HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 1993/05/27
Thursday, May 27, 1993
4:00 p.m.
Council Conference Room
Administration Building
ADDENDUM TO AGENDA
ADJOURNMENr
The City Council will meet in a closed session immediately following the Council Special
W orksession/Meeting to discuss:
Pending litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 - Institution of litigation against
County of San Diego regarding Daley Rock Quarry CUP.
Thursday, May 27, 1993
4:00 p.m.
Council Conference Room
Administration Building
ADDENDUM TO AGENDA
ACTION ITEM
7.A REPORT UPDATE ON REGIONAL SOUD WASTE ISSUES . On 3/30/93 and 4/20/93,
Council discussed regional solid waste issues and a proposed Solid Waste
Participation Agreement. Since that time, a San Diego Association of
Governments (SANDAG) committee of elected officials has been meeting
to negotiate the revised agreement. Staff recommends approval of the
resolution and acceptance of the report. (Administration) Continued from
the meeting of 5/25/93.
B. RESOLUTION 17129 APPROVING AGREEMENT BY, BElWEEN AND AMONG THE COUNIY OF
SAN DIEGO AND THE CITIES OF THE COUNIY ESTABUSHING AN
INTERIM SOUD WASTE COMMISSION AND PROVIDING FOR THE
DISPOSAL OF SOUD WASTE, AND COMMImNG FIFTY PER CENT OF
THE CITY'S WASTESTREAM TO THE COUNIY
6. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilman Rindone
a. Request for excused absence from Council Meetings of 6/5/93 and 6/8/93 in order to
perform representative duties for MTDB.
'" declare under penalty of perjury that I am
emplo'.ed by te.e City of Chula Vista in the
O,,:ce 0: ,",e Gity Cler:< an,; that I posted
this AgenJa!Notice on the Bulletin Board at
the PUbli9' ervi es Building and at City l:Iall on
DATED,P {,?-? ":; SIGNED C".-j~,.o<
C/
Thursday, May 27, 1993
4:00 p.m.
Council Conference Room
Administration Building
ADDENDUM TO AGENDA
ACTION ITEM
7.A REPORT UPDATE ON REGIONAL SOUD WASTE ISSUES . On 3/30/93 and 4/20/93,
Council discussed regional solid waste issues and a proposed Solid Waste
Participation Agreement. Since that time, a San Diego Association of
Governments (SANDAG) committee of elected officials has been meeting
to negotiate the revised agreement. Staff recommends approval of the
resolution and acceptance of the report. (Administration) Continued from
the meeting of 5/25/93.
B. RESOLUTION 17129 APPROVING AGREEMENT BY, BElWEEN AND AMONG THE COUNIY OF
SAN DIEGO AND THE CITIES OF THE COUNIY ESTABUSHING AN
INTERIM SOUD WASTE COMMISSION AND PROVIDING FOR THE
DISPOSAL OF SOUD WASTE, AND COMMImNG FIFTY PER CENT OF
THE CITY'S WASTESTREAM TO THE COUNIY
6. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilman Rindone
a. Request for excused absence from Council Meetings of 6/5/93 and 6/8/93 in order to
perform representative duties for MTDB.
Thursday, May 27, 1993
4:00 p.m.
-. declare under penalty of perJury that I alft
employed by the City of Chula Vista in tha
Office of the City Clerk and that I posted
tilis Agenda/Nocice on the Bulle!in Board at
the Public rvi es BUildinJ and a~la~ Council Conference Room
DATED,~ ~ SIGNED 6: '4 _lo Administration Building
Resrular Worksession/Meetin~ of the City of Chula Vista City Council
CAll. TO ORDER
1.
ROll. CAll.:
Councilmembers Fox _, Horton ~ Moore ~ Rindone ~ and Mayor
Nader _
BUSINESS
2. REVIEW OF DESIGN OF SOUTH CHULA VISTA UBRARY - The design architect, Richard Legorreta,
and interior designer, Marshall Brown, will present the report on design plans of the South Chula
Vista Library based upon input received during the design process. Staff recommends acceptance
of the design. (Acting Library Director)
3. REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION OF THE GROWTII MANAGEMENr OVERSIGHT COMMISSION
(GMOC) 1992 ANNUAL REPORT - Pursuant to requirements of the City's growth management
program, the annual report reflects the outcome of analysis of information presented by various Ciry
departments and external agencies regarding the impacts of growth on each of the eleven faciliry
and service topics covered by the Threshold Standards. The report serves to identify whether or not
the Ciry is in compliance with each of the standards, to make related recommendations to Council
on any actions believed necessary to remedy identified deficiencies, and/or ensure continuing
compliance. Staff recommends Council accept the 1992 Report and direct the undertaking of those
subsequent actions necessary to implement the recommendations. (Director of Planning)
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
This is an opportunily for the general pubIU: to address the CiIy Cowu:iJ on any subject 1tIQ/Jo within the Cowu:iJ's
jurisdiction thot is not an item on this agenda. (Stole law, however, generally prohibits the City Cowu:il from
taking action on any issues not induded on the posted agenda.) If you wish to address the Cowu:iJ on such a
subjec4 please complete the yeIIow "Request to Spei1k Under Oral ComnwniJ:ations Form" available in the lobby
and submit it to the CiIy Clerk prior to the meeting. Those who wish to speok, please give your name and address
for record purposes and follow up action. Your time is limited to three minutes per speaker.
4. OlY MANAGER'S REPORTfS)
a. Scheduling of meetings.
5. MAYOR'S REPORTfS)
6. COUNOL COMMENTS
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting will adjourn to the Regular Ciry Council Meeting on June 1, 1993 at 4:00 p.m. in the City
Council Chambers and thence to a City Council Tour and Joint Meeting with the Parks and Recreation
Commission on Saturday, June 5, 1993.
Thursday, May 27, 1993
4:00 p.m.
Council Chambers
Public Services Building
ADDENDUM TO AGENDA
ACDON ITEM
7.A. REPORT UPDATE ON REGIONAL SOUD WASTE ISSUES - On 3/30/93 and 4/20/93,
Council discussed regional solid waste issues and a proposed Solid Waste
Participation Agreement. Since that time, a San Diego Association of
Governments (SANDAG) committee of elected officials has been meeting
to negotiate the revised agreement. Staff recommends approval of the
resolution and acceptance of the report. (Administration) Continued from
the meeting of 5/25/93.
B. RESOLUTION 17129 APPROVING AGREEMENT BY, BETWEEN AND AMONG THE COUNTY OF
SAN DIEGO AND THE <JUES OF THE COUNTY ESTABUSHING AN
INTERIM SOUD WASTE COMMISSION AND PROVIDING FOR THE
DISPOSAL OF SOUD WASTE, AND COMMlmNG FIFTY PER CENT OF
THE <JTY'S WASTESTREAM TO THE COUNTY
6. COUN<JL COMMENTS
Councilman Rindone
a. Request for excused absence from Council Meetings of 6/5/93 and 6/8/93 in order to
perform representative duties for MTDB.
'" declare under penalty of perjury that' am
emp~',Jied by the City of Ghu!a Vista in the
O'dice of the City Clerk and t; J3t I posted
this Agenda/Notice on the Bulletin Soerd at
the FUh;2ijVh? Bu:ldin~ and at ity Hall. on
DATD,Sb.? SIGNED . ~ ~v
C
Thursday, May 27, 1993
4:00 p.m.
Council Chambers
Public Services Building
ADDENDUM TO AGENDA
ACDON ITEM
7.A REPORT UPDATE ON REGIONAL SOUD WASTE ISSUES - On 3/30/93 and 4/20/93,
Council discussed regional solid waste issues and a proposed Solid Waste
Participation Agreement. Since that time, a San Diego Association of
Governments (SANDAG) committee of elected officials has been meeting
to negotiate the revised agreement. Staff recommends approval of the
resolution and acceptance of the report. (Administration) Continued from
the meeting of 5/25,193.
B. RESOLUTION 17129 APPROVING AGREEMENT BY, BETWEEN AND AMONG THE COUNTY OF
SAN DIEGO AND THE <JTIES OF THE COUNTY ESTABUSHING AN
INTERIM SOUD WASTE COMMISSION AND PROVIDING FOR THE
DISPOSAL OF SOUD WASTE, AND COMMImNG FIFTY PER CENT OF
THE <JTY'S WASTESTREAM TO THE COUNTY
6. COUN<JL COMMENTS
Councilman Rindone
a. Request for excused absence from Council Meetings of 6/5/93 and 6/8/93 in order to
perform representative duties for MTDB.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING/WORK SESSION
MEETING DATE: MAY 27, 1993
ITEM TITLE:
Report on Design of South Chu1a vista Library
Acting Library Director~
City Managerj~ ~j.,~ (4/5ths Vote: Yes_No-.2L)
SUBMITTED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
The Architectural firm of LPA, Inc., in collaboration with Ricardo
Legorreta, is finalizing the design of the South Chu1a vista
Library. City Council has previously reviewed the design progress
on September 10, 1992, December 8, 1992, and January 28, 1993
(ATTACHMENTS A, B, C). Community residents have been invited to
review the progress at Town Meetings held on September 10, 1992 and
January 28, 1993 (ATTACHMENTS D, E). The California State Library
has approved both the Schematic Design and Design Development
packages.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council
vista Library as presented
Meeting/Worksession.
Approve the design of the South Chu1a
to Council at the May 27, 1993
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: On April 28, 1993 the Library
Board of Trustee's voted (5-0) to approve the interior and exterior
design plans, the Design Review Committee voted (3-0) to approve
the project, and the Planning commission voted (5-0) to approve the
Conditional Use Permit (ATTACHMENTS F, G, H).
DISCUSSION:
At the May 27, 1993 Meeting/Work Session design architect Ricardo
Legorreta will report on the refined design plans for the new
library. In order to maintain the schedule and award the bid by
August 30, 1993, the architects must finish the Working Drawings
and submit them to the State Library by early June and the City
must issue the bid documents by early July. This Meeting/work
session, therefore, gives Council a final opportunity for review
before the project goes to bid. In addition, the Conditional Use
Permit is scheduled to be submitted to Council for approval in
early June.
The plans continue to be in conformance with those presented to
Council in late January. The exterior elevations, architectural
design, and landscape design remain unchanged. However, the
architect has continued to refine certain interior elements based
upon input from the public, City Council, Boards and Commissions,
staff, and the California State Library. Refinements include a
reconfigured layout of the furnishings in the browsing area, a
eJ.-/
ITEM
MEETING DATE:
d... , PAGE TWO
MAY 27. 1993
reconfigured room layout in the Meeting Room/Literacy complex, and
the opening up of the story Hour Room in the Children's area.
Also, during the last few months the interior design elements have
been developed. These plans will be presented by Legorreta and
interior designer Marshall Brown. They include a schedule of
interior finishes plus furnishings and casework plans.
city staff, from various departments, have reviewed all elements
of the design, from HVAC to fountain pumps, from exterior plants to
the finishes schedule. They have studied durability, maintenance,
quality, and cost effectiveness. The city's Conservation
Coordinator has also recommended various products made from
recycled materials that are being considered, whenever possible,
for use within the building.
Although every effort has been made to be sensitive to all of the
Community's needs and concerns, the single most discussed issue has
been graffiti. Evervone has expressed concern about this social
problem. Therefore, the staff, the architects and the project
management firm have worked to insure that the entire exterior and
interior of the building will be coated with the highest quality
anti-graffiti protection possible. The coating will allow a power
washer to be used to melt the graffiti off the exterior and a
simple solution to clean interior walls. Finally landscaping, such
as a bougainvillea field and prickly cactus plants, will be used
around the building as a physical deterrent.
Another frequently discussed issue has been the use and design of
fountains. Courtyards and their accompanying fountains are a key
characteristic of Ricardo Legorreta' s architectural attempt to
bridge two cultures, provide a psychological calming effect, and
natural noise baffling. The plan does contain one interior and two
exterior fountains. They are being designed to be relatively low
flow, use recirculated water, and to mitigate any safety hazard
issue. The pump(s) will be non-submersable and may be limited to
only one unit for ease of maintenance. Potential interior humidity
problems are being addressed through the design of the mechanical
and HVAC systems.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Funds for this project are appropriated in CIP LB-125. In April
1991 the city was awarded $6.7 million in California Library
Construction and Renovation Bond Act funds which provides for 65%
reimbursement for all eligible costs. The Design Development Cost
estimate (ATTACHMENT I) indicates that both the building and site
development design can be constructed within budget.
/J -H NOT SCANNED
I /7rr,qeHrI~~rs
c2';J.../~-3~
ATTACHMENT A
MINUTES OF A SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL/LIBRARY
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Thursday, September 10, 1992
4:30 p.m.
council Conference Room
City Hall
CALL TO ORDER
1. ROLL CALL:
PRESENT:
Councilmembers/Members Horton, Malcolm, Moore,
Rindone, and Mayor Nader
Library Board Members Donovan, Viesca, Wilson,
Williams, and Chair Alexander
ALSO PRESENT: John D. Goss, city Manager; sid W. Morris,
Assistant City Manager; James Thomson, Deputy
City Manager; George Krempl, Deputy City
Manager; Rosemary Lane, Library Director; David
Palmer, Assistant Library Director
2. PRELIMINARY DESIGN FOR SOUTH CHULA VISTA LIBRARY
A. Introductory Remarks - William Alexander, Chairman of Library
Board of Trustees
Library Board Chairman Alexander welcomed everyone to the
meeting. He commented on an article in the Los Angeles Times
which said that the new library "promises to be an
architectural landmark and a first class library".
He further commended the extraordinary effort expended by
Library staff to obtain the grant and the vision and hard work
by City staff and Council members to secure the site, and find
the necessary funds proving that Chula Vista still places a
great value on its library system. The new library may prove
to'be a economical inducement to businesses thinking to locate
in Chula vista. One of the first questions they ask is about
the public library.
Mr. Alexander finished
Argentinean Author Jorge
imagined that paradise is
with a short quote
Luis Borges who said,
a kind of library".
from the
l've always
B. Background on Grant Award - Rosemary Lane, Library Director
Library Director Lane, gave a brief history of the California
Construction and Renovation Bond Act and commended the City
Council on their vision to spend the $114,000 required to hire
an architectural firm to prepare the schematic floor plan,
site plan and elevation dra~ings required in the grant
application. On April 23, 1991 Chula Vista was one of eight
~:J
1 ibraries selected to receive these funds and was awarded
$6,747,528.
An architectural selection committee interviewed 8 firms and
selected LPA, Inc. in conjunction with the prestigious
architectural firm of Legorreta Arquitectos to design this
project. Plans for the new 35,000 sq. ft. library at the
corner of Fourth and Orange Avenue provide for 165,000 books
and 175 parking spaces. Plans will allow for the addition of
another 10,000 sq ft in the future with the ability to add
another 50 parking spaces.
Councilman Rindone asked the Library Director how the square
footage in the public areas of the Civic Center Library
compared to that planned for the South Chula Vista Library.
Director Lane responded that the South Chu1a Vista Library
would be 5,000 sq. ft. smaller than the Library at Fourth and
F Street which has 40,000 sq. ft. on street level for public
use.
Councilman Rindone stated that the new library will be more
like a second main library. That concept is important because
it is a significant asset to the area.
Councilman Moore asked how many parking spaces were at the
Civic Center Library. Director Lane responded that there were
144.
C.
Presentation of Preliminary Design and
Philosophy for South Chula Vista Library
Legorreta
Mr. Legorreta stated his pleasure to be working on this
project and that he is trying to design the library in
such a way that it not only accomplishes its function,
but it becomes a cultural symbol for the community. He
then displayed conceptual drawings and a model of the
proposed building.
Building
- Ricardo
The Library will be built around several courtyards to
prov ide natural 1 ight and open space. Some features
include a multipurpose room, a cafe, a gallery, separate
childrens and adult areas, public meeting areas and a
large outdoor amphitheater. Entrance and egress to the
building will be from either Fourth or Orange Avenues
with a turnaround in front of the building. Sufficient
parking space is available to consider alternatives to
rigid grid-like conventional shopping center parking.
D. Discussion and Input
Library Trustee Viesca questioned where the 10,000 sq.
;-1
\
ft. would be added for expansion. Mr. Legorreta
responded that the courtyard areas could be converted
into additional library space.
councilman Moore questioned how the architect intended
to prevent the flat roof from leaking.
Mr. Legorreta replied that the roof will have a 4' slope
which will prevent leakage.
Councilman Rindone questioned the kind of landscaping to
be used at the corners of Fourth and Orange Avenues.
Mr. Legorreta responded that landscaping would be
designed to help prevent graffiti.
Councilman Rindone asked if a second story could be added
to the building in the future.
Mr. Legorreta responded that it is feasible.
Councilman Rindone asked if there would be access to the
meeting rooms without access through the main library.
Mr. Legorreta responded that meeting areas can be closed
off from the rest of the Library and entered from the
parking lot.
Councilman Rindone asked if there was an area for easy
book drop off.
Mr. Legorreta responded that this has been addressed.
Councilman Rindone asked for some assurance that staff
would be working with the architect so that a minimum
number of employees would be needed to operate the
building.
Library staff responded that the building could be run
with as many as 39 employees or as few as 15.
councilman Rindone asked the capacity of the community
room. It will hold a hundred people.
Councilman Moore asked if the new library would have an
auditorium. staff responded that there will be a flat-
floored multi-purpose room.
Councilman Malcolm asked how many parking spaces were
planned for the South Chula Vista Library and how many
were at the Library at Fourth and F Street. Staff
responded that 175 spaces are planned for the South Chula
Vista Library with the possibility of adding 50 more
.1.
,.,
- '-
-
spaces. There are 144 parking spaces at the Library at
365 F street.
Councilman Moore asked if anything was learned from the
parking problem at the civic Center Library. Staff
replied that a two hour parking limit and adequate
enforcement help an overcrowded situation.
Councilman Rindone complimented the Library Director and
the Architect on the unique design.
3. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT IS) - None
4. MAYOR'S REPORTIS) - None
5. COUNCIL COMMENTS - None
ADJOURNMENT
Adjournment at 5:36 pm to a Regular meeting on September 15, 1992
at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers.
(
.).-1,
ATTACHMENT B
MlNlJIl'.S OF A REGULAR MEETING OF 1l{E
On' OF 0iUl..A VISTA
Tu~sday. D~cember 8. 1992
6:10 p.m.
Council Chambers
Public Services Building
CAll. TO ORDER
1. ROll. CALL:
PRESENT:
Councilmemb~r> Honon, Malcolm, Moore, Rindone, and Mayor Nader
ALSO PRESENT:
John D. Goss, City Manag~r; Bruc~ M. Boogaard, City Anom~y; and Beverly
A. Authel~t, City Cl~rk
2. PLEDGE OF AlLEGIANCE TO TI-IE FV.G. SILENT PRAYER
3. APPROVAL OF MlNl1\r.S: Nov~mber 17, 1992 and Nov~mb~r 30, 1992.
MSC {Moore/Malcolm) to approw th~ minutes or November 17, 1992 (approved S-O) and November 30,
1992 (approved ~1 with Mayor Nader absWning du~ to his absenc~ at 1h~ m~ting) as presented.
4. SPEOAL ORDERS OF TI-IE DAY:
a. RESOLUTION 16913 REOTING TI-IE FACT Of TI-IE GENERAL MUNlOPAL ElLmON HELD ON
NOVEMBER 3,1992, DEa.ARING TI-IE RESULT AND SUa-t OTHER MATTERS AS PROVIDED BY LAW. A
G~neral Municipal E1~ction was h~ld on 11/3/92. R~sults of th~ ~I~ction hav~ been c~nifi~d to us by the
County R~gistrar of Vot~r>. Council must approv~ by resolution th~ results of that election. Staff
recommends approval of the resolution. (City Clerk)
RESOUmON 16913 OFFERED BY MAYOR NADER, reading of the ten was waived, passed and approwd
un.an;rnously.
b. Presentation to Mayor Pro Tem . Mayor Nader presented Mayor Pro Tern Malcolm with a pen s~t
in appreciation of his servic~ to the City.
c. A special presentation of a check for $625,000 was made to th~ Council by Lee Han~y, Vice
Pr~sid~nt of SDG&E. The revenues were in r~tum for the work the City did in allowing SDG&E to issu~
$250,000,000 of industrial development bonds.
d. Comments by Councilman Malcolm Councilman Malcolm asked all staff members to come forward
to be recognized and sharod a 'Malcolm Moment'.
~. Oach of Office (or newly elected City Councilmember>. Oath of Office was administered to Roben
Fox and Shirley Honon by City Clerk Authel~t.
f. Comments by newly elected City Councilm=ber>. Councilman Fox and Councilwoman Honon
thanked their colleagues and the public and gave brief comments.
. .. CITY COUNCIL RECESSED 6:53 P.M. FOR A RECEPTION AND RECONVENED AT 7:28 P.M. . .
ROlLCALL:
PRESEt\"T:
Counrilmembers Fox, HOrlon, Moore, Rindont', and Mayor Nader
~:..?
Minutes
December 8, 1992
Page 12
. .
MSUC (Rindone/Nader) to hear Item 18 and the RDA Agenda and continue the balance of the agenda to
the nat regular meeting.
16. RFSOLlJIlON 16923 APPROVING OfANGES TO TIiE APPUCATION FOR PROPOSmON 8S
GRANT FUNDS; CERTIFYING nm AMENDED PROJECT BUDGET IN TIiE APPUCATION FOR FUNDS
AV~lE FROM CAUFORNlA lJBRARY CONSIllUCTION AND RENOVATION BOND ACT FOR nm
CONSlllUcnON OF A NEW UBRARY AT ORANGE AND FOURlli AVENUES; COMMITTING 1liE 01YS
MATOiING FUNDs; CERTIFYING TI-IE mY'S ABIUlY TO FINANCE TIiE SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDS
NECF.SSARY TO COMPlETE nm PROJECT IN A TIMELY MANNER; CERTIFYING LOCAL MATOiING AND
SUPPLE.ME/lITAL FUNDs WllJ.. BE AVAILABlE WHEN NEEDED TO MEET TI-IE PROJEcrs CASH PWW
REQUIREMENTS; CERTIFYING nm ACCURACY AND TRU1lIF\.lIM'.SS OF AU.INFORMATION CONTAINED
IN TI-IE APPUCATION FORM; COMMITTING TO OPERAlE TIiE COMPlETED FAOUTY AND PROVIDE
DIRECT PUBUC UBRARY SERVICE - The architectural linn of LPA, Inc., in conjunction with the design
architect, Ricardo Legorreta, has created a new conceptual plan for the South Chula Vista Library. Because
the conceptual plan, consisting of a site plan, a fioor plan, elevations and sectional drawings differs from
the plan prepared for the City's original California Library Construction and Renovation Bond Act grant
application, review by the California State Library was required. The State Librarian has informed the City
that he has approved the new plans, but requires a new supporting resolution from Council. Staff
recommends approval of the resolution. (Library Director)
Rosemary Lane, Library Director, gave a brief review of the project.
