The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2007/02/13 Agenda Packet I declare under penalty of perjury that I am employed by the City of Chula Vista in the Office of the City Clerk and that I posted this document on the bulletin board according to <\.~ ~ ' ~ Brown ActreqUlfements. ~ '~ :~-~ ~J1-07 signeiJwu1lJ~ ~~~~ ~-~~ CllY OF CHUlA VISfA Cheryl Cox, Mayor Rudy Ramirez, Council member Jim Thomson, Interim City Manager John McCann, Councilmember Ann Moore, City Attorney Jerry R. Rindone, Councilmember Susan Bigelow, City Clerk Steve Castaneda, Council member February 13, 2007 6:00 P.M. Council Chambers City Hall 276 Fourth Avenue CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL: Councilmembers Castaneda, McCann, Ramirez, Rindone, and Mayor Cox PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG AND MOMENT OF SILENCE SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY . OATHS OF OFFICE David Turner, Board of Appeals and Advisors Ann Tucker, Commission on Aging Jesse Navarro, Safety Commission · PRESENTATION OF A PROCLAMATION BY MAYOR COX TO DEB! SCHWARZ, REPRESENTING GOODRICH AEROSTRUCTURES EMPLOYEES, RECOGNIZING THEIR CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE CHULA VISTA CARES PROGRAM · DID YOU KNOW...THAT THE ENTERPRISE GIS - IS THE INFORMATION HUB FOR OUR CITY? Presented by Torn McDowell, Applications Support Manager, and Bob Blackwelder, Lead Program Analyst CONSENT CALENDAR (Items 1 through 3) The Council will enact the Consent Calendar staff recommendations by one motion, without discussion, unless a Councilmember, a member of the public, or City staff requests that an item be removed for discussion. If you wish to speak on one of these items, please jill out a "Request to Speak" form (available in the lobby) and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. Items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be discussed immediately following the Consent Calendar. 1. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING CLOSURE OF THIRD AVENUE FROM "E" STREET TO "G" STREET FOR THE CINCO DE MAYO CELEBRATION ON APRIL 29, 2007 FROM 4:00 AM. TO 10:00 P.M., WAIVING PROHIBITION ON SIDEWALK SALES, AND WAIVING BUSINESS LICENSE TAXES FOR THIRD AVENUE VILLAGE ASSOCIATION AND VENDORS PARTICIPATING IN THE EVENT 1. B. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING CLOSURE OF THIRD AVENUE FROM "E" STREET TO "H" STREET FOR THE CHULA VISTA LEMON FESTIVAL ON AUGUST 12,2007 FROM 4:00 AM. TO 10:00 P.M., WAIVING PROHIBITION ON SIDEWALK SALES, AND WAIVING BUSINESS LICENSE TAXES FOR THIRD AVENUE VILLAGE ASSOCIATION AND VENDORS PARTICIPATING IN THE EVENT 1. C. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING CLOSURE OF THIRD AVENUE FROM "D" STREET TO "I" STREET AND "H" STREET BETWEEN SECOND AND FOURTH AVENUE, AND PORTIONS OF INTERSECTING STREETS FOR THE ANNUAL STARLIGHT PARADE ON DECEMBER 1, 2007 FROM 1:00 P.M. TO 10:00 P.M., AND WAIVING PROHIBITION ON SIDEWALK SALES, AND WAIVING BUSINESS LICENSE TAXES FOR THIRD AVENUE VILLAGE ASSOCIATION AND VENDORS PARTICIPATING IN THE EVENT 1. D. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND THE THIRD AVENUE VILLAGE ASSOCIATION FOR SPECIAL EVENTS FOR 2007 AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT The Third Avenue Village Association (TA V A) is requesting the closures of Third Avenue and other various streets for annual special events in 2007. (Communications Director) Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolutions. 2. A ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ESTABLISHING A FOUR-HOUR PARKING LIMIT ALONG LAZO COURT AND UPDATING SCHEDULE VI OF THE REGISTER MAINTAINED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY ENGINEER TO INCLUDE THIS TIME-LIMITED PARKING ZONE (FIRST READING) 2. B. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PROHIBITING PARKING ALONG LAZO COURT FROM 2:00 AM TO 6:00 AM AND UPDATING SCHEDULE IV OF THE REGISTER MAINTAINED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY ENGINEER TO INCLUDE THIS PARKING RESTRICTION ZONE (FIRST READING) Staff has received requests from business owners concerned with on-street parking of heavy trucks along Lazo Court, to establish time-limited parking zone. Adoption of the ordinances will establish four-hour time-limited parking, and posting of "No Parking 2:00 A.M. to 6:00 A.M." signs along Lazo Court. (City Engineer) Staff recommendation: Council place the ordinances on first reading. Page 2 - Council Agenda http://www.chulavistaca.gov February 13, 2007 3. A. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ESTABLISHING THE SPEED LIMIT ON FIRST AVENUE BETWEEN PALOMAR STREET AND QUINTARD STREET AT 25 MPH (FIRST READING) 3. B. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ESTABLISHING THE SPEED LIMIT ON FIRST AVENUE BETWEEN QUINTARD STREET AND THE SOUTHERN TERMINUS OF FIRST AVENUE AT 25 MPH (FIRST READING) Based on provisions of the California Vehicle Code, pursuant to authority under the Chula Vista Municipal Code, and in accordance with speed surveys conducted, a speed limit of 25 mph should be established and posted at these locations. (Engineering Director) Staff recommendation: Council place the ordinances on first reading. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC COMMENTS Persons speaking during Public Comments may address the Council/Authority on any subject matter within the Council/Authority's jurisdiction that is not listed as an item on the agenda. State law generally prohibits the Council//Authority from taking action on any issue not included on the agenda, but, if appropriate, the Council/Agency/Authority may schedule the topic for future discussion or refer the matter to staff. Comments are limited to three minutes. PUBLIC HEARINGS The following items have been advertised as public hearings as required by law. If you wish to speak on any item, please fill out a "Request to Speak" form (available in the lobby) and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. 4. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2892 RELATING TO PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE AND AREA OF BENEFIT FOR OTAY RANCH VILLAGES ONE, FIVE, AND SIX TO INCLUDE VILLAGE TWO Adoption of the resolution accepts a report recommending an update to the Pedestrian Bridge Development Impact Fee, and adoption of the ordinance amends Pedestrian Bridge Ordinance No. 2892, to include Village Two to pay for their fair share of bridge improvements. The fee is payable at issuance of building permits. (Engineering Director) Staff recommendation: Council conduct the public hearing, adopt the following resolution, and place the following ordinance on first reading: A. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING A REPORT PREPARED BY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING AND FINANCING GROUP RECOMMENDING AN UPDATE OF THE EXISTING PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE AND AREA OF BENEFIT FOR OTAY RANCH VILLAGES ONE, FIVE, AND SIX TO INCLUDE VILLAGE TWO Page 3 - Council Agenda http://www.chula vistaca.gov February 13, 2007 B. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2892 RELATING TO PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE AND AREA OF BENEFIT FOR OTAY RANCH VILLAGES ONE, FIVE, AND SIX TO INCLUDE VILLAGE TWO TO PAY FOR PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE IMPROVEMENTS AS A CONDITION OF ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS (FIRST READING) OTHER BUSINESS 5. CITY MANAGER'S REPORTS 6. MAYOR'S REPORTS 7. COUNCIL COMMENTS CLOSED SESSION Announcements of actions taken in Closed Session shall be made available by noon on Wednesday following the Council Meeting at the City Attorney's office in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act (Government Code 54957.7). 8. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL--ANTICIPATED LITIGATION SIGNIFICANT EXPOSURE TO LITIGATION PURSUANT TO SUBDIVISION (b) OF GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9 . Three cases 9. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING EXISTING LITIGATION PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9(a) . Get Outdoors II, L.L.c. v. City of Chula Vista (Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals No. 05-56696) ADJOURNMENT to the Regular Meeting of February 20, 2007 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. In compliance with the AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT The City of Chula Vista requests individuals who require special accommodations to access, attend, and/or participate in a City meeting, activity, or service request such accommodation at least forty-eight hours in advance for meetings and five days for scheduled services and activities. Please contact the City Clerk for specific information at (619) 691-5041 or Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf (TDD) at (619) 585-5655. California Relay Service is also available for the hearing impaired. Page 4 - Council Agenda htto:/ /www.chulavistaca.IWV February 13, 2007 ITEM TITLE: SUBMITTED BY: REVIEWED BY: CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT ITEM NO.: MEETING DATE: 02/13/07 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING ClOSURE OF THIRD AVENUE FROM "E" STREET TO "G" STREET FOR THE CINCO DE MAYO CELEBRATION ON APRIL 29, 2007 FROM 4 A.M. - 10:00 P.M., WAIVING THE PROHIBITION ON SIDEWALK SALES, AND WAIVING THE BUSINESS LICENSE TAXES FOR THIRD AVENUE VILLAGE ASSOCIATION AND VENDORS PARTICIPATING IN THE EVENT RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING ClOSURE OF THIRD AVENUE FROM "E" STREET TO "H" STREETS FOR THE CHULA VISTA LEMON FESTIVAL ON AUGUST 12, 2007 FROM 4 A.M. - 10:00 P.M., WAIVING THE PROHIBITION ON SIDEWALK SALES, AND WAIVING THE BUSINESS LICENSE TAXES FOR THIRD AVENUE VILLAGE ASSOCIATION AND VENDORS PARTICIPATING IN THE EVENT RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING CLOSURE OF THIRD AVENUE FROM "D" STREET TO "I" STREET AND "H" STREET BETWEEN SECOND AND FOURTH AVENUE, AND PORTIONS OF INTERSECTING STREETS FOR THE ANNUAL STARLIGHT PARADE ON DECEMBER 1, 2007 FROM 1 P.M. - 10:00 P.M., AND WAIVING THE PROHIBITION ON SIDEWALK SALES, AND WAIVING THE BUSINESS LICENSE TAXES FOR THIRD AVENUE VILLAGE ASSOCIATION AND VENDORS PARTICIPATING IN THE EVENT RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND THIRD AVENUE VILLAGE ASSOCIATION FOR SPECIAL EVENTS FOR 2007 AND AUTHORIZING MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT DIRECTOR OF COMMYNICATIONsoitP CITY MANAGER Jf 4/5THS VOTE: YES D NO ~ 1-1 PAGE 2, ITEM NO.: MEETING DATE: 02/13/07 BACKGROUND The Third Avenue Village Association (TAVA) is requesting the closure of Third Avenue and portions of other streets for three 2007 promotional events: . Cinco de Mayo Celebration on April 29 . Lemon Festival on August 12 . Starlight Parade on December 1 The Cinco De Mayo is an annual event. To operate the festival, the TAVA requests that Third Avenue be closed between "E" and "G" streets from 4 a.m. - 10 p.m. on the respective date of the event. Activities will include live entertainment along with approximately 200 arts; crafts and food booths. The Lemon Festival is an annual event. The TAVA requests that Third Avenue be closed between "E" and "H" streets from 4 a.m. - 10 p.m. on Sunday, August 12. Activities will include live entertainment along with approximately 200 arts, crafts and food booths. The Annual Starlight Parade will be held for the 45th year. For the parade, TAVA requests closing Third Avenue between "0" and "I" streets, between Second and Fourth avenues and portions of intersecting streets from 1 p.m. - 10 p.m. on Saturday, December 1. RECOMMENDATION That the City Council adopt the resolutions: aJ Approving closure of Third Avenue from "E" to "G" streets and adjacent side streets to the alleyways on April 29, 2007 from 4:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m. subject to the provisions and compliance with agreement, waiving prohibition on sidewalk sales, and waiving business license tax for the T A V A and vendors taking part in the event. b) Approving the closure of Third Avenue from "E" to "H" streets and adjacent side streets to the alleyway on August 12, 2007 from 4:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m. subject to the provisions and compliance with agreement, waiving prohibition on sidewalk sales, and waiving business license taxes for the T A VA and vendors taking part in the event; c) Approving the closure of Third Avenue between "0" and "I" streets, "H" Street between Second and Fourth avenues, and other east-west streets that intersect Third Avenue between "0" and "I" streets on Saturday, December 1 , 2007 from 1 :00 - 1 0 p.m. for the 45th Annual Starlight Parade subject to the provisions and compliance with agreement; 1-2 PAGE 3, ITEM NO.: MEETING DATE: 02/13/07 d) Approving the agreement with the Third Avenue Village Association for Special Events 2007 and authorizing Mayor to execute said agreement. DISCUSSION April 29. 2007 - Cinco de Mavo Celebration The T A V A is requesting the following for the 2007 Cinco De Mayo: 1. The closure ofThird Avenue between "E" and "G" streets on Sunday. April 29 2. Allowing sidewalk sales for the event: and 3. A waiver of business license taxes for the T A V A and vendors taking part in the event. The closure of Third Avenue will affect the flow of traffic in the downtown area. The TAVA will be required to coordinate with the City's Traffic Engineer and prepare a traffic control plan to Chula Vista Police and Chula Vista Traffic Engineer's specifications. The City's transit system will also be affected. The Transit Coordinator's staff has agreed to the closure as long as "E" and "G" streets remain passable for traffic. The T A V A is aware of this stipulation and will abide by it. The T A V A has requested that the business license tax for this promotional event be waived for this festival. The taxes involved include a $5 assessment to the sponsoring organization (TAVA) and a requirement that each vendor have a Chula Vista business license (costing $12.50 to each business without a current business license). In the past the City has waived the business license tax pursuant to CVMC 5.04.085 for the TAVA and vendors taking part in these events in order to encourage participation. The Municipal Code allows the Council to waive the business license requirement for those events that last 3 days or less and help promote or publicize Chula Vista. In this case, the rationale for waiving the fee is the festivol attracts thousands of visitors and residents to the Chula Vista downtown and promotes the downtown businesses. The resulting effect will be positive publicity for the City throughout the region which will then generate additional commercial activity and increased sales tax revenue to the City. Waiving the business license taxes will encourage vendor participation. Since having a large number of vendors will help ensure the success of the events. staff recommends the waiver. The event includes food booths and an alcohol tent. These areas will be operated in accordance with the regulations of the San Diego County Health Department. ABC and City of Chula Vista Fire Department and Police Department. 1-3 PAGE 4, ITEM NO.: MEETING DATE: --L- 02/13/07 Additional duties of the Third Avenue Village Association are listed in the agreement between the City and Third Avenue Village Association. Auaust 12. 2007 - Lemon Festival The T A V A is requesting the following for 2007 Lemon Festival: 4. The closure of Third Avenue between "E" and "H" streets Sunday. August 12.2007 from 4 a.m. - 10 p.m.: and 5. Allowing sidewalk sales for the event; and 6. A waiver of business license tax$s for the TAVA and vendors taking part in each event. The closure of Third Avenue will affect the flow of traffic in the downtown area. The T A V A will be required to coordinate with the City's Traffic Engineer and prepare a traffic control plan to Chula Vista Police and Chula Vista Traffic Engineer's specifications. The City's transit system will also be affected. Tile Transit Coordinator's staff has agreed to the closure as long as "E" and "H" streets remain passable for traffic. The T A V A is aware of this stipulation and will abide by it. The T A V A has requested that the business license tax for promotional events be waived for this festival. The taxes involved include a $5 assessment to the sponsoring organization [TAVA) and a requirement that each vendor have a Chula Vista business license (costing $12.50 to each business without a current business license). In the past, the City has waived the business license tax pursuant to CVMC 5.04.085 for the TAVA and vendors taking part in these events in order to encourage participation. The Municipal Code allows the Council to waive the business license requirement for those events that last 3 days or less and help promote or publicize Chula Vista. In this case. the rationale for waiving the fee is the festival attracts thousands of visitors and residents to the Chula Vista downtown and promotes the downtown businesses. The resulting effect will be positive publicity for the City throughout the region which will then generate additional commercial activity and increased sal$s tax revenue to the City. Waiving the business license taxes will encourage vendor participation. Since having a large number of vendors will help ensure the success of the events. staff recommends the waiver. This event includes food booths and an alcohol tent. These areas will be operated in accordance with the regulations of the San Diego County Health Department, ABC and City of Chula Vista Fire Department and Police Department. Additional duties of the Third Avenue Village Association are listed in the agreement between the City and Third Avenue Village Association. 1-4 PAGE 5, ITEM NO.: MEETING DATE: 02/13/07 December 1. 2007 - Starliaht Parade The TAVA is requesting the closure of Third Avenue between "0" and "I" streets and "H" Street between Second and Fourth avenues. The parade route will be along Third Avenue between "E" and "H" streets. Other areas of the closure will be used for pre- parade staging. bus parking and parade debarkation. Second and Fourth avenues will remain open to traffic at all times during the event. Chula Vista and San Diego Transit busses will continue to run during the street closure, but they will run on advertised detour routes. The parade is scheduled to begin at 5:30 p.m. and will end no later than 9 p.m. Street closures are scheduled from 1:00 - 10:00 p.m. The TAVA will be required to send notices to all businesses and residences located along the parade route. The Third Avenue Village Association is also required to provide insurance. a Hold Harmless Agreement, sanitary systems and posting of no parking signs. Additional duties of the Third Avenue Village Association are listed in the agreement between the City and Third Avenue Village Association. The T A V A has requested that the business license tax for promotional events be waived for this festival. The taxes involved include a $5 assessment to the sponsoring organization (TAV A) and a requirement that each vendor have a Chula Vista business license (costing $12.50 to each business without a current business license). In the past. the City has waived the business license tax pursuant to CVMC 5.04.085 for the TAVA and vendors taking part in these events in order to encourage participation. The Municipal Code allows the Council to waive the business license requirement for those events that last 3 days or less and help promote or publicize Chula Vista. In this case. the rationale for waiving the fee is the parade attracts thousands of visitors and residents to the Chula Vista downtown and promotes the downtown businesses. The resulting effect will be positive publicity for the City throughout the region which will then generate additional commercial activity and increased sales tax revenue to the City. Waiving the business license taxes will encourage vendor participation. Since having a large number of vendors will help ensure the success of the events. staff recommends the waiver. The City's Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed projects for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and has determined that the projects qualifies for a Class 4 categorical exemption pursuant to Section 15304(e) of the State of CEQA Guidelines. Thus. no further environmental review is necessary. 1-5 ',_1 PAGE 6, ITEM NO.: MEETING DATE: 02113/07 AGREEMENT Third Avenue Village Association and the City are entering into an Agreement for the Special Events 2007. The Agreement provides the City with indemnification for claims arising from the events. Additionally, it outlines the liability insurance requirements and duties of the Third Avenue Village Association governing the operation of the events. FISCAL IMPACT The T A V A has requested that the business license taxes be waived for the events. The tax involved is a fee of $5 to the spon~oring organization (T A V A) and a $12.50 tax for each participating vendor not currently having a Chula Vista business license. By waiving this tax, the City will forego approximately $500 in fees for each event. The majority of the costs for these events are paid by the T A V A. However. City Departments do share in some of the expenses. The following are costs by department for each T A V A event in 2006: Cinco De Mayo Festival Lemon Festival Starlight Parade PW Operations $2,935.00 $2,935.00 $3,033.00 Fire Prevention $2,621.00 $2,621.00 $0 PW Streets $1,675.00 $1,611.00 $4.490.00 Police $4,600.00 $4.700.00 $10,561.00 PW Parks $683.00 $413.00 $994.00 Total: $12,514.00 $12,280.00 $19,078.00 Costs incurred for individual departments are itemized in their respective budgets. 1-6 RESOLUTION NO. 2007- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING CLOSURE OF THIRD AVENUE FROM "E" STREET TO '9G" STREETS FOR THE CINCO DE MAYO CELEBRATION ON APRIL 29, 2007 FROM 4:00 A.M. - 10:00 P.M., WAIVING PROHIBITION ON SIDEWALK SALES, AND WAIVING BUSINESS LICENSE TAXES FOR THIRD A VENUE VILLAGE ASSOCIATION AND VENDORS PARTICIPATING IN THE EVENT WHEREAS, the City Council of the City ofChula Vista established a Business Improvement Area on November 16, 1971, which created the Third Avenue Village Association ("T A V A"); and WHEREAS, the T A V A has requested to close Third A venue from "E" to "G" Streets including adjacent side streets to the alleyway in order to conduct the Cinco de Mayo Celebration on Apri129, 2007 from 4:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m..; and WHEREAS, the T A V A has requested a waiver of the City's prohibition on sidewalk sales so that the T A V A can conduct the 2007 Cinco de Mayo celebrations; and WHEREAS, the T A V A has also requested a waiver of the Business License Tax for promotional events pursuant to Chula Vista Municipal Code 5.04.085 for TA V A and vendors participating in the 2007 Cinco de Mayo celebrations; and WHEREAS, the Council finds that the festival will provide positive publicity for the City throughout the region which will generate a4ditional commercial activity and sales tax revenue; and WHEREAS, the City's Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and has determined that the project qualifies for a Class 4 categorical exemption pursuantto Section 15304(e) of the State CEQA Guidelines. Thus, no further environmentall review is necessary. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City ofChula Vista finds that the event meets all the necessary criteria for waiver and does hereby approve the closure of Third Avenue from "E" Street to "G" Streets from 4:00 a.m. -10:00p.m. onApri129, 2007, for the . purpose of the T A V A conducting the 2007Cinco de Mayo celebrations. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED thatthe City Council of the City ofChula Vista approves the requested waiver of the City's prohibition on sidewalk sales so that the T A V A can conduct the 2007 Cinco de Mayo celebrations. