already been signed by Cotton!
Beland/Associates, Inc. and The Otay Ranch, L.P.
~
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution aInending the Existing Three PaIty Agreement and
Amendment No. 1 between the City of Chula Vista, Otay Ranch, L.P. and CottonlBelandl
Associates, Inc. to authorize $24,950 in additional services to prepare environmental documents for
the Otay Ranch Specific Plan Area One Project Environmental Impact Report and Authorizing the City
Manager to Execute Said Amendment.
cba.113Adoc6l6l95
~-J
Page 2,ltem No.
r
Meeting Date 6-13-95
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION: The City desires to continue to employ the firm ofCottonIBeland/Associates, Inc.
an environmental firm with expertise and experience in preparing environmental documents for
compliance with the State and City guidelines and procedures of CEQA in reference to the City of
Chula Vista Sphere of Influence Studies. The Amendment contains a not-to-exceed amount of
$24,950. Ail costs continue to be the responsibility ofOtay Ranch, L.P.
On May 9, 1994, a revised deposit Agreement was signed by Otay Ranch, L.P. for a payment schedule.
Pursuant to this Agreement, Otay Ranch, L.P. is required to make all payments and all expenditures are
to be current prior to the 25th of the succeeding month. The Agreement stipulates that late payments
accrue interest at the rate of 4.384 percent per annum. In addition, the City of Chula Vista has the
option to stop processing all Otay Ranch, L.P. discretionary applications if the deposits are not
received prior to the 25th of each month.
The current Contract with CottonlBeland/ Associates, Inc., authorized by the City Manager on
January 30,1995, specified a maximum limit of $190,825 to perform the environmental services on the
City of Chula Vista Otay Ranch Specific Plan Area One Project Environmental Impact Report. The
recommended amendment requires similar environmental services for a grand total not-to-exceed
figure of$215,775 without further authorization of Council. Representatives ofOtay Ranch, L.P. have
agreed with this anlOunt, and the Amendment is ready for Council authorization. Current payments to
date are $92,279.11. The current work program anticipates action by City Council on the Otay Ranch
Specific Plan Area One Project Environmental Impact Report and Environmental Impact Report in the
fall of 1995.
FISCAL IMPACT: There will be no fiscal impact to the City ofChula Vista. Otay Ranch, L.P. will
be funding the amended scope-of-work ($24,950) through their Agreement and monthly deposit to the
Otay Ranch trust account.
Attachments: Three Party Agreement
Amendment No. 1
cba.113A.doc 6/6195
~.~
RESOLUTION No._Dq~\
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE
EXISTING AGREEMENT WITH COTTON/BELAND/
ASSOCIATES, INC. TO AUTHORIZE $24,950 IN
ADDITIONAL CONSULTING SERVICES RELATING TO THE
PREPARATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS FOR
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA OTAY RANCH SPECIFIC
PLAN AREA ONE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO
EXECUTE SAID AMENDMENT
WHEREAS, on January 30, 1995, the city of Chula vista
entered into a three party contract with Cotton/Beland/Associates,
Inc. and The Otay Ranch, L.P., to prepare an Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) for the City of Chula Vista otay Ranch Specific Plan
Area One Project; and
WHEREAS, the original contract was for a not-to-exceed
amount of $190,825; and
WHEREAS, the First Amendment will expand and complete the
transportation analysis as recommended by the Otay Ranch
Transportation Committee for the Otay Ranch Specific Plan Area One
Project Environmental Impact Report.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the
City of Chula vista does hereby approve the First Amendment to the
Existing Agreement with Cotton/Beland/Associates, Inc. to authorize
$24,950 in additional consulting services relating to the
preparation of the environmental documents for the city of Chula
vista Otay Ranch specific Plan Area One Project Environmental
Impact Report, on file in the office of the City Clerk as Document
No. (to be completed by the Clerk in the final document).
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager of the City
of Chula vista is hereby authorized and directed to execute said
Amendment for and on behalf of the City of Chula vista.
Presented by
~ to form~
Gerald Jamriska, Special
Planning Projects Manager
Bruce M.
Attorney
C:\rs\cotton,1st
~-3 !~-4-
..J~#I(.
Three Party Agreement
Between
City of Chula Vista,
Cotton/Beland/ Associates, and
The Otay Ranch L.P.
For Consulting Work to be Rendered
with regard to The Otay Ranch Project
1. Parties
This Agreement is made as of the reference date set forth in Exhibit A, for
the purposes of reference only, and effective as of the date last executed by the
parties hereto, between the City of Chula Vista ("City") herein, a municipal
corporation of the State of Califomia, the person designated on the Attached
Exhibit A as "Consultant" ("Consultant") whose business form and address is
indicated on the attached Exhibit A, and the person designated on the Attached
Exhibit A as "Applicant" ("Applicant") whose business form and address is
indicated on the attached Exhibit A, and is made with reference to the following
facts:
2. Recitals, Warranties and Representations.
.1. Warranty of Ownership.
Applicant warrants that Applicant is the owner of land ("Property")
commonly known as, or generally located as, described on Exhibit A, Paragraph
1, or has an option or other entitlement to develop said Property.
.2. Applicant desires to develop the Property with the Project described on
Exhibit A, Paragraph 2, and in that regard, has made application ("Application")
with the City for approval of the plan, map, zone, or other permits
("Entitlements") described on Exhibit A, Paragraph 3.
.3. In order for the City to process the Application of Applicant, Work of
the general nature and type described in Exhibit A, Paragraph 4, ("Work") will
need to be completed.
.4. City does not presently have the "inhouse" staff or resources to process
the application within the time frame requested for review by the Applicant.
.5. This agreement proposes an arrangement by which Applicant shall
retain, and be liable for the costs of retaining, Consultant, who shall perform the
services required of Consultant by this Agreement solely to, and under the
direction of, the City.
cba-cont.doc
.Jnnuury '27. was
2"~5
TI1ree Party Agreement /
Page 1
.6. Additional facts and circumstances regarding the background for this
agreement are set forth on Exhibit B;
3. Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED TO AND BETWEEN
THE CITY, CONSULTANT, AND APPLICANT AS FOLLOWS:
.1. Employment of Consultant by Applicant.
Consultant is hereby engaged by the Applicant, not the City, and at
Applicant's sole cost and expense, to perform to, and for the primary benefit of,
City, and solely at City's direction, all of the services described on the attached
Exhibit A, Paragraph 4, entitled "General Nature of Consulting Services",
("General Services"), and in the process of performing and delivering said
General Services, Consultant shall also perform to and for the benefit of City all
of the services described in Exhibit A, Paragraph 5, entitled "Detailed Scope of
Work", ("Detailed Services"), and all services reasonable necessary to accomplish
said General Services and Detailed Scope of Work, and shall deliver such
documents required ("Deliverables") herein, all within the time frames herein set
forth, and in particular as set forth in Exhibit A, Paragraph 6, and if none are
set forth, within a reasonable period of time for the diligent execution of
Consultant's duties hereunder. Time is of the essence of this covenant.
The Consultant does hereby agree to perform said General and Detailed
Services to and for the primary benefit of the City for the compensation herein
fixed to be paid by Applicant. .
In delivering the General and Detailed Services hereunder, the Consultant
shall do so in a good, professional 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, at its own cost and expense
except for the compensation and/or reimbursement, if any, herein promised, and
shall furnish all of the labor, technical, administrative, professional and other
personnel, all supplies and materials, machinery, equipment, printing, vehicles,
transportation, office space and facilities, calculations, and all other means
whatsoever, except as herein otherwise expressly specified to be furnished by the
. City or Applicant, necessary or proper to perform and complete the work and
provide the Services required of the Consultant.
.2. Compensation of Consultant.
Applicant shall compensate Consultant for all services rendered by
Consultant without regard to the conclusions reached by the Consultant, and
according to the terms and conditions set forth in Exhibit C adjacent to the
cbn.{'ont.llol'
,JllllU:ln' :n. l~J!)G
g> i,.
Three Party Agreement
Page 2
governing compensation relationship indicated by a "checkmark" next to the
appropriate arrangement, by paying said amount to the City, within 15 days of
Applicant's billing, or in accordance with the security deposit provisions of
Paragraph 3.3 and Exhibit C, if checked, and upon receipt of such payment by
the City, City shall promptly, not later than 15 days, or in accordance with the
Bill Processing procedure in Exhibit C, if checked, pay said amount to the
Consultant. City is merely acting in the capacity as a conduit for payment, and
shall not be liable for the compensation unless it receives same from Applicant.
Applicant shall not make any payments of compensation or otherwise directly to
the Consultant.
.1. Additional Work. If the Applicant, with the concurrence of City,
determines that additional services ("Additional Services") are needed from
Consultant of the type Consultant is qualified to render or reasonably related to
the Services Consultant is otherwise required to provide by this Agreement, the
Consultant agrees to provide such additional services on a time and materials
basis paid for by Applicant at the rates set forth in Exhibit C, unless a separate
fixed fee is otherwise agreed upon in writing for said Additional Work between
the parties.
.1. In the event that the City shall determine that
additional work is required to be performed above and beyond the
scope of work herein provided, City will consult with Applicant
regarding the additional work, and if thereupon the Applicant fails
or refuses to arrange and pay for said Additional Services, the City
may, at its option, suspend any further processing of Applicant's
Application until the Applicant shall deposit the City's estimate of
the costs of the additional work which the City determines is or
may be required. Applicant shall pay any and all additional costs
for the additional work.
.2. Reductions in Scope of Work. City may independently, or upon
request from Consultant, from time to time reduce the 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.
Upon failure to agree, the Fixed Fee may be unilaterally reduced by the City by
the amount of time and materials budgeted by Consultant for the Services
deleted.
.3. Security for Payment of Compensation by Applicant.
.1. Deposit. As security for the payment of Consultant by
Applicant, Applicant shall, upon execution of this Agreement, deposit the amount
indicated on Exhibit C as "Deposit Amount" with the City, as trustee for
dm"\'ont.doc
,!:lllWlf\' '~7 l!JDG
~~7
Three Party Agrep-rnent 3
Pm:;t: :~
Consultant, the conditions of such trust being as indicated on Exhibit C and as
hereinbelow set forth:
.1 Other Terms of Deposit Trust.
.1. City shall also be entitled to retain from said
Deposit all costs incurred by City for which it is entitled to compensation by law
or under the terms of this agreement.
.2. All interest eamed on the Deposit Amount, if any,
shall accrue to the benefit of, and be used for, Trust purposes. City may, in lieu
of deposit into a separate bank account, separately account for said deposit in
one or more of its various bank accounts, and upon doing so, shall
proportionately distribute to the Deposit Trust, the average interest eamed
during the period on its general fund.
.3. Any unused balance of Deposit Amount, including
any unused interest eamed, shall be retumed to Applicant not later than 30
days after the termination of this Agreement and any claims resulting
therefrom.
.4. . Applicant shall be notified within 30 days after of
the use of the Deposit in any manner. Nothing herein shall invalidate use of
the Deposit in the manner herein authorized.
.5. At such time as City shall reasonably determine
that inadequate funds remain on Deposit to secure future compensation likely
due Consultant or City, City may make demand of Applicant to supplement said
Deposit Amount in such amount as City shall reasonably specify, and upon
doing so, Applicant shall, within 30 days pays said amount ("Supplemental
Deposit Amount") to City. Said Supplement Deposit Amount or Amounts shall
be govemed by the same terms of trust goveming the original Deposit.
.2. Withholding of Processing.
In addition to use of the Deposit as security, in order to secure the
duty of Applicant to pay Consultant for Services rendered under this agreement,
. City shall be entitled to withhold processing of Applicant's Application upon a
. breach of Applicant's duty to compensate Consultant.
cba-cont.doe
,Januarv :2.7, lUDG
g'---g/
Three Party Agreement
Page 4
.'
4. Non.Service Related Duties of Consultant.
.1. 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 coverages, 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:
.1. Statutory Worker's Compensation Insurance and Employer's
Liability Insurance coverage in the amount set forth in the attached Exhibit A,
Paragraph 10.
.2. Commercial General Liability Insurance including Business
Automobile Insurance coverage in the amount set forth in Exhibit A, Paragraph
10, 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 of the general public
("Cross. liability Coverage").
.2. Proof of Insurance Coveraee.
.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 and Applicant
demonstrating same.
.3, Public Statements.
All public statements and releases to the news media shall be the
responsibility of the City and the Applicant. The Consultant shall not publish
or release news items, articles or present lectures on the Project, either during
the course of the study or after its completion, except on written concurrence of
the City and Applicant.
cbl1~Cont.ltoe
.JcUlUlil"V '27. lQ~)5
?r;
Three Party Agreement
P31.:'e ;,
~
. .
.4. Communication to Applicant.
Consultant shall not communicate directly to the Applicant except in the
presence of the City, or by writing an exact copy of which is simultaneously
provided to City, except with the express consent of City. The Consultant may
request such meetings with the Applicant to ensure the adequacy of services
performed by Consultant.
5. Non-Compensation Duties of the Applicant.
.1. Documents Access.
The Applicant shall provide to the Consultant, through the City, for the
use by the Consultant and City, such documents, or copies of such documents
requested by Applicant, within the possession of Applicant reasonably useful to
the Consultant in performing the services herein required of Consultant,
including but not limited to those described in Exhibit A, Paragraph 7.
.2. Propertv Access.
The Applicant hereby grants permission to the City and Consultant to
enter and access the Property, to take any borings, make any tests, conduct any
surveys or reconnaissance necessary to deliver the Services of Consultant,
subject to the approval of the Applicant. Consultant shall promptly repair any
damage to the subject property occasioned by such entry and shall indemnify,
defend, and hold Applicant harmless from all loss, cost, damage, expenses,
claims, and liabilities in connection with or arising from any such entry and
access.
.3. Communication to Consultant.
Applicant shall not communicate directly to the Consultant except in the
presence of the City, or by writing an exact copy of which is simultaneously
provided to City, except with the express consent of City. The Applicant may
request such meetings as they desire with the Consultant to ensure the
adequacy of services performed by Consultant.
.6. Administrative Representatives.
Each party designates the individuals ("Administrators") indicated in
Exhibit A, Paragraph 8, as said party's contract administrator who is authorized
by said party to represent them in the routine administration of this agreement.
7. Conflicts of Interest
.1. Consultant is Designated as an FPPC Filer.
cbn-cont.doe
.January'1.7, 1095
g--- J tJ
Three Party Agreement
Page 6
If Consultant is designated on Exhibit A, Paragraph 9, 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 his
economic interests to the City Clerk on the required Statement of Economic
Interests in such reporting categories as are specified in Paragraph 9 of Exhibit
A, or if none are specified, then as determined by the City Attorney.
.2. Decline to Participate.
Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC Filer.
Consultant shall not 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 financial interest
other than the compensation promised by this Agreement.
.3. 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.
.4. Promise Not to Acauire 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.
.5. Dutv 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.
.6. Specific Warranties Ag-ainst Economic Interests.
Consultant warrants and represents that neither Consultant, nor
Consultant's immediate family members, nor Consultant's employees or agents
s>" ~ /1
Three Party i\gT~eml'nt
n:H!'" -;
1
cba-cont.dol'
.]allu:ll'Y '27, :'lqfj
("Consultant Associates") presently have any interest, directly or indirectly
whatsoever in the property which is the subject matter of the Project, or in any
property within 10 radial miles from the exterior boundaries of the property
which is the subject matter of the Project, or ("Prohibited Interest").
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 by Applicant or by any other
party as a result of 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.
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.
8. Default of the Consultant for Breach.
This agreement may be terminated by the CITY for default if the
Consultant breaches this agreement or if the Consultant refuses or fails to
pursue the work under this agreement or any phase of the work with such
diligence which would assure its completion within a reasonable period of time.
Termination of this agreement because of a default of the Consultant shall not
relieve the Consultant from liability of such default.
9. City's Ril!"ht to Terminate Payment for Convenience. Documents.
.1. Notwithstanding any other section or provision of this agreement,
the CITY shall have the absolute right at any time to terminate this agreement
or any work to be performed pursuant to this agreement.
.2. In the event of termination of this agreement by the CITY in the
absence of default of the Consultant, the City shall pay the Consultant for. the
reasonable value of the services actually performed by the Consultant up to the
. date of such termination, less the aggregate of all sums previously paid to the
Consultant for services performed after execution of this agreement and prior to
its termination.
.3. The Consultant hereby expressly waives any and all claims for
damage or compensation arising under this agreement, except as set forth
herein, in the event of such termination.
%/);2.
cbll.cont.doc
,Januurv '2.7. lan5
Three Party Agreement
Page 8
.4. In the event of termination of this agreement, and upon demand of
the City, the Consultant shall deliver to the City, all field notes, surveys,
studies, reports, plans, drawings and all other materials and documents
prepared by the Consultant in performance of this agreement, and all such
documents and materials shall be the property of the City; provided however,
that the Consultant may retain copies for their own use and the City shall
provide a copy, at Applicant's cost, of all such documents to the Applicant.
.5. Applicant shall have no right to terminate Consultant, and shall not
exercise any control or direction over Applicant's work.
10. Administrative Claims Requirement and Procedures
No suit 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 of
Chula Vista and acted upon by the City of Chula Vista in accordance with the
procedures set forth in Chapter 1.34 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, the
provisions of which are incorporated by this reference as if set fully set forth
herein.
11. Hold Harmless and Indemnification
.1. Consultant to Indemnifv City and Applicant re Injuries.
Consultant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its elected and
appointed officers and employees and Applicant from and against all claims for
damages, liability, cost and expense (including without limitation attorneys' fees)
arising out of the conduct of the Consultant, or any agent or employees,
subcontractors, or others of City or Applicant in connection with the execution of
the work covered by this Agreement, except only for those claims arising from
the sole negligence or sole willful conduct of the City, its officers, or employees,
or Applicant, Consultant's indemnification shall include any and all costs,
expenses, attorneys' fees and liability incurred by the City, its officers, agents, or
employees or Applicant in defending against such claims, whether the same
proceed to judgment or not. Further, Consultant at its own expense shall, upon
written request by the City or Applicant, defend any such suit or action brought
against the City, its officers, agents, or employees or Applicant. Consultants'
indemnification of City and Applicant shall not be limited by any prior or
subsequent declaration by the Consultant.
.1.A Consultant's obligation to indemnify and save harmless City and
Applicant shall not include any obligation to defend City, its elected and
appointed officials, officers, agents or employees against any action or claim
brought by any person alleging any negligent act or omission of Consultant in
the performance of its services, but the Consultant's obligation to indemnify City
and Applicant shall include reasonable attorney fees and costs if Consultant is
eba-cont.doc
Jl1l1UHry 27, 1905
(t-/)
Three Party Agreement 9
Pag-e 9
found to have committed a negligent act or omission m performance of its
services under this Agreement.
.2. Applicant to Indemnifv Citv re Compensation of Consultant.
Applicant agrees to defend, indemnify and hold the City harmless against
and from any and all claims, losses, damages, expenses or expenditures of City,
including its elected officials, officers, employees, agents, or representatives of
the City ("City lndemnitees"), in any way resulting from or arising out of the
refusal to pay compensation as demanded by Consultant for the performance of
services required by this Agreement.
12. Business Licenses
Applicant agrees to obtain a business license from the City and to
otherwise comply with Chula Vista Municipal Code, Title 5. Applicant further
agrees to require Consultant to obtain such business license and to comply with
Chula Vista Municipal Code, Title 5.
13. Miscellaneous.
13.1. Consultant not authorized to Represent City.
Unless specifically authorized in writing by City, neither Consultant nor
Applicant shall have authority to act as City's agent to bind City to any
contractual agreements whatsoever.
13.2. 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 for the parties in Exhibit A.
13.3. Entitlement to Subseauent Notices.
No notice to or demand on the parties for notice of an event not herein
legally required to be given shall in itself create the right in the parties to any
other or further notice or demand in the same, similar or other circumstances.
13.4. Entire Acreement.
This Agreement, together with any other written document referred to or
contemplated herein, embody the entire Agreement and understanding between
eba-cont.doc
January '27, 1995
rr~ ) f
'Three Party Agreement
Page 10
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.
13.5. Capacitv 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; that all resolutions or other actions have
been taken so as to enable it to enter into this Agreement.
13.6. Governinl! 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.
13.7. Modification.
No modification or waiver of any prOViSiOn of this Agreement shall be
effective unless the same shall be in writing and signed by the parties hereto,
and then shall be valid only in the specific instance and for the purpose for
which given.
13.8. Counterparts.
This Agreement may be executed in more than one counterpart, each of
which shall be deemed to be an original but all of which, when taken together
shall constitute but one instrument.
13.9. Severability.
In the event that any provision of this Agreement shall for any reason, be
determined to be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable in any respect, the parties
hereto shall negotiate in good faith and agree to such amendments,
modifications, or supplements to this Agreement or such other appropriate action
as shall, to the maximum extent practicable in light of such determination,
implement and give effect to the intentions of the parties as reflected herein.
eba-nlllt.doc
.January'27, InDG
/'
~/j5
Three Party Ag-reement
Pngp J
II
13.10. Heading-s.
The captions and headings in this Agreement are for convenience only and
shall not define or limit the provisions hereof.
13.11. Waiver.
No course of dealing or failure or delay, nor the single failure or delay, or
the partial exercise of any right, power or privilege, on the part of the parties
shall operate as a waiver of any rights herein contained. The making or the
acceptance of a payment by either party with knowledge of the existence of a
breach shall not operate or be construed to operate as a waiver of any such
breach.
13.12. Remedies.
The rights of the parties under this Agreement are cumulative and not
exclusive of any rights or remedies which the parties might otherwise have
unless this Agreement provides to the contrary.
13.13. No Additional Beneficiaries.
Despite the fact that the required performance under this agreement may
have an affect upon persons not parties hereto, the parties specifically intend no
benefit therefrom, and agree that no performance hereunder may be enforced by
any person not a party to this agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, this is
a three party agreement and the City is an express third party beneficiary of the
promises of Consultant to provide services paid for by Applicant.
(End of Page. Next Page is Signature Page.)
cha-cont.doc
Jl1nuarv '27, J!)f)5
z/)~
Three Party Agreement
Page 12
SIGNATURE PAGE
Now, therefore, the parties hereto, having read and understood the terms
and conditions of this Agreement, do hereby express their consent to the terms
hereof by setting their hand hereto on the date set forth adjacent thereto.
AP~:r
Dated;
(~ba.('ont.,lo(',
.Innuarv ',21. 1~)Dfi
s
,
Attorney
City of Chub Vista
Dated:
Consultant:
Cotton/Beland,lAssociates. Inc.
by; 9~-/ t?~~
John 'E. Bridges,
Dated; //~o/?~
Applicant:
The Otay Ranch, L.P.,
a California Limited Partnership
By; Baldwin Builders, a
California Corporation,
its general partner
e-president
Dated;
6-~ I ?
Three Party Agreement
Page I:;
/3
Exhibit A
Reference Date of Agreement: January 30, 1995
Effective Date of Agreement: January 30, 1995
City of Chula Vista, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910
Consultant: Cotton/Beland/Associates, Inc.
Business Form of Consultant:
( ) Sole Proprietorship
( ) Partnership
(X) Corporation
Address: 747 East Green Street, Suite 400, Pasadena, CA 91101
Applicant: The Otay Ranch. L.P.
Business Form of Applicant:
( ) Sole Proprietorship
(X) Partnership
( ) Corporation
Address: 11975 EI Camino Real, Suite 200, San Diego, 92130
1. Property (Commonly known address or General Description):
Otay Ranch is located in southwestem San Diego County approximately 3.5
miles east of downtown Chula Vista and 13 miles southeast of downtown San
Diego. The property lies between the eastem edge of the City of Chula Vista and
the westem edge of the unincorporated community of Dulzura. The rural
community of Jamul lies directly northeast of the project area, and the United
States-Mexico intemational border is 2 miles south of the southernmost
boundary of Otay Ranch. The combined properties span a distance of
approximately 12 miles from east to west and 8.5 miles from north to south. A
majority (22,509 acres) of the Otay Ranch is located within the unincorporated
. area of San Diego County; the remaining 390 acres are situated in the Otay
Mesa area of the City of San Diego.
2. Project Description ("Project"):
The proposed project is a proposal for a Sectional Planning Area Plan,
annexations, Tentative map(s), General Development Plan (GDP) Amendment,
Overall Design Plan, Phase II Resource Management Plan and other related
cba-cont,/Inc
Januarv:27 IC!!)5
JY1r
Three Party Agreement
Paq8 1
IS-
discretionary actions in conjunction with the proposed Sectional Planning Area
(SPA) One Plan for Villages 1 and 5 of the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP.
The Project Area proposed for the Otay Ranch SPA One Plan. encompasses
approximately 1,100 acres.
The Project Area proposed for the Otay Ranch General Development Plan
Amendment, Phase II Resource Management Plan and Overall Design Plan
encompasses approximately 22,899 acres.
3. Entitlements applied for that are contemplated as part of the proposed
project are as follows:
A. SPA One Plan: It is contemplated that the applicant will process a Sectional
Planning Area Plan for Otay Ranch Villages 1 and 5. Pursuant to Chula Vista
Municipal Code Section 19.48.090 the Sectional Plan will consist of the following
components:
. Site Utilization Plan depicting proposed land uses, preliminary grading,
proposed streets and major infrastructure, riding, hiking and bicycle trails,
the number of dwelling units by type, location and scale of commercial
and industrial facilities.
. As required by the Otay Ranch GDP, the Sectional Planning Area Plan
will also contain a separate Village Design Plan depicting landscape and
streetscape guidelines, signage programs, site planning, grading,
architectural and lighting guidelines, special visual studies, and a village
core concept plan with typical building elevations and development
standards.
. Additionally, pursuant to City of Chula Vista's Growth Management
Ordinance, the Sectional Planning Area Plan shall be accompanied by a
Public Facilities Financing Plan which shall describe the individual and
cumulative impacts of the proposed plan on the community as it relates to
City of Chula Vista's Growth Management Thresholds. The Public
Facilities Financing Plan will include a list of facilities and services
required by the project as well as present and future requirements for
each facility, a phasing schedule for the provision of public facilities and a
financing plan identifying funding for each facility and service.
. B. General Development Plan Amendment:
Concurrent with the processing of a Sectional Planning Area Plan for Otay
Ranch Villages 1 and 5, it is also contemplated that the applicant will process
an amendment to the Otay Ranch GDP. This GDP Amendment will propose the
deletion of a single sentence on Page 113 of the Otay Ranch GDP which
currently provides "Each Village must be master-planned as a unit." .
15-//
cbl1-cont.doc
,Januarv::.7. 1005
Three Party Agreement
Page 2
C. Overall Desi/nl Plan:
It is contemplated that the applicant will process an Overall Design Plan for the
entire Otay Ranch property concurrent with the processing of the SPA One plan.
The Overall Design Plan is a requirement of the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP and
must be approved by the City of Chula Vista and the County of San Diego prior
to or concurrent with the approval of the first Otay Ranch SPA. The Overall
Design Plan will address design concept for Otay Ranch, including unifying
elements, schematic designs for arterial roads and scenic corridors, landform
grading guidelines, ranch-wide locational sign age concepts, special design
consideration for areas which are visible from Salt Creek, the Otay Lakes and
the Otay River Valley.
D. Phase II Resource Manae'ement Plan:
It is contemplated that the applicant will process a series of studies collectively
known as the "Phase II Resource Management Plan" (RMP). Components of the
Phase II RMP include a cultural resource survey of the Otay Ranch western
parcel, gnatcatcher and cactus wren population studies, identification and
mapping of floodplains, a plan for the preservation and management of vernal
pools, plan for the management and preservation of Otay Valley wetlands,
identification of more precise preserve boundaries, maritime coastal sage
restoration plan, conceptual plan for restoration of riparian habitats, plan for
restoration of grasslands, conceptual revegetation plan to create habitats for
least Bell's vireo, selection of a preserve owner/manager, establishment of a biota
monitoring program, identification of a funding program for the resource
preserve, creation of a general infrastructure plan, identification of permitted
uses and preparation of a range management plan.
E. Tentative Maps:
It is anticipated that the SPA One Plan will be accompanied by one or more
tentative map applications for all or part of the SPA One project area.
F. Annexation:
It is anticipated that subsequent to SPA One approval, the applicant will seek
annexation of all or part of the SPA One project area into the City of Chula
Vista.
4. General Nature of Consulting Services (IServicesnGeneral"):
The preparation of draft (Deliverable No.1) and final environmental impact
(Deliverable No.2) reports on the Project, candidate CEQA fmdings (Deliverable
No.3) and all other necessary environmental documents as outlined in
Paragraph 5 as a Detailed Scope of Work, including but not limited to, a
mitigation monitoring program for the City of Chula Vista.
g-,)..CJ
Three Party Agreement
P:l~e ,)
/1
('ba-cont.doc
,hUluarv '27, 1905
5. Detailed Scope of Work ("Detailed Services"):
The draft and final EIR and Candidate CEQA fmdings shall comply completely
with the criteria, standards and procedures of the California Environmental
Quality Act of 1970 (Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq.), the State
CEQA Guidelines (California Admin. Code Section 15000 et seq.), the
Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista and the
regulations, requirements and procedures of any other responsible public agency
or any agency with jurisdiction by law. If there are any conflicts between the
City of Chula Vista's requirements and those of another agency, the City of
Chula Vista's shall prevail.
The draft and final EIR shall provide an evaluation of feasible mitigation
measures which could be carried out to reduce or eliminate adverse impacts of
the proposed project. The documents shall also analyze feasible alternatives to
the project as proposed.
If there are mitigation measures or alternatives to the project which could
reduce the adverse consequences of the project but which are infeasible, the
consultant shall cite in the candidate CEQA findings the possible economic,
social or other conditions which render the mitigation measure or alternative
infeasible.
The report shall specify which mitigation measures have been incorporated into
the project and which feasible mitigation measures have not, but which could be
incorporated as part of the project. The report shall also identify feasible
alternatives which could reduce the adverse impacts but are not proposed by the
proponent.
The Consultant shall consult with all responsible agencies, agencies having
jurisdiction by law and any other person or organization having control over or
interest in the project.
The documents shall be prepared in such a manner that they will be meaningful
and useful to decision makers and to the public. Technical data should be
summarized in the body of the report and placed in an appendix. All public
documents shall be prepared in accordance with the standards of the California
. Association of Environmental Professionals.
Unless inconsistent with the foregoing scope of work as identified in Exhibit A,
Numbers 4 and 5, consultant shall be responsible for the scope of identified in
Exhibits D-1 and D-2.
cbll-cont.doc
,Januflry 27. WQ5
g-~ c2- /
Three Party Agreement
Page 4
6. Schedule, Milestone, Time-Limitations within which to Perform Services.
Date for Commencement of Consultant Services:
(X) Same as Effective Date of Agreement
Dates or Time Limits for Delivery of Deliverables:
Pursuant to Exhibit D-l, D-2, and D-3.
Dates for completion of all Consultant services:
Pursuant to Exhibit D-l, D-2, and D-3.
7. Documents to be provided by Applicant to Consultant:
(X) site plans (X) grading plans (X) architectural elevations ( ) project
description.
(X) other:
SPA 1 Report and supporting documentation and graphics.
8. Contract Administrators.
City: Gerald J. Jamriska, A.I.C.P., Special Planning Projects Manager
Applicant: The Otay Ranch, L.P.
Consultant: CottonjBeland/ Associates, Inc.
9. Statement of Economic Interests, Consultant Reporting Categories, per
Conflict of Interest Code:
ex) Not Applicable. Not an 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.
cbll-cont.duc
,IHnum'v'1.7. IG9S
5{>- :2 .2-
'Three Party Agreement
Pflge -
/9
() 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.
10. 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).
() Errors and Omissions insurance: $250,000 (not included in
Commercial General Liability coverage).
?[/J,}
cba-t'ont.doc
.Janu:lrv'27. lans
Three Party Agreement
Page 6
Exhibit B
to the
Agreement between City of Chula Vista,
Cotton/Beland/Associates, Inc.
and The Otay Ranch, L.P.
Additional Recitals
WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista has received an application for a
Sectional Planning Area Plan, annexation, tentative map(s), General
Development Plan (GDP) Amendment, Overall Design Plan, Phase II Resource
Management Plan and other related discretionary actions in conjunction with
the proposed Sectional Planning Area (SPA) One Plan for Villages 1 and 5 of
the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP, and has determined that the project meets the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) definition of a "project" pursuant
to Section 21065 of the Public Resources Code; and
WHEREAS, in order to comply with CEQA, an Environmental Impact
Report will be required to be prepared to analyze the project's potential impact
to the environment; and,
WHEREAS, public notice of the required environmental services was
published in a paper of general circulation, inviting prospective Consultants to
submit proposals, letters of interest and/or applications to be on the list of
qualified Environmental Consultants, and
WHEREAS, the City Manager appointed a selection committee which has
in accordance with Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 2.56.230 recommended
the above noted Environmental Consultant to perform the required services for
the City, and
WHEREAS, the majority of the project area encompasses the Otay Ranch
General Development Plan/Subregional Plan area owned by The Otay Ranch,
L.P. (Applicant which will be the primary beneficiary of the City's Study); and,
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has negotiated the
. details of this Agreement in accordance with procedures set forth in Sections
2.56.220-224 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code and Sections 6.5.2 and 6.6 of
the Environmental Review Procedures; and
WHEREAS, this Three Party Agreement has been drafted in compliance
with Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 2.56.220 et seq. relating to purchases
of environmental services.
cbll-cont.doc
.1flnuilr\'.:27, 1985
2"~02. f
Three Party Agreement
P:J~e '7
;;./
Exhibit C
to the
Agreement between City of Chula Vista,
Cotton/Beland/ Associates, Inc.
and The Otay Ranch, L.P.
Compensation Schedule and Deposit: Terms and Conditions.
(X) Single Fixed Fee Arrangement.
For performance of alI of the General and Detailed Services of Consultant
as herein required, Applicant shalI pay a single fixed fee in the amounts and at
the times or milestones set forth below:
(X) Single Fixed Fee Amount: $159,075.00
Milestone or Event
Percent of Fixed Fee
1. Signing of agreement by alI parties and upon request of the Consultant 10%
2. Project Description Agreement 5%
3. Screen check Environmental Setting and Thresholds of Significance 5%
4. Screen check Draft ElR, :MM:RP, and Appendices 5CY'lo
5. Public Review Draft EIR, :MM:RP and Appendices 10%
6. Administrative Responses to Comments on the Public Review Draft EIR 10%
7. Final EIR and :MM:RP 10%
FolIowing contract initiation, CBA will submit invoices on a monthly basis. The
invoices will specify the percentage completion of work by milestone or task, and
will not exceed 80 percent of the percent of fixed fee identified above for each
milestone which includes a deliverable product, until that product has been
delivered.
( ) Phased Fixed Fee Arrangement.
For the performance of each phase or portion of the General and Detailed
Services of Consultant as are separately identified in Exhibit C, under the
chn-cont.doc
.January '27, ] 095
?/..J.3
Thre~ Party Agreement ;{ 3-
Page 8
category labeled "Phased Fixed Fee Arrangement", Applicant shall pay the fIxed
fee associated with each phase of Services, in the amounts and at the times or
milestones set forth hereinbelow ("Phase Fixed Fee Arrangement"). Consultant
shall not commence Services under any Phase, and shall not be entitled to the
compensation for a Phase, unless Applicant shall have issued a notice to proceed
to Consultant as to said Phase.
Phase
Fee for Said Phase
1.
$
2.
$
( ) Time and Materials
For performance of the General and Detailed Services of Consultant as
herein required, Applicant shall pay Consultant for the productive hours of time
and material spent by Consultant in the performance of said Services, at the
rates or amounts set forth hereinbelow according to the following terms and
conditions:
Senior Principal $105.00 - $120.00 per hour
Principal $100.00 per hour
Senior Associate, Principal Planner, $80.00 - $110.00 per hour
Environmentalist
Planner, Environmentalist $60.00 - $80.00 per hour
Assistant Planner, Environmentalist, $45.00 - $60.00 per hour
Computer Technician
Support Planner, Environmentalist $35.00 - $45.00 per hour
Graphics Technician $30.00 - $45.00 per hour
Word Processing Technician $35.00 - $40.00 per hour
Non-Technical Support Person $30.00 per hour
Printing and copy work per diem, long distance telephone and similar costs are
invoiced at 1.15 times our cost. Subcontract costs are invoiced at 1.20 times the
actual subcontract cost. Mileage charges are $.30 per mile.
cba-cont,doc
January 27, 1995
~/~~
TItree Pnrty Agreement
Page 9
Hourly rates for attendance at public hearings and meetings are as specified
above if the hearing is between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. Rates for
the period 10:00 p.m. to midnight are 1.5 times the above rates. Rates for time
after midnight are 2.0 times the above rates.
This schedule is effective through December 31, 1995, and IS subject to revision
annually thereafter.
() 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 General and Detailed Services herein required
of Consultant for $ including all Materials, and other
"reimburseables" ("Maximum Compensation").
( ) 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 Council. Nothing herein shall
preclude Consultant from providing additional Services at Consultant's
own cost and expense.
Materials Separatelv Paid For bv Applicant
Cost or Rate
(X) Materials
Reports
Copies
Actual
( ) Travel
(X) Printing
( ) Postage
. (X) Delivery
. ( ) Long Distance Telephone Charges
( ) Other Actual Identifiable Direct Costs
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
2"".2 ?
Threp Party Agrf'P~n8nt
[J;'l.ce 10
;(~
ebll-eont.(loc
,Jamw.rv '27, lD!)5
Deposit
(X) Deposit Amount: $ 10,000.00
( ) Use of Deposit to Pay Consultant.
Notwithstanding the sole duty and liability of Applicant to pay
Consultant, if this paragraph is "checked", upon City's receipt of billing by
Consultant, and determination by City in good faith that Consultant's billing is
proper, a judgment for which Applicant agrees to hold City harmless and waive
any claim against City, City shall pay Consultant's billing from the amount of
the Deposit. If Applicant shall protest the propriety of a billing to City in
advance of payment, City shall consider Applicant's protest and any evidence
submitted prior to the due date for the payment of said bill by Applicant in
making its good faith determination of propriety.
(X) Use of Deposit as Security Only; Applicant to Make Billing Payments.
Upon determination by City made in good faith that Consultant is entitled
to compensation which shall remain unpaid by Applicant 30 days after billing,
City may, at its option, use the Deposit to pay said billing.
(X) Bill Processing:
A. Consultant's Billing to be sU2.mitted for the following period of time:
(X) Monthly
( ) Quarterly
( ) Other:
B. Day of the Period for submission of Consultant's Billing:
(X) First of the Month
( ) 15th Day of each Month
( ) End of the Month
( ) Other:
C.
City's Account Number:
241-5201
cba-eont.doc
January 27, 1995
g~,). r
Three Party Agreement
Page 11
Exhibit D-l
Scope of Services and Sche ule
Cotton/BelancVAssociat s
\
,
\
\
/
s-- r,..< '1
cbO-t'ont.doc
.]Ilnu:u"v ::7. lOgS
/
Three Pnrty Agreement
Page I ~
~7
;;~ ))., h,t
D-I
General
Approach
Scope of
Services
Objective
Scope of Services and Schedule
The general approach to be used in preparing the
Environmental Impact Report for Otay Ranch SPA One is as
follows:
. A "second-tier" EIR and supporting documentation will
be prepared that connects directly with Program EIR
90-01;
. Earlier relevant environmental documentation will be
used to the extent possible to achieve greater efficiency
in the CEQA process and minimize overall time for
completion; and
. The EIR will rely upon existing environmental
documentation and studies, as well as information to be
prepared as part of related discretionary actions to
maintain consistency in documentation, methods of
analysis, and conclusions, unless changes in
circumstances require adjustments.
This section describes the specific tasks CBA will perform and
the schedule to be followed in preparing the Environmental
Impact Report for Otay Ranch SPA One. Task objectives,
work products and methods are described for each work task.
Task 1. Project Description
The purpose of this task is to familiarize the project team with
the project area, and to prepare a project description based on
intensity of development proposed to provide the foundation
for the EIR.
Products Product
Draft Project Description
Related Projects List
Final Project Description
Day
5
5
10
Subtasks
1.1 Review
Documents
CBA will review necessary information related to the project
available from the City and other agencies and sources. These
documents include the Otay Ranch GDP jSRP, Phase I
Resource Management Plan, Program EIR 90-01, Sphere of
Influence Update ErR 94-03, and the General Plan Update
EIR, associated technical reports, mitigation monitoring and
reporting programs, CEQA findings, and other studies included
in the City's existing environmental database.
City of ClllIla Vista
Contract Artach,1lClll
~/ J t?
Otay Rallch
SPA Olle EIR
1.2 Inspect
Project Area
1.3 Project
Description
1.4 Related
Projects
CBA and other members of the environmental team will survey
the project area and surrounding areas to identify local
conditions of the natural environment, land use, traffic and
general environmental setting of the project.
A detailed project description will be prepared and submitted
for review by the City staff. This step is to ensure that the
consultant team understands all aspects of the project before
beginning detailed analyses. The project description narrative
and maps will include the project location, technical, economic,
and environmental characteristics of the project, relationship to
the Otay Ranch project and other nearby projects, related
actions associated with SPA One, the relationship of the
project to local and regional plans, and a list of the agencies
required to act on the project proposal and the sequence of
approvals.
The Project Description will also include the project objectives
and a statement of benefits that may accrue and what needs
are met by the project. The project ohjectives and statement
of justification will he prepared hy the CBA after consultation
with City staff. The Project Description must be accepted hy
City staff before preparation of the Screencheck Draft ErR
begins.
To identify cumulative impacts, related projects must be
defined early in the ErR process. CBA will work with the City
to prepare a draft list of related projects for review. CBA will
also identify assumptions regarding regional growth forecasts
and General Plan buildout, absorption rates, and other factors
important in estimating cumulative impact for use in analysis
of traffic and other impacts.
Task 2. Sereeneheek Draft EIR
Objective The purpose of this task is to prepare a complete sereencheck
draft ErR, mitigation monitoring and reporting program
(MMRP), and technical appendices for review by City staff
prior to publication. The document organization described is
designed to meet the requirements of CEQA and the CEQA
Guidelines for an ErR. The screencheck draft will include all
text, tables and figures.
Products Product
Screencheck Draft Environmental Setting and
Thresholds of Significance
Screencheck Draft ErR, MMRP, and
Appendices (10 copies)
Day
25
95
~<J/
Dlay Ranch ;f 9
SPA One ElR
City of Clwla Vista
Contract Allachmcnt
Subtasks
2. 1 Agency
Contacts
2.2 Screen-
check Draft EIR
Section 1
Introduction
and Executive
Summary
Section 2
Project
Description
Section 3
Environmental
Setting
Section 4
Environmental
Impacts and
Mitigation
Measures
CBA will contact appropriate agencies and individuals as
identified by the City regarding potential impacts of the project
on those agencies and individuals, to obtain information for the
Draft EIR.
The Introduction will summarize the legal role of the EIR in
the development process, and the unique aspects of the "tiering
process" for preparing the EIR.
The Executive Summary will identify each significant effect of
the project; areas of controversy induding issues raised by
agencies and the public; and issues to be resolved including the
choice among alternatives and whether or how to mitigate
significant effects. The Executive Summary will be formatted
to clearly identify appropriate agency findings with regard to
mitigation measures and significant effects of the project in
each environmental issues area analyzed. (Exhibits: Project
Maps, Project Description Table, Environmental Impacts and
Mitigation Measures Table, and Comparison of Altematives
Table.)
The project description will include a description of the
proposed project, project alternatives, and the "no project"
alternative. The project description will indude project maps
locating and describing the proposed project and its
characteristics, related plans, required discretionary actions, and
a table and diagrams describing the alternatives considered in
the EIR. (Exhibits: Regional Setting Map, Project Location and
Boundaries Map, Parcels Table, Comparison of Alternatives
Table, others as appropriate.)
This section will briel1y describe the environmental setting of
the proposed project. A more detailed description of the
environmental setting will be induded in the following section
discussing project impacts and mitigation measures.
This section will discuss the environmental setting, thresholds
for determining impact significance, significant environmental
effects and unavoidable adverse impacts, mitigation measures
for each of the project impacts and level of significance after
mitigation, organized in accordance with the environmental
factor order used in Program EIR 90-01.
Each environmental factor with potentially significant effects
will be discussed in the following sections:
City oj ClllLla Vista
Contract Allachmcllt
Olay Rallch
SPA Olle EIR
~/ J d.-
Environmental
Setting
Threshoid of
Significance
Environmental
Impact
Mitigation
Measures for
Significant
Impacts
Impact
Significance
After
Mitigation
Section 4. 1
Land Use,
Planning,
and Zoning
This section will describe the environmental setting for this
environmental factor, including the current state of the
environment, and any applicable local or regional plans
affecting the environmental factor.
This section will describe the standards or criteria which act as
the basis for determining whether or not a project impact is
significant. This section provides an important part of the
evidence in the record that courts seek when determining
whether or not an agency has properly found an effect to be
significant or not significant.
Project-level and cumulative impacts will be described in this
section. Impacts will be qualitatively and quantitatively
analyzed to the extent possible. Where it is possible to
quantitatively measure impacts (e.g., emergency service
response times, water service availability, etc.), factors
approved by the City will be utilized. Whenever appropriate,
the quantitative analysis will be based on the City of Chula
Vista Growth Management Standards with input regarding
standards from the affected service providers (i.e., school
districts, etc.), or SANDAG Quality of Life Standards/
Objectives.
The discussion of mitigation measures will distinguish between
mitigation measures included in the Otay Ranch GDP /SRP
MMRP, and other measures not induded but which could
reasonably be expected to reduce adverse impacts if included
in the proposed project. Where several mitigation measures
are available, the basis for selecting from among these
measures will be discussed. The discussion of mitigation
measures will provide the background for findings under
Section 15091 (a) of the CEQA guidelines. Mitigation
measures will be discussed in sufficient detail to provide the
basis for a mitigation monitoring and reporting program.
This section will provide conclusions regarding the significance
of the environmental impact, at the project and cumulative
levels, following the application of recommended mitigation
measures. Mitigation may reduce significant environmental
impacts to less than significant, or may reduce the impact while
environmental effects remains significant.
Environmental factors to be analyzed in the EIR are described
below:
The project generally consists of the SPA One Plan for
Villages 1 and 5 of Otay Ranch. Both areas are "Urban
Villages" containing a mixture of residential densities,
community facilities, parkland, school sites, commercial areas,
open space and roadways. This section will analyze potential
land use, planning and zoning impacts associated with: a)
City of CllUia Vista
Contract Attachmellt
l"' J J
Otay Ralleh 3/
SPA Olle EIR
Section 4.2
Landform
Alteration/
Aesthetics
Section 4.3
Biological
Resources
compatibility of land uses internally within each Village; b)
compatibility of land uses between the two Villages; c)
compatibility of land uses planned for the two Villages and
land uses existing and planned for areas adjacent to the
Villages, both within and outside of Otay Ranch; d)
relationship between the SPA One Plan and the Otay Ranch
GDP/SRP; e) relationship/consistency between the SPA One
Plan and other local and regional plans; f) conversion of the
site from open space to developed land. Significant
unmitigable impacts associated with items e) and f) were
identified for Otay Ranch in Program EIR 90-01.
This section will also analyze the potential impact associated
with amending the Otay Ranch GDP to eliminate the
requirement that each Village be master planned as a unit.
Other reference documents include the SPA One Plan, Village
Design Plan and associated documents for Villages 1 and 5.
The project will result in development that alters existing
landforms and this section will analyze landform alteration and
aesthetics impacts attributable to: a) change of the site's visual
character; b) potential for development in highly visible areas;
c) potential for change of any important or sensitive landforms;
and d) relationship of Village aesthetic character and
surrounding developed and undeveloped lands.
Significant unmitigable impacts associated with items a) and b)
were identified for Otay Ranch in Program EIR 90-01. This
section of the program EIR will be referenced and site plans
and grading plans included in the SPA One Plan, Village
Design Plan, and associated documents for Villages 1 and 5
will be used to assess impacts.
Impacts to biological resources were identified as significant
and unmitigable for the Otay Ranch GDP in Program EIR
90-01 and implementation of the project will impact the site's
biological resources. CBA will utilize the services of
Sweetwater Environmental Biologists (SEB) to prepare the
biology section of the Otay Ranch SPA One EIR. The SEB
scope of work is Attachment A of this Scope of Services and
generally includes:
a) preparation of the biology section of EIR for SPA One
focusing on impacts to sensitive biological habitats and
sensitive plant and animal species; b) preparation of responses
to comments of the public review draft EIR; c) preparation of
the biological elements of the MMRP; and d) provision of
third party review of various sections of the Phase II RMP
tasks including: 1) vernal pool management plan; 2) range
management program; 3) CSS and MSS management program;
4) trail plans; 5) existing biota monitoring program; 6)
potential locations for nature interpretive center; 7) interim
City of Chula Vista
Contract Altaclmzelll
Otay Ralleh
SPA Olle EIR
g:- .J f
Section 4.4
Cui/ural
Resources
Section 4.5
Geology and Soils
Section 4.6
Paleontological
Resources
and permitted uses; 8) conceptual infrastructure plan; 9)
identification of preuse preserve boundaries; and 10) funding
plan for preserve implementation.
Project implementation may result in the disturbance of
significant prehistoric and historic resources. Impacts to
cultural resources were identified as significant and unmitigable
for the Otay Ranch GDP in Program ErR 90-01. This section
will examine impacts to these cultural resources associated
with: a) potential disturbance of resources resulting from
construction grading and development of the site; and b)
potential long-term impacts resulting from the use of land for
urban development.
CBA will utilize the services of Brian F. Mooney Associates
(BFMA) to review the cultural resources information prepared
for the Phase II Resource Management Plan. BFMA's review
of the Otay Vista Cultural Resources Survey will consist of an
in-field examination, review of the draft technical report, and
miscellaneous coordination and consultation. The limited field
examination will be used to assess the adequacy of coverage,
site descriptions and preliminary significance evaluations made
by Smith. The review of the draft technical report will assess
report completeness and adequacy per applicable jurisdictional
guidelines and Office of Historic Preservation ARMS
guidelines, and assess the appropriateness of the recommended
mitigation per impacts and resource significance.
The project will result in impacts to geology and soils as land
is graded and developed with urban uses. Potential impacts
will be described in terms of: a) slope instability conditions; b)
metavolcanic bedrock; c) expansive soils conditions; d) erosion;
and c) liquefaction. As indicated in the Program MMRP for
Otay Ranch, site-specific geotechnical studies are to be
prepared before approval of tentative maps for SPA One.
CBA will utilize information contained and cited in Program
EIR 90-01 and site-specific geotechnical studies prepared for
SPA One tentative to document impacts and mitigation.
The site includes both San Diego and Otay geologic formations
with high potential for paleontological resources. Potential
disturbance of such resources may occur as result of grading
and development of the property. CBA will utilize information
included in and cited by Program EIR 90-01, as well as site-
specific geotechnical studies prepared for SPA One to describe
potential for paleontological resources. Mitigation is expected
to involve paleontological monitoring during excavation of
sensitive geologic formations.
City of Ollila Vista
Contract Attachment
lr~ J~
Otay Ralleh 33
SPA Olle EIR
Section 4.7
Agricultural
Resources
Section 4.8
Population
and Housing
(Community
Social
Factors)
Section 4.9
Water Resources
and Water
Quality
Section 4.10
Transportation,
Circulation,
and Access
Impacts to agricultural resources were identified as significant
and unmitigable for the Otay Ranch GDP in Program EIR
90-01. Potential impacts to agricultural resources will be
described in terms of: a) conversion of prime farmland to
urban use (existing natural resource sUlveys, such as San Diego
County Soil Survey, San Diego Important Farmland Maps, etc.
will be used); b) potential for incompatibility between urban
and agricultural activities; and c) agricultural land conversion
pressure.
CBA will use the information included in the Sphere of
Influence EIR and Range Management Plan from the Phase II
Resource Management Plan if available for this factor.
Although not specifically identifieq as a separate factor in
Program EIR 90-01, the EIR will address the population and
housing factor identified by the City in its Initial Study. The
SPA One Plan includes over 5,800 residential units and will
accommodate substantial population. The potential project
impacts will be discussed in terms of: a) housing needs within
the South Bay area; and b) changes in population distribution
and location.
If available, CBA will also utilize information from the SPA
One Plan, and the Housing Plan prepared as a related
discretionary action.
The project will result in impacts to water resources and
quality as land is graded and developed with urban uses.
Potential impacts will be described in terms of: a) increase in
surface water runoff resulting from impervious surfaces; b)
effect on areas of the lOO-year flood; c) degradation of existing
water quality from urban surface water pollution; and d)
diversion of runoff from existing drainage basins. The Public
Facility Financing Plan and SPA Master Plan for drainage will
be used in analyzing this factor.
Cumulative transportation and circulation were identified as
significant and unmitigable for the Otay Ranch GDP in
Program EIR 90-01. CBA will utilize the services of BRW Inc.
to prepare a transportation impact analysis that will serve as
the basis for this section of the EIR. The BRW scope of work
is Attachment B of this Scope of Services and generally
includes: a) documentation of existing conditions; b)
identification and analysis of interim and SPA One buildout
transportation system conditions; c) analysis of alternatives; and
d) mitigation recommendations for interim and SPA One
build out conditions.
The transportation impact analysis will be documented 10 a
separate technical report suitable for inclusion in the EIR
City of CIlUla Vista
Contract Attachment
~/}~
Otay Rallch
SPA aile ElR
Section 4. 11
Air Quality
Section 4.12
Noise
Section 4.13
Public Services
and Utilities
Section 4.14
Hazards/
Risk of Upset
Section 5
Alternatives
Appendix. Transportation system modelling will be provided
by Source Point under separate contract.
Short-term and long-term impacts to air quality will result from
project implementation. Impacts to air quality were identified
as significant and unmitigable for the Otay Ranch GDP in
Program EIR 90-01. Potential impacts will be described in
terms of: a) project emissions from vehicular and stationary
sources; b) construction-related emissions; and c) relation to
existing state and federal standards, and regional air quality
attainment plans. CBA will utilize computer modelling for
calculating expected emissions, and will also utilize the SPA
Master Plan prepared by consultants to Baldwin in analyzing
this factor.
Both short- and long-term noise impacts associated with the
project will be addressed. Noise impacts were identified as
significant and unmitigable for the Otay Ranch GDP in
Program EIR 90-01. Impacts associated with short-term
construction activity and long-term noise attributable to traffic
generated by future development of the site. CBA will utilize
the services of James C. Berry, Acoustician, to prepare the
noise analysis [or this EIR.
A variety of public services and utilities will be necessary to
support proposed development of the site, and requircments
for these represent impacts that will be assessed in the EIR.
CBA will utilize City thresholds/standards policies or service
provider levels of service as a basis for determining the
significance of impacts associated with: a) fire service/EMS;
b) police service; c) schools; d) road maintenance; e) electricity
and natural gas; f) communications; g) water/sewer; h) storm
water drainage; i) solid waste disposal; j) water availability and
supply; k) library service; I) health and social services; m)
recreational facilities; and n) other public services, such as
child care and animal control. The Public Facility Financing
Plan, Energy Conservation Plan, and SPA Master Plans
prepared by consultants to Baldwin will also be used in
analyzing this factor.
The increase in urban development will result in the increased
risk of hazard and upset. The potential impact will be
described as: a) use, transport, storage and disposal of
hazardous materials; and b) historic use of pesticides for
agricultural purposes.
Program EIR 90-01 includes an analysis of eight on-site
alternatives, including the "no project" alternative. An in-depth
analysis was conducted for the three of the eight project
alternatives, representing the high, middle, and low end of
development in terms of intensity and area of disturbance.
The Program EIR also includes an analysis of four off-site
City of Clwla Vista
Concract Allachl1lelll
Otav Ranch 35
SPA Dne EIR
Y~J?
Section 6
Cumulative
Impacts
Section 7
Growth-Inducing
Impacts
alternatives. CBA recommends that the alternatives analysis
in the Program EIR be summarized and referenced, and up to
four additional alternatives, induding the "no project"
alternative, be examined in the ElR. The specific description
of the alternatives will be based on discussion and agreement
between the City and CBA. (Exhibits: Table comparing
environmental effects of alternatives, graphic exhibits of
alternatives as appropriate.)
This section will identify the potential cumulative effects
resulting from this project, and other known projects identified
by City staff and other agencies. All cumulative effects will be
discussed in this section to dearly separate the project effects
from effects which are only significant when combined with
effects of other projects.
Program EIR 90-01 contains a substantial discussion of
potential cumulative impacts associated with the development
of Otay Ranch and other related development projects in south
San Diego County. CBA will verify and utilize the Program
EIR list (or Sphere of Influence EIR list) of proposed or
approved projects for cumulative impact analysis. This section
of Program EIR 90-01 will be referenced and summarized
wherever possible. New information obtainable from relevant
jurisdictions will be induded to supplement the analysis of
cumulative impacts and identification of mitigation.
Emphasis in discussion of cumulative effects will be on those
impacts identified as cumulatively significant in Program EIR
90-01 -- landform/visual, biological resources, agricultural
resources, air quality, transportation/ circulation, and noise -- as
they relate to the growth projections of the Regional Air
Quality Management Plan, Growth Management Plan, and
City's General Plan.
The potential for the project to induce growth in nearby areas
through the extension of urban services will be identified and
specific reference to surrounding phases of Otay Ranch will be
made. Indirect and direct impacts of employment generated by
the project will be estimated.
Program EIR 90-01 contains a substantial discussion of the
potential for growth inducement associated with the Otay
Ranch. This section of the Program EIR will be referenced
and summarized wherever possible. The Interim Series 8
Regional Growth Forecasts incorporate the overall Otay Ranch
project. Interim Series 8 will be used to update the discussion
of growth inducement for SPA One in the EIR.
City of CllUla Vista
Contract Attachment
Olay Ranch
SPA Olle EIR
g-,J y
Section 8
Other Required
CEQA Sections
Unavoidable
Significant
Environmental
Impacts
Areas of No
Significant
Impact
Section 9
References
Appendices
Mitigation
Monitoring
and Reporting
Program
Areas of significant impact that cannot be reduced to a less
than significant level will be identified.
Areas of no significant impact identified in the Initial Study
prepared by City staff will be listed with a brief justification for
the finding.
This section will identify organizations, persons and documents
consulted in preparation of the EIR. Firms and individuals
involved in the preparation of the document will also be
identified.
The Appendices will include a copy of the NOP, Responses to
Comments on the Draft ErR and Comment Letters, and the
associated EIR technical reports.
A separate Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program will
be prepared with the Screencheck Draft EIR and will include
monitoring team qualifications, specific monitoring activities, a
reporting system and criteria for evaluating the success of
mitigation measures.
Task 3. Draft EIR
Objective The purpose of this task is to prepare a Draft EIR, MMRP,
and Appendices for City distribution and public review.
Day
105
115
125
Products Product
City and Comments on Screencheck
Draft EIR to CBA
Pre-press Administrative Draft ErR,
MMRP, Appendices (3 copies)
Draft EIR, MMRP, Appendices to City
(100 copies, 12 copies in three-
ring binders)
The City will review the screencheck draft EIR and prepare
revisions in the form of a marked-up copy of the document
indicating all desired changes, corrections and areas for
expansion, etc.
Subtasks
3. 1 City
Review
3.2 Draft
Revisions
CBA will incorporate City comments on the Draft EIR within
10 days and provide a pre-press administrative draft for final
review before publication of the public review Draft EIR.
Following City and acceptance of the pre-press administrative
City of ClIU/a Vista
Contract Attachment
$';31
Olay Rallch 3 7
SPA Olle EIR
draft, the public review Draft EIR will be provided to the City
for distribution.
Objective Task 4. Response to Comments, Final EIR and Hearing
Documents
The purpose of this task is to prepare responses to comments
by the public and public agencies on the Draft EIR, the Final
EIR incorporating changes in response to comments received,
and Draft CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding
Considerations.