John Maddox, 435 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 130, San Diego, CA, representing LPA Inc., reviewed the
design and recent changes.
Councilwoman Honon questioned why the costs would not increase when the square footage was increased
by over 2,000 sq. ft.
Mr. Maddox responded that it was an economical design, the economy had changed, and the circulation area
was expanded which was also less expensive.
Councilman Moore expressed concern over the drop.off zone and questioned what was wrong with the curb
south of the facility, i.e. SDG&E right-of.way.
Clifford Swanson, City Engineer/Deputy Public Works Director, stated that staff could look at that
alternative. Because of the width of. Fourth Avenue and the potential volume, they did not want traffic
coming from the north going into the driveway.
Ms. Lane stated the City could not express anything to the State Libraty Board on land the City did not own.
Councilman Fox stated there was a possibility of adding 50 additional parking spaces and questioned
whether that was still applicable.
Mr. Maddox stated the additional parking was a requirement of the State Librarian due to anticipated future
expansion. It would be done only upon expansion of the facility.
Councilman Fox questioned whether murals were still being considered to discourage graffiti.
Mr. Maddox responded that the idea of a mural was vety attractive but it was not pan of the budget at this
time.
Mayor Nader questioned whether there had been input from the Libraty Board of Trustees on the current
plan.
~-~
. '
Minutes
December 8, 1992
Page 13
Ms. Lane responded that the Library Board of Trustees would be reviewing the plan at their meeting the
following day. They had received it in their Board packet the previous week and they were requested to
come in to review the plans in her office.
Mayor Nader questioned whether Council action was needed that evening.
Ms. Lane responded that Council action was needed so staff could get the plans to the State Librarian next
week. They were under a very tight time frame.
RESOUffiON 16923 OFFERED BY COUNOLMAN RINDONE, ruding of the ten was waived.
Mayor Nader stated he would suppon the motion in order to move the project along. It was one of the most
exciting projects pending in the City. Normally he would want to see the Library Board's comments but
realized the constraints they were under. He hoped staff would pass on the Council's desire to hear any of
their input on the project.
VO-rn ON MOTION: approved unanimously.
17. REPORT UPDATE REGARDING FUNDING FOR TIiE NAlURE INTERPRETIVE <>>nER.
AND A LEASE, LOAN AND OPERATING AGREEMENT BElWEEN TIiE BAYFRONT CONSERVANCY TRUST,
CTY AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY. On 6/30/92, Council approved a repon on funding for the Bayfront
Conservancy Trust/Nature Interpretive Center (BCT INIC). One of the recommendations of that repon was
to freeze one half of the Fiscal Year (FY) 1992.93 BCT/NIC budget until satisfactory progress was made in
addressing issues raised in the repon. The current repon offers an update on the significant progress that
has been made in addressing those issues. Staff recommends Council unfreeze one quaner of the FY 1992-
93 budget to provide funding through 3/31/93. (Administration)
Mayor Nader stated that as Chair of the Bayfront Conservancy Trust Board he had not agreed in freezing
the budget in order to change some of the operating rules of the trust. The staff recommendation would
allow them to move forward.
MS (NaderlRindone) to approve the staff reco=endation.
Councilman Rindone questioned who would be in the bayfront assessment district.
Stephen Neudecker, Executive Director, responded that was an issue that was being investigated as it was
not clear. Their understanding was that it would encompass all that was now the mid.bayfront propeny.
Mayor Nader stated it was included in the LCP amendment which had been adopted by Council.
Jim Thomson, Deputy City Manager, stated that the land owner had suggested a broader area.
VO-rn ON MOTION: approved unanimously.
ITEMS Pl.1LlED FROM 1liE CONSENT CALENDAR
Items pulled: 6a, 7, 8, and 13. The minutes will reOect the published agenda order.
OTHER BUSINESS
18. OTY MANAGER'S REPORT{S) . None
19. MAYOR'S REPORT{S). None
eJ.. "1
ATTACHMENT C
Ml::un.s OF A REGlJU.R MEETING/WORJ<SESSION OF THE orr COUNOL
OF 1HE 0lY OF D-fUU. VISTA
Thursday, January 28, 1993
4:08 p.m.
Council Conference Room
Administration Building
CAll. TO ORDER
1. ROLL CALL:
PRESENT:
Councilmembers Fox, Horton, Rindone (arrived at 4:27 p.m.), and Mayor
Nader Oeft the meeting at 5:00 p.m.)
ABSENT:
Councilman Moore
ALSO PRESENT:
John D. Goss, City Manager; Bruce M. Boogaard, City Anorney; and Vicki
C. Soderquist, Deputy City Clerk
BUSINESS
2. REVIEW OF PROGRESS ON DESIGN OF SOlJJli oruv. VISTA UBRARY. John Manox of LPA, Inc.,
and Ricardo Legorreta will present a proposed color palene for the building and the Council will see a model
with these exterior colors. Since color is a principal design element in all of Legorreta's work, this will
provide the Council with an opporrunity for input concerning the color pallet at this critical design stage.
David Palmer, Acting Library Director, stated staff was waiting approval from the State on the library plans.
It was anticipated that approval would come forth next week. The presentation would review the refIned
floor plan, slightly changed site plan and full color model. Preliminary comments by the State Library
Director had been very complimentary. He then introduced John Manox and Jim Ellis from LPA and Miguel
Almaraz representing Ltgorerto.
Mr. Almaraz stated there had been two comments from the State Library Director regarding the plans: 1)
the building was too large, and 2) the c1osoness of the parking to the main access of the building. Those
.' concerns had been addressed in the proposed design. He then reviewed the site, location of the facility, floor
plan, and elevations.
Mayor Nader questioned whether the proposed fountain would utilize reclaimed water.
Mr. Almaraz responded that Mayor Nader was correct.
Councilman Rindone t>.:pressrd his concrm over the lack of windows on the Fourth Avenut" side.
Mr. Palmer responded that there were a few small windows but the State was concerned with the amount
of sunlight allowed horn the West due to heat and possible damage to the book materials.
City Manager Goss noted that with the rotated building it created an alcove and expressed concern over
possible security problems.
Mr. Palmer responded that a control gate would be installed.
Councilman Rindont" queqionE'd Ihf' proposed signa~f' and fell it imponam that siE,nagf' be \1sib1e flom the
streets
Mr Palmer mf"rTI)ed Counril thaT Slgna,e would be considered In the next phase of the projert
~-I/
Min'Jt~s
Januarj 28, 1993
"age 2
Councilwoman Honon noted the building was to have a verde finish and questioned whether it would be
the color of the model.
Mr. Manox responded that it would be close to the color being proposed but noted that the model was being
reviewed under the florescent lights. The actual finish on the building would be softened by the sun and
air quality. He noted that ponions of the roof were to be covered with copper and that the patina would
be accelerated.
Councilman Rindone questioned the anticipated staffmg of the facility.
Mr. Palmer responded that at any given hour of the day there would be 7-8 staff members required. The
new library would be comparable in staffing to the Main Library on Fourth Avenue.
Councilman Fox questioned the safety aspect of the proposed fountains.
Mr. Palmer responded that it was hoped there would be minimal water flow and a glass wall had also been
discussed to ensure safety.
Mr. Mattox informed Council that the area of the Library containing the fountain was currently under study
and they would consider Council's comments regarding safety in deliberations.
Mayor Nader questioned whether there were more parking spaces a1loned than required. He would like to
see more open spaces and small parks.
Mr. Manox responded that they were not intending to have more parking than required by the State. The
expansion areas would remain green. He also noted the set-back areas that would be landscaped.
Mr. Palmer informed Council that the application submined to the State indicated there would be 175
parking spaces and that could not be changed. Staff had requested that the architect move some of the
parking to provide more green space.
Councilman Rindone questioned whether the community meeting rooms would have outside access.
Mr. Almaraz responded yes.
Mr. Palmer stated staff would bring back the next phase as appropriate for Council review.
3. COUNlY WATER A\JT1-IORllY PRESENTATION REGARDING WATER STORAGE CAPAOlY _
Presentation by Parricia Tennyson, Director of Public Affairs and Richard Pyle, Senior Civil Engineer with
the County Water Authority, regarding additional emergency water storage in the County of San Diego in
the event of a cut off from the imponed water supply (which represents approximately 90% of the waler
used in the County) and preparation of the Environmental Impact Repon (EIR) for the Emergency Storage
Project.
Rich Pyle, Project Engineer for Emergency Storage Project, County Water Authority, inrroduced Patricia
Tennyson, Public Mairs fOr the WaTer Authority, and Frank Chenelle, Boardmember. A video presentation
Was given regarding Emergency WaTer Storage for San Diego County.
Mr. Pyle stated thay the County Water Authority had begun an EIR process and Were now soliciting
(omments regarding the scope. It was hoped that the draft EIR would be completed in early J 994 with the
final EIR ".mpleted In J 995. At that time a preferred alternative would be selected. The f,ve proposed sites
r:l-j ,;J..
Questions asked at Town Hall Meeting
ATTACHMENT D
~f !cJ/ /993
7:00
LA"d" ( .!~
Approximately 44 people attended the meeting.
Some identifiable ones were:
William Alexander
Rosemary Lane
Kip Howard
Ronnie Berman
Paula Brown
Deborah Crawley
Dolores Gonzales
Ricardo Legorreta
Luis Herrera
Margaret Blue
3ulianne Facknitz
3im Thomson
Linda Wilson
30Ann Howard
Victor Legorreta
30hn Mattox
Harry LaBore
Myrna Bullen
Jorge Castillo
David Palmer
Ron Williams
Ouestions ASked:
Could you use Spanish arcades to hide the flat walls?
Wanted an area with natural light in which to read the paper before
the Library opened. Suggested outside tables and seating areas.
Civic Center library is too dark in the daytime.
Many questions
techniques.
about
earthquake
resistance,
construction
When is this going to start?
What is the ceiling height in the gallery.
Are there going to be public meeting rooms
No small tables at the Civic Center Library, nothing for toddlers
to five years.
Asked about the capacity of seating in the outside amphitheater
Wanted the Children's story hour room moved to the opposite side
of the building to prevent cars from crashing into the building and
injuring children.
~.. J;J
ATTACHMENT E
TOWN MEETING NOTES
January 28, 1993
Otay Community Center
7:00 PM
Chaired by Board of Trustee's Chair William Alexander
Board Chair Alexander Introduced Acting Director Palmer who
explained that the library was being constructed with a $6.7
million grant from the California State Library.
He indicated that this was the second in a series of Town Meetings
regarding the Library. The first meeting had occurred on September
10, 1993 at the Lauderbach Center.
The plans being presented tonight incorporate
meeting, comments made by the Planning
California State Library.
comments made at that
Department and the
Mr. Palmer introduced Miguel Almaraz, Project Manager, from the
firm Legorreto Arquitectos.
Mr. Almaraz described the project and walked the audience through
the floor plan and a working model of the library.
Following the presentation, the audience, numbering approximately
20 citizens and staff members, was invited to comment.
A number of people raised the issue of traffic problems on Quintard
and Oranges. They asked that Quintard be made a cul-de-sac. (not
part of the library project, the issue will be referred to Traffic
Engineering)
Many people asked about safety on the library site. Would there be
adequate lighting? (yes) will parking lot be closed after hours?
(can be considered) How will graffiti be prevented? (by use of
ground cover, plants and exterior wall treatments) Could a pOlice
sub station be located in the library? (maybe)
There were relatively few questions about the design. One person
asked whether the courtyards would be accessible to patrons (yes,
but secured from the outside). One person commented that they did
not like the proposed color, but others said they did like it.
Other questions related to the roof treatments (copper) and the
pyramid roof heights (15 to 25 feet).
The meeting ended at approximately 8:30 PM
--
.2 ~ /..J:,
ATTACHMENT F
MINUTES
LIBRARY BOARD OF TRUSTEES
APRIL 28, 1993
LIBRARY CONFERENCE ROOM
3:30 PM
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:
Chair Alexander,
Trustees Donovan,
Williams
vice Chair
Lathers,
Viesca,
Wilson,
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT:
None
CITY STAFF PRESENT:
Deborah Barrow, Library Automated
Services Manager; Paula Brown, Head of
Adult Services; David Palmer, Acting
Library Director; Jim Thomson, Deputy
City Manager
OTHERS PRESENT:
Miguel Almarez, Legorreta Arqui tectos;
Marshall Brown, Interior Designer; Robert
Coye, Public; Al deberardinis, Starboard
Construction; Jim Ellis, LPA, Inc., Ian
Gill, Starboard Construction, John
Mattox, LPA, Inc.; Betty Roche, Friends
Liaison
I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Meeting of March 24, 1993
MSC (Donovan/viesca 3-0-2, with Trustees Williams/Wilson
absent) that the minutes be accepted as mailed.
II. CONTINUED MATTERS
A. South Chula vista Library
Acting Director Palmer introduced Ian Gill and Al
deBerardinis from Starboard Construction. The city
council recently approved contracting with Starboard to
provide project management services.
Mr. Gill reported that his firm is beginning to catch up
with all of the consultants on board and has already been
able to clear up some of the title issues surrounding the
site. In addition, they have prepared the Design
Development budget which shows that the project is within
the scope of the previously established schematic level
budget and within the grant budget. Mr. Gill also stated
that Starboard has also been working with the city
Engineering Department to coordinate work on the site
with scheduled street improvements along Fourth and
Orange Avenues.
,;z.,/?
Library Board of Trustees
- 2 -
April 28, 1993
Al deBerardinis reported that his firm is coordinating
low vol tage systems and developing criteria specification
that will go out for bid on networking, computers,
satellite systems, security systems, book security
systems and other equipment and making sure that all
systems integrate with the furnishings and architectural
design of the building. Acting Director Palmer indicated
that Starboard has already provided a great deal of
assistance. He feels fortunate to be able to rely on
their expertise.
Acting Director Palmer reported the Project Managers,
Architects and Library staff had met with Richard Hall,
state Bond Coordinator, on Tuesday, April 27th to review
the Design Development submittal. During the course of
Mr. Hall's visit, it became evident that some adjustments
needed to be made to the design review. To accommodate
these changes it may be necessary to request an extension
of two to eight weeks. The Library will know better by
the end of May how much additional time, if any, will be
needed. (Trustee Wilson arrived at 3:16)
Acting Director Palmer reported that the Design Review
Committee will review the plans for the South Chula Vista
project at its meeting later this afternoon. This review
had been scheduled for the April 12th meeting, but was
rescheduled due to lack of a quorum. The Planning
commission will also vote on the Conditional Use Permit
and the land use issue involved with the South Chula
Vista Library at their meeting beginning at 7 PM this
evening. (Trustee Williams arrived at 3:25 pm)
Interior Designer Marshall Brown was then introduced.
Using a colored floor plan and samples of flooring,
carpet, fabric and counter tops, he showed how the use of
color, lighting and flooring materials delineate
different areas and activities plus minimize signage.
Mr. Brown indicated that furnishings will be specially
designed for durability, adjustability and to echo the
archi tectural signature of the building. Carrels and
tables will be adjustable and have laminate surfaces that
discourage vandalism. He further state that the carpets
and fabrics selected will be the most durable and
maintenance free possible.
Board Members questioned the ease of maintenance of the
proposed slate flooring in the traffic corridors. Mr.
Brown indicated that in his experience, this was the
hardest surface available, very durable and easy to
clean. Mr. Palmer said that he had requested samples of
).--/r
Library Board of Trustees
- 3 -
April 28, 1993
this particular product and that staff would experiment
with it.
Acting Director Palmer reported that the Library was
planning to take the design package to the City Council
and ask for approval sometime in May.
MSUC (ViescajWilliams 5-0) the Library Board supports the
final interior and exterior design concepts.
B. EastLake Library
Acting Director Palmer reported that the City Council
approved the joint use agreement with the Sweetwater
union High School District and the agreement with
Eastlake Development Company at their April 23rd meeting.
Council approval is contingent upon approval by the
School Board, which is scheduled to take action on this
issue on May 13th. If approved by the School Board, the
Library plans to open this facility to the public on
August 2nd.
C. Library Budget
Staff met with the city Manager regarding the Library
budget, the results of this meeting are noted in a memo
that was distributed to the Trustees. The City Manager
has asked that the naming of the library be resolved
prior to the construction phase of the project. No cuts
were discussed at this point, pending action by the
State. (Vice Chair viesca left at 5 pm)
D. Legislative Day
Trustees are unable to attend this meeting.
III. NEW BUSINESS
A. Summer Reading Club - June 19 through August 7th
Paula Brown, Head of Adult Services, reported that
attendance has increased from 1,000 participants ten
years ago to 5,000 participants in 1992. This year,
Library staff is making a concerted effort to provide a
variety of incentives in addition to food for Summer
Reading Club participants. In support of this effort,
the Friends of the Library are donating approximately
$1,400 ($.30 per child) to purchase incentives.
.2 - /9
Library Board of Trustees
- 4 -
April 28, 1993
The theme for this year's Summer Reading Club sponsored
by Wells Fargo Bank is the "Gem Seekers". Tying in with
this theme, the Library will have a treasure chest
holding small treats as incentives. In addition to the
treasure chest, additional incentives will include:
passes to the Aerospace Museum, free ice cream cones from
Baskin Robbins, swimming passes to the municipal pool, a
free personal pizza at Shakeys, a T-shirt transfer
specifically made for the Summer Reading Club, roller
skating passes, free passes to the Nature Interpretive
Center, $1 gift certificates to the Friends Bookstore and
a polaroid picture of the child. Children finishing 100
books will be invited to a summer reading club party.
Programs scheduled for the Summer Reading Club will
include: Miss Christina, Music with a Twist of Mime,
Aerospace-Museum Jewels of the Sky, Clown show, magic
show, the Rock and Roll Singing Cowboy, Jewels of the
Desert (snakes and reptiles) and free stage coach rides
provided by Wells Fargo Bank.
Chair Alexander commended staff's work and the Friends of
the Library.
IV. LIBRARY DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Acting Director Palmer reported:
1. No news on the Library Director position.
2. The Public Hearing for the disbursement of Community
Development Block Grant funds for community services will
be held May 4, 1993. The Chairman of the Library Board
has traditionally attended this meeting to support the
Literacy Team. The Library has requested $43,190 (the
same as last year) to help maintain our Literacy effort
this year. Following the hearing, Council will receive
staff recommendations and approve final appropriations on
May 18, 1993.
3. The Library parking lot is scheduled to be repaved during
the first or second week of June.
V. COMMUNICATIONS
A. Friends
Betty Roche reported that the Book stop staff is
reserving children's books for Summer Reading Club
pr1zes. The bookstore earned $2,200 during the month of
March and over $75 in pencil sales.
~..~()
Library Board of Trustees
- 5 -
April 28, 1993
B. Public Comments
Mr. Coye suggested the treasure chest idea be expanded
into two chests, one for boys and one for girls or
providing a box that children can see into. He felt that
fountains inside a library would be disastrous. Mr. Coye
also suggested that the Library look at multiple copies
of books and earmark extra copies for the new branches.
Mr. Palmer informed him that the library has already
started locating and earmarking these extra copies.
C. written Comments
None
D. Board Comments
Trustee Williams was impressed with the work that the
Library has done and is eager to be able to use the new
library. He expressed concern about graffiti. Mr.
Palmer assured him that wall surfaces in the building
will be covered with anti-graffiti paint.
Trustee Wilson - None
Trustee Lathers - Expressed her excitement that the
EastLake Library will open in August. She was concerned
that furnishings and books may be damaged by graffiti.
Trustee Donovan - Shared the enthusiasm about the South
Chula vista and EastLake libraries and is pleased to be
in on the planning stages of this new building.
Chair Alexander seconded all the good feelings
commended David and his staff on all their work. He
reminded the Trustees that the next meeting would be
at the Castle Park Library at 6 PM.
and
also
held
VI.
ADJOURNMENT - The meeting adj ourned at 5: 36 pm.
Library Board of Trustees meeting will be held
1993 at 6:00 pm at the Castle Park Library.
The next
on May 26,
;2 -eJ I
ATTACHMENT G
MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING
OF THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
Wednesday. April 28. 1993
4:30 p.m.
Conference Rooms 2 and 3
A. ROLL CALL
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Chair Gilman, Vice Chair Spethman, Member Rodriguez
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Member Flach, with notification
Member Bernier, without notification
STAFF PRESENT:
Principal Planner Steve Griffin
Senior Planner Patrick Crowley
Associate Planner Luis Hernandez
B. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
Chair Gilman made an opening statement explaining the design review process and the
committee's responsibilities. She asked that all speakers sign in and identify themselves
verbally for the tape when speaking.
C. APPROV AL OF MINUTES
MSUC (Gilman/Rodriguez) (3-0) to approve the minutes of the March 22, 1993 meeting
as presented.
MSUC (Gilman/Spethman) (3-0) to approve the minutes of the April 19, 1993 meeting,
corrected as follows: Attendance - Member Flach was present; page 2, line I - "Chair
Gilman stated that the committee needed to decide if this project met one or more of the
caJegoJies of superior function and design as well as displaying unique characteristics."
D. PROJECT PRESENTATION
1.
DRC-93-27
South Chula Vista Library
385 Orange A venue
Staff Presentation
Associate Planner Luis Hernandez introduced the project and presented the model for the
committee's review. He stated that the project takes the predominantly hispanic character
.2-.2;1
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
-2-
APRIL 28. 1993
of the Montgomery area into consideration, and is binational in nature. Mr. Hernandez
reviewed the project architecture and site plan, pointing out the 175 vehicle parking
facility and park-like landscaping. He described the site terrain and neighboring uses,
and noted the future expansion area provided for in the plan.
Mr. Hernandez stated that two issues had been identified in the staff report. The first
identifies the encroachment of the future parking expansion area into a required setback
area; this was addressed by a condition of project approval. The second issue involves
the requirement for a zoning wall adjacent to residential uses; the applicant proposes a
7' landscape mounding solution, which staff found to be an acceptable alternative. Mr.
Hernandez stated that the architecture and color composition are endorsed by staff, but
are unique in this community; therefore, the committee should consider these issues in
its review of the project.
ApDlicant Presentation
John Mattox of LPA Inc. introduced Miguel Almarez of Legorreta Architecture. Mr.
