HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 1993/02/16
"I declare under penalty of perjury that I am
employed by the City of Chula Vista in the
Office of the City Clerk and that I pDsted
this Agenda/Notice on the Bulletin Board at
T d F b 16 1993the Public erv'ces Building an at Cit HslI
ues ay, e ruary, DATED, d.. /.'" SIGNED
6:00 p.m.
Re lar Meetin
Council Chambers
Public Services Building
CAlL TO ORDER
1.
ROll. CAlL:
Councilmembers Fox ~ Horton ~ Moore -' Rindone -' and Mayor
Nader _
2. PLEDGE OF AIJ.EGIANCE TO THE FLAG. SILENT PRAYER
3.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
February 9, 1993 (City Council Meeting) and February 9, 1993
(Special Joint Meeting of the Redevelopment Agency/City Council).
4. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY:
a. Recognition of the "Voice of Democracy Winners. - Lara Stevinson (Mar Vista High School);
Vanessa Pool (Bonita Vista High School); and Van Cheng (Castle Park High School).
b. A report by Nancy Taboada and Teresa Thomas on the US/Mexico Sister Cities Conference
that was co-hosted by the City of Chula VISta and the City of San Diego on 1/15/93 through
1/17/93.
CONSENT CALENDAR
(Items 5 through 8)
The staff recommendations regarding the foUawing items listed under the Consent Calendar will be enacted by the "
Council by one motion without discussion unless a CoundImember, a member of the public or City stoff requests
thot the item be pufkd for discussion. If you wish to speak 011 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. (Complete the green form
to speak in favor of the. staff recommendation; complete the pink form to speak in opposition to the staff
recommendation.) Items puUed from the Consent Calendar will be discussed after Board and Commission
Recommendlltions and Action Items. Items pufkd by the public will be the first items of business.
5. WRlTfEN COMMUNlCATIONS:
a. Letter requesting waiver of fees for.C' Street improvements - Joseph F. Cody, President,
Board of Trustees, and Ed Armstrong, Chairman, Board of Directors, South Bay Pioneers,
270 "C" Street, Chula Vista, CA 91910. It is recommended that the letter be referred to staff
for further discussions with the South Bay Pioneers and a report back to Council.
6. RESOLUTION 16991 ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACfFOR THE CONSTRUcnON
OF DUAL LEFT TURN LANES AT EAST "H" STREET AND HIll.TOP DRIVE
On 1/20/93, sealed bids were received for the construction of dual left turn
lanes at the southeastern comer of East "H" Street and Hilltop Drive. The
work to be done for the project includes the installation of new Monolithic
Curb, gutter and sidewalk, street widening, and traffic improvements. The
low bid by Carolyn E. Scheidel is below the Engineer's estimate of
$48,109.00 by $8,712.00 or 18.1 percent. Staff conducted a background
check and past performance evaluation and determined that Carolyn
Scheidel Contractor has successfully performed similar projects for the City
in the past. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of
Public Works)
Agenda
.2.
February 16, 1993
7. RESOLUTION 16992 ACCEPTINGBIDSANDAWARDINGCONfRACTFORTHECONSTRUcnON
OF NAPLES STREET DRAINAGE CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS FROM
HILLTOP ORNE TO 950 FEET EASTERLY AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS
FROM THE CHARTER POINT FUND . On 1/13/93, sealed bids were
received for the construction of Naples Street drainage channel
improvements from Hilltop Drive to 950 feet easterly in the City. The work
to be done involves the construction of a trapezoidal channel with concrete
invert and revegetated side slopes. The project also involves the
construction of reinforced concrete pipe storm drains, storm drain c1eanout,
headwall, landscaping and channel revegetation. Staff recommends
approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works) 4/5th's vote
required.
8. REPORT REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) FOR HANDYrRANS OPERATION . The
report summarizes the significant requirements of the Handytrans RFP
process. Staff recommends that Council accept the report and authorize
staff to issue the RFP. (Director of Public Works)
* * END OF CONSENT CALENDAR * *
PUBIJC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
The following items have been advertised and/or posted as public heiuings as required by law. If you wish to gpeok
to any item, pleose fill out the "Request to Speak Form" available in the lobby and submit it to the CiIy C1erlc prior
to the meeting. (Complete the green form to gpeok in favor of the stoff recommendation; complete the pink form
to speak in opposition to the stoff recommendation.) Comments are limited to five minutes per individuaL
None submitted.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
This is an opportunity for the general public to address the CiIy Council on any subject miltteT within the Council's
jurisdiction that is not an item on this agenda. (State law, however, generally prohibits the CiIy Council from
taking action on any issues not included on the posted agenda.) If you wish to address the Council on sudI a
subject, please complete the yeUow "Request to Speak Under Oral CommuniJ:ations Form" available in the lobby
and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. Those who wish to speak, please give your name and oddress
for record purposes and foUow up action. Your time is limited to three minutes per speaker.
BOARD AND COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
This is the time the City Council wiD considu items whkh have been forwarded to them for considuation by one
of the City's Boards, Commissions and/or Committees.
None submitted.
Agenda
-3-
February 16, 1993
ACTION ITEMS
TIu! items 1isted in this section of the agenda are expected to eIidt substantial discussions and deliberations by the
Council, stlJif, or members of the general publU:. TIu! items will be considered individually by the Council and staff
recommendations may in certain cases be presented in the aItemative. Those who wish to speak, pkase fiB out
a "Request to Speak" form available in the lobby and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. Public
commmts are limited to five minutes.
9.
REPORT
DRAINAGE PROBLEMS WITHIN TELEGRAPH CANYON CREEK BETWEEN
FOURTH AVENUE AND HILLTOP PARK - On 1/19/93, Council directed
staff to prepare a report on the drainage problems created by the
rainstorms which took place during the first two weeks of January and the
extent of drainage protection within Telegraph Canyon Creek between
Fourth Avenue and Hilltop Park. Staff recommends Council accept the
report. (Director of Public Works)
ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR
This is the time the City Council will discuss items whit:h have been removed from the Consent Calendar. Agenda
items pulled at the request of the public will be considered prior to those pulled by Cound/members. Public
commmts are limited to five minutes per individual.
OTHER BUSINESS
10. CI1Y MANAGER'S REPORTCS)
a. Scheduling of meetings.
11. MAYOR'S REPORTfS)
12. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilman Fox
a. Clarification of board, commission, committee attendance policy.
ADJOURNMENT
The City Council will meet in a closed session immediately following the Council meeting to discuss:
Pending litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 - Roller vs. the City of Chula Vista.
Potential litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 -IGOU vs. the City ofChula Vista.
The meeting will adjourn to (a closed session and thence to) the Regular City Council Meeting on February
23, 1993 at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers.
A Special Joint Meeting of the City Council/Redevelopment Agency will be held immediately following the
City Council meeting.
COMMENDING LARA STEVINSON
UPON ACHIEVING THE "VOICE OF DEMOCRACY" FIRST PLACE AWARD
IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CAUFORNIA
WHEREAS, one of the basic aims of the Veterans of Foreign Wars as set forth in
lis Congressional Charter is 'to foster true patriotism"; and
WHEREAS, the Voice of Demoaacy Scholarship Program, sponsored by the
Veterans of Foreign Wars of the Unlted States and its Ladies Auxiliary, has proven to be
an effective instrument for pulling these words in action; and
WHEREAS,the Voice of Democracy Scholarship Program provides an opportunity
for high school students to think, wrhe and speak up for our country and for freedom and
democracy in addition to increasing seK-confidence and poise, experience In
communicating with others and valuable training in seK expression; and
WHEREAS, this year's theme "My Voice In America'~ Future" focuses the ettention
of youth on their role as the leaders of tomorrow and how their guidance will preserve
democracy as a way of life in our Republic; and
WHEREAS, Lara Stevinson of Mar Vista High School participated with 56
contestants from the 10th, 11th and 12th grades taking first place during the compethion
which consisted of wming and taping a 3-5 minute broadcast script on Saturday,
January 23,1993 et the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Post #2111, In Chula Vista:
NOW, THEREFORE, I, JERRY R. RINDONE, Deputy Mayor of the City of Chula
VISta, Califomia, do hereby COMMEND LARA STEVINSON upon achieving the Voice of
Democracv First Place Award and for instilling pride in good citizenship. FURTHER, I
urge all our citizens to encourage and support our ambitious young people to speak up
for our country, for freedom and for democracy.
;Daterf this 16tlltY ~ February 19 ~
V~~
?f t. '!Y !!f It ista
1/4 ../
COMMENDING VANESSA POOL
UPON ACHIEVING THE "VOICE OF DEMOCRACY" FIRST PLACE AWARD
IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CAUFORNIA
WHEREAS, one of the basic aims of the Veterans of Foreign Wars as set forth in
ita Congressional Charter is '0 foster true patriotism"; and
WHEREAS, the Voice of Democracy Scholarship Program, sponsored by the
Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States and ita Ladies Auxiliary, has proven to be
an effective instrument lor putting these words in action; and
WHEREAS, the Voice of l"9mocracy Scholarship Program provides an opportunity
lor high school students to think, write and speak up lor our country and for freedom and
democracy in addition to increasing sen-confidence and poise, experience in
communicating with others and valuable training in sen expression; and
WHEREAS, this year's theme "My Voice In America's Future" focuses the attention
of youth on their role as the leaders of tomorrow and how their guidance will pr8SeMl
democracy as a way of Ine in our Republic; and
WHEREAS, Vanessa Pool of Bonita Vista High School participated with 56
contestants from the 10th, 11th and 12th grades taking first place during the competition
which consisted of writing and taping a 3-5 minute broadcast script on Saturday,
January 23, 1993 et the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Post #2111, in Chula VISta:
NOW, THEREFORE, I, JERRY R. RINDONE, Deputy Mayor of tilt City of ChuJa
Vista, Calnornia, do hereby COMMEND VANESSA POOL upon achieving the Voice of
Democracv First Place Award and lor instilling pride in good citizenship. FURTHER, I
urge all our citizens to encourage and support our ambitious young people to speak up
lor our country, lor freedom and lor democracy.
:Dateri' Mis. 16t~~.o/- February /9...1L
W;;~f:..
1{4,";"
COMMENDING VAN CHENG
UPON ACHIEVING THE "VOICE OF DEMOCRACY" FIRST PLACE AWARD
IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CAUFORNIA
WHEREAS, one of the basic aims of the Veterans of Foreign Wars as set forth in
lis Congressional Charter is '0 foster true patriotism'; and
WHEREAS, the Voice of Demoaacy Scholarship Program, sponsored by the
Veterans of Foreign Wars of the Untted States and lis Ladies Auxiliary, has proven to be
an effective instrument for pulling these words in action; and
WHEREAS, the Voice of Demoaacy Sc:hoIarship Program provides an opportunrty
for high school students to think, write and speak up for our country and for freedom and
democracy in addition to increasing seK-confidence and poise, experience in
communicating with others and valuable training in ssK expression; and
WHEREAS, this year's theme "My Voice In America's Future" focuses the attention
of youth on their role as the leaders of tomorrow and how their guidance will preserve
demoaacy as a way of life in our Republic; and
WHEREAS, Van Cheng of Castle Park High School participated with 56
contestants from the 10th, 11th and 12th grades taking first place during the competition
which consisted of writing and taping a 3-5 minute broadcast script on Ssturday,
January 23, 1993 at the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Post #2111, in Chula Vista:
NOW, THEREFORE, t, JERRY R. RINDONE, Deputy Mayor of the Ctty of ChUa
Vista, California, do hereby COMMEND VAN CHENG upon achieving the Voice of
Democr~cv First Place Award and for instilling pride in good citizenship. FURTHER, I
urge all our citizens to encourage and suppor1 our ambitious young people to speak up
for our country, tor freedom and for democracy.
;Dateri' Mis 16tPd'y 5- February 19...2L
~~
o/et -3
"'''''~S'~EN
~,~!:, i'.:f' ~~~_~'";J.-: f~ I'" ~-
Vl;~;j ~;j~ - b4 ~l - "
t?-PM'J:'fI., f,la ~ ~~~fl~~. 'W'ln~s. ~]:~~VJ;,7
~VEt ....."'"~il~iil"""'t:."',, llli"",,'i;r'~.Y?'I//
.
&nutl1lluy ttlintttrra
fE\3? \C)93
Phone 426-6344
CHULA VISTA. CAL.IF'ORNIA
92010
270~e""1;;eet
February 28 1993
Mayor,and City Council
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Ave
Chula Vista,Ca 91910
subject; C Street Improvements. (History)
1975. Council Resolution; Was a deferral agreement,and Lien.
The above signed by,Mayor Hamilton,Attorney Lindberg. (City)
Niek Slijk,Joseph Cody South Bay Pioneers.Est,Cost $25,000.00
April 1984.Block Grant funds was approved for this project
$58,000.00 Estimated Cost of project $57,995.00.
May 1987. Block Grant funds approved for $160,000.00 for C Street.
Since the above dates many discussings and meetings was held
with City Engineers as to how this project could be completed
with minimum cost to the City and the South Bay Pioneers.
It was determined that if the property owners on the North side
would enter into a three part agreement with the City and the
South Bay Pioneers,both sides of C Street could be developed at
the same time at a reduced cost to all parties.
This has been accomplished,but as of this date,we have not
been informed as to the total cost of the project.
The South Bay Pioneers has transferred $59,750.00 to the City of
Chula Vista,when the street work started,At a early with-
-drawal fee of approx. $2,400.00.
We have a summary of cost for the project.$221,267.79 that
shows a deficit of $1,517.79. However the summary of costs
for C Street improvements provided by the City does not show
the costs to the developers for the north side of C street.
The report shows a cost of staff of $26,344.05. Since the South
Bay Pioneers is a'Charitable organization which provides a great
service to the community,We would like the City to reconsider
these charges and possible consider waiving the charges.
~~c.~)
~~
~. ""W
~~~.
Sincerely
Q,.~1.:1. ~
6foseph-F.Cody.pr~sident Board of Trustees
a q;.;;;::;_Ch.im?::jd of D'<odo<,
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item~
Meeting Date 2/16/93
REVIEWED BY:
Resolution /~ ''1/ Accepting bids and awarding contract for the
construction of dual left turn lanes at East" H" Street and Hilltop Drive in
the City of Chula Vista, Cf/A
Director of Public Works
, IV
City Manager ~;,fjt (4/5ths Vote: Yes_ No..xJ
ITEM TITLE:
SUBMITTED BY:
At 2:00 p.m. on January 20, 1993, in the Public Service Building, the Director of Public Works
received sealed bids for the construction of dual left turn lanes at the southeastern corner of East
"H" Street and Hilltop Drive in the City of Chula Vista, CA.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council accept bids and award contract to Carolyn E. Scheidel Co.
in the amount of $39,397.00.
BOARDS/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
The work to be done for this project includes the installation of new Monolithic Curb, gutter and
sidewalk, street widening and traffic improvements. On the bid opening date, bids were
submitted by eight contractors.
The following is a summary of the eight bids received:
CONTRACTOR BID AMOUNT
1. Carolyn E. Scheidel, La Mesa 39,397.00
2. Superior Ready Mix, San Diego 40,972.80
3. Basile Construction, San Diego 42,721.06
4. Hammer Construction, Chula Vista 42,875.76
5. Sim J. Harris, San Diego 43,900.00
6. ABC Construction, Inc., San Diego 44,990.00
7. Granite Construction, San Diego 46,888.00
8. Sapper Construction, San Diego 64,324.00
SA:AX.127
WPC F:\home\engineer\agenda\dualtum
/, - /
Page 2. Item J:,
Meeting Date 2/16/93
The low bid by Carolyn E. Scheidel is below the Engineer's estimate of $48,109.00 by
$8,712.00 or by 18.1 %; staff conducted a background check and past performance evaluation
and determined that Carolyn Scheidel Contractor has successfully performed similar projects for
the City in the past. and therefore staff recommends awarding the contract to Carolyn Scheidel
Contractor.
Attached is a copy of the Contractor's Disclosure Statement.
Environmental Status
The City's Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that this project is categorically
except under class 1. Section 15301 (c) "Minor Alteration of Existing Facilities" of the California
Environmental Quality Act.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT:
The source of funding for this project is the Gas Tax fund. Prevailing wage scales as those
determined by the Director of Industrial Relations, State of California were determined to be
applicable to the work to be done. Complaince with Federal and State minority or women owned
business requirements was unapplicable on this project.
FUNDS REQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION
A. Contract Amount $ 39,397.00
B. Staff (approximately 15%) 5,909.55
C. Contingencies (approximately 9.6%) 4.092.59
TOTAL FUNDS FOR CONSTRUCTION $ 49,399.14
I FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR CONSTRUCTION I
A. TF- 1 48 - East H Street @ Hilltop $ 49.399.14
TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR CONSTRUCTION $ 49,399.14
FISCAL IMPACT: This reflects an expenditure of funds appropriated in the 1992- 1993 CIP
budget as indicated.
SA:AX.127
WPC F:\home\englneer\agende\dualtum
&-,,2..
RESOLUTION NO.
/~ '9/
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING
CONTRACT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF DUAL LEFT
TURN LANES AT EAST "H" STREET AND HILLTOP
DRIVE IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CA.