Products Product Day
Draft EIR Comments to CBA 175
Administrative Response to Comments, 185
Draft CEQA Findings, Draft Statement of
Overriding Considerations (3 copies)
City Comments on Administrative Responses to CBA 195
Final EIR and MMRP (125 copies, 10 copies in 210
three-ring binders, 1 reproducible master,
1 computer disk copy in WP 5.1 or Word for
Windows 6.0)
Subtasks
4.1 Final E1R
and MMRP
4.2 CEQA
Findings and
Statement of
Overriding
Considerations
CBA will prepare a Final EIR including the following changes
to the Draft EIR:
Revised cover page
Revised table of contents
Revised text of EIR incorporating changes
Comments received and responses to comments on the Draft
EIR
A set of administrative responses to comments will be provided
for City staff review before completion of the Final EIR.
Where information provided by consultants to Baldwin is the
subject of comments received, CBA will rely upon the
assistance of those consultants to prepare responses. Our
project budget includes an allowance for responses to
comments and modifications to the Draft EIR that is normally
sufficient for projects that are not highly controversial. If a
large number of comments are received, or if comments raise
new issues or require additional analysis not anticipated by the
budget for preparation of the Draft EIR, this allowance is
likely to be exceeded. Should this occur, costs for completion
of responses are considered additional services.
CBA will prepare draft Findings of Fact pursuant to City
guidelines for significant unavoidable environmental effects of
the project. CBA will prepare a draft Statement of Overriding
Considerations if required for Planning Commission and City
Council action.
City of CllUla ViSla
Comfact AltachmeJJl
Olay Ralleh
SPA aile EIR
f(/ftl
Objective
Subtasks
5. 1 Meetings
5.2 Hearings
Task S. Meetings and Hearings
The purpose of this task is to meet with City staff, Otay Ranch
Project Team, LAFCO staff, and to provide expert testimony
at meetings and public hearings before the Resource
Conservation Commission, Planning Commission, City Council,
and LAFCO.
CBA staff will meet up to 25 times with City staff, Otay Ranch
Project Team, and LAFCO staff, and other City-identified
parties to initiate the project, and discuss and resolve project
issues. One meeting with the Resource Conservation
Commission will also be attended by the CBA Project Manager
to provide a presentation and expert testimony regarding the
Draft EIR.
The CBA Project Manager will provide presentations and
expert testimony at six public hearings -- two Planning
Commission public hearings on the Draft EIR, one Planning
Commission public hearing on the Final EIR, two City Council
public hearings on the Final EIR, and one LAFCO public
hearing on the Final EIR.
City of Clllila Vista
Contract Attachment
12
g~'I!
Otay Ranch
SPA One EIR
39
Project CBA will maintain the following project schedule, subject to
Schedule the timely provision of information and response to draft
materials by the City:
Day 1:
Day 5:
Day 10:
Day 25:
Day 95:*
Day 105:
Day 115:
Day 125:
Day 175:
Day 185:
Day 195:
Day 210:
Contract Initiation
Draft Project Description Related Projects List
Final Project Description
Screencheck Draft Environmental Setting and
Thresholds of Significance
Screencheck Draft EIR, MMRP and Appendices
City Comments on Screencheck Draft EIR to
CBA
Pre-press Administrative Draft EIR, MMRP,
Appendices
Draft EIR, MMRP, Appendices to City
Draft EIR Comments to CBA
Administrative Response to Comments, Draft
CEQA Findings, Draft Statement of Overriding
Considerations
Comments on Administrative Responses to CBA
Final EIR and MMRP to City
The above schedule is representative of the minimum critical
path times for key program steps. Delays beyond the control
of CBA, such as additional time requirements for the
completion of studies associated with the Otay Ranch project,
prepared by consultants not working under contract to CBA,
may extend this representative schedule.
· Delivery of the Screencheck EIR, MMRP and Appendices
is subject to the following provision: Studies required for
the Screencheck Draft EIR and MMRP completion that are
prepared by consultants not under contract to CBA must be
accepted by the City and received by CBA 20 days in
advance of the actual date of Screencheck Draft EIR
delivery to the City.
City of CllUla Vista
Contract Attachment
Olay Rallch
SPA aile EIR
]3 5rr( c?--
Statement of OtTer and Project Budget
The project budget is our best estimate of the time and costs
required to complete the Scope of Services and Schedule
outlined. This budget represents a firm offer from Cotton/
Beland/Associates, Inc. to complete the Scope of Services and
Schedule outlined for the total budget amount.
Persons authorized to negotiate for Cotton/Beland/Associates,
Inc. (CBA) are:
Donald A. Cotton, Senior Principal
John E. Bridges, Principal
CBA's office is located at 6310 Greenwich Drive, Suite 220,
San Diego, California 92122; telephone (619) 625-0056; fax
(619) 625-0545.
The budget on the following page represents CBA's estimate
of the labor and other costs required to complete the Scope of
Services and Schedule outlined. The cost breakdown of the
budget includes man-hours for CBA and its subconsultants by
task. For all items described in the Scope of Services with the
exception of changes in project description, unanticipated and
unbudgeted effort in responding to Draft EIR comments and
additional public meetings and document copies, services will
be provided within the budget shown. For controversial
projects or projects in which new issues are raised requiring
technical analysis not anticipated in the scope of work, this
estimate is likely to be exceeded. The cost of all document
copies is reimbursable.
This proposal is a firm offer by CBA to complete the Scope of
Services outlined for the total budget amount. The total fee
required for completion of the EIR is $159,075. Component
costs are provided in the table on the following page. A 15
percent contingency is also identified in the table which can
only be utilized with written authorization from the City of
ChuJa Vista and the Applicant.
City of ClllIla Vista
Contract Attachment
14
g~rJ
tj/
Otay Ralleh
SPA 0111' E:IR
SPA One EIR Budget
CBA HOUB Su ton, 0""
How-lyRate: $100 CBA Subcons. Tola! %of
Prine. Project Project T""-I wont BRW lCB SEB BFMA Labo< Labo< Labo, Tola!
A. CBA TASK Mgr. PlaMer Gt>ph. _. Coo Coo Coo Coo
1.0 ProJed Dnc:ripUon
].1 Review Documents 4 " 2 " 530 0 .680 3.6Y.
1.2 Inspect Project Area 4 10 I. >840 ,4 ,185 4.5'/.
1.3 Project Description 2 4 4 . 11,720 >r. 0 Ll~'.
].4 Related Projects 4 10 . ",'" ~.580 'T5~.
SUBTOT AI. 2 I. . 4 14 0 I. .120 4,045 $20.16 12,7Y.
Z.O M~en('hec:k Draft EIR ~
2.1 Agency Contacts 4 " 2 . 30 7,080 4.5"1.
2.2 Screcnched:. Draft EIR . . 0 6" 40 160 . I .340 , .0 4.6"1.
SUBTOTAL . 40 185 60 40 2. $19,'70 ,'90 2,60 Yo
3.0 Dnft EIR
3.1 City Review
3.2 Draft Revisions 4 20 40 4 24 .0 10 100 . ,000 ,00 19,00 ] .(WI
SUBTOTAL 4 20 40 4 24 .0 10 100 . >6,000 I ,00 19,070 12.0-/.
".0 Response 10 Co..enb., Final Em .....
and He.FinIOMu.enl .. .
4.1 FinaJ Em and MMRP 4 4 40 I. 24 74 10 . 0 10,00 $16,740 10.5"1.
42 CEQA Findi~ and Statement of
Overriding Considerations 2 . 24 . I. $3,040 $3.040 1.9'/,
SUBTOTAL . 2 64 4 40 74 10 70 ,080 0, 0 I .4v.
~.O MHtinglJ and HellriAls
5.1 Meetings 24 . 47 >8, ,290 12.270 Y.
5.2 Hearings 24 4 4 '2,_ '1,820 S4) 0 2, Yo
SUBIO! AI. 102 24 I I 73 I ,440 :5j,110 --116,550 OAV.
TOTAL ALL TASKS IS 21. 37. 122 150 1071 70 367 58 $51.510 $105,815 S158,325 99.5-;.
V,of
B, MISCELLANEOUS COSTS Total Total
TelephonerrravellPo:I;t8ge $150 0.5%
Copies of project and related documents (provided on a reimbursable basis)
TOTAL MISCELLANEOUS COSTS S750 0.5./.
%of
C. COST SUMMARY T""'I Total
TOTAL TASKS 1 - 5 COSTS $158.325 99.5%
TOTAL MISCELLANEOUS COSTS $150 0.5%
...
TOTAL ErR COST I S159,075 100.0-/.
Contingency. I $31,750 20,C>';.
Principal_in-Charge _ Donald A Cotton. AICP
Project Manager - John E. Bridges. AICP
Project Planner. Tim Gnibus
BRW.BRW.Inc.
JCB - James C. Berry, Acoustician
SEB - Sweetwater Environmental Biologists.. Inc.
BFMA. Brian F. Mooney Associates
, Continst'ney ..y nol M utilized withoul wrilten authorization rrom Ihe City or Chula Vhila and the Applkanl.
re..'5Ol
8'- tj 'I / ~ - 45
cba-eont.doc
January 27, 1995
Exhibit D-2
Scope of Services and Sc
BRW
8'~jl5'
Three Party Agreement
Page 13
tj6
ATTACHMENT B
TECHNICAL PROPOSAL AND FEE ESTIMATE
Otay Ranch SPA One SEIR
Transportation Analysis
Prepared for:
Cotton/Beland/Associates
631 Greenwich Dr., Suite 220
San Diego, CA 92122
Prepared by:
BRW, Inc.
620 C Street, Suite 300
San Diego, CA 92101
January 25, 1995
;?rtjt
/ /'
Table of Contents
1. PROJECT UNDERSTANDING
Transportation Impact Analysis Process
Key Issues/ Assumptions
2. SCOPE OF WORK
Project Approach
Work Plan
3. TIME AND FEE SCHEDULES
'/5" 1(7
tjs
1. PROJECT UNDERSTANDING
Transportation Impact Analysis Process
As required by the City of Chula Vista, the Otay Ranch SPA One will be reviewed to
determine when critical elements/ segments of the planned on-site and off-site circulation
system will be required to provide adequate mobility and performance levels.
To accomplish this, a series of technical analyses will be completed as described below:
. On-Site Circulation system Review
. Study Area Freeway Segment Operational Analysis
· Study Area Arterial Segment Operational Analysis
. Study Area Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
. Study Area Freeway Interchange Operations/Capacity Analysis
. Transit Operations Analysis
. Bicycle/Pedestrian Facilities Analysis
. Trip Reduction/Land Use Design Assessment
. Congestion Management Plan (CMP) Conformance Analysis
Each of the technical analyses described above will be conducted for the following
timeframes of assessment:
Interim Work Elements
. Existing Conditions (Year 1994)
. Interim Conditions ("SPA One" Buildout Year 2010)
Base Condition (No Project)
~ Alternative 0 - No Project (See Base Condition)
With "SPA One" Project (with the Following Internal Access Alternatives)
On-Site Access Alternatives
~ Alternative 1 -
Two Access Points in Village 1, Three Access Points in
Village 5 (Quantitative Analysis with Model Run-
Proposed Project)
~ Alternative 2 -
Three Access Points in Village 1, Four Access Points in
Village 5 (Qualitative Analysis with Manual
Reassignment)
2(A) - Alternative 2 with third access point at
Telegraph Canyon Road
2(B) - Alternative 2 with third access point at Orange
Avenue
E\OT A Y-S.EJR\OT A YTECH.PRO
(t'rrJY'
.. Alternative 3 - GDP Alternative with Four Access Points in Villages
1 and 5 (Qualitative Analysis with Manual
Reassignment)
Off-Site Network Circulation Alternatives
.. Alternatives 4 and 5 - Evaluate up to two (2) Alternative Network
configurations to provide adequate traffic
operations in Eastern Chula Vista with Buildout
of SPA One Year 2010 (Quantitative Analysis
with Model Runs and ADT Level Evaluation
Only)
(Alternatives 4 and 5 will only be conducted if
necessary)
.. Alternative 6 - Evaluate the preferred circulation network from
Alternatives 1,4 and 5 with Buildout of SPA One Year
2010 and preferred internal access scheme
(Quantitative Analysis with Model Run and Full
Evaluation of ADT and Peak Hour Intersection
Operations)
Other Proiect Alternatives
.. Alternative 7 - Paseo Ranchero Realignment Alternative (Quantitative
Analysis with Model Run and Full Evaluation of ADT
and Peak Hour Intersection Operations)
Phasing Analysis
· Interim Conditions ("SPA One" Phasing Analysis)
The following presents the periods of analysis for the Transportation Phasing
Analysis:
Otay Ranch SPA One Transportation Phasing Analysis
Timeframes of Analysis
Vear Regional On-Site Eastern Chula Evaluation
Inputs Vista Process
1996 Series 8-Base Phase I (Opens) Inputs from City Manual
2000 Series 8-2000 Phase II (Opens) Inputs from City Model Run
2005 Series 8-2005 Phase III (Opens) Inputs from City Model Run
2010 Series 8-2010 Phase IV (Onens) Innuts from City Model Run
rg"yJ
41
E\Or A Y .5.EIR\OT A YTECH.PRO
Buildout Work Elements
. Buildout Conditions ("SPA One" and South Bay Buildout)
Base Condition (No Project)
With "SPA One" Project (with the following alternative)
~ Alternative 8 - Verification of GDP Mitigation Measures in Eastern
Chula Vista with Preferred On-Site Access Scenario as
determined by Alternative 1, 2 and 3 (Quantitative
Analysis with Model Run and Planning Level
Evaluation of Forecasted Daily Traffic Volumes and
Intersection Entering Volumes)
The "SPA One" Buildout timeframe has been established as Year 2010. The Interim
Conditions Analysis will be conducted utilizing the most recent travel forecast model
developed and maintained by SANDAG. All future conditions modeling and impact
analysis will assume all cumulative land uses in the Study Area defined for the Interim
Conditions Analysis as determined by the City and adjacent jurisdictions.
The overall goal of the transportation impact analysis process is to provide the City with
adequate information to determine necessary transportation system improvements to
accommodate the Interim Conditions of the Otay Ranch SPA One.
Key Issues/Assumptions
As a result of our review of the RFP and our knowledge of the South Bay transportation
environment, we have identified five critical project issues which must be understood
and addressed in order to produce an accurate and complete transportation analysis as
required for the Supplemental EIR:
. Transportation Modeling
Utilize Series 8 (Year 2015) regional land use and network inputs and new SANDAG
modeling process. Modify inputs for Southbay to reflect Adopted Otay Ranch Plan
and other approved area projects.
. Modeling Process/Defensibility
To develop a defensible transportation analysis document, BRW is recommending all
modeling be conducted by SANDAG.
. Toll Road Analysis
As documented by the Program EIR, the issue of SR-125 as a toll road was assessed
under Buildout Conditions. For the purposes of this proposal, it is assumed that the
EIR currently being prepared by Caltrans (Draft due in Mid-1995) will adequately
E\OTA Y -S.EIR\OT A YITCH.PRO
8'~Sf)
address this issue as it relates to the Proposed Otay Ranch SPA One Project.
Additionally, it is assumed that BRW, Inc. will be responsible for incorporating
appropriate technical information from the traffic study prepared by
JHK & Associates (January 1995) in the SPA One ErR to reference the SR-125 EIR
findings.
.
Interim SR-125 Facility
Over the past two years, the City of Chula Vista has been evaluating the need for the
implementation of an interim facility within the SR-125 corridor to accommodate
growth in the Eastern Chula Vista prior to the construction of the ultimate SR-125
Toll Road or Freeway. In addition to determining the need for these interim
facilities, the study also addresses the iss ue of financing in terms of modifying the
current Development Impact Fee (DIF) Structure.
The analysis of transportation impacts associated with SPA One will reference this
study as appropriate and findings from this study will be confirmed or
recommended modifications will be presented as a result of the work program
described in this proposal.
E\OTA Y -SEIR\OTA YlTCH_PRO
:5/5/
tl'1
2. SCOPE OF WORK
Proiect Approach
The key elements of our proposal to analyze transportation impacts associated with Otay
Ranch SPA One are summarized below and respond to the input received by BRW
during the two scoping sessions held in December 1994.
Project Task Management Approach
BRW has established several internal project scheduling techniques that hold the Project
Manager and Task Managers accountable for the ultimate timeliness and quality of
services delivered to the City of Chula Vista. These techniques include; Project Work
Orders that act as a "contract" between the Project Manager and Task Manager relative
to the work to be completed, timeliness of completion, and appropriate budgets for
individual tasks; Project Team Meetings to be held twice each month with the Project
Management Team to discuss project issues, format and content of products, upcoming
events and any necessary adjustments to the Work Plan; Project Cost Monitoring, to assign
an individual project number that effectively tracks both labor and expenses for each
major task throughout the project; and Monthly Progress Reports, which will be submitted
to the Project Manager along with an invoice summarizing the work tasks and sub tasks
completed each month.
Technical and Methodological Approach
The BRW Project Team has prepared a detailed technical approach to conduct the Otay
Ranch SPA One Transportation Impact Analysis in support of the "Transportation/
Access" section of the Supplemental EIR as presented in the Work Plan Section of this
proposal. The Work Plan presents the key tasks necessary to conduct the technical
analysis, document study results and interact with other study participants to ensure
effective and reasonable results. Proposed tasks include:
Transportation Impact Analysis Tasks
Phase A - Project Initiation
Task A-I
Refine/Confirm Scope
Task A-2
Identify Model Sources
Task A-3
Review /Revise BRW Project Schedule
(Note: All Phase A Work Tasks have been completed during December 1994)
Phase B - Document Existing Transportation System Conditions
Task B-1
Assemble and Review Prior Studies/Existing Data Sources
g-- 5 cJ-
E\Or A Y -S.EIR\OT A YTECH.PRO
Task B-2
Task B-3
Task B-4
Identify Supplemental Data Requirements
Collect Supplemental Data
Analyze Existing Conditions
Phase C - Document Interim Transportation Systems Conditions
Task C-1
Task C-2
Task C-3
Task C-4
Task C-5
Task C-6
Task C-7
Task C-8
Task C-9
Prepare Model Inputs for Interim Conditions
Conduct Transportation Modeling
Analyze Interim Base Conditions (No Project - Alternative 0 "SPA One"
Buildout Timeframe)
Analyze Interim with "SPA One" Project Conditions (with the On-Site
Access Alternatives 1, 2 and 3)
Analyze Interim with "SPA One" Project Conditions (with the Off-Site
Network Circulation Alternatives 4, 5 and 6)
Analyze Interim Conditions for Project Alternative 7
Analyze Interim Transportation Phasing Conditions with "SPA One"
Analyze On-Site Transportation Systems
Mitigation Analysis (Interim Conditions)
Phase 0 - Document Buildout Transportation System Conditions
Task 0-1
Task 0-2
Task 0-3
Prepare Model Inputs for Buildout Conditions
Analyze Buildout with "SPA One" Project Conditions (Alternative 8 with
Southbay Buildout)
Mitigation Analysis - Buildout Conditions
Phase E - Preparation of Draft and Final Technical Report
Task E-1
Task E-2
Task E-3
Prepare Draft Report
Prepare Final Report
Review SEIR "Transportation/ Access" Section (Prepared by Others)
E\OTA Y-S.EJR\OT A YTECH.PRO
&"5)
5/
Phase F - Attendance at Project Meetings and Public Hearings
Task F-I
Attend Project Meetings
Task F-2
Prepare for and Attend Public Hearings
Key tasks will conclude with preparation of Working Papers for review and discussion
with the Project Manager, the City and other study participants.
Our proposed Work Plan also includes review and update of the SANDAG
Transportation Model to be used as a tool to forecast future travel demands and evaluate
the impacts of alternative land use scenarios. The approach BRW, Inc. will bring to
developing the Otay Ranch SPA One Transportation Analysis is focused to insure an
effective, implementable, and practical circulation system along with identification of all
impacts and mitigations.
The intent of our approach is to assist the City in producing a meaningful and
responsive SEIR, and to create an easily understood and implementation-oriented plan
document for City Staff, Planning Commission, City Council and residents of the City
of Chula Vista to properly guide future growth and development of the future Otay
Ranch portion of the City.
Work Plan
This section presents BRW's proposed Work Plan for conducting the Otay Ranch SPA
One Transportation Impact Analysis. The Work Plan is organized to respond to the
requirements as specified in the RFP. At key points in the Work Plan, project
review / assessment will be conducted by the BRW Executive Review Team of Mr. Rick
Pilgrim, Mr. Mark Peterson, and Mr. Dan Marum. The Team will provide independent
recommendations on key technical aspects of the analysis. Section 3 presents Time and
Fee schedules which identified the sequence and timing of major deliverables along with
a fee estimate.
Phase A - Project Initiation (All Phase A Work Tasks have been completed during
December 1994)
Task A-I - Refine/Confirm Scope
Obiective:
To review the BRW Draft Work Plan and develop refinements based on
CEQA and City requirements.
Products:
.
Final Work Plan and Fee Estimate
Document Outline
Style and Format
Transportation Analysis Goals and Objectives
.
.
.
g'r51
E\OTA Y .S.E] R\OT A YrECH.PRO
The BRW Project Team views the Work Plan as a dynamic element, guiding the
relationship between the consultant team, client, and study requirements. This task will
layout a step by step task description of key study activities in coordination with the
development of other SEIR Elements. The input of City Staff as well as the Project
Manager will be important in finalizing the Work Plan. We propose an initial
Transportation Analysis Workshop with staff and Project Team members wherein a
transportation goals, objectives, and methodology will be established to ensure the
development of responsive technical product.
It will also be important at the initiation of the study to clearly establish the coordination
requirements and mechanisms with City staff and other individuals interested in the
analysis process and findings.
Personnel: Dan Marum, Mark Peterson
Task A-2 - Identify Model Sources
Obiective:
To select appropriate model databases/procedures for Interim and
Ultimate Conditions Analysis for this project.
Products:
.
Recommended Model Source
Recommended Modeling Procedures
.
This task is viewed as extremely critical. The selection of the most appropriate model
databases and procedures will impact the project schedule and level of effort expended
by the consultant. If the City decides to perform the modeling function "In-House" with
BRW staff assistance in place of SANDAG, careful consideratiDn of document
defensibility must be made. BRW staff along with other agency representatives will
assist the City in this decision making process.
Personnel: Dan Marum, Mark Peterson
Task A-3 - Review /Revise BRW Project Schedule
Objective:
Based on Work Plan refinements, develop a Final Project Schedule.
Product:
Project Schedule
This task will involve consideration of all relevant decisions of Tasks A-I and A-2 in the
development of a Final Project Schedule with the identification of key project milestones.
These milestones will be set to ensure that transportation related analysis and findings
are available for use in other SEIR Elements including Air Quality and Noise.
Personnel: Dan Marum, Mark Peterson
E\OT A Y -5.El R\OT ^ YTECH_PRO
8"-53
~3
Phase B - Document Existing Transportation System Conditions
Task B-1 - Assemble and Review Prior Studies/Existing Data Sources
Obiective:
To identify all relevant sources of existing conditions data and review for
applicability to this study.
Product:
.
Summary of Existing Data for Evaluating Existing Conditions
Within the Study Area
The following documents will be reviewed at a minimum by the BRW
Project Team in reference to the analysis of Otay Ranch SPA One.
Otay Ranch Program EIR
Transportation Analysis for the Otay Ranch GDP
South Bay Rail Transit Extension Study
SANDAG Regional Model Forecasts via Chula Vista Traffic
Engineering Department
Chula Vista Bike Plan
Interim SR 125 Financing Study
SANDAG SR 54 Corridor Study Model Description/ Documentation
ECVTPP Final Report .
Kaiser Hospital/Eastlake Transportation Analysis and EIR
1994 Traffic Monitoring Program
Task B-2 - Identify Supplemental Data Requirements
Obiective:
Based on the conclusions of Task B-1, determine data needs and collection
process.
Product:
.
Recommended list of data collection activities and completion
schedule.
Personnel: Dan Marum, Tim Byrne
Task B-3 - Collect Supplemental Data
Obiective:
To collect all necessary data for the analysis of existing conditions.
Products:
.
Supplemental data for Study Area segments and intersections.
The BRW Project Team will collect field data and verify existing data as appropriate to
establish a transportation database for analyzing future impacts associated with the
Proposed Project. Examples of relevant project data include the following:
E\OTA Y.S.EJR\OT A VTECH,PRO
g" r p'"
Roadway Characteristics
.
Functional Classification
Administrative Responsibility
Traffic Volumes
Road Capacity
Right-of-way
Lanes
Pavement Type/Condition/Maintenance Levels
Traffic Control Devices
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Multi-modal Characteristics
.
Transit Routes and Service Levels
Transit Ridership
Paratransit Services (Elderly & Disabled)
Pedestrian Facilities
Bicycle Routes
Park-and-Ride Lots
.
.
.
.
.
It is anticipated that most data will be derived from existing sources and documents and
will require some level of field verification. SANDAG, Caltrans and City database
should be reliable sources of data and information. It is anticipated that supplemental
data collection will be conducted by the BRW Project Team at up to twelve (12) study
area intersections in January 1995.
Data presentations will be in graphic and table formats appropriate for presentation.
Personnel: Dan Marum, Tim Byrne
Task B-4 - Analyze Existing Transportation System Conditions
Objective:
Product:
To analyze existing transportation system conditions and document
existing performance levels/system deficiencies.
Existing Conditions chapter in Draft Report documenting existing
circulation system performance (daily segment and peak hour intersection
levels of service) and study area circulation network deficiencies.
Using data provided by the City and collected by BRW, the Project Team will document
the existing operating performance of study area street segments and major signalized
intersections. The project study area will be defined based on direction from the City.
In addition to level of service analyses, the Project Team will develop an assessment of
the convenience and accessibility of the key components of the local transportation
system. Included will be such issues as transit access, recreation access, and
pedestrian/bicycle access to key activity centers.
sS-
E\OT A Y-S.EIR\OT A YTECH.PRO
10 Y--:f?
The Project Team will also review the City's current roadway design standards and
functional classification systems in reference to those proposed by the Otay Ranch for
internal roadways. The unique requirements and urban design objectives of the Otay
Ranch will guide this effort.
Based on input by the City, SANDAG and Caltrans, the Project Team will collect
information regarding planned and committed transportation system improvements,
including estimated year of construction. This data will be summarized in a graphic
format and utilized as assumptions of projects in place when future year analyses are
conducted.
Personnel: Dan Marum, Tim Byrne
Phase C - Document Interim Transportation System Conditions
Task C-l - Prepare Model Inputs for Interim Conditions
Obiective:
To develop appropriate model input information for land use and network
modifications to reflect the Proposed SPA One Project and other approved
projects in Eastern Chula Vista.
Product:
.
Modifications to current model files for the Interim transportation
model.
Personnel: Dan Marum, Mark Peterson, Tim Byrne
Task C-2 - Conduct Transportation Modeling
For the purpose of this proposal BRW has assumed that all necessary modeling will be
performed by SANDAG with payment provided by the project applicant.
Task C-3 - Analyze Interim Base Conditions (No Project - Alternative 0 "SPA One"
Buildout Timeframe)
Task C-4 - Analyze Interim with "SPA One" Project Conditions (with the following
Internal Access Alternatives)
On-Site Access Alternatives
Task C-4.1 -
Alternative 1 - Two Access Points in Village 1, Three Access Points
in Village 5 (Quantitative Analysis with Model Run-Proposed
Project)
Alternative 2 - Three Access Points in Village 1, Four Access Points
in Village 5 (Qualitative Analysis with Manual Reassignment)
2(A) - Alternative 2 with third access point at
Telegraph Canyon Road
2(B) - Alternative 2 with third access point at Orange
A venue
Task C-4.2 -
E\OT A Y -S.EIR\OT A YTECH.PRO
llF~SY
Task C-4.3 - Alternative 3 - GDP Alternative with Four Access Points in Villages
1 and 5 (Qualitative Analysis with Manual Reassignment)
Task C-S Analyze Interim with "SPA One" Project Conditions (with the Off-Site
Network Circulation Alternatives 4, 5 and 6)
Off-Site Network Circulation Altenzatives
Task C-5.1 - Alternatives 4 and 5 - Evaluate up to two (2) Alternative Network
configurations to provide adequate traffic operations in Eastern
Chula Vista with Buildout of SPA One Year 2010 (Quantitative
Analysis with Model Runs and ADT Level Evaluation Only)
Task C-5.2 - Alternative 6 - Evaluate the preferred circulation network from
Alternatives 4 and 5 with Buildout of SPA One Year 2010 and
preferred intermodal access scheme (Quantitative Analysis with
Model Run and Full Evaluation of ADT and Peak Hour intersection
operations)
Task C-6 - Analyze Interim Conditions for Project Alternatives
Other Proiecl Altenzatives
.
Task C-6.1 - Alternative 7 Pas eo Ranchero Realignment Alternative
(Quantitative Analysis with Model Run and Full Evaluation of ADT
and Peak Hour Intersection Operations)
Obiectives: For Tasks C-3 through C-6 identify future roadway and multi-modal
transportation system requirements under future without and with project
conditions. It is assumed that this analysis will be limited to a maximum
of twenty (20) intersection locations.
Products:
.
Future Conditions Chapters in the Draft Report documenting future
transportation system performance (daily segment and peak hour
intersection levels of service) and Study Area network deficiencies.
A Transportation System Analysis Framework will be developed, specifying the various
components and recommended features of the future circulation system. System
Diagrams specifying functional classification, facility types and linkages will be
developed for each component of the circulation system:
.
Roadway
Study Area Arterial Segment Operational Analysis
Study Area Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
Study Area Freeway Interchange Operational/Capacity Analysis
Transit
Bicycle
.
.
57
E\OTA Y.S.EJR\OT A yltCH.PRO
12
8'rfJ
.
Pedestrian
Toll Road Assessment (Reference to SR-125 toll Road EIR prepared by
Caltrans).
.
System Diagrams in graphic format with accompanying policies will be developed for
each component, specifying function, classification, facility types, and linkages.
The future year travel forecasts will be used as the basis for analysis of the circulation
system to determine where additional improvements will be required over the next
fifteen (15) years. This level of analysis will respond to anticipated capacity problems,
improvement or proposal of new linkages to enhance local and regional mobility and
access, and known major development or changes in land use.
Improvement projects will be identified both in response to system deficiencies,
development objectives, and related quality of life objectives that have been adopted
regionally or locally. Sections in the Technical Report will be specifically developed to
address conformance with the CMP and the RGMS. All CMP level review will be
performed in conformance with adopted "Guidelines for Preparing Transportation
Impact" within the San Diego region Ganuary 1994). Table 1 on the following page lists
of number of representative improvement projects that would be considered as part of
each of the System Diagrams.
A key aspect of the future conditions analysis will be an assessment of the potential
benefits of trip reductions on-site, resulting from the concept design of the Otay Ranch
Villages. BRW will build on the analysis process developed in the Program EIR and
recommend new approaches to assess reduced levels of trip generation.
Personnel: Dan Marum, Mark Peterson, Tim Byrne
E\OTA Y-S.EJR\OT A YTECH.PRO
13
?>jtJ
Table 1
Circulation System Diagrams
Improvement Features
Roadway:
. Street Widening
. New Roadways
. Access Control
. Interchange/Intersection Improvements
. ,Ramp Metering
Transit:
. New Routes
. Improved Service
.' Bus Stops
. Transfer Centers
. Shuttle Systems
Bicycle:
. Bike Lanes
. Storage Facilities
. Signing/Striping
Pedestrian:
. Sidewalks
. Trails
. Recreational Opportunities
E\OTA Y-S.EIR\OT A YTECH.PRO
14
)J,~ j, /
5;
Task C-7 - Analyze Interim Transportation Phasing Conditions with "SPA One"
Task C-7.1 - Impact Analysis - For each of the timeframes of analysis described
above, BRW will conduct a network based evaluation of system
performance. This analysis will be limited to a review of daily
segment volumes and critical intersections. It is assumed that up to
four (4) critical intersections will be reviewed per phase of analysis.
Task C-7.2 - Mitigation Analysis - Based on the impact analysis conducted in
Task C-6.1, BRW will recommend development components in
Eastern Chula Vista which would be allowed to occur prior to the
implementation of new network capacity. It is anticipated that
network mitigation elements and corresponding development
components, to allow Otay Ranch SPA One to be fully implemented,
will be subdivided into four (4) primary phases or timeframes.
Task C-8 - Analyze On-Site Transportation Systems (Interim and Buildout Conditions)
Obiective: To assess the future performance levels of on-site transportation systems
(i.e., roadways, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities).
Products: Chapter in Draft Report documenting the analysis process and
identification of forecasted operating deficiencies.
This Work Task is designed to develop consensus and support by involving all
stakeholders in the development of a functional set of on-site transportation facilities in
a comprehensive and integrated approach.
To succeed, on-site transportation planning must address and be integrated with local
land use planning and the regional transportation system. Transportation systems have
been proposed and are being planned to support future growth and to provide access
with and between villages. All on-site transportation systems must be closely
coordinated and integrated to achieve the transit-oriented goals of the proposed design
concept.
Effective on-site transportation planning must address both commute and non-commute
users. In order to succeed at the levels desired by the City Developer and at a level
which will provide significant improvements in overall mobility, non-motorized
transportation options must be made viable for all trips. This means providing
internal/external connectivity between all transportation facilities. The on-site system
must consider each link in a trip with the understanding that it is often the weak link
which dictates the mode choice.
Personnel: Dan Marum, Mark Peterson
E\OT A Y SEIR\OT A 'rTECH.PRO
15 (rr,?;2.
Task C-9 - Mitigation Analysis (Interim Conditions)
Objective:
To develop and document necessary mitigation strategies to allow
acceptable performance levels for all future transportation systems.
Products:
Chapter in Draft Report presenting mitigation analysis process and
graphics illustrated recommended system improvements.
Based on the traffic engineering analyses conducted in the previous tasks, a number of
intersection, signal and roadway improvements will be recommended to alleviate project
impacts under Interim and Buildout Conditions. These recommendations will take the
form of:
. Improvement to existing transportation facilities;
. Implementation of new network connections;
. Concepts for pedestrian and bicycle treatments;
. Conceptual striping plans;
. Recommended access strategies;
. Signal timing and phasing recommendations; and
. Identification of project contribution to forecast cumulative traffic volumes.
An evaluation of the effectiveness of the recommendations will also be performed for
this task.
Personnel: Dan Marum, Mark Peterson, Tim Byrne
Phase 0 - Buildout Conditions Analysis
. Buildout Conditions ("SPA One" and South Bay Buildout)
Base Condition (No Project)
With "SPA One" Project (with the following alternative)
~ Alternative 8 - Verification of GDP Mitigation Measures in Eastern Chula
Vista with Preferred On-Site Access Scenario as determined
by Alternative 1, 2 and 3 (Quantitative Analysis with Model
Run and Planning Level Evaluation of Forecasted Daily
Traffic Volumes and Intersection Entering Volumes)
Task 0-1
Prepare Model Inputs for Buildout Conditions
Task 0-2
Analyze Buildout with "SPA One" Project Conditions (Alternative 8 with
Southbay Buildout)
Task 0-3
Mitigation Analysis - Buildout Conditions
{P/
E\OTA Y-S.EIR\OTA YTECH.PRO
16
g-~ ~ J
Phase E - Preparation of Draft and Final Technical Reports
Task E-l - Prepare Draft Report
Task E-2 - Prepare Final Report
Task E-3 - Review SEIR "Transportation/Access" Section (Prepared by Others) and
respond to comments
Draft and Final technical transportation analysis reports will be prepared to document
the assumptions, methodologies and findings of the previous tasks. The draft report will
be submitted to the City of Chula Vista for review and comment. One review /revision
cycle is assumed with all comments consolidated by the City for return to the consultant.
Based on comments received, a Final Report will be prepared. This Final Technical
Report will be used as a technical appendix in the EIR to be prepared by others for this
project.
Additionally, the BRW Project Team will be responsible for conducting a review of the
"Transportation/ Access" section of the Draft and Final SEIR. The intent of this review
is to ensure that the methodology, process, and findings of the transportation analysis
have been presented in agreement with the Technical Report. In addition, BRW will
assist in developing response to comments on the Draft SEIR. For the purpose of this
proposal, it is assumed that BRW will expend a total of sixteen (16) professional!
support hours in developing responses to transportation related comments. If additional
time is necessary, BRW will provide these services on a separate hourly basis with prior
written authorization from the City.
Personnel: Rick Pilgrim, Dan Marum, Mark Peterson
Phase F - Attendance at Project Meetings and Public Hearings
Task F-l - Attend Project Meetings
Task F-2 - Prepare for and Attend Public Hearings
The Project Team will be available for attendance at project meetings, hearings,
presentations and workshops as directed by the City. This proposal includes up to
27 hours of staff time to attend project coordination meetings with City staff and other
agencies; up to 24 hours to prepare for and attend Transportation Subcommittee
meetings; and up to 22 hours to prepare for and attend hearings and presentations held
for the City Planning Commission and the City Council. The following list summarizes
the hours budgeted for meetings:
Project Meetings with City
Transportation Subcommittee Meetings
Resource Conservation Meeting
Planning Commission/DEIR
Planning Commission/FEIR
City Council/FEIR
LAFCO Presentation/FErR
(8 @ 2.5 hours)
(12 @ 2.0 hours)
(1 @ 3 hours)
(2 @ 4 hours)
(1 @ 4 hours)
(2 @ 5 hours)
(1 @ 4 hours)
Total hours meeting
20 hours
24 hours
3 hours
8 hours
4 hours
10 hours
4 hours
73 hours
E\OT A Y .S.EI R\OT A YTECH.PRO
17 2"/J r
3. TIME AND FEE SCHEDULES
Time Schedule
It is estimated that the traffic analysis work for this project will be completed within a
three (3) month timeframe from the date of notice to proceed. This timeframe assumes
that all modeling will be completed within the first two months, thus allowing BRW staff
approximately one month to complete the necessary technical analyses and produce a
Draft Technical Report. The project schedule for the traffic analysis should remain fairly
flexible in terms of the overall project schedule, given that some portions of the technical
analysis are being provided by the City from previous completed reports. In an attempt
to meet the needs of the City and the Project Applicant, BRW has developed an
Accelerated Project Schedule which compresses primary work activities into a two (2)
month timeframe. To achieve the schedule shown on the attached graphic, BRW will
commit extra personnel and perform key work tasks simultaneously.
Fee Schedule
The estimated person-hours and cost estimate for each individual task are shown on the
Cost Summary table. This project will be performed by the BRW Project Team on a
fixed-price basis, with percentage payments made at key project milestones (i.e., Draft
Report 70% complete, Final Report 90% complete, Public Hearings 100% complete). The
total estimated budget for this project is $74,995.00. This project budget represents a
total of 1,049 hours of professional staff time. A total of 73 professional/support staff
hours are provided for preparation for and attendance at up to twenty-seven (27)
project-related meetings and presentations. If BRW staff are requested to attend
meetings in excess of those allocated in this proposal, these additional hours will be
billed on a separate hourly basis with prior written authorization from the City.
Billing Procedures
Expenditure of the fixed price budget allocated for the Transportation Analysis will be
tracked through the project accounting system at BRW. The accounting process will
allow BRW to track expenses on a task-by-task basis. Thus, billings will be based on the
amount of time and budget expended on each task based on the approximate task
budgets shown on the Cost Summary table. However, due to the fact that these task
estimates are only approximate, it may be necessary to exceed individual task budgets
to develop an acceptable product for the City. In general, if work on a particular task
is not authorized, the budget for that task would not be expended unless it is allocated
to another task which required effort in excess of original estimates. To track this
accounting procedure, BRW will prepare monthly progress reports including a
cumulative summary of work completed and budget status.
~3
E\OT A Y .S.FJR\OT A YTECH.PRO
18
g~?5
COSTSUMKARY
LAIIO R HOURS/l!MPLOYEE CLASSIFICA TIO N
OTAY RANCH SPA ONE TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS
BRW,INC. - REVISED JANUARY:lA, 1995
(S120) ($>5) (SSS) (S6O) ($<IS) (W) ....CENT
lRANSPORTATlON IMPAcrANAL YSIS SENIOR TfCHJ UIlOR OFTOTAL
WORKTASKS PRINCIPAL ASSOC"TI! CONSULTANT IcoNSULTANf GRAPHICS a.ERIO'J. COST UIlOR
PbaleA ...;,;;....PtOjcict Inltladoa{woC T"'ComflIeudln~'l994) ;' ): '" c-'-- < c : " :ii>:' ..
A-I: RefiDelConfIl'lD Scope SO ~...
A-l: Idemil'yModel Sol.Ea SO ~...
A-3: R~_iRevlte BR W Project Scbeclulc SO -
~B;';-~__:EsdId~-~.li~tiOQ",,~',cMcW.oa.:' ,:c :.i':' c,ccc"" L.:;': ',O' ,'c'.' "'>ii.:i.) J,~ ...:.
8-1: "-mbluncl RevlewPrlorStuclie&l
&ittins Caw S::u:eI . . 1820 1.".
8-2: IdcndfySupplemcnl&l DataRequiremenlll 2 2 S290 ~'"
B-3: CdIClCl ~emcnaI Data . " 16 ,~"" 3J"
B-04: Analyze P.zIlth. O:oddc:u. . 12 " 16 n780 .....
.,: :,:ce.i Cc :.'c: :"c/i/c"'c'// ))i':/"'i c)////'c, "iin,'
C.-I: Prepare Mod:! Inputa fer lntcdm antuonl . . 16 . . n... ..".
C-2: Concb:::t lranIpc:1rud on McxWI II' SO .....
C-3: Analyze Interim Sue Condition. ("'!PA One"
BuilcSotc TImerlllme) . . 16 . . $2,910 ..".
C-4: AnaJyze Interim with "SPA One" Project Condtjonl
(withlbe On-Site Acce.Altemltha 1.2A. 2B &3) . 16 32 16 . $5.... ""
C-S: Analyze Interim v.ith"SPAOne"Pro;ect CondtiOf1l
(.-ltbtbc OO-Site Netwa't. AltenJllhw 4,5 &. 6J . 16 30 12 12 ".... 7.1'5>
C-6: Analyze Interim Condidcn. f<r Prqecl
Alternatives? 2 . . 16 . . n... 3.'"
C-7: AnaJyze Intaim nan.p.:nati on Pbui..
Condltiorw with "SPA Orz~ . 16 16 .. 16 16 Sll,321l 1t.9'!e
C-8: Anatvze On-Site tion~emI . 12 " . . S3.... S....
~AnalysiI(llUrim Condlicq) ~ . 12 " . . $4,140 S....
X/'iXii/:,P..cc,.,),..c'ccc,ci )'i/./ :c ':i?/c"i:/'~ x:
0-1: Prepan Mod=! Inplb forBulldOl.l CcndtiOl1l . . . . '1,360 I.'"
0-2: AnI!yze Bulldout,.,hb"SPA One"Projoet
ConditlOlll (A1tcmatl~8witbSoubblly Buildout) . . 12 . . nl21l 3....
0-3: MiliptionAnaI)'li. - Buildout Conditions
(lnclwes DeYdopnenl oC Text for TccbrKaI Report) 2 . . 12 . . n021l ~...
",,)\\ \\'\\ .>.>\.>)'''' \.)i\.>.>.>//.> .>\.>/~
E-l, ""-"".R""", 16 16 " 16 " ...... a",
E-2: Prep.e Final Repat . 16 16 " . 16 S6,2llO .....
E-3: ReYiewSER 'TranspcItItlonfAceal" Section
(Up to 16 ProCCIIi.:n1 StafrHCU'lAlICQtedCm-
RCIpODC toCmIDentl) . . 16 16 16 ",200 .....
c.>/:.>",\"" ~:~y//
F-l: Auend Project MletIrp I. I. II $4.785 6.9%
F-2: Prepwe (or and Attend PublIeHarir:p 2 . 16 S1,98O ....
Sub-TotaI LabccHotn 34 134 221 360 130 ""
ToraILAborHCQ'I _ 1....
~TotaILabcr . ......,
CMect &pen.ea:
Field Pencnzl (12 incenectlonl) . "....
ThI'oOeI(mile8&;e) - 125.
Gnpbic SuppiC:l - S21lO
ReprodlCtl on - S500
Communication - S21lO
Sub-TotaI Direct&pe12lell - 55.150
TOTAL PROJBCT BUDGBT" $74.995
.
Notes: FccUle Plrp(SC dlbi.Prcpo.aI,BRW bas aIIUlDCdtbal all necaIaIy model'lW...J1Irperfamed bySANDAGWltb~ by the projectappJicant.
..1bi.feeeltimate lnehxleun allocatlonoCoo.ertlme boc.n (orBRWprobIiooal and tuppa't sWI' t:N<< ~ $imaled ttree (3) month or two(Z)
montb accelerated timeframefor prodlCtion oltbe Technical Repctt.
~j,;'
ACCELERATED PROJECT SCHI!IXlLE
mAY RANCH SPA I TRANSPal.TATION ANALYSIS
BRW. me. - JANUARY 24. 1995
WEEKLY PROJECT SCHEDlLE
TRANSPORTATION IMPICT ANALYSIS Startl/l6;'9S Ead 3/1G'95
WORK TASKS WEEK 1 I WEEK2 T WEEK 3 I WEEK 4 I WEEKS I WEEK 61 WEEK 7 I WEEK 8
P'auc A - Pzo;ect Iai..ti~ (Wort Tub eo.pleted ia Da:eaber 1994)
A-I: Re6ne,confirm Scope
A-2: Identit Medel Sources
A-3: Re..;ew/Ret.i.se BRW Prqect Scbedule
PUle B - Don.eat E:lisU& Trauporta'oa Sy*.C~ditio..
8-1: ~mble and Review PriorStudies/EU.sting Data SoUI;CS .........
B-2: Ia:ntify Supolemenlil.1 Data Requirements ....
B-3: Collect Supplemenal DaD ........
8-4: Analyze &:istiDg Conditions ......7f
Pbac C - Doc...eat heea. Taaspn1atioa Sysae. Coadilio_
C-l: Prepal!: Malel Inputs Cor ID~rim ConditioDs ...... ........
C-2: ConductTransDOmtioo Mateline: (lobe done by SANDACi\ '-~
C-3: AnalyzeInterimBaseConditioDI ("SPA I" Bu.iklout TImeframe) ........
C-4: Analyze Interim with "SPA I" Prqecl ConditioDs ..;jj.f..>
(with the On-Sie Access Altermtives I, 2A.2B &3)
C- 5: Analyze Interim with "SPA I" Prqect ConditionJ ....j..
(with the Off-Sile Net'M:lrkAltemathes 4,5&6) ......
C-6: Analyze InlenmConditioDS Cor Prqect Altemathe 7 ......
C-7: AnalyzeInterimTransportation Pbtsing Conditions with "SPAr"
C-8: AnalyzeOn-SiE Transportation SvsEms ....
C-9: MitVtion Analysis(Inerim Conditions) .....
nue D - BaildMt Coaditioa AuIyIi.I
D-l: PJepare Model Input; for Buildout Conditions H....."'...
D- 2: Analyze Buildoutwith "SPA One" Proixl '........5..j .
Conditions (Alemative 8 with Soutbbay Buildout) liilit1..... ....
D-3: MiiVtion Ana.lysis - BuildoutConditions ';.;".!k.1j
(Includes Development of Text for Technical Report)
ftue E - ~lio. of Daft u4 Hu.I Tecbical RaMHt-
E-l: ~pare Draft Report ............... .'
E-2: ~pare Fiml Report ....
E-3: Review SEIR "Transportatiott"Access" Section
(Up to 16 ProEssional Slilff HoursAllocated
(orRespon!le toCOmmenrsr....
PItue p - Alteacb...:e at Project Meetiar;a ud hltic Heuiar;a
F -1: AtEnd Prqect Meeti~ I I I I I
F-2: P1epare for and Anend Publi: Heari~ I I I I I
Notes:
. SPA I Altermtive I, SPA 1 Altemati..e 2
.. Sllnd alone Phasi~ Analysis forinclusion into the Appendix of the Fiml Technical Report.
... Buildout Model Run by SANDAO
.... To be prepaed upon ECeipt ofs:reen check revrw comments.
..... To be completed upon receipt ofSEIRcommenls.
Draft Final ReportSubmiral on or before Mu:h 10,1995
g" -6?' B /~b
b5
Exhibit D-3
Scope of Services and Schedule
twater Environmental Biologists, Inc.
cbs-cant. doc
January 27, 1995
t? ~?r
Three Party Agreement
Page 14
tt'7
ATTACHMENT A
TECHNICAL PROPOSAL AND FEE ESTIMATE
Otay Ranch SPA One EIR
Biological Resources Analysis
Prepared for
Cotton/Beland/ Associates
6310 Greenwich Dr, Suite 220
San Diego, CA 92122
Prepared by
Sweetwater Environmental Biologists
3838 Camino del Rio North, Suite 270
San Diego, CA 92108
%~1-7
Sweetwater Environmental Biologists, Inc.
3838 Camino del Rio North, Suite 270, San Diego. CalifornIa 92108 (619) 624-2300 Fax (619) 624-2301
December 21, 1994
Mr. John Bridges
Cotton Beland Associates
6310 Greenwich Drive, Suite 220
San Diego, CA 92122
RECEIVED Dt
C22199+
Subject: Otay Ranch SPA One Proposal
Dear Mr. Bridges:
Sweetwater Environmental Biologists, Inc. (SEB) is pleased to submit this proposal to you for
the biological analysis for Otay Ranch SPA One. This property is located in southern San Diego
County and includes approximately 1,095 acres.
SCOPE OF WORK
SEB's role in this project will be to assist Cotton Beland Associates (CBA) in their role as an
extension of the City ofChula Vista and its Otay Ranch Project Team, specifically with regard to
biological issues. Our work will involve the project level environmental analysis and the project
mitigation program.
Task 1. Prepare biolollY section of EIR. SEB will be responsible for preparing the biology
section of the Otay Ranch SPA One EIR. We will use existing data and reports for the
preparation of this document, including the Phase II Resource Management Plan. We will also
conduct a brief field reconnaissance to familiarize our staff with the project site and its resources.
Two drafts will be provided as part of our scope; a preliminary draft for your and the City's
review prior to puhlic review nnd a revised draft for puhlic review. SEB will provide CBA with
clean draft graphics. Report graphics will be CBA's responsibility. Not included is the analysis
of any off-site project elements.
Task 2. Prepare response to comments. SEB will respond to public comments by providing a
preliminary draft for review by you or the City, and a second, or final draft that incorporates any
necessary revisions. We will provide up to 12 hours to respond to comments and 4 hours to
make any revisions.
Task 3. Prepare biololi:Y sections of Mitill:ation Monitorinll and Reportinli: Proli:ram (MMRPt
SEB will prepare the biological elements of the MMRP. The elements will address significant
impacts identified in the EIR and draw on the Phase II Resource Management Plan and
mitigation section of the EIR. Two drafts will be provided as part of our scope; a preliminary
,?~ ;7 (J
(,pf
biological studies. wiidlife management. habitat restoration. enVIronmental '0seo~cn . regulatory compliance
resource planning. assessment, an(j rritigation . revegetation olonnir'g, :<T1clemrlr,iat;:)r': ond monitoring
Mr. John Bridges
Cotton Beland Associates
December 21, 1994
Page 2 of2
draft and a final draft. We will provide up to 35 hours to prepare a draft and 8 hours to make any
revisions following your review.
COST
SEB is pleased to submit this time and materials not to exceed cost estimate of $14,660.00. The
cost by task is presented below.
Task
~
I. Prepare biology section of ErR
2. Prepare response to comments
3. Prepare biology sections ofMMRP
$9,560.00
$1,385.00
$3,715.00
Total
$14,660.00
We hope this information is useful to you in preparing your proposal. Please call me if you have
any questions or comments regarding our participation on this project.
Very truly yours,
2''' ;; /
Sweetwater Environmental Biologists, Inc.
3838 Camino del Rio North, Suite 270, San Diego, California 92108 (619) 624-2300 Fax (619) 624-2301
January 23, 1995
Mr. John Bridges
Cotton Beland Associates
6310 Greenwich Drive, Suite 220
San Diego, CA 92122
Subject: Otay Ranch SPA One Proposal Amendment
Dear Mr. Bridges:
Sweetwater Environmental Biologists, Inc. (SEB) is pleased to submit this proposal amendment
to you for the biological analysis of Otay Ranch SPA One. This amendment should be
considered as an attachment to our proposal that is dated December 21, 1994.
SCOPE OF WORK
This proposal is based on our conversations with you and Harold Wier (Dudek & Associates)
regarding the expanded scope of work for analyzing various plans within the Otay Ranch Phase
II Resource Management Plan (RMP). The expanded scope is detailed under Tasks 4 and 5
below. We have also outlined the scope and costs associated with Tasks I, 2, and 3 from our
earlier proposal.
Task 1. Prepare biolo~y section ofEIR. No changes.
Task 2. Prepare response to comments. No changes.
Task 3. Prepare bio!ol:" ~ectin!'}s of Mitill'~ti()n Monitor;"!! and Reportin!! Pro~ram (MMRPt
No changes.
Task 4. Provide third party review to additional sections of Phase II RMP Tasks. Sections to be
reviewed include: Vernal Pool Management Plan (2a), Ranch Management Program (2b),
Coastal Sage Scrub and Maritime Sage Scrub Management Program (2c), Trail Plans (2g),
Existing Biota Monitoring Program (2i), Identify Potential Locations of Nature Interpretive
Center (3b), Identification of Interim and Permitted Uses (3c), Creation of Conceptual
Infrastructure Plan (3f), and Identification of More Precise Preserve Boundaries (3g). We are
assuming that the plan elements are near final form and will not need extensive comments. We
will provide written comments to you for each plan element. Also included in this scope are 20
hours of meetings to discuss these issues.
5J~?~
1/
biological studies. wildlife management. habitat restoration. environmental research. regulatory compliance
resource planning, assessment, and mitigation. revegetation planning, implementation, and monitoring
Mr. John Bridges
Cotton Beland Associates
January 23, 1995
Page 2 of2
Task 5. Provide third narty review for Preserve Implementation (Optional task). Review of
Phase II RMP task for Developing Funding Plan for Preserve Implementation (3c). The
assumptions for the analysis of this plan are similar to those for Task 4. No meetings are
included in this task.
COST
SEB is pleased to submit this time and materials not to exceed cost estimate of $23,885.00. The
cost, by task, is presented below.
lll.sk
l:&st
I. Prepare biology section of ErR
2. Prepare response to comments
3. Prepare biology sections ofMMRP
4. Analyze nine elements of Phase II RMP
5. Analyze Funding Plan for Preserve Implementation
$9,560.00 (No change)
$1,385.00 (No change)
$3,715.00 (No change)
$8,255.00
$970.00 (optional task)
Total
$23,885.00
We hope this information is useful to you in preparing your proposal. Please call me if you have
any questions or comments regarding our participation on this project.
Very truly yours,
15' ? J
AMENDMENT NO.1
TO THE THREE PARTY AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
CITY OF CHULA VISTA, COTION/BELAND/ASSOCIATES, INC.
AND OTA Y RANCH, L.P. FOR CONSULTING WORK TO BE
RENDERED WITH REGARD TO THE OTAY RANCH PROJECT,
SPA ONE, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
This Agreement made this _ ofJune 1995, between the City ofChula Vista ("City"),
CottonlBelandlAssociates, Inc. ("Consultant") and the Otay Ranch, L.P. ("Applicant"), is the first
amendment to that Agreement dated January 30, 1995, entitled "Three Party Agreement Between
City of Chula Vista, CottonIBelandlAssociates, Inc. and the Otay Ranch, L.P. for Consulting
Work to be Rendered with Regard to the Otay Ranch Project" between the same parties
("Original Agreement"), and was made with reference to the following facts:
I. RECITALS
1. The parties have entered into the Original Agreement above entitled and dated for
the purpose of having Consultant prepare an Environmental Impact Report and for other
environmental documents;
2. Whereas, the Original Agreement required the Consultant through itself or through
a subconsultant to provides a certain quantum of transportation analysis with regard to the
various transportation systems and intersections on SPA One of the Otay Ranch; and
3. The parties desire the Consultant to prepare an additional traffic analysis of 29
additional intersections within the territory of SPA One of the Otay Ranch plus other
miscellaneous additional transportation analysis set forth in the modifications herein provided.
II. OBLIGATORY PROVISIONS
Now, therefore, the parties hereto do agree to amend the Original Agreement as follows:
1. Exhibit D-2 entitled "Scope of Services and Schedule, BRW," attached to the
Original Agreement via it's reference in Exhibit A, Section V, is hereby amended to incorporate
Tasks B-3 (a) and B-4 (a), Task C-l (a), Task C-7 (a) and C-7 (b) and Task E-l (a) as set forth in
the letter of May 12, 1995 from CottonlBelandl Associates, Inc. to Mr. Gerald Jarnriska, AICP
attached to this Amendment No. 1 as Exhibit A. No other terms and conditions of said Exhibit A
are incorporated herein by reference.
~~7r
;:73
Amendment No. 1
Cotton/BelandJ Associates, Inc.
Page 2
III. COMPENSATION
Notwithstanding, the compensation set forth on Exhibit C to the Original Agreement, for
the performance of the amendments herein contained to the Original Agreement, Applicant shall
pay a single fixed-fee in the amount of $24,950.00 when the work product herein required has
been performed, submitted to the City and has been deemed by the City to be satisfactory.
IV. All other terms and conditions of the Original Agreement, not expressly or indirectly
amended by the terms of this amendment, shall remain in full force and affect and shall
otherwise govern the terms of this Agreement.
(End of Page. Next Page is Signature Page.)
8-~ ? ~
Amendment No. I
CottonlBelandl Associates, Inc.
Page 3
SIGNATURE PAGE
Now, therefore, the parties hereto, having read and understood the terms and conditions
of this Agreement, do hereby express their consent to the terms hereof by setting their hand
hereto on the date set forth adjacent thereto.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA:
CONSULTANT:
CottonlBelandl Associates, Inc.
BY:
John Goss, City Manager
BY:
John E. Bridges, Principal
Dated:
Dated:
BY:
Bruce Boogaard, City Attorney
APPLICANT:
The Otay Ranch, L.P.
a California Limited Partnership
By: Baldwin Builders, a
California Corporation,
its general partner.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Dated:
BY:
Kim 1. Kilkenny, Vice-President
Dated:
Attachment: Exhibit "A"
contracts\cbamcnd I.doc
~/)~
:7~/l
~~fk~(
- --..:.....~-
EXHIBIT "A"
COTTON/BELAND/ASSOCIATES, INC.
URBAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING CONSULTANTS
rc..00I
May 12, 1995
MAY I 7
Mr. Gerald 1. Jamriska, AICP
Special Planning Projects Manager
Otay Ranch Project Office
315 Fourth Avenue, Suite A
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Subject: Otay Ranch SPA I Environmental Impact Report (EIR) - Contract Amendment
Request
Dear Mr. Jamriska:
Please accept this letter as a formal request to amend the Otay Ranch SP A One EIR contract
dated January 30,1995 between the City of Chula Vista, the Otay Ranch, L. P., and
Cotton/BelandlAssociates (CBA). Our request is based on the information identified in this
letter which is also described in greater detail in the attached letter to CBA from BR W Inc.
BRW Inc. is a sub consultant to CBA and is preparing the SPA One transportation analysis.
The level of effort necessary to complete the transportation analysis for the project has
increased as a result of significant modifications to original work tasks identified in the BR \V
contract scope of work (Attachment B of the January 30 contract). The requested
amendment includes a budget augment of $24,950 and increases the overall cost for the
transportation analysis to $99,945. The following information describes the areas of
~dditional analysis which require a contract amendment and the associated hoursibudget
Increase:
Phase B - Documentation of Existing Transportation System Conditions
Tasks B-3(a) ami B-4(a)
. Expansion of Study Area as recommended by Transportation Subcommittee to
include an additional 29 intersections requires additional data collection and
analysis of existing transportation system conditions.