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City ofChula Vista finds that the event meets all the necessary criteria for wavier and approves the requested waiver of the City's Business License Tax for the Third Avenue Village Association and all vendors participating in the 1-7 2007 Cinco de Mayo celebrations on April 29, 2007. ~;z' \ . 11 Director of Communications Approved as to form by ~YL(c2VM~ ~ oore () City Attorney 1-8 RESOLUTION NO. 2007- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING CLOSURE OF THIRD AVENUE FROM "E" STREET TO "H" STREETS FOR THE LEMON FESTIVAL ON AUGUST 12,2007 FROM 4:00 A.M. - 10:00 P.M., WAIVING PROHIBITION ON SIDEWALK SALES, AND WAIVING BUSINESS LICENSE TAXES FOR THIRD AVENUE VILLAGE ASSOCIATION AND VENDORS P ARTICIP A TING IN THE EVENT WHEREAS, the City Council of the City ofChula Vista established a Business Improvement Area on November 16, 1971, which created the Third Avenue Village Business Association ("T A V A"); and WHEREAS, the TAVA has requested to close Third Avenue from "E" to "H" Streets in order to conduct the Lemon Festival on August 12, 2007 from 4:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m.; and WHEREAS, the T AVA has requested a waiver of the City's prohibition on sidewalk sales so that the TA V A can conduct the 2007 Lemon Festival; and WHEREAS, the TA V A has also requested a waiver of the Business License Tax for promotional events pursuant to Chula ViSta Municipal Code 5.04.085 for TA V A and vendors participating in the 2007 Lemon festival; and WHEREAS, the Council finds that the festival will provide positive publicity for the City throughout the region which will generate acJditional commercial activity and sales tax revenue; and WHEREAS, the City's Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and has determined that the project qualifies for a Class 4 categorical exemption pursuant to Section 15304(e) of the State CEQA Guidelines. Thus, no further environmental review is necessary. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City ofChula Vista does hereby approve the closure of Third Avenue from "E" Street to "H" Streets from 4:00 a.m.- 10:00 p.m. on August 12,2007, for the purpose of the TA V A conducting the 2007 Lemon Festival. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED thatthe City Council of the City ofChula Vista approves the requested waiver of the City's prohibition On sidewalk sales so that the T A V A can conduct the 2007 Lemon Festival. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City ofChula Vista finds that the event meets all the necessary criteria for waiver and approves the requested waiver of the City's Business License Tax for the Third Avenue Village Association and all vendors participating in the 2007 Lemon Festival on August 12, 2007. 1-9 cw~ DuectorofConunumcations 1-10 A:~d as to foqn ~y ,~nU/. tu-OA /faJZP Ann ore , City Attorney RESOLUTION NO. 2007- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROV]NG CLOSURE OF THIRD A VENUE FROM "D" STREET TO "I" STREET AND "H" STREET BETWEEN SECOND AND FOURTH AVENUE, AND PORTIONS OF INTERSECTING STREETS FOR THE ANNUAL STARLIGHT PARADE ON DECEMBER I, 2007 FROM I P.M. - 10:00 P.M., AND WAIVING PROHIB1TION ON SIDEWALK SALES, AND WAIVING BUSINESS LICENSE TAXES FOR THIRD AVENUE VILLAGE ASSOCIATION AND VENDORS P ARTICIP A TING IN THE EVENT. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City ofChula Vista established a Business Improvement Area on November 16, 1971, which created Third Avenue Village Association ("T A V A"); and WHEREAS, the TA V A has requested the temporary closure of Third Avenue between "D" and "I" Streets, "H" Street between Second and Fourth Avenues, and all other east-west streets that intersect Third A venue between "D" and "I" Streets to the nearest point of detour to Third Avenue to conduct the 45th annual Starlight Parade on Saturday, December I, 2007 from I - 10 p.m.; WHEREAS, the T A V A has requested a waiver ofthe City's prohibition on sidewalk sales so that the T A V A can conduct the 2007 Starlight Parade; and WHEREAS, the TA V A has also requested a waiver of the Business License Tax for promotional events pursuant to Chula Vista Municipal Code 5.04.085 for T A V A and vendors participating in the 2007 Starlight Parade; WHEREAS, the Council finds that the parade will provide positive publicity for the City throughout the region which will generate commercial activity and sales tax revenue; and WHEREAS, the Starlight Parade has been a Downtown and City tradition for 45 years and the City Council finds that the parade is a benefit to the Community; WHEREAS, the City's Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and has determined that the project qualifies for a Class 4 categorical exemption pursuant to Section 15304( e) of the State CEQA Guidelines. Thus, no further environmental review is necessary. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City ofChula Vista does hereby approve the closure of Third Avenue between "D" and "I" Streets, "H" Street between Second and Fourth A venues, and all other east-west streets that intersect Third A venue between "D" and "I" Streets to the nearest point of detour to Third A venue to conduct the annual Starlight Parade on Saturday, December I, 2007 from I - 10 p.m. 1-11 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council ofthe City ofChula Vista approves the requested waiver of the City's prohibition on sidewalk sales so that the T A V A can conduct the 2007 Starlight Parade. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City ofChula Vista finds that the event meets all the necessary criteria for waiver and the requested waiver of the City's Business License Tax for the Third Avenue Village Association and all vendors participating in the 2007 Starlight Parade on December 1,2007. Presented by Approved as to form by Liz Pursell Director of Communications 1-12 RESOLUTION NO. 2007- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND THIRD AVENUE VILLAGE ASSOCIATION FOR SPECIAL EVENTS FOR 2007 AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT WHEREAS, the City Council of the City ofChuIa Vista established a Business Improvement Area on November 16, 1971, which created the Third Avenue Village Association ("T A V A"); and WHEREAS, T A V A intends to hold a number of special events in the downtown area this year; and WHEREAS, the Agreement outlines the duties of T A V A for each of the Special Events planned for 2007; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby approve the Agreement between the City of Chula Vista and Third A venue Village Association for Special Events for 2007, a copy of which shall be kept on file in the office of the City Clerk. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of the City of ChuIa Vista is hereby authorized to execute the Agreement for and on behalf of the City of ChuIa Vista. ~~pn --uz ~sell Director of Communications 1-13 THE A TT ACHED AGREEMENT HAS BEEN REVIEWED AND APPROVED AS TO FORM BY THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND WILL BE FORMALLY SIGNED UPON APPROVAL BY THE CITY COUNCIL 4Ldt ftA~/kd{ '- Ann Moo City Attorney Dated: a I~ /C17 Agreement betwefn the City of Chula Vista and Third A venue Village Association for Special Events in 2007 1-14 AGREEMENT Between the CITYOF CHULA V[ST A, a California municipal corporation and THIRD AVENUE VILLAGE ASSOCIATION for SPECIAL EVENTS IN 2007 Recitals A. The Third A venue Village Association (T A V A) plans to stage three Special Events in 2007. B. These Special Events are the Cinco de Mayo Celebration, which will take place on Saturday, April 29, 2007, the Lemoh Festival, which will take place on August 12, 2007, and the Starlight Parade, which will take place on December 1,2007. C. The TA V A wishes to close Third Avenue and portions of other streets for these three Special Events. Agreement 1. TAVA'sDuties The T A V A shall perform each !of the duties described in Attachments A, B and C, attached to this Agreement and incorp<!lrated into this Agreement by this reference. 2. Duties of the City City Communications Staff (Staff) shall work closely with T A V A to facilitate the planning and staging of each Special Event. Staff shall coordinate two meetings between various City Departments and the T A V A to discuss all logistics, requirements, concerns and issues of both the City and the TAV A. Staff shall promote each Special Event in City publications and on the City's website. Staff shall create an emergency contact list for each Special Event. 3. Term This Agreement is effective upon the execution of the Mayor and expires on December 31, 2007. 4. Termination of Agreement If the TA V A fails to fulfill, in a timely and proper manner, any ofTA VA's obligations or duties under this Agreement, or if the T A V A violates any of the covenants, agreements or stipulations of this Agr~ement, City has the right to terminate this 1-15 Agreement by giving at least five (5) djlys written notice to the TA VA of the termination before the effective date of the termination. 5. Assignability The T A V A shall not assign or transfer any interest in this Agreement without prior written consent of City. 6. Independent Contractor The TA V A and any of the TA V A's agents, employees or representatives are, for all purposes under this Agreement, independent contractors and shall not be deemed to be employees of City, and none of them shall be entitled to any benefits to which City employees are entitled including but not limited to, overtime, retirement benefits, worker's compensation benefits, injury leave or other leave benefits. 7. Insurance The T A V A represents that it and its staff and agents employed by it in connection with the 2007 promotional events are protected against the risk of loss by the insurance coverage outlined in Attaclunents A, B, and C, Duties of T A V A, including naming the City, it officials, officers, !\gents, employees and volunteer as additional insured. 8. Hold Harmless T A V A agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, its elected and appointed officials, officers, agents and employees pursuant to the Group/Organization Waiver and Rele!\se of Liability executed by TA V A Special Events Manager. 9. Notices All notices to be given pursuant to this Agreement must be in writing. All notices 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 in this Agreement as the places of business for each of the parties. 10. Entire Agreement/Amendments This Agreement, together with Attachments A, B, and C, the Group/Organization Waiver and Release of Liability, and any other written document referred to or contemplated in this Agreement embody the entire Agreement and understanding between the parties. Neither this Agreement nor any attachment or provision may be amended or modified except in writin$ executed by each party to the Agreement. 1-16 11. Capacity of Parties Each signatory and party to this Agreement warrants and represents to the other party that it has legal authority and capacity and direction from its principal to enter into this Agreement, and that all resolutions or other actions have been taken so as to enable it to enter into this Agreement. Executed this _ day of ,2007 in the City ofChula Vista, California. TAVA CITY OF CHULA VISTA BY~\RU, By: Cheryl Cox, Mayor Attest: Susan Bigelow, City Clerk Approved as to form by: Ann Moore, City Attorney 1-17 DUTIES OF THE THIRD AVENUE VILLAGE ASSOCIATION (TAVA) FOR CHULA VISTA THIRD AVENUE CINCQ DE MAYO CELEBRATION ON APRIL 29, 2007 1. The TAVA shall provide for adequate, traffic and crowd control, as determined by the City's Traffic Engineer and Police Department. 2. The TAVA shall provide adequate litter control during and after the event as determined by the City's Conservation Department. 3. The TAVA shall notify all property owners and tenants (including businesses and residents) that will be affected by the street closure. The notification must be sent by first class mail at least seven days prior to the event date. 4. The TAVA will be responsible for measures to insure that the noise generated by the event's activities does not reach an excessive level. The TAVA will undertake the following measures in order to implement this condition: a. TAVA shall continually monitor noise levels of performing bands, stereos, and other sound-emitting devices and will make adjustments as needed. b. A plan showing the location of ~he performing stages will be submitted for Office of Communications staff review and! approval prior to the event. c. All band performances shall be limited to the hours of 10 a.m. and 7 p.m. 5. The TAVA shall ensure that the all$yways between "E" Street and "G" Street, east and west of Third Avenue, shall rem~in open and unobstructed for the purpose of fire apparatus access in the event of an emergency. The TAVA shall ensure that all food- cooking vendors have a 2A 1 OBC-type fire extinguisher readily available in their booths as required by the Fire Marshal. 6. The TAVA shall ensure "E" and "G" Streets remain open to traffic in order to meet the requirements of the Fire Marshal an<ll the Transit Division. 7. The TAVA shall provide, 10 days !prior to the Cinco de Mayo Celebration, evidence of general liability insurance in the almount of $5 million, in the form of a certificate of insurance and an additional endorsement page naming the City of Chula Vista, its officials, officers, agents, employees and volunteers as additional insured. The endorsement page must include name of the insured, policy number and policy period. 8. The TAVA shall execute an agrel'lment to hold the City harmless from any liability stemming from Cinco de Mayo Celebration activities in the street. 9. The TAVA shall obtain a temporary license from the ABC for the sale of beer and shall comply with all requirements set fcprth in the license. The TAVA shall comply with all requirements of the Chula Vista Police Department. 1-18 ATTACHMENT A CINCO DE MAYO CELEBRATION 10. The TAVA shall ensure that the location of the food and beverage tents are approved by the Police and Fire Department at least 30 days prior to the event. 11. The TAVA shall ensure that sales, service and consumption of alcoholic beverages are permitted only in the areas designated on the ABC application diagram. The TAVA shall ensure that people do not take alcoholic beverages from the designated area and that no person brings alcoholic beverages inlo the designated area. 12. The TAVA shall provide one (1) security person at each public entrance and exit for each area noted in condition #11. The T A V A shall ensure that each security person wears distinctive apparel and is present in the area where consumption is taking place at all times. 13. The TAVA shall ensure that the security persons prevent people from carrying alcoholic beverages outside the designated arl!a as well as prevents people from bringing alcoholic beverages into the designated area as noted in condition 11. The T A V A shall ensure that security persons verify the age of each person who wishes to purchase or consume alcoholic beverages. 14. The TAVA shall ensure that alcoholiC beverages are only sold in distinctive paper, plastic, or Styrofoam cups and that no other containers are used for the dispensing of alcoholic beverages. 15. The TAVA shall ensure that all persons serving or dispensing alcoholic beverages are at least 21 years of age. 16. The TAVA shall ensure that no more than two (2) alcoholic beverage containers are purchased by anyone person at anyone time. 17. The TAVA shall ensure that cup size for alcoholic beverages shall not exceed 16 ounces. 18. The TAVA shall ensure that signs are posted indicating "No one under 21 years of age allowed" in the bar area. No signs are required at the food court. The TAVA shall ensure that no persons under 21 years of age are allowed in the bar area. The food court will be open to persons of all ages. If no food service is available inside the food court, it will be considered a bar area, and the TAVA shall ensure no persons under 21 years of age are present. 19. The TAVA shall ensure that a threefoot tall fence separates the bar area and food court from other public areas. 1-19 Onebox-Ol 1/18/2007 6:02 PAGE 005/014 Fax Server ~v&- ~ CHO~~srA GROUP/DRGANIZA TION WAIVER AND RELEASE OF LIABILITY ORGANIZATION/GROUP NAME:~ Third Avenue Village Association EVENT NAME: Festival Cinco de Mayo EVENT DATE: 4/29/07 ON BEHALF OF THE ABOVE ORGANIZA TION/GROUP, I expressly WAIVE, RELEASE and DISCHARGE the City of Chula Vista, its officers, agents, and employees or any other person from any and all LIABILITY for any death, disability, personal injury, property damage, property theft or actions, including any alleged or actual negligent act or omissions, regardless of whether such act or omission is active or passive which may accrue to myself or members of my ocganization/group or our heirs in connection with our ~articipation in the above-described event. I fully understand and acknowledge that the CITY OF CHULA VISTA is relying on my representation that I have authorization to sign this document and that I will provide all members of my group a completed copy of this Waiver prior to our participation. I expressly INDEMNIFY AND HOLD HARMLESS the City of Chula Vista, its elected and appointed officials, officers, agents and employees from any and all liabilities or claims made by me or my organization/group, my/our heirs and any' other individuals or entities as a result of, or in anyway related to, or arising from, the event identified herein, any of I my/ouractjons in connection with my/our participation in this event except for those claims arising from the sole negligence or sole willful conduct of the City, its officials, officers, employees, volunteers or other representatives. Such' irdemnification includes liability settlements, damage awards, costs and attorney fees associated with any such claims.' I hereby certify that I have read this document, understand its content, and am authorized to sign this document on beh . of all members of the group I represent. DATE:l/17/07 SIGNATURE_ (/)" ~.,1?"'" ..~~'<1' m~'<.~Y.:':} NAME:_Jack Blakely (Please Print) TITLE: Executive Director ADDRESS: 353 Third Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910 Return completed Special Event Application,form, plus any additional attachments & information to: City of Chula Vista - Office of Communications. 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista CA 91910 . Tel: 619-691-5296 Fax: 619-409-5 Forms must be subm;tled at least 45 days priot to event start date_ Incomplete forms will not be processed. 1-20 DUTIES OF THE THIRD AVElNUE VILLAGE ASSOCIATION (TAVA) FOR CHULA VISTA THIRD AVENUE;LEMON FESTIVAL ON AUGUST 12, 2007 1. The TAVA shall provide for adequate traffic and crowd control, as determined by the City's Traffic Engineer and Police Department. 2. The TAVA shall provide adequate li~er control during and after the event, as determined by the City's Conservation Department. 3. The TAVA shall notify all property owners and tenants (including businesses and residents) that will be affected by th~ street closure. The notification must be sent by first class mail at least seven days prior t(l the event date. 4. The TAVA will be responsible for measures to insure that the noise generated by the event's activities does not reach $n excessive level. The TAVA will undertake the following measures in order to implelinent this condition: a. TAVA shall continually monitor noise levels of performing bands, stereos, and other sound-emitting devices and will make adjustments as needed. b. A plan showing the location of the performing stages will be submitted for Office of Communications staff review and approval prior to the event. c. All band performances shall be limited to the hours of 10 a.m. and 7 p.m. 5. In order to meet the requirement of the Fire Marshal, the TAVA shall ensure that the alleyways between "E" Street and "G" Street, east and west of Third Avenue, shall remain open and unobstructed for the purpose of fire apparatus access in the event of an emergency. The TAVA shall ensure that all food-cooking vendors have a 2A10BC-type fire extinguisher readily available in ~heir booths as required by the Fire Marshal. 6. The TAVA shall ensure "E" and "G" Streets remain open to traffic in order to meet the requirements of the Fire Marshal an41 the Transit Division. 7. The TAVA shall provide, 10 days prior to the Lemon Festival, evidence of general liability insurance in the amount of $5 million, in the form of a certificate of insurance and an additional endorsement page naming the City of Chula Vista, its officials, officers, agents, employees and volunteers as additional insured. The endorsement page must include name of the insured, policy number ;ind policy period. 8. The TAVA shall execute an agreement to hold the City harmless from any liability stemming from Lemon Festival acti~ities in the street. 9. The TAVA shall obtain a temporary license from the ABC for the sale of beer and shall comply with all requirements set forth in the license. The TAVA shall comply with all requirements of the Chula Vista Police Department. 1-21 ATTACHMENT B LEMON FESTIVAL 10. The TAVA shall ensure that the location of the food and beverage tents are approved by the Police and Fire Department at least 10 days prior to the event. 11. The TAVA shall ensure that sales, service and consumption of alcoholic beverages are permitted only in the areas designated on the ABC application diagram. The TAVA shall ensure that people do not take alcoholic beverages from the designated area and that no person brings alcoholic beverages into the designated area. 12. The TAVA shall provide one (1) seclJrity person at each public entrance and exit for each area noted in condition #11. The tr A V A shall ensure that each security person wears distinctive apparel and is present irtl the area where consumption is taking place at all times. 13. The TAVA shall ensure that the security persons prevent people from carrying alcoholic beverages outside the designated area as well as prevents people from bringing alcoholic beverages into the designated area as noted in condition 11. The TAVA shall ensure that security persons verify the age of each person who wishes to purchase or consume alcoholic beverages. 14. The TAVA shall ensure that alcoholic beverages are only sold in distinctive paper, plastic, or Styrofoam cups and that no other containers are used for the dispensing of alcoholic beverages. 15. The TAVA shall ensure that all persons serving or dispensing alcoholic beverages are at least 21 years of age. 16. The TAVA shall ensure that no more than two (2) alcoholic beverage containers are purchased by anyone person at anyone time. 17. The T A V A shall ensure that cup size for alcoholic beverages shall not exceed 16 ounces. 18. The TAVA shall ensure that signs are posted indicating "No one under 21 years of age allowed" in the bar area. No signs are required at the food court. The TAVA shall ensure that no persons under 21 years of age are allowed in the bar area. The food court will be open to persons of all ages. If no food service is available inside the food court, it will be considered a bar area, and the TAVA shall ensure no persons under 21 years of age are present. 19. The TAVA shall ensure that a three foot tall fence separates the bar area and food court from other public areas. 1-22 Onebox-01 1/ 18/2007 6: 02 PAGE 008/014 Fax Server ~,v~ ~ - CHov.