WHEREAS, at 2:00 p.m. on January 20, 1993, in the Public
Service Building, the Director of Public Works received the
following eight sealed bids for the construction of dual left turn
lanes at the southeastern corner of East "H" Street and Hilltop
Drive in the City of Chula Vista, CA.:
CONTRACTOR BI:D AMOUNT
1. Carolyn E. Scheidel, La Mesa 39,397.00
2. Superior Ready Mix, San Diego 40,972.80
3. Basile Construction, San Diego 42,721.06
4. Hammer Construction, Chula vista 42,875.76
5. Sim J. Harris, San Diego 43,900.00
6. ABC construction, Inc. , San Diego 44,990.00
7. Granite Construction, San Diego 46,888.00
8. sapper Construction, San Diego 64,324.00
WHEREAS, the low bid by Carolyn E. Scheidel is below the
Engineer's estimate of $48,109.00 by $8,712.00 or by 18.1%; staff
conducted a background check and past performance evaluation and
determined that Carolyn Scheidel Contractor has successfully
performed similar projects for the city in the past, and therefore
staff recommends awarding the contract to Carolyn Scheidel
Contractor; and
WHEREAS, the city's Environmental Review Coordinator has
determined that this project is categorically exempt under Class 1,
Section 15301(c) "Minor Alteration of Existing Facilities" of the
California Environmental Quality Act; and
WHEREAS, prevailing wage scales as those determined by
the Director of Industrial Relations, State of California were
determined to be applicable to the work to be done and federal and
state minority or women owned business requirements were
inapplicable to this project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the city of Chula vista does hereby accept said eight bids and
awards the contract to low bidder, carolyn E. Scheidel, in the
amount of $39,397.00, who has assured the City that they are a
1 t,-3
licensed contractor in the state of California who can produce an
acceptable performance bond.
Presented by
the Mayor of the City of
d . rected t execute said
Chula V'st .
at
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that
Chula vista is hereby authorized and
contract for and on behalf of the City
by
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
Bruce M. Boogaar, ity
Attorney
F:\homelattomey\_
2
t--J.j
J
THE cur OF CHVU HSTA PAR7Y DISCLOSuJu:: S7'A7'EMENT
Statement of disclosure of certain ownership interests, payments, or campaign contributions, on all matters
which will require discretionary action on the part of the City Council, Planning Commission, and all other
<icial bodies. The following information must be disclosed:
1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the contract, i.e., contractor,
,SUbr\actor, material supplier; _
, ~ ~\. ~\.., C s:.. ~ ,\."''''''-
~
If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all
individuals owning more thon 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership
interest in the ,Partnership.
3.
If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is non-profit organization or a 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.
Have you had more than 5250 worth of business transacted with any member of the City staff,
Boards, 9lmmissions. Committees and Council within the past !\l.elve months? Yes_
No --!:::If yes, please indicate person(s):
5. Please identify each and every person, including any agents, employees, consultants or independent
contr rs who you have assigned to represent you before the City in this matter.
\.
'"\
(,. Have you and/or your officers or agents, in the aggregate, contributed more than $1.000 to a
Councilmember in the current or preceding election period? Yes _ No J,..--If yes, stat.: whidl
Councilmember(s):
Pl.'r..;\," is den net! as: "AllY indil'idl/n/,jirm. co.pnrmrrs""p, joillt \'Cnlllrr, nssocimion, socinl ell/h, {rmernnl orgnniznrion, rorpnl"fltiOll.
('~III'('. n'lIsl. TCCrU'(IT, sYlldicnrc, ,It is turd nllY olher COlli If)', 'iry mid cOlln1'T)~ ciry. nUl1Iic;pnhl)', disfrict or olhrr political slIhdll"/fJivlI,
OJ' allY ol"~r group or combil1mion t1C1illg as n II1lil:
"
'-'
rint or type name of contr:lclOr/applicant
~-:J [ll.,.".,,,
II ;""llj
(:-:OTE: A113Ch a~~i1ion31 P"~cs 3' ncc~"~,,')
D:lt.::
, - C).O - S. :?:,
! \.: , '. \ OISCLOSr. T';TJ
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item-2-
REVIEWED BY:
Meeting Date 2/16/93
Resolution 1("9.). Accepting bids and awarding contract for
the construction of Naples Street drainage channel improvements
from Hilltop Drive to 950 feet easterly and appropriating funds from
the Charter Point Fund.
Director of Public work~ ~
City Manager (p [to-:)6 (4/5ths Vote: Yes.lLNo_1
~"
ITEM TITLE:
SUBMITTED BY:
On Wednesday, January 13, 1993, at 2:00 p.m., the Director of Public Works received
sealed bids for the construction of Naples Street drainage channel improvements from
Hilltop Drive to 950 feet easterly in the City of Chula Vista, California.
The work to be done involves the construction of a trapezoidal channel with concrete
invert and revegetated side slopes. The project also involves the construction of
reinforced concrete pipe storm drains, storm drain cleanout, headwall, landscaping and
channel revegetation.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt the resolution approving the following:
I. Appropriate $82,000 from the unappropriated balance of the Charter Point fund
to CIP project DR-112, Naples Street Channel Improvement.
II. Accept bids and award contract to Whillock Contracting, Inc. in the amount of
$345,177.07.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
On March 3, 1992, on the recommendation of staff, Council approved an alternative
design for the improvement of the Naples Street drainage channel. The alternative design
provided for a concrete lined channel with revegetated side slopes to replace the earlier
approved design funded in the FY 1988-89 CIP in the amount of $77,500 that provided
for a concrete channel. This recommendation as stated in the report presented to Council
on March 3, 1992, was made based on direction received from the California Department
of Fish and Game and input from community residents within the project area.
Due to the revised design and to the California Department of Fish and Game
requirements, additional funds in the amount of $82,000.00 will be needed to proceed
with the construction of this project. Staff recommends that the funds be appropriated
from the Charter Point fund. Charter Point funds is money that were deposited by the
7~1
Page 2, Item 7
Meeting Date 2/16/93
developer of the Charter Point subdivision to pay for their share of the widening of Otay
lakes Road. When the City received Navy Housing funds, which required State and
Federal review, the City's FAU funds, which had been budgeted for the improvement of
Broadway, were transferred to the Otay lakes Road project to eliminate the necessity of
Federal review on two City projects. The Charter Point funds were then made available
for Broadway. Subsequently, since the Charter Point funds had not restrictions on their
use, they were identified as the funding source for the Central Drainage Basin Project.
Staff believes that sufficient funds are available to complete that construction as well as
fund this project. Therefore, it is appropriate to use these funds for this project.
The project was advertised for a period of six weeks beginning December 5, 1992.
During that period, plans were purchased by 51 contractors and on the bid opening date,
bids were submitted by 9 contractors. The bids received are as follows:
Contractor Bid Amount
1. Whillock Contracting, Inc. $345,177.97
2. Valley Grading, Inc. 356,703.50
3. Nottson Construction Co. 372,269.00
4. TC Construction Co., Inc. 382,327.50
5. EA Rutledge, Inc. 400,102.00
6. Concrete Contractors Interstate 432,300.00
7. Lasater Construction Co, Inc. 446,996.00
8. l. R. Hubbard Construction Co., Inc. 455,176.44
9. Carolyn E. Scheidel Contractors 462,610.00
The low bid by Whillock Contracting is below the Engineer's estimate of $382.462.50
by $37,285.43 or by 9.75%. Whillock Contracting received good references from prior
clients that utilized their services. Staff has conducted a background check and past
performance evaluation and determined that Whillock Contracting has the resources to
prosecute the job within the specified schedule and budget.
Staff has reviewed the bid and recommends awarding contract to Whillock Contracting
Co., San Diego.
Disclosure Statement
Attached is a copy of the Contractor's Disclosure Statement.
7-:1.
Page 3. Item 7
Meeting Date 2/16/93
Environmental Status
A Mitigated Negative Declaration (lS-90-46) has been prepared in conformance with
CEOA. Guidelines Section 15070. In addition, a Streambed Alteration Agreement (5-498-
92) specifying permit conditions and mitigation measures was entered into with the
California Department of Fish and Game. This agreement was signed after the
Department of Fish and Game reviewed the final design of the project. Due to the small
size of the project, it is covered by the nation-wide permit of the Army Corps of Engineers
which obviates the need to get a 404 permit.
FISCAL IMPACT: '
The source of funding for this project is Residential Construction Tax and the Charter
Point funds. No prevailing wage requirements were necessary or a part of the bid
documents. Compliance with Federal and State minority/women owned business
requirements was unapplicable on this project.
If the resolution is adopted. the following table represents the funding status of the
project.
Funds Required for Construction
A. Contract Amount $345,177.07
B. Contingencies (approx., 5%) 17,335.15
C. Staff Cost (approx. 7 %) 24,000.00
Totel Funds Required for Construction $386.512.22
Funds Available for Construction
A. DR-112 - Naples Street Channel Improvement (RCT) $304,512.22
B. Appropriation from Charter Point Fund 82,000.00
Total Funds Available for Construction $386,512.22
After construction, only routine City maintenance amounting to normal dirt and debris
removal will be required.
SA:AR028
WPC F:IHOMEIENG1NEERIAGENOAINAPLEORN
7':1/7''1
RESOLUTION NO. 1(,9'~
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING
CONTRACT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF NAPLES STREET
DRAINAGE CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS FROM HILLTOP
DRIVE TO 950 FEET EASTERLY AND APPROPRIATING
FUNDS FROM THE CHARTER POINT FUND
WHEREAS, on January 13, 1993, at 2:00 p.m., the Director
of Public Works received sealed bids for the construction of Naples
Street drainage channel improvements from Hilltop Drive to 950 feet
easterly in the city of Chula Vista, California; and
WHEREAS, the work to be done involves the construction of
a trapezoidal channel with concrete invert and revegetated side
slopes. The project also involves the construction of reinforced
concrete pipe storm drains, storm drain cleanout, headwall,
landscaping and channel revegetation; and
WHEREAS, on March 3, 1992, on the recommendation of
staff, Council approved an alternative design for the improvement
of the Naples Street drainage channel which provided for a concrete
lined channel with revegetated side slopes to replace the earlier
approved design funded in the FY 1988-89 CIP that provided for a
concrete channel; and
WHEREAS, this recommendation as stated in the report
presented to Council on March 3, 1992, was made based on direction
received from the California Department of Fish and Game and input
from community residents within the project area; and
WHEREAS, due to the revised design and to the California
Department of Fish and Game requirements, additional funds in the
amount of $82,000.00 will be needed to proceed with the
construction of this project and staff recommends that the funds be
appropriated from the Charter Point fund; and
WHEREAS, the following nine bids were received:
1 7.,5'
Contractor Bid Amount
1. Whillock Contracting, Inc. $345,177.97
2. Valley Grading, Inc. 356,703.50
3. Nottson Construction Co. 372,269.00
4. TC Construction Co.. Inc. 382,327.50
5. EA Rutledge, Inc. 400,102.00
6. Concrete Contractors Interstate 432,300.00
7. Lasater Construction Co, Inc. 446,996.00
8. L. R. Hubbard Construction Co., Inc. 455,176.44
9. Carolyn E. Scheidel Contractors 462,610.00
WHEREAS, the low bid by Whillock contracting is below the
Engineer's estimate of $382,462.50 by $37,285.43 or by 9.75% and
staff has conducted a background check and past performance
evaluation and determined that Whillock Contracting has the
resources to prosecute the job within the specified schedule and
budget and staff has reviewed the bid and recommends awarding
contract to Whillock Contracting co., San Diego; and
WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS-90-46) has
been prepared in conformance with CEQA, Guidelines section 15070
and in addition, a Streambed Alteration Agreement (5-498-92)
specifying permit conditions and mitigation measures was entered
into with the California Department of Fish and Game; and
WHEREAS, no prevailing wages requirements or special
minority/women owned business requirements were necessary or part
of the bid documents.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the city of Chula vista does hereby accept said nine bids and does
hereby award the contract for the construction of Naples Street
drainage channel improvements to the low bidder, Whillock
Contracting, Inc. in the amount of $345,177.07, who has assured the
City that they are a licensed contractor in the State of California
who can produce an acceptable performance bond.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of the City of
Chula vista is hereby authorized and directed to execute said
contract for and on behalf of the City of Chula vista.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby
appropriate $82,000 from the unappropriated balance of the Charter
Point Fund No. 604 DR-112 to Account 604-6040-DRl12 Naples Channel
Improvement.
2 7"'{,
Presented by
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
P,_,-\503.93
3
?..')
"
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Af(-o~
Itelll 11
ITEM TITLE:
Meeting Date 3/3/92
Report on the construction of drainage improvements north of
East Naples Street from Hilltop Drive to 767 feet east
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works ~
REVIEWED BY: City Manager {4/Sths Vote: Yes___No-X-J
During the CIP budget review for FY 1991-92, the City Council requested a
status report for this project. The report was presented by the City Manager
on May 28, 1991. Subsequently, on August 9, 1991, the Mayor Ind staff met
with Iffected property owners. At that meeting, several of the cOl\ll\unity
residents requested a detailed construction alternatives study Ind cost
estimate. This report will present the result of this study in addition to
the result of a community survey conducted by the City staff to determine
community preferences.
RECOttIENDATION: Accept the report which indicates that staff will proceed
with Alternative No.3 consisting of replacing the existing unimproved channel
with a concrete invert and stabilized grass side slopes.
BOARDS/COttIISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
This project was first budgeted in the FY 1988-89 Capital Improvement. The
purpose of the project was to install a concrete channel which will eliminate
erosion and enhance flow characteristics, thus eliminating unsightly and
unhealthy ponds of stagnant water (mosquito breeders) as well IS reducing
maintenance efforts and costs.
A contract was awarded to the firm of Robert Bein, William Frost and
Associates (RBF) on September 19, 1989 for the preparation of final
construction plans, specifications, and cost estimates. The 85% complete
plans, specifications, and cost estimates was submitted to Engineering staff
on July 6, 1990.
The project was scheduled to be advertised for bidding on August II, 1990 with
construction to begin on October 8, 1990. This schedule WIS not met because I
letter dated July 9, 1990 was submitted to the City Council by a concerned
property owner, Mr. Joseph M. Byrne, challenging the negative declaration for
the project (IS-90-46).
Also, the City received I memo on August 27, 1990 from the~{ifornia
Department of Fish and Game notifying the City that I Streambed teration
Agreement would have to be obtained from their department for this oject and
the memo also listed some deficiencies in the negative declar tion. The
Department of Fish and Game recommended that a Mitigated Negative Declaration
be recirculated with the appropriate assessments, alternatives /and mitigation
measures 'provided in the document. The Department of Fish/ and Game Ilso
indicated a preference for In earthen channel that wou14 'provide wildlife
habitat as well as provide flood measures, over the current concrete channel
design. _ ~=_~____~. / _
,0r ,/ ).~' :;~ / ( ',"'/,7 ~ }) / 7'
I ~ "-_~ /
Page 2, Item 1-;
Meeting Date 3/3/92
The Planning Department prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration,
incorporating the findings of a biological survey conducted in the project
area by Pacific Southwest Biological Services, Inc. The Mitigated Negative
Declaration was circulated through the State clearing house from April 18 -
June 7, 1991.
Mr. Byrne on May 19, 1991 responded with an .opposition report" to the
Mitigated Negative Declaration.
The Department of Fish and Game has reviewed the Mitigated Negative
Declaration and we are now in a position to enter into a Streambed Alteration
Agreement once a decision is made on the design alternatives.
The City Council, during the CIP budget review for FY 1991-92, requested a
status report for this project. The report was presented by the City Manager
which addressed most of the issues earlier mentioned. Subsequently, the
Public Works Department set up a meeting with all the property owners affected
by this project.
On August 8, 1991, the Mayor, Engineering and Planning staff and
representatives from the firm of RBF met with 22 property owners affected by
the project. At that meeting, the Mayor and several of the community
residents requested that staff and the consultant review and provide a
detailed cost estimate for the four alternatives discussed at the meeting.
Staff indicated at the meeting that, because of the City's fiscal constraints,
it can only recommend the minimum cost alternative which is acceptable to the
regulatory agencies having any jurisdiction over this area. Staff also
indicated that proceeding with an expensive solution would require a formation
of an assessment district which would assess the additional costs to those
property owners receiving benefit from the project.
The four alternatives evaluated by consultant and staff are as follows:
Alternative No. 1 - Replace the existing unimproved channel with a reinforced
concrete pipe. Estimated Cost: $426,000.
Alternative No. 2 - Redirect the East Naples Street drainage system to a new
conduit in Naples Street flowing westerly to Hilltop Drive. Regrade the
existing Naples channel to convey remaining tributary flows. Estimated Cost:
$563,000.
Alternative No. 3 - Replace the existing unimproved channel with a concrete
lined invert and grass side slopes. This alternative appears to be acceptable
to DFG. Estimated Cost: $306,000.
Alternative No. 4 - Improve the existing ,earth channel with reinforced
concrete lined section. Improvement plans were previously prepared for this
alternative. Estimated Cost: $334,000.
,
7.../1/
/
..
Page 3, Itl!lll J1
Meeting Date 3/3/92
. I
,
On December 12, 1991, the Engineering Department sent a total of 26 letters to
all affected property owners. These letters summarized the four alternatives
evaluated. A statement was attached to each letter to allow every property
owner to indicate his/her preferred alternative. Additionally, a copy of the
entire report was sent to Mr. and Mrs. Tumangan, Mr. Joseph Byrne and Ms.