Almarez reviewed the project architecture, stating that the intent was to create a
binational character. He noted that the scheme of patios are traditional of mexican
architecture and also fit in with the various functions of the library. Mr. Almarez stated
that the desire was to give different areas of the building different personalities; he
pointed out that while the outside was monochromatic, more vibrant colors will be used
inside of the building. He described the proposed landscaping, which will be drought
tolerant and low maintenance, and has been arranged in such a manner as to discourage
access near the building's walls to prevent graffiti.
Committee Ouestions/Discussion
Chair Gilman asked if the small window elements utilized glazing; Mr. Almarez
responded that they would utilize clear glass. In response to questions, Mr. Almarez and
Mr. Mattox clarified the future building expansion area provided for in this plan.
Member Rodriguez asked if a previous committee suggestion regarding a footpath
through the site had been considered; Mr. Mattox responded that while the suggestion
was viewed positively, certain liabilities might be created by such an arrangement. In
response to questions by member Speth man , Mr. William Burton of Burton Associates
elaborated on landscaping plans for the site. The future parking encroachment was
discussed; it was stated that since this was only a matter of a few feet, redesignating
certain spaces as compact would solve the problem.
Chair Gilman stated that the proposed color would make this building a focal point rather
than blending it in with the surrounding neighborhood. She added that while she was
somewhat concerned about the specific color, she did not object to the use of bright
colors in making a strong project statement. Members Rodriguez and Spethman stated
approval of the color and its effect in making this project stand out. Members concurred
in their approval of the building architecture. Member Speth man asked about anti-graffiti
treatments for the building; Mr. Mattox stated that the entire building, both exterior and
~ .-:;.1
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
-3-
APRIL 28. 1993
interior, would be treated with anti-graffiti materials. Member Rodriguez questioned
signage; Mr. Hernandez responded that proposed signage would be reviewed by the
Zoning Administrator, unless the committee otherwise desired. Members concurred that
they would like to have the signage come back to the committee.
MSUC (GilmanfSpethman) (3-0) to adopt Negative Declaration IS-89-79 and addendum.
MSUC (GilmanfSpethman) (3-0) to approve DRC-93-27 subject to the conditions listed
in the staff report, with the following modifications:
c - A comprehensive sign program to be submitted to the Design Review
Committee for review and approval.
d - Graffiti resistant paint in conjunction with densely arranged landscaping
shall be utilized on all exterior suifaces.
E. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 5:30 p.m.
Patty Nevins, Recorder
,...
.J1."~
ATTACHMENT H - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES/APRIL 28, 1993
will be available Wednesday, May 19, 1993
~~7
U.. /a'-"f4\"":'F~rM p, n [0 r:-- ,,'1 rc:-~. ,.,
,.;,,-, ' ., ,.... " , H. .. " . .' " I.. I.,..)."
_ AI "l1Il~1iii f,:j w~~L-'--:~Ua '\;,i'Ll..,;u~\.d ~ t:...'~
ATTACHMENT H
EXCERPT FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF 4/28/93
ITEM 3:
PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-93-29; REQUEST
TO CONSTRUCT A PUBLIC LIBRARY AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF
ORANGE AND FOURTH AVENUES - City of Chula Vista, David Palmer,
Library Director
Associate Planner Hernandez presented the staff report and stated that the Design Review
Committee had unanimously approved the proposed library architectural and site design
contingent upon approval of the conditional use permit. Staff recommended that the Commission
adopt Negative Declaration IS-89-79 and Addendum, and adopt a resolution recommending that
the City Council approve PCC-93-29, based on the findings and subject to the conditions
contained in the draft City Council resolution.
Commissioner Tuchscher inquired about the large parking area on the south side of the building.
Mr. Hernandez explained that the literacy center would be located in that area and would be
independent from the library. This parking area would serve the literacy center.
Commissioner Tarantino asked about the timeline for construction; when could it be expected
to be operational. David Palmer, Acting Library Director, said it was expected that construction
would begin in the fall of 1993 and open to the general public by December 1994 or January
1995.
Commissioner Tarantino questioned the impact of the high pressure power lines on the property.
Mr. Hernandez stated that the facility was specifically designed to be set back from the power
lines and electromagnetic fields.
Commissioner Ray asked if the library was being built with grant funds or if City taxes would
partially fund it. Mr. Palmer answered that the funding was primarily through a 65/35% grant
which meant it was 65 % State/35 % City of eligible costs. The City's match plus ineligible costs
would be paid for through library development impact fees, CDBG funds which helped purchase
the site, and residential construction tax.
Replying to Commissioner Ray, Mr. Palmer said the DIF allowed for up to 36.2 % funding for
the project, and the DIF fees for new development in the eastern portion of Chula Vista would
apply to the western territory.
Commissioner Ray was concerned with traffic impact, and asked if there was any report back
from Traffic Engineering regarding the cuI de sacing of Quintard. Mr. Palmer stated that the
issue had been discussed at length at the Safety Commission hearing and a special Library Board
meeting, and the issue was not part of the street improvements. The street improvements on
Orange Avenue would only occur to the south end of the street toward the library site.
In addition, Commissioner Ray was concerned about the design of the parking lot and whether
the public would have access to the parking lot after hours. He felt there should be gates to
~-~,
PC Minutes
-4-
April 28, 1993
prevent vehicles from entering--to try to slow down graffiti. Discussion ensued regarding the
cost of the gates, cost of personnel to close the gates, the need for book drops, and the use of
an anti-graffiti solution which had been approved by the Design Review Committee.
Commissioner Ray asked about the cost to purchase homes as part of the road improvement.
Mr. Palmer answered that three parcels on the corner of Orange and Fourth were purchased.
There were three homes on the library site which were purchased with CDBG funds and the
money was reimbursed back to Community Development.
Commissioner Martin stated that he was going to vote for the project; he was very excited it;
however, he was concerned about the children who would be walking among trees and asked
special consideration of that.
This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. No one wishing
to speak, the public hearing was closed.
MSUC (Carson/Tuchscher) 5-0 (Fuller and Moot excused) that based on the Initial Study
and comments on the Initial Study and Negative Declaration, find that the project has no
significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration and Addendum issued
on IS-89-79.
MS (Carson/Tuchscher) to adopt Planning Commission Resolution PCC-93-29
recommending that the City Council approve PCC-93-29 based on the findings and subject
to the conditions contained in the draft City Council resolution.
Commissioner Ray asked that the motion include a suggestion that the City Council, prior to
final approval, consider gating the parking lot and installing an exterior book drop with street
access or a turn-out for a book drop. He wished to reduce graffiti by limiting access after
hours.
Discussion followed regarding the age of taggers, the fact that it was a public building and gates
would keep people from enjoying the building, whether gates would solve the problem, the
challenge to gangs.
Commissioner Ray suggested the use of in-house security--the creation of a sub-station for the
police. Mr. Palmer said a sub-station could be accommodated within the building design.
Commissioner Ray stated that if nothing was included for either a sub-station or somehow
limiting access during off hours, he would vote against the project. Something needed to be
done, and it should start soon.
Commissioner Tuchscher concurred that Commissioner Ray's concerns were well founded, and
asked that the vote be taken on the pending motion, and allow Commissioner Ray to put another
motion on the table recommending that staff and/or Council look at those issues.
;..30
PC Minutes
-5-
April 28, 1993
VOTE:
5-0 (Fuller and Moot excused)
Assistant Planning Director Lee suggested that the concerns expressed be contained in the fonn
of a memo to Council for review. The Planning Commission's charge was to address whether
or not the land use was appropriate.
Commissioner Carson infonned the Commissioners that the tagging was done in the early
morning hours. The taggers are defeated by painting over it, and she would rather see emphasis
placed by the City Council on community pride in that area. The YMCA would be working
with children from the age of 10-14; youth summits would be held in May and June dealing with
what could be done with the junior high and high school students toward community pride. She
agreed with Commissioner Tarantino that a barrier could be an enticement or initiation to get
into a certain group.
Commissioner Tarantino agreed regarding fostering a sense of pride, and felt the library would
be a source of pride and could be a cultural focal as well as a public service type focal point.
Vice Chair Martin reiterated the use of paint to paint over the graffiti, and if the graffiti was
continually painted over, the taggers would eventually stop painting in that area.
Vice Chair Martin questioned whether the Commissioners wished to send a memo to the
Council. Commissioner Ray agreed with forwarding a memo, but felt the land use issues had
been expanded to include more issues than just land use; and the fact that the project may invite
problems, such as graffiti.
Commissioner Tuchscher noted that anti-graffiti treatments were available; he also supported the
use of paint.
MS (Tuchscher fRay) that staff take into account the comments made and draft a memo for
review by Commissioner Ray and execution by the Chair.
Acting Library Director Palmer assured the Commissioners that the coating which would be used
on the exterior and the interior of the building was of a kind that had recently been applied to
the new National City Police Department. To take graffiti off the exterior, high pressure water
spray could be used; for the interior, a simple solution of solvent could be used. Paint would
also be used.
Regarding community pride, Mr. Palmer said there were some interior graffiti problems in the
restrooms at the Library, but no exterior problems. There are some buildings which become
off target, and he hoped that the new facility would become a magnet for the entire community,
and a wonderful sense of pride would come from it.
VOTE:
5-0 (Fuller and Moot excused)
c2"';lJ
L~
ATTACHMENT I
STARBOARD
STARBOARD CONSTRUCTION. INC.
SOUTH CHULA VISTA LmRARY
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
DESIGN DEVELOPMENT ESTIMATE
APRIL 14, 1993
NEW CONSTRUCTION COSTS
LmRARY PROJECT COSTS
(LINE 2) - CA LmRARY CONSTRUCTION AND RENOVATION BOND ACT
Prepared for:
MR. DAVID PALMER
ACTING LmRARY DIRECTOR
CHULA VISTA PUBLIC LmRARY
365 "F" STREET
CHULA VISTA, CA 91910
Prepared by:
STARBOARD CONSTRUCTION, INC.
1202 KETI'NER BOULEVARD, FIFTII FLOOR
SAN DIEGO, CA 92101
1202 KETTNER BOULEVARD. FIFTH FLOOR. SAN DIEGY CAUFDRNIA92101-3338
(619) 231-6700 -< - J.3 ( CJ.. /~;..AX (619) 231-7969
,
PREFACE TO THE ESTIMATE
The following estimate has been compiled from design development drawings and
specifications believed to be an accurate portrayal of the project as drawn and indicated by
LP A. If these drawings and specifications are incomplete, the estimator has included those
items that would usually appear in final drawings and specification:l for a complete project in
a manner ordinarily prudent under the circumstances.
The user is cautioned that radical changes in the scope of the project or the drawings and
specifications after the estimate has been submitted will cause major cost changes and the
estimator should be notified for appropriate addenda to be issued to the estimate.
The estimate has also been adjusted for geographical location based On local material and
labor rates as well as construction practice.
In the current seller's market for construction, our experience shoYls the following results on
competitive bids as a differential from final estimates:
1 Bid
2-3 Bids
4-5 Bids
6-7 Bids
+ 16 to
+ 6 to
- 5 to
-10 to
30%
15%
5%
-4%
Accordingly, it is extremely important that the owner maintain continuous contact with the
bidders during the bid period to assure himself of a minimum of 4-5 bids!
Ooinion of Cost
An opinion of cost shall be construed as an indefinite evaluation of cost based upon historical
representative cost of similar structures, produced from plans and/or criteria during early
stages of design commonly indicated as design development.
Estimate of Cost
The estimate of cost is comprised of a survey of quantities measured from plans and
specifications beyond the schematic stage, commonly known as de!.ign development of
working drawings. Historical costs are used as the basis of pricing, plus judgmental
evaluation by the estimator. The estimator will add those items which may not appear in the
plan, but which he deems may later be included by the A&E.
U:\USER.S\ T AL1APER\ WPE.RP\UBRARY\PREPACE
...."..,., April.', 1993
. .2.- ;f~
\
,
L'~
STARBOARD
SOUTHCHULA VISTA LIBRARY
SIlE WORK ESTIMAlE
FILE NAME: S:\0827\SWCOVER
DIVISION
NUMBER
2
DESIGN DEVELOPMENT ESTIMATE
SUMMARY OF ESTIMAlE
SIlEWORK
SUBTOTAL
GENERAL CONDmONS
CONTINGENCY
SUBTOTAL
BONDS
CONTRACTOR'S FEE
SUBTOTAL
TOTAL ESTIMATED PRICE
8.00%
12.00%
1.20%
550%
UNIT
COST
899,559
71,965
107,947
10,795
49,476
1202 KETTNER BOULEVARO, FIFTH FLOOR, SAN DIFGO, CALIFORNIA 92101-3338
[619) 231-6700 .:J.' .3 V FAX [619] 231-7969
04/14,93
11:39 AM
TOTAL
899,559
179,912
60,270
1 139 741
SOlITH CHULA VISTA LlBRAR Y
SITEWORK ESTIMATE
FILE NAME: S:\08271SITEWORK
04/14/93
11:42 AM
ITEM EST. UNIT UNIT TOTAL
NO. DETAIL OF ESTIMATE QTY. UNIT COST TOTAL CXlST
DIVISION 2 - SITEWORK ... '. ii i ... ...ii ..... iiy................ ...
2.2000 SITE PREPARATION & EARTHWORK ....i......... i . ...ii
2.200] CLEAR & GRUB 228,908 SF 0.06 ]3,734
2.2002 EARTHWORK cm 887 CY 1.54 1,366
2.2003 SITE FILL & COMPACTION 23,952 CY 2.30 55,090
2.2004 IMPORT, STRUCTURAl.. FILL 23,065 IT 4.50 103,793
2.2005 SCARIFY & COMPACT TOP 12" 237,435 SF 0.20 47,487
2.2m; FINISH GRADING 105,584 SF 0.10 10,558
SUBTOTAL 2.2000 2.l2,028
2.5000 SITE UTILITIES . ............. i..' .. i ...........ii
SEWER:
2.5001 4" ABS. LATERAL 200 LF 12.20 2,440
2.5002 4" CLEANOUT, GRADE lEA 154.75 155
WATER:
2.5003 2" CXlPPER FROM METER TO BUILDING 40 LF 23.90 956
2.5004 6" FIRE LINE PVe, ]50, C900 PIPE 495 LF 21.30 10,544
2.5005 FIRE RISER lEA 2,775.00 2,775
2.5m; FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION lEA 753.00 753
2.5007 6" BACKFLOW PREVENTOR lEA 3,442.00 3,442
2.5008 FIRE HYDRANTS lEA 1,350.00 1,350
ELECTRICAL:
2.5009 3"-4" PVC CONDUIT, PAD TO ELECT. ROOM 120 LF 15.90 1,908
2.5010 PULL SERVICE, PAD TO ELECT. ROOM 120 LF 20.25 2,430
STORM DRAIN:
2.5011 4" UNDERGROUND PVC FROM ROOF DRAINS 870 LF 10.54 9,170
2.50]2 ]2" PVC PIPE, PARKING LOT 570 LF 30.90 17 ,613
2.5013 MISCELLANEOUS STORM DRAIN FITTINGS ILS 2,258.00 2,258
2.5014 36" SQ, 3' DEEP, CATCH BASIN WITH GRATE 12 EA 1,34275 ]6,113
SUBTOTAL 2.5000 71,906
2.6000 SITE IMPROVEMENTS
2.6001 2" AC OVER 7" BASE 54,0]7 SF 1.12 60,499
2.6002 2-1/2" AC OVER 8-112" BASE 34,588 SF 1.28 44,273
-
2.6003 CONCRETE, TRASH AND TRANSFORMER PADS 575 SF 3.50 2,013
..
2.6004 SCREEN W ALL.s, TRASHffRANS. 765 SF 12.50 9,563
2.6005 CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER 383 LF 9.25 3,543
--
--.l!>m; CONCRETE CURBS 3,616 LF 7.25 26,216
~~7 DRIVEWAY APRON 1,313 SF 3.25 4,267
~008 CONCRETE PAVING 13,931 SF 2.50 34,828
2.6009 FEATURE ENTRY PAVING 2,500 SF 5.50 13,750
2.6010 STRIPING, STANDARD 144 EA 6.50 936
~6011 STRIPNG, H.C. 6 EA 55.00 330
2.6012 STRIPING BUS STALLS 15 EA 10.56 158
2.6013 HANDICAP RAMPS 3 EA 150.00 450
2.6014 CONCRETE SITE WALLS 1,130 SF 13.50 15,255
---- ~- ._------- .~-_.- --..
260]5 CURB AT PLANTER 995 LF 12.50 12,438
- -..
2.60]6 FLAGPOLE ]LS 6,000.00 6,000
-"-----------, ------------ --
2.0017 BIKE RACK ] LS 3,300.00 3,300
----- --~-----
L ._ SUBIQTALZ.6ooo_ "----- ._---~- 237,817
'~-3?
SOUTH CHULA VISTA LIBRARY
SITEWORK ESTiMATE
FILE NAME: S:\08271SITEWORK
ITEM
NO. DETAIL OF ESTIMATE
2.7000 LANDSCAPINGAND IRRIGATION . ... ....
2.7001 IRRIGATiON
2.7002 48" BOX TREE
2.7003 36" BOX TREES
2.700<1 24" BOX TREES
2.7005 4'-5'HIGHTREES
2.7006 KING PALMS
2.7007 DATE PALMS
2.7008 SHRUBS - 15 GALLON
2.7009 SHRUBS - 5 GALLON
2.7010 SHRUBS AND GROUND roVER
2.7011 TURF SEEDED
2.7012 24"BOXSHRUBS
2.7013 DEmMPOSED GRANITE
2.7014 ] ]/2"-3" mBBLE, ARIZONA R]VER ROCK
2.70]5 8" INTEGRAL mLOR mNCRETE WALLS
2.70]6 6" INTEGRAL mLOR mNCRETE CURBS
2.70]7 2' WIDE POURED mNCRETE BENCHES
2.7018 PRECAST mNCRETE LIGHfIBALLARDS
2.7019 4' HIGH mNCRETE PEDESTAL
2.7020 TRAFFIC REFLECTORS (ALLOWANCE)
SUBTOTAL 2.7000 .........< .. <....
SUBTOTAL DIVISION 2 .. . · .'. ...
04/14193
11:42 AM
EST. UNIT UNIT
QTY. UNIT mST TOTAL
<<< ........... ............ <i ........
]05,584 SF 0.40 42,234
] EA ],225.66 1,226
60 EA 765.80 45,948
88 EA 533.50 46,948
41 EA 117.60 4,822
]4 EA 3,500.00 49,000
32 EA 3,200.00 102,400
3 EA 50.00 150
59 EA 24.43 1,441
87,846 SF 0.25 2],962
16,966 SF 0.36 6,]08
3 EA 67.00 201
1,405 SF 0.12 ]69
13,544 SF 0.55 7,449
600 SF 13.00 7,BOO
240 LF 8.55 2,052
]00 LF 35.00 3,500
24 EA 450.00 IO,BOO
1 EA 600.00 600
1 LS 3,000.00 3,000
..iii .'.i . ....i.<i< ....................~
. <.. .... . ..... '" .<. ". ..i<'i" ..<. .itQQ ~~Q
:2' .:J g'
TOTAL
mST
<.
L~
STARBOARD
STARBOARD CONSTRUCTION, INC.
SOUTH CHULA VISTA LmRARY
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
DESIGN DEVELOPMENT ESTIMATE
APRIL 14, 1993
SITE DEVELOPMENT COSTS
LmRARY PROJECT COSTS
(LINE 8) - CA LmRARY CONSTRUCTION AND RENOVATION BOND ACT
Prepared for:
MR. DAVID PALMER
ACTING LmRARY DIRECTOR
CHULA VISTA PUBLIC LmRARY
365 "F" STREET
CHULA VISTA, CA 91910
Prepared by:
STARBOARD CONSTRUCTION, INC.
1202 KETTNER BOULEVARD, FIFTH FLOOR
SAN DIEGO, CA 92101
1202 KETTNER BOULEVARD. FIFTH FLOOR. SAN DIEGO. CALIFORNIA 92101-3338
(619] 231-6700 .2 .... .3 J / FAX (619] 231-7969
I~ - ft)
PREFACE TO THE ESTIMATE
The following estimate has been compiled from design development drawings and
specifications believed to be an accurate portrayal of the project as drawn and indicated by
LPA. If these drawings and specifications are incomplete, the estimator has included those
items that would usually appear in final drawings and specification:; for a complete project in
a manner ordinarily prudent under the circumstances.
The user is cautioned that radical changes in the scope of the project or the drawings and
specifications after the estimate has been submitted will cause major cost changes and the
estimator should be notified for appropriate addenda to be issued to the estimate.
The estimate has also been adjusted for geographical location based on local material and
labor rates as well as construction practice.
In the current seller's market for construction, our experience shoVls the following results on
competitive bids as a differential from final estimates:
1 Bid
2-3 Bids
4-5 Bids
6-7 Bids
+ 16 to
+ 6 to
- 5 to
-10 to
30%
15%
5%
-4%
Accordingly, it is extremely important that the owner maintain continuous contact with the
bidders during the bid period to assure himself of a minimum of 4-5 bids!
Opinion of Cost
An opinion of cost shall be construed as an indefinite evaluation of cost based upon historical
representative cost of similar structures, produced from plans and/or criteria during early
stages of design commonly indicated as design development.
Estimate of Cost
The estimate of cost is comprised of a survey of quantities measum:l from plans and
specifications beyond the schematic stage, commonly known as de!ign development of
working drawings. Historical costs are used as the basis of pricing, plus judgmental
evaluation by the estimator. The estimator will add those items which may not appear in the
plan, but which he deems may later be included by the A&E.
U:\USERS\TAUAFEIt\WPER.P\LIBRARY\PREPACE
~ April 14, 1993
.2 -~ IJ
L~
STARBOARD
STARBOARD CONSTRUCTION, INC.
SOUTIi CHULA VlST A LIBRARY
BUILDING COVER
BUILDING SF: 37032
FILE NAME: S:\0827\BLDGCOVER
04/14193
01:43 PM
DESIGN DEVELOPMENT ESTIMATE
DIVISION COST/ UNIT
NUMBER SUMMARY OF ESTIMATE SF COST TOTAL
1 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS 0.68 25,000
3 CONCRETE 4.38 162,285
5 METALS 2.32 85,993
6 WOOD AND PLASTICS 9.09 336,689
7 TIiERMAL AND MOISTURE PROTECTION 7.42 274,598
8 DOORS AND WINDOWS 4.45 164,690
9 FINISHES 24.86 920,740
10 SPECIALTIES 5.79 214,564
11 EQUIPMENT 1.94 71,710
15 MECHANICAL 18.09 669,728
16 ELECfRICAL 14.65 542,483
SUBTOTAL . 3,468,480
GENERAL CONDmONS 8.00% 277,478
CONTINGENCY 12.00% 416,218
SUBTOTAL 693,696
BONDS 1.20% 41,622
CONTRACfOR'S FEE 550% 190,766
SUBTOTAL .. 232,388
TOTAL ESTIMATED PRICE . 4.394 564
.
