HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007/04/05 Item 1
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA STATEMENT
~ I If:.. CITY OF
'~CHULA VISTA
04/05/07 Workshop
ITEM TITLE:
STATUS REPORT ON THE MISSING INFRASTRUCTURE
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM EFFORT TO DATE
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA APPROVING THE DRAINAGE PROJECT PRIORITY LIST
AND AUTHORIZING STAFF TO SEEK SPECIAL FUNDING FOR
ANY PROJECT THAT MEETS THE FUNDING CRITERIA
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA REAFFIRMING ITS COMMITMENT TO THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF A TRUE PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT
SYSTEM
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA APPROVING A PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
BASED ON $11,504,665 IN FISCAL YEAR 2007 AND $9.5 MILLION
IN FISCAL YEAR 2008, AND THEREFORE TRANSFERRING $2
MILLION FROM NORTH BROADWAY BASIN RECONSTRUCTION
(STM354) AND $5 MILLION FROM 4TH AVENUE
RECONSTRUCTION BETWEEN DAVIDSON AND SR54 (STL309)
INTO PAVEMENT REHABILITATION PROGRAM - FUTURE
ALLOCATIONS (STL238) (4/5THS VOTE REQUIRED)
POLICY DISCUSSION AND DIRECTION REGARDING POTENTIAL
REVENUE SOURCES FOR INFRASTRUCTURE AND/OR
PAVEMENT NEEDS
SUBMITTED BY:
CITY ENGINEER ~ >riP'
DIRECTOR OF GENERAL SERVICES \) _ L:(? ______
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WO~OPERATION~ Y
INTERIM CITY MANAGER II
REVIEWED BY:
4/5THS VOTE: YES X NO
I-I
04/05/07 Workshop
Page 2 of35
BACKGROUND
In February of 2006, staff began development of an Infrastructure Management Program for
a limited number of the City's public assets including pavement; drainage; missing
sidewalks, curbs and gutters, and pedestrian ramps ("missing infrastructure"); deficient cross
gutters (included with missing infrastructure for the purposes of this report); and utility wire
undergrounding. Since that time, a comprehensive review of best- in-class work in the area
of public infrastructure asset management shows that in order to be most effective, this
effort should be broadened to include the full range of the City's public infrastructure.
While tonight's focus is on pavement and drainage, the City of Chula Vista has a pressing
need to develop and implement a broad infrastructure asset management program in order
to create a comprehensive asset management approach that ensures the best use of limited
funding. This is just the first step toward creating what should become an Infrastructure
Asset Management Program; continued work on this effort will take time and a
significant investment of resources.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed project for
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined
that the adoption of the Drainage Project Priority List is not a project as defined under
Section 15378 ofthe State CEQA Guidelines; therefore, pursuant to Section 15060 (c)(3)
of the State CEQA Guidelines the activity is not subject to CEQA. Although
environmental review is not necessary at this time, as funding is secured and each
individual drainage project moves forward toward implementation, environmental review
will be required and a CEQA determination completed prior to commencing construction
of any of the facilities. Implementation of the Pavement Management Program qualifies
for a Class I categorical exemption pursuant to Section 15301(c) (Existing Facilities) of
the State CEQA Guidelines because the project is the rehabilitation of existing streets,
sidewalks, gutters, etc. for the purpose of public safety. Thus, no further environmental
review is necessary for the Pavement Management Program.
RECOMMENDATION
That Council:
I) Accept the status report on the Infrastructure Management Program effort to date.
2) Approve the Resolution approving the drainage project priority list and authorizing
staff to seek special funding opportunities for any project that meets the funding criteria.
3) Approve the Resolution endorsing the continued implementation of a Pavement
Management System.
4) Approve the Resolution approving a pavement management program based on
$11,504,665 million in FY 2007 and $9.5 million in FY 2008 and transferring $2.0
million from North Broadway Basin Reconstruction Project (STM354) and $5.0 million
from 4th Avenue Reconstruction between Davidson & SR54 Project (STL309) into
Pavement Rehabilitation Program - Future Allocations (STL238).
/ - ..)....
04/05/07 Workshop
Page 3 of35
5) Utilize this opportunity for policy discussion and direction regarding potential revenue
sources for infrastructure and/or pavement needs.
BOARDS/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
Not applicable.
DISCUSSION
In February of2006, staff began the development of an Infrastructure Management Program
for a limited number of the City's public assets including pavement; drainage; missing
sidewalks, curbs and gutters, and pedestrian ramps ("missing infrastructure"); deficient cross
gutters (included with missing infrastructure for the purposes of this report); and utility wire
undergrounding.
Work in the four focus areas has identified an estimated total funding need of approximately
$392,400,000 to $396,000,000 (in 2006 dollars) to address gaps and deficiencies identified
with this first phase of infrastructure analysis. The specific component parts of this estimate
are as follows:
Pavement
$ 192,000,000 over 10 years
$ 19,200,000 er ear
Subtotal Partial Infrastructure Funding Need
Utility Wire Undergrounding
$ 28,800,000
($ 4,400,000)
$ 24,400,000
$ 6,300,000 to $8,900,000
$
$ 29,000,000
$ 139,400,000
$392,400,000 to $396,000,000
$275,000,000
As part of this effort, a comprehensive review of the best-in-class work in the area of public
infrastructure asset management shows that in order to be most effective, this undertaking
should be broadened to include the full range of municipal public infrastructure.
While tonight's focus is on pavement and drainage, the City of Chula Vista has a pressing
need to develop and implement a broad infrastructure asset management program in order to
I Unable to estimate two of eight projects at this time.
2 Utility wire undergrounding is presented separately as it is not typically included within municipal
infrastructure asset management prograros and because it has a separate, restricted funding source (Rule 20A
funds).
/-3
04/05/07 Workshop
Page 4 of35
create a comprehensive asset management approach that ensures the best use of limited
funding. This is just the first step toward creating what should become an Infrastructure
Asset Management Program; continued work on this effort will take time and a significant
investment of resources.
The Need for an Infrastructure Asset Management Program
In FY 2007, within the public works function, the City will spend over $56 million in
capital and operating funds to provide municipal infrastructure services to the public and
to plan, design, operate, maintain, and replace public works infrastructure. To highlight
just some of the City's backbone infrastructure responsibilities, these monies will go
toward maintaining 1,113 lane miles of roads including traffic striping, pavement
markings, roadside signs, street trees and planted parkways; 18.9 million square feet of
sidewalk; 3.9 million square feet of curb and gutter; 229 miles of storm drain system; 471
miles of sewer lines; 8,501 street lights; and 250 signalized intersections.
Like much of North America, the City's public infrastructure is
nearing a critical point in maintenance and funding lifecycles.
Asset management is not new, but is considered a relatively new
concept when applied to municipal infrastructure.
The City's best-in-class research shows that few cities have been
able to fully undertake this effort. Cities in Canada appear to have
made the most progress; Portland, Oregon appears to be the west
coast standout.
The emphasis on infrastructure asset management is being driven by the widely accepted
fact that cities historically have managed their infrastructure poorly. This has resulted in
a national concern for municipal infrastructure, which is in poor condition and is
continuing to deteriorate to the point of negatively impacting the economic strength of
cities, as well as health concerns of citizens.
While the City begins to aggressively manage its infrastructure, Chula Vista continues to
grow and develop and so do the demands and expectations placed on its infrastructure
and services. We face the same challenges as other cities to apply limited resources to
satisfY increasing public expectations, minimize the risk of critical infrastructure failure,
and plan for the long-term financial sustainability of our public infrastructure and
servICes.
The City took the first step to creating a comprehensive Infrastructure Asset Management
Program in February of 2006 thereby furthering efforts to create an integrated approach
to growth plarming. For the City, as owner, plarmer and operator of all Chula Vista's
infrastructure, except water, there should be a seamless process between growth plarming
and rehabilitation plarming. Planning, engineering and operational initiatives should all
be considered as well in developing solutions to the City's infrastructure challenges,
whether they be new challenges resulting from growth or on-going challenges resulting
from the ownership and operation of major infrastructure.
/-1
04/05/07 Workshop
Page 5 of35
Over time, the Infrastructure Asset Management Program will evolve to become the
City's primary infrastructure policy document. An early step in this evolution will be to
consider and incorporate the City's policies related to management of existing
infrastructure, followed by the development of a seamless integration of growth policy
and rehabilitation policy. A further step in this evolution will be to fully integrate the
tools available for financing infrastructure with the prioritization and decision making
related to infrastructure planning and management.
The City of Chula Vista has a pressing need to develop and implement a broad
infrastructure asset management program in order to create a comprehensive asset
management approach. Continued work on the effort to create an Infrastructure Asset
Management Program will take time and a significant investment of resources.
Undertaking this effort and taking it to completion will demonstrate to the property
owners, residents and businesses in our city that the most effective infrastructure
planning mechanisms will be developed and implemented.
What is an Infrastructure Asset Management Program?
In its simplest form, an Infrastructure Asset Management Program begins with a
systematic program to inventory and evaluate the condition and capacity of infrastructure
assets and then combines that data with a management and improvement program, which
integrates operations and maintenance with capital renewal/improvements over multiple
budget cycles.
When implemented and managed properly, an Infrastructure Asset Management Program
can provide a municipality with a roadmap to achieve an infrastructure that meets
expected performance levels at the lowest possible cost.
Minimization of expenditures on municipal infrastructure may seem like the least cost
alternative to infrastructure management, but only defers needed expenditures until
infrastructure assets fail and require replacement-almost always at a much greater cost
due to parts, labor, method of replacement and collateral damages. These increased costs
are often hidden but are real costs that unnecessarily increase costs to residents and
negatively affect the quality of services provided to customers.
This briefing document is intended to:
. Summarize the management principles underlying the infrastructure asset
management approach that has been undertaken;
. Provide a general summary of work to date in the areas of missing infrastructure
and utility wire undergrounding;
. Report in more detail the current status of the condition of the infrastructure in the
areas of pavement and drainage;
. Recommend prioritization of identified drainage projects and an overview of
storm drain pipe needs;
. Provide general information regarding current funding and potential new revenue
streams; and,
. Make recommendations regarding the most immediate cost effective actions in
the area of pavement.
/-5
04105/07 Workshop
Page 6 of 35
The primary management objective of an Infrastructure Asset Management Program is to
reach and maintain a sustainable level of municipal infrastructure operation, maintenance,
and renewal which:
. Provides planned service levels of the infrastructure at the most cost-effective
user costs.
. Provides service levels that contribute to attracting and retaining residential,
business, and commercial customers.
Cities that are creating and implementing a comprehensive Infrastructure Asset
Management System indicate that the following management tools are necessary to
achieve these objectives:
. Improved budget preparation, analysis, and management, which allow tracking of
costs for operations and assets.
. Development of a financial plan that links infrastructure operating budget with the
capital budget.
. Implementation of an asset inventory system that enables the management of the
infrastructure as a whole with the implementation of preventative maintenance
focused on preservation and to help avoid a reactive failure repair approach to
asset replacement.
. Development and implementation of an asset condition and capacity evaluation
system that relates asset condition and capacity to expected service levels. This
condition and capacity assessment system must look at the infrastructure systems
as whole units rather than as a conglomeration of unrelated individual assets.
This allows more effective decisions on trade-offs between asset maintenance and
asset replacement.
. Development and implementation of a comprehensive computerized management
information system for the identification, prioritization, and monitoring of
infrastructure capital improvements projects. This system must provide a
systematic, quantitative approach for evaluating the costs of
operation/maintenance compared with asset renewal/replacement. This is an
aspect of asset management that utilizes data upon which to base management
decisions concerning costs of operation/maintenance versus renewal/replacement
of assets.
Most cities will say they perform all of the above at least in the form of subjective
consideration by management personnel without a formalized asset management
approach. Cities are now moving toward creating integrated prioritization plans based on
objective data and agreed upon criteria for priority setting.
Best-in-class asset management programs are highly automated and have four key
components in common:
1. Customer Service and Work Management to support the day-to-day activities of
the operations branches and supply summary data to an infrastructure information
repository. The Customer Service module unifies the service delivery to the
resident and provides the framework for service levels, performance measures,
and standard reporting. The Work Management system supports the
implementation of planned maintenance, capital project management and costing,
/-t;
04/05/07 Workshop
Page 7 of35
and provides the information necessary to support performance measurement. It
also facilitates mobile computing for field activities.
2. An Infrastructure Information Repository functions as a knowledge bank,
facilitating collaboration vertically within public works departments/divisions and
horizontally across infrastructure types. It provides all the information needed to
manage public works infrastructure throughout the life cycle and enables a wide
range of queries and reports for analysis and modeling. It also contains summary
and aggregate data from other business systems as well as integrates infrastructure
inventory data about each asset into the GIS database and other external files.
3. A Right-of-Way Management System standardizes the procedures and software
used to coordinate and control activities on the public right-of-way. This system
is integral to the Work Management system.
4. Performance Measurement lays the groundwork for long term infrastructure
planning and service improvement.
An Infrastructure Asset Management Program systematically and quantitatively utilizes
all of the above tools to continually assess and improve the infrastructure as a whole
system (to maintain service levels) rather than considering the infrastructure as
independent discrete assets that are repaired as they fail.
While the City of Chula Vista has partially completed inventory and condition
assessment information for some of its infrastructure, the public works infrastructure and
the related public services are managed across three departments-Engineering, General
Services and Public Works, using software applications and extensive paper and manual
systems. Existing work management tools and processes are not integrated across the
Departments and rely on ad-hoc processes to plan, schedule, approve, coordinate, and
report field work. We do not have the tools to coordinate all activities on City streets and
rights-of-way to minimize impacts to traffic, neighborhoods, businesses, and the
infrastructure itself. City staff produce good results, but it requires significant effort and
diligence to manage and coordinate the many construction, maintenance, and third party
activities that occur on City streets.
Agencies reporting costs associated with the implementation of an automated, integrated,
comprehensive system estimated $4 million to $5 million for implementation with
ongoing costs of approximately $600,000 annually.
Infrastructure Asset Life-Cvcle Management
Ideally an Infrastructure Asset Management Program is based upon life-cycle
management. Asset life-cycle management involves optimizing the following three inter-
related costs of a capital asset over its useful economic life:
. Initial capital cost of an asset (planning, design and construction).
. The cost of operating and maintaining (O&M) that asset over its useful
(economic) life, including increased costs as the asset naturally deteriorates over
time.
. The replacement cost of that asset at the end of its economically useful life.
/-7
04/05/07 Workshop
Page 8 of35
A critical aspect of infrastructure assets management is that maintenance and capital
renewal of individual assets are considered interrelated. Maintenance of the assets should
be performed until the point where it is more cost effective to replace or rehabilitate the
asset to retain the asset's expected operability.
Infrastructure asset management, when performed properly, looks at systems and
subsystems as a whole and focuses investment in maintenance and capital replacement to
make the best use of available funding by avoiding catastrophic failure.
Approaching asset management utilizing life-cycle management would constitute a
significant change in budget planning for the City; however, it is recommended as a most
responsible and realistic alternative toward sustainability of public assets.
Chula Vista's Infrastructure Svstem
Attachment 1 is a template that has been developed as a result of a review of best-in-class
practices. It both provides the comprehensive list of infrastructure assets that might be
tracked by the City and shows what the summary results of the first two levels of an
Infrastructure Asset Management Program could include. If the City were able to invest
the time and effort required to create a true Infrastructure Asset Management Program, a
full inventory and valuation component followed by a condition assessment and gap
analysis (dollars required to bring the asset from current condition to acceptable
condition) would be completed.
Master Planning Efforts To Date and Tonight's Focus
Prior to the effort that began in February 2006, master planning components included the
following: Comprehensive Master Plans, with specific recommended priorities, were
completed and adopted by Council for wastewater and bicycle facilities; the City
currently maintains an accurate inventory of traffic control devices and streetlights; the
State of California maintains a listing and ranking system for the City's 18 identified
bridges.
Considering the list of assets recommended for inclusion with an Asset Management
Program, these provide a good start; however, much more time and attention is required
to move this effort to the next level.
Tonight's workshop provides an overview and currently planned or recommended next
steps for the February 2006 focus areas:
. Utility Wire Undergrounding
. Missing sidewalks, curbs, gutters, pedestrian ramps, and deficient cross gutters
. Drainage
. Pavement
Work in each of these areas has resulted in the start of an inventory process utilizing our
Geographic Information System (GIS). The first generation of GIS maps resulting from
the data gathered during the inventory and condition assessment processes will be
provided during the workshop.
/-R
04/05/07 Workshop
Page 9 005
UTILITY WIRE UNDERGROUNDING
Utility wire undergrounding is not typically considered an item of municipal infrastructure
because it is an asset that is primarily the responsibility of the local utility and it has a
discreet and separate funding source and therefore does not usually compete for General
Fund dollars. However, it was included in the City's first phase of analysis due to a Council
referral and a previous tendency to wrap this activity into infrastructure discussions.
Starting in 1968, developers have been required to install underground electric and
communications utilities in new subdivisions. However, approximately 164.63 miles of
existing overhead electrical distribution lines remain, predominantly in western Chula Vista.
San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E) estimates that it would cost approximately $275
million (2006 dollars) and take about 138 years to place these lines underground. The
communications utilities (e.g., Cox, SBC, etc.) have generally cooperated by installing their
facilities in SDG&E's joint trench at no extra charge to the City.
In order to underground these utilities, the City is required to form Utility Undergrounding
Districts in accordance with rules established by the California Public Utilities Commission.
The City receives an annual allocation of funds (known as Rule 20A funds) from SDG&E
that must be spent on undergrounding projects.
The City's current franchise agreement with SDG&E sets this amount at a constant $2.0
million per year, which is greater than the standard formula would have realized (about
$840,000 per year). Current 20A rules require that these funds be spent primarily on
undergrounding projects on major transportation corridors and city gateways. However,
other California cities have created additional funding opportunities to accelerate already
allowed 20A projects as well as allow for undergrounding wires in neighborhoods. These
alternative funding mechanisms include special surcharges on electric bills, assessment
districts (Rule 20B funds), and realization of what is known as "Rule 20C" funding through
developer partnerships. The City of San Diego has an aggressive undergrounding program
due to the implementation of a surcharge that generates from $10 million to $36 million
annually.
As of March 31, 2006, the City has allocated a total of approximately $30.36 million in Rule
20A funds to underground utilities within the City. This includes sixteen undergrounding
districts that have been completed since 1995 for approximately $24.23 million. These
projects require a tremendous amount of coordination between the City, SDG&E and other
utility companies. A significant public outreach effort is required to secure right-of-way and
to complete the PUC required district formation process. City resources must be allocated
for ancillary street and appurtenance design. These related activities are considered
"unfunded" as they do not qualify for use of 20A funds; these labor-intensive activities
appear as administrative costs to the project.
The City has six utility undergrounding districts that have been formed and are part of the
current program. Five of these districts are located on Fourth Avenue, L Street and J Street
and were estimated in November 2005 to cost a total of $10.22 million in 20A funds. The
Bayfront Undergrounding District, which is currently under construction, is estimated by
SDG&E to cost approximately $20.0 million and is scheduled to be completed by June
/-7
04/05/07 Workshop
Page 10 of35
2008. SDG&E estimates that these projects will exhaust the City's allocated funds for at
least the next ten years.
Included in the workshop packet is the first phase GIS inventory map for utility wire
undergrounding. It shows projects completed to date, projects planned through 2018 and
remaining above ground wires. This topic will be covered in a second Infrastructure
Management Council Workshop anticipated before the end of the calendar year. That
workshop will include a comprehensive overview of Chula Vista's current utility
undergrounding program, project selection criteria, progress to date, current plans, unmet
needs and potential funding options.
MISSING CURBS. GUTTERS. SIDEWALKS. PEDESTRIAN RAMPS AND
DEFICIENT CROSS GUTTERS
The City's Subdivision Manual requires all developers to construct full street improvements
in new developments. In older areas of the City, particularly in formerly unincorporated
areas, roadway improvements often consisted of only asphaltic concrete (Ae) pavement,
sanitary sewers, and minimal drainage improvements. The Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA), which became effective on July 26, 1992, mandated construction of pedestrian
access ramps (also known as ADA ramps) in all new developments and
areas where the City is applying pavement overlays or reconstructing the
street.
As a start toward creating an Infrastructure Asset Management Program,
City staff has completed an inventory of all missing sidewalks, curbs,
gutters, and pedestrian ramps, and estimated the cost by elementary school
attendance area. This approach was undertaken in response to City Council interest in
ensuring safe, uninterrupted routes to school and in order to position the City for increased
success with the federal Safe Routes to School grant program. This approach also allowed
the City to enhance partnerships with the Southbay Partnership; Healthy Eating and Active
Communities; and Walk San Diego who have started a walking audit effort for Chula
Vista's Elementary Schools.
Preliminary analysis of missing infrastructure of this type and construction estimates (2006
dollars) are summarized in the table below. It is important to note that this effort focused
only on missing infrastructure due to funding, staffing and time constraints. Although the
public works departments (Engineering, General Services and Public Works) have begun
some work to create comprehensive databases for deficiencies (cracks, buckling, etc.) in
these areas, a comprehensive, complete inventory/condition assessment of deficient
infrastructure has not been completed.
MISSING SIDEWALKS, CURBS, GUTTERS AND PEDESTRIAN RAMPS
161,933 feet of miss in sidewalks
147,716 feet of miss in sidewalks, curbs and tters
1,223 missin edestrian ram s
TOTAL
$ 24,289,925
$107,094,091
$ 7,949,500
$139,333516
/-/0
04/05/07 Workshop
Page 11 005
Staff also compiled a list of 87 cross-gutters consisting of those about which residents have
inquired or that cross major streets (collectors and arterials). These were prioritized based
on traffic volumes, speed limit grade differential and the presence of a stop sign. This
information is now being integrated into street improvement and traffic signal installation
projects as funding allows.
Because there are no readily available funding sources for this type of infrastructure work
such as restricted 20A funds for utility wire undergrounding or Transnet funding for
transportation/street projects, these types of municipal projects are especially challenging to
initiate and complete.
Thus, current project prioritization is primarily driven by availability of specific funding
(e.g., CDBG funding in eligible areas) and special compatibility with grant opportunities
and/or legislative funding opportunities. Project prioritization is also often influenced by
resident input.
This topic is also planned for more in-depth coverage in a second Infrastructure
Management Council Workshop anticipated before the end of the calendar year. The phase
one GIS map in the workshop packet shows elementary schools and other attractors within
that school's attendance boundary, location of missing sidewalks, curbs and gutters, and
estimated funding requirements (in 2006 dollars) by school attendance boundaries.
The next workshop will include a comprehensive overview of Chula Vista's progress to
date, current plans, unmet needs, recommended project selection criteria and potential
funding options. It is hoped that this timing will also allow for more information to be
available regarding the outcome of several grant submissions, a legislative funding request
and a grant funded pedestrian master plan component-all of which could impact this
component of the Infrastructure Asset Management Program.
DRAINAGE
One of the areas of focus for tonight's workshop is drainage. This section provides an
executive summary of the drainage work to date. Attachment 2 is a more in-depth "Report
on Drainage Deficiencies in Chula Vista."
For this effort, "drainage" refers specifically to the management of urban runoff and flood
control (pipes, culverts, channels, detention basins, etc.), and Corrugated Metal Pipe (CMP),
which is part of the City's storm water conveyance system. This effort included attention to
both condition of the drainage system, as well as an analysis of the capacity of the system
(i.e., Are various components sized correctly to manage the amount of flow estimated for a
100-year flood event?).
Special Challenges with "Urban Runoff" and Flood Control
Structures included under the drainage umbrella are intended to manage urban runoff (storm
water and otherwise) and provide flood control.
Urban runoff originates in every neighborhood throughout the city and heads directly to our
beaches and waterways through our flood control channels. Weare currently struggling to
/-//
04/05/07 Workshop
Page 12 of35
adequately address the growing need to maintain this aging infrastructure, with special
attention to the fact that the flood control system is the primary conduit for urban runoff.
Management of urban runoff continues to be one of the greatest challenges that local
governments struggle to resolve; yet it remains relatively under the radar of the general
public. Federal, state and regional mandates in this area have grown exponentially, with a
new permit with more stringent requirements being adopted just within the last three
months.
While continually more stringent National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit requirements have caused local governments to take a more innovative and
proactive role in combating water pollution, only so much improvement can be realized
through designing and implementing new structural best management practices. Improved
infrastructure must be combined with active and consistent public outreach to raise public
awareness of this issue and how individual social behavior directly impacts our local water
quality. Raising awareness is the first step to sustained behavior change.
A recent Orange County survey showed that the public is generally unaware of what the
term urban runoff means, and that there was little knowledge that the sanitary sewer system
and the storm water system are two separate infrastructure systems with two entirely
different forms of treatment. Learning that the storm water system empties directly into the
bay without the benefit of removing any contaminants and pollution often comes as a
surprise to the general population. However, data from several California cities show that
water quality issues actually attract a high level of attention with residents. This information
can be used to develop a highly effective public outreach program.
Municipalities currently have a unique opportunity to maintain drainage infrastructure while
providing a benefit to water quality--not only with the primary focus of protecting both life
and property, but also with a pursuit of a multi-purpose approach to projects that not only
provides for flood control protection and operations, but which also balances ecosystem
issues such as habitat restoration and water quality requirements.
In addition, both the general public and the regulatory community must be encouraged to
accept and promote the need to balance water quality, habitat and ecosystem restoration and
flood control issues. Often there is a preference for scenic and heavily vegetated flood
control waterways in lieu of concrete channels. However, when the need for flood capacity
demands the removal of some vegetation, it becomes extremely difficult to win approval
from the regulatory agencies as well as environmentally sensitive members of the general
public.
Undertaking "simple" maintenance actIVItIes requires significant work to assess each
location's unique environmental requirements and to interface with the regulatory agencies
to secure the appropriate permits. It is recommended that the City undertake at least this
step so that maintenance activities can begin.
/-t.L
04/05/07 Workshop
Page 13 of 35
The City's Historical Efforts and Summary of Current Work
City staff and the City's consultants have prepared various Drainage Master Plans and
studies from 1964 to the present. The last study to include a list of drainage priorities and
cost estimates was the "Report on Flooding and Proposed Corrective Facilities," which was
prepared by City staff in May 1992 and presented to City Council in July 1993 in
conjunction with the City's Growth Management Oversight Commission's 1992 Annual
Report. A total of 37 projects were identified at a total estimated cost of $13,561,000. As
part of the City's 2004 Drainage Master Plan, the known existing flooding problems in the
City were identified, with a discussion of the possible solutions.
An analysis of the City's Capital Improvements Program (CIP) and operations activities
from FY 2002 through FY 2006 shows that an estimated $9.0 million has been spent on
drainage projects. Capital appropriations came from a variety of sources including CDBG,
Gas Tax, Storm Drain Fees, and Grant Funds, with the bulk of funding coming from CDBG,
Residential Construction Tax and the Western Chula Vista Financing Program. The last
General Fund contribution was about $0.2 million in FY 2003.
Current Recommended Drainage Proiects
Based on the results of the historical studies and a survey of best practices, City staff has
developed a prioritization system for drainage projects. All recommended projects to
address drainage deficiencies, not involving Corrugated Metal Pipe (which is discussed in
the following section), have been grouped into Priority Tiers 1 through 5 based on the
frequency and severity of flooding. Each Priority Tier contains from three to five
recommended projects. Detailed estimates were prepared for Priority 1 projects, while
rough cost estimate ranges were prepared for Priorities 2 through 4. Priority 5 needs are
currently addressed through maintenance actions; however, they are included for capital
consideration because it has been determined that a capital intervention could eliminate or at
least minimize ongoing maintenance requirements.
The table below summarizes the categories, projects and estimated total funding
requirement (2006 dollars). Priority 1 Tier gives project details; the remaining priority tiers
are summarized in the aggregate and with cost ranges.
/-/,3
04/05/07 Workshop
Page 14 of35
Bonita Basia: Bonita Road and Allen School Road
Bonita Basia: Can on from Terra Nova Drive to Bonita Road
Central Basia: East of Second Avenue and North ofH Street
Central Basia: Hillto Drive, Hillto Drive, s/o H Street to Shasta Street
Lon Can on Basia: Can on from Corral Can on and East H to channel
Telegraph Canyon Basia: Coun!l)' Club Drive culvert, channel and First
Avenue culvert; Hilltop Park upstream of First Avenue and Millan Court;
east of Hillto Drive south of Tele h Can on Road
Telegraph Canyon Basia: Fourth A venue to Third A venue channel and L
Street Culvert
Tele h Can on Basia: Moss Street and Fifth Avenue
Telegraph Canyon Basia: Third A venue and Emerson Street to 900' west;
Emerson Street draioa e s stem
Total Priori ) Tier Unfunded Pro' ects
$ 500,000
$ 3,900,000
$ 1,500,000
$ 1,800,000
$ 4,600,000
$ 5,600,000
$ 7,100,000
$ 900,000
$ 2,900,000 (FUNDED)
Of the Priority 1 Tier, the Hilltop Drive project ($1.8 million) is recommended for
advancement should funding be identified. This project was requested by the impacted
residents in the early 1960's and received City Council support at that time. The project was
partially funded as DR-134 and some preliminary work was done. In FY 2005, the project
was deleted due to an ongoing inability to identify the remainder of the needed funding.
In order to have a complete picture of current and future drainage deficiencies within the
City, staff needs to be able to run various scenarios to determine the effect of development
on the City's drainage capacity. Staff is proposing a new CIP project which would modify
the software developed with the Drainage Master Plan. This would allow staff to run
various scenarios based on changing conditions, incorporating the County's latest hydrology
modeling requirements and taking into account the effect of detention basins.
Corrugated Metal Pipe Recommendations
As noted above, recommended drainage projects focus primarily on specific needs to
address current or potential flooding situations. Corrugated Metal Pipe (CMP)
recommendations relate to the piping system that carries urban runoff and storm water to a
discharge point.
Based on the CMP needs identified as part of the 2004 Master Plan, the City retained a
consultant to televise and prioritize replacement/rehabilitation of the CMP within the city.
To date, approximately 14 miles of the City's total known 16 miles of CMP have been
3 Unable to estimate two of eight projects at this time.
/-p!
04/05/07 Workshop
Page 15 of35
televised. The remaining approximately two miles of CMP was not inspected due to access
issues. These issues included damaged pipe, paved over or buried access points and
cleanouts that were not installed. CMP is typically one of a municipality's older assets and
thus records to base an inventory upon can be scarce or inaccurate.
In addition to the recommended drainage projects summarized above, CMP projects have
been placed in a recommended prioritization of effort--from those pipes that require
immediate attention to pipes that are structurally sound but should eventually be lined. The
high cost of these projects is primarily due to their location in very tight work areas, between
structures, under roadways, as well as sensitive environmental issues.
The total CMP need is estimated to be $29 million (2006); more details is provided in the
table below. Should new or increased revenue be realized, a CMP program of$5.8 million
annually for five years is recommended.
ESTIMATED CMP
REPLACEMENT COST
. This line item only gives the total for the added pipe. The rest is under Current CIP.
Funding for Drainage and CMP Proiects
Drainage, including CMP, is another area where there are no readily available funding
sources such as restricted 20A funds for utility wire undergrounding or Transnet funding for
transportation/street projects. Ideally, the City would move to a watershed-based program
that could integrate multiple objectives such as ecosystem restoration, flood control
requirements and water quality. An adequate, equitable and dedicated funding source for
drainage, perhaps ultimately approached through watershed-based programs, that would
fund not only capital but also operations and maintenance is needed.
Because there is no specific funding for these types of municipal projects, they are
especially challenging to initiate and complete. Thus, current project prioritization is
primarily driven by availability of specific funding (e.g., CnBG funding in eligible areas)
and special compatibility with grant opportunities and/or legislative funding opportunities.
/-/0
04/05/07 Workshop
Page ]6 of35
Funding sources used in the past have included Storm Drain Fee revenue, Residential
Construction Tax (RCT) and Community Development Block Grants. These funding
sources are now otherwise committed (CDBO to the recently received HUD loan for the
Castle Park sidewalk program; RCT to the Western Chula Vista Infrastructure Financing
Program debt obligation) and/or are insufficient to fund required activities. For example,
current Storm Drain Fee revenue at 70t per month per residence is entirely dedicated to
storm drain maintenance and is not even sufficient to fund maintenance activities required to
fulfill federal and state mandates that continue to grow more stringent, let alone fund capital
projects for flood control and storm water management.
Funding for drainage projects and maintenance could be realized from an increase to the 70t
per month per residence Storm Drain Fee currently in place. FY 2007 revenue projected
from the current fee is just over $500,000--far short of the revenue needed to keep up with
mandated maintenance let alone undertake capital drainage projects. Increasing this fee to
$2.10 per month per residence would result in an estimated $1.5 million in revenue--still
not adequate, but an important option to consider. This would require voter approval. Other
potential funding sources that can be applied more broadly, perhaps to drainage, are
discussed in the funding section at the end of this report.
PAVEMENT
The major focus oftonight's workshop is pavement management. The pavement contract
season is upon us and determination of a two-year approach is necessary to both optimize
pavement contracting and available funds.
The City initiated and has maintained a pavement
management system since 1986 in accordance with the
California Streets and Highways Code, which requires
California cities to implement a pavement management
system as a condition to obtain funding from the State
transportation improvement programs. Pavement
assessment is recommended every three to five years.
In 1986 the City hired a consultant to begin a system of
pavement inspection using laser detection technology and
City streets were retested using the same method in 1995 and 2002. At that time, laser
inspection was presumed to be the latest technology and was perceived to be more
accurate than visual inspection due to the presumed objectivity of a non-human system.
However, based on the practical experience of our engineering! operations staff and field
experts, as well as engineering professionals from other municipalities, visual inspection
is currently considered to be a more reliable method of pavement testing if conducted by
trained, experienced professionals to maximize consistent evaluation.
The last pavement condition survey was done by Infrastructure Management Services (IMS)
in the winter of 2002. IMS' s analysis of the City's data concluded that the City would need
to program and spend a total five-year budget of approximately $46.6 million to maintain
the existing pavement condition level of76 (on a scale of 0 to 100). A budget scenario was
/-/(P
04/05/07 Workshop
Page 17 of35
run specifying the City's current annual budget with a 3% yearly inflation factor and it
resulted in a condition level reduction to 71 in five years.