Laura Verdugo, and interested property owners were asked to contact the City
or either of these people if they wanted to examine the report. The property
owners were requested to return their response to Engineering by January 10,
1992 and a no response would be considered as a selection of alternative no. 3
since it is the most economical alternative.
A total of 11 property owners have responded to our survey indicating their
preferred alternatives. Of the 11 property owners who responded:
One owner preferred Alternative No. 1
No owner preferred Alternative No. 2
Seven owners preferred Alternative No. 3
Three owners preferred Alternative No. 4
The response staff received from property owners indicates that the overall
community interest in this project does not favor an assessment district and
favors Alternative No.3.
Engineering staff is recommending that the City proceed with Alternative No. 3
because: 1) it is the preferred a 1 ternat ive by the majori ty of property
owners; 2) it is the most economical; and 3) it appears to be acceptable to
the Department of Fish and Game.
All property owners on the enclosed list have been notified of tonight's
meeting and have been sent a copy of the Council agenda statement.
FISCAL IMPACT: Adequate funds are available in the budgeted Capital
Improvement Project of drainage improvements north of East Naples Street from
Hilltop Drive to 767 feet east. Additional funds are required for consultant
fees to pay for the proposed design modification.
SA:/AR-028
WPC 5887E/Alex
,
7-/1
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PARTY DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Statement of disclosure of certain ownership interests, payments, or campaign contributions, on all
matters which will require discretionary action on the part of the City Council, Planning Commission,
and all other official bodies. The following information must be disclosed:
1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the contract, Le., contractor,
subcontractor, material supplier.
Whillock Contracting, Inc.
2. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names
of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any
partnership interest in the partnership.
Mark B. Whillock President
Sandra L. Phillips Vice President
Susan K. Whillock Treasurer
3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is non-profit organization or a 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.
NONE
4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of the City
staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months? Yes
No L If yes, please indicate person(s):
5. Please identify each and every person, including any agents, employees, consultants or
independent contractors who you have assigned to represent you before the City in this
matter.
Mark B. Whillock President Tory M. Whillock Secretary
Sandra L. Phillips Vice President
Susan K. Whillock Treasurer
6. Have you and/or your officers or agents, in the aggregate, contributed more than $1,000 to a
Councilmember in the current or preceding election period? Yes _ No --.!.. If yes, state
which Councilmember(s):
f!!..!2n I, d.nn.d ..: . Any ;"div/due/, firm, co..,urrne'lIhip,;oittt v.ntlJ,... ..-.oc;.r/on, -.oc;.1 club, f,.remel o'Penlarion, corp""'i",,, 8.'.'e. trust, '~e;ve'. syndicate.
rlli, end .fly other county, city end country, city, ITHJflicitHllty, dl.,ricr 01 oth., po/ifH:.l..ubdiviaion, or eny othe/l/roup 01 combiINtion eCl;nll.. . unit..
(NOTE: AttKh .ddftional peg., a. Nc....ryl
Date:
January 12, 1993
'-
/I
~~ML/~
-Signatur f contractor/appli -"
Tory M. Whillock
Print or type name of contractor/applicant
7./).
TS\ANJT ^ TS.CONl
"
ADDRESSES
James T. & Kathryn L. Pfeifer
Martha Tapia
2
Nestor P. Olguin, Jr.
2
Joanne L.
Jesus R. & Maria R. Reyes
Linda L. Aiello
,
7-13
,
,
Laura v. verdugo & Angela M. Lopez
J. Ruble
. .. . - . ;. .
--
z
. Elmore Trust
Robert J. and Lorraine D. Mahoney
II.. .. -..
---'"" ..---.-----
o
Robert D. & Calista P. Marshall
Tom & Sandra J. Tumangan
,
-2-
7../0/
'\'
William E. & Ruth M. Barrett
Andre J. & Maria J. Rigoli
(SA1\ADDRESS)
\
,
-3-
7--15"
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item r
Meeting Date 2/16/93
ITEM TITLE:
Report on Request for Proposals (RFP) for HandYtrans operation
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works ~
REVIEWED BY: City Manager (,j~~
(4/5ths Vote: Yes_No..xJ
The last RFP to solicit proposals for HandYtrans operations was issued in March
1988. As a result of that RFP process, DAVE Systems (formally Community Transit
Services Inc.) was selected as the HandYtrans contract operator for a three year term,
with an option to extend the contract for two additional years. Council exercised the
two year option and the current contract terminates on June 30, 1993. Transit staff
has prepared an RFP to solicit proposals for a management services contract to
operate HandYtrans beginning July 1, 1993. This report summarizes the significant
requirements of the RFP process.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council accept this report and authorize staff to issue an
RFP for HandYtrans operation.
BOARDS/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
Attached for Council's information (Exhibit 1) are the following parts of the RFP:
Sections I - IV which discusses the RFP process; and Attachment 1 - Statement of
Work. (Attachments 2-7 are not included).
Following is a summary of significant RFP requirements:
1. Service Ootions A and 8 (Dace 2), This RFP, like the one issued in 1988,
contains two service options on which proposals may be submitted. Option A,
which is the current HandYtrans operation procedure, requires the provision of
five wheelchair lift equipped vehicles with three wheelchair positions and at
least twelve passenger seats. Maximum annual service hours are 8,868, the
same number of hours currently operated by HandYtrans. (80th options A and
8 are discussed in greater detail on pages 1 and 2 of Attachment 1.) Option
A serves both ambulatory and non-ambulatory passengers using the same
vehicle type. Option 8 consists of two components, one for ambulatory
passengers and one for non-ambulatory passengers. The ambulatory service
requires the contract operator to provide four vehicles with a minimum capacity
of four passengers plus the driver; therefore these vehicles could be a sedan or
station-wagon. The second component of Option 8 requires provision of two
~I
Page 2. Item1
Meeting Date 2/16/93
wheelchair lift equipped vehicles to serve non-ambulatory and ambulatory
passengers.
The main reason Option B is included in the RFP is to permit any interested and
qualified taxi-operator (or any other proposer interested in this two-component
concept) to submit a proposal. The RFP does contain the statement (page 4.
Section C2c) that Option A is the "preferred service method". since it provides
greater scheduling flexibility than Option B. Furthermore. Option B will be
recommended to Council only if two conditions are met: there are substantial
cost savings compared with Option A; and the qualitative evaluation of an
Option B proposal is at least equal to or exceeds an Option A proposal.
2. Evaluation and Selection Process (Paaes 3 - 111 - The selection process is
similar to the procedure contained in the Chula Vista Transit (CVT) RFP
approved by Council on January 20. 1993, which includes consideration of
both qualitative factors and cost by an evaluation panel and then
recommending a contract operator to Council.
3. ADA Service Reauirements - In the San Diego region the paratransit operators
receiving Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 4.5 funds have been
designated by the Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB) and the San
Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) to meet the Complementary
Paratransit Service requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. (On
January 7, 1992 Council accepted a report on the Complementary Paratransit
Service Plan required by the ADA and prepared by the MTDB, and
recommended to the SCOOT Board that the Board adopt a resolution
authorizing MTDB to submit the Complementary Paratransit Service Plan on
behalf of SCOOT. The SCOOT Board subsequently adopted this resolution on
January 23. 1992.) HandYtrans must give service priority to ADA certified
individuals, and comply fully with the ADA by 1998. Full compliance means
that paratransit service must be available to ADA certified persons who cannot
use fixed route transit services (like CVT), or need the paratransit service to
access the fixed route system.
The ADA certification process began in fall 1992; currently there are
approximately 30 Chula Vista residents who applied for ADA certification. The
ADA has had minimal impact on HandYtrans operation so far, but staff
anticipates that demand for complementary paratransit service will increase in
the future, particularly from social service agencies like the Association for
Retarded Citizens.
4. Drivers' Waaes - HandYtrans drivers currently have a starting wage of $5.25
after training and probation. In order to establish salaries that are comparable
to other paratransit operators in the region, the RFP contains a minimum
starting wage of $6.00 per hour for all drivers after training/probation.
~ ' )..
Page 3, ItemX
Meeting Date 2/16/93
FISCAL IMPACT: The funding sources for HandYtrans are TDA Article 4.5,
Proposition A and fare revenue. The TDA Article 4.5 funds were reduced
approximately 20% in FY 1992-93 compared with the prior fiscal year, due to the
recession. Although the FY 1993-94 Article 4.5 allocation for the City of Chula Vista
has not yet been determined by SANDAG, funding may be further reduced. Since
contractual services accounts for about 98 % of the HandYtrans proposed FY 1993-94
budget, final determination of the funding required for next fiscal year depends on the
outcome of the RFP process.
WMG,OT-OO7
WPC F,\HOMElENGINEERlBIUG\hondytna.rlp
8'-:J / i-If
EX,"SI~' .
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP)
FOR
MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION
OF HANDYTRANS
A DEMAND RESPONSE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
FOR AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA)
ELIGIBLE PERSONS
AND OTHER SENIORS AND DISABLED PERSONS
Questions regarding the procurement
process should be directed to:
Bill Gustafson, Transit Coordinator
City of Chula Vista
707 "F" Street
Chula Vista, CA 91910
(619) 691.5260
February 1993
Z''' f'
"
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
n. PROCUREMENT PROCESS ...... '. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
ill. SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS .......................... 7
IV. EVALUATION CRITERIA.......... .... ................7
ATIACHMENT 1: Statement of Work /
ATIACHMENT 2: Draft Agreement NOT SCANNED
ATIACHMENT 3: Technical Proposal Form NOT SCA1"U'lii:,JiJ
ATIACHMEl'IT 4: Price Proposal Form NOT SCANNED
ATIACHMHIT 5: Expense Object Class DefInition NOT SCANNED
ATIACHMENT 6: Daily TriplFare Reconciliation Form; Daily Driver Stop Sheet NOTSCANNEl>
A TI ACHMENT 7: HandYtrans Service Area NOT SCANNED
r'~
1. Introduction
The Transit Division, City of Chula Vista, is soliciting proposals from qualified firms to
operate HandYtrans, an advanced reservation, cUIb-to-curb. transportation system with two
service priorities: (1) to meet the Complementary Paratransit requirements of the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA); and (2) to provide service to non-ADA certified
seniors 60 years of age and older and disabled persons of any age who have difficulty
using Chula Vista Transit (CVT), the City's fixed-route bus system. HandYtrans began
operation in November 1979. The existing service contract will expire on June 30,1993.
HandYtrans operates within the City of Chula Vista with minor excursions into
contiguous areas of San Diego County. The HandYtrans service area generally coincides
with the Chula Vista Transit (CVT) service area (Attachment 7). This service area is
about twenty-five (2~) square miles, and contains an estimated senior and disabled
population of 18,000.
The primary sources of funding for HandYtrans operations are Article 4.5 of the State of
California Transportation Development Act (TDA) and Proposition A funds. These funds
are administered by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) and are
allocated to eligible recipients by a distribution formula.
The following information pertains to HandYtrans operation for FY 1991-92 (July 1, 1991
to June 30, 1992):
Hours of Operation Monday-Friday, 8:00 Lm. 10 4:30 p.m.
Sunday. 8:00 Lm. 10 2:00 p.m.
NOle: 011 OclOWr J .1992. WHlJay ..,tlti,., IIDw:r Wt!~ ~ to 7:00 ..".. '06:00
p."., iA "U(JT~ with 1M KlDB "CtJllfplIWW1ll4ry PtllrltrifMit MNe. Pltm"
V ehieles Monday-Friday, 4 in-service and 1 spare
Sunday, 2 in-service and 3 spares
Total Passengers 33,775
Total Hours' 8,664
Vehicle Service Hours. (revenue hours) 8,202
Total Miles' 111,339
Revenue Miles. 104,778
Passengers per Revenue Hour 4.2
Passengen per Revenue Mile 032
.D4tDitiohs:
ToIaI boun/mlles............. or_. .....Je.......Iad...-.........,..... __ _........... aDd",., __1IIlI
cluriaa other deadbead bvel.
VelUelt service hours (meaue boursl"'ebiele lCI'Vice miles (revalue mila) ilk __bel' of IMurJmiIe& . vebicle tI lID n.-.,.-ic&, IDcIDdiD&
lIyover tilDe. aDd exc:1udiDJ, bounImiI. COQIumed while hVeliD& 10 aDd fnIID ....e facWti. -.4 ..... deMIbead hvet
WPC F!'JIOME>ENGlNEEJr.BIUGJlZ.92
Page J
~~7
Proposals will be evaluated on the basis of each finn's ability to meet all the standards,
performance criteria and specifications contained in this RFP. Contractor shall be
thoroughly knowledgeable of all requirements of the ADA pertaining to paratransit
services, including both operation and equipment and shall operate HandYtrans
services in conformance with these requirements. The term of the agreement will be
for three (3) years, beginning on 1uly I, 1993 and ending on lune 30, 1996, with an
option to renew for two additional years, until1une 30, 1998.
Con1r:lCtor's responsibilities shall include but not be limited to:
1. Meeting all operations c':J.uipment and maintenance requirements contained in this
RFP, and in compliance with the ADA.
2. Providing all personnel having management, operations, and maintenance expertise
necessary to operate the. system.
3. Providing the necessary vehicles according to the specifications detailed in Exhibit
A.
4. Fare collection, accounting, and reporting.
5. Personnel administration.
6. Assisting City in marketing.
7. Scheduling and dispatching vehicles.
8. Data collection and reporting.
City's responsibilities will include:
1. Establishing operations and maintenance requirements for contractor in contract
document
2. On-going service planning.
3. Establishing fare policies and fare structure.
4. Marketing (including printing of service brochures and ticket books).
5. Administration and monitoring of contract
Proposer may submit proposals based on one or both of the following two (2) options:
.
Option A: One service component for both eligible ambulatory and non-ambulatory
(persons in wheelchairs) passengers; providing five (5) wheelchair
lift-equipped vehicles; and a maximum annual 8.868 total vehicle service
hours.
Option B: Two service components, one for ambulatory passengers and one for
non-ambulatory passengers, as follows:
. ColTltlonent 1: Ambulatory service. Provide four (4) vehicles without
wheelchair lifts; and a maximum annual 7.355 annual total hours.
Component 2: Non-ambulatory service. Provide two (2) wheelchair
lift-equipped vehicles; and a maximum 3.775 annual total hours.
WPC FNIOME>ENGlNEERlBJULN12.92
~,~
Page 2
n. Procurement Process
A. General
Proposals for this projectInJm be submitted in accordance with Section m entitled
"Submission of Proposals." This project requires special skills and expertise.
B. Tentative Schedule
The tentative schedule of events fOT this procurement is given below:
ITEM DATE (1993)
1. RFP Issued February 22
2. Pre-Proposal Conference March 4
3. Proposals Due March 29
4. Proposal Evaluation Completed Apri116
s. Selection and Contract A warded by City Council May 4
6. Contractor Starts Service July 1
C. Selection
1. This RFP is for a management Sl'Orvices contract requiring special skills,
expertise, and operations and management capability. All timelv proposals
will be examined by City staff for responsiveness as defIned in Section
IV.A. If deemed responsive, proposals will be examined by an evaluation
panel and rated as described in Section IV .B. entitled, "Qualitative
Evaluation Criteria." The selection process will be as follows:
a.
The evaluation panel will review each proposal based on qualitative
factors discussed in Section IVB, and assign each proposal a total
score, with a maximum score of SO points. .
b.
After the qualitative evllluation in Section IVB, the evaluation
panel will examine the cost submitted by the proposer on the Price
Proposal Form.
c.
Based on a consideration of high qualitative score and reasonable
cost, the evaluation panel will recommend a firm for selection by
the City Council. The evaluation panel may invite one or more
proposers to make a presentation on its proposal before a
recommendation is made to the City Council.
1I7'C F.<HOME>ENG/NEE/M/UCN/2.92
Page 3
f(f'1
d. It should be emphasized that this selection process is a
combination of cost and qualitative factors. The award of this
contract will not be based solely upon low cost; nor will the
award of contract necessarily be made to the proposer whose
score is the highest as a result of the evaluation procedure
outlined in the section "Evaluation Criteria" (Section IV). The
Chula Vista City Council will award the contract to the
proposer who best meets the needs of the City of Chula Vista
for providing service, as specified in this HandYtl"l'DS RFP.
2. Please note the following concerning Options A and B:
a. The annual hours required under Option A is 8.868: the annual
hours required under Option B is 11.130 which includes both
Components 1 and 2.
b. The intent of this RFP is to provide comparable service to
HandYtrans passengers under either Options A or B. Because
Option B is composed of two service components, the
interchangability of vehicles for both ambulatory and
non-ambulatory passengers is restricted; therefore, Option B
requires the provision of a greater number of annual hours to be
comparable to Option A.
c. Option A is the preferred service method; City staff may
recommend an Option B service m"thod to the City Council only
if the following conditions are met
(1) There are substantial cost savings compared with Option A;
and
(2) The qualitative evaluation of an Option B proposal is at
least comparable to or exceeds an Option A proposal.