1202 KETTNER BOULEVARD. FIFTH FLOOR. SAN DIEGO. CALIFORNIA 92101-333B
[619) 231-6700 ..2. -4/ I FAX [619) 231-7969
ITEM EST. UNIT l.lNIT
NO. DETAIL OF ESTIMATE QTY. UNIT COST TOTAL
DIVISION 1 ' H . ~ .. ... .. .
1.1000 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
1.1001 SOILS TESTING I LS 10,000.00 10,000
1.1002 TESTING AND INSPECTION 1 LS 15,000.00 15,000
SUBTOTAL 1.1000 . . . . 'X MIl
~ ~ [1 .... . . ..... ....25~
DIVISION 3 - CONCRETE .' ... .
3.1000 CONCRETE FOOTINGS
3.1001 STRUCTURAL EXCAVATION
3.1002 STRUCTURAL BACKFILL
3.1003 FORMS, COLUMN PADS
3.1004 FORMS, CONTINUOUS
3.1005 CONCRETE, 3000 PSI
3.1006 COLUMN ANCHOR BOLTS
SUBTOTAL 3.1000
3.2000 SLAB ON GRADE
3.2001 GRADING, FINE
3.2002 6 MILL VISQUEEN
3.2003 2" SAND OVER VISQUEEN
3.2004 CONCRETE, 3000 PSI
3.2005 FINISH, HAND TROWEL
3.2006 CONTROL JOINTS
SUBTOTAL 3.2000
3.7000 CONCRETE FOUNDATIONS
3.7001 FOUNDATIONS
3.7002 SLAB ON GRADE, 6'X6'/lO'XlO' MESH
SUBTOTAL 3.7000
SUBTOTAL DIVISION 3
DIVISION 5 - METALS
5.1000 STRUCTURAL METAL FRAMING
COLUMNS:
5.1001 TUBE STEEL, COLUMNS
5.1002 BEAM COLUMNS
5.1003 BASE PLATES
SOUTH CHULA VISTA LIBRARY
BUILDING ESTIMATE
FILE NAME: S:\0827\BUILDlNG
~'o/,)
275 CY
92CY
2,412 SF
4,680 SF
183 CY
336 EA
38,646 SF
42,5 II SF
287 CY
685 CY
38,646 SF
1,240 LF
.\
10,065 LBS
42,510 SF
18,734 LBS
33,560 LBS
6,274 LBS
850 2,338
13.00 1,196
4.15 10,251
3.00 14,040
65.00 11,895
4.50 1,512
..... .
0.10
0.06
28.00
120.00
0.34
0.45
. .
3,865
2,551
8,036
82,200
13,140
558
0.43
0.15
4,328
6,377
1.17
0.64
0.74
21,919
21,478
4,643
04/14/93
01:02 PM
TOTAL
COST
.
41,232
. 110,349
10,704
162 285
SOUTH CHULA VISTA LIBRAR Y
BUILDING ESTIMATE
FILE NAME: S:\0827\BUILDING
04114/93
01:02 PM
ITEM EST. UNIT UNIT TOTAL
NO. DETAIL OF ESTIMATE QTY. UNIT COST TOTAL COST
ROOF:
5.1004 STEEL BEAMS 29,340 LBS 0.75 22,005
5.1005 MOMENT CONNECTIONS 12 EA 295.00 3,540
5.1006 DETAIL STEEL 5,715 LBS 1.06 6,058
SUBTOTAL DIVISION 5.1000 .......... >> ...;C >i.. 19,643
5.5000 METAL FABRICATIONS
5.5001 CLIPS AND ANGLES lLS 2,500.00 2,500
5.5002 BOLTS 1 LS 1,000.00 1,000
5.5003 ROOF AND MEZZ. ACCESS DOORS & T 3 EA 950.00 2,850
SUBTOTAL 5.5000 .. ...... ". ... ..) ..... .. .....y ....iy.. ...... .....)....6.350
,.'SUBTOTAL DIVISlON 5 ... > ....... .................y......................................... .....y ." .yyy....... >yy~
DIVISION 6 -WOOD AND PLASTICS ........ . ..... .>> .'.y ...yy ......y.c ......>/ .. ........ <
6.1000 ROUGH CARPENTRY
6.1001 6X COLUMNS 1,849 BF 2.40 4,438
6.1002 6X BEAMS 10,265 BF 1.73 17,758
6.1003 2X ROOF JOIST 58,839 BF 1.17 68,842
6.1004 2X MEZZ. FLOOR JOIST 3,722 BF 1.17 4"~55
6.1005 518" CDX ROOF SHEATHING STRUC. I 35,456 SF 0.96 34,038
6.1006 3/4" CDX FLOOR SHEATHING MEZZ. 2,400 SF 0.83 1,992
6.1007 2X PLATES AND STEEL BEAMS 790 LF 1.10 869
6.1008 2'X6' EXTERIOR WALL FRAMING 42,657 BF 1.26 53,748
6.1009 2'X4' INTERIOR WALL FRAMING 25,447 BF 1.21 30,791
6.1010 2X FRAMING AT SQ COLUMNS 2,744 BF 1.21 3,320
6.IOII 2X FRAMING AT RD COLUMNS 2,002 BF 1.35 2,703
6.1012 2X INTERIOR FRAMING AT VERTICAL 12,435 BF 1.25 15,544
FASCIAS AND LIGHT WELLS
6.1013 318" PLYWOOD WALL SHEATHING 33,056 SF 1.10 36,362
6.1014 1/2" PLYWOOD SHEA THING BACK OF PARAPET 6,272 SF 1.15 7,213
WALL
SUBTOTAL 6.1000 . 281,971
6.1600 PREFABRICATED STRUCTURAL WOOD
6.1601 5118" GLU-LAM BEAMS 5,401 BF 1.52 8,210
6.1602 BEAM SEATS AND CONNECTIONS 40 EA 125.00 5,000
SUBTOTAL 6.1600 13,210
-<" 'IJ
ITEM
NO. DETAIL OF ESTIMATE
6.2000 FINISH CARPENTRY
6.2001 CABINETS, BASE 118 LF 95.00 11,210
6.2002 CABINETS, WALL 100 LF 65.00 6,500
6.2003 LOCKABLE WALL CABINETS 108 LF 75.00 8,100
6.2004 PLASTIC LAMINATE TOPS 74 LF 19.50 1,443
6.2005 VANITY TOPS 34 LF 23.00 782
6.2006 SHELVING, STORAGE ROOMS 594 LS 2.75 1,634
6.2007 DISPLAY CASE 1 LF 1,040.00 1,040
6.2008 MAIL BOX CABINET 10 EA SO.OO SOO
6.2009 ROUGH HARDWARE 1 LS 10,000.00 10.000
. ..... ..5UB1'OT&6.2()()(l. .. ...... ... ...... ...<ii}i<<.< .}i} ..i<}1I1 .;no
I...... SUBTOTAL DIVISION 6 ii <> <i< .......<iii}< .. 336689
DIVISION 1 THERMAL AND MOISTUREPROTECIlON .<...< ............ ........ ...........<i ... <.......
7.2000 THERMAL AND SOUND INSULATION
7.2001 BATT SOUND INSULATION
7.2002 R-IIBATTATEXT.FRAMED&WALLS
7.2003 R -11 BATT AT ROOF JOIST
SUBTOTAL 7.2000 .
7.4000 PREFORMED ROOFING AND CLADDINGISIDING
7.4001 COPPER ROOF, PYRAMIDS
7.4002 COPPER ROOF, BARREL ROOF
SUBTOTAL 7.4000 .
7.5000 MEMBRANE ROOFING
7.5001 4 PLY BUILT-UP ROOF
7.5002 ROOF BACK OFF PARAPET
7.5003 FIBER CANT STRIP
SUBTOTAL 7.5000
7.6000 FLASHING AND SHEET METAL
7.6001 METAL CAP FLASHING
7.6002 COUNTER FLASHING
SUBTOTAL 7.6000
7.8000 SKYLIGHTS
7.8001 SKYLIGHT AT LITERACY CENTER
7.8002 SKYLIGHTS AT TOP OF PYRAMID ROOFS, FLAl
7.8003 SKYLIGHTS AT HIGH ROOF, FLAT
SUBTOTAL 7.8000
7.9000 JOINT SEALERS
7.9001 CAULKING AND SEALANTS (INCL. SEIZMIC JTS
SUBTOTAL 7.9000
SUBTOTAL DIVISION 7
DIVISION 8 - DOORS AND WINDOWS
SOUTH CHULA VISTA LIBRARY
BUILDING ESTIMATE
FILE NAME: S:\0827\BUILDING
EST.
QTY.
UNIT
UNIT COST
18,360 SF
30,581 SF
37rH9 SF
0.43
0.40
0.48
11,063 SF
3,457 SF
9.00
11.00
22,790 SF
5,680 SF
2,700 SF
1.15
0.95
1.01
..
2,312 LF
2,700 SF
2.67
3.50
.
204 SF
192 SF
488 SF
50.00
35.00
35.00
I LS
15,000.00
;;-'1'1
UNIT
TOTAL
7,895
12,232
17,923
99,567
38,027
26,209
5,396
2,727
..
6,173
9,450
10,200
6,720
17,080
15,000
04/14/93
01:02 PM
TOTAL
COST
38,050
137,594
. .... 34,332
15,623
34,000
15,000
274 598
sourn CHULA VISTA LIBRARY
BUILDING ESTIMATE
FILE NAME: S:\0827\BUILDlNG
04/14/93
01:02 PM
ITEM EST. UNIT UNIT TOTAL
NO. DETAIL OF ESTIMATE QTY. UNIT COST TOTAL COST
8.1000 METAL DOORS AND FRAMES
8.1001 HOLLOW METAL FRAMES, SINGLE 3 EA 124.00 372
8.1002 HOLLOW METAL FRAMES, PAIRS SEA 150.00 750
8.1003 HOLLOW METAL DOORS 13 EA 235.00 3,055
SUBTOTAL 8.1000 .. .. <.>< .... ... ...................<. < .... .4,177
8.2000 WOOD AND PLASTIC DOORS
8.2001 S.c. STAIN GRADE DOORS 39 EA 216.20 8,432
8.2002 WOOD FRAMES, SINGLE 33 EA 90.00 2,970
8.2003 WOOD FRAMES, DOUBLE 3 EA 119.00 357
SUBTOTAL 8.2000 .'. ..... .' ... ..' < <11,759
8.4000 ENTRANCES AND STOREFRONT
8.4001 ALUMINUM STOREFRONT AND GLAZING 360 SF 28.00 10,080
8.4002 ALUMINUM DOORS 11 EA 700.00 7,700
8.4003 EXTERIOR, ALUM. FRAMING AND GLAZING 2,055 SF 32.00 65,760
8.4004 INTERIOR, ALUM. FRAMING AND GLAZING 57 SF 16.50 941
8.4005 ALUM. AND GLASSAUTOBI-PARTINGDOORS 1 PAIR 15,000.00 15,000
8.4006 HERCULITE GLAZING 520 SF 40.00 20,800
SUBTOTAL 8.4000 120,281
8.7000 DOOR HARDWARE
8.7001 DOOR SETS 52 EA 400.00 20,800
8.7002 PANIC DEVICES 9EA 436.00 3,924
8.7003 FLOOR CLOSERS IOEA 375.00 3,750
SUBTOTAL 8.7000 28,474
SUBTOTAL DIVISION 8 164690
DIVISION 9 - FINISHES
9.1100 METAL STUDS
9.1101 METAL STUDSrpYRAMID CEILINGS) 11,616 SF 2.25 26,136
9.1102 METAL STUDS(BARREL CEILINGS) 4,013 SF 3.00 12,039
9.1103 METAL STUDsrSUSPENDED CEILINGS) 21,442 SF 1.35 28,947
--.2.2000 LATH AND PLASTER
9.2001 STO PLASTER SYSTEM EXTERIOR WALLS 30,581 SF 5.00 152,905
9.2002 PLASTER EXTERIOR SOFFITS 808 SF 3.88 3,135
9.2003 SKIM COAT ALL GYP CEILINGS 37,071 SF 1.70 63,021
SUBTOTAL 9.2000 286,182
9.2500 GYPSUM BOARD
9.2501 WALL, GWB, TAPED 518"X 74,659 SF 1.12 83,618
9.2502 CEILINGS, GWB, TAPED 518" 21,442 SF 0.84 18,011
9.2503 GYP BARREL CEILINGS 4,013 SF 2.65 10,634
9.2504 VERTICAL WALLS ATCEILINGS,518'X 12,364 SF 1.12 13,848
~505 PYRAMID CEILINGS 11,616 SF 3.00 34,848
9.2506 SO COLUMNS 2,772 SF 4.00 11,088
--------
9.2507 ROUND COLUMNS - FURRING 2,022 SF 4.50 9,099
9.2508 BEAMS - FURRING ILS 15,000.00 15,000
_._ SUBTOTi\L J.2500 196,146
~
~ " ~...s
soum CHULA VISTA LIBRARY
BUILDING ESTIMATE
FILE NAME: S:\0827\BUILDING
04/14,93
01:02 PM
ITEM EST. UNIT UNIT TOTAL
NO. DETAlL OF ESTIMATE QTY. UNIT COST TOTAL COST
9.3000 TILE
9.3001 FLOORS, CERAMIC TILE 1,128 SF 6.75 7,614
9.3002 BASE, CERAMIC TILE 848 LF 7.75 6,572
9.3003 WALLS, CERAMIC TILE, FULL HEIGHT 6,784 SF 7.75 52,576
SUBTOTAL 9.3000 < <> ... .... .. <.. ........< .<>i><< . .i. < .. ......>> ><? "".,~~
9.5000 ACOUSTICAL TREATMENT
9.5001 SUSPENDED ACOUSTICAL CEILINGS 1,725 SF 2.50 4,312
. SUBTOTAL9.5()OO . ......> .................. ........ ....... ..?< .<< ..? .....? .> ...<4~i 1.l.
9.6000 STONE FLOORING
9.6001 FLAG STONE, FLOORING 8,573 SF 8.75 75,014
9.6002 SLATE FLOORING 2,100 SF 9.50 19,950
9.6003 ARCHITECTURAL CONCRETE PAVERS 500 SF 6.50 3,250
. SUBTOTAL 9.6000< ... < ..<.. ...... ...........>i......i < .' . > < !l8,214
9.6500 RESILIENT FLOORING
9.6501 SHEET VINYL 2,420 SF D8 3,340
9.6502 BASE, 4" RUBBER 3,764 SF U5 4,329
SUBTOTAL 9.6500 .. .... ... .. .... .. ... ... ...... ... ...... . '],668
9.6800 CARPET
9.6801 CARPET 3,407 SY 30.00 102,210
... SUBTOTAL.96800 .............. . ......... < ? . ... <. .. ... .... .> . .......>ll12.210
9.7000 COMPUTER FLOORING
9.7001 COMPUTER FLOORING 800 SF 13.50 10,800
... SUBTOTAL 9.7000 .... . .>? .. ............ . ... .... ...... <? 10,800
...
9.9000 PAINTING
EXTERIOR:
9.9001 SHEET METAL, FLASHING 2,312 LF 0.75 1,734
9.9002 WALLS 30,581 SF 0.60 18,349
9.9003 GRAFFITTI COATING 30,581 SF 0.60 18,349
INTERIOR:
9.9004 GWB, WALLS AND COLUMNS 90,590 SF 0.37 33,518
9.9005 PLASTER CEILINGS 25,455 SF 0.36 9,164
9.9006 PLASTER PYRAMID CEILINGS 11,616 SF 0.60 6,970
9.9007 DOORS AND FRAMES 52 EA 55.00 2,860
9.9008 MISCELLANEOUS PAINTING 1 LS 2,500.00 2,500
9.9009 SEAL CONCRETE FLOORS 650 SF 0.25 163
9.9010 GRAFFITTI COATING 90,950 SF 0.60 54,570
9.9010 ROOF ACCESS DOORS AND LADDERS 3 EA 90.00 270
SUBTOTAL 9.9000 148,445
SUBTOTAL DIVISION 9 . 920 740
DIVISION 10 - SPECIALTIES
10.1000 CHALKBOARDS AND TACKBOARDS
10.1001 T ACKBOARDS,4'X6' 5 EA 180.00 900
10.1002 WHITE BOARDS, 4'x6' 3 EA 258.00 774
SUBTOTAI_ 10.1000 1,674
~-Jf(,
saUill CHULA VISTA LIBRARY
BUILDING ESTIMATE
FILE NAME: S:\0827\BUILDlNG
04/14193
01:02 PM
ITEM EST. UNIT UNIT TOTAL
NO. DETAIL OF ESTIMATE QTY. UNIT COST TOTAL COST
10.1500 COMPARTMENTS AND CUBICLES
10.1501 PLASTIC LAMINATE TOIlET PARTITIONS, 9EA 800.00 7,200
FLOOR MID, GRAFFITTI COATING
10.1502 PLASTIC LAMINATE URINAL SCREENS 3 EA 195.00 585
WALL MID
10.1503 BENCHES 100 LF 50.00 5,000
SUBTOTAL 10.1500 .... > ..<< .. ..... . ..>....... .......... ....... ..... 12,785
10.4000 IDENTIFYING DEVICES
10.4001 SIGNAGE PACKAGE (CODE AND IDENTIFYING 1 LS 60,000.00 60,000
10.4002 MONUMENT SIGNAGE (ALLOWANCE) 1 LS 15,000.00 15,000
10.4003 ARCHITECTURAL FENCING/GATESISCREENS . lLS 15,000.00 15,000
10.4004 SCULPTURAL ACCENT COLUMNS 2EA 4,000.00 8,000
10.4005 SCULPTURAL SCREEN 240 SF 30.00 7,200
SUBTOTAL lOAooo .... ....... ..... . . 105,200
10.5200 FIRE PROTECTION SPECIALTIES
10.5201 FIRE EXTINGUISHERS AND CABINETS 8EA 255.00 2,040
SUBTOTAL 10.5201 . .... ...<><. ...... ..... 2,040
10.7500 TELEPHONE SPECIALITIES
10.7501 TELEPHONESHELFmNCLOSURE 1 LS 1,500.00 1,500
SUBTOTAL 10.7500 1.500
10.8000 TOILET AND BATH ACCESSORIES
10.8001 PAPER TOWEL DISP.AND WASTECQMBO 4EA 365.00 1,460
10.8002 PAPER TOWEL DISPENSER 6EA 87.00 522
10 .8003 TOILET SEAT COVER DISPENSER 13 EA 53.00 689
10.8004 TOILET PAPER DISPENSER 13EA 35.00 455
10.8005 FEMININE NAPKIN DISPENSER 2 EA 277.00 554
10.8006 FEMININE NAPKIN DISPOSAL 13 EA 22.00 286
10.8007 SOAP DISPENSER 12 EA 25.00 300
10 .8008 MIRROR 170 EA 9.50 1,615
10.8009 GRAB BAR, TWO WAY 8 EA 56.00 448
_. .
10.8010 MOP RACK 1 EA 36.00 36
SUBTOTAL 10.8000 6,365
10.9000 FOUNTAINS
10.9001 ENTRANCE COURTYARD 1 EA 20,000.00 20,000
10.9002 MAIN AREA lEA 30,000.00 30,000
10.9003 EXTERIOR COURTYARD lEA 35,000.00 35,000
SUBTOTAL 10.9000 85,000
SUBTOTAL DIVISION 10 214 564
..
..2.;1{ 7
SOUTH CHULA VISTA LIBRARY
BUILDING ESTIMATE
FILE NAME: S:\0827\BUILDlNG
04/14193
01:02 PM
ITEM EST. UNIT UNIT TOTAL
NO. DETAIL OF ESTIMATE QTY. UNIT COST TOTAL COST
DIVISION 11 - EQUIPMENT ..... ...... ..... i> . Xi ........ ......Y
11.0500 LIBRARY EQUIPMENT
11.0501 BOOK DROPS 5 EA 1,350.00 6,750
11.0502 BOOK SECURITY SYSTEM, GATES 2EA 20,000.00 40,000
AND ACIUATING DEVICES
11.0503 PROJECTION SCREENS, CEILING MlD, 3EA 2,625.00 7,875
MOTORIZED 10'X?' /; ,
11.0504 LOCKERS, SINGLE TIER 50 EA 10650 5r~25
11.0505 LARGE SCREEN 1V PROJECTION SYSTEM, lLS 4,000.00 4,000
CEILING MOUNTED J~
11.0506 TELEVISIONS (INCL. MOUNTING BRACKE1) fJ7" 3 EA 800.00 2,400 )) tyJ ~;osl\
SUBTOTAL 11.0500 . . ... .. 66,350
11.4000 FOOD SERVICE EQUIPMENT
11.4001 UNDER COUNTER REFRIGERATOR 1 EA 500.00 500
11.4002 REFRIGERATOR FULL SIZE 1 A"EA 675.00 2,025
11.4003 STOVE TOP 2EA 330.00 660
11.4004 MICROWAVE 2EA 550.00 1,100
11.4005 DISHWASHER 2EA 475.00 950
11.4006 ICEMAKER 1 EA 125.00 125
". SUBTOTAL 11.4000 . .......... . .. .5,360
SUBTOTAL DlVlSION 11 '.. ... .... ............. ........... . 71.710
DIVISION 15 - MECHANICAL ... . ...... ... .. .. . ... > .. .. >.. ....