An analysis of the City's Capital Improvements Program (CIP) and operations activities
from FY 2002 through FY 2006 shows that an estimated $45.9 million has been spent on
street rehabilitation/renovation projects and approximately $25.4 million has been spent on
roadway capacity enhancement projects. This included citywide pavement overlay
contracts for $7.4 million, $2.7 million and $2.5 million; the reconstruction of Main Street
from Broadway to 1805 (%5.5 million) and the reconstruction of H Street from 15 to
Broadway.
Capital appropriations came from a variety of sources including CDBG, Gas Tax, Grant
Funds, Residential Construction Tax, and Proposition 42, with the bulk of funding coming
from Transnet. The last General Fund contribution was about $0.9 million in FY 2002.
This General Fund contribution was used for landscaping beautification efforts associated
with the reconstruction ofH Street between Broadway and 15.
The most recent contract for pavement testing and management services was awarded by
City Council to Nichols Engineering on January 10,2006; the results of this work form
the basis of tonight's recommended next steps.
Rating Pavement
The City's new (2006) pavement management system is based on visual inspection, and
therefore does not directly correlate to previous inspections. Asphaltic Concrete (AC)
and Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) pavements are scored according to different
criteria. Over 90% of the pavement in the City is AC, which is rated low, medium and
high for the following distresses:
. Alligator cracking
. Block cracking
. Distortions (bumps, sags, shoving)
. Longitudinal and transverse cracking
. Deterioration of patching/ utility cuts
. Rutting and depressions
. Weathering and raveling (surface wear)
The City's remaining pavement is either PCC covered with an AC overlay or PCC. If
the pavement has an AC overlay, it is rated according to the categories for AC pavement.
The PCC pavement is rated low, medium and high for the following distresses:
. Comer breaks
. Divided (shattered) slab
. Faulting (difference in elevation across ajoint)
. Linear cracking (longitudinal, transverse and diagonal cracks)
/-17
04/05/07 Workshop
Page 18 of35
. Deterioration of patching! utility cuts
. Scaling and map cracking (network of hairline cracks)
. Spalling (breakdown of slab edges or comer)
The rating for these components is then combined to give a total rating for each street
segment (generally from intersection to intersection). These ratings can be categorized
as follows:
. Excellent to Very Good: 100 down to 85
. Good: 85 down to 70
. Fair: 70 down to 50
. Poor: 50 down to 25
. Very Poor: 25 to 0
2006 Chula Vista Pavement RatingS
The current estimated citywide pavement rating is 79 with the range of scores falling
between 13 and 100. As noted above, comparing the details of the 2006 numbers to the
2002 numbers is an apples to oranges comparison given the different methodologies.
The map packet for tonight's workshop includes a GIS-based citywide view of the
pavement condition by street segment.
The Case Against "Worst-First" and the Case for a Pavement Management System
The philosophy of pavement preventative maintenance - applying the right treatment on the
right street at the right time - represents a dramatic change in philosophy, strategy and
direction for most agencies and particularly for the public.
The worst-fust strategy quickly depletes available funding
focusing on streets that cannot get worse. In the meantime,
streets in acceptable condition continue to deteriorate due to lack of attention, opportunities
to expand the useful service life cost effectively are lost and the backlog continues to grow
as these once acceptable streets quickly drop into the "major rehabilitation needed"
category. The result is a quickly growing backlog that outpaces any progress made by
sinking all available funding into the worst streets.
Previously, the most common approach to project selection
within a network was the "worst-fITst" strategy. In this case,
the pavements that are selected for treatment are those that are
closest to failure. Accordingly, the treatments that are applied
are more expensive and more time-consuming to construct.
Pavement preventative maintenance programs begin, either formally or informally, with the
concept that cost-effective treatments can be applied earlier in a pavement's life. These
treatments are thinner, are very cost-effective, are constructed relatively rapidly with
minimal disruption to the motoring public, and reach or exceed their design lives because
they are applied to pavements that are in generally good condition.
/-4'
04/05/07 Workshop
Page 19 of35
Pavement management is the process of evaluating and tracking the conditions of streets,
identifying when streets require maintenance/ rehabilitation, and choosing the appropriate
maintenance/ rehabilitation method for those streets. Experts conduct an evaluation of the
pavement surface, each street is then ranked based on a Pavement Condition Index (PCI),
and finally an appropriate maintenance strategy is recommended based on this PCI. This
process also includes budgeting for street maintenance funding and conducting
inventories of street assets. An effective pavement management system provides a
systematic and objective method for determining priorities and the optimal time for
repaIr.
Even though transportation/street maintenance is one of the few areas where regional and
state monies are allocated (Transnet, Proposition 42, Proposition lB), needs continue to
exceed available funding. Most public agencies face financial constraints and must make
choices about how to spend their limited transportation dollars. Even with dedicated
pavement preventative maintenance funding, a choice must be made regarding how to
maintain pavement. When funding constraints are present, preventative maintenance and
worst-first strategies are incompatible.
Pavement Rehabilitation Methods
All streets deteriorate over time and will eventually require some form of maintenance.
The timing and type of maintenance needed for any given street depends on several
variables including the condition of the street, the type of traffic on the street, and the
structural properties of the street. A pavement management system tracks and quantifies
these factors. This provides the City with helpful information that can be used to decide
which streets require maintenance, when to perform the maintenance, and how much it
will cost.
The type of maintenance strategy selected is based on the condition of the street. A
street in the Excellent to Very Good Category may not require any maintenance other
than crack filling, while a street in the Very Poor category may need a total
reconstruction, involving removal and/or recycling of the current asphalt and base
courses. Costs increase exponentially depending on the level of treatment - crack
sealing and a Rubber Emulsified Aggregate Slurry (REAS - also known as a Flex Seal)
costs $3.00 to $4.00 per square yard (including soft costs), while a complete
reconstruction costs approximately $65.00 to $135.00 per square yard. Even when
considering the longer life provided by a reconstruction or overlay (approximately 25
years for a reconstruction or 15 to 20 years for an overlay as compared to five to seven
years for a seal) it is apparent that sealing a street is more cost-effective.
/-/7
04/05/07 Workshop
Page 20 of35
The typical pavement deterioration curve is shown below. A pavement surface
deteriorates exponentially after a certain point is reached, generally in the Fair category
Pavement Deterioration Curve
C 100
0
E 80
"C ~
Co
oil. 60
0-
- ><
C Gl 40
Gl"C
E C
Gl- 20
>
l'll
a.. 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Pavement Age (Years)
- - - Arterial
-Collector
- -Residential
(between 60 and 70). Beyond that point, more expensive rehabilitation methods will be
required, such as overlays or total reconstruction.
Following is a description of maintenance and rehabilitation methods that have been
used by the City:
I. REAS Seal: Rubber Emulsified Aggregate Slurry (REAS) seals, also known as
Flex Seals, are ideally applied every five to seven years after street construction or
rehabilitation in order to maintain the pavement surface on streets with little to no
structural failure. A slurry seal is a thin (less than one-inch thick) layer of asphalt
emulsion, dense aggregate, water and additives that are mixed together and
applied on the pavement. Crack sealing! filling should be done prior to application
of the seal. This method is the least expensive of the strategies used by the City
for rehabilitating the entire street surface. The unit price for this application is
approximately $3.00 to $4.00 per square yard, including overhead and soft costs.
If streets needing this strategy are ignored, the pavement surface will deteriorate
at an exponential rate, thus requiring a more expensive pavement maintenance
strategy, such as an ARAM seal coat or pavement overlay.
2. Chip Seals: For non-residential streets (typically arterials and collectors), a chip
seal is an appropriate maintenance strategy. A chip seal involves spraying a thin
layer of asphalt emulsion, and then immediately spreading a thin aggregate cover.
This creates a rougher surface with greater friction than slurry seals, which is
more appropriate for higher speeds. Like a slurry seal, this method should be
used in conjunction with crack sealingl filling. The unit price for this application
is approximately $6.50 per square yard.
3. ARAM Seal Coat: The ARAM Seal Coat method of pavement rehabilitation is
performed on streets in which the pavement condition requires more than aREAS
slurry seal, but not necessarily a pavement overlay. Streets requiring this
/-";;'0
04/05/07 Workshop
Page 2] of35
pavement strategy typically have no structural failure, but have minor cracking.
This seal coat strategy consists of the application of an Asphalt Rubber Aggregate
Membrane (ARAM) chip seal over the existing pavement surface in conjunction
with crack sealing! filling. This method of rehabilitation costs approximately
$8.00 per square yard.
4. Pavement Overlays: Pavement overlays are applied on streets that show signs of
structural failure, such as alligator cracking. Dig-outs (four-inch deep removal
and replacement of failed pavement) are performed to remove the areas of
structural failure and a minimum I y," thick pavement overlay is placed above the
existing pavement surface to complete this method of rehabilitation. ADA
requirements would trigger the installation of pedestrian ramps if there are no
existing ramps or the existing ramps are deemed non-compliant. The work for
this application typically includes edge grinding, adjustment of manholes/ valves/
monuments, and pedestrian ramp construction. The unit price for this method of
rehabilitation is approximately $34.00 per square yard for a I y," thick overlay.
5. Pavement Reconstruction: Pavement reconstruction is performed on streets that
cannot be rehabilitated by any of the strategies mentioned above. Streets
requiring reconstruction show evidence of overall structural failure and need to
have the existing pavement and base course removed/recycled so that they can be
reconstructed with an adequately designed pavement section, which is based on
several factors: street classification, traffic index and R-Value (resistance value)
of the sub grade soils. Many of these streets were not designed for modem day
transportation requirements (e.g., heavier vehicles, higher volumes). The
estimated cost of reconstruction varies from $65.00 per square yard for a cul-de-
sac to $135.00 per square yard based on thickness of the pavement and base
course.
Existing Conditions
As of January 2006, the City had approximately 441 centerline miles of public streets and
alleys, of which approximately 431 centerline miles are public streets that are open to
traffic. This is somewhat higher than the 387.3 center line miles of accepted streets
reported in the Fiscal Year 2005-06 GASB 34 report, due to additional streets accepted
since the time the last GASB was prepared. The total City street network by functional
class and average PCI is provided in the table below.
As the chart below indicates, the average PCI for Chula Vista's 431 centerline miles of
public paved streets is 79 as of 2006, which puts the average street in Good condition. If
no rehabilitation were done over the next ten years, the average PCI for the entire
network would be projected to drop below 60. Should the overall network fall below 70,
it becomes almost impossible to catch up with the backlog.
/-.;J.!
04/05/07 Workshop
Page 22 of35
CHULA VISTA PAVEMENT NETWORK
10.1
Centerline
Miles
46.5
74.4
309.9
440.9
Streets were also rated by functional class. It was determined that the City's arterials,
which comprise approximately 18.9% of the City's network, have an average PCI of 80.
Residential streets, with about 60.6% of the network, have a PCI of 79, while collector
streets, with about 19.6% of the network, have an average PCI of 77.
The phase one GIS map included in the workshop packet provides specific street
information. Please note that the Excellent to Very Good and Good categories are
combined; the Fair, Poor and Very Poor categories are shown separately. The map
provides the detail regarding the greater proportion of poor streets in western Chula
Vista. The older portion of eastern Chula Vista west of Brandywine Ave.! Medical
Center Drive also has a large concentration of fair and poor streets.
City-owned alleys have generally not been included in the City's pavement rehabilitation
programs, because they are considered to be secondary access ways that are only used by
vehicles serving the local properties. However, should the City pursue a comprehensive
Infrastructure Asset Management Program, alleys should be included as a managed asset.
Approximately half the alleys are PCC, which is considered to be the standard for alleys
due to usage by trash trucks, and they are in excellent to good condition. Approximately
1.1 miles have a gravel or dirt surface and were not rated. The remaining alleys are ACC,
are in Poor to Very Poor condition, and most require total reconstruction. Privately
owned alleys would not be eligible for city-funded maintenance.
Pavement Rehabilitation Scenarios
In the past, the City sometimes used resident request to assist in the formation of
priorities for the construction of street improvements. Transitioning to a
true pavement management approach would minimize the use of citizen
request data instead relying on objective assessment and computerized
analysis.
True implementation of a pavement management system is often difficult
for residents to understand because relatively new streets may be seen
receiving treatment (the average person may not understand the difference between a
/- .).;J....
04/05/07 Workshop
Page 23 of 35
seal, an overlay, etc.) whereas a street needing reconstruction may appear to be ignored.
The reality is that the pavement management system drives the best use of dollars to
avoid having the pace of streets falling into the reconstruct category outpace available
funding.
The purpose of a pavement management system is to enable the City
to use its pavement dollars in the most cost-effective manner so that
the overall pavement condition is as good as possible. Therefore, it is
generally more cost effective to do a balanced program of seals and
overlays than to just do all the worst streets. If seals and overlays are
applied at the right time, further deterioration can be avoided, thereby
postponing or eliminating a more expensive type of repair. If a street
requires reconstruction, timing is not as important, since further
deterioration will not affect the type of treatment required. Also due to
the high cost of reconstruction, many more streets can be rehabilitated
using seals or overlays.
The StreetSaver@ program is the basis for the City's updated pavement management
system. StreetSaver@ is non-proprietary software originally developed by the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission of the San Francisco Bay Area, so it is
specifically based on California road conditions and is one of the most widely used
pavement management programs in the State. The StreetSaver@ program includes a
number of assumptions that can be reset by the user.
Initially, staff is using many of the assumptions recommended by the City's consultant.
The assumptions will be revisited as practical experience is gained with our city streets
and their unique characteristics. Priority is given to the City's major streets through
weighting factors: Arterials are given a weighting factor of 1.0, while collectors have a
factor of 0.72 and residential streets have a factor of 0.55. The program schedules seals
for residential streets every seven years, and every five years for arterials and collectors.
There is a PCI cap of 90, which assumes that no treatment will be necessary if the PCI is
above 90.
A copy of the StreetSaver@ Decision Tree is attached (see Attachment 3). The
Preventive Maintenance Decision Tree only applies to pavement in Good to Very Good
condition (PCI is greater than 70). Fair streets (noted as "Good" in the Decision Tree)
fall into either Category III if there are significant load-related distresses, such as alligator
cracking or rutting, or Category II if not. Poor and Very Poor Streets are classified as
Category IV and V, respectively. For Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) pavement, the
Consultant estimated that five percent of the slabs would need to be replaced for
Categories II and III, and 15 percent would need to be replaced for Category IV. For
asphalt (AC) pavement, standard treatments used by the City are included. However, it is
assumed that a thicker (2") overlay should be used for Category III Arterials due to the
larger traffic loads. Milling/grinding will probably be necessary if the street has been
overlaid in the past in order to reduce the height of the street, particularly at the gutter.
/-;>'3
04/05/07 Workshop
Page 24 of 35
The Consultant has recommended one additional treatment for Arterials and Collectors in
Poor condition, and that is the RAC Overlay. This type of overlay uses less asphalt and
includes rubber recycled from old tires. This treatment is very temperature sensitive, but
it can increase durability if properly applied and it can also reduce traffic noise. The cost
has generally been higher than conventional AC overlays, but it has become more cost-
effective with the increasing price of petroleum and asphalt.
Staff then used the StreetSaver@ software to look at several types of programs over a ten-
year period for 2006 through 2015. Six of these scenarios are summarized below. All
scenarios are in 2006 dollars. Based on the current condition of the City's streets, the
City's consultant has determined that the City is starting out with an estimated backlog of
$43 million in streets that need maintenance and/or rehabilitation. It should be noted that
the reconstruct estimates included in the backlog are for pavement surface only, funding
estimates for other infrastructure complexities that challenge project initiation and
completion (e.g., right-of-way, drainage, etc.) were not estimated with this project phase.
One of the major funding sources for the City's pavement/transportation projects to date
has been Transnet (approximately $5 million to $6 million annually). The original
Transnet was scheduled to end in FY 2008; an extension was approved by voters and
begins in FY 2009. The Transnet extension imposes more strenuous restrictions on the
use of funding, including a requirement that 70% of a city's funding allocation must go
towards "capacity enhancing" activities-major street rehabilitations qualify as capacity
enhancing. Only 30% of funds may be used for maintenance (including seals). This
assumption has been built into the budget scenarios described below; however it may
threaten the optimal implementation of a pavement management system. If this is the
case, the Transnet extension provides an appeal process that staff recommends be
undertaken if necessary to support the practical application of a pavement management
system.
Scenario 1: Ideal Budget. This scenario answers the question, "What would be the
funding requirement to eliminate the current estimated backlog and maintain or improve
the overall PCI?" The analysis shows that an approximate investment of $19.2 million
per year for ten years (actual total is $188.1 million) would eliminate the backlog by the
end of the tenth year and improve the City's overall PCI from 79 to 81.4
Scenario 2: Budget to Maintain Current PCI (79). In order to maintain the current PCI of
79 over a ten-year timeframe, an expenditure of $14.5 million per year for the first six
years and about $20 million for the last four years is required. The total ten-year
expenditure requirement is approximately $171 million. The backlog drops to
approximately $30 million in this funding scenario.
Scenario 3: Existing Budget (High), This scenario takes all funding already appropriated
for pavement activities for Fiscal Year 2007, anticipated Transnet funding over the next
4 It should be noted however that reconstruct estimates included in the backlog are for pavement surface
only, funding estimates for other infrastructure complexities that challenge project initiation and
completion (e.g., right-of-way, drainage, etc.) were not estimated with this project phase.
/-~~
04105107 Workshop
Page 25 of 35
five-years, interest earnings on Transnet, anticipated Proposition 42 funding, plus the
addition of funds previously and currently allocated for reconstruction of North
Broadway and North Fourth Avenue from Davidson Street to SR-54. It assumes that
these streets will be considered by the software based on their current attributes, and will
compete with all other streets in Chula Vista on the basis of the pavement management
system criteria. The total assumed funding is $70,304,665 over ten years. At the end of
that period, the Citywide PCI is estimated to decrease from 79 to 68, with the backlog
increasing to approximately $130 million (compared to $160 million if the existing
budget is not revised).
Scenario 4: Existing Budget (Low). This is based on the City's existing five-year plan
for use of Transnet funds, plus Proposition 42 funding. The second five-year period is
assumed to be the same. The total funding would be $39,804,000 over ten years. At the
end of that period, the Citywide PCI is estimated to decrease from 79 to 64, with the
backlog increasing to approximately $160 million-almost four times the current
estimate.
All these scenarios assume an average rate of deterioration based on available data for
California streets. The scenarios do not assume the addition of new streets to the
network, which increases the citywide average PCI and adds to the inventory that must be
managed.
Due to the high cost or unacceptable end result of these scenarios, two additional
scenarios have been run covering only two years each. This allows the City to consider
additional revenue streams during the two-year period.
Scenario 5: Two-Year High Budget. This scenario is the two-year version of Scenario 3
above. It assumes a budget of $11.5 million in FY 2007 and $9.5 million in FY 2008. It
includes the transfer of funds from the North Broadway and North Fourth Avenue CIP
projects in order to let those projects receive equal consideration with all other City street
in the automated program. It also assumes that all available Transnet and Proposition 42
funds will be applied to the rehabilitation program in 2007. The anticipated Proposition
IB allocation of $3.5 million is included in the FY 2008 figure. The most significant
difference between this scenario and Scenario 3 is that the backlog increases to an
estimated $115 million as compared to $130 million because more streets on the edge of
dropping into the rehabilitation category within the first two years are pulled back into
the "Iess-cost-required" maintenance category.
Since the percentage of maintenance funds from Transnet will be limited to 30%
beginning in July 2008 assuming an appeal is not approved, staff will be recommending
that the majority of the currently unrestricted Transnet funding go toward preventive
maintenance in 2007. Although the $11.5 million available in the first year is
significantly higher than what the City has been able to typically put toward pavement, it
is significantly lower than the $20 million required to maintain the current PCI (see
Scenario 1); therefore, the PCI after two years' treatment in this scenario is projected to
decrease from 79 to 76.
I-~S
04/05/07 Workshop
Page 26 of35
Scenario 6: Two- Year Low Budget. This scenario is the two-year version of Scenario 4
above. This scenario assumes that the North Broadway and Fourth Avenue projects will
remain in the CIP and be implemented. Therefore, the remaining pavement budget will
be approximately $3.1 million in 2007 and $1.7 million in 2008. The maintenance
percentages will be similar to the previous scenarios. The PCI after two years' treatment
is projected to be 75.
For the purposes of these scenario runs, no funding was allocated toward reconstruction
projects, due to the fact that such projects are expensive and not cost-effective on a
citywide basis. However, the inventory and condition assessment process did include
identification of streets needing reconstruction. Results indicate that 24 street segments
of a total 2,84 I street segments needed reconstruction in 2006; another 13 are
recommended for reconstruction in 2007, and; an additional 24 segments are
recommended for 2008. The total estimated funding requirement for these three years is
approximately $1 I. 7 million for these three years.
Given constructability issues, the real cost of reconstructing these streets could be several
times that amount. It is recommended that the City seek out additional funding through
grant opportunities and legislative earmarks or bonding as discussed as an option later in
this report. These streets would be selected outside the Pavement Management System,
and would be ranked based upon the following criteria: Condition (PCI rating),
Classification, Constructability (including sufficient right-of-way and consideration of
the degree of drainage and missing infrastructure issues), as well as Citizens' Requests.
Due to the City's extensive backlog, Scenario 5 is the recommended as an immediate
next step. Should this recommendation be accepted, just over $ I 1.5 million in pavement
work would be contracted out before the end of FY 2007 and an estimated $9.5 million
would be contracted out in FY 2008. The most distinct advantage of this Scenario is that
it avoids an additional $30 million of backlog accruing at the end often years.
During the two years test run, the Collector and Arterial Streets would be re-inspected
giving an actual indication of the rate of deterioration of City streets to compare to the
projected rates assumed in the software model. This would also give staff an opportunity
to propose an alternative method of financing a more aggressive rehabilitation program
should tonight's Council direction indicate an interest in doing so.
Analvzing Final Program Choices Before ImDlementation
While the StreetSaver@ software generates various objective scenarios for consideration,
staff must evaluate each variation. Further evaluation includes actual street pavement
performance as compared to the model's assumptions, practical observations compared to
the software's recommendations, updated construction costs and application of treatment
methodologies, etc.
The software generates scenarios for a five-year program. Before proceeding with each
year's implementation of the selected five-year scenario, staff will look across the five-
year window and may group street segments appearing any where within the five-year
/-~~
04/05/07 Workshop
Page 27 of35
window to ensure that the resulting pavmg contract IS bundled to make the most
economic use of available funding.
Other Considerations for Pavement Management
No-Cut Rule: A no-cut rule or moratorium on excavations specifies that no excavations
are allowed for a certain number of years after pavement overlays unless emergency
circumstances prevail. If a no-cut rule exists, the most common time frame is three years,
although in some cases it is longer (e.g., five years). The prevalence of a no-cut rule
varies significantly depending on the culture in the municipality, the degree of
development (high development areas used fewer no-cut rules) and community
sensitivity in regard to repeat disruptions. It should be noted that even when a no-cut rule
exists, its success in restricting repeat excavations is variable. Unless this is understood
when instituting a no-cut rule, false expectations can be raised which, in turn can lead to
negative community perceptions.
Pavement Restoration Procedures: With respect to actual road repair procedures, various
mechanisms are used by municipalities ranging from the utility company repairing the
excavation to municipal specifications, to the city coordinating the final pavement
restoration at the utility company's expense, to a flat charge pavement repair system
which transfers the responsibility for the final repair to the City in exchange for a per
square foot charge to the utility company.
Pavement Degradation Fees: An inherent by-product of utility cuts is the reduced service
life of pavements. No matter how well a utility cut is repaired, the nature of the
excavation process and the disturbance of the sub-base have a significant effect on
lessening the overall life of the pavement infrastructure.
Municipalities that have implemented such a fee have related the fee to the age of the last
overlay. Others have adopted a flat rate for ease of administration. Technically, a
relationship to the age of the last overlay is a more accurate method of reflecting the true
effects of utility cuts on pavement life.
Developer Requirements: Currently, developers are required to seal coat a new street
after paving. However, current knowledge regarding the chemistry and wear of
pavement indicates that it would be preferable to omit the seal coat directly after paving
and to place the funds for this work into a City account to seal coat the street after at least
three years of use. This would cover the City's first normal maintenance cost for the
street.
Idealistically, the City should reqUIre optimal design standards for all new street
construction and reconstruction. Although this may increase costs for developers and the
City initially, the longer wear and consequent deferral of expensive resurfacing and
reconstruction projects will benefit the City and its residents in the long term.
It is recommended that all of these concepts be further studied for potential
implementation.
/-~7
04/05/07 Workshop
Page 28 of35
Current Funding Sources for Local Streets and Roads
This part of the report covers various funding sources that have been used in the past for
pavement repair and rehabilitation. A more general discussion of infrastructure funding
occurs toward the end of the report. The sources of funding for local streets and roads
include the following:
Gas Tax: This refers to the gasoline excise tax (Highway Users Tax) that is paid by
consumers at the gas pump. As specified in Sections 2105 - 2110 of the California
Streets and Highways Code, a portion of this revenue is distributed to California cities
based on the ratio of a given city's population to the population of California cities as a
whole as well as the city's actual maintained miles. Cities with populations between
100,000 and 500,000 also receive an additional $10,000 per year. These revenues vary
on a monthly basis, but the City's annual revenue has generally been between $4.0
million and $5.0 million.
These revenues can be used for research, planning, design, administration, construction
and maintenance of public streets, highways, mass transit guideways and related facilities
for non-motorized traffic. Acquisition of right-of-way and environmental mitigation
related to such facilities is also eligible for funding. The City has historically allocated
these funds to the operating budget to pay for general street maintenance, such as:
potholing, patching and filling cracks, and street related improvements, such as sidewalks
repair. Generally, a small portion of this funding ($1.0 million or less) has been used for
small Capital Improvement Program (CIP) projects related to transportation planning or
maintenance, such as street signing and striping, cross gutter replacement and the
Neighborhood Traffic and Pedestrian Safety Program. Due to increased maintenance
costs, the use of these funds for CIP projects will be limited in the future.
In the 1970's and 1980's, gas tax monies were predominantly used to fund street CIP
projects. While gas tax revenues have increased from $749,000 in 1975 to approximately
$5.0 million in FY 2006, the use of these funds to support street improvement CIP
projects has declined. Meanwhile, the amount used for street operations, traditionally
funded by the General Fund, increased. However, trying to shift gas tax dollars back to
street CIPs without new or increased revenue only results in transferring the shortfall
from street CIPs to street maintenance operations.
Proposition 42 Funds: This proposition was adopted in 2002 and pertains to the Motor
Vehicle Fuel Sales Tax. Funds from this tax were originally allocated to cities in
accordance with Assembly Bill 2928, which was enacted in 2000, and distributed on the
basis of population. Due to State budget shortages, these funds were not distributed to
cities and counties for several years. As a result, a complimentary proposition was
adopted on the California ballot in 2002 in order to amend the California Constitution to
limit and regulate the suspension of this fund transfer.
The City received its first allocation after passage of Proposition 42 in FY 2006.
Proposition 42 funds must be spent by June 30th of the fiscal year following their
allocation. According to Proposition 42 and Section 7104 of the California Revenue and
Taxation Code, the allocation can only be used by cities for street and highway
/-..).8
04/05/07 Workshop
Page 29 005
maintenance, rehabilitation, reconstruction and storm damage repair. Storm damage
repair is limited to repair, reconstruction and construction of new drainage improvements
in jurisdictions that have been declared Federal disaster areas.
Annual revenue is estimated to be $1.0 million with the exception of FY 2008. Since an
advance of Proposition 42 funding was provided to California cities, there will be a one-
year gap of Proposition 42 funding.
Transnet: San Diego County voters originally approved The Transnet Program in
November 1987, with funding to be provided by a Y:z percent sales tax in place from 1988
through March 31, 2008. One third of the revenues are allocated by SANDAG to local
agencies for local streets and roads funding. Funds from the original Transnet program
can be used to repair and rehabilitate existing roadways, to reduce congestion and
improve safety, and to construct needed facilities. The original program is slated to
expire at the end of June 2008.
In November 2006, San Diego County voters approved a 40-year Transnet
Extension (to April 2048). This extension gives priority to facilities
contributing to congestion relief. As of FY 2009, at least 70 percent of
funds distributed to local agencies must be used to fund construction of new
or expanded facilities, major rehabilitation and reconstruction of roadways,
traffic signalization, transportation infrastructure to support Smart Growth,
capital improvements for transit facilities, and operating support for local
shuttle and circulator transit routes. No more than 30 percent of Transnet
funds can be used for local street and road maintenance. SANDAG has
defined major rehabilitation as including pavement overlays one-inch thick or greater.
SANDAG has also proposed a one percent limitation (included as part of the 30 percent)
for all planning and studies not directly related to a project. The City's revenue from this
source has recently averaged from $5.0 million to $6.0 million.
General Fund: For the most part, the General Fund has not been used to fund street
rehabilitation and maintenance. However, all of the above funding sources have a
"Maintenance of Effort" provision that requires the City to spend at least as much out of
its discretionary funds (local funds that have "no strings" on their usage) as it spent
during some period prior to the passage of the legislation authorizing the funding. The
Gas Tax and original Transnet legislation stipulates funding equal to the amount spent
during FY 1985; the Transnet extension requires funding equal to the average ofFY 2001
through 2003 adjusted every three years based on the Construction Cost Index developed
Caltrans; and Proposition 42 requires funding at the average level ofFY 1997 through FY
1999. This requirement has been met through expenditures within the operating budget
to finance staff costs associated with the City's street maintenance crews.
Legislation: Several bond measures qualified for the November 2006 ballot. The ballot
measure impacting transportation most is SB1266, the Highway Safety, Traffic
Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security Bond Act of 2006, which was approved by
voters in November. $1.0 billion will go directly to cities for traffic congestion relief,
/-~~
04/05/07 Workshop
Page 30 of 35
traffic safety, transit, storm damage, maintenance, construction and other projects to
improve local streets. Preliminarily, Chula Vista's share has been calculated at
approximately $7.0 million. It currently appears that California cities receiving over
$400,000 will receive their allocations in two equal portions in 2008 and 2010; this
funding has been factored into Scenario 5 (the recommended scenario).
Local projects eligible for the $4.5 billion in the Corridor Mobility Improvement Account
(the largest portion of funding) needed to be nominated by SANDAG. The SANDAG
Board approved a list of projects on December 15,2006. The project of most interest to
the City is the addition of two High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes to I-80S between
SR-94 and Palomar Street. Subsequently, the California Transportation Commission did
not approve this project.
New and/or Increased Funding Possibilities
Vehicle Registration Fees: Recently, State legislation has been proposed to allow local
counties to impose new vehicle registration fees for clean water purposes. Congestion
management and street cleaning are considered approved programs for clean water
purposes. In 2004, San Mateo County was authorized to enact a $4 annual fee per
registered vehicle.
Alternative Funding Sources: There may be alternative funding sources available for
some of the City's larger projects, particularly gateways such as North Fourth Avenue.
These projects may involve pavement rehabilitation, in addition to landscaping and other
enhancements. It is recommended that staff pursue grants and Federal earmarks, where
appropriate, for this work.
The State Recycling Board offers several small grants for the implementation of RAC
overlay programs. In the past, these grants have not been enough to subsidize the cost
differential between RAC and conventional overlays. However, City staff should pursue
these grants if a decision is made to do a RAC overlay contract.
Although general practice has dissuaded municipalities from issuing bonds for street
maintenance activities, a new school of thought is arising. The possibility of issuing
bonds to reduce the pavement rehabilitation backlog, particularly the streets that would
require reconstruction is beginning to get attention. This approach is getting more
attention as "new" streets (i.e., reconstructed streets) are estimated to have a life of25- to
30-years when pavement management strategies are utilized. Therefore, after
reconstruction, street life exceeds the time required to retire the debt.
Based on a five-percent bond issue with an assumed 20-year payback, the following table
summarizes the debt service and total actual payout associated with various potential
funding levels:
$10.0 million
$20.0 million
$30.0 million
$40.0 million
$0.80 million
$1.60 million
$2.40 million
$3.20 million
$16.00 million
$32.00 million
$48.22 million
$64.00 million
/--30
04105/07 Workshop
Page 31005
Another option may be to borrow funds from the State Revolving Fund or SANDAG,
which charge low interest rates. However, in response to an earlier Council referral
regarding the use of Proposition 42 monies to secure a bond--neither a bond issue nor
borrowing funds should be considered unless there is a specific and secure source of
future revenue that can be identified. This is not currently the case.
Additionally, there should be a specific advantage to having more money up front and a
specific use for the borrowed money. In the case of pavement, the specific use would be
street reconstruction. Treatments any less than reconstruction do not result in an
extension of service life that exceeds the time required to retire the debt.
Next Steos for a Pavement Management Effort
If the recommendations regarding the immediate next two years are approved, staff will
proceed with finalizing a StreetSaver@ data run for a recommended five-year program
that will be the basis of the execution of a paving contract to begin this calendar year.
After advertisement, the recommended award of the contract will come back to the City
Council with the list of streets, total amount of award, anticipated impact on the city's
overall PCI, etc.
After tonight's workshop, all policy discussion and specific direction will be integrated
into a more specific pavement management recommendation for implementation with the
2010 fiscal year. For instance, should the City Council direct further investigation into
pavement policies (e.g., potential implementation of a no-cut rule) and/or further
investigation of potential new or enhanced revenue streams, the resulting recommended
pavement management program would be significantly different than the result of a
maintained status quo situation. Final recommendations and projected results will be
brought to the City Council for consideration, discussion and approval.
PAYING FOR CHULA VISTA'S INFRASTRUCTURE SYSTEM
Dollars available for tonight's focus areas present a common municipal challenge. As
spending from general funds rises faster than revenues and as public safety services
expenses consume more general funds, dollars available for infrastructure needs have
become scarce to non-existent.
While a recent movement at the State level to implement new funding for infrastructure
will help in the area of transportation, these measures by themselves will not be sufficient
to overcome past years' under investment. Simply stated, more resources must be
identified, collected and committed. We will be challenged to consider how best to
leverage finite resources most effectively. Additional revenue streams implemented by
other California cities are summarized below.
Increase Sales Tax Locally: Another source of revenue would be passage of a municipal
sales tax increase. Vista, National City and EI Cajon have recently enacted a municipal
sales tax that was approved by the voters.
. Vista voters enacted a 30-year Yz percent sales tax in 2006 for general
governmental purposes. The City cited the need for funding of capital needs
/-31
04/05/07 Workshop
Page 32 of35
including new fire stations, new city hall, space for anti-gang and narcotics
deputies, new sports fields, as well as operational priorities including additional
staff for one of the new fire stations and an increase in deputies to deal with gang
and graffiti.