~STA GROUP/ORGANIZA TION WAIVER AND RELEASE OF LIABILITY ORGANIZA TION/GROU P NAME:~ Third Avenue Village Association EVENT NAME: Lemon Festival EVENT DATE: 8/12/07 ON BEHALF OF THE ABOVE ORGANIZATION/GROUP, I expressly WAIVE, RELEASE and DISCHARGE the City of Chula Vista, its officers, agents, and employees or any other person from any and all LIABILITY for any death, disability, personal injury, property damage, property thef1 or actions, including any alleged or actual negligent act or omissions, regardless of whether such act or omission is active or passive which may accrue to myself or members of my organization/group or our heirs in connection with our participation in the above-described event. I fully understand and acknowledge that the CITY OF CHULA VISTA is relying on my representation that I have authorization to sign this document and that I will provide all members of my group a completed copy of this Waiver prior to our participation. I expressly INDEMNIFY AND HOLD HARMLESS the City of Chula Vista, its elected and appointed officials, officers, agents and employees from any and all liabilities or claims made by me or my organization/group, my/our heirs and any other individuals or entities as a result of, or in anyway related to, or arising from, the event identified herein, any of my/our actions in connection with my/our participation in this event except for those claims arising from the sole negligence or sole willful conduct of the City, its officials, officers, employees, volunteers or other representatives. Such indemnification includes liability settlements, damage awards, costs and attorney fees associated with any such claims. I hereby certify that I have read this document, understand its content, and am authorized to sign this document on beh of all mem bers of the group I represent. DATE:1/17/07 SIGNATURE ",;.(:;%l~,f;.;""~-<1' NAME:_Jack Blakely (Please Print) TITLE: Executive Director ADDRESS: 353 Third Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910 Return completed Special Event Application form, plus any additional attachments & information to: City of Chula Vista - Office of Communications. 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista CA 91910 . Tel: 619-691-5296 Fax: 619-409-54 Forms must be submitted at least 45 days prior to event start date. Incomplete forms will not be processed 1-23 Page 3 ATTACHMENTC STARLIGHT PARADE DUTIES OF THE THIRD AVENUE VILLAGE ASSOCIATION (TAVA) FOR STARLIGHT PARADE ON DECEMBER 1, 2007 1. The TAVA shall provide for adequate traffic and crowd control, as determined by the City's Traffic Engineer and Police Department. 2. The TAVA shall provide adequate litter control during and after the event, as determined by the City's Conservation Department. 3. The TAVA shall notify all property owners and tenants (including businesses and residents) that will be affected by the street closures. The notification shall be sent by first class mail at least seven days prior to the event date. 4. The TAVA will be responsible for measures to insure that the noise generated by the event's activities does not reach an excessive level. The TAVA will undertake the following measures in order to implement this condition: a. TAVA shall continually monitor noise levels of performing bands and other sound- emitting devices and will make adjustments as needed. 7. The TAVA shall provide, 10 days prior to the parade, evidence of general liability insurance in the amount of $5 million, in the form of a certificate of insurance and an additional endorsement page naming the City of Chula Vista, its officials, officers, agents, employees and volunteers as additional insured. The endorsement page must include name of the insured, policy number and policy period. 8. The TAVA shall execute an agreement to hold the City harmless from any liability stemming from parade activities in the street. 9. The TAVA shall provide portable toilets along the parade route, as recommend by City staff. 10. The TAVA shall provide and post 'No Parking" signs in a form acceptable to the City Traffic Engineer, along the parade route. The TAVA shall ensure that posting takes place a minimum of forty-eight (48) hours ih advance of the event date. 1-24 Page 3 Onebox-01 1/18/2007 6:02 PAGE 014/014 Fax Server ~!lt.. Tl'~ - CH6~'~srA GROUP/ORGANIZATION WAIVER AND RELEASE OF LIABILITY ORGANIZA TION/GROUP NAME:_ Third Avenue Village Association EVENT NAME: Starlight Parade EVENT DATE: 12/1/07 ON BEHALF OF THE ABOVE ORGANIZA TION/GROUP, I expressly WAIVE, RELEASE and DISCHARGE the City of Chula Vista, its officers, agents, and employees or any other person from any and all LIABILITY for any death, disability.. personal injury, property damage, property theft or actions, including any alleged or actual negligent act or omissions, regardless of whether such act or omission is active or passive which may accrue to myself or members of my o'ganization/group or our heirs in connection with our participation in the above-described event I fully understand and acknowledge that the CITY OF CHULA VISTA is relying on my representation that I have authorization to sign this document and that I will provide all members of my group a completed copy of this Waiver prior to our participation. I expressly INDEMNIFY AND HOLD HARMLESS the City of Chula Vista, its elected and appointed officials, officers, agents and employees from any and all liabilities or claims made by me or my organization/group, my/our heirs and any other individuals or entities as a result of, or in anyway related to, or arising from, the event identified herein, any of my/our actions in connection with my/our participation in this event except for those claims arising from the sole negligence or sole willful conduct of the City, its officials, officers, employees, volunteers or other representatives. Such indemnification includes liability settlements, damage awards, costs and attorney fees associated with any such claims. I hereby certify that I have read this document, understand its content, and am authorized to sign this document on beh of all members of the group I represent DATE:l/17/07 SIGNATURE_ ~ AZ. ~:, , D ()'<1" ~..- --""i!~~..---~ ...:ro. .,."""'-'- NAME:_Jack Blakely (Please Print) TITLE: Executive Director ADDRESS: 353 Third Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910 Return completed Special Event Application form, plus any additional attachments & information to: City of Chula Vista - Office of Communications. 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista CA 9'910 . Tel: 619-691-5296 Fax: 619-409-54 Forms must be submitted at least 45 days prior to event starl date. Incompfete forms will not be processed. 1-25 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT ~~ CITY OF -~ (HULA VISTA 2/13/07 Item---b- ITEM TITLE: Ordinance Establishing a four-hour parking limit along Lazo Court an~ updating Schedule VI of the Register maintained in the office of the City Engineer to include this time-limited parking zone. Ordinance Prohibiting parking along Lazo Court from 2:00 am to 6:00 am and updating Schedule IV of the Register maintained in lhe office of the City Engineer to include this parking restrictjon zone. SUBMITTED BY: REVIEWED BY: CITY ENGI~EER/j) ~ INTERIM qTY MANAGER Ji 4/5THS VOTE: YES NO X BACKGROUND On July 20, 2006 staff received a lett~r from business owners regarding the on-street parking of heavy trucks along Lazo Cdurt and requesting that the City establish a time- limited parking zone along the roadWay (see Attachment I). The business owners indicated that commercial trucks, traile~s, and other large vehicles consistently park along Lazo Court for long periods of time ca~sing inconveniences to the customers of adjacent businesses, creating traffic and personal safety hazards, and degrading the appearance of the roadway. Tonight, the City Ccjuncil will consider a combination of parking regulations to address the issue: establishing four-hour time-limited parking 6:00 am to 2:00 am and prohibiting parking from 2100 am to 6:00 am along Lazo Court. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Environmental Review CoordiIj.ator has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with the California EnviroJim1ental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the project qualifies for a Class 1 ~ategorical exemption pursuant to Section 153301 (c) (Existing Facilities) of the State CEQA Guidelines because the street is an existing facility. Thus, no further environmental review is necessary. 2-1 2/13/07, Item~ Page 2 of 4 RECOMMENDATION That Council adopt ordinances to establ~sh four-hour time-limited parking and to prohibit parking from 2:00 am to 6:00 am along lazo Court. BOARDS/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Safety Commission, at their meedng of November 9, 2006, unanimously voted to concur with staffs recommendation t<1> establish four-hour time-limited parking along Lazo Court. The Safety Commission al~o recommended adding a "No Parking 2:00 am to 6:00 am" restriction in addition to the stllff proposed four-hour parking time limit. DISCUSSION City staff received a letter on July 20, i2006 from Mr. Ron Weber (general manager of Brunswick Premier Lanes) regarding t~e on-street parking conditions along Lazo Court (see Attachment 1). According to Mr. !Weber, local businesses and trucking companies are using Lazo Court for long-term parking, often times blocking fire hydrants and limiting intersection sight distances. !bue to these safety concerns and in an effort to improve the availability of on-street i parking for the local businesses, Mr. Weber requested that the City establish a four+hour time-limited parking restriction along Lazo Court. City staff observed the current! parking usage along Lazo Court and concluded that a considerable number of commercial trucks utilize the on-street parking on this roadway throughout the day as well as overnight. Lazo Court is 52 feet wide curb-to-cur~, and is classified as an Industrial roadway. Lazo Court extends approximately 430' so~h of Paseo Del Rey, and ends in a cul-de-sac. There are two businesses located wit~in this cul-de-sac: A-I Storage and Brunswick Premier Lanes (bowling alley). A-I St~rage is open daily from 6:00 am to 10:00 pm and Brunswick Premier Lanes is open dail)( from 10:00 am until midnight on weekdays and until 2:00 am on weekends. These two ibusinesses have on-site parking lots to serve their customers; however, on-street parking is often necessary to accommodate overflow parking. Since the on-site parking for A-I Storage is often utilized for loading and unloading purposes, A-I Storage custop:1ers regularly require on-street parking on Lazo Court. Staff has been in communication ~ith the Police Department and has requested enforcement of the 72-hour public Nrking limitation (Chula Vista Municipal Code, Section 10.52.100.B). However, due t~ the high volume and turn-around of trucks being parked on this roadway, the Police Denartment has difficulty tracking a 72-hour parking duration and performing enforcement Oll a regular basis due to the labor intensive nature of this type of enforcement. Consequently, the Police Department also recommends the installation of the time-limited parking ~igns at this location. In determining the type of parking I restrictions to establish on Lazo Court, staff considered various options such as "1'10 Parking from Midnight to 6:00 AM", time- limited parking, and parking restrictiorj.s along certain portions of the roadway. Taking 2-2 2/13/07, Item 2- Page 3 of 4 into account the hours of operations ~f Brunswick Premier Lanes (up to 2:00 am on weekends) and the typical customer pariking duration for the businesses within the cul-de- sac, staff determined that a four-hQur time-limit for on-street parking should be established. Also, to address Mr. Weber's concerns regarding parking in front of fire hydrants and sight distance obstructionf caused by on-street parking near the intersection of Lazo Court and Paseo Del Rey, staff will pursue the installation of red curb in these areas. Doing so will help ensure that fire hydrants will stay clear of parked vehicles and will help increase intersection sight di~tance visibility for motorists entering and exiting Lazo Court. Since the heavy trucks park on Lazo qourt during the day and frequently remain parked overnight, staff agrees with Safety Cojnmission's recommendation to combine the "No Parking from 2:00 am to 6:00 am" s*ns with the proposed four-hour limited parking signs (see Attachment 2 for an Exhiblt showing Lazo Court and the proposed parking restricti ons). CONCLUSION: As a measure to discourage long-termivehicular parking on Lazo Court and to create a safer environment for the patrons o~ the adjacent businesses, staff recommends the establishment of the "No Parking fromi2:00 am to 6:00 am" restriction and the four-hour time-limited parking zone along Lazo Court. Staff also recommends that Schedules IV "Parking - Prohibited During Certain Hlours on Certain Streets" and VI "Parking - Time Limited on Certain Streets" of the RegIster maintained in the office of the City Engineer be amended to include the following: 10.52.290 Schedule IV - Parkin!! t Prohibited Durin!! Certain Hours on Certain Streets Name of Street Beginning At Ending At Side Duration Lazo Court Paseo Del Rey Cul-de-sac Both 2am - 6am 10.52.330 Schedule VI - Parkin!! - Time Limited on Certain Streets Name of Street Beginning At Ending At Side Duration Lazo Court Paseo Del Rey Cul-de-sac Both 4 hour DECISION MAKER CONFLICT Staff has reviewed the property holdings of the City Council Members and has found no property holdings within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property which is the subject of this action. 2-3 2/13/07,Item_ Page 4 of 4 FISCAL IMPACT The estimated cost for the installation! of time-limited parking signs by Public Works crews is approximately $1,600.00, w\1ich will be funded through the Public Works operating budget. ATTACHMENTS 1. Copy of request letter 2. Location Map and proposed signs locations 3. CYMC Sections 10.52.290 and 10.52.330 Prepared by: Hasib Baha, Associate Civil Eng~neer. Engineering 2-4 ';c..) ~" d .~~ ~,. .' ~ ATTACHMENT I Brunswick Recreation Centers A BRUNSWICK COMPANY Brunswick Premier Lanes 845 Lazo Ct Chula Vista CA 91910 619421-4801 July 6, 2006 20 July 2006 Frank Rivera Transportation Engineer Cit!.-o:[ChyIa-Yis..ta... -,---~ 276 Fourth Ave Chula Vista CA 91910 Dear Mr Rivera: I'm writing to request street parking onlLazo Court be changed from unrestricted to 4 hour business zone. Over the past 2 years Lazo Court has bt\come a haven for tractor trailers, 18 wheelers, private business vehicle parking, and a \I1oving company storage area At any given time there could be 8-10 moving vans, 18 w~eelers and tractor trailers none of which are associated with the local businesses on ~azo Court (Brunswick Lanes and A-I storage). Parking on the street has become such a: hazard leaving no room for turning onto Lazo Court. Trailers parked overnight are an open invitation for crime affecting the area safety. Vehicles have been parking on ~he street in front of the fire hydrants. Chula Vista Police Department has tried to remedy 1Ihe situation by ticketing the vehicles to no avail. I see the only way to remedy the problefn would be to restrict parking to 4 hours. This in ,'" no way:wouldaIDi:ersely4ffect any oftJtabusinesses.i1rthe.areaand would create a safer environment for all patrons. I would aIWreciate any assistance you can provide us. If! can provide you with any additional inf9rmation please contact me. Thank you for your assistance. Ron Weber General Manager PREMIER LANES 845 Lazo Court- Chula Vista, CA91~1.2~ (619) 421-4801' Fax (619) 421-5081 N !z w ::2: :::c 0.. o ~ c o --r o U o -' ~ ~\I 0> ~l . 6~ :I: U ATTACHMENT .3 10.52.290 Parking - Prohi~ited during certain hours on certain streets - Driver obedience required. Except upon Sundays and holidays specified in CVMC 10.08.110, it is unlawful to p~rk a vehicle between the hours specified of any day upon ahy street upon which a parking control device prohibiting OIr regulating such parking has been installed by the city ~ngineer by regulation adopted pursuant to CVMC 10.04.p30. The city engineer shall maintain within a register Cfl Schedule IV which lists the streets or portions thereof L1pon which the restrictions and prohibitions within this sec~ion are in effect. (Ord. 2670, 1996; Ord. 973 S 1, 1966; prior code S 19.11.4). 10.52.330 Parking - Time limited on certain streets - Driver obedience required. Except upon Sundays and holidays specified in CVMC 10.08.110, it is unlawful to p$rk a vehicle for longer than the time specified upon a parkin~ control device regulating such parking on any street upon! which such a parking control device regulating such parkir)g has been installed by the city engineer by regulation qdopted pursuant to CVMC 10.04.030, except in accord~nce with the directions of the parking control device. The city engineer shall maintain within a register a Schedul~ VI which lists the streets or portions thereof upon which ~he restrictions and prohibitions of this section are in effect. ~Ord. 2670, 1996; Ord. 973 S 1, 1966; prior code S 19.11.6). 2-7 ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE OF THE tlTY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ESTABUSHING A FOUR-HOUR PARKING LIMIT ALONG LAZO COURT WHEREAS, pursuant to authority under the Chula Vista Municipal Code, the City Engineer had detennined that a four-hour ~arking limit shall be established on Lazo Court; and WHEREAS, heavy trucks and recr~ational vehicles park on Lazo Court on a regular basis compromising the safety and aesthetic at this location; and WHEREAS, the Lazo Court busiqess owners have requested that City install signs to limit parking for a maximum period of fOUl hours on Lazo Court; and WHEREAS, the Safety Commissiqn has concurred with staff recommendation to install these time-limited parking signs; and WHEREAS, this recommendation 'Ind other information in the City Engineer's report has been fully considered by the City Council; , NOW, THEREFORE, the City Couincil of the City ofChula Vista ordains as follows: SECTION I: That a four-hour parking liinit 011 Lazo Court from Paseo Del Rey to end of the cui-de-sac is established. SECTlON II: That Schedule VI of a Regiister of Schedules maintained by the City Engineer as provided in Section lO.52.330 of the Chulu Vista Municipal Code, "Parking - Time Limited on Certain Streets," is amended to include the following infoffilation: 10.52.330 Schedule VI - Parkillf! Time Limited 011 Certain Streets ,- Name of Street Beginning At Ending At Side Duration Lazo Court Paseo Del Rey Cul-de-sac Both 4 hOllr 2-8 SECTION [[I: This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force on the thirtieth day from and after its adoption. Presented by Approved as to form by Scott Tulloch City Engi neer , ., .)" -ClL.o-"'---" Ann Moore City Attorney ; /I ~ ,.. ' '{/J..<}..~ 1-1:\[Nl iINEE!f,OrdillUllccs\Ord2()(J7\2-()(I-iJ7\Ordinullcl'_(LlZO ('I) P:.Jrking Revised ec.duc 2-9 ORDINANCE NO. i ORDINANCE OF THE pTY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ESTABPSHING A "NO PARKING FROM 2:00 AM TO 6:00 AM" Z<!lNE ALONG LAZO COURT WHEREAS. pursuant to authority under the Chula Vista Municipal Code, the City Engineer had determined that a "No Parkil~g trom 2 am to 6 am" time-limited parking zone shall be established on Lazo Court; and WHEREAS, heavy trucks and recreational vehicles park overnight on Lazo Court on a regular basis compromising the safety and ~esthetic at this location; and WHEREAS. staff concurs with th~ Safety Commission's recommendation to establish the parking restriction; and WHEREAS. this recommendation .imd other information in the City Engineer's report has been fully considered by the City Council;! NOW, THEREFORE, the City COl\ncil of the City ofChula Vista ordains as follows: SECTION I: That a "No Parking from 1 a.m. to 6 a.m." zone on Lazo Court from Paseo Del Rey to end of the cul-de-sac is established. SECTION II: That Schedule IV of a Register of Schedules maintained by the City Engineer as provided in Section 10.52.290 of the Chul~ Vista Municipal Code, "Parking - Prohibited During Certain Hours on Certain Streets" is amen4ed to include the following information: 10.52.290 Schedule IV - Parkillf! - P10hibited Durillf! Certaill Hours 011 Certaill Streets Name of Street Beginning At , Ending At Side Duration Lazo Court Paseo Del Rey Cul-de-sac Both 2am - 6am 2-10 , SECTION [][: This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force on the thirtieth day from and after its adoption. Presented by Scott Tulloch City Engineer Approved as to form by '.ft.~ Ann Moore City Attorney H:\ENUINEER\OniinJllces\OnJ2()(J7\2-0()-07\Ordinunce_(LaluiC'!) (lvemigl1t pUl'killg Revised eC.doc 2-11 '1 j..../( /~.k CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT ~f::. CITY OF -- - - - (HULA VISTA 2/13/07 Item~ ITEM TITLE: Ordinance Establishing the Speed Limit on First A venue betwe~n Palomar Street and Quintard Street at 25 mph. Ordinance Establishing the Speed Limit on First A venue betwe~n Quintard Street and the southern terminus of First Avenue at 25 mph. SUBMITTED BY: REVIEWED BY: CITY ENGINEER../J /;"" INTERIM ClTY MANAGER }I 4/5THS VOTE: YES NO X BACKGROUND Based on provisions of the Californi~ Vehicle Code, pursuant to authority under the Chula Vista Municipal Code, and at the direction of the City Engineer, the following Engineering and Speed Surveys have b~en performed: . First Avenue between Palomar ~treet and Quintard Street; First Avenue between QuintardiStreet and Southern Terminus of First Avenue. . Based on the results of these Surveys, the establishment of a speed limit of 25 mph is recommended. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Environmental Review Coordil(lator has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with the California Enviropmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the project qualifies for a Class I l:ategorical exemption pursuant to Section 153301 (c) (Existing Facilities) of the State c1EQA Guidelines because the streets are existing facilities. Thus, no further environmental review is necessary. RECOMMENDATION That Council adopt the Ordinances: 3-1 Date, Item~ Page 2 of5 . Establishing the speed limit ,on First Avenue between Palomar Street and Quintard Street at 25 mph. . Establishing the speed limit on First Avenue between Quintard Street and the southern terminus of First Avenue at 25 mph. BOARDS/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Safety Commission, at their i meeting of November 9, 2006, voted five Commissioners to two, to concur with $taff s recommendation to establish the speed limit on First Avenue between Palomar Stre~t and the southern terminus of First Avenue at 25 mph. DISCUSSION In July 2006, staff received a phone qall from Mr. Sam Pritchard who resides at 1324 First Avenue. Mr. Pritchard was conc~rned about excessive speeding on First Avenue in the vicinity of Prospect Street, especiapy when Castle Park Middle School is in session, and requested the installation of all-wa~ stop control measures at the intersection of First Avenue and Prospect Street (see Atta~hment I for Location Map). In response to Mr. Pritchard's request, staff researched th~ traffic patterns of the intersection and determined that, based on volume data and accidedt history, the intersection does not warrant all-way stop control. In addition, it was detetInined that stop signs at the intersection of First Avenue and Prospect Street would no~ result in the outcome desired by Mr. Pritchard. However, it was determined that the ~otential for a speeding problem exists along First Avenue, thus the street segment wasj further analyzed to determine a solution to the problem. Currently these portions of,First Avenue do not have speed limit signs. The following table shows the existing con4itions for First Avenue: Physical Conditions Segment Limits Len th/Width Classification ADT ear Exist. Seed Limit 85' % Seed Number of Lanes Stri in On-Street Parkin Land Use Horizontal AIi nment Palomar Street to Quintard Street 0.25 mi. / 40'curb to curb Residential Collector 1,211 2006) None 32 m h Two Lanes (One er direction) None Allowed Residential Tan ent A crest ve1tical curve, located 220' south of Palomar Street, with a +11.50% to -2.50% grade change over 80' along the cent rline accommodates a 31 m h desi seed Vertical Alignment Accident Rate: Se ment / State Av 6.03/1.95 (per million vehicle miles) 3-2 Special Conditions Date, Item~ PaQe 3 of 5 I Direct re*dential driveway access; adjacent to Castle Park Middle School Segment Limits Quintard Street to Southern End LenethfWidtb 0.24 mi.! 40'curb to curb Classification Residential Collector ADT (Year) 1,211 (2006) Exist. Speed Limit . None 85'h% Speed 25 mnh Number of Lanes Two Lanes (One per direction) Stripine None On-Street Parkin!! . Allowed Land Use . Residential Horizontal Alienment Tan2:ent A sag verttical curve, located 190' south of Quintard Ave., Vertical Alignment with a -4.00% to +2.50% grade change over 80' along the cent~rline accommodates a 31 mnh desirn sneed Accident Rate: No reported collisions over a three-year study period Seement! State Av!!. Special Conditions None Field observations and data reveal that First Avenue from Palomar Street to its southern end is relatively flat, has no horizon~l curves, and has long segments with little side friction allowing motorists to sustaiQ moderate speeds for extended periods of time. While there have only been two recOlided accidents within the last three years between Palomar Street and Quintard Street, the accident rate is above the state average. As a result of the field observations and communication with residents living in the area, the posting of speed limit signs is the appnopriate first step in an effort to reduce speeding in the area. Prior to preparing an Engineering and rrraffic Survey for the roadway segment, staff first researched 25 mph prima facie speed 1imit requirements. Based on the provisions of the California Vehicle Code (CVC) and Ithe Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) 2003, the following criteria must be met in order to qualify for a 25 mph prima facie speed limit: Roadway must be in a 'Residence District' and o Upon one side of !the highway, within 0.25 miles, the contiguous property fronting thbreon is occupied by 13 or more separate dwelling houses or business s~ctures; OR o Upon both sides of the highway, collectively, within a distance of 0.25 miles the contigu01.(s property fronting thereon is occupied by 16 or more separate dwell~ng houses or business structure. Roadway cannot exceed y, inile of uninterrupted length. Roadway cannot exceed 40r in width (curb-to-curb). 3-3 Date, Itern~ Page 4 of5 First Avenue between Palomar Street Imd Quintard Street qualifies for a 25 mph prima facie speed limit because it is 40' wi<ile curb-to-curb, has 18 separate dwelling houses fronting both sides of the street, and ,S 0.25 miles in length. However, First Avenue between Quintard Street and the south~rn terminus does not qualify for a 25 mph prima facie speed limit because this segment: only has eight separate dwelling houses fronting the street. Although the segment north of Quintard Street qualifies for a prima facie speed limit of 25mph, speed surveys Were performed for both segments of First A venue in order to gain more understanding of the reported speeding problem. The speed surveys were performed in accordance with the CVC, which indicates that the posting of speed limits be determined ~y an Engineering and Traffic Survey which shall include: (I) prevailing speeds as detehnined by traffic engineering measurements; (2) accident records; and (3) traffic/roadsjde conditions not readily apparent to the driver. The 2003 MUTCD states that speed Ijmits should be established at the nearest (5mph) increment to the 85th percentile speed, !which is defined as that speed at or below which 85 percent of the traffic is moving, unless engineering judgment recommends otherwise based on roadway characteristic factob. Speed limits higher than the 85th percentile speed are not generally considered rea40nable and safe. Limits below the 85th percentile do not facilitate the orderly movement! of traffic. Speed limits established on this basis conform to the consensus of those who i drive the street as to what speed is reasonable and safe, and are not dependent on the ju~gment of one or a few individuals. Only when roadside development results in a trafflc conflict and unusual conditions, which are not readily apparent to drivers, may speed l~mits be posted below the 85th percentile speed. As described above, the speed limit shdluld be established at the nearest 5 mph increment to the 85th percentile speed. Based o~ this criterion, the 85th percentile speeds on First Avenue north of Quintard Street (32 mPh) and south of Quintard Street (25 mph) support speed limits of 30 mph and 25 mph, , respectively. However, in accordance with the MUTCD, engineering judgment may i~dicate the need for a further reduction of 5 mph in certain instances. Staff recommends aIlt additional 5 mph reduction in the speed limit for the segment north of Quintard Street for the following reasons: . First Avenue between Palomar! Street and Quintard Street is a residential street I and qualifies for a prima facie speed limit of 25 mph. . Castle Park Middle School is l~cated at the northwest corner of First Avenue and Quintard Street. . An accident rate of 6.03 per million vehicle miles is higher than the state average rate of 1.95 per million vehicle i;niles for a similar street. (Two reported collisions within a three year study period). . The installation of 25 mph spee~ limit signs along this roadway will reinforce the fact that First Avenue at this location is a residential street and will serve as a warning to motorists to slow doj,vn. Staff recommends posting the 25 mph limit signs throughout the two segments. This will add consistency of speed limits on First Avenue from Palomar Street to its southern terminus. 3-4 Date, Iteml Page 5 of 5 CONCLUSION Based on staffs research and field dat~, staff recommends establishing a 25 mph speed limit on First Avenue from Palomar Street to its southern terminus. Staff also recommends tbat Schedule X of the register maintained in the office of the City Engineer be amended to include the following: 10.48.020 Schedule X - Establ~shed Soeed Limits in Certain Zones - Desirmated Name of Street Beginning At Ending At Proposed Speed Limit First Avenue Palomar Str(let Quintard Street 25 mph First Avenue Quintard Street Southern End 25 mph DECISION MAKER CONFLICT Staff has reviewed the property holding~ of the City Council and has found no property holdings within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property which is the subject oftbis action. FISCAL IMPACT The cost to install signs and pavement legends is about $800.00, which will be funded through the Public Works operating budget. ATTACHMENTS 1. Location Map 2. First Avenue and Prospect Avenue Traffic Vol\1me Data 3. Engineering & Traffic Survey 4. MUTCD 2003 - CA Supplement on Engineeri~g & Traffic Surveys Prepared by: Hasib Baha, Associate Civil Engineer, Engineering 3-5 Q. o ~ c o .- .of- o o o .....J ~ ~'I 15> -. i::S ~l . u~ u -0 o o N 0- Q); ..0 E (I) > o z EventCounl-152 Page 1 SB ADT ; 604 MetroC~ Traffic Executive E nt Counts EventCount-152 - English IENUI Datasets: Site: Filter time: Name: Scheme: Units: In profile: [First Avenue] 58 Approach to />rospect Stlet 12:00 Wednesday, July 12, 200~ => 10:00 Friday, July 14, 2006 Factory default profile Count events divided by two. Non metric (ft, mi, fils, mph, Ib, tom) 1008 Events ATTACHMENT 2 3-7 _._---"_._-,----_._._~'---,.~.- .,-,._"."._-- NB ADT = 607 MetroCou t Traffic Executive Ve iele Counts VehicleCounl-155 - Enalish IENU) Dalasets: Sile: Filter lime: Included classes: Speed range: Direction: Separation: Name: Scheme: Units: in profile: [First Avenue] Jusl south of Prqspect 12:00 Wednesday, July 12, 200~ => 12:00 Friday, July 14, 2006 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12 . 5 - 100 mph. North (bound) All - (Headway) Factory default profile Vehicle classiflC2tion (ARX) Non metric (f1, mi, fils, mph, Ib, tOIl1) 1049 Vehicles . Wednesday, July 12, 2006 - Total=240 (Incomplete) , 15 0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 oeoo 0900 1000 110 PM Ppk 1730 ~ 1130 (44). PM PHF-O.92 inute drops 1200 1300 1400 1500 o a 0 l.9 OliO 0 000 0 000 6 o 0 0 13 1&00 1700 1800 1900 33 35 3' 34 4 1 11 9 11 71214 10 10 9 6 8 11 ? 5 VehicleCount-155 Page 1 2000 2100 2200 2300 25 22 18 15 784 3 5 5 2 3 ass 6 5 4 7 3 5 2 , 1 . Thursday, July 13, 2006 - Total-607, 15 minute dro~ 0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 110 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 . 2 2 1 , 13 22 " 3B 21 " 2 J7 " 33 J7 56 55 30 J4 26 2S 13 U 5 1 0 0 0 2 3 , 16 3 , 1 . 5 12 . 11 16 6 . . , 2 3 3 2 1 1 3 3 . , , , , 10 I 6 12 3 11 11 11 5 14 . , 5 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 , , 11 , 5 I , 12 10 , " 17 . 7 5 . 2 4 1 1 0 1 0 1 . , u . 5 . ; 17 , , 11 " 11 20 . . 2 . . 0 AM Peak 07.f5. 0845 (48), AM PHF-o,75 PM Peak 1815 -1715 (81), PM PHF-P.ao . Frtday, July 14, 2006 - Total=202 (Incomplete), 15 minut dro~ 0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 110 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 ( 4 3 1 , 14 20 46 40 35 26 3 2 1 0 2 J 4 11 11 9 5 o 0 0 1 0 5 7 9 10 a 6 ~ 1 0 2 0 . ~ 5 k2 6 4 7 ~ o 2 0 0 J 2 4 14 13 14 8 ~ 3-8 WB ADT = 121 MetroCou t Traffic Executive E ent Counts EventCount-154 -- Enallsh IENUI Datasets: Site: Filter lime: Name: Scheme: Units: In profile: [Prospect Court] WB Approach !to First Avenue 12:00 Wednesday, July 12, 200~ => 12:00 Friday, July 14, 2006 Factory defaun profile Count events divided by two. . Non metric (ft. mi, fl/s, mph, Ib, tor> 179 Events . 3-9- EventCount-154 Page 1 EventCount-153 Page 1 EB ADT = 179 MetroCou t Traffic Executive Ev nt Counts EventCount-153 - Enallsh IENUI Datasets: Site: Filter Ume: Neme: Scheme: Units: In profile: [Prospect Street] EB Approach ~ First Avenue 12:00 Wednesday, July 12, 200$ => 12:00 Friday, July 14, 2006 Factory default profile ' Count events divided by two. Non metric (ft, mi, ftIs, mph, Ib, to~) 301 Events . Wednesday, July 12,2006-66 (Inco"""lete), 15 minute d' 0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 110 1200 1300 1400 1500 000 s o 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 000 4 000 1 1600 1700 1800 11 11 15 31' 1 3 , .,2 3 . . 1900 8 2 o 1 , 2000 2100 2200 , 2 3 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 0 1 o 0 0 :BOO , 1 2 1 o 1 o o o PM Puk 1745 .1845(171. PM PHF-D.71 . Thursday, July 13, 2006=179,15 minute drops 0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 no 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 1 3 0 0 2 ] . 2 8 10 13 1 8 . 1< 1 1< " 23 1< , 8 ] , 1 2 0 0 0 2 1 2 0 1 2 1 1 ] 1 3 3 , . 2 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 . ~ 3 1 3 0 3 , . , 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 2 0 , , 3 , 0 2 . 2 , 2 2 0 2 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 2 2 . . 2 . . 3 2 , . 1 3 2 1 0 AM Peak 0930 .1030 115), AM PHF-o.83 PM Peak 1800 -1800 (23), PM PHF1'.M . Friday, July 14, 2006=54 (Incomplete) ,15 minute drops I 0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 110 1200 1300 1-4.00 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 1 1 , 0 . 0 . . 1< 1 8 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 3 3 3 ] 1 0 1 0 1 0 2 2 1 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 , 0 2 Q 0 0 . 0 2 0 0 0 , , 0 Q 3-10-u------ ATTACHMENT .3 SPEED LIMIT - ENGINEERING/TRAFFIC SURVEY , STREET: First Avenut LIMITS: Palomar Strfet - Quintard Street Length of Segment (ft): 1,320' (0.25Imiles) I Existing Posted Limit (mph): Not Posted ' SUMMARY OF SPEED SURVEYS Segment: Palomar Str~et - Quintard Street Date Taken: 11/2/2006 No. of Vehicles on Sample (cars): 100 85th Percentile (mph): 32 Range of Speeds Recorded (mph): 16 - 38 ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS Width (ft): 40' curb to curb Total No. of Lanes: 2 total lanes (I perl direction) Horizontal Alignment: Tangent Vertical Alignment: A crest vertical c e, located 220' south of Palomar Street, with a + 1.5% to -2.5% ade change over 80 fl. along the centerline accommodates a design speed of 31 mph. I - TRAFFIC CHARACTERISTICS Average Daily Traffic: 1211 (2006) I On-Street Parking: Restricted at inters~ctions Special Conditions: Castle Park Middl, School is located at 160 Quintard Street. Residential arel with single family dwellings with direct driveway access along entire segmen Accident History: The accident rate ~ this segment is 6.03 (accidents per million vehicle miles) which is hi&her than the rate of 1.95 for similar roadways in the State ofCalifomia. SURVEY RESULTS Study was Prepared by: Erica Manci~la Date: 11/2/2006 ' Recommendation: Establish a 45 mph speed limit due to the accident irate and the special conditions. Date Recommendation Approved: . /~/J / [" By: JlIDNewton' P.E.~R ~ Approved Speed Limit (mph): 25 mph ' , Per CVC 40803, Survey Expires: 11/2/2013 3-11 CITY OF CHULA VISTA - VEHICLE SPEED SURVEY SEGMENT UNDER STUDY: First Street ( Palomar Street - Quintard Street) DATE 10/23/2006 SURVEY SITE Mid-block 90STED SPEED Not Posted MPH 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 / 37 / 36 / / / 35 0 34 / ~~O 31 / 0 0 0 30 / / / 0 29 / / 0 0 28 / / / / 27 / / / / 26 / / / / 25 / / / / 24 / / 0 0 23 / / / 0 22 / / 0 0 21 0 0 0 20 / 19 / 0 18 0 17 16 / 15 14 13 RECORDER: Erica Mancilla DIRECTION: 5 TIME END 2:51 PM N '1"EATHER Clear 01 S-/ 15 20 TOTAL % CUM% TIME START 2:03 PM 10 I 1 1 I. I, 1 1 1 1 100 1 1 99 3 3 98 1 1 95 1 1 94 o 5 5 93 O~~" o 0 I ' 6 6 78 o 0 0 7 7 72 / / 0 0 0 9 9 65 / / / 0 0 0 010 12 12 56 / 0 0 0 0 0 01 11 11 44 / 0 0 0 0 i 9 9 33 000 7 7 ~ o 5 5 17 4 4 12 3 3 8 1 1 5 224 1 1 2 001 1 1 1 1 I OTAL NUMBER OF VEHICLES: 100 H:\HOME\ENGINEER\TRAFFIC\Speed_Surveys\First Avenue RADAR- (Palomar Street-Quintard Street).xls.xls 3-12 SPEED LIMIT - ENGINEERING/TRAFFIC SURVEY STREET: First Avenr LIMITS: Quintard S eet - Southern Cul-de-sac Length of Segment (ft): 1,275' (0.241 miles) Existing Posted Limit (mph): Not Postedl SUMMARY OF SPEED SURVEYS Segment: Quintard S!reet - Southern Cul-de-sac Date Taken: 1112/2006. No. ofVehic1es on Sample (cars): 50 85th Percentile (mph): 25 mph Range of Speeds Recorded (mph): 12 - 29 ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS Width (ft): 40' curb to curb Total No. of Lanes: 2 total lanes (1 per direction) Horizontal Alignment: Tangent Vertical Alignment: A sag vertical cuwe, located 190' south of Quintard Street, with I . a -4.00% to +3.00% grade change over 160 ft. along the centerlIne I accommodates a ~esign speed of 25 mph. TRAFFIC CHARACTERISTICS Average Daily Traffic: 1211 (2006) On-Street Parking: Allowed Special Conditions: Single family dw~llings with direct driveway access located between Bishop Street and! Sherwood Street. I Accident History: There are no repojied collisions within the three year study period. The statewide accident rate for similar roadways in the State of California is 1.95 (accidents per milFon vehicle miles). SURVEY RESULTS Study was Prepared by: Erica Mancflla Date: 1112/2006 Recommendation: Establish a ~5 mph speed limit due to the 85th pe centile speed and the road charac eristics. Date Recommendation Approved: Ill,lod, By: Jim'Newtory, P.E.~ ;e.7~ Approved Speed Limit (mph): 25 mph Per CVC 40803, Survey Expires: 1112/2013 3-13 CITY OF CHULA VISTA - VEHICLE SPEED SURVEY SEGMENT UNDER STUDY First Avenue (Quintar~- 400' S of Sherwood) DATE 11/02/2006 SURVEY SITE 200 fl. S of $ishop SI. POSTED SPEED TIME START 2:00 PM TIME END 3:16 PM YVEATHER Clear DIRECTION: S =O! N -I MPH 5 10 15 20 TOTAL % CUM% 50 I' 49 II 48 I' 47 46 45 I, 44 43 I 42 II 41 40 39 I 38 I 37 I 36 I 35 II 34 33 I' 32 I' 31 30 I 29 0 0 0 1 1 I, 5 5 50 28 I, 0 0 45 27 0 I' 1 1 45 24 1 1 1 I 3 3 41 23 0 0 0 1 1 5 5 38 22 0 0 1 I 3 3 33 21 0 0 0 1 1 5 5 30 20 0 0 0 1 1 1 6 6 25 19 0 0 1 3 3 19 18 0 1 1 3 3 16 17 0 0 0 3 3 13 16 0 0 10 15 1 1 1 1 , 4 4 10 14 1 1 2 2 6 13 1 1 1 3 3 4 12 1 1 1 1 11 RECORDER: DAVID NUNO OTAl NUMBER OF VEHICLES: 50 H:\HOME\ENGINEER\TRAFFIC\Speed_Surveys\First Ave RADAR- (E St - F St).xls.xls 3-14 ATTACHMENT 1 ENGINErRING AND TRAFFlC SURVEY I CRlTERIA MUlICD 2003 - CA SUPPLEMENT varlaDle ISDeen Limits on J!'reewavs - See evq 22355 Option: ' The following speed limits may apply: . Whenever the Department of Transporta~on determines based upon an engineering and traffic survey that the safe and orderly movemd,t of traffic upon any freeway segment will be facilitated by the establishment of variable speed limitsj, . The Department may erect, regulate, andlcontrol signs upon the state highway which is a freeway, or any portion thereof; which, ifused, signs Ishall be designed to permit display of different speeds at various times of the day or night. . Such signs need not conform to the stan4rds & specifications per eve 21400, but if used, shall be of sufficient size and clarity to give adeqlilate notice of the applicable speed limit. May 20, 2004 3-15 MUTCD 2003 California Supplement Page 2B-51 Minimum Soeed Limits on State m"hwavs t See eve 22400 Option: The following speed limits may apply: . Whenever the Department of TranspOlitation determines based upon an engineering and traffic survey that slow speeds on any part o~a state highway consistently impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic, the DT' partment may determine and declare a minimum speed limit. Appropriate signs giving notice shall en be installed on that segment. . A motorist can be cited for stopping 0 impeding the normal and reasonable movement of traffic unless the stop is necessary for safe oIjeration and in compliance with the law. Emrlneerin" and Traffic Survev ' Support: . eve Section 627 defmes the term "Engin4ering and traffic survey" and lists its requirements. Standard: ' An engineering and traffic survey shall include, among other requirements deemed necessary by the department, consi!ieration of all of the f,llowing: (1) Prevailing speeds as determined Py traffic engineering measurements. (2) Accident records. (3) Highway, traffic, and roadside cqnditions not readily apparent to the driver. Guidance: . The Engineering and Traffic Survey shoul~ contain sufficient information to document that the required three items of eve Section 627 are provided a(nd that other conditions not readily apparent to a motorist are properly identified. Prevailing speeds are determined by a spe~d zone survey. A speed zone survey should include: . The intent of the speed measurements Is to determine the actual speed of unimpeded traffic. The speed of traffic should not be altered b~ concentrated law enforcement, or other means, just prior to, or while taking the speed measurements. . Only one person is required for the field work. Speeds should be read directly from a radar or other electronic speed measuring devices; OI'p . Devices, other than radar, capable of a~curately distinguishing and measuring the unimpeded speed of free flowing vehicles may be used. . A location should be selected where p*vailing speeds are representative of the entire speed zone section. If speeds vary on a given rout~, more than one speed zone section may be required, with separate measurements for each sectio*. Locations for measurements should be chosen so as to min;m;'e the effects of traffic signals clr stop signs. . Speed measurements should be taken 4uring off-peak hours between peak traffic periods on weekdays. If there is difficulty in obtaining the desired quantity, speed measurements may be taken during any period with free flowing tr'lffic. . The weather should be fair (dry pavement) with no unusual conditions prevailing. . The surveyor and equipment should n9t affect the traffic speeds. For this reason, an unmarked car is recommended, and the radar speed meter located as inconspicuously as possible. . in order for the sample to be represent!.tive of the actual traffic flow, the minimum sample should be 100 vehicles in each survey. In no cas~ should the sample contain less than 50 vehicles. . Short speed zones ofless than 0.8 km ~0.5 mil should be avoided, except in transition areas. . Speed zone changes should be coordinp.ted with changes in roadway conditions or roadside development. . The speed limit should be established ~t the nearest 10 km/h (5 mph) increment to the 85th percentile speed. However, in matching existing ~onditions with the traffic safety needs of the community, engineering judgement may indicate t1je need for a further reduction of 10 km/h (5 mph). May 20, 2004 3-16 MUTCD 2003 California Supplement Page 2B-52 . Speed zoning should be in 20 km/h (10 ,*ph) increments except in urban areas where 10 km/h (5 mph) increments are prefetable. . Speed zoning should be coordinated witIi adjacent jurisdictions. Support: Physical conditions such as width, curvature,! grade and surface conditions, or any other condition readily apparent to the driver, in the absence of other fac~ors, would not require special downward speed zoning. Refer to CVC 22358.5. . Option: When qualifying an appropriate speed limit, $tate and local authorities may also consider the following findings: I. Residential density, if any of the followUj.g conditions exist on the particular portion of highway and the property contiguous thereto, other thaln a business district: a. Upon one side of the highway, wilhi1/. 0.4 km (0.25 mil, the contiguous property fronting thereon is occupied by 13 or more separate d-lvelling houses or business structures. b. Upon both sides of the highway, coll~ctively, within a distance of 0.4 km (0.25 mil the contiguous property fronting thereon lis occupied by 16 or more separate dwelling houses or business structures. . c. The portion of highway is larger than 0.4 km (0.25 mil but has the ratio of separate dwelling houses or business structures to the I~ngth of the highway described in either subparagraph a or b. 2. Pedestrian and bicyclist safety. Option: The following two methods of conducting en$ineering and traffic surveys may be used to establish speed limits: I. State Highways - The engineering andtra.$c survey for Slate highways is made under the direction of the Department of Transportation's District Traffic Engineer. The data includes: a. One copy of the Standard Speed Zon~ Survey Sheet (See Figure 2B-I03) showing: . A north arrow . Engineer's station or post mileag, . Limits of the proposed zones . . Appropriate notations showing l)fpe of roadside development, such as "scattered business," "solid residential," etc. Schools tdjacent to the highway are shown, but other buildings need not be plotted unless they are a f4ctor in the speed reco=endation or the point of termination of a speed zone. . Collision rates for the zones involved . Average daily traffic volume . Location of traffic signals, signs Imd markings . If the highway is divided, the ~ts ofzones for each direction of travel . Plotted 85'" percentile and pace steeds at location taken showing speed profile b. A report to the District Director that i1ncludes: . The reason for the initiation of s*ed zone survey. . Reco=endations and supportinll reasons. . The enforcement jurisdictions in'i'olved and the reco=endations and opinions of those officials. . The stationing or reference post in kilometers (mileage) at the beginning and ending of each proposed zone and any interme4te equations. Location ties must be given to readily identifiable physical features. 