15.1000 PLUMBING
FIXTURES AND EQUIPMENT:
15.1001 WC-l, WATER CLOSET 5 EA 52258 2,613
15.1002 WC-2, WATER CLOSET, HANDICAP 4EA 548.71 2,195
15.1003 WC-3, WATER CLOSET 4EA 548.71 2,195
15.1004 UR-l, URINAL 3 EA 360.76 1,082
15.1005 1.-1, LA V ATORIES, COUNTER TOP 10 EA 274.90 2,749
15.1006 SK- I, SINK, SS 5 EA 209.20 1,046
15.1007 EWC- I, ELECTRIC WATER COOLER 2 EA 515.00 1,030
15.1008 DISHWATER, CONNECT ONLY 2 EA 115.00 230
15.1009 FD-I, FLOOR DRAINS 4 EA 68.50 274
15.1010 FS-I, FLOOR SINK lEA 98.20 98
15.1011 WH -I, WATER HEATER ELEC., 6 GAL. lEA 210.00 210
15.1012 WH - 2, WATER HEATER ELECT., 20 GAL. lEA 235.00 235
15.1013 WH-3, WATER HEATERELECT.,INSTAHOT IlEA 220.00 2,420
~-~r
SOUTH CHULA VlST A LIBRARY
BUILDING ESTIMATE
FILE NAME: S:\0827\BUlLDING
04/14"'3
01:02 PM
ITEM EST. UNIT UNIT TOTAL
NO. DETAIL OF ESTIMATE QTY. UNIT COST TOTAL COST
ROUGH-IN FOR FIXTURES:
15.1014 RI FOR WC 13 EA 243.08 3,160
15.1015 RI FOR UR 3 EA 169.51 509
15.1016 RIFORLAVS 10 EA 190.31 1,903
15.1017 RI FOR SINKS 5 EA 190.61 953
15.1018 RI FOR EWC 2EA 155.10 310
15.1019 SOIL, WAST AND VENT - MAINS 965 LF 16.97 16,376
15.1020 COLD WATER - MAINS 660 LF 8.10 5,346
15.1021 HOT WATER - MAINS 85 LF 10.80 918
15.1022 SHUT OFF VALVES 6EA 42.00 252
15.1023 WHA-l, WATER HAMMER ARRESTOR 5 EA 72.00 360
15.1024 11'-1, TRAP PRIMER 4EA 110.00 440
15.1025 VENT THROUGH ROOF 5 EA 45.00 225
ROOF DRAIN SYSTEM:
15.1026 RD-l, ROOF DRAIN 16 EA 150.00 2,400
15.1027 OD-l, OVERFLOW ROOF DRAIN 16 EA 150.00 2,400
15.1028 ROOF DRAIN PIPING 1,050 LF 15.50 16,275
MISCELLANEOUS:
15.1029 NATURAL GAS PIPING 110 LF 12.00 1,320
15.1030 GAS COCK 2EA 48.00 96
15.1031 CONDENSATE DRAIN lLS 800.00 800
15.1032 CHLORINATION 1 LS 150.00 150
15.1033 TESTING AND MISCELLANEOUS 1 LS 250.00 250
15.1034 FIXTURE CLEAN-UP 1 LS 600.00 600
SUBTOTAL 15.100 71,420
15.5000 FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM
15.5001 FIRE SPRINKLERS 38,646 SF 1.35 52,172
SUBTOTAL 15.5000 ." <..........\<. i< ...... ...i ...... 52,172
15.8000 HVAC
EQUIPMENT AND SPECIALTIES:
15.8001 AC-l, ROOFTOP PKG. AC UNIT, 12 1/2 TONS 1 EA 12,625.00 12,625
15.8002 AH -I, AIR HANDLING UNIT, W/40000 CFM lEA 120,000.00 120,000
SUPPLY FAN,3600 CFM RETURN FAN PACE
15.8003 CU -I, AIR COOLED CONDENSING UNIT, lEA 21,000.00 21,000
100 TON, 1'$1
15.8004 B-1, BOILER lEA 6,850.00 6,850
15.8005 1'-1 AND 1'- 2, PUMP, HTG HW, 57 GPM, 2EA 1,395.00 2,790
40 FTHD, 1.5 HI'
15.8006 EF-], E)i:!:I_AUSTFAN, 1400CFM W/FACTORY lEA 1,708.00 1,708
--- CURB AND BACKDRAFTDAMPER
.J.5.:~9~_~F:=~, r::>c!{AUST FAN, 7400 CFM W/ FACTORY ] EA 0.00 0
CURB AND BACKDRAFTDAMPER
-
.J5B008 V A V BOXfS,)NTERIOR ZONES 9 EA 810.00 7,290
15.8009 V A V BOXES, EXTERIOR ZONES 20 EA 975.00 ]9,500
~._------_._--_._~._.._".-
~ '''/'1
SO urn CHULA VISTA LIBRARY
BUILDING ESTIMATE
FILE NAME: S:\0827\BUILDlNG
04/14193
01:02 PM
ITEM EST. UNIT UNIT TOTAL
NO. DETAIL OF ESTIMATE QTY. UNIT COST TOTAL COST
PIPING SYSTEMS:
15.8010 AS-I, AIR SEPARATOR 1 EA 350.00 350
15.8011 ET-l, EXPANSION TANK 1 EA 215.00 215
15.8012 POT FEEDER 1 EA 320.00 320
15.8013 FLEX CONN 4EA 115.00 460
15.8014 SUCTION DIFFUSER 2EA 320.00 640
15.8015 VAL YES 8EA 7750 620
15.8016 COIL CONNECTIONS 20EA 110.00 2,200
15.8017 HEATING HW PIPING 2,260 LF 1050 23,730
15.8018 HEATING HW INSULTATION 2,260 LF 2.89 6,531
15.8019 REFRIGERANT PIPING 320 LF 2750 8,800
15.8020 REFIGERANT INSULATION 160 LF 2.50 400
15.8021 PITCH POCKET 3 EA 95.00 285
DUCTWORK AND AIR DISTRIBUTION:
15.8022 DUCTWORK, GI 54,104 LB 3.45 186,659
15.8023 INSULATION, DUCT 26,5 10 SF 1.90 50~~69
15.8024 FLEX DUCT 228 PC 32.00 7).96
15.8025 FIRE DAMPERS 4EA 14750 590
15.8026 ACCESS PANELS 4EA 65.00 260
15.8027 SUPPLY DIFFUSERS 138 EA 69.50 9,591
15.8028 RETURN REGISTERS 90 EA 61.00 5,490
15.8029 EXHAUST GRILLS 8EA 49.00 392
15.8030 TEST AND BALANCES 236 EA 25.68 6,060
15.8031 SOUND TRAPS 2 EA 1,950.00 3,900
TEMPERATURE CONTROLS AND MISCELLANEOUS:
15.8032 TEMPERATURE CONTROL SYSTEM, DDC lLS 36,714.00 36,714
15.8033 PERMITS, CLEAN - UP, MISe. 1 LS 2,500.00 2,500
SUBTOTAL 15.8000 . ........... .. )) ..... ......ii 546,136
SUBTOTAL DIVISION 15 .. . < .... .< ......... ... i.<.... 669 728
eJ. '50
soum CHULA VISTA LIBRAR Y
BUILDING ESTIMATE
FILE NAME: S:\0827\BUILDING
04/14/93
01:02 PM
ITEM EST. UNIT UNIT TOTAL
NO. DETAIL OF ESTIMATE QTY. UNIT COST TOTAL COST
DIVISION 16 ELEcrRICAL <.< <i<< · <i ....... ....ii /i '<i
EQUIPMENT, FEEDERS AND M01OR/EQUlPMENT CONN:
16.0001 TRANSFORMER PAD WI GROUND 1 EA 850.00 850
16.0002 SERVICE CONDUIT 100 LF 17.20 1,720
16.0003 SWITCHGEARIDIS1RIBUTION PANEL 1 EA 7,500.00 7,500
16.0004 TRANSFORMER, DISTRIBUTION lEA 4,200.00 4,200
16.0005 PANELS 3 EA 2,200.00 6,600
16.0006 MAIN FEEDERS 450 LF 4.75 2,138
16.0007 HV AC FEEDERS 650 LF 4.75 3,088
16.0008 DISCONNECT 11 EA 250.00 2,750
16.0009 MOTOR/EQUlPMENT CONN TO 5 HP 7 EA 95.00 665
16.0010 MOTOR/EQUlPMENT CONN TO 10 HI' 2EA 115.00 230
16.0011 MOTOR/EQUIPMENT CONN TO 25 HI' 2EA 175.00 350
16.0012 STARTER, SIZE '0' 4EA 155.00 620
16.0013 WATER HEATER CONNECTIONS 13 EA 95.00 1,235
16.0014 FOUNTAIN PUMP CONNECTION 2 EA 115.00 230
16.0015 PROJECTION SCREEN CONNECTION 4 EA 215.00 860
LIGHTING SYSTEM:
16.0016 LIGHT FIXTURES 1,104 EA 160.00 176,640
16.0017 SWITCHES 9EA 45.00 405
16.0018 OCCUPANCY SENSORS 10 EA 225.00 2,250
16.0019 J-BOXES 81 EA IUO 932
16.0020 LIGHTING CIRCUIT RACEWAY AND WIRE 21,672 LF 2.06 44,644
16.0021 PARKlNG LOT LIGHTING (ALLOW ANCE\ 1 LS 20,000.00 20,000
16.0022 EXTERIOR LIGHTING (ALLOWANCE\ 1 LS 30,000.00 30,000
16.0023 STACK LIGHTING lLS 117,000.00 117,000
BRANCH CIRCUIT SYSTEM:
16.0023 RECEPTACLE 117 EA 27.00 3,159
16.0024 RECEPTACLE, DOUBLE DUPLEX 23 EA 35.00 805
16.0025 RECEPTACLE, GFI 6 EA 42.50 255
16.0026 RECEPTACLE, WP 5 EA 47.00 235
16.0027 RECEPTACLE, FLOOR BOX 4 EA 135.00 540
~028 RECEPTACLE, FLOOR BOX, FOURPLEX 2EA 155.00 310
~:0029 J-BOX 26 EA IUO 299
.. ..
...!60030. RECEPTACLE, 50A RANGE 3 EA 195.00 585
~:0031 BRANCH CIRCUIT RACEWAY AND WIRE 4,836 LF 1.96 9,479
..l~:0032 WALKER DUCT, 3 CELL 445 LF 15.00 6,675
-' ~>/
SOUTH CHULA VISTA LIBRAR Y
BUILDING ESTIMATE
FILE NAME: S:\0827\BUILDlNG
04/14193
01:02 PM
ITEM EST. UNIT UNIT TOTAL
NO. DETAIL OF ESTIMATE QTY. UNIT COST TOTAL COST
COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS:
16.0033 TELEPHONE BACKBOARD 1 EA 145.00 145
16.0034 TELEPHONE OUTLETS 56 EA 20.55 1,151
16.0035 PUBLIC PHONE OUTLETS 5 EA 25.00 125
16.0036 J- BOX FOR TELEPHONE SYSTEM 13EA 11.50 150
16.0037 CONDUIT FOR TELEPHONE SYSTEM 3,330 LF 0.99 3,297
16.0038 COMPUTER OUTLETS 68EA 21.00 1,428
16.0039 COMPUTER J - BOXES 14EA 11.50 161
16.0040 CONDUIT FOR COMPUTER SYSTEM 3,690 LF 0.99 3,653
16.0041 CLOCK RECEPTACLE 9EA 20.55 185
16.0042 CLOCK CONDUIT SYSTEM 900 LF 0.89 801
16.0043 CABLE TV RECEPTACLE 11EA 20.55 226
16.0044 CONDUIT FOR CABLE TV SYSTEM 990 LF 0.99 980
16.0045 SECURITY J-BOXFOR DOOR CONTROL 1 EA 11.50 12
16.0046 SECURITY - BOOKALARMJ-BOX 2EA 11.50 23
16.0047 CONDUIT FOR SECURITY SYSTEM 450 LF 0.99 446
16.0048 BAR CODE OUTLET 4EA 20.55 82
16.0049 INTERACTIVE VIDEO OUTLET 2EA 20.55 41
16.0050 OPAC OUTLET 20 EA 20.55 411
16.0051 PUBLIC ADDRESS SYSTEM DEVICE 30 EA 20.55 617
16.0052 CONDUIT FOR PUBLIC ADDRESS SYSTEM 1,680 LF 0.99 1,663
16.0053 CABLE (lOW VOLTAGE SYSTEMS) 20,000 LF 0.80 16,000
LOW VOLTAGE SYSTEMS:
16.0054 FIRE ALARM SYSTEM 38,646 SF 0.45 17,391
16.0055 SECURITY SYSTEM lLS 20,000.00 20,000
16.0056 PAGING SYSTEM 1 LS 25,000.00 25,000
TESTING AND MISCELLANEOUS:
16.0057 TESTING ILS 500.00 500
16.0058 MISe. CLEAN - UP AND PERMITS ILS 750.00 750
SUBTOTAL 16.0000 542,483
SUBTOTAL DIVISION 16 . 542 483
, .)-~
JOINT MEETING
CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL
AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION
COUNCIL CONFERENCE AGENDA STATEMENT
Item .:1
Meeting Date 5/27/93
ITEM TITLE: Review and Consideration of the Growth Management Oversight
Commission's (GMOC) 1992 Annual Report
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Planning ~!
REVIEWED BY: City ManagerjG, uu ~\ (4/5ths Vote: Yes_NoX)
Attached is the GMOC's 1992 Annual Report on the City's compliance with the Quality-of-Life
Thresholds Standards. It focuses on the period from July 1, 1991 to June 30, 1992, although
issues identified in the second half of 1992 and early 1993 have also been discussed. The
chairman's cover memorandum to the Report provides a summary of the GMOC's findings and
recommendations. This workshop will give the GMOC an opportunity to discuss the Report's
findings and recommendations with the City Council.
The GMOC is scheduled to commence its next review in October 1993, and will focus on the
period from July 1, 1992 to June 30, 1993.
RECOMMENDATIONS: That Council:
1. Accept the 1992 GMOC Annual Report and recommendations contained therein, and
direct staff to undertake actions necessary to implement those recommendations.
2. Direct staff to prepare the necessary Statements of Concern for issuance by the Mayor
regarding the Water, Schools, and Air Quality Thresholds.
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS:
The Planning Commission, on May 12, 1993, voted 7-0 to accept the 1992 GMOC Report and
recommendations as presented, and to recommend that Council do the same. In a companion
motion, the Planning Commission voted 6-1 to recommend that strong priority be given to
preparation of the Parks Implementation Plan (PIP) and a Greenbelt Master Plan.
The Montgomery Planning Committee, due to the current lack of a membership quorum, did not
attend the May 12, 1993 workshop meeting.
J-J
Page 2, Item -3
Meeting Date 5/27/93
DISCUSSION:
The GMOC approved their final 1992 Report and recommendations on April 29, 1993. In
summary, the GMOC found that the City is in compliance with the thresholds for Libraries,
Sewer, Drainage, Traffic, Fire and Emergency Medical Service, Fiscal, and Parks and
Recreation. The City is not in compliance with the threshold for Police, although the shortfall
was slight and related only to Priority I calls for service. The Police Department is
implementing a variety of remedial measures with marked improvement in response statistics for
early 1993, which if representative of the balance of the fiscal year would indicate compliance.
The GMOC recommends issuance of Statements of Concern for the Water, Schools, and Air
Quality thresholds.
The report contains complete discussions on each threshold topic, and related specific
recommendations for Council action may be found within the report in bold italic print, and
denoted by ..... markings.
FISCAL IMPACT: None at this time. Future implementing actions may have direct fiscal
impacts which will be identified when those actions are proposed.
Attachments:
NOT SCANNEDA.
Unofficial minutes of the May 12, 1993 Planning Commission / Montgomery
Planning Committee workshop meeting.
NOT SCANNEJ!'
c.
~;'f:'r .",r,,1'<<J'1' ".""
~.......,.. JI1.....L1U'U'l:'.,~
Chairman's cover memo and 1992 GMOC Annual Report.
Appendices to the 1992 Annual Report.
(gm92rpt.cca)
J-.:J...
Item
Meeting Date
~~
1
5/27/93
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
TITLE:
REPORT Update on Regional Solid Waste Issues
RESOLUTION /7/J.'1 Approving Agreement By,
Between and Among the County of San Diego and the
Cities of the County Establishing an Interim Solid
Waste Commission and Providing for the Disposal of
Solid Waste, and Committing 50% of the City's
Wastestream to the County
SUBMITTED BY: Principal Management Assistant Snyder
REVIEWED BY:
City Manager
(4/5ths Vote: Yes_ No~)
At the 5/25/93 meeting, Council continued the decision on the
proposed Interim Agreement to this meeting in order to allow
additional time for staff response to Council questions.
Additionally, Council was interested in an update on recent actions
by other cities since the proposed Agreement required unanimous
approval by the County and all cities.
To date, nine cities have approved the Agreement (some with
conditions), four cities have rejected it and four cities have
action scheduled by June 1, 1993. The County is also scheduled to
take action on June 1, 1993.
Attachment 1 is a letter from County Supervisors Bilbray and Slater
clarifying that a regional partnership as proposed in the Interim
Agreement is still the approach the County intends to take even
though not all cities have agreed to participate.
This report now presents the additional information requested by
Council and recommendations on proceeding with this process in
light of the recent developments. " i
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt the resolution with the following
conditions:
:~
0,
1. That a solid waste facility fee be paid to the City of
Chula Vista on the entire tonnage entering the Otay
landfill, except for 10% to be aside to eventually
incorporate the closed landfill into the Otay Valley
Regional Park, and the fee to be paid for the duration of
the flow control covenant or the operational life of the
landfill, whichever is sooner; and
)<!
C
<.--
"
,
2. That the remaining uncommitted 50% be retained by the
City without penalty of surcharge during the time that
the final governing authority is being determined.
r.;:.i
~
~. ~~\N-o~~~~~~~~
~ ~~ 1-1
J-t.
~
Page 2, Item
Meeting Date 5/27/93
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
Some of the concerns raised at the 5/25/93 meeting have been
"overtaken by events. " The specific questions have been responded
to as fully as possible in Attachment 2. It is anticipated that
there will be new discussions initiated next week to formulate a
revised Agreement acceptable to all willing jurisdictions. The
explanatory information may not necessarily be relevant at this
time. However, it is hoped that it will provide valuable
background for the decision-making process.
In general, the staff recommendation is based on the recognition
that Chula Vista is part of a larger, regionally-impacted disposal
system. There are serious unknowns involved in contemplating any
undertaking to site our own landfill or arrange for the disposal
needs of 146,000 people at another, more distant site. The
County's flexibility in attempting to address the cities' concerns
in this endeavor has been a key element. Continuing to work now
with those interested cities to meet the needs of all parties will
be mutually beneficial.
FISCAL IMPACT: As noted in the previous staff report, the fiscal
impact of this decision will fall directly on the rate payer.
Individual trash collection rates will be increasing and the
effective date is assumed to be July 1, 1993. The amount of the
increase will vary, depending on the City's position at the time.
To illustrate:
CURRENT FEES-
$28 TIP FEE
$12.28/MO.
WITH BOND ISSUE,
SIGNATORY CITY-
$43 TIP FEE
$14. 28/MO. (EST.)*
WITH BOND ISSUE,
NON-SIGNATORY CITY-
$58 TIP FEE
$16.24/MO. (EST.)
$17.43/MO. (EST.)
WITHOUT BOND ISSUE
$65-70 TIP FEE
*Estimated rates are based only on projected increases for landfill
costs and do not include increases for hauler operations or
additional programs.
~ oz. NOT SCANNED
7-~
SD CNTY BRD OF SUPRVRS TEL No.619-SS7-4025
May 26.93 17:14 No.01S P.Ol
,
8_-,
..' .
ATTACHMENT 1
<rrnu1tt~ of ~a1t ~i.e.sn
80ARD OF SUPERVISORS
...co rAC"'IC HlGHWAV. l'OOM ~s&. ....N 0.100. eAulO....A .2'01....'0
May 26, UU
Kayor Till Nader
City ot Chula vista
2715 ,.ou~ Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910...
Dear H~r:~
The county of San Diego r_ains dadioated to finding a reqional
solution to our waste aanagement neede. A oommitmant of flow by'the
cities is needed to ensure the viability of a regional waste manaqelllent
system and to protect the health and eafety of our re.idents. The
commitment that you are lDllking as part of the :tnterill Aqre_ant i. an
important step toward reaching that goal.
The reaiona1 ~artnershl~ that was ~ro~osed in the :tnt.rim Aareement is
still the anproach that. will be ta.ken. thouah no1=. a11 cities have
soreed to Da~iciDa~A.
A non-action on the Aqre_ent will be perceived a. a no-vote by that
City. At this time wo have eight oiti.. and the County on board. ThiliJ
is enough to carry a sucoessful partnership. Even without agre_ent by
all cities. ",. intend to recommend to our colleagu.. that we go forward
with the cities who have signed. We will also recommend that a
substantial surcharge be levied on the cities that do not sign.
As you know, the partnership Vile drafted and approved by the eight
cities on the Steering Committee, representinq the entire region. The
Agreement was viewed as the proper vehicle for equal decision aakin9 on
solid waste issues. At this time we respectfully ask you to vote to
become an equal partner in this historic aqreement. We must .ove
forward now to determine the future of solid waste for this re9ion.
Let'lI move forward toc)ether.
sinoerely,
BUbray
Supervisors
a~
Pall Slater
Vice Chairperaon
Board of Supervisors
I
I
:r,
.- ":~-"~~~'1
I
l'
,
L.
l'fillY ... ~'i993 ,.;J i
.. --J I
' c_.)
'~_...:..~~.___. lo,-; I
v.
1-:3
RESOLUTION NO.
/7/4'
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING AGREEMENT BY, BETWEEN
AND AMONG THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO AND THE
CITIES OF THE COUNTY ESTABLISHING AN INTERIM
SOLID WASTE COMMISSION AND PROVIDING FOR THE
DISPOSAL OF SOLID WASTE, AND COMMITTING 50% OF
THE CITY'S WASTESTREAM TO THE COUNTY
WHEREAS, on 3/30/93, Council discussed regional solid
waste issues and a proposed Solid Waste Participation Agreement in
a workshop which identified general concerns and directed staff to
focus on key concerns and recommendations for modifying the
Agreement; and
WHEREAS, at the regular meeting of 4/20/93, Council again
received updated information on specific concerns and suggested
revisions, and provided input to Councilmember Moore in
representing South Bay cities in renegotiating the Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the SANDAG Board (sitting as the Integrated
Waste Management Task Force) had established an Elected Officials
Steering Committee with the direction to negotiate a modified
Participation Agreement acceptable to the entire Task Force; and
WHEREAS, the new Agreement would then be distributed to
all the cities and the County for action by the respective councils
and the Board of supervisors.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the City of Chula vista does hereby approve the Agreement by,
between and among the county of San Diego and the cities of the
County Establishing an Interim Solid waste Commission and Providing
for the Disposal of Solid Waste, and Committing 50% of the City's
Wastestream to the County, a copy of which is on file in the office
of the City Clerk.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of the City of
Chula vista is hereby authorized and directed to execute said
Agreement for and on behalf of the City of Chula vista.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
,
stephanie Snyder, Principal
Management Assistant
Bruce M. Boogaard, City Attorney
F: \home\lttomey\SoIWaste .res
1,-,,/
"
\J
i
/
nnsPAGEB~/
//
I
/
/
/
;'
,
/
!