· National City voters enacted a one percent sales tax in 2006 that is deposited into
the City's General Fund and anticipated to generate $70 to $90 million over its
ten-year imposition. It was justified as necessary to avoid layoffs in the Police
and Fire Departments and at the new library. It should be noted that a signature-
gathering drive has led to a 2008 ballot measure to consider repealing the
Increase.
· In November 2004, El Cajon voters enacted a Y, percent sales tax projected to
generate $62 million over ten years specifically earmarked for replacement of
aging police and fire structures with earthquake-reinforced facilities, a new
Emergency Operations Center and new animal control facilities.
These examples may demonstrate that local residents will vote for a sales tax increase if
the revenue will finance improvements that they feel are important.
Devote More Local Sales Tax to Road Maintenance and/or Municipal Infrastructure:
Most transportation sales taxes allocate 20 to 25 percent of revenues to the maintenance
of local streets. If the local sales tax ordinance allows adjustments to the distribution of
the sales tax revenue, counties could increase this share to address projected maintenance
shortfalls. Voter approval is needed to accomplish this. Sonoma's recently enacted sales
tax devoted 40% to be allocated back to the cities and the county for local street and road
purposes.
Citywide Assessment Districts: Cities can propose a property assessment for
transportation system maintenance and operations in general, pavement maintenance or
street lighting. Such an action would require a two-thirds approval of a given
jurisdiction's voters. This would be similar to assessments that cities have implemented
for storm drainage and sanitary sewers. Examples of current benefit assessment districts
are noted in the table below.
Sanit
Libr
Vector Control
Flood Control
Clean and Safe Creeks
Vector Control
Street Li htin
residential household
Local Bond Measure: Recently, cities have successfully gained voter approval of bond
measures to improve park, library, police, and fire facilities. This option can be used to
improve a local jurisdiction's infrastructure. Such a measure could be structured to
address any of the infrastructure areas discussed in this report, such as drainage and/or
major rehabilitation of the City's pavement infrastructure along with system
/-3).....
04/05/07 Workshop
Page 33 of35
enhancements like pedestrian safety improvements, pedestrian curb ramp installation,
traffic signal upgrades for congestion relief, and street trees/median island landscaping
for aesthetic enhancements. The evaluation of such a measure for infrastructure would
need to be weighed against other community priorities, and packaged accordingly.
CONCLUSION. RECOMMENDED WORKSHOP ACTIONS AND POTENTIAL
NEXT STEPS
Many cities describe their struggles with securing attention and funding to meet basic
infrastructure management needs. The most challenging issue often boils down to,
"taking care of what one already has is just not as exciting as starting new things."
In order to make up for lost time and lost ground, Chula Vista will be required to focus
on this topic and maintain it as an ongoing priority. It will be difficult. if not impossible,
to make progress without committing more funding to infrastructure repair and
maintenance. Currently allocated funding is not sufficient to meet ongoing and
worsening needs; therefore, without an increase in funding the City will continue to fall
behind in this area of responsibility. Additional funding will require a greater allocation
of general funds to infrastructure and/or new or enhanced revenue streams.
The following recommendations sum up the contents of this report. Knowing that this is
a challenging fiscal time for the City makes it somewhat difficult to present these
recommendations. In recognition of the many competing demands on the budget, the
Recommended Workshop Actions and Potential Next Steps have been noted as
"immediate" or "short-term." Because of the significant unfunded gap in this area, it is
important to move ahead tonight with the below Recommended Workshop Actions and to
keep Potential Next Steps on the radar screen.
Recommended Workshop Actions
1. IMMEDIATE: Approve the Drainage Project Priority List.
2. IMMEDIATE: Commit to the implementation of a true Pavement Management
System knowing that the general public may question the approach until a wider
education effort takes hold.
3. IMMEDIATE: Approve a two-year pavement management program based on
$11,504,665 million in FY 2007 and $9.5 million in FY 2008 by transferring $2.0
million from the North Broadway Basin Reconstruction Project (STM354) and
$5.0 million from the 4th Avenue Reconstruction between Davidson & SR54
Project (STL309) into Pavement Rehabilitation Program - Future Allocations
(STL238).
4. IMMEDIATE: Direct staff to return with further analysis and recommendations
regarding new and/or expanded revenue sources for funding infrastructure needs.
Potential Next Steps
1. IMMEDIATE: In order to fulfill its responsibility to manage its backbone
infrastructure, the City must make this area an ongoing annual priority. It is
recommended that the City Council revisit its Strategic Focus areas in order to
consider creating a focus area specifically for infrastructure.
/-~
04/05/07 Workshop
Page 34 of35
2. IMMEDIATE: Infrastructure needs should be funded on a priority basis
before new City programs are considered for funding.
3. IMMEDIATE RFQ: Development and implementation of a comprehensive,
automated Infrastructure Asset Management system should be investigated in
order to estimate resources required for such an effort given our City's unique
characteristics and work completed to date. Direct staff to issue a Request for
qualifications in order to investigate program development possibilities and
required funding.
4. IMMEDIATE: Direct staff to identify funding for a contract to assess and
secure the necessary permits required to perform maintenance of current
drainage charmels (estimated contract cost: $150,000).
5. SHORT-TERM: Make funding the Corrugated Metal Pipe Program a priority
($5.8 million a year for five years).
6. SHORT-TERM: Consider funding the Hilltop Drainage Project from the
Priority I Tier of the drainage project recommendations (previously DR-134,
estimated cost $1.8 million).
DECISION MAKER CONFLICT
Drainage Report Actions:
Staff has reviewed the property holdings of the City Council and has found a conflict
exists, in that Council Member McCarm has property holdings within 500 feet of the
boundaries of properties which are the subject of the action regarding the Drainage
Project Priority List.
Pavement Action Transferring Monies from STM 354 and STL309 into STL238:
Staff has reviewed the decision contemplated by this action and has determined that the
decision concerns repairs, replacement, or maintenance of existing streets or similar
facilities and, therefore, there is not a material financial effect of the decision on the
property holdings of the City Council Members pursuant to California Code of
Regulations sections I 8704.2(b)(2) and 18705.2(b)(l). However, this action involves the
transfer of monies from STM354, the North Broadway Basin Reconstruction Project, and
STL309, the 4th Avenue Reconstruction Between Davidson and SR54 Project. Staff has
reviewed the property holdings of the City Council Members with regard to STM354 and
STL309 and has found a conflict exists, in that Council Member Rindone has property
holdings within 500 feet of the boundaries of these properties.
Revenue Discussion:
Staff has reviewed the decision contemplated by this action and has determined that it is
not site specific and consequently the 500 foot rule found in California Code of
Regulations section I 8704.2(a)(l) is not applicable to this decision.
FISCAL IMPACT
None of tonight's recommended actions have an impact to the General Fund. One
Potential Next Step from the list above creates a potential direct impact on the General
Fund-that is the direction to identify funding for a proposed contract to assess
/-.3~
04/05/07 Workshop
Page 35 of35
environmental issues and secure the necessary permits required to perform maintenance
activities on current drainage channels (estimated cost of $150,000).
As noted above, current allocated funding is not sufficient to meet ongoing and
worsening needs; therefore, without an increase in funding the City will continue to fall
behind in this area of responsibility. Additional funding will require a greater allocation
of general funds to infrastructure and/or new or enhanced revenue streams.
Additional immediate fiscal impacts involve the transfer of already appropriated funding
within the CIP budget in order to invest a significant amount of funding into pavement
management before the new, more stringent Transnet extension requirements begin in FY
2009.
Specifically, a pavement management program of $1 1,504,665 million in FY 2007 and
$9.5 million in FY 2008 is recommended. This would be accomplished by transferring
$2.0 million from the available balance of the North Broadway Basin Reconstruction
Project (STM354) and $5.0 million from the available balance of the 4th Avenue
Reconstruction between Davidson & SR54 Project (STL309) into Pavement
Rehabilitation Program - Future Allocations (STL238).
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment I: Infrastructure Asset Management Template
Attachment 2: Report on Drainage Deficiencies in ChuIa Vista
Attachment 3: City's Capital Improvements Program (CIP) and operations activities from
FY 2002 through FY 2006
Attachment 4: StreetSaver@ Decision Tree
J:\EngineerIAGENDA\CAS2007\04-05-07\Infrastructure Status Report Summary.doc
I-J~
Chula Vista Infrastructure System
Statue, Condition, Value
ATTACHMENT
FACILITY GASB INVENTORY REPLACEMENT CONDITION'" TOTAL UNMET ANNUAL
34 VALUE NEED"'. UNMET NEE]
V G F P V TBD
G P
PAVEMENT
Improved Streets X #]ane miles $ % % % % % X $ $
Alleys # and lane miles $ % % % % % $ $
Parking Lots # $ % % % % % $ $
Total $ $ $
SIDEW ALK SYSTEM
Sidewalks X sqyds $ % % % 'X % $ $
Curbs X miles $ % % % % % $ S
Comers % % % % % $ $
Improved Comers X # $ % % % % % $ $
Coners 1'.'1 Ramps X # $ % % % % % $ $
Unimproved Corners # $ % % % % % $ $
TotalS $ $
BICYCLE NETWORK
Bikewa"s miles lncw/navement % % % % % S $
STRUCTURES
Bridges X # $ % % % % % $ $
Retaining Walls X # $ % % % % % $ $
Stairways X # $ % % % % 'Yo $ $
Guardrails X Miles $ % % % % % $ $
Bay Wall X Feet $ % % % 'Yo % $ I
Total $ Total $ Total $
TRAFFIC SIGNALS
Hardware X # $ % % % 0;., % $ S
Controllers X # $ % % % % % $ $
Other Equipment X # $ % % % % % $ $
ITS Equipment TBD $ % % % % % I $
Tota] $ Total S TotalS
TRAFFIC CALMING
Devices X # $ % % % % % I $
Total $ Total $ Tota] $
STREETLIGHTS
CilyOwn&\1aintain X # $ % % % % % S $
Private" X # I % % % % % $ $
TotalS Total $ Tota] $
STREET SIGNS
Street Name X I % % % % % $ S
Illum Street Name X $ % % % % % $ $
Parking X $ % % % % % $ S
TrafficColltrol X $ % % % % % $ $
Stop Signs Only X $ % % % % % S S
Guide Signs X S % % % % % $ S
Sign Mounts X S % % % % % $ $
Total $ Total $ Total $
P A YEMENT MARKINGS
Ce11\erLines Pass miles $ % % % % % $ $
Traffic Lane Lines Pass miles $ % % % % % $ I
Bike Lane Lilles Pass miles $ % % % % % $ $
Edge Lines Pass miles $ % % % % % I I
Crosswalks # $ % % % % % $ $
Stop Bars # $ % % % % % $ $
Symbols & Words # I % % % % % S S
Island Markings # I % % % % % $ $
Parking # $ % % % % % $ $
Total $ Total $ Total $
PARKING METERS
Double X # $ % % % 'Yo % S S
Single X # $ % % % % % S S
Total $ Total $ Total $
SEWER
Pipe Miles $ % % % % % $ S
Pump Stations . $ % "1 % % % S S
Total $ Tota] $ Total $
STORM DRAINAGE I
Draina eS stem Miles I % % % % % $ S
CorruualedMetal~ miles I % % % % % I S
Structure # $ % % % % % I $
Total $ Total $ Total $
BUILDINGS
City Hall Campus Sq ft $ % % % % % $ $
Public Works Sq ft S % % % % % S I
(Complete List of Buildings) Sq ft $ % % % % % $ S
Total $ Total $ Total $
PARKS
(Enter list of Parks) Acres $ % % % % % $ $
Total $ Total $ TotalS
OPEN SPACE Acres $ % % % % % S $
Total $ Total $ Total $
FACILITIES SUBTOTAL # I I $
RIGHT-Of-WAY SUBTOTAL MILES $ $ $
ACRES SUBTOTAL ACRES I $ $
TOTAL $ $ I
I~ ~'"
ATTACHMENT 2.
Report on Drainage Deficiencies
in Ch ula Vista
March, 2007
~Vt-
L~~
~~~~
...... .............."-"
ellY OF
CHUlA VISTA
/-.37
I. INTRODUCTION
On July 20, 1993 a Citywide drainage report was presented to the City
Council as an attachment to the 1992 Growth Management Oversight
Committee (GMOC) report. This document reviewed areas where drainage
concerns had been reported, presented a list of drainage priorities, discussed
potential revenue sources and presented a program for improvement.
The purpose of the current report is to brief the City Council on current
drainage priorities with an emphasis on problems in western Chula Vista.
This will be accomplished through the following steps:
1. Reviewing previous Citywide drainage reports to determine which of
their recommendations are still relevant;
2. Reviewing the current condition of City drainage facilities to identify
areas of concern for flooding;
3. Providing a revised priority list of drainage projects (deficiencies)
which should be included in the City's Capital Improvement Program
over the next ten years (minimum);
4. Recommending future actions which should be taken in order to
correct these deficiencies
II. BACKGROUND AND HISTORY
The City's first major Citywide drainage study was prepared in 1964 by
Lawrence, Fogg, Florer and Smith, Civil Engineers as a supplement to the
City's General Plan. This study (also known as the Fogg Report) identified 85
problem drainage areas and proposed facilities for their correction. Since it
was based on the City's General Plan, the estimated flows included the future
development then planned for the City. This consultant subsequently
performed a study covering the Montgomery area in 1969.
On April 2, 1985 staff presented a report to Council entitled, "Report
Regarding the Phasing of Future Drainage Projects". This report reviewed
the Fogg study and determined that 45 of the 85 drainage projects identified
in the earlier study had been completed. Staff identified 46 projects needed
throughout the City with an estimated cost of $9,062,000.
In May 1992 City staff prepared the document entitled, "Report on Flooding
and Proposed Corrective Facilities." This report summarized the results of
previous studies, compiled lists of citizens' drainage complaints, presented a
Prioritized Drainage Deficiency List, proposed corrective measures which
1
/-:38
would relieve flooding in a majority of the City's problem areas, included
general cost estimates and discussed funding sources. This report was
presented to Council on July 20, 1993, when a public hearing was held to
consider the City's Growth Management Oversight Commission's (GMOC)
1992 Annual Report. A total of 37 priority projects were identified at a total
estimated cost of $13,561,000. The GMOC recommended that sufficient
funding be provided to complete the recommended improvements over a 20-
year time span. The GMOC also expressed concern that the extensive
development in eastern Chula Vista would contribute to drainage problems in
western Chula Vista, and recommended that this situation be closely
monitored. Council voted to approve staff's motion to accept the GMOC's
recommendations and direct staff to undertake actions necessary to
implement those recommendations.
The drainage projects identified in the 1992 report are shown on Table 1,
"1992 Priority List of Drainage Deficiencies for the City of Chula Vista." The
locations, recommended improvements and current status are included.
Only one remaining project is east of 1-805, which is at Bonita Road near
Allen School Road. These recommendations do not include miscellaneous
pipe repair and replacement projects at various locations Citywide. It also
does not include street projects that may have a minor drainage component.
In conjunction with the current General Plan Update, the City hired PBS&J in
October 2002 to prepare a new Drainage Facilities Master Plan. This plan
was completed in October 2004. The following work was performed as part
of this plan:
1. Updated the City's GIS database to include locations, sizes, lengths
and flow lines for approximately 8000 existing pipe and box culvert
segments and 4000 open channel segments, as well as locations of
catch basins, c1eanouts, inlets or outlets;
2. Hydrologic/ hydraulic computer analysis of the 21 major drainage
basins in the City;
3. Using as-built plans, updated the City's GIS database to include the
location of the known Corrugated Metal Storm Drain Pipe (CMP)
within the City, along with estimated sizing and preliminary
construction costs (not including site-specific or non-construction
costs) to remove and replace such pipe;
4. Identification of the known existing flooding problems within the City
and a brief discussion of potential solutions.
The hydraulic analysis determines the size of pipe needed to carry the flow
between nodes (points where flows enter or converge) for the 50-year and
2
/-~
100-year storms. This analysis was based on the most recent San Diego
County Hydrology Manual, which has more conservative assumptions than
the previous standards used to design the City's system. Due to these new
standards, the program has identified a very large number of deficiencies that
City staff feels is unrealistic. The County is currently reviewing their
hydrologic assumptions, and it is estimated that final recommendations will
not be available until the end of 2007. Since a reliable list of deficiencies for
existing storm drain pipes cannot not be generated from the Master Plan at
this time, an update of the 1992 list will still be used as a basis of our
recommendations. The recommendations are therefore being made from
observed deficient areas and not from a model. After the County finishes its
review, the City model will be updated and this report could be amended with
additional locations and priorities.
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
Drainage deficiencies fall into several categories. These categories are as
follows:
. Facilities that are in poor condition. This frequently applies to old or
corroded Corrugated Metal Pipe (CMP). It can also apply to erosion in
natural channels and canyons.
· Facilities that are missing. This frequently applies to areas with
missing street improvements, such as curb, gutter and sidewalks.
Such streets will generally not have catch basins/ curb inlets and storm
drains but may have unimproved ditches alongside the road to carry
drainage. This can also apply to unimproved (natural) channels.
. Facilities that are undersized. This refers to existing improvements
that have inadequate capacity to handle the volume of flow. This can
apply to inlets, storm drains or improved channels.
Some facilities may fit into more than one category, such as deteriorated
CMP that is also undersized. The emphasis in this report will be on areas
without drainage facilities or that have facilities in poor condition. These tend
to be the most urgent problems. Additionally, after the County has reviewed
and revised their hydrology standards and the computer analysis for the 2004
Master Plan has been revised, staff will be better prepared to make
recommendations on undersized facilities.
Corruaated Metal Pipe
As previously mentioned, the 2004 Drainage Master Plan updated the City's
GIS database to include the location of the known Corrugated Metal Storm
3
/ - 1/'0
Drain Pipe (CMP) within the City based on as-built plans. The report
identified approximately 730 storm drain segments, with a total 94,158 linear
feet (LF) of pipe. Some of this pipe is owned and maintained privately or by
the State. It was estimated that approximately 88,000 LF is owned/
maintained by the City. The preliminary hard cost to replace all of the CMP
was estimated at $20,239,592. Neither soft costs (such as design and
inspection costs) nor site specific costs were included.
Due to the scouring power of sand, rocks and other debris, protective
coatings are quickly worn away. It is expected that a metal pipe will last
between 10 and 35 years before it has decayed to a point where holes will
develop. The majority of corrugated metal storm pipes in Chula Vista are
over 30 years old. Since the City discontinued using CMP in the early 1980's
except with the approval of the City Engineer, almost all CMP is more than 20
years old.
It can be very expensive to repair corroded CMP which has collapsed. A
recent example is the arched CMP storm drain under First Avenue just south
of H Street, which collapsed in February 2005. Initially a small pothole was
noticed and repaired, but two days later the pothole reappeared. Further
investigation showed that collapsing CMP was the cause of the hole. Over
100 feet of CMP was replaced with a concrete culvert. The repair trench was
15 to 20 feet wide, which forced the rerouting of utilities and required First
Avenue to be closed for several months.
It is therefore recommended that the City take a proactive approach and
eventually replace all CMP with Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP) or High
Density Polyethylene Pipe (HOPE) or to line the inside of CMP that has not
yet failed with structural liners. However, it would be too expensive to replace
or line all of the CMP at one time. In order to determine priorities for CMP
rehabilitation/ replacement, the Council awarded a contract for televising the
City's CMP to Hirsh & Company on March 22, 2005. This has been funded
through Capital Improvement Program (CIP) project DR164, "CCTV CMP
Rehab Program Phase I".
Hirsh & Company performed an internal video inspection of about 62,000 feet
of storm drain pipes and 1000 associated access points (catch basins,
c1eanouts and outlets). Their engineers reviewed these videos while
performing an engineering analysis of the current condition of the City's
facilities. Recommended repairs were detailed and prioritized based on the
condition of the pipelines and site-specific construction cost estimates were
developed for each pipeline and associated access points.
During the course of the field investigation, 31 pipe segments were identified
as being in need of urgent repair. These are pipelines that have failed or are
4
/4/
blocked with debris. Several CIP projects have been initiated to perform this
work. These include:
DR-165: CMP Rehabilitation, four locations, awarded 11/22/05 and 6/13/06,
approx. $242,000 construction cost, $327,000 total authorized
DR-170: CMP Rehabilitation, two locations, awarded 3/7/06, approx.
$165,000 construction cost, $246,500 total authorized
GG-188: Emergency CMP Replacement at H Street and Shasta Street, final
cost approx. $561,500, approved by Council 6/13/06
In addition to the 62,000 feet of inspected storm pipes, approximately 11,500
feet of CMP were not inspected due to access issues. These issues included
damaged pipe, paved over or buried access points and c1eanouts that were
never installed. An additional 13,000 feet of CMP pipe were discovered that
were not shown on record drawings or were not indicated as being CMP.
Flooded Areas
In conjunction with preparation of the Drainage Master Plan, Public Works
Operations staff identified the locations in the City with the most frequent
flooding problems. A list of 24 locations, with accompanying photographs,
was presented in the Master Plan. These locations are itemized on Table 2,
"Existing Flooded Areas 2004". Two additional locations recently observed by
our Public Works Operations staff have been added to the list.
As can be seen, the majority of these problems are in areas which have no
existing improvements. Some of these problems are along streets which do
not have curbs and gutters. This applies to the following locations:
. Location #8: Twin Oaks Ave. between Naples St. and Emerson
. Location #24: Elm Ave. between Emerson St. and Oxford Ave.
Both of these projects are in the Castle Park area. Under the Western Chula
Vista Infrastructure Financing Program, the residents of Castle Park have
been offered the opportunity to establish Assessment Districts for street
improvements with most of the costs to be covered by the City. As part of the
design of street improvements for areas with established districts, the City will
include design of any necessary drainage improvements. The cost of
constructing storm drains would not be included in the amounts assessed to
the homeowners.
Channel and outlet maintenance problems are the major causes of flooding in
the following locations:
. Location #6: Intersection of L Street and Industrial Blvd.
5
/-V'.>-
. Location #14: Southeast of Main St. and Oleander Ave.
. Location #15: Heritage Road and Entertainment Circle
. Location #20: South of Del Mar Ave. and Madrona St.
. Location #25: North of East J Street between Hilltop Drive and Carla
Ave.
. Location #26: Telegraph Canyon Channel at Paseo Ladera
One of the problems with maintaining natural channels is the need to acquire
permits from the Regional Water Quality Control Board, the California
Department of Fish and Game, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers prior to doing maintenance work. Obtaining
these permits is a time-consuming process which delays the work and
contributes to flooding hazards.
1992 Orainaae Priorities
As previously discussed, the May 1992 drainage report included a Prioritized
Drainage Deficiency List which presented strategies to relieve flooding in a
majority of the problem areas in the City known at that time. Since 1992,
sixteen of these projects have been completed - or partially completed, in the
case of Priority #26 (Telegraph Canyon Channel), which has several
components. Three additional projects have been included in the City's
Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The remaining projects generally
involve constructing storm drain improvements in areas without existing
improvements, or only with natural drainage swales or channels. Only three
of the remaining project locations involve increasing the capacity of existing
storm drains.
The original estimated cost to construct these projects was $13,561,000.
This did not include construction estimates for the Peppertree area east of
Hilltop Drive and the channel upstream of Eucalyptus Park because it was
thought that a more detailed drainage study would be necessary to determine
the scope of these projects. Based on these estimates, the cost to construct
the remaining projects in 1992 dollars would be $7,046,000. The revised cost
would be approximately $14,303,400, using the ENR Index to escalate this to
the beginning of 2005. Note that the original estimates were for the drainage
improvements only and they did not include relocation of utilities or restoration
of surface improvements. The cost of compliance with new NPDES or other
environmental requirements could also increase these estimates.
Erosion in Canyons
6
/43
After the heavy rains in winter 2004-05, City staff noted significant erosion in
two drainage basins/ canyons. One of these basins is Long Canyon, also
referred to as Bonita Long Canyon. This canyon/ drainage basin generally
extends from Corral Canyon Road and East H Street at the upstream end to
the intersection of Bonita Road and Otay Lakes Road at the downstream end.
A dam is located at Canyon Drive. Most of the canyon erosion has occurred
upstream of the dam, where most of the recreational trial has been closed for
safety reasons. Additionally, gabion structures (large, rectangular rock-filled
wire baskets) in the channel, which were installed to slow down the flow, have
been damaged and are no longer functioning well.
At the downstream end, there is a concrete trapezoidal channel adjacent to
the homes fronting Acacia Avenue east of Palm Drive that has been
significantly damaged. The concrete is severely cracked and chunks of
concrete are missing in various locations. Although there have been no
reports of significant flooding damage or undermining of foundations from the
property in this area, remedial work should be undertaken to prevent future
problems. Since portions of this channel are within the unincorporated
County area, improvements should be done in cooperation with the County.
The other canyon of concern is the Bonita Canyon/ Drainage Basin, also
associated with Rancho del Rey SPA II. This canyon is located in both Chula
Vista and unincorporated County territory and is generally between Terra
Nova Drive and Rancho del Rey Parkway at the southerly upstream end and
Bonita Road at the downstream end. In 1993 a terraced gabion structure was
constructed in the canyon to slow down the flow of water and limit erosion. In
2001 it was noted that there had been extensive erosion of the channel
bottom, damaging and potentially undermining the gabion structures.
Additionally, deep vertical cuts were created downstream within the open
space areas maintained by the City. Emergency repair work was
recommended, including the construction of an access road and three drop
structures. This work was performed by the McMillin Company and accepted
by the City in April 2004.
During the 2004-05 rainy season, the City received numerous letters from
property owners in the County at the downstream end of the canyon. These
property owners have complained about silt and debris being deposited at the
intersection of Willow Street and Bonita Road. This silt has also clogged the
culvert at the intersection of Bonita Road and Willow Street, increasing the
potential for flooding and NPDES water quality concerns. They have also
asserted that the canyon erosion undermined the recreational trail, making it
unsafe to use. Staff responded in March 2005 that it would be beneficial for
the City to install more signs and additional fencing, and that staff is currently
studying conditions within the open space area to determine appropriate
7
I-~~
future actions. The additional fencing has since been installed along portions
of the lower third of the canyon, along with additional signage.
Effect of Eastern Development on Western Chula Vista
There have been several questions regarding the effect of development in
eastern Chula Vista on existing developments in western Chula Vista. The
City's Subdivision Manual (latest revision, July 2002) requires developers to
provide on-site storm detention facilities such that the post-development flow
rate for a given design storm does not exceed pre-development flow rate at
the outlet of the subdivision. However, there has been a significant impact of
developments in Telegraph Canyon, such as Otay Ranch and Eastlake, on
the portion of the basin in western Chula Vista. The Telegraph Canyon
Drainage DIF was therefore established in 1990 to finance necessary
improvements to the channel.
There are two other basins that accept flow from eastern Chula Vista. One is
the Palm Canyon (Palm Road) Basin. This basin includes drainage from the
Sunbow area, which eventually flows in a natural open channel through the
Woodlawn Park area along Palm Road and Walnut Drive, then south of Main
Street to the Otay River. There have not been any complaints about flooding
of any developed properties; however, rainwater crosses Palm Road at the
southern end and ponding in the road can be as much as six inches in depth.
Although the quantity of flow here may be affected by development upstream,
the larger problem is the lack of street or drainage improvements. However,
constructing improvements would be difficult because the City has no
drainage easements in this area, both Palm Road and Walnut Drive are very
narrow (as little as 20 feet in width) streets in poor condition which cannot be
brought up to City standards and the available survey information is
unreliable. Additionally, it is more difficult to improve natural channels now
due to requirements of State and Federal environmental agencies. Since the
eastern portion of this basin is built out, we cannot practically establish a DIF.
The Poggi Canyon Basin also flows from east to west. However, since the
drainage here flows through storm drains rather than open channels there
have not been any complaints. Additionally, drainage detention basins have
been constructed in order to reduce the peak flow from new developments.
IV. RECOMMENDED PRIORITIES AND ACTIONS
The proposed current drainage priorities are listed in Table 3 (Priority 1) and
Table 4 (Priorities 2 through 4). They are also shown on the attached map
labeled "Drainage Challenges". Some projects are in the CIP program but
have not yet been constructed. The related CIP project number has been
provided in the description for these projects.
8
/-
/-~~
Locations that were on the original 1992 list but do not currently have a
demonstrated flooding problem were removed from the list. Additionally,
projects that primarily relate to maintenance issues were left off the list if the
best solution would not involve creation of a CIP project. Public Works staff is
currently in discussion with other agencies in the San Diego region and the
California Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board) to
streamline the process of obtaining State and Federal permits to clean natural
channels.
Our priority categories are as follows. Within each category, projects were
listed by alphabetical order by basin and then by location.
1. Frequent Floodinq and/or Hiqh Chance of Personal Iniurv or Propertv
Damaqe: This includes streets where traffic was significantly disrupted
and where there was actual or potential serious property damage. One
location in this category, the Bonita Road/ Allen Road culvert, has not yet
experienced serious flooding. However, it is listed under Category #1 due
to the significant damage that would be caused if it were to fail.
2. Occasional Floodinq with Chance of Personallniurv or Propertv Damaqe
3. Frequent "Nuisance" Floodinq: The majority of drainage problems fall
under the "nuisance" category. This includes street ponding that may slow
down but not impede traffic and shallow water ponding on portions of
private property which does not cause any damage.
4. Occasional "Nuisance" Floodinq
5. Frequent or Routine Maintenance/ Cleaninq Required: These projects
have not involved actual or potential property damage or personal injury.
Although flooding is minimal, they frequently involve periodic maintenance
of natural channels/ culverts, particularly during the rainy season.
Construction of a CIP project would significantly reduce the need for
maintenance. We have also included projects that should be constructed
by a developer or private property owner in this category.
The eight projects categorized as Priority 5 are itemized in Table 5. Most
of these projects relate to maintenance concerns. We have determined
that it would be more cost-effective to continue to perform maintenance in
these locations than to construct the recommended improvements.
We have also noted projects within the 1 OO-year flood plain, although this was
not a major criterion. Most of these projects involve missing drainage
improvements, and a few also involve missing street improvements.
Although many of these projects have existing facilities with insufficient
capacity, lack of capacity was not sufficient to include a project on this list.
9
1-4~
The total list for Priorities 1 through 5 includes 27 projects, which are outlined
in black on Figure 1. Areas that were noted on Table 2 as flooded areas are
shown in blue. As shown on Tables 3, 4 and 5, staff has prepared new cost
estimates for all these projects. The estimated cost for the nine Priority 1
projects is $28,800,000 in 2006 dollars. These estimates are preliminary and
are therefore conservative. However, the costs include both construction
costs and soft costs. Both the canyon stabilization projects (Priorities 1C and
1 E) and the Telegraph Canyon Basin channel projects (Priorities 1 F and 1 G)
could involve considerable environmental mitigation, and these costs are
difficult to precisely predict.
The cost of replacing and/ or rehabilitating the CMP within the City has been
reevaluated and is shown on Table 6. The total cost has been estimated at
approximately $29.0 million. The pipe that has not been televised has been
apportioned to each category using the same ratio as the pipe that was
televised. If we subtract out the cost of lining the pipe that is currently in good
condition (approximately $2.7 million), the remaining cost is $26.3 million.
Since this pipe should ideally be replaced/ rehabilitated within five years, it
should be considered Priority 1.
Currently, the City is permitted to enter natural channels without a permit in
order to remove debris, trash and non-native vegetation if the work is done by
hand and heavy equipment is not used. The City can also obtain an
emergency permit to enter a channel with heavy equipment on the same day
if there is an immediate flooding hazard. However, the Regional Board will
not agree to issuance of a blanket permit to cover the maintenance of
channels throughout the County.
The County of San Diego currently has a five-year permit for maintenance of
20 channel reaches through use of a "mitigation bank" - areas which have
been reclaimed with natural vegetation which can be drawn on to compensate
for natural vegetation removed from the channels. The City is considering
applying for a similar type of permit. A consultant to the City has identified
mitigation areas in twelve drainage channels. Public Works Operations staff
is in the process of identifying critical reaches within the City's channels.
V. FUNDING SOURCES
Various types of funding have been used in the past to construct drainage
improvements. These sources include the following:
Storm Drain Fee
This fee was established in July 1991 by Ordinance 2438 in order to fund
implementation of the City's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) program. It is collected as a supplemental fee on City residents'
sewer bills. This ordinance also permits use of these funds for cleaning and
10
/47
maintaining drainage facilities. The fee for single family residences is $0.70
per month. This fee has been used in the past to fund certain drainage CIP
projects. However, the City's NPDES program has been expanding due to
the City's growth and additional State requirements. The City would need to
meet the requirements of Proposition 218 in order to raise this fee. An
additional one-time inspection fee has been implemented which is payable
with building permits to cover costs of performing storm water compliance
inspections during construction. It is not anticipated that there will be much
funding available for financing drainage projects in the near future.
Telearaph Canvon Drainaae Development Impact Fee (DIFl
This fee was established by Council on August 7, 1990 by adoption of
Ordinance 2384. The ordinance also included adoption of the Telegraph
Canyon Drainage Plan, dated June 1990. As the Drainage Plan states, the
existing channel west of 1-805 was a natural earthen creek bed adjacent to
developed areas that would be insufficient to accommodate the increased
channel flows from upstream development, so new developers were required
to pay $3922 per acre to fund basin improvements. This fund should
therefore be the main source for funding the remaining improvements to the
Telegraph Canyon Channel.
Gas Tax and TransNet Fundina
These funding sources are intended for the planning, maintenance,
construction and improvement of public streets and highways. The enabling
legislation for these funding sources does not address storm drain
improvements. However, in the past these funds have been used for storm
drain improvements constructed in conjunction with street improvements in
order to reduce street flooding.
Western Chula Vista Financina Proaram
The City Council approved this financing plan for the construction of
improvements in Chula Vista with the adoption of the 2004-2005 budget. This
financing plan included a $9 million bond issue to be repaid from the
Residential Construction Tax revenues and a $11.9 million loan through the
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development to be repaid through
the City's Community Development Block Grant entitlement. A total of $5.4
million in drainage projects was originally anticipated to be funded through
this program. This includes the following:
. Emerson Street drainage Improvements
. CMP replacement ($2.5 million)
. Drainage improvements east of Second Ave.
Communitv Development Block Grant (CDBGl
These funds are received from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development and can be used for capital improvement projects that are
located within areas that meet the HUD low income criteria. This has been a
11
/ -fL'B
major source of funding for drainage projects in western Chula Vista in the
past, and it is anticipated that it will continue to be used in the future.