Additional Staff Hours Required: 140
Budget Increase: $8,300
Phase C - Documentation orInterim Transportation System Conditions
Tasks C-l(a), C-7(a) anti C-7(b)
. Expansion of effort required to develop and allocate land use data in eastern Chula
Vista and provide proper coding for SANDAG transportation modelling.
747 EAST GREEN STREET SUITE 400. Pi\SADENA. CALIFORNIA 91101
(81B) 304-0102 FAX (818\ 304-0402
6310GREEr-..'WICH DRIVE SUITE 220- SAN DIEGO, CALlFOR.NIA 92122
16191625-0056 FAX 16191 625.05.Ei
g:-?l
1~
@
Page Two
Mr. Gerald 1. Jamriska, AlCP
May 12, 1995
. Addition of 29 additional intersections in an expanded Study Area requires
increased analysis for each phase of the project (years 2000, 2005, 2010).
. Addition of network alternatives as recommend by the Transportation
Subcommittee to test network and interchange alternatives at Palomar Avenue and
Orange Avenue.
Additional Staff Hours Required: 210
Budget Increase: $ 1 3,650
Phase E - Preparation of Draft and Filial Technical Report
Task E-l(a)
. Addition of text, tables, figures and appendices to draft and final transportation
analysis reports required by additional analyses associated with other tasks
described above.
Additional Staff Hours Required: 60
Budget Increase: $3,000
We recommend that BRW be used to prepare the additional work described in this letter.
BRW is currently in the final stages of the traffic analysis for the Otay Ranch SPA One
project. Mr. Dan Marum is serving as Project Manager for BRW and provides a continuous
linkage in this role between the previous Otay Ranch GDP Traffic Analysis and the SPA One
project. Mr. Marum is supported by a strong local staff and the resources of a national firm
specializing in transportation planning and traffic engineering. The combination of Mr.
Marum's extensive local knowledge of key transportation issues and the firm's proven
commitment to providing professional services to the City of Chula Vista make BRW
uniquely qualified to provide the additional technical services needed for this project.
Please contact me at (619) 625-0056 if you need any additional information regarding this
request.
Sincerely,
~d:~~
Principal
JEB:csk
Attachment: BRW Inc. letter of May 5, 1995
8S8.00
ffr?g-'
IIIKIII
B R W INC.
Planning
Transportation
Engineering
Urban Design
620 C Street
Suite 300
San Diego,
CA 92101
619/557-0580
Fax 619/557-8307
San Diego
Minneapolis
Phoenix
Denver
St. Petersburg
Seattle
Donald W. Ringrose
Richard P. Wolsfeld
Peter E. Jarvis
Thomas E Carroll
Craig A. Amundsen
Donald E. Hunt
John B. McNamara
Richard D. Pilgrim
Dale N. Beckmann
Jeffrey L. Benson
Ralph C. Blum
Gary J. Erickson
John C. Lynch
Paul N Sav
May 5, 1995
Mr. John Bridges
Cotton/Belland/ Associates
6310 Greenwich Drive, Suite 220
San Diego, CA 92122
RE: Otay Ranch SPA One Transportation Analysis - Progress Report
No.1 and Budget Adjustment Request; BRW #28720.00
Dear Mr. Bridges:
This progress report for work completed during the January - March
reporting period is provided to support the attached invoice for
professional services for the period ending March 31, 1995.
The foHowing table summarizes work completed on project tasks during
this reporting period. As shown on the table, work completed during the
months of January, February, and March focused on developing model
inputs, the evaluation of Project Alternatives and the determination of
segment and intersection performance. This performance analysis resulted
in the identification of impacted locations and conceptual mitigation
measures. The detailed assessment of network performance during this
reporting period established the basis for preparing technical sections of
the Draft Final Report.
In the course of conducting these evaluations and developing the Draft
Final Report, BRW has identified work activities which were not included
in the original scope. Additionally, the level of effort necessary to
complete the transpclrtation analysis for the Otay Ranch SPA One has
increased as a result of significant modification to key work tasks. Thus,
BRW has included a new section to the attached table to document the
impact that these on-going and upcoming work efforts will have on the
project budget. The following sections discuss these new work activities
with individual task descriptions.
BUDGET ADJUSTMENT REQUEST NO.1
Due to the complexity of this project, the duration has been extended and
the monthly allocation of manpower has increased. Typically,
transportation impact studies of this type result in monthly expenses
ranging from $15,000 to $25,000 per month. As required by the tight
:;?".J'7 E\2Bnooo\P.R\PROG.RYT0111
Mr. John Bridges
May 5, 1995
Page 2
project schedule, BRW has dedicated staff to work overtime in producing project
deliverables. These overtime expenses along with the level of effort expended on ne\\"
tasks or tasks which required additional effort have resulted in monthly costs towards
the upper end of the typical range.
These high monthly expenses coupled with an extension of the project schedule have
resulted in project expenses in excess of the estimated project budget for completed
tasks. To document this budget impact and formally request a budget adjustment, BRW
has prepared the following description of tasks which will necessitate expenditures
beyond original budget estimates. The following task descriptions correspond to original
contract tasks and are summarized as sub-tasks (a) or (b). The cost and status of budget
for these new or increased effort tasks (shown in bold print) are also summarized on the
attached Progress Report Table.
Description of Professional Services Beyond Original Contract Scope
Phase B - Document Existing TransportatIon System Conditions
Task B-3(a) - Additional Data Collection
Based on recommendations from the Transportation Subcommittee, BRW expanded the
Study Area to conform to the Congestion Management Plan (CMP) criteria. This
recommendation results in the inclusion of additional segments and intersections in the
Traffic Study. The original scope was based on the analysis of up to twenty (20) major
intersections in the Study Area. However, with the CMP criteria applied, a total of 49
major intersections are now included in the study. The addition of 29 new intersections
will require additional time and effort to develop the existing conditions database.
Additional Staff Hours Required: ~ Budget Increase: $3.800.00
Task B-4(a) - Additional Analysis Effort
As discussed in Task B-3(a), it was recommended that BRW analyze 29 new Study Area
intersections. In addition to the increased effort related to database development, BRW
will expend staff hours beyond the contracted level to analyze the existing conditions
at these new intersections.
Additional Staff Hours Required: -lliL
Budget Increase: ~.500.00
g--~ ~!J
E\2872DOO\P-R \PRQC-RPTOI
Mr. John Bridges
May 5, 1995
Page 3
Phase C - Document Interim Transportation System Conditions
Task C-l(a) - Develop Land Use Data
Task C-l of the original contract allocated 42 hours for the "coding" of land use data for
submittal to SANDAG. However, based on the complexity of the Land Use
configuration in Eastern Chula Vista, BRW staff has become involved in the Land Use
Allocation process to assist City staff. The completion of this task will require additional
staff time.
Additional Staff Hours Required: .-J!L Budget Increase: $2.400.00
Task C-7(a) - Additional Analysis Effort
As discussed in Task B-3(a) it was the recommendation of the Transportation
Subcommittee that BRW analyze 29 new Study Area intersections. This increased level
of analysis will require additional BRW staff time for each of the transportation phasing
analyses (Years 2000, 2005, 2010) to be conducted.
Additional Staff Hours Required: 100 Budget Increase: $6.450.00
Task C-7(b) - Additional Model Runs/Evaluation
During the development of the Transportation Phasing Plans for Years 2005 and 2010,
the Transportation Subcommittee recommended that BRW test two alternative networks
for each forecast year. The network alternatives dealt with the Palomar Avenue
interchange (in or out) and the extension of Orange Avenue. To conduct these
evaluations, BRW will dedicate additional staff time.
Additional Staff Hours Required: ~ Budget Increase: $4.800.00
Phase E - Preparation of Draft and Final Technical Report
Task E-l(a) - Expanded Report
In order to incorporate all the additional analyses described in the previous project
modification tasks, BRW will experience an impact to the estimated hours allocated for
preparation of the Draft Report. New text, tables, figures and appendices will also be
required.
Additional Staff Hours Required: ~
Budget Increase: $3.000.00
Summary of Budget Adjustment No.1
As a result of recommendations from the Transportation Subcommittee, new or
expanded work efforts have been included in the BRW Work Program. These new work
3'",- 3/
19
E\28n!:XJO\P-R\PROG-RPTOl
Mr. John Bridges
May 5, 1995
Page 4
efforts make it necessary for BRW to formally request an adjustment to increase the
original contract budget by $24,950.00. This increase will bring the total contract budget
to $99,945.00.
As stated in Section 3 (Time and Fee Schedule) of Attachment B of the BRW
Subconsultant Agreement, it was recognized that the estimated costs for each task as
documented in the "Cost Summary Table" were approximations only. The actual task
work efforts would be dictated by the complexity of the final work program. Thus, the
preparation of this progress report documents the levels of effort expended on
completed tasks and provide an estimate of anticipated costs associated with future work
on tasks not included in our original scope.
In closing, BRW is not aware of any additional changes in the Work Program which
would result in any additional impact to our overall project budget beyond Adjustment
No. 1. We anticipate having the ability to absorb the additional staff time associated
with the recalculation of all previously completed technical analyses, prior to the
preparation of the Draft Report. This recalculation effort results from the decision to re-
run all project models as recommended by the Transportation Subcommittee on April
25, 1995. If we discover that we will be unable to absorb these additional staff time
expenses, BRW will notify you immediately.
Your attention to this invoice and budget adjustment request is appreciated, and if you
have any questions or require additional information please contact me.
Sincerely,
BRW, Inc.
pa.ud~J!~
Daniel F. Marum
Senior Transportation Planner
DFM:cb
Attachments:
c: Rick Pilgrim
g-~ cf cJ-
E\28nDOO\P-R\PR<X-RPT.01
PROGRESS REPORT #1
BRW, INC. - APRIL 24,1995
OTAY RANCH SPA ONE - TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS
Reporting Period: January/February/March 1995
Task Description
A-2 Identify Model Sources
A-3 Review /Revise BRW Project Schedule
o
o
Ph.,se B - Document.Existing Transpor~,tion System Conditions
B-1 Assemble and Review Prior Studies/ Existing
Da ta Sources
B-2 Identify Supplemental Data Requirements
13-3 Collect Supplemen~,1 Data
B~(a) Additional Data Collection
B-4 Analyze Existing Conditions
B-4(a) Additional Analysis Effort
~.. .
C-1 Prepare Model Inputs for Interim Conditions
Colla) Develop land Use Data
C-2 Conduct Transportation Modeling
C-3 Analyze Interim s',se Conditions CSPA One"
Buildout Timeframe)
C-4 Analyze Interim with "SPA One' Project
Conditions (with the On-Site Access Alternatives 1,
2A, 2B & 3)
C-5 Analyze Interim with "SPA One" Project
Conditions (with the Off-Site Network Alternatives
4,5&6)
C-6 Analyze Interim Conditions for Project
Alternative 7
.7 Analyze Interim Transport.c:1tion Phasing
":onditions with "SPA One"
C-7(a) Additional Analysis Effort
$820
$290
$2,420
$3,800
$2,780
$4,500
$2,900 .
$2,400
0
$2,910
$5,080
$4,940
$2,600
$8,320
$6,450
Prior
Percent Complete
Total
Current
- 100%
- 100%
- 100%
- 100%
- 100%
- 100%
- 100%
- 100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
~J;J
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Current
Invoice I
($)
Est.
Remaining
Budget ($)
I Est
Cost
. h uJ~ .:...::'. < ... .. :......
A-I Refine/Confirm Scope 0
... .
$820
so
$290
$2,420
$3,800
so
SO
$0
$2,780
SO
$4,500
$0
.
$2,900
SO
$0
$2,400
$2,910
$0
$5,080
$0
$4,940
$0 i
I
$0
$0
$6,450
$2,600
$8,320
E\2BnOOO\P-R\PROG-RP'T.Ol C:Z:/
Percent Complete Current Est.
Est. Invoice Remaining
Task Description Cost Prior Current Total ($) BudgE )
~
C-7(b) Additional Model RunslEvaluation $4,800 - - - - $1,500
C-S Analyze On-Site Transportation Systems $3,900 - - - - $3,9())
C-9 Mitigation Analysis (Interim Conditions) $4,140 - 100% 100% $4,140 SO
{Phase O.I3~H4,,"t~~tlionsAhalysis ....... ............... ....
. ..............
......,...'......,.........'.--..
0-1 Prepare ModellnpulS for Buildout Conditions $1,360 - - - - 51.360
0-2 Analyze Buildout with "SPA One .. Project $2,120 . - - - 52,120
Conditions (Alternative 8 with Southbay BuHdout)
0.3 Mitigation Analysis - Buildout Conditions $2,020 - - - - $2,020
(Ind udes Development of Text for Technical Report)
P"asJE.!'rep:i\'il~~n<iftH;,fdhdFihaLT"""riic.'\IReport... .... ...... T'. .. ..... .... .'. .. ..... < .. ..........
E-I Prepare Ora It Report $6,000 - - - - $6,000
E.l(a) Expanded Report $3,000 - - - - $3.000
E-2 Prepare Final Report $6,280 - . - - $6,280
E-3 Review SEIR "Transportation / Access" Section $4,200 - - - - 54,200
(Up to 16 Professional Staff Hours AlIoc.lted for
Response to Comments)
E -............" mK,LiDb. ",nn../{. . ...... . .. .... '"
..{ .... .0 .... .
F-I A ttend Project Meetings $4,785 - 50% 50% $2,393 $2,392
F-2 Prepare for and Attend Public HE<lrings $1,980 - - .. - $1,980 .
Total Labor Cost:
. Original Contract $69,845.00 I I i
. Budget Adjustment No. I 524,950.00 I
. Revised Contract Labor Cost $94,795.00 I $SO,293,00 I $44,502.00 i
(w / Adjustment No. I) I
I
Estimated Direct Expenses ... $5,150.00 I $2,203.50 I $2,946.00 I
Total Project Cost (with Budget Adjustment No. I) $99,945.00 I $52,496.50 I $47,448.50 I
Note: . No increase in direct expenses is required for Budget Adjustment No.1..
?~5f
E\2BnOOO\P-R\PROG.RPT.Ol
PROJECT BILLING HISTORY
TOTAL BUDGET
(w/Adjustment No.1) PRIOR CURRENT TO DATE REMAINING
Serv ices 94,795.00 0 50,293.00 50,293.00 44,502.00
Ex penses 5,150.00 0 2,20350 2,203.50 2,946.50
Total 99,945.00 0 52,496.50 52,496.50 47,448.50
25~g-~
~3
E\28nDOO\P-R \PROG-RYTOl
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
ITEM TITLE:
Item q
Meeting Date 6/13/95
Resolution \'1 ~ ~ Approving the submittal of one application for
seventh cycle funds of the StatelLocal Transportation Partnership Program
(SLTPP)
REVIEWED BY:
City Manager j~ ~
O~
(4/5ths Vote: Yes_No..XJ
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works
Senate Bill 300 created the StatelLocal Transportation Partnership Program (SL TPP) to identify and
construct locally supported projects with a minimum of State planning and review in order to
encourage local agencies to use funding sources other than Gas Tax for these projects. Staff has
prepared one application for seventh cycle funding under this program. In order that the application
for SL TPP funding may be considered, a Council resolution approving the submittal of the application
to the CalTrans Local Assistance Engineer is required. CalTrans is the agency administering this
program. Our application covers a Capital Improvement project along Main Street, Between Industrial
Boulevard and Broadway.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt a resolution approving the submittal of one application
for seventh cycle funding of the StatelLocal Transportation Partnership Program (SL TPP).
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
In response to the extensive State-wide need for funding for the rehabilitation and upgrading of streets
and roads, the State legislature has established the StatelLocal Transportation Partnership Program
(SL TPP). The SL TPP offers an opportunity to construct projects which may not stand the traditional
test of State-wide significaoce but which are critically needed by a local community. The State
legislature intends to appropriate funding for the program for Fiscal Year 1996-97 by June 30, 1996.
The state share for each project is based upon the ratio of the estimated cost of the project as
compared to the cost of all projects included in that Cycle. This ratio is applied to the amount
budgeted by the state for the cycle. The maximum state share is set at 50% of project construction
cost less Federal funding for the project. In recent years, the state share has been approximately 21%
to 30%. To date the City has received $3,628,047 from the State through this program, along with
approximately $200,000 in interest earnings on that money.
It is likely that the amount of money received by the City under this program will be substantially
reduced in future cycles, since the Governor's budget currently indicates a 50% cutback in the
program budget, aod proposed legislation would entirely eliminate it. In the event that the cutback
envisioned by the Governor becomes reality, we would anticipate a state share of approximately 10%
<;- \
Page 2, Item---9--
Meeting Date 6/13/95
(assuming that the number of projects included in the program and their costs remain approximately
constant).
Projects submitted must meet the following eligibility requirements:
1. The project will increase the capacity of the highway or guideway or would extend
service to new areas or, in the case of a local road rehabilitation project, it would
extend the useful life of the roadway by at least 10 years.
2. The applicant has committed itself or is capable of committing itself to the payment of
the local share to complete the project.
3. The project is not receiving any other State funds.
4. The applicant has completed or is capable of completing all project development work
so that the contracts for the project can be awarded no later than June 30, 1997.
5. Improvements to State highways are consistent with the StateIF ederal standards and are
designed to minimize long-term maintenance costs.
6. The cost estimate included in the application is reasonable.
Eligible projects include only those with local or Transnet funding. Chula Vista has one project which
meets Cycle 7 funding requirements and involves a Capital Improvement project along Main Street,
between Industrial Boulevard and Broadway. The City's share of funding for the proposed project
will be appropriated from Transnet monies.
Our submittal for the Sixth Cycle of the subject program was approved by the City Council on June
21, 1994 by Resolution 17544. Said resolution approved the submittal of one application for a project
along Otay Lakes Road from approximately 500 feet north of East "H" Street to 300 feet south of East
"H" Street. In addition, on June 13, 1994, the City of Chula Vista requested the roll-over of nine
projects from Cycle 5 to Cycle 6 bringing the total number of projects in Cycle 6 to ten. This rollover
was approved by CalTrans.
Staff has recently submitted a letter to CalTrans requesting that nine of the ten projects in cycle 6 be
rolled over to Cycle 7. The list of all the projects to be rolled over from Cycle 6 to Cycle 7 is shown
on Exhibit B. In order to be included in Cycle 6 funding, construction contracts for the projects must
be awarded prior to June 30, 1996. The primary reason for the rollover is the possibility that we may
be unable to award the construction contracts on these projects within the required time. The majority
of them are dependent upon the construction of private developments or Caltrans proj ects, and there
is a strong probability that their schedules will slip.
Cycle 7 projects may be awarded as early as July I, 1995 and as late as June 30, 1997. Therefore,
the requested rollover will not eliminate the possibility that we could award these projects earlier, but
it gives more time to award and preserves our ability to get SL TPP funding. This request is consistent
with Council's actions on the CIP.
q..~
Page 3, Item-3..--
Meeting Date 6/13/95
The City of Chula Vista will, as a result of this rollover, have ten projects in Cycle 7 of the SL TPP
program (Exhibit "C").
A copy of the application is on file in the City Clerk's office for Council review.
FISCAL IMPACT: Maximum potential revenues to the City for all ten projects in the amount of
approximately $8.8 million. Actual amount will be dependent on the number of projects approved and
the computed percentage of State share.
SMNlFile:KY -179
M:IHOMEIENGINEERIAGENDA ISLTPP2.95
q~~
EXHIBIT II A II
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
STATE I LOCAL TRANSPORTATION PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM
(SL TPP)
PROJECT TO REMAIN IN CYCLE 6
SLTPP
No PROJECT TITLE PROJECT LIMITS APPLICATION MAX. MATCH
AMOUNT @50%
1 Broadway Widening Naples Street to $1,350,000 $675,000
& Reconstruction Anita Street
TOTAL $1,350,000 $675,000
(M:\..\sltpp\A113-95A.wb1)
q-~
5/26/95
EXHIBIT II B II
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
STATE I LOCAL TRANSPORTATION PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM
(SL TPP)
PROJECTS TO BE ROLLED OVER FROM
CYCLE 6 TO CYCLE 7
SLTPP
No PROJECT TITLE PROJECT LIMITS APPLICATION MAX. MATCH
AMOUNT @50%
1 1-805/ Telegraph Canyon 1-805/ Telegraph Canyon Road $1,200,000 $600,000
Road - Phase II Interchange
Improvements
2 1-805 / East "H" Street - Phase II 1-805 / East "H" Street $3,200,000 $1,600,000
Interchange Improvements
Orange Avenue - between
3 Orange Avenue / Hunte Hunte Parkway & Wueste Road; $6,057,000 $3,028,500
Parkway Street Construction Hunte Parkway - between
Clubhouse Drive & Orange Avenue
4 Bonita Road Widening At Otay Lakes Road $75,000 $37,500
For Dual Turn Lanes
5 East "H" Street Widening At Otay Lakes Road $160,000 $80,000
$5,648
6 Bonita Road Widening Otay Lakes Road to $282,500 $141,250
Central Avenue
7 Construction of Hunte Parkway Proctor Valley Road to $2,670,000 $1,335,000
Telegraph Canyon Road
8 Bonita Road Widening San Miguel Road to $590,400 $295,200
Central Avenue
From a Point Approx. 500' North of
9 Otay Lakes Road Widening East "H" Street to a Point Approx. $215,000 $107,500
For Dual Left - Turn Lanes 300' South of East "H" Street
TOTALS $14,449,900 $7,224,950
(M:\..\sltpp\A113-95B.wb1)
9-s
5/26/95
SLTPP
No PROJECT TITLE PROJECT LIMITS APPLICATION MAX. MATCH
AMOUNT @50%
1 1-805/ Telegraph Canyon 1-805/ Telegraph Canyon Road $1,200,000 $600,000
Road - Phase II Interchange
Improvements
2 1-805 / East "H" Street - Phase II 1-805/ East "H" Street $3,200,000 $1,600,000
Interchange Improvements
Orange Avenue - between
3 Orange Avenue / Hunte Hunte Parkway & Wueste Road; $6,057,000 $3,028,500
Parkway Street Construction Hunte Parkway - between
Clubhouse Drive & Orange Avenue
4 Bonita Road Widening At Otay Lakes Road $75,000 $37,500
For Dual Turn Lanes
5 East "H" Street Widening At Otay Lakes Road $160,000 $80,000
6 Bonita Road Widening Otay Lakes Road to $282,500 $141,250
Central Avenue
7 Construction of Hunte Parkway Proctor Valley Road to $2,670,000 $1,335,000
Telegraph Canyon Road
8 Bonita Road Widening San Miguel Road to $590,400 $295,200
Central Avenue
From a Point Approx. 500' North of
9 Otay Lakes Road Widening East "H" Street to a Point Approx. $215,000 $107,500
For Dual Left - Turn Lanes 300' South of East "H" Street
10 Main Street - Widening Industrial Blvd. to Broadway $3,146,645 $1,573,323
and Reconstruction
TOTALS $17,596,545 $8,798,273
EXHIBIT "C"
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
STATE I LOCAL TRANSPORTATION PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM
(SL TPP)
CYCLE 7 PROJECTS
(M:\..\sltpp\A113-95C.wb1)
q-~
5/26/95
RESOLUTION NO.
, l~~~
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE SUBMITTAL OF ONE
APPLICATION FOR SEVENTH CYCLE FUNDS OF THE
STATE/LOCAL TRANSPORTATION PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM
(SLTPP)
WHEREAS, Senate Bill 300 created the State/Local
Transportation Partnership Program (SLTPP) to identify and
construct locally supported projects with a minimum of State
planning and review in order to encourage local agencies to use
funding sources other than Gas Tax for these projects; and
WHEREAS, staff has prepared one application to CalTrans,
the Agency administering the State Local Transportation Partnership
Program, and is submitting said package for council's approval; and
WHEREAS, in order that the application for SLTPP funds
may be considered, Council must approve the submittal of the
application to the CalTrans Local Assistance Engineer; and
WHEREAS,
Improvement project
and Broadway.
the City's application covers a Capital
along Main Street, between Industrial Boulevard
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the city of Chula vista does hereby approve the submittal of one
application for sixth cycle Funds of the State/Loca Transportation
Partnership Program (SLTPP).
Presented by
as~
:]
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
Bruce M. Boogaard
Attorney
ity
C:\rs\SLTPP
C1-1
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item I b
Meeting Date 6/13/95
Resolution 11 '\=>. ') Authorizing the City Engineer to exercise the
City's right to take over and utilize a portion of Rancho Del Rey Parkway
and Terra Nova Drive
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public worksJ\_
REVIEWED BY: City Manage0~ ~ ~\ (4/5 Vote: Yes_No X )
McMillin Development Company, in the process of developing the Rancho Del Rey subdivision, has
built portions of Rancho Del Rey Parkway and Terra Nova Drive that serve individual subdivision
units within the overall development that are "backbone" streets and essential to serve those
individual tracts. Because the subject streets were constructed and bonded as part of the individual
tracts, they ordinarily will not be accepted by the City until the work on the entire subdivision is
complete. The future residents of these subdivisions will be using these streets which have not been
accepted into the public system for maintenance and McMillin has a concern over the liability. In
August 1994, Council accepted portions of Rancho del Rey Parkway and Del Rey Boulevard, prior
to acceptance of the individual subdivision units with which they were a part. In accordance with
the "Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction" the City may take over the use of these
streets before their final acceptance. Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City
Engineer to exercise the City's right to take over early use of these two backbone streets.
ITEM TITLE:
RECOMMENDATION: Approve the resolution authorizing the City Engineer to exercise the
City's right to take over and utilize the portion of Rancho Del Rey Parkway between Paseo Rosal
and Del Rey Boulevard and Terra Nova Drive between the subdivision boundary and Rancho del Rey
Parkway.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: N/A
DISCUSSION:
In the course of developing Rancho Del Rey (RDR) SPA II, McMillin constructed portions of
Rancho Del Rey Parkway and Terra Nova Drive which serve as backbone streets necessary to
provide service to the individual tracts. Construction of portions of those streets were included as
part of the requirements for RDR phase 2, units I and 3 and phase 1, unit 3 were included in the
subdivision agreements and bonded as part of those subdivisions. Rancho Del Rey Parkway and
Terra Nova Drive have been completed and the use of these streets is necessary for public access
and circulation to the indicated subdivisions which are either being built and sold or occupied. The
City has not yet accepted the portion of Rancho del Rey Parkway between a point east of Paseo
Rosal and north of Del Rey Boulevard, nor Terra Nova Drive from the subdivision boundary to
Rancho del Rey Parkway. The City has not accepted the streets of these units because all of the
conditions of the Subdivision Agreements have not been met and we cannot release the bonds, nor
do a partial acceptance without amending the agreement. Attached is a map showing the streets
proposed to be taken over by the City (Exhibit A). The City will accept all of the streets and release
10 - J
Page 2, Item JD
Meeting Date 6/13/94
the bonds after all the streets in the subdivisions have been completed. Until that time McMillin,
or their guest builder, is responsible for maintenance of the streets and liability for any accidents that
may occur on them if the City does not take them over. Attached is a letter from McMillin
requesting the City to take over the "backbone" streets.
City staff has reviewed the request and concurs that the subject streets should be taken over by the
City as being in the public interest. If the streets are not taken over by the City, McMillin has
indicated that they will more than likely leave the streets closed to through traffic. These streets
serve several internal subdivisions. Rancho Del Rey Parkway is a major loop which circulates traffic
through Rancho del Rey and also serves Discovery School. The streets are necessary for the future
residents to access their individual subdivisions. In addition, the opening of Ranch Del Rey Parkway
will reduce travel time and will improve the overall circulation for residents.
The resolution specifies that, as a condition of the City taking over the streets, McMillan agree in
writing to continue to correct defective work and maintain the street sections for the warranty period
running from the date of the final acceptance of the improvements.
FISCAL IMPACT: There will be no major fiscal impact unless an accident takes place and the City
is sued. Such costs are no more than would ordinarily be incurred by the City after the street is
formally accepted in the City's system. Since McMillin will need to correct any deficiencies before
acceptance, there will be no fiscal impact other than routine street sweeping.
Attachments:
Att'l."h............t A _ T ..tt.... fr..Qm.MeMtlUn _____/,;\..<,J' --~-:' ('c'--_,,-_ ."
Attachment B - Map Showing Streets to be Taken Over
Attachment C - Resolution 17626
DCD/File No: EY-320, EY-325. EY-327
M:\home\engineer\agenda\rdrstrt.dcd
II) -d-.
RESOLUTION NO.~~
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA AUTHORIZING THE CITY ENGINEER TO
EXERCISE THE CITY'S RIGHT TO TAKE OVER AND
UTILIZE A PORTION OF RANCHO DEL REY PARKWAY
AND TERRA NOVA DRIVE
WHEREAS, McMillin Development company, in the process of
developing the Rancho Del Rey subdivision, has built portions of
Rancho Del Rey Parkway and Terra Nova Drive that serve individual
subdivision units within the overall development that are
"backbone" streets and essential to serve those individual tracts;
and
WHEREAS, because the subj ect streets were constructed and
bonded as part of the individual tracts, they ordinarily will not
be accepted by the City until the work on the entire subdivision is
complete; and
WHEREAS, the future residents of these subdivisions will
be using these streets which have not been accepted into the public
system for maintenance and McMillin has a concern over the
liability; and
WHEREAS, in August 1994, Council accepted portions of
Rancho del Rey Parkway and Del Rey Boulevard, prior to acceptance
of the individual subdivision units with which the were a part; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the "Standard Specifications
for Public Works Construction" the City may take over the use of
these streets before their final acceptance; and
WHEREAS, staff recommends that the City Council authorize
the City Engineer to exercise the city's right to take over early
use of these two backbone streets.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the
city of Chula vista does hereby authorize the City Engineer, in his
discretion, to exercise when construction is satisfactorily
completed and the conditions hereof met, to take over for pUblic
use from McMillin the portion of Rancho Del Rey Parkway between
Paseo Rosal and Del Rey Blvd and Terra Nova Drive between Rancho
Del Rey Parkway and the subdivision boundary on the condition they
will agree in writing to continue to correct defective work and
maintain the street sections for the warranty period running from
the date of the final acceptance of all subdivision improvements
shown on the Final Map.
Presented by
form by
J
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
Bruce M. Boo a d, city
Attorney
It)'~/(G-ti-
(,
.)
...
A+tAC.HME NT A
. '.
15
. QANClJODEL.RE!'.
April 6, 1995
Mr. Hal Rosenburg, City Traffic Engineer
City of Chula Vista
Department of Public Works
Traffic Engineering Division
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, California 91910
Subject:
Rancho Del Rey SPA II
Opening of Remaining Segments of Rancho Del Rey Parkway
Dear Hal:
As we discussed recently, the last remaining segments of Rancho Del Rey Parkway in Rancho
Del Rey SPA II have been completed. We have installed barricades at the intersection of
Rancho Del Rey Parkway and Paseo Del Rey, which restricts use of these segments of the
Parkway. In June, we will hope to open them for public use. These segments of the Parkway
were bonded as parts of two of the SPAll subdivisions, Phase I, Unit 3 and Phase 2, Unit 1.
Since all of the improvements within those two subdivisions have not been completed, we
understand it will be necessary to segregate the Parkway and to receive advanced acceptance
for public use from the City Council. We hereby request that the City begin that process.
We also understand that Terra Nova Drive, which enters Rancho Del Rey from the west and
connects to Rancho Del Rey Parkway, will need to be completed for this opening. Since this
street was bonded for with SPAll, Phase 2, Unit 3, and since the entire subdivision
improvements will not be completed when Terra Nova Drive is completed, we need to request
advanced acceptance of this street as well.
The portion of Terra Nova Drive which connects Rancho Del Rey with the Terra Nova
subdivision was completed and accepted by the City several years ago. Some work by City
forces will be required on that portion prior to the opening. In particular, barricades need to
be removed and the pavement patched, the street lights need to be repaired and debris needs to
be picked up. An inspection should probably be done to determine the full scope of work
needed.
2727 Hoover Avenue
I~,~
National City, California 92050.9973
(619) 477-4117
Mr. Hal Rosenburg
City of Chula Vista
April 6, 1995
Page two of two
In 199], when the traffic signal plans for the intersection of Terra Nova Drive and East "H"
Street were completed and approved, we sent a letter to the City agreeing that, while the 'City
was signing the plans, the determination of when the traffic signal was to be constructed would
also be made by the City and not by Rancho Del Rey. Our understanding of our phone
conversation recently was that, with the opening of Terra Nova Drive through to Rancho Del
Rey, the City will require that the signal be installed. We have gone out to bid for the work
shown on the approved plan and believe we can have it operational in time for a early June
opening. We did not find an approved intersection striping plan to accompany the traffic signal
plan and have asked Rick Engineering to prepare one and process it with your department.
If we have misunderstood anything or omitted something, or if you need additional
information, please remind us. We continue to appreciate working with you and your staff, the
experience is always positive. .
Yours truly,
JIwYM- J-u ~ Otvv
Rancho Del Rey Investors, L.P.
Thorn Fuller, Vice President
McMillin Project Services, Inc.
lo~~
'I --./ '^ '<...JiiJ~\v,..,-,-n W..l-II J L
).Il;0ij ~ . AV v...........
~I.~N ':;ii{ifJl, -- ""(~
" .' ~ t1!!ii. ~ ;;>::<; ~
::!:! 1:!:!lIh' w, I \j r 'tfl/>-., '0
~ 'f/l.7"J ~/0~/./JJ f) fL l= Qf/:)1
'< iiJj,., V 'N. 1) /'::::., J lJJ:l5:::( B ~
--<<(jh .'<r-tl!9 f-,',\---= ~ \(-Q1-j LD W .Q.
~ v ~ \= R:i1 III I/\Y
~~y ~fJ~ WJ~illll 'II
~~ ..Iv;} /
/'r ~:..~ 'f-,
v-., :::1' ~):..J -i
/"'L~, >. ~ ~ llT\J ;::J
. /\ rgtJL~V1j;Im21 r~ ~ ~%
I" -h 1\-1. L-..{0!7/2 ~ 111JTrri ~~~ ~
j ~B\~ ~ ~~~~ ~~F-;~~
~!>/il ~~;' ~ UrY ~ ~
~~ &'- fn tJT7lli ~~~ ~
H 5?' f <: 'fj'f::E:,')::: ~ ~ /,::
.~'~ \/\v ~'::3" 11<<1\\1
\ \ Y--: r-.... ~~ III fir -..../.,j rJ ~ Q\\\.("A= F
/ r:::- ~ ,.L[[:I A:--' ~~~
~ \. -J !l:I:fh::.; 4- YfiJ
~ ~~ ,?!~t:;~ R 1=::: = ~ V
\ '>.y / ""1 rAJ 'r;--'</ ~ IT: - ~
V' }. ..... i/ ~ ~ T\ 1 LL J
!C''({;ln " \.- ~~ ~ / ~
~ ~~~ ).~
-n l \~ " ,,'/"TTTI' .~
@Y- .::-- ~~~ t:: .LJ II \\'~
I- .Y ~ \--1 ,.- ~ \;:::>>.(: I 9 n /1111 \ \\ ~ \
en 'hy \W.L" ~.'(\) M 'WlIIIITIIIIl.I "'
.... XY~ ~ fi~'^lt<Y 1'1111\\\1\
....L- 1\ (""1 r, ~'Hf-~ ~C:{)), lWJIIIl/
CS I-\- ~ ! tL/l" ~
vv
'\.< t'" ~
=\t
..
81
t-
o..
W
u
u
or:{
w
CD
o
.. t-
o
ZZ
wO
<..?b;:
wo
-lo..
en
II
u~
\
\ \t
'0t
1\
h-
-
-
-
I, Y)
v
~l-
1,'- J--
I~
10' 1.
t
"1-
l
Y
\(
/0-7
)-, HJ' / 1"\
1t-/7~ ~/,l
y(\:yA't
~A>'
~
/;
<Z
--
.
.
AttAc.hff\~ '-
'i1-2 '13{2Qli{ 2Ci&/2 q 7
RESOLUTION NO. 17626
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA AUTHORIZING THE CITY ENGINEER TO EXERCISE THE
CITY'S RIGHT TO TAKE OVER AND UTILIZE A PORTION OF
RANCHO DEL REY PARKWAY AND DEL REY BOULEVARD
WHEREAS. McMillin Company, in the process of developing the Rancho Del Rey
subdivision has built portions of Rancho Del Rey Parkway and Del Rey Boulevard that serve
individual subdivision units within the overall development that are "backbone" streets and
essential to serve those individual tracts; and,
WHEREAS, because the subject streets were constructed and bonded as part of the
individual tracts they ordinarily will not be accepted by the City until the work on the entire
subdivision is complete; and,
WHEREAS, the future residents of these subdivisions will be using these streets which
have not been accepted into the public system for maintenance and McMillin has a concern
over the liability; and,
WHEREAS, the "Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction" (Green Book)
provides a method for the City to take over the use of these streets before their final
acceptance; and,
WHEREAS, staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Engineer to
exercise the City's right to take over early use of these two backbone streets.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does
hereby accept McMillin's offer to take over early the designated portion of Rancho Del Rey
Parkway and Del Rey Boulevard on the condition they will agree in writing to continue to
correct defective work and maintain the street sections for the warranty period running from
the date of the final acceptance of improvements.
Presented by
J
}'!;L~
Director of Public Works
Bruce M. Boogaard
City Attorney
I {)-3'
;
Resolution No. 17626
Page 2
.
-
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista,
California, this 23rd day of August, 1994, by the following vote:
YES: Councilmembers: Horton, Moore, Rindone, Nader
NOES: Councilmembers: None
ABSENT: Council members: Fox ,
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers: None
~- /'&~----
Tim Nader, Mayor
ATTEST:
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) ss.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA)
I, Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk of the City of Chula Vista, California, do hereby certify that
the foregoing Resolution No. 17626 was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City
Council at a regular meeting of the Chula Vista City Council held on the 23rd day of August,
1994.
Executed this 23rd day of August, 1994.
~,4t1 {(A,n
Beverly ~. Authelet, City Clerk
ItJ-1
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item ) J
Meeting Date 6/13/95
ITEM TITLE: Resolution l")~ Accepting bids and awarding contract to Lekos
Electric, Inc. for Traffic Signal Installation at Paseo Ladera and
Telegraph Canyon Road in the City of Chula Vista and appropriating
funds therefor
SUBMlTI'ED BY' Directo, of 'Obi': W"''r#:rtI
REVIEWED BY: City Manage0<; ~@) (4/5ths Vote: Yes X No_)
On May 24, 1995, the Director of Public Works received sealed bids from seven (7) electrical
contractors for the installation of traffic signals at Paseo Ladera and Telegraph Canyon Road.
The low bid of $63,200 was received from Lekos Electric Incorporated. The low bid is below
the Engineer's estimate of $77,465. Staff has reviewed the low bid and recommends awarding
said contract to Lekos Electric Incorporated in the amount of $63,200.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council appropriate $9,000 from the unappropriated
Traffic Signal Fund balance, accept the bids and award the contract to Lekos Electric
Incorporated in the amount of $63,200.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION: The traffic signal installation at Paseo Ladera and Telegraph Canyon Road was
approved and funded in the 1994-95 Capital Improvement Project Program (CIP). The work
to be done includes the installation of traffic signal standards, loop detectors, controllers,
Emergency Vehicle Pre-emption (EVPE) System and other signal equipment necessary to affect
a fully actuated signalized intersection.
On May 24, 1995, the Director of Public Works received bids from seven (7) qualified
electrical contractors as follows:
CONTRACTOR AMOUNT
I. Lekos Electric, Inc. $63,200
2. TCB Electric, Inc. 72,880
3. Select Electric, Inc. 76,260
4. Southwest Traffic Signal Service 76,800
5. DBX, Inc. 77,944
6. Knox Electric, Inc. 78,455
7. MCR Electrical Contractors, Inc. 78,710
The low bid of $63,200 submitted by Lekos Electric Incorporated is below the Engineer's
estimate of $77,465. The total construction cost is $84,000, which includes $6,500 for
11- /
Page 2, Item~
Meeting Date 6/13/95
contingencies plus $14,300 for the separate purchase of a signal controller and cabinet and
related equipment testing services. In addition, there is an additional $25,000 in staff costs for
design, inspection and contract administration bringing the total proj ect cost to $109,000.
Since only $100,000 was budgeted for this project in the FY 93/94 and FY 94/95 CIP budgets
an additional $9,000 needs to be appropriated from the Traffic Signal Fund. The additional
cost is a result of the new type signal controller, cabinet, and testing equipment needed for the
emergency signal pre-emption system.
Staff recommends that a contract be awarded to the low bidder, Lekos Electric Incorporated
for a cost of $63,200.
Environmental Status
The City's Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the work involved in this project
and determined that the project is exempt under Section 15302, Class 3 (new construction or
conversion of small structures or the location of limited numbers of new, small facilities, or
structures).
Disclosure Statement
A copy of the Contractor's Disclosure Statement is attached.
Disadvantaged Business Enterorise Goal
Contractors bidding this project were not required to pay prevailing wages to persons employed
by them for work under this contract. No special minority or women owned business
requirements were necessary as part of the bid documents. Disadvantaged businesses were
encouraged to bid through the sending of the notice to contractors to various minority trade
publications.
Financial Statement
FUNDS REQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION
A. Contract Amount $63,200
B. Contingencies (Approximately 10%) 6,500
C. Controller Purchase and Testing 14,300
D. Design, Inspection, and Administration 25,000
Total Fund Required for Construction $109,000
FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR CONSTRUCTION
A. Fund 600 - TF-153 $100,000
B. Appropriation from Traffic Signal Fund (211) 9,000
Total Fund Available for Construction $109,000
I/~~
Page 3, Item--1L-
Meeting Date 6/13/95
Construction Schedule
Construction will start in July and is expected to be completed by the end of summer. The
traffic signal controller, which is ordered separately by the City and which normally takes 12
weeks to be delivered, has been expedited. It is anticipated that the traffic signal controller
will be received by the City for delivery to the contractor in late June or early July and,
therefore, should not pose a delay in keeping with the construction schedule.
FISCAL IMP ACT: The annual maintenance and energy costs for a traffic signal is estimated
to be $2,500. The source of capital funding for this project is Traffic Signal Fund and
sufficient funds are available for appropriation.
RDJ:ap/sb
m:\hom\engineer\agenda\1ekos.rdj
II ,. 3/11~t
RESOLUTION NO. ''1 '\).L('
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING
CONTRACT TO LEKOS ELECTRIC, INC. FOR TRAFFIC
SIGNAL INSTALLATION AT PAS EO LADERA AND
TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD IN THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR
WHEREAS, on May 24, 1995, the Director of Public Works
received the following seven bids for the installation of traffic
signals at Paseo Ladera and Telegraph Canyon Road:
CONTRACTOR AMOUNT
1- Lekos Electric, Inc. $63,200
2 . TCB Electric, Inc. 72,880
3 . Select Electric, Inc. 76,260
4. Southwest Traffic Signal Service 76,800
5. DBX, Inc. 77,944
6. Knox Electric, Inc. 78,455
7. MCR Electrical Contractors, Inc. 78,710
WHEREAS, the low bid of $63,200 was received from Lekos
Electric Incorporated which bid is below the Engineer's estimate of
$77,465; and
WHEREAS, staff has reviewed the low bid and recommends
awarding said contract to Lekos Electric Incorporated in the amount
of $63,200; and
WHEREAS, the City's Environmental Review Coordinator has
reviewed the work involved in this project and determined that the
project is exempt under Section 15302, Class 3 (new construction or
conversion of small structures or the location of limited numbers
of new, small facilities, or structures); and
WHEREAS, contractors bidding this project were not
required to pay prevailing wages to persons employed by them for
work under this contract and no special minority or women owned
business requirements were necessary as part of the bid documents
and disadvantaged businesses were encouraged to bid through the
sending of the notice to contractors to various minority trade
publications.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, ORDER AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
1;--5
section 1. That the City Council concurs in the
determination that the project is exempt under section 15302, Class
3 of the California Environmental Quality Act and directs the
Environmental Review Coordinator to file, or ratifies the filing
of, a notice of exemption for this project.
section 2. That the City council does hereby accept the
bid of Lekos Electric, Inc.
section 3. The city Council awards the contract for
traffic signal installation at Paseo Ladera and Telegraph Canyon
Road in the City of Chula vista to Lekos Electric, Inc. in the
amount of $63,200.
Section 4. The Mayor of the City of Chula vista is
hereby authorized and directed to execute said contract for and on
behalf of the City of Chula vista.
section 5. The city Council does hereby appropriate
$9,000 from the unappropriated Traffic Signal Fund balance.
Presented by
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
C:\rs\paseo,bid
1/ ~ /p
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item: ~
M=ting Date: 6/13/95
ITEM 1TILE: Report: Request by the Bonita Horsemen Association to utilize the
jogging/pedestrian bridge at sw;>;twater River
SUBMTITED BY: Director of Parks and RF\~ea~
REVIEWED BY: City Manage~ ~ ~ (4/5ths Vote: Yes _ No X)
The City has received a request from thOBo;;Ua Valley Horsemen Association to utilize the
jogging/pedestrian bridge at the Sweetwater River for use by equestrians.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve a new equestrian trail alignment along the outside
of the new jogging/bicycle path and allow use of the bridge for crossing the Sweetwater River only
when the river cannot be crossed.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: N/A.
DISCUSSION: The City is currently constructing a new jogging/pedestrian trail along the western
edge of the golf course property by the Willow Street bridge (a site map is Attachment "A"). The
new trail will alleviate the dangerous conditions for pedestrians, joggers, and bicyclists on the narrow
Willow Street bridge.
The existing trail is used by equestrians, joggers, walkers, and bicyclists. The equestrian trail along
Sweetwater Road is. routed under the Willow Street bridge and proceeds west through the
Sweetwater Regional Park. Another trail goes south, directly under the bridge, crosses the
Sweetwater River, then joins the multi-use trail on the southern side of the golf course. Previous
Council action approved the use of the trail by equestrians and accepted the liability risk associated
therewith.
The Bonita Valley Horsemen Association has requested the use of the new trail bridge to cross the
Sweetwater River bed because: 1) the river cannot be crossed when there are heavy rains; and 2)
there is considerable silt build-up under the Willow Street bridge which reduces the clearance
equestrians have when utilizing this portion of the equestrian trail.
The Department has evaluated the Association's request and is in agreement with the Association
regarding the dangerous crossing conditions at the Sweetwater River when the river is flowing and
there is a lack of clearance on the trail under the Willow Street bridge. The Department
recommends creating a new equestrian trail adjacent to the post and rail fence on the western side
of the new jogging and bicycle trail, and provide an opening near the bridge to allow equestrian use
of the bridge when the river is too dangerous to cross.
The City's Risk Manager Office reviewed the new bridge and jogging trail and can support joint-use
by equestrians and pedestrians under the following conditions:
1. The equestrians can only use the bridge when the trail that traverses the river bottom is not
accessible to the horses due to high waters or substantial silt buildup.
[JF:tt-A113-bonita.hrs-Junel,1995]
/.;2-/
2. Signage that delineates the equestrian trail from the pedestrian trail at the beginning of the
split and at both entrances of the bridge.
3. Post signage that clarifies the conditions under which equestrians can use the bridge.
4. Signage warning pedestrians that horses may use the bridge.
5. Communication with Bonita Valley Horsemen Association that outlines the use conditions
of the bridge.
6. Regular visits by the Park Ranger during the peak-use periods to enforce the conditions set
forth.
FISCAL IMP ACT: None. The realignment of the landscape west of the post and rail fence can
be accomplished by park maintenance staff, using existing budgeted resources, to create a new path
for equestrians.
Attachment: "A" - New Equestrian Trail
[JF:tt-Al13-bonita.hn-Junel,1995]
/ ~ ...,;1
, ...- -....
.. .....,.(
.... r.;:' ~,,..,
I ~
.. ,,'l ','( ~ ',..
.' ./ ...--
........- --".- -'\.
".,_ ;.;---' 'e~ :.~:~_ ". ~ .t
- -------
----- . , '
~"'"
~ff/ ,.'~
. '.' " . .~.
"
.~""',/
~.....r):: ,;.>7
/::- ,',.
, ..
/
eo
'..'.,
': ...;
-,-;
I
. ",;.....,
-':.I:"t,;
,. d''',.,.-' ,(/
....,,, '.l.~ /.//
,",-'nr 1/
I' ,", '\..0 .
'... ~""""'''-' .(,,#
, ~~,.~;.;. ,"r'- './~/
I' .' ,.~.,. /' ,I
I f"'li':,. ,
i(;l ' ;;X
7~"'~~/ .1~'Y/
~ I' /,.-.':r ::s..~ ". ~" ,Ii..
. f I'" ... "'if f~, I
!ti~, ,..,'--..-..1',----'.. ,:c.
t. . . '" I ~'I
1.. /,t.........C$..... . '" ,"I I ~
~'" "..,.. ,"/ .
i ,"~'J.. i,/ '(' I
I 71 \ ',~:.:.//~~ ,if 1:1
,<"\, ~... / 't I.
r. ;.u II: / 1//" I-
I J /' ~ / " 'f Ii
,'/ .'" IIi 'ii
j.1:i...(~~ eun ~Ol~v-J ..
il;'~ eUn.~Olev-J IT t
. , :.,;..".;! 1'1
, 1~' , J ~ .. ;':,'
' 1 1Ij7)~h!' ./
... ~ 'I~ ~
~',- ~d~,=~1.i
\~i-r. -I" - {./ Ii
"'0" ~r:. ".
! I~' :", ." ./
.!..t/---- - '.~-, II
I I" ',\\ 'I' ;~
-. !' \.;\ .1 I.
. > ':-'" 0./ ".~I\.
.......:.---'...-..:.~.'......-... ~.~
.~ -, ',', ~-- "--.,,::--
- __ .'7~'.....,....:::.":....:.":.__ _ .....~_.::
- ~':-s::..---" -_.:--,-..;::
."..._~ "'.:"':.- ...._-~_...._-
..~-- .'~...."" ~~' ...-....- "'::-:..-:..
~ I.,. "__
IIJII./. "":. ~~
+ 8E: emB!:! eas
v€ emB!:! aas
~
,
.
~~
~
o
-'
=
~
----,.-~.,:;>- ~.,
. ..--- '\ ....
.,,____...-'< -. --<:......
-.;. \ \.. "::,,,,
, , ..'
-----. ..
.. .
.-
...... ,
",'
"
v
'.,
\
~\.:J.-"
p
.of/F,
/ ,,'.
//
'~l:,(, I' \' ~"'"
"'/:Y
, /
."
~/7-'
.:....J
""J. ,~
...., '.
/
....
.~
(:.
.,
."
to
.
~
J
'2
.
.
.
.
"
"
I~ ....,3
ATTACHMENT "A"
...., '.
.
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item~
Meeting Date 6/13/95
REVIEWED BY:
Public Hearing to consider testimony on the FY 95/96 levy of assessment for City Open Space
District No. 1. ~IL./
Director of Public Works "V~ {}
Director of Parks and Re~F\a~o'Ot
City ManagerJ~ ~ ~
(4/5ths Vote: Yes_NoX)
ITEM TITLE:
SUBMITTED BY:
Based upon the advice of the City Attorney, agenda items and have been separated due to conflict of
interest concerns. One Council member owns property subject to the proposed assessment in this district. Council
should note that agenda statement gives all background information and details on open space districts
in general which is applicable to this item, but does not include specific information on Open Space District 1.
Staff met with property owners on June 8 and June 10, 1995, to discuss any concerns and to answer any questions.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council:
I) Open the hearing, take testimony, close the hearing.
BOARD/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
This agenda item is the yearly resolution to assess for open space maintenance within Open Space District Number I
located between East H Street and Telegraph Canyon Road, east of Paseo Ranchero (see Attachment A). Table I
relates the present year's assessment to the proposed assessment for Year 1995-96. The following agenda item contains
all the general information regarding the open space district.
TABLE 1
PRIOR FY'S VS. FY 95/96 ASSESSMENT/COLLECTffiLE AND % CHANGE
FY94-95 FY94-95 Proposed Proposed Assessment Estimated
FY 95-96 FY 95-96 % Increase FY 95-96 FY95-96
Collect! or Decrease Cost! Revenue
EDU EDU
OSD No. 1 $78 $77 $81 $53(1) 5% $81 $32,411
EI Rancho del Rey
Units 1-4
(I) Proposed payment amount for inclusion of fnll cost recovery.
Staff recommends an increase in the assessment from $77 to $81 per EDU to reflect the ultimate estimated cost for FY
95/96. This represents a $4.00 per EDU increase. Staff recommends a collection of $53 per EDU utilizing the fund
balance to make up the difference ($28). Funds are available to do this because of prior year savings mostly in
contractual services. The reserve under this recommendation will be 59%.
l~- )
Page 2, Item I ~
Meeting Date 6/13/95
FISCAL IMPACT:
Staff costs associated with the open space program are generated by Parks and Recreation, Public Works, and Data
Processing. Contractual costs are outlined in Attachment B. These costs are recovered through the Open Space District
collectible, causing no net fiscal impact.
Attachments:
A District Map
B Estimate of Cost
M:\HOMB\ENOINEBR\AOBNDA\OSDIPH1.DDS
\~..~
ATTACHMENT B:
ESTIMATE OF MAINTENANCE COSTS FY 95-96 June 1,1995
OPEN SPACE DISTRICT NO. t
1995-19% 1994-1995 1993-1994
Contnlel Services $27,010.00 $27,010.00 $34,680.00
Utilities 18,890.00 21,710.00 17,360.00
Materials 10 main bldgs,strue\. 1,040.00 1,040.00 1,040.00
Service 10 main bldg,struct.grds
Landscape Supplies 980.00 980.00 980.00
City Staff Services 5,530.00 6,430.00 6,900.00
Backllow Certification $360 $360 360.00
Tl1ISh Collection & Disposal 280.00 280.00 280.00
Professional Services
Supplementals 0.00 0.00
Other commodities
Advertising
ESTIMATED MAINTENANCE CO $54,090.00 $57,810.00 $61,600.00
Reserve Requirement 31,913.00 28,905.00
Reserve Percent 59% 50"10
Additional reserve 0.00 0.00
Less Fund Balance 51,100.00 24,910.00
NET ASSESSMENT $34,903.00 $61,805.00
EDU'S 661.79 7%.04 795.52
CollectiblelEDU 552.74 $77.70 $78.86
Percent change from prior years -32% -1%
Even dollar collectible $53
Revenue from even $ payment $35,075
Assessment (NTE FY94195) $81
Budget/EDU $81.73 $72.62 $77.14
Percent change from orior vears 13% ~%
01
,
()I
F:\home\Engineer\Openspac\OSfcr.wq1
EDU changed
,iO
"
.
.11
',.
. .
~.
.
.,
~
'.
'"
"...'.
.:.:0'.....
"~
,.,
1
I
I
.
~.
:z:
. .
i
. .
\~
:1'
, .
: ,,'I I
.1
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item~
Meeting Date 6/13/95
REVIEWED BY:
Public Hearing to consider testimony on the FY 95/96 levy of assessment for City Open Space
District No. 10. ~
Director of Public Works () .
Director of Parks and Re't"r:~
City Manage~ ~~}
(4/5ths Yote: Yes_NoX)
ITEM TITLE:
SUBMITTED BY:
Based upon the advice of the City Attorney, agenda items and have been separated due to conflict of
interest concerns. One Council member owns property subject to the proposed assessment in this district. Council
should note that agenda statement gives all background information and details on open space districts in
general which is applicable to this item, but does not include specific information on Open Space District 10.
Staff met with property owners on June 8 and June 10, 1995, to discuss any concerns and to answer any questions.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council:
I) Open the hearing, take testimony, close the hearing.
BOARD/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
This agenda item is the yearly resolution to assess for open space maintenance within Open Space District Number 10
located along East J Street, west of Paseo Ranchero (see Attachment A). Table I relates the present year's assessment
to the proposed assessment for Fiscal Year 1995/96. The following agenda item contains all the general information
regarding the open space district.
Open Space District No. 10 FY93-94 FY94-95 Proposed Proposed Assessment FY 95-96
FY 95-96 FY 95-96 % Increase or Revenue
EI Rancho del Rey 6 & Collection! Decrease
Casa del Rey EDU
Assessment/EDU $25 $42 $83 $71(1) 200% $44,756
Cost/EDU $84 $88 $83 - - -
(1) Proposed payment amount for inclusion of full cost recovery.
TABLE I
PRIOR FY'S YS. FY 95/96 ASSESSMENT/COLLECTIBLE AND % CHANGE
Staff recommends an increase in the armual assessment from $42.00 to $83.00 per EDU which reflects the FY 95/96
estimated maintenance cost. Staff recommends a collection of $71.00 per EDD and utilizing $12 per EDU from the
fund balance (reserve, interest and savings) to make up the difference. Funds are available to do this because of prior
years' savings. The reserve will be 56% with staff's recommendation.
1'/--/
Page 2, Item~
Meeting Date 6/13/95
The assessment has been lower than actual costs for the last three fiscal years because of district savings (water
restrictions from '91 drought), low bid after levy of assessment and delayed turnover of new improvements. Staffs
recommendation will make the estimated annual cost and assessment the same amount. As any increase in assessment
is subject to a majority protest, staff recommends setting the assessment, which is the amount property owners receive
as notice, at the higher amount of $83 (costIEDU) not the amount of revenue needed ($71). Alternatively, if staff set
the assessment at $71, it would be subject to majority protest for the increase from $42 anyway. The following year it
might be necessary to increase the assessment again if savings were not realized to reduce the payment (collectible) below
the assessment set for FY 95-96. If there is strong opposition at the public hearing, Council could still set the assessment
at a lesser amount although $831EDU is needed to provide the recommended maintenance.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Staff costs associated with the open space program are generated by Parks and Recreation, Public Works, and Data
Processing. Contractual costs are outlined in Attachment B. These costs are recovered through the Open Space District
collectible, causing no net fiscal impact.
Attachments:
A District Map
B Estimate of Cost
RDB:dv
M:\HOME\ENGINEER\AOBNDA\OSDtOPHl.DDS
)l/~
w ~
u ~
~o ~
ts ~
!zo ~
~z u
~ lJ...t,o..
W 00
u~ >-
~~ ~
lJ)~ u
z(/) w
wO :c:
a.. ~
o
. I
jd
J · I
, .
. , I'
ffd
\
"
I'
. I
i!
, :
Ii
,
i
I
,
J ....3
?
'.
,
.~- ".--
.
.
,
I ~.
.. . .
& ,a."
\ ..: ~!.:.
" 0,; 0:'''
\"
\I!Q
, !.
.. I"
I .. i -:
. 1=
. ...
.. II:
: ~
-..
cQ
H
..~
,~
: ~
;
J j!
I !
L I.i
,11!J1ililji fi!1 ,1!!I!I';I,il,'ti!:ll ,'il!11 ~ ;
II ".!l.;" 1"1 I' J',", II'/! i
.,J'.'I/I I Ij If" "11:1' 'J t .,
Irpll!!::lf I: '1,11~lllillh liIH~: 'i:!il ! II,
f1,1'll'llll '1 ' flllll' 'I fill':I: I!'/I: I
,iiJIHlllij Ill! JiI!I,ili, ,i,hi! n!.I! · i
I $:=;: I I I P"'i! III
::::::: ~ III
~".'
~r
1 :,
I .
. . . .
iii'
1'1
'0 .
. . .
UI
,
i
l
.'
; 1
tel
IH
I' ·
.: I ".
h. I
I 'I .
. !. i
I", !
:.1'1
IUh.
......
,.,.,
'1-'-;
. ".
I , -
i'.' ::
IU'
.
: ')
'I
:,11,
.~~llJ~;! I
,
I ~ .i'
I t ~Ii
: I n~
I -Ii
fig
'.. ~h
, III
1(01'
I ~ I J
I I
I l.i
I ,
I !
Ii.
> I i jl:
1
. I I
I I
/.0' . III
1t7" I I! I
I If'! l
I I
I I
I ., I
\ \ \ \
, ,\ I
\ \ 'I'
I .
