Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007/06/05 Agenda Packet I declare under penalty of perjury that I am employed by the City of Chula Vista in the ~ ~ fJ:. Office of the City Clerk and that I posted thi~ ~ nt on the bullelin board according t~ requirements. ~~~~ CJUL1L """'" -= -=-= Signed1Wv>>= cHtirA ~lsrA I Cheryl Cox, Mayor Rudy Ramirez, Councilmember Jim Thomson, Interim City Manager John McCann, Councilmember Ann Moore, City Attorney Jerry R. Rindone, Council member Susan Bigelow, City Clerk Steve Castaneda, Councilmember June 5, 2007 4:00 P.M. Council Chambers City Hall 276 Fourth Avenue CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL: Councilmembers Castaneda, McCann, Ramirez, Rindone, and Mayor Cox PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG AND MOMENT OF SILENCE SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY . INTRODUCTION BY ENGINEERING DIRECTOR, SCOTT TULLOCH, OF EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH, HELEN VISTRO, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TECHNICIAN . PRESENTATION OF GAYLE MCCANDLISS ARTS AWARD WINNERS FOR 2007, PRESENTED BY CULTURAL ARTS COMMISSIONER SARA DEA VENPORT Distinguished Service Award: Mrs. Mitsuyo Fukuda Distinguished Bravo Award: Mr. Victor Manuel Diaz (posthumous award) Rising Star Awards: Edgar Gonzalez, Angela McDuffie, and Adrian Murillo, Chula Vista High School Literary Arts Award: Deborah Halverson (Young Adult); Max Branscomb (play Scripts) CONSENT CALENDAR (Items 1 through 13) The Council will enact the Consent Calendar staff recommendations by one motion, without discussion, unless a Councilmember, a member of the public, or City staff requests that an item be removed for discussion. If you wish to speak on one of these items. please fill out a "Request to Speak" form (available in the lobby) and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. Items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be discussed immediately following the Consent Calendar. 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of the Regular Meeting of April 17, 2007, and Adjourned Regular Meeting of April 19, 2007. Staff recommendation: Council approve the minutes. 2. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING SECTION 19.58.022 OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE, ADDING AND MODIFYING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR ACCESSORY SECOND DWELLING UNITS (SECOND READING) The Planning Commission reviewed and made recommendations on a draft ordinance amendment to Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 19.58.022 that would add new regulations and modify some existing regulations for accessory second dwelling units on lots zoned for single family residential use. First reading of the ordinance was held on May I, 2007. (Planning and Building Director) Staff recommendation: Council adopt the ordinance. 3. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ESTABLISHING A TWO-HOUR PARKING LIMIT ALONG THE 500 BLOCK OF VANCE STREET AND UPDATING SCHEDULES VI AND XVI OF THE REGISTER MAINTAINED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY ENGINEER TO INCLUDE THIS TIME-LIMITED PARKING ZONE (SECOND READING) Adoption of the ordinance establishes a two-hour parking limit along the 500 block of Vance Street and updates register schedules maintained in Engineering. First reading of the ordinance was held on May 22,2007. (Acting Assistant City Manager/City Engineer) Staff recommendation: Council adopt the ordinance. 4. ORDINANCE OF THE CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL AMENDING CHAPTER 2.55, SECTION 2.55.090 OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE TO REMOVE THE CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM THE CVRC BOARD OF DIRECTORS (SECOND READING) Adoption of the ordinance amends the Chula Vista Municipal Code to remove the City Council Members from the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation Board of Directors. First reading of the ordinance was held on May 24, 2007. (Acting Community Development Director/City Attorney) Staff recommendation: Council adopt the ordinance. Page 2 - Council Agenda him:/ /www.chulavistaca.gov June 5, 2007 5. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH BOB HOFFMAN VIDEO PRODUCTIONS FOR VIDEOTAPING CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS Adoption of the resolution approves an agreement with Bob Hoffinan Video Productions for videotaping Chula Vista City Council and Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation meetings for televising. (Communications Director) Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution. 6. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ESTABLISHING A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ENTITLED "TRAFFIC CONGESTION RELIEF PROGRAM" (TF-354), AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2007 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AND APPROPRIATING $500,000 FROM THE UNALLOCATED TRANSNET BALANCE (4/5THS VOTE REQUIRED) One of the priority uses for Transnet funding is to reduce congestion and improve safety. Approximately $500,000 of costs for traffic staff related to congestion relief in Fiscal Year 2006-2007 was charged to the City's General Fund. Council adopted a resolution in May to include the allocation of $500,000 of the City's Transnet fund balance to cover staff costs. Adoption ofthe resolution will replace $500,000 in the General Fund revenue that had been allocated to cover these costs. (Acting Assistant City Manager/City Engineer) Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution. 7. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE ALLOCATION OF $55,000 FROM THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL FEE FUND TO CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (CIP) TF-329, "TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT CENTER" FOR THE PURCHASE OF ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC SIGNAL CONTROLLER SOFTWARE LICENSES (4/5THS VOTE REQUIRED) Traffic signals in the City are controlled by a variety of components and software that keep each signal running safely, efficiently, and allow City staff to perform routine maintenance and timing modifications with ease. Adoption of the resolution authorizes the allocation of funds to purchase additional software licenses that are needed for newly installed traffic signals. (Acting Assistant City Manager/City Engineer) Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution. 8. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE ENGINEER'S REPORTS FOR PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ASSESSMENT INCREASE FOR OPEN SPACE DISTRICT NOS. 3, 7, 9, 23, 20, ZONES 2, 4, AND 7, AND EASTLAKE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO.1 ZONES A AND D, DECLARING THE INTENTION TO LEVY AND COLLECT ASSESSMENTS, AND SETTING A TIME AND PLACE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE PROPOSED ASSESSMENT INCREASES Page 3 - Council Agenda http://www.chulavistaca.gov June 5, 2007 On May 22, 2007, the City Council authorized the preparation of an Engineer's Report in order to consider a Proposition 218 ballot process requesting an increase to assessments in nine of 36 existing Open Space Districts/Zones because the costs for service requirements exceed the amount of revenue that can be generated by the current maximum assessment. The Proposition 218 process requires approval of an engineer's report and declaring intention to raise assessments, the mailing of a notice and ballot to each property owner within each affected Open Space District, the holding of a public hearing, and the tabulation of the assessment ballots. Adoption of the resolution approves the engineer's reports and the formal initiation of the balloting process. On August 7, 2007, a public hearing followed by a tabulation of the assessment ballots would occur so that final levies can be determined in time for the County Tax Assessor's deadlines. (Acting Assistant City Manager/City Engineer) Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution. 9. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ESTABLISHING THE APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT FOR THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007/2008 Article XIIIB of the California Constitution, approved by the voters in 1979 and commonly referred to as the Gann Initiative, requires each local government to establish an appropriations limit by resolution annually. The purpose of the limit is to restrict spending of certain types of revenues to a level predicated on a base-year amount increased annually by an inflation factor. Adoption of the resolution establishes an appropriations limit of$511,957,324 for Fiscal Year 2007/2008. (Finance Director) Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution. 10. A. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA RATIFYING CITY STAFF'S ACTION ON APPROVING CHANGE ORDERS WITH PORTILLO CONCRETE, INC. TO COMPLETE THE "OTAY LAKES ROAD SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS FROM ALLEN SCHOOL TO SURREY DRIVE AND PAVEMENT REHABILITATION ON OTAY LAKES ROAD FROM BONITA ROAD TO RIDGEBACK ROAD IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA" (STL- 286) PROJECT B. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AUTHORIZING AN INTER-PROJECT TRANSFER IN THE AMOUNT OF $250,000 FROM THE PAVEMENT REHABILITATION CIP (STL-238) TO THE "OTAY LAKES ROAD SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS FROM ALLEN SCHOOL TO SURREY DRIVE AND PAVEMENT REHABILITATION ON OTAY LAKES ROAD FROM BONITA ROAD TO RIDGEBACK ROAD IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA" (STL-286) PROJECT AS NECESSARY TO COMPLETE THE PROJECT (4/5THS VOTE REQUIRED) Page 4 - Council Agenda hUD:/ /www.chulavistaca.gov June 5, 2007 The City has a contract with Portillo Concrete, Inc. for the "Otay Lakes Road Sidewalk Improvements and Pavement Rehabilitation (STL-286)" project. Unforeseen circumstances caused an increase in quantities for the dig-out portion of the project beyond what was anticipated during the preparation of the project specifications, and the addition of the pavement rehabilitation of the intersection of Otay Lakes RoadIBonita Road, which staff directed the Contractor to proceed with to complete the project. Adoption of the resolutions, ratifY staff's action on approving the change orders, and appropriates funds to cover the additional costs. (General Services Director) Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolutions. 11. A. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ADOPTING THE RESULTS OF THE MID-MANAGEMENT STUDY AND APPROVING THE CORRESPONDING COMPENSATION SCHEDULE B. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ADOPTING THE RESULTS OF VARIOUS INDIVIDUAL NON-MANAGEMENT CLASSIFICATION STUDIES AND APPROVING THE CORRESPONDING COMPENSATION SCHEDULE Human Resources staff conducted a comprehensive classification and compensation study of positions in the Mid-Management group, consisting of 131 employees in 67 classifications. The study included a review of the work performed, scope and complexity of assiguments and overall responsibility of each position. In addition, department-initiated classification reviews were conducted on individual non- management positions represented by the Chula Vista Employees Association and Western Civil Engineers. (Human Resources Director) Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolutions. 12. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND THE SAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT DISTRICT FOR POLICE, FIRE AND EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED ON PORT DISTRICT LANDS WITH PAYMENT FOR THE SERVICES TO THE CITY, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY The City of Chula Vista has provided police, fire and emergency medical services to the San Diego Unified Port District site 1994. These services are provided on Port District lands which do not generate ad valorem tax revenues. Adoption of the resolution approves an agreement to continue providing these services until Fiscal Year 2008-2009. (Police Chief) Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution. Page 5 - Council Agenda http://www .chulavistaca.gov June 5, 2007 13. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ALLOWING BEER, WINE, AND CHAMPAGNE TO BE SERVED AT MONTEV ALLE RECREATION CENTER FOR THE BOARDS AND COMMISSION RECEPTION ON JUNE 18,2007 On May 22, 2007, the City Council approved the second reading of an ordinance amending Section 2.66.040 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code to allow beer, wine and champagne to be served during special events at several recreation centers, Montevalle being one. The ordinance takes effect 30 days after the second reading. Adoption of the resolution will allow beer, wine, and champagne to be served at the board and commission reception being held at Montevalle Recreation Center on June 18, 2007. (Office of the Mayor and City Council) Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC COMMENTS Persons speaking during Public Comments may address the Council/Authority on any subject matter within the Council/Authority's jurisdiction that is not listed as an item on the agenda. State law generally prohibits the Council//Authority from taking action on any issue not included on the agenda, but, if appropriate, the Council/Agency/Authority may schedule the topic for future discussion or refer the matter to staff Comments are limited to three minutes. PUBLIC HEARINGS The following items have been advertised as public hearings as required by law. If you wish to speak on any item, please jill out a "Request to Speak" form (available in the lobby) and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. 14. CONSIDERATION OF WAIVING MINOR IRREGULARITIES ON THE BID RECEIVED FOR THE "'MOSS STREET SEWER IMPROVEMENTS AND STREET RECONSTRUCTION BETWEEN 300 FEET EAST OF BROADWAY TO COLORADO AVENUE (CIP NO. SW-233)" PROJECT PER CITY CHARTER SECTION 1009 On Wednesday, April 25, 2007, the General Services director received thirteen sealed bids for the project, which will improve approximately 1800 linear feet of sewer pipe located under Moss Street between Broadway and Colorado Avenue. The street reconstruction will provide a new stable street section for all vehicles traveling on Moss Street. (General Services Director) Staff recommendation: Council adopt the following resolutions: A. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA WAIVING IRREGULARITIES, ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR THE "MOSS STREET SEWER IMPROVEMENTS AND STREET RECONSTRUCTION BETWEEN 300 FEET EAST OF BROADWAY TO COLORADO AVENUE (CIP NO. SW-233)" PROJECT TO ORTIZ CORPORATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $730,733. Page 6 - Council Agenda httn:/ /www.chulavistaca.2:0V June 5, 2007 B. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AUTHORIZING AN INTERPROJECT TRANSFER FROM EXISTING CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (STL-238) "PAVEMENT REHABILITATION PROGRAM" TO THE "MOSS STREET SEWER IMPROVEMENTS AND STREET RECONSTRUCTION BETWEEN 300 FEET EAST OF BROADWAY (SW-233) IN THE AMOUNT OF $182,083 TO COMPLETE THE PROJECT AND AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF ALL AVAILABLE FUNDS IN THE PROJECT (4/5THS VOTE REQUIRED) 15. CONSIDERATION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (PCC-07-063) FOR CHAMPIONSHIP OFF-ROAD RACING (COOR) JUNE 8-10 AND SEPTEMBER 28- 30,2007, ROCK MOUNTAIN QUARRY LAND ADJACENT TO THE OTAY RIVER VALLEY - JAMES BALDWIN, APPLICANT AND OWNER OF CHAMPIONSHIP OFF-ROAD RACING (CORR) The owner of Championship Off-Road Racing (CORR) has applied for a Conditional Use Permit for two temporary off-road racing events. Aside from the new location in the Rock Mountain Quarry, these events will be the same as the four temporary racing event weekends conducted in 2006, and two conducted in 2005 in Otay Ranch Village Two. Adoption of the resolution approves Conditional Use Permit PCC-07-063 in accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. (planning and Building Director) Staff recommendation: Council adopt the following resolution: RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ADOPTING THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM, IS-07-030, AND GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, PCC-07-063, TO CONDUCT OFF-ROAD RACING EVENTS ON A TEMPORARY OFF-ROAD RACETRACK ON A PORTION OF THE RIMROCK ROCK MOUNTAIN QUARRY, LOCATED OFF OF HERITAGE ROAD AND ADJACENT TO THE OTAY RNER VALLEY - JAMES BALDWIN, OWNER OF CHAMPIONSHIP OFF-ROAD RACING (COOR) OTHER BUSINESS 16. CITY MANAGER'S REPORTS 17. MAYOR'S REPORTS 18. COUNCIL COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT to the Adjourned Regular Meeting of the City Council, June 7, 2007 at 6:00 p.m. at the John Lippitt Public Works Center, 1800 Maxwell Road, and thence to the Regular Meeting of June 12, 2007 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall. Page 7 - Council Agenda http://www.chulavistaca.gov June 5, 2007 In compliance with the AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT The City of Chula Vista requests individuals who require special accommodations to access, attend, and/or participate in a City meeting, activity, or service request such accommodation at least forty-eight hours in advance for meetings and jive days for scheduled services and activities. Please contact the City Clerk for specific information at (619) 691-5041 or Telecommunications Devicesfor the Deaf(TDD} at (619) 585-5655. California Relay Service is also available for the hearing impaired. Page 8 - Council Agenda htto: /.www.chulavistaca.e:ov June 5, 2007 DRAFT MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA April 17, 2007 6:00 P.M. A regular meeting of the City Council of the City ofChula Vista was called to order at 6:03 p.m. in the Council Chambers, located in City Hall, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, California. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Councilmembers: Castaneda, McCann, Ramirez, Rindone, and Mayor Cox ABSENT: Councilmembers: None ALSO PRESENT: Interim City Manager Thomson, City Attorney Moore, City Clerk Bigelow, and Deputy City Clerk Bennett PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG AND MOMENT OF SILENCE SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY · OATHS OF OFFICE Terry Jensen, Veterans Advisory Commission City Clerk Bigelow administered the oath of office to Terry Jensen, and Deputy Mayor Rindone presented him with a certificate of appointment. · PRESENTATION BY MAYOR COX OF A PROCLAMATION DECLARING TUESDAY, APRIL 17,2007 AS LAW ENFORCEMENT POLICE RESERVE AND MOUNTED OFFICER DAY IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA Captain Hunter introduced members of the Police Reserves and Mounted Officers. Mayor Cox then read the proclamation, and Deputy Mayor Rindone presented it to the officers. CONSENT CALENDAR (Items I through 9) Mayor Cox announced that Item 9 would be removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion at the request of members of the public. Councilmember Castaneda stated that he would abstain from voting on Item 7, as his residence is within 500 feet of the Police Department. 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of the Special Meetings of March 8 and March 22, 2007, and the Regular Meetings of March 13 and 20, 2007. Staff recommendation: Council approve the minutes. I A- -I DRAFT CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued) 2. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS A. Memorandum from Councilmember Castaneda requesting an excused absence from the adjourned regular meeting of April 5, 2007. Staff recommendation: Council excuse the absence. B. Letter of resignation from Jeff Justus, member of the Design Review Committee. Staff recommendation: Council accept the resignation and direct the City Clerk to post the vacancy in accordance with Maddy Act requirements. 3. There was no Item 3. 4. RESOLUTION NO. 2007-082, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING VARIOUS DONATIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,453 TO THE ANIMAL CARE FACILITY AND APPROPRIATING SAID DONATED FUNDS (4/5THS VOTE REQUIRED) The Animal Care Facility received $2,453 in donations from various donors from November 2006 thru February 2007. The donations will be used to purchase medical and laboratory supplies as needed to provide veterinary care. (General Services Director) Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution. 5. A. RESOLUTION NO. 2007-083, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING THE DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE PROGRAM FOR THE PERIOD OF OCTOBER 1, 2005 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 2006 FOR PROJECTS OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA THAT UTILIZE FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION FUNDS B. RESOLUTION NO. 2007-084, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING THE DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE PROGRAM FOR THE PERIOD OF OCTOBER 1, 2006 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 2007 FOR PROJECTS OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA THAT UTILIZE FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION FUNDS All local agencies receiving federally assisted funds from the Federal Highway Administration are required to submit a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program. The program is designed to allow contractors/consultants owned and controlled by minorities, women and other socially and economically disadvantaged persons to have the opportunity to bid and work on projects funded by the Federal Highway Administration. (General Services Director) Staffrecommendation: Council adopt the resolutions. Page 2 - Council Minutes htto:/ /www.chulavistaca.gov 14-2 April 17, 2007 DRAFT CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued) 6. RESOLUTION NO. 2007-085, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING $7,500 FROM THE FIT FOR LIFE GRANT AND APPROPRIATING $3,750 TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2007 LIBRARY DEPARTMENT BUDGET (4/5THS VOTE REQUIRED) The library recently received a one-time grant award from MetLife Foundation and Libraries for the Future in the amount of$7,500, which will be used to develop a program called "Seek & Be Fit," a community-wide effort that encourages dialogue and action among teens and families on the issues of juvenile obesity, nutrition, and fitness. Only $3,750 will be appropriated for fiscal year 2007, and the remainder will be included in the fiscal year 2008 budget. (Assistant City ManagerlLibrary Director) Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution. 7. RESOLUTION NO. 2007-086, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE POLICE DEPARTMENT'S PARTICIPATION IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA'S CORRECTIONS STANDARD AUTHORITY "STANDARDS AND TRAINING FOR CORRECTIONS" PROGRAM Adoption of the resolution authorizes the Police Department to participate in the state's Standards and Training for Corrections program. (Police Chief) Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution. 8. A. RESOLUTION NO. 2007-087, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2007 POLICE DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL SERVICE BUDGET TO ADD UNCLASSIFIED POSITIONS, AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFORE BASED UPON UNANTICIPATED REVENUES (4/5THS VOTE REQUIRED) B. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 2.05.010 RELATING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF UNCLASSIFIED POSITIONS (FIRST READING) (4/5THS VOTE REQUIRED) The California Border Alliance Group (CBAG) has requested the addition of two new positions, CBAG Microcomputer Specialist and CBAG Lead Programmer Analyst; and the addition of an additional CBAG Program Manager. All positions would be fully funded through the Southwest High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area, with an additional 3% administrative fee paid to the City for the payroll and benefits administration. (Police Chief) Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution and place the ordinance on first reading. 9. Item 9 was removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion. Page 3 - Council Minutes htto:/ Iwww.chulavistaca.gov II ? A-.:;> " . April 17, 2007 DRAFT CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued) ACTION: Deputy Mayor Rindone moved to approve Consent Calendar Items 1, 2 and 4 through 8, headings read, texts waived. Councilmember McCann seconded the motion, and it carried 5-0, except on Item 7, which carried 4-0-1 with Councilmember Castaneda abstaining due to the proximity of his residence to the Police Department. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR 9. A. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING TITLE 17 OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE BY AMENDING SECTIONS 17.24.040 THROUGH 17.24.050, AND ADDING SECTION 17.24.060 REGARDING NOISY AND DISORDERLY CONDUCT (FIRST READING) B. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING TITLE 9 OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING CHAPTER 9.14, SECTIONS 9.14.010 THROUGH 9.14.070 RELATING TO MAKING IT UNLAWFUL FOR MINORS TO CONSUME ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES, AND FOR PERSONS TO HOST, PERMIT, OR ALLOW GATHERINGS WHERE MINORS ARE CONSUMING ALCOHOL BEVERAGES (FIRST READING) Loud party calls from citizens to the police have increased steadily as the City has grown. The current Municipal Code sections dealing with noisy and disorderly conduct does not provide officers with the necessary tools, citations, and cost recovery to deal with this growing problem. Additionally, the most frequent sources of alcohol for college students and adolescents include family members, friends, adult purchasers, and parties. Social host liability laws send a clear message that adults have a responsibility in the way they manage their homes or other premises under their control to prevent underage drinking parties and their consequences. Amending Titles 9 and 17 of the Municipal Code by adopting these ordinances would assist the Police Department and City staff with enforcement. (police Chief) Staff recommendation: Council place the ordinances on first reading. Captain Hunter presented the proposed amendments. Jeremy Jones supported the numerous local efforts taken to address risk factors associated with the use of tobacco, alcohol and other drugs; and spoke of the negative outcomes resulting from house parties. He believed the proposed amendments would create a greater level of responsibility for those who host house parties, and he urged the Council to adopt the proposed social host ordinance. The following persons also spoke in support of the proposed social host ordinance: Martha Moreno, a member of the local Neighborhood Council Initiative for the prevention of alcohol and drugs Judy Walsh-Jackson, Director ofthe San Diego County Alcohol Policy Panel Adam Ridley, a student at Rancho Del Rey Middle School Pameet Kaur, a student at Otay Ranch High School Madel Cruz, representing the YMCA Teen Center Tanya Rourka-Osterwalder, representing the Healthy Eating and Active Communities Initiative Page 4 - Council Minutes httn:/lwww.chulavistaca.IWV lA-if April 17,2007 DRAFT CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued) Willard Howard strongly supported the noise portion of the proposed ordinance but was unsure why emphasis was being placed on alcohol enforcement, since he believed that existing law prohibited alcohol consumption by anyone under the age of 21. Deputy City Attorney Dawson responded that the proposed ordinance would give police officers a greater tool to enforce the myriad of problems related to minors and alcohol and associated noise issues. Councilmember Castaneda stated that the proposed ordinance would permit neighbors to make complaints without the fear of retaliation; and would allow officers to determine whether an unlawful nuisance exists and enforce the law. Deputy Mayor Rindone asked why the enforcement time was not set earlier than 11 :00 p.m. Deputy City Attorney Dawson responded that the decision on the time was made at the public safety subcommittee level. Deputy Mayor Rindone asked the Police Department to maintain records and report back to the Council in approximately six months to ascertain whether the time should be changed. He asked how situations would be addressed when parties were held without adult authorization or in locations such as warehouses without adults present. Deputy City Attorney Dawson responded that the proposed ordinance would cover those occurrences. Councihnember Ramirez asked how staff would make the public aware of the regulations. Captain Hunter replied that a training session for police officers and public outreach tools for the community were being plarmed. Councihnember Ramirez asked staff to report to the public safety subcommittee on the public outreach tools that are implemented. Councihnember McCann asked if the ordinance would apply to youth who utilize drugs other than alcohol, such as ecstasy or crystal meth. Deputy City Attorney Dawson replied that state law occupies the field related to controlled substances, and provisions were not included in the proposed ordinance. Mayor Cox asked staff to clarify laws associated with controlled substances in an information memo to the Council. Councihnember McCarm also spoke in support of a 10:00 p.m. enforcement time for noise and disorderly conduct, rather than the proposed 11 :00 p.m. time. Councilmember Castaneda said he would be willing to accompany Captain Hunter and Deputy City Attorney Dawson to meetings with the Sweetwater Union High School District Board and the Southwestern College Community District Board and hoped that the Boards would embrace the City's efforts to safeguard the youth. ACTION: Councihnember Castaneda moved to place the ordinances on first reading. Councihnember McCarm seconded the motion. Deputy Mayor Rindone offered a friendly amendment to the motion to change the enforcement time in the Item 9A ordinance from 11 :00 p.m., to 10:00 p.m. The amendment was accepted by both the maker and second; and the motion carried 5-0. PUBLIC COMMENTS Jillayne Salmon asked the Council to consider removing the 500 block of Jefferson and Oaklawn Avenues from the Urban Core Specific Plan, stating that none of the residents were notified of the proposed plan. She believed that high-rise buildings would have a negative impact on the neighborhood and create issues such as traffic congestion. Page 5 - Council Minutes httu:/ /www.chulavistaca,gov IA -5" April 17, 2007 DRAFT PUBLIC COMMENTS (Continued) Brian Parra also requested the removal of the 500 block of Oak lawn and Jefferson Avenues from the Urban Core Specific Plan. He said he recently purchased a home in that area and wanted to raise his family in the small community atmosphere afforded by the neighborhood. Judy Cave stated that she did not want Chula Vista to emulate the City of San Diego with its high- and mid-rise developments, pollution from excessive traffic, and lack of landscaping. She also said that if the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation were reinstated, too much power would be concentrated within the corporation. She believed that Chula Vista had a great opportunity to develop the west side with care and imagination, and the downtown village should not be compromised by mid-size construction. Carlos Lizarraga opposed the inclusion of Jefferson and Oaklawn Avenues in the Urban Core Specific Plan, and expressed concern about existing traffic issues on H Street. Interim City Manager Thomson reported that staff was scheduling an outreach meeting next Monday to provide additional information to residents of the Jefferson and Oaklawn neighborhoods. PUBLIC HEARINGS 10. CONSIDERATION OF THE PROPOSED ASSESSMENT OF CERTAIN DELINQUENT SEWER SERVICE CHARGES AS RECORDED LIENS UPON THE RESPECTIVE OWNER OCCUPIED PARCELS OF LAND AND PLACEMENT OF DELINQUENT CHARGES ON THE NEXT REGULAR TAX BILL FOR COLLECTION Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 13.14.150 allows delinquent sewer service charges to be assessed as recorded liens upon the affected properties and ultimately placed on the property tax bills for collection. (Finance Director) Notice of the hearing was given in accordance with legal requirements, and the hearing was held on the date and at the time specified in the notice. Mayor Cox opened the public hearing. There being no members of the public who wished to speak, Mayor Cox closed the public hearing. ACTION: Councilmember Castaneda moved to adopt Resolution No. 2007-088, heading read, text waived: RESOLUTION NO. 2007-088, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ASSESSING CERTAIN DELINQUENT SEWER SERVICE CHARGES AS RECORDED LIENS UPON THE RESPECTIVE OWNER OCCUPIED PARCELS OF LAND AND APPROVING PLACEMENT OF DELINQUENT CHARGES ON THE NEXT REGULAR TAX BILL FOR COLLECTION Deputy Mayor Rindone seconded the motion, and it carried 5-0. Page 6 - Council Minutes hUn;//www.chulavistaca.gov IA-~ April 17, 2007 DRAFT PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) 11. CONSIDERATION OF THE PROPOSED ASSESSMENT OF CERTAIN DELINQUENT SOLID WASTE SERVICE CHARGES AS RECORDED LIENS UPON THE RESPECTIVE OWNER OCCUPIED PARCELS OF LAND AND PLACEMENT OF DELINQUENT CHARGES ON THE NEXT REGULAR TAX BILL FOR COLLECTION Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 8.24 allows delinquent solid waste service charges to be assessed as recorded liens upon the affected properties and ultimately placed on the property tax bills for collection. (Finance Director) Notice of the hearing was given in accordance with legal requirements, and the hearing was held on the date and at the time specified in the notice. Treasury Manager Mandery informed the Council of a letter received earlier in the day from David Doyer regarding his delinquent trash bill. The matter was referred to Allied Waste staff for further research. Mayor Cox opened the public hearing. With no members of the public wishing to speak, Mayor Cox closed the public hearing. ACTION: Councilmember Castaneda moved to adopt Resolution No. 2007-089, heading read, text waived: RESOLUTION NO. 2007-089, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ASSESSING DELINQUENT SOLID WASTE SERVICE CHARGES AS RECORDED LIENS UPON THE RESPECTIVE PARCELS OF LAND AND APPROVING PLACEMENT OF DELINQUENT CHARGES ON THE NEXT REGULAR TAX BILL FOR COLLECTION Deputy Mayor Rindone seconded the motion, and it carried 5-0. ACTION ITEMS l2.A. RESOLUTION NO. 2007-090, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AUTHORlZING STAFF TO DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS TO ENHANCE PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY AT LAUDERBACH NEIGHBORHOOD PARK, AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2007 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, ESTABLISHING A NEW CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (CIP) "LAUDERBACH PARK IMPROVEMENTS (CIP NO. PR295)", APPROPRIATING STATE RECREATION GRANT FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $114,020 (4/5THS VOTE REQUIRED) B. RESOLUTION NO. 2007-091, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AUTHORlZING AN INTERPROJECT TRANSFER FROM EXISTING CIP "WESTERN CHULA VISTA INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING PROGRAM (CIP NO. GGl88)" TO PR295 IN THE AMOUNT OF $285,980 AS NECESSARY TO FULLY FUND THE PROJECT (4/5THS VOTE REQUIRED) Page 7 - Council Minutes huo:! /www.chulavistaca.gov IA-7 April 17, 2007 DRAFT ACTION ITEMS (Continued) Lauderbach Neighborhood Park was added to the City park system as part of the Montgomery Annexation in 1985. The Boys and Girls Club of Chula Vista leases the recreation building located within the park and uses the field and tot lots for its members. Lauderbach Park is also the meeting place for an active senior citizen group that meets on a weekly basis. As is the case in most of the City's neighborhood parks, there is no public restroom. Adoption of the resolution creates a capital improvement project to add a restroom, fenced area, and security lighting. (Public Works Operations Director) Councilmember McCann stated that he would abstain from discussion and voting on Item 12, as he is a member of the Board of Directors for the Boys and Girls Club. He then left the Chambers. Councilmember Castaneda reported that the public safety subcommittee held a community meeting on January 17, 2007, at Lauderbach Park to discuss safety issues in the park. He believed that the proposed improvements would make the park safer. Councilmember Ramirez believed it might be wise to postpone the restroom improvements for six months to a year, after the fence installation. Staff responded that the park improvements are planned to engage more of the community and encourage more family-oriented activities. Additionally, the bathrooms at the Boys and Girls Club are not always available to the public during the evening or when the facility is rented out. Councilmember Ramirez asked Charles Moore, representing the Boys and Girls Club, about phasing in the restroom facilities. Mr. Moore responded that the Board was mostly interested in the installation of the fencing and lighting; phasing in the restrooms was not discussed at the Board level. He added that the Board would like to encourage utilization of the park by all residents. Councilmember Ramirez suggested a meeting between City staff and the Boys and Girls Club Board to discuss the timing of the restroom improvements. Councilmember Castaneda stated that the issues related to this particular park were different in that the facilities, located in the middle of a public park, are leased and operated by a non-profit entity. He stated that the City needs to take the park back, and the restroom improvements are an integral part in the process. The play fields are located a distance from the restrooms at the Boys and Girls Club, they are not always open to the public, and there are security concerns about people entering the club to use the restrooms. He believed that $125,000 was not a lot to spend to safeguard children who use the park; and said he wanted to see the fence and bathroom built as quickly as possible. Deputy Mayor Rindone supported the immediate construction of the restroom facility to enhance the public portion and fields of the park and improve safety concerns. He also said it was important to establish comparable parks on the City's west and east sides. Earl Jentz supported adoption of the resolutions, adding that another reason to move forward was that the Boys and Girls Club is not open on weekends. ACTION: Councilmember Castaneda moved to approve Resolutions 2007-090 and 2007- 091, headings read, texts waived. Councilmember Ramirez seconded the motion, and it carried 4-0-1, with Councilmember McCann abstaining. Councilmember McCann returned to the dais at 7:44 p.m. Page 8 - Council Minutes httu://www.chulavistaca.IWV / /' .2 ,I;q "-0 April 17,2007 DRAFT ACTION ITEMS (Continued) 13. CONSIDERATION OF ACCEPTANCE OF CERTIFICATION OF SUFFICIENCY OF AN INITIATIVE PETITION REGARDING ALLOWABLE BUILDING HEIGHT LIMITS An initiative petition regarding allowable building height limits in certain areas of the City was filed with the City Clerk on February 21, 2007. The required number of valid signatures needed was 8,985 (ten percent of the voters of the City, which was 89,849 according to the Registrar of Voters' official report to the Secretary of State on September 8, 2006). The Registrar of Voters examined the signatures on the petition, and found them to be sufficient. Elections Code Sections 9211 and 9114 require the City Clerk to certify the results of the examination to the City Council. Adoption of the resolution accepts certification of the sufficiency of the petition. (City Clerk) City Clerk Bigelow reported that the Registrar of Voters examined 12,238 signatures, of which 3,253 were found to not be sufficient, and 8,985 signatures were found to be sufficient. According to the Elections Code, the Council has three options: A. Direct staff to place the ordinance, as proposed by the proponents, without alteration, on a Council agenda for adoption within ten days; or B. Direct staff to prepare a resolution for Council adoption placing the ordinance on the ballot at the next regular municipal election (June 3, 2008); or C. Order a report pursuant to Elections Code Section 9212, to be presented to the Council within 30 days. If this option is chosen, when the report is presented to the Council, it shall either adopt the ordinance within ten days or order an election to be held at the next regular municipal election. Ned Ardanga supported option A and quoted from a letter he recently submitted to the Editor, stating that "when planning by the professionals fails to consider the public, the initiative process is our right, and we will exercise it as necessary to protect our rights, which occurs when the citizens wishes continue to be ignored by conflicted City staff and management." He said that the elected officials were being watched by citizens of the west and east sides to see how they reacted to citizens' initiatives. Peter Watry, representing Crossroads II, supported option A, stating that the report by the City Clerk would indicate that about 15,000 signatures were valid. He said that the initiative would reinforce the General Plan, and any delay would create uncertainty among developers and finance people. Jackie Lancaster supported option A and stated that delaying the initiative to the June election would be interpreted as stalling to give developers time to get their projects in the pipeline before the voters had a say. She did not believe mixed uses could be aesthetically pleasing and suggested that the City work toward attracting industry and jobs. Page 9 - Council Minutes hUD:/ iwww.chulavistaca.gov IA-1 April 17, 2007 DRAFT ACTION ITEMS (Continued) Steve Haskins, representing Citizens for Community Input, strongly supported option A but said his organization would grudgingly support option B. With reference to option C, he said there was no reason for the City to waste money on a short-term study. He then showed how high-rise structures would impact downtown Chula Vista. He asked the Council to place the item on the ballot and agree not to approve any projects that would violate the initiative pending the results of the election. Parks Pemberton stated that the disadvantaged were not included in the City's redevelopment plans. He asked the Council to begin listening to the majority of people in the City and select option A. Theresa Acerro spoke in support of option A, stating that there was no need to wait 30 days, that the public had spoken, and that"the Council should set the initiative for election. Charles Moore, President of the Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce, urged the Council to approve option C, stating that although people signed the petition, it was not necessarily reflective of the way they would vote. Robert Vacchi, representing Inland Industries Group, supported option C, stating that the proposed initiative would drastically affect the flexibility of planning in the City and have significant environmental, economic and social impacts. A thorough investigation and report was necessary to identify the impacts and inform the public of the potential negative impacts of the initiative. Jack Blakely, representing the Third Avenue Village Association, asked the Council to select option C, stating that a complete and thorough analysis of the impacts of the initiative was important for all members of the community, and especially the Village property and business owners, to fully understand the implications. Lisa Cohen, CEO of the Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce, spoke in support of option C, stating that a complete and thorough analysis of the impacts of the initiative was very important in order to inform the community of the long-term effects on the City. Mayor Cox noted that the following members of the public submitted speaker slips in support of the various options but did not wish to speak: Item 13 (option not declared), Luis Vizcarra; option A, Robert Meyer, Athalone Osborne, Paul Osborne and Karen Jentz; option B, Charles Ulrich; and option C, Tina Medina. Mayor Cox spoke of the benefit of review in order to have an informed Council making informed decisions about the path that lies ahead. She spoke in support of option C, which would give the Council the opportunity to hear from staff and understand the impacts in terms of the General Plan, future redevelopment, financial costs of redevelopment on Scripps Hospital, employment, meeting affordable housing requirements, and community character. The report would inform the Council in time to place the initiative on the June 3rd ballot or adopt the ordinance as written. Page 10 - Council Minutes him ://www.chulavistaca.gov IA-IO April 17, 2007 DRAFT ACTION ITEMS (Continued) ACTION: Councilmember Ramirez moved to approve option A. The motion failed for lack of a second. ACTION: Councilmember Ramirez moved to approve option B. The motion failed for lack of a second. Councilmember Castaneda spoke in support of option C based on the fact that no outside funds would be spent and the item would come back in 30 days. He asked staff to look at options on how the City can protect the will of the voters by not allowing projects that may not be supported by the voters to move forward. Deputy Mayor Rindone supported option C and talked about the importance of floor area ratio and open space, a village core that is prosperous and well designed, involvement by the Redevelopment Advisory Committee and Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation, and flexibility to enhance opportunities. Councilmember McCann spoke in support of option C, which would allow the Council and the community to become more informed. Councilmember Ramirez spoke in support of option B, stating that reports were sometimes used for political reasons, and he would hate to think that City staff and resources might be used in that way. ACTION: Mayor Cox moved to adopt Resolution No. 2007-092 and approve option C, with the report due to the City Council no later than May 15, 2007, the report to be prepared by staff including Planning, Community Development, the City Attorney's Office, and the report to include the impacts on the City's bayfront plan: RESOLUTION NO. 2007-092, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING THE CERTIFICATION OF SUFFICIENCY OF AN INITIATIVE PETITION REGARDING ALLOW ABLE BUILDING HEIGHT LIMITS Deputy Mayor Rindone seconded the motion, and it carried 4-1 with Councilmember Ramirez voting no. At 8:41, Mayor Cox announced a brief recess, The meeting reconvened at 8:52 p.m. with all members present. OTHER BUSINESS 14. CITY MANAGER'S REPORTS Interim City Manager Thomson announced that a public meeting was scheduled for Wednesday, April 18,2007, at 6:00 pm in Council Chambers for further input on the Cumming Initiative. Additionally, a Council Budget Workshop was scheduled for April 19, 2007 at 6:00 pm in the Police Department Community Room. Page II - Council Minutes him:/ /www.chulavistaca.l:!OV lA-II April 17, 2007 OTHER BUSINESS (Continued) DRAFT 15. MAYOR'S REPORTS A. INDEPENDENT FINANCIAL REVIEW OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA BY CONSULTANT ECONOMIC & PLANNING SYSTEMS On February 6, 2007, the Council approved the selection of Economic & Planning Systems as the consultant to perform an independent financial review of the City. The financial report is being presented for review and discussion. (Independent Financial Review Council Subcommittee - Mayor Cox and Councilmember Castaneda) Walter Kieser, Managing Principal with Economic and Planning Systems Inc., presented the report. Deputy Mayor Rindone requested specific information in the final report regarding the City's funding obligation and whether the City would need to provide a comprehensive annual financial report. He also recommended the inclusion of an audit committee and a special summary analysis containing a short list of three to six major recommendations and three to six minor recommendations, a commentary on the major recommendations, and a review of those recommendations in six to eight months. Councilmember McCann talked about the need to take plans and studies and convert them into action items and accountability for getting the action done in the future. He expressed the need for a final report that would be quantifiable, with milestones to check on progressions. Councilmember Ramirez stated he would like to see the Council subcommittee come back with a to-do list of all prioritized recommendations from the consultant. Councilmember Castaneda stated the need for the Council to establish an official hierarchy of priorities for the City that would 1) look at measurable ways to analyze financial decisions, which begins with the budget and consistency with strategic plans between all departments; 2) provide policies on how to induce redevelopment; 3) look at re-aligning departments; 4) have firm statements and a policy with specific circumstances for bringing a mid-year budget amendment to the Council; 5) have a systematic update of the City's development fees; and 6) have a policy or analytical tool to assist the Council in measuring long-term impacts of memoranda of understanding with bargaining groups. Mayor Cox requested that the meeting be adjourned in memory of Army Spc. Curtis Spivey, a graduate of Hilltop High School, who died as a result of his injuries in Iraq. 16. COUNCIL COMMENTS Deputy Mayor Rindone congratulated Dr. Emerald Randolph on the 16th CAST graduation, noting that 247 members over the last 14 years have been trained as community volunteers to assist with community tragedies. Page 12 - Council Minutes htto:i Iwww.chulavistaca.\lOV I A -12. April 17,2007 DRAFT OTHER BUSINESS (Continued) Councilmember McCann concurred with the comments of Councilmember Rindone. He then requested that the meeting also be adjourned in memory of the victims of the Virginia Tech University shootings. Councilmember Ramirez acknowledged the work of the CAST volunteers and then reminded everyone of the public forum scheduled for April 18, 2007, at 6:00 p.m. in Council Chambers, to discuss the Cummings Initiative. CLOSED SESSION 17. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE APPOINTMENT PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54957(b)(1) Title: City Manager ACTION: The Council appointed a new City Manager, David Garcia (5-0). 18. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE 54957.6(a) Unrepresented employee: City Manager No reportable action was taken on this item. 19. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING SIGNIFICANT EXPOSURE TO LITIGATION PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9(b) Four Cases Only one case was discussed, and no reportable action was taken. ADJOURNMENT At 1 :00 a.m., Mayor Cox adjourned the meeting in memory of the victims of the Virginia Tech University incident, and also in memory of Army Spc. Curtis Spivey, graduate of Hilltop High School, who died as a result of his injuries in Iraq. She adjourned the meeting to the adjourned regular meeting of April 19, 2007, at 6:00 p.m. in the Police Department Community Room, 315 Fourth Avenue, and thence to the regular meeting of April 24, 2007, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. ~ Lorraine Bennett, CMC, Deputy City Clerk Page 13 - Council Minutes him:l/www .chulavistaca. gOY / A- -/3 April!7,2007 DRAFT MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA April 19, 2007 6:00 P.M. An Adjourned Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista was called to order at 6:01 p.m. in the Police Department Community Room, 315 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, California. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Councilmembers: Castaneda (arrived at 6:05 p.m.), McCann, Ramirez, Rindone (arrived at 6:12 p.m.), and Mayor Cox ABSENT: Councilmembers: None ALSO PRESENT: Interim City Manager Thomson, City Attorney Moore, Assistant City Clerk Norris, and Senior Deputy City Clerk Peoples PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG AND MOMENT OF SILENCE PUBLIC COMMENTS Bob Thomas, Chula Vista business owner, talked about services his business provides that could result in savings of 10% to 30% for the City. Steven Pavka, Chula Vista resident, commented on alleged predatory towing companies within the City. 1. BUDGET WORKSHOP . Introduction Interim City Manager Thomson extended appreciation and compliments to City Staff involved in preparing the budget. He then provided an overview of the workshop agenda. . Fiscal Year 2006 - 2007 Budget Update Finance Director Kachadoorian provided an overview of general fund reserve projections as of June 30, 2007, and noted that the third quarter report would be brought before the Council in the near future. 1 f3-1 DRAFT BUDGET WORKSHOP (continued) . Fiscal Year 2007 - 2008 Budget Update Budget and Analysis Director Van Eenoo discussed the fmdings and recommendations to strengthen the City's financial condition contained in the independent financial review. He then provided information on the base budget gap; items included in the base budget; the base budget reductions; budget balancing criteria; actions taken to close the gap; the budget balancing plan by service area; the budget balancing plan, including the base budget adjustments; fiscal year 2007/2008 position reductions; fiscal year 2007/2008 position reductions by service area; and the proposed base budget reductions by department. Deputy Mayor Rindone stated that consideration needed to be given to alternative resources, such as the expansion of the auto park, which will also provide financial assistance. . Five-Year Revenue and Expenditure Forecast Report Update Finance Director Kachadoorian provided the preliminary five-year forecast of the projected deficit and surplus surmnary. She noted that the updated five-year forecast without the fiscal year 2008/2009 gap closed reflected expenditures rising but revenues falling, resulting in diminished reserves. However, with the gap closed, the reserves would drop but then rise again. She then presented a graph showing the historical and projected sales tax from 1989 through 2013, comparative sales tax growth by the City, and comparative sales tax growth by the County. . Budget Balancing Proposals Budget and Analysis Director Van Eenoo introduced the 19 proposed budget reductions totaling $3.9 million, beginning with the reduction in management level support positions in the City Manager, Community Development, Finance, Human Resources and Library departments, followed by anticipated service impacts. Councilmember Ramirez stated that the new City Manager should handle the downgrading of an Assistant City Manager position to an Economic Development Officer to allow for continued focus on high profile projects in a cost effective manner. Mayor Cox clarified her understanding that this was staff s recommendation for fiscal year 2007/2008 in order to provide a stronger presence during the next two to six months on the university park and bayfront projects, which need to keep moving forward. Deputy Mayor Rindone supported staffs recommendation, noting the time gap prior to the new City Manager coming on board, as well as the time period the new City Manager would need to make appropriate assessments. Director Van Eenoo then presented proposed reductions in non-management support positions in the Finance, General Services, ITS, Library Services, Human Resources, Fire, Office of Budget and Analysis and Planning and Building departments, including anticipated service impacts. Page 2 - Council Minutes htto:! / www.chulavistaca.Q:ov 113-2 April 19, 2007 DRAFT BUDGET WORKSHOP (continued) Councilmember Castaneda asked about the ability to streamline business license and other City services, to make them more user friendly and perhaps handle them over the City website. Finance Director Kachadoorian responded that the ability to use credit cards has been implemented as the start of the transition to website use for various account collections. Councilmember Ramirez encouraged General Services Director Griffin to explore ways to bring in volunteers to assist staff. Director Griffin addressed the volunteer programs already in effect at the facility, as well as the recently created 501(c)(3) organization called H.E.A.R.T., which assists in fundraising and volunteer opportunities. Deputy Fire Chief Geering presented the budget reduction proposals for 2007/2008 and their effects on the Fire Department. Budget and Analysis Director Van Eenoo presented the services and supplies reductions, touching on citywide cell phone use, and noted that staff was looking at the implementation of restrictions to reduce costs by 20% or $50,000. Councilmember Castaneda asked if staff was looking primarily at reductions in consumption of supplies and services or competitive contracts, noting that Mr. Thomas stated his firm could provide products and services to the City that would save 30% to 40%. He asked staff to provide an analysis to the Council. Mayor Cox inquired, and Finance Director Kachadoorian responded, that the City piggybacks on competitive city bid contracts throughout the state. Councilmember McCann asked about cell phone contracts. Director Kachadoorian responded that the City has a contract with Verizon, and the Police Department uses Nextel. Deputy Mayor Rindone asked staff to review the possibility of establishing a cap stipend for those who have City cell phones, along with a requirement that the phones be used only for City business. Budget and Analysis Director Van Eenoo provided anticipated service impacts based on the proposed services and supplies reductions. Councilmember Ramirez spoke regarding the need for discussion on performance measurements and analyses. Director Van Eenoo responded that in the past, the Office of Budget and Analysis led the budget process. The independent financial review consultant believed the City was on the right track with regard to developing strategic planning, and he spoke regarding the departments that have gone through the managing-for-results process. Mr. Van Eenoo also stated that additional work would be done to link resources to priorities, but without the assistance of outside consultants. Further, there are currently plans and a performance matrix that needs to be fit into the budget process. Page 3 - Council Minutes htto:/ /www.chulavistaca.Q:ov IB-3 April 19, 2007 DRAFT BUDGET WORKSHOP (continued) Councilmember McCann asked that staff do further analyses and provide information to the Council regarding cell phone contracts, noting that there is a highly competitive market. Director Van Eenoo then presented the proposed extension of the furlough program to include management and confidential staff, and possibly staff who belong to the Western Council of Engineers. Finance Director Kachadoorian introduced the Development Services proposed reductions of $849,000 and noted that the figures assumed that 1,200 building permits will be issued this year and 1,600 next year. Interim City Manager Thomson stated he believed the 1,600 number was too high, and he was looking at scaling it back, which would result in an increased deficit. Acting Assistant City Manager/City Engineer Tulloch stated that Development Services consisted of Planning and Building, Community Development and Engineering, whose efforts have resulted in millions of dollars in new sales and property taxes and thousands of new jobs over the past several years. He additionally noted that the majority of the staff costs were fully recoverable based on the fees charged. Planning and Building Director Sandoval provided an overview of development trends, noting that regionally, most planning and building departments recovered approximately 50% of their costs, whereas Chula Vista's Planning and Building department had recovered 90% and Engineering recovered approximately 80% due to being the fifth fastest growing city in the state. Acting Assistant City Manager/City Engineer Tulloch reviewed the anticipated impacts of the reduction in Development Services' positions and services and supplies budgets. Councilmember Castaneda expressed concerns with the elimination of neighborhood traffic cahning programs. Mr. Tulloch responded that they would be continued in a streamlined way, with staff identifying conditions that would lend themselves to traffic calming techniques, and with the engineers applying their learned techniques to solve the problems. With regard to the inability to expand the infrastructure asset management effort, Mr. Tulloch stated that staff was still committed to implementing the program, but it would take more time to implement than initially planned. Police Chief Emerson addressed the impacts ofthe proposed budget reductions on his department, noting that they would have to do more with less, and learn to say no occasionally. Mayor Cox called a brief recess at 8:16 p.m. She reconvened the meeting at 8:30 p.m., with all members present. Assistant City Manager/Library Director Palmer provided an overview of the impacts of the proposed reductions in service levels at the Civic Center and South Chula Vista Libraries, as well as the elimination of the Adult Literacy Program and reduced Cultural Arts staffing. Page 4 - Council Minutes htto:/ /www.chulavistaca.gov 1E3-lf April 19, 2007 DRAFT BUDGET WORKSHOP (continued) Deputy Mayor Rindone asked that a minimum of one library remain open during the holiday furlough and that staff look elsewhere for cost savings. With regard to the Adult Literacy program, he asked staffto continue to look at partnerships to site the program at the libraries. Councilmember Castaneda asked staff to report back on resources currently available in the community. Mr. Palmer responded that the Library staff has been diligent in looking at community resources, but many programs were fee-based, whereas the Adult Literacy program had been free. Recreation Director Martin provided a brief summary of the proposed reductions for recreation facilities and various operational changes. Public Works Operations Director Byers provided proposed reductions in park servIce maintenance levels, reduced street sweeping services, and reduced tree-trimming services. Councilmember Ramirez asked staff to review the agreements with the leagues that use City facilities, consider a potential fee increase, and perhaps create a partnership whereby the teams assist with routine maintenance such as trash pick-up and restroom clean-up. Mayor Cox spoke regarding reduced tree trimming services and the potential resulting increase in City liability. She assured the residents that if they saw a tree that needed trimming or was damaged, staff would continue to take immediate action. Budget and Analysis Director Van Eenoo introduced the new fee revenues proposed by various departments, potentially amounting to $536,000, and noted that the proposals would be brought to the Council by the individual departments for approval prior to the beginning of fiscal year 2007- 2008. Police Chief Emerson presented his department's proposed new revenues, increased alarm permit and penalty fees for third and fourth false alarms. Councilmember McCann asked that when the department brings the proposal back for Council approval, the report include comparisons of fees currently charged by other cities, if other cities are considering raising fees, and if so, to what. Councilmember Ramirez believed it would be appropriate to create a greater deterrent and increase the fee for a third false alarm to $100 and the fourth to $200, with perhaps greater sensitivity given to residential alarms. Budget and Analysis Director Van Eenoo presented the City Clerk's proposal for the implementation of passport services. Councilmember Castaneda expressed concern that implementation could take away from the provision of core municipal services, and he requested a report on what staff was required to do to process the documents. Councilmember Ramirez expressed concern about taking on a new service that had potential for complaints if something went wrong. Page 5 - Council Minutes http:// www.chulavistaca.gov /8-5 April 19, 2007 DRAFT BUDGET WORKSHOP (continued) Deputy Mayor Rindone expressed confidence in City Clerk Bigelow's staff and stated that if the Post Office could perform these services, he was sure City Clerk staff could, as well. Councilmember Ramirez expressed concern about possibly involving the library in the processing of passports. Interim City Manager Thomson responded that staff felt the provision of services at libraries on weekends would increase the library business. Fire Marshall Gipson provided an overview of various proposed fire permit fees, including fire safety engineering construction permits and fire code inspection operational permits. Assistant Director of Planning and BuildinglBuilding Official Remp provided an overview of proposed new fees for distressed property management and property profile reporting programs, noting that the latter would recover costs from those who created the problems. Councilmember Castaneda asked if the City required legal authority to implement such a program. Mr. Remp responded that staff would be returning to the Council with a proposal to create the necessary legal authority, and he assured the Council that this program had been implemented and legally tested in other cities. City Attorney Moore stated that she would work with the department to ensure that the City would not have legal exposure from implementing the program. Recreation Director Martin presented proposed increases in recreation fees, noting the inclusion of an increase in sports league fees and the contractual instructors' class fees. Councilmember Ramirez asked staff review setting limits on scholarships so as not to create a larger group that cannot afford the fees. Mayor Cox suggested that staff compare the fee structure everyone or two years against that of other cities, so as not to create the appearance of dramatic increases. Budget and Analysis Director Van Eenoo stated that staff was still looking for ways to fill the remaining $400,000 budget gap. He then provided an overview of other budget items, including the request for the addition of one Fire Prevention Engineer based on increased fee revenues; the addition in General Services of one staff position based on savings resulting from the elimination of the holiday lighting contract; and the anticipated mid-year appropriation of grant funds for additional Police staffing. He provided the next steps in the budget process, which included the finalization of the budget balancing recommendations between April 20 and 30; development of the proposed budget document between May I and 23, the submittal of the proposed budget to the Council on May 24, a presentation on the proposed budget to the Council in early June, and Council adoption of the budget on June 19. Councilmember McCann asked staff to look at using a baseline of 1,000 for permits in the future, continue to work on closing the $400,000 gap, make sure to recapitalize reserves by maintaining services but looking at how to continue to meet the 8% and getting some type of buffer, and to review the big picture. He then stated that what would drive the budget and keep the City financially healthy would be the large projects that would bring in revenue without having to raise taxes, such as the Bayfront project, the University, Auto Park, redevelopment and the Eastern Urban Center. Page 6 - Council Minutes htto:/ /www.chulavistaca.go\" / B-~ April 19, 2007 DRAFT BUDGET WORKSHOP (continued) Councilmember Ramirez referred to comments by the independent [mancial review consultant pertaining to reserves under Item C, section 4, stating that he would be interested in conversations with various departments on needs for specific programs. He encouraged staff to bring them forward. Deputy Mayor Rindone expressed his appreciation to staff for their diligence and briefings, noting that with all of the challenges, there was no other city with greater opportunity than Chula Vista for major projects that could positively change and benefit the City. He cited the Urban Core Specific Plan, Bayfront Plan, the expansion of the Auto Park, and the establishment of the Eastern Urban Center, which was actually like building a city. Additionally, Deputy Mayor Rindone stated that City staff needed to stay the course and make sure there was proper staffing to bring the large projects in. He thanked Interim City Manager Thomson for his leadership in looking how to make a difference in the quality of life for the City's residents. Norberto Salazar, Chula Vista resident, representing the Southwest Chula Vista Civic Association, stated that there were concerns in the communities in southwest Chula Vista, and he encouraged the Council to fund the maintenance and infrastructure needs, and reduce the backlog of infrastructure projects. Further, he believed that redevelopment in Chula Vista was in jeopardy, which meant staff needed to pay closer attention to the needs of and elevate the older communities. Mr. Scott, Chula Vista resident, stated he was happy the Council had settled on a new City Manager whom he hoped had negotiating skills. He then expressed his view that once the MOU was reached for the Police Department, its expenditures should have gone down and revenues up, but that was not so. Further, that he felt City employees made too much money, their salaries were not comparable to the military, and since the salaries were ample, employees should not be given high raises. Budget and Analysis Director Van Eenoo thanked the department heads and City staff for their budget proposals. 2. RESOLUTION NO. 2007-093, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DIRECTING STAFF TO BRING FORWARD A ONE- YEAR BUDGET FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION BEGINNING FISCAL YEAR 2007-2008 Beginning with fiscal years 2001-2002 and 2002-2003, budget staff prepared a two-year budget for Council consideration. A biennial budget has served the City well over this time. However, there are several factors that make long-term revenue and expenditure projections difficult at this time. Therefore, it is recommended that the practice of preparing a two-year budget be suspended and that a one-year budget be prepared beginning with fiscal year 2007-2008. (Director of Budget and Analysis) ACTION: Deputy Mayor Rindone offered Resolution No. 2007-093, heading read, text waived. Councilmember McCann seconded the motion, and it carried 5-0. Page 7 - Council Minutes htto:/ !www.chulavistaca.gov /8-7 April 19, 2007 DRAFT CLOSED SESSION Mayor Cox announced that Closed Session would not be held, and no action was taken on the following items: 3. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE APPOINTMENT PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54957(b)(I) Title: City Manager 4. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE 54957.6(a) Umepresented employee: City Manager ADJOURNMENT At 10:03 p.m., Mayor Cox adjourned the meeting to the Regular Meeting of April 24, 2007 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Page 8 - Council Minutes haD:!.! www.chulavistaca.Q:QV /8-8 April 19, 2007 STRIKE OUT VERSION ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING SECTION 19.58.022 OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE, ADDING AND MODIFYING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR ACCESSORY SECOND DWELLING UNITS WHEREAS, on January 28, 2003, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista adopted a local ordinance adding Section 19.58.022 to the Chula Vista Municipal Code to regulate accessory second dwelling units pursuant to California Government Code Section 65852.2; and, WHEREAS, on January 27, 2004, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista amended Section 19.58.022 increasing the maximum allowable floor area for an accessory second dwelling unit from 650 to 850 square-feet; increasing the number of parking spaces required for 3-bedroom units from one space to 2 spaces; and modifying other property development standards; and, WHEREAS, since the adoption and amendment of the local ordinance, the City has received over 108 building permit applications for accessory second dwelling units, some of which caused great concerns among neighbors; and, WHEREAS, upon hearing these concerns, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista directed a review of Section 19.58.022 to determine whether additional property development standards for the construction of accessory second dwelling units were necessary; and, WHEREAS, staff studied the units built in compliance with the existing City regulations, compared those regulations to other jurisdiction requirements, and conducted two Planning Commission workshop sessions that included public testimony on the adequacy of the adopted development standards for accessory second dwelling units; and, WHEREAS, as a result of this work the Planning Commission concluded that additions and modifications were appropriate to Section 19.58.022 and directed staff to prepare a draft ordinance amendment addressing building setbacks, building heights, maximum dwelling unit floor area, unit location, parking, design standards, and occupancy requirements; and, WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that the proposed ordinance amendment is exempt pursuant to Section 21080.17 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held an advertised public hearing on the Code Amendment on March 14,2007 and after hearing staffs presentation and public testimony, voted 5- 1-I to recommend the City Council adopt the proposed amendments, in accordance with the draft City Council Ordinance as amended; and, WHEREAS, a duly called and noticed public hearing was held before the City Council of the City of Chula Vista on , on the ordinance amendment to receive the recommendations of the Planning Commission, and to hear public testimony; and, WHEREAS, the City Clerk set the time and place for a hearing on the ordinance amendment and notice of the hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City at least 10 days prior to the hearing; and, 2-1 WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 6:00 p.m. , in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the City Council and the hearing was thereafter closed; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that well regulated accessory second dwelling units can assist the City of Chula Vista in achieving housing goals of the General Plan Housing Element and be of economic and social benefit to the community; and, WHEREAS, the City Council further finds that additional regulations are necessary to protect existing single-family neighborhoods and provide clarity to property owners wishing to add accessory second dwelling units to their property. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City ofChula Vista ordains: Section 1 - That Section 19.58.022 of the Municipal Code is amended to read asfollows: Section 19.58.022 - Accessory second dwelling units A. The purpose of this Section is to provide regulations for the establishment of accessory second dwelling units in compliance with California Government Code Section 65852.2. Said units may be located in residential zone districts where adequate public facilities and services are available, and impacts upon the residential neighborhood directly affected would be minimized. Accessory second dwelling units are a potential source of affordable housing and shall not be considered in any calculation of allowable density of the lot upon which they are located, and shall also be deemed consistent with the General Plan and zoning designation of the lot as provided. Accessory second dwelling units shall not be considered a separate dwelling unit for the purpose of subdividing the property into individual condominium or lot ownership. B. For the purposes of this Section, the following words are defined: "Above" as used in this section means an accessory second dwelling unit that is attached and built over a primary residence including an attached garage. "Accessory second dwelling units" are independent living facilities of limited size that provide permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation on the same parcel as a single-family dwelling according to the provisions ofCVMC Section 19.58.022.C. "Attached" means that 50% of the accessory second dwelling unit's wall, floor or ceiling will be shared with the primary residence on the property (Exhibit B.l). "Basement" shall mean the same as defined in CVMC Section 19.04.026. "Behind" shall mean an accessory second dwelling unit constructed either entirely between the rear of the primary dwelling and the rear property line, or to the side of the primary residence but set back from the front plane of the primary residence at least 50 % the distance between the front and back planes of the primary residence (Exhibit B.2). Accessory 2"<1 Dwelling Primary Residence 50% of wall, floaror ceiling Exhibit B. 1 - "Attached" 2-2 2 "Buildable pad area" as used in this section means the level finish grade of the lot not including slopes greater than 50% grade. (Exhibit 8.3). "Detached" means an accessory second unit separated from the primary residence as specified in CVMC Section 19.58.022.C.5.d. "Gross floor area" as used in this section means those enclosed portions of the primary residence not including the garage or other attached Exhibit B. 2 - "Behind" accessory structures, such as covered but unenclosed patios, balconies, etc. "Primary Residence" means the single-family dwelling constructed on a lot as the main permitted use by the zone on said parcel. ~rtyMLi':.- 1- I I T- 1-- I STREET Exhibit B. 3 - "Buildabie Pad Area" C. Accessory second dwelling units shall be subject to the following requirements and development standards: Frontp1;;e- - - - -- STREET 1. Zones - Accessory second dwelling units must accompany an existing primary residence on an A, R-E, R-l, or PC zoned lot. However, construction of the primary residence can be in conjunction with the construction of an accessory second dwelling unit. Where a guesthouse, or other similar accessory living space exists, accessory second dwelling units are not permitted. The conversion of a guest house or other similar living areas into an accessory second dwelling unit is permitted provided they meet the intent and property development standards of CVMC Section 19.58.022, and all other applicable CVMC requirements. Accessory second dwelling units shall not be permitted on lots within a Planned Unit Development (PUD), unless an amendment to the PUD is approved and specific property development standards are adopted for the construction of accessory second dwelling units on lots within the PUD. Accessory second dwelling units are precluded from R-2 and R-3 zoned lots. 2. Unit Size - The maximum size of an accessory dwelling unit on a given lot shall be determined by either the buildable pad area of the lot, or the size of the primary residence according to the following table, so long as the combined living spaces do not exceed the floor area ratio of the underlying zone. The original buildable pad area of a lot may not be increased by more than 20% through re-grading and/or the use of retaining walls or structures. Buildable Pad Area Less than 5,000 sq. ft. 5,000 - 6,999 sq. It. 7,000 9,999 sq. ft. 10,000 - 14,999 sq. ft. 15,000 sq. ft. or greater Maximum Gross Floor Area for ASDUs Not permitted 450 sq. ft. sr 50~/v sfjlrimary resideRee, whiehever is less 650 sq. ft. or 50% of primary residence, whichever is less 750 sq. ft. or 50% of primary residence, whichever is less 850 sq. ft. sr 50~~ sfjlrimary resideRee, whiehe'/er is less 2-3 3 3. Structure Relationships - The relationship of an accessory second dwelling unit to the primary residence shall be determined by the size of the buildable pad area as follows: Buildable Pad Area Less than 5,000 sq. ft. 5,000 - 6,999 sq. ft. 7,000 9,999 sq. ft. 10,000 14,999 sq. ft. 15,000 sq. ft. or greater Location of Unit Not permitted Attached, above, or basement; or (Detached not permitted) Detaehee, Behind ana on the same ElHildaele !lad j'.ttached, aeove, or Basement; or Detached, Behine and on the same BHildi%l3le !lad j'.ttachee, i%l3ove or Basemen!; or Detached, Behine and on the same etlildi%l3le !lad. Attached, above or basement; or Detached, behind and on the same buildable pad. 4. Structure Height - When attached, above, or in a basement of the primary residence, an accessory second dwelling unit is subject to the same height limitation as the primary residence. When detached from the primary residence, an accessory second dwelling unit is limited to a single story or 15ft., whichever is less. Height of an accessory second dwelling unit is measured according to the underlying zone. 5. Development Standard Exceptions - The accessory second dwelling units shall conform to the underlying zoning and land use development standard requirements in regards to the main or primary residence setbacks with the following exceptions: a. All second floor units shall be located a minimum often-feet from any interior side or rear lot lines. b. For lots with up slopes between the side or rear of the house and the interior side or rear property line, required yard setbacks are measured from the toe of slope. c. For lots with down-slopes between the side or rear of the house and the interior side or rear property line, required yard setbacks shall be measured from the top of slope. d. A detached accessory second dwelling unit shall be located a minimum of twelve feet from a primary residence. 6. Lot Coverage - Accessory second dwelling units and all other structures on the lot are limited to the maximum lot coverage permitted according to the underlying zone. A detached accessory second dwelling unit and all other detached accessory structures shall not occupy more than thirty percent of the required rear yard. 7. Access and Parking - Accessory second dwelling units and the primary residence shall adhere to the following access and parking regulations: a. Accessory second dwelling units shall be provided with one standard sized parking space for studio, one-bedroom, or two-bedroom units; or two standard sized parking spaces for units with three or more bedrooms. b. The required parking space(s) shall be on the same lot as the accessory second dwelling unit. This parking is in addition to the parking requirements for the primary residence as specified in Section 19.62.170. c. If the addition of an accessory second dwelling unit involves the conversion of an existing garage used by the primary residence, a replacement two-car garage, per CVMC Section 19.62.190, shall be provided prior to or concurrently with the conversion of the garage into the accessory second dwelling unit. If the existing 2-4 4 driveway is no longer necessary for the access to the converted garage or other required parking, the paving for the driveway shall be removed and appropriate landscaping shall be installed in its place. d. The access to all required parking shall be from a public street, alley or a recorded access easement. Access from a designated utility easement or similar condition shall not be permitted. For any lot proposing an accessory second dwelling unit and served by a panhandle or easement access, the access must be a minimum 20 feet in width. e. Curb cuts providing access from the public right-of-way to on-site parking spaces shall be acceptable to the City Engineer. An encroachment permit from the City Engineer shall be obtained for any new or widened curb cuts. f. The Zoning Administrator may approve the use of an existing driveway and curb cut if the primary residence driveway is 50 ft. feet deep or deeper as measured from the back of the public sidewalk to the front of the primary structure, and vehicular ingress and egress does not interfere with the normal use of the driveway for access to the primary residence's required parking. g. Required parking spaces or required maneuvering area shall be free of any utility poles, support wires, guard rails, stand pipes or meters, and be in compliance with CYMC Section 19.62.150. h. Tandem parking may be allowed to satisfy required parking for an accessory second dwelling unit if it is consistent with all other requirements of this section. 1. Parking screening consisting of a decorative wall, fence, landscaning or other technique satisfactory to the Zoning Administrator, shall be provided to screen the required parking spaces from public view. If a gate is used to screen the required parking space(s) from public view, an automatic gate/door opener shall be provided and maintained for the duration of the use. Parking shall not be allowed in a location where an RY parking permit has been issued for the storage of a recreational vehicle. J. When a required parking space abuts a fence or wall on either side, the space shall be a minimum of lOft. wide. If this area also serves as the pedestrian access from an accessory second dwelling unit to the street, the paving shall be a minimum 12 feet wide. k. A required parking space or garage shall be kept clear for parking purpose only. This requirement shall be included in the land use agreement for the proposed accessory second dwelling unit. 8. Existing Nonconforming Situations - For the purpose of evaluating existing non- conforming structures or uses for compliance with CYMC Chapter 19.64, the addition of an accessory second dwelling unit shall be considered an addition to the primary residence. Required corrections of any nonconforming situations shall occur prior to or concurrent with the addition of the accessory second dwelling unit. In the event that the primary residence does not include a two-car garage, plans and permits for an accessory second dwelling unit shall include the construction of a two-car garage for the primary residence, per CYMC Section 19.62.170. The garage shall be conveniently located to serve the primary residence. 9. Utilities - The accessory second dwelling unit shall be served by the same water and sewer lateral connections that serve the primary residence. A separate electric meter and address may be provided for the accessory second dwelling unit. 10. Waste and Recycling - In accordance with CYMC Chapters 8.24 and 8.25, the property owner shall establish and maintain a single refuse and recycling collection service account from the City or its solid waste and recycling contractor for both the primary residence and the accessory second dwelling unit. 2-5 5 II, Design Standards - The lot shall retain a single-family appearance by incorporating matching architectural design, building materials and colors of the primary dwelling with the proposed accessory second dwelling unit, and any other accessory structure built concurrently with the accessory second dwelling unit. However, the primary residence may be modified to match the new accessory second dwelling unit. Color photographs of the four sides of the primary residence shall be submitted as part of the accessory second dwelling unit building permit application, The accessory second dwelling unit shall be subject to the following development design standards: a, Matching architectural design components shall be provided between the primary residence, accessory second dwelling unit, and any other accessory structures, These shall include, but are not limited to: I) window and door type, style, design and treatment; 2) roof style, pitch, color, material and texture; 3) roof overhang and fascia size and width; 4) attic vents color and style; 5) exterior finish colors, texture and materials, b, The main entrance to an attached accessory second dwelling unit and, if applicable, a stairway leading to the unit, shall not be located on the same side of the building as the primary residence's main entrance. For detached accessory second dwelling units, the entrance to the unit shall be strategically located to preserve the lots single-family character, and shall not be clearly visible from the street serving as the main entrance to the primary residence. c, A usable rear yard open space of a size at least equal to 50% of the required rear yard area of the underlying zone shall be provided contiguous to the primary residence, Access to this open space shall be directly from a common floor space area of the primary residence such as living or dining rooms, kitchens or hallways, and without obstruction or narrow walkways, d, A useable open space that has a minimum dimension of six (6) feet, and an area not less than 60 square feet in area shall be provided contiguous to an accessory second dwelling unit. A balcony or deck may satisfy this requirement for second story units. e, A minimum three (3) foot wide pedestrian walk that connects the accessory second dwelling unit with its required parking space and the public sidewalk shall be provided, The pedestrian walk shall be strategically located to provide the shortest walking distance to parking or the street. f Windows on second story accessory second dwelling units shall be staggered and oriented away from adjacent residences closer than ten feet. The location and orientation of balconies or decks shall also be oriented away from adjacent neighbors backyard and living space windows, g, Trash and recycling containers must be stored between pick-up dates in an on-site location that is screened from public view and will not compromise any required open space areas, I, Designated Historical Sites - An accessory second dwelling unit may be allowed on designated or historical sites provided the location and design of the accessory second dwelling unit meets corresponding historical preservation requirements in place at the time the accessory second dwelling unit is built, and complies with the requirements of this Section including the following: a, Regardless of the lot size that qualifies the property for an accessory second dwelling unit, the accessory second dwelling unit shall be detached and located behind the primary residence or historic structure, 2-6 6 b. The construction of the accessory second dwelling unit shall not result in the removal of any other historically significant accessory structure, such as garages, outbuildings, stables or other similar structures. c. The accessory second dwelling unit shall be designed in substantially the same architectural style and finished materials composition as the primary residence or historic structure. d. Construction of an accessory second dwelling unit shall not result in demolition, alteration or movement of the primary residence/historic house and any other on site features that convey the historic significance of the house and site. e. If the historic house/site is under a Mills Act Contract with the City, the Contract shall be amended to authorize the introduction of the accessory second dwelling unit on the site. 2. Inspections - The addition of an accessory second dwelling unit to a property shall include two site inspections at the following times: a. Prior to the approval of the building permit, the Planning Division staff shall conduct a field inspection to verify the drawings submitted for the permit are accurate with regard to grading, on-site building location, primary residence design color and materials composition, location of adjacent structures, etc. Any discrepancies on the drawings must be corrected so that the subject property and resulting structures are in compliance with this section and other related sections of the CVMe. b. Prior to, or concurrent with the final inspection of the new accessory second dwelling unit and the issuance of an occupancy permit by the Building Official, Planning Division staff shall conduct an inspection of the lot to verify that that the accessory second swelling unit has been constructed and the lot has been improved per the approved plans, and that the required land use agreement outlining the accessory second dwelling unit requirements has been filed and recorded and that all applicable p;rovisions of that land use agreement have been satisfied prior to occupancy. IS. Occupancv Requirement - At the time a building permit is issued and continuouslv thereafter. the owner of the property shall reside on the lot on which the accessory second dwelling unit is located or constructed. The Zoning Administrator shall have the authoritv to suspend this occupancv requirement for a period not to exceed 5 vears when evidence has been submitted that one of the following situations exists: a. The propertv owner's health requires them to temporarilv live in an assisted living or nursing facilitv. b. The property owner is required to live outside the San Diego region as a condition of employment. c. The property owner is required to live elsewhere to care for an immediate familv member. d. The current property owner has received the property as the result of the settlement of an estate. 16. Land Use Agreement - Concurrent with the issuance of building permits for the construction of an accessory second dwelling unit, the property owner shall sign a Land Use Agreement prepared by the City which sets forth the eeeal'aRey llfIa use limitations prescribed in this ordinance. This agreement will be recorded by the City Clerk with the County of San Diego Recorder on title to the subject property. This agreement shall run with the land, and inure to the benefit of the City of Chula Vista. 2-7 7 D. Annual Report - An annual report outlining the number of accessory second dwelling units, their size, number of bedrooms and number of parking spaces provided shall be prepared by the Zoning Administrator and presented to the Planning Commission in January of every year for the purpose of monitoring the construction of accessory second dwelling units. The Planning Commission may recommend to the City Council changes to this section based on their evaluation of the annual report. SECTION II This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force on the thirtieth day from and after its adoption. Submitted by Approved as to form by ~ < /I -I-~ tJ /l Av.-, ~ Ann Moore City Attorney James Sandoval Director of Planning and Building J:\Attomey\Ordinance\ASDU Ordinance - PC Rec w CC Amendments_05-15-07.doc 2-8 8 ORDINANCE NO. _ .."o~o~ G ~o /W ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VIST ~_~~\~ SECTION 19.58.022 OF THE CHULA VISTA MUN1IR~1~,'L-CODE, ADDING AND MODIFYING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR ACCESSORY SECOND DWELLING UNITS WHEREAS, on January 28, 2003, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista adopted a local ordinance adding Section 19.58.022 to the Chula Vista Municipal Code to regulate accessory second dwelling units pursuant to California Government Code Section 65852.2; and, WHEREAS, on January 27, 2004, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista amended Section 19.58.022 increasing the maximum allowable floor area for an accessory second dwelling unit from 650 to 850 square-feet; increasing the number of parking spaces required for 3-bedroom units from one space to 2 spaces; and modifying other property development standards; and, WHEREAS, since the adoption and amendment of the local ordinance, the City has received over 108 building permit applications for accessory second dwelling units, some of which caused great concerns among neighbors; and, WHEREAS, upon hearing these concerns, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista directed a review of Section 19.58.022 to determine whether additional property development standards for the construction of accessory second dwelling units were necessary; and, WHEREAS, staff studied the units built in compliance with the existing City regulations, compared those regulations to other jurisdiction requirements, and conducted two Planning Commission workshop sessions that included public testimony on the adequacy of the adopted development standards for accessory second dwelling units; and, WHEREAS, as a result of this work the Planning Commission concluded that additions and modifications were appropriate to Section 19.58.022 and directed staff to prepare a draft ordinance amendment addressing building setbacks, building heights, maximum dwelling unit floor area, unit location, parking, design standards, and occupancy requirements; and, WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that the proposed ordinance amendment is exempt pursuant to Section 21080.17 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held an advertised public hearing on the Code Amendment on March 14,2007 and after hearing staffs presentation and public testimony, voted 5- 1-I to recommend the City Council adopt the proposed amendments, in accordance with the draft City Council Ordinance as amended; and, WHEREAS, a duly called and noticed public hearing was held before the City Council of the City of Chula Vista on , on the ordinance amendment to receive the recommendations of the Planning Commission, and to hear public testimony; and, WHEREAS, the City Clerk set the time and place for a hearing on the ordinance amendment and notice of the hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City at least 10 days prior to the hearing; and, 2-9 I WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 6:00 p.m. , in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth A venue, before the City Council and the hearing was thereafter closed; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that well regulated accessory second dwelling units can assist the City of Chula Vista in achieving housing goals of the General Plan Housing Element and be of economic and social benefit to the community; and, WHEREAS, the City Council further finds that additional regulations are necessary to protect existing single-family neighborhoods and provide clarity to property owners wishing to add accessory second dwelling units to their property; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has remaining concerns as to the effectiveness of the new regulations and directs that within 12 and 18 months from the time the new regulations take effect staff return with a status report that has been reviewed by the Planning Commission on second unit production and issues. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City ofChula Vista ordains: Section 1 - That Section 19.58.022 of the Municipal Code is amended to read asfollows: Section 19.58.022 - Accessory second dwelling units A. The purpose of this Section is to provide regulations for the establishment of accessory second dwelling units in compliance with California Government Code Section 65852.2. Said units may be located in residential zone districts where adequate public facilities and services are available, and impacts upon the residential neighborhood directly affected would be minimized. Accessory second dwelling units are a potential source of affordable housing and shall not be considered in any calculation of allowable density of the lot upon which they are located, and shall also be deemed consistent with the General Plan and zoning designation of the lot as provided. Accessory second dwelling units shall not be considered a separate dwelling unit for the purpose of subdividing the property into individual condominium or lot ownership. B. For the purposes of this Section, the following words are defined: "Above" as used in this section means an accessory second dwelling unit that is attached and built over a primary residence including an attached garage. "Accessory second dwelling units" are independent living facilities of limited size that provide permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation on the same parcel as a single-family dwelling according to the provisions ofCVMC Section 19.58.022.C. "Attached" means that 50% of the accessory second dwelling unit's wall, floor or ceiling will be shared with the primary residence on the property (Exhibit B.1). "Basement" shall mean the same as defined in CVMC Section 19.04.026. "Behind" shall mean an accessory second dwelling unit constructed either entirely between the rear of the primary dwelling and the rear property line, or to the side of the primary residence but set back from the front plane of the primary residence at least 50 % Accessory 2nd Dwelling Primary Residence 50% of wall, floor or ceiling 2-10 Exhibit B. 1 - "Attached" the distance between the front and back planes of the primary residence (Exhibit B.2). "Buildable pad area" as used in this section means the level finish grade of the lot not including slopes greater than 50% grade. (Exhibit B.3). "Detached" means an accessory second unit separated from the primary residence as specified in CVMC Section 19.58.022.C.5.d. "Gross floor area" as used in this section means those enclosed Exhibit B. 2 - "Behind" portions of the primary residence not including the garage or other attached accessory structures, such as covered but unenclosed patios, balconies, etc. "Primary Residence" means the single-family dwelling constructed on a lot as the main permitted use by the zone on said parcel. Primary _ BesklElI1Cl! "t I I T- ,-- I STREET Exhibit B. 3 - "Buildable Pad Area" C. Accessory second dwelling units shall be subject to the following requirements and development standards: Front P1ne- -- -- STREET 1. Zones - Accessory second dwelling units must accompany an existing primary residence on an A, R-E, R-I, or PC zoned lot. However, construction of the primary residence can be in conjunction with the construction of an accessory second dwelling unit. Where a guesthouse, or other similar accessory living space exists, accessory second dwelling units are not permitted. The conversion of a guest house or other similar living areas into an accessory second dwelling unit is permitted provided they meet the intent and property development standards of CVMC Section 19.58.022, and all other applicable CVMC requirements. Accessory second dwelling units shall not be permitted on lots within a Planned Unit Development (PUD), unless an amendment to the PUD is approved and specific property development standards are adopted for the construction of accessory second dwelling units on lots within the PUD. Accessory second dwelling units are precluded from R-2 and R-3 zoned lots. 2. Unit Size - The maximum size of an accessory dwelling unit on a given lot shall be determined by either the buildable pad area of the lot, or the size of the primary residence according to the following table, so long as the combined living spaces do not exceed the floor area ratio of the underlying zone. The original buildable pad area of a lot may not be increased by more than 20% through re-grading and/or the use of retaining walls or structures. Buildable Pad Area Less than 5,000 sq. ft. 5,000 - 9,999 sq. ft. 10,000 sq. ft. or greater Maximum Gross Floor Area for ASDUs Not permitted 650 sq. ft. or 50% of primary residence, whichever is less 750 sq. ft. or 50% of primary residence, whichever is less 2-11 3 3. Structure Relationships - The relationship of an accessory second dwelling unit to the primary residence shall be determined by the size of the buildable pad area as follows: Buildable Pad Area Less than 5,000 sq. ft. 5,000 - 6,999 sq. ft. 7,000 sq. ft. or greater Location of Unit Not permitted Attached, above, or basement. (Detached not permitted) Attached, above, or basement; or Detached, behind and on the same buildable pad 4. Structure Height - When attached, above, or in a basement of the primary residence, an accessory second dwelling unit is subject to the same height limitation as the primary residence. When detached from the primary residence, an accessory second dwelling unit is limited to a single story or 15ft., whichever is less. Height of an accessory second dwelling unit is measured according to the underlying zone. 5. Development Standard Exceptions - The accessory second dwelling units shall conform to the underlying zoning and land use development standard requirements in regards to the main or primary residence setbacks with the following exceptions: a. All second floor units shall be located a minimum often-feet from any interior side or rear lot lines. b. For lots with up slopes between the side or rear of the house and the interior side or rear property line, required yard setbacks are measured from the toe of slope. c. For lots with down-slopes between the side or rear of the house and the interior side or rear property line, required yard setbacks shall be measured from the top of slope. d. A detached accessory second dwelling unit shall be located a minimum of twelve feet from a primary residence. 6. Lot Coverage - Accessory second dwelling units and all other structures on the lot are limited to the maximum lot coverage permitted according to the underlying zone. A detached accessory second dwelling unit and all other detached accessory structures shall not occupy more than thirty percent of the required rear yard. 7. Access and Parking - Accessory second dwelling units and the primary residence shall adhere to the following access and parking regulations: a. Accessory second dwelling units shall be provided with one standard sized parking space for studio, one-bedroom, or two-bedroom units; or two standard sized parking spaces for units with three or more bedrooms. b. The required parking space(s) shall be on the same lot as the accessory second dwelling unit. This parking is in addition to the parking requirements for the primary residence as specified in Section 19.62.170. c. If the addition of an accessory second dwelling unit involves the conversion of an existing garage used by the primary residence, a replacement two-car garage, per CVMC Section 19.62.190, shall be provided prior to or concurrently with the conversion of the garage into the accessory second dwelling unit. If the existing driveway is no longer necessary for the access to the converted garage or other required parking, the paving for the driveway shall be removed and appropriate landscaping shall be installed in its place. d. The access to all required parking shall be from a public street, alley or a recorded access easement. Access from a designated utility easement or similar condition shall 2-12 4 not be permitted. For any lot proposing an accessory second dwelling unit and served by a panhandle or easement access, the access must be a minimum 20 feet in width. e. Curb cuts providing access from the public right-of-way to on-site parking spaces shall be acceptable to the City Engineer. An encroachment permit from the City Engineer shall be obtained for any new or widened curb cuts. f. The Zoning Administrator may approve the use of an existing driveway and curb cut if the primary residence driveway is 50 ft. feet deep or deeper as measured from the back of the public sidewalk to the front of the primary structure, and vehicular ingress and egress does not interfere with the normal use of the driveway for access to the primary residence's required parking. g. Required parking spaces or required maneuvering area shall be free of any utility poles, support wires, guard rails, stand pipes or meters, and be in compliance with CYMC Section 19.62.150. h. Tandem parking may be allowed to satisfy required parking for an accessory second dwelling unit ifit is consistent with all other requirements of this section. 1. Parking screening consisting of a decorative wall, fence, landscaping or other technique satisfactory to the Zoning Administrator, shall be provided to screen the required parking spaces from public view. If a gate is used to screen the required parking space(s) from public view, an automatic gate/door opener shall be provided and maintained for the duration of the use. Parking shall not be allowed in a location where an R Y parking permit has been issued for the storage of a recreational vehicle. J. When a required parking space abuts a fence or wall on either side, the space shall be a minimum of lOft. wide. If this area also serves as the pedestrian access from an accessory second dwelling unit to the street, the paving shall be a minimum 12 feet wide. k. A required parking space or garage shall be kept clear for parking purpose only. This requirement shall be included in the land use agreement for the proposed accessory second dwelling unit. 8. Existing Nonconforming Situations - For the purpose of evaluating eXlstmg non- conforming structures or uses for compliance with CYMC Chapter 19.64, the addition of an accessory second dwelling unit shall be considered an addition to the primary residence. Required corrections of any nonconforming situations shall occur prior to or concurrent with the addition of the accessory second dwelling unit. In the event that the primary residence does not include a two-car garage, plans and permits for an accessory second dwelling unit shall include the construction of a two-car garage for the primary residence, per CYMC Section 19.62.170. The garage shall be conveniently located to serve the primary residence. 9. Utilities - The accessory second dwelling unit shall be served by the same water and sewer lateral connections that serve the primary residence. A separate electric meter and address may be provided for the accessory second dwelling unit. 10. Waste and Recycling - In accordance with CYMC Chapters 8.24 and 8.25, the property owner shall establish and maintain a single refuse and recycling collection service account from the City or its solid waste and recycling contractor for both the primary residence and the accessory second dwelling unit. II. Design Standards - The lot shall retain a single-family appearance by incorporating matching architectural design, building materials and colors of the primary dwelling with the proposed accessory second dwelling unit, and any other accessory structure built concurrently with the accessory second dwelling unit. However, the primary residence may 2-13 5 be modified to match the new accessory second dwelling unit. Color photographs of the four sides of the primary residence shall be submitted as part of the accessory second dwelling unit building permit application. The accessory second dwelling unit shall be subject to the following development design standards: a. Matching architectural design components shall be provided between the primary residence, accessory second dwelling unit, and any other accessory structures. These shall include, but are not limited to: I) window and door type, style, design and treatment; 2) roof style, pitch, color, material and texture; 3) roof overhang and fascia size and width; 4) attic vents color and style; 5) exterior finish colors, texture and materials. b. The main entrance to an attached accessory second dwelling unit and, if applicable, a stairway leading to the unit, shall not be located on the same side of the building as the primary residence's main entrance. For detached accessory second dwelling units, the entrance to the unit shall be strategically located to preserve the lots single-family character, and shall not be clearly visible from the street serving as the main entrance to the primary residence. c. A usable rear yard open space of a size at least equal to 50% of the required rear yard area of the underlying zone shall be provided contiguous to the primary residence. Access to this open space shall be directly from a common floor space area of the primary residence such as living or dining rooms, kitchens or hallways, and without obstruction or narrow walkways. d. A useable open space that has a minimum dimension of six (6) feet, and an area not less than 60 square feet in area shall be provided contiguous to an accessory second dwelling unit. A balcony or deck may satisfy this requirement for second story units. e. A minimum three (3) foot wide pedestrian walk that connects the accessory second dwelling unit with its required parking space and the public sidewalk shall be provided. The pedestrian walk shall be strategically located to provide the shortest walking distance to parking or the street. f. Windows on second story accessory second dwelling units shall be staggered and oriented away from adjacent residences closer than ten feet. The location and orientation of balconies or decks shall also be oriented away from adjacent neighbors backyard and living space windows. g. Trash and recycling containers must be stored between pick-up dates in an on-site location that is screened from public view and will not compromise any required open space areas. 13. Designated Historical Sites - An accessory second dwelling unit may be allowed on designated or historical sites provided the location and design of the accessory second dwelling unit meets corresponding historical preservation requirements in place at the time the accessory second dwelling unit is built, and complies with the requirements of this Section including the following: a. Regardless of the lot size that qualifies the property for an accessory second dwelling unit, the accessory second dwelling unit shall be detached and located behind the primary residence or historic structure. b. The construction of the accessory second dwelling unit shall not result in the removal of any other historically significant accessory structure, such as garages, outbuildings, stables or other similar structures. 2-14 6 c. The accessory second dwelling unit shall be designed in substantially the same architectural style and finished materials composition as the primary residence or historic structure. d. Construction of an accessory second dwelling unit shall not result in demolition, alteration or movement of the primary residence/historic house and any other on site features that convey the historic significance of the house and site. e. If the historic house/site is under a Mills Act Contract with the City, the Contract shall be amended to authorize the introduction of the accessory second dwelling unit on the site. 14. Inspections - The addition of an accessory second dwelling unit to a property shall include two site inspections at the following times: a. Prior to the approval of the building permit, the Planning Division staff shall conduct a field inspection to verify the drawings submitted for the permit are accurate with regard to grading, on-site building location, primary residence design color and materials composition, location of adjacent structures, etc. Any discrepancies on the drawings must be corrected so that the subject property and resulting stmctures are in compliance with this section and other related sections of the CVMe. b. Prior to, or concurrent with the final inspection of the new accessory second dwelling unit and the issuance of an occupancy permit by the Building Official, Planning Division staff shall conduct an inspection of the lot to verify that that the accessory second swelling unit has been constructed and the lot has been improved per the approved plans, and that the required land use agreement outlining the accessory second dwelling unit requirements has been filed and recorded and that all applicable provisions of that land use agreement have been satisfied prior to occupancy. 15. Occupancy Requirement - At the time a building permit is issued and continuously thereafter, the owner of the property shall reside on the lot on which the accessory second dwelling unit is located or constructed. The Zoning Administrator shall have the authority to suspend this occupancy requirement for a period not to exceed 5 years when evidence has been submitted that one of the following situations exists: a. The property owner's health requires them to temporarily live in an assisted living or nursing facility. b. The property owner is required to live outside the San Diego region as a condition of employment. c. The property owner is required to live elsewhere to care for an immediate family member. d. The current property owner has received the property as the result of the settlement of an estate. 16. Land Use Agreement - Concurrent with the issuance of building permits for the construction of an accessory second dwelling unit, the property owner shall sign a Land Use Agreement prepared by the City which sets forth the occupancy and use limitations prescribed in this ordinance. This agreement will be recorded by the City Clerk with the County of San Diego Recorder on title to the subject property. This agreement shall run with the land, and inure to the benefit of the City ofChula Vista. D. Annual Report - An annual report outlining the number of accessory second dwelling units, their size, number of bedrooms and number of parking spaces provided shall be prepared by the 2-15 7 Zoning Administrator and presented to the Planning Commission in January of every year for the purpose of monitoring the construction of accessory second dwelling units. The Planning Commission may recommend to the City Council changes to this section based on their evaluation of the annual report. SECTION II This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force on the thirtieth day from and after its adoption. Submitted by Approved as to form by '/~ 1lI:~ Ann Moore ~ City Attorney James Sandoval Director of Planning and Building J:\Attomey\Ordinunce\ASDU Draft Ordinance M CC Final_OS.15-07.doc 2-16 8 no?\\O~ ~\)~ ORDINANCE NO. ~:C.~\)\~(?) ~e('.O~\) ORDINANCE ESTABUSHING A~O-HOUR PARKING LIMIT ALONG THE SOO BLOCK OF VANCE STREET AND UPDATING SCHEDULES VI AND XVI OF THE REGISTER MAINTAINED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY ENGINEER TO INCLUDE THIS TIME-LIMITED PARKING ZONE. WHEREAS. pursuant to authority under the Chula Vista Municipal Code, the City Engineer had determined that a two-hour parking limit shall be established on the 500 block of Vance Street in accordance with City Municipal Code Section 10.52.330 and 10.86.010; and WHEREAS, there is seldom any available parking along Vance Street potentially due to customers of nearby businesses located on Broadway utilizing these on-street parking spaces; and WHEREAS, Vance Street residents have requested that City install signs, adjacent to the residential portion of the 500 block of Vance Street, to limit parking for a maximum period of two hours and, per the Municipal Code, give the residents of this block of Vance Street the option to acquire an on-street parking pennit from the ~ity allowing residents to park longer than two hours; and WHEREAS, the Safety Commission has concurred with staff recommendation to install these time-limited parking signs; and WHEREAS, this recommendation and other information in the City Engineer's report has been fully considered by the City Council; NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City ofChula Vista ordains as follows: SECTION 1: That a two-hour parking limit along the 500 block of Vance Street is established. SECTION II: That Schedule VI of the Register of Schedules maintained by the City Engineer as provided in Section] 0.52.330 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, "Parking - Time Limited on Certain Streets," and Schedule XVI as provided in Section 10.86.010 "Permit Parking on Certain Residential Streets with Time Limited Parking" are amended 10 include the following information: 10.52.330 Schedule VI Parkinl!- Time-limited on Certain Streets AND 10.86.010 Schedule XYI- Permit Parkinl! on Certain Residl!ntlizl Streets with Turre Limited Parkin" Name of Street Beginning At Ending At Side Duration Vance Street Smith Avenue Broadway North & South 2 Hour 3-1 SECTION !lI: This ordinance shaJJ take effect and be in full force on the thirtieth day from and after its adoption. Presented by Approved as to form by Scott Tulloch City Engineer I~~ - C-' iJ ;;. - .:tr- Ann Moore City Attorney H:\ENGINEER\Ordinanccs~d2001\5~22.{j7\OrdinanCl:_{V.1(:c Sl) Parking Revised cc.doc 3-2 r::R\\O~ CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 2007- ..\~ fl..~~ t>S) ~~fl..~\\" ORDINANCE OF THE CHULA VISTA CJBt';O~tJNCIL AMENDING CHAPTER 2.55, SECTION 2.~XJ'!l0 OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE TO REMOVE THE CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM THE CYRC BOARD OF DIRCTORS WHEREAS, on May 24, 2005, the City Council and Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista jointly adopted Resolution Nos. 2005-175 and 2005-1911, respectively, approving and adopting legal and operating documents for the formation of the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation ("CYRC") as a 501 (c)(3) nonprofit, public benefit corporation; and WHEREAS, the legal and operating documents adopted for the CVRC included chapter 2.55 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code that set forth, among other things, the structure, composition, and operations of the CYRC; and WHEREAS, on December 19, 2006, the City Council formed a subcommittee, consisting of the Mayor and Deputy Mayor, 1:0 review and evaluate the structure of the CYRC; and WHEREAS, on March 22, 2007 the Council Subcommittee presented a full report for consideration by the CYRC, Redevelopment Agency, and City Council containing recommendations for structural modifications to the CYRC; and WHEREAS, on March 22, 2007 the CYRC recommended by resolution and the Redevelopment Agency, and City Council approved by resolution the Council Subcommittee's recommendations which included removing the Council Members from the CVRC Board of Directors and that the remaining Board of Directors be supplemented by one to five Chula Vista resident(s) selected by the City Council and possessing expertise and experience in one or more of the following professional fields: education, business, finance, architecture, civil engineering, urban planning and/or design, science, environmental planning, environmental remediation, environmental law, and real estate, including real estate development, investment, and law; and WHEREAS, staff has reviewed the proposed activity for compliance with the State of California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), California Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq., and has determined that the activity is not a "Project" as defined under Section 15378(b)(5) of the State CEQA Guidelines, therefore, pursuant to Section 15060(c)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines the activity is not subject to CEQA. NOW, TIIEREFORE, the City Council of the City ofChula Vista does ordain as follows: SECTION 1: That Chapter 2.55, Section 2.55.090 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: 2.55.090. Board of Directors' Membership. 4-1 City Council Ordinance No. Page 2 A. Number of directors. The board of directors of the corporation shall consist of up to nine (9) voting members, none of whom shall be duly elected or appointed and qualified members of the City Council then in office. B. Directors. I. The directors shall consist of members of the public appointed to the corporation board of directors by maj ority vote of the city council for four (4) year staggered terms, based upon the criteria and qualifications set forth in the corporation bylaws approved by the city council, as such bylaws may be amended from time to time. 2. The initial terms of directors shall be for nominal periods of two and four years, commencing upon appointment and concluding for two directors on June 30th of the second year of the term, and for the remaining two directors on June 30th of the fourth year of the term, unless an director's office becomes vacant prior to the end of such initial term. Thereafter, all directors shall serve for a term of four years, concluding on June 30th of the fourth year of the term, subject to removal or resignation pursuant to the corporation's bylaws. 3. Appointment of the directors to their initial nominal two-year and four- year terms shall be as determined by the bylaws. 4. By majority vote, the city council shall have the power to remove any director for any reason, to reappoint any director to a succeeding four-year term without any limit on the number of terms served by such independent directors except as set forth in the corporation bylaws approved by the city council, and to appoint any person meeting the criteria and qualifications set forth in the corporation bylaws to a vacant director office. Subject to the city council's power to remove a director, all directors of the corporation shall hold office until a successor has been appointed and qualified. C. Election and Duties of Chair and Vice Chair I. Election of chair and vice-chair. At the first regular meeting of the board of directors, following July I sl of every year, or as soon as practical thereafter, the board shall elect a chair and vice-chair from its membership. The chair and vice-chair shall serve for a period of one year. 2. Duties of the chair and vice-chair. The chair shall serve as presiding officer at meetings. In the absence of the chair, the vice-chair shall serve as presiding officer. 4-2 City COWlcil Ordinance No. Page 2 SECTION 2: This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force thirty (30) days following its second reading. Presented by: Jim Thomson Interim City Manager Approved as to form by: (D'I .- 1 :\Attmney\MicbaelSh\CVROCVRCRsorg-FinaIDocs\Att8-CYRCRcfarmatioIlOrd-S.24 .07-FiDal.doc 4-3 Attachment 8 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT ~ \ If:. CITY OF :7I5i CHULA VISTA JUNE 5 2007, Item 5 ITEM TITLE: RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH BOB HOFFMAN VIDEO PRODUCTIONS FOR VIDEOTAPING THE CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL 1.jf1p'INGS DIRECTOR OF CO~ICATIONS:;VI1 CITY MANAGER (jl SUBMITTED BY: REVIEWED BY: 4/5THS VOTE: YES D NO ~ BACKGROUND The City of Chula Vista entered into its first contract for videotaping City COlmcil meetings in 1988, after a six-month trial period was deemed successful. Since that time, all regular City Council meetings and Redevelopment Agency meetings held in the Council Chambers have been videotaped for televising, for public review at the City's libraries, and for archival purposes. Bob Hoffinan Video Productions (BHVP) has provided this service to the City since 1998. The contract awarded to BHVP by the City Council was a five-year agreement, with the option for two, two-year extensions at the City's discretion. The final extension of the contract will soon expire. Staff has completed a formal RFP process for video production of the Council meetings, and recommends that a new contract with Bob Hoffinan Video Productions be approved. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed activity for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the activity is not a "Project" as defmed under Section 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines because it does not involve a physical change to the environment; therefore pursuant to Section 15060(c)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines the activity is not subject to CEQA. Thus, no environmental review is necessary. RECOMMENDATION That the Council adopt the resolution approving the agreement. BOARDS/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Not Applicable 5-1 c JUNE 5, 2007, Item2 Page 2 00 DISCUSSION The purpose of the agreement is to secure video production services for the City, so that City Council and Redevelopment Agency meetings can be televised. On March 30, 2007, City staff distributed bid #3-06/07 to request proposals to furnish video production services for the City. Prospective bidders were given until 4:00pm on April 18, 2007 to submit their sealed proposals. The Request for Proposals (RFP) was mailed directly to three firms and was advertised in the Chula Vista Star News on April 6. Few video production houses in this region have sufficient staff to fulfill the time commitments and professional competencies required by Chula Vista. As a result only one firm, the City's current service provider, responded to the RFP. Bob Hoffinan Video Productions (BHVP) has reliably and dependably provided coverage of more than 400 city council meetings since they began providing this service to the city, as well as a variety of other city meetings and events. In addition, several city departments have hired the firm to produce broadcast quality productions for use in workshops and special events. BHVP has offered to meet all of the minimum requirements requested in the RFP, and will enhance those services by: I. Providing video duplication and transfer services for video formats not supported by Chula Vista's own equipment. 2. Providing qualified 'back up' staff in the event of unscheduled meetings or unanticipated events. 3. Enhancing the current production standard to include a newly created custom Chula Vista opening montage of scenic shots and graphics, which will be updated at least once each year of the contract. 4. Continuing to provide occasional assistance, trouble shooting and consulting services at little or no cost to the City. The firm has been in business in this region since 1983, and has produced programs for many government agencies in Southern California, including the County of San Diego, the cities of San Diego, Solana Beach and Imperial Beach, the Poway and Sweetwater school districts the Sweetwater Authority and the Imperial Valley Irrigation District. DECISION MAKER CONFLICT 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 18704.2(a)(1) is not applicable to this decision. 5-2 JUNE 5, 2007, Item ~ Page3 of 3 FISCAL IMPACT The annual cost of this contract is estimated to be less than $30,000. Staff is recommending an initial agreement of five years, with five additional I-year renewal options at the City's sole discretion. BHVP is offering to continue providing their service in the coming fiscal year at the same fee established in December 2005; $450 for the first four hours or less of any meeting (scheduled start time until adjournment) and $100 for each additional hour or part thereof. The firm has included a provision in their proposal to adjust the cost by a factor equal to the CPI for San Diego County, not to exceed 3% annually. Because of the City's observation of certain holidays, cancellation of some meetings and the calling of special meetings, the yearly number of televised City Council meetings ranges between 42 and 52. Using the four-hour meeting cost of $450, the base yearly cost for FY 07/08 will be between $18,900 and $21,600. The length of each meeting can vary greatly, therefore the number of additional hours at $ I 00 is difficult to estimate, but based on historical trends it is unlikely to exceed $3,000. City staff has requested that the service provider supply the necessary recording media, which BHVP has agreed to do at the following rates: . DVD: $00.35 - 01.75 . Mini DVD: $00.69 - 03.99 . Mini DV 60: $03.10 - 03.28 . DV276: $21.84-39.10 . VHS T120: $01.35 - 03.35 Based on past usage, staff anticipates materials costs of no more than $2,000/year. Estimated maximum base cost: Estimated maximum add'l hrly cost: Estimated maximum materials costs: Projected maximum annual total: $23,400 3,000 1.000 27,400 These costs have been included in the proposed FY 07/08 budget. ATTACHMENTS . RFP (Bid No. #3-06107) . Proof of Publication ofRFP advertisement . Response to RFP . Agreement between the City of Chula Vista and Bob Hoffinan Video Productions. Prepared by: Colleen M Carnevale, Communications Manager, Office of the City Manager 5-3 CITY OF CHULA VISTA BID NO. #3-06/07 Page 1 ~lf? --- mY OF CHULA V1~ NOTICE TO BIDDERS NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, TElAT SEALED PROPOSALS ON A FORM OBTAINED FROM THE PURCHASING DIVISION WILL BE RECEIVED UNTIL 4:00 P.M. ON THE 18TH DAY OF APRIL 2007, AT WInCH TIME THE PROPOSALS WILL BE GIVEN TO LIZ PURSELL, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNlCA TIONS FOR REVIEW, EVALUATION AND SELECTION. SEE SECTION ill, SELECTION PROCESS. PROPOSALS ARE FOR FURNISHING THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA WITH: VIDEOTAPING SERVICES FOR THE CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS FOR TELEVISING ALL BIDDERS ARE HEREBY REFERRED TO THE BIDDING INSTRUCTIONS, GENERAL PROVISIONS, SPECIFICATIONS, AND TERMS AND CONDITIONS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE PURCHASING DIVISION FOR FULL DETAILS AND DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES, PRODUCTS OR MATERIALS REQUIRED. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION AND COPIES OF PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS, CONTACT THE PURCHASING DIVISION: CITY OF CHULA VISTA PURCHASING DIVISION FINANCE DEPARlMENT 276 FOURTII AVENUE CHULA VISTA, CA 91910 TELEPHONE (619) 691-5141 FAX (619) 691-5149 THE CITY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO REJECT ANY OR ALL BIDS OR ANY PORTION OF ANY BID, OR TO WAIVE ANY IRREGULARITIES OR INFORMALITIES IN THE BIDS OR IN THE BIDDING. ALL BIDS MUST BE SUBMITTED IN SEALED ENVELOPES PLAINLY MARKED WITH THE BID NUMBER AND TIME SET FORBID CLOSING. BIDS RECEIVED AFTER THE TIME SET FOR CLOSING WILL BE REJECTED. SUZANNE BROOKS ACTING PURCHASING AGENT MARCH 30, 2007 5-4 CITY OF CHULA VISTA BID NO. #3-06/07 Page 2 CnY OF CHUIA VISTA BID FORM THE UNDERSIGNED HEREBY OFFERS, SUBJECT TO ALL SPECIFICATIONS, TERMS AND CONDITIONS, AND GENERAL PROVISIONS HEREIN, TO FURNISH THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA THE FOLLOWING: VIDEOTAPING THE CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS FOR TELEVISING I. INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION Televising official government meetings is a widely accepted public information tool. In this region, the County of San Diego and the cities of Chula Vista, San Diego, Escondido, Vista, Del Mar, EI Cajon, Encinitas, La Mesa, Oceanside, Carlsbad, Solana Beach and Coronado are among those televising supervisor/council meetings. The City of Chula Vista has been taping City Council meetings for televising on cable television since January 1988. It is one ofthe most effective tools for enhancing public access to the Council's discussions and actions. The City is seeking to negotiate a new contract; It is the intention of the City that the term ofthis agreement will be for five (5) years commencing on July 1, 2007 and to include (5) five (1) one year options to renew the contract. While not part of the RFP, the company selected to perform this work will receive serious consideration for the City's other video production projects such as the Mayor's State of the City Address. The Chula Vista City Council holds regular meetings at 4 p.m. on the first Tuesday of each month and at 6 p.m. on the three successive Tuesdays of each month. The Council generally does not meet on fifth Tuesdays, as applicable. Because of the observation of certain holidays and the calling of special meetings, i.e., council workshops, the yearly number of televised meetings ranges from 42 to 52. The length ofthe meetings can vary greatly - from less than one hour to more than six hours. Currently, the meetings are aired at 7 p.m. Wednesdays on Cox Cable Channel 24 and Chula Vista Cable Channel 68. DVD copies ofthe meetings are also available for check out at the Chula Vista Civic Center Branch library and can also be purchased from the Office of Communications for a nominal fee. For production of the City Council meetings, the Council Chambers have been equipped with the following equipment: one video mixer, four cameras, four pan/tilt, one pan/tilt controller, one computer system, one character generator, nine monitors, one DVD recorder, one processing board, one touch panel, and one logo inserter. 5-5 CITY OF CHULA VISTA BID NO. #3-06/07 Page 3 01Y Of CHUlA VISTA II. PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS A. Minimum reqnirements: The following are minimum requirements that a proposer must meet and/or agree to in order to be considered responsive to this RFP. 1. Finished product: Produce two (2) DVD copies and one (1) Super VHS videotape along with one mini DVD for use on the City's playback equipment of City Council meetings regularly scheduled on the first four Tuesdays of every month and occasional special meetings or workshops. Provide copies to the City the evening of the meeting or by 8 a.m. the day following the meeting. 2. Minimum staff: Two experienced staff members to operate the equipment, cameras, and generate graphics; one should be a technical director. 3. Character generation: Identify speakers and items being discussed throughout the meetings. (May require one hour CG input prior to meetings.) Agenda is provided by the City prior to meeting. Display City logo along with CG during meetings. On occasion, run various public service announcements provided by the City during meetings. List credits at the end of the televised meeting including the City ofChula Vista and, if desired, the company. 4. Insurance: Obtain and/or provide evidence of the following insurance coverages: a. Commercial General Liability insurance including Business Automobile Insurance coverage with a minimum coverage of $1 ,000,000 which names the City and Applicant as an Additional Insured, and which is primary to any policy which the City may otherwise carry ("Primary Coverage)", and which treats the employees of the City and Applicant in the same manner as members of the general public ("Cross-liability Coverage"). b. Statutory Worker's Compensation Insurance and Employer's Liability Insurance coverage. . (See Attachment "A") 5-6 CITY OF CHULA VISTA ~!ft.. -~- BID NO. #3-06/07 Page 4 mY OF CHUIA VISTA B. Additional issues for discussion: All proposers must address each of the additional issues for discussion (B 1-7). (Answer on a separate sheet of paper.) 1. Term of proposed agreemenVcontract. 2. Background and/or experience of proposer and on-site staff. 3. Proposer's experience in similar operations; include sample video in DVD format of proposer's work, preferable for similar type of production (meeting setting with majority of editing done live.) 4. References. 5. Financial standing of the proposer. 6. Statement that proposer is an Equal Opportunity Employer. 7. Describe financial proposal based on the following (length of meeting shall be determined from the scheduled start time until the meeting is adjourned). If alternative approaches are proposed, describe the financial implications of each. a. Cost for first four hours or less of meeting time and additional cost for each hour longer than foUr hours. b. Cost ofmini DVD, DVD stock and VHS stock. III. SELECTION PROCESS: A. Proposal submittal format and deadline To respond to this RFP, please include the following: 1. List the name, title, address and phone number of the proposer. lfthe proposer is ajoint venture, identifY each participating firm. 2. . Provide an overall description of the proposal. Multiple proposals may be submitted; specifY the staff, equipment and proposed costs for each. Discuss how the proposalwill 5-7 CITY OF CHULA VISTA ~!f?- --- BID NO. #3-06/07 Page 5 OTYOf CHUlA VISTA meet the minimum requirements (refer to Section II A), specifically detailing personnel proposed. 3. The entire proposal submission must include five complete sets of the proposal and all additional written material. One copy of previously completed video work in DVD format also must be included. (Section II B3). Proposals that do not include all required forms, correct number of completed copies, or do not have answers included for every question may be deemed non- responsive and may be returned to the proposer. Proposals must be delivered to the Purchasing Division, City of Chula Vista, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910, by4 P.M. PDT, on April 18, 2007. Ifmail delivery is used, the proposer should mail documents early enough to provide for arrival by this deadline. Proposals received after the date and time specified will not be considered. B. Evaluation and selection process Primary regard will be given to the financial proposal, technical competence and ability of the contractor as demonstrated in the proposal. As indicated, this RFP identifies certain minimum requirements that must be met and/or agreed upon to qualifY for consideration in the selection process. The benefit of any proposed options will be weighed against their cost. A selection committee designated by the City of Chula Vista will review all proposals submitted. This committee will invite at least the top three rated proposers for an oral interview and rate the interviewed proposers. Staff then will attempt to negotiate a contract with the highest rated proposer to be submitted to the City Council for approval. The contract will be awarded only to responsible prospective contractors. In order to qualifY as responsible, a prospective contractor must, in the opinion of the raters, meet the following standards as they relate to this Request for Proposal. 1. Have adequate technical and financial resources for performance or have the ability to obtain such resources as required during performance. 2. Have the necessary experience, organization, technical qualifications, skills and facilities or have the ability to obtain them (including any subcontractor arrangements). 5-8 CITY OF CHlJLA VISTA BID NO. #3-06/07 Page 6 0lY OF CHUlA VISTA 3. Have a satisfactory record of performance. 4. Be otherwise qualified and eligible to receive an award under applicable laws and regulations. . C. Contract cost 1. The final contract cost is subject to negotiation. 2. At the time of the negotiation of a contract, a recommended agreement will be submitted to the City Council for approval. (Attachment "B" Sample of Standard Two Party Agreement) 3. The City will not provide financial assistance to the contractor beyond the negotiated fee. D. Tentative Schedule The following is a tentative schedule of eveuts for this RFP process: 1. RFP issued 2. Proposals due 3. Initial evaluation completed 4. Interviews with selected proposers 5. Contract negotiations and preparation 6. Recommendations to City Council 7. Selected operator begins operations March 30, 2007 April 18. 2007 Week of April 23, 2007 Week of April 30, 2007 Week of May 7,2007 June 5, 2007 July 1,2007 IV. REQUIREMENTS AND AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA A. All materials prepared under this agreement shall be the property of the City of Chula Vista and may not be used or reproduced in any form. without the explicit written permission of the City of Chula Vista. B. The City shall not be liable for any pre-contractual expenses incurred by any proposer or selected operator. The City shall be held harmless and free from any and all liability, claims, or expenses whatsoever incurred by or on behalf of any person or organization responding to this RFP. This Request for Proposal does not commit the City to award a contract, to pay any costs incurred in the 5-9 CITY OF CHULA VISTA BID NO. #3-06/07 Page 7 COY Of CHUIA VISTA preparation of the proposal to this request, or procure or contract for services or supplies. The City reserves the right to accept or reject any or all proposals received as a result of this request, to negotiate with any qualified source, or to cancel in part or entirely this Request for Proposal, if it is in the best interest of the City to do so. The City may require the proposer selected to participate in negotiations and to make technical or other revisions of their proposal as may result from negotiations. The City reserves the right to approve or disapprove subcontractor's proposals. 5-10 CITY OF CHULA VISTA BID NO. #3-06/07 Page 8 mY OF CHUlA VISTA Payment Terms Terms: 0/0 Days Prompt payment discounts offered for less than fifteen (15) days will not be considered in evaluating bids for award. However, discounts offered ofless than fifteen (15) days will be taken ifpayment is made by the City within the discount period. In the absence ofterms, payment shall be Net Thirty (30) Days. BID AND OFFER TO CONTRACT THIS PROPOSAL AND OFFER, SUBJECT TO THE SPECIFICATIONS, TERMS AND CONDITIONS, AND GENERAL PROVISIONS HEREIN, WHEN DULY ACCEPTED BY THE CITY SHALL CONSTITUTE THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE PARTIES. IN CONSIDERATION OF THE PAYMENTS TO BE PROVIDED BY THE CITY, AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS EXPRESSED IN THE PROPOSAL FORMS AND SPECIFICATIONS ATTACHED AND BY THIS REFERENCE INCORPORATED HEREIN, CONTRACTOR AGREES TO FURNISH VIDEOTAPING THE CHULAVISTA CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS FOR TELEVISING TO THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA. The following section must be fIlled in completely: Company Name Address State _ Zip City Telephone Print Name Fax Title 5-11 CITY OF CHULA VISTA ~\ft. --- BID NO. #3-06/07 Page 9 Q1Y OF CHUIA VISTA Signature Date GENERAL PROVISIONS PLEASE READ CAREFULLY THESE PROVISIONS ARE A PART OF YOUR BID AND ANY CONTRACT AWARDED The bidder agrees that: A. Bidder has carefully examined the specificatioIlB, and all provisioIlB relating to the item( s) to be furnished or the work to be done; understands the meaning, intent, and requirements; and B. Bidder will enter into a written contract and furnish the item(s) or complete the work in the time specified, and in strict conformity with the City of Chula Vista specificatioIlB for the prices quoted. Note: Bidder is defined as any individual, partnership, or corporation submitting a bid, proposal, or quotation in respoIlBe to a request for bid, request for proposal, or request for quotation. A bidder may also be referred to as consultant, contractor, supplier, or vendor. 1. Prices: All prices and notations must be in ink or typewritten. Mistakes may be crossed out and correctioIlB typed or written with ink adj acent to the error; the person signing the bid must initial correctioIlB in ink. Bids shall indicate the unit price extended to indicate the total price for each item bid. Any difference between the unit price correctly extended and the total price shown for all items bid shall be resolved in favor of the unit prices, except when the bidder clearly indicates that the total price for all items bid is based on cOIlBideration of being awarded the entire lot and that an adjustment of the total price is being made in cOIlBideration of receiving the entire bid. 2. Bidder's Security: A bid deposit in an amount equal to at least 10% of the bid maybe required as a bid security by the City. The bid security may ouly be in cash, a cashier's check, a certified check made payable to the City of Chula Vista, or a bidder's bond. If the bid security is a bond, it shall be executed by a surety insurer authorized to issue surety bonds in the State of California. The bid security must be executed by the bidder and enclosed with the bid proposal in the sealed bid envelope. 3. Items Offered: If the item offered has a trade name, brand andlor catalog number, such shall be stated in the bid. If the bidder proposes to furnish an item of a manufacturer or vendor other than that mentioned on the face hereof, bidder must specify maker, brand, quality, catalog number, or other trade designation. Uuless such is noted on the bid form, it will be deemed that the item offered is that designated even though the bid may state an or equal. 4. Brand Names: Whenever reference to a specific brand name is made, it is intended to describe a component that has been determined to best meet operational, performance; or reliability standards of the City, thereby incorporating these standards by reference within the specifications. An equivalent (a or equal) may be offered by the bidder, subjectto evaluation and acceptance by the City, It is the bidder's responsibility to provide, at bidder's expeIlBe, samples, test data, or other documentation the City may require to fully evaluate and determine acceptability of an offered substitute. The City reserves the sole right to reject a substituted component that will not meet or exceed City standards. 5-12 CITY OF CHULA VISTA ~I~ --- BID NO. #3-06/07 Page 10 01Y OF (HUlA VISTA 5. Samples: Samples may be required for bid evaluation and testing purposes. Bidders sball agree to provide samples within forty-eigbt (48) hours upon request and at no additional cost to the City. 6. Verify Quotations: Prices sball be verified prior to bid submittal, as withdrawal or correction may not be permitted after the bid has been opened. 7. Firm Prices: Prices on bid sball be firm prices not subj ect to escalation. In the event the specifications provide for escalation, the maximum limit sball be shown, or the bid shall not be considered. In the event of a decline in market price below a price bid, the City of Chula Vista sball receive the benefit of such decline. 8. Modification or Withdrawal of Bids: Bids may be modified or withdrawn by written or facsimile notice received prior to the exact hour and date specified forreceipt of bid. A bid may also be withdrawn in person by a bidder, or bidder's authorized representative, prior to the exact hour and date set for receipt of bids. Telephone withdrawals are not permitted. 9. Late Bids and Modifications or Withdrawals: (a) Bids and modifications of bids (or withdrawals thereof, if this solicitation is advertised) received at the office designated in the solicitation after the exact hour and date specified forreceipt will not be considered unless: (1) they are received before award is made; and either (2) they are sent by registered, express, or certified mail for which an official dated post office stamp (postmark) on the original mail receipt has been obtained and it is determined by the City that the late receipt was due solely to delay in the mails for which the bidder was not responsible; or (3) if submitted by mail, it is determined by the City that the late receipt was due solely to mishandling by the City after receipt, provided that timely receipt is established upon examination of an appropriate date or time stamp (if any) or of other documentary evidence of receipt (ifreadily available) within the control of the City or of the Post Office serving it. However, a modification ofa successful bid which makes the terms of the bid more favorable to the City will be considered at any time it is received and may thereafter be accepted. (b) The time of mailing oflate bids submitted by registered, express, or certified mail sball be deemed to be the last minute of the date shown in the postmark on the mail receipt or registered mail wrapper, unless the bidder furnishes evidence from the post office station of mailing which establishes an earlier time. 10. Mistake in Bid: (a) If the bidder discovers a mistake in bid prior to the hour and date specified forreceipt ofbid, bidder may correct the mistake by modifying or withdrawing the bid in accordance with ltems 8 and 9 above. (b) If within seventy.two hours of the bid closing and prior to the issuance ofa purchase order or a contract, the apparent low and best bidder discovers a mistake in bid of a serious and significant nature which is unfavorable to bidder, bidder may request consideration be given to modifying the bid if it remains the lowest bid or to withdrawal of the bid if the result of the correction of the mistake makes another bidder lowest and best bidder. The mistake must be evident and provable. The rigbi is reserved by the City to reject any and all requests for correction of mistakes in bids received after the hour. and date of the bid closing. The decision of the . Purcbasing Agent is final as regards acceptance orrejection ofrequests for correction of bids. 5-13 CITY OF CHULA VISTA BID NO. #3-06/07 Page 11 01Y OF CHULA V1SfA (c) A mistake in bid cannot be considered once a purchase order or contract is issued. 11. Signature: All bids shall be signed and the title and firm name indicated. A bid by a corporation shall be signed by an authorized officer, employee or agent with his or her title. 12. No Bids: Ifno bid is to be submitted, the bid should be marked No Bid@ and returned to maintain the bidder=s name in the vendor file for future solicitations. A letter or postcard may be submitted. If a bidder fails to respond to a reasonable number of bids without returning a No Bid, the Purchasing Agent reserves the right to delete the bidder from the vendor me for future solicitations. 13. Alternative Proposals: To be responsive to the bid, bidder must submit a proposal that meets all specific bid requirements. Once bidder has proposed a product which is responsive to the specification, bidder may include with the bid any additional proposals or alternative products that bidder believes can meet or exceed the City's requirements and that may offer additional advantages, benefits, orcost savings. The City reserves the right to evaluate, and accept or reject, such altematives as though they were part of the original specifications without advertising for further bids, when in the best interests of the City. Any awards so made will be based on operational and cost analysis considerations that would result in the optimum economic advantage to the City. 14. Confidential Information: Any information deemed confidential or proprietary should be clearly identified by the bidder as such. It may then be protected and treated with confidentiality only to the extent permitted by state law. Otherwise the information shall be considered a public record. Information or data submitted with a bid will not be returned. 15. Quality: Unless otherwise required in the specifications, all goods furnished shall be new and unused. 16. Litigation Warranty: The bidder, by bidding, warrants that bidder is not currently involved in litigation or arbitration conceming the materials or bidder's performance concerning the same or similar material or service to be supplied pursuant to this contract of specification, and that no judgments or awards have been made against bidder on the basis of bidder's performance in supplying or installing the same or similar material or service, unless such fact is disclosed to the City in the bid. Disclosure will not disqualify the bidder. The City reserves the right to evaluate bids on the basis of the facts surrounding such litigation or arbitration and to require bidder to furnish the City with a surety bond executed by a surety company authorized to do business in the State of California and approved by The City Of Chula Vista in a sum equal to one hundred percent (100%) of the contract price conditional on the faithful performance by bidder of the contract in the event the bid is awarded to bidder, notwithstanding the litigation or arbitration. 17. Royalties, Licenses and Patents: Unless otherwise specified, the bidder shall pay all royalties, license and patent fees. The bidder warrants that the materials to be supplied do not infringe any patent, trademark or copyright and further agrees to defend any and all suits, actions and claims for infringement that are brought against the City, and to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City from all loss or damages, whether general, exemplary or punitive, as a result of any actlJal or claimed infringement asserted against the City, the bidder or those furnishing material to bidder pursuant to this 5-14 CITY OF CHULA VISTA ~\fc.. --- BID NO. #3-06/07 Page 12 0lY OF CHUIA VISTA contract. 18. Performance Standards: Performance of work and acceptability of equipment or materials supplied pursuantto any contract or award shall be to the satisfaction of the City. 19. Warranties: (a) All material, labor or equipment provided under the contract shall be warranted by bidder and/or manufacturer for at least twelve (12) months after acceptance by City. Greater warranty protection will be accepted. Lesser warranty protection must be indicated by bidder on the bid proposal as an exception. (b) Bidder shall be considered primarily responsible to the City for all warranty service, parts and labor applicable to the goods or equipment provided by bidder under this bid or award, irrespective of whether bidder is an agent, broker, fabricator or manufacturer=s dealer. Bidder shall be responsible for ensuring that warranty work is performed at allocal agency or facility convenient to City and that services, parts and labor are available and provided to meet City=s schedules and deadlines. City may require bidder to post a performance bond after contract award to guarantee performance of these obligations. Bidder may establish a service contract with a local agency satisfactory to City to meet this obligation ifbidder does not ordinarily provide warranty service. 20. Addenda: The effect of all addenda to the bid documents shall be considered in the bid, and said addenda shall be made part of the bid documents and shall be returned with them Before submitting a bid, each bidder shall ascertain whether or not any addenda have been issued, and failure to cover in this bid any such addenda issued may render the bid invalid and result in its rejection. 21. Specifications to Prevail: The detailed requirements of the specifications shall supersede any conflicting reference in these General Provisions which are in conflict therewith. 22. Taxes: The City will furnish Exemption Certificates for Federal Excise Tax. The City is liable for State, City and County Sales Taxes. Do not include this tax in the amount bid. However, tax is to be added by the successful bidder to the net amount invoiced. All or any portion of the City Sales Tax returned to the City will be considered in the evaluation of bids. 23. Conflict of Interest: No City employee or elected or appointed member of City government, or member of the employee=s immediate family, may participate directly or indirectly in the procurement process pertaining to this bid if they: (a) Have a financial interest or other personal interest which is incompatible with the proper discharge of their official duties in the public interest or would tend to impair their independence, judgment or action in the performance of their official duties. (b) AI.e negotiating for or have an arrangement concerning prospective employment with bidder. The bidder warrants to the best ofhis knowledge that the submission of the bid will not create such conflict of interest. In the event such a conflict occurs, the bidder is to report it immediately to the Purchasing Agent. For breach or violation of this warranty, the City shall have the right to annul this contract without liability at its discretion, and bidder may be subject to damages and/or debarment or suspension. 5-15 CITY OF CHULA VISTA ~l~ --- BID NO. #3-06/07 Page 13 0lY Of CHUIA VISIi\ 24. Gratuities: The City may rescind the right of the bidder to proceed uuder tbis agreemeut if it is fouud that gratuities in the form of entertainment, gifts, or otherwise are offered or given by the bidder, or any agent or representative of the bidder, to any officer or employee of the City with the intent of influencing award oftbis agreement or securing favorable treatment with respect to performance oftbis agreement. 25. Faithful Performance Bond: The successful bidder may be required to furnish the City with a surety bond conditioned upon the faithful performance of the contract. This may take the form of a bond executed by a surety company authorized to do business in the State of California and approved by the City of Chula Vista, an endorsed Certificate of Deposit, or a money order or a certified check drawn on a solvent bank. The bond shall be in a sum equal to one huudred percent (100%) of the amouut of the contract price. Such bond or deposit shall be forfeited to the City in the eventthat bidder receiving the contract shall fail or refuse to fulfill the requirements and all terms and conditions of the contract. 26. Iusurauce: Should work be required on City premises, bidder shall provide proof of liability and property damage insurance prior to performance of duties. Coverage shall be from a company authorized to transact business in the State of California and shall be in an amouut not less than $1,000,000 combined single limit (CSL), unless otherwise specified. The City ofChula Vista shall be named as an additional insured and thirty (30) days notice of cancellation shall be indicated. Warker=s Compensation coverage for each employee engaged in work on City premises is required. Bidder is solely responsible for all insurance premium payments. 27. Indemnification: Bidder shall defend, indemnify, protect and hold harmless the City, its elected and appointed officers, employees, and agents, from and against all claims for damages, liability, and expenses (including attomey=s fees) arising out of tbis agreement and/or bidder=s performance hereuuder,except as to such damages, liability, and expenses due to the sole negligence or willful acts of the City, its officers, employees or agents. 28. Award of Contract: (a) Bids will be analyzed and award will be made to the lowest, responsive and responsible bidder whose bid conforms to the solicitation and whose bid is considered to be most advantageous to the City, price and other factors considered. Factors to be considered may include, but are not limited to: bidder=s past performance, total unit cost, economic cost analysis, life cycle costs, warranty and quality, maintenance cost, durability, the operational requirements of the City and any other factors which will result in the optimum economic benefit to the City. (b) The City reserves the right to reject any item or items, to waive informalities, technical defects and minor irregularities in bids received; and to select the bid(s) deemed most advantageous to the City. The City will, however, consider bids submitted on an all or nothing basis if the bid is clearly designated as such. (c) The City reserves the right to award one or more contracts on the bids submitted, either by award of all items to one bidder or by award of separate items or groups of items to various bidders as the interests of the City may require, unless the bidder clearly specifies otherwise in his bid. (d) For the purpose of evaluating bids for multiple awards, the sum of $100.00 is considered to be the administrative cost to the City for issuing and administeringeachcoutract awarded uuder tbis solicitation, and 5':'16 CITY OF CHULA VISTA ~\ft.. --- BID NO. #3-06/07 Page 14 mY OF CHUlA VISTA individual awards will be made for the items and combinations of items which result in the lowest aggregate price to the City, including such administrative cost. (e) Upon acceptance by the City of Chula Vista, the solicitation, bid, proposal, or price quotation and a purchase order issued to the successful bidder shall be deemed to result in a binding contract incorporating those terms and these General Provisions without further action required by either party. Items are to be furnished as described in the bid and in strict conformity with all instructions, conditions, specifications, and provisions in the complete contract, as defined by this clause 28 or any related integrated agreement. 29. Bid Results: To obtain bid results, either (1) attend bid opening or (2) provide a self-addressed, stamped envelope referencing bid number, and bid tabulation will be mailed to you upon verification of extensions or (3) visit the Purchasing Department no sooner than three working days after bid opening to review bid tabulation. Due to time constraints, bid results cannot be given out over the phone. 30. Protests: Protests by unsuccessful bidders to the selection for award shall be submitted in writing to the Purchasing Agent no later than ten (10) calendar days after award recommendation. The unsuccessful bidder shall have the right to appear at the City Council to protest any award to be confirmed by Council. Failure to submit a timely written protest to the Purchasing Agent shall bar consideration of such protest. 31. Documentation: Due to the time constraints that affect contract performance, all required documents, certificates of insurance and bonds shall be provided to the City within ten (10) calendar days following award or date of request by City, whichever is later. Any failure to comply may result in bid being declared non-responsive and rejected, and at City's option the bid bond may be attached for damages suffered. 32; Discounts: (a) Prompt payment discounts offered for payment within less than fifteen (15) calendar days will not be considered in evaluating bids for award. However, offered discounts ofless than 15 days will be takenifpayment is made within the discount period, even though not considered in the evaluation of bids. (b) In connection with any discount offered, time will be computed from date of delivery and acceptance, or invoice receipt, whichever is later. Payment is deemed to be made for the purpose of earning the discount on the date of mailing of the City check. (c) Any discount offered other than for prompt payment should be included in the net price quoted and not included in separate terms. In the event this is not done, the City reserveS the right to accept the discount offered and adjust prices accordingly on the Purchase Order. 33. Seller=s Invoice: Invoices shall be prepared and submitted in duplicate to address shown on the Purchase Order. Separate invoices are required for each Purchase Order. Invoices shall contain the following information: Purchase Order number, item number, description of supplies or services, sizes, unit of measure, quantity, "unit price and extended totals. 34. Inspection and Acceptance: . . Inspection and acceptance will be at destination unless specified otherwise, and will be made by the City departroent shown in the shipping address or other duly authorized representative of the City. Until delivery and acceptance, and after any rejection, risk ofIoss will be on the bidder unless loss results from negligence of the City. 5-17 CITY OF CHULA VISTA BID NO. #3-06/07 Page 15 ~ 0lY OF CHUIA VISIA 35. Lost and Damaged Shipments: Risk ofloss or damage to items prior to the time of their receipt and acceptance by the City is upon the bidder. The City has no obligation to accept damaged shipments and reserves the right to return at the bidder~s expense damaged merchandise even though the damage was not apparent or discovered until after receipt of the items. 36. Late Shipments: Bidder is responsible to notify the City department receiving the items and the Purchasing Agent of any late or delayed shipments. The City reserves the right to cancel all or any part of an order if the shipment is not made as promised. 37. Document Ownership: ( a) All technical documents and records originated or prepared pursuant to this contract, including papers, reports, charts, and computer programs, shall be delivered to and become the exclusive property of the City and may be copyrighted by the City. Bidder assigns all copyrights to City by undertaking this agreement. (b) All inventions, discoveries, enhancements, changes, or improvements of computer programs developed pursuant to this contract shall be the property of the City, and all patents or copyrights shall be assigned to City, unless otherwise agreed. Bidder agrees that City may make modifications to computer software furnished by bidder without infringing bidder=s copyright or any license granted to City. 38. Advertisements, Product Endorsements: City employees and agencies or organizations funded by the City of Chula Vista are prohibited from making endorsements, either implied or direct, of commercial products or services without -vmtten approval of the City Manager. No bidder may represent that the City of Chula Vista has endorsed their product or service without the Purchasing Agent=s prior written approval. 39. City Provisions to Prevail: Except as indicated in the specifications, the City=s standard General Provisions shall govern any contract award. Any standard terms and conditions of bidder submitted by bidder shall not be acceptable to City unless expressly . agreed to by the City. The City reserves the right to reject bidder=s bid as non-responsive, to consider the bid without bidder=s standard terms and conditions, or to require bidder to delete reference to such as a condition of evaluation or award of the bid. If, after award of contract, bidder (contract vendor) shall provide materials to services accompanied by new or additional standard terms or conditions, they too shall be considered void and City may require deletion as a further condition of performance by vendor. To the extent not otherwise provided for by the contract documents, the California Commercial Code shall apply. 40. Invalid Provisions: In the event that anyone or more of the provisions of this agreement shall be found to be invalid, iIlegal or unenforceable, the remaining provisions shall remain in effect and be enforceable~ 41. Amendments and Modifications: 'fhe Purchasing Agent may at any time, by written order, and without notice to the sureties, make a modification to the contract or an amendment to the Purchase Order, within the general scope of this contract, in (1) quantity of materials or service, whether more or less; (2) drawings, designs, or specifications, where the supplies to be furnished are to be specially manufactured for the City; (3) method of shipment or packing; and (4) place of delivery. 'If any such change causes an increase or decrease in,the cost or the time requi,red for the performance of this . contract, an equitable adjustment shall be made by written nJOdification of the contract or amendment to the Purchase Order. Any claim by the bidder for adjustment under this clause must be asserted within 30 calendar days 5-18 CITY OF CHULA VISTA ~!f? --- BID NO. #3-06/07 Page 16 mY OF CHUlA VlSfA from the notification date. 42. Assignment: Vendor shall not assign or delegate duties or responsibilities under this agreement, in whole or in part, without prior written approval of the City. 43. Disputes: Except as otherwise provided in these provisions, any dispute concerning a question of fact arising under this contract which is not disposed of by agreement shall be decided by the Purchasing Agent, who shall reduce this decision to writing and mail a copy to the bidder. The decision of the Purchasing Agent shall be final and conclusive, unless bidderrequests mediation within ten (10) calendar days. Pending fmal decision ofa dispute, the bidder shall proceed diligently with the performance of the contract and in accordance with the Purchasing Agent=s decision. 44. Mediation: Should an unresolved dispute arise out of this agteement, any party may request that it be submitted to mediation. The parties shall meet in mediation within thirty (30) days of a request. The mediator shall be agreed to by the mediating parties; in the absence of an agreement, the parties shall each submit one name from mediators listed by either the American Arbitration Association, the California State Board of Mediation and Conciliation, or other agreed-upon service. The mediator shall be selected by a blindfold process. The cost of mediation shall be borne equally by both parties. Neither party shall be deemed the prevailing party. No party shall be permitted to file a legal action without fIrSt meeting in mediation and making a good faith attempt to reach a mediated settlement. The mediation process, once commenced by a meeting with the mediator, shall last until agreement is reached by the parties but not more than sixty (60) days, unless the maximum time is extended by both parties. 45. Lawful Performance: Vendor shall abide by all Federal, State and Local Laws, Ordinances, Regnlations, and Statotes as may be related to the performance of duties under this agreement. In addition, all applicable permits and licenses required shall be obtained by the vendor, at vendor=s sole expense. 46. Annual Appropriation of Funds: Multi-year term supply and service contracts and leases are subject to annual appropriation of funds by the City Council. Payments made under term contracts and leases are considered items of current expense. Purchase Orders are funded when issued; therefore, they are current expense items and are not subject to any subsequent appropriation of funds. In the event sufficient funds are not appropriated for the payment of lease payments or anticipated term contract payments.required to be paid in the next occurring lease or contract term, and ifno funds are legally available from other sources, the lease or contract may be terminated at the end of the original term or renewal term and the City shall not be obligated to make further payments beyond the then current original or renewal term The City will provide notice of its inability to continue the lease or contract at such time as the Purchasing Agent is aware of the non-appropriation of funds. However, failure to notify does not renew the term of the lease or contract. The City has no monetary obligation in event of termination or reduction of a term contract s~ce such contracts represent estimated quantities and are not funded as a contract except to the extent of the Purchase Orders issued. 