However, it is anticipated that funding will be reduced in Fiscal Year 2006-07
once debt service commences on the Western Chula Vista Financing
Program.
Residential Construction Tax (RCT)
These funds are paid with the construction of residential units at the time that
building permits are issued. These funds can be used for infrastructure
improvements Citywide and have been a major source of funding for drainage
projects. However, it is anticipated that funding will be reduced in Fiscal Year
2006-07 to $600,000 per year once debt service commences on the Western
Chula Vista Financing Program.
Future Leaislation
A major problem is the depletion of the City's traditional sources of revenue
for drainage projects as the City's needs increase. Council is encouraged to
support new legislation which would increase revenues for drainage projects.
ACA 13 is one such bill. This legislation would amend Article XIII of the State
constitution to exempt fees and charges related to flood control, stormwater
drainage or surface water drainage, from the public hearing and balloting
requirements imposed by Proposition 218, including financing capital costs or
maintenance and operation expenses. If the bill is approved by the
legislature, it would need to be placed on the next Statewide ballot. Mayor
Padilla submitted a letter of support in June 2005 to Assembly Member Tom
Harman. It is recommended that the City continue to support this bill in
coordination with other cities in the County.
Grants and Alternative Fundina
The City's Grants Coordinator has been researching availability of different
types of funds that may be available for drainage resources. For the
canyons, recreational trails grants may be used to rehabilitate the horse trails
that have eroded and are closed to the public. Funding sources pertaining to
water quality may be applicable, since reduction in canyon erosion would also
reduce the quantity of sediment downstream. However, there are few grants
that pertain specifically to flooding issues. One exception is the Urban
Streams Restoration Grant, which funds flood control projects within urban
creeksl channels.
Another type of funding relates to Federal earmarks. These are projects that
are sponsored by Federal legislators and funded directly by Congressional
action. The City has recently received earmarked funds for several projects
related to transportation, such as the Heritage Road Bridge. In addition, the
City has recently included drainage projects in its recent proposal for Federal
earmarks.
12
I~
Low interest Federal loans can also be used to fund projects. However, loans
need to be repaid, and the traditional sources for funding drainage projects
will be used to repay the HUD loan in the upcoming years.
VI. CONCLUSION
City staff has included funding for a study for the Bonita and Long Canyon
Basins for the Fiscal Year 2006-07 Capital Improvement Program, which are
both top priority projects. This will be the first step in solving the erosion
problem in these canyons.
Several other ongoing efforts affecting drainage issues are anticipated to
continue into the future. This would include the discussions between the
Regional Board and other agencies in the San Diego region regarding permits
to enter and clean natural channels. The City's Grants Manager will continue
to research funding sources relating to drainage issues. Engineering and
Public Works Operations staff will continue to work together to identify future
drainage deficiencies, incorporate them into the City's database and devise
strategies to correct the most serious deficiencies.
J:IEngineerIAGENDAICAS2007104-05-07 (Workshop)ICouncil Report 2005-Ldoc
13
/.~
! wID JJ . J ~ ~ ! ! ~ Ii ,,,I.
:::: fltl! · -,.. .. S f I I I' I
~~ , J J ~. If s & ! II' I I" 'r! itltlll I
.s II"" I
= z~ I!! t . 'I '.... ~ ~ l i \'1 Ii II ~, $~ '
(:i .....l n ~ i J III it ~ .U I !~UHSi~l~ ~~ !h 1111i ~18~ II
~ C..l Q ~ !dHUUh! ~ II 'Ie' 'I I
r:lI:C , a ,t: I~.z,s
.~ 0::1: ,Ii f ~UD ~ 0 &~IIDmIIIIIIDDIDIDDI
u u !:i ,Ill 11m!
r-kllOIJd ~ II I
N I M "'It lri
__m__ .. . Imm . m
t. ~J.~.....l~........ ;I~..J.~I;.....
i .1
1;3
"'_~I
/--$.2..
lil
Q)
c( '0
I- :J
-
l/l Ul
s: >-
0
5 "
Q)
'0
~ 0::
X Q) '"
0 -0 '"
Q) '"
lI- Ol ~
0 '" .5
"
~ .~ -0
S
-0 "
<3 :a:: ."
0 c.
W .<= "
" 0
X Q) c.
I- "'" e
~
iii: Q) '"
:c -
0 :k 0
lI- :c ~
l/l Ul 8
w -0
Q) "
<3 Q) "
... ..J 0
Z ::>
W W -0 "
....I " e
<3 '"
lD 0> '"
c( ii: I::
I- W co 0
OJ "
C ~ "
w Ol '"
Ol '"
~ 0 .0
U. "
"
Z <i c.
~ co ~
OJ '"
~ ~
c Ol
Ol "
lI- 0 :c
0 u. J!!
l- .!: '"
l/l -0 :E
::::i Q) t-
o:: W
~ ~ t-
Q) 0
ii2 :g z
0 Ul
'"
iii: Ul
D. Q)
'0
N "
CJI Q)
CJI '0
... 0::
Q)
e.
I
~ "
" >
e '"
in .c;
N
Cl 81
" ~
" ~
.iQ;~
.. e '"
m-~
. en c (ij
" 0 Q) Q)
.!'CE 13
S l! ~" 5
tn co 0 C c:
cZ 0.. 0 0
'-00( E" -
lL ,,- Iii .~
o CO Q) 0
0:: ftI ZoO --I
'"
"5
::!.
"
.!!
S
..
.5
"
"
..
.0
'"
II
.c;
III
o
0:
I
III
1:
~
"
o
1
~
...
.Ii
I lL
E 0
~ 0:
'0
l '" 0
0 ~
0: ~
c
o
..
~
~
1.5
I
!
~ \'i
::> \0
~ ~
~ I~
~ ~
.!!! '00(
..lIl: !-o
"'-!"
~ ~.,8
-a>Ci5I~
n!
]i
'"
.5
aim
::> e
,,-
"UJ
I! ?=
.~ ..e
,"- '"
- +-
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
,
1- 'ON
I ^~uel"uaa
i
I ~IJOIJd
I
c
~
!l.
II
c
'i!
c
~
"E
"
o
I
,
!as 1-
,~ Ig
Ie I"
i" ,"
,0 10
1 J
I,
i I
100(
'v I
I~
I I
iN I
,
,
co
0..
o
0:
'0
o
o
N
"
"
'"
~
:s
'"
Ji
::>
o
I::
'"
I"
u
N
IE
i
- -
" "
" "
II II
0.. ~
0
0: 0
- 0:
0 -
0 0
0 0
0 0
N '"
<Ii <Ii
"S "S
0 0
" "
'" '"
" "
u U
N '"
" "
.!! .!!
S S
.. ..
.5 .5
c "
.. ..
.. ..
.0 .0
'" ..
II II
.c; .c;
lL lD
0 0
0: 0:
0..
0..
0
0: ~
-
0
"
"
'" .-
-.; \
~
~
]i I
'"
.5
cD'~ a..
c.5 0
0", 0:
"'"
cO> ~
m -6 ~
J:)~ <0
,,_ c.
iO~ ~
-;~ ."
........ Q..Q)
~o:: u=
EO 0::,*
~o ~.5
e Q) N C
o."oc O)~
E a.~:s..c
.;;~ ~.~ CI)
zU.Qw~
fti_'E II)
r! 0 '"
".- 'Ie ..,
JlLO
O";-lIl g en
,cG)'IlU N CD
en e .. ,c_lJ
e- CD .5
II III e -g ~
~gu; = co
c.!:!: Co .l!........
'-0 ~:!q
::.r! '-0:0
e1)11I a..oc(
"CCJe.fi 9Q.t)
G)m- 1oA._ CD
:!!~c:~ .oe~'e
a.......! cQ)w 0 D.
E"c...elL"!::lL
o.?::ca:>_cca-
OlLZoo(lIl:E: 0
"0"
SS
....
c..c.
EE
o 0
00
'"
0>
"
'in
'"
e
o
-.;
e
1il
"
>
'"
o "
0: ~ "
u:u.: <0
~ .&..J.J ceo..
m Q) 00 ()0
mEN C'\I 0::: 0::
c. m <>>;:s, . '-
o ~)( ,0.. "0 _ _ ~.s ~
CD ~o U 8,:g:g Co~~
;~.E~ 0:: J!! ~~ t).~~
= ;: ,It) ~ b s=. s=. 2"0,
"'''1('0'- M as 00 1nQ)~
~! i~:g~ 1il ~~ 8\!~
n_-T- wi i oo(_-:"_~Wl=_d ,-I w
\l", I ai-1m Ui 'I~ I :""
u.. .~ ~I.= .e :J "Qi\" 1-
o -lo[UJ -.; 15i 2 2 \ I"
'I~ .s g- ~, 5 II g I~ ~ ~ Iii
> Q):::1ii~ 00- 0<( Ill')
I ,,= ",,, I '" 1.~.5 - I" ~
>- .:::J:.i:E c u:: icof (l)Q.
16 ~ en 00 CfJ w eRE u: ~ ~ >0-
m i> ;- -af = ~ Ia; I ~ 1.8.s Ie.> ~ co
::> - ai e "I' ::> - I::;; I~ '''I'' " .0 ~
C g > - ~ c (I) R C .> .> .:2: c
(l) [[) '': CJ) _ (l) Q) >'-1)1 CD i:: C '- en Q)
> 0 >>UJI> ;: I\'! " > - 010 - 0 g> >
<( ~ Q.~:cl<(b ~J:;I~ ~ ~,~ ~ ~'u;~
E 0- 10 -. \"'00 I a:I en\ c c .-1.- c .- en c
1_ ::::.c 0'=<>> IO~ Q) cu..c,.o "'1.0 0"
'" )= ~ s:. .... <.9 - .c 0 O.c 0 .... -
\~ jl . r-Uifjl-r'_~f. yr_O\'::o" ..
l:g.~ I ! I I I I
\~~ I I I I 1 I 1
,,1il I '-a I i I I
I,~~ e I~ I]! 15 115lg! 1515
i iQ'"S Ie I.!! I'~"c I~ I~ ~ ~I~
'50ltl '" ~ I::> 1::>1::> 'I~I~
\ UJI . it- I l~fl~! \
~j ii I .1\. \:j~\: \:l~
'" \ v I"; <0.... lcci Iccijcci lccilcci
o
o
e
0..
o
0:
:.,.
N
0>
"
:;;
'x
"
jl
jl
-.;
e
Ui
I'"
~
::>
::;;
/"'$,)"
-
o
o
o
"'
=
'3'
"
o
'" -
a. 0
e lL
"CU)~
" 0
"'''0
0..;:.....
~~~
'; :c-~ ~
"v E
~ f(x
I~~ il
i~a:-~
i~~I.E
~_w ,__I
I '
. I
~ I 1
~ ljll
I~ 1-.;1
\~ g~I~\1
S:c"E
- '" 0
l1lo'xl
i Iii -EJ~I
l~ 5JUi
I"'" "'01
,;1:0;101
_-1-LL t-'~I
\ I
,I::
Ig,
18
l-a
I~
I~
,"
It-
,
I
jl
0..
o
0:
I
t-----
I I
lei
'01
I'"
..,
I~I
1 1
I
I
,
, ,
1~1
11
1..:1
10,
i.....'
,
I'"
on
....
~
~
'"
'C
.S
~
...
~
~
'u
=
~
'u
'"
~
Q
~
~
'"
=
=
.;
~
Q
I
~
::2.
i
1Il
C
~
"
lJ
i
E
~
0-
S
...
f
..
E
~
&
l:
o
'"
~
l:
'u;
&l
..
'"
..
l:
'j!
C
'ON
A~ual~uaa
AJIJOIJd
~ "i ~
N", C "0-
, '"
"tI0) otn::::J
.,-"E!-I.L"-
:g.=.2 ~....Io."
u'O)(c:g:E .
WGJQGJ(O')Oa;
-3S.5~ C ~~
c en l1."tI CD'_f/)
0.=0 c='0
~.... It: 8 ,,'SC '0 '-
U ~.. Q) C CD CD co
O'_OCl)caoc~
-eM CD-CO
G)a.-E::::lIt)~c
.J:: 00 C ..::::lI
"o.LI...cuCD_c
>-- ..J - > Coo
a;O -oc( C .-
cncnoCD...O.cm
o.-ofcau't:o
"i)~:!:C;;:Esg.::
S
ll.
U
a:
1ii
i!!
(;5
>-
...
"
e:
e:
,:!
ll.
U
a:
-
o
u:
-i
o
o
N
~ ~
"* n;
E E
'x co 'x
e ~ e
8:cu 8:
.. 0. ..
I=.s Cii
"II~ ~
I
!.c:
"S
o
en
'"
o
1:9
11ii
I'~
,~
I()
I
,
-
o
u:
-i
o
o
1ii
i!!
(;5
>-
...
"
e:
e:
,:!
m
"
1l
e:
"
e:
o
~
o
-'
0;
e:
e:
..
.c:
U
1ii
i!!
(;5
"E
~
o
t: 0.
[ (j
'" '0
.. t:
.:! ..
U 0.
l! '"
- ..
0::",...
IXO)..!
0"'.
--...,
" l: '"
"0'- .5:
..!tDCCD
- en'-
.l!....l!~
~ U) "tI._
iii!!:e1D
o~.s~
a:::ocncn
s
0;
e:
e:
..
.c:
u
'0
'"
o
'"
"
~
...
e:
..
ll.
U
,
I-
I ~
1(;5
10;
.,
!'E
1:1:
"
>
o
E
i!!
S
~
..
"
1l
e:
"
e:
o
:;;
o
o
-'
'"
"
o
u
I)
'0
,-
';:
I -
-
"-
" '"
~ "
(;5;:
"Eo
~g
os
"
e:
o
...
e:
3l ...
~ .!!
!i S
.. '"
..s:: .5
2 ~
Iii ~
E "
" . '"
>N _
eO)'"
0.0) :;
E":
'-" of
0"" "
Z '" lJ
.c:
2
~
--^-- ~-
"
e:
o
...
e:
..
..
~
..
>
..
.. .c:
~ J!l
" l:
'" "
... E
l: "
.. >
of [
a s
"',-_.,
'" tl
.. "
Q) 0 "e
a Z c.
..."tI"lt 9:
CDCO"tiU
~ :~..! .
cnJ:Jcr;~
CD'- ~
li>II)~.g-
..! ca~._ l/)~
c.c..J!-("')
,- J!l...... Iii:::;
~e:1Il;: E....
'-E"o..."en
... -~>-
.! \DO Q) e c:
:: >-"2 a..~
00.- Ell)
oat:: iI:'- Q)
.EClCDO~
1-._ Q,C Z._
...
.!!
S
'"
,!:
-
o
LL LL
-' -'
o 0
o 0
'" N -
:::.. ..... 0
~ '"
LL u: 10
. . -,' 00
~Q)o -g
o~o as
~ ~ ~ lof -S
<( ';:" C 0
t~tJ~ ~
"'C Q)"C ::::lI -
C (/) c: g ui
cu_ co co -
~ ~ ~ ~ I!
--~ ~l~ Q)I~ 1=-'"
(/)(.)-(1)- en
: .~ I ~_~t~-iE
~ I~ I
"" id) I 'I'"
~ Li: 0 .e
(;5 0 !!:ai 1,5:
~ }: d) i:::l
~ 1i 'c?5 I~
~ I~ I~
.....U5 l"ai.....I:ii=
m~ ,:::Im35
-= d) i e:.:::...... en
enE '1~(I)"Eo
enO.....<(cul:.c:::
~J~i~~ji~
I I I
i I !
I~ I~ I~
I~ I~ i~
I I I
I I~ i
111
lui lco I~
].... i.... I....
ll.
U
a:
ll.
U
a:
'"
o
o
...
e:
'"
!i
'w
e:
"
.c:
i!! >-
0. :0
E '!Z
o 0_
o 0."
E~ vi~
.g~ 5i:
~,2 E=
03 ~o
; ~ e d)
~ -g, 0."
':;.c. E 'w
c-" ';;;.c.
d) e: :::I 0
L.. cu 0 cu
d) >- ';;:: d)
Et>>curo
+::.Q ..:: fA
d) e (ij ,5:
S-g, 1;) ~
~.c.,+:=~,~__
10.
10
I""
iI
I '-
s I~
'>- fA
I~ 1m
I" ! cu"'
i~ !d)
I......... ,....
Ice d) ICU
- ~ Id)
Ii U5 ! ~
1-= Q) ,t-
(I)..... iQ)
,e:,!!l :0.0.">
1'(0 =a : d) ';::
::::;:1: ,J":Cl
I~
"
~
...
e:
8
"
en
,
1
I~
'e:
I~
10.
Il!!
I!
L
I
'T-- -t--,--
~ i ,~J;!
,
I
I
iei) .ei)
,d) !d)
'e: e: i~ I~
j! J ~I~
i ~ i ~ I~ i~
---I-~._j--:-
ce I U 1<( ice
~ lm _~i:: :::
is
..
,>
1>-
,e:
,e:
'"
:(1)
/..5:;
15
Ii:'
'"
U
.c:
0.
l!!
'"
"
~
ll.
U
a:
-
o
'"
'"
N
N
...
e:
.,
tl
o<l.9l.E
d)e-
" o.W
e:ll. '"
,,- '"
~U~
....
.........
,: d) cu
.c:-
t-:m~
~.= 5-
d),~
ll."'"
ue:"
a:"'"
> e:
LL <( ,-
-'.c:'"
0"''''
0"-
NOa:
~LLCl
'"
"
>
:;
u
"
0.
'0.
,Q; -=-
'c,l..L.:
e:-,
'wo
",0
,5:~
.,~
I'x E
" "
'...-
Ie: ~
"..
! e d)
I Cl '"
- Q)~
-m l-g '(0
.E i:J-E
, ,- --+--
o >- IE
'd 12
"", '"
> cu ~
[i:e d)
~ CD '"
,,- .,
1U Q) ,5:
.!~ ~
"en- ,,'"
" -
::" ::J d)
(l)Q:ii~
. >-
:>......~ <( (I)
ro d).c. e:
::= l!!:!:::! g
".....EL..
:g~(I) ~
mP.sw
,
,
I
I ~
I~
!
!"
I~
2
"
:s
....
2
"
o
e:
.,
"
1l
'"
I
I
1
, I
,
i
I
e:
o
>-
e:
.,
U
.c:
0.
l!!
'"
"
0;
....
i
I
:;;:
00 .,;
-
.5
-- ~~.,~ ~~ ~ ~ m m m m
o~ M C c~ c c c c c c
i'~ ~~! ~~ ~ !~!~!~!~!
~s: -u.5 ~= .s;.:::::S Q)o" ctlw Q)W Q)w Q)W Q)
cd- c...,JQ) zQ)o "0.0"0 "0 .,
o sea ~Q)Q)~z_~ ~z ~ ~
~= ecu- :J>!Q)u.:cG.Jffj Q)w Q)ffi Q)ifi 0)>
C:J c.itc( c(- >.....0 >0 roc >0 >0
<(~~o ~E ~E0~OO~- ~- ~- ~- ~
!!:() 0 OUj'E U)Z....l Vol> siij (I)> en> S
-c- OlX'J:. R o'C I.L'EW c cW "EW c
.= Q) t-R Q; ~1).S';c Q)cQ_lLo Q)C c>>C cuO me Q)
'<:""Co =cQ.OE EZ EZ EZ EZ E
I-lii -g....!Q).-ocQ) .wQ)ii:C)Cl>iLC)Q)i!C)Q)U:::OCU
.8> :::::s~~~€<<-~~O~I-Z~I-Z~I-Z~I-Z~
Q)<C Mu.."O :Ju..l1. amZ aoe 0..00 aoe c.OC 0..
~€ ,g~o~u~oE-wEZOEZOEZOEZOE
Q):J~N~J:WQ)OlX'.-~e'-co'-co'-co-Qo'-
>o~ M~ C~LLO=>O_....IO_....IO_....IO_....IO
<(~>~~OSOM....IZmWZCLLZCLLZCLLZOLLZ
-----._- ~.~-- -.-----.. --.- ._-~.__.
on
'"
10
l$
,..
'S
~
..
~
i
"
o
~
.,
E
~
Q.
~
~
=
.,
E
E
o
~
=
o
'"
..
u
o
~
~
,~
;<:
~
,S
~
...
~
~
'0;
=
~
'0;
'"
~
=>
~
~
..
..
=
.;
~
=>
=
~
&
..
=
'j!
Q
'ON
.(:lU81:llJea
~IJOIJd
Q.
U
0::
-
o
b
o
""
"0
=
..
0;
:s
cD
~
....
-
o
E
..
~
'U)c
0.0
:J-.;:::l
-=
.. ..
=0;
ffi"O
.<:~
0.2
.!:-l!;
.. ..
Eo.
.. ..
e>~
.!!!"o
= =
w'"
.
m
u;
.E
.s
..
"
=
..
~
..
=
'0.
<(
-l!;
'"
a.
.,
"
0.
,..
ri
"
w
-
o
E
'"
~
u;
0.
I=>
I
I~
.SJ
l
..
~
en
e-
lai ..
~.2!:
I~~
-- ~..~
=
o
.,
"0
"
..,
....
on
,
I
!
,
".---!-
-.-
o
N
!
c Ie: c:
g., !g., g,
c: IC c:
'" 1<:'" '"
I';; ~ ';;
10. ,a. 0-
le e e
Ie>> CD c)
I~ "* "*
I~ >- 1>-
u) .
I i
~~I~.-~ I~~ !
a. -8
~ ~ ~
S a. ~ ;;
o ~ ~ .~
~ 'O.s ~
"C 0 E c:
c: LO S a. ~
as co 0_ 0
.,- "0 .,>-u.: () -
e e::: e
.i as e..J _ ~
"s 'Q) .m 0 0 a;
~ :s I~ ~ ~ ~
-s - .s'Q) -g ~~
o 0; 0~ co o.
= -~
~ ~ I~ ~ ~ ~ ~
]i., ~i Iii !I:_"'~ ~ i
o e as .5 a
I: ill- .=--l:J~"1 : 0
1~3~ 'e I~ II:: <(~
1<( 5i - 0 ~ ...
_ > Q) 0 ,~
1.~<(~:2 € 15i "E
ILL~oo ~ ~o I> :c
iQ.5 e CI_ LL i<( I--
!::LL 0 E:E .0 Cl~"""~ I~~
:. Gi ~ o.l::; Q) ~ = ...
18 ~ ';S: .::: (fJ ~ -
1M e as.~ Q) (fJ
I...~CI~~ >(ij I"
: Q) <( 0 e 0 1<( E .. > <(
Q)--Q)- '1"0 -_~~ :-a>=
.l::; ~ - > - 0)- .-
(fJ.- Q) <( Q) e co I~ "O,~_ '1'E =",
"LL~.~lec... oJ
~.sOO~oo io.s I!;U.= af-fi
I ____ _ j__ _______+________
1 , I
I
1
I
12
'l
I..
I ~
len
I
I
I
,
I
~
.SJ
l
..
~
en
'm
:~
1<3
!"
I~
I"
..,
I
I
I
'0
!N
r
,
I
I
I
I
"")
N
....
<Il
N
N
'"
N
....
N
-
N
1-*
I
I~
I~
=
..
~
'E
:;::
>-
=
o
,..
=
'"
U
.<=
0.
f!
0>
..
Q;
>-
.<=
0.
f!
0>
.,
Q;
.>-
-f---
I
.. ..
= =
o 0
"0 "0
= =
.. ..
.. ..
.0 .0
~ ~
'" '"
.<: .<:
., .,
E E
.. ..
E E
~N ~
eO) e
0.0> 0.
E:: .~
.- ..
~li ~
<Il
U
0::
'0
"
~
u;
=
o
o
"0
=
'"
.,
..
;g
'0
J!!
0>
"
~
'x
..~
..u.:
~..J
Eo
..0
0::!!1
I-
I
Ii!
I~
en
It
.s ~ Q)
Q) I~
I~ i3
I ~ - !'Q)
1<( :g . ~
"E e iOO
I:;::~ :~
-1>- 0 I,
I
=
o
,..
=
'"
u
..
"0
'"
C,
;;
'~
Q;
=
=
'"
.<:
o
~
"
c;;
=
..
.,
"-
OIL
-~
:go
=0
..=
.<:-
012
~E
::J8
~
..
=
o
"0
=
..
..
.0
~
'"
.<:
:J
=
.,
E
.. ,
>N
eo>
0.0>
E":
.0 Q)
z'\ij
..
=
o
"0
=
..
..
.0
~
..
.<:
:J
=
..
E
..
>N
eo>
0.0>
E-
,- ~
0"
z'\ij
<Il
U
0::
l'l
'"
Q.
~
"0
=
'"
.,
..
;g
'0
J!!
0>
,!:
u;
'x
..-
.,u.:
> '
o~
EO
..'"
O:::S-
~.,;
.5:E,
.s-g~
0.00.
SELrJ
., 't
Cij-gQ)
.- -c >
~Q)"5
._ Q) 0
., = E
"'., '"
-cEQ)
Q)Q).l::;
"OE"
.... =
.. > ~
= 0 0
"'~"O
"0 0._
.aEo
0'-~
.... 0
0).5 J3!
'" E 0
=~-
'm!! Q)
~ .. "
0"0"0
..
"
=
..
~
'E
:C'Q)
I-~
0-
_en
..~
""0
= "
~ '"
<(..:
.<:"
t~
" '"
0.<:
ILO
.. ,.....
I
. 1
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
'"
...
~
~
0;:
O~
oS
~
..
~
~
O~
"
~
O~
'"
~
IO:l
~
~
..
"
"
0;
~
IO:l
i
'"
'"
"S
~
..
j
~
~
:0
o
~
!
Do
.5
I
e
~
U
~
C
o
:;:J
..
~
C
~
..
CIl
..
C
oi!
o
OON
'<:lUal:lUaa
~IJOIJd
---~
1:: 1::
.. ..
Do Do .. ..
C C
.. ".. 0 0
.. S" " "
" U~ C C
S 5~ .. ..
.. ..
u ..~ .0 .0
d 50 c(/)o Ol ~
Oll:O >
0 ~8 Uo8 .. to
0 J:: J::
'" 0'" a;"'N U>
05 u C C "'c c: !l
J!lo- c CI._ C
co ..:tco Ol Ol
CCO E E
- ..- J::~_
- eO:: u _ Ol Ol
0:: ....0:: > >
0 "0 i! 0- 0 Ie Ie
... >... (/)... 0. 0.
V 2- ue- o~ .~
DoO :52~
- e- o 0
0 _0 0_0 z z
- --- --
..
'" "
e.:> ~
tl: '"
" 0;
" 03' '"
. e.:>
1n (jj tl:
e: e:
0 e: Q;
u to ~
" J::
e: u .!!!
.. ~ 0;
U> ~
Ol " 03' u:
10
~ e: '" ...i
'(3 Ol e.:> 0
J!! U>- tl: 0
"U: IN
'" '" 1;;;-
.5 5.J e:
1ii -0 ~ iu
.- (I.) LO .~ Ii
~""'": c'llt
. e:_
C1>LL co_ ..
~.J'5 - u
to
>- ~
" ~
~ C)
u 0;
E3 03'
.ge a;
Ol" e:
Q.~ ~
0" J::
-e: U
"to -
~>-"Ce
<oC)Q)~
~.Q~1U
o e Q) C
"",,-ccQ)
to >- Q) 11)--:-
......c..c::::Ju.
~ Q) ......J
u..>coO
O"fi) E(jjO
-e: 0
O(l)_~LO
.~..c:: lii co~
eWE.c-
o.Q.Q)oe
a..E~~'E
v8w::;8
1::
..
Do
"..
.. ..
u-;
2 l!!
~~
~(/)
Oll:
U 0
'ii;'
C ..
:i:t
"fi~
S..
l!!iii
g E
00
0.1:
Ol
e:
o
"
C
Ol
Ol
.0
~
to
J::
U>
c:
..
E
..
>
Ie
0.
o~
o
z
C " '"
aI
0 .. .. Ol
..- 0 C ,; C
coo:: 0 C 0
.g:5J! " 0 "
:00_ 0"; C " e:
cO C Ol C Ol
. .. Ol ..
.. .. 0 .." ..
.8eal J1.. .0 .. .0
U .. Ol .0 ~
GJeS !"i c > ..
to ..
>- .. U> .. J:: > J::
.." C e: U U> .. U>
J::.... o C c: J:: c:
..0-' ~~
-0::- Ol ..
5; UJ 0 "s E E
ECD,g e:c ~ ..
Olo_ >
.."" U E" Ie Ie
>..(/)
0-' Ee 0. 0.
_ "'C 0", o~ o~
<>'5 .. u-
E = OlC 0 0
_ c( tl:O Z Z
..
.. e:
C 0
0 "
" e:
IC ..
.. ..
.. .0
.0 ..
.. >
..
> J::
.. U>
J:: c:
J!l Ol
C E
.. ~
E
.. Ie
> 0.
2 .~
Do
.5 0
z
..,
e:
to
<L
e.:>
tl:
~
....
0;
3'
Ol
U
to
C.
~
~ '0 I~
CD 0 t1
<..> 0 .5
';,e: ~ ~ ~
:.;::::; vi (ij a.. a..
.~ t) !U:i:
Q) :s CJ)et: u
.s 'lit .5'00
co .i ~b (0')
U :J )(IO~_
tl: 0 Ol '" I'" u:
~ "C-c en .
~ Q) C C 'x...J
- 0.::::10" Olo
e .c. '-- Q)O
:E;Ol~ I~ I~ : i~li~ ~~
j8! ~ 38 t [8 c( ~~l~~f~ ~
, .0 I I .. 1 .
I I .2 ! I. ~ I
11!!l 11~e: It:~ I~ 1- 18 II
; ~ I ~ ~ l.c i:H 1'5 :g
',':: ~ I'~ 18 !s I 15 it) VJ li~
C '3 ~ I Q) i Q)> ai Itf I~ I~ I~o
11:_= i 'Ii ~ ~ ~ l II ~I~I~ !I",~
~ ~ co U U c I~ i1.~ - ~ co
!!~ ~ I~~ If II~~I~ !n~ I~Ol e~
"'; U u> i ""II!! 0",,,, ,e:e: al~
'18 18 18 18 8 e.:> 1- 0 1
,.c !.c..c: l..c I (fi ~ I
ie I~ It i~ I~ e < Ie !j.~Q)I(ij
!e> 119,) 9,) I_i?'.. ~C) OJ 10'1 !>-,~f!.=
I~ ........ .... 10) 0) ,0) IctI C::J C
I~ ldi ldi it- !~;! :;! 10 ~ 8 ~
T r i~ I I II I
~ -j~l~ i" )"--;;I"-~ I.
i_~I~!~ ~ re] ~ I~ ~ t~
-
u:
...i
o
'"
I
ml
,
I
I-~
~
o
-ci
o
o
0:
.s
;;
~
1n
;;:
.Q
Iii
"C
e:"
to ..
u> e:
a; 'iij
c::5
'a; ctI
~ E
" ..
U e:
~.!!
...
e.:>
tl:
-
0
0
'"
" D-
e: 0
.. tl:
.Ii -
.. 0
:E b
'"
N -
'i Ii ..,
e:
0 .E to
e: € ;;
to
.. " :E
u U
Q) ~
]i ~ Iii
to
u> ." 1n
.5 jW .5
.9
..
"
e:
~
c(
J::
t..
5 "
'LL. e:
I ~ ~
!m -=( a1
I~:I:: ~
U5~U5
1~~,~
I
,
I
I
I
1-
,..
IE
,Ol
Ie.:>
.;
I
I
.l!l
u>
I>
I'"
I~
'(I.)
I
,
I
I
I
N''''
"'I'"
,
i...
ml
I
;;;1
'"
of
:E
I
l:g
."1'
1-;;
!}
]i
u>
.!:a..
'oe.:>
~~
mb
..0
>'"
..~
c...,
"e:
to ..
Ol!l
""
~ 0
",e:
,..
OlOl
tl:C3
r
1.9
;;
~
ii5
Lu
~~ .
I
Ol
"
e:
Ol
~
e:
o
I!!
~ ~
.. 0
-00 I~gj
1.lfl~f
'oCO 0 ~
1U:.9I~ ~
I ,
! I
I.
IOl
i-
I!
I~
I'"
I
I
I
''''
,
~
c:
Ol
e.:>
I
mm I
!
...
'"
'"
'"
on
on
1ft
8
..
'"
'5
::l.
j
-
c
~
"
o
~
l
.5
I
E
~
U
~
c
o
.,
~
~
~
:E
~
=
'C
..
~
~
'~
=
~
'~
'"
~
~
~
~
..
=
.;
~
~
c
j
..
l:ll
..
C
'j!
C
'ON
A:lUel:llJea
~IJOIJd
.v
c
o
'C
C .
..'C
....
.c'C
.. ..
> ..
.. C
.r:..
<Jl U
-c
c ..
.. c
E ..
.,-
>.:
e..
a.E
.5'"
OC
zo
'C
C
..
a:-
u
(l:
-
o
1:>
'"
<Xl
<Ii
OJ
:5
N
'S..c:
g~
18:C
u-g
=.5
Cij:-
1;;8
.EM
... ...w..
c
o
,.,
C
11l
U
.r:
a.
ll!
0>
"
Qj
i-
.9
OJ
"
';::1i
en"
;"0
... ..
c
o
,.,
C
11l
U
.r:
a.
ll!
0>
"
Qj
i-
<Xl
M
<0
M
. .w
.v
c
o
'C
C .
,,'C
".,
.c'C
,,'"
>..
l1lC
.r:..
<JlU
-c
c ..
'" c
E ..
",-
>.=
e ..
a.E
.5,.,
OC
zo
"-
u
(l:
-
o
1:>
"
-
'C
C
11l
2
'"
:5
N
:i
::>
o
C
11l
'"
U
N
I
(ij ,
1;j I
.Ej
a.
~
I
.9
"
::>
c
~
ll!
,.,
::;;
4f ..c I
~.!2>1
en I I
;.-'i I
i
I
-
c
o
,.,
C
11l
U
.r:
a.
11l-
~ 11l
O>~
"c
-"
~u
....
M
?"-
M
en
S
'"
:c
8
0..
:?f
'6
o
o
~
.s
~
'"
'><
'"
II 15
t~
.S ~
....=
""8
.,,0..
"'''0
't '"
- '"
""0
e 8"
o ...
u"'"'
.. .;.;
';:l ><:
.. ~
...""
.. <)
= ..