J 1 \.
L.-
. .
--
e~
-----------------
~"t,
~Oa-r.
o
-
-.
---
.
.
I I
. I. I .
I I
f
r
.
I
I I
I I I
I ·
,
.
d
z
t-
U
ir
t
(".
-
o
w
u
c::x:
D-
C/)
. I
..
II I" .,,' I t- II I .", I'
",! ii li!1 I II ii I IiI I 'ii',
I! .' I~, '1.1. "I
:i i~!~ Ill' 'i!~ I I Ii I~I
II II -I' 1'1 II: -I' 'Ii
III '.:1:; I II '-I 'I:; Ilil
I Ii S'I; il I I -I SII' I i' :'1
" I I"" I 'I, .i II
I III II,'/I!i I I I'I;! I!!,!IIIII Il'fl
~, II "I' · f Ii I!I,I i
. I II Idll,! I 111!ull!ll! IoIS!
! ~~Iill!i! I I ~ili!I!II:il ~II!
Illliilihlll!llllllillliiihlll!ll~hi i
I' - . I". - lilil
IIllID ~ .
1- I. ..
z
W
Q..
o
I
! I. ! I
II' 'I .111 fll'l
.1 di~1 U I d.:1 Ii
1848.~ .
---
Ilf~'f
.
1
J
,
ATTACHMENT B:
ESTIMATE OF MAINTENANCE COSTS FY95-96 June 1, 1995
~
~
OPEN SPACE DISTRICT NO. 10
1995-1996 1994-1995 1993-1994
Contract Services $31,330.00 $31,330.00 $32,820.00
Utilities 13,960.00 16,200.00 13,180.00
Materials to main bldgs,struet. 380.00 380.00 380.00
Service to main bldg,struet,grds 0.00 0.00 0.00
Landscape Supplies 740.00 740.00 740.00
City Staff Services 5,330.00 6,160.00 6,020.00
Backflow Certification 200.00 200.00 200.00
Trash Collection & Disposal
Professional Services
Supplementals
Other commodities
Advertising
ESTIMATED MAINTENANCE CO $51,940.00 $55,010.00 $53,340.00
Reserve Requirement 29,086.00 27,505.00
Reserve Percent 56% 50%
Additional reserve 0.00 0.00
Less Fund Balance 36,402.00 55,934.00
NET ASSESSMENT $44,624.00 $26,581.00
EOD'S 630 630 630
CollectiblelEDU $70.79 $42.18 $25.96
Percent change from prior years 6,8% 62%
Even dollar collectible $71
Revenue from even $ payment $44,756
Assessment (NTE FY94/95) $83
BudgetlEDU $82.40 $87.27 $84.24
Percent change from nrior vears -6% 4%
F:\home\Engineer\Openspac\OSfcr.wq1
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
!temK
Meeting Date 6/13/95
ITEM TITLE:
Public Hearing to consider testimony on the FY 95/96 levy of assessment for Eastlake
Maintenance District No. 1.... J
Director of Public Works 'If' ()
Director of Parks and R:lY~o~
REVIEWED BY: City Manager~ ~ ~\ (4/5ths Vote: Yes_No.1~J
Based upon the advice of the City Attorney, agenda items and have been separated due to conflict of
interest concerns. One Council member owns property subject to the proposed assessment in this district. Council
should note that agenda statement gives all background information and details on open space districts in
general which is applicable to this item, but does not include specific information on Eastlake Maintenance
District No.1 (ELMD1). Staff met with property owners on June 8 and June 10, 1995, to discuss any concerns and
to answer any questions.
SUBMITTED BY:
RECOMMENDATION: That Council:
I) Open the hearing, take testimony, close the hearing.
BOARD/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
This agenda item is the yearly resolution to assess for open space maintenance within Eastlake Maintenance District
Number I, a City open space district, located along East H Street and Otay Lakes Road, adjacent to "SR 125"
(Attachment A). Table I relates the present year's assessment to the proposed assessment for the Fiscal Year 1995/96.
The following agenda item contains all the general information regarding the open space district.
TABLE I
PRIOR FY'S VS. FY 95/96 ASSESSMENT/COLLECTIBLE AND % CHANGE
OSD Proposed Proposed Assessment Estimated
FY93/94 FY94/95 FY 95/96 FY 95/96 0/0 Increase FY 95/96 FY95/96
Assmnt/EDU Assmnt/EDU Assmnt/EDU Collection/EDU or Cost/EDU Revenue
Decrease(2)
ELMD #1(1) $190,600
Eastlake I $6.98 $9.31 $9.31 $4.34 00/0 $9.10
Easltake Greens 10.64 14.08 15.24(3) 14.08 0% 15.24
aTC 0 125.95 126.20(3) 77.31 8% 126.20
Salt Creek I 6.98 168.31 168.31 158.70 1% 161.31
TC Channel(2) 0 6.16 24.00 16.74 270% 16.74
(I) All areas share in the cost of Otay Lakes Road medians and off-site parkways.
(2) Portions of Eastlake I BC and Eastlake Greens are in benefit area. Typical assessment for a single family home did not
exceed $1.24 (.2 x $6.16).
(3) Council approved a lesser amount, however, staff noticed the owners of the amount shown.
/~-)
Page 2, Item~
Meeting Date 6/13/95
Staff recommends that the assessments for each of the areas, excepting the benefiting area for Eastlake Greens, Olympic
Training Center and Telegraph Canyon Channel, remain the same as FY 94/95. In each of these cases, staff
recommends an annual collectible as shown in Table I. Due to prior and current year savings, staff recommends
collection of an amount less than the assessment by utilizing excess monies in the fund (reserve, savings, interest). The
reserve under this recommendation will be 53%.
Eastlake Greens
Staff recommends an increase in assessment from $14.08 to 15.24 per EDU to reflect the ultimate estimated cost for
FY 95/96. Staff recommends a collection of $14.08 per EDU utilizing the fund balance to make up the difference
($1.16).
Olvmnic Training Center
Staff recommends a minor assessment increase from $125.95 to $126.20 per EDU to reflect the ultimate estimated cost
for FY 95/96. This represents only a $.25 per EDU increase. Staff recommends a collection of $77.31 per EDU
utilizing the fund balance to make up the difference ($48.89). Funds are available to do this because of prior year
savings.
Telegranh Canvon Channel
Portions of Eastlake Business Center and Eastlake Greens drain into the channel. In July oflast year a new benefit area
(Zone E) was established within ELMDl to pay for the channel maintenance. Property owners were notified of the
estimated cost of maintenance (prorated share) for the channel between Eastlake and Rancho del Rey SPA 3 and were
provided the opportunity to protest. As only a portion of the channel (Phase I of 3) was ready for turnover, Council
levied an assessment of only $6.16 per EDU for FY 94/95. Additional improvements (Phase 2) are ready for tumover
for FY 95/96.
Staff recommends the assessment be $24 per EDU representing the estimated ultimate annual cost for all three phases
of the channel improvements. As any increase in assessment is subject to a majority protest, staff recommends setting
the assessment, which is the amount property owners receive as notice, at the higher amount of $24 (cost/EDU) not
the amount of revenue needed ($16.74). Altematively, if staff set the assessment at $16.74, it would be subject to
majority protest for the increase from $6.16 anyway. The following year it might be necessary to increase the
assessment again if savings were not realized to reduce the collectible below the assessment set for FY 95-96. If there
is strong opposition at the public hearing, Council could still set the assessment at a lesser amount although $24 per
EDU is needed to provide the recommended maintenance when all three phases have been tumed over to the City.
Cost of the formation of Zone E is included in the collectible amount, amortized over 5 years, per the City/Eastlake
agreement (Resolution 17588) which allows the City to reimburse Eastlake Development Company for this cost.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Staff costs associated with the open space program are generated by Parks and Recreation, Public Works, and Data
Processing. Contractual costs are outlined in Attachment B. These costs are recovered through the Open Space District
collectible, causing no net fiscal impact.
RDB:dv
Attachments: A District Map
B Estimate of Cost
C Protest Letter
F:\HOME\ENGil"JEER\AGENDA\OSELMDIP .DDS
/!"~
I
I
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
l~
,
[
I
I
I .
[
I&.
r'V-'IVI
EASTLAKE MAINTENANCE
DISTRICT
NO.1
CITY
COUNTY OF IAN
OF OCULA
DIEGO, IT ATE
VISTA
OF CALIFORNIA
-
-
,;".'( '.....
._~~ l:>
",- .
'.'
-
~--
iiCI _
\
...
.,'
....,
l
-
r
-
",
.. .-.... "'l( Pf .,. ~ ..". ern CICIUIIC& Of 1'Ml
..... or ""~....,."" .,.,... CIIf ~.IA. OIl ,..-:..... Of
..... ...,.... 011 ,.. _0-= .. .... ...-.., ......... MAP
IA& ............. I"J .AI ~ Olil TMI_"''' Of _
.. ...o....oa .-- ..d"f......... MOM""'"
_.,.. _ .._. till -. Of till ClT'I'
. V. Of 'nil ClT'I' Of ....... NT. OIl ",1_ .., II<
_,.. -.r....... ... . -..&II TO" ..........", aou.
.:>Q"_ . 'nil llMCIOf till ClT'I' __1Ill _ "'1
D;,I.C"I1JIJJI:AJIII't 0/I1,ICIoI ....--~..".~..,.n IAC~
....... . ..... ....,... ... ,. ~-r ............un
- ".
- :,---.,.---..
--,' ------.,-
I 1~..4ll. .......-.a,
~ __."".. ...... NT.
l
r .M_OfM"". Of_""
.-....,.__..... -
Lr.tN~
~_a
~F- 1".
~. ...... NTa
....__._""_._~Of
-...,.__.... -,
----... -
c:::> -
141 .
.-...
-.-
"" __."" .. ...... NT.
-- ...., -... 1 ,. ..".. ~
.,., 1 &q' . ~ ...atl ~t:G
-_ ........... ..., ...... ,--AI ...
...--.... .....-"---.
__..__ ,,_M__or
"'~."A"."~ = ,.
-.._or____
......... a' - -..,.,.. J
--. ....
,
I 1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
! .'
I
I
I
AGRAM
EASTLAKE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO.1
CITY OF QiULl VISTA
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO. STATE OF CALIFORNIA
,/.F~'~- "I _-
, 0 ~,
.. \\ ~
j \ '~Il ,...-:.:::..=::....... /~
I' \\ II "~"'" 4~ "
, ~I "'", /
I ~f) \~J/ -~/ '\~ /"
,II" I;:';V;::- ~vg~
1\11/ // 1/ ~/
\) l/ ( ( II /i/
\ I \ \\ VI
I! ; \... j L ZONE B m
'I' \ r=-II"~ \11
I I i ~ ~----'~
' I II ,,~- /'",----....
I ' ~ ~- ~ -- / \ ~
II' i 1\ -- \\~
II I If \ \ \~
II II \\ ~~
I II \ \ ~"
I 1/ \~ '\~
I II '\" "\
r" - - ,,~ I~'~
,,~ /"~
"'~ ,~/ '\~\
~, ,f" J
~ .~ ~
:::::, -~' ~
_:::-~:::.." ,.. ".............
-"'''''
".. --C-c. ~ - ~~"",'"
-- ~-
,
_..oct. ....1.. ... 10 _ __ lIP
.... D1IClO.AlIIIIOlI ,___ DIT_
__I Of "D1d~<l'Al ,....;&1.1.
. IS'if.
~# A N\"
_.-. ___ ..,.eT 110. 1
-' 110.1 Of .
.
-
.
.
I
I
f'
I
I
I
I
;
I
,
,
I
Ie
I
I
f
I
--
I
GRAM
EASTLAKE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. I
. CITY OF QiU~A VISTA
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
~-
('
,
/
'~'
L.
-
-
ZONE C
_NCI . .._m _ ~ _ -""" OJ
_ DtIOC.&llInOlO ,'""ca....,. -..-
_INI'OtII 00 __ ~
/~,~
~ III ,. '''Cf ..-cT 110. I
....., 110.' or .
,
ATTACHMENT B:
ESTIMATE OF MAINTENANCE COSTS FY 95-96 June 1, 1995
~
\
~
EASTLAKE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT
NUMBER 1
1995-19% 1994-1995 1993-1994
Contract Services $118,310.00 $209,430.00 $67,120.00
Utilities 85,560.00 100,130.00 26,980.00
Materials to main bldgs,struct. 5,820.00 9,500.00 1,730.00
Service to main bldg,struct,grds 0.00 0.00 0.00
Landscape Supplies 2,420.00 4,970.00 1,140.00
City Staff Services 37,720.00 45,370.00 20,390.00
Backflow Certification 760.00 1,480.00 320.00
Trash Collectiou & Disposal 4,760.00 7,560.00 560.00
Professional Services 0.00
Supplementals
Other conunodities
Advertising
ESTIMATED MAINTENANCE CO $255,350.00 $378,440.00 $118,240.00
Reserve Requirement
Reserve Percent See
Additional reserve budget
Less Fund Balance worksheet
NET ASSESSMENT
EDU'S
Collectible/EDU
Percent change from prior years
Even dollar collectible
Revenue from even $ payment
Assessment (NIE FY94/95)
Budget/EDU
Percent chanlZe from nrior years
F:\home\Engineer\Openspac\OSfcr.wq1
Eastlake Maintenance District No.1 FY 19951% BUDGET WORKSHEET
6/6195 Modified Engineer's Report
Overall Zone A Zone B Zone C Zone D Zone E
OLR Eastlakel Greens OTC Salt Creek TC Channel TOTAL
Budget 11,540 80,540 36,170 62,650 64,450 6,458 261,808
Reserve Req't 24,638 40,270 16,800 31,325 24,169 2,378 139,580
Total Funds Req'd 36,178 120,810 52,970 93,975 88,619 8,836 401,388
Less amount in reserve 17,834 23,601 11,002 0 0 2,378 54,815
Less prior yr savings 9,056 32,888 5,720 0 0 0 47,664
Less estimated savings 7,656 19,636 0 54,046 20,004 0 101,342
Less estimated interest 1,631 1,890 735 1,274 1,421 49 7,000
Subtotal 36,177 78,015 17,457 55,320 21,425 2,427 210,821
Net payment 1 42,795 35,513 38,655 67,194 6,409
Participating ADTs 128,613 98,380 25,233 5,000 4,234 386
Net payment,IEDU 0.00 4.34 14.07 77.31 158.70 16.61
FY 95/96 Assessment 1.00 4.34 14.33 120.98 159.00 16.74
FY 94/95 Assessment 4.97 4.34 9.11 120.98 159.00 6.16
" FY 93194 Assessment Note 1 6.98 10.64
(1'\
,
--..l FY 95196 CostlEDU 0.90 8.19 14.33 125.30 152.22 16.74
Notes:
1. OLR shown as part of Zone A & B
2. Budget for OLR is for ELMD1 only, $1680 is in OSD 31 for FY 95/96
per N. Woods
3. FY 95196 OLR budget includes 1080 for DPW staff
4. FY 95196 source is 4/12195 worksheet
5. Zone E is not budgeted
6. FY 94195 Zone E need $2378 payment to EDC
7. Memo to Joel on DPW 5291-leave $4262 in acct for FYE
8. Eastlake Greens' reserve is at 46%, Salt Creek I at 37%.
9. Zone D/OLR includes Zone A
Typical Asmt Payment
FY 94/95 FY 95196 FY95196
Zone NOLR 9.32 9.32 4.34
Zone B/OLR 14.08 15.24 14.07
Zone C/OLR 125.95 126.20 77.31
Zone D/OLR 168.31 168.31 163.04
Zone E 6.16 24.00 16.74
M:\home\engineer\openspac\elsp95.wq1
ATTACHMENTB -page2
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item/ G:,
Meeting Date 6/13/95
SUBMITTED BY:
Public Hearing to consider testimony on the FY 95/96 levy of assessments for City
Open Space Districts 2-9, II, 14, 15, 17, 18,20,23,24,26,31, Bay Boulevard, and
Town Center and to establish Zone 9 within Open Space District 20
Director of Public Works ~ ().
Director of Parks and R11.a~0l>k
City Manage~ 7J ~l
(4/5ths Vote: Yes_NoX)
ITEM TITLE:
REVIEWED BY:
The City administers 23 open space districts established over the last twenty-five years. The districts provide
the mechanism to finance the maintenance of common open space areas (canyons, trails, medians, etc.)
associated with and benefitting that particular development. As part of this process, a levy of an annual
assessment is necessary to enable the City to collect funds for the proposed open space maintenance. Tonight's
action continues the process for Fiscal Year 1995/96. On May 23, 1995 Council approved the open space
reports on assessments for all existing Open Space Districts and set tonight for a public hearing to take
testimony on the proposed assessments. A modified Engineer's Report has been prepared for tonight's meeting.
A second public hearing is scheduled for July 11, 1995. Also, tonight a public hearing is scheduled to follow
these open space hearings to take testimony on the propose Open Space ordinance.
In a letter dated October 17, 1994, Sweetwater Authority requested they be exempted from the yearly open
space assessment for a lot that they own in Open Space District 14. This report addresses that concern.
Last, a zone needs to be established within Open Space District 20 (Rancho del Rey) to pay for that
development's share of maintenance of Telegraph Canyon Channel. A zone is an area within an open space
district that is established to pay the share of maintenance costs of an item that does not have a benefit for the
entire district.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council:
I) Open the hearing, take testimony, close the hearing.
2) Staff also recommends that Sweetwater Authority's request for exemption from the open space
district charges until they develop the site for their water facility be denied. This recommendation
is embodied within the assessments and collections in the first resolution. A resolution on this item
will be presented at the July II, 1995 public hearing.
3) Staff recommends delaying action on the Modified Engineer's Report until after conclusion of the
second public hearing in July.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: The budget and assessment information for Town
Center Maintenance District will be forwarded to the Town Center Committee via the Community Development
Department this week. As the advisory committee for the Town Center developments, the Committee has
historically reviewed this information and provided feedback to staff.
/~ ..)
Page 2, Item~
Meeting Date 6/13/95
DiSCUSSION:
This agenda statement is for the first public hearing on the levy of the annual assessments to provide for open
space maintenance within the City. Table I contains the name and location of the districts. Table 2 relates the
present year's assessment to the proposed assessment and collectible' for FY 95/96. Following Table 2, there
is some general information that applies to all the districts and then each district is analyzed individually.
As a final uote, Council should be advised that the preceding agenda items contain the same information on
Open Space District Nos. I, 10, and Eastlake which were separated due to conflict of interest concems.
Background
Pursuant to Article 4, Chapter I, Part 2 of the Division 15 of the California Streets and Highways Code, also
known as "Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972" and the City of Chula Vista Municipal Code, the City
Engineer has prepared and filed the annual reports for all existing Open Space Districts in the City. The name
and location of each open space district is shown in the following table.
TABLE 1
Open Space Districts Within the City of Chula Vista
Open Space Name Location
District No.
2 Lark Haven South and east of Lorna Verde Park
3 Rancho Robinhood Units I & 2 South of Allen School Lane
4 Bonita Ridge Camino Elevado
5 Southbay Villas Northern end of Crest Drive
6 Hilltop Vista Camino Vista Road
7 Zenith Units 2, 3, and 4 North and south of Palomar, east of 1-805
8 Rancho Robinhood Unit 3 Surrey Drive
9 El Rancho del Rey Units Paseo del Rey, north of Telegraph Canyon Road
11 Hidden Vista Village East H Street, east of 1-805
14 Bonila Long Canyon North and south of Country Vistas Lane
15 Bonita Haciendas Canyon Drive, east of alay Lakes Road
17 Bel Air ridge Northeast of Paseo Ladera and East J Street
18 Rancho del Sur Easterly end of East Naples Street
20 Rancho del Rey North of East H Street, west of Otay Lakes Road
23 atay Rio Business Park West of Heritage/alay Valley Road, south of
alay Rio Road
, The collectible is defined in a proposed ordinance change on tonight's agenda preceding this item
(2nd reading).
//,..~
Page 3, !temk
Meeting Date 6/13/95
TABLE 1
Open Space Districts Within the City of Chula Vista
24 Canyon View Homes Rutgers Avenue, south of East H Street
26 Park Bonita West of the intersection of E Street and Bonita
Road
31 Telegraph Canyon Estates North of Otay Lakes Rd, west of "SR 125"
Town Center No. I Third Avenue, north and south of F Street
Bay Boulevard -
The Parks and Recreation Department conducted information meetings for all property owners within each
district in January and the Public Works Department will conduct information meetings in June. At the January
meeting, staff explained the preliminary, proposed budget to 26 owners out of approximately 10,000 properties
receiving notice. Subsequent to the budget meetings, staff is recommending changes to the City's Municipal
Code regarding open space to allow an inflation factor on the assessment which would not be subject to
majority protest beginning in FY 1996/97 and to differentiate between assessments and collectibles.
The proposed revised budget, assessment, and ordinance change were discussed at the June meetings. A
summary of the June meetings will be provided to Council at the second public hearing scheduled for July II.
Assessments
The proposed assessments and collectibles for Fiscal Year 1995-96 are as follows:
TABLE 2
PRIOR FY'S V.S. FY 95/96 ASSESSMENT/COLLECTIBLE AND % CHANGE
OSD Proposed Proposed Assessment Estimated
FY 93/94 FY 94/95 FY 95/96 FY95/96 0/0 Increase FY 95/96 FY95/96
Assnmt! Assnmt! Assnmt! Collection! or Cost! Revenue
EDU EDU EDU EDU Decrease(2) EDU
2 32.00 34.00 39.00(4) 30.00 15% 39.00 7,470
3 250.00 267.00 267.00 204.00 00/0 259.00 25,908
4 197.00 282.00 282.00 224.00 00/0 271.00 47,040
5 224.00 243.00 275.00(4) 229.00 13% 275.00 27,938
6 128.00 136.00 136.00 0.00 0% 84.00 0
7 87.00 95.00 95.00 39.00 00/0 93.00 4,056
8 430.00 430.00 434.00(4) 300.00 1% 434.00 33,000
9 92.00 101.00 123.00(4) 93.00 22% 123.00 35,712
II 81.00 83.00 84.00(4) 74.00 1% 84.00 97,756
14 254.00 270.00 270.00 150.00 0% 269.00 131,004
15 234.00 234.00 240.00(4) 189.00 3% 240.00 10,773
17 124.00 124.00 124.00 0 0% 116.00 0
18 303.00 293.00 293.00 234.00 0% 277.00 90,687
20(1) 203 .00 203.00 - - - - 303,300
/b....3
Page 4, Item~
Meeting Date 6/13/95
OSD Proposed Proposed Assessment Estimated
FY 93/94 FY 94/95 FY 95/96 FY95/96 % Increase FY 95/96 FY95/96
AssmnV AssmnV AssmnV Collection! or CosV Revenue
EOU EOU EOU EOU Oecrease(2) EOU
Zone 1 DB(3) - 36.67 45.28 0 23% 1.05 -
Zone 2 RC - .19 3.44 0 1,810% 3.22 -
Zone 3 H - 3.73 4.90 3.55 31% 4.90 -
Zone 4 BC - 18.25 18.25 .78 0% 16.11 -
Zone 5 1 - 187.62 275.15 83.82 47% 275.15 -
Zone 6 11 - 0 211.41 211.41 NA 211.41 -
Zone 7 III - 9.39 130.50 5.59 1,390% 11.80 -
Zone 8 NOB - 0 30.Q9 0 NA 0.00 -
Zone 9 TCC - 0 23.89 16.61 NA 0.00 -
23 0 335.00 335.00 205.00 0% 212.00 11,480
24 210.00 432.00 502.00(4) 341.00 16% 502.00 13,640
26 359.00 394.00 394.00 356.00 00/0 356.00 6,764
31 NA 407.00 407.00 0 0% 392.00 0
Bay Blvd. 1,000.00 889.00 1291.00(4) 31.00 45% 1,291.00 310
Town Centre 43.00 45.00 45.00 39.00 00/0 39.00 39,000
(I) Represented average residential assessment in SPA 1.
(2) Compares FY 94/95 assessment to proposed FY 95/96 assessment.
(3) Includes supplemental item of work - drainage structure south of East H Street, east of Paseo del Rey
at no additional cost.
(4) Council approved a lesser amount, however, staff noticed the owners of the amount shown.
Staff notified the property owners of the proposed FY 95/96 assessments shown above. The figures were modified to be
consistent with Council direction. The assessments, as shown, represent the current assessment (FY 94/95) or the
estimated FY 95/96 cost, whichever was greater. This provides Council with the most flexibility whereby Council may
opt to reduce assessments upon taking testimony at the hearings.
Modifications
Staff is recommending minor modifications to the FY 1995/96 collection amount to accommodate a proposed
staff time budget increase. The proposed increase (approximately 3%) is to include a Park & Recreation
Departmental overhead factor or full cost recovery (FCR) in the budget, a total of $40,000. The change is
incorporated in the proposed collection amount. The cosVEOU does not reflect the change as the increase is
less than 3%. The figures shown above are based on estimated savings, budgets, and interest. Consequently,
minor variations are typical in this process and the potential change in assessments can be absorbed in the
excess reserves without affecting the previous assessment amount.
District Assessments and Collectibles
As recommended on the companion item on tonight's agenda for amending the City's regulations relating to
open space districts, the assessments are generally held the same as FY 94/95 or increased to reflect the
estimated FY 95/96 cost. The assessment is generally the total amount needed for maintenance and 50%
reserves not taking into account higher reserves, interest and savings. The collectible, on the other hand, is
based on the budgets, reserves, savings, and fund balances, including interest and previous year's savings. It
must always be equal to or less than the assessment amount or else the assessment must be increased. Under
the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972 an increase in the assessment is subject to a majority protest. This
would cause the increase to be eliminated. The collection amount can vary from year to year due to interest
and savings and, as long as it is less than the assessment amount, an increase from one year to the next cannot
It" f
Page 5, Item~
Meeting Date 6/13/95
be eliminated by the protest. Under staff's recommendation, a total of 12 open space districts would have an
increase in assessment and be subject to a majority protest on the increase (OSD I, 2, 5, 8, 9, 10, II, 15, 20,
OSD 24, Eastlake and Bay Blvd). In general, all budgets have decreased due to adjustments in contract
services, utilities and City staff services (OSDs 20 and 31 budgets are proposed to be increased)'. The decrease
in utility cost is based on actual use, not a forecast, and is due to more rainfall, which means less water was
used. The decrease in contract services affecting OSDs 2, 6, 7,17,18, and 26 is due to receiving and accepting
lower bids on contracts. The decrease in City staff services for most districts is due to shifting of costs to OSD
20 and OSD 31 corresponding to those districts' additional items proposed for maintenance in FY 95/96. This
will be offset by including a full cost recovery factor in the Park and Recreation staff time.
Savings from prior years are proposed to be used to supplement the property owner collections to provide the
revenue needed for FY 95/96 maintenance while maintaining reserves between 50%-65% (City Code requires
reserves between 50%-100%). For those districts where the reserve still exceeds 50-65%, staff recommends
using the savings to offset some of the assessments to give lower collectibles. Staff generally tries to keep the
assessments level or with only gradual increases, or decreases, each year.
The following summarizes the major changes for each district. Under the new proposed policy being considered
by separate item tonight, staff has made a distinction between the assessment and collectible amount; the
assessment, estimated cost and collection will become the same number whenever an increase in assessment
is necessary. The proposed assessment per EDU for FY 95/96 represents, in half the cases, the prior year's
assessment. The prior year assessment differed from cost depending on reserves, savings, etc. This year, as
recommended on another of tonight's items, the cost per EDU3 is the figure that was mailed to the property
owners and the collectible is the amount to be collected which is affected by reserves, savings, etc. The
collectible per EDU reflects impacts of the reserve requirements, ending fund balances and savings. For a
detailed outline, see Attachment A.
Proposed Proposed Assessment Estimated FY95-96
FY93-94 FY94-95 FY95-96 FY 95-96 % Increase FY 95-96 Revenue
Assmt/ Assmt/ Assmt/ Collection! or Decrease Cost/EDU
EDU EDU EDU EDU
I~SD NO.2 $32.00 $34.00 $39.00 $30.00 15% $39.00 7,470
Lark Haven
Staff recommends an increase in the assessment from $34.00 to $39.00 per Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU)
to reflect the ultimate estimated cost for FY 95/96. This represents a $5.00 increase per EDU. Staff
recommends a collection of $30 per EDU utilizing the fund balance to make up the difference ($9). Funds are
available to do this because of prior year savings mostly in contractual services. The reserve under this
recommendation will be 60%.
Proposed Proposed Assessment Estimated
FY93-94 FY94-95 FY95-96 FY95-96 % Increase FY95-96 FY95-96
Assmt/ Assmt/ Assmt/ Collection! or Decrease Cost/EDU Revenue
EDD EDU EDU EDU
2 This does not reflect increase(s) due to the full cost recovery factor.
3 Or if FY94/95 assessment was greater, staff noticed owners of this amount.
//,.S-
Page 6, Item~
Meeting Date 6/13/95
OSD No. 3 $250.00 $267.00 $267.00 $204.00 00/0 $259.00 $25,908
Rancho Robinhood
Units 1 & 2
Staff recommends that the assessment of $267 per EDU remain the same as FY 94/95. This is more than the
cost of $259. Leaving the assessment at last year's amount will enable the collectible to increase should
contract costs, utility costs, etc. increase in future years without being subject to the majority protest provision
until the collection exceeded the prior year's assessment. Staff recommends a collection of $204 per EDU
utilizing the fund balance to make up the difference ($55). Funds are available to do this because of prior year
savings mostly in contractual services and utility costs. The reserve under this recommendation will be 76%.
Proposed Proposed Assessment Estimate
FY93-94 FY94-95 FY95-96 FY 95-96 % Increase d FY 95-96
Assmt! Assmt! Assmt! Collection! or Decrease FY 95- Revenue
EDU EDU EDU EDU 96 Cost!
EDU
I~SD NO.4 $197.00 $282.00 $282.00 $224.00 0% $271.00 $47,040
Bonita Ridge
Staff recommends that the assessment of $282 per EDU remain the same as FY 94/95. This is more than the
cost of $271. Leaving the assessment at last year's amount will enable the collectible to increase should
contract costs, utility costs, etc. increase in future years without being subject to the majority protest provision
until the collectible exceeded the prior year's assessment. Staff recommends a collection of $224 per EDU
utilizing the fund balance to make up the difference ($47). Funds are available to do this because of prior year
savings mostly in utility costs. The reserve under this recommendation will be 55%.
Proposed Proposed Assessment Estimated
FY93-94 FY94-95 FY95-96 FY 95-96 0/0 Increase FY 95-96 FY 95-96
Assmt! Assmt/ Assmt/ Collection! or Decrease Cost/EDU Revenue
EDU EDU EDU EDU
10SD NO.5 $224.00 $243.00 $275.00 $229.00 13% $275.00 $27,938
Southbay Villas
Staff recommends an increase in the assessment from $243 to $275 per EDU to reflect the ultimate estimated
cost for FY 95/96. This represents a $32.00 per EDU increase. Staff recommends a collection of $229 per
EDU utilizing the fund balance to make up the difference ($46). Funds are available to do this because of prior
year savings mostly in contractual services and utility costs. The reserve under this recommendation will be
68%.
Proposed Proposed Assessment Estimated
FY93-94 FY94-95 FY95-96 FY 95-96 % Increase FY 95-96 FY95-96
Assmt/ Assmt/ Assmt/ Collection! or Decrease Cost/EDU Revenue
EDU EDU EDU EDU
I~SD No.6 $128.00 $136.00 $136.00 $0.00 0% $84.00 0
Hilltop Vista
II, ~t.
Page 7, Item~
Meeting Date 6/13/95
Staff recommends that the assessment of $136 per EDU remain the same as FY 94/95. This is more than the
cost of $84. Leaving the assessment at last year's amount will enable the collectible to increase should contract
costs, utility costs, etc. increase in futore years without being subject to the majority protest provision until the
collection exceeded the prior year's assessment. Staff recommends no collection this year, utilizing the fund
balance for all maintenance. Funds are available to do this because a substantially lower bid was received
resulting in excess funds. The reserve under this recommendation will be 100%, the maximum allowed under
the City Ordinance. Alternatively, refunds could be processed to lower the reserve below 100%. Staff
recommends against this alternative, as it is costly to process refunds.
Proposed Proposed Assessment Estimated
FY93-94 FY94-95 FY95-96 FY 95-96 % Increase FY 95-96 FY 95-96
Assmt! Assmt! Assmt! Collection! or Decrease Cost/EDU Revenue
EDU EDU EDU EDU
I~SD No.7 - Zenith $87.00 $95.00 $95.00 $39.00 0% $93.00 $4,056
Units 2, 3, & 4
Staff recommends that the assessment of $95 per EDU remain the same as FY 94/95. This is more than the
cost of $93. Leaving the assessment at last year's amount will enable the collectible to increase should contract
costs, utility costs, etc. increase in future years without being subject to the majority protest provision until the
collectible exceeded the prior year's assessment. Staff recommends a collection of $39 per EDU utilizing the
fund balance to make up the difference ($54). Funds are available to do this because of prior year savings
mostly in contractual services and adjusting the reserve balance. The reserve under this recommendation will
be 65%.
Proposed Proposed Assessment Estimated
FY93-94 FY94-95 FY95-96 FY 95-96 % Increase FY 95-96 FY 95-96
Assmt! Assmt/ Assmt/ Collection! or Cost/EDU Revenue
EDU EDU EDU EDU Decrease
OSD No. 8 $430.00 $430.00 $434.00 $300.00 1% $434.00 $33,000
Rancho Robinhood
Unit 3
Staff recommends an increase in assessment from $430 to $434 per EDU to reflect the ultimate estimated cost
for FY 95/96. This represents a $4.00 per EDU increase. Staff recommends a collection of $300 per EDU
utilizing the fund balance to make up the difference ($134). Funds are available to do this because of prior year
savings mostly in contractual services and adjusting the reserve balance. The reserve under this
recommendation will be 60%.
Proposed Proposed Assessment Estimated
FY93 -94 FY94-95 FY95-96 FY 95-96 % Increase FY 95-96 FY 95-96
Assmt/ Assmt/ Assmt/ Collection! or Decrease Cost/EDU Revenue
EDU EDU EDU EDU
I~SD NO.9 $92.00 $101.00 $123.00 $93.00 22% $123.00 $35,712
EI Rancho del Rey Units
Staff recommends an increase in assessment from $101 to $123 per EDU to reflect the ultimate estimated cost
for FY 95/96. This represents a $22.00 per EDU increase. Staff recommends a collection of $93 per EDD
utilizing the fund balance to make up the difference ($30). Funds are available to do this because of prior year
It, - 7
Page 8, Item~
Meeting Date 6/13/95
savings mostly in contractual services and utility costs and adjusting the reserve balance. The reserve under
this recommendation will be 64%.
Proposed Proposed Assessment Estimated
FY93-94 FY94-95 FY95-96 FY 95-96 % Increase FY 95-96 FY 95-96
Assmt/ Assmt/ Assmt/ Col1ection/ or Decrease Cost/EDU Revenne
EDU EDU EDU EDU
OSD No. 11 $81.00 $83.00 $84.00 $74.00 1% $84.00 $97,756
Hidden Vista
Village
Staff recommends an increase in assessment from $83 to $84 per EDU to reflect the ultimate estimated cost
for FY 95/96. This represents a $1.00 per EDU increase. Staff recommends a collection of $74 per EDU
utilizing the fund balance to make up the difference ($10). Funds are available to do this because of prior year
savings mostly caused by delayed turnover of new improvements and lower bids. The reserve under this
recommendation will be 60%.
Proposed Proposed Assessment Estimated
FY93-94 FY94-95 FY95-96 FY 95-96 %Increase FY 95-96 FY 95-96
Assmt/ Assmt/ Assmt/ Col1ection/ or Decrease Cost/EDU Revenue
EDU EDU EDU EDU
I~SD No. 14 $254.00 $270.00 $270.00 $150.00 0% $269.00 $131,004
Bonita Long Canyon
Staff recommends that the assessment of $270 per EDU remain the same as FY 94/95. This is more than the
cost of $269. Leaving the assessment at last year's amount wil1 enable the col1ectible to increase should
contract costs, utility costs, etc. increase in future years without being subject to the majority protest provision
until the collectible exceeded the prior year's assessment. Staff recommends a collection of $150 per EDU
utilizing the fund balance to make up the difference ($119). Funds are available to do this because of prior year
savings mostly in contractual services and utility costs. The reserve under this recommendation will be 65%.
Sweetwater Authority owns a residential lot for future construction of a water tank within OSD 14. The
Authority has requested waiver from the OSD assessment (see Attachment C). Staff does not support this
request as the land is vacant and could be sold as residential lot. Staff recommends that Council consider an
exemption at the time water facilities are constructed.
Proposed Proposed Assessment Estimated
FY93-94 FY94-95 FY95-96 FY 95-96 % Increase FY 95-96 FY 95-96
Assmt/ Assmt/ Assmt/ Col1ection/ or Decrease Cost/EDU Revenue
EDU EDU EDU EDU
OSD No. 15 $234.00 $234.00 $240.00 $189.00 3% $240.00 $10,773
Bonita Haciendas
Staff recommends an increase in the assessment from $234 to $240 per EDU to reflect the ultimate estimated
cost for FY 95/96. This represents a $6.00 per EDU increase. Staff recommends a collection of$189 per EDU
utilizing the fund balance to make up the difference ($51). Funds are available to do this because of prior year
savings mostly in contractual services. The reserve under this recommendation will be 62%.
//,-~
Page 9, Item&
Meeting Date 6/13/95
Proposed Proposed Assessment Estimated
FY93-94 FY94-95 FY95-96 FY 95-96 % Increase FY 95-96 FY 95-96
Assmt/ Assmt/ Assmt/ Collection! or Decrease Cost/EDU Revenue
EDU EDU EDU EDU
10SD No. 17 $124.00 $124.00 $124.00 0.00 0% $116.00 0
Bel AIT Ridge
Staff recommends that the assessment of $124.00 per EDU remain the same as FY 94/95. This is more than
the cost of $116. Leaving the assessment at last year's amount will enable the collectible to increase should
contract costs, utility costs, etc. increase in future years without being subject to the majority protest provision
until the collectible exceeded the prior year's assessment. Staff recommends no annual collection utilizing the
fund balance for all maintenance. Funds are available to do this because of prior year savings mostly in utility
costs and drainage maintenance. The reserve under this recommendation will be 100%, the maximum allowed
under the City Ordinance. Alternatively, refunds could be processed to lower the reserve below 100%. Staff
recommends against this alternative as it is costly to process refunds.
Proposed Proposed Assessment Estimated
FY93-94 FY94-95 FY95-96 FY 95-96 % Increase FY 95-96 FY 95-96
Assmt/ Assmt/ Assmt/ Collection! or Cost/EDU Revenue
EDU EDU EDU EDU Decrease
I~SD No. 18 $303.00 $293.00 $293.00 $234.00 0% $277.00 $90,687
Rancho del Sur
Staff recommends that the assessment of $293 per EDU remain the same as FY 94/95. This is more than the
cost of $277. Leaving the assessment at last year's amount will enable the collectible to increase should
contract costs, utility costs, etc. increase in future years without being subject to the majority protest provision
until the collectible exceeded the prior year's assessment. Staff recommends a collection of $234 per EDU
utilizing the fund balance to make up the difference ($43). Funds are available to do this because of prior and
estimated current year savings mostly in contractual services and utility costs. The reserve under this
recommendation will be 72%.
Proposed Proposed Assessment Estimated
FY 93/94 FY 94/95 FY 95/96 FY 95/96 % Increase or FY 95/96
Assmnt/EDU Assmnt/EDU Assmnt/EDU CollectionlEDU Decrease(1) Cost/EDU
OSD No. 20 - - - - - -
Rancho del Rey
Zone I DesHt Basin - 36.67 45.28 0 23% 1.05
Zone 2 Rice Canyon - .19 3.44 0 1,810% 3.22
Zone 3 H St. - 3.73 4.90 3.55 31% 4.90
Zone 4 Business Center - 18.25 18.25 .78 0% 16.11
Zone 5 SPA I - 187.62 275.15 83.82 47% 275.15
Zone 6 SPA II - 0 211.41 211.41 NA 211.41
Zone 7 SPA III - 9.39 130.50 5.59 1,390% 11.80
Zone 8 North DesHting - 0 30.09 0 NA 0.00
Basin
Zone 9 Telegraph Canyon - 0 23.89 16.61 NA 0.00
Channel
1~-7
Page 10, Itemlk-
Meeting Date 6/13/95
Rancho del Rey is a phased development of three Sectional Planning Areas (SPA). SPA I is approximately
50% developed, SPA II homes are under construction and SPA III land is being graded. The OSD was
established in 1989 encompassing all three areas with the understanding that the open space improvements
would be constructed in phases. Because this is a large district and not all of the items to be maintained have
a benefit to the entire district, OSD 20 is made up of several zones as indicated above. Every property within
the district is in more than one zone.
Staff recommends increasing the FY 95/96 assessments to the estimated ultimate cost. As the developer and
guest builders own the majority ofland in SPAs II and III, protests will be minimized if increases are effected
this year. SPA II assessment ($211) is recommended to increase to accommodate the turnover of improvements
associated with it. Staff recommends the collection for SPA III ($6/EDU) be substantially less than the
proposed assessment ($130) because the development is not completed (except the Telegraph Canyon medians).
Staff recommends an increase in the assessment for SPA I (Zone 5) from $187 per EDU to $275 per EDU to
reflect the ultimate estimated cost. Staff recommends collecting a lesser amount (collectible) of $83 utilizing
the fund balance to make up the difference ($192). Funds are available to do this because of prior year savings
mostly in contractual services and utility costs due to delayed tumover of improvements. An increase in
assessment could be deferred for SPA I residents, but staff recommends increasing it now to coincide with SPAs
II and III assessment increases. Although these areas are in separate zones, effecting the increases in a single
year is consistent with the areas being in one open space district. This simplifies the notice procedure and
reduces the errors in noticing. All of these assessment increases are subject to a majority protest this year.
Staff recommends minor assessment increases (less than $15/EDU total) for Zones 1-3 to reflect the ultimate
estimated cost. Current year assessments are less because of savings, etc. A typical parcel in OSD 20 is
assessed for up to four different zones. Table 3 summarizes the combination of assessments.
TABLE 3
Typical Combined Assessment (FY 95-96)
SPA I (Zones I or 8, 2, 3, & 5) $298
SPA II (Zones I or 8, 2, 3, & 6) 265
SPA III (Zones I or 9, 3, & 7) 144
Business Center (Zones I, 2, 3, & 4) --
Industrial (per acre) 814
Commercial (per acre) 1,005
The reserve under this recommendation will be 41 %. Pursuant to City Municipal Code, the reserve will be
increased to 50% (minimum) over 5 years.
Zone 9 Telegraoh Canvon Channel
Pursuant to the agreement between Eastlake Development Company and the City, dated August 2, 1988 and
approved by Resolution 13716, the City shall use its best efforts to establish a maintenance district for the
Telegraph Canyon channel between Eastlake and Rancho del Rey. In July 1994, Council established a zone
within ELMD I to share the maintenance costs of this section of channel. As Rancho del Rey final maps are
pending, it is appropriate to establish a similar zone within OSD 20.
If approved, properties whose storm water runs off to the channel (south half of SPA 3) will be subject to the
additional assessment as shown in Table 4 based on their prorated share of the Telegraph Canyon basin (2.4%).
/t,../tJ
Page 11, Item&
Meeting Date 6/13/95
Rancho del Rey or one of the guest builders are the sole property owners in the proposed Zone 9 and
consequently staff does not anticipate any protests.
TABLE 4
OSD 20 - Proposed Zone 9 Telegraph Canyon Channel
Channel Silt Fence Plant Removal Total RDR @ 2.4% FY 95/96 Assmt Collection/EDU
Share of Cost & Cost/EDU FY 95/96
Phase I $4,079 $4,822 $8,901 $214 $4.92 $4.92
Phase 2 5,743 12,449 18,192 437 10.04 10.04
Phase 3 6,407 6,780 13,187 317 7.28 0.00
SUBTOTAL $40,280 968 $22.24/EDU 14.96
FORMATION COST 72 $1.65/EDU 1.65
TOTAL $1,040 $23.89/EDU 16.61
- The methodology for spreading the cost is consistent with the methods for the existing OSD 20 drainage zones.
- A typical residential lot in Zone 9 is equal to 0.2 drainage EDU's for a Zone 9 assessment of $4.78 (.2 EDU x
$23.89/EDU) and collection of $3.32 (.2 EDU x 16.61).
Staff recommends a collection of only $16.61 per EDU to provide adequate funds for Phase I and 2
maintenance. Phase 3 is not anticipated to be ready for turnover during FY95/96.
Proposed Proposed Assessment Estimated
FY93-94 FY94-95 FY95-96 FY 95-96 0/0 Increase FY 95-96 FY 95-96
Assmt/ Assmt/ Assmt/ Collection! or Decrease Cost/EDU Revenue
EDU EDU EDU EDU
IOSD No. 23 - Otay $0 $335.00 $335.00 $205.00 0% $212.00 $11,480
Rio Business Park
Staff recommends that the assessment of $335 per EDU remain the same as FY 94/95. This is more than the
cost of $212. Leaving the assessment at last year's amount will enable the collectible to increase should
contract costs, utility costs, etc. increase in future years without being subject to the majority protest provision
until the collectible exceeded the prior year's assessment. The higher amount of $335 was recommended by
the developer, based on his costs, in 1993. As there is a short history on this district, staff does not recommend
lowering the assessment at this time.
Staff recommends a collection of $205 per EDU utilizing the fund balance to make up the difference ($7).
Funds are available to do this because of prior and estimated current year savings mostly in contractual services.
The reserve under this recommendation will be 50%.
Proposed Proposed Assessment Estimated
FY93-94 FY94-95 FY95-96 FY 95-96 % Increase FY 95-96 FY 95-96
Assmt/ Assmt/ Assmt/ Collection! or Decrease Cost/EDU Revenue
EDU EDU EDU EDU
OSD No. 24 - $210.00 $432.00 $502.00 $341.00 16% $502.00 $13,640
Canyon View
Homes
Note: OSD 24 consists of only 40 townhomes sharing in the cost of large, landscaped slopes adjacent
to the townhomes.
It ,11
Page 12, Item-1.k.-
Meeting Date 6/13/95
Staff recommends an increase in the assessment from $432 to $502 per EDU to reflect the ultimate estimated
cost for FY 95/96. This represents a $70.00 per EDU increase. Staff recommends a collection of $341 per
EDU utilizing the fund balance to make up the difference ($161). Funds are available to do this because of
prior year savings mostly due to delayed turnover of improvements. The reserve under this recommendation
will be 69%.
Proposed Proposed Assessment Estimated
FY93-94 FY94-95 FY95-96 FY 95-96 % Increase FY 95-96 FY 95-96
Assmt! Assmt! Assmt! Collection! or Decrease Cost/EDU Revenue
EDU EDU EDU EDU
OSD No. 26 $359.00 $394.00 $394.00 $356.00 0% $356.00 $6,764
Park Bonita
Staff recommends that the assessment of $394 per EDU remain the same as FY 94/95. This is more than the
cost of $356. Leaving the assessment at last year's amount will enable the collectible to increase should
contract costs, utility costs, etc. increase in future years without being subject to the majority protest provision
until the collectible exceeded the prior year's assessment. Staff recommends a collection of$356. The reserve
under this recommendation will be 33% and is being increased to 50% over 5 years per City Code.
Proposed Proposed Assessment Estimated
FY93-94 FY94-95 FY95-96 FY 95-96 % Increase FY 95-96 FY 95-96
Assmt/ Assmt/ Assmtl Collection! or Decrease Cost/EDU Revenue
EDU EDU EDU EDU
OSD No. 31 NA $407.00 $407.00 $0 0% $392.00 $0
Telegraph Canyon
Estates
Staff recommends that the assessment of $407 per EDU remain the same as FY94/95. This is more than the
cost of $392. Leaving the assessment at last year's amount will enable the collectible to increase should
contract costs, utility costs, etc. increase in future years without being subject to the majority protest provision
until the collectible exceeded the prior year's assessment. Staff recommends no collection utilizing the fund
balance for all maintenance. Funds are available to do this because of prior year savings due to the fact that
the City has not yet accepted the improvements, but began collecting the assessment in the belief that we would
begin maintaining it this fiscal year. The reserve under this recommendation will be 50% as turnover of
improvements is not anticipated to occur until January of 1996.
Council approved staff's recommendation last year to assess the full estimated maintenance cost even though
95% of the improvements would not be ready for maintenance. Council approved refunding 95% of the
assessment. Under the proposed ordinance change under a separate item, making the distinction between
assessment and collection, refunds are not necessary saving the property owners the cost of administering
refunds.
Proposed Proposed Assessment Estimated
FY93-94 FY94-95 FY 95-96 FY 95-96 % Increase FY 95-96 FY 95-96
Assmt! Assmt! Assmt! Collection or Decrease Cost! Revenue
EDU EDU EDU /EDU EDU
Bay Blvd OSD $1,000.00 $889.00 $1291.00 $31.00 45% $1291.00 $310
Note: Costs of this district are shared between four commercial parcels.
/ /, -/,;)..
Page 13, Item&
Meeting Date 6/13/95
Staff recommends an increase in the assessment of $889 to $1291 per EDU to reflect the ultimate estimated
cost for FY 95/96. This represents a $402 per EDU increase. Staff recommends a collection of $31 per EDU
utilizing the fund balance to make up the difference ($1260). Funds are available to do this because of prior
year savings mostly in utility costs and a prior year delinquency brought current. The prior year delinquency
amount, as outlined for Council last year, had not been accounted for in the fund balance and the property
owners were "over-assessed." Staff has revised the procedure to prevent this from occurring in the future. The
reserve under this recommendation will be 62%.
Proposed Proposed Assessment Estimated
FY93-94 FY94-95 FY95-96 FY 95-96 % Increase FY 95-96 FY 95-96
Assmt! Assmt! Assmt! Collection! or Decrease CostlEDU Revenue
EDU EDU EDU EDU
Town Center Open $43.00 $45.00 $45.00 $39.00 0% $39.00 $39,000
Space Maintenance
District
Staff recommends that the assessment of $45 per EDU remain the same as FY 94/95. This is more than the
cost of$39. Leaving the assessment at last year's amount will enable the collectible to increase should contract
costs, utility costs, etc. increase in future years without being subject to the majority protest provision until the
collectible exceeded the prior year's assessment. Staff recommends a collection of $39. The reserve under this
recommendation will be 53%.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Staff costs associated with the open space program are generated by Parks and Recreation, Public Works, and
Data Processing. Contractual costs are outlined in Attachment A. These costs are recovered through the Open
Space District collectible, causing no net fiscal impact.
Attachments:
A Cost Summary
B District Maps
C Sweetwater Authority letter
M:\...\agenda\OSphl.dds
1/,../3 / ILL -,4:
ATTACt'
TA'
I .
ESTIMATE OF MAINTENANCE COSTS FY 95-96 June 1, 1995
~
OPEN SPACE DJSTRICJ'NO.1 OPEN SPACE D1!r11UCJ' NO. ] OPEN SPACE DJSTRICJ'NO. 4
1995-1996 1994-199S 1993-1994 1995-1996 1994-199S 1993-1994 1995-1996 1994-199S 1993-1994
Contnct Senices 5S,s30.00 S6,670.00 S6,6SO.00 516,8SO.00 516,8SO.00 527,490.00 53S,620.00 53S,620.OO 529,090.00
Utilities 2,160.00 2,090.00 11,180.00 12,920.00 1O,S80.00 13,110.00 IS,170.oo 12,140.00
Ma1aial. to main b1dgs,strucl 380.00 380.00 380.00 800.00 800.00 800.00 800.00 800.00 800.00
SaW:e to main bIdg,struct,grd 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Londscape Supplies 340.00 340.00 340.00 210.00 210.00 210.00 1,100.00 1,100.00 1,100.00
Ciiy S1affSenices 1,420.00 1,930.00 1,740.00 3,S70.00 4,260.00 S,170.OO S,8OO.00 6,640.00 S,660.OO
Baddlow Certification 40.00 40.00 40.00 400.00 400.00 400.00 600.00 600.00 600.00
Trash Collection ell; Disposal
Professional Senices
Supplemental. 0.00
Other conunodities
AdYeI1isiDg
ESTIMATED MAlNTBNANCE CO 59,870.00 511,4SO.00 59,ISO.oo 533,010.00 53S,440.00 S44,6SO.00 5S7,030.00 5S9,930.OO 149,390.00
ReseMl Requirement S,922.00 S,72S.00 4,S7S.OO 24,923.00 24,099.00 31,367.00 29,96S.!lO
~ ReseMl Peroent 60% SO".4 SO% 76% 68".4 SS% SO%
Additionalresene 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Less Fund Balance 8,360.00 8,478.00 8,478.00 32,OS6.00 2S,624.00 41,301.00 30,480.00
~ NET ASSESSMENT S7 ,432.00 58,697.00 5S,247.OO 52S,877.00 533,91S.00 147,096.00 5S9,41S.OO
~ EDU'S 249 249 249 127 127 127 210 210 210
CollectibIeJEDU 52US 534.94 532.44 52t13.7' 5267.06 52S0.9O 5224.27 5282.94 5197.08
Pacent change &om prior yan -IS% 8% -24% 6% -11% -21% 44%
Ewn cIoIlar collectible 530 5204 5224
Rewnue &om ...... 5 payment S7 ,470 52S,908 547,040
Assessment (NTE FY94I9S) 539 5267 5282
Budget/EDU 539.64 S4S.98 143.23 5259.92 5279.06 5349.72 5271.57 528S.38 5234.37
Pen:ent cbaoRe &om mOl' """'" -14% 6% -7% .20"10 -S% 22%
F:_~\OSfa'.wq1
c.
f
~
6'
ATTACHMENT A:
ESllMATE OF MAINTENANCE COSTS FY 95-96 June 1, 1995
~
OPEN SPACE DISTRICT NO. , OPEN SPACE DISTRICT NO.6 OPEN SPACE DISTRICT NO. 7
1995-1996 1994-1995 1993-1994 1995-1996 1994-1995 1993-1994 1995-1996 1994-1995 1993-1994
CClIdnIct s.m- 519,510.00 519,510.00 520,820.00 55,680.00 512,830.00 512,810.00 53,690.00 $4,760.00 $4,740.00
Utilities 8,630.00 8,360.00 6,820.00 5,050.00 6,070.00 4,990.00 3,710.00 4,370.00 3,580.00
Materials to main b1dgs,s1rUcl 800.00 800.00 800.00 780.00 780.00 780.00 360.00 360.00 360.00
Service to main b1dg,stn1ct,grds 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Landscape Supplies 950.00 950.00 950.00 310.00 310.00 310.00 230.00 230.00 230.00
City Staff Services 3,630.00 4,100.00 4,040.00 1,780.00 3,070.00 2,850.00 1,510.00 1,970.00 1,730.00
Bacldlow Certification 120.00 120.00 120.00 120.00 120.00 120.00 200.00 200.00 200.00
Trash Collection & Disposal
Professional Services
Supp1emen1als
Other ....wuudi1ies
Adwrtising
ESTIMATED MAINTENANCE CO 533,640.00 533,840.00 533,550.00 513,720.00 523,180.00 521,860.00 59,700.00 511,890.00 510,840.00
Resento Requiremen1 22,875.00 21,996.00 13,720.00 16,226.00 6,305.00 8,918.00
Resento Peroent 68% 65% 100% 70% 65% 75%
Additicmal........, 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Less Fund Ba1snce 28,569.00 26,177.00 27,507.00 17,335.00 11,952.00 10,840.00
NET ASSESSMENT -- 527,946.00 529,659.00 ($67.00) 522,071.00 $4,053.00 59,968.00
EDU'S 122 122 122 162 162 162 104 104 104
COU_1>IeIEDU 522'-07 5243.12 5224.22 (SUI) 5136.26 5128.00 SJU7 595.86 $87.60
Pm:ent change fium pior yars -6% 8% -100"/0 6% -59% 9%
Even dollar coUectib1e 5229 SO 539
Revenue fiom even 5 payment 527,938 SO $4,056
Assessment (NTE FY9419S) 5275 5136 595
BudgefJEDU 5275.74 5277.39 5275.00 584.69 5143.10 5134.94 $93.27 5114.33 5104.23
Percent chanlllO fiom 00'" yesrs -1% 1% -41% 6% -18% 10".4
~
~
:~
F:'hornelEngI ~_\OSfcr.wq1
ATTACt"
7A:
ESTIMATE OF MAINTENANCE COSTS FY95-96 June 1,1995
~
OPEN SPACE DISTRICT NO. . OPEN SPACE DISTRICT NO.9 OPEN SPACE DISTRICT NO. II
1995-1996 1994.1995 1993-1994 1995-1996 1994-1995 1993-1994 1995-1996 1994-1995 1993-1994
eo.-~ 530,760.00 530,760.00 531,510.00 519,840.00 519,840.00 521,080.00 S67,410.00 S67,410.00 592,620.00
Utiliti.. 10,970.00 11,640.00 9,510.00 18,500.00 22,740.00 18,520.00 28,680.00 30,950.00 25,250.00
Mataia1s to main bldgs.-. 350.00 350.00 350.00 1,500.00 1,500.00 1,500.00 3,440.00 3,440.00 3,440.00
SerYice to main bIdg,a1ruct,gnI 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
l.-l..,.pe Supplies 420.00 420.00 420.00 1,010.00 1,010.00 1,010.00 710.00 710.00 710.00
CityStalT~ 4,940.00 5,580.00 5,470.00 4,910.00 5,940.00 5,670.00 10,880.00 12,020.00 14,930.00
Becldlow Catification 320.00 320.00 320.00 320.00 320.00 320.00 440.00 440.00 440.00
Tnsh Collection &. Disposol 0.00 1,400.00 1,400.00 1,400.00 280.00 280.00 280.00
Professional ~
SuppI...-ts 0.00
Other ~......ditieo
AdYertising
ESTIMATED MAINTENANCE CO 147,760.00 149,070.00 147,580.00 147,480.00 552,750.00 149,500.00 5111,840.00 5115,250.00 5137,670.00
ReseMl Requimnent 28,417.00 33,281.00 30,387.00 30,595.00 67,104.00 57,625.00
ReseMl Percent 60"'"' 68% 64% 58% 60% SO%
Additional nserYll 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Leoa FUDd Balance 43,133.00 34,948.00 42,319.00 44,254.00 80,365.00 62,472.00
NET ASSESSMENI' 533,044.00 147,403.00 535,548.00 539,091.00 598,579.00 5110,403.00
EDU'S 110 110 110 384 384 384 1321.03 1321.03 1321.03
CoUectiblelFDU 5308.40 1430.94 1430.94 $92.57 5101.80 192.88 57U2 583.58 581.22
I'enlart change from prior ~ .30% 00'"' -9% 100'"' -11% 3%
E_ dollar collectible 5300 593 $14
Rew:nue from 0YeIt 5 payment 533,000 535,712 597,756
Assessment (NTE FY94I9S) $434 5123 584
BudgetlEDU 1434.18 1446.09 1432.00 5123.65 5137.37 5127.34 $84.66 587.24 5104.01
Percent cham,e from mar vears .3% 3% -]0"'"' 8% -3% -16%
Minor budget increase
,
~
\
'-
~
F:\home\E~\OSfcr.wql
ATTACHMENT A:
ESTIMATE OF MAINTENANCE COSTS FY 95-96 June I, 1995
t
OPEN SPACE DI!rI1UCf NO. 14 OPEN SPACE D1!r11UCfNO." OPEN SPACE D1!r11UCf NO. 17
1995-1996 1994-1995 1993-1994 1994-1995 1995-1996 1993-1994 1995-1996 1994-1995 1993-1994
Contract Services $133,580.00 $133,580.00 $190,620.00 $6,970.00 $6,970.00 $7,820.00 $1,940.00 $2,250.00 $2,250.00
Utilities 70,890.00 84,960.00 69,240.00 4,340.00 4,260.00 3,490.00
Maleria1. 10 main b1dgs,slrucl 4,000.00 4,000.00 4,000.00 240.00 240.00 240.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
&nice 10 main bldg,-.snJs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1.....pe Supplies 3,180.00 3,180.00 3,180.00 200.00 200.00 200.00 550.00 550.00 550.00
City Staff Services 22,330.00 25,340.00 31,100.00 1,840.00 2,170.00 2,050.00 2,200.00 2,600.00 2,430.00
Bacldlow Cet1ificatillll 1,240.00 1,240.00 1,240.00 120.00 120.00 120.00
T...h CoIlectillll 01: Dispoaal 560.00 560.00 560.00
Professional Services
Supplemenlal.