5-19 CITY OF CHULA VISTA ~If~ --- BID NO. #3-06/07 Page 17 CflY OF CHULA VISfA 47. Debarment: The Purchasing Agent may recommend to the City Council that the person or business be debarred from consideration for award of contracts. The period of debarment will be contingent upon the severity of cause. Causes for debarment include: (a) Conviction under state or federal statutes of embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery, falsification or destruction of records, receiving stolen property, or other offense indicating a lack of business integrity or business honesty which directly affects responsibility as a City bidder. (b) Violation of contract provisions which is regarded by the Purchasing Agent to be so serious as to justify debarment action, including: (I) Deliberate failure without good cause to perform in accordance with the specifications or within the time limit provided in the contract; or (2) A recent record offailure to perform or of unsatisfactory performance in accordance with the terms of one or more contracts; (3) Two or more claims of computational error in bid submission within a two year period. (c) Debarment by another governmental entity. (d) Any other cause the Purchasing Agent deems to be so serious and compelling as to affect responsibility as a City bidder. A bidder may be permanently debarred for the following causes: (I) Collusion in bidding. (2) Conviction for commission of a criminal offense as an incident to obtaining or attempting to obtain a contract or subcontract with the City of Chula Vista or in the performance of such contract or subcontract. (3) Conviction under State or Federal antitrust statutes arising out of the submission of bids or proposals. 48. Termination: The City may terminate this agreement and be relieved of any consideration to the vendor should vendor fail to perform in the manner required. Furthermore, the City may terminate this agreement for any reason without penalty upon giving thirty (30) days written notice to the vendor. 1n the event of termination, the full extent of City liability shall be lintited to an equitable adjustment and payment for materials andlor services authorized by and received to the satisfaction of the City prior to termination. 49. Venne: This agreement shall be governed by and interpreted according to the laws of the State ofCalifomia, and venue for any proceeding shall be in the County of San Diego. 5-20 CITY OF CHULA VISTA BID NO. #3-06/07 Page 18 0lY OF CHUlA VISTA ATTACHMENT "A" INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS 5-21 0lY OF CHUlA VISTA #1 INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR CONTRACTORS Contractor must procure insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property that may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work under the contract and the results of that work by the Contractor, his agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors and provide documentation of same prior to commencement or work. The insurance must be maintained for the duration of the contract Minimum Scope of Insurance Coverage must be at least as broad as: 1. Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (occurrence Form CG0001) 2. Insurance Services Office Form Number CA 0001 covering Automobile Liability, code1 (any auto). 3. Workers' Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and Employer's Liability Insurance. Minimum Limits of Insurance Contractor must maintain limits no less than: 1. General Liability: (Including operations, products and completed operations, as appiicable.) 2. Automobile Liability: 3. Workers' Compensation Employer's Liability: $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If Commercial General Liabiiity insurance with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit must apply separately to this project/location or the general aggregate limit must be twice the required occurrence limit $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage. Statutory $1,000,000 each accident $1,000,000 disease-policy limit $1,000,000 disease-each employee Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City. At the option of the City, either the insurer will reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as they pertain to the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers; or the Contractor will provide a financial guarantee satisfactory to the City 1 5-22 guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration, and defense expenses. Other Insurance Provisions The general liability, automobile liability, and where appropriate, the worker's compensation policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions: 1. The City of Chula Vista, its officers, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers are to be named as additional insureds with respect to liability arising out of automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by or on behalf of the contractor, where applicable, and, with respect to liability arising out of work or operations performed by or on behalf of the contractor including providing materials, parts or equipment furnished in connection with such work or operations. The general liability additional insured coverage must be provided in the form of an endorsement to the contractor's insurance using ISO CG 2010 (11/85) or its equivalent. Specifically, the endorsement must not exclude Products / Completed Operations coverage, and must not becontingentupon'~ontract~ 2. The contractor's insurance coverage must be primary insurance as it pertains to the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents, and voiunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees, or voiuntee"rs is wholly separate from the insurance of the contractor and in no way relieves the contractor from its responsibility to provide insurance. 3. Each insurance policy required by this clause must be endorsed to state that coverage will not be canceled by either party, except after thirty (30) days' prior written notice to the City by certified mail, return receipt requested. 4. Coverage shall not extend to any indemnity coverage for the active negligence of the additional insured in any case where an agreement to indemnify the additional insured wouid be invalid under Subdivision (b) of Section 2782 of the Civil Code. 5. Contractor's insurer will provide a Waiver of Subrogation in favor of the City for each required policy providing coverage during the life of this contract. Acceptability of Insurers InsuranCe is to be placed with licensed insurers admitted to transact business in the State of California with a current A.M. Best's rating of no less than A V. If insurance is placed with a surplus lines insurer, insurer must be listed on the State of California List of Eligible Surplus Lines Insurers (LESLI) with a current A.M. Best's rating of no less than A X. Exception may be made for the State Compensation Fund when not specifically" rated. 2 5-23 Verification of Coverage Contractor shall furnish the City with original certificates and amendatory endorsements effecting coverage required by this clause. The endorsements should be on insurance industry forms, provided those endorsements conform to the contract requirements. All certificates and endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before work commences. The City reserves the right to require, at any time, complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements evidencing the coverage required by these specifications. Subcontractors Contractor must include all subcontractors as insureds under its policies or furnish separate certificates and endorsements for each subcontractor. All coverage for subcontractors are subject to all of the requirements included in these specifications. 3 5-24 CITY OF CHULA VISTA ~\ft. -11- BID NO. #3-06/07 Page 19 CJlY OF CHULA VISTA ATTACHMENT "B" SAMPLE OF STANDARD TWO PARTY AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA. 5-25 Parties and Recital Page( s / Agreement between City of Chula Vista and [Name ofConsultant]2 for [type of services, i.e., Sewer Consulting Services] This agreement ("Agreement,,)3, dated for the purposes ofreference only, and effective as of the date last executed unless another date is otherwise specified in Exhibit A, Paragraph 1, is between the City-related entity as is indicated on Exhibit A, Paragraph 2, as such ("City"), whose business form is set forth on Exhibit A, Paragraph 3, and the entity indicated on the attached Exhibit A, Paragraph 4, as Consultant, whose business form is set forth on Exhibit A, Paragraph 5, and whose place of business and telephone numbers are set forth on Exhibit A, Paragraph 6 ("Consultant"), and is made with reference to the following facts: Recitals4 Whereas, ; and, Whereas, ; and, Whereas, Consultant warrants and represents that they are experienced and staffed in a manner such that they are and can prepare and deliver the services required of Consultant to City within the time frames herein provided all in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement; (End of Recitals. Next Page starts Obligatory Provisions.) 1. This page will need to be special for each contract. 2. Brackets are a prompt to imply that a substitution of information is called for. 3. Use this parenthetical technique to define terms or concepts to shorten references to them later in the Agreement. 4. Use the recitals to define terms or concepts to shorten references to them later in the Agreement. Ifproperty is involved in the agreement, a typical "whereas" clause may be included: "Whereas, the property which is the subject matter of this Agreement is commonly known as legally described as set forth in the attached Exhibit ("Property"); and," , and is 5-26 Page 1 Obligatory Provisions Pages NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City and Consultant do hereby mutually agree as follows: 1. Consultant's Duties A. General Duties Consultant shall perform all of the services described on the attached Exhibit A, Paragraph 7, entitled"General Duties"; and, B. Scope of Work and Schedule In the process of performing and delivering said "General Duties", Consultant shall also perform all of the services described in Exhibit A, Paragraph 8, entitled "Scope of Work and Schedule", not inconsistent with the General Duties, according to, and within the time frames set forth in Exhibit A, Paragraph 8, and deliver to City such Deliverables as are identified in Exhibit A, Paragraph 8, within the time frames set forth therein, time being of the essence of this agreement. The General Duties and the work and deliverables required in the Scope of Work and Schedule shall be herein referred to as the "Defmed Services". Failure to complete the Defined Services by the times indicated does not, except at the option of the City, operate to terminate this Agreement. C. Reductions in Scope of Work City may independently, or upon request from Consultant, from time to time reduce the Defined Services to be performed by the Consultant under this Agreement. Upon doing so, City and Consultant agree to meet in good faith and confer for the purpose of negotiating a corresponding reduction in the compensation associated with said reduction. D. Additional Services In addition to performing the Defmed Services herein set forth, City may require Consultant to perform additional consulting services related to the Defined Services ("Additional Services"), and upon doing so in writing, if they are within the scope of services offered by Consultant, Consultant shall perform same on a time and materials basis at the rates set forth in the "Rate Schedule" in Exhibit A, Paragraph lO(e), unless a separate fixed fee is otherwise agreed upon. All compensation for Additional Services shall be paid monthly as billed. E. Standard of Care Consultant, in performing any Services under this agreement, whether Defined Services or Additional Services, shall perform in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing under siinilar conditions and in similar locations. 5-27 Page 2 F. Insurance Consultant must procure insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property that may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work under the contract and the results of that work by the Consultant, his agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors and provide documentation of same prior to commencement of work. The insurance must be maintained for the duration of the contract. Minimum Scope of Insurance Coverage must be at least as broad as: (1) Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (occurrence Form CG0001). (2) Insurance Services Office Form Number CA 0001 covering Automobile Liability, Code 1 (any auto). (3) Workers' Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and Employer's Liability Insurance. (4) Professional Liability or Errors & Omissions Liability insurance appropriate to the Consultant's profession. Architects' and Engineers' coverage is to be endorsed to include contractual liability. Minimum Limits of Insurance Contractor must maintain limits no less than: 1. General Liability: (Including operations, products and completed operations, as applicable) 2. Automobile Liability: 3. Workers' Compensation Employer's Liability: 4. Professional Liability or Errors & Omissions Liability: $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If Commercial General Liability insurance with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit must apply separately to this project/location or the general aggregate limit must be twice the required occurrence limit. $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage. Statutory $1,000,000 each accident $1,000,000 disease-policy limit $1,000,000 disease-each employee $1,000,000 each occurrence 5-28 Page 3 Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City. At the option of the City, either the insurer will reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as they pertain to the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers; or the Consultant will provide a financial guarantee satisfactory to the City guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration, and defense expenses. Other Insurance Provisions The general liability, automobile liability, and where appropriate, the worker's compensation policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions: (1) The City ofChula Vista, its officers, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers are to be named as additional insureds with respect to liability arising out of automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by or on behalf of the Consultant, where applicable, and, with respect to liability arising out of work or operations performed by or on behalf of the Consultant, including providing materials, parts or equipment furnished in connection with such work or operations. The general liability additional insured coverage must be provided in the form of an endorsement to the contractor's insurance using ISO CG 2010 (11/85) or its equivalent. Specifically, the endorsement must not exclude Products/Completed Operations coverage. (2) The Consultant's General Liability insurance coverage must be primary insurance as it pertains to the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees, or volunteers is wholly separate from the insurance ofthe contractor and in no way relieves the contractor from its responsibility to provide insurance. (3) The insurance policy required by this clause must be endorsed to state that coverage will not be canceled by either party, except after thirty (30) days' prior written notice to the City by certified mail, return receipt requested. (4) Coverage shall not extend to any indemnity coverage for the active negligence of the additional insured in any case where an agreement to indemnify the additional insured would be invalid under Subdivision (b) of Section 2782 of the Civil Code, (5) Consultant's insurer will provide a Waiver of Subrogation in favor of the City for each required policy providing coverage during the life of this contract. If General Liability, Pollution and/or Asbestos Pollution Liability and/or Errors & Omissions coverage are written on a claims-made form: (1) The "Retro Date" must be shown, and must be beforethe date of the contract or the beginning ofthe contract work. 5-29 Page 4 (2) Insurance must be maintained and evidence of insurance must be provided for at least five (5) years after completion of the contract work. (3) If coverage is canceled or non-renewed, and not replaced with another claims-made policy form with a "Retro Date" prior to the contract effective date, the Consultant must purchase "extended reporting" coverage for a minimum of five (5) years after completion of contract work. (4) A copy of the claims reporting requirements must be submitted to the City for review. Acceptability of Insurers Insurance is to be placed with licensed insurers admitted to transact business in the State of California with a current A.M. Best's rating of no less than A V. If insurance is placed with a surplus lines insurer, insurer must be listed on the State of California List of Eligible Surplus Lines Insurers ("LESLI") with a current A.M. Best's rating of no less than A X. Exception may be made for the State Compensation Fund when not specifically rated. Verification of Coverage Consultant shall furnish the City with original certificates and amendatory endorsements effecting coverage required by this clause. The endorsements should be on insurance industry forms, provided those endorsements or policies conform to the contract requirements. All certificates and endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before work commences. The City reserves the right to require, at any time, complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements evidencing the coverage required by these specifications. Subcontractors Consultants must include all sub consultants as insureds under its policies or furnish separate certificates and endorsements for each sub consultant. All coverage for subconsultants are subj ect to all of the requirements included in these specifications. G. Security for Performance (1) Performance Bond In the event that Exhibit A, at Paragraph 18, indicates the need for Consultant to provide a Performance Bond (indicated by a check mark in the parenthetical space immediately preceding the subparagraph entitled "Performance Bond"), then Consultant shall provide to the City a performance bond in the form prescribed by the City and by such sureties which are authorized to transact such business in the State of California, listed as approved by the United States Department of Treasury Circular 570, htto://www.fms.treas.gov/c570, and whose underwriting limitation is sufficient to issue bonds in the amount required by the agreement,and whichalso satisfy the requirements stated in Section 995.660 of the Code of Civil Procedure, except as provided otherwise by laws or regulations. All bonds signed by an agent must be 5-30 Page 5 . accompanied by a certified copy of such agent's authority to act. Surety companies must be duly licensed or authorized in the jurisdiction in which the Proj ect is located to issue bonds for the limits so required. Form must be satisfactory to the Risk Manager or City Attorney which amount is indicated in the space adjacent to the term, "Performance Bond", in said Exhibit A, Paragraph 18. (2) Letter of Credit In the event that Exhibit A, at Paragraph 18, indicates the need for Consultant to provide a Letter of Credit (indicated by a check mark in the parenthetical space immediately preceding the subparagraph entitled "Letter of Credit"), then Consultant shall provide to the City an irrevocable letter of credit callable by the City at their unfettered discretion by submitting to the bank a letter, signed by the City Manager, stating that the Consultant is in breach of the terms of this Agreement. The letter of credit shall be issued by a bank, and be in a form and amount satisfactory to the Risk Manager or City Attorney which amount is indicated in the space adjacent to the term, "Letter of Credit", in said Exhibit A, Paragraph 18. (3) Other Security In the event that Exhibit A, at Paragraph 18, indicates the need for Consultant to provide security other than a Performance Bond or a Letter of Credit (indicated by a check mark in the parenthetical space immediately preceding the subparagraph entitled "Other Security"), then Consultant shall provide to the City such other security therein listed in a form and amount satisfactory to the Risk Manager or City Attorney. H. Business License Consultant agrees to obtain a business license from the City and to otherwise comply with Title 5 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. 2. Duties of the City A. Consultation and Cooperation City shall regularly consult the Consultant for the purpose of reviewing the progress of the Defmed Services and Schedule therein contained, and to provide direction and guidance to achieve the objectives of this agreement. The City shall permit access to its office facilities, files and records by Consultant throughout the term ofthe agreement. In addition thereto, City agrees to provide the information, data, items and materials set forth on Exhibit A, Paragraph 9, and with the further understanding that delay in the provision of these materials beyond thirty (30) days after authorization to proceed, shall constitute a basis for the justifiable delay in the Consultant's performance of this agreement. B. Compensation Upon receipt of a properly prepared billing from Consultant submitted to the City periodically as indicated in Exhibit A, Paragraph 17, but in no event more frequently than 5-31 Page 6 monthly, on the day of the period indicated in Exhibit A, Paragraph 17, City shall compensate Consultant for all services rendered by Consultant according to the terms and conditions set forth in Exhibit A, Paragraph 10, adj acent to the governing compensation relationship indicated by a "checkrnark" next to the appropriate arrangement, subject to the requirements for retention set forth in Paragraph 18 of Exhibit A, and shall compensate Consultant for out of pocket expenses as provided in Exhibit A, Paragraph 11. All billings submitted by Consultant shall contain sufficient information as to the propriety of the billing to permit the City to evaluate that the amount due and payable thereunder is proper, and shall specifically contain the City's account number indicated on Exhibit A, Paragraph l7(C) to be charged upon making such payment. 3. Administration of Contract Each party designates the individuals ("Contract Administrators") indicated on Exhibit A, Paragraph 12, as said party's contract administrator who is authorized by said party to represent them in the routine administration of this agreement. 4. Term This Agreement shall terminate when the Parties have complied with all executory provisions hereof. 5. Liquidated Damages The provisions of this section apply if a Liquidated Damages Rate is provided in Exhibit A, Paragraph 13. It is acknowledged by both parties that time is of the essence in the completion of this Agreement. It is difficult to estimate the amount of damages resulting from delay in performance. The parties have used their judgment to arrive at a reasonable amount to compensate for delay. Failure to complete the Defined Services within the allotted time period specified in this Agreement shall result in the following penalty: For each consecutive calendar day in excess of the time specified for the completion of the respective work assigrunent or Deliverable, the Consultant shall pay to the City, orhave withheld from monies due, the sum of Liquidated Damages Rate provided in Exhibit A, Paragraph 13 ("Liquidated Damages Rate"). Time extensions for delays beyond the Consultant's control, other than delays caused by the City, shall be requested in writing to the City's Contract Administrator, or designee, prior to the expiration of the specified time. Extensions oftime, when granted, will be based upon the effect of delays to the work and will not be granted for delays to minor portions of work unless it can be shown that such delays did or will delay the progress of the work. 5-32 Page 7 6. Financial Interests of Consultant A. Consultant is Designated as an FPPC Filer If Consultant is designated on Exhibit A, Paragraph 14, as an "FPPC filer", Consultant is deemed to be a "Consultant" for the purposes of the Political Reform Act conflict of interest and disclosure provisions, and shall report economic interests to the City Clerk on the required Statement of Econ6mic Interests in such reporting categories as are specified in Paragraph 14 of Exhibit A, or ifnone are specified, then as determined by the City Attorney. B. Decline to Participate Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC Filer, Consultant shall not make, or participate in making or in any way attempt to use Consultant's position to influence a governmental decision in which Consultant knows or has reason to know Consultant has a financial interest other than the compensation promised by this Agreement. C. Search to Determine Economic Interests Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC Filer, Consultant warrants and represents that Consultant has diligently conducted a search and inventory of Consultant's economic interests, as the term is used in the regulations promulgated by the Fair Political Practices Commission, and has determined that Consultant does not, to the best of Consultant's knowledge, have an economic interest which would conflict with Consultant's duties under this agreement. D. Promise Not to Acquire Conflicting Interests Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC Filer, Consultant further warrants and represents that Consultant will not acquire, obtain, or assume an economic interest during the term of this Agreement which would constitute a conflict of interest as prohibited by the Fair Political Practices Act. E. Duty to Advise of Conflicting Interests Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC Filer, Consultant further warrants and represents that Consultant will immediately advise the City Attorney of City if Consultant learns of an economic interest of Consultant's that may result in a conflict of interest for the purpose of the Fair Political Practices Act, and regulations promulgated thereunder. F. Specific Warranties Against Economic Interests Consultant warrants and represents that neither Consultant, nor Consultant's immediate family members, nor Consultant's employees or agents ("Consultant Associates") presently have any interest, directly or indirectly, whatsoever in any property which may be the subject matter . of the Defined Services, or in any property within 2 radial miles from the exterior boundaries of 5-33 Page 8 any property which may be the subject matter of the Defined Services, ("Prohibited Interest"), other than as listed in Exhibit A, Paragraph 14. Consultant further warrants and represents that no promise of future employment, remuneration, consideration, gratuity or other reward or gain has been made to Consultant or Consultant Associates in connection with Consultant's performance of this Agreement. Consultant promises to advise City of any such promise that may be made during the Term of this Agreement, or for twelve months thereafter. Consultant agrees that Consultant Associates shall not acquire any such Prohibited Interest within the Term of this Agreement, or for twelve months after the expiration of this Agreement, except with the written permission of City. Consultant may not conduct or solicit any business for any party to this Agreement, or for any third party that may be in conflict with Consultant's responsibilities under this Agreement, except with the written permission of City. 7. Hold Harmless Consultant shall defend, indemnify, protect and hold harmless the City, its elected and appointed officers and employees, from and against all claims for damages, liability, cost and expense (including without limitation attorneys fees) arising out of or alleged by third parties to be the result of the negligent acts, errors or omissions or the willful misconduct of the Consultant, and Consultant's employees, subcontractors or other persons, agencies or firms for whom Consultant is legally responsible in connection with the execution of the work covered by this Agreement, except only for those claims, damages, liability, costs and expenses (including without limitations, attorneys fees) arising from the sole negligence or sole willful misconduct of the City, its officers, employees. Also covered is liability arising from, connected with, caused by or claimed to be caused by the active or passive negligent acts or omissions of the City, its agents, officers, or employees which may be in combination with the active or passive negligent acts or omissions of the Consultant, its employees, agents or officers, or any third party. With respect to losses arising from Consultant's professional errors or omissions, Consultant shall defend, indemnify, protect and hold harmless the City, its elected and appointed officers and employees, from and against all claims for damages, liability, cost and expense (including without limitation attorneys fees) except for those claims arising from the negligence or willful misconduct of City, its officers or employees. Consultant's indemnification shall include any and all costs, expenses, attorneys fees and liability incurred by the City, its officers, agents or employees in defending against such claims, whether the same proceed to judgment or not. Consultant's obligations under this Section shall not be limited by any prior or subsequent declaration by the Consultant. Consultant's obligations under this Section shall survive the termination of this Agreement. For those professionals who are required to be licensed by the state (e.g. architects and engineers), the following indemnific;:ation provisions should be utilized: .5-34 Page 9 (1) Indemnification and Hold Harmless Agreement With respect to any liability, including but not limited to claims asserted or costs, losses, attorney fees, or payments for injury to any person or property caused or claimed to be caused by the acts or omissions of the Consultant, or Consultant's employees, agents, and officers, arising out of any services performed involving this project, except liability for Professional Services covered under Section X.2, the Consultant agrees to defend, indemnify, protect, and hold harmless the City, its agents, officers, or employees from and against all liability. Also covered is liability arising from, connected with, caused by, or claimed to be caused by the active or passive negligent acts or omissions of the City, its agents, officers, or employees which maybe in combination with the active or passive negligent acts or omissions of the Consultant, its employees, agents or officers, or any third party. The Consultant's duty to indemnify, protect and hold harmless shall not include any claims or liabilities arising from the sole negligence or sole willful misconduct of the City, its agents, officers or employees. This section in no way alters, affects or modifies the Consultant's obligation and duties under Section Exhibit A to this Agreement. (2) Indemnification for Professional Services. As to the Consultant's professional obligation, work or services involving this Project, the Consultant agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its agents, officers and employees from and against any and all liability, claims, costs, and damages, including but not limited to, attorneys fees, losses or payments for injury to any person or property, caused directly or indirectly from the negligent acts, errors or omissions of the Consultant or Consultant's employees, agents or officers; provided, however, that the Consultant's duty to indemnify shall not include any claims or liability arising from the negligence or willful misconduct of the City, its agents, officers and employees. 8. Termination of Agreement for Cause If, through any cause, Consultant shall fail to fulfill in a timely and proper manner Consultant's obligations under this Agreement, or if Consultant shall violate any of the covenants, agreements or stipulations of this Agreement, City shall have the right to terminate this Agreement by giving written notice to Consultant of such termination and specifying the effective date thereof at least five (5) days before the effective date of such termination. In that event, all finished or unfinished documents, data, studies, surVeys, drawings, maps, reports and other materials prepared by Consultant shall, at the option of the City, become the property of the City, and Consultant shall be entitled to receive just and equitable compensation for any work satisfactorily completed on such documents and other materials up to the effective date of Notice of Termination, not to exceed the amounts payable hereunder, and less any damages caused City . by Consultant's breach. . 9. Errors and Omissions In the event that the City Administrator determines that the Consultants' negligence, errors, or omissions in the performance of work under this Agreement has resulted in expense to City greater than would have resulted if there were no such negligence, errors, omissions, Consultant 5-35 Page 10 shall reimburse City for any additional expenses incurred by the City. Nothing herein is intended to limit City's rtghts under other provisions of this agreement. 10. Termination of Agreement for Convenience of City City may terminate this Agreement at any time and for any reason, by giving specific written notice to Consultant of such termination and specifYing the effective date thereof, at least thirty (30) days before the effective date of such termination. In that event, all finished and unfinished documents and other materials described hereinabove shall, at the option ofthe City, become City's sole and exclusive property. If the Agreement is terminated by City as provided in this paragraph, Consultant shall be entitled to receive just and equitable compensation for any satisfactory work completed on such documents and other materials to the effective date of such termination. Consultant hereby expressly waives any and all claims for damages or compensation arising under this Agreement except as set forth herein. 11. Assignability The services of Consultant are personal to the City, and Consultant shall not assign any interest in this Agreement, and shall not transfer any interest in the same (whether by assignment or novation), without prior written consent of City. City hereby consents to the assignment of the portions of the Defined Services identified in Exhibit A, Paragraph 16 to the subconsultants identified thereat as "Permitted Subconsultants". 12. Ownership, Publication, Reproduction and Use of Material All reports, studies, information, data, statistics, forms, designs, plans, procedures, systems and any other materials or properties produced under this Agreement shall be the sole and exclusive property of City. No such materials or properties produced in whole or in part under this Agreement shall be subj ect to private use, copyrights or patent rights by Consultant in the United States or in any other country without the express written consent of City. City shall have unrestricted authority to publish, disclose (except as may be limited by the provisions of the Public Records Act), distribute, and otherwise use, copyright or patent, in whole or in part, any such reports, studies, data, statistics, forms or other materials or properties produced under this Agreement. 13. Independent Contractor City is interested only in the results obtained and Consultant shall perform as an independent contractor with sole control of the manner and means of performing the services required under this Agreement. City maintains the right only to reject or accept Consultant's work products. Consultant and any of the Consultant's agents, employees or representatives are, for all purposes under this Agreement, an independent contractorand shall not be deemed to be an employee of City, andnone of them shall be entitled to any benefits to which City employees are entitled including but not limited to, overtime, retirement benefits, worker's compensation benefits, . injury leave or other leave benefits. Therefore, City will not withhold state or federal income tax, 5-36 Page II social security tax or any other payroll tax, and Consultant shall be solely responsible for the payment of same and shall hold the City harmless with regard thereto. 14. Administrative Claims Requirements and Procedures No suit or arbitration shall be brought arising out of this agreement, against the City unless a claim has first been presented in writing and filed with the City and acted upon by the City in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 1.34 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, as same may from time to time be amended, the provisions of which are incorporated by this reference as if fully set forth herein, and such policies and procedures used by the City in the implementation of same. Upon request by City, Consultant shall meet and confer in good faith with City for the purpose of resolving any dispute over the terms of this Agreement. 15. Attorney's Fees should a dispute arising out of this Agreement result in litigation, it is agreed that the prevailing party shall be entitled to a judgment against the other for an amount equal to reasonable attorney's fees and court costs incurred. The "prevailing party" shall be deemed to be the party who is awarded substantially the relief sought.. 16. Statement of Costs In the event that Consultant prepares a report or document, or participates in the preparation of a report or document in performing the Defined Services, Consultant shall include, or cause the inclusion of, in said report or document, a statement of the numbers and cost in dollar amounts of all contracts and subcontracts relating to the preparation of the report or document. 17. Miscellaneous A. Consultant not authorized to Represent City Unless specifically authorized in writing by City, Consultant shall have no authority to act as City's agent to bind City to any contractual agreements whatsoever. B. .Consultant is Real Estate Broker and/or Salesman lithe box on Exhibit A, Paragraph 15 is marked, the Consultant and/or their principals is/are licensed with the State of California or some other state as a licensed real estate broker or salesperson. Otherwise, Consultant represents that neither Consultant, nor their principals are licensed real estate brokers or salespersons. . . C. Notices . All notices, demands or requests provided for or permitted to be given pursuant to this Agreement must be in writing. All notices, demands and requests to be sent to any party shall be 5-37 Page 12 deemed to have been properly given or served if personally served or deposited in the United States mail, addressed to such party, postage prepaid, registered or certified, with return receipt requested, at the addresses identified herein as the places of business for each of the designated parties. D. Entire Agreement This Agreement, together with any other written document referred to or contemplated herein, embody the entire Agreement and understanding between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof. Neither this Agreement nor any provision hereof may be amended, modified, waived or discharged except by an instrument in writing executed by the party against which enforcement of such amendment, waiver or discharge is sought. E. Capacity of Parties Each signatory and party hereto hereby warrants and represents to the other party that it has legal authority and capacity and direction from its principal to enter into this Agreement, and that all resolutions or other actions have been taken so as to enable it to enter into this Agreement. F. Governing LawNenue This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Any action arising under or relating to this Agreement shall be brought only in the federal or state courts located in San Diego County, State of California, and if applicable, the City of Chula Vista, or as close thereto as possible. Venue for this Agreement, and performance hereunder, shall be the City of Chula Vista. (End of page. Next page is signature page.) 5-38 Page 13 Signature Page to Agreement between City of Chula Vista and [Name of Consultant] for IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City and Consultant have executed this Agreement thereby indicating that they have read and understood same, and indicate their full and complete consent to its terms: Dated: City of Chula Vista By: Stephen Padilla, Mayor Attest: Susan Bigelow, City Clerk Approved as to form: Ann Moore, City Attorney Dated: [Name of Consultant] By: [Name of Person, Title] By: [Name of Person, Title] Exhibit List to Agreement : ( ) Exhibit A. 5-39 Page 14 Exhibit A to Agreement between City of Chula Vista and [Name of Consultant] 1. Effective Date of Agreement: 2. City-Related Entity: ( ) City ofChula Vista, a municipal chartered corporation of the State of California ( ) Redevelopment Agency of the City ofChula Vista, a political subdivision of the State of California ( ) Industrial Development Authority of the City of Chula Vista, a ( ) Other: , a [insert business form] ("City") 3. Place of Business for City: City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 4. Consultant: 5. Business Form of Consultant: ( ) Sole Proprietorship ( ) Partnership ( ) Corporation 6. Place of Business, Telephone and Fax Number of Consultant: [Address] [City], California 9 Voice Phone: (619) Fax Phone: (619) 5-40 Page 15 7. General Duties: 1 8. Scope of Work and Schedule: A. Detailed Scope ofWork:2 B. Date for Commencement of Consultant Services: ( ) Same as Effective Date of Agreement ( ) Other: C. Dates or Time Limits for Delivery ofDeliverables: Deliverable No.1: Deliverable No.2: Deliverable No.3: D. Date for completion of all Consultant services: 1. In a clear and straight forward fashion, describe what you want the Consultant to do on what project, or on what aspect of what project. E.g.: Consultant shall design a bridge across the Otay River at the point where Otay Valley Road crosses said river, which design shall be to the specifications herein below provided or to standards set by the Public Works Director, and Consultant shall provide construction administration services if and when the bridge is eventually let for construction according to said design. . 2. Do not includesimply a letter or proposal from the consultant atthis point because it will probably contain gratuitous comments or references to duties that will contradict the obligatory provisions. of the standard agreement. List the detailed method by which you want the Consultant to accomplish the general duties. . 5-41 Page 16 9. Materials Required to be Supplied by City to Consultant: 10. Compensation: A. ( ) Single Fixed Fee Arrangement.3 For performance of all of the Defined Services by Consultant as herein required, City shall pay a single fixed fee in the amounts and at the times or milestones or for the Deliverables set forth below: Single Fixed Fee Amount: , payable as follows: Milestone or Event or Deliverable Amount or Percent of Fixed Fee ( ) I. Interim Monthly Advances. The City shall make interim monthly advances against the compensation due for each phase on a percentage of completion basis for each given phase such that, at the end of each phase only the compensation for that phase has been paid. Any payments made hereunder shall be considered as interest free loans that must be returned to the City if the Phase is not satisfactorily completed. If the Phase is satisfactorily completed, the City shall receive credit against the compensation due for that phase. The retention amount or percentage set forth in Paragraph 19 is to be applied to each interim payment such that, at the end of the phase, the full retention has been held back from the compensation due for that phase. Percentage of completion of a phase shall be assessed in the sole and unfettered discretion by the Contracts Administrator designated herein by the City, or such other person as the City Manager shall designate, but only upon such proof demanded by the City that has been provided, but in no event shall such interim advance payment be made unless the Contractor shall have represented in writing that said percentage of completion of the phase has been performed by the Contractor. The practice of making interim monthly advances shall not convert this agreement to a time and materials basis of payment. B. ( ) Phased Fixed Fee Arrangement. For the performance of each phase or portion ofthe Defined Services by Consultant as are separately identified below, City shall pay the fixed fee associated with each phase of Services, 3. The difference between a single fixed fee amount with phasedpayments and a phased fixed fee amount is that, in a single fixed fee amount all of the work is required for all of the compensation. Payments are phased to help with consultant cash flow. In a phased fixed fee arrangement, the City has the authority to cancel or require performance under subsequent phases, so that the compensation is due just for the phase of work required, and not for the total amount. . Page 17 5-42 in the amounts and at the times or milestones or Deliverables set forth. Consultant shall not commence Services under any Phase, and shall not be entitled to the compensation for a Phase, unless City shall have issued a notice to proceed to Consultant as to said Phase. Phase 1. 2. 3. Fee for Said Phase $ $ $ ( ) I. Interim Monthly Advances. The City shall make interim monthly advances against the compensation due for each phase on a percentage of completion basis for each given phase such that, at the end of each phase only the compensation for that phase has been paid. Any payments made hereunder shall be considered as interest free loans that must be returned to the City ifthe Phase is not satisfactorily completed. If the Phase is satisfactorily completed, the City shall receive credit against the compensation due for that phase. The retention amount or percentage set forth in Paragraph 19 is to be applied to each interim payment such that, at the end of the phase, the full retention has been held back from the compensation due for that phase. Percentage of completion of a phase shall be assessed in the sole and unfettered discretion by the Contracts Administrator designated herein by the City, or such other person as the City Manager shall designate, but only upon such proof demanded by the City that has been provided, but in no event shall such interim advance payment be made unless the Contractor shall have represented in writing that said percentage of completion of the phase has been performed by the Contractor. The practice of making interim monthly advances shall not convert this agreement to a time and materials basis of payment. C. ( ) Hourly Rate Arrang=ent For performance of the Defined Services by Consultant as herein required, City shall pay Consultant for the productive hours of time spent by Consultant in the performance of said Services, at the rates or amounts set forth in the Rate Schedule hereinbelow according to the following terms and conditions: (I) ( ) Not-to-Exceed Limitation on Time and Materials Arrangement Notwithstanding the expenditure by Consultant of time and materials in excess of said Maximum Compensation amount, Consultant agrees that Consultant will perform all of the Defined Services herein required of Consultant for $ including all Materials, and other "reimbursables" ("Maximum Compensation"). (2) ( ) Limitation without Further Authorization on Time and Materials Arrangement 5-43 Page 18 At such time as Consultant shall have incurred time and materials equal to ("Authorization Limit"), Consultant shall not be entitled to any additional compensation without further authorization issued in writing and approved by the City. Nothing herein shall preclude Consultant from providing additional Services at Consultant's own cost and expense. Category of Employee Rate Schedule4 Name of Consultant Hourly Rate $ $ $ $ $ ( ) Hourly rates may increase by 6% for services rendered after [month], 20_, if delay in providing services is caused by City. 11. Materials Reimbursement Arrangement For the cost of out of pocket expenses incurred by Consultant in the performance of services herein required, City shall pay Consultant at the rates or amounts set forth below: ( ) None, the compensation includes all costs. Cost or Rate $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ () Reports, not to exceed $ () Copies, not to exceed $ () Travel, not to exceed $ () Printing, not to exceed $ () Postage, not to exceed $ () Delivery, not to exceed $ () Long Distance Telephone Charges, not to exceed $ () Other Actual Identifiable Direct Costs: , not to exceed $ , not to exceed $ 4. This section should be completed in all cases--ifthe main compensation scheme is a "time and materials arrangement" or for the purposes of requiring Additional Services. .5-44 Page 19 12. Contract Administrators: City:5 Consu1tant:6 13. Liquidated Damages Rate: ( ) $ ( ) Other: per day. 14. Statement of Economic Interests, Consultant Reporting Categories, per Conflict of Interest Code: ( ) Not Applicable. Not an FPPC Filer.? ( ) FPPC Filer ( ) Category No. 1. Investments and sources of income. ( ) Category No.2. Interests in real property. ( ) Category No.3. Investments, interest in real property and sources of income subject to the regulatory, permit or licensing authority of the department. ( ) Category No.4. Investments in business entities and sources of income that engage in land development, construction or the acquisition or sale of real property. ( ) Category No.5. Investments in business entities and sources of income ofthe type which, within the past two years, have contracted with the City of Chula Vista 5. Sample Completion: Marilyn Poseggi, Environmental Review Coordinator, Public Services Building, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910, (619) 691-5104. 6. Same as address etc. on Exh. A, p.l, plus name oflead contact. 7. If Consultant, in the performance of its services under this agreement: (1) conducts research and arrives at conclusions with respect to its rendition of information, advice, recommendations or counsel independent of the control and direction of the City or of any City official, other than normal contract monitoring; and (2) possesses no authority with respect to any City decision beyond the rendition of information, advice, recommendations or counsel, Consultant should not be designated as an FPPC Filer. 5-45 Page 20 (Redevelopment Agency) to provide services, supplies, materials, machinery or equipment. ( ) Category No. 6. Investments in business entities and sources of income of the type which, within the past two years, have contracted with the designated employee's department to provide services, supplies, materials, machinery Dr equipment. ( ) Category No.7. Business positions. ( ) List "Consultant Associates" interests in real property within 2 radial miles of Project Property, if any: 15. ( ) Consultant is Real Estate Broker and/or Salesman 16. Permitted Subconsultants: 17. Bill Processing: A. Consultant's Billing to be submitted for the following period oftime: ( ) Monthly ( ) Quarterly ( ) Other: B. Day of the Period for submission of Consultant's Billing: ( ) First of the Month ( ) 15th Day of each Month ( ) End of the Month ( ) Other: C. City's ACCOIDlt Number: 5-46 Page 21 18. Security for Performance ( ) Performance Bond, $ ( ) Letter of Credit, $ ( ) Other Security: . Type: Amount: $ ( ) Retention. If this space is checked, then notwithstanding other provisions to the contrary requiring the payment of compensation to the Consultant sooner, the City shall be entitled to retain, at their option, either the following "Retention Percentage" or "Retention Amount" until the City determines that the Retention Release Event, listed below, has occurred: ( ) Retention Percentage: ( ) Retention Amount: $ % Retention Release Event: ( ) Completion of All Consultant Services ( ) Other: J:\Attomey\ClliDYMc\2PTY14 Consultant Ins Rev 9 21 06 (FmAL).doc Page 22 5-47 PROOF OF PUBLICATION (2015.5 C.C.P) STATE OF CALIFORNIA, County of San Diego: I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above-entitled matter. I am the principle clerk of the printer of THE STAR-NEWS, a newspaper of general circulation, published ONCE WEEKLY in the city of CHULA VISTA and the South Bay Judicial District, CO\Jnty of San Diego, which newspaper has been adjudged a newspaper of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of San Diego, State of California, under the date of January 18, 1973, Case Number 71752; that the notice, of which the annexed is a printed copy (set in type not smailer than non- pareil), has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit: 4/6 ail in the year 2007. I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated at Chula Vista, California 91910 this 6th day of April 2007. Signature ~~ PRINCIP ERK /~':;,T)7P nJ ~'(. ,<' ._~;d fj' '0-.' ~!B II This space is for the County Clerk's filing stamp. 0 Proof of Publication of CV27413 RFP 3-06/07 , CITY OF CHULA VISTA REQUEST FOil ,', .'PROPllSAl- '. VIOEOJAPINGSERVICES .. FOR THECHULA,VlSTA CITY COUtiClLMEalNllS . FDR''tE!.mS1Ilf' NQTICEIS flEAEBY GIV- 81 THAT 'flib.c1TY OF CflutA.V1STAWiII~ive ' ::=~;=;;:-=~ ,\/Isla CltylCOiiiK:iG ,Meet-' =I~J~ =~",~1::;etg~ . "1i1V ~'\le- ~, m.ft>lIrtIH\ve- 1IIIe, 'Chuf'fi'cVis!a'c'leA' 9t9;ftl,'wll8i'eillcls;will-1le ditieivettliiltir:4;t11' P :M... ~,"~;:1',' -'''"'.. . ~I J RfP#a.-o6I07c' , . SUWlM'BroolOi' AAhaslng Agent .CVV413 ' '4/&'07 5-48 5-49 C~R~H~t!m~NI] Ms. Suzanne Brooks City of Chula Vista Purchasing Division, Finance Dept. 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 April 17, 2007 Dear Ms. Brooks, Thank you for the opportunity to submit a proposal to you for the video production services contract. I am very excited about the opportunity of continuing our business relationship with the City of Chula Vista. As you may be aware, we have been providing video production services to the City of Chula Vista for the past nine years. During that time, we have reliably and dependably provided coverage of over 400 City Council meetings as well as coverage of numerous other meetings and city events. We have also produced broadcast quality productions for various city departments as well as productions for many other government agencies throughout San Diego County. Thank you again for giving us the opportunity to submit a proposal for your consideration. Bob Hoffman Video Productions has the skill and the experience to continue meeting and exceeding the City of Chula Vista's video production needs. In addition, I hope we can be a resource to your city as consultants on all matters that relate to video production, photography, multi-media and streaming media. Sincerely, R~ Bob Hoffman Owner, Bob Hoffman Video Productions 4805 Mercury Street, Suite L, San Diego, CA 92111 TEL (858) 576-0046 FAX (858) 576-0117 www.bobhoffmlinvideo.com 5-5u 2 ~Bob Hoffman L.3IVIDEO PRODUCTIONS Table of Contents A. Minimum Requirements................ ............ ............... ............... ....... ...4 B. Additional Issues for Discussion .......................................................5 Financial Proposal.... .... ............ ... ........... .............. ......... ........... .... ........7 Concluding Statement.. ........... ... ...... .... ........ .... ........... ............ .......... ....8 Letter of Reference.................................................... ....... ................. ...9 Business Liability Insurance Documentation.........................................11 Worker's Compensation Insurance Documentation................................12 Sample DVD......................... .......................................... ......... .Exhibit A 4805 Mercury Street, Suite L, San Diego, CA 92111 TEL (858) 576-0046 FAX (858) 576-0117 www.bobhoffmanvideo.com 5-51 3 P'""'!I:IBob Hoffman ~VIDEO PRODUCTIONS PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS A. Minimum requirements: Bob Hoffman Video Productions agrees to meet all the minimum requirements detailed in Bid No. #3-06/07 and provide the additional enhanced services indicated in italics. 1. Finished product: Bob Hoffman Video Productions (BHVP) agrees to use the City's provided equipment to record DVDs, Super VHS or VHS tapes and digital DV master tapes of scheduled City Council meetings and additional special meetings and workshops. Copies will be provided to the City the evening of the meeting or by 8a.m. the day following the meeting. We also agree to have additional equipment available on an as needed basis to record media copies in broadcast standard formats of BetaCam SP, DVCPro and misc. computer formats, such as QuickTime and Windows Media. 2. Minimum staff: We agree to always provide a minimum staff of two experienced and qualified staff members to operate the equipment, cameras and graphics equipment. One employee will be designated the technical director. In addition, BHVP agrees to maintain a back-up staff of additional qualified staff members to be available in the event of an unscheduled meeting or other unanticipated event. 3. Character generation: BHVP will provide character generation to identify speakers and items being discussed throughout the meetings. BHVP will also display opening titles, closing credits and the City logo when appropriate. In addition, we offer to produce and edit an "opening title segmenf' to be included at the beginning of each City Council Meeting. This montage of graphics and scenic Chula Vista shots would provide a professional start to each council meeting video. We agree to update this montage at least once each year for the term of the contract. 4. Insurance: BHVP currently has in force (and on file with the City of Chula Vista) all required insurance including Commercial General Liability insurance and Statutory Worker's Compensation Insurance and Employer's Liability Insurance coverage as stipulated in sections "a" and "b." (See Attachments) 4805 Mercury Street, Suite L, San Diego, CA 92111 TEL (858) 576-0046 FAX (858) 576-0117 www.bobhoffmanvideo.com 5-52 4 ~BobHoffman ~V/DEO PRODUCTIONS B. Additional issues for discussion: 1. Term of proposed agreement/contract. BHVP is agreeable to a contract term of five (5) years commencing on July 1, 2007 and to include (5) five (1) one years options to renew the contract as proposed in BID NO. #3-06/07. 2. Background and/or experience of proposer and on-site staff. Bob Hoffman Video Productions is a veteran production company, in business in San Diego since 1983. Since then we have worked hard to earn a reputation for cutting edge creative and affordable video production, DVD authoring and multi- media. We pride ourselves in providing outstanding quality and service to every customer. Our Kearny Mesa business office houses four editing suites, production space as well as in-house VHS and DVD duplication facilities. Our current staff of nine includes full time videographers, editors and customer support employees. Highlights of our nearly twenty-four years in business include: . Numerous local and national awards including twelve "Telly Awards." . Two local "Emmy" nominations. . Awarded "San Diego Small Business of the Month" by proclamation of Mayor of San Diego, May 1996. Award for outstanding service to the San Diego Community. . We have produced, many programs and commercials televised throughout the U.S. including producing, shooting and editing over 140 half-hour programs for KNSD 7/39. . Our recent corporate clients include LG Electronics, the Korean phone and appliance manufacturer. CompassLearning, a San Diego based educational software provider. WD40, lubrication designer and manufacturer and Wells Fargo Auto Finance. . We have produced programs for many government agencies in Southern California including The City of San Diego, The County of San Diego, The City of Chula Vista, The City of Imperial Beach, The City of Solana Beach, Sweetwater Authority, The Imperial Valley Irrigation District, The Poway School District and the Sweetwater School District. 4805 Mercury Street, Suite L, San Diego, CA 92111 TEL (858) 576-0046 FAX (858) 576-0117 www.bobhoffmllnvideo.com 5-5;j 5 ~BobHoffman L.':3IVIDEO PRODUCTIONS Since winning the contract to record Chula Vista City Council meetings in 1998 we have produced over 400 City Council meetings for the City of Chula Vista. In addition, over the past 9 years we have recorded numerous other events, workshops, State of the City addresses and related meetings for the City of Chula Vista. Since 2006 we have also been recording the Chula Vista Redevelopment Committee meetings and are contracted to continue recording those meetings for at least 5 more years. In addition to our experience in Chula Vista, we also have a contract with The City of Solana Beach to record their council meetings. The current technical director assigned to the Chula Vista council meetings has approximately 5 years of experience in that role. The assistant director/graphics operator has approximately 2 years of experience producing the Chula Vista meetings. 3. Proposer's experience in similar operations: As stated elsewhere in this document, BHVP is very experienced in the production of similar "live switched" multi-camera video productions. We specialize in cost effective multi-camera productions. In addition to the production services we provide to various southern California governmental agencies, we also produce 75-100 additional live-recorded video productions each year, recorded at locations throughout San Diego County. See exhibit "A". In the event that the City of Chula Vista needs additional production services for any other meetings, events or workshops, whether in the council chambers or elsewhere, we are prepared to cost effectively provide the video production, still photography and related media services. 4. References. Over the past 9 years BHVP has professionally and reliably provided the services requested by the City of Chula Vista. We feel very confident that the numerous city staff members that we have come into contact with over that time can attest to our ability to continue to successfully meet and exceed the level of service required by the city. In addition, if the need arises in the future, we can provide a wide range of additional services. Please see attached reference letter. 4805 Mercury Street, Suite L, San Diego, CA 92111 TEL (858) 576-0046 FAX (858) 576-0117 www.bobtg>.!!~anvideo.com 6 fI'""'!=IBob Hoffman ~VIDEO PRODUCTIONS 5. Financial standing of the proposer. BHVP has been serving clients in San Diego County since 1983 and we are in excellent financial standing. We have been consistently rated by. the San Diego Business Journal as one of the top ten video production companies in the county. We are Dun & Bradstreet rated (#85-944-1990). 6. Statement that proposer is an Equal Opportunity Employer. Bob Hoffman Video Productions is an equal opportunity employer. We consider applicants for all positions without regard to race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, marital status or the presence of a disability, which would not prevent the performance of essential job duties with or without reasonable accom modation of any other protective status. 7. Describe financial proposal. a. Cost for the first four hours or less of meeting (length determined from the scheduled start time until adjournment): $450. Each additional hour or part thereoftor meetings lasting longer than four hours: $100. b. Media costs: Video recording media is available at a variety of different quality and cost levels. For any media provided by Bob Hoffman Video we propose to charge our cost plus 15%. Sample current prices for various different media are provided for comparison: DVD: $0.35-1.75 Mini DVD: $0.69-3.99 Mini DV 60: $3.10-3.28 DV 276: $21.84-39.10 VHS T120: $1.35-3.35 Since this is a multi-year contract with costs dependant on economic factors outside the control of BHVP, we propose that the contract include a provision to adjust the cost by a factor equal to the consumer price index (CPI) for San Diego County but not to exceed 3% annually. 4805 Mercury Street, Suite L, San Diego. CA 92111 TEL (858) 576-0046 FAX (858) 576-0117 www.bObtg>~~Video.com 7 r-"=IBob Hoffman L..1VIDEO PRODUCTIONS Concluding Statement Bob Hoffman Video Productions is very eager to continue it's long-standing business relationship with The City of Chula Vista. We have extensive experience recording multi-camera "live switched" video productions including 9 years of experience recording meetings for The City of Chula Vista. In addition to recording city council meetings we are currently recording the Chula Vista Redevelopment Committee meetings and are under contract to record those meetings through at least 2011. BHVP is offering to meet all of the minimum requirements requested by The City of Chula Vista and offering to enhance those services by: 1. Providing video duplication and transfer services for video formats not supported by Chula Vista's own equipment. 2. Providing qualified "back-up" staff in the event of unscheduled meetings or unanticipated events. 3. BHVP is offering to enhance the current production standard to include a newly created custom Chula Vista opening montage of scenic shots and graphics. In addition we are offering to revise and update the opening at least once each year of the contract. 4. Continuing to provide occasional assistance, trouble shooting and consulting services at little or no cost to the city. BHVP is ideally suited to continue providing productions services to Chula Vista because we already meet all the City's insurance and employment requirements, we have the experience and expertise required and we have demonstrated that we can consistently meet your production needs. Furthermore we are offering to continue to provide those services at a fair and reasonable fee that is unchanged from the rate that we established in December 2005. 4805 Mercury Street, Suite L, San Diego, CA 92111 TEL (858) 576-0046 FAX (858) 576-0117 www.bobtg.~tnVideo.com 8 LAw OFFICES OF JOHN M. PRESTON A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Locations Throughout California (800) 698 - 6918 FAX: (858) 675 - 4045 April 18, 2007 Re: Letter of Recommendation Bob Hoffman To Whom It May Concern: I understand that a favorite vendor of mine, Bob Hoffman, is being consideredfor contract renewal. Bob asked me to write a letter of recommendation on his behalf and I am absolutely delighted to do so. I first met Bob about three years ago when I interviewed him in an effort to decide whether or not to hire Bob Hoffman Video to record our presentations. We had used two videographers before Bob and we were extremely disappointed with the results. Hoping to eliminate similar problems from occurring in the future, I was very candid and specific about these disappointments with Bob during our interview. I remember being impressed with how carefully Bob listened, clarified issues, and took notes. Without discrediting his competition, Bob ensured me I would receive much better service from his company. To the credit of Bob and his crew they have under promised and over delivered In fact, Bob's careful attention to detail has saved us from embarrassing situations on more than one occasion. Since our first encounter, the scope and volume of work that Bob Hoffman Video does for us has increased dramatically. Initially, they were to video tape an occasional public presentation. However, because of their talents and dependability they now record and edit all of our quarterly client workshops, public presentations, marketing programs and promotional pieces. With over twenty thousand clients our image and reputation means everything to us. Bob has continually made us look good and has enhanced both our image and reputation in the eyes of our clients. 5-57 From my observations I have concluded that Bob not only possesses all the basic qualities of a successful videographer and business owner, but he continues to develop them in sprite of his demanding schedule. But Bob's attributes go beyond the basics. First, he is exceptionally self-motivated and appropriately ambitious. Second, Bob is also one of the most unfailingly pleasant people I know. In the time I have known him I have never encountered Bob without a kind word or encouraging remark He remains upbeat and positive even in the face of all the numerous challenges his busy life has provided. Finally, and perhaps most important, Bob is a man of absolute integrity. At a time when integrity and honesty are at a low ebb in the world, Bob has proven worthy of my absolute and unequivocal trust. In short, I am pleased to recommend Bob with great enthusiasm and without reservation. If I may respond to any questions you might have about Bob, please feel free to give me a call at (800) 698-6918. Sincerely, Ken Wilson Chief Financial Office Law Offices of John M Preston, A.P. C. 5-58 ~BobHoffman E..3IVIDEO PRODUCTIONS WM F BUELL INC 621 E PARK AVE lIBERTYVllLE,ll60048 (888) 66'-3938 X0212 CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED MA ER OF INFOR A ON ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER, THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND, EXTEND OR A TH OVERAG AFF R YTH I W. ~~~ j,,~~gt'yYl I ACORD. ""'ODUCEIO 882 ; INSURERS AFFORDING COVERAGE HAle/l 'NSURfO 80S HOFFMAN DBA 806 HOFFMAN VIDEO PRODUCTION::, 4805 MERCURY STREET SAN DIEGO. CA 921 1 1 INSIIRERATR4VELERSPROP~RTYCASUALTYCOfllf>"NYOFA"ERIC" IM,IIRFR A TlolE TRAVEU;IIS INDEMNITY COMPANY OF CONNECTICUT INSURERC INSllflFRO INSUIlI:.Hl COVERAGES IHE POLICIES OF INSIiRANCE 1.18TE:O BHOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO FHE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOP THE PQ.ICY PE.AIOD INDICATED NOTWITHSTANDING ANY I'{QIIIPFMENI TfflM on crno!TIoo Of ANY CONTRACT Oil OTllFR OnCllMFNT WITH AFSP1'r.T TO WHICH THIS CFflTlFlGATF MAYOr rSf>IIFD on MAY PlRIAIN 1111 IN~IJHANCE IIHOl-lOFD BY lHL POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE- ILAMS EXCLUSIONS AND crnOlIlCNS O~ SUCli POLICIES AGGRE.GAll: LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED8Y PAID CLAIMS I~~R ~~'; POllCVfl'l'fCTIVf POUcYEllPlRATION TVPEOFINSUR,lJllCE PO~ICVNlJMefl\ " ow " .n IOIVV ow"' 8 X Gl!PleR.o.LLl.o.llun , 680-8572H882-07 ;0311112007 03111/2008 f-~W.8E~~~~Etf'- .'-.1.000,000 X COMMERCIAl(,F.NF.RlIllllI!l4UrI $300,000 ~.(ClAIMSMAIl~ OOO(;Cllf.I MEDEXP1An 000 .~ $5000 ",PHlAO", 1~1 000000 X ---.-,.-.------ PERSONAl, & ADV INJURY ""..OI.....EO.....!O _$,2,900,000 i~Al.~GAfl'. -5Zl1.\ M-":-Jl1 ('nl.~T, 'Pn~,rnl I l~:JPl.l!<.T~._CQUP~)P.AG() $2.000,000 X i-'(JlICY ,I~C( LOC i AUTOPollOBIUW,BIUfY COt.lBlNf.OSlNOlo,UMIl lu.sa:_'l) ~~~-- . j;IHYAPTn ...^~--~ -~ AUOWNE'OAIIl"S It.,XTlltlNJUM . i j rp,''';''~l ~SCHH)lIl~'I>AIIIO~ c------ r---~-~-.- --i'~n[DA(W)f, ;IlOOlLY1NJliflY . 'ip",aocmrl) --jt...'I""."\ltIH)AUH'~ , - - , -1... ~PF.RTY OMW:,E $ l'llacclderl) GAFl.o.GELIA81~'TV AlITO(JNlY.F..ACClnFNT $ =JANY'llIUJ , ~~~;j~)~~ FJ\.o.CC $ , ~. I, A ::KJC~"UM8REUA~LITY CUP-8572H882-07 03.i11J2007 03/1 1 /2008 FAGH,jf.tAlflFlFII(:F $1.000000 X OCCln' UU.AlM~ MAU', :,:,!~~~.TE S 1 000,000__. ;;:1, ~ .." ~- _._--~ ~~ . fJllJ\J';F1llll . XI~T[I"jOl' $0 . IWORK~RS COMPENSATION ANO ~.___L!..Q!l.'r'n~.!Mrr;>.l...L'ift. I--~-- __.______n_ ~M"lOY~R"liA8IlITv i"jJ\I"flOf'RIf.rof'PAPT'I."+~fOlnVf' E!EACHAf.CIOEtJl I, iOFFIClCfM.JCM8l'.A [~CLlJI)FO' : ElOlIlfiASE EAEI.w[OYH . i ~m:St'ti~~v~'\';I'S",""" EI.DlSEA& Pl'.XjC\lllMIT $ IOTMEA i CESCRlPTIONOFOPERATlOl\iS LOCATlONS.VEr-ocLES,EXClUSIO,"SAOOEOBYENOORSEPoIlENT..SPECIALPROVISIONS CERTIFICATE HOLDER 1$ NAMED ADDITIONAL INSURED. DESIGNATED PERSON/ORGANIZATION CERTIFICATE HOLOER CANCELLATION CITY OF CHULA VISTA ATTN. PURCHASING DEPT 276 4TH AVE CHULA VISTA. CA 91910 SlolOUlD ANY OFThlE.o.eoVE Ol!!l-CRIII!tI P(lI.IClI!' III!. CANCl!lLm IlfJ"OFlE THE EXPIAATlON OATE niEREOF, THE ISSUING IN'JUA!R \\'IlL OIDEAVOR TO M.l.lL ~ OAva WRITTEN lIIonCE TO TME e~JmFlCATf HOlllER N.....EO TO THE U!I"T, BIJT HILURE TO 00 so SHAl..'- IPoIlPQSE 1110 OBUC.ATlOtl OR WAB<LlfY OF ANY KIND UPON THE IfIISUREFl. ITS AGENTS.OR R'll~fSENTATlIlf:S AUTl<ORlZEDREPRESE/tTUWl CORDCORPORA~ON1~ ACORD 25 (200tf08) 4805 Mercury Street, Suite L, San Diego, CA 92111 TEL (858) 576-0046 FAX (858) 576-0117 www.bOb~o.!.~~nVideo.com 11 ~BobHoffman ~VIDEO PRODUCTIONS ACORQ. CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE I DATI;(MIltlDDIYYVY) 04/16/2007 PRODUCER (619) 584.6400 FAX (f.i19)S84...642S THIS CI!RnFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMA nON Westland Insurance Brokers ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTlF1CATE 3838 (ami no De 1 Rio North #315 HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE ~~s~ N~RT AI-t~END, EXTEND OR ALTERTHECOVERAGEAFFOR E YTH POLICIESBEI.OW. P.O. Box '85431 Sa" Diego. CA 92186-5431 INSURERS AP'fORDING COVERAGE NAIC# I",WIlED BOD Hon man Vldeo I"l"'oductions INSURiRIl: Everest National In5uran~e Co 4805 Mercury St It :~URERI3; San Diego, CA !t2111 iN$UI\fftC :NSU~Cl INSUREAE cm/J;RAGES THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE L1STeC SEl.OW HAvE BEEN ISSUED T.Q THE INSURED NMlJED ABOVE FOR TH!!' POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTl'lACT OR OTHER DOCUMeNTW'lTH RESPf.CTTO 1M1ICH 11-l1S CERTIFICATE MAY Be IssueD OR MAY F'ERTA1N, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE F'OUCIE5 DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS ANO CONOmONS OF SUCH POUCIES, AGGREGATE LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY P'A1D CLAIMS. .., " 'T'fl"1! O~ INllURAI>lCE ~CYI>lUMIII!R '" "" IiXPlItA'llON UMITS GENI!A.l.L UA8IUTY I I kACHOCGVRReNCE . ~'"~~~~''''"''' DAMAGE TO RI!NTl!:O - . i ,"',., MADE 0 oce" I Me!) E.XP (My."... panon! . I PERSONoIoL&.oIl.OVtJ<o:JURY . GENEAAl AGGRliGATIi . I <JEI>l'I./IlGGl<liGATI: I.!MlTAPPllE:& PER: I I PRODUCTS . COM"IO~ AM . , ~POLlCynjrEi nLOC AUTOUOIilIU! UAAiUlY COMlIlNIiDSlNGlEUM!T - {u~l . - ANY AlITO ,<,LL O'OIINfO AUroe - ~OOII.ViNJURY . SCH!!:DULfOAllTOS (Per"""",nl - I - HIRI:DAUT05 1I00llY1NJI$Y . NON.QWNEOA\;T03 ..""""" I - I I ! PROI'IiRlYO/llMAGE . , lP9r~l I ~~QeUABIU'T'f ! AIftOONI.Y-l!AACCIOl:HT . , ANYA\J1C ! OTl1l!Rn;.o.N !A,o.CC . I /IlVTOONlVc '"'. . :J~.95JUM5IlULA UABIUTY I!ACI1DCCUMENCE . OCCUR OCI.AJM5MADf" AGGRli.GAT:l! . , , . ~~fDUCn.9Le . RETENTION , . WORK!.RS C~Pl!NSAnON AND 6200000006071 01/01/2007 01/01/200& X ..,ro- on<- fMPLOYEfIIS. UABILm i E.l,E.ACIiACClOIONT . 1,000,00 A AAYPR.OPR1ETQRIPA,R,T:.Ef\lEXEClfTlVE I OFFtCfRiMEM6~ EXCLUDED"' f,LOIlll:AllE-l!AeMl"L . 10000 ! 1!\'n.<j.~or<lM'r,,,,,~ , E, L DISEASE. POUCY LIMIT . 1 000 00 15PEClA\.PROVIi:\ION1:lMlO\I/ I OTHER ! i ~TRlPTlON 0' OPI!IIATIONSI LOCATIONS! Vl!ffiCLD Il!XCLUSICINSAOO~ I!ff fNDOM91VffI SPt:CIAl I"1'tO\IlSlOflS IDENCE OF INSURANCE , I ~10 OAYS NOTICE OF CANCELLATION FOR NON PAYMENT Of PREMIUM o HOLDER eeL CITY OF (HULA VISTA 276 - 4TI1 AVE (HULA VISTA, CA 9'1glO Sl-IOULD Am O~ TMa...1CIV5 OISCl'tlllfO POUCIES 8l!: CAHCELU!.D IIEl'OR1! TllE exl'lftA TION DATI TM8R90F. TllE!ISllUlNG lHI!IUIUER WIl.L iHOIiAVOR 1"0 MAlL *30 llAYlI~ N011CI! TO TIll CEJm'ICAft HOltllel'l. NAMI!D T01l11! !.DT_ IlU" F.AllUR! TO "'AIL SUctl N{)"lIC'f mill.U ...cae NO OBUGATlON OA UAI:lILITY O"F ANY KIND UI'QH; TWIi INlURliR, ITS AGENTSOR REPRIOKNTA'TIVU. AUlliOR!Zl;OIlePRES&NTA1'1VI!:: Jack lander~/CAROLR j-+-.;z":./ ACORD 26 (2001/08\ FAX: (858)576-0117 @ACOROCORPORA~ON1U8 4805 Mercury Street, Suite L, San Diego, CA 92111 TEL (858) 576-0046 FAX (858) 576-0117 WWW.bob.?;...!.fg1Bnvideo.com 12 Parties and Recital Page( s) Agreement between City of Chula Vista and Bob Hoffman Video Productions. for Videotaping City Council Meetings This agreement ("Agreement"), dated Julv 1. 2007 for the purposes of reference only, and effective as of the date last executed unless another date is otherwise specified in Exhibit A, Paragraph 1, is between the City-related entity as is indicated on Exhibit A, Paragraph 2, as such ("City"), whose business form is set forth on Exhibit A, Paragraph 3, and the entity indicated on the attached Exhibit A, Paragraph 4, as Consultant, whose business form is set forth on Exhibit A, Paragraph 5, and whose place of business and telephone numbers are set forth on Exhibit A, Paragraph 6 ("Consultant"), and is made with reference to the following facts: Whereas, the City of Chula Vista has been taping City Council meetings for televising on cable television since January 1988. It is one of the most effective tools for enhancing public access to the Council's discussions and actions. It is the intention of the City that the term of this agreement will be for five (5) years commencing on July 1, 2007 and to include five (5) one (1) year options to renew the contract. Vendor will receive serious consideration for the City's other video production projects such as the Mayor's State of the City Address; and, Whereas, the Chula Vista City Council holds regular meetings at 4 p.m. on the first Tuesday of each month and at 6 p.m. on the three successive Tuesday of each month. Because of the observation of certain holidays and the calling of special meetings, i.e., council workshops, the yearly number of televised meetings ranges from 42 to 52. The length of the meetings can vary greatly - from less than one hour to more than six hours; and, Whereas, the Council Chambers have been equipped with the following equipment: one video mixer, four cameras, four pan/tilt, one pan/tilt controller, one computer system, one character generator, nine monitors, one DVD recorder, one processing board, one touch panel, and one logo inserter; and, Whereas, Consultant warrants and represents that they are experienced and staffed in a manner such that they are and can prepare and deliver the services required of Consultant to City within the time frames herein provided all in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement; 5-61 Page 1 Obligatory Provisions Pages NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City and Consultant do hereby mutually agree as follows: 1. Consultant's Duties A. General Duties Consultant shall perform all of the services described on the attached Exhibit A, Paragraph 7, entitled "General Duties"; and, B. Scope of Work and Schedule In the process of performing and delivering said "General Duties", Consultant shall also perform all of the services described in Exhibit A, Paragraph 8, entitled "Scope of Work and Schedule", not inconsistent with the General Duties, according to, and within the time frames set forth in Exhibit A, Paragraph 8, and deliver to City such Deliverables as are identified in Exhibit A, Paragraph 8, within the time frames set forth therein, time being of the essence of this agreement. The General Duties and the work and deliverables required in the Scope of Work and Schedule shall be herein referred to as the "Defined Services". Failure to complete the Defmed Services by the times indicated does not, except at the option of the City, operate to terminate this Agreement. C. Reductions in Scope of Work City may independently, or upon request from Consultant, from time to time reduce the Defined Services to be performed by the Consultant under this Agreement. Upon doing so, City and Consultant agree to meet in good faith and confer for the purpose of negotiating a corresponding reduction in the compensation associated with said reduction. D. Additional Services In addition to performing the Defined Services herein set forth, City may require Consultant to perform additional consulting services related to the Defined Services ("Additional Services"), and upon doing so in writing, if they are within the scope of services offered by Consultant, Consultant shall perform same on a time and materials basis at the rates set forth in the "Rate Schedule" in Exhibit A, Paragraph I D(C), unless a separate fixed fee is otherwise agreed upon. All compensation for Additional Services shall be paid monthly as billed. E. Standard of Care Consultant, in performing any Services under this agreement,. whether Defmed Services or Additional Services, shall perform in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions and in similar locations. 5-62 Page 2 F. Insurance Consultant must procure insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property that may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work under the contract and the results of that work by the Consultant, his agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors and provide documentation of same prior to commencement of work. The insurance must be maintained for the duration of the contract. Minimum Scope of Insurance Coverage must be at least as broad as: (1) Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (occurrence Form CGOOOl). (2) Insurance Services Office Form Number CA 0001 covering Automobile Liability, Code 1 (any auto). (3) Workers' Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and Employer's Liability Insurance. (4) Professional Liability or Errors & Omissions Liability insurance appropriate to the Consultant's profession. Architects' and Engineers' coverage is to be endorsed to include contractual liability . Minimum Limits of Insurance Contractor must maintain limits no less than: 1. General Liability: (Including operations, products and completed operations, as applicable) 2. Automobile Liability: 3. Workers' Compensation Employer's Liability: 4. Professional Errors & Liability: Liability or Omissions $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If Commercial General Liability insurance with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit must apply separately to this projectllocation or the general aggregate limit must be twice the required occurrence limit. $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage. Statutory $1,000,000 each accident $1,000,000 disease-policy limit $1,000,000 disease-each employee $1,000,000 each occurrence 5-63 Page 3 Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City. At the option of the City, either the insurer will reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as they pertain to the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers; or the Consultant will provide a financial guarantee satisfactory to the City guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration, and defense expenses. Other Insurance Provisions The general liability, automobile liability, and where appropriate, the worker's compensation policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions: (1) The City of Chula Vista, its officers, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers are to be named as additional insureds with respect to liability arising out of automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by or on behalf of the Consultant, where applicable, and, with respect to liability arising out of work or operations performed by or on behalf of the Consultant, including providing materials, parts or equipment furnished in connection with such work or operations. The general liability additional insured coverage must be provided in the form of an endorsement to the contractor's insurance using ISO CG 2010 (11/85) or its equivalent. Specifically, the endorsement must not exclude Products/Completed Operations coverage. (2) The Consultant's General Liability insurance coverage must be primary insurance as it pertains to the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees, or volunteers is wholly separate from the insurance of the contractor and in no way relieves the contractor from its responsibility to provide insurance. (3) The insurance policy required by this clause must be endorsed to state that coverage will not be canceled by either party, except after thirty (30) days' prior written notice to the City by certified mail, return receipt requested. (4) Coverage shall not extend to any indemnity coverage for the active negligence of the additional insured in any case where an agreement to indernni.fY the additional insured would be invalid under Subdivision (b) of Section 2782 of the Civil Code. (5) Consultant's insurer will provide a Waiver of Subrogation in favor of the City for each required policy providing coverage during the life of this contract. If General Liability, Pollution and/or Asbestos Pollution Liability and/or Errors & Omissions coverage are written on a claims-made form: (1) The "Retro Date" must be shown, and must be before the date of the contract or the beginning of the contract work. 5-64 Page 4 (2) Insurance must be maintained and evidence of insurance must be provided for at least five (5) years after completion of the contract work. (3) If coverage is canceled or non-renewed, and not replaced with another claims-made policy form with a "Retro Date" prior to the contract effective date, the Consultant must purchase "extended reporting" coverage for a minimum of five (5) years after completion of contract work. (4) A copy of the claims reporting requirements must be submitted to the City for review. Acceptability of Insurers Insurance is to be placed with licensed insurers admitted to transact business in the State of California with a current A.M. Best's rating of no less than A V. If insurance is placed with a surplus lines insurer, insurer must be listed on the State of California List of Eligible Surplus Lines Insurers ("LESLI") with a current A.M. Best's rating of no less than A X. Exception may be made for the State Compensation Fund when not specifically rated. Verification of Coverage Consultant shall furnish the City with original certificates and amendatory endorsements effecting coverage required by this clause. The endorsements should be on insurance industry forms, provided those endorsements or policies conform to the contract requirements. All certificates and endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before work co=ences. The City reserves the right to require, at any time, complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements evidencing the coverage required by these specifications. Subcontractors Consultants must include all subconsultants as insureds under its policies or furnish separate certificates and endorsements for each subconsultant. All coverage for subconsultants are subject to all of the requirements included in these specifications. G. Security for Performance (1) Performance Bond In the event that Exhibit A, at Paragraph 18, indicates the need for Consultant to provide a Performance Bond (indicated by a check mark in the parenthetical space i=ediately preceding the subparagraph entitled "Performance Bond"), then Consultant shall provide to the City a performance bond in the form prescribed by the City and by such sureties which are authorized to transact such business in the State of California, listed as approved by the United States Department of Treasury Circular 570, http://www.fins.treas.gov/c570, and whose underwriting limitation is sufficient to issue bonds in the amount required by the agreement, and 5-65 Page 5 which also satisfy the requirements stated in Section 995.660 of the Code of Civil Procedure, except as provided otherwise by laws or regulations. All bonds signed by an agent must be accompanied by a certified copy of such agent's authority to act. Surety companies must be du1y licensed or authorized in the jurisdiction in which the Project is located to issue bonds for the limits so required. Form must be satisfactory to the Risk Manager or City Attorney which amount is indicated in the space adjacent to the term, "Performance Bond", in said Exhibit A, Paragraph 18. (2) Letter of Credit In the event that Exhibit A, at Paragraph 18, indicates the need for Consu1tant to provide a Letter of Credit (indicated by a check mark in the parenthetical space i=ediately preceding the subparagraph entitled "Letter of Credit"), then Consu1tant shall provide to the City an irrevocable letter of credit callable by the City at their unfettered discretion by submitting to the bank a letter, signed by the City Manager, stating that the Consultant is in breach of the terms of this Agreement. The letter of credit shall be issued by a bank, and be in a form and amount satisfactory to the Risk Manager or City Attorney which amount is indicated in the space adjacent to the term, "Letter of Credit", in said Exhibit A, Paragraph 18. (3) Other Security In the event that Exhibit A, at Paragraph 18, indicates the need for Consultant to provide security other than a Performance Bond or a Letter of Credit (indicated by a check mark in the parenthetical space immediately preceding the subparagraph entitled "Other Security"), then Consu1tant shall provide to the City such other security therein listed in a form and amount satisfactory to the Risk Manager or City Attorney. H. Business License Consu1tant agrees to obtain a business license from the City and to otherwise comply with Title 5 of the Chu1a Vista Municipal Code. 2. Duties of the City A. Consultation and Cooperation City shall regularly consu1t the Consu1tant for the purpose of reviewing the progress of the Defined Services and Schedule therein contained, and to provide direction and guidance to achieve the objectives of this agreement. The City shall permit access to its office facilities, files and records by Consu1tant throughout the term of the agreement. In addition thereto, City agrees to provide the information, data, items and materials set forth on Exhibit A, Paragraph 9, and with the further understanding that delay in the provision of these materials beyond thirty (30) days after authorization to proceed, shall constitute a basis for the justifiable delay in the Consultant's performance of this agreement. B. Compensation 5-66 Page 6 Upon receipt of a properly prepared billing from Consultant submitted to the City periodically as indicated in Exhibit A, Paragraph 17, but in no event more frequently than monthly, on the day of the period indicated in Exhibit A, Paragraph 17, City shall compensate Consultant for all services rendered by Consultant according to the terms and conditions set forth in Exhibit A, Paragraph 10, adjacent to the governing compensation relationship indicated by a "checkmark" next to the appropriate arrangement, subject to the requirements for retention set forth in Paragraph 18 of Exhibit A, and shall compensate Consultant for out of pocket expenses as provided in Exhibit A, Paragraph 11. All billings submitted by Consultant shall contain sufficient information as to the propriety of the billing to permit the City to evaluate that the amount due and payable thereunder is proper, and shall specifically contain the City's account number indicated on Exhibit A, Paragraph 17(C) to be charged upon making such payment. 3. Administration of Contract Each party designates the individuals ("Contract Administrators") indicated on Exhibit A, Paragraph 12, as said party's contract administrator who is authorized by said party to represent them in the routine administration of this agreement. 4. Term This Agreement shall terminate when the Parties have complied with all executory provisions hereof. 5. Liquidated Damages The provisions of this section apply if a Liquidated Damages Rate is provided in Exhibit A, Paragraph 13. It is acknowledged by both parties that time is of the essence in the completion of this Agreement. It is difficult to estimate the amount of damages resulting from delay in performance. The parties have used their judgment to arrive at a reasonable amount to compensate for delay. Failure to complete the Defined Services within the allotted time period specified in this Agreement shall result in the following penalty: For each consecutive calendar day in excess of the time specified for the completion of the respective work assignment or Deliverable, the Consultant shall pay to the City, or have withheld from monies due, the sum of Liquidated Damages Rate provided in Exhibit A, Paragraph 13 ("Liquidated Damages Rate"). Time extensions for delays beyond the Consultant's control, other than delays caused by the City, shall be requested in writing to the City's Contract Administrator, or designee, prior to the expiration of the specified time. Extensions of time, when granted, will be based upon the effect 5-67 Page 7 of delays to the work and will not be granted for delays to minor portions of work unless it can be shown that such delays did or will delay the progress of the work. 6. Financial Interests of Consultant A. Consultant is Designated as an FPPC Filer If Consultant is designated on Exhibit A, Paragraph 14, as an "FPPC filer", Consultant is deemed to be a "Consultant" for the purposes of the Political Reform Act conflict of interest and disclosure provisions, and shall report economic interests to the City Clerk on the required Statement of Economic Interests in such reporting categories as are specified in Paragraph 14 of Exhibit A, or if none are specified, then as determined by the City Attorney. B. Decline to Participate Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC Filer, Consultant shall not make, or participate in making or in any way attempt to use Consultant's position to influence a governmental decision in which Consultant knows or has reason to know Consultant has a financial interest other than the compensation promised by this Agreement. C. Search to Determine Economic Interests Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC Filer, Consultant warrants and represents that Consultant has diligently conducted a search and inventory of Consultant's economic interests, as the term is used in the regulations promulgated by the Fair Political Practices Commission, and has determined that Consultant does not, to the best of Consultant's knowledge, have an economic interest which would conflict with Consultant's duties under this agreement. D. Promise Not to Acquire Conflicting Interests Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC Filer, Consultant further wammts and represents that Consultant will not acquire, obtain, or assume an economic interest during the term of this Agreement which would constitute a conflict of interest as prohibited by the Fair Political Practices Act. E. Duty to Advise of Conflicting Interests Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC Filer, Consultant further warrants and represents that Consultant will immediately advise the City Attorney of City if Consultant learns of an economic interest of Consultant's that may result in a conflict of interest for the purpose of the Fair Political Practices Act, and regulations promulgated thereunder. F. Specific Warranties Against Economic Interests 5-68 Page 8 Consultant warrants and represents that neither Consultant, nor Consultant's immediate family members, nor Consultant's employees or agents ("Consultant Associates") presently have any interest, directly or indirectly, whatsoever in any property which may be the subject matter of the Defmed Services, or in any property within 2 radial miles from the exterior boundaries of any property which may be the subject matter of the Defmed Services, ("Prohibited Interest"), other than as listed in Exhibit A, Paragraph 14. Consultant further warrants and represents that no promise of future employment, remuneration, consideration, gratuity or other reward or gain has been made to Consultant or Consultant Associates in connection with Consultant's performance of this Agreement. Consultant promises to advise City of any such promise that may be made during the Term of this Agreement, or for twelve months thereafter. Consultant agrees that Consultant Associates shall not acquire any such Prohibited Interest within the Term of this Agreement, or for twelve months after the expiration of this Agreement, except with the written permission of City. Consultant may not conduct or solicit any business for any party to this Agreement, or for any third party that may be in conflict with Consultant's responsibilities under this Agreement, except with the written permission of City. 7. Hold Harmless Consultant shall defend, indemnify, protect and hold harmless the City, its elected and appointed officers and employees, from and against all claims for damages, liability, cost and expense (including without limitation attorneys fees) arising out of or alleged by third parties to be the result of the negligent acts, errors or omissions or the willful misconduct of the Consultant, and Consultant's employees, subcontractors or other persons, agencies or firms for whom Consultant is legally responsible in connection with the execution of the work covered by this Agreement, except only for those claims, damages, liability, costs and expenses (including without limitations, attorneys fees) arising from the sole negligence or sole willful misconduct of the City, its officers, employees. Also covered is liability arising from, connected with, caused by or claimed to be caused by the active or passive negligent acts or omissions of the City, its agents, officers, or employees which may be in combination with the active or passive negligent acts or omissions of the Consultant, its employees, agents or officers, or any third party. With respect to losses arising from Consultant's professional errors or omissions, Consultant shall defend, indemnify, protect and hold harmless the City, its elected and appointed officers and employees, from and against all claims for damages, liability, cost and expense (including without limitation attorneys fees) except for those claims arising from the negligence or willful misconduct of City, its officers or employees. Consultant's indemnification shall include any and all costs, expenses, attorneys fees and liability incurred by the City, its officers, agents or employees in defending against such claims, whether the same proceed to judgment or not. Consultant's obligations under this Section shall 5-69 Page 9 not be limited by any prior or subsequent declaration by the Consultant. Consultant's obligations under this Section shall survive the termination of this Agreement. For those professionals who are required to be licensed by the state (e.g. architects, landscape architects, surveyors and engineers), the following indemnification provisions should be utilized: (1) Indemnification and Hold Harmless Agreement With respect to any liability, including but not limited to claims asserted or costs, losses, attorney fees, or payments for injury to any person or property caused or claimed to be caused by the acts or omissions of the Consultant, or Consultant's employees, agents, and officers, arising out of any services performed involving this project, except liability for Professional Services covered under Section 7.2, the Consultant agrees to defend, indemnify, protect, and hold harmless the City, its agents, officers, or employees from and against all liability. Also covered is liability arising from, connected with, caused by, or claimed to be caused by the active or passive negligent acts or omissions of the City, its agents, officers, or employees which may be in combination with the active or passive negligent acts or omissions of the Consultant, its employees, agents or officers, or any third party. The Consultant's duty to indemnify, protect and hold harmless shall not include any claims or liabilities arising from the sole negligence or sole willful misconduct of the City, its agents, officers or employees. This section in no way alters, affects or modifies the Consultant's obligation and duties under Section Exhibit A to this Agreement. (2) Indemnification for Professional Services. As to the Consultant's professional obligation, work or services involving this Project, the Consultant agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its agents, officers and employees from and against any and all liability, claims, costs, and damages, including but not limited to, attorneys fees, that arise out of, or pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct of Consultant and its agents in the performance of services under this agreement, but this indemnity does not apply liability for damages for death or bodily injury to persons, injury to property, or other loss, arising from the sole negligence, willful misconduct or defects in design by City or the agents, servants, or independent contractors who are directly responsible to City, or arising from the active negligence of City. 8. Termination of Agreement for Cause If, through any cause, Consultant shall fail to fulfill in a timely and proper manner Consultant's obligations under this Agreement, or if Consultant shall violate any of the covenants, agreements or stipulations of this Agreement, City shall have the right to terminate this Agreement by giving written notice to Consultant of such termination and specifying the effective date thereof at least five (5) days before the effective date of such termination. In that event, all finished or urlimished documents, data, studies, surveys, drawings, maps, reports and other materials prepared by Consultant shall, at the option of the City, become the property of the City, and Consultant shall be entitled to receive just and equitable compensation for any work satisfactorily completed on such documents and other materials up to the effective date of Notice 5-70 Page 10 of Termination, not to exceed the amounts payable hereunder, and less any damages caused City by Consultant's breach. 9. Errors and Omissions In the event that the City Administrator determines that the Consultants' negligence, errors, or omissions in the performance of work under this Agreement has resulted in expense to City greater than would have resulted if there were no such negligence, errors, omissions, Consultant shall reimburse City for any additional expenses incurred by the City. Nothing herein is intended to limit City's rights under other provisions of this agreement. 10. Termination of Agreement for Convenience of City City may terminate this Agreement at any time and for any reason, by giving specific written notice to Consultant of such termination and specifYing the effective date thereof, at least thirty (30) days before the effective date of such termination. In that event, all finished and unfinished documents and other materials described hereinabove shall, at the option of the City, become City's sole and exclusive property. If the Agreement is terminated by City as provided in this paragraph, Consultant shall be entitled to receive just and equitable compensation for any satisfactory work completed on such documents and other materials to the effective date of such termination. Consultant hereby expressly waives any and all claims for damages or compensation arising under this Agreement except as set forth herein. 11. Assignability The services of Consultant are personal to the City, and Consultant shall not assign any interest in this Agreement, and shall not transfer any interest in the same (whether by assignment or notation), without prior written consent of City. City hereby consents to the assignment of the portions of the Defmed Services identified in Exhibit A, Paragraph 16 to the subconsultants identified thereat as "Permitted Subconsultants". 12. Ownership, Publication, Reproduction and Use of Material All reports, studies, information, data, statistics, forms, designs, plans, procedures, systems and any other materials or properties produced under this Agreement shall be the sole and exclusive property of City. No such materials or properties produced in whole or in part under this Agreement shall be subj ect to private use, copyrights or patent rights by Consultant in the United States or in any other country without the express written consent of City. City shall have unrestricted authority to publish, disclose (except as may be limited by the provisions of the Public Records Act), distribute, and otherwise use, copyright or patent, in whole or in part, any such reports, studies, data, statistics, forms or other materials or properties produced under this Agreement. 13. Independent Contractor 5-71 Page 11 City is interested only in the results obtained and Consultant shall perform as an independent contractor with sole control of the manner and means of performing the services required under this Agreement. City maintains the right only to reject or accept Consultant's work products. Consultant and any of the Consultant's agents, employees or representatives are, for all purposes under this Agreement, an independent contractor and shall not be deemed to be an employee of City, and none of them shall be entitled to any benefits to which City employees are entitled including but not limited to, overtime, retirement benefits, worker's compensation benefits, injury leave or other leave benefits. Therefore, City will not withhold state or federal income tax, social security tax or any other payroll tax, and Consultant shall be solely responsible for the payment of same and shall hold the City harmless with regard thereto. 14. Administrative Claims Requirements and Procedures No suit or arbitration shall be brought arising out of this agreement, against the City unless a claim has first been presented in writing and filed with the City and acted upon by the City in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 1.34 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, as same may from time to time be amended, the provisions of which are incorporated by this reference as if fully set forth herein, and such policies and procedures used by the City in the implementation of same. Upon request by City, Consultant shall meet and confer in good faith with City for the purpose of resolving any dispute over the terms of this Agreement. 15. Attorney's Fees Should a dispute arising out of this Agreement result in litigation, it is agreed that the prevailing party shall be entitled to a judgment against the other for an amount equal to reasonable attorney's fees and court costs incurred. The "prevailing party" shall be deemed to be the party who is awarded substantially the relief sought. 16. Statement of Costs In the event that Consultant prepares a report or document, or participates in the preparation of a report or document in performing the Defmed Services, Consultant shall include, or cause the inclusion of, in said report or document, a statement of the numbers and cost in dollar amounts of all contracts and subcontracts relating to the preparation of the report or document. 17. Miscellaneous A. Consultant not authorized to Represent City Unless specifically authorized in writing by City, Consultant shall have no authority to act as City's agent to bind City to any contractual agreements whatsoever. B. Consultant is Real Estate Broker and/or Salesman 5-72 Page 12 If the box on Exhibit A, Paragraph 15 is marked, the Consultant and/or their principals is/are licensed with the State of California or some other state as a licensed real estate broker. or salesperson. Otherwise, Consultant represents that neither' Consultant, nor their principals are licensed real estate brokers or salespersons. C. Notices All notices, demands or requests provided for or permitted to be given pursuant to this Agreement must be in writing. All notices, demands and requests to be sent to any party shall be deemed to have been properly given or served if personally served or deposited in the United States mail, addressed to such party, postage prepaid, registered or certified, with return receipt requested, at the addresses identified herein as the places of business for each of the designated parties. D. Entire Agreement This Agreement, together with any other written document referred to or contemplated herein, embody the entire Agreement and understanding between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof. Neither this Agreement nor any provision hereof may be amended, modified, waived or discharged except by an instrument in writing executed by the party against which enforcement of such amendment, waiver or discharge is sought. E. Capacity of Parties Each signatory and party hereto hereby warrants and represents to the other party that it has legal authority and capacity and direction from its principal to enter into this Agreement, and that all resolutions or other actions l).ave been taken so as to enable it to enter into this Agreement. F. Governing Law/Venue This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Any action arising under or relating to this Agreement shall be brought only in the federal or state courts located in San Diego County, State of California, and if applicable, the City of Chula Vista, or as close thereto as possible. Venue for this Agreement, and performance hereunder, shall be the City of Chula Vista. 5-73 Page 13 Signature Page to Agreement between City of Chula Vista and Bob Hoffman Video Productions for videotaping City Council meetings for televising IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City and Consultant have executed this Agreement thereby indicating that they have read and understood same, and indicate their full and complete consent to its terms: Dated: City of Chula Vista By: Cheryl Cox, Mayor Attest: Susan Bigelow, City Clerk Approved as to form: Ann Moore, City Attorney Dated: Bob Hoffinan Video Productions By:/(6t-+ ~ [Name ofPers e] DiD iVVv- By: [Name of Person, Title] Exhibit List to Agreement 5-74 Page 14 ( x ) Exhibit A. Exhibit A to Agreement between City of Chula Vista and Bob Hoffman Video Productions 1. Effective Date of Agreement: Julv L 2007 2. City-Related Entity: (X)City ofChula Vista, a municipal chartered corporation of the State of California ( ) Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista, a political subdivision of the State of California ( ) Industrial Development Authority of the City of Chula Vista, a ( ) Other: , a [insert business form] ("City") 3. Place of Business for City: City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 4. Consultant: Bob Hoffman Video Productions 5. Business Form of Consultant: (X ) Sole Proprietorship ( ) Partnership ( ) Corporation 6. Place of Business, Telephone and Fax Number of Consultant: 4805 Mercury Street, Suite L San Diego, California 92111 Voice Phone: (858) 576-0046 5-75 Page 15 Fax Phone: (858) 576-0117 7. General Duties: Consultant shall provide videotaping services of the Chula Vista City Council meetings for televising purposes and will provided DVD finished product copies as well as mini DVD. 8. Scope of Work and Schedule: A. Detailed Scope of Work: Consultant shall provide and produce two (2) DVD copies and one (1) mini DVD for use on the City's playback equipment of City Council meetings and Redevelopment Agency meetings regularly scheduled on the fIrst four Tuesdays of every month and occasional special meetings or workshops. Copies are to be provided to the City the evening of the meeting or by 8 a.m. the day following the meeting. Consultant shall provide two experienced staff members to operate the equipment, cameras and generate graphics are required, with one being a technical director. Consultant shall use character generation to identify speakers and items being discussed throughout the meetings which may require one hour CG input prior to meetings. Agenda is provided by the City prior to the meeting. City logo along with CG will be displayed during meetings. On occasion, run various public service announcements provided by the City. List credits at the end of the televised meeting including the City of Chula Vista, and, if desired, the company. B. Date for Commencement of Consultant Services: ( X ) Same as Effective Date of Agreement ( ) Other: C. Dates or Time Limits for Delivery ofDeliverables: Deliverable No.1: Finished product to be delivered to the City the evening of the meeting or by 8 a.m. the day following the meeting. Deliverable No.2: Deliverable No.3: 5-76 Page 16 D. Date for completion of all Consultant services: Five (5) years effective July I, 2007 with five (5) one (I) year options to renew at the City's sole discretion. 9. Materials Required to be Supplied by City to Consultant: For production of City Council meetings, the following equipment is provided in Council Chambers: one video mixer, four cameras, four pan/tilt devices, one pan/tilt controller, one computer system, one character generator, nine monitors, one DVD recorder, one processing board, one touch panel, and one logo inserter. 10. Compensation: A. ( ) Single Fixed Fee Arrangement. F or performance of all of the Defined Services by Consultant as herein required, City shall pay a single fixed fee in the amounts and at the times or milestones or for the Deliverables set forth below: Single Fixed Fee Amount: , payable as follows: Milestone or Event or Deliverable Amount or Percent of Fixed Fee ( ) I. Interim Monthly Advances. The City shall make interim monthly advances against the compensation due for each phase on a percentage of completion basis for each given phase such that, at the end of each phase only the compensation for that phase has been paid. Any payments made hereunder shall be considered as interest free loans that must be returned to the City if the Phase is not satisfactorily completed. If the Phase is satisfactorily completed, the City shall receive credit against the compensation due for that phase. The retention amount or percentage set forth in Paragraph 19 is to be applied to each interim payment such that, at the end of the phase, the full retention has been held back from the compensation due for that phase. Percentage of completion of a phase shall be assessed in the sole and unfettered discretion by the Contracts Administrator designated herein by the City, or such other person as the City Manager shall designate, but only upon such proof demanded by the City that has been provided, but in no event shall such interim advance payment be made unless the Contractor shall have represented in writing that said percentage of completion of the phase has been performed by the Contractor. The practice of making interim monthly advances shall not convert this agreement to a time and materials basis of payment. B. ( ) Phased Fixed Fee Arrangement. 5-77 Page 17 F or the performance of each phase or portion of the Defined Services by Consultant as are separately identified below, City shall pay the fixed fee associated with each phase of Services, in the amounts and at the times or milestones or Deliverables set forth. Consultant shall not commence Services under any Phase, and shall not be entitled to the compensation for a Phase, unless City shall have issued a notice to proceed to Consultant as to said Phase. Phase 1. 2. 3. Fee for Said Phase $ $ $ ( ) 1. Interim Monthly Advances. The City shall make interim monthly advances against the compensation due for each phase on a percentage of completion basis for each given phase such that, at the end of each phase only the compensation for that phase has been paid. Any payments made hereunder shall be considered as interest free loans that must be returned to the City if the Phase is not satisfactorily completed. If the Phase is satisfactorily completed, the City shall receive credit against the compensation due for that phase. The retention amount or percentage set forth in Paragraph 19 is to be applied to each interim payment such that, at the end of the phase, the full retention has been held back from the compensation due for that phase. Percentage of completion of a phase shall be assessed in the sole and unfettered discretion by the Contracts Administrator designated herein by the City, or such other person as the City Manager shall designate, but only upon such proof demanded by the City that has been provided, but in no event shall such interim advance payment be made unless the Contractor shall have represented in writing that said percentage of completion of the phase has been performed by the Contractor. The practice of making interim monthly advances shall not convert this agreement to a time and materials basis of payment. C. (X) Hourly Rate Arrangement For performance of the Defmed Services by Consultant as herein required, City shall pay Consultant for the productive hours of time spent by Consultant in the performance of said Services, at the rates or amounts set forth in the Rate Schedule herein below according to the following terms and conditions: $450 for the first four hours (or any part thereof) of each meeting for which consultant services are required, plus $100 for each additional hour or any part thereof. As a multi-year contract with costs dependant on economic factors outside the control of Consultant, a provision to adjust the hourly cost by a factor equal to the consumer price index (CPI) for San Diego County but not to exceed 3% armually is included. (1) ( ) Not-to-Exceed Limitation on Time and Materials Arrangement 5-78 Page 18 Notwithstanding the expenditure by Consultant of time and materials in excess of said Maximum Compensation amount, Consultant agrees that Consultant will perform all of the Defined Services herein required of Consultant for $ including all Materials, and other "reimbursables" ("Maximum Compensation"). (2) ( ) Limitation without Further Authorization on Time and Materials Arrangement At such time as Consultant shall have incurred time and materials equal to ("Authorization Limit"), Consultant shall not be entitled to any additional compensation without further authorization issued in writing and approved by the City. Nothing herein shall preclude Consultant from providing additional Services at Consultant's own cost and expense. Rate Schedule Category of Employee Name of Consultant Hourly Rate $ $ $ $ $ ( ) Hourly rates may increase by 6% for services rendered after [month], 20_, ifdelay in providing services is caused by City. 11. Materials Reimbursement Arrangement F or the cost of out of pocket expenses incurred by Consultant in the performance of services herein required, City shall pay Consultant at the rates or amounts set forth below: ( ) None, the compensation includes all costs. Cost or Rate $ $ $ $ $ $ $ () Reports, not to exceed $ () Copies, not to exceed $ () Travel, not to exceed $ () Printing, not to exceed $ () Postage, not to exceed $ () Delivery, not to exceed $ () Long Distance Telephone Charges, not to exceed $ (X) Other Actual Identifiable Direct Costs: DVD: $00.35 - 01.75 Mini DVD: $00.69 - 03.99 $00.35-01.75 $00.69-03.99 5-79 Page 19 Mini DV 60: DV 276: VHS T120: $03.10 - 03.28 $21.84 - 39.10 $01.35 - 03.35 , not to exceed $ , not to exceed $ $03.10-03.28 $21.84-39.10 $01.35-03.35 $ $ 12. Contract Administrators: City: Director, Office ofCo=unications 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910 (619) 691-5296 Consultant: Mr. Bob Hoffman Bob Hoffman Video Productions 4805 Mercury Street, Suite L San Diego, CA 92111 (858) 576-0046 13. Liquidated Damages Rate: ( ) $ ( ) Other: per day. 14. Statement of Economic Interests, Consultant Reporting Categories, per Conflict of Interest Code: ( X ) Not Applicable. Not an FPPC Filer. ( ) FPPC Filer ( ) Category No.1. Investments and sources of income. ( ) Category No.2. Interests in real property. ( ) Category No.3. Investments, interest in real property and sources of income subject to the regulatory, permit or licensing authority of the department. ( ) Category No.4. Investments in business entities and sources of income that engage in land development, construction or the acquisition or sale of real property. ( ) Category No.5. Investments in business entities and sources of income of the type which, within the past two years, have contracted with the City of Chula Vista 5-80 Page 20 (Redevelopment Agency) to provide semces, supplies, materials, machinery or equipment. ( ) Category No.6. Investments in business entities and sources of income of the type which, within the past two years, have contracted with the designated employee's department to provide services, supplies, materials, machinery or equipment. ( ) Category No.7. Business positions. ( ) List "Consultant Associates" interests in real property within 2 radial miles of Project Property, if any: 15. ( ) Consultant is Real Estate Broker and/or Salesman 16. Permitted Subconsultants: 17. Bill Processing: A. Consultant's Billing to be submitted for the following period of time: ( X ) Monthly ( ) Quarterly ( ) Other: B. Day of the Period for submission of Consultant's Billing: (X) First of the Month ( ) 15th Day of each Month ( ) End of the Month ( ) Other: C. City's Account Number: 0550-6401 5-81 Page 21 18. Security for Performance ( ) Performance Bond, $ ( ) Letter of Credit, $ ( ) Other Security: Type: Amount: $ ( ) Retention. If this space is checked, then notwithstanding other provisions to the contrary requiring the payment of compensation to the Consultant sooner, the City shall be entitled to retain, at their option, either the following "Retention Percentage" or "Retention Amount" until the City determines that the Retention Release Event, listed below, has occurred: ( ) Retention Percentage: ( ) Retention Amount: $ % Retention Release Event: ( ) Completion of All Consultant Services ( ) Other: H:Attorneyl2pty15 5-82 Page 22 RESOLUTION NO. 2007- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH BOB HOFFMAN VIDEO PRODUCTIONS FOR VIDEOTAPING THE CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista entered into its first contract for videotaping City Council meetings in 1988, after a six-month trial period was deemed successful; and WHEREAS, since that time, all City Council meetings and Redevelopment Agency meetings held in the Council Chambers have been videotaped for televising, for public review at the City's libraries, and for archival purposes; and WHEREAS, Bob Hoffman Video Productions (BHVP) has provided this service to the City since 1998; and WHEREAS, the contract awarded to BHVP by the City Council was a five-year agreement, with the option for two, two-year extensions at the City's discretion; and WHEREAS, the final extension ofthe contract will soon expire; and WHEREAS, staff has completed a formal RFP process for video production of the Council meetings, and is recommending that a new contract with Bob Hoffman Video Productions be approved; and WHEREAS, on March 30, 2007, City staff distributed bid #3-06/07 to request proposals to furnish video production services for the City; and WHEREAS, the Request for Proposals (RFP) was mailed directly to three firms and was advertised in the Chula Vista Star News on April 6; and WHEREAS, only one firm, the City's current service provider, responded to the RFP; and WHEREAS, Bob Hoffman Video Productions (BHVP) has reliably and dependably provided coverage of more than 400 city council meetings since they began providing this service to the city, as well as variety of other city meetings and events. 5-83 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the City ofChula Vista hereby approves an Agreement with Bob Hoffman Video Productions for videotaping the Chula Vista City Council meeting. Presented by: Approved as to form by: ~~Ol\~~~~\l , Ann Moore City Attorney Liz Pursell Director of Communications 5-84 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT .s.'Y~ CITY OF -~ (HULA VISTA 06/05/07 Item---"---- ITEM TITLE: RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ENTITLED "TRAFFIC CONGESTION RELIEF PROGRAM" (TF354), AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2007 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AND APPROPRIATING $500,000 FROM THE UNALLOCATED TRANSNET BALANCE CITY ENGINEER 'Sr / INTERIM CITY MANAGER d ( SUBMITTED BY: REVIEWED BY: 4/5THS VOTE: YES X NO BACKGROUND One of the priority uses for Transnet funding is to reduce congestion and improve safety. Approximately $500,000 of costs for traffic staff in Fiscal Year 2006-07, which have been charged to the City's General Fund, are related to congestion relief. Council adopted a Resolution on May 15,2007, which included allocation of $500,000 of the City's Transnet fund balance to cover staff costs associated with congestion relief. This will replace $500,000 in General Fund revenue that had been allocated to cover these costs and has been considered with the final balancing of the Fiscal Year 2007 and 2008 budgets. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed aclivlty for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the activity is not a "Project" as defined under Section 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines because the action is an allocation of funds and does not involve a physical change to the environment; therefore, pursuant to Section 15060(c)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines the activity is not subject to CEQA. Thus, no environmental review is necessary. RECOMMENDATION That Council approve the resolution establishing a Capital Improvement Project entitled, "Traffic Congestion Relief Program" (TF354), amending the Fiscal Year 2007 Capital 6-1 06/05/07, ItemL Page 2 of3 Improvement Program and appropriating $500,000 from the unallocated Transnet balance. BOARDS/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Not applicable. DISCUSSION The voters of San Diego County approved the Transnet Program as Proposition 'A' in November 1987. This proposition enacted a half-cent increase in the countywide sales tax through 2008 to fund specified transportation programs and projects. One third of the revenues generated by the tax are allocated by SANDAG to the local agencies for local streets and roads purposes. These funds are distributed to cities annually and prograrmned by cities into local projects. The other two thirds are split between two additional primary purposes: regional highway improvements and public transit. These funds are distributed based on SANDAG's regional prioritization process and through grant opportunities. The Transnet Ordinance provides that the use of Transnet revenue be prioritized as follows: 1. To repair and rehabilitate existing roadways. 2. To reduce congestion and improve safety. 3. To provide for the construction of needed facilities. The Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) is revised every two years, based on updated data on population and maintained road mileage. At that interval, each city within San Diego County must amend its funding projections using the Transnet program guidelines. In 2006 City staff submitted to SANDAG the Chula Vista portion of the RTIP for Fiscal Year 2006-07 through 2010-11, which was approved by City Council per Resolution 2006-167 on June 6, 2006 after holding a public hearing. Local cities also have an opportunity to submit amendments to the RTIP on a quarterly basis. An RTIP amendment is required for inclusion of all new projects or a change in amount for existing projects, which are funded by Transnet. Amendments to the existing RTIP require City Council approval if the total funds appropriated for each project are higher than the amount previously approved. The City's RTIP submittal needed to be amended in order to be in conformance with the proposed Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for Fiscal Year 2007-08. In order to meet the May 22,2007 deadline for the July 20, 2007 RTIP amendment, City staff submitted to Council the amendment to the five-year Transnet Local Streets and Roads Program, which was approved by resolution on May 15, 2007 (Attachment A). One of the projects included in the RTIP for the first time was titled, "Congestion Relief." This includes time spent by City staff to identifY and implement solutions which would provide congestion relief and improve safety on City streets. Most of the time spent by the Traffic Engineering staff and Traffic Operations staff including the Signal Systems Engineer and the Traffic Operations Technicians relates to congestion reduction and! or safety improvement, such as traffic signal timing and coordination and traffic data collection for congestion monitoring. 6-2 06/05/07, Item~ Page 3 00 City staff has identified $500,000 in staff time that has been expended for these activities during Fiscal Year 2006-07. To date this fiscal year, these costs have been covered by the General Fund. As previously discussed, one of the priority uses for Transnet funds has been the reduction of congestion and the improvement of safety. Additionally, Transnet allocations can be amended for Fiscal Year 2006-07 because this year is part of the current biennial RTIP. Allocating $500,000 to the Traffic Congestion Relief Program in Fiscal Year 2006-07 will not take funding away from other projects, because these funds are part of the unallocated Transnet interest balance on deposit with the City. This interest balance has fully been programmed in the coming years, helping to temporarily increase the funding the City is able to put toward pavement management. The original Transnet legislation adopted in 1987, which is in force through June 2008, does not stipulate any limitation on the amount of funding that can be used for staff time. The City currently has another staff time only Transnet project, Advance Planning Studies, that has received Transnet funds since Fiscal Year 2005-06 and is part of the approved 2006 Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP). SANDAG staff has included our programming for the Congestion Reliefproject in the 2006 RTIP amendment scheduled for approval on July 20. DECISION MAKER CONFLICT 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 18704.2(a)(I) is not applicable to this decision. FISCAL IMPACT Adopting this resolution will have a positive impact on the General Fund in that it will cover $500,000 in staff time charged to the General Fund by an equivalent Transnet allocation. ATTACHMENTS A. Agenda Statement and Resolution Approving the Amendment to the Five-Year Transnet Local Streets and Roads Program for Fiscal Years 2006-07 through 2010-11 Prepared by: Elizabeth Chopp, Senior Civil Engineer, Engineering Dept. J:\Engineer\AGENDA\CAS2007\06-05-07\Congestion Relief.doc File #KY-174 6-3 ATTACHMENT ~ CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT 05/15/07 Item ITEM TITLE: RESOLUTION APPROVING THE AMENDMENT TO THE FIVE-YEAR TRANSNET LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS PROGRAM OF PROJECTS FOR FISCAL YEARS 2006-07 THROUGH 2010-11 FOR SUBMITTAL TO THE SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS (SANDAG) FOR INCLUSION IN THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (RTIP). CITY ENGINEER INTERIM CITY MANAGER SUBMITTED BY: REVIEWED BY: 4/5THS VOTE: YES 0 NO 0 BACKGROUND SANDAG has requested that local agencies submit requests for amendments to existing projects included in the current Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP). Amendments are due to SANDAG no later than May 22, 2007. The current 2006-07 RTIP includes City ofChula Vista transportation projects covering Fiscal Years 2006-07 through 2010-11. SANDAG has revised estimated Transnet allocations for both the current and upcoming fiscal years. This in combination with revisions recommended to the Capital Improvement Program for Fiscal Years 2007-08 and 2008-09 and to the pavement rehabilitation budget (Council action of May 1, 2007) since the adoption of the last Transnet projection on June 6, 2006 necessitate an amendment. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed activity, allocation of funds for various Transnet Projects, for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the activity is not a "Project" as defined under Section 15378 of the 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, once the scope of the individual projects to be funded have been defined, environmental review will be required and a CEQA determination completed. 6-4 5/15/07, Item_ Page 2 of 4 RECOMMENDATION That Council approve the Resolution approving the amendment to the Five-Year Transnet Local Streets and Roads Program of projects for Fiscal Years 2006-07 through 2010-11 for submittal to the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) for inclusion in the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP). BOARDS/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Not applicable. DISCUSSION The voters of San Diego County approved the Transnet Program as Proposition 'A' in November 1987. This proposition enacted a half-cent increase in the countywide sales tax through 2008 to fund specified transportation programs and projects. One third of the revenues generated by the tax are allocated by SANDAG to the local agencies for local streets and roads purposes. These funds are distributed to cities annually and programmed by cities into local projects. The other two thirds are split between two additional primary purposes: regional highway improvements and public transit. These funds are distributed based on SANDAG's regional prioritization process and through grant opportunities. The Transnet Ordinance provides that the use of Transnet revenue be prioritized as follows: 1. To repair and rehabilitate existing roadways. 2. To reduce congestion and improve safety. 3. To provide for the construction of needed facilities. In November 2004, 67 percent of County voters supported Proposition A, which extends Transnet from 2008 to 2048. It is anticipated that the Transnet extension will generate approximately $14 billion to be distributed among highways, transit, and local road proj ects in approximately equal thirds. At least 70 percent of the funds allocated to local agencies for local road proj ects are expected to 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 allocated to local agencies for local road projects are expected to be used for local street and road maintenance. This 70-30 "rule" is a significant change from the way original Transnet funding was allowed to be used and requires more stringent implementation and monitoring strategies. Transnet revenue forecasts are based on each City's current population and miles of maintained streets and roads. Every two years, as these data change, SANDAG updates its RTIP and releases new funding projections for the cities within San Diego County. At those intervals, cities have the opportunity to amend their fund programming, using the Transnet Program guidelines. In 2006 City staff submitted to SANDAG the Chula Vista portion of the RTIP for FY 2006-07 through 2010-11, which was approved by City Council per Resolution 2006-167 on June 6, 2006 after holding a public hearing. SANDAG has recently requested local agencies to submit amendment forms for projects to be included in the RTIP. An RTIP amendment is required for inclusion of all new 6-5 5/15107, Hem_ Page 3 of4 projects, or a change of funding amounts for existing projects, which are funded by Transnet. Amendments to the existing RTIP require City Council approval to be included with the submittal package to SANDAG if the total funds appropriated for each project are higher than the amount previously approved. In order to meet the deadline for the July 20, 2007 RTIP amendment, documentation on the revised projects must be submitted to SANDAG via the ProjectTrak software program by May 22, 2007. A signed Council resolution must be submitted by June 29, 2007. Attachment I includes a list of all projects that will be included in the RTIP amendment along with annual and total five-year funding recommendations. The following are the major changes that are being proposed: I. Pavement Rehabilitation: On May 1, 2007 Council adopted a resolution that increased funding for the Pavement Rehabilitation Program by transferring $2.0 million in Transnet funding from the Fourth Avenue Reconstruction project (STL309) and $5.0 million from the North Broadway Reconstruction project. This funding recommendation also includes the projected $4.5 million balance in the pavement rehabilitation program and $250,000 for pavement management each fiscal year. Total pavement rehabilitation funding would be $11.5 million for Fiscal Year 2007-08 and an anticipated $9.5 million for Fiscal Year 2008-09. Note that the new Transnet legislation, which mandates a 70% rehabilitation, 30% maintenance split, takes effect in July 2008. Based on SANDAG's interpretation, the City cannot actually allocate rehabilitation funds until a list of specific streets that will be reconstructed or overlaid has been provided to SANDAG. These funds will be shown on a yearly basis under "Pavement Reconstruction! Overlays" beginning in Fiscal Year 2008-09. 2. Congestion Relief: This relates to staff time spent by the Traffic Engineering and Operations sections on various projects related to congestion relief. Such projects may include median installation, new traffic signals, traffic signal upgrades, intersection lighting, traffic signal coordination and! or interconnection, data collection systems, and video traffic surveillance systems. During Fiscal Year 2006-07 approximately $500,000 has been charged to the General Fund for these functions. It is proposed that $500,000 be allocated from Transnet to cover these past costs, and that additional funds be allocated to these functions in the future. 3. Transportation Programs: This relates to City staff costs associated with various major corridor transportation projects, including carpool ramps on 1-805 at East H Street and East Palomar Street, SR-54 improvements and arterial coordination, and the Otay Mesa transportation system. DECISION MAKER CONFLICT Staff has reviewed the property holdings of the City Council and has found that a conflict exists, in that Councilmember Rindone has property holdings within 500 feet of the boundaries of Fourth Avenue from Davidson Street to SR-54, which is one of the projects that is a subject of this action. 6-6 5/15/07, Item_ Page 4 of 4 Staff has reviewed the property holdings of the City Council and has found that a conflict exists, in that Councilmember McCann has property holdings within 500 feet of the boundaries of the I-80S interchanges, which is one of the projects that is a subject of this action. FISCAL IMPACT This resolution will reimburse $500,000 in previously charged traffic congestion relief costs previously charged to the General Fund. There will be no other impact to the General Fund. ATTACHMENTS A. Transnet Allocation - FY2007 through 2011 Prepared by: Elizabeth Chopp, Senior Civil Engineer, Engineering Dept. J:\EngineerIAGENDAICAS2007\05-15-07\RTIP Amendment May 2007 v2.doe File #KY174 6-7 0 0 :c- O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CD 0_ 0 0 0 0 0 on- 0 "0 on 0 0 0 on .n- N CD r- '" on on on 0 ~ V> EO V> V> V> V> V> on ~ CD ~ V> CD V> -!'!- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 :c- O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0_ 0 .n- r-- CD .n- O 0 0 on N N on "0 r- '" on on on 0 V> EO V> V> V> V> V> on ~ CD ~ V> CD V> -!'!- 0 0 0 0 :c- O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 .n- ",,- 0 0 "0 .n- O 0 0 .n- ai N on on '" EO r- ~ on 0 on 0 M_ V> V> "" CD V> ~ ~ ~ V> ""- ~ V> CD V> V> V> N V> -!'!- V> 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0_ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .n- to 0 0 .n- O 0 0 0 0 .n- O ~ 0 0 N 0 on on r- 0 on on M 0 on M N "'- ""- ~ ~ V> V> V> ~ ~ M ~ ~ V> ~ r- M M V> V> V> V> V> V> V> V> cD V> V> V> 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .... 0 0 0 m- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 0 0 CD 0 0 M 0 on CO on ~ >- ~ 0 N "0 "" ~ "" on ~ V> ~ ~ U. N- r-: V> EO V> V> V> V> V> V> ~ J: V> V> CD ~ CD V> Cl -!'!- :J -0 0 EO l1l '" 0:: l1l '" CD J: c;- O; l1l .c I- 0 ~ .s::; 0 M .8 .?;> E .... -' U5 '" 0 '0 I- <Ii -0 U iii 0; 0 2 (!?. ~ :r: E ~ CD 0 EO N lil ,., E ~ ~ :S 0 '" >- 0 "" u; .S! r- EO m EO on EO CD Cl EO ~ 0 ~ u. CD , 0 :> iii 0 ~ CD - I- CD cr: .0 0 ,., ~ '"' CD '" CD en l1l .S; en (L l1l 0 -0 Z Cl -!'!- .8 z CD .?;> Cl r- >- CD 0 EO C. EO EO U. ro '5 EO .8 0 .S! .iii 0 i= .Q u5 ~ l1l 0 Q; 0 :> .0 N .Q <I: <3 ~ ~ CD '" en > EO ro "E t .!!1 .E 0 m (J 2- on 0 EO :.0 N 0 M Q; CD '" 0. l1l r- 0 EO 0 '" EO ,., -0 :> ::; 0 '" E '" EO .'" E 0 CD .8 ...J E l1l 0 -0 l1l EO 0 iii <b '" .s::; .S; I- ~ EO CD "i:: l1l E ...J ~ N 0 ~ :ai -0 Z. CD (L l1l (!?. > lil CD CD C, 0 E ~ <I: Cl cr: Q. Cl ::; 0 > U l- N -0 >- U 0 EO :.0 ~ "E 0 :~ CD e Cl u. ~ ~ I- ~ "E EO 0 l1l E 0. CD CD l1l (L (L '" EO r::>>U; .S! E w (L CD '" 0 13 e E c "0 '" u. CD .E .E '" .c E CD C. -0 o .- Z E CD t5 CD .2 EO 15 .?;> '5 EO ~ - EO e EO '5 :> - ~ CD ::; 0 EO m -0 0. - ~ rJl 0 CD ~ cr: '" 0 > u CD I- l1l .S! :> CD 0 CD - ~ > :> 2 iii "E -0 0 CD ,., l1l U5 (J ro ~ CD CD .!!1 Z U5 - 2 E 0 l1l iii EO .'" C. -!'!- l1l l1l .0,= CD ~ (L EO 0 CD (; iii 0 CD iii IE en 0 0 '" 0 ~ Cl EO 0 ,., E E - iii l1l EO -0 IE .Q :.0 EO .S! :.0 ~ :> EO .j; <C 0 EO 0 0 l1l CD (J EO .!!1 ~ 0 ~ m ,., l1l '" I- 0 CD ~ -0 ,., l1l l1l l1l l1l ~ .c > 0 "iii t3 m EO I- .c CD cr: m m CD 0 EO en l1l I- 0 .s::; '" ~ ~ z CD EO cr: CD 0 Cl CD cr: l1l '" :; -0 Cl CD -0 .0 ~ l1l ,., iii "'" C. -0 EO "E m 0 CD EO CD gcr: EO > W cr: .S! c:: <Ii ~ .E iXi 0 l1l cr: EO "" CD EO .c 0 ~ .c EO :> 0 0 co :;; "E '" E ::; .c "E .2 on E Cl (J .c CD Cl 0 0- - 0 0 :r: EO CD ~ -0 "'" ~ , 0 cr: Ui (; E Ui N o EO CD -0 0 , CD 0; +' ~ CD iii en CD EO "0 Q) '" CD 0 r- l1l 0 l1l m 0 ~ -' u E ~ EO .c e :; CD E CD > 0 CD .0 0 0 ~ ill - E CD '" 0 0 ~ ~ .s::; CD "E .n- o .c ~ 0 >- CD l1l t '" ~ ::; CD Cl C. IE iii Cl 0 IE 0 _M CD .c 0. on > > c:l CD ,., U5 > EO 0 .c o V> > l- V> U. :> -0 ~ CD .iii .iij' ~ 0 e !;c l1l ~ 0 l1l "? "? l1l 0 co E $ 0 Z l1l (L U. Z Ui c:l -' (L U , I- Z ::; I- en I- ro (L .0 0. U "ti 6-8 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVING THE AMENDMENT TO THE FIVE-YEAR TRANSNET LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS PROGRAM OF PROJECTS FOR FISCAL YEARS 2006-07 THROUGH 2010-11 FOR SUBMITTAL TO THE SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS (SANDAG) FOR INCLUSION IN THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (RTIP) WHEREAS, on November 3,1987, the voters of San Diego County approved the San Diego Transportation Improvement Program Ordinance and Expenditure Plan (87-01) which enacted a ha1f- cent increase in the countywide sales tax through 2008 to fund specified transportation programs and projects; and WHEREAS, on November 4, 2004, the voters of San Diego County approved the San Diego County Transportation Improvement Program Ordinance and Expenditure Plan (04-01) which extended the half-cent increase in sales tax until 2048; and WHEREAS, the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) allocates these funds to the local agencies for streets and roads purposes, regional highway improvements, and public transit through programs including the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP); and WHEREAS, on June 6, 2006, the Chula Vista City Council approved Resolution No. 2006- 167 adopting a new five-year list of Transnet projects for inclusion in the RTIP for Fiscal Years 2005- 06 through 2010-11; and WHEREAS, at intervals between the RTIP updates, cities are required to submit RTIP amendments if there are changes and! or additions in project funding; and WHEREAS, EXHIBIT A, attached to this Resolution, includes a proposed list of the projects to be funded by Transnet during Fiscal Years 2006-07 through 20 I 0-11. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City ofChula Vista that it approves the amendment to the Five-Year Transnet Local Streets and Roads Program of projects for Fiscal Years 2006-07 through 2010-11 for submittal to the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) for inclusion in the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP). 6-9 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista that the City will meet all applicable provisions of Transnet Ordinances 87-01 and 04-01 and hold harmless and defend the SANDAG Commission against challenges related to local Transnet funded projects. Presented by: Approved as to form by: Scott Tulloch City Engineer Ann Moore City Attorney H:\ENGINEER\RESOS\Resos2007\05-15-07\Transnet FY07-FYll Reso revised by ec.doc 6-10 <( I- m J: >< w .... .... o '" >- U. J: C) ::l o 0:: J: l- t-- o o '" >- u. z o !;;: (J o ..J ..J <( I- W Z en z <( 0:: I- o o o en N ~ ... o o o '" N ~ ~ ... o o D. '" N '" ~ ... o o o o o (J) M ... o o o o o ~ N ... (j) n; " <J) OJ c '0 ::> U c c o ~ :.a E '" '" .c ~ " OJ 0:: o ~ D- c o ~ :.a '" .c " 0:: C " E " > '" D- o o o o o ..,. M ... o o o o o D. ... ... 'C " 15 c " " ~ c " E " > '" D- o ~ ~ ~ <J) c ~ I- o o o o <0 ... o o o .: '" ... o o o ..,.. '" ... o o o en N ~ ... o o o o o N ... 6i' o '" ...J I- ~ ..,. '" , 0:: en .9 u5 c N ~ o "0 C'\I "S: D- '" Q. 0 c .Q ti 2 00 c o <.J " 0:: <J) " '0 ::> ii5 OJ c .E c '" 0: " <.J C '" > ~ m 2 o c " " ~ <Ii ~ .c t: ::> o u.. o 0 o 0 o 0 0- a- D 0 ..,. ~ ... ... " '" '" c ::;; 0 ~ ~ :.a '" .c " 0:: c Q ti ::> ~ 00 ~ c c o 0 ~ ~ 0:: n; ,., 00 '" .s ;: "0 '" e In z o o o o '" ... o o o cO o ~ ... .>: n; ;: " "0 en o o o o '" ... o o o o '" ..,. ... "0 C '" Qj ~ ii5 <Ii ~ ;. c u; o ::> '0 0 to "S; Z " .9 a. " 1ii ~ " <J) c o ::;; E g <J) c " E " ~ (ij 0."0 E :f;j , "" "S ::;; Lt{Lt{ ,., '" ;: " .>: iii ~ o Qj ~ ~ ~ U5 In ...J <J) c " E " > o 0. E (j) c " ~ ~ ~ .~ .g E; 1) ";:: 0.. 2 o E ~ () 0 <.J " 0:: o o o o (J) ..,. ... o o o o '" ... " OJ C '" .c <.J Q; C :c " 15 c " " ~ :c " 15 c " " ~ :c 2 o c " " ~ <J) ,., '" ~ > o c C 0 tU ~ E " " OJ > C '" 0 D- () 6-11 o o o en ... ... o o o en ... ... o o o en ... ... o o o en ... ... o o o o o '" ... u " 15 c " " ~ - .!!1 a; 0:: E " 00 ,., en c o ~ t: o a. <J) c ~ I- '" <J) " ::;; ,., '" o "0 C '" ..,. '" 0:: Ul en o 00 , o o o o (J) ... o o o o '" ... o o o o (J) ... o o o o '" ... o o o o ~ ~ ... o o o o '" ~ ... o o o o o ~ ... o 0 o 0 o 0 0- ci '" '" ~ '" ... ... <J) c " E " > o 0. E c .Q 1ii N :~ u.. a. (5 o l- E '" " 00 ~5 en '" (ij :; c .c OJ () en c <.J Q; IE 1ii ~ " I- S o o o o '" ~ ... o o o o '" ~ ... E ~ OJ o c: z. ~ '" en c '" .<:: u; " "0 " D- "0 C '" <.J if: ~ I- "0 o o .c ~ o .0 .c OJ .w z a a a o '" ... a a a o '" ... a a a. a a ~ ... a a a o a ~ ... E ~ OJ e a. Z. ~ '" en c o t5 " <J) ~ " c ~ o .CU' ::;; a a a en '" ... a a a en '" ... a a a en '" ... a a a en '" ... a a a o 00 ... <J) " '0 ::> ii5 "0 C '" OJ .<; C OJ en <.J if: '" ~ a 0 a a a a o '" ~ ... a a a o '" ~ ...~ ~ ... OJ c .E n; () <.J if: ~ I- " c o N o ..J o <( .c I- <.J 0 en I- a a a. '" a '" ~ ... a a a N a '" ~ ... a a o ai o ..,.. N ... ~ N ... <Xi ... a a a o ~ ~ .9 -0 ~ ~ ~ c ~ OJ C .w .0 .!!2 ... a , <0 a >- u.. .<; -0 C " 0 ~~ .2:.c n; '" o-g 80:: 0- a c .. Cl Q) ~ - E -'" " 0'" > Z . '" ",a. '" <J) '" .c Z. <J) U 1ii " 8 :; ... ~ a " ~ '" <0 '" a ... >- a u.. a ~ N ~ .!: 8 ~ .9 E "0 E ~ ~ . g>~ '* ~ - c a. - .~ OJ:B ~ .!Q .c -t5 ~ ~ "3 ;; _",ffi ~ en>.:: co "C Q) .0 Z C > a .20oCO Q) -c 0 0 (I) Q) 0 ~ Q) (I) 0 0 .cOLOr I--g-~I..L.. ..ri 0.. 0 ti <J) " .E o E Qj c <J) c ~ I- "0 " 1ii <.J .Q n; c ::> <J) ~ U E e - RESOLUTION NO. 2007- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ESTABLISHING A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ENTITLED "TRAFFIC CONGESTION RELIEF PROGRAM" (TF354), AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2007 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AND APPROPRIATING $500,000 FROM THE UNALLOCATED TRANSNET BALANCE WHEREAS, on November 3, 1987, the voters of San Diego County approved the San Diego Transportation Improvement Program Ordinance and Expenditure Plan (87-01) ('"Transnet'") which enacted a halt~cent increase in the countywide sales tax through 2008 to fund specified transportation programs and projects including programs to reduce traffic congestion and improve safety; and WHEREAS, on November 4,2004, the voters of San Diego County approved the San Diego County Transportation Improvement Program Ordinance and Expenditure Plan (04-0 I) which extended the half-cent increase in sales tax until 2048; and WHEREAS, the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) allocates these funds to the local agencies for streets and roads purposes, regional highway improvements, and public transit through programs including the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTfP); and WHEREAS, on June 6. 2006, the Chula Vista City Council approved Resolution No, 2006-167 adopting a new live-year list of Transnet IJroJects for inclusion in the RTTP tor Fiscal Years 2005-06 through 2010-11: and WHEREAS, at intervals between the RTfP updates, cities are required to submit RTIP amendments if there are changes and/ or additions ill project funding; and WHEREAS, on May IS, 2007, Council approved an amendment to the RTlP which added an annual allocation for Congestion Relief, including $500,000 for Fiscal Year 2007-08; and WHEREAS, City statIhas identified $500,000 in staff time during Fiscal Year 2006-07 that has been expended to identify and implement solutions which would provide congestion relief' and improve safety on City streets which has been charged to the General Fund, 6-12 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOL VED by the City Council of the City ofChula Vista as follows: I. That it establishes a Capital Improvement Project entitled "Trame Congestlon Relier Program" (TF354). o That it amends the Fiscal Year 2007 Capital Improvement Program to include Traffic Congestion Relief Program (TF354). 3 That it appropriates $500,000 from the unallocated Transnet balance to Traffic Congestion Relief Program" (TF354). Presented by: Approved as to form by: "'~ tJvC~ Ann Moore City Attomey Scott Tulloch City Engineer 1-1:.I:\'(il\JI::ER\RESOS\Resosl007\(}(J-(J:\-(}7\Tn.1tfic C(lIlgCstiOIl Reliefrevised by ec,doc 6-13 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT ~ CITY OF -- (HULA VISTA 6/05/2007 Item----1=- SUBMITTED BY: REVIEWED BY: RESOLUTION APPROVING THE APPROPRIATION OF $55,500 FROM THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL FEE FUND TO CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (CIP) TF-329, "TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT CENTER" FOR THE PURCHASE OF ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC SIGNAL CONTROLLER SOFTWARE LICENSES. CITY ENGINEER c;. T / INTERIM CITY MANAGER d' ITEM TITLE: 4/5THS VOTE: YES 0 NO BACKGROUND Traffic signals in the City of Chula Vista are controlled by a variety of components and software that keep each signal running safely and efficiently, and allow City staff to perform routine maintenance and timing modifications with ease. Program 233 is a piece of software installed in each individual traffic signal timing controller. On occasion, the City must purchase additional Program 233 software licenses to keep up with the growing number of traffic signals. Approval of this resolution will authorize the appropriation of funds to purchase additional licenses. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed actIvIty for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the activity, purchase of additional traffic signal controller software licenses, is not a "Project" as defined under Section 15378(b)(5) of the State CEQA Guidelines; therefore, pursuant to Section 15060(c)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines the activity is not subject to CEQA. Thus, no environmental review is necessary. RECOMMENDATION That Council approve the Resolution appropriating $55,500 from the Traffic Signal Fee Fund reimbursing Capital hnprovement Project (CIP) TF-329, "Traffic Management Center" for the purchase of additional traffic signal controller software licenses. BOARDS/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Not applicable. 7-1 6/05/2007, ItemL Page 2 of2 DISCUSSION Chula Vista's 265 traffic signals are controlled by a variety of components and software that keep each signal running safely and efficiently, and allow City staff to perform routine maintenance and timing modifications with ease. Program 233 is a piece of software, developed by McCain Inc., that allows engineers to tailor an individual traffic signal to accommodate almost any operation occurring at an intersection. The first Program 233 software licenses were purchased by the City in the year 2000 and ever since, the program has controlled all of the city's traffic signals essentially without any problems. The software is compatible with the other traffic signal applications utilized in Chula Vista, and is fully supported and updated by McCain Inc. to keep up with advancements made in traffic signal operations technology. Because the software is installed in each individual traffic signal controller cabinet, an individual license is required for each signal operating within the city. In order to keep pace with the rate of development on the east side of Chula Vista, and in anticipation of future developments requiring additional traffic signals, 100 licenses were purchased at a cost of $55,293.75 through Capital Improvement Project (CIP) TF-329, "Traffic Management Center." The Traffic Management Center CIP is funded by the Transportation Development Impact Fee (TDIF). The benefit area in which TDIF funds can be spent is limited to the portion of the city east ofI-805. Although the majority of new traffic signals anticipated within the city will be installed east of 1-805, additional traffic signals west of 1-805 will be required in the future. In order to accommodate the future installation of traffic signals on the west side of Chula Vista, a funding source other than TDIF funds should be used to purchase the needed traffic signal controller software. The Traffic Signal Fee, collected from developers citywide, is a more appropriate funding source to utilize for a purchase of this nature. This action replaces the TDIF funds originally used for the software license purchase with the more appropriate general traffic signal funds. DECISION MAKER CONFLICT 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 1 8704.2(a)(l) is not applicable to this decision. FISCAL IMPACT None to the General Fund. If approved, the Resolution would appropriate $55,500 from the Traffic Signal Fee Fund to reimburse Capital Improvement Project (CIP) TF-329, "Traffic Management Center" for the purchase of additional traffic signal controller software licenses. The Traffic Signal Fee Fund, as of the end of April 2007, had an existing un-encumbered balance over $1,800,000. Prepared by: Jim Newton, Acting Principal Engineer, Engineering Department RESOLUTION NO. 2007- RESOLUTION APPROVING THE APPROPRIATION OF $55,500 FROM THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL FEE FUND TO CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (CIP) TF-329, "TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT CENTER" FOR THE PURCHASE OF ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC SIGNAL CONTROLLER SOFTWARE LICENSES. WHEREAS, Chula Vista's traffic signals are controlled by a variety of components and software that keep each signal running safely and efficiently, Program 233 allows engineers to tailor an individual traffic signal to accommodate almost any operation occurring at an intersection, and WHEREAS, the software is installed in each individual traffic signal controller cabinet requiring an individual license for each signal operating within the city, 100 additional licenses were purchased in order to keep pace with the rate of development and in anticipation of future developments. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City ofChula Vista hereby appropriates $55,000 from the Traffic Signal Fee Fund to Capital Improvement Project TF-329, "Traffic Management Center" for the purchase of additional traffic signal controller software licenses. Presented by: Approved as to form by: Scott Tulloch City Engineer H:\ENGINEER\RESOS\Resos2007\05~22~07\Fourth Avenue Utility Undergrounding revised by eC.doc 7-3 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT ITEM TITLE: ~f:. CITY OF ~"'"' ,.~ CHUIA VISTA 06/05/2007 Item--1L- RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ENGINEER'S REPORTS FOR PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ASSESSMENT INCREASE FOR OPEN SPACE DISTRICT NOS. 3; 7; 9; 23; 20, ZONES 2, 4 AND 7; AND EASTLAKE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 ZONES A AND D; DECLARING THE INTENTION TO LEVY AND COLLECT ASSESSMENTS; AND SETTING A TIME AND PLACE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE PROPOSED ASSESSMENT INCREASES. CITY ENGINEER ~ ~ INTERIM CITY MANAGER ;1 SUBMITTED BY: REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND On May 22, 2007, the City Council authorized the preparation of an Engineer's Report in order to consider a Proposition 218 ballot process requesting an increase to assessments in nine of 36 existing Open Space Districts/Zones because the costs for service requirements exceed the amount of revenue that can be generated by the current maximum assessment. The Proposition 218 process requires the approval of an engineer's report and declaring intention to raise assessments; the mailing of a notice and ballot to each property owner within each affected Open Space District; the holding of a public hearing, and the tabulation of the assessment ballots. Tonight's action would result in the approval of the engineer's reports and the formal initiation of the balloting process. On August 7, 2007, a public hearing followed by a tabulation of the assessment ballots would occur so that final levies can be determined in time for the County Tax Assessor's deadlines. 4/5THS VOTE: YES D NO 0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Pending. RECOMMENDATION That Council set the public hearing for August 7th, 2007 at 4:00 p.m. and adopt the resolution approving the Engineer's Reports for proceedings for the assessment increase for Open Space District Nos. 3; 7; 9; 23; 20, Zones 2, 4 and 7; and Eastlake Maintenance District No.1 Zones A and D; declaring the intention to levy and collect assessments; and setting a time and place for a public hearing regarding the proposed assessment increases. BOARDS/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Not applicable. 8-1 06/05/2007, Item~ Page 2 0[6 DISCUSSION This topic was discussed at the May 22, 2007 City Council meeting. Tonight's item is intended to bring the Council up-to-date on action taken since that time as a result of their direction and, if approved, to formally initiate the Proposition 218 balloting process. Open Space Districts Open Space Districts (OSD's) were established in conjunction with each particular development to ensure financing for the perpetual maintenance of common open space areas. OSD's provide a mechanism for the City to levy an annual assessment to cover the costs of maintenance associated with each OSD. OSD's 3, 7, 9, 20, 23, and Eastlake Maintenance District No. I costs for service requirements will exceed the amount of revenue that can be generated by the maximum assessment. Attachment I provides more detailed information about each of the impacted Districts/Zones. In certain of these Districts, expenses have exceeded revenue for more than one year requiring the draw down of reserves to negative balances. Due to the passage of Proposition 218 the City cannot increase the maximum assessment without the approval of property owners within the affected District. Proposition 218 On November 5, 1996, Proposition 218- the "Right to Vote on Taxes Act," was approved by a majority of voters in a general election and took effect on July 1, 1997. This proposition severely impacted the formation of Open Space Districts by the "1972 Landscaping & Lighting Act." This impact stemmed from the burden placed on cities to show that parcels to be assessed received a "special benefit." In addition, all future increases in the amount of the assessment require the approval by the property owners via a ballot procedure. The only exception to this requirement is the use of an inflation formula, approved by property owners during the formation of the district. The passage of Proposition 218 added an additional layer to the procedural requirements of the majority protest provisions related to assessments. To disapprove an assessment, previous law required a majority protest of property owners owning more than 50% of the assessable area, but did not require an election. Proposition 218 now requires that the agency mail a ballot to each property owner of record. Then, when the ballots are tabulated, a majority protest exists if the ballots submitted in opposition to the assessment increase exceed the ballots submitted in favor of the increase, weighting those assessment ballots by the amount of the proposed assessment to be imposed. However the previously approved assessment will not be affected and will continue to be levied. The ballot affects only the proposed adjustment and not the existing assessment. In addition, Proposition 218 removed the ability of the legislative body to override a majority protest. In order for a public agency to increase assessments beyond the annual inflationary amount, a Proposition 218 balloting is necessary. Such a balloting consists of the following steps: 1. Preparation of an engineer's report 2. Distribution of a notice and ballot to property owners 3. Public hearing and ballot tabulation 8-2 06/05/2007, Item~ Page 30[6 The Proposition 218 assessment ballot proceeding requires Council to take three actions before levying any approved assessment increase. First, Council approves the engineer's report, declares its intention to levy the annual assessment, and sets the date and time for a public hearing. The second action is to conduct the public hearing, take and consider public testimony. The third action is to adopt the resolution approving the assessment increase and ordering the levy of the annual assessment for those Districts that do not receive a majority protest. Tonight's action is the first formal step in this process. Tonight's Action and Proposition 218 Pursuant to state law and the Municipal Code, the Assessment Engineer (NBS) has prepared and filed annual reports for the nine Open Space Districts that are included as Attachment 2 to this report. The reports allow Council to review the history of the Open Space Districts. The report includes information regarding: · plans and specifications describing the improvements to be maintained and of the maintenance work; . an estimate of the costs of maintenance of the improvements; . a diagram of the District, showing the area and properties proposed to be assessed; · an annual assessment of the estimated costs of the maintenance of those improvements to be maintained, assessing the net amount upon all assessable lots and/or parcels within the District in proportion to the special benefits received; and, · a formula pursuant to which such annual assessment may be adjusted annually for inflation pursuant to state law and the Municipal Code without the necessity for additional assessment ballot procedures. Table 1 lists the names and locations of the affected Districts. Table 1. Open Space Districts Within the City of ChuIa Vista 3 7 9 20 23 Rancho Robinhood Units 1 & 2 Zenith Units 2, 3, and 4 El Rancho del Re Rancho del Rey Otay Rio Business Park Eastlake Maintenance District No.1 South of Allen School Lane North & South of Palomar, east ofI-805 Paseo del Re , north ofTele a h Can on Road North of East H Street, west ofOta Lakes Road West ofHeritage/Otay Valley Road, south of Otay Rio Road Eastlake 1, Eastlake Greens, Salt Creek 1, OTC, Te1e a h Can on Channel Improvements and Services The maintenance activities, facilities and items currently maintained by the Open Space Districts consist, in general, of the following: 8-3 n 06/05/2007, Item 0 Page 4 0[6 1. Irrigation 2. Fertilization 3. Aerification 4. Pest control 5. Insect infestation control 12. Pond equipment and maintenance 13. Pedestrian light maintenance 14. Signage within trails/canyons 15. Pruning oftrees and shrubs 16. Replacement of dead or diseased plant material 17. Repair of irrigation equipment 18. Irrigation equipment upgrades 19. Brush clearance 20. Encroachment trims 21. Fencing maintenance 6. Removal of weeds, trash and litter 7. Removal of noxious plant materials 8. Trail maintenance 9. Public walkway cleaning 10. Low flow and brow channel maintenance 11. Weed abatement Maximum Assessments The current maximum assessments for FY 2007/08 are proposed at the FY 2006/07 amounts adjusted by the inflation factor of 3.40% pursuant to the Municipal Code. (The inflation factor is based upon the lower of two separate, published inflation factors.) This allows the situation to be assessed assuming the ballot is unsuccessful and that levies will be calculated based on existing criteria. The full cost of providing maintenance services in these Districts totals $1,256,111.67. However, the current maximum assessment will only provide $672,056.42 in revenue, leaving a deficit of $584,055.25, which can be remedied by increasing assessments through a successful Proposition 218 balloting process, utilizing General Fund monies or reducing service levels. This deficit amount will be eliminated if the ballot process is successful. In the mid-1990's (and for all Open Space Districts established after that date), Council approved the assessments with an inflation factor. Since that date, Council may annually increase the assessment by this inflation factor without this increase being subject to a protest vote under Proposition 218. The current maximum assessments, proposed increases and proposed maximum assessments for FY 2007/08 are as follows: Table 2. Current and Proposed FY 2007/08 Maximum Assessments A;S5(!SSmentperjl1J1J , Opeu Space District Current Proposed Illlcirellse / Inerease / . · Projected' or Zone Decrease . FY07/08 FYOJ/08 ~$) DecreaSe{% · ' 'B:evenue 3 $ 364.89 $ 510.00 $ 145.11 39.77% $ 64,770.00 7 $ 129.83 $ 174.00 I $ 44.171 34.02% $ 18,096.00 9 $ 168.09 $ 230.00 I $ 61.91 I 36.83% $ 88,320.00 20 Zone 2 - Rice Canyon $ 4.69 $ 17.00 $ 12.31 262.47% $ 67,309.46 Zone 4 - Business Center $ 24.91 $ 52.00 $ 27.09 108.75% $ 135,329.53 8-4 06/05/2007, Item~ Page50f6 Open Space District or Zone one 7 - SPA III 178.35 339.00 $ 160.65 90.08% $ 398,931.47 23 551.82 760.00 $ 208.18 37.73% $ 68,445.60 ELMD No.1 one A - Eastlake I $ 12.72 $ 34.00 $ 21.27 167.09% $ 286,619.41 one D - Salt Creek I $ 230.01 $ 303.00 $ 72.99 31.73% $ 128,290.20 Budgets and Deficits In general, most expenditure budgets have increased due to labor, materials, supplies, water and electricity. Since the adoption of Proposition 218, the maximum assessment amount has been limited to the lesser of two approved indexes. In FY 2003, the lesser index experienced a negative 3.01 percent growth factor and then failed to keep pace with inflation in FY 2004 (1.5 percent allowance) and in FY 2005 (2.2 percent allowance). This limitation has resulted in maximum assessment revenues that fail to meet the approved and necessary expenditure budgets in several Districts. As a result, the fund reserves in these Districts have slowly eroded below 50% in spite of preferred reserve levels ranging from 50% to 100%. Unfortunately, several Districts have been unable to recover. Budgeted expenditures for maintenance of these Districts will need to be reduced or the property owners will have to approve, by ballot, an increase in their assessments to cover expenditures. Public Education and Input At its meeting of May 22,2007, the City Council requested that stafflook for ways to ensure that the importance of this effort and potential connection to fire suppression is communicated to impacted residents. Any efforts undertaken must adhere to limited time given the County Assessor's Property Tax deadlines and limited resources. However, as a result of Council's requests, the pre-ballot informational flyer was amended to specifically call out brush clearance for fire protection in Districts where this is applicable. In addition, two opportunities for community input will be provided: . JUNE 27, anytime from 4 pm to 8 pm, Salt Creek Recreation Center Or . JULY 19, anytime from 10 am to 8 pm, Montevalle Recreation Center, Multipurpose Hall Room 3 Staff will also be working with related Home Owner Associations to maximize communication vehicles and opportunities. Finally, the ballot will be revised to specifically incorporate Council requests. 8-5 06/05/2007, Item B Page 60f6 Next Steps As noted above, several efforts to increase public education and outreach will be undertaken. · Pre-ballot informational brochures should be mailed out during the week of June 11. (See Attachment 3). · Ballots will be mailed out during the week of June 18. (See Attachment 4). · The public hearing is slated for August 7 at 4 p.m., with ballot tabulation scheduled to be completed the following day (August 8). In the meantime, it is anticipated that staff will return to Council sometime in June or early July with an annual levy report assuming no increase to current assessments. This will allow the City to comply with the County Assessor's Property Tax timeline and ensure that the District's receive currently allowed assessment amounts in case the ballot effort fails. DECISION MAKER CONFLICT Staff has reviewed the property holdings of the City Council and has found no such holdings within 500' of the boundaries of the property which is the subject of this action. FISCAL IMPACT The full cost of providing maintenance services in these Districts totals $1,256,111.67. However, the current maximum assessment will only provide $672,056.42 in revenue, leaving a deficit of $584,055.25, which can be remedied by increasing assessments, utilizing General Fund monies or reducing service levels. This deficit amount will be eliminated if the ballot process is successful. Attachments: 1. Impacted Districts 2. Engineer's Reports 3. Sample Pre-Ballot Informational Brochure 4. Tentative Sample Ballot J:\Engineer\AGENDAICAS2007106-05-07ICAS Reso of Intention OSD Prop 218.doc 8-6 .... " "i: N .... 1/J"Cl .- e C~ CIl.... ~J!J c..- We e:) CIl"Cl c.o 00 .I: J!l .5 .! .c >0 ~I::t:: -0 ::::l.l: .1:" Ue 'O&! .i:" ._M U ATTACHMENT , 'tl ~ ." .. 'Iii .. i5 1l. ii: 0 'ii IS 1ii E .. " 0. ~t_"'f';":",~"'~r'... - , ! ,-:! ~ll~~1 ~i1~ e~ I {51 '.~ u! \,. ~ '" s- J~14. J "~' {'C 'L..---' 8-7 II . ! II tl J!I F:'llQ ~ca .~ ~ .~ U~~ r~ jl ~~l~ ! ~j l 1J II ;;,-.8. s.~8. "'MOl g,~ol .$J2"N lO tfd~ ~,ii t ! .; ~ i II ii i "~ ~ I ijH ~iiP" ~~ h~ I j"15._ili " l!r~! tra.. . . 15 II H~fP= -i~t r it. j~)~1 :( ..... . " .!! 2 ii f i II j ~tt I u I h,~] 2'0 UHii"i .llg~fiH 11jh"h! H~!!HH ,!i , ~_I iI_i! il U~ n. f~ H-~ilt 15i!. md ir~ ~I- -'6'0 bCClB ~ ,!iil 0.'0 ~ 15'"' .. Ii 15 ~illl ~"J 115 ;!!lIft ~~8 a ~ ~! ~~~..~ iUi !.~ U 1ilJl~ .ll H l~h::illl ~oa:: 1=... - CJ ';: - .le c C1)~ CJ"tl Rl C Q.Rl UJe-? C ~ C1)N Q..l! 0._ J!lC 0::) .- .c >:= Rl C -CI) ,gN O~ '0 ~ o = '8 1j (,) J!l ." II " 10 u m is c ii: ~ m ~ m l'l ! c " ~ " m II " c. ~I~~I .- E 0 tn IG C'lI a:l c ~ ~ ~ ~ ~I 5~1 ~ 101 ~ .11 1 1 Q . - .tllOl:'8l':~"'P""'.OO4II(l~lIIQ\IIOPQ\'" 8-8 ~ . ! ~ ! J lit ~;11I Nlll 8:1~ caM::]l GlN~. cu. llJ _is! E::-~ I::c~ p~ i~",H i it ~... ~ 8.~~ ~l!~ ~.~ 3'.!J . h l.~ l'.w F::I. II ~ e .H .~ ~ '"Ii Ii Ij 11 .11 .. ~u~ iUg- JBpj jiJjj :c ~ . . . .l!! 2 ii f i ~ j P II H ~ ~ UnH ~I!iho ~~ <II 11 ~rl.. 1! .gJ i ~ lit i ~.Iiii.l: a: a.. cr:: 0:: 3:1..... ~=" II ll;', n ~li '!l h :E i Hf ~I ~ "n~ ll." ~;;;H ~~ I UUt H.t ill.cil~ iI~ ~I "~hj iiI i5~ hH. ~. ~o ,. t) '0: - II) .- c CIl ">0 l!,CIl (l)D:: cCii CIl'tl 0.0 O.c sg II) ca >D:: ca- _W ::::l I .ccn o .... o ~ (3 '" " c. o ill Cii '8 ~ 1) c; I :m l! [% 2:' 0 j~~ ~~ .5al'~ 511; :l1Q'T CDl:: ...~g3~ 8- Iliioll - i ~~"l ~~ I ~1l6~ I 8-9 S! . e S! It j!t F"h iL 8i~ :;s"" aNllM ~~;;; e~~;; '~~;; ~ u ll~ l ~-;'" 8. ~8. J" .!a~ a .!!;~ Q) [~ F~; F::lt:t . .- t h .; U- S! ..e B .sl U~H :'" 1l! I" H11fUl g~ i"i:l! h: r~L !Llu ~. ~ III III l"l5= pi ~1~;88~'~ ~hlHH ~;ga:: ~ It:.a:: jjj.5 :(.a:...... 1! 2 .. f i :i! ~ . !: ~i" ! ~j ;i! li1!h ~.; i~ ! ~ ~ i :S!S~ 'ill :1uhlp- "SI ~ lilllllll~ H..U=h ~ H~H~H,J di........ . ~ .-" .. ~Q)'ti l!! ~:a ~~ .." -B~ ",,0 n ;H c. ..w i3 :Ei =~'C ~l "~S! Ii ~- i. ~ 1l:t c~h...