2. City and County Through Highways, Arteriials, Collector Roads and Local Streets. May 20, 2004 3-17 MUTCD 2003 California Supplement Page 2B-53 a. The short method of speed zoning is based on the premise that a reasonable speed limit is one that conforms to the actual behavior of the majority of motorists, and that by measuring motorists' speeds, one will be abl~ to select a speed limit that is both reasonable and effective. Other factors that need to be consldered include but are not limited to: the most recent two-year collision record, roadway design $peed, safe stopping sigbt distance, superelevation, shoulder conditions, profile conditions, int~rsection spacing and offsets, commercial driveway characteristics, and pedestrian traffic in the roadway without sidewalks. b. Detennination of Existing Speed ~imits - Figures 2"8-10S & 2B-I06 show samples of data sheets which may be used to record spe~d observations. Specific types of vehicles may be ta1lied by use ofletter symbols in appropri* squares. In most situations, the short form for local streets and roads will be adequate; however, the procedure used on State highways may be used at the olition of the local agency. Guidance: Tbe factors justifying a reduction below tj1e 8Sth percentile speed for the posted speed limit are the same factors mentioned above. Whenever such factors are considered to establisb the speed limit, they should be documented on the speed zone surveyor the ~ccompanying engineering report. The establishment ofa speed limit of mote than 10 kmIh (S mph) below the 8Sth percentile speed should be done with great care as studies bave showti that establishing a speed limit at less than the 8Sth percentile generally results in an increase in accident rat~s; in addition, this may make violators of a disproportionate number of the reasonable majority of drivers. Support: Generally, the most decisive evidence of conditions not apparent to the motorist surface in accident histories. Speed limits are established at or near thel 8Sth percentile speed, which is defined as that speed at or below which 8Sth percent of the traffic is moving. The 8Sth percentile speed is often referred to as the critical speed. Pace speed is defined as the 16 kmIh ~IO mph) increment of speed containing the largest number" of vehicles (See Figure 2B-l04). The lower ~t of the pace is plotted on the Speed Zone Survey Sheets as an aid in determining the proper zone limits. Speed limits higber than the 8Sth percentile are not generally considered reasonable and prudent. Speed lin\its below the 85'h percentile do not ordinarily facilitate the orderly movement of traffic and require cons$nt enforcement to maintain compliance. Speed limits established on the basis of the 8Sth percentile conform to the consensus of those who drive highways as to what speed is reasonable and prudent, and ar~ not dependent on the judgement of one or a few individuals. The majority of drivers comply with the ~asic speed law. Speed limits set at or near the 85th percentile speed provide law enforcement officers with ~ limit to cite drivers who will not conform to what the majority considers reasonable and prudent. Further stu!lies show that establishing a speed limit at less than the 8Sth percentile (Critical Speed) generally results ul an increase in accident rates. Option: When roadside development results in tr~c conflicts and unusual conditions which are not readily apparent to drivers, as indicated in collision r~cords, speed limits somewhat below the 85th percentile may be justified. Concurrence and support of enforcelnent officials are necessary for the successful operation of a restricted speed zone. Guidance: Speed zones ofless than 0.8 km (0.5 mil ~d short transition zones should be avoided. Speed Traps Support: Refer to eve 40802 for Speed Traps. Standard: , A speed trap shall not apply to a local $treet, road, or school zone. May 20, 2004 3-18 MUTCD 2003 California Supplement Page 2B-54 A section of highway shaIl be defined as a ~peed trap if the prima facie speed limit is not justified by an engineering and traffic survey within fi~e years, and the enforcement of the speed limit involves the nse of radar or any other electronic devicelthat measnres the speed of moving objects. This time provision shaIl be extended to selven years when using radar and all of the following criteria are met: - . The arresting officer has successfully ~ompleted a minimum of 24 hours of certified radar operator conrse training. . The radar used to measure the speed I1'eets or exceeds the minimal operational standards of the National Traffic Highway Safety A!dministration, and has been calibrated within three years of the alleged violation. This time provision shall be extended to seiven years when using laser or other electronic device (other than radar) and all of the following crit~ria are met: . The arresting officer has successfully ~mpleted a minimnm of 24 hours of certified radar operator course training. . The arresting officer has successfnUy cOmpleted a minimum of 2 hours of additional approved certified training. . The radar used to measure the speed oileets or exceeds the minimal operational standards of the National Traffic Highway Safety A~istration, and has been calibrated within three years of the alleged violation. Option: This time provision for an engineering and trilffic survey may be extended to ten years when all of the above conditions are met and no significant chantes in roadway or traffic conditions have occurred, including changes in adj~ining property or land t$e, roadway width, or traffic volume as determined by a registered engineer. Truck Sneed Zone on Descendinl! Grades Guidance: Highway descending grades, if used for postihg TRUCK SPEED LIMIT signs for trucks travelling downhill, should have recorded incident history qfrunaway co=ercial vehicles. Descending grades shorter than 1.6 Ian (I mil should be avoided forposting,signs because deceleration of vehicles due to braking action can generally provide sufficient control on descCJitding grades ofless than 1.6 Ian (I mi). Support: To establish a downhill truck speed limit, a pp.ysical profile showing length and gradient and a downhill speed profile for three or more axle co=ercial ,!ehicles with a gross rating of 4,536 kg (10,000 Ibs.) or more will be provided. Standard: Speed profIles for truck speed limits shaIl \Je prepared on the same form as other speed surveys. An analysis of collisions involving trucks shalllbe prepared. Guidance: ' Posted speeds should be on the low side of tJie scale, generally within the pace ofloaded co=ercial vehicles. Standard: If warranted, the Department of TranspOlltation's District Director shaIl issue a standard speed zone order. Support: Posting of the regulation will be by placemCIjt of a standard 900 x 1150 = (36 x 45 in) Speed Limit (R2-I) sign with a TRUCK (M4-4) plate above. Standard: A standard End Speed Limit (CA Code R4) sign with TRUCK (M4-4) plate shall be posted at the end of the truck zone when appropriate. May 20, 2004 3-19 ORDINANfE NO. ORDINANCE OF TH~ CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA! ESTABLISHING THE SPEED LIMIT ON FIRST AVENUE BETWEEN PALOMAR STREET AND QUlN1!ARD STREET AT 25 MPH WHEREAS, based on the provilsions of the California Vehicle Code and pursuant to authority under the Chula Vista Municipal Code, the City Engineer has deternlined that the speed limit on First Avenue betw~en Palomar Street and Quintard Street to be 25 mph; and WHEREAS, the prevailing I speeds, accident history, roadway design characteristics and land use justify a 25,mph posted speed limit; and WHEREAS, the Engineering ~nd Traffic Survey was prepared pursuant to all provisions of the California Vehicle Code and the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices; and WHEREAS, the Safety Comll1ission concurs with staff's recommendation to establish the speed limit on First A vedue between Palomar Street and Quintard Street at 25 mph; and ' WHEREAS, this recommendat!ion and other information in the City Engineer's report has been fully considered by the lCity Council. NOW, THEREFORE, the Citl!' Council of the City of Chula Vista ordains as follows: SECTION 1: That the speed limit on first Avenue between Palomar Street and Quintard Street is established at 25 mph. SECTION [[I That Schedule X of a! Register of Schedules maintained by the City Engineer as provided in Section I ~.48.020 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, "Established Speed Limits in Certai'l Zones-Designated," is amended to include the following infonnation: Chula Vista Municipial Code Section 10.48.020 - Schedule X Established Speed Limits in Certain Zones Name of Street Beginning At Ending At Proposed Speed Limit First A venue Palomar Street Quintard Street 25 mph 3-20 SECTION [II: This ordinance shall ta~e effect and be in full force on the thirtieth day from and after its adoption. Presented by Approved as to form by ~LZ Ar;~~ Scott Tulloch City Engineer Ann Moore City Attorney 1-1:\[NCiINEER\Onlillallc~s\OnJ2()()7\2-()()-()7\()rdinuncc~{rirst Ave} Speed Est Revised eC.doc 3-21 ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ESTABLISHING THE SPEED LIMIT ON FIRST AiVENUE BETWEEN QUINTARD STREET AND SOUtHERN TERMINUS OF FIRST AVENUE AT 25 MPH' WHEREAS, based on the provisions of the California Vehicle Code and pursuant to authority under the Chula Vista Municipal Code, the City Engineer has determined that the speed limit on First Avenue between Quintard Street and Southern Tenninus of First A venue to be 25 mph; and WHEREAS, the prevailing speeds, accident history, roadway design characteristics and land use justify a 25 imph posted speed limit; and WHEREAS, the Engineering <lnd Traffic Survey was prepared pursuant to all provisions of the California Vehicle Cbde and the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices; and WHEREAS, the Safety Coml1j1ission concurs with staffs recommendation to establish the speed limit on First Av~nue between Quintard Street and the Southern Terminus of First Avenue at 25 mph; and WHEREAS, this recommendatlon and other information in the City Engineer's report has been fully considered by the City Council. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista ordains as follows: SECTION I: That the speed limit 011 First Avenue between Quintard Street and the Southern Terminus of First A venue is ettablished at 25 mph. SECTION ll: That Schedule X of a Register of Schedules maintained by the City Engineer as provided in Section I q.48.020 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, "Established Speed Limits in Certain Zones-Designated." is amended to include the following infonnation: Chula Vista Municip~1 Code Section 10.48.020 - Schedule X Established' $peed Limits in Certain Zones Name of Street I Beginning At Ending At Proposed Speed Limit First A venue I Quintard St~eet Southern Terminus 25 mph 3-22 SECTION III: This ordinance shall t4e effect and be in full force on the thirtieth day from and after its adoption. Presented by Approved as to form by Scott Tulloch City Engineer YL4' (),-/(:",",,,;h- - Ann Moore City Attomey H:\EN(ilNEER\()nlinallccs\Ord2{)07\2-(J(l-fJ7\Ordinam:c_(!First Ave) Speed Est Revised eC.doc 3-23 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT ~f:.. CITY OF -~ CHULA VISTA 02/13/07 Item ~ ITEM TITLE: PUBLIC HE~RING TO CONSIDER THE ADOPTION OF AN ORDIN~CE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2892 RELATING TO PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE DEVELOP~ENT IMP ACT FEE AND AREA OF BENEFIT FOR OTAY RANCH VILLAGES ONE, FIVE, AND SIX TO INCLUDE VILLAGE TWO. RESOLUTIQN ACCEPTING A REPORT PREPARED BY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING AND FINANCING GROUP REcoMMErimING AN UPDATE OF THE EXISTING PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE AND AREA OF BENEFIT FOR OTAY RANCH VILLAGES 'ONE, FIVE, AND SIX TO INCLUDE VILLAGE TWO. ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2892 RELATING TO PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE DEVELOPM~NT IMPACT FEE AND AREA OF BENEFIT FOR OTAY RANCH VILLAGES ONE, FIVE, AND SIX TO INCLUDE VILLAGE TWO TO PAY FOR PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE IMPROVEMENTS AS A CONDITION OF ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS. SUBMITTED BY: REVIEWED BY: CITY ENGIl'fEER .d') / INTERIM CITY MANAGER JI 4/5THS VOTE: YES NO X BACKGROUND The City Council established the original Otay Ranch Pedestrian Bridge Development Impact Fee (Ped Bridge DIF) on Janu3ll"Y 5, 1999 by Ordinance 2767. The original Ped Bridge DIF was set up to fund the construction of a first bridge between Villages One and 4-1 02/13/07, Item~ Page 2 of5 Five over La Media Road ("North La iMedia Bridge"), half of a second bridge between Villages One and Two over Olympic Ilarkway ("West Olympic Pkwy Bridge"), and half of a third bridge between Villages Flive and Six also over Olympic Parkway ("East Olympic Pkwy Bridge"). On January t, 2003, by Ordinance No. 2892, the City Council amended the original Ped Bridge DIF 0 include Otay Ranch Village Six's fair share of bridge improvements of half of the East Olympic Pkwy Bridge and half of a fourth bridge over La Media Road between Villag~ Six and Two ("South La Media Bridge"). This fourth bridge completes a continuous IVillage Pathway loop between all four Villages. North La Media Bridge has been c~pleted by the McMillin Companies and is in service, West Olympic Pkwy Bridg~ and East Olympic Pkwy Bridge have been , completed by the Otay Ranch Compa1j.y and are in service. Otay Ranch Company, as part of Village Two development, will ~onstruct the South La Media Bridge. Tonight, Council will consider the adoJl>tion of an Ordinance to amend Pedestrian Bridge Ordinance No. 2892, to include Village!Two's fair share of bridge improvements. The fee is payable at issuance of building permils. The public hearing has been duly noticed. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Environmental Review Coorditjator has reviewed the proposed activity for compliance with the California EnviroI1rnental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the activity is not a "Project" as ~efined under Section 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines; therefore, pursuant to Sectipn 15060( c )(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines the activity is not subject to CEQA. . RECOMMENDATION That Council: I. Conduct the Public Hearing; 2. Approve the Resolution acceptiqg the report prepared by Development Planning and Financing Group (Ped Bridge Report); 3. Adopt the Ordinance amending prdinance No. 2892 relating to Pedestrian Bridge Development Impact Fee and A~ea of Benefit for Otay Ranch Villages One, Five, and Six to include Village Twol to pay for pedestrian bridge improvements as a condition of issuance of buildin~ permits (first reading); BOARDS/COMMISSION RECOM~ENDATION Not applicable. DISCUSSION Otay Ranch Village Two is located south of Olympic Parkway (Poggi Canyon), west of La Media Road, and north of Wolf Canyon. The Village Two tentative map requires the Developer to form a Pedestrian Bridge IDIF program or annex to an existing program's "Area Benefit" in order to complete the financing for their half of the two Pedestrian Bridges (the West Olympic Pkwy Brid~e and South La Media Bridge) and secure the 4-2 02/13/07, Item---=L- Page 3 of5 construction of both bridges prior to approval of the First Final "B" Map for Otay Ranch Village Two (See attached Exhibit 1 showing these bridges). The other halves of these bridges have been funded by the adjace~t projects: South La Media Bridge by Village Six and West Olympic Pkwy Bridge by Vi~ages One and Five. The original Ped Bridge DIF Ordinance 2767 covers Villages One at/.d Five. It was established to fund one full bridge (the now completed North La Media ~oad Bridge) and two half bridges, East Olympic Pkwy Bridge and the West Olympic PkivY Bridge. On January 7, 2003, by Ordinance N<il. 2892, City Council amended the original Ped Bridge DIF to include Otay Ranch Village Six's fair share of bridge improvements of half of the East Olympic Pkwy Bridge 4nd half of South La Media Bridge which was not identified in the original DIF ordinance! The balance as of January 9, 2007 in the DIF is about $1,746,247. Staff, together with Ithe Otay Ranch Company, is proposing to revise the existing modified DIF by expandipg the Area of Benefit to include Village Two. Funds collected at issuance of building permits in Village Two would be added to the balance and would contribute to the con~truction of all remaining bridges. There are two other bridges planned $thin the eastern territories. One over Eastlake Parkway, which will connect the pedestpan trail system within the Eastern Urban Center to the pedestrian trail system within Qtay Ranch Village II The second, over Hunte Parkway, will connect the pedestrian trail system within Otay Ranch Village II to a future pedestrian trail system within Qtay Ranch Village 10 (University Village). On February 18, 2003 by Ordinance No. 2~98, City Council approved the Pedestrian Bridge DIF for Otay Ranch Village 1 I to fim\nce the construction of these two bridges. This Ordinance was amended on August 2~, 2005 by Ordinance No. 3017 to account for construction costs increases of the pedestrian facilities. Pedestrian Bridge Report The original Pedestrian Bridge Developtnent Impact Fee Report (Report) was updated on December 17, 2002 to include Villag~ Six and construction of the South La Media Bridge, to revise the construction cos~ estimates for the other remaining bridges and establish the new fee. Development Pljuming and Financing Group, who also wrote the original report, prepared the updated Ri::port, dated February 6, 2007 to include Village Two. The Report was prepared at the ~xpense of the developers and has been reviewed by the City Attorney and the Engineeri4g Department. The Report is attached as Exhibit 3. The Report contains a revised total c<l>st estimate for the South La Media Bridge of $2,582,889 and the actual construction icost for West Olympic Pkwy and East Olympic Parkway Bridges: $2,663,045 and $1,6$2,312 respectively. The fee, payable at issuance of a building permit, will be $1,114 pe~ single-family detached (SFD) dwelling unit and $826 per multiple-family (MF) dwelling. This represents an increase in the fee from the current $783 SFD, $580 MF rates, established on December 17,2002. The report also outlines in greater detail the methodology used to develop the Pedestrian Bridge Development Impact Fee. In ilhort, the fee is based on people per household 4-3 , , ! factors similar to the Park ACqUisit~" n and Development fee ("PAD") as used in Municipal Code 17.10 where househo ds with larger numbers of people per household inure greater benefit than smaller hous holds. The people per household factors used for the Pedestrian Bridge Development Ifpact Fee are 3.52 for single-family detached dwellings and 2.61 for multifamily dielling units. The methodology has not changed with this amendment. , 02/13/07, Item-1- Page 4 of5 Area of Benefit , The Area of Benefit of the updated Ped IBridge DIF will include all of Villages One, Five, Six and Two (see Exhibit 2). There are approximately 1300 single-family units and 1425 multi-family units and 60 mixed-use $its in Village Two that would be subject to the new fees. ' I . Pedestrian Bridges and Village Connec*.Y.i!y The planned pedestrian bridges of Ota)l Ranch, Villages One, Five, Six, and Two are an integral part of the Village Pathway that forms a loop through these Villages. The Village Pathway provides pedestrians, bicycles! and carts with a route that is separated from the major roadways of this part of Otay ~anch. The bridges and the Pathway support the pedestrian orientation of these Village~' and tie them together with a continuous and safe way to cross the six lanes of Olym ic Parkway and La Media Road. Due to each individual bridge being part of a whole ystem, each Village derives a benefit from all the bridges in proportion to the number of nits in that Village. Therefore, by expanding the Ped Bridge DIF to include Village Two one overall bridge funding mechanism is created that spreads the cost more equitably an reflects the proportional benefit derived by each Village. ' MEETINGS WITH THE MASTER qEVELOPERS , I Staff has had meetings with the Otay ~anch Company to discuss the Pedestrian Bridge Development Impact Fee Program for qtay Ranch Village Two. The Developer does not object to the proposed modified Pedestrjan DIF. DECISION MAKER CONFLICT Staff has reviewed the property holdin$s of the City Council and has found no property holdings within 500 feet of the bound<1fies of the property, which is the subject of this action. FISCAL IMPACT The Ped Bridge Development Impact F 'e, as is the case for all of the City's Development Impact Fees, is maintained separately fr m the General Fund. The Developers have paid for all costs related to this update inclu ing the preparation of the Report. The fair share maintenance costs associated with all tay Ranch pedestrian bridges are funded by the Community Facilities Districts in which they are located. ! 4-4 02/13/07, Item~ Page SofS EXHIBITS: 1. Pedestrian Bridge Facility Map 2. Area of Benefit 3. Pedestrian Bridge DIF Report Prepared by: Boushra Salem, Senior civil Engineer, Engineering Department 4-5 PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE REPORT MAP OF PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE LOCATIONS ~rt~La Media Bridge I I West Olympic Parkway Bridge I East Olympic P .j>. I en m X ::r: - OJ - -1 I1J -- o rlfl~1 ~ ... --- t:;;:::U.l.-:--...... D.-'4:~ "...... Il!l'~'~,. So;"';' I w -=.:!.. 6l_~~ lA'~.........." #-.~ .+-- .L~ J1l:=~ /P_.- .- ......./-. ....,=r:.. -- .~- ~ ---~~--------~-- . :::::r' ~-=._-,....--::.....---_._---~~ "', -~~_..";;..-:'.:;;:;.....~~-==~.-:.=~....;::;-',.,...,... '," """ I ...... m X -r.: - OJ - -i )D . o r~~_ =.:.~--.--- ,.....,.~- ......"-'1'... .'II!..... _. /Pmjoo-- ~ ---I PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE REPORT MAP OF GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR VILLAGES 1,2,5 & 6 Village 2 Village 1 Village 5 liIi=~ J't=-- fIil,~~, K1~~ 111,: "'"'W"-'" #.........."11.. ">'I::::"" A.'_~ r__"_ -- .~w... . - .+..-.- t.:l ,-.---------.---.----- . ;....... -..._--_..~-_. ..-------..-.. . "" ~~s.::.=_:_'~~.