0Iher ....wuudities
Adwrti.ing
ESTIMATED MAINTENANCE CO $235,220.00 $252,300.00 $299,380.00 $13,710.00 $13,960.00 $13,920.00 $5,350.00 $6,060.00 $5,890.00
R....... Requimnent 151,717.00 201,840.00 8,432.00 8,097.00 5,376.00 6,021.00
RIOlIeIW PaIlent 65% llO"lo 62% 58% 100% 99"10
Additional.......... 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,507.00 2,507.00
Less FUIId Balance 256,215.00 218,039.00 11,346.00 8,708.00 13,233.00 8,850.00
NET ASSESSMENT $130,722.00 $236,101.00 $10,796.00 $13,351.00 SO.OO $5,738.00
1lDU'S 873 873 873 57 57 57 46 46 46
CoUectibleIEDU $14U8 $270.35 $254.74 5189.40 $234.24 5234.23 50.00 5124.74 5124.74
Percent change Iiom prioryean -45% 6% -19% 0% -100% 0%
E_ dollar coUecltb1e . $150 5189 SO
Revmue Iiom '"""" $ payment 5131,004 $10,773 50
Assessment (NTE FY9419S) $270 5250 5124
BudgetllIDU $%69.33 5288.88 5272.40 5240.53 5244.91 5242.19 $1l6.30 5131.74 $128.04
Pm:ent chanm: Iiom morvelllll -7% 6% -2% 1% -12% 3%
Increase in budget
51200 for storm drain mte
\
~
~
\
F:\homelEnglr penapoclOSfcr.wql
ATtAC f"T A:
ESTlMA TE OF MAINTENANCE COSTS FY 95-96 June I, 1995
OPEN SPACE DISTRICT NO. 11
1995-1996 1994-199S 1993-1994
Contract Services $6O,s60.00 573,SIO.00 S73,SI0.00
Utilities 34,400.00 38,770.00 31,670.00
Material. to main bIdgs,strucl 1,200.00 1,200.00 1,200.00
SeMce to main bIdg,stmct,gnls
Londscape Supplies 990.00 990.00 990.00
City StatT Services 10,490.00 13,230.00 12,870.00
!lackflow Certification
TIIIh Collec1ion &; Dispooa\
Plofessional Services
Supplemental.
0Iber """,,,.,,,dities
Adwrtising
5107,640.00 5127,700.00 5120,240.00
Resenoo Requirement 77 ,so1.00 7S,343.00
.~ Resenoo Percent 72% S9"A
Additional resenoe 0.00 0.00
\ Leos FIIIld Ba1snce 94,2S3.00 66,991.00
'-..... NET ASSESSMENI' 590,888.00 5136,OS2.00
'"'0
EDtJ'S 388 388 388
Co1IecI1b1e1EDU 5234.52 5293.38 5303.34
Percent change from prior years -20% -3%
Ewn dollar collec1ible 5234
Rewnue from ewn 5 payment 590,687
~(NTE FY9419S) 5293
Budge1IEDU 5277.74 5329.S1 5309 .6S
Percent cha e from or n -16% 6%
F:_1E~\OSrcr.wql
ATTACHMENT A:
ESTIMATE OF MAINTENANCE COSTS FY 95-96 June I, 1995
OPEN SPACE DISTRICT NO. 23 OPEN SPACE DISTRICT NO.24 OPEN SPACE DISTRICT NO. 26
1995-1996 1994-1995 1993-1994 1995-1996 1994-1995 1993-1994 1995-1996 1994-1995 1993-1994
Coo1racl Scnices $4,670.00 59,580.00 Not applicable 58,520.00 58,520.00 514,270.00 53,570.00 52,820.00 52,820.00
Utilities 4,270.00 3,610.00 8,050.00 8,070.00 7,160.00 1510.00 1,910.00 1,560.00
Material. 10 main bldgs,s1nJcl. 900.00 900.00 830.00 830.00 830.00 170.00 170.00 170.00
Service 10 main bldg,struct,gnls 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Landseape Supplies 210.00 210.00 400.00 400.00 400.00 70.00 70.00 70.00
Cily Staff Services 1,550.00 2,470.00 1,870.00 2,870.00 4,110.00 1140.00 1,470.00 1,260.00
BacldI_ Certification 40.00 40.00 160.00 160.00 160.00 40.00 40.00 40.00
Trash Collection & Disposal 280.00 280.00 280.00 280.00 280.00 280.00 280.00 280.00
Professional Services
Supplemen1al.
Other commodities
\~ Adyertjsing
ESTIMATED MAINTENANCE CO 511,920.00 517,090.00 520,110.00 521,130.00 527,210.00 S6,78O.00 S6,76O.00 S6,200.00
~
{ Reserve Requimnent 5,960.00 1,709.00 13,775.00 10,565.00 2,268.00 1,352.00
Reserve Pen:ent SO% loo!. 69% 50% 33% 20%
~ Additional """""" 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Less Fund Balance 6,358.00 0.00 20,226.00 14,402.00 52,263 621.00
\ NET ASSESSMENT 511,522.00 518,799.00 513,659.00 517,293.00 S6,785.oo S7,491.00
'N .
~ EDU'S 56 56 40 40 40 19 19 19
Col\ectib1ellIDU 5205.75 5335.70 534\.48 $432.33 5210.98 5357.11 5394.30 5359.00
Pen:ent ehange liml prior years -39% -21% 105% -9% 10%
Ewn doI1ar collectible 5206 $341 $357
Rewnue liom ewn $ payment 511,536 $13,640 S6,783
Assessment (NTH FY94/95) $335 $502 $394
BudgelJEDU 5212.86 $305.18 Not applicable 5502.75 $528.25 S660.50 5356.84 $355.79 $326.32
Pereent ChaR"" liom mor \'earS .3oo!. Ra -5% -20010 0% 9%
Bid reflected in FY 95/96
Increase in budget
Increase in budget
F:'home1E1l\ )Openspac'OSfcr.wq\,
ATTAC' \IT A:
ESTIMATE OF MAINTENANCE COSTS FY 95-96 June 1. 1995
~
OPEN SPACE DISTRICT 3 I OPEN SPACE DISTRICT OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
Median cnIy BAY IlOULEV ARD TOWN CENTER
1995-1996 1994-1995 1995-1996 1994-1995 1993-1994 1995-1996 1994-1995 1993-1994
Contnct Services $80,390.00 5910 510,000.00 510,000.00 510,000.00
Utilities 34,160.00 5500 53,400.00 53,610.00 53,130.00 7,610.00 7,560.00 7,150.00
Materials to main b1dgs,_ 3,070.00 540 230.00 230.00 230.00 1,250.00 1,250.00
Service to main b1dg.s1ruct.grds 0.00 0.00 0.00
Landscape Supplies 2,090.00 520 850.00 850.00 850.00 1,100.00 1,100.00 1,100.00
City Staff Services 13,070.00 5200 7,650.00 8,740.00 8,400.00 19,400.00 32,010.00 32,080.00
BactdIow Certilkation 490.00 510 0.00 120.00 120.00 120.00 120.00 120.00
Trash Collection &; Disposal 480.00 480.00 480.00
Professional Services 120.00 0.00
SupplemenJsls 1,000.00
Other commodities Subtotal 0.00 0.00 250.00
Adwrtising 133,270.00 180.00 180.00 180.00 180.00 180.00 180.00
1,707.00
ESTIMATBD MAINTENANCE CO 5134,977.00 51,680.00 512,910.00 514,210.00 513,390.00 539,660.00 552,220.00 551,880.00
Reserve Requitement 0.00 8,004.00 14,210.00 21,020.00 36,554.00
Reserve Percent (lOA 62% 100% 53% 70%
Additional resemo 1,479.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Lea Fund BaI8nce 5137,346 520,600 19,530.00 520,917 43,217.00
NET ASSESSMENT (Sll90.00) 5140,505 5314.00 58,890.00 539,763.00 S45,557.00
FDU'S 345 345 10 10 10 1000 1000 1000
CoIlectiblelEDU (S2.58) 407.26 531.40 5889.00 51,000.80 539.76 S45.S6 S43.58
Percent change from prior years -101% -96% -11% -13% 5%
Ewn dollar coUectible SO 531 S40
Rewnue from even 5 psyment SO 5310 S40,OOO
Assessment (NTE FY941'JS) S407 51,291 545
BudgetJEDU $3'1.24 4.87 $0.00 $1,421.00 $1,339.00 $3'.66 552.22 $51.88
Percent chaDl!e from trior veers N/A -IOO"A 6% -24% 1%
$1707 added for ICe
~
~
---
F:'homelEngIneef\OpenspelOsrcr.wq1
ESTIMATE OF MAINTENANCE COSTS FY 95-96 June 1, 1995
OPEN SPACE DISlRICf NO. 20
1995-1996 1994-1995 1993-1994
Contract Services
Utilities
Materials to main bldgs,struct.
Service to main bldg,struct,grds
Landscape Supplies
City Staff Services
Baclcflow Certification
Trash Collection & Disposal
Professional Services
Supplementals
Other commodities
Advertising
ESTIMATED MAINTENANCE COST
Reserve Requirement
Reserve Percent
Additional reserve
Less Fund Balance
NET ASSESSMENT
EDU'S
CollectiblelEDU
Percent change from prior years
Even dollar collectible
Revenue from even $ payment
Assessment (NTE FY94/95)
Budget/EDU
Percent chanlze from orior years
F:\home\Engineer\Openspac\OSfcr.wq1
$340,350.00
226,430.00
21,450.00
0.00
16,930.00
86,773.00
760.00
2,800.00
$695,493.00
278,626.00
41%
See attached
worksheet
$218,580.00
262,530.00
18,470.00
0.00
14,130.00
64,470.00
360.00
1,960.00
$580,500.00
350,052.00
65%
~ /}c';:~
$318,500.00
203,750.00
18,470.00
0.00
14,130.00
71,840.00
360.00
1,960.00
$629,010.00
FY95196 Budget FY95196 Less Less FY95196
P&R Reserve Amort FY 95196 FY 94195 Savings! Net
Budget Req't Cost Cost Bud Res Interest Payment
Zone I-DB 785 0 0 185 0 4,411 0
Zone 2 - Rice Cyn 12,604 6,302 228 19,134 3,111 16,013 10
Zone3-EHSt 30,636 15,318 0 45,954 10,848 12,926 22,180
Zone 4 - Bus Or 38,642 19,321 4,002 61,965 28,926 30,986 2,053
Zone 5 - SPA 1 Res 459,212 229,636 34,611 123,525 299,599 213,412 150,454
Zone6-SPA2Res 119,861 0 0 119,861 0 0 119,861
Zone1-SPA3Res 14,654 1,321 0 21,981 1,568 1,413 6,940
Zone 8 - DB North 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Zone 9 - TC Chan 0 122 0 122 0 0 122
616,460 218,626 38,841 993,933 350,052 345,342 . 302,225
Note:
1. Gas tax = $41540 ( 1.0081
2. Zone 2 used 12044 of the 24504 mise reserve (95196)
3. Zone 1 add 3649 to reserve for FY 96191
~
~
~
~
1
~
~
~
Ultimate
Assm't Assm't Collectible Cost Cost EDU's
FY 94/95 FY 95/96 FY 95/96 FY 95/96 FY 94/95 FY 95/96
Zone 1 - DB 36.67 45.28 0.00 1.05 40.98 744.58
Zone 2 - Rice Cyn 0.19 3.44 0.00 3.22 1.74 3,981.70
Zone3-EHSt 3.73 4.90 3.55 4.90 3.66 6,251.20
Zone 4 - Bus Ctr 18.25 18.25 0.78 16.11 23.40 2,647.20
Zone 5 - SPA 1 Res 187.62 275.15 83.82 275.15 262.43 1,795.00
Zone 6 - SPA 2 Res 0.00 211.41 211.41 211.41 0.00 567.00
Zone 7 - SPA 3 Res 9.39 130.50 5.59 11.80 10.90 1,242.00
Zone 8 - DB North 0.00 30.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 120.47
Zone 9 - TC Chao 0.00 23.87 16.59 0.00 0.00 43.52
Rancho del Rey Open Space District No. 20
Annualized Costs
Amounl Accumulated
'01' FJacal Yean: FY9S-K
~... DeKrI.>>Uon 90.91,91-91,92-93,93-94,94.95 Amounl Work DeKrtption
1 Desilting Basin 5134,818 $0 D..uting buin maintenance (overy 5 yan)
5330500 $0 Stabilization stuuclurea maintenance (overy 3 yan)
2 Rice Canyon $4,365 $0 Staging A=i . AC. overlay and stripe (overy 5 yanO
51,140 S228 Staging area maintenance (30 year period)
512,460 $0 Miaoel1anOOUl
3 E. H street $0 $0
4 SPA 1 Phase 1 $20,010 $4,002 Monumentation replacement (30-yr period)
(Business Ctr.)
5 SPA I, Phases 2-6 5189,125 $34,617 Theme wall " monument repJacemenl (30-yr)
6 SPA 2 $0 $0
7 SPA 3 $0 $0
Total $395,418 $38 847
Notes:
1. Zone 2-512,044 from mise reteI'Ve 10 be UBed for mte (95196)
2. Zone 2 & 3 - Amortized cost for walls Dot determined
3. Zone 1 -526,230 (5yn) " $6,700 (3yn) for
db &. stabilization structures not collected beyond S yrs
per Code; Zone 2 $873 (5 yn) for AC not coUeeled.
M:\bome\eD&iDeer\OpeDSpac\rdrannual wql
~ /~~..25/i{j-~
MEMORANDUM
(\ ,
'r~ JL
\~LU'
ul\tvu /3 '~."Jvk,
\~,j
June 6, 1995
File # OS-OOI
TO:
Honorable Mayor and ft. Council
City Manage~~ ~~:'M/
Director of Public Works (fY"
VIA:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
ASSESSMENTS FOR OPEN SPACE DISTRICTS
On May 23, 1995, Council considered the yearly engineer's reports for all open space districts
within the City. Council approved all of the assessments as proposed by staff except the
assessment amount for Open Space district (OSD) 1. The resolution was amended for OSD
1 to reflect Council's desire to set the assessment at the estimated cost to provide maintenance
for the district.
A subsequent item which considered the engineer's report and assessments for the majority of
the open space districts was approved without amendment of the resolution. Nine districts
approved with that resolution were similar to OSD 1 in that the assessment was lower than the
estimated cost.
In order to be consistent with City Council's direction on OSD 1, staff notified owners of the
estimated cost, excluding full cost recovery, in all cases where the FY 95/96 cost exceeded the
current year's assessment. By noticing property owners at the higher amount, Council has the
most flexibility in setting assessments. Council can now lower assessments at the public
hearings if it chooses to, whereas, if staff had noticed at the lower amount, Council could not
increase assessments without providing additional mailed noticed.
The following table lists these open space districts in which Council approved the lesser
amount, but staff noticed at the higher amount:
TABLE 1
PRIOR FY'S VS. FY 95/96 ASSESSMENT/COLLECTffiLE AND % CHANGE
OSD Previous Proposed Estimated Assessment Proposed
FY 93/94 FY 94/95 Proposed FY 95/96 FY 95/96 % Increase FY95/96 FY95/96
Assmt/EDU Assmt/EDU FY95/96 Asmt/EDU Cost/EDU or Collection! Revenue
Asmt/EDU Decrease EDU
2 32.00 34.00 34.00(1) 39.00(2) 39.00 15% 29.00 7,221
5 224.00 243.00 243.00(1 275.00(:2) 275.00 13% 221.00 26,962
8 430.00 430.00 430.00(1) 434.00(2) 434.00 1% 280.00 30,800
9 92.00 101.00 101.00(') 123.00'" 123.00 22% 88.00 33,792
11 81.00 83.00 83.00(1) 84.00(2) 84.00 1% 67.00 88,509
15 234.00 234.00 234.00(1) 240.00(2) 240.00 3% 183.00 10,431
24 210.00 432.00 432.00(1) 502.00'" 502.00 16% 298.00 11,920
I~ -<.57
Open Space Memo
-2-
June 6, 1995
OSD Previous Proposed Estimated Assessment Proposed
FY 93/94 FY 94/95 Proposed FY 95/96 FY 95/96 % Increase FY95/96 FY95/96
AssmtlEDU AssmtlEDU FY95/96 AsmtlEDU CostlEDU or Collection! Revenue
AsmtlEDU Decrease EDU
Bay Blvd 1000.00 889.00 889.00(1) 1291.00(2) 1291.00 45% 5.00 50
ELMD #1 190,600
Eastlake
Greens 10.64 14.08 14.08(1) 15.24(2) 15.24 8% 14.08
OTC 0 125.95 125.95(1) 126.20(2) 126.20 1% 77.31
I) AmOlmt CoWlci1 approved.
(2) Staff noticed the owners of the amoWlt shown.
The engineer's report will be revised for the public hearings on June 13 and July 11, 1995 to
reflect all of the changes indicated in the table above. Adoption of the resolution after the
second public hearing on July 11, 1995, will officially revise the engineer's report
(M:\HOMEIENGlNEERIAGENDA ICCMEMO.BOB)
) ~ <5''5/
s~
COIv{)
/(,(':-.
"'D
( '~1/G
ORDINANCE NO. 2631 41v{)
1<00,or,
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ADDING SECTIO~t\1
17.07.035 TO THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO
LANDSCAPING ACT PROVIDERS
SECTION I: That Section 17.07.035 is hereby added to the Chula Vista Municipal Code
to read as follows:
Sec. 17.07.035
Landscaping Act Providers.
A. Distinguish Assessment from Collection Against Assessment.
There is, under this assessment district procedure applicable in the City of Chula Vista,
a difference between the amount of the assessment imposed against any parcel of
property, and the amount which may be collected against that assessment. The purpose
of setting the assessment is to give the property owner notice of the maximum costs
which may be collected, and for the purpose of permitting a majority protest proceeding
on the assessment, but not on the collection. "Assessment", as used in these
proceedings, shall mean the maximum amount collectable in a given year under the
procedures allowed by this Chapter.
B. Amount of Assessment.
1. Notwithstanding the costs which may be included in an assessment and Section
22569 through 22570 of the Streets and Highways Code, the assessment may, but is not
required to, be set in the initial year of the district's existence at an amount which is
expected to be equal to the estimated costs of operating the district, plus a reserve for
unanticipated expenses in accordance with Section 17.07.030. After the initial year of
the district's existence, the assessment shall be the prior year's assessment increased or
decreased by an inflation factor which is the lesser of (1) the January to January San
Diego Metropolitan Area All Urban Consumer Price Index (CPI) or (2) the change in
estimated California Fourth Quarter Per Capita Personal Income as contained in the
Governor's budget published in January.
2. For existing districts the base year upon which the assessment is set is the
1995/96 Fiscal Year. For districts created after July 1, 1995, the base year assessment
shall be the first full year's assessment. The inflation factor shall be applied first to
either the 1996/97 assessments or the second full year for new districts.
1
1'1-\
n ...9
C. Collection on assessment.
Notwithstanding Section 22572, the amount which the City may collect on each
assessment by charge on the tax roll, shall be that needed to meet the annual expenses
and expenditures of the district, including delinquent collections and the permitted reserve
allowed under Section 17.07.030, but in no event in an amount greater than the amount
of the assessment.
D. Amount Due at Given Dates During Fiscal Year.
Until a property owner receives a tax bill properly demonstrating a lower amount due on
the assessment than the amount of the assessment, the amount due on the assessment
shall be assumed to be the amount set forth in the assessment. After receipt of a tax bill
that includes a lower amount due on the assessment for a given fiscal year, the lower
amount due on the assessment shall when paid satisfy the assessment obligation for that
fiscal year.
SECTION II: This section shall take effect and be in full force on the thirtieth day from
and after its adoption.
Bruce M. Boogaard
Attorney
Presented by
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
m:\shared\auomey\1707035.
2
\, -It)
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item L1-
Meeting Date 6/13/95
ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing on Draft Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP)
Plan and Environmental Impact Report / Environmental Impact Statement
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Planning ~41
REVIEWED BY: City Manage"-iC1 VI' 7A,\j(\ (4/5ths Vote: Yes_No...K.)
,Xl~.
The City of San Diego has released the drahMultiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP)
Plan and draft Environmental Impact Report / Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) for
public review, Our staff has completed a preliminary review of the Plan, and has also solicited
public input regarding the draft Plan. The following report contains City staff comments
regarding the draft Plan and EIRIEIS, as well as comments received from property owners and
the Resource Conservation Commission, and a status report regarding major unresolved issues.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council authorize the attached draft
letters to the City of San Diego regarding the draft MSCP Plan and EIRIEIS.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION:
The Resource Conservation Commission met on May 8 and May 22, and made numerous
comments on the draft MSCP Plan (see Attachments Nand 0), Staff has incorporated the
majority of these comments in the draft letters discussed below, However, several other RCC
comments will be further reviewed with the Commission at its meeting on June 12, in order to
clarify the RCC's position on these issues, and any additional comments will be forwarded to
Council at your meeting on June 13.
The Planning Commission received a staff briefing on the MSCP at its meeting on May 24;
however, no formal action or recommendations were provided at that time.
DISCUSSION:
On March 28, staff provided the City Council with a Council Agenda Statement which included
an executive summary of the draft MSCP Plan, and discussed the review process for the Plan
and EIR/EIS. Since that time, City staff has been involved in extensive review of the draft Plan,
In addition, our staff has been working with MSCP Program staff from the City of San Diego,
as well as staff from the other participating jurisdictions (primarily San Diego County, Poway,
and Santee), and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and California Department of Fish
and Game (CDFG) to identify and attempt to resolve major issues which have been raised in our
review of the draft Plan. Staff provided Council with a status report regarding these issues for
/8' - )
Page 2, Item ~
Meeting Date 6/13/95
your meeting of May 23, and Council agreed that staff should return to Council at a public
hearing on June 13, with final written comments regarding the draft Plan and EIR/EIS, while
also providing an opportunity for obtaining additional public comments.
Staff has now prepared the attached draft letters to the City of San. Diego regarding the draft
MSCP Plan and draft EIR/EIS (see Attachments A and B). The following report discusses the
major issues which are addressed in those letters, as well as indicating the status of resolution
of those issues. In preparing these letters, we have incorporated comments received from
various City departments, property owners, the Resource Conservation Commission, and outside
agencies (see Attachments C through 0).
In addition, the MSCP Policy Committee, which includes elected officials from all participating
jurisdictions, including Mayor Horton, met on June 2, and reviewed a set of draft policy
statements establishing principles to be incorporated in the final draft Plan (see Attachment P).
The Policy Committee conceptually approved several of these principles, while action on certain
others was deferred until additional information could be provided. These policy statements
have been referenced in several of our comments regarding the draft Plan and EIR/EIS.
Given the number of maior unresolved issues. we are recommending that the Citv Council
authorize us to reauest additional time to resolve these issues orior to comoletion of the final
EIR/EIS for the MSCP Plan. If additional time is not orovided to resolve these issues. the City
would need to consider other alternatives. which are discussed at the end of this reoort.
MAJOR ISSUES REGARDING DRAFT MSCP PLAN
The following is a summary of the major issues which are addressed in our draft letter regarding
the draft MSCP Plan:
I) Preserve Design
In November 1994, the City Council endorsed a draft "Multi-habitat Planning Area"
(MHP A) map for evaluation in the draft MSCP Plan and EIR. The MHP A map was
prepared by staff of the participating local jurisdictions, and depicted a 164,000 acre
regional preserve system that was generally consistent with adopted local general plans
and specific plans. In preparing our input into this MHPA map, our staff relied on the
existing City General Plan (i.e., "open space" designations on the Land Use Diagram)
as well as adopted General Development Plans, Sectional Planning Area Plans, Resource
Management Plans, and tentative maps, to determine specific geographic areas to be
considered for inclusion within the MHP A boundary.
In reviewing the draft MSCP Plan, which is based on the MHPA boundary,
representatives of both USFWS and CDFG have once again indicated that there are
/ g..;)...
Page 3, Item 1.1.-
Meeting Date 6/13/95
several specific locations in the draft Plan where the proposed "preserve design" (i.e.,
location and configuration of areas to be included within a permanent habitat preserve)
is inadequate to meet the requirements for protection of proposed covered species,
including the California Gnatcatcher (see Attachments C and D).
Otay Ranch
The wildlife agencies have specifically indicated that there are deficiencies with regard
to the proposed preserve design of Otay Ranch, and that these deficiencies are so
significant as to make the overall regional plan unacceptable. In discussions with
USFWS and CDFG regarding the issues addressed in this letter, City staff has taken the
position that the preserve design should reflect the City's adopted plans, and that the
City's plan review and environmental review process, which was based upon expert
testimony and scientific studies (e.g., wildlife corridor studies), has included extensive
consideration of preserve design issues.
City and County staff have now held three meetings with County staff, the project
applicant, and the wildlife agencies to discuss these issues. While the wildlife agencies
have suggested that there may be opportunities for the Federal and State governments to
provide assistance in acquiring certain key areas which they have deemed to be essential
to the preserve system, they have not varied from their positions that development areas
south and east of Lower Otay Lake, major portions of the resort area, and development
areas in the southern portion of Proctor Valley should be preserved and the approved
Otay Ranch General Development Plan should be modified to delete development from
these areas. This position is similar to the position transmitted to the City Council
during the public review period on the Otay Ranch General Development Plan and
Environmental Impact Report.
City and County staff have continued to take the position that the Otay Ranch Plan, both
on its own merits and in the context of the overall regional habitat plan contained in the
MSCP, is adequate to protect key core populations of California gnatcatchers, and that
other site-specific species issues have been adequately dealt with through Plan
requirements, findings of fact, and mitigation measures. Given the significance to the
overall Otay Ranch Plan of the changes proposed by the wildlife agencies (which staff
has estimated could eliminate up to 3,651 dwelling units and various other major project
components including most of the resort village) and given the significance which the
wildlife agencies have placed on resolving the issues pertaining to Otay Ranch, staff feels
that it would be productive to continue discussions with the wildlife agencies to attempt
to resolve these issues. However, it should be recognized that continued negotiations
will require a further extension of the deadline for revisions to the draft MSCP Plan,
which the City of San Diego has currently set for June 22. Therefore, staff is
/f~3
Page 4, Item li'-
Meeting Date 6/13/95
recommending that we request additional time to allow for continued negotiations
regarding Otay Ranch preserve design issues.
San Miguel Ranch
Another key component of the proposed preserve system in the Chula Vista General Plan
Area is San Miguel Ranch. The draft MSCP Plan designates the entire Northern Parcel
of San Miguel Ranch within the MHP A boundary, and also designates portions of the
Southern parcel within the MHPA. However, it should be recognized that the property
owner (Emerald Properties) will be requesting consideration by the City Council of a
General Plan Amendment which would allow for transfer of density credits (up to 357
dwelling units) from the Northern Parcel to the Southern Parcel, which would potentially
have a substantial impact on the overall design and character of the currently approved
San Miguel Ranch General Development Plan.
The issues pertaining to this transfer will be evaluated through processing of a General
Plan Amendment, General Development Plan Amendment, and Sectional Planning Area
Plan which are currently being initiated by Emerald Properties. However, it should be
recognized at this time that the City has made no commitment toward approval of such
density transfers, and that this matter needs to be further evaluated in the context of an
MSCP Subarea Plan (see discussion below) and further processing of this project.
Other MHP A Boundary Issues
In addition to the issues described above regarding Otay Ranch and San Miguel Ranch,
staff has received comments on several other site-specific issues regarding the draft
MHPA boundary:
1) Eastlake Development Company has raised concerns regarding the designation of
a portion of Salt Creek through its property within the MHP A boundary. This
project has not gone through SPA-level planning analysis, and there are legitimate
concerns raised by Eastlake regarding the applicability of an MHP A boundary
designation in this area (see Attachment E). Based on our review of this
information, City staff concurs that this area could be deleted from the preserve
area boundaries, although it is recognized that the approved General Development
Plan calls for park improvements along Salt Creek in conformance with the City's
Greenbelt concept.
2) Otay Water District has requested that its "use parcel" north of Salt Creek Ranch
be removed from the MHP A boundary, in that a portion of it is planned for
future expansion of water district facilities, and the remainder is designated for
preservation through the State's Natural Community Conservation Program,
18~~
Page 5, Item &
Meeting Date 6/13/95
which is viewed by the District as a different type of preserve designation (see
Attachment F).
3) James Algert, representing owners of property adjacent to San Miguel Ranch, has
raised concerns about the MHP A designation of properties adjacent to San Miguel
Ranch (see Attachment G).
4) The owners of the "Dauz-Gorman" parcel located on Telegraph Canyon Road
adjacent to Otay Ranch, as well as owners of properties located southwest of the
Otay Valley Parcel of Otay Ranch, have raised concerns regarding the City's
"Open Space" designation in the General Plan for their properties, and we would
anticipate that they would have similar concerns regarding the corresponding
designation within the draft MHP A boundary.
In addition to these site-specific issues, there was also a general concern raised by several
City departments and property owners regarding the use of a "100 % preserve area"
designation, due to the fact that this would provide no flexibility regarding placement of
utility facilities, roadways, or other modifications which may be required at the project
level of analysis. There are also specific concerns regarding "buffer requirements"
contained in the draft Plan, which could place further land use restrictions on areas
located outside of and adjacent to the proposed preserve areas. Finally, there are also
concerns regarding the specific listing of "compatible land uses" in preserve areas and
buffer areas, which in certain cases may not be consistent with uses permitted under the
City's "open space" designation in the General Plan.
Summary - Preserve Design Issues
Based on the various issues and concerns raised above regarding the draft MHP A
boundary, and the status of our analysis of these issues, staff at this time is
recommending the following approach be taken in the revised draft MSCP Plan:
1) Areas which have already been placed in preserve ownership, or which already
have SPA Plan, Resource Management Plan, or equivalent level of approval,
would be given a "90% preserve area" designation;
2) Areas which have not received SPA Plan level approval, but for which draft
conservation agreements are currently being prepared, would be placed in a
category entitled "future 90% preserve areas," and would be redesignated as
"90% preserve areas" once written agreements among the wildlife agencies, City,
and property owners are obtained (only the San Miguel Ranch project area falls
into this category at this time);
/~..~
Page 6, Item 11
Meeting Date 6/13/95
3) Areas which are designated in the City's General Plan as "open space," but which
do not meet the criteria above, will be designated as "special study areas," and
their designations will be refined through further analysis to be conducted at the
subarea plan level to determine the extent of resources to be protected and the
feasibility of acquisition;
4) Areas which are designated as "open space" in the General Plan, but where it has
already been determined that the area is not appropriate for inclusion in a habitat
preserve system due to its isolated location or other non-preserve use, will be
removed from the MHPA boundary at this time.
Attached is a map which shows these revised designations (see Attachment Q).
2) Subarea Plans
As discussed above, the draft MSCP Plan includes a Multiple Habitat Planning Area map
which provides generalized designations of areas which would be placed into a regional
preserve system. However, the wildlife agencies have indicated that, in order for them
to provide local jurisdictions with authority to issue individual permits pursuant to the
Federal and State Endangered Species Acts, and specifically in order to receive permit
authority for Coastal Sage Scrub habitat loss in accordance with the State Natural
Community Conservation Program, it will also be necessary to prepare "subarea plans"
for each local jurisdiction. These subarea plans would provide greater detail regarding
preserve design configuration, adjacent land uses, and other detailed planning issues. It
had originally been our understanding that these more detailed plans could be prepared
subsequent to the adoption of the MSCP Plan, and that there would not be any further
environmental documents necessary for adoption of these implementation plans.
However, subsequent to the release of the draft MSCP, we were notified that in order
to be able to use the EIRlEIS for the adoption of a local subarea plan, it would be
necessary for the subarea plan to be included in the final draft MSCP Plan. In addition,
the USFWS and CDFG have just recently provided the local jurisdictions with a specific
listing of the required contents of a subarea plan, and it appears that these subarea plans
could require preparation of a significant amount of additional documentation, and will
also require more direct input from affected property owners.
We have already begun discussions with two of the major property owners within our
General Plan area (Baldwin Company, majority owner of Otay Ranch, and Emerald
Properties, owner of San Miguel Ranch) regarding the process and time requirements for
preparation of subarea plans affecting their properties. Another area where the City has
begun "subarea planning" efforts is the Otay Valley Regional Park focussed planning
area, where work is continuing on OVRP Concept Plan by a joint planning team with
/t..(p
Page 7, Item J!
Meeting Date 6/13/95
representatives from the City of San Diego, City of Chula Vista, and County of San
Diego. It is our intent that the final draft OVRP Concept Plan will serve as the MSCP
subarea plan component for the Otay River Valley.
Based on our understanding from the wildlife agencies that the contents of the subarea
plans should be able to be developed by us and reviewed by them fairly quickly, we are
requesting in our letter that adequate time be provided to our City to prepare a subarea
plan which conforms to these requirements prior to completion of the final EIR/EIS for
the MSCP, thus allowing us to avoid additional environmental impact report
requirements. By preparing a subarea plan and corresponding agreements at this time,
we also feel that additional areas may be able to be added to the MHP A boundary as
"90% preserve areas" prior to final adoption of the Plan.
3) ImDlementing Agreement
In addition to the MSCP Plan and subarea plans, each jurisdiction would be required to
enter into an implementing agreement with USFWS and CDFG in order to obtain
permitting authority. A model implementing agreement is included in the draft MSCP
Plan. Planning Department staff has worked with the City Attorney's office to review
this model agreement, and the City Attorney's office has prepared a memorandum
outlining specific issues and concerns with regard to the draft agreement (see Attachment
H).
The policy statements approved by the MSCP Policy Committee on June 2 (specifically,
Principles 1 through 7) address many of these same issues. Weare requesting in our
letter that the Model Implementing Agreement be substantially revised to respond to the
concerns expressed in the memorandum from the City Attorney's office, as well as the
principles endorsed by the Policy Committee.
5) Financing
The section of the MSCP Plan dealing with "Preserve Assembly and Operation" (Section
3.3, pages 3-46 to 3-87) is a critical component of the overall MSCP Plan, and addresses
the long-term financing requirements for the proposed Plan, along with various options
for meeting these requirements. Because of the complexity of the overall Plan, and the
controversy surrounding the issue of regional facility financing and taxation, this section
of the Plan has primarily dealt with options and cost estimates, rather than providing
specific recommendations regarding these issues.
The policy statements approved by the MSCP Policy Committee on June 2 provide some
further policy direction regarding how the long-term financing program for the MSCP
If,. 7
Page 8, Item LK
Meeting Date 6/13/95
Plan will be developed. Specifically, the following principles regarding financing were
conceptually approved by the Policy Committee:
Principle 8. The lack of future state and federal funding shall not be a basis for the
revocation of a jurisdiction's permits.
Principle 9. The lack of future state and federal funding shall not be a basis for
increasing conservation required by local jurisdictions or new
development.
Principle 9.5 The lack of future local funding shall not require increases in mitigation
requirements from private development.
Principle 10. Conservation targets by jurisdiction are established in the MSCP Plan, and
each jurisdiction should be able to determine the extent to which habitats
will be conserved through the development process or acquired through
other sources.
For inclusion in the MSCP, local jurisdictions should prepare refined
estimates of how these targets will likely be achieved through:
1. mitigation
2. local development regulations
3. nonfinancial mechanisms (such as Transfer of Development Rights)
4. acquisition
Principle 11. Locally based funding options should be described in the MSCP Plan.
These shall be subject to voter approval.
Principle 12. The recommended sources for local public funding to be discussed in the
final draft MSCP Plan would include a countvwide assessment district as
a first choice. and a regionwide public utilitv service fee as a contingencv.
both of which shall receive voter approval or an advisorv vote.
(underlining added).
We feel that the principles stated above need to be directly addressed in the preparation
of the final draft MSCP Plan, and would note that the local conservation targets which
are suggested in Principle # 10 cannot be fully determined until further clarification is
obtained on other aspects of the financing plan, such as state and federal shares. We also
feel that the issues regarding governance of a regional financing program, as well as
other aspects of regional plan implementation, have not been adequately addressed in the
/t"r
Page 9, Item I g
Meeting Date 6/13/95
draft Plan. We would recommend that prior to any commitment being made by the City
toward a regional funding source as described in Principle #12, a determination should
be made as what regional entity (existing or new) would be responsible for making policy
decisions regarding such a program, and how it would be administered. We also feel
that such a funding program should be further evaluated in the context of other regional
facility needs (e.g., regional transportation) which may require consideration of similar
types of funding programs.
At the Policy Committee meeting on June 2, a representative of the USFWS made two
important clarifying points related to financing and plan implementation:
1) the permit authority granted to any single jurisdiction through this MSCP Plan
will be limited, to the extent that a local funding source is not established at the
time the implementing agreements are approved. In other words, unless the local
jurisdictions are willing to guarantee financing of all of the "local share" of an
acquisition and maintenance program, the amount of incidental take of habitat that
will be authorized for any single jurisdiction will be limited to some intermediate
level. The specific mechanism to be used in establishing and implementing this
intermediate level of control, and how it would be applied locally, have not been
determined.
2) USFWS will be asking for status reports regarding implementation plans from all
jurisdictions participating at the time that the final MSCP Plan is completed. If
it is determined that a jurisdiction is not making diligent progress toward
implementation of the MSCP or other acceptable multi-species plan, that
jurisdiction's current "interim loss permit authority" pursuant to the 4 (d) rule for
the California gnatcatcher may be restricted or eliminated.
In resoonse to these ooints. we feel that it is extremelv imoortant for the wildlife
agencies to clarifv how the level or amount of incidental take is to be determined in
relation to local funding availabilitv and Plan imolementation status. both on a short-term
and longer-term basis.
6) Mitigation Banking
In response to an inquiry made by Council at the May 23 meeting, the draft MSCP Plan
does address "mitigation banking" as a local option for preserve assembly, and provides
a brief description of the various mitigation banking approaches that are available (see
Attachment R). In our evaluation of this concept, we feel that mitigation banking may
be a viable option for the City for properties where the amount and type of land proposed
for preserve appears to exceed that which would normally be required for mitigation of
/f--1
Page 10, Item ~
Meeting Date 6/13/95
proposed development. We will be pursuing this concept further in the sub-area planning
process.
COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR/EIS
Attached is a draft letter prepared by the City's Environmental Review Coordinator, which
provides detailed technical comments regarding the draft EIR/EIS for the MSCP Plan.
SUMMARY
This report summarizes several of the major issues which we have identified in our review of
the draft MSCP Plan and EIR/EIS. Given the complexity of issues which are involved in this
plan, and the regional nature of the planning approach, it is understandable that there are still
a number of unresolved issues at this point in the process, and we are hopeful that most if not
all of these issues can be resolved through further analysis and negotiation.
However, as stated earlier, we feel it is important for the City to request that we be given the
opportunity to resolve certain key issues, including resolution of disagreements regarding the
MHPA boundary for Otay Ranch and completion of a Chula Vista subarea plan, prior to the
completion of the final EIR/EIS for the MSCP Plan. Therefore, we are recommending that in
our letters regarding the draft MSCP Plan and draft EIR/EIS, we request additional time to
resolve these matters. If Council concurs with this approach, we will continue to meet with
representatives of the wildlife agencies, the County, affected property owners, and the MSCP
staff and consultants, to:
1) prepare a detailed work program and timeline for completion of a revised draft MHPA
boundary, and draft subarea plan;
2) return to Council with a work program and status report regarding this effort.
ALTERNATIVES
If the City were to choose not to continue its participation in the MSCP Plan, other options
which could be considered are:
1) Developing a "subarea plan" in conformance with the State Natural Community
Conservation Program (NCCP), either as an independent local jurisdiction or in
coordination with the County. In pursuing this option, much of the data and analysis
developed in the MSCP Plan could be utilized; however, the focus of an NCCP-based
plan would probably be directed toward Coastal Sage Scrub habitat and related species,
rather than the multi-species approach taken in the MSCP Plan;
J r..)!J
Page 11, Item M
Meeting Date 6/13/95
2) Reverting to "project by project" review by the wildlife agencies, without a formal
regional or subarea plan.
Neither of these options are recommended at this time. However, if the major issues discussed
in this report cannot be resolved, staff will return with further information regarding these
options .
FISCAL IMPACT: Staffreview and participation in this program is supported by the General
Fund at this time. It should be recognized that future implementation of this program could
result in significant additional local costs, which will need to be further evaluated prior to any
final actions being taken by the City Council on this matter.
Attachments
A. Letter to Dave Flesh, City of San Diego. re Comments on MSCP, dated June 5, 1995
B. Letter to J. Kovac, City of San Diego, re Draft ElR/E1S for the MSCP Plan
CoD Letters from USFWS, April 13, 1995 and April 14, 1995
E. Letter from K. Wright, EastLake Development Company, May 17, 1995
F. Letter from Keith Lewinger, Otay Water District, dated May 30, 1995
G. Letter from J. Algert, Alger! Engineering, May 31, 1995
H. Memo from Ann Moore, Assistant City Attorney, May 17, 1995
1. Memo from J. Lippitt, Director of Public Works, April 14, 1995
J. Memo from C. Gove, Fire Marshal, re Draft MSCP Plan, May 4, 1995
K. Memo from Joe Monaco, Environmental Projects Manager, Community Development Department, April 27,
1995
L. Memo from Gerald Jamriska, Special Planning Projects Manager, Otay Ranch Project, April 28, 1995
M. Memo to Jess Valenzuela, Director of Parks and Recreation, April 19, 1995
N-O Resource Conservation Commission Minutes of May 8 and May 22, 1995
P. Draft Policy Statements, MSCP Policy Committee, June 2, 1995
Q. Map Delineating Proposed Revisions to Multiple Habitat Planning Area Boundary for Chula Vista General Plan
Area
R. Summary of Mitigation Banking Systems, Draft MSCP Plan, pp. 3-84,3-85.
F:HOME\PLANNING\NANCY\MSCP2.All
If, /)
COUNCIL INFORMATION MEMO
IF/
June 13, 1995
TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
VIA: John Goss, City Managet7
FROM: Bob Leiter, Director of Planning ;JJt
SUBJECT: Additional Comments on the MSCP (Agenda Item # 18) Received Subsequent to
the June 13, 1995, Council Report
Since the City Council Agenda Statement on this item was completed, staff has received
additional comments from property owners and members of the public regarding the draft MSCP
Plan and EIR/EIS (Attachments 1 through 3). In addition, further comments and clarifications
from the Resource Conservation Commission were received at their meeting on June 12, 1995
(See Attachment 4). Finally, additional verbal comments were also received from residents and
landowners by phone or through office appointments.
RECOMMENDATION
Given the large number of comments which were received subsequent to release of the Council
Agenda Statement, staff recommends that the City Council:
1) open the public hearing, receive the staff report, and accept any additional public
testimony;
2) continue the public hearing to June 20, and direct staff to provide a written analysis of
the comments received since the original Council Agenda Statement was prepared.
(F:\HOME\PLANNlNG\MPA.L TR)
)15'/)
Attachment 1
I".j < 0 <C,~-
....' l...' J..... I....',
EMERALD PROPERTIES CORP.
280 Park Avenue, 23 West
New York, NY 10017
(212) 454-3303
I.. ..
Garrett W. Tbelander
Vice President
June 12, 1995
Robert Leiter
Director of Planning
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Re: San Miguel Ranch / Public Hearing on Draft Multiple
Species Conservation Program ("MSCP")
Dear Bob:
I have reviewed the Council Agenda Statement dated June 13,
1995 ("staff report"), regarding the upcoming hearing before the
City Council on the Draft Multiple Species Conservation Program
("MSCP") and the related environmental documents. This letter
includes our comments on the staff report as they relate to San
Miguel Ranch. We would like this letter to be included with the
documents to be submitted to the City Council for the upcoming
hearing.
At page 4, City staff states that the property owner
(Emerald Properties, Corp.) "will be requesting consideration by
the City Council of a General Plan Amendment which would allow
for transfer of density credits (up to 357 dwelling units) from
the Northern Parcel to the Southern Parcel." We are not
necessarily requesting transfer of density credits. Instead, we
are requesting that a General Plan Amendment be processed to
change certain land use designations on the southern parcel of
San Miguel Ranch. The changes in the land use designations will
allow flexibility in project design so that the MSCP open space
and resource protection objectives can be achieved.
In addition, City staff states that a density transfer
"would potentially have a substantial impact on the overall
design and character of the currently approved San Miguel Ranch
General Development Plan." We are currently in the process of
preparing a project redesign for the southern parcel of San
Miguel Ranch. The redesign is intended to address these density,
design and character issues.
J~~)f
Our ultimate goal is to be responsive to requests made by
the wildlife agencies to eliminate development on the northern
parcel of San Miguel Ranch. However, we cannot forego processing
of residential development on the northern parcel unless certain
commitments and assurances are agreed upon among the interested
parties and entities. We will continue to work with City staff
to attempt to achieve our ultimate goal. If the goal cannot be
achieved, however, we will proceed with the residential
development on the northern portion of San Miguel Ranch.
Thank you for your consideration.
Very Truly Yours,
'I ) /!?f(
Garrett W. Thelander
Vice President
GWT/mab
cc: file
) Y /)5
Attachment 2
IB
REALTOR'"
San Diego Association of REALTORS.
2231 Camino dal Rio South 16383 Bernardo Centar Drive
Post Office Box 85586 San Diego, California 92128
San Diego, California 92186-5586 Telephone (619) 592-7171
Telephone (619) 291-3714 FAX (619) 592-7179
FAX (619) 295-1365
MLS (619) 291 -5060
.. ~. ~
May 30, 1995
Mr. Douglas Reid
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Dear Mr. Reid:
The San Diego Association of REAL TORS@ has reviewed the Multiple Species
Conservation Program (MSCP) Draft Plan and understands that it offers a
comprehensive approach to the implementation of the State and Federal Endangered
Species Acts (ESAs) by establishing a habitat preserve sufficient to protect 57 species.
The San Diego Association of REAL TORS@ (SDAR) however, believes strongly that the
Endangered Species Acts (ESAs) need major revisions to bring into balance the
protection of the local economy with the protection of truly endangered species.
Given the current status of the ESAs, SDAR has the following comments on the MSCP
Draft Plan objectives.
. To preclude the need to list more species as endangered or threatened:
The MSCP will cover 57, or more, species. If a species not covered by the MSCP
is listed as endangered by the state or federal governments, development in the
region will be disrupted. SDAR recommends that the Plan should guarantee that
no additional species be listed from the Plan's inception for a substantial number of
years until the Plan is monitored for its impacts. To do this the federal and state
govemments must agree that future listings will not impact development.
. Enable and facilitate economic development on lands not designated for habitat
preservation:
SDAR agrees that development of lands not designated for habitat preservation
must be permitted and facilitated. However, the only issue facing development in
or outside the preserve that will be 'enabled and facilitated" will be biology and,
therefore, other environmental constraints could be used to hinder and limit
development. To assure economic development can proceed, jurisdictions must
ease development constraints on property outside the preserve.
RE~.LTO~ _ is a registered mark which identifies a professional in
real estate who subscribes to a strict Code ot Ethics as a member
of the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORs-'.
/ %' '/rJ-
til
...00'."__'
Page 2
City Council Letter
MSCP Plan
. Regional growth and economic prosperity:
The Plan speaks to economic prosperity but each and every one of the Plan's local
public finance options would, in our opinion, harm the economy. A parcel tax, in
particular, would negatively impact property owners and housing affordability.
SOAR does not believe that the MSCP offers a benefit worthy of increased taxation
on property owners who have lost substantial value in their properties due to the
depressed real estate market and surrounding economy.
The Association believes the Draft Plan should contain a full socioeconomic impact
report to review the lost opportunity costs for reduced property taxes due to less
development, the Plan's suggested increased costs to property owners who would
share a larger burden for MSCP land mitigation costs, and the increased costs to
taxpayers for maintaining open space and enforcing habitat protection programs.
The Association has been meeting with individual legislative staff to brief them on the
Association's position on the MSCP Plan. We look forward to appearing before the
City Council, the County Board of Supervisors and SANDAG to answer any questions
regarding the San Diego Association of REAL TORS@ MSCP Plan analysis and
recommendations.
Sincerely,
OL~i~
John Lomac, Jr., President
San Diego Association of REAL TORS@
) 8"~) 7
BUIECOMMUNITIES INC
Attachment 3
a
--'
June 7, 1995
BAND-DELIVERED
COMMENTS
MSCP Pla.'1.
600 "B" Street, Suite 500
San Diego, California 92101
Re: MSCP Plan dated March 1, 1995
~umentNo. 110921000
Bonita Meadows Property
Gentlemen:
We are the owners of the property located at Proctor Valley Road and
Blacksmith Road commonly referred to as Bonita Meadows (Assessor
Parcel No. 590-250-05) (the "Property").
We recently have had an opportunity to review the draft MSCP Plan (the
"Plan"). We have several concerns and comments regarding the Plan
including, but not l1m1ted to, the following: (1) the realistic economic
feasibility of local, state and federal agencies to implement such an
aggressive plan; (2) the lack of actual field survey data to corroborate the
existence of endangered species and/or the extent and value of any
habitat which would support the designation of the Property as a "Core
Biological Resource Area"; (3) the ability of the local, state and fffleral
agencies to repeatedly come back and continue to llst new species as
threatened or endangered; (4) the requirement of an additional 600-foot
buffer area which will further decrease any developable area remaining
on the Property; (5) the requirement to pay a $1.500 per-acre charge for
long-term management, maintenance and monitoring of the proposed
preserve area; and (6) the increase in the possibility of the regulatory
"taking" of the Property that will render it virtually undevelopable.
We also would like to bring to your attention the following facts which
support our bellef that there is a lack of actual field survey data to
corroborate the existence of endangered species and/ or the extent and
/ r~ / g/
Page 2
Conunents/MSCP
June 7,1995
value of any habitat which would support the designation of the Property
as a "Core Biological Resource Area":
1. The Property presently is bounded on the west and south by
existinl!: residential development and on the east by the propOSed 2, 600-
acre San Miguel Ranch prolect.
The Property's prox1m1ty to existing and proposed residential
development precludes effective connectMty for the proposed preserve
area. The majority of the proposed habitat area on the Property is
isolated, or will be spotty at best, creating a vast hurdle for any species
to overcome and further reducing the ability for any species to move
freely between habitat areas.
Plan Section 4.2.3 "Development" states in pertinent part:
". . . .[Rlesidential development can promote habitat loss and
fragmentation, degrade sol1, air, water and visual quality; promote
brook parasitism by cowbirds; increase introduced species; alter
the composition of wildlife; and increase predation of domestic
animals. "
2. The MetropOlitan Water District has uUlized an easement for
water transmission line pUTOQses which traverses a pOrtion of the
eastern section of the Property and has used parts of the Property as a
st",,"lnl!: area for its construction activities lnc1udinl!: work taking place
within Proctor Valley Road in connection with its prolect.
Plan Section 4.2.3 "Development" states in pertinent part:
"Impacts of other types of development such as industrial,
certain types of utilities, and landfills, vary considerably,
and may be more intensive than residential or conunerc1alin
some areas. . . .It
3. Caltrans currently is in the process of preoarlnl!: an
Environmental Imoact Statement for the propOsed a-lane Route
125 "ltgnment including an alternative which would have the
~ltgnment proceed in a north/south direction along the northern
and eastern boundaries of the Property.
Plan Section 4.2.3 "Development" further states in pertinent part:
"Heavily used roads and ra1llines are incompatible with
biological preserve management goals. but it may be
infeasible to prohibit public transportation corridors through
)8'/) ~
Page 3
Comments/MSCP
June 7, 1995
all preserve areas. Roads isolate populations, restrict
wUdllfe movement, lnterrupt breedlng cycles, and affect
runoff, among other impacts. The width of the road has a
critical effect on wUdllfe movement. . . . "
4. Proctor Valley Road currentlv extends In a
north/south dtrection along the northern and eastern boundaries
ofthe Property.
Please refer to the quote stated In paragraph 3 above.
To summarize, we request that (1) more consideration be given to
the comments and concerns previously expressed In numbers (1)
through (6) above; and (2) the designation of "Core Biological
Resource Area" be deleted from the Property.
We thank you for the opportunity to review the Plan and to provide the
above comments for your consideration.
If you have any questions regardlng this letter, please do not hesitate to
contact me.
Very truly yours,
BUlE-BONITA MEADOWS L.P.
r
~\~
Robert F. Buie
President
RFB/pb
cc: Ms. Barbara Reid - City of Chula Vista Plannlng Department
/'t'/;20
Attachment 4
COMMENTS OF RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSION
ON THE DRAFT MSCP AND EIR/EIS
Meeting of June 12, 1995
I. SPECIES WHICH ARE NOT "COVERED" BY II. SPECIES WHICH ARE "COVERED" BY THE
THE DRAFT MHPA PLAN AND SHOULD BE DRAFT MHPA PLAN AND SHOULD NOT BE
COVERED COVERED
. Brodiaea filifolia' . Rosa minutifolia'
. Chorizanthe orcuttiana . Acanthamintha'
. Caulanthus stenocarpus . Button celery'
. Hemizonia conjugens2 . Orcutts birds beak"
. Navarretia fossalis' . Pocket mouse3
. Orcuttia californica I . Belding Savannah sparrow'
. Pogogyne nudiuscula' . Clapper rails
. Cactus wren . Least ternS
. Golden eagles, burrowing owls and . Snowy plover
grasshopper sparrows2
[NOTE: The RCC is concerned that if the . Least bells vire06
high-risk species are not preserved, one of the
main problems the MSCP is attempting to
solve will not be solved (losing more species).]
. Orange throated whiptail3
. Fairy Shrimp'
. Homed lizard3
. Tri-colored blackbird
This fact is an indication that vernal pools are not being adequately preserved.
2
This fact is an indication that native grasslands are not being preserved. Native grasslands are
at high risk with this plan.
Removal of these species from the "covered" list is recommended due to the Draft Plan's
inadequate data base and need for further study.
,
Removal of these species is suggested unless there is better coverage of known populations.
S
The plan does not contribute to the preservation of the species so they should not be considered
covered.
,
Insufficient preservation of riparian areas supporting this species.
/Y/c?-.)
. The RCC's preference is that the preserve design be modified to include known populations that
currently fall outside of the preserve design.
. The RCC would like to see "in-concept" a multiple species conservation plan adopted and
encourage the City of Chula Vista to work with the resource agencies and developers to
protect the quality of life in Chula Vista.
. Designate the vernal pool area on the Otay Ranch north of North Point as a special study
area. Both the preservation of Acanthamintha and the button celery need further study.
. The Lower Otay Ranch area from the south to the southeast portion to the Lower Otay
Lakes does not provide a functional preserve design.
. The state of completion of the HCP for the Sweetwater River is unknown. Is there
currently a draft plan and can it be incorporated into the MSCP?
. There is a high level of probability that the gnatcatchers will not be preserved which is
one of the major purposes of the MSCP. With some of the other species, what the City
of Chula Vista does may not impact the long-term viability but it does with the
gnatcatcher.
. Many covered species are counting on the wetland protection through the Army Corps
of Engineers permitting. How will we be assured that covered wetland species will be
preserved through this process?
. A priority system of land acquisition should be developed to encourage in-kind mitigation
whenever possible.
. The land use designation for the golf courses to the west of the Sweetwater Dam should
retain its linkage capability as open space.
. Watershed management plans are necessary in conjunction with the adoption of the
MSCP to prevent adverse downstream impacts to the preserve. The adverse impacts
usually result in a high level of maintenance and upkeep of the downstream preserve at
great expense to the City.
}IS" ",2~
COMMENTS ON THE EIR/EIS
. Page 131 - The last paragraph. The EIR/EIS references two areas (over 1,000 acres in
size) that are being changed from low density residential land use to preserve. The
document needs to specify what specific areas are being described.
. Would like to see Figure 15 overlaid with the MHPA for evaluation purposes.
. Would like to see all the preserve alternatives overlaid with the vegetation community
(Figure 15).
J 8''0<.]
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item LL
Meeting Date 6/13/95
ITEM TITLE:
Public Hearing: PCA-95-04 - Consideration of amendments to Section
19.04.022 and 19.36.030 of the Municipal Code to allow "minor
automobile maintenance and repair" as a conditional use in the C-C
Central Commercial zone - Econo Lube 'n' Tune, Inc.
Ordinance ;).~ ':l.>~ Amending Section 19.04.022 and 19.36.030
of the Municipal Code to allow minor automobile maintenance and repair
facilities as a conditional use in the C-C Central Commercial zone
SUBMITTED BY, D;=t~ of PWmtng 4t
BEVlEWED BY' C;~ M''''''~ tJ@1 (41'"" Yo'" Y~_No Jj
This is a proposal to amend the Municipal Code to allow minor automobile maintenance facilities
by conditional use permit in the C-C Central Commercial zone. The request has been submitted
by Econo Lube 'n' Tune, Inc. in conjunction with a conditional use permit request to establish
an automobile maintenance facility at the southwest corner of 30th Street and Edgemere Avenue.
The Environmental Review Coordinator has conducted an Initial Study, IS-95-17, of potential
environmental impacts associated with the proposal. Based on the attached Initial Study and
comments thereon, the Coordinator has concluded that potential significant environmental
impacts from the project can be mitigated to less than significant, and recommends adoption of
the Mitigated Negative Declaration issued on IS-95-17.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt the Ordinance amending the Municipal
Code to allow minor automobile maintenance and repair facilities as a conditional use in the C-C
Central Commercial zone.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: On May 10, 1995, the Planning
Commission voted 5-0 to recommend approval of the amendments in accordance with Resolution
PCA-95-04. The Commission also voted 5-0 to approve the conditional use permit for Beono
Lube 'n' Tune in accordance with Resolution PCC-95-22 and contingent upon approval of these
amendments.
On February 16, 1995, the Resource Conservation Commission voted 4-0 to recommend
adoption of the Negative Declaration issued on IS-95-17.
lct -I
Page 2, Item ~
Meeting Date 6/13/95
The Design Review Committee will consider the Beono Lube 'n' Tune site plan and architecture
on June 12, 1995. Their action will be reported to the Council at the hearing.
DISCUSSION:
The Central Commercial zone presently allows automobile service stations by conditional use
permit, and minor automobile repair as an accessory use (to a department store, for instance)
but the C-C zone does not currently allow auto repair as an independent use. The proposal is
to expand the definition of minor auto repair to include the maintenance activities associated with
modem lube and tune facilities, and allow such facilities as an independent use by conditional
use permit in the C-C zone.
In years past, when service stations truly provided all services needed by the driving public,
automotive maintenance facilities were not necessary. Now, however, with the advent of self-
serve gas stations that provide mini-marts and car washes but little, if any, service, separate
automotive maintenance facilities have come into being to fill that need. These types of
operations are generally not as intensive or potentially onerous as general automotive repair uses,
and they typically provide limited services such as oil changes, replacement of automotive fluids,
etc. in a professional, efficient and timely manner.
Lube and tune facilities are meeting the needs of the driving public in the most convenient way
possible. They are usually located on major thoroughfares, and often close to shopping areas
which permit the customer to leave their car for a short time to do grocery shopping or other
errands. This concept is what makes it viable for several of the major department stores to
include auto centers as accessory uses to their stores.