,
I
/
/
/
I
/
/
\
13' Jr
Item
Meeting Date
-s.... )>
-s1'1~ Iq3 ~~
~
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
TITLE:
REPORT Update on Regional Solid Waste Issues
RESOLUTION ) 7/';'~ Approving Agreement By, Between and
Among the County of San Diego and the Cities of the County
Establishing an Interim Solid Waste Commission and Providing
for the Disposal of Solid Waste, and Committing 50% of the
City's Wastestream to the County
SUBMITTED BY: Principal Management~ssistant SnYder~/
REVIEWED BY: City Manager,J& ~ ~\l (4/5ths Vote: Yes_ No....!...)
On 3/30/93, Council discussed regional solid waste issues and a proposed Solid
Waste Participation Agreement in a workshop which identified general concerns and
directed staff to focus on key concerns and recommendations for modifying the
Agreement. At the regular meeting of 4/20/93, Council again received updated
information on specific concerns and suggested revisions, and provided input to
Councilmember Moore in representing South Bay cities in renegotiating the
Agreement.
The SANDAG Board (sitting as the Integrated Waste Management Task Force) had
established an Elected Officials Steering Committee with the direction to
negotiate a modified Participation Agreement acceptable to the entire Task Force.
The new Agreement would then be distributed to all the cities and the County for
action by the respective councils and the Board of Supervisors.
This report now presents the revised Agreement (Attachment 1) approved by the
Integrated Waste Management Task Force. It also discusses the significant
changes from the original Agreement,. the effect of regional solid waste
activities, and implications of the recommended and alternative actions. The
Agreement requires action by the City Council on or before June 1, 1993.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt the resolution.
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
DISCUSSION:
Not applicable.
In general, a key aspect of the revised Solid Waste Participation Agreement
currently under consideration is that it was drafted and approved by elected
official representatives from each city,and the Board of Supervisors. With that
in mind, it can be more easily understood in terms of a set of political
compromises designed with the intention of meeting the needs of the entire
region's residents, businesses and institutions. It is not as lengthy as the
original Agreement because tile major task is not long-Iange facility and system
planning for twenty or more years. However, it is more complex in that it
represents a delicate balance of many interests and concerns, and there are
numerous uncertainties created by the nature of such an agreement.
13-/
Page 2, Item ,,~
Meeting Date 5/25/93
The Aareement
The proposed Agreement estab 1i shes an Interim So 1 id Waste Commi ss ion for no
longer than one year with the primary charge of determining the ultimate form of
governance. This is a distinct change from the original Agreement which allowed
a city the opportunity to become a partner in the County's system and to take on
an enhanced advisory role in that system. Originally, it was an Agreement
developed in a regional forum but ultimately executed between the County and an
individual city, and it was designed to meet both short term system financing
needs as well as long term planning and financing needs.
The "Interim Agreement" now under consideration acknowledges two important
tactical changes: 1) the prospective Member Agencies are not yet in concurrence
about whether their participation should be in an advisory role, a Joint Powers
Agency, a Special Act District, etc., and feel that this decision needs to be
made before long term facility planning proceeds; and 2) the spirit of regional
cooperation is crucial to this process, and participation by all agencies is
highly desirable. To this end, the revised Agreement binds all the cities and
the County for the period of time (up to one year) necessary to make the
governance deci s ion. If one aaency fai 15 to take posit ive act ion on this
Aareement by June 1. 1993. it is not executed and there is no subseauent action
specified in the Aareement.
Attachment 2 is a list of highlights of the Agreement's other provisions.
The Flow Control Covenant
Although the Elected Officials Steering Committee agreed to defer long term
facil ity p 1 ann ing and financing unt il sett 1 ing the governance quest ion, the
County's continued need for funding for the San Marcos landfill is provided far
in the Agreement. As was previously reported to Council, approximately $43
million of the currently planned $60 million expansion has already been expended
from the reserves of the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund and bonding is now required
to replace the expenditures and keep the Enterprise Fund solvent. A flow control
commitment of at least 50% of all the wastestream for each city (with the
exception of the City of San Diego) is provided for in the Agreement in order to
ensure the bonds could be sold at a sufficiently high rating.
A serious question from the cities during this negotiation process was an
explanation of how the County would approach the bond financing issue if the San
Marcos landfill was forced to close. If the expansion is halted as a result of
legal challenges or reversals in permits issued by the regulatory agencies, many
of the activities then become necessary to provide for the closure of the
landfill. Buffer zone properties already purchased would become assets to be
sold when market conditions improve ~nd the remaining $17 million for future
purchase of buffer zone properties wou ld not need to occur. However ~ the
difference could be come from another $30-$40 million in remediation costs at
closed disposal and burn sites which is not intended for inclusion in the $60.
million issue, but will be necessary in FY.1994-95.
)3"~
Page 3, Item /~
Meet;ng Date 5/25/93
For purposes of the flow control covenant only, the term of this Agreement will
be the term of the bond issue, not to exceed 20 years. The ;nit;al commitment
is to the County since there is no Interim Commission in place and the County
will be the bonding agency. In making th;s flow control comm;tment, a city may
initially choose to commit more than the minimum 50% of the annual tonnage. Some
cities may choose a commitment of 100% if there ;s an expectation that,
realistically, the waste will continue to go to the County system and the city
desires a guarantee that all of its waste will be disposed for the term of the
bonds.
It is extremely important to understand the ramifications of the initial flow
commitment, especially at a level less than 100%. Should a city choose to commit
only 50% of its wastestream when the Agreement is signed, the County will allow
the City to dispose of the remaining 50% in the County system at no surcharge for
the first six months of the Agreement. Within six months, the city must then
determine whether or not to commit the remaining 50% flow. Refusing to commit
the remainder at that time would subject the city to a surcharge on the tip fee
(not to exceed 50%) for any waste above the original 50% commitment continuing
to go into the County system. The city would also have no guaranteed disposal
rights for the uncommitted portion.
Any commitment of flow after the original Agreement will become a commitment to
the Commission rather than to the County. The flow commitment will be retained
by the Commission and by the successor entity once a final decision on governance
is made. Should there be no decision reached on a final governing authority
within the allotted twelve months, the Commission will remain intact as a body
with responsibility for disposing of all waste committed directly to the
Commission. This could amount to having the waste disposed within the County
system, but is dependent on whether the County remains as a member of the
Commission and/or the Commission chooses to contract with the County for disposal
capacity.
Impacts on the Rate Paver
Every discussion on a proposed Participation Agreement has focused on the effect
of a city's action on its rate payers. Approval of this Interim Agreement by
June I, 1993 by all cities and the County will allow the County to move forward
with the bond issuance. That bond issuance will keep the tip fee increase for
July 1, 1993 to a minimum increase of $15, going from $28 per ton to $43 per ton.
Such an increase translates to single-family residential rate increases in the
range of $1.50 to $2.00 per month.
If the County is unable to issue the bonds, the tip fee will need to be raised
to about $65-67 per ton in order to generate enough revenue to keep the
Enterprise Fund solvent. The impact on the individual rate payer would be in the
range of $4.75-$5.25 per month above the current rc,te. These impacts refer only
to the tip fee component of the monthly rate, and, of course, do not include
costs for the hauler's general operating increases, new program costs such as
yard waste recycling, etc.
1:1';J
Page 4, Item /..3
Meeting Date 5/25/93
Liabilitv Issues and Staff Concerns
This report has explained the provisions of the proposed Agreement drafted by a
representation of the City Attorneys Association with assistance from the City
Managers under the clear direction of the Steering Committee. Any report
discussing issues with such significant impacts would be remiss if it did not
also discuss how the Agreement addresses key legal and policy concerns of staff
and Counc i 1.
Liability issues were a major concern expressed by Council at the 3/30/93
workshop and again at the 4/20/93 meeting. Although there are many uncertainties
which cannot be addressed in the document, it was generally opined by the
drafting attorneys that a signatory city would not be undertaking either any
Genera 1 Fund liabi lity or any more environmental liabil ity than is usually
maintained. That opinion may not necessarily be the opinion of the Chula Vista
City Attorney.
From a management perspecti ve, it is cr it i ca 1 that there be no (add it i ona 1)
General Fund exposure as a result of this action. It is also noted that the
liability question becomes paramount once the governance issue has been settled.
At that time, a city would know the extent to which a "partnership" is envisioned
and would be able to assess the impact of accepting more responsibility for the
privilege of having more authority.
Other concerns included rate-setting authority. The Agreement's primary purpose
is to establish the Interim Commission which will then determine the form of
governance and commensurate amount of rate-setting power. Therefore, cities play
only an advisory role to the Board of Supervisors during this (up to) one year
period, although the Agreement specifies that fees will not exceed the County's
cost of providing the disposal service. .
Because of the uncertainties created by the provisions of the Agreement, staff
has attempted to create a few possible scenarios (Attachment 3) for the purpose
of helping Council think through the ramifications of some recommendations or
actions. It must be stressed that these scenarios are speculative. based onlv
on staff's proiections of likelv possibilities. They are not based on any
commitments or expressed plans of any jurisdictions.
The City Attorney will be presenting a separate and more detailed analysis of the
major legal concerns with the Agreement.
Conclusion
It was noted at the beginning of this report that the Agreement presented for
action is a product of a political process. It was also described aboye that the
staff recommenddtion to enter into the Agreemt.nt with an initial 50%. flow
commitment to the County is not an ideal situation because of the uncertainties
which cannot be projected or covered in the Agreement. However, the
recommendation is presented as it was intended by the Steering Committee: taking
a step in the direction of regional cooperation for a regional problem.
IJ''7
Page 5, Item J J
Meeting Date 5/25/93
The recommendation to initially commit only 50% is also not without risks but is
made on the basis of the Council's previously expressed concerns regarding the
need to retain as much flexibility as possible. This action will also keep the
rate payer's increase as low as possible until the next informed decision (by
December 1, 1993) can be made regarding the City's willingness to participate in
the future structure of the County's landfill system.
The staff recommendation places this issue before the Council for action at this
time. Because of the magnitude of the decision and the complexities presented
by the Agreement, Council is reminded that an additional option would be to hold
the discussion at this meeting and continue the item for a decision at either
meeting on 5/26/93 or 5/27/93. Also, if it is important to Council to know how
the Agreement has been received by other City Councils, that updated information
would be more fully available. Attachment 4 reports that, as of 5/20/93, 9 City
Councils have considered the Agreement, with 5 cities approving it and 4 cities
scheduling action by 5/26/93.
FISCAL IMPACT: The fiscal impact of this issue will fall directly on the rate
payer, as ind ivi dua 1 trash co 11ect ion rates wi 11 increase somewhere between
$1.50-2.00 or $4.75-5.25 per household per month. It is also noted that these
increases wi 11 be determined by the collective action of the cities and the
County, and may not be directly linked to the specific action taken by the City
Council.
If the Interim Commission is established on June 1, 1993 as a result of regional
approval of the Agreement, the City will receive solid waste facility ("host")
fees as a provision of the Agreement. Based on the current tonnage entering the
landfill through the City, it is estimated that the City would be eligible to
receive from $1.2 to $1.5 million in General Fund revenue in FY 1993-94.
J;:!;f
TInS PAGE BlANK
)J-~
Attachment 1
APPROVED BY STEERING COMMITTEE
11 MAY 93
Page 1
AGREEMENT BY, BETWEEN AND AMONG THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
AND THE CITIES OF THE COUNTY
ESTABLISHING AN INTERIM SOLID WASTE COMMISSION
AND PROVIDING FOR THE DISPOSAL OF SOLID WASTE
( "INTERIM AGREEMENT")
This Agreement ("INTERIM AGREEMENT"), is entered into by,
between and among the County of San Diego (" COUNTY") and the cities
within the COUNTY, for the purpose of providing a committed flow of
solid waste that serves as a basis for the COUNTY to issue bonds to
finance the expansion and/or closure of the San Marcos Landfill and
to provide financing for other necessary solid waste system
projects; to provide a process, for up to twelve months, by which
the parties can mutually participate in dealing with regional solid
waste matters; and to develop a permanent governance authority to
deal with regional solid waste matters that will promote the long
term health and safety of the residents of the COUNTY and the
cities.
Now, therefore, the undersigned COUNTY and Cities (collectively,
"Member Agencies") agree to participate in good faith in the
performance of this INTERIM AGREEMENT, and to act in a manner that
conforms to the spirit, intent and general premises of this INTERIM
AGREEMENT, and in accordance with the following:
1.0 MEMBERSHIP
1.1 COUNTY Membership. To be a signatory of this INTERIM
AGREEMENT and participate as a full member of the Interim
Commission, the COUNTY is committing 100% of its Acceptable Waste
flow in accordance with the provisions of Part 3 of this document.
1.2 city Membership. To be a signatory of this INTERIM AGREEMENT
and participate as a full member of the Interim Commission, each
city is committing at least 50%, and may commit up to 100%, of its
Acceptable Waste flow in accordance with the provisions of Part 3
of this document.
a. A member city committing at least 50% of its Acceptable
Waste flow at the time of signing this document may, until December
1, 1993, deliver more than its committed Acceptable Waste to a
COUNTY facility and such additional waste shall not be subject to
the Economic Risk Surcharge set forth in this document at Part 3,
section 3.6, subsection d.
1
/3' 7
I
I,
APPROVED BY STEERING COMMITTEE
11 MAY 93
Page 2
b. On or before December 1, 1993, a member city may file a
written addendum, in a form ac~eptable to the Interim Commission,
committing Acceptable Waste ~n addition to that committed in
Section 1.2 (a) to the Interim Commission; on the terms set forth
in Section 3.10.
1.3 ci tv of San Dieao MemhershiD. Based on. the City of San
Diego's unique role in regional waste management issues, the City
of San Diego may participate as an ex-officio non-voting member of
the Interim Commission. The COUNTY will negotiate a separate
agreement with the City of San Diego Which reflects the City of San
Diego I s unique role in regional waste management issues. Such
agreement will be brought before the Commission for review and
comment prior to adoption.
2.0 EFFECTIVE DATE, TERM
2.1 Effective Date. This INTERIM AGREEMENT shall take effect on
June 1, 1993, so long as on or before that date, the COUNTY and
each city in the COUNTY have executed this document; otherwise this
document shall have no force or effect whatsoever.
2.2 Term. Except as otherwise provided in Part 3 of this INTERIM
AGREEMENT concerning the commitment and disposal of Acceptable
Waste, the term of the INTERIM AGREEMENT shall expire on May 31,
1994, unless sooner terminated by creation of a permanent
governance entity pursuant to Section 4.5(c).
3.0 COMMITMENT OF SOLID WASTE FLOW
AND DISPOSAL OBLIGATION
3.1 Title. This Part of the INTERIM AGREEMENT shall be known as
the "Flow Control Covenant."
3.2 Commitment of AcceDtable Waste. To the extent allowed by law,
each Member Agency agrees that the po~ion of its Acceptable Waste
designated in the execution section of this document shall be
delivered to the facility that the COUNTY reasonably designates.
. For purposes of this agreement, a 50% commitment constitutes the
tonnage commitment for the respective Cities as set forth in
Exhibit "A", until adjusted by the Interim Commission. The Interim
Commission may review the tonnage commitment and revise the
apportionment.
2
/3'~
APPROVED BY STEERING COMMITTEE
11 MAY 93
Page 3
3.3 Acceptable Waste Defined.
a. "Acceptable Waste" is garbage, refuse, waste and other
matter which is legally acceptable at a Class III landfill pursuant
to California Code of Regulations Title 23, Subchapter 15 or under
such laws or regulations as are in effect at the time of disposal
which is generated within its respective jurisdiction which, for
the COUNTY, consists of the unincorporated area. Except: waste
generated by a State or Federal governmental entity unless the
Member Agency has exercised control over such waste and chooses to
commit it; or waste generated by any person and transported or
disposed of by or on behalf of a self hauler hauling less than 50
tons per month.
b. Each Member Agency shall have the right, without penalty,
to recycle (as defined at Public Resource Code ~ 40180) any solid
waste (as defined at Public Resources Code ~ 40191) by any means
selected by the Member Agency and any such recycled material shall
be excluded from the commitment otherwise made to the COUNTY by
this Flow Control Covenant. However, if the residue of the
recycling process which can legally be disposed of at a Class III
landfill exceeds five percent (5%) of such recycled material, such
process residue shall be returned to the system for disposal unless
exempted by the COUNTY.
3.4 Enforcement of Flow Control. To the extent allowable by law,
each Member Agency shall establish, implement and carry out a waste
flow enforcement program which is sufficient to assure compliance
with the Flow Control Covenant. This program may include to the
extent necessary and appropriate in the circumstances, but shall
not be limited to, (1) licensing, permitting or franchising
haulers (on an exclusive or nonexclusive basis), upon the condition
of compliance with the Flow Control Covenant, (2) adopting
ordinances or resolutions requiring compliance with the Flow
Control Covenant, and (3) taking enforcement actions under any
such license, permit, franchise, ordinance or resolution. Direct
municipal collection of Acceptable Waste shall not be required
hereunder unless all other available means and methods of enforcing
the Flow Control Covenant have been unsuccessful. If any event or
circumstance (including without limitation a change or adverse
interpretation of applicable law) impairs or precludes compliance
with the Flow Control Covenant by the means or methods then being
employed by the affected party, such party shall implement
alternative or substitute means and methods to enable it to
lawfully satisfy the terms and conditions of the Flow Control
Covenant. If a change or interpretation in applicable law impairs
or precludes either party from complying with the Flow Control
3
/ 'J '7
APPROVED BY STEERING COMMITTEE
11 MAY 93
Page 4
Covenant by any means, such party shall use its best efforts, to
the extent practicable and subject to indemnification by the
COUNTY, to effectuate executive, legislative or judicial change in
or relief from the applicability of such law so as to enable City
lawfully to resume compliance with the Flow Control Covenant as
soon as possible following such change or interpretation of
applicable law. Compliance by the affected party with its
obligations under this paragraph shall be deemed sufficient to
satisfy the its obligation to enforce the Flow Control Covenant.
a. Power to Exercise Flow Control.
Each Member Agency represents that it has the right,
power and authority under existing applicable law to enter into,
comply with, implement and enforce the Flow Control Covenant. Each
party shall use good faith and best efforts to preserve, protect
and defend its right and power to enter into, comply with,
implement and enforce the Flow Control Covenant in accordance
herewith against any challenge thereto, legal or otherwise
(incl uding any lawsuits by or against such party, whether as
plaintiff or defendant) by any person based upon breach of
contract, violation of law or any other theory.
b. Consistency of Aareements.
As soon as practicable after the Effective Date, all
licenses, permits, contracts, agreements, leases, franchises,
ordinances and resolutions of the affected party which are lawfully
in effect with or pertaining to any person relating to or affecting
Acceptable Waste shall, if and to the extent necessary, be amended
to provide explicitly that the affected party shall have the right
without material restriction to direct the delivery of the
committed Acceptable Waste in accordance with the Flow Control
Covenant. On and after the Effective Date, the affected party
shall not enter into, issue or adopt any license, permit, contract,
agreement, lease, franchise, ordinance or resolution which is
materially inconsistent with the Flow Control Covenant.
3.5 COUNTY's DisDosal Obliaation. In a manner that is economical,
fiscally sound and reasonably protects the environment, the COUNTY
agrees to dispose of the Acceptable Waste directed by Member
Agencies to the COUNTY under this Flow Control Covenant.
4
/ :3 -/ ()
APPROVED BY STEERING COMMITTEE
11 MAY 93
Page 5
3.6 Disposal Charqes. The COUNTY may only charge a Member Agency
for the disposition of Acceptable Waste by imposing a fee in an
amount that does not exceed the COUNTY's cost for providing such
disposal. All revenue, including interest earned thereon, from
disposal charges shall be placed in the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund
used only for solid waste purposes.
a. Tip Fee to Member Acrenev. The Tip Fee charged by the
COUNTY for the disposal of Acceptable Waste within the System shall
be sufficient to fund the reasonable and necessary costs for
operation, management and financing of the system, including:
solid waste facility closure and post closure costs, solid waste
facility and mitigation fees. For the disposal of Acceptable Waste
the COUNTY shall charge all sources in the unincorporated area, and
shall charge a Tip Fee for waste delivered from a Member Agency.
(1) Solid Waste Facilitv Fee.
(a) To the extent allowed by law, the COUNTY shall
charge a Facility Fee for waste delivered for
processing or disposal to a system facility. The
COUNTY shall pay-over the collected Facility Fee to
the ci ty or COUNTY in the case of the
unincorporated area in whose jurisdiction the
facility is located to compensate the hosting
member for the reoccurring impacts of having the
facility within its jurisdiction. The Facility Fee
shall initially be set at an amount equivalent to
the appropriate percentage for the facility type
(as described below), as that percentage of the Tip
Fee in effect on January 1, 1993. Thereafter, the
Facility Fee shall be adjusted automatically and
concurrently with any increase in the Tip Fee, by
an amount equal to the percentage increase in the
Tip Fee but not greater than five percent (5%) of
the then current Facility Fee, whichever is less.
(b) Facility types and percentage of the Tip
Fee* (In effect on January 1, 1993):
o Landfill = 10% of Tip Fee ($2.80)
o Mixed Solid Waste Material Recovery Facility
= 7.5% of Tip Fee ($2.10)
o Transfer station = 5% of Tip Fee ($1.40)
*For the
section,
Facility
purpose of the calculation in this
the Tip Fee does not include the
Fee or the Mitigation Fee.
5 J3~//
APPROVED BY STEERING COMMITTEE
11 MAY 93
Page 6
(c) If a jurisdiction has more than one
Facility at the same location, or contiguous
location, it would receive the higher of the
applicable Facility Fees, but not more than
one Facility Fee.
(d) The Facility Fee for all future
facilities shall be the Facility Fee for that
type facility as of January 1, 1993 with
adjustments as described in subsection (1),
above.
2. Mitiaation Fee.
(a) To the extent allowed by law and commencing
July 1, 1993, the COUNTY shall impose a Mitigation
Fee for waste delivered to a system facility. The
Mitigation Fee shall be in an amount that is five
percent (5%) of the Tip Fee in effect on January 1,
1993. Thereafter, the Mitigation Fee shall be
adjusted automatically and concurrently with any
increase in the Tip Fee, by an amount equal to the
percentage increase in the Tip Fee or an amount not
greater than five percent (5%) of the then current
Mitigation Fee, whichever is less.