3. . Proposals will be evaluated on responses to questions and information
contained in the Technical Proposal Form. Proposer's responses should be
clear and specific. General or ambiguou~ statements will be considered
indicative of a lack of understanding of the scope of work required for
this contract. For example, statements about personnel to be hired by
proposer without indicating the number of personnel and their duties, or
inclusion of personnel in the proposal who will not be directly involved in
HandYtrans operations, will not be considered in the evaluation process.
4. City reserves the right to withdraw this RFP at any time without prior
notice. City makes no representations that any agreement will be awarded
to any proposer responding to this RFP. City reserves the right to reject
any and all proposals responding to this RFP without indicating any
W/'C F.WOMElENGINEElNJILJ.GIJ12.92
g--,/I/
Page 4
reasons for such rejection(s). City reserves the right to waive any minor
irregularities as pan of this RFP process.
S. Negotiations mayor may not be conducted with proposers. Therefore,
proposers should make their proposal as advantageous to City as possible
since selection may be made without discussion with any proposer.
6. All proposals and attached material submitted by proposers will be
available for public review at the time of award by the City Council.
7. A draft agreement is included in this RFP as Attachment 2. This
agreement contains specific requirements of the City of Chula Vista, some
of which may affect proposer's cost Therefore, proposer s..'tould be aware
of the terms and conditions of the draft agreement and develop its proposal
accordingly.
D. RFP Addenda
Any changes to this RFP will be made by addendum, sent by registered mail,
return receipt reque~ted. Proposer responses to all addenda shall be signed and
attached to the respective Proposal Form. Failure to attach any addenda shall
cause the proposal to be considered non-responsive. Such proposals will be
rejected.
E. Federal Transportation Administration (FTA) Section 3 (e) Clearance of Public
Transit Operators
A proposal submitted by a public transit operator who is receiving or has received
federal subsidy shall adhere to either of the following two requirements as pan of
the proposal:
1. A statement or certificate of compliance from FTA or the operator's
governing board that the proposal complies with Section 3 (e); or
.
2.
Proposer shall submit a detailed breakdown of all cost allocations in
proposer's bid ensuring compliance with Section 3(e). Cost allocations
shall insure that the full cost of operation with respect to tlls proposal has
been included in the cost proposal. .
F. Precontractual Expenses
Precontractual Expenses are defmed as expenses incurred by proposers and
selected contractor in:
1. Preparing a proposal in response to this RFP;
2. Submitting a proposal to City;
1I'l'C F.WrMe.ENGINEEINI/UG\3/2.92
i'~ II
Page 5
3. Negotiations (if any) with City on any matter relating to the proposal;
4. Any other expenses incurred by proposer or contractor prior to date of
award of any contract
City shall not be liable for any precontractual expenses incurred by any proposer
or selected contractor. Proposers shall not include any such expenses as part of
the price proposed in response to this RFP. City shall be held harmless and free
from any and allliabitty claims or expenses whatsoever incurred by or on behalf
of any person, or organization responding to this RFP.
G. Verbal Agreement or Conversation
No prior, current, or post award verbal agreement or agreements with any o:ficer,
agent, or employee of City shall affect or modify any terms or obligations of this
RFP or any contract resulting from this procurement
H. Special Funding Considerations
Any contract resulting from this RFP will be financed with funds available under
Article 4.5 of the California Transportation Development Act (TDA) and
Proposition A funds. The contract for this service is contingent upon the receipt
of these funds. In the event that funding from these sources are eliminated or
decreased, City reserves the right to terminate any contract or modify it
accordingly.
I. Alternatives and Exceptions
Proposers may not submit alternative proposals other than the two (2) options
provided for in this RFP or take exception or make alterations to any requirements
of the RFP. If more than one completed proposal is received from one
organization for either options A and/or B, or alterations made thereto, all
proposals from that organization will be rejected as non-responsive. Since City
desires to enter into one contract to provide all services as specified in this RFP,
only those proposals to provide all services will be considered responsive.
J. Pre-Proposal Conference
The Pre-proposal Conference will be held on Thursday, March 4, 1993, starting
at 10:00 a.m. in Conference Rooms 2 and 3 at Chula Vista Civic Center, 276
Fourth Ave., Chula Vista, California. The main purpose of this Conference is to
clarify any questions potential proposers may have about this RFP. Persons or
firms intending to submit proposals in response to this RFP are strongly
urged to attend this conference. .
WPC F-'.HOMENiNG/NEEIMI/L/..GIJ/2.92
8"1-'-
Page 6
m. Submission of Proposals
Proposals must include eight (8) comtllete sets of signed copies of the Technical Protlosal
E2ml (Attachment 3) and any additional sheets used to amplify responses to items in the
Technical Proposal Form. Eight (8) cotlies of the attached Price Protlosal Form
(Attachment 4) shall be submitted in a setlarate sealed enveloue clearlv marked Price
PrOtlosal Submitted Bv (Name of Proposer). Proposers may refer to Attachment 5,
"Expense Object Class Definitions" for assistance in completing the Price Proposal Form.
Proposals that do not include all required forms, correct number of complete copies, or
do not have answers included for every question on all forrr~ may be deemed
non-responsive and may be returned to the proposer.
Proposals must be delivered to Bill Gustafson, Transit Coordinator, Cbula Vista
Public Works Building, 707 "F" Street, Cbula Vista, California, 91910. Proposals
must be received by 2:00 p.m. on Monday, Marcb 29, 1993.
If mail delivery is used, tbe proposer sbould mail documents early enougb to provide
for arrival by tbis deadline. Tbe proposer uses mail service at its own risk. City
will not be liable or responsible for any late delivery of proposals. Proposals
received after tbe date and time specified will not be considered, and will be
returned to tbe proposer unopened.
IV. Evaluation Criteria
The evaluation component of this RFP process is divided into three parts: non-scored
evaluation criteria; an evaluation of qualitative factors by a panel for a maximum score
of 50 points; and cost. Proposers may submit proposals for Option A and/or Option B.
Therefore, each proposer mav submit a maximum of two otltions. Each option will be
evaluated separately by the evaluation panel. Each evaluation panel member's score for
each option will be averaged with all panel members' evaluation scores to determine one
qualitative score for each option submitted.
A. Non-scored Evaluation Criteria
1. To be considered a restlonsive proposer, the proposal must satisfy both of
the following requirements:
a. The proposer/firm or proposer's key personnel must have had at
least two (2) years' experience in providing demand-responsive
transportation service for seniors and disabled persons; and
b. The proposer must have and identify a Location Manager, who has
had at least one (1) year's experience in managing
demand-responsive transportation service for seniors and disabled
persons, and who will manage the HandYtrans system.
(Management responsibility means direct supervision of drivers,
WPC FN/OMUNGINEE/M/JUN/H2 Page 7
g""J :1
dispatchers and any other personnel, and in charge of all other
requirements of this service as discussed in this RFP.)
2. To be considered a reSDonsive proposer, the proposer must identify the
vehicles to be provided as stipulated in Attachment I, Section 6 and
Section 7 (Statement of Work), for Option A and/or Option B in the
Technical Proposal Form. Section 13 and 14 (Attachment 3).
The vehicles shall be in good condition as evidenced by but not limited to:
a) No dents
b) Paint in good condition
c) No broken or cracked windows
d) No tom interior surfaces including seats
e) Clean interior surfaces
The vehicles proposed shall be the vehicles utilized unless prior written
permission is obtained from the City's Transit Coordinator.
The successful contractor shall make available for inspection by the Transit
Coordinator all vehicles to be provided within ten (10) days after selection
by the City Council. Exception: If new vehicles are proposed and will
not be available for inspection within ten (10) days after selection by the
City Council, then the proposer must make the vehicles available for
inspection by June 15, 1993 and include the following information in the
proposal submitted to City:
1. A statement from the vehicle dealer or manufacturer that the
vehicles will be available for inspection by June 15, 1993; and
2. A brochure containing specifications of vehicles to be used
including a drawing or photograph; and
3.
An indication of where a vehicle comparable to the vehicles to be
used in HandYtrans service can be inspected by the Transit
Coordinator within ten (10) days after selection by the City
Council.
.
If upon inspection any vehicle fails to meet the specifications detailed in
Attachment I, Section 6 or Section 7, or the criteria outlined in this
Section, the agreement between the City and the contractor shall be null
and void.
3. Maintenance Facility
A. To be considered a responsive proposer the proposer must identify
one of the following:
Wl'C F.V/OMElENGINEEIM/UGIJ/2.92
8'.!JI
Pagt 8
1. A current maintenance facility, or
2. A proposed subcontractor with an existing maintenance
facility.
B. The mainienance facility or proposed subcontractor must have at
a minimum, materials and support equipment including
maintenance tools necessary to:
1. Clean the vehicles
2, Lubricate the vehicles
3. Perform periodic maintenance service and adjustments to
keep the vehicles in a safe and reliable operating condition.
4. Bonds Required
In order to be considered a resoonsive proposer, the following bonding
requirements must be submitted with the proposal: a) Bid Bond: equal to
or greater than 10% of the proposed cost for one year, July 1, 1993 to
June 30, 1994; b) Performance Bond. The orooosal shall be accomoanied
bv a letter from a cornorate surety satisfactorv to City statinlZ that oroooser
is bondable in the amount of $50.000. The successful contractor will be
required to furnish a performance bond as surety for the faithful
performance of this agreement within 10 days after selection by the City
Council. The performance bond will be in the amount of $50,000.
B. Qualitative Evaluation Criteria (maximum of 50 points)
1. Aooroach to Svstem ManalZement (maximum 25 points): An evaluation
of how the proposer will ensure a high-quality, cost-effective, demand
response service. Considerations include: management processes, an
effective safety program, familiarity with ADA requirements, key staff
personnel and responsibilities that will be assigned exclusively to
HandYtrans operations. In addition, City recognizes that the smooth and
proper operation of HandYtrans depends largely on the competence,
management ability, and experience of the Contractor's LoCation
Supervisor and other supervisory personnel. In the contractor evaluation
process, City will therefore evaluate the resumes and references of these
key personnel whose names appear in the Technical Proposal Form.
Following is a more detailed explanation of how the Criteria will be
evaluated.
Wl'C F!HOMUNGlNEERIB/u.GIJ/2,92
Page 9
~"If"
,
'(a) Location Manal!er (maximum 5 points)
POINTS
o
s
Experience: Minimum one (l)
year's management or supervisory
experience with system of equal or
larger size than HandYlrans.
Experience: Exceeds minimum
requirements.
(b) Manal!ement Prol!ram (maximum 20 points): Includes proposer's
comprehensive plan for system start-up and operation, dispatch
location, and hiring and training of employees as described on page
9 of 16, Technical ProDosal Form.
POINTS
o
20
Program not detailed or Jacldng
quality control procedures.
Detailed program 10 show how
system will be operated 10 provide
quality service. ,
2. Maintenance CaDabilitv (maximum 10 points): An evaluation of the
proposer's capability to carry out the preventative maintenance and repair
program as described on page 10 of 16, Technical ProDosal Form. The
evaluation panel may inspect existing or proposed maintenance operations
and facilities.
POINTS
o
10
No detailed maintenance program.
Detailed, comprehensive
maintenance program.
3. Exoerience (maximum 10 points): Points for this criterion will be assigned
based on a review of the length and amount of experience and relevancy
of that experience which a proposer and/or key personnel has had in
management and operations of a senior and disabled demand response
system of at least comparable size to HandYtrans. This evaluation will
also consider experience of personnel that will be directly involved in
operations. (Two [2] years' minimum experience required as per Section
IV.A.)
WPC F.V10MNNGlNEEIMl/UAN12,92
r,.l&,
Page 10
POINTS
o
2
4
6
8
10
2-3 yr.
experience
3-4 yrs
experience
4-5 yrs
experience
5-6 yrs
experience
6-7 yrs
experience
4. Evaluation of References (maximum 5 points): Staff will contact at least
three references listed by each proposer and will conduct an interview. A
maximum of 5 point~ -.vill. be assigned for this criterion based on reference
response which rates proposer on a scale from 5 to O. A score of "5" is
"Excellent" and "0" means "Would Not Hire Again."
C. Cost
Total cost includes: lump sum start-up costs (if any); a fixed monthly cost; and
a cost per vehicle service hour. Total cost will be evaluated and will include the
total cost for the complete three (3) year contract term as stipulated in the Price
Proposal Form (Attachment 4).
If the vehicle service hours of 8,868 under Option A, or 11,130 under Option B
increase or decrease by more than 20% during any year of the Agreement, then
the cost Der service hour may be renegotiated. Any change in the daily operating
hours shall result in the fixed monthly rate being adjusted as follows: the cost
proposed for each year of the agreement shall contain an hourly rate for the fixed
monthly rate; an increase in the daily operating hours shall result in the hourly
rate being added to the fixed monthly rate, and a decrease in the daily operating
hours shall result in the hourly rate being subtracted from the flXed monthly rate.
-
WPC F.'oJIOMIMNGlNEElMIUJNI2.92
8''' / /
Page II
ATTACHMENT 1
STATEMENT OF WORK
MANAGEMENT & OPERATION OF HANDYTRANS,
A DEMAND RESPONSE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
FOR AMERICANS WITH DISABn..ITIES ACT (ADA) ELIGmLE PERSONS
AND OTHER SENIORS AND DISABLED PERSONS
1. INlRODUCI10N
The Contractor will provide management and operations of a demand response
transportation system meeting the requirement of the ADA, serving the City of Chula
Vista and portions of San Diego County adjacent to the City. This service area covers
an estimated twenty-five (25) square miles and has an estimated 18,000 seniors and
disabled persons. This service area generally coincides with the service area of Chula
Vista Transit (CV1).
2. SERVICE PROVISION - OPTION A
A. Service Allocation - Dotion A
1) Davs of Service: Monday through Friday, and Sunday
2) Hours of Service: Monday through Friday: 7 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Sunday:
8:00 a.rn. to 2:00 p.rn.
3) Annual Vehicle Service Hours: 8,868
4) Service not provided on the following holidays: New Year's Day,
Memorial Day, July Fourth, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, and Christmas
Day.
B. Vehicle Utilization - Dotion A
.
1) Contractor shall provide five (5) lift-equipped vehicles.
2) One vehicle shall be provided by Contractor as a spare.
3) Contractor is responsible for: providing service to meet demand during the
days and hours specified in Section 2A; and for allocating vehicle service
hours so as not to exceed 8,868 annual vehicle service hours.
3. SERVICE PROVISION - OPTION B
A. Service Allocation - Dotion B
1) Davs of Service: Monday through Friday, and Sunday
WPC FNIOMNNGINEEINJ/UIN/2.92
~"/~
Pagel of 11
AUlUhmenll
'.
2)
3)
4)
Hours of Service: Monday through Friday: 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
Sunday: 8:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.
Annual Vehicle Service Hours - 11,130
Service not provided on the following holidays: New Year's Day,
Memorial Day, July Founh, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, and Christmas
Day. .
B. Vehicle Utilization - Ootion B
1) ComDonent 1: Ambulatory Service
a. Contractor shall provide four (4) vehicles.
b. One vehicle shall be available as a spare.
2) Comoonent 2: Non-ambulatory Service
a. Contractor shall provide two (2) lift-equipped vehicles.
b. One (1) vehicle shall be used by Contractor as a spare and to
supplement operations if warranted by demand.
4. ELIGmn..TIY
Certification of ADA eligible persons will be done by the Coordinated Transportation
Service Agency (CTSA). Contractor will be responsible for screening non-ADA
certified persons. Any senior or disabled individual may use the system. A senior, for
purposes of this project, is defined as 60 years of age or older. Any disabled individual,
regardless of age, who cannot use, or would have difficulty using, fixed-route transit
services in the Chula Vista area, may use HandYtrans. Questions concerning client
eligibility shall be directed to the Transit Coordinator or his designated representative;
questions concerning ADA eligibility shall be directed to the CTSA.
5. SYSTEM OPERA nON
.
A. Contractor shall operate the system in compliance with City operating policies and
local, state, ldld federal laws and regulations applicable to this service. Contractor
shall be thoroughly familiar with, and comply with, all ADA requirements related
to this service, including regional coordination efforts such as regional fare and
transfer policies.
B. Contractor's preparation for the transportation service shall comprise those tasks
required to make the system operational, including an initial training and safety
program and service area familiarization.
C. Contractor's service shall include, but shall not be limited to the following:
Day-to-day operation of the service, including executive and administrative
WPC FNlOMe.ENGlNEEIUIJUJNJ2.'J2
~"I'
Page 2 oj Il
. A/tQChmen1 I
management; employee supervision, and training of all pel'SOMel, (mcluding
drivers, dispatchers, radio pel'SOMel, supervisors, and maintenance personnel);
maintaining a list of backup drivers who will be readily available in the absence
of regular drivers to insure operation of the system; maintenance and repair of
equipment; negotiation and administration of subcontracts; providing for public
relations and marketing associated with this agreement as specified by City;
preparation of budgets, analysis, and reports of financial and other matters
pertaining to the project's operations; clerical, statistical, and bookkeeping Sl7Vices
as required in this agreement; and such other worle as may be necessary to comply
with the requirements contained herein.
D. Contractor shall test and interview all applicants, and train all successful
applicants. Contractor's persoMel wages and work hours shall be in accord with
all government regulations affecting such persoMel.