<5 ~~.sH b aU~~ ~ai. njh Hi il .~~ 1l~ h ~i h~ ,. <D I ~$!il .- wiCO c!O ~" ~ - (.) ';: - Ul C.ll:: CII .. (.) CII ClIo.. Q,Ul UJUl C ~ CII'- Q,Ul o~ So Ul'- .- a: >>0 ~S .Eo OC-\ 'ON ~ C3 i o 0" ,g ~ 1: 1;; c f i5 i! ~ ~ s E '0 C'a .5 ij !5 ;9.- .. EO" 2 as CD c: ilc5D61~ ~ I! - ! ~~#le~ I' ~1Il8~ I LD 'L--' 8-10 , l- f: .. ~ L1 P~1 q. il~. all;! .i::l ~Hi ~~~ g~Q, ,s,;. -; n ~\!'i h"'~ Hi fl!8 g," 8 tfH~ ~h . 5 .. , j ~ ~ Ii ,5 I ,J. t1i ;. ~, '~ll ::so lo\I I: .15 .. i ij i h! llj'B~H~ h ~L"il ~! ~llllJ!l~ i::~ a:: lie:: IX" o..E <~. .. . ~~ i'B f H :e .!: l ~ H. i i~; ; _ii ~ qI-ej I~ I~~ lii~H t.~h! 8:!!! . . . . ^ ~".. ' ~f ~ i 'iIil ~l! ' 51 ;I.",~ 15 .8Q~~l!z ~ ~. HI.' 1'.." ~1 ~ hi ~pl 1l;;;1" ~..li 'S~, 'if J,!lIo..os ~~ a ~li!i g;i~~n~ ~Ui P~!i Uu ~hl " '" 15 I ~j ..~ ~1 ~o _0 .~ c>> ... c ';)0 '-N 0.... (1)0 (JZ C'CI_ Q.(J (I) "i: c';) (1).- Q.O 0(1) C'CI (J _c .! ca >c C'CIS -c ::1-- .cC'Cl O:!ii '5~ ~! -- III OC'Cl W ~ .. :g !! '" 8. !l l! 0 " 1n ~ '" Cii " is 8. '0 0: ~ is i 0 * 1ii " Cii '0 " 1: " Q. .. => rtJ 0 ~ ~ :D '-<: - ^c il,,\ ! ...:! ~II~~I ~1Il5~ I 1] r" , , J ,...;, ", ...J- 'L~ i~y: ::JD~;>:~ .~ /"'.Ci'r ,.'~,.l. , 1.1. ''';".:\?'}: ''',:"fj<{ " '",.'c,: 8-11 .. . ~ ~ Lt iH F:'= l'Il i~ ClI 8is.J Illlii:Q iii~ E:e~ g'"" 0 II ~ :eHl iH !!:"-"'g, 8.~g, llda g,~a I HU ~ ~a i I ~ II o ii! .i .si hH ~ii Hil ~Hn! H~ ~~ii !!:i~i~ Jl. 5~~'6 pi ~lifr.8PI n,l,~ ~1i.'iI 0 i ~ ~:,ga: z It: w.s c~..... 11 ~ r ) ~~. ~ l~ Hi i1lU h~~!~oi ...~~"I~l !lllnr~ ihUHh ai....... U i 1 I!J Bi~f '6 i~ iii5.~il Li au ~ti Ulih hit u 81~0l I~n hhH ~h ~ _cC .~ CD .. C Uio .-N C.... (I) 0 (,)2 1lS_ 0.(,) U) "i: CUi (1).- o.C 0(1) sg In IlS .- C >(1) 1lS- -c ::::l'- .ellS O:i 'O~ ~:! .- In OIlS W .. .. '8 (J ~ 1:l I [ ~ ~ ~ 'ii~ :e.g~ :I l: 5 [ < j ~ ill '" c>> CU CU l: 6'~s5~ ~ ~liID:1 - k'IT' "\ ,- , -~" -'.. , . , ' -( '\ j 1j.r \"'';, ~ '~'\ ~ c"~. ! ~11~~1 ~ilm 5~ ! -,2.., .,-r! L-J 8-12 s c ~ ~ !~ 1 Ih :~~~ eJ~ e~.-; ~1~ ~~i '~i!,' ii!,,,, l II II ~in Ul Ut:; ~b iI L " 'Ii j < .. ~ ~~ H h li< Hlll .,. i i" PI~'~ , i ,::; ~ llr B." lB~"pl! ~hhH "ID:: z a:: we "', - c..... .! ~ r ~ II ! c ~~ IIi I; j i H l~! jH ~IHi}H HH~~u d~...... .?dl fl ~ S~li .~ hcf ~~ I~i ~ h ~b; ~i U!ih l~. li.~ ~h. ~H ~' ~'ii~'" tiN" "~!it2~i i5!~ ~~Hh ~oo t) 'i: - III eN Cl Cl ~ C ~~ c>. ~&! OGi ,e"C III 0 ,- .c >C.l III C -Ill = a::: .c 00 'ON ~ (3 .. " c. .2 '" ~ " .. 13 :s ,!II JIl <:: ... il: ,~ '--r~'''''''"'"'''''''''' \ ! ~lle~1 ~1l6~ I {jl dD '0 j G -l )~ ~ , -" -''., . 8-13 ~ ~ J! - ~ 1;1 Iii r~U ~~~ g~bg .E~; ~Ui IH ~Ul t=l ~Hi ~h ,,'W I) f~ 1; ~ " Bi jd~ ,... Ii !iHl r; ~ ii ii~~! .i~H. B ~pi ~ 11 I:; ,. .lI g 11 m .lI: i .Iii ~lu ~ ~ ct. . . ~ 11 2 f i ~ ~! i i.H U !~bi :~ "i j ~:;hlr'l ~h15~15) .lIj ~,~. 15 II~Jhl di. . . . " . ~ ~; ; U ~. g151!- o ~~il En. l~.s ~Ht sf i t~~ill.l :: 1ig~ i i u~~ ~ ~ "c 1; ~ CJ .. " c i! s i3 1:3 c Co J9 ";:: 'ii VI.Q 5i 1ii ::Ii :!l. CIl ii: ~ is :~~ ~~ I C '" 'E'" .." o B E 0 en N <U ~ n:J CD c Q.2'o5E~:!l. jiiii[]I~ - ! ~Il~~ll ~lJl5~ I , 1~" 'n'iJ/ ,two '.\ ~,' /'''"t "J ; "? ,"- \--l '0 'C - .le C'lt CI) CI) U C III 0 Cl.N tn;>. c CI) Cl)o:: Cl. OGi 1lI"Cl ';)0 .- .c >u III C -Ill ::10:: .c, 00 ...N o ~ o 8-14 .axz.Cl!"WP....~...~_~'d \ \ .l! . ! ~ II Iii 8~. h. ili1l8 ~~~ e>)i>l~':; ~~C8 ~~~ jth lU iH~ ~[~ u ~a ~,~ j H .l! iii" . ~ ~ I i~ :5 i i h op,-g ~~ lf~ H H!i"n ~r~~hi. Bj.o~P~ hHUi! ii:Sia::: z a:: a:: w.E <~...... .ll 2 .. iii f ~ :l! ! ~h t H lu~ ! i · i ".l!g~ .ih .iJph ip~ tS~ ~ lio15"li "~iiiH~h : 1i! il2 ,..'" ~ !i ~ . !l' ~li lfi .!:i S: ::E a:: Q. a:: a:: ai........ ~o ,,!15 1li ~~~ il8 ~b ~f ni p'a .n U~.. I~'ij t~J! il;;i "fi~~j Cil!~ U... ~..~ - u .;: - .! c"" B CIl C'Cl C ~~ c>. ~& OQj J!l'C III 0 .- .c >U C'Cl c -C'Cl =0:: .c 00 ....N o ~ o ~ o '" !l ~ ; en ~ ~ ~ ~~cll~ ~ E "",.Q-g::a a.~a cucn-.a -cu c "C ca cu l!J '0 ~ o .S! 'E 'r l: C ca NCU'7'- ~S Q. t=a'~5c!:'t:CUa3cn t;.5Z0"E~" ~lliiiDI~ ~ ..' o "....,..:r-~-,..\ ~ ! ~lj~~11 ~1l8~ I , {~'[J; '" \ ".~ .,. ; r u( '. :. ''" ;, .,;'''''' .;, 8-15 !l s ~ e ~ L1 h~ r-- U3 X~ ~ .~~a :;l!~ ..i;: ~~~ ~,.,_~ ii'NN ~~i ~ '~~';; ~~",! "i! -H~ .~~ hoS' US ~H~ Ha i 1 ~ !l J"s !l I ~:;;~ ,ii 0 ~ I" ~~ ~oJ i~fili i~ d.ii!!! li~ofih h~f~d. ;!~ ai'll.! ~~ z a:: e::: [j.s o(~...... J!l 2 f ; t~ ~! oll" iI H i~t ~_d~ ~,; U ! ~ ~ i 51ilhfjH HluiHH ~i _:idu u ........ '1:' n! 01[0 l!~5 ~. 'lI! ~S~ 'RiO) ~~~ ~ofi H~a ih~ i5'.~l '~<o~o 'O~l !l~.il~~ 8 ~ .. 8.1': il-! H!i p~~- h~1 dul ATTACHMENT 2. NIB S I , l.oe3lGa~~.SoMbm: City of Chula Vista Proposed Assessment Increase Open Space District NO.3 Rancho Robinhood 1 and 2 Engineer's Report Fiscal Year 2007/08 June 5, 2007 Prepared by NIBIS Corporate Office 32605 Highway 79 South, Suite 100 Temecula, CA 92592 (800) 676-7516 phone (951) 296-1998 fax Regional Office 870 Market Street, Suite 901 San Francisco, CA 94102 (800) 434-8349 phone (415) 391-8439 fax 8-16 CITY OF CHULA VISTA OPEN SPACE DISTRICT NO.3 RANCHO ROBINHOOD 1 and 2 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 Phone. (619) 476-5376 CITY COUNCIL Cheryl Cox, Mayor Rudy Ramirez, Councilmember John McCann, Councilmember Jerry Rindone, Council member Steve Castaneda, Councilmember Susan Bigelow, City Clerk CITY STAFF Scott Tulloch, City Engineer Dave Byers, Director of Public Works Operations Leah Browder, Deputy Director of Engineering Robert Beamon, Administrative Services Manager Larry Eliason, Parks and Open Space Manager Chevis Fennell, Senior Open Space Inspector Josie Gabriel, Associate Planner Amy Partosan, Administrative Analyst II Jose Gomez, Land Surveyor Tessa Quicho, Administrative Analyst II NIBIS Greg Ghironzi, Project Director Michael J, Stearns, Assessment Engineer Stephanie Parson, Senior Consultant Sue Tyau, Financial Analyst 8-17 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. ENGINEER'S LETTER 1-1 2. PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS 2-1 2.1 Description of District Boundaries ............................................,.......,...,......, 2-1 2.2 Description of Facilities and Services...........,........................,................,..,.. 2-1 2.3 Reason for the Increased Assessment ,..,...........,...........,..........,................, 2-1 3. ESTIMATE OF COSTS 3-1 4. ASSESSMENTS 4-1 4.1 Method of Apportionment ......., .............,.......................................................4-1 4.2 Maximum Assessment - Assessment Increase ........................................... 4-1 5. ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM 5-1 6. ASSESSMENT ROLL 6-1 8-18 1. ENGINEER'S LETTER WHEREAS, on June 5, 2007, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista (the "City Council"), State of California, under the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972 (the "1972 Act"), the City of Chula Vista Municipal Code, Chapter 17.07 (the "Municipal Code"), Article XIIID of the Constitution of the State of California ("Article XIIID") and the Proposition 218 Omnibus Implementation Act (Government Code Section 53750 and following) (the "Implementation Act") (the 1972 Act, Municipal Code, Article XIIID and the Implementation Act may be referred to collectively as the "Assessment Law") adopted its Resolution of Intention to increase assessments above the existing approved maximum amount in Open Space District No, 3, Rancho Robinhood 1 and 2 (the "District"): and provide for the Levy and Collection of said increased assessments commencing Fiscal Year 2007/08, WHEREAS, the Resolution directed NBS to prepare and file a report presenting plans and specifications describing the general nature, location and extent of the improvements to be maintained, an estimate of the costs of the maintenance, operations and servicing of the improvements for the District for the referenced fiscal year, an assessment diagram for the District showing the area and properties to be assessed, and an assessment of the estimated costs of the maintenance, operations and servicing the improvements, and also stating the reason for the increased assessment; identifying the parcels upon which an increased assessment is proposed for imposition and presenting the basis upon which the increased assessment is to be calculated NOW THEREFORE, the following increased assessment is made to the District of the estimated costs of maintenance, operation and servicing of improvements to be paid by the assessable real property within the District in proportion to the special benefit received: SUMMARY OF ASSESSMENT Description OSD No.3 Costs Annual Total Costs Balance to Assessment Previous Fiscal Year 2007/08 Maximum Assessment Proposed Fiscal Year 2007/08 Maximum Assessment $46,341.03 $46,341.03 $64,770.00 $64,770.00 I, the undersigned, respectfully submit the enclosed Engineer's Report and, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, the increased assessments herein have been prepared and computed in accordance with the order of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, California. NBS Engineer's Report - City of Chula Vista, OSD No, 3 Prepared by NBS 1-1 8-19 2. PLANS AND SPECIFICA TIONS 2.1 Description of District Boundaries Open Space District No.3, Rancho Robinhood 1 and 2, includes all of the area bounded by the subdivision boundary for Rancho Robinhood 1 and 2 Subdivision. The District currently consists of 127 parcels. 2.2 Description of Facilities and Services The areas to be maintained by the District include all of Open Space Lot 115, slopes along Otay Lakes Road, Allen School Lane, Allen School, and certain other slopes within the District boundaries. The assessments collected within the District will pay the costs of maintaining natural open space, green belt and slopes along major and collector roads, including the maintenance of all trees, shrubs, plants, etc, , planted or placed within said open space area. The District is comprised of 3,5 acres of irrigated slopes and 0.5 acres of ornamental plants. The proposed maintenance consists in general of the following: " Brush clearance for fire protection " Irrigated erosion control slopes . Irrigation . Fertilization . Removal of weeds, trash and litter " Pruning of trees and shrubs . Replacement of dead or diseased trees and shrubs " Repair of equipment and facilities 2.3 Reason for the Increased Assessment Currentiy, due to Proposition 218, passed in 1996, assessments cannot be increased to pay for the increased costs of labor, materials, supplies, electricity rates, etc., because the maximum assessment previously authorized for the District has been levied. Without the ability to increase assessments it may be necessary for the District to reduce the level of maintenance it can provide, thus jeopardizing the quality and appearance of facilities, The District is requesting the ability to increase the current maximum assessment within the District, Approval of the proposed increased assessments will: " Provide for the repair, removal or replacement of all or any part of any improvement. Provide for the life, growth, health and beauty of the landscaping, including cultivation, irrigation, trimming, Engineer's Report - City of Chula Vista, OSD No, 3 Prepared by NBS 2-1 8-20 spraying, fertilizing or treating for disease to injury, the removal of trimmings, rubbish, debris, and other solid waste, If the increased assessments are not approved, the following reduction in services may include, but are not limited to: . Reduction or elimination of brush clearance for fire protection " Turn off irrigation to erosion control slopes . Annual tree trimmings and brush management reduced " Annual fertilization will be decreased " Replacement of equipment and plants will not occur in a timely manner . Sprinkler replacement will not occur in a timely manner . Contractual services reduced, providing for an overall reduction in the amount of maintenance performed within the area. Engineer's Report - City of Chula Vista, OSD NO.3 Prepared by NBS 2-2 8-21 3. ESTlMA TE OF COSTS The estimated budget for annual maintenance of the facilities and proportionate share of the costs of administration of the District have been prepared based on cost information provided by the City of Chula Vista staff. The estimated budgetary unit costs for the maintenance of the improvements and the administration of the District are listed beiow. The Fiscal Year 2007/08 maximum total assessment for Open Space District No.3, Rancho Robinhood 1 and 2, is summarized in the following table: Previous Total DescriDtion Maximum Assessment Utility Charges $835.00 Trash Collection & Disposal Fees 1 ,400 00 Water Charges 16,580,00 Services to Maintain Structures, Grounds 990,00 City Staff Services 9,340.00 Contract Services 20,400.00 Landscape Supplies 207,00 Materials to Maintain Structures, Grounds 3,997.00 Professional Services 3,008,00 Supplementals 946,00 Transfer: Corporate Yard Debt Services 432.00 Operating Reserve Collection (11,793.97) Total 2007/08 Previous Maximum Assessment: $46,341.03 The proposed increase to the maximum total assessment beginning Fiscal Year 2007/08 is as follows: DescriDtion ProDosed Increase Utility Charges $0,00 Trash Collection & Disposal Fees 0.00 Water Charges 0.00 Services to Maintain Structures, Grounds 0.00 City Staff Services 0.00 Contract Services 0,00 Landscape Supplies 0,00 Materials to Maintain Structures, Grounds 0.00 Professional Services 0.00 Supplementals 0.00 Transfer: Corporate Yard Debt Services 0,00 Operating Reserve Collection 18,428.97 Total 2007/08 Proposed Increase: $18,428.97 Engineer's Report - City of Chula Vista, OSD No, 3 Prepared by NBS 3-1 8-22 The proposed total maximum assessment for Fiscal Year 2007/08 with the increased landscaping maintenance costs is summarized as follows. Proposed Total Maximum Descriotion Assessment Utility Charges $835,00 Trash Collection & Disposal Fees 1,400,00 Water Charges 16,580.00 Services to Maintain Structures, Grounds 990.00 City Staff Services 9,340,00 Contract Services 20,400,00 Landscape Supplies 207,00 Materials to Maintain Structures, Grounds 3,997.00 Professional Services 3,008.00 Supplementals 946,00 Transfer: Corporate Yard Debt Services 432.00 Operating Reserve Collection 6,635.00 Total 2007/08 Proposed Maximum Assessment: $64,770.00 All of the costs are based on current estimates. The assessments are based on these costs and the difference between the estimated cost and the actual cost will be accounted for in the subsequent year, 3-2 Engineer's Report - City of Chula Vista, OSD No, 3 Prepared by NBS 8-23 4. ASSESSMENTS The proposed increased maximum assessment will be apportioned to each parcel, in the City of Chula Vista Open Space District No, 3, Rancho Robinhood 1 and 2, as shown on the latest equalized roll at the County Assessor's office, as listed in Section 6 of this Report. The description of each iot or parcel is part of the records of the County Assessor of the County of San Diego and such records are, by reference, made part of this Report. 4.1 Method of Apportionment Pursuant to the Assessment Law, all parcels that have special benefit conferred upon them as a result of the maintenance and operation of improvements are identified and the proportionate special benefit derived by each identified parcel is determined in relationship to the entire cost of the maintenance and operation of the Improvements. Only parcels that receive direct special benefit are assessed, and each parcel is assessed in proportion to the estimated benefit received. To apportion the total estimated costs of the District during any fiscal year, each of the subdivided singie- family lots or equivalent dwelling units (EDU) within the District is deemed to receive equal special benefit from the improvements. The annual assessment per EDU within the District is calculated by dividing the total annual assessment by the total number of existing EDU within the District to determine the annual assessment per EDU. 4.2 Maximum Assessment - Assessment Increase The proposed increased maximum assessment spread to each EDU, for Fiscal Year 2007/08, based on the method of apportionment within OSD No, 3, Rancho Robinhood 1 and 2, is as foilows: The maximum annual assessment per EDU is outlined in the following table: Maximum Annual DescriDtion Assessment Per EDU Previous Maximum Annual Assessment $364,89 Per EDU for Fiscal Year 2007/08 Proposed Annual Assessment Increase $145,11 Per EDU for Fiscal Year 2007/08 Proposed Maximum Annual Assessment $510.00 Per EDU for Fiscal Year 2007/08 Beginning Fiscal Year 2008/09, the maximum assessment shall be the prior year's assessment increased or decreased by an inflation factor which is the lesser of (1) the January to January San Diego Metropolitan Area All Urban Consumer Price Index (CPI) or (2) the change in estimated California Fourth Quarter Per Capita Personal Income as contained in the Governor's budget published in January. Engineer's Report - City of Chula Vista, OSD No, 3 Prepared by NBS 4-1 8-24 5. ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM The following pages show a reduced copy of the Assessment Diagram, For a detaiied description of the lines and dimensions of any lot or parcel, reference is hereby made to the County Assessor's maps, which shall govern for all details concerning the lines and dimension of such lots or parcels. Engineer's Report - City of Chula Vista, OSD No, 3 Prepared by N BS 5-1 8-25 N "- j J. i 9 I.J.. .~ h 0 . ~ ~~ I ~ " j1hl" I: " ~ 0 Ii! < , "'" ~ i., "I ~ ~ jiHaj] .. ~ ~ ~ ! . ~ W . ;Ii :; ~ ~ " i ~ ~ W ~ ~ ~ '" lU~ ~ " I i5 ~ i5.1l b P z z ,: (f) " Ip";' ~ ~ 0 i n!~ ~ cd ~ ~ . ' " r < . ~ ~ s i /: ~ w '" ~ . s ~ I :3 u " J ~ .. J '" !g 0 ~ ~ ; 'fL. ~ ~ I .0 . ~ ~ .., 'iii/:. i!! 15"''" 'iii;i II! ;: .. ~! ' .".d 's i~ i h ~ " ~ ~ ! qldl '" '" ~" ~!I co z " " .. uh.:I~ ..PI z '" s: ~ I ~J ~ '" e ~ ~ " 663i ~ ~ 551 n. ~~ Il"p ~ '" w ~ .. "' . < . -' ..- - L to " ,.. , ,: ~ ~ j '" " ::!: '" "' z I~ 0 tl: 0 0 u.. 0 ::; .,.. I <{ 1"- Z 0 ;0 CO u.. /\ 0 0 0:: w f-- ::;;:0 ;:: . .0:: I en g o::U ci a c)z (C) .0::.0:: w _0:: (5 o - "'"'" z <{ zo en Wz u.. ::;;:"'" 0 (f)u >- (f)- f-- wo:: Z (f)"," ::J (f)(f) 0 .o::Ei 0 <C W f-- I IJ u en .0:: :> 0.. <{ (f) -' < j' ::J ~ Z I W 0 0.. u.. i~ 0 0 >- f-- 13 1 ii-! 8-26 o o o J: Z [D o 0:: ::2:0 <(J: o::U (!)z <(<( -0:: o _ I-~ zO LJ.JZ ::2:1- (flU (fl- LJ.J0:: (fll- (fl~ <(0 LJ.J U <( c.. (fl Z LJ.J c.. o N LL o N I- LJ.J LJ.J J: (fl <C Z 0:: o u. ::; <C () u. o W f- ;:; UJ o 19 w is z <C UJ u. o >- f- Z :::J o () <i f- UJ ;; <C ...J :::J I () u. o >- f- U - ; ~g I 9! ~ OJ " U ~ " OJ ~ OJ " '" Z u '" ;;: " '" .. '" e- OJ 0.."-"-0.."- f!J ,. '" ZZZzz , > > 00000 'j :r~:E]j ! '" ~~~~~ ::> '::> OJ ,'" ~";I; IU ~.. ,0 ~ ,,. Ie- ;ti 0 "'''',,'''' 00 000 u . . 0000 00 0 ! iUi " Ui ~~ i i u i'l'iiJ ijl~ i ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ L - 8-27 I 5 1i , ~ I ~ . i" ::! II ~ ~ .' . " Ii " ~ ~ iLl 6. ASSESSMENT ROLL The following pages provide a listing of each parcel's previous Fiscal Year 2007/08 maximum assessment and proposed Fiscal Year 2007/08 maximum assessment amount, within Open Space District No, 3, Rancho Robinhood 1 and 2. Engineer's Report - City of Chula Vista, OSD No, 3 Prepared by NBS 6-1 8-28 Assessor's Parcel Number 593-261-01-00 593-261-02-00 593-261-03-00 593-261-04-00 593-261-05-00 593-261-06-00 593-261-07-00 593-261-08-00 593-261-09-00 593-261-10-00 593-261-11-00 593-261-12-00 593-261-13-00 593-261-14-00 593-261-15-00 593-261-16-00 593-261-17-00 593-261-18-00 593-261-19-00 593-261-20-00 593-261-21-00 593-261-22-00 593-261-23-00 593-261-24-00 593-261-25-00 593-261-26-00 593-261-27-00 593-261-28-00 593-261-29-00 593-261-30-00 593-261-31-00 593-262-01-00 593-262-02-00 593-262-03-00 593-262-04-00 593-262-05-00 593-262-06-00 593-262-07-00 593-262-08-00 593-262-09-00 593-262-11-00 593-262-12-00 593-262-13-00 593-262-14-00 593-262-15-00 593-262-16-00 593-262-17-00 City of Chula Vista Open Space District No.3 Rancho Robinhood 1 and 2 Fiscal Year 2007/08 Assessment Roll EDU 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1.00 Previous 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU $364.89 364,89 364.89 364.89 364,89 364,89 364,89 364,89 364.89 364.89 364.89 364,89 364.89 364.89 364.89 364,89 364,89 364.89 364.89 364.89 364,89 364,89 364.89 364.89 364.89 364,89 364,89 364,89 364,89 364,89 364,89 364,89 364,89 364.89 364.89 364.89 364.89 364.89 364.89 364.89 364.89 364.89 364.89 364.89 364.89 364,89 364,89 Proposed 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU $510.00 510.00 510,00 510.00 510.00 510,00 510,00 510,00 510.00 510,00 510,00 510,00 510.00 510.00 510,00 510,00 510,00 510.00 510.00 510.00 510.00 510.00 510,00 510,00 510,00 510.00 510.00 510.00 510,00 510,00 510,00 510,00 510,00 510,00 510,00 510,00 510,00 510,00 510,00 510,00 510,00 510,00 510,00 510.00 510.00 510.00 510,00 Page 1 of 3 8-29 Assessor's Parcel Number 593-262-18-00 593-262-19-00 593-262-20-00 593-262-21-00 593-262-22-00 593-262-23-00 593-262-24-00 593-262-29-00 593-271-01-00 593-271-02-00 593-271-03-00 593-271-04-00 593-271-05-00 593-271-06-00 593-271-07-00 593-271-08-00 593-271-09-00 593-271-10-00 593-271-11-00 593-271-12-00 593-271-13-00 593-271-14-00 593-271-15-00 593-271-16-00 593-271-17-00 593-271-18-00 593-271-19-00 593-271-20-00 593-271-21-00 593-271-22-00 593-271-23-00 593-271-24-00 593-271-25-00 593-271-26-00 593-271-27-00 593-271-28-00 593-271-29-00 593-271-30-00 593-271-31-00 593-271-32-00 593-271-33-00 593-271-34-00 593-271-35-00 593-271-36-00 593-271-37-00 593-271-38-00 593-271-40-00 City of Chula Vista Open Space District No.3 Rancho Robinhood 1 and 2 Fiscal Year 2007/08 Assessment Roll EDU 1.00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 Previous 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 364.89 364.89 364.89 364,89 364,89 364,89 364.89 364.89 364.89 364.89 364,89 364,89 364.89 364.89 364,89 364,89 364,89 364.89 364,89 364.89 364.89 364.89 364.89 364,89 364,89 364,89 364,89 364.89 364.89 364.89 364.89 364.89 364.89 364.89 364.89 364,89 364,89 364,89 364,89 364,89 364,89 364,89 364.89 364.89 364,89 364,89 364.89 Proposed 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 510,00 510,00 510.00 510.00 510.00 510,00 510,00 510,00 510,00 510,00 510.00 510.00 510,00 510.00 510.00 510.00 510,00 510,00 510,00 510,00 510.00 510.00 510.00 510.00 510.00 510.00 510.00 510.00 510.00 510.00 510.00 510.00 510,00 510,00 510,00 510,00 510.00 510,00 510,00 510,00 510,00 510,00 510,00 510.00 510.00 510,00 510,00 Page 2 of 3 8-30 Assessor's Parcel Number 593-271-41-00 593-271-42-00 593-271-43-00 593-271-44-00 593-271-45-00 593-271-46-00 593-271-47-00 593-271-48-00 593-271-49-00 593-271-50-00 593-271-51-00 593-271-52-00 593-272-01-00 593-272-02-00 593-272-03-00 593-272-05-00 593-272-07-00 593-272-08-00 593-272-09-00 593-272-10-00 593-272-11-00 593-272-14-00 593-272-15-00 593-272-16-00 593-272-17-00 593-272-18-00 593-272-19-00 593-272-20-00 593-272-21-00 593-272-23-00 593-272-26-00 593-272-27-00 593-272-30-00 Total City of Chula Vista Open Space District No.3 Rancho Robinhood 1 and 2 Fiscal Year 2007/08 Assessment Roll EDU 1,00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 127.00 Previous 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 364.89 364.89 364,89 364.89 364.89 364,89 364,89 364.89 364.89 364.89 364,89 364.89 364.89 364,89 364.89 364.89 364.89 364,89 364.89 364.89 364.89 364,89 364,89 364,89 364.89 364.89 364.89 364,89 364,89 364.89 364.89 364.89 364.89 $46,341.03 Proposed 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 510.00 51000 510.00 510.00 510.00 510.00 510.00 510,00 510,00 510.00 510.00 510.00 510,00 510,00 510.00 510.00 510.00 510,00 510.00 510.00 510,00 510,00 510.00 510.00 510.00 510.00 510,00 510,00 510.00 510.00 510.00 510.00 510.00 $64,770.00 Page 3 of 3 8-31 ATTACHMENT 2. B S Loc:alGO"_m<<ilSolulioM City of Chula Vista Proposed Assessment Increase Open Space District No, 7 Zenith Units 2, 3 and 4 Engineer's Report Fiscal Year 2007/08 June 5, 2007 Prepared by NIBIS Corporate Office 32605 Highway 79 South, Suite 100 Temecula, CA 92592 (800) 676-7516 phone (951) 296-1998 fax Regional Office 870 Market Street, Suite 901 San Francisco, CA 94102 (800) 434-8349 phone (415) 391-8439 fax 8-32 CITY OF CHULA VISTA OPEN SPACE DISTRICT NO.7 ZENITH UNITS 2, 3 AND 4 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 Phone - (619) 476-5376 CITY COUNCIL Cheryl Cox, Mayor Rudy Ramirez, Councllmember John McCann, Councilmember Jerry Rindone, Council member Steve Castaneda, Council member Susan Bigelow, City Clerk CITY STAFF Scott Tulloch, City Engineer Dave Byers, Director of Public Works Operations Leah Browder, Deputy Director of Engineering Robert Beamon, Administrative Services Manager Larry Eliason, Parks and Open Space Manager Chevis Fennell, Senior Open Space Inspector Josie Gabriel, Associate Planner Amy Partosan, Administrative Analyst II Jose Gomez, Land Surveyor Tessa Quicho, Administrative Analyst II NIBIS Greg Ghironzi, Project Director Michael J, Stearns, Assessment Engineer Stephanie Parson, Senior Consultant Sue Tyau, Financial Analyst 8-33 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. ENGINEER'S LETTER 1-1 2. PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS 2-1 2.1 Description of District Boundaries ........................,..........,................, .......... 2-1 2.2 Description of Facilities and Services........................................................,.. 2-1 2.3 Reason for the Increased Assessment ...................................,...............,.... 2-1 3. ESTIMATE OF COSTS 3-1 4. ASSESSMENTS 4-1 4.1 Method of Apportionment....,......,....... ................,.................. ......., ...........,.., 4-1 4.2 Maximum Assessment - Assessment Increase ..........,...............,......,.......,. 4-1 5. ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM 5-1 6. ASSESSMENT ROLL 6-1 8-34 1. ENGINEER'S LETTER WHEREAS, on June 5, 2007, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista (the "City Council"), State of California, under the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972 (the "1972 Act"), the City of Chula Vista Municipal Code, Chapter 17,07 (the "Municipal Code"), Article XIIID of the Constitution of the State of California ("Article XIIID") and the Proposition 218 Omnibus Implementation Act (Government Code Section 53750 and following) (the "Implementation Act") (the 1 972 Act, Municipal Code, Article XI liD and the Implementation Act may be referred to collectively as the "Assessment Law") adopted its Resolution of Intention to increase assessments above the existing approved maximum amount in Open Space District No, 7, Zenith Units 2, 3 and 4 (the "District"); and provide for the Levy and Collection of said increased assessments commencing Fiscal Year 2007/08. WHEREAS, the Resolution directed NBS to prepare and file a report presenting plans and specifications describing the general nature, location and extent of the improvements to be maintained, an estimate of the costs of the maintenance, operations and servicing of the improvements for the District for the referenced fiscal year, an assessment diagram for the District showing the area and properties to be assessed, and an assessment of the estimated costs of the maintenance, operations and servicing the improvements, and also stating the reason for the increased assessment: identifying the parcels upon which an increased assessment is proposed for imposition and presenting the basis upon which the increased assessment is to be calculated, NOW THEREFORE, the following increased assessment is made to the District of the estimated costs of maintenance, operation and servicing of improvements to be paid by the assessable real property within the District in proportion to the special benefit received: SUMMARY OF ASSESSMENT Descriotion OSO No.7 Costs Annual Totai Costs Balance to Assessment Previous Fiscal Year 2007/08 Maximum Assessment Proposed Fiscal Year 2007/08 Maximum Assessment $13,502.32 $13,502.32 $18,096,00 $18,096.00 I, the undersigned, respectfully submit the enclosed Engineer's Report and, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, the increased assessments herein have been prepared and computed in accordance with the order of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, California, NBS Engineer's Report - City of Chula Vista, OSD No.7 Prepared by NBS 1-1 8-35 2. PLANS AND SPECIFICA TlONS 2.1 Description of District Boundaries Open Space District No.7, Zenith Units 2, 3 and 4, includes the area bounded by the subdivision boundaries for the Zenith II, III and IV Subdivisions, The District currently consists of 104 parcels. 2.2 Description of Facilities and Services The areas to be maintained are the slopes along East Palomar Street. The assessments collected within the District will pay the costs of maintaining natural open space, green belt and slopes along major and collector roads, including the maintenance of all trees, shrubs, plants, etc" planted or placed within said open space area. The District is comprised of 0.6 acres of ornamental plants. The proposed maintenance consists in general of the following: . Irrigation . Fertilization " Removal of weeds, trash and litter . Pruning of trees and shrubs . Replacement of dead or diseased trees and shrubs " Repair of equipment and facilities 2.3 Reason for the Increased Assessment Currently, due to Proposition 218, passed in 1996, assessments cannot be increased to pay for the Increased costs of labor, materials, supplies, electricity rates, etc., because the maximum assessment previously authorized for the District has been levied, Without the ability to increase assessments it may be necessary for the District to reduce the level of maintenance it can provide, thus jeopardizing the quality and appearance of facilities, The District Is requesting the ability to increase the current maximum assessment within the District. Approval of the proposed increased assessments will: " Provide for the repair, removal or replacement of all or any part of any improvement. Provide for the life, growth, health and beauty of the landscaping, including cultivation, irrigation, trimming, spraying, fertilizing or treating for disease to injury, the removal of trimmings, rubbish, debris, and other solid waste. Engineer's Report - City of Chula Vista, OSD NO.7 Prepared by NBS 2-1 8-36 If the increased assessments are not approved, the following reduction in services may include, but are not limited to: . Annual tree trimmings and brush management reduced . Annual fertilization will be decreased " Replacement of equipment and plants will not occur In a timely manner . Sprinkler replacement will not occur in a timeiy manner " Contractual services reduced, providing for an overall reduction in the amount of maintenance performed within the area. " Increase in iitter, trash and weeds Engineer's Report - City of Chula Vista, OSD NO.7 Prepared by NBS 2-2 8-37 3. ESTlMA TE OF COSTS The estimated budget for annual maintenance of the facilities and proportionate share of the costs of administration of the District have been prepared based on cost information provided by the City of Chula Vista staff. The estimated budgetary unit costs for the maintenance of the improvements and the administration of the District are listed below, The Fiscal Year 2007/08 maximum total assessment for Open Space District NO.7, Zenith Units 2, 3 and 4, is summarized in the foliowing table: Previous Total Description Maximum Assessment Utility Charges $211,00 Trash Coliection & Disposal Fees 0.00 Water Charges 4,550.00 Services to Maintain Structures, Grounds 540,00 City Staff Services 3,096,00 Contract Services 4,321.00 Landscape Supplies 234,00 Materials to Maintain Structures, Grounds 2,065.00 Professional Services 500.00 Supplementals 242.00 Transfer. Corporate Yard Debt Services 116,00 Operating Reserve Coliection (2,372.68) Total 2007/08 Previous Maximum Assessment: $13,502.32 The proposed increase to the maximum totai assessment beginning Fiscal Year 2007/08 is as follows: Description Proposed Increase Utiiity Charges $0.00 Trash Collection & Disposal Fees 0,00 Water Charges 0,00 Services to Maintain Structures, Grounds 0,00 City Staff Services 0,00 Contract Services 0.00 Landscape Suppiies 0.00 Materials to Maintain Structures, Grounds 0.00 Professionai Services 0.00 Supplementais 0.00 Transfer: Corporate Yard Debt Services 0.00 Operating Reserve Coliection 4,593.67 Total 2007/08 Proposed Increase: $4,593.67 Engineer's Report - City of Chula Vista, OSD No, 7 Prepared by NBS 3-1 8-38 The proposed total maximum assessment for Fiscal Year 2007/08 with the increased landscaping maintenance costs is summarized as follows: Proposed Total Maximum Descriotion Assessment Utility Charges $211.00 Trash Collection & Disposal Fees 0.00 Water Charges 4,550.00 Services to Maintain Structures, Grounds 540,00 City Staff Services 3,096.00 Contract Services 4,321.00 Landscape Supplies 234.00 Materials to Maintain Structures, Grounds 2,065.00 Professional Services 500.00 Supplementals 242,00 Transfer: Corporate Yard Debt Services 116.00 Operating Reserve Collection 2,221.00 Total 2007/08 Proposed Maximum Assessment: $18,096.00 All of the costs are based on current estimates, The assessments are based on these costs and the difference between the estimated cost and the actual cost will be accounted for in the subsequent year. Engineer's Report - City of Chula Vista, OSD No, 7 Prepared by NBS 3-2 8-39 4. ASSESSMENTS The proposed increased maximum assessment will be apportioned to each parcel, in the City of Chula Vista Open Space District No, 7, Zenith Units 2, 3 and 4, as shown on the latest equalized roll at the County Assessor's office, as listed in Section 6 of this Report. The description of each lot or parcel is part of the records of the County Assessor of the County of San Diego and such records are, by reference, made part of this Report. 4.1 Method of Apportionment Pursuant to the Assessment Law, all parcels that have special benefit conferred upon them as a result of the maintenance and operation of improvements are identified and the proportionate special benefit derived by each identified parcel is determined in relationship to the entire cost of the maintenance and operation of the improvements. Only parcels that receive direct special benefit are assessed, and each parcel is assessed in proportion to the estimated benefit received, To apportion the total estimated costs of the District during any fiscal year, each of the subdivided single- family lots or equivalent dwelling units (EDU) within the District is deemed to receive equal special benefit from the improvements. The annual assessment per EDU within the District is calculated by dividing the total annual assessment by the total number of existing EDU within the District to determine the annual assessment per EDU, 4.2 Maximum Assessment- Assessment Increase The proposed increased maximum assessment spread to each EDU, for Fiscal Year 2007/08, based on the method of apportionment within OSD No, 7, Zenith Units 2, 3 and 4, is as follows: The maximum annual assessment per EDU is outlined in the following table. Maximum Annual Description Assessment Per EDU Previous Maximum Annual Assessment $129,83 Per EDU for Fiscal Year 2007/08 Proposed Annual Assessment Increase $44.17 Per EDU for Fiscal Year 2007/08 Proposed Maximum Annual Assessment $174.00 Per EDU for Fiscal Year 2007/08 Beginning Fiscal Year 2008/09, the maximum assessment shall be the prior year's assessment increased or decreased by an inflation factor which is the lesser of (1) the January to January San Diego Metropolitan Area All Urban Consumer Price Index (CPI) or (2) the change in estimated California Fourth Quarter Per Capita Personal Income as contained in the Governor's budget published in January, Engineer's Report - City of Chula Vista, OSD NO.7 Prepared by NBS 4-1 8-40 5. ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM The following page shows a reduced copy of the Assessment Diagram, For a detailed description of the iines and dimensions of any lot or parcel, reference is hereby made to the County Assessor's maps, which shall govern for all details concerning the lines and dimension of such lots or parcels. Engineer's Report - City of Chula Vista, OSD NO.7 Prepared by NBS 5-1 8-41 ~. ~ ; J I ~ ~ :;1 < · LL . i ~~ ~ :" 0 ~ "~ . ~ g " ". . i I < . ~ 0 ui a ~ h~< ~ ~ h ~ 15 l;! l!l ~ w l- . i'~ h i I < ; ~ 'IU~ L " ~ LlJ ~ ~ w p z z LlJ 2S l; l!I ~ i5 II! i!l ~ " I " !i8i!l~;~ I ~ I ; ~ '" 0 I J i!l ~ ~ 1= ~ w (f) 'r""<"1 ~ u I. ~ .~p c ~ 'b Pi .., c < . > ,.L i ~; " . ; < ~ ." II ~ :; Ii II i .0 ~~ j5 ; 'e t;; ~ ~ s. ~i! PPH;I !!I 0 p I. n~ z , . .. ~; ~ i " w ~ li li~~hl~ ~ 5E~ H~ g; L: co ~ u. ,~ w ~ _w o'e'e III -" - L e <( "" z 0 0:: 2 0 <( u.. :J C'? <( N- U u.. (f) 0 !::: ill f-- 2 ~ ::2;::J <(I tfJ 0::1- ci 0- ~ <(2 w _LlJ 0 ON z I- .... <( 2 tfJ LlJ . u.. ::2;0 0 (f)2 >- (f)1- f-- LlJO Z ::J (f)a: 0 (f)1- u <((f) <i 0 f-- tfJ LlJ '> 0 <( <( -" 0- ::J (f) I 2 u u.. LlJ 0 0- 0 >- f-- U 000000000000000 8ggggggggggggggg 2000000000000000 ~N~~O~ON~~~V~~~~ ~~V~~~NO_N~v~~~W <ONO~NNN~N~N~N~N ~N~N~N~~~nn~~nnn ~_~~NNNNN"'NNNNN NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN rgrg~~~~~~8~~rgrgrg~ rgrgrgrg8~rgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrg "'''''''NNNN'''''''''N",'''",,,, NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN "'''''''''''''''' "'<0<0 <Ow w"''''''' <0<0<0<0<0<0<0<0<0<0<0<0"'<0<0<0 W . . z ~>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> W~<<<<<<<<<<<<<< <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< ~~ffiffi~ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ~zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wwwwwwwwwwwwwwww ~>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <(<(<(<(<(<(<(.<(<(<(.<(.<(.<(<(<( <(<(<(.<(<(.<(.<(.<(.<(<(.<(<(<(<(<(<( a:::a::e:::a::e:::e:::e:::e:::e::::e::::e:::e:::a::a::e:::: e:::e:::e:::e:::e:::e:::e:::e:::e:::e:::e:::e:::e:::e:::e:::e::: " Z ~~~N~~m~O~"'~m~~o 80~~~gggg~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~ww~~~~~m . -~~-~~....._~-~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ , . ~8:S:S8:S88 r@8888 iHl~8~@ @8@888888 1I.0_a>"'~~~ i~UU miu ~~"~~n~j o(~~o~o-o -~_..._-~ \fl\fllt')""~~'" ~~~~~~~ mm ~~m~~~~~~ C'<"''''NC'<NC'< lOlO<OW<O<O", <O<O<OlOlOlOlO lO<O"'<O<O<O W " >>>>>>>>> ;11t~1t1t1t1t~ .<(<(<(<(<(<(<(<(<( ........J...J...J...J...J...J....I a::a::a::e:::e:::e:::e:::e:::oc lil<(<(<(<(<(<(<( ~~~~~~~~~ wZzzzzzz ...J...J...J....I...J...J....I ...J....I....I....I...J...J ~~~~~~~~z l!:15aa15CiCiCi 0..0..0..0..0..0..0.. 0..0..0..0..0..0.. cne:::a:a:a:a:a:e::: ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~ w wwwwi'S ()()()()()t'5t'5 <(<(<(.<(<(<(.<( ...J...J....I....I....I...J...J...J....I 0000000 000000 000000000 " Z NO~<O""NNNC'< ..... as;;;~[;)::n;lJ; ~"'~~~_N 18~0~"'''' '" ,'"'' '" <0 ~ ~~~~a>O~N~ tljNC'<NNC'<"'C'< ....~~~~~ N"'NC'<~~<'1~ e:::~--~~-~ ~..................... ---.............~- , . 00000000 00000000 ~""N",,,,,,,<o.... ~~~~~~~E; ~i!S~i!S:g:g:g~ N"''''NNNN''' <OWW<O",<O<O<O 00000 00000 ~C'<_O'" ~~~~;: "''''''''''''' ;g;g;g;g:g "'''''''C'<''' wWW<O<O 000000000 000000000 ~<l>ooa>_~C'<.... <'1~"''''~~''''''''' ~NNNNNNC'<'" '''''''''It')~~~~,,, ;g;g;g;g;g;g~;g;g NNNNN"'NNN "''''<O<O~<o<o~<o OOOOOOOClOClOOCl e:::e:::u::u::e:::e:::e:::e:::e:::oce:::e:::a: (!)(!)(!)(!)(!)(!)(!)(!)(!)(!)(!)t'>t'> zzzzzzzzzzzzz ~~~~3E~~~~~~~3E 0000000000000 wwwwwwwwwwwww a::a:::e:::a:::e:::o::o::a::a::a:::e:::a:e::: 1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1- wwwwwwww s:s:s:s:s:s:s:s: 00000000 a::a::e:::a::a::a::e:::a::: a::a::e:::a:a:a::a:a:: <(<(<(<(<(<(<(.<( a. 0.. a. 0..0.. a. a. 0.. WW(f) w(f) (f)(/)(/) N~"''''''''O~<ONW",OW O~W~"'<'1=O> .......\fl\fl"'<o<o<o~....<oa>m O<'1<'1~<'1............. .......................~............... ......................... :s 888888 i nun ~ ~~~<o1!I~ ~ . w a z ~ a titititititi '::l'::l'::l'::l~~ 000000 ii:iiii:iiii:ii: 000000 N . " ~~~G~~ g~8~8g888gg888g ~~~~~ggN~N~~~~~ ~~~\fl~\flU1~~~~~~~~ NNN~N~~NNNNNNNN <O<O<O<O<O<O<O"'lO<O<O<olOlO~ lt~~~~~~~~~~1ta:a:1t wwwwwwwwWwWwWww 006666556666600 iiiiii:ii:ii:1i:1i:ii:ii:ii:ii:ii:ii:ii:ii: 000000000000000 ~~g~~~~~~gE~~~~ 8-42 i l' ~ I ~ ~ ~ > > , z u > en '" t.) :> " '" en .J .. " '" '" '" Z t.) '" :> " '" '" '" >< '" > '" " '" .. .. '" - :> b ." I~ ~>< ~.. ;0 I , o 1 ~ i IJ < I' ~ !~ " " . " 8 '3 . . a ~ .' I 6. ASSESSMENT ROLL The following pages provide a listing of each parcel's previous Fiscal Year 2007/08 maximum assessment and proposed Fiscal Year 2007/08 maximum assessment amount, within Open Space District No.7, Zenith Units 2, 3 and 4, Engineer's Report - City of Chula Vista, OSD No, 7 Prepared by NBS 6-1 8-43 Assessor's Parcel Number 620-651-01-00 620-651-02-00 620-651-05-00 620-651-06-00 620-651-07-00 620-651-08-00 620-651-09-00 620-651-10-00 620-651-11-00 620-651-12-00 620-651-13-00 620-651-14-00 620-651-15-00 620-651-16-00 620-651-17-00 620-651-18-00 620-651-19-00 620-651-20-00 620-651-21-00 620-651-22-00 620-651-23-00 620-651-24-00 620-651-25-00 620-651-26-00 620-651-27-00 620-651-28-00 620-651-29-00 620-651-30-00 620-651-31-00 620-651-32-00 620-652-01-00 620-652-02-00 620-652-03-00 620-652-04-00 620-652-05-00 620-652-06-00 620-652-07-00 620-652-12-00 620-652-13-00 620-652-14-00 620-652-15-00 620-652-16-00 620-652-17-00 620-652-18-00 620-652-19-00 620-652-20-00 620-652-21-00 City of Chula Vista Open Space District No, 7 Zenith Units 2, 3 and 4 Fiscal Year 2007/08 Assessment Roll EDU 1.00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1.00 Previous 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU $129.83 129,83 129,83 129.83 129,83 129,83 129.83 129.83 129,83 129,83 129.83 129.83 129,83 129,83 129.83 129.83 129,83 129.83 129.83 129,83 129,83 129,83 129.83 129.83 129.83 129,83 129,83 129,83 129.83 129.83 129,83 129.83 129,83 129,83 129,83 129,83 129,83 129.83 129.83 129.83 129.83 129.83 129.83 129.83 129.83 129,83 129,83 Proposed 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU $174.00 174,00 174.00 174.00 174,00 174.00 174.00 174.00 174,00 174.00 174,00 174,00 174,00 174,00 174.00 174.00 174.00 174,00 174.00 174.00 174,00 174,00 174,00 174,00 174,00 174.00 174.00 174,00 174.00 174,00 174.00 174.00 174.00 174.00 174,00 174,00 174,00 174,00 174,00 174,00 174,00 174,00 174.00 174.00 174.00 174.00 174,00 Page 1 of 3 8-44 Assessor's Parcel Number 620-652-22-00 620-652-23-00 620-652-24-00 620-652-25-00 620-652-26-00 620-652-27-00 620-652-28-00 620-652-29-00 620-652-30-00 620-652-31-00 620-652-32-00 620-652-33-00 620-652-34-00 620-652-35-00 620-652-36-00 620-652-37-00 620-652-38-00 620-652-39-00 620-652-40-00 620-652-41-00 620-652-42-00 620-652-43-00 620-652-44-00 620-652-45-00 620-652-46-00 620-652-47-00 620-652-48-00 620-652-49-00 620-652-50-00 620-660-01-00 620-660-02-00 620-660-03-00 620-660-04-00 620-660-05-00 620-660-06-00 620-660-07-00 620-660-08-00 620-660-09-00 620-660-10-00 620-660-11-00 620-660-12-00 620-660-13-00 620-660-14-00 620-660-15-00 620-660-16-00 620-660-17-00 620-660-18-00 City of Chula Vista Open Space District No. 7 Zenith Units 2, 3 and 4 Fiscal Year 2007/08 Assessment Roll EDU 1,00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1.00 Previous 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 129.83 129.83 129,83 129,83 129.83 129.83 129.83 129,83 129,83 129.83 129.83 129.83 129,83 129,83 129.83 129.83 129,83 129,83 129,83 129.83 129.83 129,83 129,83 129,83 129,83 129.83 129,83 129.83 129.83 129.83 129,83 129,83 129,83 129,83 129,83 129,83 129,83 129,83 129.83 129.83 129.83 129,83 129,83 129,83 129.83 129.83 129.83 Proposed 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 174.00 174.00 174,00 174.00 174.00 174.00 174.00 174,00 174.00 174.00 174.00 174,00 174,00 174.00 174.00 174,00 174,00 174.00 174.00 174,00 174,00 174,00 174,00 174.00 174,00 174.00 174.00 174.00 174.00 174.00 174.00 174,00 174,00 174,00 174,00 174,00 174,00 174.00 174,00 174,00 174,00 174,00 174,00 174,00 174,00 174.00 174.00 Page 2 of 3 8-45 Assessor's Parcel Number 620-660-20-00 620-660-21-00 620-660-22-00 620-660-23-00 620-660-24-00 620-660-25-00 620-660-26-00 620-660-27-00 620-660-28-00 620-660-29-00 Total City of Chura Vista Open Space District No, 7 Zenith Units 2, 3 and 4 Fiscal Year 2007/08 Assessment Roll EDU 1,00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1,00 104.00 Previous 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 129.83 129.83 129,83 129.83 129.83 129.83 129,83 129.83 129,83 129,83 $13,502.32 Proposed 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 174.00 174,00 174.00 174,00 174,00 174.00 174,00 174,00 174.00 174,00 $18,096.00 Page 3 of 3 8-46 ATTACHMENT ~ s l.OOIllG;:-JMliJllll'llSolulioM City of Chula Vista Proposed Assessment Increase Open Space District No, 9 EI Rancho del Rey, Unit No, 5 Engineer's Report Fiscal Year 2007/08 June 5, 2007 Prepared by NIBIS Corporate Office 32605 Highway 79 South, Suite 100 Temecula, CA 92592 (800) 676-7516 phone (951) 296-1998 fax Regional Office 870 Market Street, Suite 901 San Francisco, CA 94102 (800) 434-8349 phone (415) 391-8439 fax 8-47 CITY OF CHULA VISTA OPEN SPACE DISTRICT NO.9 EL RANCHO DEL REY UNIT NO.5 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 Phone - (619) 476-5376 CITY COUNCIL Cheryl Cox, Mayor Rudy Ramirez, Councilmember John McCann, Councilmember Jerry Rindone, Councilmember SIeve Castaneda, Councilmember Susan Bigelow, City Clerk CITY STAFF Scott Tulloch, City Engineer Dave Byers, Director of Public Works Operations Leah Browder, Deputy Director of Engineering Robert Beamon, Administrative Services Manager Larry Eliason, Parks and Open Space Manager Chevis Fennell, Senior Open Space Inspector Josie Gabriel, Associate Planner Amy Partosan, Administrative Analyst II Jose Gomez, Land Surveyor Tessa Quicho, Administrative Analyst II NIBIS Greg Ghironzi, Project Director Michael J. Stearns, Assessment Engineer Stephanie Parson, Senior Consultant Sue Tyau, Financial Analyst 8-48 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. ENGINEER'S LETTER 1-1 2. PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS 2-1 2.1 Description of District Boundaries ....................................,.........,....,..,.........2-1 2.2 Description of Facilities and Services...............................,........................... 2-1 2.3 Reason for the Increased Assessment ........,........................,...................,.. 2-1 3. ESTIMATE OF COSTS 3-1 4. ASSESSMENTS 4-1 4.1 Method of ApportionmenL..,................,................,...................,..............,.. 4-1 4.2 Maximum Assessment - Assessment Increase .................. ,......................,4-1 5, ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM 5-1 6. ASSESSMENT ROLL 6-1 8-49 1. ENGINEER'S LETTER WHEREAS, on June 5, 2007, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista (the "City Council"), State of California, under the Landscape and lighting Act of 1972 (the "1972 Act"), the City of Chula Vista Municipal Code, Chapter 17.07 (the "Municipal Code"), Article XillD of the Constitution of the State of California ("Article XIIID") and the Proposition 218 Omnibus Implementation Act (Government Code Section 53750 and following) (the "Implementation Act") (the 1972 Act, Municipal Code, Article XIIID and the Implementation Act may be referred to collectively as the "Assessment Law") adopted its Resolution of Intention to increase assessments above the existing approved maximum amount in Open Space District No.9, EI Rancho del Rey, Unit No, 5 (the "District"); and provide for the Levy and Collection of said increased assessments commencing Fiscal Year 2007/08. WHEREAS, the Resolution directed NBS to prepare and file a report presenting plans and specifications describing the general nature, location and extent of the improvements to be maintained, an estimate of the costs of the maintenance, operations and servicing of the improvements for the District for the referenced fiscal year, an assessment diagram for the District showing the area and properties to be assessed, and an assessment of the estimated costs of the maintenance, operations and servicing the improvements, and also stating the reason for the increased assessment: identifying the parcels upon which an increased assessment is proposed for imposition and presenting the basis upon which the increased assessment is to be calculated, NOW THEREFORE, the following increased assessment is made to the District of the estimated costs of maintenance, operation and servicing of improvements to be paid by the assessable real property within the District in proportion to the special benefit received: SUMMARY OF ASSESSMENT Descriotion OSD No.9 Costs Annual Total Costs Balance to Assessment Previous Fiscal Year 2007/08 Maximum Assessment Proposed Fiscal Year 2007/08 Maximum Assessment $64,546.56 $64,546.56 $88,320.00 $88,320.00 I, the undersigned, respectfully submit the enclosed Engineer's Report and, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, the increased assessments herein have been prepared and computed in accordance with the order of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, California, NBS Engineer's Report - City of Chula Vista, OSD NO.9 Prepared by N BS 1-1 8-50 2. PLANS AND SPECIFICA TlONS 2.1 Description of District Boundaries Open Space District No, 9, EI Rancho del Rey, Unit No, 5, includes the area bounded by the subdivision boundary for the EI Rancho del Rey, Unit No, 5 Subdivision. The District currently consists of 384 parcels, 2.2 Description of Facilities and Services The area to be maintained by the District include Lots A, B, C, D, G, H, I and the grass lined drainage channel. The assessments collected within the District will pay the costs of maintaining natural open space, green belt and slopes along major and collector roads, including the maintenance of all trees, shrubs, plants, etc., planted or placed within said open space area. The District is comprised of 16,7 acres of irrigated slopes, 16,6 acres of non-irrigated/preserve slopes and 0.6 acres of turf. The proposed maintenance consists in general of the following. " Brush clearance for fire protection " Irrigated erosion control slopes " Irrigation . Fertilization " Mowing of turf " Removal of weeds, trash and litter " Pruning of trees and shrubs " Replacement of dead or diseased trees and shrubs . Repair of equipment and facilities 2.3 Reason for the Increased Assessment Currently, due to Proposition 218, passed in 1996, assessments cannot be increased to pay for the increased costs of labor, materials, supplies, electricity rates, etc., because the maximum assessment previously authorized for the District has been levied. Without the ability to increase assessments it may be necessary for the District to reduce the level of maintenance it can provide, thus jeopardizing the quality and appearance of facilities, The District is requesting the ability to increase the current maximum assessment within the District Approval of the proposed increased assessments will: " Provide for the repair, removal or replacement of all or any part of any improvement Provide for the life, growth, health and beauty of the landscaping, including cultivation, irrigation, trimming, Engineer's Report - City of Chula Vista, OSD NO.9 Prepared by NBS 2-1 8-51 spraying, fertilizing or treating for disease to injury, the removal of trimmings, rubbish, debris, and other soiid waste. If the increased assessments are not approved, the following reduction in services may include, but are not limited to: . Reduction or elimination of brush clearance for fire protection . Annual tree trimmings and brush management reduced . Annual fertiiization will be decreased . Mowing and watering of turf will be reduced . Replacement of equipment and plants will not occur in a timely manner . Sprinkler replacement will not occur in a timely manner . Turn off irrigation to erosion control slopes . Contractual services reduced, providing for an overall reduction in the amount of maintenance performed within the area . Increase in litter, trash and weeds Engineer's Report - City of Chula Vista, OSD No, 9 Prepared by NBS 2-2 8-52 3. ESTIMA TE OF COSTS The estimated budget for annual maintenance of the facilities and proportionate share of the costs of administration of the District have been prepared based on cost information provided by the City of Chula Vista staff. The estimated budgetary unit costs for the maintenance of the improvements and the administration of the District are iisted below. The Fiscal Year 2007/08 maximum total assessment for Open Space District No.9, EI Rancho del Rey, Unit No.5, is summarized in the following table: Previous Total Description Maximum Assessment Utility Charges $442.00 Trash Collection & Disposal Fees 2,520,00 Water Charges 22,095,00 Services to Maintain Structures, Grounds 980,00 City Staff Services 13,027.00 Contract Services 27,991.00 Landscape Supplies 1,005.00 Materials to Maintain Structures, Grounds 4,400,00 Professional Services 3,540,00 Supplementals 1,337.00 Transfer: Corporate Yard Debt Services 618,00 Operating Reserve Collection (13,408.44) Total 2007/08 Previous Maximum Assessment: $64,546.56 The proposed increase to the maximum total assessment beginning Fiscal Year 2007/08 is as follows. Description Proposed Increase Utility Charges $0,00 Trash Collection & Disposal Fees 0.00 Water Charges 0,00 Services to Maintain Structures, Grounds 0,00 City Staff Services 0,00 Contract Services 0.00 Landscape Supplies 0,00 Materials to Maintain Structures, Grounds 0,00 Professional Services 0.00 Supplementals , 0.00 Transfer: Corporate Yard Debt Services 0.00 Operating Reserve Collection 23,773.44 Total 2007/08 Proposed Increase: $23,773.44 3-1 Engineer's Report - City of Chula Vista, OSD No, 9 Prepared by NBS 8-53 The proposed total maximum assessment for Fiscal Year 2007/08 with the increased landscaping maintenance costs is summarized as follows! Proposed Total Description Maximum Assessment Utility Charges $442.00 Trash Collection & Disposal Fees 2,520.00 Water Charges 22,095,00 Services to Maintain Structures, Grounds 980.00 City Staff Services 13,027.00 Contract Services 27,991,00 Landscape Supplies 1,005,00 Materials to Maintain Structures, Grounds 4,400,00 Professional Services 3,540.00 Supplementals 1,337.00 Transfer: Corporate Yard Debt Services 618.00 Operating Reserve Collection 10,365,00 Total 2007/08 Proposed Maximum Assessment: $88,320.00 All of the costs are based on current estimates. The assessments are based on these costs and the difference between the estimated cost and the actual cost will be accounted for in the subsequent year Engineer's Report - City of Chula Vista, OSD No, 9 Prepared by NBS 3-2 8-54 4. ASSESSMENTS The proposed increased maximum assessment will be apportioned to each parcel, in the City of Chula Vista Open Space District No.9, EI Rancho Rey, Unit No.5, as shown on the latest equalized roll at the County Assessor's office, as listed in Section 6 of this Report The description of each lot or parcel is part of the records of the County Assessor of the County of San Diego and such records are, by reference, made part of this Report. 4.1 Method of Apportionment Pursuant to the Assessment Law, all parcels that have special benefit conferred upon them as a result of the maintenance and operation of improvements are identified and the proportionate special benefit derived by each identified parcel is determined in relationship to the entire cost of the maintenance and operation of the improvements. Only parcels that receive direct special benefit are assessed, and each parcel is assessed in proportion to the estimated benefit received. 4.2 Maximum Assessment- Assessment Increase The proposed increased maximum assessment spread to each Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU), for Fiscal Year 2007/08, based on the method of apportionment within OSD No.9, EI Rancho del Rey, Unit No.5, is as follows: The maximum annual assessment per EDU is outlined in the following table: Maximum Annual DescriDtion Assessment Per EDU Previous Maximum Annual Assessment $168,09 Per EDU for Fiscal Year 2007/08 Proposed Annual Assessment Increase $61.91 Per EDU for Fiscal Year 2007/08 Proposed Maximum Annual Assessment $230,00 Per EDU for Fiscal Year 2007/08 Beginning Fiscal Year 2008/09, the maximum assessment shall be the prior year's assessment increased or decreased by an infiation factor which is the lesser of (1) the January to January San Diego Metropolitan Area All Urban Consumer Price Index (CPI) or (2) the change in estimated California Fourth Quarter Per Capita Personal Income as contained in the Governor's budget published in January, Engineer's Report - City of Chula Vista, OSD No, 9 Prepared by NBS 4-1 8-55 5. ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM The following pages show a reduced copy of the Assessment Diagram. For a detailed description of the lines and dimensions of any lot or parcel, reference is hereby made to the County Assessor's maps, which shall govern for all details concerning the lines and dimension of such lots or parcels. Engineer's Report - City of Chula Vista, OSD NO.9 Prepared by NBS 5-1 8-56 <:l' u.. o ~ I-- UJ UJ I (f) d " a ~ . ! ~" ~ ; J ~I : ; . I ~ i 9 g ~u ~ ' h~qp . ~! < ~ i ~ i .< h~< I: i'~ h ~ I' ~ Ii !!II ffi b \!:Il!l ~ ~ III Ii ~ l' ~o '" ~ '" J ~I;":~ . . n ~ '" 11 /: ... ~ ~~~i~ z z " ~ a I j I J I !:. ~ => ;;: ~ ~ ~ '" if' ~~i u '" ~~ 'I i I ~ g .. ~ c ~ i in~d rl c < '" ! i! ;t' < ~ dl H '" '~i'pii Ii !Ig" < .. ~, Uj '" '" 56! I ,~ ' , .g g '" '" '" __H,,~. 55~ /:~ ~ of z '" Z u n; ~~ Il,pt5~ '" - " Ii; i..l!l::J '" < '" ... '" ;!J " ~ > ~ !;:j '" '" t", '" I~ ,0 ~ I" -I:: :i:U " a ~ , ,. n ~ ~j ~ '" o ::; z z t: 0:: Z s: :::J ::J >-- C3 UJ LL 0:: 0 -' W UJ f- :2 0 ;:: r:2 ~ ~- C9 U c.9 <( Z w -<( Ci 00:: z !z -' <( W W ~ :2aiO (f) . >- (f) 0 f- UJ Z z (f) I-- 6 (f) U U <(- 0:: <i I--f-- (f) ~ - > o <( UJ ...J U :J <( I CL U (f) ::s Z >- UJ f- CL - o u I ! 8 ~ , ~ j r I IJ < I' ~ . ~ II <L. . " " ~ " ~ I ~i ( " 8 57 ... LL o N I- W W :c CI) L.() o ~ z z t:: t>: Z f2 :J ::J <>: ~ () W LL a:: 0 --' LU W I- ::;; 0 ;::: CfJ ~ ~ 6 (!) U (:J <( Z l!! - <( 0 o a:: z I- --' <>: z w CfJ W LL ::;; oi' 0 CI) . ~ CI) 0 z W Z ::l CI) I- 0 CI) U () <( - - a:: ;::: I- CfJ !':Q ;; o <>: W ...J U ::l <( is D.. LL CI) 0 Z >- W t:: D.. () o ~ mum mum ~ iiiii iiliiiiiiii ii!!!!!!! 111I1 !i ~ g i ~ ~ '" "' '-' ~ "' '" L, "' "' z '-' "' s: " '" "' ~ '" '" .. ,S: "' t j ~ ~ ~ IZl ~m Ie n~~ ~ ~ ~ ... I" ;u ; ~ , . , i: < I IJ <I" ~ !~ ! d~; ~ ~ ~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~ i i ii iiiiiii iii mmHm ~~~~~~~~~~~ GbbGGbGbbbG ~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~"""""~~" '~~~~~55.'~ ~~~.~".~~~~ ..,~~E""~~" ~.~.~.~.~.~. ~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~. ~~~~~ ~~~~~H~~ ~~. ~~~~~~~~~ ..... ~~....~. s ...~~~~~~ ii~~ii ii~~~~~~ ~~~~i ~~i~iii~ ~i ~~~~~~~~~ .~.nn.. nn~ ~~ " .. "' "' '" en "' "' en 8-58 '<:t u.. o '" I- LU LU I en 0 g , " :5g ! ~ ~ . ;; .. < . . ~ .. ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~~ ~ ~ z to woooooooooooooooooooo ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ."""""""""" 5555~55~666655555555 ~rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr uuoouuuuouooooououuo >->->->->-)-)->->->->->->->- WWWWWWWWWWWWWW a:a:a:a::a:ll::a:a:a:a:o:o::a:c:: ~~~~~~~~~g~~~g 00000000000000 lll~ljnlllJ;'lJ;'lJ;'lJ;'lJ;'lljlJ;'lJ;'llllJ;' <<<<<<:<<<<<<<co(<e c..c..o..lI.Q.o..lI.o..lI.o..c..ll.a.o.. d z ~~~~~~~~_~a~~_~a~~_~a ~ WQO__~NT~~~~~~~~~~~aa ~"""""""'" L{) 0 ::!: Z z !:: 0: 0 Z LL => ::J :; <( U LU LL 0:: 0 -' UJ LU I- :20 ;:: <{a (/) 0:: I 0" (90 <D <{Z UJ -<{ 15 00:: z 1--, <( ZLU (/) LU LL :2 0) 0 en . >- enO I- LUZ Z ::J en I- 0 en0 u <{- ~ 0:: I- !!2 (/) :> 0 <( LU ...J 0 ::J I <{ U D- LL en 0 Z >- LU t: D- U 0 g;;8~~:<!;!;:;:::::;l~::':&l .......,....................................... ~~@~~~~~~~~~~~~@~~~~~~~~~~& gggggSggggggSS8gSggggggggsg a: a: a: 0:: 0:: a: 0:: a: 0:: 0:: a: 0:: a: a: a: a: 0:: 0:: a: a: a: 0:: a: 0:: a: 0:: a: ~~~g~EE~EE~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ gggggg8ggggggg ~ZZZZ2~2ZEE~2EE ~Uii~ii~U~ii ........>-f--f-.-................................. uuuuuouuOuuUuu ~~~~~~~~~~e~!2!2 00000000000000 0""0:0::0:"'."'"''''''''<1:0:''' ~~~!li~!i~!i!i~!i!i~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 0000000000000000000 0000000000000000000 ~~~~~~~~~>~>~~~>~~~ 0000000000000000000 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~ 000000 ~~~~~~ 000000 ;n;n ~":<"~ ~ 00000 33333 <(<(<(<(<( <.>'_><o<.o<.J "-"-"-II.II.II. jjjjjj 000000 133iSi33~ ................................. u<.>u<.>uu<.>uuuu 00000000000 ~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~2~~~~~~~~~ ~~iii;~g*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ff f f g_1i if if , < $ < , > B w i! ~ S " ~ w .... 0 '" 0 '" ~ '" < , '" ~ 2 '" ~ ~ '" $ # '" , ii 8-59 .."',,."''''........~N'' ~~I!'~~;e;e:e[::[::[:: Si~~~~~g~ ~nn~ "..,..;>.,.,.,.,.,., 0000.,.,.,00., z...,..,"'....."'~"'O... II. ~..~..~N~Nr <(;~~~~~~~~~ 000000 "''''0<><><:> NN~"'<;>... _O_O~<;> ..."''''''''''''' ... ..."'''',,'''''' "'''''''''' .......LJ--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'.... 0......0..0..0......0........ <<<("''''<<(<(<(<(<< <.>UUUUU<.>UUUUU 000000000000 ~~~"''''~~~''''''~~ 3;;:;;:;:;:;;:;;:;:;:;:;;: ww"'wwww,,",www '>'>'>'>'>'>'>'>'>'>'> <l<l<l<l<l<l<l<l<<< ::1::1::1::1::1::1::1::1::1::1::1 ggggggggggg ""''''~N'''......a_...~ ...~......N"''''....,_... ........................~...... ................................. m...m.....................~... ~.............................. .. .... '" '" '" '" '" '" '" i ~ g I ~ ~ ! on '" U !; 0: '" '" :l 0: '" '" '" Z u '" !; C '" '" on ,. '" > '" " '" ... .... '" ,!; !:l '" I ~ .0 ~ H: ;ti I 5 . ~ ~ I IJ '1' ~ ~ . " "- W . ~ 8 ~ ~ iI~i "" LL o "" r- LU LU :r: CIJ . < z . 00 .. t;~ o o o " ~ o , u :il~~~:i1~~~~ ~ ~~~~jjjjj ~ 000000000 ('l :I::I::I:J::r:r:rJ:J: <( UUUU<..H-'UU() '" ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww 555$5555555555555555 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww ('l('l('l('l('l('l('l('l('l('l('l('l('l('lOOO('l('l('l <<(<<<<<<<<<(<<<<<<<<< "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' to:;;t;;;;;:;;:;; ~2~222 ~~~:;~~ \:n:n:n:H::: ~ o z ~~8~~~~~~~~:;*~g::~~~ ~g~~~~~~~~~~i~~~~~~~~~~~m~~~g~ ~ ~"""""""""" ~ LO ci ::!: z z !:: is z u.. ::l ::J <{ ;.: 0 LU u.. a:: 0 ...J UJ LU f- ::2: 0 ~ <( 0 o' a:::r: C!l c.:> (:J <( Z ~ - <( ~ o a:: z r-...J <{ dJLU~ ::2: oi' 0 ~ ci ~ LU Z 5 CIJ r- 0 CIJ c.:> 0 <( - <i. a:: f- r- (J) ~ '> o <{ LU ...l c.:> ::J <( I a. 0 CIJ ~ Z >- LU f- a. U o ~"'''''''OI_",''''''''''_'''", "'''''''10'''..........''''''''''''''' ....................................... ~~~~~~~~~~~ I~~~~i~ii~i~i~i~ii~i~~~~~~~ii~ ............ ................................ ! ~gg~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ g I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 8-60 t;;:;;:;;:;; Ii!! i ~ ~ I ~ ~ I '" '" <.> :> " '" '" '" .. " '" '" '" Z <.> '" :> " " '" ~ '" '" ,. ... $: ~ ~:s Q: ",i;; i~ ,0 ~~ 1_ ,<.> ~ ~ 5 i , ~ IIJ <I" ~ ~ I~i 6. ASSESSMENT ROLL The following pages provide a listing of each parcel's previous Fiscal Year 2007/08 maximum assessment and proposed Fiscal Year 2007/08 maximum assessment amount, within Open Space District No, 9, EI Rancho dei Rey, Unit No, 5, that will be assessed for Fiscal Year 2007/08, Engineer's Report - City of Chuia Vista, OSD NO.9 Prepared by NBS 6-1 8-61 Assessor's Parcel Number 640-141-01-00 640-141-02-00 640-141-03-00 640-141-04-00 640-141-05-00 640-141-06-00 640-141-07-00 640-141-08-00 640-141-09-00 640-141-10-00 640-141-11-00 640-141-12-00 640-141-13-00 640-141-14-00 640-141-15-00 640-141-16-00 640-141-17-00 640-141-18-00 640-141-19-00 640-141-20-00 640-141-21-00 640-141-22-00 640-141-23-00 640-141-24-00 640-142-01-00 640-142-02-00 640-142-03-00 640-142-04-00 640-142-05-00 640-142-06-00 640-142-07-00 640-142-09-00 640-142-10-00 640-142-11-00 640-142-12-00 640-142-13-00 640-142-14-00 640-142-15-00 640-142-16-00 640-142-17 -00 640-142-18-00 640-142-19-00 640-142-20-00 640-142-21-00 640-142-22-00 640-142-23-00 640-142-24-00 City of Chula Vista Open Space District No.9 EI Rancho Del Rey, Unit No.5 Fiscal Year 2007/08 Assessment Roll EDU 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 Previous 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU $168,09 168,09 168,09 168,09 168,09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168,09 168,09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168,09 168,09 168,09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168.09 16809 168.09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168,09 168,09 168,09 16809 168.09 168.09 168,09 168.09 Proposed 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU $230,00 230.00 230.00 230.00 230.00 230.00 230.00 230,00 230,00 230,00 230.00 230.00 230.00 230.00 230.00 230,00 230.00 230,00 230,00 230.00 230.00 230.00 230,00 230,00 230,00 230,00 230,00 230,00 230.00 230.00 230.00 230.00 230.00 230.00 230.00 230.00 230.00 230.00 230,00 230,00 230,00 230,00 230.00 230.00 230,00 230,00 230.00 Page 1 of 9 8-62 Assessor's Parcel Number 640-142-25-00 640-142-26-00 640-142-27-00 640-142-28-00 640-151-01-00 640-151-02-00 640-151-03-00 640-151-04-00 640-151-05-00 640-151-06-00 640-151-07-00 640-151-08-00 640-151-09-00 640-151-10-00 640-151-11-00 640-151-12-00 640-151-13-00 640-151-14-00 640-151-15-00 640-151-16-00 640-151-17-00 640-151-18-00 640-151-19-00 640-151-20-00 640-151-21-00 640-151-22-00 640-151-23-00 640-151-24-00 640-151-25-00 640-151-26-00 640-151-27-00 640-151-28-00 640-151-29-00 640-151-30-00 640-151-31-00 640-151-32-00 640-151-33-00 640-151-34-00 640-151-35-00 640-151-36-00 640-151-37-00 640-151-38-00 640-151-39-00 640-151-40-00 640-151-41-00 640-151-42-00 640-151-43-00 City of Chula Vista Open Space District No.9 EI Rancho Del Rey, Unit No.5 Fiscal Year 2007/08 Assessment Roll EDU 1.00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1,00 Previous 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 168.09 168.09 168.09 168,09 168.09 168.09 168,09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168,09 168,09 168,09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168,09 168,09 168,09 168,09 16809 168.09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168,09 168.09 168.09 168,09 Proposed 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 230.00 230,00 230,00 230.00 230.00 230.00 230.00 230,00 230,00 230.00 230.00 230.00 230,00 230,00 230,00 230.00 230.00 230.00 230.00 230.00 230.00 230.00 230.00 230,00 230,00 230.00 230,00 230,00 230,00 230,00 230,00 230,00 230,00 230,00 230,00 230.00 230,00 230,00 230,00 230,00 230,00 230.00 230.00 230,00 230,00 230.00 230,00 Page 2 of 9 8-63 Assessor's Parcel Number 640-151-44-00 640-151-45-00 640-152-01-00 640-152-02-00 640-152-03-00 640-152-04-00 640-152-05-00 640-152-06-00 640-152-07-00 640-152-08-00 640-152-09-00 640-152-10-00 640-152-11-00 640-152-12-00 640-152-13-00 640-152-14-00 640-152-15-00 640-152-16-00 640-152-17-00 640-152-18-00 640-152-19-00 640-152-20-00 640-152-21-00 640-152-22-00 640-152-23-00 640-152-24-00 640-152-25-00 640-152-26-00 640-152-27-00 640-152-28-00 640-152-29-00 640-152-30-00 640-152-31-00 640-152-32-00 640-152-33-00 640-152-34-00 640-152-35-00 640-152-36-00 640-152-37-00 640-152-38-00 640-152-39-00 640-152-40-00 640-152-41-00 640-152-42-00 640-152-43-00 640-152-44-00 640-152-45-00 City of Chula Vista Open Space District No, 9 EI Rancho Del Rey, Unit No.5 Fiscal Year 2007/08 Assessment Roll EDU 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1,00 Previous 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 168,09 168,09 168.09 168.09 168,09 168,09 168,09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168,09 168,09 168,09 168.09 168,09 168,09 168,09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168,09 168,09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168,09 168,09 168,09 Proposed 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 230,00 230,00 230,00 230.00 230.00 230.00 230.00 230.00 230,00 230.00 230.00 230.00 230.00 230.00 230.00 230,00 230,00 230.00 230.00 230,00 230,00 230.00 230.00 230.00 230.00 230.00 230.00 230.00 230.00 230,00 230,00 230,00 230,00 230,00 230,00 230.00 230.00 230,00 230,00 230.00 230.00 230.00 230.00 230.00 230,00 230,00 230,00 Page 3 of 9 8-64 Assessor's Parcel Number 640-152-46-00 640-152-47-00 640-152-48-00 640-152-49-00 640-152-50-00 640-152-51-00 640-152-52-00 640-152-53-00 640-152-54-00 640-152-55-00 640-152-56-00 640-161-01-00 640-161-02-00 640-161-03-00 640-161-04-00 640-161-05-00 640-161-06-00 640-161-07-00 640-161-08-00 640-161-09-00 640-161-10-00 640-161-11-00 640-161-12-00 640-161-13-00 640-161-14-00 640-161-15-00 640-161-16-00 640-161-17-00 640-161-18-00 640-161-19-00 640-161-20-00 640-161-21-00 640-161-22-00 640-161-23-00 640-161-24-00 640-161-25-00 640-161-26-00 640-161-27-00 640-161-28-00 640-161-29-00 640-161-30-00 640-161-31-00 640-161-32-00 640-161-33-00 640-161-34-00 640-161-35-00 640-161-36-00 City of Chula Vista Open Space District No.9 EI Rancho Del Rey, Unit No.5 Fiscal Year 2007108 Assessment Roll EDU 1,00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1.00 Previous 2007108 Maximum Assessment per EDU 168.09 168.09 168,09 168.09 168,09 168,09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168,09 168,09 168,09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168,09 168,09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168,09 168,09 168,09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168,09 168,09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168,09 168.09 Page40f9 8-65 Proposed 2007108 Maximum Assessment per EDU 230.00 230.00 230,00 230.00 230.00 230,00 230.00 230.00 230.00 230,00 230,00 230,00 230.00 230.00 230.00 230.00 230,00 230,00 230.00 230.00 230.00 230.00 230,00 230,00 230,00 230,00 230.00 230.00 230.00 230,00 230,00 230,00 230,00 230,00 230,00 230,00 230.00 230,00 230,00 230,00 230,00 230,00 230.00 230.00 230.00 230,00 230,00 Assessor's Parcel Number 640-161-37-00 640-161-38-00 640-161-39-00 640-161-40-00 640-161-41-00 640-161-42-00 640-161-43-00 640-161-44-00 640-162-01-00 640-162-02-00 640-162-03-00 640-162-04-00 640-162-05-00 640-162-06-00 640-162-07-00 640-162-08-00 640-162-09-00 640-162-10-00 640-162-11-00 640-162-12-00 640-162-13-00 640-162-14-00 640-162-15-00 640-162-16-00 640-162-17-00 640-162-18-00 640-162-19-00 640-162-20-00 640-162-21-00 640-162-22-00 640-162-23-00 640-162-24-00 640-162-25-00 640-162-26-00 640-162-27-00 640-162-28-00 640-162-29-00 640-162-30-00 640-162-31-00 640-162-32-00 640-162-33-00 640-162-34-00 640-162-35-00 640-162-36-00 640-162-37-00 640-162-38-00 640-162-39-00 City of Chula Vista Open Space District No.9 EI Rancho Del Rey, Unit NO.5 Fiscal Year 2007/08 Assessment Roll EDU 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Previous 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 168.09 168.09 168,09 168,09 168.09 168,09 168,09 168.09 168.09 168,09 168,09 168,09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168,09 168.09 168.09 168,09 16809 168.09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168,09 168,09 168,09 168,09 16809 168.09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168,09 168.09 168,09 16809 168,09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168,09 168.09 Proposed 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 230,00 230,00 230.00 230.00 230,00 230,00 230.00 230.00 230.00 230,00 230,00 230.00 230.00 230,00 230,00 230,00 230.00 230,00 230,00 230.00 230.00 230,00 230,00 230,00 230,00 230,00 230.00 230,00 230,00 230.00 230.00 230.00 230.00 230.00 230.00 230.00 230,00 230.00 230.00 230.00 230.00 230,00 230.00 230.00 230.00 230,00 230.00 Page 5 of 9 8-66 Assessor's Parcel Number 640-162-40-00 640-162-41-00 640-162-42-00 640-162-43-00 640-162-44-00 640-162-45-00 640-162-46-00 640-162-47-00 640-162-48-00 640-162-49-00 640-162-50-00 640-162-51-00 640-162-52-00 640-171-01-00 640-171-02-00 640-171-03-00 640-171-04-00 640-171-05-00 640-171-06-00 640-171-07-00 640-171-08-00 640-171-09-00 640-171-10-00 640-171-11-00 640-171-12-00 640-171-13-00 640-171-14-00 640-171-15-00 640-171-16-00 640-171-17-00 640-171-18-00 640-171-19-00 640-171-20-00 640-171-21-00 640-171-22-00 640-171-23-00 640-171-24-00 640-171-25-00 640-171-26-00 640-171-27-00 640-171-28-00 640-171-29-00 640-171-30-00 640-171-31-00 640-171-32-00 640-171-33-00 640-171-34-00 City of Chula Vista Open Space District No.9 EI Rancho Del Rey, Unit No, 5 Fiscal Year 2007/08 Assessment Roll EDU 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 Previous 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 168.09 168,09 168.09 168,09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168.09 16809 168,09 168,09 168,09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168,09 168,09 168,09 168,09 168,09 168,09 168,09 168.09 168.09 168,09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168,09 168,09 168,09 168,09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168,09 168,09 168.09 Proposed 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 230.00 230.00 230,00 230,00 230,00 230,00 230.00 230.00 230,00 230,00 230,00 230,00 230,00 230,00 230,00 230,00 230,00 230.00 230.00 230.00 230.00 230.00 230.00 230.00 230.00 230.00 230,00 230,00 230,00 230,00 230,00 230,00 230,00 230,00 230,00 230,00 230,00 230,00 230.00 230.00 230,00 230,00 230,00 230.00 230.00 230,00 230.00 Page 6 of 9 8-67 Assessor's Parcel Number 640-171-35-00 640-171-36-00 640-171-37-00 640-171-38-00 640-171-39-00 640-171-40-00 640-171-41-00 640-171-42-00 640-171-43-00 640-171-44-00 640-171-45-00 640-172-01-00 640-172-02-00 640-172-03-00 640-172-04-00 640-172-05-00 640-172-06-00 640-172-07-00 640-172-08-00 640-172-09-00 640-172-10-00 640-172-11-00 640-172-12-00 640-172-13-00 640-172-14-00 640-172-15-00 640-172-16-00 640-172-17-00 640-172-18-00 640-172-19-00 640-172-20-00 640-172-21-00 640-172-22-00 640-172-23-00 640-172-24-00 640-172-25-00 640-172-26-00 640-172-27-00 640-172-28-00 640-172-29-00 640-172-30-00 640-172-31-00 640-172-32-00 640-172-33-00 640-172-34-00 640-172-35-00 640-172-36-00 City of Chula Vista Open Space District No, 9 EI Rancho Del Rey, Unit No.5 Fiscal Year 2007/08 Assessment Roll EDU 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1.00 Previous 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 168,09 16809 168.09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168,09 168,09 168.09 168.09 168.09 16809 168,09 168,09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168,09 168,09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168,09 168,09 168,09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168,09 168,09 168,09 168.09 168.09 Proposed 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 230,00 230.00 230.00 230.00 230.00 230.00 230,00 230,00 230,00 230.00 230,00 230.00 230.00 230,00 230,00 230.00 230.00 230.00 230,00 230,00 230,00 230.00 230.00 230.00 230.00 230.00 230.00 230.00 230.00 230.00 230.00 230,00 230,00 230,00 230,00 230,00 230,00 230,00 230,00 230,00 230,00 230,00 230,00 230.00 230.00 230.00 230,00 Page 7 of 9 8-68 Assessor's Parcel Number 640-172-37-00 640-172-38-00 640-172-39-00 640-172-40-00 640-172-41-00 640-172-42-00 640-172-43-00 640-172-44-00 640-172-45-00 640-172-46-00 640-172-47-00 640-172-48-00 640-180-01-00 640-180-02-00 640-180-03-00 640-180-04-00 640-180-05-00 640-180-06-00 640-180-07-00 640-180-08-00 640-180-09-00 640-180-10-00 640-180-11-00 640-180-12-00 640-180-13-00 640-180-14-00 640-180-15-00 640-180-16-00 640-180-17-00 640-180-18-00 640-180-19-00 640-180-20-00 640-180-21-00 640-180-22-00 640-180-23-00 640-180-24-00 640-180-25-00 640-180-26-00 640-180-27-00 640-180-28-00 640-180-29-00 640-180-30-00 640-180-31-00 640-180-32-00 640-180-33-00 640-180-34-00 640-180-35-00 City of Chura Vista Open Space District No.9 EI Rancho Del Rey, Unit No, 5 Fiscal Year 2007/08 Assessment Roll EDU 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1,00 Previous 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 168.09 168.09 168,09 16809 168.09 168.09 168,09 168,09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168,09 168,09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168,09 168,09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168,09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168,09 168,09 168,09 168,09 168,09 16809 168.09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168,09 168.09 168.09 Proposed 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 230,00 230.00 230.00 230,00 230,00 230.00 230.00 230,00 230,00 230.00 230.00 230.00 230,00 230,00 230.00 230.00 230.00 230.00 230.00 230.00 230,00 230.00 230.00 230.00 230.00 230,00 230,00 230.00 230.00 230.00 230.00 230.00 230.00 230.00 230,00 230,00 230,00 230,00 230,00 230,00 230,00 230.00 230.00 230.00 230,00 230,00 230,00 Page 8 of 9 8-69 Assessor's Parcel Number 640-180-36-00 640-180-37-00 640-180-38-00 640-180-39-00 640-180-40-00 640-1 80-41-00 640-180-42-00 640-180-43-00 Total City of Chula Vista Open Space District NO.9 EI Rancho Del Rey, Unit No.5 Fiscal Year 2007/08 Assessment Roll EDU 1.00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 384,00 Previous 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 168.09 168,09 168.09 168.09 168.09 168,09 168,09 168,09 $64,546.56 Page 9 of 9 8-70 Proposed 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 230.00 230.00 230.00 230,00 230.00 230.00 230.00 230.00 $88,320.00 N S/S ATTACHMENT .2 l.<<:aIGiMmmiIltSoll4iMs City of Chula Vista Proposed Assessment Increase Open Space District No. 20 Zone 2, Rice Canyon Trail Area Engineer's Report Fiscal Year 2007/08 June 5, 2007 Prepared by NIBIS Corporate Office 32605 Highway 79 South, Suite 100 Temecula, CA 92592 (800) 676-7516 phone (951) 296-1998 fax Regional Office 870 Market Street, Suite 901 San Francisco, CA 94102 (800) 434-8349 phone (415) 391-8439 fax 8-71 CITY OF CHULA VISTA OPEN SPACE DISTRICT NO. 20 ZONE 2, RICE CANYON TRAIL AREA 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 Phone - (619) 476-5376 CITY COUNCIL Cheryl Cox, Mayor Rudy Ramirez, Councilmember John McCann, Council member Jerry Rindone, Council member Steve Castaneda, Councilmember Susan Bigelow, City Clerk CITY STAFF Scott Tulloch, City Engineer Dave Byers, Director of Public Works Operations Leah Browder, Deputy Director of Engineering Robert Beamon, Administrative Services Manager Larry Eliason, Parks and Open Space Manager Chevis Fennell, Senior Open Space Inspector Josie Gabriel, Associate Planner Amy Partosan, Administrative Analyst II Jose Gomez, Land Surveyor Tessa Quicho, Administrative Analyst II NIBIS Greg Ghironzi, Project Director Michael J. Steams, Assessment Engineer Stephanie Parson, Senior Consultant Sue Tyau, Financial Analyst 8-72 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. ENGINEER'S LETTER 1-1 2. PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS 2-1 2.1 Description of District Boundaries ................................................................2-1 2.2 Description of Facilities and Services........................................................... 2-1 2.3 Reason for the Increased Assessment ........................................................ 2-1 3. ESTIMATE OF COSTS 3-1 4. ASSESSMENTS 4-1 4.1 Method of Apportionment............................................................................. 4-1 4.2 Maximum Assessment - Assessment Increase ........................................... 4-2 5. ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM 5-1 6. ASSESSMENT ROLL 6-1 8-73 1. ENGINEER'S LETTER WHEREAS, on June 5, 2007, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista (the "City Council"), State of California, under the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972 (the "1972 Act"), the City of Chula Vista Municipal Code, Chapter 17,07 (the "Municipal Code"), Article XIIID of the Constitution of the State of California ("Article XIIID") and the Proposition 218 Omnibus Implementation Act (Government Code Section 53750 and following) (the "Implementation Act") (the 1972 Act, Municipal Code, Article XIIID and the Implementation Act may be referred to collectively as the "Assessment Law") adopted its Resolution of Intention to increase assessments above the existing approved maximum amount in Open Space District No. 20, Zone 2, Rice Canyon Trail Area (the "District"); and provide for the Levy and Collection of said increased assessments commencing Fiscal Year 2007/08. WHEREAS, the Resolution directed NBS to prepare and file a report presenting plans and specifications describing the general nature, location and extent of the improvements to be maintained, an estimate of the costs of the maintenance, operations and servicing of the improvements for the District for the referenced fiscal year, an assessment diagram for the District showing the area and properties to be assessed, and an assessment of the estimated costs of the maintenance, operations and servicing the improvements, and also stating the reason for the increased assessment; identifying the parcels upon which an increased assessment is proposed for imposition and presenting the basis upon which the increased assessment is to be calculated. NOW THEREFORE, the following increased assessment is made to the District of the estimated costs of maintenance, operation and servicing of improvements to be paid by the assessable real property within the District in proportion to the special benefit received: SUMMARY OF ASSESSMENT Descriotion OSD No, 20 Zone 2 Costs Annual Total Costs Balance to Assessment Previous Fiscal Year 2007/08 Maximum Assessment Proposed Fiscal Year 2007/08 Maximum Assessment $18,569.37 $18,569.37 $67,309.46 $67,309.46 I, the undersigned, respectfully submit the enclosed Engineer's Report and, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, the increased assessments herein have been prepared and computed in accordance with the order of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, California. NBS Engineer's Report - City of Chula Vista, OSD No. 20, Zone 2 Prepared by NBS 1-1 8-74 2. PLANS AND SPECIFICA TIONS 2.1 Description of District Boundaries Open Space District No. 20, corresponds to the boundary of Rancho del Rey property including Section Planning Areas (SPA) I, II and III. 2.2 Description of Facilities and Services The areas to be maintained by the District's Zone includes SPA I, II and III. The District's Zone currently consists of 2,192 parcels. The assessments collected within the District will pay the costs of maintaining natural open space, green belt and slopes along major and collector roads, including the maintenance of all trees, shrubs, plants, etc., planted or placed within said open space area. The District is comprised of 6.0 acres of non- irrigated slopes, 47.9 acres of non-irrigated/preserve slopes, and 0.04 acres of turf and 1.7 acres of omamental plants. The proposed maintenance consists in general of the following: . Brush clearance for fire protection . Irrigation . Fertilization . Mowing of turf . Removal of weeds, trash and litter . Pruning of trees and shrubs . Replacement of dead or diseased trees and shrubs . Repair and replacement of equipment and facilities 2.3 Reason for the Increased Assessment Currently, due to Proposition 218, passed in 1996, assessments cannot be increased to pay for the increased costs of labor, materials, supplies, electricity rates, etc., because the maximum assessment previously authorized for the District has been levied. Without the ability to increase assessments it may be necessary for the District to reduce the level of maintenance it can provide, thus jeopardizing the quality and appearance of facilities. The District is requesting the ability to increase the current maximum assessment within the District. Approval of the proposed increased assessments will: . Provide for the repair, removal or replacement of all or any part of any improvement. Provide for the life, growth, health and beauty of the landscaping, including cultivation, irrigation, trimming, Engineer's Report - City of Chula Vista, OSD No. 20, Zone 2 Prepared by NBS 2-1 8-75 spraying, fertilizing or treating for disease to injury, the removal of trimmings, rubbish, debris, and other solid waste. If the increased assessments are not approved, the following reduction in services may include, but are not limited to: . Reduction or elimination of brush clearance for fire protection . Reduced mowing and watering of turf . Reduced tree trimming, fertilization and brush management . Replacement of equipment and plants will not occur in a timely manner . Sprinkler replacement will not occur in a timely manner . Contractual services reduced, providing for an overall reduction in the amount of maintenance performed within the area . Increase in litter, trash and weeds Engineer's Report - City of Chula Vista, OSD No. 20, Zone 2 Prepared by NBS 2-2 8-76 3. ESTIMA TE OF COSTS The estimated budget for annual maintenance of the facilities and proportionate share of the costs of administration of the District have been prepared based on cost information provided by the City of Chula Vista staff. The estimated budgetary unit costs for the maintenance of the improvements and the administration of the District are listed below. The Fiscal Year 2007/08 maximum total assessment for Open Space District No. 20, Zone 2, Rice Canyon Trail Area, is summarized in the following table: Previous Total Description Maximum Assessment Utility Charges $136.00 Trash Collection & Disposal Fees 280,00 Water Charges 5,400.00 Services to Maintain Structures, Grounds 250.00 City Staff Services 6,663.00 Contract Services 19,519.00 Landscape Supplies 460.00 Materials to Maintain Structures, Grounds 950.00 Professional Services 1,337.00 Supplementals 622.00 Transfer: Corporate Yard Debt Services 362.00 Operating Reserve Collection (17,409.63) Total 2007/08 Previous Maximum Assessment: $18.569,37 The proposed increase to the maximum total assessment beginning Fiscal Year 2007/08 is as follows: Description Proposed Increase Utility Charges $0.00 Trash Collection & Disposal Fees 0.00 Water Charges 0.00 Services to Maintain Structures, Grounds 0.00 City Staff Services 0.00 Contract Services 0.00 Landscape Supplies 0.00 Materials to Maintain Structures, Grounds 0.00 Professional Services 0.00 Supplementals 0.00 Transfer: Corporate Yard Debt Services 0.00 Operating Reserve Collection 48,740.09 Total 2007/08 Proposed Increase: $48,740,09 Engineer's Report - City of Chula Vista, OSD No, 20, Zone 2 Prepared by NBS 3-1 8-77 The proposed total Maximum Assessment for Fiscal Year 2007/08 with the increased landscaping maintenance costs is summarized as follows: Proposed Total Description Maximum Assessment Utility Charges $136,00 Trash Collection & Disposai Fees 280.00 Water Charges 5,400,00 Services to Maintain Structures, Grounds 250.00 City Staff Services 6,663.00 Contract Services 19,519.00 Landscape Supplies 460.00 Materiais to Maintain Structures, Grounds 950.00 Professional Services 1,337.00 Supplementals 622.00 Transfer: Corporate Yard Debt Services 362.00 Operating Reserve Collection 31,330.46 Total 2007/08 Proposed Maximum Assessment: $67,309.46 All of the costs are based on current estimates. The assessments are based on these costs and the difference between the estimated cost and the actual cost will be accounted for in the subsequent year. Engineer's Report - City of Chula Vista, OSD No. 20, Zone 2 Prepared by NBS 3-2 8-78 4. ASSESSMENTS The proposed Increased maximum assessment will be apportioned to each parcel, In the City of Chula Vista Open Space District No. 20, Zone 2, Rice Canyon Trail Area, as shown on the latest equalized roll at - -the County Assessor's office, as listed In Section 6 of this Report. The description of each lot or parcel is part of the records of the County Assessor of the County of San Diego and such records are, by reference, made part of this Report. 4.1 Method of Apportionment Pursuant to the Assessment Law, all parcels that have special benefit conferred upon them as a result of the maintenance and operation of improvements are identified and the proportionate special benefit derived by each identified parcel is determined in relationship to the entire cost of the maintenance and operation of the improvements. Open Space District No. 20, Zone 2, Rice Canyon Trail Area, provides an open space and recreation amenity to the residents and occupants of the employment park. As such, an equivalent dwelling unit (EDU) factor based on recreational use is established below and uses as a base a standard population factor for a residential household of 2.67. This factor is then related to the population per acre of non- residential lad uses based on numbers derived from San Diego Traffic Generators, July 1988, SANDAG/CAL TRANS. The factors and associated land uses are presented below. Recreation PODulation Factor Land Use PODulation EDU Factor Residential 2.67/Dwelling Unit 1 Commercial 15/Acre 5.62 Business Park 40/Acre 14.99 EDU's associated with recreation are applied to those parcels which benefit from the recreation value of Rice Canyon, properties north of "H" Street. The total number of EDU's are then summed and the total cost is apportioned back to the participating properties. Engineer's Report - City of Chula Vista, OSD No. 20, Zone 2 Prepared by NBS 4-1 8-79 4.2 Maximum Assessment - Assessment Increase The proposed increased maximum assessment spread to each Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU), for Fiscal Year 2007/08, based on the method of apportionment within Open Space District No. 20, Zone 2, Rice Canyon Trail Area, is as follows: The maximum annual assessment per EDU is outiined in the following table: Maximum Annual Description Assessment Per EDU Previous Maximum Annual Assessment $4.69 Per EDU for Fiscal Year 2007/08 Proposed Annual Assessment Increase $12.31 Per EDU for Fiscal Year 2007/08 Proposed Maximum Annual Assessment $17.00 Per EDU for Fiscal Year 2007/08 Beginning Fiscal Year 2008/09, the maximum assessment shall be the prior year's assessment increased or decreased by an inflation factor which is the lesser of (1) the January to January San Diego Metropolitan Area All Urban Consumer Price Index (CPI) or (2) the change in estimated California Fourth Quarter Per Capita Personal Income as contained in the Governor's budget published in January. Engineer's Report - City of Chula Vista, OSD No, 20, Zone 2 Prepared by NBS 4-2 8-80 5. ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM The following pages show a reduced copy of the Assessment Diagram. For a detailed description of the lines and dimensions of any lot or parcel, reference is hereby made to the County Assessor's maps, which shall govern for all details concerning the lines and dimension of such lots or parcels. Engineer's Report - City of Chula Vista, OSD No. 20, Zone 2 Prepared by NBS 5-1 8-81 6. ASSESSMENT ROLL The following pages provide a listing of each parcel's previous Fiscal Year 2007/08 maximum assessment and proposed Fiscal Year 2007/08 maximum assessment amount, within Open Space District No. 20, Zone 2, Rice Canyon Trail Area that will be assessed for Fiscal Year 2007/08. Engineer's Report - City of Chula Vista, OSD No. 20, Zone 2 Prepared by NBS 6-1 8-82 Assessor's Parcel Number 593-141-01-00 593-141-02-00 593-141-03-00 593-141-04-00 593-141-05-00 593-141-06-00 593-141-07-00 593-141-08-00 593-141-09-00 593-141-10-00 593-141-11-00 593-141-12-00 593-141-13-00 593-141-14-00 593-141-15-00 593-141-16-00 593-141-17-00 593-141-18-00 593-141-19-00 593-141-20-00 593-141-21-00 593-142-01-00 593-142-02-00 593-142-03-00 593-142-04-00 593-142-05-00 593-142-06-00 593-142-07-00 593-142-08-00 593-142-09-00 593-142-10-00 593-142-11-00 593-142-12-00 593-142-13-00 593-142-14-00 593-142-15-00 593-142-16-00 593-142-17-00 593-142-18-00 593-142-19-00 593-142-20-00 593-142-21-00 593-142-22-00 593-142-23-00 593-142-24-00 593-142-25-00 593-142-26-00 City of Chula Vista Open Space District No. 20, Zone 2 Rice Canyon Trail Area Fiscal Year 2007/08 Assessment Roll EDU 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 Previous 2007/08 Maximum "Assessment per EDU $4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4,69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 Proposed 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU . $17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 .17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17,00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17,00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17,00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17,00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 Page 1 of 47 8-83 Assessor's Parcel Number 593-142-27-00 593-142-28-00 593-142-29-00 593-142-30-00 593-142-31-00 593-142-32-00 593-142-33-00 593-142-34-00 593-142-35-00 593-143-01-00 593-143-03-00 593-143-04-00 593-143-05-00 593-143-06-00 593-143-07-00 593-143-08-00 593-143-09-00 593-143-10-00 593-143-11-00 593-143-12-00 593-143-13-00 593-143-14-00 593-143-15-00 593-143-16-00 593-143-17-00 593-143-18-00 593-143-19-00 593-143-20-00 593-143-21-00 593-143-22-00 593-143-26-00 593-360-01-00 593-360-02-00 593-360-03-00 593-360-04-00 593-360-05-00 593-360-06-00 593-360-07-00 593-360-08-00 593-360-09-00 593-360-10-00 593-360-11-00 593-360-12-00 593-360-13-00 593-360-14-00 593-360-15-00 593-360-16-00 City of Chula Vista Open Space District No, 20, Zone 2 Rice Canyon Trail Area Fiscal Year 2007/08 Assessment Roll EDU 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Previous 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4,69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4,69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4,69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 Proposed 2007/08 Maximum AssessmentperEDU 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17,00 17,00 17.00 17.00 Page 2 of 47 8-84 Assessor's Parcel .-Number.- - 593-360-17-00 593-360-18-00 593-360-19-00 593-360-20-00 593-360-21-00 593-360-22-00 593-360-23-00 593-360-24-00 593-360-25-00 593-360-26-00 593-360-27-00 593-360-28-00 593-360-29-00 593-360-30-00 593-360-31-00 593-361-01-00 593-361-02-00 593-361-03-00 593-361-04-00 593-361-05-00 593-361-06-00 593-361-07-00 593-361-08-00 593-361-09-00 593-361-10-00 593-361-11-00 593-361-12-00 593-361-13-00 593-361-14-00 593-361-15-00 593-361-16-00 593-361-17-00 593-361-18-00 593-361-19-00 593-361-20-00 593-361-21-00 593-361-22-00 593-361-23-00 593-361-24-00 593-361-25-00 593-361-26-00 593-361-27-00 593-361-28-00 593-361-29-00 593-362-01-00 593-362-02-00 593-362-03-00 City of Chula Vista Open Space District No. 20, Zone 2 Rice Canyon Trail Area Fiscal Year 2007/08 Assessment Roll EDU 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Previous 2007/08 Maximum '- Assessment per EDU 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 Proposed 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17,00 Page 3 of 47 8-85 Assessor's Parcel -Number 593-362-04-00 593-362-05-00 593-362-06-00 593-362-07-00 593-362-08-00 593-362-09-00 593-362-10-00 593-362-11-00 593-362-12-00 593-362-13-00 593-362-14-00 593-362-15-00 593-362-16-00 593-362-17-00 593-362-22-00 593-362-23-00 593-370-01-00 593-370-02-00 593-370-03-00 593-370-04-00 593-370-05-00 593-370-06-00 593-370-07-00 593-370-08-00 593-370-09-00 593-370-10-00 593-370-11-00 593-370-12-00 593-370-13-00 593-370-14-00 593-370-15-00 593-370-16-00 593-370-17-00 593-370-18-00 593-370-19-00 593-370-20-00 593-370-21-00 593-370-22-00 593-370-23-00 593-370-24-00 593-370-25-00 593-370-26-00 593-370-27-00 593-370-28-00 593-370-29-00 593-370-30-00 593-370-31-00 City of Chula Vista Open Space District No. 20, Zone 2 Rice Canyon Trail Area Fiscal Year 2007/08 Assessment Roll EDU 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Previous 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4,69 Proposed 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 '17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 Page 4 of 47 8-86 Assessor's Parcel Number 593-370-32-00 593-370-33-00 593-370-34-00 593-370-35-00 593-370-36-00 593-370-37-00 593-370-38-00 593-370-39-00 593-370-40-00 593-370-41-00 593-370-42-00 593-370-43-00 593-370-44-00 593-370-45-00 593-370-46-00 593-370-47-00 593-370-48-00 593-371-01-00 593-371-02-00 593-371-03-00 593-371-04-00 593-371-05-00 593-371-06-00 593-371-07-00 593-371-08-00 593-371-09-00 593-371-10-00 593-371-11-00 593-371-12-00 593-371-13-00 593-371-14-00 593-371-15-00 593-371-16-00 593-371-17-00 593-371-18-00 593-371-19-00 593-371-20-00 593-371-21-00 593-371-22-00 593-371-23-00 593-371-24-00 ' 593-371-25-00 593-371-26-00 593-371-27-00 593-371-28-00 593-371-29-00 593-371-30-00 City of Chula Vista Open Space District No, 20, Zone 2 Rice Canyon Trail Area Fiscal Year 2007/08 Assessment Roll EDU 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1,00 Previous 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 4.69 4,69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4,69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4,69 4,69 4,69 4,69 4.69 Proposed 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17,00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17,00 17.00 17.00 17.00 Page 5 of 47 8-87 Assessor's Parcel Number 593-371-31-00 593-371-32-00 593-371-33-00 593-371-34-00 593-371-35-00 593-371-36-00 593-371-37-00 593-371-38-00 593-371-39-00 593-371-40-00 593-371-41-00 593-371-42-00 593-371-43-00 593-371-44-00 593-371-45-00 593-371-46-00 593-371-47-00 593-371-48-00 593-371-49-00 593-371-50-00 593-371-51-00 593-371-52-00 593-371-53-00 593-371-54-00 593-371-55-00 593-371-56-00 593-371-57-00 593-371-58-00 593-371-59-00 593-371-60-00 593-371-61-00 593-371-62-00 593-371-63-00 593-371-64-00 593-371-65-00 593-371-66-00 593-371-67-00 593-371-68-00 593-371-69-00 593-371-70-00 593-371-71-00 593-371-72-00 593-371-73-00 593-371-75-00 593-371-76-00 593-371-77-00 593-371-78-00 EDU 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 City of Chula Vista Open Space District No, 20, Zone 2 Rice Canyon Trail Area Fiscal Year 2007/08 Assessment Roll Previous 2007/08 Maximum .- - Assessment per EDU 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4,69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 Proposed 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17,00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17,00 17,00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 Page 6 of 47 8-88 Assessor's Parcel '. Number 593-371-79-00 593-371-80-00 593-371-81-00 593-371-82-00 593-371-83-00 593-371-84-00 593-371-85-00 593-372-01-00 593-372-02-00 593-372-03-00 593-372-04-00 593-372-05-00 593-372-06-00 593-372-07-00 593-372-08-00 593-372-09-00 593-372-10-00 593-372-11-00 593-372-12-00 593-372-13-00 593-372-14-00 593-372-15-00 593-372-16-00 593-372-17-00 593-372-18-00 593-372-19-00 593-372-20-00 593-372-21-00 593-372-22-00 593-372-23-00 593-372-24-00 593-372-25-00 593-372-26-00 593-372-27-00 593-372-28-00 593-372-29-00 593-372-30-00 593-372-31-00 593-372-32-00 593-372-33-00 593-372-34-00 593-372-35-00 593-372-36-00 593-372-37-00 593-372-38-00 593-372-39-00 593-372-40-00 City of Chula Vista Open Space District No. 20, Zone 2 Rice Canyon Trail Area Fiscal Year 2007/08 Assessment Roll EDU 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Previous 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4,69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4,69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4,69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 Proposed 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 17,00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17,00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17,00 17,00 17,00 17,00 17,00 17.00 Page 7 of 47 8-89 Assessor's Parcel Number - 593-372-41-00 593-372-42-00 593-372-43-00 593-372-44-00 593-372-45-00 593-372-46-00 593-372-47-00 593-372-48-00 593-372-49-00 593-372-50-00 593-372-51-00 593-372-52-00 593-372-53-00 593-372-54-00 593-372-55-00 593-372-56-00 593-373-01-00 593-373-02-00 593-373-03-00 593-373-04-00 593-373-05-00 593-373-06-00 593-373-07-00 593-373-08-00 593-373-09-00 593-373-10-00 593-373-11-00 593-373-12-00 593-373-13-00 593-373-14-00 593-373-15-00 593-373-16-00 593-373-17-00 593-373-18-00 593-373-19-00 593-373-20-00 593-373-21-00 593-373-22-00 593-373-23-00 593-373-24-00 593-373-25-00 593-373-26-00 593-373-27-00 593-373-28-00 593-373-29-00 593-373-30-00 593-373-31-00 City of Chula Vista Open Space District No, 20, Zone 2 Rice Canyon Trail Area Fiscal Year 2007/08 Assessment Roll EDU 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Previous 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4,69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 Page 8 of 47 8-90 Proposed 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 Assessor's Parcel Number- 593-373-32-00 593-373-33-00 593-373-34-00 593-373-35-00 593-373-36-00 593-373-37-00 593-373-38-00 593-373-39-00 593-373-40-00 593-373-41-00 593-373-42-00 593-373-43-00 593-373-44-00 593-373-45-00 593-373-46-00 593-373-47-00 593-373-48-00 593-373-49-00 593-373-50-00 593-373-51-00 593-373-52-00 593-373-53-00 593-373-54-00 593-373-55-00 593-373-56-00 593-373-57-00 593-373-58-00 593-373-59-00 593-373-60-00 593-373-61-00 593-380-01-00 593-380-02-00 593-380-03-00 593-380-04-00 593-380-05-00 593-380-06-00 593-380-07-00 593-380-08-00 593-380-09-00 593-380-10-00 593-380-11-00 593-380-12-00 593-380-13-00 593-380-14-00 593-380-15-00 593-380-16-00 593-380-17-00 City of Chula Vista Open Space District No. 20, Zone 2 Rice Canyon Trail Area Fiscal Year 2007/08 Assessment Roll EDU 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1,00 Previous 2007/08 Maximum . Assessment per EDU 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4,69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 Proposed 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17,00 17,00 17.00 17,00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17,00 17.00 Page 9 of 47 8-91 Assessor's Parcel - Number - -. , 593-380-18-00 593-380-19-00 593-380-20-00 593'380-21-00 593-380-22-00 593-380-23-00 593-380-24-00 593-380-25-00 593-380-26-00 593-380-27-00 593-380-28-00 593-380-29-00 593-380-30-00 593-380-31-00 593-380-32-00 593-380-33-00 593-381-01-00 593-381-02-00 593-381-03-00 593-381-04-00 593-381-05-00 593-381-06-00 593-381-07-00 593-381-08-00 593-381-09-00 593-381-10-00 593-381-11-00 593-381-12-00 593-381-13-00 593-381-14-00 593-381-15-00 593-381-16-00 593-381-17-00 593-381-18-00 593-381-19-00 593-381-20-00 593-381-21-00 593-381-22-00 593-381-23-00 593-381-24-00 593-381-25-00 593-381-26-00 593-381-27-00 593-381-28-00 593-381-29-00 593-381-30-00 593-381-31-00 City of Chula Vista Open Space District No, 20, Zone 2 Rice Canyon Trail Area Fiscal Year 2007/08 Assessment Roll EDU 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Previous 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU . 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4,69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4,69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 Proposed 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17,00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 Page 10 of 47 8-92 Assessor's Parcel Number 593-381-32-00 593-381-33-00 593-381-34-00 593-381-35-00 593-381-36-00 593-381-37-00 593-382-01-00 593-382-02-00 593-382-03-00 593-382-04-00 593-382-05-00 593-382-06-00 593-382-07-00 593-382-08-00 593-382-09-00 593-382-10-00 593-382-11-00 593-382-12-00 593-382-13-00 593-382-14-00 593-382-15-00 593-382-16-00 593-382-17-00 593-382-18-00 593-382-19-00 593-382-20-00 593-382-21-00 593-382-22-00 593-382-23-00 593-382-24-00 593-382-25-00 593-382-26-00 593-382-27-00 593-382-28-00 593-382-29-00 593-382-30-00 593-382-31-00 593-382-32-00 593-382-33-00 593-382-34-00 593-382-35-00 593-382-36-00 593-382-37-00 593-390-01-00 593-390-02-00 593-390-03-00 593-390-04-00 City of Chula Vista Open Space District No. 20, Zone 2 Rice Canyon Trail Area Fiscal Year 2007/08 Assessment Roll EDU 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Previous 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4,69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4,69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4,69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4,69 4,69 4,69 4,69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4,69 Page 11 of47 8-93 Proposed 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17,00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 Assessor's Parcel - Number 593-390-05-00 593-390-06-00 593-390-07-00 593-390-08-00 593-390-09-00 593-390-10-00 593-390-11-00 593-390-12-00 593-390-13-00 593-390-14-00 593-390-15-00 ' 593-390-16-00 593-390-17-00 593-390-18-00 593-390-19-00 593-390-20-00 593-390-21-00 593-390-22-00 593-390-23-00 593-390-24-00 593-390-25-00 593-390-26-00 593-390-27-00 593-391-01-00 593-391-02-00 593-391-03-00 593-391-04-00 593-391-05-00 593-391-06-00 593-391-07-00 593-391-08-00 593-391-09-00 593-391-10-00 593-391-11-00 593-391-12-00 593-391-13-00 593-391-14-00 593-391-15-00 593-391-16-00 593-391-17-00 593-391-18-00 593-391-19-00 593-391-20-00 593-391-21-00 593-391-22-00 593-391-23-00 593-391-24-00 City of Chula Vista Open Space District No. 20, Zone 2 Rice Canyon Trail Area Fiscal Year 2007/08 Assessment Roll EDU 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Previous 2007/08 Maximum Assessment-per EDU 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 Page 12 of 47 8-94 Proposed 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17,00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17,00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17,00 17.00 17,00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17,00 17,00 17.00 17.00 Assessor's Parcel -Number -- - 593-391-25-00 593-391-26-00 593-391-27-00 593-391-28-00 593-391-29-00 593-391-30-00 593-392-01-00 593-392-04-00 593-392-05-00 593-392-06-00 593-392-07-00 593-392-08-00 593-392-09-00 593-392-10-00 593-392-11-00 593-392-12-00 593-392-16-00 593-392-20-00 593-400-01-00 593-400-02-00 593-400-03-00 593-400-04-00 593-400-05-00 593-400-06-00 593-400-07-00 593-400-08-00 593-400-09-00 593-400-10-00 593-400-11-00 593-400-12-00 593-400-13-00 593-400-14-00 593-400-15-00 593-400-16-00 593-400-17-00 593-400-18-00 593-400-19-00 593-400-20-00 593-400-21-00 593-400-22-00 593-400-23-00 593-400-24-00 593-400-25-00 593-400-26-00 593-400-27-00 593-401-01-00 593-401-02-00 City of Chula Vista Open Space District No, 20, Zone 2 Rice Canyon Trail Area Fiscal Year 2007/08 Assessment Roll EDU 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 Previous 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 4.69 4.69 4,69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 Page 13 of 47 8-95 Proposed 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17,00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17,00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 Assessor's Parcel Number 593-401-03-00 593-401-04-00 593-401-05-00 593-401-06-00 593-401-07-00 593-401-08-00 593-401-09-00 593-401-10-00 593-401-11-00 593-401-12-00 593-401-13-00 593-401-14-00 593-401-15-00 593-401-16-00 593-401-17-00 593-401-18-00 593-401-19-00 593-401-20-00 593-401-21-00 593-401-22-00 593-401-23-00 593-401-24-00 593-401-25-00 593-401-26-00 593-401-27-00 593-401-28-00 593-401-29-00 593-401-30-00 593-401-31-00 593-401-32-00 593-401-33-00 593-401-34-00 593-401-35-00 593-401-36-00 594-121-01-00 594-121-02-00 594-121-03-00 594-121-04-00 594-121-05-00 594-121-06-00 594-121-07-00 594-121-08-00 594-121-09-00 594-121-10-00 594-121-11-00 594-121-12-00 594-121-13-00 City of Chula Vista Open Space District No, 20, Zone 2 Rice Canyon Trail Area Fiscal Year 2007/08 Assessment Roll EDU 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Previous 2007/08 Maximum , Assessment per EDU 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4,69 4,69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4,69 4.69 Proposed 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17,00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17,00 17,00 17,00 17,00 17,00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 Page 14 of 47 8-96 Assessor's Parcel Number - 594-121-14-00 594-121-15-00 594-121-16-00 594-121-17-00 594-121-18-00 594-121-19-00 594-121-20-00 594-121-21-00 594-121-22-00 594-121-23-00 594-121-27-00 594-121-28-00 594-121-29-00 594-121-30-00 594-121-31-00 594-121-32-00 594-121-33-00 594-121-34-00 594-121-35-00 594-121-36-00 594-121-37-00 594-121-38-00 594-121-39-00 594-121-40-00 594-121-41-00 594-121-42-00 594-121-43-00 594-121-44-00 594-121-45-00 594-121-46-00 594-121-47-00 594-121-48-00 594-121-49-00 594-121-50-00 594-121-51-00 594-121-52-00 594-121-53-00 594-121-54-00 594-121-55-00 594-121-56-00 594-121-57-00 594-121-58-00 594-121-59-00 594-121-60-00 594-121-61-00 594-121-62-00 594-121-63-00 City of Chula Vista Open Space District No. 20, Zone 2 Rice Canyon Trail Area Fiscal Year 2007/08 Assessment Roll EDU 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Previous 2007/08 Maximum - Assessment per EDU 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4,69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4,69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4,69 4.69 4,69 Proposed 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17,00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17,00 17,00 17,00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 Page 15 of 47 8-97 Assessor's Parcel ~ Number 594-121-64-00 594-121-65-00 594-121-66-00 594-121-67-00 594-121-68-00 594-121-69-00 594-121-70-00 594-121-71-00 594-121-72-00 594-121-73-00 594-121-74-00 594-121-75-00 594-121-76-00 594-121-77-00 594-121-82-00 594-121-83-00 594-121-84-00 594-122-01-00 594-122-02-00 594-122-03-00 594-122-04-00 594-122-05-00 594-122-06-00 594-122-07-00 594-122-08-00 594-122-09-00 594-122-10-00 594-122-11-00 594-122-12-00 594-122-13-00 594-122-14-00 594-122-15-00 594-122-16-00 594-122-17-00 594-122-18-00 594-122-19-00 594-122-20-00 594-122-21-00 594-122-22-00 594-122-23-00 594-122-24-00 594-122-25-00 594-122-26-00 594-122-27-00 594-122-28-00 594-122-29-00 594-122-30-00 City of Chula Vista Open Space District No, 20, Zone 2 Rice Canyon Trail Area Fiscal Year 2007/08 Assessment Roll EDU 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Previous 2007/08 Maximum ~-Assessment per EDU 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 Proposed 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17,00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17,00 17,00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 Page 16 of 47 8-98 Assessor's Parcel -Number- 594-122-31-00 594-122-32-00 594-122-33-00 594-122-34-00 594-122-35-00 594-122-36-00 594-122-37-00 594-122-38-00 594-122-39-00 594-122-40-00 594-122-41-00 594-122-42-00 594-122-43-00 594-122-44-00 594-122-45-00 594-122-46-00 594-122-47-00 594-122-48-00 594-122-49-00 594-122-50-00 594-122-51-00 594-122-52-00 594-122-53-00 594-122-54-00 594-122-55-00 594-122-56-00 594-122-57-00 594-122-58-00 594-122-59-00 594-122-60-00 594-122-61-00 594-122-62-00 594-122-63-00 594-122-64-00 594-122-65-00 594-122-66-00 594-122-67-00 594-122-68-00 594-430-01-00 594-430-02-00 594-430-03-00 594-430-04-00 594-430-05-00 594-430-06-00 594-430-07-00 594-430-08-00 594-430-09-00 City of Chula Vista Open Space District No. 20, Zone 2 Rice Canyon Trail Area Fiscal Year 2007/08 Assessment Roll EDU 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Previous 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 Proposed 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU . 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 Page 17 of 47 8-99 Assessor's Parcel Number 594-430-10-00 594-430-11-00 594-430-12-00 594-430-13-00 594-430-14-00 594-430-15-00 594-430-16-00 594-430-17-00 594-430-18-00 594-430-19-00 594-430-20-00 594-430-21-00 594-430-22-00 594-430-23-00 594-430-24-00 594-430-25-00 594-430-26-00 594-430-27-00 594-430-28-00 594-430-29-00 594-430-30-00 594-430-31-00 594-430-32-00 594-430-33-00 594-430-34-00 594-430-35-00 594-430-36-00 594-430-37-00 594-430-38-00 594-430-39-00 594-430-40-00 594-430-41-00 594-430-42-00 594-430-43-00 594-430-44-00 594-430-45-00 594-430-46-00 594-430-47-00 594-430-48-00 594-430-49-00 594-430-50-00 594-430-51-00 594-430-52-00 594-430-53-00 594-430-54-00 594-430-55-00 594-430-56-00 City of Chula Vista Open Space District No. 20, Zone 2 Rice Canyon Trail Area Fiscal Year 2007/08 Assessment Roll EDU 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Previous 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 Page 18 of 47 8-100 Proposed 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU- 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 Assessor's Parcel Number' 594-430-57-00 594-430-58-00 594-430-59-00 594-430-60-00 594-430-61-00 594-430-62-00 594-430-63-00 594-431-01-00 594-431-02-00 594-431-03-00 594-431-04-00 594-431-05-00 594-431-06-00 594-431-07-00 594-431-08-00 594-431-09-00 594-431-10-00 594-431-11-00 594-431-12-00 594-431-13-00 594-431-14-00 594-431-15-00 594-431-16-00 594-431-17-00 594-431-18-00 594-431-19-00 594-431-20-00 594-431-21-00 594-431-22-00 594-431-23-00 594-431-24-00 594-431-25-00 594-431-26-00 594-431-27-00 594-431-28-00 594-431-29-00 594-431-30-00 594-431-31-00 594-431-32-00 594-431-33-00 594-431-34-00 594-431-35-00 594-431-36-00 594-431-37-00 594-431-38-00 594-431-39-00 594-431-40-00 City of Chula Vista Open Space District No. 20, Zone 2 Rice Canyon Trail Area Fiscal Year 2007/08 Assessment Roll EDU 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Previous 2007/08 Maximum - Assessment per EDU 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 Page 19 of 47 8-101 Proposed 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 Assessor's Parcel - - Number- - -- - 594-431-41-00 594-431-42-00 594-431-43-00 594-431-44-00 594-431-45-00 594-431-46-00 594-431-47-00 594-431-48-00 594-432-02-00 594-432-03-00 594-432-04-00 594-432-05-00 594-432-06-00 594-432-07-00 594-432-08-00 594-432-09-00 594-432-10-00 594-432-11-00 594-432-12-00 594-432-13-00 594-432-14-00 594-432-15-00 594-432-16-00 594-432-17-00 594-432-18-00 594-432-19-00 594-432-20-00 594-432-21-00 594-432-22-00 594-432-23-00 594-432-24-00 594-432-25-00 594-432-26-00 594-432-27-00 594-432-28-00 594-432-29-00 594-432-30-00 594-432-31-00 594-432-32-00 594-432-33-00 594-432-34-00 594-432-35-00 594-432-36-00 594-432-37-00 594-432-38-00 594-432-39-00 594-432-40-00 City of Chula Vista Open Space District No. 20, Zone 2 Rice Canyon Trail Area Fiscal Year 2007/08 Assessment Roll EDU 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Previous 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 Proposed 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 Page 20 of 47 8-102 Assessor's Parcel . Number 594-432-41-00 594-432-42-00 594-432-43-00 594-432-44-00 594-432-45-00 594-432-46-00 594-432-47-00 594-432-48-00 594-432-49-00 594-432-50-00 594-432-51-00 594-432-52-00 594-432-53-00 594-432-54-00 594-432-55-00 594-432-56-00 594-432-57-00 594-432-58-00 594-432-59-00 594-432-60-00 594-432-61-00 594-432-62-00 594-432-63-00 594-432-64-00 594-432-65-00 594-432-66-00 594-432-67-00 594-432-68-00 594-432-69-00 594-432-70-00 594-432-71-00 594-432-72-00 594-432-73-00 594-432-74-00 594-432-75-00 594-432-76-00 594-432-77-00 594-432-78-00 594-432-79-00 594-432-80-00 594-432-81-00 594-432-82-00 594-432-83-00 594-432-84-00 594-432-85-00 594-432-86-00 594-432-87-00 City of Chula Vista Open Space District No. 20, Zone 2 Rice Canyon Trail Area Fiscal Year 2007/08 Assessment Roll EDU 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Previous 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 Page 21 of 47 8-103 Proposed 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 Assessor's Parcel - Number 594-433-01-00 594-433-02-00 594-433-03-00 594-433-04-00 594-433-05-00 594-433-06-00 594-433-07-00 594-433-08-00 594-433-09-00 594-433-10-00 594-433-11-00 594-433-12-00 594-433-13-00 594-433-14-00 594-433-15-00 594-433-16-00 594-433-17-00 594-433-18-00 594-433-19-00 594-433-20-00 594-433-21-00 594-433-22-00 594-433-23-00 594-433-24-00 594-433-25-00 594-433-26-00 594-433-27-00 594-433-28-00 594-433-29-00 594-433-30-00 594-433-31-00 594-433-33-00 594-433-34-00 594-433-35-00 594-433-36-00 594-433-37-00 594-433-38-00 594-433-39-00 594-433-40-00 594-433-41-00 594-433-42-00 594-433-43-00 594-433-44-00 594-433-45-00 594-433-46-00 594-433-47-00 594-433-48-00 City of Chula Vista Open Space District No. 20, Zone 2 Rice Canyon Trail Area Fiscal Year 2007/08 Assessment Roll EDU 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Previous 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 Page 22 of 47 8-104 Proposed 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 Assessor's Parcel Number - - - 594-433-49-00 594-433-50-00 594-433-51-00 594-433-52-00 594-433-53-00 594-433-54-00 594-433-55-00 594-433-56-00 594-433-57-00 594-433-58-00 594-433-59-00 594-433-60-00 594-433-61-00 594-433-62-00 594-433-63-00 594-433-64-00 594-433-65-00 594-433-66-00 594-433-67-00 594-433-68-00 594-433-69-00 594-433-70-00 594-433-71-00 594-433-72-00 594-433-73-00 594-433-74-00 594-433-78-00 640-021-01-00 640-021-02-00 640-021-03-00 640-021-04-00 640-021-05-00 640-021-06-00 640-021-07-00 640-021-08-00 640-021-10-00 640-021-11-00 640-021-12-00 640-021-13-00 640-021-17-00 640-021-18-00 640-021-19-00 640-021-20-00 640-021-21-00 640-021-22-00 640-021-23-00 640-021-24-00 EDU - 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 City of Chula Vista Open Space District No. 20, Zone 2 Rice Canyon Trail Area Fiscal Year 2007/08 Assessment Roll Previous 2007/08 Maximum .. - Assessment per EDU 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 Proposed 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 Page 23 of 47 8-105 Assessor's Parcel Number 640-021-25-00 640-021-26-00 640-021-27-00 640-021-28-00 640-021-29-00 640-021-30-00 640-021-31-00 640-021-32-00 640-021-33-00 640-021-34-00 640-021-35-00 640-021-36-00 640-021-37-00 640-021-38-00 640-021-39-00 640-021-40-00 640-021-41-00 640-021-42-00 640-021-43-00 640-021-44-00 640-021-45-00 640-021-46-00 640-021-47-00 640-021-48-00 640-021-49-00 640-021-50-00 640-021-51-00 640-021-52-00 640-021-53-00 640-021-54-00 640-021-55-00 640-021-56-00 640-021-57-00 640-021-58-00 640-021-59-00 640-021-60-00 640-021-61-00 640-021-62-00 640-022-01-00 640-022-02-00 640-022-03-00 640-022-04-00 640-022-05-00 640-022-06-00 640-022-07-00 640-022-08-00 640-022-09-00 City of Chula Vista Open Space District No. 20, Zone 2 Rice Canyon Trail Area Fiscal Year 2007/08 Assessment Roll EDU 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Previous 2007/08 Maximum . Assessment per EDU 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 Page 24 of 47 8-106 Proposed 2007/08 Maximum AssessmentperEDU 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 Assessor's Parcel . Number 640-022-10-00 640-022-11-00 640-022-12-00 640-022-13-00 640-022-14-00 640-022-15-00 640-022-16-00 640-022-17-00 640-022-18-00 640-022-19-00 640-022-20-00 640-022-21-00 640-022-22-00 640-022-23-00 640-022-24-00 640-022-25-00 640-022-26-00 640-022-27-00 640-022-28-00 640-022-29-00 640-022-30-00 640-022-31-00 640-022-32-00 640-022-33-00 640-022-34-00 640-022-35-00 640-022-36-00 640-022-37-00 640-022-38-00 640-022-39-00 640-022-40-00 640-022-41-00 640-022-42-00 640-022-43-00 640-022-44-00 640-022-45-00 640-022-46-00 640-022-47-00 640-022-48-00 640-022-49-00 640-022-50-00 640-022-51-00 640-022-52-00 640-022-53-00 640-022-54-00 640-022-55-00 640-022-56-00 City of Chula Vista Open Space District No. 20, Zone 2 Rice Canyon Trail Area Fiscal Year 2007/08 Assessment Roll EDU 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Previous 2007/08 Maximum . Assessment per EDU . 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 Page 25 of 47 8-107 Proposed 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 Assessor's Parcel Number 640-022-57-00 640-022-58-00 640-022-59-00 640-022-60-00 640-023-01-00 640-023-02-00 640-023-03-00 640-023-04-00 640-023-05-00 640-023-06-00 640-023-07-00 640-023-08-00 640-023-09-00 640-023-10-00 640-023-11-00 640-023-12-00 640-023-13-00 640-023-14-00 640-023-15-00 640-023-16-00 640-023-17-00 640-023-18-00 640-023-19-00 640-023-20-00 640-023-21-00 640-023-22-00 640-023-23-00 640-023-24-00 640-023-25-00 640-023-26-00 640-023-27-00 640-023-28-00 640-023-29-00 640-023-30-00 640-023-31-00 640-023-32-00 640-023-33-00 640-023-34-00 640-023-35-00 640-023-36-00 640-023-37-00 640-023-38-00 640-023-39-00 640-023-40-00 640-023-41-00 640-023-42-00 640-023-43-00 City of Chula Vista Open Space District No. 20, Zone 2 Rice Canyon Trail Area Fiscal Year 2007/08 Assessment Roll EDU 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Previous 2007/08 Maximum .. Assessment'per EElU 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 Proposed 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 Page 26 of 47 8-108 Assessor's Parcel - --Number 640-023-44-00 640-023-45-00 640-023-46-00 640-023-47-00 640-031-01-00 640-031-02-00 640-031-03-00 640-031-04-00 640-031-05-00 640-031-06-00 640-031-07-00 640-031-08-00 640-031-09-00 640-031-10-00 640-031-11-00 640-031-12-00 640-031-13-00 640-031-14-00 640-031-15-00 640-031-16-00 640-031-17-00 640-031-18-00 640-031-19-00 640-031-20-00 640-031-21-00 640-031-22-00 640-031-23-00 640-031-24-00 640-031-25-00 640-031-26-00 640-031-27-00 640-031-28-00 640-031-29-00 640-031-30-00 640-031-31-00 640-031-32-00 640-031-33-00 640-031-34-00 640-031-35-00 640-031-36-00 640-031-37-00 640-031-38-00 640-031-39-00 640-031-40-00 640-031-41-00 640-031-42-00 640-031-43-00 City of Chula Vista Open Space District No. 20, Zone 2 Rice Canyon Trail Area Fiscal Year 2007/08 Assessment Roll EDU 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Previous 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 Proposed 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 Page 27 of 47 8-109 Assessor's Parcel Number 640-031-44-00 640-031-45-00 640-031-46-00 640-031-47-00 640-031-48-00 640-031-49-00 640-031-50-00 640-031-51-00 640-031-52-00 640-031-53-00 640-031-54-00 640-031-55-00 640-032-01-00 640-032-02-00 640-032-03-00 640-032-04-00 640-032-05-00 640-032-06-00 640-032-07-00 640-032-08-00 640-032-09-00 640-032-10-00 640-032-11-00 640-032-12-00 640-032-13-00 640-032-14-00 640-032-15-00 640-032-18-00 640-032-19-00 640-032-20-00 640-032-21-00 640-032-22-00 640-032-23-00 640-032-24-00 640-032-25-00 640-032-26-00 640-032-27-00 640-032-28-00 640-032-29-00 640-032-30-00 640-032-31-00 640-032-32-00 640-032-33-00 640-032-34-00 640-032-35-00 640-032-36-00 640-032-37-00 City of Chula Vista Open Space District No. 20, Zone 2 Rice Canyon Trail Area Fiscal Year 2007/08 Assessment Roll EDU 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Previous 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 Page 28 of 47 8-110 Proposed 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 Assessor's Parcel Number - . 640-032-38-00 640-032-39-00 640-032-40-00 640-032-41-00 640-032-42-00 640-032-43-00 640-032-44-00 640-032-45-00 640-032-46-00 640-032-47-00 640-032-48-00 640-032-49-00 640-032-50-00 640-032-51-00 640-032-52-00 640-032-53-00 640-032-54-00 640-032-55-00 640-032-56-00 640-032-57-00 640-032-58-00 640-032-59-00 640-032-63-00 640-032-64-00 640-033-01-00 640-033-02-00 640-033-03-00 640-033-04-00 640-033-05-00 640-033-06-00 640-033-07-00 640-033-08-00 640-033-09-00 640-033-10-00 640-033-11-00 640-033-12-00 640-033-13-00 640-033-14-00 640-033-15-00 640-033-16-00 640-033-17-00 640-033-18-00 640-033-19-00 640-033-20-00 640-033-21-00 640-033-22-00 640-033-23-00 City of Chula Vista Open Space District No. 20, Zone 2 Rice Canyon Trail Area Fiscal Year 2007/08 Assessment Roll EDU 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Previous 2007/08 Maximum Assessment-per EDU 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 Page 29 of 47 8-111 Proposed 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 Assessor's Parcel -' Number- 640-033-24-00 640-033-25-00 640-033-26-00 640-033-27-00 640-033-28-00 640-033-29-00 640-033-30-00 640-033-31-00 640-033-32-00 640-033-33-00 640-033-34-00 640-033-35-00 640-033-36-00 640-033-37-00 640-033-38-00 640-033-39-00 640-033-40-00 640-033-41-00 640-033-42-00 640-033-43-00 640-033-44-00 640-033-45-00 640-033-46-00 640-033-47-00 640-033-48-00 640-033-49-00 640-033-50-00 640-033-51-00 640-033-52-00 640-033-53-00 640-033-54-00 640-033-55-00 640-033-56-00 640-033-57-00 640-033-58-00 640-033-59-00 640-033-60-00 640-033-61-00 640-291-04-00 640-291-05-00 640-291-06-00 640-291-13-00 640-292-19-00 640-292-20-00 . 640-292-36-00 640-292-37-00 640-292-39-00 City of Chula Vista Open Space District No. 20, Zone 2 Rice Canyon Trail Area Fiscal Year 2007/08 Assessment Roll EDU 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 21.90 16.20 27.30 201.80 27.30 64.50 171.50 40.20 18.10 Previous 2007/08 Maximum AssessmentperEDU 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 102.71 75.97 128.03 946.44 128.03 302.50 804.33 188.53 84.88 Proposed 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 372.30 275.40 464.10 3,430.60 464.10 1,096.50 2,915.50 683.40 307.70 Page 30 of 47 8-112 Assessor's Parcel 'Number 640-292-40-00 640-292-44-00 640-292-46-00 640-292-47-00 640-292-48-00 640-292-50-00 640-293-03-00 640-293-04-00 640-293-06-00 640-293-12-00 640-293-15-00 640-293-16-00 640-293-17-00 640-293-23-00 640-293-26-00 640-293-27-00 640-293-28-00 640-293-31-00 640-293-32-00 640-31 0-01-00 640-310-02-00 640-310-03-00 640-310-04-00 640-31 0-05-00 640-31 0-06-00 640-310-07-00 640-310-08-00 640-31 0-09-00 640-31 0-1 0-00 640-310-11-00 640-310-12-00 640-310-13-00 640-31 0-14-00 640-310-15-00 640-310-16-00 640-310-17-00 640-310-18-00 640-31 0-19-00 640-31 0-20-00 640-310-21-00 640-310-22-00 640-310-23-00 640-310-24-00 640-310-25-00 640-31 0-26-00 640-31 0-27-00 640-310-28-00 City of Chula Vista Open Space District No. 20, Zone 2 Rice Canyon Trail Area Fiscal Year 2007/08 Assessment Roll EDU 14.40 5.70 56.80 15.00 15.00 211.50 37.80 45.70 15.40 16.60 20.80 13.20 11.40 54.00 19.00 39.10 55.18 44.80 20.20 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Previous 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 67.53 26.73 266.39 70.35 70.35 991.93 177.28 214.33 72.22 77.85 97.55 61.90 53.46 253.26 89.11 183.37 258.79 210.11 94.73 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 Page 31 of 47 8-113 Proposed 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 244.80 96.90 965.60 255.00 255.00 3,595.50 642.60 776.90 261.80 282.20 353.60 224.40 193.80 918.00 323.00 664.70 938.06 761.60 343.40 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 Assessor's Parcel - Number 640-310-29-00 640-310-30-00 640-310-31-00 640-310-32-00 640-310-33-00 640-31 0-34-00 640-310-35-00 640-31 0-36-00 640-310-37-00 640-31 0-38-00 640-31 0-39-00 640-310-40-00 640-31 0-41-00 640-310-42-00 640-31 0-43-00 640-31 0-44-00 640-310-45-00 640-31 0-46-00 640-310-47-00 640-31 0-48-00 640-31 0-49-00 640-310-50-00 640-31 0-51-00 640-310-52-00 640-310-53-00 640-31 0-54-00 640-310-55-00 640-310-56-00 640-31 0-57-00 640-310-58-00 640-310-59-00 640-31 0-60-00 640-310-61-00 640-310-62-00 640-31 0-63-00 640-310-64-00 640-310-65-00 640-31 0-66-00 640-310-67-00 640-31 0-68-00 640-310-69-00 640-310-70-00 640-310-71-00 640-310-72-00 640-310-73-00 640-310-74-00 640-310-75-00 City of Chula Vista Open Space District No. 20, Zone 2 Rice Canyon Trail Area Fiscal Year 2007/08 Assessment Roll EDU 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Previous 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per'EDU 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 Proposed 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 Page 32 of 47 8-114 Assessor's Parcel Number -.' 640-310-76-00 640-31 0-77-00 640-310-78-00 640-310-79-00 640-310-80-00 640-310-81-00 640-310-82-00 640-31 0-83-00 640-310-84-00 640-310-85-00 640-31 0-86-00 640-310-87-00 640-310-88-00 640-31 0-89-00 640-31 0-90-00 640-310-91-00 640-311-01-00 640-311-02-00 640-311-03-00 640-311-04-00 640-311-05-00 640-311-06-00 640-311-07-00 640-311-08-00 640-311-09-00 640-311-10-00 640-311-11-00 640-311-12-00 640-311-13-00 640-311-14-00 640-311-15-00 640-311-16-00 640-311-17-00 640-311-18-00 640-311-19-00 640-311-20-00 640-311-21-00 640-311-22-00 640-311-23-00 640-311-24-00 640-311-25-00 640-311-26-00 640-311-27-00 640-311-28-00 640-311-29-00 640-311-30-00 640-311-31-00 City of Chula Vista Open Space District No. 20, Zone 2 Rice Canyon Trail Area Fiscal Year 2007/08 Assessment Roll EDU 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Previous 2007/08 Maximum . Assessment per EDU 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 Proposed 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 Page 33 of 47 8-115 Assessor's Parcel Number 640-311-32-00 640-311-33-00 640-311-34-00 640-311-35-00 640-311-36-00 640-311-37-00 640-311-38-00 640-311-39-00 640-311-40-00 640-311-41-00 640-311-42-00 640-311-43-00 640-311-44-00 640-311-45-00 640-311-46-00 640-311-47-00 640-311-48-00 640-311-49-00 640-311-50-00 640-311-51-00 640-311-52-00 640-311-53-00 640-311-54-00 640-311-55-00 640-311-56-00 640-311-57-00 640-311-58-00 640-311-59-00 640-311-60-00 640-311-61-00 640-311-62-00 640-311-63-00 640-311-64-00 640-311-65-00 640-311-66-00 640-311-67-00 640-311-68-00 640-311-69-00 640-311-70-00 640-311-71-00 640-311-72-00 640-311-73-00 640-311-74-00 640-311-75-00 640-311-76-00 640-321-01-00 640-321-02-00 City of Chula Vista Open Space District No. 20, Zone 2 Rice Canyon Trail Area Fiscal Year 2007/08 Assessment Roll EDU 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Previous 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 Proposed 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 Page 34 of 47 8-116 Assessor's Parcel Number 640-321-03-00 640-321-04-00 640-321-05-00 640-321-06-00 640-321-07-00 640-321-08-00 640-321-09-00 640-321-1 0-00 640-321-11-00 640-321-12-00 640-321-13-00 640-321-14-00 640-321-15-00 640-321-16-00 640-321-17-00 640-321-18-00 640-321-19-00 640-321-20-00 640-321-21-00 640-321-22-00 640-321-23-00 640-321-24-00 640-322-01-00 640-322-02-00 640-322-03-00 640-322-04-00 640-322-05-00 640-322-06-00 640-322-07-00 640-322-08-00 640-322-09-00 640-322-10-00 640-322-11-00 640-322-12-00 640-322-13-00 640-322-14-00 640-322-15-00 640-322-16-00 640-322-17-00 640-322-18-00 640-322-19-00 640-322-20-00 640-322-21-00 640-322-22-00 640-322-23-00 640-322-24-00 640-322-25-00 City of Chula Vista Open Space District No. 20, Zone 2 Rice Canyon Trail Area Fiscal Year 2007/08 Assessment Roll EDU 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Previous 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU . 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 Proposed 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 Page 35 of 47 8-117 Assessor's Parcel - Number 640-322-26-00 640-322-27-00 640-322-28-00 640-322-29-00 640-322-30-00 640-322-31-00 640-322-32-00 640-322-33-00 640-322-34-00 640-322-35-00 640-322-36-00 640-322-37-00 640-322-38-00 640-322-39-00 640-322-40-00 640-322-41-00 640-322-42-00 640-323-01-00 640-323-02-00 640-323-03-00 640-323-04-00 640-323-05-00 640-323-06-00 640-323-07-00 640-323-08-00 640-323-09-00 640-323-1 0-00 640-323-11-00 640-323-12-00 640-323-13-00 640-323-14-00 640-323-15-00 640-323-16-00 640-323-17-00 640-323-18-00 640-323-19-00 640-323-20-00 640-323-21-00 640-323-22-00 640-323-23-00 640-323-24-00 640-323-25-00 640-323-26-00 640-323-27-00 640-323-28-00 640-323-29-00 640-323-30-00 City of Chula Vista Open Space District No. 20, Zone 2 Rice Canyon Trail Area Fiscal Year 2007/08 Assessment Roll EDU 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Previous 2007/08 Maximum -- Assessment per EDU 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 Proposed 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 Page 36 of 47 8-118 Assessor's Parcel - -Number' 640-323-31-00 640-323-32-00 640-323-33-00 640-323-34-00 640-323-35-00 640-323-36-00 640-323-37-00 640-323-38-00 640-323-39-00 640-323-40-00 640-330-01-01 640-330-01-02 640-330-01-03 640-330-01-04 640-330-01-05 640-330-01-06 640-330-01-07 640-330-01-08 640-330-01-09 640-330-01-10 640-330-01-11 640-330-02-01 640-330-02-02 640-330-02-03 640-330-02-04 640-330-02-05 640-330-02-06 640-330-02-07 640-330-03-01 640-330-03-02 640-330-03-03 640-330-03-04 640-330-03-05 640-330-03-06 640-330-03-07 640~330-03-08 640-330-04-01 640-330-04-02 640-330-04-03 640-330-04-04 640-330-04-05 640-330-04-06 640-330-04-07 640-330-04-08 640-330-05-01 640-330-05-02 640-330-05-03 City of Chula Vista Open Space District No. 20, Zone 2 Rice Canyon Trail Area Fiscal Year 2007/08 Assessment Roll EDU 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Previous 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 Proposed 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 Page 37 of 47 8-119 Assessor's Parcel Number 640-330-05-04 640-330-05-05 640-330-05-06 640-330-06-01 640-330-06-02 640-330-06-03 640-330-06-04 640-330-06-05 640-330-06-06 640-330-07-01 640-330-07-02 640-330-07-03 640-330-07-04 640-330-07-05 640-330-07-06 640-330-07-07 640-330-11-01 640-330-11-02 640-330-11-03 640-330-11-01 640-330-11-05 640-330-11-06 640-330-11-07 640-330-12-01 640-330-12-02 640-330-12-03 640-330-12-04 640-330-12-05 640-330-12-06 640-330-12-07 640-330-13-01 640-330-13-02 640-330-13-03 640-330-13-04 640-330-13-05 640-330-13-06 640-330-13-07 640-330-14-01 640-330-14-02 640-330-14-03 640-330-14-04 640-330-14-05 640-330-14-06 640-330-14-07 640-330-14-08 640-330-14-09 640-330-15-01 City of Chula Vista Open Space District No. 20, Zone 2 Rice Canyon Trail Area Fiscal Year 2007/08 Assessment Roll EDU 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Previous 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 Page 38 of 47 8-120 Proposed 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 Assessor's Parcel Number -- - 640-330-15-02 640-330-15-03 640-330-15-04 640-330-15-05 640-330-15-06 640-330-15-07 640-330-16-01 640-330-16-02 640-330-16-03 640-330-16-04 640-330-16-05 640-330-16-06 640-330-16-07 640-330-16-08 640-330-17-01 640-330-17-02 640-330-17-03 640-330-17-04 640-330-17-05 640-330-17-06 640-330-17-07 640-330-18-01 640-330-18-02 640-330-18-03 640-330-18-04 640-330-18-05 640-330-18-06 640-330-18-07 640-330-18-08 640-330-19-01 640-330-19-02 640-330-19-03 640-330-19-04 640-330-19-05 640-330-19-06 640-330-19-07 640-330-19-08 640-330-20-01 640-330-20-02 640-330-20-03 640-330-20-04 640-330-20-05 640-330-21-01 640-330-21-02 640-330-21-03 640-330-21-04 640-330-21-05 City of Chula Vista Open Space District No. 20, Zone 2 Rice Canyon Trail Area Fiscal Year 2007/08 Assessment Roll EDU 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Previous 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 Proposed 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 Page 39 of 47 8-121 Assessor's Parcel -- - -Number . . 640-330-21-06 640-330-21-07 640-330-21-08 640-330-22-01 640-330-22-02 640-330-22-03 640-330-22-04 640-330-22-05 640-330-22-06 640-330-22-07 640-330-23-01 640-330-23-02 640-330-23-03 640-330-23-04 640-330-23-05 640-330-23-06 640-330-24-01 640-330-24-02 640-330-24-03 640-330-24-04 640-330-24-05 640-330-24-06 640-330-24-07 640-330-25-01 640-330-25-02 640-330-25-03 640-330-25-04 640-330-25-05 640-330-25-06 640-330-25-07 640-330-25-08 640-330-26-01 640-330-26-02 640-330-26-03 640-330-26-04 640-330-26-05 640-330-26-06 640-330-26-07 640-330-26-08 640-330-27-01 640-330-27-02 640-330-27-03 640-330-27-04 640-330-27-05 640-330-27-06 640-330-27-07 640-330-42-01 City of Chula Vista Open Space District No. 20, Zone 2 Rice Canyon Trail Area Fiscal Year 2007/08 Assessment Roll EDU 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Previous 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 Page 40 of 47 8-122 Proposed 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 Assessor's Parcel 'Number 640-330-42-02 640-330-42-03 640-330-42-04 640-330-42-05 640-330-42-06 640-330-42-07 640-330-43-01 640-330-43-02 640-330-43-03 640-330-43-04 640-330-43-05 640-330-43-06 640-330-43-07 640-330-43-08 640-330-43-09 640-330-44-01 640-330-44-02 640-330-44-03 640-330-44-04 640-330-44-05 640-330-44-06 640-330-44-07 642-380-04-01 642-380-04-02 642-380-04-03 642-380-04-04 642-388-04-05 642-380-04-06 642-380-04-07 642-380-04-08 642-380-04-09 642-380-04-10 642-380-04-11 642-380-04-12 642-380-04-13 642-380-04-14 642-380-04-15 642-380-04-16 642-380-04-17 642-380-04-18 642-380-04-19 642-380-04-20 642-380-04-21 642-380-04-22 642-380-04-23 642-380-04-24 642-380-04-25 City of Chula Vista Open Space District No. 20, Zone 2 Rice Canyon Trail Area Fiscal Year 2007/08 Assessment Roll EDU 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Previous 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 Proposed 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 Page 41 of 47 8-123 Assessor's Parcel -- Number 642-380-04-26 642-380-04-27 642-380-05-01 642-380-05-02 642-380-05-03 642-380-05-04 642-380-05-05 642-380-05-06 642-380-05-07 642-380-05-08 642-380-05-09 642-380-05-10 642-380-05-11 642-380-05-12 642-380-05-13 642-380-05-14 642-380-05-15 642-380-05-16 642-380-05-17 642-380-05-18 642-380-05-19 642-380-05-20 642-380-05-21 642-380-06-01 642-380-06-02 642-380-06-03 642-380-06-04 642-380-06-05 642-380-06-06 642-380-06-07 642-380-06-08 642-380-06-09 642-380-06-10 642-380-06-11 642-380-06-12 642-380-06-13 642-380-06-14 642-380-06-15 642-380-06-16 642-380-06-17 642-380-06-18 642-380-06-19 642-380-07-01 642-380-07-02 642-380-07-03 642-380-07-04 642-380-07-05 City of Chula Vista Open Space District No. 20, Zone 2 Rice Canyon Trail Area Fiscal Year 2007/08 Assessment Roll EDU 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Previous 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 Proposed 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 Page 42 of 47 8-124 Assessor's Parcel Number- -,-- 642-380-07-06 642-380-07-07 642-380-07-08 642-380-07-09 642-380-07-10 642-380-07-11 642-380-07-12 642-380-07-13 642-380-07-14 642-380-07-15 642-380-07-16 642-380-07-17 642-380-07-18 642-380-07-19 642-380-07-20 642-380-07-21 642-380-07-22 642-380-10-01 642-380-10-02 642-380-10-03 642-380-11-01 642-380-11-02 642-380-11-03 642-380-11-04 642-380-11-05 642-380-15-01 642-380-15-02 642-380-15-03 642-380-15-04 642-380-15-05 642-380-15-06 642-380-15-07 642-380-15-08 642-380-15-09 642-380-15-10 642-380-15-11 642-380-15-12 642-380-15-13 642-380-15-14 642-380-15-15 642-380-15-16 642-380-15-17 642-380-16-01 642-380-16-02 642-380-16-03 642-380-16-04 642-380-16-05 City of Chula Vista Open Space District No. 20, Zone 2 Rice Canyon Trail Area Fiscal Year 2007/08 Assessment Roll EDU 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Previous 2007/08 Maximum . Assessment per EDU 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 Proposed 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 Page 43 of 47 8-125 Assessor's Parcel . Number 642-380-16-06 642-380-16-07 642-380-16-08 642-380-16-09 642-380-16-10 642-380-16-11 642-380-16-12 642-380-16-13 642-380-16-14 642-380-16-15 642-380-17-01 642-380-17-02 642-380-17-03 642-380-17-04 642-380-17-05 642-380-17-06 642-380-17-07 642-380-17-08 642-380-17-09 642-380-17-10 642-380-17-11 642-380-17-12 642-380-17-13 642-380-17-14 642-380-17-15 642-380-17-16 642-380-17-17 642-380-17-18 642-392-01-00 642-392-02-00 642-392-03-00 642-392-12-00 642-392-13-00 642-410-01-01 642-410-01-02 642-410-01-03 642-410-01-04 642-410-01-05 642-410-01-06 642-410-01-07 642-410-01-08 642-410-01-09 642-410-01-10 642-410-01-11 642-410-01-12 642-410-01-13 642-410-01-14 City of Chula Vista Open Space District No. 20, Zone 2 Rice Canyon Trail Area Fiscal Year 2007/08 Assessment Roll EDU 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 95.00 74.00 59.00 144.00 128.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Previous 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 445.55 347.06 276.71 675.36 600.32 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 Proposed 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 1,615.00 1,258.00 1,003.00 2,448.00 2,176.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 Page 44 of 47 8-126 Assessor's Parcel Number 642-410-01-15 642-410-01-16 642-410-01-17 642-410-01-18 642-410-01-19 642-410-01-20 642-410-01-21 642-410-01-22 642-410-01-23 642-410-01-24 642-410-03-01 642-410-03-02 642-410-03-03 642-410-03-04 642-410-03-05 642-410-03-06 642-410-03-07 642-410-03-08 642-410-03-09 642-410-03-10 642-410-03-11 642-410-03-12 642-410-03-13 642-410-03-14 642-410-03-15 642-410-03-16 642-410-03-17 642-410-03-18 642-410-03-19 642-410-03-20 642-410-03-21 642-410-03-22 642-410-03-23 642-410-03-24 642-410-03-25 642-410-07-01 642-410-07-02 642-410-07-03 642-410-07-04 642-410-07-05 642-410-07-06 642-410-07-07 642-410-07-08 642-410-07-09 642-410-07-10 642-410-07-11 642-410-07-12 City of Chula Vista Open Space District No. 20, Zone 2 Rice Canyon Trail Area Fiscal Year 2007/08 Assessment Roll EDU 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Previous 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 Page 45 of 47 8-127 Proposed 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 Assessor's Parcel . Number 642-410-07-13 642-410-08-01 642-410-08-02 642-410-08-03 642-410-08-04 642-410-08-05 642-410-08-06 642-410-08-07 642-410-08-08 642-410-08-09 642-410-08-10 642-410-08-11 642-410-08-12 642-410-08-13 642-410-08-14 642-410-08-15 642-410-08-16 642-410-08-17 642-410-08-18 642-410-08-19 642-410-13-01 642-410-13-02 642-410-13-03 642-410-13-04 642-410-13-05 642-410-13-06 642-410-13-07 642-410-13-08 642-410-14-01 642-410-14-02 642-410-14-03 642-410-14-04 642-410-14-05 642-410-14-06 642-410-14-07 642-410-14-08 642-410-14-09 642-410-14-10 642-410-14-11 642-410-14-12 642-410-14-13 642-410-14-14 642-410-14-15 642-410-14-16 642-410-15-01 642-410-15-02 642-410-15-03 City of Chura Vista Open Space District No. 20, Zone 2 Rice Canyon Trail Area Fiscal Year 2007/08 Assessment Roll EDU 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Previous 2007/08 Maximum --Assessment per EDU 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 Proposed 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 Page 46 of 47 8-128 Assessor's Parcel 'Number' -- 642-410-15-04 642-410-15-05 642-410-15-06 642-410-15-07 642-410-15-08 642-410-15-09 642-410-15-10 642-410-15-11 642-410-15-12 642-410-15-13 642-410-15-14 642-410-15-15 642-410-15-16 642-410-15-17 642-410-15-18 642-410-16-01 642-410-16-02 642-410-16-03 642-410-16-04 642-410-16-05 642-410-16-06 642-410-16-07 642-410-16-08 642-410-16-09 642-410-16-10 642-410-16-11 642-410-16-12 642-410-16-13 642-410-16-14 642-410-16-15 Total City of Chula Vista Open Space District No. 20, Zone 2 Rice Canyon Trail Area Fiscal Year 2007/08 Assessment Roll EDU 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3,959.38 Previous 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 $18,569.37 Page 47 of 47 8-129 Proposed 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 $67,309.46 (0 h nJ ! ~ . 'f! ~ ~~ ii~~ I ~~ LL . ~ ~ ~ 0 5 ;;~~SP . < ~ . ~ ~ . ~P< . . " l- . ~ ~ 0 I . i Ii '" ;,P51 . '. . ~ u u.J ~ I ~ I: p ~ u.J is i!s I!I ~ ~ ~ l!l J: , tip'., . . '" 0 ! i l!l ~ i /: ~ . ! ~ g " rJJ ~ . .~ '!' I ~ ~ i . ,g pg ~ ... . , ~~ ~ 11I"...... ~ ~ :i! J II ~ ~! r! ~ " b >~ ~r""'1 ~/:' i! II i '" '" ~i, ppn.. .i! Ii l!ll!! 0 Z U P ..w '" :;: . . z " .. , .. : ~ ~ :1 w ~ '" ~ i nd!;I~ ~ '" 55! 5 5! g! ~ !': C) .. " ~ i , .. w ... -' " .. :;;> '" > - L <e *:1 '" " '" " >- -< I: u.J z t 0:: cr: ...J 0 , ... u.J u. ~... :J -- 0 -< ,u 0 0 J: u. e.> 0 z w ~ f- <( ~ :20:: . <( . rJJ 5 o::N 6 j (!)u.J 19 1 <(z w -0 is ~ ON z I- . -< ZO rJJ u.JN U. :20 0 rJJZ ?: rJJl- z u.Je.> => rJJ_ 0 rJJO:: 0 <(I- <i '1 IJ rJJ f- 0 rJJ u.J :> L !. e.> -< " <( -' => 0.. I rJJ 0 Z u. u.J 0 0.. >- 0 f- U . . d:i f\ 8-130 ; ;; ! I x CD ! ~~ ~ ~ LL. I n 0 , i ~~ '" N '" I- u > LJJ ~ '" LJJ .. I , .-r~1L.r '" . tH)u<.>uu ~~~ ...............>- :;~:;<Ii rJl , mHj Uuuuu 0000 ... 000 21112 lH~o::g < m~h ,.. 55l, '" '" m ~, !! :i:i::i:i '" .. ! z u '" > j"'.'".''' ~~~iii "' '" "' ",.,.,\(;", ",,,,..ill .. < '" ... ~ >-----. '" ,. ,> .. > !:l " :> ':> en >- ::; I~ LJJ z 0:: a:: ~~ ....J 0 LJJ u.. !~ :J j;U 0 <t 0 u I u.. U 0 Z Ul t J.:![:ilHS :![:!IS . <( ~ , ::2;0:: . (Ii'" CfJ 5 0 ~ (?LJJ <9 <(z Ul , -0 is ~ ON z I- . <t ZO CfJ LJJN u.. ::2;0 0 rJlZ >- rJll- f- z LJJU :l rJl_ 0 rJlO:: u <(I- <i IJ rJl f- l 0 CfJ LJJ :> I' U <t ~ <( ..J " :l CL I ... . .. J rJl u '" I '" Z u.. '" LJJ 0 .. j CL >- .. 0 f- '" I u I , il~i 8-131 ~ 1IIIIIIilllllilliiiiilii Ilillllllll 111I111I11II IIIII11I11111 i Cfa <0 i ~ ~ ~ LL ~ 0 '" ~~i~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "' t;t;l:;bt;btil:;t;t;t;t;lJ '" f- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii mmmuu u ;: W " W g '" I i~'~~~~;i.iii~~illi'ili~i~ .nUIUUUI "' UJ :;j " "' '" '" ~'I!!~I!I IIIII~II z u ~~I~~~~~~ ,. ill '" ;: " " ., '" '" "' >- ~> '" t0l:3l:3btl:;bl:3l:3ttb ~~~~~~~~~ > ':l " iiiilllllllll lill!1111 ~~~~~~~~ ., !., '" 8,88 88888888 , 8888888 I!!!!!!! -0: >- ..: Su w z ~~~~~~~~~ s~~~a~~~ ~~ 0:: 0:: ,>- ....J 0 Ii:: W "- ~ ,u 0 ..: gg:3 ~88 81818 0 () *ihUP~ I "- HgH~h u 0 z LU , f- , <( ~ ~ :2:0:: ~N UJ 5 6 ] <.9w <9 , <(z LU -0 (5 ~ ON z f- - ..: ZO UJ WN "- :2:0 0 UJZ ~ UJf- z Wu ::J UJ_ 0 UJO:: () N <(f- <i .... IJ ~ '" f- '" . 0 UJ 0: ~ :> '" W Ii .. U ..: '" '~ '" . <( --' '" . ::J ::: CL I . . . . < . , UJ () i1\ > .... " i ;- < . '" Z "- ~ ~ '" W 0 i -," 0: ! '" CL >- w , f- 6 ~1 '" . 0 Ii '" I u u '" d I . . d~i 8-132 <0 ~ LL o .;- I- W W I (/) >- ::; W z 0:: a:: ..J 0 lL W ::J o <( o u I lL U 0 Z w <( ~ :2: 0:: f- C2 N- ~. (!) W t9 ~ 6 ~ ON z I- - <( Z 0 (j) W N lL :2: ci 0 (/) Z >- (/) I- !z W u => (/) - 0 (/) 0:: u <( to <i is lii W ;;; U <( <( ...J 0. => (/) 13 Z lL W 0 0. >- o 5 - dim mii ~! ii mnm ~j~i~ miiii ! ~ !I~~! ij! II I II! ij!!!iiili~!lii ~ ~ imiij ~i i~ i imi i~iiiiiiijii*i UU~~~!!@~!!U ml~iWI'!illl U:J ~iilm ih ill ....................... ~~~~~~ t;t;t;t;"t;t;t;t;t;t; 2i21:!i:!lS:!:!:!:!:!:!:S:S u~~uuu 0000000000 0000000000000 111111 ii'i"'iii iiiiiii,-"'i ~~<ro'i!' "o:'''[''<Ui~ 000000000000 ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ..."'<<<"'< ... '" I 1;;;,;I:aI~ill:;P:!!llR;:!:i!'i!:' .~n"'''''''l''l''''''''''''' ....................................................................................................... ~~~~oooowoowwoowwwwwwwwoowwwwoow ffi~ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ~~~~~~~~ uu~u~~~~~~~~~~ ~~ ~~~~~~ ~g~~~~~I@~ ~1~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~€~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 6 13::ilHS :!I:ilS ~ i1L'iI~1L'1L'1L'1L'1L'1L'1L'1L'1L'..1L' " mmnmn ~ ~...n~"nH.. i ~ ~ I ~ ~ OJ '" u 0; " '" OJ "" Ol "' '" '" z u '" 0; "' " '" OJ >- ., > " ~ OJ '" ... OJ .0; !:l , ~ ,"' ~u !!; h. I'" -;c , ~ 5 1 ~ ~ IJ I' '" " .. . '" i OJ ... ., ~ ., "' ! "' ., J ., "' L ce ;::: .L:iI:ilHS 33:S 8-133 d~j CD ! ~ LL a '" ! I- w ,.,i .,.. w ~fi~lil 0000 ..............>-....... 0-................... I 11:"'0::0: U'''-'<.>U<.HJ "U'"'",""".> 000 ~~lil~ llmU !lUm CIJ n~ o::~~o:: "'11:0:"""""" "'0:0:."""'''' ~ '..i ~~u ~i~~i~~~;!~ig~i~lmm ! - L e >- <( w Z 0:: a:: -' 0 w u.. :J 0 <( a () I u.. U 0 Z UJ f- <1: <( ::2;0:: f- CI) <1: N 6 O::w (9 Clz UJ ::fa 0 ON z I- 0 <( Z CI) W N u.. ::2;0 0 ClJZ ~ ClJI- z wu :) CIJ_ 0 ClJO:: () <1:1- <i CIJ f- 0 CI) w :> u <( <1: ...J :) 0.. I CIJ () Z u.. W 0 0.. >- a f- u ~ ::i ~~o:' ~ <<..<< '" ~~~ <<. ! .. ~ "'.. ~:!<'U: l! 9 ~ I g ~ ~ '" '" " :: " '" '" '" '" " :: " '" '" ~ > " ::> '" <<<<<< ~""'''' .".0:0: iil~ii:iil ~~@~ <<.."'''' 0.0.0.0. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ i~~i~~~~~~~i~~~~~~jii~~~~i~~~i~~~~ii~~ 00000000000000000000000000000000000000 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 0..0...0.0...0.0.....0.0...0.0...0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.......0.0...0.0.0...0..... $~~~~~~a~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~;~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~;~$ ; , , , 1 ~ ! ~~ ~ ~~ ~o.o...o.o...~..o.~~o.~..~o.~~o.o.o.o...o. ~~ .llllll~ll~~l~l~ll~llllll 11 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~! ! ' tu 8 8 88 ~ S ~;; :;I~;; ~ ~ ~ g r:i iHHl i; e a a 8 !~~~----~-~~-~--~--~~~~-~ tttttttttttttttttt ~$$$SS$$$!I~~SS~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ z~u~~~~ Wtttttt~~ ~tt~tttt ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~C~G~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~sss555ssssssss5ss~55~1.1 ~~ffil~~~ffi~~~~~ffiffiffi~~~ffi~~ ~ ~~l~l~~::~~~~l~~~~~l~~~l~ ~~ ~~~~~~~ii;!~~~~~~i~~!~*~;ss;~!~~~!i~ii*!~!;~ IJ .. '. . 1 ~ I ~ J ~ ll~~ .. '" '" '" :c '" '" '" '" 9 J.:3:3:HS :!I:!IS t: J.:!I:!IHS 3::!IS 8-134 CD ~ LL o CD I- LU LU I rn >- -0: LU Z 0:: 0: ....J 0 LU u. :J 0 -0: 0 () I u. C,,) 0 Z W f- <x: -0: :20:: f- (2N' Cf) 6 (!)LU (,9 <x:Z w -0 0 ON z I- 0 -0: Z Cf) LU N U. :20 0 rnz ~ rnl- z LUC,,) :J rn_ 0 rno:: () <x: I- <i rn f- a Cf) LU '> C,,) -0: <x: ...J :J a.. I rn () z u. LU 0 a.. >- 0 f- U . ffi ~lC"" .......~ ;;H~1i~ nnn %ZZ"'%zzz , 'lm,~~ , ,."".,ll if ~~~~~~~~ j '0".0. Jl!.."'''''..... <>~....,.."..... -------- -------- -------- !Ii """"""'''''''''<..:",", z,..,...........>-........................ ,iJiJ<HlCHHlutJiJeHHi """,,wW"'"'"''''''''''''''''"'' ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ www...ww...w.!l~www mmllj,lll ~~~~~ ho<H iiUlC "'''''''~ ~~;'lio ml j ~~~~g~~E22g~ ~~~~H~~~~~~~ i 9 ~ I ~ ' , . o - , '" '" " :;: " '" '" ~ '" '" '" Z u '" :;: c " '" ;:: '" '" >- ~:> ~ ! j ~ '" '" I~ '1: 1_ ,u . , I 6 J ~ , IJ p ~ .. · i .. ! '" I '" 1Ji ! '" '" '" d~i - e L. g 8-135 to ~ u.. z ii~~!l 0 ~~L~s ,.... ..lili.. f- L1J L1J :c 00 ~ *~~~g~~ " - L e >- <: L1J Z 0:: a:: --' 0 L1J "- ::J 0 <: 0 () :c "- u 0 z W f- <( ~ ~o:: (2N en 6 (9L1J (,? <(z w -0 15 ON z f- . <: ZO en L1JN "- ~O 0 ooZ ~ OOf- z L1JU ::J '" 00_ 0 ~ 000:: () .. <(f- ~ '" 00 Ci '" en tl L1J :> '" u <: '" <( --' '" ::J '" Il. :r: '" 00 () '" Z "- L1J 0 Il. >- 0 f- U ~~~~~~~g~E2~2~~~~E~~~~~EE~~~~~~~2~~~~~~~~0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~ggggg~ggg~g ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~! gggggggggg8 ii:~~~~~~~;~~~ """'NNNNNNNNt'<'" iiii~i:;i:iii "'''''''''''''....''''''''''''''' "'.,,,"'''' "''''''''''''' 8000000000000 00000000000 'Ol~:;:g~:n::;;~,':;;;!Z:;: "'",.. "''''N "''''''''''''' " "'''''''NN''' ""''''''''''''' ------~----- ............................ """"'''''''0>0''''''''''''''' "'''''''''''''''''''"",,''''''''' 0.0.0.0.0. ........"" LlJuJwLIJw ~~~~~ -<<.0:";< :E:E:ii::l:l! ..I. 0 N NNN"'''' ................................................ (.)()<)()OUUUUUuU ~;::;::;:;::;::;::;:;::;.:;::;:: iiiu;UiUlu>u;o;u;u;iiiiiiiii 000000000000 "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '" ~ .. ,," '" 1242 '" '" ". '" '" '" '" ~~~~@E~~~~~ 0_..."'''''''''''''......0_ """." "'"'"''''''',., "........ <'''0 W "'''''''"'''''''''''''''' 1216 '214 \212 1210 ,m ". 9 l~~HS a~s 8-136 ; ;; , I ~ '" '" " ;; '" '" '" ~ '" '" '" Z u '" ;; " '" ., '" .. '" '" >- ,;; '" > !j '" " !" '" I~ i~ -~ ,u I < I IJ l' " . ! I ~ I 1 ~ I~i (J:) ~ l.L. o CXl I- UJ UJ I (j) - >- <C UJ Z 0:: a:: ....J 0 lJ.. UJ :J o <C o 0 I lJ.. o 0 ~ ~ :2: 0:: f-- ~ N- ~, (!) UJ (9 ~ ~ 15 ON z I-O'<C Z N (f) UJ . lJ.. :2: 0 0 (j) Z >- (j) I- \i: UJo =' (j) - 0 (j) 0:: 0 <CI- (j) ~ o (f) UJ :> o <C <C ...J 0.. ~ (j) 0 Z lJ.. UJ 0 0.. ~ o u L .e ~~g81:l~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~~~S~~ :l1H 1i~~~ ..<<<......~ ~ilH;;OIiiHiHii"' ;;!~~=::33:33 ~~l;1<!ii'!l<!i<!i2i ..<<~~~~:i Q~~QQQQQ ~l'l'"'l Ci<.>5u555Ci ZZZZZZZZZZ~55ZZZZZZZZ555ZZZZ ~~~~~QQQQQ~~~QQQQQQQQ~~~QQQQ ~~~~~~~~~~~~jW~~~~~~~j~jj~~~ 55555555555CiCi~5555555Ci5CiCi555 uu~~ un;;;; -------- a~~~~~~~ a~aaa~~~~~~~~~~~~e~~~~~~~~~~ 4 t "'^ 4 ~ !e 1 ~ .- i\~ 0 ~ %8 €H~ @~ ~4J: ~ 0 ~g ~ ~ lh~~ ~~~))~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~w~ ~~~s~ if ~ ..&- @i 4;;:! .., ~~ ~ ~;:~ ~c.l~~ ~ ~ ~l'>c ~ ~~ '1o!;~ 0 <0;;) .- ~DA, ~ '" 'VQ ~ ~ "'~)) ,"cLtJO" "'C'Gl~ ~ iJ \~M~~; ~ ~ i M .... ,N.! CII.lDWr'T"CIfI. ;; ':o!, ~ C,l>L\-I:,)'.J'~~~ %~ ~~// I.. .!.:!I:t[HS :iI:!IS 8-137 iiiii~~~~~~~iiill~i ~~~~~~i~~~~~~~~~~~~ i ~ g I ~ ~ ~ to '" u > '" '" to ... ;! to '" '" z u '" > " '" '" ., to to ,.. ~ > ~ ~;i g; 'p '" I~ ~~ ;0 . ~ 5 ~ ~ < ] IJ ~ j< " ~ . ~ ... J '" '" '" I '" . '" J '" < '" J ! ~i~i <0 ~ LL o m f- W W I UJ - >- <( W Z 0:: 0:: ..J 0 W u. :J 0 <( 0 () I u. U 0 Z UJ f- -< <( :20:: f- c2N UJ 0 <.9W <.? -<Z UJ -0 is ON z f- a <( Z UJ W N U. :20 0 UJZ >- UJf- f- Z Wu :::> UJ_ 0 UJO:: () -<f- ~ UJ 0 UJ W :;; U <( -< ...J ::J c.. I UJ () Z u. W 0 c.. >- 0 f- 13 .~ ~~ i . n fH ~i 1 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~$~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~z~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~$~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~$$$ ~~~~~~~~~~~22222222222222222222222222222222222222222222 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~W0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0~~~~~~ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ! ~;~~~~~~~~~~~~~~!"O,_,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~g~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ L.. e 1 ~ii';t;t;tii'ii'~;t~ii'ii'ii' t;;WWWWWWWW~~WW m~m~~!~~ ~~~U.~,~,~~ g ~"'.i:B:~~H~~~~ . 0000000000 .""""" "'''''''''''''''' ~~~~~~~~~~ ii;1;;;;;VI" O'l;;;;/;til ii;1;; ~lr:?lr:?:?:?:?:?:r OOOOOO@ ~~~~~~~ ~U~~~~ ~~~~~~~es~~~ ~~~~gg~5EssseaaEaa~~~~0E ~~~~~~~i~~~~~g~~i~~~ o ~ t ~:!I:!IHS :!I:!IS 8-138 i ~ ~ I ~ . · S ~ ~ '" '" " ;;: '" '" '" "" Oi '" '" '" z " '" ;;: " '" '" ., '" '" ,. ..:> ~ !j '" !" ~ 'co I~ ;l:; 1_ ,,, . ! , I ~ ~ IJ j,f " . . ~ 1 I ! , ! I~I <0 ~ u. o o ~ I- W W J: (/) - >- ::; W z 0:: c:r: ...J 0 W LJ.. :J 0 <C 0 u J: LJ.. U 0 Z UJ f-- <l: <C :20:: f-- ~N (fJ 0 (9W <9 <l:Z UJ -0 is ON z I- 0 <C Z (fJ W N LJ.. :20 0 (/)Z ~ (/)1- z Wu => (/)- 0 (/)0:: u <l:1- <i (/) f-- 0 (fJ W ;;; U <C <l: ...J => a.. I (/) U Z LJ.. W 0 a.. >- 0 f-- U titit; n~ u ~ f€ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~l".,!ll!ll 1111!1! "_~!"_'8~ ~--------""" .. ... L. "" ii'ii'ii'ii'ii'ii'ii'ii'ii'ii'ii'ii'oI' '~Il'W"'"l" ~~ooldh~d I>H\HHH\ gg.@!i!iggng!ig :I:J:::l:J::J::J:J:!::l:::l:l:J ~~~nififififififif \\\\\\\\\\\\1111 !igg!ig!igg!i!ig!i~!ig!i ::l:!:!:!:!::J:!:!:I:!::l:J:J:!:!::J if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if !~~~~W~~*~$~~ ~a2~~~~!~~~~~~~~~~~~~!~jffi~~~~ I !~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~5~~5~5555555555555 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ! !.!l!!ll!!!!I..m!!!I~.".! c- o ... '" '" '" " '" u '" '" CD '" w '" U '" 0 '" 6 .aaHS aas 8-139 ; 'f g I ~ ~ '" '" '-' i> '" '" '" :;j " '" '" '" Z '-' '" '" "' " '" " '" '" ,. ,,:;: ~ ~:i " . ~ i;; l~ ,,. I'" ;(3 , , I 5 ] , ~ IJ I' ~ . I I I I <lI, ~ ~I >- UJ et:: ....J UJ o o I U Z <( :2:et:: ~~ <.9Z ::;0 ON f-O ZN UJ . :2:0 (/)Z (/)f- UJu (/)- (/)et:: <(f- (/) o UJ u <( (L (/) Z UJ (L o <0 ~ LL o ~ ~ f- UJ UJ I (/) - L ... <! Z c:: o u.. ::; <! U u.. o w .... <! .... (f) 6 (9 w is z <! (f) u.. o i: z ::J o u <i .... (f) :> <! ...J ::J I U u.. o >- .... U ; , ~uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuGuGuGGGGuuuuGuuGGuuuuuuuuuuGuuGuuuuuuuuGGGGGGGGuuuD ~ffi~~ffiffiffiffi!ffiffiffiffiffiffi~ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi!ffi~ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~;~m;~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~mm~m~m~~~~~;~m~~*~* ~iil~~I~~n~~ti~~~~~i~i~~g88gg~i~i~~~~!i~g~~~ii~~~~~SI~i~~~~~~~~~~~ijiiR!R~ <:> .v 0, &-;:., J:&'~Ff1 [/JFiJ~ 0 tlJ '--U J[]),fJJ "l1J~ ~~ ~m.ID l lm f&<:> ~-lrl:J~ M""iY , ol:'-1 '" _ G'L:if'i)' C/1 C'I _0 ~Q '" $' [2]"' ~u~~ ~~_~EI?[[] ~~~8Jf/1 G' $~ obBJ,f k::J~~ d $'~ <:(~ 8]'; ~ G' "' &fTlz f[B;;;' [1,'= .... 0.$ ;>~wW"" 4'...'.: "- "'~O::.:; m<:>, ~ <:> ~C7W- ~ '" BliP ...... c.n~ ~ -~ .::; ~&1'71 ~UJ OJ &' ~fi\V &' ,. k::.J - LL5J''' J7I Q $ ~p r71'" ~{!<D:J ~...&' #'!~ ~<o& :J'&BJ B]J'" ~0;; J 0"'.~ ;;'-: Z'! t;J C7J ~Di 171 ~'-= " ,5" if ~y~ DI'" " p,'" ~'-= {y ::.> ::.>o,:;>!t} l.. J.3:3:HS :3::3:S 8-140 i ? ~ ! ~ ' . s o ~ '" '" '-' ;; '" '" '" :;J '" '" '" '" z '-' '" ;; '-' '" '" ;:: '" '" >< "':> ~ !;l '" !" 1;i I: '1: !~ ,u ~ , ~ ] IJ ~ i' ~ . ~ j :! I . J d~i CD ~ IJ.. o N ~ I- UJ UJ I (J) - >- <( UJ Z 0:: 0: -' 0 u. UJ ::J o <( o u I u. () 0 Z ill <( f- :2 0:: ~ Cii N" ~ CJ UJ <.9 ::; is ~ ON z I- . <( Z 0 (f) UJ ~ l.L. :2 0 0 (J) z ~ (J) I- z UJ () ::J (J) - 0 (J) 0:: u <( I- <i ~ f- o (f) UJ :> () <( <( -1 0.. i (J) U Z u. UJ 0 0.. >- o t:: U ,I!!!I I!III ~ ! <!!!!j j'jl! ~ i ~!~ gg ;; ii nn ~n ~ ~n 8 ; c, , , I ~! ~ OJ '" " ;;: '" '" OJ ~ '" '" '" z " '" ;;: " '" ;:l '" '" OJ ~ I;;: ,. '" j " '" '" I~ ?is ~ ~ ,,. '" ~.. jjjiij . ~ ;ti II 0 !! ! ! !8,!8!!8!I!ill"II!!~ ~~~~~~~~~~B~~~~~~~~~ """"-I~""""I'~~S~18 ~~~~~ ~~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~ , I , I < ] IJ " ::> . 1 :! . 1 ~ ! ! p~ ll~ . I ~i II i ii Ii ~ u ~~ ; g~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ iilllliilillllllllllllll/l1i'111I5 "!j!!ill!~l!ff:l!!H1:!ii!il mmm!! I j;;ii1i;;SHl:!'I.l:!lS;ill:>: '5!::::::::::::::::;::::: ~ " I 111111111111 l~~~~~ I iiiiiiiiiiii 111111 ~;t~;t ~~~~ ~~~~u~ ~~~~ H ~H ~.s:H~~ ~~H g~~~~~ !;!~!l/!;cs".:nl~liHI'" I'--...,..,..,.....................~ L eo liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ~~1~11SSSSSSSS5SS5S5SS5SSSSSSS ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~2~~~~~222~2~~~zzzzz~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ..<<<<<<<<<<<~<~~~~~$~< ~~~~~~~~~~~~~l~l;l;~l;~ @@@2g@gggggg222gg222222 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~8~8~ ~~~~~2~~~~~~~~~zzzzzzz~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~ iiiiiiiiiiiH!i <oSiiiiii g~g~g ggii 11m I!!! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~E~~t~~g~~~~!~~~ ~!~~~~~~~~~~t~~!~~~!~~~ o~~~~~~re~~~~~~~~~~ ------------------ ------------------ ::: 8-141 <!) ~ ll. o '" ~ I- UJ UJ I if) >- ::;; UJ z 0:: 0: --' 0 u.. UJ :J o <{ o u I u.. () 0 Z w <( ~ :2 0:: ~ ~ N 6 ClUJ c.9 ~ ~ ~ ON z I- - <{ Z 0 (/) W ~ LL :2 0 0 if) z >- if) I- ~ UJ () ~ if) - 0 if) 0:: u <( to <( B tii UJ 5> () <{ <( ...J 0.. ~ if) u Z u.. UJ 0 0.. r: o (3 I!!!!! 1111!il!!I!!II!!!!I!I!! ilil!!!!!!!!!! illillllll lillil!!!!!!!l!!! 1111I 11'11111111-'11'1111111 1'11111111111 1111111'11 111111-1111111"1 ! , il!1!l15"''''''' , ""!"!' II ! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ """"""""""'" ~8~8~88..~8;;;:8~8~8-8:8~8 .."".... illl';;;'l;ii;;;; "<<<"""""<<<<<'" '" '.,".,',.,',.,"." ...."",-'.."" ffl~~~~fflfflfflfflffl~fflffl~~~g~~gfflffl~ 555ffiffiffi5~~55555 ~ ~ii ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ , i@~~~~ ~RP-~~~22~~~~~~~~aR~~~a~ ~RP-~~~22~g~~~~ ~~~~~~E~E~ @S8~~~~~5~;~~~~~~ , - e L .!!!II!!!!!!!I!I!l!!l!!!!! ~------------------------- ~~~~~!~~~~~~~~~~~~~ig~~!~ ZT l~:![HS :!I:!IS 8-142 ---,,----- !!!!!!!!!!!! -~!~~~i!~ji~~j~!~~~iji!!i~~ 'VI .L:!I:ilHS 3:!1S i 9 ~ I ~; " '" u ;;: " '" " -' ., " " '" '" z u '" ;;: " " '" ;: on " ,. ~:> ~ l:l !!j '::> " .", Su !i:: i1: ;D , ~ 5 1 ~ ! IJ " ::! . 1 ~ I < J iI~~ co ~ LL o '<t ~ r- UJ UJ I CfJ - <l: >- Z UJ 0:: 0:: s: --' :J UJ <l: o U o ~ I UJ U ~ ::2: z ~ ~ ~_ 6 <.9 N (!) <( UJ o~ -z 00 z r- N <l: Z _ (j) UJ 0 u.. ::2: N 0 CfJ r- >- CfJ U f-- UJ - z CfJ 0:: :J CfJ r- 0 <( ~ u o <i f-- UJ (j) u 5> <( <l: D.. ..J CfJ :J Z is UJ u.. D.. 0 o >- f-- G . . ~ s~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~ g ... j~~ <313<3 ~~~ ... .... ~<<< ..:l:l~ ~~~~ 33 =: 33:5 33 33 333 33 33:5 33 3 333 3 33 333 3333 313 3 3 3 o::o;;;:;;;::o;;;::;;::;;;O::..O::.,;;:::;:;;;;:;:;"..........;:;:;...."O::O::;;;;..";;::;;::;;::il;'ij;,,;;;:.. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<<~<<tt<<<<<<tt<<<<tt~<< ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Si~*~~~~;~~m~mm~~~ ~~~~~~~2~~ i~iii~ii2~~2~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ag~~~~ . L. -e I . . ~~~~~~~JJJJJ~JJJJJJJ aa~a~aa~~~a~~aa~a~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ g ~~iffi$iiimi~iig~im~$i '" '" '" '" " '" '" '" '" CT ~:!I:!IHS :!I:!IS 333333333333333333333333333333 z;;::........;;;:o;:;;;:;;;:..;;;:;;;:;:;:;"..;;;:;;;:;;;:......;;;:;;;:.......... ~~;;~~~~;;;;~~;~;;;;;;;;;;~;;; ._'0-._'- ..-,...-.-, - Ii ,- "1'"' ~~~~~~~~~iiii~~~~~~~i i~i~ ~ , .42 '" "0 ..., ." ." ~ Z 836 ." Z ~ ." 0 834 '-' 832 ." <: N 830 ." <: 82. ." ::;; ." ." 824 825 91" J.:!I:nIS :I3S 8-143 i ~ ~ i ~ ~ '" '" " ;;: '" '" '" '" .., '" '" '" '" Z " '" ;;: " '" '" " '" '" ,. ,,:> ~ bi3 '" '" i~ ,,, ~'" ;u I 5 ~ ~ < ~ IJ '. '~ . j ~ J J ~ .. I] (!) i ? g ~ ~~~~ ~8 ~I~~~~ ~I ~!I un nr~~~ I ~ ~ LL ~~~ ~i ~ ~~~~ ~ ~~~ -m ~ I""" 0 ., m L() en ~ " I- ~ u UJ ... ~~~~~~~~ 5: UJ . 00 " "'t>tit; ~~ ~~~ uti::;!:; ~~~~~iI~~ " I "Hi 5" en H i@@ m~ ~~~~~~~~ (I) H tit;liiliitit; ~~ o.~~ ffi"'''''''''' ~ :I:J:::E:':I::I::I: ~;::l!!;::~~~~ g en " " jm ~~ ,HUI ~. ~~~ ~F..!~P- ~~~~~~~~ z u " ~ " .. ~ '" - L- en ZT .L:I:IHS :1:IS en ,. .5: '" > l:l " :> ':> en "0: ~ l~ >- Z 0:: UJ 0 ;,. 0:: "- ~... ....J :J ;ti UJ <( 0 () 0 "- 0 I UJ i () f- ~ ::EZ ~ , ~ ~" rJJ . , c5 1 0'" C.9 <t:UJ UJ ! -Z 1S < 00 z I-N <( Z . rJJ UJo "- . ::E'" 0 (1)1- >- (I)() f- Z UJ- :J (1)0:: 0 '" (1)1- () ~ <t:~ <i ... IJ 0 '" f- '" J UJ rJJ 0: . () :;: en , " <t: <( '" '" ~ [L ..J en (I) :J I . Z () 1 UJ "- [L 0 0 >- I f- I u 1 dJ 8-144 (!) ~ .! LL ~~ 0 ! (!) ~ I- ~~~~jjjj ii ~:5:5 w z""""'UJwww n. ...""""'."""'''' ... OJ........................ w W"'.,"''''''''''''' ",wwwwWUJlJJ I ...0000000 ~~ ~~i2 '"t::t::t::t::I:;t::t:: if) ;1:0;;;;;:;;:;:;;;; :;:z H~ H~~~H H ~~j "",000<.><.> -0: >- Z w n: 0:: ~ ....J ::; W -0: o () o ~ I UJ :2 ~ S ~ ~ ~ (!) N 19 <(w O~ -Z 00 z I- N -0: Z _ <JJ W 0 u.. :2 N 0 if) I- >- if) U f- W - Z if) 0:: :::J if) I- 0 <( SQ () o <i w ti u ;; <( -0: 0. -' if) :::J Z G w u.. 0. 0 o >- f- <3 jll~1 i i~i~~ ~ ~~~~~ ~ 55 ~ n ~ ~~ ~ ~! ~ - ceo L .. ~ (OQ \h \h 0>,& ~'~, dif \Y \Y rJ;jQJ <f) 1j\3G.'J @/y;(JtY/y GI!Ri!J (j)(jI6?~O QlI3\3QJ @8tSJ.~ 1980 rJllJl/';,f[; @U61, C! \b ~D~ 1/}188€J tFJ&(jJ~~. ~13@\:2 fijlil'8VJ ~ey(V(Y 'v ~ ""1313~01 1j13Q) i ~@~g@~~~~aal~al'~gg@~'~g@~~l@ !if (j7~ !}f9ry-.i!J ~ rJr.Jr:\wJ Qr;liJ . ~~lu~m~~U~ffiUmm~~m~ ~ CJ;:::: 'W 0\!j\!J\!IO ~\21G) ! ~ooooooo~~~~ggS!g~g;;;gooOj2ogg ,@08~[j! @~ 0@1il~ ~ ~0 :'~mmh~hmh~m~m~lu (j),jI _ZSJ f!l ~ Gl8Q<( 0 ~QJ ~ummmmmm.mmm ~1P,~\i) Q)~ lv ~~Qlo ~, ~' ~>>0G G5 @ G0cP v oFf! 0 [jG.J@ 0t\C[] &, gs; Q) G.J CJJ B 4>0&,'0 0:> G.J @l!IDJ ~ I. o4::):t @ C;Q, G0Q) & -{ ;:; rJ1 CD 0 -YcY c:; QJ~ BCbCJ OJ (yo ... '" '" '" OJ '" '" OJ ~~~~jjjjjjjjjjjjjj~jjjjjjjjjjjj zwwwwwwwww",wwwwwwwwwwww",wwwwwww ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ttt~~~~~~~~~ Wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~!!~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~!"!IC!8ggg8S~~;;g ~~~~~~~mm~~~;~ g ~ ___________ , i~~la-IIIIIIII"! ilil~181!'IBi"1 II I .... .111 I 1..1,.1,1111 8-145 i ? S I ~ ' i S ~ ~ OJ '" " s: " '" OJ .. < " OJ '" '" z u '" s: " " '" < OJ >- OJ ,. ,s: '" I! j i:: " 1;5 I~ '" ,>- -;u , ! , I ~ I IJ !' ~ . 1 ! J ! . iJ ATTACHMENT '2. NBS , locaIGovllImlIIllSolWlns City of Chula Vista Proposed Assessment Increase Open Space District No. 20 Zone 4, SPA 1 Phase 1 Engineer's Report Fiscal Year 2007/08 June 5, 2007 Prepared by NIBIS Corporate Office 32605 Highway 79 South, Suite 100 Temecula, CA 92592 (800) 676-7516 phone (951) 296-1998 fax Regional Office 870 Market Street, Suite 901 San Francisco, CA 94102 (800) 434-8349 phone (415) 391-8439 fax 8-146 CITY OF CHULA VISTA OPEN SPACE DISTRICT NO. 20 ZONE 4, SPA 1 PHASE 1 ,276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 Phone - (619) 476-5376 CITY COUNCIL Cheryl Cox, Mayor Rudy Ramirez, Council member John McCann, Councilmember Jerry Rindone, Councilmember Steve Castaneda, Councilmember Susan Bigelow, City Clerk CITY STAFF Scott Tulloch, City Engineer Dave Byers, Director of Public Works Operations Leah Browder, Deputy Director of Engineering Robert Beamon, Administrative Services Manager Larry Eliason, Parks and Open Space Manager Chevis Fennell, Senior Open Space Inspector Josie Gabriel, Associate Planner Amy Partosan, Administrative Analyst II Jose Gomez, Land Surveyor Tessa Quicho, Administrative Analyst II NIBIS Greg Ghironzi, Project Director Michael J. Stearns, Assessment Engineer Stephanie Parson, Senior Consultant Sue Tyau, Financial Analyst 8-147 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. ENGINEER'S LETTER 1-1 2. PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS 2-1 2.1 Description of District Boundaries ................................................................2-1 2.2 Description of Facilities and Services........................................................... 2-1 2.3 Reason for the Increased Assessment ........................................................ 2-1 3. ESTIMATE OF COSTS 3-1 4. ASSESSMENTS 4-1 4.1 Method of Apportionment ............................................................................. 4-1 4.2 Maximum Assessment - Assessment Increase ...........................................4-2 5. ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM 5-1 6. ASSESSMENT ROLL 6-1 8-148 1. ENGINEER'S LETTER WHEREAS, on June 5, 2007, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista (the "City Council"), State of California, under the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972 (the "1972 Act"), the City of Chula Vista Municipal Code, Chapter 17.07 (the "Municipal Code"), Article XIIID of the Constitution of the State of California ("Article XIIID") and the Proposition 218 Omnibus Implementation Act (Government Code Section 53750 and following) (the "Impiementation Act") (the 1972 Act, Municipal Code, Article XIIID and the Implementation Act may be referred to collectively as the "Assessment Law") adopted its Resolution of Intention to increase assessments above the existing approved maximum amount in Open Space District No. 20, Zone 4, Spa 1 Phase 1 (the "District"); and provide for the Levy and Collection of said increased assessments commencing Fiscal Year 2007/08. WHEREAS, the Resolution directed NBS to prepare and file a report presenting plans and specifications describing the general nature, location and extent of the improvements to be maintained, an estimate of the costs of the maintenance, operations and servicing of the improvements for the District for the referenced fiscal year, an assessment diagram for the District showing the area and properties to be assessed, and an assessment of the estimated costs of the maintenance, operations and servicing the improvements, and also stating the reason for the increased assessment; identifying the parcels upon which an increased assessment is proposed for imposition and presenting the basis upon which the increased assessment is to be calculated. NOW THEREFORE, the following increased assessment is made to the District of the estimated costs of maintenance, operation and servicing of improvements to be paid by the assessable real property within the District in proportion to the special benefit received: SUMMARY OF ASSESSMENT DescriDtion OSD No. 20 Zone 4 Costs Annual Total Costs Balance to Assessment Previous Fiscal Year 2007/08 Maximum Assessment Proposed Fiscal Year 2007/08 Maximum Assessment $64,827.92 $64,827.92 $135,329.53 $135,329.53 I, the undersigned, respectfully submit the enclosed Engineer's Report and, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, the increased assessments herein have been prepared and computed in accordance with the order of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, California. NBS Engineer's Report - City of Chula Vista, OSD No. 20, Zone 4 Prepared by NBS 1-1 8-149 2. PLANS AND SPECIFICA TIONS 2.1 Description of District Boundaries Open Space District No. 20, Zone 4, Spa 1 Phase 1 corresponds to the boundary area of Sectional Planning Area (SPA) 1 Phase 1. 2.2 Description of Facilities and Services The areas to be maintained by the District's Zone includes SPA I, Phase 1. The District's Zone currently consists of 28 parcels. The assessments collected within the District will pay the costs of maintaining natural open space, green belt and slopes along major and collector roads, including the maintenance of all trees, shrubs, plants, etc., planted or placed within said open space area. The District is comprised of 3.7 acres of irrigated slopes, 3.0 acres of non-irrigated slopes, 0.1 acres of turf and 4.7 acres of ornamental plants. The proposed maintenance consists in general of the following: . Brush clearance for fire protection . Irrigation of erosion control slopes . Irrigation . Fertilization . Mowing of turf . Removal of weeds, trash and litter . Pruning of trees and shrubs . Replacement of dead or diseased trees and shrubs . Repair and replacement of equipment and facilities 2.3 Reason for the Increased Assessment Currently, due to Proposition 218, passed in 1996, assessments cannot be increased to pay for the increased costs of labor, materials, supplies, electricity rates, etc., because the maximum assessment previously authorized for the District has been levied. Without the ability to increase assessments it may be necessary for the District to reduce the level of maintenance it can provide, thus jeopardizing the quality and appearance of facilities. The District is requesting the ability to increase the current maximum assessment within the District. Approval of the proposed increased assessments will: . Provide for the repair, removal or replacement of all or any part of any improvement. Provide for the life, growth, health and beauty of the landscaping, including cultivation, irrigation, trimming, spraying, fertilizing or treating for disease to injury, the removal of trimmings, rubbish, debris, and other solid waste. Engineer's Report - City of Chula Vista, OSD No. 20, Zone 4 Prepared by NBS 2-1 8-150 If the increased assessments are not approved, the following reduction in services may include, but are not limited to: . Reduction or elimination of brush clearance for fire protection .. - No watering of irrigated slopes. - . Reduced mowing and watering of turf . Reduced tree trimming, fertilization and brush management . Replacement of equipment and piants will not occur in a timely manner . Sprinkler replacement will not occur in a timely manner . Contractual services reduced, providing for an overall reduction in the amount of maintenance performed within the area . Increase in litter, trash and weeds Engineer's Report - City of Chula Vista, OSD No. 20, Zone 4 Prepared by NBS 2-2 8-151 3. ESTlMA TE OF COSTS The estimated budget for annual maintenance of the facilities and proportionate share of the costs of administration of the District have been prepared based on cost information provided by the City of Chula Vista staff. The estimated budgetary unit costs for the maintenance of the improvements and the administration of the District are listed below. The Fiscal Year 2007/08 maximum total assessment for Open Space District No. 20, Zone 4, Spa 1 Phase 1, is summarized in the following table: Previous Total DescriDtion Maximum Assessment Utility Charges $409.00 Trash Collection & Disposal Fees 280.00 Water Charges 23,995.00 Services to Maintain Structures, Grounds 1,869.00 City Staff Services 14,004.00 Contract Services 30,761.00 Landscape Supplies 860.00 Materials to Maintain Structures, Grounds 2,380.00 Professional Services 2,500.00 Supplementals 1,372.00 Transfer: Corporate Yard Debt Services 657.00 Operating Reserve Collection (14,259.08) Total 2007/08 Previous Maximum Assessment: $64,827.92 The proposed increase to the maximum total assessment beginning Fiscal Year 2007/08 is as follows: Description Pro Dosed Increase Utility Charges $0.00 Trash Collection & Disposal Fees 0.00 Water Charges 0.00 Services to Maintain Structures, Grounds 0.00 City Staff Services 0.00 Contract Services 0.00 Landscape Supplies 0.00 Materials to Maintain Structures, Grounds 0.00 Professional Services 0.00 Supplementals 0.00 Transfer: Corporate Yard Debt Services 0.00 Operating Reserve Collection 70,501.61 Total 2007/08 Proposed Increase: $70,501.61 Engineer's Report - City of Chula Vista, OSD No. 20, Zone 4 Prepared by NBS 3-1 8-152 The proposed total maximum assessment for Fiscal Year 2007/08 with the increased landscaping maintenance costs is summarized as follows: Proposed Total Description Maximum Assessment Utility Charges $409.00 Trash Collection & Disposal Fees 280.00 Water Charges 23,995.00 Services to Maintain Structures, Grounds 1,869.00 City Staff Services 14,004.00 Contract Services 30,761.00 Landscape Supplies 860.00 Materials to Maintain Structures, Grounds 2,380.00 Professional Services 2,500.00 Supplementals 1,372.00 Transfer: Corporate Yard Debt Services 657.00 Operating Reserve Collection 56,242.53 Total 2007/08 Proposed Maximum Assessment: $135,329.53 All of the costs are based on current estimates. The assessments are based on these costs and the difference between the estimated cost and the actual cost will be accounted for in the subsequent year. Engineer's Report - City of Chula Vista, OSD No. 20, Zone 4 Prepared by NBS 3-2 8-153 4. ASSESSMENTS The proposed increased maximum assessment will be apportioned to each parcel, in the City of Chula Vista Open Space District No. 20, Zone 4, Spa 1 Phase 1, as shown on the latest equalized roll at the County Assessor's office, as listed in Section'6 of this Report. - The description.of each lot or parcel is part of the records of the County Assessor of the County of San Diego and such records are, by reference, made part of this Report. 