~.,'::;:;;:..;,: ,..:~"Z:""~=~";J~ ExHIBIT 3 , , CITY ot CHULA VISTA PEDESTRIAN BRIDGEi DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE REPORT FOR OrA Y RANCH VILLAGE 2 FebrtLary 13,2007 P*pared by: Development Pl~ing & Financing Group 27127 CaUd Arroyo, Suite 1910 San Juan C~pistrano, CA 92675 4-8 CITY qF CHULA VISTA PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE D~VELOPMENT IMPACT FEE REPORT INDEX DESCRIPTION PAGE 1. Background and Purpose of ~eport 2 2. Description of Pedestrian Br~dges and Cost Estimates 3 3. Area of Benefit 3 4. Development within the Areal of Benefit 5 5. Pedestrian Bridge Developm~nt Impact Fee Methodology 6 6. Implementation of Pedestriary Bridge Development Impact Fee 7 Map of Pedestrian Bridge Locati~ns Map of General Development PI~n , , Summary of Pedestrian Bridge ~evelopment Impact Fee Pedestrian Bridge Developmentllmpact Fee Ordinance Exhibit 1 Exhibit 2 Exhibit 3 Exhibit 4 Village 2 Februay 13, 2007 Pedestrian Bridge Development Impact Fee Report Page I 4-9 1. Background and Purpose of iRe port i The Pedestrian Bridge Development! Impact Fee Report ("Report") is being prepared at the request of Otay Project, LLCi ("Otay Ranch Company"). In connection with developing residential and non-residential property in Village 2, the Otay Ranch Company is currently conditioned or iwill be conditioned through the mapping process to construct two pedestrian bridges. It is the City of Chula Vista's ("City!') intent that Village 2 be annexed into the existing Pedestrian Bridge Development Imp~ct Fee District ("PBDIFD") adopted on January 5, 1999 for Villages I and 5 and modi~ed on December 17, 2002 to include Village 6 and that the cost of the additional two I pedestrian bridges be shared among the various beneficiaries of such bridges. The~. rpose of the Report is to determine an appropriate pedestrian bridge development impac fee based on the cost of the pedestrian bridges, the area of benefit, the type of land use d its corresponding benefit. The bridges described in this Report are considered an additional facility need of the City arising as a result of new development. Government CoUe Section 66000 requires that a City establish a reasonable relationship or "nexus'r between a development project or class of development projects, and the public I improvements for which a development impact fee is charged. To meet the requirements of Gover\unent Code 66000, the Report must demonstrate compliance with the following items: i o Identify the purpose of thei fee; o Identify the use to which tlJ.e fee will be put; o Determine how there is a! reasonable relationship between the fee's use and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed (i.e., a "type" nexus); and o Determine how there is l' reasonable relationship between the need for the public facility and the pe of development project on which the fee is imposed (i.e., a "burden" exus). In addition, when a city imposes a fee as a condition of developmeqt approval, it must determine how there is a reasonable relationship bdtween the amount of the fee and the cost of the public facility or portion bf that facility attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed. ' Government Code Section 66000 ajIso requires that a public agency segregate and account for the fees received separat~ from the general fund. Additionally, if a public agency has had possession of a d~eloper fee for five years or more and has not committed or expended the funds for ia public facility, then the public agency must make a finding describing the continuing n~ed for the fees each fiscal year after the five year period has expired. Village 2 Februay 13, 2007 Pedestrian Bridge Development Impact Fee Report Page 2 4-10 2. Description of Pedestrian Bridges and Cost Estimates The pedestrian bridges included withinl this Report are described as follows: (i) South La Media and (ii) West Olympic Parkway] The North La Media which is part of the existing PBDIFD has been completed and fullYlfunded. The East Olympic Parkway Bridge which is also part of the PBDIFD is near fompletion and sufficient funding is in place to reimburse the Otay Ranch Company f~r the construction. The location of each bridge is depicted on the map attached to this ~eport as Exhibit I. Also, included on the map in Exhibit 1 is the Village I, 2, 5 and 6 p~thway systems and its linkage with the pedestrian bridges described in this Report. A sJjmmary of the total estimated cost of constructing each bridge remaining to be constructe~, including soft cost are summarized as follows: , South La West Olympic Media Bridee Pky. Bridee Total Hard & Soft Cost I $2582889 $2 663 045 The preliminary cost estimate for the! South La Media Bridge was prepared by Simon Wong Engineering. The West Olympic Parkway Bridge is near completion and near final costs are assumed. The two Ibridges will be constructed using cast-in-place reinforced concrete. Aesthetic featur~s include columns and abutments with simulated stone fascia, rectangular columns with a 2-way taper, walkway accent lighting and concrete stain on exposed concrete surJ\aces. The South La Media Bridge is planned to be 13 feet wide with a 10 foot wide wal~ay, a total vertical clearance of 18 feet 6 inches, and 474 feet in length. The West Oly~pic Parkway Bridge is planned to be 17 feet wide and 450 feet in length. A hard cost cimtingency factor of 25% has been applied to the South La Media Bridge. The design cost includes the cost of ~reparing design-related plans, including the cost associated with checking and revie~ing such plans. The construction and special inspection cost includes the City inspe~tion cost and the cost of retaining an outside firm with special experience in bridge insp~ctions. The project administration cost includes the City's cost associated with verifyIng and auditing bridge expenditures and related documentation. The program administtation cost includes the City's cost associated with monitoring and updating this fee progr~m including, but not limited to, tracking building permits and changes in land use, colle4ting the fee, and revising cost estimates to ensure the adequacy of this fee program. ' 3. Area of Benefit The Otay Ranch Villages 1,2,5 and 6iSectional Planning Areas ("SPA's") Plan - Parks, Recreation, Open Space, and Trails ~aster Plan has been designed, in part, to promote the use of transit (bus and light rail), Pfdestrian and bicycle trails as alternatives to using an automobile to access the village cor~ and to neighboring SPA's which will serve as the commercial hub for Villages I, 2, 5 aIjd 6. Village 1 and 5 have been developed with a village core and Village 2 is planned t~ contain village core land use components similar to Village 6. A map depicting the G~neral Development Plan land uses, including the village core of Villages I and 5, Village 2 and Village 6 is enclosed in Exhibit 2. Village 2 Februay 13,2007 Pedestrian Bridge Development Impact Fee Report Page 3 4-11 Pedestrian trails have also been desi~ned to provide access to schools, parks, residential neighborhoods, and open space wIthin villages, as well as between SPA's. The pedestrian bridges described in this j Report are an integral part of the pedestrian trail system for the system to operate as ddsigned. The South La Media Bridge cross~s La Media Road about equal distance between Olympic Parkway and Birch Road. i This bridge serves to connect the pedestrian trail system in Village 6 to the planned p9destrian trail system in Village 2. Village 2 is also planned to have its own pedestrian rail system serving its village core, schools, parks, neighborhoods, and open space. L~d within Villages 2 and 6 will benefit from the installation of this bridge primarily dtje to: (i) its location and proximity to the bridge, and (ii) its ease of access to the bridge ba~ed on the trail configuration. The West Olympic Parkway Bridge !crosses Olympic Parkway between Heritage Road and La Media Road and serves to 40nnect the existing pedestrian trail system within Village I to the planned pedestrian ~ail system within Village 2. Land within Village I and Village 2 will benefit from the !installation of this bridge primarily due to: (i) its location and proximity to the bridge, ~nd (ii) its ease of access to the bridge based on the trail configuration. A summary of the two pedestrian bri1ges and the three areas of benefit ("AOB") based on the discussion above are as follows. South La West Olympic Media Bridl!:e Pkv. Bridl!:e Village 2 AOB AOB Village I and 5 AOB Village 6 AOB 4. Development within the Are~ of Benefit The property within the AOB des~ribed in this Report is in various stages of the entitlement process. Property within jthe AOB has development approvals ranging from General Plan Designation to complqted homes. An "A" Map allows the transfer of ownership of individual neighborhoo~ areas. A "B" Map functions as a final map and allows property owners to obtain bui*ing permits and create individual lots. The current entitlement status and land use for pnjPerty within the AOB by ownership, is as follows: Otay Ranch Company: .. Villal!:e I: This area is coJinplete and consists of 2,786 residential units, with approximately 1,565 singl~-family units and 1,221 multi-family units. .. Villal!:e 5: This area is coJinplete and consists of 1,326 residential units, with approximately 944 single-~amily units and 382 multi-family units. .. Villal!:e 6: This area is neat completion and consists of 443 single-family units and 1,048 multi-family uni(ts. Village 2 Februay 13,2007 Pedestrian Bridge Development Impact Fee Report Page 4 4-12 ~ Village 2: Has an approv~d tentative tract map. The land uses in the tentative tract map consist of apprqximately 2,785 residential units, with approximately 1,300 single-family units, 1 1,425 multi-family units and 60 mixed use units. , McMillin: ~ Village 5: The development of this area is completed and consists of 1,526 residential units, 2.8 acre~ of commercial, 13.5 acres of parks and a 10 acre school site. ~ Village 6: This area is ccpmplete and consists of 482 single-family units and 212 multi-family units, III acres of community purpose facility, and a 37.6 acre school site. The approved tentative tract map lan4 uses for Village 2 for residential dwelling units and non-residential acres and the remainipg units are described in greater detail in Exhibit 3. The land use assumptions in Exhibit ~ will serve as the basis for allocating the benefit of the remaining pedestrian bridges iIil determining the pedestrian bridge development impact fee in this Report. The residential land uses within Vill~ge 2 will have different degrees of benefit from the installation of the pedestrian bridges.1 Residential units containing larger square footage will typically hold more people PCil' household than the residential units containing smaller square footage. As such, r~sidential units with a larger number of people per household will inure greater benefit !from using the pedestrian trail system and its two bridges than residential units with a $maller number of people per household. The City utilizes people per household factor~ ("PPHF") in determining the amount of parkland dedication required by new developIjoent projects pursuant to City Ordinance, Chapter 17.10, as modified and approved onlNovember 12, 2002. The PPHF used in Chapter 17.1 0 can serve as a reasonable m4thod of allocating the bridge benefit to different residential uses. Chapter 17.10.040 applies PPHF to the following residential uses: 3.52 2.61 er household er household , F or purposes of clarification and the ~ase of program administration, we have developed the following definitions for the abov~ mentioned residential land use categories: "SFD" means a single residential unit!on a single assessor's parcel in within a tract with a density of less than or equal tol8 residential units per acre. "MF" means any residential unit witJllin a tract with a density greater than 8 residential units per acre or any residential! unit within a mixed-use project. For purposes of allocating the bridg~ benefit to different types of residential uses, the PPHF's described in the preceding 1able were used in this Report. The Otay Ranch Company has provided, as noted in !Exhibit 3, the estimated residential product types anticipated to be developed for each planning area. Village 2 Februay 13,2007 Pedestrian Bridge Development Impact Fee Report Page 5 4-13 The non-residential property consis~ing of mixed use, community purpose facility, schools, and parks is considered to in\lre insignificant benefit from the installation of the two bridges. A small number of en:)ployees related to the mixed use and community purpose facility uses may utilize the pj:destrian trail system and its two bridges for fitness and recreation purposes during and after work hours, however the degree of this use and benefit inured to these types of properties is considered immaterial and insignificant. The school and park uses are designed to ~erve and accommodate the residential users in the villages. These land uses do not gene~ate pedestrian trail users, instead their purpose is to serve or accommodate the residential users in the villages. As such, non-residential component of mixed use, community purpose facility, school and park uses within Village 2 are considered exempt from the pedestrian bridge fee obligation described in this Report. 5. Pedestrian Bridge Developm~mt Impact Fee Methodology The Steps or methodology used to de'1e1op the pedestrian bridge development impact fee applicable to residential units within \lillage 2 is as follows: Step I: Determine the total cOl1istruction cost estimate for each of the remaining bridges. Step 2: Determine the amount of!available funds from the existing PBDIFR and any funds remaining in the constructidn funds of Community Facilities District No. 99-1, 2001-2 and 08-1. Step 3: Subtract from the total ~onstruction cost estimate in Step I the available funds determined in Step 2 to det~rmine for each bridge the net bridge cost estimate allocable to Village 2. Step 4: For each bridge and corresponding AOB, determine the total number of people per planning area by mul~iplying the actual and/or planned residential units within the planning area by the aPJPlicable PPHF. Step 5: For each bridge and cor:esponding AOB, determine the total number of people within the AOB by summi*g the results of each planning area from Step 4. Step 6: For each bridge and corre~ponding AOB, determine the bridge cost allocable to a planning area by multiplying ithe applicable bridge cost in Step 4 by the fraction obtained by dividing the total nur(nber of people per planning area as determined in Step 4 by the total number ofpeo~le within the AOB as determined in Step 5. Step 7: For each bridge and cOljresponding AOB, determine the applicable bridge cost per residential unit by dividiJIlg the bridge cost allocable to the planning area as determined in Step 6 by the actual and/or planned residential units within each planning area. Village 2 Februay 13,2007 Pedestrian Bridge Development Impact Fee Report Page 6 4-14 Step 8: For each bridge and corr~sponding AOB, determine the combined cost of all bridges per residential unit by aggregating the results of Step 7 for all bridges and related AOB. Exhibit 3 outlines on a detailed baiSis the methodology used to calculate the pedestrian bridge development impact fee ap~licable to residential units within Village 2. 6. Implementation of Pedestria~ Bridge Development Impact Fee The City Council may periodicall~ review the adequacy of the pedestrian bridge' development impact fee established i$ this Report and the attached Ordinance. The City Council, by resolution, may adjust t!he amount of this pedestrian bridge development impact fee, as necessary, to reflect changes in: (i) the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index, (ii) the coJt of the pedestrian bridges, and (iii) the land use assumptions used in this Report. the pedestrian bridge development impact fee is required to be paid upon the issuance ~f a building permit. A developer may request authorizati~m from the City to construct one or more of the pedestrian bridges. Upon application by a developer to construct a pedestrian bridge, an agreement shall be prepared for City Council action which contains at least the following information and requirements: a) A detailed description oftIte project, including a preliminary cost estimate; b) The developer shall: (i) prepare plans and specifications for approval by the City, (ii) secure and dedicate any right-of-way required for the project, (iii) secure all required perrriits, environmental clearances necessary for the construction of the project, (iv) provide performance bonds, and (v) pay all City fees and costs; . c) The developer shall advanfe all necessary funds to construct the project. The City will not be responsibl~ for any construction costs beyond those agreed to in advance by the City of*yond any change orders approved by the City; d) The developer shall secure,at least three (3) qualified bids for the construction. Any extra work charg~s during construction shall be justified and documented; e) When all work has been completed to the satisfaction of the City, the developer shall submit v~rification to the City of payments made for the construction. The City Manager shall make the final determination on expenditures eligible for credit or cash reimbursement; f) The City shall inspect all! construction and verify quantities, in accordance with the City and state co~e, to ensure the final improvement complies with all applicable standards apd is constructed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; , Village 2 Februay 13, 2007 Pedestrian Bridge Development Impact Fee Report Page 7 4-15 g) The developer will receiv~ a credit against the required development impact fees during the issuance o~ building permits for the proposed development. If the total construction c~st amounts to more than the total required development impact fees, ithe developer will be paid the excess cash when funds are available as deterimined by the City Manager. The revised ordinance attached hereip as Exhibit 4 addresses, among other things, the developer construction of the pedestrian bridge(s), the pedestrian bridge development impact fee, the procedure for waiverl or reduction of the development impact fee, and exemptions. With the adoption of tjIe pedestrian bridge development impact fee, the following development impact fees id4ntified in Exhibit 4 would apply. Village 2 Februay 13,2007 Pedestrian Bridge Development Impact Fee Report Page 8 4-16 EXHIBIT 1 PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE REPORT MAP OF PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE LOCATIONS North La Media Bridge East Olympic P .j>. I ~ -.j (/) r~''l......i~' =:,.:.-...... Cl =::t..-,. iiIl=:;'.. m =- w!:.'.a. fLil= 3A--""'-'7"rP'-,--", .~~ J&:::::-- /r.:J';.~;::'7"'" ....~_... ""'".;,- ~J *;:::0- ..-- ~:;... 7a€:;~::~-*~:=~~==--===-- EXHIBIT 2 PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE REPORT MAP OF GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR VILLAGES 1, 2, 5 & 6 @ iL"LJ'i =.:.~-- Village 2 Village 1 Village 5 eHills Vill e of Heritage .j:>. I ~ CD Cl~-" M~.. El'l..-i.,----" o =:;a [i.l ~~ p.~~.~ y..,""'........~ ....., _. ~=- /"..-........ i __. ..-. -:...... -- .~- .+--- ~;... s;'~~-::.':"~::.~-;;t;'".3-=---...:=.::::;:&. 4-19 EXHIBIT 3 CALCULATION OFPEDEST~IAN BRIDGE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE WEST OLYMPIC PARKWAY BRIDGE Total Persons No. of per Persons per Cost per Planning Product Household Household Planning Cost per Area Type Density ---lif-- Acres Factor (1). (2) Area Unit (2) (3) Village Two: (Olay Ranch Company) R-4 SFD 3.9 160 41.50 3.52 563.2 $ 90,505 $ 566 R-5 SFD 8.3 130 15.70 3.52 457.6 73,535 566 R-6 SFD 5.0 63 12.60 3.52 221.8 35,636 566 R-7 SFD 4.7 44 9,40 3.52 154.9 24,889 566 R-8 SFD 5.0 50 10.10 3.52 176.0 28,283 566 R-9 SFD 7.5 101 13.50 3.52 355.5 57,131 566 R-15 SFD 4.6 37 8.00 3.52 130.2 20,929 566 R-17 SFD 8.7 119 13.70 3.52 418.9 67,313 566 R-18A SFD 5.9 65 11.10 3.52 2288 36,767 566 R-18S SFD 4.3 48 11.10 3.52 169.0 27,151 566 R-19 SFD 7.7 83 10.80 3.52 292.2 46,949 566 R20 SFD 4.3 83 19.50 3.52 292.2 46,949 566 R-21 SFD 2.8 62 21.80 3.52 218.2 35,071 566 R-23 SFD 5.3 71 13.50 3.52 249.9 40,161 566 R-24 SFD 5.1 41 8.00 3.52 144.3 23,192 566 R-25A SFD 7.6 34 4.50 3.52 119.7 19,232 566 R-258 SFD 6.9 34 4.90 3.52 119.7 19,232 566 R-26 SFD 8.3 75 9.00 3.52 264.0 42,424 566 R-10 MF 27.3 90 3.3 2.61 234.9 37,748 419 R-11 MF 14.7 ,144 9.8 2.61 375.8 60,396 419 R-12 MF 12.5 ~95 23.6 2.61 770.0 123,729 419 R-13 MF 14.3 H49 10,4 2.61 388.9 62,493 419 R-14 MF 20.9 146 7.0 2.61 381.1 61,235 419 R-16 MF 29.6 ' 74 2.5 2.61 193.1 31,037 419 R-27 MF 14.7 H10 7.5 2.61 287.1 46,136 419 R-28 MF 16.3 85 5.2 2.61 221.9 35,651 419 R-29 MF 25.8 152 5.9 2.61 396.7 63,752 419 R-30 MF 17.5 180 10.3 2.61 469.8 75,495 419 MU-1 MU 5.6 10 1.8 2.61 26.1 4,194 419 MU-2 MU 5.0 12 2,4 2.61 31.3 5,033 419 MU-3 MU 8.8 38 4.3 2.61 99.2 15,938 419 C-1 Com'l 0.0 12.5 0.0 NIA N/A Total. Village Two 2.185 345.2 8,451,9 $ 1,358,187 4-20 EXHIBIT 3 SUMMARY OF PED~STRIAN BRIDGE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE PER UNIT West South Olympic La Media Parkway Bridge Bridge Total Village Two: SFD - Fee per Unit $549 $566 $1.1141 MF - Fee per Unit $407 $419 $8261 i 4-21 EXHIBIT 3 CIT)f OF CHULA VISTA PEDESTRIA/'l BRIDGE COST ESTIMATE South La Media West Olympic East Olympic Bridqe Pkwy Bridge (a) Pkwy Bridge (a) Total Hard Costs: Construction Cost $ 1,150,000 $ Approach Ramps 150,OpO Mobilization @ 10% 115,000 Contingency @ 25% 353,71'0 Total Hard Costs $ 1, 768, 7~0 $ Soft Costs: Design Cost $ 351,000 $ Construction & Special Inspection Cost @ 15% 265,313 Project Admin. (Audit) @ 2% 35,3V5 Program Admin. @ 5% 88,4~8 Contingency @ 10% 74'01~ Total Soft Costs $ 814,1~~ $ Total Hard & Soft Cost $ 2,582,8~!L $ 2,663,045 $ 1,682,312 $ 6,928,246 Less: Funds Available for Bridge CFD 08-1 $ $ $ (915,134) $ (915,134) CFD 08-1 (158 Additional Units) (91,640) (91,640) CFD 2001-2 (513,586) (513,586) CFD 99-1 (832,678) (832,678) Pedestrian Bridge DIF Fund (1,265,616) (472,180) (161,952) (1,899,747) Remaining Bridge Cost $ 1,317,273 (b) $ 1,358,187 (b) $ $ 2,675,461 Footnotes: (a) Based on actual costs incurred by The Otay Ranch Company to construct bridge. (b) Village 2 to fund approximately one-half of the $outh La Media Bridge and the West Olympic Parkway Bridge. 4-22 RESOLUTIoN NO. 2007- RESOLUTION OF THJ<: CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING A REPORTlpREPARED BY DEVELOPMENT , PLANNING AND FINAN~ING GROUP RECOMMENDING AN UPDATE OF THE EXISTING PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE DEVELOPMENT IMPACt FEE AND AREA OF BENEFIT FOR OTAY RANCH VILl:,AGES ONE, FIVE, AND SIX TO INCLUDE VILLAGE TWQ. WHEREAS, in connection Mth developing residential and non-residential property in Otay Ranch Village 2, Qtay Project, LP ("Developer") has requested an update of the City's Pedestrian Bridgel Development Impact Fee ("Ped Bridge DIF") for Otay Ranch Villages One, Five and Si~, to included Village 2; and, WHEREAS, the City Council ~stablished the original Ped Bridge DIF on January 5, 1999, by Ordinance No. 2767, w~ich was set up to fund the construction of the pedestrian bridge facilities within OtaylRanch Villages One and Five; and, WHEREAS, on January 7, 20Q3, by Ordinance No. 2892, City Council amended the original Ped Bridge DIF to includ~ Otay Ranch Village Six to pay its fair share to fund the construction of the pedestrian bridge facilities; and WHEREAS, the City Council will consider the approval of an update to the Ped Bridge DIF to expand the area of benelfit to include Village Two and assure that funding will be collected at issuance of buildipg permits in Village Two for the completion of four bridges (North La Media Bridg~, West Olympic Parkway Bridge, East Olympic Parkway Bridge and South La Media Bridge) as the Otay Ranch Villages build out; and, WHEREAS, Development Plapning & Financing Group has prepared a report, entitled "City of Chula Vista PedestriaJil Bridge Development Impact Fee Report for Otay Ranch Village 2," dated February 13,12007 (the "Report") regarding updating the Ped Bridge DIF to include Village 2; and WHEREAS, the Report incllldes the following definitions: (i) single-family detached ("SFD") dwelling unit mearls a single residential unit on a single assessor's parcel in within a tract with a density lof less than or equal to eight residential units per acres; and (ii) multiple-family ("MF")'dwelling means any residential units with density greater than eight residential units per acre or any residential unit within a mixed-use project; and, WHEREAS, the Report prop~ses the adjustment of the Ped Bridge DIF from $827 to $1,114 per SFD and from $58d to $826 per MF; and, 4-23 WHEREAS, the Report provi<lles that the City Council may periodically review the adequacy of the Impact Fee and,: at such reviews, may adjust the amount of this Impact Fee as necessary to assure cbnstruction and operation of the Facilities. The reasons for which adjustments may be jnade include, but are not limited to, the following: (i) changes in the costs of the Facilitie$ as may be reflected by such index as the Council deems appropriate, such as the Eng,neering-News Record Construction Cost Index (ENR-CCI); (ii) changes in the cost of pedestrian bridges; type, size, location or cost of the Facilities to be financed by the Impact Fee; (iii) changes in the land use assumptions used in the Report; and (iv) other soun~ engineering, financing and planning information. Adjustments to the above Impact Fee iIDay be made by resolution amending the Master Fee Schedule. NOW, THEREFORE, BE ITiRESOLVED that the City Council of the City Of Chula Vista does hereby accept the re~ort titled: "City Of Chula Vista Pedestrian Bridge Development Impact Fee Report for cj)tay Ranch Village 2", dated, February 13, 2007, prepared by Development Planning & Financing Group, a copy of which shall be kept on file in the City Clerk's Office. Presented by Approved as to form by Scott Tulloch City Engineer .