=~
8
....
f;-
Vl
~
tn
.;,
~
o
01
"-
Vl
w
tJ
z
w
9
"-
w
"
w
~
Z
~
"
-
w
~
z
~
"
~
"-
>
"
~
w
w
z
t5
z
w
-:-:
~
I-~
"l:t
o
o
N
C/)
<C
w
a:::
<C
c
w
C
o
o
...J
LL
C)
Z
-
I-
C/)
><
W
N
c
.S
-
'CU
g
..J
..
ctI ,c
:> i'~ '0
ro 1-0 1;,)
E ! E t ~
Q) '0 ~
U) it) ~~
in' 1.9 ....-
I.!: 0 (/)
o !; Q)
~ !~ .~:5
Q.) 1'0 ~ (/}
~ !e: "'0 (l)
.c. leu c: (/}
(,) if/} co ~
:.E L..!C: .f:....
3: Ol>'I"(;) cD f/J (,)
m .Qi~ < ~ ci
:g <!>I..c "0 ..c: ..0
'0- -il::! .= ..B :J
m o! to ..c roo "
_"0;01- 'V
3: C!3:- 3: ~
CD <<>1 Q) 0 ~ 'E
C ole OJ..... :J
13 --10 :g t5 0
2 ~12 ;: 2 0
1i5 0100 en> 1ii ~
C U)lc c: Q)
o '~Io c o.c.
umUoU3:
'"
3:
o
'"
10
l'!
<n
13
.!!1
(5
o
o
C
o
"0
'"
Ol
~
'0
~
Ol
C
t5
'x
Ol
Ol
.<::
f-
O/l
ii5
Ol
'iii
"0
'"
::J
o
~
oS
'ii:
<1i
>
<(
iD
>
Q
CJ
a
Co
0(5
ti (J)
Ol '"
f/)m
iD m
E>
10
l'!
<n
.!:
'"
'E
'0
a.
3:
Q
m
'"
"0
C
o
a.
Ol
Ol
m
C
.(;;
o
ii5
Ol
'iii
>
m
Ol
en
O/l
<1i
>
<(
'E
:.c:
f-
a
C
o
13
Ol
'"
iD
'EI
~J
"'T" ....m..T;;:-
i 0
Ie "0
,~ ai Q)
15 E 0
tU ctl ~
1,' aj ~ iD
,a. 1ii >
i~ ~ 5
I~ ;; ~
Ij II~
.9 "0 I~
c ~ 10
I.!!!
.~ "5 I
"0 0 Olin
I~ ~ ~ m'~
a))Q)T""t).c. :g
>:Jc!2:!:"E-
<C.!:ot);t:......o
~~9::6~~m
~UUU:aCl~
10
Ol
~
<n
.!:
iD
'E
Ol
o
C
C
m
o
'"
3:
o
'"
C
3:
e
e>
Ol
>
o
.!!1
.<::
C.ll
.~:o c
o Q) "m
QiQ)U
Q) t5 E
05.9
u;
'E
'0
a.
~
Ol
>
'C
o
.0
::J
C3
~
'E
::J
o
U
O/l
>.
m
:;:
~
~
Ol
u;
-
o
C
.Q
13
Ol
'"
iD
'E
<')
...
on
~
"0
m
Ol
.<::
~
m
Ol
C
Ol
C
'is
o
o
u:
<Ii
Ol
.<::
.ll
'is
.!:
~
'0
m
a.
m
o
-
o
~ iDl'
om
- 3:
~ ~,
"0 01
.~~I
-g ~i
.g ;:
.... ;ei
Ol ""
~ ~I
U5 "".Fld
'E
Ol
o
m
U
m
"0
>
m
'iii
'C
1;)
::J
"0
.!:
O/l
10
Ol
~
iii
-'""
'5 ~
c: .='
o
13
Ol
'"
iD
'E
ro
E
o
m
10..
O/l
"0
m
e:
~I
B,
<D r--
<1i
c~
.~
:\:) "E
IE :.c:
en !..... l-
t :0.....
~ :00 0
"5 : co en
(,) ;'0 u
U1C_~0
C 10
m j:;:::; ><
m ;g 0
"5 I.;:. m
'5 II ~ C
-0 o"&;
'"
~ l-g ~
.- ctI.o
:il '10)(;)
a. C '"
m .- 0
o l'lil 0..
Ol ~
(/) 10> E
to !t) Q)
~ !Q)""
(,) I..... CI')
c: iU5 ~
ii5
ii5
m
"0
<(
C
Ol
Ol
~
Ol
.0
-0
>
m
>.
m
m
o
C
"0
C
m
'"
C
'in
m
.0
.<::
o
m
o
-
o
""
o
.!!!
B
Ol
::J
"0
Ol
C
'is
o
o
'"
10
l'!
iii
1.0
I~
,E
l,g
10
Ol
~
<n
C
o
"0
.!!1
'in
o
a.
'" Ol
'E "0
Ol ~
~ ,.2
> I'"
e IE
!I~
Ol ~
~ i~
v.; 10
rn---
I
C
o
'"
~
Ol
E
w
O/l
'"
Ol
a.
m
Z
C
Ol
Ol
~
Ol
.0
'"
""
m
o
C
ii:
f-
co
1-
l.~
let
I~
I'"
C
o
'"
0..
:2:
m
e
'E
o
o
c;)c
o
C/) "(ij
~e
mOl
Z13
- ::J
o ~
.<::<n
tC
00
cU
/-S'7
'Ol
'"
; -g "5
: en 0
i Q) C
I C m
'm Ol
!...J TI
I",
I (I) .c
I (I) .B
10: u
10 B
:-g
IOl
im
I.!:
''''
1m
1.0
i-5
1m
10
-g113
"Q)] 2
~~
010
0;0
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
i
i
I
-I
~I
01
m
'0.
E
>.
is
'"
'"
Ol
0::
C
Ol
Ol
~
Ol
.0
.<::
B
'is
Ol
C
m
-'
'" <1i
'" >
Ol<{
n= Q)
'5 ~
ifl!0
OlO/l
.<:: Ol
to C
o m
Z-'
o
<n
m
W
-
o
""
o
o
m
o
o
0>
13
Ol
~
'is
Ol
~
Ol
C
.C'
.(;;
-0
E
Ol
<n
>.
'"
Ol
.!:
<n
'x
Ol
o
'E
t
Ol
>
:;
o
x
o
.0
Ol
0>"0
C Ol
.U)~
~ ~
Ol",
.~ .U)
'" >.
~m
~ C
Om
13 ~
2l?
(;)~
c_
o
o 3:
Ol 0
0::",
E
,g
~
C Ol
o >
~tt:
c Q;
Olm
E
'iS~
Ol Ol
'" ~
Ben
~ E
"0 e
",-
g~
- m
o 3:
1?:>""
C al
~.o
0""0
Ol C
.:= m
,tc
, Ol 0
>>.
:; C
U~
.<::
gl
"0
~
'0
m
a.
m
o
.<::
.ll
'is
-
o
""
o
.!!!
"0
C
m
Ol
C
'is
o
o
'"
10
l'!
iii
I
12 .<::
,m 0
15- ~
i~ "0
leu ffi
U: E
!C1)
I~ Ol
...... Ie;)
CD l~
E C
E .~
.!!1 "0
~o E
'" <D ~
Q)T"""..8
Ol 0:: If)
~O3: t
~~~ ~
Ol__::J o~
c:c.... (1)"0 lJ)
+-~1i)c:cc:
.~ :; g 'en ~ 'Uj
W()U~W~
ii5
3:
g
~
O/l
"0
m
o
0::
2
.C'
o
m
~
~
Ol
C
'is
o
o
'"
10
Ol
~
iii
C
3:
m
U
o
o
:;:
O/l
>.
m
3:
"0
m
o
~
m
C
Ol
Ol
~
Ol
.0
10
l'!
iii
.....le
l.ll
m
o
"0
"0
m
"0
C
m
~
Ol
>
'C
"0
Ol
N
.C'
m
.0
~
::J
<')
on
B
~
m
:;
.0
:s
.!!1
m
Ol
ro
I
Ol
C
'is
o
o
'"
10'"
~ ~
U5~
>.
m
3:
"0
m
o
~
m
O/l
10
l'!
iii
o
-
o
C
o
~
Ol
'"
~
Ol
'E
B
Ol
!!!. '5.!:
.~ ~ ~
Ol a..o
~-a-5
:.o::J-
m e ~
cnSro
.....cne>
.!!1 3: '_!:
- 0
6~m
_EW
<U co .S
~ Ol
~.:=o
";:: ~€
o ::J ::J
- Ol 0
Ol_ Ol
.s -g .c.
COl m-
a...c: g>
o <.n-:O
co.. C
m:2:~
~CJCJ.)
m.<::
....:!:::
CJ3:iE
'"
Ol
'"
::J
m
o
"0
C
m
Ol
a.
o
u;
'-6
E
'"
.!!1
m
m .S
~ I~
~ I!
~ IE
'm I....
o lell
"""'-"'-1
I
!g
IE 'lil
i~ ~
1m "c
i~ 0
IOl m
1:2: O/l
!~ "5
1m 0
Iu u
Ie (I)
~
is :>
iu '0
! ~ Q) C
: a; -g ,2
Ie ~ 13
Ol
to C) fI)
Q) 0 Q;
c: t::! ~
Q.) wi
a. 01 m
'.Q Q)! (])
'C/) '1:)' z
iii
C i
~ I
o I
~~
"0
Ol
Ol
C
.<::
.ll
'is
.!:
~
'0
m
a.
m
o
'E
Ol
'0
IE
::J
'"
.!:
Ol
C
'is
o
o
u:::
E
e
-
C
o
'in
e1U
Ol Ol
~
u)(;)
OlOl
Q.<::
0-
~>I=
~ 0
.- '"
;: 3:
m 0
-'"
Ol-
'" m
::J'<::
0-
..>1=
OlO
C C
.- ::J
-g ~
o E
'" m
Q) ~
~1i)
U5g-
""
ro
0..
o
:;
<(
-
o
<n
Ol
3:
'E
Ol
E
C
.(;;
t
Ol
'E
w
O/l
"0
m
o
0::
Ol
Ol
2
.~
I
-
o
C
o
~
Ol
V> Ol
IDe
:Su
on
.:
Ol
"0
C
m
Ol
is
O/l
ii5
C
.(;;
:2:
-
o
.<:: Ol
:; >
~8
...
N
W
-'
'"
"
-.::t
o
o
N
t/)
<(
w
0::
<(
C
W
C
o
o
..J
U.
C)
Z
-
l-
t/)
><
W
?;u I~o
Q) ffi l~ E
c . a. co
a. '" a>
-g ~ (.) .::.
co U (ij ~
~ ~ 5::
fij~ ~.g
.s::. c.. ..... =
B~ -g'+=
.- '- Q.) Q)
"'C 0 ,-:E ~
~aig!~a.
.s::. .~ 'C a. fI)-
~a:::.9o~
15 (U 1:: ..... 'w
~o~~Qj
co 0 ~ ai E
~..... ~.s::. ro
-C;:.o..c:
"O'm Q) Q.) 0
::} '- c..... Q.)
'- u u ro N-,
1n E c ~ = Q;i
c:: '- Q) (.) :0 >i
8 ~ ~ ~ ~ ai
N
W
...J
10
<(
I-
c
o
i
<>
o
...J
'It
0)
'S
o
o
e
<Jl
'"
.c
1::
:J
o
U
-0
a>
a>
0::
.8
1:'
a>
<>
'"
if
'"
.c
J,!
(5
0)
'S
o
m
<Jl
-0
e
o
0.
~ ,.,
a> '"
m~
:;: ~
ui~
.>< a>
eOJ
"'-0
.0 e
a;'"
e <Ii
e >
~<(
<>.c
0l1::
e :J
o 0
ro"-
e -0
o
"i.n -E
o :J
W ~
t
:J
o
U
-0
a>
a>
0::
O/l
Iii
e
.(ij
~
e
.(ij
~
O/l
<Ii
>
<(
o
e
<Jl
a>
li:
-
o
.c
:5
o
<Jl
<Jl
Ol
e
~
.S
.0
e
a>
a> 0)
:;: ~
0)-
OJ(f)
-
o
e
.Q
13
a>
<Jl
Q;
~
-
o
.c
:5
o
(f)
'"
r--
:;;; .r~~"
'" -0
5 1'00 E
'0 1-'= 0
c ,1::_
'" 10 <Jl
c: ~~
"en ro (jj
'" ~-
.0 a> <Jl
.c e a>
u 0 ~
10 (.).9
Om.!:
c Cl) Q.)
"m =a> '"
-0 Qj
~:o
E .0'00
o '- ~
1ii 6 c.
~ ~::
c: c: Cii
13 0 ~
2 2 ~
1ii 1ii 0 c:
5 5::'~
UUou
-0
a>
.C
:J
.0
a>
.0
.8
<Jl
ro
a>
0.
0.
'"
a>
0.
.0.
.8
0)
'S
o
:;:
.Q
m
e
.u;
'"
.0
.c
<>
m
<>
-
o
.><
<>
.!!!
.8
a>
:J
-0
Ol
e
'6
o
o
<=
.,
~c
00'8.
<Ii
>
<(
o
e
:ij
O/l
.,
~
Iii
a>
<>
e
'"
~l
a>
~
a> _
.0 0
e e
"co ,Q
U 13
E :J:
o 2
U5, c:
---r'-
0) 0>
-.- .--... -"-~'1'----'~-'-'--
,
Q; it>.9 ~
.r::. : Q.) '0 t5
~ l~~:
a. '-g (U~
~ ro E a.
0. t E
.~ ~ ~=i 8
"'C :;!;2Q)
'S: U > N
o - Q.) >-
'- o:2m
a. E~c
l"if CO'm ro
12~~~~
co 1..1 (f.l '- N
.s::..Qa.ci'Uj
o fI)::J rot:::
C) c: (i) ., Q)
c: 0 c: a.~
ti c:1c: 'C :J
'x ,Q ~ S (.)
Q) mlu,~ m
c: .~ c: ro
~:B-8m~
:H!~~ g
<Ii
>
<(
.c
t
:J
o
"-
O/l
Iii
-
a;
>
a>
<Jl
o
o
0::
<Jl
.,
~
.0
~
:J
<>
E
'"
~
1;)
0.
:J
e
o
<Jl
e
a>
~
<>
<Jl
<Jl
.C
.0
a>
-0
ro
1;)
e
Ol
e
.u;
:J
'"
<>
'"
a>
>
-:;
<>
.c
<>
e
.T
0)
..,.
-
o
.,
'S
o Q;
rom
<Jl :;:
Ol_
{j ~
2~
'" <>
t9~
~
.0
'"
0.
'"
<>
a;
e
e
'"
.c
<>
~I
<>
.!!!
.8
a>
:J
-0
Ol
e
'6
o
o
u:: 1-
I
1
I
1
'"
.0
'"
<>
<(
-
o
.c
:5
en 0
'" <Jl
e t
o a>
-0 >
'" -:;
~ "
x
o.?S Bt::i
aj _:J:
~ OO!
ro I'~ ~:I'
~ ~ g:
OJ 1ii.o:
o 10._
I:J ro
a;"-
i 2 ~
,m Q)
:.s::. >
'u <(
-
o
.c
:5
o
(f)
o
", ",
E
'"
a>
~
Qjoo
e e
ffi ~
.c-o
" <Jl
-0 e
e 0
"''B
1:: "i::
~t)
-:; e
" 8
- a>
o ~
.>< '"
<>
.!!! ~
a>
.9:5
~"5
-0.0
Ol:>;
c:!;:::
U ~
o 0.
.Q '"
"- "
t
a>
>
-:;
u
0)
a>
~
Iii
...J
/-58
T";
Ig
~
1;)
e
o
<>
ci
'"
~
0.
.C
a>
-0
.:;
o
a.
-0
e
'"
<Jl
.><
e
'"
.0
a;
e
e
'"
.c
"
a>
-0
-'"
f!! ~
<=(9
N
W
-'
lD
;0
a>
-0
'5 (i)
o e
a. e
.ri ~
.2 <>
U -g
~ ~
1:' x
:J a>
8 t
o a>
Ol >
.~ CU! ~
0:0' :;:
c '(i)i Q)
co to! c
en Q.)!
:::! ;; a.
10 'S: co
en Ci > c..
- 'Ci)i a...c
ro '" ~
~.c! 0 ~
to 51 Cl) '5
~ Ei ~ [
;: (1): a.. "'0
Q) Q)' Q) C
~._~~~~~~
'-I'-~-'~';;-"-'-'.'
" e
m"en Q;
0.. ; co 0 'J::
Q) ..0. :0
'- -5 U5 '"0 C)
~ ""'0 Q) ice:
T; ~o -g im'c
[ ~ ~ 'X tn!u.i lE
'" ~,a> 0 a> 'u"
c.> a.! C '- i<C""
2 '>:::'0.9 "0 :cn ~
co .c,:J c ~ !::>.E
:J :s:,:='o, l- :::",!, E a>
0- >i rJ) e '" > .0
.:g '><e:,- a '>. Q) oi e (I)
co roiO"" 0 ~i- (1)
.c..o: - E - vdg '0
~ win Q) -g ~i'E :B
~ -::!:::: 1;) > Q)! '- OJ
~i'O >. 0 Ei [ m
~ oiu f/) E mi., e a>
c:c c CD ....
ffi giro 'm ..... "fii'm.!!!
..c ,- '- 0) 01:0 f/)
(.) "Or Q) "0 . C -i 0 "'0
o ~i~ E ~'g Elt) ffi
2 .~[~ B ~ ~ ~I::lE (ij Q)
(;) a)!"o en c: Q) Q)I '- 2:
c -orca "0'- > tni.??-8 co
o c:i '- c _ co m..- Q) ..c
U :Ji'-' co <( I m!y _ (.)
it:: "'0
a> e
> '"
-:; .><
,,- ~
_ 0 '"
0.>< 0.
~~ "5,
~.8ciS
.9 Q) .Q ~
lQ):J U)
':J "00 Q)
i~ ~ co 2
jQ):O.o~
>8'00
i~1;: ~o
:0 ~ ~ 5
: E ~ 01'0
;m 1i) Ie
',~ C'o Q)
-00 == co "'0
: g..g ~ ~ ~,
.~ ~ ~I'.~ ~'..',
!-g m c -g c,
o a. co 0 ;t,
_~_~_~..,.~,l_~.,_~j
It
I :J
I 0
IU
e
~
:ij
O/l
Iii
...J
O/l
<Ii
>
<(
:g
.c
l-
e
e
o
15
a>
<Jl
Q;
:s
~'
",
",
-
o
.><
"
.!!!
.8
a>
:J
-0
Ol
e
-a.?;-
o '0
o '"
;g-
e "
",t
<Jl ~
~3
'" "
.0 E
e '"
o ~
5U;
u; e
o :;:
LiJ-8
...J
O/l
<Ii
>
<(
E
E
I-
-
o
e
Q
13
a>
<Jl
Q;
IS
-
o
1;)
'"
a>
.c
:5
o
<Jl
a;
, C Q)
I~~
O(f)
'~r- OJ
. N
",
<Ii
>
<(
E
:c
I-
.,
~
Iii
...J
O/l
<Ii
>
<(
E
:c
I-
-
o
e
o
15
a>t
<Jl a>
Q; >
Ea
0..
",
",
-0
e
'"
<Jl
e
'0 Q)
"'0.
.00
.cu;
~Q)
" ~
'000
.><ro
~ E
:S
.8E
~tJi
-01:'
.,a>
a> E
~ a>
1;) >
- e
00.
g' .s
:c-
o a>
o ~
U:Ui
a>
>
<(
e
u::
-
o
E
'"
~
1;)
0.
:J
.><
~
'"
a.
0.
g
I
0)
",
Ol
e
:i'
"
o
:0
.8
a>
:J
-0
<Jl
a>
1:: (/);
Q) (1):
0. <>,
e :Bi
a.-,
Eii1
rn E!
~ a>
1ii E'
cO),
~ ~i
-0 a>'
o~
Ol ""
C c;
U'ffii
o u!
o
i:i:Ci!
<Ii
>
<(
E
.f'
x
o
O/l
Iii
e
o
<Jl
Q;
E
w
e
a>
a>
~
a>
.0
.;
>
<(
E
W
..,.
",
-0
e
'"
ci
0.
g
I
e
a>
a>
~
a>
.0
.,
~
Iii
-,
1;)
~ <ti
Ie ~
\..c ro
it:: ;::
10 '"
iZ 0
, cO
.",
ro
~
:J
m
e
.!:
e
o
~
.,
Ol
a>
>
e
:;:
e
~
a>
>
o
.8
a>
:J
-0
Ol_
e a>
.- e
-0 e
o '"
.Q.c
"- "
N
N
W
~
<D
~
Vi
~
X
N
~
;i;
"
N
'"
~
0:
<(
"
w
"
"
"
~
~
'"
z
16 ~
Q3 ~
e or
e '"
'" <(
.c z
U ~
e "
g. I Z
ffi l~
~ I~
0. ,W
~ I~
...~--~;
'"
",
'"
Q;
-0
'"
...J
o
a>
<Jl
'"
a.
o "
. .~
a,~
~L
~-E
"
- ,,<
"~I
~!~.
.5
"
o
'"
8
...
~~
"0
i5i;i
..
A:!UOUdZ661:
<
A:!uOIJd900Z"....
-.
H
~l
~.5
JO
c
.
E
E
8
JO
c
.
E
.
>
e
o
oS
'dl
~
c
.
E
E
o
U
II!
~
~
<
,
E
i5"
zi5"
S~
~~
~
~
I
8
!i
~
~
~
~
~
.~^~^+_._---
I .
1 ,
i~ ~~
!:g, B
l~h,I.!
il! - E ~!.2
oj! ~I'
~ ~ ~ 113
j]i E"'i,~
Ipo!,~
E B fils
~h~l~
ii'! '15
,~h~..i
]~ ~ = <"
_"__'_"'_'~_'~i.9..
IE
Ii
Ii
Ii!
li.1
..
] !
<,
I.VI ~
'.I'~
I. .
,<
jll
III
~,
~I
~
i
1
i~
,
1
it:
il~
I'
~~
h-
~.
Ii
ii
!I
L
~~
~'"
~~
a"
Iii
Ii",
jig
,i]
~~
~s
ill
":,lll
'is
!~
I.
I'
,.
I~
I,
I~
!~
'e
I~
i~
ia
,
'i
.
,~
.
8 . 81 8
8 · 8-' 8
^: ] ~I' ~
;:; -;:;, ;:;.
i
"
g
:i
~
~
~
~
~ ~
~
~
z
~
~
~
~
,
:~
<
]
;'0
;
.
"
.
.
.
~
i
.ii
,
, ~~ - ~----ti-~ -! ~ ~ €
I.. !i.~. I .-,
'1..!~ i~~~ :L wl~
l!8 ig' jiBe :~~i ~~~
~_~ I]~ i~~~ 1:: ~a e ~
~_ _ --~ i~a.:': ~~i!
- , '8' -' 0 -
illi Ii! jl! ~ij
<&~ I.~ ~'jj~ ~~'" Sr:'t5'jj
~i 1!~ :~~E ~tJE'"
I~~' i~ 'O~o!I !~iie ':;i~~
5 ii il~~ :.!j'g:~ ;:::~~f
15~g'B !i~i i~Q.~ ,~~~~
11-.,- 1"= ,,0'''11;.u
'Hii Ifl~ iHBmI
ly .I~:! .... ................... ~ ~ _
I IJ~ici ~ ~~~_
,E ~ 13 ~ ~ 8 ~ ~ ~ .
!B:_.2:lg ~ e<Et:;
I~~l~ iE e~5€~
I.~:g"''i!! ~ ~~~~'=
i~~~lll i~ i~~IJ
i6"' 11 ~ 1.5 on ~..:: c
,,:~~C8:~ 5~~~~
IHh ill iHH
1:?.5iJl'~ ,;.'" ,",.,..0
!~ "" is ~ !a ~
,.H iH ~~gU
lii'ii ~~.~ .;~111
r"",...,,--........,...
i,,'"
i~' '-
.,"
,n'
;ti <-E.
!,:-1!!t!!
i~~J
U"
,~~ .
'J:> 1Il~
Ie i~
i€;~
i~~ ~
,,-go
! i m
~ ~--g
B~;
:g. ~-3
~~ ~ '"
s ~.E ~ ~
l~
Il
"
I~
I~
II
1<
Ii
__j,0
"
,
~
I
i~
I:r
~ i~
.
~
"
"
.
,
!
.
.
.
~
2
!
"
~
J:
.
~
r
.
~
"
!
]
.
i
~
;0
:~
:[
15
,~
:f
'0
, .
i~
,r
.~-
'~
.
]
~
.
,
~ ~
~~
. .
~~
5~
h
05\
H
g.~
[:>j;;-
~ ~
o
a
it!
i.~
d
a-
.~
!i
.~
H
!~ ~
o
a
;J
w
'"
o
~
~
N
~
u
o
r
'"
"
~
~
8 8
~ 8-
~ ~ ~
~
"
'b
i
.
,
.
l
~
,
i"
'K~
.^
,!
.'
..
~~
H
..'-'- <
/-51
goo
a g~ ~
Ii ~ ~
J!{......
-I/I--I/I-~
s. ~
- ~
i z
g 0. ~
Fo ::il Z
o 8
z z
~ ~
~
~
'"
~
C
0'"
OZ
~-
~C
08
z~
..~
;:11:
~
~
I
~
~
B
~;
~ I
^ e
~ -~
goal
~Ol
. ,
]'
d
~~
EU:
. .
K~
,<
~;::
.."
~~~
.
<
~
5
~
~
!i
~
1:
~
~
.
>
~
~
B
o
I
~
,
~
!
.
.
<
"
~
~
K
5
r;
.
..
8
~
.
i
o
E
5
t
o
<
~
!
"
i
,
~
o
u
.
~
<
.
"
u;U:
w_
~
o
'"
w
~
<
u
III
V'l~~-'~---'-
Z -
~I IUi
01 I
u'
", p
Z' !if
1;;1 ~
....., ;.
~, '
U
,
T
N
.
i
.
~
w
~
m
1!
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
.'
g!
.'
81
""!"'
~
81
i'
i'
,
o
.'
.,
.'
.'
z,
~I
.,
51
.
0'
llI:!
.
N
~L
~'
;
.,
.'
~I
~'
~:
5i :s
~~
u,
>
.,
.,
z'
;'
~
.
.
"
g
"
u g~ ~ ~
@~ ,( U U @~
~8- ~8 ~ g~ ~ 8'::;:' g~:~g
_a ~a ~ ~.
~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
..
'"
N
m
I _
r-'~-'llll+ "it{l"
IE if hIt
I! ii ].1'"
iiji l~ ~!~
iH il [~~!
IH ,ii~11
!!' iH~
Ii Ud
II ~
~ ~-
.1 i
,Ii I !~ i
If i I! i~
i~ ~:~ jj~.
.~_._..I~ oS ..,,~,Ii
I I~ ~J
.. (I ~<<
i I! II I ~!
.. i,~ I~ '. L
if lit Ii H
"'. I" I .1
l:; i d; ~<
~, I!l H
I ~ 9
J~ ,;:~ ~!
1~ iil GI Jll~
J ;~ ,~. ~ h
"
o
.
E
E
8
~
.
E
~
K
~
a;
~
o
.
E
E
~
.
~
.\wo!Jdl6&1
~
~
~ ~
~~~~~
~ ~ ~
" "
~ ~
~ ~
~!
.~
~
.~ 1l
~ '
~ l j
~ '~ ~
S I j
. ~ s
r ! i
~ s ,
I ~ ~
o
-S B ~ ib
,] I~
i! ~ i~
HS ij
H i~ i~
"5 "'1' I~
Ii '~ i!
i';~ ;r
. ~ I' ri
~; :.5-
~hllh
t_nnn_
; ~
~ .~ j
~ ~ ~
i I ~
E )j ·
~ . I I
l i ~ ~
~ .s j ~
! l
I J
,
I ~n
, ~n
~ 'n
t~ 1m
~ <; ..,~
ligOn
L![ ^
H !. !
HIU
o 0
, ,
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
g ;1
B '~
~ ,;,
i ;!
! ,l
j' II
~ ;i
l !
Jill
~
o
~ ~ ;;: :;
m
"
------!------~
~ ,
. .
Ii
" .
~~
, .
F.
= <
~ .'
~ 5'
."
; l
! '0
;; ~
~.
. .
~~
. ,
~I
L
, I
ciif~
~-'"
!!
5
i
I
.
s
!
~
,
j
!
s
i
.
~
o
<
I
!
.
~
~
"
.
~
~
.
/-'0
Vl
Z
o
E
Cl
z
o
V-
~ r~
~.il. ~ ~ . ~
(;SL~~~_JL.^_._L._~+_____L
.~ ... .
~l
~s
!s~
all
I~I
:?
un
.!i
~
o
~Ul
c
u
~ ~
"
z
8"
8z
~~
~Q
~ ~ ~ 00
z9
u.:1&.
zli:
~ ~
z z
~ ~
~ ~ ~
, _~"W
@@
R'~
.~
@@.
aa
~
~
~
~
~
z
')1')
~H
L__~..JL.__4_._
..
~
o
li1
..
8
.
="'i
~
N"i
ill;
~
.
.
.-
~
..r,
*'
.
~
~
"
.
~..
~
.
~
~ !
"
[ ,
e ~
~ B
I !
~
e
.
. ~-
"
~ .
,
w
~ 0
1 I
e
~
~
~UOPdZ66t
fcp.lOPd900l
.
.
c
.
~
~!~
~ .3
c
z
!i'
@
~
.
.
Q
.
"
z
~
~
-L
Ii
1)1
:8
11;;
!
li!
.
E
E
8
~
B I
It ~ i~
IE -' I,.~
I~ ,g ~
i;ff: ~ 15
I.! ~ 6 'c
i~ ~-;j ib
I~ ~ .~ Ii
i!Jlh I~
IhlJ;' I~
!~~ !3S i~
"'''''''''''.'''''''''''"1''
"!! '"
:.j ~.'iti. ~
ii~ ~t~~!~ ~
:i! !i~ ;.i ~]; ::
~! :~~'i~!~ !
II~ ,UHi! i
ili lara i. ~
"" .,...~~~.- i
l,hi~~"~!IH ~
'I!! I ~ l! \!! _~ i3 e,Q J:::
I~ 19~ I~~~i ~
.",,,,,;,,....m_ -,-.".". r
'0
~
J!J
e
.
E
~
e
Q
oS
~
.
~
e
.
E
E
~
0:
:~
B .
, ~
~ ~
.
-' ,
.
t .
, J ~
. "
.i'
,I .~ ,
, I
:;. ~ ~
l!!~
H ~ ~
~.
-li ~ ]
-~<(\
ga , .
," ,~ 1
,
.~
o
~
o
-'
!
.
,
.
.
I
~
H
n n n ~~,
.... ...... ...... ~....
~
~
~
,
.
~
,
o
"
~
"
,
;~
it!.
"
I.
'"
"
'0
1~
,
,
'~ ~
."
'. !
lir2
, .
! :~
0"
ijB
~~
B _~
"i
! B
~ .5
iil~
8~
~
I
~
.
,
~
,
.
€ ~
~~
~ 5 ~
~G
oz
~ ]~
. ,
l ~~
.
.
i'
. u
~ ~
o w u.. I.?
~
~
B
~
,
~
"
~
~
u
0"
H
H
~-g
:~~
:Ell!
,~J
,
,
':E ,
" ~
:j K
.
. .
. [
,
, .
. ~
! [
i
o
Z
.:: ~
oS!
Il
.0
.0
~~
. ,
~~
H
-" ~
. e
.,
~ " :!!
.3 ~ ~
'S B <;
~@ VI ~
~:-g ~ ~
f ~ ~ ~ u:
....
.
.
c
u
~
~
.
o
~
1
~
~
x
~
/-'1
TABLE 6
CMP REPLACEMENT COST
. This line item only gives the total for the added pipe. The rest is under Current CIP.
I-I,~
-
l!!
::I
-
"
::I
~
-
..
l!
-
l:
"'T
l:
o
Z
"
"C
::I
U
.=
-
o
l:
..
"
o
e.
III
z
o
~
ii2
0..
o
a:
0..
0..
<(
o
z
<(
III
W
:::>
z~
Wo
>LL
ll!o..
OS
Z..
:::>"
LL"
...JLL
<(0
....<(
0:0..
<( ..
0"
LL.s:.
o g
>- ..
a: ..
0"
.... l!
III ::I
:i: g
a:Cl
<( l:
W.-
>-"g
w,2
>
ii:
W
...J
m
<(
....
Ul
l!!
::I
-
:;;
l:
8-
"
"
~
o
"
::I
l:
"
>
l!!
E
l!
Cl
o
~
Q.
"
"C
::I
U
.=
-
o
l:
..
"
o
e.
el
m
o
o
"
~
e-
.
.
>-
~
u:
~
N
>-
~
~
8
N
~
8
N
~
>-
~
N
N
.
~
.;
~
IONs;!vOO......lI"lO:>
~!i<5~.,..,.~a;l8
OJ-.....-lr)-lr)- N-lrJ-O-
~:8~:; M~g:
r..f....-.,. .,..,..,.
~~
8.
~-
;;;
~~88aalillillil
r-:aill'id
~i~~
8
~
;;;
""0000000
C5CSM.,..,..,.M.....,.
ll'iori
~i
~
;;;
.;
m
q
;;;
~8lillilaaa~a
ai..: I()
in ;;
~
;;;
g
105<052:0000.....
~j3:.,.C5M.,HIH"~~
~~ ~ :g
vN N N
"'1IIt.,. .,.
;;;
m
=
=
~
;;;
52:00'<1"00.....0<0
<58.,.~.,.M:5.,.!5!
~ri 8" ~ ~
~.,. ~ 14'"
.
<
.0
"
.<
~
":/"
L
< .
.=
> ~
..
0"",
~tH3~~~~~t5
CIl CIl CIl CII ijj QI CD lli QI
"["eee"["e"e'"e'"e'
0..0..0...0...0..0...0...0.0-
g,i~~~lii~~~
.:::~elll..c~E'RiE
"e (/.)1- a.::l ell ~~ ~
Cl CIl=:>
> ~ 0
~6:C!)
~ ~
.
~
N
!O'
.,;
;
.,;
~
N
o
m.
!~
~
o
o
o
~
~
:l
M
.,;
m
o.
~
:!!
M
~
~
m
=
=
'"
o
o.
~
.
<
.g
.
"C
~
e
~
~
"
:;;
...
.
"
:;;
o
e-
~
....
~
el
;-6.3
"
..
~
.
~
.