4.1 Method of Apportionment Pursuant to the Assessment Law, all parcels that have special benefit conferred upon them as a result of the maintenance and operation of improvements are identified and the proportionate special benefit derived by each identified parcel is determined in relationship to the entire cost of the maintenance and operation of the improvements. The amount of the estimated assessment on each lot or parcel of land in the District is in proportion to the estimated benefit to be received by each such lot or parcel of land from the use of the road network in and around the Rancho Del Rey development. One method of apportioning the costs of the landscape maintenance is to calculate the estimated traffic generated by a parcel of property within the district. A standard established within San Diego County is the average daily traffic (ADT) generation factors published by San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). An ADT Factor has been assigned to each land use type and these factors are sued to estimate the traffic generated by that land use type. To compare traffic generation across different land types, ADTs are converted to Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDU) Benefit Factors with a single family detached unity have a base EDU of 1. All other land uses are factored upon the base factor of 1 as noted below: land Use Density Benefit (EDU) Factor" Single Family Detached 0-10 1.0 Single Family Attached 10-20 0.8 Multi-Family 20+ 0.6 Empioyment Park 30.0 per acre Commercial 40.0 per acre Church 4.0 per acre 'Source: Rancho Del Rey SPA Plan Engineer's Report - City of Chula Vista, OSD No. 20, Zone 4 Prepared by NBS 4-1 8-154 4.2 Maximum Assessment- Assessment Increase The proposed increased maximum assessment spread to each EDU, for Fiscal Year 2007/08, based on the method of apportionment wIThin Open Space District No. 20, Zone 4, Spa 1 Phase 1, is as follows: The maximum annual Assessment per EDU is outlined in the following table: Maximum Annual Description Assessment Per EDU Previous Maximum Annual Assessment $24.91 Per EDU for Fiscal Year 2007/08 Proposed Annual Assessment Increase $27.09 Per EDU for Fiscal Year 2007/08 Proposed Maximum Annual Assessment $52.00 Per EDU for Fiscal Year 2007/08 Beginning Fiscal Year 2008/09, the maximum assessment shall be the prior year's assessment increased or decreased by an inflation factor which is the lesser of (1) the January to January San Diego Metropolitan Area All Urban Consumer Price Index (CPI) or (2) the change in estimated California Fourth Quarter Per Capita Personal Income as contained in the Govemor's budget published in January. Engineer's Report - City of Chula Vista, OSD No. 20, Zone 4 Prepared by NBS 4-2 8-155 5. ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM The following page shows a reduced copy of the Assessment Diagram. For a detailed description of the lines and dimensions of any lot or parcel, reference is hereby made to the County Assessor's maps, which shall govern for all details concerning the lines and dimension of such lots or parcels. Engineer's Report - City of Chula Vista, OSD No. 20, Zone 4 Prepared by NBS 5-1 8-156 6. ASSESSMENT ROLL The following page provides a listing of each parcel's previous Fiscal Year 2007/08 maximum assessment and. proposed Fiscal -Year, 2007/08 maximum assessment amount, within Open Space District No. 20, Zone 4, SPA 1 Phase 1 that will be assessed for Fiscal Year 2007/08. Engineer's Report - City of Chula Vista, OSD No. 20, Zone 4 Prepared by NBS 6-1 8-157 Assessor's Parcel Number 640-291-04-00 640-291-05-00 640-291-06-00 640-291-13-00 640-292-19-00 640-292-20-00 640-292-36-00 640-292-37-00 640-292-39-00 640-292-40-00 640-292-44-00 640-292-46-00 640-292-47-00 640-292-48-00 640-292-50-00 640-293-03-00 640-293-04-00 640-293-06-00 640-293-12-00 640-293-15-00 640-293-16-00 640-293-17-00 640-293-23-00 640-293-26-00 640-293-27-00 640-293-28-00 640-293-31-00 640-293-32-00 Total City of Chula Vista Open Space District No. 20, Zone 4 SPA 1 Phase 1 Fiscal Year 2007/08 Assessment Roll . .EDU . 43.80 32.40 54.60 403.80 54.60 129.00 343.20 80.40 36.30 28.80 11.40 113.70 30.00 30.00 423.30 75.60 91.50 30.90 33.30 41.70 26.40 22.80 108.00 38.10 78.30 110.40 89.70 40.50 2,602.49 Previous 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU $1,091.05 807.08 1,360.08 10,058.61 1,360.08 3,213.36 8,549.06 2,002.76 904 .23 717.40 283.97 2,832.24 747.30 747.30 10,544.33 1,883.19 2,279.26 769.71 829.50 1,038.74 657.62 567.94 2,690.28 949.07 1,950.45 2,750.06 2,234.42 1,008.83 $64,827.92 Page 1 of 1 8-158 Proposed 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU $2,277.60 1,684.80 2,839.20 20,997.51 2,839.20 6,707.95 17,846.31 4,180.80 1,887.60 1,497.60 592.80 5,912.35 1,560.00 1,560.00 22,011.46 3,931.20 4,758.00 1,606.80 1,731.60 2,168.40 1,372.80 1,185.60 5,616.00 1,981.20 4,071.60 5,740.80 4,664.40 2,105.95 $135,329.53 ATTACHMENT 2.. NBS l<<aIGowmmI!llSoktilns City of Chula Vista Proposed Assessment Increase Open Space District No. 23 Otay Rio Business Park Engineer's Report Fiscal Year 2007/08 June 5, 2007 Corporate Office 32605 Highway 79 South, Suite 100 Temecula, CA 92592 (800) 676-7516 phone (951) 296-1998 fax Prepared by NIBIS Regional Office 870 Market Street, Suite 901 San Francisco, CA 94102 (800) 434-8349 phone (415) 391-8439 fax 8-159 CITY OF CHULA VISTA OPEN SPACE DISTRICT NO. 23 OTAY RIO BUSINESS PARK 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 Phone - (619) 476-5376 CITY COUNCIL Cheryl Cox, Mayor Rudy Ramirez, Councilmember John McCann, Council member Jerry Rindone, Councilmember Steve Castaneda, Councilmember Susan Bigelow, City Clerk CITY STAFF Scott Tulloch, City Engineer Dave Byers, Director of Public Works Operations Leah Browder, Deputy Director of Engineering Robert Beamon, Administrative Services Manager Larry Eliason, Parks and Open Space Manager Chevis Fennell, Senior Open Space Inspector Josie Gabriel, Associate Planner Amy Partosan, Administrative Analyst II Jose Gomez, Land Surveyor Tessa Quicho, Administrative Analyst II NIBIS Greg Ghironzi, Project Director Michael J. Steams, Assessment Engineer Stephanie Parson, Senior Consultant Sue Tyau, Financial Analyst 8-160 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. ENGINEER'S LETTER 1-1 2. PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS 2-1 2.1 Description of District Boundaries ................................................................2-1 2.2 Description of Facilities and Services........................................................... 2-1 2.3 Reason for the Increased Assessment ........................................................ 2-1 3. ESTIMATE OF COSTS 3.1 4. ASSESSMENTS 4-1 4.1 Method of Apportionment.............................................................................4-1 4.2 Maximum Assessment - Assessment Increase ...........................................4-1 5. ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM 5.1 6. ASSESSMENT ROLL 6.1 8-161 1. ENGINEER'S LETTER WHEREAS, on June 5, 2007, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista (the "City Council"), State of Califomia, under the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972 (the "1972 Act"), the City of Chula Vista Municipal Code, Chapter 17.07 (the "Municipal Code"), Article XIIID of the Constitution of the State of California ("Article XIIID") and the Proposition 218 Omnibus Implementation Act (Government Code Section 53750 and following) (the "Implementation Act") (the 1972 Act, Municipal Code, Article XIIID and the Implementation Act may be referred to collectively as the "Assessment Law') adopted ~s Resolution of Intention to increase assessments above the existing approved maximum amount in Open Space District No. 23, Otay Rio Business Park (the "District'); and provide for the Levy and Collection of said increased assessments commencing Fiscal Year 2007/08. WHEREAS, the Resolution directed NBS to prepare and file a report presenting plans and specifications describing the general nature, location and extent of the improvements to be maintained, an estimate of the costs of the maintenance, operations and servicing of the improvements for lhe District for the referenced fiscal year, an assessment diagram for the District showing the area and properties to be assessed, and an assessment of the estimated costs of the maintenance, operations and servicing the improvements, and also slating the reason for the increased assessment; identifying the parcels upon which an increased assessment is proposed for imposition and presenling the basis upon which the increased assessment is to be calculated. NOW THEREFORE, the following increased assessment is made to lhe District of lhe estimated costs of maintenance, operation and servicing of improvements to be paid by the assessable real property within the District in proportion to the special benefit received: SUMMARY OF ASSESSMENT DescriDtion OSD No. 23 Costs Annuai Total Costs Balance to Assessment Previous Fiscal Year 2007/08 Maximum Assessment Proposed Fiscal Year 2007/08 Maximum Assessment $49,696.87 $49,696.87 $68,445.60 $68,445.60 I, the undersigned, respectfully submit lhe enclosed Engineer's Report and, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, the increased assessments herein have been prepared and computed in accordance with the order of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, California. NBS Engineer's Report - City of Chula Vista, OSD No. 23 Prepared by NBS 1-1 8-162 2. PLANS AND SPECIFICA TlONS 2.1 Description of District Boundaries Open Space District No. 23, Otay Rio Business Park, includes the area bounded by the Otay Rio Business Park. The District currently consists of eight parcels. 2.2 Description of Facilities and Services The areas to be maintained by the District include open space lots and median landscaping within the Otay Rio Business Park, as well as the planted median on Main Street starting at Nirvana. The assessments collected within the District will pay the costs of maintaining natural open space, green belt and slopes along major and collector roads, including the maintenance of all trees, shrubs, plants, etc., planted or placed within said open space area. The District is comprised of 2.61 acres of ornamental plants. The proposed maintenance consists in general of the following: . Fertilization . Irrigation . Replacement of dead or diseased trees arid shrubs . Removal of weeds, trash and litter . Repair and replacement of equipment and facilities 2.3 Reason for the Increased Assessment Currently, due to Proposition 218, passed in 1996, assessments cannot be increased to pay for the increased costs of labor, materials, supplies, electricity rates, etc., because the maximum assessment previously authorized for the District has been levied. Without the ability to increase assessments ~ may be necessary for the District to reduce the level of maintenance it can provide, thus jeopardizing the quality and appearance of facilities. The District is requesting the ability to increase the current maximum assessment within the District. Approval of the proposed increased assessments will: . Provide for the repair, removal or replacement of all or any part of any improvement. Provide for the life, growth, health and beauty of the landscaping, including cultivation, irrigation, trimming, spraying, fertilizing or treating for disease to injury, the removal of trimmings, rubbish, debris, and other solid waste. Engineer's Report - City of Chula Vista, OSD No. 23 Prepared by NBS 2-1 8-163 If the increased assessments are not approved, the following reduction in services may include, but are not limited to: . Annual fertilization will be decreased . Reduction or elimination of irrigation and pruning of trees and shrubs - . - - - - - - - - -- . Replacement of equipment and plants will not occur in a timely manner . Sprinkler replacement will not occur in a timely manner . Contractual services reduced, providing for an overall reduction in the amount of maintenance performed within the area. . Increase in litter, trash and weeds Engineer's Report - City of Chula Vista, OSD No. 23 Prepared by NBS 2-2 8-164 3. ESTIMA TE OF COSTS The estimated budget for annual maintenance of the facilities and proportionate share of the costs of administration of the District have been prepared based on cost information provided by the City of Chula Vista staff.' T-he- estimated budgetary unit costs for the maintenance of the imprsvements and the administration of the District are listed below. The Fiscal Year 2007/08 maximum total assessment for Open Space District No. 23, Otay Rio Business Park, is summarized in the following table: Previous Total Description Maximum Assessment Utility Charges $936.00 Trash Collection & Disposal Fees 560.00 Water Charges 7,669.00 Services to Maintain Structures, Grounds 490.00 City Staff Services 9,467.00 Contract Services 30,932.00 Landscape Supplies 660.00 Materials to Maintain Structures, Grounds 1,500.00 Professional Services 7,980.00 Supplementals 1,100.00 Transfer: Corporate Yard Debt Services 440.00 Operating Reserve Collection (12,037.13) Total 2007/08 Previous Maximum Assessment: $49,696.87 The proposed increase to the maximum total assessment beginning Fiscal Year 2007/08 is as follows: DescriDtion Proposed Increase Utility Charges $0.00 Trash Collection & Disposal Fees 0.00 Water Charges 0.00 Services to Maintain Structures, Grounds 0.00 City Staff Services 0.00 Contract Services 0.00 Landscape Supplies 0.00 Materials to Maintain Structures, Grounds 0.00 Professional Services 0.00 Supplementals 0.00 Transfer: Corporate Yard Debt Services 0.00 Operating Reserve Collection 18,748.73 Total 2007/08 Proposed Increase: $18,748.73 Engineer's Report - City of Chuta Vista, OSD No. 23 Prepared by NBS 3-1 8-165 The proposed total maximum assessment for Fiscal Year 2007/08 with the increased landscaping maintenance costs is summarized as foilows: Proposed Total Description Maximum Assessment Utility Charges $936.00 Trash Coilection & Disposal Fees 560.00 Water Charges 7,669.00 Services to Maintain Structures, Grounds 490.00 City Staff Services 9,467.00 Contract Services 30,932.00 Landscape Supplies 660.00 Materials to Maintain Structures, Grounds 1,500.00 Professional Services 7,980.00 Supplementals 1,100.00 Transfer: Corporate Yard Debt Services 440.00 Operating Reserve Collection 7,078.71 Total 2007/08 Proposed Maximum Assessment: $64,537.00 All of the costs are based on current estimates. The assessments are based on these costs and the difference between the estimated cost and the actual cost will be accounted for in the subsequent year. Engineer's Report - City of Chula Vista, OSD No. 23 Prepared by NBS 3-2 8-166 4. ASSESSMENTS The proposed increased maximum assessment will be apportioned to each parcel, in the City of Chula Vista Open Space District No. 23, Otay Rio Business Park, as shown on the latest equalized roll at the -County Assessor's office, as listed in Section &ofthis Report. The description of each lot or parcel is part. of the records of the County Assessor of the County of San Diego and such records are, by reference, made part of this Report. 4.1 Method of Apportionment Pursuant to the Assessment Law, all parcels that have special benefit conferred upon them as a result of the maintenance and operation of improvements are identified and the proportionate special benefrt derived by each identified parcel is determined in relationship to the entire cost of the maintenance and operation of the improvements. The method of apportioning the special benefit, and thus the cost of the maintenance, is based on the estimated traffic generated by each parcel. A standard established within San Diego County is the average daily traffic (ADT) published by San Diego Association of Govemments (SANDAG). An ADT factor has been assigned to each land use type and these factors are used to estimate the traffic generated by each parcel. The District contains only industrial parcels which have the same SANDAG generation factor (200 trips per acre of land). Therefore, the total ADT for each parcel will be directly proportional to the gross area of the parcel. For purposes of distributing the assessment, each gross acre of land is equivaient to one Equivaient Dwelling Unit (EDU). 4.2 Maximum Assessment - Assessment Increase The proposed increased maximum assessment spread to each EDU, for Fiscal Year 2007/08, based on the method of apportionment within OSD No. 23, Otay Rio Business Park, is as follows: The maximum annual assessment per EDU is outlined in the following table: Maximum Annual DescriDtion Assessment Per EDU Previous Maximum Annual Assessment $551.82 Per EDU for Fiscal Year 2007/08 Proposed Annual Assessment Increase $208.18 Per EDU for Fiscai Year 2007/08 Proposed Maximum Annual Assessment $760.00 Per EDU for Fiscal Year 2007/08 Beginning Fiscal Year 2008/09, the maximum assessment shall be the prior year's assessment increased or decreased by an inflation factor which is the lesser of (1) the January to January San Diego Metropolitan Area All Urban Consumer Price Index (CPI) or (2) the change in estimated California Fourth Quarter Per Capita Personal Income as contained in the Governor's budget published in January. Engineer's Report - City of Chula Vista, OSD No. 23 Prepared by NBS 4-1 8-167 5. ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM The following page shows a reduced copy of the Assessment Diagram. For a detailed description of the lines and dimensions of any lot or parcel, reference is hereby made to the County Assessor's maps; which shall govern for all details concerning the lines and dimension of such lots or parcels. Engineer's Report - City of Chula Vista, OSD No. 23 Prepared by NBS 5-1 8-168 !( nJ II ~ ~ I ~ ;~~~ I ~ a u. . ~ 0 ~u . < ~ ~ ~ 6 . li;qp J:! . ~ ~ Ii ~ '" w f- ~ fj . I.~hi] " ~ IJ.J- ... ~ 1; I' .... " w ~ IJ.J U z ~ ..I~<. ! . ~ I 6 !P~':i ! !; I ~ ~ .. J ! alii w I:j '" (/) ~ ~ . ~ .~Ii I Q ~ ~ Q ~ '" < ~ i < "i iil~< j~i Ii Hi " h ii ~ iq~;1 ii II i : I . /: ~ fj 0 '" ~i ~:~ ~:~ hl!i " .. ;;: ~ ill " " '" . II · ~I~ d if: I, .. ~j '-' ~ ~ ~ 661 _ iE.. . 661 U..~ u.J ~ ~ ..J ~;;: ~ - L... >e> .:l g; ;:oU ~~ ~ '" ~ ~ ~nu~~n H 0:: z ct 0:: 0 u. (/) :J .tJ (/) <( ~ [50013000 IJ.J U UIUU z u. ! (/) 0 ::J w UUUI i f- co j'!: ::20 CI) 6 ~cz ci g C}~ l? ioiilunu I UJ <l:f- 5 on ~ 00 z f- - <( z'" CI) IJ.JN u. ::2 . 0 (/)0 >- (/)z f- 0 1J.Jf- z (/)0 :::> 0 '" j (/)0:: '" u '" <l:f- i5 ~ II~ (/) . 0 B "' CI) 0 ;;; "' N IJ.J '" :'5 '" ~ 0 <l: :::> "' ~ a. I '" I (/) u ... ~ " u. '" Z 0 ;;: IJ.J '" a. ~ ~ 0 u ~ N "' o N J 6. ASSESSMENT ROLL The following page provides a listing of each parcel's previous Fiscal Year 2007/08 maximum assessment .and proposed Fiscal Year 2007/08 maximum assessment amount, within Open Space District No. 23, Otay Rio Business Park that will be assessed for Fiscal Year 2007/08. Engineer's Report - City of Chula Vista, OSD No. 23 Prepared by NBS 6-1 8-170 Assessor's parcei Number 645-020-17-00 645-021-01-00 645-021-02-00 645-021-03-00 645-021-34-00 645-021-35-00 645-021-47-00 645-022-11-00 Total City of Chula Vista Open Space District No. 23 Otay Rio Business Park Fiscal Year 2007/08 Assessment Roll EDU 33.32 1.24 2.80 4.56 1.07 0.99 32.65 13.43 90.06 Previous'2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU $18,386.64 684.25 1,545.09 2,516.29 590.44 546.30 18,016.92 7,410.94 $49,696.87 . 'Proposed 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU $25,323.20 942.40 2,128.00 3,465.60 813.20 752.40 24,814.00 10,206.80 $68,445.60 Page 1 of 1 8-171 ATTACHMENT "2.. N I BIS lu:8lGovlrnmll:llSallficMa City of Chula Vista Proposed Assessment Increase Eastlake Maintenance District No.1 Zone A Engineer's Report Fiscal Year 2007/08 June 5, 2007 Prepared by NIBIS Corporate Office 32605 Highway 79 South, Suite 100 Temecula, CA 92592 (800) 676-7516 phone (951) 296-1998 fax Regional Office 870 Market Street, Suite 901 San Francisco, CA 94102 (800) 434-8349 phone (415) 391-8439 fax 8-172 CITY OF CHULA VISTA EASTLAKE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO.1 ZONE A 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 Phone - (619) 476-5376 CITY COUNCIL Cheryl Cox, Mayor Rudy Ramirez, Council member John McCann, Councilmember Jerry Rindone, Councilmember Steve Castaneda, Councilmember Susan Bigelow, City Clerk CITY STAFF Scott Tulloch, City Engineer Dave Byers, Director of Public Works Operations Leah Browder, Deputy Director of Engineering Robert Beamon, Administrative Services Manager Larry Eliason, Parks and Open Space Manager Chevis Fennell, Senior Open Space Inspector Josie Gabriel, Associate Planner Amy Partosan, Administrative Analyst II Jose Gomez, Land Surveyor Tessa Quicho, Administrative Analyst II NIBIS Greg Ghironzi, Project Director Michael J. Stearns, Assessment Engineer Stephanie Parson, Senior Consultant Sue Tyau, Financial Analyst 8-173 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. ENGINEER'S LETTER 1-1 2. PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS 2-1 2.1 Description of District Boundaries ................................................................ 2-1 2.2 Description of Facilities and Services........................................................... 2-1 2.3 Reason for the Increased Assessment ........................................................ 2-1 3. ESTIMATE OF COSTS 3-1 4. ASSESSMENTS 4-1 4.1 Method of Apportionment............................................................................. 4-1 4.2 Maximum Assessment - Assessment Increase ...........................................4-2 5. ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM 5-1 6. ASSESSMENT ROLL 6-1 8-174 1. ENGINEER'S LETTER WHEREAS, on June 5, 2007, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista (the "City Council"), State of Califomia, under the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972 (the "1972 Act"), the City of Chula Vista Municipal Code, Chapter 17.07 (the "Municipal Code"), Article XIIID of the Constitution of the State of California ("Article XIIID") and the Proposition 218 Omnibus Implementation Act (Government Code Section 53750 and following) (the "Implementation Act") (the 1972 Act, Municipal Code, Article XIIID and the Implementation Act may be referred to collectively as the "Assessment Law") adopted its Resolution of Intention to increase assessments above the existing approved maximum amount in Eastlake Maintenance DistMct No.1, Zone A (the "District"); and provide for the Levy and Collection of said increased assessments commencing Fiscal Year 2007/08. WHEREAS, the Resolution directed NBS to prepare and file a report presenting plans and specifications describing the general nature, location and extent of the improvements to be maintained, an estimate of the costs of the maintenance, operations and servicing of the improvements for the DistMct for the referenced fiscal year, an assessment diagram for the District showing the area and properties to be assessed, and an assessment of the estimated costs of the maintenance, operations and servicing the improvements, and also stating the reason for the increased assessment; identifying the parcels upon which an increased assessment is proposed for imposition and presenting the basis upon which the increased assessment is to be calculated. NOW THEREFORE, the following increased assessment is made to the District of the estimated costs of maintenance, operation and servicing of improvements to be paid by the assessable real properly within the DistMct in proportion to the special benefit received: SUMMARY OF ASSESSMENT DescriDtion ELMD Zone A Costs Annual Total Costs Balance to Assessment Previous Fiscal Year 2007/08 Maximum Assessment Proposed Fiscal Year 2007/08 Maximum Assessment $107,308.38 $1 07,308.38 $286,619.41 $286,619.41 I, the undersigned, respectfully submit the enclosed Engineer's Report and, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, the increased assessments herein have been prepared and computed in accordance with the order of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, California. NBS Engineer's Report - City of Chula Vista, ELMD Zone A Prepared by NBS 1-1 8-175 2. PLANS AND SPECIFICA TIONS 2.1 Description of District Boundaries Eastlake Maintenance District NO.1 is bounded by the areas commonly known as Eastlake Hills, Shores, Village Center and Business Center, as well as the northern portion of Eastlake Greens. 2.2 Description of Facilities and Services The District's Zone currently consists of 2,41 0 parcels. The assessments collected within the District will pay the costs of maintaining natural open space, green belt and slopes along major and collector roads, including the maintenance of all trees, shrubs, plants, etc., planted or placed within said open space area. The District's Zone is comprised of 0.9 acres of irrigated slopes, 2.0 acres of turf and 5.7 acres of ornamental plants. The proposed maintenance consists in general of the following: . Irrigation of erosion control slopes . Irrigation . Fertilization . Mowing of turf . Pruning of trees and shrubs . Replacement of dead or diseased trees and shrubs . Repair and replacement of equipment and facilities 2.3 Reason for the Increased Assessment Currently, due to Proposition 218, passed in 1996, assessments cannot be increased to pay for the increased costs of labor, materials, supplies, electricity rates, etc., because the maximum assessment previously authorized for the District has been levied. Without the abiiity to increase assessments it may be necessary for the District to reduce the level of maintenance it can provide, thus jeopardizing the quality and appearance of facilities. The District is requesting the ability to increase the current maximum assessment within the District. Approval of the proposed increased assessments will: . Provide for the repair, removal or replacement of all or any part of any improvement. Provide for the life, growth, health and beauty of the landscaping, including cultivation, irrigation, trimming, spraying, fertilizing or treating for disease to injury, the removal of trimmings, rubbish, debris, and other solid waste. If the increased assessments are not approved, the following reduction in services may include, but are not limited to: Engineer's Report - City of Chula Vista, ELMO Zone A Prepared by NBS 2-1 8-176 . Reduced mowing and watering of turf . No watering of irrigated slopes . Reduced tree trimming, fertilization and brush management . Replacement of equipment and piants will not occur in a timely manner . Sprinkler replacement will not occur in a timely manner . Contractual services reduced, providing for an overall reduction in the amount of maintenance performed within the area Engineer's Report - City of Chula Vista, ELMD Zone A Prepared by NBS 2-2 8-177 3. ESTIMA TE OF COSTS The estimated budget for annual maintenance of the facilities and proportionate share of the costs of administration of the District have been prepared based on cost information provided by the City of Chuia Vista staff. The estimated budgetary unit costs for the maintenance of the improvements aAd the administration of the District are listed below. The Fiscal Year 2007/08 maximum total assessment for Eastlake Maintenance District No.1, Zone A, is summarized in the following table: Previous Total Description Maximum Assessment Utility Charges $1,637.00 Trash Collection & Disposal Fees 280.00 Water Charges 33,151.00 Services to Maintain Structures, Grounds 1,900.00 City Staff Services 22,340.00 Contract Services 52,089.00 Landscape Supplies 2,000.00 Materials to Maintain Structures, Grounds 3,687.00 Professional Services 800.00 Supplementals 2,211.00 Transfer: Corporate Yard Debt Services 1,133.00 Operating Reserve Collection (13,919.62) Total 2007/08 Previous Maximum Assessment: $107,308.38 The proposed increase to the maximum total assessment beginning Fiscal Year 2007/08 is as follows: Description ProDosed Increase Utility Charges $0.00 Trash Collection & Disposal Fees 0.00 Water Charges 0.00 Services to Maintain Structures, Grounds 0.00 City Staff Services 0.00 Contract Services 0.00 Landscape Supplies 0.00 Materials to Maintain Structures, Grounds 0.00 Professional Services 0.00 Supplementals 0.00 Transfer: Corporate Yard Debt Services 0.00 Operating Reserve Collection 179,311.03 Total 2007/08 Proposed Increase: $179,311,03 Engineer's Report - City of Chula Vista, ELMO Zone A Prepared by NBS 3-1 8-178 The proposed total maximum assessment for Fiscal Year 2007/08 with the increased iandscaping maintenance costs is summarized as follows: Proposed Total DescriDtion Maximum Assessment Utility Charges $1,637.00 Trash Collection & Disposal Fees 280.00 Water Charges 33,151.00 Services to Maintain Structures, Grounds 1,900.00 City Staff Services 22,340.00 Contract Services 52,089.00 Landscape Supplies 2,000.00 Materials to Maintain Structures, Grounds 3,687.00 Professional Services 800.00 Supplementals 2,211.00 Transfer: Corporate Yard Debt Services 1,133.00 Operating Reserve Collection 165,391.41 Total 2007/08 Proposed Maximum Assessment: $286,619.41 All of the costs are based on current estimates. The assessments are based on these costs and the difference between the estimated cost and the actual cost will be accounted for in the subsequent year. Engineer's Report - City of Chula Vista, ELMO Zone A Prepared by NBS 3-2 8-179 4. ASSESSMENTS The proposed increased maximum assessment will be apportioned to each parcel, in the City of Chula Vista Eastlake Maintenance District No.1, Zone A. as shown on the latest equalized roll at the County Assessor's effice, as listed in Section 6 of this Report. The description of each lot or parcel is part of the records of the County Assessor of the County of San Diego and such records are, by reference, made part of this Report. 4.1 Method of Apportionment Pursuant to the Assessment Law, all parcels that have special benefit conferred upon them as a result of the maintenance and operation of improvements are identified and the proportionate special benefit derived by each identified parcel is determined in relationship to the entire cost of the maintenance and operation of the improvements. The amount of the estimated assessment on each lot or parcel of land in the District is in proportion to the estimated benefit to be received by each such lot or parcel of land from the use of the streets and their appurtenances, such as supplemental streetlights. The use or benefit of a street is determined by the use of the iand served by such streets. Each lot or parcel of land in the District was determined to have a specific actual land used in accordance with the Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan covering such parcel. Each type of actual land use was assigned a trip generation factor derived from trip generation rates by land use as they related to a single family residential land use. The trip generation rates by land use were developed by San Diego Association of Govemments (SANDAG) and are contained in the "Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation rates for the San Diego Region" manual. The land use factor is multiplied by the number of dwelling units if the land use is residential, or the number of acres for other land uses. The product of this multiplication is the number of benefit units or Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDU) for each lot or parcel of land to be assessed. The sum of all the EDU for each of the lots or parcels of land to be assessed in each zone is divided into the total amounts to be generated by assessments to arrive at the amount of each EDU. The amount of the EDU is then multiplied by the number of EDU for each of the lots and parcels of land to establish the annual assessment charge for a particular lot or parcel of land. Engineer's Report - City of Chula Vista, ELMO Zone A Prepared by NBS 4-1 8-180 4.2 Maximum Assessment - Assessment Increase The proposed increased maximum assessment spread to each EDU, for Fiscal Year 2007/08, based on the method of apportionment within Eastlake Maintenance District No.1, Zone A, is as follows: . - The maximum annual Assessment per EDU is outlined in the following table: Maximum Annual Description Assessment Per EDU Previous Maximum Annual Assessment $12.73 Per EDU for Fiscal Year 2007/08 Proposed Annual Assessment Increase $21.27 Per EDU for Fiscal Year 2007/08 Proposed Maximum Annual Assessment $34.00 Per EDU for Fiscal Year 2007/08 Beginning Fiscal Year 2008/09, the maximum assessment shall be the prior year's assessment increased or decreased by an inflation factor which is the lesser of (1) the January to January San Diego Metropolitan Area All Urban Consumer Price Index (CPt) or (2) the change in estimated California Fourth Quarter Per Capita Personal Income as contained in the Governor's budget published in January. Engineer's Report - City of Chula Vista, ELMD Zone A Prepared by NBS 4-2 8-181 5. ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM The following pages show a reduced copy of the Assessment Diagram. For a detailed description of the lines and dimensions of any lot or parcel, reference is hereby made to the County Assessor's maps, which shall govem for all details concerning the lines and dimension of such lots or parcels. Engineer's Report - City of Chula Vista, ELMO Zone A Prepared by NBS 5-1 8-182 6. ASSESSMENT ROLL The following pages provide a listing of each parcel's previous Fiscal Year 2007/08 maximum assessment and proposed Fiscal Year. 2007/08 maximum assessment amount, within Eastiake Maintenance District No.1, Zone A that will be assessed for Fiscal Year 2007/08. Engineer's Report - City of Chuia Vista, ELMD Zone A Prepared by NBS 6-1 8-183 Assessor's Parcel Number 595-071-04-00 595-071-05-00 595-071-06-00 595-071-10-00 595-071-13-00 595-072-01-00 595-072-02-00 595-072-03-00 595-072-04-00 595-072-05-00 595-072-06-00 595-072-07-00 595-072-08-00 595-072-09-00 595-072-10-00 595-072-11-00 595-072-12-00 595-072-13-00 595-191-01-00 595-191-02-00 595-191-03-00 595-191-04-00 595-191-05-00 595-191-06-00 595-191-07-00 595-191-08-00 595-191-09-00 595-191-10-00 595-191-11-00 595-191-12-00 595-191-13-00 595-191-14-00 595-191-15-00 595-191-16-00 595-191-17-00 595-191-18-00 595-191-19-00 595-192-01-00 595-192-02-00 595-192-03-00 595-192-04-00 595-192-05-00 595-192-06-00 595-192-07-00 595-192-08-00 595-192-09-00 595-192-10-00 City of Chula Vista Eastlake Maintenance District No.1 Zone A Fiscal Year 2007/08 Assessment Roll . EDU 105.60 84.00 64.20 104.40 93.00 659.50 80.00 44.00 505.00 61.50 48.00 168.00 26.00 24.00 43.00 37.50 66.50 19.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Previous 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU $1,344.28 1,069.32 817.26 1,329.01 1,183.89 8,395.43 1,018.40 560.12 6,428.65 782.89 611.04 2,138.64 330.98 305.52 547.39 477.37 846.54 241.87 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 Proposed 2007/08 Maximum Assessment perEDU $3,590.40 2,856.00 2,182.80 3,549.60 3,162.00 22,423.00 2,720.00 1,496.00 17,170.00 2,091.00 1,632.00 5,712.00 884.00 816.00 1,462.00 1,275.00 2,261.00 646.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 Page 1 of 52 8-184 Assessor's Parcel Number 595-192-11-00 595-192-12-00 595-193-01-00 595-193-02-00 595-193-03-00 595-193-04-00 595-193-05-00 595-193-06-00 595-193-07-00 595-193-08-00 595-193-09-00 595-193-1 0-00 595-193-11-00 595-193-12-00 595-193-13-00 595-193-14-00 595-193-15-00 595-193-16-00 595-193-17-00 595-193-18-00 595-193-23-00 595-193-24-00 595-193-25-00 595-193-26-00 595-193-27-00 595-193-28-00 595-193-29-00 595-193-30-00 595-193-31-00 595-193-32-00 595-193-33-00 595-193-34-00 595-193-35-00 595-193-36-00 595-193-37-00 595-193-38-00 595-193-39-00 595-193-40-00 595-1 93-41-00 595-193-42-00 595-193-43-00 595-193-44-00 595-193-45-00 595-193-46-00 595-193-47-00 595-1 93-48-00 595-193-49-00 City of Chula Vista Eastlake Maintenance District No.1 Zone A Fiscal Year 2007/08 Assessment Roll EDU 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Previous 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU . 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 Page 2 of 52 8-185 Proposed 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 City of Chula Vista Eastlake Maintenance District No.1 Zone A Fiscal Year 2007/08 Assessment Roll Assessor's Parcel - -Namber- 595-193-50-00 595-193-51-00 595-193-52-00 595-193-53-00 595-193-54-00 595-193-55-00 595-193-56-00 595-193-57-00 595-193-59-00 595-193-60-00 595-193-61-00 595-193-62-00 595-201-01-00 595-201-02-00 595-201-03-00 595-201-04-00 595-201-05-00 595-201-06-00 595-201-07-00 595-201-08-00 595-201-09-00 595-201-10-00 595-201-11-00 595-201-12-00 595-201-13-00 595-201-14-00 595-201-15-00 595-201-16-00 595-201-17-00 595-201-18-00 595-201-19-00 595-201-20-00 595-201-21-00 595-201-22-00 595-201-23-00 595-201-24-00 595-201-25-00 595-201-26-00 595-202-01-00 595-202-02-00 595-202-03-00 595-202-04-00 595-202-06-00 595-202-07-00 595-202-08-00 595-202-09-00 595-202-10-00 EDU 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Previous 2007/08 Maximum .- Assessment per EDU 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 Page 3 of 52 8-186 Proposed 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 Assessor's Parcel Number 595-202-11-00 595-202-12-00 595-202-13-00 595-202-14-00 595-202-15-00 595-202-16-00 595-202-17-00 595-202-18-00 595-202-19-00 595-202-20-00 595-202-21-00 595-202-22-00 595-202-23-00 595-202-24-00 595-202-25-00 595-202-26-00 595-202-27-00 595-202-28-00 595-202-29-00 595-202-30-00 595-202-31-00 595-202-32-00 595-202-33-00 595-202-34-00 595-202-35-00 595-202-36-00 595-202-37-00 595-202-38-00 595-202-39-00 595-202-40-00 595-202-41-00 595-202-42-00 595-202-43-00 595-202-44-00 595-202-45-00 595-202-46-00 595-202-47-00 595-202-48-00 595-202-49-00 595-202-50-00 595-202-51-00 595-202-52-00 595-202-53-00 595-202-54-00 595-202-55-00 595-202-56-00 595-202-57-00 City of Chula Vista Eastlake Maintenance District No.1 Zone A Fiscal Year 2007/08 Assessment Roll EDU 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Previous 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 Page 4 of 52 8-187 Proposed 2007/08 Maximum AssessmentperEDU 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 Assessor's Parcel Number 595-202-58-00 595-202-60-00 595-203-01-00 595-203-02-00 595-203-03-00 595-203-04-00 595-203-05-00 595-203-06-00 595-203-07-00 595-203-08-00 595-203-09-00 595-203-1 0-00 595-203-11-00 595-203-12-00 595-203-13-00 595-203-14-00 595-203-15-00 595-203-16-00 595-203-17-00 595-203-18-00 595-203-19-00 595-203-20-00 595-203-21-00 595-203-22-00 595-203-23-00 595-203-24-00 595-203-25-00 595-203-26-00 595-203-27-00 595-203-28-00 595-203-29-00 595-203-30-00 595-203-31-00 595-203-32-00 595-203-33-00 595-203-34-00 595-203-35-00 595-203-36-00 595-203-37-00 595-203-38-00 595-203-39-00 595-203-40-00 595-203-41-00 595-203-42-00 595-203-43-00 595-203-44-00 595-203-45-00 City of Chula Vista Eastlake Maintenance District No.1 Zone A Fiscal Year 2007/08 Assessment Roll EDU 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Previous 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU . 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 Proposed 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 Page 5 of 52 8-188 Assessor's Parcel Number 595-203-46-00 595-203-47-00 595-203-48-00 595-203-49-00 595-203-50-00 595-203-51-00 595-203-52-00 595-203-53-00 595-203-54-00 595-211-01-00 595-211-02-00 595-211-03-00 595-211-04-00 595-211-05-00 595-211-06-00 595-211-07-00 595-211-08-00 595-211-09-00 595-211-10-00 595-211-11-00 595-211-12-00 595-211-13-00 595-211-14-00 595-211-15-00 595-211-16-00 595-211-17-00 595-211-18-00 595-211-19-00 595-211-20-00 595-211-21-00 595-211-22-00 595-211-23-00 595-211-24-00 595-211-25-00 595-211-26-00 595-211-27-00 595-211-28-00 595-211-29-00 595-211-30-00 595-211-31-00 595-211-32-00 595-211-33-00 595-211-34-00 595-211-35-00 595-211-36-00 595-211-37-00 595-211-38-00 City of Chula Vista Eastlake Maintenance District No.1 Zone A Fiscal Year 2007/08 Assessment Roll EDU 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Previous 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 Proposed 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 Page 6 of 52 8-189 Assessor's Parcel Number 595-211-39-00 595-211-40-00 595-211-41-00 595-211-42-00 595-211-43-00 595-211-44-00 595-211-45-00 595-212-01-00 595-212-02-00 595-212-03-00 595-212-04-00 595-212-05-00 595-212-06-00 595-212-07-00 595-212-08-00 595-212-09-00 595-212-10-00 595-212-11-00 595-212-12-00 595-212-13-00 595-212-14-00 595-212-15-00 595-212-16-00 595-212-17-00 595-212-18-00 595-212-19-00 595-212-20-00 595-212-21-00 595-212-22-00 595-212-23-00 595-213-01-00 595-213-02-00 595-213-03-00 595-213-04-00 595-213-05-00 595-213-06-00 595-213-07-00 595-213-08-00 595-213-09-00 595-213-10-00 595-213-11-00 595-213-12-00 595-213-13-00 595-213-14-00 595-213-15-00 595-213-16-00 595-213-17-00 City of Chula Vista Eastlake Maintenance District No.1 Zone A Fiscal Year 2007/08 Assessment Roll EDU 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Previous 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 Page 7 of 52 8-190 Proposed 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 Assessor's Parcel '. Number 595-213-18-00 595-213-19-00 595-213-20-00 595-213-21-00 595-213-22-00 595-213-23-00 595-213-24-00 595-213-25-00 595-214-01-00 595-214-02-00 595-214-03-00 595-214-04-00 595-214-05-00 595-214-06-00 595-214-07-00 595-214-08-00 595-214-09-00 595-214-1 0-00 595-214-11-00 595-214-12-00 595-214-13-00 595-214-14-00 595-214-15-00 595-214-16-00 595-214-17-00 595-214-18-00 595-214-19-00 595-214-20-00 595-214-21-00 595-214-22-00 595-214-23-00 595-214-24-00 595-214-25-00 595-214-26-00 595-214-27-00 595-214-28-00 595-214-29-00 595-214-30-00 595-214-31-00 595-214-32-00 595-214-33-00 595-214-34-00 595-214-35-00 595-214-36-00 595-214-37-00 595-214-38-00 595-214-39-00 City of Chula Vista Eastlake Maintenance District No.1 Zone A Fiscal Year 2007/08 Assessment Roll EDU 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Previous 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 Page 8 of 52 8-191 Proposed 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 Assessor's Parcel Number 595-214-40-00 595-214-41-00 595-214-42-00 595-214-43-00 595-214-44-00 595-214-45-00 595-214-46-00 595-214-47-00 595-214-48-00 595-214-49-00 595-214-50-00 595-215-01-00 595-215-02-00 595-215-03-00 595-215-04-00 595-215-05-00 595-215-06-00 595-215-07-00 595-215-08-00 595-215-09-00 595-215-10-00 595-215-11-00 595-215-12-00 595-215-13-00 595-215-14-00 595-215-15-00 595-215-16-00 595-215-17-00 595-215-18-00 595-215-19-00 595-215-20-00 595-215-21-00 595-215-22-00 595-215-23-00 595-215-24-00 595-215-25-00 595-215-26-00 595-215-27-00 595-215-28-00 595-215-29-00 595-215-30-00 595-215-31-00 595-215-32-00 595-215-33-00 595-215-34-00 595-215-35-00 595-215-36-00 City of Chula Vista Eastlake Maintenance District No.1 Zone A Fiscal Year 2007/08 Assessment Roll EDU 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Previous 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 Page 9 of 52 8-192 Proposed 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU . 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 Assessor's Parcel Number 595-215-37-00 595-215-38-00 595-215-39-00 595-215-40-00 595-215-41-00 595-216-01-00 595-216-02-00 595-216-03-00 595-216-04-00 595-216-05-00 595-216-06-00 595-216-07-00 595-216-08-00 595-216-09-00 595-216-1 0-00 595-216-11-00 595-216-12-00 595-216-13-00 595-216-14-00 595-216-15-00 595-216-16-00 595-216-17-00 595-216-18-00 595-216-19-00 595-216-20-00 595-216-21-00 595-216-22-00 595-216-23-00 595-216-24-00 595-216-25-00 595-216-26-00 595-216-27-00 595-216-28-00 595-216-29-00 595-216-30-00 595-216-31-00 595-216-32-00 595-216-33-00 595-216-34-00 595-216-35-00 595-216-36-00 595-216-37-00 595-216-38-00 595-216-39-00 595-216-40-00 595-216-41-00 595-216-42-00 City of Chula Vista Eastlake Maintenance District No.1 Zone A Fiscal Year 2007/08 Assessment Roll EDU 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Previous 2007/08 Maximum . Assessment per EDU 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 Page 10 of 52 Proposed 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 8-193 Assessor's Parcel Number 595-216-43-00 595-221-02-01 595-221-02-02 595-221-02-03 595-221-02-04 595-221-02-05 595-221-02-06 595-221-05-07 595-221-05-08 595-221-05-09 595-221-05-1 0 595-221-05-11 595-221-05-12 595-221-06-13 595-221-06-14 595-221-06-15 595-221-06-16 595-221-06-17 595-221-06-18 595-221-06-19 595-221-06-20 595-221-06-21 595-221-06-22 595-221-06-23 595-221-06-24 595-221-06-25 595-221-06-26 595-221-07-27 595-221-07-28 595-221-07-29 595-221-07-30 595-221-07-31 595-221-07-32 595-221-07-33 595-221-07-34 595-221-07-35 595-221-07-36 595-221-07-37 595-221-07-38 595-221-08-39 595-221-08-40 595-221-08-41 595-221-08-42 595-221-08-43 595-221-08-44 595-221-08-45 595-221-08-46 City of Chula Vista Eastlake Maintenance District No.1 Zone A Fiscal Year 2007/08 Assessment Roll EDU 1.00 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 Previous 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 12.73 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 Proposed 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per'EDU 34.00 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 Page 11 of 52 8-194 Assessor's Parcel Number' 595-221-09-47 595-221-09-48 595-221-09-49 595-221-09-50 595-221-09-51 595-221-09-52 595-221-09-53 595-221-09-54 595-221-09-55 595-221-09-56 595-221-10-57 595-221-10-58 595-221-10-59 595-221-10-60 595-221-10-61 595-221-10-62 595-221-1 0-63 595-221-10-64 595-221-10-65 595-221-10-66 595-221-12-67 595-221-12-68 595-221-12-69 595-221-12-70 595-221-12-71 595-221-12-72 595-221-12-73 595-221-12-74 595-221-12-75 595-221-12-76 595-221-12-77 595-221-12-78 595-221-13-79 595-221-13-80 595-221-13-81 595-221-13-82 595-221-13-83 595-221-13-84 595-221-13-85 595-221-13-86 595-221-13-87 595-221-13-88 595-221-13-89 595-221-13-90 595-221-13-91 595-221-13-92 595-221-14-01 City of Chula Vista Eastlake Maintenance District No.1 Zone A Fiscal Year 2007/08 Assessment Roll EDU 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 Previous 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 Page 12 of 52 Proposed 2007/08 Maximum . Assessment per EDU 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 8-195 Assessor's Parcel - -Number- 595-221-14-02 595-221-14-03 595-221-14-04 595-221-14-05 595-221-14-06 595-221-14-07 595-221-14-08 595-221-14-09 595-221-14-10 595-221-14-11 595-221-14-12 595-221-15-01 595-221-15-02 595-221-15-03 595-221-15-04 595-221-15-05 595-221-15-06 595-221-15-07 595-221-15-08 595-221-15-09 595-221-15-10 595-221-15-11 595-221-15-12 595-221-15-13 595-221-15-14 595-221-16-01 595-221-16-02 595-221-16-03 595-221-16-04 595-221-16-05 595-221-16-06 595-221-16-07 595-221-16-08 595-221-17-01 595-221-17-02 595-221-17-03 595-221-17-04 595-221-18-01 595-221-18-02 595-221-18-03 595-221-18-04 595-221-18-05 595-221-18-06 595-221-18-07 595-221-18-08 595-221-19-01 595-221-19-02 City of Chula Vista Eastlake Maintenance District No.1 ZOne A Fiscal Year 2007/08 Assessment Roll EDU 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 Previous 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 Page 13 of 52 8-196 Proposed 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 Assessor's Parcel Number 595-221-19-03 595-221-19-04 595-221-19-05 595-221-19-06 595-221-19-07 595-221-19-08 595-221-19-09 595-221-19-10 595-221-19-11 595-221-19-12 595-221-20-01 595-221-20-02 595-221-20-03 595-221-20-04 595-221-20-05 595-221-20-06 595-221-20-07 595-221-20-08 595-221-20-09 595-221-20-10 595-221-20-11 595-221-20-12 595-221-20-13 595-221-20-14 595-221-21-01 595-221-21-02 595-221-21-03 595-221-21-04 595-221-21-05 595-221-21-06 595-221-21-07 595-221-21-08 595-221-21-09 595-221-21-10 595-221-21-11 595-221-21-12 595-221-21-13 595-221-21-14 595-221-21-15 595-221-21-16 595-221-22-01 595-221-22-02 595-221-22-03 595-221-22-04 595-221-22-05 595-221-22-06 595-221-22-07 City of Chula Vista Eastlake Maintenance District No. 1 Zone A Fiscal Year 2007/08 Assessment Roll EDU 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 Previous 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 Page 14 of 52 8-197 Proposed 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 Assessor's Parcel Number 595-221-22-08 595-221-22-09 595-221-22-10 595-221-22-11 595-221-22-12 595-221-22-13 595-221-22-14 595-221-22-15 595-221-22-16 595-221-23-01 595-221-23-02 595-221-23-03 595-221-23-04 595-221-23-05 595-221-23-06 595-221-23-07 595-221-23-08 595-221-23-09 595-221-23-10 595-221-23-11 595-221-23-12 595-221-23-13 595-221-23-14 595-221-23-15 595-221-23-16 595-221-24-01 595-221-24-02 595-221-24-03 595-221-24-04 595-221-24-05 595-221-24-06 595-221-24-07 595-221-24-08 595-221-24-09 595-221-24-10 595-221-24-11 595-221-24-12 595-221-25-01 595-221-25-02 595-221-25-03 595-221-25-04 595-221-25-05 595-221-25-06 595-221-25-07 595-221-25-08 595-222-01-24 595-222-01-25 City of Chula Vista Eastlake Maintenance District No.1 Zone A Fiscal Year 2007/08 Assessment Roll EDU 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 Previous 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 Page 15 of 52 8-198 Proposed 2007/08 Maximum . Assessment per EDU 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 Assessor's Parcel Number . 595-222-01-26 595-222-01-27 595-222-01-28 595-222-01-29 595-222-01-30 595-222-01-31 595-222-01-32 595-222-01-33 595-222-01-34 595-222-01-35 595-222-01-36 595-222-01-37 595-222-01-38 595-222-01-39 595-222-01-40 595-222-01-41 595-222-01-42 595-222-01-43 595-222-01-44 595-222-01-45 595-222-01-46 595-222-01-47 595-222-01-48 595-222-01-49 595-222-01-50 595-222-01-51 595-222-01-52 595-222-01-53 595-222-01-54 595-222-03-55 595-222-03-56 595-222-03-57 595-222-03-58 595-222-03-59 595-222-03-60 595-222-03-61 595-222-03-62 595-222-03-63 595-222-03-64 595-222-03-65 595-222-03-66 595-222-03-67 595-222-03-68 595-222-03-69 595-222-03-70 595-222-03-71 595-222-03-72 City of Chula Vista Eastlake Maintenance District No.1 Zone A Fiscal Year 2007108 Assessment Roll EDU 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 Previous 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 Proposed 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 Page 16 of 52 8-199 Assessor's Parcel . Number 595-222-03-73 595-222-03-74 595-222-03-75 595-222-03-76 595-222-03-77 595-222-03-78 595-222-03-79 595-222-03-60 595-222-03-81 595-222-03-82 595-222-03-83 595-222-03-84 595-222-03-85 595-222-03-86 595-222-03-87 595-222-03-88 595-222-04-01 595-222-04-02 595-222-04-03 595-222-04-04 595-222-04-05 595-222-04-06 595-222-04-07 595-222-04-08 595-222-04-09 595-222-04-10 595-222-04-11 595-222-04-12 595-222-04-13 595-222-04-14 595-222-04-15 595-222-04-16 595-222-04-17 595-222-04-18 595-222-04-19 595-222-04-20 595-222-04-21 595-222-04-22 595-222-04-23 . 595-222-04-24 595-222-05-01 595-222-05-02 595-222-05-03 595-222-05-04 595-222-05-05 595-222-05-06 595-222-05-07 City of Chula Vista Eastlake Maintenance District No.1 Zone A Fiscal Year 2007108 Assessment Roll EDU 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 Previous 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 Proposed 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 Page 17 of 52 8-200 Assessor's Parcel '. Number 595-222-05-08 595-222-05-09 595-222-05-10 595-222-05-11 595-222-05-12 595-222-05-13 595-222-05-14 595-222-05-15 595-222-05-16 595-222-05-17 595-222-05-18 595-222-05-19 595-222-05-20 595-222-05-21 595-222-05-22 595-222-05-23 595-222-13-01 595-222-13-02 595-222-13-03 595-222-13-04 595-222-13-05 595-222-13-06 595-222-13-07 595-222-13-08 595-222-13-09 595-222-13-10 595-222-13-11 595-222-13-12 595-222-13-13 595-222-13-14 595-222-13-15 595-222-13-16 595-222-13-17 595-222-13-18 595-222-15-39 595-222-15-40 595-222-15-41 595-222-15-42 595-222-15-43 595-222-15-44 595-222-15-45 595-222-15-46 595-222-15-47 595-222-15-48 595-222-15-49 595-222-15-50 595-222-15-51 City of Chula Vista Eastlake Maintenance District No. 1 Zone A Fiscal Year 2007/08 Assessment Roll EDU 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 Previous 2007/08 Maximum . -Assessment per EDU 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 . 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 Page 18 of 52 8-201 Proposed 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 Assessor's Parcel Number 595-222-15-52 595-222-15-53 595-222-15-54 595-222-15-55 595-222-15-56 595-222-15-57 595-222-15-58 595-222-15-59 595-222-15-60 595-222-15-61 595-222-15-62 595-222-15-63 595-222-15-64 595-222-15-65 595-222-15-66 595-222-15-67 595-222-15-68 595-222-15-69 595-222-15-70 595-222-15-71 595-222-15-72 595-222-15-73 595-222-15-74 595-222-15-75 595-222-15-76 595-222-15-77 595-222-15-78 595-222-15-79 595-222-15-80 595-222-15-81 595-222-15-82 595-222-16-01 595-222-16-02 595-222-16-03 595-222-16-04 595-222-16-05 595-222-16-06 595-222-16-07 595-222-16-08 595-222-16-09 595-222-16-10 595-222-16-11 595-222-16-12 595-222-16-13 595-222-16-14 595-222-16-15 595-222-16-16 City of Chula Vista Eastlake Maintenance District No.1 Zone A Fiscal Year 2007/08 Assessment Roll EDU 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 Previous 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 Proposed 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 Page 19 of 52 8-202 Assessor's Parcel Number 595-222-16-17 595-222-16-18 595-222-16-19 595-222-16-20 595-222-16-21 595-222-16-22 595-222-16-23 595-222-16-24 595-222-16-25 595-222-16-26 595-222-16-27 595-222-16-28 595-222-16-29 595-222-16-30 595-222-16-31 595-222-16-32 595-222-17-01 595-222-17-02 595-222-17-03 595-222-17-04 595-222-17-05 595-222-17-06 595-222-17-07 595-222-17-08 595-222-17-09 595-222-17-10 595-222-17-11 595-222-17-12 595-222-17-13 595-222-17-14 595-222-17-15 595-222-17-16 595-222-17-17 595-222-17-18 595-222-17-19 595-222-17-20 595-222-17-21 595-222-17-22 595-222-17-23 595-222-17-24 595-222-17-25 595-222-17-26 595-222-17-27 595-222-17-28 595-222-17-29 595-222-17-30 595-222-17-31 City of Chula Vista Eastlake Maintenance District No.1 Zone A Fiscal Year 2007/08 Assessment Roll EDU 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 Previous 2007/08 Maximum . Assessment per EDU 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 Page 20 of 52 Proposed 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 8-203 Assessor's Parcel Number 595-222-17-32 595-222-17-33 595-222-17-34 595-222-17-35 595-222-17-36 595-222-17-37 595-222-17-38 595-222-17-39 595-222-17-40 595-222-19-01 595-222-19-02 595-222-19-03 595-222-19-04 595-222-19-05 595-222-19-06 595-222-19-07 595-222-19-08 595-222-19-09 595-222-19-10 595-222-19-11 595-222-19-12 595-222-19-13 595-222-19-14 595-222-19-15 595-222-19-16 595-222-19-17 595-222-19-18 595-222-19-19 595-222-19-20 595-222-19-21 595-222-19-22 595-222-19-23 595-222-19-24 595-222-19-25 595-222-19-26 595-222-19-27 595-222-19-28 595-222-19-29 595-222-19-30 595-222-19-31 595-222-19-32 595-222-19-33 595-222-19-34 595-222-19-35 595-222-19-36 595-222-19-37 595-222-19-38 City of Chula Vista Eastlake Maintenance District No.1 Zone A Fiscal Year 2007/08 Assessment Roll EDU 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 Previous 2007/08 Maximum AssessmentperEDU 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 Page 21 of 52 Proposed 2007/08 Maximum Assessment perEDU 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20. 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 8-204 Assessor's Parcel Number' . 595-222-21-01 595-222-21-02 595-222-21-03 595-222-21-04 595-222-21-05 595-222-21-06 595-222-21-07 595-222-21-08 595-222-21-09 595-222-21-10 595-222-21-11 595-222-21-12 595-222-21-13 595-222-21-14 595-222-21-15 595-222-21-16 595-222-21-17 595-222-21-18 595-222-21-19 595-222-21-20 595-222-21-21 595-222-21-22 595-222-21-23 595-222-21-24 595-222-21-25 595-222-21-26 595-222-21-27 595-222-21-28 595-222-21-29 595-222-21-30 595-222-21-31 595-222-21-32 595-222-21-33 595-222-21-34 595-222-21-35 595-222-21-36 595-222-21-37 595-222-21-38 595-222-21-39 595-222-21-40 595-222-21-41 595-222-21-42 595-222-21-43 595-222-21-44 595-222-22-01 595-222-22-02 595-222-22-03 City of Chula Vista Eastlake Maintenance District No.1 Zone A Fiscal Year 2007/08 Assessment Roll EDU 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 Previous 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 Proposed 2007/08 Maximum . Assessment per EDU 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 Page 22 of 52 8-205 Assessor's Parcel . . Number. 595-222-22-04 595-222-22-05 595-222-22-06 595-222-22-07 595-222-22-08 595-222-22-09 595-222-22-10 595-222-22-11 595-222-22-12 595-222-22-13 595-222-22-14 595-222-22-15 595-222-22-16 595-222-22-17 595-222-22-18 595-222-22-19 595-222-22-20 595-222-22-21 595-222-22-22 595-222-22-23 595-222-22-24 595-222-22-25 595-222-22-26 595-222-22-27 595-222-22-28 595-222-22-29 595-222-22-30 595-222-22-31 595-222-22-32 595-222-22-33 595-222-22-34 595-222-22-35 595-222-22-36 595-222-22-37 595-222-22-38 595-222-22-39 595-222-22-40 595-222-23-01 595-222-23-02 595"222-23-03 595-222-23-04 595-222-23-05 595-222-23-06 595-222-23-07 595-222-23-08 595-222-23-09 595-222-23-10 City of Chula Vista Eastlake Maintenance District No. 1 Zone A Fiscal Year 2007/08 Assessment Roll . EDU 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 Previous 2007/08 Maximum n Assessment per EDU 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 Page 23 of 52 Proposed 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 8-206 Assessor's Parcel Number 595-222-23-11 595-222-23-12 595-222-23-13 595-222-23-14 595-222-23-15 595-222-23-16 595-222-23-17 595-222-23-18 595-222-23-19 595-222-23-20 595-222-23-21 595-222-23-22 595-222-23-23 595-222-23-24 595-222-23-25 595-222-23-26 595-222-23-27 595-222-23-28 595-222-23-29 595-222-23-30 595-222-23-31 595-222-23-32 595-222-23-33 595-222-23-34 595-222-23-35 595-222-23-36 595-222-23-37 595-222-23-38 595-222-23-39 595-222-23-40 595-222-23-41 595-222-23-42 595-222-23-43 595-222-23-44 595-222-25-01 595-222-25-02 595-222-25-03 595-222-25-04 595-222-25-05 595-222-25-06 595-222-25-07 595-222-25-08 595-222-25-09 595-222-25-10 595-222-25-11 595-222-25-12 595-222-25-13 City of Chula Vista Eastlake Maintenance District No. 1 Zone A Fiscal Year 2007/08 Assessment Roll EDU 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 Previous 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 Proposed 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 Page 24 of 52 8-207 Assessor's Parcel Number 595-222-25-14 595-222-25-15 595-222-25-16 595-222-25-17 595-222-25-18 595-222-25-19 595-222-25-20 595-222-25-21 595-222-25-22 595-222-25-23 595-222-25-24 595-222-25-25 595-222-25-26 595-222-25-27 595-222-25-28 595-222-25-29 595-222-25-30 595-222-25-31 595-222-25-32 595-222-25-33 595-222-25-34 595-222-25-35 595-222-25-36 595-222-25-37 595-222-25-38 595-222-25-39 595-222-25-40 595-222-25-41 595-222-25-42 595-222-25-43 595-222-25-44 595-222-25-45 595-222-25-46 595-222-25-47 595-222-25-48 595-222-25-49 595-222-25-50 595-222-25-51 595-222-25-52 595-222-25-53 595-222-25-54 595-222-25-55 595-222-25-56 595-222-26-01 595-222-26-02 595-222-26-03 595-222-26-04 City of Chula Vista Eastlake Maintenance District No.1 Zone A Fiscal Year 2007/08 Assessment Roll EDU 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 Previous 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 Page 25 of 52 8-208 Proposed 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 Assessor's Parcel Number- 595-222-26-05 595-222-26-06 595-222-26-07 595-222-26-08 595-222-26-09 595-222-26-10 595-222-26-11 595-222-26-12 595-222-26-13 595-222-26-14 595-222-26-15 595-222-26-16 595-222-26-17 595-222-26-18 595-222-26-19 595-222-26-20 595-222-26-21 595-222-26-22 595-222-26-23 595-222-26-24 595-222-26-25 595-222-26-26 595-222-26-27 595-222-26-28 595-222-26-29 595-222-26-30 595-222-26-31 595-222-26-32 595-222-26-33 595-222-26-34 595-222-26-35 595-222-26-36 595-222-26-37 595-222-26-38 595-222-26-39 595-222-26-40 595-222-26-41 595-222-26-42 595-222-26-43 595-222-26-44 595-222-26-45 595-222-26-46 595-222-26-47 595-222-26-48 595-222-26-49 595-222-26-50 595-222-26-51 City of Chula Vista Eastlake Maintenance District No.1 Zone A Fiscal Year 2007/08 Assessment Roll .. EDU 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 Previous 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 Page 26 of 52 Proposed 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 8-209 Assessor's Parcel Number- 595-222-26-52 595-222-26-53 595-222-26-54 595-222-26-55 595-222-26-56 595-222-26-57 595-222-26-58 595-222-26-59 595-222-26-60 595-222-26-61 595-222-26-62 595-222-26-63 595-222-26-64 595-222-26-65 595-222-26-66 595-231-01-00 595-231-02-00 595-231-08-00 595-231-09-00 595-231-12-00 595-231-13-00 595-231-21-00 595-231-22-00 595-231-23-00 595-231-24-00 595-231-29-00 595-231-31-00 595-231-32-00 595-231-33-00 595-231-34-00 595-231-35-00 595-231-36-00 595-231-37-00 595-231-39-00 595-231-40-00 595-231-41-00 595-231-42-00 595-231-43-00 595-231-44-00 595-231-45-00 595-231-46-00 595-231-47-00 595-231-48-00 595-231-49-00 595-231-50-00 595-232-04-00 595-232-05-00 City of Chula Vista Eastlake Maintenance District No.1 Zone A Fiscal Year 2007/08 Assessment Roll EDU 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 55.50 48.90 66.00 67.20 181.50 127.50 48.90 49.20 50.10 133.80 104.10 94.50 128.40 162.00 67.80 208.50 110.40 43.20 23.10 15.60 15.60 8.86 12.35 13.50 18.90 16.80 12.27 12.28 10.69 14.62 48.00 46.50 Previous 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 "10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 706.51 622.49 840.18 855.45 2,310.49 1,623.07 622.49 626.31 637.77 1,703.27 1,325.19 1,202.98 1,634.53 2,062.26 863.09 2,654.20 1,405.39 549.93 294.06 198.58 198.58 112.77 157.16 171.87 240.59 213.86 156.22 156.32 136.13 186.10 611.04 591.94 Proposed 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 1,887.00 1,662.60 2,244.00 2,284.80 6,171.00 4,335.00 1,662.60 1,672.80 1,703.40 4,549.20 3,539.40 3,213.00 4,365.60 5,508.00 2,305.20 7,089.00 3,753.60 1,468.80 785.40 530.40 530.40 301.20 419.76 459.06 642.60 571.20 417.26 417.53 363.60 497.07 1,632.00 1,581.00 Page 27 of 52 8-210 Assessor's Parcel -, Number 595-232-06-00 595-232-11-00 595-232-25-00 595-232-28-00 595-232-29-00 595-232-30-00 595-232-31-00 595-232-32-00 595-232-33-00 595-232-34-00 595-241-01-00 595-241-02-00 595-241-03-00 595-241-04-00 595-241-05-00 595-241-06-00 595-241-07-00 595-241-08-00 595-241-09-00 595-241-10-00 595-241-11-00 595-241-12-00 595-241-13-00 595-241-14-00 595-241-15-00 595-241-16-00 595-241-17-00 595-241-18-00 595-241-19-00 595-241-20-00 595-241-21-00 595-241-22-00 595-241-23-00 595-241-24-00 595-241-25-00 595-241-26-00 595-241-27-00 595-241-28-00 595-241-29-00 595-241-30-00 595-241-31-00 595-241-32-00 595-241-33-00 595-241-34-00 595-241-35-00 595-241-36-00 595-241-37-00 City of Chula Vista Eastlake Maintenance District No.1 Zone A Fiscal Year 2007/08 Assessment Roll EDU 64.80 37.50 41.10 1.71 383.00 47.50 42.00 136.50 23.40 64.20 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Previous 2007/08 Maximum , Assessment per EDU 824.90 477.37 523.20 21.76 4,875.59 604.67 534.66 1,737.64 297.88 817.26 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 Page 28 of 52 8-211 Proposed 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 2,203.20 1,275.00 1,397.40 58.14 13,022.00 1,615.00 1,428.00 4,641.00 795.60 2,182.80 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 Assessor's Parcel Number 595-241-38-00 595-241-39-00 595-241-40-00 595-241-41-00 595-241-42-00 595-241-43-00 595-241-44-00 595-241-45-00 595-241-46-00 595-241-47-00 595-241-48-00 595-241-49-00 595-241-50-00 595-241-51-00 595-242-01-00 595-242-02-00 595-242-03-00 595-242-04-00 595-242-05-00 595-242-06-00 595-242-07-00 595-242-08-00 595-242-09-00 595-242-10-00 595-242-11-00 595-242-12-00 595-242-13-00 595-242-14-00 595-242-15-00 595-242-16-00 595-242-17-00 595-242-18-00 595-242-19-00 595-242-20-00 595-242-21-00 595-242-22-00 595-242-23-00 595.242-24-00 595-242-25-00 595-242-26-00 595-242-27-00 595-242-28-00 595-242-29-00 595-242-30-00 595-242-31-00 595-242-32-00 595-242-33-00 City of Chula Vista Eastlake Maintenance District No.1 Zone A Fiscal Year 2007/08 Assessment Roll EDU ' 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Previous 2007/08 Maximum . Assessment per EDU 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 Page 29 of 52 8-212 Proposed 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00. 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 Assessor's Parcel Number' 595-242-34-00 595-242-35-00 595-242-36-00 595-242-37-00 595-242-38-00 595-242-39-00 595-242-40-00 595-242-41-00 595-242-42-00 595-242-43-00 595-242-44-00 595-242-45-00 595-242-46-00 595-242-47-00 595-242-48-00 595-242-49-00 595-251-01-00 595-251-02-00 595-251-03-00 595-251-04-00 595-251-05-00 595-251-06-00 595-251-07-00 595-251-08-00 595-251-09-00 595-251-10-00 595-251-11-00 595-251-12-00 595-251-13-00 595-251-14-00 595-251-15-00 595-251-16-00 595-251-17-00 595-251-18-00 595-251-19-00 595-251-20-00 595-251-21-00 595-251-22-00 595-251-23-00 595-251-24-00 595-251-25-00 595-251-26-00 595-251-27-00 595-251-28-00 595-251-29-00 595-251-30-00 595-251-31-00 City of Chula Vista Eastlake Maintenance District No.1 Zone A Fiscal Year 2007/08 Assessment Roll EDU 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Previous 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 Page 30 of 52 Proposed 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 8-213 Assessor's Parcel Number 595-251-32-00 595-251-33-00 595-251-34-00 595-251-35-00 595-251-36-00 595-252-01-00 595-252-02-00 595-252-03-00 595-252-04-00 595-252-05-00 595-252-06-00 595-252-07-00 595-252-08-00 595-252-09-00 595-252-10-00 595-252-11-00 595-252-12-00 595-252-13-00 595-252-14-00 595-252-15-00 595-252-16-00 595-252-18-00 595-252-19-00 595-252-20-00 595-252-21-00 595-252-24-00 595-252-25-00 595-252-26-00 595-252-27-00 595-252-28-00 595-252-29-00 595-252-30-00 595-252-31.00 595-252-32-00 595-252-33-00 595-252-34-00 595-252-35-00 595-252-36-00 595-253-01-00 595-253-02-00 595-253-03-00 595-253-04-00 595-253-05-00 595-253-06-00 595-253-07-00 595-253-08-00 595-253-09-00 City of Chula Vista Eastlake Maintenance District No.1 Zone A Fiscal Year 2007/08 Assessment Roll EDU 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Previous 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 Proposed 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 Page 31 of 52 8-214 Assessor's Parcel Number 595-253-10-00 595-253-11-00 595-253-12-00 595-253-13-00 595-253-14-00 595-253-15-00 595-253-16-00 595-253-19-00 595-253-20-00 595-253-21-00 595-253-22-00 595-253-23-00 595-253-24-00 595-253-25-00 595-253-26-00 595-253-27-00 595-253-28-00 595-253-29-00 595-253-30-00 595-253-31-00 595-253-32-00 595-253-33-00 595-253-34-00 595-253-35-00 595-253-36-00 595-253-37-00 595-253-38-00 595-253-39-00 595-253-40-00 595-253-41-00 595-253-42-00 595-253-43-00 595-253-44-00 595-253-45-00 595-253-46-00 595-253-47-00 595-253-48-00 595-253-49-00 595-253-50-00 595-261-01-00 595-261-02-00 595-261-03-00 595-261-04-00 595-261-05-00 595-261-06-00 595-261-07-00 595-261-08-00 EDU 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 City of Chula Vista Eastlake Maintenance District No.1 Zone A Fiscal Year 2007/08 Assessment Roll Previous 2007/08 Maximum .' A-ssessment per EDU 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 Page 32 of 52 Proposed 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 8-215 Assessor's Parcel . Number 595-261-09-00 595-261-10-00 595-261-11-00 595-261-12-00 595-261-13-00 595-261-14-00 595-261-15-00 595-261-16-00 595-261-17-00 595-261-18-00 595-261-19-00 595-261-20-00 595-261-21-00 595-261-22-00 595-261-23-00 595-261-24-00 595-261-25-00 595-261-26-00 595-261-27-00 595-261-28-00 595-261-29-00 595-261-30-00 595-261-31-00 595-261-32-00 595-261-33-00 595-261-34-00 595-261-35-00 595-261-36-00 595-261-37-00 595-261-38-00 595-261-39-00 595-261-40-00 595-261-41-00 595-261-42-00 595-261-43-00 595-261-44-00 595-261-45-00 595-261-46-00 595-261-47-00 595-261-48-00 595-261-49-00 595-261-50-00 595-261-51-00 595-261-52-00 595-261-53-00 595-261-54-00 595-261-55-00 City of Chula Vista Eastlake Maintenance District No.1 Zone A Fiscal Year 2007/08 Assessment Roll EDU 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Previous 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 Proposed 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 Page 33 of 52 8-216 Assessor's Parcel Number .. 595-261-56-00 595-261-57-00 595-261-58-00 595-261-59-00 595-261-60-00 595-261-61-00 595-261-62-00 595-261-63-00 595-262-01-00 595-262-02-00 595-262-03-00 595-262-04-00 595-262-05-00 595-262-06-00 595-262-07-00 595-262-08-00 595-262-09-00 595-262-10-00 595-262-11-00 595-262-12-00 595-262-13-00 595-262-14-00 595-262-15-00 595-262-16-00 595-262-17-00 595-262-18-00 595-262-19-00 595-262-20-00 595-262-21-00 595-262-22-00 595-262-23-00 595-262-24-00 595-262-25-00 595-262-26-00 595-262-27-00 595-262-29-00 595-262-30-00 595-262-31-00 595-262-32-00 595-262-33-00 595-262-34-00 595-262-35-00 595-262-36-00 595-262-37-00 595-271-01-00 595-271-02-00 595-271-03-00 City of Chula Vista Eastlake Maintenance District No. 1 Zone A Fiscal Year 2007/08 Assessment Roll EDU 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Previous 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 Page 34 of 52 8-217 Proposed 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 Assessor's Parcel Number 595-271-04-00 595-271-05-00 595-271-06-00 595-271-07-00 595-271-08-00 595-271-11-00 595-271-12-00 595-271-13-00 595-271-14-00 595-271-15-00 595-271-16-00 595-271-17-00 595-271-18-00 595-271-19-00 595-271-20-00 595-271-21-00 595-271-24-00 595-271-25-00 595-271-26-00 595-271-27-00 595-271-28-00 595-271-29-00 595-271-30-00 595-271-32-00 595-271-33-00 595-271-35-00 595-271-36-00 595-272-01-00 595-272-02-00 595-272-03-00 595-272-04-00 595-272-05-00 595-272-06-00 595-272-07-00 595-272-08-00 595-272-09-00 595-272-10-00 595-272-11-00 595-272-12-00 595-272-13-00 595-272-14-00 595-272-15-00 595-272-16-00 595-272-17-00 595-272-18-00 595-272-19-00 595-272-20-00 City of Chula Vista Eastlake Maintenance District No.1 Zone A Fiscal Year 2007/08 Assessment Roll EDU 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Previous 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 Page 35 of 52 8-218 Proposed 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 Assessor's Parcel Number- 595-272-21-00 595-272-22-00 595-272-23-00 595-272-24-00 595-272-25-00 595-272-26-00 595-272-27-00 595-272-28-00 595-272-29-00 595-272-30-00 595-272-31-00 595-272-32-00 595-272-33-00 595-272-34-00 595-272-35-00 595-272-36-00 595-272-37-00 595-272-38-00 595-280-01-00 595-280-02-00 595-280-03-00 595-280-04-00 595-280-05-00 595-280-06-00 595-280-07-00 595-280-08-00 595-280-09-00 595-280-10-00 595-280-11-00 595-280-12-00 595-280-13-00 595-280-14-00 595-280-15-00 595-280-16-00 595-280-17-00 595-280-18-00 595-280-19-00 595-280-20-00 595-280-21-00 595-280-22-00 595-280-23-00 595-280-24-00 595-280-25-00 595-280-26-00 595-280-27-00 595-280-28-00 595-280-29-00 City of Chula Vista Eastlake Maintenance District No.1 Zone A Fiscal Year 2007/08 Assessment Roll EDU 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Previous 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 Page 36 of 52 Proposed 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 8-219 Assessor's Parcel Number .. 595-280-30-00 595-280-31-00 595-280-32-00 595-280-33-00 595-280-34-00 595-280-35-00 595-280-36-00 595-280-37-00 595-280-38-00 595-280-39-00 595-280-40-00 595-280-41-00 595-280-42-00 595-280-43-00 595-280-44-00 595-280-45-00 595-280-46-00 595-280-47-00 595-280-48-00 595-280-49-00 595-280-50-00 595-280-51-00 595-280-52-00 595-280-53-00 595-280-54-00 595-280-55-00 595-280-56-00 595-280-57-00 595-280-58-00 595-280-59-00 595-280-60-00 595-291-01-00 595-291-02-00 595-291-03-00 595-291-04-00 595-291-05-00 595-291-06-00 595-291-07-00 595-291-08-00 595-291-09-00 595-291-10-00 595-291-11-00 595-291-12-00 595-291-13-00 595-291-14-00 595-291-15-00 595-291-16-00 City of Chula Vista Eastlake Maintenance District No.1 Zone A Fiscal Year 2007/08 Assessment Roll EDU 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Previous 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 Proposed 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 Page 37 of 52 8-220 Assessor's Parcel '''Number 595-291-17-00 595-291-18-00 595-291-19-00 595-291-20-00 595-291-21-00 595-291-22-00 595-291-23-00 595-291-24-00 595-291-25-00 595-291-28-00 595-292-02-00 595-292-03-00 595-292-04-00 595-292-05-00 595-292-06-00 595-292-07-00 595-292-08-00 595-292-09-00 595-292-10-00 595-292-11-00 595-292-12-00 595-292-13-00 595-292-14-00 595-292-15-00 595-292-16-00 595-292-17-00 595-292-18-00 595-292-19-00 595-292-20-00 595-292-21-00 595-292-22-00 595-292-23-00 595-292-24-00 595-292-25-00 595-292-26-00 595-292-27-00 595-292-28-00 595-292-29-00 595-292-30-00 595-292-31-00 595-292-32-00 595-292-33-00 595-292-34-00 595-292-35-00 595-292-36-00 595-292-37-00 595-292-38-00 City of Chula Vista Eastlake Maintenance District No. 1 Zone A Fiscal Year 2007/08 Assessment Roll EDU 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Previous 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 Page 38 of 52 Proposed 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 8-221 Assessor's Parcel Number" 595-292-39-00 595-292-40-00 595-292-41-00 595-292-42-00 595-292-43-00 595-292-44-00 595-292-45-00 595-292-46-00 595-292-47-00 595-292-48-00 595-292-49-00 595-292-50-00 595-292-51-00 595-292-52-00 595-292-53-00 595-292-54-00 595-292-55-00 595-292-56-00 595-292-57-00 595-292-58-00 595-292-59-00 595-292-60-00 595-292-61-00 595-292-62-00 595-292-63-00 595-292-64-00 595-292-65-00 595-292-66-00 595-292-67-00 595-292-68-00 595-292-69-00 595-292-71-00 595-293-01-00 595-293-02-00 595-293-03-00 595-293-04-00 595-293-05-00 595-293-06-00 595-293-07-00 595-293-08-00 595-293-09-00 595-293-10-00 595-293-11-00 595-293-12-00 595-293-13-00 595-293-14-00 595-293-15-00 City of Chula Vista Eastlake Maintenance District No.1 Zone A Fiscal Year 2007/08 Assessment Roll EDU 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Previous 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 Proposed 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 Page 39 of 52 8-222 Assessor's Parcel Number 595-293-16-00 595-293-17-00 595-293-18-00 595-293-19-00 595-293-20-00 595-293-21-00 595-293-22-00 595-293-23-00 595-293-24-00 595-293-25-00 595-293-26-00 595-293-27-00 595-293-28-00 595-293-29-00 595-293-30-00 595-293-31-00 595-293-32-00 595-293-33-00 595-293-34-00 595-293-35-00 595-293-36-00 595-293-37-00 595-293-38-00 595-293-39-00 595-293-40-00 595-293-41-00 595-293-42-00 595-293-43-00 595-293-44-00 595-293-45-00 595-293-46-00 595-293-47-00 595-293-48-00 595-293-49-00 595-293-50-00 595-293-51-00 595-293-52-00 595-293-53-00 595-293-54-00 595-293-55-00 595-293-56-00 595-293-57-00 595-293-58-00 595-293-59-00 595-293-60-00 595-293-61-00 595-293-62-00 City of Chula Vista Eastlake Maintenance District No.1 Zone A Fiscal Year 2007/08 Assessment Roll EDU 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Previous 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 Proposed 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 Page 40 of 52 8-223 Assessor's Parcel Number 595-293-63-00 595-293-64-00 595-293-65-00 595-300-05-00 595-300-06-00 595-300-09-00 595-300-10-00 595-380-01-00 595-380-02-00 595-380-03-00 595-380-04-00 595-380-05-00 595-380-06-00 595-380-07-00 595-380-08-00 595-380-09-00 595-380-10-00 595-380-11-00 595-380-12-00 595-380-13-00 595-380-14-00 595-380-15-00 595-380-16-00 595-380-17-00 595-380-18-00 595-380-19-00 595-380-20-00 595-380-21-00 595-380-22-00 595-380-23-00 595-380-24-00 595-380-25-00 595-380-26-00 595-380-27-00 595-380-28-00 595-380-29-00 595-380-30-00 595-380-31-00 595-380-32-00 595-380-33-00 595-380-34-00 595-380-35-00 595-380-36-00 595-380-37-00 595-380-38-00 595-380-39-00 595-380-40-00 City of Chula Vista Eastlake Maintenance District No.1 Zone A Fiscal Year 2007/08 Assessment Roll EDU 1.00 1.00 1.00 266.40 33.30 121.50 824.10 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Previous 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 12.73 12.73 12.73 3,391.27 423.90 1,546.69 10,490.79 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 Proposed 2007/08 Maximum Assessment-per EDU 34.00 34.00 34.00 9,057.60 1,132.20 4,131.00 28,019.40 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 Page 41 of 52 8-224 Assessor's Parcel Number 595-380-41-00 595-380-42-00 595-380-43-00 595-380-44-00 595-380-45-00 595-380-46-00 595-380-47-00 595-380-48-00 595-380-49-00 595-380-50-00 595-380-51-00 595-381-01-00 595-381-02-00 595-381-03-00 595-381-04-00 595-381-05-00 595-381-06-00 595-381-07-00 595-381-08-00 595-381-09-00 595-381-10-00 595-381-11-00 595-381-12-00 595-381-13-00 595-381-14-00 595-381-15-00 595-381-16-00 595-381-17-00 595-381-18-00 595-381-19-00 595-390-01-00 595-390-02-00 595-390-03-00 595-390-04-00 595-390-05-00 595-390-06-00 595-390-07-00 595-390-08-00 595-390-09-00 595-390-10-00 595-390-11-00 595-390-12-00 595-390-13-00 595-390-14-00 595-390-15-00 595-390-16-00 595-390-17-00 City of Chula Vista Eastlake Maintenance District No.1 Zone A Fiscal Year 2007/08 Assessment Roll EDU 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Previous 2007/08 Maximum . Assessment per EDU 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 Page 42 of 52 8-225 Proposed 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 Assessor's Parcel '. Number 595-390-18-00 595-390-19-00 595-390-20-00 595-390-21-00 595-390-22-00 595-390-23-00 595-390-24-00 595-390-25-00 595-390-26-00 595-390-27-00 595-390-28-00 595-390-29-00 595-390-30-00 595-390-31-00 595-390-32-00 595-390-33-00 595-390-34-00 595-390-35-00 595-390-36-00 595-390-37-00 595-390-38-00 595-400-01-00 595-400-02-00 595-400-03-00 595-400-04-00 595-400-05-00 595-400-06-00 595-400-07-00 595-400-08-00 595-400-09-00 595-400-1 0-00 595-400-11-00 595-400-12-00 595-400-13-00 595-400-14-00 595-400-15-00 595-400-16-00 595-400-17-00 595-400-18-00 595-400-19-00 595-400-20-00 595-400-21-00 595-400-22-00 595-400-23-00 595-400-24-00 595-400-25-00 595-400-26-00 City of Chula Vista Eastlake Maintenance District No.1 Zone A Fiscal Year 2007108 Assessment Roll EDU 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Previous 2007/08 Maximum .. Assessment per EDU 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 Proposed 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 Page 43 of 52 8-226 Assessor's Parcel Number 595-400-27-00 595-400-28-00 595-400-29-00 595-400-30-00 595-400-31-00 595-400-32-00 595-400-33-00 595-400-34-00 595-400-35-00 595-400-36-00 595-400-37-00 595-400-38-00 595-400-39-00 595-400-40-00 595-400-41-00 595-400-42-00 595-400-43-00 595-400-44-00 595-400-45-00 595-400-46-00 595-400-47-00 595-400-48-00 595-400-49-00 595-400-50-00 595-400-51-00 595-400-52-00 595-400-53-00 595-400-54-00 595-400-55-00 595-400-56-00 595-400-57-00 595-400-58-00 595-410-02-01 595-410-02-02 595-410-02-03 595-410-02-04 595-410-02-05 595-410-02-06 595-410-02-07 595-410-02-08 595-410-02-09 595-410-02-10 595-410-02-11 595-410-02-12 595-410-02-13 595-410-02-14 595-410-02-15 City of Chula Vista Eastlake Maintenance District No. 1 Zone A Fiscal Year 2007/08 Assessment Roll EDU 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 Previous 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 12.73 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 Proposed 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 Page 44 of 52 8-227 Assessor's Parcel Number' 595-410-02-16 595-410-02-17 595-410-02-18 595-410-02-19 595-410-02-20 595-410-02-21 595-410-02-22 595-410-02-23 595-410-02-24 595-410-02-25 595-410-03-01 595-41 0-03-02 595-410-03-03 595-410-03-04 595-410-03-05 595-41 0-03-06 595-41 0-03-07 595-410-03-08 595-410-03-09 595-410-03-1 0 595-41 0-03-11 595-410-03-12 595-41 0-03-13 595-41 0-03-14 595-41 0-03-15 595-410-03-16 595-410-03-17 595-410-03-18 595-41 0-03-19 595-410-03-20 595-410-03-21 595-410-03-22 595-410-04-01 595-41 0-04-02 595-410-04-03 595-41 0-04-04 595-41 0-04-05 595-41 0-04-06 595-410-04-07 595-410-04-08 595-410-04-09 595-410-04-10 595-410-04-11 595-410-04-12 595-410-04-13 595-410-04-14 595-41 0-04-15 City of Chula Vista Eastlake Maintenance District No.1 Zone A Fiscal Year 2007/08 Assessment Roll EDU 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 Previous 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 Page 45 of 52 Proposed 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 8-228 Assessor's Parcel "Number 595-410-04-16 595-410-04-17 595-41 0-04-18 595-410-05-01 595-410-05-02 595-410-05-03 595-410-05-04 595-41 0-05-05 595-410-05-06 595-410-05-07 595-410-05-08 595-410-05-09 595-410-05-1 0 595-410-05-11 595-410-05-12 595-410-05-13 595-410-05-14 595-410-05-15 595-410-05-16 595-410-11-01 595-410-11-02 595-410-11-03 595-410-11-04 595-410-11-05 595-410-11-06 595-410-11-07 595-410-11-08 595-410-11-09 595-410-11-10 595-410-11-11 595-410-11-12 595-410-11-13 595-410-11-14 595-410-11-15 595-410-20-01 595-410-20-02 595-410-20-03 595-410-20-04 595-41 0-20-05 595-410-20-06 595-410-20-07 595-410-20-08 595-410-20-09 595-410-20-10 595-410-20-11 595-410-20-12 595-410-20-13 City of Chula Vista Eastlake Maintenance District No.1 Zone A Fiscal Year 2007108 Assessment Roll EDU 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 Previous 2007/08 Maximum "0, 'Assessment'per EDU 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 Proposed 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 Page 46 of 52 8-229 Assessor's Parcel Number 595-410-20-14 595-410-20-15 595-41 0-20-16 595-410-20-17 595-410-23-01 595-410-23-02 595-410-23-03 595-410-23-04 595-41 0-23-05 595-410-23-06 595-410-23-07 595-410-23-08 595-410-23-09 595-410-23-10 595-410-23-11 595-41 0-23-12 595-410-23-13 595-410-23-14 595-410-23-15 595-410-23-16 595-410-24-01 595-410-24-02 595-410-24-03 595-410-24-04 595-410-24-05 595-410-24-06 595-410-24-07 595-410-24-08 595-410"24-09 595-410-24-10 595-41 0-24-11 595-410-24-12 595-410-24-13 595-410-24-14 595-410-24-15 595-410-24-16 595-410-24-17 595-410-24-18 595-410-24-19 595-410-26-01 595-410-26-02 595-410-26-03 595-410-26-04 595-410-26-05 595-410-26-06 595-41 0-26-07 595-41 0-26-08 City of Chula Vista Eastlake Maintenance District No.1 Zone A Fiscal Year 2007/08 Assessment Roll EDU 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 Previous 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 Page 47 of 52 Proposed 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 8-230 Assessor's Parcel 'Number 595-410-26-09 595-410-26-10 595-410-26-11 595-410-26-12 595-41 0-26-13 595-410-26-14 595-410-26-15 595-410-26-16 595-410-26-17 595-410-26-18 595-410-26-19 595-410-26-20 595-41 0-26-21 595-410-26-22 595-410-26-23 595-41 0-26-24 595-41 0-26-25 595-410-26-26 595-410-26-27 595-410-26-28 595-41 0-26-29 595-410-26-30 595-410-26-31 595-410-26-32 595-410-26-33 595-410-26-34 595-41 0-26-35 595-41 0-26-36 595-410-26-37 595-410-26-38 595-41 0-26-39 595-410-28-01 595-410-28-02 595-410-28-03 595-410-28-04 595-410-28-05 595-410-28-06 595-410-28-07 595-410-28-08 595-410-28-09 595-410-28-10 595-410-28-11 595-410-28-12 595-41 0-28-13 595-410-28-14 595-410-28-15 595-410-28-16 City of Chula Vista Eastlake Maintenance District No.1 Zone A Fiscal Year 2007/08 Assessment Roll EDU 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 Previous 2007/08 Maximum A-ssessment per EDU 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 Page 48 of 52 Proposed 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 8-231 Assessor's Parcel Number 595-410-28-17 595-410-28-18 595-41 0-28-19 595-410-28-20 595-410-28-21 595-410-28-22 595-410-28-23 595-410-28-24 595-410-28-25 595-410-28-26 595-410-28-27 595-410-28-28 595-410-28-29 595-420-02-01 595-420-02-02 595-420-02-03 595-420-02-04 595-420-02-05 595-420-02-06 595-420-03-01 595-420-03-02 595-420-03-03 595-420-03-04 595-420-03-05 595-420-03-06 595-420-03-07 595-420-03-08 595-420-03-09 595-420-03-10 595-420-03-11 595-420-03-12 595-420-03-13 595420-03-14 595-420-03-15 595-420-03-16 595-420-03-17 595-420-03-18 595-420-04-01 595-420-04-02 595-420-04-03 595-420-04-04 595-420-04-05 595-420-04-06 595-420-04-07 595-420-04-08 595-420-04-09 595-420-04-10 City of Chula Vista Eastlake Maintenance District No.1 Zone A Fiscal Year 2007/08 Assessment Roll EDU 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 Previous 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDl! 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 Proposed 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 27.20 20.40 20.40 20.40 20.40 20.40 20.40 20.40 20.40 20.40 20.40 20.40 20.40 20.40 20.40 20.40 20.40 20.40 20.40 20.40 20.40 20.40 20.40 20.40 20.40 20.40 20.40 20.40 20.40 20.40 20.40 20.40 20.40 20.40 20.40 Page 49 of 52 8-232 Assessor's Parcel Number 595-420-04-11 595-420-04-12 595-420-04-13 595-420-04-14 595-420-04-15 595-420-05-01 595-420-05-02 595-420-05-03 595-420-05-04 595-420-05-05 595-420-05-06 595-420-05-07 595-420-05-08 595-420-05-09 595-420-05-10 595-420-05-11 595-420-05-12 595-420-05-13 595-420-05-14 595-420-05-15 595-420-06-01 595-420-06-02 595-420-06-03 595-420-06-04 595-420-06-05 595-420-06-06 595-420-06-07 595-420-06-08 595-420-06-09 595-420-06-10 595-420-06-11 595-420-06-12 595-420-07-01 595-420-07-02 595-420-07-03 595-420-07-04 595-420-07-05 595-420-07-06 595-420-07-07 595-420-07-08 595-420-07-09 595-420-07-10 595-420-07-11 595-420-07-12 595-420-07-13 595-420-07-14 595-420-07-15 City of Chula Vista Eastlake Maintenance District No.1 Zone A Fiscal Year 2007/08 Assessment Roll EDU 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 Previous 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 Proposed 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 20.40 20.40 20.40 20.40 20.40 20.40 20.40 20.40 20.40 20.40 20.40 20.40 20.40 20.40 20.40 20.40 20.40 20.40 20.40 20.40 20.40 20.40 20.40 20.40 20.40 20.40 20.40 20.40 20.40 20.40 20.40 20.40 20.40 20.40 20.40 20.40 20.40 20.40 20.40 20.40 20.40 20.40 20.40 20.40 20.40 20.40 20.40 Page 50 of 52 8-233 Assessor's Parcel Number 595-420-07-16 595-420-07-17 595-420-07-18 595-420-08-01 595-420-08-02 595-420-08-03 595-420-08-04 595-420-08-05 595-420-08-06 595-420-08-07 595-420-08-08 595-420-08-09 595-420-08-10 595-420-08-11 595-420-08-12 595-420-08-13 595-420-08-14 595-420-08-15 595-420-09-01 595-420-09-02 595-420-09-03 595-420-09-04 595-420-09-05 595-420-09-06 595-420-09-07 595-420-09-08 595-420-09-09 595-420-09-10 595-420-09-11 595-420-09-12 595-420-09-13 595-420-09-14 595-420-09-15 595-420-09-16 595-420-09-17 595-420-09-18 595-420-09-19 595-420-09-20 595-420-09-21 595-420-09-22 595-420-09-23 595-420-09-24 595-420-09-25 595-420-09-26 595-420-09-27 595-420-09-28 595-420-09-29 City of Chula Vista Eastlake Maintenance District No.1 Zone A Fiscal Year 2007108 Assessment Roll EDU 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 Previous 2007/08 Maximum , Assessment per EDU 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 Proposed 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 20.40 20.40 20.40 20.40 20.40 20.40 20.40 20AO 20.40 20.40 20.40 20.40 20.40 20.40 20.40 20.40 20.40 20.40 20.40 20.40 20.40 20.40 20.40 20.40 20.40 20.40 20.40 20.40 20.40 20.40 20.40 20.40 20.40 20.40 20.40 20.40 20.40 20.40 20.40 20.40 20.40 20.40 20.40 20.40 20.40 20.40 20.40 Page 51 of 52 8-234 Assessor's Parcel Number 595-420-09-30 595-420-10-01 595-420-1 0-02 595-420-1 0-03 595-420-10-04 595-420-10-05 595-420-10-06 595-420-10-07 595-420-10-08 595-420-1 0-09 595-420-10-10 595-420-10-11 595-420-10-12 Total City of Chula Vista Eastlake Maintenance District No.1 Zone A Fiscal Year 2007/08 Assessment Roll EDU 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 8,429.98 Previous 2007/08 Maximum ,-Assessment per EDU 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63 $107,308.38 Proposed 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 20.40 20.40 20.40 20.40 20.40 20.40 20.40 20.40 20.40 20.40 20.40 20.40 20.40 $286,619.41 Page 52 of 52 8-235 ATTACHMENT ~ NBS t.u:aI GowmmIlll SolWMs City of Chula Vista Proposed Assessment Increase Eastlake Maintenance District No.1 Zone D Engineer's Report Fiscal Year 2007/08 June 5, 2007 Prepared by NIBIS Corporate Office 32605 Highway 79 South, Suite 100 Temecula, CA 92592 (800) 676-7516 phone (951) 296-1998 fax Regional Office 870 Market Street, Suite 901 San Francisco, CA 94102 (800) 434-8349 phone (415) 391-8439 fax 8-236 CITY OF CHULA VISTA EASTLAKE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO.1 ZONE D 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 Phone - (619) 476-5376 CITY COUNCIL Cheryl Cox, Mayor Rudy Ramirez, Council member John McCann, Councilmember Jerry Rindone, Councilmember Steve Castaneda, Councilmember Susan Bigelow, City Clerk CITY STAFF Scott Tulloch, City Engineer Dave Byers, Director of Public Works Operations Leah Browder, Deputy Director of Engineering Robert Beamon, Administrative Services Manager Larry Eliason, Parks and Open Space Manager Chevis Fennell, Senior Open Space Inspector Josie Gabriel, Associate Planner Amy Partosan, Administrative Analyst II Jose Gomez, Land Surveyor Tessa Quicho, Administrative Analyst II NIBIS Greg Ghironzi, Project Director Michael J. Steams, Assessment Engineer Stephanie Parson, Senior Consultant Sue Tyau, Financial Analyst 8-237 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. ENGINEER'S LETTER 1-1 2. PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS 2-1 2.1 Description of District Boundaries ................................................................ 2-1 2.2 Description of Facilities and SelVices........................................................... 2-1 2.3 Reason for the Increased Assessment ........................................................2-1 3. ESTIMATE OF COSTS 3-1 4. ASSESSMENTS 4-1 4.1 Method of Apportionment............................................................................. 4-1 4.2 Maximum Assessment - Assessment Increase ...........................................4-1 5. ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM 5-1 6. ASSESSMENT ROLL 6-1 8-238 1. ENGINEER'S LETTER WHEREAS, on June 5, 2007, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista (the "City Council"), State of California, under the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972 (the "1972 Act"), the City of Chula Vista Municipal Code, Chapter 17.07 (the "Municipal Code"), Article XIIID of the Constitution of the State of California ("Article XI liD") and the Proposition 218 Omnibus Implementation Act (Government Code Section 53750 and following) (the "Implementation Act") (the 1972 Act, Municipal Code, Article XIIID and the Implementation Act may be referred to collectively as the "Assessment Law") adopted ~s Resolution of Intention to increase assessments above the existing approved maximum amount in Eastlake Maintenance District No.1, Zone D (the "District"); and provide for the Levy and Collection of said increased assessments commencing Fiscal Year 2007/08. WHEREAS, the Resolution directed NBS to prepare and file a report presenting plans and specifications describing the general nature, location and extent of the improvements to be maintained, an estimate of the costs of the maintenance, operations and servicing of the improvements for the District for the referenced fiscal year, an assessment diagram for the District showing the area and properties to be assessed, and an assessment of the estimated costs of the maintenance, operations and servicing the improvements, and also stating the reason for the increased assessment; identifying the parcels upon which an increased assessment is proposed for imposition and presenting the basis upon which the increased assessment is to be calculated. NOW THEREFORE, the following increased assessment is made to the District of the estimated costs of maintenance, operation and servicing of improvements to be paid by the assessable real property within the District in proportion to the special benefit received: SUMMARY OF ASSESSMENT DescriDtion ELMO Zone 0 Costs Annual Total Costs Balance to Assessment Previous Fiscal Year 2007/08 Maximum Assessment Proposed Fiscal Year 2007/08 Maximum Assessment $97,383.66 $97,383.66 $128,290.20 $128,290.20 I, the undersigned, respectfully submit the enclosed Engineer's Report and, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, the increased assessments herein have been prepared and computed in accordance with the order of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, California. NBS Engineer's Report - City of Chula Vista, ELMO Zone D Prepared by NBS 1-1 8-239 2. PLANS AND SPECIFICA TlONS 2.1 Description of District Boundaries Eastlake Maintenance District No. 1 is bounded by the areas commonly known as Eastlake Hills, Shores, Village Center and Business Center, as well as the northern portion of Eastlake Greens. 2.2 Description of Facilities and Services The District's Zone currently consists of 523 parcels. The assessments collected within the Districtwill pay the costs of maintaining natural open space, green belt and slopes along major and collector roads, including the maintenance of all trees, shrubs, plants, etc., planted or placed within said open space area. The District's Zone is comprised of 9.2 acres of irrigated slopes, 2.0 acres of non-irrigated slopes, 6.2 acres of non-irrigated/preserve slopes and 2.2 acres of ornamental plants. The proposed maintenance consists in general of the following: . Brush clearance for fire protection . Irrigation of erosion control slopes . Irrigation . Fertilization . Removal of weeds, trash and litter . Pruning of trees and shrubs . Replacement of dead or diseased trees and shrubs . Repair and replacement of equipment and faciltties 2.3 Reason for the Increased Assessment Currently, due to Proposition 218, passed in 1996, assessments cannot be increased to pay for the increased costs of iabor, materials, supplies, electricity rates, etc., because the maximum assessment previously authorized for the District has been levied. Without the ability to increase assessments tt may be necessary for the District to reduce the level of maintenance it can provide, thus jeopardizing the quality and appearance of facilities. The District is requesting the ability to increase the current maximum assessment within the District. Approval of the proposed increased assessments will: . Provide for the repair, removal or replacement of all or any part of any improvement. Provide for the life, growth, health and beauty of the landscaping, including cultivation, irrigation, trimming, spraying, fertilizing or treating for disease to injury, the removal of trimmings, rubbish, debris, and other solid waste. Engineer's Report - City of Chula Vista, ELMO Zone 0 Prepared by NBS 2-1 8-240 If the increased assessments are not approved, the following reduction in services may include, but are not limited to: . Reduction or elimination of brush clearance for fire protection . No watering of irrigated slopes . Reduced tree trimming, fertilization and brush management . Replacement of equipment and plants will not occur in a timeiy manner . Sprinkler replacement will not occur in a timely manner . Contractual services reduced, providing for an overall reduction in the amount of maintenance performed within the area Engineer's Report - City of Chula Vista, ELMO Zone 0 Prepared by NBS 2-2 8-241 3. ESTIMA TE OF COSTS The estimated budget for annual maintenance of the facilities and proportionate share of the costs of administration of the District have been prepared based on cost information provided by the City of Chula Vista staff. The estimated budgetary unit costs for the maintenance of the improvements and the- administration of the District are listed below. The Fiscal Year 2007/08 maximum total assessment for Eastlake Maintenance District No.1, Zone D, is summarized in the following table: Previous Total Description Maximum Assessment Utility Charges $1,228.00 Trash Collection & Disposal Fees 280.00 Water Charges 35,198.00 Services to Maintain Structures, Grounds 1,570.00 City Staff Services 19,864.00 Contract Services 28,500.00 Materials to Maintain Structures, Grounds 8,540.00 Professional Services 2,500.00 Supplementals 1,885.00 Transfer: Corporate Yard Debt Services 948.00 Operating Reserve Collection (3,129.34) Total 2007/08 Previous Maximum Assessment: $97,383.66 The proposed increase to the maximum total assessment beginning Fiscal Year 2007/08 is as follows: Descriotion Prouosed Increase Utility Charges $0.00 Trash Collection & Disposal Fees 0.00 Water Charges 0.00 Services to Maintain Structures, Grounds 0.00 City Staff Services 0.00 Contract Services 0.00 Materials to Maintain Structures, Grounds 0.00 Professional Services 0.00 Supplementals 0.00 Transfer: Corporate Yard Debt Services 0.00 Operating Reserve Collection 30,906.54 Total 2007/08 Proposed Increase: $30,906.54 Engineer's Report - City of Chula Vista, ELMD Zone 0 Prepared by NBS 3-1 8-242 The proposed total maximum assessment for Fiscal Year 2007/08 with the increased landscaping maintenance costs is summarized as follows: Proposed Total DescriDtion Maximum Assessment .Utility Charge.s, .. $1,228.00 Trash Collection & Disposal Fees 280.00 Water Charges 35,198.00 Services to Maintain Structures, Grounds 1,570.00 City Staff Services 19,864.00 Contract Services 28,500.00 Materials to Maintain Structures, Grounds 8,540.00 Professional Services 2,500.00 Supplementals 1,885.00 Transfer: Corporate Yard Debt Services 948.00 Operating Reserve Collection 27,777.20 Total 2007/08 Proposed Maximum Assessment: $128,290.20 All of the costs are based on current estimates. The assessments are based on these costs and the difference between the estimated cost and the actual cost will be accounted for in the subsequent year. Engineer's Report - City of Chula Vista, ELMD Zone D Prepared by NBS 3-2 8-243 4. ASSESSMENTS The proposed increased maximum assessment will be apportioned to each parcel, in the City of Chula Vista Eastlake Maintenance District No.1, Zone D, as shown on the latest equalized roll at the County Assessor's office, as listed in Section 6 of this Report. The description of each lot or parcel is part of the records of the County Assessor of the County of San Diego and such records are, by reference, made part of th is Report. 4.1 Method of Apportionment Pursuant to the Assessment Law, all parcels that have special benefit conferred upon them as a result of the maintenance and operation of improvements are identified and the proportionate special benefit derived by each identified parcel is determined in relationship to the entire cost of the maintenance and operation of the improvements. The amount of the estimated assessment on each lot or parcel of land in the District is in proportion to the estimated benefit to be received by each such lot or parcel of land from the use of the streets and their appurtenances, such as supplemental street lights. The use or benefit of a street is determined by the use of the land served by such streets. Each iot or parcel of land in the District was determined to have a specific actual land used in accordance with the Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan covering such parcel. Each type of actual land use was assigned a trip generation factor derived from trip generation rates by land use as they related to a single family residential land use. The trip generation rates by land use were developed by San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) and are contained in the "Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation rates for the San Diego Region" manual. The land use factor is multiplied by the number of dwelling units if the land use is residential, or the number of acres for other land uses. The product of this multiplication is the number of benefit units or Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDU) for each lot or parcel of land to be assessed. The sum of all the EDU for each of the lots or parcels of land to be assessed in each zone is divided into the total amounts to be generated by assessments to arrive at the amount of each EDU. The amount of the EDU is then multiplied by the number of EDU for each of the lots and parcels of land to establish the annual assessment charge for a particular lot or parcel of land. Engineer's Report - City of Chula Vista, ELMD Zone 0 Prepared by NBS 4-1 8-244 4.2 Maximum Assessment - Assessment Increase The proposed increased maximum assessment spread to each EDU, for Fiscal Year 2007/08, based on the method of apportionment within Eastlake Maintenance District Zone 0, is as follows: The maximum annual assessment per EDU is outlined in the following table: Maximum Annual Descriotion Assessment Per EDU Previous Maximum Annuai Assessment $230.01 Per EDU for Fiscal Year 2007/08 Proposed Annual Assessment Increase $72.99 Per EDU for Fiscal Year 2007/08 Proposed Maximum Annual Assessment $303.00 Per EDU for Fiscal Year 2007/08 Beginning Fiscal Year 2008/09, the maximum assessment shall be the prior year's assessment increased or decreased by an inflation factor which is the lesser of (1) the January to January San Diego Metropolitan Area All Urban Consumer Price Index (CPI) or (2) the change in estimated California Fourth Quarter Per Capita Personal Income as contained in the Governor's budget published in January. Engineer's Report - City of Chula Vista, ELMO Zone 0 Prepared by NBS 4-2 8-245 5. ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM The following pages show a reduced copy of the original Assessment Diagram. For a detailed description of the lines and dimensions of any lot or parcel, reference is hereby made to the County Assessor's maps, which shall govern for all details concerning the lines and dimension of such lots or parcels. Engineer's Report - City of Chula Vista, ELMD Zone D Prepared by NBS 5-1 8-246 6. ASSESSMENT ROLL The following pages provide a listing of each parcel's previous Fiscal Year 2007/08 maximum .assessment and proposed Fiscal Year 2007/08 maximum assessment amount, w~hin Eastlake Maintenance District No.1, Zone D that will be assessed for Fiscal Year 2007/08. Engineer's Report - City of Chula Vista, ELMO Zone D Prepared by NBS 6-1 8-247 Assessor's Parcel Number' 595-380-01-00 595-380-02-00 595-380-03-00 595-380-04-00 595-380-05-00 595-380-06-00 595-380-07-00 595-380-08-00 595-380-09-00 595-380-10-00 595-380-11-00 595-380-12-00 595-380-13-00 595-380-14-00 595-380-15-00 595-380-16-00 595-380-17-00 595-380-18-00 595-380-19-00 595-380-20-00 595-380-21-00 595-380-22-00 595-380-23-00 595-380-24-00 595-380-25-00 595-380-26-00 595-380-27-00 595-380-28-00 595-380-29-00 595-380-30-00 595-380-31-00 595-380-32-00 595-380-33-00 595-380-34-00 595-380-35-00 595-380-36-00 595-380-37-00 595-380-38-00 595-380-39-00 595-380-40-00 595-380-41-00 595-380-42-00 595-380-43-00 595-380-44-00 595-380-45-00 595-380-46-00 595-380-47-00 City of Chula Vista Eastlake Maintenance District No.1 Zone D Fiscal Year 2007/08 Assessment Roll EDU 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Previous 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU $230.01 230.01 230.01 230.01 230.01 230.01 230.01 230.01 230.01 230.01 230.01 230.01 230.01 230.01 230.01 230.01 230.01 230.01 230.01 230.01 230.D1 230.01 230.D1 230.01 230.01 230.01 230.01 230.01 230.01 230.01 230.01 230.01 230.01 230.01 230.01 230.01 230.01 230.01 230.01 230.01 230.01 230.01 230.01 230.01 230.01 230.01 230.01 Proposed 2007/08 Maximum A-ssessment per EDU $303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 Page 1 of 12 8-248 Assessor's Parcel Number' 595-380-48-00 595-380-49-00 595-380-50-00 595-380-51-00 595-381-01-00 595-381-02-00 595-381-03-00 595-381-04-00 595-381-05-00 595-381-06-00 595-381-07-00 595-381-08-00 595-381-09-00 595-381-10-00 595-381-11-00 595-381-12-00 595-381-13-00 595-381-14-00 595-381-15-00 595-381-16-00 595-381-17-00 595-381-18-00 595-381-19-00 595-390-01-00 595-390-02-00 595-390-03-00 595-390-04-00 595-390-05-00 595-390-06-00 595-390-07-00 595-390-08-00 595-390-09-00 595-390-10-00 595-390-11-00 595-390-12-00 595-390-13-00 595-390-14-00 595-390-15-00 595-390-16-00 595-390-17-00 595-390-18-00 595-390-19-00 595-390-20-00 595-390-21-00 595-390-22-00 595-390-23-00 595-390-24-00 City of Chula Vista Eastlake Maintenance District No.1 Zone D Fiscal Year 2007/08 Assessment Roll EDU 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Previous 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 230.01 230.01 230.01 230.01 230.Q1 230.01 230.01 230.01 230.01 230.01 230.01 230.01 230.01 230.01 230.01 230.01 230.01 230.01 230.01 230.01 230.01 230.01 230.01 230.01 230.Q1 230.01 230.01 230.01 230.01 230.01 230.01 230.01 230.01 230.01 230.01 230.01 230.01 230.01 230.01 230.Q1 230.01 230.01 230.01 23001 230.01 230.01 230.01 Page 2 of 12 Proposed 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 8-249 Assessor's Parcel Number .. 595-390-25-00 595-390-26-00 595-390-27-00 595-390-28-00 595-390-29-00 595-390-30-00 595-390-31-00 595-390-32-00 595-390-33-00 595-390-34-00 595-390-35-00 595-390-36-00 595-390-37-00 595-390-38-00 595-400-01-00 595-400-02-00 595-400-03-00 595-400-04-00 595-400-05-00 595-400-06-00 595-400-07-00 595-400-08-00 595-400-09-00 595-400-10-00 595-400-11-00 595-400-12-00 595-400-13-00 595-400-14-00 595-400-15-00 595-400-16-00 595-400-17-00 595-400-18-00 595-400-19-00 595-400-20-00 595-400-21-00 595-400-22-00 595-400-23-00 595-400-24-00 595-400-25-00 595-400-26-00 595-400-27-00 595-400-28-00 595-400-29-00 595-400-30-00 595-400-31-00 595-400-32-00 595-400-33-00 City of Chula Vista Eastlake Maintenance District No.1 Zone D Fiscal Year 2007/08 Assessment Roll EDU 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Previous 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 230.01 230.01 230.01 230.01 230.01 230.01 230.01 230.01 230.01 230.01 230.01 230.01 230.01 230.01 230.01 230.01 230.01 230.01 230.01 230.01 230.01 230.01 230.01 230.01 230.01 230.01 230.01 230.01 230.01 230.01 230.01 230.01 230.01 230.01 230.01 230.01 230.01 230.01 230.01 230.01 230.01 230.01 230.01 230.01 230.01 230.01 230.01 Proposed 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 Page 3 of 12 8-250 Assessor's Parcel Number 595-400-34-00 595-400-35-00 595-400-36-00 595-400-37-00 595-400-38-00 595-400-39-00 595-400-40-00 595-400-41-00 595-400-42-00 595-400-43-00 595-400-44-00 595-400-45-00 595-400-46-00 595-400-47-00 595-400-48-00 595-400-49-00 595-400-50-00 595-400-51-00 595-400-52-00 595-400-53-00 595-400-54-00 595-400-55-00 595-400-56-00 595-400-57-00 595-400-58-00 595-410-02-01 595-410-02-02 595-410-02-03 595-410-02-04 595-410-02-05 595-410-02-06 595-410-02-07 595-410-02-08 595-410-02-09 595-410-02-10 595-410-02-11 595-410-02-12 595-410-02-13 595-410-02-14 595-410-02-15 595-410-02-16 595-410-02-17 595-410-02-18 595-410-02-19 595-410-02-20 595-410-02-21 595-410-02-22 City of Chula Vista Eastlake Maintenance District No.1 Zone D Fiscal Year 2007/08 Assessment Roll EDU 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 Previous 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 230.01 230.01 230.Q1 230.01 230.01 230.Q1 230.01 230.01 230.01 230.01 230.01 230.01 230.01 230.01 230.Q1 230.01 230.01 230.01 230.Q1 230.01 230.01 230.01 230.01 230.01 230.01 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 Proposed 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 303.00 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 Page 4 of 12 8-251 Assessor's Parcel . Number 595-410-02-23 595-410-02-24 595-410-02-25 595-410-03-01 595-410-03-02 595-410-03-03 595-410-03-04 595-41 0-03-05 595-410-03-06 595-41 0-03-07 595-410-03-08 595-410-03-09 595-410-03-10 595-41 0-03-11 595-41 0-03-12 595-410-03-13 595-410-03-14 595-410-03-15 595-410-03-16 595-410-03-17 595-410-03-18 595-410-03-19 595-410-03-20 595-410-03-21 595-410-03-22 595-410-04-01 595-410-04-02 595-41 0-04-03 595-410-04-04 595-410-04-05 595-410-04-06 595-410-04-07 595-410-04-08 595-410-04-09 595-41 0-04-1 0 595-410-04-11 595-410-04-12 595-410-04-13 595-410-04-14 595-410-04-15 595-410-04-16 595-410-04-17 595-410-04-18 595-410-05-01 595-410-05-02 595-410-05-03 595-410-05-04 City of Chula Vista Eastlake Maintenance District No.1 Zone D Fiscal Year 2007/08 Assessment Roll EDU 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 Previous 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 Proposed 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 Page 5 of 12 8-252 Assessor's Parcel Number 595-410-05-05 595-410-05-06 595-410-05-07 595-410-05-08 595-410-05-09 595-41 0-05-1 0 595-41 0-05-11 595-410-05-12 595-410-05-13 595-410-05-14 595-410-05-15 595-410-05-16 595-410-11-01 595-410-11-02 595-410-11-03 595-410-11-04 595-410-11-05 595-410-11-06 595-410-11-07 595-41 0-11-08 595-410-11-09 595-410-11-10 595-410-11-11 595-410-11-12 595-410-11-13 595-410-11-14 595-410-11-15 595-410-20-01 595-410-20-02 595-410-20-03 595-410-20-04 595-410-20-05 595-410-20-06 595-410-20-07 595-410-20-08 595-410-20-09 595-410-20-10 595-410-20-11 595-410-20-12 595-410-20-13 595-410-20-14 595-410-20-15 595-410-20-16 595-410-20-17 595-410-23-01 595-410-23-02 595-410-23-03 City of Chula Vista Eastlake Maintenance District No.1 Zone D Fiscal Year 2007/08 Assessment Roll EDU 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 Previous 2007/08 Maximum Assessment perEDU 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 Proposed 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 Page 6 of 12 8-253 Assessor's Parcel . Number 595-41 0-23-04 595-41 0-23-05 595-41 0-23-06 595-410-23-07 595-410-23-08 595-410-23-09 595-41 0-23-1 0 595-41 0-23-11 595-410-23-12 595-410-23-13 595-410-23-14 595-410-23-15 595-410-23-16 595-410-24-01 595-410-24-02 595-410-24-03 595-410-24-04 595-410-24-05 595-410-24-06 595-41 0-24-07 595-410-24-08 595-410-24-09 595-410-24-10 595-410-24-11 595-410-24-12 595-41 0-24-13 595-41 0-24-14 595-410-24-15 595-410-24-16 595-410-24-17 595-410-24-18 595-410-24-19 595-410-26-01 595-410-26-02 595-410-26-03 595-41 0-26-04 595-410-26-05 595-410-26-06 595-410-26-07 595-41 0-26-08 595-410-26-09 595-410-26-10 595-410-26-11 595-41 0-26-12 595-410-26-13 595-41 0-26-14 595-410-26-15 City of Chula Vista Eastlake Maintenance District No.1 Zone D Fiscal Year 2007/08 Assessment Roll EDU 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 Previous 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 Proposed 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 Page 7 of 12 8-254 Assessor's Parcel Number 595-410-26-16 595-410-26-17 595-410-26-18 595-410-26-19 595-410-26-20 595-410-26-21 595-410-26-22 595-410-26-23 595-410-26-24 595-410-26-25 595-410-26-26 595-410-26-27 595-410-26-28 595-410-26-29 595-410-26-30 595-410-26-31 595-410-26-32 595-410-26-33 595-41 0-26-34 595-410-26-35 595-410-26-36 595-410-26-37 595-410-26-38 595-410-26-39 595-410-28-01 595-410-28-02 595-410-28-03 595-410-28-04 595-410-28-05 595-410-28-06 595-410-28-07 595-410-28-08 595-410-28-09 595-410-28-10 595-410-28-11 595-410-28-12 595-410-28-13 595-410-28-14 595-410-28-15 595-410-28-16 595-410-28-17 595-410-28-18 595-410-28-19 595-410-28-20 595-410-28-21 595-410-28-22 595-410-28-23 City of Chula Vista Eastlake Maintenance District No.1 Zone D Fiscal Year 2007/08 Assessment Roll EDU 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 Previous 2007/08 Maximum . Assessment per EDU 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 Proposed 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 Page 8 of 12 8-255 Assessor's Parcel Number 595-410-28-24 595-410-28-25 595-41 0-28-26 595-410-28-27 595-410-28-28 595-410-28-29 595-420-02-01 595-420-02-02 595-420-02-03 595-420-02-04 595-420-02-05 595-420-02-06 595-420-03-01 595-420-03-02 595-420-03-03 595-420-03-04 595-420-03-05 595-420-03-06 595-420-03-07 595-420-03-08 595-420-03-09 595-420-03-1 0 595-420-03-11 595-420-03-12 595-420-03-13 595-420-03-14 595-420-03-15 595-420-03-16 595-420-03-17 595-420-03-18 595-420-04-01 595-420-04-02 595-420-04-03 595-420-04-04 595-420-04-05 595-420-04-06 595-420-04-07 595-420-04-08 595-420-04-09 595-420-04-10 595-420-04-11 595-420-04-12 595-420-04-13 595-420-04-14 595-420-04-15 595-420-05-01 595-420-05-02 City of Chula Vista Eastlake Maintenance District No.1 Zone D Fiscal Year 2007/08 Assessment Roll EDU 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 Previous 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 Proposed 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 242.40 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 Page 9 of 12 8-256 Assessor's Parcel Number. 595-420-05-03 595-420-05-04 595-420-05-05 595-420-05-06 595-420-05-07 595-420-05-08 595-420-05-09 595-420-05-10 595-420-05-11 595-420-05-12 595-420-05-13 595-420-05-14 595-420-05-15 595-420-06-01 595-420-06-02 595-420-06-03 595-420-06-04 595-420-06-05 595-420-06-06 595-420-06-07 595-420-06-08 595-420-06-09 595-420-06-10 595-420-06-11 595-420-06-12 595-420-07-01 595-420-07-02 595-420-07-03 595-420-07-04 595-420-07-05 595-420-07-06 595-420-07-07 595-420-07-08 595-420-07-09 595-420-07-10 595-420-07-11 595-420-07-12 595-420-07-13 595-420-07-14 595-420-07-15 595-420-07-16 595-420-07-17 595-420-07-18 595-420-08-01 595-420-08-02 595-420-08-03 595-420-08-04 City of Chula Vista Eastlake Maintenance District No.1 Zone D Fiscal Year 2007/08 Assessment Roll EDU 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 Previous 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 Proposed 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 Page 10 of 12 8-257 Assessor's Parcel Number - 595-420-08-05 595-420-08-06 595-420-08-07 595-420-08-08 595-420-08-09 595-420-08-10 595-420-08-11 595-420-08-12 595-420-08-13 595-420-08-14 595-420-08-15 595-420-09-01 595-420-09-02 595-420-09-03 595-420-09-04 595-420-09-05 595-420-09-06 595-420-09-07 595-420-09-08 595-420-09-09 595-420-09-10 595-420-09-11 595-420-09-12 595-420-09-13 595-420-09-14 595-420-09-15 595-420-09-16 595-420-09-17 595-420-09-18 595-420-09-19 595-420-09-20 595-420-09-21 595-420-09-22 595-420-09-23 595-420-09-24 595-420-09-25 595-420-09-26 595-420-09-27 595-420-09-28 595-420-09-29 595-420-09-30 595-420-10-01 595-420-10-02 595-420-10-03 595-420-10-04 595-420-10-05 595-420-10-06 City of Chula Vista Eastlake Maintenance District No. 1 Zone D Fiscal Year 2007/08 Assessment Roll EDU 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 Previous 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 Proposed 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 Page 11 of 12 8-258 Assessor's Parcel Number. 595-420-10-07 595-420-10-08 595-420-10-09 595-420-10-10 595-420-10-11 595-420-1 0-12 Total City of Chula Vista Eastlake Maintenance District No.1 Zone D Fiscal Year 2007/08 Assessment Roll EDU 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 423.40 Previous 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 138.00 $97,383.66 Proposed 2007/08 Maximum Assessment per EDU 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 181.80 $128,290.20 Page 12 of 12 8-259 () 0 ~ ~ \l 0 m " z 8 () en :r: \l " c )> ..... . )> () .1- < m rp iii 0 ~ 1ii -I)> () :llen 0 -en c ()m z -I en :! zen 0 OS:: " . m C/l NZ )> .0 -I z NO f 0 O- m z)> ~ Gl mGl .0 .N ~ ~ C/l I g ~s:: m Z 0 () " ::c () 0 )> 0 ..... ~l ;; m 0 r- ;lJ :ll z m ;;; -< " ~ f ... 7" - ~ . ~ ~ ~ :g ~ 'P i~ "'U i~~ :!:'PU i~~ e il ... ill .. :g ~ it i I~ ~U'I I'; pddp I'; . '" " ~!I!d !! h ;$ '" " II ~e q " z · e !!, '" '" i ~ i .~ " ~ i. i HH~ i ~~ r~ ! r !, ~ ~ ;! i I! ~T ,~ en " ~ !-.a ; ~ ::c '" ill U :Ul ['iU"! ; m '" ~ m ;$ z z . ~ ~ ~ 5 ~ ~ ! I i:r , -I " 00 z '" ~ ~Ihm ~ ~ rn . ~ , ~{ . " 0 ; ~ I I; ~ ' "T1 '~ ! I; ~ en II ~ ~ . ~ ~ .f 8-260 \'f) E-i Z ~ E$ ~ m6~6 VO 'lllS!A llln40 enUe^v 4lJno::l 9LZ IUeWlJlldeo 6u!Jeeu!6u3 V!SIA YlnHO ::10 A.l.IO yJSIA \fIOID <<JAiO ~~ '7JI~ "0 00 '" '" ! ~ al '" ill " '" E '" C. "0 '" 3l 1i 0 00 .0 .l!! -;;; '" 2 '6 g 00 "" "" is "0 ~ 0 '" 00 15 g '" '" = 00 "E "0 ~ 8 "" '" 1': .9 'E ,,; '" " " 2l 00 "0 ill "0 E 0 .l!! ~ '0 c. 00 ".. "0 Ji 1': 'S e! e 00 lif '" " '" '0 '0 " " E TI ]l 00 ~ '0 0 g> 2l '" "" "" ~ '" '" '" "2 ",.0 "1ij '" '" E 2 - 2 c. 2 :5; :5; I!! ~-fij ~ .c c. . . . . il "0 5 00 '" g. .9 g>'O "" <..> '0. " ~ 3l " E '" "0 " t5 roo '" ffi 1ii "" - is ",- 2l "~ ~ '" '" '" E '" I!! c. Eil '" UJ 00 8 C)Ji1 " c. ~ s!;;;.go '" -gc.oo 5"'0 ttI 8~ '" .5 .S::; .s 00 :; -- '" 0 "" 0 "" u " " ., .0 5 -0 '2 E " " e E 00 0 8 >- c.", O~6~6 \to 'elS!A e(n40 anua^\t 4lJno::l 9a lUaWlJedaa BUP99U!6U3 \t~S(^ V1nHO ::10 AiIO Y.lSIA YIflID .,,,,, ;::;::J;:~ 'ljl~ ., ~> ":>n e. '" c, " .g E ui " ,; " ~ 'dl '" OJ OJ ., -" " " => '" :e .$ > to '" '" .,. 1? .2l ill 'li '" .c '" " E " '" 2 '6 .l!! f!! '" .c 6 " i5 '" "' .c to "" to ~ '" '" .c " " " 16 1': .!ll -u "'" to ~ " .c ui '" " ., " ,; " " " '" 'l5 E " " $ ! 0. -;; Qj ~ 1': -s e " > 'l5 'l5 " lif 0. ~ E 'l5 0" '" 1l '" - to to ~ '" 0 -" ",.c -ffi E - 2 2 o..c 0. I!! 0. I!! '" I!! . . . . " 1? :; .c '" 0 B ,., "'- ..l:: .5; 0 " 0. ~ => rl ill E "' ti w -c ~ '" to E .c.!l! "' .c is - ""- 1l Z __ .2 '" to;> => => '" '" E '" I!! 0. :::> Ell '" (fJ to 8 " " ~W 0)= a. '" to .co U; '6 => to => 0.", ~O 5 13 _f; _f; B '" to O~ :; -- '" 0 .c 0 " ;> u => ;> ..0-." :; " "" E Oc.. => " ~ e E to 0. '" 8 0.6.6 '\I':) 'eIS!A eln4':) anUSA'\I 4j.mo::l 9./.Z jUawl.Iedsa 6u!Jaau!6u3 '\I.LSIA YlnH':) ::lO A.LI:> v.JSlh Vll1IO :fO,un ==:=t. --C- ~l~ "0 " '" '" ! " ~ '$ '" 0 i '" '" :E "0 1l ill TI " .l!! '" '5 c. " .c 2 ] l5 "0 i!! .2 '" .<= " = OJ : '" '" c: "E "0 ~ 8 J;:! '" E ,g 'E .; '" '" '" 1l " "0 '" "0 E .2 .l!! 't: f ! '0 c. " '" "E <l "5 !!! e E liS '" '" '" '0 '0 '0 ~ '" " 1:5 j 0 0> ~ 0> 1l '" .c "" " " '" '" '" .;;: 0 ." ",.0 0> 0> E - 2 " 0 2 c..c .i; :i;; :i;; E l!! c. i!! '" . . . . . . . II "0 ~ '0 " " .9 '" g. 0>_ 1i .!;;; 0 c. " ~:ll . E '" "0 " 13 '" " f5 .<= .!!! '" is ~::2 1l """ " " '" E '" c. Ell en 8 ~ "* 8~ 5 '" "S ..., .<= 0 '-' ~ "0 " " !}. O~6~6 If 0 'BlS!A BlnllO anU9AI>' lll.lno,j 9LZ lU9Wl.lBdaO 6upaau!6u3 If~SI^ V1nHO ,10 A.J.IO ....ISIA Ylf1H:) ""'0 nL~~ ~h~ '" '" .2 ..aij :"0 - :16 ~ J!f^~ "" 0... :>0 ::C:':" .~ j "0 c: '" .c: '" g <Ii "0 " ~ c: o "" .gj 'E .2l o ~ o E 1!1 . . '" ~ ~ '" :ll '6 15 al " "0 o "E " E 2l-2 .l)l 2 0..<: 1!1 '" "0 c: '" "E " E 0. .5 if '0 "E " E 2l '" a. 1!1 "0 c: '" ~ .!Y 'ffi := 0. ." 1!1.e! 1l "0 "; c: '" g, .9 0>_ -5 .5 0 "- ::> ~:ll . E '" "0::>13 '" c:~S .c: .l)l '" i5 ~2 gj 2l 1:::.0::; ::> ::> '" E '" 1!1 "- E1l '" rn c: 8 C),g 2l. ~ ,f9.s.go CIl "0 0.. C :> -B: ro 8~ c: c: 0 '" .-.- - :; c: ~ '" 0 .c: 0 " ~ <..l '" -" "; "0 c: S ::> " 0 ~ E c: >- "-'" 8 O~6~6 '\10 'els,^ el"40 9"USA'\I 4lJOO:l 9LZ luewlJed9Q 6UP99U!6U3 '\Il.SI^ '\I1nHO :lO Al.lO V1SIA V1f1H::> JO .un ~~:;t~ _J_ -711'1'" m i;; E ;g ~ U> 1:> '" ~ c: Jl " 'ii '" ,!Q .r:; 2 1:> .l!! ~ .r:; 6 -g U> 1:> 1:> '" ui c: '" - al '" " c: j 1:> " ~ '0 E C' ,9- '0 => '0 " :if ~ E co 2lJl '0 0 ,5:; E ~ ~2 ~ '0; ~ Q. ~{ii ~ . . . . ~-g '" S ~ => o ,., g>- -5'- 0 => Q. E rl " VJ~~tS 2ji~ ,?;_ 0 'c ~ (f) ~ ::::l ::I ro as E co ~ a. E Jll '" en 8 cog ~ S,g.gO 50:J c;, c: 13 '" ro .6 .6 .s "'5,..: a cS 0 ~ ~ 8~ 5 ~ O~6~6 v::> 'eIS!^ eln'l::> anuaAV 'IjJno:l 9a luawjJedao 6u!Jeeu!6u3 VJ.SI^ V1nH::> :10 AJ.I::> V.ISlA VlffiO JO,W~ :::-~IJ:s.~ 'l/l\~ -g '" '" " ~ j 3J '" " '" E -g '" ill 'i'i .0 .l!! '" 2 '6 " .r: 5 " 0 '" .r: " '" ]l '" '" .gj -g " 1': '" 'E .fi '" " " ~ " E .S! 't: ~ '0 0. -g .a 1': .5 " '" '0 '0 '0 " " " '" ~ E '0 0 '" 1l '" !ii " " ~ .~ 0 .c ",.0 .iii '" 0 E 2 Q.~ 0. :5 E ~ 0. ~ '" ~ . . . . . " " S .0 " '" g. .s "'- .r: .5 0 " 0. " ~ " E '" ti " " '" " i3 E '" .r: Jll II '" i:5 ;0.- 1l ._ .2 '" "'" " " '" '" ~~ ~ 0. '" (j) " 8 C)~ " 0. ~ .!!! " .00 '6 " " '" " 0.", O~ 5 13 .5 .sa Jll .!:; " " ~ '" 0 .r: 0 '" '-' " " E .0 S " " ." " " 1': U~ ~ e E 8 0. '" ma ~a vo 'els,^ eln40 anuaAV 4l.lno:l 9J.c:: IUawlJedaa 6u!Jaau!6u3 VJ.SI^ VlnHO :lO AJ.IO VlSIA VJt1J.O JO.uo ""'I"'" 'lJI~ "0 " .. ~ j "0 3l '" "0 " .. ;s " '" " " .. -" '" ~ 2 .c 2 15 '" .c ~ .11 ~ '" 0 "0 "0 "0 " 'E .. ui " .. - oSl "0 .. " " 't ~ '" "0 " 2! .a ~ '0 .~ .. '0 C " '0 '0 ::l " 0- 0 0> ~ E " '" " 0> " .;; " flll '0 0> .E :!;; 0 E ~2 .= E I!! 2 .. 0. ".c ~ ~ '" . . . . . ~ -g 5 .s tU ~ ~- ti .- 0 ::l 0. E ~ 3l . '" "0 ::l 13 .. " i3 s .c..m~Ul ~ _ is .,,!il '" fl ::J ::J ro ro E .. I!! 0. E Q) co Cf.) 8-" " .!< 1l. .l!! .~:iS 0 5Ul"B ac u " ro .!: .5 .s ~ _- fIl a C,,)o~'5 .... "'C 'c .os ::l ::l " >-0 2 E .C 0...8 ~ 8~ 0.6.6 \10 'eIS!A eln40 anUSAV lllJnO:l 9LZ IUawlJedea 6UP99U!6U3 \I.iSIA V1nHO :lO AiIO VJSIi\ YIflH) DA.l.D $~Llii~ -;lJi~ 't: .;3 '0 '" c: .;0 o E '" .0 2 ~ '" ." c: '" ! '0 '" c: .2 2 c. . . ~ z ::> ::;E:W ::;E:O 0"'"""' u&: -0 '" (I) -0 '0 " (I) E 13.2 J!!2 c.~ ~ '" '" (I) ;g .0 J!! -0 c: '" " (I) d. .5 0- (I) '0 ~ .ij ~ . . .8-g:; '" !2 .9 ~ -5 .~'O " c. E ~ m . -o::J13 ~ r::: ~ :6 ..r::: J:S!.!:.!Q '" _ Cl 'c ~ V) B ~ 15 ~ ~ Ell'" '" 8 ",,!,l ~ 19~.go 5C1l :::l c... r::: 13 '" m .S;; .S .9 "3....: 5 ..&::o(/)." U ~:::l ...... '0 "2 € :::l :::l CD 1: :e~~8 O~6~6 VO 'elS!A elnllO anU9AV lljJno.:l 9Ll lUSWjJedsa 6u!Jseu!6u3 ViSIA \f1nHO .:10 A.J..IO V1SI^ 'fII1H:) JO '"' ;::;;::t~~ 7;1~ " " '" U> " ~ ~ ~ U> U> ~ " 1l. " '" is 1:l " '0 0 " U> .l1! "in '" 2 '6 :g " .<: B " .Q U> .<: " 1il g U> '" " " al "E 8 .t> " 'E' ui '" " " " " " E .j!! ~ U> '0 0 " a. 'in " ~ "E '5 e " liS '" '0 '0 " " E }j " ~ '0 .Q 0> 1l1:l " ~ '" 1il 0 '" .l!!2 '(ij 0> 0> ~ " 0..<: a. :5 :5 c. I!! u> I!! . . . . . . II " 's '0 " '" g, .s 0>_ ti .5 0 a. " 1l " E u> u> 13 " " u> " 1l ~ '" .l!! .<: II i5 ~:2 u> 1l ,,'<' " " '" '" E '" I!! a. Ell '" '" " 8 cn.g 1l. ~ ~ " .00 '6 " " " a.'" 5 13 O~ .S .S .s '" " "S --' u> 0 .<: '<' U 0 " " '<' .a 's " '" E " " U~ e E " ~ a.'" 8 ATTACHMENT ~ NOTICE OF PROPOSED ADJUSTMENTS TO ASSESSMENTS CITY OF CHULA VISTA OPEN SPACE DISTRICT NO.3, RANCHO ROBIN HOOD As of June 5, 2007, THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA GIVES NOTICE that: 1. Purpose. The City is proposing to adjust the assessments in the above District that includes your property. The purpose of the adjustment is to fully fund the estimated increased costs of maintaining natural open space, green belt and slopes along major and collector roads. including the maintenance of all trees, shrubs, plants, etc., planted or placed within said open space area within the boundaries of Open Space District No.3. 2. Amounts. For the Fiscal Year 2007/08 the proposed increased maximum assessment for the whole District is estimated to be $XX,XXX. The increase in the maximum assessment for your property is $x.xx. The method of apportionment of the assessments and any provisions for their increase in the future are discussed below, Please read this Notice carefully. . 3. Method of Spread of Assessment. In order to provide an equitable assessment to all owners within the District, the following method of apportionment has been used. The assessment has been spread equally among the 127 parcels lying within the district. The determination of benefit takes into account that all lots within OSD NO.3 will receive an equitable special benefit. The proposed maximum assessment shall be subject to an annual CPI, as authorized by Municipal Code. Currently, assessments cannot be increased by the City to pay for the increased costs of labor, materials and supply costs. higher electricity and/or water rates. etc. Without the ability to increase assessments, it may be necessary for the District to reduce the level of maintenance it can provide, thus jeopardizing the quality and appearance of facilities. The District is requesting the ability to increase the current Maximum Assessment within the District. 4. Meeting and Hearing. On August 7, 2007 at 4:00 p.m., the City Councii will hold a PUBLIC HEARING at City Hall Council Chambers. 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, California to take public testimony, hear protests. tabulate the Assessment Ballots. and take final action on the levy of the assessments for Fiscal Year 2007/08. 5. Ballot. At or before the end of the PUBLIC HEARING in Section 4 above, any property owner in the District may submit the Assessment Ballot. which is enclosed with this Notice, to the City Clerk. All Ballots must be received prior to the conclusion of the Public Hearing on August 7, 2007 in Section 4 above, To do so, the owner must: mark the Ballot either "In Favor of Maximum Assessment Increase" or "Oppose Maximum Assessment Increase;" and sign it. Any Ballots returned and not marked or signed will be rejected and not counted. The Ballots may be hand delivered or mailed to the City Clerk at the City's address shown on the Assessment Ballot using the enclosed envelope. To be counted, a Ballot must be received by the City Clerk not later than the end of the PUBLIC HEARING on Auaust 7. 2007 specified above. The ballots will be weighted according to the proportional financial obligation of the affected properties, If the ballots submitted in opposition to the assessment increase exceed the ballots submitted in favor of the increase, weighting those assessment ballots by the amount of the proposed assessment to be imposed, the increase will not occur. However the previously approved assessment will not be affected and will continue to be levied. The ballot affects only the proposed adjustment and not the existing assessment. 6. Information. The Engineer's Report and other written material about the Open Space District may be reviewed at the City Clerk's Office, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chuia Vista, California. To get additional information about the assessments or the District contact Need an Individual, at Need a Phone Number. Dated as of June 5, 2007 City Clerk City of Chula Vista 8-279 CITY OF CHULA VISTA ASSESSMENT BALLOT INFORMATION OPEN SPACE DISTRICT NO.3, RANCHO ROBIN HOOD Current Condition Potential If Ballot Fails Open space in your community contributes to the outstanding quality of life Chula Vista residents enjoy. Beautiful landscaping, fences, walls and monument signs in these public areas are maintained with monies you contribute to an open space district. The beauty-- and in some cases, the safety of these areas-- is at risk. Costs are outpacing revenues, and open space districts are struggling to cover expenses. Currently your district receives the following services: . Brush clearance for fire protection . Irrigated erosion control slopes . Irrigation and fertilization . Pruning of trees and shrubs . Replacement of dead or diseased trees and shrubs . Repair of equipment and facilities (fences, walls, monuments, etc.) . Removal of weeds, trash and litter Costs for labor, materials, supplies, water and electricity have increased substantially, forcing districts to tap into reserves to provide required levels of service. As a result, reserves are dwindling. Assessments must be increased to cover current costs and to begin replenishing depleted funds. If your district fails to approve an increase, open space areas will noticeably decline. Initial investments and years of plant growth could be lost. Future restoration would be expensive and labor intensive. With no increase in the assessment, residents can expect the following changes: . Reduction or elimination of brush clearance for fire protection . No watering of irrigated slopes . Reduced fertilization, tree trimming and brush management . Reduction or no replacement of sprinklers, equipment, facilities and plants . Increase in litter, trash and weeds As a result of these changes, vegetation will be lost and the risk of fire could increase. 8-280 CITY OF CHULA VISTA OFFICIAL ASSESSMENT BALLOT OPEN SPACE DISTRICT NO.3, RANCHO ROBINHOOD Name and address of record owner: OWNER ADDRESS CHULA VISTA, CA 91910 Parcel Identification: XXX-XXX-XX-XX Please mark your support or opposition to the following proposed maximum assessment increase. Your vote is very important. Whether you are in favor or opposed, your vote will not count unless a ballot is submitted by the deadline. . The increase in the maximum potential assessment for your property is $xx.xx. Per the Municipal Code, the future maximum annual assessment may increase annually by a CPI factor. CERTIFICATION OF ENTITLEMENT TO COMPLETE AND SUBMIT ASSESSMENT BALLOT: To be entitled to complete and submit this assessment ballot, the person compieting and submitting this assessment ballot must be the record owner of the property identified above or the representative of the record owner of such property who is legally authorized to complete and submit this ballot for and on behalf of the record owner. THIS ASSESSMENT BALLOT WILL NOT BE TABULATED UNLESS THE CERTIFICATION BELOW IS EXECUTED BY THE PERSON COMPLETING THIS ASSESSMENT BALLOT. TO BE COUNTED, A BALLOT MUST BE RECEIVED BY THE CITY CLERK NOT LATER THAN THE END OF THE PUBLIC HEARING ON AUGUST 7,2007. ASSESSMENT BALLOT: Please place an X (in ink) in one of the boxes below to select in favor or to oppose. The Property Owner shown above selects one of the following: D IN FAVOR OF ASSESSMENT INCREASE D OPPOSE ASSESSMENT INCREASE *XXXX-XXX-XX-XXXXY* *XXXX-XXX-XX-XXXXN* The undersigned cerlifies under penalty of perjury that he/she is entitled to complete and submit this assessment ballot. Signature of Property Owner Printed Name Upon completion place the assessment ballot in the return envelope and mail or deliver the assessment ballot to the address shown on the return envelope pursuant to the instructions enclosed with this assessment ballot. 8-281 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE ENGINEER'S REPORTS FOR PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ASSESSMENT INCREASE FOR OPEN SPACE DISTRICT NOS. 3; 7; 9; 23; 20, ZONES 2, 4, AND 7; AND EASTLAKE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. I ZONES A AND D; DECLARING THE INTENTION TO LEVY AND COLLECT ASSESSMENTS; AND SETTING A TIME AND PLACE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE PROPOSED ASSESSMENT INCREASES. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista has previously f0l111ed Open Space District Nos. 3, 7, 9, 23, 20, Zones 2,4, and 7, and Eastlake Maintenance District No. I Zones A and D, (the "Open Space Districts" or the "Districts") pursuant to the tenus of the "Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972", (Streets and Highways Code Section 22500 and following) (the "1972 Act"). Al1icle XllID of the California Constitution ("Article XIIID"). the Proposition 218 Omnibus implementation Act (Govel11ment Code Section 53750 and following) (the "implementation Act"). and Chula Vista Municipal Code Chapter 17.07 (the "Municipal Cock") (the 1972 Act. Article XlllD. the Implementation Act and the Municipal Code are rererred to collectively as the "Assessment Law"). that provides for the levy and collection of assessments by the City of Chula Vista to pay the maintenance and services of all improvements 'rndl~lcilities related to these Open Space Districts; and, WHEREAS, on May 22, 2007, the City Council authorized the preparation at' an Engineer's Report to initiate a Proposition 218 ballot process to consider increasing the assessments for Open Space District Nos. 3; 7; 9; 23; 20, Zones 2, 4 and 7; and Eastlake Maintenance District No. I Zones A and D; and WHEREAS, on May 22, 2007, the City Council approved an amendment to an agreement between the City and NBS Govemment Finance Group, dba NBS, for the purpose of assisting with the Proposition 218 ballot process; and WHEREAS, the Engineer Reports have been prepared by NBS and are presented to the Council tonight for approval in order to proceed with the Public Hearing set for August 7, 2007, in accordance with the Assessment Law; and WHEREAS, the Citv Council has careti.r1lv examined and reviewed the EnQineer's .... ..... Reports as presented, and is satislled with each and all of the items and documents, and is satisfied that the assessments, on a preliminary basis, have been spread in accordance with the special benefit received li'om the improvements to be maintained. as set forth in each Engineer's Report. NOW. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City COllncil of the City ofChula Vista as follows: 8-282 I. That the above recitals are all true and correct and each Engineer's Report as presented consists of the following: A. Plans and specifications describing the improvements to be maintained and of the lnaintenance work; B. An estimate of the costs of maintenance of the improvements for Fiscal Year 2007108; C. A diagram of the District. showing the area and propeliies proposed to be assessed; D. An annual assessment for Fiscal Year 2007/08 of the estimated costs of the maintenance of those improvements to be maintained, assessing the net amount upon all assessable lots andlor parcels within the District in proportion to the special benefits received; together with a formula pursuant to which such annual assessment may be adjusted annually for inflation pursuant to the Assessment Law without the necessity for additional assessment ballot procedures. " That it approves the Engineer's Reports, as presented, and orders the Engineer's Reports to be tiled in the OHice of the City Clerk as a permanent record to remain open to public inspection. ,'. That the boundaries of each District are described as the boundaries previously defined in the formation documents of the original Districts, within the boundaries of the City of Chula Vista, County of San Diego, State of California; as shown upon the diagrams of the Open Space District Nos. 3; 7; 9; 23; 20, Zones 2, 4 and 7; and Eastlake Maintenance District No. I Zones A 'lIld D, which are on tile in the office ofthe City Clerk. 4. That it declares its intention to increase assessments in Open Space District Nos. 3; 7; 9; 23; 20, Zones 2, 4 and 7; and Eastlake Maintenance District No. I Zones A and D, over and including the land within each District boundary, and to levy and collect increased assessments on all such land to pay the annual costs of the maintenance of improvements. 5. That it tinds that the public's best interest requires such levy and collection. (l. That the maintenance activities of the areas to be maintained by each District include but are not limited to, the repair, removal or replacement of all or any part of any improvement and to provide for the life, growth, health and beauty of the landscaping, including inigation, ferti 1 ization, removal of weeds, trash and litter, pruning of trees and shrubs, replacement of dead or diseased trees and shrubs, and weed abatement. 7. That it calls an assessment ballot proceeding pursuant to the Assessment Law, on behalf of the Districts to authorize the increased assessments within Open Space District Nos. 3; 7; 9; 13; 20, Zones 2, 4 and 7; and Eastlake Maintenance District No. I Zones A and D. 8-283 8. That the assessment ballot proceeding for each District to authorize the increased assessments and the assessment range formula to allow for reasonable increases, pursuant to the Assessment Law, consists of a ballot, included with the mailed notice, distributed by mail, to the property owners oft-ccord within each District as of the County's last equalized roll. '). That each property owner's vote is weighted according to the proportional Ilnancial obligation of the affected property. 1 U. That property owners may return the ballot by mail or in person to the City Clerk not later than the conclusion of the Public Hearing on the August 7, 2007. II. That, at the Public Hearing, pursuant to the Assessment Law, the City shall tabulate the balk,ts, which shall be weighted according to the proportional financial obligation of the alTected property, to detennine if a majority protest exists. 12. That a majority protest exists il~ upon the conclusion of the Public Hearing, ballots submitted in opposition to the assessments exceed the ballots submitted in favor of the assessments for each District. I J. That Cor Fiscal Year 2007/08, the proposed assessment increases are outlined in the Engineer's Reports which detail the annual assessments and formulas, 14. That it declares its intention to conduct a Public Hearing conceming levy of assessments for each District in accordance with the Assessment Law, 15. That the City shall give notice of the time and place of the Public Hearing to all property owners by providing a mailed assessment ballot to vote on the proposed assessment increase. 10. That the City must receive the ballots prior to the conclusion of the Public Hearing, at which time they will be tabulated. 17. That all interested persons shall be afforded the opportunity to be heard at the Public Heari ng. 18. That Notice is given that a Public Hearing on the proposed increase in assessments for these Open Space Districts will be held by the City Council on August 7, 2007 at 6:00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers, located at 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, California 91910. 8-284 19. That it directs the City Clerk to publish the assessments pursuant to Government Code Section 6061. Presented by Approved as to fonn by Scot: Tulloch Citv Enuineer . '" c--C~ /1v _~~ Ann Moore City Attorney H: F \1 ~] N I:EI{\R]~SOS',Res().'i2(){)7\()()-05-{J7\Res\) ,,' Intent OSD Prop 218 revised by ec,dnc 8-285 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT ITEM TITLE: JUNE 5, 2007, Item It; RESOLUTION ESTABLlSIDNG THE APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT FOR THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007-08 SUBMITTED BY: REVIEWED BY: DIRECTOR OF FIN~.cErrREASURER ~ CITY MANAGER rJ I 4/5THS VOTE: YES D NO ~ BACKGROUND Article XIIIB of the California Constitution approved by the voters in 1979 and commonly referred to as the Gann Initiative, requires each local government to establish an Appropriations Limit by resolution each year at a regularly scheduled meeting or noticed special meeting. The purpose of the limit is to restrict spending of certain types of revenues to a level predicated on a base year amount increased annually by an inflation factor. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Not Applicable RECOMMENDATION That the City Council adopt a resolution establishing an appropriations limit of $511 ,957,324 for the 2007 -08 fiscal year. BOARDS/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Not Applicable DISCUSSION Article XIIIB of the California Constitution, approved by the voters in 1979, imposed the concept of spending limits on local governments. This Constitutional provision and related implementing legislation specifies that annual increases in appropriations financed from "Proceeds of Taxes" are limited to a base year (1978-79) amount increased annually by an inflation factor comprised of the change in population of the City combined with the greater of the change in new non-residential construction or the change in the California per capita personal 9-1 JUNE 5, 2007, Item~. Page 2 of3 income. By definition, "Proceeds of Taxes" includes such revenues as property taxes, sales and use taxes, utility users taxes, transient occupancy taxes, and state subventions. Revenues from other sources like fees/charges and federal grants are considered "Non-Proceeds of Taxes" and are not subject to the annual spending limit. This calculation has always been perfunctory for the City of Chula Vista, since the proceeds of taxes for the City are far less than the statutory appropriation limit. The State Department of Finance and the San Diego County Assessor's Office are charged with providing the data necessary for local jurisdictions to establish their appropriation limit. According to these sources, for purposes of the fiscal year 2007-08 calculation, the population increased 1.87% and California per capita personal income increased by 4.42%. New non- residential construction increased 4.91 % and was used in the formula to compute the limit since this increase was higher than the increase in California per capita personal income. The fiscal year 2007-08 Appropriation Limit has been calculated as follows: FY 2006-07 Appropriation Limit (as restated) $479,053,749 Increased by an inflation factor composed of the increases in population and new non-residential construction X 1.0687 Fiscal Year 2007-08 Appropriations Limit $511.957.324 The "Proceeds of Taxes" as included in the fiscal year 2007-08 Proposed Budget that are subject to the appropriations limit are estimated to be $97,543,636 (see attachment). Therefore the City has what is referred to as an appropriation "gap" of $414,413,688 ($511,957,324 - $97,543,636). Simply stated, this means that the City could collect and spend up to $414,413,688 more in taxes during fiscal year 2007-08 without exceeding the Constitutional limit. DECISION MAKER CONFLICT 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 1 8704.2(a)(1) is not applicable to this decision. FISCAL IMPACT This action will enable the City to appropriate and spend tax revenues estimated at $97,543,636 included in the proposed budget for fiscal year 2007-08. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A Appropriations Gap Calaculation Prepared by: Phillip Davis, Assistant Director of Finance, Finance Department 9-2 '" JUNE 5, 2007, Item~ Page 3 of3 ATTACHMENT A APPROPRIATION (GANN) LIMIT GAP CALCULATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007-08 Proceeds of Taxes Property Taxes. Sales and Use Taxes Transient Ocupancy Taxes Utility Taxes Other Local Taxes Real Property Transfer Tax Business License State Motor Vehicle Licenses State Homeowners Property Taxes Total Proceeds of Taxes Appropriation Limit FY 2007-08 Proposed Budget 30,250,317 35,062,406 2,672,344 6,682,703 2,000,000 1,222,450 19,373,416 280,000 97,543,636 511,957,324 GAP (Under Limit) (414,413,688) Prooeec:Is cl Taxes Ca I pa. ed to Leg;II Spencing Unit ..$6)) c 0 ~$6)) :!! $<100 . $n) $2ll $1ClJ ro FY IJ3.04 . FY04<:6 FYC6{B FY CJ3.07 FY07.{ll 1_ A"<x:aDsdTa>el -+- ~ Unit 1 9-3 RESOLUTION NO. 2007- RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT FOR THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007-08 WHEREAS, Article XIIIB of the California Constitution, approved by the voters in 1979, imposed the concept of spending limits on local governments; and WHEREAS, this Constitutional provision and related implementing legislation specifies that annual increases in appropriations financed from "Proceeds of Taxes" are limited to a base year (1978-79) amount increased annually by an inflation factor comprised of the change in population of the City combined with the greater of the change in new non- residential construction or the change in the California per capita personal income; and WHEREAS, the State Department of Finance and the San Diego County Assessor's Office are charged with providing the data necessary for local jurisdictions to establish their appropriation limit; and WHEREAS, according to these sources, for purposes of the fiscal year 2007-08 calculation, the population increased 1.87% and California per capita personal income increased by 4.42%; and WHEREAS, new non-residential construction increased 4.91 % and was used in the formula to compute the limit since this increase was higher than the increase in California per capita personal income; and WHEREAS, the fiscal year 2007-08 Appropriation Limit has been calculated as follows: FY 2006-07 Appropriation Limit (as restated) $479,053,749 Increased by an inflation factor composed of the increases in population and new non-residential construction X 1.0687 Fiscal Year 2007-08 Appropriations Limit $511.957.324 9-4 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the City ofChula Vista hereby establishes the appropriations limit for the City ofChula Vista Fiscal Year 2007-08. Presented by: Approved as to form by: Maria Kachadoorian Director of Human Resources '--t-L _ ()~. ~ :b- Ann Moore City Attorney 9-5 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT ~f:.. CITY OF ~~= ;,- CHULA VISTA 6/5/07, Item~ ITEM TITLE: RESOLUTION RATIFYING CITY STAFF'S ACTION ON APPROVING CHANGE ORDERS WITH PORTILLO CONCRETE INC. TO COMPLETE THE "OTAY LAKES ROAD SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS FROM ALLEN SCHOOL TO SURREY DRIVE AND PAVEMENT REHABILITATION ON OTAY LAKES ROAD FROM BONITA ROAD TO RIDGEBACK ROAD IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA" (STL- 286) PROJEC RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AN INTER-PROJECT TRANSFER IN THE AMOUNT OF $250,000 FROM THE PAVEMENT REHABILITATION CIP (STL-238) TO THE "OTAY LAKES ROAD SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS FROM ALLEN SCHOOL TO SURREY DRIVE AND PAVEMENT REHABILITATION ON OTAY LAKES ROAD FROM BONITA ROAD TO RIDGEBACK ROAD IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA" (STL-286) PROJECT AS NECESSARY TO COMPLETE THE PROJECT. SUBMITTED BY: REVIEWED BY: DIRECTOROFGENERALSE~ES~~~. INTERIM CITY MANAGER d I 4/5THS VOTE: YES [g] NO 0 BACKGROUND The City currently has a contract with Portillo Concrete, Inc. for the "Otay Lakes Road Sidewalk Improvements and Pavement Rehabilitation (STL-286)" project, which was awarded by Council on March 20,2007. The resolution (2007-062) awarded the project to Portillo Concrete Inc. and authorized the expenditure of all contingencies, totaling $1,769,837. The purpose of this memorandum is to inform City Council that staff has directed the contractor to proceed with work, which caused a construction cost increase beyond the $1,769,837. Due to unforeseen circumstances, which caused an increase in quantities for the dig-out portion of the project beyond what was anticipated d,uring the preparation of the project specifications and the addition of the pavement rehabilitation of the intersection of Otay Lakes Road/Bonita Road, staff directed the Contractor to proceed with the work to complete the project. Approval of tonight's resolution will ratify staffs action approving the change orders totaling $250,000 beyond what was originally available for the construction for said project and as 10-1 6/5/07, Item (() Page 2 of 3 presented in the Council Information Item submitted on May 21, 2007 and will authorize an inter-project transfer from an existing CIP as necessary to complete the project. 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 project qualifies for a Class 1 Categorical Exemption pursuant to Section 15301 (Existing Facilities) of the State CEQA Guidelines because the proposed project consists of minor alterations to an existing public facility involving no expansion of the facility's current use. Thus, no further environmental review is necessary. RECOMMENDATION 1. Council adopt resolution ratifying city staff s action on approving change orders with Portillo Concrete Inc. to complete the "Otay Lakes Road Sidewalk Improvements from Allen School to Surrey Drive and pavement rehabilitation on Otay Lakes Road from Bonita Road to Ridgeback Road in the City of Chula Vista, California" (STL-286) project 2. Council adopt resolution authorizing an inter-project transfer in the amount of $250,000 from the Pavement Rehabilitation CIP (STL-238) to the "Otay Lakes Road Sidewalk Improvements from Allen School to Surrey Drive and pavement rehabilitation on Otay Lakes Road from Bonita Road to Ridgeback Road in the City of Chula Vista, California" (STL-286) project as necessary to complete the project. BOARDS/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Not applicable. DISCUSSION The City currently has a contract with Portillo Concrete, Inc. for the "Otay Lakes Road Sidewalk Improvements and Pavement Rehabilitation (STL-286)" project, which was awarded by Council on March 20,2007. The resolution (2007-062) awarded the project to Portillo Concrete Inc. and authorized the expenditure of all contingencies, totaling $1,769,837. City staff had directed the contractor to proceed with additional scope of work, which caused a construction cost increase beyond the $1,769,837 available for construction. Due to unforeseen circumstances, which caused an increase in quantities for the dig-out portion of the project beyond what was anticipated during the preparation of the project specifications and the addition of the pavement rehabilitation of the intersection of Otay Lakes RoadIBonita Road, staff directed the Contractor to proceed with the work to complete the project. City staff had originally delineated the areas of pavement distress "dig-outs" onto the pavement with paint during the preparation of plans and specifications for the project. Bid quantities on the contract specifications were based on the dimensions of these dig-outs and the project was advertised. However, during construction, the areas of pavement distress had grown substantially larger than the original mark-outs of the dig-out areas. 10-2 6/5/07, Item~ Page 3 of3 In addition, the existing asphalt concrete pavement thickness through portions of Otay Lakes Road was considerably thinner than anticipated. Based on recent trench work associated with the underground of overhead utilities along Otay Lakes Road, staff anticipated that the asphalt concrete section would be 6-8" thick. During construction, actual excavations encountered areas with only 3-4" thick asphalt concrete over native sub-grade. Staff directed the contractor to increase the asphalt concrete section in these areas in order to provide an adequate pavement structural section. Staff directed the contractor to proceed with the additional scope of work prior to Council approval for the following reasons: · The postponement of the rehabilitation of the damaged would have caused an increase in dig-outs and cost even more than the estimated overage, if conducted at a later time. · If the dig-outs were postponed, Otay Lakes Road pavement overlay could not be completed at this time and would have to be included with a subsequent Capital Improvement Project. · Delays in authorizing the work prior to obtaining City Council approval would have exposed the City to substantial claims by the Contractor for remobilization, insurance, bonds, and construction site maintenance, among other things. · Additional scope of work includes the dig-out and overlay of the intersection of Bonita Road/Otay Lakes Road, which was not part of the original contract. Staff determined that this section of pavement should be rehabilitated at this time, due to vehicular safety concerns and recent pavement failures in the intersection, which have caused inadequate surface drainage. We anticipate that the additional costs of approximately $250,000 are required for the additional scope of work and to complete the project. Funds for this over-run are available in the pavement rehabilitation ClF, STL-238. DECISION MAKER CONFLICT Staff has reviewed the property holdings of the City Council and has found a conflict exists, in that Councilmember McCann has property holdings within 500 feet ofthe boundaries of the property, which is the subj ect of this action. FISCAL IMPACT At this time, staff recommends a transfer of existing funds in the amount of $250,000 from STL- 238 to STL-286 as necessary to complete the project. There are sufficient funds held by the City to fully offset all costs associated with the construction of this project, with no impact to the General Fund. Upon completion of the subject project, the improvements will require only routine City street maintenance. Prepared by: Jeff Moneda, Sr. Civil Engineer, General Services Department J:\General Services\GS Administration\Council Agenda\STL.286 Otay Lakes Road\STL 286 Change Order Al13 Rev 051707.doc 10-3 RESOLUTION NO. 2007- - RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA RATIFYING CITY STAFF'S ACTION ON APPROVING CHANGE ORDERS WITH PORTILLO CONCRETE INC. TO COMPLETE THE "OTAY LAKES ROAD SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS FROM ALLEN SCHOOL TO SURREY DRIVE AND PAVEMENT REHABILITATION ON OTAY LAKES ROAD FROM BONITA ROAD TO RIDGEBACK ROAD IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA" (STL-286) PROJECT WHEREAS, on March 20, 2007, City Council awarded the project to Portillo Concrete Inc. and authorized the expenditure of all contingencies, totaling $1,769,837 for the "Otay Lakes Road sidewalk improvements from Allen School Lane to Surrey Drive and pavement rehabilitation on Otay Lakes Road from Bonita Road to Ridgeback Road (STL-286)" project; and WHEREAS, due to unforeseen circumstances, which caused an increase in quantities for the dig-out portion of the project beyond what was anticipated during the preparation of the project specifications and the addition of the pavement rehabilitation of the intersection of Otay Lakes Road/Bonita Road, staff directed the Contractor to proceed with the work to complete the proj ect; and WHEREAS, the dollar amount of the change order exceeds that otherwise permitted under Council Policy 574-01, unless the City Manager and the Director of Public Works determine that the public health and safety are involved or a substantial claim couId be submitted by the contractor for delays, and provided the change order is submitted to City Council for ratification at the next regular Council meeting; and WHEREAS, the City Manager and the Director of Public Works did determined that the public health and safety were involved or a substantial claim couId have been submitted by the contractor for delays; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the project qualifies for a Class 1 Categorical Exemption pursuant to Section 15301 (Existing Facilities) of the State CEQA Guidelines because the proposed project consists of minor alterations to an existing public facility involving no expansion of the facility's current use. Thus, no further environmental review is necessary. WHEREAS, City Council ratifies staff's action approving the change orders totaling $250,000 beyond what was originally available for the construction for said project and as presented in the Council Information Item submitted on May 23,2007. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of ChuIa Vista does hereby ratify City staffs action on approving change orders with Portillo Concrete 10-4 Inc. to complete the "Otay Lakes Road Sidewalk Improvements from Allen School Lane to Surrey Drive and Pavement Rehabilitation on Otay Lakes Road from Bonita Road to Ridgeback Road in the City of Chula Vista, California" (STL-286) project. Presented by -:L.E-- Jack Griffin (6f.. Moore Director of General Services City Attorney M:\General Services\GS Administration\Council Agenda\STL-286 Otay Lakes Road\STL286 Reso for Change Order. doc 10-5 RESOLUTION NO. 2007- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AUTHORIZING AN INTERPROJECT TRANSFER IN THE AMOUNT OF $250,000 FROM THE PAVEMENT REHABILITATION CIP (STL- ) TO THE "OTAY LAKES ROAD SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS FROM ALLEN SCHOOL TO SURREY DRIVE AND PAVEMENT REHABILITATION ON OTAY LAKES ROAD FROM BONITA ROAD TO RIDGEBACK ROAD IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA" (STL-286) PROJECT AS NECESSARY TO COMPLETE THE PROJECT. WHEREAS, on March 20, 2007, City Council awarded the project to Portillo Concrete Inc. and authorized the expenditure of all contingencies, totaling $1,769,837 for the "Otay Lakes Road sidewalk improvements from Allen School Lane to Surrey Drive and pavement rehabilitation on Otay Lakes Road from Bonita Road to Ridgeback Road (STL-286)" project; and WHEREAS, due to unforeseen circumstances, which caused an increase in quantities for the dig-out portion of the project beyond what was anticipated during the preparation of the project specifications and the addition of the pavement rehabilitation of the intersection of Otay Lakes Road/Bonita Road, staff directed the Contractor to proceed with the work to complete the project; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the project qualifies for a Class I Categorical Exemption pursuant to Section 15301 (Existing Facilities) of the State CEQA Guidelines because the proposed project consists of minor alterations to an existing public facility involving no expansion of the facility's current use. Thus, no further environmental review is necessary. WHEREAS, City Council approves the change orders totaling $250,000 beyond what was originally available for the construction for said project and transfers said funds from the Pavement Rehabilitation CIP to the "Otay Lakes Road sidewalk improvements from Allen School Lane to Surrey Drive and pavement rehabilitation on Otay Lakes Road from Bonita Road to Ridgeback Road (STL-286)" project as presented in the Council Information Item submitted on May 23, 2007. 10-6 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby approve the transfer of $250,000 in funds from the Pavement Rehabilitation CIP to the "Otay Lakes Road Sidewalk Improvements from Allen School Lane to Surrey Drive and Pavement Rehabilitation on Otay Lakes Road from Bonita Road to Ridgeback Road (STL- 286)" project. Presented by I u.-~ Jack Griffin Director of General Services w(1." Moore City Attorney M:\General Services\GS Administration\Council Agenda\STL-286 Otay Lakes Road\STL286 Reso for Appropriation.doc 10-7 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT .:S-';{f:. CITY OF ~~ "'~ (HULA VISTA ITEM TITLE: SUBMITTED BY: REVIEWED BY: JUNE 5,2007, Item~ (A) RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ADOPTING THE RESULTS OF THE MID-MANAGEMENT STUDY AND APPROVING THE CORRESPONDING COMPENSATION SCHEDULE; (B) RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ADOPTING THE RESULTS OF VARIOUS INDIVIDUAL NON- MANAGEMENT CLASSIFICATION STUDIES AND APPROVING THE CORRESPONDING _ ~ri COMPENSATION SCHEDULE. U . U MARCIA RASKIN, DIRECTO~HUMAN RESOURCES; )r,il)> INTERIM CITY MANAGER Ii /.' 4/STHS VOTE: YES D NO 0 BACKGROUND civil Service Rule 1.02(A), briefly stated, provides for necessary reviews and necessary changes so that the City's classification plan is kept current, and that changes in existing classes, the establishment of new classes or the abolition of classes are properly reflected in the classification plan. In the past years, Human Resources staff has conducted a series (phases I through VII) of Citywide classification and compensation studies of positions represented by CVEA, the results of which were brought forward to, and subsequently approved by, the City Council. As part of the City's long-time effort to maintain the classification plan, Human Resources staff conducted a comprehensive classification and compensation study of professional and middle management positions in the Mid- Management group, consisting of 131 employees in 67 classifications. The Mid-Management Study, as it is called, included a review of the work performed, scope and complexity of assignments and overall responsibility of each position. In addition, department-initiated classification reviews were conducted on individual non-management positions represented by Chula Vista Employee Association (CVEA) and Western Council of Engineers (WCE). This report is being brought forward in conjunction with the budget process. 11-1 , I JUNE 5, 2007, Item~ Page 2 of 12 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Not Applicable RECOMMENDATION (A) Adopt the resolution to approve the results of the Mid-Management Study and the corresponding compensation schedule to be effective the pay period beginning June 22, 2007. (B) Adopt the resolution to approve the results of various individual non-management classification studies and the corresponding compensation schedule to be effective the pay period beginning June 22, 2007. BOARDS/COMMISSION RECOMMENDA nON Not Applicable DISCUSSION Human Resources staff recently completed a comprehensive study of professional and middle management positions in the Mid-Management group, consisting of 131 employees in 67 classifications. The purpose of the study was to conduct a detailed analysis of each position; determine essential job functions for each classification; develop and/or revise class specifications to ensure that they were current, accurate and in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act; allocate each position to an appropriate classification; collect and analyze labor market data; and assess internal salary relationships for any new or revised classifications. Several individual classification studies of non-management positions represented by CVEA and WCE were conducted concurrently with the Mid-Management Study. Mid-Management Studv: The Mid-Management Study encompassed a review of professional and middle management positions found in the following departments: Budget and Analysis, City Clerk, Communications, Community Development, Conservation and Environmental Services, Engineering, Finance, Fire, General Services, Human Resources 1, Information Technology Services, Library, the Nature Center, Planning and Building, Police, Public Works Operations and Recreation. The methodology and processes used during the Mid-Management Study were those used throughout Phases I-VII of the City-wide study of CVEA represented positions conducted from 1999-2005. Each phase of the City-wide classification and compensation study was brought forward to, and subsequently approved by, Council. As with Phases I-VII, Human Resources staff met with each of the department heads prior to the start of the study, to provide an overview of the process and identify any classification or compensation issues. Informational meetings were then held with employees to provide them with an overview of the study process, to answer any questions employees had and to distribute position inventory questionnaires (PIQs), an instrument by which an employee describes the duties and responsibilities of their position. Employees completed their PIQs and forwarded them to their irumediate supervisor for review and comment. Department I An outside consultant conducted the study ofposil:i~ftOZound in the Human Resources Department. JUNE 5, 2007, Item~ Page 3 of12 heads were also given the opportunity to review and comment on the PIQs, prior to their submittal to Human Resources. Human Resources staff then interviewed the incumbents for additional information and to clarify any statements on their PIQs. Class specifications were drafted based on the information gathered from the PIQs and employee interviews and department heads were then given the opportunity to provide for changes and comments. Employees were given their recommended allocation (classification) with a draft job description for their position, as well as the opportunity to express their concerns with their recommended allocation or to provide for any changes to the class specification. Human Resources staff reviewed concerns and made appropriate changes. Final recommendations were given to employees with a class specification for their position. If the employee was not satisfied with the disposition of their concern, he/she had the opportunity to submit an appeal. Two appeals were submitted and reviewed by an Appeal Panel consisting of three Executive Managers. The Panel unanimously upheld Human Resources' recommendations and the decisions of the Appeal Panel were final. Once the classification component of the study was completed, Human Resources staff collected and analyzed salary data from 18 comparable agencies in the Southern Califomia region for each of the positions under study. Of the 131 professional and middle management positions reviewed, it is recommended that: . 14 positions receive a salary increase; . 12 positions receive a salary increase and title change; . 36 positions receive a title change only; . 68 positions remain at their current title and salary level; and . 1 vacant position receives a salary decrease. Incumbents in positions that are recommended for reclassification to a higher class, and therefore a higher salary, will be placed at a salary step that is five (5) percent higher than their current rate of pay (per Civil Service Rule 1.07(A), Promotion). In reference to the proposed salary changes shown on Attachment A, the percentage change reflects the incumbents' actual salary adjustment for FY07-08. Pending approval of title changes shown on Attachment A, the following classification titles will be deleted from the classification plan effective pay period beginning June 22, 2007: Assistant Transit Coordinator, Avian Specialist, Battalion Chief, City Arborist, Communications Specialist, Conservation Coordinator, Design Specialist, Development Services Technician, Disaster Preparedness Manager, Educational Services Manager, Environmental Projects Manager, Environmental Review Coordinator, Lead Programmer Analyst, Library Automation Manager, Library Automation Specialist, Library Public Services Manager, Microcomputer Specialist, Microcomputer Support Manager, Park Ranger Supervisor, Principal Management Assistant, Senior Building Projects Supervisor, Senior Development Services Technician, Senior Employee Development Specialist, Senior Management Assistant, Senior Microcomputer Specialist, Senior Recreation Supervisor and Transit Coordinator. 11-3 JUNE 5, 2007, ItemL Page 4 of 12 Additional Classification Studies: In addition to the positions reviewed as part of the Mid-Management Study, Human Resources staff conducted department-initiated classification studies on individual non- management positions found in Community Development, Engineering, Human Resources2, the Nature Center, Planning and Building, and Public Works Operations. After a thorough analysis, it is recommended that ten positions receive a title change and eight positions be reclassified to a higher classification, and therefore receive a salary increase. In addition, after a review of labor market data and an assessment of: internal salary relationships for the Painter, Plumber and Public Safety Analyst positions, it is recommended that incumbents in these positions receive a salary increase. Human Resources staff also recommends establishing the following new classifications to meet the ongoing needs of the departments: After School Program Manager, Development Services Counter Manager, Development Services Technician I, Application Support Specialist, Programmer Analyst, and Senior GIS Specialist. DECISION MAKER CONFLICT 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 l8704.2(a)(I) is not applicable to this decision. FISCAL IMPACT Beginning in FY 2007-08: (A) The total annual cost of implementing the results of the Mid-Management Study is estimated at $102,000. This amount will be largely offset by a $74,000 increase in staff time reimbursement revenues, resulting in a net general fund impact of $28,000 annually. (B) The total annual cost of implementing the results of the individual non- management classification studies is estimated at $80,000. These costs were considered as part of the FY 2007-08 budget development process. Given the budgetary constraints the City is facing, each department has agreed to absorb these costs in FY 2007-08. As a result, the FY 2007-08 proposed budget document, delivered to Council on May 24, 2007, contains no additional funding for the recommended salary and classification changes contained in this report. If these resolutions are approved, the fmal budget, to be presented to Council on June 19 for adoption, would reflect the recommended title changes but no additional budget appropriations. The annual net cost of these recommendations will be included in future budgets beginning in FY 2008-09. The ongoing costs of implementing these recommendations will vary dependent upon the pay step (i.e. A through E) of the incumbents in each position. The maximum annual net cost in current dollars is estimated at $178,000. 2 As mentioned previously, an outside consultant conducted the study of positions in the Human Resources Department. 11 - 4 JUNE 5, 2007, Item~ Page 5 of 12 Updated 5-year revenue and expenditure forecasts currently project a $4.5 million base budget gap for FY 2008-09. Approval oftbese resolutions would increase the projected gap to between $4.6 and $4.7 million, indicating some combination of unanticipated revenue enhancements and/or program reductions will likely be required to fund the ongoing costs of this proposal. ATTACHMENTS (A) Mid-Management Study Recommended Position Changes (B) Individual Non-Management Classification Studies Recommended Position Changes (C) Proposed Salary Table (Monthly) (D) Proposed Salary Table (Bi-Weekly) Prepared by: Erin Bernal, Principal Human Resources Analyst, Human Resources Department 11-5 ATTACHMENT A MID-MANAGEMENT STUDY RECOMMENDED POSITION CHANGES Title Change Only (36 Positions) JUNE 5, 2007, Item~ Page 6 of12 Communications Communications Specialist Communications Design Specialist Engineering Principal Management Assistant Fire Battalion Chier (7) Fire Disaster Preparedness Manager General Services Conservation Coordinator General Services Senior Building Projects Supervisor (3) Information Technology Services Microcomputer Specialist (8) Information Technology Services Senior Microcomputer Specialist (2) Information Technology Services Microcomputer Support Manager Library Library Public Services Manager Nature Center Avian Specialist Planning and Building Principal Management Assistant Planning and Building Environmental Projects Manager (2) Planning and Building Senior Management Assistant Police Senior Employee Development Specialist Public Works Operations Assistant Transit Coordinator Public Works Operations Transit Coordinator Public Works Operations City Arborist 11-6 Special Events Planner Senior Graphic Designer Principal Management Analyst Fire Battalion Chier (7) Emergency Services Coordinator Environmental Services Program Manager Building Projects Manager (3) Information Technology Support Specialist (8) Senior Information Technology Support Specialist (2) Information Technology Support Manager Library Operations Manager Nature Center Program Manager Principal Management Analyst Senior Planner (2) Development Automation Specialist Police Training and Development Supervisor Transit Operations Coordinator Transit Manager Urban Forestry Manager JUNE 5, 2007, Item-LL Page 7 of 12 ATTACHMENT A (Continued) Salary Change Only (14 Positions) Community Development Principal Community Development Specialist (3) +0.57% Engineering Real Property Manager +0.73% Information Technology Services Operations and Telecommunications Manager +5.23% Information Technology Services Applications Support Manager +2.31% Planning and Building Principal Planner (3) +0.57% Planning and Building Code Enforcement Manager +0.57% Police Senior Public Safety Analyst +4.32% Public Warks Operations Fleet Manager +1.03% Recreation Principal Recreation Manager (2) + 1.74 3 The percentage change reflects the actual salary 41J1lotiPents effective June 22, 2007. JUNE 5, 2007, ItemJ.L Page 8 of 12 ATTACHMENT A (Continued) Title and Salary Change (13 Positions) Budget and Analysis Senior Management Analyst Fiscal and Management Analyst +9.76%" Finance Senior Management Analyst Fiscal Services Analyst +9.76%" ITS Lead Programmer Analyst GIS Supervisor +10.00% ITS Lead Programmer Analyst (2) Senior Programmer Analyst (2) +10.00% ITS Lead Programmer Analyst (2) Senior Applications Support + 10.00% Specialist (2) Library Educational Services Manager After School Program Manager -22.00% Library Senior Librarian Library Digital Services + 10.00% Manager Planning and Building Environmental Projects Principal Planner (2) +8.84%" Manager (2) Planning and Building Environmental Review Principal Planner +0.57% Coordinator Recreation Senior Recreation Supervisor (2) Senior Recreation Manager (2) +1.71% New Classifications (No Incumbents) Information Technology Services New Classification Programmer Analyst Information Technology Services New Classification Applications Support Specialist Planning and Building New Classification Development Services Counter Manager 4 The percentage change reflects the actual salary adjustments effective June 22, 2007. * Over the next one to three fiscal years, as an incumbent moves through the normal merit step process, comparing E step to E step, the maximum increase for each position are as follows: Fiscal & Management Analyst - 21.01%, Fiscal Services Analyst - 21.01%, Principal Planner - 20%, Land Surveyor - 15%, Human Resources Technician - 21.03%, Nature Center Program Manager - 14.26%, and Parks Manager - 13.69%. 11-8 JUNE 5, 2007, Item---il-- Page 9 of 12 ATTACHMENT B INDIVIDUAL NON-MANAGEMENT CLASSIFICATION STUDIES RECOMMENDED POSITION CHANGES Title Change Only (10 Positions) Planning and Building Development Services Technician (9) Development Services Technician II Planning and Building Senior Development Services Technician (1) Development Services Technician III Salary Change Only (9 Positions) General Services Painter (2) +5.00% General Services Plumber (2) +5.00% Fire Public Safety Analyst +4.32% Police Public Safety Analyst (4) +4.32% Title and Salary Change (8 Positions) Community Secretary Senior Fiscal Office Specialist +5.00% Development Engineering Assistant Surveyor II Land Surveyor +9.52%" Human Resources Senior Office Specialist Human Resources Technician + 10.02%" Human Resources Senior Office Specialist Senior Fiscal Office Specialist +5.00% Nature Center Nature Center Specialist Nature Center Program Manager +8.82%" Planning and Building Office Specialist (2) Senior Office Specialist (2) +10.00%" Public Works Park Ranger Supervisor Parks Supervisor +8.27%" Operations 5 The percentage change reflects the actual salary adjustments effective June 22, 2007. 