In staff's opinion, the automotive maintenance concept is basically the same as the "automotive
repair (minor)" category that already exists in the Code. In further reviewing the Code, staff
also determined that this type of use as a stand-alone use adjacent to other commercial uses
would be essentially the same as the minor automotive service and repair historically performed
at service stations and probably less impactive than many of the repair activities that are
performed at the automotive centers associated with major department stores, which are typically
located in the C-C zone.
The requirement for a conditional use permit will assure that individual sites will be reviewed
properly. Site specific review would address issues such as compatibility with adjacent uses and
the neighborhood, and would evaluate potential impacts from noise, traffic, and so on. In those
cases where it is determined that the use is problematic, the CUP can be appropriately
conditioned or denied.
Attached is a survey prepared by the applicant showing the manner in which lube and tunes are
treated in other jurisdictions. As indicated in the chart, most communities allow such facilities
l1"~
Page 3, Item 19...-
Meeting Date 6/13/95
by conditional use permit in their basic or general retail commercial zones. These zones are
comparable to our C-C Central Commercial zone.
For the reasons noted, we are recommending approval of the request in accordance with the
attached ordinance.
FISCAL IMPACT: The costs of processing this request will be paid for by the applicant from
a deposit account. The charges to date total approximately $4,500.
Attachments
1. Council Ordinance
2. Planning Commission Resolution PCA-95-04
3. Planning Commission Minutes
4. Chart from Econo Lube 'n' Tune
5. Resource Conservation Commission Minutes
6. Negative Declaration 15-95-17
7. Disclosure Statement
8. Project Locator and Plans for 30th & Edgemere
(m:\home\planning\PCA95-04.cc)
tq~3/ \'1-<1-
ORDINANCE NO. d.l~"~3
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA AMENDING SECTION 19.04.022 AND
19.36.030 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO ALLOW MINOR
AUTOMOBILE MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR FACILITIES
IN THE C-C CENTRAL COMMERCIAL ZONE SUBJECT TO
APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
WHEREAS, the Municipal Code does not presently differentiate between automotive
repair and automotive maintenance; and
WHEREAS, the advent of self-serve gas stations has created a need for automotive
maintenance facilities; and
WHEREAS, the Municipal Code does not permit automotive repair shops (minor) in the
C-C zone as a primary use; and
WHEREAS, Econo Lube 'n' Tune, Inc. has submitted a request to amend the Municipal
Code to allow for automotive maintenance facilities in the C-C zone upon issuance of a
conditional use permit; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission received and considered the request to initiate an
amendment at its meeting of September 28, 1994, and referred the matter to staff for a report
and recommendation; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has conducted an Initial Study, IS-
95-17, and has determined that there are no potential significant environmental impacts
associated with the amendments to the Municipal Code and recommends adoption of the
Negative Declaration issued on IS-95-17; and
WHEREAS, on February 16, 1995, the Resource Conservation Commission voted 4-0
to recommend approval of the Negative Declaration issued on IS-95-17; and
WHEREAS, on May 10, 1995, the City Planning Commission voted 5-0 to recommend
that the City Council adopt the amendments to the Municipal Code in accordance with
Resolution PCA-95-04; and
WHEREAS, the City Clerk set the time and place for a hearing on said amendments to
the Municipal Code, and notice of said hearing together with its purpose was given by its
publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City at least 10 days prior to the hearing;
and
\~ .5
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely June 13,
1995, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the City Council and said hearing
was thereafter closed.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby find,
determine and ordain as follows:
SECTION I: That there are no potential significant enviromnental impacts associated
with the amendments and hereby adopts the Negative Declaration issued on IS-95-17.
SECTION II: That the public necessity, convenience, general welfare, and good zoning
practice justify the amendments, and that the amendments are consistent with the City of Chula
Vista General Plan.
SECTION III: That Section 19.04.022 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code is amended
to read as follows:
19.04.022 Automobile ~..................:......PIiAGli..l!iild.............. repair, minor
............................................
....... . --.......... .......-.
"Minor automobile n1!1).;;ffi~1) repair" means g.I~HRf!R~~l:!cil~;;li
~~~!I\ml~~I~j~~~ replacement of parts and motor service to passenger cars and trucks
not exceeding. one and one-half tons capacity, but not including other operations named
under "automobile repair, major" or similar thereto as determined by the commission.
SECTION IV: That Section 19.36.030 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code is amended
to read as follows:
19.36.030 Conditional uses.
Conditional uses in the C-C zone include:
A. Car washes, subject to the provisions of Section 19.58.060;
B. Skating rinks, subject to the conditions of Section 19.58,040;
C. Signs in excess of maximum as established in Section 19.36.040 of this chapter;
D. Automobile rental and towing service;
E. Billiard parlors;
F. Bowling alleys, subject to the provisions of Section 19.58.040;
G. Social and fraternal organizations (nonprofit), subject to the provisions of Section
19.58.100;
tt;..i,
H.
I.
J.
K.
L.
M.
N.
O.
Trailer rentals;
Veterinarian clinic, subject to the provisions of Section 19.58.050;
Unclassified uses. See Chapter 19.54;
ti.~~..~.:.qiJ~;.~....~....~.t.~~~;...~.\f.p. :.......~.r. i~~. j(i...~. t~r. irovisions of Section 19.58.280,.
...............-................... ..................... ....--......................
Cardrooms;
Roof-mounted satellite dishes subject to the standard set forth in Section
19.30.040.
Recycling collection centers, subject to the provisions of Section 19.58.340.
Mixed commercial-residential projects, subject to the provisions of Section
19.58.205.
SECTION V: This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force and effect on the
thirtieth day from and after its second reading and adoption.
Presented by
:J)
Robert A. Leiter
Director of Planning
Bruce M. Boogaa If
City Attorney
(a:\lub&tun.Ord)
\'\-1
7/ If
...'Tlrrlil:nlr:d to C(lllll\lUliil~gC"il'r:
10595 JAMACHA BOULEVARD. SPRING VAllEY, CALIFORNIA 91977
TELEPHONE: 670-2222. AREA CODE 619
June 12, 1995
Mr. David Flesh
MSCP Project Manager
city of San Diego
600 "B" Street, suite 500
San Diego, CA 92101
Subject: Draft - Multiple Species conservation Program (MSCP)
(W.O. 8014/F.N. 3830)
VIA FAX 533-4296
, U.S. MAIL
Dear Mr. Flesh:
The otay Water District (OWD) appreciates the opportunity to
comment on the March 1, 1995 Draft Multiple Species Conservation
Program (MSCP). As a regional public facility provider, whose
district encompasses one-fifth of the Multiple Habitat Planning
Area (MHPA), as well as being a steward of the San Miguel Habitat
Management Area, OWD is very interested in the MSCP and wishes to
actively participate. Our principal areas of concern are; 1) OWD
not being addressed as a "regional public facility provider", 2)
recognition of our existing Habitat Management Area(HMA), and 3)
the identification of water facilities as "conditionally
compatible" which could place many of our projects in jeopardy.
Attached are OWD I S detailed comments, the following paragraphs
summarize those comments:
. The OWD is currently a regional public facility provider and
should be identified as such in the MSCP Plan. OWD provides
service to mul tiple jurisdictions including significant
portions of the cities of Chula Vista, San Diego, and the
county of San Diego. Also, our projects cross one or more
jurisdictions in construction, operation and financing.
. OWD requests that existing mitigation banking programs, such
as OWD's Section 7 Consultation, be officially recognized and
credit given to the owners/operators in the MSCP plan. The
MSCP should address the existing Endangered Species Act (ESA)
permits, take allocations and existing agreements, which
should not be affected by the MSCP.
/9~8"
Mr. David Flesh
June 12, 1995
Page 2
. The District wishes to maintain its autonomy as a Special
District since it services a number of jurisdictions and is
concerned that the program as outlined would severely restrict
OWD's authority. To place OWD in a subordinate role to one or
all of the various local jurisdictions may threaten our
ability to provide the expected level of service to our
customers, and place each in a position to negatively impact
the other.
. The OWD requests that its Master Plan be recognized in the
MSCP and the potential impact on future facilities be included
within the final MSCP documents, and within the MSCP final
EIR/EIS.
. Apparently the MSCP proposes financing strategies which
assumes voter-approved higher taxes (parcel tax) and/or
facility and service fees collected from existing and future
residents throughout the MSCP. Should a utility tax, applied
either directly or indirectly through the San Diego County
Water Authority or any of its member agencies, be utilized OWD
would be compelled to identify such a tax on its water
statements. OWD recommends against such a tax or fee.
. Please be advised that the District's "USE AREA" is not
available as part of the MSCP. We have 190.3 acres committed
to our Capital Improvement Program (CIP) through a Section 7
Agreement with the U.S. Fish and wildlife Service. The
remaining acreage is planned for other uses, such as water
facilities, development, parks and/or recreational activities.
OWD remains committed to regional habitat planning, however as
written the current draft requires considerable modification to
address the above issues and those detailed in the attachment.
OWD requests: 1) our issues be addressed in a new draft to be
recirculated for additional review and comment, 2) OWD be given
the opportunity to have representation at planning or working
group meetings, and 3) the MSCP and the Implementing Agreement be
coordinated more closely with all water agencies.
J9~7
Mr. David Flesh
June 12, 1995
Page 3
Thank you for considering these comments. If you have any
questions please contact Mr. Michael F. Coleman (670-2293), our
Environmental specialist.
:1c~:t;e ;se ~ · ~
Keith Lewinger ~
General Manager
KL/MFC: cp
Attachment-OwO's Detailed Response to the Draft MSCP
cc: Doug Clarke
Mike Coleman
Tom Harron
Dan Mahanke
Bart Mumford
Jim Peasley
Tim stanton,
Bob Asher, County of San Diego
Bob Leiter, City of Chula vista
/9-/cJ
OWD's Detailed Response to the Draft MSCP
June 12, 1995
OWD is responsible for providing potable, reclaimed water
and sewer services to customers within a service area of
approximately 80,000 acres (approximately one-seventh of the
entire MSCP area). In addition, the location of the OWD service
area is in the southeastern portion of the MSCP area and occurs
over approximately one-fifth of the lands identified as habitat
preserve lands in the Multi-Habitat Planning Area (MHPA). OWO's
service area includes significant portions of the cities of Chula
Vista, San Diego, and the County of San Diego. Consequently, the
own is currently a regional public facility provider as defined
in the MSCP and desires to be identified as such in the MSCP
Plan. own has both easement and fee title over hundreds of miles
of service lines which run throughout its service area both in
developed and undeveloped areas. In addition, OWD operates
storage, pumping, and transmission facilities at various sites
within its service area. OWD delivers predominantly imported
water to its customers, transported via aqueducts owned and
operated by the Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California (MWD) and San Oiego County Water Authority (CWA).
In addition, it may be worthy of note that OWD is a land
steward of habitat set aside for the long-term preservation of
native habitats and sensitive species. The OWD has established
an approximately 190 acre habitat mitigation bank, the San Miguel
Habitat Management Area within an area identified as a core
preserve within the MSCP of this area, approximately 60 acres has
been committed as a result of the Endangered Species Act(ESA),
section 7 consultation, and CEQA miti~ation actions. This land
is managed and monitored by OWD and has a regular reporting
program similar to that proposed within the MSCP. Further, own
recently participated in the purchase of Rancho San Diego lands
which are to be placed into a natural habitat reserve.
Based on our reading of the MSCP document, we are greatly
concerned for our continued ability to provide efficient and
economical service to our customers. We are further concerned
about our ability to preserve our autonomy as a special district
with the specific mandate of protecting the interests of our
customers by providing safe and reliable sources of water. In
1
/ ~ ~ II
OWD's Detailed Response to the Draft MSCP
June 12, 1995
order to ensure that these interests are met, it is often
necessary to make difficult decisions relative to providing
service and the associated cost. This can result in differences
in opinion between OWD and the various land use jurisdictions
with which OWD overlaps. To place OWD in a subordinate role to
the various local jurisdictions may threaten our ability to
provide the level of service demanded. The Otay Water District
is well-positioned by virtue of its history of land stewardship
and pro-active approach to meet future mitigation demands for
impacts to native habitats. wi th this in mind, we request the
formation of a provision for public water districts to be in a
position to reach permit approval without direct involvement or
approval of local jurisdictions. This should greatly ease
processing time and paperwork in the future while different
jurisdictions struggle to implement their respective plans. The
use of local jurisdictions should only be an optional approach
for those who don't have resources to manage their own efforts.
Given some of the significant proposals which the draft Plan
makes, there is clearly cause for concern by special districts
and most specifically larger districts which overlap multiple
jurisdictions such as OWD. We have summarized our primary
concerns with the MSCP Plan as written in the following points.
In addition, we offer specific comments to elements of the plan
text in numbered comments to follow.
Impacts of Preserves on New and Existing Service. In April
of 1995, the OWD completed a new draft of their Water
Resources Master Plan. The OWD's (as well as other local
water agencies') ability to construct facilities necessary
to meet existing and future demand may be significantly
affected by the proposed MSCP. This may especially become
true if large-scale conservation and/or mitigation occurs
within the OWD service area absent input from the OWD as to
existing service alignments and needs, and potential future
service needs. We are encouraged to see the term
"conditionally compatible" used in reference to water
projects and utilities within preserve and buffer areas, we
are, however concerned that this term has not been as
clearly defined as would be required to provide the OWD
assurances that it can continue to provide the necessary
service to meet its obligations. The OWD requests that an
2
Ii'" /2
OWD's Detailed Response to the Draft MSCP
June 12, 1995
evaluation of its Master Plan and the MSCP's potential
impact on future facilities be included within the final
MSCP documents, and within the final EIR/EIS or that the
types of impacts associated with providing water service be
more thoroughly evaluated and specific language be included
to address the uncertainties identified.
Treatment of OWO as a Regional Public Facility Provider. It
is important to note that special districts and smaller
utilities have not been well represented within the MSCP
planning process. Larger providers of public facilities such
as CWA, MTDB, and SDG&E have avoided the imposition of
additional layers of regulation through local land-use
jurisdictions by the incorporation of language designed to
address "regional public facility providers". Under this
designation, an entity is able to opt to participate through
a local entities program or work directly with the USFWS and
CDFG. Such "equal footing" is necessary to ensure that the
mandated objectives and statutory powers provided to OWD are
not diminished.
In the Draft Model Implementing Agreement/Management
Authorization presented in the Draft MSCP document,
paragraph 6.5 notes that "local special districts, such as
water districts or sewer districts," should seek permitting
authority through the "Local Jurisdiction" which would have
authority to issue Take Authorizations. In contrast,
regional public facility providers are allowed to apply for
Take Authorizations directly from the USFWS and CDFG.
Having pro-actively developed a program of habitat
protection within the OWD, and requiring a measure of
control and/or independence to effectively operate, it is
extremely important that the OWD maintain its ability to
work directly with the USFWS and CDFG. Our ability to work
directly with the permitting agencies dramatically decreases
our processing time and costs, while maintaining maximum
benefit to the preservation process. Further, we are
concerned that in situations where future allocation is
limited, the local jurisdictions may not agree with the
prioritization deemed appropriate by the OWD. This is
especially true where multiple jurisdictions are involved
3
Jf/IJ
OWD's Detailed Response to the Draft MSCP
June 12, 1995
and the adjacent jurisdictions disagree over the routing or
service to be provided by a particular OWD project.
The Otay Water District service Area overlaps multiple
jurisdictions as well as a wide geographic range. The
nature of many pipeline projects may require the involvement
of more than one jurisdiction; this would clearly complicate
approval procedures. Further, the OWD is currently in a
position to self-mitigate any of its currently anticipated
future projects and it is anticipated that OWO will continue
to stay ahead of the mitigation curve by maintaining a
reserve of mitigation lands. Under the scenario of
processing through a local jurisdiction, the OWO may be
unable to complete a project due to a local jurisdiction's
inability to implement their MSCP plan. The OWO requests
that we participate in the MSCP by participating as a
Regional Public Facility Provider.
Treatment of Existing Habitat Management Programs. The OWO
has made a strong effort to anticipate where permanent,
short-term, and indirect impacts would occur to sage scrub
and the California gnatcatcher as a result of future OWO
projects. This was accomplished by a thorough review of all
potential OWO projects which may occur within the next five
years, referred to as the FY 1995 Five-Year Capital
Improvement Program (CIP), and analyzing the component
projects for potential impacts to coastal sage scrub
habitat. Focused California gnatcatcher surveys were
conducted along proposed water distribution routes or
facilities where potential impacts to sage scrub habitats
may be at issue. The end result of the studies was the
preparation of a comprehensive Biological Assessment and
Mitigation Program including a habitat management and
banking component, processed under Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act, and issuance of a "no jeopardy"
Biological Opinion by the U. S. Fish & wildlife Service on
November 16, 1994. This process established a mechanism for
OWO to monitor, manage, and report on its impact to sage
scrub lands and the status of the San Miguel Habitat
Management Area. It also authorizes OWO to make credits in
the habitat bank available to others. In that this habitat
4
J7~/'I
OWD's Detailed Response to the Draft MSCP
June 12, 1995
bank land is considered to be of extreme value to regional
conservation efforts and available credits will not be
consumed for several years, it is imperative that such
banking programs be vested in the MSCP plan and the value of
these banks be recognized.
Handling of Existing Long-term Permits and Agreements. The
MSCP contemplates the absorption of the Interim Take program
currently in effect pursuant to section 4(d) of the ESA. In
addition, language in both the MSCP and Implementation
Agreement indicate that the local jurisdictions and state
and federal resource agencies are to "encourage
participation in the MSCP". To CWO, this would suggest that
the unstated part of this thought is that the state and
federal agencies are to discourage use of statutorily
provided alternative permitting avenues. Is this the case?
A biological opinion has been issued on the OWO FY 1995
Five-Year Capital Improvement Program. This opinion will
need to be amended from time to time to adjust the program
and project descriptions and modify biological information
as projects reach final design and construction phases.
While such amendments are not anticipated to be significant
or be of substantial complexity, OWO is concerned that the
MSCP contains language which threatens the future mechanics
of its treatment under section 7 of the ESA. The MSCP must
address the existing ESA permits, take allocations, and
agreements that would not be effected by adoption.
Habi tat Preservation Designation of OWD Lands. The draft
Multi-Habitat Preservation Area map (Figure 1-3) and text
surrounding the figure and elsewhere in the document fails
to recognize that there is a distinction between "public
lands" and lands available for habitat preservation
objectives. This is especially true of lands owned by
special districts. Unlike many state and federally owned
lands, OWO's lands were acquired at a cost for the specific
purpose of providing safe and reliable delivery of water.
Very little of our land is available to be designated as
reserve, and none of it is free. Currently, several areas
of key concern have been labeled for 100% preservation
including the Otay Use Area, an area engaged for management
of potable and reclaimed waters and an active facility of
5 )J~/~
OWD's Detailed Response to the Draft MSCP
June 12, 1995
the District. It also appears that a number of OWD's tank
sites and a portion of our Regulatory site are also
designated for full conservation. We were not involved in
this designation, nor have we reviewed the maps. Please be
clear on this point, none of Otay Water District's lands or
exclusive easement areas are available.
MSCP Financing strategy. Perhaps the most uncertain
component of the MSCP lies in how much it will cost and how
it is to be financed. There is no specific plan for funding
the MSCP yet it is expected to cost between one half and
three quarters of a billion dollars. While we understand
that developing a financing strategy for such capital costs
can be difficult, it is considered to be a critical
component of the plan and one which is seriously lacking in
the MSCP.
It is the OWD's understanding that funding for land acquisition,
operation, and maintenance is expected to be principally derived
from federal, state, and local governments, with additional funds
collected from private off-site mitigation. We further
understand that the some financing strategies assume that voter-
approved higher taxes (parcel tax) and/or facility and service
fees may be collected from existing and future residents
throughout the MSCP. The OWO's principal concern and opposition
would be to any type of utility tax applied either directly or
indirectly through the San Diego County Water Authority or any of
its member agencies. This utility tax would be cumbersome to
administer and would not necessarily reflect equitable
distribution of costs.
with respect to the draft MSCP document and its potential affect
on the OWD's activities, the OWO offers the following comments:
1. We appreciate the recognition that water facilities and
utilities are conditionally compatible land uses within Core
Preserves, Linkages, and Buffers. Proper planning and
careful design and construction can make these necessary
elements of surrounding development produce a minimal effect
on native habitat. We would like to see more specific
language as to how compatibility will be determined.
6
j'J-J /;
OWD's Detailed Response to the Draft MSCP
June 12, 1995
2. The OWD recognizes that a significant opportunity for
providing input to the MSCP process was missed by not
providing a staff member to the Policy committee meetings.
Further, there was virtually no involvement by other local
water districts or special districts. The exception to this
is the San Diego county Water Authority (CWA), which
according to the CWA, did not specifically undertake the
task of looking out for the interests of independent water
agencies. Further, it appears that most of CWA's concerns
have been resolve by excepting areas of potential action
within proposed core areas. As the OWD now recognizes that
the execution of the MSCP in its current form potentially
places great restrictions on local utilities' ability to
approve and implement both small and large-scale projects,
the OWD would like the opportunity to send a representative
to any future policy committee meetings and working group
meetings.
3. OWO is concerned that the total acquisition costs estimate
ranges from $433 to $751 million (pg 1-6, item 4), and would
like to see this range narrowed considerably prior to final
document approval.
4. OWD is a special district and currently not subject to the
same approval requirements identified within the identified
close local jurisdictions. OWD wishes to maintain its
autonomy and is concerned that the program as outlined would
radically restrict OWD's current operating control.
5. OWO has reviewed the Model Implementation Agreement and has
significant concerns relative to the structure of the
agreement and relative to the autonomy it would lose to the
various local jurisdictions. Further, OWO is concerned that
the language of the Model Implementing Agreement is
extremely vague and has ambiguously disclaimers throughout
which would make enforcement nearly impossible.
6. Pg 1-7, Figure 1-3: Otay Water District's Use Area (a 509
acre (approximate) property located on the lower slopes of
Mother Miguel and San Miguel mountains) is improperly shown
on MSCP mapping as a 100% Habitat Preserve area. A major
portion of the property is used by the OWD for potable and
7
/t//7
OWD's Detailed Response to the Draft MSCP
June 12, 1995
reclaimed water storage and transmission facilities.
Associated patrol roads and equipment storage facilities are
also present. Future expansion of operations may occur
within disturbed areas. The OWO recently established
(through section 7) a 190.3 acre Coastal Sage Scrub habitat
reserve bank known as the San Miguel Habitat Management Area
(HMA) within the OWO Use Area. This HMA lies within the
state I s Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP)
subregional Planning Area 10.1 and an identified core in the
MSCP. Please correct this error in the next draft by
excluding the OWO Use Area as a habitat preserve.
7. On Figure 1-3, the legend note "Percent preservation applies
only to habitat lands" does not appear to tie specifically
to a definition of habitat, and since all areas (developed,
undeveloped, natural, or disturbed) receive some amount of
use by flora and fauna, a specific operative definition of
habitat, in the context of the MSCP, is mandated.
8. Pg 1-8. OWO is highly concerned that the planning process
and the representatives on the MSCP working group appear not
to have effectively addressed the needs and concerns of
special districts such as water agencies, other utilities,
schools districts, etc.
9. Substantial error still exists within the vegetation mapping
within the MSCP. The vast majority of this error is a
discrimination of chaparral and sage scrub habitats. As a
result, various calculations made tend to erroneously state
the preservation ratio and quantities of each habitat type.
10. OWO believes that it is worth mentioning that not all
publicly owned lands are available or desirable to be used
for habitat preservation. Some areas are specifically owned
for public purposes necessary to achieve the basic function
of the public agency. These should not be indicated as
available for the various preservation designs.
11. Figure 2-3 should indicate that the mapping is generalized
and does not identify the various land uses within the
identified Biological Core Areas which already exist and are
to be maintained, and possibly expanded.
8
/9/jr
OWD's Detailed Response to the Draft MSCP
June 12, 1995
12. Figure 2-7 erroneously identifies the OWD Use Area as
"Parks, Preserves, and Open Space". This is not the case,
so please exclude the OWD Use Area. It is an active part of
OWD's water storage and delivery system, and is planned to
continue in this use. A 190 acre preserve habitat bank
surrounding the active use area has been identified for
habitat preservation and is under the management of OWD.
13. Figure 2-9. The OWD Use Area is erroneously identified as a
Category II land with 90% preservation. This is incorrect.
A substantial portion of the Use Area, approximately 300
acres, is actively being used by OWD in their water systems.
14. Pg 3-1. It should be noted that OWD was not asked to
comment or to provide input on the preserve area boundary
lines. Similarly, several other species districts contacted
indicated that they did not have input on the preserve
boundary determinations.
15. Figure 3-1. All land use designations appear to have been
plotted. As indicated previously, we are concerned that a
working definition of habitat be developed for the purposes
of this document, as it is a frequently vague and often
misused term between the planning and biological arenas.
Ponds, recharge areas, and spreading basins provide habitat
but are clearly components of an active water management
program and/or facility.
16. Pg 3-14, changes to the MHPA. OWD recognizes the concept of
making changes to the MHPA; however, there appears to be no
mechanism for correcting the recognition that the original
layout erroneously identifies lands under active use as a
reserve. For this reason, it is expected that the vast
majority of the changes that will need to be made will not
result in a "higher biological value" but will rather remove
lands from the MHPA without replacing additional lands.
17. Pg 3-26 and following pages for Table 3-5. It is very
important to note that the percentage of points, percentage
of polygons, or percentage of major populations in the MHPA
are only estimates based upon what has been surveyed, and
91'1'1;
OWD's Detailed Response to the Draft MSCP
June 12, 1995
the degree in which surveys were conducted. As a result,
preservation may be based more on the intensity of the
survey effort rather than the actual distribution or
protection of the plant and animal species on the whole.
18. The various assumptions and extrapolations made for the
California Gnatcatcher Population Viability studies should
be identified in the MSCP document because the preservation
of this species is one of the driving factors of the MSCP.
Specifically, if information is extrapolated to the
gnatcatcher from other species, or if numbers are assigned
based on "best professional judgment", this should be
identified.
19. Pg 3-46, Summary. A fourth category of MSCP participants
needs to be added for Special Districts. Local government
does not necessarily represent the interests of special
districts, and it should not be assumed that local
government is looking out for those interests in the MSCP.
Special districts such as OWD need be treated as regional
public facilities providers and this category must be added
to the listing.
20. Pg 3-49, Table 3-9. OWD believes that special districts
should be conducting similar management practices and
individual permitting as local governments, and that
mechanisms for preserve assembly and operations could be
similar to that for local government.
21. Pg 3-50 through 3-55. OWD is concerned that processing
permits through local entities would result in additional
costs for administration and mitigation fees for the
management and maintenance of lead agency mitigation areas.
In that OWD currently is a land steward in numerous areas
and manages its own land bank. Again OWD must be identified
a regional public facilities provider.
22. Pg 3-59 through 3-87. It is not clear where special
districts such as OWD fallout in the various options for
funding. In that special districts cover a wide portion of
San Diego County and own a significant amount of land, it is
extremely important that it be made clear in the MSCP
10 ) c; ~d-CJ
OWD's Detailed Response to the Draft MSCP
June 12, 1995
document and the
districts would be
local governmental
party.
Implementation Agreement how special
treated relative to being considered a
agency, a state agency, or a private
23. Pg 3-78, Acquisition and Financing. It is extremely
important as to which of the various financing options are
legitimate and which would be practical to implement. OWD
is extremely concerned that adopting a program which is
financially infeasible is short-sighted, and that until
financing mechanisms can be more clearly identified, it may
be premature to act on approval of the MSCP.
24. Pg 3-86, Annual Fee on Water or Sewer Rates. At what level
is it anticipated that such a fee would be imposed, who
would collect the fee, and who would bear the burden of
managing the collection, and on what basis would the fees be
determined. OWD is opposed to levying fees through water or
sewer rates. Appropriate nexus must be established prior to
implementing fees and charges.
25. Pg 3-90, Plan Approval and Permitting Process
Implementing Agreements. OWD has a service area which
crosses numerous governmental boundaries and believes it to
be impractical to have to obtain take authorizations from
each of the entities involved. Further, it is an autonomous
agency not currently subject to the regulations of the
various other local jurisdictions. As a result, OWD
requires the development of an Implementation Agreement
similar to other utilities such as SDG&E and San Diego
County Water Authority. We believe similar special
districts crossing multiple jurisdictions may have the same
concerns.
26. Pg 3-93.
Group.
OWD wishes to be included in the MSCP working
27. Pg 3-94, OWD wishes to be considered on a plane with
regional or SUbregion-wide responsibilities. This is
particularly important in that OWD' s service area crosses
multiple jurisdictions and it would be impractical to obtain
permits from each jurisdiction given the frequently
11 /l";2 /
OWD's Detailed Response to the Draft MSCP
June 12, 1995
differing responsibilities and priorities among the varied
jurisdictions. Additionally, there is
could be adversely affected in
implementation if any given local
uncooperative.
a risk that projects
cost, timing, or
agency were to be
28. Pg 3-95, 3rd paragraph. We believe that the definition of
local special districts (i. e., which would not have the
option of direct implementation of the MSCP) is one that is
being proposed for OWD. This treatment by the MSCP is
considered to be unacceptable to OWD.
29. Pg 3-95, 3.4.6 Preserved Management--The MSCP Document
presumes that current owners will choose to continue to
manage their lands for habitat purposes. While OWD
currently owns considerable lands, some of which is in open
space and some of which has been established specifically as
a habitat bank, other options for long-term management
should be identified and the opportunity to elect to
continue to own and manage lands or to dedicate lands in
total with management responsibilities should be considered.
30. Pg 3 -9 5, 3.4.6 Preserved Management, 2nd paragraph. A
considerable amount of on-going responsibility follows
reserved lands. It is important to identify in absence of
mitigation uses where funding for this reserve land
management is to be obtained and whose responsibility it is
to provide funding for management of public and private
lands.
31. Pg 3-96, 3.4.8 MSCP Plan Implementation Monitoring. As
previously indicated, OWD currently manages habitat bank
lands which follow an annual accounting, biological
monitoring program, and reporting program similar to that
outline. It should be noted, however, that as written, the
implementation monitoring program is left extremely vague
and leaves up to local jurisdictions to develop the
necessary structure and responsibility for this monitoring
work. As in several portions of the document, details are
left out which are extremely important to identifying
responsibilities and costs necessary to evaluate the effects
]2 J9~.;z:L
OWD's Detailed Response to the Draft MSCP
June 12, 1995
of the plan on OWD.
express a desire to be
For these reasons, OWD continues to
involved in future planning meetings.
32. Pg 4-1, 4.1.2 Designation of Preserve Management Zones,
paragraph 1. In order to provide clear assurances as to
what the designated preserves entail, buffer areas should be
included completely within the preserves and the preserves
should either be expanded to account for this buffer or it
should be assumed that there is a buffer zone which will be
degraded to some degree.
33. Pg 4-1, 4.1.2 Designation of Preserve Management Zones,
paragraph 2. It should be noted that numerous utilities
such as pipelines and power lines as well as a variety of
underground and above-ground cables cross those areas
designated as core preserves in the preliminary mapping. It
is important to recognize these utilities and the necessary
maintenance, upkeep, expansions and modifications which are
needed in order to serve their primary function.
34. Pg. 4-3, 4.2.1 Recreation, 3rd paragraph. It is suggested
that portions of the reserve system may be included within
National wildlife refuge or National wildlife management
areas. OWD would be opposed to designation of new reserve
lands under federal programs within in its service area.
This adds complexity and additional levels of bureaucracy
which could increase costs and difficulty in maintaining or
extending service facilities. It is suggested that lands
within the OWD service area be managed by local public or
private management agencies.
35. Pg 4-6. Again, OWD would recommend buffers be included
within the identified preserve areas and that buffer impacts
be considered as a part of the overall planning effort.
Vague buffers located outside the reserves are difficult to
manage and create additional conflicts due to ambiguity.
Further, it is noted that buffer areas are to remain in
original ownership. OWD has numerous property holdings,
including easements and fee title lands which occur within
areas designated as core biological reserve. OWD believes
that their rights and entitlements to these lands could be
significantly impaired by the designation of reserves
13 /5F;2.J
OWD's Detailed Response to the Draft MSCP
June 12, 1995
around and over such land holdings. OWD is concerned that
such designations may result in inverse condemnation of
lands currently utilized or having been purchased for
specific public facility purposes.
36. Pg 4-7, 4.3.1 Fire Management. OWD questions who will make
the determination as to the appropriate mechanism for fire
management around existing facilities.
37. Pg 5-3, number 1, Costs of Complying with Mitigation
Requirements. It is identified that for the purposes of
analysis it is assumed that the total amount of off-site
mitigation would be 75% greater under the no-preserve
alternative than for preserve alternatives. Where did this
percentage estimate originate?
38. Pg 5-5, Federal and state Grants. What is the total dollar
amount actually committed as of today, from the federal
and/or state governmental agencies? Are these guaranteed
funds?
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
Pg 5-11, 5.4.1 Public Lands.
how the available acreage is to
"essential public facilities."
It is important to identify
be allocated to the various
Pg 6-2, number 7c.
jurisdictions other than
public lands owned by OWD
It should be noted that local
OWD have no authority to designate
for conservation purposes.
Pg 6-2, number 10. The
subarea plan compliance
specified as to what this
terms "encourage subregional and
by special districts" should be
entails.
Pg 6-3,
regional
2nd full paragraph. OWD is to be included
public facility provider in the MSCP.
as a
Pg 6-3, 6.3 CEQA/NEPA Documentation.
informed as to the availability and
the joint-EIR/EIS.
OWD would like to be
the comment period for
44. Pg 7-2, 7.2 Alternatives Evaluated. It is indicated that
the MHPA was cooperatively designed by the 12 participating
14 /1',;2-;/
OWD's Detailed Response to the Draft MSCP
June 12, 1995
jurisdictions in the MSCP. It is clear that OWD's interests
have not been well-addressed in that there is no other
possible way to include so much of OWD's critical facilities
within the proposed habitat planning area. Again, OWD
wishes to be involved in a more proactive manner in order to
look out for its current and future needs in meeting its
obligation of providing water throughout its service area.
45. Pg 8-1, 8.1.1 Preserve. It is important to OWD to identify
specifically what utilities, types, width, conditions and
what limited water facilities would be authorized within the
preserve lands. Does this include maintenance of existing
facilities and new facilities? What restrictions would be
placed on the construction and operation of these
facilities?
46. Pg 8-3, number 1. OWD again believes the buffers should be
included completely within the designed, designated preserve
system and not an uncompensated extension of the preserve.
47. Pg 8-4, number 3. In absence of information on specific
roads affecting habitat or wildlife and current roadway
standards, OWD believes it is short-sighted to make broad
proposals such as reducing roadways to below current
designs. Further, it is important to recognized that
numerous roads that cross various proposed preserve areas
support utilities which may occupy a substantial portion of
the road-way right-of-way. These utilities must be
conserved and preserved in order for OWD and others to
retain viable service connections through these regions.
48. Pg 8-4, number 8. 2.1 otay MesajOtay River Valley, number
3. The efficacy of this proposed design for culverts should
be reevaluated given the results on the highway 52 culvert
crossings following the same design.
49. Pg 8-21, 8.6.2 Otay Lakes Exclusions. It should be noted
that OWD maintains pipe facilities that connect with water
utilities facilities and enter water utilities' lands in the
southern portions of the lower reservoir. These facilities,
as well as the proposed OWD interconnect alignment, should
be considered in the MSCP exclusionary areas.
15 J9/;2.~
OWD's Detailed Response to the Draft MSCP
June 12, 1995
50. Pg 9-1 through 9-8, section 9 Acknowledgments. It should be
noted that in reviewing the acknowledgment pages, in no
instance were any of the smaller special districts
represented in the MSCP process. All those districts and
utilities represented fall within the areas called "regional
public facility providers" and have been given special
status in the MSCP process. As a result, the concerns and
needs of special districts, including OWD have not been
adequately addressed in this document.
IMPLEMENTATION AGREEMENT
51. Pg 4. A definition of the term "habitat" as it relates to
MSCP should be included in the definitions.
52. Pg 8. 6.0 Mutual Assurances (a). OWD questions whether or
not the proposed MSCP would adequately cover the issues
under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act. It is also
concerned about CEQA issues for the protection of covered
species as a result of indirect effects; principally
focusing on watershed management and water quality as well
as contaminant management concerns. It is important to keep
in mind that the declines of the brown pelican and the
peregrine falcon had nothing to do with habitat loss and as
a result, we have to be cognizant of the fact that other
factors can result in impacts to the covered species.
53. Pg 9 (c) . It is critical to clearly define the phrase "so
long as the MSCP is properly functioning."
54. Pg 10, 6.5. OWD is to be considered as a regional public
facility provider in that it services multiple jurisdictions
and any given project may cross one or more jurisdictions in
its construction, operation and financing. Further, OWD
questions whether the phrase "shall encourage local special
districts to comply," indicates that individual permitting
through existing avenues within the various state and
federal acts will no longer be extended to the districts.
Also. absent cooperation of the local agencies, what
specific remedies are available to the special district to
ensure that their permitting needs are being met?
16
/9/.;L?
OWD's Detailed Response to the Draft MSCP
June 12, 1995
55. Pg 12, 6.12. It should be noted that OWD currently operates
an approximately 190 acre mitigation bank supporting Coastal
sage scrub and a variety of sensitive resources, including a
number of the proposed covered species. OWD plans to retain
the mitigation credits for this bank, which have not
previously been consumed by OWD or other projects. This bank
currently lies within an area identified as a "potential
biological core area" and is under the management of OWD at
this time and is not available as part of the MSCP.
56. Pg 16, number 11. The MSCP funding for state and federal
agencies should be prioritized along with other programs of
these agencies so that even if all budgetary items are not
fulfilled, other programs may be identified and cut prior to
state and federal funding of the MSCP. Further, the
budgetary request should include an identification of the
legal commitments to this program made by the state and
federal resource agencies.
57. Pg 17, number 13, Third Party Beneficiaries. It should be
noted that OWD and other special districts do not require
specific permitting by local jurisdictions and as a result
third-party beneficiaries for these special districts does
not provide any special coverage through the 12 identified
local jurisdictions.
58. Pg 19, 19.1 No Partnership. It should be noted again that
none of the 12 jurisdictions identified in the document as
"local jurisdictions" are authorized to speak and commit on
behalf of OWD.
OWD remains committed to regional habitat planning, however as
written the current draft requires considerable modification to
address the above issues and those detailed in the attachment.
OWD requests: 1) our issues be addressed in a new draft to be
recirculated for additional review and comment, 2) OWD be given
the opportunity to have representation at planning or working
group meetings, and 3) the MSCP and the Implementing Agreement be
coordinated more closely with all water agencies.
17 ;<}-;2 7 / l~/:)
J=LI:: i f=i
30TH STREET
I
CITY I
/ I
~ ~~"
s~E.E. 'T ~~'TE.~
ROUSDALE
:r
z
,.:
1''',
r NATI
)- . -
~ PROJECT
LOCATION
~\""E~
'1..000 to""" OL.
~".I'H.( L
o 0
~
(
CHULA VISTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
C)
.0
~".Io<-
~
54
CE:
DRIV
w
>
<
o
~
z
~<;tl~, Econo Lube 'N' Tune
PROJECT 30th & Edgemere Avenue
ADDRESS, (North 2nd Avenue)
SCALE, FILE NUMBER,
400' PCC.95-22/PCA-95-04
DRC-95-34
NORTH
APPLICATIONS FOR:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT
DESIGN REVIEW /'1.-' J.2
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item ~O
Meeting Date 6/13/95
SUBMITTED BY:
Resolution \lq~S Approving an agreement among the City of
Chula Vista, Lutheran Church of Joy, and Rancho del Rey Investors for
a Park and Ride Facility
Director of Public Works~
City ManagerJl1. ,~
(4/5ths Vote: Yes_NoX)
ITEM TITLE:
REVIEWED BY:
The Lutheran Church of Joy has been processing a building permit for a new church at the
intersection of East H Street and Buena Vista Way. They are facing the prospect of paying
a Transportation DIP fee of $105,550 should the property be totally built out. McMillin
Development Company (developer of Rancho del Rey) has a requirement for a park and ride
facility of 50 spaces, or to participate in an overall program to provide park and ride facilities
in the eastern area. The Church of Joy, McMillin Development Company (Rancho del Rey)
and Caltrans have come to agreement for constructing and operating a park and ride facility
on the Church of Joy's property.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council: I) approve the resolution whereby Rancho del Rey
will fulfill its commitment to provide a park and ride facility for Rancho del Rey SPA III;
2) Church of Joy will not be required to pay any TransDIP fees as long as the property is used
for church purposes; and 3) the park and ride lot is maintained by Caltrans.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
BACKGROUND
The City of Chula Vista has had a Transportation Development Impact Fee (TransDIP) in force
since 1987. The purpose of the fee is to pay the fair share of major roads in the eastern area
based upon trip generation. The fee for churches and other religious institutions that primarily
meet one day a week, is based on 40 trips per acre or 4 equivalent dwelling units (EDU's) per
acre.
A final determination on the amount and whether or not Council will charge certain public
service uses, like churches, a fee at all was continued indefinitely last fall based on the advise
of the City Attorney. The City of San Diego City Council raised a similar concern last fall,
and the Chula Vista City Council decided to delay a final decision until a legal determination
was made by San Diego. Chula Vista Council's position was that a lawsuit with the churches
could be better handled financially by the City of San Diego's Attorney's Office than by the
City of Chula Vista's Attorney's Office.
Q...D - \
Page 2, Item J1>
Meeting Date 6/13/95
The Lutheran Church of Joy is processing a building permit for a new church on an 8 acre lot
at the comer of Buena Vista Way and East H Street. They are a small congregation and
cannot afford to build the church if they have to pay the TransDIF fee. However, they are
willing to cooperate with Rancho del Rey to provide for a park and ride lot on their property,
if their TransDIF fee is waived. If the park and ride lot is built, CAL TRANS will agree to
operate and maintain the facility.
Rancho del Rey was required, as a condition of developing Rancho del Rey SPA III, to
provide a park and ride facility for 50 parking spaces. They could do this by building the
spaces or participating in an overall plan for park and ride facilities.
CffiJRCH FEE AND PARK AND RIDE FACILITIES
At the Council hearing last fall on the church fee issue, the Council did not make a final
decision on the option for churches to be able to offset their TransDIF fee by providing park
and ride spaces. The full issue of charging fees at all was deferred, however, Council
encouraged churches to provide park and ride facilities (see attached minutes Attachment A).
Staff had proposed a procedure whereby a church could defer paying all or a portion of the
TransDIF fee, if it provided an equivalent number of spaces equal in value to its fee. This
option was considered possible since churches had large parking areas used primarily on
weekends and evenings that could also be used between 6 am and 7pm weekdays for park and
ride.
No church in the eastern area has paid the full fee based on prior Council action. The new
Methodist church paid the full fee, but was reimbursed 90% until a final decision was made
by the Council. At this point in time, it is unknown whether a fee will be charged to churches.
However, the Lutheran Church of Joy is about ready to obtain a building permit for a new
church and they do not want the possibility of a large fee looming in the future.
RANCHO DEL REY PARK AND RIDE LOT CONDITION
Condition No 56 of Rancho del Rey SPA III states:
Prior to approval of the first final map, the developer shall enter into an agreement to
provide a park-n-ride facility near the intersection of East H street and Paseo Ranchero
to include 50 parking spaces, 10 bicycle lockers, lighting, trash receptacles, and
circulation striping to the satisfaction of the City Transit Coordinator. In addition, a
transit stop, to include a bench, shelter and trash receptacle, shall be provided on the
north side of East H Street. Requirements of this condition may also be met by
dedication, improvements and/or financial participation in a park-n-ride facility master
plan, at the sole discretion of the City Council. The specific site shall be in the vicinity
of the site indicated herein or at an alternative site possibly off the territory of the
Tentative Map which alternative site shall meet with the approval of the City.
@.c - do.
Page 3, Item dO
Meeting Date 6/13/95
Since there is no overall plan for the provision of park and ride lots in a DIF program, and in
fact, park and ride facilities have been required on a SPA by SPA basis in the Eastern Area,
Rancho delRey has been working on an agreement with CALTRANS, Church of Joy, and City
of Chula Vista to provide a minimum 50 space park and ride facility at the Church of Joy
parking lot. Rancho del Rey would like to Council to find that they have met their park and
ride requirement for SPA III if this agreement is implemented. They would contribute funds
to the Church of Joy to build the lot.
PARK AND RIDE AGREEMENT
Church Agrees:
To provide a parking lot which includes lighting for not less than fifty park and ride
spaces and agrees to contract with CAL TRANS to operate a CAL TRANS Park and
Ride Program as set forth in that Park and Ride Agreement between the Church and
CALTRANS (Attachment B). In consideration of the City waiving the TransDIF for
the Church of Joy, Church will agree to operate the facility for a period of 20 years.
Should the Church not be in a position to operate the facility for 20 years, then the fee
will be due and payable or some other arrangement agreeable to the City and Church.
Rancho del Rev Agrees:
To financially participate with the Church in a manner agreed to between the Church
and Rancho del Rey for the park and ride facility. Rancho del Rey will also provide
a Transit Stop in the neighborhood to the satisfaction of the Transit Coordinator on the
north side of East H Street near Buena Vista Way.
CAL TRANS Agrees:
To maintain and operate the park and ride lot in accordance with the terms and
conditions of the Agreement between the Church and CAL TRANS. CAL TRANS will
also assist in providing signing, and bicycle lockers.
Citv Agrees:
To find that the Church has met its full TransDIF obligation by having a park and ride
lot for 50 spaces, and that Rancho del Rey has met condition No. 56 for Rancho del
Rey SPA III.
d-D-~
Page 4, Item~D
Meeting Date 6/13/95
GAINS AND LOSSES TO PARTIES OF AGREEMENT
McMillin:
McMillin's main concern is to meet their condition in a economical manner in order to
develop SPA III. They will participate significantly to the cost, however, it would be
less than if they build a new facility on new land.
Church:
The gain to the church is that they can get their building permit now without any
TransDIF fee. Under current Council direction, they would be required to pay 10% of
the phased development portion of their property. This amount is approximately
$2,400. They also are relieved of the burden in the future, if they expand their
facilities, of paying up to $137,000 in TransDIF fees. The loss is that they will have
to bear the burden of a park and ride facility for 20 years, with the possibility that the
Council may in the future rescind TransDIF fees for churches.
Citv:
The City will receive a 50 space park and ride lot in the near term at a location that is
acceptable to the Transit Coordinator. There will be a resolution of conditions between
the City and Rancho del Rey so they can proceed with SPA III. The church building
permit can proceed without the necessity of making a fmal decision on the TransDIF
fee for Churches. The loss to the City is that there could be the possibility that the City
could collect the TransDIF fee, and still get a park and ride lot from Rancho del Rey
should the Council in the future, not allow Rancho del Rey to participate in an overall
Park and Ride Program, not allow the Churches to provide park and ride facilities in
lieu of the TransDIF fee, or not eliminate the TransDIF fee for churches altogether.
CONCLUSION:
Staff believes this agreement is a win/win situation for all parties. It will: I) provide for a 50
space park and ride lot at a good location; 2) allow SPA III of Rancho del Rey to proceed; and
3) allow the building permit for the Lutheran Church of Joy to proceed without the need to
make a final determination on the Church fee issue.
FISCAL IMPACT: The City's TransDIF program would not receive an immediate income
of approximately $2,192. With the total TransDIF program representing projects and funds
in excess of $100 million this amount is insignificant. Furthermore, in developing the last
update to the TransDIF program, the fees from this project were not anticipated, therefore there
is no impact on the current fee basis.
m:\horne\engineer\agenda\p&rjoy.jpl
cf}...O - "
RESOLUTION NO. n ~a.S
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING AGREEMENT AMONG THE CITY
OF CHULA VISTA, LUTHERAN CHURCH OF JOY, AND
RANCHO DEL REY PARTNERSHIP FOR A PARK AND RIDE
FACILITY
WHEREAS, The Lutheran Church of Joy ("Church") has been
processing a building permit for a new church at the intersection
of East H Street and Buena vista Way; and
WHEREAS, Church is obligated to pay a Transportation DIF
fee; and
WHEREAS, McMillin Development Company (developer of
Rancho del Rey) has a requirement for a park and ride facility of
50 spaces, or to participate in an overall program to provide park
and ride facilities in the eastern area; and
WHEREAS, The Church of Joy, Rancho del Rey Partnership
and Caltrans have come to agreement for constructing and operating
a park and ride facility on the Church of Joy's property.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the
City of Chula vista does hereby approve an Agreement among the city
of Chula vista, Lutheran Church of Joy, and Rancho del Rey
Partnership for a Park and Ride Facility, a copy of which is on
file in the office of the City Clerk as Document No. (to be
completed by the Clerk's office in the final document).
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of the city of
Chula vista is hereby authorized and directed to execute said
Agreement on behalf of the City of Chula vista.
A;(l
, c~ty
Presented by
form b
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
Bruce M.
Attorney
C:\rs\P&R.joy
&0- C /20- U
Attachment A
.
~.
Minutes
September 13, 1994
Page 9
MSUC (Horton/Fox) Council approve the retention of the CWTeI\t language in the Park Plan Dedication
Ordinance wbich would allow park acquisition and development fees (PAD fees) to be paid witbin sixty days
of approving the final map.
17. REPORT WAIVING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES FOR RELIGIOUS AND NON-
PROFIT PUBLIC SERVICES ORGANIZATIONS, SCHEDULING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR OCTOBER
24, 1994, AUTHORIZING REBATE PENDING FINAL DETERMINATION OF POLICY, AND
APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR THE REBATE - In past actions, Council has waived fees for religious
institutions for the Public Facilities D1F but bas not waived fees for the Street D1F or other development related
infrastructure fees. Council requeated that staff prepare a report of waiving fees for not only religious
organizations, but also non-profit public service organizations. In order to lessen the impact of commuter trips on
the streets and highways of the region and to improve air quality, Chula Vista is exploring ways to provide Park
and Ride facilities. The report will also address the combination of TransDIF fees and providing for Park and Ride
lots in church and other non-profit properties. Staff recommends Council review the report, schedule a public
hearing for 10/25/94 on the issue, authorize a rebate of 90% of Trans DIF fees until a final decision is made on
fee policy for religious and non-profit public service organizations. (Director of Public Works) 4/5th's vote
required.
.
John Lippitt, Director of Public Works, reviewed the history of the project. Staff proposed to review the issues
in detail at the 10/25/94 meeting. Staff recommended Council authorize the refund of90% of the Trans D1F paid
by the United Methodist Church and tbat those typea of organizations, i.e. community service organizations, be
allowed to pay their fees over time.
Council member Moore questioned if the recommendation was for all non-profit organizations.
Mr. Lippitt responded that it was for cburcbes, community service type organizations, etc. Staff bad not fully
identified what a non-profit would be.
Councilmember Moore felt service organizations also included the Moose, Retired Officers, Fleet Reserves, VFW,
American Legion, etc. Council should bave a list of the 501(c) organizations and then decide whether it should be
expanded.
Mr. Lippitt stated in the eastern area 90 + % of all development were in an assessment district and already paying
their fees through that process. He felt a 501(c) designation would be those that would be able to pay their fees
over time.
Mayor Nader questioned if the Trans D1F fees were covered by the individual assessment districts.
Mr. Lippitt responded that was correct with over 90 + % of the cases in the eastern area of the City. The D1F fee
was uaed as the basis for the assessment.
Mr. Boogaard stated the money for the D1F was collected by the sale of bonds and the bonds were paid off by
assessments against the individual homes. The assessments raised the revenue to pay the D1F fees and the D1F fees
were paid in one lump sum at the time of the building permit. The homeowners were actually paying them off over
time. With 90% of the church sites the church would be paying for the D1F through the financed assessment district
over time. Ten percent of the church sites may pay cash at the building permit stage because they were not in an
assessment district that paid the D1F that way.
Those speaking in opposition to the staff recommendation felt it was a misperception to identify churches as traffic
generators or facility users; that the assessment was an anti-church stance on the part of the City; their only source
of income was free will donations; the burden of development should not be placed on the backs of the churches;
and parishioners currently paid property taxes through their homes and businesses
.
.
Father John proctor, 450 Coml Canyon Road, Chula Vista, CA, representing Corpus Christi Catholic
Parish.
Reverend Allen Rudow, 1398 Nacion, Chula Vista, CA, representing Church of Joy - Lutheran.
.
d,O-1
-
Minutes
September 13, 1994
Page 10
.,
.
· Reverend lobo L. Giffin, 874 Entrada Place, Chula Vista, CA, representing First United Methodist Church
of Chula Vista.
. Rodney H. Hansen, 860 Hazy Glen Ct., Chula Vista, CA, representing Viclory Lutheran Church.
Couocilmember Rindone requested clarification regarding the separation of churches from other non-profit
organizations.
Mr. Boogaard responded it was based on the principal in the constitution that the church and state should be
separated.
Mayor Nader felt the establishment clause would prohibit separating churches out for preferential treatment because
they were a church so a broader standard needed 10 be applied for community benefit/non-profit organizations which
would include churches.
Couocilmember Fox stated he had a philosophical problem with the staff recommendation. He believed the
interpretation by the Supreme Court was incorrect and that the forefathers intended that government should not favor
one religion over another. Public schools were exempted from the fees and due 10 the uniqueness of churches he
felt they should be exempted due 10 the spiritual, social, and public service benefits 10 the community. He felt the
City and the churches should build a partnership. Therefore, he could not support the staff recommendation.
Mayor Nader stated he concurred with Couocilmember Fox's comments except that he felt the exemption did not
require any impingement on any constitutional law, i.e. it was quite possible 10 craft an exemption that did not
discriminate for or against religion, but did include all churches. That would be an exemption that would apply 10
community service/non-profit organizations, such as the 501(c)3 designation by the Internal Revenue Service which
would be the most sensible solution. He would support direction to staff 10 bring back an exemption ordinance.
Couocilmember Moore slated he would make his decision on fairness. No matter what Council would do someone
would oppose their action. The question was whether there should be a different fee and why. The staff
recommendation for a Park & Ride facility in lieu of paying a fee was a win/win situation. Someone would have
to fill the hole if money was taken out of the D1F. There were many smail businesses that could also not afford
to pay the fees.
.
Couocilmember Horton stated after reading the staff report she did not see how the City could allow a waiver from
the Trans D1F fee due 10 the requirements of the State government code.
Mayor Nader questioned whether the City Atlorney had any case law to support his interpretation of Government
Code Section 66000. He felt there was U.S. Supreme Court case law that stated a fee could not be charged that
did not have a nexus between what was being charged for and the service being collected for. He did not see why
relief from a fee on other grouods could not be given.
Mr. Boogaard responded two laws influenced staff recommendations: I) the principal in the Constitution that
churches and State had 10 be separated; and 2) AB 66000 and the principal of equal protection. He then reviewed
the history of the establishment of the Trans D1F. Under the proposed program staff was trying 10 create a
different, but legally justified basis, that churches and, anyone, could take advantage of. It would be helpful 10
churches as they had an off peak traffic load. Therefore, the City could not vary too far from the principal of
horizontal equity. The City could not give complete waivers 10 some groups, especially based on religious status.
There was definite case and statulory law supporting the principal of horizonal equity 10 the point that it required
ongineering studies to create a DIF.
Mayor Nader stated it appeared the City Attorney drew the conclusion that therefore the City could not grant relief
from the fee which the government code entitled the City to charge. He questioned if there was case law that
supported that conclusion.
Mr. Boogaard responded the City could grant fee discounts based on usage which was in the proposed program on
mitigation of traffic generation by a Park & Ride lot. There was no basis for treating one group differently than
another group similarly situated.
.
d-.C ~ {IJ-O/ Ie
Minutes
September 13, 1994
Page 11
Counci1member Fox stated the Council had agreed to off-set fees for the church in EastLake for the use of their
facilities for daycare. He questioned if that would allow them to off-set all or part of the Trans DIF fees.
Mr. Boogaard responded that if the service that was being offered was a legitimate municipal purpose then the City
could pay the church for the service. lbat money the church received could then be used to off-set their cost to
the DIP fees. That could not be based on the City's desire to give breaks to churches.
Councilmember Moore referred to recommendation 1/3 and felt it could be amended to read "and/or other services
in-kind that are beneficial to the City as a whole".
MS (Nader/Fox) to approve the stall'recommendations on page 17-1 except on recommendation #3 Council
would consider exempting rather deferring the payment and encourage the provision of Park & Ride or in-
kind services.
Councilmember Rindone felt the word that best reflected the consensus of Council was "off-set" which could be
anything from a partial deferral to a full deferral. Staff was to look at the public benefit issues, 501(c)3, etc. which
would allow flexibility. He also felt it was important to know the number of 501(c)3's they were dealing with.
If there was a genuine nexus for the public benefit Council also needed to know what the impact would be to other
organizations. He would support the addition of "off-set" to the motion.
Mayor Nader stated his intent was to "exempt". Under his reading of the government code the City would have
difficulty justifying the imposition of the fees on most of the churches unless the churches were located in an
isolated part of the City which was attracting traffic that was nol already existing.
.
FRIENDLY AMENDMENT: (Moore, agreed to by the Maker and Second of the Motion) to add "defer
and/or exempt".
Councilmember Rindone questioned whether the motion included off-set, deferral, and/or exemption.
Mayor Nader stated if there were payments to be made it could be done with an off-set of services. Even if there
was an exemption staff should work with the organizations to encourage their use for other community purposes.
CLARmCATlON OF MOTION: (Nader) Recommendation #3: At the public hearing on 10/25/94, consider ./
exempting and/or deferring the payment of the Trans DIF fee and encourage the organimtion to enter into ~
an agreement to provide Park & Ride or other in-kind services as an otT-set of any fee.
VOTE ON MOTION: approved unanimously.
· · · Councilmemher Fox left the dias at 11:14 p.m. · · ·
....
MSC (NaderlHorton) to hear items #18, #2Ic, 22c, and Closed Session. All other items to he continued to
the 9/20/94 meeting. Approved 4-0-1 with Fox absent.
....
.
18. REPORT
given by staff.
George Krempl, Deputy City Manager, stated the Water Authority had identified what the range of the daily rate
would be which was information staff needed in order to assess the best option and choice for the City. The rate
was between $74/ton and $133/ton. The Authority staff was recommending that non-member entities that had
already decided to withdraw from system, that any of their residual waste that would go to the Authority system,
would pay the high rate. It was suggested that on 10/1/94 that the non-member, non-<:ontracttip rate be at least
$74/ton with the caveat that the NCRRA charges to a non-member city, as well as charges for inactive landfills and
active landfill closures was yet to be determined. Staff had received a response to their letter regarding questions
posed on a transfer station, a CAP of $55 or if it exceeded $55 it would be an automatic out for the City. and if
UPDATE ON SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL ISSUES - An oral report will be
cS.tl1/).{)>IO
AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CHURCH
OF JOY, AND RANCHO DEL REY FOR PARK AND RIDE
FACILITY
This Agreement, made this day of June, 1995 for the
purposes of reference only and effective as of the date last
executed by the parties, is made between the City of Chula Vista,
a chartered municipal corporation of the State of California
("City"), the Church of Joy-Lutheran, a non-profit, public benefit
corporation of the State of California with their principle place
of business at 947 East H street, Chula vista ("Church") and Rancho
del Rey, Investors L.P., a California limited partnership whose
general partner is Trident RDR Limited partnership, an Arizona
partner, ("RDR") and is made with reference to the following facts:
I. Recitals
A.
property
approved
generally
RDR is the owner and proposed residential developer of
("Tentati ve Map Terri tory") shown on the tentative map
by Council Resolution No. 16222 ("Tentative Map")
referred to as Rancho del Rey, Spa III; and,
B. RDR has, as Condition No. 56 of its Tentative Map a
condition to arrange for the construction and continued operation
of a 50 space park and ride facility somewhere within the territory
of its tentative map.