>
u:
~
N
>-
~
~
8
N
~
M
8
N
N
8
N
~
=
N
m
..;
N
M
,;
;;;
mN0800000
OlNN "''''WM_
<;0..,.'0/" <0
'"-'8"g ill
its.~.,. ;;
N
~
i!l
m
ui
;;
.;
~
OIOSO!OOOOOO
:::;:::!;<5"'''''''''''''~
aioig ,..:
~i~ l2
o
~
N
"
<3
;i
0""00000"
"'15 <5"'''''''''''''cs
...:....: .n
~. N
~ ~
~
I!i
~
'"
M
~
..;
~
m~8ooo00~
100> .,..,..,..,..,.
.~
~gg ~
fo'I-_'" foOl.
~
=
~
N
g
~
..;
~
~~~~~~~~~
mm
aim-
"'~
~
N
~
..;
=
=
..;
~
lil8Ulillillillil~
&fig ~
......601-10'1- tit
~
"
<
.2
"
...
.
~
~:/"
,-
< .
CIl~
> ~
. .
"'''
~ {S '~HHHH~ ~ ~
Qj C) QI CIl Ql Ql iii Qi f1l
'['['['["["e"e"e"e
c..c..o...c..c..c..c..o..o..
Q) Qi U rA ~L.1: ~c
g>~l\ijt:e~Ql....
s;;: _ .... Ill..c ili E E
.~ (J) I- c..:J en g-Cll ~
o ~~1;
-8~C!)
~ ~
~
"
ATTACHMENT 3
__N
~~=
M~ 0
o~..
:~~
rittio;
~--
~~
~-~
omm
~o~
~~:;
:.~"':.
:1;:1;
0_ _
0__
ONN
~j<l)"O>
-~=
~_m
-<":l.~
~~
~~:
~o~
":Nm
_0_
N_M
~. .
MM
~~
O~~
~~=
00
vi";
00
N N
~..;
~~
:;::;;:i
~M_
16":"':
=~~
m N N
-::~
. . .
<<<
.g.g~
...
"C'C'E:;
~~~
e e e
~~~
~~~
"""
~~~
S~~
-!-
~o
e--
~
.
..
~
o
~
~
u:
o
w
@@S@@SS~iii
o<<i Of5- ..r~-
~i ~~ ~-~-
~ ~~
~
~
~
:8
N
..:
;;;
~ggggg~$
~-
NN
~~
~~
N"':
ww
~
~
~
t
~
;i
Iii
~
..;
~
~.
N
W
~
:;:
N
i::
ggggg~gu;g
~M
r---"':
N ~
W~
W
-
N
,,;
~
~
W
0000000>10
fififiWW....1e:6
.,j"':
iHl
"'W
W
.
to
..
Q
~
'"
W
~
~
::
m
.
..;
W
"
z
8
N
i::
ooooS<ooo.....
***MI5M"':;g
g a.v.
it aa
-
::
~
~
-
SSSSSSiil;;;
~N
,...-(")
N~
:>:/
"-
Q
M.
W
N
:l
~
'"
W
"
z
8 sssss..S!!~ M gg~aagg~ ~ m
~ ~ ~
" 0 Q ~
N It'i.o ili g it ..:
i:: m~ ~ ~ ::
~... :i W W ;i
"
z
Q
z
:;)
U-
..J
<(
It:
w
z
w
Cl
M
:;:
N
,.
~
QOOOOOOLOO
15......8.,..,.*~~
o 0 iZ-";
_ ~ m
N N ~
fi ~ ;;;;
"
z
N
:;:
N
,.
~
..@..........@~
of Eli
" _w
- .,;
w
"
z
,~
"
.0
~
.
~
~.'I-
,-
o 0
~a
.0
IX"'>
~~~rH~~tHHs
~ ~ ~ w w ~ w w w
'[ "2'''[ '2"[ e"e"["e
c..c..c..c..c..a..c..c..c..
g,1l~.t1 ~e~~~
c;:.t ... lll.c a; E i6 E
"il! WI- c..:::i l'J) g-~ ~
CI Gi=>
>!l 0
~c..(!)
&. ~
.
~
~
~
Q
:!
~
,,;
w
ggiggga~
~
g
w
~
~
~
..
~
Q
..
W
aaaaaaa~
N
i
w
o
o
,g
o
"
~
e
~
~
'"
:;
C-
o
<.>
~
>-
.
o
o
'ii
.2'
:0
o
8
.~
'"
:0
.
o
~~~~~~~~
"e'e"e"e"e'e"ee
a.a.c..a.c..c..c..Q.
t!~~liii
"i!!(/)1- a.U) ~~ ~
Cl ~:iS g
id:(!)
IX: i!
~
"
~
~
~
g
w
N
M
~
..
~
~
,,;
w
~
~
N
i
w
N
N
m
t
..
w
o
o
,g
o
.2'
:0
o
.
u
i:
.
'"
:s
.
c
~
o
o
,g
.
"
~
e
~
~
'"
:;
C-
o
<.>
~
"
~
>-
1-6 If
. ~ ~M~~~a~~i - 0_ . ~ OOOOO~OOO OQQ
~ ~~~ ~ ill iOJlo'l-lo'l-lo'l-toIl- Io'l-WW 000
Q 0 0 OQQ
>- M ~ .. .. >- ::i ~ wi...::i
~ 0 :g. .~N
m Q. ~ . 0 Q. Q~O
;; ;; . .. ;; _~ ...r
>- ~ ~ >- ~ ~ ~
1 .
..
~ ~
~ is iiaaaaaaa aaa ill ;; aoooooooo ONN
lit Io'l-lo'l-lo'l-tIlIo'l-Io'l-Io'l- ~QO
0 N 00
N .. N M ~~
~ ~ >- ;;;
o. ~ ~ ~~
;;
~
8
N
>-
~
iiiiiiiii
o
Q
~.
;;
000
~~~
8
N
>-
~
lOlOlOlOlO8lOlOli:
N
g'
~
000
O~~
N ~ Q
....~.
O~
~~
~ ~
lO i(;;iiiiiii ;:;3;:; :1: N iiiii8iii OQQ
M OQ 0
Q Q Q . 0 000
.. .. .. N '" i1i :i:~
18. 0 Q >- M
o. o. ~ ~ 0 : :
~ ~
;; ~ ~
~
>-
~
iiiiiiiii
N
8
N
~
iiiiiiiii
lO
1Il
C
Z
::)
LL
I-
Z
<(
<r:
~
~
z
iii
::)
o
J:
o
I-
1Il
m
o
...,
~~~~~~~~~
"e"e-"e'"["[e'e"e"[
0..0..0..0..0..0..0..0..0-
g,1l~~ ~%!~~~
.,,".Jl~E"'E
"!!! CD I- o..::;VJ ~~ ~
o Q) = >
> ~ 0
i!~~
"' "
.
.
.
'-'
.
g
.~
e
~
~~
.-
. .
~'5.
. .
"''-'
000
~~~
aaa
. . 0
. . .
~~~
.0.
"!:.t:1::
~~~
e e e
~~~
~~~
......
]i:!!]i
- 0 0
Ii;;!-
'-' "
-&
~o
>--
"
o
>-
LL
i5
<r:
w
;::
W
1Il
Z
o
>-
z
<(
o
(3
~
o
a.
~
..
~
~
~
8
N
>-
~
N iiiiiiiii
".
;;
..
N
8
N
>-
~
lOlOlOlOlO~li:li:lO
8
:l
g;
o.
;;;
o
~
~~~~~~~~~
"["["["["ee"e'e'[
0..0..0..0..0..0..0..0..0..
gG)~~~~~~ll
c:~...lIl]iai:E'iijE
"!!!CI'J I- o..::it/) ~~ ~
o Q) = >
> ~ 0
~~Cl
~ ~
~
'-'
.
.
.0
~
..
~
e
~
~~
~~
> ~
. .
"''-'
l-b!:
0__
~oo
00
:i:i
0__
000
000
o~ fIO~..r
2-~
~ ~
000
. . .
000
;;;;;
.0.
"l:"l: 'C
~~~
2 I: e
~~~
~~~
......
~~~
It;;1-
" "
-&
~O
>--
~
. ~ /"'-00....8000..... -i- . g- 00000$008 C~M
~ :;;guere ..........:8 C 0 ~ ..............fi ...... ~~~
C C ~ ~~M
,; ~Or-.-NO C/J- ":~wi ~- Irj- ~i:i~
>-- ~ ~~~b1~ M O~~ >-- N ~ ~
. M -~~ m M ~ N ~--
~ ,; ...:...:....,.:10') oj :~: :Ii ,; ~ .rjM";
M MM M M >- M ~ ~
~ .
..
"' ~
~ ~ U~:.~:.:.:.~ MN~ 8 0 000000000 O~ C
~ ~_o M ........................8 O~~
~~~ ~ 000
N :g ~:igf 0 t iN''': N 0; ,; wi"':"';
>- ~M >- ~- ~ ~=;:!;
~ ~ ~C')to'l- ~ co ~ - ~ ~ N
M ~ M ..:..._~ .. M ~ ~
~ M
~
8
N
>-
~
M
M_
g-
..
":0158:':':':'''
(S.........lO ($
g~g~ g
~~14~ loll-
~ ~ M
.~M
.~N
oriMar
~-~
N _ M
...:....,.:
M M
8
N
>-
~
~
~
~
oj
"-
..
000000000
........,...................M....
OM M
M~~
~ ~
or".
~ ~
MM
N U~U:.:.:.~ ~~:i: ~ ~ 000008000 0..
1)l ~N_ ~ ..............,..... ........., 8~~
'" ~a~Sfg ai ..,.~,..~ ('<01- ~ ~ gii
~ C') MM_ ~ ONM >-
'" ~ - ~ ~ ~-~
;;; VI- ...........,. ,..:....,: M ;;;
~ ~ M ~
~
N
:;
,;
~
.-
..
r--!<oooooo~
:Dcs....g..........fiWC>>
ll'i~ ~ g
:tN N .....
"'M M
N~~
:;S:$
N",r-:
N~_
__M
.,:......,:
M M
M
8
N
>-
~
o
~
0_
:2
M
~g~~~~~~~
~
'"
~
M
Ii
CN~
~ N_
~M~
...,:,,;
~M~
M M
..; M
M M
N :< ~oOC/JOOOON _oc N 0 oooo~8oaa gNN
8 ..........,......toIl-.......,ln OM M 8 :< .........""..... VI- NN
0 ~ - 000 OMM
N ri M c;i ..-.nm N fi 8' 0"':"':
>- 0 . ~ _~o ~ o~o
~ .- -- N_ ._c 0 "'- ~ ~
;;; .. ;;; ...;....l'oi oj ;;;
~ ~ M ~ ~
s
z
o
;:::
o
:::>
0::
I-
<Il
Z
o
o
..J
<(
;:::
Z
W
c
1ii
w
0::
~~1S~~~.p,~~
4l 4l CIl <Il <p di ifi ilj Qj
'ee"e"e"e"e"e"e"e
0..0..0..0..0..0..0..0..0..
.-~. ~"-,,-
elf!> ~ c..!j! l::Ci)l::
::g~ <lleijj~'iii~
'!!'Cf)t-o..:3w g.cn E
c ~~~
~~~
'" "
.
o
.
'-'
g
'ai
-0
~
.
~
~~
~~
>~
..
"'''
. . .
000
000
;::1;::1';:1
. . .
"""
~~~
eee
~~~
~~~
"'''''''
~~~
li~ I-
" .
- .
..~
00
>---
..
o
>--
u.
is
0::
W
;:
w
<Il
~
w
W
0::
o
I-
..J
<(
<Il
~~~~~~~1S~
ifi di ii Q) Ql <Il CIl IV .v
'e'e'e'['ee'e"e"e
0..0....0..0..0..0..0..0..0..
&ib~~ ~%i~t[i
l!! 1: e Ill.o ijj E'Iii E
.~ {f} I- c..::J en g-cn E
c ~~~
~~C!)
& f
.
o
.
'-'
.
o
..
"
.J
L
o .
~1
"'''
/-b~
. . .
000
~~.g
. . .
'C'C'C
~~~
e e e
~~~
~~~
"'''''''
3~'i
~~~
" .
-:!.
~o
>---
~
~
. ~ ~a~lili!a~~ "G~ . ;!; ~agaaaaa~ ~ ~ G
~ G ~~G .. ON"
G .. ~ 00_ ~ ~ G G"N
>- i ....:- M ":a>O~ of .; ";Otlo~
m >- ~~:!! ~ ill G~~
m ~ M N I; 0 ~ ~ ~
,..: N ~ ~~;Z~ r: ~ ..; ~ ... t'l~ <"f
> ~ N ~ ~~
. ;; ~ ~-- .
.. ~~ >
~ i!:
~ N aaaaa:!ilaa~ G~~ ~ 0 aaaa~~aaa O~~
::\ ~ 1lO. :~= ::\. ...~~
N ,..: :; >- ~~i N ;;; .-i.-i
> G >- > 00
~ G. ... ;; ..~" ~ ~ :ll:ll
;; ;; ..:..: ('l~ ~
~ -==
~ m """"";""8 iH ~ >- aaaaaaagg OGG
8 ~ 8 ~ ~GG
GG
N 'it M .n t~:e N i'i ,,;,,;
> N N > 00
~ .. 0 ~ GG ~ ~ :ll:ll
of ..; ..;..rvi ~
M ~ -:.:.
~
~ Si a~agaggag ONN N gggggSiii OGG
gJ;t~~ :! ~~~
M ~~
;- $ ~ OG~ ..; ..r.-l
> G_~ > ill ~ ~
r: ~ N O~~ ~ :ll:ll
., on ..; :i"; co. ~
M ~ " "
E ~ ~~ 0-
.,
C) N
.. ~
c. 0
..,
., >-
D:: .,
~ M m iiiii~iii ~G~ .l< M M giaaaaaaa ~_G
; 8 >- G"N 8 Ie 0" "
--" e> G_~
N .; ,..: ,...,.:;t N ~ i!i ~Q.cO
., > ~ ;\. ;:I;:sl<D .2- > ~o
C/) ~ '" ":ej,,: ~ ~ :ll :ll;l;~
;; ;; ;:~ J!l ~
,; ~
C) "'
"~ 0
0
., E
C/)
~ l!
., N 8 iiiii~ii~ 0__ Cl 8 N ~iiiiiiii O~~
it 8 0" M ~ &~~.
" .. ~ NGO 2 >-.
., N Ii ..; 0 .no"; N N .; O~~
C/) > N ~ ~MN a.. ~ ~ 0" G
~ " >- ~ ~~o :ll ;; _"0
.: .; ..; :ir{~ C/) ~~~
N ~ w
i ~ ~~
C
a..
C/) z
.l< .,
r: ."
::l ::l
~ ~~~~~~~~~ . . . u ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 ~ 0 0 . . .
l- e e e .E ~~~llllllllH e e e
.: 000 000
2'"2'"e-"["["["2'"2'"e """ "e"e-"["ee"e"e"e"e ;:1';:;:;:1
; . . . - . . .
o..o..c..o....a..c..c...1l..1l.. ;:;: 'C 0 o....a.a..c..Cl..Cl..Il..c..o.. ;:;:'1:
~1~~~1~~5l ~~~ z ~Qj~~ ~1~~5l ~~~
., 22 e e e e
C/) ~~~ "' l!! 1: ~ lll.a E 1;j E ~~~
.!:Uj f- ~:3 to? [tA ~ ::: ., .~fJ} I- c..::jw %(/J E ~~~
OJ ~ ~,g~ 0 "'''''''
"u ]~! e. o ~ .~ ~ 'i~]
> DO >" 0
., -86::<9 ~~~ ~.r~ c..g~
a. ~ E " . W '" . .:l.
!!!. . - . W . -&
. l!~ LL 0 160
00 .
C/) . " >-- Z . " >--
C .~ ~ ~ 0 ~
Z .2
l "
::l '..
LL e C e
D:: ~ :E ~
w .~ D:: ~~
~ L ,-
o . 0 o .
.~ ~~
>~ I-
o. . .
C/) "'0 C/) "'0
1-'7
. ro lO i!llOlO:..~lOlillil :li~O ~ glOlOlOlOlOlillOlO O~~
~ Sj ~ ~ 0 ro~~
~ ~~~ N O~~
>- .,; ;! t"':<Ii .0 .,; .,;,,;-~
ill ~~ ;;;. ~ ~~~
m ro :~: ~ =~:
~ ~ .. ~
>-
Ul
W
>=
::::;
~
LL
W
...J
o
>-
o
iii
:0(
C
I-
8
N
8
N
>-
~
8
N
C;:
~
:;:
N
>-
~
8
N
C;:
~
;:
lli
~
lililllil22lillillil2
~
g-
l:I
~
~
~
..;
..
2~222lil222
.0
N
~
2:!lillillil22lillil
~
,.:
ro
N
~
~
ill
i
~
~~~~~~~~~
~
~
~
.,;
o
..
a~aaaaaaa
g
..
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 0 0
jijijiHHll\l
'['e'e'ee'e'e"e"e
a.. a.. 0.. a.. a.. a.. a.. a.. a..
~G)~~ ~e~~~
~~e!IlI.Qii:E'l;jE
"e (I) I- a..::ill) ~~ ~
Cl Cl= >
> ~ 0
~~(!)
t:. ~
.
~
.
C
.0
..
l
m~
,-
c m
g!'a
. m
"'0
~~"
~~;:;
<ri"':';
ro~~
N~N
~ ~
~lil~
~- ~-
N N
~ ~
:~:
~ ~
~ ...:
ro ~
N N
~ ~
aaa
rororo
:g""'lil
~ ~
~ ~
. . .
c c c
000
;;:l;;
m m .
"""
0.0.0.
e e e
0.0.0.
0.0.0.
"""
]j~ii
a.g~
.:l f
-:!.
~o
>--
"
I<-
LL
C
w
Cl
<
z
~
c
z
o
>-
z
<
o
J:
ll..
i:i
Cl
W
...J
W
I-
ro
:;:
N
>-
~
8
N
C;:
<!
o
N
>-
~
M
:;:
N
C;:
8
N
>-
~
ill
ro
Ii
..
~taaaaaaaa
~
~
~
M
~
~
~
000000000
........fo'l-Io'l-Io'l-""'.....,...,.
<!
N
.,;
~
..
aaaaaaaaa
ro
:!!i
g
::l
000000000
_....fi........6'l-M......,.
:!
~
N
N
~
~
000000000
8..,...,.fo'l-...............,...,.
.,;
N
N
~
HHHiH
"e"e"e"e"e"e-eOe"e
a...c....a..Il..a..a..a..a..ll..
~m~~ ~~~~~
:l!,g ~ 1II]i t E'iii E
"e(1) I- a..::irJ) ~~ ~
Cl Cl = ~
~~(!)
t:. E
.
c
.
"
.
c
o
..
.C
0.
e
0.
m~
,-
cm
.=
> 0.
m m
"'0
/-btJ
ororo
oro~
ororo
~=~
~ ~
~ ~
a~~
:i:f
~~
o~~
~--
~ ~
::
ororo
~~~
roro
::
oro~
o~~
ororo
wi';";
N~~
N N
~ ~
. c .
c 0 c
0;:; 0
;:1l1li;::
~ 'i~
0.00.
2 a e
0.0.0.
0.,,0.
"."
!ias
i~.2
~:!.
~<:>
>-"
I<-
. ~ Ulillillillillillillil ~ a ~ . 0 ~~m~~~~aa QQ~
~ a N_N ~ ~ ::1-~
a Q Q ~ .. oa
ai U '" '" t- ..; ..; ..;or..;
. ~- ~ !~ . ;; ill :::~:
~ ;;; -- . a ::l 1Ii-..;
- - >- - -
~ .
..
"' ~
~ iiiiii2ii aaa ! aa~aaaaaa Q Q~
N --- ~-Q
~ ~ ~NQ
..; ~ ..; ("j~":
a 0 !-~!
~ ..-
- N ;;;
- - -
N
...
ll.
o
Ill::
e,
C
Z
~
II-
II-
W
::;
W
Ill::
Z
o
;::
III
W
Cl
z
o
o
o
;;:
II-
i::i
....
Q
~
>-
~
aaaaaaaai.
aaa
---
lillil~lillillillillillil
,,;
~
N
;;;
a __
aNN
a~~
"';flliM~
~N~
~.,..~~
- -
a~a:iaaaaa ~ao Q lillil~lillillillillillil a__
N_N N aNN
Q Q Q N a Q Q
.; ,,; '" ,,; " ,,; :t:i
N ~ a a ~ iil_
"I ~ :l o_~
- N ;;; ...;-,.:
- - -
~
~
>-
~
~ a~aaaaaaa
~- ~-
- -
N
8
N
~
s;!:oooooooo
oll'tll'tll'tll't...lo'l-lI't....
g
-
il
o
.;
~
~
-
~~~~~~~~~
'2 '2"2"2"2"["[ '2' 'e
a..c..c..c..o..c...a..ll..D..
.;;~. "'-,,"'-
ff~ ~ t: l!! i Q) Q) Iii
.~ en f- ~ :3 CI) &~ ~
- ~ u .
C Q) = l5
~.g(!)
al"-
0: .
.
o
.
"
.
o
o
..
'0
~
.
~
~~
~~
~ ft
o:u
aaa
g-g
o o~
il il
- -
gag
a a
o 0
a a
~ ~
- -
...
00 0
00 0
;:l;l;:l
. . .
""""""
~~~
e e e
~~~
~~~
"""
'i~s
c...g~
.:3.
-&
~o
t--
~
t-
8 ~ 200000000 aQQ
~ W$......._to')fl'HI'l. :8:;a~
0
N i!i N r.l~ M~";
~ ~ ~N~
'" ::i ~-~
;;; - -
Ci
l:
'6
l:
.a
~
:E
o
III
"
."
::l
U
:S.
w
W
II-
...J
<(
Z
Cl
iii
o
;;:
II-
i::i
....
Iii
N
>-
~
Q
~
a
..
:;:-
;;;
lillil8lillillillillillil
~
"
:;
~~~~tstl~~~
di Q) Q) Q) Q) CD Ii ~ Cti
'e'e"e'e"e"e"e"e"e
c..a..o..c..o..c..o..ll..ll..
m- 0 '" ~""-.2:'-
g~lEt:l'!!!lii.2!lii
.!i:ii5~~,e", a~ EE
e ..J.!il u
o . ~ .
>D6
~cr(!)
~ e
~
"
.
,g
[
.
~
~~
~~
> ~
. .
o:u
/-6?
a Q Q
a~~
Q~~
,.:..r..:
_N:!
:;-..
. . .
c c c
000
;:l;:l=
. . .
;:;:'1:
~~~
e e e
~~~
~~~
"""
'i~s
.- 0 0
S~f-
-&
~o
t--
~
.
~
>-
~
,.
.
.0
~
~
~.
fii
ri
N
K
OOlOOOOOO@
6oIt.....~..,.6oIt......,.W
o
10- .n
>- >-
>- K
"'
N
K
~~~
>-M~
O~N
0':':
~M~
~-~
.c 06
N N
- -
gag
o 0
o o.
o 0
>- >-
~ ~
. .
~~
>->-
. .
. .
,.,.
. .
.~ .i!:
~~
N
i!l
~
>-
N
;1;
~M8~~~~~~
>-~ ~
~g :8-
~-~ ~
NK
K
~~o
O~~
000
.n.ori
00>-
~NO
~=;i
K K
O~~
O~~
000
.ocrj
N~:g
ri_-M
---
~ ~ :>S!:>:>:>:>:>:>@ ~:~ ~ !8 0"'800000g ~ ~ >-
8 :g 8 to'l-;:: Io'l-lo'iH....,..,. ~~N
~ ~ >-~~
N 0; ,..: L6 N N N 0; g~f i ....-tlJ-.....-
,. >- ~ ~ :!! :!! ,.,. >- ~~:il
~ v ~~ M ~N N
,c ,c ,c ,c .,; itK K :i;:
K K K K ;;
~
8
N
,.
~
~
M
~
~
it
oS<!ooooooS<
""~"""'''''''''''''''''C5
~ ~
it
O~~
000
o~~
ONN
>-K>-
o 0
M ,.;-
K K
88
NN
,.,.
~~
:g
M
;!
N
"'
K
0""00000"
6oItcscsVl-6oIt6olt6olt6oltcs
gg ':i
ON K
.K
;;
ONN
~=~
~-~-3-
~OM
.~_-<sr
KKK
M 0 ~8~OOOOOO 000 M 0 O~@O:>OOO@ ~ 0 ~
0 N ......W6olt6oltll'l 000 8 g 60ItN ..,. ..,...._ N _ M
0 0 000 ~ 0_>-
N ~ ~ octo> N i!i ...ri "l- a.. o. tIJ-
,. liNN ~ t::c;;j ~ O>-~
~ ."'<<1. ~ ;; OMV
N ;; "' NK ===
K K K K K
I-
W
Z
l/l
Z
~
I-
8
N
,.
~
g
M
N
o
v
it
0>20000000
6o't15.....,.Wlo/t6olt6oltW
o
>-
o
ri
K
~
~
~.
"'
K
i~iiiiiii
,c
o
N
~
.
c
.Q
~
c
2
.~
L
c .
.~
> c
. .
"'''
~~~~.e~.e~~
di Q) Ql Ql Ql Ql Ql Q) CIl
'['['["["["["["["[
c...a.c...c..c..c..c..c..c..
&l!~~ ~~~~~
~ -= ~ 1II]l ijj E'lli E
.~(I)l-Il..::p" ~~ ~
Cl ~ i'i Ei
~~Cl
&! ~
.
c
.
'-'
!=!
,.: ,.:
o 0
N N
fIIi fIIi
K K
.00
c c c
~~~
. . .
"""
0.0.0.
2 2 2
ccc
o.o.c
<<<
~~~
:i~1-
,,-
_0
,"c
00
>--
~
w~
W,.
LL~
I-
o
<(
l>.
~
I-
Z
w
::Ii
l>.
o
..J
W
>
W
o
Z
o
S
0::
o
l>.
l/l
z
~
I-
8
N
~
~
o
o
si
o
N
K
~88iiiii~
U Ii
~;
~
~
N
N
ill
o
;;
00000000,,",
W8f5......fhffl...!;;
~~ $
M~ K
o;K
K
.
c
..
m
..
2
c
u.
,-
c .
ell:!:
> C
. .
"'''
~~~~~~~~~
2'2'~.2'2'2'2'2'2'
1l..1l..c..ll..Il..ll..1l..1l..1l..
fbll~~ ~lDi~~
.:'= e 1Il..c If; E'iii E
"iij (/')1- D..;:jUJ ~(I) E
Ci Ql,g ~
> ~ 0
~.r~
'" "
.
c
.
'-'
/-70
N~>-
>-NO
~o~
Itiltiei
:~~
<7i~':
---
-
000
c c c
000
;::;;::;;::;
. . .
"""
ccc
222
ccc
ccc
<<<
lii~!
!~~
" "
- .
,"c
00
>--
'"
o
>-
. ~ iii~iiiii MOM
.. ~-~
"5 m m
>- ~ trJ N ~ ~
N ;;;
I; m ~ ~
~ g :i :;i .; .;
- -
.
..
~
~ ~ iiigiiiii NON
::"'";:&:
N (f) of ~ ..;
>- ill ~ N N
~ ~. N N
N .. ~ ~
-
8 ~ ~~~_~oooo _0_
~ ...."''''... ~-~
N ~ 10- N" ~ ~~
>- ~ ~
~ ~ m. ~ ~
'" - .. ...r N
- - -
o
-
iiiiiiiii
~
iiiiiiiii
~
o
-
iiiiiiiai
:;;
~
C)
o
0::
D-
C)
Z
(3
Z
<(
z
ii:
<(
I-
Ul
:;:
<(
..J
::l
:l:
o
Z
0::
w
I-
Ul
W
~
~~~~~~~~~
"2' '2' '2' '2'"e"e e'"["e
0.... a.. 0.... 0.... 0.... 0.... 0..0..0..
Qj"ai~ II)~"" 'E~"E:
~~'l!!~~ ~ ~-FJ ~
.- en I- 0....._ ~ Q,UJ E
E ~.2
o 2.l,g!lo!
. ~ 0
~~~
" E
.
~
,~
..
.C
~
o
~~
C .
0>>:=
> ~
. .
,,<.>
000
---
aaa
000
---
. . .
ccc
00 0
;1;1=
...
;:'1:;:
~....
e e e
~~~
..~~
"'''''''
!~]i
~~~
" .
- .
~~
00
>--
~
o
>-
/-71
,.
o
c
!~
~~
.c
12.
"
c
~ 01 0
u~i
.. .. ~
a.fa.
CO u e
Oca.
-a.
<I:
Oi
"
l!
::s
o
III
01
C
'6
C
::s
LL
~
III
C
o
.,
..
';:
0.
o
~
0.
0.
c(
S
'0.
..
C,)
S
o
I-
S
"ii
..
o
S
{:!
NCDcnOOCleDlO....
CO....IO....O....NION
IO....CDNON....N.....
~~gggg:ff;f;.
O....ocnco....C1....m
fIi....~...:mtltNM........:
MoM__ ..._..._
.. ....
0.....000.000
tl'l-MOtlttltN___
...... ..
flitS ...:
~.. ..
...~ N
ION ,.:
N" ~
.. ..
~:?~~g:~:g~
ION_NOO...N....
~g~gg~::i3~
o.......cncooo..,.m
fIi...:flittS-oM'.........h
....'1)411-_ M.....W-
.. ....
"
a.
~
-
u
"
c
lr.
J!lJ!lJ!lJ!lJ!lJ!lJ!lJ!lJ!l
u u u u u u u u u
II) <<I) 0 II) CD . . . .
.0 0' 0" 0' 0' 0' 0' 0' 0'
~ . . . . . - - -
Q.D..D.D..IIl.D.D..D..D..
0'5 U II) ~~ 1: b"E
fl!:!lE-t:l!;l:o.!a>>
c-l!co.coEftlE
'ji en t- a.. - rn Q.U) C
l,; ...1.2 u CD
C II) = >
>... 0
~.tCJ
" -
0: e
"
c
"
"
N
..
N
.,;
'"
..
N
..
..
~
..
o
of
..
..
~
...
..
'"
...
'"
,.:
o
...
,.:
'"
;;
"
S
{:!
Oi
"
l!
::s
o
III
01
C
'6
C
::s
LL
~
III
C
o
.,
..
'C
0.
l!
0.
0.
c(
Ii
C
o
.,
l!
"
0.
o
........0000000
....N__...CC......tIt
ON ..
iDui M
..... ..
"'0 ~
~.; .0
.. ~ N
.. ..
J!lJ!lJ!lJ!lJ!lJ!lJ!lJ!lJ!l
~ ~ g g ~ g g g ~
'2' e- e- e- e- e- e' e' e'
a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a.
Q)-ucn~"''''b-
lf~E~co;iJ!i
c(;)l!:.cGlEroE
'! to- ::i UJ g..~ E
c .=!1:
>... 0
.glfeJ
" -
0: e
"
c
"
"
-
u
e
i5
S
o
I-
/-7.)-
..
N
N
..;
o
..
o
:
"
~
...
i
~
~
o
Ul
01
C
'ij
C
~
...
~
"
C
o
1ii
;::
a.
e
a.
a.
<I:
"
u
c
..
c
S
c
'iij
IE
"2
o
~
o
c
"
0:
"2
~
:c
..
.c
12.
;;:
~
...
MOCbOOOCDIO....
OOIO....OMNION
CO....CONDN...N....
~igggc(:f:it
MCOocncocnO....m
O.n,.:fI5......:M~.....
;~tA-'" z:....;-
J!lJ!lJ!lJ!lJ!lJ!lJ!lJ!lJ!l
u u u u u u u u u
.!..!..!...!...!...!!..!!..!...!!.
e e e e e e e e e
Q,.o..D.D.a.a.a.a.a.
CD.UII)~Qj:"Ebc
: e!E of l! !I: CD.e m
c-l!CO.c:CDEftlE
iiU)....D...-rn Q.U) E
.. ...1.2 U II)
C G) = >
>... 0
.g~O
" -
0: e
"
c
"
"
....
o
..
'i
~
..;
'"
;;
"
~
...