E. Management of the day-ta-day operations of the system shall be vested in the
Contractor's location manager, who shall be an experienced employee of the
Contractor. In addition, a responsible employee of the Contractor shall be
available at all times, either by phone or in person to make decisions or provide
coordination as necessary.
.
F. City places a premium on good system management and operation. Contractor
should strive to have vehicles arrive at scheduled pickup points as close to the
designated time as possible (at least 95% of all pickups shall be made within 0-20
minutes of scheduled pickup time). Passengers should be informed by Contractor
of any unforeseen dela;s.
G. Contractor's drivers shall repon to the location manager all hazardous conditions
(e.g., downed trees and signs) in the service area. Contractor, in turn, shall
immediately notify the appropriate governmental authority of such conditions and
shall take necessary precautions to safeguard passengers and Contractor's
persoMel.
H.
Trip priority shall be given to ADA cenified persons. The ADA regulations
require that "next day service" be provided; therefore, requests for service for a
panicular day must be accommodated by Contractor the preceding day during
HandYtrans operating hours. Since HandYtrans currently does not operate on
Saturday, requests for Sunday service made on Saturday must be accommodated
by Contractor; options to meet the requirement include the use of an answering
machine or an answering service. Confirmation of requests for Sunday service
must be made by 5:00 p.OL on Saturday. Tbe current HandYtrans number
is 425.7433; Contractor sball obtain tbis number for patrons to call for
making reservations. The Contractor will arrange origin to destination
transponation in a manner designed to accommodate the greatest number of
passengers over the shorrest feasible route. Dispatching of vehicles may take
place with less than 24-hour reservation should time and availability permit
Patrons will be requested to give point of origin, point of destination, and number
.
Wl'C F..WOMNNGlNEERIB/IUN/2.92
g'" .2-0
Pagd of JJ
Atlachmtnl 1
of persons in the party. Patrons will be advised of time of pickup. Contractor
will dispatch a vehicle to the point where service is requested. If additional call(s)
on a demand basis are received for pickups in the vicinity of the first call or near
the routing of patrons in the vehicle, and capacity permits, the vehicle shall
deviate from routing to pick up additional passenger(s). Contractor shall do
everything possible to avoid any undue delay of any patron, either at the point of
pickup or en route. Patrons shall not, however, have any control over the route
selected. Pickup of patron shall occur sometime within three (3) minutes before
the time indicated by the dispatcher and not more than seven (7) minutes after the
scheduled pickup time. Contractor's vehicles shall nt'~ wait for the patrons more
than two (2) minutes at any point after sounding horn. No animals may be
transported by the system, except for dogs or other animals as permitted under the
ADA accompanying a disabled person. Drivers shall offer reasonable assistance
to patrons entering and exiting the vehicle, but are not required to assist
passengers to or from the building, fr.cility or structure which may be patron's
point of origin or final destination. Patrons who require such special assistance
are encouraged to travel with a companion or attendant who may ride HandYtrans
at no charl!:e. In addition, operator has the authority to limit the number and size
of parcels or any other objects, that a patron may transport in order to ensure the
safety and convenience of other patrons.
6. VEHICLES - OPTION A
Contractor shall be responsible for providing five (5) vehicles all of which shall be
wheelchair lift-equipped, with the following general specifications:
A. Capacity: All five (5) vehicles shall nave a minimum capacity of twelve (12)
forward facing seats for passengers, and three (3) wheelchair positions equipped
with seats to accommodate ambulatory passengers when the wheelchair position(s)
are not in use. Wheelchair positions shall be located in the rear of all vehicles,
and wheelchair access to all vehicles shall be in the rear of vehicles.
B. Radios: Contractor will provide a communication system, including a base unit
and mobile units for each vehicle, to be operated on an approved motor carrier
frequency. Contractor shall be responsible for installation and maintenance of all
radio eouipment.
C. Fareboxes: Each vehicle shall be equipped with one locked farebox. Contractor
shall be responsible for providing and installing said farebox near the front
passenger entrance door.
D. Wheelchair Restraints: Each wheelchair station shall be equipped with a secure
restraint device that will secure the wheelchair to the vehicle and the wheelchair
passenger in their wheelchair. These devices shall be adjustable to accommodate
various size wheelchairs, and shall meet ADA requirements.
E. Seat Belts: All seats shall be equipped with seat belts.
WPC F.VfOME-ENGlNEEINJ/UCN/2.92
Pagt 4 of II
Allachmtnll
g''' ,;./
F. Electrical and Coolinl! Svstem Soecifications: Each vehicle shall be equipped
with a heavy-duty battery, a heavy-duty alternator, and a heavy-duty cooling
system.
G. Air Conditioninl!: All vehicles must have functional air conditioning units which
shall be operated as needed for the comfort of passengers.
H. Identification: Prior to July I, 1993, all vehicles shall be identified "HandYtrans"
on both sides, front and rear of vehicles. Vehicles shall be painted blue and
white. This identification and paint scheme shall be in a size and style to be
approved by City.
I. Vehicle Al!e: Vehicle must be 1992 model vear or later.
7. VEffiCLES - OPTION B
A. Comoonent I: Non-accessible vehicles
Contractor shall be responsible for providing four (4) vehicles with the following
general specifications:
1. Caoacitv: All vehicles shall have a minimum capacity of four (4) adult
passengers plus the driver.
2. Seat Belts: Seat belts shall be available for each seated passenger.
3. Air Conditioninl!: All vehicles must havt; functional air conditioning units
which shall be operated as needed for t~;e comfort of passengers.
4. Identification: Prior to July I, 1993, all vehicles shall be identified
"HandYtrans" on at least two sides of the vehicle in a size and style to be
approved by the City.
5. Vehicle Al!e: Vehicles must be 1992 model vear or later.
B. Comoonent 2: Accessible Vehicles
Contractor shall be responsible for providing two (2) vehicles, both of which shall
be lift-equipped, with the following general specifications:
1. Caoacitv: Both vehicles shall have a minimum capacity of twelve (12)
forward facing seats for ambulatory passengers, and three (3) wheelchair
positions equipped with seats to accommodate ambulatory passengers when
the wheelchair position(s) are not in use. Wheelchair positions shall be
located in the rear of vehicles, and wheelchair access shall be in the rear
of vehicles.
Wl'C F.'oJIOME>ENGlNEE/rIBIUCNI2.92
9";' ).
Pagd of 11
Attachment J
2. Wheelchair Restraints: Each wheelchair station shall be equipped with a
secure restraint device that will secure the wheelchair to the vehicle and
the wheelchair passenger in their wheelchair. These devices shall be
adjustable to accommodate various size wheelchairs, and shall meet ADA
requirements.
3. Seat Belts: All seats shall be equipped with seat belts.
4. Electrical and Coolinsz Svstem Snecifications: Each vehicle shall be
equipped with a heavy-duty battery, a heavy-duty alternator, and a
heavy-duty cooling system.
5. Air Conditioninsz: All vehicles must have functional air conditioning units
which shall be operated as needed for the comfort of passengers.
6. Identification: Prior to July I, 1993, all vehicles shall be identified
"HandYtrans" on both sides, front and rear of vehicles. Vehicles shall be
painted blue and white. This identification and paint scheme shall be in
a size and style to be approved by City.
7. Vehicle Asze: Vehicle must be 1992 model vear or later.
C. Radios: Contractor will provide a communication system, including a base unit
and mobile units for each vehicle, to be operated on an approved motor carrier
frequency. Contractor shall be resoonsible for installation and maintenance of all
radio eauioment.
D. Fareboxes: Vehicles operated under Option B must have a fareoox, or alternate
means of fare collection, acceptable to the City.
8. MAINTENANCE AND CLEANING OF VEIDCLES
For both Options A and B, the Contractor must furnish and maintain vehicles in good
working condition and in good physical appearance. Each used vehicle must have a
documented performance history. The City reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to
reject by notice to Contractor, any vehicle the Contractor proposes to use or subsequently
uses in the performance of this service which the City deems unacceptable.
Contractor shall be responsible for having all maintenance work and cleaning performed
on all vehicles utilized in the provision of service associated with this Agreement.
Maintenance work shall include, but not be limited to all tires, parts, labor, fuel, and
lubricants. Contractor shall allow City access to Contractor's facilities and activities for
purposes of monitoring Contractor's maintenance performance.
WPC Ff'lIOMe.ENGlNEEINJ/UtN/2.92
8''';'' J
Page 6 of 11
Anachmenl J
The interior of all vehicles used in HandYtrans service shall be cleaned daily; the exterior
of all vehicles shall be washed a minimum of two (2) times per week.
Safety and mechanical equipment, including wheelchair lifts, shall be maintained in '
accordance with all applicable laws and regulations, including Title 13, Article 2 of the
California Administrative Code (Motor Carrier Safety Regulations) and Division 12 of the
California Vehicle Code (Equipment of Vehicles). Contractor shall provide the City with
copies of the annual California Highway Patrol Reports. The City reserves the right to
make periodic inspections of Contractor's vehicles used in this service.
Contractor shall also be responsible for all maintenance and repair work associated with
the mobile radio system.
9. FARES
Fares and transfer policies related to the service contained in the agreement will be
determined and established by the City and the Metropolitan Transit Development Board
(MTDB). Policies will be in accordance with Section 99268.5 of the Public Utilities
Code, which requires a fare revenue return of ten percent (10%) of the operating expense.
Contractor must recover at least ten percent (10%) of operating expenses from farebox
revenue. Failure to maintain this return may lead to termination of the contract One
way cash fares shall be $2.00 under both Options A and B for FY 1993-94; transfers to
and from other fixed-route and paratransit systems for ADA certified persons are
permitted.
Fares collected are the responsibility of the contractor and shall be deposited by tbe
contractor daily at a bank mutually agreed upon by Contractor and CilJ. No
change will be made by the drivers. Contractor is responsible for any fare revenue
losses or shortages until deposited. (A sample of the Daily TriplFare Reconciliation
form and Daily Driver Stop sheet are provided as Attachment 6.) .
10. SERVICE PERFORMANCE
The goal of this service is to provide reliable, effective, and efficient transportation for
ADA certified and other senior and disabled residents of the HandYtrans service area.
The Contractor shall take all actions necessary to accomplish this goal while minimizing
the cost of service to the City.
The Agreement between City and Contractor will contain Liquidated Damages to ensure
quality service.
WPC F.'oJ/OMElENGlNEFlM/IliN/2.92
8".). Y
Page 7 of lJ
Anachmenl I
11. ADVERTISING AND SALES PROMOTION
City shall control all advertising and sales promotion and provide materials for
distribution by Contractor. Contractor shall assist City in conduct of promotion of all
'. public transit service under City direction and approval. Contractor's drivers shall
periodically be made available to distribute on the vehicles advertising and promotional
material provided by City. Contractor shall also provide additional hours of service as
requested by City for promotional work.
12. PERSONNEL REQUIREMENTS
Contractor shall be solely responsible for payment of all employees' wages and benefits.
Contractor, without any expense to the City, shall comply with all State laws and
requirements with respect to employee liability, worker's compensation, and
unemployment insurance. Contractor shall also be responsible for withholding of income
tax at its source from employees' wages and, furthermore, operator shall indemnify and
hold hannless the City of Chula Vista, its officials and employees from any liability,
damages, claims, costs and expenses of any nature arising from alleged violation of such
enactments or from any claims of subrogation provided in such enactments or otherwise.
13. DRIVER HIRING AND TRAINING
A. Contractor shall insure that all drivers are competent, holding valid California
Class "B" license with a passenger endorsement and qualified under all applicable
Federal, State, and local regulations for the operation of the type of vehicles to be
used.
B. Hiring Requirements
1. Contractor shall recruit and hire a sufficient number of drivers assigned
exclusively to HandYtrans service, and shall have a sufficient number of
backup drivers readily available for any and all contingencies without a
disruption in service.
2. As a condition of employment under the agreement, all personnel
assigned to HandYtrans service must pass tests for drug and alcohol
use. Drug and alcohol screening shall be conducted prior to
employment in HandYtrans service, and at a minimum, at two (2) year
intervals in conjunction with a physical exam for Class B Ucense
renewal. Screening at more frequent intervals may be conducted by
Contractor as permitted by law.
3. The City requires Contractor to have all employees fingerprinted and
City will conduct a criminal history check on all personnel assigned to
HandYtrans service. The results of the criminal history check will be
confidential information and City will not release this information to
Contractor. However, information obtained on the criminal record of
WPC F.'HOMNNGINEElNJIUtNJ2.92
1" )..5'
Page 8 of ]]
Attachmelll ]
an individual assigned to HandYtrans service may warrant City
requesting Contractor to remove individual from HandYtrans service.
City will pay the cost of fingerprinting.
.
C. Contractor shall provide thorough training for all personnel in the proper
performance of their duties. Contractor must have a trainin!!: orOI!:ranl
encomoassin!!: the National Safety Council Defensive Drivin!!: Course and
instruction in First Aid and CPR provided bv a Qualified Red Cross instructor.
This orOI!:fam must also direct itself with dealin!!: SDecificallv with transoortinl1:
seniors. mentallv retarded. and mobility imoaired rersons. All new employees
shall receive proper training and instruction at the time of hiring and prior to
being assigned to the service.
This hinn!!: and trainin!!: orol!:ram must be described fullv and submitted to the City
for review as stioulated in Ouestion 11 of the Technical Prooosal Form.
14. Contractor shall provide a Location Manager with a least one year of experience in
demand response transportation. The Location Manager must be available during all
hours of system operation.
Contractor's personnel who will be assil!:ned to this proiect must be listed in the Technical
Proposal Form (Question 8).
15. UNIFORMS
Contractor shall purchase uniforms for employees and require employees to wear them.
The design, type, and logo on the uniform shall be subject to City approval. Each
operator shall be furnished a sufficient number of uniform changes so they will appear
neat and clean at the beginning of each shift.
16. DATA COLLECTION AND REPORTING
A. Contractor shall collect data on the operation of the system and supply accurate
data to City in a timely fashion.
B. Contractor shall maintain a daily office log containing vehicle breakdown, road
calls, missed trips (detailing the cause), complaints (with attached forms,
description of the problem, and how solved), and any compliments received.
C. On a monthlv basis, Contractor shall submit a management repon containing the
following data to the Transit Coordinator:
1. Number of Revenue Passengers
2. Number of HandYtrans Personal Care Attendants
3. Total Boarding Passengers
4. Number of Wheelchair Passengers
5. Total Vehicle Miles, Revenue Miles, Deadhead Miles per Vehicle
WPC F.V10MUNGlNEElM/UfN/2.92
g"-:J.?
Page 9 of II
Attachment /
(
,
6. Total Vehicle Hours, Revenue Hours, Deadhead Hours per Vehicle
7. Number of Vehicle Accidents
8. Number of Passenger Accidents
9. Number of Road Calls
10. Number of Complaints
11. Number of Full TIme Equivalent Employees (Work Hours divided by
166.66)
12. Number of Vehicle Trips
13. Average Number of Passengers Per Trip
14. Average Trip Length Per Passenger
15. Total Sample Responses for Deviation Time
16. Number of Arrivals Within 0-10 Minutes of Schedule
17. Number of Arrivals Within 11-20 Minutes of Schedule
18. Number of Arrivals Within 21-30 Minutes of Schedule
19. Number of Arrivals Past 30 Minutes of Schedule
D. Contractor shall compile monthly reports which shall summarize the daily data
collected, giving mileage, revenue and operating cost figures. Also included shall
be statements of problems with proposed solutions and suggestions for future
improvements in service.
E. All transportation data reported to City must be in accordance with Level C of the
Uniform Financial Accounting and Reporting Elements (FARE) as l'e4uired under
Section 15 of the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964, as amended, and the
California Public Utilities Code, Chapter 4, Section 99273.
F. All reports prepared by Contractor shall be made available to the City at no
charge and shall be the property of the City. Contractor may make presentations
and releases pertaining to the transportation system only with the prior permission
of the City. Papers and other formal publications shall be approved by the City
before they are made public. Operator will provide any other operations reports
and/or data deemed necessary by the City.
17. Contractor shall coordinate closely with City on project and operation status. Contractor
shall attend staff meetings with City as scheduled and perform liaison activities with City
and other transportation modes or companies.
18. Contractor shall adequately equip the dispatch/operations center for the efficient
dispatching of vehicles as well as handling all telephone calls. Disnatch/otlerations center
shall have the local Chula Vista teleuhone number 425-7433. Dispatch/operations
personnel shall be responsible for coordinating rides between HandYtrans and other
fixed-route or dial-a-ride systems as directed by the Transit Coordinator.
19. Contractor shall be responsible for paying any and all business taxes that may be l'e4uired
for the operation of the service within the City of Chula Vista and the County of San
Diego.
Wl'C F."HOMIMNGlNEEINJ/UGJ/2.92
~'~7
Page 10 of II
Attachmelll1
20. Insurance
Contractor represents that it and its agents, staff and subcontractors employed by it in
connection with the services required to be rendered, are protected against the risk of loss
by the following insurance coverages, in the following categories, and to the limits
specified, policies of which are issued by Insurance Companies that have a Best's Rating
of "A, Class V" or better, or shall meet with the approval of the City:
,
.
A. Statutorv Worker's Comoensation Insurance and Emnlover's Liabilitv Insurance
coverage in the amount of $1,000,000.