C. The city has adopted a Transportation Development Impact
Fee ordinance which provides, that as a condition of development,
properties within the defined territory of the Trans DIF ("Trans
DIF Territory") shall pay a fee ("Trans DIF Fee")
D. Church owns property located at 947 East H Street, at the
northwest corner of East H and Buena vista Way, Chula vista
("Church Site"), which is within the Trans DIF Territory, which it
desires to develop.
E. Under the city's Trans DIF Fee ordinance, the city
contends the Church would be required to pay a Trans DIF Fee, and
the amount of same has been calculated to be $105,550. Church
contends that the city's Trans DIF Fee ordinance is unconsti-
tutional as applied to churches.
II. Contractual Obligations
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES HERETO AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
A. Church's Duty to Build a Park and Ride Facility.
Church promises city to design and build, not later than 180
days from the effective date hereof, a 50 space, fully lighted park
and ride facility at the Church Site, to city parking lot and
1
c+C -1\
landscaping standards and to such additional standards required by
CalTrans not inconsistent herewith ("Facility"). The duties of
Church herein in this section required shall be referred to as the
"Church's Duty to Build".
B. Church's Duty to operate.
Church promises City and RDR to operate, maintain, repair and
rehabilitate as necessary to permit it to remain in its original
condition, normal wear and tear excepted, the Facility as a park
and ride facility for a period of 20 years from the date of
commencement of operations of the Facility once constructed
("Term"), which duty to operate shall include but shall not be
limited to:
1. Permitting public access for use of the Facility,
Monday through Friday, between the hours of 5:00 a.m. and 7:00
p.m., for pedestrian and vehicular ingress and egress, vehicle
parking for carpool purposes, carpooling, bus pickup and drop off
operations, and such other related uses and purposes.
The duties of Church herein in this Section required shall be
referred to as the "Church's Duty to Operate".
C. city's Duty to Defer and Eventually Waive Trans DIF Fee.
1. Duty to Defer During Term. Despite the application
by the Church for a building permit for the development of the
Church site for church and church related purposes (including a
church operated or sponsored day care facility), on the condition
that Church complies with its Duty to Build and for so long as
Church continues to comply, for the Term, with its Duty to Operate,
the city promises Church that the City agrees to defer the
obligation of the Church to pay the Trans DIF Fee. If the Church
fails to perform its Duty to Operate, the Church shall be obligated
to pay the Trans DIF Fee so deferred.
2. Duty to Waive. On the condition that Church has
sUbstantially complied, for the Term, with its Duty to Operate, the
City agrees to forgive and abrogate the duty of the Church, at the
end of the Term, to pay the Trans DIF Fee for church and church-
related development on the Church site.
D. Satisfaction of RDR's Park and Ride Condition.
City promises RDR that, on the condition the Church complies
with Church's Duty to Build, and continues to comply, for a period
of three years, with Church's Duty to Operate, City will deem
Condition No. 56 of the Tentative Map fully complied with. Until
then, and for so long as Church is progressing with and meeting in
good faith its Duty to Build and Duty to operate, City promises RDR
2
.,,).D - I d-
that it will not use Condition No. 56 as a basis for denial of any
final maps for the Tentative Map Territory.
1. City promises RDR and Church that it will accept a
three year performance bond securing all of Church's Duties
herein in a form and with a surety satisfactory to City, and
that upon such acceptance, the City promises RDR that it will
deem Condition No. 56 fully complied with at the time City
approves such performance bond.
[End of Page. Next page is signature page.]
3
~-\~
Signature Page to Agreement betweeen City of Chula
Vista, Church of Joy and Rancho Del Rey
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto, having read and understood
the terms and conditions of this agreement, do hereby express their
consent to the terms hereof by setting their hand hereto on the
date set forth adjacent thereto.
DATE:
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Mayor
Attest:
city Clerk
Approved as to Form:
city Attorney
DATE:
RANCHO DEL REY INVESTORS, L.P., a
California limited partnership
By: McMillin Project Services, Inc.
a California corporation, as
Attorney in Fact Under Durable
Power of Attorney
.
By:
Its:
By:
Its:
DATE:
CHURCH OF JOY-LUTHERAN
Marsha Fulmer, Chair
Leadership Team
M:\shared\attorney\joy2.wp
4
dO-l~
I")
II PARK AND RIDE LOT AGREEMENT II
THIS AGREEMENT, DATED JUNE _, 1995
STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,
"CALTRANS", AND CHURCH OF JOY-LUTHERAN
a California Nonprofit corporation,
"OWNER".
IS BETWEEN THE CALIFORNIA
HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS
of Chula Vista, California,
HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS
1.
PURPOSE.
portion of
interested
ridesharing
The purpose of this agreement is to provide a
the Owner's Premises as a staging area for persons
in participation in carpools, vanpools or other
vehicles.
2. PREMISES. Owner hereby licenses CALTRANS to use that portion
of OWNER'S premises, but not more than fifty (50) parking
spaces, marked "Park and Ride" on attached map,
attached hereto as "Exhibit A," and made an express part of
this agreement.
3. TERM. The term of this agreement shall be for a period of
twenty (20) years beginning on the later of July 1, 1995 or
the date on which the Owner's premises are actually available
for use for the Park and Ride program, and shall end twenty
(20) years thereafter.
4. USE OF PROPERTY. The specified "Park and Ride" staging area
may be used as a parking lot by persons travelling in carpools
or other ride sharing vehicles. CALTRANS will, at its own
expense, place signs, with the OWNER'S approval, to designate
the specified staging area. Upon termination of this
agreement, CALTRANS will remove the signs.
5. ACCESS. CALTRANS may use the OWNER'S property surrounding the
premises for vehicle and pedestrian access and circulation for
persons in carpools.
6. MAINTENANCE. CALTRANS will provide reasonable maintenance for
the designated staging area and improvements thereon. OWNER
agrees to notify CALTRANS promptly of defects in parking areas
that could give rise to third party injury or damage claims,
even though CALTRANS may make periodic inspections of the
premises.
7.
GOVERNMENTAL
any taxes,
premises.
CHARGES. CALTRANS will have no obligation to pay
assessments or governmental charges against the
Page 1 of 2
c:ltJ -/5'
8. INSURANCE. CALTRANS will at all times during the term of this
agreement take out and keep in force at its own expense, (a)
PUblic Liability Insurance to protect CALTRANS and OWNER,
their officers, agents and employees against any liability to
the public, incidental to the use of, or resulting from,
injury to, or deaths of any person caused by or resulting from
injury to, or deaths of any person caused by or resulting from
the installation, maintenance, or use of said "Park and Ride"
area in the amount of not less than $3,000,000.00 (Three
Million Dollars) to indemnify against the claims of more than
one person reSUlting from any occurrence; (b) Property Damage
Liability Insurance to protect CALTRANS and OWNER, their
officers, agents and employees against any liability for
damage to property, caused by or resulting from the
installation, maintenance, or use of said "Park and Ride" area
in the amount of not less than $3,000,000.00 (Three Million
Dollars) for each occurrence.
9. STATE RESPONSIBILITY FOR PROPERTY DAMAGE TO ASSETS OF OWNER.
CALTRANS assumes responsibility to correct any losses or
damages to property of OWNER caused (or resulting) from
installation, maintenance, or use of OWNER'S property as a
"Park and Ride" area to a limit of $50,000.00 (Fifty Thousand
Dollars) but not to exceed the amount to replace damaged
property and materials with those of like kind and quality.
APPROVED
Church of Joy-Lutheran of
Chula Vista, a California
Nonprofit Corporation
Dated:
By:
Its:
APPROVED
CALIFORNIA STATE DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION
Dated:
By:
Its:
Page 2 of 2
02tJ ~ /?
SENT BY:Xerox Telecopier 702r . 6- 9-95 ; 5:43PM
6192326P"""
'.
,
6194573691:# 2
JUN- 9-95 FRI 16:49
O!TY OF OHULA VISTA
FAX NO, 6195855612
P.02
&VJ
AcaE:lMrNT alTWIZN eIT>' OF CHUU. VUTA, ctlURCH
OF JOY, AND RANCHO DEL IlEY POR PAJU( AND RIDE
fACiLITY
Thb ......nt, .ad. th1- day ot Jlln., 111.5 fol' t.h.
purp08all of r.f8C'.noe only an4 en.otivlI as of the date 1..t
.x.oute~ by the parti.e, ia mada between the city Of Chllla Vieta,
. ohartered munioipal oorpoC'ation of the Itate of CaUfornia
("city"), tn. Church of Joy-Lutheran, a non-prot1t., public ben.fit
corporation of the Stat. of CBlifol'nia with their prinoipl. plao.
at bll.ine.. at. '47 la.t H Itre.t, Chula V1.ta ("Chll....n") and Ran..ho
d81 Rey, :tnv.lltor. L.P., a California limited partn.rahip who.e
general pa..tn"l<' b Trident ROil Limited partner.hip, an AI'1&ona
partner, ("RCa"l) and it! iliad. with reference to the fOllowing facta:
I. a.c1l:ala
A. ROil l.e the ..wne:- and propo.ed r..ident1&l developer ..t
prop8l:ty (IIT.ntative Map Territory") ah..wn on the hntativ. .ap
approved by counoil 1I..olution No. ~5aaa ("Tentative Hlpll)
9.n.ra11y r.tured to a. Ra71cho del Rey, 'pa lIt; and,
B. ROR ba., a. condition 110. 56 ot it. T.ntative Map .
oondition to "Ju'a..,. fi!l~ ,'ft. .....'r\l..i." aRt eeR\iJl1~e. .J.r...LIR
.t-arovide . 5D apac. park and rida facility aomewhare within the
t.rritory ot it. t.ntativa map.
C. The Clty ha. adopted a Tran.portation Developmant Impact
Fee ordinanoe whiCh provida., tbat a. a oondition Of developm.nt.
properei.. within the d.tina4 territory elf the Tran. DIF ("Trana
DII" '1'ardtelry") .hall pay a tea ("Tnn. DIF ree")
D. ChurCh ownll property looated at .., !la.t H Street. at the
northwelit oorner of .a.t Hand Bllena vieta WlY, Chlllll vieta
("Church Sit."). whioh iI within the Trana DlF Territory, which it
da.ir.. to devAlop.
E. Uncl." the citY'e Tran. D:tr ree ordinanoe, the city
oontend. tha Cburoh would be I'eqllirlcl to pay a Tran. DIF Fe., and
the a.ount ot .amo I'll. be.n calculat.d to be $105,550. ChurCh
oontend. that the City'. Tran. DIF .... ordinanca i. unconsti-
tutional .. app.lied to ohllroh...
II. Contr.eltu~l Oblivation.
NOW, THEREFORE. TH! PARTIIS KIRETO AGRIE AS TOLLOWS:
A. eh~oh'. Duty to 8ui1d a Park and aide Facility.
Chllroh promi.e. city to d..1gn Incl build, not lataI' than ~
:~o ::vI ::::: _i..u.~a. of . buildi~, e.rmi~ ~ar ~h. eon.~ruc~ian
__ &_ .JII._____ml.t)t.L..QJL.~h. t':!hUPl'!:b .ft.. hu~ in 1\0 .v.n~ lat..r t.han
1
02() / / J
(
I,'
I
SENT BY:Xerox Telecopler 7020 : 6- 9-95 ; 5:44PM
6192326626"'
6194573691:# 3
JUN- 9-95 FRI 18:50
CITY OF CHUlA VISTA
FAX NO, 9196865812
P,03
3ulv 1. 1'96. 're. ~. ......i~. ~~\& ~.r..t, a 50 .p.o., fully
li;hte~ park ~nd r1~e faoility at the Churoh sita, to C1ty parking
lot and landscaping standard. and to .uch addit10nd atandard.
required hy Clll'f'nnl not inconabtant huewlt.11 ("FaoUity"). Tha
dutia. ot Church herein in thia 'action require4 ahall be rererred
t.o a. the "Ch\1rch'e DlIty to luUd".
B. Chul:'C"lh'l' Duty to Operate.
Church promi.ee City and RDa to operata, ma1ntain, repair end
rehebilitate .1 neoe..ary to permit it to remain in ite or19inal
oon~ltion, nor~al wear and t.ear exoepted, the Faoility aa a perk
and r1de faoility for a period or 20 yeau from the date or
oommencemant of operat.ion. at the raci11ty once con.truoted
("Term"), wh1"h c1ut.y to operate ah.U inolude but abaU not be
limited tOI
1. 'emitting public ecee.. tor 1.1.. ot the Facility,
Monday through Friday, bet.ween the hour. of 15100 a.lII. end 7:00
p.III., for ped...trian an4 vehicular in;ra.s and a,ra.., vehlcla
parkin; tor carpool purpo.e., carpoolin;, bu. piCkup and drop off
operatione, an,S auoh other ralated u.ee and purpolea.
'1'h. duU.. of Church lIerein 1n thl. 8.ct10n required. shall he
reflrr.d tQ .. thl "Church'. Duty to Operat.".
C. City'G Duty to Derer and EVentually waive Tr.ns DIF Fe..
1. Duty to Darer Durin" Tlrm. Delpit. the appllcatiQn
by thl Churoh fOl' a bu11din" plnU tor the dlvelopllent 0: thl
Church site for church and churoh ~elat.ld purpo.a. (includinq .
churoh openeed or apon.orad day clre facility), on the condition
that Church cOlllplie. with it.a Duty t.o 8uild and. tor ao long III
Church continuea to cOllply, tor the 'f'erm, with ita Duty to Operat.8,
the City pr01l\lau Churoh that the City .;ree. to datar the
obli;ltion of the Church to pey tha Tran. DIP 'el. If the 'Church
faila to perform it. Duty to Operat.l, the Church ahall b. obli;atld
to pay the Trat. DIF 'Ie eo deterrld. '
~
\-'I
c...' x--'
CUy prolllia.. RDR that, on till condition tha Church oompH.. oJ- \J
with churoh'l Dut.y to !luild, .nd. ..,hn int.o .n eorellllant. with ? (Y'I( r.
::~n!:~D~E. ~:.;E~'f~n:D;~e~:~f:ill::~;~~d 5i::~~:~~~r: ~(!~~
2 :J..tJ- / r ~
2. Duty to waiv.. On the condition thet Churoh haa
eub.tantially oo.plild, for thl Term, with it. Duty to Operetl, the
City .;rl'. to for"ivl and ebrovatl thl duty of tbl Church, at thl
end. of tll. TI".nl, to p<<y tha Tran. DIF 'ae for ohuroh and ohurob-
ralated dlvelopment on the Churoh s1te.
D.
S.ti8faotion of RDR'. park an~ Ride Condition.
SENT BY:Xerox Telecopier 702' , 6- 9-95 : 5:45PM
. 6192326"~"
t;
6194573691:.4
JUN- 9.9S FRI 18:62
CITY OF CHUlA VISTA
FAX NO. 8195855812
P,04
Du\~ .. .,.~.\.. city will d..m Condition No. II of the Tentative
Mop tully complied with. ~~ ~ ~~t~a ~ ~i..u. RDR w.itten
20J'ltip1ftat.icm-2t ~h.i1'" rAl. .. ~ d . Un~il tben, .nd
for 10 10n9 as Church i. progra.. n; witb and ...ting in good taith
it. Duty to Build and Duty to oparate, city promi.e. ~OR that it
will not u.. Condition No. '6 ae a ba.i. for denial of any tinel
.ap. tor the Tantative Hap Territory.
1. allV ,PI.i.t. RRA aR. Ih~.k_,h.' L. ~ill aaea,_ .
~w yee.r ,1.'...lla..... ..."'. 1'I\lltiM., III If 8h~JC.k.. Bill'!..
haJl"ltR IPJ B fa.. _Pl. ui'k . .u...~ ..'L..&.,..~ "4 8i.\y, .t
'!lat 1I,1'" .1l8k a....'.".., ~k. Gi'~ ,.'"i... I\8Il 'he' ..\ ..ill
dIe. SIR't'le" tI'l. Ie tully .tWl,l!e. \lith. at ,ft. _i".a ei\y
."r'7..-~~e~ ~,.'.r.a~.. ~.".
(End of Pag~. Next paga il .ivnature page.J
3
;2fJ /f:;
SENT BY:Xerox Telecopier 7020 : 5- 9-95 : 5:45PM
. 5192325B?8"
.
8194573891:.5
JUN- 9-95 FRI 16:52
O!TY OF OHULA VISTA
FAX NO, 8195855612
P,05
siqn.tur. paq. to Aqr.ement betweeen City ot ellul.
Vieta, Churoh ot 30y and Ranoho Del Rey
NOW, THEREJlOJlE, tile pertie' heret.o, hevinq read. e~ under.tooa
the t.e~' a~ cond.ition. of thi. aqreement, do hereby expree. their
coneent to the term. hereot by eettinq their hand hereto on the
date eet. forth adjaoent thereto.
DATI:
CITY OP CKULA VISTA
Mayor
Att..tl
city Clerlt
Approved. ae to Form:
city Attorney
DA'I'!::
lIANCHO DEL RIY 1WISTORS, L.P., a
california limited. partnerehip
!ly.
McMillin project ..rvio.., Ino.
a Calirornia oorporation, .e
Attorney in 'aot Under Durable
Powar of Att.orney
Iy:
It. I
By'
It-I
OAT!'
CHURCH OP 30l/-LUTHERAN
Mareha Fulmer, ~h.ir
tAadenh1p Team
1I.\ohond\ano<nay\loy4.wp
4
J.tJr 20
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
SUBMITTED BY:
n~\~
RESOLUTION Approving the FY 1995-1999 Consolidated Plan including
both the FY 1995-1996 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and
HOME Investment Partnership (HOME) program budgets and authorizing
transmittal of FY 1995-1999 Consolidated Plan to the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
Community Development Director ~
City Manage~
!Y
Item ~l
Meeting Date 06/13/95
ITEM TITLE:
REVIEWED BY:
(4/5ths Vote: Yes
No X)
BACKGROUND:
At the June 6 council meeting, council provided staff with additional direction toward restructuring the
public service funding category and directed staff to return for final consideration and approval of the
Consolidated Plan and related CDBG and HOME budgets on June 13.
The City Council held a public hearing on May 16, 1995 to review and receive public comment on the
draft Consolidated Plan for fiscal years 1995 through 1999 and to review all projects and programs
being considered for CDBG and HOME funding. The 30-day comment period to review the draft
Consolidated Plan began on May 6 and ended June 5, 1995. All public comments received by staff
during the 30-day comment period have been considered and, if deemed appropriate, integrated into the
final version of the Consolidated Plan.
Staff is recommending that the City Council approve the Consolidated Plan which includes staff
recommendations for both the CDBG and HOME programs for 1995-96. These recommendations can
be found in the Action Plan section of the Consolidated Plan and are also described in this report.
The City of Chula Vista is eligible to receive $2,162,000 in CDBG entitlement funds from HUD for
1995-96 and will have available $116,825 in reallocation or surplus funds from completed programs and
projects for a grand total of $2,278,825. In addition to CDBG, the City will receive $708,000 in
HOME funds from HUD for 1995-96. Combining both CDBG and HOME, the City will be able to
invest into the community an estimated grand total of $2,986,825 in HUD funds for 1995-96.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Council adopt the resolution approving the Consolidated Plan fiscal
years 1995 through 1999 including both the 1995-1996 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
and HOME Investment Partnership (HOME) program budgets and authorizing transmittal of the
Consolidated Plan for fiscal years 1995 through 1999 to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: A CDBG ad-hoc committee consisting of
members from the Commission on Aging, Human Relations, Child Care Commission and Youth
Commission have reviewed the CDBG social service funding requests and have made funding
~l-'
Page 2, Item ~\
Meeting Date 06/13/95
recommendations (see Exhibit 1). The committee's recommendations are also repeated in this staff
report when the individual social service funding requests are discussed. The Housing Advisory
Commission (HAC) reviewed the housing related proposals and made funding recommendations (see
attached minutes, Exhibit 2). In addition, the HAC reviewed the draft Consolidated Plan on May 24,
1995 (see attached draft minutes, Exhibit 3).
DISCUSSION:
This report will discuss the following topics:
. Part A: The Consolidated Plan, the HUD-required multi-year planning document and
annual application document for the City's CDBG and HOME programs.
. Part B: The Proposed 1995-96 CDBG Budget, which includes funding for the categories
of Administration and Planning, Social Service Funding, Capital Improvement Projects,
and Community Projects.
. Part C: The Proposed 1995-96 HOME Budget, which includes funding for the categories
of Administration and Planning, Community Housing Development Organizations
(CHDOs), and Affordable Housing Projects.
Graphic exhibits have been prepared and attached to aid in the understanding of the CDBG and HOME
Budgets. Also. please note that substantial detail on all of the comoonents of the CDBG Budg:et is
orovided in the CDBG Budget Notebook that was distributed to the Council for the Mav 16. 1995 oublic
hearing.
PART A: CONSOLIDATED PLAN (for Fiscal Years 1995 throul!h 1999) (Draft document attached)
The Consolidated Plan introduces a new consolidated process from HUD that replaces all current
planning and application requirements of four formula programs with a single submission. These
programs are the CDBG, HOME, Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG), and Housing For Persons With
AIDS (HOPW A) programs. Because the City of Chula Vista is an entitlement jurisdiction for only the
CDBG and HOME programs, it is these two programs only that will be consolidated under the
Consolidated Plan. This does not preclude, however, the City or any local non-profit organizations
from applying during the Plan period for ESG and HOPW A funds on a competitive basis with other
jurisdictions.
HUD is requiring that all jurisdictions submit a Consolidated Plan for FY 1995-1999. This plan must
be approved by HUD before any federal HUD funds will be made available for expenditure by the City.
It is hoped that through this document and other efforts HUD is implementing that jurisdictions will
be relieved of repetitive and burdensome planning and reporting requirements. This process will also
assist jurisdictions to coordinate and manage all federal resource programs under one consolidated
approach.
~\.~
Page 3, IternX
Meeting Date 06/13/95
The Consolidated Plan replaces the Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS). Much like
the old CHAS, the new Consolidated Plan is a planning document that identifies Chula Vista's overall
housing and community development needs, outlines a five year strategy to address those needs, and
describes a one year action plan for the expenditure of all Federal HUD resources. Again, for the City
of Chula Vista, these resources are the CDBG and HOME programs.
Per HUD regulations, the City must hold a 3D-day comment period for the public to review the
Consolidated Plan and make comments or suggest changes. This 30-day period started May 6, 1995
and ended June 5, 1995. All comments and/or suggestions received orally or in writing from the public
will be recorded in the appendix of the document whether utilized in the final version of the document
or not.
PART B: PROPOSED 1995-96 CDBG BUDGET
Please see Exhibit 4: CDBG Budget for a graphic representation of the various funding categories and
specific proposals for CDBG funding. It is hoped that this exhibit will help the Council in evaluating
any desired modifications to the staff-recommended budget.
For the 1995-96 CDBG program, the City of Chula Vista has total estimated revenue of $2,278,825
including entitlement and reallocation funds. The staff-recommended CDBG budget is summarized as
follows:
I 'IIKI~ <........ ...,
-
Funding Category Number of Requests Recommended Funding
Administration and Planning 5 $301,500
Social Services 30 $324,300
Capital Improvement Projects 4 $1,160,225
Community Projects 7 $492,800
I TOTAL I 451 $2,278,8251
In order to be eligible for CDBG funding, a product or service must address at least one of the CDBG
national objectives, which are: I) benefit primarily low and moderate income families; 2) aid in the
prevention or elimination of slums or blight; 3) meet other community needs having a particular
urgency. All of the projects recommended for funding meet the national objective of primary benefit
to low and moderate income families, except for the SBCS Graffiti Eradication Program, which meets
the national objective to aid in the prevention of slums and blight.
~\ -.?>
Page 4, Item ~\
Meeting Date 06/13/95
In 1993, the City Council adopted the 1993-94 to 1995-96 Community Development Plan (see Exhibit
~. This plan outlines the City's specific community development goals and objectives for the CDBG
program and provides guidance for making allocation decisions. All of the CDBG projects and services
recommended for funding in this report meet the goals and objectives of the 1993-96 Community
Development Plan.
CDBG FUNDING CATEGORIES
ADMINISTRATION AND PLANNING:
$301.500
The recommended budget for Administration and Planning is $301,500. The proposed budget for
1995-96 includes $220,000 for program and staff administration. These administrative costs represents
approximately 10 percent of the entitlement funds and includes staff costs for coordination, accounting,
monitoring sub-recipients, environmental review, and reporting requirements. Please note that, with
the exception of the Chula Vista Fair Housing Program, none of these funding proposals were reviewed
by any advisory body.
HUD regulations limit expenditures in this category to 20% of the annual CDBG entitlement
amount.
In addition to program and staff administration, staff recommends funding for five organizations who
are requesting funding for administrative and planning activities, as follows:
Chula Vista Fair Housing Program
Requested: $50,626 HAC Recommendation: $36,000 Staff Recommendation: $36,000
(Housing Advisory Commission)
PURPOSE: To provide a comprehensive fair housing program, including education and outreach, a
tenant-landlord hotline, follow-up on discrimination complaints and rental dwelling discrimination
testing.
RATIONALE: This program is designed to fulfill all of the City's responsibilities and obligations for
fair housing education and enforcement, as required by HUD for the City to be eligible for CDBG
funds. An increase of $3,000 was recommended by the Housing Advisory Commission to be given
to this organization from last year's funding amount ($33,000) due to the importance of the work done
by the program and the great need in the housing environment to address housing discrimination.
Staff concurs with the Commission's recommendation.
Chula Vista Human Services Council (CVHSC)
Request: $28,000
Staff Recommendation: $24,000
PURPOSE: The Human Services Council builds coalitions among Chula Vista area social service
providers in order to bring more funding for needed services into the South Bay. The funds are
requested to hire a part-time coordinator.
d-\ -~
Page 5, Itemo-\
Meeting Date 06/13/95
RATIONALE: The Human Services Council, through Project CARE, a community effort to check
on and provide services to elderly who are isolated in their homes, has demonstrated its ability to
make coalition projects work and to bring more resources to South Bay agencies. This allocation will
allow the CVHSC to hire a part-time staff person. The amount of funding recommended is the same
amount as last year.
Parks and Recreation Human Services Coordinator
Requested: $15,000
Staff Recommendation: $15,000
PURPOSE: To coordinate information and referral by human service agencies at the Norman Park
Senior Center and facilitate the provision of social services.
RATIONALE: In addition to the above valuable coordination, this person will assist with sub-
recipient monitoring and overall staff coordination of CDBG funded social service programs, which
will allow staff to comply with HUD monitoring requirements.
San Diego Regional Task Force on the Homeless (RTFH)
Requested: $1,000
Staff Recommendation: $1,000
PURPOSE: The RTFH builds regional cooperation among local govemments and the private sector
in addressing homelessness issues. The RTFH also conducts and publishes special studies which are
regularly incorporated into local documents such as the Housing Element, Consolidated Plan and grant
proposals for federal and state funding.
RATIONALE: Staff recommends full funding due to minimal amount requested and value derived
from assistance with reporting responsibilities.
MAAC Project - Lead-Based Paint Testing
Requested: $50,000
Staff Recommendation: $5,500
PURPOSE: Funds are to provide written assessments of lead contaminated homes in the City.
MAAC Project is EPA qualified and state certified for Lead Base Paint Abatement.
RATIONALE: The recommended amount of funding would provide enough assessments so that lead-
based paint testing could be integrated into the City's housing rehabilitation program. Although a
City-wide program is viewed as valuable, its high cost is considered prohibitive at this time.
SOCIAL SERVICE FUNDING REOUESTS:
$324,300
The recommended budget for Social Services is $324,300. The City received 33 eligible requests
for social services funding from non-profit community organizations, totalling over $659,592.
Programs that are eligible for public service funds are those programs run by non-profit organizations
that provide a direct public or social service to low income persons of the community. Staff
recommendations for public service funding, along with the CDBG ad hoc committee's
recommendations, are summarized below.
d-,\-s
Page 6, Item~
Meeting Date 06/13/95
--
In 1994-95, a total of 24 organizations were funded with $271,800. For 1995-96, a total of 30
organizations are being recommended for funding with $204,300, and 3 organizations are not being
recommended for funding. 1995-96 percentage reductions in individual organization funding may be
less dramatic when compared to 1994-95 funding levels. Columns have been added in Exhibit I to
display the 1994-95 funding levels and the percentage for the 1995-96 recommendations. As you can
see, for 10 programs there is no funding reductions since these programs were not funded in 1994-95,
including the COPS program. For another 9 programs, the funding reduction is between 0-20% from
the amount received this year. For another II programs, the proposed cut is from 27-41%, and for 3
programs including two City programs, the proposed reduction is over 41%.
Methodology for Making Recommendations: In developing staff recommendations, staff utilized the
following principles:
I. The recommendations of the CDBG ad-hoc committee constituted a valuable guide from citizens
conversant in the categories of social service need in the Chula Vista community and should be
the starting point for consideration of funding levels, while recognizing that some significant
exceptions might be appropriate where important information might exist which fell outside the
normal purview of the ad-hoc committee.
2. The COPS Program offered an. opportunity for the City to obtain the community-enhancing
services of four new community service police officers if the City was able to match federal
funds, with the only practical source of funds being the CDBG social service category.
3. Recommended funding levels for social services should not be below levels that made the offered
CDBG-eligible activities infeasible.
4. Funding preference should go to programs which best met the criteria of providing new services
to Chula Vista, providing services from a local base, not duplicating existing services, and having
a successful track record. These criteria can sometimes be in conflict, and their application
requires a careful balancing.
In response to Council comments at the June 6 meeting, staff does not consider similar services offered
in the areas of child care, domestic violence, adult day care and summer camps to be duplicative. On
taking a closer look at these programs, staff feels that each organization's services are distinctive, both
in the delivery to specific client groups and geographical area served. Additionally, each organization's
similar services combined do not address the strong need for those services, so they are not perceived
as duplicative. In regard to the merging of these organization's services, staff feels that in most cases
such mergers would be complex and would only be practical as a long-term goal.
d-.\ -I..r
Page 7, Item ~ \
Meeting Date 06/13/95
The above principles were utilized as follows:
a) Staff started with the recommendations of the ad-hoc committee, which often varied
substantially from the amounts requested by the organizations;
b) Staff recommended full funding for the COPS Program ($120,000) and subtracted that
amount from the available social service funding under the 15% cap
($324,300-$120,000=$204,300), which represented a 37% reduction in available social
service funding.
c) Staff reduced most requests by 41.5% from the levels recommended by the ad-hoc
committee, while making exceptions in certain cases based on the principles identified in
Number 3 and Number 4 above.
Funding Recommendations: All of the programs requesting funds are identified below. The
information provided includes the amount of funds requested, the funding recommendation of the CDBG
ad-hoc committee, and the staff funding recommendation. If a program is recommended for funding,
then staff has determined that it is a viable program at the recommended level of funding. Again, most
staff recommendations reflect a 41.5% reduction from the ad-hoc committee recommendation.
Exceptions are explained.
m~y...'ii~qml~~~j~~~~R~~i
Also, please note that the CDBG Budget Notebook previously provided to the 'Council contains detailed
information about the requesting organizations and their programs.
Access Center of San Diego - CV Job Club (See Blue Notebook - Tab #1)
Request: $10,000 Committee Recommendation: $0 Staff Recommendation: $4,770
Staff recommends $4,880 in funding. The CDBG ad hoc committee recommended no funding to this
organization based on the fact that this agency mostly serves the San Diego area and that these services
are duplicative. Staff feels these services to the disabled of Chula Vista are not a duplication due to the
large demand for these specialized type of services. The Access Center also operates a smaller local
office which is located in Chula Vista. In addition, this program has an outstanding track record with
the City for the last 5+ years.
d-\ -1
Page 8, Item~
Meeting Date 06/13/95
Adult Protective Services - SB Adult Health Care Center (See Tab #2)
Request: $12,000 Committee Recommendation: $12,000 Staff Recommendation: $7,020
This program successfully provides a much-needed service by providing adult day care. Staff
recommends a 41.5% reduction from the committee recommendation to allow for funding other
programs. Staff feels these services are not duplicative with the Alzheimer's Center proposal due to
geographical area served. Adult Protective Services mainly serves the southwestern portion of the City.
AIDS Foundation of San Diego - Case Management & Social Services Expansion (See Tab #3)
Request: $10,000 Committee Recommendation: $10,000 Staff Recommendation: $5,850
The AIDS Foundation of San Diego is the only organization which provides services to persons with
AIDS/HIV in Chula Vista. Staff recommends a 41.5% reduction from the committee recommendation
to allow funding for other programs.
Alzheimer's Family Centers - Day Care/Transportation (See Tab #14)
Request: $20,000 Committee Recommendation: $10,000 Staff Recommendation: $5,850
This program successfully provides a much-needed service by providing adult day care for patients with
Alzheimer's disease and related disorders. Staff recommends a 41.5% reduction from the committee
recommendation to allow for funding other programs. Staff feels these services are not duplicative with
the Adult Protective Service's proposal due to geographical area served. The Alzheimer's Center mainly
serves the northwestern portion of the City.
Boys & Girls Club - Fine Arts (See Tab #5)
Request: $14,415 Committee Recommendation: $11,000
Staff Recommendation: $6,435
This program successfully provides a much-needed service by providing fine art activities to low income
youth. Staff recommends a 41.5% reduction from the committee recommendation to allow for funding
other programs.
Boys & Girls Club- Funshine Camp (See Tab #4)
Request: $15,180 Committee Recommendation: $13,000
Staff Recommendation: $7,605
This program successfully provides a much-needed service by providing summer day camp activities to
low income youth. Staff recommends a 41.5% reduction from the committee recommendation to allow
for funding other programs. Staff feels these services are not duplicative with the South Bay Family
YMCA Summer Day Camp proposal due to large demand of these types of services in the City. Staff
feels that combined, these two organizations along with the City's Park and Recreation Department's
summer camp programs do not meet the city-wide need.
~\-&'
Page 9, Item ~ \
Meeting Date 06/13/95
Center for Women's Studies & Services - Project Safehouse (See Tab #7)
Request: $10,000 Committee Recommendation: $10,000 Staff Recommendation: $5,850
This program successfully provides a much-needed service by providing shelter for battered women.
Staff recommends a 41.5% reduction from the committee recommendation to allow for funding other
programs. Staff feels that these services are not duplicative with the YMCA Family Stress Center and
YWCA of San Diego County proposals due to specific services offered and clientele served. In addition,
these three organization's services combined do not meet the overall city-wide need for these types of
services.
Chula Vista Connection - Day Care (See Tab #8)
Request: $30,000 Committee Recommendation: $0
Staff Recommendation: $12,000
Staff recommends $12,000 in funding for this valuable day care program, which should be sufficient
funds, when combined with private fund-raising and continued efforts by the center to help its clients
access other day care subsidies, to keep the center operating. The funds are recommended to be
approved on the condition that the center presents a management/financial plan acceptable to the Citv.
It is staff s understanding that Chula Vista Connection is currently exploring the possibility of creating
a relationship with another local agency that might provide a strengthening in the area of financial
management. Staff feels that these services are not duplicative with the South Bay Family YMCA
Sunshine Company and Vista Square Health proposals due to different geographical areas served and that
these three organization's services combined do not meet the overall city-wide need for these types of
serVices.
Chula Vista Police Dept.- Police Activities League (See Tab #11)
Request: $23,000 Committee Recommendation: $12,000
Staff Recommendation: $7,020
This program successfully provides a much-needed service by providing recreational activities to at- risk
and low income youth. Staff recommends a 41.5% reduction from the committee recommendation to
allow for funding other programs.
Chula Vista Police/Fire Depts- CAST (See Tab #6)
Request: $4,000 Committee Recommendation: $4,000
Staff Recommendation: $2,340
This program successfully provides a much-needed service by providing support and assistance to
families and victims of trauma. Staff recommends a 41.5% reduction from the committee
recommendation to allow for funding other programs.
Chula Vista Police Dept.- COPS (See Tab #33)
Request: $120,000 Committee Recommendation: N/A
Staff Recommendation: $120,000
The COPS Program offered an opportunity for the City to obtain the community-enhancing services of
four new community service police officers if the City was able to match federal funds, with the only
practical source of funds being the CDBG social service category. Exhibit 6 is a copy of a letter (copied
to the Council) from the South Bay Directors Council to social service providers expressing concern that
d\-'\
Page 10, Item~ \
Meeting Date 06/13/95
the funding of this program from the CDBG Program could lead to the possible erosion of CDBG social
service funding for other social service programs over a three-year period. The genesis of this concern
seems to be the fact that the COPS Program requires the federal COPS Program funding to decrease each
year of the three-year grant program, so that at the end of the three-year grant program the funding
would be entirely local. The Directors Council seems to assume that the source of the increasing local
match would be the social service funding component of the CDBG Program. It should be recognized
that the CDBG funding request from the Police Department for this program indicates that the following
future CDBG funding requests are anticipated to be requested: 1996-97--$120,000; 1997-98--$120,000;
1998-99--$0. Although it is clear that additional local matching funds will be required for the next two
COPS Program years, there has been no staff proposal or intention expressed to fund additional amounts
in future years, whether at the $120,000 level or any higher level.
Chula Vista Police Dept.- Intervention Team (See Tab #10)
Request: $20,000 Committee Recommendation: $13,000
Staff Recommendation: $7,605
This program successfully provides a much-needed service by providing crisis intervention services to
victims and perpetrators. Staff recommends a 41.5% reduction from the committee recommendation to
allow for funding other programs.
Chula Vista Library - Literacy Team (See Tab #9)
Request: $43,000 Committee Recommendation: $29,700 Staff Recommendation: $17,375
This program successfully provides a much-needed service by providing literacy services to the entire
community. Staff recommends a 41.5% reduction from the committee recommendation to allow for
funding other programs.
County Department of Social Services - DADS Program (See Tab #12)
Request: $18,600 Committee Recommendation: $7,000 Staff Recommendation: $0
Staff recommends no funding for this program due to services, for the most part, not being provided
directly in Chula Vista.
Episcopal Community Services - Outreach Health Education (See Tab #13)
Request: $20,000 Committee Recommendation: $11,000 Staff Recommendation: $6,435
This program successfully provides a much-needed service by providing health education services and
information to the Otay Community. Staff recommends a 41.5% reduction from the committee
recommendation to allow for funding other programs.
Jobs for Youth - Temporary Employment (See Tab #15)
Request: $3,100 Committee Recommendation: $3,100
Staff Recommendation: $3, I 00
Staff recommends full funding for this program due to the fact that it provides the valuable preventative
service of securing summer jobs for youth, because it is very "lean" and well run, and because it has no
other practical sources of funds. The program would not be feasible if it received a reduced grant.
~\-IO
Page 11, Item ~\
Meeting Date 06/13/95
Lutheran Social Services - Project Hand (See Tab #17)
Request: $20,000 Committee Recommendation: $18,000 Staff Recommendation: $10,530
This program successfully provides a much-needed service by providing emergency food and clothing
assistance to the homeless. Staff recommends a 41.5% reduction from the committee recommendation
to allow for funding other programs.
LLC/SDI - Literacy Center (See Tab #16)
Request: $1,500 Committee Recommendation: $1,500
Staff Recommendation: $1,500
Staff recommends full funding due to small amount of funding requested. In addition, all funds will go
towards the purchase of materials. All work is done on a volunteer basis.
Latino Real Estate Association - Vivienda/Auxiliar (See Tab #19)
Request: $31,700 Committee Recommendation: $0
Staff Recommendation: $0
Staff recommends no funding for this program due to the fact that the services offered are duplicative
of services already provided by private lenders under CRA requirements and by South Bay Community
Services.
MAAC Project - Otay Community Act Partnership Program (See Tab #18)
Request: $18,887 Committee Recommendation: $9,000 Staff Recommendation: $5,265
This program successfully provides a much-needed service by providing recreational activities to low
income youth in Otay Town. Staff recommends a 41.5% reduction from the committee recommendation
to allow for funding other programs.
San Diego Home Loan Counseling Service (See Tab #20)
Request: $6,000 Committee Recommendation: $0
Staff Recommendation: $0
Staff recommends no funding for this program due to the fact that the services offered are duplicative
of services already provided by private lenders under CRA requirements and by South Bay Community
Services.
Senior Adult Services - Meals on Wheels (See Tab #21)
Request: $12,000 Committee Recommendation: $12,000
Staff Recommendation: $7,020
This program successfully provides a much-needed service by providing home-delivered meals to seniors.
Staff recommends a 41.5% reduction from the committee recommendation to allow for funding other
programs.
d-\ - \,
Page 12, Item~ \
Meeting Date 06/13/95
So. Bay Family YMCA - Youth Action Program (See Tab #29)
Request: $15,000 Committee Recommendation: $12,000
Staff Recommendation: $7,020
This program successfully provides a much-needed service by providing after-school recreational
activities to low income youth. Staff recommends a 41.5% reduction from the committee
recommendation to allow for funding other programs.
So. Bay Family YMCA - Summer Camp (See Tab #31)
Request: $8,500 Committee Recommendation: $8,000
Staff Recommendation: $4,680
This program successfully provides a much-needed service by providing summer day camp activities to
low income youth. Staff recommends a 41.5% reduction from the committee recommendation to allow
for funding other programs. Although the site of this day care is located in a non low and moderate
income area, the YMCA utilizes CDBG funds in a unique fashion in that it offers scholarships to low
income youth, making their participation possible. Staff feels these services are not duplicative with the
Boys and Girls Club Funshine Camp proposal due to large demand of these types of services in the City.
Staff feels that combined, these two organizations along with the City's Park and Recreation
Department's summer camp programs do not meet the city-wide need.
So. Bay Family YMCA - Child Care (See Tab #30)
Request: $27,091 Committee Recommendation: $18,000 Staff Recommendation: $10,530
This program successfully provides a much-needed service by providing after-school child care services
to low income families. Staff recommends a 41.5% reduction from the committee recommendation to
allow for funding other programs. Staff feels that these services are not duplicative with the Chula Vista
Connection and Vista Square Health proposals due to different geographical areas served and that these
three organization's services combined do not meet the overall city-wide need for these types of services.
South County Council on Aging - Shared Housing (See Tab #24)
Request: $14,000 Committee Recommendation: $7,000
Staff Recommendation: $4,095
This program successfully provides a much-needed service by providing services that match low income
seniors looking for housing. Staff recommends a 41.5% reduction from the committee recommendation
to allow for funding other programs.
South Bay Community Services - Thursday's Meal (See Tab #22)
Request: $5,000 Committee Recommendation: $5,000
Staff Recommendation: $2,925
This program successfully provides a much-needed service by providing hot meals to the homeless. Staff
recommends a 41.5% reduction from the committee recommendation to allow for funding other
programs.
.;) l - I~
Page 13, Item~ \
Meeting Date 06/13/95
South Bay Community Services - Casa Nuestra Youth Shelter (See Tab #23)
Request: $19,000 Committee Recommendation: $15,000 Staff Recommendation: $8,775
This program successfully provides a much-needed service by providing emergency shelter to runaway
and throwaway youth. Staff recommends a 41.5% reduction from the committee recommendation to
allow for funding other programs.
Sweetwater Union High School District - Gang Prevention (See Tab #25)
Request: $25,000 Committee Recommendation: $12,000 Staff Recommendation: $7,020
This program successfully provides a much-needed service by providing gang prevention services to at
risk youth. Staff recommends a 41.5% reduction from the committee recommendation to allow for
funding other programs.
Vista Square Health - Child Care (See Tab #26)
Request: $7,000 Committee Recommendation: $7,000
Staff Recommendation: $4,095
This program successfully provides a much-needed service by providing child care to low income
families. Staff recommends a 41.5% reduction from the committee recommendation to allow for funding
other programs. Staff feels that these services are not duplicative with the South Bay Family YMCA
Sunshine Company and Chula Vista Connection proposals due to different geographical areas served and
that these three organization's services combined do not meet the overall city-wide need for these types
of services.
Woodlawn Park Civic League - Woodlawn Park Community Center (See Tab #27)
Request: $26,000 Committee Recommendation: $23,000 Staff Recommendation: $13,455
This program successfully provides a much-needed service by providing recreational and other activities
to low income youth and seniors. Staff recommends a 41.5% reduction from the committee
recommendation to allow for funding other programs.
YMCA Family Stress Center - Psychotherapy Services (See Tab #28)
Request: $39,619 Committee Recommendation: $21,000 Staff Recommendation: $12,285
This program successfully provides a much-needed service by providing psychotherapy services to the
community. Staff recommends a 41.5% reduction from the committee recommendation to allow for
funding other programs. Staff feels that these services are not duplicative with the Center for Women's
Studies and Services and YWCA of San Diego County proposals due to specific services offered and
clientele served. In addition, these three organizations services combined do not meet the overall city-
wide need for these types of services.
~\- \~
Page 14, Item ~\
Meeting Date 06/13/95
YWCA of San Diego County - Domestic Violence & Treatment Program (See Tab #32)
Request: $10,000 Committee Recommendation: $10,000 Staff Recommendation: $5,850
This program successfully provides a much-needed service by providing domestic violence services to
the community. Staff recommends a 41.5% reduction from the committee recommendation to allow for
funding other programs. Staff feels that these services are not duplicative with the Center for Women's
Studies and Services and YMCA Family Stress Center proposals due to specific services offered and
clientele served. In addition, these three organizations services combined do not meet the overall city-
wide need for these types of services.
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
$1.160.225
The recommended budget for capital improvement projects is $1,160,225. All five of the following
recommended projects have been or would be funded on a multi-year basis. The amount requested may
not actually represent the total amount needed by the project in its entirety. There is no HUD
restriction on the amount of the CDBG entitlement that can be used for Capital Improvements.
Staff recommends funding as follows:
YMCA Teaching Pool
Requested: $50,000
Staff Recommendation: $50,000
PURPOSE: These funds will assist in the financing of lap, instructional, and therapy pools, as well as
exercise rooms and training facilities in Rancho Del Rey. The facilities will be open to all Chula Vista
residents, and represents a creative partnership between the City and the YMCA.
RATIONALE: This project previously received approval of $50,000 in CDBG funds per year for five
years for a total of $250,000 by the City Council. The YMCA will provide classes and activities in the
facilities at reduced or no cost to seniors and lower-income residents.
ADA Modifications
Requested: $108,000
Staff Recommendation: $108,000
PURPOSE: 1995-96 appropriations would provide for the modification to City facilities as required by
the ADA, making them accessible to individuals with disabilities. Modification includes signage, doors,
public access routes and restrooms.
RATIONALE: Staff views compliance with the ADA as a high priority. This project and the curb cuts
will further the City's progress towards meeting ADA goals.
d-\ -I~
Page 15, Item cS. \
Meeting Date 06/13/95
ADA Curb Cuts
Requested: $50,000
Staff Recommendation: $50,000
PURPOSE: 1995-96 appropriations would provide for the construction of concrete wheelchair ramps
at an estimated 47 different locations in the City. Curb Cuts are a requirement of the ADA.
The City has funded this program 10 years to date.
RATIONALE: Staff views compliance with the ADA as a high priority. This project and the ADA
modifications above will further the City's progress towards meeting ADA goals.
Otay Park Gymnasium
Requested: $1,098,000
Staff Recommendation: $952,225
PURPOSE: The City Council approved a Master Plan for Otay Park on May 24, 1994. 1995/96
appropriations are for the construction of the first phase of improvements including the design and
construction of a 16,000 square foot gymnasium.
RATIONALE: Parks and Recreation Department studies and surveys have documented the fact that there
is a deficiency of recreational facilities and activities in the southwestern portion of the City. The funding
request is recommended to be reduced somewhat in order to accommodate other components of the
CDBG budget. $......~......~. t.J!ln............~.}~......il.....pn..}.........~.P. ;.....~..t. !..~.....~....taf.............!1.n~........!P.....~. n........gpn........ !.p. r....~. !jrm......................!P....Pi......~.........po..i........9n. }.g.g......~. P....}. Pi........~...n.......e.......ar............}.fli.............tiJt..................e..............~.............:.Pi...........
~fiBii~n~~~!~n~9~I~x~9f~~~em?n~~~H&&;Bi!.~P*9Rql~B!MIA~~s~~~~9r~~~I~~
ril~_f~~I_llllllllIlilii'lllli~"~llir~llllllillllllt~1II~II
IlliIIIE_~'I~lrl~l~i~;IIIII~!II~IIIIIIII~'lllr4~1111ill~In'
rlt~I~I'li~lIli~flrili....~...~.fc. r..~...~........~. r..~. p.~. '.~....~.I.l.I~.a..~.~h. ,..~..........~.....~.~....~. !.~e....~.........~.~.~r.L.........~.r....~.r..~..r......~S.~;. t. r. i~. ~n.....~.......~..,....8....~....~.r.~.I.?.....~.~.........w.... w....I....tn.p.......F.....lIUD. a...............~......e........
........"."..............".................'.-'-...............................................-........-...--..'---'---'-'--","--","--',"---'-'--","--","--","---'---","--","--","--',"--'.'---'-'--'.'--'.'--'.'--'.'--'.'---.---.--.-.--..--..--...--.....................-. . . ... ....
j).........\l.......t......~.....:tIDi.................a........ i..p:g......................li.........Q........u...........~..... j...n..........l?;..\...r~. )...\...11.... ~!~jt~. tip.. .Jl.............~.P. .....lUl...........~.j.Px.... .~.... .~.... .!l....\. ft....... Q....!n............~.....)).........~........~........l:1.J. \Ul.........~......s........w. \. tli.......~.... .....~......ll. '..II. y.\....y..il....ilw.... ....~9f..............th...........~...............t!...\..................................... ;h............O:..........u..........$1..........ix..... g......
f~j).~~fl!~~qpmpgj;l!!i(............................................................................................................................................................ . .. ...... .... . ..........
...........................................
Castle Park B Neighborhood Revitalization Program (NRP)
Requested: $1,534,000
Staff Recommendation: $0
PURPOSE: The City Council approved the Castle Park B neighborhood as the next Neighborhood
Revitalization Program (NRP) area in December of 1993. Funds would be for construction of missing
street improvements, street widening, missing curb, gutter and sidewalks and construction of an additional
drainage circuit
RATIONALE: It is recommended that no funds be allocated at this time for the NRP program, due to
the demands on the limited CDBG funds and the magnitude of the request. The NRP program is worthy
of support, and staff feels that the program's momentum should be preserved as much as possible. The
~-\S
Page 16, Item ~\
Meeting Date 06/13/95
projects are important improvements. Therefore, as indicated above under the Otay Gym project, staff
intends to return to the Council in the near future with a consideration of including some design funding
for the NRP capital improvements in a Section 108 Loan application.
COMMUNITY PROJECTS SUMMARY
$492.800
The recommended budget for Community Projects funding is $492,800. It include the following
types of eligible activities: a) Neighborhood Revitalization/Interim Assistance; b) Acquisition by Non-
Profit Entity; c) Special Activities by Community-Based Development Organizations (CBDOs); d)
Improvements to Non-profit Facilities; and, e) Special Economic Development Activities. Staff has
determined that these proposals are eligible for CDBG funding, will primarily benefit low-income
households, and do not fit the category of public services which are subject to a 15% funding cap.
There is no HUD restriction on the amount of the CDBG entitlement that can be used for
Community Projects.
The seven recommended projects are as follows:
Neighborhood Revitalization/Interim Assistance
Graffiti Eradication
Requested: $33,600
Staff Recommendation: $30,000
PURPOSE: South Bay Community Services (SBCS), in partnership with the Chula Vista Police
Department, is requesting funds to continue their community effort to eradicate graffiti painted on private
businesses and residences. Youth offenders and community volunteers provide the labor. Funds are
requested for the Program Coordinator position.
RATIONALE: This program has demonstrated great success in the community and has developed an
excellent track record during the last several years. Staff recommends reduced budget in order to provide
adequate funding for other community projects.
Home Repair for Seniors
Requested: $24,533
Staff Recommendation: $24,000
PURPOSE: Lutheran Social Services is requesting funds to continue providing health and safety home
repairs to seniors. Most of the labor is donated by local south bay contractors.
RATIONALE: This program continues to meet the overwhelming demand from Chula Vista seniors for
this type of assistance. The program has been of great assistance to City Housing Rehabilitation staff
in response to requests from the public for small and/or emergency repairs. Small reduction in funding
is to allow for funding of other programs.
d\~I~
Page 17, Item ~\
Meeting Date 06/13/95
Improvements to Non-profit Communitv Facilities
Boys and Girls Club of Chula Vista
Request: $5,000
Staff Recommendation: $3,000
PURPOSE: The Boys and Girls Club requests funds to make improvements to a ball field next to their
Oleander Center.
RATIONALE: Staff recommends funding of this project due to documented fact that there is a
deficiency of open park space in the southwestern section of the City. Staff recommends reduced budget
in order to provide adequate funding for other community projects.
Acquisition bv Non-Profit Entitv
Trolley Terrace Day Care Facility
Requested: $300,000
Staff Recommendation: $300,000
PURPOSE: Request is for funds to reimburse $289,000 to the Agency's Low and Moderate Income
Housing Fund (LMIHF) with CDBG funds for the acquisition of an approximately one acre site for the
development of an affordable child care facility near the Palomar Trolley Center. In addition, $11,000
would be used as a pre-development grant for construction of the day care facility.
RATIONALE: On September 20, 1994 the City Council voted to acquire a 2+ acre parcel using Low
and Moderate Income Housing Funds for a twelve unit "for sale" affordable housing project and
affordable child care facility for approximately 100 children with the understanding that staff would
return with a request for CDBG funds prior to the development of the child care facility to reimburse
the Agency housing fund for that portion of the site attributed to the child care facility. The
development of the child care facility cannot begin until this has been accomplished because these
housing funds cannot be used for the development of child care facilities. Federal HOME funds in the
amount of $354,000 from FY 1994-95 will be used to reimburse the Agency housing fund for the portion
of the site set aside for the housing development.
Special Activities bv Communitv-Based Development Organizations
South Bay Community Services Office Space
Requested: $61,200
Staff Recommendation: $61,200
PURPOSE: Funds are being requested to pay office rent on 5,100 square feet of office space at 315
Fourth Avenue. These offices house South Bay Community Services (SBCS), which provides a host of
social services which benefit low income households in the City.
RATIONALE: Based on HUD regulations related to Community Based Development Organizations
(CBDO), under this category SBCS qualifies as an "umbrella" organization which offers community and
economic development activities. This proposal benefits the City/Agency in that rents would be collected
from SBCS for the office space they occupy in the El Dorado Building at 315 Fourth Avenue.
~\"'\"
Page 18, Ite~\
Meeting Date 06/13/95
Special Economic Development Activities
SBCS Community Development Program
Requested: $69,812
Staff Recommendation: $23,600
PURPOSE: The mission of this program is to initiate economic development for the extremely low, low
and moderate income residents of Chula Vista. Efforts include developing affordable housing,
performing neighborhood improvement projects, and creating economic advancement options. The City
has funded this activity by SBCS for the past four years, and the result has been that the City and the
Agency has become a partner with SBCS on such projects as the short-term and transitional housing
facilities on Fourth Avenue, the Cordova affordable apartment project planned for Rancho del Rey, and
the Trolley Terrace affordable housing and day care project. This effort by SBCS also has resulted in
the KlDSBIZ program.
RATIONALE: Staff is recommending that this program be funded with both HOME and CDBG funds.
HOME funds can be used to build the capacity of Community Housing Development Organizations
(CHDO) or non-profit developers creating affordable housing. However, HOME regulations place a five
percent cap on these activities or $35,400. The balance of the funds necessary to fund this project
($23,600). will come from this CDBG request.
Border Environmental Business Cluster (BEBC)
Requested: $100,000
Staff Recommendation: $50,000
PURPOSE: Funds will be used to capitalize a Revolving Loan Fund (RLF) from which to make loans
(primarily micro loans) to BEBC tenants. The BEBC facility, to be located in Chula Vista, will offer
inexpensive and flexible spaces and development services and counseling for 20 to 25 start-up businesses.
RATIONALE: Consistent with the goals of the Border Environmental Commerce Alliance, the creation
of a Revolving Loan Fund (RLF) will strengthen the City's ability to assist business and to create jobs.
This program will help the BEBC to be more successful, and would be used to assist BEBC tenant and
graduate companies. This program would encourage graduate companies to locate permanently in Chula
Vista by providing financial assistance in the form of loans. According to 1992 study by the California
Association for Economic Development, 82% of cities responding to a survey had an "in house" RLF
program. Half of the survey participants listed the Community Development Block Grant program as
the source of funds used for the program. Staff recommends funding half of the funding request at this
time ($50,000), with the expectation that the amount recommended will likely cover the loan activity that
will be generated by this new program in the 1995-96 budget year, and with the anticipation of funding
the program with additional funds in the next CDBG year. The Economic Development Commission
supported in concept a revolving micro-loan program.
~l' IB'
Page 19, Item~\
Meeting Date 06/13/95
The one Community Project not recommended for funding is as follows:
Acquisition by Non-Profit Entity
The Church Street Affordable Housing Project
Requested: $534,600 HAC Recommended: $0
Staff Recommendation: $0
PURPOSE: Funds would be used to purchase nine studio apartments located at 233 Church Avenue,
refurbish the units and operate units for the first year as independent living care units for very low
income "Special Needs" persons with AIDS/HIV in the Chula Vista area.
RATIONALE: Staffreviewed this proposal with the City's Housing Advisory Commission on May 24,
1995. The Housing Advisory Commission voted no funding for this particular housing project for the
following reasons: I) The Heath Group is a for-profit organization with no track record in AIDS/HIV
housing projects; 2) the proposal did not have any matching funds or leverage funds; 3) the proposal
relied too heavily on the City for operations support in future years. Overall, the Commission felt that
the project request was too large and the project too costly per unit. The Commission encouraged the
Heath Group and/or other non-profit organizations to bring similar types of housing proposals to the City
for consideration, but with stronger financial budgets. Staff concurs with the Commission and
recommends no funding.
PART C: PROPOSED 1995-96 HOME BUDGET (See Exhibit 7)
The Federal HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME Program) allocates funds by formula
directly to state and local governments to promote affordable housing. Participating jurisdictions are able
to provide this assistance to both for-profit and non-profit housing developers or directly to qualified
home buyers or renters. The assistance may take the form of grants, loans, advances, equity investments,
and interest subsidies.
To date, the City has been allocated $2,603,000 in HOME funds since 1992 when the program was
created. HOME funds may be used to provide affordable rental housing and homeownership
opportunities through new construction, acquisition, rehabilitation, and tenant-based rental assistance.
In addition, HOME funds can be used to fund operational costs for Community Housing Development
Organizations (CHDO). A CHDO is a non-profit, community-based organization that has, or intends to
retain, staff with the capacity to develop affordable housing for the community it serves. Currently,
South Bay Community Services is the only designated CHDO in the City of Chula Vista.
The City is required to provide a 25 percent match for HOME funds used for rental assistance, housing
rehabilitation, and acquisition of standard housing. A 30 percent match is required for new construction.
Some examples of allowable matching contributions would include Redevelopment Agency Low and
Moderate Income Housing Funds, land value (donated or a loan), on and off-site improvements, waiver
of local and state taxes or fees, or voluntary labor in connection with site preparation. If a project
exceeds the required match, the excess credit can be applied to future projects.
d\' 111
Page 20, Item~
Meeting Date 06/13/95
For 1995-96, the City of Chula Vista will receive $708,000 in HOME funds. The following is the
proposed budget for 1995-96:
ESTIMATED 1995-96 USE OF HOME FUNDS
CITY OF CHULA VISTA!
ACTIVITY TOTAL HOME $ RENTAL $ OWNER $
New Construction $300,900 $300,900 0
Substantial Rehab 0 0 0
Other Rehab 0 0 0
Acquisition $300,900 $300,900 0
Tenant Assistance 0 0 0
CHDO Operation $35,400 0 0
City Administration $70,800 0 0
The following is a brief description of the above HOME activities being recommended for funding:
New Construction
New construction funds can be used to assist a non-profit developer or a for-profit builder or a
combination of the two to construct rental units for households earning 60% or less of the area median
income, or homeownership units for households earning 75% or less of the area median income.