(b) Mitigation Fee funds shall only be used for
specific projects that correct a documented impact
arising from a system facility. Any City or the
COUNTY for the unincorporated area may apply to the
COUNTY for a share of the Mitigation Fee funds.
Mitigation Fee funds shall not be used for a
mitigation measure which is required for compliance
with the California Environmental Quality Act or
any other regulatory process. Moreover, any Member
Agency which is receiving a Facility Fee for a
particular facility will not be eligible to receive
Mitigation Fee funds for that same facility.
b. Economic Risk Surcharae.
(1) To the extent allowed by law, in order to offset any
increased costs to the system and account for any
economic risks created by non-committed waste being
deposited into the system, COUNTY may impose an Economic
Risk Surcharge for the disposal of Acceptable Waste from
a non-signatory source or from a Member Agency in excess
of the portion of Acceptable Waste committed under the
Flow Control Covenant.
6 J3~/.z
APPROVED BY STEERING COMMITTEE
11 MAY 93
Page 7
(2) From June 1, 1993 to June 1, 1994 the surcharge
shall not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the Tip Fee in
effect at the time of the transaction, excluding the
Solid Waste Facility Fee and the Mitigation Fee, if any.
The criteria used to establish the Economic Risk
Surcharge include but are not limited to: capital
charges, the increased depletion rate of landfill
capaci ty and timing effects. Economic Risk Surcharge
funds shall only be used to pay for the costs of the
operation, management and financing of the disposal
system.
3.7 Protection of Flow Control Covenant. If any challenge raises
issues common to the Member Agencies under this Flow Control
Covenant, the COUNTY through the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund shall
indemnify and hold harmless the affected party from the reasonable
costs, fees and expenses properly allocable to defending such right
and power.
3.8 Expiration and Reversion of Flow Control Covenant.
a. Expiration. This Flow Control Covenant shall expire on
the first of any of the following to occur:
(1) No Bond Issue. As to all members, on May 31, 1994,
unless the COUNTY first relies on the Flow Control
Covenant in issuing bonds to finance the San Marcos
facility expansion and/or closure and to provide
financing for other solid waste projects in the
approximate amount of $60 to $100 million;
(2) Expiration of Term of Bond. As to all members, if
the COUNTY timely issues the bonds described above, the
Flow Control Covenant shall expire upon the expiration of
the term of such bonds or upon the refinancing of such
bonds, but in no event later than 20 years from the date
of the original bond issuance.
(3) Improper Charqe. As to affected members, if the
COUNTY imposes on a Member Agency a fee that is not
consistent with this Flow Control Covenant and after 60
days written notice from the Interim Commission, COUNTY
fails to adjust the fee so as to be in compliance with
this Flow Control Covenant and fails to refund or grant
a credit for any over-charges;
7
/3'/,)
APPROVED BY STEERING COMMITTEE
11 MAY 93
Page 8
(4) Failure To DisDose. As to affected members, if the
COUNTY is unable to dispose of all of the committed
Acceptable Waste from the member and after 60 days
written notice from the Interim Commission County fails
to dispose of such waste; or
(5) Leqal :ImDossibilitv. As to affected members, if the
law precludes a member from directing the flow of
Acceptable Waste to the COUNTY.
b. Reversion.
(1) To Member.
Covenant to the
shall revert to
Upon expiration of the Flow
COUNTY, the member's commitment
the committing member;
Control
of flow
(2) To :Interim Commission. In the event that a
permanent governance entity is not established pursuant
to Section 4.5 (c) any flow committed to the Interim
Commission shall be retained by the Commission, as
allowed by law, otherwise to the Member Agency.
(3) To Permanent Entitv. If a permanent governance
entity acceptable to the Interim Commission is
established pursuant to Section 4.5 (c), the member's
commitment of flow shall be assigned to that permanent
entity on the terms specified in the document creating
the permanent entity.
3.9 Continuation of Interim Commission. Notwithstanding Section
2.2 hereof, the Interim Commission established in Part 4 shall
continue to exist so long as is necessary to accomplish the
purposes of Part 3.
3.10 Flow Commitment to Interim commission.
Interim Commission shall be subject to the
the Member Agencies:
a. The commitment shall be for the same term of the initial
commitment made to the COUNTY.
Flow commitment to the
following covenants of
b. The COUNTY shall dispose of the commitment to the Interim
Commission without surcharge until May 31, 1994.
c. In th'! event that a permanent governance entity is
established pursuant to Section4.5(C), the flow committed to the
Interim Commission shall be assigned to that entity. In the event
that such an entity is not establ ished, the Interim Commission
shall retain the commitment.
8 1:3--/1
APPROVED BY STEERING COMMITTEE
11 MAY 93
Page 9
3.11 Alleqation of Breach. In the event that a Member Agency
alleges that another Member Agency has breached any part of this
Part 3 or section 4.6 the dispute shall be submitted to the Interim
Commission; the determination of the Interim Commission shall
constitute a rebuttable presumption of compliance with or breach of
such part or section.
4.0 ESTABLISHMENT OF Interim commission
4.1 Establishment. There is hereby established the Interim
commission to accomplish the purposes set forth herein.
4.2 comDosi tion. The Interim Commission shall consist of one
commissioner from the County of San Diego who shall be a
Supervisor; one commissioner from each member city who shall be a
mayor or councilperson: and one ex-officio commissioner from the
City of San Diego who shall be a mayor or councilperson.
Commissioners shall be appointed by their respective governing
bodies which may also appoint an alternate commissioner.
4.3 Procedures. The Interim Commission shall be subject to the
Ralph M. Brown Act (Gov. Code ~~ 54950 et ~) and shall adopt
regulations to govern its internal operation.
a. A Chairperson and vice-Chairperson shall be chosen by the
Interim commission.
b. The commission shall meet at least once each month on the
Commission's established regular meeting date.
c. Special meetings may be called at the request of three
commissioners with a minimum of 72 hours notice to all members
of the Interim commission.
d. A majority of the commissioners shall constitute a
quorum.
e. Actions shall be determined by a majority vote of the
commissioners, based on one vote per Member Agency. The
Interim commission may amend this document to establish
procedures for a "Weighted Vote."
4.4 Staff for Interim commission. The COUNTY agrees to provide
such County administrative staff as requested by the Interim
Commission. The Interim commission may request assistance from the
staffs of the members.
9
J J .. /..5
APPROVED BY STEERING COMMITTEE
11 MAY 93
Page 10
4.5 Role of Interim Commission.
a. Advice. The Interim Commission shall provide advice to
the Board of Supervisors of the COUNTY on the following matters
that concern solid waste facilities, operation, rates and
financing: capital projects in excess of $50,000, disposal
al ternatives if the San Marcos site is closed, other disposal
options, outside-county disposal, intra-county transfer of solid
waste and Tip Fees.
b. Notice and ODDortunitv to Advise. Before considering a
solid waste matter listed in Section 4.5 (a), the COUNTY will
provide to the Interim Commission a full staff report on each solid
waste matter to be addressed by the COUNTY's Board of Supervisors;
in sufficient time for the Interim Commission to consider the
matter on the agenda of the Interim Commission's regular meeting.
The COUNTY is not required to comply with this process when an
emergency condition must be addressed and there is insufficient
time for compliance. In the event of such emergency, the COUNTY
shall provide a staff report to an Executive Committee appointed by
the Interim Commission.
c. DeveloD Permanent Governance Entitv. The Interim
Commission shall consider alternative organizational structures,
including a joint powers agreement, for exerting a unified effort
to accomplish regional, solid waste objectives. No later than May
31, 1994, the Interim Commission shall develop a permanent
governance entity designed to maximize the members' collective
strength in pursuing their interests in disposing of solid waste.
The permanent governance entity:
(1) Shall include all participating cities and the
COUNTY;
(2) Shall be empowered to contract for solid waste
processing and disposal; and
(3) May be empowered to (a) take over and operate the
COUNTY facilities, (b) create new facilities and (c)
contract with outside providers.
d.
provide
Interim
AcceDtable Waste DisDosal. The Interim Commission shall
for disposal of Acceptable Waste flow committed to the
Commission. 2
10
/:J-/~
APPROVED BY STEERING COMMITTEE
11 MAY 93
Page 11
4.6 Attainina Sub-Reaional Disposal Ob;ectives. During the term
of this INTERIM AGREEMENT, the COUNTY and the other Member Agencies
agree:
A. Process. To plan and implement the objective of
providing facilities to meet the waste disposal needs of the
var10US sub-regions of the County of San Diego, without
unreasonably impacting another sUb-region in an adverse manner.
Any dispute shall be resolved by the Interim Commission in
accordance with section 3.11.
b. North County Disposal option. The County will use its
best efforts to provide a North County disposal option.
c. waiver of Geoaraphic Ob;ection. On condition that the
covenants set forth in Section 4.6(a) and (b) are being performed,
< not to object, on the basis of geographic origin, to the direction
of Acceptable Waste to any facility.
5.0 MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
5.1 withdrawal.
a. Procedure. If any Member Agency requests to withdraw
from this INTERIM AGREEMENT, the Interim commission shall calculate
the impact on the system of such agency's withdrawal taken in
conjunction with all other members desiring to withdraw, and shall
thereafter formulate, in negotiation with all such agencies, a set
of final terms and conditions for early withdrawal which will
become effective upon approval of the Interim Commission.
b. Limitation On withdrawal Charaes/Penalties. There shall
be no charge or penalty imposed on the withdrawing Member Agency if
the reason for withdrawal is the expiration of the Flow Control
Covenant as to the withdrawing member.
c.
section
survives.
Survival.
5.1 shall
Notwithstanding
survive as long
section 2.2 hereof, this
as the Interim Commission
5.2 Notices. All notices, demands or requests pursuant to this
INTERIM AGREEMENT shall be in writing. All notices, demands and
requests to be sent to any member shall be deemed to have been.
properly given or served:
a. On the date of actual personal service; or
11
JJ--/?
APPROVED BY STEERING COMMITTEE
11 MAY 93
Page 12
b. On the date actually received, if deposited in the United
States mail, addressed to such party at the address of the Member
Agency's regular meeting chambers, or other address designated by
the Member, postage prepaid, registered or certified, and with
return receipt requested.
5.3 Non-Severabilitv. In the event that a substantive provision
of this INTERIM AGREEMENT shall be determined to be invalid,
illegal, or unenforceable in any respect, the parties hereto shall
negotiate in good faith such amendments, modifications, or
supplements to this INTERIM AGREEMENT or such other appropriate
action as shall, to the maximum extent practicable in light of such
determination, implement and give effect to the intentions of the
parties as reflected herein. If negotiations in good faith fail,
the INTERIM AGREEMENT, including the Flow Control Covenant, is
terminated.
5.4 Waiver of Breach. No breach of any provision herein can be
waived unless in writing. Waiver of anyone breach of any
provision herein shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any other
.. breach of the same or other provision hereof.
5.5 Remedies. All Parties hereto shall have the right to commence
any action at law or equity, including specific performance, to
remedy a breach of the terms herein, provided that neither Party
shall have the right to terminate this Agreement except as provided
herein.
5.6 No Third partv Riahts. There are no third party
beneficiaries of this Agreement. No action may be commenced to
enforce this Agreement, except by a Member Agency.
5.7 CounterDarts. This
counterparts.
document
shall
be
executed
in
12
J 3" /~
APPROVED BY STEERING COMMITTEE
11 MAY 93
Page 13
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have signed this INTERIM
AGREEMENT as of the dates set forth.
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
committing 100% of its
Acceptable Waste flow
Date:
CITY OF LA MESA
committing ___% of its
Acceptable Waste flow.
Date:
By:
SUPERVISOR
By:
MAYOR
ATTEST:
ATTEST:
CLERK
CITY CLERK
CITY OF CARLS BAD
committing ___% of its
Acceptable Waste flow.
Date:
.CITY OF LEMON GROVE
committing % of its
Acceptable Waste flow.
Date:
By:
MAYOR
By:
MAYOR
ATTEST:
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
committing ___% of its
Acceptable Waste flow.
Date:
CITY OF NATIONAL CITY
committing % of its
Acceptable Waste flow.
Date:
By:
By:
MAYOR
MAYOR
ATTEST:
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK
13
13-17
I
II
CITY OF CORONADO
committing % of its
Acceptable Waste flow.
Date:
By:
ATTEST:
MAYOR
CITY CLERK
CITY OF DEL MAR
committing % of its
Acceptable Waste flow.
Date:
By:
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
CITY OF EL
committing
Acceptable
Date:
CAJON
% of its
Waste flow.
By:
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
APPROVED BY STEERING COMMITTEE
11 MAY 93
Page 14
CITY OF OCEANSIDE
committing ___% of its
Acceptable Waste flow.
Date:
.By:
ATTEST:
MAYOR
CITY CLERK
CITY OF POWAY
committing ___% of its
Acceptable Waste flow.
Date:
By:
ATTEST:
MAYOR
CITY CLERK
CITY OF SAN MARCOS
committing ___% of its
Acceptable Waste flow.
Date:
By:
ATTEST:
MAYOR
CITY CLERK
14
J..J-.2t?
CITY OF ENCINITAS
committing ___% of its
Acceptable Waste flow.
Date:
By:
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
CITY OF ESCONDIDO
committing % of its
Acceptable Waste flow.
Date:
By:
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
CITY OF IMPERIAL BEACH
committing % of its
Acceptable Waste flow.
Date:
By:
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
APPROVED BY STEERING COMMITTEE
11 MAY 93
Page 15
CITY OF SANTEE
committing ___% of its
Acceptable Waste flow.
Date:
By:
ATTEST:
MAYOR
CITY CLERK
CITY OF SOLANA BEACH
committing ___% of its
Acceptable Waste flow.
Date:
By:
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
CITY OF VISTA
committing ___% of its
Acceptable Waste flow.
Date:
By:
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
15
1:1-,;2./
ATTACHMENT "A"
CXTY WASTE STREAM COMMXTMENT*
Member Aqencv
Waste Tons
Chula Vista
Oceanside
Escondido
EI Cajon
Vista
Carlsbad
National City
Encinitas
La Mesa
Santee
poway
San Marcos
Imperial Beach
Coronado
Lemon Grove
Solana Beach
Del Mar
82,399
80,450
65,566
52,430
44,028
38,149
34,065
32,844
31,399
31,289
26,371
24,854
15,767
15,503
14,327
7,663
2.875
600,000
* Calculation utilizes July 1992 population figures as
approved by SANDAG
. .
/ J "'';;1.
Attachment 2
"INTERIM AGREEMENT" HIGHLIGHTS:
WHAT DOES THE CITY GET? COUNTY PROMISES:
SECTION
3.5
3.10(b)
3.5 3)
3.5 4)
3.6 5)
3.6 6)
4.6(a) 7)
4.5(C) 8)
1.1 9)
4.5(a) 10)
1)
TO DISPOSE OF ALL FLOW INITIALLY COMMITTED TO THE
COUNTY (50-100%) FOR TERM OF BONDING WITHOUT
SURCHARGE
2)
TO DISPOSE OF ADDITIONAL FLOW COMMITTED TO
COMMISSION BY 12/1/93 (RATHER THAN COUNTY) UNTIL
5/31/94 WITHOUT SURCHARGE - THIS IS KNOWN AS THE
"WINDOW OF OPPORTUNITY"
DISPOSAL WILL BE ECONOMICAL AND FISCALLY SOUND
DISPOSAL WILL BE ENVIRONMENTALLY SOUND
DISPOSAL WILL BE AT A COST THAT DOES NOT EXCEED
COST OF DISPOSAL
TIP FEE AND SOLID WASTE ENTERPRISE FUND TO BE USED
ONLY FOR SOLID WASTE PURPOSES
TO PLAN AND IMPLEMENT THE OBJECTIVES OF PROVIDING
FOR FACILITIES FOR EACH SUBREGION
TO PARTICIPATE IN DEVELOPING A PERMANENT GOVERNANCE
ENTITY
TO COMMIT 100% OF THE UNINCORPORATED AREA
WASTESTREAM TO THE SYSTEM
TO RECEIVE ADVICE FROM THE INTERIM COMMISSION WHICH
THE CITIES SERVE ON
WHAT DOES THE COUNTY GET? CITY PROMISES:
3.2
1)
3.10
2)
BY JUNE 1, 1993 TO COMMIT FROM 50% UP TO 100% OF
ITS WASTESTREAM (AFTER RECYCLING) TO THE SYSTEM FOR
THE LIFE OF THE BONDS OR 20 YEARS, WHICHEVER IS
SOONER
BY DECEMBER 1, 1993 TO COMMIT THE OTHER 50%, OR
REMAINDER OF WASTESTREAM TO THE COMMISSION OR
AGREES TO PAY A SURCHARGE TO CONTINUE TO USE THE
SYSTEM FOR THE UNCOMMI~TED FLOW
13',).;1
"INTERIM AGREEMENT" HIGHLIGHTS
PAGE: 2
3.4
3)
TO ENFORCE THE FLOW CONTROL COVENANT TO THE COUNTY
AND THE COMMISSION TO THE EXTENT ALLOWABLE BY LAW
4.0 &
4.5
4)
TO PARTICIPATE IN AN "INTERIM COMMISSION" CREATED TO:
(a) DEVELOP A PERMANENT GOVERNANCE ENTITY
BY MAY 31, 1994
(b) PROVIDES ADVICE TO THE COUNTY ON:
CAPITAL PROJECTS IN EXCESS OF $50,000
DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES IF THE SAN MARCOS
SITE IS CLOSED
OTHER DISPOSAL OPTIONS
OUTSIDE-COUNTY DISPOSAL
INTRA-COUNTY TRANSFER OF SOLID WASTE
TIP FEES
1.3
(c) PROVIDE PARTICIPATION BY EVERY CITY, INCLUDING THE
CITY. OF SAN DIEGO AS AN EX-OFFICIO NON-VOTING
MEMBER DUE TO THEIR UNIQUE ROLE AS A SOLID WASTl
SYSTEM MANAGER IN THE REGION
)3 -.;.,-/
SCENARIO 1:
Attachment 3
POSSIBLE SCENARIOS AND IMPACTS ON CHULA VISTA
ONE AGENCY (OR MORE) DOES NOT SIGN, BUT...
SCENARIO lA:
ENOUGH CITIES INTERESTED
SUFFICIENT COMBINED TONNAGE
TONS)
WITH
(600K
o County may execute new (but similar) agreement
with interested cities and proceed to bond for San
Marcos.
o Tip fee for non-signatory cities eff. 7/1/93
increases from $28/ton to $S8/ton (includes SO%
surcharge but not on all components, i.e. facility
and mitigation fees).
o Commission formed with signatory cities and
proceeds to deal with organizational structure
question before tackling long-term facility issues.
o Non~signatory cities would be paying surcharge,
but would probably have at least a year before
seriously needing to determine where else to take
the trash-- until long-term facility planning
starts with new Commission, County system will want
additional revenue.
o Commission will pay solid waste facility and
mitigation fees only to its members under terms of
the revised Agreement.
IMPACT ON CHULA VISTA AS NON-SIGNATORY:
o Potential loss of facility fee revenue currently
budgeted at $1.2M (assumes CV would receive entire
fee and would potentially be $70K/ yr. higher as
tip fee "escalator clause" to go into effect 7/1
and pay $2.94/ton) unless fees received through
another process such as CUP at Otay landfill.
o Estimated impact on single-family household
(SFH) trash rate based onJ.y on landfill pass-
through cost could be increase from $12.28 to
$16.24/mo, an increase of $3.96/mo. or 32%. This
assumes no other increases such as hauler operating
( "CPI") increases, franchise fees, new program
costs (yard waste), etc..
13";;5'
SCENARIO 2:
o Unknown additional staff/consultant costs to
determine City's other waste disposal options,
needing to include transfer facilities at the very
least.
o Possible litigation costs related to loss of
facility fees, tip fee surcharge, etc..
SCENARIO IB:
NOT ENOUGH CITIES INTERESTED WITH
COMBINED TONNAGE OF 600K TONS
o County unable to bond, tip fees raised to $65-67
to cover revenue needs.
o No facility fees paid except as part of land use
condition, i.e. currently at San Marcos and
probably at Otay sometime within the next FY.
o County will make major policy decisions about
future operations and facility planning, possibly
planning only for the unincorporated area and maybe
negotiating separate contractual arrangements with
any cities not wanting to assume burden of going
anywhere else. These contracts could be short or
long term opportunities.
IMPACT ON CHULA VISTA AS NON-SIGNATORY:
o Potential loss of facility fees until mechanism
such as CUP for Otay landfill is available.
o Estimated impact on SFH trash rate could be
increase from $12.28 to $17.43/mo., an increase of
$5.15/mo. or 42%.
o Unknown addi tional
litigation costs.
staff
and potential
ALL CITIES SIGN NOW, COMMIT 50% FLOW TO COUNTY...
SCENARIO 2A:
DURING FIRST 6 MONTHS, IF
SM LANDFILL CLOSES AND
NO ORG DECISION MADE
o County still needs flow commitment and proceeds
to bond to keep SWEF solvent.
o Commission -:ontinues to '~ork on organizational
structure for (up to) 6 additional months.
1:>'.26
o Tip fee remains at $43/ton for all cities for
the first 6 months, although there may need to be a
small increase to cover transfer costs for North
County waste to go elsewhere. Commission would
determine how to handle and make recommendation to
the Board on tip fee change, if necessary. Assumes
hauler transport cost extends to transfer station,
then additional cost to go to Sycamore or Orange
County or elsewhere would be spread system-wide.
o County required to dispose of all committed
trash and agrees to take more at no surcharge only
for 6 months.
o Cities originally committing only 50% need to
decide whether to commi t remainder to the
Commission and not be subject to surcharge of 50%
on the remainder, or to not commit any more and pay
surcharge on remainder or take remainino trash
elsewhere.
o Commission decides where to dispose of all waste
committed to it, therefore, it would be possible
for a city to have the County-committed (50%) waste
going to a County facility, and the remainder 50%
committed to the Commission being sent
elsewhere...an operational nightmare I
SCENARIO 2B:
DURING SECOND 6 MONTHS, IF
ORG DECISION UNACCEPTABLE TO CITY,
ONLY ORIGINAL 50% TO COUNTY
o Assumes city paying surcharge on 50% and still
taking to County system until governance issue
decided, then city determines governance decision
is unacceptable (i.e. too much liability).
o City would need to negotiate with any disposal
service provider which could also be: the County
system as part of the Commission, the County as
separate from the Commission (if it is ultimately
not included), or the Commission without the
County.