B. Commercial General Liabilitv Insurance includinl! Business Automobile Insurance
coverage in the amount of $5,000,000, combined single limit applied separately
to each project away from premises owned or rented by Contractor, which names
City and Applicant as an Additional Insured, and which is primary to any policy
which the City may otherwise carry ("Primary Coverage"), and which treats the
employees of the City and Applicant in the same manner as members of the
general public ("Cross-liability Coverage").
C. Performance Bond in the amount of $50,000 by a surety and in a form satisfactory
to the City Attorney.
D. Fidelitv Bond in the amount of $50,000 which shall cover Contractor employees
protecting City from employee theft with respect to any occurrence by
Contractor's employees.
E. Proof of Insurance Coveral!e
(I) Certificates of Insurance
Contractor shall demonstrate proof of coverage herein required, prior to the
commencement of services required under this Agreement, by delivery of
Certificates of Insurance demonstrating same, and further indicating that
the policies may not be cancelled without at least thirty (30) days written
. notice to the Additional Insured.
(2) Policy Endorsements Required
In order to demonstrate the Additional Insured Coverage, Primary
Coverage and Cross-liability Coverage required under Contractor's
Commercial General Liability Insurance Policy, Contractor shall deliver a
policy endorsement to the City demonstrating same, which shall be
reviewed and approved by the Risk Manager.
WPC F.WOMEoENGlNEEIM/UGI3/2.92
8''' ,;J. i'"
Page lJ of lJ
AltOchmenJ 1
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item~
Meeting Date 2/16/93
REVIEWED BY:
Report on drainage problems within Telegraph
between Fourth Avenue and ~.i~~' Park
Director of Public works/ 'ff'
City Manager tfl 1",(("
,f...r J
Canyon Creek
ITEM TITLE:
SUBMITTED BY:
(4/5ths Vote: Yes_NolLl
Council Referral #2715
At the Council meeting of January 19, 1993, the City Council directed staff to prepare
a report on the problems created by the rainstorms which took place during the first two
weeks of January and the extent of drainage protection which could be provided within
Telegraph Canyon Creek between Fourth Avenue and Hilltop Park (Exhibit A).
On January 30, 1993, Engineering staff met with 19 owners of property along the
subject channel section. The residents expressed alarm over the increased rate of erosion
along the channel's banks and requested immediate action from the City to install a lined
channel across their properties.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council:
1) Direct staff to work with property owners to restore property and prevent future
erosion damage at curves by:
a. Providing information on Federal assistance and help in filing claims with FEMA
for assistance.
b. Return within 90 days with recommendation on cost sharing for property
owners efforts on erosion protection/property restoration measures not paid by
FEMA on residential property.
c. Issue no-fee grading permits for restoration/protection work, including refunding
of permit fees already paid.
d. As a condition of receiving City financial assistance the property owner should
enter into a binding agreement to dedicate the necessary easements for the
ultimate channel improvements at no cost to the City.
2) In accordance with the Telegraph Canyon Drainage Funds program, direct staff to
prepare a Capital Improvement Project for Council consideration in the FY 1993/94
budget to begin the design process on the ultimate channel improvement which
would include the necessary studies to determine the proposed channel section,
right of way requirements, and a preliminary schedule. Adequate funds have
already been collected for this work.
9-/
Page 2, Item~
Meeting Date 2/16/93
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
The Telegraph Canyon drainage area comprises about 5,100 acres and is about nine miles
long. A drainage study was prepared in 1964 by Lawrence, Fogg, Florer and Smith, Civil
Engineers, to supplement the General Plan. That study (generally referred to as the Fogg
Study) reviewed all of the drainage basins affecting Chula Vista (excepting the
Sweetwater and Otay Rivers) and recommended improvements in each of them to provide
protection against flooding due to a 50 storm event.
During the ensuing approximately 30 years the City has used that report as a basis for
construction of drainage improvements. Because of the significance of the Telegraph
Canyon watercourse the Corps of Engineers was requested to undertake a flood control
project for improvement of the stream. The Corps prepared a feasibility study of the
project and in a 1975 report determined that the portion of the stream from Fourth
Avenue west to the bay had a high enough benefit/cost ratio to justify federal.
participation in its construction. That project, which consists mainly of a rectangular
reinforced concrete channel was completed in October 1989, at a total cost of almost
$ 1 0 million. The following is a breakdown of the funding sources and corresponding
amounts that contributed to said project:
Federal Contribution $ 5,000,000
CDBG 1,184,650
RDA-Bayfront 1,300,000
RCT 971,600
General Fund 675,000
Gas Tax 616,600
Federal Revenue Sharing 130,000
$ 9,877,850
The report examined eight different alternatives for improving the channel between Hilltop
Drive and the Bay. All eight alternatives indicated that improving the section between
Fourth and Hilltop was economically unjustified from a benefit/cost standpoint.
As development of eastern Chula Vista has taken place, the City has required developers
to improve Telegraph Canyon Creek adjacent to the areas being developed. Thus, an
open trapezoidal channel has been constructed from near Hilltop Drive all the way
eastward to the EastLake Business Center. Although development in the eastern
territories has contributed to a greater volume of runoff, the construction of detention
basins has regulated the peak flows within the stream, and kept them below the ultimate
q-:l.,
Page 3, Item--2-
Meeting Date 2/16/93
discharges shown in the "Fogg Study". In addition, the City has incorporated the creek
bottom between Hilltop Drive and about 400 feet east of First Avenue into an attractive
park. It is downstream of this park that the Telegraph Canyon Creek drainage problems
begin.
This portion of the waterway is a meandering stream running through an area which was
developed with single family homes as much as forty years ago. Many of the lots which
contain the stream are two hundred feet or more in depth. Property owners have planted
trees along its banks, built walls to narrowly define and restrict its banks and at least one
foot bridge over it to allow use of the property along both its banks. In addition, some
property owners have built room additions within the former flood area encroaching into
the channel area and/or built accessory buildings close to the channel edge focusing the
runoff and exacerbating the erosion.
FEMA flood insurance rate maps show areas ranging from 50 to 150 feet in width along
this portion of the channel that fall within a floodplain. An attached exhibit shows the
boundaries of said floodplain.
No major problems can be attributed to new growth in the City during recent years with
respect to the City's threshold standards for drainage. One reason for this is that
developers have constructed detention basins as mentioned above so that downstream
peak flows are not increased. Also, each new subdivision is required to construct drainage
facilities as necessary to handle drainage from storms of a certain magnitude and to
discharge peak flows that are lower than previous peaks to downstream facilities. A third
reason is that the Environmental Impact Report for each major development must address
any possible drainage problems, both on-site and off-site. The developer is required to
implement mitigation measures, if necessary, to avoid impacting downstream properties.
Staff has walked the Telegraph Canyon Creek between Fourth Avenue and Hilltop Park
in an effort to inventory the drainage situation in this section of the creek. Based on
staff's review and comments from the affected property owners, it is evident that the
major problem in this reach of the stream is erosion along the channel's banks.
The problem areas lie within an unimproved section of the stream, running from a point
450 feet east of Fourth Avenue to a point approximately 400 feet east of First Avenue.
Staff's inventory of said unimproved section of the creek shows that there are areas that
have undergone substantial erosion due to the velocity and duration of flows.
Obstructions (debris, broken concrete, rip rap, block walls, etc.) to the free flow of
drainage water have been placed within the channel. Many sections of the channel have
relatively steep slopes and sharp curves. The combination of steep side slopes, sharp
turns and a restricted channel can lead to excessive velocities in natural channels, causing
erosion and undercutting of a channel's bottom and banks. The higher the flow velocity,
the greater the water's ability to take up and transport sediment. Erosion is especially
likely to occur at curves.
Representative sections of the channel are approximately 10-15 feet wide with the sides
covered with vegetation. There are areas where the flow has cut the channel to a depth
of 10-15 feet. This has resulted in further erosion and siltation in the downstream
9'J
Page 4, Item~
Meeting Date 2/16/93
sections. An example of such a situation is north of San Miguel Drive adjacent to the
AT&T property parking lot. The width of the channel is approximately 60 feet at this
location and a substantial section of the wall along the parking lot has collapsed. Another
section of the same wall is threatened with collapse due to erosion under its foundation.
It is reasonable to expect that this reach of the Telegraph Canyon Creek between Hilltop
Park and Fourth Avenue will continue to experience erosion problems if left unattended.
There have been no major flooding prOblems in the area due to two factors:
1) we have yet to experience a basin wide 50-year or 100-year storm, and
2) the culvert undercrossings at First, Second and Third Avenues are under-
capacity for a large storm. This reduces the downstream flooding potential
since the undercrossings function as small detention basins.
However, once the water is across these streets, major flows that do pass through these
culverts still cannot be totally contained within the unimproved natural channel. In
addition to being undersized, the channel in many sections is partially obstructed as
discussed previously. This serves to exacerbate the flooding problem.
It should be noted that frequency or return period refers to the probability that an
expected peak, or momentary maximum, discharge (based upon statistical rainfall data)
will be exceeded in anyone year. For example, 50-year and 100-year return frequency
storms have a 2% (1/50) and a 1% (1/100) chance of occurring in anyone year,
respectively. However, this does not mean that if a 50-year storm were to occur, it
would not be repeated again for 49 years. A 50-year flood has a 1 in 50 (2%) chance
of being exceeded in any year and, therefore, could occur in any year or even in
consecutive years or two or more times in anyone year.
~
I Telegraph Canyon Creek is a major channel. City participation in the improvement of this
channel could be in accordance with Council Policy No. 522-01 established by Resolution
~ No. 4786 (copy attached). Said policy provides that the City may assume the obligation
U for the cost of the design and construction of the most economical design of a major
~ channel and associated structures which are to be constructed as funds allow. The City
o has drainage easements traversing over 1,250 feet at various locations along the channel
:l: (Exhibit B). This covers approximately 21 % of the unimproved section (total length =
6,050 feet).
In general, the most economical design is an open trapezoidal concrete channel and
parallel undercrossing culverts within public rights-of-way. If the property owners desire
to construct a higher level facility, they would be responsible for the increase in costs.
A rough cost estimate to improve (most economically) this portion of the Telegraph
Canyon Creek is as follows:
9' t(
Page 5, Item~
Meeting Date 2/16/93
LOCATION COST
1. From a point 450 feet east of Fourth Avenue to a point $1.6 million
immediately downstream of Third Avenue
2. From just below Third Avenue to a point immediately $1.65 million
downstream of Second Avenue (includes crossing under L
Street)
3. From just below Second Avenue to a point immediately $2.05 million
downstream of First Avenue (includes crossing under Country
Club Drive)
4. From just below First Avenue to Hilltop Park $.4 million
TOTAL COST $5.7 million
The cost estimates (attached) do not include the cost of right-of-way acquisition. We
believe that the property owners may be willing to dedicate the drainage easements at
no cost to the City if a commitment to improve the creek is made by the City Council.
In the event that property owners are not willing to dedicate a drainage easement at no
cost to the City, additional appraisal and right-of-way costs will have to be added to the
total cost of the project. The City Council may wish to establish an Assessment District
to finance any right-of-way costs.
The cost of a project of this magnitude requires that a phased program be instituted. The
first order of work is proposed to begin design process which would include the necessary
studies to determine the most economical alternative for the proposed channel section,
development of preliminary constructions plans, the right-of-way requirements and a
preliminary schedule and phasing. This first step could also further evaluate whether or
not adjacent property owners should contribute toward the ultimate projects cost. The
Department of Public Works has proposed a Capital Improvement Project for FY 1993-94
with a cost estimate of $ 1 00,000 to begin this work. Staff believes that a multi-year
implementation program would accomplish the ultimate improvement of this section of
the Telegraph Canyon Creek. Top priority would be the improvement of the channel as
it traverses the private properties. This would eliminate the erosion problems and would
help to alleviate the flooding potential. The total cost for this portion of the project is
estimated at $2.16 million.
Improvement of the roadway undercrossings would then be accomplished on a sequential
basis starting at the downstream end and going upstream (west to east). There are
undersized crossings under:
1) Third Avenue,
2) L Street,
3) Second Avenue,
4) Country Club Drive, and
5) First Avenue.
9..5"
Page 6, Item~
Meeting Date 2/16/93
The total cost of installing parallel culverts under said five crossings is estimated to be
$3.54 million which represents over 60% of the total cost of the project.
In February and March 1992, runoff resulting from a series of high intensity rain storms
caused localized flooding in the older areas of the City, primarily:
1 . In the Central Drainage Basin at the following locations:
a. West of Broadway, between G and H Streets;
b. 400 block of Elm Avenue;
c. 500 block of Hilltop Drive; and
d. 12 Shasta Street.
2. In the south branch of the Telegraph Canyon Basin at the following locations:
a. 1000 block of Woodlawn Avenue
b. 1070 Fifth Avenue
c. 61 6 Crested Butte
As a result of this flooding, the City Council directed the Department of Public
Works/Engineering Division staff to prepare a report on flooding throughout the City and
to include proposals for construction of drainage facilities to correct drainage deficiencies.
In compliance with that direction, Engineering staff prepared a report, which was
accepted by the City Council in May 1992. The report established a priority list of
drainage improvement projects. Priority and order of improvement were based upon the
seriousness of each drainage complaint received between 1983 and 1992, the cost to
correct the associated deficiency, the hazard presented by the deficiency, and the need
to construct downstream facilities before upstream facilities. The subject channel section
was included, but was identified as a fairly low priority. This low ranking was mainly
attributed to the fact that none of the properties were flooded.
However, with the recent rains and increased erosion the project could be considered to
have a higher priority.
FUNDING ANALYSIS: The cost to improve Telegraph Canyon Creek between a point 450
feet east of Fourth Avenue and Hilltop Park is estimated to be approximately $5.7 million.
Chula Vista Ordinance No. 2384 established a fee of $3,922/acre for new development
in the Telegraph Canyon Creek Drainage Basin to fund improvements to the Telegraph
Canyon Creek east and west of 1-805. The improvements east of 1-805 have been
completed, leaving only the segment of the channel between Fourth Avenue and Hilltop
Park unimproved. Said Ordinance also established a revenue account that has a current
balance of $120,686. An amount of $100,000 from this fund is being proposed by
Public Works to finance a hydrologic and hydraulic study of the subject channel section
in FY 1993-94. Staff estimates that it would take up to 5 to 10 years to accumulate
enough funds in said account to enable the City to construct a project of this magnitude.
However, as said funds accumulate, they could be used to reimburse any fund that
Council chooses to use to finance this project. A finance mechanism will need to be
worked out by the Finance Department.
9"'~
Page 7, Item~
Meeting Date 2/16/93
There are a variety of funding sources that could finance the installation of said
improvements or be used to front the cost until the Telegraph Canyon Basin fund could
repay the loan. Those funding sources could be Residential Construction Tax, Gas Tax,
TransNet, or Assessment District. The use of Gas Tax or TransNet funds must be done
in conjunction with street reconstruction or improvements within public rights-of-way.
It is difficult to determine at this time the precise amount each fund could contribute to
the proposed project. Furthermore, after examining the needs as outlined in the City's 5-
year CIP for Gas Tax and TransNet funds, staff believes that a major portion of this
project would have to be front funded through other funds.
Staff is continuing to evaluate funding alternatives and will return to Council with a
supplemental report in connection with Council's consideration of the Capital
Improvement Program.
ClS:JPL:SMN:KY-067. L Y-103
WPC F:\HOME\ENGINEER\AGENDA\TElCYNCR
9" 7 / q, 8
;;: C'.I
-
- en
- - -
- -c
- CC>
- - C'.I
-
- c.. -
-
- - ..-
- ::.0:::
-
-
-
-
-
-
- . .
-
- ~
-
-
-
- . .
- ! LU
-
- ~
-
-
C" - c:::a
-
- c:::a
-
-
-
-,
~
.
!:::
r:D
:J:
~
. ----.; ~~Cj~~ ~
"~'~.~. . j=-..L. .~ E:Jtil~~' ,'.
,.c..-;. '., _ ,'_ '_' ~ ,
---.:;' -:. ~~ ''''. ------
~-'=-----<-L~~a'1--- ~ ~
~ ~;~ :~~=~~ g-.'" . '. .. ....
"'-- , ~--- .
I ;. ._:~ \ :_~:.:: ,---<iF - i
- , r- .~-'. -~ '''00
I: ~~ ,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ !::!i
J! -::::?- ,~, ,~. _c; ! .
] ,-- ," - t~.., ?::~c ~~t._. :~i ..
I - - r"'; , -- ~r. ',,-__..,.__ ,'~. .-
~[, ~CCnl) #, 1t!c,. ';t 'L \y
.. .~ ~~ l-'.. ~~ ~".' r
Jr- :-- ~ U ~~: j l'. ~ lr= /~::,,'
I-- ~. 1 . .>, "; \ ,"_
.. --~. \' 1:'- ~ tJ . . .L,.:;:. ..
. . ~#.-0.. .so" r---' r:..., .
I .. "I, , , '--t..
- ,n.", ~ ~II",,-.:;,' ;:t -'.,' ::: <, '1-
Ei ~(~:::!i l=i'< ~ ~
,'. "'-'jt: ;:i . :Ie~~~ ." . ~I . r~~~~.:..(: .:c. "j'!!!'