6 See footnote 5. " Over the next one to three fiscal years, as an incumbent moves through the normal merit step process, comparing E step to E step, the maximum increase for each position are as follows: Fiscal & Management Analyst - 21.01%, Fiscal Services Analyst - 21.01%, Principal Planner - 20%, Land Surveyor - 15%, Human Resources Technician - 21.03%, Nature Center Program Manager - 14.26%, and Parks Manager - 13.69%. 11-9 JUNE 5, 2007, Item-R- Page 10 of 12 ATTACHMENTB (Continued) New Classifications (No Incumbents) Information Technology Services New Classification Senior GIS Specialist Planning and Building New Classification Development Services Technician I 11-10 JUNE 5, 2007, Item~ Page 11 of 12 ATTACHMENT C PROPOSED SALARY TABLE (MONTHLY) AFTER SCHOOL PROGRAM MANAGER 7032 MM $5,757.69038 $6,045.57490 $6,347.85364 $6,665.24632 $6,998.50864 APPLICATIONS SUPPORT SPECIALIST 3084 MM $5,366.20884 $5,634.51928 $5,916.24525 $6,212.05751 $6,522.66039 APPLICATIONS SUPPORT MANAGER 3083 MM $6,558.69214 $6,886.62675 $7,230.95808 $7,592.50599 $7,972.13129 CODE ENFORCEMENT MANAGER 4759 MM $7,087.53254 $7,441.90917 $7,814.00463 $8,204.70486 $8,614.94010 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COUNTER MANAGER 4547 MM $5,773.16402 $6,061.82222 $6,364.91333 $6,683.15899 $7,017.31694 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TECHNICIAN I 4542 CVEA $3,095.70889 $3,250.49434 $3,413.01905 $3,583.67001 $3,762.85351 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TECHNICIAN II 4544 CVEA $3,405.27978 $3,575.54377 $3,754.32096 $3,942.03701 $4,139.13886 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TECHNICIAN III 4545 CVEA $3,916.06566 $4,111.86894 $4,317.46239 $4,533.33551 $4,760.00228 FISCAL SERVICES ANALYST 3609 MM $6,612.93320 $6,943.57986 $7,290.75885 $7,655.29679 $8,038.06163 FLEET MANAGER 6501 MM $6,398.24632 $6,718.15863 $7,054.06656 $7,406.76989 $7,777.10839 GIS SUPERVISOR 3082 MM $5,962.45428 $6,260.57699 $6,573.60584 $6,902.28613 $7,247.40044 HUMAN RESOURCES TECHNICIAN 3315 CONF $3,564.65036 $3,742.88288 $3,930.02703 $4,126.52838 $4,332.85480 LIBRARY DIGITAL SERVICES MANAGER 7025 MM $5,757.69038 $6,045.57490 $6,347.85364 $6,665.24632 $6,998.50864 OPERATIONS & TELECOMMUNICATIONS MANAGER 3025 MM $6,558.69214 $6,886.62675 $7,230.95808 $7,592.50599 $7,972.13129 PAINTER 6434 CVEA $3,609.08937 $3,789.54384 $3,979.02104 $4,177.97209 $4,386.87069 PLUMBER 6432 CVEA $3,969.98624 $4,168.48555 $4,376.90982 $4,595.75532 $4,825.54308 PRINCIPAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST 4061 MM $7,087.53254 $7,441.90917 $7,814.00463 $8,204.70486 $8,614.94010 PRINCIPAL PLANNER 4431 MM $7,087.53254 $7,441.90917 $7,814.00463 $8,204.70486 $8,614.940 I 0 PRINCIPAL RECREATION MANAGER 7410 MM $5,917.93633 $6,213.83314 $6,524.52480 $6,850.75104 $7,193.28859 PROGRAMMER ANALYST 3086 MM $5,366.20884 $5,634.51928 $5,916.24525 $6,212.05751 $6,522.66039 PUBLIC SAFETY ANALYST 5254 CVEA $4,640.66666 $4,872.69999 $5,116.33499 $5,372.15174 $5,640.75932 REAL PROPERTY MANAGER 6035 MM $6,875.23962 $7,219.00160 $7,579.95168 $7,958.94927 $8,356.89673 SENIOR APPLICATIONS SUPPORT SPECIALIST 3054 MM $5,962.45428 $6,260.57699 $6,573.60584 $6,902.28613 $7,247.40044 SENIOR GIS SPECIALIST 3080 CVEA $4,927.65063 $5,174.03317 $5,432.73482 $5,704.37157 $5,989.59014 SENIOR PROGRAMMER ANALYST 3087 MM $5,962.45428 $6,260.57699 $6,573.60584 $6,902.28613 $7,247.40044 SENIOR PUBLIC SAFETY ANALYST 5259 MM $5,336.76666 $5,603.60499 $5,883.78524 $6,177.97450 $6,486.87323 SENIOR RECREATION MANAGER 7412 MM $5,146.03160 $5,403.33318 $5,673.49984 $5,957.17483 $6,255.03357 11-11 JUNE 5, 2007, Item~ Page 12 of 12 ATTACHMENTD PROPOSED SALARY TABLE (HI-WEEKLY) AFTER SCHOOL PROGRAM MANAGER 7032 MM 2,657.39556 2,790.26534 2,929.77860 3,076.26753 3,230.08091 APPLICATIONS SUPPORT SPECIALIST 3084 MM 2,476.71177 2,600.54736 2,730.57473 2,867.10347 3,010.45864 APPLICATIONS SUPPORT MANAGER 3083 MM 3,027.08868 3,178.44311 3,337.36527 3,504.23353 3,679.44521 CODE ENFORCEMENT MANAGER 4759 MM 3,271.16886 3,434.72731 3,606.46367 3,786.78686 3,976.12620 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COUNTER MANAGER 4547 MM 2,664.53724 2,797.76410 2,937.65230 3,084.53492 3,238.76167 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TECHNICIAN I 4542 CVEA 1,428.78872 1,500.22816 1,575.23956 1,654.00154 1,736.70162 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TECHNICIAN II 4544 CVEA 1,571.66759 1,650.25097 1,732.76351 1,819.40169 1,910.37178 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TECHNICIAN III 4545 CVEA 1,807.41493 1,897.78567 1,992.67496 2,092.30870 2,196.92413 FISCAL SERVICES ANALYST 3609 MM 3,052.12301 3,204.72917 3,364.96562 3,533.21390 3,709.87460 FLEET MANAGER 6501 MM 2,953.03676 3,100.68860 3,255.72303 3,418.50918 3,589.43464 GIS SUPERVISOR 3082 MM 2,751.90198 2,889.49707 3,033.97193 3,185.67052 3,344.95405 HUMAN RESOURCES TECHNICIAN 3315 CONF 1,645.22324 1,727.48441 1,813.85863 1,904.55156 1,999.77914 LIBRARY DIGITAL SERVICES MANAGER 7025 MM 2,657.39556 2,790.26534 2,929.77860 3,076.26753 3,230.08091 OPERATIONS & TELECOMMUNICATIONS MANAGER 3025 MM 3,027.08868 3,178.44311 3,337.36527 3,504.23353 3,679.44521 PAINTER 6434 CVEA 1,665.73356 1,749.02024 1,836.47125 1,928.29481 2,024.70955 PLUMBER 6432 CVEA 1,832.30134 1,923.91641 2,020.11223 2,121.11784 2,227.17373 PRINCIPAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST 4061 MM 3,271.16886 3,434.7273 I 3,606.46367 3,786.78686 3,976.12620 PRINCIPAL PLANNER 4431 MM 3,271.16886 3,434.72731 3,606.46367 3,786.78686 3,976.12620 PRINCIPAL RECREATION MANAGER 7410 MM 2,731.35523 2,867.92299 3,011.31914 3,161.88510 3,319.97935 PROGRAMMER ANALYST 3086 MM 2,476.71177 2,600.54736 2,730.57473 2,867.10347 3,010.45864 PUBLIC SAFETY ANALYST 5254 CVEA 2,141.84615 2,248.93846 2,361.38538 2,479.45465 2,603.42738 REAL PROPERTY MANAGER 6035 MM 3,173.18752 3,331.84689 3,498.43924 3,673.36120 3,857.02926 SENIOR APPLICATIONS SUPPORT SPECIALIST 3054 MM 2,751.90198 2,889.49707 3,033.97193 3,185.67052 3,344.95405 SENIOR GIS SPECIALIST 3080 CVEA 2,274.30029 2,388.01531 2,507.41607 2,632.78688 2,764.42622 SENIOR PROGRAMMER ANALYST 3087 MM 2,751.90198 2,889.49707 3,033.97193 3,185.67052 3,344.95405 SENIOR PUBLIC SAFETY ANALYST 5259 MM 2,463.12307 2,586.27923 2,715.59319 2,851.37285 2,993.94149 SENIOR RECREATION MANAGER 7412 MM 2,375.09151 2,493.84608 2,618.53839 2,749.46530 2,886.93857 11-12 RESOLUTION NO. 2007- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ADOPTING THE RESULTS OF THE MID-MANAGEMENT STUDY AND APPROVING THE CORRESPONDING COMPENSATION SCHEDULE WHEREAS, Civil Service Rule l.02(A), briefly stated, provides for necessary reviews and necessary changes so that the City's classification plan is kept current, and that changes in existing classes, the establishment of new classes or the abolition of classes are properly reflected in the classification plan; and WHEREAS, as part of the City's long-time effort to maintain the classification plan, Human Resources staff conducted a comprehensive classification and compensation study of professional and middle management positions in the Mid-Management group, consisting of 131 employees in 67 classifications; and WHEREAS, the Mid-Management Study, as it is called, included a review of the work performed, scope and complexity of assignments and overall responsibility of each position. In addition, department-initiated classification reviews were conducted on individual non- management positions represented by Chula Vista Employee Association (CVEA) and Western Council of Engineers (WCE); and WHEREAS, Human Resources staff recently completed a comprehensive study of professional and middle management positions in the Mid-Management group, consisting of 131 employees in 67 classifications; and WHEREAS, the purpose of the study was to conduct a detailed analysis of each position; determine essential job functions for each classification; develop and/or revise class specifications to ensure that they were current, accurate and in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act; allocate each position to an appropriate classification; collect and analyze labor market data; and assess internal salary relationships for any new or revised classifications; and WHEREAS, the Mid-Management Study encompassed a review of professional and middle management positions found in the following departments: Budget and Analysis, City Clerk, Communications, Community Development, Conservation and Environmental Services, Engineering, Finance, Fire, General Services, Human Resources\ Information Technology Services, Library, the Nature Center, Planning and Building, Police, Public Works Operations and Recreation; and 1 An outside consultant conducted the study of positions found in the Human Resources Department. 11-13 WHEREAS, once the classification component of the study was completed, Human Resources staff collected and analyzed salary data from 18 comparable agencies in the Southern California region for each of the positions under study; and WHEREAS, incumbents in positions that are recommended for reclassification to a higher class, and therefore a higher salary, will be placed at a salary step that is five (5) percent higher than their current rate of pay (per Civil Service Rule 1.07(A), Promotion). NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the CityofChula Vista hereby adopts the results of the mid-management study and approves the corresponding compensation schedule. Presented by: Approved as to form by: ~~ Q\\\\\I\.r<A\Q~ Ann Moore City Attorney Marcia Raskin Director of Human Resources 11-14 RESOLUTION NO. 2007- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ADOPTING THE RESULTS OF VARIOUS INDIVIDUAL NON-MANAGEMENT CLASSIFICATION STUDIES AND APPROVING THE CORRESPONDING COMPENSATION SCHEDULE WHEREAS, Civil Service Rule I.02(A), briefly stated, provides for necessary reviews and necessary changes so that the City's classification plan is kept current, and that changes in existing classes, the establishment of new classes or the abolition of classes are properly reflected in the classification plan; and WHEREAS, as part of the City's long-time effort to maintain the classification plan, Human Resources staff conducted a comprehensive classification and compensation study of professional and middle management positions in the Mid-Management group, consisting of 131 employees in 67 classifications; and WHEREAS, department-initiated classification reviews were conducted on individual non-management positions represented by Chula Vista Employee Association (CVEA) and Western Council of Engineers (WCE); and WHEREAS, the purpose of the study was to conduct a detailed analysis of each position; determine essential job functions for each classification; develop and/or revise class specifications to ensure that they were current, accurate and in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act; allocate each position to an appropriate classification; collect and analyze labor market data; and assess internal salary relationships for any new or revised classifications; and WHEREAS, several individual classification studies of non-management positions represented by CVEA and WCE were conducted concurrently with the Mid-Management Study and WHEREAS, in addition to the positions reviewed as part of the Mid-Management Study, Human Resources staff conducted department-initiated classification studies on individual non-management positions found in Community Development, Engineering, Human Resources!, the Nature Center, Planning and Building, and Public Works Operations; and WHEREAS, after a thorough analysis, it is recommended that ten positions receive a title change and eight positions be reclassified to a higher classification, and therefore receive a salary increase; and I As mentioned previously, an outside consultant conducted the study of positions in the Human Resources Department. 11-15 WHEREAS, in addition, after a review of labor market data and an assessment of internal salary relationships for the Painter, Plumber and Public Safety Analyst positions, it is recommended that incumbents in these positions receive a salary increase; and WHEREAS, Human Resources staff also recommends establishing the following new classifications to meet the ongoing needs of the departments: Development Services Counter Manager, Development Services Technician I, Application Support Specialist, Programmer Analyst, and Senior GIS Specialist; and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOL YED that the Council of the City of Chula Vista hereby adopts the results of various individual non-management classification studies and approves the corresponding compensation schedule. Presented by: Approved as to form by: ~'[(j~~f~'0~ Ann Moore City Attorney Marcia Raskin Director of Human Resources 11-16 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT ITEM TITLE: SUBMITTED BY: REVIEWED BY: RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND THE SAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT DISTRICT FOR CITY POLICE, FIRE, AND EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED ON PORT DISTRICT LANDS WITH PAYMENT FOR THE SERVICES TO THE CITY, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMEN~N BEHALF OF THE CITY CHIEF OF P 71'RE CHIEFl)y\f CITY MANAG R if1 4/5THS VOTE: YES D NO 0 BACKGROUND The City of Chula Vista has provided police, fire and emergency medical services to the San Diego Unified Port District (Port District) since 1994. These services are provided on Port District lands which do not generate ad valorem tax revenues. The City and the Port District reached an agreement to continue providing these services until Fiscal Year 2008-09. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW This proposed activity has been reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and it has been determined that the activity is not a "Project" as defined under Section 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines because it will not result in a physical change in the environment; therefore, pursuant to Section 15060{c){3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Thus, no environmental review is necessary. RECOMMENDATION That the City Council adopt the resolution approving the agreement between the City of Chula Vista and the San Diego Unified Port District for police, fire and emergency medical services and authorizing the Mayor to execute the agreement on behalf of the City. BOARDS/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION N/A 12-1 JUNE 4,2007, Item l..l- Page 2 of 3 DISCUSSION The City of Chula Vista has been providing police, fire and emergency medical services to the San Diego Unified Port District since 1994. This agreement covers the reimbursement of the cost to provide the police, fire and emergency medical services to the Port Districts filled tidelands and property within the City's limits, which do not generate ad valorem tax revenues. Those properties include non-dedicated streets, parks and other open space; unleased developed properties; leased properties wherein the lessee is not subject to ad valorem taxes; and unleased land (See Exhibit "A" included in attached agreement). The City and the Port District reached consensus on the cost calculation methodology, which in effect sets a rate for the upcoming and succeeding fiscal years. Any deviation of the set amounts due to significant costs increases would have to be pre-approved by the Port. This agreement will be effective from July 1, 2006 through June 30, 2009. DECISION MAKER CONFLICT Staff has reviewed the property holdings of the City of Chula Vista City Council and has found a conflict exists, in that Council Member Rudy Ramirez has property holdings within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property which is the subject of this action. FISCAL IMPACT Adopting this resolution will set reimbursement amounts owed by the Port District to the City for provisions of police, fire and emergency medical services to the non-ad valorem properties on the tidelands during fiscal years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008- 09. The agreed upon reimbursement rates for each year are as follows: i FY 2006 . 07 FY 2007 . 08 i FY 2008 . 09 . .....-- $504,782" $528,411! $552,124 .__..~------_._-~--_._----~_._-- ---~~------- -- ; $139,969 $146,967 $154,315 ;SEl.!Y! c~ _ ...... Police Services ------------------------- iFire and Emergency iMedical Services 1__., _.____..".___ . iTOTAL, All Services Total FY 07..()9 $1,585,317 $441,251 $644,751 · $675,378 $706,439 $2,026,568 ATTACHMENTS Agreement for services. Prepared by: Edward Chew, Administrative Services Manager, Police Department 12-2 JUNE 4, 2007, Item I). Page 3 of 3 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND THE SAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT DISTRICT FOR CITY POLICE, FIRE, AND EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED ON PORT DISTRICT LANDS WITH PAYMENT FOR THE SERVICES TO THE CITY, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista and the San Diego Unified Port District (Port District) desire to execute an agreement regarding police, fire and emergency medical services to be provided by the City on non-ad valorem tideland trust property, owned by the Port District, but located within the City of Chula Vista; and WHEREAS, the City has the capacity to provide police, fire and emergency medical services to said Port District property; and WHEREAS, the Port District will reimburse the City as set forth in the Agreement for Services. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby approve the Agreement between the City of Chula Vista and the San Diego Unified Port District for City police, fire and emergency medical services to be provided on Port District Lands with payment for services to the City, and authorizing the Mayor to execute the Agreement on behalf of the City. Presented by: {JJ~ PL Richard P. Emerson ~))~ DOUglasderry Fire Chief Approved as to form by: ~;fr; City Attorney 12-3 THE ATTACHED AGREEMENT HAS BEEN REVIEWED AND APPROVED AS TO FORM BY THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND WILL BE FORMALLY SIGNED UPON APPROVAL BY THE CITY COUNCIL ~c~~ Ann Moore City Attorney Dated: S - j/ - 2-007 Agreement between San Diego Unified Port District and City of Chula Vista for Police, Fire, and Emergency Medical Services Agreement No. 26-2007 12-4 AGREEMENT BETWEEN SAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT DISTRICT and CITY OF CHULA VISTA for POLICE, FIRE AND EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES AGREEMENT NO. 26-2007 The parties to this Agreement are the SAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT DISTRICT, a public corporation, herein called "District" and the CITY OF CHULA VISTA; a municipal corporation, herein called "City." RECITALS: WHEREAS, the San Diego Unified Port District Act allows the District to contract with the Municipalities whose territorial limits are adjacent to or contiguous to those of the District for police, fire and other services, and; WHEREAS, the District and the City desire to execute an Agreement for police, fire and emergency medical services on non-ad valorem tideland trust property located in the City ("Agreement"), and; WHEREAS, the City has the capacity to provide police, fire and emergency medical services to said District property; NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually understood and agreed by and between the parties as follows: 1. SCOPE OF SERVICES A. This Agreement covers reimbursement of the cost of police, fire and emergency medical (EMS) services to be provided by the City upon the District's tidelands and property within the City's limits, which do not generate ad valorem tax revenues, as depicted in Exhibit A, Non Tax Paying Tidelands in the City of Chula Vista, incorporated by reference as Page 1 of 12 Agreement No.: 26~2007 Party to Agreement: City of Chula Vista Board Date: May 8, 2007 Requesting Department: Harbor Police 12-5 though fully set forth herein. Those properties include, but are not limited to, non-dedicated streets, parks and other open space, unleased developed properties, leased properties wherein the lessee is not subject to ad valorem taxes (with the exception of properties leased to the City), and unleased vacant land. Nothing herein contained shall give the City the right to use or occupy any District real or personal property, or to otherwise use the services of the District or its employees. City shall provide police, fire and emergency medical services as contained in the Statement of Reimbursable Expenses of this agreement, Attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. Only expenditures authorized herein shall be eligible for reimbursement, unless approved in writing by District. A.1. For Police Services, City shall provide services to the same extent and in the same manner as such member city actually provides or may be required by law to provide to an ad valorem tax-generating property. District and City shall, to the extent practicable, meet and confer as needed to discuss deployment of resources cooperatively in an effort to avoid duplication of services. A.2. For Fire and Emeraencv Medical Services, City shall provide, to the same extent and in the same manner as such member city actually provides or may be required by law to provide to an ad valorem tax- generating property, responses to all calls for fire suppression services by the fire department; and responses to all calls for emergency medical services, to such extent as the county, state, or federal government requires City to provide. B. The activities and services authorized for reimbursement shall only be those which have occurred, and been rendered on or after July 1, 2006, Page 2 of 12 Agreement No.: 26-2007 Party to Agreement: City of ChuJa Vista Board Date: May 8. 2007 Requesting Department: Harbor Police 12-6 and which are in furtherance of the San Diego Bay tideland trust for the accommodation of commerce, navigation, fisheries, and recreation on said trust tidelands for the benefit of all of the people of the State of California. 2. TERM OF AGREEMENT: This Agreement covers services rendered for fiscal years July 1, 2006 through June 30, 2009. If both parties desire to renew the Agreement and the cost of services for the new Agreement is not finalized before the current Agreement expires, the current Agreement may be extended by amendment for up to one year at an annual compensation equal to the most recent year's cost of services. After negotiations are completed, contract amount will be adjusted based on final negotiated cost retroactive to July 1, 2009 or as otherwise agreed. 3. COMPENSATION: A. In consideration of the foregoing performances by City, District shall pay City an amount not to exceed $644,751.00 for Fiscal Year 2007, $675,378.00 for Fiscal Year 2008, and $706,439.00 for Fiscal Year 2009, for a total amount under this Agreement not to exceed $2,026,568.00. A summary of the not to exceed amounts by fiscal year and service provided is shown in figure 1, below: , Total ! Service FY 06-07 ' FY 07-08 ! FY 08-09 FY 06-09 Police Services $504,782' $528,411 i $552,124 $1,585,317 Fire and Emergency Medical $139,969 $146,967 $154,315 $441,251 Services TOTAL, All Services $644,751 $675,378 : $706,439 i $2,026,568 figure 1 - Summary of Expenses Applicable reimbursable expenses are listed in Exhibit B, Statement of Reimbursable Expenses, and incorporated by reference herein. Page 3 of 12 Agreement No.: 26~2007 Party to Agreement: City of Chula Vista Board Date: May 8. 2007 Requesting Department: Harbor Police 12-7 The estimate in consideration for fiscal year 07/08 and 08/09 is recognized as the approximate cost of police, fire and emergency medical services with the City. If during the contract period, City's negotiated costs for police andlor fire services or salaries and benefits change, City shall give District written notice and furnish documentation satisfactory to District to substantiate the changes. Such changes shall be recognized as a basis for increasing or decreasing the remaining consideration due after such changes are approved by the City, and shall be reflected in the next quarterly payment to the City. City shall submit written requests for reimbursement to District for payment under this Agreement. Written requests may be submitted on a quarterly basis. District agrees to make reimbursement payments to the City within thirty (30) days of receipt of a properly prepared request for reimbursement. B. Payments made pursuant to this Agreement shall include without limitation all sums, charges, reimbursements, costs and expenses provided for herein. City shall not be required to perform further services after compensation has been expended. In the event that City anticipates the need for services in excess of the compensation, District shall be notified in writing as immediately as reasonable and practicable. District must approve an amendment to this Agreement before additional fees and costs are incurred. 4. RECORDS: In accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, City shall maintain full and complete documentation of the cost of services performed under this Agreement. Such documentation, if reasonably available and prepared and maintained in the regular course of business, may include time cards, contracts, receipts, original invoices, canceled checks, payroll documentation, calls for service records, dispatch records, police and fire budget data, other budget data used to calculate citywide overhead factors, and periodic Page 4 of 12 Agreement No.: 26-2007 Party to Agreement: City of Chula Vista Board Dale: May 8, 2007 Requesting Department: Harbor Police 12-8 logs maintained by police and fire staff. Such records shall be open to inspection of District at all reasonable times in the City of Chula Vista and such records shall be maintained in accordance with applicable laws and policies of the State of California and City of Chula Vista related to records retention. Generally, all records set forth herein shall be maintained for at least three (3) years from the date of termination of this Agreement. If City is notified by District of a dispute, claim, litigation, or appeal arising from this Agreement, City shall maintain applicable and material records for a period of three (3) years after notification of the dispute, claim, litigation, or appeal, or until the dispute, appeal, litigation or claim has been finally resolved or adjudicated, whichever is later. City understands and agrees that District, at all times under this Agreement, has the right to audit financial or other records, which City has prepared or which relate to the work which City is performing for District pursuant to this Agreement regardless of whether such records have previously been provided to District. City shall provide District at City's expense a copy of all such records within ten (10) working days of a written request by. District, unless the requested records are voluminous in nature. In that case, City may extend the time to respond to a request for records, as provided by the California Public Records Act, set forth in the California Government Code, and incorporated herein as controlling authority related to records disclosure. District's right to records shall also include inspection at reasonable times at the City's office or facilities, which are engaged in the performance of services pursuant to this Agreement. City shall, at no cost to District furnish reasonable facilities and assistance for such review and audit. 5. COMPLIANCE: In performance of this Agreement, City shall comply with the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, the American with Disabilities Act, and all other applicable federal, state, and local laws prohibiting discrimination, including without limitation, laws prohibiting discrimination because of age, Agreement No.: 26-2007 Party to Agreement: City of Chuta Vista Board Date: May 8, 2007 Requesting Department: Harbor Police Page 5 of 12 12-9 ancestry, color, creed, denial of family and medical care leave, disability, marital status, medical condition, national origin, race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation. City shall comply with the prevailing wage provisions of the Labor Code, and the Political Reform Act provisions of the Government Code, as applicable. City shall comply with all applicable federal, state and local law, as well as any applicable District codes and policies in effect now or as may be adopted as those District codes and/or policies relate to the subject matter of this Agreement. 6. INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS: City shall provide the services required by this Agreement, independent of the control and direction of District, other than normal contract monitoring provided, however, City shall possess no authority with respect to any District decision beyond rendition of such information, advice, or recommendations. 7. ASSIGNMENT: City shall not assign this Agreement or any right or interest hereunder without express prior written consent of District, nor shall District assign this Agreement or any right or interest hereunder without express prior written consent of City. 8. MUTUAL INDEMNIFICATION A. City agrees to defend, indemnify and hold the District harmless against and from any and all damages to property or injuries to or death of any person or persons, including employees or agents of the District, and shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the District, its officers, agents and employees, from any and all claims, demands, suits, actions or proceedings of any kind or nature, of or by anyone whomsoever, in any way resulting from or arising out of the negligent or intentional acts, errors or omissions of the City or any of its officers, agents or employees, unless otherwise agreed to in writing by City and District. Agreement No.: 26-2007 Party to Agreement: City of Chula Vista Board Date: Maya, 2007 Requesting Department: Harbor Police Page 6 of 12 12-10 B. District agrees to defend, indemnify and hold the City harmless against and from any and all damages to property or injuries to or death of any person or persons, including employees or agents of the City, and shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, its officers, agents and employees, from any and all claims, demands, suits, actions or proceedings of any kind or nature, of or by anyone whomsoever, in any way resulting from or arising out of the negligent or intentional acts, errors, or omissions of the District or any of its officers, agents or employees, unless otherwise agreed to in writing by District and City. 9. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS: City and District shall at all times during the term of this Agreement maintain, at its expense, the following minimum levels and types of insurance or evidence of a self-insured program: A. Commercial General Liability (including, without limitation, Contractual Liability, Personal and Advertising Injury, and Products! Completed Operations) coverages, with coverage at least as broad as Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability Coverage (occurrence Form CG 0001 with limits no less than two million dollars ($2,000,000) per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. 1) The Commercial General Liability policy shall be endorsed to include the other party, it's agents, officers, and employees as additional insured. 2) The coverage provided to the other party, as an additional insured, shall be primary. B. Commercial Automobile Liability (Owned, Scheduled, Non-Owned, or Hired Automobiles written at least as broad as Insurance Services Office Page 7 of 12 Agreement No.: 26-2007 Party to Agreement City of Chula Vista Board Date: May 8, 2007 Requesting Department: Harbor Police 12-11 Form Number CA 0001 with limits of no less than two million dollars ($2,000,000) per accident for bodily injury and property damage. C. Worker's Compensation in statutory required limits and Employer's Liability in an amount of not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) per accident for bodily injury or disease. This policy shall be endorsed to include a waiver of subrogation endorsement. Certificates of insurance for all the policies described above upon execution of this Agreement and upon renewal of any of these policies shall be provided by City and District to the other party. Except in the event of cancellation for non- payment of premium, in which case notice shall be 10 days, all such certificates shall indicate that the insurer must notify District in writing at least 30 days in advance of any change in, or cancellation of, coverage. Service Provider shall also provide notice to District prior to cancellation of, or any change in, the stated coverage of insurance. Each party reserves the right to request certified copies of any required insurance policies with reasonable notice. A sample certificate of insurance is shown in Exhibit C, incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 10. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR: City and any agent or employee of City shall act in an independent capacity and not as officers or employees of District. The District assumes no responsibility for taxes, bonds, payments or other commitments, implied or explicit by or for the City. City shall not have authority to act as an agent on behalf of the District unless specifically authorized to do so in writing. City acknowledges that it is aware that because it is an independent contractor, District is making no deductions from its fee and is not contributing to any fund on its behalf. City disclaims the right to any fee or benefits except as expressly provided for in this Agreement. Page 8 of 12 Agreement No.: 26-2007 Party to Agreement: City of Chula Vista Board Date: May 8. 2007 Requesting Department: Harbor Police 12-12 11. ADVICE OF COUNSEL: The parties agree that they are aware that they have the right to be advised by counsel with respect to the negotiations, terms and conditions of this Agreement, and that the decision of whether or not to seek the advice of counsel with respect to this Agreement is a decision which is the sole responsibility of each of the parties hereto. This Agreement shall not be construed in favor of or against either party by reason of the extent to which each party participated in the drafting of the Agreement. The formation, interpretation and performance of this Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. 12. INDEPENDENT REVIEW: Each party hereto declares and represents that in entering into this Agreement it has relied and is relying solely upon its own judgment, belief and knowledge of the nature, extent, effect and consequence relating thereto. Each party further declares and represents that this Agreement is being made without reliance upon any statement or representation not contained herein of any other party, or any representative, agent or attorney of any other party. 13. INTEGRATION AND MODIFICATION: This Agreement contains the entire Agreement between the parties and supersedes all prior negotiations, discussion, obligations and rights of the parties in respect of each other regarding the subject matter of this Agreement. There is no other written or oral understanding between the parties. No modifications, amendment or alteration of this Agreement shall be valid unless it is in writing and signed by the parties hereto. 14. TERMINATION: In addition to any other rights and remedies allowed by law, either party may terminate this Agreement at the end of a service year with or without cause by giving at least six (6) months written notice prior to the start of the next year of service to the other parties of such termination and specifying the effective date thereof. Agreement No.: 26-2007 Party to Agreement: City of Chula Vista Board Date: May 8, 2007 Requesting Department: Harbor Police Page 9 of 12 12-13 In that event, all finished or unfinished documents and other materials, in possession of City that are the property of District, at the option of District, shall be delivered by City to the Don L. Nay Port Administration Building (located at 3165 Pacific Highway, San Diego, California 92101). Termination of this Agreement by Executive Director (President/CEO) as provided in this paragraph shall release District from any further fee hereunder by City other than the fees earned for services which were performed prior to termination but not yet paid. Said fee shall be calculated and based on the schedule as provided in this Agreement. 15. DISPUTE RESOLUTION: If a dispute arises out of or relates to this Agreement, or the alleged breach thereof, and is not settled by direct negotiation or such other procedures as may be agreed, and if such dispute is not otherwise time barred, the parties agree to first try in good faith to settle the dispute amicably by mediation administered at San Diego, California, by the American Arbitration Association, or by such other provider as the parties may mutually select, prior to initiating any litigation or arbitration. Notice of any such dispute must be filed in writing with the other party within a reasonable time after the dispute has arisen. Any resultant Agreements shall be documented and may be used as the basis for an amendment or directive as appropriate. If mediation is unsuccessful in settling all disputes that are not otherwise time barred, and if both parties agree, any still unresolved disputes may be resolved by arbitration administered at San Diego, California, by the American Arbitration Association, or by such other provider as the parties may mutually select, provided, however, that the ArbitratiOn Award shall be non-binding and advisory only. Any resultant Agreements shall be documented and may be used as the basis for an amendment or directive as appropriate. On demand of the arbitrator or any party to this Agreement, subcontractor and all parties bound by this Page 10 of 12 Agreement No.: 26-2007 Party to Agreement: City of Chula Vista Board Date: May 8. 2007 Requesting Department: Harbor Police 12-14 arbitration provision agree to join in and become parties to the arbitration proceeding. 16. PAYMENT BY DISTRICT: Payment by the District pursuant to this Agreement does not represent that the District has made a detailed examination, audit, or arithmetic verification of the documentation submitted for payment by the City, made an exhaustive inspection to check the quality or quantity of the services performed by the City, made an examination to ascertain how or for what purpose the City has used money previously paid on account by the District, or constitute a waiver of claims against the City by the District. 17. CAPTIONS: The captions by which the paragraphs of this Agreement are identified are for convenience only and shall have no effect upon its interpretation. 18. SIGNATURE: It is an express condition of this Agreement that said Agreement shall not be complete nor effective until signed by the Executive Director (President/CEO) or Authorized Designee on behalf of the District and by the City Mayor or Authorized Designee of the City. 18.1 City shall submit all correspondence regarding this Agreement to the following District representative: Jeffrey B. McEntee, CFOlTreasurer Executive Offices San Diego Unified Port District P.O. Box 120488 San Diego, CA 92112-0488 (619) 686-6423 (619) 686-6547 fax Email: jmcentee@portofsandiego.org 18.2 District shall submit all correspondence regarding this Agreement to the following City representative: Page 11 of 12 Agreement No.: 26-2007 Party to Agreement: City of Chula Vista Board Date: May 8, 2007 Requesting Department: Harbor Police 12-15 Nadine Mandery, Treasury Manager City of Chula Vista Finance Department 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 (619) 691-5250 ext. 3116 - direct line (619) 585-5685 fax Email: nmandery@cLchula-vista.ca.us 18.3 Written notification to the other party shall be provided, in advance, of changes in the name or address of the designated representative. SAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT DISTRICT CITY OF CHULA VISTA Jeffrey B. McEntee CFO/Treasurer Cheryl Cox Mayor PORT ATTORNEY Attest: City Clerk Approved as to Form: City Attorney Page 12 of 12 Agreement No.: 26-2007 Party to Agreement: City of ehula Vista Board Date: May 8. 2007 Requesting Department: Harbor Police 12-16 EXHIBIT A 'I i. If II -. .- " .--- '" .J/ )1 :) .r- ;~ ~.:: , '" ---"',-.J' .-..: \ I L .... ,-- t ''-. ." .-- ,~ .... \ ", " i -- ...; ,. \ ~ ~,f. '\. .~, \\ L...____.1 , ... /l ,"-- ~....... ,?,'r - ,\ '\ . "'.;':L , ",","C"'j .~ r__ . -, -..- ~ ',," ....;:::' ~ ~\ I \--~ I I , ~j.. , ,\ (.i.:\' , ... ';, ..,' " .~ :~ 'r- '\J '0:" -'-'.----..- I r\ !\ "'\:i;i-O;' Z'l~~ ) ----"----- \ .....~- \ -." .. .. e, ~ i-,)' ~~~1~~ . . <{ I- sa > <{ ..J ::l ::z: U I.L. o >- I- U W ::z: I- Z (/) o z <{ ..J W o l- e" Z >- -<< 0.. X <{ I- Z o Z Agreement No.: 26-2007; Exhibit A Party to Agreement: City of Chula Vista Board Date: May 8, 2007 Requesting Department: Harbor Police 12-17 Page 1 of 1 Agreement No.: 26-2007; Exhibit B Party to Agreement: City of Chula Vista Board Date: May 8, 2007 Requesting Department: Harbor Police 12:"18 Page 1 of 1 EXHIBIT C CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE San Diego Unified Port District By signing this form, the authorized agent or broker certifies the following: (1) The Policy or Policies described below have been issued by the noted Insurer(s) [Insurance Company(ies)] to the Insured and is (are) in force at this time. (2) As required in the Insured's Agreement(s) with the District, the policies include, or have been endorsed to include, the coverages or conditions of coverage noted on page 2 of this certificate. (3) Signed copies of all endorsements issued to effect require coverages or conditions of coverage are attached to this certificate. Return this fonn to: San Diego Unified Port District Attn: Linda Wilkstrom, Audit, Risk Management & Safety P. O. Box 120488, San Diego, CA 92112-0488 FAX: 866-875-1993 Name and Address of Insured (Contractor or Vendor) SDUPD Agreement Number This certificate applies to all operations of named insureds property in connection with all Agreements between the District and Insured. CO LTR TYPE OF INSURANCE POLICY NO. DATES LIMITS Commercial General Liabilitv Commencement Date: Each Occurrence: 0 Occurrence Fonn 0 Claims-made Form $ Retro Date Expiration Date: General Aggregate: C Liquor Liability Deductible/SIR: $ $ Commercial Automobile Liability Commencement Date: Each Occurrence: 0 All Autos Expiration Date: $ 0 Owned Autos 0 Non-Owned & Hired Autos Workers Compensation - Statutory Commencement Date: E.L. Each Accident $ Employer's Liability Expiration Date: E.L. Disease Each Employee $ E.L. Disease Policy Limit $ Professional Liabillty Commencement Date: Each Claim 0 Claims Made Expiration Date: $ Retro-Active Date Excess/Umbrella Liability Commencement Date: Each Occurrence: $ Expiration Date: General Aggregate:$ CO LTR COMPANIES AFFORDING COVERAGE BEST'S RATING A B C D A. M. Best Financial Ratings of Insurance Companies Affording Coverage Must be A- VII or Better unless Approved in Writing by the District. Name and Address of Authorized Agent(s) or Broker(s) E-Mail Address: Phone: Fax Number: Signature of Authorized Agent(s) or Broker(s) Date: Page 1 of 2 Agreement No.: 26-2007; Exhibit C Party to Agreement City of Chula Vista Board Date: May 8. 2007 Requesting Department Harbor Police 12-19 ENDORSEMENT NO. EFFECTIVE DATE POLICY NO. NAMED INSURED: GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF AGREEMENT(S) AND/OR ACTIVITY(IES): All written Agreements, contracts and leases with the San Diego Unified Port District and/or any and all activities or work performed on district premises SAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT DISTRICT REQUIRED INSURANCE ENDORSEMENT All written Agreements, contracts, and leases with the San Diego Unified Port District and/or any and all activities or work performed on District owned premises. Notwithstanding any inconsistent statement in the policy to which this endorsement is attached or in any endorsement now or hereafter attached thereto, it is agreed as follows: 1. The San Diego Unified Port District, its officers, agents, and employees are additional insureds in relation to those operations, uses, occupations, acts, and activities described generally above, including activities of the named insured, its officers, agents, employees or invitees, or activities performed on behalf of the named insured. 2. Insurance under the policy(ies) listed on this endorsement is primary and no other insurance or self-insured retention carried by the San Diego Unified Port District will be called upon to contribute to a loss covered by insurance for the named insured. 3. The policy(ies) listed on this endorsement will apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability. 4. As respects the policy(ies) listed on this endorsement, with the exception of cancellation due to nonpayment of premium, thirty (30) days written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, will be given to the San Diego Unified Port District prior to the effective date of cancellation, change in coverage, reduction of limits or non-renewal. In the event of cancellation due to nonpayment of premium, ten (10) days written notice shall be given. Except as stated above, and not in conflict with this endorsement, nothing contained herein shall be held to waive, alter or extend any of the limits, Agreements or exclusions of the policy(ies) to which this endorsement applies. (NAME OF INSURANCE COMPANY) (SIGNATURE OF INSURANCE COMPANY AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE) MAIL THIS ENDORSEMENT AND NOTICES OF CANCELLATION, LIMIT REDUCTIONS, AND CHANGES IN COVERAGE TO: Return this form to: San Diego Unified Port District Attn: Linda Wilkstrom, Audit, Risk Management & Safety P. O. Box 120488, San Diego, CA 92112-0488 FAX: 866-875-1993 Agreement No.: 26-2007; Exhibit C Party to Agreement: City of Chula Vista Board Date: May 8, 2007 Requesting Department: Harbor Police Page 2 of 2 12-20 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT ~\'f:. efIY OF .~CHULA VISTA JUNE 5, 2007, Item~ SUBMITTED BY: REVIEWED BY: RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ALLOWING BEER, WINE, AND CHAMPAGNE BE SERVED AT MONTEVALLE RECREATION CENTER FOR THE BOARDS AND COMMISSION RECEPTION ON JUNE 18,2007. OFFICE OF MA YO~ COUNCIL-.Z)=z CITY MANAGER ;;' ITEM TITLE: 4/STHS VOTE: YES D NO ~ BACKGROUND On May 22, 2007 the Chula Vista City Council approved the second reading of an ordinance amending Section 2.66.040 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. Currently, the Municipal Code allows alcohol to be served at special events at three City owned recreation centers. The amendment added an additional three recreation centers to the existing centers that may serve alcohol. This resolution will allow beer, wine, and champagne to be served at the board and conunission reception at Montevalle Recreation Center on June 18, 2007, one of the newly included recreation centers, prior to the expiration of the thirty (30) day waiting period for the ordinance amendment to take. effect. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed activity for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the activity is not a "Project" as defined under Section 15378 of the State of CEQA Guidelines because it does not involve a physical change to the environment; therefore, pursuant to Section 15060(c)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines the activity is not subject to CEQA. Thus, no environmental review is necessary. RECOMMENDATION That Council approves the resolution. BOARDS/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Not Applicable 13-1 JJUNE 5, 2007, ItemJl Page 2 of2 DISCUSSION The City annually hosts an event to honor the many individuals who serve on, and devote countless hours of volunteer time to, Chula Vista's Boards and Commissions. This year that event will be held at Montevalle Recreation Center on June 18, 2007. Over the years, the number of persons on the City's Boards and Commissions has grown to such an extent that there are a limited number of venues in the city that can comfortably accommodate everyone. The Montevalle Recreation Center is of sufficient size to accommodate all board and commission members. It is customary to provide a no-host bar at Board and Commission receptions. In this event there is a non-City sponsor that will provide for wine service at no cost to the participants. The event caterer obtains all necessary state and City permits. The current ordinance that regulates the sale or serving of alcohol at special events is limited to three recreation facilities: Robr Manor, the Chula Vista Women's Club, and Norman Park Center. The newly adopted ordinance expands the list of permitted recreation facilities to include, Salt Creek Recreation Center, Veterans Park and Montevalle Park. However, the effective date of the change in the ordinance, which will allow for beer, wine, and champagne to be sold and served in these recreation centers, will not be effective until four days after the Boards and Commissions reception. This resolution allows the caterers to provide alcohol service at the reception without violating the existing ordinance. DECISION MAKER CONFLICT Staff has reviewed the property holdings of the City Council and has found no property holdings within 500 feet of the property which are the subject of this action. FISCAL IMPACT No Fiscal Impact ATTACHMENTS No Attachments Prepared by: Dan Forster, Chief of Staff, Mayor and Council 13-2 RESOLUTION 2007- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ALLOWING BEER, WINE, AND CHAMPAGNE BE SERVED AT MONTEVALLE RECREATION CENTER FOR THE BOARDS AND COMMISSION RECEPTION ON JUNE 18, 2007 WHEREAS, the City annually hosts an event to honor the many individuals who serve on, and devote countless hours of volunteer time to, Chula Vista's Board and Commissions; and WHEREAS, this year the event will be held at Montevalle Recreation Center on June 18,2007; and WHEREAS, it is customary to provide a no-host bar at Board and Commissions receptions; and WHEREAS, in this event there is a non-City sponsor that will provide for wine service at no cost to the participants; and WHEREAS, the current ordinance that regulates the sale or serving of alcohol at special events is limited to three recreation facilities: Rohr Manor, the Chula Vista Women's Club, and Norman Park Center; and WHEREAS, the newly adopted ordinance expands the list of permitted recreation facilities to include, Salt Creek Recreation Center, Veterans Park and Montevalle Park; and WHEREAS, the effective date of the change in the ordinance, which will allow for beer, wine and champagne to be sold and served in these recreation centers, will not be effective until four days after the Boards and Commissions reception; and WHEREAS, this resolution allows the caterers to provide alcohol service at the reception without violating the existing ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby allow beer, wine, and champagne to be served at Montevalle Recreation Center for the Boards and Commission Reception on June 18,2007. Presented by Approved as to form by 11'C\'i~~\:.'!:-~~\\ Ann Moore City Attorney Jim Thomson Interim City Manager J:\attomey\reso\policy\beer, wine & champagne reso 13-3 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT ~f::. ClIT OF ~--= CHULA VISTA 6/05/07, Item~ ITEM TITLE: PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER WAIVING MINOR IRREGULARITIES ON THE BID RECEIVED FOR THE "MOSS STREET SEWER IMPROVEMENTS AND STREET RECONSTRUCTION BETWEEN 300 FEET EAST OF BROADWAY TO COLORADO AVENUE (CIP NO. SW-233)" PROJECT PER CITY CHARTER SECTION 1009 RESOLUTION WAIVING IRREGULARITIES, ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR THE "MOSS STREET SEWER IMPROVEMENTS AND STREET RECONSTRUCTION BETWEEN 300 FEET EAST OF BROADWAY TO COLORADO AVENUE (CIP NO. SW-233)" PROJECT TO ORTIZ CORPORATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $730,733.00 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AN INTERPROJECT TRANSFER FROM EXISTING CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT STL-238 "PAVEMENT REHABILITATION PROGRAM" TO THE "MOSS STREET SEWER IMPROVEMENTS AND STREET RECONSTRUCTION BETWEEN 300 FEET EAST OF BROADWAY SW-233 IN THE AMOUNT OF $182,083 TO COMPLETE THE PROJECT AND AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF ALL AVAILABLE FUNDS IN THE PROJECT SUBMITTED BY: REVIEWED BY: DIRECTOR OF GENERAL SEg(CESGJ& INTERIM CITY MANAGER J' 4/5THS VOTE: YES ~ NO BACKGROUND On Wednesday, April 25 2007 at 2:00 p.m., the Director of General Services received thirteen (13) sealed bids for the "Moss Street Sewer Improvements and Street Reconstruction between 300 feet East of Broadway to Colorado Avenue. The Moss Street Sewer Improvements project will improve approximately 1800 linear feet of sewer pipe located under Moss Street between Broadway and Colorado Avenue. The street reconstruction will provide a new stable street section for all vehicles traveling on Moss Street. 14-1 6/5/07, Item 11- Page 2 of7 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 project qualifies for a Class 1 Categorical Exemption pursuant to Section 15301 (Existing Facilities) of the State CEQA Guidelines because the proposed project consists of minor alterations to an existing public facility involving no expansion of the facility's current use. Thus, no further environmental review is necessary. RECOMMENDATION 1. Council conduct the public hearing. 2. Council adopt the resolution waiving irregularities, accepting bids and awarding contract for the "Moss Street Sewer Improvements and Street Reconstruction between 300 feet east of Broadway to Colorado Avenue (CIP No. SW-233)" project to Ortiz Corporation in the amount of$730,733.00. 3. Council adopt the resolution authorizing inter-project transfer from the existing Capital Improvement Project STL-238 "Pavement Rehabilitation Program" to the "Moss Street Sewer Improvements and Street Reconstruction Between 300 Feet East of Broadway to Colorado Avenue project (CIP No. SW-233)" in the amount of $182,083.00 to complete the project and authorizing the expenditure of all available funds in the project. BOARDS/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Not applicable. DISCUSSION On Wednesday, April 25 2007 at 2:00 p.m., the Director of General Services received thirteen (13) sealed bids for the "Moss Street Sewer Improvements and Street Reconstruction between 300 feet East of Broadway to Colorado Avenue (CIP No. SW-233)" project. The Moss Street Sewer Improvements project will improve approximately 1800 linear feet of sewer pipe located under Moss Street between Broadway and Colorado Avenue. The street reconstruction will provide a new improved street section for vehicles traveling on Moss Street. While Moss Street is not a designated truck route, trucks routinely used Moss Street to deliver furniture and other personal items to the residents in the area. The work on Moss Street includes excavation and grading, driveways, curbs and gutters, asphalt concrete pavement reconstruction and overlay from the San Diego Metropolitan Transit System's right-of-way to 300 feet east of Broadway. The removal and disposal of certain existing improvements, traffic control, protection and restoration of the remaining existing improvements, other miscellaneous work, and all labor, material and equipment are also necessary for the project. The Moss Street Trunk Sewer is the main trunk line that serves properties located within the Telegraph Canyon Sewer Basin. The Telegraph Canyon Sewer Basin is bounded by "H" Street to the Northwest, Oxford Street to the Southwest and extends toward the eastern part of the City 14-2 6/5/07, Item ~ Page 3 of7 following East Palomar Street toward Hunte Parkway and Proctor Valley Road. The Moss Street sewer main was identified by the Sewer Master Plan as needing rehabilitation due to the increase wastewater flow through this section. In order to service the sewer needs in this basin, a new 12- inch diameter polyvinyl chloride (p.V.C.) sewer pipe is proposed to replace the existing 8-inch diameter vitrified clay pipe (VCP) sewer pipe. The existing sewer lateral from the property lines will be reconnected to the new 12-inch sewer main once the new main has been placed. The duration of the project is expected to be less than 90 consecutive working days minus any holidays that may occur during the proj ect construction. In addition to the sewer main needing rehabilitation, the roadway on Moss Street is in need of reconstruction. To minimize the impact of these two tasks on the residences and businesses in the area, both tasks have been combined in one project. The project is located within the Montgomery Annexation Area. The first phase of the project will begin on the western end of Moss Street just before Colorado Avenue. A five-foot trench will be dug to remove the sewer main. The actual work to be done will be phased into small increments to allow the reopening of Moss Street during start of peak traffic hours. The scope of work will be to trench, remove the existing sewer main (two 3'or 4' sections), reconnect any sewer laterals, and backfill the open trenched area. The contractor has been instructed that traffic control set up may begin at 7:45 am, but no construction work will begin before 8:00 am and no work (construction) will extend beyond 3:00 pm with out approval of the City field inspector. If necessary, a steel plate will be placed on the roadway for the public's safety after contractor's working hours and Moss Street will be re-opened to through traffic in both directions. Work will proceed in this manner until the entire length (approximately 1800 feet) of the sewer main has been replaced. Some nighttime work will be scheduled for the work proposed across Broadway to minimize public inconvenience. This will limit the impact to residences and businesses within the area. The second phase of the project will also begin on the west end of Moss Street, just east of the Metropolitan Transit System's right-of-way. Due to the heavy vehicle traffic loads passing over Moss Street, the street has begun to rapidly deteriorate. The original design of Moss Street did not take into consideration heavy traffic loads. With out the proper pavement section to support these heavy loads, the life expectancy of Moss Street has begun to diminish quickly. In addition, the trenching operations from the first phase of this project will cause further deterioration of the condition of the existing pavement. To correct this deterioration, Moss Street will be reconstructed with a stronger base support. Similar to the sewer rehabilitation, the actual work to be done for the street reconstruction will be phased in small increments to limit the amount of closure on Moss Street. The Contractor is required to submit a detailed traffic control plan for both phases ofthe project. During both phases of the project, on-street parking will be curtailed within the project limits. Residents and businesses in the area will be given advance notice by the Contractor as to the actual construction start date. The Contractor will have 90 working days (not including Saturdays and Sundays) to complete both the sewer improvement work and the pavement reconstruction work. An information item will be sent to Council and a public notice will be sent to residents and businesses directly affected by the project once the exact details of the Moss Street closure are finalized. 14-3 6/5/07, Item 1L Page 4 of 7 PROJECT BID RESULTS The City of Chula Vista's General Services Department prepared the plans, contract documents and technical specifications for the "Moss Street Sewer Improvements and Street Reconstruction between 300 feet east of Broadway and Colorado Avenue" CIP project. City staff also prepared and advertised the project for bidding. Staff received and opened bids on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 at 2:00 p.m. The lowest responsive bidder for the project was based on the contractor who submitted all required documents detailed in the contract documents and who submitted the lowest base bid for the project construction. Bids from the thirteen (13) contractors were received as follows (Bids sorted by the base bid amount): CONTRACTOR BASE BID 1. Ortiz Corporation-Chula Vista $730,733.00 2. Zondiros Corporation- San Marcos $976,939.00 3. Metropolitan Construction- Spring Valley $1,048,464.25 4. MJC Construction-Bonita $1,048,896.00 5. Southland Paving, Inc.- Escondido $1,061,337.60 6. Koch-Armstrong Gen. Eng., Inc.- Lakeside $1,075,062.55 7. Hazard Construction Company-San Diego $1,070,386.50 8. Portillo Concrete, Inc.- Lemon Grove $1,124,890.00 9. New Century Construction, Inc.-Lakeside $1,149,240.00 10. Burtech Pipeline, Inc. - Encinitas $1,276,044.00 11. Tri-Group Cons! and Develop, Inc.-Poway $1,299,186.00 12. HTA Engineering & Const., Inc.-Poway $ I ,486,011.00 13. ABC Construction Co., llc.-San Diego $1,598,069.00 After reviewing the bid documents, staff discovered a discrepancy with Ortiz Corporation's grand total bid amount. The amount submitted was $730,733.00. When staff reviewed all bid items, the corrected grand total was $730,773 a difference of $40.00. This base bid is $246,206 less than the second lowest bidder. In consultation with the City Attorney's office, staff determined that the irregularity was insignificant and that the City could proceed with the award process to Ortiz Corporation based on the City Charter Section 1009 that states, "The City Council may waive any defects in any bid to the extent it finds at a public hearing held for that purpose that it is necessary to do so for the benefit of the public." The public hearing for these items was held tonight and staff believes that this action would benefit the City in the form of saving the City nearly $250,000. The irregularity was not an error in the Contractor's calculation, rather an irregularity by the person transcribing the total to the bid schedule. The low bid from Ortiz Corporation is below 14-4 6/5/07, Item ~ Page 5 of7 the Engineer's estimate of $907,185.50 by $176,452.50 or approximately 19%. While it is unusual that a bid comes in 19% lower than the Engineer's estimate, the construction environment has been unpredictable for the past six months. Staff believes that the low price is consistent with the slow down of new development. A larger number of contractors are bidding on a smaller number of projects. The Engineer's estimate was prepared by City staff and was based on average unit prices for similar types of work completed recently. City staff will incorporate the unit price bid results received into a database for future project cost estimates. General Services staff checked the references that the Contractor submitted. This Contractor has done previous work for the City and all work was found to be satisfactory. All references checked were verified and references confirmed that the Contractor's work has been satisfactory. The Contractor's License Number is 602454 and is clear and current. Disclosure Statement . Attachment I is a copy of the contractor's Disclosure Statement. Wage Statement The source of funding for this project is Transnet and Trunk Sewer Capital Reserve funds. Contractors bidding this project were not required to pay prevailing wages to persons employed by them for the work under this project. Disadvantaged businesses were encouraged to bid by sending the Notice to Contractors to various trade publications. DECISION MAKER CONFLICT Staff has reviewed the property holdings of the City Council and has found no property holdings within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property which is the subject of this action. FISCAL IMPACT In May 2004, the City's engineering consultant (PBS&J) submitted a series of Draft Wastewater Master Plan Technical Memorandums to the City. These drafts included recommendations for Capital Improvement Projects; Sewer Capacity Evaluations of Land Use Alternatives being considered as part of the General Plan Update; a Pump Station and Facilities Assessment Report; and a Wastewater Generation Analysis. These studies identified several reaches of the collection system that had capacity constraints and recommended the required improvements. Moss Street between Colorado Avenue and Oaklawn Avenue appeared in this report with a recommendation to increase the existing 8-inch sewer main to a lO-inch sewer. During that time, Moss Street also appeared on the City's Street Rehabilitation list. Staff proceeded to take a proactive role to resolve the problems existing on Moss Street. Because the Wastewater Master Plan Technical Memorandums to the City were only in draft form, staff began an analysis to evaluate PBS&J's recommendation to replace the existing 8-inch sewer main in Moss Street. This analysis examined the sewer main between Broadway and Oaklawn Avenue and between Colorado Avenue and Oaklawn Avenue. The sewer study did verify PBS&J's recommendation and validate the need for improvements. However, staff's review of the analysis also recommended additional improvements to the sewer main. The project scope was expanded to encompass the new findings. The existing 8-inch sewer main would now be replaced with a 12-inch sewer main and the improvements would run from Colorado A venue to Broadway. 14-5 6/5/07, Item 14 Page 6 of7 In May of 2004, the City was also in the process of preparing the contract documents for the street rehabilitation. The street rehabilitation project was to facilitate the placement of asphalt concrete overlay within the above stated portion of Moss Street. To provide time for the development of the new 12-inch sewer main, the Moss Street overlay from Fifth Avenue was halted 300 feet east of Broadway. City staff also used this time to study why the pavement has deteriorated to its present state. Several street cores were taken and the soils underneath the pavement of Moss Street were examined. It was determined after the analysis of core and observation of Moss Street that a new street section was needed. If the City continued with its planned rehabilitation method of an overlay, the same street conditions would materialize within a few years. The decision was made to reconstruct Moss Street with a new sub-grade to add support for the vehicle traffic on the street. The final scope of the Moss Street Sewer Improvements has now expanded to over 1800 linear feet of new 12-inch sewer main and over 3000 cubic yards of soil is to be removed and replaced with crushed aggregate base. On top of all this 2,250 tons of new asphalt was needed to replace the existing pavement. In addition six pedestrian ramps have been designed and will be installed with this project. Approval of tonight's resolution will authorize City staff to expend all available funds and increase the value of the contract as necessary due to unforeseen circumstances. Unforeseen circumstances (i.e. poor sub-grade, utility conflicts, increase of dig-out quantities, increase in concrete quantities, etc.) may cause an increase in quantities beyond what was anticipated during the preparation of the project specifications. A typical "unforeseen circumstance" situation occurs during the road rehabilitation process as pavement distress areas are examined and repaired. Oftentimes, additional areas are repaired beyond what is anticipated due to the failing area increasing in size. As a result, additional material is required to repair the areas and may lead to a necessary "Change Order" to the contract. This is a typical situation with all pavement rehabilitation projects. Furthermore, all underground projects have a level of risk due to the unknown challenges that could be encountered under the surface. With a pavement reconstruction project this risk is magnified because it is a complete removal of the top two to three feet of the street. Therefore, because of this large potential for unknowns, a large contingency amount has been set aside for emergency use during the construction of this project. In addition, per record drawings the sewer system under Broadway drops more than 25 feet from the street level. The contingency will help mediate any field modifications that may be required to complete the improvements. According to City Council Policy No. 574-01, if a change order exceeds the cumulative contract change order aggregate amount allowable to be approved by the Director of Public Works Operations, City Council approval is required. Under said City Council Policy the amount would be $54,151. However, approval of tonight's resolution will increase the Director of Public Works Operations' authority to approve change orders as necessary up to the contingency amount of$235,000, an increase in the Director of Public Works Operations change order authority of $180,849. Any appropriated funds not needed for this project will be made available for other pavement rehabilitation projects. There are currently sufficient available funds in the project to complete the sewer improvements. With the appropriation of $182,083.00, the pavement reconstruction within the "Moss Street Sewer Improvements and Street Reconstruction (CIP No. SW-233)" project shall be adequate to fund the completion of both phases of the project construction. In addition, a Staff Resource Implementation Summary has been provided as Attachment 2. 14-6 6/5/07, ItemJL Page 7 of7 FUNDS REQUIRED FOR PROJECT A. Contract Amount $730,733.00 B. Contingencies (32% of contact amount) $235,000.00 C. Staff Time Cost (approx %age of total): Construction Inspection (12%) $190,000.00 Design/Construction Management (20%) $320,000.00 Survey Work (2%) $40,000.00 Planning/EnvironmentaI/Traffic/Landscape/Public Works (2 %) $35,000.00 Soil Testing and Study (2%) $40,000.00 TOTAL FUNDS REQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION $1,590,733.00 FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR CONSTRUCTION A. Trunk Sewer Capital Reserve Funds $408,650.00 B. Transportation Sales Tax (TransNet) $1,000,000.00 C. Interproject Transfer from STL-238 (Pavement Rehabilitation) $182,083.00 TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR CONSTRUCTION $1,590,733.00 Upon completion of the project, the improvements will require only routine City maintenance. ATTACHMENTS I - Contractor's Disclosure Statement 2 - Staff Resource Implementation Summary Prepared by: Roberto Yano, Sr. Civil Engineer, General Services Department M:\General Services\GS Administration\Council Agenda\SW233\SW233 Agenda Rev 052307 (3).doc 14-7 ATTACHMENT / CITY OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Pursuant to Council Policy 101-0 I, prior to any action upon matters that will require discretionary action by the Council, Planning Commission and all other official bodies of the City, a statement of disclosure of certain ownership or financial interests, payments, or campaign contributions for a City of Chula Vista election must be filed. The following information must be disclosed: I. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the property that is the subject of the application or the contract, e.g., owner, applicant, contractor, ~ontractor, material supplier. ~fJJ)Jff) e. (Jnl? 'yf;CS{D(~r 18f7tSIA f). DU(Z-- S~ flk~ 2. If any person" identified pursuant to (I) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all individuals with a $2000 investment in the business (corporation/partnership) entity. ~Sk/I{j) G DIU((7 ~JJ~tD60-T 1,;,17""'4 0. Od%(7 '5R- 1UTt1tfL',/ 3. If any person" identified pursuant to (I) above is a non-profit organization or trust, list the names of any person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust. / 4. Please identify every person, including any agents, employees, consultants, or independent contractors you have assigned to represent you before the City in this matter. ~ 5. Has any person" associated with this contract had any [mancial dealings with an official"" fYhe City ofChula Vista as it relates to this contract within the past 12 months? Yes_ NO-4- 17 M:\General Services\DesignISW233\SW233 _CONTRACT _R17.doc1 4- 8 If Yes, briefly describe the nature of the financial interest the officia!"" may have in this contract. 6. Have you made a contribution of more than $~~ within the past twelve (12) months to a current member of the Chula Vista City Council? No X Yes _ If yes, which Council member? 7. Have you provided more than $340 (or an item of equivalent value) to an official*" of the City ofChula Vista in the past twelve (12) months? C\o/includes being a source of income, money to retire a legal debt, gift, loan, etc.) Yes _ No L If Yes, which official * * and what was the nature of item provide~ ~:, /J , /'f - CJ Date: +/l4~ ~ -( tJm 7 dJ A:fU1t::jUt) ~ . f1..i/Z- P;;jPt or type name of CAntractorf Applicant r( if~ D. 6)/lr/Z- * Person is defined as: any individual, firm, co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, any other county, city, municipality, district, or other political subdivision, -or any other group or combination acting as a unit: ** Official includes, but is not limited to: Mayor, Council member, Planning Commissioner, Member of a board, commission, or committee of the City, employee, or staff members. 18 M:\General Services\Design\SW233\SW233 _CONTRACT _ RI7 .doc 14-9 ATTAl.. ,,,t:i\fi. z, STAFF RESOURCE IMPLEMENTATION Project :Moss Street Sewer Improvements The general scope of the project involves the installation of a new P.V.c. sewer pipe, removal and replacement of an 8-inch and 10-inch VCP sewer main with a new 12-inch PVC sewer main along Moss Street, between 300' East of Broadway and Colorado Avenue. In addition, The scope of work also consists of pavement rehabilitation of Moss Street within the same limits identified above using Asphalt Concrete (AC) pavement. The project also involves the following: reconnection of 4-inch, 6-inch sewer lateral wye/tee connection to new 12 inch sewer main as shown on the plans, rehabilitation of sewer bases, relocation of existing manholes, reconstruction of manhole base, installation of new manholes, and other related work. This project also includes the following: striping, installation of pedestrian ramps, sidewalks, curb and gutter, and storm drain inlet tops with bio-filters, placement of geo-grid, cold milling, AC pavement overlay, traffic control, striping and marking, and other miscellaneous items of work are also part of this project. 1) Project Management $112.000.00 Budget: The budget is first analyzed for contractibility from design to construction. Staff time for design, survey, right-of-way, environmental processing and others. This budgent is monitored continually and documented for future Staff time refinement. Metropolitan Transit System Coordinations: Coordination with MTS for working near MTS right-of-way. Explore alternative to minimize construction impact Department Coordination Construction Survey: Identify infrastructure and digitized information & quality control (QC). Construction Inspectiou: Conference for different construct ability methods & QC and Quality Assurance. Traffic Engineering Coordination: Sample traffic control and detour discussed Public Works Operations: Discussed future maintenance of proposed facilities Processing/Council Agenda preparation: This project involved City ordinance research and coordination with City attorneys. Utilities Company Coordination: Coordination with Utility Companies to eliminate infrastructure conflict with utility facilities. Sweetwater Authority: Water Authority constructed new line and required water valve relocation on Moss Street Identify location for valve adjustment: Identify utility conflict. Coordination with Authority's new water line installation: Coordination with new and future installation of water service. Relocation of utilities services: Provide solution for any conflicts. San Diego Gas and Electric: Exact location of SDG&E facilities unknown. Location of utilities services: Identify utility conflict and impacts. identify utilities services adjustments: Coordinate new requirements Relocation of ntilities services: Resolved facilities relocation. 14-10 Chula Vista Cable Company: Location of utilities services: Identify utility conflict. AT&T: Location of AT&T facilities Location of utilities services: Identify utility conflict and impacts. Identify utilities services adjustments: Coordinate new requirements Relocation of utilities services: Resolved facilities relocation. Cox Cable San Diego, Inc: Exact location of Cox Cable facilities unlmown. Location of utilities services: Identify conflict. Identify utilities services adjustments: Coordinate new requirements Relocation of utilities services: Resolved facilities relocation. 2) Desil!n $208.000.00 Improvement Plans: The plans are road maps for the construct ability of the project. The construction process is mentally executed and any foreseen hazards are eliminated. Analysis of Survey Points: Survey crew is sent out to gather data to physical locations of existing improvements. These points are tied to real world coordinate systems. Base Drawing Creation: With the survey points, existing infrastructure is laid out. Research is conducted to identify the infrastructure of both seen and unseen facilities. Often times, pot holing is done to verify underground facilities. Street Centerline Alignment and Profile: In order to locate proposed improvements, street centerline alignment is created to identify a common reference point for everything (existing and proposed infrastructure) indicated on the plan sheets will be associated with this alignment. Proposed Sewer Alignment and ProfIle: With the existing improvements and limitations to design standard, a new proposed alignment is created. From this alignment the sewer profile is created and analyzed for functionality. North and South AC Berm Alignment: The proposed berm alignment is created and analyzed to follow the roadway down Moss St. South Curb and Gutter Alignment: The proposed curb alignment is created and analyzed to follow the roadway down Moss St. and the storm water flow is check with the proposed gutter alignment. Storm Drain Alignment: Storm water flow IS checked with existing storm drain for functionality. Utilities Relocation Verification: Location of new utilities and conflicts with City's proposed improvements are investigated. Pedestrian Ramp (6) Profile: Six pedestrian ramps are design to meet ADA standards and existing improvements Street Cross Section (14 Sheets): Cross fall is check with exiting improvements, proposed berm alignment, proposed curb and gutter alignment as well as the functionality to centerline alignment. 2 14-11 Striping Plans: Traffic flow and public safety is re-analyzed. Traffic Control Detour Plans: Planned detours are analyzed for each construction phase. Specification & Contract: Special instructions to the Contractor are written and public safety and utilities protection is written in to specification. Quality Control is cheeked for construct ability. Improvement plans (14 Sheets): Each construction phase IS laid out and plotted. Quality Control is cheeked for construction. Sewer and Storm Drain Stndy: Documentation of analysis is written for project record keeping. Modification and design criteria are detailed. Pavement and Soil Stndy: Soil study is required to correct failure and proper street structure construction is examined. Water Qnality Technical Report: Water quality is maintained and documented during pre- construction, the construction and post construction. Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan: Protection management plan for storm drains during construction Employee Training Staff Development: First project for designer of this type. He was paired with other designers for mentoring and to allow him to develop in new areas. M:\General Services\GS Administration\Council Agenda\SW233\STAFF RESOURCE IMPLEMENTATION r2.doc 3 14-12 RESOLUTION NO. 2007- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA WAIVING IRREGULARITIES, ACCEPTING BIDS AND A WARDING CONTRACT FOR THE "MOSS STREET SEWER IMPROVEMENTS AND STREET RECONSTRUCTION BETWEEN 300 FEET EAST OF BROADWAY TO COLORADO AVENUE (CIP NO. SW-233)" PROJECT TO ORTIZ CORPORATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $730,733.00 WHEREAS, City staff has prepared specifications for the "Moss Street Sewer Improvements and street reconstruction between 300 feet east of Broadway to Colorado Avenue in the City ofChula Vista, California" project and advertised the project; and WHEREAS, On April 26, 2007, the Director of General Services received thirteen (13) sealed bids for the "Moss Street Sewer Improvements and street reconstruction between 300 feet east of Broadway to Colorado Avenue in the City ofChula Vista, California" project; and WHEREAS, Section 1009 of the City Charter allows the City Council to waive minor irregularities in a bid if the irregularities will benefit the City of Chula Vista; and WHEREAS, Ortiz Corporation made a minor error of $40.00 in their submitted bid of $730,733.00 and Ortiz Corporation is 19% below the Engineer's estimate of$907,185.50; and WHEREAS, the next lowest bidder, Zondiros Corporation submitted a bid for $246,206.00 above the Ortiz Corporation bid to construct the "Moss Street Sewer Improvements and Street Reconstruction between 300 feet East of Broadway to Colorado A venue in the City of Chula Vista, California" project; and WHEREAS, staff recommends waiving the irregularity of Ortiz Corporation bid and awarding the "Moss Street Sewer Improvements and street reconstruction between 300 feet east of Broadway to Colorado A venue in the City of Chula Vista, California" project to Ortiz Corporation in the amount of$730,733.00; and WHEREAS, staff has verified the references provided by the contractor and the contractor has performed previous work for the City of Chula Vista and their work has been satisfactory; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and has determined that the project qualifies for a Class I categorical exemption pursuant to Section 15301 of the State CEQA Guidelines; and 14-13 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby accept bids, waive the minor irregularity of the bid, and award a contract in the amount of $730,733.00 for the "Moss Street Sewer Improvements and Street Reconstruction Between 300 Feet East of Broadway to Colorado Avenue (SW-233) in the City of Chula Vista, California" to Ortiz Corporation of Chula Vista, California. Presented by Approved as to form by t\\(\ \'V-cl\~~~\& Ann Moore . . City Attorney Jack Griffin Director of General Services 14-14 RESOLUTION NO. 2007- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AUTHORIZE AN INTERPROJECT TRANSFER IN THE AMOUNT OF $182,083 TO THE "MOSS STREET SEWER IMPROVEMENTS AND STREET RECONSTRUCTION BETWEEN 300 FEET EAST OF BROADWAY TO COLORADO AVENUE (CIP NO. SW-233)" PROJECT TO COMPLETE THE PROJECT WHEREAS, City staff has prepared specifications for the "Moss Street Sewer Improvements and street reconstruction between 300 feet east of Broadway to Colorado Avenue in the City ofChu1a Vista, California" project; and WHEREAS, unforeseen circumstances may cause an increase in the estimated amount of time beyond what labor and materials is anticipated during preparation of the project specification and all underground projects have a level of risk of cost increase due to the unknown challenges that may be encountered under the street surface; and WHEREAS, staff recommends an interproject transfer from existing capital improvement project STL-238 "Pavement Rehabilitation Program" to the "Moss Street Sewer Improvements and Street Reconstruction Between 300 Feet East of Broadway to Colorado Avenue (SW-233) in the amount of $182,083 to complete the project; and WHEREAS, the STL-238 "Pavement Rehabilitation Program" has sufficient funds to transfer $182,083 to the "Moss Street Sewer Improvements and Street Reconstruction Between 300 Feet East of Broadway to Colorado Avenue (SW-233); and WHEREAS, approval of tonight's resolution will increase the Director of Public Works Operations' authority to approve change orders as necessary and authorize the expenditure of all available funds in the proj ect; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby authorize an interproject transfer in the amount of $182,083 for the "Moss Street Sewer Improvements and Street Reconstruction Between 300 Feet East of Broadway to Colorado Avenue (SW-233) in the City of Chula Vista, California" and increase the Director of Public Works Operation's authority to approve changes orders as necessary to construct the "Moss Street Sewer Improvements and Street Reconstruction Between 300 Feet East of Broadway to Colorado Avenue (SW-233) in the City ofChula Vista. Presented by Approved as to form by ~~~~\\ Ann Moore City Attorney Jack Griffin Director of General Services 14-15 ITEM TITLE: SUBMITTED BY: REVIEWED BY: COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item No.: 15 Meeting Date: OhlO~107 PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit (PCC- 07-063) for Championship Off-Road Racing (CORR) June 8-10 and September 28-30,2007, Rock Mountain Quarry land adjacent to the Otay River Valley - Applicant: James Baldwin, owner of Championship Off- Road Racing (CORR). RESOLUTION: Resolution of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation and Monitoring Program, 1S-07-030, and granting a Conditional Use Permit, PCC-07-063, to conduct off-road racing events on a temporary off-road racetrack on a portion of the Rimrock Rock Mountain Quarry, located off of Heritage Road and adjacent to the Otay River Valley - James Baldwin, owner of Championship Off-Road Racing (CORR). Director OfPl~ and Buildin<> ~ City Manager ;j/ ~4/5thS Vote: Yes _ No --X....) James Baldwin, owner of Championship Off-Road Racing (CORR), has applied for a Conditional Use Permit for two temporary off-road racing events on June 8-10 and September 28-30,2007. Aside from the new location in the Rock Mountain Quarry, these racing events will be the same as the four temporary racing event weekends conducted in 2006 and two conducted in 2005 in Otay Ranch Village Two. Race days will be Saturdays and Sundays with events scheduled from 7:00 a.m. - 7:00 p.m. The sale of alcoholic beverages is requested during the races until prior to the last race. On the Fridays and race day events, the racetrack will be open from 10 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. for practice and qualifying. The site plan proposes that grandstands and race pit areas south of a temporary racetrack built within the Rock Mountain Quarry. The agricultural fields of the undeveloped Otay Ranch Village Three are proposed to provide the public parking lot areas, with access from Energy Way. A fee will be required at the entrance to the parking lot areas separate from the admission ticket. A 27-acre camping area is proposed in the area shown in the General Plan as the western Active Recreation area in the Otay River Valley. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution approving Conditional Use Permit PCC-07-063 in accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Planning Commission The Planning Commission met on May 23, 2007 and voted 4-3-0-0 to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit. 15-1 Page 2, Item: ,6 Meeting Date: OIiIO~/07 Three Planning Commissioners voted against the proposal citing concerns about the adequacy of the environmental mitigation measures to address the potential impacts of the off-road races. Another concern was raised about what the net economic benefit would be to the community. All of the Planning Commission members expressed concerns about the short amount of time allotted for the review of the project, since the final approval must be granted only three days prior to the first racing event weekend. Resource Conservation Commission The Resource Conservation Commission (RCC) found that the Mitigated Negative Declaration "insufficient" (or inadequate) by a vote of (4-2-0-1). Therefore, the RCC did not recommend adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration at their May 7, 2007 meeting. The RCC's action was generally based on a determination that the proposed project was not an appropriate use within the Otay River valley, or adjacent to the surrounding sensitive preserve areas. Several RCC members expressed their concerns that allowing this type of use within this area would set a precedent that could make future planning efforts within the OVRP more difficult. The Commission also felt that the proposed race offered no net benefit to the community and if they were to recommend approval of this project, they would not be fulfilling their commitment to protect the valuable resources offered within this area. Several RCC members also expressed general concerns related to the adequacy of the MND and validity of the supporting technical information. The RCC was concerned that baseline noise conditions were not sufficiently substantiated and that the monitoring locations did not accurately reflect where race related activities would occur in relation to adjacent Preserve areas. RCC also raised concerns with the June race and its potential to impact sensitive biological resources during the breeding season. The Otay Valley Regional Park Citizens Advisory Committee and the Policy Committee The Otay Valley Regional Park (OVRP) Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) held a meeting on April 25, 2007, and the Otay Valley Regional Park (OVRP) Policy Committee (PC) held a meeting on April 26, 2007 to discuss the proposed racing events. A sub-committee consisting of CAC/PC members was formulated to address the CORR Off- Road Race application. This Committee held a meeting on May 4, 2007 and by a vote of 5-2 recommended approval of the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the 2007 Championship Off- Road Race to the OVRP CAC. The OVRP CAC held a meeting on May 18,2007 and by a vote of 11-4 recommended approval of the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the 2007 Championship Off-Road Race to the OVRP PC. The OVRP Committees recommend their approvals with conditions to (1) adhere to all mitigation measures set forth in the final version of the MND, (2) monitor and measure current 15-2 \r Page 3, Item: ,':J Meeting Date: Ofi/O~/07 baseline conditions of sound, air and water before and during racing events, and (3) that the recommendation not be construed to be an endorsement of a future temporary or permanent racing events. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and has conducted an Initial Study, IS-07-030 in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Based upon the results of the Initial Study, the Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that the project could result in significant effects on the environment. However, revisions to the project made by or agreed to by the applicant would avoid or mitigate the effects to below significance; therefore, the Environmental Review Coordinator has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration, IS-07-030. DISCUSSION: 1. Project Background Championship Off-Road Racing (CORR) has occurred within the City over the past two years on a temporary racetrack that was constructed on the Otay Ranch Village Two project site, subject to Conditional Use Permits (CUP) issued in 2005 and 2006 for two weekend and four weekend racing events in 2005 and 2006, respectively. CORR representatives met with staff on November 8, 2006 about a proposal to conduct racing . events within the Otay Valley Regional Park's eastern Active Recreation Area (under the Otay Valley River SR-125 Tollway Bridge, currently under construction). This proposal was strongly discouraged by both the Federal Fish & Wildlife and State Fish & Game agencies in a meeting held in December 2006, where the agencies recommended use of the Rock Mountain Quarry. CORR representatives met with staff about use of the Rock Mountain Quarry project site on January 31, 2007. At that meeting, staff pointed out that issues related to the impact on the MSCP Preserve and Otay Valley Regional Park (OVRP) would need to be resolved to ensure that there would be the appropriate amount of time for all parties, including the Federal Fish & Wildlife, State Fish & Game, and the OVRP Citizen's Advisory Committee (CAC) and Policy Committee (PC) to review the application. Staff held meetings on March 7, 2007 with the Federal Fish & Wildlife and State Fish & Game agencies, and on April 18th with the OVRP City and County of San Diego staff to facilitate the applicant's presentation of their project. On April 25th, City staff met with the OVRP Citizen's Advisory Committee (CAC), on April 26th with the OVRP Policy Committee (PC), and on May 4th with the OVRP Trails Sub-Committee. The Resource Conservation Commission met on May 7,2007 regarding the project. 15-3 Page 4, Item: IS Meeting Date: Oh/O~/07 2. Project Site Setting The Rock Mountain Quarry is a I 50-acre site located due east of Main Street, where it turns into the alignment of Heritage Road, where vehicles veer right to enter the Coors Amphitheatre and Knott's Soak City. The Rock Mountain Quarry access road generally forms the southern border of the proposed track/pit/grandstand area, with the Otay River located south and Wolf Canyon to the west. Surrounding land uses include the active portion of the Rock Mountain Quarry to the immediate north and Open Space/Preserve areas to the immediate east, south, and west. Land uses within the general vicinity of the project site include the future Otay Ranch Village Three and the Otay Landfill to the northwest, developed residential uses within the City of San Diego to the south, and the Coors Amphitheater and Knott's Soak City Water Park to the southwest. The rock quarry site has been fully disturbed by ongoing aggregate mining and processing operations. Current mining operations include rock drilling, blasting, resource extraction and processing, stockpiling of construction aggregate and waste products. The racetrack area is sited within the rock quarry to avoid direct impact to sensitive biological resources. Technically, the southern portion of the racetrack project area is located within the preserve area of the City's MSCP Subarea Plan, but this area has been part of the overall rock quarry area that was fully disturbed years ago as a result of an unauthorized encroachment by the former quarry operator. The Rock Mountain Quarry Reclamation Plan includes a restoration plan to restore this area within 25 years back to a level consistent with the adjacent undisturbed preserve areas to the south. The proposed parking is located on the future Village Three Industrial land area, and the proposed camping is located on one of the Open Space Active Recreation areas of the Otay river valley with the Otay Valley Regional Park. 3. General Plan Land Use and Zoning General Plan The 2005 General Plan Update land use designations for the project site include "Open Space" (Non-Preserve) for the racetrack, grandstands and pit areas and VIP parking areas. The public parking areas are designated "Industrial," and the camping area is designated "Open Space Active Recreation." The VIP parking area, pit area, track, and grandstands are fully located within the existing boundaries of the Otay Ranch Quarry Reclamation Plan further described in the sub-section below regarding the Otay Ranch Rock Mountain Quarry Reclamation Plan. The proposed public parking is an allowable use within an Industrial land use designated area, and the proposed camping in the Open Space Active Recreation land use designation is one of the intended uses within this area. These uses are considered temporary under the Conditional Use Permit application. These temporary uses are consistent with the General Plan. 15-4 Page 5, Item: 10 Meeting Date: OIi/O<;!07 Otay Ranch General Development Plan The Otay Ranch GDP identifies the boundaries of the parcel containing the Rock Mountain Quarry as "Not a Part." The proposed public parking areas for the project are land designated for industrial use in Village Three, and the camping area is shown as Open Space Active Recreation. The parking and camping areas are consistent land uses with the General Development Plan land use designations. The temporary racetrack, parking and camping uses are consistent with the Otay Ranch General Development Plan. Of note, a SPA Plan has been prepared for Otay Ranch Villages Two, Three and portion of Village Four, and the public parking area is located within the Village Three development planning area. The SPA Plan shows Village Three as an area being planned for industrial and open space uses. Otay Ranch Rock Mountain Quarry Reclamation Plan The Otay Ranch Pit has operated since the 1940's, and the Reclamation Plan was prepared in accordance with the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) of 1975, and approved by the County of San Diego in 1980. The reclamation plan details (1) the beginning and expected ending dates for each phase of mining activities; (2) all reclamation activities required; (3) criteria for measuring completion of specific reclamation activities; and (4) estimated costs for completion of each phase of reclamation. The total land area in the adopted Reclamation Plan is 1 57-acres. The Reclamation Plan describes the ultimate reclamation of the Rock Mountain Quarry to occur in a manner that would facilitate future development consistent with the City's General Plan. The adopted reclamation plan includes a biological restoration plan designed to reclaim previously disturbed Preserve areas back to a level consistent with the surrounding undisturbed open space Preserve areas. Reclamation of the disturbed Preserve areas is not scheduled to occur until the completion of extraction activities, which is approximately 25 years from now. Given the temporary, short-term nature of the project, no adverse impacts are anticipated that would prevent the ultimate reclamation of this site as detailed in the currently approved Reclamation Plan. The VIP parking area, pit area, racetrack, and grandstands are fully located within the existing boundaries of the Otay Ranch Quarry Reclamation Plan. In April 2006, the State Mining and Geology Board amended the original site reclamation plan approved by the County of San Diego in 1980 to include areas that were disturbed by a former quarry operator as a result of on-going extraction operations. The amendments revised the reclamation plan boundaries to add approximately 38 acres of fully disturbed land near the Otay River but subtracted approximately 29 acres of undisturbed land 15-5 Page 6, Item: 6 Meeting Date: Ofi/O~/07 located within adjacent Wolf Canyon. The southern portion of the racetrack, pit areas and grandstands are within a portion of the 38 acres of disturbed land near the Otay River. Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Subarea Plan The Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Subarea Plan was prepared by the City of Chula Vista in coordination with the Federal and State Regulatory agencies in order to implement the MSCP Subregional Plan within the City of Chula Vista. The City Council adopted the MSCP Subarea Plan on May 13,2003. Subsequently, the Wildlife Agencies issued the City a Take Permit and signed the Implementing Agreement granting the City Take Authorization on January 11,2005. The existing quarry site is recognized by the City's MSCP Subarea Plan as a legal, non- conforming use, in operation at the time the underlying zone was established. As such, existing mining activities have continued to operate under legally existing permits. Otay Valley Regional Park Concept Plan The Cities of San Diego and Chula Vista, and the County of San Diego adopted the Otay Valley Regional Park (OVRP) Concept Plan in July 1997. The concept plan identifies active recreation areas that are not a part of the Preserve, but are surrounded by Preserve areas. The OVRP Concept Plan does not change existing zoning or planned land uses, or add new development regulations, nor does it preclude private development in designated recreation areas consistent with existing zoning or planned land uses. The temporary racetrack, parking and camping uses are consistent with the Otay Valley Regional Park Concept Plan. Zoning Current zoning for the site is Planned Community (PC). The proposed racing event activities can be conditionally permitted within the Planned Community (PC) Zone, through Zoning Code (19.54.020J-7). The proposed activity requires that a conditional use permit be considered by the Planning Commission and approved by the City Council. As a temporary use, the racetrack will not require any amendments to the Chula Vista General Plan, or the Otay Ranch GDP. 4. Project Description The proposed project is a temporary event involving off-road racing on a portion of the Rock Mountain Quarry located adjacent to the Otay River Valley, in addition to a portion of Otay Ranch Village Three for public parking and the western Active Recreation Area within the Otay River Valley for camping (See Attachment 1: Locator Map). The racing events will occur over two, non-consecutive weekends, June 8 - 10 and September 28 - 30, 2007. The off-road racetrack is proposed within the southern portion of the Rock Quarry 15-6 Page 7, Item: IS Meeting Date: OI'i/O~/07 that is no longer subject to resource extraction operations. Mining operations are not affected by the creation of this racetrack, but will not occur during the racing event weekends. Mining operations are ongoing within the boundaries of the Rock Mountain Quarry, and pursuant to the approved Reclamation Plan under the California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act, grading and leveling of the racetrack is being conducted under the Reclamation Plan. Site preparation will include installation of grandstands, security lighting and fencing, orange bio-fencing to restrict access to the City's MSCP Preserve, signage for sensitive habitat areas, and storm water BMPs. The project also includes 6-ft. high fencing in certain key areas to provide additional security and to further prevent unauthorized access to adjacent Preserve areas. The public parking will occur on the agricultural land within a portion of Otay Ranch Village Three. The vehicular entrance to this parking area will be from the cul-de-sac terminus of Energy Way, via Nirvana Road from Main Street. The other two access points to the project site will not be open to the general public but will provide access to the site for race teams, emergency vehicles, VIPs and campers. The first is the dirt road to the north of the Otay River off of Main Street, which will provide access to the racetrack, pit areas, and VIP parking areas. The second is the dirt road to the south of the Otay River off of Heritage Road, which will provide access to the camping area. Overnight camping is proposed within a parcel designated for "Active Recreation" within the City's General Plan. The City will provide fire, police and emergency services, and the event sponsors will cover all costs associated with additional service demands. A Traffic Control plan will be developed to facilitate arrival and departure from parking lot areas. Event-related activities include: I. Races on Saturdays and Sundays of event weekends. 2. Pre-race track trials and qualifications (Friday before event weekends) 3. Friday through Sunday overnight camping rn event weekends. 4. Event Parking. 5. Nighttime security lighting. 6. Limited Fireworks and Live Entertainment before, during and after race events. Noise attenuation is primarily provided by the existing terrain/topography on the north and east sides of the track area. Specifically, an approximate 15 foot-high shear rock face separates the track from the adjacent open space areas located to the north and east. In addition, a plywood barrier (or other approved material) will be mounted on the back of four grandstand structures, each measuring 234 feet in width and 60 feet in height. The thickness of the plywood would be a minimum Y:z inch. 15-7 ,- Page 8, Item: \"", Meeting Date: Oh/O~/07 The sale of alcoholic beverages is requested for approval as part of this Conditional Use Permit in conjunction with the required Alcohol and Beverage Control (ABC) permits, The Amusement and Entertaimnent Facilities use requirements allows for alcoholic beverages to be sold or consumed on the premises in conjunction with a restaurant, Through this conditional use permit the applicant is requesting permission to sell alcohol in conjunction with food vendors, 5. Staff Analysis R ::tr.p.tr~ek: The proposed site plan shows a racetrack, including the grandstands and pit areas within the Rock Mountain Quarry mining bowl adjacent to the revised southern boundary, Ideally the racetrack would be located more towards the middle of the quarry to attenuate noise, but mining operations are still underway at the center of the project site, However, the idea of locating the racetrack in the quarry addresses concerns that have been raised in the past two years about the impacts of an off-road racetrack on nearby residential areas at that site, The Otay Ranch Village Two temporary racetrack utilized in 2005 and 2006 was adjacent to the residential Otay Ranch Villages One, Five, Six and Seven, The nearest residential neighborhoods to the Rock Mountain Quarry are over a mile away in San Diego's Otay Mesa, to the south and west of Coors Amphitheatre and Knott's Soak City, PHrking: Approximately 7,440 public parking spaces will be available over approximately 76-acres of Otay Ranch Village Three, Access to the Village Three parking area will be provided via Energy Way to the west. Modifications to the Energy Way cul-de-sac include temporary replacement of the existing curb and chain link fence with an asphalt driveway and crushed gravel and/or rumble plates, The parking lots are currently agricultural fields that have been mowed, By maintaining the hay field roots, dust will be minimized in these designated parking areas; however, watering of the access driveways without gravel treatment and other parking areas will be required as a condition of approval to minimize dust created from spectator vehicles, rHmping: Overnight camping will be provided for up to 150 campsites on a 27-acre campsite within the Western Active Recreation area of the Otay Valley Regional Park, A shuttle bus will be provided to transport patrons from the camping area to the track area, Security will be provided in the camping area from the end of the last race to 7 a,m, the following day, Security fencing will prevent campers and patrons from entering into the adjacent MSCP Preserve, Noise: The issue that raises the most concern regarding the potential effect of the project is the potential effect of racing event noise on sensitive bird species during their nesting seasons (typically February to Mid-September) for the June 8-10 racing events, As discussed in the Noise analysis in the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), noise from vehicle racing, loudspeakers, or other 15-8 Page 9, Item: IS Meeting Date: Ofi/O~/07 incidental sound sources associated with the events will have an adverse affect on certain sensitive bird species such as the Coastal California Gnatcatcher and Least Bell's Vireo. The City's MSCP Subarea Plan does not provide a specific numerical threshold for operational noise affecting these species, but for comparative purposes, a generally accepted standard used to evaluate impacts is a one-hour average noise level greater than 60 dB. It is important to note that the noise impacts for the races will not exceed those already generated by the existing rock quarry operations which will be suspended during the racing events. The noise analysis prepared for the project provides an estimate of noise levels generated by the proposed project. Unattenuated noise levels at the closest sensitive habitat location within the Preserve, immediately adjacent to the south of the proposed track, estimated at 85 dB hourly Leq. Taking the existing terrain topography into consideration, and providing the maximum sound attenuation available through structural design features (enclosure of the rear of the stands located between the track and the Preserve), the noise analysis concludes that areas having potential to support least Bell's vireo and coastal California gnatcatcher are expected to be exposed noise levels of approximately 75 dB hourly Leq noise level during the racing events. The Noise Ordinance also governs fixed source and/or operational noise. However, the proposed project is classified as a temporary outdoor gathering, and as such is considered to be exempt from the provisions of the Ordinance, pursuant to Section 19.68.060 which states "The provisions of this title shall not apply to occasional outdoor gatherings, public dances, shows and sporting and entertainment events, provided the events are conducted pursuant to a permit or license issued by the city relative to the staging of the events." Rlnlneic.::ll Re:~()llrr.e:..:::.: Implementation of the proposed project would result in direct impacts to annual (non-native) grassland and developed/disturbed land. All of the impacts to annual grassland are within former agriculture areas of the Parking and Camping areas. Site preparation for these areas will consist of mowing only, and no soil disturbing grading activity is proposed. Impacts to annual grassland within the Parking and Camping areas would be temporary and would not result in permanent or significant adverse impacts to annual grasslands. These areas are anticipated to recover without the need for active restoration. Freshwater marsh, mixed riparian scrub, and southern willow scrub within the survey area would be avoided and not be directly impacted by the project. According to the MND, no long-term, direct impacts to sensitive vegetation communities would result from project implementation. The entire project site avoids interface with the City of Chula Vista MSCP Sub-Area Plan, as all activities are located entirely within developable areas; however security personnel will monitor the MSCP area to prevent access from the site to the preserve areas. 15-9 Page 10, Item: IS Meeting Date: Oh/O~/07 Air QlIHlity. An air quality technical report was prepared for the project. Project related emissions would occur from vehicles traveling to the CaRR event site, race vehicle emissions generated during race events and dust generated by the racing activities. All mining activities associated with the existing quarry will cease during race events. The operational impacts associated with the Project would be confined to impacts associated with automotive traffic from spectators, employees, support vehicles, and the race participants. The mitigation measures would mitigate short-term operational air quality impacts to below a level of significance. These measures are included as a part of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, which may include monitoring of this year racing events for future baseline information relative to a future permanent racetrack in the Rock Mountain Quarry. WHt"r QlIHlity: The racing events would involve activities that could result in potential impacts to hydrology and water quality. During the races, urban runoff from the site has the potential to contribute pollutants, including oil and grease, suspended solids, metals, gasoline, and pathogens to the receiving waters. Once the racing event is complete, some portions of the site, including manufactured slopes, may be exposed and susceptible to erosion. Pollutants of concern associated with the proposed project are grouped into the following categories: sediments; metals; oil and grease; trash, debris and floatables; bacteria and viruses; and organic compounds and oxygen-demanding substances. In order to address these issues, features have been incorporated into the project design to minimize water quality impacts. The racetrack has been designed such that runoff would drain into a treatment BMP and away from the MSCP Preserve, including Otay River and Wolf Canyon. With project design features, potential impacts to hydrology and water quality may still occur; however, BMPs would be implemented to mitigate potential impacts to less than significant levels. The BMPs have been identified in Appendix A and require review and approval by the Director of Public Works. BMPs identified in Appendix A include, but are not limited to the following: desilt basins, special drums for containment of waste, trash and hazardous materials and silt fencing/sand bags. H~7;:lrc1onc;: M:.:Iteri:.:llc;:/~()licl W;::Ic;:fe: The proposed project would involve the transport, storage, and handling of hazardous materials (gasoline and engine fluids) associated with the proposed activities for a short duration of time. Potential impacts resulting from exposure to or leaks/spills of hazardous materials may occur; however, BMPs would be in place that would reduce potential impacts to less than significant. BMPs include features such as special drums that would serve as self-contained treatment for all runoff from maintenance bays (pit areas), vehicle and equipment wash areas, bathroom areas, and trash and material storage areas. Vactor trucks would be used to remove runoff from the 15-10 Page II, Item: -1S..- Meeting Date: OIi/O~/07 containment drums and the collected runoff would be disposed of in accordance with City standards. Hazardous materials would be placed in an enclosure that prevents contact with runoff or spillage to the storm water conveyance system. Storage, wash, and maintenance areas for race vehicles and hazardous materials/waste, as well as restroom areas would be lined with an impervious material to contain leaks and spills and these areas would (where feasible) have a roof or awning to minimize direct precipitation within the secondary containment area. With implementation of the BMPs, the project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, or create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. The project is a temporary use that would not have the ability to impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Further, the project features include public safety plans and personnel assigned to the events to further protect public safety during the events. Because the project is a temporary use and fire equipment and personnel will be present on the site during the proposed events, the project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk ofloss, injury or death involving wildland fires. TrBffir. Control: The racing events would be accessed via Main Street, Heritage Road, and Energy Way via Nirvana Road off of Main Street. The proposed events are anticipated to generate up to 7,440 vehicles per day of each event. Based on the additional special event traffic and the potential for queuing to pay for parking, there is the potential for localized congestion at ingress and egress points of the project and parking impacts on City roadways during the two weekends. A Traffic Control Plan is required to be prepared in accordance with City guidelines by the project applicant and submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer. Elements of the Traffic Control Plan would include, but not be limited to, a description of the signage, striping, delineate detours, flagging operations and any other devices which would be used during events to guide motorists safely to parking locations from public roadways. The Traffic Control plan would also include provisions for coordinating with local emergency service providers regarding event times and measures for bicycle lane safety. The Plan would address parking plans for each parking lot, and would address methods to facilitate collection of parking fees to minimize queuing on public streets. 15-11 Page 12, Item: J5..- Meeting Date: OIl/O'i/07. The Traffic Control Plan would ensure that access and traffic flow would be maintained, and that emergency access would not be restricted. Additionally, the Plan would ensure. that congestion and temporary delay of traffic resulting from the event and would be of a short-term nature. Pllhlic Safety: The race event also has the potential to result in safety hazards associated with accidents during the race events as well as the police control efforts associated with spectators and traffic control. Therefore, there will be a temporary increase in demand for police and fire services. The racetrack will be situated approximately 8-ft. below the grandstands, with IO,OOO-lb. concrete barriers running along the entire frontage of the grandstand area. In addition, a IO-ft. high catch fence with steel cables will run the entire length of the grandstand area to protect spectators. The Fire Department will have a fully staffed brush engine dedicated to these racing events and paid for by the applicant. The event security team will furnish the Fire Department and Ambulance service a means for two-way radio communication during the races. An Emergency Medical Plan prepared by the applicant's management team will need to be approved by the Fire Department prior to the first races, as a condition of approval. The Police Department will also require a Security Plan that shall address all issues regarding on- site security, traffic, parking, and camping subject to the approval of the Police Chief. The applicant's management team is meeting with the Police Department's Special Events & Special Investigations Unit regarding the Security Plan. Aknhnl1r. Rp.Vp.i:::lep.~: Sales of alcoholic beverages are again requested for approval as part of this Conditional Use Permit prior to obtaining the required Alcohol and Beverage Control (ABC) permits. If approved, the applicant will coordinate the ABC permitting with the Police Department's Special Events & Special Investigations Unit prior to any sales of alcohol on the project boundary site at the racing events. All alcohol sales shall be incorporated within the food vending areas or within segregated "beer garden" areas. It is recommended that the condition of approval require that the sale of alcoholic beverages cease prior to the last racing event of each racing day. CONCLUSION: Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit based on the findings and conditions as noted in the draft City Council resolution. The Director of Planning and Building, City Engineer, Police Chief and Fire Chief may modify the various plans, such as the Security Plan, Emergency Medical Plan, and Traffic Control Plan between each of the racing event weekends to address problems or concerns raised and/or corrections as needed from the previous racing event 15-12 Page 13, Item:-15-- Meeting Date: 0/)/0';/07 weekends. However, if any unanticipated problems occur, staff will schedule a new public hearing between each racing event weekend to modify or revoke the Conditional Use Permit. DECISION MAKER CONFLICT: Staff has reviewed the property holdings of the City Council and has found no property holdings within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property that is the subject of this action. FISCAL IMPACT: There are no fiscal impacts from the preparation of this report and the processing of the Conditional Use Permit, since all costs are covered by the applicant's deposit account. The Traffic Control Plan, Security Plan and the Emergency Medical Plan implementation will require full recovery cost for all resources needed from the Police and Fire Departments. In addition, the applicant will provide proof of liability insurance, naming the City of Chula Vista as an insured party in the amount of $1 0 million. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Locator Map 2. Planning Commission Resolution PCC07-063 3. Application Documents with Disclosure Statement 4. Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-07-030 5. May 7, 2007 Resource Conservation Committee Action Agenda 6. May 7, 2007 Resource Conservation Committee Minutes 7. Recommendation of the OVRP Off Road Race Sub-Committee 8. May 4, 2007 OVRP Off-Road Race Sub-Committee Meeting Minutes 9. April 26, 2007 Joint Policy Committe~Citizen's Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes 10. April 25, 2007 OVRP Citizen's Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes 11. Comment Letter from Patricia and Michael McCoy, OVRP Committee Member 12. Comment Letters (3) from Frank Ohrmund, OVRP Committee Member 13. Comment Letter from Karen Smith, OVRP Committee Member 14. Comment Letter from Mike Behan, OVRP Committee Member IS. May 23, 2007 Planning Commission Minutes (Draft) J:\PLANNINGIHAROLDlPCC-07-063-CCREPORT.DOC 15-13 OlAY LANDFILL VILLAGE 4 ~ Project Area _ MSCP Preserve NORTH 15-14 RESOLUTION NO. PCC-07-063 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS-07-030 AND THE MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM, AND GRANT A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A TEMPORARY OFF-ROAD RACETRACK ON A PORTION OF OTAY RANCH VILLAGE TWO - JAMES BALDWIN. WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a conditional use permit was filed with the City of Chula Vista Planning and Building Department on April 9, 2007 by James Baldwin, ("Applicant"); and WHEREAS, the application requests permission to conduct off-road racing events on June 8 - 10 and September 28 - 30, 2007 on a temporary racetrack located on a portion of the Otay Ranch Rock Mountain Quarry land adjacent to the Otay River Valley, including a portion of Otay Ranch Village Three for a general public parking area, and the western Active Recreation Area within the Otay River Valley for an overnight camping area; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and has conducted an Initial Study, IS-07-030 in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Based upon the results of the Initial Study, the Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that the project could result in significant effects on the environment. However, revisions to the project made by or agreed to by the applicant would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur; therefore, the Environmental Review Coordinator has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration, IS-07-030; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (IS-07-030) has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City ofChula Vista; and WHEREAS, the Resource Conservation Committee's (RCC) found that the Mitigated Negative Declaration was "insufficient" or inadequate and recommended by a vote of (4-2-0-1) to not recommend adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration at their May 7, 2007 meeting; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for a hearing on said conditional use permit and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the city and its mailing to property owners within 1000 feet of the exterior boundaries of the Project site at least ten days prior to the hearing; and 15-15 Planning Commission Resolution PCC-07-063 Page 2 WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 6:00 p.m. on May 23, 2007, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered all reports, evidence, and testimony presented at the public hearing with respect to subject application. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT, from the facts presented to the Planning Commission, the Commission has determined that the approval of a conditional use permit is consistent with the City of Chula Vista General Plan and the Otay Ranch General Development Plan, as well as the Zoning Code, and all other applicable plans so that the public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good planning practice support the approval. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION recommends that the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approved a resolution granting the conditional use permit in accordance with the [mdings contained in the attached City Council Resolution. And that a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the owners of the property and the City Council. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 23rd day of May, 2007 by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Felber, Tripp, Clayton, Spethman NOES: Vinson, Moctezuma, Bensoussan ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: Bryan Felber, Chair ATTEST: Diana Vargas, Secretary J:IPLANNINGIHAROLD\REsOLUTIONSIPCC-07-063PCREso.DOC 15-16 Planning & Building Department Planning Division OTY OF CHULA VISTA APPLICATION. DEVELOPMENT PROCESSING. TYPE A Part 1 Type of Review Requested 129 Conditional Use Permit D Design Review o Variance D Special Use Permit (redevelopment area only) D Misc. Application Information Applicant Name Championship Off-Road Racinq (CaRR) Appticant Address 610 West Ash Street. Suite 1500. San Dieqo. CA 92101 Contact Name Ranie Hunter Phone 619-234-4050 ext 107 Applicant's Interest in Property (tf applicant is not the owner, th authorization signature at the end of this form is required to process this request.) [gJ Own 0 Rent 0 Other: Architect/Agent: Address: Contact Name: Phone: Primary contact is: [gJ Applicant 0 Architect/Agent [gJ Email ofprimarycontact:rhunterla>otavranch.com General Project Description (all types) Project Name: 2007 CaRR Event Proposed Use: Off-Road Racinq General Description of Proposed Project: See Attached Exhibit A Has this project received pre-application review comments? 0 Yes (Date:) [gJNo Subject Property Information (all types) Location/Street Address:2041 Heritaqe Road, Chula Vista. CA 91913 Assessor's Parcel #: see attached Total Acreage: 89 Redevelopment Area (if applicable): N/A General Plan Designation: OS Zone Designation:N/A Planned Community (if applicable): Otav Ranch (Portion) Current Land Use: Reclaimed Rock Quarry Within Montgomery Specific Plan? 0 Yes [gJ No Proposed Project (all types) Type of use proposed: 0 Residential DCommercial Landscape Coverage (% of lot): o Industrial C8J Other:Temoorarv Special Event Building Coverage (% of lot): 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vist19-da],fornia I 91910 I (619) 691-5101 Assessor's Parcel #'s: . 644-060-06 . 645-030-19 . 644-060-07 . 644-060-08 . 644-060-09 . 644-060-12 . 644-060-11 15-18 APPLICATION . DEVELOPMENT PROCESSING . TYPE A Part 2 OlY OF CHUIA VISTA Residential Project Summary Type of dwelling unit(s): N/A Dwelling units: Number of lots: PROPOSED EXISTING 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3+ Bedroom TOTAL Density (DU/acre): Maximum building height: Minimum lot size: Average lot size: _ Parking Spaces: Required by code: Provided: Type of parking (I.e. size; whether covered, etc.): Open space description (acres each of private, common, and landscaping): Non-Residential Project Summary Gross floor area: N/A Proposed: Existing: N/A Building Height: N/A Hours of operation (days & hours): Race Dav Schedule: lam to lpm (except FrL 10am to 5pm): Limited weekdav testino 9am to 5pm. Dates: June 8-10 and September 28-30 Anticipated number of employees: 40 Staff/50 mise vendors Maximum number of employees at anyone time: 40 Staff Number and ages of students/children (if applicable): N/A Seating capacity: 10.000 Parking Spaces: Required by code:. N/A Provided: 1150 Approximately Type of parking (I.e. size; whether covered, etc.): open field Authorization Print applicant name:Ja~es P. Idwin ~ /' M,." 'Ad Applicant Signature:' . , Fl/L-L/ ~"----'" Date: 5);)-t/lJ7 Print owner name': . n Owner Signature'~~ L-- ~ Date: .~/Ol 276 Fourth Avenue I Chula VistJ ~L;M~ornia I 91910 I (619) 691-5101 ~\f? -n- . - Planning & Building Department Planning Division I Development Processing CllY Of CHULA VISTA APPLICATION APPENDIX A Project Description & Justification Project Name: CORR Race Events Applicant Name: Championship Off-Road Racinq (CORR) Please fully describe the proposed project, any and all construction that may be accomplished as a result of approval of this project, and the project's benefits to yourself, the property, the neighborhood, and the City of Chula vista. Include any details necessary to adequately explain the scope and/or operation of the proposed project. You may include any background information and supporting statements regarding the reasons for, or appropriateness of, the application. Use an addendum sheet if necessary. For all Conditional Use Permits or Variances, please address the required "findings" as listed in the Application Procedural Guide. DESCRIPTION AND JUSTIFICATION: Temporary Championship Off-Road Racinq Event. The proposed proiect is a temporary off-road racinq event proposed on the reclaimed portion of the Rock Quarry located adjacent to the Otav River Vallev. a portion of Otav Ranch Villaqe Three (parkinq) and the western Active Recreation Area within the Otav River Vallev (campinq). The event will occur on two weekends. June 8 _ 10 and September 21 - 23. 2007. Site preparation will include installation of qrandstands. securitv liqhtinq and storm water BMPs. The racinq venue is proposed within the southern portion of the Rock Quarry which has been reclaimed and is lonqer subject to active mininq operations. Park/nq will occur on aqriculturalland within a portion of Otav Ranch Villaqe Three. The event area will be fenced. Vehicular entrances to parkinq lots will be via existinq dirt roads from Main Street and Heritaqe Road. Event sponsors and the Citv will provide fire, police and emerqencv services. A temporary traffic control plan will be developed to facilitate arrival and departure from parkinq lot areas. Ovemiqht campinq is proposed within a 27 acre parcel desiqnated for "Active Recreation" within the MSCP and Otav Vallev Reqional Park Concept Plan. Races will occur durinq daytime hours. Temporary niqht liqhtinq will be provided. Permits will be required to address non-storm water discharqes. The project requires a Conditional Use Permit. 276 Fourth Avenue I Chula Vistl ~~lIrornia I 91910 I (619) 691-5101 Planning & Building Department Planning Division I Development Processing CllY Of (HULA VISTA Disclosure Statement APPLICATION APPENDIX B Pursuant to Council Policy 101-01, prior to any action upon matters that will require discretionary action by the Council, Planning Commission and all other official bodies of the City, a statement of disclosure of certain ownership or financial interests, payments, or campaign contributions for a City of Chula Vista election must be filed. The following information must be disclosed: 1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the property that is the subject of the application or the contract, e.g., owner, applicant, contractor, subcontractor, material supplier. Jim Baldwin Rimrock Quarrv 2. If any person' identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all individuals with a $2000 investment in the business (corporation/partnership) entity. Jim Baldwin 3. If any person' identified pursuant to (1) above is a non-profit organization or trust, list the names of any person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust. N/A 4. Please identify every person, including any agents, employees, consultants, or independent contractors you have assigned to represent you before the City in this matter. Kim John Kilkennv Ranie Hunter Rob Cameron Lex Williman Kent Aden 5. Has any person' associated with this contract had any financial dealings with an official" of the City of Chula Vista as it relates to this contract within the past 12 months. Yes D- No I81- If Yes, briefly describe the nature of the financial interest the official" may have in this contract. 6. Have you made a contribution of more than $250 within the past twelve (12) months to a current member of the Chula Vista City Council? No ~ Yes 0 If yes, which Council Member? 276 Fourth Avenue I Chula Vista' P'C~ilornia I 91910 I (619) 691-5101 Planning & Building Department Planning Division I Development Processing CllY OF CHUlA VISTA APPLICATION APPENDIX B Disclosure Statement - Page 2 7. Have you provided more than $340 (or an item of equivalent value) to an official.. of the City of Chula Vista in the past twelve (12) months? (This includes being a source of income, money to retire a legal debt, gift, loan, etc.) Yes D-- No ~ If Yes, which official** and what was the nature of item provided? Date: March 28. 2007 ~~ " I . / 2/)tL0 / Signature of Contractor/Applicant Ranie Hunter Print or type name of Contractor/Applicant . Person is defined as: any individual, firm, co-partnership, jOint venture, association, social club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, any other county, city, municipality, district, or other political subdivision, -or any other group or combination acting as a unit. ** Official includes, but is not limited to: Mayor, Council member, Planning Commissioner, Member of a board, commission, or committee of the City, employee, or staff members. 276 Fourth Avenue I Chula Vista1PC,;!i!l,rnia I 91910 I (619) 691-5101 ~l~ -tJ- ~- : CllY Of (HUlA VISTA Planning & Building Department Planning Division I Development Processing Development Permit Processing Agreement APPLICATION APPENDIX C Permit Applicant: Applicant's Address: Type of Permit: Agreement Date: Deposit Amount: James P. Baldwin 610 West Ash Street. Suite 1500. San DieQo. CA 92101 Conditional Use Permit Temp. This Agreement ("Agreement") between the City of Chula Vista, a chartered municipal corporation ("City") and the forenamed applicant for a development permit ("Applicant"), effective as of the Agreement Date set forth above, is made with reference to the following facts: Whereas, Applicant has applied to the City for a permit of the type aforereferenced ("Permit") which the City has required to be obtained as a condition to permitting Applicant to develop a parcel of property; and, Whereas, the City will incur expenses in order to process said permit through the various departments and before the various boards and commissions of the City ("Processing Services"); and, Whereas the purpose of this agreement is to reimburse the City for all expenses it will incur in connection with providing the Processing Services; Now, therefore, the parties do hereby agree, in exchange for the mutual promises herein contained, as follows: 1. Applicant's Duty to Pay. Applicant shall pay all of City's expenses incurred in providing Processing Services related to Applicant's Permit, including all of City's direct and overhead costs related thereto. This duty of Applicant shall be referred to herein as "Applicant's Duty to Pay." 1. 1. Applicant's Deposit Duty. As partial performance of Applicant's Duty to Pay, Applicant shall deposit the amount aforereferenced ("Deposit"). 1.1.1. City shall charge its lawful expenses incurred in providing Processing Services against Applicant's Deposit. If, after the conclusion of processing Applicant's Permit, any portion of the Deposit remains, City shall return said balance to Applicant without interest thereon. If, during the processing of Applicant's Permit, the amount of the Deposit becomes exhausted. or is imminently likely to become exhausted in the opinion of the e City. upon notice of same by City, Applicant shall forthwith provide such additional deposit as City shall calculate as reasonably necessary to continue Processing Services. The duty of Applicant to initially deposit and to supplement said deposit as herein required shall be known as "Applicant's Deposit Duty". 2. City's Duty. City shall. upon the condition that Applicant is no in breach of Applicant's Duty to Payor Applicant's Deposit Duty, use good faith to provide processing services in relation to Applicant's Permit application. 2,1. City shall have no liability hereunder to Applicant for the failure to process Applicant's Permit application, or for failure to process Applicant's Permit within the time frame requested by Applicant or estimated by City. 276 Fourth Avenue I Chula Vista !j~~ornia I 91910 I (619) 691-5101 ~\~ -r- . Planning & Building Department Planning Division I Development Processing ON OF (HULA VISfA Development Permit Processing Agreement - Page 2 2.2. By execution of this agreement Applicant shall have no right to the Permit for which Applicant has applied. City shall use its discretion in valuating Applicant's Permit Application without regard to Applicant's promise to pay for the Processing Services, or the execution of the Agreement. 3. Remedies. 3.1 . Suspension of Processing In addition to all other rights and remedies which the City shall otherwise have at law or equity, the City has the right to suspend and/or withhold the processing of the Permit which is the subject matter of this Agreement, as well as the Permit which may be the subject matter of any other Permit which Applicant has before the City. 3.2. Civil Collection In addition to all other rights and remedies which the City shall otherwise have at law or equity, the City has the right to collect all sums which are or may become due hereunder by civil action, and upon instituting litigation to collect same, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees and costs. 4. Miscellaneous. 4.1 Notices. All notices, demands or requests provided for or permitted to be given pursuant to this Agreement must be in writing. All notices, demands and requests to be sent to any party shall be deemed to have been properiy given or served if personally served or deposited in the United States mail, addressed to such party, postage prepaid, registered or certified, with return receipt requested at the addresses identified adjacent to the signatures of the parties represented. 4.2 Governing LawNenue. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Any action arising under or relating to this Agreement shall be brought only in the federal or state courts iocated in San Diego County, State of California, and if applicable, the City of Chula Vista, or as close thereto as possible. Venue for this Agreement, and performance hereunder, shall be the City of Chula Vista. 4.3. Multiple Signatories. If there are multiple signatories to this agreement on behalf of Applicant, each of such signatories shall be jointly and severally liable for the performance of Applicant's duties herein set forth. 4.4. Signatory Authority. This signatory to this agreement hereby warrants and represents that he is the duly designated agent for the Applicant and has been duly authorized by the Appiicant to execute this Agreement on behalf of the Applicant. Signatory shall be personally liable for Applicant's Duty to Pay and Applicant's Duty to Deposit in the event he has not been authorized to execute this Agreement by Applicant. 4.5 Hold Harmless. Applicant shall defend,indemnify and hold harmless the City, its elected and appointed officers and employees, from and against any claims, suits, actions or proceedings, judicial or administrative, for writs, orders, injunction or other relief, damages, liability, cost and expense (including without limitation attorneys' fees) arising out of City's actions in processing or issuing Applicant's Permit, or in exercising any discretion related thereto including but not limited to the giving of proper environmental review, the holding of public hearings, the extension of due process rights, except only for those claims, suits, actions or proceedings arising from the sole negligence or sole willful conduct of the City, its officers, or employees known to, but not objected to, by the Applicant. Applicant's indemnification shall include any and all costs, expenses, attorney's fees and liability incurred by the City, its officers, agents, or employees in defending against such claims, whether the same proceed to judgement or not. Further, Applicant, at its own expense, shall, upon written request by the City, defend any such suit or action brought against the City, its officers, agents, or employees. Applicant's indemnification of City shall not be limited by any prior or subsequent declaration by the 276 Fourth Avenue I Chula Vistl &~ornia I 91910 (619) 691-5101 Planning & Building Department Planning Division I Development Processing OlY Of CHUlA VISTA Development Permit Processing Agreement - Page 3 Applicant. At its sole discretion, the City may participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action, but such participation shall not relieve the applicant of any obligation imposed by this condition. 4.6 Administrative Claims Requirements and Procedures. No suit or arbitration shall be brought arising out of this agreement against the City unless a claim has first been presented in writing and filed with the City of Chula Vista and acted upon by the City of Chula Vista in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 1 .34 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, as same may from time to time be amended, the provisions of which are incorporated by this reference as if fully set forth herein, and such policies and procedures used by the City in the implementation of same. Upon request by City, Consultant shall meet and confer in good faith with City for the purpose of resoiving any dispute over the terms of this Agreement. Now therefore, the parties hereto, having read and understood the terms and conditions of this agreement, do hereby express their consent to the terms hereof by setting their hand hereto on the date set forth adjacent thereto. Dated: City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA By: Dated: March 28. 2007 James P. Baldwin ~.. 610 West Ash Street. Suite 1500 . / ..' ~ San DieQo. CA 92101 By: f / ~ 276 Fourth Avenue I Chula Vista1 PC2l~rnia I 91910 I (619) 691-5101 c lli""'C!IA!M>IONSHIP "~.~~ RACING Chula Vista International RaCilway 15-26 Mitigated Negative Declaration PROJECT NAME: Conditional Use Permit for Temporary Championship Off-Road Race 2007 PROJECT LOCATION: East of the existing terminus of Main Street, east of Heritage Road ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.: 644-030-19-00, 644-060-06-00, 644-060-07-00, 644-060-08-00,644-060-09-00,644-060-12-00 PROJECT APPLICANT: James P. Baldwin CASE NO.: IS-07 -030 DATE OF DRAFT DOCUMENT: April 2Q+, 2007 DATE OF RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSION MEETING: Mav 7, 2007 DATE OF FINAL DOCUMENT: Mav 29, 2007 PREPARED BY: Glen Laube, Environmental Projects Manager Revisions made to this document subsequent to the issuance ofthe Notice of Availability of the draft Mitil!:ated Nel!:ative Declaration are denoted bv underline. A. BACKGROUND As described in detail in Section B below, the proposed project is the temporary use--feF Cllampionshijl Off road Raeing (CORR), _of a portion of the Otav Ranch Pit Rock Quarry located adjacent to the Otay River Valley, a portion of Otay Ranch Village Three (parking), and a portion of the western Active Recreation Area within the Otay River Valley (eampiHg) for the 2007 Championship Off-road Racing (CORR) event. CORR was held on the Village Two and Four project sites for the 2005 and 2006 temporary race events, subject to Conditional Use Permits (CUP) for those events. This Mitigated Negative Declaration MN9--(hereinafter referred to as MND IS-07-030) evaluates the potential environmental effects from site preparation, off-road racing and post-racing activities associated with the proposed two-weekend 2007 race events. This MND has been Page I of37~ I 15-27 prepared by the City as the lead agency and in conformance with g15070, subsection (a), of the State CEQA Guidelines. B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project is a temporary event involving off-road racing on the portion of the Rock Quarry located adjacent to the Otay River Valley, a portion of Otay Ranch Village Three (parking) and the western Active Recreation Area within the Otay River Valley (camping) (Figures 1 and 2). The event will occur over two, non-consecutive weekends, June 8 - 10 and September 28 - 30, 2007. Site preparation will include installation of grandstands, security lighting and fencing, mange bie fencing (orange bio fencing, chain-link, three-strand) to restrict access to the City's MSCP Preserve, signage for sensitive habitat areas, and storm water BMPs. The racing venue is proposed within the southern portion of the Otav Ranch Pit Rock Quarry which is no longer subject to resource extraction operations. Parking will occur on agricultural land within a portion of Otay Ranch Village Three. Vehicular entrances to parking lots will be via existing dirt roads from Main Street, Heritage Road, and Energy Way. Event sponsors and the City will provide fire, police and emergency services. A temporary traffic control plan will be developed to facilitate arrival and departure from parking lot areas. Overnight camping is proposed within a 27-acre parcel designated for "Active Recreation" within the City's General Plan. Races will occur during daytime hours only; however, temporary night lighting will be provided for security purposes. Permits will be required to address non-storm water discharges. The project requires a Conditional Use Permit. Event-related activities include: 1. Races on Saturdays and Sundays of event weekends. 2. Pre-race track trials and qualifications (Friday before event weekends) 3. Friday through Sunday overnight camping for race participants and event attendees on event weekends. 4. Event Parking. 5. Nighttime security lighting. 6. Limited fire works. 7. Live music before, during and after race events. The site layout and orientation of uses for the proposed CORR are graphically depicted on Figure 3. The site plan includes a temporary racetrack, standslbleachers for spectators, food areas, pit areas for race participants, a camping area, and parking areas. The project proposes to include structural elements to provide sound attenuation, including, but not limited to, installation of plywood to the back of the grandstands. The plywood barrier would be mounted on the back of foill grandstand structures, each measuring 234 feet in width and 60 feet in height. The thickness of the plywood would be a minimum Yz inch. The project also includes fencing to provide security and to avoid unauthorized access to adjacent Preserve areas. The location of sound attenuation elements and fencing are also shown on Figure 3. Page 2 of37 15-28 Orange County T'<-.".) i!l ,f" \) Riverside County FaUbrook Camp Pendleton J') DelMar La Jolla Alpine San Diego () Imperial Beach o 4 . Miles 8 Championship Off-Road Race MND I FIGURE I Regional Map 1 15-29 ~-- '~ ; ~,,-"'/\ :'!"I "'- . """'~'r:- 7 V. -.i';>-;ft.'~;":.~~ _r . " \...;.,,,"-,.~:: -t~. I ,~:1< !\....'_..:$,'-::,-~..iO "", ("<~:. _'fj.(<; I ;\'. -/.c"'- C,C"o, ,- - ,::';"!. [Hi' ,.<'. ~''''-w.t. <', ,;.,.)i:i;""~\ .v, "i- '" \ :-'1 ".J.: _;'.' - r '~'\ 't\ . f'/ ,..i~" -:..\; "-.'~ ". "\. " , . '-""'{ ./; ii"' .-' . ~'lo' ,I \..::' ,._,/ ; "l ),l/ " "\. { j~ . It", !" r;r \ 1'1 \ ,.. ".',1' :; I 4l,'U" t1..l; [-/-',1/'.';" "\.;,r':'-"~':;:;:?" oj ~ I .tJ}../ ....:.;.v~J ~1 ./.:\'</ -;r' "A~i", \J .... .l'".... '~r:~r.-~\ f', j'";' ,\.:.~,.~?: " r;~~,:~,~:l:tJ.;l'~!')~S;>J;'>" ..;.;t,~~~:~.::..' . ~. l' .,.C'.' "~'.!:-);l"ll,' _J~'''~r:~,.... L . _'\>~~~:~.~' {~I!::';---F"~ '. --....~-<:>....~; '-~' .. }.";"( i~" ':,', , I,. .-, '~' f. IZU.:J '~H """.~., .' - 1 !-\;'i J:^;.,~ ,. r-.'.c ~~., -'~.J - ';r<"~,r\':::':~~:;Er~;i'.~,:~ ."'^---.' t/"~~' :~...~ 'j~i':)\'-~i \..-f' " '\.-'1 ~_J ::$ ,,' , ,,_~,-,}t. '-l}":':\' '" '/'.... /. j' 1";11 r ......r:f :'(t-O.t1t'fl),\,:~., ..~ _1~"''-:"'!''~: ..':(\ '___" ~i"'''' /':1:"' -._ '~' ,-'/iY9:~:-...-~~ ~;"fi - :J -L-. ,. "~__~' ,',_ _ \.. ..,,/' , .,'" u:, ",~ .0.. '.... ,t" /11;Jr' -: ~ r~, . __. ~_/.' ',~. ,~,:1 ~ '.( 1'1\'; .~' ",:l i\ " 'f \ I Parking ...... r ,r !: !" !.' .....1.11 '.. f ,"-1--- "[ \ ~! S.....,il.l .~jr~cm \:'~;{ji \ ') r'~ . ",: I __ ':. ;\' j' ''';'' ':U: 11",' .! II \. N ~ :.-c~....::J;.". " ~. ~ - ,...' . .::::.~_~~~I t, - .... ~ ,...~: r -..... ~ ~-X-": ' ;1 1\1.~' .-_/.:..t>~" --... I, '}.~~.- '..-J'j t '~'i" .-. '~?,"'-"--- r:/ .._ .:. I I ; ,; /i~.{1 "-',.' / :", ," , ,'-, ~,~ ~ ~b~"" .' .'!" '7 ;':?C"" \\ ~~:~ :.~:~ ,:~~<'~'l "\_~~,)/"~# . 'j'~"',/" ._ ~.t, DU.:-i;r:j~~'~.~~"""~.":"t.~iiLie~-::;;:-:'l: u.. ~. .,. -.,'\f ,"/, ~~~""',,~ ,~~---. t' _ _/ , r. _ij p t.- ..! \ . . ~: t~ --.....[~~ ,,' , -- -..~ ,i ....~F~~f'>' ...._~... . , I~ ,~ ,.,. ,.' "',.'~' "'.,,~~~~~ ./~.. O----::=:-~~':'.=-:::.:,:.:.:~."'-''<;. ! "-'. If,;,~... _. TraCk~-,f'7. ." ..'. .,,,, d [>. -( 1 '" "";PO . -... ;:-'''''< .. '0 l' y - c. f " "<;;: _ ~;:;:;~ .'. orA,> ,., "r ~~r~. ,-Bird R"l1~_ ; -....~ -'-:'~:_p~~!l"g.'t--.>;~:'~~--:;2~~~;-~-':=C:::~~~ ., '" ~ -~- '" . 1~ ~_:" ~ --)1 ~ ~, .\ \~ ~~~::_ ~-"' ~~--<:.:-"'~~~-'~~~,;l'-?IiIII"''''~'~_-:- ~ ....,-?('" _ :.\ '-'....:._~ \ .~-" 1',.;0-: .:; .-;;;:" :'_ t .,- /- -I /' '*~...... '~"::i '__ r.".- oJ.~\( l-'" '1 I, ".;.;>, '\ ,"-, ~._) u> '\ c., ,!,ut'....'. \;,\ .-, \~....~2 ;-'\7j-r--r-' ,:.4i. .....~~'" I .. ~, ~ " .,,.....,, , ._ ,,'I, ;.I~~--;'\, \',1 ,; ';',;-t I ~; ~.'.~. \ ' I'!~~'" '-"1 1.1 \'>.:" jloy' .......0.-:..\."'1_...' 21"}.--. J~\' \"~,.....,;./ I" < '\ l~~,"vl)-.."l.;:'1 '.-.-,~ tl.'" <;. '1,,1 t' )".1<<.....-": .;."\./ ~1 ,,\,~~:, 1. ," I, ,.:=,-:1;:;./~;1'~~'0 ,--- ~':~"*"~- ~! '~"'i ~" ' '~ )!<r~ ~ ~;'.I ,.\11 j~/ Y, I,:V _ "-. \, ~ :,:/ I " ~'l. I ' ' \~,:'\: .. . ,~'-.... " 1'-., '",/ "'€)" ~, \',,,. .. ...:' I'" '.+' ,^..,', " O)l ' . ,e,-'" c --) 't~~~~~. .~~:~..4f::,';(lBI' .' "\::';:f:~ ! -;\.>/..,,~- I -~ :~~~ ' : "".--,--.- ".~,'-';;,:I-'-~" .-..:-\ ", \'If.' ;,~. ,I " I ' -I, ~.,~~'-"=... 1.,,_', I~ -,1 1I.....\ \ l' , ~~-' I, -. \'~. -_""'1 I ~",II r :: ~. -,. -= ,-="">---,,-- \,' -; ,..:.:r\' '".~ ~ ,_ ...~"""- I - I \? .,:', <~ , "0 ' ,I J:: ~, ..,....:r..;;:- I ' I 29 .' ~\:>~l~-t ',J ,.. :','!.J ,;2~, -= Co'.iv. I) W N IF L E L 0 ~ >S~\\:"'!1\J:UJ, E(;O -- . -- , I ..../lr I' _ _ N .~ V A L A lJ X,I r... I A R ,t :l. r Ii: 2. -I'fi"., .' ,'- --- ':::f.., . ,,(----,_..---- .__. ! I " " I' <to ._ '_' ,.->-:::'"~;::~'''_<,8IL~~- ---__ __~ ~i.J ,~'. _...::_::.- _~--j ! I-:-~-~ ~ ~ ?-;: . .-j~~1'-~~~io>L,~.., /;'a~':', ./;.::.:>-~._;.:,--= tf\ -; 1 ; ~HI~noll';-r_ ~[-...~, 1._ .~=. ~:p. ~lG >,~...__. I ,_< _'.-.- " It ' I ~:!,.,p~ ~:7~ \~ ~Pt;.'-:-~ .~- "'11-- --:----.~.:f;:~:;/: ;_~ \J~ ) I~' I~":- ~c . -) 1 ; . ." \, -l, I ' , T "'- I ' / -.' .0 T ", A',. ''''-:: '" \' ,- y .. II <-" .' ",' . 0"' 'rT ....... " - ;. ~'--- IJ (t"'-{f (, /:>__ ~:--=:::o ~. Feet BASE MAP SOURCE:-USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Imperial Baach &.Otay Mesa.Quadrangles 2.000 "../:1. '...-.j , _0;"; ;.;.. "\J1'l\^ "J:.: -":"'-'. -r '/ " ~~.I; -I' l ;." "I " 'I t''.,., f',. " '\ ; '. ~-.~ . i,:', .-._--~<.~ r C I . , , =--""IL;....J.: \ -----"-~..-- i " I , ".:.- .:l ~ ,..~ '.~ ." , :<-.::., :.-, ~1'~![O~ ,', ,;- ( '.. '/1 ,;'i '.;.' r .. '." -'"'1--' Championship Off.Road Race MND I FIG~RE I Vicinity Map 15-30 I~ M I Cl c Z.!2 :::!!... 11 .. .. l!l "'.... ...~ ~ ~ Cll- ,a- 8 ~& " 'tal .. III O! .. Cl. 15 31 Additional noise attenuation is provided by existing terrain/topography on the north and east sides of the track area. Specifically, an approximate 15 foot-high shear rock face separates the track from the adjacent open space areas located to the east. It should be noted that quarry operations are ongoing within the boundaries of and pursuant to an approved Reclamation Plan under the California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act. Grading and leveling of the track is being conducted under the Reclamation Plan and is not subject to additional environmental review or approvals by the City of Chula Vista. As noted above, site preparation that is considered part of the use that is subject to the CUP includes installation of grandstands, security lighting and fencing, ofange l3io fencing (orange bio fencing. chain-link. three-strand) to restrict access to the City's MSCP Preserve, signage for sensitive habitat areas, and storm water BMPs. Also, this MND addresses all activities that are associated with the race operation, including the use of the track that is created under separate permits. CORR Access and Parkin!! It is anticipated that the CORR event will draw approximately 10,000 spectators per day from the San Diego County region. Freeway access to the CORR event will be from the Main Street interchange at 1-805, located approximately two miles to the west. Entrances into the race area will be provided from Wiley Road, which is the existing quarry access road, and Energy Way located within the industrial area south of the Otay Landfill. A total of 7,440 parking spaces will be provided in the designated parking area within Village Three. Access to the Village Three parking area will be provided Energy Road to the west. A shuttle will be provided to transport patrons from the camping area to the track area. The Village Three parking area is on agricultural land that has been mowed. By maintaining the root structure, dust will be minimized in these areas, and agricultural activities can resume after the last CORR event. Access to the parking area in Village Three will require minor modifications to the cul-de-sac located at the eastern terminus of Energy Way. Modifications to the Energy Way cul-de-sac include temporary replacement of the existing curb and chain link fence with asphalt driveway an ancillary BMPs including but not limited to crushed gravel and/or "rumble plates". Temporary BMP to be employed at this location are further detailed in the project's Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). No race-event parking will be permitted in non-designated areas. Race-event staff members will be positioned to direct race spectators into designated parking areas. Parking will be prohibited along Wiley Road, east of Main Street with the exception of the designated VIP parking areas located within the southwestern area of the existing quarry site that are currently used for transport staging and weigh-in (i.e., scales area). Access to the camping area will be provided via an existing dirt road located off existing Heritage Road. From the camping area, race patrons will be shuttled across the Otay River via an existing, elevated easement road. Pedestrian access through Wolf Canyon and across the Otay River will be prohibited and monitored by on-site security staff. Page 6 of37 15-32 Site Preparation Phase Site preparation activities associated with site preparation involve minor leveling of the track and other previously graded areas, mowing of previously mowed areas, set up for the pit area for race crews, spectator stands and food service areas, and installation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) to control erosion and sediment transport and to contain hazardous material storage areas. As noted previously, the track and surrounding areas within the boundary of the Reclamation Plan will be gradedllcvccElleveled as part of the reclamation activities of the existing quarry. Existing dirt access roads off of Main Street will provide access to VIP parking areas and the race event area. No new grading will be required for the access roads. Watering of the access roads and all cleared areas will occur throughout site preparation to minimize dust emissions. Gravel may also be laid down at transition areas from dirt to paved surfaces to reduce dust. The maintenance area for race vehicles (pit areas) will be located to the west of the racetrack (Figure 3). These areas, as well as the storage area for hazardous materials/waste and restroom areas, will be lined with an impervious material to prevent spills and potential leakage of automobile fluids and other materials into the ground or any waterways. In addition, any storage, handling or disposal of hazardous materials/waste will be in accordance with local, state and federal laws. Because the CaRR event is temporary, no permanent utilities will be constructed. Generators for lighting and electricity will be brought onto the site, as well as portable restrooms facilities and water. Temporary standslbleachers and any equipment needed for the spectator and entertainment areas will also be provided by the event sponsor. Installation BMPs as described in the SWPPP for the project will be required during site preparation. The BMPs are required to control erosion, stabilize manufactured slopes, reduce site runoff and protect water quality. The required BMPs for this phase are described in Attachment A, Implementation of Best Management Practices for Storm Water Pollution Prevention at the Otay Ranch Championship Race Track Site. The specified BMPs will require approval by the Director of Public Works and will be monitored throughout the event. Race Event Phase Race events will occur over two, non-consecutive weekends, June 8-10 and September 28-30. Race event hours will be generally from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. on Saturdays and Sundays. Practices will occur on the Fridays before the event from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. Actual racing on the weekend will begin during a one-hour practice session from 9:30 to 10:30am. On the race event days, up to six races will be held each day of the event. The last race will conclude at approximately 3 p.m. Limited non-racing weekday activities would involve registration and technical inspections. The CUP will require that no race car engines shall be operated before 8 a.m. and no racing on the track will occur before 9:30 a.m. Page 7 of37 15-33 No helicopter flights are proposed in conjunction with the race events. Post race events may include an awards ceremony, which will conclude at sunset. Loud speakers, microphones and other audio-visual equipment will be provided to announce races. Night lighting for security purposes will be limited to the pit area, overnight camping and vendor staging areas. Live music will occur throughout the race event however.. Nno nighttime concerts are proposed. Overnight camping will be permitted for event attendees (up to 150 camping spaces). The camping area would consist of 27.2 acres and would be located southeast of the proposed race track within the designated Active Recreation Areas of the Otay River Valley. Security will be provided in the camping area from the end of the last race to 7 a.m. the following day. Use of the track after the frnal race will not be permitted. Security staff will have cell phones and will have direct access to City of Chula Vista Police Department. Specifrc requirements for onsite security will be outlined in the Security Plan to be prepared by the applicant and approved by the Chief of Police. During the time in-between the weekend race events, the race areas will be closed off to the public. The safety/security plan prepared for the project will require that the gate surrounding the race areas is locked. During the weekend race events, access to the race areas would also be locked after race activities have ceased for the day, and access to the site will only be pennitted for race participants, crew members, and security staff. Racing events will not be held if it rains. Race participants will arrive on the Wednesday before the race events. Equipment, race vehicles and some race participants/crews will remain onsite for the duration of the weekend race event. Security, frre and medical services will be provided on each weekend of the CORR events. The event sponsors will have security personnel onsite, at entrances and other offsite locations, as needed. The City of Chula Vista Police Department will provide supplementary law enforcement services. In addition, the City of Chula Vista Fire Department and an emergency medical service provider will be available in case of medical emergencies. A security plan and emergency medical plan will be prepared by the project applicant and will be approved by the City Police and Fire Departments, respectively, prior to the start of the race events. In addition, a traffic control plan will be developed to facilitate arrival and departure from the event and will require approval by the City Police Chief and City Engineer prior to the start of race events. Maintenance of racing vehicles will occur within the designated pit areas. Maintenance may include refueling, mounting racing wheels, and checking/refrlling of fluids. General clean-up and trash pick-up of the pit area, spectator stands, food/beverage area and parking lots will occur on a daily basis. Access roads, parking lots and the race track will be watered to minimize dust emiSSIOns. Installation BMPs as described in the SWPPP will be required during the race events. The BMPs are required to provide containment of hazardous materials storage areas, deter seepage of potentially toxic substances into the soil, minimize sediment transport off-site, control dust, minimize site runoff, prevent trash from entering the MSCP Preserve area and protect water Page 8 of37 15-34 quality. The required BMPs for this phase are described in Attachment A, Implementation of Best Management Practices for Storm Water Pollution Prevention at the Otay Ranch Championship Race Track Site. The specified BMPs will require approval by the Director of Public Works. Post Race Event Phase Post-event activities essentially consist of site clean up and soil stabilization of exposed slopes. All trash and debris generated by the proposed project will be removed. All temporary structures, stands, bleachers, canopies, portable restroom facilities, and power generators will be disassembled and removed from the site within two-weeks following the September 2007 race event. Any containers with hazardous materials/waste will be properly disposed of in accordance with local, state, and federal laws. Installation BMPs as described in the SWPPP will be required during the post-race event phase. The BMPs are required to minimize site runoff, protect water quality and encourage revegetation of manufactured slopes and graded areas. The required BMPs for this phase are described in Attachment A, Implementation of Best Management Practices for Storm Water Pollution Prevention at the Otay Ranch Championship Race Track Site. The specified BMPs will require approval by the Director of Public Works. BMPs that provide for erosion control and reduction of sediment transport into drainages, including desilt basins and silt fencing, will remain in place. Discretionarv Actions/Other Proiect Approvals A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) will be required to conduct the proposed CORR events. The following additional approvals will be required in order to implement the proposed project. . City of Chula Vista Engineering: approval of BMPs and traffic control plan; }\meaemellt to ChHla Vista MliRieipal Cede (CYMC) Chapter 5.11.Hll, for allewaaee sf I yehieleG with ifiteFll.lll eeml3HstieR eagines City of Chula Vista Police Department: approval of security plan and traffic control plan; and City of Chula Vista Fire Department: approval of emergency medical plan. . . . C. PROJECT SETTING The proposed project site is located within a portion of Otay Ranch, in southern San Diego County, California (Figure 1). Specifically, the project area occupies a total of approximately 150 acres east of the location where Main Street turns into the alignment of Heritage Road, in the City of Chula Vista as shown in Figure 2. The existing quarry access road generally forms the southern border of the proposed track/pit/grandstand area, with the Otay River located adjacent to the south of the track area, and Wolf Canyon to the west of the track area. The existing site conditions consist of land that has been fully disturbed by ongoing aggregate mining and processing operations. Current mining operations include rock drilling, blasting, resource extraction and processing, stockpiling of construction aggregate and waste products, and transportation of processed materials from the site to serve the market. Page 9 of37 15-35 The CORR racetrack, location of parking areas and other uses associated with the proposed project were intentionally sited and designed with fully disturbed areas in order to avoid any direct impacts to sensitive biological resources. The CORR track, pit area, spectator stands, foodlbeverage area, camping area, restrooms and VIP parking areas, consist of previously disturbed areas associated with previous surface mining activities and are located within the boundary of the existing reclamation plan (refer to Figure 4). The southern portion of the project, including portions of the pit and vender areas, is located within an area designated as Preserve within the City's MSCP Subarea Plan. It's important to note that this area was previously disturbed as a result of an unauthorized encroachment by a former quarry operator. Subsequent to the encroachment, the existing quarry's reclamation plan was amended to include a conceptual restoration plan to restore this area back to a level consistent with the adjacent undisturbed Preserve areas to the south. In accordance with the quarry's approved reclamation plan, the reclamation of this area back to Preserve is scheduled to occur sometime within the next 25 years. Surrounding land uses include the active portion of the Otay Ranch Quarry to the immediate north and open space/Preserve areas to the immediate east, south, and west. Land uses within the general vicinity of the project site include Otay Ranch Village Three and the Otay Landfill to the northwest, developed residential uses within the City of San Diego to the south, and the Coors Amphitheater and Knott's Soak City Water Park to the southwest. D. PRIOR APPROVALS AND ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION Otav Ranch General Development PlanlSubrelrlonal Plan Proeram EIR The Final Program Environmental Impact Report (Program EIR #90-01) for Otay Ranch General Development Plan/Subregional Plan (GDP/SRP) was prepared and certified jointly by the City of Chula Vista and County of San Diego. The Program EIR 90-01 addresses the environmental impacts of implementation of the Otay Ranch GPNGDP/SRP and related documents, which include Facility Implementation Plans, a Village Phasing Plan, Phase One Resource Management Plan (RMP), and a Service/Revenue Plan. As part of Program EIR 90-01, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) was prepared to define implementation of the mitigation measures described in the Program EIR. The Otay R-aaea GDP/SRP E!esigHates the site for reGiscRtial anE! miRes Hoe E!eyelepmcRt. Relative to the project site, the Program EIR identified significant noise, biological resources, air quality, geology, cultural resources, paleontological resources and cumulative agricultural resource impacts associated with build-out of the site in accordance with the GDP. Villaee Two. Three and Four (portion) SPA Plan and TM Second Tier EIR The primary parking area for the CORR event is located within the Otay Ranch Village Three planning area. In accordance with the General Plan and Otay Ranch GDP, the site (as part of Village Three) is planned for industrial and open space uses. Page 100f37 15-36 ~ i~1 B I .><.. e c: '; :ll 1;1 12 "'1:1. ~a. 0;<.) >CI) .