/3-,.2 7
Attachment 4
Schedule for Cities' Actions on Interim Aareement
(As of May 20, 1993)
Hay 17, 1993
May 18, 1993
May 19, 1993
May 25, 1993
May 26, 1993
June 1, 1993
Del Mar
Continued to May 21
Solana Beach
. . . . .
APPROVED
Carlsbad
Continued to May 25
Coronado
. . . .". APPROVED
El Cajon
Continued to May 25
Lemon Grove
APPROVED
poway
APPROVED
Encinitas
Discussion only, action May 26
Imperial Beach
. . . . . . . . . . .
APPROVED
Chula Vista
La Mesa
National City
San Marcos
Vista
Encinitas
Escondido
Oceanside
Santee
County of San Diego
J3'.2~
,
,
Date:
May 11, 1993
To:
From:
Honorable Mayor and Council Membe+s
Bruce M. Boogaard, City Attorney \' :'" \.'
Interim Flow Control Agreement
Re:
The following are my major concerns and criticisms of the proposed
interim flow control agreement set for review on your Tuesday night
agenda.
1. Landfills Assure Low Tiooinq Fees.
Waste management technology includes low cost, high value
technology such as landfills!', and high cost, low value technology
such as the NCRRA Facility2'. The County Trash System is probably
at the end of its "good value" life and will now enter an era of
"high cost, low value" life because the County refuses to site
landfills in the unincorporated area of the County.
There are three major landfills in the System. The San Marcos
landfill may close within the year if permits are not granted, but
even if they are granted, the expansion will only give the landfill
an approximate 7 year life. The otay Landfill is about to close
its currently permitted space, but with the CUP it will gain an ad-
ditional 1 to 2 years, and with canyon 3, it will gain an addition-
al 6 to 8 years. I am not familiar with the life of the third
landfill.
The County either refused to, or has been unable to, site new
landfills.
Maior Point:
We should not become inextricably committed to a system that
either (1) doesn't have adequate landfill capacity, or (2)
won't commit to using landfill technology to manage waste, or
1. By way o~ example only, landfills may process trash in the $20
per ton range.
2. A "dirty MRF" (Materials Recycling Facility) may remove
recyclables from the waste stream at $200 per ton processed.
floW10.wp
May 20, 1993
Comments on Revised Interim Flow Control Agreement
Page 1
/3"'.2'
(3) won't give us authority to site landfills in the
unincorporated area of the County!
Maior Concern:
This Agreement commits our flow for up to 20 years, possibly
longer, without giving us any authority to site landfills, or
a commitment to use landfill technology, and it commits our
flow to a system that seems doomed to use high cost, low value
technology!
2. TioDina Fees Are Goina to Escalate Tremendouslv and Without Any
city Control
Our residents1' will become committed to pay whatever tipping
fee may be set by the County for possibly 20 years, and maybe
longer. It is bound to increase. This year's increase is already
proposed at $15, from $28 to $43 per ton. This is a 53% increase,
and it is clearly expected to climb as high technology methods and
unaccrued expenditures have to get financed by reducing tonnage
over compressed time periods. It could easily reach $65 per ton
within 3 years, and the $100 per ton mark not far thereafter.~'
3. The Aareement Gives Cities No Control Over the System.
The proposed Interim Commission is only advisory to the
County's authority to run the system. They can ignore our advice.
We will have no control over the costs of the system, or the fees
set to pay for those costs.
4. This Aareement Mav Interfere With the Motive of the County to
Give Us Full Authority Oyer the Trash System.
There is the notion that within a year, the cities and the
County will move to a permanent governance authority ("PGA"). It
seems to be a major liability, and I am not sure that we will want
to assume it. But if we do decide later that we want to, the PGA
3. Residents here mean home dwellers and businesses.
4. We estimate, at the current tipping fee level, that every $10
increase in the tipping fees means a $1.00 increase per month in
the monthly trash bill of a single family resident. Under our
current trash rate structure, land fill costs represents about 30%
of the $10.00 per month trash bill. A $10 per ton increase in land
fill costs will generate about a $1.00 increase in the monthly bill
of the single family resident. So if the tipping fee goes from $30
to $40--a 33% increase, the monthly bill will increase from $10.00
to about $11.00.
floWl0.wp
May 20, 1993
Comments on Revised Interim Flow Control Agreement
Page 2
13'JO
should have, at a minimum, landfill siting authority.
require the County to surrender its authority over
system, including landfill siting authority.
This will
the trash
This agreement gives the County all the flow they need to
finance their system without jeopardizing their general fund. They
will be substantially less motivated to surrender critical pieces
of authority to the PGA later since they have what they need out of
this "interim agreement".
5. The Aqreement Won't Be Modified to Give cities Rate settinq
Authoritv.
The County can not, by certain bond covenants, give Cities the
right to approve tipping fees. The County has "rate covenants" in
their outstanding bond agreements requiring them to set the rates
at whatever amount is necessary to service the debt and keep the
system afloat. They need that authority not just to service the
bonds but to keep the system from being financed by the County
General Fund. If they surrendered it, they would jeopardize their
general fund.
Even if the cities were given the right to approve increases
in the tipping fee, it would have to be reasonably exercised, and
they would have to be set to cover the costs of the system.
The problem is that the system has not properly accrued for
its costs of doing business; it has not sited new landfills, it has
incorporated high priced, low value technologies.
The only way for us to avoid these costs is to retain the
right to take all of our trash elsewhere when the market place
provides a cheaper alternative. This agreement is designed to
prevent that alternative, and achieves that purpose quite
effectively .~I
6. Reducinq the Flow Commitment to 50% Doesn't Alleviate
Concerns.
The Flow Control Covenant now obligates each member agency to
deliver a fixed tonnage, declared to be about 50%, of its
Acceptable Waste to such waste disposal facility (landfill, MRF or
transfer station) as the County may reasonably designate.
a. The Risk of Uncontrolled Escalatinq Tiooinq Fees is
Enhanced--not Reduced--bv Reducinq the Flow.
5. A recommended amendment could be made to allow termination when
alternative disposal costs become cheaper.
flow10. wp
May 20, 1993
Comments on Revised Interim Flow Control Agreement
Page 3
13':1/
The risk of uncontrolled escalating tipping fees is worse than
before because the County retains the authority to set the
disposal charges (see Section 3.6) and they may simply divide
the cost of doing business by half as much tonnage causing the
rate to escalate twice as much as under the circumstance where
we would give 100% of our trash.
b. The Commitment is for Fixed Tonnaqe. Not 50%.
Total flow has been dropping over the last three years
2.5 million tons per year to 1.6 million tons per year.
may be due to recycling, maybe the economy. I assume
Vista's proportionate tonnage has been dropping also.
This agreement requires us to commit 82,000 tons per year, not
50%. I don't know if this is 50% of our City'S tonnage or
not,~1 but if the trend of reduced flows continues due to
recycling or the economy, 82,000 tons will become. an
increasing percentage of our total flow--flow we may need
later to build our own facilities in the South Bay.
from
This
Chula
c. Risk of pavinq Escalatinq TransDort Costs.
Right now, we transport the trash from the City residents
curbside to the Otay Landfill--just a few miles. Our
residents pay for the cost of that transport. Under the
revised agreement, the City is still exposed to the same risk
of paying higher transport costs since the County may
designate any of its facilities to which the City of Chula
Vista would be required to deliver its trash. Conceivably,
and for purely economic reasons, it may be necessary to
deliver a certain amount of trash to the NCRRA facility in the
North County and the cost of getting it to the North County
facility would, without further protection, be borne by the
member agency.
6. Enforcement of the Flow Control Covenant may have Trash Fund
and General Fund liability eXDosure for the City.
A. Traditional Flow Control may be illeqal.
The City will still be required to resort to direct municipal
collection of acceptable waste if that is necessary in order
to get the trash delivered to a designated facility. Recent
cases have held that municipalities lack the authority to exe-
6. I inquired and was advised that the amount of our tonnage is
not precisely known.
floW10.wp
May 20, 1993
Comments on Revised Interim Flow Control Agreement
Page 4
) :J ":J:t.
cute traditional Flow Control Covenants!' because there is an
insufficient legitimate state or city interest to justify in-
terjecting itself into affairs of "interstate commerce".~'
B. We Mav be Reauired to Cancel Franchises and Become a
Municipal Collector.
If we do not have the power to require a licensed hauler to
take their trash to a County facility charging $100 per ton
because there is a cheaper facility available at $70 per ton,
the Agreement requires "municipal collection"--that is, we
pick the trash up ourselves and take it to the County facility
and pay the $100 per ton. We hope that we can collect the
$100 per ton from those persons whose trash we collected.
C. Our General Fund Mav Pay the Difference.
However, it seems to this lawyer to be a natural extension of
the recent trend of cases that, if a "traditional flow
control" is illegal, we would also lack the authority to
charge for municipal collection in an amount that reflects the
$30 per ton increment. If we can't collect it, our general
fund will be required to cover the difference. At $30 per ton
for 160,000 tons per year, this could amount to $4,800,000 per
year out of the general fund.
This non-traditional flow control covenant has not yet been
tested2', so I admi ttedly could be wrong about this
conclusion. However, the magnitude of this risk must be
considered in deciding whether to approve this agreement.
If I am right, about the way the case law may develop, the
City's General Fund will have to pick up the incremental
difference between the free market price for trash tipping and
the County controlled price. Our General Fund will therefore
7. Traditional covenants do not require municipal collection.
They simply make it a law that a trash generator--a resident--shall
deliver his trash to a system facility and make it illegal to
deliver it outside of the system.
8. Ordinances which we would be required to adopt, banning export
of trash from a system have been held to interfere with a waste
generators or waste haulers ability to take trash--a commodity--to
an out-of-state facility, thereby interfering with interstate
commerce. This can only be done with a substantial state interest.
9. It was recently devised by County's bond counsel to survive the
recent trend in cases.
flow10.wp
May 20, 1993
Comments on Revised Interim Flow Control Agreement
Page 5
/;3' J;J
be "bailing out" the County Solid Waste Enterprise Fund and
General Fund problem.
If I am wrong, our ratepayers will be paying the differential.
D. Enforcement Costs.
In addition to this exposure to General Fund liability, the
City's Trash Fund will be incurring costs in enforcement
actions when haulers start taking their trash to the cheaper,
non-County dump sites.
I note that the Commission is assuming responsibility for
reasonable costs, fees and expenses incurred in anyone
party's litigation costs associated with a challenge that may
be common to all member agencies such as protection of the
Flow Control Covenant. I note, however, that the indemnity is
not out of the County's General Fund, but out of the County's
Solid Waste Enterprise Fund, a fund which will be
redistributed back to the member agencies through the tipping
fees. We, in essence, then would be indemnifying ourselves.
If we are going to assume the philosophy that it is
appropriate for the system to pay for itself and that the
costs of the system, such as enforcement costs, should be
spread to the system users, it should be a normal extension of
that philosophy to have the system pay for all enforcement
actions.
7. Our Warrantv That the Flow Control Covenant is Valid
Explicitlv Shifts the Exposure to the City's General Fund.
If it isn't already apparent that we may have General Fund
exposure, the Agreement, at Section 3.4(a) requires us to warrant
and represent that we have the right, power and authority under
existing applicable law to enter into, comply with, and implement
the Flow Control Covenant. The way the Flow Control Covenant is
defined in the Agreement (to-wit: an agreement to pick up the trash
ourselves if everything else fails) makes that clause "probably
enforceable" but again, if the traditional aspect of the Flow
Control Covenant is not enforceable, its illegality will not make
it chargeable to the Trash Users, and the warranty will have to be
paid out of the City's General Fund.
8. Economic Risk Surcharqe Mav Be Illeqal. and Cheaper than the
Alternative.
The County has threatened to impose an "economic risk sur-
chargC'" equal to 50% of the tipping fee on those cities refusing to
flow10. wp
May 20, 1993
Comments on Revised Interim Flow Control Agreement
Page 6
1;,3'/
,~
sig\'1.lQl There is a constitutional prohibition on imposing a
charge for a service that is greater than the cost of that service.
To the extent that this is a quantifiable element of cost, we may
have to pay it. To the extent that it is a penalty, it may be held
illegal.
But regardless of its illegality, if we have to pay it for
three to five years while we develop alternatives, it may be better
than uncontrolled escalating tipping fees for 20 years.
9. It is Fiscallv Imprudent to Finance A Facilitv with a 7 Year
Life Over a 20 Year Period. .
The proposal contemplated currently by the County is to issue
20 year bonds to finance the San Marcos expansion which, even if
permitted, will have a life expectancy of only 7 years. At least
600,000 tons of our waste flow, and hence our tipping fees, will be
paying for that expansion for 20 years. But at the end of 7 years,
we will be giving our tonnage not only for the closed San Marcos
facility, but we will have to use our tonnage to provide financing
for new facilities to handle ongoing north county trash and for
cleaning up the closed facility.
At about the same time, in 7 years, the Otay Landfill capacity
will have been exhausted, and we will also need to use our tonnage
to provide financing for new facilities to handle ongoing south
county trash. The tipping fees for this tonnage will now be
bearing the freight for the 7 year life of the San Marcos facility-
-now closed, the clean up costs for the closed facility, a new
north county facility, the NCRRA, and our own new south county
facility.
It seems that we could find and develop our own landfill and
pay for it with our own tipping fees at a price that won't carry
all of this extra cost baggage. At a minimum, we should be sure
that we can't do it cheaper before we make a multi-million dollar
decision. .
10. The Aqreement Mav Impact Our Abilitv to Attract Business and
Jobs. and Mav Be an External Control on our Growth.
Waste management is a critical limiter on growth. By
committing our flow for the overall system, and empower~ng a non-
city authority to make it available and price it, we are losing
10. Thus, if the tipping fee is $43 per ton for signatory cities,
Chula Vista ratepayer, if it refuses to sign, would be charged
$61. 50.
flow10.wp
May 20, 1993
Comments on Revised Interim Flow Control Agreement
Page 7
/3-3..5
f
.
control over an aspect of the quality of life we can
businesses and residents.
I
Offel
our
11. The Countv Is Alreadv Claimina Half of Our Host Fee.
A strong motivation for the City to consider entering into
this agreement is the provision that the City will be paid a Host
Fee of $2.80 per ton, a charge that will be passed on to our
residents.
Since the Otay Landfill is already partly ih the territory of
the City and partly in the territory of the County, the County has
already indicated that they will claim half of the Host Fee, and
because most of the future landfilling activity will be on the
County side, they may lay claim to more of the tipping fee than
half in the future. Therefore, much of our motivation should be
diminished.
Recommendation:
It is my foremost recommendation that you do not approve the
agreement.
It is my secondary recommendation that, if you feel the need
to approve an agreement, that the agreement be amended as follows:
1. give the cities, not the County, landfill siting
authority.
2. give the City the ability to terminate the flow
control covenant without penalty or cost at such time as
the cheaper alternate tipping fees become available to
the City.
3. give the city the ability to terminate the flow
control covenant at such time as the City's general fund
may be obligated to pay for the tipping fee.
4. specify that as to the Otay Landfill Host Fee, the
City of Chula Vista shall receive all of said Host Fee
for the duration of the Flow Control Covenant.
I will address minor criticisms at the time of the hearing upon
request.
floW10.wp
May 20, 1993
Comments on Revised Interim Flow Control Agreement
Page 8
I:J":J~
Attachment 2
Council Ouestions and Answers
1. Why a 20-year bond for an expansion that is only permitted for
7 yrs?
A. The vertical expansion currently being permitted will
provide 7-10 years of capacity. The San Marcos City
Council has placed a 7 year limit on the CUP in
expectation that a new landfill will be operational by
then. The County feels it would be cost-prohibitive to
try to finance the expansion with 10-year bonds.
Basically County operations have been underfunded in the
past. Although 20-year financing for a 10-year lifespan
is not a usual business decision for a city to make, it
now represents a "buy-in" to the system.
2. Does the City have any authority for landfill siting?
A. It is important to distinguish between the City's ability
and responsibility for participating in regional solid
waste facility siting decisions AND a jurisdiction's
local land use authority regarding the siting of a
facility within its boundaries.
Regarding the subject of local land use jurisdiction, the
original discussions on the Participation Agreement did
not contemplate the formation of an entirely new entity.
There was no interest expressed by any jurisdiction in
surrendering that authority for the cause of siting
facilities. When it appears that a new entity is to be
formed and it is a legal reality that local authority
could be surrendered to the new structure, it would
follow that the issue should be pursued IF IT IS
DESIRABLE TO THE CITY TO GIVE UP ITS AUTHORITY IN
EXCHANGE FOR THE GROUP'S AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE THE
PLACEMENT.
Currently, all cities and the County have responsibility
under AB939 for adoption of a Countywide Siting Element.
The document must be adopted by the County and a majority
of the cities with a majority of the incorporated
population. It is to provide a description of the areas
to be used for development of adequate transformation or
disposal capacity.
It must be consistent with the development and
implementation of the County's and the cities' individual
SRREs. The areas shown as reserved for these facilities
must be located in a land use area appropriately
2
designated by the applicable city/county General Plan.
It will provide for 15 years of future capacity and may
be amended as plans change. This document is due for San
Diego County in 1995.
..
3. Has there been any analysis about what it would take for the
City to "go out on its own"?
A. No. Although there has been no formal analysis, the City
has had limited knowledge about the same disposal options
being researched by North County cities. The choices are
uncertain and costly. Staff provided an update of those
known options and their weaknesses at the 4/20/93
meeting.
Some City Councils have taken formal action (by forming
a Solid Waste JPA) to actively pursue options such as
initiating discussions with possible outside service
providers, issuing RFPs, etc. In the case of private
sector negotiations, formal action by the city is
necessary to determine any true comparison data.
Until this week, it appeared that there were no cost-
effective options which would serve the South Bay region
in the very near future. Lack of transfer stations for
necessary long haul travel created a major obstacle. It
has only recently been brought to the City's attention
through our franchised hauler, that there may be some
more tangible options available to Chula Vista. HOWEVER,
IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE INFORMATION IS IN VERY
PRELIMINARY STAGES. STAFF IS NOT ABLE TO CLEARLY ADVISE
COUNCIL THAT THERE ARE IMMEDIATELY AVAILABLE,
COMPETITIVELY PRICED, ENVIRONMENTALLY SOUND, ECONOMICALLY
FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES. Staff is cautious that there
appear to be a number of recent alternatives
materializing even though the North County replacement
landfill issue has been controversial for some time.
4. Does the City have a legal right to enter into a flow control
agreement?
A. The City Attorney is the best resource for that advice.
It appeared to the City Attorneys Association members who
drafted the proposed Agreement that this area of the law
is not fully tested. To address the possibility and
safeguard all signatories, the Agreement includes a
section that provides for the expiration of the flow
control covenant in the event that the law precludes the
action. (Page 8, Section 3.8(a)(5).)
3
5. Wouldn't signing this Agreement mean that the City would be
unable to take advantage of lower cost technologies or
opportunities, i.e. lower tip fees, if they became available
in the future? Also, doesn't the 50% initial commitment
create questions about the remaining 50% flow?
A. Signing the Agreement as proposed would mean a commitment
of whatever percentage the City chooses (at or over 50%)
to be paid at the prevailing tip fees in the County
system. Because that commitment wbuld be made as
security for the bond issuance, the City would be
precluded from subsequently removing the initial 50% flow
except under the few conditions outlined in the Agreement
regarding reversion or expiration of the flow control
covenant.
Regarding the rema~n~ng 50% flow, the City could retain
control by not committing it either to the Commission or
to the County. The City would then be in the position of
being able to take advantage of lower cost alternatives,
should they materialize, for that 50% portion.
6. Wouldn't the Agreement transfer governing authority and
provide for permanent surrender of the waste flow to a body
that does not necessarily represent the Chula Vista voters
with an elected representative?
A. An elected official from the City would be a voting
member of the Interim Commission whose main purpose would
be to determine the final governing authority.
Commitment of the waste flow to the County provides for
voting power by a member of the Board of Supervisors who
is also an elected representative of Chula Vista
residents and businesses.
7. Has there been an analysis of the anticipated cost compared to
projected profit that might be expected by the City of San
Diego for the Sycamore landfill? (This question appears to be
referring to San Diego's ordinance provision to charge the
higher of the two fees at its municipal landfill for waste
generated outside the City of San Diego if the County rates
are not at parity with the City rates.)
A. The Sycamore landfill, although physically located in the
Ci ty of San Diego, is part of the County system and
therefore the tip fees are set by the Board of
Supervisors. If San Diego enters into a modified
Participation Agreement with the County/Commission, that
city will receive facility ("host") fees for the tonnage
entering the landfill through San Diego but have no
4
direct claim or relationship to the tip fees set by the
County.
There is no Chula Vista staff analysis regarding the City
of San Diego's fee provision at their municipal landfill
which is designed to preserve the landfill's capacity for
its owners.
8. What would the surcharge be for a non-signatory city and how
much would it add to the monthly trash bill?
A. On 5/18/93 the Board of Supervisors adopted a fee
schedule effective 7/1/93 which assumed the County's
ability to sell bonds for San Marcos and set the tip fee
at $43/ton for a participatory city and $58/ton to
include a surcharge for not participating. (The
surcharge is 50% but is not calculated on a base that
includes facility and mitigation fees.) An increase in
tip fees to the $58 level would equate to an estimated
increase in the single-family trash bill of about
$4.00/month.
9. Won't the disposal costs be driven up if other cities do not
have comprehensive recycling programs like Chula Vista does?
A. The County has a mandatory source separation ordinance
affecting all users of its landfills which, in turn,
places responsibility on the users to develop
comprehensive programs or pay penalties. In addition,
all cities have responsibilities under AB 939 for
significant waste reduction programs. The proposed
Agreement allows for an exception from the flow control
covenant for recycling activities, by its definition of
"acceptable waste." This inclusion promotes recycling
and should have the long-term effect of not driving up
disposal costs.
10. Does the City have the right to direct flow through the
franchised hauler?
A. Section 8 of the existing Franchise Ordinance obligates
the franchisee to dispose of the waste in accordance with
specific direction of the City if the City determines
that it is in the public's best interest to use a
disposal program different than that established by the
franchisee. However, the legality of this provision with
regard to the recent case law on flow control might be a
future issue for the City.
5
11.
Does this
control and
required?
Agreement provide rate review authority, cost
accountability in exchange for the commitment
A. Rate review authority under the proposed Agreement is
given only in an advisory capacity to the Board of
Supervisors until the decision is made about the final
governing structure. Cost control and accountability are
addressed in the Agreement as statements outlining that
the tip fee cannot exceed the necessary costs of
operating, managing and financing the system.