· 'il rE::!:r: 1-' '.,'. :.'" .... d.
t . ~', !~.,' !" __ '," I',
'I, ., Ii II : ~'ci!..... LJ' ~'r,.!
0.,
~ t-
o I"
" (" 'I ~ * ,I' ", '"",;
· c=:. ' =1----. .. \:,,"J ":~;:"".' '~b:rl ~
=~ ......" ", '. '~>.~ ~
.~~~_f.- :',-<;: - -, CtlIHJ. c.,:) cC
,= I" I 'n , i'"~'^'. I 53 ~
E..:=J.. "'~ ! ~ ~
' r .-..... Q, li1
- - -
-- ~ lZ i!!
~
. "1--
....c:: I--
.:,'~ c::
.....I LU
~ ::>
c:..,:) .....I
. ~
LU c:..,:)
. I-- LU
. -c I--
S-c
LUS
.. . c:::a LU
:2c:::a
- -c
00
~
. ~
.:: i
- - ~ 1
. L"":"
~~
.
~
~
; -'-0
~
L
I r
.
~
,
%
~
+-
rfl
II
. II
.....I
LU
::z:
::z:
-C
~
~:::;LU
::-LU~
::z:~::z:
-C:::ELU
c:..,:)_::>
=><-C
c..o=
C28:1--
C!:I c.. c::
LU-Ci5
U:::ou...
I--I--u...
LU LU 0
=::>1--
I--a:cn
u... c:::a -C
o LU
Q...I--
::Z:::=LU
O.....lLU
~.....Iu...
c:: _= ~
o ~
c..~~
c:::ac::
~u...
o
c::
c..
::::IE
-
::z:
~
EXHIBIT "B"
. \.
\ . \
\ \ \
\ ~
\ . \ \ ..........~\ \
. \ "",-, ,\
\ \ \ \
\
\
\
'{'l- 75
\
LILLIAN J. RICE \ -
,
ELEMENTARY ,
I ~
SCHOOL , -
, I .-
, I
,\... .... 1&
_\
.l" - \
\
\
\ ,
\- --,
,
. \ \
\ j \ \ ,- - -
~~~~~~~~~~~ ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS IMPROVEMENTS
PROJECT LI~ITS l\.. '\. '\. '\. 't EXISTNG DRANAGE
. EASEMENTS
DRAWN BY: K.P.A
DATE: 1/26/93
TELEGRAPH CANYON CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT
FROM THIRD AVENUE TO 450 FEET EAST OF FOURTH
AVENUE (AT ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS PROJECT)
SHEET 1 OF 4 Sl-EETS
9'IP
EXHIBIT "B"
--'
,-'
r-
I
\
I
,-,-
-'
"
I
, ........
,
"
II
\I
.--(\
\ \
\ ,\
\ \ ,,-
, \ \ ,"
, ,.. . \
'~""\ ,\
\ \ . \
\ \
---.
, -~
-; .-.-
---~
..-----
~t
1;
" \. \. \.'1 EXISTNG DRAINAGE
EASEMENTS
--
--
PROJECT LIMITS
DRAWN BY: K,P,A
DATE: 1/26/93
TELEGRAPH CANYON CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT
FROM SECOND AVENUE TO
THIRD AVENUE
, f SHEET 2 OF 4 SHEETS
9.,//
EXHIBIT "8"
\;60
\
\ \
\
.; \
.. P \ f
~ -'-
,
\
\
PROJECT LIMITS
\
'~L~
J a-
, }/
\ \ \ v>~='
" " " \. '\I EXISTING. DRAINAGE
EASEMENTS:. .
DATE: 1/26/93
TELEGRAPH CANYON CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT
FROM FIRST AVENUE TO
SECOND AVENUE
SHEET 3 OF 4 SHEETS
DRAWN BY: K.P.A
'9 .,. / .2..
EXHIBIT "B"
~I
r
\
\ \
\
..1 \
- \ l
. .-
PROJECT LIMITS
\ \ \
1\."""", . EXISTING DRAINAGE
EASEMENTS
DRAWN BY: K.P.A
DATE: 1/26/93
TELEGRAPH CANYON CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT
FROM HILLTOP DRIVE TO
FIRST AVENUE
SHEET 4 OF 4 SHEETS
9-1 :;J
.. c
>
i .
.
" ..
;j ;;
"
"
i
~
..
5 III
i I
I?
II .~- ~'. C
~- D
-~~~l Ie
~,
..
<(
::IE
o
I-
>-
...
:w:
~ ~
... 1
8 g _
.. .. -!
~ ! j
: :
> 8 8
! ~ N
... 1 ~H~l
Ii
III ! ;: I: r=
z ~ .l! !:; Ci!1
0 ! 8~' ...
i= - .f:i:
.
<( .. II lC-::-iie
.
Z 8 ~l!-. e
l.:) 8' :'_8"_
'a c: gU ...
~ ~ 1;:-' .,; :S-Ji-; E
I! I~.:a=!..!
Q ;: .a! ~.@ '5 lQ!":-
... c .. '8 -~-i...
z z 1~ B 0 ... c u
0 c .!g r;:; .!!.!:~:i!g
...
N L ..e "'5 E~';"Qo
" NO" _ U ...._
... .. U.. u'" -Ulea.
0 ~~ ~~ i"=1
.... O"':J u
~ Z 'a...,! ..~:!!..
~ ...... .. "1"::;"
0 'oS o~ J_:€iCi
... 1 i=
c ./:. ./:. lQ.... I: u u"
g <( "8 18 .~..=
.. .. U f .c:'CSE
j 8 z c= c;: _
<(
;;: ...I
... .. ~
~ ~ >< .. ..
. . Z C
>, 8 ... 2 -
~ C
~
AVENUE
J...~~
= ...
]1
J~
SECOND
JI
JI
]1
III
!II
~ ~
IV ~
J
~!
I
z ll'
~ ~
i
~
AVDfUE
I
I
I i
=
"
] THI~" AVONUO
i
.
i
;l
~ il
!
5
.
=
~
01
JC
]
II
..
>
i
"
.
C
.
~
III
!II
~;
IV 1I:'.lr
fOURTH AVENUE
..
..
8
c
..
E
:e
E
-
o
-
:
.(
LU
~
=
LU
::>
...:II:
=
...-
c:::
~
e:>
.....
e:>
...-
LU
::>
-
c:::
~
c...
e:>
...-
......
......
-
=
~
.....
-
..
......
LU
=
=
...:II:
=
C,.:)
=
~
...:II:
C,.:)
=
c...
...:II:
c:::
C,!::lI
LU
........
LU
...-
LU
=
...-
.....
e:>
c...
3i
LU
~
c:::
LLJ
C,.:)
=
...:II:
c:::
~
en
=
-
~
8
......
.....
-j --I
,',. ~ LLI
=
~=
, cC
=
c..:>>
=
,.~
"", cC
c..:>>
=
c..
cC
a::
" C!J
, LU
--I
LU
I--
u...
<:;)
I
I
I
-..I
LU
=
=
cC
=
c..:>>
=
~
=
~
=
c..
cC
ai
LU
--I
LU
I--
LU
=
I--
u...
<:;)
=
<:;)
-
b::
<:;)
c..
~
LU
::>-
~
c..
2:
-
=
::;)
LU
=
I--
u...
<:;)
ffi
-
::>-
--I
cC
-
a::
LU
cC
~
u...
<:;)
....
LU
I--
cC
--I
c..
l'"'"W:;# ,,~
,'" " ,- \"" _:::~:,:;" '~\<,,", _.. :"1{;:':'::O'-:,,
~. ..~
,:,,~,::;,:,,~i;.;;t.:;:.:':;r;:\::~t!;:::;;l. "'w.::\:,:~,' -;
....J
LLJ
=
=
.....c
=
c..;)
=
~
=
.....c
c..;)
=
c..
.....c
a::
Co!:'
'. LLJ
::'-'-::*"'~
LLJ
I--
LL-
o
rf:~:~:5~1,:-;i'~ .
c: l -,;,~:{}~:::;-;,-:i'~:, ,- " ~': '-' -~:'-:;:\::1:: "-,~-
.' I"., :_~~'.,..
-" ,:ll.k.\.'''''~':'~'-'~''''''''''''''''\''-''\''''~-'\' ..Jt:.-;.;,: 'i'-.
9"/~
....J
LLJ
=
=
.....c
=
c..>
=
o
>-
=
.....c
c..>
=
c..
.....c
a::
Co!:'
LLJ
....J
LLJ
I--
LLJ
=
I--
LL-
o
=
o
-
I--
a::
~
~
LLJ
>-
o
a::
c..
::E
-
=
~
LLJ
=
I--
LL-
o
ffi
-
>-
....J
.....c
-
a::
LLJ
.....c
~
LL-
o
C'-I
LLJ
I--
.....c
....J
c..
......
LU
=
=
...c
=
c.;>>
=
~
=
c5
=
c...
...c
a::
c.!:J
LU
......
LU
.......
LU
=
.......
u...
01
=
01
-
.......
a::
01
c...
c:lI
LU
::>
~
c...
::::E
-
=
::>>
LU
=
.......
u...
01
fEi
u... -
01 ::>
LU ......
= ...c
- -
...... a::
a:: LU
LU ...c
.......
=
LU
. c.;>>
I C"':>>
u...
I 01
C"':>>
I LU
.......
...c
......
c...
9"'/7
- ~~.
~~-
~
,.):.....;.A.;;::::'i.;- :,,:;~::\:Y:-"
(,;
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
ENGINEERING DWISION
FileNo. LY-I03
COST ESTIMATE
PROJECT llTLE: TELEGRAPH CANYON CHANNEl IMPROVEMENT
FROM HILLTOP DRIVE TO FIRST AVENUE
DA11l:
PREPARED BY:
QIIlCICBD BY:
1/2B/93
KPA
SMN
NO. ll1lM QUAN'ITl'Y UNIT UNlTPR!al AMOUNT
1 GRADINGIUr: OF FIRST AVENUE) LS LS $15,000.00 $15,000
2 ADD PARAllEL 8' X 8' RCB TO EXISTING 150 LF $1,200.00 $180,000
3 HEADWALL AND OU1LET STRUCIURES LS LS $20,000.00 $20,000
4 6' IDGHRETAlNING WALL 300 LF $85.00 $25,500
5 REMOVE AND REPLACE EXISI'. STREET IMPRO. LS LS $15,000.00 $15,000
6 LANDSCAPING LS LS $10.000.00 $10,000
7 TRAFFIC CONI'ROL LS LS $10,000.00 $10,000
8 PR01ECI10N OF EXISTING UTILITIES LS LS $10,000.00 $10,000
CONSTRUcnON TOTAL $285,500
CONTINGENCIES (40%) $114,200
PROJECT TOTAL $399,700
SAY ..........
{NOlE: COST ESTIMATE DOES NOT INCLUDE RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUIS'TION FOR
PROPERTIFS ADJACENT TO THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS. TInS IS
BECAUSE THESEPROPERTIFS Wll1.. RECEIVE BENEFIT FROM THE
PROPOSED DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS.
9-1 f"
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
ENGINEERING DWISION
File No. LY-103
COST ESTIMATE
PROJECT TI11E: TELEGRAPH CANYON CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT
FROM FIRST AVENUE TO SECOND AVENUE
DA11!: 1/28/93
PRBPAREDBY: K P A
CHIlCXI!D BY: S M N
NO. rI1lM QUANITI'Y IlIlIT IlIlITPRlCB AMOUNT
1 REMOV ALOF EXISTING S1RUCIURE I.S I.S $50,000.00 $50,000
2 TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL 1,500 LF $250.00 $375,000
(D = 6', B = 12', Z = 1.5:1, T = 30')
3 HEADWAUS AND OUlLET S1RUCIURES I.S I.S $75,000.00 $75,000
4 1RIPLE 12'X6' RCB (COUNTRY CLUB TO FIRST A V.) 280 LF $2,400.00 $672,000
5 1RIPLE 12'X6' RCB (SECOND AVENUE) 100 LF $2,400.00 $240,000
6 TRANSmON S1RUCIURES I.S I.S $30,000.00 $30,000
7 TRAFFIC CONTROL I.S I.S $20,000.00 $20,000
CONS'IRUCTIONTOTAL $1,462,000
CONIlNGENCIES (40%) $584,800
PROJECT TOTAL $2,046,800
SAY .........
{NOTE: COST FSI1MAlE DOES NOT INCLUDE RIGHI' ..QF-W A Y ACQUISTION FOR
PROPE'I'lEl ADJACENT TO 1HE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTI). TIllS IS
BECAUSE 1HESE PROPERTIES WllLRECEIVE BENEFIT FROM 1HE
PROPOSED DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTI).
9-11
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
ENGINEERING DWISION
FileNo. LY-103
COST ESTIMATE
PROJECT TITLE: TELEGRAPH CANYON CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT
FROM SECOND AVENUE TO THIRD AVENUE
DA11!:
PRBPARIlD BY:
CIII!CIQlJ) BY:
1/28/93
KPA
SMN
NO. rI1!M QUAN'ITI'Y UNIT UNlTPRIa! AMOUNT
1 REMOVE EXISTING DRAINAGE FACILITIES 18 18 $60,000.00 $60,000
2 TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL 1,450 LF $250.00 $362,500
(D = 6', B = 12', Z = 1.5:1, T = 30')
3 1RIPLE 9' X 6' RCB C'L" ;) 0\ 130 LF $1,800.00 $234,000
4 1RIPLE 10' X 6' RCB I AVENUE) 200 LF $2,000.00 $400,000
5 TRANSmON S1RUCIURES 18 18 $20,000.00 $20,000
6 HEADWAllS AND OUTI.ET SlRUCIURES 18 18 $40,000.00 $40,000
7 REMOVE & REPLACE EXIST. S'IREET IMPROVE. 18 18 $40,000.00 $40,000
8 TRAFFIC CONTROL 18 18 $25,000.00 $25,000
CONSlRUCTION TOTAL $1,181,500
CONI'INGENCIES (40%) $472,600
PROJECT TOTAL ...
SAY ro:.:'Pi
{NOTE: COST ESTIMATE DOES NOTINa.UDE RIGHT-OF WAY ACQUISTION FOR
PROPERTIES ADIACENTTO TIlE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTIl. TIllS IS
BECAUSE TIlESE PROPERTIES WIll RECEIVE BENEFIT FROM TIlE
PROPOSED DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTIl.
tj-.20
CITYOFCHULA VISTA
ENGINEERING DWISION
File No. L Y-103
COST ESTIMATE
PROJECT TITLE: TELEGRAPH CANYON CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT DATIl:
FROM THIRD AVENUE TO ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS PIlIlPARIlDBY:
PROJECT (APPROXIMATELY 450' EAST OF FOURTH AVE.) OII!CXI!DBY:
1/2B/93
KPA
SMN
110. rIllM QUAN'lTl'Y UNIT UNITPRIa! AMOUNT
1 REMOVE EXISTING DRAINAGE FACILITIES IS IS $40,000.00 $40,000
2 'lRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL 700 LF $250.00 $175,000
(D = 6', B = 12', Z = 1.5:1, T = 30')
3 TRIPLE 10'X 6' RCB I WJ'.'>l OF1HIRDAVENUE) 400 LF $2,000.00 $800,000
4 lRANSmON SIRUCIURFS IS IS $20,000.00 $20,000
5 HEADWAll AND OUTLET SIRUCIURE IS IS $20,000.00 $20,000
6 REMOVE &: REPlACE EXIST. PRIVATE IMPROVE. IS IS $50,000.00 $50,000
7 TRAFFIC CONTROL IS IS $25,000.00 $25,000
CONSIRUCTION TOTAL $1,130,000
CONIlNGENCIES (40%) $452,000
PROJECT TOTAL $1,582,000
'SlDB
SAY .... .., .. "'
...... . ,.
.....",.. "'
...... . ..
..... ..
...., .., ......
.. . . ..
{NOTE: COSTFSTIMATE DOES NOT INCLUDE RIGlIT-OF WAY ACQUJSTION FOR
PROPERTlESADJACENTTO 1HE PROPOSED IMPROVEMEN'ffi. nns IS
BECAUSE TIIESE PROPERTIES WILL RECEIVE BENEFIT FROM 1HE
PROPOSED DRAINAGE IMPROVEMEN'ffi.
9....2/
.,.. --
" .May'3: \968
RESOLUTION NO. 4786
l'
I
RESOLUTDON OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
ESTABLISHING A COUNCIL POLICY RELATED TO THE RESPONSIBILITY
AND FINANCING OF DRAINAGE FACILITIES AND THE CRITERIA FOR
THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF STORM DRAINAGE FACILITIES
The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby
resolve as follows:
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Chula Vsita has
heretofore adopted Ordinance No. 1032, relating to the control of
drainage areas and watercourses, and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that, in addition
to the establishment of regulations thereby which were intended to
protect persons and property against water damage and flood hazards,
it is necessary to establish a policy to implement said ordinance
and carry out said purpose and intent.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT~RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Chula Vista that said Council does hereby establish the
following drainage policy.
PURPOSE. The purpose of this policy is to establish the
responsibil~ty and criteria for the design and construction of storm
drainage facilities, and the financing thereof, predicated on:
1. Protection of life and property of citizens;
2. Protection of City-owned improvements and facilities;
3. Protection of vehicular and pedestrian traffic from
damage, 'hazards and unusual delays;
4. Elimination of unsightly and unsanitary ditches and ponds;
5. Reduction of maintenance costs of drainage facilities;
6. Availability and applicability of a variety of means of
financing said drainage facilities.