~~~ H:\ENGINEER\RESOS\Resos2007\02-13-07\Resolution t? Accept Report for OR V2.doc 4-24 ORDIN~CE NO. ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2892 RELATING TO PED~STRIAN BRIDGE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE AND! AREA OF BENEFIT FOR OTAY RANCH VILLAGES pNE, FIVE, AND SIX TO INCLUDE VILLAGE TWO TO PAY FOR PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE IMPROVEMENTS A$ A CONDITION OF ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS. WHEREAS, the City's Gener8i1 Plan Land Use and Public Facilities Elements require that adequate public facilities ~e available to accommodate increased population created by new development; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that new development within certain areas within the City of Chul~ Vista as identified in this ordinance, will create adverse impacts on certain existing public facilities which must be mitigated by the financing and construction of those facl1ities identified in this ordinance; and WHEREAS, developers of la1Jtd within the City are required to mitigate the burden created by their development by constructing or improving those facilities needed to provide service to their respecti ve d~velopments or by the payment of a fee to finance their portion of the total cost of such fablities; and WHEREAS, development within the City contributes to the cumulative burden on pedestrian facilities in direct relationship to the amount of population generated by the development or the gross acreage of the commercial or industrial land in the development; and WHEREAS, the goal of the Otfiy Ranch General Development Plan (GDP) is to organize land uses based upon a vqlage concept to produce a cohesive, pedestrian friendly community, encourage non, vehicular trips and foster interaction amongst residents; and WHEREAS, a component ~f the Otay Ranch circulation system is a comprehensive trail system to prdvide for non-vehicular alternative modes of transportation; and WHEREAS, the Otay Ranch Gbp requires a non-auto circulation system, such as pedestrian walkways and bike paths" shall be provided between villages and, where appropriate and feasible, grade sep<(rated arterial crossings should be provided to encourage pedestrian activity between ~illages; and 4-25 Ordinance No. Page 2 WHEREAS, the City Councilladopted the Otay Ranch Villages One and Five Pedestrian Bridge Development Impac~ Fee ("Impact Fee") by Ordinance 2767 ("Ped Dif Bridge Ordinance") in order to pay fot pedestrian bridge facilities that will serve Otay Ranch Villages One and Five; and, WHEREAS, the City Council ~mended the original Ped Bridge DIF Ordinance 2767 on January 7, 2003, by Ordinance 2892, to include Otay Ranch Village Six to pay for its fair share of bridge improvemerjts as a condition of issuance of building permits; and, WHEREAS, the Conditions of lAp pro val for Otay Ranch Village Two tentative map require that a funding mechanisIin be established to pay for one-half of Village Two's fair share of bridge improvemenls; and WHEREAS, pedestrian faciliti~s have been built, or are proposed, that will directly connect Villages One, Five, SiX and Two including a continuous village pathway and cartpath system. The pedestrian falCilities cross major streets and their use would be encouraged and facilitated by the provdion of over-crossings of these major streets; and WHEREAS, the completion of the pedestrian bridges in Village Two will complete the linkage of the pedestrian facilities in Villages One, Five, Six and Two, serving to enhance overall pedestrian Elccess in and among these villages and would be facilitated by including the funding fot the construction of the bridges required by the Village Two tentative map in current I1npact Fee program by: I) amending the per unit fees payable at issuance of a building ~ermit; 2) revising the facilities to be financed by the Impact Fee; and 3) revising the territory to which the Impact Fee is applicable to include Village Two; and WHEREAS, the original Ped Bridge DIF Ordinance used the persons per dwelling unit rates established in Secti~n 17.10.040 of Chula Vista Municipal Code for the various residential land use categqries in deriving the Equivalence Dwelling Unit ratio upon which the Impact Fee is based; and, WHEREAS, the person per dw~lling unit rates for Parkland Dedication in Sec. 17.10.040 were modified by Ordinance,No. 2886. The rates for single family went from 3.22 persons per unit to 3.52 persons li'er unit and the multiple-family rates went from 2.21 persons per dwelling units to 2.61 persons per unit. The attached, cluster housing or planned unit development and the dupl~x categories were deleted from Sec. 17.10.040; and WHEREAS, Otay Ranch, Villag~s One, Five, Six and Two are those areas of land within the City of Chula Vista surround~d by Telegraph Canyon Road, Otay Lakes Road, Heritage Road, Olympic Parkway, La Media Road, Birch Road, and State Route 125. This area is shown on the map marked Exhibit "2," and included as an attachment to the City of Chula Vista Pedestrian Bridge pevelopment Impact Fee Report for Otay Ranch 4-26 Ordinance No. Page 3 Village Two, dated February 13, 2007"on file in the Office of the City Engineer; and WHEREAS, City Engineerin$ Staff has approved the City of Chula Vista Pedestrian Bridge Development Impact Fee Report dated November 6, 1998; the updated Pedestrian Bridge Development Impact Fee Report for Otay Ranch Village Six dated December 17, 2002; and the updated Bedestrian Bridge Development Impact Fee Report for Village Two dated February 13,2007 (the "Report"); and WHEREAS, the Report, recommends pedestrian over-crossing facilities needed for pedestrian access, and establishes a, fee payable by persons obtaining building permits for developments within Otay Ranch iVillage Two benefiting from the construction of these facilities; and WHEREAS, there are four Pe~estrian Over Crossings (POC) proposed for the Otay Ranch Villages One, Five, Six Imd Two: North La Media Bridge POC between Villages One and Five, South La Med* Road POC between Villages Six and Two, West Olympic Pkwy Bridge POC between Villages One and Two, and East Olympic Parkway Bridge POC between Villages Five anc\ Six; and WHEREAS, the Environmenta' Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed activity for compliance with the Califqrnia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the activity is not a "P~oject" as defined under Section 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines; therefore, pursuaht to Section 15060(c)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines the activity is not subject to,CEQA. WHEREAS, on February 13, M07, a public hearing was held before the City Council to provide an opportunity for iinterested persons to be heard on the approval of the Report and establishment of the ImjJact Fee; and WHEREAS, the City Council ~etermined, based upon the evidence presented at the Public Hearing, including, but not limited to, the Report and other information received by the City Council in the coprse of its business, that imposition of the Impact Fee on all developments within Otay Rianch Villages One, Five, Six and Two in the City of Chula Vista is necessary in order to protect the public safety and welfare and to ensure effective implementation of the City's Cfeneral Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the amount of the Impact Fee levied by this ordinance does not exceed the estimated cost of providing the public facilities identified by the report. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Counciliofthe City ofChula Vista does ordain as follows: SECTION I. Environmental Review 4-27 Ordinance No. Page 4 The Environmental Review Cqordinator has reviewed the proposed activity for compliance with the California Enviro/llllental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the activity is not a "Project" as idefined under Section 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines; therefore, pursuant to Sect/on 15060(c)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines the activity is not subject to CEQA. SECTION 2. Acceptance of Reports The City Council has reviewed the proposed Pedestrian Bridge Development Impact Fee Report for Otay Ranch Village Two, dated February 13, 2007, and has accepted the same, by Resolution No. , in the form on file in the Office of the City Clerk; the City Council previo1Jsly reviewed, accepted and adopted Pedestrian Bridge Development Impact Fee Rep~rts, dated November 6, 1998, and December 17, 2002 (collectively, the "Reports"). SECTION 3. Facilities The facilities to be financed by the Impact Fee are fully described in the Reports and incorporated herein by this reference, ("Facilities"), all of which Facilities may be modified by the City Council from tim~ to time by resolution. The locations at which the Facilities will be constructed are sho~n on Exhibit" 1" of the approved 2002 and 2007 Reports. The City Council may modif)l or amend the list of projects herein considered to be part of the Facilities by written resolution in order to maintain compliance with the City's Capital Improvement Program, or to reflect changes in land development and estimated and actual pedestrian generatIon. SECTION 4. Territory to Which Fee Is Applicable The area of the City of Chula Vista to which the Impact Fee herein established shall be applicable is set forth on Ethibit "2" of the 2002 and 2007 Reports and is generally described herein as the "Terri~ory." SECTION 5. Purpose The purpose of this ordinance lS to establish the Impact Fee in order to provide the necessary financing to construct t~ Facilities within the areas shown in Exhibit" I" of the Report, in accordance with the City's General Plan. SECTION 6. Establishment of Fee The Impact Fee, to be based 0/1 a per Equivalent Dwelling Unit ("EDU") basis, and payable prior to the issuance ofbu!lding permits for residential development projects within the Territory, is hereby establis~d to pay for the Facilities. 4-28 Ordinance No. Page 5 SECTION 7. Due on Issuance of Buildlng Permit The Impact Fee shall be paid ir!1 cash upon the issuance of a residential building permit. Early payment is not permitted., No building permit shall be issued for residential development projects subject to this ordinance unless the developer has paid the Impact Fee imposed by this ordinance. SECTION 8. Determination ofEquival~nt Dwelling Units Residential land uses shall be converted to Equivalent Dwelling Units for the purpose of this fee based on the followil1g table: Land Use Reople per household EDU's Single Family ("SFD") . 3.52 I Multi Family ("MF") 2.61 0.74 Fe~ by Land Use "Single family" shall mean a residential unit within a subdivision, planning area or neighborhood with a net density of 8 units per acre or less as shown on the approved tentative map for said subdivision, pl~ing area or neighborhood. "Multi-Family" shall mean a resid~ntial unit within a subdivision, planning area or neighborhood with a net density of gr~ater than 8 units per acre or any residential unit within a mixed-use project as shown ad the approved tentative map for said subdivision, planning area or neighborhood. SECTION 9. Time to Determine Amount Due; Advance Payment Prohibited The Impact Fee for each development shall be calculated at the time of building permit issuance and shall be the amount as indicated at that time and not when the tentative map or final map was granted or applied for, or when the building permit plan check was conducted, or when applicatii::m was made for the building permit. SECTION 10. Purpose and Use of Fee The purpose of the Impact Fee is to pay for the planning, design, construction and/or financing (including the cost of!interest and other financing costs as appropriate) of the Facilities, or reimbursement to th~ City or, at the discretion of the City if approved in advance in writing, to other third *arties for advancing costs actually incurred for planning, designing, constructing, or fiIjIancing the Facilities. Any use of the Impact Fee shall receive the advance consent of the City Council and be used in a manner consistent with the purpose of the Impact Fee. SECTION II. Amount of Fee; Amendment to Master Fee Schedule 4-29 Ordinance No. Page 6 The initial Impact Fee shall be' calculated at the rate of $1,114 per Single Family Dwelling Unit (SFD) and $826 per M~ltiple Family Dwelling Unit (MF). Chapter XVI, Other Fees, of the Master Fee Schedul<i, Section E, shall be amended to read as follows: "E. Otay Ranch Villages I, 5, 6 and 2 Pedestrian Bridge Development Impact Fee. This section is intended to rnemorialize the key provisions of Ordinance No. , but said ordinance governs o~er the provisions of the Master Fee Schedule. For example, in the event of a conflict in iIilterpretation between the Master Fee Schedule and the ordinance, or in the event that thete are additional rules applicable to the imposition of the Impact Fee, the language of the <brdinance governs. a. Territory to which Fee Applicable The area of the City of Chula 'Vista to which the Impact Fee herein established shall be applicable is set forth ip Exhibit "2" of the City of Chula Vista Pedestrian Bridge Development Impact fee Report for Otay Ranch Village Two dated February 13, 2007, and is generally described as the area surrounded by Telegraph Canyon Road, Otay Lakes Road, Heritage Road, Olympic Parkway, La Media Road, Birch Road, and State Route 125. b. Rate per Residential Land lifse and Fee The Impact Fee shall be calculated at the rate of $826 per EDU and translated into a fee per land use based on th~ people per household factor given below, which rate shall be adjusted from time! to time by the City Council. Residential Land Use EOD's EDU's Single Family (SFQ) 1 $1,114 Multi Family (MF! 0.74 $826 c. When Payable The Impact Fee shall be paid! in cash not later than immediately prior to the issuance of a building permit." , The City Council shall revie~ the amount of the Impact Fee annually or from time to time. The City Council may, lit such reviews, adjust the amount of this Impact Fee as necessary to assure constructiqn and operation of the Facilities. The reasons for which adjustments may be made include, but are not limited to, the following: : (i) changes in the costs of the Facilities *s may be reflected by such index as the Council deems appropriate, such as the En~neering-News Record Construction Cost Index (ENR-CCI); (ii) changes in the cost of pedestrian bridges; type, size, location or cost of 4-30 Ordinance No. Page 7 the Facilities to be financed by the Implict Fee; (iii) changes in the land use assumptions used in the Reports; and (iv) other sound engineering, financing and planning information. Adjustments to the above Impact Fee may be made by resolution amending the Master Fee Schedule. SECTION 12. Authority for Accounting and Expenditures The proceeds collected from th(1 imposition of the Impact Fee shall be deposited into a public facility financing fund (~'Otay Ranch Villages 1, 5, 6 and 2 Pedestrian Bridge Development Impact Fee Fundi," or alternatively, "Fund") which is hereby created and shall be expended only f~r the purposes set forth in this ordinance, the Director of Finance is authorized to establish various accounts within the Fund for the Facilities identified in this ordinance and to periodically make expenditures from the Fund for the purposes set forth herein In accordance with the facilities phasing plan or capital improvement plan adopted by th~ City Council. SECTION 13. Findings The City Council hereby finds th~ following: A. The establishment of the Inf1pact Fee is necessary to protect the public safety and welfare and to ensure the effective implementation of the City's General Plan. B. The Impact Fee is necessary to ensure that funds will be available for the construction of the Facilities concurrent with the need for these Facilities and to ensure certainty in the capital facilities budgeting for growth impacted public facilities. C. The amount of the fee l~vied by this ordinance does not exceed the estimated cost of providinglthe Facilities for which the fee is collected. D. New development project~ within the territory will generate a significant amount of pedestrian traffi~ that current pedestrian facilities cannot service, therefore construction of ,the Facilities will be needed to service new development projects. E. That the legislative finding: and determination set forth in Ordinances 2767 and 2892 continue to be true and correct. SECTION 14. Impact Fee Additional to pther Fees and Charges The Impact Fee established by ,this section is in addition to the requirements imposed by other City laws, policies or regulations relating to the construction or the financing of the construction of public improvements within subdivisions or 4-31 Ordinance No. Page 8 developments. SECTION 15. Mandatory Constructi~n of a Portion of the Facilities; Duty to Tender Reimbursement Offer Whenever a developer is requ*ed as a condition of approval of a development permit to construct or cause the construction of the Facilities or a portion thereof, the City may require the developer to install the Facilities according to design specifications approved by the City and in the size or capacity necessary to accommodate estimated pedestrian traffic as indicated in the! Report and subsequent amendments. If such a requirement is imposed, the City sh*ll offer, at the City's option, to reimburse the developer from the Fund either in cash!or over time as Fees are collected, or give a credit against the Impact Fee levied by thd ordinance or some combination thereof, in the amount of the costs incurred by the ~eveloper that exceeds their contribution to such Facilities as required by this ordinance,1 for the design and construction of the Facility not to exceed the estimated cost of that paliicular Facility as included in the calculation and updating of the Impact Fee. The Cityl may update the Impact Fee calculation, as City deems appropriate prior to making s~ch offer. This duty to offer to give credit or reimbursement shall be independent oOhe developer's obligation to pay the Impact Fee. SECTION 16. Voluntary Constructiorj of a Portion of the Facilities; Duty of City to Tender Reimbursement Offer If a developer is willing and ag~ees in writing to design and construct a portion of the Facilities in conjunction with the ~rosecution of a development project within the Territory, the City may, as part of a written agreement, reimburse the developer from the Fund either in cash or over time as Fees are collected, or give a credit against the Impact Fee levied by this ordinance or some' combination thereof, in the amount of the costs incurred by the developer that exceeds ~heir contribution to such Facilities as required by this ordinance, for the design and constuction of the Facility not to exceed the estimated cost of that particular Facility as included in the calculation and updating of the Impact Fee and in an amount agreed to in advance of their expenditure in writing by the City. The City may update the Impact Fee! calculation, as City deems appropriate prior to making such offer. This duty to dtend credits or offer reimbursement shall be independent of the developer's obligati9n to pay the Impact Fee. SECTION 17. Procedure for Entitlemerj.t to Reimbursement Offer The City's duty to extend a reimbursement offer to a developer pursuant to Section 15 or 16 above shall be conditIoned on the developer complying with the terms and conditions of this section: a. Written authorization shaq be requested by the developer from the City and issued by the City COlillcil! by written resolution before developer may incur 4-32 Ordinance No. Page 9 any costs eligible for rqimbursement relating to the construction of the Facilities, excluding any ~ork attributable to a specific subdivision project. b. The request for authoriZ1\tion shall contain the following information, and the City may from time to! time request such other information as: (I) Detailed descriptions pf the work to be conducted by the developer with the preliminary cost e~timate. c. If the Council grants authprization, it shall be by written agreement with the Developer, and on the following conditions among such other conditions as the Council may from time to time impose: (I) Developer shall prepare all plans and specifications and submit same to the City for approval; , (2) Developer shall secUl~ and dedicate any right-of-way required for the improvement work; (3) Developer shall sedure all required permits and environmental clearances necessary fpr construction of the improvements; (4) Developer shall provi~e performance bonds in a form and amount, and with a surety satisfactory to the City; (5) Developer shall pay all City fees and costs. (6) The City shall be helq harmless and indemnified, and upon demand by the City, defended by'the developer for any of the costs and liabilities associated with the imjJrovements. (7) The developer shall a~vance all necessary funds for the improvements, including design and ~onstruction. The City will not be responsible for any of the costs of con~tructing the facilities. (8) The developer shall se~ure at least three (3) qualified bids for work to be done. The constructior\l contract shall be granted to the lowest qualified bidder. Any claims tor additional payment for extra work or charges during construction s~all be justified and shall be documented to the satisfaction of the City' Engineer. (9) The developer shall Ilrovide a detailed cost estimate, which itemizes those costs of the cOrlstruction attributable to the improvements. Soils Engineering shall be limited to 7.5 percent of the project cost, Civil Engineering shall be! limited to 7.5 percent of the hard cost and 4-33 Ordinance No. Page 10 landscape architectur~ shall be limited to 2 percent of the landscaping cost. The estimate is !preliminary and subject to final determination by the City Engineer upop completion of the Public Facility Project. (10) The agreement may! provide that upon determination of satisfactory incremental completi~n of the public facility project, as approved and certified by the City lEngineer, the City may pay the developer progress payments in an amou*t not to exceed 75 percent of the estimated cost of the construction comI1leted to the time of the progress payment but shall provide in such case for the retention of 25 percent of such costs until issuance by the City of a Notice of Completion. (II) The agreement maYlrovide that any funds owed to the developer as reimbursements may e applied to the developer's obligations to pay the impact Fee for buildi g permits to be applied for in the future. (12) When all work has b~en completed to the satisfaction of the City, the developer shall su~mit verification of payments made for the construction of the pnpject to the City. The City Engineer shall make the final determination! on expenditures, which are eligible for reimbursement. (13) After final determinatIon of expenditures eligible for reimbursement has been made by the PuWic Works Director, the parties may agree to offset the developer's duty !to pay Impact Fees required by this ordinance against the City's dutyl to reimburse the developer. (14) After offset, if any f1.