~ :::E '" ..c >,..... .5 i c .0 .;:l '" .9 -"C ~ J 'i :II e 1:1. A SPA Plan has been prepared for Otay Ranch Villages Two, Three and portion of Village Four. A fmal EIR was certified for the proposed SPA and TM (EIR #02-02), on May 23,2006. The EIR addresses buildout of Village Three in accordance with the SPA. Industrial uses are planned for the subject CORR event parking area. The EIR identified the following environmental issue areas as significant and unrnitigable: Relative to the project site, this Second Tier EIR identified significant noise, biological resources, air quality, geology, cultural resources, paleolontological resources and cumulative agricultural resource impacts associated with build-out of the site. Mitigation measures were provided to reduce impacts to these resources. Issues addressed in the EIR that are relevant to the proposed action include potential impacts associated with air quality, and geology and soils. In addition, data from biological surveys for this project were used to address biological impacts for the proposed 2007 CORR events. Hanson Aszszreszates Pacific Southwest. Inc.. Otav Ranch Pit Amended Reclamation Plan. MND The VIP parking area, pit area, track, and grandstands are fully located within the existing boundaries of the Otay Ranch Quarry Reclamation Plan. In April 2006, the State Mining and Geology Board prepared an MND that evaluated an amendment to the sites original reclamation plan approved by the County of San Diego in 1980 (RP79-09). The amendments included adjusting limits of the active quarry operations to include areas that were disturbed by a former quarry operator as a result of on-going extraction operations. The proposed amendments revised the current reclamation plan boundaries to include approximately 38 acres of fully disturbed land and subtract approximately 29 acres of undisturbed land located within adjacent Wolf Canyon. Additionally, the proposed reclamation plan included a revised termination date for surface mining operations, identified a post mining land use, established monitoring criteria for mining operations, and provided a conceptual landscape/restoration plan and phasing for implementing the ultimate reclamation design. The MND addressed impacts associated with cultural resources, hazards and hazardous materials, and found them to be significant but mitigable. E. COMPLIANCE WITH ZONING AND PLANS City of Chula Vista General Plan The City of Chula Vista updated its General Plan in December 2005. General Plan land use designations on the project site include Industrial (Parking Areas), Open Space Active Recreation (Camping Areas), and Open Space (Non-Preserve), (Track Area). Because the use is temporary and subject to a Conditional Use Permit, a consistency determination relative to General Plan land use designations is not applicable. However, the Open Space Active Recreation designation includes outdoor campgrounds as one of the intended uses within these areas. In addition, Parking is an allowable use within Industrial use designated areas. Page 12 of37 15-38 Otav Vallev Relrlonal Park Concept Plan The Otay Valley Regional Park (OVRP) Concept Plan was adopted in July 1997 by the Cities of San Diego and Chula Vista, and the County of San Diego. The OVRP identifies active recreation areas that are not a part of the Preserve, but are surrounded by Preserve areas. The OVRP Concept Plan does not change existing zoning or planned land uses, or add new development regulations, nor does it preclude private development in designated recreation areas consistent with existing zoning or planned land uses. The proposed proj ect is a temporary use and would not prohibit future planning or use of the area, as contemplated in the OVRP. Otav Ranch General Development Plan The GDP identifies development of the Otay Ranch in a series of IS Villages and 5 Planning Areas. These Villages and Planning Areas combined would allow approximately 13,000 single- family residential dwelling units and approximately 11,000 multi-family units. As mitigation for impacts to sensitive biological resources within the proposed development areas of the Otay Ranch, a Resource Management Preserve ("Preserve") was identified. The Preserve and associated policies and requirements related to biological resources protection are outlined in the Resource Management Plan, Phases I and 2, as further described below. Areas within the Preserve were assigned a land use designation of Open Space in the GDP/SRP. The proposed project includes land designated for industrial use in Village Three, Open Space Active Recreation, and "Not a Part" (the boundaries of the parcel containing the rock quarry). Because the use is temporary and subject to a Conditional Use Permit, a consistency determination relative to General Development Plan land use designations is not applicable. However, the Open Space Active Recreation designation includes outdoor campgrounds as one of the intended uses within these areas. In addition, Parking is an allowable use within Industrial use designated areas. Otav Ranch Resource Manae:ement Plan (Phase 1 and 2) In addition to the General Development Plan, the Otay Ranch planning documents include the Resource Management Plan (RMP), Phases I and 2 (adopted October 28, 1993 and June 4, 1996, respectively). The goal of the Otay Ranch RMP is to establish a permanent preserve within Otay Ranch to protect and enhance biological, paleontological, cultural and scenic resources; maintain biological diversity, and promote the survival and recovery of native species and habitats. The RMP Phase I ("RMPI") was adopted by the County of San Diego and the City of Chula Vista, concurrent with approval of the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP. The RMPI provides general biological information and establishes overall Preserve conservation and management goals. The RMPI also provides performance standards for preservation of biological resources. The RMP Phase 2 ("RMP2") provides detailed biological studies, specific plans and programs for habitat management, and a habitat conveyance plan. As development occurs in Otay Ranch, habitat is conveyed to the City and the County with an undivided interest. The RMP2 establishes a habitat conveyance schedule, requiring that 1.188 acres of habitat is to be conveyed for each acre ofland developed. The proposed project will not be required to convey preserve land, primarily because it is not a permanent use, and conveyance of preserve land would be triggered by final maps associated with a development project. Also, it should be noted that the portions of the project Page 13 of37 15-39 located in the area identified as "not a part" in the Otay Ranch GDP and RMP would not be subject to any of the requirements of the RMP or GDP, including conveyance requirements. An important part of the RMPl is the creation of the Otay Ranch Preserve. The Otay Ranch Preserve is a "hard-line" preserve (indicating that all of the areas designated as Preserve would be set aside for resource conservation purposes). The Otay Ranch Preserve includes approximately 11,375 acres of land to be set-aside as mitigation for impacts to sensitive resources resulting from Otay Ranch development that will occur both within the City and in the County. The Otay Ranch Preserve has been designed and is proposed to be managed specifically for protection and enhancement of multiple species present on Otay Ranch. These conservation lands will also serve to connect large areas of open space through a series of wildlife corridors. Portions of the project are proposed within the RMP Preserve (Camping Area), and portions are within areas designated as development (Track Area and Parking Area). The RMP identifies active recreation use within portions of the Preserve designated areas of the Otay River Valley (Camping Area), consistent with the GDP. The proposed camping use is consistent with the active recreation designation for the area within which it is proposed, but as noted previously, all of the proposed uses are temporary and would not preclude implementation of the RMP. Otav Ranch Pit Reclamation Plan The Otay Ranch Pit Reclamation Plan was prepared in accordance with the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) of 1975. The reclamation plan details (1) the beginning and expected ending dates for each phase of mining activities; (2) all reclamation activities required; (3) criteria for measuring completion of specific reclamation activities; and (4) estimated costs for completion of each phase of reclamation. The total land area included in the adopted reclamation plan totals 157.7 acres. As described in the reclamation plan, the ultimate reclamation of the quarry would occur in a manner that would facilitate future development within this area consistent with the City's General Plan. Additionally, the adopted reclamation plan includes a biological restoration plan designed to reclaim previously disturbed Preserve areas back to a level consistent with the surrounding undisturbed open space Preserve areas. Reclamation of the disturbed Preserve areas is not scheduled to occur until the completion of extraction activities associated with Sub-phase 5.3 and Sub-phase 5.4, respectively, which is approximately 25 years from present. Given the temporary, short-term nature of the project, no adverse impacts are anticipated that would prevent the ultimate reclamation of this site as detailed in the currently approved reclamation plan RP 79-09. ZoniD!! Current zoning for the site is Planned Community (PC). The proposed CORR event is allowed subject approval of a CUP by the City Council as provided for in the Unclassified Use Section 19.54 of the Municipal Code. Because the use is temporary, it will not require amendments to the Chula Vista General Plan, or the Otay Ranch GDP. Page 14 of37 15-40 City of Chula Vista Multiple Species Conservation Prol!:ram Subarea Plan The Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Subarea Plan was prepared by the City of Chula Vista in coordination with the Federal and State Regulatory agencies in order to implement the MSCP Subregional Plan within the City of Chula Vista. The City Council adopted the MSCP Subarea Plan on May 13,2003. Subsequently, the Wildlife Agencies issued the City a Take Permit and signed the Implementing Agreement granting the City Take Authorization on January 11,2005. The existing quarry site is recognized by the City's MSCP Subarea Plan as a legal, non- conforming use, in operation at the time the underlying zone was established. As such, existing mining activities have continued to operate under legally existing permits. Potential indirect impacts to the City's MSCP Subarea Plan are discussed below in Section F. F. PUBLIC COMMENTS On April 9, 2007, a Notice of Initial Study was circulated to property owners and residents within a 500-foot radius of the proposed project site. The notice period ended April 19, 2007. Four written comments were received during the 10-dav public review of the NO!. Comments received raised concerns regarding noise impacts, impacts air quality, impacts water qualitv, impacts to biological resources, impacts cultural resources, public services, site access, consistency with the City's Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Subarea Plan Preserve and Otav Ranch Resource Management Plan (RMPl. and consistency with the Otav Vallev Regional Park (OVRP) Concept Plan. On April 20, 2007 a Notice of Availabilitv of the Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proiect was posted in the County Clerk's Office and circulated to property owners and residents within a 500-foot radius of the proiect site as well as adiacent businesses. property owners, and tenants along Nirvana Avenue and Energv Way, who are located beyond the 500- foot radius. The 30-dav public comment period closed on Mav 21. 2007. Comment letters were received from the public and from the Sierra Club. County of San Diego, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service I California Department of Fish and Game (Wildlife Agencies). The issues raised involved noise impacts, impacts air quality. impacts water quality. impacts to biological resources, impacts cultural resources. public services, site access. consistency with the City's Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Subarea Plan Preserve and Otav Ranch Resource Management Plan (RMP), and consistency with the Otav Vallev Regional Park (OVRP) Concept Plan. The issues raised in these letters have been addressed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration and attached checklist. as well as in the attached response to comments (Attachment "B"). Page 15 of 37 15-41 G. IDENTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS The City of Chula Vista determined that the proposed project would have significant environmental effects (see the Environmental Checklist included in this MND). All of these effects have been mitigated to below significance by project design or mitigation measures (see Section H and the attached MMRP). The preparation of an Environmental Impact Report will not be required. This Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with Section 15070 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Aesthetics The proposed project would occur over two non-consecutive weekends and does not propose any permanent structures or improvements. The total area that would be used by the proposed event activities encompasses approximately 154 acres, of which 35.6 acres have already been disturbed through mineral extraction. Only minor surface preparation activities will be required for the proposed event. As previously noted, only minor site preparation is required, and therefore, no modifications to existing natural landform would occur, therefore there would be no impacts associated with grading. No grading permit will be required. The proposed activities would include temporary tent-like structures, spectator stands, shade canopies, and portable restroom facilities as well as parked vehicles that would be visible from some public and private vantages points primarily to the south and west. Nighttime security lighting would be allowed in the pit areas and overnight camping areas located on the west and south of the track facility (Figure 3). The night lighting would be visible from residential areas to the south of the site. The project will be required to comply with the light and glare regulations (Section 19.66.100) of the Chula Vista Municipal Code (CVMe). Compliance with these regulations will ensure that no significant glare, or light would affect daytime or nighttime views in the surrounding residential neighborhood area or adjacent roadways. Additionally, lighting will be directed downward and away from adjacent MSCP Preserve areas. Because the nighttime lighting would be temporary, occurring over two independent weekends, the proposed project would not permanently alter the aesthetic or visual character of the site or result in a new source of substantial light or glare. Therefore, the proposed 2007 CORR event is not anticipated to result in significant impacts to aesthetics. Air Oualitv An air quality technical report was prepared by Scientific Resources Associated (April 2007) for the project. Project related emissions would occur from vehicles traveling to the CORR event site, race vehicle emissions generated during race events and dust generated by the racing activities. All mining activities associated with the existing quarry will cease during race events. Page 16 of37 15-42 Race Event Phase The operational impacts associated with the Project would be confined to impacts associated with automotive traffic from spectators, employees, support vehicles, and the race participants. Fugitive dust emissions from the racing events themselves were estimated based on the U.S. EPA's emission factors for travel on unpaved roads from the Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (AP-42), Section 13.2 (U.S. EPA 2003). The emissions from unpaved roads are estimated to be 489.56 pounds per day. It should be noted that the majority of the PM10 emissions predicted by the URBEMIS model are attributable to road dust from vehicles traveling on paved roads to the event; these emissions are based on the default assumptions within the URBEMIS model, and assume that 4.71Ibs/day PMIO are attributable to vehicle exhaust, with 79.93 1bs/day attributable to road dust. PM2.5 emissions have been estimated in accordance with the SCAQMD guidelines (SCAQMD 2006) as discussed under construction emissions. Emissions of VOCs and NOx, would be below screening criteria for daily emissions thresholds. Fugitive dust emissions (both PMIO and PM2S) would be above the screening thresholds without mitigation. Project mitigation is incorporated to provide for spraying of water during the 15- minute intervals between races, to control fugitive dust; thus there will be a minimum of 6 passes (6 races per day). Based on the control efficiency in the URBEMIS 2002 model, 3 passes of watering per day provides a 51 % control efficiency on unpaved roads; therefore it was assumed that 6 passes per day would provide a 90% control efficiency. This would be consistent with the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook (SCAQMD 1993), which projects a control efficiency of up to 85% for watering three times daily on unpaved roads. Implementation of this mitigation would reduce emissions ofPM10 and PM2.5 to below the significance thresholds. Emissions of CO are be above the screening criteria for significance. Therefore, the next tier of analysis, a CO "hot spots" analysis, was performed to determine the actual significance of the impact. Projects involving traffic impacts may result in the formation of locally high concentrations of CO, known as CO "hot spots." To verify that the project would not cause or contribute to a violation of the CO standard, a screening evaluation of the potential for CO "hot spots" was conducted in accordance with guidance in the Caltrans ITS Transportation Project-Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol (Caltrans 1998). Project effects were modeled using the CALINE4 model. The CO concentrations predicted by the model, in addition to the high I-hour background concentration, resulted in a total concentration ofless than 10 parts per million (ppm), which is below the CO standard of20 ppm. Therefore impacts related to CO hot spots are less than significant, and the project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations of CO. Page 17 of37 15-43 All portable generators required for the race events would either be registered by the APCD, or would have appropriate permits; therefore the emissions from portable generators are not included in this analysis. Post Race Event Phase Once the operation phase of the project has been completed, emissions would be generated from the transport of any contaminated soil (i.e., oil and gasoline from on-site vehicles) from the project site to appropriate disposal locations approved by local, state, and federal agencies. If required for site cleanup, it is anticipated that soil would be transported off-site. In addition, after the racing event is completed, the project site would be retained in its pre- project condition. Hence, one additional truck would be traveling to and from the project site, post project operation. The quantity of trucks traveling to and from the project and amount of soil being disturbed during the post-operation phase is anticipated to be the same or less than what would be generated during the site preparation phase and therefore, post -operation emissions are anticipated to be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required. The mitigation measures contained in Section H below would mitigate short-term operational air quality impacts to below a level of significance. These measures are included as a part of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. AlZricultural Resources Historically, portions of the project site that contain the proposed parking areas in Village Three, and the camping area in Otay River Valley have been used for dry farming, as well as cattle and sheep grazing. Crop production was limited to hay and grains (typically barley) due to limited water availability. The project area does not contain designated Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance or Unique Farmland (United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Califomia Department of Agriculture). The site has been locally designated as Farmland of Local Importance and is identified as Grazing Land. No land within the project area is subject to the Williamson Act. The former agricultural fields will be utilized for parking and camping. The fields have been harvested, and the remaining vegetation has been mowed. Thus, the temporary parking and camping on the fields will not preclude used of the land for agricultural purposes after the race events. Therefore, impacts to agricultural uses on the site would be less than significant. Biololrlcal Resources Implementation of the proposed project would result in direct impacts to the following vegetation communities: annual (non-native) grassland (103.4 acres) and developed/disturbed land (38.0 acres). Furthermore, all of the 103.4 acres of impacts to annual grassland are within former agriculture areas of the Parking and Camping areas. Site preparation for these areas will Pagel80f37 15-44 consist of mowing only, and no soil-disturbing site preparation (i.e., grading activities) is proposed. Therefore, impacts to annual grassland within the Parking and Camping areas would be temporary and would not result in permanent or significant adverse impacts to annual grasslands. These areas would not require active restoration for recovery to pre-project conditions. Freshwater marsh, mixed riparian scrub, and southern willow scrub within the survey area would be avoided and not be directly impacted by the project. During the course of the site visit, two individual male coastal California gnatcatchers were observed in disturbed coastal sage scrub outside of the project's direct impact area (see Figure 5). In addition to the two gnatcatcher locations identified in recent surveys, Figure 5 also shows locations of previously identified locations for gnatcatcher and least Bell's vireo, to provide context for potentially suitable habitat for these species, and to help understand the nature and extent of potential indirect effects. The annual grasslands identified in the Parking and Camping Areas could serve as potentially suitable habitat for burrowing owl. To avoid direct impacts to burrowing owl, pre-construction surveys will be required (February through August - therefore only applicable to the June race event). If owls are found to be nesting as a result of the surveys, the active nest areas will be avoided and fenced as appropriate. No long-term, direct impacts to sensitive vegetation communities would result from project implementation. Direct impacts to active burrowing owl nests could result if nests are present at the time of operation during the nesting season (June race only). The project site is located adjacent to the City's MSCP Preserve. Implementation of the proposed proj ect will result in indirect impacts to sensitive habitat and species found within the Preserve. In order to reduce indirect impacts to the Preserve, the project will be required to adhere to specific guidelines established in the Adjacency Management Issues discussion in the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan (Section 7.5.2 of the Subarea Plan). The following is a summary of the requirements relevant to the proposed project, and a discussion of project compliance. Drainage/Toxics: All developed and paved areas must prevent the release of toxins, chemicals, petroleum products, exotic plant materials and other elements that might degrade or harm the natural environment or ecosystem processes within the Preserve. The project would involve the use, transport, storage, handling and disposal of toxic substances such as gasoline and other automotive fluids. Use of these substances onsite would occur for the short duration of time of the racing event. No use of these substances would occur in the MSCP Preserve, whish is leeated approximately 150 feet frem. the edge of the raeetraek and oyer 500 feet frem. the pit area. As discussed under the Hazards and Hazardous Materials section, BMPs would be implemented during all phases of the project to mitigate for potential impacts associated with hazardous waste/toxins entering drainages. These BMPs are specified in Appendix A and require City review and approval by the Director of Public Works. Page 190f37 15-45 I~ U1 , Or::::" ~g 81'01 &1.- "" .. .. ... &< ~-t .s- '! ~e. .S! ... ~... .J!:E U ell ... ~ '" co ell & c;; .. '6> co "2i iii ~ . ~ . .. ~ ~ " .. ~ 4 < ~ . . '. . , . ~ < 4 ,Q l,J e ! IIJ II .c: l,I Il: III ieii!.a B ~ :. ii I t ; It i! 1 E 1/1 ~i~i~l ~~~~C:i 1I ~ ; ~ ; E E :& Ii Ii IIJ ... 4 < u o 4 . < . u .. o u . u ~ . . 0 o . ii .! i i ~ . ~ ~ . . f f a a . . Q ii II II E o 0 - o 0 ~ ~ rJ . o ; ~ . . 4 o . . . . 4 < U ~ ; . u u "; '; . . ~ lJJ (ll 'i " " . 'E E = ~ :! .3 ~ ~ . < ~ . ~ o ~ . . . o . o o o 1 . ~ ~ . f ~ . is ~ . .. o .. > . o " % o ;; w o f 1 ; '; u ! 1 0 . ~ ! . ; .. . ~ . . . ,_, z .. ~ . . . ~ ~ ~ o c . , " ,[' <30< o 46 The following summarizes the BMPs from Appendix A, and are required to reduce effects associated with drainage and toxics to less than significant levels, as required by the Subarea Plan: Containment Areas - BMP's utilized during Race Events include secondary containment at vehicle maintenance (pit) areas, hazardous materials storage areas, vehicle wash stations, portable bathrooms, trash disposal and materials storage areas. Additionally, any fuel drum storage and used oil storage areas will be contained and also bermed. Hazardous materials are to be placed in closed containers to prevent contact with runoff and to prevent spillage to the storm water conveyance system. Secondary containment, such as berms or dykes, will also be provided. Vactor trucks will be used to remove runoff from the containment areas and the collected runoff will be disposed of in accordance with City standards. Hazardous Waste containers will remain covered at all times. Run-on from adjacent areas will be prevented from coming into contact with the containment areas. Attached lids are provided on all trash containers to minimize direct precipitation. Site Runoff-Two desilting basins will be used as retention basins. Outlets will be blocked off so that no runoff will be allowed to discharge from these basins. At the conclusion of each racing event, accumulated debris and pollutants will be removed from these basins and disposed of in accordance with City standards. An existing perimeter fence is located at the limits of grading to prevent the escape of wind blown trash and debris. There is an existing earthen berm along the southern edge of the proposed race track facilities that will also ensure any direct run-off into the Otay River. Maintenance - Dust and trash control measures are included as well. To further inhibit sediment migration, the track is watered between races. Access roads and parking areas will be routinely watered as well. Onsite trash collection is provided throughout the event. Parking areas are graded, with silt fences and bio- filters along the perimeter to treat oil and grease from parked vehicles. There are no permanent utilities at the site. Generators, water trucks, a vactor truck, and portable bathroom facilities will be utilized. No temporary facilities will remain on site after the fmal race event. Long term maintenance of all remaining BMP's are the responsibility of James P. Baldwin and Associates who guarantee performance of proper BMP maintenance by the posting of a performance bond as required by the City of Chula Vista. Access Roads - There are three proposed access roads into the site. This will be used for public access and emergency access during race events. The main entrance to the facility is from the intersection of Main Street and Heritage Road and runs eastward on Wiley Road toward the existing rock quarry. The main access road will have a crushed asphalt base 6" in depth, for the first 200' from the point of entry. Maintenance will be continuous during race events. The Applicant will be responsible for the maintenance of these construction entrances and all other BMP's described herein. Access to the parking area within Village Three is proposed from Energy Way to the west. In addition, access to the camping area is proposed from Heritage Road. Page 21 of37 15-47 Trackinz - To insure that no tracked sediment reaches the storm drain system, a sweeper truck is employed to remove any sediment deposited onto Main Street or Heritage Road due to increased traffic during race events. All efforts will be made to prevent mud from being tracked onto public roads. In no case will vehicles be permitted to drive on, or park in muddy areas, or to leave the site without first removing any accumulations of loose mud. In the event of rain, all race events will be rescheduled. Wind Erosion/Dust Control - Silt fencing is provided at the limits of grading to prevent escape of trash, debris or sediment to the surrounding area. This BMP is designed to capture wind-blown pollutants. To enhance the dust control efforts, the track will be watered extensively between races. To enhance trash control efforts, onsite trash collection is provided throughout race events. Lighting: Lighting of all developed areas adjacent to the Preserve should be directed away from the Preserve wherever feasible and consistent with public safety. Where necessary, development should provide adequate shielding to protect the Preserve and sensitive species from night lighting. Temporary safety lighting associated with the project would be limited to the pit area, spectator area and camping area. The lighting for these areas would be directed downward, and away from the Preserve. The portion of the project that is located adjacent to the Preserve is the track area. The track portion of the project site would not be lighted, and no race events would occur at night. Light spillage into the Preserve would be considered significant. Noise: Uses in or adjacent to the Preserve should be designed to minimize noise impacts. Berms or walls should be constructed adjacent to commercial areas and any other use that may introduce noises that could impact or interfere with wildlife utilization of the Preserve. Excessively noisy uses or activities adjacent to breeding areas, including temporary grading activities, must incorporate noise reduction measures or be curtailed during the breeding season of sensitive bird species. As discussed in the Noise analysis of this MND, noise resulting from project related activities includes noise associated with vehicle racing, loudspeakers, or other incidental sound sources associated with the events. Species of concern relative to this policy (i.e. sensitive bird species) include the coastal California gnatcatcher and least Bell's vireo. Because the project site is adjacent to the MSCP Preserve, analysis of noise impacts on noise sensitive species within the MSCP Preserve is required. Specifically, the Subarea Plan restricts uses located adjacent to Preserve areas that generate excessive noise during the breeding season for noise sensitive bird species. In this particular case, the species of concern are the Least Bell's Vireo and Coastal California Gnatcatcher, because their habitat is located within the Preserve. The City's MSCP Subarea Plan does not provide a specific numerical threshold for operational noise affecting these species, but for comparative purposes, a generally accepted standard used to Page 22 of37 15-48 evaluate impacts is a one-hour average noise level greater than 60 dB. No other species identified in the Subarea Plan or MSCP Sub regional Plan as having specific conditions related to noise impacts are located within the portions of the MSCP Preserve in the vicinity of the project. The noise analysis prepared for the project (Environmental Noise Assessment for the Temporary Off-Road Race Track, Dudek & Associates, April 16, 2007) provides an estimate of noise levels generated by the proposed project. Unattenuated noise levels at the closest sensitive habitat location within the Preserve, immediately adjacent to the south of the proposed track, are estimated to be 85 dB hourly Leq. Taking the existing terrain topography into consideration, and providing the maximum sound attenuation available through structural design features (enclosure of the rear of the stands located between the track and the Preserve), the noise analysis concludes that areas having potential to support least Bell's vireo and coastal California gnatcatcher are expected to be exposed noise levels of approximately 75 dB hourly Leq noise level during the racing events. Ambient noise measurements were recorded within the project area, as noted in the Noise Assessment. Ambient noise within the project area is primarily associated with the existing rock quarry operation, including rock and gravel extraction, earth moving equipment, and rock crushing activities. Ambient noise measurements in portions of the quarry adjacent to sensitive habitat areas within the Preserve indicate noise levels eHipranging between 68 to 78 dB Leq. The noise recording locations are within close proximity to areas historically occupied by California gnatcatcher and least Bell's vireo, suggesting that there may be localized tolerance of elevated noise levels by these species in this area. Due to the short-term nature of the proposed project (two consecutive days during the nesting season), and existing elevated ambient noise levels, it is not anticipated that the project will result in significant indirect impacts on these noise sensitive species. Invasives: No invasive non-native plant species shall be introduced into areas immediately adjacent to the Preserve. The project does not propose landscaping that would introduce invasive species, and the erosion control BMPs specifically require that native plant species be used. Unauthorized access and/or predation by domestic pets may result from introduction of the human use adjacent to the Preserve. To avoid such adverse effects, the project shall be required to provide fencing and signage to discourage access to the Preserve. In addition, the project shall be required to either prohibit domestic pets, or require that all pets remain on leases pursuant to applicable City requirements. Implementation of the proposed temporary uses includes measures to avoid indirect impacts on the Preserve through adherence with the Subarea Plan requirements relative to adjacency management issues. Therefore, the project would not result in any conflicts with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Page 23 of37 15-49 The mitigation measures contained in Section H below would mitigate potential indirect impacts to sensitive biological resources to below a level of significance. These measures are included as a part of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Cultural and Paleontolostical Resources Based on data reviewed from previous studies and additional testing conducted in 2007 (Archaeological Study for the Chula Vista International Raceway, Brian F. Smith and Associates, Spril, 2007), two sites (SDI-9976 and SDI-12,29Ib) were determined to be significant under the guidelines set forth by the City of Chula Vista and CEQA (Section 15064.5). The remaining sites are either not significant or were located in areas outside of potential direct impacts and were not tested. Impacts will occur to cultural resources in the parking area, the camping area, the track area and the various access roads. For most of the impacts, these are characterized as "superficial" and are related to mowing and parking. Potential direct adverse impacts are anticipated for only two cultural resource sites, SDI-9976 and SDI-12,291(b). Measures to reduce potential impacts will focus upon preservation. Data recovery will not be required as an alternative for the mitigation of impacts, as sufficient latitude is available for organization of the project to facilitate preservation of the significant resources. For sites that are significant, or were not evaluated and are assumed to be significant, mitigation measures will include preservation and fencing. Based on the underlving geologic formations, the proposed parking and camping areas are located within areas considered to be of moderate to high sensitivity for paleontological resources. However, because the proposed proiect does not involve anv grading of these areas, impacts to paleontological resources is considered to be less than significant. The mitigation measures contained in Section H below would mitigate potential impacts to Archeological Rewsources to below a level of significance. These measures are included as a part of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. GeololIT and Soils The project consists of a temporary use, and involves no grading, excavation or cutting/filling of slopes, and involves only minimal clearing and leveling activities would be conducted. The project is a temporary event taking place over two separate weekends, and no permanent structures are proposed. Therefore, the project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving seismic ground shaking, seismic-related ground failure or landslides; nor would it be affected by potential unstable soils, or cause soils to become unstable, or result in or be affected by liquefaction or collapse. Further, the project does not propose the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Erosion impacts could occur as a result of race operations. Erosion control measures and erosion BMPs are identified in Attachment A to this MND, Implementation of Best Management Page240f37 15-50 Practices for Storm Water Pollution Prevention at the Otay Ranch Championship Race Track Site, and would mitigate potential impacts resulting from erosion to less than significant. The erosion control measures identified in Appendix A would require review and approval by the Director of Public Works. The mitigation measures contained in Section H below would mitigate potential impacts to Geology and Soils to below a level of significance. These measures are included as a part of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Hazards and Hazardous Materials The proposed proj ect would involve the transport, storage, and handling of hazardous materials (gasoline and engine fluids) associated with the proposed activities for a short duration of time. Potential impacts resulting from exposure to or leaks/spills of hazardous materials may occur; however, BMPs would be in place that would reduce potential impacts to less than significant. The BMPs are identified in Appendix A and are identified as mitigation measures in Section H of this document. BMPs include features such as special drums that would serve as self- contained treatment for all runoff from maintenance bays (pit areas), vehicle and equipment wash areas, bathroom areas, and trash and material storage areas. Vactor trucks would be used to remove runoff from the containment drums and the collected runoff would be disposed of in accordance with City standards. Hazardous materials would be placed in an enclosure that prevents contact with runoff or spillage to the storm water conveyance system. Storage, wash, and maintenance areas for race vehicles and hazardous materials/waste, as well as restroom areas would be lined with an impervious material to contain leaks and spills and these areas would (where feasible) have a roof or awning to minimize direct precipitation within the secondary containment area. With implementation of the BMPs, the project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, or create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Therefore, project impacts to these relevant thresholds would be less than significant. The project is not located in the vicinity of an existing or proposed school, nor is it on a list of hazardous materials site. Further the project is not in the vicinity of a public or private airport, and not subject to an airport land use plan. Therefore, no impacts relative to these thresholds would result. The project is a temporary use that would not have the ability to impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Further, the project features include public safety plans and personnel assigned to the events to further protect public safety during the events. Because the project is a temporary use and fire equipment and personnel will be present on the site during the proposed events, the proj ect would not expose people or structures to a significant risk ofIoss, injury or death involving wildland fires. Page 25 of37 15-51 The mitigation measures contained in Section H below would mitigate potential impacts to Hazards and Hazardous Materials to below a level of significance. These measures are included as a part of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. HvdrololZV and Water Oualitv The proposed CORR events would involve activities that have the potential to result in potential impacts to hydrology and water quality. During race events, urban runoff from the site has the potential to contribute pollutants, including oil and grease, suspended solids, metals, gasoline, and pathogens to the receiving waters. Once the CORR event is complete, some portions of the site, including manufactured slopes, may be exposed and susceptible to erosion. Pollutants of concern associated with the proposed project are grouped into the following categories: sediments; metals; oil and grease; trash, debris and floatables; bacteria and viruses; and organic compounds and oxygen-demanding substances. In order to address these issues, features have been incorporated into the project design to minimize water quality impacts. The racetrack has been designed such that runoff would drain into a treatment BMP and away from the MSCP Preserve, including Otay River and Wolf Canyon. With project design features, potential impacts to hydrology and water quality may still occur; however, BMPs would be implemented to mitigate potential impacts to less than significant levels. The BMPs have been identified in Appendix A and require review and approval by the Director of Public Works. BMPs identified in Appendix A include, but are not limited to the following: desilt basins, special drums for containment of waste, trash and hazardous materials and silt fencing/sand bags. Because of the scope of activities proposed and the short duration of the proposed project, the race events would not have the ability to substantially alter the flow of surface or groundwater. In addition, the project would not involve pumping of groundwater and would therefore not result in the possibility of depletion of groundwater supplies. Although portions of the project site are within the IOO-year flood plain of the Otay River, the project does not propose construction of permanent structures and therefore, would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding. In addition, the proposed operations would occur outside of the rainy season. The project would not directly discharge to an existing storm drain system and would not alter any drainage pattern. Therefore, no impact upon storm water conveyance capacities would occur. The mitigation measures contained in Section H below would mitigate potential impacts to Hydrology and Water Quality to below a level of significance. These measures are included as a part of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Page 26 of37 15-52 Noise An Acoustical Analysis was prepared by Dudek and Associates (April 2007) for the proposed project which is summarized below. The existing noise levels at the site were monitored to determine ambient noise levels in the project vicinity, including areas adjacent to and within the MSCP Preserve. On site noise monitoring results indicate the existing noise levels at the monitored locations to range between 68 and 78 dBA. Applicable Standards The City of Chula Vista has adopted a quantitative noise ordinance to control excessive noise generated in the City. The ordinance limits are in terms of a one-hour average sound level. The allowable noise limits depend upon the noise receiving land use and time of day. The City's noise ordinance states that if the measured ambient level exceeds that permissible by the land use standards, the allowable noise exposure standard shall be the ambient noise level. The ambient level shall be measured when the alleged noise violations source is not operating. If the measured ambient noise level without the subject noise source exceeds the applicable land use limit, the allowable one-hour average noise levels shall be the ambient noise level. The City of Chula Vista noise ordinance exterior noise limit for single-family residences is 45 dB between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. on weekdays, and between 10 p.m. and 8 a.m. on weekends. The daytime (between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. on weekdays, and between 8 a.m. and 10 p.m. on weekends) exterior noise limit is 55 dB. The project's noise generating activities will occur during daytime, Le., between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. on weekdays, and between 8 a.m. and 7 p.m. on weekends. Consequently the 55 dB exterior noise criteria has been used for our evaluation of the project's potential noise impacts upon the closest residences, located at approximately 6,000 feet or more to the southwest of the site in the City of San Diego. The 70 dB exterior noise criteria has been used for our evaluation of the project's potential noise impacts upon the industrial land use at approximately 1,000 feet distance, southwest of the project site. Chapter 19.68 Section 19.68.060 of the City of Chula Vista Municipal Code exempts occasional outdoor gatherings, public dances, shows and sporting and entertainment events, provided the events are conducted pursuant to a permit or license issued by the city relative to the staging of the events. The City's General Plan Noise Element contains land use/noise compatibility guidelines for various types of uses. The City considers an annual noise level of 65 dB CNEL to be compatible with residential land uses. The General Plan states that the compatibility guidelines are not intended to conflict with or contradict the Noise Ordinance, but provide guidance for total noise exposure, including traffic noise and other sources that are not regulated by the Noise Ordinance. The following analysis provides a complete assessment of project related noise, including traffic noise, and therefore addresses impacts in accordance with the Noise Ordinance, the General Plan Page 27 of37 15-53 guidelines, and the MSCP Subarea Plan. Noise issues related to sensitive biological resources are addressed above under the subheading Biology. Several activities associated with the race event would contribute to the overall potential noise impact of the project, including off-road racing, public address system, generators, and miscellaneous activities, such as revving engines and vehicles in various parking lot areas. The noise levels associated with these events and activities have been evaluated based on noise measurements previously conducted during various CaRR racing events in the City of Chula Vista and published noise level data, as appropriate. Noise measurements taken from previous event include cumulative noise associated with race vehicle engines, loud speakers, event music and fireworks. The measured and published data have been used to calculate the noise levels at the nearest residential properties and at the adjacent noise sensitive species habitat area(s). To determine the worse-case (loudest) noise level associated with the Championship Off-Road Racing Event, the loudest noise level monitored during CaRR truck and buggy racing events in 2006 at the temporary Chula Vista CaRR race track was used. These noise measurements indicate that a worse case-racing event would generate an average hourly Leq of 93 dBA at 100 feet distance from the racetrack. This 93 dBA noise level has been used as a basis to estimate the worse case hourly Leq racing events noise levels at the nearest residential area, the adjacent industrial land use, and the adjacent biological habitat. The nearest residences are located at approximately 6,000 feet or more to the southwest of the site. This large distance from the racetrack site allows the noise source to be considered as a point source with 6 dB attenuation per distance doubling. For typical atmospheric conditions, A- weighted sound levels are attenuated by l-dBA per 1,000 feet distance due to atmospheric absorption. The stands between the racetrack and this residential location are also expected to provide some shielding, approximately 3 to 5 dB. Applying the distance, atmospheric, and stand shielding attenuation to the 93 dBA at 100 ft racetrack noise level results in a 46 to 48 dBA noise level at the nearest residents' location. This calculated noise level does not exceed the City of Chula Vista Noise ordinance 55 dB exterior noise criteria between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. on weekdays, and between 8 a.m. and 10 p.m. on weekends. Based on the proposed racing schedule and the calculated hourly 48 dB racetrack level, the resulting noise levels at the nearest residential location would be less than 50 dB CNEL. This is well below the City's General Plan Noise Element 65 dB CNEL residential land use noise compatible criteria. Therefore, the racing noise impacts from the project upon the nearest residential area is considered less than significant. An industrial land use is located at approximately 1,000 feet distance, southwest of the project site. Applying the distance, atmospheric, and stand shielding attenuation to the 93 dBA at 100 feet racetrack noise level results in a 63 to 65 dBA noise level at the industrial land use property. This calculated noise level does not exceed the City of Chula Vista Noise Ordinance 70 dB exterior noise criteria for Light Industrial Land Uses. Therefore, the racing noise impacts from the project upon the adjacent industrial land use is considered less than significant. Page 28 of37 15-54 The average hourly project noise levels at the adjacent industrial and nearest residences would comply with the City's 70 dB and 55 dB noise ordinance criteria for light industrial and residential land uses, respectively. As previously noted the race events would only occur for 4 days (two weekends) with individual practice runs and qualifying on Fridays. Chapter 19.68 Section 19.68.060 of the City of Chula Vista Municipal Code exempts occasional sporting and entertainment events, provided the events are conducted pursuant to a permit or license issued by the city relative to the staging of the events. Concluding, the noise generated by the proposed project does not exceed the City's Noise Ordinance criteria during the race events, and the project would represent an occasional outdoor sporting and entertainment event that is exempt from the noise level limit provisions of the City's noise ordinance, and, consequently, is not considered a significant noise impact on surrounding land uses. In terms of the City's CNEL noise guideline, the combined noise from all the identified race activities would be an annual CNEL of less than 50 dB at the nearest residential location. This noise level would comply with the City's 65 exterior annual CNEL noise criterion at the nearest residences. Since these residences are located in City of San Diego, it should be noted that the project noise levels would also meet the City of San Diego's 65 dB CNEL noise criterion. Public Services The proposed project would not involve changing land uses that would result in increased permanent demand for public services personnel, equipment and facilities or result in changes in service levels. The proposed project has the potential to result in hazards associated with accidents during the race events and therefore creates a temporary increase in demand for police and fire services. The closest fire station that would respond to an incident at the project site is located at 1410 Brandywine Ave., approximately 3 miles to the northwest. The mitigation measures contained in Section H below would mitigate potential public services impacts to a less than significance level. These measures are included as a part of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. TransDortationITraffic The proposed CORR events would be accessed via Main Street, Heritage Road, and Energy Way. The proposed events are anticipated to generate up to 7,440 vehicles per day of the event. Pay parking will be offered at the onsite parking lots. Based on the additional special event traffic and the potential for queuing to pay for parking, there is the potential for localized congestion at ingress and egress points of the project and parking impacts on City roadways during the two weekends of the proposed CORR event. A traffic control plan is required to be prepared in accordance with City guidelines by the project applicant and submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer prior to issuance of the CUP. Elements of the traffic control plan would include, but not limited to, a description of the signage, striping, delineate detours, flagging operations and any other devices which would be Page 29 of37 15-55 used during events to guide motorists safely to parking locations from public roadways. The traffic control plan would also include provisions for coordinating with local emergency service providers regarding event times and measures for bicycle lane safety. The Plan would address parking plans for each parking lot, and would address methods to facilitate collection of parking fees to minimize queuing on public streets. The Traffic Control Plan would ensure that access and traffic flow would be maintained, and that emergency access would not be restricted. Additionally, the Plan would ensure that congestion and temporary delay of traffic resulting from the event and would be of a short-term nature. Implementation of the traffic control plan would mitigate potential impacts to circulation and parking to less than significant. The mitigation measures contained in Section H below would mitigate potential temporary Transportation impacts to a less than significance level. These measures are included as a part of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Utilities and Service Systems The project would not result in increased demand for utilities. Because the project would be a temporary event, no permanent utilities would be constructed. Temporary generators would provide power for lighting and electricity. Portable restrooms and water would also be brought in for use during the CORR event. Trash would be collected routinely throughout the event and disposed of in approved disposal containers. The City's existing Salt Creek Sewer Interceptor line traverses the southern limits of the existing quarry site. Any activity or operation that would restrict the City's access to this utility would be considered significant. Based on the conceptual site plans, vender tents and portions of the pit area would be situated over the pipeline. The City's Department of Public Works has stated that lightweight tents and/or canopies are permissible over the pipeline but parking of vehicles shall be prohibited. Additionally, 24-hour, unrestricted access to all manholes shall be maintained at all times during site preparation and race operations. The mitigation measures contained in Section H below would mitigate potential utilities and service systems impacts to a less than significance level. These measures are included as a part of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Thresholds The project would not result in any of the identified growth management thresholds falling below acceptable levels, as indicated in the discussion of public services, traffic and utilities and services. Page 30 of37 15-56 H. MITGATION NECESSARY TO A VOID SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS Project-specific mitigation measures are required to reduce potential environmental impacts identified in this Mitigated Negative Declaration to a less than significant level. These mitigation measures are listed below and included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) included as Attachment B to this MND. Air Oualitv 1. The following project design features, have been included as mitigation measures to assure their implementation, and shall be implemented prior to commencement of each race event: · Workers shall perform excavation, site preparation, materials handling, and hauling in compliance with SDAPCD Regulation 4, Rules 52 and 54 regarding fugitive dust for Control of Fine Particulate Matter (PM10). Specific measures to be included in specifications shall address the maintenance of adequate moisture content in soils to be excavated and transported; the stabilization of exposed graded areas; and prevention of soil track -out from disturbed areas onto paved roads. · Low emission mobile heavy equipment shall be used, where feasible. · The contractors shall obtain applicable air quality permits for any portable or stationary internal combustion engine subject to SDAPCD permit requirements. · To reduce fugitive dust, the track area, access roads, and parking areas shall be watered at a minimum of twice a day to reduce PM10 levels. · Excluding race vehicles operating on the designated track, spectator and maintenance vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall not exceed 15 miles per hour. · All trucks hauling materials subject to wind dispersal shall be watered and covered. · All disturbed soil areas not subject to re-vegetation shall be stabilized with approved nontoxic soil binders, jute netting, or other methods, as appropriate. · Idling time oftrucks and other heavy equipment shall be minimized. · Groundcover on the site shall be re-established through seeding and watering. · The streets shall be swept immediately when silt is carried over to adjacent public thoroughfares. · Engines in site preparation equipment shall be maintained by keeping them properly tuned. · Low sulfur fuel shall be used for stationary equipment. · Existing power sources (e.g., power poles) or clean fuel generators rather than temporary power generators shall be used, whenever feasible. · The track shall be watered by a minimum of four trucks during each IS-minute rest period. Page 31 of37 15-57 · All parking lots within agricultural fields shall be mowed such that roots of the vegetation remain intact in order to provide soil stabilization. · Parking lots and other areas with exposed dirt shall be watered to minimize fugitive dust, as necessary. Biolo2ical Resources 2. To ensure that no direct or indirect impacts to nesting borrowing owls occur during site preparation and active use of the parking and camping areas. prior to initiating anv site preparation-related activities. pre-active use survevs must be performed bv a City- approved biologist to determine the presence or absence of active burrows within all suitable habitat. The survevs must be conducted within 10 calendar davs prior to the start of site preparation or use. and the results submitted to the City's Environmental Review Coordinator for review and approval prior to initiating anv site preparation activities. If an active burrow is detected. a mitigation plan shall be prepared bv a Citv-approved biologist and submitted to the City's Environmental Review Coordinator for review and approval. The proiect applicant shall implement the approved mitigation plan to the satisfaction of the Citv's Environmental Review Coordinator. Setbacks of 300 feet or more from occupied burrows shall be established and enforced until the voung are completely independent of the nest. To minimize all impacts and ensure that no nests are removed or disturbed and no nesting activities are disturbed. a bio-monitor must be on site during all proiect activities until all voung have fledged. Te EPloid direet iHlflaotG to potential aestia!; burrowiFl!; owt pre eOHstmetioa surveys '.vill be re!J.lIired prier to eOffiflleHeemellt of eaali raee e'leat. If owls are f-allHd to be aestrng as a result ef tlie surveys, the aoti'le Rest areas will be avoided and f-eHeed as appropriate. 3. Prior to commencement of each race event, prominently colored, well-installed biological fencing shall be installed place wherever the project limits are adjacent to the Preserve, sensitive vegetation communities, and/or any other biological resources, as identified by a qualified monitoring biologist. Figure 3 above identifies the general location of the required fencing. 4. Prior to commencement of each race event "Sensitive Habitat - Keep Out" signage shall be posted every 150 feet along the Preserve edge to discourage access to the Preserve. In addition, the project shall be required to either prohibit domestic pets, or require that all pets remain on leashes pursuant to applicable leash law requirements. 5. Prior to the commencement of race activities, a lighting plan shall be submitted to the City's Environmental Review Coordinator for review and approval. The lighting plan shall clearly demonstrate that all temporary security lighting shall be directed away and/or shielded from the Preserve to prevent any potential indirect impacts due to night lighting. Additionally, low-pressure sodium lighting shall be used to reduce these potential effects. Page 32 of37 15-58 Cultural Resources 6. The area identified as significant for SDI-9976 shall be removed from the planned camping area and fenced as illustrated on Figure 8.0-1 of the approved archeological study prepared by Brian F. Smith & Associates (An Archeological Study for the Chula Vista International Raceway, April 10, 2007). Prior to commencement of each race event, the fencing shall be installed under the direction of the project archaeologist and shall remain for the duration of the racetrack use. No access to this site area shall be allowed during the race events. 7. The access road through SDl-l2,291b shall be fenced prior to commencement of each race event, to prevent traffic from straying into the significant site area. The area to be fenced is illustrated on Figure 8.0-1. The fencing shall be installed under the direction of the project archaeologist and shall remain for the duration of the racetrack use. Vehicular and pedestrian traffic through the sensitive site area shall be minimized. The project archaeologist shall have the latitude to monitor the condition of the site during track events and to add measures as necessary to ensure the site is not adversely impacted by event activities. 8. Access roads or trails that pass through sites identified as significant or potentially significant shall be fenced prior to commencement of each race event to prevent intrusion into potentially sensitive areas. The fence locations are noted on Figure 8.0-1. The project archaeologist shall identify the locations of all fences and the type of fence that would be appropriate to ensure the sites are not disturbed. 9. Any grading, trenching, mowing, or other site preparations that might uncover archaeological materials or affect recorded sites shall be monitored by an archaeologist prior to commencement of race event preparations. In the event that the monitor identifies a potentially significant site, measures shall be initiated to evaluate the site and to implement mitigation measures as necessary to minimize impacts. Data recovery to mitigate impacts is an option, but preservation of resources is the preferred mitigation measure, 10. During the monitoring of mowing or other site preparations, the archaeological monitor shall collect all surface artifacts, map the locations, and report findings to the City. 11. All cultural materials recovered during the testing of SDI-9976 or collected during monitoring shall be prepared for permanent storage. Curation of all artifacts recovered shall be required. Curation shall be arranged at an appropriate facility and will be coordinated through the City of Chula Vista. Geolo2V and Soils 12. Prior to approval of the proposed CUP, the City Engineer shall approve erosion control measures and erosion BMPs as identified in Appendix A (Implementation of Best Management Practices for Storm Water Pollution Prevention at the Otay Ranch Championship Race Track Site). Page 33 of37 15-59 Hazards and Hazardous Materials 13. Prior to approval of the proposed CUP, the City's Director of Public Works shall review and approve containment area BMPs as identified in Appendix A. 14. Prior to the approval of the CUP, the project applicant shall submit an Nor and obtain an NPDES Permit for Construction Activity from SWRCB. The SWPPP shall include a description of pollution prevention controls and practices to be utilized both during and following (post-race) raceway activities. Adherence to all conditions of the General Permit for Construction Activity is required. The SWPPP shall also include a Storm Water Sampling and Analysis Strategy (SWSAS), pursuant to the SWRCB General Construction Permit requirements. Hvdrolo2V and Water Oualitv 15. Prior to approval of the proposed CUP, the City Engineer shall review and approve erosion control measures and erosion BMPs as identified in Attachment A. 16. Prior to the approval of the CUP, the project applicant shall submit an Nor and obtain an NPDES Permit for Construction Activity from SWRCB. The SWPPP shall include a description of pollution prevention controls and practices to be utilized both during and following (post-race) raceway activities. Adherence to all conditions of the General Permit for Construction Activity is required. The SWPPP shall also include a Storm Water Sampling and Analysis Strategy (SWSAS), pursuant to the SWRCB General Construction Permit requirements. 17. The applicant shall request a site inspection by the City's Public Works and Storm Water Inspectors after completion of site preparation, and prior to each race event. If the inspectors identify any violation of the BMPs, race events shall be delayed until such BMPs are properly implemented. 18. During race events, standby cleanup equipment and crews shall be available to respond to potential hazardous material spills. Significant spills shall be reported to the appropriate authorities and the City of Chula Vista as soon as such spill occur. 19. A qualified person shall be designated for monitoring and repair of BMPs. The name and phone number of such person shall be provided to the Storm Water Management Section prior to each race event. Public Services 20. Prior to approval of the proposed CUP, the project applicant shall prepare a security plan to be approved by the Chula Vista Police Chief prior to the start of the CORR events. The security plan shall detail, among other items, the number of security personnel provided, general distribution of security throughout the race event, and number of uniformed Chula Vista police staff required. 21. Prior to approval of the proposed CUP, the project applicant shall prepare an emergency Page 34 of37 15-60 medical and safety plan to be approved by the Chula Vista Fire Chief. The plan shall detail, among other items, emergency access routes, type of emergency vehicles required to adequately serve the project, alternative access routes to be employed in the event of rain or damp conditions, the variety of emergency medical services that can be provided by the contract emergency medical company, chain of communication between event sponsor and medical staff, number of ambulances present onsite and the number of uniformed Chula Vista Fire Department staff needed onsite. A fully staffed Chula Vista Fire Department engine company and Battalion Chief will be onsite during all race events. 22. Prior to the approval of the proposed CUP, perimeter fencing will be shown around the entire site on all plans, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Security personnel posted shall be posted at all access points throughout the event. 23. Grandstands will be protected by 10,000 pound concrete barriers along the entire frontage of the grandstand area. In addition, a 10 foot high catch fence with steel cables will run the entire length of the grandstand area. 24. In accordance with the approved medical plan, emergency medical equipment and personnel and ambulance will be present during the term of the race event. 25. In accordance with the approved security plan, both uniformed police and private security personnel will be stationed onsite and offsite, as needed. 26. Prior to commencement of each race event, the applicant must install protective fencing around all manhole covers (15'rad / 30'diam) for the Salt Creek Interceptor Sewer. Fencing shall consist of orange bio fencing and shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The Applicant shall ensure that24-hour, unrestricted access to all manholes will be maintained at all times during site preparation and race operations. Lightweight vender items located along the remainder of the sewer alignment is acceptable, but no parking will be allowed over the alignment of the sewer. TransportationITraffic 27. Prior to approval of the proposed CUP, a traffic control plan shall be prepared in accordance with City guidelines to the satisfaction of the Police Chief and City Engineer. Elements of the traffic control plan will include, but not limited to, a description of the signage, striping, delineate detours, flagging operations and any other devices which will be used during events to guide motorists safely to ingress locations from public roadways. The traffic control plan will also include provisions for coordinating with local emergency service providers regarding event times and measures for bicycle lane safety. The Traffic Control Plan will ensure that access and traffic flow will be maintained, and that emergency access will not be restricted. Parking lot attendants will direct attendees to vacant parking spaces within the parking lots. Page 35 of37 15-61 1. AGREEMENT TO IMPLEMENT MITIGATION MEASURES By signing the line(s) provided below, the Applicant and Operator stipulate that they have each read, understood and have their respective company's authority to and do agree to the mitigation measures contained herein, and will implement same to the satisfaction of the Environmental Review Coordinator. Failure to sign the line(s) provided below prior to posting of this Mitigated Negative Declaration with the County Clerk shall indicate the Applicant's and Operator's desire that the Project be held in abeyance without approval and that the Applicant and Operator shall a ly for an Environmental Impact Report. 'ot-\ ~~I'-(( ~ 5raq~ t Date Signature 0 Applicant (or authorized representative) ~ I>rtf, 1- Date N/A Printed Name and Title of Operator (if different from Applicant) Date N/A Signature of Operator (if different from Applicant) Date J. CONSULTATION I. Individuals and Organizations City of Chula Vista Glen Laube, Environmental Projects Manager Marisa Lundstedt, Environmental Projects Manager Rick Rosaler, Principal Planner Jamal Naji, Assistant Civil Engineer, Land Development Khosro Aminpour, Civil Engineer, Land Development Erik Steenblock, Environmental Health Specialist Don Redmond, Police Department Page 36 of37 15-62 Doug Perry, Fire Department Amy Linquist, Fire Department Kirk Ammerman, Public Works Harold Phelps, Associate Planner, Planning Department Wendy Loeffler, Biologist, RECON Cheryl Johnson, Acoustical Analyst, RECON Others James P. Baldwin, Championship Off Road Racing, Applicant Ranie Hunter, Applicant Representative Joe Monaco and Mike Komula, Dudek and Associates Valorie Thompson, Scientific Resources Associated 2. Documents . Otay Ranch General Development Plan/Subregional Plan Program EIR (Program EIR 90-01), October, 1993. . Archaeological Study for the Chula Vista International Raceway, Brian F. Smith and Associates, April, 2007. . Environmental Noise Assessment for the Temporary Off-Road Race Track, Dudek & Associates, April 9, 2007. . Biological Resources and Impacts Analysis Letter for Championship Off Road Racing, Chula Vista, California, Dudek, April 2007 . Biological Resources Report and Impact Assessment for Otay Ranch Villages Two and Three, Dudek, February, 2006. . Air Quality Technical Report for the Championship Off-Road Racing Event, Scientific Resources Associated, April, 2007. . Final Second Tier ErR for Villages Two, Three and Four (portion) SPA and TM, City of Chula Vista. 3. Initial Studv This environmental determination is based on the attached Initial Study, and any comments reeeivedreceived in response to the Notice ofInitial Study. The report reflects the inde ndentjudgment of the City ofChula Vista. Further information regarding the ental review of this project is available from the Chula Vista Planning and D ment, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910. ~ Date: ~V](' III Zw? I Ole Laube Environmental Projects Manager ;--- /". v). f,-'j ,._ L_"_ Page 37 of37 ~!f? --- -=--- COY OF CHULA VlSfA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Name of Proponent: 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: 3. Addresses and Phone Number of Proponent: 4. Name of Proposal: 5. Date of Checklist: 6. Case No. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS QUESTIONS: ISSUES: I. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scemc resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Potentially Significant Impact D D D D James P. Baldwin City of Chula Vista Planning and Building Department 276 Fourth Avenue Chu1a Vista, CA 91910 610 West Ash Street Suite 1500 San Diego, CA 92101 Temporary Championship Off-Road Race Apri119,2007 IS-07-030 Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact D D ~ ~ D D D ~ D D ~ D 4120107 15-64 ISSUES: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Comments: a-d) The proposed project will be limited in scope and duration, and involves only minor site preparation for the proposed dirt track, and parking, spectator and race-participant areas. Security lighting will be provided in the pit areas and the proposed camping area. While the proposed activities may be visible from some existing residential areas the track and pit areas would be located within portions of an existing rock quarry not currently subject to active mining, and would be temporary, and therefore would not permanently alter the aesthetic or visual character of the site Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Depl. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project:: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or D D (gJ 0 Fannland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Fannland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, D D (gJ 0 or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the eXlstmg D D (gJ D environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result m conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? Comments: a-c) Portions of the project site have been historically farmed, including the parking area within Village Three and the camping area in the Otay River Valley. The proposed project is not expected to interfere significantly with agricultural practices on the project site, due to the limited duration and scope of the project. The proposed parking would be located in areas that were previously used for agricultural activities; but have an approved SPA plan for urban uses, and therefore continued use for agriculture on the Village Three site is not anticipated in the long term. The camping area is located within an area that is planned for active recreation uses. Preparation of the camping area would be limited to mowing of the site. Mowing activities would clear the site leaving the roots intact and therefore, implementation of the project would not preclude future ongoing agricultural use of the active recreation areas. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. III. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the D D (gJ D applicable air quality plan? 4/20/2007 2 15-65 ISSUES: b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project regIOn IS non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Comments: a-e) See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section G. Potentially Significant Impact o o o o Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated o o o o Less Than Significant Impact C8J C8J C8J C8J No Impact o o o o Mitil!ation: The mitigation measures contained in Section H of the Mitigated Negative Declaration would mitigate potentially significant air quality impacts to a level of less than significance. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department ofFish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defmed by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vemal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? o o o o o o o o C8J [8J [8J o 4/20/2007 3 15-66 ISSUES: d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Comments: a-f) See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section G. Potentially Significant Impact o Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated o Less Than Significant Impact o No Impact ~ o o Miti!!ation: The mitigation measures contained in Section H of the Mitigated Negative Declaration would mitigate potentially significant biological resources impacts to a level ofless than significance. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in 9 l5064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to 9 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Comments: a-d) See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section G. o o ~ o o o ~ Miti!!ation: The mitigation measures contained in Section H of the Mitigated Negative Declaration would mitigate potentially significant impacts to paleontological resources to a level of less than significance. o o ~ 4120/2007 4 o ~ o o o ~ o o ~ o o o 15-67 ISSUES: VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. 11. Strong seismic ground shaking? 111. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? IV. Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss oftopsoil ? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-I-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Potentially Significant Impact o o o o o o o o Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated o o o o ~ o o o Less Than Significant Impact ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ o No Impact o o o o o o o ~ 4/20/2007 5 15-68 ISSUES: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated No Impact Less Than Significant Impact Comments: a-e) The project consists of a temporary use, and involves no grading, excavation or cutting/filling of slopes, and involves only minor site preparation for the dirt track. The project is a temporary event taking place over two separate weekends, and no permanent structures are proposed. Therefore, the project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving seismic ground shaking, seismic-related ground failure or landslides; nor would it be affected by potential unstable soils, or cause soils to become unstable, or result in or be affected by liquefaction or collapse. Further, the project does not propose the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Site preparation would have the potential to result in erosion impacts. Erosion control measures and erosion Best Management Practices will be identified in the Implementation of Best Management Practices for Storm Water Pollution Prevention at the Otay Ranch Championship Race Track Site and are further detailed in Section G of the MND. With implementation of the proposed measures, impacts would be less than significant. Mitil!ation: The mitigation measures contained in Section H of the Mitigated Negative Declaration would mitigate potentially significant impacts to geology and soils to a level of less than significance. VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety o I?<J o o o I?<J o o o o I?<J o o o I?<J o o o o I?<J o o I?<J o 4/20/2007 6 15-69 ISSUES: hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk ofloss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Comments: a-h) See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section G. Mitieation: Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 ~ The mitigation measures contained in Section H of the Mitigated Negative Declaration would mitigate potentially significant hazardslhazardous material impacts to level of less than significance. VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:: a) Result in an increase in pollutant discharges to receiving waters (including impaired water bodies pursuant to the Clean Water Act Section 303( d) list), result in significant alteration of receiving water quality during or following construction, or violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? Result in a potentially significant adverse impact on groundwater quality? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off~site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the 4/20/2007 o ~ o o o o o ~ o o ~ o o o o ~ 7 15-70 ISSUES: Potentially Significant Impact alteration of the course of a stream or river, substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site, or place structures within a IOO-year flood hazard area which would impede or redirect flood flows? e) Expose people or structures to a significant risk 0 of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? f) Create or contribute runoff water, which would 0 exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Comments: Comments: (a-f) See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section G. Miti!!ation: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated o o Less Than Significant Impact ~ o No Impact o ~ The mitigation measures contained in Section H of the Mitigated Negative Declaration would mitigate potentially significant Hydrology/Water Quality impacts to a level of less than significance. IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? o o o o o o o o ~ ~ ~ o 4120/2007 8 15-71 ISSUES: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Comments: a-c) The proposed project would not permanently alter land use or propose any changes to existing or planned uses. As such, the project would not divide an established community or conflict with any land use plans or policies adopted for the purposes of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The project would not conflict with the City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, (see Section IV, Biological Resources). Therefore, the project would not result in any impacts on land use and planning. Mitil!ation: No mitigation measures are required. X. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known 0 0 ~ 0 mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? bY Result in the loss of availability of a locally- 0 0 ~ 0 important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Comments: a-b) The track, pit and grandstand areas of the project are located within the reclaimed portions of an existing rock and aggregate quarry. However, resource extraction has already occurred within the portion of the quarry where the uses are proposed. Portions of the project that are not located within the quarry would not involve extensive excavation or earthwork (including import or export of materials) that would have the potential to result in a loss of resources. Therefore, no substantial loss of mineral resources are anticipated. Mitil!ation: No mitigation measures are required. XI. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome vibration or groundbome noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? o o ~ o o o ~ o o o o ~ 4/20/2007 9 15-72 ISSUES: d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? I) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the proj ect area to excessive noise levels? Comments: (a-I) See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section G. Miti!!ation: Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No 1m pact Incorporated Impact Impact 0 0 rzl 0 0 0 0 ~ o o o ~ The mitigation measures contained in Section H of the Mitigated Negative Declaration would mitigate potentially significant Noise impacts to a level of less than significance. xn. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, 0 0 0 rzl either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of road or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing 0 0 0 ~ housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, 0 0 0 rzl necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Comments: The proposed project would not change land uses or propose activities that would affect population or housing growth. XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project: a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or 4120/2007 10 15-73 ISSUES: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any public services: Fire protection? 0 rgJ 0 0 Police protection? 0 rgJ 0 0 Schools? 0 0 0 rgJ Parks? 0 0 0 rgJ Other public facilities? 0 0 0 rgJ Comments: The proposed project would not involve changing land uses that would result in increased permanent demand for public services personnel, equipment and facilities or result in changes in service levels. The proposed proj ect has the potential to result in hazards associated with accidents during the race events and therefore create a temporary increase in demand for police and fire services. In order to reduce impacts associated with accidents, security and safety, measures will be implemented that will mitigate potential impacts to less than significant. Implementation of the accident prevention and security/safety measures during site preparation and operation of the CORR events will reduce impacts to less than significant. XIV. RECREATION. Would the project: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and 0 0 0 rgJ regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities 0 0 0 rgJ or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Comments: a-b) The proposed project would not involve changing land uses that would result in increased demand for recreational facilities or services. Mitil!ation: No mitigation measures are required. XV. TRANSPORTATION / TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and o rgJ o o 4120/2007 11 15-74 ISSUES: capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the nwnber of vehicle trips, the volwne to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections) b) Exceed, either individually or cwnulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result m a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus twnouts, bicycle racks)? Comments: (a-g) See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section G. Mitillation: Potentially Significant Impact o o o o o o Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated o o o o o o Less Than Significant Impact o o o o ~ o No Impact ~ [gJ [gJ [gJ o [gJ The mitigation measures contained in Section H of the Mitigated Negative Declaration would mitigate potentially significant Transportation impacts to a level ofless than significance. XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? o o o o o o o o o [gJ [gJ [gJ 4/20/2007 12 15-75 ISSUES: d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? Potentially Significant Impact o o Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated o o Less Than Significant Impact o o No Impact t2J t2J f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted 0 0 t2J 0 capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes 0 0 t2J 0 and regulations related to solid waste? Comments: a-g) The proposed project would not involve changing land uses or activities that would result in increased demand for utilities. Mith!ation No mitigation measures are required. XVII. THRESHOLDS: Will the proposal adversely impact the City's Threshold Standards? A) Librarv The City shall construct 60,000 gross square feet (GSF) of additional library space, over the June 30, 2000 GSF total, in the area east of Interstate 805 by buildout. The construction of said facilities shall be phased such that the City will not fall below the citywide ratio of 500 GSF per 1,000 population. Library facilities are to be adequately equipped and staffed. B) Police a) Emergency Response: Properly equipped and staffed police units shall respond to 81 percent of "Priority One" emergency calls within seven (7) minutes and maintain an average response time to all "Priority One" emergency calls of 5.5 minutes or less. b) Respond to 57 percent of "Priority Two" urgent calls within seven (7) minutes and maintain an average response time to all "Priority Two" calls o o o t2J o o t2J o 4/20/2007 13 15-76 ISSUES: of7.5 minutes or less. C) Fire and Emergency Medical Emergency response: Properly equipped and staffed fITe and medical units shall respond to calls throughout the City within 7 minutes in 80% of the cases (measured annually). D) Traffic The Threshold Standards require that all intersections must operate at a Level of Service (LOS) "C" or better, with the exception that Level of Service (LOS) "D" may occur during the peak two hours of the day at signalized intersections. Signalized intersections west of I-80S are not to operate at a LOS below their 1991 LOS. No intersection may reach LOS "E" or "F" during the average weekday peak hour. Intersections of arterials with freeway ramps are exempted from this Standard. E) Parks and Recreation Areas The Threshold Standard for Parks and Recreation is 3 acres of neighborhood and community parkland with appropriate facilities /1 ,000 population east of I-80S. F) Drainage The Threshold Standarda require that storm water flows and volumes not exceed City Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary improvements consistent with the Drainage Master Planes) and City Engineering Standards. G) Sewer The Threshold Standards require that sewage flows and volumes not exceed City Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary improvements consistent with Sewer Master Plane s) and City Engineering Standards. H) Water The Threshold Standards require that adequate storage, treatment, and transmission facilities are constructed concurrently with planned growth and that water quality standards are not jeopardized during growth and construction. Applicants may also be required to participate in whatever water conservation or fee off-set program 4/20/2007 Potentially Significant Impact D D D D D D 15-77 Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated ~ ~ D D D D Less Than Significant Impact D D D D D D No Impact D D ~ ~ ~ ~ 14 ISSUES: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact the City of Chula Vista has in effect at the time of building permit issuance. Comments: See comments under section XIII and XIV. XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade 0 0 !Z;J 0 the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are 0 0 !Z;J 0 individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current project, and the effects of probable future projects.) c) Does the project have environmental effects 0 0 !Z;J 0 which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Comments: Due to the limited scope, temporary nature and time frame for the proposed activities, it is not anticipated that the project would result in significant environmental effects. The project would not have direct effects on habitats or species, and the identified indirect effects have been found to be less than significant. Cumulative impacts are not considerable due to the fact that the project is short-term in nature, and that its individual effects are either less than significant, or mitigated to a less than significant level. Based on the analysis provided in the MND, it is not anticipated that the project would cause environmental effects that would result in direct or indirect substantially adverse effects on human beings. XIX. PROJECT REVISIONS OR MITIGATION MEASURES See MND 4/20/2007 15 15-78 XX. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated," as indicated by the checklist on the previous pages. o Land Use and Planning o Population and Housing [8J Geophysical o Agricultural Resources [8J Hydrology/Water o Air Quality o Threshold Standards [8J TransportationlTraffic [8J Biological Resources o Energy and Mineral Resources [8J Public Services o Utilities and Service Systems o Aesthetics [8J Hazards and Hazardous Materials o Noise 0 Recreation o Mandatory Findings of Significance [8J Cultural Resources 4/20/2007 16 15-79 XXI. DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the 0 environment, and a Negative Declaration will be prepared. I find that although the proposed proj ect could have a significant effect on the ~ environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A Mitigated Negative Declaration will be prepared. I find that the proposed project may have a significant effect on the 0 environment, and an Environmental Impact Report is required. I find that the proposed project may have a significant effect(s) on the environment, 0 but at least one effect: 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impacts" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An Environmental Impact Report is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I fmd that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the 0 environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier ErR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. An addendum has been prepared to provide a record ofthis determination. L( /20 /0+ Date len r; ube Environmental Projects Manager City of Chula Vista 412012007 17 15-80 J\ttashment }\. Appendix A IMPLEMENTATION OF BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION AT THE PROPOSED CHULA VISTA RACEWAY SITE The Chula Vista Raceway site improvements are scheduled to be completed by June of 2007, with the initial racing event scheduled for June 9th and 10th, 2007. There is an additional race event scheduled for Sept. 29th and 30th, 2007. Improvements associated with the production of race events will be temporary, and will be removed upon completion of the final race event. A site- specific Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) has been developed, and will be used during the grading phase and also will be followed during all race events held at the site. It is the intention of James P. Baldwin and Associates and CORR Racing to take all necessary precautions to prevent any instances of storm water pollution from occurring due to activities at this site. In order to achieve and maintain compliance with all applicable storm water regulations, operations at the site will incorporate the use of Best Management Practices as described in the SWPPP as approved by the City of Chula Vista, as well as any additional requirements imposed by the City. After all construction related activities at the site have been completed, a Notice of Termination will be filed with the State of California, leaving discharges associated with future operations at the site subject to regulation under the jurisdiction of the City of Chula Vista Storm Water Ordinance, County of San Diego Hazardous Waste Storage and Disposal Regulations, and current NPDES regulations. Best Management Practices have been developed for racing events at the Chula Vista Raceway site, and will be implemented before any vehicle traffic is permitted on the race course. A description of these BMP's would include the following: EXISTING I PRE RACE EVENT BMP's Erosion I Sediment Control- Improvements at the site will consist of a temporary gravel race track, placement of temporary bleachers, fencing, vendor facilities (trailers), portable sanitation, gravel access roads, parking lots, storage areas, vehicle maintenance facilities (pit area), vehicle wash station, hazardous waste containment area, and trash storage areas. All temporary improvements will be removed from the site at the conclusion of the final race event. During the construction phase, any sediment laden runoff will be directed to one of two existing desilt basins. The outlets of these basins will be capped to eliminate any discharge to the Otay River. An existing perimeter berm at the southern boundary between the site and the Otay River will be reinforced to prevent any inadvertent runoff from reaching the river. In addition, the racetrack will be graded along ridge lines, or elevated such that all runoff from the track drains toward an infield retention area designed to capture run off from the track surface and hold it to allow for infiltration or future removal. Treatment BMPs such as bio-swales, hay bales, etc will be used in areas of minor slopes where runoff does not drain directly to a retention basin. 1 15-81 Dust control will be accomplished by the use of water trucks during the earth moving stages of construction. Silt fences are used at the perimeter of the site, with gravel bag reinforcement in all areas of concentrated flows. In natural watercourses, additional gravel bags are used to supplement silt fences, providing additional erosion control and velocity reduction. The locations of erosion control BMP's are shown on the Erosion Control exhibit in the SWPPP. A stabilized construction entrance will be provided at the entrance to the site. Street sweeping will be performed as needed to keep mud from accumulating on paved entrance roads leading to the site. BMP's for erosion and sediment control may also include the use of geo-textiles, erosion control blankets, tackifier and bonded fiber matrix (BFM). All disturbed areas will be temporarily stabilized, until permanent methods of stabilization can be utilized. Temporary and permanent examples of BMP's for sediment control include the use of silt fences, gravel bags, fiber rolls and retention basins. RACE EVENT BMP's Hazardous Material Containment Areas - BMP's utilized during Race Events include secondary containment at vehicle maintenance (pit) areas, hazardous materials storage areas, vehicle wash stations, portable bathrooms, trash disposal and materials storage areas. Additionally, any fuel drum storage and used oil storage areas will be contained and also bermed. Hazardous materials are to be placed in closed containers to prevent contact with runoff and to prevent spillage to the storm water conveyance system. Secondary containment, such as berms or dykes, will also be provided. Vactor trucks will be used to remove runoff from the containment areas and the collected runoff will be disposed of in accordance with City standards. Hazardous Waste containers will remain covered at all times. Run-on from adjacent areas will be prevented from coming into contact with the containment areas. Attached lids are provided on all trash containers to minimize direct precipitation. Site Runoff - Two desilting basins will be used as retention basins. Outlets will be blocked off so that no runoff will be allowed to discharge from these basins. At the conclusion of each racing event, accumulated debris and pollutants will be removed from these basins and disposed of in accordance with City standards. A temporary chain link perimeter fence will be located at the perimeter of the site to prevent the escape of wind blown trash and debris. There is an existing earthen berm along the southern edge of the proposed race track facilities that will also prevent any direct run-off into the Otay River. Maintenance - Dust and trash control measures are included as well. To further inhibit sediment migration, the track will be watered between races. Access roads and parking areas will be routinely watered as well. Onsite trash collection will be performed throughout each event. Parking areas are graded, with silt fences and bio-filters along the perimeter to treat oil and grease from parked vehicles. There are no permanent utilities at the site. Generators, water trucks, a vactor truck, and portable bathroom facilities will be utilized. No temporary facilities will remain on site after the final race event. Long term maintenance of all remaining BMP's are the responsibility of James P. Baldwin and Associates and CORR Racing, who guarantee performance of proper BMP maintenance by the posting of a performance bond as required by the City of Chula Vista. 2 15-82 Access Roads - There is one proposed access roads into the site. This will be used for public access and emergency access during race events. The main entrance to the facility is from the intersection of Main Street and Heritage Road and runs eastward on Wiley Road toward the existing rock quarry. The main access road will have a crushed asphalt base 6" in depth, for the first 200' from the point of entry. Maintenance will be continuous during race events. James P. Baldwin & Associates and Championship Off Road Racing (CaRR) will be responsible for the maintenance of these construction entrances and all other BMP's described herein. Trackina - To insure that no tracked sediment reaches the storm drain system, a sweeper truck will be employed to remove any sediment deposited onto Main Street or Heritage Road due to increased traffic during race events. All efforts will be made to prevent mud from being tracked onto public roads. In no case will vehicles be permitted to drive on, or park in muddy areas, or to leave the site without first removing any accumulations of loose mud. In the event of rain, all race events will be rescheduled. Wind Erosion/Dust Control - Silt fencing and temporary chain link fencing will be provided at the site perimeter to prevent escape of trash, debris or sediment to the surrounding area. This BMP is designed to capture wind-blown pollutants. To enhance the dust control efforts, the track will be watered extensively between races. To enhance trash control efforts, onsite trash collection is provided throughout race events. POST CONSTRUCTION BMP's Desilt Basins - Runoff from the track drains to at least three infield retention basins. These basins are designed as retention basins. In other words, no runoff is allowed to discharge from these basins. The remaining portion of the track facilities will drain to two retention basins located near the southern boundary. These basins will have no outlets, and will serve as treatment for runoff from the remaining portion of the race track and areas to the west of the track. The two pre existing basins at the south boundary with the Otay River will remain after race events have concluded. Site Runoff - A perimeter berm is located at the grading limits to prevent the discharge of trash, debris or sediment to the surrounding area, and will remain in place post race events. Veaetation - Existing vegetation has been retained where ever possible. As the site is currently in use as a rock quarry, a large percentage of the site has been previously disturbed. The site will revert to the existing use as a rock quarry after the final race event. FUTURE SITE CONSIDERATIONS BMP's for the prevention of Storm Water Pollution, including but not limited to the above described items, will remain in place until the conclusion of race events at this location. The site will revert to its current use as a rock quarry at the conclusion of scheduled racing events. A site specific SWPPP along with approved BMP's will be implemented for future rock quarry operations. RH 4/16/2007 3 15-83 ATTACHMENT "A" MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP) OTAY RANCH CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR TEMPORARY CHAMPIONSHIP OFF-ROAD RACE 2007 - IS-07-030 This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been prepared by the City ofChula Vista in conjunction with the proposed Otay Ranch Conditional Use Permit for Temporary Championship Off-Road Race 2007 (MND IS-07-030). The proposed project has been evaluated in an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and City/State CEQA Guidelines. The legislation requires public agencies to ensure that adequate mitigation measures are implemented and monitored for Mitigated Negative Declarations. AB 3180 requires monitoring of potentially significant and/or significant environmental impacts. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for this project ensures adequate implementation of mitigation for the following potential impacts(s): 1. Air Quality 2. Biological Resources 3. Cultural Resources 4. Geology/Soils 5. Hazards/Hazardous Materials 6. Hydrology and Water Quality 7. Public Services 8. Transportation/Traffic MONITORING PROGRAM Due to the nature of the environmental issues identified, the Mitigation Compliance Coordinators shall be the Environmental Review Coordinator and City Engineer of the City of Chula Vista. The applicant shall be responsible to ensure that the conditions of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program are met to the satisfaction of the Environmental Review Coordinator and City Engineer. The applicant shall provide evidence in written form confirming compliance with the mitigation measures specified in Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-07-030 to the Environmental Review Coordinator and City Engineer. The Environmental Review Coordinator and City Engineer will thus provide the ultimate verification that the mitigation measures have been accomplished. Table I, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Checklist, lists the mitigation measures contained in Section H, Mitigation Necessary to Avoid Significant Effects, of Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-07-030, which will be implemented as part of the project. In order to determine if the applicant has implemented the measure, the method and timing of verification are identified, along with the City department or agency responsible for monitoring/verifying that the applicant has completed each mitigation measure. Space for the signature of the verifying person and the date of inspection is provided in the last column. 15-84 E '" ~ OJ e a. OJ c 'e o C- " ~ "0 C '" OJ c ." .9 'c o ::i: c .12 iii g ~ '" "'c Iii =.- ]5U--o 8:.E5~ ~ <"'~"'''E ..... = c = "'E ~ ~ 'S ~ ~ '8'.g it ~:a fr o..UOo..lXlO >< >< >< E t.;::;~ oiZi -", ,9 ~ ~ ~ = .9 U u 0. 00 .E .~ .9 oS a 'C ~ 0. = 0013 :1_ = g E u 00 is. e E .;..: =.- s::: ~:I u ~ ''- ll.l.o u ~e.-8 "'0 C; e uS"ffi..c u '';: u '0' a"'8 ~ o..:E (Q~ ooE=~- = 0 = .~ :IE ~ .9 c:: u ;a~E5 -g u e lU - -a e ~.5.5 8 gf...; .... u c:: ...... :==cE;3- gouoo ::I 0 ..... ~..c '';:: .~~.~~;:S 5.9~.gs <n'"Cl3"'O~c::S~:'::5s =~ !a 00 ~ "'" .- ~ '0 ~ > ~ o ~ .- ~ 13 l:: <Il ti ll.l U .~ ~ ''gb ~ '"0 u .5 lU a a ~:.=Cl..a::E-=.sc.s'"d"8 u-gU,:;: oo!:l g [il.!!-o a..c ~ e<3 =: ('(l'- IlJ s:: U . ~ .... ... .c .... :; ll.l -6 0 t: ~ a = ooO"'u..o.",Uouoo C - en a._ 0 ctl <lJ 0. I- ;.;:: o tIS b.(J~..... l- U'I <:Q .... 1i '5 ~ e ~ ~ ~ ~ a "8 E c.."ffi :s ~ ILl S -5i '0 h "'0 ~ - E llJ s:: <n <n E"" ~ "'a ~U"'O~tlSC c:5h=.n .cccc Uorui:l1 0"'0 Ul o.;g t\l...... E '';:: ~ "'C "8 ' CIS (/l'P-NO cd=Or.ll~O ~ e o..Eono~:= C"~ 0 ~ 1-0 .:.0: t\l 0 :G .J::. 'u S u > S-.I:: "8 o fru"a 5 <U ~~ e u:= > ~ l5..s~u~~'o ~<o ~ a. . :a := 00 C ~ 0. 5 <:r u ,., ~ ,.g cU .,!:!:c ;.0 .~ E~ = ~ o~ .~ ~ E " u13 ~ ; .32 . ~ ~ (o;l .. C':l 8 ~ ';j .~ ~ "8 := II)c E t':l~ ~ ~ ::g <Il.9 e (;:j 0.. .~ .... t:) tlS ~ U _ 0 lU ~ <lJ U o.q):E' tti ~.o..a g..::o =.......... .... Cl3 en c: .....::; ~ .! 'g ~ E .s -ffi g ,E 0. '60 e ~ r.n >. o ~ 5 ':; ~ ~ ~ "ai:l1cff'''Oa<:<:l "ffio.g.=~~8 ~ ~ :g'~:€;J;i 'at o:=:..oCooa- 0858.<20..<0 ~8.8Cl8-g5 sc~k:.g(Q~:::IE," u._ E -'" '1.J '" 'lJ ";j '1.J....... .. ~'2 '0 E5 &.5 @ ~ e.s ~ . . "' u U '1.J fd 0= := = cB~ o.5..s:::: ~e: .- .", E -g ~ u ~ - go a --g .: ~ 3 ~ is u ~ o....s:::: :.a ~ 5 ii ~~~s ~ '1.J U '" lU eE:1311 "'13 8,,,, C_"'_ :.s (Q '1.J"'O ::l 5hu lU u';;j:E 8 &j.g~~ . r- >2 o '" :;r E ~ Cl e 0.. Cl <= 'E o Cl. Q) 0:: "0 <= CO Cl <= '<: .9 'c o ::;: <= o :;::l CO g ~ '" c 'f< B] 13 ~ .~ ~ .&> " ~-g .!a " .~ 13 ~ - ~~ E ~ .a~ == " " ..=..= ~ ~ -tita 2 I!! - & = ~ <:0 '" ~ - > ~ ~ o..s I- b.. 0 BarS 'E ..s 00 :E"i .5 ~ "0 ~ _ ~ c o ~ B =..... ::::J Q) ~..g.-: ~ ::! ti ~'C C3 (\) 0 P. ..0 "'c 2 '0 - 0- m ",;;:E Po. "C..c:-~ of ~.~ [Q .3.9.~ ~^ fIl C;i >< 0 ~t)~..s ooo~ '< ~ c E . . '" 5 ..= ij"Ci oS ~ .:; .~ :q II ~ ~..o ....;; 0,", ~ - .5 5 - E ~.e- :.:::g.. :s~ c ~ ~ '" ] u tIS;.:: :o..g ~E ,- ~ c..M., ~--g ~ 0 ~- .&> ~ ";j ~ ~ ~"O(\) III .~ Jg o ~..;::" ~ r.J =- t;j .~ 2 ~ 0 ~';;j oS . . 1 "--SUi :;; ~~ ~ 0. E 2 0.0. '5 E S'.ll c- .2 ~ e's, " ~ frJ,;l a.s .!j", '1ij ~ .5 '(d ~ .5 c ~ ' 'il> t: 13 &j~a . .. c 'J: ~ 'lii ~ ~ ~'" ~a " 00 "=c ~~ 'u; ~ .s~ c ~ o 0 ...2 ~- >", o ~ u..= '" ~ c ,- ~'" ojg o ~ ~ c .2 E ~ . oS 13 ~ ~ ~c:j '";j E f;3,S Olaf oS c '"" ,9 <Et) ~E ~ ~ .3 8 . . . o 'in' ~ I- ~ - ~ 8.8.~ ~~~ 8.a..o =-.;: ~ 00 . ~ ~.s~ ~e= u ~ ~ 5.s-5i ~ e ~ . ~ 0 ~ 5 E o 00 ~ 0._ C 00 0 iU . =..a 0J:l~ .~ C ~:9 ';;( ~ ~ ~ ~u 8..<.E . " .... o E ~ E ~ '2 ~ "s ~ " c E'S ",J., ~- . ~ lii ~ " ..0 ..= " " ~ '" c 'J: ;; ~ ..='" ~ ~ -"-tj i6 ~ ' b:] ~ ~ . E5 .s g, . r- e o N ~ ..". E '" ~ Cl o ~ a. Cl c: t o a. '" ~ "0 c: '" Cl c: "C .9 "1: o :< c: o ~ Cl "" ~ _c 00 -C" 011 .co: Q; 'C ::E~ > 0; c ~.g- 'U g'o C " ~ ~ ~01.) -;>:'2 - " > 2-S8 :;...... Q, " 0 0 bi,21: '" 0 " =e--e 0_ 0 s lLs .9;u= ~ g.g.S! ~ (1).- ~ a "2 .S := 0. ~ ~ "- - 0 t::.c :( e ~ ~ . t: ~ ~~ "0 ~ " " ~~ 0.> ~ '';:: ..s:::'5iJ "~ oil " ~ N ~ 's ~ 'S ~ 's ~.s "'a] '" " .l!l~ ..9 ~ :>. .. " '" c"" " :.;;l=~ ~ <:'is U o..~~ . "' 15-87 r- ~ o !::! ... E to ~ Cl o ~ CL Cl c :e o a. Q) c:: "C C to Cl C .'" .8 'c o :2 c o ~ Cl :;:; ~ \0 ",-g " ~ .~ ~ o..'c .... ,,"0 0 -< ~ Oll~~ _ 0. 0 Q .- ~ i:>"" '0"-:-::: p.. .. U ::l G,) 0. CllO :>< s - o 'C - ""li "'~ ~ ~ ~ 1;; o _ "'''' 6 '7ti :.a ell <1) ~,g .t: a 1S ";; o .5 "'8 -e 'B ;;:.5 ;> a co s os'~ t) o "" ~ E- e ClJ 0 <t) a '"" ta r-- o 25 ~ ..,. N E '" ~ 0> e D- O> C :e o a. Q) a:: "0 C '" 0> C .C .9 .c o :::! C .2 ro 0> ., ~ ., '" c ~ c._ U 'I: U :'=lu"';:::l"'O 8:~5~ E "("50 € '" '" ~ .... c = c u ~ ......- 0lJ ~ C "'0 8'e fr ~ '5 fr o.UOo.CCO x c .S! U " /Fo c - .- ~ " 0 .- ~ tile. " " E " " ~ g ~ ~ ~ 5> 8'0 Q) ~M g> ~ ~ lU '(3: ~ a ~.~ ~~.s (;:.=c5;......:... ~ U .... 0 Q).;!.l 0 'E"5:0 ~..;: .. !:lll C ~ ..9 '0' S ] ~ .g u 0 a ~......... ~ lU:.E It) lU gf..c g U"'O..c >_ 00_ e ou .... ou.9.5 "'a ..c;:: ~.::..c a: 0 (.) .5 >;t:;: ... .... c ~ ~ ~ l:1 ~ 'g ~ ,o;;;;~~oEQ) .... ~ ~ ou~ ~~ ..s 5~~t:~l.:;::CI) E "Oft..=g ~ ::;:.:: ~ 8 ~ c.. ~:t3 ~ '.0 5..9"8l:l..;jg.5~ ~ 8 = ~ ^ ~ :-s:! 'u >,.s- ~ >'0 c - In O'.....c II.) 8 c .S .... :~ "0 Z t..=; o~u'E5~~-g .... ._..c ILl ~._ IlJ '"" 6: E = 1d C .f3 'S .- 0 ~ '-' 0 Q) t...,. 0"' ~c..~~I.,):go~ M Eoo>' e.s 8 .- t ""0 c..OE= = 0..5 Q) CIS ou .( bOE Ol)bLlS ~,~ "E.5.5 t:: IlJ - ClS ="'0 ClS '[ .~ & ~ :s fr .c..Uo..c..I:C.Cl x " " ~ " u ~ o 5.J:: ~~~55 iZi '8,. 8 '0 i; c .S! U " e. ~ .s Q)~.s > 2 .~ - 0 - on .~c-"Ou~ = Q) ~ ~ c.~ l!) ;;. u'-,,- sn IlJ 8 ["a';; :..l1ClSl-~~ c tl ~ Q"l.f3- ~8.e~~~ ~ Q) g c; 's 13 g:: ~ ~ g-:.= 1-0 _ ._ .... '- 0. -5 ~ ~ .~ a g. ClStIl_5'~O Ol.l ~ Q) ... Ul"" '0 ClS~e-g:~ .... 5h IlJ ofj u ::l =.- llJ ._ <n e ~CI) i:: 6ft li 5 lI,)=~'.oEC. u 0 0lJ'- 0 \f.I 5 c..~"'O"'O] E " " -g ." ~ E Q)..r:: c..c 01,l o~--:.E- ul~~es S~Oi::o.c ... .t;:: -; Q) t'i .9..g t) ~.f3 1:: ~ ::r:: ~ Q:'~ 2 ..,. '" '" >- a =.-;: (.)'C U ~ ~~"'Oc -c - - c ~.~ ~ ~ bO ~ o ~"E.5.5-e IlJ (Q = "'0 (Q '2'.~ &.! 'S & o.UOo.CCO x x x c .9 U " e. ~ .s " " E e 8~ Et.;:: ~~ '5 0'" > u c " s ~ B .g Ci3 0. 00 " ~ " ~ .3 [ '" .s ,E- 0 oo.s <I) ..... ..c ~5~ ~:>. :::: ": 51 ~:::: ~ a oh~ (I) = ea (Q "'0 E.5 (I) .2e>-U<I),EbO '~';> e ~ 0 > bO.S ._=o.-~~:'=,E ts ~ 0. 1lJ:.o 0.,E .!:9 00 (Q (I) (Q 1ii 0 bO-- <I) ~ "'0 J:: ~ -.- e u ~.€ala......~=:t~ ..: U :t 0 ea ti .s:.o <U o II).~ ~ "ffi ~ ~ ~ ~ -= -:S ?; "'0 oo"t- ""0 a,) - IlJ 0 i: >..5 - l!l .. 5 e-..-_a,) :::1- a,) ~ ~ a ~-:S ~ ~ 8- g.E"~:'=Ee-Q.1lJ "~ e ~ = .e..g.- ~ ~ ..c c:: (Q.. U ~-:S o~:.o~B13~..9(1) U IlJ I- = <u ""0:.0 :>:. u QJ..c 0 (Q (I) 'is c:::: :::I ..c: 8 - >..... .- (Q "2 -ea o.a..c:- c.. .s..c :t ~ e::.~.2 B .. (I) <u._ 0. 0 C ,,= .9 a '~ ~ E ;0 * ::a ~ Q:: c.. ~ .... B g 0. <( ~ .,., " <- ~ !::! ...,. E '" ~ Cl e 0.. Cl c 'E o a. CD a: "'0 C '" Cl C '" .9 'c o :::;: c o ~ g' ~ ~ 00 '" ~ C ~ ~5u"O 8:~Ea E <..... ~ Q) u i ~ .5'.SO ~ Q) a = "0 a '8'.~ if ~ ~ fr o..UQo..~Q :>< c .g u u 0. 00 0 c _ .- - -S .9 .- - "'0. " u E e ~ ~ 5..: ~.s ~ c..... > u 0 u ~ ~ ~ j:l lU =-0 s.: ~ ..c ~8 ~~.s~ c=::u ~& .s~1-o0l) ~:: l; "0 's U .g '8 .e "';j o;"a13{/.l~~=_e-;l ...... l;U;:' . - . ~ CJ ~ "" Cleo~lo.,.f:'ou~"Oe 1ZI ~ a a ~c"= e II) ~ ::; bO Q.."t: "" C ....~ Q..;: -s ~ = ~ a:l 1 ~ E Q) 1-0 'tij c'al! >.~c~~.s..s en ~ E.::::.D _::: Q) "E .s:.E ui ~ e 0 13 .8 't: 8 = E -c; ~ ~13i a; OQ~e.9 Q) ';; U ._ c cO o..$.! ~..c '0 1-0 rn o;nr::: .eo?-'u<u=u8 ~t':Iooo.!IU~(Q.!::(Que c..~>.'"C~Q)"O-t:l~ 13 Q) ~"O lo,. ~'o~"O o~ u:; .s .~ a ~ t:l _ .... c Z .... '';:: f,.t., Ul J:::: l:t:: c 1-0 c'IJ o.a c::S -'<:l:::_iUU_'= Q) 0 S c'IJ __ t:l E "O.~ ~ 't: :-S~"O'5b~ ~ 8 3 ~~.g ~~~..2~~~13o~"O 1-0 > .~ 0'- ~ u ~ u e<3o.t::ugE :;;(U::~ ~5~]~~o~"2~~ t- l- ._ i:C <: 0;,,;;; (.) ,_ c'IJ l-o c'IJ '" ~ 000 ~ c ,_ ~5u"O o.t.l~ C .... ~.~~5 ~ o.a~5 u &3 .5 .5 u c '" '8' .€ fr] =s fr o..UQo..~Q :>< c .g ~ 0. .5 B - ~ .9 ,- - '" 0. ~ 8 c S u _ u 00 5tO ~.s 5 c..... > u 0 u l-o C B .... Q) .g .~ ~ ~ .~ 135~.,g=GJ"O(;Q)tl..s g ~ ':::"E~ !ij..&::-= bOe ~ a ~ 0 ~ -fa 53 : ~ -2 51 ~.sajsg"O=~..c:.a5oti ~ cf Bcd;; i g B ~ Q) o.~ -i Q) 'w Q),Q 1;; 1:) 'En i! :5i ~.~ ,.c ~ ~ 5 = 'So > ~ .... Q,l ~ '';:: ~ ~ t~!1 ~:~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 B -5 11 ~ ~,~ ;:: [j SQ,lQ,l1S5a~Q,loJ::'~~;:'" rn'-..st:at.,:;_Cl.l..s~"'8~..o Oo.t:lQ,l~uoJ::~o51S ~cc S"=''=e ~ gfu (,) (1)- ::l Q,l ,_ - t- Q,l 0 Q,l Q,l CIS U e 5 OIl ~ >- o...s .s '8'..s E 8- oS u ,~ ,- ~ .s '0 u 0..s"'O.5 ~ c~ f! ] ~ "0 g ~ ~2 ~ .b e (I) 5 CIS ;:: '':.t::: ~.s?A r.Il E c.::::i U 0 ~ "'ri i) ~ 8,2 J:l '~'~ .g ,a ~ .s ] -€i u 0 - - os ~'~ u ~ ~ - (,) .s g .= ~ "Iii t::"'O ~ _ Q,l 5 lE ~ oJ:: "'0 ..... Cl.l '2 a c 0 we '\: ;'S Q,l U ,..g ,is "'8 ';:l '.g ~ ; t- o..t:l a a ..... _ c. t: _ Q,l._ r-- 11 fi-lln <Xl . ~ 00 0 ~ c _ ;155u", 2: ~ ::g ~ 'E ..('5iJ ~u 00 '" ~u .....;:: c c a:: ~ '2:e eu '[ ,q fr .!:S fr o..UOo..lI:lO :>< c o '-e u 0. ,5 B B ,2 ,- - '" 0. " ~ u u ;j u _ 5 ~ ~ 'E o '- ~ u 0 u ~ 5,~ Q,l Q,l -g '\: (I) a'-- U ~o..E(I)~~o '.g '8 ,6 5 t; '- C Q,l = 'E '.g '50 0 ~ :-g ~ Q,l U 0 ~ CIS B Q,l (;..S! '0 ~ ~ ,- ~ Q.. ~ l4 Q,l.~ t./l_ 0 c:..c:..s III 1~=~~"'O.s 0..... 5 Q,l ..... a e ..sB(;~,~~~ r.Il~<lJ '2cuc (I) ,- U ~ C. Q,l <lJ 8-5iJ~a::sQ,l~O _ '~oJ:: a we = <;:; CIS;:"'~Q,ll-~~ ..s::; Q,l.:: 0 '\: .$ ._ ....... .~ i r.Il C. .; 'E ~ jg ~ 5 e .t:lB5~oo'.gl5: 58.e;:..,eueu t./l 5 Q,l ::; gb..S! J:l ~ g ,-.- Q,l 05i1.j'E~..s:s:!-d ~ueB5a6~ ~ !5 ~ 8.'ll'" ~ ~ e5iJu.so51iit5 -<'~ .s.5 =:'5!..s:.a 00 r-- o 25 N - ..,. E '" ~ Cl o ~ ll. Cl c: 1: o C- O) 0: "C c: '" Cl c: .;:: .8 .c o ::;; c: o ~ Cl "" ~ ~ ~C Il:l =.- ~'5 U"'O 0.. 11,) -::. = .... 0..= = Il:l c: A'- II,) II,) ~ ""€ "" ""~ .... = s:: c U'" .-.- d) il:lC"O 'e'.~ fr j ~ fr o..UOo..a::lO >< >< o " o ~., 'E ~ ~ & g 1-0 '~.~~1~ ._ ... 0 t.., > v.l 0.. to) 0 11,) "" 0 ~ ~ QJ ~ Il:l"" ~ .~.;: B~ .... ~] 5 's .~ C u:: Il:l ~ ~ =~'.g'E~gu C) "a Il:l II,) II,) S l:: ~ 3 :':::.~ ;:.;- 8 :-g II,) =0 U ~ ~ OJ)_ Il:l ~._ > ~.913..:.s=ta8~ -5 ~ :; 0 '2 ~ .~ e '0 o .2 .1:: i:! Q ~ ';:;l f! = ... u c: II,) l:: II,) C Il:l 0 O~~g~IlJ"'_Q'~ ~l-ocS.s~5 .C; p~ U ~il[~ . 3 -lii 8 5 ." .- .5 s ~ ~:a ~ 0 ii=s~,.Q e :.c .~." - u a".o " 0 uc""-..c:uc:c:oo 5 - il .0 - <c .. .2 ." ." J:l Il:l -0 E.,..E 'S .B ':= 0.. ~ .s ... Oil'Vi t:: 0._ ~ ~ @ .~ ~ 'r;j 11,) sa 'g IHftii iil ~ &""8 -5 ClJ Be; 8 a~ <e; a 0 as l5. 8.. ii ~ .5 a '" E 00 C Il:l c: ._ (,)'C U ;"=11,)-;::."0 8:~c~ C -<.- 01) II,) .... ~e ~gpE ~ CI.l ~ 'S ~ ~ 'e'.~ fr j ~ fr o.UOo.oHl >< " u 11,) e Ii- u ~ .s 5 t+:: seJ;~ B'I:: g C ;;: i:i5 0.. u 0 llJ o o .~ u '"" .: - u ~ 01:: llJ u 8.. '"ffi ~ ~ ..0" ~ : a - 0 o .'= VJ~ s 5 g ~ell:l .~ ].-2 E '~,.g ....-- o ~ go gf.2 e .~ ~ 6 i- 'a~..Mu o .... ._ II,) s..a,s <u a II,) 0 .s ''':: ~ :;; ~~<e~ 'C fr a =-a 8 a::; il ;:: 1!i-!l1 0\ ., "" '" a =.1:: ] "5v"'O o.llJ~= _ 0...5 5 Il:l 5 <( ""€ "" ""€ .... = c c u ~ ._.- II,) Il:l C"O Il:l '8'.e fr ] ~ fr o..uOo..a:lO >< >< u u .. . g~ '.0::: ~ 1l 0 1.;:-_ '5.9 5 > aii ..!. . o..E ~ ~il"'" ,s o .... ~ ..s::: ~fr~agp '~Q.irl~~ ~~:;;"E- v::ooo13 -S";3..s~ta gf..g 'f 5 .5 "i: OJ) Cj "E ..g '2 ~~ g o to.-. = u 13:,::: 0 ~ <l) ~56(1)::: 1:; e '.g s ~ irl 00 ~ 'J:: :s .o8l::" ~.~ =' ;3 . .~ "0 o1.i U oS ll) "C 0Cl-d ;..::: .~ - .s ~ Q 'u > E ~ B.l:l..s ~ ..... (I)::l ;::I ]8 '5 [.~o =Ci~~o.~ U\O =2>.. ..... r--.. (Q 0...... :( ~ ~"5l goO ..... '" o t::' ... E co ~ Cl e a. Cl c: :e o C- O) c:: "C c: CO Cl c: '''' .9 'c o ::E c: o :;::l CO g ~ E 00 >. ~ c: .-;:: .~ 'C U "'0 igE~ = -< '50 ~~ 00 00 ~~ .... c: c = u l.I.l .....- ~ "'" '2'.~ fr] ~ fr Q..,UCl~l:QCl :>< :>< :>< ';j .... > o 0 " is. .g~ ]5 uu '" -" a 1-0 U c2 a ~ ~ ~ cc:: U ~ ~ .~ ~ ~~-", .sEfi~~ ~~oEE-= 8~-fiEtri "'0 8 a u 6 . ~ = <: ~.~ ~ 8..~.5 a 5 i:Ii 8813~~~ o.ut..::;_Q.,~ .s~'.g~5~ ,-e~,-',;:::ou o 0.'''' 0 ::l 16 t; c.. Vl s::: == 0::: > ~ CIS 0 0 0..... r.Il'", Q., 0.. _"'ao..tri~:.a 8:~ ~ E tri ~ (Q u ~ E ~ ,2 .suct!,) 0. s .~.~ 0. E ~ 'C = 0 E .s..c: Q..~tiClllU ~ ~ OLIO (Q C .... ~'5 U"'O 0. \1) ~ t: .... 0..5 5 tU 5 ~ gfE ~~E ~ l.I.l ~ 'S ~ i '2'.~ fr .! ~ fr o..uOQ.,o::::lQ -< ~C ~ > ~ ~eE 'u'" 8:-5 ~ ~ ~"," -=c:< "~ " 0. ~'~ ::o~'" u ">~ "'0 u.... ~":5 8.] :-s! ~:~ ~... ~ ..c:: 0: 0.. .::~::;: o"Ol -a:.=~ > .g a 20. 0....... =: g. ~ E .s .s .5 ~ " ~ .9 ~ 1: ~Q8 '" 00 0 a ",- U 'I: U :'=Q.I~"'O IS: ~ c m c: -"'''' Q) U ~ oo€ 00 oo€ .... = c: = u l.I.l .-.- Il) CIS c"'O ('3 "8' ,q fr .! :os fr 0. UClo. OlCl :>< :>< :>< ';j .... > o 2 .g~ 'i3 65 uu .... 1-0 c;; o.a ra..s~~= ro .~.... Q., e 'fi c: ~ 0. 's 0.. 1: 0 o::s g.t)f1. 8~~'';::u .... c.. ~ c'-<=i 0 g ,S ~_ ~I;/)CI.lo"'O_':::o~e '0' l.I.l ~ 'E fa u ~.$ (Q QJ 1-00 L... U 0 ro J:: = o.!2<:"""" ~ ~5u::::ct:l u ou .....i QJ._ 1-0 _ ro tIl c:J ..c - "" 1-0 U o...c.-..... .... cU o.:l..c:l;.=< rn~_ "~~ ='"0"9 _.o..-aU:l 5" 0 -" ~ 'S 0. ~" ';a '" 0 '" ~" ~~ U....lZl...:!..ca:lou -< ~ u ..c ~ ..... .... Q., "'0 III '"' ..c 0 a 8. 13 .~ ..... Ct:l = QJ '3 ~ -g <.l:: ...... .~ ''::: e ~ ~ oS g- oro>.o:P~~t-<!::B.. "';i _.-::!:::::S <lJ.:.=........ > 0 > ,2 <lJ ~ 0 13 ~ a 2 e Z 'E a.L:I is: <lJ.= a :::s ~ f3: a ..( '5 B 8.s g. r.I) ~ Q.. ~,....g~~e~..uo.g <lJ E .- "'0 U -- <I) V,I 'ta ~.- ..s .L:I t) ~ '"5 ~ g">.-:> fii' t) o :::s 2 <lJ ~ e.- .... ? <: 2 .... <I).... "'0 .. 1."=..... s: r.I)"" 8= cs..3 o.t:j"'O.s 1::> ~ "I: ~ 0 U "'0 0 c: u 0 ? 0 Q.. ~ u.5 a ,e 8 <: en ~u :! o ,.; '" 000 a " .- ~ '5 u "'0 f3: ~ 11! a = -< '60 €ilJ bel bel ~ C !:: C j;;i 13 "' ,- ,~ " <lJ ~ I=: "'0 ~ 'g'.~&.!~ & Q..UClQ..a:lCl :>< :>< :>< ';j .... > o 0 S a. :E~ ]5 uu '0 OE .- 0 u " " <lJ 1=:.... oS ,!213 ;Stt: ~'- ~- " ~ ~ "'O~:-g ~ l5. ~ 8.o.~ o"'e, l5.];:?; ~ ~ Ol .;; ~ " .... ~ 0 o 'S: 'u; _ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ > _ <lJ . e,,; -0..( f3:~ ~ E ~ .. <I) <lJ o H ~ E .... I=: :::I..s:: 8 "5h ~ ~ ,- !:: <lJ :t:: Q::tLlE<: r- S2 o N " vi E ~ Ol a ~ D- Ol <:: '€ a a. Q) c:: "0 <:: '" Ol <:: '<:: ,g '" a ::0 <:: a ~ Ol "" ~ E bl)C ~ C .- ~ '5 u -0 8:.5'5 a '5 <( one on one .... c = c ~ ~ (Q"= ~ ell 'e:.~ fr j ~ fr o..uO.c..coo :>< :>< :>< B ;;; .~:1l e ~ "-,, o"U .g " " "- ~ .5 1:: 1-0 ell OJ) <:':I..;::..;;.$c: ell ~ .- .c.. g .~ c:: ~ c..~o..c:o 0::1 1i"cue-< 8~:a'~];>. .... .c..:$ c 0;::::1'- bl}_ ~rntf.lO"'O-J:loBe '= UJ U ''::: a CLl ~,$ (Q CLl 2o"cc: Uoelll::C c.p...E-~gp5u Cl)OU ] ;z; cd ~'C ti 5].;a:2 _=uc..:::l..c:~r.Il(ll_ .,,~ c:"C "'C.... .c..2:'u ~ p.... o..c:<'-o..eIl~C ;:J ,~ 'fj 'is ~ e ~ ~ id U .... en .......c iLl U "^ ~, ".<:> s- 'P.c.. "'0 "'.. ;::: ...c:: 0 0 ~ .- en s::: CLl'- 4: -g .g ~.s .~ e ~ ~ oS g. oC':l>.o:;~g~=B... "';i_-C:l>,CLl .;.::...._ > 0 'S:: ,9: CLl (Q 0 as o.s fa .~ e Z 'B 0....0 ~ CLl .J::: on :::l 5 8:: fa <: '5 .s e;s e.rn ~.c.. C':I ...",rnC':lIo..OI-o::lc: ,t:: 0 CLl CLl ... 0 l-; CLl c.. 0 ~ E'- "0 Co) ~ rn tIl ~ ....::;.- -:WoO U (Q'E ~ s';"~CI) tl S::IEcuE"'.;::.t:: <.5 _~rI.l-gc..,*~>l:rJ)<Il o-c:_""o.....=.=t:~= .- ell 0 Co) c: 0 0 u 0 0 ~~u.s ~5u<l:iif!!,u '<i ~ on>> a c: t:: ~ '5 u -0 ~.s 5 fa '5 .... gfB ~gof g tLl a '2;.a C':I '8' ,q it j '@ fr .c..UO.c..a::lO :>< B ;;; ~ c " 0 D"E fa ~ E:.E ~ "" ~ CLl ~ ~] ~ .s ~..c:'::o III >>0 " .c'ggjg-5 .~ ~B '.g ~ tl.5oO:=3 & ti'S 'S; 3 rn ~ _ >. 5~'g;jl B ~ ell ,- c .<i:'- (Il t: C:'';::: <lJ ell B.g 5 ~ . ~~~~.o1S g.a~~=ia= CLl -- O.c CLl ..: ~ au (Il E "';oBg,~2 ~ ~"V; ~ 5 Po .... Iw ._ ;> E =.~ 0 oU oU .- ~-=..clUb u..c 0.... u .... :.ad:'=::::~8. ~ tIl..!:! . V.r e .u b e~ ~ ~ t=:08i;aJ~ ,..; 1E::_Q<l E 000 <:':I =.- ~ '5 u "0 ~.u:;:' = .... ~ = = <:':I = <.- .u .u .... ~E ~~E u ~ 'E"-.- t:: .u <:':I = "'0 (IS '8' ,e fr j ~ & o"UClo"IIlCl :>< B ;;; ~ C .u .9 -";; U " ;j 5l- 2i:.E '- ." ,,0 ;j .<:> b E-a~0 (lJ ,_ v.l ~ 5.5;:g.... '50 'a -g cIi ff'o.<n(lSs 0. S ~"~ ~ :::I "'0 u.<;:: 0 a 6 s 15= ..!:! sr~.s'i5.. ~ ~ in ~ ~ :gs~~g a .u:=:"i: ~ t5::C's.. go ro ~~ v.l .... = ~ '~~ ~ g .u ro .u ~ tIl > .u ~ ~ rd lU..c c.... ro 8 = 0..... e.,g ~~~ 00 <II 0 oU ......- = <n"Et:: (IS '1: i3: ro 0:; :::I oU ~ Q...c Ob..c~u 00 rl rl ~ on>> a = <;:: .~'J: u 8:~E1 = -< '6he" 00 on~" .... = = c ~ ~ ro '=~ '8'.e fr j ~ fr o"UClo"IIlCl :>< :>< :>< B ;;; ~c " 0 -" ,- u~ ;j g. - c 0,,- ~'o "i: t) .9..0 .... '= E ..... e ~ ~ ~ " c " ~ = t: i; ]SoU "ll ,,-OIl i! 1i3-g.,g..c ,!} ~ ~ ~ (Il........ oU ~~"Es ~~.:g5 ;:: ~,~ ] b. ~ ~ ~ ~ ,g 5l .:s e; ~ ~aJ-5l~ ~'c; = 5 ~";; ~ E ._ ~ lij U c;0)0.~ g.~ "fi a .( a ~::E 0; t- o 25 N - ... E '" ~ Cl e a. Cl c: 'E o a. '" ~ "0 c: '" Cl c: "" .s "r:: o :::;: c: "2 1ii Cl "" ~ ., 00 >. ~ e:t::: ~ '5 U-o g;.s 5 a e <<: oo~ 00 oo~ ..... s::: = = (.) ~ .-.- 4) ~ I:: "0 eQ '8' ,g fr j '5 fr o..UQ"d:QQ ~ ~ ~ 0"..... - 0 0 ::t '':::: '- .~ ~.!:! >"'..= 2'~ u ... "til u iU a~-S~ -..c'-o .o.......o.c.. " 13-=0.0 !i~ ..... ;> '0 5 0 ..... U 0 ~ ..= > .~ at: OOc::l o 0..5 ::s_ 5..cuUl::-;:"ii2..a '1J IlJ U CQ e..s:::: U ..c.c..ct;c::- -~B ';"0 ~.q~ ~a~=;&8E ui5..'=~ c4JtE "g c C a 'C ~ 'S tI)''''' II,.) _ ::s 0 :::s o ~..... 0. (,) = '- go ~ 0 c ~ ,0 ~ I- VJ 'C '- .g 0lJ 0. co B::l o.c..o Ol.l ..... (,) ii'- E ~~OlU..o.J::::s ~ co.c.. Ul: E'~ C . o frco~ ;::s"O"O] co a.~ ~ e ~ a's >->'..cllJ~C' 2]c::I~-5c:~ 8:rn;3 'lJ !:!fb.Q~!::: co .......c ;> l:: ~ ou CQ o=ullJ.2:!"'8vt;) ..... ~ IU 0::: .- "0 U U 1-0 .- ..c" 1..0 'S: e! u .g 0. >- 0] 0 'lJ ~ .o..~.cuoa.so.. ;;j ., 00 >. Iii ".';; ~ '5 u "0 o.v~c ..... 0..5 e (Q [3 <<: oo~ 00 oo~ ..... c c c u ~ .......... ilJ c"O c::I "8' .€ fr ~ ~ fr o..UQo..~Q ~ ~ ~ o " ;.g 13 IU (,).- 's: ~ rJ 2 .~ 'lJ ~ ~ ~ a en ~ E:.s'o " ~ 0 .!:!u-- .~'O 1Si:; <;:) "0 ~ :.2 .::: ~ e .~ ii 13 OJ.~ .~a~gO"l1Q'a-6 =.0 lI.)F;c:: a--aS~~5~E-E~'o~~c.~ !I) ~ .~ ":;:; u ~ 0 >. ~ E c .... .s 01)..0 -s"'8>ii5 "c:gJ::8t="]tIlo~ 5" E ,;g -5 ~ U ~ u a '- c::I e c ~ .~ >.:= 0 (l)e'll.l IIJ ~ (,) 0 t:i ::s ~ou ._ '- U-ub.Q 5' 'lJouc_= ~IU U C C U .. ~ E..c'(; co u <:':l :.E "OUQJO\,o...,o...... ..... U..c ..... 'lJ ~..c E 0 IlJ C ~ >.-8:.0 - fr!'!a U ;g Q) - co;:S 4,)';;'- o.c ~ 0 "0 > t:: o..Eb':-,~~4,)"5 >-"5 ~E !a~.E:!,g ~ ~"5 19 ~ b ~:g ~ 0.. -g ~ J:.E ~ ca > Q) ~ lI.l - Co:i > e co;:S 'en U co;:S .s ~ ~;; g -t' ~ ~ a 8 ~ g.~"5 ~ ~ ~ fr o..~ "'" tu 4,).s ou ~ = E >:= !a 5 _ "'" co;:S lI.l gs ::s.o ~.c.~ 8. Q) co;:S.s > co;:So..~cQ)C"'o~a"'OlI.la:l-=lI.l~ll) >--co;:S(.)O_OuO_"'" :>'co;:S<t.l e";1 -S 0. ~"'g ~ '.0: _ E 5 0..0 = 0.. u 8::'fii e Q) >>o'5:.o~ >-~ a:l"'O..2 E e ~o c -a~ g.; e g:;; g c g ~ -< 8 ~ CQ il.'i () (.) Q) ll) Q) CQ t: . Q) oc -::.~ >>~ i:.ll,!:: ~ o..,~ e? ll) ~ 0 ~ c = o - t) .2 Q) ::s IlJ F= > II) ! ..c ~ 'en .- 'C ~ ~~ cj 5 e ~ ~ ~ 5] ~ g g 5.g N N ,.., ., 000 Iii ".- ~ '5 U"O 3:.55 !a 5 ~ oo~ 00 oo~ _ = c c (.) ~ .- ,- u co;:SC"O '[.e fr .3 ':i fr o..UQ 0.. OlQ ~ ~ ~ B en ;;;, U " " 0 o'fi a ~ O:.=: >. "'" :E B ::l ~ 4,) _ ~ = e c;,.,., ,- ,_ "".. 0 t = ,0.. o..O""'lI.l " " ~ "- " " 5.- " U lI.l._ U " 00 ~ U.!:: r~- "'Oc-c; IlJ U c- ~ ll)'- co;:S c...r:: U "'0 0- <t.l IlJ a]i:i ~ Q.l::s...... 0.. -s 0 0 " ...... ~ c.c o ~.2 = " - i3= - co;:S_ ~.,gJ9~ 5 e lI.l.!'!a "0 ~ o.c.4,)~~<t.l co;:S .c lI.l lI.l .c _uO_ ~:-=i:i='5 -~ouo $~-~a-a ""',_ lI.l 0 ::l .2 g !a ~ e ~ ~ c.. c.';: N N .- >2 o '" - ..,. E el Cl e a.. Cl c: :e o a. 0) et: "C c: '" Cl c: 'C .9 '1: o :::; c: ,9 15 Cl :;:; :E ~ Ol:lo ~Eu :.=~~"O .... g;.5 ~ a 5 <OOSoo",,€ .... = s:: s:: ~ '" 'g 'c:'; '" "[,q fr j ~ fr o..UO"dllO x E <ii :jl " ~ 0 .<: ,- uti ~ lii fir - " 0.._ "'0 G,) <1.l ILl C,.:::: I.)..c:: :::s"" 5"" o...'<=<'- 0. O..c 0 O<lJ~..c::: g ~ u '6iJ 6=~] - 0.... "'.<: ~ >. O'!::: .D .~ .s "5 ."Eo BiU-U u ~ oS B,.g c^ = e.... 0 =' p" oo:~ ... ".,,- ~..S!~:-= '" " ~ ;:;: ~ ~ ~ : .~ ~ ~ ~ ],.Q"'O_"'O !:! OJ a.M a ~~~<I):@ a g =...c:: = o 8 ~.~ ~ ,.; N '" 000 lii ".- U 'i: U :'=11)-;:."'0 g;g=a E -< 'So E OJ) 0() E t) ~ t:.S.5-e G) (Q = "'0 ~ '8' ,q fr .! '5 fr o..UOo..o:lO x E <ii :jl " ~ .9 uB lii fir ii:.E ~ u '" ." ~ "a ,.g =-c: ~ ~ 0 c. " " c; 0 c u ~ ~ ~ g,<;; E"O..s II :,~ > " " o~." as..... go.9- 5 ~ " ~ ..c:: as ~ - _ c. .<: '" ~ .~.~ :: ~ll", u S ~ lii ,., ~ "E g g o ~ '" 8 ~"3 .... ~E"S5 ..5 IU (Q ~ ..; N 1 fi. ,~ fi '" "" ,., lii ",,, ~ '5U"O 8:.5'5 fa '5 -:: ~Fi gfgfFi ~ ~ ~ '2 ~ a '8' ,q fr] '5 fr o..uoc.o:lO x E <ii :>l ~ .s Ot) ~ lii fir i5:.5 ~ .0 ,sa o ~ .0_ . ~ " " ..:9 6 c.~ ba:3 'C 0. . 80] ~.~ 13 "E ~ ~ > ~ ~ o ~ '" a ~ ~f go.c ;E ~ c.~ .<:.,,0 ~a"'O .~ u 53 ~ .~ ILl <UO'~ U 0. ;t5: lii II 0 ]"ll u " " ~S .g .s3~ vi N M r< Eoo>' I:':l c;:: ~ '5 u." l5: g E a '= <:.- Ol.l IU .... ~E ~~E ~ ~ ~ '2 :a ~ '8' ,q fr .! '5 fr o..UOo..o:lO x E <ii :>l u " ,.g .g U ~ lii fir ii:..5 H]~1].i~ ~ c; ... ~ ~ ..J. s ~ .~ :2 lL\ ] U e 6 t;j.5 & c a ~ oS ='~ 0,-=1 coJs 0 ~ 0.."" OCl:l.......u_ IUUO~ Ea;]o~~]~o:S:1U ~ ~';: <I)'~ ~==~ gf.E-= Q,I 'u ~ .~ <n 5'~ _a..S! ~f 'E ~5_oU_<Il I:':l:c- ~<.,;<~~.s'Cj.!:l613s5 -5 ~.- '";j .s ~ ..8 ''; - c.. e ~l~:O"'5l1Scc:;g8~ ~ E ~ ;:!l:::: 3 e fr- ~ ~ o 0 -. ... N .- j;;. ~ <II i:: a ~ 'g ~ ]:::; e- 5 .;: ~ cu _ .. ilJ.- __ 0 _.-= c ';:l sca;nt.t..cu.......-.Cii..cu.. ou t:i _ ...0 ou ~ 0() cu E ~ g e-b::::~ cu c] 5iJo cu'': ~ ~ ~ . ~ 8'C cu:.= "'0 e ~ cu cu ~ _ ~ ~ > N 0 e:l>c.n cu "'O_..:t: 8 e 8 l5] .5 ~ ~ t=o ~ ~ i:: cu a bO u e 'Qi cu N S ,1l_ '0 ~ ~~'E',; ! : ou .. ..c.. .- ~ _ ..c ..s: ..0 .9 0. ~ cu u C ~ ca bO _ ;:::: ~ ~ e .s .B U 3 t;j ::J ~ .~ -0 N 1"- ~ ~ ..,. E ro ~ 0> e 0- 0> c: 1:: o a. Q) c:: "'0 c: ro 0> c: ." .9 '0: o ::;: c: .9 15 g> ~ " ,.; E 000 tIS e .- ~'5 U"'O 8:.5 E fa 5 ..: bO~ bO bO~ ..... e e c u ~ .-.- " ..." '8'.2 &] 'S fr i:l-.UO~a:lCl x x x E ;;; ;;;, u .. ].!2 u'E Ii ~ Q:.s ._ l!J~ >.~ "0 ~ ~ i 'S CIl - "'O~ a i.So""g ~ ~ ~j.i~ ~ ~o.rn i:l;- Uu ~~ ig-d ~ S a'~ -- l!J ~ ~ Z.S l!J e E: 'S::: ~ > tIS .- - e.s 0 e::l OIl '" - B ;;:UU-l.4-<'':::: ~ o.~ ti'O"O s'B CIl ~.J:8aOel!JeC;EaJ::IUCIlIU ~ ::::.- U C l!J bl) 0 _ l!J rn $:: ..c ~ ~ ~~~~i~'~~i~~8~J5~ U U l!J <<I';:: OJ).g Ia c g '';::::::= ..... ~ - e ..= .= u.S 0 i:':l - .... ~ ~ 0 bO "0 ~.... CIl 00"'0.- -..c:: co" - .. ~ "E c..-. l!J G.) OJ:) ~ ~ Q. _ l!J _ '+::: - ~.- 8. 8 ~ oS ~ ~ :g g '0 'ii ~ r-- u ~ .!:: ~ ouo'Q: ~~IU-.bbJ)tIl)l!Jr= "'00. ... CIS._ 0 CIl..c CIl C I: c:"s:::: q;;; rn - Q. = 1:$ :3: .... ... _ III 0 '.0 .- I:-' >IS ~ ;.::: l!J u .- ~ C "'0 i3:= e U <<I"E ..t: u ~ -:S ...c:: "'0 CIl l!J l!J .... :3: Oll u C <<I ;>''''0 (,.) CIl .... - ".- S';;" .. "':a bO - .. " - ... "E ; ~ OJ C "'0 "fi .... <o..i ~ ~ ~ <<I .... a .s 0. CIl ;:;::..... IU._ 0 e 0 CIS rn U "'0 .- (iil!JIU_-~..s:::-.;..;OCll<nCll==~ >l=:...9 'OlU~~l!Juti2l!Ji5hU<ll 0- I-oC= u"s::::l-<"'O...g"",:t::u ... l!J S ~ .... ;.::::: ~ ~ I:-' <E 'S;:.!=.! CIS l!J CIS U 8:;..c =;::l U U CIl rn 0 OU- e.... tIS cd = ~'Oo..c "'0 'S;: tIl ~ = a u ~ u..9 f} ~OClSCeOl.foBlL\t:iClSO >,--000ll ~,j;-"5l;':::::~"'O c"'O'C :;::";jj 8 v 1U,s C C !":: 5 c: ~ ~ E 'a t) .s "'0 ';;; .- :.c S :.iil :E:2 . !:._ ea.- .... u '-..s:: 0 ~ 0 't .. In "0 .. a: lwm!t~o.5hU.S ~ Q E e a~.g 5 a~ Q. ..... o c; !::' ... r-' '" ATTACHMENT "B" Response to Comments on DRAFT MND IS-07-030 (30-day public Review Period: April 20, 2007 through June 21, 2007) COMMENT REFERENCE COMMENT PROVIDER CommentsJResponses Theresa Acerro A-I through A-lO PO Box 8697 Chula Vista Letter provided May 7,2007 at RCC Hearing CommentslResponses Sierra Club B-1 through B-ll San Diego Chapter 3820 Ray Street San Diego, CA 92104 Letter postmarked May II, 2007 Frank Ohrmund CommentslResponses 2433 Fenton Street, Suite A C-I through C-4 Chula Vista, CA 91914 Comment received via e-mail dated May 9, 2007 CommentslResponses Michael Behan D-I throum D-5 Letter received via e-mail dated May I, 2007 CommentslResponses County of San Diego E-I through E-12 1600 Pacific Highway, STE 209 San Diego, CA 92101 CommentslResponses Theresa Acerro F-I PO Box 8697 Chula Vista Comment received via e-mail June 21, 2007 CommentslResponses U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service / CA Department of G-I(a-f) through G-3 Fish and Game 60 I 0 Hidden Valley Road Carlsbad, California 92011 Page I of 24 15-97 Mr. Glen Laube Environmental Projects Manager 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, Ca 91910 ;0' ,( -V'<!"'-\ ~..-> V,J." ",e"t",,~'\~ ~ t) ., / <>.:"< '? t-lc~ ./ A , .._',-, RE: Conditional Use Permit for Temporary Championship Off-Road Race 2007, Case #18-07-030 Dear Mr. Laube, Please consider this letter a formal response to the MND for this project. TbelntesmtvoftheOVRP _b. -t~J\-'\SC~ I have always believed that one of the most important goals of the OVRP is to keep open a wildlife corridor enabling species to move freely from the hay area along the rjparian lands east to the Otay Mountains. The selected active recreation sites were never A~ I intended to preclude this wildlife function nor to impact upon the passive uses of the park for wildlife observation, hiking, biking, etc. There bas never been any consideration given to Off Road Vehicle (ORV) use along this park corridor. Motorized vehicle use is inconsistent with the park mission and vision, the Multiple Species Conservation A .2 Program (MSCP), and the Otay River Watershed Management Plan. In fact much time and effort are spent keeping ORVs out of the park and off old dirt roads and trails. The Specific Area Management Plan (SAMP) bas not been completed for the 1 Otay Watershed yet but certainly activities like ORV use will not be consistent with the A- -z. SAMP. Motorized vehicles (except emergency vehicles or wheelchairs) are not allowed ';:J on any trails in open space areas in Chula Vista with good reason. 1 am concerned that this event could set a precedent allowing other inconsistent -, activities within and adjacent to the OVRP. The proposed event clearly has more than adjacency impacts. There is a section of the MSCP lands that is directly impacted on the north side of the river. One could also consider that driving through the MSCP lands in A4 Wolf Canyon and the river bottom are also direct impacts even though the dirt roads being used are easements and fenced on both sides. The amount ofuse for shuttling during the days of this event will be many, many times the use by Border patrol or SDGE or other authorized public authority in a year's time. 1 am concerned that this event will be used to collect data and set precedence for a permanent use of this type. The biological restoration projects undertaken in or around endangered species habitat have in the past taken six months or longer to receive the agency permits and complete the studies necessary to begin the project. We now have detention basins and A . S.., drainages in Chula Vista that need cleaning for maintenance purposes and have been ~ awaiting permits for some time. Submitting an application on March 28 and having pre- race activities begin on June 7 is outrageous and unheard of. Also the MSCP supposedly has very strict prohibitions against any kind of a disturbance during breeding season, generally March 15 through September 15. This has held up many construction projects. The construction along highway 94 requires a ten- A I foot or higher thick plywood wall all along the riparian corridor in order to continue . t7' during breeding season. This preferential treatment for this applicant is totally unacceptable and a very bad precedent. 15-98 Biololff The biological letter indicates there are breeding Gnatcatchers and Vireos in the area Allowing this use with the only precaution being putting plywood on the backs of the bleachers really sets a very bad precedent for preventing future disturbances during ^- L breeding season. It is commendable that there will be a survey of camping and parking (Tel areas for burrowing owl nests and any found will be protected, but by June there are apt to be other babies being cared for by animal mothers as well, which also deserve protection, whether they are a sensitive species or not. Domestic animals and unauthorized access to preserve areas are mentioned as potential negative impacts. All domestic animals have to be prohibited from this event unless there will be strict monitoring and enforcement ofleash laws. How strict and how many monitors will be on hand to prevent people using both the parking and the camping areas from not waiting for the shuttle but just walking or straying beyond the 3 strand fencing is not specified in the MND. The number of and the placement of monitors is critical to evaluating how well intrusions will be prevented. As now written protection is ! 11:1- totally inadequate and not mitigated to below the level of significance. USFWS has a " - T huge amount of evidence indicating how poorly fencing and signs alone prevent intrusions in sensitive habitat. Since an educational program is difficult if not impossible for a four- day event, there must be numerous well- trained security guards. It must explicitly be explained to guards and monitors what behaviors they are on hand to prevent. There is now no specific mitigation requiring a set number of guards/monitors or specifYing where they will be stationed. NOISE The noise letter says the event will provide structural elements for sound attenuation but only mentions the plywood behind the bleachers. Fireworks are particnlarly frightening to wildlife since they sound like gunshots and are unique light displays. They are also a fire hazard adjacent to tinder dry habitat. Fireworks should be prohibited entirely. The biological report on page 8 says that the noise analysis measurements "in portions of the quarry adjacent to sensitive habitat areas in the Preserve indicate noise level of up to 78 dB Leq." Looking at the chart on page 5 in the noise letter one sees that this location is in the MSCP preserve above the quarry orcousiderably north of the race venue and the Vireo nesting sites to the south. There was no measurement taken from the preserve area to the south or the west or the east. Since the level measured near the quarry scales was 68 one can assume that across the river from the quarry (over 1,000 feet south), which is separated from the quarry by the entire span of the race venue (a no A- q longer used portion of the quarry) the ambient sound is less than 68 dB, but certainly 0 would not be anywhere near the 78 above the quarry or within the quarry itself. One wonders why the measurements were taken where they were unless for the express purpose of trying to prove the birds were accustomed to high decibel noise. The reality is most likely that the birds avoid the area above the quarry where the 78 dB measurement was taken and hang out south of the river and to the west in Wolf canyon where the noise from the races will be highest. Least Bell's Vireo is a riparian species. The recorded nests above the quarry are for Gnatcatchers. There are no recorded locations of vireos nests above the quarry, which is almost 3,000 feet from the riparian corridor, according to Figure 5 of biological letter. There is no date given for the historical nests. Since there is 15-99 one for a Gnatcatcher in the quarry itself I wonder if some of them might predate the quarry or at least be from the beginning days of the quarry. Pa2e 12 of the noise letter states that "The proposed proiect would e:enerate noise levels e:reater than 60 dB hourlv Lea noise level within portions oftbe adiacent biolol!:ical habitat areas. On page ten it states the P A system would generate noise of A_Q 70dB or less in habitat areas. On page 9 it states the 85dB race noise would be reduced by ,...... 0 plywood and elevation difference to 75 dB "on sensitive habitat to the immediate south of the facility," where one would expect to find Vireos. This is cIearlv an unmiti2ated ne2ative impact upon sensitive species. June is the time when eggs are likely to have hatched and a bird being frightened from a nest will result in the death of the young. Air Ouafitv The report admits that the emissions of CO are above emissions thresholds. It is questionable whether this would be a "hot spot" or not, but it certainly makes one wonder A .t:t about Coors events that draw even more traffic. The PM emissions are a concern because '" I mitigation requires frequent watering down of the roads and venue, which is a tricky proposition since one does not want to have mud. Li..htine: J Lighting is a tricky proposition too since the camping area and the parking area j are in the middle of the MSCP land. It is doubtful if pointing lights down and away from {'to t 0 habitat will reduce the impact to a level below significance for wildlife. Sincerely, ~, .<./ -^- ;/J~~ -- Theresa Acerro PO Box 8697 Chula Vista, CA 91912 (619) 425-5771 15-100 ---=....~..."..=.~-=--.................--~._--~--_._-- -, Ii! I I " i i I I i i , I i , I I I I I I i , , I I I I I I ! i I [ Chapter Chair: Joe Zecllman 619-709-6268 Administrative Assistant: Manha Coffman 619-299-1743 mcuffman@fierraclubsandiego.org Administrative & Volunteer Coordinator: Cheryl Reiff 619-299-1741 creijJ@fJerraclubsRndiego.org www.sierraclubsandiego.org -':..,-...-.,.-,.,..--.."...._,,..~-''',.,.,-.,-,='''- (A:;--. S I E RRA CLUB ""f-9\~N'Diitj.fi~j-l Sierra Club, San Diego Chapler 3820 Ray Street San Diego, CA 92104 Mr. Glen Laube Environmental Projects Manager 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, Ca 91910 glaube(ij)ci .chula-vista.ca. us RE: Conditional Use Permit for Temporary Championship Off-Road Race 2007, Case #IS-07-030 Dear Mr. Laube, Part of the mission of the Sierra Club is to explore, enjoy and protect the wild places of the earth and practice and promote the responsible use of the earth's ecosystems and resources. Please consider this letter the Sierra Club's formal response to the MND for this project. The Intel!ritv of the OVRP and MSCP The Sierra Club has been led to believe that one of the most important goals of the OVRP is to keep open a wildlife corridor enabling species to move freely from the bay area along the riparian lands east to the Otay Mountains. The Sierra Club and its members wholeheartedly agree with this goal. As the wildlife of San Diego County are increasing confined to smaller and smaller habitats these wildlife corridors become more and more critical to their existence. The location of this active recreation area has been a concern tor some time since the corridor to the north is so narrow. It has been our understanding that the use of these active recreation areas would be a matter for much community discussion and analysb, after they were dedicated to the preserve, in order to insure the protection of the adjoining preserve lands. In complete disregard of this process a camping area has arbitrarily been placed upon one of these active recreation parcels for the duration of this proposed event with less than 45 days for any comment. This is an unacceptable procedure. There has never been any consideration given to Off Road Vehicle (ORY) use along this park corridor. Motorized vehicle use is inconsistent with the park mission and vision, the Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP), and the Otay River Watershed Management Plan. The Specific Area Management Plan (SAMP) has not been completed for the Otay Watershed yet but certainly activities like ORV use will not be consistent with the SAMP. In fact much time and effort are now spent keeping ORYs out of the park and off old dirt roads and trails. To allow the shuttling of 10,000 people a day for four days through the 15-101 B~ B-\ ~-L. I I II I, Ii II i! il i " I I , I i I ! I I , , I I i I ! I I ! i I , I i I I , I , Ii Otay River and Wolf Canyon on existing dirt roads is not an adjacency issue. It is setting a terrible precedence for inappropriate use of preserve lands and surely causing significant direct negative impacts, which were not analyzed. Motorized vehicles (except emergency vehicles or wheelchairs) are not allowed on any trails or dirt roads in open space areas in Chula Vista with good reason. The amount of use for shuttling during the days of this event will be many, many times the use by Border Patrol. SDGE or other authorized public authorities in a year's time. R.. There is absolutelv no analvsis of this inappropriate use in the MND. Fencing U'''3 with three-wire fence both sides of the roads may confine the people to the roads, but does nothing to mitigate the effect upon the roads themselves or the negative effect of the traffic upon the preserve lands. There should be an analysis of Land Use impacts since clearly there m significant negative impacts in further compacting the land and legitimizing trespass. This is a huge failing of the MND. Wolf Canyon and this section of the Otay Valley are 100% preserve lands according to the MSCP. There is also a section of the MSCP lands that is directly impacted on the north side of the river-a section, which was an important part of the corridor until a previous owner degraded it. This section is scheduled to be I) returned to habitat in the future. Generally any kind of activity within a preserve I;) area-even restoration-requires a lengthy process to obtain permission and permits, Lf but this applicant submitted an application on March 28 and expects to hold pre- race activities on 6/7. This makes us suspect that a thorough enough analysis could not possibly have been done to reach the conclusion that all negative effects have been identified, much less mitigated. Biolol!V Even though the Chula Vista MSCP identifies a shorter period of time for breeding season than what is commonly used this weekend in June is within the dates where activities are prohibited in order to protect breeding animals. The sensitive species in this case would be the Gnatcatchers and Least Bell's Vireo, which historically nest in this part of the preserve. It is another extremely bad B-t: precedent to allow this event in the middle of preserve land during breeding ~ season with the only precaution being putting plywood behind the bleachers. It is noted that a survey will be made in the parking and camping areas for burrowing owl nests, and any nests found will be protected. This is definitely an appropriate mitigation. The Sierra Club was told that domestic animals have been prohibited but if people show up with them the leash laws will be strictly enforced. It is critical that more details be included in the Mitigation Monitoring program as to the training the security guards will receive, the rules that will be enforced, the number of guards and where they will be stationed. Without this information there is B I absolutely no way of determining if the mitigation is adequate to prevent the - tv negative effect or not. There is a great concern that people will not wait for the shuttle but take off on foot through the preserve to the event from the camping and/or parking areas. USFWS has a huge amount of evidence indicating how poorly fencing and signs alone prevent intrusions into sensitive habitat. There is 15-102 .; , , i i I I , , I , I i i I 1 , i I I , I i , I I I , I , I ,I I i I :1 i) !I ii " il Ii il :1 " :1 I I :1 " il Ii I , I I I I i I I i I , I i I i 1 , I I also the possibility of people and vehicles bringing seeds of invasive non-native 11\ plants into the preserve on tires and shoes, which is ignored in the MND. ".J . Noise Because this is a temporary event the letter states that it is exempt from the Chula Vista noise analysis. Because there is an intention to use data collected to apply for a pennanent pennit there is an attempt to show that the noise will meet B-7. city standards at the nearest residential homes. The analysis completely ignores'" T section B of the Chula Vista Exterior Noise Ordinance, which surely will apply to off-road races. Noise is recognized as an adjacency issue for the wildlife and the conclusion is that in the habitat areas to the south the noise will reach 75dB after mitigation. This is completely unacceptable and an unmitigated nel!ative effect of the activity since the accepted threshold is 60 dB. The lame attempt to change the threshold to an ambient noise level of 78 dB Leq uses a measurement taken in habitat above the quarry, considerably more than 3,000 feet away from historical vireo nests. 68 dB ambient noise was measured at the scales located in the VIP parking area over a 1,000 feet from the historic nests. No measurements were taken in the habitat area to the south, so there is NO justification for not using the 11 , <is' usually accepted threshold of 60 dB for negative noise impacts in habitat areas. D Blasting cannot be considered since it is not an event that occurs on an hourly basis and is ofvery short duration. Paee 12 of the noise letter states that "The proposed proiect would eenerate noise levels ereater than 60 dB hourlv Lea noise level within portions of the adjacent bioloeical habitat areas. On page ten it states the P A system would generate noise of 70dB or less in habitat areas. On page 9 it states the 85dB race noise would be reduced by plywood and elevation difference to 75 dB "on sensitive habitat to the immediate south of the facility," where one would expect to fmd Vireos. This is c1earlv an unmitieated neeative impact upon sensitive sDecies. In Summary The Sierra Club considers the MND for this project to be inadequate because: J I. There is no analysis as to the long and short-tenn negative impacts of this Q. Q land use upon Land Use policies associated with the various Resource \J- I Management Plans for this area and the MSCP. 2. The potential for Significant Negative effects caused by domestic animals, human intrusion and the introduction of exotic, invasive species is acknowledged, but there is no detailed mitigation indicated showing how these intrusions will be prevented. Saying no one will deliberately plant an invasive species does not mean that a tire or a shoe will not carry seeds Q into the preserve area. (This is just one problem with allowing people to \J. c"D pass through the preserve to get to activities not related to the preserve function.) Saying there will be private security does not show where that security will be located or how that security will prevent, exactly which 15-103 I .1 I I I I I I II , , I i I i , , .1 negative behaviors. Signs and fencing are not adequate deterrents when 4.. people are surrormded by preserve land and allowed to cross it several ~\- times a day. . 3. It is predicted that ~he noise th;~shold of 60 .dB :-vill be surpassed in the r2._ " preserve, thus causmg an unmitigated negatIve Impact. I~ i i .'1 '1 , i , I ! Sincerely, f~/f Pf/l I /16mda 1. f!ri~gs . ...."... ConservatIon Chm Sierra Club, San Diego Chapter i I i i I I I i i i I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I! I i i I I I I , I i I I I I i ! , i I , I I I I I i i i i i I I 15-104 Page 1 of3 Glen Laube c. From: Frank Ohrmund [frank@otayrealestate.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 10:09 AM To: Marisa Lundstedt; Glen Laube Subject: FW: Resource Conserv. Commission meeting last night. Marisa/Glen, My modified comments are below. 10 Frank Ohrmund Broker/Owner Otay Real Estate 2433 Fenton Street, Suite A Chula Vista, CA 91914 619-397 -5300 voice 619-397 -5370 fax 858-945-4974 cell From: Frank Ohrmund [mailto:frank@otayrealestate.com) Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 9:31 AM To: 'Marisa Lundstedt' Subject: FW: Resource Conserv. Commission meeting last night. Marisa, Your request to identify deficient items in the environmental document supporting a Mitigated Negative Declaration should include the following. Please pass this on as my objections to the environmental document. 1. Glen explained the true extent of the study and its relevance for a temporary useJ C-, 2. After quick archeological review, the camping site was now reduced to half its size. If this is enough land, still, then why was the entire area desired in the first place. Based on typical processes for consultants to complete their work, this process for them and staff and the public to review each environmental issue is not adequate. Consultant's work must have been rushed and appears to be incomplete when compared to typical reports for G ~ similar projects. Not enough mention of alternatives have been made. The campground should have been ~ ~ moved to the parking area and should have been studied as an alternative. With such a quick review and study by the consultants, with current modification still being made, this environmental document supporting the mitigated negative declaration was compieted in haste and more time should be allowed for alternatives to be developed. 3. No typical delays are being made for breeding season. The, truly, higher noise than quarry operations is an uj C.3 mitigated impact whether or not its breeding season. . 4. No plan has been made to limit the non-native plants from dominating the camping site area after the current~ grasses are trampled down to a bare dirt lot. These non-native plants will re-establish themselves quicker than le.y native plants and will then disperse their seeds. A plan to spray or weed these plants needs to be completed fo i ., next winter's growing season. The following are comments on thsct as a'wn6r;, that question staffs authority to support this project based on planning documents approved by t e eveloper. I think a legal opinion needs to be made on the conversion of any use within the Preserve prior to dedication to the Preserve Owner/Manger or City of Chula Vista. 1. We have no declaration from the POM (Preserve Owner/Manager) for Otay Ranch on what their recommendation is 05/17/2007 15-105 Page 2 of3 for CORR's proposal, and what its affect on the Preserve land, they manage, would be. This is for the unauthorized use of land at the south end of the Quarry that is south of the Quarry property line (in the MSCP) and the proposed Camping site. The camping site is talked about in the Otay Ranch General Plan, Resource Management Plan 1 &2 as being suitable for "active recreation" within the Preserve. This use would only be allowed to be converted from its current use after its dedication into the Preserve. At that time, the POM would oversee, with the JEPA, what active recreational uses could be developed by the park or a private enterprise. This can only happen after its dedication to the Preserve. Until the property is dedicated into the Preserve, language in Otay Ranch's own, self-imposed, planning document states that only existing farming can continue as a use in the Preserve. We need a legal opinion to determine if the Otay Ranch Planning documents preclude this change in use prior to its dedication to the City Preserve. 2. The Chula Vista's MSCP calls for the "camping site" as a "Planned Active Recreation Area - Subject to RMP Policies and OVRP Planning". This same area is identified as a "Park Study Area" and that is because Figure 3-3 in the MSCP has determined that there is Tier I, II and III habitat to be impacted by development. Driving on and clearing this land hap-hazardly will most likely increase non-native plants in this area without a better plan. This would only matter if they somehow can support skipping #1 above. 3. The owner's of the Property have not shown that what they are planning is a net benefit to the community. They have essentially stopped quarry operations, which has increase material costs in the South Bay by 10-15%. Material for concrete, road base, and asphalt now needs to be trucked from north Lakeside. By closing the Quarry or operating it at a small fraction of its capacity is costing the community millions in trucking costs. The use would only be for a handful of millionaire racers and their sponsors. The public will not be able to use the facility. No local racers came to support this use at the public meetings. This is a playground for the elite period. No contribution to the park has been offered. No net benefit has been supported. > > 4. This CUP is just a place mat that would allow them to process the "real" project later. Which now have admitted that they will soon do. Why let them do this with little review, when all the planning documents call for more study and involvement with the POM and OVRP JEPA. The owner's of the Property, CORR and Otay Ranch Company have plenty of land available for this facility and/or can hold the races at one of their other tracks this year. Their land in Otay Ranch has held this race before and I am sure they can do it again. This land is farmland away from the Preserve and it would be a better option to give them permission to grade this area while we process any application for a permanent use at the Quarry Property. This way all those responsible can properly review and comment on their project. This project should be completely outside the Preserve. 5. No changes to a quarry operation can be made without modifying the Major Use Permit and/or completing the Reclamation Plan. Since there is no Major Use Permit, and we are changing the use, the City should now require the quarry to be permitted under a use permit. Or they can close the quarry, complete the Reclamation Plan work and then process their Conditional Use Permit. At the very least, they need to deal with the Reclamation Plan before changing or modifying the use. City Staff stated that the Reclamation Plan allows for dirt to be moved and that is their justification for allowing them to move it into the form of a racing track. This is just bad logic and can't be defended by any sane person. This project needed a grading permit. The State Office of Mine Reclamation will have something to say about that reasoning. Respectfully submitted, Frank Ohrmund, Secretary Friends of Otay Valley Regional Park No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVO Free Edition. Version: 7.5.467/ Virus Database: 269.6.6/794 - Release Date: 5/812007 2:23 PM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVO Free Edition. Version: 7.5.467/ Virus Database: 269.6.6/794 - Release Date: 5/8/20072:23 PM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVO Free Edition. 05/1712007 15-106 Page 3 of3 Version: 7.5.467/ Virus Database: 269.6.6/794 - Release Date: 5/8/20072:23 PM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVO Free Edition. Version: 7.5.467/ Virus Database: 269.6.6/794 - Release Date: 5/8/20072:23 PM 05/17/2007 15-107 Date: May 1,2007 To: OVRP Citizen Advisory Committee via the Established Sub -committee From: Michael Behan, Committee Member rep. City of Chula Vista Subject: Review of the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Championship Off-road Racing I've read the Mitigated Negative Declaration document and find myself, for the most part, in favor of the Championship Off-road Racing event taking place. As a retired Recreation professional (34 years in the field) I believe that this event is consistent with providing recreational service to support the greater public good. The event, as stated, is proposed for four days with a planned attendance of 10,000 each day. Simple math tells me that approximately 40,000 people will visit the site allowing, what must be considered, one of the larger recreational opportunities to take place in Chula Vista this calendar year. The fact that the event is commercial and admission is charged has no bearing on the potential for the average citizen to enjoy attending. One has only to look a few hundred yards from this proposed CaRR venue to find Knott's Soak City and the Coor's Amphitheater, both providing needed and sought out recreational opportunities. I don't find allowing the CaRR's temporary 4-day event to be onerous and of great impact to the trail users in the area. The walkers and riders will still have 361 days in the year to e~oy the peace and solitude that can be found adjacent to a working stone quarry. The document on page 9 of36, section E. Compliance with Zoning and Plans states: "Because the use is temporary and subject to a Conditional Use Permit, a consistency determination relative to General Plan land use designations is not applicable." This statement alone seems to render most ofthe arguments I heard expressed last week at the Citizen Advisory Committee and Policy Committee moot, especially when one considers the fact that the proposed venue is on privately held land with high levels of mitigation proposed. Protection of the Otay Valley Regional Park's environment from any mistreatment from outside impacts is of primary concern. At this time, however, there is no empirical data, no proof, to substantiate any allegations that this specific event will negatively impact the park's environment or surrounding neighborhoods. Although, minus the data, one can certainly surmise some ofthe potentials impact to the area: I) Air Quality, 2) Sound Pollution 3) Hydrology and Water Quality, 4)Drainage/Toxics, etc. I believe that the document appears to respond to each of these issues with viable answers on surmised Issues. I strongly suggest that before the event is permitted the applicant provide a plan to document the impacts of the temporary event on the surrounding environment and community. The plan should include but not be limited to: . Sound checks measuring db's in the communities on the south rim during the race event. . Air quality checks measuring particulate matter during and immediately after each race. . Base level samples of the rivers prior to the first race day and immediately following 15-108 lJ) \ I &-t P"2- D"~ \),~ the final day of racing for any heavy metal or petroleum based impacts on the water shed. Once these tests are completed they should be presented to the City of Chula Vista in a report that fully discusses the baseline methodology and [mdings prior to and after the event. Once the impacts are fully vetted, understood, and agreed upon by professionals in each discipline, a full formal report should be presented to the OVRP Policy Committee for comment and agreement. This data should then be included as part of any future application for the use ofthe venue for an Off-road Vehicle Racing. The data included in the report will provide needed information to allow the OVRP Committees to make an educated, fact-based decision on any future use ofthe site. I am concerned with Page 12 of36, section F. Public Comments section. The fact that the applicant met the minimum notification responsibility". . . Notice was circulated to property owners and residents within a 500-foot radius of the proposed project site." is not enough. Given the potential for disruption of quality oflife (sound mostly) for the homes/residents located on the south rim of the valley, the applicant should have taken, and should be required to take, the extra steps to notify these residents of the potential disruption. 15-109 t>-~ D-S OS/21/2007 15:02 519-531-5475 COUNTY SD LUEG PAGE 02/05 WAl TER F. EKARD CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER {1>1.9) 531-6:126 FM: ((19) SS7..All6rl ., , t1, 0 ~ .' ,-.- , ([[ount~ of ~U1t ~i.eBo E CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE HELEN N. ROBBINS-MEYER ASST. CHIF.~ ADMI~jSTRA1)VE: OFFJCER (6'9)531-49<10 I=AX: (&19}:;:;7-4Qf.O 1600 PACIFIC HIGHWAY, STE. :lOg, SAN DIEGO. CA )2101-2172 May 21, 2007 Glen Laube, Environmental Projects Manger cIa Environmental Review Coordinator City of Chula Vista 276 FO,urth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY CHAMPIONSHIP OFF-RO/\D RACING MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (Case #/S-07-030) Dear Mr. Laube: The County of San Diego (County) staff, as Preserve Owner/Manager (PaM) for the Otay Ranch Preserve (Preserve) and as a partner in the nulti-jurisdictional planning effort for the Otay Valley Regional Park (OVRP) along w~11 the Cities of Chula Vista and San Diego, appreciates the opportun~ to comment ')0 the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for a temporary, Cond~ional Use Pennit for Championship Off- Road Race (CaRR) events on the Otay Ranch Quarry p''Operty off of Wiley Road. The County has had great success working w~h the City 01 Chula Vista on projects in the Olay area and look forward to continuing lhat partners')ip. However, the County is concerned that the proposed project is inconsistent with the management goals of the preserve and incompatible with the Otay Ranch R~.;()urce Management Plan (RMP) and the OVRP policies. The description states that the proposed project is a temporary event involving of/- road racing. The applicants have publicly stated that it is th, !ir intenlion to use this site as a more permanent on-going off-road racing facility. Under CEQA Guidelines 915378, a project is defined as the whole of an action, which has the potential 10 result in significant environmental change in the environment, directly or ultimately. Preparation of separate environmental documents for the ~;ame project may result in the avoidance of a cumulative impact analysis. The project description and environmental analysis should reflect whether or not this ploject is temporary (to only occur on two non-consecutive weekends, June 8-10 and September 28-30,2007) or if the project proposes on-going off-road racing events (not limited to the CaRR). E-I 15-110 85/21/2087 15:02 519-531-5475 COUNTY SD LUEG PAGE 83/85 Mr. Glen Laube Page 2 May 21,2007 The footprint of the racetrack encroaches into Conveyance area per the RMP, Phase 2. encroachment is unauthorized. Preserve area designated as Initial The MND recognizes that this In order to comply with the goals and objectives of th,~ RMP, the MND should acknowledge the amount of Initial Conveyance Are" impacted and discuss conveyance of biologically equal substitution land at a 1:1 ratio. Per the most recent Otay Ranch Preserve Owner Manager (PaM) Policy Co'nmittee held on February - 2. 12, 2007, it would be appropriate for the location of tt'e substitution land 10 be approved by the County and City and conveyed to the Otc'y Ranch paM prior to the issuance of the Conditional Use Permit. The following ap:)roval should be added 10 the Discretionary Actions/Other Project Approvals section: Cily of Chula Vista and County of San Diego: approval of :;ubstitution land for encroachment into Ihe Otay Ranch Preserve. During the preparation of the RMP, key resource areas were identified including Wo Canyon and the Otay River Valley. The proposed access 'Dads to this project would cross through the Wolf Canyon and Otay River Valley portions of the Preserve. The MND recognizes Ihat the proposed project would result in indirect impacts to sensitive habitat and species found within the City's MSCP Preserve. The MND outlines guidelines required by the City's MSCP Subarea Plan. The majority of the City's MSCP Preserve and the Otay Ranch Preserve overlap. Accordingly, the MND should 1) outline the poliCies and objectives required to be complied with by the Otay Ranch Resource Management Plan, Phases 1 and 2; and 2) demonstrate how the proposed project meets those policies. This will allow the reader to determine whether or not the indirect impacts have been reduced to a less than significant impact. e-3 Overnight camping is proposed southeast of the pro~-osed racetrack within a designated Active Recreation Area of the Otay River Vallev. Race patrons are to be shuttled across the Otay River valley via an existing ea~ement road. Use of this easement road (through a designated Initial Conveyance Area per the RMP, Phase E. c., 2) to transport race patrons from up to 150 camping s~'aces may cause indirect , biological impacts (i.e. trash, noise to sensitive bird species). Additional Information should be included in the indirect. biological impacts anc"ysls such as the type of shuttle to be used. and approximately how many trips to and from the racetrack is anticipated each day. An alternative and more appropriate location for the camping area north of thel proposed VIP parking area and west of the ongoing Quarry operation should be 2 15-111 OS/21/2007 15:02 519-531-5475 COUNTY SD LUEG PAGE 04/05 Mr. Glen Laube Page 3 May 21,2007 analyzed. This area is currently disturbed and would eliminate the need to shuttle l' e... S- patrons across the Otay River Valley as well as avoid any potential impacts ~' burrowing owls. The Biological and Impacts Analysis Letter (Analysis) and MND identified _ but did not adequately address - sensitive resources in the PresE\rve that may be impacted by the proposed project. Though the Analysis did assumf: the presence of sensitive bird species (induding the least Bell's vireo, coastal Califor1ia gnatcatcher, burrowing ,:: ..., owl, and various raptor species), no species specific I)r protocol surveys were "- conducted. Therefore, it is difficult to: 1) determine the ex:)ct location of the birds (or their nests), 2) determine their proximity to the racing fac'lity, camping area, and/or access routes, and therefore 3) determine if the impac's to these species were adequately analyzed. The MND and Analysis do not include adequate informa1ion regarding locations of impacts or the related avoidance, minimization or mitigatio'l measures for impacts to sensitive birds, especially during the June race. The CQunty suggests the project proponent 1) conduct protocol surveys for least Bell's vi'eo and coastal Califomia gnatcatcher, 2) conduct nesting raptor surveys, and 3) r'rovide the paM with the results of the survey. In addition, if the June race is approvsd by the City Council, the least Bell's vireo, coastal Califomia gnatcatcl1er, and rapier nesting locations should be monitored to determine if there is an impact to these sp':!cies. The analysis of the monitoring should be submitted to the paM for review and comment. If future races are proposed during the breeding season, this infoITn:)tion should be used to E- +- determine if these racing activities are a long-term compatible use adjacent to the Preserve. The use of the camping and parking area will impact nor'-native grasslands. Non_J native grasslands are not only habitat for burrowing owls, 3S stated in the MND, but _ .. are also foraging habitat for raptors. Impacts to this habitat should require mitigation. t:. Y' The MND should be revised to include this analysis and appropriate mitigation measures. The MND and Analysis includes a mitigation measure to provide fencing around the] perimeter of the racing, camping, and parking facilities. Thrl County supports the use t:.- ...c:::lt of six-foot high chain-link fencing around the racing facility. 24-hour security should I be provided during the racing events to maintain the fencinq and resource protection. Additionally staff should be available for regularly schedul'~d debris clean-up during events. 3 15-112 0~j2](2007 ]5:02 5]9-53]-5475 COUNTY SD LUEG PAGE 05/05 Mr. Glen Laube Page 4 May 21,2007 Signs posted along the perimeter of the Preserve should slate, "Sensilive Resources, please stay on identified transportation routes and in fE,need camping area." In addition, educational/interpretive signs indicating the types of resources and measures visitors can take to assist in their protection.;hould be installed in the camping area, parking area, and along the access route to Wolf Canyon. The County supports the proposed avoidance and mitigatbn for Cultural Resources]c _, I Please provide Ihe County with a copy of the cultur.aJ resources report (An archeological Study for the Chula Vista Intemational Raceway, April 1 0, 2007). c.,o The proposed project is off of Wiley Road in the same lowtion of the proposed Olay Valley Regional Park Trail. Therefore, if this project is ev'mtually proposed for long term, this use of the site could represent an incompatible mixed use within the OVRP. In addition, the proposed private camping area is Incated in one of only a few public ac1ive recreation areas within the OVRP Planning Boundary. Any potential impacts to the OVRP would be considered significant and should be analyzed in the environmental document for the use of the site. e.r2 If you have any questions, please oontac1 Casey Trumbo, '::nvironmental Planner, at 858-966-1374 or casey.trumbo@sdcounty.ca.QOv. Sincerely, ~"'~~'>-- ~~"\~ CHANDRA L. WALLAR, Deputy Chief Administrative Off>cer Land Use and Environment Group cc: Gary Pryor, Director, Department of Planning and Land Lise Renee E. Bahl, Director, Department of Parks and Recre3tion Maeve Hanley, Group Program Manager Bill Saumier, Sr. Park Projec1 Manager Casey Trumbo, DPR Environmental Planner Cheryl Goddard, DPLU Environmental Planner Marisa Lundstedt, City of Chula Vista Environmental Proj-~ct Manager 4 15-113 Page I of] Glen Laube From: THERESA ACERRO [thacerro@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, May 21, 20076:30 PM To: Glen Laube Subject: RE: hight tech high. THANKS. i ALSO HAVE AN ADDITIONAL COMMENT ABOUT cORS: The Air Quality report shows that the traffic exceeds the CO threshold. They are saying this is insignificant because they are evaluating the Wiley and Energy Way intersections for "hot spots", but in this case because the most polluting vehicles do not use these intersections they should have evaluated the races themselves as "hot f"l spots". I am sure they will qualify by easily exceeding the hourly CO threshold even with 15 minute breaks between races. This is yet another unmitigated negative effect of this temporary use. The MND is inadequate. Theresa Glen Laube <GLaube@ci.chula-vista.ca.us> wrote: Sure thing. I should be sending out the Notice of Intent within a couple of weeks. -----Original Message----- From: THERESA ACERRO [mailto:thacerro@yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2007 4:4S PM To: Glen Laube Subject: hight tech high. Please be sure I get a NOP announcement for High Tech High. I very much want to comment on this EIR. Thanks, Theresa Be a better Heart1hrob. G~tJ)e!teLrelaJion~hip~'!n~.',Ycl'~from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out. Boardwalk for $500? In 20077 Ha! PJf\YM011QPolYH.CICaJ1.dN.ow (it's updated for today's economy) at Yahoo! Games. OS/23/2007 15-114 ta ..... . W1l.DUnO ~ --" U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Carls bad Fish and Wildlife Office 6010 Hidden Valley Road Carlsbad, California 92011 (760) 431-9440 FAX (760) 918-0638 CA Department of Fish & Garne I(ii / South Coast Region l.j/ 4949 Viewridge A venue San Diego, California 92123 (858) 467-4201 FAX (858) 467-4299 In Reply Refer To: FWS-SDG-5132.2 Mr. Glen Laube City of Chula Vista Planning and Building Department 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, California 91910 MAY 1 8 2001 Subject: Comments on the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Conditional Use Permit for the Temporary Championship Off Road Race 2007, Chula Vista, County of San Diego, California (SCH #20070315R5) Dear Mr. Laube: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) and the California Department of Fish and Game (Department), hereafter collectively referred to as the Wildlife Agencies, have reviewed the above-referenced Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and supporting documentation, which wc received on April 24, 2007. The temporary Championship Off-Road Race (CaRR) facility is located in the eastern portion of the City of Chula Vista (City) in southwestern San Diego County (County). The project is located within the City's Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Subarea Plan boundary and is therefore subject to the conservation guidelines of the Subarea Plan. The comments provided in this letter represent our concerns about the project's potential impacts on sensitive biological resources. The primary concern and mandate of the Service is the protection of public fish and wildlife resources and their habitats. The Service has a legal responsibility for the welfare of migratory birds, anadromous fish, and endangered animals and plants occurring in the United States. The Services is also responsible for administering the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.c. 1531 et seq.). The Department is a Trustee Agency and a Responsible Agency pursuant of the California Environmental Quality Act, Sections 15386 and 15381, respectively. The Department is responsible for the conservation, protection, and management of the State's biological resources, including rare, threatened, and endangered plant and animal species, pursuant to the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) and other sections of the Fish and Game Code. The Department also administers the Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) program. TAKE PRIDE41~ tNAMERICA.~ 15-115 Mr. Glen Laube (FWS-SDG-5132.2) 2 The project is a temporary event involving off-road racing on the portion of the rock quarry located adjacent to the Otay River Valley, parking in a portion of Otay Ranch Village Three, and camping in the western Active Recreation Area within the Otay River Valley. The event will occur over two weekends: June 8-10 and September 28-30, 2007. Site preparation will include installation of grandstands, security lighting and fencing, orange bio- fencing to restrict access to the City's MSCP Preserve, signage to protect sensitive habitat areas, and storm water best management practices (BMPs). Vehicular entrances to parking lots will be via existing dirt roads from Main Street, Heritage Road, and Energy Way. Races will occur during daytime hours only; however, temporary night lighting will be provided for security purposes. Implementation of the project will result in direct impacts to 103.4 acres of annual non-native grassland and 38.0 acres of disturbed/developed land. The 103.4 acres of impacts to non-native grassland will occurfrom development of the parking and camping areas within former agricultural areas. No soil will be disturbed in these areas, thus impacts are considered temporary and would not result in significant impacts. Because the project is located adjacent to the City's MSCP Preserve, the MND requires that the project applicant adhere to the preserve adjacency guidelines provided in Section 7.5.2 of the City's MSCP Subarea Plan. The project could impact coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica, gnatcatcher), least Bell's vireo (Vireo bellU pusillus, vireo), and burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia). We appreciate that the project applicant has met with the Wildlife Agencies on numerous occasions to review potentially significant environmental impacts and possible off-setting measures, and that the MND includes many of the measures that we suggested. However, additional avoidance and minimization measures are necessary to further reduce the project's impacts to sensitive habitats and species. To assist the City in further avoiding, minimizing, and mitigating project impacts to biological resources, and to ensure that the project is consistent with ongoing regional habitat conservation planning efforts, we offer our recommendations and comments in the Enclosure. In summary, we request that the City: (I) include additional mitigation measures that were discussed with the Wildlife Agencies; (2) correct discrepancies in the reported effectiveness of the noise wall; (3) improve the measures for minimizing potential impacts to burrowing owls; (4) summarize all mitigation measures in Section H of the MND; and (5) begin discussions with the Wildlife Agencies on the potential for a permanent race track. 15-116 Mr. Glen Laube (FWS-SDG-5132.2) 3 Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this MND and associated documentation. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Amber Himes of the Department at (858) 637-7100 or Cara McGary of the Service at (760) 431-9440. Therese O'Rourke : Assistant Field Supervisor U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service . - Enclosure cc: State Clearinghouse, Sacramento, CA 15-117 Wildlife Agencies' comments on the draft MND for the Conditional Use Permit for the Temporary Championship Off-Road Race 2007 1. In a meeting that the Wildlife Agencies and City had with the project applicant on April 16, 2007, a number of mitigation measures were suggested and generally accepted by all parties. However, the MND does not include all these measures. We recommend that the MND be revised to condition the project with these additional measures. a. As discussed and agreed upon by all parties present at the April 16 meeting, a monitoring plan should be developed to monitor the effectiveness of each of the proposed mitigation measures for this project (e.g., monitor the noise levels in the nearest natural habitat during each activity [e.g., races, concerts] to be held during the race weekends, tally how many people are found intruding into the Preserve, 4-1 (v.. J describe how well the mandatory shuttle access works, document complaints). After each race weekend, the project applicant should prepare a report summarizing the effectiveness of each mitigation measure and provide it to the City and Wildlife Agencies for review. b. A set of rules should be developed and enforced by security for the camping area. This should include a curfew to limit noise disturbance in the City's MSCP Preserve at night, proper disposal of trash, a prohibition on leaving the campground and intruding into the adjacent Preserve areas, a prohibition on the ~ - \ (b) personal use of fireworks, etc. All campers should receive a leaflet explaining the campground rules, how campers will be able to access the racetrack (i.e., via shuttle onlv), and the biological sensitivity of the surrounding areas. c. The Wildlife Agencies stated concern about the use of fireworks during the eveJn C '\ weekends. We recommend that the City prohibit the use of fireworks by the (' _I c ) project applicant in order to limit noise disturbance in the adjacent Otay River \:1j Valley. d. Security guards should cluster all cars as far west as possible within the parkingQ area in Otay Ranch's Village Three to prevent intrusions into the Preserve and to fl I ( J J discourage people from walking to the race track instead of using the shuttle. No (:r C( parking should be allowed within 100 feet of the Preserve. e. All campers/R.V.s should be clustered in the center of the Active Recreation Area to prevent intrusions into the Preserve. Security guards should closely monitor the campground to stop anyone who might try to go into the Preserve. The fence G -I (e ~ around the campground should be placed at least 100 feet inside the Active ~ I Recreation Area boundary to provide a buffer between the campground and the Preserve. r At the April 16 meeting, it was agreed by all parties present that access to the raCJ r: I ((1) track from the camping and parking areas would be allowed only by shuttle bus ~r l- and that pedestrian access would not be allowed. The MND indicates that there 15-118 Mr. Glen Laube (FWS-SDG-5132.2) Enclosure Page 2 will be a shuttle, but not that people must use the shuttle (i.e., not walk). We are especially concerned that people at the campground and parking area would be tempted to jump the orange fences and walk through the river bed or the mouth of Wolf Canyon to the racetrack, both of which are highly sensitive areas. 2. We are concerned that the unattenuated and attenuated noise estimates provided in the MND's biological section (page 19) are inconsistent with those discussed on pages 24 - 25 in the analysis of consistency with the City of Chula Vista's noise ordinances. On page 19, the un attenuated noise is estimated to be 85 dB Leg; however, on page 25 it is estimated to be 93 dB Leg. Another inconsistency is in the effect that the noise attenuation wall (which will be placed on the back ofthe grandstands) will have on reducing noise in the preserve (i.e., within I 00 feet from the racetrack). The information on page 19 indicates that the wall would reduce noise impacts on the City's preserve (from noise produced during the race weekends) by 10 dB, from 85 dB Leg to 75 dB Leg, which would be below the ambient noise level (i.e., 78 dB Leg). However, on page 25, an attenuation range of3 to 5 dB is given, which would reduce the 93 dB value (page 25) and the 85 dB value (page 19) to 88 dB and 80 dB, respectively, at the most. In both scenarios, this is above the ambient noise values and therefore could be detrimental to breeding gnatcatchers and vireos that have been mapped in the immediate area. The final MND should reconcile both of these discrepancies (i.e., the estimated levels of unattenuated and attenuated proj ect noise) and should reguire that the noise produced from the project be attenuated to ambient levels in order for the project to be consistent with the Subarea Plan's preserve adjacency guidelines. 3. In order to limit construction disturbance to burrowing owls, we recommend that the project be conditioned to the following mitigation measure in place of mitigation measure #2 in Section H (Biological Resources). To ensure that no direct or indirect impacts to nesting burrowing owls occur during site preparation and active use of the parking and camping areas, prior to initiating any site preparation-related activities, pre-active use surveys must be performed by a City-approved biologist to determine the presence or absence of active burrows within all suitable habitat. The surveys must be conducted within 10 calendar days prior to the start of site preparation or use, and the results submitted to the City for review and approval prior to initiating any site preparation activities. If an active burrow is detected, a mitigation plan shall be prepared by a City-approved biologist and submitted to the City for review and approval. The project applicant shall implement the approved mitigation plan to the satisfaction of the City to ensure that disturbance of breeding activities is reduced to a level less than significant. Setbacks of 300 feet or more from occupied burrows shall be established and enforced until the young are completely independent of the nest. To minimize all impacts and ensure that no nests are removed or disturbed and no nesting activities are disrupted, a bio-monitor must be on site during all project activities /Inti! all YO/lng have fledged. 15-119 f!2 ~- ~'-J Mr. Glen Laube (FWS-SDG-5132.2) Enclosure Page 3 4. All proposed off-setting measures discussed in the project description should be included as separate mitigation measures under the Biological Resources subheading within Section H (mitigation measures) ofthe MND. These should include I) how the project is meeting the Subarea Plan's preserve adjacency guidelines (e.g., the noise attenuation wall on the back of the grandstands, fencing and signage plans that keep people out of the Preserve, the /' I j b-~I mandatory use of shuttle buses from the parking and camping areas, limited lighting, - \ limitations on when engines can be fired up and races started/ended, heavily watering the track and roads to prevent dust, and trash will be picked up), 2) no activity at the race track in the months between the two race weekends, 3) any additional measures already described in the MND, and 4) all the measures listed in Comment #1 above. 5. The project applicant has indicated to the Wildlife Agencies that they would like to pursue a semi-permanent race track at this same location once this Conditional Use Permit expires. We recommend that the project applicant begin talking with the Wildlife Agencies as soon as c...-5 possible so that there is adequate time available for all parties to discuss a permanent track, - \ potential impacts to sensitive resources, and how to off-set those impacts. 15-120 Theresa Acerro PO Box 8697 Chula Vista Letter provided May 7, 2007 at RCC Hearing Comment/Response A-I through A-IO A-I. Summary of Comment: Active Recreation Use area poses concerns relative to wildlife movement through the Otay River Valley not enough time or consideration has been given to determine appropriateness of camping in the active recreation area. (See second full paragraph, Page I). Response: The proposed project is a temporary use (two non-consecutive weekends only), and as such, temporary use of the active recreation areas for camping would not permanently impede wildlife movement through the Otay River Valley. It is acknowledged that establishment of any permanent use within the designated Active Recreation . areas of the river valley will require a more thorough consideration by the City, OVRP Citizens Advisory Committee, and the Otay Ranch Preserve Owner/Manager. However, following the events that are proposed with the current application, the existing conditions of the Active Recreation areas will be the same as they are currently. Therefore, the project would not affect or preclude any future use of these areas. A-2. Summary of Comment: Off Road Vehicle use is inconsistent with the OVRP, the MSCP and potentially the Otay River Valley Watershed Management Plan (WMP). (See third full paragraph, Page I). Response: The project proposes off road racing on a closed course in a controlled venue in an area that is already disturbed and is not in the Preserve. Similarly, access to the race venue from the parking and camping areas will be provided via existing, dirt access roads. As stated in the MND, use of personal ORV and pedestrian access through Preserve areas is strictly prohibited. The applicant shall provide shuttle service to and from the parking and camping areas in order to restrict the movement of people through sensitive areas. As stated in the MND, these conditions will be monitored and enforced in accordance with the security plan to be reviewed and approved by the City's Environmental Review Coordinator and City Chief of Police. Page 2 of24 15-121 A-3. Summary of Comment: The Specific Area Management Plan (SAMP) has not been completed for the Otay Watershed but will likely deem ORV activities within the OVRP to be an incompatible use. (See second full paragraph, Page). Response: As noted the SAMP is not complete. Until the SAMP had been completed and formally adopted, any analysis of the adverse physical effects would be speculative, and is not within the scope of the project's CEQA analysis. However, the intent and goal of a SAMP is to protect water quality and sensitive natural (particularly wetland riparian) resources. As stated in the MND, potential impacts to water quality will be mitigated and there are no anticipated direct impacts to riparian resources. A-4. Summary of Comment: Project-related use of shuttle buses within the Preserve would result in direct impacts on the Preserve, including further compacting the dirt roads and legitimizing trespass. (See first partial paragraph, Page 2). Response: The use of dirt roads by shuttle buses is identified as part of the proposed proj ect activities in the Project Description in the MND. The project would not widen or in any other way improve the existing dirt roads. The use of shuttle vehicles is temporary, as is the nature of the entire project. Shuttle buses will be used to restrict uncontrolled pedestrian traffic, which may have the potential to impact surrounding sensitive areas. Private security will also be provided by the applicant to patrol the perimeter of the parking, race track area and camping areas to ensure that pedestrians and vehicles do not access preserve areas. Fencing is also provided at the race track, camping, parking and access roads to restrict access to preserve areas. A-5. Summary of Comment: A thorough analysis of impacts on the Preserve could not have been completed within the time frame of the analysis that was conducted for this project. (See fust full paragraph, Page 2). Response: This comment indicates that, due to the timing and process schedule for the proposed project, the analysis is incomplete, but the comment does not indicate any specific deficiencies of the analysis. As required under the City's typical process, technical reports were required to evaluate project impacts on noise, air quality, cultural resources and biological resources. These reports were prepared by the project applicant and were reviewed by the City of Chula Vista and the City's outside consultants for content, accuracy and completeness. Since no specific deficiencies were identified in the comment, a more specific response is not possible. Page 3 of24 15-122 A-6. Summary of Comment: The dates of the first race are within a time frame where activities are prohibited in order to protect breeding animals. Approval of the race sets an extremely bad precedent. (See second full paragraph, Page 2). Response: The Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan does not specifically prohibit noise generating uses in or adjacent to the Preserve; however, the MSCP does require that excessively noise activities adjacent to the Preserve incorporate noise reduction measures or be curtailed during the breeding season of sensitive bird species. The MSCP does not provide a specific numerical threshold for operational noise impacts. Refer to comment A-8 below. A-7. Summary of Comment: Enforcement of leash laws and restriction of access into the Preserve are of great concern. Impacts from the transfer of non-native plant seed into the Preserve was not analyzed in the MND. (See last paragraph, Page 2, as continued on the top of Page 3). Response: The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program will provide adequate assurances that security staff will be trained, properly positioned, and will adequately prevent unauthorized access into the Preserve. Access of race patrons will be limited to existing dirt roads, the camping and parking areas, and the race venue itself. All of these areas are either devoid of native vegetation, or covered predominately in non-native plant species (former agriculture areas). Therefore, it is not anticipated that disturbance of these areas, and/or the slight chance of transfer of non-native plant seeds would have any measurable effect, either inside or outside of the Preserve. A-S. Summary of Comment: Noise impacts on sensitive habitat adjacent to the project will result in significant unmitigable impacts. (See first full paragraph, Page 3). Response: The issue of project-generated noise and its effects on adjacent Preserve areas is analyzed and documented in the MND. The noise analysis prepared for the project (Environmental Noise Assessment for the Temporary Off-Road Race Track, Dudek & Associates, April 16, 2007) provides an estimate of noise levels generated by the proposed project. In order to quantifY potential impacts to noise sensitive receptors, including sensitive biological resources, the noise analysis applied noise levels obtained during the 2006 racing events. Utilizing that data and applying it to the proposed project, the unattenuated noise levels at the closest sensitive habitat location within the Preserve, immediately adjacent to the south of the proposed track, are estimated to be 85 dB hourly Leq. Page 4 of24 15-123 As stated in the MND, taking the existing terrain topography into consideration, and providing the maximum sound attenuation available through structural design features (enclosure of the rear of the stands located between the track and the Preserve), the noise analysis concludes that areas having potential to support least Bell's vireo and coastal California gnatcatcher are expected to be exposed noise levels of approximately 75 dB hourly Leq noise level during the racing events. The City's MSCP Subarea Plan does not provide a numerical threshold for operational impacts. For comparative purposes, ambient noise measurements were recorded within the project area. Ambient noise within the project area is primarily associated with the existing rock quarry operation, including rock and gravel extraction, earth moving equipment, and rock crushing activities. Ambient noise measurements in portions of the quarry adjacent to sensitive habitat areas within the Preserve indicate noise levels ranging between 68 to 78 dB Leq. Due to the short-term nature of the proposed project (two consecutive days during the nesting season), and similar operational noise levels between existing ambient noise conditions and the anticipated, attenuated noise levels it is not anticipated that the project will result in significant indirect impacts on these noise sensitive species. A-9. Summary of Comment: Carbon Monoxide levels are above threshold levels, and it is questionable whether this would be a "hot spot". Particulate emissions are also a concern because watering of the track will create undesirable mud. (See second full paragraph, Page 3). Response: The air quality analysis indicated that, in the initial screening, CO impacts were identified to exceed the screening threshold. Therefore, the next level of analysis to determine significance was applied (the CO "hot spot" analysis). That analysis indicated that no significant impacts relative to CO would result. Mitigation measures that involves watering to reduce dust are applied in a controlled manner, such that only small amount of water are needed and are applied, to ensure that dust control is maximized, while not saturating the soil. Page 5 of24 15-124 A-10. Summary of Comment: The comment questions the effectiveness of lighting controls within the portions of the project located in the middle of the MSCP Preserve. (See last full paragraph, Page 3). Response: The issue of lighting its effects on adjacent Preserve areas is analyzed and documented in the MND. Temporary safety lighting associated with the project would be limited to the pit area, spectator area and camping area. The lighting for these areas would be directed downward, and away from the Preserve. Light spillage into the Preserve would be considered significant. As documented in the MND and MMRP, to ensure potential impacts associated with project lighting are mitigated to a level ofless than significant, the Applicant is required to submit, prior to the commencement ofrace activities, a lighting plan to the satisfaction of the City's Environmental Review Coordinator. The lighting plan shall clearly demonstrate that all temporary security lighting shall be directed away and/or shielded from the Preserve to prevent any potential indirect impacts due to night lighting. Additionally, low-pressure sodium lighting shall be used to reduce these potential effects. SIERRA CLUB San Diego Chapter 3820 Ray Street San Diego, CA 92104 Letter postmarked May II, 2007 Comment/Response B-1 through B-II B-1. Summary of Comment: Active Recreation Use area poses concerns relative to wildlife movement through the Otay River Valley - not enough time or consideration has been given to determine appropriateness of camping in the active recreation area. (See second full paragraph, Page I). Response: Refer to Response to Comment A-I above. B-2. Summary of Comment: Off Road Vehicle use is inconsistent with the OVRP, the MSCP and the potentially the SAMP. (See third full paragraph, Page 1). Response: Refer to Response to Comment A-2 above. Page 6 of24 15-125 B-3. Summary of Comment: Project-related use of shuttle buses within the Preserve would result in direct impacts on the Preserve, including further compacting the dirt roads and legitimizing trespass. (See first partial paragraph, Page 2). Response: The use of dirt roads by shuttle buses is identified as part of the proposed project activities in the Project Description in the MND. The project would not widen or in any other way improve the existing dirt roads. The use of shuttle vehicles is temporary, as is the nature of the entire project. Refer to Response to Comment A-4 above. B-4. Summary of Comment: A thorough analysis of impacts on the Preserve could not have been completed within the time frame of the analysis that was conducted for this project. (See first full paragraph, Page 2). Response: This comment indicates that, due to the timing and process schedule for the proposed project, the analysis is incomplete, but the comment does not indicate any specific deficiencies of the analysis. Contrary to the implications of the comment, thorough technical reports were required to evaluate project impacts on noise, air quality, cultural resources and biological resources. These reports were prepared by the project applicant and were reviewed by the City of Chula Vista and the City's outside consultants for content, accuracy and completeness. Since no specific deficiencies were identified in the comment, a more specific response is not possible. Refer to Response to Comment A-5 above. B-S. Summary of Comment: The dates of the first race are within a time frame where activities are prohibited in order to protect breeding animals. Approval of the race sets an extremely bad precedent. (See second full paragraph, Page 2). Response: The Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan does not specifically prohibit noise generating uses in or adjacent to the Preserve; however, the MSCP does require that excessively noise activities adjacent to the Preserve incorporate noise reduction measures or be curtailed during the breeding season of sensitive bird species. The MSCP does not provide a specific numerical threshold for operational noise impacts. Refer to Response to Comment A-8 above. B-6. Summary of Comment: Enforcement of leash laws and restriction of access into the Preserve are of great concern. hnpacts from the transfer of non-native plant seed into the Preserve was not analyzed in the MND. (See last paragraph, Page 2, as continued at the top of Page 3). Page 7 of 24 15-126 Response: The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and project conditions of approval provide adequate assurances that security staff will be trained, properly positioned, and adequately prevent unauthorized access into the Preserve. Access of race patrons will be limited to existing dirt roads, the camping and parking areas, and the race venue itself. All of these areas are either devoid of native vegetation, or covered predominately in non-native plant species (former agriculture areas). Therefore, it is not anticipated that disturbance of these areas, and/or the slight chance of transfer of non-native plant seeds would have any measurable effect, either inside or outside of the Preserve. B-7. Summary of Comment: "The analysis completely ignores section B of the Chula Vista Exterior Noise Ordinance, which will surely apply to off-road races." (See first full paragraph, Page 3). Response: It is unclear what is meant by this comment. The referenced section of the Municipal Code (19.68.030 (B)), provides for corrections to the exterior noise limits, as follows: B. Corrections to Exterior Noise Level Limits. 1. if the noise is continuous, the Leq for any hour will be represented by any lesser time period within that hour. Noise measurements of a few minutes only will thus suffice to define the noise level. 2. if the noise is intermittent, the Leq for any hour may be represented by a time period typical of the operating cycle. Measurement should be made of a representative number of noisy/quiet periods. A measurement period of not less than 15 minutes is, however, strongly recommended when dealing with intermittent noise. 3. In the event the alleged offensive noise, as judged by the enforcement officer, contains a steady, audible sound such as a whine, screech or hum, or contains a repetitive impulsive noise such as hammering or riveting, the standard limits set forth in Table III shall be reduced by five dB. 4. if the measured ambient level exceeds that permissible in Table III, the allowable noise exposure standard shall be the ambient noise level. The ambient level shall be measured when the alleged noise violations source is not operating. If the implication that a higher (stricter) standard should be applied to this use because it is continuous (reference Section B. 1.), that would not be appropriate, because the use is not continuous. If the implication is that the noise is intermittent (reference Section B. 2.), is it unlikely that use of a shorter measurement period would yield a result that is more accurate. However, such a measurement may result in noise estimates that are lower than predicted in the Page 8 of 24 15-127 MND. If the implication is that the noise may be determined by the enforcement officer to have characteristics described in Section B. 3., that determination would need to be made at such a time that the enforcement officer detects and evaluates the sound, which cannot be determined prior to project commencement. Finally, if the implication is that the measure ambient noise level exceeds the exterior standards (reference Section B. 4.), data presented in the project Noise report and the MND confirm that is not the case. In reference to the project and compliance with Section .68.030 (B) of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, the responses are as follows: Section B. 1: The proposed project will not be a continuous operation. Therefore, use of a higher (stricter) standard is not applicable. Section B. 2: It is it unlikely that use of a shorter measurement period would yield a result that is more accurate. However, such a measurement may result in noise estimates that are lower than predicted in the MND Section B. 3: This determination would need to be made at such a time that the enforcement officer detects and evaluates the sound, which cannot be determined prior to project commencement. Section B.4: Data presented in the project Noise report and the MND confirm that ambient noise levels do not exceed the exterior noise standards. Existing ambient noise conditions at the nearest residences, including the industrial park, were not collected. However, the MND evaluated a worse-case noise level of 93 dBA Leq at 100 feet from the race track. Applying the distance, atmospheric, and stand shielding resulting noise levels at the nearest residential receptors was calculated to be between 46 to 48 dBA, which is below the City's Noise Ordinance threshold of 55 dB 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. on weekdays, and between 8 a.m. and 10 p.m. on weekends. Similarly, the calculated noise levels at the nearest industrial land use was calculated to be between 63 to 65 dBA, which is below the City's 70 dBA threshold for industrial uses. It should be noted that the above information has been provide for comparative purposes. As stated in the MND, Chapter 19.68 Section 19.68.060 of the City of Chula Vista Municipal Code exempts occasional outdoor gatherings, public dances, shows and sporting and entertainment events, provided the events are conducted pursuant to a permit or license issued by the city relative to the staging of the events. Noise associated with race activities would be intermittent during the day, are classified as an occasional outdoor gathering and are therefore less than significant due to its temporary nature. Page 9 of24 15-128 B-8. Summary of Comment: The noise standard that should be used for evaluating potential indirect impacts on habitat areas to the south should be 60 dB. (See second and third full paragraphs, Page 3). Response: The issue of project-generated noise and its effects on adjacent Preserve areas is fully analyzed and documented in the MND. Refer to Response to Comment A-8 above. B-9. Summary of Comment: There is no analysis of the long and short-term negative impacts of this land use upon land use polices of the various resource management plans, including the MSCP. (See #1 in Summary on Page 3). Response: The Environmental Checklist for the project indicates that the project would not conflict with relevant land use/planning policies. The primary reason for this conclusion is the fact that the project is temporary, and would not preclude future uses contemplated in planning or resource management documents. The MND included a full analysis of the MSCP provisions related to Adjacent Management Guidelines. The biological resources section of the MND summarizes the project's consistency with the City's MSCP Subarea Plan Adjacency Guidelines. Issues related to drainage, noise, invasives, toxins, lighting, and erosion control have been adequately addressed in the MND and implementation of the MMRP and adherence to the project's conditions of approval will ensure that adjacency impacts are reduced to a level of less than significance. B-I0. Summary of Comment: Concern is reiterated over unauthorized access to the Preserve. (See #2 III Summary on Page 3). Response: Refer to Response to Comments A-2, A-3, and A-4 above. B-1!. Summary of Comment: Noise impacts will be unmitigated and negative. (See #3 in Summary on Page 3). Response: Refer to Response to Comment A-8 above. Page 10 of24 15-129 FRANK OHRMUND 2433 Fenton Street, Suite A Chula Vista, CA 91914 Comment received via e-mail dated May 9, 2007 CommentJResponse C-1 through C-4 C-l. Summary of Comment: Stated that the project manager explained the true extent of the study and its relevance for a temporary use Response: Comment noted. C-2. Summary of Comment: "After quick archeological review, the camping site was now reduced to half its size. If this is enough land, still, then why was the entire area desired in the first place. Based on typical processes for consultants to complete their work, this process for them and staff and the public to review each environmental issue is not adequate. Consultant's work must have been rushed and appears to be incomplete when compared to typical reports for similar projects. Not enough mention of alternatives have been made. The campground should have been moved to the parking area and should have been studied as an alternative. With such a quick review and study by the consultants, with current modification still being made, this environmental document supporting the mitigated negative declaration was completed in haste and more time should be allowed for alternatives to be developed." Response: The size of the area proposed for camping was reduced to avoid impacts. It is assumed that the camping use will be more compact, to fit the same use on a smaller area. This comment indicates that, due to the timing and process schedule for the proposed project, the analysis is incomplete, but the comment does not indicate any specific deficiencies of the analysis. Contrary to the implications of the comment, thorough technical reports were required to evaluate project impacts on noise, air quality, cultural resources and biological resources. These reports were prepared by the project applicant and were reviewed by the City of Chula Vista and the City's outside consultants for content, accuracy and completeness. Since no specific deficiencies were identified in the comment, a more specific response is not possible. Refer to Response to Comment A-5 above. This comment also states that project alternatives should have been analyzed in the MND. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 requires that project alternatives be identified and analyzed in environmental impact reports (EIRs). There is no Page 11 of24 15-130 requirement for an analysis of project alternatives in an MND. Since there is no substantial evidence of an environmental impact associated with the project after mitigation, an EIR is not required. It would, therefore, be inappropriate to analyze project alternatives. C-3. Summary of Comment: "No typical delays are being made for breeding season. The, truly, higher noise than quarry operations is an un-mitigated impact whether or not its breeding season. " Response: The issue of project-generated noise and its effects on adjacent Preserve areas is fully analyzed and documented in the MND. Refer to Response to Comment A-8 above. C-4. Summary of Comment: "No plan has been made to limit the non-native plants from dominating the camping site area after the current grasses are trampled down to a bare dirt lot. These non-native plants will re-establish themselves quicker than native plants and will then disperse their seeds. A plan to spray or weed these plants needs to be completed for next winter's growing season." Response: The entire area proposed for camping is dominated by non-native species in its existing condition. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the slight chance of transfer of non-native plant seeds resulting from access by race patrons would have any measurable effect, either inside or outside of the Preserve. Additional Comments 1-5 provided by Mr. Ohrmund relate to the project as a whole and question staff s authority to support this project based on planning documents approved by the developer. Supplemental questions 1-5 are noted but do not address the adequacy ofthe mitigated negative declaration. MICHAEL BEHAN Letter received via e-mail dated May 1, 2007 Comment/Response D-l through D-5 D-l. Summary of Comment: The first paragraph on the first page of the comment letter expresses support for the proj ect. Response: Since the comment raises no issues relative to the adequacy of the MND, no further response is required. Page 12 of24 15-131 D-2. Summary of Comment: The second paragraph on the first page of the comment letter indicates that the conclusions of the MND relative to consistency with planning documents addresses most of the concerns raised by the OVRP Citizen's Advisory Committee and Policy Committee. Response: Comment noted. This comment does not challenge the adequacy of the mitigated negative declaration. (The commenter referenced page 9 of 36 of the draft MND- due to formatting/textual changes the referenced section can be found on page 12 of 36. No additional impacts occurred as a result of the formatting/textual changes. ) D-3. Summary of Comment: The third paragraph on the first page summarizes the commentor's agreement with portions of the analysis provided in the MND. Response: Since the comment raises no issues relative to deficiencies of the MND, no further response is required. D-4. Summary of Comment: In the last paragraph of the first page of the letter, the commentor suggests the following: . Sound checks measuring db's in the communities on the south rim during the race event. . Air quality checks measuring particulate matter during and immediately after each race. . Base level samples of the rivers prior to the first race day and immediately following the final day of racing for any heavy metal or petroleum based impacts on the water shed. Information from these monitoring efforts should be reported to the City and the OVRP, and should be used in any future analyses. Response: Sound monitoring will be conducted and the data will be used in the manner suggested in this comment - to provide data that can be used in future studies. PMlO air quality impacts are measured and considered on a regional basis. There are no specific thresholds for localized impacts, therefore measurements of particulates taken at distance intervals would not provide any meaningful data from which conclusions could be drawn. Typically, PMlO is modeled for total impact. There is no reasonable method available by which PMlO concentrations taken from samples could be extrapolated to a total project level equivalent. What Page 13 of24 15-132 can and will be monitored are the BMPs that include dust control measures to ensure that the assumptions relative to reduction of fugitive dust are realized. The project will not be permitted to discharge any runoff into the Otay River, therefore, monitoring of water quality in the River will not be necessary. D-S. Summary of Comment: Given the potential for disruption of quality of life (sound mostly) for the homes/residents located on the south rim of the valley, the proj ect notification requirements should have been expanded. Response: On April 20, 2007 a Notice of Availability of the Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project was posted in the County Clerk's Office and circulated to property owners and residents within a 500-foot radius of the project site as well as adjacent businesses, property owners, and tenants along Nirvana Avenue and Energy Way, who are located beyond the 500-foot radius. (The commenter referenced page 12 of 36 of the draft MND - due to formatting/textual changes the referenced section can be found on page 15 of 36. No additional impacts occurred as a result of the formatting/textual changes.) E. County of San Diego Chandra Waller 1600 Pacific Highway, STE 209 Comment received via letter dated 5/21107 E-!: Summary of Comment: Because the applicant has publicly stated their intention to propose a permanent race facility, the MND needs to include the permanent race as a part of the current action. Response: Regardless of the intentions of the applicant, the City is considering only the current application. Consideration of a permanent facility would involve an entirely different set of land use approvals and associated analyses. The feasibility of a permanent use and the policy implications of such a use have not yet been determined. Therefore, consideration of additional activities that go beyond those proposed with the current application would require speculation that is beyond the scope of this environmental analysis. E-2: Summary of Comment: This comment appears to indicate that portions of the proposed project are located within the Conveyance Schedule (referred to as "Initial Conveyance Area") that was adopted by the County of San Diego for the Otay Ranch RMP. The comment Page 14 of24 15-133 indicates that replacement land for portions of the project located on lands identified in the Conveyance Schedule should be replaced on a I: I basis. Response: It should be noted that the County-adopted Conveyance schedule includes lands that are both within and outside of the MSCP Preserve. Notwithstanding that fact, the project is a temporary use that does not involve a change to the underlying land use (rock quarry), does not preclude use of the land for its designated use, including Preserve, and does not trigger a conveyance obligation pursuant to the Otay Ranch RMP, as incorporated into the City's MSCP Subarea Plan. The existing quarry use includes a reclamation plan which has been approved by the SBMG that will restore this area back to Preserve. As stated in the MND, within two weeks following the September races all temp structures will be removed and quarry uses will resume. E-3: Summary of Comment: This comment indicates that the MND should reference and analyze the relevant policies of the Otay Ranch regarding indirect effects. Response: The RMP makes reference to indirect effects, or "edge effects" in two policies. The first reference is in the Guidelines under Policy 6.2, which state that proposed active recreation uses should be clustered to minimize the extent of the edge between active recreation uses and sensitive resources within the Preserve. This Guideline is not applicable, since the proposed uses are temporary and will be removed at the end of the interim use period. The second reference is contained within Policies 7.1 and 7.2, which reference the need for review and consideration of uses adjacent to the Preserve, and which require the preparation of Edge Plans to address adverse effects. Edge Plans are required as a part of SPA plan development for permanent uses, and therefore are not applicable to the proposed temporary use. The MND fully addresses adjacency issues consistent with the City's MSCP Subarea Plan, which are more detailed and specific than the provisions of the RMP. The MND includes mitigation measures that will reduce indirect effects, with the resulting impact of the project being less than significant. E-4: Summary of Comment: This comment refers to indirect impacts associated with the shuttle buses/route Response: The use of dirt roads by shuttle buses is identified as part of the proposed project activities in the Project Description in the MND. The project would not widen or in any other way improve the existing dirt roads. The use of shuttle vehicles is temporary, as is the nature of the entire project. Use of the shuttle buses was Page 15 of24 15-134 actually required as a project feature in response to concerns that uncontrolled pedestrian traffic would have more potential to impact surrounding areas. E-5: Summary of Comment: This comment suggests an alternate location for the proposed camping area, within the Village Three portion of Otay Ranch. Response: Comment noted. No significant adverse impacts are anticipated to result from the camping and related activities (shuttle buses), within the areas proposed by the proj ecl. E-6: Summary of Comment: This comment indicates that current focused surveys, including protocol-level surveys are needed to accurately assess impacts to sensitive species within the Preserve. Response: The analysis in the MND and associated technical studies assumed a worst-case condition, that all adjacent habitat was occupied by noise-sensitive species, and as such, indirect impacts are likely over-stated. Therefore, focused and/or protocol- level surveys would not change the results of the biological analysis, with respect to level of significance of impacts. Therefore, collecting the specific information requested in this comment may provide a more specific assessment of location- specific effects, but would not change any of the conclusions of the analysis. E-7: Summary of Comment: The last sentence in this paragraph refers to future races and information that should be collected during the proposed races. Response: Comment noted. It should be noted that no application has been submitted for any future races. E-8: Summary of Comment: This comment indicates that additional consideration and mitigation should be provided for raptors that may utilize the non-native grassland in the camping and parking areas. Response: As stated in the MND, (Section G, Biological Resources): ... impacts to annual grassland within the Parking and Camping areas would be temporary and would not result in permanent or significant adverse impacts to annual grasslands. These areas would not require active restoration for recovery to pre-project conditions. Page 16 of24 15-135 Therefore, no significant impacts to the raptor foraging value ofthe annual grasslands would result, and no mitigation is required. E-9: Summary of Comment: This comment supports the proposed fencing and indicates that security should enforce access restrictions. Response: Comment noted. This issue is addressed though the MMRP and conditions of approval, including requirements for a detailed security plan. E-IO: Summary of Comment: This comment suggest use of interpretive/educational signs in the Preserve areas adj acent to the proj ect. Response: Comment noted. This issue is addressed though the MMRP and conditions of approval, including requirements for fencing and sensitive habitat signage. E-ll: Summary of Comment: This comment requests a copy of the Cultural report prepared for the project. Response: The City will provide the County with requested information. E-12: Summary of Comment: This comment refers to potential conflicts with future uses associated with the OVRP. Response: The proposed project is a temporary use, and as such would not conflict with or preclude future uses associated with the OVRP. F. Theresa Acerro PO Box 8697 Chula Vista E-mail sent May 21,2007 Comment/Response F-I F-l: Summary of Comment: The CO ("hot spot") analysis contained in the MND and associated Air Quality Technical Report should have evaluated the included the race vehicales. Response: Page 17 of24 15-136 CO emissions from Race Participants are significantly less than the anticipated spectator traffic. If viewed independently, Race Participant CO emissions are below even the screening threshold levels (17.23 Ibs/day compared to the screening threshold of 550 Ibs/day). This is noted in Table 5 of the Air Quality Technical Report. Therefore, hot spot analysis would not be triggered for Race vehicle operation emissions. G. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service / CA Department of Fish and Game 6010 Hidden Valley Road Carlsbad, California 920 II Comments/Responses G-I(a-f) through G-5 G-l(a). Summary of Comment: Applicant should develop a monitoring plan to document the effectiveness of the required mitigation measures and conditions of approval related to protection of the City's MSCP Preserve. Response to G-l(a): Comment noted. This comments does not address the adequacy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. As a condition of approval (Condition #50), the Applicant is required to prepare a monitoring report to the satisfaction of the City's Environmental Review Coordinator detailing the results of the acoustical, biological, water quality, and air quality monitoring. Additionally, the City's mitigation monitor will be on site thought the race weekend(s), documenting race activities and ensuring proper implementation of the mitigation measures contained in the adopted Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program (MMRP). G-l(b). Summary of Comment: Applicant should prepare and distribute a detailed set of operational rules for race patrons utilizing the camping area. Response to G-l(b): As stated in Section H of the MND under Public Services, the project applicant shall prepare a security plan to be approved by the Chula Vista Police Chief prior to the start of the race event. The security plan shall detail, among other items, the number of security personnel provided, general distribution of security throughout the race event, and number of uniformed Chula Vista police staff required. In addition, the following conditions of approval have been incorporated into the Conditional Use Permit: Condition #57: "Prior to approval of the proposed CUP, the project applicant shall prepare a security plan to be approved by the Chula Vista Police Chief and the City's Environmental Review Coordinator. The security plan shall detail, among other items, the number of security Page 18 of24 15-137 G-l(c). G-l(d). Page 19 of24 personnel provided, general distribution of security throughout the race event including Preserve areas, and number of uniformed Chula Vista police staff required. In order to maintain the biological integrity of the adjacent Preserve areas, the security plan shall further describe all activities that are prohibited within or adjacent to Preserve areas as well as address how violations are to be processed. Prohibited activities include, but are not limited to, use of illegal fireworks, campfires, use of personal ATV's within the project area including camping and parking areas, encroachment into designated Preserve areas and/or sensitive habitat areas, and pedestrian use of the Otay River and Wolf Canyon shuttle routes." Condition #58: "The Applicant shall enforce the following rules in the camping area: 1) an 11 p.m. curfew on noise disturbance (e.g., no loud speaking equipment or stereos will be allowed), proper disposal of all trash, a prohibition on leaving the campground and intruding into the adjacent Preserve areas, and a prohibition on the personal use of fireworks. All campers should receive a leaflet explaining the campground rules, how campers will be able to access the racetrack (i.e., via shuttle on lvi, and the biological sensitivity of the surrounding areas." Summary of Comment: The comment raises concerns about the use of fireworks during the race weekend and the potential noise disturbance in the adjacent Otay River Valley. Response to Comment G-l(c): Use of illegal fireworks during the race weekend is strictly prohibited and shall be monitored and enforced in accordance with the Security Plan. The MND assumed limited use of fireworks during pre-race introductions and awards ceremonies. Use of fireworks will be limited to the awards stage located in the middle of the race course, approximately 500' north of the Preserve and will be adequately shielded from the adjacent Preserve by the noise attenuation barrier and existing topography. Given the distance to the Preserve, limited charge and use, and the site's existing use (rock quarry with significant blasting), the use of limited fireworks during pre- race introductions and awards ceremony is not expected to result in any significant impacts. Summery of Comment: The comment raises concerns regarding the location of the proposed parking area with respect to the adjacent Preserve areas. Comment also recommends that parking stalls be clustered and located no closer than 100 feet to adjacent Preserve areas. Response to Comment G-l(d): 15-138 G-l(e). G-l(f). Page 20 of24 Comment noted. This comments does not address the adequacy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. To address this concern, the following condition of approval has been added to the CUP: Condition #57: "Parking and camping stalls shall be sited a minimum of 100 feet away from the Preserve edge and/or any identified areas containing sensitive biological and archeological resources. Parking and camping stalls shall be sited under the direction of a qualified biologist and archeologist." On site security staff shall be responsible for directing race patrons to the designated shuttle drop-off / pick up locations. Pedestrian access through the Preserve is prohibited and shall also be enforced by on site security in accordance with the approved security plan. Summery of Comment: The comment raises concerns regarding the location of the proposed camping area located within the Active Recreation area and its close proximity to the adjacent Preserve areas. Comment also recommends that the camping area be appropriately fenced and that camping stalls be clustered and located no closer than 100 feet to adj acent Preserve areas. Response to Comment G-l(e): As stated in Section H of the MND, prior to commencement of each race event, prominently colored, well-installed biological fencing shall be installed place wherever the project limits are adjacent to the Preserve, sensitive vegetation communities, and/or any other biological resources, as identified by a qualified monitoring biologist. Figure 3 of the MND identifies the general location of the required fencing. Additionally, as stated in Section H of the MND, prior to commencement of each race event "Sensitive Habitat - Keep Out" signage shall be posted every 150 feet along the Preserve edge to discourage access to the Preserve. In addition, the project shall be required to either prohibit domestic pets, or require that all pets remain on leashes pursuant to applicable leash law requirements. Camping stalls will be clustered and located a minimum of 100 feet from the Preserve edge. Refer to Response to Comment G-l(d) above. Summary of Comment: The comment raises concerns regarding pedestrian access through the Preserve. Comment states the MND addresses shuttle access but does not state that pedestrian access through the Preserve is prohibited. Response to Comment G-l(f): 15-139 G-2. Page 21 of24 As stated on page 6 of the final MND, pedestrian access through Wolf Canyon and across the Otay River will be prohibited and monitored by on- site security staff. To supplement this project feature, the following condition approval has been added to the CUP: Condition #54: "Use of the existing Otay River access road (Parking and Camping Areas to Track Area) and existing Wolf Canyon access road during the race weekend(s) by pedestrians is strictly prohibited. On-site security staff shall direct race patrons to the appropriate shuttle pick-up/drop-off locations. Enforcement of this condition shall be detailed in the proponents security plan which shall be reviewed and approved by the city's Environmental Review Coordinator prior to the commencement of any race related activities." Summary of Comment - Sentences 1 and 2: The comment raises concern over perceived inconsistencies in noise level estimates in the MND and technical studies in the discussion of both noise and biological impacts. Specifically, the comment points out that the projected unattenuated noise is reported as both 93 dBA and 85 dBA indicating an inconsistency. Response to Comment G-2 - Sentences 1 and 2: The following information is contained in the MND. A summary of the noise discussion is being provided in order to adequate response to this comment: the 93 dBA figure represents the projected noise level at 100 feet from the edge of the track, while 85 dBA figure represents the projected noise level at the nearest habitat area, which is approximately 250 feet from the proposed race track. The difference between the 93 dBA and 85 dBA values is therefore attributable to distance attenuation. Summary of Comment - Sentences 3 through 7: Information on Page 19 indicates reduction of noise to 75dBA, "which is below the ambient noise level", however, on Page 25, the attenuation range of 3 to 5 dBA is given, which when applied to the value of 93dBA, gives a resulting lowest value of 88dBA. Response to Comment - Sentences 3 through 7: There are three areas of confusion in this comment, which the following clarification will address: 1. As noted above, the unattenuated projected noise at the nearest habitat area is 85dBA, not 93 dBA. 2. The analysis does not characterize the impacts to be absolutely below ambient noise levels. Instead, the analysis indicates that 15-140 G-3. Page 22 of24 the site has been subj ected to a variety of noise generating uses over many years, specific data for which are not available. During that same past time frame, data have been collected for sensitive bird locations and nesting activity within the surrounding Preserve area. The data provided on ambient noise represents a one-time measurement characterizing mining activity noise on a single occasion. The analysis generally characterizes ambient noise based on those one-time measurements. 3. The project noise study estimates that the total noise attenuation provided by both intervening topography and the noise barrier to be lOdBA. The 3-5 dBA value represents the portion of that estimated attenuation attributable to the barrier only. Therefore, applying the 10 dBA estimated attenuation to the 85 dBA value projected for unattenuated noise at the nearest habitat location, results in a projected attenuated noise level of 75 dBA at the nearest habitat location, as indicated in the noise analysis and the MND. Summary of Comment: This comment recommends replacement of the mitigation measure contained in Section H of the draft MND pertaining to pre-activity monitoring for burrowing owls with a more detailed condition. Response to Comment G-3: Comment noted. The mitigation measure pertaining to burrowing owls in the draft MND has been replaced by mitigation language provided by the Wildlife Agencies. The following mitigation measure has been incorporated into the final MND and associated MMRP: "To ensure that no direct or indirect impacts to nesting borrowing owls occur during site preparation and active use of the parking and camping areas, prior to initiating any site preparation-related activities, pre-active use surveys must be performed by a City-approved biologist to determine the presence or absence of active burrows within all suitable habitat. The surveys must be conducted within 10 calendar days prior to the start of site preparation or use, and the results submitted to the City's Environmental Review Coordinator for review and approval prior to initiating any site preparation activities. If an active burrow is detected, a mitigation plan shall be prepared by a City-approved biologist and submitted to the City's Environmental Review Coordinator for review and approval. The project applicant shall implement the approved mitigation plan to the satisfaction of the City's Environmental Review Coordinator. Setbacks of 300 feet or more from occupied burrows shall be established and enforced until the young are completely independent of the nest. To 15-141 minimize all impacts and ensure that no nests are removed or disturbed and no nesting activities are disturbed, a bio-monitor must be on site during all project activities until all young have fledged." G-4. Summary of Comment: The comment indicates that the proposed "off-setting" measures described in the project description should be added as Mitigation Measures in the final MND under the Biological Resources subheading. Response to Comment G-4: The project as proposed, contains numerous design features indented minimize edge effects. These features were developed, in part, through the Applicant's discussions with the City and Wildlife Agencies. The design features associated with the protection of adjacent Preserve areas were factored into environmental analysis as required project features, not mitigation. However, in order to address this comment and to further support the information provided in the draft MND, the design features and monitoring requirements have been added as conditions of approval in the proposed Conditional Use Permit (refer to attached CUP conditions 49 through 58). Page 23 of24 15-142 G-S. Summary of Comment: This comment notes Applicant's intensions pursue a semi-permanent track at this location. The Wildlife Agencies recommended that the project Applicant, include the Wildlife Agencies in any discussions related to a permanent facility to discuss the potential impacts to sensitive resources. Response to Comment G-S: Comment noted. The City has not yet received an application for a semi-permanent track at this location. In the event that future race related activities are proposed, the City will coordinate with the Wildlife Agencies to discuss the long term effects of a permanent track at this location. Page 24 of24 15-143 ATTACHMENT "A" MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP) OTAY RANCH CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR TEMPORARY CHAMPIONSHIP OFF-ROAD RACE 2007 -IS-07-030 This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been prepared by the City ofChula Vista in conjunction with the proposed Otay Ranch Conditional Use Permit for Temporary Championship Off-Road Race 2007 (MND IS-07-030). The proposed project has been evaluated in an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and City/State CEQA Guidelines. The legislation requires public agencies to ensure that adequate mitigation measures are implemented and monitored for Mitigated Negative Declarations. AB 3180 requires monitoring of potentially significant and/or significant environmental impacts. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for this project ensures adequate implementation of mitigation for the following potential impacts(s): 1. Air Quality 2. Biological Resources 3. Cultural Resources 4. Geology/Soils 5. Hazards/Hazardous Materials 6. Hydrology and Water Quality 7. Public Services 8. Transportation/Traffic MONITORING PROGRAM Due to the nature of the environmental issues identified, the Mitigation Compliance Coordinators shall be the Environmental Review Coordinator and City Engineer of the City of Chula Vista. The applicant shall be responsible to ensure that the conditions of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program are met to the satisfaction of the Environmental Review Coordinator and City Engineer. The applicant shall provide evidence in written form confirming compliance with the mitigation measures specified in Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-07-030 to the Environmental Review Coordinator and City Engineer. The Environmental Review Coordinator and City Engineer will thus provide the ultimate verification that the mitigation measures have been accomplished. Table 1, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Checklist, lists the mitigation measures contained in Section H, Mitigation Necessary to Avoid Significant Effects, of Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-07-030, which will be implemented as part of the project. In order to determine if the applicant has implemented the measure, the method and timing of verification are identified, along with the City department or agency responsible for monitoring/verifying that the applicant has completed each mitigation measure. Space for the signature of the verifying person and the date of inspection is provided in the last column. 15-144 E OJ ~ OJ o ~ 0.. OJ ~ ~ o 0- m 0:: "0 C OJ OJ C .C .9 .c o ::; C o :;::; OJ OJ :;::; ~ ., u .. 0:: ~~ 00:: 0::: 0::0 ~~ ~ g o::~ o E a.. .. W.r= 0::0 C ~ Z .. <( S o ~ i!!: ., O::~ o .. !::.2 z:!: o E :; ; zll. Q 31 !;(::l O~ i= 0 ..,;:; -=;:; C o o ~ "E ~ E E o u ~ -g f; _ 0 -!~ E " o "" U ~ ~ :E ~i: o ~ 0..0.. ~ ~ '" "'-' o. ",,0 o.2~8 "'... .5.!:!1-- E'" i:'" :s . ., ~>~O 0..0 U I--- _0 00 .,,'" o ~ :5~ ~ ~ :;;~ > ~ ~ 5 ~ ~ ~ :;; o .2 ~ :E o ~ o ~ .. ~ . ~ ~ 0 ~=z ;:::E '" 1a~€ .~ c U _QJ~"'O 8:~c::;j C -< "@)UE"''''Eu "",ct::C::C:t: ~ ~ Cij"a::a Cl$ "2' .€ fr ~ ~ fr A.UO~lD.Cl. --' . . 00 o..u - x x x '" ,.: ~ ~.~ g BUJ~ 13 E & 'C ~ ~ o..u_ 5 ,5 9 ~.s8 Q.l ~'& ;:; ~ ,.t:~] ~. 0 u U 1-0.8 E ~ ~ ~<Ilo.. ~ ~"~ ::I - C ~ ~ ~ ~ > E ~ ~ ~ ~ ..c o ~ u .... o <= ~ ~ o c ~ o o 5i, ";;; u ." 0; o..c - 0 ~ .~'.g "'0 o '" c a:;:: ~ :>- tlO e c:~ t:.5 IIl'S ,.J ~ (';I ~ < 0 e ::~11E v ." u l%01.l..::!i5.. -..coE < E- .5 ._ '" . u c:: '<t _. u c: 4-< ~c:..z0' ;j].20 ::I 0.....-. .... C ou cd..;:::: <Il::E 5.8 13.2.8 ::::...c ca ::l J:l.. em:'::"" s:: <Il~ ] -; ~ __ .5 '@ :-;:: :.c 5 0 g ~.:::u"'OS~~~~ ';::: oB~.t:: ~ 01.l Ol) .5 ~ a::a ~.50 ~::E-g.p E-E"O""O e=aut;:< G)u <Il ~..;....~s ~ x cp.,OCl....C<Il_",,'''_ ca -< c:: <:tt.- U c: u . ~ 1- ~..c::o::a-;]-o8~~~ t:~U1 ~'E 0 "g ~ g.~::a .g 'C -S G) Cil :;; = .a c: E u QJ.- - Q.. u cd <Il (';I 13 p..ta ~;:A OJ :; ~'o tl '"02 liS e ~ "0.5 ~ ~ E "0 ~ '= ,.t: l::f c c: t.r... Q) 0 II) a g fIl o.~ <":I ........ E '';:::: 1a "013 ' 'C '';:::: o..N:: u .." ::l QJ <Il":':: Q) e eV'l O~~ [c:i 8..~ .g ~ 8 ~ -E 'E 'u ~ 5 ~ t: ~ ~.s~8~~'o ~'o'~ . 15-145 ~ " o ~ ." u > ~ Q. 0; ..c ~ <= ~ Q. "; g' >> ;:; u ..c ~ ~;:e :E~ ~~ o ~ "2~ ~ ~ "s .,; u u ~ '" o ... ..J..c t:' ~ ~ .... CII ~ ~ "a g g 13 ~ ~"E ~~ t)::E :gtll9 ~~o.. _,:!. b ~ ~:: ~ ... ..::.:: QJ U 8:~:E"en ~~.g CIl::O ~ i:: _ _ QJ ,s t! QJ 'lJE ~ i - ClIO!:: -fltllB .:0 0.. '50 f: _- ~ ~ o 2 5':; ~ ~ ~ (lj CII C go "0 l.1:l ". ~ ~ .~ .j :~]"~ o'a~E QJ ~a.:: ~ E 0..= 0.. 0 ~8..8Cl8]E a ;:.-."@U ::I l.1:l ::l en u;E E~ e.o'~v II ~ ~ 0 0 to._ > E-< 0" ,s U'} f- :2 E ~ . . . '" u o o a ~ ~ c - u- g.s~ gpe~ .~ "'0 -g ~ 0 0 ... ~ ~ g.b13~ ~ 5 ~ g u ~ o...c :ag.3t) ~~~a :; 'lJ U tIl llJ ~g13] ~"'O 8....,..., C ~ tIl_ ~ <:I:l 'lJ"C ~ .~~ ~ >< <Il.c u [..t.l~~~ . t- o 25 "" ~ E ro ~ 01 o ~ a. 01 <:: t o c. OJ 0:: "0 <:: ro 01 <:: 'C .s '0: o ::a; <:: o ~ 01 ., ~ ., u '" :!EO:: <(~ 0:: 0 ClO:: 0::: lf~ Cl:C ~ g 0:: 'c o E D.. '" W.<: O::U ~ ~ <( g Cl E ~ ., 0::1- o ~ 1:::.2 z:!: o E :!E :;; zD.. Q 5: ~;;) Cl ~ ~ 0 ~;:; -=;:; c: o U ~ " ~ E E o u 'C ~ a; 0.- E " o .!! '-' :: .. ~ :is H 0.. 0.0. ~ J1 "'.... C~ ;::c o.~ 58 ",1;; .5.~- Ei: i=>G.I:! ~ 0.0 o - '" ,..: _c 00 'O~ o ~ ~~ "'~ > " i!! ~ " .. ~ '" c o i :E c ~ o ~ ;:: ~ . .. " 0 ~l3z c:~ s .. o -.... ~" 00 0.0 - ." C ';< -d B ~ u u .~ ~ .c u ~-g " .. ~"'O ~ U U ~ -g* ~ .SO ~ "3= .. .. .c.c " " ~"';; ~ ~ ~ u - 0. ~~ -e u ~ I > ~ CI.J e.... ~ 0. 0 o 0. ~ - .. 0 u.poO :2'~ 'E a -0 t) ..... ~ c g:5 S . ~~ .~~ ~ ti ~.;:: tU 4) U 0. :-;:::..o-ge g::; ~ ~ ~{l~; ~ s ~ tIJ^ ti '.0 'R"'O :.s~B,.g ooc- <~gE . . >- > .. u .c lii"E oS N o '8 -g '2 .. ,- ..::l E u u E~ ~ .. o-iii u _ E C '.0 E 000. .5 .:; ~ ff . C u .c ~ >- 0; ~ .~ :.a:g .~ i o..~ ~al " 0 u - .c ~ ~ ~ {i~ t: 'E ~ e tIl .;2 U .c E-<";;j . 15-146 ~ ~ <."i .c 00 ~ o ~ .s 0; -t1.c E [j U 0. E e 0.0. ":; e lfjj C - .9 gf 'iii-a a ~ fr-'" a.s c1l1l " c .5 "@ ~ .5 ,S "-6 00 " u ~~a . ob C ." u ''i<i ~ ~ ~-g - .. .. 00 -5i .5 2:l1l "{il :'A .s~ a e ~.c u - >-e o u u.c ." " c:..::: ~.c o .. o~ c .. c o .~ t; ~ oE -e u " ~ u .c E u 0; E .co. r:n .:; "Q)ff .a c ..... .2 ..at) ag ~ " o " ...., 8 . ~ >- ~ @ ~ '0 E ~ 0.0." ti Ell :s: 2:l:s: 0" . 0."'" ..c u , - " 00 ~ ~ ~.5~ ~~= ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 " @ e ~ ~ u 0 ~ ~ E! o 00 U Q.Qj 5 . OCl;::SOOu c....... ...- :~ a ~ ~ >< Cl.I 0 <:0 t.Q U o.~ . . " ~ o E ~ E " "2 ~ 's ~ .. " >- .- .cli -e~ ~- u.c ::tt ~ ~ u u 00 :: .g ].g " -'" u g ..::l u foci 4) 5'~ ~.8 ~ . -- ro. <> 23 N ~ E ctl ~ '" e a. '" ~ ~ o C- O) 0:: "0 C ctl '" C .C .9 .c o ::< c .9 ro '" "" ~ :E < 0:: C) o 0:: D- C) Z ~ o D- W 0:: a z < C) z ii: o I- Z o :E z o ~ C) I- :E ~ ;: ~ E E o t) " & II c. E o t) .. <.) lG 0:: " lG o ~ ::::: o ~ :c ;; 0-': o ~ 0.0. ~ & 0: ~w; "Co o.~.5S 0116 o u 'E!E ,..; i= >Q) f ~ ..0 <.) E .. I- ~ .2 - E ~ .. D- .. .. :::l OJ c: o ,., i5 c: o U ~ 0 00 "0; o ~ ~~ ::;;& > ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ & ::;; o o '" ~ g :E o & o ~ ..:::I . ~ ~ 0 g:ijz ;;;::;; ~ ;; Q . ~ :E 8U; ..8 " ,.; U .&> -;;; 0 -ffi .g "'010:-= d OJ S; .s ~ ~ e dJ ;;; E!13 2 :3..... 0. U 0 0 .~~ :: '" 0 u c:2"E o 0 ~ '" 0 -0..9 ..... -..c::uc eo u ~.8 .5 ~.s 'ca 'ti "2 C.!j 0. ~ '(; :-:::: < a ~1 . '" ~ :.a c::l ,,~ U ~ ~~ ~.~ u _ .,s::'@} .t:::,.z ~ u ~ N ~ '6 t;.c tl '8 ~9 " " ~ b ~ ~ .9 ~ >- on u a 0'<> ~ ~::::~ ~ '" u ~ "ffi ~ . .,,-g o '" .~ ~ 8:"g c -<.s b!I ~ .......0.. t:: t:: .~ 0:9 ;i 8'0";5 fr 0..-..0:40 x B ~ o .;:: C c.u "'> u u c: t) ~ ~ "'''' ~B "'0 Vl .- ... c: (I,) 3= 0 =' c: o 'C <2 'lJ l: 0. dJ > ~ .Et1a'-B.~ I)Q.!::: en c::l 0. '.Eg.~~o Vl 'lJ 0 ..... 0. 4l 1-0 4-< (I)~ 0. C <U ....... >. \'l:I _.Q (I,) Vl .:2 E c: \'l:I CI) '5 "fi ~ a 1$ tjo~~]g a:: ~ ~ ~.:::: ~ ;::)__....0"'0 o Vl a"5'=: fa lJ)~c:tUa"o ~. s.g.:: ~.g ~..... 2 0 :.~ -< U t:l '5 <<l e<:l u.~ g E ~] 5::vu'<=:::: o U aJ s:: ~.- ...J ~ a E c: 3= O\'l:l--"E~~ ;~~8B~ ;1.5-147 1: b!I >. 13 go ~~-;:.-o """0 o.cca ~ .~ E E gp ",E ~ [.t.l. ~ l:..a (l:I "2' ,E' fr .!':; fr o..UCl.o..cc.Cl x o .g u u c. ~ 0 0_ .- ~ u 0 i:i5o. " u E u u U u '" o ~ ~ 15 0.... > u 0 u b!l (I,) ~ ~ .5 ~ ^ 1-0 ~ f.l ~ 6'0 ~ 's ~ u: ~ '(ii:'::: ~.......: ^ u ...... g (I,).;::?: 0 'E So ~ '-= ... OJ) d ~ .9 '0' ~ ~ ~ .g C1J 0 l5.. Ol,)......_ ro (I,):EQ.l~~..og u "'O..c >_ M_ e ~ ... lLl .!a .S 0; fj'3~.E;~B~ ro <Il ~'Ui <l.J'- C ~ ,9 ~ 5 -:S a ~ o::::...c <Il 0 E CIJ ..... CIJ a: C1J~ >'""0 ...c 5 ~ CIJ 't a CIJ ';;; E""O~~?;l atE~ 8~o.~::o~',;:: . 5..2~p., a 0-5 bil ~ 0 __ aJ c::l "'0.5 U"-...c - .- to) >..s-~>'ot: o .- <Il 0 .- ..0 aJ to) 'E .5 ..... ;';:: ""0 ;z <..-:;. o~aJE3~~13 _._.J:l CIJ ~._ CIJ .... aE=~ E-s'S ._ 0 ro.....,., <l.J C'" 3: o.~-g 8~'o ~ M ~ bile ~ ,5 (i ;.::~~"'O l5: ~ c a "E ..:( 'So E~ on on EU ..... C t: C C t:: ~ UJ tIS'2:.a Eij '2',q fr ~ '5 fr p.,UOCl-.c::lO x o .g u ~ C. ~ 0 0- .- ~ ~ -0 .- ~ '" 0. ;; u E U ~ U U '" " ~ ~.<: ~ ~ '5 0.... > u 0 ~ ojj aJl(')....o .?::.-- 0 - <Il '~C';;;~~~ C ~ a'J .:::,....- ~ aJ ~ g.~ ~ :; ~ ro ~ (;i 3 E-ClJCIJ...c- QJ ;g~,..O -..!:! ?i 0. '- -- ~.J:l 4) CIJ g ~ '5 e u.J:l ~{l g':.=: e "@ ._ _ .... 0- '5 ...c "'g.~ a go c::l <Il .... 0' ~ 0 4) CIJ CIJ .... <Il ..... 4-1 ~ bilo..~ 'E o c"'O <l.J 0. <:<1 E .~ ~ oS ,~ a e~:t:gm3 4);:::I~'cE;; g 0 ~;.a 0 QJ 4) o.Cl-. "'0 ""0 ...c E <l.J 4) ell :';:: ~ E~-S.s:-9~ :3 I bil . -a c c CIJ .... 0 -8 (;i..2 t: ~ c ....::::: ell 4) 4)'a .2 ~ ~ ~ oS E o'::t: ~ P:: ';:j ~ " U1 ~ " ~ E 20! .5 cr 20! t- o 2> N ~ E '" ~ Cl o ~ a. Cl c 'E o c. <l) 0:: "0 c '" Cl c 'C .9 'c o :2 c o :g g ~ CD U CO ~o:: <l:og 0:: 0 00:: 0== 0::0 Q. o Z ~ o Q. W 0:: C z <I: ~ E o::~ o ~ t::.2 z- oE ~ ; zD.. o :: ~::l o~ i= 0 ~:E "C c o (,) ~ c ~ E E o () " ~ .., i5. E o () ~ :a .~ ct: 0.. 0.0. . ,j1 "'-' c. "tOC .... C ~ 0 0.2 co Ol;; CU -'" E"i: .: i=>G.l:!:! "0 " _c 00 "l'J+:: 011 .c", "ai"i: :;~ > ~ ~ ~ ~ .. ~ :; c .2 ;; :E" c .. 0_ .,::s . .. ~ 0 g:gz ;,;;::E . ... o . ~ :E ~~f' U";:: U :'='lJ~"'O g;~ca C <: "60 E on l),Q E () Ji t:: .5 .5 1:: lLl ell e" cd '2'.~ fr] '5 fr A..UCl~CCCl --' . . 00 .." x x x '" ,..: C .2 1:> o 0. . .S E 0 o u E e o u ::; BEl.;:: ~ -B '5 0.... > u 0 0 - 1:1 .g i:l3o. '" "S 1:- u l)Q.s OIJ >. ,s::J :..::: c:: ..c ell >. := eII^ e t-: :::: ~ a ob.,a ~ c:: ";j ea -0 'i:.5 CIl ._ 0 ;;.. ..... 0lJ b.O ''''>'=> e.a ~ ~.fo.5 0..- ,.." aJ'-"", 'Z:: ,:::; 0. IIJ 1-0 I-o""'..c i6 ~ cd ,:::::.a Oo..:i::.~ vi ~. '" Cl.l 0 00""- ..... 8 ~o -g ~ .J:1 ~ '2 E J! cd ..... t<:S e..... ~ 0 .3 <j...j ~U~o~QJ""''''OV OG).~5~~gf;1~ 'E oS [; "'0 OIl 0:: ~ ~ C 01.10_>.= -.-u E ..... ... - '';::: u ti a ..... ~13..s ~~.s C1~ g, ct::....u:..:::EEti~ gO's B _ 0 0._ , G) ...Cl fg ~'c <l:l ti 6.s o~:.a~8~~-<u u2o~~:g].6g ~ _ 8 0. >..2 .- Cii '"2 -c;-; Oll~~~ S" ..... ~ ~ .5 0 0 e :f: B 9 c ";; .1: ~:o 1:! "'0 '"2 ~-a~2~ ~ g,~ ~ ~ " '" >- a c.<::: ~ '5 u "0 8:~~~ c <:.- u v ..... ~E ~~8 ~ ~ 'Si '2 :a ~ '2'.~ fr ~ ~ e- o... u Cl O."I~ Cl x E 0 o u s e 0_ u . B5~ 1:1 .~ ~.5 E i:.i1o.8'O~ c .8 U o 0- . .S '" "" u a: ;:> o '" '" a: .... ~ ;;J ... .... ;;J U u CIl ~ IU ..c "" <;.0 u :=:-0 s:.: ..c .a8 ~~_o~ .: ~~ -5.E...Oi) ~~ ~ "'0 's r.J .g .a .g ] ~~"Or/l~p..,e_E!"l S ~ ~ r...; :: R- ~ ,~.g ~ r/l a .. ~ ~<::> ~ e CI.I a .... on 8:,- ?-.o -~ 0..-5 ~ ..E e <'1 as, ~ ~ E ~ a '(il E 'Q. CI.I >. - c::; CI.I _ <.::. "l ~fl~~]~~~~i:~ ~~;d.~~~B~ ~ ~ ~ @ oci ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ ta 8 ~ ~-a.~ >."5 ~~~~ ~.. CI.ICI.I='''OJ...uo..:::-oo~ t.;:; -E .~ .2 ~ ~ _ - e Z -.:;l '';:: ~ "l s:: l:l::; e .... <'1 co 5 ~ e -a 3-"'ij E ~ 'Vi 0.5 -0 <l:: o.~ "l s:: CI.I 3 'OQ ~ ~ .; '"'0 ~ ~ ~ ,g g '"'0 .9 ~ -0 ~ CI.I ~ -o.;S 0:::1 CI.I ~ ~ ~ ~ <'16.t:CI.IgESta<'1.b~ ~E~"fi~~~ti-58.9 t-~:::: a <:~ u.E a ~ta 5r148 '" Eoao .~ 'E u -a.~~~ 'E ~.s 0) co CI.I t)gf~sS'€ CI.I~ (':l c:"'O (':l '2' ,q fr ~ '5 fr o..UClp..,COo. x c .8 U o 0- ~ .S C 8 E e o u ~ 51.: ~.s "5 8 '0 ~ B ~ .S! ~a.. .. e ~ CI.I -a CI.I ..;.::'(il 13-0) ],s ~ ~CI.I u~~.s~~"'O~.st:oS .B ~ aj '0 ~ ~ ~ -: ~.g ~ CI.Io....-til"l~~C:S:::e A_C:SJe"'O='c;s,.J::-oCl.lui Cii C .~ 00 .;:; a :E ~ =;;; ~ B ~ ~ ~ E ~::.~ ~ 'U; -tl'~ c:~ ..oCI.I(':l='c;;jon Cl.ltil,.J::~t) _ ~ u bJj...c: 0 ..~._.... "l tIS ~ tIS ~ ti: "'"0 i'A 'm ~'o ~ ...... ~"ecOQCI.I='c- CI.Ic ~ ..e .~ 0 ,5 .a.;.c: il) ~ :3 e ~ , ~ III "'0 <.,) u ~ "l (':l ,_ IQ 4) 2So)01.101.lea.j::01.l.c:.~ ;>.. r/l'--5a~_O)-B~"8:tS..o oo.j::01.l~~.c: 0"-0 ~ E ...... ~,.l::.= .... Oil U u =' .s ~ oS.5;::; r-o e ~ g .~~ ~ i6 g on'- >. Co ..... ..a 0 .... c: 0- ...c: 01.l e.~ "'0 01.l '- ..... 5..... 0;;; E .... u's;.:, -0 .a oS 0 u 9 "'0 .- ~ 5g ~ tl "l '0 a s ~ '2 ~ ~ g tII c::: <a ._ tIS t- g 0 ~ s~uget: ,............ ~ 8 0 01.l ';0'.;:: ::: a 13 B"8 ~ ~ <tl..o 0 U-O'E N "'." ~ B u B -o.~ 0) on 'E ~ ~ ~ O1.l....s c:s~"'O.s 01.l.-.a co .s::.2 tIS 01.l U 01.l .... 13 .~ ',c ~ e r-o o...j:: a ~.s ..s 0.. l::..:s 01.l .~ c- c- o 25 N ;0 E CIl ~ 0> o ~ 0- 0> ~ ~ o 0- " n:: "0 " CIl 0> " ." .9 'c o :2 " o :;::; CIl g ~ :E <( 0:: Cl o 0:: 0- Cl z i= 0:: o 0- W 0:: C Z <( Cl Z 0:: o I- Z o :E z o ~ Cl I- :E 00 c . E E o u "tl . ]! E o u .. " CO 0:: .., CO o 0:: ~ . :;:; .;;; ~t 0.. 0.0. 00 . 0: '0.2 011< ~ " ~!E ..... > E .. I- ~ o - :!:: E ~ .. 0- .. "' ~ (ij " o :;::; '5 c o (.) i ~ ~ 00 "C.. 01: ~s: . ~ ::;;~ .. . 5 00 .. . ::;; ~ ~ '" - :1 ~ . o ~ :;~ci ~~z ;;:::; . ;; o 00 ~ :s E eQc ~ C._ ~ '5 ~ "0 o.o-c:: 'E 0..5 5 ro 01.l :: ~e ~~E ~~~'E:a~ "8'.f"' go ~ ~ fr o..UClo..COO, i~ ..8 >< g-~ ;::0 ~o ou .- ~o "0 U '" ,..: c ~ . g e ,gu..c ~.2 g ~ 5 iZiae15~ c .g u . 0. 00 .E 00 ~ 0 ~ .g.~ ~:::: 8 ~o.E:~5 '~'"2S6~::g 5g''E~SbOClJ :-g~4)Uotia ~~~.2]a~ .~;:::: o.8~~:~ ..c ro 0 C u"'" (lJ gf{5 ~~ ~-g.;; 0..... OJ dJ ..... (<;l IIJ .E a t ~.~ ~ 5 -;~IIJ.':5'u~ ~.- u ~. a s::: ou o..~e~01)~O 1<:1 'Vi -5 @ ~ =;a ~ -sa~ ~ .'o.~ ro '- 'C ..... ..... ~ '.g 0 "Iii c:!, ~ g. ~ OJ E 5 cO .2 a s8..E~ee~ (f) l- '1.) :a Sb..s 15 --g 0 g ._ ._ 4) oECl.lc~..c:s!-d l-o e<:l e OJ c"'" :=s oj) Vl~EOO~O.D ~ 5 0 0.13'';:: 3: .a tlSouB-5~Vl <( "Uj E .S g:'9 -5 ~ 00 - 1:: 00 C I:l1 C .- ~'5 U""O o.u1S C 'E 0..5 4) <<l u ~~~~~E u ~ .-.- 1:: l1J c"'O tll. '8' .€ fr ] ~ fr o..U 0. 0.. CQo. >< >< c .E U . 0. ~ E .~ 0 U).& E ~ . . " g e ...0 ~ ~ ~ 0.... > u 0 . ~ o~~u _ 1:l1"; ~ .~-s Q.l Ul 0 5.;;i.~ .... C ~ rtj gj t:: ec~13:EllJg8 ou-ae<:loccEc3 _u>.o~';;;S:::o.g '00 '5h.c ~';:..c._ ~ ~ ~..913';:o::::tau"'" ..c 0 ..... 0':: CIS.~ ~ 15 o~B.....C:{;3- ..c'- 5 EO rn";::l S g S e S E ~ g =c p,p.. ^ C'li E ~~.... -::. .SO~Q)gi3EE3kJ ~8~E~E~~~~ E 3~ E- ~RE'E'P..~ ^ In 8 ~:~.- ..... =' OJ .Sf ~!! .9 OJ C .s ~ ~ E "'=';::l ... - ~ ~ "'O";::l ,f I:: (,) c: 'tn s -s ~ ~ .=: .2 .g 5 "1i:i "'2 "I: 1::'- ~.I:: c.. to l::R-5] 0....... 51:* E o.!:9 I:lO tn u.~ ~'oo ~ 0 ~ 'g .g ~ ~ ~ 0 :b..s ;.,"~ (IS.......... -"P";j OJ 1...- rn "'2 So~~~;'g(i3~tit:: >.o.~...= o.v~ ~ a.~ c::;~....~f:o>OJEf: -< 0. 0 to 0. 0. ~ 1::"_ 0. ",15-149 ~ ~,~ U'i:U :"::::G.l:;:,"'O 0. G.l I:: C 'E 0..5 Q) (IS Il.l < O!) EO!) tlO E u ,f, t::.5"5 t:: 0)- CQ 1::"'0 CQ '8'.~ fr] '5 & p.,UOc..COO >< c .g u . 0. 00 .E '5 ~ E e . - U 00 5~ ~.s "5 o ~ ,. u 0 . .9 E .~ U1Q.. u ~ -01: E~ 8- 00 ~ ~ ~..o-o ~ : ~ '0 B (I)^ .... 'c I:: 000 ~ E '.g '~e .9 E "~~ '00-;' O!)~(IS .5 -5 ~ .... .... ~. >. B to... ~ 'c ~~ u 0......- Q) E VJ^ a..s Q) ~ OJ 0 -5.g ~ ..... tlOto.... ~ "5 :;0. 3 5 ~ 00-0 8~~tE '" r- ~ ~,~ ~E~"'O 8:~c~ 'E -< 'So ~ o.a o.a g .... c ~ c c t;; g w CQ'2:.a ~ "2' ,q go ] ~ fr o..UOc..a:lCl >< >< . u .. ~ g~ ".ct;:; ~ 0 ~::c ~.9 ~ > 0.. ~ ..!. ~ CItE ~ ~"'2"'2 ..s o a ~ ...= 1:100.>1a~ .5 ~ 8 tiS 0 \1 e-~"'O-E .......0 (I) 1..1"'0 1!_tiooou ...~~~(;;j ~~'e ~ ,5 .~ on~ 1..1 ~ -a "2 ~ ~ 0 "'Oo,-=u ou'~ 0..2 OJ ~ g f5 (I);: ~ E".o a:-'::: U on e '.0 ~ f:.s u=' f:] (I).... ::s (I:l ~.g . u ?;- <'d "5 -0 ~-d;':::: .~ (;;j tl e f:"U > E ~ ~'5 ~ ..:s ~81:[*e ~a~~'~'o (,)~E~ac :;: ~ ~~ ~O - - t"- o 23 N ~ E '" a, o ~ a. Q) c '" ~ o 0- '" 0:: -0 c '" Q) c .C .9 .c o ::;; c o ~ Q) '" ~ .. <.l '" :;;0:: ~~ ClO:: O~ 0::0 Q. .9 Cl.<: 2!: ~ Ii:~ o E Q. '" W.<: 0::0 o ~ Z '" ~ ~ Cl E 2!: .. O::r- o .. co2 Z~ o E :;; ; zD. Q :J: !;(::::> Cl~ E 0 :E~ c o o ~ c ~ E E o " . -g 1; _ 0 -a- E .!! o .!! " = .5 ~ :;; .~ ;., """ o ~ 0.0.. ~ ~ '" ;...: 08 0..<.) '--- ... co ""c o.2J58 Cl1<i .5 .~ '--- E1: i=>Q)~~ 0..0 <.) f- -" 00, .,,'" o ~ ~!E :i~: ~ ~ " ~ ~ ~ ::;; c .~ ~ :1 c ~ o ~ ~aci ~~z ;::; - 1:: ~q .~"i: U -cu"<:::J"'O _ 2:gc~ c < '50 E 0lJ 00 E t) ~ t::.S.5 t: OJ ~ c"'O <:IS '0'>' 0. a:::: 0.. ~8oO::cEo x x x '" ,..: -;; ~ ~ o 0 c 0. .g~ '6 5~ uu "0 -" c ~ u (d .s. a c~ ~cG i:J a .g ~ OJ ~..::( ~ 0 ..s a x 0: <l) ~~o;o'E-s u ~ [Cl) ~ "'0 0 c.. 5 g i)l ~ <( ~'p ."i_. 8..S! .5 a ~ UJ rn8e1S:::Eo~ ..J a.. Q.l t.t:: _ P: ~ a~Cl)'<=~oc'" (J) _ > s::: ID. r:- 4-< 2 ~..... 'p ~ Q 0 0..'- 0 ::I ~ Z""iU~~g=a~ -< > - Vl ._ 0... 0. >8-;Jl..~-:.a (:) 8:i1:::E C ~ C! O(lStmE~.e ..J .8 Cl) s:: OJ 0- o ~ .5 .~ 0. E E ~ .g ~ ~ a .8 ~ Oo...~i)e..U)u ~ ii ~.q ~'5 U-o 8:gEa c <'btlsooooE tl ~ 1:.5.5 t:: <1.l c.u C"'O <:":I '8' ,f;' fr] '5 fr o...UClo..a:lCl x x x -;; ~ ~ o e c 0. .g 0. -< "00.. 5::> UU '" ....l -< - '" '" f-< -< ::;; '" ::> o ~ t:S -< :>:: '" z < '" ~ -< N -< :>:: ~-< ~ ~ x ^ 0''''' ,€,l5.."'g ug.g, ~"Oo. .;::c< . ~ c 0.. ,..- :=>~"O u ';; ~ "'0 CLl'- ~~ E o - ~ o.1!~ o ~ ~ :s.J2 : ~~o.. ;;0:;; ~2!:", o u ~:g~ e ~ c.u 0......... E g.::e .8 .8 c '- u ';; .2 e c o:i58 :;15-150 E bilC c,'I:S C .- .~ '5 u "0 ]:gEa c <: 'OQ E bll 00 E t) tii t::.8.S 1:: Cl) c.u c"'O c.u '8'.q fr] ~ fr o..UClo...Q:lO x x x -;; ~ ~ o 0 c 0. o 0. 'J: -< :.00.... 15::> uu _....."'a au .s -ti -E ,~ ~ ,- ....." .... > QJ o.'i3O:: E..Q a-g g.!.=ie-.g- ';::'U .: 0:;:$ ... ~ Cii g ,5 >. ~ u:l u:l ,s -a E l:: 0 ~e '~u.l QJ..... C QJ <Il <Il ro <lJ go"c::~~g5'(i;t:5 .....p....b-<.... ~ <lJU:::::: r.n U ~ Z ~ ~ 'C ki .... ~ ~ .....CUQ.::l..c:<8<1lrna:! ~~c::"'O"9_p....~UE3 ~ C :::: .9 ;; -::; .~ o..~ i'j pO cE~ U'SU).:2.8v.C <t:;S=: ~"'E- ,~~ -ar.n~ ..c: 0 0 8."E';;: _ U) C CU '; .: -g ot:: ....... .!::! '';:: ~,.g ~ oS tr Oc;l;>.O:Z:~~E-<~.9~ ~ 0 .~,~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~E C '2 e z ';:: a..c "" ro l::: Q. C ~ .;: .9 ~,.g '; CU 5l (l} 0.. CU ....... (,J (,J..... t:rU) .... e.. C'3.....c:G:Ge.'O~~5.t::o ~ '5- .g -a .~_ ~ - ...... _ _ CU ~.~ C'3 ~'';:: ;.gg~~~52c~~g ..... <Il 1:: -a .... ... ..... - ~ .~ .l:: ...:::::: <Il ::l C. ii..a.f; t: ~ ~ ,9 CU 5u"O 01:(30';>0 ~{iu,5 a.sg<r/.i~u :": '" ~ O!lC ~.5 0 ~ E... -0 ..... Q.. t:: C ~ C <._ V QJ ..... ~E ~~€ ~ j.tJ ~ '2:.0 C'3 '8' ,g fr! '5 fr e.. u Qp.... au:) x x x 0; ~ > o 2 c 0. ,g 0.. .- -< "00. 5::> UU >- f-< ::; -< ::> CI ,,: '" f-< < ~ " o ...l o '" '" >- :>:: x '0 "0 5 clg8: .- 0 <( U u C QJ C'- .s ,9 1Z p..~ ~ to:; ;::> ti'~ u ~ ~ "O~:-g ~ ~ 00 ~ 0.. ~ go go c: a -g ~ ~~'" -B ~ c 1; .~ .~ Cd ~ e ~ - " e-a-g 8:{i ~ ~ ~ 00 o ~ ~ ..... ~ :; .e '@) ~ ct~S< ~ c- o 25 '" ~ E '" ~ 0> o 0: 0> C 0;= o c. Q) ~ "0 C '" OJ C 'C B 'c o ::;: c .9 1ii OJ 0;= ~ Q) u .. :;:0:: c(~ 0:: 0 C)o:: 0::: 0::0 0.. C) Z ~ o 0.. W 0:: Q Z c( ~ E a:~ o .... !::.E z~ o E :;: ; zo.. o :ll !;(~ C)~ E 0 -=.; ""''5 c o U ~ c ~ E E o <.> ~ -0 .. ~ c ;; C. E . 0 ~ <.> :E '" 00'" ~ ~ c '" :;; .!d i::(,) .~ _0lJ-;::."'O E c1:: 0. ~ c:: c 0.. 0.._ lI.I ~ 0lJ Q.Q. ~~E~~E ~ a~~'E:01a ~ 0: '2',q fr ~ ~ fr ,O..uO,O..c::lCl -., .. X 00 o.u ..., c_ X _c "" '0 0.2 cu ..... c ~ E~ 1=" o- X > ~" 0.0 U " ,..: _ c o ,2 -o- J,! c o ~ Ui o~ .s~ " ~ g :;;, 13 ::; " u ~ > ~ Q. ~ .c ~ 0. U .s ~ " 's ~ .. " ::; c .~ ... 0> '" :e c" o ~ ..:3 . .. ~ 0 g~z :=5 ..... 1-0 ca Oll a t8 -5; ~ .c_ .. u 0 ~ ;g,'ag:~~ .8_15 O-I:~o== U ro 0lJ u 0 ro t .t::_ ,., ..... p.. c:: <.,;;;. o::S bll_ a(J')CI)O"'Cl-bose .=~ lu'';:: s:: 0lJ tIl~ ro QJ 81""\..e. c:: ca u a ro l:: C 0.- E- lI.I 01) c:: r \ _ en <lJ p.. > c:: 0lJ....,.- 0 0lJ ;z P::i 11J._ tl .... ro III .s c:U a5..t::<8~ Vi~ ... ~ c::"O "'0..... Q......bU ~ ~ c o~ -5 -< os 0. .. ". c U'SU).2$ ~ 5&<~~ E 0lJ.g E "0 '"0 :.e ,0.. ~ "g ~ .~ -S"'Ooo.~>~or;ll..sa t+-< c::..t:......,...., '';:: .....c '" o ro >. 0::;: ~ ~ E- .S>.8 ~ ~i5'~.~ ~ ~o-cio.E'2 o z '';::: 0...0 ~ d.l .~ ~ ~ 5 a c:: .< 'i: 0 v.J::: ::::s Vl ~ 0... o.i;d ~;M'::ffl-,::::St:: ro.~BlI.IOlJ""O""QJo.o ~ E '';::: "'0 .g ~ VI .~ 1U d- ''8 ""'.0 u ro u u a ?;-a::::< ? .9 i:il E ~ ~ *:.e.- j:::; CI) .;:: b == ~ .2 0. t) "'0 .:: e: ~ ~ 'C ~ 0 g] 8.. g U .9 en 0 p.. tIlU._ l'O,-"u<CU1,-,U .,; '" bO ,., ~ c:::= ~5u"'C 8:~~ a c <._ v 0lJ tEE .~.~ € 0lJ ro c"O ro "8' .~ & ] ~ fr A.UOo..Q:lCl X ~ Ui :e c ] .~ u~ C 0- .. ~ 0::..5 ~ ~ ~ V <Il cu ro i:lS..c: e; ..s~;;.::~ >.ouOCO .o~~E-B S ~ B'~ ~ '';:: c: _- u-oOE ~S! .~..> ;j C <:d >'-0 .- :> ""8 ~ <1.J 0;;> <:d >. .~ E d'~~ <:dooE"'O 1iici3'~~2~ o "'0 a .- _ 0 g.~fr~~5 '::~c.t)~S -ao~g.~~ ~ ~ ';;1 ~ E 0. ...... ...... ,_ > E c u 0 ou ou'- e:Ec::.s~-2 .- ::::I 0...... o:<:l ou o..A., '-E - -~ 0. 0. tIl - ,tIl 2 o:<:l~ o.i::p., 0. ooEou:E ~u8~co~ 15,,:-151 ~ 0J:l >. <:d c:: t::: ,~"C: U o..~":::I-O ...... 0. c: C ~ c: ...(.- ou <1.1 ...... gf€ gf~E ~ u.1 ('3 'a:.a ~ '8' ,~ go ~ '3 fr A.,UO p.,cn 0 X ~ Ui :;;, u c ~ 0 .c .- ul1 ~ ~~ - C 0.- "-" -0 ~ 0 a ..0 0 E_-au IU ~ ~ 0 E c tIl.s ,&~::::: "'0 g.8.g.~~ <1.1 0 _ tIl ::I 0. -- a .~ jj S ""8 ~ 'C 0 ~ g.-a ~ ~ u :a ,!::9::::1 tIl >._CIl<:d.J:: :gB=<Ii~g C Ol.l '.... tIl 5 :0 '0.. c. ~ tIl~..:g tIl 2 c:: ~ '~ ~ & g IU o:<:l Ol.l (';$ tIl [; 2 'iti ~ ~ u E......;S ~:;; tIl B ~ ~-m g ~ > c~"Et~ 'c: ... <:d 0 ::::I :::l Q.) ~ 0..J:: OG.J::~U 00 '" ~ OJ:lQ .. C - .~'CU _0l.l";:)"'O 8:: ~ c: f.a E ...( ,_ Ol.l Ol.l ..... gas :t~E ~~~'a:o~ '8' .g fr ~ ~ fr p.,UClA.,Q:lO X X X ~ Ui :;;, u C o 0 l3"B o c' 0- .. ~ o:..s 00"-" c 0 'C [) B.c- '2 E ~ ~ g ~ E .gg~~ 13"8.V5 ~ 'iti-g~~ Sno:<:l-U 'til 0 B ~ .g~~.9 2 ~~ a :::::.c 2 's.. ~ .... 0- {i <Ii IU g c: p., .0 .,;:: ~:;E:: ~ ~cn~CIl c....... '" ...... -ooc::c Ol.l .=: ~ 8 s ~~ <1) e;lUo.~ g.~ -B a <aa:E 0; .... <:> 23 <::' '" E '" ~ Ol o ~ 0- Ol c 'E o Q. Q) ~ "0 C '" OJ C 'C .9 'c o ::;: c .9 ro Ol ~ ::;: .. " '" :;:0:: <(-g 0:: 0 ClO:: 0::: g:~ CI:E ~ ~ I- 0 D::-g o E 0. '" Wr. D::() Q i:: z '" <( ~ CI E ~ .. D::I- o ~ I:::J:! z=: o E :;: ; ZD.. Q :J: !;(:;) C)~ E 0 ;:: :;::;; c o () '" c: ~ E E o () . ~ -; _ c -a~ E .!! o .!! () " .5 . :c .~ <: ct: o .. 0.0. '" ~ "'-' c. ;:c _ c=,o 0.9: QU ~~- "e !E j::~:!~ 0.0 " - _ c 00 '0= o ~ ;5s= ~ - ::E~ > '" ~, - ~ '" .. ~ ::E c .9:; j i c ~ o _ ~ ~ 0, .g~Z =5 --' .. 00 .." - ::; '" '" ",>' ~ t:::::: u C U ;":::<&.l':;::.'"O ..... 8:.5 ~;; 5 ~~e~gfE ~~;'E:.o~ "8'.~ fr ]:; fr ~UOp..CQCI >< >< >< Be..... ~ "B ~ .~ ~:.a <l.l.~ U ~ 1;:1 <lJ Q) ~ (Il..&:::.~ _~':o ~_oo... <n '" U ~ '" <n U ::l o:l ;;, '" o ~.s ell :i ~ t);;'oa ,.g;; .~ a 1: ~ Ol) <'3 e~~ ~_g:; Q.. :-:::: 01J I- ~ ~]~~@.su ..... 0 ""'.g 0 >''''0 p..~-B_~'E<l)E ~ c ... (;; 8.::1 u -a .g {; >- ~ .B "'2 >.~ 1a -E ~ "c CIl:::: ou_ ::I 0 :::::I o 3 .- c. U c...... o.u"'u>-~oo o <U .............c.... a :: ~.~ o.E ~ <U :.::: uti..... E .;3~o~..oti::l ..... ca 0.. E'- C-ci ofr~~::l~-a~ (; Is...~ f-< ~ ~ ~ '5 >_>'..s::u~O"' e]~~-_55~ 8:<n:::lUVlbO>l::: ca .......c >- E '"O~ <U ro 0;; u t1) ~ I1J <&.l ti ...... u CI.l p:::.- '"0 U <l) t; ;..::: -s 0::: :U";; i.":! .~ 'clS:>.O-S2<lJo 0... ca.oU 0 0.-5 0. d N '" ",>' ~ c.~ ~5U'"O 8:~E ~ c <: 'So ElU be bO <UE ..... c c c ~~;'2~~ "2'.q fr ] ~ fr o...UCl.o...CCCl >< >< >< B c 0,-, ~ "C 1IJ <l) u.... ';;~6 ~.~ ~ ;; ~~ c:::.s'o c ~ .2......"'2 u '"0 <U u.~ 0 ~ ~ 0 '"0 E 1:! .~ a ~ <lr~ 'iij.5:6 "2 ~...... ~ E ''@ ~] ~ ,g ; ~ ~ ~ g ~ g ~ ~ ~~ -sa:.!> ~ 5-; c uJ:: olt::-j5 (IlO:::: ^ E (U..I:: bi) -^ ~ 5 S ~ <"l E C ~.~ o...>.:;o[)1rlii)~uot;::l~- ~ u..l:: bi) E '0' ~ ou c _ c E ii: ~ u c:: U c ~ ..... ~ E -B'(; ~ o1J 1:: ~ :.a "'C ~ G,l 0...... p.,..... - '-'..I:: C'CS - ~ ~..I:: E 0 o1J c':: >.-5:.a ..... o....~ U ~ ~E;"C'CS o1J<5;:~::: ---^E~'OcO~ c 0. .c _~ ~ IIJ '-' ............... C'CS '" .8 e~"'C5""'i::~tl~@]o1J~-;3 0. C'CS ou ~ (Il^ ~ ..2 '5';;: E' C'CS .~ ~ 0 c.j ~ ~ :;"'C~ >.o.E > e 0....0 co.s_P4 -s a 0..:::: ;:; 0 ~ 'l.l 0. u (Il .~ 'Gj "'C vi <c; fr g.~ ~ ~ I&.l oS 15 e s ~ > ~ @ 1:1 ca a dol ~ ~ 1}~ ~f a;.a g. tl ~ ti >. ;:; >_"'OC'CSU'l.l.....ou<U.........::l>.co1J e "'@.9""6.u"'C(Il.;::.....EcO'..I::u::::g,u 0.....1:: C'CS C'CS 0,)._ C'CS 4) (Il ::l E .. o...(IlCOU>.O:;j"'C..I::>';:;4)"'C<';;;< ..... C'CS.....C'CS.c:u.....oc.....U u'l.l....O:::: o @ 'C.l:-' c -0 .... 0 (Il C C C ,:....... u C'CS ..... ~~(Ilu8:5bt:,!:!t:~OUbi) ......~ c~ .... .- (Il 0....... .... :> ::l 0 ..... C c:: .2'C.~._<U::lG,lEi::G,l~"'O~.~.Q.c c:: g.~o E ~~~ ~ EJ5 ~ 5 a 506 15-152 N o ~ E OJlC .~'2 G o..H~"O 0... C c:: @ ~ -< 'So E o.a o.a E t)~t:E.gt:: '5- >. [ @:: [ c::0oo:&:o >< >< >< .!! iZi :jj c o 0 '" .- uu o .c 0. .. ~ - c 0._ c .... .c ~ ::l (Il E ~ ~ E 'C c CIl '[ g, ~ ti ~ &A'"Ei g 8 ~ 'Oil ~ u ~ c:: "O';:::w= ~ 5 >.~ o lI)'~ C'CS 0...1:: U '"0 0"'" <U 2 a --g.s (3 ~ ::l '- 0... oS20~ '- C'CS C::,..Cl o ~ 0 = (d it'B ~ "E :;].z (Il ~ .... (Il.~ "0 ~ 8:15 ~ * .,g ~~~8.: -:S ::t:"';; 0 S B~""'_2in ....._ (Il 0 ::l .g ~ 3 E :2 o...~o.o.-S N N ...... o 25 '" ~ E '" ~ 01 o ~ ll. 01 C "" ~ o Q. Ql 0:: "0 C '" 01 C 'C .9 'c o :2 c .9 ro 01 "" ~ " " .. ~o:: <-g 0:: 0 C)o:: 0::: 0::0 II.. C) z Ii2 o a. w 0:: a z < ~ E a:~ o ~ 1-.2 z- OE ~ ~ zll.. o : !;{::l o~ i= 0 :;:; ~:o c o o 00 c ~ E E o <.:> " s . ~ c ]! E . 0 g <.:> :E ~ ~ /:lOb ro c::.- :c ~ '5 U-o .. c..<l.l~S:: ..... ct: 0..5 5 ro 5 o . 0.0- -< 00 ~ 00 00 ~ 00 .... c c:: c:: ~ {,.) CIJ .-.- CIJ cd C "'0 " '8' ,g fr ~ ~ & o..UClo..a:JCI '8-;;; x ..8 Igt-:; ;:c a .2i68 0>1;; c u Os !E ;::>41 l!! "0 " _c 00 "C:;: o ~ =s:: ~ ~ :;~ > 00 ~, 3 00 . ~ :; c .2 1;; g' :E c~ o~ ~aci ~~z ='$ :; ,.: l' Vi ;;;, u C ~.g U ij ;3 ~ ii:.E "'0 CIJ 4) GJ C::~ u...c :::S"" c::..... o4-.~<+-O 0.. O..c 0 OCIJ~..c g~ubc o~~] - 0..... ",-"u EGo) 0':: .::: <25 "'0 CO <I,) CIJ- CIJ '0 cd.s ~ ~ c c ::: .... 0 2 c.. Oll:';:: c-o ~ .9 -g .~ . c .~ E . J! ~ 'F ~..g ~ V'J a ro U <:I:l "'O~"'O_"'O fl CIJ a ~ @ .a~:@<Il~ ~ g @..s ~ o 8 b'o'~ 5h '" N ~ ell >. Cl:l 1:,<::: .~ 'C U Q.. ~ "<::1 -g .... 0. C C ro c: < "So S e.o OIl E ti r~ t::.5.5 t: .u - cd C"'O e<:I '8' ,q fr ~ ~ fr o..UClo..COCl x l' Vi 32 u c ~ .g U ij c a. . ~ 0::"= u u . -0 ~ C U ~ c:Il ..s @"ii'o ~~E .~ ~ E 13 2S.~ E -0 - "'Oa~ ~ "E 'C o u " rs.E~ ~.e- ~ ~ g. ~ ...... IlJ C5.. 'E ~ CIJ :t::.o:::: Ss~ a >. QJ "E g g o u . 8 ~:; ~ .u.o .5E~~ " N 15-15: '" OIl>> a c:: :::: .~ ';: u i5.S'E'g E 0..5 <l) cd CIJ ~ ~E gog?E ~CIJ52~~ "2' .g fr ~ =5 fr c...UClo..CCCl x l' Vi {j c ~ .g U ij c a. . ~ ii:.E U .0 ...c:= '0 ~ .0_ " U C C . c i3..Sl o~ 'i: 0. . 3013 ~.~ ~ 13 fd ~ ~ ~ gj .... Cd .. g;.~ ..g ~ P..~ -" -0 0 - c-o -" . c .-<;:::: 0l"J cd ~.~ ~ 80 'fii c a. c . -0 0 -0"-0 ;:; E g ~ <2 .2 c:: '2 E - " ~ ~ N r< r< E oo.c ~'2 u :'=u";:::."'O S:: ~ cae <"'Soe t)l}bi)E ..... c: t= C C t ~~tij'E:O('::l "8' ,q fr ~ ~ fr o..UOo..CJCl x l' Vi 32 u c ~"g U ij c a. . ~ ~..s ~OU3~11~ii o:..o-Eoco"Obi) ";j ~ ~ '- ~ "c; '~ .5 .5 u I)Q 0 "'<t..... '" ('::l ~ 0"0 1ac~c:tle~ii ..c 5 - 1-0 0 (;i 'C; g.. ~ c..:3: ~ocl3~'~~~ovo~ v~~O~I-o.o~.s:u ~ gp::"~'~ ~==~ ~,g-s v 'u <8 ~ "" 5 :3: a.2 u~ '0 (,.)C..-OU_'" <'S ..... ~~ l== u-s-a 4,) c"O~ C -" .~_ .~ =; 2 -53 ] "g ~ 0. E ~_"'I;j..c .....~~e8c 4,)(,.)o"'"5C::~,,,o t)l} '- .B M bi)::::: ~ E fr- ~:.:: o :2 __ ,5 .a :..::: _ 1-0 ~ r.tl ('::l 'E o."i g ~!S:Cii e-!rE-E E ~ ~ ~ '~ -< E :~.;: E tl 8 ~ :=.. ~ ::: ~ ~ gp~ Sn ~ '5 .- ~ :3: Cii E- (,.) ';:: '5 :..::: '"0 ~",ov...r::"':~;::l>('::l4,) :I>IZl""4,) -0....1-03: eol-o"O~1S""..cuo 8 (,.) 0 C ,_ ..... 4,) OJ) :3: 'E 0...... ('::l OIl u 8';JJ ~ Cii .8 ('::l 0 go I)Q C "E ',p ~ "" 0 1-0 .~ ..c :: ,5 u.J ~ _ .E ~ ..0 .2 ~ a ~ g .q ~ c:i "~.: a ~('::l8..s~U;::l(;i.....lo:3: -D N c- o 2; <::' .". E '" 0, o ~ CL '" c t o C- O) c:: -0 C '" '" c 'C B 'c o :2 c .2 ro '" "" ~ .. (,l .. :!EO:: ~~ ClO:: 0::= 0::0 ~~ :!: ~ I- 0 O::g o E 0.. .. W.<: 0::(,) C ~ Z co <( ~ CI E :!: .. 0::1- o ~ t:.E z:: o E :!E :. zo.. Q :: ~::I CI ~ I- 0 "" :!E:;; c o (,) ~ 1: " E E o u " ~ ':Q _ c -a- E '" o " U '" .5 " :c ';;;", CI: 0'" Q.a. ~ " '" ~v; ..8 r- "'-' c. "Cc _ i:: :J 0 0.2 co Cl1ii .S .~ f-- Ei: ~ t=~:!~ ... (,) - _c o 0 "'00.;:: o ~ -5~ " " ::;; " > ~ e ~ m ::;; c .2 1ii g :i! c" 0" ;::1 . '" ~ 0 g:gz ;::::i N rl :g Oil.c ell s::: .- .:!:'C U o..tl"<:::l"O o.s:::ca c .(._ 01) 0lJ ~ ~e ~~E ~ ~ ~ ";:: :s ~ "2'.€ fr ~ '5 fr J:l..UClJ:l..cc,Cl >< >< >< " " ~ tii :;;, u c u 0 "" .- ut> u c Q. '" 00 - C P-_ '2 u~ >-~ E "1:I";i ~ a 'S u ~ == -o~ ~ o ~ c 5b -0 00 "'0 :;'~ ~ <.'l:l U 4-0 ~.- !3 0 ::I ~ ~ c .~ (,) (,) o.rn....-Oo""~ro--dro S .c.E 0] ~ 1@ i5.s 5 E ~ .~ t5 >- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.~ ~ ~~ []] ~.~ ~ .... ~...-ua~~o::::::<UfIls..c~~ 5~ .~ ~ ~ .~ 0 E <t: .:; 7ii <l)E u:::::: QJ C ",j U U u oU ~ ..... Ol) ::l rn ;;> U._ u :t.rJ <l) ] ~ c~~5c"OsaB~S~O~0ll ~~~~:~Q~~o..~=rooc~5 -< bbO-5"O~<Jl~--~~~::;::~";': a: o..u t::4-; <.'l:l4=:;:l 0 2:t 4,)" u:t...o ia "- 2 ~.9 0 6 "r~ -; E ~ ~~ S rn _ 0. ....... 0. = tl E3 ... !. _ ~ 0'-'- I:-' e a3 -= u ;z: (l)'- ell C "0 ;:l :: (,) ~ "E .... (,) :s: -5 O~-o~uuS~~ocro~-o~_ooc _ ... <l.I'- S.- u s::: !;:: .- 00'" C '" ~~ia~u~-o~'-~"E<l)~ro>-c~ -< Cii fr ~ 'iii :.:::: J:l :.2 B ~ g ~ ~ l2 ~ ~ .::; r->l=::..8 o~~;;.uu:UvCLl<l.l5;;> a:; 0- "'::s:::= ou"c..."O=o~t::<I'J o o.~ B ~ ~ ~ 8 ~ t-".a'~ ~ ~ E ~ ~ ;; g.:::: ~ '50.0 "0';;: <I'J si. ~ c..~~ ou.2 g. z 0 ~.s c: V oj) ~ tl ro.S! ou >...... ~ OJ) OJ) <:<I'J~~~.s...'~~"~o"~a~.sc: ~ 0 r::: "'0 >.._ 0. ou .... "0 >":;:.0:::3 ..;.:: ~ ~'cro'3~o'C~oroo......~]~ro I:'""" c... Q.. t:lOU .5 ti '0 E := c.. ~ <2 ou ~ a.. c.. ,-.: N 15-154 c- o 23 c: .". Attachment A Appendix A IMPLEMENTATION OF BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION AT THE PROPOSED CHULA VISTA RACEWAY SITE The Chula Vista Raceway site improvements are scheduled to be completed by June of 2007, with the initial racing event scheduled for June 9th and 10th, 2007. There is an additional race event scheduled for Sept. 29th and 30th, 2007. Improvements associated with the production of race events will be temporary, and will be removed upon completion of the final race event. A site- specific Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) has been developed, and will be used during the grading phase and also will be followed during all race events held at the site. It is the intention of James P. Baldwin and Associates and CORR Racing to take all necessary precautions to prevent any instances of storm water pollution from occurring due to activities at this site. In order to achieve and maintain compliance with all applicable storm water regulations, operations at the site will incorporate the use of Best Management Practices as described in the SWPPP as approved by the City of Chula Vista, as well as any additional requirements imposed by the City. After all construction related activities at the site have been completed, a Notice of Termination will be filed with the State of California, leaving discharges associated with future operations at the site subject to regulation under the jurisdiction of the City of Chula Vista Storm Water Ordinance, County of San Diego Hazardous Waste Storage and Disposal Regulations, and current NPDES regulations. Best Management Practices have been developed for racing events at the Chuia Vista Raceway site, and will be implemented before any vehicle traffic is permitted on the race course. A description of these BMP's would include the following: EXISTING I PRE RACE EVENT BMP's Erosion / Sediment Control- Improvements at the site will consist of a temporary gravel race track, placement of temporary bleachers, fencing, vendor facilities (trailers), portable sanitation, gravel access roads, parking lots, storage areas, vehicle maintenance facilities (pit area), vehicle wash station, hazardous waste containment area, and trash storage areas. All temporary improvements will be removed from the site at the conclusion of the final race event. During the construction phase, any sediment laden runoff will be directed to one of two existing desilt basins. The outlets of these basins will be capped to eliminate any discharge to the Otay River. An existing perimeter berm at the southern boundary between the site and the Otay River will be reinforced to prevent any inadvertent runoff from reaching the river. In addition, the racetrack will be graded along ridge lines, or elevated such that all runoff from the track drains toward an infield retention area designed to capture run off from the track surface and hold it to allow for infiltration or future removal. Treatment BMPs such as bio-swales, hay bales, etc will be used in areas of minor slopes where.ru9off does not drain directly to a retention basin. 1:'- 55 1 Dust control will be accomplished by the use of water trucks during the earth moving stages of construction. Silt fences are used at the perimeter of the site, with gravel bag reinforcement in all areas of concentrated flows. In natural watercourses, additional gravel bags are used to supplement silt fences, providing additional erosion control and velocity reduction. The locations of erosion control BMP's are shown on the Erosion Control exhibit in the SWPPP. A stabilized construction entrance will be provided at the entrance to the site. Street sweeping will be performed as needed to keep mud from accumulating on paved entrance roads leading to the site. BMP's for erosion and sediment control may also include the use of geo-textiles, erosion control blankets, tackifler and bonded fiber matrix (BFM). All disturbed areas will be temporarily stabilized, until permanent methods of stabilization can be utilized. Temporary and permanent examples of BMP's for sediment control include the use of silt fences, gravel bags, fiber rolls and retention basins. RACE EVENT BMP's Hazardous Material Containment Areas - BMP's utilized during Race Events include secondary containment at vehicle maintenance (pit) areas, hazardous materials storage areas, vehicle wash stations, portable bathrooms, trash disposal and materials storage areas. Additionally, any fuel drum storage and used oil storage areas will be contained and also bermed. Hazardous materials are to be placed in closed containers to prevent contact with runoff and to prevent spillage to the storm water conveyance system. Secondary containment, such as berms or dykes, will also be provided. Vactor trucks will be used to remove runoff from the containment areas and the collected runoff will be disposed of in accordance with City standards. Hazardous Waste containers will remain covered at all times. Run-on from adjacent areas will be prevented from coming into contact with the containment areas. Attached lids are provided on all trash containers to minimize direct precipitation. Site Runoff - Two desilting basins will be used as retention basins. Outlets will be blocked off so that no runoff will be allowed to discharge from these basins. At the conclusion of each racing event, accumulated debris and pollutants will be removed from these basins and disposed of in accordance with City standards. A temporary chain link perimeter fence will be located at the perimeter of the site to prevent the escape of wind blown trash and debris. There is an existing earthen berm along the southern edge of the proposed race track facilities that will also prevent any direct run-off into the Otay River. Maintenance - Dust and trash control measures are included as well. To further inhibit sediment migration, the track will be watered between races. Access roads and parking areas will be routinely watered as well. Onsite trash collection will be performed throughout each event. Parking areas are graded, with silt fences and bio-filters along the perimeter to treat oil and grease from parked vehicles. There are no permanent utilities at the site. Generators, water trucks, a vactor truck, and portable bathroom facilities will be utilized. No temporary facilities will remain on site after the final race event. Long term maintenance of all remaining BMP's are the responsibility of James P. Baldwin and Associates and CORR Racing, who guarantee performance of proper BMP maintenance by the posting of a performance bond as required by the City of Chula Vista. 15-156 2 Access Roads - There is one proposed access roads into the site. This will be used for public access and emergency access during race events. The main entrance to the facility is from the intersection of Main Street and Heritage Road and runs eastward on Wiley Road toward the existing rock quarry. The main access road will have a crushed asphalt base 6" in depth, for the first 200' from the point of entry. Maintenance will be continuous during race events. James P. Baldwin & Associates and Championship Off Road Racing (CaRR) will be responsible for the maintenance of these construction entrances and all other BMP's described herein. Trackina - To insure that no tracked sediment reaches the storm drain system, a sweeper truck will be employed to remove any sediment deposited onto Main Street or Heritage Road due to increased traffic during race events. All efforts will be made to prevent mud from being tracked onto public roads. In no case will vehicles be permitted to drive on, or park in muddy areas, or to leave the site without first removing any accumulations of loose mud. In the event of rain, all race events will be rescheduled. Wind Erosion/Dust Control - Silt fencing and temporary chain link fencing will be provided at the site perimeter to prevent escape of trash, debris or sediment to the surrounding area. This BMP is designed to capture wind-blown pollutants. To enhance the dust control efforts, the track will be watered extensively between races. To enhance trash control efforts, onsite trash collection is provided throughout race events. POST CONSTRUCTION BMP's Desilt Basins - Runoff from the track drains to at least three infield retention basins. These basins are designed as retention basins. In other words, no runoff is allowed to discharge from these basins. The remaining portion of the track facilities will drain to two retention basins located near the southern boundary. These basins will have no outlets, and will serve as treatment for runoff from the remaining portion of the race track and areas to the west of the track. The two pre existing basins at the south boundary with the Otay River will remain after race events have concluded. Site Runoff - A perimeter berm is located at the grading limits to prevent the discharge of trash, debris or sediment to the surrounding area, and will remain in place post race events. Veaetation - Existing vegetation has been retained where ever possible. As the site is currently in use as a rock quarry, a large percentage of the site has been previously disturbed. The site will revert to the existing use as a rock quarry after the final race event. FUTURE SITE CONSIDERATIONS BMP's for the prevention of Storm Water Pollution, including but not limited to the above described items, will remain in place until the conclusion of race events at this location. The site will revert to its current use as a rock quarry at the conclusion of scheduled racing events. A site specific SWPPP along with approved BMP's will be implemented for future rock quarry operations. RH 4i16/2007 15-157 3 ~!~ -r- --- -- ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM OlYQF CHULA VISTA 1. Name of Proponent: 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: 3. Addresses and Phone Number of Proponent: 4. Name of Proposal: 5. Date of Checklist: 6. Case No. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS QUESTIONS: ISSUES: I. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? James P. Baldwin City of Chula Vista Planning and Building Department 276 Fourth Avenue Chu1a Vista, CA 91910 610 West Ash Street Suite 1500 San Diego, CA 92101 Temporary Championship Off-Road Race Apri119,2007 IS-07-030 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated No Impact Less Than Significant -Impact D D o D [8] [8] D D D o [8] D D D [8] D 4120/07 15-158 ISSUES: Potentially Significant Impact Less Thalli Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Comments: a-d) The proposed project will be limited in scope and duration, and involves only minor site preparation for the proposed dirt track, and parking, spectator and race-participant areas. Security lighting will be provided in the pit areas and the proposed camping area. While the proposed activities may be visible from some existing residential areas the track and pit areas would be located within portions of an existing rock quarry not currently subject to active mining, and would be temporary, and therefore would not permanently alter the aesthetic or visual character of the site Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. II. AGRICUL TVRAL RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project:: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or 0 0 ~ 0 Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, 0 0 ~ 0 or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the eXlst10g 0 0 ~ 0 environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result 10 conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? Comments: a-c) Portions of the project site have been historically farmed, including the parking area within Village Three and the camping area in the Otay River Valley. The proposed project is not expected to interfere significantly with agricultural practices on the project site, due to the limited duration and scope of the project. The proposed parking would be located in areas that were previously used for agricultural activities; but have an approved SPA plan for urban uses, and therefore continued use for agriculture on the Village Three site is not anticipated in the long term. The camping area is located within an area that is planned for active recreation uses. Preparation of the camping area would be limited to mowing of the site. Mowing activities would clear the site leaving the roots intact and therefore, implementation of the proj ect would not preclude future ongoing agricultural use of the active recreation areas. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. III. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 0 0 ~ 0 applicable air quality plan? 4/20/2007 15-159 2 ISSUES: b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or proj ected air quality violation? c) Result III a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region IS non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing ernissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Comments: a-e) See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section G. Potentially Significant Impact o o o o Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated o o o o Less Than Significant Impact ~ ~ ~ ~ No Impact o o o o Mitil!ation: The mitigation measures contained in Section H of the Mitigated Negative Declaration would mitigate potentially significant air quality impacts to a level ofless than significance. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proj ect: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural corrununity identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not lirnited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological intemJption, or other means? o o o o o o o o ~ (gJ (gJ o 4/20/2007 3 15-160 ISSUES: d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? I) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Comments: a-I) See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section G. Potentially Significant Impact o Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated o Less Than Significant Impact o No Impact ~ o o Mitil!ation: The mitigation measures contained in Section H of the Mitigated Negative Declaration would mitigate potentially significant biological resources impacts to a level ofless than significance. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proj ecl: a) Cause a substantial adverse change m the significance of a historical resource as defmed 1ll S 15064.5' b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to S l5064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Comments: a-d) See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section G. o o ~ o o o ~ Mitil!ation: The mitigation measures contained in Section H of the Mitigated Negative Declaration would mitigate potentially significant impacts to paleontological resources to a level of less than significance. o o ~ 4/20/2007 15-161 4 o [8] o o o ~ o o ~ o o o ISSUES: VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: 1. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. 11. Strong seismic ground shaking? 111. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? IV. Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss oftopsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table l8-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Potentially Significant Impact o o o o o o o o Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated o o o o I2<:J o o o Less Than Significant Impact I:8J I:8J I:8J I:8J o I:8J I:8J o No Impact o o o o o o o I:8J 4120/2007 15-162 5 ISSUES: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated No Impact Less Than Significant Impact Comments: a-e) The project consists of a temporary use, and involves no grading, excavation or cutting/filling of slopes, and involves only minor site preparation for the dirt track. The project is a temporary event taking place over two separate weekends, and no permanent structures are proposed. Therefore, the project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving seismic ground shaking, seismic-related ground failure or landslides; nor would it be affected by potential unstable soils, or cause soils to become unstable, or result in or be affected by liquefaction or collapse. Further, the project does not propose the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Site preparation would have the potential to result in erosion impacts. Erosion control measures and erosion Best Management Practices will be identified in the Implementation of Best Management Practices for Storm Water Pollution Prevention at the Otay Ranch Championship Race Track Site and are further detailed in Section G of the MND. With implementation of the proposed measures, impacts would be less than significant. Mitil!ation: The mitigation measures contained in Section H of the Mitigated Negative Declaration would mitigate potentially significant impacts to geology and soils to a level of less than significance. VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety o l2J o o o l2J o o o o .l2J o o o l2J o o o o l2J o o o l2J 4/20/2007 15-163 6 ISSUES: hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk ofloss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Comments: a-h) See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section G. Mitieation: Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 ~ The mitigation measures contained in Section H of the Mitigated Negative Declaration would mitigate potentially significant hazardslhazardous material impacts to level of less than significance. Vlll. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:: a) Result in an increase in pollutant discharges to receiving waters (including impaired water bodies pursuant to the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list), result in significant alteration of receiving water quality during or following construction, or violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? Result in a potentially significant adverse impact on groundwater quality? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the o [gJ o o o o o ~ o o [gJ o o o o ~ 4/20/2007 7 15-164 ISSUES: Potentially Significant Impact alteration of the course of a stream or river, substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site, or place structures within a I DO-year flood hazard area which would impede or redirect flood flows? e) Expose people or structures to a significant risk 0 of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? I) Create or contribute runoff water, which would 0 exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Comments: Comments: (a-I) See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section G. Mitil!:ation: Less Thalll Significant With Mitigation Incorporated o o Less Than Significant Impact ~ o No Impact o t8l The mitigation measures contained in Section H of the Mitigated Negative Declaration would mitigate potentially significant Hydrology/Water Quality impacts to a level of less than significance. IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? o o o o o o o o t8l t8l t8l o 4/20/2007 8 15-165 ISSUES: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Comments: a-c) The proposed project would not permanently alter land use or propose any changes to existing or planned uses. As such, the project would not divide an established community or conflict with any land use plans or policies adopted for the purposes of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The project would not conflict with the City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, (see Section N, Biological Resources). Therefore, the project would not result in any impacts on land use and planning. Mitil!ation: No mitigation measures are required. X. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known 0 0 ~ D mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- 0 D ~ D important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Comments: a-b) The track, pit and grandstand areas of the project are located within the reclaimed portions of an existing rock and aggregate quarry. However, resource extraction has already occurred within the portion of the quarry where the uses are proposed. Portions of the project that are not located within the quarry would not involve extensive excavation or earthwork (including import or export of materials) that would have the potential to result in a loss of resources. Therefore, no substantial loss of mineral resources are anticipated. Mitil!ation: No mitigation measures are required. XI. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome vibration or groundbome noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? o D ~ D o D ~ D o D D ~ 4/20/2007 15-166 9 d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? I) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Comments: (a-I) See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section G. Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Tban Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 0 0 [8J 0 0 0 0 [8J ISSUES: o o o [8J Mitil!ation: The mitigation measures contained in Section H of the Mitigated Negative Declaration would mitigate potentially significant Noise impacts to a level of less than significance. XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, 0 0 0 [8J either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of road or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing 0 0 0 l8J housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, 0 0 0 l8J necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Comments: The proposed project would not change land uses or propose activities that would affect population or housing growth. XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project: a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or 4/20/2007 15-167 10 ISSUES: Potentially Significant Impact Less 'filum Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant 1m pact No Impact physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered govenunental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any public services: Fire protection? 0 rg] 0 0 Police protection? 0 rg] 0 0 Schools? 0 0 0 C2I Parks? 0 0 0 C2I Other public facilities? 0 0 0 rg] Comments: The proposed project would not involve changing land uses that would result in increased permanent demand for public services personnel, equipment and facilities or result in changes in service levels. The proposed project has the potential to result in hazards associated with accidents during the race events and therefore create a temporary increase in demand for police and fire services. In order to reduce impacts associated with accidents, security and safety, measures will be implemented that will mitigate potential impacts to less than significant. Implementation of the accident prevention and security/safety measures during site preparation and operation of the CORR events will reduce impacts to less than significant. XIV. RECREATION. Would the project a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and 0 0 0 rg] regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities 0 0 0 rg] or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which have an adverse physical effect on the environment" Comments: a-b) The proposed project would not involve changing land uses that would result in increased demand for recreational facilities or services. Miti~atioD: No mitigation measures are required. XV. TRANSPORTATION /TRAFFIC. Would the project a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and o rg] o o 4/20/2007 15-168 11 ISSUES: capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections) b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result ill a change in aIT traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Comments: (a-g) See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section G. Miti\!ation: Potentially Significant Impact o o o o o o Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated o o o o o o Less Than Significant Impact o o o o [8J o No Impact ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ The mitigation measures contained in Section H of the Mitigated Negative Declaration would mitigate potentially significant Transportation impacts to a level of less than significance. XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant envirorunental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects" o o o o o o o o o ~ [8] ~ Ib-lbll 12 4/20/2007 ISSUES: d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? Potentially Significant Impact o Less Thall1l Significant With Mitigation Incorporated o No Impact ~ Less Than Significant Impact o o o o ~ f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted 0 0 ~ 0 capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes 0 0 ~ 0 and regulations related to solid waste? Comments: a-g) The proposed project would not involve changing land uses or activities that would result in increased demand for utilities. Miti!!ation No mitigation measures are required. XVII. THRESHOLDS: Will the proposal adversely impact the City's Threshold Standards? A) Librarv The City shall construct 60,000 gross square feet (GSF) of additional library space, over the June 30, 2000 GSF total, in the area east of Interstate 805 by buildout. The construction of said facilities shall be phased such that the City will not fall below the citywide ratio of 500 GSF per 1,000 population. Library facilities are to be adequately equipped and staffed. B) Police a) Emergency Response: Properly equipped and staffed police units shall respond to 81 percent of "Priority One" emergency calls within seven (7) minutes and maintain an average response time to all "Priority One" emergency calls of 5.5 minutes or less. b) Respond to 57 percent of "Priority Two" urgent calls within seven (7) minutes and maintain an average response time to all "Priority Two" calls o o o ~ o ~ o o 15-170 13 4/20/2007 ISSUES: of7.5 minutes or less. C) Fire and Emergency Medical Emergency response: Properly equipped and staffed fIre and medical units shall respond to calls throughout the City within 7 minutes in 80% of the cases (measured annually). D) Traffic The Threshold Standards require that all intersections must operate at a Level of Service (LOS) "e" or better, with the exception that Level of Service (LOS) "D" may occur during the peak two hours of the day at signalized intersections. Signalized intersections west of 1-805 are not to operate at a LOS below their 1991 LOS. No intersection may reach LOS "E" or "F" during the average weekday peak hour. Intersections of arterials with freeway ramps are exempted from this Standard. E) Parks and Recreation Areas The Threshold Standard for Parks and Recreation is 3 acres of neighborhood and community parkland with appropriate facilities /1,000 population east of 1-805. F) Drainage The Threshold Standards require that storm water flows and volumes not exceed City Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary improvements consistent with the Drainage Master Planes) and City Engineering Standards. 0) Sewer The Threshold Standards require that sewage flows and volumes not exceed City Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary improvements consistent with Sewer Master Planes) and City Engineering Standards. H) Water The Threshold Standards require that adequate storage, treatment, and transmission facilities are constructed concurrently with planned growth and that water quality standards are not jeopardized during growth and construction. Applicants may also be required to participate in whatever water conservation or fee off-set program Potentially Significant Impact o o o o o o Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated ~ ~ o o o o Less Than Significant Impact o o o o o o No Impact o o ~ ~ ~ ~ 15 III 412012007 14 ISSUES: Potentially Significant Impact Less 'filum Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact the City of Chula Vista has in effect at the time of building permit issuance. Comments: See comments under section XIII and XIV. XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade 0 0 [8] 0 the quality of the environmen~ substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are 0 0 [8] 0 individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current project, and the effects of probable future projects.) c) Does the project have environmental effects 0 0 [8] 0 which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Comments: Due to the limited scope, temporary nature and time frame for the proposed activities, it is not anticipated that the project would result in significant environmental effects. The project would not have direct effects on habitats or species, and the identified indirect effects have been found to be less than significant. Cumulative impacts are not considerable due to the fact that the project is short-term in nature, and that its individual effects are either less than significant, or mitigated to a less than significant level. Based on the analysis provided in the MND, it is not anticipated that the project would cause environmental effects that would result in direct or indirect substantially adverse effects on human beings. XIX. PROJECT REVISIONS OR MITIGATION MEASURES See MND 15 172 4/20/2007 15 XX. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated," as indicated by the checklist on the previous pages. o Land Use and Planning [S] Transportationffraffic o Population and Housing [S] Biological Resources [S] Geophysical 0 Energy and Mineral Resources [gJ Public Services o Utilities and Service Systems o Aesthetics o Agricultural Resources [S] Hydrology/Water o Air Quality o Threshold Standards [S] Hazards and Hazardous Materials o Noise 0 Recreation o Mandatory Findings of Significance [S] Cultural Resources 1 S 173 16 4/20/2007 ;(,'(1. DETERMINATION On the basis ofthis initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the 0 environment, and a Negative Declaration will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the k8l environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A Mitigated Negative Declaration will be prepared. I find that the proposed project may have a significant effect on the 0 environment, and an Environmental Impact Report is required. I find that the proposed project may have a significant effect(s) on the environment, 0 but at least one effect: I) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impacts" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" An Environmental Impact Report is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the 0 environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. An addendum has been prepared to provide a record of this determination. ., L( Ill) /D~ Date len Lube Environmental Projects Manager City ofChula Vista 17 4I20{2007 15-174 . Commellts 011 DRAFT MND IS-07-030 as of Mav 17,2007 (30-day public Review Period: April 20, 2007 through June 21, 2007) A. Theresa Acerro PO Box 8697 Chula Vista Letter provided May 7, 2007 at RCC Hearing Comments/Responses A-I through A-I0 B. SIERRA CLUB San Diego Chapter 3820 Ray Street San Diego, CA 92104 Letter postmarked May 11, 2007 Comments/Responses B-1 through B-Il C. FRANK OHRMUND 2433 Fenton Street, Suite A Chula Vista, CA 91914 Comment received via e-mail dated May 9,2007 Comments/Responses C-l through C-4 D. MICHAEL BEHAN Letter received via e-mail dated May 1, 2007 Comments/Responses D-l through D-5 15-175 ,. , , "- \5, ~ -':""" ') ~, "-"--', :.\: --, ,,.,. .." <"1, ,\, '\ .A , ~ "'" '-, l, ~- / A Mr. Glen Laube Environmental Projects Manager 276 Fom1hAvenue Chub Vista, Ca 91910 .:>(" ='<- ~ C'\ ../ . ", -~,. - RE: Conditional Use Permit for Temporary Championship Off-Road Race 2007, Case #IS-07-030 Dear Mr. Laube, Please consider this letter a formal response to the MND for this project. The Intemtv oftheOVRP ......b. -+~~~sc.~ I have always believed that one of the most important goals of the OVRP is to keep open a wildlife corridor enabling species to move freely from the hay area along the Ijparian lands east to the Otay Mountains. The selected active recreation sites were never A;; I intended to preclude this wildlife function nor to impact upon the passive uses of the park for wildlife observation, hiking, biking, etc. There has never been any consideration given to Off Road Vehicle (ORV) use along this park corridor. Motorized vehicle use is inconsistent with the park mission and vision, the Multiple Species Conservation A -2 Program (MSCP), and the Otay River Watershed Management Plan. In fact much time and effort are spent keeping ORVs out of the park and off old dirt roads and trails. The Specific Area Management Plan (SAMP) has not been completed for the 1 Otay Watershed yet but certainly activities like ORV use will not be consistent with the A. "'2. SAMP. Motorized vehicles (except emergency vehicles or wheelchairs) are not allowed ;.J on any trails in open space areas in Chula Vista with good reason. I am concerned that this event could set a precedent allowing other inconsistent -. activities within and adjacent to the OVRP. The proposed event clearly has more than adjacency impacts. There is a section of the MSCP lands that is directly impacted on the ,_ north side of the river. One could also consider that driving through the MSCP lands in A ~ Wolf Canyon and the river bottom are also direct impacts even though the dirt roads . being used are easements and fenced on both sides. The amount of use for s,huttling during the days of this event will be many, many times the use by Border patrol or SDGE or other authorized public authority in a year's time. I am concerned that this event will be used to collect data and set precedence for a permanent use of this type. The biological restoration projects undertaken in or around endangered species habitat have in the past taken six months or longer to receive the agency permits and complete the studies necessary to begin the project. We now have detention basins and A s drainages in Chula Vista that need cleaning for maintenance purposes and have been . '. awaiting permits for some time. Submitting an application on March 28 and having pre- race activities begin on June 7 is outrageous and unheard of. Also the MSCP supposedly has very strict prohibitions against any kind of a disturbance during breeding season, generally March 15 through September 15. This has held up many construction projects. The construction along highway 94 requires a ten- A - foot or higher thick plywood wall all along the riparian corridor in order to continue ., during breeding season. This preferential treatment for this applicant is totally unacceptable and a very bad precedent. 15-176 Biolll1!V The biological letter indicates there are breeding Gnatcatchers and Vireos in the ' area. Allovving this use with the only precaution being putting plywood on the backs of the bleachers really sets a very bad precedent for preventing future disturbances during ^-l-:~ breeding season. It is commendable that there will be a survey of camping and parking fT'!1 areas for burrowing owl nests and any found will be protected, but by June there are apt to be other babies being cared for by animal mothers as well, which also deserve protection, whether they are a sensitive species or not. Domestic animals and unauthorized access to preserve areas are mentioned as potential negative impacts. All domestic ~nim~ls have to be prohibited from this event unless there will be strict monitoring and enforcement ofleash laws. How strict and how many monitors will be on hand to prevent people using both the parking and the camping areas from not waiting for the shuttle but just walking or straying beyond the 3 strand fencing is not specified in the MND. The number of and the placement of monitors is critical to evaluating how well intrusions will be prevented. As ,now written protection is 'A-:L totally inadequate and not mitigated to below the level of significance. USFWS has a " - T huge amount of evidence indicating how poorly fencing and signs alone prevent intrusions in sensitive habitat. Since an educational program is difficult if not impossible for a four- day event, there must be numerous well- trained security guards. It must explicitly be explained to guards and monitors what behaviors they are on hand to prevent. There is now no specific mitigation reqniring a set number of guards/monitors or specifYing where they will be stationed. NOISE The noise letter says the event will provide structural elements for sound attenuation but only mentions the plywood behind the bleachers. Fireworks are particularly frightening to wildlife since they sound like gunshots and are unique light displays. They are also a fire hazard adjacent to tinder dry habitat. Fireworks should be prohibited entirely. The biological report on page 8 says that the noise analysis measurements "in portions of the quarry adjacent to sensitive habitat areas in the Preserve indicate noise level of up to 78 dB Leq." Looking at the chart on page 5 in the noise letter one sees that this location is in the MSCP preserve above the quarry or,considerably north of the race venue and the Vireo nesting sites to the south. There was no measurement taken from the preserve area to the south or the west or the east. Since the level measured near the quarry scales was 68 one can assume that across the river from the quarry (over 1,000 feet south), which is separated from the quarry by the entire span of the race venue (a no A~ d longer used portion of the quarry) the ambient sound is less than 68 dB, but certainly 0 would not be anywhere near the 78 above the quarry or within the quarry itself. One wonders why the measurements were taken where they were unless for the express purpose of trying to prove the birds were accustomed to high decibel noise. The reality is most likely that the birds avoid the area above the quarry where the 78 dB measurement was taken and hang out south of the river and to the west in Wolf canyon where the noise from the races will be highest. Least Bell's Vireo is a riparian species. The recorded nests above the quarry are for Gnatcatchers. There are no recorded locations of vireos nests above the quarry, which is almost 3,000 feet from the riparian corridor, according to Figure 5 of biological letter. There is no date given for the historical nests. Since there is 15-177 one for a Gnatcatcher in the quarry itself I wonder if some of them might predate the quarry or at least be from the beginning days of the quarry. Pal!:e 12 of the noise letter states that "The proposed proiect would l!:enerate noise levels l!:reater than 60 dB hourlv Leq noise level within portions of the adiacent bioloIDcal habitat areas. On page ten it states the P A system would generate noise of 70dE or less in habitat areas. On page 9 it states the 85dB race noise would be reduced by plywood and elevation difference to 75 dB "on sensitive habitat to the immediate south of the facility," where one would expect to fmd Vireos. This is clearlv an unmitil!:ated nel!:ative impact upon sensitive species. June is the time when eggs are likely to have hatched and a bird being frightened from a nest will result in the death of the young. Air Oualitv The report admits that the emissions of CO are above emissions thresholds. It is questionable whether this would be a "hot spot" or not, but it certainly makes one wonder about Coors events that draw even more traffic. The PM emissions are a concern because mitigation requires frequent watering down of the roads and venue, which is a tricky proposition since one does not want to have mud. Li2htinl!: J Lighting is a tricky proposition too since the camping area and the parking area are in the middle of the MSCP land. It is doubtful if pointing lights down and away from A. t :0 habitat will reduce the impact to a level below significance for wildlife. Sincet.~~y, .,,/ /"'0-- ;//) ',,---~ --- Theresa Acerro PO Box 8697 Chula Vista, CA 91912 (619) 425-5771 15-178 A-~ I I 'A-4 \I. /'... .,\ SIERRA ............ CLUB . .-^,'6UH"O"i/fi-tl:;j']''" B Chapter ClIair: Joe Zecfmlan 6/9-109-6268 Administrative Assista/lt: Martha Coffman 6/9-299-1743 mcojJman@51erraclubsandlego.org Administrative &: Volunteer CtJordilJator: Cheryl Reiff 619-299-1741 creif./@fle"aclubslllldrego.org www.sierraclubsamfiego.org Sierra Club. San Diego Chapter 3820 Ray Street San Diego, CA 92104 Mr. Glen Laube Environmental Projects Manager 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, Ca 91910 glaube@ci.chula-vista.ca.us RE: Conditional Use Permit for Temporary Championship Off-Road Race 2007, Case #IS-07-030 Dear Mr. Laube, Part of the mission of the Sierra Club is to explore, enjoy and protect the wild places of the earth and practice and promote the responsible use of the earth's ecosystems and resources. Please consider this letter the Sierra Club's formal response to the MND for this project. The Intel!:ritv of the OVRP and MSCP The Sierra Club has been led to believe that one of the most important goals of the OVRP is to keep open a wildlife corridor enabling species to move freely from the bay area along the riparian lands east to the Otay Mountains. The Sierra Club and its members wholeheartedly agree with this goal. As the wildlife of San Diego County are increasing confined to smaller and smaller habitats these wildlife corridors become more and more critical to their existence. The location of this active recreation area has been a concern for some time since the corridor to the north is so narrow. It has been our understanding that the use of these active recreation areas would be a matter for much community discussion and analysis, after they were dedicated to the preserve, in order to insure the protection of the adjoining preserve lands. In complete disregard of this process a camping area has arbitrarily been placed upon one of these active recreation parcels for the duration oftms proposed event with less than 45 days for any comment. This is an unacceptable procedure. There has never been any consideration given to Of I Road Vehicle (ORV) use along this park corridor. Motorized vehicle use is inconsistent with the park mission and vision, the Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP), and the Otay River Watershed Management Plan. The Specific Area Management Plan (SAMP) has not been completed for the Otay Watershed yet but certainly activities like ORV use will not be consistent with the SAMP. In fact much time and effort are now spent keeping ORVs out of the park and off old dirt roads and trails. To allow the shuttling of 10,000 people a day for four days through the 15-179 &- \ ~-'l. ,~ ~ J!; -~i ji II Ii I I , , i I I i j I I Ii II II iI II I .! , i , , I , , I i I I , i I , Ii Otay River and Wolf Canyon on existing dirt roads is not an adjacency issue. It is setting a terrible precedence for inappropriate use of preserve lands and surely causing significant direct negative impacts, which were not analyzed. Motorized vehicles (except emergency vehicles or wheelchairs) are not allowed on any trails or dirt roads in open space areas in Chula Vista with good reason. The amount of use for shuttling during the days of this event will be many, many times the use by Border Patrol, SDGE or other authorized public authorities in a year's time. R.. There is absolutelv no analvsis of this inappropriate use in the MND. Fencing U''3 with three-wire fence both sides of the roads may confine the people to the roads, but does nothing to mitigate the effect upon the roads themselves or the negative effect ofthe traffic upon the preserve lands. There should be an analysis of Land Use impacts since clearly there m significant negative impacts in further compacting the land and legitimizing trespass. This is a huge failing of the MND. Wolf Canyon and this section of the Otay Valley are 100% preserve lands according to the MSCP. There is also a section of the MSCP lands that is directly impacted on the north side of the river-a section, which was an important part of the corridor until a previous owner degraded it. This section is scheduled to be returned to habitat in the future. Generally any kind of activity within a preserve BlI area-even restoration-requires a lengthy process to obtain permission and permits, -, but this applicant submitted an application on March 28 and expects to hold pre- race activities on 6/7. This makes us suspect that a thorough enough analysis could not possibly have been done to reach the conclusion that all negative effects have been identified, much less mitigated. Biolol!V Even though the Chula Vista MSCP identifies a shorter period of time for breeding season than what is commonly used this weekend in June is within the dates where activities are prohibited in order to protect breeding animals. The sensitive species in this case would be the Gnatcatchers and Least Bell's Vireo, which historically nest in this part of the preserve. It is another extremely bad B-'C. precedent to allow this event in the middle of preserve land during breeding .::J season with the only precaution being putting plywood behind the bleachers. It is noted that a survey will be made in the parking and camping areas for burrowing owl nests, and any nests found will be protected. This is definitely an appropriate mitigation. The Sierra Club was told that domestic animals have been prohibited but if people show up with them the leash laws will be strictly enforced. It is critical that more details be included in the Mitigation Monitoring program as to the training the security guards will receive, the rules that will be enforced, the number of guards and where they will be stationed. Without this information there is B I absolutely no way of determining if the mitigation is adequate to prevent the". t1 negative etfect or not. There is a great concern that people will not wait for the shuttle but take off on foot through the preserve to the event from the camping and/or parking areas. USFWS has a huge amount of evidence indicating how poorly fencing and signs alone prevent intrusions into sensitive habitat. There is 15-180 i I I , I j , '! j il il II I' I' I ! i I \, ! I ; ! i ., -i :1 ~l II I. I also the possibility of people and vehicles bringing seeds of invasive non-native ~ plants into the preserve on tires and shoes, which is ignored in the MND. ...j . Noise Because this is a temporary event the letter states that it is exempt from the Chula Vista noise analysis. Because there is an intention to use data collected to apply for a permanent permit there is an attempt to show that the noise will meet B ""2 city standards at the nearest residential homes. The analysis completely ignores . .. T section B of the Chula Vista Exterior Noise Ordinance, which surely will apply to off-road races. Noise is recognized as an adjacency issue for the wildlife and the conclusion is that in the habitat areas to the south the noise will reach 75dB after mitigation. This is completely unacceptable and an unmitigated negative effect of the activity since the accepted threshold is 60 dB. The lame attempt to change the threshold to an ambient noise level of 78 dB Leq uses a measurement taken in habitat above the quarry, considerably more than 3,000 feet away from historical vireo nests. 68 dB ambient noise was measured at the scales located in the VIP parking area over a 1,000 feet from the historic nests. No measurements were taken in the habitat area to the south, so there is NO justification for not using the 11 ... <is' usually accepted threshold of 60 dB for negative noise impacts in habitat areas. D Blasting cannot be considered since it is not an event that occurs on an hourly basis and is of very short duration. Pal!e 12 of the noise letter states that "The DroDosed Droiect would l!enerate noise levels l!reater than 60 dB hourlv Leu noise level within Dortions of the adiacent biolol!ical habitat areas. On page ten it states the P A system would generate noise of 70dB or less in habitat areas. On page 9 it states the 85dB race noise would be reduced by plywood and elevation difference to 75 dB "on sensitive habitat to the immediate south of the facility," where one would expect to find Vireos. This is c1earlv an unmitie:ated nee:ative imDact Ullon sensitive sDecies. In Summary The Sierra Club considers the MND for this project to be inadequate because: I. There is no analysis as to the long and short-term negative impacts of thiS]. R..~ land use upon Land Use policies associated with the various Resource \) . J Management Plans for this area and the MSCP. 2. The potential for Significant Negative effects caused by domestic animals, human intrusion and the introduction of exotic, invasive species is acknowledged, but there is no detailed mitigation indicated showing how these intrusions will be prevented. Saying no one will deliberately plant an invasive species does not mean that a tire or a shoe will not carry seeds Q into the preserve area. (fhis is just one problem with allowing people to \J' c"D pass through the preserve to get to activities not related to the preserve function.) Saying there will be private security does not show where that security will be located or how that security will prevent, exactly which 15-181 I I [ I , I I I .1 ; "j I ,I , I negative behaviors. Signs and fencing are not adequate deterrents when 4.. people are surrounded by preserve land and allowed to cross it several .....1,' ti=a~ - 3. It is predicted that the noise threshold of 60 dB will be surpassed in the 12_ \\ preserve, thus causing an unmitigated negative impact. I.,) , ,1 :1 Sincerely, (J;jJf! Sierra Club, San Diego Chapter 11 Ii Ij " !i " II " ., i i I I , II II Ii II I' II ,I Ii 'I i I , II II H " , I I I I I ! ; I , , I I I , ! 15-182 Page 1 of3 Glen Lal.llbe c. From: Frank Ohrmund [frank@otayrealestate.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 10:09 AM To: Marisa Lundstedt; Glen Laube Subject: FW: Resource ConselV. Commission meeting last night. Marisa/Glen, My modified comments are below. 10 Frank Ohrmund Broker/Owner Otay Real Estate 2433 Fenton Street, Suite A ChulaVista, CA91914 619-397-5300 voice 619-397 -5370 fax 858-945-4974 cell From: Frank Ohrmund [mailto:frank@otayrealestate,comj Sent: Wednesday, May 09,20079:31 AM To: 'Marisa Lundstedt' Subject: FW: Resource ConselV. Commission meeting last night. Marisa, Your request to identify deficient items in the environmental document supporting a Mitigated Negative Declaration should include the following. Please pass this on as my objections to the environmental document. 1. Glen explained the true extent of the study and its relevance for a temporary useJ C-I 2. After quick archeological review, the camping site was now reduced to half its size. If this is enough land, still, then why was the entire area desired in the first piace. Based on typical processes for consultants to complete their work, this process for them and staff and the public to review each environmental issue is not adequate. Consultant's work must have been rushed and appears to be incomplete when compared to typical reports for G '"'" similar projects. Not enough mention of alternatives have been made. The campground should have been ~ 4- moved to the parking area and should have been studied as an alternative. With such a quick review and study by the consultants, with current modification still being made, this environmental document supporting the mitigated negative declaration was completed in haste and more time should be allowed for alternatives to be developed. . 3. No typical delays are being made for breeding season. The, truly, higher noise than quarry operations is an u~ C.3 mitigated impact whether or not its breeding season. . 4. No plan has been made to iimit the non-native plants from dominating the camping site area after the current~ grasses are trampled down to a bare dirt lot. These non-native plants will re-establish themselves quicker than:c ... native plants and will then disperse their seeds. A plan to spray or weed these plants needs to be completed fo '. . i next winter's growing season. .' The following are comments on the/project as-awFiol?'that questionstaffs authority to support this project based on planning documents approved by tI1e developer. I think a legal opinion needs to be made on the conversion of any use within the PreselVe prior to dedication to the PreselVe Owner/Manger or City of Chula Vista. 1. We have no declaration from the POM (PreselVe d-.6rrei/aanager) for Otay Ranch on what their recommendation is Page 2 of3 for CORR's proposal, and what its affect on the Preserve land, they manage, would be. This is for the unauthorized use of land at the south end of the Quarry that is south of the Quarry property line (in the MSCP) and the proposed Camping site. The camping site is talked about in the Otay Ranch General Plan, Resource Management Plan 1 &2 as being suitable for "active recreation" within the Preserve. This use would only be allowed to be converted from its current use after its dedication into the Preserve. At that time, the POM would oversee, with the JEPA, what active recreational uses could be developed by the park or a private enterprise. This can only happen after its dedication to the Preserve. Until the property is dedicated into the Preserve, language in Otay Ranch's own, self-imposed, planning document states that only existing farming can continue as a use in the Preserve. We need a leaal opinion to determine if the Otay Ranch Planning documents preclude this change in use prior to its dedication to the City Preserve. 2. The Chula Vista's MSCP calls for the "camping site" as a "Planned Active Recreation Area - Subject to RMP Policies and OVRP Planning". This same area is identified as a "Park Study Area" and that is because Figure 3-3 in the MSCP has determined that there is Tier I, II and III habitat to be impacted by development. Driving on and clearing this land hap-hazardly will most likely increase non-native plants in this area without a better plan. This would only matter if they somehow can support skipping #1 above. 3. The owne~s of the Property have not shown that what they are planning is a net benefit to the community. They have essentially stopped quarry operations, which has increase material costs in the South Bay by 10-15%. Material for concrete, road base, and asphalt now needs to be trucked from north Lakeside. By closing the Quarry or operating it at a small fraction of its capacity is costing the community millions in trucking costs. The use would only be for a handful of millionaire racers and their sponsors. The public will not be able to use the facility. No local racers came to support this use at the public meetings. This is a playground for the elite period. No contribution to the park has been offered. No net benefit has been supported. > > 4. This CUP is just a placemat that would allow them to process the "real" project later. Which now have admitted that they will soon do. Why let them do this with little review, when all the planning documents call for more study and involvement with the POM and OVRP JEPA. The owner's of the Property, CORR and Otay Ranch Company have plenty of land available for this facility and/or can hold the races at one of their other tracks this year. Their land in Otay Ranch has held this race before and I am sure they can do it again. This land is farmland away from the Preserve and it would be a better option to give them permission to grade this area while we process any application for a permanent use at the Quarry Property. This way all those responsible can properly review and comment on their project. This project should be completely outside the Preserve. 5. No changes to a quarry operation can be made without modifying the Major Use Permit and/or compieting the Reclamation Plan. Since there is no Major Use Permit, and we are changing the use, the City should now require the quarry to be permitted under a use permit. Or they can close the quarry, complete the Reclamation Plan work and then process their Conditional Use Permit. At the very least, they need to deal with the Reclamation Plan before changing or modifying the use. City Staff stated that the Reclamation Plan allows for dirt to be moved and that is their justification for allowing them to move it into the form of a racing track. This is just bad logic and can't be defended by any sane person. This project needed a grading permit. The State Office of Mine Reclamation will have something to say about that reasoning. Respectfully submitted, Frank Ohrmund, Secretary Friends of Otay Valley Regional Park No virus found in this incoming message. Checked hy AVO Free Edition. Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.6.6/794 - Release Date: 5/8120072:23 PM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVO Free Edition. Version: 7.5.467/ Virus Database: 269.6.6/794 - Release Date: 5/8/20072:23 PM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVO Free Edition. 15-184 Page 3 of 3 Version: 7.5.467/ Virus Database: 269.6.6/794 - Release Date: 5/8/20072:23 PM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by A VG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.6.6/794 - Release Date: 5/8/2007 2:23 PM 15-185 D Date: May 1, 2007 To: OVRP Citizen Advisory Committee via the Established Sub -committee From: Michael Behan, Committee Member rep. City of Chula Vista Subject: Review of the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Championship Off-road Racing I've read the Mitigated Negative Declaration document and find myself, for the most part, in favor of the Championship Off-road Racing event taking place. As a retired Recreation professional (34 years in the field) I believe that this event is consistent with providing recreational service to support the greater public good. The event, as stated, is proposed for four days with a planned attendance of 10,000 each day. Simple math tells me that approximately 40,000 people will visit the site allowing, what must be considered, one of the larger recreational opportunities to take place in Chula Vista this calendar year. The fact that the event is commercial and admission is charged has no bearing on the potential for the average citizen to enjoy attending. One has only to look a few hundred yards from this proposed CaRR venue to find Knott's Soak City and the Coor's Amphitheater, both providing needed and sought out recreational opportunities. I don't find allowing the CaRR's temporary 4-day event to be onerous and of great impact to the trail users in the area. The walkers and riders will still have 361 days in the year to e~oy the peace and solitude that can be found adjacent to a working stone quarry. The document on page 9 of 36, section E. Comoliance with Zoning and Plans states: "Because the use is temporary and subject to a Conditional Use Permit, a consistency determination relative to General Plan land use designations is not applicable." This statement alone seems to render most of the arguments I heard expressed last week at the Citizen Advisory Committee and Policy Committee moot, especially when one considers the fact that the proposed venue is on privately held land with high levels of mitigation proposed. Protection of the Otay Valley Regional Park's environment from any mistreatment from outside impacts is of primary concern. At this time, however, there is no empirical data, no proof, to substantiate any allegations that this specific event will negatively impact the park's environment or surrounding neighborhoods. Although, minus the data, one can certainly surmise some of the potentials impact to the area: 1) Air Quality, 2) Sound I Pollution 3) Hydrology and Water Quality, 4)Drainage/Toxics, etc. I believe that the document appears to respond to each of these issues with viable answers on surmised issues. I strongly suggest that before the event is permitted the applicant provide a plan to document the impacts of the temporary event on the surrounding environment and community. The plan should include but not be limited to: . Sound checks measuring db's in the communities on the south rim during the race event. . Air quality checks measuring particulate matter during and immediately after each race. . Base level samples of the rivers prior to the first race day and immediately following 15-186 Pi I 0"2- o..~ \).~ the final day of racing for any heavy metal or petroleum based impacts on the water shed. Once these tests are completed they should be presented to the City of Chula Vista in a report that fully discusses the baseline methodology and findings prior to and after the event. Once the impacts are fully vetted, understood, and agreed upon by professionals in each discipline, a full formal report should be presented to the OVRP Policy Committee for comment and agreement. This data should then be included as part of any future application for the use of the venue for an Off-road Vehicle Racing. The data included in the report will provide needed information to allow the OVRP Committees to make an educated, fact-based decision on any future use of the site. I am concerned with Page 12 of36, section F. Public Comments section. The fact that the applicant met the minimum notification responsibility". . . Notice was circulated to property owners and residents within a 500-foot radius of the proposed project site." is not enough. Given the potential for disruption of quality of life (sound mostly) for the homes/residents located on the south rim of the valley, the applicant should have taken, and should be required to take, the extra steps to notify these residents of the potential disruption. 15-187 t>-~ D-S Response to Comments on DRAFT MND IS-07-030 as of May 17,2007 (30-day public Review Period: April 20, 2007 through June 21, 2007) Theresa Acerro PO Box 8697 Chula Vista Letter provided May 7, 2007 at RCC Hearing A-I. Summary of Comment: Active Recreation Use area poses concerns relative to wildlife movement through the Otay River Valley not enough time or consideration has been given to determine appropriateness of camping in the active recreation area. (See second full paragraph, Page 1). Response: The proposed project is a temporary use (two non-consecutive weekends only), and as such, temporary use of the active recreation areas for camping would not permanently impede wildlife movement through the Otay River Valley. It is acknowledged that establishment of any permanent use within the designated Active Recreation areas of the river valley will require a more thorough consideration by the City, OVRP Citizens Advisory Committee, and the Otay Ranch Preserve Owner/Manager. However, following the events that are proposed with the current application, the existing conditions of the Active Recreation areas will be the same as they are currently. Therefore, the project would not affect or preclude any future use of these areas. A-2. Summary of Comment: Off Road Vehicle use is inconsistent with the OVRP, the MSCP and potentially the Otay River Valley Watershed Management Plan (WMP). (See third full paragraph, Page 1). Response: The project proposes off road racing on a closed course in a controlled venue in an area that is already disturbed and is not in the Preserve. Similarly, access to the race venue from the parking and camping areas will be provided via existing, dirt access roads. As stated in the MND, use of personal ORV and pedestrian access through Preserve areas is strictly prohibited. The applicant shall provide shuttle service to and from the parking and camping areas in order to restrict the movement of people through sensitive areas. As stated in the MND, these conditions will be monitored and enforced in accordance with the security plan to be reviewed and approved by the City's Environmental Review Coordinator and City Chief of Police. Page 1 of 13 15-188 A-3. Summary of Comment: The Specific Area Management Plan (SAMP) has not been completed for the Otay Watershed but will likely deem ORV activities within the OVRP to be an incompatible use. (See second full paragraph, Page). Response: As noted the SAMP is not complete. Until the SAMP had been completed and formally adopted, any analysis of the adverse physical effects would be speculative, and is not within the scope of the project's CEQA analysis. However, the intent and goal of a SAMP is to protect water quality and sensitive natural (particularly wetland riparian) resources. As stated in the MND, potential impacts to water quality will be mitigated and there are no anticipated direct impacts to riparian resources. A-4. Summary of Comment: Project-related use of shuttle buses within the Preserve would result in direct impacts on the Preserve, including further compacting the dirt roads and legitimizing trespass. (See first partial paragraph, Page 2). Response: The use of dirt roads by shuttle buses is identified as part of the proposed project activities in the Project Description in the MND. The project would not widen or in any other way improve the existing dirt roads. The use of shuttle vehicles is temporary, as is the nature of the entire project. Shuttle buses will be used to restrict uncontrolled pedestrian traffic, which may have the potential to impact surrounding sensitive areas. Private security will also be provided by the applicant to patrol the perimeter of the parking, race track area and camping areas to ensure that pedestrians and vehicles do not access preserve areas. Fencing is also provided at the race track, camping, parking and access roads to restrict access to preserve areas. A-5. Snmmary of Comment: A thorough analysis of impacts on the Preserve could not have been completed within the time frame of the analysis that was conducted for this project. (See first full paragraph, Page 2). Response: This comment indicates that, due to the timing and process schedule for the proposed project, the analysis is incomplete, but the comment does not indicate any specific deficiencies of the analysis. As required under the City's typical process, technical reports were required to evaluate project impacts on noise, air quality, cultural resources and biological resources. These reports were prepared by the project applicant and were reviewed by the City of Chula Vista and the City's outside consultants for content, accuracy and completeness. Since no specific deficiencies were identified in the comment, a more specific response is not possible. Page 2 of 13 15-189 A-6. SlIlmmary of Comment: The dates of the first race are within a time frame where activities are prohibited in order to protect breeding animals. Approval of the race sets an extremely bad precedent (See second full paragraph, Page 2). Response: The Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan does not specifically prohibit noise generating uses in or adjacent to the Preserve; however, the MSCP does require that excessively noise activities adjacent to the Preserve incorporate noise reduction measures or be curtailed during the breeding season of sensitive bird species. The MSCP does not provide a specific numerical threshold for operational noise impacts. Refer to comment A-8 below. A-7. Summary of Comment: Enforcement of leash laws and restriction of access into the Preserve are of great concern. Impacts from the transfer of non-native plant seed into the Preserve was not analyzed in the MND. (See last paragraph, Page 2, as continued on the top of Page 3). Response: The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program will provide adequate assurances that security staff will be trained, properly positioned, and will adequately prevent unauthorized access into the Preserve. Access of race patrons will be limited to existing dirt roads, the camping and parking areas, and the race venue itself. All of these areas are either devoid of native vegetation, or covered predominately in non-native plant species (former agriculture areas). Therefore, it is not anticipated that disturbance of these areas, and/or the slight chance of transfer of non-native plant seeds would have any measurable effect, either inside or outside of the Preserve. A-S. Summary of Comment: Noise impacts on sensitive habitat adjacent to the project will result in significant unmitigable impacts. (See first full paragraph, Page 3). Response: The issue of project-generated noise and its effects on adjacent Preserve areas is analyzed and documented in the MND. The noise analysis prepared for the project (Environmental Noise Assessment for the Temporary Off-Road Race Track, Dudek & Associates, April 16, 2007) provides an estimate of noise levels generated by the proposed project. In order to quantify potential impacts to noise sensitive receptors, including sensitive biological resources, the noise analysis applied noise levels obtained during the 2006 racing events. Utilizing that data and applying it to the proposed project, the unattenuated noise levels at the closest sensitive habitat location within the Preserve, immediately adjacent to the south of the proposed track, are estimated to be 85 dB hourly Leq. Page 3 of 13 15-190 As stated in the MND, taking the existing terrain topography into consideration, and providing the maximum sound attenuation available through structural design features (enclosure of the rear of the stands located between the track and the Preserve), the noise analysis concludes that areas having potential to support least Bell's vireo and coastal California gnatcatcher are expected to be exposed noise levels of approximately 75 dB hourly Leq noise level during the racing events. The City's MSCP Subarea Plan does not provide a numerical threshold for operational impacts. For comparative purposes, ambient noise measurements were recorded within the project area. Ambient noise within the project area is primarily associated with the existing rock quarry operation, including rock and gravel extraction, earth moving equipment, and rock crushing activities. Ambient noise measurements in portions of the quarry adjacent to sensitive habitat areas within the Preserve indicate noise levels ranging between 68 to 78 dB Leq. Due to the short-term nature of the proposed project (two consecutive days during the nesting season), and similar operational noise levels between existing ambient noise conditions and the anticipated, attenuated noise levels it is not anticipated that the project will result in significant indirect impacts on these noise sensitive speCies. A-9. Summary of Comment: Carbon Monoxide levels are above threshold levels, and it is questionable whether this would be a "hot spot". Particulate emissions are also a concern because watering of the track will create undesirable mud. (See second full paragraph, Page 3). Response: The air quality analysis indicated that, in the initial screening, CO impacts were identified to exceed the screening threshold. Therefore, the next level of analysis to determine significance was applied (the CO "hot spot" analysis). That analysis indicated that no significant impacts relative to CO would result. Mitigation measures that involves watering to reduce dust are applied in a controlled manner, such that only small amount of water are needed and are applied, to ensure that dust control is maximized, while not saturating the soil. Page 4 of 13 15-191 A-Ill. Summary of Comment: The comment questions the effectiveness of lighting controls within the portions of the project located in the middle of the MSCP Preserve. (See last full paragraph, Page 3). Response: The issue of lighting its effects on adjacent Preserve areas is analyzed and docwnented in the MND. Temporary safety lighting associated with the project would be limited to the pit area, spectator area and camping area. The lighting for these areas would be directed downward, and away from the Preserve. Light spillage into the Preserve would be considered significant. As documented in the MND and MMRP, to ensure potential impacts associated with project lighting are mitigated to a level ofless than significant, the Applicant is required to submit, prior to the commencement of race activities, a lighting plan to the satisfaction of the City's Environmental Review Coordinator. The lighting plan shall clearly demonstrate that an temporary security lighting shall be directed away and/or shielded from the Preserve to prevent any potential indirect impacts due to night lighting. Additionally, low-pressure sodium lighting shall be used to reduce these potential effects. SIERRA CLUB San Diego Chapter 3820 Ray Street San Diego, CA 92104 Letter postmarked May 11, 2007 B-1. Summary of Comment: Active Recreation Use area poses concerns relative to wildlife movement through the Otay River Valley - not enough time or consideration has .been given to determine appropriateness of camping in the active recreation area. (See second full paragraph, Page I). Response: Refer to Response to Comment A-I above. B-2. Summary of Comment: Off Road Vehicle use is inconsistent with the OVRP, the MSCP and the potentially the SAMP. (See third full paragraph, Page I). Response: Refer to Response to Comment A-2 above. 15-192 Page 5 ofl3 B-3. Summary of Comment: Project-related use of shuttle buses within the Preserve would result in direct impacts on the Preserve, including further compacting the dirt roads and legitimizing trespass. (See first partial paragraph, Page 2). Response: The use of dirt roads by shuttle buses is identified as part of the proposed project activities in the Project Description in the MND. The project would not widen or in any other way improve the existing dirt roads. The use of shuttle vehicles is temporary, as is the nature of the entire project. Refer to Response to Comment A-4 above. B-4. Summary of Comment: A thorough analysis of impacts on the Preserve could not have been completed within the time frame of the analysis that was conducted for this project. (See first full paragraph, Page 2). Response: This comment indicates that, due to the timing and process schedule for the proposed project, the analysis is incomplete, but the comment does not indicate any specific deficiencies of the analysis. Contrary to the implications of the comment, thorough technical reports were required to evaluate proj ect impacts on noise, air quality, cultural resources and biological resources. These reports were prepared by the project applicant and were reviewed by the City of Chula Vista and the City's outside consultants for content, accuracy and completeness. Since no specific deficiencies were identified in the comment, a more specific response is not possible. Refer to Response to Comment A-5 above. B-S. Summary of Comment: The dates of the first race are within a time frame where activities are prohibited in order to protect breeding animals. Approval of the race sets an.extremely bad precedent. (See second full paragraph, Page 2). Response: The Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan does not specifically prohibit noise generating uses in or adjacent to the Preserve; however, the MSCP does require that excessively noise activities adjacent to the Preserve incorporate noise reduction measures or be curtailed during the breeding season of sensitive bird species. The MSCP does not provide a specific numerical threshold for operational noise impacts. Refer to Response to Comment A-8 above. B-6. Summary of Comment: Enforcement of leash laws and restriction of access into the Preserve are of great concern. Impacts from the transfer of non-native plant seed into the Preserve was not analyzed in the MND. (See last paragraph, Page 2, as continued at the top of Page 3). 15-193 Page 6 of 13 Response: The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and project conditions of approval provide adequate assurances that security staff will be trained, properly positioned, and adequately prevent unauthorized access into the Preserve. Access of race patrons will be limited to existing dirt roads, the camping and parking areas, and the race venue itself. All of these areas are either devoid of native vegetation, or covered predominately in non-native plant species (former agriculture areas). Therefore, it is not anticipated that disturbance of these areas, and/or the slight chance of transfer of non-native plant seeds would have any measurable effect, either inside or outside of the Preserve. B-7. Summary of Comment: "The analysis completely ignores section B of the Chula Vista Exterior Noise Ordinance, which will surely apply to off-road races." (See first full paragraph, Page 3). Response: It is unclear what is meant by this comment. The referenced section of the Municipal Code (19.68.030 (B)), provides for corrections to the exterior noise limits, as follows: B. Corrections to Exterior Noise Level Limits. 1. If the noise is continuous, the Leq for any hour will be represented by any lesser time period within that hour. Noise measurements of a few minutes only will thus suffice to define the noise level. 2. If the noise is intermittent, the Leq for any hour may be represented by a time period typical of the operating cycle. Measurement should be made of a representative number of noisy/quiet periods. A measurement period of not less than 15 minutes is, however, strongly recommended when dealing with intermittent noise. 3. In the event the alleged offensive noise, as judged by the enforcement officer, contains a steady, audible sound such as a whine, screech or hum, or contains a repetitive impulsive noise such as hammering or riveting, the standard limits set forth in Table III shall be reduced by five dB. 4. If the measured ambient level exceeds that permissible in Table lll, the allowable noise exposure standard shall be the ambient noise level. The ambient level shall be measured when the alleged noise violations source is not operating. If the implication that a higher (stricter) standard should be applied to this use because it is continuous (reference Section B. I.), that would not be appropriate, because the use is not continuous. If the implication is that the noise is intermittent (reference Section B. 2.), is it unlikely that use of a shorter measurement period would yield a result that is more accurate. However, such a measurement may result in noise estimates that are lower than predicted in the Page 7 of 13 15-194 MND. Ifthe implication is that the noise may be determined by the enforcement officer to have characteristics described in Section B. 3., that determination would need to be made at such a time that the enforcement officer detects and evaluates the sound, which cannot be determined prior to project commencement. Finally, if the implication is that the measure ambient noise level exceeds the exterior standards (reference Section B. 4.), data presented in the project Noise report and the MND confirm that is not the case. In reference to the project and compliance with Section .68.030 (B) of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, the responses are as follows: Section B. 1: The proposed project will not be a continuous operation. Therefore, use of a higher (stricter) standard is not applicable. Section B. 2: It is it unlikely that use of a shorter measurement period would yield a result that is more accurate. However, such a measurement may result in noise estimates that are lower than predicted in the MND Section B. 3: This determination would need to be made at such a time that the enforcement officer detects and evaluates the sound, which cannot be determined prior to project commencement. Section B.4: Data presented in the project Noise report and the MND confirm that ambient noise levels do not exceed the exterior noise standards. Existing ambient noise conditions at the nearest residences, including the industrial park, were not collected. However, the MND evaluated a worse-case noise level of 93 dBA Leq at 100 feet from the race track. Applying the distance, atmospheric, and stand shielding resulting noise levels at the nearest residential receptors was calculated to be between 46 to 48 dBA, which is below the City's Noise Ordinance threshold of 55 dB 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. on weekdays, and between 8 a.m. and 10 p.m. on weekends. Similarly, the calculated noise levels at the nearest industrial land use was calculated to be between 63 to 65 dBA, which is below the City's 70 dBA threshold for industrial uses. It should be noted that the above information has been provide for comparative purposes. As stated in the MND, Chapter 19.68 Section 19.68.060 of the City of Chu1a Vista Municipal Code exempts occasional outdoor gatherings, public dances, shows and sporting and entertaimnent events, provided the events are conducted pursuant to a permit or license issued by the city relative to the staging of the events. Noise associated with race activities would be intermittent during the day, are classified as an occasional outdoor gathering and are therefore less than significant due to its temporary nature. 15-195 Page 8 of 13 B-S. Sllmmary of Commellt: The noise standard that should be used for evaluating potential indirect impacts on habitat areas to the south should be 60 dB. (See second and third full paragraphs, Page 3). Response: The issue of project-generated noise and its effects on adjacent Preserve areas is fully analyzed and documented in the MND. Refer to Response to Comment A-8 above. B-9. Summary of Comment: There is no analysis of the long and short-term negative impacts of this land use upon land use polices of the various resource management plans, including the MSCP. (See #1 in Summary on Page 3). Response: The Environmental Checklist for the project indicates that the project would not conflict with relevant land use/planning policies. The primary reason for this conclusion is the fact that the project is temporary, and would not preclude future uses contemplated in planning or resource management documents. The MND included a full analysis of the MSCP provisions related to Adjacent Management Guidelines. The biological resources section of the MND summarizes the project's consistency with the City's MSCP Subarea Plan Adjacency Guidelines. Issues related to drainage, noise, invasives, toxins, lighting, and erosion control have been adequately addressed in the MND and implementation of the MMRP and adherence to the project's conditions of approval will ensure that adjacency impacts are reduced to a level ofless than significance. B-lO. Summary of Comment: Concern is reiterated over unauthorized access to the Preserve. (See #2 III Summary on Page 3). Response: Refer to Response to Comments A-2, A-3, and A-4 above. B-ll. Summary of Comment: Noise impacts will be unmitigated and negative. (See #3 in Summary on Page 3). Response: Refer to Response to Comment A-8 above. 15-196 Page 9 of 13 FRANK OHRMlJND 2433 Fenton Street, Suite A Chula Vista, CA 91914 Comment received via e-mail dated May 9,2007 C-l. Summary of Comment: Stated that the project manager explained the true extent of the study and its relevance for a temporary use Response: Comment noted. C-2. Summary of Comment: "After quick archeological review, the camping site was now reduced to half its size. If this is enough land, still, then why was the entire area desired in the first place. Based on typical processes for consultants to complete their work, this process for them and staff and the public to review each environmental issue is not adequate. Consultant's work must have been rushed and appears to be incomplete when compared to typical reports for similar projects. Not enough mention of alternatives have been made. The campground should have been moved to the parking area and should have been studied as an alternative. With such a quick review and study by the consultants, with current modification still being made, this environmental document supporting the mitigated negative declaration was completed in haste and more time should be allowed for alternatives to be developed." Response: The size of the area proposed for camping was reduced to avoid impacts. It is assumed that the camping use will be more compact, to fit the same use on a smaller area. This comment indicates that, due to the timing and process schedule for the proposed project, the analysis is incomplete, but the comment does not indicate any specific deficiencies of the analysis. Contrary to the implications of the comment, thorough technical reports were required to evaluate project impacts on noise, air quality, cultural resources and biological resources. These reports were prepared by the project applicant and were reviewed by the City of Chula Vista and the City's outside consultants for content, accuracy and completeness. Since no specific deficiencies were identified in the comment, a more specific response is not possible. Refer to Response to Comment A-5 above. This comment also states that project alternatives should have been analyzed in the MND. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 requires that project alternatives be identified and analyzed in environmental impact reports (EIRs). There is no requirement for an analysis of project alternatives in an MND. Since there is no Page 10 of13 15-197 substantial evidence of an environmental impact associated with the project after mitigation, an EIR is not required. It would, therefore, be inappropriate to analyze project alternatives. C-3. Summary of Comment: "No typical delays are being made for breeding season. The, truly, higher noise than quarry operations is an un-mitigated impact whether or not its breeding season." Response: The issue of project-generated noise and its effects on adjacent Preserve areas is fully analyzed and documented in the MND. Refer to Response to Comment A-8 above. C-4. Summary of Comment: "No plan has been made to limit the non-native plants from dominating the camping site area after the current grasses are trampled down to a bare dirt lot. These non-native plants will re-establish themselves quicker than native plants and wi!! then disperse their seeds. A plan to spray or weed these plants needs to be completed for next winter's growing season." Response: The entire area proposed for camping is dominated by non-native species in its existing condition. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the slight chance of transfer of non-native plant seeds resulting from access by race patrons would have any measurable effect, either inside or outside ofthe Preserve. Additional Comments 1-5 provided by Mr. Ohrrnund relate to the project as a whole and question staffs authority to support this project based on planning documents approved by the developer. Supplemental questions 1-5 are noted but do not address the adequacy of the mitigated negative declaration. MICHAEL BEHAN Letter received via e-mail dated May 1, 2007 D-l. Summary of Comment: The first paragraph on the first page of the comment letter expresses support for the project. Response: Since the comment raises no issues relative to the adequacy of the MND, no further response is required. Page 11 of 13 15-198 D-2. Summary of Comment: The second paragraph on the first page of the comment letter indicates that the conclusions of the MND relative to consistency with planning documents addresses most of the concerns raised by the OVRP Citizen's Advisory Committee and Policy Committee. Response: Comment noted. This comment does not challenge the adequacy of the mitigated negative declaration. (The commenter referenced page 9 of 36 of the draft MND - due to formatting/textual changes the referenced section can be found on page 12 of 36. No additional impacts occurred as a result of the formatting/textual changes. ) D-3. Summary of Comment: The third paragraph on the first page summarizes the commentor's agreement with portions of the analysis provided in the MND. Response: Since the comment raises no issues relative to deficiencies of the MND, no further response is required. D-4. Summary of Comment: In the last paragraph of the first page of the letter, the commentor suggests the following: . Sound checks measuring db's in the communities on the south rim during the race event. . Air quality checks measuring particulate matter during and immediately after each race. . Base level samples of the rivers prior to the first race day and immediately following the fmal day of racing for any heavy metal or petroleum based impacts on the water shed. Information from these monitoring efforts should be reported to the City and the OVRP, and should be used in any future analyses. Response: Sound monitoring will be conducted and the data will be used in the manner suggested in this comment - to provide data that can be used in future studies. PMIO air quality impacts are measured and considered on a regional basis. There are no specific thresholds for localized impacts, therefore measurements of particulates taken at distance intervals would not provide any meaningful data from which conclusions could be drawn. Typically, PMIO is modeled for total impact. There is no reasonable method available by which PM10 concentrations taken from samples could be extrapolated to a total project level equivalent. What Page 12 of 13 15-199 can and will be monitored are the BMPs that include dust control measures to ensure that the assumptions relative to reduction of fugitive dust are realized. The project will not be permitted to discharge any runoff into the Otay River, therefore, monitoring of water quality in the River will not be necessary. D-S. Summary of Comment: Given the potential for disruption of quality of life (sound mostly) for the homes/residents located on the south rim of the valley, the project notification requirements should have been expanded. Response: On April 20, 2007 a Notice of Availability of the Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project was posted in the County Clerk's Office and circulated to property owners and residents within a SOO-foot radius of the project site as well as adjacent businesses, property owners, and tenants along Nirvana Avenue and Energy Way, who are located beyond the SOO-foot radius. (The commenter referenced page 12 of 36 of the draft MND - due to formatting/textual changes the referenced section can be found on page 15 of 36. No additional impacts occurred as a result of the formatting/textual changes.) Page 13 of 13 15-200 DRAFT MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSION May 7, 2007 Ken Lee Building Conference Room 430 'F' Street MEETING CALLED TO ORDER by Chair Reid at 4:31 p.m. ROLL CALUMOTION TO EXCUSE MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Doug Reid, Vice-Chair Stanley Jasek, Commissioners Georgie Stillman, Lynda Gilgun, Eric Mosolgo, Richie Macias, Jr. and Brett Davis STAFF PRESENT: Marisa Lundstedt, Environmental Projects Manager Maria Muett, Associate Planner Silvester Evetovich, Principal Civil Engineer Glen Laube, Environmental Projects Manager Caroline Young, Assistant Planner Harold Phelps, Associate Planner Ed Batchelder, Advance Planning Manager Linda Bond, Recording Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: Theresa Acerro, 3730 Festival Court, Chula Vista John Willett, 97 Montebello Street, Chula Vista Frank Ohrrnund, 12144 Proctor Valley Road, Chula Vista Ranie Hunter, The Otay Ranch Company Joe Monaco, Dudek & Associates Tony Ambrose, Burkett & Wong Total of 11 guests in the audience APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Apri116,2007 Chair Reid questioned the vote for Item #3. Ms. Linda Bond (Ree Secretary) provided clarification to Chair Reid's question. MSUC (JaseklGilgun) to approve the minutes of April 16. 2007. Vote: (7-0) ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. DRAFT 15-201 DRAFT RCC Minutes - 2 - Mav 7. 2007 INFORMATION ITEM 1. Drainage Training Mr. Silvester Evetovich (Principal Civil Engineer) handed out an outline of his presentation. He discussed Engineering's requirements for drainage studies and how the studies are analyzed. Mr. Evetovich addressed the following topics: . Basic purpose for drainage studies . Levels of review by Engineering staff . Conformance standards required for drainage studies . Key elements to look for in drainage studies Commission Comments Chair Reid asked the following questions: . In most cases, detention systems would be required for excessive flows. Under what conditions wouldn't one be required? . Aren't a lot of the detention facilities in open space maintenance districts, and they are actually maintained by the districts themselves? Commissioner Mosolgo asked for clarification about a circumstance when a development that is upstream of a deficient system increases flows to these systems. Commissioner Mosolgo also had the following question and requests: . Has the City put any thought into potentially making all of these developers within the drainage basin pay through a fee for future upgrades to facilities? . He asked Mr. Evetovich to touch briefly on the City's floodplain ordinance, some of the larger floodplains that the City deals with, and also the upcoming hydro- modification changes. Commissioner Stillman asked if the concrete culverts were buried deep? Is that a big expense? Is there planning for it with the age of the west side? Commissioner Macias inquired as to what grade of concrete the City uses now compared to what the City used in the 70's? Mr. Evetovich satisfactorily provided information and clarification to the Commissioners questions. NEW BUSINESS 2. 15-06-020 - Napa Place, 445 First Avenue Ms. Maria Muett (Associate Planner) presented the proposed project. which consists of subdividing a 1.7-acre site into nine single-family parcels. DRAFT 15-202 DRAFT Ree Minutes - 3- Mav 7, 2007 Commission Comments Commissioner Gilgun noted the following and had a question: o On page 26 under Environmental Factors that are potentially affected, noise was highlighted, but there was nothing about noise in the report. o When the report talked about compliance with zoning, it says the General Plan has it zoned as RLM, which is supposed to be 3-6 dwelling units per acre, which is being consistent with the General Plan. But there are nine units in just over an acre. On page 4 it says 1.17-acre site. o Are there plans to save some of the trees on the site? Chair Reid noted that, given that the trees cannot be saved, is there a need to modify the mitigation measures for fencing around the trees to be retained? Commissioner Macias asked how many dwelling units are currently in this area? Commissioner Mosolgo asked to be shown areas of underground detention. Commissioner Mosolgo then asked the following questions: o How are you going about proving medium to high treatment of water quality for this project? o Do you consider this to be medium to high removals? o Where is the brow ditch located? Chair Reid referred to page 5, Air Quality, 1., that makes reference to the City's Environmental Review Coordinator. Should that now be Environmental Projects Manager? Staff and consultants satisfactorily provided information and clarification to the Commissioners questions and concerns. Staff will make noted corrections to the Mitigated Negative Declaration. MSUC (Jasek/Davis) that the RCC find that the Initial Study is adequate and recommend that the Mitigated Negative Declaration be adopted. Vote: (7-0) 3. 15-07-030 -- Conditional Use Permit for Temporary Championship Off-Road Race 2007; east of the existing terminus of Main Street, east of Heritage Road Commissioner Mosolgo recused himself during this item. Mr. Glen Laube (Environmental Projects Manager) presented the proposed project Conditional Use Permit and Mitigated Negative Declaration. The proposed project is scheduled for the Planning Commission on May 23, 2007 and the City Council on June 5, 2007. DRAFT 15-203 DRAFT RCC Minutes - 4- Mav 7, 2007 Public Comments Ms. Theresa Acerro (3730 Festival Court, Chula Vista, CA 91911): You say signs are 150 feet, but in the MND it says 200 feet. You also say no light in parking, but in the MND says there is minimal light in the parking area. You say the only thing that will be lit are the parking area and camping area. And it also says that pets will be allowed. Now I have always believed that one of the most important goals of the OVRP and now the MSCP, for that matter, are open wildlife corridors and they allow species to move freely from one area to another. These selected active recreation areas are not intended to preclude this wildlife function or impact passive uses of a park. But in this case, if you look at how it's right next to it, it appears that this will have an impact. It's very questionable, because we are right up against the river here. This is the corridor. And also the Multiple Species Conservation Program, the Otay River Watershed Management Plan say that motorized vehicles are simply not allowed. Motorized vehicle use is inconsistent with the park's vision, Multiple Species Program, and also the Chula Vista's policy for open space doesn't allow motorized vehicles on the trails even if they are dirt roads. And this unfortunately sets a precedent for allowing that kind of thing other than emergency vehicles or motorized wheelchairs. And that's unfortunate to have this kind of a precedent. I think the proposed event has more than adequacy impacts because you are actually allowing this motorized use within the preserve area, which is not allowed, theoretically, by regulations. There is also the problem of biological restoration projects even if they are undertaking around endangered species. It takes around 6 months to get a permit. And here, they put in an application on March 28th, and they are going to have a race on June 7th. This seems like kind of an outrageous and unheard of departure from normal procedures. The MSCP supposedly has very strict provisions against any kind of disturbances during breeding season, which is usually March 15 to September 15. And this has held up lots of construction projects. This again seems to be very preferential treatment for an applicant and I think a bad precedent. As far as biology goes, the letter indicates that there are breeding gnatcatchers and vireos in the area. And allowing this use with only the precaution of putting plyboard on the back of the bleachers is another bad precedent for preventing future disservices during breeding season. It is commendable that there will be a survey of camping and parking areas. for borrowing owl nests. That will be protected. But by June, there will be other animals that will have babies here, and they need some kind of consideration, also. The question about how strict the monitors will be to prevent people from walking from the parking areas or the camping areas or outside of the three-strand wires for that matter... you said that they are going to train security guards, and they are going to specify and specifically look for and enforce that. Hopefully, that will help. I think it should specifically say in the Mitigation plan the number of guards and where they will be stationed and to specifically control this kind of behavior because Fish & Wildlife can assure you that signs don't help, fences don't help. Now, as far as the noises goes. Again, it's not really a study; it's a letter. It says the event will provide stnuctural elements for sound attenuation, but it only mentions the plywood behind the bleachers. Fireworks are particularly frightening to wildlife. They sound like gunshots. The light is something that's unique. And there is also a fire hazard. I think fireworks need to be prohibited entirely. Now, let's look at the biological report. The biological report, on page 8, says that the noise analysis measurement in portions of the quarry adjacent to sensitive habitat in the preserve indicate noise level up to 78 decibels. But if you look at the chart on DRAFT 15-204 DRAFT RCC Minutes - 5 - May 7. 2007 page 5 in the noise letter, you see that this location is in the MSCP area that is above the preserve. That is almost 3,000 feet away from where the vireos will be nesting. It's not appropriate to use that figure as ambient noise and say that we are meeting the noise level because there is no way that the ambient noise down here is 78. There was no measurement taken from the preserve area to the south or, for that matter, to the west, which is where there are historical vireo nests. Since the level measured near the quarry scales was 68, you can assume that across the river, almost 1,000 feet away, that it is going to be a whole lot less than 68. And so it's not going to be anywhere near where they are saying it's 78 above the quarry or even for what they gave for inside the quarry. It is most likely that the birds will avoid the area that is above the quarry where it is so noisy, and they will actually be to the south or to the west away from where it is less noisy. Page 12 in the noise letter says that the proposed project would generate noise levels greater than 60- decibel hours within portions of the adjacent biological habitat area. Page 10 says the PA system noise would be 70 decibels or less in the habitat areas. Page 9 states 85-decibel race noise would be reduced by plywood and elevation differences to 75 decibels. 75 decibels is clearly an unmitigated negative impact on sensitive species if we are taking 65 decibels to be the criteria, which is normally done in these kinds of reports for sensitive habitat. Now June is the time when the eggs have likely hatched. The birds being frightened away from the nests are going to result in death of the young. It would destroy their whole breeding season, and so I think that makes it a very significant affect. Mr. John Willett (97 Montebello Street, Chula Vista, CA 91910) had a handout to pass around. I would like to make one comment about the noise level and the birds. I have been out at the quarry when they have dynamited the area out there and used almost 900 pounds of dynamite and watched a bird in a nest in the camping area that just kind of looked around. So they do get used to it. I chair the Otay Valley Regional Park Citizens Advisory Committee. At the last meeting, after much discussion, we came up with the following comments: 1) The applicant should rigorously adhere to all conditions set forth in the final version of the MND. 2) The applicant should provide at its' sole expense impartial monitors that will measure and document the baseline conditions and the actual sound, air and water impacts to the Olay River Valley by all aspects of the races. Further, .sound monitoring should also take place at the edge of the property line of private residences south and southwest of the race area. 3) The CAC's "CORR" subcommittee approval is not to be considered as an endorsement of any future proposal by CORR, whether temporary or permanent. One of the things the previous speaker talked about was the water. I co-chaired the development of the Watershed Management Plan for 2 years. I also coordinate the clean up of the Otay River Valley. Five months ago, Public Works did some water sampling. I was afraid that the water was contaminated. We basically have nine ponds that have water throughout the year, and we took the first sample all the way down at the west end. Not one of the four was above the danger limits. We propose and recommend and approve the work that has been done for the races. Mr. Frank Ohrmund (12144 Proctor Valley Road, Chula Vista, CAY stated that he is Vice- Chair of the Otay Valley Regional Park Committee, but my comments are my comments. I don't represent the group. My comments come about because I read the Otay Ranch General Development Plan, and they have certain things in place that would allow us to DRAFT 15-205 DRAFT RGG Minutes -6- Mav 7. 2007 develop this park, which is what I'm interested in is putting this park together. I've gone through and talking with Rick Rosaler. I'm curious on how they can turn this quarry into an off-road park and he said, well, the Reclamation Plan allows you to push dirt around, and so they are going to push the dirt around and create an off-road track. But when you have a quarry like this, and you reclaim it, it's going to look like a racetrack. And if you are going to use the Reclamation Plan as an excuse for doing the grading for a track, it's not a reclamation plan. A grading permit is probably required to do just the track. And nothing has been evaluated as to how the grading, if there is real grading, they are just using the Reclamation Plan as an excuse to be doing the grading. Also in the Otay Ranch Plan, as explained by CORR representatives that they consider the active rec areas to be areas that they can develop, that it necessarily doesn't need to be transferred into the preserve system. But their own documents in the Resource Management Plan talk about a preserve system of over 11,000 acres. And it says here, of this amount, up to 400 acres may be used for active rec. So it describes this active rec as being part of this preserve. The Otay Ranch properties would convey land and fee to the Preserve Owner/Manager, and the Resource Preserve Owner/Manager would hold title to land and permit through a lease or some other instrument of the Regional Park to operate in the Resource Preserve. They want to take land that is active rec and convert it before it has been transferred into the preserve. To me, that is a horrible precedence that will allow a private property owner property rights within the preserve when it should be transferred to the public, to be designed by the public as they see fit through a public process. The Citizens Advisory Committee is part of that process. The POM, which I don't think there is a Preserve Owner/Manager really in place other than the County and the City working together on implementing it, they haven't commented on what they would want in the active rec areas because they are supposed to work with the Citizens Advisory Committee to figure out what the community wants. I just think it's a bad precedence here to allow the conversion to the use when the project proponents' own documents state that no conversion of use within the preserve is allowed. Only existing agricultural operations can continue. Well, by allowing camping on the preserve, that's a conversion contrary to their own documents. And the little skinny strip of preserve land that is right in here should also be avoided. If you want to do the track, just stay outside the preserve. I really think there should be a legal opinion. I think the City Attorney should make an opinion on whether or not preserve lands should be donated into the preserve before their uses are converted. Commission Comments Commissioner Gilgun was disappointed because the RCC dealt with this issue last year and were reassured that this wouldn't come up again. She was very concerned about the precedent that this is setting. She was very concerned about it running through the preserve areas, which are not designed for uses like this. She had every reason to believe that the RCC will be looking at another Conditional Use Permit or a permanent permit at some point in the future, and that really concerns her. Commissioner Macias asked the following questions: . Why was the track chosen to be so close to the preserve area? Why not over more to where the actual quarry is? DRAFT 15-206 DRAFT Ree Minutes - 7 - Mav 7, 2007 . What are the owners' plans after the races? . What are they actually going to do with the land? . Is there any plan in the near future for that land? . How is the City going to benefit? . In 2006, how much revenue did the City receive from the previous race? Vice-Chair Jasek stated that it's very commendable everything that is being done to minimize the impacts, but the impact is still there. We are playing with a resource that for the longest time didn't get any recognition whatsoever. Now that it is, we are not fulfilling the promises that we have made for that area. He listened to the comments on the noise study, and didn't think the numbers actively reflect the noise levels that a person would suffer walking down Auto Park Way or sitting in the parking lot at Coors Amphitheatre. He thought that the manipulation of information makes things a little bit suspect. He also thought the speed at which this has been pushed through makes things a little bit suspect. He felt that a private property owner should be able to do, within reason, anything he wants to do to his property provided that it doesn't have a negative impact on the surrounding community. This has a negative impact on the surrounding community. Commissioner Davis was concerned with the camping area being so close to the preserve. He really don't see a value of doing it. Commissioner Stillman stated that, with the multiple species area, there is an issue of unauthorized use of that terrain. She is not against the CORR racing project at all. It is no secret that the Baldwins are committed to this type of event, and would like to make it permanent. They would have liked to of brought it forward as a permanent plan for that site. Over the last couple years she has become concerned that these studies of impacts: noise, air quality, etc. There are so many ways of doing it that the science is not exact. So, she was not concerned that an impact may have been mitigated to a threshold below a certain level because not only didn't she trust the threshold, she didn't think it's the point here. This preserve is like a green necklace around an urban center. It represents our link and the animals' link with a very important aspect of our past, present, and it should be part of our future. This is not the right spot for this. If it was truly going to be temporary, one might consider the issue of the parking, but we know that a permanent request is coming. We need to go forward with this effort to preserve the wildlife and the fauna. We can come to a decision as a community about how that preserve can be used by us. Being as natural as possible is where she felt she had to be committed. The CORR racing is simply going in the wrong direction when we have come so far back. If we are going to have a multiple species preserve, we have an obligation to keep going forward. Chair Reid noted the following: . In the Negative Declaration on page 7, Discretionary Actions, second bullet. "Amendment to Chula Vista Municipal Code, Chapter 5.44.101, for allowance of vehicles with internal combustion engines." This amendment will be required in order to implement the proposed project. DRAFT 15-207 DRAFT Ree Minutes - 8 - Mav 7.2007 . On page 17, 5th paragraph, "There is an existing earthen berni along the southern edge..." Could you explain that in a little more detail? . Page 20, cultural and paleontological resources are identified. There has only been a cultural resource study done. Nothing has been done on paleontological. To identify paleontological on page 20 and again on page 4 of the checklist is not correct. The impact to paleontological to less than significant is not true because there are no impacts. Staff, consultants and the applicant responded to the Commissioners questions and concerns. Staff will make noted corrections to the Mitigated Negative Declaration. MSC (Stillman/Gilgun) that the Mitigated Negative Declaration be found insufficient. Vote: (4-2-0-0) with Reid and Jasek opposed and Mosolgo recused. Commissioner Stillman felt that the mitigation studies are not sufficient for me to make a decision about the real impacts. Ms Acerro made a point about where the noise monitors are being made. She didn't think the mitigation to a threshold is the point. She thought we needed to eliminate negative impacts in a preservation area. We should be going forward and eliminating impacts in this very special urban greenbelt. Commissioner Gilgun did not think that the mitigations are adequate especially about the noise threshold because of where the measure was taken and the ambient noise. To use that as a guide is a deficiency. The thresholds may be fine for an urban area. Commissioner Macias thought the noise estimation is not accurate. Monitoring from the top of the quarry is not the actual area where the race is going to be. They are just too close to the preserve. He loves development. He is business minded. But something like this, they should keep the area the way it is now. Commissioner Davis stated that the preserve is an issue for him. We need to find something in a different way than they propose today. You only get one chance to cut a diamond, and he is for keeping it the way it was and the way it is. Vice-Chair Jasek stated that this is something that he personally does not believe in, but our job is not to bring our personal emotions to the table. Our jOb is to determine whether the City has done their job. The City has done their job in looking into and mitigating the problems that are going to be created with this. It's hard to look at that area and isolate one specific event and say that that one specific event is going to have a detrimental effect on the preserve. This alone is not a detriment to the preserve. Commissioner Mosolgo returned to the meeting. DRAFT 15-208 DRAFT RCC Minutes - 9 - May 7, 2007 ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS MANAGER COMMENTS Ms. Lundstedt reported the following: . The Commission was emailed the website link to the "Assessment of Civic Engagement in Chula Vista". It is going to the City Council for consideration on May 15th. . On May 16th, the Planning Commission is going to have a workshop. It will be on processing procedures the City undertakes including overviews of the Brown Act, charter, noticing, legal requirements, and the CEQA process. Planning staff is going to give the presentation. . The Boards and Commissions recognition event (this is not the Beautification Awards) is going to be Monday, June 18th, at 6:00 p.m. in the Montevalle Recreation Center. Invitations will formally go out the last week of May. CHAIR COMMENTS: Chair Reid wanted to remind everyone of the June 6th combined meeting with the City Council, Planning Commission, Design Review Committee, RAC, GMOC, etc. regarding the infrastructure presentation. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Commissioner Gilgun handed out a brochure entitled "Working Today For a Walkable Tomorrow" from Walk San Diego. Commissioner Gilgun stated that she and Commissioner Mosolgo went to a briefing by City staff regarding redevelopment planning. 4. Redevelopment Advisory Committee (RAC) Update Commissioner Gilgun reported that the two main projects were the KOA campground redevelopment and the Bay Vista residential development off of Palomar. The majority of the meeting was public comment on the Riverwalk (aka KOA) planned community. She highly encouraged the Commissioners to read as much information as they can about that project because she is their representative on the RAC and would appreciate any input that the RCC has. What was interesting is that it seemed to be one of the first RAC meetings that really did what it was supposed to do as far as giving the public a forum. Riverwalk is a project that RCC needs to look real closely at, just like the off-road racing. At issue is taking an area that has been zoned as open space in the General Plan Update for most of the property and putting in high-density residential near a residential area. One of the key issues is that the only entrance into the project would be off of Second Avenue. ADJOURNMENT: Chair Reid adjoumed the meeting at 7:00 p.m. to a regular meeting on Monday, May 21, 2007, at 4:30 p.m. in the Ken Lee Building Conference Room, 430 "F" Street, Chula Vista, CA 91910. Prepared by: DRAFT 15-209 DRAFT Ree Minutes - 10 - Mav 7. 2007 Linda Bond Recording Secretary (J:\Planning\RCC\2006\RCC050707Mins) DRAFT 15-210 ACTION AGENDA Resource Conservation Commission Chula Vista, California Monday. May 7.2007 4:31 p.m. Ken Lee Building Conference Room 430 'F' Street CALL MEETING TO ORDER ROLL CALUMOTION TO EXCUSE: Chair Douglas Reid e. Vice-Chair Stanley Jasek e. Commissioners Georgie Stillman e. Eric Mosolgo e, Lynda Gilgun e. Brett Davis e and Richie Macias, Jr. e APPROVAL OF MINUTES: April 16. 2007 Approved (7-0) ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. INFORMATION ITEM 1. Drainage Training No Action Required. NEW BUSINESS 2. IS-06-020 -- Napa Place. 445 First Avenue Approved (7-0) 3. IS-07-030 -- Conditional Use Permit for Temporary Championship Off-Road Race 2007; east of the existing terminus of Main Street. east of Heritage Road MSC (Stillman/Gilgun) that the Mitigated Negative Declaration be found insufficient. Vote: (4-2-0-0) with Reid and Jasek opposed and Mosolgo recused. ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS MANAGER COMMENTS CHAIR COMMENTS COMMISSIONER COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT: At 7:00 p.m. to a regular meeting on Monday. May 21.2007, at 4:30 p.m. in the Ken Lee Building Conference Room. 430 'F' Street. Chula Vista, CA 91910 15-211 The Otay River Valley _ A Regional Park Reality Date: May 7, 2007 From: Jim Lovewell, Vice-Chair, Otay Valley Regional Park Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) Championship Off-Road Race (CORR) 2007 Race Season Subcommittee (Subcommittee) To: John Willett, Chair, Otay Valley Regional Park Citizens Advisory Committee (CAe) Subject Recommendations to CAC from Subcommittee As you know, the CAC first became aware ofCORR's 2007 Race Season proposal upon receipt ofa letter from the City of Chula Vista's Planning Directors memorandum dated April 19, 2007. This memorandum outlined CORR's proposed activities and the City's Conditional Use Permit (CUP) process. Because of the quick turnaround necessary for City's review/approvals ofCORR's proposal, you convened a special CAC meeting on April 25, to discuss the proposal and the CUP process. The CAC subsequently met at the regularly scheduled meeting on April 26. It was decided at this meeting that more time was needed for the CAC to review all documents related to CORR's proposal, particularly the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration. Expecting this need for more review, you had previously appointed a CAC Subcommittee to study the issues and bring back recommendations to the CAC for a possible vote at the next meeting, which is to occur on May 18. This Subcommittee met on May 4. The following represents the Subcommittee recommendations to the CAC: After much discussion and at times serious debate among the members of the Otay Valley Regional Park Citizens Advisory Committee (CAe), the CAC Champion off-Road Races (CORR) Subcommittee, voted on May 4,2007, to recommend to the CAC (at a meeting to be held on May 18,2007) approval for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the temporary Championship Off-Road Races (CORR) 2007 Race Season (June 8-10 and September 29-30, 2007) to be held in the Rock Mountain Quarry area on privately owned land in the Otay River Valley (Valley) with the following comments: 1. The applicant should rigorously adhere to all conditions set forth in the final version of the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). (The CAC subcommittee was able to review the draft MND dated April 21, 2007) 2. The applicant should provide at its' sole expense impartial monitors that will measure and document the baseline conditions and the actual sound, air and water impacts to the Valley by all aspects of the 2007 Race Season. Further, sound monitoring should also take place at the nearest edge of the property line of private residences south and southwest of the race area. 3. The CAC's "CORR" Subcommittee approval is not to be considered as an endorsement of any future proposal by CORR, whether temporary or permanent. Respectfully, Jim JolJeweft Copy to: OVRP CAC "CORR" Sub-Committee Members Resource Conservation Commission Meeting Members, May 7, 2007 Chula Vista Planning Department, Jim Sandoval, Ed Batchelder, Rick Rosier, Frank Herrera-A San Diego County Park's Department, Chuck Tucker 15-212 The OTAY RIvER VALLEY A Regional Par! Reality Date: May 7, 2007 From: Jim Lovewell, Vice-Chair, OVRP CAC Championship Off-Road Race, Sub-Committee To: John Willett, Chau Otay Valley Regional Park (OVRP) Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) Subject: Mitigated Negative Declaration, "Conditional Use Permit for Temporary Championship Off-Road Races 2ooT' After much discussion and at times serious debate among the members of the Otay Valley Regional Park Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC), the CAC Champion off-Road Races (COOR) subcommittee, appointed by the CAC Chair, on April 24, 2007, after receipt of a letter from the City ofChula Vista's Planning Director's memorandwn dated April 19, 2007 voted on May 4, 2007, to recommend to the CAC (at a meeting to be held on May 18, 2(07) approval for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the temporary Championship Off-Road Races (CooR) 2007 race season (June 8-10 and September 29-30, 2007) to be held in the Rock Mountain Quarry area on privately owned land in the Otay River Valley (Valley) with the following comments: I. The applicant should rigorously adhere to all conditions set forth in the fmal version of the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). (the CAC subcommittee was able to review the draft MND dated April 21, 2007) 2. The applicant should provide at its' sole expense impartial monitors that will measure and docwnent the baseline conditions and the actual sound, air and water impacts to the Otay River Valley by all aspects of the Races. Further, sound monitoring should also take place at the edge of the property line of private residences south and south west of the races area. 3. The CAC's "COOR" subcommittee approval is not to be considered as an endorsement of' any future proposal by COOR, whether temporary or permanent. Respectfully, :Jim .L!ouEwdl Copy to: OVRP CAC "COOR" Sub-Committee Members Resource Conservation Commission Members Chula Vista Planning Department, Jim Sandoval, Ed Batchelder, Rick Rosier, Frank Herrera-A San Diego County Park's Department, Chuck Tucker 15-213 OTAY VALLEY RIVER PARK "SPECIAL SUBCOMMITTEE CAC MEETING" "Meeting Notes" b. Karen requested that they have no camping. Karen is concerned about the shuttle trips. Karen requested that they move the camping site to another location. c. Karen is concerned about the noise for the gnatcatchers. She mentioned that the males build the nests and start the process. d. Reference is made to the attached list (attachment). 3. Wayne Dickey a. I appose to the June time frame and am ok with a time frame outside of the nesting between April and June. b. Wayne identified that one life cycle is concerned about the 4. Don - Jim Baldwin owns the company I work for. It was requested that this temporary event be supported. Jim Baldwin has promised to bring designers to the table when developing. S. Dr. McCoy a. The program is not consistent with the OVRP and the Management Plan. b. This creates an impacts that goes against the Fish and Wildlife's protection of species. c. March 15 to Sept 15 is required by Fish and Wildlife as a law and should not be allowed d. Direct and indirect impacts need to be taken into consideration. e. The Watershed Management Plan took about 2-years with many jurisdiction signing off on it. It was identified that the intent of the OVRP would be maintained. The Resource Management Plan and the SAMP should all be compliant with the Watershed Management Plan. If so, the plan will preclude this from happening. f. The above need to be considered before this item proceeds forward. 6. Two people are not here that are part of the subcommittee. a. Frank 0 (see attached) - Jim summarized as follows: i. No.3 - The rock crushing plan is a cover up for future development of a permanent facility. b. Mike Behan (see attached) - Jim summarized the following: 1. Mike supports this item to proceed forward. 11. Recommends the following: 1. Dust noise 2. Noise 3. Water 4. Test should be done during the event by a neutral 3rd party. The recommendation is as follows without knowing the Resource Agency's position or findings: . Land owns the land . This proposed plan is an entity that someone will be dealing with us for many more years. . MND actual impacts are not identified. . Impacts should be measured (Noise monitoring, water sampling, dust control...) . Use this as an experiment for the future proposal. 1 5-2l4f 4 OTAY VALLEY RIVER PARK "SPECIAL SUBCOMMITTEE CAC MEETING" "Meeting Notes" Dr. McCoy does not support the Chairs recommendation because it does not go with the OVRP plan. No motorized vehicles are intended to be part of this park. This park is to be serenity not a place for loud noises and piece. It is meant for animals to migrate. Karen stated that she supports Mike with the idea that there are no trails in this area today. She does not support the time of this event and does not suggest a permanent. Frank read the concept plan and identified that this is private land and that we do not have the right to prevent a private owner from developing a project on his land. The public process will determine what this owner can do with this land. Robin mentioned that this proposed proiect is located within the proposed boundaries of the OVRP and the CAC is an advisory bodv for the park and can comment on proposed proiects based on what is written in the approved OVRP Concept Plan. A motion is called to support this temporary event with environmental monitoring: . 5 in favor . 2 opposed. This will be recommended to the CAe. 1S-tl'if4 REGIONAL PARK May 3, 2007 Dear Sir/Madam: CHAMPIONSHIP OFF-ROAD RACING PROJECT COMMENTS On April 26, 2007 the Otay Valley Regional Park Policy Committee/Citizens Advisory Committee held its quarterly meeting at the Chula Vista Public Works Building. At this meeting a presentation was given by the City of Chula Vista staff and the project applicant on CORR Off-Road Racing about a conditional use permit for two events. During the meeting the Policy Committee took action to forward the comments made verbally at the meeting by the Policy Committee, Citizens Advisory Committee and the Public in reference to the CORR application to the Resource Conservation Committee, Planning Commission and Chula Vista City Council for consideration. Attached are a summary of the comments. Sincerely, ~~~1f~ Administrative Secretary County of San Diego, Department of Parks and Recreation Attachment cc: Supervisor Cox, District 1 Councilman Hueso, City of San Diego Councilman McCann, City of Chula Vista Citizens Advisory Committee Members 15-216 (JfAX-- g- -- - . -::: ~~ REGIONAL PARK OTAY VALLEY REGIONAL PARK JOINT POLICY-CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES April 26, 2007 2:00 P.M. 3. Championship Off-Road Racing (CORR) Proposal _ · John Willett, CAC Chair - I have fonnulaled a subcommittee to evaluate this issue, the chair of this subcommittee is Frank Ohrmund. I've asked Frank to summarize the input at yesterday's CAC meeting on this proposal. · Frank Ohrmund, CAC Vice Chair - I have worked on quarries before and I understand that with this specific quarry there is not a major use pennit because the quarry was grandfathered in. It seems to me that we are skipping a few steps in trying to use this active quarry and put a motorcycle track in. I think that there needs to be a reclamation plan for this area. I think that we need to have fair play and if this quarry is to be a benefit to the community it should be performing to a level that would provide net benefits the community. The Otay Ranch General Development Plan talks about general permitted uses for the area, and we are supposed to have an 11,325 acre preserve and 400 acres for active recreation, but nowhere does it talk about a private owner being able to have an active recreation site. It is my understanding that the active recreation areas were to be operated by the Otay Ranch Preserve Owner Manager (paM), and that the POM is supposed to comment on uses in the preserve. How can the CAC make evaluations if the Preserve Owner Manager is not functioning properly? There will be activity within the OVRP as part of the race track site and the camping area would be completely in the OVRP in an active recreation site. I think that there needs to be a lot more study on this type of use before a site is selected. Do we really want to let this set the standard for the future? I would like to take a straw vote as to who in the CAC supports this project as is? We should take time to look at other locations, and consider moving the camping area to where the parking is. I'm not necessarily against the use in concept, but it needs to be brought back in a larger discussion where the CAC has adequate time. (Note only 1 of 19 CAC members present raised their hand) 15-217 OVRP PC Meeting Minutes Page 2 April 26, 2007 · Jim Lovewell, CAC Member - I was unable to attend yesterdays meeting, which is unfortunate, but I do think that this activity does deserve to have a site for this event. I think that we need additional information to be able to make an infonmed decision about this. This request for a temporary use could act as an experiment. I would like to know what comments the wildlife agencies have made on this. I just think that at this time we are not able to make a recommendation as there are just not enough facts to make a decision one way or the other about this project. · Jack Bransford, CAC Member - I share some of Jim's comments. I feel that I would vote for it currently as a temporary activity based on the presentations that staff have made that the appropriate considerations have been made. I do believe that we should've had more time to go over the details of this and I think it is a good example of how we don't want projects to come forward in the future. · Ellen Rawolle, CAC Member - I think that I would vote no at this point because we don't know enough and I don't want to have something permanent like this to end up in the OVRP. · Ruth Schneider, CAC Member - As you know Bob Filner, Pat McCoy and I got together and decided that this area needed to be preserved and we have worked and continued to pursue this park for all the people's benefit. If we wanted something that was for race tracks, camivals and beer can stadiums, we wouldn't have continued our efforts to have a park in the OVRP. Coors has not been an exampte of a good neighbor. I will protest this to the end and go to Jerry Brown if I have to. This is the beginning of a set-up that they want to have year after year and it will not be just limited to these two weekends and it will become year round. We are a committee that is supposed to review and recommend because it is our area and we are concerned about the wildlife and habitat in the area. We have not had enough time to do this. There has also been no consideration for the residents in the area. I say no, this is something that will take over the area. I was told that many of these quarries were being dosed down and that when they closed they should be made into something that can benefit the community. We need to promote park friendly pedestrian type activities and. recreation, not the motor kind. I adamantly say no, this is not the place for this event. · Sally Bartlett, CAC Member - To be fair to the CORR organizers I decided to take a survey to help and represent the interests of the citizens of Chula Vista. I talked to 20 ditferent people and got 8-yes, 11-no, 1-undecided. I think that many people are just like me and have some questions and issues, and I would say no at this time Some of the questions are - what will the real impact be, what's the benefit or not, what can be done to lessen the noise (tasttime it could be heard in Del Rey canyon), will the tickets be reasonably priced.. and in the future will there only be races or other uses? · Mike McCoy, CAC Member - I just wanted to comment that we have to look at the OVRP plan, Specific Area Management Plan, and watershed plan before we move forward with any of this. This is right next to the MSCP and if you want to make a sham of the MSCP and these other plans you would put something like this in this area. I think that there are better places to have this type of activity, and this is being shoved down our throats 15-218 OVRP PC Meeting Minutes Page 3 April 26, 2007 + Michael Dedina, Public - We are in a war and when we are using gasoline we are funding the war making activities of our enemies. This race track will promote the use of gasoline, therefore indirectly supporting our enemy. + Georgie Stillman. Public - I am also a member of Chula Vista's Resource Conservation Commission and I have two questions - how often are the current easement roads used, the one that will be used to access the camping area as well as the two shuttle roads from the parking and camping areas to the race track? How disturbed are these areas today? + Kevin O'Neill, CAC Member - Recreation means different things to different people and we are talking about a two race series that would give us the opportunity to see how this would affect the area. I think that we should work with them and I think that it is a good idea that would not have long tenn impacts. I think that there should be an off-road facility in the county so that we can get many of the off-roaders out of the preserves. I think that we should move forward with this. + Theresa Acerro, Public - comments on the notice for environmental preparation were due on 4/19 and the draft MND went out on 4/20? That's absurd. I think that things are being rushed and I have a big concern about why the camping area is Proposed in the MSCP + Jo Hanlon, Public - I agree that we absolutely need somewhere for off-roading to keep them out of our preserves and I think it would be wonderful to get a camping area somewhere for the future. I do think the location is alrocious. I agree with the comments on the maintenance roads and the usage levels. + Supervisor Cox - Referencing Frank Ohrmund's comment about the fact that 11,375 acres were allotted for the OVRP and that there was 400 acres allotted for active recreation- that is now somewhat smaller perhaps 250 acres due to MSCP refinements. it will be my suggestion that these minutes are forwarded to Chula Vista's Resource Conservation Commission, Planning Commission and City Council to assist them with their review. All of the property is currently in private ownership and as I understand the camping area is currently slated as an active recreation site In the MSCP. I don't understand why the camping area has not been suggested near the parking area or at the amphitheater or water park. I'm also irritated on the short time frame. I do believe that we need a place where we can have off-road activity or we will continue to have the current problems that we have. + Councilman Hueso - I concur and I think that we heard some excellent comments today and I would like to request to get a copy of the environmental document I would like to see if it adequately covers the issues. I'm also not ready to vote on anything. MOTION TO FORWARD THE COMMENTS MADE BY THE PC, CAC AND PUBLIC IN REFERENCE TO THE CORR APPLICATION AT THIS MEETING TO THE RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMITTEE, PlANNING COMMISSION, AND CHUtA VISTA CITY COUNCIL FOR THEIR REVIEW _ Councilman Hueso, 2"" Councilman McCann ALL IN FAVOR - 3-0-0 15-219 OVRP PC Meeting Minutes Page 4 April 26, 2007 · Councilman McCann - I think that the timing is difficult for everyone and appreciate all of the comments made today. If anyone would like to talk with me I can be reached at (619) 691-5044 or jmccann@chula-vista.ca.us · The conditional use permit process meetings are as follows: The Resource Conservation Commission on May 21 at 4:30 pm at the Ken Lee Building at the Chula Vista Civic Center (there is a possibility that the RCC meeting may be moved up to May 7 to ensure lime to make it to the Planning Commission meeting), Planning Commission May 23 at 6:00 pm at the City Council chambers and the Chula Vista City Council on June 5 at 4:00 pm also at the City Council chambers. Chula Vista will contact members to confinn if the RCC date is moved to May 7. 15-220 OT A Y V ALLEY RIVER PARK "SPECIAL SUBCOMMITTEE CAC MEETING" "Meeting Notes" Date: Friday April 25, 2007 Attendees: . See sign in sheet Copies of Joint Staff Attendees: . Steve Ron . Bill Saumier . Chuck Tucker . John Barone . Frank Herrera . Robin Shifflet Special Guest: . Casey Trumbo from County of San Diego Resource Development INTRODUCTION Jim Lovewell clarified that this meeting is for two agendas the Mace Street, Beyer Way Regional Staging areas, and CORR Racing subject. MACE STREET I BEYER WAY REGIONAL STAGING AREAS . Bill Saumier identified the handouts starting with the location of each staging area then moving onto the presenting the Order of Magnitude estimate that is provided as a courtesy and not to be used as a high or low value. oBeyer Way South Regional Staging Area . Design, Environmental & Construction = $9.6 million . 3 to 5-1I2 years to construct with funding o Funding Allocated = $200,000 o Mace Street . Design, Environmental & Construction = $1.1 million . 2 to 3 years to construct with funding . Jim Lovewell stated the two options: rCGElmmeads: o Provide equestrian parking at Mace Street Staging Area that will give the equestrians a staging area sooner then Bever Wav and the cost will be less expensive. o OR Continue with the design of Bever Way South Regional Staging Area o Is there any downside and what do subcommittee members think? . John Willet identified that the sewer line under the Mace Street that mav be a conflict and needs to be considered in the design. . Steve Ron identified that it is the intent to eElnstruet trails before the sta!:in!: areas. 15-zHf4 OTAY V ALLEY RIVER PARK "SPECIAL SUBCOMMITTEE CAC MEETING" "Meeting Notes" . Jack Bransford - How true are the cost estimates and timeframes for the two locations? What do the Equestrian Users want? . Jim Lovewell said that he understood fromMark Kukuchek that getting equestrian parking at Mace Street would be preferred at this time because of the cost and time frame for the Regional Staging Area. · Jim Lovewell said the Subcommittee should make a motion and take the motion to the CAC and then the PC for approval of how to spend the money. · Jack Bransford - made a motion to move the $200,000, which was given by Cox for the Regional Staging Area, to the design and construction of Mace Street Staging Area in order to provide equestrian parking. o 7 in favor of the motion. o 0 objections . Jack Bransford - stated that the Beyer Way South Regional Staging Area should still be built in the future when there is funding to complete the proiect. · Robin Shifflet - stated that the equestrian design at Mace Street would need input from the equestrian users and that the amenities should be prioritized in order of preference so that due to budget the highest priority items would be included in the base bid. PART 2 OF THIS MEETING Meeting started at 3:10 PM CHAMPIONSHIP OFF-ROAD RACES CORR RACING Jim started reminding the group that we represent the members of the OVRP when commenting on this item and asked that we put our personal . Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration is up for discussion. o No resource agency comments at this time. o Reference was made to the James Sandoval letter dated April 19, 2007. o Jim Baldwin is the owner of the land. o Grading is already taking place on the site. . o May 20th is the last day ofthe review period for the Resource Agency. . Page 12 of the MND is in error with the date reading April 21, 2007 instead of April 19, 2007 as currently read. . The Chair of the CAC, John Willet will check with the PC to see how the Supervisor wants to handle a reporting of the upcoming CAC position on this issue. o Comments from this meeting will need to be forwarded to Harold Phelps to bring forward to the City ofChula Vista Planning Commission's meeting. Items that are concerns or issues that might interface with the OVRP. The open comments were requested: 1. Jack is fine with supporting this group 2. Karen is fine with supporting this event with prohibiting pets to the event. a. Fireworks were identified and it was noted that 15-222f 4 TO: THECHULA VISTA RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSION THE , CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION, THE CHULA VISTA MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: PATRICIA AND MICHAEL MCCOY RE: IS-07-030 --- Conditional Use Permit for Temporary Championship Off-Road Race 2007; east of the existing terminus of Main Street, east of Heritage Road Patricia and Mike McCoy have been involved with the Citizens Advisory Committee for OVRP over the past 19 years. Patricia was appointed in 1988 and served until 1998 then resigned when she was elected to the Imperial Beach City CounciL Mike was appointed to fill Patricia's seat after her resignation. In 1978 we started working with the US Fish and Wildlife Service to acquire South San Diego Bay as a National Wildlife Refuge. The refuge was established in June of 1999. In 1979 the Southwest Wetlands Interpretive Association (SWIA) was founded and established as a cooperating association with the California Department of Parks and Recreation. SWIA and the California Coastal Conservancy acquired the Egger/Ghio property which was transferred to the USFWS, the County of San Diego, the City of San Diego and Swiss Park. The property was incorporated into the San Diego Bay National Wildlife Refuge and the Otay Valley Regional Park west of Interstate 5. In addition to serving on the CAC for OVRP Mike served on the advisory. committee that formulated the Otay Watershed Management Plan. It has been our intention to utilize this greenbelt land as a wildlife corridor enabling species to move freely from the bay area along the riparian lands east to the Otay Mountains. The park was also established to fulfill the need for passive recreational opportunities enabling people to get away from the hassle, noise and stress of everyday life in an urban area. Selected active recreational sites are also available for soccer and baseball fields. There has never been any consideration given to Off Road Vehicle (ORV) use along this park corridor. This is inconsistent with the park mission and vision, the Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP), and the Otay River Watershed Management Plan. The Specific Area Management Plan (SAMP) has not been completed yet but activities like OR V use would not be consistent with the SAMP. The biological, hydrological and 15-223 human impacts in addition to disruption of soils, noise and lighting create an untenable situation. We are concerned that this event could set a precedent allowing other inconsistent activities within and adjacent to the OVRP. We are extremely concerned that ORV facilities might be incorporated permanently into the park plan. The proposed event directly impacts MSCP lands. It is interesting to note that if a biological restoration project is undertaken in or around endangered species habitat it can take six months or longer to receive the agency permits and complete the studies necessary to begin the project. In addition, work could not be undertaken between March 15 and September 15 to protect against encroachment on nesting birds like the California Gnatcatcher or the Least Bells Vireo. In this case it would denigrate these rulings if such an invasive and destructive event were allowed to proceed. We think there are better alternatives. There are designated areas for events like this in San Diego County like the Ocotillo Wells site. This is an appropriate area for such an event. We strongly oppose utilizing the proposed quarry site. 15-224 F;ank Ohrmund, 5/3/07 3:59 PM -0700, Re: CORR CAe Subcommittee Meeting Frida From: "Frank Ohrnumd" <frank@otayrealestate.com> To: .., John Willett'" <jawi1.1ett@.cox.net>, <ebatchelder@ci.chula-vista.ca.us> Cc: "Jim Lovewell" <jlovewell@earthlink.net>, .. 'Dena & Jack'" <d.enajack@cox.net> Subject: HE: CORR CAe Subcommittee Meeting Friday, April 6 Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 15:59:10 -0700 Thread-Index: AceNBkrx06Py4 5dESPul IeEBUVzbqgAxCmlQ 1 Jalm/Ed, Here are a few main points that of serious concern. 1. We have no declaration from. the POM (Preserve o..mer/Manager) for Otay Ranch on what their recotmendation is for CORR' s proposal, and what its affect on the Preserve land, they manage, would be. This is for the unauthorized use of land at the south end of the Quarry that is south of the Quarry property line and the proposed ~inq site. The camping site is talked about in the otay Ranch General Plan, Resource Management Plan 1 & 2 as being suitable for "active recreation" within the Preserve. This use would only be allowed to be converted fram. its current use after its dedication into the Preserve~ At that ti.nw= the PCM would oversee, with the JEPA, what active recreational uses could be developed by the park or a private enterprise. This can only happen after its dedication to the Preserve. Until the property is dedica.ted into the Preserve, language in Otay Ranch's own, self-imposed, planning docun>ent states that only existing fanning can continue as a use in the Preserve. 2. The Chula Vista's MSCP calls for the "canq;:dng site" as a "Planned .Active Recreation Area - SUbject to RMP Policies and OVRP Planning".. This same area is identified as a "Park Study Area" and that is because Figure 3-3 in the MSCP has determined that there is Tier I, rI and III habitat to be impacted by development~ Driving and clearing this land hap-hazardJ.y aoSt likely increase non-native plants in this area without a better pl.an. This would only matter if they sanehow' can support skipping #1 above~ 3 . The owner's of the Property have not shown that what they are planning is a net benefit to the coum.mlty. They have essentially stopped quarry operations, which has increase material costs in the South Bay by 10-15%. Material for concrete, road. base, and asphalt now needs to be trucked fran north Lak.eside.. By closing the Quarry or operating it at a small fraction of its capacity is costing the ccmmuni ty millions in trucking costs ~ The use would only be for a handful of millionaire racers and their sponsors. The public will not be able to use the facility. No local racers came to support this use at the public meetings.. This is a playground. for millionaires period. No contribution to the park has been offered. 4. This CUP is just a placemat that would allow them to process the "real'" project later.. Which now have admitted that they will soon do.. Why let them do this with little review, when all the planning documents call for more study and involvement with the POM and OV'RP JEPA. The owner's of the Property, CORR and otay Ranch Ccmpany have plenty of land available for this facility and/or can hold the races at one of their other tracks this year. Their land in Otay Ranch haa held this race before and I am sure they can do it again. This land is farmland away from the Preserve and it woul.d be a better option to give them premission to grade this area while we process any application for a pe;cnanent use at the Quarry Property. 'This way all those responsible can properly review and. conment on their project. This project should be completely outside the Preserve. 5. No changes to a quarry operation can be made without modifying the Major Use Permit and/or completing the Reclamation Plan. Since there is no Major Use Permit, and we are changing the use, the City should now require the quarry to be permitted under a use permit. Or they can close the quarry, Peinted for John \-"Hlett <jawiHett@cox..fiet> . L 15-225 Frank Ohrmund, 5/3/07 3:59 PM -0700, Re: CORR CAC Subcommittee Meeting Frida complete the Reclamation Plan work and then process their Conditional Use Permit. At the very least, they need to deal with the Reclamation Plan before changing or modifying the use. City Staff stated that the Reclamation Plan allows for dirt to be moved and that is their justification for allowing them to IrOve it into the condition of a racing track. This is just bad logic and can't be defended by any sane person. The State Office of Mine Reclamation will have something to say about that reasoning. 2 Enough said, Frank OhrImlnd Broker/OWner Otay Real Estate 2433 Fenton Street, Suite A Chula Vista, CA 91914 619-397-5300 voice 619-397-5370 fax -----Original Message----- From: John Willett (mailto:;awillett@cox.net) Sent: wednesday, May 02, 2007 3;20 PH To: michele x Cc: Jim Lovewell; Dena & Jack; Frank Ohnrlund Subject: Re: CORR CAe Subcoumittee Meeting Friday, April 6 Miche~e Thanks for the effort you put into the drafting of your canments, as they are along :my lines of thOughts also. To date the City of Chula Vista has not received various agencies written response' s. If I do receive copies of the agencies comments I will forward copy to you and Jim. Related subject, the COOR's suject will be an action item at regular CAe Meeting on May 18th at 2:00 p.m. Chuck Tucker, Counties OVRP Staff called me about an hour ago and wanted my recomendation, I said yes make it an action i tern as we had it as an information at the last CAe Meeting before the PC and then an II infoDDation formation at the PC meeting so the requir~nts have been met already and will discuss the same this Friday. Have a good vacation John w... No virus found in this ineaning message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.6.2/784 - Release Date: 5/1/2007 2:57 PM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Databa$e: 269.6.2/787 - Release Date: 5/3/20072:11 PM Printed for John Willett <jawillett@cox.net> 15-226 2 Page 1 of2 Harold Phelps From: Harold Phelps Sent: Tuesday, May 15,20079:11 AM To: Harold Phelps Subject: Comments from Frank Ohrmund on CORR CUP Importance: High -----Origlnal Message----- From: Frank Ohrmund [mailto:frank@otayrealestate.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 10:09 AM To: Marisa Lundstedt; Glen Laube Subject: FW: Resource ConselV. Commission meeting last night. Marisa/Glen, My modified comments are below. 10 Frank Ohrmund Broker/Owner Otay Real Estate 2433 Fenton Street, Suite A Chula Vista, CA 91914 619-397-5300 voice 619-397-5370 fax 858-945-4974 cell From: Frank Ohrmund [mailto:frank@otayrealestate.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 9:31 AM To: 'Marisa Lundstedt' Subject: FW: Resource ConselV. Commission meeting last night. Marisa, Your request to identify deficient items in the environmental document supporting a Mitigated Negative Declaration should include the following. Please pass this on as my objections to the environmental document. 1. Glen explained the true extent of the study and its relevance for a temporary use. 2. After quick archeological review, the camping site was now reduced to half its size. If this is enough land, still, then why was the entire area desired in the first place. Based on typical processes for consultants to complete their work, this process for them and staff and the public to review each environmental issue is not adequate. Consultant's work must have been rushed and appears to be incomplete when compared to typical reports for similar projects. Not enough mention of alternatives have been made. The campground should have been moved to the parking area and should have been studied as an alternative. With such a quick review and study by the consultants, with current modification still being made, this environmental document supporting the mitigated negative declaration was completed in haste and more time should be allowed for alternatives to be developed. 3. No typical delays are being made for breeding season. The, truly, higher noise than quarry operations is an un- mitigated impact whether or not its breeding season. 4. No plan has been made to limit the non-native plants from dominating the camping site area after the current grasses are trampled down to a bare dirt lot. These non-native plants will re-establish themselves quicker than native plants and will then disperse their seeds. A plan to spray or weed these plants needs to be completed for 15-227 O'i/l ~/?DO] Page 2 of2 next winter's growing season. The following are comments on the project as a whole that question staffs authority to support this project based on planning documents approved by the developer. I think a legal opinion needs to be made on the conversion of any use within the Preserve prior to dedication to the Preserve Owner/Manger or City of Chula Vista. 1. We have no declaration from the POM (Preserve Owner/Manager) for Otay Ranch on what their recommendation is for CORR's proposal, and what its affect on the Preserve land, they manage, would be. This is for the unauthorized use of land at the south end of the Quarry that is south of the Quarry property line (in the MSCP) and the proposed Camping site. The camping site is talked about in the Otay Ranch General Plan, Resource Management Plan 1 &2 as being suitable for "active recreation" within the Preserve. This use would only be allowed to be converted from its current use after its dedication into the Preserve. At that time, the POM would oversee, with the JEPA, what active recreational uses could be developed by the park or a private enterprise. This can only happen after its dedication to the Preserve. Until the property is dedicated into the Preserve, language in Otay Ranch's own, self-imposed, planning document states that only existing farming can continue as a use in the Preserve. We need a legal oDinion to determine if the Otay Ranch Planning documents preclude this change in use prior to its dedication to the City Preserve. 2. The Chula Vista's MSCP calls for the "camping site" as a "Planned Active Recreation Area - Subject to RMP Policies and OVRP Planning". This same area is identified as a "Park Study Area" and that is because Figure 3-3 in the MSCP has determined that there is Tier I, II and III habitat to be impacted by development. Driving on and clearing this land hap-hazardly will most likely increase non-native plants in this area without a better plan. This would only matter if they somehow can support skipping #1 above. 3. The owner's of the Property have not shown that what they are planning is a net benefit to the community. They have essentially stopped quarry operations, which has increase material costs in the South Bay by 10-15%. Material for concrete, road base, and asphalt now needs to be trucked from north Lakeside. By closing the Quarry or operating it at a small fraction of its capacity is costing the community millions in trucking costs. The use would only be for a handful of millionaire racers and their sponsors. The public will not be able to use the facility. No local racers came to support this use at the public meetings. This is a playground for the elite period. No contribution to the park has been offered. No net benefit has been supported. > > 4. This CUP is just a placemat that would allow them to process the "real" project later. Which now have admitted that they will soon do. Why let them do this with little review, when all the planning documents call for more study and involvement with the POM and OVRP JEPA. The owner's of the Property, CORR and Otay Ranch Company have plenty of land available for this facility and/or can hold the races at one of their other tracks this year. Their land in Otay Ranch has held this race before and I am sure they can do it again. This land is farmland away from the Preserve and it would be a better option to give them permission to grade this area while we process any application for a permanent use at the Quarry Property. This way all those responsible can properly review and comment on their project. This project should be completely outside the Preserve. 5. No changes to a quarry operation can be made without modifying the Major Use Permit and/or completing the Reclamation Plan. Since there is no Major Use Permit, and we are changing the use, the City should now require the quarry to be permitted under a use permit. Or they can close the quarry, complete the Reclamation Plan work and then process their Conditional Use Permit. At the very least, they need to deal with the Reclamation Plan before changing or modifying the use. City Staff stated that the Reclamation Plan allows for dirt to be moved and that is their justification for allowing them to move it into the form of a racing track. This is just bad logic and can't be defended by any sane person. This project needed a grading permit. The State Office of Mine Reclamation will have something to say about that reasoning. Respectfully submitted, Frank Ohrmund, Secretary Friends of Otay Valley Regional Park 15-228 O'i/1 'i0007 FW: RE: CORR CAC Subcommittee Meeting Friday, April 6 Page 1 of2 Harold Phelps From: Harold Phelps Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 20072:51 PM To: Glen Laube Cc: Rick Rosaler Subject: FW: RE: CORR CAC Subcommittee Meeting Friday, April 6 FYI -----Original Message-m- From: Office Of McCann On Behalf Of John McCann Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 2:27 PM To: Harold Phelps Cc: Rick Rosaler Subject: FW: RE: CORR CAC Subcommittee Meeting Friday, April 6 Hello Harold I was informed that you are the person receiving all the CORR's comments, which is why I am emaillng them to you. Thank you Zaira Roa From: Frank Ohrmund [mailto:frank@otayrealestate.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2007 10:42 AM To: John McCann Subject: FW: RE: CORR CAC Subcommittee Meeting Friday, April 6 > > > John, > Here are a few main points that of serious concern. 1. We have no declaration from the POM (Preserve Owner/Manager) for Otay Ranch on what their recommendation is for CORR's proposal, and what its affect on the Preserve land, they manage, would be. This Is for the unauthorized use of land at the south end of the Quarry that is south of the Quarry properry line and the proposed Camping site. The camping site is talked about in the Otay Ranch General Plan, Resource Management Plan I &2 as being suitable for "active recreation" within the Preserve. This use would only be allowed to be converted from its current use after its dedication into the Preserve. At that time the POM would oversee, with the JEPA, what active recreational uses could be developed by the park or a private enterprise. This can only happen after its dedication to the Preserve. Until the property is dedicated into the Preserve, language in Otay Ranch's own, self-imposed, planning document states that only existing farming can continue as a use in the Preserve. We need a legal opinion to determine if the Otay Ranch Planning documents preclude this change in use prior to 15-229 05/16/2007 FW: RE: CORR CAC Subcommittee Meeting Friday, April 6 Page 2 0[2 2. The Chula Vista's MSCP calls for the "camping site" as a "Planned Active Recreation Area - Subject to RMP Policies and OVRP Planning". This same area is identified as a "Park Study Area" and that is because Figure 3-3 in the MSCP has determined that there is Tier I, II and III habitat to he impacted by development. Driving on and clearing this land hap-hazardly will most likely increase non-native plants in this area without a better plan. This would only matter if they somehow can support skipping #1 above. 3. The owner's of the Property have not shown that what they are planning is a net benefit to the community. They have essentially stopped quarry operations, which has increase material costs in the South Bay by 10-15%. Material for concrete, road base, and asphalt now needs to be trucked from north Lakeside. By closing the Quarry or operating it at a small fraction of its capacity is costing the community millions in trucking costs. The use would only be for a handful of millionaire racers and their sponsors. The public will not be able to use the facility. No local racers came to support this use at the public meetings. This is a playground for millionaires period. No contribution to the park has been offered. > > 4. This CUP is just a placemat that would allow them to process the "real" project later. Which now have admitted that they will soon do. Why let them do this with little review, when all the planning documents call for more study and involvement with the POM and OVRP JEPA. The owner's of the Property, CORR and Otay Ranch Company have plenty ofland available for this facility and/or can hold the races at one of their other tracks this year. Their land in Otay Ranch has held this race before and I am sure they can do it again. This land is farmland away from the Preserve and it would be a better option to give them premiss ion to grade this area while we process any application for a permanent use at the Quarry Property. This way all those responsible can properly review and comment on their project. This project should be completely outside the Preserve. 5. No changes to a quarry operation can be made without modifying the Major Use Permit and/or completing the Reclamation Plan. Since there is no Major Use Permit, and we are changing the use, the City should now require the quarry to be permitted under a use permit. Or they can close the quarry, complete the Reclamation Plan work and then process their Conditional Use Permit. At the very least, they need to deal with the Reclamation Plan before changing or modifying the use. City Staff stated that the Reclamation Plan allows for dirt to be moved and that is their justification for allowing them to move it into the form of a racing track. This is just bad logic and can't be defended by any sane person. This project needed a grading permit. The State Office of Mine Reclamation will have something to say about that reasoning. Respectfully submitted, Frank Ohrmund No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by A VG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.467/ Virus Database: 269.6.5/793 - Release Date: 5/7/20072:55 PM 15-230 05/16/2007 Karen Smith - comments & Questions on CaRR MND. 5-4-07 150 campsites about 7400 parking spaces expecting 10K people per day All will be shuttled from parking or camp to race area. how many shuttle trips? what fuel do shuttles use? what kind of shuttle vehicles? All traffic limited to 15 mph. Even shuttle? p. 7 states that there was a previous unauthorized disturbance of the preserve area by the quarry operator and implies that therefore it is OK to use this disturbed preserve land for the race. Reclamation plan says restoration will occur in 25 years! MND keeps says that all of this is temporary. Will their next MND then say we did it before so therefore it is OK? p. 20 suggests that gnatcatchers have become accustomed to noise because of quarry ops. However, I don't hear the quarry from my house and I know I will hear the race. MND says noise for two days during nesting season. But what about practice days? prohibit pets can we ask that they prohibit the camp or move it to parking area? Why ask for fireworks when all actMty is scheduled to end by 7 PM and it is not dark then? Off-road riding and racing is very popular in San Diego. The area needs facilities for the legal pursuit of these activities. What about using an existing facility such as Qualcomm Stadium? I once saw off-road motorcycles race at Anaheim Stadium, where huge amounts of dirt were trucked in and an entire course built and then taken down. 15-231 Page 1 of3 Harold Phelps From: Harold Phelps Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 20072:50 PM To: Glen Laube Cc: Rick Rosaler Subject: FW: Comments on EIR for CORR Event form Mike Behan FYI -----Original Message----- From: Office Of McCann On Behalf Of John McCann Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 2:24 PM To: Haroid Phelps Cc: Rick Rosaler Subject: FW: Comments on ErR for CORR Event form Mike Behan From: michele x [mailto:mibmjb@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2007 12:18 PM To: John McCann Subject: Comments on ErR for CORR Event form Mike Behan Date: Mon, 7 May 200712:41:29 -0700 (PDT) From: mibmjb@yahoo.com> Subject: Comments on ErR for CORR Event form Mike Behan To: jmccann@chulavistaca.gov Chula Vista Council Member John McCann: Please find attached to this e-mail my comments to the ErR for the Championship Off- road Racing event as r presented them to the OVRP, CAC via e-mail May 1,2007. They do not necessarily represent what the Citizen Advisory Committee for OVRP is planning to recommend. They are my personal observations after carefully studying the Mitigated Negative Declaration. As your representative to the CAC I wanted you to be aware of what I had sent to them. I'd be please to discuss this with you further should you have any questions. Mike Behan NOTE: The following is the original string of e-maiIs starting with my e-mail to those tasked with studying the Mitigated Negative Declaration. The attached WORD Doc contains my response to the document itself. Date: Tue, I May 2007 19:58:42 -0700 (PDT) From: mibmibiCUyahoo.com> Subject: CORR CAC Subcommittees - This Friday, April 6 To: Dena & Jack <denajack@cox.net>,jlovewell(@earthlink.net, 15-23'2 05/16/2007 Page 2 of3 "Dr. Mike McCoy" <mccoy4ib@aol.com>, jcarroll <jcarroll@mcmillinrealty.com>, Karen Smith <karenvsmith@sbcglobaI.net>, Kevin O'Neill <mkocci@cox.net>, Mark Kukuchek <mkukuche@nassco.com>, sunnyshy <sunnyshy@pacbeII.net>, Wayne Dickey <dickeyl@cox.net>, Gary McCall Gary.McC<lll@HansorLbiz CC: John Willett <jawillett@cox.net>, Bill Saumier <BiII.Saumier@sdcounty.ca.gov>, fherrera -a <fherrera -a@cLchula-vista.ca.us>, rshifflet <rshifflet@sandiego.gov> Hi Sub Committee Members, I'll be out of town for the next week, spending time at and around Yosemite National Park. That being so, I want to pass my comments along to you regarding the Mitigated Negative Dec. for the CaRR Event. I understand that my comments are not naturally along the same lines that some of you expressed at meetings last week. I want you to know why I see things the way I do in this regard. The attached comments are based on personal experiences as a retired Park and Recreation professional with more than 34 years in the field, trying to balance and defme the greater public good versus negative impacts that special events can bring to a community. In my last position with the City of San Diego I was responsible for the City's Regional Parks: Balboa Park, Mission Bay Park, all of San Diego's beaches, Presidio Park and thousands of acres of undeveloped park land and Open Space. So. . . please accept them and submit them as part of the sub-comittee/CAC process. Mike Behan Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell? Check out new cars at Yahoo! Autos. ored stitf? Loosen up... )ow!lIQadangpl<lyJHmdreds_Q[~8J}le~fo.rJJ_~e on Yahoo! Games. I\hhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell? theck out new cars at Yahoo! Autos. r;ucker,punch spam with award-winning protection. "'ry the free Yahoo! Mail Beta. It's here! Your new message! 15-233 05/16/2007 Date: May 1,2007 To: OVRP Citizen Advisory Committee via the Established Sub -committee From: Michael Behan, Committee Member rep. City of Chula Vista Subject: Review of the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Championship Off-road Racing I've read the Mitigated Negative Declaration document and find myself, for the most part, in favor of the Championship Off-road Racing event taking place. As a retired Recreation professional (34 years in the field) I believe that this event is consistent with providing recreational service to support the greater public good. The event, as stated, is proposed for four days with a planned attendance of 10,000 each day. Simple math tells me that approximately 40,000 people will visit the site allowing, what must be considered, one of the larger recreational opportunities to take place in Chula Vista this calendar year. The fact that the event is commercial and admission is charged has no bearing on the potential for the average citizen to enjoy attending. One has only to look a few hundred yards from this proposed CaRR venue to find Knott's Soak City and the Coor's Amphitheater, both providing needed and sought out recreational opportunities. I don't find allowing the CaRR's temporary 4-day event to be onerous and of great impact to the trail users in the area. The walkers and riders will still have 361 days in the year to enjoy the peace and solitude that can be found adjacent to a working stone quarry. The document on page 9 of36, section E. Comoliance with Zoning and Plans states: "Because the use is temporary and subject to a Conditional Use Permit, a consistency determination relative to General Plan land use designations is not applicable." This statement alone seems to render most of the arguments I heard expressed last week at the Citizen Advisory Committee and Policy Committee moot, especially when one considers the fact that the proposed venue is on privately held land with high levels of mitigation proposed. Protection of the Otay Valley Regional Park's environment from any mistreatment from outside impacts is of primary concern. At this time, however, there is no empirical data, no proof, to substantiate any allegations that this specific event will negatively impact the park's environment or surrounding neighborhoods. Although, minus the data, one can certainly surmise some of the potentials impact to the area: I) Air Quality, 2) Sound Pollution 3) Hydrology and Water Quality, 4)Drainage/Toxics, etc. I believe that the document appears to respond to each of these issues with viable answers on surmised Issues. I strongly suggest that before the event is permitted the applicant provide a plan to document the impacts of the temporary event on the surrounding environment and community. The plan should include but not be limited to: . Sound checks measuring db's in the communities on the south rim during the race event. . Air quality checks measuring particulate matter during and immediately after each race. . Base level samples of the rivers prior to the first race day and immediately following 15-234 the final day of racing for any heavy metal or petroleum based impacts on the water shed. Once these tests are completed they should be presented to the City ofChula Vista in a report that fully discusses the baseline methodology and fmdings prior to and after the event. Once the impacts are fully vetted, understood, and agreed upon by professionals in each discipline, a full formal report should be presented to the OVRP Policy Committee for comment and agreement. This data should then be included as part of any future application for the use of the venue for an Off-road Vehicle Racing. The data included in the report will provide needed information to allow the OVRP Committees to make an educated, fact-based decision on any future use of the site. I am concerned with Page 12 of 36, section F. Public Comments section. The fact that the applicant met the minimum notification responsibility". . . Notice was circulated to property owners and residents within a 500-foot radius of the proposed project site." is not enough. Given the potential for disruption of quality oflife (sound mostly) for the homes/residents located on the south rim ofthe valley, the applicant should have taken, and should be required to take, the extra steps to notify these residents of the potential disruption. 15-235 4-?TA C-r--I.-'Vt e.A/T I)' DRAFT MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA 6:00 p.m. May 23, 2007 Council Chambers 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA ROLL CALL I MOTIONS TO EXCUSE: Members Present: Felber, Vinson, Moctezuma, Bensoussan, Tripp, Clayton, Spethman 1. PUBLIC HEARING: PCC 07-63; Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for Championship Off-Road Racing (CORR) June 8-10 and September 28-30, 2007, Rock Mountain Quarry land adjacent to the Otay River Valley. Glenn Laube gave an overview of the environmental component of the proposed project and Harold Phelps gave a presentation of the proposal as presented in the staff report. Commission Comments: Cmr. Tripp asked if the various environmental protection agencies had reviewed the proposal, and if so, how long do they have to make their response and how long do they actually take to put it in writing. Glen Laube responded that staff met numerous times with The California Department of Fish and Game, and Fish and Wildlife Agency, but have not received a formal comment letter from them. They have reviewed the Conditions of Approval in the CUP that relate to adjacency issues to sensitive lands and are satisfied with them. Mr. Laube stated that they've had 3D-days to respond to the Mitigated Negative Declaration, but staff has been meeting with them since December 2006. The agency's response is generally received within 30 days, however, in speaking with Dave Mayer with Fish and Game this morning asking him if they had submitted comments, he indicated that he thought they had, but didn't know where their comment letter was. 15-236 Planning Commission Minutes -2- May 23, 2007 Cmr. Tripp noted that the MND stated that, "a traffic control plan shall be developed in order to mitigate those impacts"; does CEQA required the traffic control plan and other similar plans to be submitted for staff review in advance of certification of the document? Mike Shirey, Deputy City Attorney responded that the mitigation measures would be included in the Mitigation and Monitoring Report. Mr. Shirey stated that perhaps what Cmr. Tripp was referring to is in the larger context of an EIR where there's operational impacts, i.e. when the Level Of Service of a street may be diminished. This isn't the case here; the mitigation actually is to prepare the traffic control plan, which will mitigate these temporary impact. Cmr. Spethman stated as a point of clarification that this Conditional Use Permit is strictly for the two separate weekend events and nothing else. Should any other event be planned, a new CUP would be considered by the Planning Commission and City Council. Staff concurred with Cmr. Spethman's statements. Cmr. Moctezuma expressed concern with the disturbance to the owls, the water quality, and hazardous toxic substances. Of more concern to her, however, is the apparent fast-tracking of the entitlement process and the ability for all of the mitigation measures to be ready and in place when the event takes place, which is three days after the City Council will be considering this CUP. Mr. Laube stated that the monitoring of the Burrowing Owls would be conducted by qualified professional biologists. Furthermore, the applicant will be required to provide a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan to the satisfaction of the City Engineer that details how those hazardous material will be contained, provide secondary containment, and have detailed plans for what to do if there is a spill. Cmr. Bensoussan questioned whether adequate time was built into this process to allow staff time to fully respond to all of the queries and comments, i.e. the comment letter from the County that raises some serious questions. Mr. Laube responded that staff is comfortable with the responses on the comments that were received because none of the comments that were received raised any new issues that were not already previously addressed in the MND and adequately mitigated. Rick Rosaler added that this will be the third time that they've been through this process with the two previous year's events and a total of six races behind us. Staff believes that there is sufficient precedence and knowledge of how the race will be conducted and have enough experience to feel comfortable processing it. Staff recognizes that the processing time appears to have been fast-tracked, 15-237 Planning Commission Minutes -3- May 23, 2007 however, all of the timeframes and requirements have been met, and staff has worked very hard to prepare all of the documentation that was needed for the Commission's deliberation of the proposal. Additionally, staff has been meeting regularly with the CORR team, as well as representatives of our Police, Fire, Traffic and Storm Water City Engineers and feel comfortable with the document and making a recommendation for approval. Cmr. Bensoussan questioned whether the site that will be used for parking, although temporary, could potentially fend off any wildlife that may not come back. Mr. Rosaler responded that the parking site is part of Village 3 and, therefore, slated for development. The sensitive land is the Preserve and a 1 DO-foot setback from it will be maintained. Cmr. Vinson asked why the site for this year's event was moved to another location from the previous two years in the Otay Ranch area. Harold Phelps responded that the development of Village 2 began almost immediately after the races last year, so we were certain that the races would not be held in the same site this year. Within one month after last year's races in October, discussions began with the CORR team and staff with a proposal to utilize a site that was going to be further into the Otay River Valley. In a meeting with the Wildlife Agencies they discouraged the use of that area and encouraged the use of the rock quarry area because it was already a disturbed and degraded site. Cmr. Vinson questioned, aside from the entertainment value, what other benefit is there to the citizens of Chula Vista to have this race continue. Mr. Rosaler responded that basically it is for the entertainment value, and perhaps also exposure to the City because the ABC television network will be covering the race and broadcasting it throughout the nation. Although we have no official data, we have been told that all of the hotels and motels are booked for those weekend, which logically one would assume that restaurant and shopping patronage increases as well. Cmr. Vinson questioned the financial impact of providing safety and emergency services. Mr. Rosaler responded that CORR is responsible for covering all costs for overtime for all Police, Fire and Paramedics and there is no financial impact to the City's General Fund. 15-238 Planning Commission Minutes -4- May 23, 2007 Cmr. Tripp stated that the previous years' events were held in the Otay Ranch Villages that are now being developed. This year's event, however, is being held in an area that is more sensitive. Cmr. Tripp also noted that the staff report indicated that the proposed temporary racetrack of this year's event is a pilot or test run for a future permanent racetrack facility at the Rock Mt. Quarry. He further indicated that we need a place where these types of events can be held, however, due to its proximity to sensitive lands, is not convinced that it's a good fit for that area. Mr. Rosaler stated that staff took into consideration the fact that the rock quarry is a disturbed area already and blasts dynamite on a regular basis, therefore, staff felt that it was the appropriate location compared to other active recreation locations. Based on the information that is available today, staff is comfortable recommending that the race be at the rock quarry. Cmr. Clayton inquired if there were any different comments or concerns raised by this year's proposed location for the races, compared to the previous years. Mr. Rosaler stated that the comments and concerns are no different from those raised in previous years. Most were concerned with the proximity to the preserve and Wolf Canyon. We had biological monitors out there on a daily basis, and to the extent that we know, no one got into the preserve from the racetrack. Cmr. Moctezuma stated that she read much about trash pick up, but did not see any mention of recycling materials. Harold Phelps noted that the staff report should have mentioned that a trash plan has to be approved by our Conservation Coordinator, therefore, there will certainly be a recycling element to the plan. Cmr. Bensoussan reiterated her concern with the tight timeline because it gives the appearance that we are trivializing due process and reducing the public hearing process. It disturbs her because it makes her feel like it's a foregone conclusion that there will be a rubber-stamp approval. Cmr. Tripp asked if staff received any factual information, as required by CEQA, that would cause you to determine that a Mitigated Negative Declaration is not appropriate and is it staff's position that the mitigation measures are enforceable and will be applied to this project. Mr. Laube responded that staff is confident that all of the mitigation measures are enforceable. Speaking from experience, Mr. Laube stated that for the first year's event in 2005, he was the City's mitigation monitor; he was out there every day, all day and during the time trials. His sole responsibility was to implement the MMRP; monitoring the traffic control plan; did a daily qualitative assessment of the air quality, making sure they were watering between each race. 15-239 Planning Commission Minutes -5- May 23, 2007 Cmr. Speth man pointed out that he was surprised that no fire pits will be allowed in the camping area, but there will be a fireworks show; he asked for further clarification on the rationale behind this. Harold Phelps stated that it would be a very small fireworks display, not a fireworks show, at the inception of the races when the national anthem is played. Cmr. Moctezuma concluded by saying that overall she has a lot of concern on the timing of this whole process and with the environmental impacts on the wildlife. Cmr. Bensoussan stated that there was a lot of material to digest and a lot of responses to comments that needed to be done that, in her opinion, were not responded to in an adequate manner. Furthermore, she served 6 years in the RCC and during that entire time she never remembers the RGG finding any MND inadequate and only one EIR inadequate, therefore, she takes very seriously the RCG's recommendation not to approve the CUP based on their assessment that the MND is inadequate. Cmr. Felber stated that he is comfortable that the MND addresses and mitigates the concerns that have been raised, and although he would not support this site as a permanent racetrack for future events without having a complete data and wildlife agency buy-off, as well as an EIR, he is not convinced that there would be substantial cumulative impacts for these two weekend events. Cmr. Tripp concurred with Cmr. Felbers statement and is of the opinion that for the two weekend event, the MND adequately addresses the concerns and has appropriate mitigation measure that staff believes are enforceable. As far as an economic component playing into the findings for approval, in his opinion, is not an issue he would be concerned with. He believes there is a need for there to be a permanent venue in this region for these types of events, and he will withhold from making any further comment on it until such time that a full environmental analysis, data and documentation is made available on a proposed permanent site. Cmr. Felber stated that having lost the racetrack in EI Cajon, he too would like to see a permanent venue in the Southbay after adequate analysis and all regulatory documents have been prepared. 15-240 Planning Commission Minutes -6- May 23, 2007 MSC (Speth manIC lay ton) that the Planning Commission approve Resolution PCC 07-63 recommending adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit to the City Council in accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions contained in the City Council Resolution with a recommendation that there be a post-race qualitative analysis of the water and air quality analysis. Amendment offered by Cmr. Tripp that staff provide a thorough qualitative report and analysis of the races' impacts by the end of November 2007. Amendment accepted by the maker and second of the motion. Motion carried (4- 3). Ayes: Nays: Abstain: Absent: Felber, Tripp, Clayton and Spethman Bensoussan, Moctezuma and Vinson None None 15-241 RESOLUTION NO. 2007- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ADOPTING THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM, IS-07-030, AND GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, PCC-07-063, TO CONDUCT OFF-ROAD RACING EVENTS ON A TEMPORARY OFF- ROAD RACETRACK ON A PORTION OF THE RIMROCK MOUNTAIN QUARRY, LOCATED OFF OF HERITAGE ROAD AND ADJACENT TO THE OTAY RIVER VALLEY. A. RECITALS 1. Project Site WHEREAS, the parcels which are the subject matter of this resolution are represented in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and for the purpose of general description are located on a portion of the Rllnrock Quarry adjacent to the Otay River Valley, including a portion of Otay Ranch Village Three for a general public parking area, and the western Active Recreation Area within the Otay River Valley for an overnight camping area ("Project Site"); and 2. Project Applicant WHEREAS, on April 9, 2007 a duly verified application for a conditional use permit (PCC-07-063) was filed with the City of Chula Vista Planning Department by James Baldwin ("Applicant"); and 3. Project Description; Application for Conditional Use Permit WHEREAS, said Applicant requests permission to conduct off-road racing events on June 8 - 10 and September 28 - 30, 2007 on said Project Site; and 4. Planning Commission Record of Application WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held an advertised public hearing on the project on May 23, 2007 and voted 4 - 3 - 0 - 0 recommending that the City Council approve the project in accordance with Resolution PCC-07-063; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission motion was approved by a majority vote and the applicant has requested the project come forward for City Council consideration. 5. City Council Record of Application WHEREAS, a duly called and noticed public hearing on the project was held before the City Council of the City of Chula Vista on June 5, 2007; to receive the 15-242 Resolution No. Page 2 recommendation of the Planning Commission, and to hear public testimony with regard to the same. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby find, determine, and resolve as follows: B. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD The proceedings and all evidence on the Project introduced before the Planning Commission at their public hearing on this project held on May 23, 2007 and the minutes and resolution resulting therefrom, are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding. C. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and has conducted an Initial Study, IS-07-030 in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Based upon the results of the Initial Study, the Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that the project could result in significant effects on the environment. However, revisions to the project made by or agreed to by the applicant would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur; therefore, the Environmental Review Coordinator has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration, IS-07-030. D. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA The City Council does hereby find that the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (IS-07-030) has been prepared in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista, and hereby adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (1S-07-030). The Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (1S-07-030) are available for public review with the Environmental Review Coordinator in the Planning and Building Department. E. INDEPENDENT JUDGEMENT OF CITY COUNCIL The City Council does hereby fmd on the basis of the whole record before it, including the initial study and comments received for the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (IS-07-030), that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment and that the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the lead agency's independent judgment and analysis. In addition, the City Council does hereby find that in the exercise of their independent review and judgment, the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (IS-07-030) in the form presented has been prepared 15-243 Resolution No. Page 3 in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista and hereby adopts the same. F. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby make the findings required by the City's rules and regulations for the issuance of conditional use permits, as hereinbelow set forth, and sets forth, thereunder, the evidentiary basis that permits the stated finding to be made. I. That the proposed use at this location is necessary or desirable to provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood or the community. The proposed use at this location is desirable because it will provide a temporary entertainment outlet and venue that is lacking within the City as evidenced by the past success of the two other CORR events which were held in the City in 2005 and 2006. In addition, the proposed use at this location is desirable in that the facilities (racetrack, camping and parking areas) are located a significant distance away from residential neighborhoods to the south and west and visually obscured from view to the north and east by the surrounding rock mountain quarry. 2. That such use will not under the circumstances of the particular case be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. This conditional use permit for the two (2) weekend racing events required environmental documentation that analyzed the proposal with respect to the effect of the proposal on health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. While traffic congestion may occur near the site at the time of the events, the traffic will be controlled through a Traffic Control Plan approved by the City Engineer which will mitigate any congestion, and while there will be some noise occurrences due to racing events, these race-related noise occurrences, even though not regulated by the noise ordinance, will have mitigation measures implemented. In addition, noise will be monitored for future reference. For participants and spectators deciding to attend these racing events, safety precautions such as concrete barriers and fencing are maximized to ensure the health, safety or general welfare of persons involved as outlined in the environmental document and staff reports. 15-244 Resolution No. Page 4 In addition, the conditions to grant approval of this permit require that a Security Plan, Safety/Medical Plan, and Traffic Control Plan be provided by the applicant to minimize the potential impacts to public safety, fire, traffic, parking, and other environmental effects on participants, spectators, and the surrounding residential neighborhoods in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in the code for such use. The temporary racing event and related activities are conditionally permitted uses within the Planned Community (PC) zone. In addition, the conditional use permit provisions for a racetrack as listed in the unclassified uses section of the Zoning Code (19.54.020J-7) requires that all conditions be adhered to as determined by the City Council in its approval of the use permit. 4. That the granting of this Conditional Use Permit will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City or the adopted plan of any government agency. Because the two (2) racing events proposed in the Conditional Use Permit are only being permitted as a temporary event, the granting of this permit will not require amendments to the Chula Vista General Plan, or the Otay Ranch General Development Plan, and as such does not affect the future long-range planning of land uses for the project site. G. TERMS OF GRANT OF PERMIT The City Council hereby grants Conditional Use Permit PCC-07-063 subject to the following conditions whereby the Applicant shall: 1. Develop the project site as shown on the racetrack site plan map submitted for review on April 9, 2007. Any revisions to this site plan required for compliance with the conditions of approval shall be approved by the Director of Planning and Building and Environmental Review Coordinator prior to the first racing event. 2. The Applicant shall implement, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Building and the Environmental Review Coordinator, all mitigation measures identified in the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration for a Conditional Use Permit for a Temporary Championship Off-Road Race (IS-07-030) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program in accordance with the requirements, provisions and schedules contained therein. Modification of the sequence of mitigation shall be at the discretion of the Director of Planning and Building and Environmental Review Coordinator. 3. Race events can only occur on June 8 - 10 and September 28 - 30, 2007, unless postponed due to a rain event. Race related events can only occur from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. on those dates. Practice runs may only be held on the Fridays before the 15-245 Resolution No. Page 5 weekend racing events from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. 4. Prior to the first race event, the Applicant shall submit a Security Plan to the Police Department which shall show detailed guidelines for controlling the use and access to the racetrack, parking and camping areas. The Police Chief prior to the first racing event weekend must approve the Security Plan. 5. The campsite areas shall be lighted as necessary for safety, and prohibitions will be enforced against the creation of open fire pits, the use of All-Terrain Vehicles (ATV's) and all other similar motorized vehicles, the use of personal fireworks, and the inclusion of domestic pets. The campsite shall be subject to a curfew between the hours of 11 :00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. 6. The Applicant shall provide security staff as well as fund two on-duty Police Officers to control activities in the campsite areas from the end of the last race to 7 a.m. the following day, or as determined by the Police Chief. 7. The Applicant shall provide a septic truck available to campsite users free of charge on everyday that camping is allowed, to prevent the illegal dumping of wastewater or the discharge of raw sewage onto areas that may lead to drainage systems, or within the solid waste and recycling receptacles anywhere on-site by the campers and recreational vehicles utilizing the campsite. 8. Failure of any camper to abide by the conditions set forth in this permit shall be cause for immediate revocation of the permit. This condition shall apply even if the failure occurs during the first night of camping. Use of the campsite area is contingent upon each camper successfully complying with the conditions of this permit. 9. The Applicant shall maintain the access roads, the racetrack and other transition areas continuously during race events. The access roads, racetrack and other transition areas shall be watered as needed to minimize fugitive dust. 10. All parking lots on agricultural land shall be mowed such that roots of the vegetation remain intact in order to provide soil stabilization. In addition, the Applicant shall utilize Best Management Practices (BMPs) to control erosion and sediment transport and to contain hazardous material storage. The Applicant shall also provide hazardous material storage which shall include the use ofBMPs. II. The Applicant's on-site parking fee collections shall occur at the very end of the access roads off of Energy Way, adjacent to the parking areas, to prevent the queuing of vehicles onto City streets. No queuing of vehicles shall be permitted on City streets and the Traffic Control Plan shall show that patrons will be required to circulate further into the parking area beyond the access road collection point until traffic on-site can accommodate all vehicles arriving. 12. The storage of hazardous materials/waste in the racing pit and restroom areas shall be 15-246 Resolution No. Page 6 lined with an impervious material to prevent spills and potential leakage of automobile fluids and other materials into the ground or any waterways. In addition, any storage, handling or disposal of hazardous materials/waste will be in accordance with local, state and federal laws. The Applicant shall obtain a hazardous materials permit and inspection from the Fire Department prior to the first weekend's racing events. 13. Concerts and live entertainment is only allowed before; during, and inunediately after each racing event occurs in association with the racing event weekends, between 9:30 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. 14. Public use of the racetrack will not be permitted after the final racing event of racing event day. Use or access to the racetrack will limited to race participants, crewmembers, and security staff, and the access points to the racetrack site will be closed and/or secured by fencing after racing event activities end each race day. 15. In the event of heavy rain, where there is significant surface runoff all race events will immediately cease. 16. Race participant team trucks may arrive no sooner than the Wednesday before the race events. Race participant crews, equipment, and race vehicles may remain onsite for the duration of the weekend race event. 17. Seven days prior to the first race event, the Applicant shall submit a Traffic Control Plan to be approved by the City. The Traffic Control Plan shall address traffic control at event access areas and shall include a parking plan and a traffic-signing plan including the location of changeable message boards. Businesses operating on Nirvana and Energy Way will be notified at least 7 days in advance of each event regarding the use of these public roads for routing general public parking along their frontages to the parking areas. The City Police and Engineering Departments shall approve the Traffic Control Plan, respectively, prior to the start of the race events. 18. The Applicant shall clean and pick-up trash in the pit area, spectator stands, food/beverage area and parking lots on a continuous and as needed basis throughout the race events to prevent trash and debris from leaving the site. 19. Post-event, the Applicant shall clean up all trash and debris generated by the proposed project and remove all trash and debris from the site and properly dispose of it. The Applicant shall properly dispose of any containers with hazardous materials/waste in accordance with local, state and federal laws. The Applicant shall stabilize disturbed areas of parking and camping to prevent or reduce soil runoff to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 20. During the time between racing weekends, the safety/security plan prepared for the project will require that the general public parking access point from Energy Way be closed. All temporary structures such as light poles, grandstand bleachers, canopies, 15-247 Resolution No. Page 7 portable restroom facilities, and power generators may remain on the racetrack site after the first racing event weekend if secured, or shall otherwise be disassembled and relocated or removed from the site. 21. Temporary lighting will be limited to the pit area, overnight camping and vendor staging areas. The track shall not be lighted. The lighting for these areas shall be directed downward, and away from the Preserve. 22. A building permit will be required. Plans must comply with 2001 ADA, 2001 CBC, and 2004 CEC requirements for temporary power poles, power supply generators, and temporary seating grandstands and canopies. Structural calculations are required for the bleachers. The applicant shall provide a manufacturer's certification letter of approval for the bleacher installation, and provide portable seating system details. The path of travel from parking areas and the path of travel to restroom facilities shall be designed to meet ADA handicapped accessibility code requirements. 23. San Diego Gas and Electric has an overhead electric transmission line running along the dirt access road to the camping site, and requests that measures be taken to control dust on the road, such as restricting speed and keeping the road dampened. The road should be left in as good as, if not better condition than it is presently. 24. The Applicant shall implement all Best Management Practices (BMPs) proposed in the submitted Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and its addendum before, during, and after each race event. It is required that a person nominated by the Applicant be in charge of conducting inspections and maintaining BMPs before, during, and after the race events. The name and contact number of the designated person shall be provided to the Storm Water Management Section. 25. It is required that the existing desilting basins remain operational and accessible at all times. Storm runoff shall be directed to those desilting basins before leaving the site. The de silting basins shall be maintained and cleaned by the Applicant as necessary to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 26. Prior to the start of any racing event, including participant, crew and spectator arrival, the Applicant shall install barriers or fences within the race area, camping and parking areas to prevent race spectators from entering environmentally sensitive areas adjacent to the site. 27. Prior to the first race event, the Applicant shall submit a plan showing the final grading of the site and drainage patterns to demonstrate that all runoff leaving the project site passes through the two (2) existing onsite desilting basins. 28. Prior to the first race event, the Applicant shall hydro seed or install a bonded fiber matrix along the existing berm located along the southern boundary of the rock quarry. 15-248 Resolution No. Page 8 29. Prior to the first race event, the Applicant shall obtain coverage under the NPDES General Construction Permit that includes the dirt access road leading to the proposed campsite on the south side of the Otay River. A copy of the receipt of the Notice of Intent (N0l) shall be submitted to the Storm Water Management Section. The SWPPP for the site shall be amended to include BMPs for the access road. 30. Prior to the first race event, the Applicant shall submit site plans showing and identifying all existing sewer lines, water lines, and all easements located within the project boundary properties. 31. The applicant shall maintain roadway access for San Diego Gas and Electric, the City of Chula Vista, the City of San Diego, Otay River (SR-125) Construction, and all other local, state, and federal governmental agencies that need access to sewer lines, the water lines/aqueduct, toll way construction etc., in order to fulfill functions that occur as part of business and governmental operations within the affected properties. 32. Prior to the first race event, the Applicant shall apply for a construction permit to perform work within the public right-of- way to remove and replace the curb, gutter and sidewalk located at the cul-de-sac terminus of Energy Way that will provide access to the general public parking area. The driveway shall be replaced with a Chula Vista Standard driveway CVCS-IA. All businesses located along the frontage of Energy Way and Nirvana Avenue shall be notified regarding use of these roads for racing event traffic routing. In addition, if there is any proposal for limiting parking by posting "No Parking" signs on Energy Way and Nirvana Avenue during the racing events it shall be included for review in the Traffic Control Plan. 33. Prior to the first race event, the Applicant shall acknowledge in writing that the Chula Vista Fire Department conditions of approval as stated herein are specific only to the 2007 race season. 34. Prior to the first race event, the Applicant shall prepare an Emergency Medical and Safety Plan to be approved by the .Chula Vista Fire Chief. The plan shall detail, among other items, emergency access routes, type of emergency vehicles required to adequately serve the project, alternative access routes to be employed in the event of rain or damp conditions, the variety of emergency medical services that can be provided by the contract emergency medical company, chain of cornmunication between event sponsor and medical staff, number of ambulances present onsite and the number of uniformed Chula Vista Fire Department staff needed onsite. A fully staffed Fire Department engine company and Battalion Chief will be onsite during all race events. 35. The Applicant shall provide approved fire and emergency access from Energy Way to the parking areas and provide approved emergency access within fenced areas. All access ways shall be no less than twenty feet wide. The Applicant shall provide approved fire lanes through vendors, pits, parking and camping areas. The Applicant shall provide two points of access to the racetrack. 15-249 Resolution No. Page 9 36. Prior to the first race event, the Applicant shall provide plans showing location of parked fuel truck in relationship to entire event. This truck shall be down wind of the entire event. The Applicant shall purchase a permit for hazardous materials and submit manifest. The applicant shall provide 20-ft. wide access to fuel truck. The Applicant shall provide 25-ft. minimum from generators, 50-ft. from combustibles (tents) and post "No Smoking" signage. The Applicant shall provide that all drums shall be bonded in an approved manner. The Applicant shall provide NFPA 704 signage, and any dispensing shall be provided with an approved means of secondary containment. The Applicant shall provide at least a 2A40BC fire extinguisher, and this requirement shall apply to all fuel trucks even if only delivering fuel. 37. The project applicant shall submit plans for generators and generator schedules for all generator users such as race teams, food vendors, and carnival areas. For the children's carnival area, ensure that the generator is grounded and fenced off and apply for an additional generator/hazardous material permit. Ensure that all generators are grounded and fenced off. Apply for an additional hazardous materials permit for all generators. Provide a fire extinguisher on site. Submit plans and apply for a fireworks permit prior to event. The use of fueworks shall be limited to daylight hours and shall be limited to use only at the beginning of each racing event. 38. Prior to the first race event, the Applicant shall submit plans and apply for all necessary permits from the Fire Department for all tents/canopies. 39. Prior to the first race event, the Applicant shall submit a letter of indemnification for semi truck / race trailers to the Fire Marshal. 40. The project applicant shall submit plans for the placement of grandstands to the Fire Department and the City of Chula Vista Building Department. The applicant shall provide aisle ways/exit paths to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshall and all exit paths shall remain clear of all. items. The applicant shall provide clear fire access and fire lanes. The applicant shall post "No Smoking" signage in all pit areas. The applicant shall obtain permit for the pit areas for the storage area of hazardous materials prior to the first racing events. 41. The Applicant shall provide the Fire Department access to all of the camping areas. No campfires are allowed or any open burning or the creation of open fire pits. The Applicant shall provide that all fenced areas have an approved number of emergency exits to the satisfaction of the Fire Chief. The Applicant shall provide that all access roads to any of the camping areas shall be no less than twenty feet wide, with a 6 percent maximum grade with a fire and emergency vehicle turnaround. 42. The Applicant shall provide signs at all of the entrances to the racing event indicating the following: California Vehicle Code (CVC) 22658: (a) Except as provided in Section 22658.2, the owner or person in lawful possession of any private property, within one hour of notifying, by telephone or, if impractical, by the most expeditious 15-250 Resolution No. Page 10 means available, the local traffic law enforcement agency, may cause the removal of a vehicle parked on the property to the nearest public garage under any of the following circumstances: (1) There is displayed, in plain view at all entrances to the property, a sign not less than 17 by 22 inches in size, with lettering not less than one inch in height, prohibiting public parking and indicating that vehicles will be removed at the owner's expense, and containing the telephone number of the local traffic law enforcement agency. The sign may also indicate that a citation may also be issued for the violation. 43. Prior to the first race event, the Applicant shall provide a Security Plan for review and approval by the Police Department's Special Events & Special Investigations Unit and subject to final review and approval by the Police Chief. Compliance with the Security Plan approved by the Police Chief is a condition of this permit. 44. The project applicant shall obtain and provide all required Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) permits to the Police Department's Special Events & Special Investigations Unit prior to any sales of alcohol at the racing and entertainment events. The sale of alcoholic beverages may occur during the races and shall cease one hour prior to the end of the races. Compliance with the limitation to the sales of alcohol is a condition of this permit. 45. The Applicant shall furnish the Chula Vista Police Department, Fire Department, American Medical Response, and CORR management team a means for two-way radio communication during the hours of operation. 46. The Applicant shall provide a minimum 20-ft. wide parking aisle to every parking space area, all parking aisles shall serve a maximum double-loaded row of vehicles. Tandem parking is prohibited. 47. The project applicant shall provide an Emergency Medical Plan for review and approval by the Fire Chief prior to the commencement of the first racing event. In addition, the Applicant shall obtain an approved "stand by" agreement for Fire Department personnel from the Fire Department. 48. The Applicant shall provide proof of liability insurance coverage naming the City of Chula Vista as an additionally insured party, including the Additional Insured Endorsement, in the amount of $10 million. The liability insurance policy and the Additional Insured Endorsement shall be reviewed and approved by the Risk Management Department two weeks prior to the event. 49. The Applicant shall minimize noise impacts adjacent to the preserve. As noted on the plans, berms and/or walls will be constructed adjacent to uses that introduce noise that could impact or interfere with wildlife. The Applicant shall construct a noise attenuation barrier along the backs of all grandstands adjacent to the preserve to the satisfaction of the City's Environmental Review Coordinator and Director of Planning and Building. 15-251 Resolution No. Page II 50. The Applicant shall provide acoustical monitoring at the edge of, and within, sensitive habitat areas including designated MSCP Preserve areas, to the satisfaction of the Environmental Review Coordinator throughout all pre-race events and the race event weekend. Monitoring locations shall be reviewed, and approved by the City's biological consultant prior to the commencement of any race related activity. Upon completion of the acoustical monitoring, a summary report shall be provided to City staff. In addition, the Applicant shall provide qualitative air and water quality monitoring at the edge of, and within, sensitive habitat areas including designated MSCP Preserve areas, to the satisfaction of the Planning Commission's recommendation request for such monitoring in response to the request made by the Otay Valley Regional Park Committees. 51. The Applicant shall provide biological monitoring within sensitive habitat areas including designated MSCP Preserve areas to the satisfaction of the Environmental Review Coordinator throughout the race event weekend to ensure implementation of appropriate resource protection measures. Monitoring shall include, but is not limited to, the following: changes in sensitive species behavior (most notably coastal California gnatcatchers and least Bell's vireo), intrusions into the MSCP Preserve, visible trampling of natural vegetation adjacent to the project footprint, and edge effects at the border of the MSCP preserve and adjacent to the project footprint. Monitoring locations shall focus on adjacent Preserve areas, the locations of which shall be reviewed and approved by the City's biological consultant prior to the commencement of any race related activities. Upon completion of the biological monitoring, a report summarizing the general baseline biological conditions (i.e., pre- race conditions), the observed effects of race related activities on biological resources, and the applicant's conformance to the City's adjacency management guidelines shall be provided to City staff. 52. The project applicant shall provide prominently colored, structurally solid fencing wherever race related operations, including access roads, parking areas, camping areas, and track are adjacent to sensitive vegetation communities and/or other biological resources, as identified by a qualified monitoring biologist. Fences will provide a minimum of a 100-foot buffer between the project area and the Preserve. 53. The applicant shall provide signage to be installed approximately every ISO-ft. on all fences bordering the preserve edges indicating that sensitive habitat is located nearby and that aces is strictly prohibited. 54. The use of the existing Otay River access road (Parking and Camping Areas to Track Area) and existing Wolf Canyon access road during the race weekend(s) by pedestrians shall be prohibited. On-site security staff shall direct race patrons to the appropriate shuttle pick-up/drop-off locations. Enforcement of this condition shall be detailed in the project applicant's security plan which shall be reviewed and approved by the City's Environmental Review Coordinator prior to the commencement of any race related activities. 15-252 Resolution No. Page 12 55. The lighting of all developed areas adjacent to the preserve shall be shielded and directed away from the preserve in compliance with the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, but consistent with public safety. Prior to the commencement of any race related activities, a lighting plan and photometric analysis shall be submitted to the City's Environmental Review Coordinator for review and approval. The lighting plan shall illustrate the location of the proposed lighting standards and type of shielding measures. Low-pressure sodium lighting shall be used if feasible and shall be subject to the approval of the City's Environmental Review Coordinator. 56. The parking and camping stalls shall be sited a minimum of 100 feet away from the Preserve edge and/or any identified areas containing sensitive biological and archeological resources. Parking and camping stalls shall be sited under the direction of a qualified biologist and archeologist. 57. Prior to the first racing event the Applicant shall prepare a Security plan to be approved by the Chula Vista Police Chief and the City's Environmental Review Coordinator. The Security plan shall detail, among other items, the number of security personnel provided, general distribution of security throughout the race event including preserve areas, and number of uniformed Chula Vista police staff required. In order to maintain the biological integrity of the adjacent preserve areas, the security plan shall further describe all activities that are prohibited within or adjacent to Preserve areas as well as address how violations are to be processed. Prohibited activities include, but are not limited to, use of illegal fireworks, campfires, use of personal ATV's within the project area including camping and parking areas, encroachment into designated Preserve areas and/or sensitive habitat areas, and pedestrian use of the Otay River and Wolf Canyon shuttle routes. 58. The Applicant shall enforce the following rules in the camping area, such as an 11 p.m. curfew on noise disturbance (e.g., no loud speaking equipment or stereos will be allowed), proper disposal of all trash, a prohibition on leaving the campground and intruding into the adjacent Preserve areas, and a prohibition on the personal use of fireworks. The Applicant shall provide campers a leaflet explaining the biological sensitivity of the surrounding areas as well as the campground rules, including the rule that campers will be only be able to access the racetrack via a shuttle bus. 59. This permit shall be subject to any and all new, modified or deleted conditions imposed after approval of this permit to advance a legitimate govemmental interest related to health, safety or welfare which the City shall impose after advance written notice to the Permittee and after the City has given to the Permittee the right to be heard with regard thereto. 60. The Applicant does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless City, its Council members, officers, employees, agents and representatives, from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims and costs, including court costs and attorneys' fees (collectively, "liabilities") incurred by the City arising, 15-253 Resolution No. Page 13 directly or indirectly, from (a) City's approval and issuance of this Conditional Use Permit (PCC-07-063) and the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration for this Conditional Use Permit allowing for a Temporary Championship Off-Road Race (IS- 07-030) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, (b) City's approval or issuance of any other permit or action, whether discretionary or non-discretionary, in connection with the use contemplated herein, and (c) the activities conducted in conjunction with this Conditional Use Permit and Final Mitigated Negative Declaration, including all claims for damages for alleged personal injuries or property damage from any person or entity, whether such injury or damage is allegedly caused by applicant/operator, race participants, vendors, or spectators. Applicant/operator shall acknowledge their agreement to this provision by executing a copy of this conditional use permit where indicated, below. Applicant's/operator's compliance with this provision is an express condition of this conditional use permit and this provision shall be binding on any and all of Applicant's/operator's successors and assigns. H. GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66020 NOTICE Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(1), NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the 90 day period to protest the imposition of any impact fee, dedication, reservation, or other exaction described in this resolution begins on the effective date of this resolution and any such protest must be in a manner that complies with Section 66020 (a) and failure to follow timely this procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void or annul imposition. The right to protest the fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions does not apply to planning, zoning, grading, or other exactions, which have been given notice similar to this, nor does it revive challenges to any fees for which the Statute of Limitations has previously expired. 15-254 Resolution No. Page 14 I. EXECUTION AND RECORDATION OF RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL The property owner and the applicant shall execute this document by signing the lines provided below, said execution indicating that the property owner and applicant have each read, understood, and agreed to the conditions contained herein. Upon execution, this document shall be recorded with the County Clerk of the County of San Diego, at the sole expense of the property owner and/or applicant, and a signed, stamped copy of this recorded document within ten days of recordation to the City Clerk shall indicate the property owners/applicant's desire that the project, and the corresponding application for building permits and/or a business license, be held in abeyance without approval. Said document will also be on file in the City Clerk's Office and known as document No. Signature of James Baldwin Applicant/Property Owner Date Signature of Applicant's Event Representative From Championship Off-Road Racing (CORR) Date J. INVALIDITY; AUTOMATIC REVOCATION It is the intention of the City Council that its adoption of this Resolution is dependent upon the enforceability of each and every term, provision, and condition herein stated; and that in the event that anyone or more terms, provisions, or conditions are determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable, this resolution and the permit shall be deemed to be automatically revoked and of no further force and effect ab initio. Presented by Approved as to form by Jim Sandoval Planning and Building Director 15-255 ..\\ The Corky McMillin Comp< Realty. Mortgage. Land Development. Homes. COI ~\ ~~ 'J c9,",,"S<'>\, ..:IT- 'T\-c~'" \ S --- June 5, 2007 Mayor Cox and Members of the City Council City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista. CA 91910 Dear Mayor Cox and members of the City Council, We otTer our support for issuing the conditional use permit (CUP) for the CORR OfT Road Racing Championships as requested by Mr. Jim Baldwin. As long standing members of the business community and active in South County for nearly 50 years, our company supports this event for its regional exposure and economic impact it will bring to the City of Chula Vista. The previous CaRR event otTered a great source of family entertainment and also brought a premiere event to Chula Vista. The Corky McMillin Companies and the McMillin family hope that you will support this CUP as the CaRR experience is an economic opportunity for the City of Chula Vista. These events can draw more than an average of 10,000 visitors per day, cach taking the opportunity to shop and dine in Chula Vista. Many will choose to stay in local hotels as well. Again, we urge your support for this event and the issuing of a CUP for the event to take place. We see this opportunity as one that will tllrther enhance the visibility of our region and expand the economic growth in the region as well. Sincerely, {~~ Mark McMillin Co-chairman & CEO ~~ Scott McMillin Co-chairman & CEO .\\. McMil1inRt.~alty .\\. McMillin Mortgage .\\. McMillin Land Development .\\. McMillin Homes .\\. McMillin Commercia:! Mailing Address: PO. Box 85104 . San Diego, CA 92186-5to4 2750 Womble Road' San Diego, CA 92106 TEL (619) 477-4117 . FAX (619) 336-3119 W\\'w.mcmillin.com June 5, 2007 The Honorable Mayor and City Council The City of Chula Vista, CA 276 Fourth Ave. Chula Vista, CA 91910 Dear Mayor Cox and City Council Members, San Diego County has more endangered species than any county in the United States. There is a direct correlation between biological diversity and the health of an ecological system. During the Clinton Administration the Secretary of Interior, Bruce Babbitt, worked with San Diego County and its incorporated cities to address this issue by developing the Multiple Species Conservation Program, MSCP. This encouraged jurisdictions to work with developers and the environmental community to protect critical habitat and develop marginal lands. It also enabled the United States Fish and Wildlife Service USFWS and the California Department of Fish and Game CDFG to work with the jurisdictions to implement this program. Many people have spent years developing the Otay Valley Regional Park plan. The CORR event was presented to the Citizens Advisory Committee at a moments notice. The event flies in the face of the time and effort put forth by members of the community to make this park a reality. The mission of this park is to provide an opportunity for people to escape the daily stress of urban life by developing passive and active recreational opportunities. The park corridor also provides a migration route for wildlife from San Diego Bay to the Otay Mountains. There has never been any intention to allow motorized vehicular activity as a part of the park mission. It has never been mentioned before now. , The CORR event will take place on the edge of an MSCP overlay. Ultimately it is up to the discretion of the city, the USFWS and the CDFG whether this event complies with the MSCP mandate and is allowed to proceed. If the decision is made to proceed, realizing that it overrides the original intent of the agreement between the Secretary of Interior and the county jurisdictions then a precedent will be set which jeopardizes the MSCP at this site and other sites around the county. San Diego County has a great demand for off road vehicle use and very few areas are designated. The Governor's Biodiversity Council has been charged with the responsibility of resolving this dilemma in other counties in California. It has been suggested that the Council work with San County in finding acceptable sites for these activities It is upsetting to realize that we must comply with laws and regulations and get permits which may take months in developing the park plan but all this protocol can be swept aside for a non- conforming activity like this CORR event This inconsistency is unacceptable and should not be permitted. If there are standards that have to be met, including compatible use then so be it The event should not be held at this site. There is a great fear that this site could become permanent This would be a travesty and real slap in the face for all the people that have spent years setting this park up. Sincerely, Michael A. McCoy, DVM 132t:111_t___ Imperial Beach, CA 91932 . . C~UlA ViSTA C~AMbER of COMMERCE 233 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 Tel: 619-420-6603 Fax: 619-420-1269 E-mail: info@chulavistachamberorg Website: http://www.chulavistachamberor.g BO~RD Of DIR!.( IORS P,,,,id,,, Charles Moore I',,,,id,,, Elf (, Lourdes Valdez Viu P""id'N" Lisa Johnson Scott Vinson Chris Boyd Bob Bliss P"T I'r~"id, NT Dave Ruch Dil~HIOH~ Lowell Billings Gary Bryant Rich D'Ascoll Brett Davis Jane Hieronimus David McClurg Tom Money Christine Moore Jay Norris Raul Rehnborg Jerry Rlndone Ahmad Solomon Gary Sullivan Splei,l I YeA" Ben Richardson Lisa Moctezuma CEO Lisa Cohen Junc L 2007 Mayor Cheryl Cox Chula Vista Councilmembcrs Citv of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avcnue Chula Vista, CA 91910 Dear Mayor Cox and City Councilmembers. As many of you know, thc Chula Vista Chambcr is responsiblc for managing the city's Convention and Visitors Bureau. In this capacity, we promote Chula Vista as a dcstinatlOn and help bnng millions of dollars annually into the local economy The Chula Vista Convention and Visitors Burcau and thc Chamber of Commerce are proud to support the Championship Off-Road Racing (CORR) event scheduled for this Saturdav. June 9th. CORR is an examplc of the typc of event that the Convcntion and Visitors Bureau wants to bnng to Chula Vista. In fact. the racc is expectcd to draw morc than 10.000 spectators cach day and generate numerous hotel room mghts. The posItive economic benefit to the City for holding these races cannot be understatcd. It Will crcate much-nccded sales and TOT rcvenue. hotel room nights. and I rI/{,q,~eless media exposure for Chula VISta. Sincerely. ~ - ~ - '-'--= "'- c:::9--~ Lisa Cohcn ChIef Exccutlve Officer Chula Vista Chamber of Commcrcc Ti~ fL-- General Manager ConventlOn & VIsItors Bureau CHulA ViSTA CHAMbER of COMMERCE 233 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 Tel: 619-420-6603 Fax: 619-420-1269 E-mail: info@chulavistachamber.org Website: http://www.chulavistachamber.org BO~RIJ Of DIHl(fORS Pruc"idl:NI Charles Moore PI<f,idl NI flul Lourdes Valdez Vi'l P""idIN" Lisa Johnson Scott Vinson Chlls Boyd Bob Bliss Pl\')1 PrU\ic!l-NI Dave Ruch DiIH:( IOH<., Lowell Billings Gary Bryant Rich D'Ascoll Brett DavIs Jane H,eron,mus David McClurg Tom Money Christine Moore Jay Noms Raul Rehnborg Jerry Rindone Ahmad Solomon Gary Sullivan 51" ci..1 I y"" Ben Richardson Lisa Moctezuma CFO Lisa Cohen June I, 2007 Deputv Mayor Jerrv Rindone Chula VIsta Councilmembers City ofChula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista. CA 91910 Dear Dcputv Mayor Jerry Rindone, As many of you know. the Chula Vista Chamber IS responsible for managing the citv's Convention and VisItors Burcau. In this capacity. we promote Chula Vista as a destination and help brIng millions of dollars annually mto the local economy. The Chula Vista Convention and Visitors Bureau and the Chamber of Commerce are proud to support the ChampIOnship Off-Road Racing (CaRR) event scheduled for this Saturday. June 9th. CaRR IS an example of the type of event that the Convention and VisItors Bureau wants to bring to Chula Vista. In fact the race is expected to draw more than 10.000 spectators each day and generate numerous hotel room nights The positIve economic benefit to the City for holding these races cannot be understated. It will create much-needed sales and TOT revenue. hotel room nights. and I oriceless media exposure for Chula Vista. F'HMS Sincerely. ~~=- ~ Lisa Cohen Chief Exccutive Officer Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce ?:-::mna j/L-- General Manager ConventIOn & VisItors Bureau O~-~~-()7 rf/..ep c..ow (..6$ The Rl Option for Owner Occupancy in the ADU Ordinance Revision Owner Occupancy will help keep R I areas stable if an ADU is built in the neighborhood. The idea that someone would have to sell their home because they were not present to live on the property is ABSURD. Valid reasons for not being able to reside on the property may include the foJ/owing reasons: . Called to military duty outside of Chula Vista . Family medical emergency outside ofChula Vista that would require the owner of the property to move outside of Chula Vista. . Job transfer Any of those reasons may seem valid but the whole idea of building an ADU in an RI zone is to provide affordable housing, not subsidize an income. Even if the property owner had to move the ADU or main resident could be rented, not both. Anyone that is planning on building an ADU should not depend upon the income to pay their mortgage. Again, if they did not live on the property (for whatever reason) they can still RENT either the main dwelling or the ADU. If they cannot meet their mortgage obligations then they probably shouldn't have planned on turning an RI zone resident into an R2 property. Since the Owner Occupancy clause has been diluted with excmptions it might be a good idea to ensure that the loopholes cannot be exploited. An Owner Occupancy clause with exceptions should include the following: I. The owner of the propel1y must have resided in the home for at least one year before applying for the ADU permit. (THIS WILL ENSURE THAT THE ONWER OF THE PROPERTY DOES RESIDE AT THE RESIDENCE). 2. The owner of the propel1y must reside in either the main dwelling or ADU for at least a year before applying for an exemption. (THIS PROMOTES BETTER FINANCIAL PLANNING ON THE OWNERS PART AND PREVENTS OPPORTUNIST FROM PLANNING A QUICK ADU BUILD OUT AND HA VING THEM USE THE LOOPHOLE TO RENT BOTH PROPERTIES IF THEY MOVE OUT SHORTLY AFTER THE ADU IS BUILT. 3. Limit the amount of time to 2 years. Most military deployments are about that length of time. If the deployment is longer then they shouldn't expect their neighbors to bear the burden of having two rental units next door in an RJ zoned neighborhood. Two years is plenty of time for people to figure out what they should do. Also, remember that the o\vner can still rent either the ADU or main dwelling \vhile they are away. It just isn't right 10 impose t\VO rental units into an RI zoned neighborhood because of the lack of good financial planning on the pan of the propel1yowner. Whose rights are we trying to protect here? The rights of the propeliy owner that turned an Rlneighborhood into an R2 zone? Or should we protect the numerous surrounding neighbors? 4. Inheritance - benefactors of the home with an ADU in an R I zoned area should be given a year to figure out what to do with the property. Those clauses are very generous considering that the whole idea of having an Owner Occupancy is to maintain stability in the RJ zoned areas - again, whose rights should be protected? The best idea is to have no exemptions and close the loopho!es. Loopholes are clauses that provide very clever people with a way to get around the rules. Exemptions are made to be exploited. . . MICHEL DEDINA SOUTH BAY SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ALLIANCE A Better San Diego, Cula Vista, Coronado & Imperial Beach 1311 CALIFORNIA STREET IMPERIAL BEACH CA 91932-3215 (619) 575 9102 DUAL6@HOTMAIL.COM In Chula Vista-- Young fellows race their cars on city streets~sometimes causing serious injuries and deaths. All of us wish that Chula Vista could find a place for young fellows to safely race their cars without getting killed or injured on city streets. However, Championship Off Road Racing is NOT the solution to that problem. CORR is a very expensive hobby that young fellows could not afford. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2001, Chula Vista, city of San Diego and County of San Diego adopted an overall Concept Plan for the Otay Valley Regional Park. Chula Vist~ will want to honor its agreement. The Concept Plan provides for the operations and maintenance of open space and RECREATIONAL facilities. 1990 The Policy Committee approved these goals: "The Otay Valley Regional Park will... provide... a mix of active and passive recreational activities. while protectinQ environmentally sensitive areas,.... protecting cultural and scenic resources and encouraging compatibl~ ~gricultural uses in the park." . . "... attention shall be focused not only on providing facilities and protecting resources, but also on adjacent land-uses to ensure compatible development, buffering, and linkages with other regional resources... ." Word RECREATION in terms ofa park can be easily misinterpreted. It has been misinterpreted by the CAC. Let's take a moment to see what RECREATION means in terms of this or any park. In parks there is Active RECREATION -swimming pools, soccer fields, softball, etc. Passive RECREATION -bicycling, jogging, bird watching, picnicking, horseback riding, etc. Championsl;1ip Off Road Racing is neither Active or Passive. It has no place in or around QVRP. Please adhl;1re to the agreements and turn down the Championship Off Road Racing in the vicinity the Otay Valley Regional Park. Thank you. This program models how emissions scatter over an area and how they impact individual receptors around that area. Usually used for Oat urban intersections. Not field validated for rough terrain. CALlNE4 Model Outputs ~ CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSfON MODEJ- ~ JUNE 1989 VERSION , ' l\. PAGE 1 .~~ . ~,,"I N.~ , I ~~~~ ~~~~y/ Parking Lot am #'~ .~ .' .i"~ r-.. POLLUTANT: Carbon Monoyide $' 8 N.~ '- I . ..,..'') ...., ~ _~~. . ~ ' ,().~ . :~'1r is ?"'. ' ." ::>":orv -S I. SIT~ VARIABLES . .~ .x J'~ ~~ ~ ~ MOOS~'~ ~ . V ... b. ."" ~ U~ l.v MIS I ZO~ 100. CM '',;.,jo ALT~ O. 1M) \ \. 'R ~ 0 DEGREES VD~.O CM/S' " \, '5) ~\' ,i. /~~~~: 10~~ ~G) ~~: :~ ;~~s ambient(~dtobe3.~,~n~;1 ~~ . ( SIGTH~ 10. DEGREES , TEMP~ 37.0 DEGREE IC) '<$'~;,,,,,,o$J , ;:.', 6'~, . ~ deviation wind speed I q 6 & ~ ," f'. :~~~ '~$/ .$~ , $- LI. LINK VARIABLES \,' ~~q;>4>,~ ~ k~, LINK * LINK COORDINATES 1M) * 4 Et H' W 0/' DESCRIPTION * Xl Yl X2 Y2 * TYPE VPH IG/MI) 1M) 1M) ~C> ~~_:~~:~_~:~~___:__=~~~____~~_____~____~~_:__~~___~;;~___~~~_____~~__~~~~ c. Wiley WBRA * 150 6 0 6 * AG 1488 9.7 .0 10.0 D. Wiley WBTA * 150 4 0 4 * AG 0 9.7 .0 10.0 ~ E, PL D * 0 0 0 150 * Af 7460 9. 7 . 0 10 . 0 ~ \i\~ \. ~ \' ~ '\,'0 ~//~~~ '1' V .J./ "2... ,* \ \ , III. RECEPTOR LOCATIONS * COORDINATES 1M) X Y Z RECEPTOR ------------*-----~--------------- * l. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7, 8, 9. 10. 11. 12. 1 * 2 * 3 * 4 * 5 * 6 * 7 * 8 * 9 * 10 . 11 . 12 . Recpt Recpt Recpt Recpt Recpt Recpt Recpt Recpt Recpt Recpt Recpt Recpt 0 -14 1.8 -20 -14 1.8 -40 -14 1.8 -60 -14 1.8 20 -14 1.8 40 -14 1.8 60 -14 1.8 -10 14 1.8 -30 14 1.8 -50 14 1.8 -10 34 1.8 -10 54 1.8 Air Quality Technical Report A-9 Championship OfFRoad Racing Temporary Race Facility 4//7/07 Same variables were used (or AM and PM which is d b. . differences in this area. 'u 10US gIVen CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL JUNE 1989 VERSION PAGE 1 JOB: Wiley & Parking Lot pm RUN: Hour 1 POLLUTANT: Carbon Monoxide I. SITE VARIABLES U= 1.0 Mis ZO= 100. CM ALT= O. 1M) BRG= .0 DEGREES VD= .0 CM/S CLAS= 7 IG) VS= .0 CM/S MIXH= 1000. M AMB= .0 PPM SIGTH= 10. DEGREES TEMP= 37.0 DEGREE IC) II. LINK VARIABLES LINK * LINK COORDINATES 1M) * EF H W DESCRIPTION * Xl Y1 X2 Y2 * TYPE VPH (G/MI) 1M) 1M) ----------------*-------------------------*------------------------------ A. Wiley EBLA * -150 0 0 0 * AG 0 9.7 .0 10.0 B. Wiley EBTA * -150 -4 0 -4 * AG 5972 9.7 .0 10.0 C. Wiley WBRA * 150 6 0 6 * AG 0 9.7 .0 10.0 D. Wiley WBTA * 150 4 0 4 * AG 1488 9.7 .0 10.0 E. PL D * 0 0 0 150 * AG 7460 9.7 .0 10.0 III. RECEPTOR LOCATION S * COORDINATES 1M) RECEPTOR * X Y Z ------------*--------------------- 1. Recpt 1 * 0 -14 1.8 2. Recpt 2 * -20 -14 1.8 3. Recpt 3 * -40 -14 1.8 4. Recpt 4 * -60 -14 1.8 5. Recpt 5 * 20 -14 1.8 6. Recpt 6 * 40 -14 1.8 7. Recpt 7 * 60 -14 1.8 8. Recpt 8 * -10 14 1.8 9. Recpt 9 * -30 14 1.8 10. Recpt 10 * -50 14 1.8 11. Recpt 11 * -10 34 1.8 12. Recpt 12 * -10 54 1.8 13. Recpt 13 * 10 16 1.8 14. Recpt 14 * 30 16 1.8 A ir Quality Technical Report A-12 4117107 Championship Off-Road Racing Temporary Race Facility ". ~r .. CORS: c..J Indeed Qji MSCP does not have a noise threshold nwnber for edge effects on wildJife, but Lake Tahoe does: Microsoft PowerPoint - Forum Noise Presentation BBA-10-28-05v2 File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrbbat. View as HTML Tahoe Regional Planning Area (TRPA) has adopted Noise Threshold Standards. This includes single event noise .... Wilderness and Roadless Areas. 45. Critical Wildlife Habitat Areas ... Potential Supplemental Hourly Noise Level Standards Hourly Threshold Values for Land Use Compatihility Land Use Classificatiou Day (7 a.m. to 10 p.mH.o) urly LNeqig, hdtB (10 p.rn. to 7 a.m.) High Density Residential 55 50 Low Density Residential 50 45 HotellMoteJ Facilities 55 50 Commercial Areas 65 60 ~Urban Outdoor Recreation Arcas~ 55 50 Rurnl Outdoor Recreation Areas'-----.' 50 45 Wilderness and RoadJess Areas .~ 40 40 Critical Wildlife Habitat Areas 40 40 The Otay River is critical wildlife habitat. It is simply unacceptable to permit a mitigated noise level of75 dB. This is an unmitil!:ated effect. The 78 dB ambient noise was measured at above the quarry a considerable distance away from venue and River preserve area. 68 dB was the ambient measure near tbe quarry weight scales in the VIP parking area. This is the closest area to the Otay River and is the figure that should be used. Blasting is irrelevant since it is not a continuous noise but a one- time disturbance recurring every few days. This should be considered unmitigated noise impact whether temporary or not. 2. It is also likely that the air quality threshold for CO will be exceeded. It is exceeded according to the Air Quality Report, but they try to weasel out of it by running a Hot spot analysis using CALlNE4. There are problems witb tbe CALINE hotspot study. This is a quote from the CALINE manual (http://aqp. engr. ucdavi s. edu/Documents/Guide. pdt): Canyon/Bluff Mix: CALlNE4 is based on two somewhat restrictive assumptions: I) horizontally homogeneous windflow, and 2) steady-state meteorological conditions. Complex topography can invalidate each of these assumptions. Landfeatures such al' canyons can channel winds. Hills and valleys are likely to cau..'e frequent shifts in wind direction. For these reasons. use of CALINE4 in complex terrain should be approached with care. CALlNE4 handles certain bllff/and canyon situation.v by reflecting the plume at the distances specified on one or both sides o/the mixing zone (rumer, 1970). CAUNE4 Manual 2-6 There is no indication that canyonlbluffmix was used in the print out. One wonders why this intersection, which will only have a very small percentage of vehicles, was even used in the model considering that only VIP parking will be here. All the other vehicles will be parking at the end of Energy Way? CAIJNE4 also alters the vertical dispersion curve to account for vehicle-related heat flux distributed over the width of the canyon This is especially important in the case of a narrow urban street canyon and also one could surmise a river valley. Wiley Road and parking lot clearly is a situation of rough terrain and is in a valley by the mouth of Wolf Canyon and the artificial canyon created by the quarry. The figures computed for hotspot are in great doubt, since the figures reported use class 7, most stable atmospheric condition (manual 2-9) and AG at grade for modeling, which does seem appropriate at Wiley and parking lot. The Atmospheric Stability Class is A measure of the turbulence of the atmosphere ... (Table 2-2 provides guidance for this choice. Stability class E (or 7) represents the most stable conditiony. Page 2-9) Table 2-2. Worst-case meteorological inputs for the estimation of I-hour CO concentrations (Nokes and Benson, 1985). Wind Standard Geographic Speed Deviation Stability T emperatufe Time Period Location (m/s) (d~rees) Class Adiustment' Morning Coastal 0.5 JO G (7) +5OF (6-10 am) Coastal Valley 0.5 20 Cm +5OF Central Valley 0.5 5 C (7) +5OF - Mountain 0.5 30 G (7) +5OF Midday Coastal 1.0 25 D (4) + lOoF (10 am-5 pm) Coastal Valley 0.6 30 D (4) + JOoF Central Valley 0.5 20 D (4) + lOoF Mountain 0.9 30 D (4) + lOoF Evening Coastal 0.5 JO C(7) +5OF (5-9 pm) Coastal Valley 0.5 JO G (7) +5OF Central Valley 0.5 5 C(7) +5OF Mountain 0.5 30 C (7) +5OF Nighttime Coastal 0.5 5 C (7) +ooF (9 pm-6 am) Coastal Valley 0.5 15 C(7) +ooF Central Valley 0.5 JO C(7) +ooF Mountain 0.5 20 C(7) +ooF 'Add the temperalure adjuslmentto the smallest mean minimum temperalure observed in January over the past 3 years 50llrre: CO Protocol. _.. ~.....--"' page 2-9 A temperature that reflects wintertime conditions should be selected, expressed in degrees Celsius. Table 2-2 describes a procedure that is appropriate for worst-case 1- hour analyses. The manual also suggests using worst case figures. This does not appear to have been done. In fact the temperature that was used to run the CALINE model was 37 degrees Celsius which is 98.6 degrees F. This is totally incorrect for this location and because it is so high greatly reduced the CO emissions. They also did not include the ambient emissions, which the study text calls high and says they used, but page A-9 has 0 next to AMB (the abbreviation for ambient). Ambient Pollutant Concentration - This measure reflects the pre-existing background level of carbon monoxide, expressed in parts per million. CALINE4 adds the pre-existing and modeled CO concentrations together to determine the total impact at each receptor. Consult the CO Protocol and the local Air Districtfor guidance. 2-9, 2-10 Since the figure entered was 0, obviously the model did not do this. It really is a very bad precedent to approve a mitigated negative declaration that still has unmitigated effects. It is also a bad precedent to allow this kind of activity and shuttling across preserve areas. The dirt roads being used will be compacted considerably by shuttling 10,000 people over them for two weekends. This is many times the yearly trips these roads normally see wm maintenance vehicles each day. The hydrology report did not take into consideration the potential for increased erosion horn this added compaction. It is time for the council to make a serious policy decision. Are we going to finally get a greenbelt around the city? Are we going to seriously protect our preserve areas so that wildlife will thrive and have safe corridors? if so incompatible uses should be prohibited. The quarry is an open space area in our recently adopted GPU. The restoration plan on file with the state would have the part closest to the river restored as habitat. If we are to ever have a citywide average of 3 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents we cannot change any areas now zoned in the GPU for open space, community parks, active recreation and/or open space to other uses. ~ 1\~~ EXPRESS' CHULA VISTA June 4, 2007 The Otay Ranch Company 610 W Ash Street, Suite 1500 San Diego, CA 92101 Dear Sir or Madam: We, at the Holiday Inn Exptess Chula Vista are writing this letter to support the Championship Off Road Racing that has been taking place in the City of Chula Vista for the last two years. It is a great opporrunity for Chula Vista and Chula Vista businesses to host this event that attracts thousands of tourists to the city. If you need any further information, please contact us at 619-422-2600. Sincerely, Nicole Hohenstein Lupe 'Macie{ Nicole Hohenstein General Manager Lupe Maciel Director of Sales 4450 Main Street, Chula Vista, CA 91911 619-422-2600 I Fax: 619-425-4605 Federalist Papers: FEDERALIST No.1 0 r<'O'N<2Ailt Page 1 of 5 " . i" ;Oi.....H.;';.:.' i'i~"'. ~"'~.ii'" 'i..:.~,"!ii.IJ'.iJ! '.':'(;'.' (', ;":' ,,'; . "':' : , ,,~ ,"fl'I~'}I'-;' : ;':,,'" 1'!J'" ,C,; \ IV,;i; ," ..' " .. ,',. ,. "':'- ,',' ;, t' ..' c,..,,'" '-""1 -, r! " ~-, !,' , "-"Ji ;~~' "::.,;/{~" ;<r1' ,,~ .'<<":;::,,':t',, ' 't" ~~),:\ 1~!',"'.'},-(:,:' "" ;.:....) ':"%!. ....'p.'~' r..'l/l. ~J.klm...l*zihMl~;>~Xh..(:~ '...J i'5;'A(..7'~ t"} ,,';If'., ,'.i F'-'lIr,dino Fd'i1pr~ flnr11<' P;\Ol' - Fedf.'1C1li<;\ Paner<;;' FEOERAUST No. 1'1 tell iDIi ImII fa. .. _ tUB .. SIll FEDERALIST No.1 0 The.$.<!me SUbjec;1.CootinYe(! (IheUnioOA$ a Safeguard_.A9ain$J Dome$ti~ac;1ipn <!mLlD$urrection) From the New York Packet Friday, November 23, 1787. James Madison Federal Government Solutions tor Secure. Collaborative and Responsive Govt. Read More www.CiscQ.com To the People of the State of New York: AMONG the numerous advantages promised by a wellconstructed Union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction The friend of popular governments never finds himself so much alarmed for the If character and fate. as when he contemplates thelf propensity to this dangerous vice He will not fall, therefore. to set a due value on any plan which. without violating the principles to which he IS attached, provides a proper cure for it. The instability. injustice. and confusion introduced into the public councils. have. in truth. been the mortal diseases under which popular governments have everywhere perished, as they continue to be the favorite and fruitful topics from which the adversaries to liberty derive their most specious declamations. The valuable improvements made by the American constitutions on the popular models. both ancient and modern. cannot certainly be too much admired; but it would be an unwarrantable partiality, to contend that they have as effectually obviated the danger on this side, as was wished and expected. Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens, equally the fflends of public and private faith, and of public and personal liberty. that our governments are too unstable. that the public good IS disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties. and that measures are too often decided. not according to the rules of justice and the fights of the minor party. but by the superior force of an Interested and overbearing majority. However anxiously we may wish that these complaints had no foundation. the eVidence. of known facts will not permit us to deny that they are in some degree true. It will be found. indeed, on a candid review of our situation. that some of the distresses under which we labor have been erroneously charged on the operation of our governments; but it will be found. at the same time. that other causes will not alone account for many of our heaviest misfortunes; and. particularly. for that prevailing and increasing distrust of public engagements, and alarm for private rights. which are echoed from one http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fedIO.htm 5/31/2007 Federalist Papers: FEDERALIST No. 10 Page 2 of 5 end of the continent to the other. These must be chiefly, if not wholly, effects of the unsteadiness and injustice with which a factious spirit has tainted our public administrations By a faction, I understand a number of citizens. whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community. There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one. by removing Its causes; the other, by controlling its effects There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests. It could never be more truly said than of the first remedy, that it was worse than the disease Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency. The second expedient is as impracticable as the first would be unwise. As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he IS at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed. As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other; and the former will be objects to which the latter will attach themselves. The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results; and from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors, ensues a divIsion of the society into different interests and parties The latent causes of faction are thus sown In the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society. A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre- eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co- operate for their common good. So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents Itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts. But the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors. fall under a like discrimination. A landed interest. a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views. The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of the government No man is allowed to be a Judge In his own cause, because his Interest would certainly bias his Judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity. With equal, nay with greater reason, a body of men are unfit to be both judges and parties at the same time; yet what are many of the most important acts of legislation, but so many judicial determinations, not indeed concerning the rights of single persons, but concerning the rights of large bodies of citizens? And what are the different classes of legislators but advocates and parties to the causes which they determine? Is a law proposed concerning private debts? It is a question to which the creditors are parties on one side and the debtors on the other. Justice ought to hold the balance between them. Yet the parties are, and must be, themselves the judges; and the most numerous party, or, In other words, the most powerful faction must be expected to prevail Shall domestic manufactures be encouraged, and in what degree, by restrictions on foreign manufactures? are questions which would be differently http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed10.htm 5/31/2007 f'ederalist Papers: FEDERALIST No.1 0 Page 3 of 5 decided by the landed and the manufacturing classes, and probably by neither with a sole regard to Justice and the public good. The apportionment of taxes on the various descriptions of property is an act which seems to require the most exact impartiality; yet there IS, perhaps, no legislative act in which greater opportunity and temptation are given to a predominant party to trample on the rules of justice. Every shilling with which they overburden the inferior number, is a shilling saved to their own pockets. It is in vain to say that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust these clashing interests, and render them all subservient to the public good. Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm. Nor, in many cases, can such an adjustment be made at all without taking into view indirect and remote considerations, which will rarely prevail over the immediate interest which one party may find in disregarding the rights of another or the good of the whole The inference to which we are brought is, that the CAUSES of faction cannot be removed, and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its EFFECTS. If a faction consists of less than a maJority, relief IS supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote. It may clog the administration, it may convulse the society; but it will be unable to execute and mask its violence under the forms of the Constitution. When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens. To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed. Let me add that it is the great desideratum by which this form of government can be rescued from the opprobrium under which it has so long labored, and be recommended to the esteem and adoption of mankind. By what means is this object attainable? Evidently by one of two only. Either the existence of the same passion or interest in a majority at the same time must be prevented, or the majority, having such coexistent passion or interest, must be rendered, by their number and local situation, unable to concert and carry into effect schemes of oppression. If the Impulse and the opportunity be suffered to coincide, we well know that neither moral nor religious motives can be relied on as an adequate control. They are not found to be such on the Injustice and violence of individuals, and lose their efficacy in proportion to the number combined together, that is, in proportion as their efficacy becomes needful. From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, In almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found Incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions. A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended. The effect of the first difference IS, on the one hand, to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of Justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fedlO.htm 5/31/2007 Federalist Papers: FEDERALIST NO.1 0 rege 4 of 5 voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose On the other hand, the effect may be inverted Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by Intngue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests, of the people. The question resulting is, whether small or extensive republics are more favorable to the election of proper guardians of the public weal; and it is clearly decided in favor of the latter by two obvious considerations: In the first place, it IS to be remarked that, however small the republic may be, the representatives must be raised to a certain number, In order to guard against the cabals of a few; and that, however large it may be, they must be limited to a certain number, in order to guard against the confusion of a multitude. Hence, the number of representatives in the two cases not being in proportion to that of the two constituents, and being proportionally greater in the small republic, it follows that, if the proportion of fit characters be not less in the large than in the small republic, the former will present a greater option, and consequently a greater probability of a fit choice In the next place, as each representative will be chosen by a greater number of citizens in the large than in the small republic, it will be more difficult for unworthy candidates to practice with success the vicious arts by which elections are too often camed; and the suffrages of the people being more free, will be more likely to centre In men who possess the most attractive merit and the most diffusive and established characters. It must be confessed that in this, as In most other cases, there is a mean, on both sides of which inconveniences will be found to lie. By enlarging too much the number of electors, you render the representatives too little acquainted with all their local circumstances and lesser interests; as by reducing it too much, you render him unduly attached to these, and too little fit to comprehend and pursue great and national objects. The federal Constitution forms a happy combination in this respect; the great and aggregate interests being referred to the national, the local and particular to the State legislatures. The other point of difference is, the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican than of democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former than in the latter. The smaller the society, the fewer probably will be the distinct parties and interests composing it; the fewer the distinct parties and interests, the more frequently will a majority be found of the same party; and the smaller the number of individuals composing a majority, and the smaller the compass within which they are placed, the more easily will they concert and execute their plans of oppression. Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the nghts of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other. Besides other impediments, it may be remarked that, where there is a consciousness of unjust or dishonorable purposes, communication is always checked by distrust in proportion to the number whose concurrence is necessary Hence, it clearly appears, that the same advantage which a republic has over a democracy, in controlling the effects of faction, IS enjoyed by a large over a small republic,--is enjoyed by the Union over the States composing it Does the advantage consist in the substitution of representatives whose enlightened views and virtuous sentiments render them superior to local prejudices and schemes of injustice? It will not be denied that the representation of the Union will be most likely to possess these requisite endowments. Does It consist in the greater secunty afforded by a greater variety of parties, against the event of anyone party being able to outnumber and oppress the rest? In an equal degree does the increased variety of parties comprised within the Union, increase this security. Does it, in fine, consist in the greater obstacles opposed to the concert and accomplishment of the secret wishes of an unjust and interested majority? Here, again, the extent of the Union gives it the most palpable advantage. The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States. A religious sect may degenerate into a political faction in a part of the Confederacy; but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it must secure the national councils against any danger from that source. A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it; in the same http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fedIO.htm 5/31/2007 Federal'ist Papers: FEDERALIST No. 10 proportion as such a malady is more likely to taint a particular county or district, than an entire State. In the extent and proper structure of the Union, therefore, we behold a republican remedy for the diseases most incident to republican government. And according to the degree of pleasure and pride we feel in being republicans, ought to be our zeal in cherishing the spirit and supporting the character of Federalists. PUBLlUS. Tell a friend. Click here to e-mail a Founding Fathers "VIrtual postcard." ~_mllllIII__ --~- ..'h,I//a!iEta..'7(lIhClw.ti/; ('; home page __7 {'If ~.." Page 5 of 5 2001:!U(14Interes!illC')com < ,0.,J,,;;,110.1 r"8pers [.pnks dnd lel;1h>1 iten,s from Amazon http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fedIO.htm 5/31/2007