~
BACKGROUND. In order to protect both public and private
property, the construction and improvement of drainage facilitaes to
accommodate storm water runoff, it is necessary and essential to the
health, safety and general welfare of the community that proper imple-
mentation of the necessary program be established, which requires the
establishment of the design criteria, the fixing of basic responsibility
and provision for methods of financing. Design criteria are established
by the Public Works Department, based on technical and scientific data,
calculated to achieve the goals set forth in this policy. While the
basic responsibility for handling drainage problems rests with the
property owners, the coordination and intergration of drainage facilities
becomes a community responsibility, and is accepted as such. The imple-
mentation of any overall drainage program is fundamentally dependent
upon the resolution of the question of financing. While drainage pro-
jects have constituted a small percentage of the City's capital outlay
expenditures in previous years, in the year 1967-68 such drainage pro-
jects amount to forty percent (40%) of said capital outlay expenditures.
However, because of, the magnitude of the problem, sole reliance upon
annual appropriations from the Capital Outlay Fund is insufficient to
meet the community demands. In addition, because the nature of benefit
from such public works vary, the method of financing individual projects
also differs. Therefore, the misunderstanding and uncertainty which
has prolonged the inadequacy of drainage facilities except in new sub-
divisions may be attributed to the absence of a clearly established
policy pertaining to the financing of drainage facilities.
0'
j
TYPES OF DRAINAGE FACILITIES.
include the following:
Drainage facilities commonly
9-.)~
-1-
..
,"
1. Storm Drain. A system of closed conduits connected by
cleanouts, curb inlets, and other appurtenances.
2. CuZvert. A pipe or rectangular box under a roadway and
open on both ends.
, "~
3. Drainage.Ditch. A ditch which is less than 8 feet wide
on the bottom and constructed to carry storm runoff.
.'.J.
4. Drainage ChanneZ.A drainage channel which is constructed
more than 8 feet wide on the bottom.
5. Bro~ Vitch. A ditch constructed on the top of a cut or
fill bank for the purpose of intercepting surface runoff.
6. NaturaZ Ditch. A ditch (or channel) which has been created
by natural storm runoff and erosion.
7. Drainage S~aZe. A very wide and shallow depression which
carries surface runoff.
8. FZood ControZ ChanneZ. A channel constructed to prevent
the flooding of land due to rising waters or waters which
overflow their natural stream beds.
DEFINITIONS:
1. Major Drainage ChanneZ or System. A channel which drains
an area in excess of 750 acres.
2. LateraZ Drainage ChanneZ or System. A channel which drains
an area in excess of 100 acres but less than 750 acres and
empties into a major channel.
3. LocaZ Drainage ChanneZ or System. A drainage system which
collects local runoff from an area of less than 100 acres
and transports water to a lateral or major system.
4. Drainage ChanneZ or System. An open or closed conduit,
improved or unimporved, designed for the purpose of
collecting and transporting storm water runoff in such
manner as to protect public and private property.
5. Drainage Structure. A catch basin, outlet, inlet, headwall,
spillway, energy dissipator, junction box, cleanout box,
diversion box, etc., in a drainage channel or system.
6. Design Storm. A storm of such magnitude which may be
expected to occur once during a specified number of years
and resulting in the maximum storm water runoff to be
anticipated once during that specified number of years.
DESIGN CRITERIA:
-.-l_!
1. In general, all major drainage channels shall be designed
to discharge a 50 year ultimate storm, without static
head, lateral channels shall be designed to discharge a
10 year storm without static head at entrances and a 50
year ultimate storm utilizing available head without
causing substantial damage to surrounding property; and
local channels shall be designed to discharge a 10 year
storm utilizing available head without causing substantial
property ~amage, except that where a sump condition exists
and excess runoff has no alternate route, special design
shall be required for the protection of property. ~~~
,.
. i.:.
.'<.' '
- /\
, -~;
2. Open drainage channels shall be lined with gunite or Port-
land Cement Concrete unless physical circumstances dictate
a particular channel be constructed as a temporary channel.
3. Runoff quantities to be accommodated in the design of all
structures shall be as set forth in or derived from the
report prepared by Lawrence, Fogg, Florer and Smith which
is titled "A Special Study of Storm Drain Facilities~ and
is on file in the office of the Director of Public W~kS.
GENERAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR CONSTRUCTION OF DRAINAGE FACILITIES.
Construotion ResponsibiZity; GeneraZ,y. As stated herein, the
basic responsibility for the maintenance and improvement of drainage
facilities is that of the property owner through whose property the
natural drainage channel runs and who requires the improvement of said
facilities for the protection of his property interest. However, the
City does have a general responsibility to insure the proper construction,
maintenance and improvement of drainage facilities to protect the public
health, safety and general welfare of the City as a whole. The delinea-
tion herein of the various situations wherein it is attempted to establish
responsibility for the construction of several types of drainage facilities
should not be construed as fixing the respective financial obligations
of the City or the property owner, or establishing the sources of funds
for said construction, unless such obligation or sources are specified
herein.
, !
,
:1
,
!
..-"
.;
:j
i
~
:,-,
.< ~
d
~. ~
.\
1/
I
"
.
1.
Major ChanneZs. The responsibility for the cost of the
design and construction of the most economical design of
major channels and structures shall rest with the City as
a whole and shall be constructed as funds allow in order
of priority, based upon need for property protection as
determined by the Director of Public Works subject to the
approval of the City Council, and upon the desire of property
owners involved to effect other improvements which in turn
necessitate the construction of major channels and structures.
In the event that the property owners desire a system in-
volving greater expense than that which is approved by the
Director of Public Works. as being adequate and appropriate
under the circumstances to resolve the drainage problem in
accordance with design standards, they shall be required
to contribute the difference in the cost as estimated by
the Director of Public Works.
In the case of new subdivisions, the basic responsibility
for the cost of design and construction of major channels
and structures shall be borne by the subdivider exclusively
in those cases where the subdivision comprises a substantial
portion of the drainage basin involved. In those cases
where the subdivision through which a major channel will
run comprises a relatively minor portion of the total drain-
age basin, the City may enter into a reimbursement agreement
with the subdivider to provide for reimbursement by the
subs~quent subdividers of land which are shown to benefit
from the construction of the major channel. The basis of
said benefit shall be determined by the Director of Public
Works. In some instances the City itself may participate
in the construction of major channels and structures within
subdivisions based upon a division of benefits inuring to
the subdivision and to the City as a whole.
In the event that the City is unable to participate in con-
struction at the request of property owners involved, the
minimum requirement shall be that the property owners shall
bear all cost of construction of ~emporary facilities for
the ultimate design at all street crossings and may, at
their option, bear the cost for permanent construc~~~~
/1
. .
the entire system. The City shall, upon request of the
p~operty owners, enter into a contract to reimburse the
property owners for the cost of all permanent facilities
constructed at their expense, provided that funds are
made available through a general obligation bond issue
for construction of such major channel within a period of
10 years from the date of contract. The amount to be re-
imbursed shall be based upon the estimate of the Director
of Public Works, and shall be without interest.
2. Lateral Channels. The responsibility for the cost of
design and construction of lateral channels and structures
may be shared equally by the City and property owners in-
volved. The City may initiate special assessment improve-
ment districts for construction of lateral channels when
funds are available to share the cost with property owners.
The City, if funds are available and when requested by
property owners, may participate in construction of lateral
channels by contributing up to one-half of the cost as
estimated by the Director of Public Works. If City funds'
are not available, and the property owners wish to proceed,
they may do so at their own expense and no reimbursement
will be made by the City.
3. Loaal Channels. All costs involved in design and construc-
tion of local channels and structures, including structures
in a major or lateral channel serving a local system, shall
be borne entirely by property owners desiring the improve-
ments, provided, however, that the City may participate in
said costs in an amount not to exceed fifty percent (50%)
if the particular improvement constitutes a project eligible
for cooperative financing as outlined in Section 6 of the
Policy for Financing entitled "Cooperative Drainage projects".
POLICY FOR FINANCING VARIOUS CATEGORIES OF DRAINAGE PROJECTS.
There are six basic categories of drainage projects classified
according to the suggested method of financing. These categories and
the financing policy applicable to each are as follows:
1. Flood Control Frojeats. Projects such as the Sweetwater
Valley Flood Control Channel are major works involving
the expenditure of many thousands and millions of dollars.
These projects are ordinarily designed and constructed
with federal funds through the assistance of the U. S.
Army Corps of Engineers. The federal government usually
pays for all costs except rights-of-way, relocation and
reconstruction of utilities. These latter costs are paid
by the City with reimbursement by the State of California,
Department of Water Resources. Flood control projects are
initia~d by governmental action through the City Council,
the State of California, and the Congress and the Executive
Branch of the United States Government. Priority f6r con-
struction is determined by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Some of the federal and state financed flood control pro-
jects will be partially justified because of land enhance-
ment and, in these instances, the federal government may
require the City to pay a portion of these enhancement
benefits. These funds may be obtained by assessment of
the land subject to inundation, or from City funds.
2. Subdivision Projeats. These are storm drains and other
drainage facilities installed in connection with new sub-
divisions. When a property is subdivided, the subdivider
is required to accept th7 s~rrounding.drainag7 ~s.it entc:s
his property and convey ~t ~n appropr~ate fac~l~t~es across
f-J5'
.
/1
his property to a suitable discharge, which may necessitate
the acquisition of easements and construction of off-site
drainage facilities. The cost of these projects will be
paid by the subdivider. In addition, the City may require,
by ordinance, the payment of a fee as a condition of the
approval of a final subdivision map, for purposes of de-
fraying the actual or estimated eosts of constructing
planned drainage facilities for the removal of surface
and storm waters from local or neighborhood drainage areas,
in accordance with the provisions of Section 11543.5 of
the State Subdivision Map Act.
3. Capital Improvement Projeats. These are drainage facilities
which will benefit either the entire City or a very large
community. Such projects are initiated by recommendation
of the Director of Public Works and given a priority for
construction subject to the approval of the City Council.
Projects of this nature will be financed by the City,
either from the Capital Outlay Fund or from Gas Tax funds.
Projects which are involved with the Select System of
Streets are eligible for financing, in whole or in part,
by Gas Tax money.
4. Assessment Projeats. These are projects which benefit
only a local community and which are constructed under
1911 Act or 1913 Act improvement proceedings. Such projects
are initiated by a petition from the owners of 60% of the
property within the area to be benefitted. Because of
the nature of such projects, the assessment district will
pay all costs and the district will include only that
property which will receive direct benefit.
j
5. Assessment Projeats with City partiaipation. These are
projects which, in addition to benefitting a local community,
also include work which is of general benefit to an exten-
sive area. Such projects are constructed under either 1911
Act or 1913 Act improvement proceedings but with the City
participating in the cost. The extent of City participation ..1
will be limited to that portion of the project of general~'
benefit to the City as a whole and usually will not exceed
50% of the total cost, although the exact amount for any
project will vary, depending upon the relative benefit and
the responsibilities involved. City costs will be financed
from the Capital Outlay Fund or from Gas Tax funds as
appropriate. Projects may be initiated either by petition
of those property owners affected or by the City Council
based upon the recommendations of the Director of Public
Works. Capital Improvement Projects included in the City's
Capital Improvement Program but with relatively low priorities,
if reclas~ified as assessment projects with City participa-
tion, may be advanced in the program and given priority over
other Capital Improvement Projects.
"
6. Cooperative Drainage Projeats. A cooperative drainage pro-
ject is one in which the City shares the total cost of the
installation with the property owner. The percentage of
participation shall be based upon an estimate of the
respective benefits derived by the City and the property
owner prepared by the Director of Public Works, and the
City's participation shall be limited to 50% of the total
cost of the most economical design. The purpose is to
assist in the development of older areas which were sub-
divided without the construction of adequate drainage
facilities, thereby reducing maintenance costs to the City.
,
.
'';:
i;1:
-5-
9,.; /,
/7
-~- /
The City's share of the cost of such projects will be
financed from the Capital Outlay Fund or Gas Tax funds
as appropriate. Drainage facilities connected with new
subdivisions are not eligible for cooperative financing
unless the drain involved is one which has been previously
classified as a Capital Improvement Project, and included
in the City's Capital Improvement Program, and funds have
been budgeted but not expended therefor.
(a) Projects are eligible for cooperative financing if
they meet any of the following conditions:
(1) Will accept drainage off improved City streets
or other public rights-of-way;
(2) Will accept drainage from large partially developed
areas and the property on which the drain is to be con-
structed is already subdivided;
(3) The drainage facility to be installed will benefit
the City by eliminating a maintenance problem and/or
a public hazard.
(b) Projects do not qualify for cooperative financing under
the following conditions:
(1) The facility is intended to provide a culvert
under an unimproved street;
(2) Drainage work contemplated is incompatible with
the overall drainage plan for the area.
pr~esented by L/' ./?
, e4"v/ ~~.C?
Lane . Cole, D~rector of Public
Works
Approved as to form by
ADOPTED AND APPROVED
VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 11th
following vote, to-wit:
by the CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF CHULA
day of June , 192!-, by the
AYES:
I NAYES:
j ABSENT:
~i
:j
, ATTEST
Councilmen McAllister, Sylvester, Hamilton, Scott
Councilmen None
Councilmen McCorquodale
. kl
. ~ ~ I
IU.... ,. 4.
Mayor/ f the ~ ty of Chu a
'~Z~<A~kt& D~~;/4;/ pro tem
C~ty Cler . .
V~sta
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO) ss.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA )
I,
Vista, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY
correct copy of Resolution No.
amended or repealed. DATED
, City Clerk of the City of Chula
that the above is a full, true and
, and that the same has not been
I
City Clerk
9....2. '1
L1
January 28, 1993
From:
Beverly Authelet, city Clerk
~~ Richard Rudolf, Secretary for Charter Review Commsn.
To:
Re:
Attendance Policy
Thank you for forwarding a copy of Council Policy No. 110-03 to me
as Secretary for the Charter Review Commission for forwarding on to
members of the commission. I will do that at their next meeting.
I would like to suggest that you take up with the city Manager
and/or the Council the apparent internal conflict in the language
of the Policy in Items 5 and 6, so that I may provide guidance to
the members of my Commission as to allowable absences.
Paragraph 5 appears to allow each individual board, commission or
committee created by the Council to waive the Council's Policy.
(Members". . . nearing the percentage of missing 25% of the meetings"
may "appeal to the b/c/c for a waiver of the policy". The Policy
does not establish any criteria upon which the board/commission or
committee could grant such a waiver if requested.
More importantly, Paragraph 6 of the Policy states: "any member
missing 25% or more of the b/c/c meetings during the past year
without official excuses shall automaticallv have his/her seat
vacated." Thus, it appears that, notwithstanding a request for
waiver of the Policy granted by the member's board, commission or
committee, the Council reauires vacation of the seat, if the member
misses 25% or more of his or her meetings, not counting those from
which he or she was officially excused.
Please advise as to the meaning of the Policy. If you and/or the
City Manager desire clarifications of the Policy to resolve this
apparent internal conflict for presentation of a proposed amendment
to the City Council for approval, we will be happy to assist.
DRR: 19k
cc: Bob campbell, Chairman
Charter Review Commission
C:\crc~.poI
I~ A, -/
COUNCn.. POllCY
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
SUBJECf
BOARDS, COMMISSIONS, COMMITTEES
(B/C/C) ABSENCES
POLICY
NUMBER
EFFECTIVE
DATE PKE
110-03
07-01-88
1 of 1
ADOPTED BY: Resolution No. 13737
DATED: 08-16-88
BACKGROUND
Because of the problems associated with absences of members of various
boards, commissions and committees - lack of quorums and cancellations of
meetings - the City Council directed that a policy be initiated whereby a
member of any B/C/C shall be required to attend 75% of the meetings
called by that B/C/C during one fiscal year. This requirement includes
special meetings, conferences and workshops.
PURPOSE
To 1 imit the number of times that the B/C/C 0 s wi 11 have to cancel thei r
meetings due to lack of quorum.
POLICY
1. There shall be a required attendance at 75% of the meetings which
shall include workshops and conferences.
2. The B/C/Cs shall have the authority to grant approval for certain
types of excuses as approved by the City Council.
3. "Official" excuses shall be defined as illness (familr, and/or
personal), business commitments, vacations and "Acts of God. 0
4. An excused absence from any B/C/G meeti ng must be ca 11 ed into the
secretary of the B/G/G or to the chainnan prior to the scheduled
meeting and shall be recorded in the minutes as excused or unexcused.
5. Any member who is neari ng the percentage of mi ssi ng 25% of the
meetings shall first be given written notice by the secretary or the
chainnan of the B/G/G so that he/she can appeal to the B/C/C for a
waiver of the policy.
6. In July of each year, the secretary shall submit to the City Clerk a
record of attendance. Thi s attendance record wi 11 note the
percentage of absences for the members for the preceding fiscal year
- July 1 - June 30. Any member missing 25% or more of the B/C/G
meetings during the past year with our official excuses shall
automatically have his/her seat vacated.
7. This policy shall become effective beginning July 1, 1988.
J~ (J. ~eJ..