ATTACHMENT ~
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Date Printed 3/29/2007
Preventive Maintenance Decision Tree PMSI018
Decision Tree Functional Class Surface Type
Arterial AC
Yrs. Between N umber of
Treatment Description Cost Seals Sequential Seals
Crack Treatment DO NOTHING SO.OO/Li. Ft. 99
Surface Treatment CHIP SEAL W/FLUSH S6.50/Sq. Yd. 5
COAT
Restoration Treatment DO NOTHING SO.OO/Sq. Yd. 2
2 Arterial AC/AC
Yrs. Between Number of
Treatment Description Cost Seals Sequential Seals
Crack Treatment DO NOTHING SO.OO/Li. Ft. 99
Surface Treatment CHIP SEAL W/FLUSH S6.50/Sq. Yd. 5
COAT
Restoration Treatment DO NOTHING SO.OO/Sq. Yd. 2
3 Arterial AC/PCC
Yrs. Between N umber of
Treatment Description Cost Seals Sequential Seals
Crack Treatment DO NOTHING SO.OO/Li. FI. 99
Surface Treatment CHIP SEAL W/FLUSH S6.50/Sq. Yd. 5
COAT
Restoration Treatment DO NOTHING SO.OO/Sq. Yd. 2
5 Arterial PCC
Yrs. Between Number of
Treatment Description Cost Seals Sequential Seals
Crack Treatment SEAL CRACKS S1.50/Li. Ft. 5
Surface Treatment DO NOTHING SO.OO/Sq. Yd. 99
Restoration Treatment DO NOTHING SO.OO/Sq. Yd. 100
6 Collector AC
Yrs. Between N umber of
Treatment Description Cost Seals Sequential Seals
Crack Treatment DO NOTHING $O.OO/Li. FI. 99
Surface Treatment CHIP SEAL W/FLUSH $6.50/Sq. Yd. 5
COAT
Restoration Treatment DO NOTHING SO.OO/Sq. Yd. 2
7 Collector AC/AC
Yrs. Between Number of
Treatment Description Cost Seals Sequential Seals
Crack Treatment DO NOTHING SO.OO/Li. Ft. 99
Surface Treatment CHIP SEAL W/FLUSH S6.50/Sq. Yd. 5
COAT
Restoration Treatment DO NOTHING SO.OO/Sq. Yd. 2
8 Collector AC/PCC
Yrs. Between Number of
Treatment Description Cost Seals Sequential Seals
Crack Trcatment DO NOTHING SO.OO/Li. Ft. 99
Selection Criteria: Page MTC StreetSaver
/-7~
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Date Printed 3/29/2007
Preventive Maintenance Decision Tree PMSI018
Decision Tree Functional Class Surface Type
Surface Treatment CHIP SEAL W/FLUSH S6.50/Sq. Yd. 5
COAT
Restoration Treatment DO NOTHING SO.OO/Sq. Yd. 2
10 Collector PCC
Yrs. Between N umber of
Treatment Description Cost Seals Sequential Seals
Crack Treatment SEAL CRACKS S LSO/Li. FI. 5
Surface Treatment DO NOTHING SO.OO/Sq. Yd. 99
Restoration Treatment DO NOTHING SO.OO/Sq. Yd. 100
II Residential/Local AC
Yes. Between Number of
Treatment Description Cost Seals Sequential Seals
Crack Treatment DO NOTHING SO.OO/Li. Ft 99
Surface Treatment CRACK SEAL AND REAS S3.00/Sq. Yd. 7
Restoration Treatment DO NOTHING SO.OO/Sq. Yd. 2
12 Residential/Local AC/AC
Yrs. Between Number of
Treatment Description Cost Seals Sequential Seals
Crack Treatment DO NOTHING SO.OO/Li. Ft. 99
Surface Treatment CRACK SEAL AND REAS S3.00/Sq. Yd. 7
Restoration Treatment DO NOTHING SO.OO/Sq. Yd. 2
13 Residential/Local AClPCC
Yes. Between Number of
Treatment Description Cost Seals Sequential Seals
Crack Treatment DO NOTHING $O.OO/Li. Ft. 99
Surface Treatment CRACK SEAL AND REAS S3.00/Sq. Yd. 7
Restoration Treatment DO NOTHING SO.OO/Sq. Yd. 2
15 Residential/Local PCC
Yrs. Between N umber of
Treatment Description Cost Seals Sequential Seals
Crack Treatment SEAL CRACKS S1.50/Li. FI. 5
Surface Treatment DO NOTHING SO.OO/Sq. Yd. 99
Restoration Treatment DO NOTHING SO.OO/Sq. Yd. 100
16 Other AC
Yrs. Between N umber of
Treatment Description Cost Seals Sequential Seals
Crack Treatment DO NOTHING SO.OO/Li. Ft. 99
Surface Treatment CRACK SEAL AND REAS S3.00/Sq. Yd. 7
Restoration Treatment DO NOTHING SO.OO/Sq. Yd. 2
20 Other PCC
Yrs. Between Number of
Treatment Description Cost Seals Sequential Seals
Crack Treatment SEAL CRACKS $LSO/Li. Ft. 5
Surface Treatment DO NOTHING $O.OO/Sq. Yd. 99
Selection Criteria: Page 2 MTC StreetSaver
/-7tf
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Date Printed 3/29/2007
Preventive Maintenance Decision Tree PMSIOIS
Decision Tree
Functional Class
Restoration Treatment
Surface Type
DO NOTHING
$O.OO/Sq. Yd.
100
Selection Criteria:
Page 3
MTC StreetSaver
/-1S-
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Date Printed 3/29/2007
Rehabilitation Decision Tree PMSIOl9
Functional Class: Arterial
Decision
Tree #
21
22
23
24
Decision
Tree #
25
26
27
28
Decision
Tree #
29
30
31
32
Decision
Tree #
37
38
39
40
Snrface Type: AC
Condition Category
Condition Category II - Good, Non-Load Related
Condition Category III - Good, Load Related
Condition Category IV - Poor
Condition Category V - Very Poor
Surface Type: ACI AC
Condition Category
Condition Category II - Good, Non-Load Related
Condition Category III - Good, Load Related
Condition Category IV - Poor
Condition Category V - Very Poor
Surface Type: AClPCC
Condition Category
Condition Category ll- Good, Non-Load Related
Condition Category III - Good, Load Related
Condition Category IV - Poor
Condition Category V - V cry Poor
Surface Type: PCC
Condition Category
Condition Category II - Good, Non-Load Related
Condition Category III - Good, Load Related
Condition Category IV - Poor
Condition Category V - Very Poor
Functional Class: Collector
Decision
Tree #
41
42
43
44
Decision
Tree #
45
46
47
48
Surface Type: AC
Condition Category
Condition Category 11 - Good, Non-Load Related
Condition Category j]] - Good, Load Related
Condition Category IV - Poor
Condition Category V - Very Poor
Surface Type: AC/AC
Condition Category
Condition Category If . Good, Non-Load Related
Condition Category III - Good, Load Related
Condition Category IV - Poor
Condition Category V - Very Poor
Treatment
CHIP SEAL W/FLUSH COAT
AC OVERLA Y (2 INCHES)
RAC OVERLA Y
RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (A C)
Treatment
CHIP SEAL W/FLUSH COA T
MILL AND AC OVERLA Y
MILL AND RAC OVERLA Y
RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC)
Treatment
CHIP SEAL W/FLUSH COA T
MILL AND AC OVERLAY
MILL AND RAC OVERLA Y
RECONSTRUCT SURFACE (AC)
Treatment
SLAB REPLACEMENT
SLAB REPLACEMENT
SLAB REPLACEMENT
RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC)
Treatment
CHIP SEAL W/FLUSH COAT
CHIP SEAL W/DlGOUTS
RAC OVERLA Y
RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC)
Treatment
CHIP SEAL W/FLUSH COAT
CHIP SEAL W/DlGOUTS
MILL AND RAC OVERLA Y
RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (A C)
Cost! Sq. Yard
$6.50
$38.00
S43.00
S135.00
Cost I Sq. Yard
$6.50
$42.50
$48.00
$135.00
Cost! Sq. Yard
$6.50
$42.50
$48.00
$135.00
Cost 1 Sq. Yard
$5.75
$5.75
$17.25
$135.00
Cost 1 Sq. Yard
$6.50
$11.50
$43.00
$110.00
Cost! Sq. Yard
$6.50
$11.50
$48.00
$110.00
Selection Criteria:
Page
/-1~
MTC StreetSaver
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Date Printed 3/29/2007
Rehabilitation Decision Tree PMSIOl9
Decision Surface Type: AClPCC
Tree # Condition Category Treatment Cost! Sq. Yard
49 Condition Category II - Good, Non-Load Related CHIP SEAL W/FLUSH COAT $6.50
50 Condition Category III - Good, Load Related CHIP SEAL W/DIGOUTS $11.50
51 Condition Category IV - Poor MILL AND RAC OVERLAY $48.00
52 Condition Category V - Very Poor RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE CAC) $110.00
Decision Surface Type: PCC
Tree # Condition Category Treatment Cost 1 Sq. Yard
57 Condition Category II - Good, Non-Load Related SLAB REPLACEMENT $5.75
58 Condition Category II [ - Good, Load Related SLAB REPLACEMENT $5.75
59 Condition Category IV - Poor SLAB REPLACEMENT $17.25
60 Condition Category V - Very Poor RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE CAe) $11000
Functional Class: ResidentiaVLocal
Decision Surface Type: AC
Tree # Condition Category Treatment Cost 1 Sq. Yard
61 Condition Category II - Good, Non-Load Related CRACK SEAL AND REAS $3.00
62 Condition Category III - Good, Load Related REAS W/DIGOUTS $8.00
63 Condition Category IV - Poor AC OVERLA Y $34.00
64 Condition Category V - Very Poor RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE CAe) $75.00
Decision Surface Type: AC/AC
Tree # Condition Category Treatment Cost! Sq. Yard
65 Condition Category II - Good, Non-Load Related CRACK SEAL AND REAS $3.00
66 Condition Category III - Good, Load Related REAS W/DIGOUTS $8.00
67 Condition Category IV - Poor MILL AND AC OVERLA Y $42.50
68 Condition Category V - Very Poor RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE CAC) $75.00
Decision Surface Type: AClPCC
Tree # Condition Category Treatment Cost! Sq. Yard
69 Condition Category II - Good, Non-Load Related CRACK SEAL AND REAS $3.00
70 Condition Category III - Good, Load Related REAS W/DlGOUTS $8.00
71 Condition Category TV - Poor MILL AND AC OVERLAY $42.50
72 Condition Category V ~ Very Poor RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE CAe) $7500
Decision Surface Type: PCC
Tree # Condition Category Treatment Cost! Sq. Yard
77 Condition Category II - Good, Non-Load Related SLAB REPLACEMENT $5.75
78 Condition Category III - Good, Load Related SLAB REPLACEMENT $5.75
79 Condition Category IV - Poor SLAB REPLACEMENT $17.25
80 Condition Category V - Very Poor RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE CAC) $75.00
Functional Class: Other
Selection Criteria:
Page
2
MTC StreetSaver
/-77
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Date Printed 3/29/2007
Rehabilitation Decision Tree PMS1019
Decision Snrface Type: AC
Tree # Condition Category Treatment Cost 1 Sq. Yard
81 Condition Category II - Good, Non-Load Related CRACK SEAL AND REAS $3.00
82 Condition Category III - Good, Load Related REAS W/DIGOUTS $8.00
83 Condition Category IV - Poor AC OVERLAY $34.00
84 Condition Category V - Very Poor RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) $7500
Decision Surface Type: PCC
Tree # Condition Category Treatment Cost 1 Sq. Yard
97 Condition Category II - Good, Non-Load Related SLAB REPLACEMENT $5.75
98 Condition Category III . Good, Load Related SLAB REPLACEMENT $5.75
99 Condition Category IV - Poor SLAB REPLACEMENT $17.25
100 Condition Category V - Very Poor RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (Ae) $75.00
Selection Criteria:
Page 3
MTC StreetSaver
/-11'
RESOLUTION NO. 2007-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE DRAINAGE PROJECT
PRIORITY LIST AND AUTHORIZING STAFF TO SEEK
SPECIAL FUNDING FOR ANY PROJECT THAT MEETS THE
FUNDING CRITERIA.
WHEREAS, City of Chula Vista staff and City consultants have prepared vanous
Drainage Master Plans and studies from 1964 to the present; and
WHEREAS, City staff has updated all available drainage infonnation; and
WHEREAS, staff has identified approximately $32.0 million to $35.6 million in
cUlTently unfunded capital drainage projects which are listed in the Drainage Project Priority List
[Drainage List], which is attached to and incorporated into this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, staff has identified another $29.0 million in cUlTently unfunded capital
cOlTugated metal pipe maintenance and replacement needs which are listed in the COlTUgated
Metal Pipe Priority Needs [CMP List], which is attached to and incorporated into this
Resolution; and
WHEREAS, there is no specific funding for these types of municipal projects making
them especially challenging to initiate and complete; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to undertake and successfully complete the projects
contained on the current Drainage List as well as address the colTUgated metal pipe priority
needs in the CMP List.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City ofChula Vista
that it approves the Drainage Project Priority List and the COlTUgated Metal Pipe Priority Needs
List.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista that it
authorizes staff to seek out and apply for any special funding that could help the ClllTent
estimated unfunded need with the understanding that projects may be selected off the Lists
outside of recommended priority order should a funding opportunity arise that matches the
specific characteristics of any project included on one of the Lists.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
L/~'~ U~
Scott Tulloch Ann Moore
City Engineer City Attorney
]-I:\ENCilNEER\RI:.SOS\Rcs(ls2007\RFSO.drainagc.()40507 revised by CC_(hlC
1-79
S
m
"
o
~
-m
,~
t..
~
~
i
Q
,
~
,
.
,
"
.
~
~
;;
~
.
~
~
"
.
i
I
[
~
s
K
,
~
Q
[
~
9
~
o
~
[
Q
a
c
~.
B
g
~
.
[
z
~
Z
o
~
~
o
o
II
z
"
C! ~
~ 0
Z ;; d
. . "
. . .
'" e !":'
~ a
!? ~
-1 !!i~ l~{~1 i ~m' ~."'I
i 2f ~~!i n ,~
_ ",-g.; i1 g-g.i !i'1i
n ~ Q r i Q: C ~I
o J2~! ~!il ~ :i;:
~ ~.I ~?,' il
:; ~ 0 & !!!-i Q ~I
~ ~ ij~i g: ~'i
il' ; .~I j' 1.1'
I ~,ii;' Cl ~: ~
~ !I IH ~I 1f
~ ~ ~~~ ]1 :r
- . ~ ~ l ['I ~
. ,I g. II
S ~: Qt~ ~i 6
" ., " .' .
a _~i g .8. R ~I !
HBr JUlIn il !11H
HUi if I iW !: il It
mlig::~ ~~! "1m i ,i ,I H
"" .,'~' ".' i~
~U!j II ~~,~ i' ~, ~
~~~:?~I il .~,~ Q 11,1..'
Jun, i.. HUj il II
-i!~i i! ~Iii i;
~ [l i Ii ~ i i I
nll~i'irrn -I HQ -----Qun ---~r
{'-i:!l.I~~I. ..~ ."~i i;_'~h [
~,h; i~~1 ~.' l!h ~;II,~ I
~.iEI ii~1 r'l 11:;0 ~iH!. ~
~lo;;1 h~1 ,I. I a~ ~~hi ~
~g,~~-! ":;I! ~iii- ~ 1'2 ~'~~;...
liil iill ~H I ~jl r~~a ~
'. c~ ' '0' .' j,i".".
i~~:_' jl;'g~!_ i~~ & 5',. ~ilfB.!tf a
~~" h~' o~. ~ ~I "I"'~'
Pi;il '1,1 F~ · ~l il~n" I
'i~, I ~i d~ ~ n i [Ii ~_
['~.'" . , . f , !. g ~
l:I- 3 a:.1 ~ , ~ m ~< 6.
!l! ? !il,
. +~'~-~-
'"
H
f~
"
n
:n ~,
~g,
Hi
ui
. ~:
i ;;i
~ ~:
~ !'
,
~{
, .
&i,
n
",lOi
~l
~
~
~
-'
'j
h
u
......~~.. --18
h !~
h !z
t ' OIl !Gl
, '
-----1~---!8
3' iZ
~~ ii~~!3
.. ~ - iO
-- ;!;=rJBi
, ]L
, ~o
I ;!.~
,
- -
, m
o
-
n
ill
"
i
n
~
~
,
o
~
~
,
~
.
(
i:
.
,
i
i
.
~
~
.
~.
.,
:1:'
I
gi
:1
.
~
i
.
.
~,
~
~
" """--"'i
~ ~
~ ~
~
~
z
~
z
~
~
~ ~
~
~
~ ~ ~
~
~
~
~
~
~ ; j ~I ~
il~r~.. ~
~
ii
'S
';""1",
ai, "
~ -, ~
~'
,
~t- !'~
~! S'ii
~; fij
~Ii
S'li
,~'
~I!
all
>"
~I
[I
!
_..___m.L..
l'i
~~
l~
ell
[II
oil
I
i
,I
Iii
II
-!
;1
~
"
i
[
~
~
"
....N2006PnOrity
)>"
!:1992Pnonty
I
3
.
~
~-
~~
~"
_ 0
"z
"
g
~
,
~
il'
n
o
3
3
~
o
~
i!.
3
~
~
3
~
o
"
"
!!is
~6
..
b'
3
3
~
o
"
.~~
0[.
~
I"
inl
,,,
'0
i~
..
z
~
~
"
~
il:
U
~
E ~ ...
m
o
..........-ffi
~Hj..
~ ~ l; ~
'-c'-,
~. i!. - 8.
q ~-
; ~. ~
~~H
R,5"i-,g:
$ ~ ~
." 2. i
~ "li Q
" ~.
1 il
" -
i~
,co
~ '
l~
o~
I ~
~
f
j
.
!
,
j
!
I
i
,
.
i
.
.
i
[
~
I
~
/~
~ ;:; :: ~ ~ '"
IV ~ 2006 PrIoIity
>,
-
o n;
~
Jl992PTiofity
, ,
#iI~ fl.! i j 'Ii ii i1 il · ~
nl ~ ~ ~ ~ j~~ ~! ~ ~! ~ '
l,. i ~ s ~ ~ ~ i~' ~:: ~ i~
i! ~ ~ ! ! I j! i' ,j I !~
i! I ' i ~ ~ I!'~! II II H B i;
{I j I ~ I if I !I II i' H g i~
~I I: ~ i I . fl ~! ~I 1:1 h !~
il j Iii h II I! il i Ii
I [ I l~! j II Ii ~ !~
rm 1imf !fillllil
i ~',.' ~f fi!I.1 ~!.'. 0 ~1s:H 3' ,~
i 0..' h ~i~~! .... ~~~! 1 "',:'
a ~'ll '!l~ j _0. !. ~~ .8
;111 i :: ; ~ ~., .....1 .. !i-11-:! --:----J
t ~I f hli:.,. Illfl~ ri
II I -".1. Ii i I
i 11 ~ lii~i I II n I
ill, 1111'1!11 !I!I Ii I I
" i i ~ I ! ill!
-j-- _ i__ +f+-
I I i rit
~ ~ ~!~ ~
;
..
~
m
..
,
i
.
N
.
~
~
~ ~ ~
~ ~
w
~ ~
~ ~ ~
...
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
~I~
I
I
I ~
I
......t-----
,
I
I ~
I
$
~~ ~ ~~
u~u
~
11 i
-n "--i~
----- 18
Il€l io
~ m ii
-Iii .~
~ ~
~ ~
~
~
~~ ~~'U ~~ ~
n ~rH n IJ
'G~ i~ti .
8.8 18.~ 8
UU~
~
" ~
~
m 0
Ul <Jl ,,,r2006Priority
n 0> >,
~i
m,
"
!
j
R 3'3: \~
" ~ I i,V!
<. I I ~ ,51
~ill:G'l
,"-"' - +.~--._~~---".,-18
! fiU l~
IS !Z
.~. "'Iir"'!~
g
n
1;
m
-'"
;ri2~~'gf ::E ~ ,- 2~ i!"'~
~ffi~:.E:~ ~ i. "'-~..~
~.. f~ a ~ ~ ~ i~ ~i
Q ~~ i~ ~ ; ~ .~ ~
I i L ~' ; U... I.i., ~,.
~ i s: I ~ to .. 9 l ~1 g.,. ~i
~ J ~ . & ~ ~ ~ ,,~i ~~
III g ~ Q. ~ g 5' . ii ~! !H
~ i~. [ ~ ~ I ~ I: ~~".:
i i ~ ~" !. g ~~! q,:
~ 1 ~ ~: = I !! 11 ~II
! H II ! ~ ;: II Ii
i ~',!L; i.__~IJLll
~ p~ H I~ i}3 UI ~ii U'!
~ ~I~.~'mo a~~ R~i:,i.l"lili~
~ 0 .,' . 0,' H' O. .,'
~ ml~~I~:; g~.a ~!!ii_ iii, a..i
; ~I HI ." ~ g ~ ~.i I ~I l~
· 'I~ H~ iii jj" i'l. .{I j~
i If, ii !,. 5 ~ 9- ~'R!j!...,
iI_ "'-I 3 ~i g" :; ~ ~, .:'j 11 R=i 5"1
. !l,~.'.,..". ..'....1. If,
, S' z!. c. ~ - :II! .:! =, 12 8:, E>.
i~~l! Ii [ig !; 1~'.!,..3~i ~!.'
,S~I ~ ~ ~ i'~E.: ~H
,HI' 11 ~ " ~'.. ~~I. .il
'Co!il. 3 J!: 2 1lI.ll' l5- i5.i ~ll!
!~"'l CI. ~, 01 l~i gi ~J
i' ~ t ~ IS. 8"' ~~ '"tl
' "I g g I ~I ";
i ~-f - '--'-~-'-T""..,-.,.,t..._._._..,1.
n,":~' ;I I ~il ~~! I
It.s. a ~,g IiTI!;~i ~,
""1 e, ~'.. f' !<<.., '
H:, ~ ~. 11 ".il{I" i
','[ il I 'I.'! i
Ii! '" ~ ~ [iI!1 I
~ ~ I ~' R' · p,' I
i, ~: I II ~ il ~
al ~: ~ j Ii II
,.', ir.~: ..i H
~i 3! " -' !
11 [i R! I
-I cl ~;
I, I .1 -I !
--~-t-t---T -~~:
I " i I I I'
..... ..... I ..... ..... H
<. 1<.
,
"
~
<.
<.
<.
Z m m z
m m
~~
~z :<.
go <. <. <. <.
o~
M~
Zo
",0
S
z
'"
<. <.
<.
<.
...r; r;e ~~ ~~
~s> ~_~ ~_~ 89
~~ M n ~~
,,'@
n
l~f.I.
1992 Priority
1;\
~,
~!:
<.
.~~
m[iI
~i
~
3'(
Ii
iUI:
~
"
.
.
TABLE 6
CMP REPLACEMENT COST
. This line item only gives the total for the added pipe. The rest is under Current CIP.
/-P3
RESOLUTION NO. 2007-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA REAFFIRMING ITS COMMITMENT TO THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF A TRUE PAVEMENT
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM.
WHEREAS, the California Streets and Highways Code requires California cItIes to
implcment a pavement management system as a condition to obtain funding from the State
transportation improvement programs; and
WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista initiated and has maintained a pavement
management system since 1986 in accordance with the California Streets and Highways Code;
and
WHEREAS, the most recent contract for pavement testing and management services was
awarded by the City Council to Nichols Engineering [Consultant] on January 10, 2006; and
WHEREAS, the Consultant conducted an expert evaluation of the pavement surface of
all City streets, ranked each street based on a Pavement Condition Index [PCI] and
recommended an appropriate maintenance strategy based on street PCIs; and
WHEREAS, the current estimated citywide PCI is 79 [on a scale of 0 to 100] with the
range of scores falling between 13 and 100; and
WHEREAS, there is often tremendous public pressure to select projects based upon a
"worst first" strategy, where the pavements that are selected for treatment are those that are
closest to failure; and
WHEREAS, a "worst first" strategy focuses on streets that cannot get worse and quickly
depletes available funding while streets in acceptable condition continue to deteriorate due to
lack of attention; and
WHEREAS, as a result of a "worst first" strategy, opportunities to expand the useful
service life cost effectively are lost and the backlog continues to grow as once acceptable streets
quickly drop into the "major rehabilitation needed" category; and
WHEREAS, the philosophy of pavement preventative maintenance represents a dramatic
change in philosophy, strategy and direction for most agencies and particularly for the public;
and
WHEREAS, pavement preventative maintenance programs begin with the concept that
cost-effective treatments can be applied earlier in a pavement's life; and
WHEREAS, true implementation of a pavement management system is often difficult for
residents to understand because relatively new streets may be seen receiving treatment whereas a
street needing reconstruction may appear to be ignored; and
/-Ft/
WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista, like most public agencies, faces financial
constraints requiring that choices be made about how to spend limited transportation dollars; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of a pavement management system is to enable the City to use
its pavement dollars in the most cost-effective manner so that the overall pavement condition is
as good as possible.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City ofChula Vista
that it reaffirms its commitment to the implementation of a true pavement management system,
realizing that the general public may question this approach until a wider education effort
regarding cost-effective pavement management compared to the "worst first" strategy is put into
practice.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
Scott Tulloch
City Engineer
cI~~~ ~-
Ann Moore
City Attorney
11:\ENC,INEER\RFS()S\Resos2007\RESO.pavemcntmgmtsystCll1.040507 revised by ec.doc
/-$
RESOLUTION NO. 2007-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA TRANSFERING $4,504,665 FROM THE
CURRENT PAVEMENT APPROPRIATION, $2.0 MILLION
FROM THE AVAILABLE BALANCE IN THE NORTH
BROADWAY BASIN RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT
[STM354] AND $5.0 MILLION FROM THE AVAILABLE
BALANCE IN THE 4TH AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION
BETWEEN DAVIDSON & SR 54 PROJECT [STL309], FOR A
TOTAL OF $11,504,665, INTO THE PAVEMENT
REHABILITATION PROGRAM - FUTURE ALLOCATIONS
[STL238] FOR PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE IN FY 2007.
WHEREAS, the California Streets and Highways Code requires California cities to
implement a pavement management system as a condition to obtain funding from the State
transportation improvement programs; and
WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista initiated and has maintained a pavement
management system since 1986 in accordance with the California Streets and Highways Code;
and
WHEREAS, the most recent contract for pavement testing and management services was
awarded by the City Council to Nichols Engineering [Consultant] on January 10,2006; and
WHEREAS, the Consultant conducted an expert evaluation of the pavement surface of
all City streets, ranked each street based on a Pavement Condition Index [PCI] and
recommended an appropriate maintenance strategy based on street PCls; and
WHEREAS, the current estimated citywide PCI is 79 [on a scale of 0 to 100] with the
range of scores falling between 13 and 100; and
WHEREAS, the Consultant estimates that approximately $19.2 million per year will be
required for the next ten years to maintain the current PCI and address the City's estimated $43
million pavement backlog; and
WHEREAS, approximately $4,504,665 remallls III the current year capital program
pavement appropriation; and
WHEREAS, the North Broadway Basin Reconstruction [STM354] and 4th Avenue
Reconstruction between Davidson & SR54 [STL309] projects were identified outside of a
pavement management system; and
WHEREAS, $2,000,000 was included in the FY 2006 appropriation, $400,000 in
Transnet funding was identified for FY 2007, and $4,300,000 in Transnet funding was projected
for FY 2008 for the North Broadway Basin Reconstruction [STM354]; and
/ -1'6
Resolution No. 2007-
Page 2
WHEREAS, $2,000,000 was appropriated in FY 2006 and $3,000,000 in Transnet
funding was appropriated in FY 2007 for the 4th Avenue Reconstruction between Davidson &
SR54 [STL309]; and
WHEREAS, staff recommends that all streets be included in the data analyzed by the
pavement management software and treated within the five-year program in which they appear;
and
WHEREAS, staff recommends that the maximum available funding be applied toward
pavement maintenance in FY 2007 and FY 2008; and
WHEREAS, the preliminary FY 2008 budget projection includes Transnet funding of
approximately $6.0 million and anticipated Proposition B funding of approximately $3.5 million
available for paving projects.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City ofChula Vista
as follows:
1. That it approves the transfer of $21,651 of the available balance from Pavement
Rehabilitation [STL293] into Pavement Rehabilitation Program - Future Allocations [STL238]
for pavement maintenance.
2. That it approves the transfer of $22,214 of the available balance from Local Street Pavement
Rehabilitation [STL300] into Pavement Rehabilitation Program - Future Allocations [STL238]
for pavement maintenance.
3. That it approves the transfer of $1,387,400 of the available balance from Pavement
Rehabilitation [STL310] into Pavement Rehabilitation Program - Future Allocations [STL238]
for pavement maintenance.
4. That it approves the transfer of $973,400 of the available balance from Pavement
Rehabilitation 05/06 [STL315] into Pavement Rehabilitation Program - Future Allocations
[STL238] for pavement maintenance.
5. That it approves the transfer of $2,100,000 of the available balance from Pavement
Rehabilitation 06-07 [STL316] into Pavement Rehabilitation Program - Future Allocations
[STL238] for pavement maintenance.
6. That it approves the transfer of$2.0 million of the available balance from the North Broadway
Basin Reconstruction Project [STM354], and $5.0 million of the available balance from the 4th
Avenue Reconstruction between Davidson & SR54 Project [STL309], for a combined total of
$11,504,665, into Pavement Rehabilitation Program - Future Allocations [STL238], for
pavement maintenance.
/-P7
Resolution No. 2007-
Page 3
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista that it
preliminarily approves including Transnet funding of approximately $6.0 million and anticipated
Proposition B funding of approximately $3.5 million in Pavement Rehabilitation Program -
Future Allocations [STL238] for pavement maintenance in FY 2008.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
Scott Tulloch
City Engineer
'-r:!/,~CJ a.f'~
Ann Moore
City Attorney
H:\ENGINEER\RESOS\Resos2007\RESO.pavementmgmttransfer.040507 revised ec with numbers2.doc
/-w
Council Workshop
Infrastructure Asset Management
April 5, 2007
Tonight's Action Requests:
1. Endorse continued
implementation of a
Pavement Management
System
2. Approve Drainage Project
Priority List
Authorize staff to seek
funding
,
Infrastructure Asset
Management
City Council Workshop
AprilS, 2007
~\ft..
'iM
.
~
CITY OF
CHULA VISTA
Background
. February 2006
_ "Infrastructure Management Program"
. Four Focus Areas:
- Utility Wire Undergrounding
_ Missing Infrastructure (sidewalks, curbs,
gutters, ped ramps, cross gutters)
- Pavement
- Drainage
~._-_._._----~_.. .",,-
Workshop "Roadmap"
. Tonight:
- Workshop # 1
. Pavement
. Drainage
. Later this year:
- Infrastructure Tour
- Workshop #2
. Missing Infrastructure
. Utility Wire Undergrounding
. Comprehensive Infrastructure Asset
Management Program
Tonight's Workshop
. Infrastructure Asset Management
- Overview
. Status Reports
- Utility Wire Undergrounding
- Missing Infrastructure
. Tonight's Focus Areas
- Pavement
- Drainage
. Infrastructure Funding
2
._-"._~---'-"'~-'- ...--
Tonight's Action Requests
. Endorse continued implementation of a
Pavement Management System
. Approve Drainage Project Priority List
- Authorize staff to seek funding
Chula Vista's
Municipal Infrastructure
- Pavement*
- Alleys
- Parking Lots
- Sidewalks*
- Curbs*
- Gutters*
- Corners*
(including ped ramps)
- Bridges
- Retaining Walls
- Stairways
- Guardrails
- Trees
*' First phase focus areas
- Traffic Signals
- Streetlights
- Street Signs
- Pavement Markings
- Parking Meters
- Wastewater Collection System
(pipelines and pump stations)
- Storm Water Conveyance
System*
- Public Buildings
(including parking structures)
- Parks
- Open Space
(,
,
"
\
Underlying Beliefs
Infrastructure Asset Management
. Ongoing preventative maintenance to
preserve infrastructure and avoid
catastrophic failure
. Proactive infrastructure management is
necessary to manage risk and liability
. Catastrophic failure means higher
expense repairs, more impact to the
public
. Pay now or pay more later
The Elements of
Infrastructure Asset Management
. Inventory
. Condition and Capacity Assessment
. Determine desired/required service level
. Gauge current service level
. Estimate amount of funding required to close the gap
between current and desired service level
. Establish criteria for choosing priorities
. Identify projects
. Prioritize projects
. Identify Funding
. Deliver Project
. Automated system to manage related data
(inventory, condition, capacity, maintenance history,
work orders, work in the right-of-way,etc.)
4
--^_...._-,,-~"~_.~_..,_._-_...._--_..,~--------.__.,..-'",'.'-.-,-.- .._~-
fJ '" "~,,,,(,o
CI>
:JjStiJrt :/J,},e ,'"
'-ot
jX
,."
~
[,:",1'1,
'7
..',,-,
I I~~~r, I,i,',\
"",,,:.-
H~I"I
"-",,.
t,."",H.-.,-,,'1
~r..",..,'d_
<-
<,,<I,d,
+
-",'
,
,'"
" ;:
.
..1',,\
,
,
,.,"
,-
: rOO'He r~"n" "'-,,' .,.-'.I,~ I......'". flf',dd",t."OI "H"
:(P.iur~,tllt,~_p-Ttn-_-;q;;,;t; ~~d~\e 1'1\> n,k'liii;--- IdG.WO rl;;rtifi;.~.t., 1.111)~,_:;;ti.o]
~:'I' _L'," __i:::.!"~"UL'J[(;C~'_''''~~''lll::'2.:'''___ .E.J'-" _JI,";~
2,'PW /GBfI~1~
\'\e<.!ia... 1).-.: ..t9~~:I<:;" 11.j~."'H
Partial Estimated Funding Need
1-- -- -- -.. ---.--
, Infrastructure Component
~ _ _ 0.00. ..0 .0
I Pavement
Drainage
CMP Storm Drain Pipe
Priority 1 Tier
(Funded Projects)
I Priority 2A Tiers
, Priority 5 Tier
rMi~;ng Infrastructu;;;
; Total Partial InFrastructure
I Funding .Need 0
i Utility Wire Undergrounding
------l
Total Funding Need
_. (2006 _Do~lar5,_Roun~ed)
$192,000,000 over 10 years
I $ 19,200,0oo.pe'l'ear
I $ 29,000,000
I $ 28,800,000
($ 4,400,000)
$ 6,300,000 to $8,900,000 I
$..1,310,000 to..$2,300,000 -I
, $139,400,000 I
I' $392,400:00'0 to .
: $396,000,000
i $27S,000,000
'"
5
_ ,._".o,__.~_"_.___._._~.___n___"'---"--"-'"
-
Utility Wire Undergrounding
. Not typically included with municipal
infrastructure
- Utility company asset
- Restricted funding source
($2 million/year 20A funds)
. $30.4 million since 1986
. $30.2 million obligated thru 2018
- Bayfront: $20.0 million
- Six other districts: $10.22 million
. GIS Map for more detail
Total Estimated Funding Gap = $275 million
138 years
. Infrastructure Workshop #2
II
Utility Wire Undergrounding
~,,,:;'S~~'~- ~. ,', ,":~\'--'~~::,\::": ;:.::::-~
\' ,.~'<'" ,\': .:';.
~\ " . ',J' '9","" \. ,~~\
\ \ ..... :~: .,;':\; ,'" ....
, . ....,>~.;>(.\\~..,........
'- ,'~
,
:)
J'
"/':~,,:~:>:>~.
r~r'>-"".::':--~
i..,.L3:~\
-"'.'
-' ~, ~ ,',"
"
A'''~3 ": -<6" >;':/
r"'~, ,~.."." e'-"""'"
.' . ,..>:~~~~._~_..~.<.:,-f;-;~- . .~~_~
.
. .
_ J
6
--_.__._,_._-_._----_."--"'-_....~~.-
Missing Infrastructure
(Sidewalks, Curbs, Gutters, Ped Ramps, Cross Gutters)
. Missing Sidewalk: 162,000 lineal feet
($24 million)
. Missing Sidewalks, Curbs and Gutters:
148,000 lineal feet
($107 million)
. Missing Ped Ramps: 1,223 missing ramps
($8.0 million)
. GIS Map for more detail
Total Estimated Funding Gap = $139 million
. Problematic Cross Gutters: 87 to date
($10,000 to $100,000 each)
. Infrastructure Workshop #2
"
Missing Infrastructure
"
"
7
--..------'.----.------- ----.,-
Pavement
15
Impact of Recommended
Pavement Actions and Immediate
Next Steps
. Maximize pavement maintenance investment for
the next two years
= $11.5 million in FY 2007
= $9.5 million in FY 2008
Equals $45 million cost avoidance at the end of
10 years
. Proceed with generating street project list
assuming this level of funding
. All streets compete "equally"
. Advertise
. Return to Council with recommended award of
contract( s)
'"
g
.--.-.-----...-.---.........---"-"-...-....-.--
Pavement Facts
. Largest Municipal Backbone Asset
. $659 million replacement value
. Often assumed to be a primary
municipal responsibility
. Highly visible
. High public expectations
. Dedicated non-municipal funding is
not sufficient to meet growing need
~\~
if~..
em Of
(HUlA VISTA
Why Have a Pavement
Management System?