(nds are due the developer under this section, the City may at its optioq, reimburse the developer from the Fund either in cash or over time as! Fees are collected, or give a credit against the Impact Fee levied by this ordinance or some combination thereof, in the amount of the costs in~urred by the developer that exceeds their required contribution to such !Facilities as required by this ordinance, for the design and constructi~n of the Facility not to exceed the estimated cost of that particular Facility as included in the calculation and updating of the Impact Fee and! in an amount agreed to in advance of their expenditure in writingi by the City. A developer may transfer a credit against the Impact Fee to another developer with the wtiitten approval of the City Engineer in his/her sole discretion. (15) SECTION 18. Procedure for Fee Modification 4-34 Ordinance No. Page 11 Any developer who, because i of the nature or type of uses proposed for a development project, contends that ~pplication of the Impact Fee imposed by this ordinance is unconstitutional or uqrelated to mitigation of the burdens of the development, may apply to the City Cpuncil for a waiver or modification of the Impact Fee or the manner in which it is calcul*ted. The application shall be made in writing and filed with the City Clerk not later than ten days after notice is given of the public hearing I on the development permit applicati04 for the project, or if no development permit is required, at the time of the filing of thei building permit application. The application shall state in detail the factual basis for the qlaim of waiver or modification, and shall provide an engineering and accounting report ,showing the overall impact on the Development Impact Fees (OIF) and the ability of th~ City to complete construction of the Facilities by making the modification requested ~y the applicant. The City Council shall make reasonable efforts to consider the application within sixty days after its filing. The decision of the City Council shall be ifinal. The procedure provided by this section is additional to any other procedure autljlOrized by law for protection or challenging the Impact Fee imposed by this ordinance. I SECTION 19. Fee Applicable to PublidAgencies , Development projects by publici agencies, including schools, shall be exempt from the provisions of the Impact Fee. . SECTION 20. Assessment District If any assessment, communit~ facilities district or special taxing district is established to design, construct and i pay for any or all of the Facilities ("Work Alternatively Financed"), the owner or developer of a project may apply to the City Council for reimbursement from the Fu~d or a credit in an amount equal to that portion of the cost included in the calculation I of the Impact Fee attributable to the Work Alternatively Financed. In this regard, tre amount of the reimbursement shall be based on the costs included in the Report, as arr\ended from time to time, and therefore, will not include any portion of the financing cOSls associated with the formation of the assessment or other special taxing district. SECTION 21. Expiration of this Ordinarce This ordinance shall be of no ifurther force and effect when the City Council determines that the amount of Impact F~es which have been collected reaches an amount equal to the cost of the Facilities. SECTION 22. Time Limit for Judicial Action Any judicial action or proceediJjlg to attack, review, set aside, void or annul this ordinance shall be brought within the jime period as established by law. In accordance with Government Code Section 6602Q(d)(l), the ninety-day approval period in which , 4-35 Ordinance No. Page 12 parties may protest begins upon the eff~ctive date of this ordinance. , SECTION 23. Other Not Previously D~fined Terms For the purposes of this ordinaJ!1ce, the following words or phrases shall be construed as defined in this Section, unless from the context it appears that a different meaning is intended. (a) "Building Permit" niJeans a permit required by and issued pursuant to the Uniform Buildirjg Code as adopted by reference by this City. (b) "Developer" means the owner or developer of a development. (c) "Development Penni!" means any discretionary permit, entitlement or approval for a ddelopment project issued under any zoning or subdivision ordinanqe of the City. (d) "Development Project" or "Development" means any activity described in Sectioni66000 of the State Government Code. (e) "Single Family Att<(ched Dwelling" means a single-family dwelling attached to another $ingle family dwelling, with each dwelling on its own lot. SECTION 24. Effective Date This ordinance shall become etffective sixty days after its second reading and adoption. Presented by Pipproved as to form by Scott Tulloch City Engineer ~" ~ -,D.Ck,./ : . Moo . . y Attorney 4-36 ,/ j/,..\ i: . JI' ~7 ,I) / 'J ~ i~. ~ ( Sunday, February 11, 2007 Last modified Saturday, February 10, 2007 11 :46 PM PST NORTH COUNTY TIMES Power line could affect climate change fight By: DAVE DOWNEY - Staff Writer NORTH COUNTY ---- While thousands of San Diego County residents have decried the controversial wires atop 150-foot poles that would stamp a large set of footprints across the landscape, some students of energy policy say the $1.3 billion project may help fight global warming. But project opponents are skeptical that the proposed Sunrise Powerlink actually would deliver clean, renewable power, much less contribute to the state's emerging campaign to combat climate change. David Hogan, a spokesman for the environmental group Center for Bioiogical Diversity in San Diego, argues that there are so many doubts about a proposed massive solar project in the Southern California desert that it is doubtful the power line wouid make any dent in greenhouse gases at all. "Global warming is real and the Powerlink is only going to make things worse," Hogan said. "San Diego Gas & Electric's claims that the Powerlink will benefit renewables is a self-serving lie." Like the other major California utilities that serve vast urban regions, the utility is obligated by state law to deliver 20 percent of its electricity from sources such as solar and wind power, which are much cleaner than burning coal and natural gas, by 2010. And the proposed power line is probably the best bet for reaching that goal, people who study energy policy say. "If it brings in lots of renewables, then, of course, it helps advance the cause," said Scott Anders, director of the Energy Policy Initiatives Center at the University of San Diego. In keeping with another new law, the California Public Utilities Commission last month passed a regulation that effectively bars utilities from signing long-term contracts for power generated by coal inside or outside of California. Targeting the greenhouse gas emissions that many scientists believe are responsible for a warming planet, the commission set a ceiling of 1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide for each megawatt that power plants generate in an hour. The rule is expected to force utilities to rely on more on natural gas generators, which generate 900 pounds per megawatt-hour, and clean sources such as solar power that generate essentially no carbon dioxide. The rule, which took effect Feb. 1, could have a huge impact on energy prices statewide because 20 percent of California's power comes from coal, mostly from plants in Nevada, Wyoming and Utah, energy market experts say. But in SDG&E's case, just 3 percent of its power comes from coal. "It's unlikely that the Sunrise Powerlink is going to be bringing in dirty coal," Anders said. "I guess it's possible, but the chances of that are lessening." Not enough rooftop panels Just last week, a panel of global scientists released a report concluding the evidence is more clear than ever that greenhouse gases are causing the climate to change. .' here," he said, with 10 percent more greenhouse gas emissions. A net winner Still, the Imperial Valley holds much promise for solar, wind and geothermal energy, the latter of which plugs into geysers, said Frank Wolak, a Stanford economics professor who has studied California's electricity market extensively. Wolak is chairman of an independent panel that oversees operation of the state's power grid. The proposed power line could open a way to bring in green power not only from the California desert, but from other parts of the country, Wolak said. "I would argue that it's going to be a net winner," he said. There is strong incentive for San Diego Gas & Electric to deliver on its promise of green power, said Anders, the Energy Policy Initiatives Center director. If the utility doesn't meet its 2010 deadline for using fuel sources other than fossil to fill 20 percent of its supply, it could be fined up to $25 million a year, Anders said. And despite talk among opponents that SDG&E's real intention is to use Sunrise Powerlink to transport fossil fuel power from Mexico to San Diego and, eventually, Los Angeles, the company steadfastly denies that. "The fact is, we have signed nothing but contracts for renewable energy to be delivered through the Sunrise Powerlink from Imperial Valley," utility spokesman Donovan said. But there is yet another potential twist. When it comes to delivering the electricity from solar and geothermal plants near the Salton Sea, Anders said it is unclear whether Sunrise Powerlink is the only option, as San Diego Gas & Electric has maintained. Some students of energy suggest that, if more power plants such as the new South Bay were built in the San Diego metropolitan area, room would open up in the existing Southwest Powerlink line along Interstate 8 to transport clean energy from Imperial Valley. "If the Sunrise Powerlink is the only way to bring in the maximum amount of renewables, then ... it is probably a net positive," Anders said. "But I think the jury is still out, and the evidence is still coming forth as to whether it's true that you can only get the renewables from the Sunrise Powerlink." Contact staff writer Dave Downey.at (760) 740-5442 or ddownev(a)nctimes.com. Notice Public Meetings on Alternatives Sunrise Powerlink Project Year 2010 2016 Solar Thermal 0 290 Rooftop Solar PV 210 84.5 Wind 48 96 Biomass/Biogas 50 100 Total 192 512.5 Table Notes: . Values in table are incremental firm on-peak capacity relative to capacity included in SDG&E's reliability targets. Firm on-peak capacity is equal to nameplate capacity multiplied by Effective Load Carrying Capability (ELCC) of each resource. . Solar Thermal assumed to have an Effective Load Carrying Capability (ELCC) of 80 %. . Rooftop Solar Photovoltaics (PVs) assumed to have an ELCC of 50%. SDG&E assumeS rooftop solar provides firm capacity of 10 MW in 2010 and 150 MW in 2016. . Wind assumed to have an ELCC of 24 % . New In-Area All-Source Generation: In addition to the Renewable Generation Alternative pre- sented above, there are various other generation options available to SDG&E to meet its reliability targets. The All-Source Generation Alternative adds distributed generation (DG) and clean, fossil- fired central station generation to the Renewable Generation Alternative. In addition to the renew- able resources discussed above, this alternative would include 70 MW of incremental distributed generation by 2015 and conventional gas-fired generation (i.e., 620 MW from the South Bay Replacement Project that is assumed to come online in 2010 and 250 MW of peaking power gene- rators that is assumed to come online in 2008. The peaking generators could be sited at several locations (Endna Power Plant site, MMC Escondido, MMC Chula Vista, NRG Kearny Mesa, or several SDG&E substations. . Resource BundIe 1: In-Area All-Source Generation Plus Demand Response. This alternative would add 23]-249 MW of demand response between 2010 and 2016, respectively, to the New In- Area All-Source Generation Alternative presented above. The demand response levels are con- sistent with the CPUC's demand response goals and SDG&E's recent long-term plan.5 . Resource BundIe 2: In-Area AIl-Source Generation, Demand Response, and Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs). This alternative would be the same as "Resource Bundle I" above, but would also include the use of RECs, which were defined in Senate Bill 107, authorizing the CPUC to allow utilities to uSe RECs for meeting renewable portfolio standards. Use of RECs would allow meeting Renewable Portfolio Standards without requiring delivery of renewable generation to the grid of the California Independent System Operator. . In-Area Generation Plus Transmission Upgrades: LS Power, a party to the CPUC proceeding suggested that new in-area generation (i.e., repowering South Bay) alone may not be sufficient to replace the function of the Sunrise Powerlink Project's renewable project objectives, and that some smaller transmission upgrades may be required. The EIRlEIS Team is investigating this alternative to determine whether it is a feasible alternative that would meet project objectives. Non-Wires Alternatives Eliminated. The following alternatives are recommended for elimination from detailed EIRlEIS analysis. The primary reason for elimination of any particular resource alternative is because it is not, by itself, able to meet SDG&E's reliability targets in both 2010 and 20]6. However, 5 R.06-02-013, Volume I, p. 189. 21 , Notice Public Meetings on Alternatives Sunrise Powerlink Project SWPL Alternatives Eliminated. The following four routes and route segments are also illustrated on Figure 8 and are recommended for elimination from detailed EIR/EIS analysis: . SDG&E Route B Alternative: This route would diverge from the SWPL after 39 miles, and would follow county Highway SI in a highly scenic area through a portion of Anza-Borrego Desert State Park, the Cleveland National Forest, and pass through the center of Julian. Recommended for elimination because of the high scenic value (Highway SI is a National Scenic Byway), residences around Julian, likely infeasibility of constructing a 500 kV transmission through central historic Julian, and because it would pass through a portion ABDSP. . SDG&E Route Segment C: This route would follow existing SDG&E 69 kV transmission lines and would pass through the communities of Campo, Pine Valley, and Descanso, and many resi- dences would be located adjacent to the corridor. Recommended for elimination because of the large number of residences along the corridor. . SDG&E Route Segment BC: This route segment would connect the Route B Alternative with the Route C Alternative, and would run from the area of Boulevard to an area north of Campo. It would follow an existing SDG&E 69 kV transmission line, rougWy parallel to but south of 1-8, passing through many residential areas. Recommended for elimination because of the large number of residences along the corridor. . West of Forest/Route D Western Origination Segments: Two alternative segments were consid- ered in which a 500 kV line would be collocated with the SWPL from either SWPL Milepost 63 or SWPL Milepost 73 before diverging to the north. These routes are recommended for elimination because they would pass through more residential areas along the SWPL (in the vicinity of Highway 94) and because they would require a longer collocation of 500 kV lines within "Very High Fire Risk" areas, reducing the reliability value of the new line. Non-Wires Alternatives Potential non-wires alternatives to the project consist of energy efficiency, demand response, renewable generation, distributed generation, and clean fossil-fired generation. These alternatives are all located within the SDG&E service territory, which allows them to help meet SDG&E's reliability targets (e.g., 192 MW in 2010 and 482 MW in 2016).3 The renewable resources help SDG&E comply with the Renewable Portfolio Standard targets (e.g., 20% of sales met by renew abies in 2010 with a long-tenn goal of serving 33 % of sales from renewables in 2020).4 Non-Wires Alternatives Retained: The following alternatives are recommended for detailed analysis in the EIRlEIS: . New In-Area Renewable Generation: An aggressive program of renewable resource procurement and development can meet SDG&E's reliability goals for 2010 and 2016. This alternative would include the elements listed in the following table: 3 Sunrise Powerlink Transmission Project Purpose and Need, Volume 2, p. II-47, August 4, 2006. 4 2006 Integrated Energy Policy Report Update. p. E-2 20 , Notice Public Meetings on Alternatives Sunrise Powerlink Project surrounding urban development constrains the ROW. The existing Serrano-Talega corridor has little or no space for addition of new 500 kV towers at reasonable cost. . SDG&E Imperial Valley-Central 230 kV ("Four 230 kV Circuits") Alternative: Build four new 230 kV circuits from the existing Imperial Valley Substation to the proposed Central East Substation in San Diego County. This alternative would involve a combination of overhead and underground facilities for the Imperial Valley-Central segment. Although this alternative may satisfy most of the project objectives, albeit at higher construction and operating costs, the environmental impacts of the additional towers needed with this alternative would be more severe than those of the Proposed Project, and they would outweigh the environmental advantages of placing portions of the Imperial Valley-Central segment underground. . HTLS Composite Conductor Alternative: Install high-temperature low-sag (HTLS) composite mate- rial conductors along the Proposed Project alignment instead of the proposed industry -standard aluminum- core steel-reinforced (ACSR). To date there are no examples of 500 kV HTLS conductor in use or being installed. However, HTLS conductors could provide slightly greater span lengths and a marginal reduction in the number of towers required. The same ROW width would be required. Although HTLS conductors could be used elsewhere in the SDG&E system to improve the capacity of existing trans- mission lines that operate near thermal limits, installing HTLS along the Proposed Project would dra- matically increase project costs while resulting in impacts similar to those of the Proposed Project. The higher costs of this alternative make it prohibitive. . All UndergroWld 230 kV or 500 kV Alternative: Build all of the components of the Four 230 kV Circuits Alternative (described above) so that no overhead transmission would occur. Placing 500 kV segments underground is generally not feasible except for very short line segments in areas where ground disturbance impacts would not be severe. This alternative would involve higher construction and operating costs. Under-grounding all of the multiple 230 kV circuits included in the Four 230 kV Circuits Alternative would involve ground-disturbing impacts that would outweigh the environ- mental advantages. J. Public and Agency Comments on Alternatives At this time, the CPUC and BLM are soliciting information regarding the topics and alternatives that should be included in the EIR/EIS. All comments must be received or postmarked by February 24, 2007. You may submit comments in a variety of ways: (I) by U.S. mail, (2) by electronic mail, (3) by fax, or (4) by attending a Public Scoping Meeting (see times and locations in Table I above) and mak- ing a verbal statement or handing in written comments at the scoping meetings. By Mail: If you send comments by U.S. mail, please use first-class mail and be sure to include your name and a return address. Please send written comments on the scope and content of the EIR/EIS to: Billie Blanchard, CPUC I Lynda Kastoll, BLM clo Aspen Enviromnental Group 235 Montgomery Street, Suite 935 San Francisco, CA 94104-3002 By Electronic Mail: E-mail communications are welcome; however, please remember to include your name and return address in the e-mail message. E-mail messagesshouldbesenttosunrise@aspeneg.com. By Fax: You may fax your comment letter to our information line at (866) 711-3106. Please remember to include your name and rettrrn address in the fax, to write legibly, and use black or blue ink. 25 2/13/07 1 ,t Weekly Report on CAISO Testimony Development and Alternative Case Studies The January 26,2007 ACR/ALJ Ruling on the CAISO Motions (1/26/07 Ruling) requested that the CAISO file weekly status updates on the progress being made in completing the alternative scenario analyses requested by intervenors. This first weekly report provides an update on the alternative scenario studies and also the progress being made on development of the additional CAISO testimony. I) Based on the information provided by SDG&E and the other active parties at the February 2,2007 testimony workshop, the CAISO has undertaken a complete re- evaluation of the assumptions used for the development of the base (reference) case presented in its January 26,2007 testimony and used to run the three alternative scenarios (base case + Sunrise, base case + LEAPS and Greenpath North, and base case + South Bay repowering). Specifically, in light of the information contained in SDG&E's Supplemental Testimony Exhibit J and other assumptions described at the workshop (e.g. Miguel nomogram; assumptions about the cost of network upgrades required for the LEAPs project), the CAISO intends to make certain modifications to its base case, rerun the scenarios contained in the January 26, 2007 testimony, and prepare an errata highlighting the changes in the results of the prior studies. The base case changes will be reflected in the alternative scenario studies unless otherwise specified by the particular intervener. The CAISO has also isolated the cause of reactive power modeling issues that surfaced in the reliability runs (described on page 37 of the January 26 testimony). Therefore we can now complete the reliability analysis for the four cases studied for this testimony, and will include these results in the errata to the January 26, 2007 testimony. The errata and a complete description of the changes, as well as a detailed list of all the assumptions made to the base case, will be set forth in the additional testimony. 2) At this point, the following corrections and assumption changes are being considered for the 2015 reference case: renewables in locations other than Imperial Valley will be added to the base case rooftop/solar PV modeling in the Gridview case will be corrected transmission system losses included in the load forecasts will be properly accounted for in both the reliability and Gridview cases Miguel transformer loading nomogram will be added Dual fuel units will be corrected to ensure they run on gas instead of oil CT requirements in San Diego will be adjusted as a result of the proper accounting of transmission system losses in the load forecasts " , ; t' w > <( ::E ...J <( a. ~ ~ "'--.; '-- ~ -.. [ C ....\.. ,_ ,,' \, ,-\ PROPOSED VALLEY ST. WIDENING % OF PROPERTY LOST J21 OF HOME LOST TO (N) SETBACK ~REA OF HOUSES REQUlRERING DEMOliTION NEW SETBACK. NEW PROPERTY liNE · PROP, 1 28 % LOST PROP. 2 28 % LO PROP. 3 28 % LOST 308 PALM AVE. 1.175 J21 LOST312 V~ 900 J21 LO 316 VALLEY AVE. 900.0 LOST j ~ , I ' 18 -6' ~ r .-: ---------------------L-------------------------WW L~ <( o 16 % LO NOT AFECTED NOT AFECTED NO J21 LOST PROP. 7 PROP. 8 4040 VALLEY AVE. 4030 VALLEY AVE. --- n ROP. 6 88 PALM AVE. PLOT PLAN NOffO :Cfl-, PROP. 4 3995 VALLEY AVE. 28 % LOST PROP. 5 5 J21 LOST 309 DA nn nn nn NOT AFECTED 13 % LOST 70 J21 LOST PROP. 9 4020 VALLEY AVE. 13 % LOST PROP. 11 PROP. 12 29 J21 LOST 287 VALLEY AVE. 287 DATE ST. 41 % LOST 675 J21 LOST PROP. 10 309 VALLEY AVE. G) .>' . It PERMISSION TO RESEARCH: In signing this petition I give my consent to a study that would inquire into the legitimacy, and/or practicality of the widening of Valley St. I understand that it is proposed that 18' 6" be dedicated for by each property to facilitate said improvement. This study will research the impact primarily1w>on those houses that would find themselves encroachin1finto a new set back. PROPERTY OWNER ADDRESS SIGNATURE ... 3::> 4.Clf'>'-''',n (~Urls:.I7t?9-;>,,"'<.rN~~~~.. ~ ~~~~:~'.~~~ 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 15.