A possible new construction project under this category is being considered to satisfy the Eastlake
Affordable Housing Requirements.
Acquisition
Funds in the acquisition category are envisioned to be used to assist with the acquisition of two HUD
housing projects in Chula Vista where the owners (private developers) have exercised their option to sell
the projects. If these projects (Oxford Terrace and Palomar Apartments) are not purchased by non-profit
organizations through HUD's Housing Preservation Program, the owners will convert the projects to
market-rate. Thus, potentially 303 affordable units could be lost. City HOME funds would be used to
fund 5% of the cost of acquisition and the HUD Preservation Program would pay for the remaining 95%
of the cost.
CHDO Operation
The $35,400 proposed for CHDO operation costs is earmarked for South Bay Community Services, the
only organization in Chula Vista to be designated as a CHDO. Currently, staff is recommending that
the City fund their Community Development Program with $23,600 in CDBG funds. By utilizing 5%
I The City has the option to modify the amounts by category in the future without HUD
approval if the need arises.
d\J~
Page 21, Item 0.\
Meeting Date 06/13/95
of HOME funds ($35,400) to fund the SBCS Community Development Program, the City will free up
CDBG funds that can be used for other activities to benefit low and moderate income households. The
Community Development Program has been funded by the City for the past four years, and during that
time have become a well respected affordable housing producer.
Citv Administration
The City can allocate 10% or $70,800 of its HOME funds for administration. These funds will be used
for overall administration and coordination of the HOME Program as well as staff time devoted to
individually HOME-funded projects and programs. HOME funds used for administration do not require
a match.
FISCAL IMP ACT: The City will receive $2,162,000 in CDBG entitlement funds as well as $116,825
in reallocation funds making a total of $2,278,825 available for FY 1995-96. The 15 percent cap on
social services funding will limit the social services allocation to a maximum of $324,300. In addition,
the City will receive $708,000 in HOME funds for FY 1995-96. The grand total of FY 1995-96 funds
to be received from HUD will be $2,986,825.
d\"~\
, ,
RESOLUTION I, '0 %
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
APPROVING THE FY 1995-1999 CONSOLIDATED PLAN INCLUDING BOTH THE
FY 1995-1996 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) AND
HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP (HOME) PROGRAM BUDGETS AND
AUTHORIZING TRANSMITTAL OF CONSOLIDATED PLAN TO THE U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD).
WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista has prepared a FY 1995-'999 Consolidated
Plan per HUD Rules and Regulations; and,
WHEREAS. the City of Chula Vista will receive a , 995-96 CDSG entitlement of
$2,' 62.000; and,
WHEREAS. the City of Chula Vista has $' , 6,825 of prior year CDSG reallocation
funds available; and,
WHEREAS. the City of Chula Vista will receive $708,000 in HOME funds for FY
, 995-96; and. .
WHEREAS. the City has followed its Citizen Participation Plan and held a public
hearing on housing and community development needs on May 16. 1995; and.
WHEREAS. the City has prepared the '993-96 Community Development Plan
and has determined that all of the proposed activities are consistent with said Plan and
meet the CDSG national objectives to benefit primarily low-income households or aid in
the prevention of slums and blight; and.
NOW. THEREFORE. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA does
hereby find. order. determine and approve the FY 1995-'999 Consolidated Plan and
proposed FY , 995-96 CDBG and HOME budgets. copies of which are attached hereto and
incorporated herein.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista
approves the' 993-96 Community Development Plan. a copy of which is attached hereto
and incorporated herein.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED. that the Community Development Director is
authorized to transmit the FY 1995-'999 Consolidated Plan to the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
PRESENTED SY:
Bruce M. Soogaard
City Attorney
Chris Salomone
Community Development Director
~...~
~
I
V
<
b
TAB # ORGANIZATION
1
2
3
14
4
5
7
8
6
33
10
11
9
12
13
15
17
16
19
18
20
21
29
31
30
24
22
23
25
26
27
28
32
Access Center of San Diego
Adult Protective Services
AIDS Foundation of San Diego
Alzheimer's Family Centers
Boys & Girls Club of Chula Vista
Boys & Girls Club of Chula Vista
Center for Women's Studies & Services
Chula Vista Connection
Chula Vista Police/Fire Depls.
Chula Vista Police Department
Chula Vista Police Dept
Chula Vista Police Department
City of Chula Vista Library
County Department of Social Services
Episcopal Community Services
Jobs for Youth
Lutheran Social Services
LLC/SDI
Latino Real Estate Association
MAAC Project
San Diego Counseling Service
Senior Adult Ser;vces
So. Bay Family YMCA
So. Bay Family YMCA
So. Bay Family YMCA
So. County Council on Aging
South Bay Community Services
South Bay Community Services
Sweetwater Union High School District
Vista Square Health
Woodlawn Park Civic League
YMCA Family Stress Center
YWCA of San Diego County
TOTALS
~
--'
\
\J
-'"
PROGRAM
Chula Vista Job Club
So. Bay Adult Health Care Center
Case Management & Social Services Exp.
DaycarefT ransportation
Fine Arts
Funshine Camp
Project Safehouse
Daycare
CAST
Community Oriented Policing Program
Intervention Team
Police Activities League
Literacy Team
DADS
Outreach Health Education
Temporary Employment
Project Hand Emergency Assistance
Literacy Center
ViviendalAuxiliar
otay Community Act. Prtnrshp Program
Gen. Organizational Support
Meal on Wheels
Youth Action Program
Summer Day Camp
Sunshine Co. Childcare
Shared Housing
Thursday's Meal
Casa Nuestra Youth Shelter
Gang Prevention/Intervention
Child Care
Woodlawn Park Community Center
Psychotherapy Services
Domestic Violence & Treatment Program
Exhibit 1
1995-96 CDBG PUBLIC SERVICE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
CATEGORY
95-96 COMMITTEE STAFF
REQUEST RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDATION
Senior/Disabled $10,000
SeniorlDisabled $12,000
Health Care/Sub Abuse $10,000
Senior/Disabled $20,000
Youth $14,415
Youth $15,180
Domestic Violence $10,000
Youth $30,000
Community $4,000
Community $120,000
Community $20,000
Youth $23,000
Community $43,000
Community $18,600
Health Care/Sub Abuse $20,000
Youth $3,100
Community $20,000
Community $1,500
Community $31,700
Youth $18,887
Community $6,000
SeniorlDisabled $12,000
Youth $15,000
Youth $8,500
Youth $27,091
SeniorlDisabled $14,000
Community $5,000
Youth $19,000
Youth $25,000
Youth $7,000
Community $26,000
Domestic Violence $39,619
Domestic Violence $10,000
$659,592
$0
$12,000
$10,000
$10,000
$11,000
$13,000
$10,000
$0
$4,000
N/A
$13,000
$12,000
$29,700
$7,000
$11,000
$3,100
$18,000
$1,500
$0
$9,000
$0
$12,000
$12,000
$8,000
$18,000
$7,000
$5,000
$15,000
$12,000
$7,000
$23,000
$21,000
$10,000
$324,300
$4,770
$7,020
$5,850
$5,850
$6,435
$7,605
$5,850
$12,000
$2,340
$120,000
$7,605
$7,020
$17,375
$0
$6,435
$3,100
$10,530
$1,500
$0
$5,265
$0
$7,020
$7,020
$4,680
$10,530
$4,095
$2,925
$8,775
$7,020
$4,095
$13,455
$12,285
$5,850
$324,300
CURRENT 94-95 % REDUCTION
FUNDING 94-95 V5. 95-96
$6,645
$8,545
$7,145
N/A
N/A
N/A
$6,000
$12,000
N/A
N/A
$13,845
$10,000
$34,000
N/A
$9,925
$3,100
$14,645
N/A
N/A
$8,225
N/A
$8,500
$10,000
$5,645
$13,645
$13,645
$4,000
$15,000
$12,000
N/A
$19,645
$19,645
$6,000
$271,800 *
28%
18%
18%
N/A
N/A
N/A
2%
0%
N/A
N/A
45%
30%
49%
N/A
35%
0%
28%
N/A
N/A
36%
N/A
17%
30%
17%
13%
70%
27%
41%
41%
N/A
32%
37%
2%
* The above amount includes $10,000
a//ocated to the Boys & Girls Club Education
Enhancement Program in 94-95. This program
did not apply for 95-96 funding.
$492,800
~
-
\
IAI
c
COMMUNITY PROJECTS
SBCS Graffiti Eradication
Home Repair for Seniors
B&G Club - Field Renovation
Trolley Terrace Day Care
SBCS Office Space
SBCS Comm. Dev. Program
BEBC - RLF
TOTAL FY 1995-96 FUNDING ~ $2,278,825
ADMINISTRATION (20% CAP) $301,500
CV Fair Housing Program
CV Human Services Council
P&R Hum. Srvcs. Coord.
SDRTF - Homeless
MMC Project -LBP
Pub. Srves. (15.0%)
CIPs $1,160,225
YMCA Teaching Pool
ADA Modifications
ADA Curb Cuts
Otay Park Gym
PUB. SRVCS. (15% CAP)
Access Center of SD
Adult Protective Services
AIDS Foundation of SD
Alzheimer's Family Centers
B&G Club - Fine Arts
B&G Club Funshine Camp
CWSS - Project Safehouse
eve - Day Care
CV Police/Fire - CAST
CV Police - COPS
CV Police - Intervention Team
CV Police - PAL
CV Library. Literacy Team
EPS - Outreach Health
Jobs for Youth
Exh i bit #4
$324,300
LSS - Project Hand
LLC/SDI - Literacy Center
MAAC - Otay Partnership
SAS - Meals on Wheels
58 YMCA. Youth Action
58 YMCA - Summer Day Camp
58 YMCA - Sunshine Co.
SCCOA - Shared Housing
sacs - Th. Meal
S8es - Casa Nuestra
SUHSD - Gang Prevention
Vista Square Health - Child Care
Woodlawn Park Civic League
YMCA Family Stress Center
YWCA - Domestic Violence
1993-94 to 1995-96 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Exhibit 5
The City of Chula Vista will utilize Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds
primarily to benefit low and moderate income persons based on the needs, goals, and objectives
established in this Community Development Plan. A minimum of 70% of the funding will be
utilized for this purpose.
NEEDS:
The City has identified the following Community Development needs:
1. To revitalize and improve deteriorating neighborhoods.
2. To provide adequate public facilities throughout the community.
3. To expand economic opportunities.
4. To preserve, improve, and increase the supply of affordable housing.
5. To enhance the provision of human services.
GOALS:
The City shall:
1. Plan, design, and construct capital improvements in deteriorating neighborhoods.
2. Construct public facilities, such as parks, libraries, and community centers in
neighborhoods deficient in such facilities.
3. Assist in the provision of human services to senior citizens, youth, and families in need.
4. Promote decent and affordable housing for all residents and prevent housing
discrimination.
OBJECTIVES
1. Provide assistance to organizations serving the varied needs of senior citizens, including
housing, nutrition, health, transportation, and related services.
2. Provide assistance to organizations which provide counseling and support to adults
recovering from substance abuse or involved in domestic violence.
3. Provide assistance to organizations serving the varied needs of youth and their families,
including prevention and counseling programs for substance abuse, child abuse, and
juvenile delinquency.
4. Provide assistance to organizations which provide basic needs assistance and/or assist
people who are homeless, unemployed, or disabled to become self-sufficient.
5. Provide assistance to organizations which promote adult literacy.
6. Construct public improvements to alleviate public hazards and revitalize deteriorating
neighborhoods, including street, drainage, and lighting improvements.
7. Construct public improvements to enhance the quality of life for residents, including
parks, community centers, libraries, and other public facilities.
8. Promote small businesses and the creation of jobs through planning studies, infrastructure
improvements, technical assistance, and financial programs.
9. Provide assistance to neighborhood and community based organizations to initiate
neighborhood revitalization, economic development, and affordable housing programs.
10. Furnish fair housing information, counseling, testing and mediation services
,
~\ -;,~ /?1-'32.
I
Admin. (10.0%)
CHDO (5.0%)
~
\
UI
w
\J
Projects (85.0%)
\
(~
v
-F
ADMINISTRATION (10% CAP)
CHDO OPERATIONS (5% CAP)
$70,800
$35,400
PROJECTS:
HUD 236 At Risk Units
Eastlake Affordable Housing Project
$300,900
$300,900
TOTAL FUNDS
$708,000
Exhibit #7
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
,.
of"
FY 1995-96 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM
,
COMMUNITY DEV~LOPMENT DEPARTMENT
,
.
~ /-)~
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
1995-96 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PROGRAM SUMMARY
Preliminary 1995-96 Budget Summary ................................ 1
1993-94 to 1995-96 Community Development Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Administration & Planning Summary ................................. 3
Capital Improvement Projects Summary ............................... 4
Community Projects Summary ....................................5-6
Summary of Social Services. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7-18
CDBG Budget Comparison (FY 93-94 and FY 94-95 with 1995-96) ............. 19
FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS
CDBG ad hoc committee funding recommendations and comments ............ 20-24
Housing Advisory Commission - Minutes ........................... 25-27
Social Service Funding Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 28
Human Services Council Human Services Needs Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
SOCIAL SERVICE PROJECTS
The proposals are numbered from 1-33 and are listed on the orange, tabbed page at the front of
Section III. Tab 33 contains the COPS I Grant application.
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT/COMMUNITY PROJECTS
The proposals are "lettered" from A-Q and are listed on the lavender, tabbed page at the front
of Section. This section also includes the proposals from the Fair Housing Council of San
Diego, the MAAC Project, the Chula Vista Human Services Council and the Regional Task
Force on Homeless.
i
J-.I/)~
1995-96 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT BUDGET
Preliminary Budget (includes all proposed projects)
REVENUES
CDBG Entitlement
Reallocation- unused from prior years
EXPENDITURES
Staff Administration
Fair Housing Program
C.V. Human Services Council
Parks&Rec Human Services Coordinator
SD Regional Task Force on Homeless
MAAC Project - Lead-Based Paint Testing
Total Administration and Planning *
Total Social Services **
Capital Improvement Projects
ADA Modifications
Otay Park Renovation
ADA Curb Cuts
YMCA Teaching Pool
Castle Park B NRP
Total CIP
$2.278.825
$2~162.000
~116. 825
$4.865.671
$220.000
$50.626
$28.000
$15.000
$1.000
$50.000
.$364.626
$324.300
$108.000
$1. 306.000
$50.000
$50.000
$l. 534,000
$3.048.000
Community Projects
SBCS Community Development Program $69.812
SBCS Grafitti Eradication $33.600
LSS Home Repair for Seniors $24.533
Boys & Girls Club - Field Renovation $5.000
Church Street Affordable Housing Project $534.600
Border Environmental Business Cluster $100.000
SBCS Office Space $61.200
Trolley Terrace Day Care Facility $300.000
Total Community Projects $1.128.745
* Planning/Admin cap = .20 x [entitlement + program income]
** Social Services cap = .15 x [entitlement + program income]
. (1995-96 represents 15% of Entitlement only)
.J /, J?
Page - 1
1993-94 to 1995-96 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN
The City of Chula Vista will utilize Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds
primarily to benefit low and moderate income persons based on the needs, goals, and objectives
established in this Community Development Plan. A minimum of 70 % of the funding will be
utilized for this purpose.
NEEDS:
The City has identified the following Community Development needs:
1. To revitalize and improve deteriorating neighborhoods.
2. To provide adequate public facilities throughout the community.
3. To expand economic opportunities.
4. To preserve, improve, and increase the supply of affordable housing.
5. To enhance the provision of human services.
GOALS:
The City shall:
I. Plan, design, and construct capital improvements in deteriorating neighborhoods.
2. Construct public facilities, such as parks, libraries, and community centers III
neighborhoods deficient in such facilities.
3. Assist in the provision of human services to senior citizens, youth, and families in need.
4. Promote decent and affordable housing for all residents and prevent housing
discrimination.
OBJECTIVES
1. Provide assistance to organizations serving the varied needs of senior citizens, including
housing, nutrition, health, transportation, and related services.
2. Provide assistance to organizations which provide counseling and support to adults
recovering from substance abuse or involved in domestic violence.
3. Provide assistance to organizations serving the varied needs of youth and their families,
including prevention and counseling programs for substance abuse, child abuse, and
juvenile delinquency.
4. Provide assistance to organizations which provide basic needs assistance and/or assist
people who are homeless, unemployed, or disabled to become self-sufficient.
5. Provide assistance to organizations which promote adult literacy.
6. Construct public improvements to alleviate public hazards and revitalize deteriorating
neighborhoods, including street, drainage, and lighting improvements.
7. Construct public improvements to enhance the quality of life for residents, including
parks, community centers, libraries, and other public facilities.
8. Promote small businesses and the creation of jobs through planning studies, infrastructure
improvements, technical assistance, and fmancial programs.
9. Provide assistance to neighborhood and community based organizations to initiate
neighborhood revitalization, economic development, and affordable housing programs.
10. Furnish fair housing information, counseling, testing and mediation services
2
J 1- J Y
Administration and Planninl! Summary
The following is a summary of the 1995-96 CDBG staff administration and planning activities
totalling $364,626 which includes the following:
.
Staff Administration
$220,000
These administrative costs represent less than five percent of the total budget and includes staff
costs for coordination, accounting, monitoring of sub-recipients, environmental review, and
reporting requirements.
In addition, the City has received five requests for funding which are eligible planning and
administrative activities; these requests for funding total $144,626. The requests for funding
are included in the Notebook and are summarized as follows:
.
Chula Vista Fair Housing Program
$50,626
CDBG regulations require the City to undertake proactive fair housing activities. In order for
the City to fulfill this commitment, the San Diego Fair Housing Council will provide a
comprehensive fair housing program. Their proposed activities include education and outreach,
a tenant-landlord hotline, follow-up on discrimination complaints and rental dwelling
discrimination testing. This program is designed to comply with HUD requirements (see
proposal - Tab C).
.
Chula Vista Human Service Council
$28,000
The Human Services Council builds coalitions among Chula Vista area social service providers
in order to bring more funding for needed services into the South Bay. The funds are requested
to hire a part-time coordinator (see proposal - Tab B).
.
Parks and Recreation Human Services Coordinator
$15,000
This coordinator facilitates the provision of social services and coordinates information and
referral at the Norman Park Senior Center. . In addition, this person will assist with sub-recipient
monitoring and overall staff coordination of CDBG funded social service programs. .
.
SD Regional Task Force on Homeless
$1,000
This grant will assist the task force with important regional homeless reports and special studies
which are regularly incorporated into local documents such as the Housing Element,
Consolidated Plan and grant proposals for federal and state funding (see proposal - Tab 1).
.
MAAC Project - Lead-Based Paint Testing
$50,000
Funds will be specifically utilized to provide assessments of lead contaminated homes in the
City. MAAC Project is EPA qualified and state certified for Lead Base Paint Abatement.
3
.J j- )7
CanitaI hnnrovements Proiect Summarv
The 5 proposed capital improvement projects by staff total $3,048,000. All of the CIP detail
sheets are included in the Notebook under the City Capital Improvement Projects tab and are
summarized as follows:
.
YMCA Teaching Pool
$50,000
Funds are to be used to assist the YMCA with the development of a teaching pool in an aquatics
facility in Rancho Del Rey. The teaching pool will serve senior citizens, the disabled and low
income youth.
.
ADA Modifications
$108,000
FY 95/96 appropriations would provide for the modification to City facilities as required by the
ADA making them accessible to individuals with disabilities. Modification includes signage,
doors, public access routes and restrooms.
.
ADA Curb Cuts
$50,000
FY 95/96 appropriations would provide for the construction of concrete wheelchair ramps at an
estimated 47 different locations in the City. Curb Cuts are a requirement of the ADA.
.
Otay Park Gymnasium
$1,306,000
The City Council approved a Master Plan for Otay Park on May 24, 1994. FY 95/96
appropriations are for the construction of the first phase of improvements including the design
and construction of a 16,000 square foot gymnasium.
.
Castle Park B Neighborhood Revitalization Program (NRP)
$1,534,000
The City Council approved the Castle Park B neighborhood as the next Neighborhood
Revitalization Program (NRP) area in December of 1993. Funds would be for construction of
missing street improvements, street widening, missing curb, gutter and sidewalks and
construction of an additional drainage circuit (see proposals - Tab L).
4
c1 / - l/iJ
Communitv Proiects Smmnarv
The 8 Community Project requests total $1,128,745 and include the following types ofactivities:
a) Neighborhood Revitalization/Interim Assistance; b) Improvements for Non-Profit Community
Facilities; c) Acquisition by Non-Profit Entity; d) Special Activities by Community-Based
Development Organizations; and, e) Special Economic Development Activities. All of the
requests for funding are included in the Notebook under the Community Projects section and are
summarized as follows:
Neighborhood Revitalization/Interim Assistance f570.20H01
.
Graffiti Eradication
$33,600
South Bay Community Services (SBCS), in partnership with the Chula Vista Police Department,
is requesting funds to continue their community effort to eradicate graffiti painted on private
businesses and residences. Youth offenders and community volunteers provide the labor. Funds
are requested for the Program Coordinator position.
.
Home Repair for Seniors
$24,533
Lutheran Social Services is requesting funds to continue providing health and safety home repairs
to seniors. Most of the labor is donated by local south bay contractors.
Improvements for Non-profit Community Facilities f570.20HC)1
.
Boys and Girls Club of Chula Vista
$5,000
The Boys and Girls Club is requesting funds to repair a field next to their Oleander Center.
Acquisition bv Non-Profit Entitv f570.20Ha)1
.
The Church Street Affordable Housing Project
$534,600
Funds will be used to purchase nine studio apartments located at 233 Church Avenue, refurbish
the units and operate units for the first year as independent living care units for very low income
"Special Needs" persons with AIDS/HIV in the Chula Vista area.
.
Trolley Terrace Day Care Facility
$300,000
Request is for funds to acquire an approximately one acre site for the development of a child
care facility near the Palomar Trolley Center.
5
d / - if/
Soecial Activities by Community-Based Development Organizations f570.204(a)1
.
South Bay Community Services Office Space
$61,200
Funds are being requested to pay office rent on 5,100 square feet of office space at 315 Fourth
Avenue. These offices will house a host of social services which benefit low income households
in the City.
Special Economic Develooment Activities f570.203(b)1
.
SBCS Community Development Program
$69,812
The mission of this program is to initiate economic development for the extremely low, low and
moderate income residents of Chula Vista. Efforts include developing affordable housing,
performing neighborhood improvement projects, and creating economic advancement options.
.
Border Environmental Business Cluster (BEBC)
$100,000
Funds will be used to capitalize a Revolving Loan Fund (RLF) from which to make loans
(primarily micro loans) to BEBC tenants (see proposal - Tab K).
6
02//1.2-
SOCIAL SERVICE ORGANIZATION REQUESTS FOR 1995-96
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM
COMMUNITY-WIDE SERVICES
City of Chula Vista Fire and Police Departments
Citizen's Adversity Support Team (CAST) (serving CV 1.7 years)
Request: $ 4,000
CAST is a trauma intervention program utilizing trained volunteers to provide
families of trauma victims with supportive assistance. CAST enables fIrst responders
such as Police and Fire to conduct their jobs quickly and more effectively. Funds are
for program support and supplies. For FY 95-96, this program expects to serve a
total of 375 persons, 367 being Chula Vista residents and 200 being low income
persons. This program is eligible under National Objective #1- to benefIt low and
moderate income persons.
City of Chula Vista Public Library
Chula Vista Literacy Team (serving CV for 8 years)
Request: $ 43,000 Previons: $ 34,000
A joint project of the Library, Chula Vista Adult School, and the Altrusa Club, the
Literacy Team trains volunteer tutors to provide one-on-one instruction for
functionally-illiterate adults. The Literacy Team recruits volunteers, provides
intensive training, distributes instructional materials, and coordinates tutoring sites.
Funds will be used to cover operational costs, a portion (51 %) of the Literacy Team
Coordinator's salary and an Administrative Office Assistant (25%). For FY 95-96,
this program expects to serve a total of 215 persons, 140 being Chula Vista residents
and 174 being low income persons. This program is eligible under National
Objective #1- to benefIt low and moderate income persons.
MAAC Project
Otay Community Activities Partnership Program (serving CV 1 year)
Request: $ 18,887 Previous: $ 8,225
This program will provide social, educational and recreational activities for youths
and adults to supplement already existing services being offered at the MAAC Otay
Community Center (these activities not presently available at Center). Funds will be
7 2/-t/}
used to hire an Activities Manager to plan, organize and implement these programs as
well as supervise volunteers. Examples of programs include tutoring, sports and
other social events. For FY 95-96, this program expects to serve a total of 1000
persons, 900 being Chula Vista residents and 850 being low income. This program is
eligible under National Objective #1- to benefit low and moderate income persons.
Woodlawn Park Civic League
Woodlawn Park Connnunity Center (serving CV for 29 years)
Request: $ 26,000 Previous: $ 19,645
The Center was established by neighborhood residents and is operated by a volunteer
director (Mrs. Gillespie) and many other volunteers. The Center sponsors a social
program for seniors, hosts a weekly luncheon, operates a weekday, drop-in recreation
program for neighborhood youth, organizes a Summer Youth Program and prepares
an annual Thanksgiving Dinner for over 300 persons. The funds are for general
operating expenses including insurance, vehicle operation, and activities. For FY 95-
96, this program expects to serve a total of 980 persons, 882 being Chula Vista
residents and 970 being low income. This program is eligible under National
Objective #1- to benefit low and moderate income persons.
Lutheran Social Services
Project Hand (serving CV for 17 years)
Request: $ 20,000 Previous: $ 14,645
Project Hand staff and volunteers assist families and individuals with basic needs,
including shelter referrals, food, clothing vouchers, medication, transportation, as
well as utility bill and rent assistance when available. The mission of the program is
to provide basic necessities to assist persons progress toward self-sufficiency. Funds
are for the salary and benefits of the Caseworker. For FY 95-96, this program
expects to serve a total of 5,500 persons, 2,640 being Chula Vista residents and all
being low income. This program is eligible under National Objective #1- to benefit
low and moderate income persons.
Laubach Literacy Council/San Diego County Inc. (LLC/SDCI)
Chula Vista Literacy Center (serving CV for 7 years)
Request: $ 1,500
The LLC/SDCI is dedicated to teaching English as a Second Language (ESL). All
persons working for the organization are volunteers. Funds would be used for the
purchase of workbooks, homework assignments, phonics books and other educational
8
J /-t/(
supplies. For FY 95-96, this program expects to serve a total of 100 persons, 60
being Chula Vista residents. This program is eligible under National Objective #1- to
benefit low and moderate income persons.
San Diego Home Loan Counseling Service
Chula Vista Homebuyer's Program (serving CV for 17 years)
Request: $ 6,000
SDHLCS educates, counsels, and assists prospective, countywide homebuyers in
understanding the homebuyer process including refinancing, borrowing from property
equity and default situations. SDHLCS provides one-on-one counseling regarding
various loan programs offered by State, City and local lenders in San Diego County.
Funds will be used to off-set the salary and transportation costs of the counselor who
will have monthly seminars in Chula Vista, provide counseling and make information
regarding homeownership available to renters. For FY 95-96, this program expects
to serve a total of 6000 persons, 600 being Chula Vista residents and 5100 being low
income. This program is eligible under National Objective #1- to benefit low and
moderate income persons.
Real Estate Association of Latinos
Vivienda y Auxiliar
Request: $ 31,700
This program will assist low and moderate income individuals with homeownership
counseling and provide information relating to special home financing programs to
assist individuals with troubled loans. Funds will be used to hire a 3/4 time person
and a part-time person to counsel and coordinate volunteers, to pay for publications
and utilities. For FY 95-96, this program expects to serve a total of 300 persons, 300
being Chula Vista residents and 250 being low income. This program is eligible
under National Objective #1- to benefit low and moderate income persons.
South Bay Community Services
Thursday's Meal (serving CV for 2.5 years)
Request: $ 5,000 Request: $ 4,000
Thursday's Meal is a volunteer congregate free meal program for homeless and low
income individuals and families in Chula Vista. Twenty-one local congregations and
organizations provide the staff and meals on a rotating schedule. Funds will be used
to purchase paper products, operating expenses, supplemental food, SBCS
administrative fee and other miscellaneous items. For FY 95-96, this program
9
d//t/~
expects to serve a total of 19,000 persons. This program primarily serves homeless
persons and families from off the street. This program is eligible under National
Objective #1- to benefit low and moderate income persons.
County of San Diego Department of Social Services
Developing Adolescent Dads for Success (DADS) Teen Father Program (new
program)
Request: $ 18,600
DADS goals are to help young fathers complete high school or GED, prepare for
college or vocational training, obtain employment, bond with children and practice
responsible behavior. Funds are for a part-time job developer/counselor who will
identify low income fathers and enroll them in the DADS program and provide job
counseling, pre-employment and direct job placement services. For FY 95-96, this
program expects to serve a total of 275 persons, 75 being Chula Vista residents and
275 being low income. This program is eligible under National Objective #1- to
benefit low and moderate income persons.
HEALTH CARE/SUBSTANCE ABUSE
Episcopal Community Services
Outreach Health Education (serving CV for 20 years)
Request: $ 20,000 Previous: $ 9,925
This program will be based in Otay Community Clinic/Family Health Center. An
Outreach Health Educator will be hired to work at the Drug and Alcohol Recovery
Centers, Head Start Centers, the Otay Health Center, and provide group and
individual presentations to community groups and other agencies, organizations and
companies regarding healthy, sober lifestyles and the immunization of children by age
2. Funds are for salary expenses, rent, education materials, and transportation. For
FY 95-96, this program expects to serve a total of 7411 persons, 4521 being Chula
Vista residents and 7337 being low income. This program is eligible under National
Objective #1- to benefit low and moderate income persons.
AIDS Foundation of San Diego
Social Services and Case Management Expansion (serving CV for 12 years)
Request: $ 10,000 Previous: $7,145
,
AFSD is requesting funds for expansion of its case management program to more
effectively serve the residents of Chula Vista. AFSD will provide comprehensive,
10
:2/-L/ V
supportive social services for 50 HIV-symptomatic Chula Vista residents and their
loved ones in the 95-96 program year. These case managers are responsible for
determining eligibility for AFSD programs, providing counseling, arranging health
care, emergency assistance, crisis intervention and general client coordination. Funds
are for salaries and fringe benefits of case management staff. For FY 95-96, this
program expects to serve a total of 1700 persons, 50 being Chula Vista residents and
1700 being low income. This program is eligible under National Objective #1- to
benefit low and moderate income persons.
The George G. Glenner Alzheimer's Family Centers, Inc.
Funding for Day Care and Transportation
Request: $ 20,000
This organization operates innovative programs of adult day care for patients with
Alzheimer's disease and related disorders who are primarily in the moderate to severe
levels of the disease process. Funds will be used for transportation and day care to
low income elderly Alzheimer's disease/dementia patients from Chula Vista who
otherwise would not be able to attend their South Bay Center day care program. For
FY 95-96, this program expects to serve a total of 300 persons, 270 being Chula
Vista residents and 240 being low income. This program is eligible under National
Objective #1- to benefit low and moderate income persons.
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
Center for Women's Studies & Services
Project Safehouse Shelter for Battered Woman and Their Children (serving CV
for 7 years)
Request: $ 10,000 Previous: $ 6,000
The Center provides Family Violence and Rape Crisis services, including a 24-hour
crisis hotline for victims of sexual assault and family violence, emergency safe shelter
for battered women and their children, drop-in legal services, victim
advocacy/support, counseling, and education programs. Funds are for food, shelter,
counseling, transportation and legal assistance. For FY 95-96, this program expects
to serve a total of 500 persons, 50 being Chula Vista residents and 98% being low
income. This program is eligible under National Objective #1- to benefit low and
moderate income persons.
11
J)-t/?
City of Chula Vista Police Dept.
Chula Vista Intervention Team (serving CV for 3 years)
Request: $ 20,000 Previous: $ 13,845
The Chula Vista Intervention team is a coalition between the Chula Vista Police
Department, South Bay Community Services, and other providers of domestic
violence services. After a police report is filled out a Intervention Specialist, supplied
by SBCS and housed in CVPD, creates a treatment plan with the victims. This plan
includes an assessment and monitoring of all family members including follow up
contacts. For FY 94-94, this program expects to serve a total of 650 persons, 570
being Chula Vista citizens and 590 being low income. Funds are for salary of
Intervention Specialist. This program is eligible under National Objective #1- to
benefit low and moderate income persons.
YMCA Family Stress Center
Psychotherapy Services Program (serving CV for 20 years)
Request: $ 39,619 Previous: $ 19,645
The Center works to prevent and treat child abuse through out-patient psychotherapy
for child victims of abuse and members of their families, and for those at risk of
abuse; and through community outreach and education. Funds will pay for the part
time salaries of two program directors whom will supervise up to six interns each
providing child abuse treatment services for English and Spanish speaking clients.
For FY 95-96, this program expects to serve a total of 1000 persons, 250 being Chula
Vista citizens and 800 being low income. This program is eligible under National
Objective #1- to benefit low and moderate income persons.
YWCA of San Diego County
Domestic Violence Prevention/Intervention/Treatment (serving CV for 15 years)
Request: $ 10,000 Previous: $ 6,000
Battered Women's Services provides a 24-hour hotline, safe emergency shelter,
women's support groups, creative visitation program, domestic violence program and
children's programs. Men's Counseling is a year-long group counseling program
focused on the tactics of power and control and aimed at eliminating violent behavior.
Two men's treatment groups and two women's support groups will be administered,
one each will be done is Spanish. Funds are for salaries, rent, utilities, equipment,
printing and postage. For FY 95-96, this program expects to serve a total of 7000
persons, 650 being Chula Vista residents and 6200 being low income. This program
is eligible under National Objective #1- to benefit low and moderate income persons.
12
02/-Ijr
SENIOR AND DISABLED SERVICES
Adult Protective Services
South Bay Adult Day Health Care Center (serving CV for 21 years)
Request: $ 12,000 Previous: $ 8,545
The Center's main goal is to delay or prevent placement of seniors in an institution
and to restore optimal mental and physical capacity for self.-care. The Center
provides nursing, nutrition, recreation, and counseling services for frail, elderly
persons through a daily activity program. Counseling and other support is provided
to care-giving family members. Funds are for HandyTrans tokens to transport the
clients to and from the Center. For FY 95-96, this program expects to serve a total
of 300 persons, 250 being Chula Vista citizens and 95% being low income. This
Program is eligible under National Objective #1- to benefit low and moderate income
persons .
Senior Adult Services
Meals on Wheels (serving CV for 20 years)
Request: $ 12,000 Previous: $ 8,500
Meals-on-Wheels prepares and delivers hot meals to persons who are unable to
prepare meals for themselves, whether due to age, disability, or illness. Two meals
are delivered each weekday; fees are based on ability to pay. The program also
provides information, referral, and counseling services to help seniors maintain their
independence and remain in their home. Funds are for food and packaging. For FY
95-96, this program expects to serve a total of 455 persons, 322 being Chula Vista
residents and 341 being low income. This program is eligible under National
Objective #1- to benefit low and moderate income persons.
South County Council on Aging
Shared Housing (serving CV for 12 years)
Request: $ 14,000 Previous: $ 13,645
Shared Housing brings together persons with extra living space in their homes with
persons seeking inexpensive housing. The program often links a disabled or frail
elderly adult with a "sharer" who can provide home services in-lieu of paying rent.
The funds are for salaries and operating expenses. For FY 95-96, this program
expects to serve a total of 200 persons, 180 being Chula Vista residents and 96 being
low income. This program is eligible under National Objective #1- to benefit low and
moderate income persons.
13
.}/-'/i
,
The Access Center of San Diego (formerly CSCD)
Chula Vista Employment Services (Serving CV for 7 years)
Request: $ 10,000 Previous: $ 6,645
The Access Center provides assistance to residents with disabilities in preparing for
and fmding suitable employment. This assistance comes in the form of job skill
workshops, individual and group counseling, a resource library as well as access to
other information on training, employee rights under ADA and financial benefits
counseling. Funds are for salary of Job Developer. For FY 1995-96, this program
expects to serve a total of 140 persons, 100 being from Chula Vista and all being low
income. This program is eligible under National Objective #1-to benefit low and
moderate income persons.
YOUTH SERVICES
Boys and Girls Club of Chula Vista
Funshine Day Camp (serving CV for 7 years)
Request: $ 15,180
The Club provides positive activities to develop the health, self-esteem, and character
of youth. The above program is an eleven week day camp experience for children
ages 6-12. It provides recreation, crafts, educational, cultural, sports and field trip
activities all in a positive learning environment. Funds will be used to provide 30
camp scholarships to children in need. For FY 95-96, this program expects to serve
a total of 180 persons, 166 being Chula Vista residents and 108 being low income.
This program is eligible under National Objective #1- to benefit low and moderate
mcome persons.
Fine Arts Program (new program)
Request: $ 14,415
The above program will expose members to a broad range of arts education activities
and continually encourage them to develop new skills and talents, express themselves
and expand their individual creativity. Participation will not be limited to just the
obviously talented. There will be weekly visual arts activities, monthly displays and
exhibits, opportunities to interact with professional artists and more. For FY 1995-
96, this program will serve a total of 200 persons, 184 being Chula Vista residents
and 130 being low income. This program is eligible under National Objective #1- to
benefit low and moderate income persons.
14
02)- 5!)
Jobs for Youth
Temporary Employment (serving CV for 39 years)
Request: $ 3,100 Previous: $ 3,100
Jobs for Youth provides job counseling and placement. Tbe program recruits local
youth for temporary jobs, giving them an opportunity to earn money, get work
experience, and build confidence. The Coordinator locates job opportunities and
prepares youth for job interviews. The funds are for advertisement, equipment,
supplies and extend telephone resources. For FY 95-96, this program expects to
serve a total of 1300 persons, 2000 being Chula Vista residents and 630 being low
income. This program is eligible under National Objective #1- to benefit low and
moderate income persons.
South Bay Family YMCA
Summer Day Camp (serving CV for 34 years)
Request: $ 8,500 Previous: $5,635
The camp is an activity program for children in grades K-7 and operates weekdays to
assist low income families with parents that work. Camp activities include sports,
field trips, community involvement, arts & crafts, songs, games, and fun. Funds are
to enable children from low-income families to participate and will be used to
subsidize activities, equipment/supplies, transportation, and salaries. For FY 95-96,
this program expects to serve a total of 185 persons, 180 being Chula Vista residents
and 185 being low income. This program is eligible under National Objective #1- to
benefit low and moderate income persons.
Sunshine Company Childcare (serving CV for 8 years)
Request: $ 27,091 Previous: $ 13,625
Sunshine Co. is a licensed childcare program which encourages physical fitness and
provides sports, arts & crafts, games, homework help, and nutritional snacks. There
is a total of fourteen childcare sites, eight of which provide all day care and six which
provide after school care. The funds are to assist children from low-income
households to participate and will be used to subsidize salaries, administration,
transportation, food, rent/utilities and supplies. In FY 95-96, this program expects to
serve a total of 140 persons, all of which are Chula Vista residents and 80 which are
low income. This program is eligible under National Objective #l-to benefit low and
moderate income persons.
15
02/- SI
Youth Action Program (serving CV 1.5 years)
Request: $ 15,000 Previous: $10,000
In Spring of 1993, the City's Parks and Recreation Dept. met with several community
and non profit organizations at a .youth summit.. From this summit came the idea of
creating a Youth Action Program or Activities Coordinated Through Interagency
Organizational Networks (ACTION). Funds are being requested to provide staff
support to run the High School Happenings Program at CVHS to include recreational
and other activities and the Junior High Outreach Program (YMCA PRYDE Program)
to include substance abuse and gang prevention curricula as well as recreational
activities. For FY 95-96, these programs are expected to serve a total of 700
persons, all being Chula Vista residents and 52 % being low income. This program is
eligible under National Objective #1-to benefit low and moderate income persons.
South Bay Community Services
Casa Nuestra Youth Shelter (serving CV for 5 years)
Request: $ 19,000 Previous: $15,000
Casa Nuestra is a community-based, run-away and homeless youth project. Services
include a licensed 8-bed shelter with 24-hour supervision and structured activities,
24-hour crisis intervention, reunification with family, alternative care & independent
living, street outreach, and peer education on drug abuse & AIDS prevention. Funds
will be used for utilities, equipment, food, residents allowances, insurance, and awake
night resident supervision required by Conditional Use Permit. For FY 95-96, this
program expects to serve a total of 700 persons, 350 being Chula Vista residents and
630 being low income. This program is eligible under National Objective #I-to
benefit low and moderate income persons.
The Chula Vista Connection
. The ChuIa Vista Connection Day Care Center (serving CV 1.5 years)
Request: $ 30,000 Previous: $ 12,000
The CV Connection provides services and assistance to low income families in the
community including affordable child care, youth activities, gang awareness and
prevention, relief services, educational counseling, health and nutrition services and
other emergency needs. Funds are being requested for salaries. For FY 95-96, this
program expects to serve a total of 180 persons, 110 being Chula Vista residents and
120 being low income. This program is eligible under National Objective #1-to
benefit low and moderate income persons.
16
~)-5d-
Sweetwater Union High School District
Gang PreventionlIntervention (serving CV for 5 years)
Request: $ 25,000 Previous: $ 12,000
SUHSD's approach to gang problems is divided into three components: Prevention;
Intervention; and Monitoring. At each school an non-disciplinary advisor provides a
link for the at risk student on campus and also acts as a liaison for community and
law enforcement agencies. This advisor provides referral services for students and
families. This advisor utilizes the many services offered to youths communitywide at
SBCS. Funds are to be used to pay for 19% of Youth Intervention Specialist salary.
For FY 95-96, this program expects to serve a total of 325 persons, 175 being Chula
Vista residents and 300 being low income. This program is eligible under National
Objective #1-to benefit low and moderate income persons.
Chula Vista Police Department
Police Activities League (Serving CV for 2 year)
Request: $ 23,000 Previous: $ 10,000
Police Department volunteers will work with the youth (5th grade level to high
school) of the community to provide guidance and feedback as well as crisis
intervention. Activities will be both athletic and social at vl!fious school sites and
community buildings throughout the city. Some of the organizations PAL plans to
work with include the Otay Golden Hands Training Center and the South Bay Boys
and Girls Club and the YMCA involved in the Youth Coalition program. Through
this interaction with other agencies, PAL plans to provide activities like soccer,
basketball, boxing, T -Ball baseball and late-night basketball. For FY 95-96, this
program expects to serve a total of 500 persons, all being Chula Vista residents and
all being low income. This program is eligible under National Objective #I-to benefit
low and moderate income persons.
Vista Square Healthy Start & the Chula Vista Coordinating Council
Vista Square Healthy Start Child Care (serving CV 6 months)
Request: $ 7,000
The Coordinating Council's goal is to reduce child and family and community risk
factors that prevent children from learning and developing to their full potential and
becoming contributing members of the community. Funds will be used to provide on-
17
02/ --~}
site child care at the Family Resource Center located at Vista Square Elementary
School. For FY 95-96, this program expects to serve a total of 2000 students and
their families, all being Chula Vista residents and 60% being low income. This
program is eligible under National Objective #1-to benefit low and moderate income
persons.
[BM2JA:\PROORAMS. WPDJ
18
c2//pi
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT BUDGET
1993-94 1994-95 1995-96
Final Final Preliminary
CDBG Entitlement $It 664,000 $1. 812,000 $2,162,000
Current Program Income 199,670
Reallocation- unused from prior years $268,288 $9,000 $116,825
Section 108 Loan- unused funds $74,714
Estimated pro~ram Income for 1993-94 $100,000
TOTAL REVENUE $2,306,658 $1. 821. 000 $2,278,825
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $2,306.658 $1. 821. 000 $4,865.671
ADMINISTRATION & PLANNING
Staff Administration $150,000 $165,000 $220,000
High Tech/Biotech Zone EIR $100,000 $0
Border Environmental Plan $50,000 $0
Fair Housin~ Program $29,000 $33.000 $50.626
C.V. Human ervices Council $24,000 $24.000 $28.000
Parks&Rec Human Services Coordinator $15,000 $15,000 $15.000
Ota1 Committee $5,000 $0
Cas le Park B Committee $5,000
SO Regional Task Force on Homeless $1,000 $1.000
HUD Section 108 Loan/Loan Guarantee Program $30,000
MAAC pro~ect - Lead-Based Paint Testing $50,000
TOTAL AD INISTRATION AND PLANNING * $373.000 $273,000 $364.626
TOTAL SOCIAL SERVICES ** $255,000 $271 , 800 $324,300
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
Section 108 Loan Repayment $277,907 $259.500
Ota1 Town NRP $268.800 $0
Sou h Chula Vista Library- construction $378.196 $291.924
Parkway Complex Renovation $182.655 $100.000
ADA Modifications $36.000 $100.000 $108.000
Otay Park Renovation $137,800 $250.000 $1. 306.000
ADA Curb Cuts $50,000 $50,000 $50,000
Main Library- Reroof $120,700 $0
Main Library- HVAC $0
Main Library- Parking Lot $0
YMCA Teaching Pool $50.000 $50,000
Nature Intereretive Center Road $30,000
Norman Park enter Game Facilit1 $18,750
CIP Program - Contingency & Cos Over-run $18,526
Teen Club Renovation $10.000
'Castle Park B NRP $1. 534,000
"TOTAL CIP $1. 452.058 $1.178.700 $3.048.000
COMMUNITY PROJECTS
B&H communit1 Agpearance Program $15,000 $15,000
SBCS Communi y ev. Program $48,000 $0 $69.812
SBCS Grafitti Eradication $33,600 $30,000 $33.600
C.V. Elem. School Dist.- Playgrounds $60.000 $0
LSS Home Repair for Seniors $20.000 $22,000 $24.533
Border Environmental Zone Coord. $50,000 $0
BOtS & Girls Club - Recreation $5,500 $5.000
SB S Teen Center/Club $15,000
CV Fire Dept, - Fire Safety House $10,000
Church Street Affordable Housin~ Project $534,600
Trolley Terrace Da{ Care Facili y $300,000
Border Evironmenta Business Cluster $100,000
SBCS Office s~ace $61,200
TOTAL COMMUNI Y PROJECTS $226,000 $97,500 $1.128,745
* Planning/Admin cap = .20 x [entitlement + program income] /
** Social Services cap = .15 x [entitlement only] d- /,55>
19
1995-96 CDRG COMMITTEE RECOMMFNO!\T1I1rI'.
ORGANIZAT 1O~1
PROGRAM
.~
\(\
..........
~
CATEGOR Y
rOl11'I! TTEE
REQUEST RECOMMENOATI(
--t'Access Center of uS an Dieoo -(hula-Vista Job Club----.--.
2 Adult Protective Services So. Bav Adult Health Care Cntr.
3 AIDS Foundation of San Dieao Case Manaament & Social Services Exoansion
14 Alzheimer's Family Centers Day Care/Transoortation
- :i-Bo'v'; & Gi rlsClub-of Chell. viSta --nne"Arts------u
4 Boys & Girls Club of Chula Vjst~ Funshlne Lamn
, 7 Center fQ~ Women s Studies & ServicesProiect Safehouse
.-8-Chula-Vi.s ta-Conne-c-t-ion--.------D~_I'e
6 Chula Vista Police/Fire Deats. CAST
10 Chula Vista Police Dent. Intervention leam
9 City of Chula Vista Librarv Chula Vista Literacv leam
Ii!. t,;ounty "'DeDt--=---O-r-SOClaJ ~erVlces ------n:~ --~~-
11 Chula Vista Police Deaartment Police Activities Leaoue
13 Eoiscooal Community Services Outreach Health Educatlon
.15"Jobs ,for Youth ".J_emDorar:Y.Emolovment
17 Lutheran Social Services Proiect Hand Emeraencv Assistance
16 LLC/SDI Literacv Center
19 Latino Real Estate Association Vivienda/Auxiliar
-18"t1AAC -Pro; ect --...u.------m.....--.Otay--Comm-;---Act ;-'PrtnrshD-Proorall\
20 SD Hame Loan Counselina Service Gen. Oroanizational SUDoort
21 Senior Adult Services Meals on Wheels
29 So. Bay Family YMCA Youth Action PrDoram
31 So. - Bay F amil y YMCA .Sullmer Dav Camo ',..,,\ 'pO .,
30,So,Bay Family YMCA, ,,;SuOl;hine Co. Childcare'-;-i:,:c""
'24....So;>Coun tv .Council'?o'o"'Aiiino" :"""''''Shared''libusino' .~.~'" ".j:;.'J,~....-., ;!"
22 Seuth Bav Cem~Aity Services Th~rseaY's Meal
23 South Bay Community Services Casa Nuestra Youth Shelter
25 Sweetwater Union Hioh School DistrictGano Prevention/lnterventlon
26 Vista Sauare Heal th - Child Care
-2'Tli!oodlawn Pdrk-C,vlC Leaoue WOOd 1 awlll'afk-C6mmunltYl:eiiil:er------
28 YMCA Family Stress Center Psychotheraov Services
32 YWCA of San Dieoo County Domestic Violence & Treatment Proa
TOT ALS
. SeniorfDis-a-bled-------$lO,OOO-$O
Senior/Disabled $12.000 $12.000
HlthCre/SubAbse $10.000 $10.000
HlthCre/SubAbse $20.000 $10.0..00_
'-ou TIi--n --..... _..n. --------,11 ~-._4T~ .. Ii .000
Youth $15.180 $13.000
Domestic Violence 110.000 $10.000
YQuth $}O~~ --$0----
Community $4.000 $4.000
Domestic Violence $20.000 $13.000
Community $43.000 $29.700
.-.-----. Lommunlty $Hl.600 --IT.\JUU---
Youth $23.000 $12.000
HI thCre/SubAbse $20.000 $11.000 0
_Youth"____ __ $3.100. $3-'0100_ N
Community $20.000 118.000
Communi ty $1.500 $1.500
Community $31.700 $0
-Communi'ty-- -----~-l1l:il87-----$9-;~0(J--
Commun i t y $6.000 $0
Senior/Disabled $12.000 $12.000
Youth $15.000 $12.000
YOtltt1",'t ",'$8.500 $8.000
'Youtb:~w...;-},/... .';.""-$27.091 $18.000
."",", .. Sellto'r/'D'is'S:filed '''''';''''''$14~000 $7.000
Cellm~Aity $Q.999 $5.999
Youth $19.000 $15.000
Youth $25.000 $12.000
Youth $7.000 $7.000
.------Commun nV------$26-:000-.--- $23:000 -
Domestic Violence $39.619 $21.000
Domestic Violence $10.000 $10.000
$539.592
$324.300
;.r.
COMMITTEE COMMENTS FOR APRIL 3. 1995 MEETING
1. Access Center of San Diego
1. Duplication of Services
2. Not located in Chula Vista
2. Adult Protective Services
1. Program results easily measured
2. Good Program
3. AIDS Foundation of San Diel,!o
1. Only services available to Chula Vista
4. Alzheimer's Family Centers
1. Cost per client ratio is high
2. Some duplication in services
5. Bovs and Girls Club of Chula Vista
Fine Arts:
1. Good idea but a pilot program. They should return for additional funds next year if
successful.
Funshine Camp:
1. Direct benefit
2. Easily accountable
3. Cost effective
6. Center for Women's Studies and Services
1. Excellent program.
2. This is greatly need in Chula Vista
7. Chula Vista Connection
1. Conflicting information given on application and presentation
2. Cost per client ratio is high
3. Question as to Director's and teacher's qualifications
21
) / ~ 57
8. Chula Vista Police/Fire Departments
CAST:
1. Excellent program
Intervention Team:
1. Unique program
2. Lack of funds available to give more to this program
9. City of Chula Vista Library
Literacy Team:
1. Cost per client ratio is high
2. Duplication of services
10. County DeDartment of Social Services
DADS:
1. Question as to accountability of service to Chula Vista residents
2. Lack of funds available to give more to this program
11. Chula Vista Police Department
PAL:
1. Unclear direction - presentation was weak.
2. Lack of funds available to give more to this program
12. Episcopal Communitv Services
1. Not an exclusive program, but a good one
2. Lack of funds available to give more to this program
13. Jobs for Youth
1. Good investment of funds
2. Excellent program for youth
14. Lutheran Social Services
1. Valuable resource to community
2. Good investment of funds
22 )./ -' 5~
15. Laubach Literacy Council/San Diego Countv. Inc.
1. Volunteer driven, funds for materials only
2. Good investment of funds
16. Latino Real Estate Association
1. Duplication of services
2. Real Estate/Banking community offer these services, or should.
17. MAAC Proiect
1. Some duplication with PAL
2. Lack of funds available to give more to this program
18. San Diego Home Loan Counseling Services
1. Duplication of services
2. Real Estate/Banking community offer these services, or should.
19. Senior Adult Services
1. Volunteer driven.
2. Program much more than just meals
20. South Bav Family YMCA
Youth Action Program:
1. Good program. No presentation was made to committee.
Summer Day Camp:
1. Some duplication of services. However, demand is high.
Sunshine Company Child Care:
1. Excellent program. Located in areas of City where greatly needed.
22. South Countv Council on Aginl!
1. Some questions on application, budget was unclear.
23. South Bav Communitv Services
Thursday's Meal:
23 02/ / }/
1. Contact and referrals are made on-site.
2. Excellent program.
Casa Nuestra:
1. Presentation to committee was unclear (fInancially).
2. Good program and track record. Program very valuable.
24. Sweetwater Union High School District
1. No presentation was given to committee
2. Question as to how this program can be documented.
25. Vista Square Health
1. Funds are seed money for program.
2. Excellent program, volunteer driven.
26. Woodlawn Park Community Center
1. Operates with donations
2. Services Woodlawn Park area
27. YMCA Family Stress Center
1. Good services
2. Low cost per client
28. YWCA of San Diego County
1. Good services
2~ Saves tax dollars in long run
24
J//to
,,""-,
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
MINUTES
HOUSING ADVISORY COMMISSION
Wednesday March 22, 1995
3:30 p.m.
Conference Room 2
Public Service Building
CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL - 3:30 p.m.
PRESENT:
Chairman Madrid, Helton, Flaugher, Lopez-Gonzalez, Alonso-Massey
ABSENT:
None
STAFF:
Community Development Specialist I Martinez, Administrative Office
Assistant II Gonzalez
EX-OFFICIO:
Mayfield (excused absence), Lembo (excused absence)
GUEST:
Chris Moxham. (SBCSI
1. INTROOUCTlONS - None
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - February 22,1995 minutes were approved by consensus.
(Madrid/Helton) to excuse both Ex-otticio Members Lembo and Mayfield from the Commission
. meeting due to other business commitments, approved unanimously.
3. CONSOUDATED PLAN PUBUC MEETING - Mr. Martinez stated that the purpose of today's
meeting was to invite the public for their input and comments on the Consolidated Plan.
Member Helton asked how was it advertized.
Mr. Martinez responded that it was advertized through several newspapers. One of HUO's
regulations is that before the Consolidated Plan is written, the City had to hold public forums.
Mr. Martinez stated that the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is requiring the
City of Chula Vista to prepare a Consolidated Plan in order to receive the City's allocation of Federal
, Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Partnership Investment funds. This plan
will replace the Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) Plan. The Consolidated Plan
is similar to the CHAS Plan. The Consolidated Plan consists of the' needs assessment for housing
and community development. a five year prioritized strategy of proposed solutions utilizing all
resources, and an annual funding plan.
HUO's purpose of the Consolidated Plan is to condense all the program reporting and planning
requirements altogether into one document. Cities that receive these different types of funding can
execute one set of paperwork for all the programs such as, COBG, HOME etc.
Member Helton suggested that next time the Housing Advisory Commission Members should be
informed first of all scheduled public forums.
page 25
)r.tl
~.......
Mr. Martinez went over the schedule for the Consolidated Plan and mention that the tentative thirty
day comment period on the proposed Consolidated Plan draft is April through May 8, copies will be
made available for the Commission Members for their review. Following is the City Councif Public
Hearing on May 9 and final approval from City Council is May 23.
Mr. Chris Moxham from (SBCS) questioned why child care is not included under social needs.
Mr. Martinez responded that child care will be added.
Member Helton suggested for the Commission Members to meet with staff prior to the City Council
meeting on May 9 to discuss the Consolidated Plan draft. By consensus, the Commission Members
will hold a special meeting on May 9 at 5:00 p.m.
4. FY 1995/96 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDING REQUESTS- Mr.
Martinez reported that he brought seven out of approximately 35 1995-96 CDBG application
requests that are housing related for the Commission's review and comments, Mr. Martinez stated
that staff will make recommendations to City Council based on budget constraints and on the
Housing Advisory Commission's comments. He briefly went over the 7 CDBG housing related
applications explaining what type of services they provide and how much funds the programs are
requesting.
Member Helton mention that several CDBG requests are very similar in what their services provide.
For instance, Real Estate Association Latinos; San Diego Home Loan Counseling Service; and South
Bay Community Service (SBCS) - Chula Vista Community Development Project; offer similar
services.
Member Helton recommends for the City to fund San Diego Fair Housing Council $36,000 instead
of what they are requesting which is $50,000. Commission Members agreed.
Chairman Madrid stated that she may have some potential conflict of interest in making any
decisions on the COBa applications. hence she will inquire with the City Attorney regarding this
issue. Therefore. she suggested that the Commission wait until the special meeting May 9th to
make any final decisions.
Mr. Martinez responded that the Commission does not have to make any final decisions today;
however, comments and actual figure recommendations to the City Council is appreciated. In
regards to waiting until May 9th for final recommendations, it would be too late,
Member Alonso-Massey commented that the Commission should first prioritize the amount of
funding that should go towards each of the prioritized needs and then attempt to earmark funds
. towards individual programs that address these needs.
Mr. Chris Moxham from (SaCS) explained what type of services this application provides. It
includes victims of domestic violence. and planning for affordable homeowners project with day
care,
Commission Members recommend $24,000 to Lutheran Social Services - (Christian Neighbor
Program) .
Member Lopez-Gonzalez stated that the Real Estate Association Latinos and San Diego Home Loan
Counseling Service are both real estate brokers. She commented that the mortgage companies
work with area banks which offer these seminars at no cost; therefore, these programs have these
page 26
;2/ /' ~.2
type of services within the banks.
Member Helton recommends that the Real Estate Association Latinos and San Diego Home Loan
Counseling Service not to be funded. By consensus, Commission Members agreed.
Commission Members agreed to fund $14,000 to Shared Housing Program.
By consensus, Commission Members recommend not to fund MAAC Project (Lead Base Paint
Abatement Program) at this time, until more information is provided. The CDBG application that
they provided does not provide enough information regarding their program. Staff will further
investigate what this program entails.
South Bay Community Services (Chula Vista Community Development Project), Members
recommend $62,000 for this program.
5. ORAL COMMENTS - None
6. STAFF REPORTS - None
7. MEMBERS COMMENTS - Member Helton stated that she would like to be excused from the
April meeting because she will be out of town.
Member Helton complimented Mr. Martinez for his report.
8. ADJOURNMENT - 5:00 p.m. to the next regular meeting scheduled April 26, 1995 in the
Public Services Building.
(AG\c:\WPWIN\3-22-95.MINI
page 27
02F?)
SOCIAL SERVICE FUNDING CRITERIA
The following criteria can be utilized to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of the social
service program applicants:
(1)
Preference to those projects which do not duplicate an existing service.
(2)
Social Service grants will be made only to agencies and projects which appear to
have the capacity to expend those grant funds in a timely manner.
(3)
Preference to those projects which would become self-sufficient or would secure
other forms of assistance as a result of City CDBG assistance.
(4)
Initial grants to social service projects must create a new level of service for the
clients of the requesting agency or must replace funding sources for existing
levels of service which have been removed through no fault of the requesting
agency.
(5)
Preference to those projects which are most cost effective in the delivery of
benefit to low and moderate income citizens of Chula Vista.
<
28 c2 / ' & l' /