. Required to obtain funding from State
transportation improvement programs
. Chula Vista implemented in 1986
. Applies cost effective
treatments early and
throughout pavement
life
. Focus on preservation "Worst First" I
and extending service
life, not "worst first"
I"
')
--,---,-,-,",-,-~-,-"-,,,~"---'.'^'- ..
...."
~~
~\f?-
-""
',",,,",,-:.::'"
fHYOf
(HUlA V fSlftJ
Pavement
Management
Program
Chula Vista's
Pavement Management System
. 2002 assessment
- Total estimated need =
$46.6 million over five years to
maintain pavement condition
. New contract January 2006
- Nichols Engineering, Margot Yapp
I')
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
"State of the Streets"
April 5th, 2007
10
"<-"._-,--_._.__.__._,.."--,,--_._-----_.__..._-~~-----_. --.
General Information
. 1,113 lane miles (2,841 street sections)
. $ 659 million replacement value
Functional Class Total Miles Lane Miles
Arterials
Collectors
Local/Alleys
46.5
744
3200
231.3
208.5
673.9
Total 4409 11137
,
How large is
Chula Vistas
network?
"
'/<A';I"),'.;",'"
~r
',r;F ""',,,' ""
. 1113 lane miles
. (hula Vista to
Vancouver, WA
. At 35 mph it takes
~32 hours (4 days)
to cover the
distance
(t,
<Ii
~ 0
'0'
'.v
\",.
o
"'''~C' 0
L"~ "n~~~I"~.. . .. ,m C, "
",.",1.""11 " ",'",.,
"
II
-~--~-~-- .. ------....--. -~ -
How do we measure pavements?
100 Excellent
Good
70
II III Fair
(Non-Load) (Load)
50
IV Poor
25
V Very Poor
0 Failed
Condition
12
..._..,._,-_._._~-~~_"-' ._._---,._---~-,,_._--"-<,.__.-
13
.._,~.._-_._,_.._~._."_.
14
,._~-,..."_..,.>_...__.,,,-
_.",-~~-_._"_.__.-.._.-..~.,,--,,
Current 2006 pcr
(Average PCI = 79 Backlog $43 million)
-.- --- - -.- -
~----
,....---.\
I
,
I
,
J
r
,
I.
,
\
,
\
"
!
\ /"
\/- \
Leg"nd
L
CurrentPCI
'_' I
15
"Pay Now or Pay More Later"
I Pavement Condition I
Excellent
.1-~
~I
I ------... qFACE SEALS - $6.50-B/sy
75% 90%
Good
Fair
"w t F" t" .
ors .lrSmm!
Poor
Very Poor
Failed
40%
Scenario 1: Ideal Budget
($19.2 mjyear - Ending PCI is 81)
Backlog $0
--.-'---
86
$SOm
"
$4501
c
"
~ ~30nl
"
>
.f: $2501
~
o
:2 $:Om
o
.
(I} $-1501
81
1 ~;-.~.--E-~1 32
eo
73~
~\:'1l1
rl ~ Ii::
tll Lll~
$10m
$Sm
~(IO;; :'JDG :00- '~Cln ~eG? ~(}I() :011 :OI~ :012 ;;!)I~ :010
h~ror~
,-""f
I mDBJc:klou Jln.e,;tm€nt ____PCI
16
_.... _~_,__~__~__w__.,~.._,_~.._ ..-.
Scenario 1: Ideal Budget
($19.2 m/year - Ending PCI is 81)
--.. -- --
---... ------
- _n___ _
Scenal-io 1 Ideal Budget
Legend
P',I
___ ____0.. ..____ ___.. ___.. ___ ___ ___n ----- -- - --- -
- ---
Scenario 4: Existing Budget
($4 mjyear - Ending PCl is 64)
Backlog: $160 million
-- -- ---- --- --- -- --
I $ISOm,
I $160m j" 7S
I ~ $140m 'II -, 75 73 72
I~ $120m 71
I~ ",JOm I
C,
I~
I~
82
80
78
76
"
72
70
68
'36 ~
64
62
60
"
56
54
"
50
9
,
6
$801111
:,111.1
$Om +- .
~
~o"". 2GPG ':c,o, ~()US ~nD~ '~CHO ::011 ~Qlc :OIJ ~r:'!-! '2(1'I~
b.-I.;>I ~
,"or~
i IIIIIIBackl'~9 L,-,IIl.'eslrnp.nt ..........PCI I
17
~._.-.-"--_.- ---,......-.....-.--..----.----.. ._,._--"-_.~_.__._._---'-._.. ..-
Scenario 5: Recom. Budget: 2 year high
(Ending PCl = 68 Backlog = $115 million)
$180m 82
$160m 78 77
~ 75 76 75 78
0 74
~ $140m 73 74
E $120m 71 70
~
~ 69 70
~ $100m 68
> 66 ()
0
C. $80m I. Q.
.2 $60m L 62
" IJ 1"
u $40m I t1 58
~
10 $20m 54
$Om I 50
2007 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
before
work _ Backlog , Investment ~PCI
How much is enough?
0.60% = $4 m/yr
(Curreh.t Average Budget per
Year)
~ $659 m
(Replacement
Value)
----,'-
I~
>........._.%..___.......___._._.__n.._-....-..-----....'---------...---'---..-.--..
Conclusions
. City has pavement network in "good"
condition - will deteriorate to "fair"
under current budget
. Deferred maintenance will grow from
$43m to $160m in 10 years
. Allocate sufficient funds to reduce
deterioration
. Preserve good roads first!
~e"h"QJs - ,- ~-" ~ ~
~ONSUL[l>JG EI'~~~ ---' ,~ ~~
\;;;
\\1
c.
~
.,:.
v
Pavement Condition
...
\
-
,
\ \
o'J.fO~o -- ~
\ p.~/---:
\,p.\..o'^ ---. , ,
.-/
J:
.... ORANGE
0:
..
,,&k,
,-TT
19
.....-.,...-.-.-...-. ..._.._.~--".-..,,~->, .__._--_..._-~_..._~._._.
The Case Against
"Worst-First" Strategy
. Pavements typically selected for
treatment are those that are closest to
failure
. Quickly depletes available funding
focusing on streets where most cost is
already the case
. Meanwhile, acceptable streets slip into
"needing major rehabilitation"
. Backlog quickly grows to a point of no
recovery
. When funding constraints are present,
preventative maintenance and worst-first
strategies are incompatible
:'\9
Pavement Funding History
. 2002 recommendation:
$46.6 million for street rehab over five years
. CIP and operations from FY 2002 through
FY 2006:
$31.8 million for street rehab
$14.1 million for daily reactive maintenance
. Last General Fund contribution:
$0.9 million for landscape beautification with
H Street reconstruction between Broadway
and IS
-\1)
20
. \
Tonight's Pavement
Funding Recommendation
. Pavement contract season is here
. Available FY 2007 pavement funding=$4.5 million
. Recommend identification of max additional funding
for maintenance in light of Transnet extension 70(30
requirement
. Allow all streets to compete within overall City
pavement management system
. Staff will return before the end of April with specific
recommendations on reaching these funding levels
. Result: $11.5 million available in FY 2007 and
projected $9.5 million in FY 2008 resulting in backlog
of $115 million versus $160 million after 10 years
assuming "standard" funding in remaining 8 years
41
Pavement Action
Recommended Tonight
1. Reaffirm commitment to the
implementation of a true
Pavement Management System.
"
2\
Drainage
4.1
Tonight's Recommended
Drainage Actions
. Approve Drainage Project Priority
List
. Authorize staff to seek funding as
projects best meet funding
criteria
22
What is "Drainage"?
. Pipes, culverts, channels (lined and natural),
detention basins, etc. to manage urban runoff
and provide flood control
. Mandated water quality best management
practices (pre-treatment devices)
. Includes Corrugated Metal Pipe (CMP)
..,~
,"<'j~+,"'1:",.. ".
......"...:.....'.........'.'.......'......
1 . ~ '''4
. .
. :
~. \\;;
.....,....:.-
Drainage Assessment
Capacity
Condition
",
0'
,,-_1
Drainage Challenges
. Lack of dedicated Federal, State and
Regional funding
. City's 70~/month/residence not adequate
. Continually increasing water quality
mandates
. Flood control and maintenance
requirements frequently conflict with
regulatory agency requirements and
procedures
. Projects are expensive, not widely
understood, usually not seen as a high
priority
47
Priority Tiers
. CMP:
Immediate red flags considered Priority 1 due to
potential for catastrophic failure
. Priority 1:
Frequent flooding and/or high chance of personal
injury or property damage
. Priority 2:
Occasional flooding with a chance of personal
injury or property damage
. Priority 3:
Frequent nuisance flooding
. Priority 4:
Occasional nuisance flooding
. Priority 5:
Frequent or routine maintenance manages
problem, CIP project could eliminate problem
-!~
24
">._-_..-"--_.~,,._---_..._.-.,-_._..~_._..."~
Location
Recommended Drainage
Priorities
. CMP Immediate Red Flags: $0.8 million
. Priority 1 Tier: 9 projects, $24.4 million
- Other CMP ($28.2 million)
. Priority 2 Tier: 5 projects, $4.4 to $6.1 million
. Priority J Tier: 2 projects, $0.3 to $0.6 million
. Priority 4 Tier: 3 projects, $1.6 to $2.2 million
. Priority 5 Tier: 8 projects, $1.3 to $2.3
million; unable to estimate two projects
Total Estimated Funding Gap =
$61.0 to $64.6 million
49
Priority 1 Tier Drainage Projects
.j. . pr~limi~~ry. C.ost
_ Estimate FOD.6L_
'$ 500,000
---~-- ---
, $ 3,900,000
----- ---..-
$ 1,500,000 (funded)
-- ---
$ 1,800,000
$ 4,600,000- I
i$ 5,600,oool
Bonita Basin: Bonita Road and Allen School Road
Bonita Basin: Canyon from Terra Nova to Bonita Road
--- ------- ----
-- --
Central Basin: East of Second, North of H
Central Basin: Hilltop 5/0 H to Shasta
- ----
Long Canyon Basin: Canyon, Corral Canyon and East H to
channel
Telegraph Canyon Basin: Country Club Drive
culvert,channel and First Avenue culvert; Hilltop Park
upstream of First and Millan; east of Hilltop, south of
Tele9raph Canyon
Telegraph Canyon Basin: Fourth to Third Avenue channel
and L Street culvert
Telegraph Canyon Basin: Moss and Fifth
Telegraph Canyon Basin: Third and Emerson to 900' west
Total Priority 1 Tier Unfunded Projects
$ 7,100,000
$ 900,000
$ 2,900,000 (funded)
$24,400,000
25
_......_----~_..
Priority 1 Tier Drainage Project Locations
~
1,1
.
.
.
. .
0'''.1
.
j
Ii
,
I
J
51
.
.
. _I
~_.,,~-,.._~ -~-- .."._~.. ----_._.._..~--_.._~---_. ....---
Drainage
~1: $900,000
",os s cP""""
egraph
anyon
"",
...
<;-
.-I
o
'"
1.1:$2,900,000
l'h-[c.'
fOIlO
0'1-
Judson
.."It
1'",-0"'
<II
'b
"0
z.
~
J:
....
'"
ORANGE
-~-
26
_....-._.__._....._~--_._._---'--~~.~--_..-
\
~~ \ \
Tonight's Recommended
Drainage Actions
. Approve Drainage Project Priority
List
. Authorize staff to seek funding as
projects best meet funding
criteria
Funding Chula Vista's
Infrastructure Needs
~~
27
, Historical Infrastructure Funding
. Pavement Funding
- Transnet
- Gas Tax
- CDBG
- Recently, Proposition 42
. Other Infrastructure Funding
- Western Chula Vista Financing Program
- Residential Construction Tax
- Gas Tax
- Storm Drain Revenue
- Grant Funds
55
New Infrastructure Funding
. November's Infrastructure Bonds
- Primarily Transportation
- Already assumed within
recommended pavement scenario
. Proposition 84
- Small potential for drainage projects
- Small potential for storm water
projects
Dedicated non-municipal funding is
not sufficient to meet growing need
2X
. ~--~--,>.._-+-~>._-,-- .__.._---~------~-,._.,-_._-
,
Potential New Funding
. Vehicle Registration Fees (State
legislation)
. Grants
. Federal Earmarks
. Local Bond Measure
. Local Sales Tax Increase (sunset clause)
. Tax Increment
. Citywide Assessment Districts
57
Tonight's Funding Action
. Policy discussion and direction
regarding potential revenue sources
for infrastructure and/or pavement
needs.
.'is
29
_._~..- "'~~_..._".~_...,_...,--_.,"--_._..__..~---~_._~.__..-.'-'--'--
59
30
~
~J.,
~ &-1
~ i
.!Q 00 1:h
--t' V) d1
.I
-~
.
-
~',~~
~~'~'...... - ''''..'>
.....'~..-'.
~""" ,.iI>.
----
;.-.. ..... ....:
. '.- -'"
'..', .. ~ -;
.~
...
--,""--
~.
......,.,~_.' .,..
..r .. ,- :::""" "'~~'_,c~,;,,!;!
..,",.,'~
....:~~,. ~<-{"~~
'i"~ 0''''''
"''I' ~
-
,<'
,
t'.
f'- A
-,
....":~.
.
:"i;
'">~~ "
~~.....
1\0'
~-
.,
:;iliiik..,t
~..--
~ ."
Mayor Cheryl Cox
Councilman Jerry Rindone
Councilman John McCann
Councilman Steve Castaneda
Councilman Rudy Ramirez
For inclusion in the minutes of tonight's budget meeting
March 1, 2007
Dear Mayor Cox,
In 1958, my neighbor Shirley Cook spoke before the Chula Vista City Council in an attempt to address a storm drain problem which
si9nificantly impacts Chula Vista citizens. Nearly 50 years later, the problem persists. Mrs. Cook is still waiting, as are the other
citizens impacted by this hazardous problem.
At issue is a storm drain system which gathers all public stonm water runoff from a portion of East I Street (from Penelope Drive to
Hilltop Drive) as well as from Carla Ave. & Belinda Way. In a functioning system, the storm water runoff should drop into storm
drain pipes to be guided to an appropriate place for discharge/treatment. However, all of the runoff funneled into the gutters on E. I
St. dumps into a faux storm drain. The rushing water is actually channeled under a home on E. I Street & exits via a pipe & all
dumped into the back yard of Bob & Lucy Shipley at 589 Hilltop Drive, where it travels north to the back yard of Shirley Cook at 585
Hilltop Drive. flows northwest through an opening between her home & mine (581 Hilltop Dr.) & all spills out into my driveway & front
yard. There are numerous photos on file with the City's engineering Dept. which I submitted in 1992 in an attempt to stress the
enormity of the problem. I also have additional photos of the process & ramifications. Bob & Lucy Shipley have had to dig a
channel & line it with concrete to lessen the impacts of potential water damage to their property. Water often comes dangerously
close to the homes at 581 & 585 Hilltop Drive (I have photos). We were told in 1992 that, on a priority list, we were ranked 5th out of
37 projects. i have been in nearly constant contact with many different city staff members since the early 1990's & have tried my
best to convey the magnitude of this problem.
The raw, untreated, contaminated water which flows through our properties contains not only trash & yard waste, but hazardous
items (we have found condoms & hypodermic needles). There is also residue left when the water has evaporated. Dust particles
being brought into the home have exacerbated my wife's and son's allergies. We've had the expense of replacing carpet with
refinishing existing floors and resurfacing two rooms in our home to assist us in keeping our floors clean of dirt and possible
allergens. Constant clean-up in the aftenmath of dirt, mud, trash & yard waste is an unfortunate necessity. The standing water is
also a threat as a breeding ground for mosquitoes, the carriers of West Nile virus that made its way into San Diego County last year.
The risk of serious illness associated with West Nile infection increases with age. We are especially concerned for Mrs. Cook, who
is 82 years old. The water flow through our yard renders our driveway unusable for auto parking or walking through our yard.
The water flow through our yard has brought numerous strains of grass. For pride of ownership purposes, we need to replace the
grass in our front yard but cannot do so until the situation is corrected.
It is not just during heavy rains, that we receive the runoff. Runoff is often caused by property owners upstream who wash cars,
empty pools & spas, & over-water their yards. On one occasion there was a sewer line break & a large amount of fecal matter &
bacteria was funneled through the above stated back yards & into our yard & City crews had to be sent out to clean up the mess.
Our properties are located a long block away from Hilltop High School & are in close proximity to Hilltop Drive Elementary & Hilltop
Middle School. Many students pass in front of our property to and from school. The water flowing through my yard exits at the
corner crosswalk at Hilltop Dr. & Georgina. In an attempt to avoid the stream of fast flowing, dirty water, students must either walk
through it or venture into the street.
A special thank you to Councilman Castaneda, fonmer C~y Manager Dave Rowlands & many City Staff who in December 2005
worked to add a large swale to our front yard to assist the water flow through our yard, cleaned the channels, & added many
sandbags to help protect our homes. However, this is truly just a band-aid which does not address the real problem-the need to
run the storm drain up E. I 5t. to Hilltop Drive, to allow it to flow north, down Hilltop Dr. to a larger storm drain pipe. The water & its
contents still flow through our yards.
I have owned my house through at least one complete economic cycle (& Mrs. Cook has been through several). If this problem
cannot get solved in times of healthy budgets or in tight budgets, then, we wonder, just when will it be solved?
CIP 135 is not only a number for a capital improvement project. It is also a means to assist our neighborhood. We ask you to
include this project in the budget for the upcoming fiscal year. Thank you.
Steve Wood 581 Hilltop Dr. Chula Vista, CA 91910 (ph# 619-422-2186)
Anateresa Wood
CC: neighbors: Shirley Cook, Bob & Lucy Shipley; Interim City Manager Jim Thomson; & City staff: Leah Browder, Roberto Yano
-:g~
.:c
~.
.E
12
E
2
~
>-
~
o
u
W
.~
o
~
a-
o
w
o
.~
"
-0
W
-= W
cO
'E 8-
i5
~ c
i!! 0
0'2
8 0
0..,
".
,;
C>
,-,
~
-'
-'
~
'-
'"
.jj
IS
~
'-
C>
.jJ
V)
\II
,-,
'"
<1>
U
~
o
~
C
w
0;
""
"6
>-
c
o
E
E
J?
Q,Ji:j
5 i5
u >-
c c
8 ~
c 5
.Q ~
.2
<5 .S:
o..E
jj?
~15
E >-
~ c
o 0
U) E
~
l'
$
'3
C>
,;
Y
<1>=
>-:3 .~
.2 8 ~
'c~'o ~
~c-5~
Q,J ,Q E "0
-=g(5c
.Q ~ Vi,~
-0-'6 Q,J.~
~ .~-=~
:rl-f;;.Q .
c -0 .~ C
c C-o 0
8.&1Q,Jo...
I- di Q.c
0-0 E w
z 5-6.E
.~ Q ~ g
ECO~
~.g~~
<I) 0.... 0
~ 0.-2 ~
a.> ,s.: S:!
8'.~ .S Q,J
c~-f;;....c
'0 . Q,J:::
-5~Cio
E ~2]
o <I) 0. 0
v>Qj>-~
~ ~ a....
j:=: ~ E~
C>
.jJ
<S
'"
'"
Z
:3
5?-
c
o
."
o
0;
(j)-=
'" 0
.:::J(,/)
. .
'"
Qj
~"'2
~. 0
w~ .Q
;::: Q,J .~
5,2>
.0 0
-.2-5]
~ wU
~@o
o u
~5~
o u u
~ <1)- ~
Q) Q) 'E
c c w
o a Q)
.~....c ....c
E ~ :s
2 OJ 0
~ o..~
~og.>
OJ <J')~ 0
8'2t~
,~ '5... C
!2 -0 2
-050
E 0 ~
(5 m:;
Vi Q) l?
w -0 u
~ 54J
~
~ 0
o 3
3 -0 ~
(i) .....co
o..~u
. . 'E
w
~
u
-" c
o w
.~~
~ 0 ~
8 E-o
OJOJc
C .S 0
..:.>:2'""'0-0
g-:s 0
~"'>-
. . .
E~
~ 0
~s
Cl> .~
-=]3
c ~
'~';;;8'
w'
uQ
a'~ -Q
"';;>>1'-..
...o...Qo-
~-E (V)
oUo
oi-O :0
.!: c-
0..- a
EU _
~ <1> c
-o~ <1>
--E
00 t
OJ- 0
..!!EQ..
-= Cl> Cl>
.....ViO
o >- ~
o..~c
W <1> 0
..... 0):0:::
2! 0 !2
g'B ~
0::-50
c: '" c
00::; Cl>
~ E 0 E
u.- c:
:>.6 g-o
~ ~~ 5
00 ffi
l? E Qj ~
O(!)gg.
~~ ~ z:-
8:~ ~ 'c
~~'""'O ~
~ ~ 0 ~
.... <I) Q) 0
a... a-->o<: u
Jg~ ~
6"'5..Q- ~
-o,",:Q)~
>- ::JI-
~ g. ~ c:
a.>-o Q) a
c~ w
J.1 0 Cl>u
o :;J ,~ ~
E g.,-E...D W
iSoo-g.~
;':-'"::-E 0-.2
~~2~u
.- E C a ::;
o c:~ ~ 0
-52Q..(j)>-
Q) '5-0 '0-0
~~a~6
o >- ~
u....cl? >- -
v,- 0 I- ~ -g CI ~
~~.nIDo~t;
~<B-go~-~~
'8-~~~o .'~
<I)~-o..QQ.>-a
E U c c m~ c
o 0 0 ,- c '0
.:. >- <I)' ~..:.>:2 0 .....
<I) a .... 0 - m'""O
c"""9...Qo:: ~ .~ E
ooO)c>O....
::; ""t C Q) "'~ c ..Q
=0 ~~ ~ ~ 0 ;
Q.-oOE-::;(/')....c
c .... Q.. Q) 0 0 ....
Q) Q) '.... U"" c
....c -= ~ ~':;:: >- 3:
3:0o"'O~0
<I)-o~<1>O)>-O
a 5~ 8'~~'a5 2
U O)'v;.!: 0-=
o .S ",' !2 a. c: Q
5'sQ.i'""'O ':5 o-E
'5!2.&Eoc.Q
=-o<l)o....c<1>~
8-oj?Vig>oo
0"" <1> 0- Q..
~Q.E~...?:g3:
~ g)g Q ~ ,g ...Q
E.:..c.c.S2go
'- <I) 3: 3: .... ..... ~
Q~ooJ?:rlo
(/)>"1)0::.........>-
ill
i5 ill
OU
....c-----2
- w
~ >
8:5
'E g.
j:! .!:
u 0 >-
ccv
'0'00
c2-'-5
o <1>
U ...-j E
~ 5 .S
<1> E ~
~ ~~
'::....c 0
o-o_.Q?
_c>-
<1:0c
. <1> 0
c~
.Q~ '0
2 '0 if}
~~..;
o c
Qj 0 a
-0 ~..2"-
3::::2 0
EE:5
~. ~ 0)
.g l' ~
o '0
c: w-o..
Q) o~::::o ~
] 0-{3'~ ~
3: u -0 0 =-
>-. '3 ~ 0--0 ill
~g.~~o,g
(I) -0---'= '- u
>-5i os ~ ~
~ 0.:..0 ~ 0..
3: '- >- -0
a c:' 0- Q) c:
c: u w-v ::J
o '[2 x .;:: >- g
-ooou,
rs E'" 0...~..2"-
~o'-o:oQ
=- ~ C a.>~ ~
0<1) Cl> -0 V)
>-.(I}V)3:wE
grE:J Cl>~ Q
:E.2W:53S
V) C u C
0'-0-00(1)
3: ~5 0 u"'E
2= V) <1)'0 (I)
ill c: -0 u'u ~
> 0 ill ~ Qj .__
-0 U 6-0 E a...
C ~ 0.. Q E ,~
j -0 c: 0..0....
03:~rnu2
c:>-o,~~:;
oo..c600-
a 3: (I) 0 0
:1:SS...Q-U-D-55
,;
C>
,-,
~
~
-'
~
'-
'"
.jJ
IS
~
'-
C>
.jJ
V)
~
'"
~
p..
C>
.jJ
$
~
-0 (l) 0 ...-j o..(l)
Oc -E :s: c: v .<::
O..J:: D
~ o-5i.':: Q..2
-0-0 ~ ~ ~ 'Q)
~J:f~ W Q) 0)
<I) '0 -=....c .r:-! c
W ill ~ 3:~''''
0- a... '--- '- =-
rn <I) ~ 0..2 .f;' ...-j
.S:: ~ ~-o-o W
>-'C:XillCO-o
8: 6 ~ ]} ~ ~ :Q
o E 0 0 Q) c: Vi
c a :>. ~32 a ill
(I}-oQ..w:21 u 0-
~s Q) 0...> V) =---0
-0 0 0 9:; 0 C
C ..... <I) \..L>- 0
i~~o-2-E~
"EoQ)-gCl>~
a 0 2 0 .~ ~~
u~""Cl>~~<I)t:
~ '-- 0---,= >--o~
,j:!"":: ~o a; 0
a.......2(1)1:(I}....
>- w....c Q) ~ V)
"'Eo3:E8~
. 0 u c: c:..::::: 0
G (I) Cl> '0 .g ~ E
Q.3CO---o~~(l)
S~-wE~5i)
-aill~o<l)DD
c~-QUl8~~
at: 0 Cl>....c Q 0
.....2 o..-EU Qc
rn:s ....c
~0,-30
u >-'::J_ C
'6... 0) ~--:........
<I) .S:: 0 0
>-::: 0.. Cv
~ a ~ 0 Cl>
> 5:~ U V)
o C'~ a.> 0
<I) (I) o...rnR-
6~ 2-.8-'-5
~ ~o~
'- w..J) rn ~
~ 0 .~ 0 ~
~ 613.g ~
Q) >-Ci.;; 32
0.. ~ 0'0 is
w Cl> >- ~
::03"::: ill '"
'~ ~ 8 0 ~
o Q) 0.. V)
o..bo.~o;>..
~E-:-o5:0
@ Cl>c~3:
o O..J) Q)~ ID
O)C E--E -0
s::o)~-o~3:
~~~aoo
~ <I) w--;;;
ii 0 >-.....J:: ~
..>-Oc~O
OQj2~C:-o
u~ a '" 5: E
'5 ~o)1i>-8 0
A. ~ 0-0..:,;:; v;
0-'"
.~ 0 =g (5
E 8-a 0
1?-o ~ Q
U ~ g '3
~ 0 0 ~
w .~ -0 <1)-
OO~>-
5: i3 g.--8
\5 o':'=,f'-... .
o l..L..-O 0 c
0.. c: - '0
~.~ a If) '-
o a Cl> '- ----0
>--Ts E...Q Q
~E:':::'-->--
i.Q~~--g
~ ~ 0 ~ ~
O-E 21?--g
Coo""o
! -g .[;fQ (I)
C ~ .~~.s::
.- '~-O a '-
o.~ u..9
~ ~~-E-5
o ~ ~1?'O
Q.OOUQ)
'" U co Q)
cI ::J Cl> c-J::;
- ~.~ g~
o Cl>- 0-'-5_
Ow:C-O-=
A....::: U 0 ~
E-orn
a gJ !2
.!: ~ a ",-
"'5 ~....c c
~ ~'1 8..
Cl>'-'-- <I) v)'
-5i c .~~
~'e&2
~----O ::J..Q
c ~-
'0 ~ c'!: .
Q 0.- o~
~ v; 8..~'~
.~ 0 '3 ~ 1?
'-- ill 0 '" ~
~~>-oc
Cl> Ul ~ 3: ~
Z Q) 0 C Q)
.. -:!:: --0 1? E
~Oill~.Q-
; ~ ,~.~- g-
II> - Q,-
>~E ~1?
2:c8.Bo
Q..Q'--o iiJ---O
E ~ g; Q) 0
.2~ 6 ~
E-~E>-
o2~~[
:t 0 5: Q <I)
"
>-3
rn-Ts ..9
c J)
.- <1>
~ ~ 0
{3 ::J '---
3:--0' 0
-0 0 0
'0 ~.Q-
> c ~
<1:- ~
. -0
ii~--g
.5 ~o
C V) E .
0(1} 0..2
G rn 0-
U ~Js ~
~'Q ~~
0---0 a'<7;
~E~v
G ..... U C
"U.g~~
iii1?--6- b
"-03
o~ w
)oo.C(D.<::
D .~ E-5
~ c: 0- c:
U a ::J a
.!:2 o"~
Q~~2
cQ
.QQ)
~ -
~ ~
.~~
c c
o 0
'" u
~. a
w u
@~
':'= C
i::.Q
a~
_ 0
00..
w
i)-E
~o
a 3
g..2
_ 0
.5 ::;
a-"
:Ii!"
..!~
:.D~
o~
E1!
a 0
'S32
CC.,E
I:
01 ,
C _!
,;;: .- 5."
,- ~:J€~
~= ?: " u [~
= 2 .~~~
a~OIo.~~
~::::J I.. ): ti~
.. lU-o:'=I
.~ "C .~~
:...,; c "'~
::::J ~
.
.
.,
~
.
,
. .
Ii: 5.~ 1: <:) 1: <=- j ~
~ 'ii~~~-~-~ 5;'5
C 'j!!.2;}\ #: ;j ~ ~ :;:;: ';
~=8:g::ooo='~
.-. . , I >- A. 0 "
~ ",i I G~:i: ~
. . 0 II'
~ :i
"
-
.. :-'
-.~ ~~-
50'
,- .
o. -
~ ~ 1
l6 "co>
! ~ !.~-
~ ~ ~~
i~ Jh'
~5 ~:
.
~
'0'-
a::!
~.
.l
'2-
"
1:1
1 !. ~ 1! ~.
.. l L>..~.. 1 ~J ~~
" 'O! . l:t .. J: "'.. .. ~.2"" '" .. <! <0 .. ~
~ :-~5.~~~~~~,=~~,~~~~jA~1~
. OJ ...... 'I "1!i~""'I'"<
~;;:"'~",I::-:" .....-.::".. .~ B~.., ~"'a
~IS ..~~~~ ~~..~"'~.. ~..a ..~
~ ql'. !,.1... ".!J .,~ ,,~ ~
~~i~ !:~!~fi~:!~~!~!:~.!~~
-II ' of,;
;;, ~ ~ ~ ~ "i i~ ..
~ :. ! .' I - .I~ i" 'j' ,
;:B.~ ~="2::N~lj'" ~"" 1;Ii:' '"
.. ~ o! .. a" <I; <0 .... ~"a" of ~:;
~ I': 1 ,{ &,,!.!. "I'! ,1 i.!~:,
. ".1 !j'il;~ ,",-.,i',
3jjl~!i2l~~!!~ ~~i!S~~.~!
o
~'
0'
o
.
ii ~
.!. *'
~ ~
~ ~
t 8
iO
i j i
i,i, I
, .., j
" a,,_
a; ;;i~ ~
i;~};*h'
Ii:,,:.l
! !
, ,
ii! 1! i!
: '<::1:;;.21
B;! !;q;
I, I.~'.
:1 I. Ii
~ ,~
'-j
a~ ~
ii] ~g
!!j~I~>I!
i;i~j s=ip
;1. ;; ~
s~s ~
~B ~
,Ii
~5H
'~i
", ~ ):~) r ~
'.ft
I
'.
'~"i ;:'-
~~:;; , ~1' ~
.\
.. .
~ ~ 11
~ ~~.Ii>-
is \!~~~ (I, ~
~ !;;:c~u 0
.c. WCI&.:..
Q i~!!i~ i
'!
.
,
!
1
ill
iff
110
I ,
pi
J'!
\
II
I:
II
'I
J
!! ! !
U i III
!
I
i
!
@-
~I'~I!:
~ '~!I .
! II
~i
~ ~ ; J
(~ '" r
:> ' 1 II II I j
t; .
" ~:)... j~ j'i I I ;
. .... I: I. III ~1;;li_
is f,:di!~-8 r" ~ . .1 ! I i
~ . , 11 II
~ zlii~'- <' , Iii 0 I .
to4 !ilIa c I! j @-
VI ~ 1i'1 /1
c ~oll.IIIE I , I
z~!~ i I ,
II
,I
'~IJ
h! :jf
"'I,<;.,o;!':..f':::"~':< \ ~~~ .,,.....,,
. '-~',!, 'It; ":;~/ i~- ;4/S , X
"\;k;f~r~~~:j1/;r,!' '~,\' \~-
c ":1."~'1\1'i. ",-;:1. ,"J
\/~ :);}.';\., ~,i: F.P~.j;iii
_l~.". ':~',~;"~illJ.! ,~~t ,;;:
:<,I}f,;\'r."iii.. '_2
<>;~.' ....,.,. C'<',. . "
"I" \ 1"'.
. _. ,:...\~;~\'t ~
"'-
~\,
~
..,
'-'
'-
(I]
LI.ILI.I
~~
ctz
ZLI.I
......1
~~
QJ:
(j
,
,
d
,"
<~
~~ ti:
~,z :
i~ Q
~E
"
~
;
~ < ~
1 ti H
~ < , ..
~ 1 ~ .. ~
IiI!]
! ,; ~ ;;:~
!
~ID ~
~ ~
~ ~,u 'iij
.. lf~ 10
~ ! ~ ~:= a:I
H~U"U ~
H~j ~
u E
n i;
u ~
!
:3 -" ~
C '0 ~ C Ii
~ i~~~~"iHE.I<"~!~~
_,~. .,1'1 li>> ~.j~:C ti ~5 ~ Q.C
~ v "0 ... D! D! a:: _.j CI .. i: )0 j; 1! J
~ ] i r ~ %" !' %" i ~,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~:s
V 1:/",... ::EOOOQ.Q.<ia::~~IIIIIII-J
11001111110=101001
@-
h J,":;~
: ' ;~IIIr:l
s:i I
~I~> jd
7;1 e~ i'i
,
"
~
C'
'..i